Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Customer paid for groceries with food stamps, walked into parking lot and... « previous next »
Page: 1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 ... 42

tripblood

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2967
Offline
« #285 : November 20, 2012, 07:14:16 PM »

You are slightly puzzled by 95% of blacks voted for a black man and race not being a factor

Not only is this not true, just as many black voters did so for Clinton.

Also, stop calling Obama a black man. Hes mixed race. If anything being raised by his white mama would make him more white than black.

In 2008 Obama won 95% of the black vote (can I say that?), in 2012 he won 93% of the Black vote. In 1992 Clnton won 83% of the black vote and then in 1996 he won 84% of the black vote. If you include all of Perot's 1992 black vote count of 7% that would equal 90% of the black vote in 1992 and if you include Perot's 4% of the black vote in 1996 that would have given Clinton 88% of the black vote.

I'm sorry, have I been mistakenly led to believe that it was a Historical election of 2008 that gave us the first Black President or have I just been hearing subtle "code words" for mixed race all along? I can't keep this crap straight anymore.

Link? Your stats are bullshlt.

Last time I checked I didnt fill out what race I was on my ballot.


This guy...

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
« #286 : November 20, 2012, 07:41:29 PM »

You delight in informing a young black man that Martin Luther King was a Republican and seeing the utter shock in their eyes

Perhaps you should tell that young black man the whole story. About half of African Americans were Republican back then, with a majority of them being in the south in opposition to the "Dixiecrats", racist white southerners who voted primarily for the Democratic party. The epic shift occurred after the passing of the Civil Rights Act by LBJ, and the subsequent courting of the white racist vote by the Republican party as part of Nixon's "Southern Strategy".

Well, I could, but it woudn't be your concept of the "whole" story. It would include the complete story of how the so called southern strategy was at first laid on Goldwater's door step due to his vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act which was proclaimed as "proof" he was racist and that his appeal to states rights was futher proof that he was in favor of the continuation of Jim Crow type laws. Then I would have to include that the reality to this alleged "racism" was Goldwater's efforts to integrate the Arizona National Guard before Truman even integrated the National Armed Forces and that Goldwater voted for all previous civil rights legislation and only opposed the 1964 Act on two provisions relating to property rights that he felt were unConstitutional, believing that private businesses and clubs were subject only to market conditions, not through government intervention.

Then I would have to address the alleged racism of Nixon appealing to the exploitation of white voters built on racial tensions when the reality is that because of Nixon's stance on civil rights George Wallace felt compelled to enter the 1968 race as a third party candidate, which Nixon said that “The deep south had to be virtually conceded to George Wallace. I could not match him there without compromising on civil rights, which I would not do.”   If you will remember, it was Nixon that appealed to Eisenhower to appoint Earl Warren to the Supreme Court, that it was Nixon that was in favor of sending troops in to integrate Little Rock High, that Nixon, after being elected virtually eliminated the idea of separate but equal in the scholls in the south, going from 68% of black students attending segregrated schools when he entered the Presidency to just 9% within 5 years.

I would then have to complete your whole story with the lie that all former Dixiecrats moved to the Republican party, when the reality is that only Strom Thurman changed parties while the other major Dixiecrats, Fulbright, Wallace, Gore and Byrd remained loyal Democrats till the end.

For a post script I would then add that the epic shift in blacks voting Democrat really began with FDR and that LBJ's reward of blacks shifting was due primarily on his ability to sell the idea that it was only he and the Dems that pushed through the 1964 Act, even though it was mostly wriitten by the Republicans.

So, as it is today, great marketing led to the shift in voting stance by blacks moreso then great reality.

I am aware of all of this, but it is at least, irrelevant, and at best, overly generous. Nixon and Goldwater did adopt the southern strategy, particularly in the general election, as a pathway to the needed electoral votes to win the presidency. It doesn't mean that they were racists, it means that they were opportunists. The Democrats getting 90+ percent of the black vote wasn't a result of marketing on behalf of Democrats in the least. The Republican leadership at the time was fully aware that that would be the consequence of adopting the strategy, but chose to go forward with it because it meant a solid majority in the South that a coalition of blacks and liberal whites could not come close to overcoming. The Democrats didn't take black votes away from Republicans. The Republican party willfulKely tossed aside their record on civil rights in favor of political expediency.

It's not that it is irrelevant that's irrelevant, it's that it has been rendered irrelevant that is relevant. So what you are saying is that a pathway to the needed electoral votes was adopted utilizing a strategy that the democrats had used since the days of Woodrow Wilson and FDR and were trying to run from and that LBJ had already conceded for a generation. The Southern Strategy, I know you will find hard to believe, was a strategy built on economic principles, built on appealing to an already changing demographic in the Peripheral South and letting Wallace have the deep south.

kev, you are rewriting history with your analysis of what the Southern Strategy was. The strategy wasn't created to counter Wallace, the strategy in large part was based off of Wallace, and how he was able to appeal to southern and northern, blue collar workers. The Southern Strategy was not in play in the '68 election. It wasn't actually adopted fully by the GOP until the '72 election, and the effects weren't fully realized until the 80's.

Nixon did have a good record on civil rights policy. That is not what's being debated. What's being debated is why there was/is a perception among black voters that the Republican party turned their backs on them. That perception was created by the implementation of the Southern Strategy, the GOP's direct appeal to disgruntled former segregationists and blue collar white voters. You can try as you will to paint the GOP as some freedom fighting, pro-minority party, but the simple fact is that they chose to forgo that characterization on their own. They gave the Dems the black vote because they knew that they could pick up a more solid majority of the white vote by doing so. It is not a coincidence that the Nixon presidency was the last GOP administration to have any sort of positive affect on civil rights legislation.


CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20290
Offline
« #287 : November 20, 2012, 07:50:47 PM »

What's being debated is why there was/is a perception among black voters that the Republican party turned their backs on them. That perception was created by the implementation of the Southern Strategy, the GOP's direct appeal to disgruntled former segregationists and blue collar white voters.


^^^^^^^^^  Yeah, because, for example,  a poor uneducated black farmer in Mississippi was so keenly in tune with a claimed Washington DC political strategy that he decided "hey, the Republican Party is trying to appeal to the disgruntled former segregationists here in Mississippi and so I am going to, for the first time in my life, join the political process and the Democrats to vote against those evil Republicans who turned their back on me."   :-[

In a non-alternate universe, the poor uneducated black farmer was ATTRACTED to the Democrats "southern strategy" not repulsed by the Republican "Souther Strategy"  The perception was that the Democrats would help the farmer, not that Republicans were courting white segregationists.

Ugh . .. .

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
« #288 : November 20, 2012, 11:51:15 PM »

What's being debated is why there was/is a perception among black voters that the Republican party turned their backs on them. That perception was created by the implementation of the Southern Strategy, the GOP's direct appeal to disgruntled former segregationists and blue collar white voters.


^^^^^^^^^  Yeah, because, for example,  a poor uneducated black farmer in Mississippi was so keenly in tune with a claimed Washington DC political strategy that he decided "hey, the Republican Party is trying to appeal to the disgruntled former segregationists here in Mississippi and so I am going to, for the first time in my life, join the political process and the Democrats to vote against those evil Republicans who turned their back on me."   :-[

In a non-alternate universe, the poor uneducated black farmer was ATTRACTED to the Democrats "southern strategy" not repulsed by the Republican "Souther Strategy"  The perception was that the Democrats would help the farmer, not that Republicans were courting white segregationists.

Ugh . .. .

So do uneducated white farmers vote majority Democratic, or is it just the uneducated black ones from Mississippi that do?  ::)


JavaRay

User is banned from postingMuted
******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 17206
Offline
« #289 : November 21, 2012, 08:09:54 PM »


Last time I checked I didnt fill out what race I was on my ballot.

You don't think that the race of every registered voter is already recorded prior to you voting?   


tripblood

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2967
Offline
« #290 : November 22, 2012, 06:27:25 AM »


Last time I checked I didnt fill out what race I was on my ballot.

You don't think that the race of every registered voter is already recorded prior to you voting?   

Most American black people are part white, or Hispanic. Im considered black but thats a very narrow way of looking at if you know my mama, and history.

As to Keva's info. He has yet to provide evidence to support his claim so im still calling bullshlt.


This guy...

kevabuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2241
Offline
« #291 : November 23, 2012, 10:55:21 AM »


Last time I checked I didnt fill out what race I was on my ballot.

You don't think that the race of every registered voter is already recorded prior to you voting?   

Most American black people are part white, or Hispanic. Im considered black but thats a very narrow way of looking at if you know my mama, and history.

As to Keva's info. He has yet to provide evidence to support his claim so im still calling bullshlt.

You can call it anything you want but that doesn't mean it's true. The information you seek is called "exit polling" and it is used quite extensively in many articles. In exit polling the person doing the polling can see what race the person is while they ask them how they voted.

Here's just one for you and if your're interested just google "presidential Exit Poling Data";

http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_92.html

And here's how it is used in an article;

http://news.yahoo.com/black-voters-look-leverage-loyalty-081601828--election.html

The funny part of all this is you calling BS on my stats AFTER claiming that Clinton got just as many votes as Obama. Where did you get those "stats"? Things that make you go ...hummm.

\"The budget should be balanced; the treasury should be refilled; public debt should be reduced; and the arrogance of public officials should be controlled.\" -Cicero. 106-43 B.C.

kevabuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2241
Offline
« #292 : November 23, 2012, 11:28:29 AM »

You delight in informing a young black man that Martin Luther King was a Republican and seeing the utter shock in their eyes

Perhaps you should tell that young black man the whole story. About half of African Americans were Republican back then, with a majority of them being in the south in opposition to the "Dixiecrats", racist white southerners who voted primarily for the Democratic party. The epic shift occurred after the passing of the Civil Rights Act by LBJ, and the subsequent courting of the white racist vote by the Republican party as part of Nixon's "Southern Strategy".

Well, I could, but it woudn't be your concept of the "whole" story. It would include the complete story of how the so called southern strategy was at first laid on Goldwater's door step due to his vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act which was proclaimed as "proof" he was racist and that his appeal to states rights was futher proof that he was in favor of the continuation of Jim Crow type laws. Then I would have to include that the reality to this alleged "racism" was Goldwater's efforts to integrate the Arizona National Guard before Truman even integrated the National Armed Forces and that Goldwater voted for all previous civil rights legislation and only opposed the 1964 Act on two provisions relating to property rights that he felt were unConstitutional, believing that private businesses and clubs were subject only to market conditions, not through government intervention.

Then I would have to address the alleged racism of Nixon appealing to the exploitation of white voters built on racial tensions when the reality is that because of Nixon's stance on civil rights George Wallace felt compelled to enter the 1968 race as a third party candidate, which Nixon said that “The deep south had to be virtually conceded to George Wallace. I could not match him there without compromising on civil rights, which I would not do.”   If you will remember, it was Nixon that appealed to Eisenhower to appoint Earl Warren to the Supreme Court, that it was Nixon that was in favor of sending troops in to integrate Little Rock High, that Nixon, after being elected virtually eliminated the idea of separate but equal in the scholls in the south, going from 68% of black students attending segregrated schools when he entered the Presidency to just 9% within 5 years.

I would then have to complete your whole story with the lie that all former Dixiecrats moved to the Republican party, when the reality is that only Strom Thurman changed parties while the other major Dixiecrats, Fulbright, Wallace, Gore and Byrd remained loyal Democrats till the end.

For a post script I would then add that the epic shift in blacks voting Democrat really began with FDR and that LBJ's reward of blacks shifting was due primarily on his ability to sell the idea that it was only he and the Dems that pushed through the 1964 Act, even though it was mostly wriitten by the Republicans.

So, as it is today, great marketing led to the shift in voting stance by blacks moreso then great reality.

I am aware of all of this, but it is at least, irrelevant, and at best, overly generous. Nixon and Goldwater did adopt the southern strategy, particularly in the general election, as a pathway to the needed electoral votes to win the presidency. It doesn't mean that they were racists, it means that they were opportunists. The Democrats getting 90+ percent of the black vote wasn't a result of marketing on behalf of Democrats in the least. The Republican leadership at the time was fully aware that that would be the consequence of adopting the strategy, but chose to go forward with it because it meant a solid majority in the South that a coalition of blacks and liberal whites could not come close to overcoming. The Democrats didn't take black votes away from Republicans. The Republican party willfulKely tossed aside their record on civil rights in favor of political expediency.

It's not that it is irrelevant that's irrelevant, it's that it has been rendered irrelevant that is relevant. So what you are saying is that a pathway to the needed electoral votes was adopted utilizing a strategy that the democrats had used since the days of Woodrow Wilson and FDR and were trying to run from and that LBJ had already conceded for a generation. The Southern Strategy, I know you will find hard to believe, was a strategy built on economic principles, built on appealing to an already changing demographic in the Peripheral South and letting Wallace have the deep south.

kev, you are rewriting history with your analysis of what the Southern Strategy was. The strategy wasn't created to counter Wallace, the strategy in large part was based off of Wallace, and how he was able to appeal to southern and northern, blue collar workers. The Southern Strategy was not in play in the '68 election. It wasn't actually adopted fully by the GOP until the '72 election, and the effects weren't fully realized until the 80's.

Nixon did have a good record on civil rights policy. That is not what's being debated. What's being debated is why there was/is a perception among black voters that the Republican party turned their backs on them. That perception was created by the implementation of the Southern Strategy, the GOP's direct appeal to disgruntled former segregationists and blue collar white voters. You can try as you will to paint the GOP as some freedom fighting, pro-minority party, but the simple fact is that they chose to forgo that characterization on their own. They gave the Dems the black vote because they knew that they could pick up a more solid majority of the white vote by doing so. It is not a coincidence that the Nixon presidency was the last GOP administration to have any sort of positive affect on civil rights legislation.

First off, hope you had a nice Thanksgiving and if not for such a busy time of year at work I would have responded earlier. I don't know if rewrite history is correct or if adding an often overlooked theory into the mix of accepted history isn't more to the point. These ideas aren't new and are part of the same history that is widely proscribed that you accept. I just find it all too convenient, especially when you consider the dividends that it has paid to the Democratic party. It is amazing how this idea fits so perfectly in context to Hayek's discussion on "The End of Truth", that it warrents a full discussion, one that I am not given the time to expand on right now.

I do believe that both partes are not able to contain themselves from immoral activities that seem to be thrown into their lap.

\"The budget should be balanced; the treasury should be refilled; public debt should be reduced; and the arrogance of public officials should be controlled.\" -Cicero. 106-43 B.C.

Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 17846
Online
« #293 : November 23, 2012, 06:49:19 PM »

What's being debated is why there was/is a perception among black voters that the Republican party turned their backs on them. That perception was created by the implementation of the Southern Strategy, the GOP's direct appeal to disgruntled former segregationists and blue collar white voters.


^^^^^^^^^  Yeah, because, for example,  a poor uneducated black farmer in Mississippi was so keenly in tune with a claimed Washington DC political strategy that he decided "hey, the Republican Party is trying to appeal to the disgruntled former segregationists here in Mississippi and so I am going to, for the first time in my life, join the political process and the Democrats to vote against those evil Republicans who turned their back on me."   :-[

In a non-alternate universe, the poor uneducated black farmer was ATTRACTED to the Democrats "southern strategy" not repulsed by the Republican "Souther Strategy"  The perception was that the Democrats would help the farmer, not that Republicans were courting white segregationists.

Ugh . .. .

Funny , these voters didn't once mention the " southern strategy ".....


What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

tripblood

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2967
Offline
« #294 : November 24, 2012, 08:44:31 AM »


Last time I checked I didnt fill out what race I was on my ballot.

You don't think that the race of every registered voter is already recorded prior to you voting?   

Most American black people are part white, or Hispanic. Im considered black but thats a very narrow way of looking at if you know my mama, and history.

As to Keva's info. He has yet to provide evidence to support his claim so im still calling bullshlt.

You can call it anything you want but that doesn't mean it's true. The information you seek is called "exit polling" and it is used quite extensively in many articles. In exit polling the person doing the polling can see what race the person is while they ask them how they voted.

Here's just one for you and if your're interested just google "presidential Exit Poling Data";

http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_92.html

And here's how it is used in an article;

http://news.yahoo.com/black-voters-look-leverage-loyalty-081601828--election.html

The funny part of all this is you calling BS on my stats AFTER claiming that Clinton got just as many votes as Obama. Where did you get those "stats"? Things that make you go ...hummm.

Thank you for clarifying that you have no basis. Neither of those links back up your claim of Obama voters. "95% of blacks" voted for him , remember?? I want those numbers

Only thing you did was show me a poll from 20 years ago.


This guy...

Chief Joseph

User is banned from postingMuted
******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4309
Offline
« #295 : November 27, 2012, 10:06:05 AM »


 " In an effort to end this pointless back and forth, the fact that they have kids is irrelevant to the point. "

No, it's precisely the point. Trying to remove the consequences of acting irresponsibly, while at the same time removing the rewards for acting responsibly, pushes the affected populace towards irresponsibility. But then that's precisely what the Democrats want, a nation of irresponsible voters forced to rely on them.

Illuminator is a good poster. He sticks to his guns and makes good points. Some don\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t like that.

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
« #296 : November 27, 2012, 05:27:35 PM »


 " In an effort to end this pointless back and forth, the fact that they have kids is irrelevant to the point. "

No, it's precisely the point. Trying to remove the consequences of acting irresponsibly, while at the same time removing the rewards for acting responsibly, pushes the affected populace towards irresponsibility. But then that's precisely what the Democrats want, a nation of irresponsible voters forced to rely on them.

No, it isn't the point. The point is that it is an impossibility to support yourself, much less a family, on a job that pays $7.25 an hour. The point is that unless you want to see an ever increasing number of people receiving government assistance, you need to increase the minimum wage to at least rise along with the rate of inflation.

You are trying to make a different point. Some would call it a "talking point". They would be right. In the real world, people are going to drop out of high school, or opt not to go to college or learn a trade. In the real world, poor people are going to have sex, sometimes unprotected sex, and babies will be the result. If there were any society that existed in the world where nobody did these things, then there wouldn't be anyone working as cashiers or fry cooks.

If you want these people to not need to rely on the government, you need to make self reliance an achievable option. The vast majority of these people aren't going to pull themselves up from their bootstraps, go to college, get their MBA, and go and work in the front office of a fortune 500 company. So the logical option would be to make it so that the jobs that the people who are receiving assistance are likely most qualified for are jobs that they can actually support families on.

No one is arguing that these people deserve to be living in gated communities and driving a Volvo SUV. But at least making enough money to realistically be able to afford rent, food, clothes, some kind of transportation to get back and forth to work, utilities, and daycare so that they can actually work full time even if they have kids, seems like a good place to start. Heaven forbid if that means that a Big Mac might cost a few extra cents.
« : November 27, 2012, 05:33:25 PM CBWx2 »


wreck ship

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2163
Offline
« #297 : November 27, 2012, 05:33:02 PM »


 " In an effort to end this pointless back and forth, the fact that they have kids is irrelevant to the point. "

No, it's precisely the point. Trying to remove the consequences of acting irresponsibly, while at the same time removing the rewards for acting responsibly, pushes the affected populace towards irresponsibility. But then that's precisely what the Democrats want, a nation of irresponsible voters forced to rely on them.

No, it isn't the point. The point is that it is an impossibility to support yourself, much less a family, on a job that pays $7.25 an hour. The point is that unless you want to see an ever increasing number of people receiving government assistance, you need to increase the minimum wage to at least rise along with the rate of inflation.

You are trying to make a different point. Some would call it a "talking point". They would be right. In the real world, people are going to drop out of high school, or opt not to go to college or learn a trade. In the real world, poor people are going to have sex, sometimes unprotected sex, and babies will be the result. If there were any society that existed in the world where nobody did these things, then there wouldn't be anyone working as cashiers or fry cooks.

If you want these people to not need to rely on the government, you need to make self reliance a viable option. The vast majority of these people aren't going to pull themselves up from their bootstraps, go to college, get their MBA, and go and work in the front office of a fortune 500 company. So the logical option would be to make it so that the jobs that the people who are receiving assistance are likely most qualified for are jobs that they can actually support families on.

No one is arguing that these people deserve to be living in gated communities and driving a Volvo SUV. But at least making enough money to realistically be able to afford rent, food, clothes, some kind of transportation to get back and forth to work, utilities, and daycare so that they can actually work full time even if they have kids, seems like a good place to start. Heaven forbid if that means that a Big Mac might cost a few extra cents.
+1. you should have used gifs and pics as dilluminate struggles with reading comprehension

philosophy is questions that may never be answered
religion is answers that may never be questioned

Chief Joseph

User is banned from postingMuted
******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4309
Offline
« #298 : November 27, 2012, 05:35:44 PM »

 
 " The point is that it is an impossibility to support yourself, much less a family, on a job that pays $7.25 an hour."

 It's probably not a good idea to start a family you can't support then, is it? But nothing to worry about if the load for your irresponsible decisions falls on other people's shoulders.

Illuminator is a good poster. He sticks to his guns and makes good points. Some don\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t like that.

Chief Joseph

User is banned from postingMuted
******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4309
Offline
« #299 : November 27, 2012, 05:39:27 PM »


The poor aren't breeding fast enough?

Subsidize them!

Illuminator is a good poster. He sticks to his guns and makes good points. Some don\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t like that.
  Page: 1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 ... 42
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Customer paid for groceries with food stamps, walked into parking lot and... « previous next »
:  

Hide Tools Show Tools