What Killed Detroit: Democrats or Black People?

[westwall]

Progressives masquerading as Democrats.

 

[Publius1787]

I assume we are talking financially since Detroit was never alive so therefore couldn't be killed...?

Still waiting for you to make your case.

Reaganomics boils down to giving the rich a free ride while putting the burden on the middle class and poor.

Reasons for the financial troubles for Detroit:

-The destruction of Detroit Auto industry and manufacturing base. Reaganomics allowed Global companies move jobs overseas which Detroit relied upon.

-Republicans changed the law and let the rich move from Detroit still reap the benefits of Detroit without paying taxes to the city. Again giving the rich a free ride while working class and poor paid for the city.

-The Republicans hold federal and state money from Democrat controlled population to lessen burden on the rich. Again Reaganomics.

Naomi Kline has zero credibility after she did that patently and academically FALSE criticism of Milton Friedman in Shock Doctrine. SEE VIDEO BELOW. In every thing she does she omits relevant facts and in many cases outright lies so as to make a point. There is nothing she touches that isn't mischaracterized, misrepresented, outright false. Naomi Klein is no academic, but a Marxist who is willing to use any falsehoods she can conjure up so as to inspire her Marxist Utopia. Naomi Klein - Discover the Networks If you have any shred of honesty and true thirst for knowledge you will watch the video below and recognize that Naomi Klein is full of shit.

This video is but one of many examples of her academic dishonesty. Anyone who points to Naomi Kline as a credible source is either ignorant or a liar themselves.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqLAYg6pDGg]Johan Norberg vs. Naomi Klein and The Shock Doctrine - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Yup, the American people weren't still buying land yachts and Detroit still wasn't catering to the American peoples taste in vehicles.
Try taking a course in economics.
Your alter ego, that's who the fuck Reinhard is...... Google is your friend.
Oh and the Klan is comprised of far rightwing reactionaries, I'm sure that doesn't include Democrats....... Just sayin'........

Tell you what, if land yachts weren't on the market, people couldn't buy them. When was the last time the auto industry asked you for your taste in automobiles?

Bottom line is the auto industry failed and only has itself to blame. Your ridiculous claim that "land yachts" had anything to do with it is well....ridiculous. They failed because they couldn't compete with the foreign car market partly and I imagine largely due to the unions. If "land yachts" were in such high demand then the foreign market would have been shipping them in by the boatloads. But that wasn't the case. While we're on the subject of "land yachts", they are still being bought and sold today not only by the big three but also foreign competitors.

No the KKK was the strong arm of the Democratic party. Nothing right wing about them.

Oh and the guy that killed MLK, was a democrat. Jim Crows laws, democrat, Segregation, Democrat.

When was the last time the auto industry asked you for your taste in automobiles?

Every annual car show.....
Okay moron, Economics 101 = consumers drive the market. Does that mean that businesses always listen to them? Obviously not, Detroit wouldn't have fallen so far behind if they had responded quicker. The same happened with much of American industry's arrogance allowing the Japanese to outstrip us in the 70's and 80s.
As for the KKK, it's no surprise you refer to the KKK in the past, today's KKK wouldn't fit your mold.....
Of course there's still a market for land yachts idiot, but it makes up a small percentage of what it used to hold.
Truly you can't be this brainwashed by your Aryan masters, can you? Why am I asking, of course you are.

I've never been to a car show and I imagine most Americans haven't either.

At least you admit it's the industries own fault which is what I've said all along.

The KKK of the past is the same racist KKK of today.

I've never had a master. What's it like?

 

[Ringel05]

Tell you what, if land yachts weren't on the market, people couldn't buy them. When was the last time the auto industry asked you for your taste in automobiles?

Bottom line is the auto industry failed and only has itself to blame. Your ridiculous claim that "land yachts" had anything to do with it is well....ridiculous. They failed because they couldn't compete with the foreign car market partly and I imagine largely due to the unions. If "land yachts" were in such high demand then the foreign market would have been shipping them in by the boatloads. But that wasn't the case. While we're on the subject of "land yachts", they are still being bought and sold today not only by the big three but also foreign competitors.

No the KKK was the strong arm of the Democratic party. Nothing right wing about them.

Oh and the guy that killed MLK, was a democrat. Jim Crows laws, democrat, Segregation, Democrat.

When was the last time the auto industry asked you for your taste in automobiles?

Every annual car show.....
Okay moron, Economics 101 = consumers drive the market. Does that mean that businesses always listen to them? Obviously not, Detroit wouldn't have fallen so far behind if they had responded quicker. The same happened with much of American industry's arrogance allowing the Japanese to outstrip us in the 70's and 80s.
As for the KKK, it's no surprise you refer to the KKK in the past, today's KKK wouldn't fit your mold.....
Of course there's still a market for land yachts idiot, but it makes up a small percentage of what it used to hold.
Truly you can't be this brainwashed by your Aryan masters, can you? Why am I asking, of course you are.

I've never been to a car show and I imagine most Americans haven't either.

At least you admit it's the industries own fault which is what I've said all along.

The KKK of the past is the same racist KKK of today.

I've never had a master. What's it like?

You tell me, I'm sure it's covered in the Turner Diaries.

You claimed it was Blacks and Democrats.... Now you're agreeing with me (somewhat) and admitting the industry was partially at fault. Uuummmm.......

 

[Publius1787]

You hate black people we get it.

I don't hate black people. But I am recognizing black trends. You know it is easy to denounce those who provide facts and stats to prove an uncomfortable point, however, denouncing is not refuting. Too many people in this forum think they are one in the same. Providing the truth is not tantamount to hate. By such a standard displayed in your post above no one should make a valid point so as long as the subject matter is uncomfortable to those who would rather accuse me of hatred as opposed to addressing the facts.

I recognize trends in racists and callous conservatives. A common trend is to seek out negative sources to justify their racism and opinions, and present a single source - above, the black community - as an academic truth. The fact is reality is rarely as simple as racists try to make it, for there are many variables - events and judgments, dependent and independent - which effect outcomes.

Thus it is simple to see that the author of the OP hopes to place blame on a single race based on his beliefs. My takeaway here is why is he a racist and a callous conservative? Who or what events in his life created in him the fear and hate which motivates him to post such rhetoric? It sure isn't posted to solve problems, in fact, his every post comes down to one theme: "ain't it awful".

The above supposes that because you VIEW/BELIEVE that a person has ill motives than his thesis must be wrong. You like so many others have accused me of racism (Despite the fact that I have never accused blacks of being genetically inferior), but once again, accusing someone of racism is not refuting them.

The op displays a trend among many increasingly black populated areas. You have called me a racist, but addressed nothing. Addressing a controversial subject with facts does not qualify one as a racist, but it does seem to say a allot of those who dismiss the facts outright via an ad-homenim.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Every annual car show.....
Okay moron, Economics 101 = consumers drive the market. Does that mean that businesses always listen to them? Obviously not, Detroit wouldn't have fallen so far behind if they had responded quicker. The same happened with much of American industry's arrogance allowing the Japanese to outstrip us in the 70's and 80s.
As for the KKK, it's no surprise you refer to the KKK in the past, today's KKK wouldn't fit your mold.....
Of course there's still a market for land yachts idiot, but it makes up a small percentage of what it used to hold.
Truly you can't be this brainwashed by your Aryan masters, can you? Why am I asking, of course you are.

I've never been to a car show and I imagine most Americans haven't either.

At least you admit it's the industries own fault which is what I've said all along.

The KKK of the past is the same racist KKK of today.

I've never had a master. What's it like?

You tell me, I'm sure it's covered in the Turner Diaries.

You claimed it was Blacks and Democrats.... Now you're agreeing with me (somewhat) and admitting the industry was partially at fault. Uuummmm.......

I have never heard of the "Turner Diaries".

Blacks and Democrats were the two options given, I chose both.

Me agreeing with you? I've said all along the auto industries failures were no ones fault but their own and I think it's partly due to the economic polices put in place by Democrat Mayors and big unions along with the influx of foreign competitors.

The auto industries in Detroit started hurting in the 70's, picked up a little in the 90's but after that is was one struggle after another.

 

[Ringel05]

I've never been to a car show and I imagine most Americans haven't either.

At least you admit it's the industries own fault which is what I've said all along.

The KKK of the past is the same racist KKK of today.

I've never had a master. What's it like?

You tell me, I'm sure it's covered in the Turner Diaries.

You claimed it was Blacks and Democrats.... Now you're agreeing with me (somewhat) and admitting the industry was partially at fault. Uuummmm.......

I have never heard of the "Turner Diaries".

Blacks and Democrats were the two options given, I chose both.

Me agreeing with you? I've said all along the auto industries failures were no ones fault but their own and I think it's partly due to the economic polices put in place by Democrat Mayors and big unions along with the influx of foreign competitors.

The auto industries in Detroit started hurting in the 70's, picked up a little in the 90's but after that is was one struggle after another.

What I saw posted was Blacks and Dems were at fault with no qualifications. Next time ya might want to state your "addendums" so as not to appear ignorantly racist and partisanly blind.
And don't assume someone already knows your position though from what I've read so far my assessment hasn't changed much.

 

[S.J.]

Unions, redistribution of wealth, crime, welfare, high taxes, are all responsible for Detroit's demise and they can ALL be laid at the feet of either Democrats or blacks.

 

[Publius1787]

Unions, redistribution of wealth, crime, welfare, high taxes, are all responsible for Detroit's demise and they can ALL be laid at the feet of either Democrats or blacks.

I don't think people understand the "black power" culture that predominated at the beginning of Detroit's demise. It is well documented in the OP and it lead to a number of racially motivated and corrupt black Democrats who were chosen more for their race than for being able to run a city.

 

[Sarah G]

I don't hate black people. But I am recognizing black trends. You know it is easy to denounce those who provide facts and stats to prove an uncomfortable point, however, denouncing is not refuting. Too many people in this forum think they are one in the same. Providing the truth is not tantamount to hate. By such a standard displayed in your post above no one should make a valid point so as long as the subject matter is uncomfortable to those who would rather accuse me of hatred as opposed to addressing the facts.

I don't see anything in your OP about the American automobile industry losing market share as a reason.

But it occurs to you to include "black people."

And you wonder why people call you racist.

Why did the auto industry fail in Detroit? Could it have been because of U.S. expansion in Japanese, German and Korean car companies? Perhaps the financial crisis caused it. Whatever the reasons the fact remains that Detroit drove itself into a ditch.

Part of it was the cost of payroll and healthcare being added on to the cost of a new car which was a good reason we needed and need healthcare reform that Repubs are fighting tooth and nail. People don't want new cars anymore because they cost too much.

Management problems including outrageous CEO salaries, perks, not enough marketing strategies, also. Incompetence.

Again, lots of reasons and not all because of Blacks and Democrats...

 

[Publius1787]

Democrats killed Detroit. Blacks were doing OK supporting Republicans. Ike sent in the military to make sure Democrats would acted civil and he put forth Civil Rights legislation that LBJ And Al Gore Sr killed in the Senate.

When LBJ became President, he bet the future of the Democrat Party on capturing the black vote by whatever means necessary. He promised Democrat Governors that, "I'll have them ******* voting Democrat for the next 200 years" So, it's not surprising that Black Leaders like Malcolm X (who called blacks "political chumps" for their support of Democrats) and MLK, who weren't fans of Democrats, were assassinated

Blacks got the message: support Democrats -- or else

But the black Democrats of early Detroit were the "black power" brand of Democrats. In fact they still are. They were blacks, chosen by blacks, who held a black agenda. The OP provides many sources for the "black power" agenda that ruined Detroit. These black power Democrats must be distinguished from other Democrats much as the Dixiecrats were distinguished from other Democrats.

 

[Publius1787]

I grew up in Detroit and watched it decline into the sewer it is today.

My father owned several rental properties in the city, which he acquired in the 1950s, only to sell them in the late 1970s for almost nothing.

Many factors lead to it's decline. Busing, corruption, and ineffectiveness destroyed the p-schools; corrupt police department failed to control crime, explosion in welfare, illegitimacy, illiteracy, broken families, overwhelming city government corruption leading to a complete breakdown in effective governance, illegal drugs, gangs, purposeful destruction of small business via high taxation and regulations, complete cultural collapse, white flight, businesses fleeing, decline of auto industry employment.

To summarize, if you had to point to one thing that caused the city's decline, it was the natural consequence of oppressive big government policies....aka Progressivism.

Progressivism brought forth by a black population that made Detroit inhabitable for whites, and thereby gaining in electoral power, which enabled them to run the city into chaos.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You tell me, I'm sure it's covered in the Turner Diaries.

You claimed it was Blacks and Democrats.... Now you're agreeing with me (somewhat) and admitting the industry was partially at fault. Uuummmm.......

I have never heard of the "Turner Diaries".

Blacks and Democrats were the two options given, I chose both.

Me agreeing with you? I've said all along the auto industries failures were no ones fault but their own and I think it's partly due to the economic polices put in place by Democrat Mayors and big unions along with the influx of foreign competitors.

The auto industries in Detroit started hurting in the 70's, picked up a little in the 90's but after that is was one struggle after another.

What I saw posted was Blacks and Dems were at fault with no qualifications. Next time ya might want to state your "addendums" so as not to appear ignorantly racist and partisanly blind.
And don't assume someone already knows your position though from what I've read so far my assessment hasn't changed much.

A question was asked an answer was given.

Trust me, idiots thinking I'm ignorant or racist doesn't bother me.

 

[Publius1787]

You hate black people we get it.

I don't hate black people. But I am recognizing black trends. You know it is easy to denounce those who provide facts and stats to prove an uncomfortable point, however, denouncing is not refuting. Too many people in this forum think they are one in the same. Providing the truth is not tantamount to hate. By such a standard displayed in your post above no one should make a valid point so as long as the subject matter is uncomfortable to those who would rather accuse me of hatred as opposed to addressing the facts.

Yet your myopic focus belies that claim. Try again Heinrich.

If I were to grant you strictly for the sake of argument that what you said is true, then how does this refute the facts provided? It may be a good way to avoid addressing the facts, but in the end it is nothing but an ad-hominem fallacy designed to detract away from the topic as opposed of doing the much more uncomfortable thing of making an argument and defending it. Indeed, if this is all you can do to address me in the thread then why post at all? It advances nothing. It does nothing for you and it does nothing for me.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I don't see anything in your OP about the American automobile industry losing market share as a reason.

But it occurs to you to include "black people."

And you wonder why people call you racist.

Why did the auto industry fail in Detroit? Could it have been because of U.S. expansion in Japanese, German and Korean car companies? Perhaps the financial crisis caused it. Whatever the reasons the fact remains that Detroit drove itself into a ditch.

Part of it was the cost of payroll and healthcare being added on to the cost of a new car which was a good reason we needed and need healthcare reform that Repubs are fighting tooth and nail. People don't want new cars anymore because they cost too much.

Management problems including outrageous CEO salaries, perks, not enough marketing strategies, also. Incompetence.

Again, lots of reasons and not all because of Blacks and Democrats...

Explain to me how Obamacare is going to curb the cost of healthcare. And why haven't we seen it yet?

The auto industry is thriving by the way. Apparently people can afford new cars after all.

No one has said it was ALL because of blacks and Democrats.

 

[Ringel05]

I don't hate black people. But I am recognizing black trends. You know it is easy to denounce those who provide facts and stats to prove an uncomfortable point, however, denouncing is not refuting. Too many people in this forum think they are one in the same. Providing the truth is not tantamount to hate. By such a standard displayed in your post above no one should make a valid point so as long as the subject matter is uncomfortable to those who would rather accuse me of hatred as opposed to addressing the facts.

Yet your myopic focus belies that claim. Try again Heinrich.

If I were to grant you strictly for the sake of argument that what you said is true, then how does this refute the facts provided? It may be a good way to avoid addressing the facts, but in the end it is nothing but an ad-hominem fallacy designed to detract away from the topic as opposed of doing the much more uncomfortable thing of making an argument and defending it. Indeed, if this is all you can do to address me in the thread then why post at all? It advances nothing. It does nothing for you and it does nothing for me.

I've already addressed your "facts" as cherry picked and out of context with the whole, i.e.academically bankrupt. Yet you ignored it and instead, being the exposed cornered rat that you are, try the only tactic you have left, a pathetically transparent attempt to discredit me. Like I said, it may work with the weak willed and weak minded but not with the rest who readily see through your veil of feigned intellectual posturing.

 

[Publius1787]

You hate black people we get it.

I don't hate black people. But I am recognizing black trends. You know it is easy to denounce those who provide facts and stats to prove an uncomfortable point, however, denouncing is not refuting. Too many people in this forum think they are one in the same. Providing the truth is not tantamount to hate. By such a standard displayed in your post above no one should make a valid point so as long as the subject matter is uncomfortable to those who would rather accuse me of hatred as opposed to addressing the facts.

I don't see anything in your OP about the American automobile industry losing market share as a reason.

But it occurs to you to include "black people."

And you wonder why people call you racist.

Detroit has been on the decline since the 60's. What truly caused the downfall of the city was the tax base fleeing. Cities can plan around major industrial economic woes but they cannot bring people back into the city for tax purposes. The white tax base fled not because of lack of jobs, but the cites increasing black population during the era of "black power" in Detroit. First came the riots, and when enough white people fled out of the electorate, then came the "black power Democrats." No white family, or long after, black family wants their children going to a substandard majority black school or subject to the drugs and violence of black run Detroit. There is no doubt that the decline of the auto industry was a contributing factor. However, the decline of the auto industry was not the largest contributor.

 

[Publius1787]

Yet your myopic focus belies that claim. Try again Heinrich.

If I were to grant you strictly for the sake of argument that what you said is true, then how does this refute the facts provided? It may be a good way to avoid addressing the facts, but in the end it is nothing but an ad-hominem fallacy designed to detract away from the topic as opposed of doing the much more uncomfortable thing of making an argument and defending it. Indeed, if this is all you can do to address me in the thread then why post at all? It advances nothing. It does nothing for you and it does nothing for me.

I've already addressed your "facts" as cherry picked and out of context with the whole, i.e.academically bankrupt. Yet you ignored it and instead, being the exposed cornered rat that you are, try the only tactic you have left, a pathetically transparent attempt to discredit me. Like I said, it may work with the weak willed and weak minded but not with the rest who readily see through your veil of feigned intellectual posturing.

No where in this post have you pressed me on the facts of the OP. I replied to your very first post in this thread. If the facts are cherry picked there should be plenty of "legitimate facts" out there so as refute the information provided. You provided none. In stead you accused me of racism in your very first post of this thread. You did not address the op. So, as to prove a point, I granted your ad-hominem for the sake of argument. Now where do we stand? Why post at all if you're simply going to ignore the facts and assume that calling someone a racist is a refutation of the op?

UPDATE: I have just reviewed every one of your posts in this thread. You have done nothing but engage in ad-hominems throughout.

 

[Ringel05]

If I were to grant you strictly for the sake of argument that what you said is true, then how does this refute the facts provided? It may be a good way to avoid addressing the facts, but in the end it is nothing but an ad-hominem fallacy designed to detract away from the topic as opposed of doing the much more uncomfortable thing of making an argument and defending it. Indeed, if this is all you can do to address me in the thread then why post at all? It advances nothing. It does nothing for you and it does nothing for me.

I've already addressed your "facts" as cherry picked and out of context with the whole, i.e.academically bankrupt. Yet you ignored it and instead, being the exposed cornered rat that you are, try the only tactic you have left, a pathetically transparent attempt to discredit me. Like I said, it may work with the weak willed and weak minded but not with the rest who readily see through your veil of feigned intellectual posturing.

No where in this post have you pressed me on the facts of the OP. I replied to your very first post in this thread. If the facts are cherry picked there should be plenty of "legitimate facts" out there so as refute the information provided. You provided none. In stead you accused me of racism in your very first post of this thread. You did not address the op. So, as to prove a point, I granted your ad-hominem for the sake of argument. Now where do we stand? Why post at all if you're simply going to ignore the facts and assume that calling someone a racist is a refutation of the op?

The problem is you are a racist, but don't want the ignorant to know it. I pointed out the collective history, related sociological and psychological factors included in the whole. Now I'm not going to write you a 200 page dissertation on a subject you should already have all the relative information on before you start publicly postulating your premise. A premise that is widely known among those of us associated with federal, state and local law enforcement to be the product of white supremest propaganda.
Do some real research of your own and stop relying on racist sites to base you statistical searches on.
I'd suggest taking some American history courses, Sociological and Culture Anthropological studies.

 

[Publius1787]

I've already addressed your "facts" as cherry picked and out of context with the whole, i.e.academically bankrupt. Yet you ignored it and instead, being the exposed cornered rat that you are, try the only tactic you have left, a pathetically transparent attempt to discredit me. Like I said, it may work with the weak willed and weak minded but not with the rest who readily see through your veil of feigned intellectual posturing.

No where in this post have you pressed me on the facts of the OP. I replied to your very first post in this thread. If the facts are cherry picked there should be plenty of "legitimate facts" out there so as refute the information provided. You provided none. In stead you accused me of racism in your very first post of this thread. You did not address the op. So, as to prove a point, I granted your ad-hominem for the sake of argument. Now where do we stand? Why post at all if you're simply going to ignore the facts and assume that calling someone a racist is a refutation of the op?

The problem is you are a racist, but don't want the ignorant to know it. I pointed out the collective history, related sociological and psychological factors included in the whole. Now I'm not going to write you a 200 page dissertation on a subject you should already have all the relative information on before you start publicly postulating your premise. A premise that is widely known among those of us associated with federal, state and local law enforcement to be the product of white supremest propaganda.
Do some real research of your own and stop relying on racist sites to base you statistical searches on.
I'd suggest taking some American history courses, Sociological and Culture Anthropological studies.

I have already disarmed you of the racist argument by ceding it to you for the sake of argument. With respect to your responses, they are 95% ad-hominem and 5% assumed substance without citation or merit (contradiction not argument). The statistics provided come directly from federal and census data, and no matter what you assume, they are accurate and you have done nothing to refute them. You seem to claim that the governments statistics are racist? Indeed, anything I can provide as a citation will not doubt be dismissed as racist by yourself, as you have demonstrated a repetitive pattern of calling the information racist without refuting the information itself.

I chuckled at your last statement. I hold a BA in History from a very leftist and selective liberal arts college where every professor I studied under was well published (Graduated High Honors). I know it's not a masters but it will suffice as I spent 12 years of my life in the Marines and further formal education is getting to the point where it hurts more than it helps. Of course, the only sociology course I took was the intro to sociology, although, I am very familiar with subject matter involving cultural history. Your suggestion that I take a history or sociology course is therefore unmerited.

Academically and culturally speaking, I can think of no better expert on the subject matter than Thomas Sowell. No doubt you will call this extremely well published black academic a racist as well? He was kind enough to review the book (Escape From Detroit) written by the fella who writes for that website you claim is racist. Unlike you he believes in addressing the argument as opposed to ignoring him as a racist. See below.

http://www.hpe.com/opinion/x2082481050/Thomas-Sowell-I-m-glad-I-m-getting-old

Other books are emerging that are more clearly a white backlash, in the sense that they attack behavior patterns among contemporary blacks in general.
Perhaps the most clearly backlash books are those written by Paul Kersey, whose central theme is that whites have created thriving cities, which blacks subsequently took over and ruined. Examples include his books about Birmingham (“The Tragic City&#8221 and Detroit (“Escape from Detroit&#8221.
Kersey even takes a swing at Rush Limbaugh (and at yours truly) for saying that liberal policies destroyed these cities. He says that San Francisco and other cities with liberal policies, but without black demographic and political takeovers, have not been ruined. His books are poorly written, but raise tough questions.
It would be easy to simply dismiss Kersey as a racist. But denouncing him or ignoring him is not refuting him. Refuting requires thought, which has largely been replaced by fashionable buzz words and catch phrases, when it comes to discussions of race.
Thought is long overdue. So is honesty.

Thomas Sowell, a native of North Carolina, is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His Web site is www.tsowell.com. Representations of fact and opinions are solely those of the author.