• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lewis Points Finger At ‘Rich White People’ For School Problems [W:178]

Truckstop said:
Did you give up on the original argument, that rich white people were to blame for the schools, because the school boards were dominated by rich whites?

We can't be sure, but I would bet that the board does have similar people, I would just guess they are more similar in their ideology than their bank accounts.

Wonder if that ideology could be more at fault for the failures than race or wealth.
Click to expand...

I proved PlayDrive's post to be bull**** early on by posting the membership roster of the Chicago School Board, only two of the six are white (the CEO is black). Of those two, one is probably really rich, the other probably not so much (being a retired associate professor). The rest are black, biracial or latino.
 
clownboy said:
I proved PlayDrive's post to be bull**** early on by posting the membership roster of the Chicago School Board, only two of the six are white (the CEO is black). Of those two, one is probably really rich, the other probably not so much (being a retired associate professor). The rest are black, biracial or latino.
Click to expand...

I know, I just want one of the people defending her to point out the rich racist bastard doing all the harm. So far all I got is some invisible racist in the sky making policy that the board has no control over.
 
rocket88 said:
Even that, I think would not get them to. Or they'd blame it on Democrats because they don't understand that there was a time when the radical progressives were Republicans and the Dems were conservative.
Click to expand...

What does that mean? Radical Progressives good- Conservatives bad?

What a neat little world it is.
 
Grant said:
Wealth is being shared, but how do you share power? Through quota systems?
Click to expand...
Primarily by limiting what effect someone else's power has over you, that is sharing power. That is, government uses its power to keep everyone elses power in check in the right places (what places are those?). Everyone gets the benefit of government power in the form of our military and the countless lives saved through our military efforts (and victories), and our laws at least for a time were heralded as focused primarily on preserving our individual power, i.e. ensuring what power we have is preserved...
 
Mach said:
Primarily by limiting what effect someone else's power has over you, that is sharing power. That is, government uses its power to keep everyone elses power in check in the right places (what places are those?). Everyone gets the benefit of government power in the form of our military and the countless lives saved through our military efforts (and victories), and our laws at least for a time were heralded as focused primarily on preserving our individual power, i.e. ensuring what power we have is preserved...
Click to expand...

So the government ensures our freedoms through the police, military and the courts, while the government is restricted on its powers by the Constitution? If that's the case then I don't know how anyone can gain power apart from favoritism through government action, or inaction.
 
Grant said:
What does that mean? Radical Progressives good- Conservatives bad?

What a neat little world it is.
Click to expand...

It means that once upon a time the Republicans were far more progressive than Democrats were. Radical Republicans wanted to end slavery and change the social dynamic of the South. Democrats did not.

It's actually less of a neat little world than yours where the bad stuff is all progressive Democrats.
 
Grant said:
Wealth is being shared, but how do you share power? Through quota systems?
Click to expand...

Of course not, you use the media and the IRS to create a Communist world. Duh...
 
Mach said:
Primarily by limiting what effect someone else's power has over you, that is sharing power. That is, government uses its power to keep everyone elses power in check in the right places (what places are those?). Everyone gets the benefit of government power in the form of our military and the countless lives saved through our military efforts (and victories), and our laws at least for a time were heralded as focused primarily on preserving our individual power, i.e. ensuring what power we have is preserved...
Click to expand...

I think we get that such as a Democratic Republic, founded on our particular Constitution, has as one of its goal the mitigation of too much power in the hands of government. Clearly avoiding the enabling of a tyrannical state was what the Founders had in mind.

That is also not the nature of "power" discussed in these last few pages. What was pointed out was that the Democrat Party derives political power by keeping a group of citizens poor and less educated, in this case blacks, and therefore more dependent on the type of government liberals espouse. So the votes, and power gained, flow to Democrat politicians. It would also be noted that black America wields considerable "power" by voting as a block. That it has benefited them would be a whole different argument though.
 
rocket88 said:
It means that once upon a time the Republicans were far more progressive than Democrats were. Radical Republicans wanted to end slavery and change the social dynamic of the South. Democrats did not.

It's actually less of a neat little world than yours where the bad stuff is all progressive Democrats.
Click to expand...

Which illustrates a huge fallacy of liberal "progressives". Change for the better would be progressive. Change for the worse, regressive.

Liberals desperately want to relabel themselves as "Progressives". The fact is that they are actually Regressives.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Which illustrates a huge fallacy of liberal "progressives". Change for the better would be progressive. Change for the worse, regressive.

Liberals desperately want to relabel themselves as "Progressives". The fact is that they are actually Regressives.
Click to expand...

So you can back that up with historical fact as I did, or just your own rantings?

Ever notice how when secession comes up, the Liberals here are on the same side as Abraham Lincoln and the Cons are calling him a RINO?
 
rocket88 said:
So you can back that up with historical fact as I did, or just your own rantings?

Ever notice how when secession comes up, the Liberals here are on the same side as Abraham Lincoln and the Cons are calling him a RINO?
Click to expand...

Sure. Look at Detroit. Look at California. Look at America under Obama.

Regressives.

I did not argue that the GOP has always been the far more progressive of the two parties.
 
Yes.

Lets just chalk it up to rich Crackers and be done with it.......
 
rocket88 said:
It means that once upon a time the Republicans were far more progressive than Democrats were. Radical Republicans wanted to end slavery and change the social dynamic of the South. Democrats did not.

It's actually less of a neat little world than yours where the bad stuff is all progressive Democrats.
Click to expand...

What have the 'progressive Democrats' done to improve people lives?

The discussion is about Chicago with its failing school system and high murder rates, and the 'progressives' have been running this disaster for years. Barrack Obama himself, a progressive's progressive, even organized this devastated community. Now he's doing for the United States what he did for Chicago.

But if you can tell me what good the progs have done, I'd be pleased to listen.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Sure. Look at Detroit. Look at California. Look at America under Obama.

Regressives.

I did not argue that the GOP has always been the far more progressive of the two parties.
Click to expand...

I would.

They Progs still believe the propaganda from the Soviet era that more government involvement in people's lives is 'Progressive' whereas the most revolutionary act in history was freeing man from government suffocation, and that each individual had a soul. Now you see these same Progressives blaming America for all the world's ills and, as usual, defending those who would destroy it.
 
Grant said:
I would.

They Progs still believe the propaganda from the Soviet era that more government involvement in people's lives is 'Progressive' whereas the most revolutionary act in history was freeing man from government suffocation, and that each individual had a soul. Now you see these same Progressives blaming America for all the world's ills and, as usual, defending those who would destroy it.
Click to expand...

My contention was that the GOP was not only the proper "Progressive" Party of the last half of the 1800's, but still is the truly Progressive party, as it seeks to forward individual freedom and opportunity. The liberal poster wanted to argue that the GOP only used to be progressive, which is the stuff of the demented liberal mind.

Liberals are regressive. Egregiously so.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
My contention was that the GOP was not only the proper "Progressive" Party of the last half of the 1800's, but still is the truly Progressive party, as it seeks to forward individual freedom and opportunity. The liberal poster wanted to argue that the GOP only used to be progressive, which is the stuff of the demented liberal mind.

Liberals are regressive. Egregiously so.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. They believe that big government means progress whereas history tells us that's completely wrong. Freedom from big government, as we are learning, is difficult for any people to maintain.
 
Misterveritis said:
As long as governments divide us into little race boxes an thatd then treat us differently based on color, ethnicity or other real or imagined divisions then racism will continue.
Click to expand...

yeah, it was the government that created the problem ... read up on it and you'll find that it took guvment intervention to secure black folk their rights ...
 
windowdressing said:
right after I'm shown the stats showing that it's the culture ... :roll:
Click to expand...

So you are unaware of the rates of unwed births by race in the US ? Unaware of the rates of violent crime ? So if it is not culture, what is it ?
 
rocket88 said:
It means that once upon a time the
Republicans were far more progressive than Democrats were. Radical Republicans wanted to end slavery and change the social dynamic of the South. Democrats did not.

It's actually less of a neat little world than yours where the bad stuff is all progressive Democrats.
Click to expand...

The Democrats never changed their position on slavery, they just altered the paradigm.

" Slavery " by way of generational dependency is still slavery.
 
At least you're asking a question now, or positing a hypothesis (a cultural explanation) for these differences, instead of making an unequivocal statement about what the stats show. You have to be careful that the relationship that you think exists between two variables isn't a spurious one, i.e., that there isn't a third variable that explains the relationship. If we held class constant, i.e., if we compared only blacks and whites from the same social class (same years of educational, wealth, occupational prestige, etc.), would these "racial" differences hold? What do you think?

BTW, did you know the following?

"More than half of births to American women younger than 30 are outside marriage, research has found.
And across all ages, a staggering four in ten women are not married when they have children.
The data shows the fastest growth in the past 20 years is among white women in their 20s with some college education but no four-year degree."

The collapse of family life: Most children in U.S. born out of wedlock
By DAILY MAIL REPORTER
UPDATED: 22:01 EST, 18 February 2012

Are these white women acting black?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom