« Open Thread | Main | Plugs: Only 5% of Taliban Terrorists Are Incorrigible »

Funny, I was just about to send you the link to this story VH.

Also funny is how nobody dares criticize the anointed man child without mentioning how much they love him and how great he is.

AC

But ... But... the poll numbers! You ignore our Dear Leader's poll numbers!

Wow, you found one liberal who doesn't like Obama. Go to ANY liberal website. People are quite happy.

Seriously, you need to stop selling this myth that liberals have buyer's remourse, when the reality is that conservatives are realizing they were wrong.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com

Here are his approval ratings. They are higher than they were upon election. Even Fox News has him polling at over 60%.

You guys can lie and say he's unpopular if it makes you feel better. But it won't change the truth. Anyone can put up a website and say anything they want- CHOCOLATE CAUSES CANCER! 90% OF AMERICANS DON'T BELIEVE THE EARTH IS ROUND! Doesn't make it true.

Obama's glistening pecs make me hot. Who cares about quadrupling the deficit.

Queers, child molesters, Kneegrows, commies, self-hating Jews and other assorted scummy liberals have 401Ks too!
Much as they like to bitch and pontificate and tell everybody how to live, they're getting hit in the pocketbook as well.
Good, let 'em eat shit and die!

It won't change anything, they'll simply find another scumbag to vote for. Kucinich?

Annonymous moonbat,

Uh, how else do you think approval ratings are calculated excpet by poll numbers? You honestly think one post by one liberal who doesn't like Obama is stronger anecdotal evidence? Go on ANY liberal website. We're quite happy. If you think we're so upset, it's easy to find out for yourself. Just go to any liberal website and see what liberals are saying. This "buyers remourse" you're suggesting is not happening.

Seriously, do Republicans survive on manufactured controversies or something?

And also...so the Wall Street Journal and Fox News are now part of the liberal media conspiracy and is manufacturing poll results to favor Obama? Is that honestly what you're suggesting?

Also, realclearpolitics poll numbers right before the election exactly mirrored the election results. Obviously, polls count for something.

Obama selected those "advisers" himself, which if nothing else shows his inability to recognize good people and his lack of judgment, two qualities you desperately need in any leader and especially the leader of the (formerly free) world. This alone should give many of his supporters pause, if his Marxist upbringing and belief in the Constitution as an "inconvenience" don't.

It's gotten to the point where those in the media don't dare criticize Teh Chozen 0ne not out of fear of retribution from the government, but of their peers. It's just not cool to disrespect BHO, even if you are completely justified in your statements. Hell, it may even be racist, depending on who you ask. As low as I regard reporters in general (and it's pretty low, let me tell you), I do feel bad for the ones that really do want to report what they see, and write what they really think, but can't due to editorial pressure (including threat of unemployment). Of course, that very editorial pressure is in the process of dismantling many a newsroom from the inside and crushing the corporations from the outside, but no one ever said journalists were smart, just persistent.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You know I actually looked into this article. There are 500 comments. Almost all of them disagree with Camille and profess their happiness with Obama.

So I'll give you guy the ONE person who wrote the article. She apparently is in your camp. We get the 500 who responded and completely ripped apart her article.

Popularity makes you right. Polls prove the difference between right and wrong... except on gay marriage.

I don't know who edits this page, but Goddamn are you lazy.

You're so stupid you post a link to your readers about how much liberals hate obama, then you go to that link, and there's hundreds of comments talking about how much this article criticizing obama sucked and how much they loved Obama.

I LOVE MOONBATS! You guys are the best thing to ever happen to the Democratic party. You are actually suicidal. I'm almost suspicious this is actually a liberal run website fabritcated for the sole reason of making conservatives look psychotic.

It really rankles me that BO presented a (probably opened) packet of DVDs (total cost: $38.95 at WalMart) to the British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown as an historical gift.

On the other hand that gift is a good barometer to keep in mind if having second thoughts about the depth of character of what liberals think is a good idea for a president.

Thanks, uh, anonymous cheerleaders. People who, uh, blindly support me regardless of my, um, disastrous policies and, um, uh, uh, um, uh, horrendous blunders are, uh, what hope and, um, change are all about.

Just knowing how much moonbats love their obaba is proof enough that tests should be given before people are allowed to vote.
Please name three branches of the federal government and provide a brief description of each branch. Also name the two heads of one of these branches.
No cheating.

Farmer Ted, no one should be allowed to vote unless they pay taxes and can pass a citizenship test.

Letting people vote who had no interest in the system except taking from it was the fatal error of our Republic.

There are one or more Anonymouses here, who are spouting the 60% WSJ/Fox News poll approval rating. I took a look.

Yes, this poll ON MARCH 3 gave an overall app of 60%. Based on 1,007 adults, with a 3% margin of error. Incidentally, Congress got a 55% disapproval (come on 2010!).

OK, I trust Rasmussen, because they were right on on the election results and they use AUTOMATED QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES. NO INFLECTION BIAS OR FEAR OF BEING THOUGHT A RACIST.
On March 3, they also had 60% overall approval. So far so good. 1,500 LIKELY VOTERS, also +-3%.
However, Rasmussen also has an index, measuring strength of opinion. As of MARCH 11, Obama's index has plummeted to the lowest ever. +30 at inauguration, +6 today. The groundswell of furiousness is growing.

Every media source is stating Obama is extremely popular. This includes magazines, newspapers, and television. The ONLY places suggesting he is unpopular is far right wing websties. Even mainstream conservative websites like FoxNews or Drudge or the NationalReview are lamenting Obama's popularity.

You guys aren't going to do yourselves any favors by lying to yourselves. Your party has no hope of rebuilding itself if you just bury your head in the sand and refuse to face facts.

Camille: You got it right with Sarah Palin (to paraphrase: "One of the greatest political speeches I've ever heard," on the Governor's acceptance of McCain's offer to be his Vice-Presidental nominee), but you seem merely mind-addled when it comes to Obambi. Yeah, his staff and "flunkies" are a bunch of numbskulls, no question, but s--t flows downhill, girl, and the alleged man at the top is crapping 24/7 (I understand Obambi was "too tired" to give a damn about our staunchest ally; lately, the putz has been "too tired" -- too many parties, dinners and soirees, it would appear -- to care about the financial crisis (which his party caused and he has only exacerbated)).

Open your eyes, girl, and smell the poop! Realize as well where the worst smell is coming from . . .

Popularity is all that matters. I learned it in middle school. All the popular kids hated me. But my Obamassiah is going to show them! He's going to show you all!

Obama isnt that popular. Kim Jong Il of North Korea just won re-election with 100% of the vote!! Beat that Obama!

Excellent point V.

Bush was just as popular as Obama in his first 2 years. At one point Bush had over 90% approval. Lets see if Obama matches that. Of course Bush was a huge dissappointment in his 2nd term and the polls show it. I expect the love affair with Obama to not even last a year and his poll numbers by November will be under 50% approval by then. And not even having 90% of the media on his side will help.

I don't think I want to be reading this blog. I do thing I am going to be...

*vomits from nauseating conservatism*

Methinks the trolls doth protest too much. Their moaning is music to my ears... it just lets me know we're striking nerves daily.

WOW, its been a while since i posted here.

Man it must SUCK for all the haters on this board that Obama is YOUR president. Yes, yours. Yes (according to you) you are being lead by a socialist who hates America. Man that must not feel good. It probably doesn't feel too good that most of the nation likes him. Man I feel it for you.

Well, better luck next time!

You may be vomiting due to shock from the reality that your messiah is dyed in the wool socialist.

Here are his approval ratings. They are higher than they were upon election. Even Fox News has him polling at over 60%.

Jimmy Carter's were higher at the same point in his Presidency. 'Nuff said.

And for the under-30 liberals posting here today, thanks! Obama has mortgaged your future for us geezers (and it's very definitely a subprime mortgage). You're going to be paying for the stimulus package, and benefits for boomers, for decades.

Appreciate it. Thanks again.

The Obots posting here are not likely to go through the introspection and ask the hard questions - publicly - that Camille Paglia is. Because that wouldn't be fun or cool.

They voted O because of their age range (under 30). They don't have to have reasons. It was a vote against The Man (over 30).

They voted O because of their age range (under 30). They don't have to have reasons. It was a vote against The Man (over 30).

No, no, you misunderstand. Supporting the Intergenerational Wealth Transfer Act was altruism on their part. They like us. They really like us! /Sally Field

Thanks, uh, anonymous cheerleaders. People who, uh, blindly support me regardless of my, um, disastrous policies and, um, uh, uh, um, uh, horrendous blunders are, uh, what hope and, um, change are all about.

Posted by: B Hussein Obama at March 11, 2009 10:37 AM

LOL

Forgive me if I don't fall all over myself in an effort to praise this moonbimbo for having the "courage" to simply say what alot of us were saying about Obama, before he was foisted upon us by a bunch of spoiled rotten liberal idiots. F her and the rest of them for doing this to America. I wish Travis the chimp was still alive. Many more faces need ripping off.

Thank you conservatives!!

You've made my day!!

The most prominant liberal you could come up with who is complaining of "buyer's remourse" is Camille Paglia? Who? She's a little known feminist writer who 99.9999% of liberals will never have heard of. Who wrote a blog on Salon. But that's the best you could do. That is the most impressive liberal you could find who regrets Obama.

Wow, the Democrats are in even better shape then I thought!!!!

Next you'll be pulling up the guy with "The End is Near" sign in the subway and be writing posts claiming that he's proof that an asteroid is about to collide with earth.

Camille Paglia writes an article that points up, not Obama, but the dopey things done. Liberal responses are "yah, yah, Obama is still popular, everybody loves him." Not a word of defence about the issues she raised.
So we can take it from this straw poll that what she said was right. Right? The man is wonderful, but all the people round him suck. And all the dopey things are not down to him. Right?

You know I actually looked into this article. There are 500 comments. Almost all of them disagree with Camille and profess their happiness with Obama. - Anonymous at March 11, 2009 10:30 AM

The most prominant liberal you could come up with who is complaining of "buyer's remourse" is Camille Paglia? Who? She's a little known feminist writer who 99.9999% of liberals will never have heard of. - Thanks you made my day! at March 11, 2009 1:39 PM

Comrades, which is it?

Thank you conservatives!!

You've made my day!!

The most prominant liberal you could come up with who is complaining of "buyer's remourse" is Camille Paglia? Who? She's a little known feminist writer who 99.9999% of liberals will never have heard of. Who wrote a blog on Salon. But that's the best you could do. That is the most impressive liberal you could find who regrets Obama.

Wow, the Democrats are in even better shape then I thought!!!!

Next you'll be pulling up the guy with "The End is Near" sign in the subway and be writing posts claiming that he's proof that an asteroid is about to collide with earth.

Posted by: Thanks you made my day! at March 11, 2009 1:39

That's the best you got? Also, see Jim Cramer and Warren Buffet

I'm also completely floored. You would have thought there'd be all kinds of diversity of thought on salon.com. 100% lock step moonbattery. Way to speak truth to power, guys.

Who let the kooks and jerks in?

Obama's approval rating is trending down. It will likely continue that way until it hits about 33%. I think that will be the floor for him pretty much no matter what happens.

obama is ONEderful. he promised me a unicorn, but the RETHUGLICANS vetoed it. i hate RETHUGLICANS. his pecs make me moist. i need more meds.

Oh the haters will continue to do what they do best: "hate".

I guess if you REALLY think Obama's policies are socialist, please vacate the premises, move to England, Canada, anywhere (since you feel so strongly about it). If not, then stop hating on the man. He is YOUR president. I am all for constructive debate, but some of these comments are laughable.

Lemme take a poll here, how many people on this board have lost their job and are facing financial instability right now (and still hate on Obamas policies)?

Who let the kooks and jerks in?

It's apparently part of noBama's Internet version of the Civilian National Security Force. Either that or maybe like Beetlejuice, you say his name three times and the Obamunists appear.

We're having an infestation of haters here, probably directed by Daily Kos, DU, or some other hate site.

Btw, one doesn't hate "on" someone or something. Liberals and other haters please note that.

Re: ShottaNIC at March 11, 2009 3:54 PM
Dumb-ass. If I wanted socialism, I WOULD move to Canada or England. Thank God we still have a choice in this great nation, and we have another election coming in another 20 months.
I don't hate the Zero. I hate his thoughts, his idealologies, his theology, his liberalism, and his incompetence.
I haven't lost my job, because I am self employed, but being in the investment industry, I have lost a significant amount of income, as well as a significant amount of value in my portfolio (probably more than you make in 2 or 3 years.) Financial instability? Yeah - thank God I saved enough to go without an income for a while, but I am not down and out, because I know how to live within my means. But with my income that I know will come back, I will be faced with a much heavier tax burden, and who might that affect? Maybe someone who works for me - it may be a decision to downsize and do more with less people.
Zero is evil. There is a deliberate and blatant agenda to create a crisis in America so that more socialism can be enacted. Even though this last election showed there are plenty of blind sheep, and plenty of people who are apathetic and didn't vote, there are more people on a daily basis beginning to wake up and who will soon get really tired of the Zero's crap....especially when they are the one's looking for government handouts and realizing there just isn't enough there.
We are a nation that has been blessed with freedom, and when those freedoms begin to disappear, there will be a remnant that rises up and puts an end to it - and it won't be nicey-nicey any more. I predict before long there will be a strong grass-roots movement as there was in the 80's (most of you may be too young to remember the Reagan revolution, fueled by conservative Christians who woke up), and we will be replacing some of those do-nothing, pork stuffed, arrogant legislators who have been in Washing, DC WAY too long.

Its beyond any debate that liberals are gullible, but results of a Gallup poll showed that 3x as many republicans as dumocrats believe that the media coverage of global warming is exaggerated.
Imagine that. The news media manipulating something as critical as global warming. Next thing you know they'll be favoring one presidential candidate over another.

As Steely Dan once melodically pointed out: "I just read the daily news and swear by every word".

Keep it up trolls! You're just proving to us we're doing the right thing.

stop hating on the man

Conservatives don't hate on people. We speak English. Understandizzle?

Paglia isn't ready to question The Anointed One's divinity; she seems to think the main problem is his staff failing to live up to his greatness.

Some of BHO's cult followers will never wake up. But some will.

And when the worm turns, it gets ugly. Very ugly.

Actually, I do understandizzle...

I understand that conservatives live in wonderworld, where "all is possible" in America, refusing to acknowledge the inequalities and disadvantages that comes with "this great Nation". Believe it or not, there are many who work harder than YOU, and still live in lower-income communities, and have lost their jobs in this economy, and can't afford healthcare. How many conservatives actually care about the education and upliftment of underprivileged minorities who have to deal with systemic prejudices on a daily basis? (Anybody out there, anybody? or are you still in wonderland). From education to health insurance to the war in Iraq, you obviously only do not have the interest of anyone but yourselves in mind, but as soon as tragedy comes (Bobby Jindal), then we should have government intervention. But hey, whatever makes you sleep at night.

BTW, I am a Christian who is not a democrat, but I am definitely not a republican either, simply based on the fact that beyond “morality”, republicans definitely do not acknowledge or work towards making America what it touts: "the place of opportunity, where if you work hard enough, there is no limit". Or maybe all poor people deserve to be poor, and are all just waiting for a handout, right?

And by the way, people keep mentioning Daily Kos and DU. Not associated with Daily Kos and I don't know what DU stands for.

"Hate on" is urban slang, which ofcourse most of you probably have never been exposed to, being in wonderworld. And I am assuming since it is urban and different, it is inferior. Maybe I should start using slang like "irregardless". I think that is more accepted, right?

"ShottaNIC at March 11, 2009 5:45 PM"

"DU" is the Democratic Underground", a radical Liberal site.

Today's language changes too quickly to keep up with, is driven by inconsequintial and fleeting fads. Plus, it often contridicts itself. For example:
"I could care less" actually means that you DO care in some way.
How about
"He is like so cool". that would mean that "he" is NOT really cool, he's just giving a good imitation of it.

Leave it to shittynick or whatever your name is to put down America while praising Dear Leader.

And I'm sure you've heard of The DUmp, shitty. Lots of lib trolls from the DUmpster who have invaded sites like ConservativeCave and Conservative Underground claimed they have "no idea what that site is" when we traced them back after barking and ranting "HAHAH!111 I sur show3d those Freepers!!11"

IT AIN'T YOUR MONEY TO SPEND!

2009, Words by Steve Jones, Music by Kathleen Stewart

Don't spend my grandson's paycheck.
He's only two years old.
With Obama in the White House,
His future's bought and sold.
Stop this immoral spending spree.
Stop assaulting our liberty.
Let me help you comprehend:
It ain't your money to spend.

Born and bred for freedom.
Got me a lot of rights.
They're all but disappearing
Before your fiscal appetites.
You're taking the fruit of my labor
To give your next-door neighbor.
I'll say it from beginning to end:
It ain't your money to spend.

It ain't your money to spend.
You're acting like a bunch of jerks.
I'm the one who earned it.
I'm the one who works.
Your income redistribution
Doesn't jibe with the Constitution.
So I got a little message to send:
It ain't your money to spend.

You started a spending orgy and then,
You made me long for Georgie again.

You gave some cash to ACORN.
Those folks are so corrupt.
All the pork and all payoffs,
It makes me want to erupt.
Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi,
The scariest folks since Bela Lugosi.
Let me help you comprehend.
It ain't your money to spend.

It ain't your money to spend.
You're acting like a bunch of jerks.
I'm the one who earned it.
I'm the one who works.
Your income redistribution
Doesn't jibe with the Constitution.
So I got a little message to send:
It ain't your money to spend.

Download / Listen Here

Kathleen Stewart Free Download

Hello to my friends in the US.

We have a saying, it is called "playing the man and not the ball". If you played football (soccer) you would understand. It seems to me that even though the article 'plays the ball', all of the left sided respondents think that it 'played the man'.

Mind you, I don't yet understand American Football (gridiron?) where a lot of time is spent playing the man and not the ball, if you know what I mean....

Oh the haters will continue to do what they do best: "hate".
...

Posted by: ShottaNIC at March 11, 2009 3:54 PM

****************

I guess that explains your presence here, Shotty.

We have a saying, it is called "playing the man and not the ball". If you played football (soccer) you would understand. It seems to me that even though the article 'plays the ball', all of the left sided respondents think that it 'played the man'.

And if you are Congresstwit Barney Frank, you can do both. lol

Welcome Aussie John.

OK Atomiclibsmasher, since you are obviously immature and uneducated, please track me back to those sites, blogs, or whatever they are.

When you do, don't forget to let me know.

Also, where did I put down America in my post? Maybe in wonderworld, America is perfect as is. How is it in this wonderful place you call home?

Oh, I'm pretty sure everyone here gets that "hate on" is urban slang, Shotta. Your generation's kids will rediscover the value of some of the stuff human civilization has developed over the last 7,000 years and will laugh their faces off at you - their parents - with your slangizzle, your tatoos, your reflexive, childlike rebelliousness, and your inability to contribute to the culture as opposed to just tear it down with gay parades and all that nonsense. Cultural depravity vs. renewal goes in cycles. Your generation will be a laughingstock.

Oh sorry Frank, dissenting opinions are not allowed here? I'll keep that in mind.

OK Atomiclibsmasher, since you are obviously immature and uneducated, please track me back to those sites, blogs, or whatever they are.

I'm sure you know, but just to play along:

Democraticunderground.com and dailykos.com.

When you do, don't forget to let me know.

Also, where did I put down America in my poOK Atomiclibsmasher, since you are obviously immature and uneducated, please track me back to those sites, blogs, or whatever they are.

When you do, don't forget to let me know.

Also, where did I put down America in my post? Maybe in wonderworld, America is perfect as is. How is it in this wonderful place you call home?
Maybe in wonderworld, America is perfect as is. How is it in this wonderful place you call home?

YOur post at 5:35 and now. You libs hate America and make it quite clear. But you, like Obama, need to "change" it to make everybody equal and miserable under socialism, huh?

Mega, are you kidding? You do realize that cultures shift, right? You do realize that we don't currently speak like the King James Version of the Bible.

Exactly what are YOU contributing to "the culture"?

And my kids will what? You obviously have the fortune of lack of logic, so statements like you just made actually make sense to you.

For future reference, kids usually learn from parents, and generations get worse over time (which is why we are in the end days). But I like your optimism.

"OK Atomiclibsmasher, since you are obviously immature and uneducated, please track me back to those sites, blogs, or whatever they are."

What's the matter, SHOTTA, too stupid to use a search engine?

Yes too stupid. Or maybe, not motivated. Or maybe, I don't care enough to search for them. Or maybe, too stupid.

Whichever you prefer

It would help if we properly defined working hard, in the context of the value of said work.

Around here, McDonalds hires at about $7.50 an hour. No matter HOW HARD you work, you're still a fry cook or a cashier. There are practically no requirements to become employed doing these jobs. As such, there is little "value" to the work performed, no matter how 'hard' it may be.

Now take an Attorney that brings in $100k a year. They have to know the laws inside and out, and even if they don't know them they have them ready for referencing. They're heavily trained in the protocol of the judicial system and know what is valid in court and what is not. As such, their hard work has more "Value" than previously mentioned McDonald's employee, by virtue of the costs it took to become an attorney, and by the continuing necessity for them to stay up to date with the laws of the land. Also, they had to work harder LONGER to pass their classes and whatever else needed to become attorneys.

Some work is more valuable than other work. Doctors, Contractors, and Attorneys get paid more because they have to know more to do their job. Its not some sort of injustice that someone has to work just as hard at a less valuable job than the professionals. It IS, however, an injustice if they try to use that McDonald's job as some sort of career when they don't try to advance within the company itself and don't try to develop skills necessary for advancement, while complaining about the doctors and lawyers getting paid more.

Expecting the doctor to pay for all your stuff that you can't afford on your McDonald's wage because he makes more money than you is definitely injustice.

Wow Van - nice turn out for a mid week post!

"Lemme take a poll here, how many people on this board have lost their job and are facing financial instability right now (and still hate on Obamas policies)?"

Me!
A few months ago, I lost my job due to our country's economic crisis, which was largely caused by Democrats, and I am fairly certain that Obama's economic policies will just worsen matters in the name of "Social Justice."

I understand that conservatives live in wonderworld, where "all is possible" in America, refusing to acknowledge the inequalities and disadvantages that comes with "this great Nation".

Americans do live in that wonderworld where “all is possible.” Liberals live in the dystopia where nothing is possible, unless you nurture your status as an aggrieved loser, and the government hands you what you want, at someone else’s expense.

Believe it or not, there are many who work harder than YOU, and still live in lower-income communities, and have lost their jobs in this economy, and can't afford healthcare.

There are no guarantees of equality of outcome; we strive for equality of opportunity.

How many conservatives actually care about the education and upliftment of underprivileged minorities who have to deal with systemic prejudices on a daily basis?

First, you have no idea what conservatives care or don’t care about. Second, you may be aware that the Democrats in Congress yesterday in a party line vote killed a scholarship program that gave two other minorities vouchers to attend the Friends’ School with Obama’s kids, so it’s back to DC public schools for them. Why? To keep the teacher’s union – a major Democratic constituency, and mortally opposed to school vouchers – happy would be a good guess. Here’s an editorial supporting it in the Washington Post, and here’s its demise.

In another perspective, there’s something to be said for consistency. Democrats supported slavery, then segregation, Jim Crow laws, and formed the KKK to intimidate Republicans – black (all blacks were Republicans for a century after the Civil War, for obvious reasons) and white – to prevent implementation of Republican Reconstruction policies to extend civil rights to freed slaves. Bull Connor was a Democrat. So was Lester Maddox, and George Wallace. Dwight Eisenhower – Republican – had to send the 101st Airbone Division to Little Rock in 1958 to force Democrats to allow black students (the Little Rock Nine) into Central High School, over the strenuous objections of Governor Orval Faubus (Democrat, of course). Resentment over the Republican role in ending slavery and defeating the South led to the term “the Solid South” – solidly Democratic.

From education to health insurance to the war in Iraq, you obviously only do not have the interest of anyone but yourselves in mind, but as soon as tragedy comes (Bobby Jindal), then we should have government intervention.

You don’t have the faintest idea what we do or do not care about. Don’t impute motives to others whom you do not know, or indulge in other straw man debating tactics. Follow the example before you. Argue from facts, not blind prejudices.

Let me leave with this rhetorical question: which party would benefit from development of a large prosperous middle class? Which party would lose? Be honest in considering this issue.

Quiz time:

Which quote is from a prominent Democrat:

A. And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for your country.

B. ...the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf...

An interesting thread. It does seem the progs are all fired up and getting ever more pissed off. One wonders why installing Obama was not enough for them. I thought that was the whole point - get rid of Bush, put a new face on the country, etc. And yet here they are, trolling a harmless little corner of the internet where a handful of conservative-oriented people go to hang, read and sound off. Why is that? I don't go to kos or DU to spout off, regardless of who's in the White House. Sadly, these people seem like they won't be happy until every last one of us has gone through Teachable Moments and converted our thinking to whatever it is they believe. "Sad" because we will never agree with them and they are therefore never going to be satisfied enough to just go away and do their own thing.

Socio-economic Justice: Killing prosperity since 1917.

"From education to health insurance to the war in Iraq, you obviously only do not have the interest of anyone but yourselves in mind, but as soon as tragedy comes (Bobby Jindal), then we should have government intervention."

I find it funny that these people make our arguments for us by crying about what's wrong with us.

I've taken to calling liberalism "False Altruism" in that they 'pretend' to care about the downtrodden, but really work to keep them where they are to maintain some sort of superiority. They hate conservatives because we believe everyone is equal, INCLUDING those that would want everyone to think they were superior, and by believing so we're personally insulting the 'pretend superiors.'

Maybe Shotty is part of the new Left wing conspiracy

Just blog whoring here. I'd appreciate it if ya took a look, VH.

Cheesecake, finally, a thoughtful response.

Ironically, I agree with you. Where we might differ is in the perceived prevalence of these people who expect the government to save them.

I think most conservatives feel that the mere existence of these types of people justify their ignorance to various injustices in America which makes the playing field uneven for many Americans. The fact is that all is not even, and dependent on your race, class, or financial situation, success is not as attainable for everyone.

So yes, it sucks that some undeserving people benefit from the more fortunate, but we still need to reconcile the inequalities in America, not ignore them based on the fact the system is inefficient.

Jay, great post, but let't not act as if parties don't change over time. Lets not conveniently forget about the existence of the WIGs and dixiecrats. The fact is, just because minorities USED to be with republicans does not mean the party stands for the same things as in the past.

In regards to the vouchers, it is well known that Obama is against vouchers, but are you implying that his motives are not in the right place. Are you saying that he doesn't want our education to be more competitive internationally?

I totally agree with equality of opportunity, but do you think we currently have that? And if not, how would you go about ensuring the same opportunities for all Americans? If the government doesn't intervene then will we "naturally" become equal?

Correct me if I am wrong, but arent many conservatives for less government? If we acknowledge that we dont have opportunity equality, then what is going to happen if there is no government intervention? Inner city kids continue to get poor education because the best teachers go to better schools, should we not intervene? There is some truth to "the rich get richer", or do you disagree with that also?

The truth is that Democrats are just as emotional and blind to the other viewpoints, which makes debate and general conversations about issues almost impossible.

Shotta, parties do change over time, but not discontinuously. Think about it: the Democrats' position has changed from thinking that blacks are inferior, and therefore should be slaves/second class citizens, to thinking that blacks are inferior (be honest - isn't that really what they think, in their heart of hearts?), and therefore need favoritism, lower standards and more help - in return for their votes, of course, which the Democrats now take for granted.

That doesn't strike me as a sea change, frankly. Put it this way: can we agree that the DNC would be suicidal if blacks became like, say, Asians or East Indians. Poof! There goes their electoral advantage, and their raison d'etre, grievance and identity politics.

Similarly, I would say the Republican Party has stood for much the same thing since its inception: the primacy of the individual over the government. Not the group, not the collective, but the individual. Republicans have consistently urged the theme of smaller government, and (since the abolition of slavery and Reconstruction) devolution of power from the Federal government to the states, and from the states to the localities, and from the localities to the individual. In short, decentralization. That trend played into the Dixiecrats' hopes, because it gave them hope that they could run their states/localities the way they wanted, i.e., segregated. (The other part, of course, was the leftward lurch of the Democratic Party in the 60s, which repelled patriotic Southerners.)

In regards to the vouchers, it is well known that Obama is against vouchers, but are you implying that his motives are not in the right place. Are you saying that he doesn't want our education to be more competitive internationally?

His motives are in the right place by his lights, namely, the aggrandizement of Obama, which in this case dictates keeping a major Democratic constituency on board. He will no more cross the teacher's union than the UAW, and for the same reason. How does letting kids go to the school of their choice impede our international competitiveness in education? We let students go to the college of their choice, don't we, and that hasn't led to the downfall of the Republic. So the question is "Cui bono?"

This is interesting... VH, what are the site stats like right now? I assume these jackasses have to be bumping your hit counter like mad! Keep it up, leftrolls!!!!!

Oops, sorry, damn touchpad. To continue...

Teacher's unions benefit from opposition to vouchers, because students/parents voting with their feet would embarrass them. Black parents are strongly in favor of vouchers, but Dems view them as anathema - because of the teacher's union. That should bother anyone interested in equality of opportunity.

I think that we do have equality of opportunity now, barring affirmitive action. Equality of opportunity doesn't mean that we pretend that someone is making it when they aren't, but rather that they have the chance to make it - or fail - based on their performance. And yes, I think we pretty much have that now.

Rotten schools in inner cities, like crime there, ultimately come back to the residents willingness to tolerate such. Blacks excelling academically being accused of being too "white" is a much more pernicious impediment than white racism now. Bill Cosby's views should be taken to heart. A small fraction of the energy devoted to basketball directed toward academics would work wonders. Inner city kids get a poor education because they're swimming upstream culturally if they strive for excellence. Good teachers want to leave inner city schools because it's frustrating to deal with the crap they have to put up with just maintaining order.

Ask yourself this question: why have Asians and East Indians been so successful? They're visibly recognizable as such, yet no one has any problem with them. In Democrat theology, they don't even count as minorities! Why? Vietnamese got off the boat here 30 years ago without a penny, many not speaking a word of English, and they're doing just fine, with no one suggesting they need special help. Why?

The "motive" behind vouchers are great, but what happens when you live in a housing project and there are no good schools around you, how are you going to get to that "good" school? It is a simple example, but its more prevalent that alot of people think.

In regards to slavery, yes republicans are for smaller government, but how do you handle ALL the baggage that slavery and segregation has inspired. One of my main issues is that you can stand for "the individual", but there has to be some type of action to counter the history and consistent presence of prejudice. It is convenient to say "you are all free" and "now we are equals". The fact is black people were free and legally considered equals, but as WE ALL KNOW, there are huge lingering effects from slavery, and it seems like many conservatives like to hide behind "this is America where everyone is equal and opportunity is shared", when if you think about it, opportunity is still not the same across the board.

And Jay, you seem learned and thoughtful, so I have to ask you, do you really think the republican party is very concerned with ensuring opportunity is equal across the board?

At the end of the day, ofcourse the Democrats play the race-vote game, as would republicans if they had black support, but you should examine the reasons why the minority vote has shifted to democratic. I think some people actually believe that black people are lazy and are looking for handouts, which is why they are democratic, but that is totally different topic.

great convo...

Sorry, to end my rant with the bottom line:

I think that Democrats have conned blacks (and to a lesser extent, Hispanics) into thinking that Dems are interested in advancing their interests, when in fact they're primarily interested in keeping them as a captive voting bloc. Dems encourage dependency on them to this end, because without the black vote Democratic candidates wouldn't stand a chance. To lock in the black vote, Dem politicians talk a good game, and occasionally toss blacks a fish to keep them pacified. But if blacks thought this through, they'd realize that being the swing vote is a much more powerful position than being taken for granted. Ultimately, however, no one becomes prosperous through handouts, but only through his own efforts. And that is as it should be.

Just saw your post after posting mine. Gotta hit the sack, work and all that, but let me address one point now:

do you really think the republican party is very concerned with ensuring opportunity is equal across the board?

Yes, I do, and for one reason: it's best for the country. That's important to the Republicans I know. It may sound silly, but it's true. Patriotism is a very strong driving force among Republicans, much stronger than most Democrats realize.

Good points, but there is no way we can call out other minorities and their successes without acknowledging the effects of black american slavery.

People who migrate to America are usually the cream of the crop, which is why brain drain is such an issue in other nations. Honestly, immigrants don't have the same baggage as black americans, so it is an unfair comparison. That being said, immigrants who are black still get paid less, and are still not as successful. Yes there are more success stories these days, but why is this still the case?

But this is the point in the conversation where people tend to get uneasy because we start to tackle the issues of racism and the effects of it, from slavery's effect and defining black american culture to the jail system and law enforcement.

My point, which I am sure many here will disagree, is that there are many things that go into "opportunity" and our History has put us in a peculiar place where full equality is non-existent. People have to acknowledge that poor people in America are treated horribly, which some people feel is a necessity, but I, with no party affiliation, feel needs to be addressed somehow.

There are many reasons why people are in the financial situation they are in, an some of it has to do with negligence and poor values, but that is not the case for all. And for the people who don't "deserve" it, they should have the same or comparable chance of success.

Thoughts?

Same here, bedtime it is, but great convo. Glad to see there are some thoughtful conservatives out there, because my experience thus far has been with conservatives who just say random foolishness based on no background (aka fanatics) and just "hate on" (had to bring it back full circle) any differing viewpoints. This is true for many democrats also.

Shotta and Jay:
Nice to see an actual dialogue instead of arguing point-and-counterpoint and yelling "gotcha!" and calling names.
There is a reason there is a two-party system, and that's so no single point of view is adopted constantly. Just like the way science works, politics should work the same- when arguing against something (like a scientific theory) in order to disprove it, the goal is not to be able throw it in another's face, but to advance the understanding of what works and what doesn't, so in the long run, both sides benefit from a greater understanding of how things work. Thus, science advances. Many people forget that regardless of the "side" we're on, we are all still Americans.
But yes, hats off to both of you for maintaining a real conversation.

The government will have to grow to accomodate the increasing population and with the advents of new technology, there will be new crime which all levels of government will have to address.

As conservatives we PREFER the government stay out of as much as possible. Meaning we want the freedom to do as we please with ourselves so long as it doesn't negatively affect another person. But this is under assault too because of false cries of racism. Now do you seriously think that someone mentioning that there is a majority of blacks in professional basketball, meaning that blacks must be more talented at such activities, is a racist? Or maybe they're just pointing out something that a race of people excel at.

We've been smeared as the most racist when a good majority of us are not. We're seen as racist since we don't want to give special help to blacks due to the color of their skin. If we're going to help poor people, it should be ALL poor people EQUALLY, not just blacks, hispanics, and women. We feel that giving special help to them undermines the ones that actually achieve on their own as having achieved through the special assistance. Giving them special help says "You need special help because you can't make it on your own because your black," which, I feel, is much more racist because it says "You're black, you're inferior, you need our help."

A large part of succeeding in life is the motivation to improve your lot in it. And if we're providing some meager standard of living, one where they do not want for much other than fancier stuff, where is the motivation to do it yourself?

Also, I don't believe its fair to discount the voucher program because of some places where it wouldn't work. Obviously, we need to make special considerations for inner-city schools to improve them, and I also personally believe that wantonly throwing money at said schools isn't going to do anything but make the administration and staff of those schools better paid, meanwhile translating into better education. Perhaps an extra sum, as part of the voucher, to provide transportation to a private school covered by said voucher?

Again, we conservatives believe the government shouldn't run things better run by the individual. School choice is an important choice. Parents want their children to go where they will get the best education. Why not give them the ability to choose for themselves where that will be, instead of the government choosing (and by design, forcing) kids into the schools that continually fail to serve them?

I believe that the voucher program, introduced nationwide, would have a double benefit: Kids get a better education because they go to the private schools, and the public schools HAVE to improve themselves, improve the education they provide, and generally compete for the business they would otherwise be guaranteed. When someone is guaranteed money, even when their performance is bad, where is the incentive to do more and improve?

Cheesecake, once again, great post. And I agree with most of it. There are pros and cons to all of these policies, which is why they are so contentious, and I think it is imperative that people start trying to understand both sides of the story.

In regards to racism, I don't think acknowledging the obvious is racist, but making stereotypes and commenting on something without having any clue why it is so, is problematic to me. For example, many of my colleagues in college were black, and many people automatically assumed that they had to play sports to be accepted into a college of that notoriety (aka "so what sport do you play").

Some people also believe black people are more athletic, but when informed of the fact that slaves were chosen based on strength and physical stature, which has heavy implications on who "survived", it seems that these same individuals have a hard time acknowledging the facts. They just want to continue thinking that Black people = sports.

In regards to Affirmative Action, I don't think that it should be solely based on skin color, because, for example, the Obama girls don't need it. For me it should be location and income based, which just so happens to over index on minorities. So are you saying that you agree with the existence of something that will aid in the process of making this great Nation more "equal opportunity", because if you are, you are acknowledging that there are injustices and inequality, which is something I have rarely heard from conservatives.

ShottaNIC,

Did you ever consider the great irony of saying the things you do while standing in the most prosperous nation that planet Earth has ever known? A nation that became so prosperous through a Jeffersonian ideology, rather than an incorrect socialist philosophy?

Have you ever met an immigrant who came to America for the snake oil salesmanship of nonsense phrases like "Social Justice?"

Generations of immigrants from all over the world have placed their own lives in jeopardy to come to America, many of whom were seeking to escape the very kinds of policies that you support now assaulting America with.

Why don't you simply move to paradise nations like Cuba, Venezuela, China, etc., where the backwards policies you want to inflict Americans with are already in place? It seems to me that you would genuinely be happier in any of those places, where you can have all the social justice that you can grab.

Shotta, I see your point that there are some inequalities in America. The NBA for instance. You ever notice how few white people there are playing for the Bulls, Celtics, Lakers, etc.? I say we should implement Affirmative Action in the NBA. Even maybe the All Star Slam Dunk Contest. After all, they are very, very underrepresented there. And not so much based on race, but height too. Midgets are non existent in the National Basketball Association. I say there should be a government program to bring more Mugsy Bouges to the NBA. What do you think of that? After all, we want to make it equal, don't we???

And here we go again...

I am actually quite content right now. Don't forget that Obama IS president, so even if I did support all the Democratic principles (which you would know is not the case if you read atleast some of the posts above), I would be totally content with where the country is moving.

And exactly what am I saying that is ironic? That America is not perfect? Or maybe that there is too much thoughtless bickering between parties? Is it ironic to say that there are still injustice and inequality in America?

I don't know which America you live in, but in the real America, perfection is still something we strive for.

Or do you think we have arrived to where we need to be as a nation. Maybe YOU are content with your position, but please, lets not ignore the fact that all is not rosey in America, we are still a work in progress. Just because we are better than other places doesn't mean we are perfect.

Progress does not equal perfection.

This is why people see conservatives as racist...

You are comparing race relation history, and financial stability, to sports and entertainment.

Did you totally misread the post about athleticism? Do you not understand the fact that you don't need a good education or "old" money to play sports or be an entertainer? Do you not see the connections there? If not, then please, for the sake of good conversation, refrain from sarcastic, unfounded, comments that have no relevance to the trend of this debate.

Its funny that you mention underrepresentation though, because in Historically Black Colleges, there are "minority" grants given to white people because they are underrepresented.

Sorry, mistyped...

Atomic...

This is why people see conservatives as racist...

You are comparing race relation history, and financial stability, to sports and entertainment.

Did you totally misread the post about athleticism? Do you not understand the fact that you don't need a good education or "old" money to play sports or be an entertainer? Do you not see the connections there? If not, then please, for the sake of good conversation, refrain from sarcastic, unfounded, comments that have no relevance to the trend of this debate.

Its funny that you mention underrepresentation though, because in Historically Black Colleges, there are "minority" grants given to white people because they are underrepresented.

ShottaNIC,

You can't equate inequality in social standing (or whatever term you'd prefer) with inequality in opportunity. Forced inequality (affirmative action) and handouts (welfare) do nothing but create and nurture a separate class of citizens. These sorts of blanket policies operate under the very noble guise of striving for equality, when in reality they simply further the inequality they're attempting to mitigate.

Progress does not equal perfection.

No, it certainly does not. However, your idea of perfection is at odds with my idea of perfection. That's the entire crux of the argument here.

My idea of perfection is a place where people are judged and rewarded by their work ethic and contribution to society. In other words, Everyone should have the same "chance" of success. If you make bad decisions you fail, if not you are rewarded.

What's yours?

Everyone should have the same "chance" of success. If you make bad decisions you fail, if not you are rewarded.

What's yours?

everyone is equal. the government makes sure everyone is equal by taking away things from people who have too much for the common good. no one has to work if they dont want to. health care is free for everyone. no human beng is illegal. there's no pollution and the environmets clean.

What's yours?

I would say ours align pretty well, actually.

Do you see how telling someone they need help because they can't do it on their own might negate that worthy goal?

ShottaNIC

And exactly what am I saying that is ironic?

Did I stutter? What is ironic is exactly what I wrote. Please reread the entry, focus on reading comprehension, and respond to what was actually written as opposed to what you want to respond to.

(which you would know is not the case if you read atleast some of the posts above),

Oh please. When you liberally (yuk yuk) use nonsense phrases like "underprivileged minorities" that are right out of a Sociology 101 (Liberal Philosophy 101) textbook, it's fairly transparent as to whose Kool-Aid you're drinking.

What's also ironic though, is reading Lazy-Boy philosophers such as yourself pontificate about so-called social injustices, when they clearly know nothing about such things much less have any first hand experience of them.

I've experienced poverty. I've experienced homelessness and unemployment. I've been in jail and have lived in halfway houses for drug users. At one point, I was employed at a job where I cleaned up raw human sewage from flooded basements.

It was me that changed my own situation. Not government.

True "change" comes from within, individually. Not from some nebulous government social engineering program.

I only wish you could have been there to sign over half of your paycheck to me.

Just because we are better than other places doesn't mean we are perfect.

We've seen the demonstrable effects of nations who claim they're working towards perfection. It's the infomercial of governmental forms. It makes all kinds of great promises, everyone gets everything! But just like that Shamwow, when you actually get the product home and try to use it, it never lives up to its advertisement. Yet still some people purchase it.

Being a land of opportunity is not a guarantee of success, nor should it be.

Or do you think we have arrived to where we need to be as a nation.

No, because Liberty continues to diminish when clueless Marxist figureheads like Obama are elected to the Presidency.

What I wish to see are not two political parties engaging in a contest over smoke and mirror promises of social justice that any thinking man understands can never be delivered upon, but rather parties that will champion the cause of Liberty.

Rather than erroneously trying to fulfill every person’s wants and needs which is impossible to achieve anyway, we should be seeking to increase Liberty for all, even for those who would do things with that Liberty that we ourselves may disagree with.

So when I ask why you don't move to some of the world's most Leftist nations, it's not a insult against you, or any kind of challenge. It's a genuine question.

The kinds "social justice" policies you apparently support are already in place in those areas of the world, so wouldn't they be able to provide a happier political environment for you?

And if America is better than other places as you say, then why would policy moves in the direction of those kinds of nations be considered progress towards perfection?

This is why people see conservatives as racist...

This of course is incorrect. People don't see conservatives as racist. Leftists accuse conservatives of being racist. There's a difference.

Leftists do this because conservatives don't want to give any race preferential treatment, not even African Americans.

The fact of the matter is the African American has been subjugated by the left and consigned by them to an eternal life of sucking at the teat of government while living on the brink of true poverty.

The left keeps the African American in a place where they become dependent on their programs, for the sole purpose of keeping their programs in business, and themselves in power. These leftist programs give them just enough to survive and simultaneously just enough to kill their motivation to strive for more, and thus they buy the African American vote with promises of fabulous government door prizes.

After all, if the African American became independent and not needing of all the left's wonderful social programs, then there probably wouldn't be any need of a Democratic Party anymore.

The conservative believes that the African American is perfectly capable of accomplishing great things all on their own, without government assistance. The left does not.

But the African American community is a sleeping giant. Once they awaken and realize how they've been taken advantage of by the left for the purposes of political power plays, there probably won't be a Democratic Party anymore.

J,

Congrats on your move up in life. You are a prime example of what America should be. You are also a prime example of where the outages are.

Do you honestly think a person who went to jail, was unemployed, all of your experiences AND is black has the SAME opportunities that you had in your success story? If you do then, thats where we disagree. Its great that you did it, but my issue is not about the possibility, its about making the probability equal.

It's funny because everyone who has made it from poverty thinks they deserve it, which they probably do, but people also don't like to think that there are people who made the same decisions as you who didn't make it. Then you have to consider the reasons why they didn't make it. Do you deserve it more than they do? If there is a hint of inequality that could potentially be the reason why they didnt make it, shouldnt we address that?

Is the reason why over 50% of black men in NYC are unemployed because they all deserve to be? If you think that, then inherently there is some sense of superiority that you might have.

Wow J,

Simple question... Do you think there is still lingering effects of slavery and segregation?

If you Great great grandparents started a successful business 100 years ago, do you not think you have an advantage over an African American?

Do you not think subjecting slaves to eating the worst part of animals for 400 years could somehow affect the current culture?

Do you think that by allowing black people to vote, it changed the mindsets of all Americans overnight?

If all the bosses in America were white (many racist), how long do you think it would take for the playing field to be even?

Ofcourse many things are self-inflicted, but the fact that you don't acknowledge the disparities is why [some] people feel many conservatives are racist.

Do you honestly think a person who went to jail, was unemployed, all of your experiences AND is black has the SAME opportunities that you had in your success story?

~Yes, absolutely. If you think otherwise, then the onus is certainly on you to support your argument.

Is the reason why over 50% of black men in NYC are unemployed because they all deserve to be?

~I didn't hear about that, but I did hear the one about 90% of all statistics being made up on the spot.

Objectively, ShottaNIC, there is institutional racism in our country's history. Emphasis on history. While no one would be so dense as to suggest there is no racism in any citizen of this country, few still would be willing to suggest insitutional racism still exists in the magnitude you suggest. You keep alluding to race keeping people down and in poverty. Prove it, if you don't mind.

www.kff.org/minorityhealth/upload/7541.pdf

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950CE1D81E3CF93BA15751C0A9629C8B63

http://www.runet.edu/~junnever/bw.htm

And many more if you like. The first is PDF, but the google HTML version is...
http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:IsUYm0MgW-8J:www.kff.org/minorityhealth/upload/7541.pdf+african+american+statistics+2006&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Do you honestly think a person who went to jail, was unemployed, all of your experiences AND is black has the SAME opportunities that you had in your success story?

Um, people don't just go to jail. People go to jail when they commit crimes against other people. Are you suggesting if a minority commits a crime, he should get a pass because it might interfere with his chances later in life? Can you think through what the implications of that policy would be?

ShottaNIC,

I appreciate your research and thank you for providing substantiation.

However, what you've essentially done is outline the problems associated with welfare hand-outs and the forced inequality of affirmative action. Even the conclusions from your first link support the idea that the country offers equal opportunity, regardless of how it is received:

"By documenting the extent of the problem and by examining the factors associated with the lives of young African American men who avoid problems and lead successful lives, policymakers will be better equipped to develop and implement solutions."

Then, in the Times article, the author cites the following:

"The study, by the Community Service Society, a nonprofit group that serves the poor, is based on data from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics and focuses on the so-called employment-population ratio -- the fraction of the working-age population with a paid job -- in addition to the more familiar unemployment rate, the percentage of the labor force actively looking for work."

So in essence, by comparing by including those not actively looking for work, the unemployement rates for blacks increases dramatically. I was not surprised to read that, because it supports my earlier argument that the policies of affirmative action and welfare handouts result not in equalization at the social level, but that they rather reinforce the very "inequalities" they claim to fight against. Consider a later quote:

"'You're seeing this tendency to drop out. It's very serious and nobody has an answer.'"

Yes, no one has an answer, because no one has stopped to think, "Gee, maybe if we stop telling blacks how bad off they are, and stop telling them they can't make it without our help, maybe they'll be less likely to give up."

We all have the equal opportunity to better ourselves in this country; that cannot be denied. Once we stop focusing on skin color, as Democrats are so wont to do, we will all be far better off.

And there is point of disagreement. I totally agree that some is self-inflicted, but that doesn't mean all of it is.

Back to my original question... Do you think whites have a different work ethic and different values than blacks?

I totally agree that some is self-inflicted, but that doesn't mean all of it is.

That is not a logical statement.

"Do you think whites have a different work ethic and different values than blacks?"

No offense, but that's an asinine question.

Whether white or black, there are areas within larger communities that simply don't try and turn on those who find a way out.

By focusing on the skin tone of whatever collective group we're talking about, you're immediately turning the problem into one of race, and thus the solution must also be based on race.

Do you see how that approach not only furthers the invented problem, but is racist in and of itself?

Actually, it is a logical statement, its just redundant. It is stating the obvious, yet no one is replying to it.

This is really about breaking down the question into different components...

Since I need break it down specifically...

Why is such a higher percentage of black people poor vs whites?

There are a series of questions that you would have to answer to get to the heart of the matter.

And this is always the issue when I speak with conservatives, even democrats sometimes...

People don't like to answer the tough questions. Look, NOBODY has answered the questions i posed earlier...

Simple question... Do you think there is still lingering effects of slavery and segregation?

If you Great great grandparents started a successful business 100 years ago, do you not think you have an advantage over an African American?

Do you not think subjecting slaves to eating the worst part of animals for 400 years could somehow affect the current culture?

Do you think that by allowing black people to vote, it changed the mindsets of all Americans overnight?

If all the bosses in America were white (many racist), how long do you think it would take for the playing field to be even?

Is the reason why over 50% of black men in NYC are unemployed because they all deserve to be?

Why is such a higher percentage of black people poor vs whites?

Because welfare handouts and affirmative action promotes and encourages class distinction along racial lines. Public housing promotes and encourages poverty and segregation.

I totally agree that some is self-inflicted, but that doesn't mean all of it is.

I'll elaborate on why this is illogical. You start by agreeing that some of the problems are self-inflicted, yet you go on to say that not all of them are. That may very well be, but just saying it doesn't make it so. I've as yet seen no evidence from you to force me to re-evaluate my stance on institutional racism in the United States, namely that it doesn't exist in any magnitude to be able to explain the problems you're mentioning.

So, by saying that some problems are self-inflicted, yet not all of them are, it doesn't logically follow that there are any problems "forced" on to the black community at large to explain any of the statistics you've cited.

But just so you don't misunderstand me, I'll agree that those types of problems do exist. Where we differ, however, is in my argument that the Democrat party, through programs like affirmative action, have effectively made the plight of blacks in the U.S. worse. By beginning with the premise that all are not equal, and equality must be mandated (forced inequality), liberals promote the very sociological problems they claim to fight against.

They've created a problem, with the goal of defeating it, while the actual results are a worsening situation, obviously.

Simple question... Do you think there is still lingering effects of slavery and segregation?

No, as much as race-mongers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would like to disagree.

If you Great great grandparents started a successful business 100 years ago, do you not think you have an advantage over an African American?

I think your hypothetical person would have an advantage over anyone. However, I think people of all races still have the same opportunity to create a successful business if they're able and inclined to do so, don't you?

Do you not think subjecting slaves to eating the worst part of animals for 400 years could somehow affect the current culture?

Nope.

Do you think that by allowing black people to vote, it changed the mindsets of all Americans overnight?

Nope.

If all the bosses in America were white (many racist), how long do you think it would take for the playing field to be even?

You want a specific timeframe? That would be difficult to estimate. Certainly a generation would be more than sufficient, no? How long do you think it would take, and what solution do you think would be best? Would it be a temporary or permanent solution?

Is the reason why over 50% of black men in NYC are unemployed because they all deserve to be?

Certainly not, but as I pointed out earlier, that statistic included all black men who were unemployed, including those not actively looking for work. Are all black men not looking for work defeated by racism?

Do you think there is still lingering effects of slavery and segregation?

Only to the degree that race hustlers use them to exploit failure and promote their own interests. White people got over racism a long time ago.

If you Great great grandparents started a successful business 100 years ago, do you not think you have an advantage over an African American?

No. If we apply for the same job, for the same spot at the university, the African-American has an advantage due to Affirmative Action. This is true even if his family has been wealthy for three generations, and I come from a blue-collar background and pulled myself up by my bootstraps.

Do you not think subjecting slaves to eating the worst part of animals for 400 years could somehow affect the current culture?

It didn't hurt the Jews. And it didn't hurt any other culture that suffered oppression. (The Anglo-Saxons under the Romans, the Koreans under the Japanese.)

Do you think that by allowing black people to vote, it changed the mindsets of all Americans overnight?

No. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the failures of the African-American community. In Detroit, for example, African-Americans have had a monopoly on political power for two generations. Why, in that time, has the city declined so markedly? Is it entirely white racism, or has political corruption and incompetence, an entitlement mentality, and a mentality of "getting even" with whites been a far more signficant factor?

If all the bosses in America were white (many racist), how long do you think it would take for the playing field to be even?

I dispute the basis of your hypothetical. All bosses in America are not white, nor are most of them racist. In any case, in a free market system, the non-racist bosses would have a competitive advantage over the racist ones because they would access a pool of talent the racist bosses refuse to. This would benefit society at large and the Black Community by encouraging the promotion of merit, not lowering standards for the sake of creating numerical "equality."

Is the reason why over 50% of black men in NYC are unemployed because they all deserve to be?

Couldn't say. But Detroit is run entirely by blacks and their unemployment situation is worse. Is that because of racism, or bad economic policy?

Quote: "White people got over racism a long time ago."

I am sure you have gotten over it.

And this, my friends, is what is plaguing discussions on race and politics between dissenting parties.

And this, my friends, is what is plaguing discussions on race and politics between dissenting parties.

Nah, it's goobers like you constantly looking for a chance to say, "Gotcha!" and assuming that all perceived inequalities are not only broken down along racial lines, but can only be solved along racial lines.

I would say whites, as a whole, truly have gotten over the institutional racism you alluded to from the Civil Rights era.

Convenient dodges on your part, too, to Gregory's very valid points about Detroit and affirmative action.

Actually the reason I didn't respond to the Detroit comments is because its a waste of time to explain that almost all "ghettos" and projects are populated by black people, which proves what? Inherent in his comments were attitudes of superiority that I honestly don't feel like responding to because its a lost cause.

Many people here obviously see blacks as inferior, simply by statements that imply "they were played by the democrats" or "[they have] bad economic policy" or "race hustlers use them to exploit failure and promote their own interest" or ".

Because the "poor little black people" are being taken advantage of, right.

You see, you are obviously blind to this attitude because you are the ones conveying it. You try to justify it by seeming sympathetic, but at a certain point you have to be honest with yourselves.

There is a plethora of ignorant statement being made, like "It didn't hurt the Jews" (yeah because 400 years of American slavery can be compared to anything else, sure), but as soon as a gay person claims that they are being oppressed, like black people did (which is also ridiculous), you jump on the other side of the fence.

"White people have gotten over slavery", please tell me you are joking with this comment. I'm sure its easy to get over oppression when you aren't oppressed. Now if you say racism is not as prevalent, right, but it is still alive and kicking (obviously).

Or how about "has political corruption and incompetence, an entitlement mentality, and a mentality of "getting even"" - you have GOT to be kidding me.

And "no lingering effects of slavery", thats laughable. White Americans like alluding to all our traditions, but can't acknowledge that 40 years vs. 400 years of conditioning is somewhat might have a huge effect on a culture.

"These leftist programs give them just enough to survive and simultaneously just enough to kill their motivation to strive for more, and thus they buy the African American vote with promises of fabulous government door prizes." - Yeah, because they aren't smart enough to understand that they are being taken advantaged of, right? But you are smart enough to know that you aren't being taken advantage of by the republican party (hmm, seems a little odd)

Anyway, great conversation, I definitely learned alot from you all, good and bad (actually pretty eye-opening).

And BTW,

I am not saying that you are racists, just to clarify.

OK, I’m back.

Good points, but there is no way we can call out other minorities and their successes without acknowledging the effects of black american slavery.

Let me turn this point around. At what point can we say we no longer need to acknowledge the effects of black American slavery? We’re coming up on the second century after its abolition. Will there ever be a time when it will no longer be acceptable as an excuse? In my view, we’re at a point where it’s counter-productive to keep picking at this historical scab, and move on, rather than looking backward and nurturing grievances. I think that that’s where blacks – and whites - true interests really lie.

Look at the Muslims: still honked about the Crusades, a thousand years later. Whom have they hurt more by nurturing their millennium-old grievance? Us or themselves? That’s my point.

People who migrate to America are usually the cream of the crop, which is why brain drain is such an issue in other nations.

Let’s analyze this statement. Are you attributing the difference in performance between voluntary immigrants and involuntary ones (i.e., freed slaves) to differences in ability? If that is the explanation, then hard cheese for the freed slaves; as pointed out above, we strive for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome, so if the outcomes differ owing to differences in ability, then so be it.

Honestly, immigrants don't have the same baggage as black americans, so it is an unfair comparison. blockquote>

Actually, Chinese immigrants in the 19th century were treated every bit as badly as African slaves. Coolies who built the railroads, or worked in mines, for example, had an appalling mortality rate, because they were considered expendable. Their second-class status was enshrined in law in many Western states. Yet they have overcome that history, and as pointed out previously, aren’t even considered “true” minorities by Democrats.

That being said, immigrants who are black still get paid less, and are still not as successful.

You know, I don’t believe that that’s actually true. I happen to know a few African immigrants, and they’re doing very well indeed. (Granted this is wholly non-scientific, and skewed by people with whom I am likely to come in contact.) One, a former postdoc of mine, is now a professor in a medical school, a second is a consultant to the pharmaceutical industry. Both have Ph.D.s in physical sciences, and take a very dim view indeed of black American culture. A third is a lawyer, and a fourth is a bank executive. Sure, Somalis with no education end up driving taxis, but heck, that’s what happens to those lacking skills. One has to compare those of comparable skills. But the point here is that race, alone, does not condemn anyone now to a poor outcome. (I wish my neighbor, a black American-born dentist, were posting here. He pours such scorn on the victimization business that he makes me sound like Al Sharpton.)

Welcome back, I appreciate some sort of open-mindedness here...

Honestly, I am pretty much done, but in regards to the immigrants comment, I was referring to the fact that they are much more likely to succeed, because they are top talent. This is not saying that they have more talent than the top black American talent, but the fact still remains, they are usually the top talent from their country, and the top talent across races, so they SHOULD be making as much if not more than many other whites in America. Your last point proves this.

In regards to slavery, I am referring to desegregation, not just slavery. You have to admit that segregation didn't mean different "equal" worlds. Blacks were still being oppressed.

I am not trying to say that some black people don't use slavery as an excuse, but that does not give us the right to ignore the fact that there are still circular issues, resulting from oppression.

Either way, black people also need to step up, but it just sucks that there are so many people out there who really feel that its all their fault (with a sense of superiority).

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/03/21/Worldandnation/Education_gaps_closin.shtml

The segregation era was definitely a horrible time. Fortunately we have been able to end that era, where the people who still feel it was the right way are relics of an age gone by. Am I saying there is no latent racism from those days? Of course not. But the vast majority of Americans HAVE moved on and grown as human beings. Which is the important thing: we grow, learn, and adapt.

The most unfortunate thing is the people that DON'T let go. We call them a myriad of things, Race monger, race card player, race hustler, and the like. They see racism where it isn't as a means of shutting down productive discussion. Its STILL prominent in our government. South Carolina Governor Sanford was smacked around with the race card by one of their representatives. Instead of debating the merits of the money going toward them, he complained about racism as a means to shut down his opposition. It removes the meaning from true racists acts which are dwindling into obscurity.

I personally object to using race as some kind of permanent trump card, Al Sharpton being one of the biggest abusers. If you can't debate the merits of what you're suggesting or the downfalls of what you oppose, don't debate it and find something else.

While I didn't vote for him, BHO managed to do something that conservatives can definitely like: He proved there isn't a real race barrier to success. His story was similar to alot of children, and he still rose to be the most powerful person in the world. Its a shame he squanders his inspirational qualities to push policies that only foster apathy towards work.

Don'cha get it, ShottaNIC? You're just as screwed as we are -- sucks, don't it? You enjoying the Great Obama Depression (actually, you might be doing just that, if you're as big an idiot as you appear).

I take Mark Levin's advice and laugh my ass off at anyone still driving around with their little "Obama-Biden 2008" bumper stickers on their cars (including you, no doubt): Oh!, is the Messiah going to shaft you, your children, and your descendants for untold generations to come! Fools, you wanted Change, now you're going to pay for it, literally -- "in the neck," to quote the Great One.