T
TRGLDTE
Guest
Show me my own words. Either put up or shut up, dummy.
That is your Freudian projection regarding the ability of blacks, not mine, racist pig.
How Democrats harm blacks
- Thread starter Little-Acorn
- Start date
Kamala Trump
Verified User
That's a side topic. Is it your position that existence of nations should be determined by popular global concensus? or merely elite opinion?
Then what is your point about bringing up the infrastructure of zimbabwe or wherever? Do you have one?
T
TRGLDTE
Guest
I thought not, Dummy.
South Africa is prospering and growing.
The infrastructure of Zimbabwe has been neglected, butchered, and destroyed.
The infrastructure of South Africa has been consciously maintained and expanded.
Sierra Leone and Liberia are overpopulated. Adding more people will collapse the weak infrastructure; starvation and death will follow. If the idea of displacing people to another country is to work, then it is only fair to ensure that the displaced have a good chance to survive and thrive. (I am not an advocate of displacement. I am just pondering the conditions that would need to exist to make it work.)
Zimbabwe is starving and dying.
South Africa is prospering and growing.
The infrastructure of Zimbabwe has been neglected, butchered, and destroyed.
The infrastructure of South Africa has been consciously maintained and expanded.
Sierra Leone and Liberia are overpopulated. Adding more people will collapse the weak infrastructure; starvation and death will follow. If the idea of displacing people to another country is to work, then it is only fair to ensure that the displaced have a good chance to survive and thrive. (I am not an advocate of displacement. I am just pondering the conditions that would need to exist to make it work.)
Last edited:
Kamala Trump
Verified User
Kamala Trump
Verified User
Freedom seems like "chaos" to totalitarians.
Like always say, many prefer the straight path of tyranny to the many unknowns of freedom.
Like always say, many prefer the straight path of tyranny to the many unknowns of freedom.
Quote:
You cannot dispute the truth of the facts listed above. They are accurate and you do not dispute them. Who knows why they do vote Democrat. The Democrat Party has not done much to actually help them. If you step back and take a good hard look, it looks like the Democrat Party uses them as a group. The War on Poverty has been going on for years and to hear Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton speak, nothing has gotten better. According to them, racism against Blacks is rampant and everywhere and live in poverty conditions by no fault of their own.
Originally Posted by PorterM View Post
President Bush's tax cuts helped them. The many tax cuts that were given to corporations gave them spending capital to afford to hire more people and middle and upper class Blacks were included in this group. More blacks, along with every other minority, are successful and living a high standard of living that would have been unthinkable before Republicans passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. There are more Black millionaires today than ever before, probably in the history of the world and that is thanks to the high level of independence that is at the core of Conservatism rather than the increasing level of dependency brought about by Liberals policies.
How would these upwardly mobile Blacks do with a 70% tax rate as was the case under Jimmy Carter in 1980? Would they be as successful? Of course not. Under Conservative policies, they are able to keep more of the fruits of their labor and as it should be rather than taking that wealth away as some penalty for being successful.
President Bush's tax cuts helped them. The many tax cuts that were given to corporations gave them spending capital to afford to hire more people and middle and upper class Blacks were included in this group. More blacks, along with every other minority, are successful and living a high standard of living that would have been unthinkable before Republicans passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. There are more Black millionaires today than ever before, probably in the history of the world and that is thanks to the high level of independence that is at the core of Conservatism rather than the increasing level of dependency brought about by Liberals policies.
How would these upwardly mobile Blacks do with a 70% tax rate as was the case under Jimmy Carter in 1980? Would they be as successful? Of course not. Under Conservative policies, they are able to keep more of the fruits of their labor and as it should be rather than taking that wealth away as some penalty for being successful.
You cannot dispute the truth of the facts listed above. They are accurate and you do not dispute them. Who knows why they do vote Democrat. The Democrat Party has not done much to actually help them. If you step back and take a good hard look, it looks like the Democrat Party uses them as a group. The War on Poverty has been going on for years and to hear Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton speak, nothing has gotten better. According to them, racism against Blacks is rampant and everywhere and live in poverty conditions by no fault of their own.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
This in spite of the fact that the VAST majority of weed smokers are not black.
Kamala Trump
Verified User
Antiaris Toxicaria
Unique
My point is that those countries have already been established by Britain and America. History lessons are fun!
Kamala Trump
Verified User
Are they explicitly for blacks? Do we guarantee to their military dominance over the rest of the region, despite the wishes of neighboring nations? Do we give them the level of military support we give israel? Do all politicians make support for sierra leone a key plank in their platform? Has the Sierra Leone Lobby Hijacked our government? Let's take the analogy all the way. That's more fun.
Antiaris Toxicaria
Unique
Yes, at their creation they were specifically for freed slaves that wished to return to Africa.
We used our military to create them until they could maintain the country (to varying degrees of success) on their own.
Good Luck
New member
The average democrat has high ideals, and are genuinely concerned about economic equality. (something that can never actually happen without a totalitarian state, and when there is a totalitarian state, those in power grab all the wealth any way.)
The democratic party is a different matter. The democratic party is about political power. To maintain political power, they need a dependable voting base. I have explained this in other threads about the welfare system. Assistance programs are a deliberately designed trap, giving just enough so the recipients have a standard of living above what they would have starting out on their own. That is the rub - it is above what they would have STARTING OUT on their own. But instead of starting out low and, through effort and determination, slowly but surely climbing the economic ladder, they become mired in the assistance programs, unable to move upward because the way the system is design, when they help themselves they lose more in benefits than they gain in self reliance. So they, naturally, take the route that gives them the best return: which is to stay on assistance. The democratic party knows this, and deliberately keeps it that way. It is not aimed, specifically, at minorities, but it ends up hitting minorities harder because they are more likely to qualify.
There are, however, programs which ARE aimed at minorities. These programs are, again, specifically designed to gather a voting base while in actuality doing little to address the problems which they are advertised. Laws which prohibit racism or gender bias are good laws. Programs which require preferential treatment of minorities are no better than the old laws which allowed preferential treatment of whites.
But the democratic party is successful because they advertise their programs as helping the poor and minorities. People vote democratic because that is where the helping programs are initiated. Most people of all economic status vote for short term gains becauase long term gains are amorphous and not guaranteed. So the poor vote for better assistance, even while realizing better assistance remains an economic trap. Minorities vote for the short term "equalization" programs, even while realizing they do little good. Because the APPEARANCE of doing something, even if ineffectual, makes for a better feeling than "doing nothing" the republican party is famous for.
(Aside to BAC:
Additionally, for all of Bush's many faults, his administration has put more blacks in high positions than any 5 previous administrations you care to name combined.
The republican party may have a (well deserved?) reputation for taking a "do nothing" policy on issues of the poor and minorities, but any accusation that a minority belonging to the republican party is under a glass ceiling is a flat lie.
The democratic party is a different matter. The democratic party is about political power. To maintain political power, they need a dependable voting base. I have explained this in other threads about the welfare system. Assistance programs are a deliberately designed trap, giving just enough so the recipients have a standard of living above what they would have starting out on their own. That is the rub - it is above what they would have STARTING OUT on their own. But instead of starting out low and, through effort and determination, slowly but surely climbing the economic ladder, they become mired in the assistance programs, unable to move upward because the way the system is design, when they help themselves they lose more in benefits than they gain in self reliance. So they, naturally, take the route that gives them the best return: which is to stay on assistance. The democratic party knows this, and deliberately keeps it that way. It is not aimed, specifically, at minorities, but it ends up hitting minorities harder because they are more likely to qualify.
There are, however, programs which ARE aimed at minorities. These programs are, again, specifically designed to gather a voting base while in actuality doing little to address the problems which they are advertised. Laws which prohibit racism or gender bias are good laws. Programs which require preferential treatment of minorities are no better than the old laws which allowed preferential treatment of whites.
But the democratic party is successful because they advertise their programs as helping the poor and minorities. People vote democratic because that is where the helping programs are initiated. Most people of all economic status vote for short term gains becauase long term gains are amorphous and not guaranteed. So the poor vote for better assistance, even while realizing better assistance remains an economic trap. Minorities vote for the short term "equalization" programs, even while realizing they do little good. Because the APPEARANCE of doing something, even if ineffectual, makes for a better feeling than "doing nothing" the republican party is famous for.
(Aside to BAC:
That is an absolute, outright lie, and you know it. If Colin Powell were to run he'd have the republican nomination in a heartbeat. AND, he would gather a HUGE block of independent voters right out of the gate. Just because Powell won't run does not mean it is not possible for a black to run for President under the republican ticket.
Additionally, for all of Bush's many faults, his administration has put more blacks in high positions than any 5 previous administrations you care to name combined.
The republican party may have a (well deserved?) reputation for taking a "do nothing" policy on issues of the poor and minorities, but any accusation that a minority belonging to the republican party is under a glass ceiling is a flat lie.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Hey Good Luck, when you die, could you please tell me what hell looks like? TY.
Last edited:
Kamala Trump
Verified User
But do they today have a race based policy of instant citizenship for blacks only? Can any black go there and instantly be a citizen, while a white would have more hurdles to go through?
But TODAY are they totally dependant on us for security? And has their lobby hijacked our government? Step into the now, gomer.
Kamala Trump
Verified User
What have we done for them lately. And is black nationalism wrong?
Why would pigmentation be a reason for the creation of a nation any more than ethnicity based in religion?
Kamala Trump
Verified User
Why would it be less?
"In the late 1940s President Truman, a Democrat, decided it was time to racially integrate the armed forces, causing outrage among some white Southern Democrats. As if this weren't enough, in 1948 the Democratic Party publicly declared its support for the civil rights movement. That was more than some white Southern Democrats could stomach, so they formed a "states rights" ticket that was appropriately labeled the Dixiecrats.
In the mid 1960s, the Dixicrats switched from the Democratic to the Republican Party to assist Barry Goldwater in his unsuccessful bid for the presidency against Lyndon Johnson. They were, however, pivotal in the Southern strategy that won the White House for Richard M. Nixon in 1968. President Reagan, a Republican, is credited with bringing all factions of the Republican right-wing conservative movement together, steeped in the Dixiecrat states' rights tradition.
During Reagan's administration, the issues and concerns of the Dixiecrats became principally those of the Republican Party. It was precisely at this juncture that the Republican Party ceased being the Party of Lincoln and evolved into what it is today to the vast majority of black America -- almost racially exclusive and dedicated to protecting and maintaining the status quo. In this context, it is difficult to imagine how the average civil rights-sensitive black citizen could blend in to today's Republican Party. "
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/135075_oscareason15.html
In the mid 1960s, the Dixicrats switched from the Democratic to the Republican Party to assist Barry Goldwater in his unsuccessful bid for the presidency against Lyndon Johnson. They were, however, pivotal in the Southern strategy that won the White House for Richard M. Nixon in 1968. President Reagan, a Republican, is credited with bringing all factions of the Republican right-wing conservative movement together, steeped in the Dixiecrat states' rights tradition.
During Reagan's administration, the issues and concerns of the Dixiecrats became principally those of the Republican Party. It was precisely at this juncture that the Republican Party ceased being the Party of Lincoln and evolved into what it is today to the vast majority of black America -- almost racially exclusive and dedicated to protecting and maintaining the status quo. In this context, it is difficult to imagine how the average civil rights-sensitive black citizen could blend in to today's Republican Party. "
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/135075_oscareason15.html
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Let's see .. where to begin .. so many falsehoods ..
Your assertion that Powell would get the nomination "in a heartbeat" is ridiculous .. and Powell knows it. Of course his wife thinks he'd be killed if he did. Powell is even more moderate than McCain and he has tried to wash his hands of Iraq and said that he didn't believe the trumped up "evidence" of WMD. Of course, he came to this awakening after he had a hand in the mass-murder of innocent people. He's trying to wash the blood of tens of thousands of dead and wounded US soldiers off his hand.
Are there ANY black republicans in Congress .. after JC Watts got tired of being "the spook that sat by the door?"
No need to get into a long conversation with you about this because you don't have the slightest fucking clue what you're talking about and I find your comments bordering on racist. You don't have the first goddamn clue what motivates black people.
Additionally, I'll say this again, you're spouting this bullshit in the face of a complete meltdown of the Republican Party and with WHITE republicans running away from the party.
I find your comments not only racist, but totally brainless in the face of an unndeniable reality.
I'm having to revisit my comment that you may be an honest poster.