Patrick.net

After The 8 Years Of The Bush/Cheney Disaster, Now You Get Mad?

By Clarence 13X   Follow   Tue, 26 Oct 2010, 12:24pm   5,757 views   94 comments
Watch (0)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

After The 8 Years Of The Bush/Cheney Disaster, Now You Get Mad?
You didn't get mad when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and appointed a President.

You didn't get mad when Cheney allowed Energy company officials to dictate Energy policy and push us to invade Iraq.

You didn't get mad when a covert CIA operative got outed.

You didn't get mad when the Patriot Act got passed.

You didn't get mad when we illegally invaded a country that posed no threat to us.

You didn't get mad when we spent over 800 billion (and counting) on said illegal war.

You didn't get mad when Bush borrowed more money from foreign sources than the previous 42 Presidents combined.

You didn't get mad when over 10 billion dollars in cash just disappeared in Iraq.

You didn't get mad when you found out we were torturing people.

You didn't get mad when Bush embraced trade and outsourcing policies that shipped 6 million American jobs out of the country.

You didn't get mad when the government was illegally wiretapping Americans.

You didn't get mad when we didn't catch Bin Laden. You didn't get mad when Bush rang up 10 trillion dollars in combined budget and current account deficits.

You didn't get mad when you saw the horrible conditions at Walter Reed.

You didn't get mad when we let a major US city, New Orleans, drown.

You didn't get mad when we gave people who had more money than they could spend, the filthy rich, over a trillion dollars in tax breaks.

You didn't get mad with the worst 8 years of job creations in several decades.

You didn't get mad when over 200,000 US Citizens lost their lives because they had no health insurance.

You didn't get mad when lack of oversight and regulations from the Bush Administration caused US Citizens to lose 12 trillion dollars in investments, retirement, and home values.

You finally got mad when a black man was elected President and decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick. Yes, illegal wars, lies, corruption, torture, job losses by the millions, stealing your tax dollars to make the rich richer, and the worst economic disaster since 1929 are all okay with you, but helping fellow Americans who are sick...Oh, Hell No!!

« First     « Previous     Viewing Comments 55-94 of 94     Last »     See most liked comments

1. Fisk Follow Befriend (1) 8 threads 242 comments

   55   10:25pm Thu 4 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   iwog says I don’t think any of it is relevant. This is VERY relevant. Recents statistics said there are now 4 - 5 applicants for each opening. Imagine we go back to 1950-s ways such that, as far as professional positions go, women (~55% of college degree holders and thus a similar fraction of applicants now) and "coloreds" (say ~1/3 of the remainder) need not really apply. We then drop to just ~1.3 - 1.5 applicant/opening even in the middle of present unprecedented recession, and virtually any somewhat decent applicant (as long as white anglo christian man) gets a job. Just imagine how many millions of great job openings would there be today if all positions presently occupied by those who couldn't have those jobs in 1950-s were suddenly vacant? When the pool of competing applicants is enlarged by ~2 times because of women, by another 1.5 times because of non-anglo whites, and still more because of immigrants, how can this be irrelevant to your career prospects? In a Freudian slip, you yourself phrase it thus: "Why did one man earn enough money in 1950 to afford a house, a wife, a car and 2.5 kids?" Correct, MAN and specifically, WHITE MAN. What could women afford - go to church dances strutting their stuff in front of men who could support? What could non-whites afford - a nanny room in that house?

2. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 274 threads 12,648 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

   56   10:35pm Thu 4 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   Fisk says This is VERY relevant. Recents statistics said there are now 4 - 5 applicants for each opening. Imagine we go back to 1950-s ways such that, as far as professional positions go, women (~55% of college degree holders and thus a similar fraction of applicants now) and “coloreds” (say ~1/3 of the remainder) need not really apply. We then drop to just ~1.3 - 1.5 applicant/opening even in the middle of present unprecedented recession, and virtually any somewhat decent applicant (as long as white anglo christian man) gets a job. Just imagine how many millions of great job openings would there be today if all positions presently occupied by those who couldn’t have those jobs in 1950-s were suddenly vacant? When the pool of competing applicants is enlarged by ~2 times because of women, by another 1.5 times because of non-anglo whites, and still more because of immigrants, how can this be irrelevant to your career prospects? In a Freudian slip, you yourself phrase it thus: “Why did one man earn enough money in 1950 to afford a house, a wife, a car and 2.5 kids?” Correct, MAN and specifically, WHITE MAN. What could women afford - go to church dances to seek a man who would support? What could non-whites afford - a nanny room in that house? IT DOESN'T MATTER! You're identifying potential victims of an economy that potentially discriminated against women and minorities. It's a separate discussion and unnecessarily complicates the main issue. The main issue is this: Pie per person bigger now. Wages per person higher now. More people in poverty now EVEN with two people working per household. There ARE no solutions that don't redistribute wealth. NONE!!!!! Unless you pipe some of that wealth creation back to people who actually spend it, the economy is finished. You cannot play a game of Monopoly after everyone is bankrupt. There are no customers left. That is where we are now. RIGHT NOW.

3. ¥ Follow Befriend 35 threads 5,700 comments Bellingham, WA

   57   10:53pm Thu 4 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   I think Fisk has a point. Japan is holding things together by keeping women out of the career workforce. This pushes households into one wage-earner families, which is arguably better for everyone, given the "Two-income trap". The poverty of just 50 years ago was immense compared to now.

4. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 274 threads 12,648 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

   58   11:09pm Thu 4 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   Troy says I think Fisk has a point. Japan is holding things together by keeping women out of the career workforce. This pushes households into one wage-earner families, which is arguably better for everyone, given the “Two-income trap”. The poverty of just 50 years ago was immense compared to now. I don't think poverty rates today can be compared to 50 years ago. Poverty has an entirely different meaning in an era where you can find a shack to rent for $20 a month. I do know that 50 years ago, anyone who was competent could hold down a job and support a family. That is not even close to the situation right now. The other point is that we're just past the peak looking into the abyss. Things could degenerate very quickly from here.

5. bob2356 Follow Befriend 3 threads 2,564 comments

   59   10:41am Fri 5 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   iwog says RayAmerica says A very good illustration of the radical thought pattern of one Iwog (Infatuated With Our Government). So you thought this country sucked from 1946 to 1980? Or is that simply another thing you refuse to talk about? I don't know about you but I lived through the 60's and 70's and they sucked. Vietnam war, Cuban missile crises (we were truly on the brink of nuclear war),the growth of suburbs destroying the cities, race riots in all the major cities, terrible economy for almost 20 years, real fear about the total collapse of the America political system over watergate, oil embargo's, hostages in Iran. The 60's is where everything came to a head and the 70's is when everything came apart.

6. Paralithodes Follow Befriend 1 threads 530 comments

   60   10:56am Fri 5 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   iwog says bob2356 says A technically true but incorrect statement from IWOG. Who would have thunk it. Technically true but incorrect? WTF does that mean? All I said is that a majority of Democrats voted against the patriot act in 2006 and gave a handy link so people can check for themselves. It means that you posted less than a half truth in response to my correct claim that the vast majority of Democrats voted for the Patriot Act. You responded with info on the roll call for the Patriot Act renewal. (You are technically true for 2006 because more Democrats in the entire Congress voted against it, although the Senate Democrats were 38-10 for renewal). One would have to truly ignorant or delusional to believe that opposition to the Patriot Act started in 2006, and that when someone refers to the "Patriot Act," they are referring to the vote to renew it 5 years later, and not to the Act itself. I believe you are neither ignorant nor delusional.

7. Paralithodes Follow Befriend 1 threads 530 comments

   61   11:02am Fri 5 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   iwog says You helped sabotage his agenda. Government is now effectively shut down and the Republicans are going to hold a 1.5% tax cut for the working class hostage unless they can get 4% for the richest Americans. And likewise, (assuming your numbers are correct) one could argue that the Democrats are going to hold a 1.5% tax cut for the working class hostage unless they can take 4% more from the richest Americans. Hyperbole can cut both ways.

8. Paralithodes Follow Befriend 1 threads 530 comments

   62   11:05am Fri 5 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Troy says The PATRIOT act was and has been No Big Deal. Anybody railing against it is trying to sell you something. Having read most of it, I generally agree.

9. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 274 threads 12,648 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

   63   11:53am Fri 5 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   Paralithodes says And likewise, (assuming your numbers are correct) one could argue that the Democrats are going to hold a 1.5% tax cut for the working class hostage unless they can take 4% more from the richest Americans. Hyperbole can cut both ways. We either restore progressive taxes, or the economy burns. You have no other options. The Monopoly game only ends one way.

10. Clarence 13X Follow Befriend 23 threads 456 comments

    64   5:05pm Fri 5 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   WillyWanker says Clarence 13X says Vicente says Clarence 13X says The folks in congress voted against it because it was the safe thing to do, prolly thought it would get them re-elected. Indeed. Most of the Dems who voted against healtcare reform are now gone. They thought it would buy them some credit with their constituents but it did not. There is no gratitude for actual compromise. GOP has no interest in that. Their only concern is big business profits, war spending and crushing the middle class. That being said, I assume the Dems only concern is major health care company profits, spreading homosexuality and increasing the middle class. I choose to vote Dem because of the history of FOCUSING on equal opportunity, voting rights, and civil rights….now if blacks could get them to focus on EDUCATION and PARENTING. ‘PARENTING’???!!! Let ‘PARENTS’ focus on ‘PARENTING’. Since when is the government responsible for ‘PARENTING’? I’m an Independent because I vote for the man or the woman whom I believe to be best for the job they are running for. I expect ‘parents’ to ‘parent’ their off~spring. And I’m extremely glad with the results of the elections. No more rubber~stamping Imam0bama’s agenda. Let both parties hammer things out. It’s best for the country. And best for the economy. But shouldn't the government step in when parents are screw ups?....good parenting would eventually result in a better economic outlook for our country and stronger national security wouldn't you say?

11. Clarence 13X Follow Befriend 23 threads 456 comments

    65   5:08pm Fri 5 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   RayAmerica says iwog says So you thought this country sucked from 1946 to 1980? As is typical, you judge the prosperity of post war America primarily on what you perceive to be a singular cause; “by taking money away from the aristocracy through progressive taxes and inflation…” I wish I could think in such simplistic terms. Life would be so much easier. @Ray You do realize homes were actually affordable prior to 1980 right? A family could be raised on one income as well, which left mothers to raise a different class of children than what we are seeing right now.

12. Clarence 13X Follow Befriend 23 threads 456 comments

    66   5:09pm Fri 5 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   iwog says Fisk says In those times, USA/Canada/AU and a handful of Northwest Europe countries were the only in the world with modern production capacity, operating a market economy. Thus they faced little competition for raw resources (oil, etc.) which were thus cheap and same little competition when selling final products which were thus expensive. This “monopoly on modernity” is what worked, along with rapid population growth and shorter lifespan that allowed fast economic growth, meaning much lower retired/working population and thus lower unproductive expenses on the elderly, and steady appreciation of stocks and RE. And brutal discrimination against women and non-whites didn’t hurt (WASPs, that is), either. To start “going back to what works”, how about firing all women, coloreds, and hispanics (including the pres.) from any career or professional job, or elected position? Then white anglo christian males would again enjoy great employment prospects and rapid career and economic progression, just like in blessed 1950-s. I fully acknowledge that this sounds good, but it’s absolutely false and has nothing to do with United States prosperity between 1946 and 1980. 1. adjusted for inflation, oil was MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH cheaper in the 1990s and most of the 2000s than in the 1940s. 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. Same goes for nearly every other natural resource. It’s not even close. 2. Modern production capacity was exported to Japan and Germany with great success and by the 1960s both nations were fully industrialized with large export markets. They weren’t a big factor in the United States because of strong tariffs. Blaming a high standard of living in 1980 on an industrial advantage in the early 1950s doesn’t make any sense. 3. You claim the United States had an advantage due to value added from manufacturing and a large spread between raw materials and finished goods. This is measured through a combination of GDP and productivity. The increase in per capita real GDP is an ever increasing straight line. Our increase in productivity is also a straight line that actually starts to accelerate upward in the last 15 years or so. Therefore you have MORE TOTAL WEALTH BEING GENERATED THAN EVER BEFORE!!! PER PERSON, this nation has more wealth than ever before. As a nation we can afford a BETTER lifestyle, a LARGER house, MORE cars, BETTER food, HIGHER education and MORE medical care than we did in 1950, 1960, 1970, or 1980 for EACH and every American alive today. FACT! Why don’t we? Why did one man earn enough money in 1950 to afford a house, a wife, a car and 2.5 kids? Yet TODAY when there is more wealth generated per person than ever before, it takes two incomes to live paycheck to paycheck? THERE is the issue!! You point to advantages between 1946-1980 then say things are harder today because we had it easy back then. Your premise is false. Any advantages between 1946 and 1980 are IRRELEVANT because this nation generates more wealth per person than it did anytime in previous history. Things are EASIER today. We can take bits of sand, turn them into an IPhone, and sell them for $600. 1950 has NOTHING on 2010 USA. Do I even have to say it? It takes two adult wages to barely survive in America today because most of the wealth we create is going to the rich. The economy is grinding to a halt today because a rich billionaire can drive one car while 100,000 workers splitting a billion dollars can drive 100,000 cars. If you let one man accumulate a billion dollars, the people who USED to have jobs making 100,000 cars can no longer earn a living. We afford more not because of the economy but because of the dual incomes and actually we afford less on the coasts where greed has run amok. Our children suffer from a lack of solid parenting as a result of the greed.

13. RayAmerica Follow Befriend (9) 120 threads 2,591 comments Burbank, CA

    67   11:20am Sat 6 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Clarence 13X says You do realize homes were actually affordable prior to 1980 right? A family could be raised on one income as well, which left mothers to raise a different class of children than what we are seeing right now. The point I was attempting to make re: Iwog's post was that he pointed to the SINGULAR issue of taxing the "aristocracy" as the only means by which America prospered in the post-war era. Such a position is complete, absolute nonsense. The reasons for the economic boom in post-war America are multi layered and numerous. Iwog discounts the fact that mainland America was the only warring, industrialized nation in WW2 that did not suffer ANY destruction to its manufacturing base, which enabled the U.S. to be the supplier of manufactured goods to Europe, Japan and much of the Pacific rim. As far as your point re: two incomes in order to afford a home mortgage, you are absolutely correct. But I don't agree that both parents working was done out of greed, but more (by and large) out of necessity. At least initially, most American parents wanted a better life for their children than they had, and that included locating to where the better school systems were located, almost always in higher priced neighborhoods. Americans morphed, IMO, after that into a more materialistic lifestyle where the more you possessed was incorrectly being interpreted as the BETTER you were, which has led to numerous social problems with dysfunctional families and children, etc. So in that sense, I think we agree?

14. 4X Follow Befriend 30 threads 763 comments

    68   11:41am Sun 7 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   RayAmerica says Clarence 13X says You do realize homes were actually affordable prior to 1980 right? A family could be raised on one income as well, which left mothers to raise a different class of children than what we are seeing right now. The point I was attempting to make re: Iwog’s post was that he pointed to the SINGULAR issue of taxing the “aristocracy” as the only means by which America prospered in the post-war era. Such a position is complete, absolute nonsense. The reasons for the economic boom in post-war America are multi layered and numerous. Iwog discounts the fact that mainland America was the only warring, industrialized nation in WW2 that did not suffer ANY destruction to its manufacturing base, which enabled the U.S. to be the supplier of manufactured goods to Europe, Japan and much of the Pacific rim. As far as your point re: two incomes in order to afford a home mortgage, you are absolutely correct. But I don’t agree that both parents working was done out of greed, but more (by and large) out of necessity. At least initially, most American parents wanted a better life for their children than they had, and that included locating to where the better school systems were located, almost always in higher priced neighborhoods. Americans morphed, IMO, after that into a more materialistic lifestyle where the more you possessed was incorrectly being interpreted as the BETTER you were, which has led to numerous social problems with dysfunctional families and children, etc. So in that sense, I think we agree? Agreed, I see a 65k Cadillac Escalade at every corner....and can't imagine that the folks driving these vehicles arent over extending their dual income households.

15. Clarence 13X Follow Befriend 23 threads 456 comments

    69   11:45am Sun 7 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   I agree as well.

16. Fisk Follow Befriend (1) 8 threads 242 comments

    70   12:11pm Sun 7 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)   4X says Agreed, I see a 65k Cadillac Escalade at every corner….and can’t imagine that the folks driving these vehicles arent over extending their dual income households. I imagine. We've just bought a car of similar price (though not a Cadillac) for cash. I am a govt. scientist and my wife is a nurse, some aristocracy indeed ... With after-tax income of ~140 K and house paid off, why spending 65 K on a car would be over-extending? Lots of dual-income couples make more than 200 K pre-tax, btw.

17. Vaticanus Follow Befriend (1) 77 threads 1,139 comments

    71   1:15pm Mon 8 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Is any car worth $65K worth of utility? Add to that the fact that driving it off the lot costs you at least 20% of purchase price if you try to resell. Why not buy a used car for about $10K. You can get a nice car for $10K. And invest the savings in something more profitable and meaningful. Spending that kind of money on a car is a bad financial decision. And most of the excess you spend, goes to fund the excess of someone even more well off than you. But if it makes you happy, I am happy for you.

18. Clarence 13X Follow Befriend 23 threads 456 comments

    72   8:02am Tue 9 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   AdHominem says Is any car worth $65K worth of utility? Add to that the fact that driving it off the lot costs you at least 20% of purchase price if you try to resell. Why not buy a used car for about $10K. You can get a nice car for $10K. And invest the savings in something more profitable and meaningful. Spending that kind of money on a car is a bad financial decision. And most of the excess you spend, goes to fund the excess of someone even more well off than you. But if it makes you happy, I am happy for you. That is what i say...buy used with around 25-35k miles on it.

19. Paralithodes Follow Befriend 1 threads 530 comments

    73   3:04pm Tue 9 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Fisk says I imagine. We’ve just bought a car of similar price (though not a Cadillac) for cash. I am a govt. scientist and my wife is a nurse, some aristocracy indeed … With after-tax income of ~140 K and house paid off, why spending 65 K on a car would be over-extending? Lots of dual-income couples make more than 200 K pre-tax, btw. Sure, lots of them in raw numbers... Approx 4.5M out of approx. 117.5M households. You're in the top 4% or so of household income. Good for you (no sarcasm)!!!

20. American in Japan Follow Befriend (28) 149 threads 1,398 comments

    74   10:49pm Thu 11 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Iwog said: "1. adjusted for inflation, oil was MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH cheaper in the 1990s and most of the 2000s than in the 1940s. 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. Same goes for nearly every other natural resource. It’s not even close. 2. 3. 4..." I often disagree with what you say, but this comment was excellent! cheers.

21. Clarence 13X Follow Befriend 23 threads 456 comments

    75   3:20pm Mon 15 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Lets talk about the WHITE RAGE going on in America. Mad at the Black President cleaning up Bush and Clintons blowback. Mad at the Goverment all of a sudden when we start spending for cleanup but didnt care about the 1T spent on killing of innocent Arab peoples. Not willing to owe up to slavey and inceasing educational opportunities for blacks Not willing to increase the diversity clauses in the workplace

22. Paralithodes Follow Befriend 1 threads 530 comments

    76   3:31pm Mon 15 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   Clarence 13X says Lets talk about the WHITE RAGE going on in America. Mad at the Black President cleaning up Bush and Clintons blowback. Mad at the Goverment all of a sudden when we start spending for cleanup but didnt care about the 1T spent on killing of innocent Arab peoples. Not willing to owe up to slavey and inceasing educational opportunities for blacks Not willing to increase the diversity clauses in the workplace Yep, it's all about racism! That's why liberals hate white conservatives - because they're racist! Too bad that for many liberals (black or white), the only thing worse than a white conservative is a non-white conservative, especially a black one.... Who do they think they are, getting off the plantation like that!!

23. Clarence 13X Follow Befriend 23 threads 456 comments

    77   10:14pm Wed 17 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Paralithodes says Clarence 13X says Lets talk about the WHITE RAGE going on in America. Mad at the Black President cleaning up Bush and Clintons blowback. Mad at the Goverment all of a sudden when we start spending for cleanup but didnt care about the 1T spent on killing of innocent Arab peoples. Not willing to owe up to slavey and inceasing educational opportunities for blacks Not willing to increase the diversity clauses in the workplace Yep, it’s all about racism! That’s why liberals hate white conservatives - because they’re racist! Too bad that for many liberals (black or white), the only thing worse than a white conservative is a non-white conservative, especially a black one…. Who do they think they are, getting off the plantation like that!! Thanks for taking the bait, not a bad response. My point is that we can spend 1T on war but cannot spend it on healthcare, social security or anything that benefits the middle class or poor. Black conservatives do nothing to address the defensive mechanisms that are causes of poor blacks issues: 1. Education - No desire to educate themselves 2. Impoverished thoughts - Refusal to go to school, work or engage in business 3. Enslaved Mentality - Refusal to participate in the conservative business culture. 4. Parenting - 75% of the households are single parent 5. Culture - Most youth (including whites) are now latching on to the hip hop thug culture All of the above are the result of 400 years of rejection. These 5 points are the defensive mechanisms that our grandparents developed as a result of not being included in society as far up to 1980. These are all defensive mechanisms that no conservative is willing to acknowledge aka show empathy for. If you were rejected for 400 years do you think you would be open to engaging in activities which were once restricted or do you think you would say "I aint doing that punk shit!" or "You talk white" or "School aint gonna get me paid"? They were right to say these things in 1960 and the mentality has been passed down through generations. Most dont really know that they have an opportunity because they have convinced themselves there is an imaginary white man out here holding them back. Which is totally untrue. All I am asking is that conservatives show empathy (Increase education spending, affirmative action, etc.), and if the poor blacks dont respond then you can talk shit my friend. Until then, you and all conservatives are holding on to your exclusive rich whites only club, without even offering a hint of reparation for any of the poor peoples within America. I realize this is about rich vs poor....not black vs white. I just like to put the bait out there to see just who is insensitive and without empathy for the poor. Good responses.

24. Clarence 13X Follow Befriend 23 threads 456 comments

    78   10:17pm Wed 17 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Clarence 13X says Paralithodes says Clarence 13X says Lets talk about the WHITE RAGE going on in America. Mad at the Black President cleaning up Bush and Clintons blowback. Mad at the Goverment all of a sudden when we start spending for cleanup but didnt care about the 1T spent on killing of innocent Arab peoples. Not willing to owe up to slavey and inceasing educational opportunities for blacks Not willing to increase the diversity clauses in the workplace Yep, it’s all about racism! That’s why liberals hate white conservatives - because they’re racist! Too bad that for many liberals (black or white), the only thing worse than a white conservative is a non-white conservative, especially a black one…. Who do they think they are, getting off the plantation like that!! Thanks for taking the bait, not a bad response. My point is that we can spend 1T on war but cannot spend it on healthcare, social security or anything that benefits the middle class or poor. Black conservatives do nothing to address the defensive mechanisms that are causes of poor blacks issues: 1. Education - No desire to educate themselves 2. Impoverished thoughts - Refusal to go to school, work or engage in business 3. Enslaved Mentality - Refusal to participate in the conservative business culture. 4. Parenting - 75% of the households are single parent 5. Culture - Most youth (including whites) are now latching on to the hip hop thug culture All of the above are the result of 400 years of rejection. These 5 points are the defensive mechanisms that our grandparents developed as a result of not being included in society as far up to 1980. These are all defensive mechanisms that no conservative is willing to acknowledge aka show empathy for. If you were rejected for 400 years do you think you would be open to engaging in activities which were once restricted or do you think you would say “I aint doing that punk shit!” or “You talk white” or “School aint gonna get me paid”? They were right to say these things in 1960 and the mentality has been passed down through generations. Most dont really know that they have an opportunity because they have convinced themselves there is an imaginary white man out here holding them back. Which is totally untrue. All I am asking is that conservatives show empathy (Increase education spending, affirmative action, etc.), and if the poor blacks dont respond then you can talk shit my friend. Until then, you and all conservatives are holding on to your exclusive rich whites only club, without even offering a hint of reparation for any of the poor peoples within America. I realize this is about rich vs poor….not black vs white. I just like to put the bait out there to see just who is insensitive and without empathy for the poor. Good responses. And actually all they have done is leave the plantation field to the comforts of the house where they serve their masters tea. How can Clarence Thomas side with the bigotry of the Republican party who call Obama a monkey and chant "take back our country". Who are they taking their country back from if not from the Black President. Are Clarence Thomas and Ward Connerly not smart enough to decipher these codes from indoors at the dinner table?

25. bob2356 Follow Befriend 3 threads 2,564 comments

    79   9:46am Thu 18 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   American in Japan says Iwog said: “1. adjusted for inflation, oil was MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH cheaper in the 1990s and most of the 2000s than in the 1940s. 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. Same goes for nearly every other natural resource. It’s not even close. 2. 3. 4…” I often disagree with what you say, but this comment was excellent! cheers. Except it's simply not true. Only in 1998 was the price of oil cheaper than any previous low price. Even then it was only a couple dollars a barrel cheaper than historical average prices for 47-73 or 85-96. Starting in 99 there was a sharp rise with prices going very quickly through all of the 2000's.

26. bob2356 Follow Befriend 3 threads 2,564 comments

    80   10:03am Thu 18 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Clarence 13X says All of the above are the result of 400 years of rejection. These 5 points are the defensive mechanisms that our grandparents developed as a result of not being included in society as far up to 1980. These are all defensive mechanisms that no conservative is willing to acknowledge aka show empathy for. I reject this totally. Black families made upward financial gains in every decade from the civil war until the 1960's. Baby's born out of wedlock for black families in the 1950's was something like 3%. What happened in the 1960's that changed that? The great society, aka welfare, which enabled and encouraged single parent households (to this day more whites than blacks collect welfare in single parent households, so it's a social issue not a racial issue) along with a mass exodus of jobs from the northern cities to the rural south, and the explosion of drugs (easy money and crime) in the cities devastated by job loses, as well as the total loss of the middle class in the cities due to suburban flight. Black families were caught in a tsunami of economic and societal changes that they are still pulling out of. Don't play the victim of history card. Black families were moving up in society and improving their lives for almost 100 years prior to the 1960's.

27. Paralithodes Follow Befriend 1 threads 530 comments

    81   2:18pm Thu 18 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)   Clarence 13X says Who are they taking their country back from if not from the Black President. Yeah, whatever... Keep it going... The unfounded, assumed cries of racism are simply diluting the importance, meaning, and impact of the accusation. Sure... Someone who didn't support nationalized healthcare under the Clinton Administration in the past, doesn't support it now only because Obama is Black. I applaud you for your efforts and contribution towards making "racism" something that people who disagree with you can soon be immune from... For helping to ensure that people will not be scared about whatever they say, because they know that since disagreeing with anything anone on the left states is "racism," the charge has absolutely no meaning. Clarence 13X says And actually all they have done is leave the plantation field to the comforts of the house where they serve their masters tea. How can Clarence Thomas side with the bigotry of the Republican party who call Obama a monkey and chant “take back our country”. Maybe he see's it as no worse than the bigotry of the Democratic party who treated him no better? You mention people calling Obama a "monkey." I'm curious... was it the Republicans who treated Condoleeza Rice in a worse manner, or those whom you share an ideology? Inquiring minds would like to know.... Clarence 13X says Are Clarence Thomas and Ward Connerly not smart enough to decipher these codes from indoors at the dinner table? Yeah, I understand. As an apparent Democrat, one of the things you must do is question the intelligence of black conservatives.... If they were smart, they'd stay on the Democratic plantation which simply replaced slavery and segregation with destruction of the black family. Ya, go ahead with your claims of racism, etc. Whose policies have more to hobble the legs of black Americans being able to stand on their own? The road to hell is paved with good intentions (and maybe not all of them are so good to begin with).

28. Clarence 13X Follow Befriend 23 threads 456 comments

    82   8:36pm Thu 18 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   bob2356 says Clarence 13X says All of the above are the result of 400 years of rejection. These 5 points are the defensive mechanisms that our grandparents developed as a result of not being included in society as far up to 1980. These are all defensive mechanisms that no conservative is willing to acknowledge aka show empathy for. I reject this totally. Black families made upward financial gains in every decade from the civil war until the 1960’s. Baby’s born out of wedlock for black families in the 1950’s was something like 3%. What happened in the 1960’s that changed that? The great society, aka welfare, which enabled and encouraged single parent households (to this day more whites than blacks collect welfare in single parent households, so it’s a social issue not a racial issue) along with a mass exodus of jobs from the northern cities to the rural south, and the explosion of drugs (easy money and crime) in the cities devastated by job loses, as well as the total loss of the middle class in the cities due to suburban flight. Black families were caught in a tsunami of economic and societal changes that they are still pulling out of. Don’t play the victim of history card. Black families were moving up in society and improving their lives for almost 100 years prior to the 1960’s. Bob. You make some good points about the marriage rates. However, you fail to mention that blacks couldnt even go outside their neighborhoods prior to 1970 without being harassed. That is not what either of us would call progress. The next generation during the 60s is where all the rejection of white American society started. Prior to 1960s blacks idolized the lifestyles of Sinatra, Crosby....as exemplified by Nat King Coles generation. The teens of the 60s got caught up in the civil protest, rejecting everything white including speech, education and lifestyles. The 60s was the years of the black panther party. This group of individuals is known as the BASTARDS OF THE PARTY aka the originations of the crips and bloods. Right when the community was set to obtain a little freedom they decided to turn their backs on those that enslaved them.

29. Clarence 13X Follow Befriend 23 threads 456 comments

    83   8:43pm Thu 18 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   @paralithodes 1. You never answered the question, what are they taking their country back from? I have no frickin clue. Politicians? Black President? 2. Why would I ever vote republican knowing that 50% of the party consists of the bigots who left after the passing of civil rights? Admit that they dont give a damn about poor blacks, because I have. 3. Ward Connerly is looking to take away affirmative action educational benefits which are aimed directly at what we are discussing....reversing the black plight after slavery through education.

30. Paralithodes Follow Befriend 1 threads 530 comments

    84   4:03am Fri 19 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Clarence 13X says 1. You never answered the question, what are they taking their country back from? I have no frickin clue. Politicians? Black President? What question were you actually asking? You were simply "begging the question," meaning that it wasn't really a question in the first place... It was a statement that you already know that it means they want to take it back from a "Black President" and that any answer they or anyone else gives you to the contrary will fall upon your deaf ears on the matter. Clarence 13X says 2. Why would I ever vote republican knowing that 50% of the party consists of the bigots who left after the passing of civil rights? Admit that they dont give a damn about poor blacks, because I have. Good point.... Better to stick with a party that didn't kick out the "50%" who were against the passing of the civil rights bill. Robert Byrd was definitely a better person to stick with than Strom Thurmond because ... um... why again? Clarence 13X says 3. Ward Connerly is looking to take away affirmative action educational benefits which are aimed directly at what we are discussing….reversing the black plight after slavery through education. Yes, I got it already... You believe that in order to pay for the sins of their fathers, grandfathers, and great grandfathers (even if those people were anti-discrimination, died for the North in the Civil War, had no ancesters in the US before 1920, etc.), non-minority children today should be second fiddle to minority children due to the sufferings of their ancesters. It is not character that matters, it is content of pigment in skin. You, sir, are nothing more than a disgusting race hustler....

31. Clarence 13X Follow Befriend 23 threads 456 comments

    85   10:45pm Fri 19 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Paralithodes says Clarence 13X says 1. You never answered the question, what are they taking their country back from? I have no frickin clue. Politicians? Black President? What question were you actually asking? You were simply “begging the question,” meaning that it wasn’t really a question in the first place… It was a statement that you already know that it means they want to take it back from a “Black President” and that any answer they or anyone else gives you to the contrary will fall upon your deaf ears on the matter. Then let me ask the question with open ears, what is being taken back and from where? Paralithodes says Clarence 13X says 2. Why would I ever vote republican knowing that 50% of the party consists of the bigots who left after the passing of civil rights? Admit that they dont give a damn about poor blacks, because I have. Good point…. Better to stick with a party that didn’t kick out the “50%” who were against the passing of the civil rights bill. Robert Byrd was definitely a better person to stick with than Strom Thurmond because … um… why again? That would be to stick with the party that does not ignore issues of poverty and the party that passed civil rights, women rights, equal opportunity, social security, medicare, and many other programs that the party of NO denounced as terrible ideas. Paralithodes says Clarence 13X says 3. Ward Connerly is looking to take away affirmative action educational benefits which are aimed directly at what we are discussing….reversing the black plight after slavery through education. Yes, I got it already… You believe that in order to pay for the sins of their fathers, grandfathers, and great grandfathers (even if those people were anti-discrimination, died for the North in the Civil War, had no ancesters in the US before 1920, etc.), non-minority children today should be second fiddle to minority children due to the sufferings of their ancesters. It is not character that matters, it is content of pigment in skin. You, sir, are nothing more than a disgusting race hustler…. And apparently you believe that repairing the ills that resulted from that history deserve NO compassion. DO you also feel that Jews, Armenians and Sudanese deserve no sympathy for the holocausts their people suffered through? ...or is this just because poor blacks here in America are lazy in your eyes?

32. Fisk Follow Befriend (1) 8 threads 242 comments

    86   12:30pm Sat 20 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)   Clarence 13X says And apparently you believe that repairing the ills that resulted from that history deserve NO compassion. DO you also feel that Jews, Armenians and Sudanese deserve no sympathy for the holocausts their people suffered through? Yes, absolutely, they do, thank you so much for drawing our attention to the terrible plight of these victimized groups. We should immediately start large-scale affirmative action programs for Jews and Armenians (those who suffered in Sudan are blacks who are already covered by the existing one). I count on the strong support of black community and expect congressional black caucus to introduce appropriate legislation without delay!

33. RayAmerica Follow Befriend (9) 120 threads 2,591 comments Burbank, CA

    87   2:14pm Sat 20 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Fisk says Yes, absolutely, they do, thank you so much for drawing our attention to the terrible plight of these victimized groups. I agree. And what about children? There used to be child slave labor in this country, therefore, all children should receive some of that large scale affirmative action. Also, many of the Irish suffrered from all those drunk jokes, etc. They need affirmative action too. Maybe a couple of cases of Scotch for each living Irishman .... I mean ... Irishperson?

34. Clarence 13X Follow Befriend 23 threads 456 comments

    88   11:45pm Sat 20 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   I still see no compassion in any of the comments made here. Unlike other communities who have suffered opression, blacks were systemically refused the opportunity to join the business community here in the US. It is apparently clear that no one is compassionate about what has occurred and are unwilling to add any kind of value to the discussion on how the current situations can be repaired. Continue to turn a blind eye and pretend that the past 400 years never occurred if that makes you feel better. The black community will be fine without your empathy, just dont run to church talking about how much you love god and his mercy when you cant offer the same to others.

35. RayAmerica Follow Befriend (9) 120 threads 2,591 comments Burbank, CA

    89   8:05am Sun 21 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Clarence 13X says blacks were systemically refused the opportunity to join the business community here in the US The operative word is "were" as in past tense. Today, that is not the case. Literally, nothing is holding Blacks back from doing anything they want. Many Black people don’t achieve for a variety of reasons, such as lack of education, motivation, lack of training, etc. which happens to be the same reason many Whites are non-achievers. Blaming the past for present day failures is nothing but a crutch. The opportunities are there for anyone in this country to achieve their dreams. Every single Black person I know, that has been a success in their life does not dwell on past injustices. Living in the bitter past will only keep you there for the rest of your life.

36. Clarence 13X Follow Befriend 23 threads 456 comments

    90   6:48pm Sun 21 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   RayAmerica says Clarence 13X says blacks were systemically refused the opportunity to join the business community here in the US The operative word is “were” as in past tense. Today, that is not the case. Literally, nothing is holding Blacks back from doing anything they want. Many Black people don’t achieve for a variety of reasons, such as lack of education, motivation, lack of training, etc. which happens to be the same reason many Whites are non-achievers. Blaming the past for present day failures is nothing but a crutch. The opportunities are there for anyone in this country to achieve their dreams. Every single Black person I know, that has been a success in their life does not dwell on past injustices. Living in the bitter past will only keep you there for the rest of your life. After a good nights rest and a discussion with my wife on the theories of BLACK THOUGHT, I agree 75% with your statements above. The only thing holding the people back is their "crutches" and the continued belief that they are being held down by an imaginary white man. Asians, Africans all come here and easily blend in but the continued reference to a negative history is holding the people back.

37. Clarence 13X Follow Befriend 23 threads 456 comments

    91   6:50pm Sun 21 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   or maybe I agree 90%, as I still believe with the poor, ederly and mentally ill we need to show empathy and acknowledgement of their issues.

38. RayAmerica Follow Befriend (9) 120 threads 2,591 comments Burbank, CA

    92   7:29am Mon 22 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Clarence 13X says I still believe with the poor, ederly and mentally ill we need to show empathy and acknowledgement of their issues. I agree. There are people in our society that couldn't exist without the help of others. The problem is, IMO, that there are an awful lot of able bodied people that take advantage of the system that has been set up to take care of the needy, making them, in effect, leaches on the very people that these programs are designed to help by draining resources away from those that have real needs.

39. CL Follow Befriend (12) 141 threads 1,367 comments Emeryville, CA

    93   2:48pm Tue 23 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   iwog says Paralithodes says The vast majority of Democrats in Congress at the time voted FOR the Patriot Act. The crying and whining about the Patriot Act from the left seemed to die down substantially after Jan 2008, despite it being substantially extended. Why isn’t anyone on the left “angry” about that, or maybe these claims about who is angry about what and why are simply histrionics? The majority of Democrats voted against the Patriot act in 2006. http://educate-yourself.org/cn/patriotact20012006senatevote.shtml Pesky facts!

40. Bitcoins arent the future? Follow Befriend (1) 20 threads 174 comments Beverly Hills, CA

    94   1:48pm Wed 24 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Clarence 13X says the continued belief that they are being held down by an imaginary white man I got into it with this young black guy on Xbox Live, he accused me, and eventually all whites of being violently racist, claiming needs for reparations etc... At some point I just went off about how I never enslaved/beat/tortured anyone and my family moved from England to NV after the civil war so why the hell should I be paying reparations to his black ass when he never witnessed and wasn't even alive for all of said 'injustice'. Of course, that didn't slow him down a bit...

« First     « Previous comments