• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Bill Bennett:aborting black babies would lower crime

Stinger said:
Why in the full context of what he said?



We've got Bennett's statement to discuss no need to through in made-up ones which have nothing to do with what he said.



I don't know where you read that, but the fact remains that Blacks commit crimes at higher rates than any other groups.



And a host of other factors and simply choice to commit them. There are lots of ignorant poor people who do no commit crimes.



Yes but which cause which if they is an actual causal relationship. Does the criminal activity cause the poverty or the otherway around. Do poor neighborhoods cause crime or does crime cause poor neighborhoods.



:roflthat is abasolutely one of the most perposterious statements I have ever heard. If white males were going around committing crimes at the same rates as black males we wouldn't even have a judicial system left.

The statistics that are relevent are the ones that tell us whites get better educations (not necessarily higher they just get high school educations at a mimimum), don't have as many children out of wedlock, and get married and stay married at higher rates. Those three things just about guaranty you won't be living in poverty. Those three things are very lacking in black society and it's not because of racisim or anything whites do to blacks or becaues anyone forces any of these things on black society.

You are missing the entire point.

Lower poverty rates mean lower crime.

Lower poverty rates mean less children born out of wedlock.

Lower poverty rates mean less abortions because there are less unwanted children.

Lower poverty rates mean better schools because the districts have more money and resources available to them.

The poverty rate dropped during the nineties. During that time, violent crime rates dropped and abortion rates dropped.

The poverty rate has increased every year for the past 5 years. During that time, violent crime rates went up, abortion rates have went up.

Race is not the key here, its poverty and ignorance.
 
Deegan said:
I would just add, as I forgot to mention this, that I don't appreciate the anology used here, and I can't imagine what Bill was thinking. Sometimes you can be correct, and still be an a**hole, this is not the brutal honesty that will help the situation, but I still think we need strong words, and actions.

OK. I will take that at face value as an honest statement, but lets level the playing field so that this does not appear to be rascist. Fair enough?

So, if we are going to support black abortions to cut down on inner city crime, we should also call on abortions for Republican politicans' families in order to reduce graft and corruption in government. No more Jack Abramoffs, no more mob hits in Florida, no more Tom Delays, etc, etc, etc. While we are at it, lets also support abortions for Republican televangelists. That way, we dont get anymore Pat Robertsons who, instead of using donations to feed the hungry in Africa, are using them in diamond and gold mining operations, while the victims the funds were intended for die of starvation. Finally, lets have Republican presidents' families get abortions too, so our troops stop dying in wars based on vanity.

You may call me an asshole for posting this, but as you said, sometimes a person can be correct and still be an asshole.
 
Last edited:
Navy Pride said:
Its amazing how the left can take a statement a Conservative makes completely out of the context it was meant.........

Its nothing really new though......The same thing happened to Senator Trent Lott........

Sad.......
What's the missing context?
 
danarhea said:
OK. I will take that at face value as an honest statement, but lets level the playing field so that this does not appear to be rascist. Fair enough?

So, if we are going to support black abortions to cut down on inner city crime, we should also call on abortions for Republican politicans' families in order to reduce graft and corruption in government. No more Jack Abramoffs, no more mob hits in Florida, no more Tom Delays, etc, etc, etc. While we are at it, lets also support abortions for Republican televangelists. That way, we dont get anymore Pat Robertsons who, instead of using donations to feed the hungry in Africa, are using them in diamond and gold mining operations, while the victims the funds were intended for die of starvation. Finally, lets have Republican presidents' families get abortions too, so our troops stop dying in wars based on vanity.

You may call me an asshole for posting this, but as you said, sometimes a person can be correct and still be an asshole.

It would appear that your response is brought on by anger, I don't think Bill was angry when he said what he said. As I said, while what he said is true, it's sad that we can't speak out at what is at the root of this problem, and that is social programs. Your anology is just as bad as his, but at least his had truth to it, yours makes the assumption that you would know who is going to be a Republican politician when he or she grows up.

I just wish for the good of the country, we could open up honest conversations about what is keeping poor people down, in this case, poor black people. I am convinced that it has been due to years of social programs, programs that just throw money at the problems, and are seriously lacking in personal responsibility. It's become a lifestyle that is passed down from generation, to generation, and the cord must be cut, if we are ever going to see real change. Now no one wants to talk about this, certainly not in this way. One of the reasons are, some fear this will lead to the end of all social programs, and that's just nonsense. Others worry about the political ramifacations of bringing up such a sensitive issue, and the effect that will have on their very short career. This of course is the unfortunate situation we find ourselves, and we are treating our African Americans, like we treat those in third world Africa. There is no excuse for this, there are just too many opportunities here to treat the poor here, like we treat them over seas.

It's time for everyone to get off their butts, and start fighting, scratching, clawing their way to the top. I don't buy this nonsense that one can't pull one's self up by the bootstraps, no matter what color they are. There are more then enough business opportunities in the black communities, even if racism was as bad as some claim. I just don't see it that way anymore, certainly not in the big cities, and certainly not in the business world.
 
danarhea said:
OK. I will take that at face value as an honest statement, but lets level the playing field so that this does not appear to be rascist. Fair enough?

So, if we are going to support black abortions to cut down on inner city crime, we should also call on abortions for Republican politicans' families in order to reduce graft and corruption in government. No more Jack Abramoffs, no more mob hits in Florida, no more Tom Delays, etc, etc, etc. While we are at it, lets also support abortions for Republican televangelists. That way, we dont get anymore Pat Robertsons who, instead of using donations to feed the hungry in Africa, are using them in diamond and gold mining operations, while the victims the funds were intended for die of starvation. Finally, lets have Republican presidents' families get abortions too, so our troops stop dying in wars based on vanity.

You may call me an asshole for posting this, but as you said, sometimes a person can be correct and still be an asshole.

What's that all about?
 
danarhea said:
So, if we are going to support black abortions to cut down on inner city crime, we should also call on abortions for Republican politicans' families in order to reduce graft and corruption in government. No more Jack Abramoffs, no more mob hits in Florida, no more Tom Delays, etc, etc, etc. While we are at it, lets also support abortions for Republican televangelists.

Your flaw is your tunnel vision. It's pretty obvious that almost ALL politicians are corrupt, it's not a partisan thing.

And while TV evangelists are offensive (Bono's line "Excuse me, mister, my God isn't short of cash" covers it perfectly), the Democrat side has the race baiters and the poverty pimps like Jackson and Sharpton and Farrakhan to apologize for.

So broaden your horizons and become an equal opportunity crusader.

Which isn't to say that I don't think Bennett wasn't a damn fool for what he said. He was.
 
Pacridge said:
What's that all about?

I have posted about Robertson before. I guess its about time I do it again. You wont believe what this complete reprehensible slimeball has been doing with donations.

When I get home tonight, I will start a new thread, with links, then PM you. Right now, lunch break is ending, so I dont have the time. Will have the time this evening. Time to get back to work.
 
DeeJayH said:
if a statement is factually true, can it be racism
maybe hard medicine to swallow, and a sad commentary on our society
but it is true

and ironically, the dems dont care about blacks

Democrats do care about blacks, let us not forget that it was a Democrat who signed the civil rights act and if it were not for Democrats than affirmative action would not exist and it would be even harder for blacks to prosper in America. The only reason why blacks are statistically shown to create more crime is because they are given unfair odds. They are less likely to become successful no matter how good they are at what they do, and I feel that is definately a problem that needs to be faced by this country. I'm sure that someone is going to say that Lincoln freed the slaves and he was a Republican, which is all true, however lets not forget the fact that the parties switched directions for the most part with the New Deal during Roosevelt's presidency. So for the most part Lincoln would be considered a moderate republican maybe even a democrat by current standards.
 
Deegan said:
I just wish for the good of the country, we could open up honest conversations about what is keeping poor people down, in this case, poor black people. I am convinced that it has been due to years of social programs, programs that just throw money at the problems, and are seriously lacking in personal responsibility.

In a sentence, the problem is that people are told that someone else is responsible for their poverty and that others owe them. The people that believe this stay poor. The people that reject it, rise.
 
How do you keep a minority a "minority"?

Keep telling them they're a "minority"...
 
douglas4123 said:
Democrats do care about blacks, let us not forget that it was a Democrat who signed the civil rights act

And thanked the Republicans who fought the Democrat filibusters, all three of them, and finally got it passed.

The only reason why blacks are statistically shown to create more crime is because they are given unfair odds.

"Odds" they place upon themselves.

They are less likely to become successful no matter how good they are at what they do,

Then why are there so many successful blacks?


and I feel that is definately a problem that needs to be faced by this country.

And what specifically do you believe the problem is and how is it to be solved?

I'm sure that someone is going to say that Lincoln freed the slaves and he was a Republican, which is all true, however lets not forget the fact that the parties switched directions for the most part with the New Deal during Roosevelt's presidency.

And that is factually incorrect. The Republicans by far voted overwhelmingly for the civil rights and voting rights legislation while the Democrats fought to block both.


So for the most part Lincoln would be considered a moderate republican maybe even a democrat by current standards.

Not based on civil rights and he would probably have opposed affirmative action with it's race based policies.
 
Stinger said:
And thanked the Republicans who fought the Democrat filibusters, all three of them, and finally got it passed.



"Odds" they place upon themselves.



Then why are there so many successful blacks?




And what specifically do you believe the problem is and how is it to be solved?



And that is factually incorrect. The Republicans by far voted overwhelmingly for the civil rights and voting rights legislation while the Democrats fought to block both.




Not based on civil rights and he would probably have opposed affirmative action with it's race based policies.

And every northeastern liberal Republican left the party over time, and just about every racist Dixiecrat jumped ship to the Republicans. I am from the south, I know why southerners vote Republican now and its all because of race baiting and gun laws. That is it. Its that "Southern Strategy" that the GOP has been pursuing every since the early 70s. I mean you guys must think that Black people are morons or something for voting Democrat. Until the Republicans leave behind the legacy of race baiting in the south, they will never have the Black vote. Then again, if they did that, they might risk loosing the southern vote.

In the election of 1968, Richard Nixon saw the cracks in the solid south as an opportunity to tap into a group of voters that had heretofore been beyond the reach of the Republican Party. The United States was undergoing a very turbulent period in 1968. The founder of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and most influential member of the Civil Rights Movement, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated April 4, 1968. His death was followed by race riots. Martin Luther King’s policy of non-violence was being challenged by more radical blacks and by the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. There were protests, often violent, against the Vietnam War. The drug subculture was causing alarm in many sectors. Nixon, with the aid of Harry Dent and then South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond, who had switched to the Republican party in 1964, ran on a campaign of states' rights and "law and order". Many liberals accused him of pandering to racist Southern whites, especially with regards to his "states' rights" stand.

The Southern Strategy was deployed even more effectively by Richard Nixon in the election of 1968. Nixon, with the aid of now-Senator Thurmond, who had switched to the Republican party in 1964, ran on a campaign of states' rights and "law and order." As a result every state that had been in the Confederacy, except Texas, voted for either Nixon or Southern Democrat George Wallace, despite a strong tradition of supporting Democrats. Meanwhile, Nixon parlayed a wide perception as a moderate into wins in other states, taking a solid majority in the electoral college. That is why the election of 1968 is sometimes cited as a realigning election.


Read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
You are missing the entire point.

I don't think so.

Lower poverty rates mean lower crime.

Lower crime means lower poverty. Lower crime means more jobs in the affected areas, Lower crime means lower insurance and police cost. Lower crime means a higher qualitiy of life. No one has ever proven poverty in and of itself causes crime. It's the other way around. Did you no that in the Tsnuami hit areas, which are some of the poorest on the planet, they did not have the crime problems New Orleans did? Why if poverty casuses crime?

Lower poverty rates mean less children born out of wedlock.

Nope, less children out of wedlock means less poverty.

Lower poverty rates mean less abortions because there are less unwanted children.

Prove to me most abortions are for poor people. But it does seem to me you are concurring with Bennett.

Lower poverty rates mean better schools because the districts have more money and resources available to them.

Nope, money is not the problem, it falls back on family breakdown and misguided liberal policies towards education. The poor black schools of the 40's and 50's did quite comparable to all schools.

The poverty rate dropped during the nineties. During that time, violent crime rates dropped and abortion rates dropped.

It was actually higher than it is now but the reason for the drop in crime goes back to tougher sentencing and getting crooks off the streets. Now once you do get that crime off the streets and business can then grow and hire people the poverty rate can come down. We also reformed welfar during that period which also lowered poverty rates.

The poverty rate has increased every year for the past 5 years.

It is lower now in Bush 5th year than it was in Clinton's 5th year.

During that time, violent crime rates went up, abortion rates have went up.

Where do you get this stuff do you just make it up as you go along to suit your fancy?


By Hope Yen, Associated Press Writer | May 24, 2004
WASHINGTON --Violent crime declined in 2003 despite a third consecutive yearly increase in homicides, according to preliminary FBI statistics released Monday.
The violent crimes -- rape, robbery, aggravated assault and homicides including murder and manslaughter -- dropped 3.2 percent compared with 2002, fueled mostly by sharp declines in rape and assault.
Homicide was the only category on the increase, rising nationwide last year by about 178 cases, or 1.1 percent. In the previous two years, murder and manslaughter edged up 1 percent in 2002 and 2.5 percent in 2001.
"I think it's very impressive," said Jack Levin, a criminologist who is director of the Brudnick Center on Violence at Northeastern University. "We've gone through a recession, we've gone through a period where the stock market plummeted, and we came out in pretty good shape."...................Violent crimes have been dropping steadily over the past five years, particularly in the nation's largest cities. Monday's report reflected a 6.5 percent decrease from 2002 to 2003 in these crimes in cities with more than 1 million inhabitants.

http://www.boston.com/news/educatio...bi_violent_crime_continues_to_decline?mode=PF



Race is not the key here, its poverty and ignorance.

No one has said it is "the key" but you cannot deny the fact that blacks engage in far more crime than other races do.
 
Stinger said:
......No one has said it is "the key" but you cannot deny the fact that blacks engage in far more crime than other races do.

Everything else aside. Do Blacks engage in far more crime because they are black, or do they engage in far more crime because of poverty and ignorance?

Its a simple question.

Moreover, your other asserition is intellectually dishonest on poverty rates. The poverty rate had dropped every year while Clinton was in office, it has now risen every year since Bush has been in office. So really, what we are doing is loosing the progress we made while Clinton was in office.
 
Last edited:
SouthernDemocrat said:
And every northeastern liberal Republican left the party over time, and just about every racist Dixiecrat jumped ship to the Republicans.

Nope, the Dixiecrats, after their failed campaign for the presidency, remained Democrats. Thurmond was the only Democrat who changed parties and that was after the Republicans won passage of the civil rights bill so hardly a reason to go there. Gore, Fulbright, Byrd and all the other Democrats who filibustered the Civil Rights legislation remained Democrats to their dying day.

I am from the south, I know why southerners vote Republican now and its all because of race baiting and gun laws.

I am from the South and still live in the South. I was vice-president of the Teen-Age Republicans in my city in 1968 and we support candidates who support passage of the civil-rights legislation and we supported desegregation. The Democrats opposed both. And clearly the race baiters STILL live in the Democrat party.

That is it. Its that "Southern Strategy" that the GOP has been pursuing every since the early 70s.

The most misrepresented Strategy in American History. It had nothing to do with brining the racist policies of the Democrats into the Republican party. Nixon was well known as a supporter of and fighter for the Civil Rights laws. Here from one of his political startegist.

[FONT=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]"Now, as a co-architect of the Nixon strategy that gave the GOP a lock on the White House for a quarter century, let me say that Kristol's opportunism is matched only by his ignorance. Richard Nixon kicked off his historic comeback in 1966 with a column on the South (by this writer) that declared we would build our Republican Party on a foundation of states rights, human rights, small government and a strong national defense, and leave it to the "party of Maddox, Mahoney and Wallace to squeeze the last ounces of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice." [/FONT]
[FONT=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]In that '66 campaign, Nixon – who had been thanked personally by Dr. King for his help in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1957 – endorsed all Republicans, except members of the John Birch Society. [/FONT]
[FONT=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]In 1968, Nixon chose Spiro Agnew for vice president. Why? Agnew had routed George ("Your home is your castle!") Mahoney for governor of Maryland but had also criticized civil-rights leaders who failed to condemn the riots that erupted after the assassination of King. The Agnew of 1968 was both pro-civil rights and pro-law and order."
[/FONT]
[FONT=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]
He goes on to point out
[/FONT]
[FONT=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]Between 1969 and 1974, Nixon – who believed that blacks had gotten a raw deal in America and wanted to extend a helping hand: [/FONT]
  • [FONT=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]raised the civil rights enforcement budget 800 percent; [/FONT]
  • [FONT=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]doubled the budget for black colleges; [/FONT]
  • [FONT=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]appointed more blacks to federal posts and high positions than any president, including LBJ; [/FONT]
  • [FONT=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]adopted the Philadelphia Plan mandating quotas for blacks in unions, and for black scholars in colleges and universities; [/FONT]
  • [FONT=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]invented "Black Capitalism" (the Office of Minority Business Enterprise), raised U.S. purchases from black businesses from $9 million to $153 million, increased small business loans to minorities 1,000 percent, increased U.S. deposits in minority-owned banks 4,000 percent; [/FONT]
  • [FONT=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]raised the share of Southern schools that were desegregated from 10 percent to 70 percent. Wrote the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in 1975, "It has only been since 1968 that substantial reduction of racial segregation has taken place in the South."[/FONT]
And let's not forget that it was a Republican President, bucking a Democrat congress, who sent troops into a Democrat controlled state to desegregate the schools, that being Eisenhower and Arkansas.


I mean you guys must think that Black people are morons or something for voting Democrat.


No I think the only people who think that are on your side, the side that thinks blacks must live by the government dole.


Until the Republicans leave behind the legacy of race baiting in the south,



Since it never existed and is only the rhetorical creation of Democrats to hide their own Civil Rights record there is nothing to leave.


they will never have the Black vote.


And you say others are racist and demeaning to blacks.


Then again, if they did that, they might risk loosing the southern vote.


Hmmmmm my neighboring city, in which I work, just elected a black mayor who won by getting the majority of the white Republican vote.


I think you need to get rid of your preconcieved, erroneous notions, do a little historical reading and take the blinders off as the the racial situation in the South these days.
 
I will admit I was wrong on violent crime rates, as I went by murder rates instead of violent crime rates. But your comparison of poverty rates durring the Bush years as compared to the Clinton years is intellectually dishonest.

When Clinton took office in 1993, the poverty rate was: 13.6%
By Clinton's 5th year in office, the poverty rate was: 11.2%
When Clinton left office, the poverty rate was 9.6%.

Which is the lowest that the poverty rate has ever been.

For Bush's first year in office, the poverty rate was 9.9%
Now, at Bush's 5th year in office, the poverty rate is: 11%

Therefore the poverty rate dropped every yeah Clinton was in office, and has risen every year Bush has been in office.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html
 
It looks like the White House is now condemning Bill Bennett's remarks:

The White House on Friday criticized former Education Secretary William Bennett for remarks linking the crime rate and the abortion of black babies.

"The president believes the comments were not appropriate,'' White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.
 
Stinger said:
Nope, the Dixiecrats, after their failed campaign for the presidency, remained Democrats. Thurmond was the only Democrat who changed parties and that was after the Republicans won passage of the civil rights bill so hardly a reason to go there. Gore, Fulbright, Byrd and all the other Democrats who filibustered the Civil Rights legislation remained Democrats to their dying day.



I am from the South and still live in the South. I was vice-president of the Teen-Age Republicans in my city in 1968 and we support candidates who support passage of the civil-rights legislation and we supported desegregation. The Democrats opposed both. And clearly the race baiters STILL live in the Democrat party.



The most misrepresented Strategy in American History. It had nothing to do with brining the racist policies of the Democrats into the Republican party. Nixon was well known as a supporter of and fighter for the Civil Rights laws. Here from one of his political startegist.

[FONT=&quot]"Now, as a co-architect of the Nixon strategy that gave the GOP a lock on the White House for a quarter century, let me say that Kristol's opportunism is matched only by his ignorance. Richard Nixon kicked off his historic comeback in 1966 with a column on the South (by this writer) that declared we would build our Republican Party on a foundation of states rights, human rights, small government and a strong national defense, and leave it to the "party of Maddox, Mahoney and Wallace to squeeze the last ounces of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice." [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In that '66 campaign, Nixon – who had been thanked personally by Dr. King for his help in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1957 – endorsed all Republicans, except members of the John Birch Society. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In 1968, Nixon chose Spiro Agnew for vice president. Why? Agnew had routed George ("Your home is your castle!") Mahoney for governor of Maryland but had also criticized civil-rights leaders who failed to condemn the riots that erupted after the assassination of King. The Agnew of 1968 was both pro-civil rights and pro-law and order."
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
He goes on to point out
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Between 1969 and 1974, Nixon – who believed that blacks had gotten a raw deal in America and wanted to extend a helping hand: [/FONT]
  • [FONT=&quot]raised the civil rights enforcement budget 800 percent; [/FONT]
  • [FONT=&quot]doubled the budget for black colleges; [/FONT]
  • [FONT=&quot]appointed more blacks to federal posts and high positions than any president, including LBJ; [/FONT]
  • [FONT=&quot]adopted the Philadelphia Plan mandating quotas for blacks in unions, and for black scholars in colleges and universities; [/FONT]
  • [FONT=&quot]invented "Black Capitalism" (the Office of Minority Business Enterprise), raised U.S. purchases from black businesses from $9 million to $153 million, increased small business loans to minorities 1,000 percent, increased U.S. deposits in minority-owned banks 4,000 percent; [/FONT]
  • [FONT=&quot]raised the share of Southern schools that were desegregated from 10 percent to 70 percent. Wrote the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in 1975, "It has only been since 1968 that substantial reduction of racial segregation has taken place in the South."[/FONT]
And let's not forget that it was a Republican President, bucking a Democrat congress, who sent troops into a Democrat controlled state to desegregate the schools, that being Eisenhower and Arkansas.





No I think the only people who think that are on your side, the side that thinks blacks must live by the government dole.






Since it never existed and is only the rhetorical creation of Democrats to hide their own Civil Rights record there is nothing to leave.





And you say others are racist and demeaning to blacks.





Hmmmmm my neighboring city, in which I work, just elected a black mayor who won by getting the majority of the white Republican vote.


I think you need to get rid of your preconcieved, erroneous notions, do a little historical reading and take the blinders off as the the racial situation in the South these days.

Eisenhower and Nixon would be some of the most liberal Republicans in the entire party if they were alive today. Your party is not the same party it was in the early 70s and 60s and neither is mine.

If the Republicans are such a party of civil rights and racial inclusion, then why is it, that your party, the party in power in all three branches of Federal Government, will not put the money and resources behind one African American to get them elected to Congress?

Like I say, you must just think that Blacks are stupid or something, or think they are nothing but a bunch of deadbeats and only vote Democrat because they think the Democrats will let them live off of the government. I dont know which part of the south you are from, but I am from Arkansas, and Arkansans that vote Republican dont vote Republican because they agree with the concepts of Supply Side Economics and Free Trade, they vote on 3 issues, race, guns, and abortion. That is the southern strategy in a nutshell. You act like your talking to someone who doesnt know.
 
Last edited:
SouthernDemocrat said:
Everything else aside. Do Blacks engage in far more crime because they are black, or do they engage in far more crime because of poverty and ignorance?

Its a simple question.

With two false choices but let's explore the premise of one of the two choices you offered me.

What is the premise behinde the choice that simply because their skin is black that that would cause a person to commit a crime. Explain that premise to me so that I can better understand your question.

Moreover, your other asserition is intellectually dishonest on poverty rates. The poverty rate had dropped every year while Clinton was in office, it has now risen every year since Bush has been in office.

Halfway through Clintons term the poverty rate was 13.1 it is now hovering around 12.1 having fallen from just over 13% during the height of the recession, you are factually incorrect.
So really, what we are doing is loosing the progress we made while Clinton was in office.[/quote]

Please cite the numbers which show any such thing especially in the black community.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Eisenhower and Nixon would be some of the most liberal Republicans in the entire party if they were alive today. Your party is not the same party it was in the early 70s and 60s and neither is mine.

ROFL hardly. They would still be Republicans.

If the Republicans are such a party of civil rights

There is no "if" about it, Republicans fought for and voted overwhelmingly for the Civil Rights act while Democrats opposed it.

will not put the money and resources behind one African American to get them elected to Congress?

Who have they denied?

Like I say, you must just think that Blacks are stupid or something, or think they are nothing but a bunch of deadbeats and only vote Democrat because they think the Democrats will let them live off of the government.

I tell you what, you ask me what I think and then I will tell you, if you believe you know what I think and that is what you will argue against then I can just sit back and watch as you type both sides. But what I think is certainly not as you would try to frame it as your own arguements go down in flames.

I dont know which part of the south you are from, but I am from Arkansas,

Born in Tennesse raised in and still live in Alabama with family in Arkansas and having spent quite a bit of time in Arkansas. My Grandfather was quite well known in the state.

and Arkansans that vote Republican dont vote Republican because they agree with the concepts of Supply Side Economics and Free Trade, they vote on 3 issues, race, guns, and abortion.

The race issue being what issue? And cite some examples of bills.

That is the southern strategy in a nutshell. You act like your talking to someone who doesnt know.

Except for the race part which had nothing to do with it.
 
Clintons cuts welfare, the poverty goes down, Brilliant.;)
 
shuamort said:
What's the missing context?

Bill Bennett is pro life.......He is against all abortions...........You need to read the whole statement to put it in the proper context..........
 
Quote:
As of December 31, 2002, black males from 20 to 39 years old accounted for about a third of all sentenced prison inmates under state or federal jurisdiction. On that date 10.4 percent of the country’s black male population between the ages of 25 to 29 were in prison, compared to 2.4 percent of Hispanic males and 1.2 percent of white males in the same age group
.

Pacridge said:
So that means for the statement to be true then at least 39.6% of black males would need to be on parole or probation. It's possible but I find that highly unlikely.

Why? And the number that was cited is only for those 25 to 29. Let's say the percentage is the same for 18 to 25 and a little less for 29 - 39 and little less still 39 - 49 and then add in the men on probation and parole, I think you can get up there pretty quickly.

Now apply those same percentages to white males. Now imagine a country with that many of it's male population in jail or on parole. What kind of society if any would be left? Where would we put all of them and who would guard them?
 
shuamort said:
It looks like the White House is now condemning Bill Bennett's remarks:
The White House on Friday criticized former Education Secretary William Bennett for remarks linking the crime rate and the abortion of black babies.

"The president believes the comments were not appropriate,'' White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.
Has anyone told Kanye West?:cool:
 
Deegan said:
Clintons cuts welfare, the poverty goes down, Brilliant.;)

Poverty rates were falling before welfare was cut (I agree with cutting it).

Johnson reduced the poverty rate in half in just 4 years with his Great Society programs.
 
Back
Top Bottom