Tax Refunds are less this year, must be Trumps fault

bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote in
news:48f86c29-98ad-4328-874f-1a4a82c555d0@googlegroups.com:

On Saturday, April 27, 2019 at 3:00:11 AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom
wrote:
On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 07:27:34 -0700, trader4 wrote:

Nothing racist about it. Don Lemon at CNN cited the same
statistics. In fact, I was off, I said that the black
out-of-wedlock birth rate was two thirds, it's actually 73%,
just ask Don. Is he racist too?

Never used to be that way. Going back 60, 70 or 80 years, the
typical black family was highly moral, abstemious wrt alcohol,
never touched drugs and were huge church-goers. The sad state
they're in today is almost entirely due to the policies of the
Democratic Party.

Go back 60, 70 or 80 years - to 1959, 1949 and 1939 - US black
hadn't had the benefits of the success of the Civil Right movement
which got under way in the 1950's and started making life better
for US blacks in the 1960's.

Any virtues that Cursitor Doom may attribute to the "typical black
family" mainly represent those enforced by poverty - they couldn't
afford drugs or alcohol and church-going was the only
entertainment that was financially accessible. Individuals could
do better - Louis Armstrong and Art Tatum come to mind.

Once the Civil Rights movement reduced that poverty appreciably,
the black community could afford some of the vices practiced by
similarly poor white families.

The US Democratic Party were more sympathetic to the Civil Rights
movement than the Republicans, and can - to that extent - be
blamed for the fact that US blacks got enough money to afford the
same vices as the US white poor, but that doesn't make them
responsible for the current "sadness" of the state of the US black
population (who don't seem to be much worse off than similarly
poor whites, but at least have enough sense not to have voted for
Trump).

If anybody is responsible, it's the slave merchants (English,
Dutch and American) who bought their black ancestors as slaves in
Africa and shipped them to the US to be sold as slave labour to
plantation owners. Poor whites got bought and sold as "indentured
labourers" in much the same way, but they weren't colour coded as
"inferior" and some of them out from under.

Here is the fact about (many) blacks. The absolute and ONLY
reason that number went up is because of gangs, and the increase of
females in gangs.

What happened thereafter is the 'gang mentality' and subsequent
and current 'jailhouse mentality' that pervades the lower income
areas. So we now have gang members raising gang members. And the
chicks give it up regularly and are less likely to 'keep it to
themselves'. Essentially the entire female gender took a hit as
chicks started commiting crimes. The whole nation of women now have
gang mentality bahaviors ingrained into their thinking in their
primary school years.

But there are also very good, fine, upstanding african american
members of the community, and I have personally worked with a huge
number far more intelligent than I.

Sadly, many of the criminal bent minded folks know very well how
to 'play' on society and 'whitey' any time they wish as civil
societies are trusting and we must pay for what our ancestors did,
and what a bunch of assholes supremacists are still doing. So some
of them lower themselves to that level and kind folks get hurt on
both sides.

Recently (the last ten years), things changed from street crimes to
cybercrimes and the bit coin hunters with gang/drug money to buy
some pretty fancy servers. They are trying to go low profile.

And population densities and a few other factors weigh into this
and the error in the old stats as well.

 

[John Robertson]

On 2019/04/26 10:00 a.m., Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 07:27:34 -0700, trader4 wrote:

Nothing racist about it. Don Lemon at CNN cited the same statistics.
In fact, I was off, I said that the black out-of-wedlock birth rate was
two thirds, it's actually 73%, just ask Don. Is he racist too?

Never used to be that way. Going back 60, 70 or 80 years, the typical
black family was highly moral, abstemious wrt alcohol, never touched
drugs and were huge church-goers. The sad state they're in today is
almost entirely due to the policies of the Democratic Party.

Right, they were so happy that they didn't want to march in large groups
to try and get equal rights. Segregation was a pleasure I'm sure, who
wouldn't like to be forced to sit in the back of a bus or drink from
'whites only' fountains etc.

Yes, they sure had it good! The odd lynching perhaps, but that wasn't a
problem as it was always some other guy or gal - certainly not one of
the house servant/slaves.

C.D. is most likely a Russian troll.

John

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:bcb3557f-78b0-40ef-b943-
e651225b82df@googlegroups.com:

Now we have inner cities in decay, high black
unemployment,

The jobs in this country evaporated. Americans bought foreign
cars. You chumps who did / do that are idiots.

And NO, simply because they (some) get made here does not change
the fact that the parent company is foreign.

This nation's decay is across all races, because it is economic.
The US standard of living, particularly at the middle class level
fell to nearly nil.

All while those apparently unaffected buy up things and inflate
prices that make it even harder for that now pushed down into
poverty lower middle class.

I watched it over a 45 year period.

While all you did all your life is get fat. That pushed even more
brain matter away from your four inch thick skull cavity.

 

On Saturday, April 27, 2019 at 1:31:15 AM UTC-4, John Robertson wrote:

On 2019/04/26 10:00 a.m., Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 07:27:34 -0700, trader4 wrote:

Nothing racist about it. Don Lemon at CNN cited the same statistics.
In fact, I was off, I said that the black out-of-wedlock birth rate was
two thirds, it's actually 73%, just ask Don. Is he racist too?

Never used to be that way. Going back 60, 70 or 80 years, the typical
black family was highly moral, abstemious wrt alcohol, never touched
drugs and were huge church-goers. The sad state they're in today is
almost entirely due to the policies of the Democratic Party.



Right, they were so happy that they didn't want to march in large groups
to try and get equal rights. Segregation was a pleasure I'm sure, who
wouldn't like to be forced to sit in the back of a bus or drink from
'whites only' fountains etc.

Yes, they sure had it good! The odd lynching perhaps, but that wasn't a
problem as it was always some other guy or gal - certainly not one of
the house servant/slaves.

C.D. is most likely a Russian troll.

John

He said 60s, 70s, 80s, not 1920. Segregation was over in the early 60s.
That's also when we started the war on poverty. We;ve spent trillions
and what do we have to show for it? Out-of-wedlock births through the
roof, families with generations on welfare, the decline of the black
family. The libs subsidized it. Imagine how much better off everyone
would be if that money had been left with taxpayers to spend or invest,
how it would have benefited the economy, created more jobs for everyone
that wanted to work.

 

On Saturday, April 27, 2019 at 12:34:02 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

On Saturday, April 27, 2019 at 3:00:11 AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 07:27:34 -0700, trader4 wrote:

Nothing racist about it. Don Lemon at CNN cited the same statistics.
In fact, I was off, I said that the black out-of-wedlock birth rate was
two thirds, it's actually 73%, just ask Don. Is he racist too?

Never used to be that way. Going back 60, 70 or 80 years, the typical
black family was highly moral, abstemious wrt alcohol, never touched
drugs and were huge church-goers. The sad state they're in today is
almost entirely due to the policies of the Democratic Party.

Go back 60, 70 or 80 years - to 1959, 1949 and 1939 - US black hadn't had the benefits of the success of the Civil Right movement which got under way in the 1950's and started making life better for US blacks in the 1960's.

The only thing wrong with that argument is that at the same time that
civil rights gave blacks lots of opportunity, the black community went
totally the other way. Now we have inner cities in decay, high black
unemployment, gangs, gangster rap where they celebrate calling women
bitches and hoes, call each other nigger, and run around with their pants
down around their knees, butts showing.

Any virtues that Cursitor Doom may attribute to the "typical black family" mainly represent those enforced by poverty - they couldn't afford drugs or alcohol and church-going was the only entertainment that was financially accessible. Individuals could do better - Louis Armstrong and Art Tatum come to mind.

Oh what total BS. Even if true, it would show what the welfare state has
done, given them money to spend on drugs.

Once the Civil Rights movement reduced that poverty appreciably,

That's a lie. The poverty rate today is just about the same as it was in 1965
when the war on poverty started. Imagine if all those trillions had been
left with taxpayers, to spend and invest, what a boost it would have been
to the economy and how much better off everyone would be. Instead, we had
a program that rewarded people to have fatherless families and to puke out
more kids.



the black community could afford some of the vices practiced by similarly poor white families.

The US Democratic Party were more sympathetic to the Civil Rights movement than the Republicans,

More BS. The civil rights acts could not have passed without a lot of
GOP support. And you ignore that the Jim Crow laws, the vast discrimination
against blacks, was practiced in the South and mostly presided over by
DEMOCRATS.




and can - to that extent - be blamed for the fact that US blacks got enough money to afford the same vices as the US white poor, but that doesn't make them responsible for the current "sadness" of the state of the US black population (who don't seem to be much worse off than similarly poor whites, but at least have enough sense not to have voted for Trump).

The sadness of the US blacks is due to the welfare state and the black
community. As soon as they start taking responsibility and address their
own problems, instead of trying to blame whitie, the sooner they will get
somewhere.

If anybody is responsible, it's the slave merchants (English, Dutch and American) who bought their black ancestors as slaves in Africa and shipped them to the US to be sold as slave labour to plantation owners. Poor whites got bought and sold as "indentured labourers" in much the same way, but they weren't colour coded as "inferior" and some of them out from under.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Oh what total BS. I suppose next you'll be telling us we should pay
reparations to blacks today, when none of us were alive hundreds of years
ago or had anything to do with slavery. This is exactly the victim
mentality that's the problem. Blacks need to take ownership of their
own sad state of affairs, straighten up and fly right.

 

On Saturday, April 27, 2019 at 12:12:36 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

On Saturday, April 27, 2019 at 12:27:39 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 11:02:55 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote in
news:59975461-8adc-43a2-8b86-c298fc60f945@googlegroups.com:

Sure, that's always the lib way. Play the race card.

You make a racist assumption, you get called on it. What works
when you are out drinking with your Klan buddies doesn't get the
same kind of positive reception from a wider audience.

And they are blind to the fact that they are the ones playing the
race card.

And this pissy retard also calls anyone not in his klan 'libs'.

He is a punk who got up to 350 lbs sitting in front of his computer..
Squoze out even more of the tiny space he had between his ears for
brains. Between the four inch thick skull, and all the fat, I would be
surprised if his brain weighed more than a gram or two.

Nothing racist about it. Don Lemon at CNN cited the same statistics.
In fact, I was off, I said that the black out-of-wedlock birth rate
was two thirds, it's actually 73%, just ask Don. Is he racist too?

It's not citing the statistic that's racist, it is the implicit assumption that any black unmarried mother is also a single mother who is going to be dependent on welfare.

Then you're clearly the racist, because I never implied any such thing.
It's on your brain though.

The roughly three-fold increase in the proportion of black birth that are out-of-wedlock has to be seen in context with the fact that the proportion of white births that are out-of-wedlock has risen by something like a factor of ten - from about 3% to about 30%.

And it's not just the increase in out-of-wedlock births, it's the total
degeneration of much of the black community. They went from having intact
families and jobs, to out-of-wedlock births, high unemployment, crime,
gangs, gangster rap where they call women bitches and hoes,
running around calling each other nigger. and pants
hanging around their knees with their asses showing. Of course, WTF would
you know, living in Australia? Would I be so arrogant to tell you about
kangaroos?

There's no guarantee that the increase in black out-of-wedlock births represents a three-fold increase in the number of black single mothers who are dependent on welfare, which is the statistic that ought to be being cited.

The simple fact that 42% of those on welfare are black, while blacks
only represent 12% of the population should answer that question.

I'd like to be able to cite the actual figure for this, but it is curiously difficult to find. Right-wing propaganda sources like the Heritage Foundation are a full bottle on black out-of-wedlock births, but curiously silent on the number of black single mothers on welfare.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2821602/

looks at a limited sample of women on welfare, and makes the point that problems with physical and mental health (which are more common amongst poor people (and blacks are over-respresented amongst the poor) are assocaited with higher reliance on welfare.

ROFL

Like K says, you're wrong on everything.

Krw thinks that any opinion he doesn't share is wrong. It's not a useful assertion.

I see, so you side with nut job DL, that figures.

 

On Saturday, April 27, 2019 at 9:46:27 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

On Saturday, April 27, 2019 at 12:12:36 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Saturday, April 27, 2019 at 12:27:39 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 11:02:55 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote in
news:59975461-8adc-43a2-8b86-c298fc60f945@googlegroups.com:

Sure, that's always the lib way. Play the race card.

You make a racist assumption, you get called on it. What works
when you are out drinking with your Klan buddies doesn't get the
same kind of positive reception from a wider audience.

And they are blind to the fact that they are the ones playing the
race card.

And this pissy retard also calls anyone not in his klan 'libs'.

He is a punk who got up to 350 lbs sitting in front of his computer.
Squoze out even more of the tiny space he had between his ears for
brains. Between the four inch thick skull, and all the fat, I would be
surprised if his brain weighed more than a gram or two.

Nothing racist about it. Don Lemon at CNN cited the same statistics.
In fact, I was off, I said that the black out-of-wedlock birth rate
was two thirds, it's actually 73%, just ask Don. Is he racist too?

It's not citing the statistic that's racist, it is the implicit assumption that any black unmarried mother is also a single mother who is going to be dependent on welfare.

Then you're clearly the racist, because I never implied any such thing.
It's on your brain though.

What you posted was "Instead we encouraged single mom families, the black out-of-wedlock birth rate percentage went from the teens to two thirds".

The racist implict assumption is that any black mother who isn't married to the father of her child constitutes a single mom family.

If you can't see the problem with that extrapolation, you may not be a racist, but the alternative explanation is clearly that you are extremely stupid.

You choose.

The roughly three-fold increase in the proportion of black birth that are out-of-wedlock has to be seen in context with the fact that the proportion of white births that are out-of-wedlock has risen by something like a factor of ten - from about 3% to about 30%.

And it's not just the increase in out-of-wedlock births, it's the total
degeneration of much of the black community.

A claim which you haven't bother to support with any kind of statistical evidence.

They went from having intact families and jobs, to out-of-wedlock births,
high unemployment, crime, gangs, gangster rap where they call women bitches
and hoes, running around calling each other nigger, and pants
hanging around their knees with their asses showing.

This has happened to the entire US black community?

> Of course, WTF would you know, living in Australia?

When I last spent time in the USA the coloured people that I saw acted pretty much like everybody else. I do hang around with educated people and black academic staff may have taken up gangster rap, and the gangster rap dress code since I was there, but I suspect that I'd be wiser to treat you as an unreliable witness.

> Would I be so arrogant to tell you about kangaroos?

Probably, if you'd got some stupid idea into your head about them. Right-wing propagandists aren't all that interested in kangaroos, so they haven't been inventing nonsense stories about them for you to retail.

There's no guarantee that the increase in black out-of-wedlock births represents a three-fold increase in the number of black single mothers who are dependent on welfare, which is the statistic that ought to be being cited.

The simple fact that 42% of those on welfare are black, while blacks
only represent 12% of the population should answer that question.

It doesn't. Black Americans are over-represented amongst the poor, and the poor get pretty much all the welfare that is handed out.

Since you want to argue that things have got worse since 1964, any observation about how welfare is divided up today is entirely irrelevant to the proposition that you pretend to be trying to put forward. It may be more relevant to your actual agenda, which seems to be to post a lot of racist opinion.

I'd like to be able to cite the actual figure for this, but it is curiously difficult to find. Right-wing propaganda sources like the Heritage Foundation are a full bottle on black out-of-wedlock births, but curiously silent on the number of black single mothers on welfare.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2821602/

looks at a limited sample of women on welfare, and makes the point that problems with physical and mental health (which are more common amongst poor people (and blacks are over-represented amongst the poor) are associated with higher reliance on welfare.

ROFL

Like K says, you're wrong on everything.

Krw thinks that any opinion he doesn't share is wrong. It's not a useful assertion.

I see, so you side with nut job DL, that figures.

DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno does happen to be right more often than krw, which isn't saying much, and he does show some capacity to acquire new information, which makes him vastly superior to krw, who seems to be entirely devoid of that ability.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Saturday, April 27, 2019 at 9:56:43 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

On Saturday, April 27, 2019 at 12:34:02 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Saturday, April 27, 2019 at 3:00:11 AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 07:27:34 -0700, trader4 wrote:

Nothing racist about it. Don Lemon at CNN cited the same statistics.
In fact, I was off, I said that the black out-of-wedlock birth rate was
two thirds, it's actually 73%, just ask Don. Is he racist too?

Never used to be that way. Going back 60, 70 or 80 years, the typical
black family was highly moral, abstemious wrt alcohol, never touched
drugs and were huge church-goers. The sad state they're in today is
almost entirely due to the policies of the Democratic Party.

Go back 60, 70 or 80 years - to 1959, 1949 and 1939 - US black hadn't had the benefits of the success of the Civil Right movement which got under way in the 1950's and started making life better for US blacks in the 1960's.

The only thing wrong with that argument is that at the same time that
civil rights gave blacks lots of opportunity, the black community went
totally the other way.

The Civil Rights Movement gave blacks more opportunities than they had had earlier. "Lots of opportunity" is a stretch. The black community has done better in consequence, but they started off very poor, and lots of them are still less than well off.

> Now we have inner cities in decay,

What's that got to do with the black community? Many members of the black community are poor and find it harder to move out of the decayed areas.

> high black unemployment,

The Civil Rights Movement managed to undo some of the legal barriers to blacks getting jobs, but the social barriers can't be legislated out of existence.

gangs, gangster rap where they celebrate calling women
bitches and hoes, call each other nigger, and run around with their pants
down around their knees, butts showing.

You may see this on TV shows out to attract racist white attention, but treating these exhibitionists as representative of the entire black community is a trifle stupid, even for you.

Any virtues that Cursitor Doom may attribute to the "typical black family" mainly represent those enforced by poverty - they couldn't afford drugs or alcohol and church-going was the only entertainment that was financially accessible. Individuals could do better - Louis Armstrong and Art Tatum come to mind.

Oh what total BS. Even if true, it would show what the welfare state has
done, given them money to spend on drugs.

Welfare payments aren't generous enough to support heavy drinking or any kind of drug habit beyond the occasional spliff.

Once the Civil Rights movement reduced that poverty appreciably,

That's a lie. The poverty rate today is just about the same as it was in 1965
when the war on poverty started.

Wrong. It was about 17% in 1965, and it's 12.3% now

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Number_in_Poverty_and_Poverty_Rate,_1959_to_2017.png

Imagine if all those trillions had been
left with taxpayers, to spend and invest, what a boost it would have been
to the economy and how much better off everyone would be. Instead, we had
a program that rewarded people to have fatherless families and to puke out
more kids.

Relatively little welfare money goes on supporting single parent families - the Republicans managed to cut back that spending around 1996

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/how-welfare-reform-left-single-moms-behind/361964/

the black community could afford some of the vices practiced by similarly poor white families.

The US Democratic Party were more sympathetic to the Civil Rights movement than the Republicans,

More BS. The civil rights acts could not have passed without a lot of
GOP support. And you ignore that the Jim Crow laws, the vast discrimination
against blacks, was practiced in the South and mostly presided over by
DEMOCRATS.

Southern Democrats were a different bred of cat, and most of them stopped being Democrats when the mainstream Democrats embraced the Civil Rights movement. The Jim Crow laws were a hangover from a much earlier period.

and can - to that extent - be blamed for the fact that US blacks got enough money to afford the same vices as the US white poor, but that doesn't make them responsible for the current "sadness" of the state of the US black population (who don't seem to be much worse off than similarly poor whites, but at least have enough sense not to have voted for Trump).

The sadness of the US blacks is due to the welfare state

This is a popular right-wing claim. It seems to be total nonsense.
The US hasn't got a any kind of welfare state - just a ragbag of half-baked support programs that never have enough money to make much difference.
Places which do welfare properly - like Sweden - can manage to eliminate the disadvantage of growing up in a single parent household.

> and the black community.

The black community did start well behind the game. If you compare it with groups of similarly impoverished whites it looks less disadvantaged.

As soon as they start taking responsibility and address their
own problems, instead of trying to blame whitie, the sooner they will get
somewhere.

Quite a few of them seem happy to take responsibility and address their own problems. I can't say I'm aware of anybody in the US black community who wastes their time blaming whites for their problems - the white community clearly isn't going to spend money on solving their particular problems, even of their ancestors created a lot of them.

If anybody is responsible, it's the slave merchants (English, Dutch and American) who bought their black ancestors as slaves in Africa and shipped them to the US to be sold as slave labour to plantation owners. Poor whites got bought and sold as "indentured labourers" in much the same way, but they weren't colour coded as "inferior" and some of them out from under.

Oh what total BS. I suppose next you'll be telling us we should pay
reparations to blacks today, when none of us were alive hundreds of years
ago or had anything to do with slavery.

A good socialist would point out that society as a whole has responsibility to help it's less successful elements. The fact that more successful elements owe some of their current success to their ancestors exploitation of the ancestors of the less successful elements doesn't come into it.

> This is exactly the victim mentality that's the problem.

It would be if it existed. Nobody in their right mind is going to expect American whites to accept any responsibility for the sins of their ancestors, or for the consequences of their own bad behavior either.

> Blacks need to take ownership of their own sad state of affairs, straighten up > and fly right.

"Taking ownership" doesn't create any new resources to be devoted to "straightening up" the existing community. Flying to the far right wouldn't be any more helpful.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[John Robertson]

On 2019/04/27 5:02 a.m., trader4@optonline.net wrote:

On Saturday, April 27, 2019 at 1:31:15 AM UTC-4, John Robertson wrote:
On 2019/04/26 10:00 a.m., Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 07:27:34 -0700, trader4 wrote:

Nothing racist about it. Don Lemon at CNN cited the same statistics.
In fact, I was off, I said that the black out-of-wedlock birth rate was
two thirds, it's actually 73%, just ask Don. Is he racist too?

Never used to be that way. Going back 60, 70 or 80 years, the typical
black family was highly moral, abstemious wrt alcohol, never touched
drugs and were huge church-goers. The sad state they're in today is
almost entirely due to the policies of the Democratic Party.



Right, they were so happy that they didn't want to march in large groups
to try and get equal rights. Segregation was a pleasure I'm sure, who
wouldn't like to be forced to sit in the back of a bus or drink from
'whites only' fountains etc.

Yes, they sure had it good! The odd lynching perhaps, but that wasn't a
problem as it was always some other guy or gal - certainly not one of
the house servant/slaves.

C.D. is most likely a Russian troll.

John

He said 60s, 70s, 80s, not 1920. Segregation was over in the early 60s.
That's also when we started the war on poverty. We;ve spent trillions
and what do we have to show for it? Out-of-wedlock births through the
roof, families with generations on welfare, the decline of the black
family. The libs subsidized it. Imagine how much better off everyone
would be if that money had been left with taxpayers to spend or invest,
how it would have benefited the economy, created more jobs for everyone
that wanted to work.

No, C.D. said going back 60, 70, or 80 YEARS - in other words the 1930s
through the 60s. When blacks (and Hispanics) were fighting for their
rights because regular society gave them so little chance for success.
The couldn't even fight for their country in the 2nd WW in mixed
companies until near the end.

Are you under the impression that when governments spend money that the
money simply vanishes into thin air? That money is spent on jobs and
those people pay taxes, etc. The money is somewhat shifted from those
who hoard it to those who need access to it. That is the part that
bothers you - you don't want to share with anyone else.

I'm not trying to say that governments can solve all problems but they
can spread the wealth around so that everyone has a chance at making
money, not just the Drumpfs and their friends.

Decline of the black family? Give me a break. You have been listening to
too much right wing and Russian propaganda. You say that Blacks had it
so much better before, they had so many job opportunities, there was not
inherent racism... you must literally be a honkie to believe that.

Your own POTUS said a judge who ruled against him only did so because he
was Mexican (that judge was born in the USA. like the POTUS). POTUS's
family came from Germany a generation before - another immigrant
obviously - better build a wall on the Atlantic seaboard.

Christians are supposedly taught by their bible to love and care for
their neighbours. Caring means to help people when they are down and out
- not saying "Oh, they were better off in the past, now look at them"
and then not only walk on by but not wanting anyone to do anything about
it. Something about The Good Samaritan rings a bell...

John

 

On Saturday, April 27, 2019 at 10:02:06 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

On Saturday, April 27, 2019 at 1:31:15 AM UTC-4, John Robertson wrote:
On 2019/04/26 10:00 a.m., Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 07:27:34 -0700, trader4 wrote:

Nothing racist about it. Don Lemon at CNN cited the same statistics.
In fact, I was off, I said that the black out-of-wedlock birth rate was
two thirds, it's actually 73%, just ask Don. Is he racist too?

Never used to be that way. Going back 60, 70 or 80 years, the typical
black family was highly moral, abstemious wrt alcohol, never touched
drugs and were huge church-goers. The sad state they're in today is
almost entirely due to the policies of the Democratic Party.



Right, they were so happy that they didn't want to march in large groups
to try and get equal rights. Segregation was a pleasure I'm sure, who
wouldn't like to be forced to sit in the back of a bus or drink from
'whites only' fountains etc.

Yes, they sure had it good! The odd lynching perhaps, but that wasn't a
problem as it was always some other guy or gal - certainly not one of
the house servant/slaves.

C.D. is most likely a Russian troll.

He said 60s, 70s, 80s, not 1920. Segregation was over in the early 60s.

Rubbish. Explict school segregation was ruled unconstitutional in 1954, but de facto segregation still persists

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_integration_in_the_United_States

That's also when we started the war on poverty. We've spent trillions
and what do we have to show for it? Out-of-wedlock births through the
roof, families with generations on welfare, the decline of the black
family. The libs subsidized it. Imagine how much better off everyone
would be if that money had been left with taxpayers to spend or invest,
how it would have benefited the economy, created more jobs for everyone
that wanted to work.

That boiler-plate text keeps on popping up. Do you get a payout every time you post it?

If you had spent that money more wisely, you'd probably have had more to show for it, but racists don't want to spend money on raising literacy rates amongst blacks, so they fritter the money away on schemes that won't make any long term difference.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Saturday, April 27, 2019 at 10:45:08 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

On Saturday, April 27, 2019 at 9:56:43 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Saturday, April 27, 2019 at 12:34:02 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Saturday, April 27, 2019 at 3:00:11 AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 07:27:34 -0700, trader4 wrote:

Nothing racist about it. Don Lemon at CNN cited the same statistics.
In fact, I was off, I said that the black out-of-wedlock birth rate was
two thirds, it's actually 73%, just ask Don. Is he racist too?

Never used to be that way. Going back 60, 70 or 80 years, the typical
black family was highly moral, abstemious wrt alcohol, never touched
drugs and were huge church-goers. The sad state they're in today is
almost entirely due to the policies of the Democratic Party.

Go back 60, 70 or 80 years - to 1959, 1949 and 1939 - US black hadn't had the benefits of the success of the Civil Right movement which got under way in the 1950's and started making life better for US blacks in the 1960's.

The only thing wrong with that argument is that at the same time that
civil rights gave blacks lots of opportunity, the black community went
totally the other way.

The Civil Rights Movement gave blacks more opportunities than they had had earlier. "Lots of opportunity" is a stretch. The black community has done better in consequence, but they started off very poor, and lots of them are still less than well off.

Now we have inner cities in decay,

What's that got to do with the black community? Many members of the black community are poor and find it harder to move out of the decayed areas.

high black unemployment,

The Civil Rights Movement managed to undo some of the legal barriers to blacks getting jobs, but the social barriers can't be legislated out of existence.

Yeah, the problem is always with whitey, never with the blacks and
personal responsibility. Funny how Asians can come here from Vietnam,
with $20 and in a few years, they are making decent money, in a generation
their kids are in college. But heh, it can't be because of the culture,
the excuses, the lack of personal responsibility in the black community.
It must be because of "social barriers".

gangs, gangster rap where they celebrate calling women
bitches and hoes, call each other nigger, and run around with their pants
down around their knees, butts showing.

You may see this on TV shows out to attract racist white attention, but treating these exhibitionists as representative of the entire black community is a trifle stupid, even for you.

I never said it's the entire black community. But how many of the rest
of the black community calls out the rappers, the gang bangers, the ones
that just keep blaming everyone but themselves? The last guy I saw do
that was Bill Cosby and it's funny, because that's exactly when all the
attention got focused on him, to bring him down. Prior to that, no one
cared that he was drugging women and raping them. But boy, once he told
the blacks to pull up their pants and fly right, that was the beginning of
the end.

Any virtues that Cursitor Doom may attribute to the "typical black family" mainly represent those enforced by poverty - they couldn't afford drugs or alcohol and church-going was the only entertainment that was financially accessible. Individuals could do better - Louis Armstrong and Art Tatum come to mind.

Oh what total BS. Even if true, it would show what the welfare state has
done, given them money to spend on drugs.

Welfare payments aren't generous enough to support heavy drinking or any kind of drug habit beyond the occasional spliff.

ROFL. One fallacy is you assume that's all the money they get. No one
would *ever* think to game the system, do work for cash, for example.
Oh no. Libs come up with something and they can never think of the
obvious.

Once the Civil Rights movement reduced that poverty appreciably,

That's a lie. The poverty rate today is just about the same as it was in 1965
when the war on poverty started.

Wrong. It was about 17% in 1965, and it's 12.3% now

Here is the chart, fool. Fifty years of the war on poverty and it's
still the same. You'd have to be a real liar to call that chart
anything other than an obvious failure, it's FLAT.

https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-united-states

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Number_in_Poverty_and_Poverty_Rate,_1959_to_2017.png

Imagine if all those trillions had been
left with taxpayers, to spend and invest, what a boost it would have been
to the economy and how much better off everyone would be. Instead, we had
a program that rewarded people to have fatherless families and to puke out
more kids.

Relatively little welfare money goes on supporting single parent families - the Republicans managed to cut back that spending around 1996

BS.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/how-welfare-reform-left-single-moms-behind/361964/

the black community could afford some of the vices practiced by similarly poor white families.

The US Democratic Party were more sympathetic to the Civil Rights movement than the Republicans,

More BS. The civil rights acts could not have passed without a lot of
GOP support. And you ignore that the Jim Crow laws, the vast discrimination
against blacks, was practiced in the South and mostly presided over by
DEMOCRATS.

Southern Democrats were a different bred of cat, and most of them stopped being Democrats when the mainstream Democrats embraced the Civil Rights movement.

Oh, really? What did they all do, quit? I remember guys like Robert KKK
Byrd hung around for a long, long time and his fellow Dems didn't denounce
him. Fulbright, a segregationist, was Bill Clinton's mentor, I never
saw Bill denounce him.


> The Jim Crow laws were a hangover from a much earlier period.

Yeah, that just happened to "hang" around. I guess those Democrats just
plumb forgot about them. ROFL Hell as recently as the early 60s,
the feds had to send troops down there to deal with the likes of George
Wallace and Lester Maddox, (DEMOCRATS) who were fighting for segregation
and blocking blacks rights.

and can - to that extent - be blamed for the fact that US blacks got enough money to afford the same vices as the US white poor, but that doesn't make them responsible for the current "sadness" of the state of the US black population (who don't seem to be much worse off than similarly poor whites, but at least have enough sense not to have voted for Trump).

The sadness of the US blacks is due to the welfare state

This is a popular right-wing claim. It seems to be total nonsense.
The US hasn't got a any kind of welfare state

ROFL



- just a ragbag of half-baked support programs that never have enough money to make much difference.

Places which do welfare properly - like Sweden - can manage to eliminate the disadvantage of growing up in a single parent household.

and the black community.

The black community did start well behind the game. If you compare it with groups of similarly impoverished whites it looks less disadvantaged.

BS. Vietnamese boat people can come here with nothing, and in a few years,
they are making decent money. In ten years, they have their own business,
in a generation, their kids are in college.

As soon as they start taking responsibility and address their
own problems, instead of trying to blame whitie, the sooner they will get
somewhere.

Quite a few of them seem happy to take responsibility and address their own problems. I can't say I'm aware of anybody in the US black community who wastes their time blaming whites for their problems

ROFL

You really are out of touch. We have a whole industry of race hustlers
here.



- the white community clearly isn't going to spend money on solving their particular problems, even of their ancestors created a lot of them.

WTF? We've spent TRILLIONS!

If anybody is responsible, it's the slave merchants (English, Dutch and American) who bought their black ancestors as slaves in Africa and shipped them to the US to be sold as slave labour to plantation owners. Poor whites got bought and sold as "indentured labourers" in much the same way, but they weren't colour coded as "inferior" and some of them out from under.

Oh what total BS. I suppose next you'll be telling us we should pay
reparations to blacks today, when none of us were alive hundreds of years
ago or had anything to do with slavery.

A good socialist would point out that society as a whole has responsibility to help it's less successful elements.

We tried that with the war on poverty, the chart shows the results.



The fact that more successful elements owe some of their current success to their ancestors exploitation of the ancestors of the less successful elements doesn't come into it.

This is exactly the victim mentality that's the problem.

It would be if it existed. Nobody in their right mind is going to expect American whites to accept any responsibility for the sins of their ancestors, or for the consequences of their own bad behavior either.

Well, see, I told you, sitting in Australia, you have no idea of what's
going on here. There are silly libs calling for reparations, including
most of the 20 Democrats running for president!

Blacks need to take ownership of their own sad state of affairs, straighten up > and fly right.

"Taking ownership" doesn't create any new resources to be devoted to "straightening up" the existing community. Flying to the far right wouldn't be any more helpful.

They don't need "resources", they just need to straighten out, fly right
and stop making excuses.

 

On Saturday, April 27, 2019 at 9:43:06 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

On Saturday, April 27, 2019 at 9:46:27 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Saturday, April 27, 2019 at 12:12:36 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Saturday, April 27, 2019 at 12:27:39 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 11:02:55 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote in
news:59975461-8adc-43a2-8b86-c298fc60f945@googlegroups.com:

Sure, that's always the lib way. Play the race card.

You make a racist assumption, you get called on it. What works
when you are out drinking with your Klan buddies doesn't get the
same kind of positive reception from a wider audience.

And they are blind to the fact that they are the ones playing the
race card.

And this pissy retard also calls anyone not in his klan 'libs'.

He is a punk who got up to 350 lbs sitting in front of his computer.
Squoze out even more of the tiny space he had between his ears for
brains. Between the four inch thick skull, and all the fat, I would be
surprised if his brain weighed more than a gram or two.

Nothing racist about it. Don Lemon at CNN cited the same statistics.
In fact, I was off, I said that the black out-of-wedlock birth rate
was two thirds, it's actually 73%, just ask Don. Is he racist too?

It's not citing the statistic that's racist, it is the implicit assumption that any black unmarried mother is also a single mother who is going to be dependent on welfare.

Then you're clearly the racist, because I never implied any such thing.
It's on your brain though.

What you posted was "Instead we encouraged single mom families, the black out-of-wedlock birth rate percentage went from the teens to two thirds".

The racist implict assumption is that any black mother who isn't married to the father of her child constitutes a single mom family.

See they you go again. I implied no such thing. It's YOU who's making
the racist leap that "any black mother....." I didn't characterize the
whole race, you just did.

If you can't see the problem with that extrapolation, you may not be a racist, but the alternative explanation is clearly that you are extremely stupid.

You're the racist and stupid to boot.

You choose.

The roughly three-fold increase in the proportion of black birth that are out-of-wedlock has to be seen in context with the fact that the proportion of white births that are out-of-wedlock has risen by something like a factor of ten - from about 3% to about 30%.

And it's not just the increase in out-of-wedlock births, it's the total
degeneration of much of the black community.

A claim which you haven't bother to support with any kind of statistical evidence.

I see it, it's been well documented, WTF do you know sitting on your ass
in Australia and pontificating about the USA? Go count kangaroos.

They went from having intact families and jobs, to out-of-wedlock births,
high unemployment, crime, gangs, gangster rap where they call women bitches
and hoes, running around calling each other nigger, and pants
hanging around their knees with their asses showing.

This has happened to the entire US black community?

No, of course not, but to a large percentage of it.

Of course, WTF would you know, living in Australia?

When I last spent time in the USA the coloured people that I saw

Why you racist! They don't like to be called that anymore and you
need to apologize. Your lib friends here would send you off to the
re-education camp. I can understand if you're confused, the rules are
complex. Like if a white person ever uses the word nigger, at any time,
for any reason, why it's unforgivable. But those degenerate black
rappers, gang bangers, welfare queens and the like, they can call each
other nigger and it's OK. Funny how that works and how if the word is
so awful, that it's OK for them to toss it around.




>acted pretty much like everybody else. I do hang around with educated people and black academic staff may have taken up gangster rap, and the gangster rap dress code since I was there, but I suspect that I'd be wiser to treat you as an unreliable witness.

That's OK, I'll treat you as an arrogant asshole from Australia
who doesn't live here, but knows everything.

Would I be so arrogant to tell you about kangaroos?

Probably, if you'd got some stupid idea into your head about them. Right-wing propagandists aren't all that interested in kangaroos, so they haven't been inventing nonsense stories about them for you to retail.

Cite for me when I made any claims about Australia, period.

There's no guarantee that the increase in black out-of-wedlock births represents a three-fold increase in the number of black single mothers who are dependent on welfare, which is the statistic that ought to be being cited.

The simple fact that 42% of those on welfare are black, while blacks
only represent 12% of the population should answer that question.

It doesn't. Black Americans are over-represented amongst the poor, and the poor get pretty much all the welfare that is handed out.

Well, duh! And why is that? Is it whitey's fault? We've passed civil
rights. We ended the awful segregation in the South, brought to you mostly
by Democrats. We poured trillions into welfare. We bused blacks into
white communities because some silly lib judges said that had to be done
too. The libs gave them affirmative action, where they get to cut ahead
of qualified white people to get jobs, to get into college. And after
50 fucking years, what's the result? The poverty rate is still the same
and blacks are over represented in welfare and crime.

Since you want to argue that things have got worse since 1964, any observation about how welfare is divided up today is entirely irrelevant to the proposition that you pretend to be trying to put forward. It may be more relevant to your actual agenda, which seems to be to post a lot of racist opinion.

Of course it's not irrelevant, it's a key point.

I'd like to be able to cite the actual figure for this, but it is curiously difficult to find. Right-wing propaganda sources like the Heritage Foundation are a full bottle on black out-of-wedlock births, but curiously silent on the number of black single mothers on welfare.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2821602/

looks at a limited sample of women on welfare, and makes the point that problems with physical and mental health (which are more common amongst poor people (and blacks are over-represented amongst the poor) are associated with higher reliance on welfare.

ROFL

Like K says, you're wrong on everything.

Krw thinks that any opinion he doesn't share is wrong. It's not a useful assertion.

I see, so you side with nut job DL, that figures.

DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno does happen to be right more often than krw,

Wow, just wow is all that I can say to that. KRW is intelligent, DL
is a total moron. But nice to see you siding with him, birds of a
feather, they say.

 

On Saturday, April 27, 2019 at 8:22:35 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:bcb3557f-78b0-40ef-b943-
e651225b82df@googlegroups.com:

Now we have inner cities in decay, high black
unemployment,

The jobs in this country evaporated. Americans bought foreign
cars. You chumps who did / do that are idiots.

Who did what exactly? The big decline in the US auto manufacturers was
in the 70s and 80s, when they ignored the foreign competition that was
turning out a much higher quality product, with better reliability,
better MPG, etc. They and the unions screwed the pooch. Don't blame
the consumers. And right now we have 3% unemployment, BTW.

And NO, simply because they (some) get made here does not change
the fact that the parent company is foreign.

No, but it means they are creating jobs here, which is what you were
bemoaning about just above.

This nation's decay is across all races, because it is economic.
The US standard of living, particularly at the middle class level
fell to nearly nil.

Nil? Really? Even welfare queens have AC, big screen TVs, internet.
And if the std of living is nil, rather odd all the driveways with two
or three cars, high school parking lots full, everybody with a iPhone,
big screen TVs, lots of people in McMansions that are middle class.

All while those apparently unaffected buy up things and inflate
prices that make it even harder for that now pushed down into
poverty lower middle class.

Oh my, price inflation? Not much here in the last couple decades,
that's for sure.

 

On Sunday, April 28, 2019 at 6:04:58 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

On Saturday, April 27, 2019 at 9:43:06 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Saturday, April 27, 2019 at 9:46:27 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Saturday, April 27, 2019 at 12:12:36 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Saturday, April 27, 2019 at 12:27:39 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 11:02:55 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote in
news:59975461-8adc-43a2-8b86-c298fc60f945@googlegroups.com:

<snip>

Nothing racist about it. Don Lemon at CNN cited the same statistics.
In fact, I was off, I said that the black out-of-wedlock birth rate
was two thirds, it's actually 73%, just ask Don. Is he racist too?

It's not citing the statistic that's racist, it is the implicit assumption that any black unmarried mother is also a single mother who is going to be dependent on welfare.

Then you're clearly the racist, because I never implied any such thing.
It's on your brain though.

What you posted was "Instead we encouraged single mom families, the black out-of-wedlock birth rate percentage went from the teens to two thirds".

The racist implict assumption is that any black mother who isn't married to the father of her child constitutes a single mom family.

See they you go again. I implied no such thing.

You may not realise that this is exactly what you implied, which makes you stupid as well as racist.

> It's YOU who's making the racist leap that "any black mother....." I didn't characterize the whole race, you just did.

Sadly, that's exactly what you did even if you are too dumb to work out how.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Sunday, April 28, 2019 at 6:26:24 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

On Saturday, April 27, 2019 at 10:45:08 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Saturday, April 27, 2019 at 9:56:43 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Saturday, April 27, 2019 at 12:34:02 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Saturday, April 27, 2019 at 3:00:11 AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 07:27:34 -0700, trader4 wrote:

<snip>

The Civil Rights Movement managed to undo some of the legal barriers to blacks getting jobs, but the social barriers can't be legislated out of existence.

Yeah, the problem is always with whitey, never with the blacks and
personal responsibility.

Personal responsibility doesn't get you a job if potential employers look at you and decides that you are black and that they doesn't want to hire you..

Funny how Asians can come here from Vietnam,
with $20 and in a few years, they are making decent money, in a generation
their kids are in college.

They weren't brought into country as slaves and badly educated in separate and rather less than equal schools for generations.

First generation immigrants are enterprising people - they wouldn't be immigrants otherwise - and they tend to do well.

But heh, it can't be because of the culture,
the excuses, the lack of personal responsibility in the black community.
It must be because of "social barriers".

Which you happen to be too stupid to recognise.

gangs, gangster rap where they celebrate calling women
bitches and hoes, call each other nigger, and run around with their pants
down around their knees, butts showing.

You may see this on TV shows out to attract racist white attention, but treating these exhibitionists as representative of the entire black community is a trifle stupid, even for you.

I never said it's the entire black community.

Actually, you did.

But how many of the rest of the black community calls out the rappers, the
gang bangers, the ones that just keep blaming everyone but themselves?

Gangster rap is a form of entertainment, not a life-style. You are clearly too stupid to realise this.

The last guy I saw do that was Bill Cosby and it's funny, because that's
exactly when all the attention got focused on him, to bring him down. Prior to > that, no one cared that he was drugging women and raping them. But boy, once > he told the blacks to pull up their pants and fly right, that was the
beginning of the end.

Bill Cosby was one of the many victims of the "me too" movement. Harvey Weinstein made the papers earlier

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/from-harvey-weinstein-to-bill-cosbys-trials-convictions-timesup-sends-clear-message/hollywoods-walk-of-shame/slideshow/62307879.cms

Blacks aren't the only people who have had to cope with institutionalised bad behavior.

Any virtues that Cursitor Doom may attribute to the "typical black family" mainly represent those enforced by poverty - they couldn't afford drugs or alcohol and church-going was the only entertainment that was financially accessible. Individuals could do better - Louis Armstrong and Art Tatum come to mind.

Oh what total BS. Even if true, it would show what the welfare state has
done, given them money to spend on drugs.

Welfare payments aren't generous enough to support heavy drinking or any kind of drug habit beyond the occasional spliff.

ROFL. One fallacy is you assume that's all the money they get. No one
would *ever* think to game the system, do work for cash, for example.
Oh no. Libs come up with something and they can never think of the
obvious.

Welfare systems get gamed, like every other system. There isn't a lot of cash in there to game, and people who develop expensive habits tend to turn to crime to finance them. Drug dealing pays a lot better than defrauding the welfare system.

That's a lie. The poverty rate today is just about the same as it was in 1965 when the war on poverty started.

Wrong. It was about 17% in 1965, and it's 12.3% now

Here is the chart, fool.

That chart presents exactly the same information as the chart I posted.

You are clearly a total idiot to imagine otherwise. You made a specific claim, and it happened to be wrong. After the limited initial success in the war on poverty nothing much happened for the next fifty years. The GFC pushed poverty up for a bit, but it has gone back down recently.

Fifty years of the war on poverty and it's
still the same. You'd have to be a real liar to call that chart
anything other than an obvious failure, it's FLAT.

It's not flat, but it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Today's poverty threshold is appreciably higher than it was in 1965, and being below it isn't quite as much of a disaster as it was then.

https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-united-states

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Number_in_Poverty_and_Poverty_Rate,_1959_to_2017.png

Both graphs seem to present the same information.

Imagine if all those trillions had been
left with taxpayers, to spend and invest, what a boost it would have been
to the economy and how much better off everyone would be. Instead, we had
a program that rewarded people to have fatherless families and to puke out
more kids.

Relatively little welfare money goes on supporting single parent families - the Republicans managed to cut back that spending around 1996

BS.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/how-welfare-reform-left-single-moms-behind/361964/

You can't process the information, so you think that you can get away with labelling it as BS. Dumb.

the black community could afford some of the vices practiced by similarly poor white families.

The US Democratic Party were more sympathetic to the Civil Rights movement than the Republicans,

More BS. The civil rights acts could not have passed without a lot of
GOP support. And you ignore that the Jim Crow laws, the vast
discrimination against blacks, was practiced in the South and mostly
presided over by DEMOCRATS.

Southern Democrats were a different bred of cat, and most of them stopped being Democrats when the mainstream Democrats embraced the Civil Rights movement.

Oh, really? What did they all do, quit?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond

Strom Thurmond switched to the Republican party. Even I know that.

I remember guys like Robert KKK
Byrd hung around for a long, long time and his fellow Dems didn't denounce
him. Fulbright, a segregationist, was Bill Clinton's mentor, I never
saw Bill denounce him.

That's US politics for you.

The Jim Crow laws were a hangover from a much earlier period.

Yeah, that just happened to "hang" around.

Laws stay on the books until somebody goes to the trouble of organising enough votes to repeal them.

> I guess those Democrats just plumb forgot about them.

The Southern Democrats were very attached to them, and didn't like it when they turned out to in conflict with the US constitution.

ROFL Hell as recently as the early 60s,
the feds had to send troops down there to deal with the likes of George
Wallace and Lester Maddox, (DEMOCRATS) who were fighting for segregation
and blocking blacks rights.

Southern Democrats really were a different bred of cat. George Wallace ran for president in 1968 as a third party candidate, and while he ran again in 1972 as a segregationist candidate for the Democratic Party nomination, he wouldn't have got anywhere even if he hadn't been shot (and stuck in a wheelchair for the rest of his life).

and can - to that extent - be blamed for the fact that US blacks got enough money to afford the same vices as the US white poor, but that doesn't make them responsible for the current "sadness" of the state of the US black population (who don't seem to be much worse off than similarly poor whites, but at least have enough sense not to have voted for Trump).

The sadness of the US blacks is due to the welfare state

This is a popular right-wing claim. It seems to be total nonsense.
The US hasn't got a any kind of welfare state

ROFL

- just a ragbag of half-baked support programs that never have enough money to make much difference.
Places which do welfare properly - like Sweden - can manage to eliminate the disadvantage of growing up in a single parent household.

and the black community.

The black community did start well behind the game. If you compare it with groups of similarly impoverished whites it looks less disadvantaged.

BS. Vietnamese boat people can come here with nothing, and in a few years,
they are making decent money. In ten years, they have their own business,
in a generation, their kids are in college.

Vietnamese boat people were first generation immigrants who chose to take the risk of coming to the United States. They are necessarily enterprising people.

The US black community wsn't self-selecting. Their ancestors got captured and sold as slaves. Having the get-up-and-go to try to get out from under as a slave gets you killed, often before you can reproduce.

As soon as they start taking responsibility and address their
own problems, instead of trying to blame whitie, the sooner they will get
somewhere.

Quite a few of them seem happy to take responsibility and address their own problems. I can't say I'm aware of anybody in the US black community who wastes their time blaming whites for their problems

ROFL

You really are out of touch. We have a whole industry of race hustlers
here.

Name one.

- the white community clearly isn't going to spend money on solving their particular problems, even of their ancestors created a lot of them.

WTF? We've spent TRILLIONS!

You have spent trillions, mostly on welfare for elderly white people. Spending it in a way that might change society isn't a particularly American thing to do - somebody yells "socialism" if they think they see it happening.

If anybody is responsible, it's the slave merchants (English, Dutch and American) who bought their black ancestors as slaves in Africa and shipped them to the US to be sold as slave labour to plantation owners. Poor whites got bought and sold as "indentured labourers" in much the same way, but they weren't colour coded as "inferior" and some of them out from under.

Oh what total BS. I suppose next you'll be telling us we should pay
reparations to blacks today, when none of us were alive hundreds of years
ago or had anything to do with slavery.

A good socialist would point out that society as a whole has responsibility to help it's less successful elements.

We tried that with the war on poverty, the chart shows the results.

That might have been the initial intention, and poverty did go down - a bit - in the first few years of the campaign, but the US political system does give a lot of political power to people who have money, and they prefer to see the money going to people they like and can be expected to vote for them.

The fact that more successful elements owe some of their current success to their ancestors exploitation of the ancestors of the less successful elements doesn't come into it.

This is exactly the victim mentality that's the problem.

It would be if it existed. Nobody in their right mind is going to expect American whites to accept any responsibility for the sins of their ancestors, or for the consequences of their own bad behavior either.

Well, see, I told you, sitting in Australia, you have no idea of what's
going on here. There are silly libs calling for reparations, including
most of the 20 Democrats running for president!

Post a link to such an appeal.

Blacks need to take ownership of their own sad state of affairs, straighten up > and fly right.

"Taking ownership" doesn't create any new resources to be devoted to "straightening up" the existing community. Flying to the far right wouldn't be any more helpful.

They don't need "resources", they just need to straighten out, fly right
and stop making excuses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_integration_in_the_United_States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_integration_in_the_United_States#/media/File:NAEP-longterm-Black-reading-ss07-13.gif

demonstrates that black students still aren't reading as well as their white counterparts. If the US education system isn't teaching them to read as well as it might, it's a trifle difficult for them compete on equal terms.

"The Bell Curve" which was a steaming heap of right wing propaganda wanted to claim that US blacks were at a genetic disadvantage, but included the priceless bit of counter-evidence that showed that the bastard children of black US servicemen in the occupying army in German in WW2 went through German schools looking exactly like German children, while the legitimate children of the same servicemen dropped progressively further behind white kids as they went through the US school system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequality_by_Design

which was written to demolish "The Bell Curve" pointed out that caste-like social differences lead lower-caste children (here blacks) to avoid apearing to do well at school for fear of being regarded as "uppity" and getting beaten up in consequence.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:51862bdc-bc75-4793-a6f7-
8e9584b7446c@googlegroups.com:

> And right now we have 3% unemployment, BTW.

That's only about 5.5 million working age folks.

Only... It should be near nil. 3% is hardly that. And those
numbers are off. The actual number of non-working, able folks is
bigger than the number you give.

You're an idiot. We made cheap cars just so every American could
afford one. So too many corners were cut. Ya don't just turn your
backs on the industries that built your nation, dipshit.

We could very easily have 'stepped to the pump' the foreign folks
were offering. The fact that so many Americans abandoned their own car
brands only means they didn't have enough brains to see the resulting
impact.

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:d0bd9786-283d-46d0-bd4b-
3719fb706509@googlegroups.com:

Why you racist! They don't like to be called that anymore and you
need to apologize.

You're a goddamned child. A FAT punk bitch, at best.

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:d0bd9786-283d-46d0-bd4b-3719fb706509@googlegroups.com:

. Like if a white person ever uses the word nigger, at any time,
for any reason, why it's unforgivable. But those degenerate black
rappers, gang bangers, welfare queens and the like, they can call
each other nigger and it's OK. Funny how that works and how if
the word is so awful, that it's OK for them to toss it around.

Absolute proof that you have absolutely no clue what is going on in
the world.

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2019 13:04:52 -0700, trader4 wrote:

> You're the racist and stupid to boot.

There's a reason why his initials are BS.
Unless you like arguing just for the sake of it, I suggest you KF Sloman.
You will *never* win him over with reason. He and bitrex are two of the
biggest trolls on this newsgroup. Neither of them can see that it's THEY
who are by far the biggest racists here.



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2019 04:46:22 -0700, trader4 wrote:

And it's not just the increase in out-of-wedlock births, it's the total
degeneration of much of the black community. They went from having
intact families and jobs, to out-of-wedlock births, high unemployment,
crime, gangs, gangster rap where they call women bitches and hoes,
running around calling each other nigger. and pants hanging around their
knees with their asses showing. Of course, WTF would you know, living
in Australia? Would I be so arrogant to tell you about kangaroos?

If you study the old newsreel footage of the early black immigrants to
Britain in the 1950s, you see only respectable, smartly-dressed people
with self-respect, eager to work and improve themselves; aspirational men
and women.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4B1rMXPY-g

They bear NO resemblance to today's blacks, all thanks to Left-wing
policies. It's really sad.




--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.