Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 61 to 68 of 68

Thread: Nationwide riots are the price of liberalism

  1. #61
    Originally Posted by wasilla View Post
    Originally Posted by dannyj View Post
    Originally Posted by wasilla View Post

    Makes sense. I see I didn't segue into the question. If anyone has a link to it, I'd like to see it too.
    Wasilla - here is a link.

    https://thebl.com/politics/rasmussen...f-rioting.html

    Something else stood out in your post the other day regarding that poll and my "joke" about the lack of coverage. You said:

    You were right that I wouldn't see it on MSNBC


    So you seem to acknowledge that MSNBC would not even show a favorable black support Trump poll.
    The lie of omission, not just about a poll like this, but about countless other examples show that MSNBC will only air "news" that harms the president.
    I'm saying I didn't see the poll on MSNBC. Can't say it wasn't covered at all, but I haven't seen it. Just like you joked I wouldn't. MSNBC does not just air news that harms the president. As I indicated, I had seen the job's report, and no one was accusing it of being a fake report. Later information was added that furloughed workers were mistakenly put in as employed numbers. No one was attacking the office of producing pro-Trump propaganda. It was reported as an honest mistake that will be corrected in next month's report. Do you recall what commentators on Fox were saying about positive job reports 4 years ago?

    I strive to be an honest broker of information dannyj. I'm comfortable enough with what I believe to listen to people who disagree with me. I have little tolerance for alternate facts, I don't think that facts are relative. I do have a lot of tolerance for admitting that I'm wrong. I do think that there are facts that I don't know about. and learning them may change what I believe. We aren't going to agree what every fact means though. I suspect that a poll that shows 40% Black support for Trump is an outlier. MSNBC anchors may think the same thing. If it is accurately representing a surge in Black support for Trump then other polls will pick up on it and it will become lead stories on MSNBC. You would have heard about it before me, but I would learn about it. Since I like to learn about things sooner than later, I asked you about the link and appreciate you responding.

    If you want to respectfully ask me if I know about certain facts that you think may be opinion changing, I can play along. Doesn't mean that I'll agree with you about what mean. There are even several things presented on this board as fact that are actually counterfactual. I don't think you were being disrespectful in your question, but you hung a lot of baggage onto it. We could just ask each other if we know things and let history play out as to what was relevant and what was concealed.

    I understand that I'm dismissed by many, and perhaps most on this board as just some dumbshit libtard who has to lie, only listen to liars, and strive to hide my ignorance. This differs from the opinion I have of myself. I'm a cop's kid from a conservative family, who lives in a very conservative community in a conservative state. I taught largely conservative inmates, run by a conservative staff, overseen by a conservative DOC administration. A big part of my job was helping my students make changes to make successful transitions. I was pretty good at that. This success required learning about what my students and reasoning with them. So the conservative people who thought that people could change and the world would be a better place if they did would value what I did. The conservatives who thought that Inmates were life long sacks of shit who deserved to be demeaned and disrespected, wished I'd just go away.

    I keep on saying conservatives, right? My life hasn't allowed for a progressive vs conservative divide. The prison reform that me and my progressive friends embraced was brought into Alaska by conservatives for fiscal reasons. My state took a lot of advice from Texas who had previously discovered that "lock them up and throw away the key" sounded tough, but rehabilitation was a lot cheaper. I'm trying to hint that there is value in actually knowing and talking to people you disagree with politically. It reduces the animosity, moderates extremes, and allows for a more complete flow of information. Oftentimes conservatives and progressives are actually aiming at the same thing. These conservatives I've known often disagree with me. Some will consider what I say, and some have already made up their minds. What's interesting is that none of them accuse me of being stupid, dishonest, uninformed, cherry picking facts, or consulting some playbook. I'm not sure why so many people are so reluctant to engage a person over what he actually says and believes, as opposed to some caricature.

    I'm not a good enough writer to convey tone. I'm not angry or dismissive of you dannyj. I disagree strongly with your characterization of an unreported poll equaling a lie of omission. Fox news conducts solid polls. I would not expect them to report every poll result that reports a surprising Biden surge. I would expect them to report that surge if it was subsequently supported by other polls. If they are going to report a poll that may well be an outlier, they will also want to compare it to other poll results and explain the concept of outliers to their viewers. News days are a bit crowded for that now days. Much of the rest of what I've written here is not inspired by you specifically, but this board in general.

    Take care.

    Thanks Wasilla. Great post.

    Point taken about my characterization of an unreported poll equaling a lie of omission. I will say that I strongly believe that at least a couple (CNN & MSNBC) networks due to their hosts open contempt and hatred of the president constantly push negative stories and many (often) times don’t report the positive ones as they relate to trump. The lie of omission. And let’s face it, that’s what sells. Their audiences in general don’t like trump.

    For what it’s worth I don’t have a problem with you at all. I kinda appreciate your style compared to others and though we probably don’t see eye to eye much on politics, that’s ok we don’t have to. That’s what makes a market.

  2. #62
    Originally Posted by DGenBen View Post
    Originally Posted by Bob21 View Post
    When I saw this article, I thought about two of our resident bleeding heart liberals, accountinquestion and MidWest Player.

    Minneapolis has elected Democrat Mayors for 50 years so this is what they get. I guess liberals like riots, since they see it as just another form of protest, and we all know liberals love to protest, even when they are in control of the government. There are some real good nuggets in here.

    https://nypost.com/2020/05/31/george...ralism-devine/
    The case against liberals on how they have managed big cities is a strong case. Particularly over regulation, underfunded pensions, and although corruption happens on both sides, it does appear on the surface more prevalent in cities run by Dems.

    To be fair though cities were dealt a very tough hand. After WW2 whites moved out of the cities for suburbs and recall that at that time until around the 70s I believe, suburbs had racial restrictions so even successful black had difficult moving out of the inner cities.

    Cities lost their manufacturing bases, their infrastructures are usually extremely old with most American cities dating back to the 1800s. Cities generally didnít elect Democrats and become shitholes. They became shitholes and then elected Dems because rightly or wrongly poor people believe Dems better represent their interests.

    Would riots be lessened and cities have done better under Repbulican control? Some things may have been better, but look at the 1992 riots which also spread nationwide

    At the time LA had a conservative Republican police chief Darryl Gates who had ran the department since the 70s and he was not known as a soft on crime guy. In fact at that time California had a Republican governor and the President was George HW Bush.

    Sure the LA mayor was a Dem, but so what? The police department had much more control over the law and order situation and in LA at that time the Police Chief was independent of the mayor.

    Point being while liberals have plenty of faults (and are funner to pick on as they make themselves easy targets) you are kidding yourself if you think all of these problems would just magically go away under Republicans. Although it is possible they could improve over a long period of time, or they could remain the same, or they could actually get worse.
    I have some time so I wanted to respond to DGenBen's post since it was very naive. Of course, the problems won't go away magically under Republicans. I mean liberals have spent 50 years creating the shitholes in our inner city, so it's not going away if we started electing Republicans tomorrow in all our cities.

    And it's unfair to blame conservative cities for some of their problems, since many of their problems were created by our liberal Federal government. Lyndon Johnson was responsible for a lot of it, but some of it started before him. Take LA and south central Watts area. It was a decent area in the 40 and 50s until the Federal government started all their social programs, which destroyed the family, and radicalizing the inner city through multi-culturalism and garbage like that. So it's a little unfair to blame a conservative LA on riots in the 90s, when the seeds were planted long before that due to policies by our Federal government that started back in the 60s.

    The hard data shows liberals destroyed the black family. And regardless of what liberals say, raising kids in a two parent family brings stability to cities. The black family survived slavery, survived Jim Crow laws, but could not survive liberalism. You can check the stats. The two parent black family was in the 75% range during slavery and during the Jim Crow era, and then starting in the 60s began falling, to where it's now in the 30% range. This was caused by liberalism with policies designed to destroy families, designed to destroy work ethic by rewarding doing nothing, was some on crime, which bred more crime, destroyed local schools by busing people out of their neigherhood, drove businesses out of cities through exessive tax policies, etc.

    Even many liberals have conceded most of their policies backfired and had the opposite impact intended. It's going to be hard to fix the mess the liberals created. What's amazing is that there are so many liberals still around today. It makes sense to have some in the 60s, because some their stuff hadn't been tried before. Now that we tried it for over 50 years and its failed and made things worse, you'd think people would switch sides.

    Yes, people fled to the suburbs. But why was that? To escape liberalism, which started taking over our cities. These are the facts. Conservatism isn't utopia, but compared to liberalism it's pretty close.

  3. #63
    Riot price Citizen United perversion. Corporation people people corporation not true.

  4. #64
    Originally Posted by Bob21 View Post
    Originally Posted by DGenBen View Post
    Originally Posted by Bob21 View Post
    When I saw this article, I thought about two of our resident bleeding heart liberals, accountinquestion and MidWest Player.

    Minneapolis has elected Democrat Mayors for 50 years so this is what they get. I guess liberals like riots, since they see it as just another form of protest, and we all know liberals love to protest, even when they are in control of the government. There are some real good nuggets in here.

    https://nypost.com/2020/05/31/george...ralism-devine/
    The case against liberals on how they have managed big cities is a strong case. Particularly over regulation, underfunded pensions, and although corruption happens on both sides, it does appear on the surface more prevalent in cities run by Dems.

    To be fair though cities were dealt a very tough hand. After WW2 whites moved out of the cities for suburbs and recall that at that time until around the 70s I believe, suburbs had racial restrictions so even successful black had difficult moving out of the inner cities.

    Cities lost their manufacturing bases, their infrastructures are usually extremely old with most American cities dating back to the 1800s. Cities generally didnít elect Democrats and become shitholes. They became shitholes and then elected Dems because rightly or wrongly poor people believe Dems better represent their interests.

    Would riots be lessened and cities have done better under Repbulican control? Some things may have been better, but look at the 1992 riots which also spread nationwide

    At the time LA had a conservative Republican police chief Darryl Gates who had ran the department since the 70s and he was not known as a soft on crime guy. In fact at that time California had a Republican governor and the President was George HW Bush.

    Sure the LA mayor was a Dem, but so what? The police department had much more control over the law and order situation and in LA at that time the Police Chief was independent of the mayor.

    Point being while liberals have plenty of faults (and are funner to pick on as they make themselves easy targets) you are kidding yourself if you think all of these problems would just magically go away under Republicans. Although it is possible they could improve over a long period of time, or they could remain the same, or they could actually get worse.
    I have some time so I wanted to respond to DGenBen's post since it was very naive. Of course, the problems won't go away magically under Republicans. I mean liberals have spent 50 years creating the shitholes in our inner city, so it's not going away if we started electing Republicans tomorrow in all our cities.

    And it's unfair to blame conservative cities for some of their problems, since many of their problems were created by our liberal Federal government. Lyndon Johnson was responsible for a lot of it, but some of it started before him. Take LA and south central Watts area. It was a decent area in the 40 and 50s until the Federal government started all their social programs, which destroyed the family, and radicalizing the inner city through multi-culturalism and garbage like that. So it's a little unfair to blame a conservative LA on riots in the 90s, when the seeds were planted long before that due to policies by our Federal government that started back in the 60s.

    The hard data shows liberals destroyed the black family. And regardless of what liberals say, raising kids in a two parent family brings stability to cities. The black family survived slavery, survived Jim Crow laws, but could not survive liberalism. You can check the stats. The two parent black family was in the 75% range during slavery and during the Jim Crow era, and then starting in the 60s began falling, to where it's now in the 30% range. This was caused by liberalism with policies designed to destroy families, designed to destroy work ethic by rewarding doing nothing, was some on crime, which bred more crime, destroyed local schools by busing people out of their neigherhood, drove businesses out of cities through exessive tax policies, etc.

    Even many liberals have conceded most of their policies backfired and had the opposite impact intended. It's going to be hard to fix the mess the liberals created. What's amazing is that there are so many liberals still around today. It makes sense to have some in the 60s, because some their stuff hadn't been tried before. Now that we tried it for over 50 years and its failed and made things worse, you'd think people would switch sides.

    Yes, people fled to the suburbs. But why was that? To escape liberalism, which started taking over our cities. These are the facts. Conservatism isn't utopia, but compared to liberalism it's pretty close.
    Naive, lol not insightful like your comment ďThe black family survived slavery, survived Jim Crow laws, but couldnít survive liberalismĒ

    Yes black families did great under slavery, they didnít have to get divorced because their husbands or wives would often get sold to another master and then they could get new ones

    They didnít have to worry about explaining infidelity because if they got raped by their masters It was well known they couldnít refuse so didnít have to lie to husband about where they were.

    Didnít have to pay taxes since they werenít paid anything for their labor so no family fights about money.

    They didnít have to worry about raising their children since often the children were sold off to other masters.

    They didnít have to worry about teaching their children to read since it was against the law to teach slaves to read.

    Very little domestic violence, they had a guy called an overseer to do all the violence for them.

    Heck they even had the benefit of not having to worry about buying Mothers Day and Fathers Day cards since getting sold off to a new owner meant they werenít in touch with the parents anymore.

    You actually have a really strong point! They should be on their hands and knees thanking us for bringing them here those 4 centuries ago!!!!

  5. #65
    Originally Posted by DGenBen View Post
    Originally Posted by Bob21 View Post
    Originally Posted by DGenBen View Post

    The case against liberals on how they have managed big cities is a strong case. Particularly over regulation, underfunded pensions, and although corruption happens on both sides, it does appear on the surface more prevalent in cities run by Dems.

    To be fair though cities were dealt a very tough hand. After WW2 whites moved out of the cities for suburbs and recall that at that time until around the 70s I believe, suburbs had racial restrictions so even successful black had difficult moving out of the inner cities.

    Cities lost their manufacturing bases, their infrastructures are usually extremely old with most American cities dating back to the 1800s. Cities generally didn’t elect Democrats and become shitholes. They became shitholes and then elected Dems because rightly or wrongly poor people believe Dems better represent their interests.

    Would riots be lessened and cities have done better under Repbulican control? Some things may have been better, but look at the 1992 riots which also spread nationwide

    At the time LA had a conservative Republican police chief Darryl Gates who had ran the department since the 70s and he was not known as a soft on crime guy. In fact at that time California had a Republican governor and the President was George HW Bush.

    Sure the LA mayor was a Dem, but so what? The police department had much more control over the law and order situation and in LA at that time the Police Chief was independent of the mayor.

    Point being while liberals have plenty of faults (and are funner to pick on as they make themselves easy targets) you are kidding yourself if you think all of these problems would just magically go away under Republicans. Although it is possible they could improve over a long period of time, or they could remain the same, or they could actually get worse.
    I have some time so I wanted to respond to DGenBen's post since it was very naive. Of course, the problems won't go away magically under Republicans. I mean liberals have spent 50 years creating the shitholes in our inner city, so it's not going away if we started electing Republicans tomorrow in all our cities.

    And it's unfair to blame conservative cities for some of their problems, since many of their problems were created by our liberal Federal government. Lyndon Johnson was responsible for a lot of it, but some of it started before him. Take LA and south central Watts area. It was a decent area in the 40 and 50s until the Federal government started all their social programs, which destroyed the family, and radicalizing the inner city through multi-culturalism and garbage like that. So it's a little unfair to blame a conservative LA on riots in the 90s, when the seeds were planted long before that due to policies by our Federal government that started back in the 60s.

    The hard data shows liberals destroyed the black family. And regardless of what liberals say, raising kids in a two parent family brings stability to cities. The black family survived slavery, survived Jim Crow laws, but could not survive liberalism. You can check the stats. The two parent black family was in the 75% range during slavery and during the Jim Crow era, and then starting in the 60s began falling, to where it's now in the 30% range. This was caused by liberalism with policies designed to destroy families, designed to destroy work ethic by rewarding doing nothing, was some on crime, which bred more crime, destroyed local schools by busing people out of their neigherhood, drove businesses out of cities through exessive tax policies, etc.

    Even many liberals have conceded most of their policies backfired and had the opposite impact intended. It's going to be hard to fix the mess the liberals created. What's amazing is that there are so many liberals still around today. It makes sense to have some in the 60s, because some their stuff hadn't been tried before. Now that we tried it for over 50 years and its failed and made things worse, you'd think people would switch sides.

    Yes, people fled to the suburbs. But why was that? To escape liberalism, which started taking over our cities. These are the facts. Conservatism isn't utopia, but compared to liberalism it's pretty close.
    Naive, lol not insightful like your comment “The black family survived slavery, survived Jim Crow laws, but couldn’t survive liberalism”

    Yes black families did great under slavery, they didn’t have to get divorced because their husbands or wives would often get sold to another master and then they could get new ones

    They didn’t have to worry about explaining infidelity because if they got raped by their masters It was well known they couldn’t refuse so didn’t have to lie to husband about where they were.

    Didn’t have to pay taxes since they weren’t paid anything for their labor so no family fights about money.

    They didn’t have to worry about raising their children since often the children were sold off to other masters.

    They didn’t have to worry about teaching their children to read since it was against the law to teach slaves to read.

    Very little domestic violence, they had a guy called an overseer to do all the violence for them.

    Heck they even had the benefit of not having to worry about buying Mothers Day and Fathers Day cards since getting sold off to a new owner meant they weren’t in touch with the parents anymore.

    You actually have a really strong point! They should be on their hands and knees thanking us for bringing them here those 4 centuries ago!!!!
    Typical liberal response. I never defended slavery. I just compared the stats from slavery timeperiod, to the time when liberalism was unleashed on blacks.

    As bad as slavery was, you could make the argument liberalism is worse, and many black conservatives have made this point.

    If you want to learn more about slavery in America, I encourage you to read some books by Thomas Sowell, a black conservative who grew up in Harlem in the 40 and 50s and went to Harvard before affirmative action programs were implemented.

    And, yes, you do appear very naive. It looks like you believe anything the liberal press and our public schools have taught you and you never do any research on your own to see if what you’re being told is correct. It appears you’ve been radicalizing by the left.

    Look, slavery was an awful awful institution that nobody can defend. But I see liberalism the same way. Do you think it’s humane to warehouse blacks in projects in the inner city, with no families, no jobs and no hope? This is liberalism. I’m surprised you are for this.
    Last edited by Bob21; 06-09-2020 at 02:18 AM.

  6. #66
    [QUOTE=Bob21;107742]
    Originally Posted by DGenBen View Post
    Originally Posted by Bob21 View Post

    I have some time so I wanted to respond to DGenBen's post since it was very naive. Of course, the problems won't go away magically under Republicans. I mean liberals have spent 50 years creating the shitholes in our inner city, so it's not going away if we started electing Republicans tomorrow in all our cities.

    And it's unfair to blame conservative cities for some of their problems, since many of their problems were created by our liberal Federal government. Lyndon Johnson was responsible for a lot of it, but some of it started before him. Take LA and south central Watts area. It was a decent area in the 40 and 50s until the Federal government started all their social programs, which destroyed the family, and radicalizing the inner city through multi-culturalism and garbage like that. So it's a little unfair to blame a conservative LA on riots in the 90s, when the seeds were planted long before that due to policies by our Federal government that started back in the 60s.

    The hard data shows liberals destroyed the black family. And regardless of what liberals say, raising kids in a two parent family brings stability to cities. The black family survived slavery, survived Jim Crow laws, but could not survive liberalism. You can check the stats. The two parent black family was in the 75% range during slavery and during the Jim Crow era, and then starting in the 60s began falling, to where it's now in the 30% range. This was caused by liberalism with policies designed to destroy families, designed to destroy work ethic by rewarding doing nothing, was some on crime, which bred more crime, destroyed local schools by busing people out of their neigherhood, drove businesses out of cities through exessive tax policies, etc.

    Even many liberals have conceded most of their policies backfired and had the opposite impact intended. It's going to be hard to fix the mess the liberals created. What's amazing is that there are so many liberals still around today. It makes sense to have some in the 60s, because some their stuff hadn't been tried before. Now that we tried it for over 50 years and its failed and made things worse, you'd think people would switch sides.

    Yes, people fled to the suburbs. But why was that? To escape liberalism, which started taking over our cities. These are the facts. Conservatism isn't utopia, but compared to liberalism it's pretty close.
    Naive, lol not insightful like your comment ďThe black family survived slavery, survived Jim Crow laws, but couldnít survive liberalismĒ

    Yes black families did great under slavery, they didnít have to get divorced because their husbands or wives would often get sold to another master and then they could get new ones

    They didnít have to worry about explaining infidelity because if they got raped by their masters It was well known they couldnít refuse so didnít have to lie to husband about where they were.

    Didnít have to pay taxes since they werenít paid anything for their labor so no family fights about money.

    They didnít have to worry about raising their children since often the children were sold off to other masters.

    They didnít have to worry about teaching their children to read since it was against the law to teach slaves to read.

    Very little domestic violence, they had a guy called an overseer to do all the violence for them.

    Heck they even had the benefit of not having to worry about buying Mothers Day and Fathers Day cards since getting sold off to a new owner meant they werenít in touch with the parents anymore.

    You actually have a really strong point! They should be on their hands and knees thanking us for bringing them here those 4 centuries ago!!!!
    Typical liberal response. I never defended slavery. I just compared the stats from slavery timeperiod, to the time when liberalism was unleashed on blacks.

    As bad as slavery was, you could make the argument liberalism is worse, and many black conservatives have made this point.

    If you want to learn more about slavery in America, I encourage you to read some books by Thomas Sowell, a black conservative who grew up in Harlem in the 40 and 50s and went to Harvard before affirmative action programs were implemented.

    And, yes, you do appear very naive. It looks like you believe anything the liberal press and our public schools have taught you and you never do any research on your own to see if what youíre being told is correct. It appears youíve been radicalizing by the left.

    Look, slavery was an awful awful institution that nobody can defend. But I see liberalism the same way. Do you think itís humane to warehouse blacks in projects in the inner city, with no families, no jobs and no hope? This is liberalism. Iím surprised you are for this.[/QUOTE

    Lol, you are very good at making a case and arguing strongly against positions I donít have and statements I have never made.

    The funny thing is I am actually probably much closer to you on this issue than you think, I do believe that many liberal policies such as welfare have failed that black community. If you actually read my previous posts you would understand, but you like to just attack anything that you donít even slightly agree with just the same old tired insults. (Yawn)

    If you were intelligent you would be able to actually state a coherent case for your position, but no you just always degrade down into low class insults.

    You said you could argue that liberalism is worse for blacks than slavery. I would love to hear your argument on that.

    Hey you never know, if you can make a strong enough case maybe you can connivence black people who support liberalism to voluntarily go back into slavery. Maybe you can be a hero by helping the US compete better with other countries due to the labor cost savings!

  7. #67
    Originally Posted by DGenBen View Post
    Originally Posted by Bob21 View Post
    Originally Posted by DGenBen View Post

    The case against liberals on how they have managed big cities is a strong case. Particularly over regulation, underfunded pensions, and although corruption happens on both sides, it does appear on the surface more prevalent in cities run by Dems.

    To be fair though cities were dealt a very tough hand. After WW2 whites moved out of the cities for suburbs and recall that at that time until around the 70s I believe, suburbs had racial restrictions so even successful black had difficult moving out of the inner cities.

    Cities lost their manufacturing bases, their infrastructures are usually extremely old with most American cities dating back to the 1800s. Cities generally didn’t elect Democrats and become shitholes. They became shitholes and then elected Dems because rightly or wrongly poor people believe Dems better represent their interests.

    Would riots be lessened and cities have done better under Repbulican control? Some things may have been better, but look at the 1992 riots which also spread nationwide

    At the time LA had a conservative Republican police chief Darryl Gates who had ran the department since the 70s and he was not known as a soft on crime guy. In fact at that time California had a Republican governor and the President was George HW Bush.

    Sure the LA mayor was a Dem, but so what? The police department had much more control over the law and order situation and in LA at that time the Police Chief was independent of the mayor.

    Point being while liberals have plenty of faults (and are funner to pick on as they make themselves easy targets) you are kidding yourself if you think all of these problems would just magically go away under Republicans. Although it is possible they could improve over a long period of time, or they could remain the same, or they could actually get worse.
    I have some time so I wanted to respond to DGenBen's post since it was very naive. Of course, the problems won't go away magically under Republicans. I mean liberals have spent 50 years creating the shitholes in our inner city, so it's not going away if we started electing Republicans tomorrow in all our cities.

    And it's unfair to blame conservative cities for some of their problems, since many of their problems were created by our liberal Federal government. Lyndon Johnson was responsible for a lot of it, but some of it started before him. Take LA and south central Watts area. It was a decent area in the 40 and 50s until the Federal government started all their social programs, which destroyed the family, and radicalizing the inner city through multi-culturalism and garbage like that. So it's a little unfair to blame a conservative LA on riots in the 90s, when the seeds were planted long before that due to policies by our Federal government that started back in the 60s.

    The hard data shows liberals destroyed the black family. And regardless of what liberals say, raising kids in a two parent family brings stability to cities. The black family survived slavery, survived Jim Crow laws, but could not survive liberalism. You can check the stats. The two parent black family was in the 75% range during slavery and during the Jim Crow era, and then starting in the 60s began falling, to where it's now in the 30% range. This was caused by liberalism with policies designed to destroy families, designed to destroy work ethic by rewarding doing nothing, was some on crime, which bred more crime, destroyed local schools by busing people out of their neigherhood, drove businesses out of cities through exessive tax policies, etc.

    Even many liberals have conceded most of their policies backfired and had the opposite impact intended. It's going to be hard to fix the mess the liberals created. What's amazing is that there are so many liberals still around today. It makes sense to have some in the 60s, because some their stuff hadn't been tried before. Now that we tried it for over 50 years and its failed and made things worse, you'd think people would switch sides.

    Yes, people fled to the suburbs. But why was that? To escape liberalism, which started taking over our cities. These are the facts. Conservatism isn't utopia, but compared to liberalism it's pretty close.
    Naive, lol not insightful like your comment “The black family survived slavery, survived Jim Crow laws, but couldn’t survive liberalism”

    Yes black families did great under slavery, they didn’t have to get divorced because their husbands or wives would often get sold to another master and then they could get new ones

    They didn’t have to worry about explaining infidelity because if they got raped by their masters It was well known they couldn’t refuse so didn’t have to lie to husband about where they were.

    Didn’t have to pay taxes since they weren’t paid anything for their labor so no family fights about money.

    They didn’t have to worry about raising their children since often the children were sold off to other masters.

    They didn’t have to worry about teaching their children to read since it was against the law to teach slaves to read.

    Very little domestic violence, they had a guy called an overseer to do all the violence for them.

    Heck they even had the benefit of not having to worry about buying Mothers Day and Fathers Day cards since getting sold off to a new owner meant they weren’t in touch with the parents anymore.

    You actually have a really strong point! They should be on their hands and knees thanking us for bringing them here those 4 centuries ago!!!!
    This quote comes from black conservative Walter Williams "The welfare state did what slavery couldn't do, destroy the black family."

    Lyndon Johnson's Great Society Welfare State created fatherless black households. One of the worst things that can happen to children is growing up without a father figure. Before the welfare state about 11% of black children were born out of wedlock. Since the welfare state was instituted that figure has risen to 70%.
    Welcome fellow politards

  8. #68
    If you can Loot in Person you can Vote in Person!!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-24-2020, 02:31 PM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-20-2013, 12:19 AM
  3. April 16 gold price
    By Alan Mendelson in forum Money, Shopping, Real Estate, Investing
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-18-2013, 11:59 AM
  4. At what price do you think gold will peak in this go-around?
    By Alan Mendelson in forum Money, Shopping, Real Estate, Investing
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-03-2013, 04:50 AM
  5. The price of gold tells us a lot.
    By Alan Mendelson in forum Money, Shopping, Real Estate, Investing
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-12-2013, 09:15 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •