# Who is Responsible for Fatherless Black Families?



## William Joyce (Mar 16, 2008)

The Ku Klux Klan?

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.com/authors/Woodson-Wright.html

Nah.

Black men who "beget and forget."

_Statistics bear out the accuracy of this conclusion.  According to the National Center for Health Statistics, in 2005, 69&#37; of black births were to unmarried mothers, a rate that has been increasing for years. And the social consequences of fatherless families are horrendous.  Crime rates, drug and alcohol abuse, emotional and behavioral problems, school drop out rates, and a host of other social ills are much higher, sometimes by several multiples, in fatherless families than in families with an active and committed father. 

Liberal-in-transition though I was, even when I was in the Army I could not credit the idea that the prevalent fatherlessness of  black families could be ascribed to a supposed white racism.  The Ku Klux Klan was not forcing Sergeant Smith to impregnate black women and then abandon them.  To the contrary, Smith&#8217;s procreative adventures seemed a gesture of defiance toward white mores.  If there is free moral choice in this world &#8212; and I believe there is &#8212; Smith made his choice as freely as many of the rest of us have chosen to act the role of fathers for our children. _


----------



## Ravi (Mar 16, 2008)

Do you have a point?


----------



## William Joyce (Mar 16, 2008)

Yes.

Fatherless black families are caused by BLACK MEN.


----------



## Diuretic (Mar 16, 2008)

William Joyce said:


> Yes.
> 
> Fatherless black families are caused by BLACK MEN.



Keep going, you could be onto something.  No, I'm not being sarcastic, keep going, keep thinking and keep digging for the root causes.


----------



## trobinett (Mar 16, 2008)

> Who is Responsible for Fatherless Black Families?



NOT ME!

Next question.............


----------



## Shattered (Mar 16, 2008)

Any person with a job is responsible for fatherless black families.  It's called welfare.


----------



## William Joyce (Mar 16, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> Keep going, you could be onto something.  No, I'm not being sarcastic, keep going, keep thinking and keep digging for the root causes.



Wait... you're not going to tell us that these "root causes" are racist whites, are you?


----------



## Shattered (Mar 16, 2008)

trobinett said:


> NOT ME!
> 
> Next question.............



You are if you've got a job, and pay taxes..


----------



## Ravi (Mar 16, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> Keep going, you could be onto something.  No, I'm not being sarcastic, keep going, keep thinking and keep digging for the root causes.



Oh! Oh! I know. White men are responsible for fatherless children from white men.

This is a total shocker to me.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 16, 2008)

So far, this is the most peaceful and agreeing thread on the boards... .

Awesome....


----------



## Diuretic (Mar 16, 2008)

William Joyce said:


> Wait... you're not going to tell us that these "root causes" are racist whites, are you?



Of course not.  I don't know what the deep-rooted causes are, I just thought you might be able to slice your way through and work up a couple of hypotheses for discussion.


----------



## Diuretic (Mar 16, 2008)

Ravir said:


> Oh! Oh! I know. White men are responsible for fatherless children from white men.
> 
> This is a total shocker to me.



I suppose it happens but for me to make any sort of constructive comment I'd have to know the rate of fatherless white families (voluntary) and then have a look at it relative to the rate of fatherless black families (of course there would have to be the usual work to make the statistics valid but that's above my head).  If it's the problem it's apparently supposed to be then surely a search for causation would be useful?


----------



## Diuretic (Mar 16, 2008)

BrianH said:


> So far, this is the most peaceful and agreeing thread on the boards... .
> 
> Awesome....



Give it time...........


----------



## BrianH (Mar 16, 2008)

Well........my hypotheses involves a number of different factors.  I may not hit all of them.  but it's the first thing(s) that I notice.

1.  Blacks (not all) generally do not value an education.  Most barely make it through high school...thus resulting in lower paying jobs, contributing to his/her endless cycle of poverty.  If more blacks would actively persue their education and go to college, they could obtain higher paying jobs and bring in a little more money for their families...ending the the cycle of poverty if they too encourage their kids to do the same.

2.  The hip-op/rap industry (though enjoyable) has every young black American wanting to become hip-hop stars...so they rely on the prospect of doing this.  (they think it will pave their way to success, only a small percentage ever make it.)  There's not enough room in Hollywood for that many celebreties.

3.  The "whites are out to get us" attitude has to be changed.  Black families need to instill, in their children, the fact that they are in control of their own success. Whites are no longer doing this. They have just as many opportunities to be successful.  I'm white, and I worked 40 hours a week at a 5.50 an hour job to pay for my college.  I went full time while working full-time.  Sure, I could make an excuse and say that I was poor and didn't have money for school.  but my education was important to me, and my parents encouraged it.

I'm sure there's more, but these are some of the main issues in my opinion.

Blacks are responsible for Blacks...unless they're on welfare...and then we're responsible for their well-being.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 16, 2008)

Now that I've read my post, I realize that I never mentioned fatherless blacks.  My apologies...


----------



## Gunny (Mar 17, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Well........my hypotheses involves a number of different factors.  I may not hit all of them.  but it's the first thing(s) that I notice.
> 
> 1.  Blacks (not all) generally do not value an education.  Most barely make it through high school...thus resulting in lower paying jobs, contributing to his/her endless cycle of poverty.  If more blacks would actively persue their education and go to college, they could obtain higher paying jobs and bring in a little more money for their families...ending the the cycle of poverty if they too encourage their kids to do the same.
> 
> ...



The root problem is, IMO, blacks in general suffer from a false sense of entitlement based on being convinced they are victims by a political organization willing to foster such a climate in order to purchase their votes with promises of more handouts.  

Why would anyone expect responsible behavior from a segment of the population that has been raised to believe they are in fact not responsible?


----------



## Diuretic (Mar 17, 2008)

The root problem IMO is that blacks get a shitty economic deal and leave because they can't face failure as providers.

Hey, good as any other opinion I've read here.


----------



## jillian (Mar 17, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> The root problem IMO is that blacks get a shitty economic deal and leave because they can't face failure as providers.
> 
> Hey, good as any other opinion I've read here.



I know ... have you read a bigger bunch of tripe, ever?


----------



## Gunny (Mar 17, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> The root problem IMO is that blacks get a shitty economic deal and leave because they can't face failure as providers.
> 
> Hey, good as any other opinion I've read here.



Blacks get no shittier a deal than anyone else.  As a matter of fact, being a racial minority in this country entitles one to handouts whites can't get.  

IMO, anyone concerned with being a failure as a provider would not be running anywhere.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Mar 17, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> The root problem IMO is that blacks get a shitty economic deal and leave because they can't face failure as providers.
> 
> Hey, good as any other opinion I've read here.



Except it is childish. Devoid of reality and facts.

The Liberals in this country have spent the last 40 years teaching the blacks that THEY will provide welfare and free housing to them if they JUST keep them in power. There was no great problem before the 60's of unwed mothers with children. Not even among black families. The Liberals helped break down this country's morals and has gone about creating dependent classes ever since.


----------



## Diuretic (Mar 17, 2008)

jillian said:


> I know ... have you read a bigger bunch of tripe, ever?



Heck jillian I've read some real tripe over the years....I'll need a bit of time to think about that.

Okay, done.

No.


----------



## Diuretic (Mar 17, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Blacks get no shittier a deal than anyone else.  As a matter of fact, being a racial minority in this country entitles one to handouts whites can't get.
> 
> IMO, anyone concerned with being a failure as a provider would not be running anywhere.



But isn't it a reasonable hypothesis until it's proven false?


----------



## jillian (Mar 17, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> Heck jillian I've read some real tripe over the years....I'll need a bit of time to think about that.
> 
> Okay, done.
> 
> No.



Heh!


----------



## Diuretic (Mar 17, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Except it is childish. Devoid of reality and facts.
> 
> The Liberals in this country have spent the last 40 years teaching the blacks that THEY will provide welfare and free housing to them if they JUST keep them in power. There was no great problem before the 60's of unwed mothers with children. Not even among black families. The Liberals helped break down this country's morals and has gone about creating dependent classes ever since.



Why is it:

1.  Childish
2.  Devoid of reality
3.  Devoid of facts

When you've done that you'll need to prove the rest of your hypothesis.

Okay, just kidding, no you won't.  

I was making a point about the validity of some of the other posts here.

My meta-point is that unless someone does some decent research into why this is happening (and of course I'm assuming it is) then all that will happen is finger-pointing, nascent and not-so-nascent racialist comment and generally a big slag-fest.  

If everyone is just oh so concerned about fatherless black families then perhaps it's important enough to actually find out the reality of why it's happening and what can be done to reduce and eventually (hopefully) get it down to the levels of father desertion in the white community.

Or is that just a bit too confronting?


----------



## Ravi (Mar 17, 2008)

_get it down to the levels of father desertion in the white community_

Do we even know if it is higher in one community or the other?


----------



## Diuretic (Mar 17, 2008)

Ravir said:


> _get it down to the levels of father desertion in the white community_
> 
> Do we even know if it is higher in one community or the other?



Good question, I am really glad (I really am) you brought it up.


----------



## Ravi (Mar 17, 2008)

I was wondering that ever since this thread got started. I tried to find statistics without any luck.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 17, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Blacks get no shittier a deal than anyone else.  As a matter of fact, being a racial minority in this country entitles one to handouts whites can't get.
> 
> IMO, anyone concerned with being a failure as a provider would not be running anywhere.



You can't put any clearer than that...And this takes place in every part of society.  College is the same way.  The government claims, when it comes to federal assistance for college, that they don't discriminate against race, but they do regardless, IMO.

The same thing goes for scholarships.  General Scholarships are offered to "anyone" that apply--black, white, green, etc...  Then you have specialty scholarships...NAACP scholarship, Lulac, etc...  So far I have not seen a caucasion scholarship offered, that would be racist and discriminative.  When I was in college, I got numerous scholarship e-mails that I had to delete because I didn't meet the requirements racially.   If anyone finds any, I'll stand corrected. 

Alot of blacks have been "conditioned" to believing that they deserve a handout from the government because they are getting a "crappy deal."


----------



## Diuretic (Mar 17, 2008)

Ravir said:


> I was wondering that ever since this thread got started. I tried to find statistics without any luck.



Perhaps it's just too sensitive a subject to research?


----------



## The_Hammer (Mar 17, 2008)

William Joyce said:


> Yes.
> 
> Fatherless black families are caused by BLACK MEN.



I've only recently joined this forum but I've browsed a bit and have looked at the posts of the regular users. I've come to one conclusion.

You Mr. Joyce are retarded.

Do you know who causes fatherless WHITE families?

Sweet lord! It's WHITE MEN!

What about fatherless LATINO families?

My god! It's LATINO MEN!

All you have done in this topic Mr. Joyce is point out the obvious. That fatherless families are caused by MEN who don't commit to the responsibility of raising a child. Whether they be white, black, latino, asion, etc. The common denominator is a MAN not raising his child/children. That's all. The only reason you mentioned black men was to race bait. Now if you wanted to make a constructive argument you should have mentioned how, per capita, there are more black single mothers and should have mentioned how blacks are not capable of raising children yada yada yada. At least post a source that just isn't an opinion. Have facts sir. It's pathetic when someone tries to make a point on social dynamics without peer reviewed statistical evidence. It's sloppy. If you were a good racist it'd actually be hard, well not hard just more difficult, to tear your argument (if you can call it that it was only a statement) apart, douse it in gas, and light it on fire while laughing at you.

Moving on.



			
				Shattered said:
			
		

> Any person with a job is responsible for fatherless black families. It's called welfare.



First sir, you need to take the proportion of single mother black families that are on welfare. Then you need to compare that to the total number of families that are on welfare and get a percentage. That sir is the true percentage of people who work, or the percentage of the menial amount of money that gets taken from ones check for welfare. Since it's your argument I'll let you do that yourself.

I should note that most people on welfare are white. However, per capita, blacks are more likely to be on welfare.



			
				GunnyL said:
			
		

> Blacks get no shittier a deal than anyone else. As a matter of fact, being a racial minority in this country entitles one to handouts whites can't get.



This is partially true. The real problem is poverty. The more money your family makes, the more likely you are to go to school, and thus make more money. However since blacks per capita are largely poorer than whites, they are less likely to go to school (college) and thus per capita less likely to have good jobs etc etc. However, you will notice that white and pretty much every other racial group of similar income brackets have similar attendances in college (poor blacks & whites don't tend to go to college while higher income blacks & whites do go to college).



			
				BrianH said:
			
		

> The same thing goes for scholarships. General Scholarships are offered to "anyone" that apply--black, white, green, etc... Then you have specialty scholarships...NAACP scholarship, Lulac, etc... So far I have not seen a caucasion scholarship offered, that would be racist and discriminative. When I was in college, I got numerous scholarship e-mails that I had to delete because I didn't meet the requirements racially. If anyone finds any, I'll stand corrected.
> 
> Alot of blacks have been "conditioned" to believing that they deserve a handout from the government because they are getting a "crappy deal."



The NAACP and LULAC are private scholarship granting organizations. They do receive federal funding for being non-for profits, but being private organizations, they have every right to give scholarships and bias them to whomever they wish. There are no doubt scholarship organizations which do cater to Caucasians. You probably just have to search for them. They might not also specifically say white or caucasian as a requirement but might have requirements which would almost guarantee you to be caucasian.

Also, while it has gotten better in recent years, minorities (black specifically) are under represented as college (4 year degree). If you compare the 2003 population estimates with the number of bachelors degree recipients in that same year the percentage of blacks who graduate with a bachelors (~8.5%) compared to the population (~12.7%). That's not good. It might seem like only a 4% difference but that 4% means that that about 30% of blacks who should be in college or at least graduating aren't.

Also, I apologize for not posting my sources. I don't have enough posts to post direct links.


----------



## mattskramer (Mar 17, 2008)

Black biological fathers are responsible for fatherless black families.  Promiscuous unprotected sex and the use of contaminated needles are responsible for the spread of AIDS.  Each individual should be ultimately responsible for the consequences of the decisions that he or she makes.  So, what is your point?


----------



## Larkinn (Mar 17, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> The root problem is, IMO, blacks in general suffer from a false sense of entitlement based on being convinced they are victims by a political organization willing to foster such a climate in order to purchase their votes with promises of more handouts.
> 
> Why would anyone expect responsible behavior from a segment of the population that has been raised to believe they are in fact not responsible?



Which is why, of course, that before affirmative action blacks were striving and were equal in terms of income & such with whites, right?   No?   Then I guess it isn't that darn imaginary victim mentality.


----------



## Taomon (Mar 17, 2008)

William Joyce said:


> The Ku Klux Klan?
> 
> http://www.theoccidentalobserver.com/authors/Woodson-Wright.html
> 
> ...


Poverty, bigotry, despair, materialism...these are all factors. Each family and their circumstances are different. This subject cannot be generalized.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 17, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> Which is why, of course, that before affirmative action blacks were striving and were equal in terms of income & such with whites, right?   No?   Then I guess it isn't that darn imaginary victim mentality.



Oh yeah, affirmative action works so well.  It forces employers to hire based on racial/gender quota rather than qualification.  

Which of course has nothing to do with instilling the VERY REAL victim mentality in a people who believe they are still entitled because someone in their ancestry was a slave.  A belief instilled by apologist white liberals who are afraid they might offend their own shadows.


----------



## Shogun (Mar 17, 2008)

what is your solution, gunny?


----------



## BrianH (Mar 17, 2008)

Hammer, welcome to the forums..

While I'll agree with your statistics, I think the statistics of college graduating minorities doesn't explain the reason that they are not there in the first place.  

You have to admit that there is a larger number of black americans that do not expect their children to attend college.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Mar 17, 2008)

Shogun said:


> what is your solution, gunny?



One solution would be to STOP teaching people they are "entitled" to special treatment. STOP claiming whites are to blame for every problem blacks have. STOP claiming that the Country owe blacks something because 160 years ago we had slaves, by the way why don't we have slaves any more? One reason is because of a devastating war that was predominantly fought by WHITE men.

The laws are on the books to protect all minorities, it is past time to stop breeding dependence and excuses for failure. It is past time for a certain political party to stop selling the idea that whites owe blacks special treatment. It is PAST TIME to stop being so ignorant that you have to find reasons to feel guilty for things that happened BEFORE you were even BORN.

You do not make anyone "equal" by making them MORE than equal, by giving them special treatment. That breeds its own brand of problems. Either we are all equal under the law or we are not. Special programs set up for minorities is living proof we are NOT all equal. The Government MUST be color blind. Special programs should only exist as private group run. NO envolvement from the Government AT all.

Enforce the laws we have, make new ones if we need them, BUT end special treatment.


----------



## Larkinn (Mar 17, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Oh yeah, affirmative action works so well.  It forces employers to hire based on racial/gender quota rather than qualification.
> 
> Which of course has nothing to do with instilling the VERY REAL victim mentality in a people who believe they are still entitled because someone in their ancestry was a slave.  A belief instilled by apologist white liberals who are afraid they might offend their own shadows.



All of which has nothing at all to do why blacks are statistically underprivileged in today's society.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Mar 18, 2008)

BrianH said:


> So far, this is the most peaceful and agreeing thread on the boards... .
> 
> Awesome....


Yea, shogun aint here yet.

There is a book written by a black preacher , I think from the central california coastal area, "a history of US civil rights legislation", I think it would shock everyone here.


----------



## BaronVonBigmeat (Mar 18, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> If everyone is just oh so concerned about fatherless black families then perhaps it's important enough to actually find out the reality of why it's happening and what can be done to reduce and eventually (hopefully) get it down to the levels of father desertion in the white community.



Blacks used to get married at the exact same rate as whites only a few decades ago, and the percentage of children born out of wedlock was only slightly higher. Then everything started changing dramatically in the mid/late 1960's. 

The culprit? The welfare state. The welfare check has made black fathers obsolete. Black women do not have to be particularly careful about their sexual habits, because state or federal governments will foot the bills. If you try and save, or get married, or get a job, you lose your benefits. When you subsidize something...you get more of it. In this case, poverty. And besides which, it's not just blacks, anyway. The same problems have been observed in other races as well.

Plus all the stuff Gunny said. It used to be that local charities helped people out, and knew them well enough to know if they were loafing or not. (Then politicians realized they could muscle in on charity, and buy votes.) And if you were a loafer, you had to face the guilt of knowing that you were soaking up the money of your friends and family. If you persisted, perhaps you were ostracized. But shame and guilt are not politically correct emotions anymore.

Finally, the sense of entitlement. That was one of the big things that changed in the 1960's. The government agencies actually had official programs to promote the idea amongst aid recipients that getting welfare wasn't something to be ashamed of; but in fact was actually a right, and to fight for their rights. On top of that, you have race hustlers like Jesse Jackson who basically make a living stirring up shit,  blaming others, and promoting the idea that it's not your fault. It's easier to make a living as a politician or making professional speaking engagements for thousands of dollars a pop, when you're a professional shit-stirrer who gets on TV a lot.


----------



## Ravi (Mar 18, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> Perhaps it's just too sensitive a subject to research?



Could be. The government tends to keep statistics on things it wants to keep statistics on. I'm kind of surprised that some special interest group doesn't track these things, though.


----------



## Ravi (Mar 18, 2008)

Gunny, last time I checked, there is no law that compels anyone to hire someone that isn't qualified.


----------



## Ravi (Mar 18, 2008)

BrianH said:


> You have to admit that there is a larger number of black americans that do not expect their children to attend college.



Why is that?


----------



## Ravi (Mar 18, 2008)

RGS, there is actually less severe poverty now than there was before the sixties across all ethnic backgrounds. And more people of all ethnic backgrounds go to college...in fact it's become kind of a scam, college, but that's a topic for another thread.

You say stop doing this and stop doing that. How about coming up with a solution as an alternative...what would work to bring more people out of poverty?


----------



## BrianH (Mar 18, 2008)

Ravir

"Why is that?"



http://nces.ed.gov/programs/quarterly/Vol_5/5_4/6_2.asp

While I agree that the numbers have been getting better in recent years (which is great), as far as black Americans in education, this site give a pretty good statistical insight into blacks, whites, and hispanics in our education sysytem.  

I believe that more and more blacks are encouraging an education, but it's not large scale enough to "turn-around" the cycle for them, yet.  

It seems that hispanics are less likely than both races to graduate high school and persue postsecondary education.


----------



## Ravi (Mar 18, 2008)

_levels of parental education of Black children have increased, and the number of Black individuals and families below the poverty level has decreased_

So it has something to do with poverty?


----------



## BrianH (Mar 18, 2008)

I believe that it not only has to do with poverty, but the factor that continues the cycle of poverty. (Education and attitude about education).

For example: say you have a child that comes from a family below the poverty line.  His family has always been in poverty.  Many of them have barely graduated high school and many have dropped out of high school.  The majority of them have gotten low-paying jobs (if at all) and continuing the cycle of poverty in their family.  Ok, his child we're talking about is encouraged by his parents to get an education.  Do anything it takes, even if it means going into debt with student loans.  This child goes to college and gets a bachelors degree.  He'll go out and get well-paying job to support his future family.  He will be living above the poverty line with his well-paying job, ending the cycle of poverty in his family.  Then he too will encourage that his kids get an education.  

It's the attitude about education that needs to change.  Poverty is caused by lack of money earned.  And in today's society, more money=higher education (typically--there are exceptions)

I come from a poverty-line family.  I'm the first to get a college degree, and I'm doing better than my parents did when they were my age.  But my parents pushed an education because it was something they were never encouraged to do, and they know how important it was going to be.


----------



## Ravi (Mar 18, 2008)

_Poverty is caused by lack of money earned._

Stunningly brilliant!

Okay, so how do you change the attitude toward education?


----------



## BrianH (Mar 18, 2008)

I like you're sarcasm by the way.   



Ravir

"Okay, so how do you change the attitude toward education?"

--That is the question that I wish I had the answer for.--


----------



## The_Hammer (Mar 19, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Oh yeah, affirmative action works so well.  It forces employers to hire based on racial/gender quota rather than qualification.
> 
> Which of course has nothing to do with instilling the VERY REAL victim mentality in a people who believe they are still entitled because someone in their ancestry was a slave.  A belief instilled by apologist white liberals who are afraid they might offend their own shadows.



Wrong. For business, affirmative action works by making sure that those employed are not discriminated against _despite having equal qualifications_. It's slightly different for colleges where lower grades might get you a seat because you are a minority.


----------



## The_Hammer (Mar 19, 2008)

Let me pick this apart a bit for you.



RetiredGySgt said:


> One solution would be to STOP teaching people they are "entitled" to special treatment. STOP claiming whites are to blame for every problem blacks have. STOP claiming that the Country owe blacks something because 160 years ago we had slaves, by the way why don't we have slaves any more? One reason is because of a devastating war that was predominantly fought by WHITE men.



Yes it was fought mostly by white men, because blacks, on both sides, weren't ALLOWED to fight moron, that combine with the fact that A) Most northerners were white and B) the south had a higher black population than the north. In the north blacks weren't allowed to fight and in the south, well you'd be retarded to mass arm a group of people you have oppressed at the same time as having a larger, better equipped, and more powerful army attacking you at the same time, _that was advocating their freedom_. That's just simple. And when eventually blacks were allowed to fight, their units, per capita, performed better than their white counterparts.




RetiredGySgt said:


> The laws are on the books to protect all minorities, it is past time to stop breeding dependence and excuses for failure. It is past time for a certain political party to stop selling the idea that whites owe blacks special treatment. It is PAST TIME to stop being so ignorant that you have to find reasons to feel guilty for things that happened BEFORE you were even BORN.
> 
> You do not make anyone "equal" by making them MORE than equal, by giving them special treatment. That breeds its own brand of problems. Either we are all equal under the law or we are not. Special programs set up for minorities is living proof we are NOT all equal. The Government MUST be color blind. Special programs should only exist as private group run. NO envolvement from the Government AT all.
> 
> Enforce the laws we have, make new ones if we need them, BUT end special treatment.



This is a wonderful ideal to have now, however, de facto and de jure inequality of the past has led to inequities now. As a result, simply saying "O well we don't do that any more we're all equal" does not work because those who have already been disenfranchised are already at a disadvantage. That's what the purpose of affirmative action (esp for colleges) and other similar programs do.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 19, 2008)

While I agree on the Idea of Affirmative Action, it is not carried out that way.
There are many accounts of people loses out on a job because the company hires a less qualified-minority to meet a quota.  

Cops are required to meet quotas on traffic tickets...they'll never admit it.

College campuses are required to meet quotas.

I don't have a huge problem with these, but this is the way that things are.  Whether we acknowedge them or not.


----------



## The_Hammer (Mar 19, 2008)

BrianH said:


> "Okay, so how do you change the attitude toward education?"
> 
> --That is the question that I wish I had the answer for.--



You make an education more lucrative, easier to obtain, and provide people with the skills to obtain it. And it is a myth that black people are less inured to higher education than whites. The difference is that poor blacks (and poor people in general) either A) do not see higher education as lucrative or B) do not see it as achievable or C) do not have the skills to perform at a level where a higher education is in fact attainable. The only reason that that myth is establish is because blacks are per capita poorer than whites.

A) Is solved simply by making certain skilled jobs (whether degree or certificate requiring ones) pay better or decreasing the costs of living. Of course this is entirely up to the market. Also, there is a problem with the focus on degreed jobs when one can make just as much (and generally more depending where you are) than as a skilled laborer, such as a plumber, or auto-tech, or floorer. This kinda happened in the earlier part of the century when it was difficult for blacks to get into university but not to become carpenters or roofers, which payed rather well. However since in our society such persons are generally seen as lower than their degree holding counterparts (even if they make more money) people are less likely to pursue jobs in those fields.

B and C go together. Poorer individuals generally come from poorer school secondary school districts, with over crowding, poor teaching, and etc. As a result students do not receive the intensity of conditioning for college and seeing it as an attainable goal. One way that has helped lower income people who do not receive collegiate conditioning are BOCES programs. I know that in my state (NY) these have helped lots of lower income individuals get jobs out of high school. Unfortunately, due to the emphasis on college and a lack of conditioning and preparedness, lots of people fall through the cracks again.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 19, 2008)

The_Hammer said:


> You make an education more lucrative, easier to obtain, and provide people with the skills to obtain it. And it is a myth that black people are less inured to higher education than whites. The difference is that poor blacks (and poor people in general) either A) do not see higher education as lucrative or B) do not see it as achievable or C) do not have the skills to perform at a level where a higher education is in fact attainable. The only reason that that myth is establish is because blacks are per capita poorer than whites.
> 
> A) Is solved simply by making certain skilled jobs (whether degree or certificate requiring ones) pay better or decreasing the costs of living. Of course this is entirely up to the market. Also, there is a problem with the focus on degreed jobs when one can make just as much (and generally more depending where you are) than as a skilled laborer, such as a plumber, or auto-tech, or floorer. This kinda happened in the earlier part of the century when it was difficult for blacks to get into university but not to become carpenters or roofers, which payed rather well. However since in our society such persons are generally seen as lower than their degree holding counterparts (even if they make more money) people are less likely to pursue jobs in those fields.
> 
> B and C go together. Poorer individuals generally come from poorer school secondary school districts, with over crowding, poor teaching, and etc. As a result students do not receive the intensity of conditioning for college and seeing it as an attainable goal. One way that has helped lower income people who do not receive collegiate conditioning are BOCES programs. I know that in my state (NY) these have helped lots of lower income individuals get jobs out of high school. Unfortunately, due to the emphasis on college and a lack of conditioning and preparedness, lots of people fall through the cracks again.



I agree with some thingst that you've said, however, are you suggesting that most blacks do value a higher education and that their only being restrained?

That would be a myth.  I work with kids every-day and the experience confirms this.   Sure, there are many black families who encourage their kids to get an education and to go to college.  These kids that achieve higher education, get higher paying jobs. (granted there are those that don't require a degree.)  Then they encourage their own kids to get an education, ending the cylce of poverty.  I garuauntee you that if as many blacks valued a college education as whites, their would be more enrolled in college and earning degrees.

Blacks have just as many opportunities to succeed as whites. Sure, many of them come from lower socioeconomic status, but that doesn't stop low income white kids from obtaining college degrees.  I've got student loans up for my college.  I wasn't rich and I've got an education.

We live in an age of certification...you have to have certifications for everything. (Not literally).  But if someone wants something welded, they'll get someone who's a certified welder.  If they want their house remodeled, their not going to hire an uncertified carpenter, they'll hire a certified one.  

The government has provided tools for which to obtain an education.  Millions of dollars are used for grants and financial assistance.  

Making education more of a priority in the minds of young minorities will help alleviate this problem.  If you're encouraged from birth to crap in your back yard, you'll probably do it the rest of your life.  If you're taught to value an education and to do everything you can to obtain higher education, more (not all) will try to achieve it.


----------



## Larkinn (Mar 19, 2008)

The_Hammer said:


> Let me pick this apart a bit for you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



De facto and de jure?

Whats your educational background, if you don't mind me asking.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 19, 2008)

Blacks did fight on both sides.  They were actually recruited on both sides to increase manpower.


----------



## The_Hammer (Mar 19, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Blacks did fight on both sides.  They were actually recruited on both sides to increase manpower.



Not drastically in the south. I remember reading a book on blacks who fought for the confederacy. In line with their feudal behavior, southerners used blacks almost as squires and assistants. They would largely accompany and help their masters and their masters units. They were not recruited en masse in the south, at least not enough to have any drastic effect on the war. Such would have been retarded because arming your slaves is dumb and second because they were really the only folks who could work in war industries (what little their was) since most white males were fighting. In the north they were restricted until about 1862 and then in only limited numbers. However by the end of the war they comprised about 10% of the total number of troops, which was actually a large number, considering the percentage of black people in the north. But initially they were restricted (which is what I was referring to in RetiredGySgts post).



			
				BrianH said:
			
		

> I agree with some thingst that you've said, however, are you suggesting that most blacks do value a higher education and that their only being restrained?



No. I said that there are things which lead to them (and lower income individuals in general) to choose or incapable of competing on a collegiate level. I mentioned 3 things, two of which lead to poor choices, the third which is the result of the disparity between education quality. I did not say that one is more prevalent over the other, which you appear to be assuming. I'm saying that all three factors have a tendency to lead to the black people not going to school.


----------



## The_Hammer (Mar 19, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> De facto and de jure?
> 
> Whats your educational background, if you don't mind me asking.



I'm a second semester college freshman.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 19, 2008)

But Hammer, you're statement said, "Yes it was fought mostly by white men, because blacks, on both sides, weren't ALLOWED to fight moron..."

You can't be that general because you are stating now that some were.

Estimates very, but somewhere bewteen 30,000-100,000 blacks served in the confederacy.  Granted many were quartermasters and servants, but there were some who fought.

The Civil War began in 1861, so the North holding off until 1862 isn't that long before allowing blacks to fight.  


Ok, as far as blacks and education.  You're first options A & B, just reiterate my statement that they do not value their education. and C is not correct either, blacks have the same amount of skill to achieve an education, it's because they do not realize that A & B are key factors in successfully achieving edcuation.   

It's like valuing a hotwheels collection, not cause you just love them, but because you know they'll be worth alot of money one day.  If more blacks were taught at a young age, to value all aspects (one day earning money, being edcuated, making better decisions, etc...) of education, then you would see a larger number of black students attending college.

That's great that you're in college, what are you majoring in?  Where are you goin? (If I may ask)


----------



## PpleLOSINGpower (Mar 19, 2008)

BrianH said:


> 3.  The "whites are out to get us" attitude has to be changed.  Black families need to instill, in their children, the fact that they are in control of their own success. Whites are no longer doing this. They have just as many opportunities to be successful.  I'm white, and I worked 40 hours a week at a 5.50 an hour job to pay for my college.  I went full time while working full-time.  Sure, I could make an excuse and say that I was poor and didn't have money for school.  but my education was important to me, and my parents encouraged it.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## Special Ed (Mar 19, 2008)

So far as science is concerned, there is no such thing as a Fatherless Family.  Everyone has a father. Former NBA Superstar and multi-millionaire Shawn Kemp has 13 kids out of wedlock by 9 different women. 

Without the benefit of the technology last seen in Michael Keaton's Multiplicity, chances are that Mr. Kemp won't be very present in the lives of his 13 children. But with $13,000/month child support payments for each child, something tells me they're gonna be just fine.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 20, 2008)

Well that's what my entire point is.  If the education system is equal, which it is.  We all have the same opportunity, then who's to blame but yourself.  Everything is there, but a lack in value of education is what keeps them where their at IMO.   

And I did the same during college.  I had no financial support from my family, and barely got any from the government my first two years of college.  But I didn't let a "lack of money" stop me from persuing an education, cause I know it's paying off now.


----------



## Ravi (Mar 20, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Well that's what my entire point is.  If the education system is equal, which it is.  We all have the same opportunity, then who's to blame but yourself.  Everything is there, but a lack in value of education is what keeps them where their at IMO.
> 
> And I did the same during college.  I had no financial support from my family, and barely got any from the government my first two years of college.  But I didn't let a "lack of money" stop me from persuing an education, cause I know it's paying off now.



Brian, no offense, but where are you getting this idea that black people don't value education? You seem to be basing your entire premise on your own personal experience.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 20, 2008)

I'm not saying that all black people don't value an education.  I'm saying, from experience (talking with families), and statistics regarding drop-out,graduation, and college enrollment rates that most black families do not encourage their kids to go to college, for whatever reasons.  There are exceptions to this, but only on a small scale.  

So don't think that it's racist or stereotypical.
I have had kids argue with me about not going to college.  They absolutely refuse the thought of attending college because their parents don't see the need, or because they think it costs too much, or cause they need them at home to do work, etc...

I'm not generalizing by saying that all black families are this way.  But blacks have a higher drop-put rate than whites, a lower college enrollment than whites, and a lower college graduation rate than whites.  (No bodies holding their heads under-water) Many whites attending college can come from the same low-financial background that we're discussing, and achieve.  

I won't admit that this is an absolute truth (for those who want concrete evidence).  But like I said in above posts. This is my opinion based on my reasearch and study.


----------



## Ravi (Mar 20, 2008)

My kids say the same thing about college. I think a lot of it has to do with being sick of school in general. So you should encourage them anyway.

Back on this thread we discovered that college enrollment is rising among blacks. So what has changed? Head start programs, free school lunches, etc. Maybe it's something that has nothing to do with a lack of encouragement but something to do with early childhood nutrition.

Just sayiin.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 20, 2008)

Yeah it it is improving.  And I can understand the sick about school thing.  It could be a combinatin of everything:  Encouragement, childhood nutrition, free lunches, etc...  Maybe their not getting everything they need.  

When I was growing up, it wasn't a question of, "if I go to college." But a question of "When you go to college."  And it's funny, cause my parents raised me on that idea, and then I paid for 99 percent of it myself.  But my parents knew that I would need it in today's world.

I'm sure it's not strictlly encouragement and lack of values in education, but I feel that it has a large part.


----------



## Ravi (Mar 20, 2008)

Okay then. We still haven't come up with an answer. I could be wrong, but I get the feeling the guy that started the thread thought these disparities stemmed strictly from skin color.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 20, 2008)

LOL, I think you should trust your instincts.  
I wish I had a solution...I think we've both got the right idea going as far as a solution is concerned, but I think finding an "actual" solution to the problem will take alot more time.  

And I'll have to disagree with the skin color reference to the OP.  I don't believe it revolves around skin color...I think?:


----------



## The_Hammer (Mar 20, 2008)

BrianH said:


> But Hammer, you're statement said, "Yes it was fought mostly by white men, because blacks, on both sides, weren't ALLOWED to fight moron..."
> 
> You can't be that general because you are stating now that some were.
> 
> ...



Excuse me. I was incorrect. I should have said, LARGELY not allowed to fight. And my argument was based on those blacks in combat roles. Servants and quartermasters wouldn't matter. There are no definitive numbers on black Confederate combatants but I doubt that they were in as high numbers as the Union.



> Ok, as far as blacks and education.  You're first options A & B, just reiterate my statement that they do not value their education. and C is not correct either, blacks have the same amount of skill to achieve an education, it's because they do not realize that A & B are key factors in successfully achieving edcuation.



While A and B might "agree" with your statement they are less blanket than. "Blacks don't value their education." They answer part of the why. Argument A says that they don't see the value in it. Whether it be because they see it as a waste of time or because they won't make any money in a degree holding job. B is different in that someone will not work towards something they do not think they can achieve. Like your hotwheels collection, one person might think that they aren't worth anything, the next might think that they couldn't get enough hotwheels to have a decent return on their investment in them or that they could even acquire the hotwheels in the first place.[/Quote]




> That's great that you're in college, what are you majoring in?  Where are you goin? (If I may ask)



I'm a Math-Science major at a community college in my area. I will be attending Albany University in the fall and major in chemistry and physics with a minor in math.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 20, 2008)

The_Hammer said:


> Excuse me. I was incorrect. I should have said, LARGELY not allowed to fight. And my argument was based on those blacks in combat roles. Servants and quartermasters wouldn't matter. There are no definitive numbers on black Confederate combatants but I doubt that they were in as high numbers as the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> While A and B might "agree" with your statement they are less blanket than. "Blacks don't value their education." They answer part of the why. Argument A says that they don't see the value in it. Whether it be because they see it as a waste of time or because they won't make any money in a degree holding job. B is different in that someone will not work towards something they do not think they can achieve. Like your hotwheels collection, one person might think that they aren't worth anything, the next might think that they couldn't get enough hotwheels to have a decent return on their investment in them or that they could even acquire the hotwheels in the first place.






I'm a Math-Science major at a community college in my area. I will be attending Albany University in the fall and major in chemistry and physics with a minor in math.[/QUOTE]


I appreciate your admission to phrasing wrong. 
http://members.aol.com/neoconfeds/thorwitz.htm
http://blackinformant.com/2005/02/21/did-black-americans-actually-fight-for-the-confederacy/

I think black soldiers in the Confederacy fought a little more than you might think.  Granted, it's not a large majority of the black population or even close to a majority of the military...but they fought in fairly large numbers.  The fallacy that blacks were not allowed to fight, and even that blacks did not fight for the Confederacy is brought about by the North condemning the South and rallying the cause behind ending slavery.  

I'll agree that your post answers some of why "blacks don't value an education." I think we're arguing the same point here.  We've already established that there are several factors why many blacks don't value an education.  

Read a few more of the previous posts and you'll see that we've already established this.


----------



## The_Hammer (Mar 20, 2008)

Indeed we do agree.


Thank you for those links. On a side note It's disturbing to me to think that people would be proud of fighting, for a rebellious government. Sure have pride that your ancestors were soldiers (though misguided IMO) but the fact that they were part of a government that was largely unproductive and counter intuitive with progressive thought. I'd burn the stars and bars, not because I'd be offended with its racist connotations, but because it represents a traitorous group of individuals who were largely let off the hook for nearly tearing my country in half.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 20, 2008)

Sure ok, it sounds like you're a little biased to begin with.  

Much to your disbelief, the Civil War was not fought strictly over the right to own slaves.  

Second, you can't refer to roughly 1/3(give or take) of the United States as a "group" of traitors. And this "traitorous group of individuals" held off the North for 4-5 good long years, and at one point were winning a majority of the battles. (Agreed they lost the war and all is well).  But no less, bias does not equal correctness.

Third, most countries start-out fairly unproductive--even this one.

Fourth, the "stars-and-bars" (that is represented today as a racist flag) is not a national flag, it is a battle flag, the first national flag of the Confederate States looks alot different.  (Much like the U.S. flag with a ring of stars in the blue)--Granted, later flags did have the stars and bars on them, but they were smaller.  

Fifth, you could say the same thing about George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, B. Franklin, etc....(Of course, they succeeded and the story from our history is that it was right).  I wonder how the British version goes?  Do you think the British view/did view them as traitors?

You can't (maybe you can) have hatred and bias towards something that doesn't exist anymore.  Maybe signs of taking it too seriously.  This is my country just every bit as much as it is yours.  My ancestors fought in the American Revolution, War of 1812, and so on...

I'm also from the South, but I'm not going to have a hatred for the North because they made my ancestors stay in the Union.  Old News is Old News


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Mar 23, 2008)

The reason behind why not too many blacks fought in the civil war is basically irrelevant. The point is white people secured the freedom for the black people. It was not a condition limited to America, but it did take longer for America to eliminate it. That was for many reasons.

The reason affirmative action and reperations are wrong is simple, because they are wrong. First, you are punishing innocent people, and there simply is NO EXCUSE for that to be allowed to happen, much less encouraged, nay, FORCED upon us by the govt. Second, its none of the govt's  business to be involved in that.

Fact also is, when the govt forces social change instead of allowing society to do it, so it will occur faster, it is always a less quality of a change.

Racism is racism is racism. AA is simply wrong.

One of the, if not the most major reason many blacks dont get ahead is because of culture. It takes a long time for cultural change amongst a group, especially when they dont want the change for the most part.  It is changing, and will continue to get better, but it takes time. The culture of the inner city black youth is one of  helplessness. Blacks were helpless for hundreds of years, you cant get rid of that in mass, overnight.

As long as they are given the message that they need the help of the govt to get ahead, this helplessness is ironically just re inforced.
  Culturally, if an inner city youth, black or any color, if they do well in school, or get ahead economically, they feel their "belonging" to their community/culture will become challenged/destroyed. They dont want that more than they dont want poverty. That is why they often intentionally do bad in school, they are ostracized if they do well.

  Affirmative action, or any other method of "leveling the playing field" should only be done by the people, not the govt. We are a democracy last time I checked. If a majority of people want to do reperations/affirm action, then let them. If a majority doesnt want to, then it shouldnt be forced upon them. If it is forced, resentments will develope and even more division will be created. If its done voluntarily, then the resentments arent attatched to the improvement for the black community,.

Not to mention, it then opens the door for other issues the govt needs to redress. How about the American Indians?? Spics, wops, and others? Who is to make the decision who gets included and who doesnt?
  Who makes the decision when racism is ok, and when it isnt?

Personally, when we sell our house, we are going into San Diego inner cities and starting programs to get some of the kids into private schools, and away from the gang banging culture, so they can move into another neighborhood and not have the cultural pressure to fail.

   Im also toying with the idea of getting volunteers to go into some bad neighnorhoods and taking them over by buying out over half of the houses in the area and renting or living there, and if renting, then rent only to non locals, so to speak. It could be a great opportunity for alot of people who cant quite make it into home ownership in their existing neighborhood. If enough people did it, they could buy the houses at a discount, and if it works, they can drastically change the complexion of the neighborhood, and increase considerably, the value of their property and local businesses they would be opening.

What it would take is "selling" enough people on it to do it at the same time.


----------



## Taomon (Mar 23, 2008)

LuvRPgrl said:


> The reason behind why not too many blacks fought in the civil war is basically irrelevant. The point is white people secured the freedom for the black people. It was not a condition limited to America, but it did take longer for America to eliminate it. That was for many reasons.
> 
> The reason affirmative action and reperations are wrong is simple, because they are wrong. First, you are punishing innocent people, and there simply is NO EXCUSE for that to be allowed to happen, much less encouraged, nay, FORCED upon us by the govt. Second, its none of the govt's  business to be involved in that.
> 
> ...


It is rather telling how whites are so against affirmative actions that no amount of reason or debate can convince them of any merit to it. This isn't because affirmative action is wrong, it is because for the first time...whites feel the brunt of racism.

Now, I think there are better ways to secure equality in the work place aside from affirmative action. But let's face it...blacks have been dealing with affirmative action for decades, except it was whites who got picked over blacks, whites who got raises over blacks...even if they performed the same amount of work (and usually, the whites did not work as hard as the blacks).


----------



## William Joyce (Mar 23, 2008)

Taomon said:


> This subject cannot be generalized.



Yes, it can.  The statistics show that black men father and abandon children at amazingly higher rates than do white men, even controlling for wealth.  Black athletes are champions at this despite have millions of dollars.  How do you explain THAT?


----------



## William Joyce (Mar 23, 2008)

The_Hammer said:


> I've only recently joined this forum but I've browsed a bit and have looked at the posts of the regular users. I've come to one conclusion.
> 
> You Mr. Joyce are retarded.
> 
> ...



The very point of the thread was to respond to the false notion that fatherless black families are the fault of white society.

How can I be retarded if I'm pointing out the obvious?


----------



## CharlestonChad (Mar 23, 2008)

William Joyce said:


> How can I be retarded if I'm pointing out the obvious?



You're right, a retarded person would never point out that the sky is blue, and that they like ice-cream 


You are just another person who thinks they know everything about everything, and one that is so set in one way of thinking that they cannot see the world as it is, but rather as it appears through the racially focused glasses that filter out any form of logic. 

Natural selection will filter your type out b/c women aren't exactly attracted to men who hate everyone, and blame all of their problems on others.


----------



## mattskramer (Mar 23, 2008)

William Joyce said:


> Yes, it can.  The statistics show that black men father and abandon children at amazingly higher rates than do white men, even controlling for wealth.  Black athletes are champions at this despite have millions of dollars.  How do you explain THAT?



Just keep right on hammering those differences.  Oh the White people are so superior.     Honestly, why do you keep this up?  No one really cares.  Do you have an inferiority complex or something?  If you are so concerned, go to some predominantly White secluded community and stay away from the rest of society.   I dont like launching into personal attacks but I feel sorry for you.    I hope that you are just putting on an act with your incessant racist rhetoric.  Otherwise, you are an embarrassment to your White race.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 23, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> Just keep right on hammering those differences.  Oh the White people are so superior.     Honestly, why do you keep this up?  No one really cares.  Do you have an inferiority complex or something?  If you are so concerned, go to some predominantly White secluded community and stay away from the rest of society.   I dont like launching into personal attacks but I feel sorry for you.    I hope that you are just putting on an act with your incessant racist rhetoric.  Otherwise, you are an embarrassment to your White race.



You don't preach to the choir; which, is what hanging out in a secluded, white supremicist community would be doing.  You take your message to those that don't accept it.

Essentailly, we are all doing the same thing here ... selling our beliefs, right or wrong.


----------



## mattskramer (Mar 23, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> You don't preach to the choir; which, is what hanging out in a secluded, white supremicist community would be doing.  You take your message to those that don't accept it.
> 
> Essentailly, we are all doing the same thing here ... selling our beliefs, right or wrong.



Well, he is trying to sell his message to me and I am not buying it.  Maybe Blacks are different.  I doubt that they are significantly different.  Anyway, it does not matter that much to me.  As far as I can tell, we are (as a whole) better off with when we come together than when we use such divisive we-vs-them rhetoric.   I just dont know what else to say about him except that I sort of feel sorry for people with that type of mentality.


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 23, 2008)

Some people really do think blacks are diffenrent.

http://halturnershow.com/

Sean hannity is one.


----------



## William Joyce (Mar 23, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> Just keep right on hammering those differences.  Oh the White people are so superior.  Honestly, why do you keep this up?  No one really cares.  Do you have an inferiority complex or something?  If you are so concerned, go to some predominantly White secluded community and stay away from the rest of society.   I don&#8217;t like launching into personal attacks but I feel sorry for you.  I hope that you are just putting on an act with your incessant racist rhetoric.  Otherwise, you are an embarrassment to your &#8220;White race&#8221;.



The reason I keep hammering on the differences is because blacks keep hammering on the differences.  Blacks demand that we as whites prop them up, give them stuff, more money, more jobs, affirmative action, etc.  They do so on the premise that races are equal, and that any difference is the result of white racism.  I believe that the differences are the result of inherent, biological differentials that would put blacks in worse position regardless of their affiliation (or not) with whites.  They are BORN less intelligent, less hard-working, less future-oriented than whites.  THAT is why they commit crime, are poor, and can't think as well as whites.  Essentially, whites are being unfairly blamed for black failure, and I am sick of it.

It's incorrect to say that "no one really cares" about race and racial differences.  People care a lot about that topic, whether they agree with me or not.  If "nobody cares" about race, how come Obama is such a controversial topic?  Rev. Jeremiah Wright?  David Duke?  All this stuff... people want to talk about it.

Inviting me to move away is also just dumb.  You would never suggest to blacks unhappy with America that they move away.  Only the whites.  You would say that the blacks need to be taken care of.

If you can refute me on the issue of black/white difference, go ahead.  But feeling sorry for me is not arguing with me.


----------



## William Joyce (Mar 23, 2008)

CharlestonChad said:


> You are just another person who thinks they know everything about everything, and one that is so set in one way of thinking that they cannot see the world as it is, but rather as it appears through the racially focused glasses that filter out any form of logic.
> 
> Natural selection will filter your type out b/c women aren't exactly attracted to men who hate everyone, and blame all of their problems on others.



Like Matt, you don't seem interested in actually arguing this.  Saying I "think I'm right" is not worth much... you also think you're right.  Big deal.

What makes you think that racial equality is "the world as it is"?  In fact, nothing could be more overwhelming than the stack of evidence AGAINST racial equality.

And why do the anti-whites alway use this stupid line about "blaming all your problems on others"?  WHAT problems of mine have I "blamed on others"?  If anything, it's the Rev. Wrights of the world who blame all the problems of blacks on whites.  What do you have to say about that, Mr. Know-It-All?


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Mar 23, 2008)

Taomon said:


> It is rather telling how whites are so against affirmative actions that no amount of reason or debate can convince them of any merit to it. This isn't because affirmative action is wrong, it is because for the first time...whites feel the brunt of racism.
> 
> Now, I think there are better ways to secure equality in the work place aside from affirmative action. But let's face it...blacks have been dealing with affirmative action for decades, except it was whites who got picked over blacks, whites who got raises over blacks...even if they performed the same amount of work (and usually, the whites did not work as hard as the blacks).



Please tell me why I should be punished when I didnt and have never discriminated against blacks, in fact, everything else being equal, I will pick a black person over a white when hiring.

racism is wrong, you didnt answer any of my questions, and I do see some merit, the ends, but they do not justify the means. Find another way that doesnt discriminate against innocents. I dont care about the sting of racism on myself, its not the reason for my opposistion, rather disengenuous of you to claim you "know my feelings and reasons" better than I.

Of course, if you are stuck in stubborn and closed minded, why discuss it at all?

Now, if it was 1865 through about  1900, I would say, take the gains of the slave owners who benefitted from slavery, and give it to the blacks. I dont think those who did not do anything wrong, should be punished, punishing innocents IS NEVER the right thing to do, or acceptable.

Now, try answering some of my questions, like, when does it stop, instead of accusing me of being a liar, and/or unaware of my own motivations.


----------



## mattskramer (Mar 23, 2008)

William Joyce said:


> The reason I keep hammering on the differences is because blacks keep hammering on the differences.  Blacks demand that we as whites prop them up, give them stuff, more money, more jobs, affirmative action, etc.  They do so on the premise that races are equal, and that any difference is the result of white racism.  I believe that the differences are the result of inherent, biological differentials that would put blacks in worse position regardless of their affiliation (or not) with whites.  They are BORN less intelligent, less hard-working, less future-oriented than whites.  THAT is why they commit crime, are poor, and can't think as well as whites.  Essentially, whites are being unfairly blamed for black failure, and I am sick of it.
> 
> It's incorrect to say that "no one really cares" about race and racial differences.  People care a lot about that topic, whether they agree with me or not.  If "nobody cares" about race, how come Obama is such a controversial topic?  Rev. Jeremiah Wright?  David Duke?  All this stuff... people want to take about it.
> 
> ...



There are White Supremacists who keep harping on differences.  There are Whites who look beyond skin color.  There are Blacks who will never be satisfied with the post-slavery and post-segregation opportunities that they have been given. There are those Blacks like Ken Hamblin and Bill Cosby who have moved beyond racial distinctions.

I believe that Blacks should have been given preferential treatment soon after segregation ended  as they have - but that time has passed.  It is learned helplessness and conditioned dependence that makes the difference  not genetics and it is time to end such policies.  

Concerning Obama and his preacher, yes, you will find a bad apple in every bunch.  Yet, Obama denounced his preachers over-the-top rhetoric.  It is time to unite and end the divisive rhetoric.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Mar 23, 2008)

_IF_blacks are born less intelligent than you, then they must be born pretty fucking godawfully stupid.

Besides, intelligence means nothing as for achieving sucess or good values. PROOF?: YOU

Everything you stated in this post is born of an inferiority complex you have that blacks are your superior

 congratulations, you have managed to freeze time in to a zone of acceptable bigotry, racism, ignorance and anger. Very, very nice job   



William Joyce said:


> The reason I keep hammering on the differences is because blacks keep hammering on the differences.  Blacks demand that we as whites prop them up, give them stuff, more money, more jobs, affirmative action, etc.  They do so on the premise that races are equal, and that any difference is the result of white racism.  I believe that the differences are the result of inherent, biological differentials that would put blacks in worse position regardless of their affiliation (or not) with whites.  They are BORN less intelligent, less hard-working, less future-oriented than whites.  THAT is why they commit crime, are poor, and can't think as well as whites.  Essentially, whites are being unfairly blamed for black failure, and I am sick of it.
> 
> It's incorrect to say that "no one really cares" about race and racial differences.  People care a lot about that topic, whether they agree with me or not.  If "nobody cares" about race, how come Obama is such a controversial topic?  Rev. Jeremiah Wright?  David Duke?  All this stuff... people want to talk about it.
> 
> ...


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Mar 23, 2008)

William Joyce said:


> Yes, it can.  The statistics show that black men father and abandon children at amazingly higher rates than do white men, even controlling for wealth.  Black athletes are champions at this despite have millions of dollars.  How do you explain THAT?



How do you explain filipinos in the Philippines have a lower rate than whites in America? Are they superior?


----------



## mattskramer (Mar 23, 2008)

William Joyce said:


> It's incorrect to say that "no one really cares" about race and racial differences.  People care a lot about that topic, whether they agree with me or not.  If "nobody cares" about race, how come Obama is such a controversial topic?  Rev. Jeremiah Wright?  David Duke?  All this stuff... people want to talk about it.



Okay.  Most people don't care.  Wright and Duke are freaks that live way outside the norm.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Mar 23, 2008)

William Joyce said:


> Yes.
> 
> Fatherless black families are caused by BLACK MEN.



ONLY black men? You want to discuss this outside of emotions and preconceived ideas? Answer the question.

R there other factors or people that have had a large effect on fatherless black families?


----------



## William Joyce (Mar 23, 2008)

LuvRPgrl said:


> intelligence means nothing as for achieving sucess or good values.



Do you really believe that?



LuvRPgrl said:


> ONLY black men? You want to discuss this outside of emotions and preconceived ideas? Answer the question.



Emotions and preconceived ideas?  You may not like what I have to say, but I go by facts first, emotions later.  Nobody says "ONLY black men" abandon their families, but how much further need I stress that we are talking about patterns here?  

Do you understand what a pattern is, or is that something that needs to be spelled out?


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Mar 27, 2008)

William Joyce said:


> Do you really believe that?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Of course, do you realize most homeless guys are quite intelligent?

You start on emotions, as is evidenced by your third point. Trying to use sarcasm to try to make me look stupid is based on emotion, not thinking.


----------



## CharlestonChad (Mar 27, 2008)

> Like Matt, you don't seem interested in actually arguing this.



What is there to discuss? You made an obvious comment, in attempts to start another racist thread. 





> What makes you think that racial equality is "the world as it is"?  In fact, nothing could be more overwhelming than the stack of evidence AGAINST racial equality.



Race does not exist to the point that it should be acknowledge, according to anthropology. ALL "races" have been proven to be equally capable of learning and using their intelligence. All you do is project your values, and compare that to other cultures in an attempt to pass judgment on them and declare your color superior. 



> And why do the anti-whites alway use this stupid line about "blaming all your problems on others"?  WHAT problems of mine have I "blamed on others"?  If anything, it's the Rev. Wrights of the world who blame all the problems of blacks on whites.  What do you have to say about that, Mr. Know-It-All?



What's an anti-white? All that you do, William Joyce, is come on this message board and bitch and moan about how your being oppressed by minorities. It's sad that you feel that way, and ironic that you would even attempt to judge others when you yourself have so many blatant psychological problems. 

You say you don't blame others, yet you cannot even finish typing up your post without blaming Rev. Wright for blaming whites for everything. How ironic.


----------



## William Joyce (Mar 31, 2008)

CharlestonChad said:


> ALL "races" have been proven to be equally capable of learning and using their intelligence.



They have?  And are you saying that all races have equal intelligence?


----------



## CharlestonChad (Apr 1, 2008)

William Joyce said:


> They have?  And are you saying that all races have equal intelligence?



ALL "races" have equal intelligence.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 1, 2008)

Welfare is the REASON we have the number of fatherless blacks we do have.

If the government funds something, it essentially is giving whatever they are funding a nod of approval.

If the government funds families without fathers, it is natural to see an increase in that behavior. It's not rocket science. You reward a behavior, the behavior will continue and increase.


----------



## CharlestonChad (Apr 1, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Welfare is the REASON we have the number of fatherless blacks we do have.
> 
> If the government funds something, it essentially is giving whatever they are funding a nod of approval.
> 
> If the government funds families without fathers, it is natural to see an increase in that behavior. It's not rocket science. You reward a behavior, the behavior will continue and increase.



So when a black man impregnates a woman, he says to himself, "Man, I bet if I leave this woman and child, then they'll get free money from the government and I just want to make life as easy as possible on them". 

 

It is about poverty and lack of principles instilled in the men that abandon their children. They get a girl pregnant, and can't afford the baby, so since they haven't been taught that this is a terrible thing to do and irresponsible, they leave. 

Of course, we are all speaking in hypothetical terms...


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 1, 2008)

As I said, you support insupportable behavior, and it's going to continue and increase. You develop a culture of entitlement, people are going to feel entitled.


----------



## CharlestonChad (Apr 1, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> As I said, you support insupportable behavior, and it's going to continue and increase. You develop a culture of entitlement, people are going to feel entitled.



Supporting insupportable behavior is the reason, like I said. Young black men haven't been taught well enough that it's incredible wrong to abandon the woman they get pregnant. 

BUT

Welfare is not sole the reason, as you continue to state. Welfare does not support black men leaving their babies mothers. Welfare only supports the women who are having the baby. Also, I don't think you are looking at this issue in reality based terms. No one wants to live their life poor. Welfare does not take someone out of poverty. Welfare puts food in mouths. An extremely small amount of people are content with just having enough money to pay rent and buy food.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 2, 2008)

CharlestonChad said:


> So when a black man impregnates a woman, he says to himself, "Man, I bet if I leave this woman and child, then they'll get free money from the government and I just want to make life as easy as possible on them".
> 
> 
> 
> ...



AGREED....welfare is a bonus to black women though,they are no longer worried about the father leaving because they know they can get government assistance.


----------



## jillian (Apr 2, 2008)

BrianH said:


> AGREED....welfare is a bonus to black women though,they are no longer worried about the father leaving because they know they can get government assistance.



Actually, the largest population on welfare is single, *white* mothers.

And Chad was being sarcastic.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 2, 2008)

jillian said:


> Actually, the largest population on welfare is single, *white* mothers.
> 
> And Chad was being sarcastic.



fair enough, that's my point with welfare, whether it be black, white, hispanic, etc....  Not that i don't trust you, but do you have a link for that information?


----------



## BrianH (Apr 2, 2008)

jillian said:


> Actually, the largest population on welfare is single, *white* mothers.
> 
> And Chad was being sarcastic.



NM, I found a source. http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfareblack.htm
You're right, whites lead the way.  I'd be curious to find the statistics of how many blacks vs. whites stay on welfare for a longer period of time.  I'm sure it varies demographically.


----------



## CharlestonChad (Apr 2, 2008)

BrianH said:


> welfare is a bonus to black women though,they are no longer worried about the father leaving because they know they can get government assistance.



How do you know "they are no longer worried"? I'm pretty sure it isn't easy raising a child when you can't afford food, clothes, toys, and daycare.


----------



## CharlestonChad (Apr 2, 2008)

BrianH said:


> NM, I found a source. http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfareblack.htm
> You're right, whites lead the way.  I'd be curious to find the statistics of how many blacks vs. whites stay on welfare for a longer period of time.  I'm sure it varies demographically.



Yeah, I came across too. Interesting how in other welfare threads I've heard posters claim "I've seen a woman at Walmart with food stamps and a Cadillac".


----------



## BrianH (Apr 2, 2008)

CharlestonChad said:


> How do you know "they are no longer worried"? I'm pretty sure it isn't easy raising a child when you can't afford food, clothes, toys, and daycare.




Oh lord, I agree with you dude.  Calm down.  

Charleston Chad Quote:
"Young black men haven't been taught well enough that it's incredible wrong to abandon the woman they get pregnant."

How do you know that they haven't been taught well enough?  
I'm making the same kind of generalized assumption that you are, just about the other gender.


----------



## CharlestonChad (Apr 2, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Oh lord, I agree with you dude.  Calm down.
> 
> Charleston Chad Quote:
> "Young black men haven't been taught well enough that it's incredible wrong to abandon the woman they get pregnant."
> ...



I hear ya. I was just repeating what I've heard from two different pastors at primarily black churches.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 2, 2008)

CharlestonChad said:


> Supporting insupportable behavior is the reason, like I said. Young black men haven't been taught well enough that it's incredible wrong to abandon the woman they get pregnant.
> 
> BUT
> 
> Welfare is not sole the reason, as you continue to state. Welfare does not support black men leaving their babies mothers. Welfare only supports the women who are having the baby. Also, I don't think you are looking at this issue in reality based terms. No one wants to live their life poor. Welfare does not take someone out of poverty. Welfare puts food in mouths. An extremely small amount of people are content with just having enough money to pay rent and buy food.




No, welfare is not the sole reason.
And nobody wants to live their life poor. But if you have a whole population of children who see this behavior accepted, which is what is happening, you indoctrinate a whole population of children into perpetuating this behavior. And by subsidizing the behavior, you're supporting it.


----------



## CharlestonChad (Apr 13, 2008)

William Joyce said:


> They have?  And are you saying that all races have equal intelligence?



WJ, were you trying to debate this or something? I noticed you cut and ran from this thread once the discussion got real...


----------



## Gunny (Apr 13, 2008)

William Joyce said:


> Do you really believe that?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Problem with your argument is those patterns you are attempting to portray as the result of racial genetics are in actuality the result of environment.


----------



## William Joyce (Apr 14, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Problem with your argument is those patterns you are attempting to portray as the result of racial genetics are in actuality the result of environment.



Ha!

But that's barely debatable!  The scientific community would tell you that most human characteristics are more inherited than created by "environment." But "environment" is the classic liberal go-to because it allows them to play God with their policies and underscores their belief that they can turn water into wine by passing a law or setting up a program.

They can't.

Nature abides.

But let's assume you're correct:  a human being's intelligence level is strictly a function of their "environment."  So, why can't the mentally retarded be turned into geniuses with the right "environment"?


----------



## CharlestonChad (Apr 15, 2008)

William Joyce said:


> Ha!
> 
> 
> 
> But let's assume you're correct:  a human being's intelligence level is strictly a function of their "environment."  So, why can't the mentally retarded be turned into geniuses with the right "environment"?



As a person with actual knowledge of the science you are trying to spin, I must say I'm sad to see someone so ignorant of simple scientific knowledge and so ignorant of the process of forming logical conclusions. 

But, I'm not surprised at all. Being unable to connect the dots is a major flaw and likely the underlying reason why you are a racist. You simply cannot explain what you see in terms that fit with reality, so you distort your perceptions to create illusions that fit your prejudice. 

1. Gunny never said intelligence is strictly a function of environment. Intelligence in genetically determined, but the developing of the mind is environmental. 

2. Intelligence is genetically determined on the individual level, but groups of races are not different in their amounts of intelligence. An African tribe is not more intelligent than an American neighborhood. The African tribe still selects the most intelligent man to lead, just like we do. The African tribe simply cultures different uses with their intelligence. 

3. Do you have any sort of evidence that you feel shows that one race is more intelligent than another? I know you don't, which is why I will continue to consider you someone whom bases their world view off of opinions and distortions of reality because you have insecurities that likely arose during childhood and the only way to feel like you over come them is to define yourself as a better human than another simply based on skin color.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 15, 2008)

Well that genetic research guru said some races are smarter than others. Then he had to retire.

What is his name? I can't remember. This was about 6 months ago.

It doesn't matter. Some families are hopelessly stupid. Some are smart. Some families have smart, stupid AND crazy members.

We aren't equal in our assets and failings, but we're all human beings with equal value. Intelligence is a really hard thing to measure at any rate, so the argument is idiotic to begin with.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Apr 19, 2008)

CharlestonChad said:


> So when a black man impregnates a woman, he says to himself, "Man, I bet if I leave this woman and child, then they'll get free money from the government and I just want to make life as easy as possible on them".
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That isnt the moment when the decision is made. Its more like later on, when rent is due, the mother thinks, ok, I can get subidized housing, money and food stamps if I just kick this lazy ass out. Also, before having sex, they know there is a bailout if they get pregnant.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Apr 19, 2008)

jillian said:


> Actually, the largest population on welfare is single, *white* mothers.
> 
> And Chad was being sarcastic.



Yea, but only because the pool of white women in America is like 5 times as much. What is the difference in percentages? Hmmmmm?


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Apr 19, 2008)

You have it backwards as usual.
The thing is, the enviorment can make an intelligent person ignorant. 

Also, intelligence isnt the only factor, there are morals and wisdom. Since the days of slavery, the black family has not been allowed to remain intact, it takes a LOOOOONG time for a group to reverse something like that.



William Joyce said:


> Ha!
> 
> But that's barely debatable!  The scientific community would tell you that most human characteristics are more inherited than created by "environment." But "environment" is the classic liberal go-to because it allows them to play God with their policies and underscores their belief that they can turn water into wine by passing a law or setting up a program.
> 
> ...


----------



## William Joyce (Apr 20, 2008)

LuvRPgrl said:


> Since the days of slavery, the black family has not been allowed to remain intact, it takes a LOOOOONG time for a group to reverse something like that.



"the black family has not been allowed to remain intact"?  What does that mean?  Who, exactly, is preventing that, other than blacks themselves?

I reject the idea that whites are respsonsible for black ills.  If anything, blacks who've had contact with whites are BETTER OFF than the black Africans who never have.  I reject the idea slavery, terrible as it was, can explain current black problems, and that whites today are somehow responsible.  Other racial and ethnic groups have undergone slavery, genocide (attempts) and worse.  Jews, for instance, were slaves under the Egyptians, and have fought off extermination attempts since they began as a people.  Yet they are rich, well-educated and powerful.  What gives?


----------



## William Joyce (Apr 20, 2008)

CharlestonChad said:


> Intelligence is genetically determined on the individual level, but groups of races are not different in their amounts of intelligence. An African tribe is not more intelligent than an American neighborhood. The African tribe still selects the most intelligent man to lead, just like we do. The African tribe simply cultures different uses with their intelligence.



Simply "cultures different uses with their intelligence"?  I don't know what that means.  Are you suggesting that black Africans are all geniuses, but are somehow 'holding back' or just deciding NOT to employ the simple techniques needed to purify water, irrigate crops or prevent sexually transmitted diseases?  Wow, how smart of them.  We must plumb their African tribal wisdom! 

It's also pretty absurd to assert that intelligence can be inherited by an individual, but not a group.  Surely you wouldn't deny that physical characteristics are inherited by groups... but somehow, through some magical form of politically-correct dualism, mental capacity escapes this?  No, man, sorry.  Your hang-up is that you don't WANT to believe this.



> Do you have any sort of evidence that you feel shows that one race is more intelligent than another? I know you don't, which is why I will continue to consider you someone whom bases their world view off of opinions and distortions of reality because you have insecurities that likely arose during childhood and the only way to feel like you over come them is to define yourself as a better human than another simply based on skin color.



The evidence that races vary in intelligence abounds.  It's most patently reflected in the sorts of socieites that they build and maintain (or not), with plenty of allowances for natural resources, etc.  Asians and whites build and maintain advanced societies with high levels of technology for addressing human problems.  Blacks and Hispanics have more primitive levels of society with fewer means for addressing human problems.  This pattern is consistent across the globe.  Observing this has little to do with insecurities that arose during my childhood.


----------



## Gunny (Apr 20, 2008)

William Joyce said:


> Ha!
> 
> But that's barely debatable!  The scientific community would tell you that most human characteristics are more inherited than created by "environment." But "environment" is the classic liberal go-to because it allows them to play God with their policies and underscores their belief that they can turn water into wine by passing a law or setting up a program.
> 
> ...



Let's try this again ...

I did not state human characteristics are created more by environment than heredity.  Nor did I state a human being's intelligence level is strictly a function of environment.  

You are cherrypicking my words and using them interchangeably to suit your argument.

Attempting to correlate mentally challenged people with this argument is trying to stack the deck with exception, not the rule.  Obviously, mentally challenged people have real physical defects which disqualifies them for establishing a standard by comparison.

Intellectual capability is individual, and obviously not environmental.  I won't even say it is not affected by heredity, because obviously it is.  However, there is no conclusive evidence that intellectual capability is dictated by or even affected by race.

You can attempt to sweep environment aside if you wish and call it a "liberal tactic", but you are just ignoring the facts when you do.  Given an identical learning environment, one race is not going to prove to be intellectually superior to another.


----------



## William Joyce (Apr 20, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> there is no conclusive evidence that intellectual capability is dictated by or even affected by race.



But there _is so._

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Race-Evolution-Behavior-History-Perspective/dp/0965683613[/ame]

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Race-Reality-Differences-Vincent-Sarich/dp/0813340861[/ame]

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b?url=search-alias&#37;3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=arthur+jensen[/ame]

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-Paperbacks/dp/0684824299/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208715462&sr=1-1[/ame]

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Race-Differences-Intelligence-Evolutionary-Analysis/dp/1593680201/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208715535&sr=1-1[/ame]

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Why-Race-Matters-Differences-Intelligence/dp/0275957896/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208715535&sr=1-3[/ame]

You could read on it for the rest of your life.

But you won't bother looking at the evidence, will you?  Because, like so many others (both liberal and conservative), YOU JUST DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE IT!

Would you admit that, at least?  "I, GunnyL, find the idea that there are racial differences in intelligence to be a very scary idea, so I do my best to scooch away from it."

Hey, no problem.  It is pretty scary.  But does that mean it's not true?


----------



## Gunny (Apr 21, 2008)

William Joyce said:


> But there _is so._
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Race-Evolution-Behavior-History-Perspective/dp/0965683613&tag=ff0d01-20
> 
> ...



Every reference there is a biased report to support an agenda.  What would be the purpose of reading propaganda?  

It isn't that I don't want to believe it, it's that I DON'T believe it.  It defies logic, common sense, AND science.

I wouldn't find the idea that there are racial differences in intelligence any more scary an idea than any other abusrd notion.

In fact, the one who appears to be scared is YOU.  So scared in fact, you have to create an enemy based on the color of his skin, and push the propaganda that reinforces your belief in your superiority.  

You've created an enemy to blame all of what you perceive as society's woes on.  A guy named Adolph did that once too and had a whole nation follow him to ruin.

That what you're after?


----------



## CharlestonChad (Apr 22, 2008)

> Simply "cultures different uses with their intelligence"?  I don't know what that means.  Are you suggesting that black Africans are all geniuses, but are somehow 'holding back' or just deciding NOT to employ the simple techniques needed to purify water, irrigate crops or prevent sexually transmitted diseases?  Wow, how smart of them.  We must plumb their African tribal wisdom!



What I'm saying is that your measure of intelligence is relative to your culture. An african tribe doesn't need a chemist, therefore none of them will learn chemistry. This does not mean that someone from the tribe cannot learn chemisty, because there are plenty of cases where the "stupid africans" come to America and prove to be equally as capable of learning as Americans. 



> It's also pretty absurd to assert that intelligence can be inherited by an individual, but not a group.  Surely you wouldn't deny that physical characteristics are inherited by groups... but somehow, through some magical form of politically-correct dualism, mental capacity escapes this?  No, man, sorry.  Your hang-up is that you don't WANT to believe this.



If my comment is so absurd, then please find something to back up your claim that certain races are smarter than others, because most evidence is leading anthropologists to not even acknowledge "races" anymore. 



> The evidence that races vary in intelligence abounds.  It's most patently reflected in the sorts of socieites that they build and maintain (or not), with plenty of allowances for natural resources, etc.  Asians and whites build and maintain advanced societies with high levels of technology for addressing human problems.  Blacks and Hispanics have more primitive levels of society with fewer means for addressing human problems.  This pattern is consistent across the globe.  Observing this has little to do with insecurities that arose during my childhood.



Again, it is resource driven, not intelligence. If whites are genetically superior,  why are some of the greatest societies in history made by Africans, Asians, Central and South Americans? You really need to look at the big picture when discussing race. 



You will continue to believe your observations are correct, even in the face of all evidence against them. Many people used to think like you back when slavery was acceptable and everyone who wasn't white was called a savage. I called out your psychological abnormality because I'm a firm believer that childhood experiences have a major influence on the way people see the world. If you care to answer, when you were a kid did you have any negative experiences with black people?


----------



## Gunny (Apr 23, 2008)

CharlestonChad said:


> What I'm saying is that your measure of intelligence is relative to your culture. An african tribe doesn't need a chemist, therefore none of them will learn chemistry. This does not mean that someone from the tribe cannot learn chemisty, because there are plenty of cases where the "stupid africans" come to America and prove to be equally as capable of learning as Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yo got anything on hair color showing a significant difference in intellectual capability?


----------



## Shattered (Apr 23, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Yo got anything on hair color showing a significant difference in intellectual capability?



The term "dumb blonde" doesn't ring a bell?


----------



## CharlestonChad (Apr 23, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Yo got anything on hair color showing a significant difference in intellectual capability?



Hilarious?


----------



## William Joyce (Apr 24, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Every reference there is a biased report to support an agenda.  What would be the purpose of reading propaganda?
> 
> It isn't that I don't want to believe it, it's that I DON'T believe it.  It defies logic, common sense, AND science.
> 
> ...



Ever heard the rule that the first one to invoke Hitler loses the argument?

You're not really telling me what's "biased" about my sources.  Arthur Jensen is biased?  You don't even know who that is.  Or any of the other scientists and writers whose work is listed.  It's pretty easy to dismiss a source you don't want to hear from as "propaganda," but that doesn't engage the argument.  Not even slightly.  What, exactly, is the bias, and how does it manifest itself?

And if you refer to race one more time as "skin color," I'm gonna throw a brick!  Race is not "skin color," it's DNA.


----------



## William Joyce (Apr 24, 2008)

CharlestonChad said:


> If whites are genetically superior,  why are some of the greatest societies in history made by Africans?



Could you name one of these societies?  Does one exist today?  Would you volunteer to move to Africa on your assumption that blacks are superior to whites?  How about a black neighborhood in America?


----------



## Gunny (Apr 24, 2008)

Shattered said:


> The term "dumb blonde" doesn't ring a bell?



Shut up.  No one asked you.


----------



## Shattered (Apr 24, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Shut up.  No one asked you.



Ok.  

Ass.


----------



## Gunny (Apr 24, 2008)

William Joyce said:


> Ever heard the rule that the first one to invoke Hitler loses the argument?
> 
> You're not really telling me what's "biased" about my sources.  Arthur Jensen is biased?  You don't even know who that is.  Or any of the other scientists and writers whose work is listed.  It's pretty easy to dismiss a source you don't want to hear from as "propaganda," but that doesn't engage the argument.  Not even slightly.  What, exactly, is the bias, and how does it manifest itself?
> 
> And if you refer to race one more time as "skin color," I'm gonna throw a brick!  Race is not "skin color," it's DNA.



Ever heard that rule calling a spade a spade?  When you start proposing the same ideals, why call it something else?  So you can keep on fooling YOU?

Better get some bricks.  And a helmet.  They don't just fly one way.

It's fucking skin color.  Biologically, we are ALL Homo sapiens, period.  A species.  One of my best friends in high school is black.  He's a nuclear engineer.  Maybe it's his DNA?


----------



## CharlestonChad (Apr 24, 2008)

edit


----------



## CharlestonChad (Apr 24, 2008)

William Joyce said:


> Could you name one of these societies?  Does one exist today?  Would you volunteer to move to Africa on your assumption that blacks are superior to whites?  How about a black neighborhood in America?



Egypt. But then this article sheds more light than the obvious

There have been many misconceptions about the lives of Africans before the advent of European and American colonization. According to some historians, Africans were nothing more than savages whose only contributions to the world were farming and slaves. This is not true. The history of ancient Africa is just as interesting, complex, and sophisticated as any other ancient civilization, yet almost without exception; it is only Egypt that receives any consideration at all when writing history. Because of this mentality, European and American historians have long espoused that Africa and its inhabitants had no culture or history of their own, except what was given to them by outside factors.

However, long before the colonization of Europeans, Africans built kingdoms and monuments that rivaled any European monarchy. Nevertheless, because of racial prejudice, much of Black African history has been distorted and ignored to give justification to the enslavement of millions for financial profit. This paper will be discussing the ancient African kingdoms of Meroë, Ghana, and the Swahili and their rich contributions to the pages of history.

The kingdom of Meroë started around 1000 BC when Nubian rulers built up a politically independent state known to the Egyptians as Kush. Eventually, the rulers of Kush would move to Nubia and establish the kingdom of Meroë (Davis & Gates, p. 30). These rulers established their capital at Meroë around 300 B.C., and the kingdom lasted there for more than nine centuries. However, some historians feel that because Meroitic culture imitated the Egyptian culture so closely, the Meroitës brought no culture of their own to the pages of history. This is not true According to archaeological evidence discovered in North Sudan that is over 2,500 years old, there was an old civilization along the Nile River at lower and Upper Nubia (modern day Sudan) that was older than the civilizations in the North (Egypt). Also, there is evidence that proves that the known Old Egyptian Civilization was an advanced stage of an even older civilization located in the Sudan (Davis & Gates, p. 35).

This evidence proves that Meroë had a culture and history that was even older than of the Egyptians. If anything, Egypt was a carbon copy of Meroë. This kingdom also had its own language. Most historians however, attributed their language and alphabet system to the Egyptians. It was a common belief that ancient Black Africans could not and did not develop a written language. However, inscriptions in a distinct indigenous alphabet appear in Meroë as early as the 2nd century B.C, proving that these assumptions are not true (Davis & Gates, p. 110). This written Meroitic language was used into the 5th century, when Old Nubian eventually replaced it. Widespread use of Meroitic on monuments indicates that a significant percentage of the population was able to read it. However, the meanings of these inscriptions remain unknown, as this hieroglyphic-derived script is as yet untranslatable.

Another little know fact about the Meroitës is that they had a unusually high number of queens who ruled without male intervention. One queen, Queen Amanirenus led her army against a Roman invasion in 24 BC. She won the first battle, and despite losing a second battle, the Romans had enough, agreed to a truce and went back to Rome. Rome never did conquer Meroë, and this kingdom continued to thrive for another 200 years. Actually queendom would be more accurate, since the leader of Meroë was usually a warrior queen, called a kandake which means queen mother or more simply goremeaning ruler(Fairservis. p.60).

In terms of economics, Meroë was famed for its massive iron production, the first large-scale industry of its kind in the Nile Valley and had extensive trade with Greece and Rome. Because of the production of iron, the armies had better weapons to use during battle and the farmers had better axes and hoes to work their lands. Meroitë traders exported ivory, leopard skins, ostrich feathers, ebony, and gold and soon gained direct access to the expanding trade of the Red Sea (Shillington, p. 40).

The kingdom of Meroë eventually went into decline. Causes for the decline of the Meroitic Kingdom are still largely unknown. The Meroitic kingdom faced formidable competition because of the expansion of Axum, a powerful Abyssinian state in modern Ethiopia to the east. About A.D. 350, an Axumite army captured and destroyed Meroe city, ending the kingdom's independent existence. The West African Empire of Ghana is another kingdom whose history was downplayed and attributed to outside factors. Although the Berbers originally founded Ghana in the fifth century, it was built on the southern edge of Berber populations. In time, the land became dominated by the Soninke, a Mande speaking people who lived in the region bordering the Sahara (McKissack & McKissack, p. 112). They built their capital city, Kumbi Saleh, right on the edge of the Sahara and the city quickly became the center of the Trans-Saharan trade routes.

Ghana accumulated great wealth because of the Trans-Saharan trade routes. This wealth made it possible for Ghana to conquer local chieftaincies and demand tribute from these subordinate states. This tribute, however, paled next to the wealth generated by the commerce of goods that passed from western Africa east to Egypt and the Middle East. This trade primarily involved gold, salt, and copper (Koslow, p. 70).

A hereditary king called the Ghana ruled Ghana. The kingship was matrilineal (as were all Sahelian monarchies to follow); the king's sister provided the heir to the throne (McKissack & McKissack, p. 115). In addition to military power, the king appears to have been the supreme judge of the kingdom.

Although northern African had been dominated by the religion of Islam since the eighth century, the kingdom of Ghana never converted (McKissack & McKissack, p. 120). The Ghanaian court, however, allowed Muslims to settle in the cities and even encouraged Muslim specialists to help the royal court administer the government and advice on legal matters.

The original founders of Ghana ultimately proved to be its demise. Unlike the Ghanaians, the Berbers, now calling themselves Almoravids, fervently converted to Islam and in 1075, declared a holy war, or jihad, against the kingdom of Ghana. Little is known about what exactly happened but nonetheless, Ghana ceased to be a commercial or military power after 1100. The Almoravid revolution ultimately ended the reign of Ghana.

Europeans and Arabs alike have portrayed the history of the Swahili kingdom as one of Muslim-Arab domination, with the African people and its rulers playing a passive role in the process. However, recent archaeological evidence found shows that the Swahili people are descendants of the Bantu speaking people who settled along the East African coast in the first millennium (Horton & Middleton, p. 70). Although both Arabians and Persians intermarried with the Swahili, neither of these cultures had anything to do with the establishment of Swahili civilization. These cultures became absorbed into an already flourishing African civilization founded by ancient Bantu Africans.

The eastern coast of Africa changed profoundly around the close of the first millennium AD. During this time, Bantu-speaking Africans from the interior migrated and settled along the coast from Kenya to South Africa. Next, merchants and traders from the Muslim world realized the strategic importance of the east coast of Africa for commercial traffic and began to settle there (Horton & Middleton, p. 72). Marriage between the Bantu women and men of the Middle East created and cemented a rich Swahili culture, fusing religion, agricultural architecture, textiles, food, as well as purchasing power. From 900 A.D., the east coast of Africa saw an influx of Shirazi Arabs from the Persian Gulf and even small settlements of Indians. The Arabs called this region al-Zanj, "The Blacks," and the coastal areas slowly came under the control of Muslim merchants from Arabia and Persia (Horton & Middleton, p. 75). By the 1300's, the major east African ports from Mombaza in the north to Sofala in the south had become thoroughly Islamic cities and cultural centers.

The language that grew out of this civilization is one of the most common and widespread of the lingua franca: a lingua franca is a secondary language that is a combination of two or more languages. Swahili or Kiswahili comes from the Arabic word sawahil, which means, "coast." Swahili belongs to the Sabaki subgroup of the Northeastern coast Bantu languages. It is closely related to the Miji Kenda group of languages, Pokomo and Ngazija (Horton & Middleton, p.110). Over at least a thousand years of intense and varied interaction with the Middle East has given Swahili a rich infusion of loanwords from a wide assortment of languages. Even with the substantial number of Arabic loanwords present in Swahili, the language is in fact, Bantu.

The Swahili civilization expanded southwards until they reached Kilwa in Zanzibar (from the Arabic word al-Zan). Later, its inhabitants carved out a small territory even further south around Sofala in Zimbabwe (Horton & Middleton, p. 140). While the northern cities remained localized and had little influence on African culture inland from the coast, the Sofalans actively went inland and spread Islam and Islamic culture deep in African territory (Horton & Middleton, p. 150). The major Swahili city-states were Mogadishu, Barawa, Mombasa (Kenya), Gedi, Pate, Malindi, Zanzibar, Kilwa, and Sofala in the far south (Horton & Middleton, p. 155). Kilwa was the most famous of these city-states and was particularly wealthy because it controlled the southern port of Sofala, which had access to the gold, produced in the interior (near "Great Zimbabwe"), and its location as the farthest point south at which ships from India could hope to sail and return in a single monsoon season.

These city-states were very cosmopolitan for their time and they were all politically independent of one another. In fact, they were more like competitive companies or corporations, each vying for the lion's share of African trade. The chief export was ivory, sandalwood, ebony, and gold. Textiles from India and porcelain from China were also brought by Arab traders (Horton & Middleton, p. 175). While the Arabs and Persians played a role in the growth of the Swahili civilization, the nobility was of African descent and they ran the city-states (Horton & Middleton p.195). However, the nobility were Muslims and it was the Muslims who controlled the wealth. Below the nobility were the commoners and the resident foreigners who made up a large part of the citizenry.

However, Islam itself penetrated very little into the interior among the hunters, pastoralists, and farmers. Even the areas of the coast near the trading towns remained relatively unaffected (Horton & Middleton p.198). In the towns, the mud and thatch houses of the non-Muslim common people surrounded the stone and coral buildings of the Muslim elite, and it seems that most followers of Islam were wealthy, not poor.

Still, a culture developed for the Swahili that fused African and Islamic elements. Family lineage, for example, was traced both through the maternal line, which controlled property, an African practice, and through the paternal line, which was the Muslim tradition. Swahili culture had a strong Islamic influence but retained many of its African origins.

These city-states began to decline in the sixteenth century; the advent of Portuguese trade disrupted the old trade routes and made the Swahili commercial centers obsolete. The Portuguese wanted native Africans to have no share in African trade and busily set about conquering the Islamic city-states along the eastern coast (Horton & Middleton, p.225). In the late seventeenth century, the imam (religious leader) of Oman drove the Portuguese from the coast, and gradually established his authority over the coast.

The existence of these ancient Black African civilizations proves once and for all that Africa had a culture and a history of its own other than Egyptian that endured for centuries before the advent of outside factors. The kingdom of Meroë ruled for centuries before the Egyptians and deserves its rightful place as one of the premier ancient civilizations of the world. The kingdom of Ghana proved that Africans were capable of managing their own affairs without the intervention of Europeans. The Swahili and their language were around for centuries before Arabians and others discovered them.

These civilizations had their own culture, language and commerce before the advent of Europeans and Muslims in Africa and for the most part, the world does not know anything about them. That is a major crime against the study of history and hopefully, through more archaeological studies and writings, the rich and interesting history of these magnificent civilizations will be told and treasured for future generations.


And that's just Africa I was talking about. Not to mention the Aztecs and Mayans where not white.

Also, I don't appreciate your attempts to put words in my mouth. I never said Africans are superior to any other race. Either you misread or you are reading what you want to to fit your argument.


----------



## CharlestonChad (Apr 24, 2008)

William Joyce said:


> And if you refer to race one more time as "skin color," I'm gonna throw a brick!  Race is not "skin color," it's DNA.



Your DNA is different than any other man on the planet, so then you don't share a race with anyone else, according to you. That is, unless you make some distinction as to what is a different race, but that's just your opinion. There is no law in nature that dictates when someone is black and when they are white. There are variations in the blackness of a man, so exactly what hue must he be to be black? Is this just something you know off of instinct? 

Please don't dodge.


----------



## Gunny (Apr 25, 2008)

CharlestonChad said:


> Your DNA is different than any other man on the planet, so then you don't share a race with anyone else, according to you. That is, unless you make some distinction as to what is a different race, but that's just your opinion. There is no law in nature that dictates when someone is black and when they are white. There are variations in the blackness of a man, so exactly what hue must he be to be black? Is this just something you know off of instinct?
> 
> Please don't dodge.



There are variations in the whiteness in a man too.  My skin is pretty dark.  I've some people that look like the Pillsbury Doughboy.

But no one in my family will tell me why I'm the only one with blonde hair and dark skin.


----------



## CharlestonChad (Apr 25, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> But no one in my family will tell me why I'm the only one with blonde hair and dark skin.




Daddy?


----------



## Gunny (Apr 26, 2008)

CharlestonChad said:


> Daddy?



LMAO!  That's like a LOT too dark.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 26, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> LMAO!



I had to give him positive rep for that one )


----------



## jillian (Apr 26, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> LMAO!  That's like a LOT too dark.



But very, very funny. 

The only problem is now I see you as looking like Cisqo.


----------



## Gunny (Apr 26, 2008)

jillian said:


> But very, very funny.
> 
> The only problem is now I see you as looking like Cisqo.



Trust me ... not even close.


----------



## The_Hammer (Apr 26, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Ever heard that rule calling a spade a spade?  When you start proposing the same ideals, why call it something else?  So you can keep on fooling YOU?
> 
> Better get some bricks.  And a helmet.  They don't just fly one way.
> 
> It's fucking skin color.  Biologically, we are ALL Homo sapiens, period.  A species.  One of my best friends in high school is black.  He's a nuclear engineer.  Maybe it's his DNA?



Just a nit pick, we are homo sapiens _sapiens_. There are currently two-sube species under the homo sapiens species. Homo sapiens idaltu and homo sapiens sapiens.


----------



## CharlestonChad (Apr 26, 2008)

The_Hammer said:


> Just a nit pick, we are homo sapiens _sapiens_. There are currently two-sube species under the homo sapiens species. Homo sapiens idaltu and homo sapiens sapiens.



Homo sapiens idaltu are extinct.


----------



## Gunny (Apr 26, 2008)

The_Hammer said:


> Just a nit pick, we are homo sapiens _sapiens_. There are currently two-sube species under the homo sapiens species. Homo sapiens idaltu and homo sapiens sapiens.



I _might_ be willing to concede that WJ is intellectually superior to a neanderthal.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 26, 2008)

CharlestonChad said:


> Homo sapiens idaltu are extinct.





Well, they may not be extinct....how do you explain THe Good Shephard?


----------



## The_Hammer (Apr 27, 2008)

CharlestonChad said:


> Homo sapiens idaltu are extinct.



Correct. I, however, was referencing only the species nomenclature and not whether they were actually in esse.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 27, 2008)

The_Hammer said:


> Just a nit pick, we are homo sapiens _sapiens_. There are *currently* two-sube species under the homo sapiens species. Homo sapiens idaltu and homo sapiens sapiens.



I know what you mean, but you can see where this might have confused some. LOL


----------



## William Joyce (Apr 27, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> It's fucking skin color.  Biologically, we are ALL Homo sapiens, period.  A species.  One of my best friends in high school is black.  He's a nuclear engineer.  Maybe it's his DNA?



Well, we're stuck then.  But while I've provided a library's worth of books loaded with data showing that races are NOT, in fact, "equal," you've merely concluded it, without any backing.  Now, I know that your position is more popular, but that doesn't mean it's RIGHT -- or that you don't have to defend it.

Do you really think that black nuclear engineers are the rule, rather than the exception?  I think part of the problem is that your "best friend" (I love how everyone's "best friend" is black when arguments get racial) is skewing your perspective.  I'm sure he's a smart guy, but the fact that Danny DeVito is shorter than most women doesn't mean that men are shorter than women, generally.

Consider this:  dogs are genetically nearly identical.  Yet nobody disputes that BREEDS of dogs vary greatly in strength, size, temperament, intelligence, and so on.  Ever heard someone say, "well, let's not stereotype collies" or provoke a pit bull just to prove that they're not racist?  And nobody ever says "it's just fur" by way of denying dog breed differences.


----------



## William Joyce (Apr 27, 2008)

CharlestonChad said:


> Egypt.



Oy.

First, not even LIBERAL academics believe the black-power business about Egypt being black.  It wasn't.  Blacks were never more than several hundred miles to the south, in Nubia.  The Egyptians of history were probably Semitic-looking people, much removed from black Africans.  In fact, one pharaoh decreed that no blacks were allowed in Egypt, except as slaves.

Two, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that all your information about great African cultures is correct.  Do you seriously believe that the only explanation for its disappearance is colonialism?  That's fantastic, especially when you have other colonized areas to compare it too.  In other words, if blacks are so great at nation-building, _why don't they get off their asses and build one?_  Africa's loaded with natural resources, and the whites are either being killed off or forced to leave, as in Zimbabwe and South Africa.  What in the hell is stopping black Africa from blossoming into space-racing, car-building, clean-water piping, Starbucks-sipping, French lit-reading societies?  And please don't give me the "it's their leadership" crap.  There are leadership failures to go around, but a race that can't figure out agricultural techniques mastered by other groups hundreds of years ago and fucks infants as a cure for AIDS isn't suffering from mere "leadership" problems, man.  They're stone-age people, biologically and mentally, and you can't bring 'em up to speed by air-dropping MacBooks.


----------



## CharlestonChad (Apr 27, 2008)

William Joyce said:


> Oy.
> 
> First, not even LIBERAL academics believe the black-power business about Egypt being black.  It wasn't.  Blacks were never more than several hundred miles to the south, in Nubia.  The Egyptians of history were probably Semitic-looking people, much removed from black Africans.  In fact, one pharaoh decreed that no blacks were allowed in Egypt, except as slaves.
> 
> Two, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that all your information about great African cultures is correct.  Do you seriously believe that the only explanation for its disappearance is colonialism?  That's fantastic, especially when you have other colonized areas to compare it too.  In other words, if blacks are so great at nation-building, _why don't they get off their asses and build one?_  Africa's loaded with natural resources, and the whites are either being killed off or forced to leave, as in Zimbabwe and South Africa.  What in the hell is stopping black Africa from blossoming into space-racing, car-building, clean-water piping, Starbucks-sipping, French lit-reading societies?  And please don't give me the "it's their leadership" crap.  There are leadership failures to go around, but a race that can't figure out agricultural techniques mastered by other groups hundreds of years ago and fucks infants as a cure for AIDS isn't suffering from mere "leadership" problems, man.  They're stone-age people, biologically and mentally, and you can't bring 'em up to speed by air-dropping MacBooks.



I really wish you would have presented a valid argument for your case. 

1. I threw out a plethora of examples and you only picked up on Egypt. Egypt isn't white. You are continue to read what you want because you cannot bear to challenge your own opinion. I'm naming "advanced" non-white societies and you cannot dispute what I said, only dispute what you wanted me to say. 

2. Because a white society is the most worldly dominant right now does not mean that white people are superior. Try to explain the Mayans, Aztecs, and Chinese.


----------



## CharlestonChad (Apr 27, 2008)

Your DNA is different than any other man on the planet, so then you don't share a race with anyone else, according to you. That is, unless you make some distinction as to what is a different race, but that's just your opinion. There is no law in nature that dictates when someone is black and when they are white. There are variations in the blackness of a man, so exactly what hue must he be to be black? Is this just something you know off of instinct? 

Please don't dodge.




bump for WJ


----------



## The_Hammer (Apr 27, 2008)

William Joyce said:


> Oy.
> 
> First, not even LIBERAL academics believe the black-power business about Egypt being black.  It wasn't.  Blacks were never more than several hundred miles to the south, in Nubia.  The Egyptians of history were probably Semitic-looking people, much removed from black Africans.  In fact, one pharaoh decreed that no blacks were allowed in Egypt, except as slaves.
> 
> Two, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that all your information about great African cultures is correct.  Do you seriously believe that the only explanation for its disappearance is colonialism?  That's fantastic, especially when you have other colonized areas to compare it too.  In other words, if blacks are so great at nation-building, _why don't they get off their asses and build one?_  Africa's loaded with natural resources, and the whites are either being killed off or forced to leave, as in Zimbabwe and South Africa.  What in the hell is stopping black Africa from blossoming into space-racing, car-building, clean-water piping, Starbucks-sipping, French lit-reading societies?  And please don't give me the "it's their leadership" crap.  There are leadership failures to go around, but a race that can't figure out agricultural techniques mastered by other groups hundreds of years ago and fucks infants as a cure for AIDS isn't suffering from mere "leadership" problems, man.  They're stone-age people, biologically and mentally, and you can't bring 'em up to speed by air-dropping MacBooks.



I find it odd that you say they aren't black, or perhaps you don't read Nat'l Geographic or hell, do any moderate amount of research on Egypt. The simple wiki article on Egyptian race. They weren't a white people, and they weren't semites either. They may have been lighter than really dark africans but some had dark skin and curly hair. They were quite diverse physically and I'm sure that some of them would have fallen under your categorization of "black".


----------



## BrianH (Apr 27, 2008)

CharlestonChad said:


> Your DNA is different than any other man on the planet, so then you don't share a race with anyone else, according to you. That is, unless you make some distinction as to what is a different race, but that's just your opinion. There is no law in nature that dictates when someone is black and when they are white. There are variations in the blackness of a man, so exactly what hue must he be to be black? Is this just something you know off of instinct?
> 
> Please don't dodge.
> 
> ...



Actually, there is no such thing as different races, just a plethora of people in which Chuck Norris beat to different shades of black and blue. LOL. j/k


----------



## William Joyce (Apr 27, 2008)

CharlestonChad said:


> There is no law in nature that dictates when someone is black and when they are white.



Really?  So if two black parents are set to have a child, you expect it to be white?

That's crazy talk, man.

But really, if race doesn't exist, how can someone be "racist"?  Why don't we get rid of affirmative, civil rights, etc.?


----------



## mattskramer (Apr 27, 2008)

William Joyce said:


> Really?  So if two black parents are set to have a child, you expect it to be white?
> 
> That's crazy talk, man.
> 
> But really, if race doesn't exist, how can someone be "racist"?  Why don't we get rid of affirmative, civil rights, etc.?



Im not a racist.  The racist laws were needed to help heal injustices done in the past and help races that were discriminated against catch up to a degree.  I think that we are in agreement that such laws should be removed now.


----------



## Contessa_Sharra (Apr 27, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> Im not a racist.  The racist laws were needed to help heal injustices done in the past and help races that were discriminated against catch up to a degree.  I think that we are in agreement that such laws should be removed now.




Has everything been fixed?


----------



## Gunny (Apr 27, 2008)

William Joyce said:


> Really?  So if two black parents are set to have a child, you expect it to be white?
> 
> That's crazy talk, man.
> 
> But really, if race doesn't exist, how can someone be "racist"?  Why don't we get rid of affirmative, civil rights, etc.?



Who has said race doesn't exist?  Of course it exists.  Saying there is no noticeable difference between human beings at the biological level is NOT saying race doesn't exist.

It's saying one race is not superior to another.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 27, 2008)

Contessa_Sharra said:


> Has everything been fixed?



You do not make someone equal by making them more than equal. Yo do not engender harmony by forcing unjust rules and laws on others, or did you all miss that part when the whites were doing?

Special treatment is special treatment, no matter the excuse given for it.


----------



## CharlestonChad (Apr 27, 2008)

William Joyce said:


> Really?  So if two black parents are set to have a child, you expect it to be white?
> 
> That's crazy talk, man.
> 
> But really, if race doesn't exist, how can someone be "racist"?  Why don't we get rid of affirmative, civil rights, etc.?



haha, your dodging is so transparent. 

Like I said, there is no law in nature that dictates who is black and who is white.   I specifically asked you to tell me what hue distinguishes a black man from a white man. You dodged. Hopefully you have seen this to be a fatal flaw in your argument. I don't really expect you to stop being a racist, but I just wanted to make you aware that there are major flaws in your opinion of one race being superior to another.


----------



## William Joyce (Apr 28, 2008)

CharlestonChad said:


> there is no law in nature that dictates who is black and who is white.



This just doesn't make any fucking sense.  Even if you believe that "race is just a skin color," the science of light, optics of the eye, refraction, etc. is a "law in nature that dicates who is black and who is white."  You're essentially trying to argue what here?  The whole "race does not exist" business sounds like 1984 to me:  we're supposed to deny what we see right in front of our faces!  

If you were on fire, you'd deny it on grounds that you couldn't generalize about licking flames and high heat and the damage they do to human flesh.


----------



## William Joyce (Apr 28, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> It's saying one race is not superior to another.



People say that, but they sure as hell don't think it.  That's because it's not true.  You're turned off by the word "superior."  You imply more baggage than is necessary with that word.  The reality is that races are DIFFERENT:  different in intelligence, temperament, behavior, mannerisms, many things besides just appearance.  The differences are REAL.  Zimbabwe is not like Sweden because blacks REALLY ARE DIFFERENT FROM WHITES.  Nobody who spends any time in an area where blacks are predominant can deny this for too long.

The truth is that some races are indeed "superior" to others when it comes to building and maintaining civilized societies.  Whites and Asians pull it off, blacks and Hispanics don't.  Why is this so hard to admit to?


----------



## mattskramer (Apr 28, 2008)

Contessa_Sharra said:


> Has everything been fixed?



I think so  for the most part.   Colleges understand that if they are perceived as racist, they will lose recognition, respect, and revenue.   Businesses know that if they let racism over-ride selecting the best worker, it will lose to businesses that dont let racism interfere with employment practices.


----------



## mattskramer (Apr 28, 2008)

William Joyce said:


> People say that, but they sure as hell don't think it.  That's because it's not true.  You're turned off by the word "superior."  You imply more baggage than is necessary with that word.  The reality is that races are DIFFERENT:  different in intelligence, temperament, behavior, mannerisms, many things besides just appearance.  The differences are REAL.  Zimbabwe is not like Sweden because blacks REALLY ARE DIFFERENT FROM WHITES.  Nobody who spends any time in an area where blacks are predominant can deny this for too long.
> 
> The truth is that some races are indeed "superior" to others when it comes to building and maintaining civilized societies.  Whites and Asians pull it off, blacks and Hispanics don't.  Why is this so hard to admit to?



This is where we will forever disagree.  Other nations do not have the history that America has.  They do not have the opportunities that America has.  I think that the differences in races come from societal expectation, family experiences, and environment to a hugely greater degree than from genetics.


----------



## mattskramer (Apr 28, 2008)

CharlestonChad said:


> haha, your dodging is so transparent.
> 
> Like I said, there is no law in nature that dictates who is black and who is white.   I specifically asked you to tell me what hue distinguishes a black man from a white man. You dodged. Hopefully you have seen this to be a fatal flaw in your argument. I don't really expect you to stop being a racist, but I just wanted to make you aware that there are major flaws in your opinion of one race being superior to another.



I was confused by your comment too but I think that I see your point.  A Black person and a White person can get together and produce a biracial person.


----------



## CharlestonChad (Apr 28, 2008)

William Joyce said:


> This just doesn't make any fucking sense.  Even if you believe that "race is just a skin color," the science of light, optics of the eye, refraction, etc. is a "law in nature that dicates who is black and who is white."  You're essentially trying to argue what here?  The whole "race does not exist" business sounds like 1984 to me:  we're supposed to deny what we see right in front of our faces!
> 
> If you were on fire, you'd deny it on grounds that you couldn't generalize about licking flames and high heat and the damage they do to human flesh.



I'll try again. What is the hue of skin color that separates someone from being black and white? Is race something that you just recognize when you see it? 

Race is a relative term that has different meanings in different cultures. America is guilty of using few terms to define race. White, black, asian, india, native american, hispanic. That's pretty much the basics. In cultures like in Brazil, race is still defined by someone making an observation, but they have hundreds of different races to define someone's race. We simplify in America, Brazil complicates. 

In case I haven't been clear enough. 

Do you, WJ, have some kind of measurement system to define race, or is race something you just know when you see it?


----------



## Gunny (Apr 28, 2008)

William Joyce said:


> People say that, but they sure as hell don't think it.  That's because it's not true.  You're turned off by the word "superior."  You imply more baggage than is necessary with that word.  The reality is that races are DIFFERENT:  different in intelligence, temperament, behavior, mannerisms, many things besides just appearance.  The differences are REAL.  Zimbabwe is not like Sweden because blacks REALLY ARE DIFFERENT FROM WHITES.  Nobody who spends any time in an area where blacks are predominant can deny this for too long.
> 
> The truth is that some races are indeed "superior" to others when it comes to building and maintaining civilized societies.  Whites and Asians pull it off, blacks and Hispanics don't.  Why is this so hard to admit to?



There is nothing to "admit to" because you are incorrect, period.  Try first getting past the part where Europeans exploited and killed Africans and Native Americans at will because they thought just like you do, so you can't say they can't develop when they weren't allowed to.  They were too busy trying to save their asses from us.

When you keep people in tribal conditions and don't allow them to develop, it's pretty damned dishonest to turn around and claim they can't develop.

You're going full circle right back to my original argument and supporting it.  No Sweden isn't Zimbabwe.  Two different environments.   

Blacks and Hispanics that come here and are given opportunities and take advantage of them keep up just fine.  THAT is fact.  Obviously it has nothing to do with skin color and a lot to do with the opportunities they get/environment in which they live.  

Why is it you just have to have an enemy?  Why do you just have to blame something on people who are different than you?


----------



## midcan5 (Apr 29, 2008)

"Education, earnings, and health gaps between whites and blacks did significantly narrow during the 40-year period from the end of World War II until the late 1980's. However, from then until the present, progress of blacks relative to whites has essentially stopped, leaving a still sizable distance between the circumstances of whites and blacks."

Why did the progress of blacks stop well short of achieving full equality with whites, and is the slowdown during the past 20 years in black progress only temporary, or is it an indication of what the racial situation will be during the next few decades? The sharp slowdown is surprising mainly because institutionalized and personal discrimination against African-Americans has continued to fall into this century."


http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2008/01/slowing_of_blac.html


----------



## CharlestonChad (May 7, 2008)

CharlestonChad said:


> I'll try again. What is the hue of skin color that separates someone from being black and white? Is race something that you just recognize when you see it?
> 
> Race is a relative term that has different meanings in different cultures. America is guilty of using few terms to define race. White, black, asian, india, native american, hispanic. That's pretty much the basics. In cultures like in Brazil, race is still defined by someone making an observation, but they have hundreds of different races to define someone's race. We simplify in America, Brazil complicates.
> 
> ...



bump for william joyce.

What hue is the divider between someone being white and black?


----------



## Care4all (May 7, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> "Education, earnings, and health gaps between whites and blacks did significantly narrow during the 40-year period from the end of World War II until the late 1980's. However, from then until the present, progress of blacks relative to whites has essentially stopped, leaving a still sizable distance between the circumstances of whites and blacks."
> 
> Why did the progress of blacks stop well short of achieving full equality with whites, and is the slowdown during the past 20 years in black progress only temporary, or is it an indication of what the racial situation will be during the next few decades? The sharp slowdown is surprising mainly because institutionalized and personal discrimination against African-Americans has continued to fall into this century."
> 
> ...



yes midcan, I am certain discrimination in alive and well, but some of this could also have to do with the influx of illegal immigrants (since the Reagan Amnesty in the 80's)....who then... took over the jobs that many in the black community were doing, removing an entire sector of workers from work....which had them on the whole, take a step back again?  

along with resources for the poor being spread too thin now.... having to be shared with another group of people, which diminished their move forward that had been occuring before the influx of illegal immigrants....perhaps?

This could have been in part, a side effect from that....no?  I am not really certain, but logically, it seems like illegal immigration might be part of their progress coming to a halt?

Care


----------



## Gungnir (May 7, 2008)

CharlestonChad said:


> bump for william joyce.
> 
> What hue is the divider between someone being white and black?



If it's yellow let it mellow, if it's brown flush it down?


----------



## MsWikia (May 27, 2008)

Let's put all of the possible reasons together that people mentioned in no particular order:

1. Immigrants taking jobs away from Blacks, not only do Blacks have to play catch up with Whites, they now have others joining in on the race.

2. Indirect discrimination still going on (i.e racial profiling, laws: One study showed White people commit more crimes than Blacks, however, Blacks get arrested and sentenced more; schools in urban communities are funded less)

3. The impact of slavery: free labor=possibly why America is so rich today, Blacks are now trying to play catch up not only in the work force, in education but in their families as well; Blacks have to be taught to Love who they are, that Black no matter how dark, is pretty and smart, especially when all you see or hear on TV, in school and in the Magazines are the exact opposite.

4. Education: Blacks were denied an education however, some were still able to receive a good and fair education. Today anyone can go to school (if you can afford it or qualify for loans, which are a problem as well). A lot of great grandparents, grandparents, and parents in the Black community compared to the White community were not privy to a good education; therefore, the generation today is not focused on education as much however, on working.


5. Entertainment: The music and movies are selling Blacks a false lifestyle, an easy way to get Rich: be a rap star, play Ball..etc.

6. It's not what you know, it's who you know: Lack of togetherness/Morals/religion: Back then, there was a sense of community. Everyone helped each other and encouraged each other to break barriers; however, today the individual is deemed the most important.

7. Drugs: Funny how the govt can't figure out where drugs are being imported from? 

After writing this, I realized there is NO ONE ANSWER or ONE PERSON OR GROUP to Blame. So much has happened in America and so much is changing (i.e. a Black man has a chance of being President). In addition, its really based on the individual and his/her values.

Furthermore, opportunities and resources are there and racial issues are not that prevalent today; however, we can not expect 40yrs of gradual progress to change a lifetime of abuse.


----------



## BrianH (May 27, 2008)

MsWikia said:


> Let's put all of the possible reasons together that people mentioned in no particular order:
> 
> 1. Immigrants taking jobs away from Blacks, not only do Blacks have to play catch up with Whites, they now have others joining in on the race.
> 
> ...


*

I like this post....though I disagree with a few things...alot of it points to the lifestyle that many blacks choose to live.  I know many people don't choose to be born into poverty, but they do have a choice (when the time is right) to get themselves out of poverty and end the cycle of poverty in their family.  My family lived in poverty when I graduated high school and I went to college and got a degree.  Anything's possible if the attitude is right.*


----------



## Gunny (May 27, 2008)

MsWikia said:


> Let's put all of the possible reasons together that people mentioned in no particular order:
> 
> 1. Immigrants taking jobs away from Blacks, not only do Blacks have to play catch up with Whites, they now have others joining in on the race.
> 
> ...



Your opinion is just as stereotypical as those you like to point a finger at.  You blame racism for everything, and you point only to whites being racist against blacks which is defnitely not even close to true.

1.  What immigrants are taking jobs away from blacks?  On what do you base this statement?  

2.  Indirect discrimination?  Racial discrimination is illegal in this country, and your following comment is irrelevent to the first.

In total numbers whites probably do commit more crimes than black, but when you break it down to percentage based on ethinicity such is NOT the case.

3.  Slavery was outlawed in this country 143 years ago.  The only reason it still has any impact is because of those of you who enable those blacks you wish to use it as a crutch.  There are no currently living former slaves, nor former slave owners.  Time to move on.

4.  Blacks are NOT denied an education.  In fact, minorities can easily get scholarships and financial aid in this nation that whites can't.  Those that WANT that education go out and get it.  

5.  The music and entertainment industry does not sell a a false lifestyle solely to blacks.  They sell it to kids and those moneygrubbers don't care what color they are.

6.  I don't even know what to say to this junk. 

7.  Yeah, drugs are a problem only of black communities. 

After rreading what you posted, I feel that whatever the situation is and whatever the answer to it is, you have neither your finger on the former nor a clue to the latter.


----------



## CharlestonChad (May 28, 2008)

> 1.  What immigrants are taking jobs away from blacks?  On what do you base this statement?



I think the immigrants may be taking away the manual labor jobs, like construction. But those come from everyone, and force more people to get more education because of it. 


> 2.  Indirect discrimination?  Racial discrimination is illegal in this country, and your following comment is irrelevent to the first.



Racial discrimination certainly happens. Cops racially profile all the time. Ask one of your black friends about that. 



> In total numbers whites probably do commit more crimes than black, but when you break it down to percentage based on ethinicity such is NOT the case.



Crime is linked to poverty levels. 



> 3.  Slavery was outlawed in this country 143 years ago.  The only reason it still has any impact is because of those of you who enable those blacks you wish to use it as a crutch.  There are no currently living former slaves, nor former slave owners.  Time to move on.



Not at all. Slavery does not end once the shackles were removed. When you take a few million people and keep them uneducated for generations, then let them go, they won't be able to keep up in the economy. I think slavery has set back blacks for a very long time. It wasn't until a hundred years after slavery that blacks were considered as equals to whites. 100 years. That is devestating. There has only been two generations of blacks that have been afforded equal education opportunity as whites. 



> 4.  Blacks are NOT denied an education.  In fact, minorities can easily get scholarships and financial aid in this nation that whites can't.  Those that WANT that education go out and get it.



True. 



> 5.  The music and entertainment industry does not sell a a false lifestyle solely to blacks.  They sell it to kids and those moneygrubbers don't care what color they are.



True. People are saying things about rap that were said about Rock in the 60's and 70's. 



> 6.  I don't even know what to say to this junk.





> 7.  Yeah, drugs are a problem only of black communities.


----------



## MsWikia (May 28, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Your opinion is just as stereotypical as those you like to point a finger at.  You blame racism for everything, and you point only to whites being racist against blacks which is defnitely not even close to true.



I was just re-stating what some people have already posted in this thread. I listed all of the"suggested" reasons for some of the problems in the Black Community. Furthermore, as I stated at the end of the list, I realized that there is NO ONE ANSWER OR ONE PERSON TO BLAME, there are several factors that play a role. In today's society I think it's really based on the individual and his or her values. However, I do agree that about 40yrs of equal rights does not erase or reverse a lifetime of mistreatment.


----------



## BrianH (May 28, 2008)

MsWikia said:


> I was just re-stating what some people have already posted in this thread. I listed all of the"suggested" reasons for some of the problems in the Black Community. Furthermore, as I stated at the end of the list, I realized that there is NO ONE ANSWER OR ONE PERSON TO BLAME, there are several factors that play a role. In today's society I think it's really based on the individual and his or her values. However, I do agree that about 40yrs of equal rights does not erase or reverse a lifetime of mistreatment.



Ahh I see.  You're right, it is an individual's choice and values.  You're also right that 40 yrs of equal rights does not erase a lifetime of mistreatment....however, was it really meant to "make up" for it"   It seems to me that if it was meant to "make up" for mistreatment, we would have given them alot more when the Civil Rights Act was passed.


----------



## MsWikia (May 28, 2008)

True, equal rights was given to give Blacks an equal playing field, give or take a few flaws I guess.


----------



## Contessa_Sharra (Jun 9, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Blacks get no shittier a deal than anyone else. As a matter of fact, being a racial minority in this country entitles one to handouts whites can't get.


 


What???? feeling a little jealous because someone who makes half of what you do gets something that because you have been lucky and had the right opportunities and family connections, you don't need anyway?


What a really petty outlook, to be jealous of those who have less than you do, and be envious of what little they do have!

Do you also envy the homeless their carefree lifestyle?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 9, 2008)

College scholarships are based on race.
Hunting and fishing rights are based on race.
I have applied for jobs where it says right on the application that preference will be given to a certain race.

So no, I don't envy the homeless for their carefree lifestyle. But I fail to understand how when people show preference to people of color it's "affirmative action" but if one shows preference to whites it's "racism".

It's the same thing.


----------



## Contessa_Sharra (Jun 9, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> College scholarships are based on race.
> Hunting and fishing rights are based on race.
> I have applied for jobs where it says right on the application that preference will be given to a certain race.
> 
> ...


 
Because white males already have all the options, it is a given, and if they are still nonentities and losers, it is their own damned fault!!!


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 9, 2008)

But all the black losers can blame white guys.


----------



## Contessa_Sharra (Jun 9, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> LMAO! That's like a LOT too dark.


 

color charts for you:

RetouchPRO Color Charts






and

Photoshop brings us:






http://www.idigitalemotion.com/tutorials/guest/skin_tone/skintone.jpg

True color is usually that on the inner side of your upper arm, LOL, but here is some interesting info for all on "skin."

Backintyme Essays Blog Archive The Paleo-Etiology of Human Skin Tone


----------



## dilloduck (Jun 9, 2008)

Contessa_Sharra said:


> Because white males already have all the options, it is a given, and if they are still nonentities and losers, it is their own damned fault!!!



White males have all the options ???  That's funny !!


----------



## Gunny (Jun 9, 2008)

Contessa_Sharra said:


> What???? feeling a little jealous because someone who makes half of what you do gets something that because you have been lucky and had the right opportunities and family connections, you don't need anyway?
> 
> 
> What a really petty outlook, to be jealous of those who have less than you do, and be envious of what little they do have!
> ...



Jealous?  Get real.  Your entire personal attack is based on nothing but assumption.  You don't know a damned thing about me.

I haven't asked anyone for a damned thing I don't earn with my own two hands and I grew up pretty damned poor.  I got off my ass at the soonest opportunity and went to work to alleviate that problem and I sure as Hell didn't wait around for some bleeding heart to come give me something I felt I was entitled to for no real good reason.

So spin your guilt trip on someone it might phase.


----------



## Gunny (Jun 9, 2008)

CharlestonChad said:


> Not at all. Slavery does not end once the shackles were removed. When you take a few million people and keep them uneducated for generations, then let them go, they won't be able to keep up in the economy. I think slavery has set back blacks for a very long time. It wasn't until a hundred years after slavery that blacks were considered as equals to whites. 100 years. That is devestating. There has only been two generations of blacks that have been afforded equal education opportunity as whites.



I disagree.  I would agree that your argument may have been valid 50 years ago.  If you count only the time since Civil Rights laws were enacted in the 60s you've still got close to 50 years.  

I'd just have to ask for those you think aren't being given a fair shake when legally they get more than a fair shake ... what are they waiting on?


----------



## editec (Jun 10, 2008)

> Who is Responsible for Fatherless Black Families?



All those Black children, obviously.

The Fatherless Whites one are no better, either, let me tell yas.

_Feed me, clothe me, please stop hitting me._

Slacking parasites, the lot of them.


----------



## Gungnir (Jun 10, 2008)

> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to editec again.



"stop hitting me"... great


----------



## hvywgt250 (Jun 10, 2008)

Single Parent Families

Between 1980 and 1994, the proportion of all black families that were headed by single parents climbed from 52% to 65%. By 2000, however, this percentage had declined slightly to 63.2%. Among both white and Hispanic families, the percentage maintained by single parents increased between 1980 and 2000, among whites from 17.1% in 1980 to 26% in 2000, and from 25.9% to 35.4% for Hispanics. However, these increases still left the percentage of black families maintained by single parents more than twice the percentage for white families, and 75% higher than that for Hispanics.

The fraction of single-parent families maintained by men is steadily increasing (see chart 2). Nevertheless, in 2000 the overwhelming majority of black single-parent families (90.1%) were maintained by women, and so were 79.3% of white single-parent families. 

In 2000, 19.2 million children under 18 lived with one parent, including about 58.2% of all black children and 23% of all white children. In 1998, for both black and non-Hispanic white households, the average number of children per household living with single fathers was 2.0. The average number of children in the families of black single mothers (2.5) and white single mothers (2.2) was higher, as was the average number of children in two-parent black (2.6) and white (2.4) families


----------



## CharlestonChad (Jun 11, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> I disagree.  I would agree that your argument may have been valid 50 years ago.  If you count only the time since Civil Rights laws were enacted in the 60s you've still got close to 50 years.
> 
> I'd just have to ask for those you think aren't being given a fair shake when legally they get more than a fair shake ... what are they waiting on?



We leave behind inner city kids like it's our garbage. That's not a fair shake. Until we are supplying quality education and the youth understands the need for an education, blacks will be underpriviliaged. It doesn't really matter how many scholarships we give out if we have to lower the standards to recieve them because that only creates a cycle of underachievement.


----------



## Care4all (Jun 11, 2008)

CharlestonChad said:


> We leave behind inner city kids like it's our garbage. That's not a fair shake. Until we are supplying quality education and the youth understands the need for an education, blacks will be underpriviliaged. It doesn't really matter how many scholarships we give out if we have to lower the standards to recieve them because that only creates a cycle of underachievement.



I can agree, however...why is this a Federal Responsibility in a Republic?  

Why is this up to the federal government instead of the state that the city is in....?

It would be to the State's benefit for their students in all areas to be well educated...it brings them good workers and tax payers down the road and less crime so less on police etc...?

It would benefit the educational system you would think., with States competing with eachother on having the best schools and the perks of what that brings, like good jobs to regions where there are plentiful, educated workers....?  People move from town to town for the good education of their kids and if this same thing happened with State competition then States without a good educational system would be hurting for tax dollars cuz many would leave their state if the educational system was poor...

Nevermind, I think I just indirectly answered my own question....i think this works for everyone in America that already has the means to move, with their career or with money on hand, whereas those disadvantaged would be stuck in the region of poor schools....?

But one would think that the State gvt would still concentrate on better educating all children because they don't want any one to leave their state...that would be their ever beloved tax monies walking out the door?

Anyway, do you think it is a federal responsibility to improve the inner city schools of a specific State?

Care


----------



## editec (Jun 12, 2008)

It doesn't matter if it's our _responsibility._

The outcome of treating people like crap, and allowing their children to become disenfranchised savages will inevitably become _our problem._

2.4 million people in prison?

Whole areas where sane people can't go because they're now gang controlled neighboods?

Sorry, folks, but sooner or later you're going to have to leave those gated communities.

If you neighbors are getting poorer, _you are too._

We share the world.

If we allow it to become populated by people with nothing to lose?

We ALL lose.


----------



## wayne (Jun 12, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Brian, no offense, but where are you getting this idea that black people don't value education? You seem to be basing your entire premise on your own personal experience.



That is the general impression, but one is not talking about every black person and family. In come black communities seeking knowledge is acting white.


----------



## editec (Jun 12, 2008)

> In come black communities seeing knowledge is acting white.



America has always had its share of White know-nothings, too.

So?


----------



## Contessa_Sharra (Jun 12, 2008)

Care4all said:


> I can agree, however...why is this a Federal Responsibility in a Republic?
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


 
With liberty and justice for all....... 


or are you one of those who doesn't salute the flag and say the pledge?


----------



## MsWikia (Jun 12, 2008)

editec said:


> It doesn't matter if it's our _responsibility._
> 
> The outcome of treating people like crap, and allowing their children to become disenfranchised savages will inevitably become _our problem._
> 
> ...




I don't know how the rep system really works but I am def. going to give you some points or whatever for this post!


----------



## Contessa_Sharra (Jun 12, 2008)

CharlestonChad said:


> I'll try again. What is the hue of skin color that separates someone from being black and white? Is race something that you just recognize when you see it?


 
It can be an obvious set of characteristics, skin, hair, features, or it can be self identification.



Like Jedgar Hoover's family going in the back door as one thing and coming out the front as something different.....

The Mysterious Origins of J. Edgar Hoover


----------



## MsWikia (Jun 12, 2008)

We are taught the differences.

When you are a kid, you do not know that you are considered White or Black. However, as you grow older, people tell you, You are White, You are Black, then you begin to identify with that group and recognize similarities or differences.


----------



## Care4all (Jun 12, 2008)

Contessa_Sharra said:


> With liberty and justice for all.......
> 
> 
> or are you one of those who doesn't salute the flag and say the pledge?



Why so much hatred in your posts Contessa?  

You obviously have NO CLUE on what a Democratic REPUBLIC is or have any clue on what our Constitution says and dictates.

This is what I am discussing and IT IS NOT, ACCORDING TO OUR CONSTITUTION, the duty of the Federal Government to School our Children.

It is something that the States do with their citizens of their State.

I NEVER SAID, that the problems of towns or cities not collecting enough property taxes to pay for the schooling in their low income districts, thus neglecting them ....should be tolerated!  NEVER!

I NEVER SAID, to each his own and the HELL with everyone else that has less, and you are a pompous little twit to just presume such and shoot off your sarcastic little post Contessa..... 

What I did suggest, is that the States, WHO ALREADY PAY FOR 93% of all of their educational costs for the the citizen's of their states ALREADY, ARE THE ONES that need to address these issues of educational inequality within their own state....THEY CONTROL THE MONEY FOR IT.....and these are NOT FEDERAL ISSUES.....these are State issues, and some states have done a FANTASTIC job like Massachusetts.....  

Other State gvts should visit the States that have superb educational systems and try to model themselves off of them....that would be a start....

Also, maybe they need to consider Town/State property taxes as NOT the means to pay for education and use other means like lotteries, to help the needy regions with very little property taxes collected....

And money is NOT the say all be all in improving our educational systems, there are many other things that massachusetts has done to improve their educational system for all!  Like giving teachers that teach in Boston, a break on their State income taxes or as with my cousin who was an engineer in tha Air Force, retired in a small mass town to teach math and the town gave her property tax exempt for 10 years to teach at the school...since they could not pay them more and needed good teachers....


Care


----------



## BrianH (Jun 12, 2008)

Contessa_Sharra said:


> What???? feeling a little jealous because someone who makes half of what you do gets something that because you have been lucky and had the right opportunities and family connections, you don't need anyway?
> 
> 
> What a really petty outlook, to be jealous of those who have less than you do, and be envious of what little they do have!
> ...



Are you comparing yourself to the homeless?  You've obviously got access to a computer and the internet.  You're not doing that bad.

Two, you've obviously got a huge chip on your shoulder about something.  Quit eating it and and spit it out so we all know what we're dealing with.

And by the way, the State has control of its education system...hence why many state lotteries contribute, each state has it's own standardized testing, school taxes...etc....  The Fed. gov. is not Constitutionally responsible for public education.


----------



## IHL (Jun 21, 2009)

Fatherless black families are caused by BLACK MEN.

Not so!

Not all black women are impregnated by black men who then abandon them. Many black women are plugged by white and mexican men who abandon their responsibilities. In addition to this not all black men neglect their responsibilities. If we combine both of these points:
1) Not all black women are empregnated by black men, and 
2) Not all black men neglect their responsibilities.

The statement:   "Fatherless black families are caused by BLACK MEN," is false. 

The true statement should read:
 "Fatherless black families are caused by irresponsible and selfish males." 

Men raise their offspring.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Jun 22, 2009)

Gunny said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Well........my hypotheses involves a number of different factors.  I may not hit all of them.  but it's the first thing(s) that I notice.
> ...



BS, just because some black men arent living together with the mother of their kids don't mean they don't spend time with and take care of their kids:'



7 Out Of 10 Black Americans "Love" Their Dad | NewsOne

_ But even though African-American families are often headed by single mothers, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported on research that showed that, African American fathers, more than any other group, are more likely to maintain lasting relationships with their children when they dont live with them._


Are there some irresponsible black fathers out there? Yes, no different than any other race, people look at the black single mother stat and read all kinds of negativity into and start coming up with nonsense like you're spewing. 


The idea that a significant amount of poor blacks are irresponsible due to playing the victim  
and having a false sense of entitlement is pure rubbish, most black families that live in poverty spend more time trying to find better jobs and or working two or more menial jobs trying to take care of their families, how many poor blacks have you associated with and talked on an interpersonal basis?


The only people that are really crying like babies and feeling a sense of entitlement due to their race are angry white males crying about affirmative action being racist when white males earn more money and hold the majority positions of power in this country and feel that all minorities and women who do hold very high positions are sitting jobs that rightfully should be held by white males like them.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Jun 22, 2009)

Philly.com Mobile Edition'

_ It would be easy for people to think that black men are the only ones who don't parent their children. Especially when more than 50 percent of all African American children live without their fathers.  

But here's the rub when it comes to black men and fatherhood: Perceptions of African Americans are so loaded with irresponsibility, absenteeism, and indifference that the scores of fathers who are doing right by their kids are seen as exceeding expectations, even to the point of being award-worthy.  

Research shows that African American fathers, more than any other group, are more likely to maintain lasting relationships with their children when they don't live with them. And invisible are the dads who go about the everyday duties of raising their children by themselves, without fanfare - and, for those like Brown, despite myriad struggles. _



Men like this guy aren't the exception when it comes to taking care of their kids. It pisses the Bass off when whites who live in suburbia and all points far away from black neighborhoods and black people speak like they're experts that know exactly everything whats wrong with black America and its always the same "its those good for nothing lazy, irresponsible *******" type responses.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Jun 22, 2009)

Obama's Rebuke of Absentee Black Fathers - TIME


_ Stereotypes about negligent black fathers persist, promoted most vehemently by Bill Cosby, who has embarked on a national crusade against the alleged misbehavior of poor black families. *And yet such stereotypes may have little basis in reality. Research by Boston College social psychologist Rebekah Levine Coley found that black fathers not living at home are more likely to keep in contact with their children than fathers of any other ethnic or racial group.* Coley offers a more complex view of the causes of absenteeism among black fathers: *the failure to live up to expectations to provide for their families--owing to stunted economic and educational opportunities--drives poor black men into despair and away from their families. Such findings undermine the arguments about black fathers' inherent pathology or moral lassitude. These men need jobs, not jabs*._



Now for the idiots and jackass promoting notion that black irresponsibility, a false sense of entitlement to everything without working, ie, wanting handouts, and the victimology race card are the causes for some black fathers not being there and please back up your stupid claims with information backed by solid intensive research and not the rants clueless conservatives and uppity Negroes who just rant and rant.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Jun 22, 2009)

Gunny said:


> I disagree.  I would agree that your argument may have been valid 50 years ago.  If you count only the time since Civil Rights laws were enacted in the 60s you've still got close to 50 years.



No, Chad is correct, the social order we have in America of black over white socially and economically was established during the time of slavery. It wasn't until at the very earliest, the late 1960s to mid 1970s that blacks started to make *SOME* gains, equality did just start the very moment so called "Civil Rights Acts"were passed, thats what you fail to realize with your dumb argument. The Civil Rights Movement wasn't enacting new laws and acts for blacks, it was about enforcing what was already written in the Constitution almost 200 years earlier. In that regard, America was was well over close to 200 years past due on enforcing equality under the Constitution for blacks. Slavery first and then Jim Crow legislation, designed for the benefit of whites delayed equality and almost 40 years of affirmative action isn't going to right wrongs that have existed hundreds of years.



> I'd just have to ask for those you think aren't being given a fair shake when legally they get more than a fair shake ... what are they waiting on?




Who are these people that are legally being given more than a fair shake? Where is the damn evidence?


----------



## eots (Jun 22, 2009)

William Joyce said:


> Diuretic said:
> 
> 
> > Keep going, you could be onto something.  No, I'm not being sarcastic, keep going, keep thinking and keep digging for the root causes.
> ...



indeed it is the man....the justice system...the CIA and its cocaine cartel... the corporate media the education system ...these other races did not thrive for millions of years by being neglectful parents..passing on their neglectful parent gene...this does not  however negate the responsibility of the individual or community to overcome this diversity

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xf1QcHs4vGY]YouTube - Dead Prez They School[/ame]


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Jun 22, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Contessa_Sharra said:
> 
> 
> > Has everything been fixed?
> ...



If you are implying that affirmative action is making blacks more than equal to whites please cite statistics that prove this, not your distorted view of what affirmative is. The fact and reality is that whites are still more than equal socially and economically than African Americans.Perception and reality are two different things, hasn't the military taught you that? Your view isn't backed by reality, period.




> Yo do not engender harmony by forcing unjust rules and laws on others, or did you all miss that part when the whites were doing?



You do not engender harmony by enforcing status quo white male privilege entitlement and discriminatory laws and rules on others while simultaneously labelling it as colorblind consideration based on merit, or are you still blind to the fact that this is what is truly happening here/



> Special treatment is special treatment, no matter the excuse given for it.




Which is what crybaby white males like you want for whites, despite being deaf dumb and blind to fact that you merely wish to maintain and uphold something that already exists, special treatment......for whites, specifically white males. If affirmative action didn't exist and minorities were not getting even s small portion of the great big American pie, would you be making the same argument in reverse for minorities who are not[and still are not, which is reality] getting a fair shake?


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Jun 22, 2009)

mattskramer said:


> William Joyce said:
> 
> 
> > Really?  So if two black parents are set to have a child, you expect it to be white?
> ...



everyone talks about affirmative action being removed because they feel things have been even out equally, please cite statistics that back this up and not distorted perceptions. When whites give up their whiteness and the privilege that comes with being such in America, then we can talk about eliminating affirmative action. its amazing how some whites are still deaf, dumb, blind and in the dark to the fact that being white in America is a privileged position whether they chose to be a part of it or not.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 22, 2009)

HA!

go figure.. our local baby daddy felt the urge to defend his "find em, fuck em and flee" culture.




I bet that the entire black population in America would drop to 8% if there were no welfare to raise bastards with missing black fathers.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 22, 2009)

Charlie Bass said:


> mattskramer said:
> 
> 
> > William Joyce said:
> ...



I'll agree with most of what you said, BUT, it is also time for you guys to do for yourself.  No more excuses.  If it sucks being black in Mississippi, move to Atlanta.  Make Detroit better for yourselves.  Clean up Watts, Compton, S. Central.  Start raising your kids.  If you get rich, invest in the black community.  If you get out of poverty, stay in the black neighborhood so it benefits from your success.  

You're not going to stop all racist business owners from descrimating.  Just like black bosses/business owners only hire black people.  

And black people need to stop worshiping thuggary and ghetto life.  Tu Pac is cool, but he was also a drug dealing criminal.  Don't flash gang signs.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Jun 22, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> I'll agree with most of what you said, BUT, it is also time for you guys to do for yourself.




We have been doing for ourselves, most of us do in fact, how people somehow think otherwise is amazing. Coincidentally, are all whites doing for themselves or do a good percentage rely on rich mommy and daddy to bail them out?



> No more excuses.  If it sucks being black in Mississippi, move to Atlanta.



Mr Bass loves Mississippi and will never leave this place. Atlanta is a great place also, its wonderful to see so many of the Bass' people there making it. a lot of blacks move to Atlanta because of this.



> Make Detroit better for yourselves.  Clean up Watts, Compton, S. Central.



People there can only do so much to clean up those places. 




> Start raising your kids.


 We do raise our kids for information and there's no proof to suggest otherwise, just because a father isn't directly living with their kids doesn't mean they not active in the lives of their children.







> And black people need to stop worshiping thuggary and ghetto life.  Tu Pac is cool, but he was also a drug dealing criminal.  Don't flash gang signs.



Black people are 40.1 million strong and not even a 5th of us are into thuggery and ghetto life, just another racist stereotype internalize by another stupid white liberal.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Jun 22, 2009)

Shogun said:


> HA!
> 
> go figure.. our local baby daddy felt the urge to defend his "find em, fuck em and flee" culture.



That kind of culture is not indicative of the 40.1 million or so black people in America, pull your head out of your rectum and stop watching rap videos and so called "hood"movies.






> I bet that the entire black population in America would drop to 8% if there were no welfare to raise bastards with missing black fathers.



Most black men assist in raising up there children and are active in their lives, are there some deadbeat black fathers? yes. Are they as prevalent as people believe? Hell no! There is no proof to back this except for some obscure statistic about unwed black mothers that faggots like you distort and twist out of proportion.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 22, 2009)

Charlie Bass said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > I'll agree with most of what you said, BUT, it is also time for you guys to do for yourself.
> ...


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 22, 2009)

Charlie Bass said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > HA!
> ...



I guarantee you that, percentage wise, there are more black men who are not raising their kids than there are whites.

And a larger percentage of whites who do not raise their kids are paying child support.  I know a few black women who don't go after their baby daddy's because he aint got shit and they don't want the dad involved in raising the kid anyways.  

So how many blacks aren't paying child support or raising their kids and the women don't complain because it isn't worth it.  So the brothers aren't even showing up in the statistics.  The numbers are probably off the charts.  I know too many for this to just be my own personal prejudice/stereotype.  No way.  It is fact.  

It may seem like whites are just as bad but remember, blacks only make up 15% of the population, and they are probably even with whites on this.  Similar to how blacks are only 15% but make up 85% of the prison population.  We can argue why, but you can't argue that the numbers aren't true.  

I love picking on you because you pick on gays.  I can't stand blacks that are anti gay.  You should know better.

Half the shit I'm saying is just to pick on you, but half of it is truth.  Stop making excuses Charles.  It is not too much to ask a neighborhood to clean up their fucking messes and plant some flowers and cut your grass.

And it is not acceptable to have a child and not live with the god damn kid.  This is where blacks are fucked in the head.  You don't understand it is not ok to have a split home.  I don't care if whitey does it.  They have the luxury of being white.  Do you?  Then raise your fucking kids properly for god sakes.  And if you do make a mistake, get a vasectomy so you don't have multiple baby mommas.  Or is that too just a stereotype.


----------



## Tinktink (Jun 22, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


----------



## jgbkab (Jun 22, 2009)

Sealy, why should blacks not be anti-gay?


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 22, 2009)

Tinktink said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Charlie Bass said:
> ...


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Jun 22, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> No, "you people" are not doing enough.


 yes we are, how many inner city neighborhoods and people do you actually associate with? Unless you are there amongst and interacting with the masses, your jackass is unqualified to make assumptions about what really goes on. The Bass has been there and frequently interacts and associates with such people  



> There are neighborhoods in Detroit where all it would take is some pride.  Or do you want whitey to clean up block by block.




It takes money and resources to clean up these places, things that low income people and minorities have very little access to, not to mention the redlining that banks practice that systematically deny loans to people who wish to own and repair property in low income areas 



> And start turning in the criminals/gang members in your neighborhoods.  My god.  Have some respect!



problem with that is, the police are not providing people with enough protection from violence and retaliation from those who would do them harm, but there is a high level of cooperation with police to bring in criminals.  



> But no one gives a fuck.  Or you think the cops are the bad guys.  Well can you blame them?  They see you as the eneny just like you see them.
> 
> Ever hear no one is going to love you unless you love yourself?  Its time they start taking care of themselves and show whitey you have some pride.



With the way how police have treated blacks historically, how can you blame those people for having distrust of the police when they treat you people in an occupied territory?





> And you DON"T raise your kids.  If you aren't a part of their life Monday thru Sunday, they are in broken families.  Do I need to go into the negatives of kids growing up in single parent homes?



Jackass, the best case scenario is for kids to be in a two parent household, but of course that doesn't always work out that way. If a father pays child support and spends time with his children and is there for them whenever they need to talk about anything they are raising their children and not being deadbeat dads, end of story, thats what parenting is all about. Go into the negatives all you like, as long as a father is doing those things he is raising his kids and just because someone is living in the same household with their children and mother doesn't mean they're automatically being good fathers. Dysfunctional two-parent homes are worse that single parent homes where the father of the children are very active in their children's lives.

.



> Yes, if you are not DIRECTLY living with your kids, it makes a huge difference.  They too will grow up and be the same way.  Even with the best intentions you can not be as good as a father who is living with his kids.



The best case scenario doesn't always workout, but who's to say the fault lies solely on the fathers for not being there? If a husband and wife are in an abusive relationship an or cannot otherwise get along, its best that they break apart both be there for their children. Again, as long as a father is active in their child's life, financially supportive and spends time with the child they are *NOT* deadbeats and its not soley their fault for not being together with the mother of their children.

For your education since you're too damn stupid and ignorant about what really goes on with black fathers and their children and how they view them, here's a link to an interview that features a woman who actually went into those low income neighborhoods and talked to these fathers.

The myth of the deadbeat dad | Salon Books


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 22, 2009)

jgbkab said:


> Sealy, why should blacks not be anti-gay?



Because they were discriminated for bullshit reasons too.  And so they should know better.  Blacks can't marry whites because blacks aren't human.  Remember that argument?  Whites were even able to quote the bible for why blacks and whites shouldn't marry, just like gay bashers today can.  

Their position on gays makes me feel less sorry for them too.  If they want their liberal friends to abandon them, then fine, we can do that.  I don't give a fuck if they are no better than the racists I've been arguing with.  It tells me that blacks would discriminate too if they were in the majority.  In fact, I already believe that would be the case.  

They don't realize that they would not be as well off today if it weren't for us liberals who argued with the racist americans.  

Also, Jesus never said anything about gays.  That was put in the bible by the men who wrote the bible.

Jesus did warn about other sins though.  Sins us straight people commit all the time.  Yet we aren't caught up on lying or stealing or adultry.  We're caught up on gay sex.  This is just another wedge issue.  And the conservatives are pretty smart.  Look how many stupid brainwashed black people are anti gay.  Probably anti stem cell and gay marriage and anti abortion too.   Soon the GOP will have all the ignorant conservative anti gay black vote, just like they got the dumb white racist vote.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 22, 2009)

Charlie Bass said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > No, "you people" are not doing enough.
> ...



Let me answer the first one.  Not only did I date 2 different black girls in the hood, my grandma still lives in the all black neighborhood I grew up in.  Many of the kids I grew up with have kids out of wedlock.  A sad percentage.  

So I still visit my hood regularly. 

AND, I work with blacks who confirm the stereotypes.  Plus remember, you only make up 15% of the population, so of course I'm not going to know as many blacks as I do whites, but of the blacks I know, too many of them are the stereotype.  

And now blacks are moving out to my community and a very HUGE percentage of them seem to meet the criteria.  They all seem to have kids out of wedlock.  Have warrents, 3 black guys I know all sell drugs.  Now isn't that something?  3 of the 4 black guys who moved to my area that I have befriended all sell drugs.  Of course I'm a customer, so I'm not judging them, but I'm sure the whites in my area are.  LOL.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 22, 2009)

Charlie Bass said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > HA!
> ...





CLEARLY, not enough black men are a part of their kids' lives to avoid the kind of cultural shit you are busy blaming whites for.  Pretending that bastard fatherhood is not rife in American black culture is just silly.  numbers don't lie, ******, I don't care WHAT excuse you want to avoid reality with.

Go take some advice from Bill Cosby, you fucking welfare monkey.

ps, i'm not the one watching gangsta movies and getting caught up in thug life, homey..  It's too bad your last few generations idolize tupac more than they do King.  But, to be honest, not all that surprising anyway.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 22, 2009)

Charlie Bass said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > No, "you people" are not doing enough.
> ...



My dad and I were in my grandma's back yard last night when Paul, my grandma's neighbor came home from a bike ride.  He said he was bored from retirement.  He worked 2 jobs.  Ford and he was a teacher.  Worked Ford Graveyard shift and then taught during the day.  WTF!!!

And his house in Detroit is only worth a percentage of what homes are worth in the suburbs.  What the fuck is he doing with his money?  And he's retired, so he's got time and money to fix that back yard.  Its a dumb/junk yard.

But really, thats the only thing I can say negative about this family.  They were/are great neighbors.  The couple stayed together.

Oh yea, but both their kids had babies out of wedlock.  Black people must think its cool to have baby's momma's or something.

Or, the condoms are too tight for the mandingo.   LOL.  JK.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 22, 2009)

Shogun said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...



Why would you use the N word?  That's crossing the line.  You're an asshole.  I'd start talking shit about your fam. but its against the rules.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Jun 22, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> [
> 
> I guarantee you that, percentage wise, there are more black men who are not raising their kids than there are whites.



Please post proof or shut the hell up. And once again, just because a father and mother are not together does *NOT* mean that the fathers are not assisting and helping to raise their children.



> And a larger percentage of whites who do not raise their kids are paying child support.



Proof, or are you just pulling figures and wild estimations out of your ass based on stereotypes? A true fact is that of all racial groups, black fathers are more likely to have extended contact with their children when they are not living with the mothers of their children, just because someone pays child support doesn't mean they are being'fathers, they're being daddies. Spending time and being with the children is more important than any cash support.





> So how many blacks aren't paying child support or raising their kids and the women don't complain because it isn't worth it.  So the brothers aren't even showing up in the statistics.  The numbers are probably off the charts.  I know too many for this to just be my own personal prejudice/stereotype.  No way.  It is fact.



The bass knows of many who do pay their child support and knows some who don't, whats the point? Your thinking doesn't represent all black fathers, how many black fathers as opposed to mothers have you spoken with? there's always two sides to everything and as of yet no one has taken the time to talk to these black fathers, ie, the white racist crackers who perpetuate the myth of deadbeat black fathers and the Uncle Toms who follow suit.



> It may seem like whites are just as bad but remember, blacks only make up 15% of the population, and they are probably even with whites on this.


 the actual number of white single parents have risen while the percentage of black mothers has decreased, care to explain that?



> Similar to how blacks are only 15% but make up 85% of the prison population.  We can argue why, but you can't argue that the numbers aren't true.



Maybe because of discriminatory sentencing and the fact that a lot of these imprisoned blacks don't have access to good lawyers and often receive longer and more harsher sentences than whites?



> I love picking on you because you pick on gays.  I can't stand blacks that are anti gay.  You should know better.



Mr Bass doesn't hate gays you jackass, as  Christian he just will not condone gay sex acts and behavior, whats acceptable to men in society isn't acceptable to God, God don't change for man, man needs to change for God.




> And it is not acceptable to have a child and not live with the god damn kid.



Repeat jackass, the reality is that a two parent household is the most ideal situation, but often it doesn't work out that way, sometimes the ideal is not possible. Whether its acceptable is debatable, if two parents cannot get along and are abusive that can be more damaging for the child, but if they split up and assist each other is raising their kids thats even better.  



> This is where blacks are fucked in the head




This is not a "black"thing jackass, its simple reality that couples do not always get along and its senseless to put kids through hell just to fulfill what society says is the ideal.




> ?  Then raise your fucking kids properly for god sakes.  And if you do make a mistake, get a vasectomy so you don't have multiple baby mommas.  Or is that too just a stereotype.



jackass, as long as a father pays child support, spends time with their children and is there for them they are properly raising their children.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 22, 2009)

*problem with that is, the police are not providing people with enough protection from violence and retaliation from those who would do them harm, but there is a high level of cooperation with police to bring in criminals.*




yea, dickface..   the whole NO SNITCHING policy sure is the fault of WHITEY AND THEIR COPS!


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Jun 22, 2009)

Shogun said:


> CLEARLY, not enough black men are a part of their kids' lives to avoid the kind of cultural shit you are busy blaming whites for.



Post facts and figures from established research that support your BS, the fact remains that most black fathers are involved with their children, period.  



> Pretending that bastard fatherhood is not rife in American black culture is just silly.  numbers don't lie, ******, I don't care WHAT excuse you want to avoid reality with.


 What numbers are you quoting from from faggot? Post them. As long as a father pays child support and spends time with their children the child is not receiving bastard fatherhood. Are their some black fathers who exhibit this behavior? yes, but they are the exception and not the rule.



> Go take some advice from Bill Cosby, you fucking welfare monkey.



the Bass has his own father you faggot, who needs tro listen to Cosby except white racist faggots and uppity Uncle Toms?



> ps, i'm not the one watching gangsta movies and getting caught up in thug life, homey..  It's too bad your last few generations idolize tupac more than they do King.  But, to be honest, not all that surprising anyway.



 Neither is the Bass and most black people for that matter, if you think otherwise post facts and figures backed by research, otherwise STHU!!

[


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Jun 22, 2009)

Shogun said:


> *problem with that is, the police are not providing people with enough protection from violence and retaliation from those who would do them harm, but there is a high level of cooperation with police to bring in criminals.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Where were the cops when this happened?


Drug trafficker Kaboni Savage indicted for 'cold-blooded' killings | Philadelphia Daily News | 04/09/2009


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Jun 22, 2009)

Hey Sho-faggot, explain this stat:

_ Since 1990, births have declined among African-American teens and risen among white teens, who comprise two-thirds of teen mothers._

Single-Parent Families - Demographic Trends


----------



## Shogun (Jun 22, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > Charlie Bass said:
> ...



I'm responding in kind.  If you can't handle it then maybe you should go ahead and post over in the cotton candy section.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 22, 2009)

Charlie Bass said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



I can't argue with most of your rebuttal.

But, as for the gay thing.  In the 60's, white people said they didn't hate blacks, but as christians they couldn't condoln mixing the races.

I don't know what part of the bible they were reading, but they too used the bible to back their statements up.

White racist/ignorant/ancient old men wrote the bible.  They probably had a problem with blacks marrying whites too.  Did Jesus ever say anything against gays?  No.  Just the men who wrote the bible put that in there.  

And you don't condoln stealing, lying, adultry, etc, but you do some of those things, right?  Or are you without sin?  So god will forgive you and he will forgive gays too if it is in fact wrong.  As long as they accept jesus, because all christians are sinners.  You're just focused on the gay sex sin.  

I don't even believe in that kind of God.  That's man's made up version of god.  God is way beyond caring about that.  You're living a fairytale.

And I don't care if your parents made you anti gay or your church did it or your society did it.  I don't care where your ignorance came from.  Your position on gays is wrong.  So keep it to yourself.  You may believe that they aren't going to heaven, but so what?  Many whites don't even consider you human.  Does that make them right?  No.  Do they have a right to their opinion?  Yes.  But should they keep it to themselves?  Sure.  If the majority of us felt that way about blacks, could we take away your rights?  No.  If our man made bibles told us you were sub human, should that hold any water with you?  

Come on  man!  Wake up.  Live and let live.  Even if you don't agree with gays, they should not be discriminated against.  I am able to put my personal spiritual/religous beliefs aside and see discriminating against them is wrong, despite the fact that gay butt sexs between two dudes is wrong.  IMO.  But two women is hot!!!


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 22, 2009)

Shogun said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...



LOL.  I can take it, but its not right.  You wouldn't say it to his face.  Pussy.  LOL.


----------



## jgbkab (Jun 22, 2009)

Shogun said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...



Dude, you always talking about what goes on in black neighborhoods without ever stepping foot in one. Maybe you need to get some advice from Bill Cosby like stick a pudding pop in your mouth and STFU. And you may need to understand what Tupac was about...not what the media portrayed.


----------



## chanel (Jun 22, 2009)

I haven't read this whole thread, but this has been a beef of mine for a very long time.  I teach high school in an area with a very high teen pregnancy rate.  While it is not solely a "black problem" it is a cultural problem that effects many poor neighborhoods.  With that said, let me tell you that very rarely do these young girls get pregnant by accident.  And unfortunately it is celebrated and glorified by morons who think that the union of a sperm and an egg is some kind of miracle.  No one ever expects the fathers to participate and our govt. says "That's ok you poor thing".  The cycle of neglect and poverty and crime and unemployment, etc continues generation after generation.  We reward this behavior and then the schools, cops, and social services are supposed to clean up the mess.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 22, 2009)

Charlie Bass said:


> Hey Sho-faggot, explain this stat:
> 
> _ Since 1990, births have declined among African-American teens and risen among white teens, who comprise two-thirds of teen mothers._
> 
> Single-Parent Families - Demographic Trends



Yea, well black kids don't need the extra grief of a broken home.  Clearly you are belittling a major problem that the black community has.  White kids from broken homes have it easier than black kids do.  They go to better schools and they don't have gangs to give them what daddy is not.  And they are able to interview with white employers who don't descriminate against them.  If I were a black father, I wouldn't want to be there for my kid.  Part time aint enough, whether you are black or white.  

And no matter what you say, its not good to have daddy living somewhere else.  

If you look deep enough into these kids lives, you'd see they don't have the parental supervision.  Mom is either working or trying to find a man, and dad is off knocking up other baby mommas.  So the kids get into selling drugs, get into gangs or knock girls up because their parents aren't home at night so they have a place to fuck.  

Anyways, the same problem the black American community has is the same problem we see in Africa.  Don't blacks get aids more often than whites?  So they aren't wearing protection.  I understand it is because they don't have any money and if you are broke, the only thing to really do for fun is fuck.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 22, 2009)

Charlie Bass said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > CLEARLY, not enough black men are a part of their kids' lives to avoid the kind of cultural shit you are busy blaming whites for.
> ...




Sorry, jigaboo.. crying about white people just doesn't cut it these days.  Enjoy stats by the CDC, which, im sure you will insist is a rally point for the klan.  
Table I-2. Birth rates for unmarried women by age of mother: United States, 1940-93, and by age of mother
and race, 1940, 1950, and 1955-93....continued.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/misc/wedlock.pdf


----------



## Shogun (Jun 22, 2009)

Charlie Bass said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > *problem with that is, the police are not providing people with enough protection from violence and retaliation from those who would do them harm, but there is a high level of cooperation with police to bring in criminals.*
> ...



Where was your BLACK CULTURE in each of THESE occasions?  Trust me, spot, I have more examples of no snitch black culture than you have individual circumstances meant to blame whitey..

'No snitching' code under fire
'If you witness a murder, you should tell somebody'
'No snitching' code under fire

No Snitch, No Justice
Creg Johnson: No Snitch, No Justice - NC Wanted

'No Snitching' Messages Pervade Justice System
'No Snitching' Messages Pervade Justice System : NPR



ANYONE want to guess the color of the skin who THIS article is directed at?

Snop snitchin and no snitch - THE GANG LINE:
Stop snitchin and no snitch. Learn about Stop snitchin and the no snitch code.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 22, 2009)

Charlie Bass said:


> Hey Sho-faggot, explain this stat:
> 
> _ Since 1990, births have declined among African-American teens and risen among white teens, who comprise two-thirds of teen mothers._
> 
> Single-Parent Families - Demographic Trends



from your own source, genius.  

*There is racial variation in the proportion of families headed by a single parent: 22 percent for white, 57 percent for black, and 33 percent for Hispanic families.*



You are not a very smart man.




oh.. and, to answer your question...  the 90s were known as the beginning of white youth culture to overtly borrow from black culture.. so, par for the course, really.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 22, 2009)

chanel said:


> I haven't read this whole thread, but this has been a beef of mine for a very long time.  I teach high school in an area with a very high teen pregnancy rate.  While it is not solely a "black problem" it is a cultural problem that effects many poor neighborhoods.  With that said, let me tell you that very rarely do these young girls get pregnant by accident.  And unfortunately it is celebrated and glorified by morons who think that the union of a sperm and an egg is some kind of miracle.  No one ever expects the fathers to participate and our govt. says "That's ok you poor thing".  The cycle of neglect and poverty and crime and unemployment, etc continues generation after generation.  We reward this behavior and then the schools, cops, and social services are supposed to clean up the mess.



I'd say stop it but I don't want the kids to suffer.  We should give the kids 2 free lunches a day and free college tuition, but not give the mothers a dime.  And if the kids need clothing, I'm sure we can accomodate that too.  But to give these women money when the dad isn't paying child support?

Tell Charles how many of the dads are deadbeats.  A lot.  Right?


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 22, 2009)

Shogun said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Sho-faggot, explain this stat:
> ...



At least you admit he's a man.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Jun 22, 2009)

Shogun said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...




Who blamed whitey in that link posted? The blame was on the police for not protecting the family of that witness, they failed to do their job idiot. The whole "Stop Snitching"thing has more to do with witness intimidation and fear of violence than anything else.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 22, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



you don't know me well enough to make that assumption.  Not only would I say it to his face but then i'd kick the dogshit out of him for not knowing his place.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Jun 22, 2009)

Shogun said:


> oh.. and, to answer your question...  the 90s were known as the beginning of white youth culture to overtly borrow from black culture.. so, par for the course, really.



The actual numbers for blacks declined while those for whites increased, explain that and oh, where is your proof that the increase in white teen mothers is the result of them borrowing from black culture? Lets see facts backed by research idiot.


----------



## nateriver (Jun 22, 2009)

black women says she has a child to show the "baby's daddy" she loves him.
it doesn't matter that she also loved three other "baby's daddies" or ten other women in the projects also had to show him they also loved him.

the white women has a baby because the baby's daddy said he loved her. it doesn't matter that he also told ten other women in the trailer park  he also loved them.

Adjust the women's welfare to match whatever she can get from those wonderful babies' daddy's.
If she ends up not affording the child then then take the child away. she will no longer have the little trophy to tote around thus ending the incentive.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 22, 2009)

jgbkab said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > Charlie Bass said:
> ...



You don't know where I step foot into.  Unless, of course, Snoop was giving out crystal balls at the last BET award show before it was (predictably) shot up by half the people nominated for awards.

I know exactly what topac was about: glorifying a lifestyle that resulted in a rather predictable death.


thug life, right buddy?


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Jun 22, 2009)

Shogun said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...



Would you or tell your black boss all of the things you say about blacks in this forum?


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Jun 22, 2009)

Shogun said:


> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/misc/wedlock.pdf



And these out of wedlock births are supposed to prove what, that black men are deadbeat dads?


----------



## Shogun (Jun 22, 2009)

Charlie Bass said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > Charlie Bass said:
> ...



*FEAR OF VIOLENCE FROM WHOME?*


hey, thanks for pwning yourself, dude.  It's not the cop's fault because you've embedded into your own culture some silly fucking blame everyone but ourselves agenda.


Hey, i hear diabetes and aids is just a rumor too.  Hope you have your virgin hymen cure handy.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Jun 22, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Sho-faggot, explain this stat:
> ...



the point still remains that as long as a child's father pays child support and is active is their lives the child is not doomed to a bad life, period. two parent homes are only better in the conomic sense when both parents are earning.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 22, 2009)

Charlie Bass said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



You do not reflect my boss in the slightest.  I respect him because he's not busy screaming about whitey when the rain is wet.  Although black, HE is not a ****** by any means.  You forget, these people agree with me about people like you.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 22, 2009)

Charlie Bass said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/misc/wedlock.pdf
> ...



yes, in fact.  YOU asked for evidence and I provided it to you.  I'm sorry I could 't find it on a site you respect like blackplanet.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 22, 2009)

Charlie Bass said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...




No!  But I would not cross the line and call you jigabu or the n word.  That's horrible!


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Jun 22, 2009)

Shogun is clearly craving to have his trollish alter ego fed, but Mr Bass will not be feeding him,  since he fails to post facts and figures to back his stupid claims the Bass is banning Shogun's posts from being viewable.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 22, 2009)

Charlie Bass said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Charlie Bass said:
> ...



you are rationalizing now.  "in the childs life" is no measure worth considering.  If you are a deadbeat motherfucker who treats your baby mamma like a fuck buddy then don't be shocked when he grows up to act the same way.  I don't care HOW many occasional 20s you throw at the mother and child.  "a bad life" is no measure either.  Hell, compared to Africa our ghetto cutlure is "not a bad life"  But, thats not how you are comparing white and black culture, now is it.

Your last sentence is an example of how fucking asinine your capitulation really is.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Jun 22, 2009)

Shogun said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...



No this isn't evidence jackass, as along as a father is paying child support and involved in his children's life he is not a deadbeat and the fact remains that black fathers are the ones most likely to have sustained long term contact with their children of all racial groups. You have shown no evidence that most of even a majority of black fathers are deadbeats, you just posted out of wedlock birth stats that don't say anything about deadbeat dads.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 22, 2009)

Charlie Bass said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Charlie Bass said:
> ...



The point still remains that if a child grows up without a father, or with a part time father, they too are not doomed to a bad life.  Look at the trench coat mafia kids.  Kliebold and Harris.  They had two parents.  Doesn't mean everything.   

But statistically, having a dad in the home is best.  And if you don't have a dad at home, having a dad that at least participates is better than not.  But, it is best to have a full time dad who the child lives with.   

You are kidding yourself by saying that a two parent home is ONLY better because of economics.  There are soooo many other benefits to having both parents in the home.  Kids don't see mommy dating a bunch of different guys.  Kids learn family values and monogomy.  You don't break up the kids home.  That's traumatizing for a child.  Don't kid yourself and think that experience doesn't affect them.  Or explaining to their friends why daddy doesn't live at home.  I could go on and on.  

Yea, assuming they aren't assholes to each other.  You don't want a kid growing up with that.  But nothing beats a healthy couple raising their kids together.

Let me guess, you are a single dad.    I love it!  You have a baby momma and that's why you defend this.  Or, you came from a broken home.  Which is it?


----------



## Shogun (Jun 22, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...



words are words, bobo.  If the n word were so horrible you'd not hear it used as every other word in any given rap single.  Notice, he doesn't hesitate using fag, homo, cracker honkey, etc.. so, clearly, the bass knows how to use abrasive verbiage.  If he can call someone a fag then he can be called a ******.  easy.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 22, 2009)

Charlie Bass said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > Charlie Bass said:
> ...



And you are downplaying the problem with "out of wedlock" dads.  Why?  Are you one or did you come from a broken family?


----------



## Shogun (Jun 22, 2009)

Charlie Bass said:


> Shogun is clearly craving to have his trollish alter ego fed, but Mr Bass will not be feeding him,  since he fails to post facts and figures to back his stupid claims the Bass is banning Shogun's posts from being viewable.



HA!

Look what happens when the token negro is confronted with statistics from the CDC!




poor, ignorant negro....


I WIN!


----------



## Shogun (Jun 22, 2009)

Charlie Bass said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > Charlie Bass said:
> ...



No, I'm afraid it IS evidence that illustrates how black culture is crippled by it's own standards.  It doesn't shock me that you'd try to baselessly deny as much and then hide behind user block.




typical, really.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 22, 2009)

Shogun said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Charlie Bass said:
> ...



I tend to agree that if a black called me a pussy little bitch, I should be able to use whatever words I think are going to get him equally as angry.  And I can only think of one for sure word that would get them angry.  

But did the Bass say anything to justify you talking to him like that?  You sound like a red neck southern hillbilly KKK asshole.  Are you?

I doubt the blacks you work with would agree with your views nor do I think you know their real views on things.  They probably agree with Bass more than you think, and they just don't tell you because they know how you think.
They don't want a burning cross on their lawn tomorrow.  

PS.  Nigga is different than what you are saying.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Jun 22, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...




No, Mr Bass is not a single father and  while a two parent loving household may be ideal, its not always the reality and kids who have financial and emotional support from both parents, regardless of the living situation fare better. Mr Bass doesn't come from a broken home and he supports the two parent *LOVING* and non-dysfunctional Christian household as the best case scenario, but if worst came to worst, a single parent household with substantial involvement in the life of the child from both parents is far better than two parent dysfunctional households. The Bass supports the living the situation thats best for the child based on the circumstances, all single parent households are not/should not be automatically labelled as wrong and or bad for the child. a father who is strongly involved in the lives of their children eventhough not living with them is *NOT* automatically a part time parent.


----------



## GHook93 (Jun 22, 2009)

William Joyce said:


> Yes.
> 
> Fatherless black families are caused by BLACK MEN.



Oh I thought you were going to blame in one Jews! 


But you do have a point! Blacks leaders of today, such as Sharpton, Wright and Jackson, seem to always blame others for the ills of the black community. Yet most problems require them to look inward. Can fatherless children turn out fine. Of course! But they have a better chance when the father is at least around.


_Didn't realize how late to the game I came until after I posted! Anyways!_


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Jun 22, 2009)

7 Out Of 10 Black Americans "Love" Their Dad | NewsOne

* _ In the official NewsOne / BlackPlanet.com poll, seventy percent of African-Americans say they love their father.  With over 2,500 respondents, 11 percent said they hate him and 19 percent said they never knew him._

* _ But even though African-American families are often headed by single mothers, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported on research that showed that, *African American fathers, more than any other group, are more likely to maintain lasting relationships with their children when they dont live with them*._


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 22, 2009)

Charlie Bass said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Charlie Bass said:
> ...



What about this?

but if worst came to worst, gay parents are far better than a two straight parent dysfunctional households or no parents at all.  

All gay parent households are not/should not be automatically labelled as wrong and or bad for the child. a gay father who is strongly involved in the lives of their children is *NOT* automatically bad.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 22, 2009)

Charlie Bass said:


> 7 Out Of 10 Black Americans "Love" Their Dad | NewsOne
> 
> * _ In the official NewsOne / BlackPlanet.com poll, seventy percent of African-Americans say they love their father.  With over 2,500 respondents, 11 percent said they hate him and 19 percent said they never knew him._
> 
> * _ But even though African-American families are often headed by single mothers, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported on research that showed that, *African American fathers, more than any other group, are more likely to maintain lasting relationships with their children when they dont live with them*._



Fathers can shit all over their kids and their kids still love em.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Jun 22, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> > 7 Out Of 10 Black Americans "Love" Their Dad | NewsOne
> ...



LOL, denial


----------



## Shogun (Jun 22, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



you can doubt whatever you want.  Hell, you can imagine me as a martian for all I care.  Last weekend I brought my telescope over to his house to show his 6 year old son the moons of Jupiter.  If you don't think he and I have frank, honest conversation about racial issue then so be it.

Indeed, you are just like editec.  You are too afraid of looking un-pc to be honest about any given conflict of opinions.  I'll give you the same advice I give him:  go ahead and sip your dainty teacup from over there in the shade.  Your silly fucking tightrope walking is neither here nor there to the topic at hand.

The bottom line is this: those who can act hateful can be acted hatefully against.  I have no problem with the bass using verbiage with claws because I'm going to respond in kind regardless of the milquetoast opinions of people like you.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 23, 2009)

Charlie Bass said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Charlie Bass said:
> ...



You're the one in denial.  You think that those 8 kids won't be negatively affected when Jon & Kate get divorced?

Hollywood Hookup : Jon and Kate Gosselin Divorce Rumors Confirmed on Season Premiere!

And you fathers won't/don't spend enough time with your kids.  You're too busy with your new girlfriends.  And your kids cry at night because they miss you.  It is pathetic to suggest that a broken house is acceptable.  Sometimes it is unaviodable, but god damn it is all too common in the black community.

And clearly it isn't working.  Just look at the black community.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 23, 2009)

Shogun said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...




I think I'm being pretty blunt with the Bass without resorting to calling him the N word.  I'm telling him what is wrong with the black community.  I'm just not calling him the N word.

And I doubt you call your black friends the N word the way you are saying it to Bass.


----------



## Neser Boha (Jun 23, 2009)

William Joyce said:


> Yes.
> 
> Fatherless black families are caused by BLACK MEN.



Willie, you've already proven to us many times over, that you're a useless racist prick... No need to keep repeating yourself - I heard you bro!  I know god is unfair... giving black men what you will never have - a huge dick and a sizeable set of balls to go with it.  Just get the fuck over it and go masturbate to some black gay porn... Maybe one day you'll be able to hold that dreamy dick in your own hand...


People.. honestly, wouldn't it be the greatest joke ever told if his wife or a girlfriend ran off with a black man?  There is justice out there, ya know... mmm.. warm fuzzy feeling.


----------



## jgbkab (Jun 23, 2009)

Neser Boha said:


> People.. honestly, wouldn't it be the greatest joke ever told if his wife or a girlfriend ran off with a black man?  There is justice out there, ya know... mmm.. warm fuzzy feeling.



I really think that's what happened and he wants to separate the races to ensure that it doesn't happen again.


----------



## HUGGY (Jun 23, 2009)

*Who is Responsible for Fatherless Black Families? 
*

Wasn't Jesus fatherless?


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 23, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> *Who is Responsible for Fatherless Black Families?
> *
> 
> Wasn't Jesus fatherless?



No!  He was the Son of God.


----------



## jgbkab (Jun 23, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > *Who is Responsible for Fatherless Black Families?
> ...



Oh, so God let the step-daddy raise him.  Remember Joseph?


----------



## HUGGY (Jun 23, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > *Who is Responsible for Fatherless Black Families?
> ...



So....... Josepf wasn't the baby daddy..but some invisible guy was?  And before Jesus was even jesus josepf said "well sure! sounds reasonable to me!"


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 23, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



Oh you just know someone knocked up Jesus' mother.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 23, 2009)

jgbkab said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



Good stepfathers/mothers should get their own holiday.  To put up with someone elses kids???  

A woman would have to have a vibrating vagina and give me head every night before I go to bed for me to put up with someone else's kids.  

Especially Bass'.


----------



## jgbkab (Jun 23, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> jgbkab said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



If she had a vibrating vagina, why would she need you?


----------



## Shogun (Jun 23, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



no, you are really not.  you have about as much impact as lime jello thrown against a wall.  Why coddle him when all he wants is equality?  If he can chuck a quiver of turds then he has no reason not to expect the same in kind.  Your fear of a word matches that jelly backbone you seem to have.  Indeed, there is a difference between ******* and African Americans.  You'd try to deny this while dumping all blacks in the same category.  Clearly, not all blacks reflect each other so you clearly miss why I don't consider my friends *******  like the Bass.


----------



## AkronGuy (Jun 23, 2009)

Black men are. Thread is over, close it now. lol


----------



## HUGGY (Jun 23, 2009)

AkronGuy said:


> Black men are. Thread is over, close it now. lol



Oh like you with 9 posts have the last word?

It is a legitimate thread. You find it uncomfortable?..don't read ...don't chime in.

Single motherhood in the black community is epidemic....Even since they made it difficult to get public assistance.


----------



## AkronGuy (Jun 23, 2009)

> Oh like you with 9 posts have the last word?



Commonsense has the last word. 

I wasn't being serious btw.



> It is a legitimate thread. You find it uncomfortable?..don't read ...don't chime in.



Why exactly would it make me feel uncomfortable ? 



> Single motherhood in the black community is epidemic....Even since they made it difficult to get public assistance.



I agree, and they have themselves to blame. For one they choose the worst men they can find. Don't they realize that if Mark has 3 other kids with 3 other women and isn't a father to them, that he isn't going to change ? Or they shack up with whomever comes along first. I also think it has something to do with the absolution of personal responsibility in the black community.


----------



## HUGGY (Jun 23, 2009)

AkronGuy said:


> > Oh like you with 9 posts have the last word?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If I may offer a viewpoint coming from experience.  I know several single black females personally....several with children.  

The motivation to have a child is empowerment.  The intentional pregnancies were with full knowlege that the babies daddies would not be fathers in the traditional sense.

With few options available some find pregnancy and motherhood something they can accomplish without permission from others. It is as simple as that.  Once in that situation they just do the best they can including exploring the offerings society extends to those living at or close to poverty.

No one I have known plotted or planned to get pregnant so they could take advantage of "welfare".


----------



## AkronGuy (Jun 23, 2009)

> The motivation to have a child is empowerment. The intentional pregnancies were with full knowlege that the babies daddies would not be fathers in the traditional sense.



Well then those people were stupid. And don't deserve a dime of tax money or a bit of sympathy.



> With few options available some find pregnancy and motherhood something they can accomplish without permission from others. It is as simple as that. Once in that situation they just do the best they can including exploring the offerings society extends to those living at or close to poverty.



And then these people keep the cycle going, and then try to pawn off the blame onto other people. .


----------

