• 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.

Obama stabs McCain in the back - a true Dem

galenrox said:
Well it's obviously subjective, considering that there's a relatively arbitrary line, but how does it not symbolize anything?

Precisely by being subjective, it doesnt symbolize anything. Actually, that's not correct. What the poverty rate symbolizes is how many people have an income underneath a mostly arbitrary number that doesn't really mean much.
 
galenrox said:
Well it's obviously subjective, considering that there's a relatively arbitrary line, but how does it not symbolize anything?

I don't know the answer to that, but I do realize that the obvious issues are not being addressed, and that these must be addressed with in the poor communities. Why is it that no one mentions the out of wedlock birth rate among poor, it's 69% among blacks for instance, are Democrats going to have the courage to address those numbers, or will that cost them votes? Are the black leaders in these communities addressing these issues, or are they comfortable relying on these statistics, and pointing fingers at the government? All of these questions need answers, and solutions can be reached no matter which party is in control of the government. The question is, when are we going to address the real cause for these poverty rates, and stop playing politics with these peoples futures?:roll:
 
RightatNYU said:
Precisely by being subjective, it doesnt symbolize anything. Actually, that's not correct. What the poverty rate symbolizes is how many people have an income underneath a mostly arbitrary number that doesn't really mean much.
Except for the fact that it is pretty universally accepted that people cannot maintain a decent quality of life making below the poverty line. Right now the poverty line for a single man is under $10,000 a year. That's less than my tuition (and I can only assume is far less than yours).
To put this in further perspective, I spend $2,400 on weed anually. I live in a squalid hell hole in a relatively rural area and I spend $7,200 a year on rent. Those two things combined make up the poverty line for a single person with no dependents.
 
Deegan said:
I don't know the answer to that, but I do realize that the obvious issues are not being addressed, and that these must be addressed with in the poor communities. Why is it that no one mentions the out of wedlock birth rate among poor, it's 69% among blacks for instance, are Democrats going to have the courage to address those numbers, or will that cost them votes? Are the black leaders in these communities addressing these issues, or are they comfortable relying on these statistics, and pointing fingers at the government? All of these questions need answers, and solutions can be reached no matter which party is in control of the government. The question is, when are we going to address the real cause for these poverty rates, and stop playing politics with these peoples futures?:roll:
Those are some obvious problems with the democratic party, I agree. I think the failure to make the african american community to take accountability at least somewhat for their lot in life is almost unforgivable. Everything should be addressed as it is. As it is now the republicans tend to ignore the structural problems, and the democrats tend to ignore the social problems, and thus the problems don't get solved. This is one of the reasons that I believe both parties to be completely worthless.

Have you ever seen Bullworth?
 
Deegan said:
I don't know the answer to that, but I do realize that the obvious issues are not being addressed, and that these must be addressed with in the poor communities. Why is it that no one mentions the out of wedlock birth rate among poor, it's 69% among blacks for instance, are Democrats going to have the courage to address those numbers, or will that cost them votes? Are the black leaders in these communities addressing these issues, or are they comfortable relying on these statistics, and pointing fingers at the government? All of these questions need answers, and solutions can be reached no matter which party is in control of the government. The question is, when are we going to address the real cause for these poverty rates, and stop playing politics with these peoples futures?:roll:

Agreed. I keep hearing people talk about how median household income is relatively stagnant. Well, yes. But they're missing the real reason for that.

In 1978, the median household income was $38,693 (in 2003 dollars.)
In 2003, it was $43,318.

But far more importantly, in 1978, the average household size was 2.78 people.
In 2003, it was 2.57.

It's fairly obvious that the biggest factor in stagnant household income is a deterioration of the family unit, thus resulting in an artificial increase in poverty. Think about it this way. That's a 9% decrease in household size since 1978. If the median household income were to increase by 9%, how many of those families in poverty would it pull out of poverty?
 
Gill said:
Baloney... Obama is Senator because a partisan newspaper sued for access to Jack Ryan's SEALED divorce papers. The Illinois Democratic party will stop at nothing to win elections.

Isn't transparent government a great thing. Bush apologists are quite happy with secretive government. Freedom of information is important to anyone wishing to know they've made the right "moral" choice. When you run on a platform of moral superiority, make sure you'e above the frey. Newt and Bob Livingston as well as Bob Barr can attest to that. Your idiot candidate paid for it as well. And speaking of tokens, Jesus christ, Alan Keyes? Has the GOP no shame. That was an RNC misstep, not the state party. They let keyes out of the nut house to move to the state.

My experience with the Republican party is that they will stop at nothing to prevent black folks from voting. So I tend to take that personal. When I discover democrats seeking to keep black folks from voting, and see the national party defendinig that action I'll be equally as vocal.

Gill said:
Perhaps we can borrow some "sheets" from Byrd.

There have been Presidents and Supreme Court justices who have been overt racists from the bench and the white house. The common thread binding people with such beliefs has been the mantra of "conservatism". Recall the dixiecrats under the leadership of Strom Thurmond bolted for the Republican party in '64 who shamelessly embraced the southern strategy. To his credit, Mehlman admitted what happenned. Black folks knew this, conservatives refused to acknowledge it proclaiming they couldn't understand the lack of interest in Republicanism by blacks. Conservatism always seems to be a comfortable safe habor for racists. Conservatism belongs to the right. According to you, Byrd didn't get the message to switch parties. I got a note from Melhman btw, the party no longer does sheets. The Republicans embrace the KKK without the fashion sense.

Byrd has no responsibility in national Democratic politics and has long since renounced his association with the KKK. Much the same as George Wallace and any of a number of Southern Democrats. I can't legislate how you or they personally think. I can hold them accountable for how they vote. If you check the record, Byrd's voting record on Civil rights is highly rated, despite his past WW2 era indiscretions. He scores higher than Dick Cheney..go figure?[/QUOTE]

Gill said:
Do you mean the Keating scandal in which McCain was included as a token Republican so the the scandal wouldn't be viewed as a Democrat scandal?

Yes. Isn't it amazing how McCain got religion around reform after that near miss?

TwoPops
 
galenrox said:
Except for the fact that it is pretty universally accepted that people cannot maintain a decent quality of life making below the poverty line. Right now the poverty line for a single man is under $10,000 a year. That's less than my tuition (and I can only assume is far less than yours).
To put this in further perspective, I spend $2,400 on weed anually. I live in a squalid hell hole in a relatively rural area and I spend $7,200 a year on rent. Those two things combined make up the poverty line for a single person with no dependents.

Wow, if I'd had to guess, that would be less than I would have thought you'd spend on weed. And that rent is incredibly surprising for that area. You can get a relatively decent place in (the ass end of) Brooklyn for that much, with a roommate at least.
 
RightatNYU said:
Wow, if I'd had to guess, that would be less than I would have thought you'd spend on weed. And that rent is incredibly surprising for that area. You can get a relatively decent place in (the ass end of) Brooklyn for that much, with a roommate at least.
Dude, it's $600 a month. And I go through an eighth a week, and an eighth of dank here goes for $50
 
TwoPops4Sure said:
My experience with the Republican party is that they will stop at nothing to prevent black folks from voting. So I tend to take that personal. When I discover democrats seeking to keep black folks from voting, and see the national party defendinig that action I'll be equally as vocal.

Hmmmm. Remember this? I bet you dont.
Two more men turned themselves in to Milwaukee police Saturday in connection with the slashing of tires on 20 vans and cars rented by the Republican Party on election day, according to department records.

Lavelle Mohammad, 35, of Milwaukee and Justin J. Howell, 20, of Racine were booked on charges of criminal damage to property.

Sgt. Ken Henning said no additional information about the case was available Saturday.

On Friday, two other men - Lewis Gibson Caldwell III, 27, and Sowande Ajumoke Omokunde, 25, both of Milwaukee - surrendered to police on the same charge in connection with the incident, according to department records. Omokunde, the son of newly elected congresswoman Gwen Moore, was released later in the day.

Opel E. Simmons III, 33, a veteran Democratic Party activist from Virginia, was arrested Tuesday and released Thursday without being charged.

On Tuesday morning, 27 tires on 20 vehicles rented by the Republican Party to carry voters to the polls were slashed. The vehicles were parked in the 7100 block of W. Capitol Drive.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/nov04/273074.asp

Yea. In a district where a black woman was running for Congress, her son and 3 other democratic activists slashed the tires on 20 GOP vans in an effort to keep the GOP from turning out voters, in order to help his mother win the election.

******* those whites always trying to keep blacks from voting!
 
galenrox said:
Dude, it's $600 a month. And I go through an eighth a week, and an eighth of dank here goes for $50

Yea, im just surprised that rent is that much elsewhere. I guess the city doesn't suck as much as i thought. And I'm just surprised about the weed because I lived with spoiled assholes who bought in QP's for way too long. If an eighth lasted my friend Omar 3 days, it was a surprise.

Of course, he also spent 4.5 years here in the econ department without getting a degree, then transferred to Parsons to get an associates in Art and design.
 
Deegan said:
That's rich, here we have this arrogant chap talking about the dirty little world of "class warfare" all the while looking his nose down another, and suggesting he's "worrying about next month's mortgage payment for the trailer.":roll:

Oh please wise man of color, do give us all more of your fantastic pearls of wisdom.:rofl

Well while you are repeating your post three times, I'll offer this up again?:confused:
 
Deegan said:
That's rich, here we have this arrogant chap talking about the dirty little world of "class warfare" all the while looking his nose down another, and suggesting he's "worrying about next month's mortgage payment for the trailer.":roll:

Oh please wise man of color, do give us all more of your fantastic pearls of wisdom.:rofl

Sure. I've already given you plenty that perhaps have overloaded your CPU as you've chosen not to address those. I understand poverty. I wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth. If you want a lesson in life and the fallacy of your politics, I invite you to trade places with me. Then we'll have a productive exchange.

TwoPops
 
TwoPops4Sure said:
Sure. I've already given you plenty that perhaps have overloaded your CPU as you've chosen not to address those. I understand poverty. I wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth. If you want a lesson in life and the fallacy of your politics, I invite you to trade places with me. Then we'll have a productive exchange.

TwoPops

I read your post, it was not worth the first posting, much less the five times you repeated it. It's just more of the same whining that we have been hearing since as long as I can remember, "poor me, the white man is keeping me down.":roll:

It's time to pull yourselves up by the bootstraps, you seem to have done it, the Latin community has done it, so has every other immigrant that has had the opportunity to come to this great country. I only hear one voice still complaining, that's the black voice, 13% of the population, and you want 100% of the attention of this country. Where are the black leaders, where are the men that are courageous enough to tackle the issues that "keep you down"? You can't find any, because the minute someone does speak up, i.e, Cosby, Freeman, Keyes, etc, they are branded, "Uncle Tom"! No, don't you dare tell blacks that they have some responsibilities in all of this, that wouldn't be politically correct.

The truth is it's not up to Bush, the Republicans, or any American to lift you up, it's YOUR responsibility, and yours alone.
 
Al Sharpton, that crusader for black rights and equality, was last seen in commercials for predatory loaners that charge up to 400% interest and target poor black communities. He's a lovely leader.
 
RightatNYU said:
Al Sharpton, that crusader for black rights and equality, was last seen in commercials for predatory loaners that charge up to 400% interest and target poor black communities. He's a lovely leader.

I saw an article on that, and it makes me sick. This is the kind of thing that needs to be brought to the attention of blacks all over the country, who's really looking out for your best interest. Most of the information I get pertaining to these issues comes from my brother in-law, he works for the AJC in Atlanta......oh, and in case anyone gets any funny ideas, he's black!:shock:

So yeah, this conservative is all about the hate.:roll:
 
Galen:
Are you joking? Are you from Illinois, or were you there at ANY point in time during the campaign? It was NEVER gonna be anywhere close.
Yes, I was living in Illinois at this time. I lived there for one VERY long year before I managed to get out of that hellhole.

As can be seen, the race was very close, well within striking distance for Ryan. But of course, Daley hadn't unleashed his machine at that time.
May 18, 2004--In the Illinois campaign for the U.S. Senate, Democrat Barack Obama leads Republican Jack Ryan 48% to 40%. The survey was conducted for the Daily Southtown.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Illinois_Senate_May.htm
Pops:
Recall the dixiecrats under the leadership of Strom Thurmond bolted for the Republican party in '64 who shamelessly embraced the southern strategy.
Ahh, but it was the Democrats that voted overwhelmingly AGAINST the 1964 Civil Rights Act as compared to Republicans:

The Original House Version:
· Democratic Party: 153-96
· Republican Party: 138-34
The Senate Version:
· Democratic Party: 46-22
· Republican Party: 27-6
The Senate Version, voted on by the House:
· Democratic Party: 153-91
· Republican Party: 136-35

Actually, the southern strategy began during the 1968 election.
 
hipsterdufus said:
And exactly how do the Dem's keep the blacks "
poor, beholding (sic) and needy"?

Under Bush, the poverty rate has risen each year since 2001, with 12.7 percent of the population now living in poverty. African-American poverty has risen from 22.7 percent in 2001 to 24.7 percent in 2004, and child poverty has gone from 16.3 percent in 2001 to 17.8 percent (1.3 million children under the age of 18).

US Census Bureau: Aug 2005 Table B-1
http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf

page 53 of pdf

Through their control of education and culture . New York city has a 9 bilion dollar school system , that sucks.
In a school system that doesn't have enough, books, supplies or teachers, they spend money mostly on administration and administrators .They are so desperate that they are considering creating an attendence diploma. A diploma that just says you went to school for 12 years.It won't claim you have a high school education,thats disgusting.
 
JOHNYJ said:
Through their control of education and culture . New York city has a 9 bilion dollar school system , that sucks.
In a school system that doesn't have enough, books, supplies or teachers, they spend money mostly on administration and administrators .They are so desperate that they are considering creating an attendence diploma. A diploma that just says you went to school for 12 years.It won't claim you have a high school education,thats disgusting.

What are you talking about? I'd really like to see some stats to back this all up, a lot of it is quite contrary to reports that I've seen...
 
Back
Top Bottom