Katrina Damage
- Thread starter BillyBob
- Start date
PureX
Well-known member
Just as many conservatives are racist as liberals. The truth is that most white people are racist. And although they won't admit it, it shows up in their actions all the time, and that includes the actions of politicans and city planners. Your whining about liberals is a pathetic attempt at avoiding the obvious.drbrumley said:
BillyBob is a racist and a fool.drbrumley said:
Whites need fewer handouts because they already own everything. They already have all the good jobs, and the valuable property, and the positions of power so they can write the laws in their own favor. Black people are mostly locked out of the economics game, and they know it. Oh, sure, if a black man or woman acts white enough and doesn't do anything to upset the white culture's comfort zone, then maybe one or two of them will be let into the race for the brass ring on an equal basis, but most black people won't acquesce like so many organ-grinder monkeys, and so they frighten the white power class, and they are resented and looked down on for it. In a word, they're resented because they won't play the "white way is the right way" game. And they're locked out of the system as a result. And everyone knows it. They're given the worst jobs if they're given any job at all. They're given the worst of everything if they're given anything at all. And then we blame it all on them, because they won't be white.
It's not about liberals and conservatives. It's all about racism.
Last edited:
PureX
Well-known member
Any way that doesn't threaten the comfort zone of the white people in power. Mostly it means dress, talk, think, and act unthreateningly "like your white bosses want you to act". You know, like Colin Powell or Condi Rice. Most black people can't or won't do that, and we fear and resent them because of it.drbrumley said:
drbrumley
Well-known member
[www.CapMag.com]
If you listened to the rhetoric of black politicians and civil rights leaders, dating back to the Reagan years, you would have been convinced that surely by now black Americans would be back on the plantation. According to them, President Reagan, and later Presidents Bush I and II, would turn back the clock on civil rights. They'd appoint "new racists" dressed in three-piece suits to act through the courts and administrative agencies to reverse black civil rights and economic gains. We can now recognize this rhetoric as the political equivalent of the "rope-a-dope."
As my colleague Tom Sowell pointed out in a recent column, "Liberals, Race and History," if the Democratic party's share of the black vote ever fell to even 70 percent, it's not likely that the Democrats would ever win the White House or Congress again. The strategy liberal Democrats have chosen, to prevent loss of the black vote, is to keep blacks paranoid and in a constant state of fear. But is it fear of racists, or being driven back to the plantation, that should be a top priority for blacks? Let's look at it.
Only 30 to 40 percent of black males graduate from high school.
Many of those who do graduate emerge with reading and math skills of a white seventh- or eighth-grader. This is true in cities where a black is mayor, a black is superintendent of schools and the majority of principals and teachers are black. It's also true in cities where the per pupil education expenditures are among the highest in the nation.
Across the U.S., black males represent up to 70 percent of prison populations. Are they in prison for crimes against whites? To the contrary, their victims are primarily other blacks. Department of Justice statistics for 2001 show that in nearly 80 percent of violent crimes against blacks, both the victim and the perpetrator were the same race. In other words, it's not Reaganites, Bush supporters, right-wing ideologues or the Klan causing blacks to live in fear of their lives and property and making their neighborhoods economic wastelands.
What about the decline of the black family? In 1960, only 28 percent of black females between the ages of 15 and 44 were never married.
Today, it's 56 percent. In 1940, the illegitimacy rate among blacks was 19 percent, in 1960, 22 percent, and today, it's 70 percent. Some argue that the state of the black family is the result of the legacy of slavery, discrimination and poverty. That has to be nonsense. A study of 1880 family structure in Philadelphia shows that three-quarters of black families were nuclear families, comprised of two parents and children. In New York City in 1925, 85 percent of kin-related black households had two parents. In fact, according to Herbert Gutman in "The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom: 1750-1925," "Five in six children under the age of 6 lived with both parents." Therefore, if one argues that what we see today is a result of a legacy of slavery, discrimination and poverty, what's the explanation for stronger black families at a time much closer to slavery -- a time of much greater discrimination and of much greater poverty? I think that a good part of the answer is there were no welfare and Great Society programs.
Since black politicians and the civil rights establishment preach victimhood to blacks, I'd prefer that they be more explicit when they appear in public fora. Were they to be so, saying racists are responsible for black illegitimacy, blacks preying on other blacks and black family breakdown, their victimhood message would be revealed as idiotic. But being so explicit is not as far-fetched as one might think. In a campaign speech before a predominantly black audience, in reference to so many blacks in prison, presidential candidate John Kerry said, "That's unacceptable, but it's not their fault."
If you listened to the rhetoric of black politicians and civil rights leaders, dating back to the Reagan years, you would have been convinced that surely by now black Americans would be back on the plantation. According to them, President Reagan, and later Presidents Bush I and II, would turn back the clock on civil rights. They'd appoint "new racists" dressed in three-piece suits to act through the courts and administrative agencies to reverse black civil rights and economic gains. We can now recognize this rhetoric as the political equivalent of the "rope-a-dope."
As my colleague Tom Sowell pointed out in a recent column, "Liberals, Race and History," if the Democratic party's share of the black vote ever fell to even 70 percent, it's not likely that the Democrats would ever win the White House or Congress again. The strategy liberal Democrats have chosen, to prevent loss of the black vote, is to keep blacks paranoid and in a constant state of fear. But is it fear of racists, or being driven back to the plantation, that should be a top priority for blacks? Let's look at it.
Only 30 to 40 percent of black males graduate from high school.
Many of those who do graduate emerge with reading and math skills of a white seventh- or eighth-grader. This is true in cities where a black is mayor, a black is superintendent of schools and the majority of principals and teachers are black. It's also true in cities where the per pupil education expenditures are among the highest in the nation.
Across the U.S., black males represent up to 70 percent of prison populations. Are they in prison for crimes against whites? To the contrary, their victims are primarily other blacks. Department of Justice statistics for 2001 show that in nearly 80 percent of violent crimes against blacks, both the victim and the perpetrator were the same race. In other words, it's not Reaganites, Bush supporters, right-wing ideologues or the Klan causing blacks to live in fear of their lives and property and making their neighborhoods economic wastelands.
What about the decline of the black family? In 1960, only 28 percent of black females between the ages of 15 and 44 were never married.
Today, it's 56 percent. In 1940, the illegitimacy rate among blacks was 19 percent, in 1960, 22 percent, and today, it's 70 percent. Some argue that the state of the black family is the result of the legacy of slavery, discrimination and poverty. That has to be nonsense. A study of 1880 family structure in Philadelphia shows that three-quarters of black families were nuclear families, comprised of two parents and children. In New York City in 1925, 85 percent of kin-related black households had two parents. In fact, according to Herbert Gutman in "The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom: 1750-1925," "Five in six children under the age of 6 lived with both parents." Therefore, if one argues that what we see today is a result of a legacy of slavery, discrimination and poverty, what's the explanation for stronger black families at a time much closer to slavery -- a time of much greater discrimination and of much greater poverty? I think that a good part of the answer is there were no welfare and Great Society programs.
Since black politicians and the civil rights establishment preach victimhood to blacks, I'd prefer that they be more explicit when they appear in public fora. Were they to be so, saying racists are responsible for black illegitimacy, blacks preying on other blacks and black family breakdown, their victimhood message would be revealed as idiotic. But being so explicit is not as far-fetched as one might think. In a campaign speech before a predominantly black audience, in reference to so many blacks in prison, presidential candidate John Kerry said, "That's unacceptable, but it's not their fault."
PureX
Well-known member
I've seen at least six posts in the last 36 hours from you spouting off about how we should all notice that the looters are all black and how they should all be shot, while purposely and repeatedly ignoring every other aspect of the situation. Those were the posts of a fool and a racist.BillyBob said:
PureX said:
That happens to be the reality of the situation.
I would call for the shooting of any looter, regardless of race. That proves that I am not a racists. Of course, you are more interested in clouding the discussion with accusations of racism than dealing with reality.
Such as WHAT?????
Pointing out the obvious to a liberal is going to be met with personal derision because reality does not support the liberal agenda. It's their only defense. :loser:
I'll wait for your apology...[but I don't expect it]
truthteller86
New member
:madmad: :bang: :madmad: - The Mayor of New Orleans in response to the lack of response !
PureX
Well-known member
Yeah, I heard him earlier, today. He finally lost patience with bureaucratic incompetence. Who can blame him? We spent all this money on "homeland security" to help prepare us for emergencies and all it seems to have succeeded in doing was waste a lot of money and add another useless layer of bureaucracy to the response process.truthteller86 said:
PureX
Well-known member
Gettin' a little turned on, are ya'?BillyBob said:
Actually, the whole homeland security thing would be just as big a useless bamboozle if it were instituted by democrats. Both parties think that making more government and wasting lots of money is the solution to everything.