Both Inflamatory & True...

>> Thursday, April 15, 2010

...depending on which side of the fence you're on.

"If blacks can't relate to the Founders, how can they relate to the Democrats-- the party of slavery, the KKK, secession, and segregation? When we say 'return to founding principles,' we're not talking about returning to slavery. We're talking about returning to 'individual liberty.'"

-Rush


Returning to 'principles' not 'policies,' because it WAS the policy of the democratic south to maintain the status quo of slavery. And by all appearances, the democrat party has sought ever since to re-institute the venerable institution of slavery. But instead of physical chains of iron and steel, they've resorted to the soft chains of welfare and 'social justice.' Instead of beans and hoe-cakes, it's EBT.

150 comments:

Dan Trabue April 15, 2010 at 4:00 PM  

? "Social justice" = slavery?

How are you defining social justice?

BenT - the unbeliever,  April 15, 2010 at 4:53 PM  

Why do I have to keep giving the history lesson [sigh]

From the close of the war to around the turn of the century (1865-1896 roughly) blacks made tremendous strides in civil rights and the Republican Party was at the forefront of a lot of that, especially in the South. Many in the Republican leadership saw the black vote as an important vehicle for strengthening the party's numbers. There was an important drama that went on with conservative whites trying to rid the party of blacks and black leaders increasing their power in the party. For a while blacks gained a great deal of power in the party but by the end of the century all of that started to reverse itself and, by 1910 blacks were almost completely disenfranchised in the party.

Then the democratic party split when the party approved a civil rights platform in the 1948 presidential election. Pres. Truman soon after integrated the military which drove a bigger wedge between southern and northern democrats. Since then the D party has followed a strong civil rights track. Southern democrats have gradually converted to republicans thanks in part to Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy. He appealed to white voters in the South with a call for "states' rights," which they interpreted as meaning that the federal government would no longer demand the forced busing of school children as ordered by federal courts. while only 50% of African-Americans self-identified as Democrats in the 1960 National Election Study, 82% did in 1964, and the numbers are higher in the 21st century. The clearest indicator of the importance of this election, was that Deep Southern states, such as Mississippi, voted Republican in 1964. In contrast, much of the traditional Republican strongholds of the Northeast and Upper Midwest voted Democratic. Vermont and Maine, which stood alone voting against FDR in 1936, voted for LBJ in 1964.

The Republican party once cared about civil rights, but Pres. Nixon who doomed the party in '74 screwed that up too.

ELAshley April 15, 2010 at 4:53 PM  

Government provision without expectation of personal responsibility.

How you been, Dan?

ELAshley April 15, 2010 at 4:56 PM  

Your history is a bit skewed Ben. And had I the time, I'd give you some history as well... all in good-natured fun, of course.

Dan Trabue April 15, 2010 at 6:11 PM  

I've been doing well, Eric. Thanks for asking. How about you?

Is that your definition of "social justice?" I don't think that's a very common one or one that most people who speak of social justice (at least in the church setting) are speaking of.

Here's what the Catholic church has to say about it...

In order to define social justice, let us begin, by taking a look at what social ministry is:

Social Ministry has two main aspects: social service (also known as Parish Outreach) and social action

Social Service is giving direct aid to someone in need. It usually involves performing one or more of the corporal works of mercy. That is, giving alms to the poor, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick or imprisoned, taking care of orphans and widows, visiting the shut-ins etc. Another name for it is charity.

Social Action is correcting the structures that perpetuate the need. Another name for this is Social Justice. Through the lens of social justice, we begin to take a look at the problems and issues facing us in our own communities, the nation and finally the world, and we begin to ask questions such as, "Why is there so much unemployment in our area?" "Why are there so many poor in our community?" "How will the deforestation of our rain forests affect our global climate?" etc. Very often when you are performing social service, you also become involved in solving the problem which created the need in the first place, and the two are closely related and often blend together.


That's what I suspect most people are talking about when they speak of social justice. Nothing whatsoever to do with slavery or expecting no personal responsibility.

fyi.

Dan Trabue April 15, 2010 at 6:12 PM  
This comment has been removed by the author.
Marshall Art April 15, 2010 at 8:53 PM  

Just for grins, Dan, how would you answer the first two questions?

"Why is there so much unemployment in our area?" and "Why are there so many poor in our community?"

Also, how would you go about correcting the problem? How you answer, I think, will determine just how much we understand the meaning of "social justice".

Dan Trabue April 16, 2010 at 6:13 AM  

I will be glad to try, if Eric doesn't mind.

First, the questions "WHY are there so much unemployment and poverty?" would have many answers. Personal reasons, societal reasons, familial reasons, educational reasons, logistical reasons, etc. We could probably agree with this, yes?

Now, how to address them? How about if I give a real world example, changing the question to "What can we do about youth violence in our city?"

Being a part of a Direct Action Social Justice organization through our church, I can offer a bit of insight into how we would approach that specific question because it's one we just tackled.

We begin by having times of inter- and intra-church conversations about what is most concerning in our churches, homes and neighborhoods.

If a majority of people raised unemployment or poverty as a major concern, we begin looking for some potential, winnable solution to some part of that problem. We wouldn't try to "solve poverty" or "end unemployment," but rather, find some approach to take a manageable bite out of the problem.

The point there is recognizing that we can't do everything, but we can do something. If we complain about "violence," well, nothing much will likely be done. BUT, if we pick out some specific aspect of the larger problem, we CAN expect to find positive solutions.

With me so far?

Dan Trabue April 16, 2010 at 8:13 AM  

Continuing, then...

In this last year, "Youth Violence" was raised as a problem amongst the ~30 churches and groups associated with our organization. Thirty churches, representing thousands of Christians in our city from all ends of town, rich, poor and working class.

And this is an important thing to note: These are churches that are ALREADY doing acts of mercy to help alleviate problems of poverty, violence, unemployment, etc.

These are Churches who are already taking part in educational programs to help reduce violence, in peace programs to teach peaceful conflict resolution, regular church programs that teach about walking in the steps of Jesus (and thus, reducing violence), etc. It's not like we're doing nothing but asking others to be just, we're working BOTH sides of what the Catholic church refers to as Social Ministry AND Social Justice.

And, as Micah 6 clearly tells us, we are to be doing acts of mercy AND acts of justice, not just one or the other.

Having identified youth violence as a problem, we researched what some of the causes of the problem are, keeping an eye out for justice issues as we did so. After doing some research, we saw that ONE area that contributed to youth violence/misbehavior (and, eventually poverty and unemployment, as well!) was how we handled juvenile court issues and problem behaviors in school.

In our county, if a child gets caught stealing something from a store, they get sent to a youth mediation program that strives to work to resolve this real problem in ways that don't send the child to juvey-jail. However, in that same situation IN SCHOOL, a child gets caught stealing something, they get sent straight to juvenile court. No second chances, no mediation, they just get sent straight into the court system.

In studying this approach to this REAL problem (and no one is denying that children misbehaving isn't a problem), we see that research shows us that such children tend to get stuck in the penal solution. They get sent to juvey-jail, meet even worse kids, you have a bunch of "bad kids" all put together and that results in support for bad behavior, NOT punishment. THIS results frequently in (of course) these problem children getting behind in school (or leaving it all together) and getting into MORE trouble, costing our society even MORE in tying up the court system MORE, often ending up BACK in jail where the cycle repeats itself resulting in young thugs who are unemployable, who have been indoctrinated into bad behavior as a good thing (in their dysfunctional culture) who graduate from being bullies to being thugs to being assailants to being murderers.

ALL of which comes at a great cost to our city and society. We identified this as a violence problem that needs a resolution...

More to come...

Dan Trabue April 16, 2010 at 8:33 AM  

In doing further research into what approaches have worked in other places, we saw that the Restorative Justice approach to dealing with crime is a pretty smart approach.

Briefly, Restorative Justice is NOT a way to ignore a crime - NOT AT ALL. It is a way of making people MORE accountable for THEIR actions. First of all, it is always a voluntary thing for any victims - no one has to do this. What it seeks to do, then, is to arrange an intervention between the criminal, his/her family, the victim and/or his/her family and other affected people and avoid jail.

The idea is: When the criminal is confronted with the incredibly harmful results of their actions and they can see how much it has cost - monetarily, emotionally, societally - the criminal can't just shrug off his crime as no big deal.

When a criminal sees his mom crying because of the shame he's brought on his family, when he sees his pastor and friends telling him how stupid the crime was, when he hears how the crime cost the victim, studies show that it has a profound impact. Not every time, of course, but generally. And, just as importantly, a criminal who goes through this process - and has to work out arrangements to "make things right" as much as possible (for instance, pay the victim back for stolen property, repair the broken window that the criminal broke in order to steal, do community service work to improve his image with his neighborhood, family and church and alleviate the shame, etc, etc) - THAT criminal is MORE LIKELY to go straight. To leave the life of crime, to become a hard-working adult, to become a tax-payer contributing to society rather than costing society.

In doing our research, we saw that this is a win/win/win approach to dealing with crime. This was especially true for children who were the "target" of our problem we were seeking to resolve. IF our schools begin moving away from penal solutions (keeping in mind that there are some instances that will still justify such an approach - the very worst cases) and to this resorative justice approach, we could END the school to jail pipeline which results in disaffected young thugs in our neighborhoods who too often engage in acts of violence. It's a way of striking at the ROOT of one of the problems that lead to youth violence.

Beyond that, it eventually SAVES money by stopping the school to jail pipeline, resulting in more kids completing their education and going on to becoming responsible taxpaying adults. Adults who give back to their community rather than take away from.

Beyond that, it helps address the injustice of having a disproportionate number of our black and poor sons (especially) and daughters in the penal system. I'm sure no one here thinks that black or poor people are inherently "bad people," and yet they are WAY over-represented in our penal system, contributing to increased poverty and unemployment in our neighborhoods. That is a justice issue and, this is a reasonable way to approach it, we decided.

And, when we brought it to the school system and local justice system, they agreed.

Win/win/win/win.

What is your solution to justice issues, Marshall (or anyone else)? What acts of justice do you do, as required by God in the Bible?

Craig April 16, 2010 at 11:47 AM  

Two things.

1. Wayne Perryman has done some amazing research and written a couple of books that look at the history of the black comunity and the democratic party.

2. I actually heard a liberal articulate the following. "The government has to take care of the black folks in North, you know what they'll do to take care of themselves. They'll just steal it." What wisdom we find on the left.

It's too bad that when the black community needs leaders they get Jackson, Sharpton and ACORN. Instead of Peryman, John Perkins, JC Watts, Tony Evans and Kirbyjohn Caldwell.

Marshall Art April 16, 2010 at 8:57 PM  

Dan,

First of all, as far as I know, this is still a team blog, not just Eric's, even though he founded it. (If that has changed Eric, please email me with an explanation.)

Secondly, your description is not totally satisfying but thus far confirms what I thought regarding what the term "social justice" means to you as opposed to what it means to me.

I'll be back later to expound. I just noticed the time and I have "bidness" to which I must attend.

Mark April 17, 2010 at 6:27 AM  

I found the topic of "social justice" so provocative, I wrote a blogpost attempting to define the term.

What I have concluded since posting it, is that the term "social justice" is singularly ambiguous in it's ambiguity. It means so many different things to so many different people as to be essentially indefinable.

Carry on.

Marshall Art April 17, 2010 at 9:16 PM  

Dan,

As I said, your answer fails to satisfy. As I review the Merriam-Webster definition of "justice", I don't see anything that would suggest a greater concern for the perpetrator of a crime than for the victim. I state this because of your explanation regarding youth violence, which I think is a process that does not work with truly problematic cases. Someone with a heart will respond (possibly) to a look at the results of his crime, but they are not likely to be chronically violent in the first place. Thus, you're organizations aren't doing much in the way of true justice.

But "social justice" as the term is commonly used by progressives, suggests that there is some institutional cause for poverty, something being done to someone that is unjust and results in their poverty.

But poverty is a result of the actions and decisions of the impoverished. Very few, if any, are made poor by the actions of others. Thus, proponents of social justice are typically seeking to encourage, or even force, the haves into giving more to the have-nots, rather than doing something that would have a far better impact, which would be to teach the have-nots to adopt and implement the behaviors and attitudes of the haves.

As to what you think works with dealing with youth violence, I have a really hard time believing the results are as good as you and proponents of such programs would like to believe. It sounds like the type of program that even slightly sharp scoundrels could easily play to their advantage. Social justice in such cases requires that the victims know that those who have victimized them are paying for their crimes. What negative effects prison has on imprisoned youth is more a result of progressive ideas about crime and punishment than anything else.

BenT - the Unbeliever,  April 18, 2010 at 6:18 AM  

Wow Marshall that's just more unfounded generalizations than I thought one person could fit in a four paragraph response. Let's address them in reverse order

1. The surest sign of recidivism is previous incarceration. That means that if your goal is criminal rehabilitation our prison system isn't working. So whatever you think of progressive ideas the conservative ideas of lock them up and take away their TV's is not working. The only thing conservatives are converting criminals to is homosexuality.

2. I want you to think about your third paragraph in light of America's Native peoples. Imagine telling someone living on a reservation that it's not the fault of federal actions that Native Americans aren't some of the poorest disadvantaged peoples in the country.

Or perhaps a child living going to school in an urban ghetto that just because their school has twice the students and only half the funding as suburban schools is no excuse for poor performance. Or the small business owner who doesn't get the local tax benefits of large corporations.

Yeah I really want to see you tell some of these people that the reason they struggle in life is because they don't "want" it. They aren't "trying" hard enough.

3. Dan is about as progressive as they come and he clearly explained how he interprets the phrase "social justice." The second paragraph of your post is you trying to reinterpret what he said to fit your internal stereotype. It's a pretty normal reaction when something someone says doesn't jive with our internal expectations. You just have a strong internal generalization of liberals that you're trying to pigeonhole Dan into.

4. "Thus, you're organizations aren't doing much in the way of true justice." I'm SO glad you've studied the program enough to say so definitely what the true facts are. You have all these facts about recidivism rates. You've read the case files and interviewed all the people involved in the program. And now you've made your ruling. And just...WHEW! Thank goodness you intervened in time. Your reasoned, studied view just saved a lot of people a lot of work. Thank you so much!

Other people might have seen a crass, knee-jerk, conservative generalization in your four sentence reply to Dan's detailed explanation of a local attempt at a social justice problem. But not me. I know you'd never do anything as ...... unjust as that.

Dan Trabue April 18, 2010 at 5:52 PM  

Ben did a fine, fine job of addressing Marshall's response, but if I may...

Marshall, much of your argument appears to be based on a hunch that you seem to have that the studies demonstrating Restorative Justice (RS) programs are not accurate. You said...

I state this because of your explanation regarding youth violence, which I think is a process that does not work with truly problematic cases...

As to what you think works with dealing with youth violence, I have a really hard time believing the results are as good as you and proponents of such programs would like to believe...


So please clarify: I can show you some studies that back up what I'm saying, but what I want to know is: Would you reject the notion of RS even if studies showed it to 1. Reduce recidivism, 2. Increase restitution to victims, 3. Result in more satisfaction from victims that justice was served?

IF studies showed that all of this was the case, would you support RS programs or are you too tied to your particular notion of punishment/"justice" to change your view EVEN IF studies showed your approach less effective in actually achieving justice?

Now, some clarifications on my part.

Marshall said...

As I review the Merriam-Webster definition of "justice", I don't see anything that would suggest a greater concern for the perpetrator of a crime than for the victim.

Then we are in agreement. I, nor anyone I know in the real world, has a greater concern for perpetrators of crime than for a victim. I suspect that just about the entire world agrees with me and you on this point.

So, there's no argument there. Fair enough?

Dan Trabue April 18, 2010 at 6:06 PM  

Now, some clarifications on my part.

Marshall said...

As I review the Merriam-Webster definition of "justice", I don't see anything that would suggest a greater concern for the perpetrator of a crime than for the victim.

Then we are in agreement. I, nor anyone I know in the real world, has a greater concern for perpetrators of crime than for a victim. I suspect that just about the entire world agrees with me and you on this point.

So, there's no argument there. Fair enough?

Marshall said...

But poverty is a result of the actions and decisions of the impoverished. Very few, if any, are made poor by the actions of others.

1. I would posit that people are poor for a variety of reasons. Those reasons would include personal decisions, personal behavior, familial background, educational success or limitations, random circumstances, health circumstances AND societal circumstances.

2. For instance, if a child lives in an area of town (as in my own West End) with toxic factories that result in increased cancer and asthma rates, that is a systemic societal problem. We, via our leaders, have said, "It's okay for companies to emit certain levels of toxins, even though we know this will result in poisonous levels of exposure to neighbors. It's a trade-off we're willing to make in order to have "good" jobs."

In that instance, it IS a matter of justice - society IS doing things to cause people to be poor. Parents get cancer, can't work (or work enough), they lose the house or become homeless due to high medical bills. The child misses school due to asthma, due to having to keep moving from house to house/apartment to apartment because they were kicked out of the last house. They'd like to move to a less toxic area of town but, guess what? It COSTS MORE to live there and they don't have money? Why? Because they're POOR.

They spent all their money on medication or chemo and lost their job and lost their insurance and lost their car and now they have to walk places which, guess what? Means it's harder to get a job, because there are fewer jobs in their end of town because, guess why? IT'S POISONOUS to live and work there!

There are all kind of societal reasons that are justice issues to be concerned about. As you can see in my short illustration, societal injustices often have rolling repercussions that snowball causing increased risk for health, increased risk for homelessness, increased risk for missing school, increased risk for not getting as good an education, increased risk for dropping out of high school, increased risk for being under and unemployed, increased risk for having to live in a toxic area of town and it all starts all over again.

I think one difference between some more conservative types and some more progressive and anabaptist and catholic types is that some (not all) more progressive types think all instances of injustice ended in the Old Testament. "Sure," they might say, "The prophets criticized their societies for lacking in justice - especially against the poor, the widows, the foreigners, the children - but that was then. In America, we don't have problems of injustice. Nothing serious, anyway."

Is that your position?

Marshall Art April 19, 2010 at 1:03 PM  

I've been having trouble posting responses to Dan and Ben. Could be this new format for the blog. In any case, I'm getting really pissed.

Marshall Art April 19, 2010 at 1:04 PM  

Oh sure. THAT comment went through just fine!

Dan Trabue April 19, 2010 at 1:25 PM  

I just noticed in my last paragraph I said, "Some (not all) more progressive types think all instances of injustice ended in the Old Testament..." when I meant some more CONSERVATIVE types. whoops.

Bloviating Zeppelin April 19, 2010 at 3:01 PM  

BenT: you conveniently forget that the Demorats then PAID black families to abandon the black male, which resulted in the disintegration of American black families in general and resulting in generations of doom, squalor, dependence.

BZ

Dan Trabue April 19, 2010 at 4:28 PM  

I am totally bewildered by the frequent references to Dems in the past. We all KNOW that Dems in the past were racist and wrong on issues of race. Black folk knew it then and didn't vote for them (well, when they COULD vote), and we can all recognize it now.

BUT, from the 1930s to 1960s, the Dems changed and the Republicans changed - basically flipping roles on race issues. This was evident to our black brothers and sisters and they left the Republican party en masse. Why? Because they loved what Dems USED to stand for? No.

They changed party affiliation EN MASSE because of what the GOP had become. They were not stupid enough to vote for a party so hostile to issues important to them - and make no mistake, that WAS what the GOP became in the 1940s-1960s.

So, go ahead and keep bringing up that the Dems used to be the bad guys on race issues up til mid-century. It never hurts to be reminded.

In the meantime, we all know who became the "bad guys" on race issues since that time (which is not to say that the Dems have been great, just not nearly as bad.)

ELAshley April 19, 2010 at 4:58 PM  

@ Art... this is a team blog / it's not the new layout, it's Blogger.

@ Dan... this is what I find troubling in this post... "What it seeks to do, then, is ... [to] avoid jail."

I know I'm parsing the statement, but if one of the intents of this is for the perpetrator to avoid jail... provided the victim agrees? If so, then I cannot support this. You do understand that certain crimes carry penalty regardless of what the victim thinks?

Ben wants to condescendingly squeal about recidivism and how anyone who disagrees with you (Dan) has hair on his fingers, and can't comprehend history... his take on history.

The simple truth is, whatever 'historical' inner dealings within the Republican party, let's not lose sight of the fact that Democrats fought to KEEP slavery. Democrats instituted Jim Crow. And more Democrats voted AGAINST the civil rights act than voted for. And they were the majority party.

BZ nicely points out that it was welfare (a Democratic institution) that destroyed the Black family. In order for mothers and their children to get governmental aid, they had to abandon their husbands. Reminds me of Apartheid South Africa; husbands and wives, in many cases, weren't allowed to live together either.

Colonel Stallard, in the early 1920s said, 'the black man' should only be in the urban areas 'to minister to the needs of the white man and should depart therefrom when he ceases to minister.' Many families were broken up by this. It was called Influx Control. And that's what democrats did to Blacks in America... broke them up by promises of aid, and support-- but only for those women who didn't have a husband to support them (never mind the fact that black males found it exceedingly difficult to find work, let alone earn enough to support their families).

And then there's Earned Income Credit, and EBT. Government (and primarily Democratic) is responsible for perpetrating the institution of slavery TODAY through bribery. They've destroyed the black "nuclear" family, and now keeps them impoverished via "social justice" programs like the Earned Income Credit and EBT; buy the poor's vote with their magnanimity.

Dan. These are all tragic scenarios you cite; not just for blacks but for whites as well. Nothing in life is fair; never has been, nor will it ever be. Neither you or Ben seem to be taking into account basic human nature. And both of you appear to believe that basic human nature can be ameliorated via government intervention... that social justice can be achieved via human government. This is the problem: our government is crafted, and managed by people.

Are either of you trying to tell me that the poor cannot succeed in pulling themselves out of poverty if they genuinely work for it? America is replete with stories of those who have overcome extreme hardship to pull themselves out of the homeless shelter, or off the street. No it's not easy. It's never easy. But success is built upon failure. If a person tries and fails and then gives up, it is his fault he didn't succeed. Anyone who wants to can find a way out of poverty. but it requires continually picking yourself up and moving forward. Not everyone will achieve great monetary wealth, but where's the shame in being middle-class?

'When we say 'return to founding principles,' we're not talking about returning to slavery. We're talking about returning to 'individual liberty.'

Individual liberty. And that liberty is not bought via government handouts like EIC and EBT. Individual liberty is granted by God, and which governments seek to limit via controls. Especially THIS government.

The history of slavery in America is more the result of Democratic policy. Not Republican-- whatever corrupt documents Ben chooses to cite.

ELAshley April 19, 2010 at 5:13 PM  

To add...

If impoverished communities worked together (to a far degree than they do now) they could alleviate much of the poverty in their communities. But it requires personal sacrifice. Sacrifice made by individuals, not enforced by government.

There are many things communities can do to not only change the outward status of their neighborhoods, but the inward status as well. But this requires communal living; centralized amenities like kitchens, schools, and work assignments. An Israeli kibbutz is a beautiful illustration of what is possible if communities would only band together and work to the benefit of all, while insulating the whole from those negatives within their midst.

No, I'm advocating communism. All I'm saying is this is the kind of environment that breeds personal responsibility and personal success. Children grow up to become doctors or builders or teachers and return to further benefit the whole.

But! I can here it now... Isn't that what we're doing already?

No. It's not.

And I'll let you figure out the why.

ELAshley April 19, 2010 at 5:37 PM  

Dan. I'm sorry I didn't see your latest before I posted.

Respectfully, your history is wrong. The Blacks turned to Democrats because Democrats told them they didn't have to be wholly responsible for themselves (this after tearing apart the black family)-- government would take care of them.

Republicans voted overwhelmingly (compared to democrats) for Civil Rights. Republicans voted for welfare. But Republicans didn't want to create a permanent underclass. And that's what Democratic policies have created. A permanent underclass. That's why blacks (and poor urban people in general) support and vote for Democrats, because Republicans might-- MIGHT, not will --make them take on more personal responsibility toward supporting themselves.

I don't argue against welfare. What I do argue against is institutionalized indemnity. God only required the Israelites to leave the corners of their fields unharvested. The poor still had to get out and glean it, i.e., work. Government SHOULD make provision for the truly destitute, but it should never come without meaningful personal responsibility.

The number of people getting a primary measure of their subsistence from the government is somewhere in the neighborhood of 43%. What happens when that number stumbles past 50? As it will when HealthCare takes off full bloom? Think of the ramification of that eventuality. We need to work toward ending government subsistence for much of those who receive it. Unfortunately, that would cost more money that we can afford. And considering the looming trillion dollar yearly deficits in our future (thanks to the aforementioned HealthCare), we will likely never be able to afford it.

Carting out the old trope about learning to fish, many in America's underclass would rather wait for government to give them their daily fish, rather than learn to fish for themselves. And this is wrong. WE did this to them. WE told them it was okay to be poor. And they've gotten comfortable being there, however much they wish they were "richer". If we are to blame for anything it is MAKING them poor... and keeping them their via well-meaning handouts.

Dan Trabue April 19, 2010 at 9:33 PM  

Eric, it appears you have a poor and unfair impression of our black brothers and sisters. You think they're greedy and stupid enough to trade freedom for a few dollars from the gov't?

They're not stupid. Nor are they greedy. Any more than white folk are. Surely you can't mean that?

BenT - the Unbeliever,  April 19, 2010 at 10:18 PM  

Again ... why do republicans not remember their own party's history?

The Contract with America set a goal of reforming Medicare. I don't know what sort of persecution complex conservatives have. But YOU DID IT!!!

in 1996 Bill Clinton signed into law the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act. It scrapped the old welfare program that had been in effect since 1935. It instituted a new program where federal welfare funds are given to states in block grants with strings attached. To get the money states have to create programs where.

1.Requiring recipients to begin working after two years of receiving benefits;
2. Placing a lifetime limit of five years on benefits paid by federal funds;
3. Aiming to encourage two-parent families and discouraging out-of-wedlock births.
4. Enhancing enforcement of child support.

Some states have enacted even more stringent limits.

...

So. There. Please stop invoking the myth of Reagan's welfare queen. Please stop invoking the civil rights votes without addressing anything after the 1968. And learn some recent history. Because until you do, your argument on race and political party affiliation goes:

1. The democratic party woos voters by increasing entitlements.

2. People without self-respect or a drive to work vote the democratic party.

3. The democratic party receives majority support from minorities.

Those are the facts you keep repeating. Do you see what the subtext is? every time you argue race the subtext of your point (and of Rush Limbaugh, and Neal Boortz, and Sean Hannity, and Glen Beck) is that minorities don't have self-respect or a desire to work. And that Republican conservatives have a stronger desire to work or more self-respect than anyone else.

And conservatives wonder why minorities don't vote republican.

Marshall Art April 19, 2010 at 10:54 PM  

Of course, Ben, as you know, that bill was introduced by a Republican. Clinton only signed it. It was part of the Contract With America. Clinton did campaign on "ending welfare as we know it", but the work was done by the GOP. I could be wrong, but I think this was patterned after what Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin was doing while governor there. It did indeed change the welfare situation with the strings that were attached. That was a good thing. Until then, welfare was a mere handout. And it has forced some to realize that they need to get busy or they will run out of those handouts. Do you have a problem with this? Sometimes a cage rattling is what is needed and this bill sought to do that. I have no problem with ANY federal help having terms strict enough to prohibit slackers from gaming the system.

Your three points are not mere slogans or propaganda, but they are the reality. Does that mean that ALL Dem voters are slackers? Of course not. But to say that slackers are drawn to the Dems is the truth. The question is why? The reason is your point #1. "The democratic party woos voters by increasing entitlements." The truth includes the fact that the Dems woo slacker whites every bit as much as slackers of other races. And point #3 isn't a news flash. There's no doubt where most of the minority votes went in '08. That doesn't make US racists. It makes them stupid for believing that the Dems will deliver.

We are well aware that race alone is not a factor in voting. But what do we hear when a black man votes Republican? We hear that he is an Uncle Tom or an "oreo". And what kind of black man votes Republican? One who is the same as any other Republican voter, one who knows that a real opportunity is not something found through the federal gov't, but something that arises with greater frequency when the feds stand aside and let nature take its course.

Mark April 20, 2010 at 5:47 AM  

Dan makes the extraordinary stupid statement, "from the 1930s to 1960s, the Dems changed and the Republicans changed - basically flipping roles on race issues. This was evident to our black brothers and sisters and they left the Republican party en masse. Why? Because they loved what Dems USED to stand for? No.

They changed party affiliation EN MASSE because of what the GOP had become. They were not stupid enough to vote for a party so hostile to issues important to them - and make no mistake, that WAS what the GOP became in the 1940s-1960s.


Dan, up until now I've amused myself with mocking you and your stupid, ignorant, apostate, inflammatory statements, but you've gone too far this time. If you made such an insulting statement like the above to my face, I'd punch you in yours.

The Republican party has NEVER been the racist party. And if you were even close to intellectually honest, you'd admit that.

Dan Trabue April 20, 2010 at 6:22 AM  

Did I say "racist?" Although that title would fit way too many dems and GOP folk in the past, I said quite specifically that the GOP became the party that voted against black folk's interests ("hostile to issues important to them")and that is why something like 90% of a whole group of people abandoned the party.

I didn't go into reasons WHY the GOP voted so consistently against black folks' interests. You assume racism and that is, to be sure, the reason for some segment of the GOP, just as it was for the Dems. But I'm not into mind-reading. I'm just stating the facts: Black folk came to realize that a vote for the GOP tended way too often to be a vote against their interests.

If you want to assume racism is the reason, go for it. I'm not suggesting that.

Relax a bit. You folk are way too eager to resort to violence. Embrace grace.

Craig April 20, 2010 at 8:31 AM  

Dan and Ben,

I would suggest that before you continue down this road you take a look at the historical analysis that Dr. Wayne Perryman has done. He has witten a couple of boks documenting that actual relationship between american blacks and both parties. I doubt you'll like his conclusions, but the weight of historical evidence is more overwhelming than I had imagined.

ELAshley April 20, 2010 at 8:37 AM  

@Dan... I neither think they are greedy or stupid. Merely dependent, with little or no incentive to climb out of the morass.

Stupid implies an inability to grasp, ignorance is a lack of understanding as to how to grasp. I would call these folk ignorant. But are they greedy? On the whole, I'd say not. I simply believe they are used to being taken care of and don't realize they can pull themselves out of poverty. They've been beaten down for so long they have no faith in themselves or in their abilities. And, to be clear, this is not solely a "black" problem.

ELAshley April 20, 2010 at 9:17 AM  

No one has forgotten the history, Ben, but you seem to have forgotten the fact that much has changed since '96. Furthermore, welfare is not strictly a Democrat thing, or Republican thing for that matter. Both parties own this mess. The question, from the very beginning of this post has been... "When we say 'return to founding principles,' we're not talking about returning to slavery. We're talking about returning to 'individual liberty.'" ...as predicated by the previous statement, "If blacks can't relate to the Founders, how can they relate to the Democrats-- the party of slavery, the KKK, secession, and segregation?"

The popular liberal trope of late has been 'America was founded upon slavery and, therefore, blacks can't relate to the founders.'

But this is a lie promulgated by liberalism. If Blacks can't relate to the founders, as this post's premise opines in preface, how can they relate to democrats who, as a party, promoted slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow, Secession (to maintain slavery), Segregation, and an initial opposition to the Civil Rights Act? Tangential to this is the question of those methods employed by the Democratic party to keep the poor underfoot. Or, to paraphrase George Orwell, the Democratic party exists to establish an "unbreakable tyranny, as something clamped down, IN SAECULA SAECULORUM*, upon the will of prostrate peoples...' The Democrat Party desires to rule over the lives of its constituents. The Republican Party (that party which is currently experiencing an identity crisis), was established to promote freedom, and personal liberty, and has championed such throughout its history, despite the occasion bump along the way. But the Democrat party has always existed to dominate politics and the lives affected by their machinations.

Where is liberty when, because of our tax code (not to mention all the new taxes imposed by ObamaCare), the top ONE percent of wage earners pay 40% of ALL taxes, and 40% of us pay 86% of ALL taxes, not just income. Roughly 50% of Americans pay no taxes at all. There is no justice in this system. Only slaves to the insatiable hunger of Democrat/Liberal schemes and dreams.

If blacks can't relate to the founders, and by association of ideology, the Republican party, it then stands to reason they CAN relate to the democrats and slavery (it IS who they vote for)... the soft kind promulgated and perpetuated by the Democrat Party.


----
*Saecula Saeculorum - 'for ages of ages,' or 'forever and ever'

Mark April 20, 2010 at 9:29 AM  

Did you say racist? What difference does it make? You meant it. Stop splitting hairs. You know what you meant and so do we.

You're passive aggressiveness is wearing thin.

You are the racist because of the fact that you can't resist drawing comparisons between equals.

My brothers are all others, regardless of skin color. Why aren't yours?

Mark April 20, 2010 at 9:44 AM  

And, besides, Dan, Blacks did not leave the party En Masse because of what the Republican party had become. You are dead wrong (as usual) on that.

They left the Republican party because they were gullible and believed the lies the Democratic party told them about the Republican party.

As I said, the Republican party has NEVER been the party of racists. The Democrat party has, is, and will continue to be.

I'll give the Democrats credit for one thing, at least. They know how to court the electorate, particularly when their own platform is based on lies and deceit.

Republicans still haven't learned to lie to promote themselves. Well, at least not as well as the Democrats have. But then, the Democrats have had more experience.

ELAshley April 20, 2010 at 9:48 AM  

@Dan... The black community didn't cease to vote Republican because Republicans voted against their best interests. It was because after destroying the black family via welfare promises (not unlike Apartheid's 'Influx Control' policy) of fair and humane support after the fact, the Democrat party painted the Republicans as hateful; who wanted only to take away the promises of 'fair' and 'humane' treatment by the America which had so abused them (despite the fact that it was the Democrat party which so abused blacks).

What Republicans wanted was to fix the Black family model, and treat them 'fairly' and more humanely by giving them back their sense of dignity, self-worth and community pride. Even today, Democrats do nothing to improve personal the dignity, or self-worth of the poor. They maintain the status quo of handouts and the monthly reparations of pseudo-slavery. Liberalism maintains the squalor. Conservatism seeks to lift up the human spirit and encourage it to succeed and become independent. No one on the right wants to toss every poor person, black or white or whatever, off the public dole. Conservatives want the poor to know that we believe in their ability; that they have worth intrinsic in both their very existence and the ideas and trades they have to offer to a healthy society. To say one can't succeed because of where one is born or to where one has fallen... in AMERICA... is to promote a lie. But then who is the average poor person going to vote for? The one who insists you can do better, with help to do the same and a promise that when you they are able they will step out of welfare and into independence? Or the one who says, 'I know your pain,' I will take care of you. I will never let the evil republican force you to be proudly self-sufficient?

The poor are used to being cared for. It is one of the great pillars of their culture. It's entrenched in their mindset; they don't have to care for themselves because government is there to do it for them. But what happens when government can no longer afford to support 50% of the populace? What happens then? If and when it comes to that, all the 'Youth Violence Intervention' programs in the world won't stop the chaos that will ensue.

YOUR history, Dan (and Ben's), is too greatly informed by progressive idealism... the foundation of which is rooted in socialism.

Dan Trabue April 20, 2010 at 9:49 AM  

[rolls eyes]

Okay Mark, punch me if that will make you feel better. I'd suggest that prayer and graciousness would be a better recourse, but you gotta do what makes you feel more like a man, I guess.

Eric said...

Roughly 50% of Americans pay no taxes at all.

? Source? Everyone who drives pays gas taxes. Everyone who shops pays store taxes. This would include "the poor," too.

Also, you might want to check your facts here.

"The Congressional Budget Office found that earners in the lowest quintile, where most of those with no income tax liability fall, shouldered 4.3 percent of the payroll tax burden in 2005 and 11.1 percent of the excise taxes. Their effective tax rate (which is calculated by dividing taxes paid by total income) in those categories [poorer households], according to the CBO, was in fact significantly higher than the rate of the top quintile, although that top one-fifth of the population had a much higher effective tax rate for individual and corporate income taxes."

fyi.

Mark April 20, 2010 at 10:10 AM  

"Okay Mark, punch me if that will make you feel better. I'd suggest that prayer and graciousness would be a better recourse, but you gotta do what makes you feel more like a man, I guess."

Way to sidestep the point, Dan. I suppose I should not have expected less from you.

I will give props to Dan, though. He failed to address my comment, but in addressing Eric's, he made a valid point.

Everyone pays taxes. I don't know where these Conservative talk show hosts and bloggers get the idea that the poor don't pay taxes. They (We) most certainly do. Every two weeks, when I look at my paycheck stub, I see that taxes have been deducted from my paycheck before I see a penny of my pay. At the beginning of the next year, when I file my tax returns, if I'm lucky enough to get a refund, I still don't receive more money in refund money than I originally paid out in withholding.

We don't pay anywhere near as much as the wealthy, but we most certainly pay taxes.

Still, the present tax code is grossly inequitable. It is as equally wrong to force the rich to pay a higher percentage in taxes than the poor as it is to give known slackers free government money and demand the wealthy pay for it.

I'd vote for a flat tax.

ELAshley April 20, 2010 at 10:13 AM  

86% of all federal income taxes are paid by the top 25% of income earners (up from 84.0% in 2000). The top 50% pay 97% of all income taxes. The top 1% pay 39% of all income taxes.

Source: IRS (Please note line 174) If this link doesn't work try this link to an xls file. Line 174.

If 50% of wage earners are paying 97% of all income taxes, what are the remaining 3% paying?

This is justice?

Is this fair?

You mean to tell me the 'evil rich' aren't paying their fair share? When they're paying (assuming the top 5% numbers) 59.67% of ALL income taxes? (39.38% for the top 1% of wage earners)

Dan Trabue April 20, 2010 at 10:19 AM  

Craig said...

He has witten a couple of boks documenting that actual relationship between american blacks and both parties. I doubt you'll like his conclusions

Well, if he says (as some here seem to be saying) that "the blacks" are lazy or too ignorant or too gullible to be able to understand their own best interests, I wouldn't like his conclusions, as they would be racist. (And I understand that this fella is a black gentleman himself). Anyone who condemns a whole group in negative terms is racist by definition.

Hopefully, and surely, this fella isn't doing that. If and when I get a chance, I may try to check him out. I can't imagine what he could contribute to my knowledge that I don't already know, though. Perhaps you could give us a preview. I'm guessing you're saying that he says that the whole of the black community have been duped? into voting for Dems who don't represent their interests? Brainwashed? Bribed?

What could his case possibly be? And how would one reconcile that with a rational look at the real world?

ELAshley April 20, 2010 at 10:22 AM  

Mark... you're failing to account for what the government gives you back each year. You may not get it all back, but many MANY others do. Especially when you consider the Earned Income Tax Credit and EBT. Some folk on EITC get back as much 10k a year... great deal, huh? Especially since most who receive these checks haven't even paid that much in in income taxes. Pretty neat getting 10 grand from the government when you only paid in 1,200, huh?

Everyone who works pays tax via payroll deduction, but most of us get a portion of that back. I paid a total of 2200 in payroll taxes last year, but I'm getting back 750. That makes my total tax liability for last year 1500 bucks. How many out there get EVERYTHING back? All the great deductions are geared toward families and those poorer than I. I have no kids, no wife, only me as a deduction. I pay my fair share (as established by the government).

Think, Mark.

ELAshley April 20, 2010 at 10:24 AM  

Ignorance is not a badge of shame, Dan. The shame goes to the institutions which keep folk ignorant. Many among the poor ARE ignorant.

Dan Trabue April 20, 2010 at 10:27 AM  

Mark...

I'd vote for a flat tax.

You know, don't you, that if we had a true flat tax across the board, that you'd be paying a WHOLE lot more than you pay now?

How about what Jefferson suggested? A sales tax on only those items the wealthier amongst us buy, so that "the farmer" and the average guy doesn't pay hardly anything? Was Jefferson a socialist, too?

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise."

~Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785

"The collection of taxes... has been as yet only by duties on consumption. As these fall principally on the rich, it is a general desire to make them contribute the whole money we want, if possible. And we have a hope that they will furnish enough for the expenses of government and the interest of our whole public debt, foreign and domestic."

~Thomas Jefferson to Comte de Moustier, 1790

"The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied. ... Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings."

~Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811

"The great mass of the articles on which impost is paid is foreign luxuries, purchased by those only who are rich enough to afford themselves the use of them. Their patriotism would certainly prefer its continuance and application to the great purposes of the public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of federal powers."

~Thomas Jefferson: 6th Annual Message, 1806


It would appear that Jefferson is a MUCH greater commie threat to the US than Obama ever has been. Why don't you begin work to posthumously impeach Jefferson for his socialistic ideals and once you've done that, I'll believe that you are consistent and sincere in your criticism of Obama.

Dan Trabue April 20, 2010 at 10:28 AM  

Many among the poor ARE ignorant.

I agree, of course. But they're not the only ones.

ELAshley April 20, 2010 at 10:52 AM  

That is very true, Dan. Just read my email before assigning me to that roll.

BenT - the unbeliever,  April 20, 2010 at 12:10 PM  

EBT is Electronic Bank Transfer unless you're thinking of some gov't program I've never heard of.

People on modern welfare programs get EBT cards that work just like debit cards. The treasury dept deposits welfare payments in the card's account each month. No checks to print or mail, saving taxpayers money.

Marshall Art April 20, 2010 at 1:02 PM  

The idea of "voting against one's own interests" is a total speculation depending upon who is determining what those interests are. Kids think voting for ice cream for dinner is in their own best interests. Their parents know otherwise.

There was a book not to long ago called, "What's Wrong With Kansas?" that purportedly expounded on center-right individuals voting against their own self-interests. I don't recall the details of what the author saw as best interests of his subjects, but what I do recall is that there was also principle involved. An example of this would be for Dems to say that voting against taxing the rich more would be against our self-interests. I would reject the argument on principle alone, since I feel the rich are taxed quite enough.

But more importantly, taxing the rich more hurts job creation. Thus, to vote against more taxes on the rich IS in my best interest.

Another would be Dan's assertion that a flat tax would mean more taxes out of my paycheck. But the principle is truly fair, in my opinion, that all should be taxed at the same rate. I think this, too, would stimulate job creation, as well as to make taxation effortless compared to today's outrageous code.

In the case of blacks and other minorities, what is their best interests? They may now believe it is the entitlements to which they've become accustomed. I'd say they are wrong and that their best interests are the same as mine and millions of other center-right people, if only they could snap out of their current mindset. It should seem apparent by now, one would think, that the Democratic party only talks a good game but they have never delivered. People like Wayne Perryman (and Thomas Sowell, and Walter Williams, and JC Watts and other fine black conservatives) understand this all too well, but are drowned out by the usual cries of their opponents who seek to retain power.

As one who has been searching for a decent job for well over a year now, I know damn well which party is closer to having my own best interests in mind. It is NOT the Democrats and my minority brothers and sisters would do well to learn and understand this absolute fact.

Mark April 20, 2010 at 1:05 PM  

Eric, excuse me. I was referring to the working poor. Not the non-working welfare recipients. Of course those who don't work pay no income taxes. They do, however pay sales tax and other taxes. So, again, I hate to agree with Dan, but everyone pays at least some taxes.

Dan lies, "Well, if he says (as some here seem to be saying) that "the blacks" are lazy or too ignorant or too gullible to be able to understand their own best interests, I wouldn't like his conclusions, as they would be racist. (And I understand that this fella is a black gentleman himself). Anyone who condemns a whole group in negative terms is racist by definition."

Dan, you are being intellectually dishonest. No one -- repeat -- NO ONE is condemning a whole group, regardless of color creed or religion. And to suggest that we are is disingenuous at best. Stop trying to obfuscate.

And, by the way, I never indicated I think our taxes generally are too high. My brother, who lived in the Philippines once set me straight on that. He said, "If you think our taxes are high, try living in other countries. Our taxes are low in comparison."

Dan Trabue April 20, 2010 at 1:09 PM  

I should clarify that when I say, "in their best interests," I'm not speaking of that in the shallow, "what's in it for me?" sense, but in the sense of, "I'm an adult concerned about a sustainable gov't, governing justly to uphold everyone's rights as outlined in the constitution, creating reasonable laws that protect our commonwealth, etc, etc..."

Perhaps a better notion would be that I'm suggesting that our black brothers and sisters are entirely capable of making responsible adult decisions (what a ridiculous thing to even write!!) and their decision by and large to abandon the GOP is do to their intelligent, responsible concern to live in a great nation that is a good one for their children and grandchildren to inherit.

The suggestion that they are too uninformed or gullible or unintelligent or irresponsible or WHATEVER reason that "they" are voting nearly universally for Dems borders on racism, again, by definition.

Dan Trabue April 20, 2010 at 1:15 PM  

Mark...

He said, "If you think our taxes are high, try living in other countries. Our taxes are low in comparison."

I'll have to follow Mark's lead and say, as much as I hate to agree with him, he's right. We pay low taxes for all that WE, the people, have decided we need to spend money upon. How can we have a military that costs nearly as much as the WHOLE WORLD combined and still pay such low taxes?

I noted with interest that in the recent Tea Party poll, the majority of them thought they paid a "fair amount" in taxation.

source

So, Mark, the Tea Partiers and I all agree on at least that point.

Dan Trabue April 20, 2010 at 1:23 PM  

Flat tax info...

The UKIP wants it in the UK. They advocate a flat tax of 33% for all incomes.

Of course very low income earners may benefit from this as they may be bumped off the tax system [poverty level folk don't pay any taxes in most flat tax schemes]...

however the average wage tax bracket in the uk is 22% and the top bracket is 40%.

So essentially a flat tax would give the normal workers a 11% tax hike and

the rich a 7% tax cut.


For one real world proposal.

The thing is: If our budget is $2 trillion/year and we get that amount now by having a progressive tax scheme - with those who get the most, paying the most (as seems only just and fair) - if we move away from that system, then the middle income tax payers will HAVE to have their taxes increased. It doesn't just come from nowhere.

ELAshley April 20, 2010 at 1:25 PM  

I know what EBT is Ben... and it's still welfare.

Dan Trabue April 20, 2010 at 1:27 PM  

On a sort of related note, I'm curious: Do any of you more conservative types have an opinion about our NASA program? I believe the proposed budget for NASA for this year is nearly $20 billion.

In an effort to shrink gov't, are you supportive of cutting that budget, freezing it, or do you actually want to see it increase?

For the record, while I'm not hung up about it, I'd favor cutting NASA a good bit. I see no great reason why private enterprise shouldn't/couldn't be doing this instead of spending tax dollars on such a program. You?

ELAshley April 20, 2010 at 2:02 PM  

"...then the middle income tax payers will HAVE to have their taxes increased."

As WILL happen, Dan... as will happen under Obamacare. The level of taxation now being siphoned off the American tax-payer has already been deemed to be insufficient to cover the level of spending now going on. Will we tax the wealthy even more to cover the yearly trillion-dollar deficits projected for the next ten years and more? because of Obamacare? What happens when the rich decide to stop paying the new rates? And by that I mean, what happens when the rich decide to stop investing? to simply sit down and hoard what they have, paying only taxable interests and dividends on what what they already own? What happens when they decide it's better to either move their operations offshore, drastically reduce their payroll (to under 50 persons to avoid the worst of Obamacare), or close up shop altogether? The government can only legally take what the law allows. Will you be one of those who support the Dems in the their efforts (should they actually try) to change the laws to force the wealthy, sitting on their wealth, to cough up more? Would you be party to such theft? Look what's happening in New Jersey, New York, and California? Businesses are abandoning those states for better climes. And why shouldn't they? Aren't they taxed enough?

Again, what happens when more than 50% of Americans pay no appreciable taxes via income? How will the government force the so-called "rich" (as defined by the 49% and less of Americans who are supporting the lucky 51) decide they've had enough?

Your model is unsustainable, Dan, Ben. Unsustainable.

Ben, you cried and moaned about social Security some years back when there was talk of allowing younger taxpayers the right to divert some of their tax liability to better investment options. Private options. You cried about the cost of saving social security; that it would cost some two trillion dollars to save. And yet you support a government that will spend ten trillion in as little as 10 or twelve years, with nothing appreciable to show for it other than deeper debt and government liability.

From the post Obama's Impending "Raw Deal"...

"All the lies about the Social Security “lock box” are now on full display. This is the year we will start paying out more from the SS program than we took in. We’ve gotten here even earlier than predicted. This wasn’t supposed to happen until 2017. Whoops…

"Sounds like a good time to start tapping the nest egg. Too bad the federal government already spent that money over the years on other programs, preferring to borrow from Social Security rather than foreign creditors. In return, the Treasury Department issued a stack of IOUs — in the form of Treasury bonds— which are kept in a nondescript office building just down the street from Parkersburg’s municipal offices.

Now the government will have to borrow even more money, much of it abroad, to start paying back the IOUs, and the timing couldn’t be worse. The government is projected to post a record $1.5 trillion budget deficit this year, followed by trillion dollar deficits for years to come."


Continued...

ELAshley April 20, 2010 at 2:07 PM  

Continuing...

Unsustainable. That's where we are. And there's no end in sight for the poor. They will get poorer and more dependent upon government for their sustenance. And many from the middle-class will 'fall from grace,' as it were, and find themselves ALSO on the government dole.

Who will bail us out then? The evil rich? via more and more progressive taxation? Do you really believe that? Do you really believe as you stated, Dan, that this Democratic led government can operate "a sustainable gov't, governing justly to uphold everyone's rights as outlined in the constitution, creating reasonable laws that protect our commonwealth, etc, etc..."" Especially since what they've passed in Obamacare is clearly unconstitutional? What the Democrats have done in the last 400 days alone has set our nation upon a course than will end in default. What will happen when government can no longer take care of the "prostrate peoples" of America, dependent upon its leaders to sustain them?

Seems to me you'd see the danger of where we are headed and agree that what Democrats are doing is both dangerous and irresponsible. I'm not say you should vote Republican... I honestly can't see you bending that far. But can't you at least see the dangers to which THIS government is leading our nation?

ELAshley April 20, 2010 at 2:19 PM  

Dan,

on NASA, you and I agree. Private enterprise is quite capable of taking up the slack provided government gets out of the way. Not entirely; there needs to be some regulations.

But having opened this door, do you not see the dichotomy of ideology inherent in what you just proposed? Private enterprise is capable of picking up the slack of Space Exploration, but NOT CAPABLE of picking up the slack in health care. Why can't government pass tort reform to reduce the cost of healthcare? Why won't government allow insurance to be bought and sold across state lines to foster more competition. Why won't government get out of the way and let market solutions work? When government sticks its finger in anything it mucks everything up with unneeded and burdensome bureaucracy. We didn't need Obamacare... what we needed was reform. And no, I do not consider Obamacare synonymous with 'Reform.'

Furthermore, it was Ted Kennedy, decades ago, in another fit of healthcare reform, that gave us the current system we have. See what government did to healthcare? Now we have a government to thank for creating an even worse problem.

But back to NASA. Men like Sir Richard Branson are needed to move the program forward. Government cannot propel NASA deeper into space without the private sector.

The same is true of healthcare; government alone cannot solve the problems of healthcare. And yet that's all the democrats have desired to push upon us... a dangerously inadequate and irresponsible government solution.

Craig April 20, 2010 at 2:28 PM  

Dan,

I pointed you toward a gentleman who has done massive amounts of research on how american blacks have been treated by both the GOP and the Dems. His conclusion is that blacks have been ill served by the Dems, and his research seems to back him up. My humble suggestion is that you not dismissively write him off ("Well, if he says (as some here seem to be saying) that "the blacks" are lazy or too ignorant or too gullible to be able to understand their own best interests, I wouldn't like his conclusions, as they would be racist. (And I understand that this fella is a black gentleman himself). Anyone who condemns a whole group in negative terms is racist by definition."), by making assumptions about his research or character. I further humbly suggest that some humility and open mindedness on your part, ("I can't imagine what he could contribute to my knowledge that I don't already know, though.") might not be a bad thing. Further I would humbly suggest that you should actually look at the history befor you jump to conclusions (" I'm guessing you're saying that he says that the whole of the black community have been duped? into voting for Dems who don't represent their interests? Brainwashed? Bribed?"). I know it bothers you when others misrepresent your thoughts, why not do some resarch before you assume what others are saying. Finally, if you took the time to research before you respond (" What could his case possibly be? And how would one reconcile that with a rational look at the real world?") you would have the answer to your question.

The quick overview of his research is, if you look at the actual history and historical record of how both parties dealt with American blacks from the period of the Civil War through the present day you can draw some conclusions as to which party has treated American blacks better. If your grasp of histroy was as impressive as you claim, I would think that you would be aware of this. Much has been covered here already. Slavery, succession, reconstruction, Jim Crow, not to mention lynching, denial of voting righs by violence or threats, the KKK, and lots of other great stuff. I find one thing in particular interesting, the fact that the Dems have never acknowledged or apologized for any of this.

Again, put aside your preconceptions, read the books, check the sources and footnotes, if you can debunk the research you'll be a hero to your party. I doubt you will, but I've been wrong before.

Dan Trabue April 20, 2010 at 3:43 PM  

As I said, if I have a chance, I'll try to look into his work. But I'm not wholly ignorant of history, Craig. Especially civil rights history. I know, too, that the Dems have not always (even in my lifetime) been great representatives for African Americans. It's just that the vast majority of blacks - those who've lived thru the Civil Rights era as well as their children - know the situation even better than I do and a great number of them feel that, as ineffective or counterproductive as the Dems may have been, the African American community would have been much worse off with more GOP representation.

I'm not dissing this guy's studies, I'm just affirming the studies and real life experiences and knowledge of black brothers and sisters whom I know personally as well as the writings of people I don't know.

Obviously, if 90% of African Americans think they've been better off with the Dems and 1-10% disagree, there is a disagreement in the black community. I have absolutely no doubt that there are some right on all sides, as well as some error on all sides.

But, what I'm saying is that I'll not discount the studies or writings or the personal experience of 90% based solely on the studies of one person, however well done they may be. I'll consider his case, but that's not to say that his is the strongest case, it's just another voice that is worthy of being heard and taken in consideration for what it's worth.

Craig April 20, 2010 at 3:53 PM  

Dan,

From what I've read, Perryman is simply putting actual historical evidence out there for consideration, if people choose to ignore history I can't help it. But the documentation is clearly there that your party has much to answer for historically. I would suggest that if Perryman's research gets the wider reading it deserves, then attitudes in the black community might be changing. I would suggest that you could probably get his books from your local library, I would recommend "Unfounded Loyalty" as a pretty good start.

Dan Trabue April 20, 2010 at 4:02 PM  

I would suggest that if Perryman's research gets the wider reading it deserves, then attitudes in the black community might be changing.

On the other hand, if the extreme right fringes of the tea party get any louder or more dangerous, the black community may be even more wary of the GOP and "conservatives" in general (even though the black community tends to be pretty traditionally conservative in many ways). I live, work, worship and play with black folk and the Tea Party crowd tends to send out some pretty negative vibes out to the world, in my circle of friends and acquaintances.

BenT - the unbeliever,  April 20, 2010 at 4:05 PM  

Eric misremembered my points about Social Security. Social Security is in dire straits because Americans still retire at the same as as our grandparents and live much longer lives. That added to the tidal wave of baby-boomer retirements is what will drown the Social Security fund.According to the SS accountants a $2-trillion dollar deposit over the next decade brings the fund into solvency for as far as they can project. Even if we do nothing SS will be able to keep paying $0.70 on the dollar after the fund is drained.

Medicare's problems also arise from longer lifespans and the baby-boomer surge. Only for this program the problems are exacerbated by healthcare costs that are rising two to three times inflation. The recently passed Affordable Care Act combats both price increases and Medicare waste. That's why the CBO scored it as producing a $200-billion reduction to the deficit over the next decade.

More broadly our federal economy is out of whack because we want more than we can afford. Every modern president and Congress have been unafraid of borrowing money to pursue immediate goals. If reining in our budget is now a priority then that means that new programs should be paid for by reductions or savings or new taxes. That's what was done with the Affordable Care Act.

To act more strongly will require either new taxes or spending cuts. To cut spending seriously you have to look at Defense, Medicare, or Social Security. Together these three areas make up +60% of the federal budget.

I am not opposed to seeing spending freezes in these area for the next decade. I think that would take us a long way to naturally and slowly weeding out waste in these programs. I think it would lead to greater efficiency and I think it might lead to increases in Medicare and SS eligibility ages. Things I am not opposed to.

Unfortunately when serious people discuss how to rein in spending. Political hacks start talking about death panels and demagoguing on SS spending.

Anyone that talks about cutting foreign aid or earmarks is only a partisan hack. Together Foreign aid and earmarks are only 7% of the entire federal budget.

Flat Taxes sound simple but are unworkable for a complex modern society. In a flat tax who pays the tax on raw materials. The sawmill that buys lumber from tree farms? The furniture maker who buys from the sawmill? The store that buys from the furniture factory? Or only the consumers? And how do you keep people from cheating the flat tax by having their company purchase everything? And in Neal Boortz's Fair Tax, every single person gets a monthly rebate. How does that jive with your beliefs on Welfare?

One simple idea to raise revenue is to return to the tax system under Pres. Ronald Reagan. Today the top tax rate is 35%. Under Reagan's administration the top rate was 70%. I've never heard anyone complain that Reagan overtaxed the wealthy, so let's just aim for the rates under his administration. That would take us a long way toward solving our federal funding problems...especially as more and more of America's wealth is concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer.

ELAshley April 20, 2010 at 4:19 PM  

"...if the extreme right fringes of the tea party get any louder or more dangerous...."

There is nothing dangerous about the Tea Party movement. Nothing. Neither is there any proof, just to forestall your referencing the same, that any member of the black caucus that deliberately chose to walk through the Tea Party crowds (as an antagonistic "in your face") on the day the healthcare bill was passed was spat upon or called "nigger". With the sea of cameras present on BOTH sides there has yet to surface a single recorded event. Not one.

You calling the Tea Party dangerous only proves, to me at least, how much you rely on leftist propaganda to form and validate your opinions of the Right.

When the Left marched against Bush it was deemed by Hillary, Pelosi, and many others on the Left to be both Patriotic, and the duty of every American, to protest against their government, should they choose. Now when it's "THEIR" government, and it's conservatives protesting against it... well, now they're dangerous.

This comment of yours has no merit whatsoever. You're simply parroting the left. Parroting Bill Maher, parroting Jon Stewart, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, the New York Times, et al.

Come on, Dan! Do you really see the Tea Party as a threat!? To what or whom? Liberty? It's TODAY'S government that's a danger to liberty.

BenT - the unbeliever,  April 20, 2010 at 4:20 PM  

Something that conservatives never realize is that wealth redistribution is already going on in America.

The wealth of our nation is siphoned of more and more into a smaller and smaller group of plutarchs.

Over the last 30 years America has more than doubled it's productivity. That increase in our ability to create wealth should have translated into large income and wage growths over the entire population. Instead the corporate managers, and financial wizards have stolen that wealth from the people who created it. That's what tea partiers should be angry over. Golden parachutes. Severance packages that would make King Midas blush.

If the wage distribution of the 70's had continued through to today, every single working American would be $20,000-$30,000 richer.

BenT - the unbeliever,  April 20, 2010 at 4:28 PM  

I am not wealthy. Yearly, I spend almost every dollar I earn. So almost every dollar is taxed whether as income or under a flat sales tax.

But if I made a million dollars a year and could live on only $500,000...WHOO DOGGY! imagine the tax saving from a flat sales tax instead of an income tax.

Earnest conservatives are being bamboozled by flat tax proponents.

ELAshley April 20, 2010 at 4:35 PM  

You had me cheering, Ben... that is until you injected the term "partisan hack." We know who and what you mean by 'hack.'

Also, your history is off... again. When Reagan took office the top tax rate was 70%... an inheritance from the Carter Administration, and earlier. Reagan reduced the top tax rate to 50% during the years of '82 to '86 and approximately 29% during 1988. Tax rates went up a bit during Bush 41 to about 31%, and went up even more (around 40 percent) during Clinton. Bush 43 brought them down to about 37% during his administration and Obama's projected top tax rate, for 2010 alone, is back up to Clinton's 40. Source

Craig April 20, 2010 at 4:42 PM  

Dan,

Nice work trotting out the evil white tea party haters, except there is really not much actual evidence of this being a problem.

My suggestion is not to change the subject, do some research, and repudiate Perryman if you can.

Maybe if the tea party haters work really hard they can get as good as these folks. I doubt it, but you never know.

http://www.rightklik.net/2010/04/left-wing-filth-and-hatred.html

ELAshley April 20, 2010 at 4:44 PM  

"That's what tea partiers should be angry over. Golden parachutes. Severance packages that would make King Midas blush."

The Tea Parties ARE angry about this. And they're angry at the Democrats-- Obama included --who show deference to Unions who bamboozled these exorbitant perks from companies too afraid to stand up against them. Unions are a disease upon American industry. And Obama is a very huge proponent of Unions.

"If the wage distribution of the 70's had continued through to today, every single working American would be $20,000-$30,000 richer."

This is Liberal cotton candy. It's looks like a lot nifty goodness, but it's little more than a quarter cup of spun sugar. If a man accepts a job at 30k a year and that's what he earns, it is not the fault of the company for whom he works that he doesn't make 20-30k more. This is a fatuous and disingenuous argument.

Nor do I hold you to be an expert on flat or fair taxation.

ELAshley April 20, 2010 at 4:48 PM  

Thanks for the link, Craig. I added it to our list of favorite sites.

Mark April 20, 2010 at 7:56 PM  

"If the wage distribution of the 70's had continued through to today, every single working American would be $20,000-$30,000 richer."

And, the cost of living would be $20,000-$30,000 per year higher. Nothing would change. Just your average gallon of milk would be about $8.00. And so on.

Really Bent, this isn't rocket surgery.

Dan Trabue April 20, 2010 at 9:16 PM  

Craig...

Nice work trotting out the evil white tea party haters, except there is really not much actual evidence of this being a problem.

You will note, everyone, that I did not say the whole tea party but rather, the "extreme right fringes" of the tea party. Please reference what I actually write. If it helps, I probably should have said "tea party-types" - meaning the anti-gov't or anti-big gov't types of extremists out there.

Beyond that, I'm telling you what you would hear from black folk if you asked them. When 90% of a whole race of people vote against your party, you have a problem. I would think that the GOP and their supporters would try to listen to what a WHOLE RACE of people are saying to better understand why they've lost them.

Eric, Craig, do you all have black friends or co-workers? Try this experiment: Ask them if you could get their honest impression of the GOP and of the Tea Partiers. Ask them why they think the black community votes around 90% for Dems in most elections.

Listen to what they say, rather than demonizing them as being too stupid to vote GOP.

Or, you could ask them why blacks as a whole are so "gullible" and easily swayed by the lure of free money.

Fellas, I'm trying to help you out in the art of conversation.

Telling "the blacks" that they vote for Dems NOT because of principles and ideals but because they are gullible and want free money is ONLY going to make people think you are racist. I'm not casting stones, I'm telling you how that sounds. But don't take my word for it, ask your black friends.

Marshall Art April 20, 2010 at 9:27 PM  

Returning again to "one's best interest", one would think proof would be easily available to warrant giving support to one party over another. I don't see that the Dem's can truly provide such evidence. We know they like to spend money, but what results has that money produced? Are student test scores better than any other country? Do we have fewer poor than under the GOP?

If we even concede that such things can be proven to have been improved under the Dems, how many of the Dem supporters from the last election even know for sure? Dan thinks there's something the black friends of his have to fear regarding the Tea Party folk, but the real racism was seen by the percentage of blacks that supported the guy about which they knew nothing. (It just to difficult to believe that most of them DID know about Obama and voted for him anyway.) It seemed the only people who truly vetted this dude were members of the opposition. And why not? The guy was the only unknown in the race that had a chance to win. But why did he have this chance? Because he had real ideas fleshed out for all to see? No. He had only rhetoric and the usual Democratic tax the rich proposals. In short, voting for this guy was one of the greatest examples of a group of people voting against their own best interests.

There has been no legitimate reason for any black person to shun the Republican Party (that wasn't equally good for white conservatives, that is). Philosophically and ideologically the GOP is far and away the better pick for any group looking for more opportunity because the party is based on those principles that best provide for an individual's own success if that individual has the desire. Even with the GOP's current internal identity crisis, it still is the better choice for bettering the lives of more people.

Marshall Art April 20, 2010 at 9:54 PM  

Ben,

I think you're confusing a flat tax with a sales tax. To me, the flat tax is an income tax, not a sales tax. So the furniture maker would pay a sales tax on the lumber from the mill, but the mill would pay a flat tax on its profits from all sales for the year. The furniture maker would do the same. To me, a business would be an entity that would pay a flat tax on its profits, which is its income, just as an individual would. The business would pay sales taxes on that which it buys to do business.

Some might say that there would be double taxation if the business pays taxes on its income, but then the employees of the company pay an income tax from the wages paid out of profits. But wages would be another expense that lowers the actual profits of the business, just as groceries lower the profits of our incomes. The question would be, when does one pay the tax? On the gross or the net? I'd say it stays the same. A biz pays after expenses and the individual pays on the gross.

But that's my basic notion of how it should work. As to whether there'd be enough to pay the exenses of the nation, I'm not as concerned. A flat tax would make business easier for lack of the tax headaches. A business would almost immediately benefit from a change to a flat tax and expansion would lead to jobs. Of course all sorts of spending cuts would have to take place, but we need that now anyway. If we don't have the bucks for all the programs, then we started eliminating programs. The feds shouldn't be running most of the programs it now runs and the states will have to take over for the benefit of their own people.

There will always be rises and falls in the population and I don't think this is the only "baby-boom" we'll ever see. But if we keep killing babies before (and to often after) they are born, it'll be hard to keep up with any program as there are fewer people contributing through their taxes. Individuals will have to learn to spend only when they have money and keep in mind that they will soon be old and retired so how they spend and save is up to them, not the gov't.

If my calculator is working correctly, 10% of one million is one hundred thousand. Someone making only ten thousand per year would only pay $1000. Ben spends almost every dollar he earns. Ben has a problem with his money. That's no one's problem but his own. Before I got laid off in Dec '08, I was making about 43K. That means I'd only pay $4300 per year if the flat tax was only 10%. But I usually hear a much higher percentage, the lowest being 17%. Let's see...$7310 per year. That means I'd have to find a way to live on $35690 per year. (Remember, that's just federal income tax w/o all the other taxes on my pay stub).

But here's the deal: we're supposed to live within our means. There might have to be personal cuts to each of our lifestyles to get there and likely, most people need to do that anyway as well. With a flat tax (my state income tax is a flat tax as well) and all other taxes being fixed, how much easier would it be to budget! One always knows what one will have to work with. Talk about social justice!

Marshall Art April 20, 2010 at 9:59 PM  

Finally, just to re-iterate, the one who produces is the one who owns the company. The workers don't "produce" anything. Employees are "tools" of the employer and used by him to produce whatever goods or services for which the company is known. No one is being cheated if the employee knew the terms of employment before he agreed to be employed. Producing a produce or service entails more than any one employee does or can do. The employee is an extension of the employer. The employer is the producer. The employee is the means by which the employer produces. The profits of the business that is doing the producing rightfully belongs to the owner of that company.

Dan Trabue April 20, 2010 at 9:59 PM  

Marshall...

but the real racism was seen by the percentage of blacks that supported the guy about which they knew nothing.

Annnnd, once again, I'm just telling you as someone who was once rather like you in many ways: When you say stuff like this, you come across as racist. It SOUNDS like Marshall is saying that blacks voted for Obama simply because he was black and because they were racist and didn't want a white president and that black folk were stupid to do so because they didn't know anything about him because, you know, black folk are just dumb that way.

That is what it sounds like you are saying, Marshall. Once again, run that sentence past some of your black friends (do you all have any black friends? People who visit you at your house? People who go to church with you with whom you're close? ASK them. I am willing to bet that they'll say, "ummm, fella, that DOES sound racist...")

Seriously, you'd think you all would want to reach out to a whole race that HAS shunned you precisely because of language like this. I suspect that you all are wholly unaware of how awful-sounding this is. I don't think you're evil fellas intent on saying racist things, I think you just don't know what you sound like.

Think about it.

Dan Trabue April 20, 2010 at 10:13 PM  

Marshall...

If my calculator is working correctly, 10% of one million is one hundred thousand.

Where'd the figure 10% come from? Or even 17%?

IF we instituted a flat income tax, you'd be paying something closer to 30-40% of your income. If you made $34,000, then somewhere you'd be likely paying over $10,000 in federal taxes, leaving you ~$20,000. No 10% flat tax would work, not if you want to keep spending $1 trillion/year on military spending and military adventurism around the globe AND pay for your roads and all the other things that we, the people have decided are important to our commonwealth.

Oh, and once you got rid of tax incentives, then at least some of the billions (trillions?) of dollars that go for motorists and the oil and auto company welfare would go away and your cars and gas prices would spike, I'd expect. Which I'm in favor of, but I'm not sure you are.

I would think you all ought to think a bit more closely about just how much you'll be paying if you're truly wanting a flat tax.

Oh, and one more thing: While it may feel fair to you, there is a HUGE difference between a person making $10,000 a year losing $1000 in taxes and the person making $100,000 a year losing $10,000 in taxes. Thomas Jefferson understood this. I think most reasonable people can see that it is nigh unto impossible to live on $9000 a year in our current times but one can easily live on $90,000.

A flat tax is not a just tax. It simply isn't.

Marshall Art April 20, 2010 at 10:16 PM  

"It SOUNDS like Marshall is saying that blacks voted for Obama simply because he was black and because they were racist and didn't want a white president and that black folk were stupid to do so because they didn't know anything about him because, you know, black folk are just dumb that way."

If it sounds that way, it's because I'm actually saying that....ALMOST. They DID vote for him simply because he was black. But they weren't the only ones who did! That makes them racist for doing so, or at least their doing so was racist (the latter would be more accurate). Whether they wanted another white president or not I wouldn't hazard a guess, but that they saw this as a chance to finally have a black one overshadowed real reason. Of this I have no doubt. For some, having the chance to finally elect a woman drove them to vote for Hillary. Same thing. Same fact. Don't freakin' kid yourself. Also, they were stupid to vote for him because they didn't know enough about him. But again, that was by no means merely a black thing. That was typical of the average Obama supporter. YOU didn't know anything about the fool other than what his website told you. I think we've covered this ground at least once before. He had no track record against which to compare his lofty (and really, quite empty) words during his campaign. As I said, those who really knew who this guy was and what he was about were mostly (if not entirely) those that opposed him, particularly the right wing. This is evidenced by how little surprise there is amongst the right with what this buffoon is doing. We expected it.

So yeah, I'd say that racism was what put this boob in the White House. I'll defend this position to anyone. Of course, due to the medium in which we find ourselves, brevity is the order of the day. I would approach my black friends in an entirely different manner. And be it known, I now work part-time with an outfit run by and heavily employed with black people. I park my car (with the Nobama stickers on the rear bumper) near any car with a pro-Obama sticker when I can. By now, I think at least a few of them would have seen me entering or exiting my car. I'm more than happy to engage anyone on the topic. Chances are, I'll win over most of those who give me a real chance to opine. Chances are, some of them aren't willing to defend the bum at this point anyhow.

Marshall Art April 20, 2010 at 10:21 PM  

Dan,

Again, I think you're assuming that all of what is being proposed by and what has already been passed by this administration would still be in effect. If we have no choice but to continue on this course, then likely a higher flat tax would be in order. (I use ten percent just to make the point that the rich will always pay more. The 17% was offered when I first heard the idea probably ten years ago, when today's nightmare was only a nightmare and not the current reality.) But you also assume that it would have no effect on productivity which would result in more revenues. You can't look at it as if it's all static. Spending cuts are an absolute must no matter what, even without Obama's nation destroying proposals. BUT, with conservative free-market proposals, together with a more business friendly tax plan, prosperity will run your ass over. Of this there is no doubt.

Dan Trabue April 20, 2010 at 10:47 PM  

You have more faith in the benevolence of a market based on self-interest than I do, brother Marshall. If you truly believe that humanity is fallen and wholly corrupt as at least some of your comrades do, then what makes you think a market where one is free to try to make as much as possible with as little regulation as possible will have good results?

With fewer rules and regulations, won't our fallen human nature cause people to cheat and swindle, skim and pad, pollute and bribe all the more? You seem to believe in the utter depravity of humanity when it comes to a gov't of people, but when it comes to a market of people (and corporations), everything will turn out rosey.

I'm not as trusting as you are.

So, as to spending cuts, one large slice of that pie is the military. How much are you willing to cut out of our $1 trillion bloated military package? Think big, $1000 here and there won't do it.

How about NASA: Will you remove it altogether? How about price supports/welfare for auto and oil companies? Will you take them away? Will you start asking motorists to pay 100% for the roads, or will you continue to subsidize them with free welfare?

How about homeless children and sick kids? The mentally ill? Will you remove spending that is keeping them off the streets and, well, living? How about moneys that support our homeless and mentally ill veterans? Kick the bums out on their own?

How about prisons? What's your plan for cutting our massive prison budgets and huge prison population? I may support you there.

I'd have to see where you are going to cut spending before I could think that you have any kind of rational plan in place.

Dan Trabue April 20, 2010 at 10:50 PM  

Marshall...

I use ten percent just to make the point that the rich will always pay more.

Well, since no one is disputing that, I'll gladly concede the point. Those who make more WILL be paying more.

The question - and Thomas Jefferson's point - is that they should not only be spending more in terms of dollars, but they should be spending more as a percentage of their income. Progressive taxation, as Jefferson supported.

Do you think Jefferson went too far in hoping that the wealthy would pay for nearly all of our expenses? I do, but I think he was right in principle. Progressive taxation is the only just way of dealing with our common needs.

Dan Trabue April 20, 2010 at 10:53 PM  

Marshall...

By now, I think at least a few of them would have seen me entering or exiting my car. I'm more than happy to engage anyone on the topic. Chances are, I'll win over most of those who give me a real chance to opine.

Well then, ask them. Ask them what their opinion of the GOP is and why. Ask them what they think of the Tea Partiers. Ask them if they think it was racists who put Obama into office.

Of course, since you just started and I presume you don't know them well, yet, it would be better if you asked some of your black friends. Why don't you shoot one an email or give them a call this week and ask them about it, being sure to use the language that's been used here to describe "the blacks."

Let me know what your results are.

ELAshley April 21, 2010 at 8:37 AM  

@Dan's 9:16pm comment from last night.

"I'm telling you what you would hear from black folk if you asked them."

Now, we all know you're white, Dan. How is it then you speak for the general population of black folk? And that your word if definitive?

Dan Trabue April 21, 2010 at 9:03 AM  

Dang. I lost an entry!

In short, NO, I don't claim to speak for black folk. I'm telling you my guess as to what you would hear. But don't take my word for it. Ask ten of your black friends what I've suggested above and tell me what you find out.

Ask them, "Is it racist to say that blacks were racist for voting for Obama? Is it racist to say that blacks were stupid for voting for Obama? Is it racist to say that blacks are gullible? That blacks want to be taken care of? And by the way, what is your opinion of the GOP and of the Tea Partiers?"

Let me know what you find out. MY GUESS is that most will reply as I've suggested.

ELAshley April 21, 2010 at 9:39 AM  

Were I to engage in the kind of discussions you describe, asking why blacks distrust the GOP, I am confident I could blow every argument out of the water.

African Americans have been sold a bill of goods by the DNC and our propagandist media. That YOU believe these lies and refuse to acknowledge the democratic sins that sought to keep blacks down/controlled/managed saddens me. That you really believe the GOP is disdainful of black America only strengthens my belief that the DNC and its mouthpieces are more dangerous than any baseless charges of racism emanating from the GOP or Conservatives.

During the Civil Rights movement Democrats attacked the marchers at Selma. They bombed the church in Birmingham. They blocked black students from entering schools. And they voted overwhelmingly against the Civil Rights Act. But when it became law, they leaped upon the means to continue to keep blacks down/controlled/managed via an offer to "take care" the black community, while telling the black community it was the GOP that had its boot-heel on their collective necks.

Flash forward forty years and now its the Tea Party demonstrating against institutionalized oppression. Peaceful protesters... maligned by the same democrats. Maligned and lied about.

The left uses "Race" to beat down opposition, thinking that by labeling one's opponent as racist said opponent will shut up and get in line. Shame on you and anyone else using this lie to shut down opposition.

The Right is not racist. There are racist elements within the body of the right, but the right actively seeks to eradicate those cancers. But there are racists in the Left as well. Quite a few of them. QUITE a few of them. But you can't see them... or rather, you refuse to see them or confront them. You don't seek to eradicate them from your midst because they serve your purposes.

The Tea Party is angry at the Republicans FIRST! Because they have sold out to the DNC. Secondly, the Tea Party is angry at Washington, because it has ceased to represent the people, choosing instead to represent its own interests. The Tea Party is against Obama only because of the programs he has championed. Had Hillary won and took the same course as Obama, the Tea Party would have sprung up just as vociferously. This is not about Race, however much you and your ideological look-alikes want to make this peaceful demonstration about Racism.

I will not validate your claims of racism by apologizing or ameliorating my position. There is no racism here except on the part of Democrats. It's a shame you can't see the truth of this. It's a shame you won't even acknowledge the crimes of the Democrat Party, and members of the DNC.

Evey election that comes around it is always the Democrat who levels charges of racism. And that is because he feels by doing so he can shut the opposition up. He feels that this is the only way he can win against his opponent. He cannot compete in the arena of ideas, so he maligns his opponents at every opportunity.

Dan Trabue April 21, 2010 at 9:41 AM  

So, you won't be asking any of your black friends their opinion on these matters?

What's the harm in asking and listening (not asking in order to "blow every argument out of the water," but asking in order to listen and learn)?

ELAshley April 21, 2010 at 9:54 AM  

Were you to ask those question of ANY racial or ethnic population, phrased in that manner, ANY one you asked would give you the answer you desire.

Your questions are dangerous because they are not properly or adequately contextualized. They are offensive questions.

Better to ask:

1) "When you saw that Barack Obama had won the Democratic nomination did that encourage you to take part in such an historic vote?"

2) "Was the realization that Barack Obama could be the first black president in American history have any impact on how you voted?"

3) "Did you vote for Barack Obama?"


These at least are honest questions. These are not question loaded with charges of racism against the responder.

Were I to ask the questions you suggest, I'd likely get pummeled.

ELAshley April 21, 2010 at 10:01 AM  

Truth be told, I have asked these kind of questions I just suggested. And almost to the man the answer was as I expected... they voted for Barack because he was black. And that, Dan, is racism.

The ones who didn't answer as I expected were all God fearing men and women who viewed Obama as a huckster and a man with no fear of God... The lie of God on his lips, but no weight of HIM in his heart. They voted not for the color of a mans skin, but for the content of his character. And those blacks voted McCain. Not because he was White, but because he was (to quote them) the lesser of two evils. They didn't like McCain either, but one man told me quite emphatically that he refused to be the same kind of fool his family was by voting for a man's skin color. This man said he cared more about how the candidates lines up with God. McCain wasn't much better... but he WAS a better choice.

Dan Trabue April 21, 2010 at 10:47 AM  

Were I to ask the questions you suggest, I'd likely get pummeled.

Well, I'm just using your (you and your friends') words. IF you think using the words of you and your friends would get you a beating in another setting, then you at least recognize that you are using divisive, incendiary and harmful words. Perhaps that should give you cause to speak with a better choice of words?

Or, put another way, why say one thing to another white guy that you're afraid to say to a black guy? Could it be that you recognize how it sounds? THAT is what I'm talking about. Some of the comments made here SOUND racist and, in fact, ARE racist, by definition (claiming a whole group - even with a few exceptions - of people have these negative traits is racism by definition).

As to your questions, well sure, Obama being black might weigh on many people's minds as a favorable thing. That is not to say that that reason is the ONE REASON they voted for him. But, given a choice between two candidates - one from a group that has never before been represented and another one - it is a legitimate consideration. That's NOT racism. Not by definition.

I'm not sure that you all know what that word means.

No, if you're going to make claims of stupidity, gullibility, wanting to be cared for and willing to shirk personal responsibility to get it and racism here, then make it to the face of the people about whom you're talking. Or don't make the claims, if you're not comfortable making them to the person/people you're talking about.

That's just basic decency and personal responsibility in dealing with your neighbor.

BenT - the unbeliever,  April 21, 2010 at 11:14 AM  

Eric I know you aren't referencing conversations with Marian.

ELAshley April 21, 2010 at 11:22 AM  

No, Ben, I wasn't. As sweet as she is she's still a flaming liberal. And God bless her.

Dan, 'stupid,' 'gullible,' 'shirking,' these are your words. And anyone who votes for a person solely based upon that persons skin color IS voting in a racist manner. Sorry, but you're wrong.

Dan Trabue April 21, 2010 at 11:36 AM  

Dan, 'stupid,' 'gullible,' 'shirking,' these are your words.

??!!

Mark said...

They [African Americans] left the Republican party because they were gullible

Marshall said...

they [African Americans] were stupid to vote for him because they didn't know enough about him.

Eric said...

[African Americans are] Merely dependent, with little or no incentive to climb out of the morass.

Again, your own words SOUND like you're making ridiculous racist calls against a whole group of people (well, not the ~10% of "good" blacks, but all the rest...) based on their skin color. This is how it sounds, that's what I'm telling you.

Eric...

And anyone who votes for a person solely based upon that persons skin color IS voting in a racist manner.

And I'm saying that YOU all are the ones suggesting that "the blacks" vote for Obama "solely based upon that persons skin color." I'm saying that people voted for Obama for all manner of reasons and that finally getting a black individual in the White House may well be one, and given our history, it is a HUGELY important one. But that's not "the sole reason" people voted for Obama. If that were the case, then black folk would have pushed for Michael Steele or Thomas Sowell to run for president. It's not just skin color. And calling it racist to consider the history of race relations and recognize the significance of having a first black president, well, that just isn't the what that word means.

Craig April 21, 2010 at 12:08 PM  

Dan,

Unless my eyes decieve me Perryman is, in fact, black. He has taken factual historical evidence to demonstrate how the Dems have related to blacks in the US. Now, I can look at actual histroy and documentary evidence, or I can pay attention to peoples opinions. You obviously go with opinion on this, I'm suggesting that you look at facts.

But, even if (as you claim without substantiation) 90% of blacks believe as you say, so what. That doesn't mean they are holding an opinion that correlates with the facts. How many would continue to hold that opinion if they were aware of the history of the Dem party? In other discussions you have been critical of this type of "proof", I would think that you can see that asking the blacks you know is any sort or representative sample. For instance, most of the black folk I spend time with currently are immigrants from east Africa. I doubt that they would be a good group to ask about the treatment of US blacks by the Dems.

I would suggest that you actually look at the history and the facts, rather than to rely on not very random samples of opinion.

Marshall Art April 21, 2010 at 12:18 PM  

Dan,

I believe I stated that while I believe the statements are true, they are not complete as blacks were not the only people voting on race, gullibility and to satisfy their dependence on the lib handouts at taxpayer expense. YOU insist on making it a black thing. But that blacks did indeed vote in this manner, I can't say it isn't true. What I can say is false, as I said already, is that blacks weren't the only fools voting for Obama for some or all those reasons.

But I totally agree with Eric that no matter how you try to phrase it, voting for a guy because he's black is racist, just as voting for McCain because the other guy is black is racist. The significance of having the first black president is a bullshit argument considering the mettle of this particular black president. If one truly cared about "race relations", one would vote for ANY candidate that seeks to better those relations, but not at the cost this one is exacting on the nation.

What if an Idi Amin type was running? Would you feel the same way if 90% voted for him with the notion of the historic first black prez angle in mind? I would hope not. But though Barry doesn't compare to old Idi, he has enough of his own faults to have made him a terrible choice for president no matter what color he is and THAT speaks more loudly about why he could garner the support he did from the black community. If it wasn't skin color, than it WAS stupidity as we find every day just how stupid it was for anyone to vote for this guy. If it wasn't skin color or stupidity, it WAS gullibility that anyone would swallow the crap this dude was serving up during the campaign without checking his past to see where he stood, what he accomplished (which was nothing) and how he rolled.

And I have no problem discussing these things with anybody regardless of their color, but not as an ice-breaker to get to know anyone. And I certainly wouldn't jump in with terms YOU think I should use to get the party started. Without question those terms will arise in the normal course of events because they are accurate words to describe what was going on in the choosing of this man as one worthy of a vote.

Dan Trabue April 21, 2010 at 12:19 PM  

Brother Craig, you assume too much if you are assuming to prior to reading this brother's book, that I am unaware of history or the facts related to race relations in the US. Your words suggest you are thinking, "Dan holds his opinion based on nothing but some people's opinions. IF DAN WOULD ONLY read THIS book, THEN he'll know the facts as it actually happened in history!!"

If you are thinking thusly, you presume too much and are mistaken. Could I learn from this book? Possibly. I certainly don't know everything. Am I uninformed about the facts of race relations in the US? No.

I would suggest you recognize that not everyone has to rely upon the same authors and sources (or in this case ONE author and ONE source) as you in order to be informed.

Did you know that there SOME of us have managed to learn about history from some source beyond your one vaulted book? Do you know that SOME of us have taken whole classes - plural - on the topic and have read multiple authors - plural? About the Harlem Renaissance, about the Reconstruction, about race relations in America, about church history in the 19th and 20th century, about the history of the KKK, about MLK and his roots, about the black church in US history, about the Black Panthers, about Malcolm X, about lynchings in the US South, about the Dixiecrats, about the reasons why the black community abandoned the Party of Lincoln?

Do you know that not all wisdom begins and ends with one book?

I'm glad you've found a book which you like. It may well be a fine, fine book, I don't know, I haven't read it, yet.

But some of us have managed - somehow, lawdy, lawdy! - to find OTHER sources to study the same topic besides this one man and his one book.

Dan Trabue April 21, 2010 at 12:26 PM  

And I have no problem discussing these things with anybody regardless of their color

So, you're getting ready to call some of your black pals and ask them some of these questions? Let me know how that goes.

Marshall...

What if an Idi Amin type was running? Would you feel the same way if 90% voted for him with the notion of the historic first black prez angle in mind?

No, it would NOT be a good thing to vote for Idi Amin simply because he was black. Nor would it be a good thing to vote for Obama simply because he was black. But NO ONE has done that (beyond a few). THAT is my point!

90% of the black community did NOT vote for Michael Steele or Idi Amin or just ANY black guy/gal in order to have a black president. It WASN'T about race.

To call the bulk of the black community racist, though, because IN THIS CONTEXT AND TIME race was some small FACTOR is NOT fitting in with the definition of the word, Racist. In fact, calling it racism comes much closer to the definition of the word "racism," than your false and disproven allegation.

Dan Trabue April 21, 2010 at 12:32 PM  

Here, here is another sentence that makes you all sound racist (keeping in mind, I don't think you actually are - but you're sure doing a fine job of sounding like it)...

How many [black folk] would continue to hold that opinion if they were aware of the history of the Dem party?

This sentence PRESUMES that the black community is UN-aware of the history of the Dem party as it relates to African Americans. If that is the suggestion, then I'm suggesting you presume too much and it makes those who think like this SOUND like racists.

Believe it or not, our black brothers and sisters can go to school these days. Even college, lawdy, lawdy! We let them read, even here in the South. They own books and go to the library.

Geez, guys, look at how you sound...

Marshall Art April 21, 2010 at 12:57 PM  

Going to college doesn't necessarily result in objective thinking. Going to college doesn't necessarily result in intelligence (just look at Feodor). Colleges and universities are infested with liberal thought and propaganda and kids getting a solid and objective education on the types of things we're discussing here isn't something upon which I'd wager MY hard earned money. Even my conservative daughter has learned some wacky liberal things (that fortunately I've been able to clear up). I wouldn't hold up higher education as the deal breaker in judging the wisdom and intelligence of anybody.

It shouldn't sound racist to say that a black person voting Democrat is making a stupid choice. Unless of course a Dan Trabue is going around suggesting that it is racist to do so. Voting Democrat is stupid for anyone, regardless of their race. Particularly today, the Dems are proving they are unworthy of support, yet they continue to have supporters. That's just stupid. I don't care what race you are. The Republican party, even with it's current issues, is still far and away the party that offers the most for the most people. Taxing the rich doesn't make us a better country. Providing abortion for more people doesn't make us a better country. Enabling those with sexual issues doesn't make us a better country. Kissing the asses of the worst of the world's leaders doesn't make us a better country. Crapping on our allies doesn't make us a better country. Allowing just anyone into our country doesn't make us a better country. Giving ANYONE reason to believe they will get theirs from the wealthy if only they wait long enough does not make us a better country. Voting Democrat, especially with the Dems we have now, does NOT make us a better country or help those most in need, including minorities.

By the way, I do not have any "black pals". Most blacks with whom I come into contact are those at where ever I work. I do not choose friends based on skin color anymore than I choose presidents. I will not approach anyone, black or white, with political discourse just to appease some joker on a blog. But I will be more than happy to report any such discussions as they arise in a natural manner, should it happen. Perhaps, if I'm with this company long enough (it's part time, don't count on it), I may indeed have opportunity.

On that note, I HAVE had a brief conversation with one black dude, of whom I hadn't been privy to a name at the time, regarding GW Bush and some of his policies. It went well without having had time to play out to a resolution. Given the time, I have no doubt it would turn to more current affairs. But it didn't. Since then I've learned his name and received job related advice from him.

Too bad we don't hear from Joseph on the blogs anymore. He was a black man who used to visit my blog now and then and I'd love to hear his take on these things. I'm sure he's heard of the "racist" things that the "fringe" elements of the Tea Party people are said to be saying by the left. But I doubt he'll have seen evidence of it anymore than the rest of us have.

ELAshley April 21, 2010 at 1:44 PM  

No Dan, it's how we sound TO YOU, and how you imagine we might sound to blacks. If blacks were truly aware of the hatefulness of the democratic party toward their race, and truly understood what the democratic party's agenda toward them were, they would be deeply offended.

BenT - the unbeliever,  April 21, 2010 at 1:53 PM  

If the only deciding factor for most blacks was skin color then we would have had a black presidential candidate before now.

1972-Shirley Chisholm campaigned for Dem. Pres. nomination.
1984 & 1988-Jesse Jackson campaigned for Dem. Pres. nomination.
1988 & 1992-Lenora Fulani ran as an independent Pres. candidate. Her name was on the ballot in all 50 states.
1996 & 2000-Alan Keyes campaigned for the Rep. Pres. nomination.
2004-Carol Moseley Braun and Al Sharpton campaigned for Dem. Pres. nomination.

ELAshley April 21, 2010 at 1:58 PM  

Also, you cannot prove the following (what's in bold):

"Nor would it be a good thing to vote for Obama simply because he was black. But NO ONE has done that (beyond a few). THAT is my point!

90% of the black community did NOT vote for Michael Steele or Idi Amin or just ANY black guy/gal in order to have a black president. It WASN'T about race
."


This is as insane a statement as I can imagine. It most certainly WAS about race. It wasn't about the content of his character, because the media refused to even bring to light his suspect associations. They bent over backward to AVOID his past associations; the obvious cracks in his deceptive "nice guy" facade. He spoke in platitudes and non-specifics. He offered nothing but vague hopes and changes.

You are deluded. Sorry, but that's my opinion. To think that a majority of those blacks who voted for Obama did not do so because of the color of his skin? They saw the opportunity to have a black president and they voted en masse for him. Not because of any policies he promised, but because his face; his skin color, features, vocal inflection, were recognizable-- less alien --and as such they trusted what they saw, and voted for what they saw. I have this from just about ever black person I know. Those black I know who didn't vote for him has stated flat out that they chose NOT to let his skin color persuade their vote.

A delusional argument if ever there was one.

Dan Trabue April 21, 2010 at 2:05 PM  

Wow.

Give other folk a listen, I'd suggest it's a good thing. There IS a reason(s) that the black community stays away from the GOP and, as whites become a minority in the coming years, I'm just saying it would behoove you to begin to listen to what other people have to say before you dwindle away to nothing.

Grace to you all, fellas.

ELAshley April 21, 2010 at 2:25 PM  

"If the only deciding factor for most blacks was skin color then we would have had a black presidential candidate before now."

Sorry Ben, but ANY candidate, whatever their color, can't win simply by getting a majority of the black vote. For a democrat candidate to win he or she must get at minimum 80% of the Black Vote. In addition, if the candidate is Black he must also appear nonthreatening to a majority of whites.

1972? Too soon after the Civil Rights conflict to elect a black person. Also, not enough blacks taking part in the vote.

'84-'88? Sorry again, but Jesse Jackson had too much of a storied past to get the nomination. Besides which, the Democrats would never have floated a black candidate at that time, being too concerned about winning. And no one in the democratic party at that time thought a black person could, OR SHOULD, win the presidency (remember, the Democrat Party is inherently racist). Clinton is reported to have said about Obama, "A few years ago, this guy (Obama) would be getting us coffee."

'88-'92? Lenora who? You got to make a splash to stand out. She obviously didn't. But ask yourself why? Because democratic controlled media didn't want to look at her. There was no internet to speak of, nor any real opposition to CNN at the time. The democratic party still wasn't ready to accept a black as their nominee, let alone a woman.

Alan Keyes? Too conservative for the likes of black voters. They were told what to believe about him by CNN, Dan Rather, et al. However good a president he might've been, media never gave him a chance. Neither did Republicans think a black man could win. This was between Clinton's 1st and 2nd term, and the determination of whether or not democrats would retain the White House AFTER Clinton. NO ONE, democrat OR republican, thought a black man stood a chance, and so, they both went with Caucasians.

2004 - Carol Moseley Braun and Al Sharpton? Are you kidding me? Ms Braun had too much controversy surrounding her career already and... AND! just four days before the Iowa caucus she dropped out of the race and endorsed Howard Dean. How could the Black Vote have aided her seeing as how she dropped out before the race even began?

As for Al Sharpton, the man has blood on his hands. He's WAS a Race Pimp (as is Jesse Jackson), but be seems to have mellowed lately.

None of these so-called black candidates could have won with the black vote alone. They would have needed the white vote as well... both democrat AND republican.

ELAshley April 21, 2010 at 2:27 PM  

Leaving Dan? You want us to listen to you, but you steadfastly refuse to listen to us? Why, brother, does it always seem to be a one-sided discussion with you-- we must listen to you, while you dismiss us as racists?

Dan Trabue April 21, 2010 at 2:42 PM  

I think we've reached the point where we're just talking in circles, aren't we? Haven't we each made our point?

I'm suggesting you all get out and talk with some of the folk that you're talking about and find out what they have to say, rather than YOU saying that they think something or do something for whatever reasons or ME saying they think something or would do something for whatever reasons.

What else is there to say on these topics we've been talking about?

YOUR hunch is that the vast majority of black folk voted for Obama for stupid and racist reasons, that they are gullible and THAT's why they vote Dem, that they want to be taken care of by gov't, not by their own efforts.

I disagree with all of that. What now?

ON TOPIC, I'm telling you that when I talk about social justice, I'm talking about it in the sense that I quoted above. I'm NOT talking about socialism. Nor are the people at my church or in my community. Nor are the people whom I read. It's not fluid, it's just about working for justice for the poor, the least of these, the children, the widows, etc.

Your team appears to think that "social justice" is a code word for socialism. As someone who talks about social justice in a community that talks about social justice, I can only answer for those I know to say that is not the case.

What else is there to say?

Craig April 21, 2010 at 3:12 PM  

Dan,
Dan,

What I am thinking is that there is significant information out there that casts doubt on the conventional wisdom that you continue to repeat. I am thinking that if you can objectively look at what is out there that you will either deal with it head on, which might involve a change in your view, or you can rationalize it. Either way, the fact that you say in a blog that you have studied this stuff doesn't make you an expert. Any more than sharing dinner with John Perkins makes me an expert. But I know that I have had an opportunity to hear about this from someone who was there. I'm sure with your vast knowledge you are familiar with Perkins and his work, so I'll not elaborate beyond saying that he has civil rights cred.

You presume too much as well, again, Perryman's book is not a collection of anecdotal stories, nor os it a collection of opinions. It is a well documented case for how both parties have treated blacks in America. So, my poin is not that this book is the be all and end all. Rather it is that the research and documentation that Perryman presents is difficult to ignore. The primary source material he uses is out there for anyone and he documents it extensively. As far as I am concerned, I will wait for your thourough review and refutation of Perrymans work.

It's kind of funny, that I can say this kind of stuff to my black freinds and the term racist never comes up, but to a white liberal it gets throw out all the time.

Craig April 21, 2010 at 3:14 PM  

I don't know where the second Dan, came from. Ignore that.

BenT - the unbeliever,  April 21, 2010 at 3:17 PM  

All of your points have been that Barack Obama received majority black support only because they didn't know his positions and background and qualifications. But when I list previous black candidates who DID NOT receive majority black support you say the African-American community passed on these candidates because of their individual qualifications and backgrounds.

Do you see the contradiction?

ELAshley April 21, 2010 at 3:17 PM  

Fair enough Dan. Neither of us is getting anywhere with the other. For my part, we're still cool.

I'll bite Craig. I'll check out Perryman's book.

Mark April 21, 2010 at 3:50 PM  

Dan, You are usually one of the first to tell me that anecdotal evidence isn't valid proof of anything, yet you are using it throughout this thread.

Why don't you stick to statistics? Look at what I found at the Politico website:

"[Obama] won 43 percent of white voters, 4 percentage points below Carter’s performance in 1976 and equal to what Bill Clinton won in the three-man race of 1996. Republican John McCain won 55 percent of the white vote.

Fully 96 percent of black voters supported Obama and constituted 13 percent of the electorate, a 2-percentage-point rise in their national turnout. As in past years, black women turned out at a higher rate than black men.

A stunning 54 percent of young white voters supported Obama, compared with 44 percent who went for McCain, the senator from Arizona. In the past three decades, no Democratic presidential nominee has won more than 45 percent of young whites.

It also appears youth turnout rose 1 point since 2004, to constitute 18 percent of the electorate."

96%, Dan. 96%. If you really think skin color had nothing to do with his victory you are either brainwashed or willfully ignorant or both.

Dan Trabue April 21, 2010 at 3:54 PM  

Craig,
Craig,

You presume too much as well, again, Perryman's book is not a collection of anecdotal stories, nor os it a collection of opinions. It is a well documented case for how both parties have treated blacks in America.

That might be the case IF I presumed that. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that Perryman's book was about facts and figures, not opinions. I've read facts and figures, too. That is my point. IF, after reading Perryman, it comes down to Perryman says these facts and figures mean this, while scholars and historian X, Y and Z say THOSE facts and figures mean THAT, then what?

Giving Perryman the benefit of the doubt and assuming he's not some party hack or someone out to make a buck by writing a book contradicting the standard wisdom, we'll have a difference of opinion that will need to be weighed and considered. My point is, it's not as if I haven't read OTHER writers, scholars, historians or seen facts and figures all on my own, as well as in school classes, as well as in church classes, as well as (second hand via my wife) in seminary classes.

I'm just saying I'm not uninformed as to facts and figures regarding our civil rights history. You seem to presume that ("You obviously go with opinion on this, I'm suggesting that you look at facts." and "I would suggest that you actually look at the history and the facts, rather than to rely on not very random samples of opinion.") and you presume wrongly. Now we've straightened that out and can move on, yes?

For the record, I have not called you racist nor your comments racist, nor Perryman racist. Now that we've straightened that out, you need not repeat that conclusion, since it is mistaken.

Mark April 21, 2010 at 3:56 PM  

Craig, it seems to me that Dan has already decided the book you recommend couldn't possibly be a valid history because he believes it won't bolster his positions, and as such, not valid.

This is typical of dan and his vapid arguments. If he believes it to be true, it's true. If he doesn't, it's false.

Dan Trabue April 21, 2010 at 4:13 PM  

sigh, let me offer another observation...

IF I have read 15 books that talk about various aspects of our civil rights history in the US. Each of these books were research-based, scholarly efforts to explain the history involved and these books all helped me form my conclusions.

IF someone then says, "Hey, here's another book you should read and it suggests OTHER conclusions besides the ones you've reached...," should I set aside the 15 books and studies and research that I have read over the last 20 years OR would it be more reasonable to compare and contrast them, see how this new book offers anything new and how reasonable this new author's conclusions are?

This fella is not the only fella who has written about civil rights, black studies and/or American politics and he won't be the last. He may have some valid points, I don't know, since I don't know anything about him, I can't really form an opinion, can I? To change my thinking significantly, he'd have to do more than offer some statistics. He'd have to explain why the studies, statistics and reports of all the other scholars and historians I've read are mistaken.

Still, given a chance, I'll try to look into what he says.

Now, will ANYONE here return the favor and actually ask some of your actual black friends what they think about this conversation?

Dan Trabue April 21, 2010 at 4:19 PM  

I will say this: I've started listening to Perryman on the Medved show here and so far, I'm not impressed. He sounds more Rush Limbaugh than serious scholar.

But that's just after a few minutes. I'll keep researching...

Dan Trabue April 21, 2010 at 4:24 PM  

I'll also note that I've found nothing to tell me what Rev. Perryman's credentials are, other than he's black and a minister. Craig, do you know his background? Where has he studied to get his data, using what methods?

Wikipedia (for what that's worth) doesn't offer much, but it does have this interesting tidbit...

In 2005 Perryman brought suit against the Democratic Party in the United States District Court in Seattle Case No. CV04-2442 for what he called its history of racism including their support of Jim Crow Laws, slavery, and Black Codes. Perryman has appealed the Court's ruling he lacked standing to bring the case to the US Supreme Court.

I have not formed an opinion, but I'm forming an opinion as I go and so far, it's not especially favorable. Thus far, he sounds more like a man with an agenda rather than a scholar with a study.

Still, I'm keeping an open mind and researching...

ELAshley April 21, 2010 at 4:28 PM  

"Thus far, he sounds more like a man with an agenda..."

And the Democrat party DOESN'T have an agenda in keeping the black man controlled and under foot?

Never mind, I've a good idea what your answer will be.

Dan Trabue April 21, 2010 at 4:36 PM  

On his own website, Perryman does not list where he received his degree (if from anywhere) or how he came to be a reverend. He says he is the "Minister in Charge of Church Administration for Mt. Calvary Christian Center" COGIC and it sounds like the church has done some good work for the poor, but what are his credentials for writing a book? Is he a scholar or just some guy gathering factoids off the internets?

Which I'm not knocking - that would be a description of me, too - but it's worth knowing what his grounds are, his standing is for writing a book such as this. Did he live through the civil rights era? He appears to be too young for that. Where and how did he learn about history?

Wouldn't you agree that these are reasonable questions to ask?

ELAshley April 21, 2010 at 4:54 PM  

Off topic, but to your latest point...

Are you suggesting that only folks with degrees can write a fair and relevant book on specific topics like Race?

Craig April 21, 2010 at 6:49 PM  

Dan,

I would suggest that you actually read the books. I realize that you might doubt footnoted excerpts from historical documents, but that is the bulk of the book. I'm not sure what kind of education you feel is necessary to do research, but since you haven't given the education credentials of your black friends or of any of the authors of the books you've read I'm not sure what your point is. At the risk of being repetitive, read the book, demonstrate that Perryman is somehow deficient in his ability to compile evidence, and the conversation is over. Instead you're just setting yourself up to dismiss him without actually reading his material. Because, anyone who reaches a different conclusion than you or your books must be intellectually suspect at best and flat out wrong or stupid at worst.

Read the book, deal with the history, stop the smokescreens.

Dan Trabue April 21, 2010 at 9:48 PM  

Will you be asking ten of your black friends about this conversation, Craig? Or is Dan the only one who has to jump thru hoops?

I'm not saying anyone has to have any particular education in order to write a book. But a scholarly book needs to be written in a scholarly manner. So far, what I've seen has suggested to me that he's a ranter, not a scholar.

Look at it this way: If I heard of a fella who had done "intensive research" and discovered that the Bush White House was responsible for 9/11 and had written a book about it. It was full of facts and data, "all you have to do is read it and find out the truth." And I find out that this guy is just some blogger who has no history of any serious research, although he DID self-publish a book ten years ago that gave all the "facts" outlining how the Reagan White House created AIDS and purposely infected gays with it... It was clear from his interviews and essays that he was not a serious scholar, but someone with an agenda, I would not be inclined to take his rants too seriously, even if they quoted many facts and statistics.

Serious scholars do not necessarily have to have had any education - and some with an education do not make good scholars - but it does require a scholarly approach. One of the red flags for non-scholarly work is when the "researcher's" results find only fault with one group ("it's all the Dems Fault! The GOP is wholly innocent!" that kind of thing), it begins to sound like someone with an agenda who only wants to be a muckraker.

Muckrakers can be a good thing. Sometimes it's good to fire "true believers" up to activism. But we must not confuse muckrakers with serious scholars.

I'm not saying that Rev. Perryman is a muckraker, not a scholar - not at this point. I'm looking in to his writings and research. But I won't - none of us should - blindly follow someone simply because he has written a book that supposedly cites "facts," without first weighing those "facts" and the methods of research behind them.

Marshall Art April 21, 2010 at 11:56 PM  

Dan,

Forgive me if I'm not impressed by your alleged dedication to carefully vetting authors. I could, if necessary, go back a few months or so and find a case where you dismissed a conservative source merely for it's conservatism and then supported your doing so by citing a clearly leftist source. The point here is that I doubt your "research" would yield an objective look at Perryman's facts and figures no matter how many sources he cites to back them up. Furthermore, if you truly have read at least twenty scholarly works that formed your current opinins and perceptions, the question is obviously how did you determine the validity of those authors. Against whom or what did you compare them for truthfulness and integrity? Or are we to assume that you see those as the standard by which all opposition must be compared?

As far as any query of black friends, I believe both Craigh AND Eric have spoken of having discussed the subject of Obama with several black associates and I have stated that I haven't had the opportunity.

And what of YOUR black friends; these scholarly and responsible political animals so knowledgable about the candidates? What did they tell you were the compelling reasons that made Obama the better choice over McCain, or even during the primaries, a better choice than Hillary or Edwards or the rest? What did they know about his track record or anything that could be held up as an accomplishment that could say to the average citizen, "Here is a true leader!"? You say they didn't vote for him because of his color. You suggest they weren't sucked into voting for him because of cheap rhetoric. You insist they aren't the type to be drooling over potential freebies. You paint them as if they looked at both sides seriously and with due diligence and came away with Obama being the best choice. Why? What did they find that to this day still eludes people like me? I'd truly love to hear a real answer to the question, "Why would anyone in their right mind vote for Barry Obama?"

cont---

Marshall Art April 22, 2010 at 12:10 AM  

Also, regarding "social justice", you have not really answered the question of what you mean by it. Your stuff about youth violence doesn't do it. In fact is sounds like the wacky nonsense I expected regarding giving too much concern to the perp at the expense of the victim.

But put that aside. How do you serve any form of justice when you work with the poor or "the least of these"? How were they screwed that justice must be served? I insist that they likely weren't but socialists like yourself look anywhere BUT their own actions and decisions to find how they became poor. What are you saying happened to make them poor that now requires some level of justice to amend? I don't get where the justice part comes in.

Regarding Perryman. I heard him on Medved as well. He told of his beginnings in doing this research. He was approached by students of his and the university where he taught. They had sought his advice as to how they should defend the Democratic party as the group that should receive their support as black people. He told them he'd gather data for the purpose. The punchline is that he had to go back and tell them that they shouldn't make that argument, that the Dems were the wrong place to put their trust and support. What I don't recall is what school he was at during this period, but it lead him to find that blacks are better served by the GOP. What are YOUR friends saying that is wrong with doing the same that isn't simply saying the GOP is racist without a real example of why that might be true?

Craig April 22, 2010 at 7:30 AM  

"Will you be asking ten of your black friends about this conversation, Craig?"
Asked and answered.

"Or is Dan the only one who has to jump thru hoops?"
I have no hoops for you to jump through, I have asked that you actually read Perryman's writings and vet his research before you dismiss it in favor of your friends opinions and nameless books and classes. Either do or don't I really don't care. I apologize for suggesting that you actually read the book (oh did I mention that it is all based on primary source material and well documented and footnoted so you can engage in devastating rebuttal if he's wrong) before you make judgments on its contents. We of course realize that you have amazingly high standards for scholarship, and that few live up to them. So just re open your mind and read. If that's a hoop then you can choose to jump or not.


Marshall,
Keep in mind that Dan dismissed Francis Scheaffer as basically irrelevant because he was a little too Calvinist for him. This after exhaustive internet research.

Dan Trabue April 22, 2010 at 8:20 AM  

Craig...

Asked and answered.

The answer being, "NO. I will not ask any black friends about this conversation. Heck, I don't even HAVE any black friends." THAT answer? I've seen nowhere where you address my question, nor anyone else, other than Eric saying he has asked OTHER questions to black people in the past.

So, the answer appears to be, NO, I won't seek out the opinions of the black community, not even a few black friends (if you have any). It doesn't MATTER to me that blacks - nearly as a whole bloc - perceive the GOP to be opposed to black values and concerns. They're obviously stupid, racist, uninformed and only wanting the gov't to take care of them. I know better than them what is right for them and they're big dummyheads.

That APPEARS to me to be the answer you all are giving to my questions. On the other hand, EVEN THOUGH I have studied the topic and facts and figures, you won't think that I've done due diligence until I've read THIS ONE book, which you are sure has all the answers.

I'd suggest that this sort of arrogance is another thing that turns reasonable folk away from the GOP.

Craig...

I have no hoops for you to jump through, I have asked that you actually read Perryman's writings and vet his research before you dismiss it in favor of your friends opinions and nameless books and classes.

Here is a reading list, then...

"The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr.,"
"A Call to Conscience: The Landmark Speeches of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr."
"Eyes on the Prize: America's Civil Rights Years, 1954-1965"
"Fight for Freedom and Other Writings on Civil Rights"
"Fugitive Slaves and the Underground Railroad in the Kentucky Borderland"


For starters. Unfortunately, my classes (and my wife's classes) on the topic were taken well over a decade ago and my memory does not help me recall the specific texts used in those classes. However, I'm sure your local college has (hopefully) classes on black history, the Harlem renaissance, the civil rights movement, the black church in America, etc. Go ahead and take one or two of those. Or, visit some of your local black churches and peruse their library and see if they are offering any classes on black history.

Once you've begun to read some of these books and attended at least one class on the topic, then talk to me about dismissing studies. In the meantime, I'm not impressed that you have read A book.

I mean, good for you, but don't stop at one, friends. There's a whole world of books and information out there and I am entirely positive that if this Rev Perryman is a reasonable man, he would agree that his book is not the be all/end all of scholarly studies on the topic.

Dan Trabue April 22, 2010 at 8:26 AM  

Craig...

So just re open your mind and read.

Do me a favor, Craig (Eric, Marshall, anyone else) and enlighten us all. Other than this ONE book, what OTHER books, classes, seminars, news articles, comic books have you studied on Civil Rights? Have YOU opened your mind and read? OR, does "opening your mind" only count for this ONE book?

Arrogance will impress no one, brothers.

Marshall Art April 22, 2010 at 10:39 AM  

So Dan. What you're saying is that the discussions that Craig and Eric HAVE had with blacks they know won't suffice because they didn't ask the exact questions using the exact wording of your questions? Who'd be jumping through hoops now? And listen to this: If I get convoluted non-answers from white supporters of Obama (such as yourself) regarding their reasons for their support, why would I get better from someone because he's black? Isn't that a rather racist expectation? And YOU insist that you have the inside scoop based on your close association with blacks in your area, so please, I ask again, what are they saying to YOU regarding why they voted for the guy? What are they saying to YOU regarding what their problem is with the GOP? If they're saying the GOP doesn't respond to their needs as blacks, then why haven't you explained that any American political party worth its salt is to provide for everyone (whatever it claims it is providing) regardless of skin color? Do they simply tell you that the GOP doesn't care about black people and then you say, "Oh." and leave it at that? Do they say that the Dems DO care and then you say, "I know what you mean." without any real discussion of how that is? What has all your civil rights education told you about where the real caring is coming from and how it has manifested in a way that should be obvious to absolutely anyone?

It doesn't really take a doctorate to see what's what in the world, Dan, and it's pretty plain to see that few who are not party leaders are making out very well under Democratic policy. We've been throwing money at the poverty situation since at least the Johnson administration and there's been no change. Now, with Obama admin policies, we still hover around ten percent unemployment and the number is criminally higher amongst the black community, especially its youth. Yeah. They were really bright to vote for this guy. Real social justice would be for all Obama supporters to apologize for their stupidity and work to vote his ass out of office in 2012 in favor of someone who understands business and the free market. THEN you'll see the poor reduced in number and "justice" will truly be served.

Dan Trabue April 22, 2010 at 10:49 AM  

Marshall...

What did they tell you were the compelling reasons that made Obama the better choice over McCain, or even during the primaries, a better choice than Hillary or Edwards or the rest?

Why Obama was a compelling candidate (for anyone, but especially for the black community)...

1. He was a community organizer and anyone interested in social justice knows the value of this role for the sake of justice issues.

2. As a community organizer, he would have learned many valuable skills/traits for a civic leader...

a. The value of bottom up democracy,
b. The value of listening to the People (as opposed to just imposing solutions ON people)
c. The importance of listening to your political opponents and treating them with respect
d. The importance of not placing too much value on what politicians say, but to hold them accountable for what they DO

3. His positions were SUCH a vast improvement from Bush's and McCain's...

a. Bush seemed opposed to science and even at times to demonize it, whereas Obama seemed to embrace rational thought and scholarly solutions
b. Obama was clearly opposed to the invasion of Iraq (and African Americans were even more opposed to it than the public at large - this was a big deal in the black community)
c. McCain seemed to represent a continuation of the Reagan/Bush/Bush cowboy approach to foreign policy. America - and especially the black community - wanted a change from this approach to a more rational, adult, firm-but-reasonable approach. Obama appears to have offered this and appears to be following through with it. You may disagree with the approach, but you're asking why the black community supports him and I'd suggest that this is one of the reasons.
d. Bush/McCain represent a leaning towards supporting big business over and against the environment or the workers. Obama appears to us to be correcting that imbalance (see how the EPA has changed to an agency that actually protects the environment since he's taken office).
e. Many of us are uncomfortable with the way that the GOP has used religion and more comfortable with the Dem approach (survey says: blacks are twice as likely to say that the dems are friendly towards religion)
f. The black community and the poor have been suffering more than others in this economic downturn following eight years of Bush. They/we are thinking that the Obama approach - flawed and uncertain as it might be - is closer to the right thing needed to help increase jobs for the least of these and that Bush/Reaganism/GOPism is not.
g. The Obama approach to world affairs has already led to a Nobel Peace Prize - verifying for some of us the value of his approach.

4. Obama worked in the streets of Chicago, he lived with and amongst the least of these and that holds a lot of weight for urban folk, I'd suggest (just my opinion). He comes much closer to being "one of us" than a silver spoon Bush type would in his Texas ranch.

I could go on if I had more time, but that's just a taste of why for many of us, Obama - while flawed, like any politician - was the better candidate. It comes down to this: We believed his values as he expressed in his words and actions were closer to our values than McCain or Palin or Clinton. That's what elections tell us.

You can pretend to know that we were uninformed or stupid or gullible or racist, but the fact is, in the real world, you just don't know nothing about the matter. You are welcome to your silly, flighty, emotion-based hunches and guesses, but they don't hold much water in the real world.

Dan Trabue April 22, 2010 at 11:25 AM  

Marshall...

What you're saying is that the discussions that Craig and Eric HAVE had with blacks they know won't suffice because they didn't ask the exact questions using the exact wording of your questions?

The point I'm making is that the way you all phrase your arguments sounds racist and offensive to many, and I suspect many in the black community. Thus, I'm asking you to say some of the stuff that you're saying HERE in the way you're saying it HERE so you can get some firsthand response from those you are speaking of.

I don't really care that Craig or Eric have talked to black people in the past about other topics, as it doesn't relate to what I'm saying.

But, by all means, DON'T communicate with the black community. CONTINUE to say that "the blacks" are stupid, racist, gullible and only want to be taken care of by the gov't. You're wrong and wrong for saying it, but that's on you.

I was just offering you, the people from the party that has alienated nearly a WHOLE RACE of people, the suggestion that it would be in your own interests to listen to what people are saying and learn how to communicate in ways that don't sound racist or elitist. You don't want to do it? Don't.

And when the GOP dwindles down to nothing, you can continue to say, "those people are stoopid and racist" as you become further marginalized and cast upon the dustbin of history.

Marshall Art April 22, 2010 at 11:58 AM  

Thanks for your response, Dan. You never cease to amaze me by confirming my assessments with your responses that are supposedly meant to change them. Let's look at a few points:

1) At what did succeed as a community organizer? Organizing? To accomplish what, exactly? He really did very little and one area that I had read where he actually did some "organizing" was in relation to conditions in a particular housing project in Chicago. It was either during his campaign or right after his election, I had read of someone still with that housing project claiming that absolutely nothing changed as a result of his "organizing". That is, he was a failure as a community organizer.

2) Where has he implemented anything he supposedly learned as a community organizer?
a) With the growing numbers who oppose his policies, he is showing no concern for those of us on the bottom.
b) That is, he has NOT listened to the concerns of the people and has indeed IMPOSED a massive, economy destroying health care plan on all of us.
c) See above.
d) He hasn't practiced his his own self.

Thus far, we can readily see that YOU are not so bright if you think you've made a case with these points. You'd have been better off offering examples for any of it, since I can think of none myself that demonstrates any of it is in the least bit true. What else have we got here:

3) Now you're just trying to make me laugh. Cut it out.
a) This is bullshit and always has been. Though I'm sure I know how you will respond, I defy you to provide examples of Bush's alleged "anti-science" as well as something demonstrating anything more rational or scholarly by Obama. He seems to be a freakin' idiot to me in everything he says and does.
b) Here's an example of his idiocy. Hussein was a clear threat to the region and the world. Damned near every Dem recognized it during the Clinton years and merely changed their tune for political reasons once Bush was in office. Obama has shown no aptitude for foreign affairs and his opposition to the invasion has not been explained in a manner that shows better judgement. And BTW, your link doesn't show much to explain WHY blacks opposed the war other than weak references to troop deaths and end games. Not exactly fleshed out reasons.

cont---

Marshall Art April 22, 2010 at 12:19 PM  

c) Bush's approach to foreign policy, particularly the invasion, finally showed some balls from someone proclaiming himself the leader of the greatest nation on earth. Until Bush we were "paper tigers" to Islamic assholes. Now under BO, we're less than that. Which despotic regime has cowered before Obama? They've laughed at him while he bows and apologizes for the US being a great nation. Blacks support this? I doubt it.
d) Bush supported those who were providing jobs. Air quality improved under Bush. America surpassed most, if not all, nations who signed the Kyoto agreement regarding reducing emissions.
e) I'd be uncomfortable, too, if I was listening to leftist propaganda regarding the GOP's position on religion. If ANYONE thinks the Dems are friendlier to religion, then they are NOT seriously studying the issue. Being friendly to apostate Christian faiths that support sinful lifestyles and marxist theologies is NOT being friendly to religion, but helping religion to become worthless to anyone.
f) Leftists like to place all blame for the economy on Bush, and he did his part by not stopping the lunatic spending. But his tax cuts benefitted everyone and helped to provide growth for most of his eight years in office. It was when the Dems took control in '06 that things really began to tumble and Obama was a part of that. He didn't inherit anything. He joined in the destruction and continues it today. He has done much of the same stimulus and bailout crap Bush did and has done it four times a destructively. He is adding to it constantly with horrible ideas like the health care bill and coming soon, immigration reform and cap and trade. Indeed, the stupidity of Obama supporters is proven again and again.
g) NOBEL PRIZE!!?? Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!! That's too funny.

4) Obama was NOT someone who lived "among the least of these". Never was. As I stated earlier, he never accomplished anything that improved anything for anyone but himself. He needs to have some accomplishments, some successes beyond his ability to get elected (not ever through his own track record or proposals).

So thank you, Dan, for proving my point. You've shown that YOU knew nothing about the guy or that you know what it is about the GOP that can truly be reason to avoid them in favor of the Dems. You've done nothing here to show that my "hunches" are in the least bit wrong, but instead, have demonstrated that they are far more accurate than even I believed.

cont-

Marshall Art April 22, 2010 at 12:22 PM  

We've been over Obama's voting record as an Illinois state senator. I've listed examples of his votes and bills he's supported. We know full well his horribly radical position on abortion and his connections to questionable people, many of whom are extremely radical and marxist. And you can sit there and say that he matches your values. That's terribly sad and says all we need to know.

Dan Trabue April 22, 2010 at 1:51 PM  

I didn't expect you to agree with WHY I and, I suspect, the huge majority of African Americans felt Obama would be the better president. I was simply answering your question.

Mock it if you wish, that does not help me convince your positions are moral, reasonable or practical. It does not help the black community become convinced that their morals and ideals were wrong and you are right.

The GOP has a problem:

The white population will likely be a minority population in the US in the next 30 years.

The GOP is mainly a white party.

When the white population becomes the minority, any white only political parties will no longer win ANY elections to speak of.

Call us stupid, if you wish. Call us ignorant and racist if you wish.

My children, in the meantime, will call you irrelevant and, soon, extinct.

Good luck with that.

I still suggest listening would be a good place for you to begin. Reading. Taking classes. Mingling. Meeting people outside your lily white towers.

Or, choose ignorance and irrelevance.

Your choice.

Dan Trabue April 22, 2010 at 2:23 PM  

there is a real danger that Republican leaders and strategists will interpret a strong showing in the midterm election as vindication for a strategy based largely on energizing the Party’s conservative white base. That base is indeed energized. But it is also shrinking due to the steady growth in the size of the nonwhite electorate. By 2020 nonwhites will probably make up over a third of the American electorate. Unless Republicans can expand their support among nonwhite voters, they will have to win a much larger share of the white vote than they have in any recent presidential election in order to remain competitive.

source

Shrinking GOP

Republicans and demographics at this link.

Finally, even over at WingNut Daily, Pat Buchanan seems resigned to the notion that the GOP is going away (although he's not talking about that here, he's admitting that the world is coming to an end - in his view - and the "good whites" will no longer be the majority and, by extension, the "good GOP" will no longer be a serious political party...)

Y'all need a new strategy. All bitterness and bile, all the time ain't gonna work forever.

Craig April 22, 2010 at 3:09 PM  

Dan,


"But, by all means, DON'T communicate with the black community."

But by all means don't read what I write, please assume whatever you want about me and feel free to assign any motives you will to whatever pops into your imagination. Or you could do what you expect of us and respond to what was actually said, your call.

"CONTINUE to say that "the blacks" (How interesting that you presume that there is some monolithic "the blacks" and that they all agree with you.) are stupid, racist, gullible and only want to be taken care of by the gov't. You're wrong and wrong for saying it, but that's on you."

Again, since no one here is actually saying that all I can say is, "You're wrong and wrong for saying it, but that's on you."

If you deny that there are actually some blacks that are "stupid, racist, gullible and only want to be taken care of by the gov't." then, "You're wrong and wrong for saying it, but that's on you." If you deny that the Democrat party and the "black leadership/race pimps" have not misled "the blacks" about the history of the Dem. party then your also wrong.

I was just offering you, the people from the party that has alienated nearly a WHOLE RACE of people, the suggestion that it would be in your own interests to listen to what people are saying and learn how to communicate in ways that don't sound racist or elitist. You don't want to do it? Don't.

Thank you O compassionate white liberal for your gracious offer. I communicate with blacks just fine, I communicate with them as equals, I have communicated with them by employing and befriending them, I communicate with them by building them houses and partnering with them to help them be a part of a new community. So for you to continue with this line of crap just shows that you don't care to be accurate, and would rather be superior.

still suggest listening would be a good place for you to begin. Reading. Taking classes. Mingling. Meeting people outside your lily white towers.

Do you not pay attention at all. Can I not be educated at my dinner table by someone like John Perkins? Does that not count? Does he somehow not meet your standards for authentically black enough? Do me a favor, you were spectacularly wrong in your arrogant presumptuous comments about whose church does more, and here you go again.

I've read books, I've hung with blacks, traveled with blacks, been one of the only two folks at the wedding of two of my black ex homeless friends. Not to mention what goes on in Haiti. I'm going to stop now because I don't want this to become a pissing contest again.

So, yes, I've read, I have and am studying, and most important I have relationships in the black community. So if I don't meet some kind of Dan white liberal litmus test, I really don't care. Fortunately, you don't get to judge. But that hasn't stopped you yet.

Dan Trabue April 22, 2010 at 3:19 PM  

Craig...

So, yes, I've read, I have and am studying, and most important I have relationships in the black community. So if I don't meet some kind of Dan white liberal litmus test, I really don't care.

NOW you are getting it. I'm telling you I have studied, I live with and amongst all sorts of folk - black, white, gay, straight, homeless, mentally ill, etc; I have studied, I have read. All of that and more. AND YET, you feel justified to say I'm closed minded and not wanting to know the facts. THAT is hubris. THAT is arrogance. Just because I have not read ONE book that you feel is important, I have a closed mind?

No, thank you. I'll pass on that sort of arrogant elitism. As you note, fortunately, you don't get to judge.

What's good for the goose?

Craig April 22, 2010 at 3:19 PM  

Speaking of racist. Lets just imagine a major network news magazine show doing a broadcast lamenting the fact that all the white women are marrying black men, and how horrible that is. Can you hear the howls of racism , can you see Sharpton and Jackson protesting, how about Wright thundering from the pulpit.


Oh, but appearantly when it's Nightline talking about why black women don't marry black men it's all good.

What ever happened to a woman just falling in love with and marrying a man. Why must this become a racial issue.

Sorry, kind of off topic, but somewhat amusing none the less.

Dan Trabue April 22, 2010 at 3:25 PM  

Craig...

Do me a favor, you were spectacularly wrong in your arrogant presumptuous comments about whose church does more, and here you go again.

And in case you're missing it, THIS time, I was being arrogant for a reason: To help you see your own arrogance.

Do you get that? Irony, you know?

I have not said that talking with Perkins was not relevant. I have not said that talking with your black friends was not relevant. I did not say that your studies were irrelevant. BUT, you felt justified in suggesting the exact same thing about me: No matter that I've read, studied, associated, etc, IF I HAVEN'T READ REV PERRYMAN, then I haven't done enough. Really?

Says who?

Now, I'll ask again and for the last time:

HAVE you asked your black friends what they think of the GOP? Why they don't vote GOP? Have you asked them "Is it okay to say that blacks are stupid and racist for voting for Obama?" Have you asked their opinions about the Tea Partiers?

THOSE were the questions I was wondering about and think would be helpful for the GOP types to be asking humbly and seriously, seeking to learn a bit.

Craig April 22, 2010 at 3:39 PM  

"...you feel justified to say I'm closed minded and not wanting to know the facts."

Dan,

This is not exactly what I've said, I have said (and your subsequent comments seem to indicate that I might be correct), that you should approach this book with an open mind. Because it may well challenge your preconceptions. I have also not said that you don't want to know "the facts". I have no idea if you do, or do not, want to know "the facts". I do know that Perryman has assembled a case that would make most rational people question the conventional wisdom about the relationship of blacks to the Dems. Since your vague references to unnamed books and classes leave me with no means to judge what (if anything) you know about this topic, I have assumed that you may well have studied quite a bit, but that there might be information that you are not aware of. In that spirit I have offered you an opportunity to expand your knowledge. Take it or not, dismiss Perryman or not, I really don't care. If you are contending that you know all you need, and that you can't learn anything from Perryman, fine. Or you could do as I have suggested, read the books, debunk his research and show the world how he's gotten it all wrong.

Look, everyone realizes that you are what Paul Farmer would refer to derisively as a WL, not big shock there. But please show me the simple courtesy of not letting your presumptions about me get in the way of the facts.

I really fail to see how suggesting that reading Perryman might provide you with new information is a sign of arrogance or hubris. So in all possible humility, read the book, argue with his research and historical documentation, not with what you think it might be.

Marshall Art April 22, 2010 at 3:48 PM  

"I didn't expect you to agree with WHY I and, I suspect, the huge majority of African Americans felt Obama would be the better president. I was simply answering your question."

No, not really. I wanted to know what the supposed problem was and all you gave me were the usual liberal talking points about Bush's cowboy swagger or his alleged (but totally unproven) anti-science positions. You also gave me nonsense about Obama, none of which shows that you actually know or knew anything about him before you voted for him. These are the same non-answers I've heard from all Obama supporters. I feel a lot better about hearing those blacks that have admitted voting for him because of his color. At least it's a straight answer.

How do any of you support these negative notions about the GOP, especially when they are totally fales assumptions and accusations? If there is evidence of racism in the GOP policy platforms, where is it? Is it in the righteous opposition to affirmative action policies of the left? If so, that is an example of looking to the gov't for a handout. AA supposes blacks (or women or other minorities) aren't capable of succeeding on their own (a very bad attitude not held by any Republicans I know), as well as interfere's with the private hiring decisions of private enterprises.

And once again, your beliefs about Obama didn't include any examples of success or accomplishments. You voted on merely what he said, but as he never did anything, doing so isn't a sign of intelligence, but of the gullibility that you vehemently deny.

No. It isn't that I didn't like your response (which I didn't because it didn't provide any real answers). It's that your response confirmed most, if not all, of what we believed about you and other Obama supporters (regardless of their race).

Craig April 22, 2010 at 3:56 PM  

"And in case you're missing it, THIS time, I was being arrogant for a reason: To help you see your own arrogance.

Do you get that? Irony, you know?"

Thanks for admitting your arrogance.

"...you felt justified in suggesting the exact same thing about me: No matter that I've read, studied, associated, etc, IF I HAVEN'T READ REV PERRYMAN, then I haven't done enough. Really?"

One problem. NO I HAVEN'T.

I did suggest that you might be able to learn something by reading Perryman, not that your previous "studies" were some how inadequate. I would respectfully suggest, that if any of what the material that Perryman presents is new to you that an argument could be made that your previous "studies" were not as adequate as they could have been.


"HAVE you asked your black friends what they think of the GOP?"
Asked and answered.

"Why they don't vote GOP?"
Asked and answered.


"Have you asked them "Is it okay to say that blacks are stupid and racist for voting for Obama?"
Since no one is saying that it would be a stupid question to ask. Your question presumes that ALL blacks who voted for P-BO did so for the most noble and well informed reasons. Since we know that there is no way that is the case then why would you generalize how or why "the blacks" voted.

To be specific my black friends and I have discussed the phenomenon of black racism and my black friends agree that there are black racists.

I have also discussed (with my black friends) the fact that there are both stupid blacks, as well as blacks who do stupid things. I've even pointed out when my black friends have done stupid things.

I would suggest that anyone who would vote for president SOLELY on the basis of their skin color is in fact stupid and racist.

I could ask that question, and if there is ever a point where it is appropriate I just might.

Have you asked their opinions about the Tea Partiers?

No. Two reasons; 1. Don't care. 2 Most of my current black friends are recent immigrants and we have better things to talk about.

"THOSE were the questions I was wondering about and think would be helpful for the GOP types to be asking humbly and seriously, seeking to learn a bit."

I can keep answering these questions aging, but it seems like a waste.

Dan Trabue April 22, 2010 at 3:58 PM  

You had said, and I quote...

"Further I would humbly suggest that you should actually look at the history befor you jump to conclusions"

and...

"Now, I can look at actual histroy and documentary evidence, or I can pay attention to peoples opinions. You obviously go with opinion on this, I'm suggesting that you look at facts."

and...

"I would suggest that you actually look at the history and the facts, rather than to rely on not very random samples of opinion."


THIS is the presumption of which I speak. I HAVE "actually looked at the history and facts," I DON'T "rely on not very random samples of opinion." I've been forming my opinions for the ~30 years of my adult life based on evidence and research and listening to people and studying and reading, so I haven't been "jumping to conclusions."

And yet, when I've pointed this out over and over, you just kept insisting, "but you gotta read THIS book, THEN you will know..." As I have said, he may well have some good points. He might have some facts of which I'm unaware and that are relevant. But you presume too much and too arrogantly when you presume I am uninformed as to the facts of history on this point. And yet, you just keep hammering and hammering.

Let it go. As I have said, I WILL check the book out IF I get a chance. I have work and a 25th wedding anniversary and a child in college and a child completing middle school and church responsibilities and civic responsibilities and other obligations, so I'm making no promises other than I'll try to check it out.

In the meantime, you GOP types would serve yourselves better by adopting a bit of humility when it comes to your certainty on positions and on how you present your comments (and this last one, Craig, was not directed so much to you as to some others here).

And an occasional, "I'm sorry, I DID presume too much," or "My bad, I see now that you didn't even say that" would be good for communications and relations.

Peace.

Craig April 22, 2010 at 4:06 PM  

"Do me a favor, Craig (Eric, Marshall, anyone else) and enlighten us all. Other than this ONE book, what OTHER books, classes, seminars, news articles, comic books have you studied on Civil Rights?"


Since you haven't/won't why should I/we have to prove anything to you.

But I'll throw you a freebee. I am currently reading "Linking Arms Linking Lives" a book about transforming communities. I assume that I can count sitting under John Perkins both around the table as well as in some more formal settings for a period of 3 weeks. "Unfounded Loyalty" Wayne Perryman. I'll add "Mountains Beyond Mountains" although you will probably say it doesn't count since it doesn't fit in your hoop.

That's all you get, personally I think this whole "I'm better that you" is just a bunch of crap. I don't have to prove myself to you or anyone, and the fact that you think you have the standing to ask me to is just one more manifestation of your arrogance.

ONE MORE TIME, debunk Parryman and I'll gladly bow to your superiority.

Craig April 22, 2010 at 4:12 PM  

Dan,

Since you haven't actually provided any evidence of your reading/studies/conversations, it is impossible for me to judge what you know or don't know (oh did you ignore this when I said it earlier?). Quite frankly had you just said "I'll check out the book and see what it says before I respond" we wouldn't be having this conversation.

So, to clarify, I presume very little about what you know. You have given me no real information on which I can make a judgment.

Dan Trabue April 22, 2010 at 4:22 PM  

Since you haven't/won't why should I/we have to prove anything to you...

I don't have to prove myself to you or anyone, and the fact that you think you have the standing to ask me to is just one more manifestation of your arrogance.


MY arrogance?

This began because YOU were the one intimating that I am unlearned on the topic, relying only on random opinions, not facts. That comes across as arrogant and condescending. "If you only read THIS book, then you might really be informed instead of just relying upon random opinions..." seemed to be the suggestion you were making.

And perhaps you missed it the first time I gave you a reading list of books that I've read? I'll repeat...

Here is a reading list, then...

"The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr.,"
"A Call to Conscience: The Landmark Speeches of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr."
"Eyes on the Prize: America's Civil Rights Years, 1954-1965"
"Fight for Freedom and Other Writings on Civil Rights"
"Fugitive Slaves and the Underground Railroad in the Kentucky Borderland"


And, as I noted already, I've had a class on the Harlem Renaissance, I had a class on comparative religion in which we talked about the black church in US history, I had a class on black history. For starters. I HAVE offered you a bit of what I've read and studied on the topic. Beyond that, what I've read and studied has been both from more liberal and more conservative authors/teachers.

You?

But it doesn't really matter. If you'd like to back off the suggestion that I'm not relying on facts, but random opinions, then we could set this aside. That's what I'm saying: An occasional "whoops, my bad," is a good thing for communication.

Mark April 22, 2010 at 8:47 PM  

Hey Dan. Guess what? Martin Luther King was a Republican.

And you know what? If he was living today, he'd still be a Republican because Republicans most closely represent his values.

Mark April 22, 2010 at 8:48 PM  

Dan, I won't imply I am smarter than you. I am smarter than you. That's a fact.

Now, shut up.

Mark April 22, 2010 at 8:53 PM  

The majority of blacks and whites who voted for Obama voted for Obama because he is black. Blacks because they think he's "like them". White Liberals because they are suffering from white guilt. Period.

We don't need polls or surveys to determine this, Dan. People lie to polls. People lie to surveyors.

The best determinate for why blacks voted for Obama is common sense. Something you apparently lack, Dan.

Dan Trabue April 22, 2010 at 9:19 PM  

Help me out here, Craig. I don't think you're unreasonable. You want to address your team mate here who thinks he can read minds because he has "common sense?"

Mark April 22, 2010 at 10:07 PM  

Dan, your pathetic attempt to insult me fails because I won't allow myself to be insulted by buffoons.

Craig April 23, 2010 at 7:44 AM  

Dan,

"This began because YOU were the one intimating that I am unlearned on the topic, relying only on random opinions, not facts. That comes across as arrogant and condescending. "If you only read THIS book, then you might really be informed instead of just relying upon random opinions..." seemed to be the suggestion you were making."

I don't know how it seemed to you but the fact is (and I will keep repeating it until you finally get it), I DID NOT SAY THAT.

You can keep on this and not let it go, but I DID NOT SAY THAT.

If you can't tell the difference between "You know nothing" and "Here is some information you may not have", I can't help you.

Thank you for finally providing a small glimpse into your vast knowledge base, interesting that the only conservative you mention is MLK.

Since, I've given you a taste of what I'm currently reading or recently have read, I see no reason to repeat that.

Also, since your strongest appeal earlier (and to some degree still is) that you have talked to blacks and that we should ask your questions to find out what blacks think, I stand by the fact, you put a great deal of stock in opinions. Evidence of that is that you did not suggest any source for your view beyond what you heard from your friends or that we should do anything besides ask our friends for the first half of this thread. So it seems reasonable to conclude that you have formed a great degree of your views on this subject from your friends. This is not wrong, it's just not necessarily a broad cross section of black thought. I never said you didn't have other sources for your opinions, just that in this thread your focus was mostly on the opinions of others, not your vast education. Since I never said that you "were not relying on facts", I see no reason to apologize for it. I'd be happy to set the whole thing aside and wait patiently for your devastating critique/rebuttal of Perrymans book. That seems more profitable that you continuing to insist that I said things I didn't say, and me repeating that I didn't say those things.

So lets let it drop.

Dan, stop trying to read minds because you don't have common sense.

Beyond that I don't see what this refers to.

Craig April 23, 2010 at 7:46 AM  

Dan,

Sorry, I missed your post with your reading list earlier, had I seen it I would not have suggested that you had not provided one, my bad. Sometimes when these get long I don't catch every comment.

Post a Comment

Your First Amendment right to free speech is a privilege and comes with a measure of responsibility. You have the right to exercise that responsibility here but we reserve the right to inform you when you've used that right irresponsibly.

We are benevolent dictators in this regard. Enjoy.

Barry Obama : The Young Turk


Young Turk:
Date: 1908
Function: noun
Etymology: Young Turks, a 20th century revolutionary party in Turkey
:an insurgent or a member of an insurgent group especially in a political party : radical; broadly
:one advocating changes within a usually established group.





Photos: 1980 Taken by, Lisa Jack / M+B Gallery

Labels

"House Negro" "No One Messes with Joe" "O" "The One" 08-Election 1984 2009 Inaugural 2012 Election 9/11 abortion abortionists Air Obama Al Franken Al Gore Al-Qaeda American Youth Americarcare Assassination Scenario Atheism Barry O Bi-Partisanship Biden Billary Birth Certificate Border Security Bush Bush Legacy Change Change-NOT child-killers Christians Christmas Civilian Defense Force Clinton Code Pink Congress Conservatism Constitution Creation Darwin Del McCoury Democrat Hypocrisy Democrats Dick Morris Dr. Tiller Dubya Earth Day Elian Gonzalez Ends Justify Means Evil Evolution Evolution-Devolution Failure in Chief Fairness Doctrine Feodork Foreign Relations Free Speech Frogs Fuck America - Obama Has Gates George Orwell Gestapo Global Cooling Global Idiots Global Warmong God GOP Descent Graphic Design Great American Tea Party Gun-Control Guns hackers Harry Reid hate haters Heath Care Heretic Hillary Howard Dean Hussein ident in History identity theft Illegal Immigration Iraq Jackboots Jesus Jihadist-Lover Jimmy Carter Joe Biden Jon Stewart Kanye West Karl Rove Katrina Las Vegas Left-Wing Media Leftists Liar Liberal Media liberal tactics Liberals Liberty Lying Media Marriage Penalty Martyr Marxism McCain Media MSNBC/Obama Administration murderers Norm Coleman Obama Obama 2012 Obama Administration Obama Dicatorship Obama Lies Obama Wars Obama's Army Obamacare Obamists Olympia Snowe Partisanship perversion Piracy Police State Political Hell Political Left Populist Rage Pragmatist Prayer Proof of Citizenship Proposition 8 Racism Regime Change Revolution Ronald Reagan Rush Limbaugh Second Amendment Separation of Powers Slavery Socialist Government Tea-Bagging Tea-Parties terrorists The Raw Deal Thuggery Tom Tancredo Traitors War Criminal War on Weather War-Crimes Worst President in History

  © Blogger template Werd by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009

Back to TOP