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

Gathomas88 · Jun 18, 2014

Gimmesometruth said:
You are simply repeating the same thing you said before, it is an ABSOLUTE denial of racism experienced by black youths today

Yes, and I will repeat it again, and again, and again, and again, and again until it sinks in.

The simple fact of the matter is that you haven't "proven" a damn thing. Absolutely no evidence whatsoever has been presented so far to suggest that black youths experience any significant degree of racial discrimination.

This isn't to say that it doesn't exist to some degree, necessarily. However, the point still stands that you have not made any kind of compelling argument for it.

First off, your chart ends in 2003.

Suicide rates increase dramatically among middle-aged Americans - CBS News

The suicide rate for women rose more than 31 percent from 6.2 per 100,000 in 1999 to 8.1 in 2010.

Among women, suicide rates increased with age, and the largest rate increase was observed among women aged 60-64 years -- nearly a 60 percent rise from 4.4 per 100,000 to 7.0 suicides per 100,000 people.

Secondly, the posted chart actually contradicts your argument. It shows suicide rates down across the board, for men and women alike.

It wouldn't appear that the rise of single motherhood has made any difference whatsoever with regard to female suicide rates.

And yet as already shown, it is declining, YOY for all races since 1950.

Okay. So what?

I already showed that single poor women are willing to give up welfare if their partner is gainfully employed.....but as I showed, low income wage gains have been negative.

Where did you show this?

You are still in denial of the effects that racism has in the US on economic achievement, let alone the existence of racism period and no amount of evidence will convince you otherwise.

You still have as of yet to demonstrate any impact caused by legitimate "racism."

Weird....you are against single women raising children.....yet if they use birth control....you are against that too?

FFS!

African Americans have the highest abortion rates of any ethnic group in the United States, and still have the highest illegitimacy rate. Abortion is clearly a symptom of the greater problem here, not a solution.

The answer is safer sex, more restrained behavior, and more marriages, not more murdered children.

Wow, these other modern states are "bankrupt" because they have better support for single mothers....who are "stupid".

Roughly half of the states you listed are in debt up to their eyeballs, and basically all of them have economies which grow at a snail's pace in comparison to the United States, and turn in productivity ratings that can barely hold a candle to our own.

Again, the answer is more restrained and productive behavior, not expanded support systems for **** ups.

Hold on, I believe that the majority of the poor in the US are white......but go on with your self destructing rant...

Well, as i said, the majority are white....so....ya know....your argument collapses in on itself.

First off, this is a Red Herring, as poor whites are not the subject of this discussion.

Secondly, 30% of the United States African American population lives below the poverty line. Only 10% of the White population does. This shoots your argument in foot.

Lastly, no one is saying that poor whites aren't guilty of many of the same things. They are.

Idiotic behaviors are no less idiotic when Caucasians engage in them.

Again, it is ironic that you talk about reality while you keep denying the existence of racism and its effects.

Proof?

"U.S. single parents have both above average employment rates and above average poverty rates. High rates of low-wage employment combined with inadequate income support explain the paradox of high poverty despite high employment."

And there is an easy solution to this problem, which instantly doubles a person's potential income, and halves their parental workload, while not costing tax payers a dime.

It's called getting married.

Gathomas88 · Jun 18, 2014

eohrnberger said:
Hmm. That almost seems like genocide some how. Self inflicted to be sure, but none the less.

You're far from the first to say so.

BlackGenocide.org | L.E.A.R.N. Northeast

Dittohead not! · Jun 18, 2014

sangha said:
That might explained by the fact that people who get married are generally not poor to begin with

It's a chicken and egg situation

and which one do you think came first?
I'm of the opinion that the same mindsets that lead to poverty also lead to making babies out of wedlock.

sangha · Jun 18, 2014

Dittohead not! said:
and which one do you think came first?

the words "begin with" in my post are a clue

Dittohead not! · Jun 18, 2014

sangha said:
the words "begin with" in my post are a clue

So, your point is that people don't marry because they're poor, and not that they're poor because they don't marry.

Are weddings necessarily so expensive? I mean, sure, a debutante can spend a hundred grand, but someone who goes to a Justice of the Peace is just as married.

faithful_servant · Jun 19, 2014

Gimmesometruth said:
Oh, I see, racism towards blacks.....and discrimination of blacks...are two different things.........and it is caused by "thugness".

Thanks for explaining that racism towards blacks is really all their fault, whereas, in the last post, we were told that blacks need to get over what happened "150 years ago", the implication being that racism is imagined.

Here's what I said in it's entirety, instead of just taking one sentence out of context. Notice the bolded part.

I've seen some those studies and they confuse racism with discrimination against a "thug" stereotype that far too many young blacks embrace. IMO, the issue isn't related to the fact that they are black, but rather that what most people notice the most about young blacks is the stereotype that they seem to love. When someone sees a young black guy wearing "gang" style clothing and with an attitude to match, they do pull back. See that enough and they start equating that same attitude with all young blacks.
The problem looks like this:
Joe citizen sees a young black person.
The young black person is acting like a stereotypical "thug".
Joe citizen sees another young black person.
That young black person is acting like a stereotypical "thug".
Repeat a dozen times or so and what happens is that the idea of young black person equaling a "thug" gets reinforced, regardless of the person dress or behavior.

Keep in mind that I learned this from a guy who's an ex-Law enforcement and is black (nicest guy you ever wanted to have your back since he's considered an actual mountain in several states [muscle, not fat]). Tom told me that the problem is that people learn things and what they are learning about young blacks these days has far more negative than positive. The problem is twofold, first of all people should be judging others solely on their character and not their manner of dress, secondly, if you want respect, act respectful.

I never said that it was their fault, in fact I made it clear that the problem was on BOTH sides. Try again, please, this time with integrity if you don't mind...

faithful_servant · Jun 19, 2014

grip said:
Ahhh.... I see, people actually like to be poor and simply don't want to work hard enough to get out of debt? Well that makes sense, because it's so easy that a majority do succeed and there are few people unemployed, uneducated or poor. Glad you cleared that up that being poor is a preferable choice for the impoverished. :doh

I 100% disagree with every word you posted. Not one single word of what you assigned to me do I agree with.

People don't choose to be poor, but they damn sure can choose to STAY poor. Opportunities are there if you are willing to take them. I used to work in construction and spent my winters unemployed. I'd throw an ax and splitting maul in the back of my Ford Fiesta and drive around looking for unsplit piles of firewood in people's yards and then stop and offer to split the wood for them - $20 split, $40 split and stacked. OPPORTUNITY - IT'S THERE IF YOU CHOOSE TO LOOK FOR IT!!!! I know a lot of poor people who have top end cell phones, bigger and better TVs than I do and they sit on thier butts all day long. No motivation, no drive, no seeking out opportunities. They have choices before them and they choose the one tha lets sit around playing their game systems (I don't have one) and lounging on the couch all day. The company I work for is constantly looking for people to to get out there and bust their butt for a days wage. Do any of these folks go down place an app.?? Nope. But they'll whine about not having any money and find ways to scam/steal for it.

sangha · Jun 19, 2014

Dittohead not! said:
So, your point is that people don't marry because they're poor, and not that they're poor because they don't marry.

Are weddings necessarily so expensive? I mean, sure, a debutante can spend a hundred grand, but someone who goes to a Justice of the Peace is just as married.

No, my point is that it's a little more complicated than that.

It's life. It's not supposed to be simple.

grip · Jun 19, 2014

faithful_servant said:
I 100% disagree with every word you posted. Not one single word of what you assigned to me do I agree with.

People don't choose to be poor, but they damn sure can choose to STAY poor. Opportunities are there if you are willing to take them. I used to work in construction and spent my winters unemployed. I'd throw an ax and splitting maul in the back of my Ford Fiesta and drive around looking for unsplit piles of firewood in people's yards and then stop and offer to split the wood for them - $20 split, $40 split and stacked. OPPORTUNITY - IT'S THERE IF YOU CHOOSE TO LOOK FOR IT!!!! I know a lot of poor people who have top end cell phones, bigger and better TVs than I do and they sit on thier butts all day long. No motivation, no drive, no seeking out opportunities. They have choices before them and they choose the one tha lets sit around playing their game systems (I don't have one) and lounging on the couch all day. The company I work for is constantly looking for people to to get out there and bust their butt for a days wage. Do any of these folks go down place an app.?? Nope. But they'll whine about not having any money and find ways to scam/steal for it.

Pfftt.. I could care less whether you agree. It's the truth.

rabbitcaebannog · Jun 19, 2014

RedAkston said:
Who exactly is fighting against access to birth control? I know of several who fought to have birth control mandated by law, but I don't recall anyone fighting against access.

Snip-
Last year was not a great one for abortion rights. First, congressional Republicans attempted to deny statutory rape victims access to Medicaid-funded abortions (twice). Then GOP-dominated state legislatures pushed record numbers of laws limiting abortion rights, including proposals that could have treated killing abortion providers as "justifiable homicide."

Yet in the past six months, social conservatives have widened their offensive, and their new target is clear: Not satisfied with making it harder to obtain legal abortions, they want to limit access to birth control, too.

On a lighter note, don't miss The Greatest Hits in Contraceptive History slideshow. Or this particular throwback birth-control method.
"Contraception is under attack in a way it really wasn't in the past few years," says Judy Waxman, the vice president for health and reproductive rights at the National Women's Law Center. "In 2004, we could not find any group—the National Right to Life Committee, the Bush campaign, anyone—that would go on the record to say they're opposed to birth control," adds Elizabeth Shipp, the political director for NARAL Pro-Choice America. "We couldn't find them in 2006 either, and in 2008 it was just fringe groups. In 2010, 2011, and this year, it's just exploded."

The first sign of the new assault came last October, when Mississippi activists and congressional Republicans pushed legislation on the state and federal level, respectively, that would have treated zygotes—a.k.a. fertilized human eggs—as legal "persons." If the definition of legal personhood is changed so that it begins when sperm meets an egg, hormonal birth control or barrier devices that prevent zygotes from implanting in the uterine wall could become illegal, making using an IUD tantamount to murder. Yet some 40 percent of House Republicans and a quarter of their allies in the Senate back bills that would do just that.

That's not all. Earlier this year, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a rising conservative star who's considered a possible pick for the 2012 GOP vice-presidential nomination, introduced a bill that could cut off birth control access for millions of women by allowing even non-religious employers to refuse birth control coverage as long as they cite a religious reason. In other words, if your boss doesn't want to cover birth control in the company health plan because he says it would offend his religious beliefs, he wouldn't have to—even if his Cialis was still covered. Rubio's bill could also allow states to refuse to provide birth control through Medicaid, which provides family planning services to millions of poor women.

“These are people who have never, ever approved of birth control, and they saw an opportunity to take it one step further.”
The Republican presidential candidates also have come out against birth control. Mitt Romney has slammed President Barack Obama for requiring most employers to offer insurance that provides birth control at no cost to women who want it, even though Romney himself maintained a similar rule as governor of Massachusetts.

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, who won the non-binding Missouri primary as well as the Minnesota and Colorado caucuses on Tuesday, has also slammed Obama's decision. But he's also gone farther than that, suggesting that any form of birth control is immoral. "Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that's okay, contraception is okay," Santorum, a devout Catholic, said in October. "It's not okay. It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be." As Salon's Irin Carmon has documented, Santorum thinks Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court decision that said states can not deny married couples access to contraception, should be overturned. The Republican War on Contraception | Mother Jones

RedAkston · Jun 19, 2014

rabbitcaebannog said:
Snip-
Last year was not a great one for abortion rights. First, congressional Republicans attempted to deny statutory rape victims access to Medicaid-funded abortions (twice). Then GOP-dominated state legislatures pushed record numbers of laws limiting abortion rights, including proposals that could have treated killing abortion providers as "justifiable homicide."

Yet in the past six months, social conservatives have widened their offensive, and their new target is clear: Not satisfied with making it harder to obtain legal abortions, they want to limit access to birth control, too.

On a lighter note, don't miss The Greatest Hits in Contraceptive History slideshow. Or this particular throwback birth-control method.
"Contraception is under attack in a way it really wasn't in the past few years," says Judy Waxman, the vice president for health and reproductive rights at the National Women's Law Center. "In 2004, we could not find any group—the National Right to Life Committee, the Bush campaign, anyone—that would go on the record to say they're opposed to birth control," adds Elizabeth Shipp, the political director for NARAL Pro-Choice America. "We couldn't find them in 2006 either, and in 2008 it was just fringe groups. In 2010, 2011, and this year, it's just exploded."

The first sign of the new assault came last October, when Mississippi activists and congressional Republicans pushed legislation on the state and federal level, respectively, that would have treated zygotes—a.k.a. fertilized human eggs—as legal "persons." If the definition of legal personhood is changed so that it begins when sperm meets an egg, hormonal birth control or barrier devices that prevent zygotes from implanting in the uterine wall could become illegal, making using an IUD tantamount to murder. Yet some 40 percent of House Republicans and a quarter of their allies in the Senate back bills that would do just that.

That's not all. Earlier this year, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a rising conservative star who's considered a possible pick for the 2012 GOP vice-presidential nomination, introduced a bill that could cut off birth control access for millions of women by allowing even non-religious employers to refuse birth control coverage as long as they cite a religious reason. In other words, if your boss doesn't want to cover birth control in the company health plan because he says it would offend his religious beliefs, he wouldn't have to—even if his Cialis was still covered. Rubio's bill could also allow states to refuse to provide birth control through Medicaid, which provides family planning services to millions of poor women.

“These are people who have never, ever approved of birth control, and they saw an opportunity to take it one step further.”
The Republican presidential candidates also have come out against birth control. Mitt Romney has slammed President Barack Obama for requiring most employers to offer insurance that provides birth control at no cost to women who want it, even though Romney himself maintained a similar rule as governor of Massachusetts.

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, who won the non-binding Missouri primary as well as the Minnesota and Colorado caucuses on Tuesday, has also slammed Obama's decision. But he's also gone farther than that, suggesting that any form of birth control is immoral. "Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that's okay, contraception is okay," Santorum, a devout Catholic, said in October. "It's not okay. It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be." As Salon's Irin Carmon has documented, Santorum thinks Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court decision that said states can not deny married couples access to contraception, should be overturned. The Republican War on Contraception | Mother Jones

So in other words, you can't provide exactly who is fighting against access to birth control. The MS law "could" be interpreted the way your source (Mother Jones - a partisan source who consistently takes everything out of context and manipulates the facts in a way that makes MSNBC jealous) specifies, however this is only speculation and not based in anything factual. Fighting against abortion is not the same as fighting against access to birth control, not even close.

As I stated in my statement that you quoted, there are those who are fighting against mandated coverage, but this is not the same as trying to prevent access, again not even close.

sangha · Jun 19, 2014

RedAkston said:
So in other words, you can't provide exactly who is fighting against access to birth control. The MS law "could" be interpreted the way your source (Mother Jones - a partisan source who consistently takes everything out of context and manipulates the facts in a way that makes MSNBC jealous) specifies, however this is only speculation and not based in anything factual. Fighting against abortion is not the same as fighting against access to birth control, not even close.

As I stated in my statement that you quoted, there are those who are fighting against mandated coverage, but this is not the same as trying to prevent access, again not even close.

Personhood legislation not fights access to birth control, it makes birth control illegal.

IMO, supporting bills that would make birth control illegal is ample proof that a politician is opposed to birth control

faithful_servant · Jun 19, 2014

grip said:
Pfftt.. I could care less whether you agree. It's the truth.

No, it isn't. How can you know what I'm thinking?? My post have been very clear in presenting just about the exact opposite of what you claim I'm thinking, so why don't educate us all on just how it is that you arrived at such a grossly flawed conclusion??

rabbitcaebannog · Jun 19, 2014

RedAkston said:
So in other words, you can't provide exactly who is fighting against access to birth control. The MS law "could" be interpreted the way your source (Mother Jones - a partisan source who consistently takes everything out of context and manipulates the facts in a way that makes MSNBC jealous) specifies, however this is only speculation and not based in anything factual. Fighting against abortion is not the same as fighting against access to birth control, not even close.

As I stated in my statement that you quoted, there are those who are fighting against mandated coverage, but this is not the same as trying to prevent access, again not even close.

Mandated coverage prevents those least likely to afford it to receive it. That will prevent many children being born into poverty.

RedAkston · Jun 19, 2014

sangha said:
Personhood legislation not fights access to birth control, it makes birth control illegal.

IMO, supporting bills that would make birth control illegal is ample proof that a politician is opposed to birth control

Abortion is not birth control. This seems to be what you are misunderstanding.

The Mark · Jun 19, 2014

I'm not sure they're any worse off than anyone would be in the areas they live (I'm assuming here that you refer to the situation black persons who live in specific areas are in, since outside that I suspect their lives are much like anyone else)

But then I haven't looked at the issue much...

I don't think blaming any one thing is reasonable.

And I would suggest that it's the area, not the people. Although the two are interrelated to a degree...

RedAkston · Jun 19, 2014

rabbitcaebannog said:
Mandated coverage prevents those least likely to afford it to receive it. That will prevent many children being born into poverty.

It prevents it? Why should I pay for someone else's birth control? I know, I know, personal responsibility is not a big thing with liberals/progressives but what's next - mandated Viagra coverage? What about mandated sex change operations? Why stop there, how about mandated Botox injections and boob jobs?

sangha · Jun 19, 2014

RedAkston said:
Abortion is not birth control. This seems to be what you are misunderstanding.

Actually, abortion is a very, very effective form of birth control

The Mark · Jun 19, 2014

sangha said:
Actually, abortion is a very, very effective form of birth control

Abortion is not a contraceptive, I think he meant...that would make more sense anyway....

Interestingly, there's something screwy here, with the English language (unprecedented, I know...):
Birth control - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia says:

Birth control, also known as contraception and fertility control, are methods or devices used to prevent pregnancy.

By that definition, abortions are definitely NOT birth control...since they don't prevent pregnancy, they stop an ongoing one.

Dittohead not! · Jun 20, 2014

The Mark said:
I'm not sure they're any worse off than anyone would be in the areas they live (I'm assuming here that you refer to the situation black persons who live in specific areas are in, since outside that I suspect their lives are much like anyone else)

But then I haven't looked at the issue much...

I don't think blaming any one thing is reasonable.

And I would suggest that it's the area, not the people. Although the two are interrelated to a degree...

So, the solution is simple: move out of the area.

Kreton · Jun 20, 2014

RedAkston said:
It prevents it? Why should I pay for someone else's birth control? I know, I know, personal responsibility is not a big thing with liberals/progressives but what's next - mandated Viagra coverage? What about mandated sex change operations? Why stop there, how about mandated Botox injections and boob jobs?

I'll take two of each. Thanks for offering to pay.

The Mark · Jun 20, 2014

Dittohead not! said:
So, the solution is simple: move out of the area.

Unless there's some requirement that we have such areas, I'd say the solution is to either leave or...change the area.

Dittohead not! · Jun 20, 2014

The Mark said:
Unless there's some requirement that we have such areas, I'd say the solution is to either leave or...change the area.

I'd choose to leave, but then, I never was into the victimhood sort of lifestyle, nor into dependence on government largesse.

The Mark · Jun 20, 2014

Dittohead not! said:
I'd choose to leave, but then, I never was into the victimhood sort of lifestyle, nor into dependence on government largesse.

Admittedly, changing an entire area is harder than leaving. Or pretending to help, which is what politicians do.

Edit: Especially since, depending on the area in question, trying to change it might get you killed.

Dittohead not! · Jun 20, 2014

The Mark said:
Admittedly, changing an entire area is harder than leaving. Or pretending to help, which is what politicians do.

Edit: Especially since, depending on the area in question, trying to change it might get you killed.

I'm not sure changing an area like that is even possible.

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

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

GOP

Black Leadership

Democrats

Other

master political analyst

master political analyst

Slow 🅖 Hand

Master of Shenanigans

Master of Shenanigans

Sporadic insanity normal.

Master of Shenanigans

Sporadic insanity normal.

master political analyst

Doesn't know

Sporadic insanity normal.

master political analyst

Sporadic insanity normal.

master political analyst