Disgusting.

I’m sitting here searching mentally for anything McCain might have said or done to alienate black voters and drawing a blank. Frankly, he tends to stay out of racial matters (”I don’t think I have to address the issue of race”), and to the extent that he involves himself, it’s to try to build bridges to the black community, however belatedly.

This seems like a blinding flash of the obvious to me. In 2008 with a “historic” race-based opponent, McCain’s biggest problem is the fact that he hasn’t engaged in issues of race. The closest he’s come is pandering for Hispanic votes by his amnesty scheme last year.

Note: This isn’t head to head with Obama, it’s a simple favorable/unfavorable rating of McCain himself.

Whatever. In the midst of such a “historic” identity-politics presidential campaign, you cannot seperate the two. I guarantee you that his favorability wouldn’t have dropped if HRC was the Democratic nominee. It probably would have gone up.

Bull on the first part of that. They are using racism to get more welfare or affirmative action, or to get away with crimes. Black “leaders” have demonstrated that they are worthless, lazy, skimming parasites. And the people that support them are no better.

And Jews and Catholics and Hindu’s etc didn’t found the country nor make it great. The country was overwhemlingly Protestant, and others joined that culture and became part of it.

Snake307 on June 7, 2008 at 10:14 PM

His mom.

Gallup: McCain’s Republican candidate’s favorability rating down 25 points among blacks since last year.

I guess that depends on whether I’m arguing alongside you or against you. (He said with a smile.)

flenser on June 7, 2008 at 6:53 PM

Believe it, or not, you’re fun either way :)

Gallup: McCain’s favorability rating down 25 points among blacks since last year.

Another meaningless poll.

It is estimated that 99% of the blacks will vote for Obama.

So, what’s 25% of 1%?

flenser, I do agree with you on much, and do like the way you argue.

I guess that depends on whether I’m arguing alongside you or against you. (He said with a smile.)

You can always add words, sentences, or whatever you want to search on, after this string, for any site, of course.

Here’s all of your effort, to date.

So since the war on drugs the black community has been doing much better?

I guess that depends on how you want to define “better”, but black people are less likely to be murdered or robbed, yes.

Can you document this?

I can. I’m not going to do it for you though. Take the initiative to look up the crime statistics for yourself.

Blacks voting for blacks, okay.

Whites not voting for blacks, racism.

Any questions?

So they were enlightened progressives, except on the issue of race on which they were conservatives, because…they were racist. You define racism as conservative and use that definition to prove that conservatives are racist. I assert that racism is neither liberal nor conservative, and that both can be and have been guilty of it, including progressive members of the labor movement. My position has the advantage of not being circular.

Whole post is good, but that: jl ftw

I didn’t say the labor movement was “conservative”, altough in terms of race I suppose it was.

So they were enlightened progressives, except on the issue of race on which they were conservatives, because…they were racist. You define racism as conservative and use that definition to prove that conservatives are racist. I assert that racism is neither liberal nor conservative, and that both can be and have been guilty of it, including progressive members of the labor movement. My position has the advantage of not being circular.

I said that the point you made that the labor movement was racist partially answers your own later question as to why blacks suffer unique social patholgies.

Labor unions succeed to the extent that they can use force or the power of government to restrict access to labor markets, thereby pushing up the wages received by their members. So they work great for members, but only at the expense of non-members, regardless of color. Since non-members included blacks as well as whites, why should blacks have been uniquely disadvantaged by their exclusion from unions? Your novel explanation, sadly, does not explain the facts.

Just to clarify though…is it your opinion that the black community was well served by the war on drugs and crime? I mean, it jailed all those scary criminals right?

Is that a trick question, or are you seriously suggesting that the black community is well served by more drugs and violence?

Could you provide sources for your position that transfer payments expanded under Nixon and Reagan? Relative to cost of living increases as well? If they did do that, it sure ran counter to their rhetoric.

How about this:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/Test030701b.cfm

And before you complain that this came from the Heritage Foundation, note that the numbers come from the OMB, and that no one seriously disputes that welfare spending adjusted for inflation grew during the period from 1970 to 1990. In fact, this exact period has been referred to as the “Golden Age” of welfare because of the growth in spending. How, in God’s name, could you have come to the conclusion that this was a period of “welfare retrenchment”?

So since the war on drugs the black community has been doing much better?

Better than if those criminals had been left on the street? Uh…yes. Implicit in your argument is that the idea that these people wouldn’t have been criminals except that they were arrested and jailed for crimes. You’ve got the causality backwards. The level of crime is a social pathology, but the criminal justice system is not and cannot be equipped to deal with it. All it can do is effectively and efficiently apprehend and encarcerate the criminals so that the innocent don’t have to live in fear.

I mean, if it weren’t for those dastardly welfare programs they might be approaching relative equality of condition with whites!

At last you’ve come up with a hypothesis that might just match the facts!

I see you’re quick to toss around the “racist” barb, so here’s a question of you. Why didn’t the war on crime also focus on white collar crime?

It didn’t? Well, if it didn’t, maybe it’s because the victims of white collar crime are primarily white, while the victims of violent crime and drug peddling are disproportionately black.

But crr6, and I’m sure you do know this, and even love it – this is not at all about the Utopian idealism of what you term “social equality”. This is simply what I tern Titbaloney, and yours use truly to gain votes.

The leaders and the media don’t give a rat’s ars about others. They would never accept to live like all other. Trust me on this. I lived under them for many years. They lived like pashas and kings, and we didn’t have milk, bread, vegetables/fruits in winter, oil to cook with and to heat with, etc, etc. I could write you novels about it, with myriad concrete examples.

Until you live it you will not believe it. By then it will be too late, here.

We fully agree.

crr6 on June 7, 2008 at 3:25 PM

Why did your beloved Bill Clinton sign the biggest Welfare Reform Act then?