The BLM movement; Black Lies Matter

[Al Doggity]

Lots of cluelessness in this thread.

 However, the flawed assumption is that drug dealers would be law abiding citizens if dealing weren't a viable option. On the contrary, they'd be engaged in a different type of criminal activity.

Another article. From HuffPost. The number of marijuana possession arrests in 2011 exceeded the number of arrests for ALL  VIOLENT CRIMES COMBINED.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/17/marijuana-possession-arrests_n_2490340.html

[Conker]

Welfare is enlightened self-interest and has created generations of dependents. It's fine for maintaining the status quo but the extent to which it helps people improve their lives is questionable. People growing up on welfare and becoming successful is the exception, not the rule.

nonsense. a lack of education, aspiration, lack of opportunities, an un level playing field and no doubt hundreds of other contributing factors have created generations dependent on welfare. The idea that welfare itself is the driving force of the problems is absurd.

if it actually was welfare that caused the problems ,why was there generation after generation in poverty long before the welfare system existed?

[Parker]

nonsense. a lack of education, aspiration, lack of opportunities, an un level playing field and no doubt hundreds of other contributing factors have created generations dependent on welfare. The idea that welfare itself is the driving force of the problems is absurd.

if it actually was welfare that caused the problems ,why was there generation after generation in poverty long before the welfare system existed?

Do you think that is all? In a very simplistic explanation Welfare and other social programs created a situation where the women could get it if there was no man in the house. Add in the women's movement who claim that they didn't need a man, and what you have is women who are rewarded for having multiple kids that they cannot take care of, and men who create these kids with no responsibilities. So, these kids grow up, the young men have no father figure, yet they see that the mother has kids, so he goes out does the same thing. And the girls see that mom has kids and the mother in many ways teaches the child to go get certain programs, and the girl repeats the cycle. Now, you have a situation with an excess amount of kids, in poor living conditions, no father figure, and many times the mother is nothing to write home about either.
And again, what does this breed? And who again, takes advantage? And yet again, who feels the need to be needed to defend this? You do. You defend the break up and exploitation of familied and black lives, so that you can feel needed. If people need "opportunity" then give it.

And if you looked at black folk before segregation, it's not they there wasn't poverty, but there were black families, there was a culture in which black folk helped and took care of each other---Because they had no choice. Black businesses, etc. Much like our Latino population today. What needs to happen is a mixture of that.
You don't reward people for having more kids than they can take care of, simply because you want votes (which is really what this is about). You don't talk about opportunity when you don't require responsibility.

[mr.turbo]

another clue for those curious about where the money went is to look at the mortgage crisis analysis.

the wave of foreclosures was fueled by racism.

hey look, that claim doesn't come from someones nether region:

Racial Segregation and the American Foreclosure Crisis

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/files/2010/10/10ASR10_629-651_massey-2.pdf

[drkaje]

nonsense. a lack of education, aspiration, lack of opportunities, an un level playing field and no doubt hundreds of other contributing factors have created generations dependent on welfare. The idea that welfare itself is the driving force of the problems is absurd.

if it actually was welfare that caused the problems ,why was there generation after generation in poverty long before the welfare system existed?

It only takes looking at how teen pregnancy rates and other metrics related to poverty since the 1950s.

[Conker]

Do you think that is all? In a very simplistic explanation Welfare and other social programs created a situation where the women could get it if there was no man in the house. Add in the women's movement who claim that they didn't need a man, and what you have is women who are rewarded for having multiple kids that they cannot take care of, and men who create these kids with no responsibilities. So, these kids grow up, the young men have no father figure, yet they see that the mother has kids, so he goes out does the same thing. And the girls see that mom has kids and the mother in many ways teaches the child to go get certain programs, and the girl repeats the cycle. Now, you have a situation with an excess amount of kids, in poor living conditions, no father figure, and many times the mother is nothing to write home about either.
And again, what does this breed? And who again, takes advantage? And yet again, who feels the need to be needed to defend this? You do. You defend the break up and exploitation of familied and black lives, so that you can feel needed. If people need "opportunity" then give it.

And if you looked at black folk before segregation, it's not they there wasn't poverty, but there were black families, there was a culture in which black folk helped and took care of each other---Because they had no choice. Black businesses, etc. Much like our Latino population today. What needs to happen is a mixture of that.
You don't reward people for having more kids than they can take care of, simply because you want votes (which is really what this is about). You don't talk about opportunity when you don't require responsibility.

ok lets put it this way, pretty much every successful developed society worldwide has a comprehensive welfare system.

economically my views are probably further to the right than left but i personally would not want to live in a wealthy country that doesn't have provisions in place to look after those that don't have enough money to do so themselves. of course you will always get some that take advantage and abuse the system but that is not a valid reason to rubbish the system per se.

if you have generations dependant on welfare then you have to look at the bigger picture. were the same people trapped in a cycle of poverty before welfare came about? if the answer is yes then no doubt greater social issues are at play (?). perhaps the system may also need some modification, but to cite welfare itself as being the problem is ridiculous.

you said this:
"And yet again, who feels the need to be needed to defend this? You do."

so again you're attacking a straw man. where did i post anything defending anything other than the principle of the welfare state?

[Conker]

It only takes looking at how teen pregnancy rates and other metrics related to poverty since the 1950s.

why not look at average income compared to national average income. that would probably be the best poverty related metric to look at 

[Parker]

ok lets put it this way, pretty much every successful developed society worldwide has a comprehensive welfare system.

economically my views are probably further to the right than left but i personally would not want to live in a wealthy country that doesn't have provisions in place to look after those that don't have enough money to do so themselves. of course you will always get some that take advantage and abuse the system but that is not a valid reason to rubbish the system per se.

if you have generations dependant on welfare then you have to look at the bigger picture. were the same people trapped in a cycle of poverty before welfare came about? if the answer is yes then no doubt greater social issues are at play (?). perhaps the system may also need some modification, but to cite welfare itself as being the problem is ridiculous.

you said this:
"And yet again, who feels the need to be needed to defend this? You do."

so again you're attacking a straw man. where did i post anything defending anything other than the principle of the welfare state?

Your arguments are based upon white paternalism and the Euro socialistic mindset. You can't function unless the government says so. But at the same time, feel the need to give a man fish, instead of teaching a man how to fish. That is the way you come off.

Also, you have to look at migration patterns. Many blacks migrated from the South to Midwest, West coast and north for job opportunities, better quality of life, escaping of racism, etc
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Migration_(African_American)

And there is no real yes or no answer. Certain aspect of life were better, and economically I couldn't answer that.
The welfare system doesn't seem to help men at all, but only encourages them to not work. Or to have idle time on their hands. No encouragement for me to work, go to school (remember we focus more on women going to school), less jobs (manufacturing going overseas), and a culture that hasn't been encourage to defined themselves, because it's harder to exploit a self defined culture, all lead to a calamity if issues. Also
Many government programs that seem to be designed to work or help people, seemingly only help a small amount of people, the others seem to help themselves to it. For instance Social Security Disability. It's laughable at the amount of fraud that goes on.

why not look at average income compared to national average income. that would probably be the best poverty related metric to look at 

You are only looking at one thing. How many kids do they have? Unwed or wed? Education or not. Inflation?

[drkaje]

why not look at average income compared to national average income. that would probably be the best poverty related metric to look at 

The discussion is important.

Something intended as a safety net has become a way of life. I'm not against a safety net and feel it's important to help those in need. That's a lot different than creating your own need by popping out 6 kids with 5 baby-daddies.

[Al Doggity]

In a very simplistic explanation Welfare and other social programs created a situation where the women could get it if there was no man in the house. Add in the women's movement who claim that they didn't need a man, and what you have is women who are rewarded for having multiple kids that they cannot take care of, and men who create these kids with no responsibilities.

Even if this was true at one point (which is debatable and unlikely), welfare hasn't existed in this capacity since 1996. The most common social program is food subsidies. By dollar amount, there is about a $40 difference between child 1 and child 2. After that there is a steady decline in value of aid. From what I could find, housing subsidies via welfare like programs are largely unrelated to the amount of children and are not guaranteed.  For most programs, there is a lifetime time limit of 5 years. Most importantly and not surprisingly, the majority or recipients are working at least part time.

It looks like you bought into the myth of the welfare queen, or at best, you are assuming the system works in a way that it  just doesn't.  It just defies common sense  to think that the majority of black people view welfare as a way of life.

[The Scott]

i still don't see what relevance any of that has to do with what i posted.

they're great quotes but what do they do have to with BLM or what was being discussed?

are you saying that a lot of blacks are unreformed criminals therefore the whole community has to accept a different level of policing than others in society?

or that because roosevelt stated that all men should be equal in the eyes of the law, that today's legal system must be following his ideal?

i don't get what your argument is

I don't argue.  I state what I hold true and that's that. 

[Walter Sobchak]

The discussion is important.

Something intended as a safety net has become a way of life. I'm not against a safety net and feel it's important to help those in need. That's a lot different than creating your own need by popping out 6 kids with 5 baby-daddies.

Black women farming kids to get a bigger welfare check.

Liberals don't care if this bankrupts social programs for the "real" needy as long as the hood rats grow up to vote Democrat

[drkaje]

Black women farming kids to get a bigger welfare check.

Liberals don't care if this bankrupts social programs for the "real" needy as long as the hood rats grow up to vote Democrat

Some of those hoodrats turn out okay. 

[AbrahamG]

Female racists are way more appalling to me than males racists.  Does that make me sexist?

[Walter Sobchak]

Some of those hoodrats turn out okay. 

Difference of opinion.

If I had wanted to pay to raise a bunch of ungrateful, feral kids I would have had my own

[Al Doggity]

Black women farming kids to get a bigger welfare check.

Liberals don't care if this bankrupts social programs for the "real" needy as long as the hood rats grow up to vote Democrat

I don't know. I posted about how this isn't really how the welfare system works, but apparently most posters in this thread think it was pretty unbelievable, so how exactly does this work? What programs are black women applying to where they get more money for having more children? As best I can tell, this looks like a myth that was started in the 80s that people who really, really want to believe choose to believe.

If it's welfare fraud, they don't need to have actual children to commit fraud. They can just commit fraud. Having children would actually defeat the purpose. It's not housing programs. No federal housing program is tied to the number of children you have. I doubt there are any local ones that are.  All cash payout programs have a lifetime limit of 5 years, regardless of how many children you have. So how is everyone so sure that "welfare queens" are running rampant and dominating the system?

(If you say "eat a dick, lame gimmick", I will just assume that means you don't know and I was right.)

[Powerlift66]

#BlackWivesFatter

[Tapeworm]

Some of those hoodrats turn out okay. 

Lemme know when he gets here!

[Conker]

Your arguments are based upon white paternalism and the Euro socialistic mindset. You can't function unless the government says so. But at the same time, feel the need to give a man fish, instead of teaching a man how to fish. That is the way you come off.

Also, you have to look at migration patterns. Many blacks migrated from the South to Midwest, West coast and north for job opportunities, better quality of life, escaping of racism, etc
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Migration_(African_American)

And there is no real yes or no answer. Certain aspect of life were better, and economically I couldn't answer that.
The welfare system doesn't seem to help men at all, but only encourages them to not work. Or to have idle time on their hands. No encouragement for me to work, go to school (remember we focus more on women going to school), less jobs (manufacturing going overseas), and a culture that hasn't been encourage to defined themselves, because it's harder to exploit a self defined culture, all lead to a calamity if issues. Also
Many government programs that seem to be designed to work or help people, seemingly only help a small amount of people, the others seem to help themselves to it. For instance Social Security Disability. It's laughable at the amount of fraud that goes on.
You are only looking at one thing. How many kids do they have? Unwed or wed? Education or not. Inflation?

your analysis is so far off the mark it's funny. i've spent the majority of my adult life further removed from the mainstream and everything government related than you could probably imagine. i am just mature enough to look at things objectively.

i understand what you're saying about some people defrauding and abusing the system, but that does not mean the system as a whole is bad.

you don't know whether things were economically better or worse for blacks pre welfare? ok let me help you a bit.

"Poverty among blacks has fallen sharply: In 1966, two years after Johnson’s speech, four-in-ten (41.8%) of African-Americans were poor; blacks constituted nearly a third (31.1%) of all poor Americans. By 2012, poverty among African-Americans had fallen to 27.2% — still more than double the rate among whites (12.7%, 1.4 percentage points higher than in 1966)."

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/13/whos-poor-in-america-50-years-into-the-war-on-poverty-a-data-portrait/

so it would appear this cycle of poverty was present before welfare came about. so blaming the welfare system itself is completely idiotic.

i would say you are the one with the white paternalistic mindset. even when blacks are being systematically mistreated by your law enforcement agencies, you side with someone saying the mistreated should focus mainly on their own behaviour.

"oh well it must be our fault"

[drkaje]

Lemme know when he gets here!

Was speaking of myself and a few others, LOL!

[Parker]

your analysis is so far off the mark it's funny. i've spent the majority of my adult life further removed from the mainstream and everything government related than you could probably imagine. i am just mature enough to look at things objectively.

i understand what you're saying about some people defrauding and abusing the system, but that does not mean the system as a whole is bad.

you don't know whether things were economically better or worse for blacks pre welfare? ok let me help you a bit.

"Poverty among blacks has fallen sharply: In 1966, two years after Johnson’s speech, four-in-ten (41.8%) of African-Americans were poor; blacks constituted nearly a third (31.1%) of all poor Americans. By 2012, poverty among African-Americans had fallen to 27.2% — still more than double the rate among whites (12.7%, 1.4 percentage points higher than in 1966)."

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/13/whos-poor-in-america-50-years-into-the-war-on-poverty-a-data-portrait/

so it would appear this cycle of poverty was present before welfare came about. so blaming the welfare system itself is completely idiotic.

i would say you are the one with the white paternalistic mindset. even when blacks are being systematically mistreated by your law enforcement agencies, you side with someone saying the mistreated should focus mainly on their own behaviour.

"oh well it must be our fault"

Last part. I have stated that everyone shares the blame. I have never sided with saying it is only their fault. You are not a black person. You don't have to deal with the issues. You don't see the issues from a black person's perspective. You only come from a white Euro perspective and a socialist mentality and also from having a monarchy. You are used to being taken care of, coddled. You are used to government solving your issues and problems. Euros went the easy route. So you have the mindset of "well, if things are happening, then it is the government responsibility to figure it out", and since it is black people, you have the mindset of "Well, since these black people are being shit by police, and these black people are poor, it is the governments responsibility to figure out how to stop all the problems with black people",
You encourage mainly whites to figure out how to solve a situation that is happening in black communities (and also happening to white males). This type of paternalism only aids in the problem.

Most of you don't know jack or shit and only go off of stats. When there is something beyond just numbers. Has their been Poverty in black communities before the social programs, yes. But, again you have various different things to account for, and also a change in culture. And one of things that you don't count is THE USE OF BLACK PEOPLE to further certain agendas. Such as voting Dem. The Dem party is associated with these programs.
Then you also have to look into what happened during the 60s-70s. Baby Boomers. Black Baby Boomer women, specifically in cities bought into the social programs (like the building of housing projects for low income people) and the feminist movement, which advocated the "you don't need a man". So, what happens? There was an explosion in births from unwed mothers (also it was the baby boomers that had an explosion in divorces down the road). Many of these unwed mothers, especially in housing projects got what? Social programs. Many of these social programs helped encourage the father out of the family. By encouraging the "you don't need a man" by encouraging government social programs, they in fact were encouraging the idea that the government was a surrogate father. And so, this allowed more government intrusion into the lives of individuals. And guess what that guy in South Carolina (the one who was murdered by the police) was stopped for? Child support warrant(s). Gee, I wonder how did he get that? I wonder where the idea of child support came from, and where the idea of issuing child support warrants, which means the person can be locked up, and in some states it is a no bail situation. Take a brief guess on how this all spirals out of control. Yet you are all for the government to figure out solution.Now this is just a simplistic break down.

Now, understand the three branches of the US government---Executive, Judicial, and Legislative. The police fall under the Executive Branch. That is they fall under the elected official. The mayor, governor, etc.
So, the mayor, governor, etc are in a backdoor way condoning what happens with a wink and nod, because nobody cares about black male criminals dying. Regardless of what they say to the media.
Also, many of young black males in inner cities today do not identify with positive role models, and many black women today do not encourage positive behaviors from their sons. Also, many black families are headed by the woman. Again, his did this happen? Well, it was encouraged by the very same people you keep saying that should solve the problem!!!!!!!!!

You know what, I could go on. But, I don't think you'd understand. You take up the argument that it is the governments responsibility to solve this problem, and I say that all parties involved should. Because allowing others to solve issues that involve you means you are giving up power to other people. You are in effect saying "take care of me". And that is why I call you a white paternalist. Black people are not children. And allowing all parties to solve an issue means that a certain party have been empowered.
You'd rather give up power and rights to feel comfortable, I don't believe in that.

[Thin Lizzy]

You're doing great work, Parker, but you're wasting your time. Socialists, especially Europeans, believe their narrative of government always being the White Knight coming to the rescue because that's all they know. There's no evidence you could present that would change their thinking.

They've been stripped of their spirit and they want to take away ours.

Not gonna happen. We like being the big circle with the increasing number and have no interest in being the little circles with the decreasing numbers.

[MANGOOS]

Last part. I have stated that everyone shares the blame. I have never sided with saying it is only their fault. You are not a black person. You don't have to deal with the issues. You don't see the issues from a black person's perspective. You only come from a white Euro perspective and a socialist mentality and also from having a monarchy. You are used to being taken care of, coddled. You are used to government solving your issues and problems. Euros went the easy route. So you have the mindset of "well, if things are happening, then it is the government responsibility to figure it out", and since it is black people, you have the mindset of "Well, since these black people are being shit by police, and these black people are poor, it is the governments responsibility to figure out how to stop all the problems with black people",
You encourage mainly whites to figure out how to solve a situation that is happening in black communities (and also happening to white males). This type of paternalism only aids in the problem.

Most of you don't know jack or shit and only go off of stats. When there is something beyond just numbers. Has their been Poverty in black communities before the social programs, yes. But, again you have various different things to account for, and also a change in culture. And one of things that you don't count is THE USE OF BLACK PEOPLE to further certain agendas. Such as voting Dem. The Dem party is associated with these programs.
Then you also have to look into what happened during the 60s-70s. Baby Boomers. Black Baby Boomer women, specifically in cities bought into the social programs (like the building of housing projects for low income people) and the feminist movement, which advocated the "you don't need a man". So, what happens? There was an explosion in births from unwed mothers (also it was the baby boomers that had an explosion in divorces down the road). Many of these unwed mothers, especially in housing projects got what? Social programs. Many of these social programs helped encourage the father out of the family. By encouraging the "you don't need a man" by encouraging government social programs, they in fact were encouraging the idea that the government was a surrogate father. And so, this allowed more government intrusion into the lives of individuals. And guess what that guy in South Carolina (the one who was murdered by the police) was stopped for? Child support warrant(s). Gee, I wonder how did he get that? I wonder where the idea of child support came from, and where the idea of issuing child support warrants, which means the person can be locked up, and in some states it is a no bail situation. Take a brief guess on how this all spirals out of control. Yet you are all for the government to figure out solution.Now this is just a simplistic break down.

Now, understand the three branches of the US government---Executive, Judicial, and Legislative. The police fall under the Executive Branch. That is they fall under the elected official. The mayor, governor, etc.
So, the mayor, governor, etc are in a backdoor way condoning what happens with a wink and nod, because nobody cares about black male criminals dying. Regardless of what they say to the media.
Also, many of young black males in inner cities today do not identify with positive role models, and many black women today do not encourage positive behaviors from their sons. Also, many black families are headed by the woman. Again, his did this happen? Well, it was encouraged by the very same people you keep saying that should solve the problem!!!!!!!!!

You know what, I could go on. But, I don't think you'd understand. You take up the argument that it is the governments responsibility to solve this problem, and I say that all parties involved should. Because allowing others to solve issues that involve you means you are giving up power to other people. You are in effect saying "take care of me". And that is why I call you a white paternalist. Black people are not children. And allowing all parties to solve an issue means that a certain party have been empowered.
You'd rather give up power and rights to feel comfortable, I don't believe in that.

Why do blacks always need to run somewhere? Why arent they making their own society, inventions etc.? You probably know the answer, its in USA, its in Africa the same everywhere they are.

If you will say that the problem is in white people then u must be really ignorant.

[Tapeworm]

Was speaking of myself and a few others, LOL!

[Conker]

Last part. I have stated that everyone shares the blame. I have never sided with saying it is only their fault. You are not a black person. You don't have to deal with the issues. You don't see the issues from a black person's perspective. You only come from a white Euro perspective and a socialist mentality and also from having a monarchy. You are used to being taken care of, coddled. You are used to government solving your issues and problems. Euros went the easy route. So you have the mindset of "well, if things are happening, then it is the government responsibility to figure it out", and since it is black people, you have the mindset of "Well, since these black people are being shit by police, and these black people are poor, it is the governments responsibility to figure out how to stop all the problems with black people",
You encourage mainly whites to figure out how to solve a situation that is happening in black communities (and also happening to white males). This type of paternalism only aids in the problem.

Most of you don't know jack or shit and only go off of stats. When there is something beyond just numbers. Has their been Poverty in black communities before the social programs, yes. But, again you have various different things to account for, and also a change in culture. And one of things that you don't count is THE USE OF BLACK PEOPLE to further certain agendas. Such as voting Dem. The Dem party is associated with these programs.
Then you also have to look into what happened during the 60s-70s. Baby Boomers. Black Baby Boomer women, specifically in cities bought into the social programs (like the building of housing projects for low income people) and the feminist movement, which advocated the "you don't need a man". So, what happens? There was an explosion in births from unwed mothers (also it was the baby boomers that had an explosion in divorces down the road). Many of these unwed mothers, especially in housing projects got what? Social programs. Many of these social programs helped encourage the father out of the family. By encouraging the "you don't need a man" by encouraging government social programs, they in fact were encouraging the idea that the government was a surrogate father. And so, this allowed more government intrusion into the lives of individuals. And guess what that guy in South Carolina (the one who was murdered by the police) was stopped for? Child support warrant(s). Gee, I wonder how did he get that? I wonder where the idea of child support came from, and where the idea of issuing child support warrants, which means the person can be locked up, and in some states it is a no bail situation. Take a brief guess on how this all spirals out of control. Yet you are all for the government to figure out solution.Now this is just a simplistic break down.

Now, understand the three branches of the US government---Executive, Judicial, and Legislative. The police fall under the Executive Branch. That is they fall under the elected official. The mayor, governor, etc.
So, the mayor, governor, etc are in a backdoor way condoning what happens with a wink and nod, because nobody cares about black male criminals dying. Regardless of what they say to the media.
Also, many of young black males in inner cities today do not identify with positive role models, and many black women today do not encourage positive behaviors from their sons. Also, many black families are headed by the woman. Again, his did this happen? Well, it was encouraged by the very same people you keep saying that should solve the problem!!!!!!!!!

You know what, I could go on. But, I don't think you'd understand. You take up the argument that it is the governments responsibility to solve this problem, and I say that all parties involved should. Because allowing others to solve issues that involve you means you are giving up power to other people. You are in effect saying "take care of me". And that is why I call you a white paternalist. Black people are not children. And allowing all parties to solve an issue means that a certain party have been empowered.
You'd rather give up power and rights to feel comfortable, I don't believe in that.

why do you keep persisting in thinking you know anything about me or my "perspective" ?

i am actually mixed race if you want to know. my dad was black from the caribbean and my mother is white english. i couldn't give a flying sht about the monarchy and i have pretty much taken care of myself since i was 16.

you have no idea about any issues i have or haven't had to face because you don't know me and have no idea who i am.

now let me give you a little insight into how i see you.

you're a self hating, uncle tom. that's why you fit in so well with all the racist white posters on here. they give you little pats on the head for being a good subservient boy and agreeing with their lowly opinion of blacks..... "no parker's ok he's not like the rest of them" and you lap it up like the little homo you are.

i can't actually be bothered to respond to the rest of your post because it's also become clear that you have very little of any value to offer anyway.

you just keep inventing straw men to argue with rather than actually responding to anything i've posted.

basically you're an idiot.