U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-06-2008, 07:36 PM
 
Location: Louisville KY Metro area
4,824 posts, read 12,805,697 times
Reputation: 2116

Advertisements

I will not win this debate because I don't have the ability to put into words how desperate I am to see the end of racism in America. Unfortunately, and this will be where my words will fail me, I see that the entire Democrat platform is about socialistic welfare to our inner cities and poor rural communities.

Can someone who has better wordsmithing abilities help me?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-06-2008, 08:13 PM
 
Location: Stillwater, Oklahoma
14,960 posts, read 13,335,302 times
Reputation: 4573
Yes. You simply feel that helping poor people out, especially by the government, will not end racism in America.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2008, 11:30 PM
 
Location: East Central Phoenix
5,720 posts, read 8,765,444 times
Reputation: 6289
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomocox View Post
I will not win this debate because I don't have the ability to put into words how desperate I am to see the end of racism in America. Unfortunately, and this will be where my words will fail me, I see that the entire Democrat platform is about socialistic welfare to our inner cities and poor rural communities.

Can someone who has better wordsmithing abilities help me?
It's a very simple concept. The "great society" philosophy (which was started by Lyndon Johnson) basically became an ongoing war on poverty. The idea is to throw substantial amounts of taxpayer money at the problems of poverty, with the idea that government aid, not hard work, not self sufficiency, can lift people out of impoverished conditions.

Public assistance to the inner cities and poor rural communities has been a continued effort by the bleeding heart liberals for many years. They have suceeded in giving a large amount of government money to these poverty stricken areas (most of these areas have high minority populations) ... but all this money from Uncle Sam hasn't succeeded in easing racial tensions, or bringing people out of the slums. In fact, it has done quite the opposite. When people go on welfare, they become dependent on it, and begin to believe that it's their "right". Hence, they have no desire to work harder, get better jobs, or even work at all in some cases.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2008, 04:08 AM
 
Location: Ohio
19,910 posts, read 14,235,190 times
Reputation: 16090
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomocox View Post
I will not win this debate because I don't have the ability to put into words how desperate I am to see the end of racism in America. Unfortunately, and this will be where my words will fail me, I see that the entire Democrat platform is about socialistic welfare to our inner cities and poor rural communities.

Can someone who has better wordsmithing abilities help me?
Provide a concrete example.

Also, explain how racism will end without resorting to involuntary lobotomies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2008, 06:33 AM
 
Location: Louisville KY Metro area
4,824 posts, read 12,805,697 times
Reputation: 2116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Provide a concrete example.

Also, explain how racism will end without resorting to involuntary lobotomies.
Concrete example... Crack in the Ghettos, Meth in the country. Both create racially biased populations as we begin to see "red neck" become more and more of a racial insult beginning to have the same disparaging feeling as the many disparaging terms used to describe others.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2008, 08:28 AM
 
Location: Ohio
19,910 posts, read 14,235,190 times
Reputation: 16090
I don't see how crack and meth are associated with socialism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2008, 11:49 AM
 
Location: Louisville KY Metro area
4,824 posts, read 12,805,697 times
Reputation: 2116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
I don't see how crack and meth are associated with socialism.
Two points

A. Generally the people involved in production and/or sales of meth and crack are also abusers of the welfare system.

B. Jesse Jackson repeatedly said over and over as the keynote speaker of the 1996 Democrat Convention how people of those two groups sought to have "three hots and a cot" which has in effect become socialistic caring for criminals who actually seek to be incarcerated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2008, 12:27 PM
 
Location: South Side
3,856 posts, read 9,362,964 times
Reputation: 1640
I think some of the Great Society programs were disadvantaged by bad administration. Things like Head Start have been shown to be a great success to this country.

And I will refrain from terming Republicans as jingoistic Fascists. If you have to explain a position as basically 'conservative but compassionate' that certainly does put into play the question of if conservatives give a hoot about anything but there own selves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2008, 12:28 PM
 
27,903 posts, read 34,444,585 times
Reputation: 4031
Quote:
Originally Posted by StillwaterTownie View Post
Yes. You simply feel that helping poor people out, especially by the government, will not end racism in America.

And very well could make it worse...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2008, 01:19 PM
 
10,167 posts, read 17,115,139 times
Reputation: 5741
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manigault View Post
I think some of the Great Society programs were disadvantaged by bad administration. Things like Head Start have been shown to be a great success to this country.
The very nature of the "program" is going to be "disadvantaged by bad administration" because government is involved in it at all. Whether it be Head Start or any other program run by the federal government, then a bottom line is going to be that those administering it will be making money themselves. And the polticians advocating it will be out for money and votes.

Take such a simple thing as what might be broadly known as welfare checks. To set it up and keep it going, a vast bureaucracy will be needed. Back up to that the "good intentions" behind it all was/is to get people off the public dole and into the working class. BUT...what about those who actually administer it? Would it be in their interest to actually do such a thing? Hell no...it would mean losing their own jobs.

I never will forget back in the 80's that the "plight of the homeless" made national news via a man who claimed to be their advocate (Mitch something or other) and he made a great living sobbing over street people, and even got a lobby group to do the same. Well, when the next Census count came out, it was shown that the "homeless" in the United States was not NEARLY so high as this organization claimed.

Was that GOOD NEWS to those who made such production over being concerned about the "homeless"? One would think so. But no, they protested, got hysterical, demanded recounts, etc. WHY? Because to actually SOLVE the so-called "homeless" problem would mean them losing their own power and money and influence. They made a great living off the very problem and people they obstensively paraded themselves as trying to take care of.

That is the nature of government and there is no other way around it. Any government program -- regardless of its stated intentions -- operates the same way. It is human nature.

War on Poverty Revisited by Thomas Sowell -- Capitalism Magazine

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell110607.php3

Quote:
And I will refrain from terming Republicans as jingoistic Fascists. If you have to explain a position as basically 'conservative but compassionate' that certainly does put into play the question of if conservatives give a hoot about anything but there own selves.
Lets play pool on that one then. Why then are conservatives the most likely to give of their own time and money to the "poor"?

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Who Really Cares?

It seems that conservatives give away their own money. All too many liberals consider themselves morally-superior and compassionate because they can give away someone elses. Pathetic. Truly pathetic.

Last edited by TexasReb; 09-07-2008 at 02:54 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top