• 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!

Who do you blame for the problems of African Americans?? [W:98]

Who is MOST to blame for the problems of African Americans?

  • GOP

    Votes: 5 5.1%
  • Black Leadership

    Votes: 22 22.4%
  • Democrats

    Votes: 15 15.3%
  • Other

    Votes: 56 57.1%

  • Total voters
    98
Status
Not open for further replies.
Right here:A denial.

Again, if I am to prove that racism exists in the US, define racism.

You're the one who brought it up and claimed it, now you want me to define it for you? Seriously?
 
Since you're the one who claimed that it's black people who keep sending the wrong people to DC, I suspect I'm not the one with a delusion.

Not interested - but have a good day. And oh yes, this is the stage where you claim you've won - thought I'd save you the trouble.
 
You're the one who brought it up and claimed it, now you want me to define it for you? Seriously?
I am not going to waste my time showing examples of racism in the US if you are going to come back with further denials that the examples are racism.


So...

Define racism so I can meet your definition.
 
If they're not electing the right people, they can't complain when the wrong people end up in power. Or didn't that occur to you?

Umm, it was CJ who complained about the wrong people being elected and I'm pretty sure that CJ is neither African nor American
 
I am not going to waste my time showing examples of racism in the US if you are going to come back with further denials that the examples are racism.


So...

Define racism so I can meet your definition.

I'm just asking you to back up your claims, if you don't even know what it is that you're talking about, how can you make the claims? Everyone else recognizes the corner you've painted yourself into, why can't you?
 
Umm, it was CJ who complained about the wrong people being elected and I'm pretty sure that CJ is neither African nor American

Wouldn't know, don't care. I never mentioned CJ specifically in any of my responses.
 
I'm just asking you to back up your claims, if you don't even know what it is that you're talking about, how can you make the claims? Everyone else recognizes the corner you've painted yourself into, why can't you?
You are just dancing, I can show lots and lots, even from your neck of the woods that meet the definition in law, but if you don't agree with that standard....we have to come to some starting point.

So as you said, put up...
 
All I see you saying is that "it must be true"

But, in case you didn't notice, you just pointed out that the converse of what I said is also true (ie "being born to a wed mother does not mean the child has a father in their life") The fact that the father was wed to mother at the time the child was born says nothing about whether or not the father is involved in the child's life.

By and large, the children of married parents (even after divorce) tend to have more stable home lives, and fare better in their own future prospects, than the children of single mothers who have never married. Starting off with married parents, or, conversely, waiting until one is married before having children themselves, can also be shown to result in markedly improved economic and social outcomes all the way around as well.

This fact is self-evident. Frankly, even it weren't, it is backed up by majority consensus where the social sciences are concerned.

Slate - Single Motherhood: Worse for children

The excessive state of modern divorce is it's own issue, and one which raises a unique and troubling set of economic and social problems to be addressed.

However, it does not excuse the impracticality of unwed single motherhood as a productive familial model. Wealthy single mothers doing it "all on their own," or benefiting from a committed live-in beau whom can be relied upon to stick around through thick and thin in spite of everything, range somewhere between a small minority of all cases, and an outright anomaly. They pretty much always have been, and there's no reason to assume this will change any time soon.

Really, why would you expect anything different? It's basically an entire life style built around the idea that couples not only shouldn't have to stick together in the long term, but shouldn't expect or even want to do so.

It simply isn't designed to be especially compatible with the idea of creating a stable family unit.
 
Last edited:
So you're just as upset with abortion right? Try looking at the history of Planned Parenthood. You might be surprised to be what the liberals have been supporting all along.

Well, first of all, no, I'm not "upset." Some of us are capable of looking at problems without losing control of our emotions. Foreign, I know.

Planned Parenthood is subject to a lot of the same bureaucratic problems that any other large organization is, but apart from that, they're pretty straight.

If you're referring to some of Sanger's questionable beliefs, first of all, she's been dead for an awfully long time and we've all moved on. Second, she really wasn't any worse than her surrounding culture. If you want to use that argument, I could just as easily say we should overthrow the Constitution because the founders didn't believe in rights for the poor, women, or black people. It's equally ridiculous. We simply updated the document, like PP updated as well.

Myself and other pro-choicers don't support Sanger's fashionable social Darwinism by supporting the modern PP any more than an American patriot supports slavery and reducing women to legal children by going into the military. The fact that you folks have to resort to something so absurd says a lot about what shaky ground you really stand on.

And the fact that you have to change the subject entirely to save some face shows that you're on even shakier ground on this particular issue (which is race in America, remember?).
 
Why? What positive comes from legalizing drugs? That's like saying why not legalize murder. Prove the net benefit.

Prove the net benefit of keeping them illegal. Let alone, prove the net benefit of the death penalty as you would like it to be. Whatever the case, it is a matter of opinion about what works. IMO, your death penalty solution would have dire unintended consequences. And, I am sure you've already heard the arguments in favor of legalization.
 
Bump...
I'm just asking you to back up your claims, if you don't even know what it is that you're talking about, how can you make the claims? Everyone else recognizes the corner you've painted yourself into, why can't you?
You are just dancing, I can show lots and lots, even from your neck of the woods that meet the definition in law, but if you don't agree with that standard....we have to come to some starting point.

So as you said, put up...
It got quiet again...
 
When you have the likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Melissa Harris-Perry and Eric Dyson telling blacks that they are "professional victims" racism will never end. The Democratic Slave Plantation is just as guilty with their mantra of "We have your best interest at heart, just keep voting for us" when in fact all they are doing is keeping blacks down, dependent and accountable to the Dem Slave Masters. Blacks are waking up to Dem Slave Masters and are revolting even in cities like Chicago. All anyone has to do is read, research and question and see that the answers are very evident by the actions of the DNC the past 50 years. The vast majority of big cities are Democrat controlled and that is where they treat black citizens with no respect at all. When young black men can not walk down the streets of these Dem controlled big cities w/o being "Stopped & Frisked" for no reason at all, they have no freedoms. And just recently Liberals have been trying to rile the "professional victims" with new talks of "reparations". Obama and his EPIC FAILURE Administration have failed all Americans and has probably hurt minorities more than anyone else.
 
Blacks themselves. They encourage scapegoatism and "blaming whitey". If you're a success doing something besides ballin, slingin, or rappin, you're a sellout. If you speak coherently, you're "talking white". If you're black and support responsibility amongst your own, you're an Uncle Tom.

Black culture does great at keeping their own people down and explaining who is to blame for it.


Bingo, wow gipper we agree
 
Both. Both parties' policies generally harm those who don't have money and power. That includes 'African Americans'.
 
African Americans, I have seen one doing the same job I did for over 4 years. Say to me on his first and only day at work "I aint no slave" i said "hey man i did that same job for over 4 years".

what do i do at this point? he was hired to do a job but still felt like he was a slave. Whatever they have jesse and al not so sharpton telling them how they been oppressed.

Now he was doing a job i did i made 8 an hour he was making 10 an hour. But hey bricklaying is tough work once you start out as a laborer. at the time i was a bricklayer already and was making a pretty good living. But he could not see past skin color total shame.
 
Well, first of all, no, I'm not "upset." Some of us are capable of looking at problems without losing control of our emotions. Foreign, I know.

Planned Parenthood is subject to a lot of the same bureaucratic problems that any other large organization is, but apart from that, they're pretty straight.

If you're referring to some of Sanger's questionable beliefs, first of all, she's been dead for an awfully long time and we've all moved on. Second, she really wasn't any worse than her surrounding culture. If you want to use that argument, I could just as easily say we should overthrow the Constitution because the founders didn't believe in rights for the poor, women, or black people. It's equally ridiculous. We simply updated the document, like PP updated as well.

Myself and other pro-choicers don't support Sanger's fashionable social Darwinism by supporting the modern PP any more than an American patriot supports slavery and reducing women to legal children by going into the military. The fact that you folks have to resort to something so absurd says a lot about what shaky ground you really stand on.

And the fact that you have to change the subject entirely to save some face shows that you're on even shakier ground on this particular issue (which is race in America, remember?).

I'm at work so I'll respond in detail later but no one is losing control of their emotions and I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of those who share the same beliefs that you do.
 
By and large, the children of married parents (even after divorce) tend to have more stable home lives, and fare better in their own future prospects, than the children of single mothers who have never married

Actually, what accounts for better futures is having two parents involved in raising the child. Whether they are married or not does not matter as much as the stability of the relationships and the home life.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom