Republicans..The real allies of African Americans

[Dragon]

Agreed -- "more about class than race". So it escapes me how supporting a political party who's radical wing wants to hobble folks that exceed their class benefits. Now think carefully about "estate/death tax". Why is it that 1st generation wealthy blacks shouldn't be able to lift up their descendents? Think Venus/Serena Williams, NBA stars, entertainers, Bryant Gumbel, ect... Are you really that committed to the principles of Socialist redistribution as to deny them the choice of feathering their progeny's nest with a little well-earned "reparations"?? It certainly DOES "transcend racial issues" IMO.

In the U.S. in 2011, up to eleven million dollars can be passed by a married couple to their heirs estate-tax free. Under no proposals that I'm aware of to alter this arrangement would the first fairly huge amount of inheritance be taxed.

Now imagine yourself a lower-to-middle-income black homeowner (or homeowner of any race). You've got a house worth maybe half a million, some stocks and other property worth maybe another quarter million at most. Your entire estate is less than a million. It's nowhere NEAR the point where Uncle Sam is even thinking about taking a penny of it. Somebody in Congress wants to put a surtax on the estate tax so estates over $100 million get taxed at, let's say, 95%. Why in the world would you even care? If Bryant Gumbel's estate gets hit for a bill, that hardly leaves his heirs deprived, all things considered.

Class disparity doesn't get solved by mere money.

It gets solved by changing the rules of the economic game, which are set by law in large part. The way it was done to narrow income gaps in the 1940s-1970s was:

1) Graduated income tax with confiscatory top marginal rates and full deductions for investment in job-creating activities.
2) Strict enforcement of labor law and protection of the right to form a union.
3) Certain kinds of social-welfare program, especially student aid and small-business aid. (The GI Bill did wonderful things for the economy.)

The first of these drove capital into the kind of investments that produce wealth and create jobs. The second resulted in high rates of union membership among workers (39% at maximum), which raised wages throughout the economy. The third helped open opportunities for a great many people who would not have those opportunities today.

Now this isn't the kind of thing that's usually meant by "wealth redistribution," but redistribution it is nonetheless, through the action of the market operating under changed parameters. Since 1980, all of those policies have been reversed, and we've had wealth redistribution in the other direction, again through the action of the market operating under changed parameters. And the government has to set the parameters somewhere; it can't NOT set tax policy, trade policy, labor policy, etc.

But I doubt the DEM conviction to "restrain" Govt from meddling in every daily of our lives.. On the local/state level, these "social justice" phoneys motto is "there ought to be a law". A law to restrain chefs from using salt. A law to force flower vendors, hair braiders and taxi cab drivers to comply with crony cartels. A law to chose paper over plastic. A law to prevent kids from having lemonade stands.

I know the kind you're talking about, and they have the potential to become a national problem (that's how Prohibition started), but at the moment they're mostly nuissance-level. I would add that not all those laws are laws and many of them never will be. (That New York law about salt in restaurants did not pass, did it?) Expect more of this silliness over the next decade, though, as child-raising patterns change to become more overprotective. Sometimes public views on behaviors change sufficiently to warrant more restrictive local ordinances, like the way many states are tighter about public smoking than they used to be. But that's not really a liberal or conservative thing.

And -- once again, let's not confuse party with ideology. The Democratic Party is what it is, and it isn't in service to any ideology; the only thing it consistently cares about is gaining and holding office.

The really serious threats to liberty through direct government action come from conservatives. I'm thinking of things like the more objectionable provisions of the Patriot Act, or of the war on drugs, or some of the Big Brotherish anti-immigrant bills that have emerged in border states. Without defending laws banning kids' lemonade stands cuckoo, surely any of those is a more serious problem.

 

[NoNukes]

Historically Significant Black Experiences

Historical Points of Interest

1. One of the primary reasons the Republican Party came into existence was because of its opposition to the Democrat Party’s support and promoting of The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. This act repealed the Anti-Slavery Missouri Compromise Law. The Missouri Compromise was an attempt to halt the spread of slavery beyond a certain point in the Louisiana Territory.

2. In 1854 at Jackson, Michigan a group of men met to form a new political party and one of the primary things that they agreed on, was their opposition to slavery and in particular the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. So while the Democratic Party was feverishly fighting to preserve slavery, the Republicans were meeting in Jackson, Michigan to destroy it.

3. The first candidate the Republican selected was Col. John C. Fremont who ran against pro-slavery candidate, Democrat James Buchanan. Even though Fremont loss it is interesting to know that he was the Republicans first anti-slavery presidential candidate.

4. In 1858, Republican Abraham Lincoln faced Democrat Stephen Douglas in a race for U.S. Senate in Illinois. That campaign became famous for the Lincoln-Douglas debates, with Democrat Stephen Douglas defending slavery and Republican Abraham Lincoln opposing it.

5. Lincoln is quoted as saying in 1858 the following, “A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe the government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free.” And it was with this attitude that Lincoln became the Republicans first elected president, in 1860.
6. Republican President Lincoln is quoted as saying the following to an Indiana Regiment: “Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.”

7. After experiencing repeated defeats during the Civil War, Lincoln declared, “On many a defeated field there was a voice louder than the thundering of a cannon. It was the voice God, crying, “Let My People go.” We…came to believe it as a great and solemn command.

8. In response to what Lincoln believed to be a divine mandate on January 1, 1863, he issued an edict we commonly call, The Emancipation Proclamation. And even though this act did not free all slaves or solves the slave problem, it led to change for the slave population in this country. (It is said that Lincoln before his death said, “The central act of my administration, and the greatest even of the nineteenth century was the Emancipation Proclamation…
”
9. Two of the greatest fighters for the freedom of the slaves were two Republicans by the name of Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens. Lerone Bennett, Jr. the historian said this regarding these two men. “Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens educated Lincoln, and the country, to a policy of Black Emancipation.” To them, as much as to conservative Lincoln, black people owe their freedom.

10. Republicans Sumner and Stevens were responsible for three (3) amendments to the Constitution which freed black people from slavery, made them citizens with all the rights of all Americans and the right to vote. They did this even though the Democrats fought to prevent them from bringing these laws to pass.

11. Thaddeus Stevens also fought to give every freed slave forty acres of land and a mule, so that slaves could take care of their families

12. The dream of forty acres and a mule was destroyed when Lincoln was killed and his vice president, Andrew Johnson, a Democrat replaced Lincoln and said of Black people, “Black people were inferior to whites and unready for equal rights. So he worked to destroy much of what Republicans had worked and fought so hard for.

13. One of the greatest periods of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America was between 1867 and 1877. The Republican Party was responsible for this period of time, and many positive changes took place for Blacks during the time of the enforcement of a series of measures called, Reconstruction Acts. W.E. B. Dubois called this period the, “Mystic Years.”

14. Here are but a few things that happen during the Reconstruction period. A. Hiram Rhodes Revels (Republican) became the first Black in congress, holding the position of U.S. Senator B. Republican Joseph H. Rainey from South Carolina became the first member of the U.S. House of Representatives C. In 1875, Blanche Kelso Bruce of Mississippi was elected to U.S. Senate, the first black to serve a full term in the Senate. In 1871, he was appointed by Republican President James A. Garfield as Registrar of the U.S. Treasury.


15. During the Republican supported period called, Reconstruction, blacks held state offices throughout the South, they were superintendents of education. Black and White children went to school together, interracial marriages were common and we didn’t ride on the back of the bus. Black colleges like Howard, Fisk and Morehouse came into being.

16. The Democrats never accepted the Reconstruction Period, as the last word and they went about to take all these advancements back, through groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. Most klans men were Democrats. Lerone Bennett, Jr. says this about how the Democrats went about destroying the Reconstruction period. “By stealth and murder, by economic intimidation and political assassinations, by whippings and mamings, cuttings and shootings, by the knife, by the rope, by the whip. By the political use of terror, by the braining of the baby in its mothers arms, the slaying of the husband at his wife’s feet, the raping of the wife before her husbands’ eves. By fear….In every state, Democrats attempted to control the votes of their late slaves…and the Democrats succeeded in destroying the greatest time of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America.”


17. The great Black Republican abolitionist Frederick Douglass had this to say about the Democratic Party, “…Sir, it is evident that there is in this country a purely slavery party- a party which exists for no other earthly purpose than to promote the interests of slavery….For the present, the best representative of the slavery party in politics is the Democratic party.”

18. During the rebirth of the Civil Rights movement of the 50’s and 60’s the overwhelming number of governors who stood in their respective school doors to block blacks from attending their schools were Democrats such as, Alabama Democratic Governor George Wallace, who stood in the schoolhouse door, Georgia Democratic Governor Lester Maddox stood in his restaurant door with a pistol on his hip and men with ax handles stood behind him to block blacks from coming into his business, Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett declared he would stand against federal laws regarding integration, and then there is Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus who sent his national guard to prevent black children from entering Arkansas schools.

19. On September 25, 1957, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower in a record breaking time of a little over three weeks sent federal troops to Arkansas to ensure the safety of black children who were integrating Arkansas schools.

20. The passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would not have been possible without the strong cohesive support of the Republican. In fact, all Southern Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act, including Al Gore, Sr. though President Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat he couldn’t get enough votes from his own party to pass civil rights laws, he needed the help of a willing Republican majority.

21. It is reported that over 4000 Ku Klux Klan killings took place during the terrible time of their reign of terror, but a better plan has been developed which eliminates over 400,000 black people every year, this plan has been so effective until Hispanics now out number Blacks in America. This effective gift of genocide comes from the Democratic Party supported practice called, Abortion.

Black History

This is history, not today.

 

[flacaltenn]

Dragon::

Again -- you're generally more than reasonable. Definately not a convicted Marxist..
Hell -- youre not even in Maxine Waters territory. But play fair.. You KNOW that every DEM member of the Black Caucus wants to put those death tax rules back into the punitive range of what they were before Bush with estates being taxed even at the 2 and 5Mill level!!!!! Don't give me what they are NOW after the Repubs set them to zero for a couple years. So what I said about BUILDING equity into the black community is still entirely valid.. Given current voting trends they would elect themselves into a non-promotable class over generations..

As for union rules -- I'm looking into reports that just this week, the Admin is pushing for rules that would require scab names and addresses to be put into the public record. That's WAAAY over the reasonable limit..

Anyway -- as far as the Patriot Act and the War on Drugs -- I don't suspect that DEMs have these as high on their priority list as scapegoating the rich. In fact, they ARE very high on Libertarian list. Along with school choice and other IMPORTANT realities of oppressive govt. So it bewilders me as to why "Libertarian lights" like the Repubs don't get more traction with black voters. Or why Libertarians who would actually FIX these things are non-starters in black caucuses everywhere. Especially if you've seen the reports where the DEA has raided entire black communities in the South and taken tractors, cattle, cars, and trucks from the black residents suspected of being engaged in the drug trade.

THOSE people are NOW Libertarians. They've been mugged by the loving, caring govt they helped empower..
And those national issues may NOT be as important to an aspiring black entreprenuer as the tons of regulation, licensing, and just silly rules that prevents him from selling hotdogs from a cart or driving a cab. Those little issues are mounting up and have a very large effect on economic and social freedom..


Got to go fertilize and seed the homestead before the rains come.. No -- REALLY.. It's not what you think. It's yardwork time.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So Jake:

Since you're working to make the GOP more responsive to blacks -- is Herman Cain a HELP or a hindrance? He does have a very loyal following -- doesn't he?

He is very interesting. Do you believe his path is the only was for black Americans?

You're testing me ain'tcha? After being called Massa for offering opinion, I'm not walking into that one. THAT'S for you to decide..

But I find it interesting that Cain was NOT drafted into that role. He suited up voluntarily and he's not denying his heritage. I don't see much "reaching out" from a capable Black Gooper. He's not asking what he can do for "his people". Why do you think that is?

Do you think Cain has just ABANDONED the wishes and demands of the black voting block?

Wear the mantle of what you do. Cain? Is his path the only path for black Americans? Can you answer that or not?

 

[Jroc]

Actually, it might help if you do some thinking instead of just letting your knees jerk about this. Let me give you a hand on that.

First off the bat, the claim that out-of-wedlock births among black women are increasing is demonstrably false:

The math on Black out of wedlock births - Ta-Nehisi Coates - Entertainment - The Atlantic

In 1970, the birth rate for unmarried black women was 96 per 1000. In 1980, it was 87.9, and in 2005, 60.6. The birth rate for unmarried black women is declining, not increasing, and has been for around 40 years.

Umm...the reason might have something to due with the unusually high abortion rate amoung black women

which eliminates over 400,000 black people every year, this plan has been so effective until Hispanics now out number Blacks in America. This effective gift of genocide comes from the Democratic Party supported practice called, Abortion.

I've gotten into discussions on this sort of subject, not about race, with other people and pointed out flaws in the panicky reference to statistics that a higher percentage of babies are "born out of wedlock." I point out that this phrase can mean more than one thing. If Junior was "born out of wedlock," that could mean:

1) Daddy knocked up Mom and then split.
2) Mom and Dad are living together in a committed relationship but for whatever reason don't want to formally, legally tie the knot.
3) Mom got pregnant and Junior was born while they were still unmarried, but they've since married.

Of those three possibilities, only #1 is anything to worry about. So if the increase in the fraction of kids "born out of wedlock" means we have an epidemic of guys knocking women up and then splitting, then we have a problem, but if it only means people are taking a more cavalier attitude towards legal marriage than in the past, we don't. Turns out to be the latter. Elton John was born out of wedlock (a no. 3 situation, as his parents married when he was 4). Seems to me he's doing fine

.

72 Percent Of Black Kids Raised By Single Parent, 25% Overall In U.S.

One in four children in the United States is being raised by a single parent — a percentage that has been on the rise and is higher than other developed countries, according to a report released Wednesday.

Of the 27 industrialized countries studied by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the U.S. had 25.8 percent of children being raised by a single parent, compared with an average of 14.9 percent across the other countries.

In the African American community, 72 percent of Black children are raised in a single parent household.

Here are some stats on the city to city breakdown of single parent families in the Black community from 2009.

Ireland was second (24.3 percent), followed by New Zealand (23.7 percent). Greece, Spain, Italy and Luxemborg had among the lowest percentages of children in single-parent homes.

Experts point to a variety of factors to explain the high U.S. figure, including a cultural shift toward greater acceptance of single-parent child rearing. The U.S. also lacks policies to help support families, including childcare at work and national paid maternity leave, which are commonplace in other countries.

“When our parents married, there was a sense that you were marrying for life,” said Edward Zigler, founder and director of Yale’s Edward Zigler Center in Child Development and Social Policy. “That sense is not as prevalent.”

Single parents in the U.S. were more likely to be employed — 35.8 percent compared to a 21.3 percent average — but they also had higher rates of poverty, the report found.

“The in-work poverty is higher in the U.S. than other OECD countries, because at the bottom end of the labor market, earnings are very low,” said Willem Adema, a senior economist in the group’s social policy division. “For parents, the risk is higher because they have to make expenditures on childcare costs.”

The Paris-based organization looked at a broad sector of indicators that affected families and children, including childhood poverty, early education and amount of time spent on parental care.

Across the nations examined, preschool enrollment has grown from 30 to 50 percent between 1998 and 2007. The average enrollment was 58.2 percent, while in the U.S. it was lower.

The report noted that public spending on child welfare and education is higher in the U.S. than in other countries — $160,000 per child compared to $149,000. However, the authors say most of that money is spent after the crucial early childhood years.

72% Of Black Kids Raised In Single Parent Household, 25 Percent In U.S. | News One

Secondly, just about all of the problems in the African-American community can be attributed to economics. Things have gotten worse for working-class people over the past few decades; there are fewer and fewer good jobs, and it's becoming harder and harder to find anything to hope for. And this shit falls disproportionately on black people just as it always does. So you get teenage boys in the inner city who can't find good jobs turning to careers in drug dealing instead, and why not? As Todd Snider put it:

If that's where it's at and no one's gonna help,
How you gonna blame a kid for helpin' himself?

But of course there are a lot of problems with working in the drug industry, starting with the fact that it's illegal and so by doing it you're a criminal and associating with other criminals many of whom are violent, so you have to be violent, too. It sucks, but recognize where it starts: with a system that favors the rich over the rest of us, together with the war on drugs.

Now, if you want to say that the Democratic Party has not been all it could and should be on these matters, hey, no argument. But that's a long way from saying that the Republican Party has been better. It most certainly and most obviously has been worse. And black voters can see that.

Really? how so? most big cities have been run into the ground by liberal democrats great soceity policies were given to us by liberals and they have failed

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jroc, that is an assertion without evidence: simply your opinion, and we all know better than to ever accept you at your opinion.

 

[Dragon]

Dragon::

Again -- you're generally more than reasonable. Definately not a convicted Marxist.

Well, I admit I was once. But that was when I was in my teens.
.

But play fair.. You KNOW that every DEM member of the Black Caucus wants to put those death tax rules back into the punitive range of what they were before Bush with estates being taxed even at the 2 and 5Mill level!!!!!

I actually don't know that, but I do know that even if it's so, the number of black families with $2 million in net worth is not large. I'm not going to address the pros and cons here; quite honestly the estate tax isn't one of my burning issues. (Although I kind of do see Bill Gates' point -- his father was absolutely against anyone inheriting vast wealth, and I believe Junior is, too. Not that the founder of Microsoft is in need of Dad's money at this point.) What I am going to point out is that it doesn't have a bearing on building prosperity in the black community. Looking at Gates again, he got a boost into opportunities most of us never glimpse while his father was still alive, when estate taxes weren't even an issue, and that's going to be the case with most people. On a less lofty level, families help their children by paying their way through college or helping them get capital to start a business, or something like that, not by leaving them the family fortune. Unless there are untimely deaths, and that's what trust funds are for. An increase in the estate tax simply isn't going to impact most black people, whether or not it's a good idea.

As for union rules -- I'm looking into reports that just this week, the Admin is pushing for rules that would require scab names and addresses to be put into the public record. That's WAAAY over the reasonable limit.

This touched off my wild-ass rumor meter, so I did a search for Obama Administration and union rules and couldn't find anything that wasn't either a right-wing opinion piece or a brief filed on behalf of employers in the public-comment process. I went to the NLRB's home page but couldn't find anything on it. The briefs show that something remotely like what you're talking about is on the table, but without getting the details from somewhere I can't really judge what's happening.

To illustrate the problems with the right-wing opinion pieces, one of them from the Cato Institute talked about a 1973 Supreme Court decision (U.S. v. Enmons) that, in Cato's words, "shields unions and their members from prosecution after violent acts if they occur in pursuit of union goals." That is untrue. The decision held that the union cannot be charged under the federal anti-racketeering act of 1934 as long as the action is taken in pursuit of union goals, and that's ALL it said. The union can still be charged with incitement to vandalism, assault, or murder, or conspiracy to commit these crimes, and the individuals directly involved with the crime itself; in no way does the Enmons decision render a union or its members immune from prosecution for crimes, it only clarifies that that particular anti-racketeering statute doesn't apply. Given this bit of misinformation, I'm reluctant to rely on the same sources for information about the proposed new rule itself. I'll keep looking.

I would of course disapprove of a rule requiring disclosure of personal information of strikebreakers. I can see the utility of it (it would make hiring such people a LOT harder, and so make strikes more effective), but that's a line we really shouldn't cross.

I do approve of the other recent labor-regulation changes from the Obama administration this year, though. We seem to be moving in the right direction, quietly. I'll have to keep watching this.

Anyway -- as far as the Patriot Act and the War on Drugs -- I don't suspect that DEMs have these as high on their priority list as scapegoating the rich.

It isn't scapegoating; the biggest problem with our economy at this time is exactly maldistribution of income. But re the Patriot Act and war on drugs (especially the latter), you are depressingly correct. I've found Obama a disappointment in so many ways, but the single biggest way is that he has not reversed the Bush administration's trampling on the Bill of Rights. There's no excuse for that.

However, I was not lauding the Democrats on that score so much as I was pointing out that the Republicans are hardly the party of small government in any consistent way. And liberals, including those Democrats who are liberals (remember the GOP is much closer to ideological consistency than the Democrats are, so that by no means are all or even most Democrats liberals) do oppose government overreach in these areas and vigorously defend the civil liberties and due process provisions of the Fourth and Fifth amendments.

In fact, they ARE very high on Libertarian list.

I realize that.

Along with school choice and other IMPORTANT realities of oppressive govt. So it bewilders me as to why "Libertarian lights" like the Repubs don't get more traction with black voters.

Well, maybe I can help you figure that out. First of all, "school choice" generally is a code for dismantling or downgrading public education in favor of some kind of voucher system for private school. But in reality, every such program I've ever seen pays only part of the cost of a private school education; most poor families could not afford the cost even with the vouchers, so the real effect would be to subsidize the private education costs of richer kids while further downgrading (or even eliminating altogether) the education available to poor kids. On top of that, private schools, unlike public schools, can legally be selective about what children they are willing to educate, and there are plenty of kids out there who, for one reason or another, simply can't attend a private school.

So black people simply don't see lack of "school choice" as an important reality of oppressive government. They see the attempt to remedy that "important reality" as a scam designed to give them the shaft yet again.

And finally, I would disagree strongly with your characterization of Republicans as "libertarians lite." They're not at all. Libertarians and conservatives tend to agree on a few economic issues, such as opposition to government regulations on business, but even so, conservatives usually back government subsidies and corporate welfare which libertarians find anathema, and of course in terms of government infringement of personal liberty they are poles apart.

I'm so glad I'm no longer a homeowner. I hate yardwork. But -- have fun & I hope all goes well.

 

[flacaltenn]

Of course Jake.. I can answer that.

Obviously Cain is NOT the only path for Black Americans. He's a VIABLE path. He's a qualified candidate. He just whooped ass in the GOP Fla straw poll..

Now tell me why he's not bringing peace and harmony between the black voting public and GOP like you say that you're trying to do.. Does he think his issue positions are detrimental to the black community?

 

[flacaltenn]

Dragon::

Just for the record -- I was gonna look up that Labor Dept rumor myself.. Here's what I found..

Here's the original "rumor"..

Perhaps more controversially: The rule would also require ‘scabs’ — a derogatory term for people who cross a picket line to work for at company experiencing a union strike — to publish their private information as well. Because many of these people technically work as independent contractors, the information they would likely have to file with the Labor Department would include their home address, phone number and other personally identifiable information.

Here's what I found. Appears to be based on some reality of PROPOSED regulations coming from Labor Dept..

Department of Labor LMRDA Proposed Rule Change

Page 86.

Additionally, Items 11.b, 11.c, and 11.d, respectively, require the consultant, as beforethe proposed revisions, to indicate the period during which activity was performed, theextent of performance, and the name and address of the person(s) through whom theactivity was performed. Item 11.d. would be revised to ask filers to specify if the personor persons performing the activities is employed by the consultant or serves as an independent contractor. In the latter scenario, the person or persons performing the activities is an indirect party to an employer-consultant agreement or arrangement, who would owe a separate Form LM-20 report.

Roughly page 108 -- form LM120

So it DOES appear to be some sort of requirement to file public documents in LM120 form for all labor brought in by consultants and contractors.. And it DOES require the names, addresses and other personal data of the proposed workers..

Just FYI -- keeping an eye on the monster.. I'll be back later..

 

[JakeStarkey]

Of course Jake.. I can answer that.

Obviously Cain is NOT the only path for Black Americans. He's a VIABLE path. He's a qualified candidate. He just whooped ass in the GOP Fla straw poll..

Now tell me why he's not bringing peace and harmony between the black voting public and GOP like you say that you're trying to do.. Does he think his issue positions are detrimental to the black community?

I did not say he was not viable, so you are flabbergating when you suggest such. I do not know what he thinks if his positions being detrimental to the black community.

I am asking you if his position is reasonable for the majority of black Americans to follow.

 

[flacaltenn]

Of course Jake.. I can answer that.

Obviously Cain is NOT the only path for Black Americans. He's a VIABLE path. He's a qualified candidate. He just whooped ass in the GOP Fla straw poll..

Now tell me why he's not bringing peace and harmony between the black voting public and GOP like you say that you're trying to do.. Does he think his issue positions are detrimental to the black community?

I did not say he was not viable, so you are flabbergating when you suggest such. I do not know what he thinks if his positions being detrimental to the black community.

I am asking you if his position is reasonable for the majority of black Americans to follow.

He's a Repub Jake. I don't generally trust Repubs to represent my interests (or any reasonable person's interests) unless they have libertarian pedigrees. Chances of Cain screwing them over because of racism are pretty slim tho.. Kinda takes that wrinkled card out of the deck (except for the assaults he's ALREADY getting from the black media and "leaders of the Afro-American community".

I think the majority of black Americans need to be careful about "unqualified party loyalty". Because the extreme wing of the Dem party is destructive to the American standard of life on economic issues. Even elements of the far far left especially the Green movement are now recognizing that if the economy is hobbled and the debt pile becomes too big -- that THEIR agenda is gonna wither away. They are starting to sound a lot like deficit hawks in some places..

What I will stick my neck out to say is that the "solid black" voting block needs to recognize the entire spectrum of what's in the DEM pantry and REJECT destructive urges to become socialist tools in order to get serviced by the Govt.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Of course Jake.. I can answer that.

Obviously Cain is NOT the only path for Black Americans. He's a VIABLE path. He's a qualified candidate. He just whooped ass in the GOP Fla straw poll..

Now tell me why he's not bringing peace and harmony between the black voting public and GOP like you say that you're trying to do.. Does he think his issue positions are detrimental to the black community?

I did not say he was not viable, so you are flabbergating when you suggest such. I do not know what he thinks if his positions being detrimental to the black community.

I am asking you if his position is reasonable for the majority of black Americans to follow.

He's a Repub Jake. I don't generally trust Repubs to represent my interests (or any reasonable person's interests) unless they have libertarian pedigrees. Chances of Cain screwing them over because of racism are pretty slim tho.. Kinda takes that wrinkled card out of the deck (except for the assaults he's ALREADY getting from the black media and "leaders of the Afro-American community".

I think the majority of black Americans need to be careful about "unqualified party loyalty". Because the extreme wing of the Dem party is destructive to the American standard of life on economic issues. Even elements of the far far left especially the Green movement are now recognizing that if the economy is hobbled and the debt pile becomes too big -- that THEIR agenda is gonna wither away. They are starting to sound a lot like deficit hawks in some places..

What I will stick my neck out to say is that the "solid black" voting block needs to recognize the entire spectrum of what's in the DEM pantry and REJECT destructive urges to become socialist tools in order to get serviced by the Govt.

Other than your poor exampling of what "socialist tools" are, I like much of what you write. Social democratic action is not socialism. The Great Society was a left-wing progressive form of reforming society, for instance. Social engineering, yes; socialism, absolutely not.

 

[Brutus]

I don't generally trust Repubs to represent my interests (or any reasonable person's interests) unless they have libertarian pedigrees.

you have to keep in mind that Republicans are Libertarians who compromise with independents and Democrats to hold office. If they did not do that they would merely be impotent Libertarians.

It is the electorate that determines how libertarian Republicans can be.

 

[Dragon]

you have to keep in mind that Republicans are Libertarians who compromise with independents and Democrats to hold office.

Aside from the Pauls, not one Republican has any inclination to be libertarian.

 

[flacaltenn]

you have to keep in mind that Republicans are Libertarians who compromise with independents and Democrats to hold office.

Aside from the Pauls, not one Republican has any inclination to be libertarian.

Actually, there is a Republican Libertarian Caucus (or was).. Had a respectable list of members who were solid on ALL civil rights issues (as applied to individuals, not to groups). Gary Johnson IS a self-proclaimed Libertarian. And the scariest parts of Goldwater were also very much grounded in those principles.

It MAYBE that things like War on Drugs, corp/govt collusion, Patriot Act, public school overhauls, just won't ever get fixed unless SOME wingnuts organize and focus on the basics of what govt should be doing. Why for instance do we waste so much time arguing about providing fair elections and voter rolls? Isn't that a PRIMARY role of govt? How can be such a persistent source of aggrevation if the massive govt structure was focused on the basics? Instead of grandstanding on trivia like caffeinated alchoholic drinks???

 

[Brutus]

you have to keep in mind that Republicans are Libertarians who compromise with independents and Democrats to hold office.

Aside from the Pauls, not one Republican has any inclination to be libertarian.

it must be coincidental then that the Pauls and other libertarians have been Republicans( not Democrats) , that since the first Republican- Jefferson- Republicans have supported the BBA, that 100% of Republicans voted against BO's stimulus, and that the Tea Party is Republican.

See why we are positive a liberal will have a low IQ? What other conclusion is possible?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Brutus just demonstrated an incredibly low IQ with the above post: amazing.

Grow up. Libs and cons are equally stupid and equally bright. What a stupid ass comment, adds nothing to this discussion.

 

[Brutus]

Brutus just demonstrated an incredibly low IQ with the above post: amazing.

so then why be so afraid to to explain exactly why you think it demonstrated a low IQ???? What does your fear tell you?

 

[Dragon]

since the first Republican- Jefferson

Jefferson was a Democrat. The Democratic Party was called the Democratic-Republican Party initially, but that's purely a linguistic accident. Jefferson died in 1823. The GOP was founded in 1854.

 

[Brutus]

since the first Republican- Jefferson

Jefferson was a Democrat. The Democratic Party was called the Democratic-Republican Party initially, but that's purely a linguistic accident. Jefferson died in 1823. The GOP was founded in 1854.

I guess the Congressional Record was wrong? See why we are positive a liberal will have low IQ?


5th Congress (1797-1799)

Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 32

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6th Congress (1799-1801)

Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 32

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7th Congress (1801-1803)

Majority Party: Republican (17 seats)

Minority Party: Federalist (15 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Vacant: 2

Total Seats: 34