Part 2: Liberal Welfare Kills
Part 2 is going to be a little different. There’s no real need for me to add comments since this is pretty much just between Bobby and me. I answer all his posts directly anyway. I will do it occasionally, but not as much as in past posts.
You will notice I often point out that what he keeps saying has nothing to do with the Treyvon Martin case and try to steer it back. But Bobby won’t have it. He wants to talk about racist Liberal welfare programs only. He never explains how welfare programs are only Liberal and aimed only at keeping black people down, but just that they are. And I’m stupid for not accepting it.
I apologize if the conversation circles back around on itself a few times. That happens when you insist something to be true without any proof and it’s the only thing you have to say so you keep saying it. And your only defense being the absolute denial of any contradictory facts. I tried to edit it down, but it’s like trying to cut all the lines of fat out of marbled beef. It’s impossible and you would lose the flavor anyway.
Names changed bla bla bla.
What I've learned so far:
1. Liberal Government programs murdered unarmed Trayvon Martin.
2. Racism never has anything to do with anything but Liberals always blame that straw man just to keep it alive to make money off it.
3. Democrats are responsible for all racism.
4. The policies Liberals implement should be considered racist because they only help poor black people. (and no other poor ethnicities)
5. Liberal Government programs cause racism.
6. Liberal Government programs cause minorities to be dependent on Liberal Government programs.
7. Listening to conservative news sources only, the uninformed, myopic view would seem to be that liberals are to blame for everything always no matter what. Even when they have nothing to do with the issue.
So, let's for the sake of argument pretend I'm a Liberal and I see a Tea Party sign that says 'Obama nigar go home Afrika socilist Muslin' (spelled just like that, too) and I say "That's racist." You would view my pointing out a racist as me playing the race card just to keep racism alive so I can make a profit off of it? Because that seems to be the pattern - a Liberal points out when a Conservative is blatantly a racist, and the Liberal gets blamed for bringing it up and playing the 'race card.'
I understand Liberals invented a fake "Women's Rights" issue as well. They conjured up a fake Republican "War on Women" just to get votes. And it has nothing to do with the actual barbaric policies that Republicans are implementing.
Of course people take advantage of welfare. The system isn't perfect. No system is. Of course it should be overhauled to weed out the ability to abuse it. But you're exaggerating the minority and representing it as the norm - to further your obvious biased agenda against liberals.
And what does any of this have to do with an armed man with a documented propensity toward violence who should never have stalked someone who was minding their own business while walking down a sidewalk? A man who blatantly racially profiled someone was the entire reason for this encounter. "He's suspicious. He's black." Those were the only reasons Zimmerman gave why he stalked and murdered an unarmed kid. Zimmerman was not defending himself. He was the aggressor. If a strange man with a gun follows me then harasses me, I didn't cause the encounter. Liberals didn't cause it. Democratic policies didn't cause it. Obama didn't cause it. Sharpton didn't cause it. The New Black Panther Party didn't cause it. In fact, I'm pretty confident politics has not been a part of this in any way. Zimmerman and Zimmerman alone caused it. People who are wrong seem to always pile on a whole bunch of unrelated nonsense in order to confuse the issue.
Oh, wait. Is Zimmerman on racism-causing Liberal Government welfare? Maybe that's why he stalked and murdered an unarmed kid for no reason. I had no idea poor, poor George Zimmerman was abused by Liberals, which drove him to commit such a heinous act.
Damn Liberals and their misplaced extreme intellectually lazy hypocrisy! Why!? Why!!!!????
What? Zimmerman is NOT on racism-causing Liberal Government welfare? Then how are we supposed to blame liberals for what he did?
So... as I said earlier... PUTTING RACE ASIDE... the facts remain that a teenage boy is dead at the hands of an adult male who had no legal right NOR responsibility to be doing what he did... and had Zimmerman not been emotionally disturbed, perhaps Trayvon would still be alive today...
Okay well back to the lazy thing...you don't seem to be wrapping your mind around it so lets try a simpler approach....Racism in all forms is bad. If you really have a problem with racism you should stop defending a system which results in poor black children being killed. Anyone can denounce Trayvon's killing. It's just too bad it takes a bandwagon crime for the average white guy to care.
It’s still March and 3 more black men (all younger than I am) murdered in my town this morning (also Rev Jackson and Pres Obama's town). No protests. No marches. So long as a white man didn't pull the trigger giant groups of liberal white people will meet this news with a yawn.
Yes. Racism in all forms is bad. But your (lack of a) theory that only Liberals cause racism has no coherence. Just stating 'Liberal Government programs cause racism resulting in poor black children being killed' doesn't make that completely absurd, baseless statement magically true. How did you come to this conclusion? You have only claimed 'This is true because I just said it.' You haven't shown any causality.
Let's for the sake of argument, pretend that the percentage of food stamp recipients is NOT 37% blacks and 46% whites. Let's also pretend Medicaid recipients are NOT 28% black and 49% white. Let's pretend that the percentage of all 'Liberal Government welfare' programs combined does NOT come to - blacks: 22%, Hispanics: 20% and whites: 34% plus numerous other minorities equaling 24%.
Now let's pretend these 'Liberal Government welfare' statistics ARE directly resulting in poor lazy white children being killed. Of course, to fit your predetermined Republican conclusion based on absolutely no information, we would first have to pretend that the ONLY reason white people are on welfare is because they're all lazy and not just a minority of recipients abusing the system as is the fact of the matter.
But seriously, please draw the direct causal line between welfare recipients and racism. And don't just SAY it's true because Rush or whoever TOLD you it's true. Explain it by using your own thoughts. Actually make a hypothesis and come to a logical conclusion based on facts and information. Please, use your mind to help me wrap my simple mind around it. [He never does it.]
As for your last statement that again tries to confuse the issue with nonsense, do you really think rallies for all 17,000 murders in America per year is feasible? Or do you want to break it down to specific color-on-color murders? Do you also want the President or Jesse Jackson to preside over each case? Or should nobody ever do anything about anything? Please, break down every aspect of every situation the way you personally feel it should be handled. [He never does it.]
George Zimmerman stalked murdered an unarmed kid. None of the irrelevant things you bring up will change this fact.
Who said welfare recipients are lazy? I said people like you are. No one had to tell me what I get to see with my own eyes every day I go to work in one of the poorest neighborhoods in the country. The kids there start with 2 strikes because you and the Government you trust so much have decided to expect nothing from them, give them free housing in the ghetto, and send them to high crime and low graduation rate schools. It's a wonder they succeed at a lower statistical rate than their white and Asian equals, and get killed at a higher rate. Are you saying it's the fault of their skin color? That's what your policies imply. You misquoted me and said so many illogical things....but your post was so long let me just say I reject about everything you say. Your %s are meaningless unless they are showing that blacks are killed at the same rate statistically as whites? And who is supporting the killing of unarmed innocent black kids? Not me, so who are you arguing with? Using Trayvon's tragedy to pretend you are blameless is sad.
So, you reject all the facts I presented because they don't conform to your preconceived conclusions. You ignore all the questions you can't answer. When I point out how the things you claim are ridiculously untrue, you say I'm misquoting you. You keep explicitly stating that 'Liberal Government programs' cause racism, which is preposterous at a fundamental level. This is why you can't actually show how 'Liberal Government programs' cause racism. You make fantastically ludicrous statements about how "my" policies (somehow, I'm a policy-maker now - or am I misquoting you again?) imply that skin color causes failure. You take a minority of system-manipulators and expand them to be the way the system was specifically designed to run just to back up your prejudicial nonsense. And through all this, you seem to know I'm lazy and trust the government 'so much.' Or was that another misquote?
The Government does not cause racism. An individual's mental state causes racism. Are you saying racism isn't a normally occurring thing and only Liberals cause it with their government policies? What fantasy planet do you come from? Or maybe I'm wrong. Which Liberal policy killed Martin Luther King? Please tell me. I'd like to know, since only Liberal policies cause racism. And apparently lead to murder. Based on what you keep claiming. Or is this a misquote, "If you really have a problem with racism you should stop defending a system which results in poor black children being killed."
My %s (which are not mine, but the Census Bureau's) clearly point out that vastly more white people are on welfare, so the uninformed things you say pertaining to black people should, by your reasoning, really pertain to white people. But go ahead and ignore that or say it's meaningless or conflate it with something irrelevant - however you wish to deflect the facts.
At what point are you actually going to come up with reasons on how these absurdly ignorant things you claim are true? Again, just claiming they are true doesn't make them true.
And somehow I am to blame for Trayvon Martin's death now? You really are a special kind of delusional half-wit.
And to that, since you can't figure it out - I was not saying you support killing unarmed people. I was merely pointing out how everything you keep bringing up has nothing at all to do with the Martin case.
I did not kill him. The government did not kill him. Ghetto housing did not kill him. Low graduation rate schools did not kill him. Jesse Jackson did not kill him. Nor did marches, Liberals, Obama, Sharpton, black neighborhoods, government dependence, unemployment or intellectual laziness.
George Zimmerman did.
Oh yikes. Who is blaming you for Trayvon's death? Or denying there are racist crimes? Your stats aren't proportional, so they are meaningless (unless there is an equal number of whites and black in the US), but yes it would take a little more brainpower to get that. You are having trouble with the basic point here-you are very upset about the tragedy of a young black man named Trayvon, but couldn't care less about the racist results of policies you support resulting in the deaths of so many THOUSANDS more. Who are the few manipulating the system? I'm not blaming black people-I'm blaming people like you. They are only living in the system exaclty as you want it Bill. You are not responsible for Trayvon's death though-and that will make you and every other intellectually lazy white man sleep better and believe yourself to be blameless.
Oh my... let's keep it civil... LOL!!!
"Using Trayvon's tragedy to pretend you are blameless is sad." This either means you think I am to be blamed directly for his murder or blamed for writing or supporting policies that directly caused his murder. Or is this another misquote? An unarmed kid minding his own business is stalked and murdered. Tell me which Liberal policy am I responsible for that killed him? Then I won't pretend I'm blameless anymore.
Again, policies are not racist. This is a nonsensical claim, which has still not been proven by anyone. And it can't be because it is false, which is why you ignore attempting to prove it. Talk about intellectually lazy - you just repeat nonsense that some right-wing talking head told you because it conforms to your prejudice about Liberals. And you never bother to figure out if it's true.
There are more whites in America. And there are more whites on welfare. You are again trying to conflate the issue. What do you believe is the proper percentage a race needs to be on welfare before it is considered a racist policy? If policies cause failure, why do you believe it doesn't apply to the white people who are on it as well? Come on, use that intellectually active brain of yours and tell me the proper percentages.
In 2008, the conservative Heritage Foundation estimated that social welfare amounted to $491 billion. The HF also estimated corporate welfare at $2.5 trillion. Explain why you think corporate welfare, which costs over 5 times as much as social, is not racist. Or do you think bankers and oil CEO's are racist because of their Liberal welfare programs as well? Is this corporate welfare policy directly resulting in racist hedge fund manager-on-banker crimes?
The Treyvon Martin case has nothing to do with the THOUSANDS of other cases, as I already clearly pointed out, but you ignored that and keep repeating irrelevant information. Either way, the policies are STILL not racist, no matter how many times you repeat it and try to brainwash me in lieu of any facts.
But yes, I am to blame for the current welfare system. This is exactly how I want it. Because I am intellectually lazy. I am responsible for racist Liberal policies that only kill black people. How do you know me so well? Keep saying the same thing over and over. That will eventually make it true. I'm sure of it.
And before I forget - you're right. I only care about this one murder. I know about all the other 17,000 murders every year and I know there should be 17,000 individual protests, but I don't care about them. And I control the media and what it brings to my attention. And there will be no ramifications from the outcome of this case at all. It will only pertain to this one case alone and the future will forget it and move on. No precedent will be set. No one case ever changes the future. Like that Parks lady sitting in the front of the bus. If that was so important, how come nobody's ever heard of her? Why should I care about anyone else? And you're not once again conflating the issue to make some prejudiced point that isn't real.
I hope my post wasn't too long for you this time. But feel free to reject everything I said in bulk again. And certainly don’t answer my questions that expose your nonsense.
When you blame me for something I have nothing to do with, and I point out that you're blaming me, am I misquoting you, meaningless, intellectually lazy or just playing the ‘blame card’?
Do you actually believe that social welfare only creates welfare recipients and that if there was no welfare, people would just get jobs? What jobs?
Do you believe that I am personally responsible for killing black people by my lazy votes for politicians who create racist welfare programs for people who don't need welfare that only apply to black people but never white people?
Do you actually believe that only Liberals support social welfare programs and not Conservatives?
Will you ever give even one fact to support any of your baseless claims, or just continue repeating unfounded suppositions? [Guess the answer to that one.]
Are you viewing life through FOX-colored glasses? Or Rush-colored glasses?
All these questions are rhetorical. I'm asking them just so they're out there, not that I think they'll be answered. You've ignored all the rest. Why start now?
I tried to be civil. I hope it worked.
Blameless for the policies which cause the majority of murders, problems etc - not Trayvon's. Seriously I've said the same thing several times not sure what is so difficult. Supporting policies that have terrible results for black people is racist-the policies themselves are not people.
Marc Morial discusses how video of George Zimmerman in custody could lead to justice for Trayvon Martin
[A full transcript of the discussion between Marc Morial and Kieth Olbermann in this link is at the end of this blog. Olbermann was fired and I don’t know if the link will stay active.]
These policies are not racist and do not cause the majority of black murders, problems, etc. Seriously, I've said the same thing several times and keep asking you to give even one fact in support of your baseless claims. I am sure what is so difficult, though - the fact that there are no facts to back your fantasies.
I'm pretty sure I've addressed everything else you've written at length. [When? Where? In an alternate dimension?] Lets say 70% of welfare recipients are white...but 70% of black people are on welfare...does that mean white people are tied into more than black people? Math is scary, I know. Get it?
It's be cool if you got upset by ... maybe every 100 murders?
"Let's say?" How about using real math instead of randomly making something up? You do seem to be scared of math.
But picking 1 out of 17,000 is okay for everyone who really doesn't care. I'm sure Rosa Parks would approve.
What are you even talking about?
Why get off welfare when Bill and friends want you on for life?
Seriously. What are you talking about?
Exactly what, Bobby? You're making up nonsense then mocking me for not understanding.
The sad thing is, we are still talking black and white! Can't we move into something a little more purple and grey?
Exactly, we are on completely different pages. I find what I see as your lack of logic maddening and I'm guessing you think the same of me. No mock intended.
The conversation was dead for two days, then, like Dracula rising from his coffin…
For Bill...Juan Williams making 50% of my point:
I don't disagree with much of that. But - again - are we supposed to protest every murder, or none of them? What is the particular amount of murders and color combinations of murders we are supposed to protest? Do we deny organically formed protests because they do not fit a specifically designated protest-approved murder-type? And do we try to force a protest when one doesn't organically form? How come you don't start protests about specific murders you think are worthy? Should I start complaining that you didn't start a protest after every murder I learn about? What is it about this murder that you feel is not worthy of protest? And if you do think it is worthy of protest, then why are you complaining? Or do you complain about every protest because there wasn't one for every other murder ever? Also, Juan Williams never blamed imaginary "racist Liberal Government policies," which is about 95% of your imaginary point. What he said is about 5% of your point - which has nothing to do with the topic.
It seems you are just randomly complaining about this one particular protest in order to invent a non-existent excuse to go out of your way to find some made-up reason to blame Liberals for some non-existent racist policy - exposing your real goal, which is simply to call Liberals racist. And this topic has absolutely nothing to do with liberal or conservative politics. It has to do with a nut stalking and executing someone for no reason.
But if you really want to make it about politics anyway, then the problem is the spineless Liberal pussies that let the militant Fascist Republicans put yet another harmful, extreme, NRA-sponsored gun law into place without so much as a whimper in protest. This time, a 'stand your ground' law that lets a vigilante shoot first and have no questions asked later - which has increased the 'self defense' claim of vigilante murderers by 300%. [He never addresses any of this. And even after I call Liberals ‘pussies,’ he still calls me a Liberal.]
Like the man chasing a fleeing unarmed burglar for a block and a half, then stabbing him to death, then claiming he felt his life was in danger - and having the second-degree murder case thrown out after Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Beth Bloom cited "stand your ground" for doing so. Even Police Sgt. Ervens Ford called it a “travesty of justice.” He said, “How can it be 'stand your ground'? It’s on video! You can see him stabbing the victim.”
Under no conceivable circumstance can Zimmerman claim self defense since he is the one that initiated contact. It was Martin who was standing his ground. No matter what color his skin is. Excuse me - was. And no matter how many black person statistics you and Juan Williams present that have nothing to do with this case.
But, I guess you could be correct after all. The Liberal Government policy of never standing up to Fascist Republican policies is partially what enabled Treyvon Martin's murder by George Zimmerman. Because if he didn't have the confidence of being able to get away with murder by simply claiming self defense, would Zimmerman have deliberately stalked and murdered Martin in the first place?
Although, I still don't see how any 'Liberal Government policy' is racist since guns don't only kill black people. Nor does any 'Liberal Government policy' ever only apply to black people. Nor are 'Liberal Government policies' ever only Liberal - you have to intentionally ignore the Conservatives who also signed on to those policies in order to make your false, unsubstantiated accusations. [These obvious facts, which completely eviscerate his nonsensical fantasy about ‘racist Liberal welfare policies’ are 100% ignored.]
And these days, most Liberal policies (like bipartisan deficit commission, pay as you go, cap and trade, health reform individual mandate, the DREAM Act, the TARP bail-outs, contraception being covered by health care plans, the Nuclear START program, bailing out the Auto Industry, Israel going back to pre-1967 borders, public education, infrastructure spending, child labor laws, civil rights, the EPA, deficit spending, the Federal Reserve, women's rights, End of Life Counseling in health care, financial disclosure, minimum wage, military intervention in the Middle East, the Constitutionally protected abortion right, the Economic Development Administration, Medicare and Social Security) are actually policies written and/or triumphantly supported by Conservatives that Conservatives suddenly go against since the black guy in the White House agreed to implement them. So, who's being racist hypocrites here? Unless there's some other reason Conservatives suddenly hate their own policies, decreeing that they somehow suddenly 'take away freedom'? "Taking away freedom" is the hollow, catch-all, dog-whistle excuse for Conservatives when there's no real reason to oppose something other than Obama is for it. Even when it applies to their own policies - which are all on congressional record and on video and easily researchable.
And finally, no matter how you look at it, Treyvon's murder has absolutely nothing to do with welfare programs. You just desperately want to twist the topic in order to call Liberals racist. Completely out of context and totally unsubstantiated.
If I said eating healthy is good for you, would "You Liberals want to take away my freedom!" be your baseless, topic-twisting reply? It's how FOX "News" and Limbaugh and every other right-wing talking head ignorantly reacted when Michelle Obama said it.
Yeah. The freedom to be a fat bastard and die young.
As this topic is still about, George Zimmerman stalked and murdered unarmed Treyvon Martin for no reason other than what was in his head. And no amount of your throwing in of baseless, unrelated topics can ever change that fact.
Or, the way I see it versus the way you apparently see it:
George Zimmerman stalked and murdered unarmed Treyvon Martin for no reason other than what was in his head.
Liberals are racist because your conspiracy theory wouldn't work otherwise. Welfare policies are racist because contrary to facts, they only apply to black people. Liberals implement these racist welfare policies in order to keep only the black man down, because contrary to facts, they never apply to white people. Racist Liberals inexplicably keep the black man down while simultaneously pretending to help them, contrary to the whole point of welfare, which only applies to black people, just to get their votes. Then you somehow have to connect either Zimmerman or Martin to a welfare program (of which neither are partaking in) so your wildly convoluted conspiracy theory works. Then circle back to racist Liberal welfare programs caused Zimmerman to murder Martin.
Unless I'm misunderstanding you completely. Lazy as I am.
Do you have any other pointless arguments that you'd like me to address? Maybe how CFL lightbulbs are taking away your freedom?
Bill, thanks for taking the time to read that. [I read and reply to everything. I don’t ignore the parts I don’t like, as some people do - who shall remain nameless.] The 50% I was referring to was: I find it disingenuous to be so upset about something that is not difficult to be upset by (a white guy saying white guys should not shoot black people is easy) when a problems hundreds of times greater (black on black crime is ignored). Look, you are very much parked in your ideals, I get it. I find your arguments completely lacking. [Most Conservatives do find facts completely lacking. That’s why they ignore them. Completely.] I am not going to insult you-I just disagree. Let me just end on this: I was raised in mostly white Sussex County. Went to a very liberal college and even more liberal law school. I arrived in Chicago with your ideals and felt pretty good about myself. I supported everything you think is good for the poor and minorities. Then I went to work in the poorest black neighborhood in the country. I observed black children living in conditions you would not believe existed in America. I donated my time and money to black charities. I wanted to make a difference and thought people like you and Obama did too. And you probably really do. I have these circular arguments with my cousin, a PHD in nuclear physics and I say this: If everyone in the world was as good hearted as you and I, liberalism and socialism would work. Once you are exposed to the real world it no longer is enough to theorize and central plan-you need to do what works for people. You can't ignore results because the plan was made with such good intentions. Liberal policies have kept a greater proportion of minorities poor (the opposite of their stated intent) for decades. Whites too, yes, but not as great a proportion. I have taken the time to listen to both sides and then saw what each side accomplishes. I just think you are wrong. No offense. I'm not saying you need to work or volunteer in the projects in Newark out by you to have an opinion, but it couldn't hurt. [I am assuming he wholeheartedly believes trickle-down Reaganomics works. But only because there isn’t one fact or example in 30 years that ever supports it. That’s not racism, though. Just class warfare.]
No one ever ignored other crimes. You just keep saying this in order to make your "Liberals are racist" point. Everyone else is only talking about this one murder. And you keep saying it is disingenuous to be upset at this one murder because every other murder hasn't upset people as well. I do not care who murders whom - they all upset me. Nobody was talking about which race murdered which race except you and Richard. This seems to be of your and Richard's infatuation alone in this thread. Everyone else was talking about a man who murdered a boy for no reason. Not the races of who did what to whom.
And you've never explained how "Liberal" policies A.) are racist and B.) keep people poor. You have never explained how "Liberal" policies are actually Liberal and not Conservative as well. You (conservatives) have never introduced an alternate "Conservative" plan other than 'end welfare programs'.
You can't just proclaim something to be true based on nothing but for the fact you said it.
You can't tell me I've not been exposed to the real world. How would you know this? You don’t know me. Except here on Facebook.
And you can't keep saying what you said is never what you said. How can even the idea of progress ever be made in this discussion? You keep saying we're both set in our ideals, but mine are based on researchable facts and yours seem to be based on nothing more than feelings you demand to be true.
And still none of this has anything to do with the murder of Treyvon Martin.
It seems that your personal disheartening experience with poverty in America, justifiable as it is, has made you cynical. Somehow making you believe that helping people is pointless. That helping people hurts people. Then you jump to the wild conclusion that Liberal policies are somehow racist. I do not see this connection. It is not based on any data. You have yet to actually make the connection other than simply stating it is so.
Feelings are not facts.
Yes, there are people (of all races) with iPhones using food stamps. This is welfare system abuse, not racism. Yes, people (of all races) are generations into welfare never having worked. This is welfare system abuse, not racism. These things are also the minority of people on welfare, not the norm. Laws need to be made to prevent these systematic abuses. But to believe that these welfare programs are racist and keep people poor is only cynically misinformed feeling, not fact.
[I wish I added this… Richard’s girlfriend once talked about how she was on welfare for six months. She said it helped support her until she could find a job. Two things: 1.) That is exactly what welfare was designed for; temporary support, not a way of life. 2.) You probably don’t count this because she’s white and welfare can only apply to black people for your ignorant fantasy theory to be true.] [Of course, she was making the case against welfare when she told this story, so there’s no accounting for where peoples’ heads are firmly planted.]
The roadblock to progress seems to be that Conservatives find facts to be completely lacking and put their faith entirely in feelings. As clinical study after clinical study shows. Barring that Conservatives don't believe in scientific methodology. As clinical study after clinical study shows.
I, too have taken the time to listen and see what both sides accomplish. And one is needless welfare for the rich, whereas the other is welfare for the needy poor. I just think you are wrong. No offense. I'm not saying you can't have feelings on the matter, but basing those feelings on facts couldn't hurt.
Bobby, it isn't liberal policies alone that have kept the greater portion of minorities poor... both liberal and conservatives are at fault here... but so too are the people who are in that environment. As you may or may not know, I lived for several years in a very poor part of Paterson... spent a lot of my time working with inner city kids and young adults... even taught through three Paterson Schools; Eastside, JFK, and Paterson Catholic. I also spent a lot of time with kids in East Orange and working with the street-hard kids at Hackensack High. I lived in and amongst crime, and saw my share of crimes committed on the street outside my home and up and down my block... but I have also seen the generosity and the caring from these very same people... and the drive to DO something when they put their heart and soul into it, or when they are simply accepted and empowered to fulfill it. I have some stories I could tell... but ultimately, it is the system that has let them down, and that system has only two parties to blame: Democrats AND Republicans. The only way things will change is if PEOPLE- not Parties - challenge and change the system to INCLUDE those who are less fortunate and let them know that they have the opportunity and the resources to do so without having to kill someone to do it.
Bill, the poor do not need you version of "help." Welfare abuse is built into the system-by design. I am the least cynical person you could ever meet. I am very realistic, but also very positive. I doubt you lose lots of sleep over all the dead black children since you and you friends are absent 99% of the time, and the 1% is always the same story. Peter-so true my friend. What I say is conservatism is really my own brand-and I am certainly not holding the Republicans blameless...I get even more pissed at their mistakes. If more people were of the mindset of you, me and probably even Bill although I don't know him and will likely never agree on any Facebook topic with him, the world would definetly be moving in the right direction.
Bill, there are 50 City Council members in Chicago, land of your Dear Leader. [Calling President Obama by the North Korean dictator’s title of “Dear Leader” doesn’t in any way expose Bobby’s prejudice by trying to make Obama seem un-American and placing ‘your’ in front of the title certainly doesn’t make it seem like he doesn’t believe Obama is the President of everyone in America - further exposing his prejudice.] All 50 are Democrats like you. So is the mayor. The City has been controlled in this way for decades. These are not my feelings. The bad public schools and dead children are also not my feelings. The fact that Obama and J. Jackson chose this latino (sorry...white) on black killing alone to take a stand on, like yourself, is not my feeling. I once subscribed to the idea that because I thought your policies meant well, they probably did well (my feelings). Then I got to see them in practice (facts) and realized that people like you were not helping the poor brown and black people, you were trying to buy their votes and in doing so keeping them in hopeless situations. If Obama shared my views I would support him and you know it. One good thing i can say about the man-he has been an inspiration for many young black kids here and given them a beautiful sense of pride. Instead of trying to develope a political opinion using google "data" perhaps you should get out and see what it is your friends are doing in the real world.
And let me ask you this, Bill: What is the name of that town or neighborhood in America where generations of white people on welfare, disability, food assistance and government housing send their kids to horrific schools and experience high dependancy rates, heartbreaking heinous crime, an insane murder rate and a bunch of well-meaning liberals like you offering the same solution which has failed for 50 years? Is it near you? I have a FEELING that you won't be able to think of one. And that illustrates why your liberal policies area a failure. A racist failure. I'm sure your friends would like to get the whole country there some day, but so far you've only succeeded in a racist way.
remember the best way to preserve order is through chaos [That is just stupid.]
Bobby... I can tell you that neighborhood... it is in Pasco and Pinellas County Florida
Yes, Bobby. You've convinced me simply by repeating the same thing over and over - even though you have never provided an actual fact to back it up. Welfare is specifically designed to be abused. That makes complete sense. It's so obvious, how could I have missed it? Liberals have come up with an intricate master plan that separates and keeps only black people poor but not white people - wait. Why, again? To get votes? Because they're racist? Lazy? You've invented a Liberal conspiracy to fit your predetermined conclusion. But you still haven't explained how it actually works. Or how it relates to this topic. And you've ignored all the facts that contradict your conspiracy theory. [And he will continue to do so.] [I seem to be commenting more on my own posts. Hmm.]
And I never said bad schools and dead children are only your feelings. Let's not play that game. I said your claims that welfare policies are only Liberal and intentionally keep only black people poor and are racist were your feelings - since they're not based on anything but your feelings. Because you deliberately exclude generationally poor white people from your equation to make your biased point. Your eyes are only able to see poor black people and not poor white people, apparently. And anyone can scroll up to see exactly what I said.
You see a lot of poor black people and instantly recognize racist Liberal policies are the cause. Why can't it be racist Conservatives continually cutting funding for these programs in order to give rich people more tax cuts? Completely as plausible as your unfounded conspiracy theory.
And again, please stop saying these are 'my' policies and calling me a racist. Yes, saying the policies are racist, then saying they are my policies means you are trying to call me a racist without actually saying it. That is quite clear. And please stop telling me to get out into the real world. And please stop saying this is the only Latino (sorry...white) on black murder I've taken a stand on. It is not - you are apparently doing a terrible job of following me around in my everyday life and reporting my every move. And please stop claiming I am trying to make this about a white on black crime as I never once have. And to that point, please stop making this about race - only you keep doing that, as I have pointed out countless times and you keep ignoring me in order to make your false point of racism. Just saying things does not magically make them true.
Zimmerman murdering Martin is not about race. Only you keep making it about race. I wonder how many times you'll ignore me saying that. No, I don't. It'll be every time. Which forces me to address it.
Let me ask you: How do I personally benefit by keeping black people poor? Never mind. I forgot that I'm racist. Now it makes sense.
61% of all Americans on welfare are white.
Yes, I Googled it. Does it upset you that I'm using facts instead of feelings to back up my points?
You keep intentionally ignoring facts in order to perpetuate your biased and uninformed feeling that Liberal welfare programs are racist and only apply to black people. Demanding that I name specific towns where only white people are generational welfare recipients is a silly attempt to obfuscate facts. But then to go on with the criteria that if I can't name one, it somehow means I'm racist? That is just stupid. There is no connectivity in your accusations. You're again ignoring that more white people are on welfare just to make your claims of racist Liberals. And you're again ignoring that these programs are also backed by Conservatives. And once again, you can't just proclaim something to be true and it magically becomes true without any facts in support.
But to answer your demand - Every single WalMart in every single town contains every single generational white welfare recipient. Have I just proved you're racist? Or was I just as stupid as you by insisting I'm racist? You somehow don't see the 61% of welfare recipients who are white living in Chicago and Boston and New York and Detroit or any other city and suburb where there are people. Or in North Dakota (10.8% poverty rate) and Maine and Vermont where white poverty vastly outnumbers black poverty because virtually no black people live there. Why do you only see the 33% of recipients that are black? How is it racist when it applies to all races? Let me ask again: How is it racist when it applies to all races? Have you started your conspiracy theory with a biased conclusion, then worked backward, ignoring all facts that don't fit?
You are right on one aspect, though. Welfare was not designed to reduce poverty. Welfare - like Social Security, WIC, SNAP, community health centers, LIHEAP grants, etc - was designed as a safety net. Not as a way of life. The programs are too lax in their restrictions, so abuse is easily possible. But none of them are racist and aimed by Liberals (and the Conservatives that you ignore) at intentionally keeping only black people poor. No matter how much you want them to be. Both Liberals and Conservatives have not reformed their policies to become more efficient and helpful, so how does that work into your 'only Liberals are racist' conspiracy theory? Is everyone racist? No one racist? Does racism actually have nothing to do with welfare programs? Are the bulk of politicians just generally inept? All plausible.
I also seem to remember President Obama speaking about white Jared Loughner murdering six white people in Arizona. Does this not count in your racist equation? Obama has spoken about one 'white on six whites' murder and one 'Latino (sorry...white) on black' murder so far. How many other murder color combinations in your formula does he have to speak about before he wins Racist Bingo? Doesn't six dead whites trump one dead black? Please explain your formula to me. It is very confusing.
Poor is poor, regardless of color. No matter how hard you want it to be a black thing just to call me a racist.
And this is still about a man stalking and murdering an unarmed kid for no reason. Government policies still have absolutely nothing to do with it. You keep insisting they do, but you still never said which racist Liberal policy forced Zimmerman to murder Martin. I won't hold my breath.
But hey, at least you managed to squeeze in a claim that I don't lose sleep over dead black children. That's classy.
May you never let facts sway your baseless accusations.
Oh, and not to blow your mind or anything, I am neither a Liberal nor a Democrat. Never was, never will be. But I was a Republican a long time ago. It's OK, though. I'm fully recovered now.
I tried to quit this thing again. I didn’t think there would be much of a response based on my barrage of facts and questions that completely negate his ignorant theory. I forgot to take into account that facts are easily ignored by Republicans. It’s as if I never said anything.
What's that thing they say about statistics Bill? The important one would be the % of black population vs white on welfare, not percentage of recipients. Seems like a simple distinction-but I guess Google doesn't explain the statistics to you, it expects you to apply them yourself. And where was that town you failed to come up with Bill? How many poor white kids were killed there this month? Your idealistic brothers have done a great job for the poor Muslim minorities in France, and I know that's what you want here too (for all races so maybe you aren't racist deep down!), but for now it's hitting minorities hardest. Which makes YOUR POLICIES racist. Thus making you either lazy or racist for the time being. Seriously though, let me know when Google tells you that neighborhood.
Bobby Sorry Bill...I am slow reader and you write so much...Re: Jared Loughner: Really? Do you not remember the political anger? Seriously? Re: Politicians- no I do not share your overwhelming trust of the government. Who voted against the last welfare reforms? Conservatives? Jeez man, you gotta try a different search engine to base you beliefs on!
And finally Bill, I think what bothers me most about your thought process is that it is so theory based. Is it more classless to point out your general apathy for black murder victims (unless they are killed by a white man), or for you to call my experience disheartening? It is not "disheartening" to see murdered people, it is a tragedy that makes normal people want to change the circumstances which created the environment. And normal people don't get cynical when they see it (you would just get cynical and say 'well that's life in the ghetto'???) but motivated to discover why it happens on such a much higher basis in black neighborhoods and do something about it. Or are you saying that the murder rate is so high because of the skin color of the shooter? It's not. It's because of your policies. And no, you don't care.
But I'm guessing you'll stay "Out," because that is the easy way.
A whole lot of white people are on welfare, so it can't be racist toward black people. That's all that 61% statistic means. You are trying to make a pointless distinction to support your already imaginary point.
This was never about white or black kids being murdered. It was always about a man murdering an unarmed kid and getting away with it. You made it about race.
I do not need to come up with a poor white town to prove or disprove your imaginary racist point that you brought up. White people are on welfare. Both concentrated and dispersed. This is a fact.
But if I must:
Los Angeles, CA
121,237 white, 88,405 black
71,350 white, 22,337 black
Clearwater (Pinellas Co, FL)
12,917 white, 3,553 black
New Port Richey (Pasco Co, FL)
3,411 white, 28 black
4,138 white, 54 black
2,863 white, 25 black
2,988 white, 0 black
There, am I not racist anymore? Does this disprove your cockamamie statement that if I can't name places with more poor white people on welfare, then that somehow means I'm racist? Or do I now have to list each program that every single one of them are on in order to prove I'm not racist?
We've added Muslims to your complaint, now? Oh, goody. Yes. I want poor Muslims in France in America for all races because I'm racist and lazy because of whatever the hell you're rambling on about now.
Why does information scare you? Or is it just Google?
I do not understand your Loughner comment. Or why that situation is disqualified from your murder protest equation. Except that it doesn't fit into your imaginary Liberal racist conspiracy theory.
I never said I had an overwhelming trust of the government. You seem to thoroughly enjoy telling me what I know and say and do.
No. I never said Conservatives vote against welfare reforms. I said they vote to end them. Because they do. Then give that money to the rich.
I never pointed out a general apathy for black murder victims unless they are killed by whites. You said I said that. Because you can't stop bringing up racism and calling me a racist. Based on what evidence no one will ever know.
I did not say it was disheartening for you to see murdered people. I said it was disheartening to see so many poor people. Well, hey, let's take a look at my exact quote, shall we? "It seems that your personal disheartening experience with poverty in America, justifiable as it is, has made you cynical." Where did I mention murder? I did not. You made that up. And yes, your invention of a racist Liberal conspiracy against black people is very cynical and also baseless, no matter how much you deny it.
I would never say, 'Well, that's life in the ghetto.' Seriously, where are you coming up with this fantasy life you're inventing for me?
I never talked about murder rates based on skin color. You keep talking about it. Because you can't stop bringing up racism.
These are not MY POLICIES. Is there any possible way I can convince you of this fact? Brainwashing by repetition won't make it true.
Demanding that I don't care does not somehow make it true.
Are you off your meds? Because you have constructed an elaborate imaginary world where I've said things I've never said, I'm some sort of policy-maker, I'm a Liberal, I'm a Democrat, you didn’t really say the things you have said, people are doing things that never happened, whole towns contain only one race of poor people, you're infatuated with racism but demand it's me, you take things I've said and apply them to made up situations, you have certain criteria that has to be met in order to protest but you won't tell anyone what it is, you ignore all the questions I ask then claim to have answered them, you repeat things over and over that are patently false and you generally just invent the outcome you want, demanding and repeating it to be true - never bothering to find or explain the events leading to that outcome.
So yes, now I'm out of here because how could I possibly compete with the intricate fantasy world you've created? It's a racist version of 'Alice in Wonderland' meets 'Inception.'
Bobby, Pasco and Pinellas are more like Pleasantville gone by the wayside... not ALL of it, but a lot. It is mostly little housing developments that were created for returning veterans and their families during and after the war. Most of them grew old in the developments and retired there, and as they die off, the houses are taken over by lower to median income families. There is also a large amount of trailer park housing there, and every other block there is a pawn shop and a strip club, lots of Checkers restaurants [Hey, Checkers rocks.] and Walmarts... biggest crimes in this area are violent home invasions, robberies and shootings/stabbings. I live in a relatively quiet and peaceful neighborhood, but even on my street, two houses away from me there was a home invasion. My parents live in a country area not much different from Byram, and THEY had a home invasion and a murder right behind their house, one street away. Remember those three white kids that were robbing banks and stores and went on a cross country shooting spree and rampage about six + months ago? They started in Pasco, on a highway two blocks away from my home. Again, a few miles in any direction and you have wealthy homes and millionaire properties, but the bulk of the town is the working poor and retired senior citizens on fixed income. A more urban environment would be Tampa and Ybor City, the latter is known for its poor areas and violent crime.
Bill. you're right. I live in fantasy land in the ghetto, and you live in reality world with Google (how many murders in Rutland and Augusta again???).
Fucking hell. I wasn’t going to reply, laughing off the absurdity of that statement. But he just won’t let this die. One day later…
For Bill...a quote from another Alice in Wonderland:
"There is a class
of colored people
who make a business
of keeping the troubles,
the wrongs and the
hardships of the Negro race
before the public.
Some of these people
do not want the Negro
to lose his grievances
because they do not want
to lose their jobs.
There is a certain class
of race-problem solvers
who don't want the patient
to get well."
Christ on a cracker. Why am I even going to respond?
Way to pull out the 100-year-old Booker T. quote. You learn that quote from Rush? (And no, I didn't need to Google that one. I already knew it.) It's a great quote. Applicable to what was going on at that time and a great history lesson. But...
Right now, there are still 20,000,000 white people on welfare, and Conservatives still had a hand in drafting those programs as well, so it still doesn't apply to your increasingly sad attempts to convince me of 'racist Liberal Government programs.' And you still have never explained how you think welfare was intentionally designed to keep only the black man down. You just keep claiming it was by obsessive-compulsively focusing on black people and Liberals to the exclusion of everyone and everything else. If you could maybe point me to the "Negros Only" door of the welfare program, written and supported only by Liberals - and not also by Conservatives, as they are now - I would wholeheartedly accept your conspiracy theory. But, as I have explained, welfare, which applies to everyone, not just black people alone, was never designed to end poverty. It was designed as a safety net. And restrictions are too lax, which is how abuse occurs. That does not automatically conclude a Liberal intent only toward black people. But if you ignore all the facts that contradict your factless conspiracy theory, then sure, it makes total sense!
I could post random, irrelevant quotes all day if that's what you want to do now. No. Sorry. I won't, even if you do want to.
But regardless, this is still simply about a man stalking and murdering an unarmed kid. See? No colors. That's your bag.
How many times you wanna circle this drain?
Oh, and since you're here (I was going to leave it alone), I never said your fantasy world was in a ghetto. You made that up. And the next time you demand someone prove something, like name cities with more white welfare recipients, don't get all smarmy and try to insult them when they do. It's really rather childish to get upset when they've done exactly what you've asked - even though you only did it because you thought it was an impossible task and you could put a check in your 'win' column. As if this is some sort of competition.
Sorry Bill, was trying to help you out with your statistics in small doses. My point you are missing around the drain is that while Google tells you there are many million more whites than blacks on welfare, the important number you refuse to get is which race has a higher percentage, and therefore is more impacted by welfare policy. [No. The point will always be that welfare applies to everyone. Not just black people. Which is why he ignores that fact, which completely nullifies his argument. Side note: I learned “nullify” from the 1967 Spider-Man cartoon.] Shall I simplify? [Warning: Extreme overdose of nonsense ahead.] If there are 100 purple people in the world and 10000 green people...and 99 purple people and 990 green people are on welfare, your statement that green people are more affected than purple people because there are 10 times as many on welfare misses the fact that the purple people are more than 9 times more likely to be a participant. Then lump those 99 purple people into some free crappy housing in a high crime neighborhood, give them crappy schools and low expectations. Are you more likely to succeed if you are purple or green? Your argument that a few green people on welfare are living near each other in Maine is empty. (I didn't ask for a poor white town-they are a plenty...I wanted the town or neighborhood in America where generations of white people on welfare, disability, food assistance and government housing send their kids to horrific schools and experience high dependancy rates, heartbreaking heinous crime, an insane murder rate and a bunch of well-meaning liberals like you offering the same solution which has failed for 50 years...thus proving your policies have no racist impact) And whether you accept your government programs are designed to keep the poor poor is pretty irrelevant. Just the results are. The quote is neither random nor irrelevant-it explains the media's obsession with Trayvon's death perfectly.
Dancing around the drain... Bill you are cracking me up! And Bobby, thanks... now I have the one eyed one horned flying purple people eater song in my head!!!
…ok you said CIRCLE the drain... but I felt like dancing...
Wow. Um... what about all the Conservatives who also signed on to the welfare policies? I see you're still conveniently ignoring them so your racist Liberal conspiracy theory works. And still, I'm not a Liberal, but that doesn't fit into your conspiracy either, so it's also ignored. And are you suggesting the 20 million white people on welfare are insignificant and irrelevant? And you STILL have NEVER explained how black people are targeted ONLY - excepting the 20 million collateral white people damage. 'Percentages' is not a point of yours that I am missing. I just understand why that is irrelevant to the reality of the situation. But sure, keep giving me percentages - that SEEMS to support your conspiracy theory - barring all the facts that STILL continue to contradict it.
Here's one of my many old questions you've ignored: The conservative Heritage Foundation said social welfare costs $491 billion and corporate welfare costs $2.5 trillion. Explain why you think corporate welfare, which costs over 5 times as much as social, is not racist. It seems Conservatives only want to give money to already rich white people (there are statistically more rich whites than blacks) who don't need it just to kill off your statistically more poor black people, resulting in neighborhoods across America where generations of black people on welfare, disability, food assistance and government housing send their kids to horrific schools and experience high dependency rates, heartbreaking heinous crime, an insane murder rate. And a bunch of malevolent conservatives like you just offer the same solution, which has failed for 50 years - give even more money to rich white people. Now, THAT seems racist to me.
So, let's recap: Liberals give money to black people to intentionally keep them down. And Conservatives give money to rich white people to intentionally keep the black man down.
My racist Conservative conspiracy theory is just as plausible as your racist Liberal conspiracy theory. But you probably only see how stupid mine is. Right?
And Peter, dancing is probably more fun than circling the same drain for days. I say you should choose dance!
Re: Conservatives who currently support your policies: the racist impact ['racist impact' is not a real thing] of the policies can not be ignored. I don't know any true conservatives who support your status quo. Re: Your use of caps-I have said over and over and over it is the results that matter regardless of intention. [You have said it over and over, but it’s STILL not true.] There comes a time where original intention no longer matters [If one wishes to invent the false point that you are trying to make.] and the results dictate the current design. What started out as your good intentions have turned into a nightmare for poor brown and black kids. To ignore is to support the current design. Social welfare (among the many other programs with racist impact) [Just calling something that’s not working ‘racist’ doesn’t even make sense.] could cost $1 or a few trillion, if the results have a racist impact, they are wrong. The problem isn't the monetary cost, it's the human one. And no, I don't think we should be handing out so called corporate welfare to your friends at Solyndra, all the Obama connected Chicago companies getting rich, unions and all other bad use of tax payer money. I'm pretty sure the CONSERVATIVE Heritage Foundation thinks the corporate welfare is a bad idea and I agree. Unlike liberals like you who love the government, I don't trust it to make those decisions. To think otherwise wouldn't be very conservative.
So, Conservatives who support welfare don't count because they are not "true" Conservatives and Liberals are racist whether or not they are racist. You really have an excuse to get around any unwanted fact, don't you? You still think I'm Liberal and I love the government even though I have told you otherwise at least half a dozen times (I understand for you I need to be these things in order for your baseless accusations to work.) The CONSERVATIVE Heritage Foundation absolutely supports corporate welfare - they are one of its biggest proponents - but I see you hilariously wish to ignore that fact. And you've picked the ONE-TIME $550 Million Solyndra clusterfuck boogieman [I forgot to mention what Republicans always conveniently pretend never happened: Bush energy officials wanted to get the Solyndra loan closed before leaving the White House in 2009 — the loan was #1 on their "three highest priorities through January 15." (Obama took office on the 20th.) But the Energy Department's credit committee first wanted more analysis, which held it up into the Obama administration.] and unknown 'Chicago companies' and evil unions as Liberal corporate welfare. I don't even need to go past the $5 Billion EVERY YEAR to oil companies for Conservative corporate welfare - that leaves all those others put together in the dust. Those are racist Conservative rich white man welfare programs - regardless of intention. Hah! And congratulations on yet again ignoring all the things you don't want to answer.
So the answer to stopping your government programs which destroy the black family is to end corporate welfare? Not really, but that would be a good idea on its own. I am going to hilariously tell you that the Heritage Foundation does not support "corporate welfare" unless you have misunderstood what that term means. They support the free market - not the government - deciding winners and losers. The opposite of corporate welfare. Unions aren't evil-I've been a member for a dozen years and know what good roll they play. But giving tax payer money to them for political reasons is pretty evil. Bankrupting our pensions and refusing to reform them due to liberal pressure is pretty evil. You should join the Heritage Foundation-they have a great article on welfare and its results up on their site. So the point was not to call you a liberal-it was to point out that an innocent 6 year old girl gets shot to death for standing on a porch in a neighborhood in Chicago where liberal policies are in full effect for decades with results available for all to see...and around the same time a latino man who gets into his fight, has his nose broken, shoots a black teen in an incident with media coverage full of lies and you: determine Zimmerman guilty of murder with no other information or trial...and then yawn about the state of the poor black community.
Once again, they are not my programs. How dense is that skull of yours? Does any information ever penetrate?
I never said ending corporate welfare would help the 'black family.' You made that up. I created a stupid conspiracy theory about racist Conservatives that equals your stupid conspiracy theory about racist Liberals. Then I predicted you would only see what I created as stupid. And you did. But you did it by saying I said something I never said. Because that's what you do.
There's a little bit of a difference between the Heritage Foundation denying corporate welfare exists and not supporting it. It does exist and they do support it. They even have an article explaining how the Bush Tax Cuts were awesome for the country and says how Democrats are lying about them. Most of what that article says is complete bullshit, according to economists - and common sense, for that matter - and the rest is only partly true, according to economists. They, like you, just try to blame everything on Democrats. Mostly by ignoring facts. Partly by twisting them.
Liberal policies do not shoot people. You still haven't explained how they do. Or how they only pertain to black people. Because they don't. But you keep ignoring facts contradictory to your conspiracy theory just so you can keep repeating the same baseless nonsense ad infinitum.
Zimmerman 1.) did not ‘get into a fight,’ he initiated the fight and 2.) did not have his nose broken like portrayed by family lies (which you are choosing to believe because it supports your wishes). Lies that contradict both the police video evidence from 35 minutes after the murder showing him not having a broken nose and the dispatcher recording canceling the ambulance for Zimmerman. The unarmed dead kid did it - says the murderer/instigator with everything to lose. But, no, it's the media that's lying, not the liars.
I did not yawn about the state of the poor black community: you made that up.
Then you ignored (again) all the things I said that you could not or did not want to answer.
Circling, circling, circling. And *gurgle* goes the drain.
No Bill, I think I covered all of your circular, well-informed "arguments." [You may think so, but the virtual lack of responses to the bulk of what I said may prove different. Not that proof is ever something you seek.] And I get it. Zimmerman is guilty because you conducted a Google search of liberal blogs. The 6 year old was way more suspect than Trayvon and had it coming. [Do they know exactly who killed the 6-year-old girl and didn’t arrest the killer, like in the Treyvon case?] Or she was killed because corporate welfare destroyed the black family in America over the last 50 years. And conservatives who don't support it do. Makes perfect sense. [He’s still not understanding (or intentionally ignoring) that I was pointing out the ignorance of his theory; I was not claiming it is corporate welfare’s fault.]
Again, I never said any of those things. You made them up.
My arguments are based on facts and information. Of which you have shown animosity toward. Your arguments consist entirely of "black people are dying so Liberal policies are racist." Now, THAT makes perfect sense.
I do not check liberal blogs. I check original sources. It's not my fault they don't agree with your wishes. And just because the right-wing news sources that you only watch have not shown the police video and played the ambulance dispatcher recording because it contradicts the desire to somehow blame Liberals, does not mean that every other news outlet has not shown them. It's really easy to find on the internet. Google it.
On the off chance I'm right though, how many more decades of evidence should we collect before we admit the wrong we are committing and right it?
I never said the policies are working. I completely admit that they are not. In fact, I've said several times that stricter rules are needed for them to work more efficiently. It's that you've jumped to the conclusion that the policies are only Liberal and not Conservative, that this somehow means Liberals are racist, that Liberals have intentionally designed these policies only to wipe out black people, and these policies are responsible for killing Martin. And you did it based on contradictory facts or the complete lack of facts.
As to his religious insistence that welfare policies are only Liberal and only designed to kill black people (based on no facts whatsoever), I wonder if it has anything to do with the laughably insane claims by the pair of extreme right-wing nut-jobs, Mark Crutcher and Lila Rose, that the main driving forces behind liberal pro-choice rights are people pushing for eugenics in order to get rid of blacks in America? It’s very hard to keep up with all the conspiracy theories the right-wing manufactures. Seemingly by the hour.
* * *
At this point, Jon Stewart and Larry Wilmore did this on The Daily Show. Yes. My point made in a 6-minute comedy/satire bit...
* * *
Never blamed the policies for killing Trayvon. Pointed out your interest in Trayvon's murder was insincere.
(And yes, ignoring a half century of history and continuing to support policies with racist results is a racist act...don't hear any liberal seeking stricter rules, only advocating for more of the same)
Another black man makes 60% of my point...a few on point statistics (your favorite) used in context as well:
First of all, you said 'racist Liberal welfare programs' are responsible for killing black people about 100 times. Specifically Treyvon Martin. But suddenly Trayvon Martin's murder is excluded from this theory? Nice try. Or should I say nice lie? It rhymes nicely.
Second, where do you get off telling me how I think? Seriously, you're so desperate to twist everything to fit your ludicrously ignorant theory that now you're telling me how I think and feel? And you know I'm insincere? That's desperate.
Third, both Conservatives and Liberals supporting policies that haven't worked for 50 years that apply TO ALL RACES is NOT racist, no matter what your delusional fantasies are. Bad policy, yes. Here are the criteria for your fantasy to be true, none of which are met: only white people would have to have written the policies, only Liberals would have to have written the policies, only black people would have to be effected by the policies. Not only does your theory have more holes than a moth-eaten sweater in a spaghetti strainer with three pieces of Swiss cheese and a used shooting range target, but it is also completely asinine.
Fourth, I don't see any Conservative seeking stricter rules either, only ending the programs completely so they can give more free hand-outs to the rich.
Fifth, I can't even begin to start picking through all the bullshit in that Shelby Steele article. Suffice it to say, after the one accurate prison statistic - with a caveat: blacks are aggressively sentenced for the same crimes that whites are let go for and have higher penalties than whites for the same crimes, which artificially inflates their percentage -
- which is completely irrelevant to the topic anyway and not used in context, Steele wrote an entire article full of generally anti-Liberal statements without any concrete evidence whatsoever. His absurd agenda seems to be that there is no racism anymore, so only people like Sharpton and Jackson who point out racism are pretending racism is real so they are relevant. It seems to me that Steele is actually the one who is insincere and only exploiting this Martin case for his own purposes. But his denial of facts certainly supported your denial of facts, so I can plainly see why you posted his article as support. And by the transitive property, does your support for his insincerity make you insincere as well? Do you also believe the civil rights establishment is redundant? That white racism is a defeated idea? That it's the Liberal media's fault and not the murderer's fault? Funny. In an extremely stupid sort of way. Waitaminit - if there's no such thing as white racism as Steele says, how does this support your idea that Liberals are racist? It's difficult to twist reality to fit into something illogical that you invented without contradicting yourself, isn't it?
Sixth, a black man trounces 100% of your point:
Dissenting Justice - Shelby Steele and Other Racial Apologists Are the Real Exploiters of Trayvon Martin
And seventh, as for your insistence that 'racist Liberal policies' are the sole cause of a higher percentage of blacks on welfare, you seem to be intentionally ignoring these facts: A.) blacks didn't even have any real opportunity to vote until the mid 1960's, so their interests were virtually never supported until then, unlike whites, who had always been in control B.) blacks had no real opportunity in the educational system until then, either, unlike whites C.) there is still great income disparity for blacks, which has to do with racially prejudiced corporate policy, not welfare policy. Imagine if, in 1492, blacks had the same opportunities to wipe out the indigenous population of North America and grow on equal terms with whites. Where would they be now? Mostly back on the African continent, probably. So, you see, having a centuries-long head start may have more to do with poor black communities than your ridiculous notion of policies only written by Liberals that only effect blacks.
OK. I had thought this to be done at this point. Again. But four fucking days later he hit me with a reply. A reply with statements as predictable as the sun coming up in the morning. I did not reply to them because there was no need to listen to him continue denying what he said and saying other things that didn’t happen or twisting the things that were or weren’t said or ignoring things that contradict his fantasies. But I most certainly will add comments now.
Wheh...just finished reading.
1-Nope. Didn't say it. Said you were not sincere. [Yes. You did say Liberal welfare programs are responsible for killing black people. Anyone can go back and read what you wrote. Fucking Christ. How easy is it for Republicans to deny anything they don’t like? Even what they themselves have said. Not that this surprises me. Republicans are against all their own policies now that Obama is implementing them. Examples, you ask? I already gave a list of Republican policies that they now believe to be anti-Constitutional previously in this thread. Weren’t you paying attention?]
2-Never suggested what you think. Just that you weren't doing enough of it. All suggestions of your thoughts are inferences. [As you JUST said in your #1 reply, you said I was not sincere. That is explicitly telling me what I think. And in this very #2 reply, you state that you said I wasn’t doing enough of it. That is also explicitly telling me the level of what I think. Then you said your SUGGESTIONS of my thoughts are INFERENCES. That is AGAIN explicitly telling me what I think. For fuck’s fucking sake, man. WORDS HAVE FUCKING MEANING.]
3-Very, very wrong. Not even sure how you don't get it, but not surprised. [FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK!!!! I wonder if a Republican credo is: ‘If you deny the truth, it will no longer be true.’ I also wonder which policies only white Liberals wrote that only apply to black people and no one else.]
4-Me for one. I'm guessing you can Google countless others (including the Heritage Foundation...how soon we forget) [So, you’re a policy-maker now? Just like me? You’ve written policy to tighten welfare restrictions? Why are you only guessing you can Google others? Why not do it and prove me wrong? ‘If you deny the truth, it will no longer be true.’]
5-Result of policies are racist (repeated repeated repeated). Your opinion of the article is based on a total lack of critical thinking, much like the blog post. [That’s me. The notorious uncritical thinker.] The argument of your wrong because your wrong isn't really an argument. the guy totally misses it, and stating Steele opposes the measures designed to remove the blah blah blah...really? So we just need to do MORE of the same "helping?" Yikes. [Repeated results are not racist. It does not matter if you repeat it and repeat it and repeat it. I realize you are subject to that standard right-wing brainwashing tactic. I, however am not. They certainly are bad policy. Maybe even profit-driven somehow – most things are. But not racist. And the argument was not ‘You’re wrong because you’re wrong.’ You have a fantastic ability to see what you want to see and ignore any fact that contradicts your wishes. Like the fucking FACT that your guy Steele claims that there is no more racism in America, which totally contradicts your insistence that Liberal policies are racist. And you say I lack critical thinking? Sheesh!]
oh that was 6
7-What an incredible history blacks of African descent have here in America. I have met so many elderly black men and women in the City who have told some incredible stories about the struggles endured. If you ever have the chance to talk to someone who endured the Jim Crow laws at length you should take it, it will open your eyes. These same people who have such an amazing story of overcoming adversity will tell you what they think about the state of the younger generations today, and I guaranty your view will not come up unless it is to deride it. All you need do is look at the success of recent immigrants from Africa and you will understand it is not racism in the simple form you think, but racism in the policies you support that is to blame..... [So, let’s see…racism is dead except for racist Liberal policies, blacks have it just as shiny, happy and easy as whites – especially all the wonderfully successful recent black immigrants, there is no income disparity between blacks and whites, and a few hundred years of slavery and not being able to vote or go to public schools until the mid/late 1960’s is not a factor in equality. Did I get that right?]
PS...I was interested to see where you were going with your stats on sentencing, because I'm going to say you were going to once again take them and attempt to fit them into an agenda without context. [It’s true. I’ve been taking things out of context and fitting them into my agenda this whole time. Not you. I’ve also been making up phrases like “racist impact” and repeating it over and over in the hopes it will suddenly become the truth.] If you do, it would be helpful to know that criminal history is the 2nd most important factor in determining sentencing, so when a young black man grows up in one of your utopian neighborhoods in the ghetto [Yes, my utopian neighborhoods. That’s what I’ve been saying all along.] and gets arrested, he is more likely to get a more severe sentence do to the fact that he has probably been through the system before. [Whites are never repeat offenders.] So yes, he is a victim of racism-but not in the way your Google stats suggest... [That is true about repeat offenders. Absolutely not true in every single case, though - as the article points out, which, I suppose you would have ignored anyway, even if had you read it. But I guess I’m just taking that out of context and fitting it into my agenda again. I should keep in mind all the times I’ve been pulled over for ‘driving while white’ down here in Georgia.]
This “discussion” is another wonderful example of how Republican minds have this innate ability to treat anything that doesn’t support their righteous fantasies as if it never happened. He answered practically none of what I said and yet, insisted that he did. And he blissfully ignored Shelby Steele’s insistence that there is no more racism in America. They also are experts at inventing something out of thin air and yet become completely convinced of its authenticity. Like racist Liberal programs that only apply to black people, which are intentionally designed to ‘wipe them out.’
I've also notice that many of the things I pointed out that he is doing, like taking things out of context, he later proclaimed I was doing. Though, he was doing it out of context.
Hypocrisy. Ain’t it a stinker?
As of the posting of this blog entry, yesterday Zimmerman’s two attorneys dropped their client, citing that they lost contact with him, hinting that he may not be in the country. Zimmerman, somewhere in hiding, called Sean Hannity on FOX “News” for some reason. Hannity promoted that for ratings, then went on TV and said he couldn't say anything, and didn't know anything - knowing full well he would fling himself into the middle of a legal shitstorm if he did say something. And today, the special prosecutor announced Zimmerman is now in custody, charged with second-degree murder in the shooting death of Treyvon Martin. This is 44 days after the murder happened.
Peter posted this in the middle of the thread somewhere. It interfered with the flow so I put it down here at the end. It is worth the read.
Alan Grayson weighs in on the murder:
I live in Orlando, so a number of people have asked me what I think about the death of Trayvon Martin. Trayvon, a teenager, was shot dead by a "neighborhood watch" member as Trayvon was walking home from a convenience store. Trayvon was armed with nothing but a bottle of iced tea and a bag of Skittles. For me, it calls to mind the sentiments in the speech that Robert F. Kennedy gave from his heart on April 4, 1968, in Indianapolis, after Martin Luther King, Jr. was killed. This is what Robert F. Kennedy said:
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I'm only going to talk to you just for a minute or so this evening, because I have some – some very sad news for all of you – Could you lower those signs, please? – I have some very sad news for all of you, and, I think, sad news for all of our fellow citizens, and people who love peace all over the world; and that is that Martin Luther King was shot and was killed tonight in Memphis, Tennessee.
Martin Luther King dedicated his life to love and to justice between fellow human beings. He died in the cause of that effort. In this difficult day, in this difficult time for the United States, it's perhaps well to ask what kind of a nation we are and what direction we want to move in. For those of you who are black – considering the evidence evidently is that there were white people who were responsible – you can be filled with bitterness, and with hatred, and a desire for revenge.
We can move in that direction as a country, in greater polarization – black people amongst blacks, and white amongst whites, filled with hatred toward one another. Or we can make an effort, as Martin Luther King did, to understand, and to comprehend, and replace that violence, that stain of bloodshed that has spread across our land, with an effort to understand, compassion, and love.
For those of you who are black and are tempted to be filled with hatred and mistrust of the injustice of such an act, against all white people, I would only say that I can also feel in my own heart the same kind of feeling. I had a member of my family killed, but he was killed by a white man.
But we have to make an effort in the United States. We have to make an effort to understand, to get beyond, or go beyond these rather difficult times.
My favorite poet was Aeschylus. And he once wrote:
Even in our sleep, pain which cannot forget
falls drop by drop upon the heart,
until, in our own despair,
against our will,
through the awful grace of God.
What we need in the United States is not division; what we need in the United States is not hatred; what we need in the United States is not violence and lawlessness, but is love, and wisdom, and compassion toward one another, and a feeling of justice toward those who still suffer within our country, whether they be white or whether they be black.
So I ask you tonight to return home, to say a prayer for the family of Martin Luther King, but more importantly to say a prayer for our own country, which all of us love – a prayer for understanding and that compassion of which I spoke.
We can do well in this country. We will have difficult times. We've had difficult times in the past, but we – and we will have difficult times in the future. It is not the end of violence; it is not the end of lawlessness; and it's not the end of disorder.
But the vast majority of white people and the vast majority of black people in this country want to live together, want to improve the quality of our life, and want justice for all human beings that abide in our land.
And let's dedicate ourselves to what the Greeks wrote so many years ago: to tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of this world. Let us dedicate ourselves to that, and say a prayer for our country and for our people.
Thank you very much.
Full transcript of Marc Morial link:
KEITH OLBERMANN: For more on Congressman Rush's protest in the House and what Trayvon Martin's dad had called the "Trayvon Movement," I'm joined by Marc Morial, president and CEO of the National Urban League, and former mayor of New Orleans. Thank you for your time tonight, sir.
MARC MORIAL: Hey, Keith, thank you. I appreciate it.
OLBERMANN: Let me start again with this new video. I've been trying to contextualize this. We've only all seen this for about the last 40 minutes or so. What do you see in this video that's relevant to our understanding of what happened on February 26?
MORIAL: What's relevant is that it impeaches the story that George Zimmerman has floated, that somehow he was injured in the altercation, that he had a broken nose, that he had scratches — it impeaches that story, and that story has been part of an orchestrated effort by George Zimmerman and his supporters to sort of advance an alibi, if you will, advance a version of the story that is not supported by this video, and isn’t supported by the 911 tapes.
So, I think it's very important to look at this video. People can see what — it does not appear that this gentleman was involved in an altercation.
And then, also, I'm interested to note today this sort of new twist that the Sanford police did, in fact, want to conduct an arrest. I question why they would have consulted the prosecutor. The typical procedure is that the police would, in fact, arrest and book and the prosecutor would make a decision later as whether to bring criminal charges. So, this is a deviation from what I think, in most jurisdictions, is standard procedure.
OLBERMANN: A question I wanted to get in to you, and I'm glad you did that for me — let me ask you one more question about the videotape, then we'll get to Congressman Rush. Let’s, for the sake of argument, say there is something left out of the timeline that we know of — and he's been to a doctor, he's been to a bathroom, he's been to a hospital — and the chain of custody, as our previous guest Corey Dade used that term, allows for some place where he could have been cleaned up. That's not the evidence we're talking about in this, is it?
I mean, there is no gushing blood, and I don't think anybody would expect that, necessarily, but there is no — he doesn't seem to be halted in his walking. He doesn't seem to be somebody who just went through a traumatic experience. Is that what we're seeing? Can we assume somewhere along the line he might have gotten a Handi Wipe or something?
MORIAL: Well, he doesn't seem to be in distress.
MORIAL: He doesn't seem to be someone who was involved in any sort of altercation, and I think we have to be on guard at this effort under way to damage Trayvon Martin's reputation — this teenager's reputation — and slander a dead man, as well as the effort to continue to advance this story which now — is now unsupported by this tape which, along with the 911 tapes, are pieces of what I would call independent evidence, not some person who said, "I'm telling you what someone told me," but actually something that people can see.
And I'm hopeful that the prosecutor will quickly make a decision to bring the original charges, or stronger charges, that the police originally wanted to bring. I think that would constitute the first step towards justice in this case.
OLBERMANN: The protest on behalf of justice, as we've already discussed, got to the floor of the House today, and Congressman Rush pulling up the hoodie while denouncing racial profiling and reading verses from the Bible and getting thrown out because he violated an obscure rule of the House while in session, because you can't wear a hat, which is — I guess, a relatively new rule in the last 130 years or so. Did he make his point? Did that resonate the way he wanted it to, do you think?
MORIAL: I think he makes the point that a man, an African-American man, wearing a hoodie is not, by definition, suspicious. In America, which looks on it that way, that's the very essence of what we mean when we talk about racial profiling, so I think you're going to see the wearing of the hood as a universal protest sign in connection with Trayvon Martin.
Because the troubling thing with George Zimmerman is this pattern that existed before this incident of him calling 911, and inconsistently reporting quote/unquote, "black men" as being suspicious in that neighborhood. So, this is why this incident has struck a nerve, because Trayvon Martin is a teenager. It struck a nerve because this person was a self-anointed — self-appointed, if you will — neighborhood watch sheriff. And that people can, in fact, can listen to the 911 tapes, now they can see this video, and I think it's becoming clear what, in fact, happened. We want justice for Trayvon.
OLBERMANN: The president of the Urban League, former mayor of New Orleans, Marc Morial, great thanks. Good to see you. Thank you.