Do Minorities Do Better Under Democrats?

[hcap]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/05/democrats_are_good_for_minorities_minority_voters_ are_making_a_rational.html

More than anyone realized.

The right way to answer the question of African-American loyalty is to treat blacks as rational citizens voting in their self-interest. And while the sluggish economy of the Obama years may seem like a bad case for Democratic loyalty, that’s not true of Democratic administrations overall. According to a recent paper from Zoltan L. Hajnal and Jeremy D. Horowitz—both political scientists at the University of California–San Diego at the time—there’s clear evidence that when the nation is governed by Democrats, black well-being “improves dramatically” across multiple dimensions.*

Specifically, looking at data from 1948 to 2010, Hajnal and Horowitz found that “African Americans tend to experience substantial gains under Democratic presidents whereas they tend to incur significant losses or remain stagnant under Republicans.” On average, under Democratic presidents, blacks gained $895 in annual income, saw a 2.41 point drop in their poverty rate, and a 0.36 point drop in their unemployment rate. By contrast, under Republicans, blacks gained $142 a year, along with a 0.15 point increase in poverty and a 0.39 point increase in unemployment....


Sorry guys no graphs :lol:
Draw your own.......(conclusions) :jump:

[TJDave]

Not a revelation. Blacks tend to vote their own interest...That would be Democratic. What's amazing is the number of disadvantaged whites who vote the party of the plutocracy.

[Clocker]

...


http://www.dol.gov/_sec/media/reports/hispaniclaborforce/images/1.jpg

[ArlJim78]

the only people who do well under democrats are democrats, friends of democrats and the wealthy, usually one in the same.

government needs to get out of the way so we can all do better. the more they try to solve our problems the more we spiral down the drain. the only thing government is good at is perpetuating itself and growing larger, which normally requires that it fail at it's stated objectives.

people need to stop thinking of government as being responsible for your well-being and the answer to your "getting ahead" in life. regardless of which party is in power, you are the person responsible for getting ahead. government is only an impediment, one that protects the wealthy at your expense.

[TJDave]

the only people who do well under democrats are democrats, friends of democrats and the wealthy, usually one in the same.


Whereas the only republicans that do well under republicans are wealthy republicans.

[Clocker]

The country does best when one party controls the Congress and the other has the White House. Does matter which is which, as long as the White House is willing to work with the Congress.

[tucker6]

Cappy,

Can you define "income" for me in the context of this study? I couldn't find it. Thanks.

[TJDave]

The country does best when one party controls the Congress and the other has the White House. Does matter which is which, as long as the White House is willing to work with the Congress.

In theory I would agree however it has been a gazillion years since either party has agreed to work with each other.

[Clocker]

In theory I would agree however it has been a gazillion years since either party has agreed to work with each other.

Both Reagan and Clinton were able to work with an opposition Congress. Obama doesn't even know how to work with Democrats.

[BlueShoe]

Sorry guys no graphs :lol:
Draw your own.......(conclusions) :jump:

We will. Conclusion; disinformation presented with statistics obtained from questionable sources and unreliable data does not require the dissemination of charts, graphs, and tables.

[JustRalph]

Refresher thread by PA

http://paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=99695

[TJDave]

Refresher thread by PA

http://paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=99695

Of course they suffer the most. The bottom always suffers the most.

[hcap]

Not a revelation. Blacks tend to vote their own interest...That would be Democratic. What's amazing is the number of disadvantaged whites who vote the party of the plutocracy.No revelations to Blacks and other minorities, however certain republicans and the plutocrats tend to NOT listen to what Blacks say, or the facts in the article I posted. Of course Clocker (who else? :lol: ), showed a circumcised graph showing Blacks suffering more during and after the recent recession, as though Obama was responsible During and after the recession all groups took hits and the Bush years were not exactly stellar. Clockers' graph shows only a small time period, unlike this one.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/08/21/through-good-times-and-bad-black-unemployment-is-consistently-double-that-of-whites/

Black unemployment rate is consistently twice that of whites

Much has changed for African-Americans since the 1963 March on Washington (which, recall, was a march for “Jobs and Freedom”), but one thing hasn’t: The unemployment rate among blacks is about double that among whites, as it has been for most of the past six decades.

http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2013/08/FT_13.08.202_BlackWhiteUnemployment.png

There is more from the link I posted.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/05/democrats_are_good_for_minorities_minority_voters_ are_making_a_rational.html

...What’s more, this was true in relative terms as well. As they write, “[W]hether we look at the gap between blacks and whites or at the ratio of black to white outcomes, the patterns are essentially identical: Republican administrations were, on average, bad for African Americans and Democratic administrations were, on average, good for them, both in absolute and relative terms.”

...The cumulative (i.e. year-after-year) differences are huge. Across 16 years of Democratic governance, the black poverty rate, for example, declined by nearly 40 points. Across 35 years of Republican governance, by contrast, it increased by 3 points. Indeed, during most years of Republican presidential leadership, black poverty grew and black unemployment increased.

..As such, Hajnal and Horowitz ran another test that controlled for median income, inflation, changes in the economy, and control of Congress. In each case, the results were the same: “All else equal, black family incomes grew over $1,000 faster annually under Democratic leadership than they did under Republican presidents. Likewise, the black poverty rate declined 2.6 points faster under Democrats and the black unemployment rate fell almost one point faster.”

The original study.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2014/05/12/under-democratic-presidents-minorities-make-economic-gains-and-so-do-whites/

[Clocker]

Of course Clocker (who else? :lol: ), showed a circumcised graph showing Blacks suffering more during and after the recent recession,

I just googled it and posted the first one I found. Sorry if it didn't meet your exacting professional standards. Next time I'll submit it to you for peer review before posting.

P.S. Please point out where the information is wrong.

[TJDave]

Black unemployment rate is consistently twice that of whites

Much has changed for African-Americans since the 1963 March on Washington (which, recall, was a march for “Jobs and Freedom”), but one thing hasn’t: The unemployment rate among blacks is about double that among whites, as it has been for most of the past six decades.


Last hired, first fired.

This will not change unless/until blacks as a group understand the value in overachievement. For minorities it is never enough to be 'as good as'.

[hcap]

http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2013/08/FT_13.08.202_BlackWhiteUnemployment.png

Clocker (who else :lol:) , take a look at Saint Ronald numbers around 1982 on the full graoh. What a shame if you were Black then. And the spread between the Black and whit numbers. Substantially greater under Saint Ronald then Comrade Obama. :lol:

[tucker6]

Cappy,

Any chance you can take a moment from your busy day and answer the question in post #7. TIA

[hcap]

Cappy,

Any chance you can take a moment from your busy day and answer the question in post #7. TIA

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2014/05/12/under-democratic-presidents-minorities-make-economic-gains-and-so-do-whites/
Using data from the U.S. Census to track annual changes in income, poverty, and unemployment over the past five decades, we asked how each of America’s major ethnic groups has fared under Democratic or Republican presidents. Our findings are striking. When Republicans are in the White House, minorities generally lose ground. But Democratic presidents have presided over steady and substantial improvements for communities of color – and the nation as a whole.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/files/2014/05/Hajnal-Fig-1.jpg

[hcap]

I just googled it and posted the first one I found. Sorry if it didn't meet your exacting professional standards. Next time I'll submit it to you for peer review before posting.

P.S. Please point out where the information is wrong.PS: I did

[hcap]

We will. Conclusion; disinformation presented with statistics obtained from questionable sources and unreliable data does not require the dissemination of charts, graphs, and tables.Sorry Barry, but since you posted this concern more data has been made available, including some nifty graphs :jump:

[tucker6]

[url]http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2014/05/12/under-democratic-presidents-minorities-make-economic-gains-and-so-do-whites
I was looking to see whether govt handouts were considered "income' for the purposes of the study.

[TJDave]

I was looking to see whether govt handouts were considered "income' for the purposes of the study.

No, really? ;)

[hcap]

I was looking to see whether govt handouts were considered "income' for the purposes of the study.Fair enough, but no matter how much wealth transference to minorities takes place, African Americans will still lose to white folks who receive their share of handouts.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/03/01/10-companies-receiving-the-biggest-handouts-from-t.aspx

10 companies receiving the biggest government handouts
Thanks to the hard work of Good Jobs First and its Subsidy Tracker database, we now know that a vast majority of the largest state and local government development subsidies have gone to just 965 large corporations.

Now here's where it gets interesting. The total known value of awards received by these 965 companies is $110 billion, yet this group of large corporations only accounts for 10% of total handouts divvied out by state and local governments. In other words, small and medium-sized businesses are successfully garnering a substantial number of subsidies from state and local government, but the big dollar development deals are going to already big corporations. As further evidence to this, Good Jobs First's data notes that 89 of its top 100 corporations in terms of aggregate subsidy value had inked a megadeal, which it quantified as a $75 million development deal or greater

[reckless]

I was looking to see whether govt handouts were considered "income' for the purposes of the study.

Would the 'go-away' monies garnered by shake down artists Messrs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, et al, of Corporate America also be considered 'income' for the purposes of all these studies? I bet not.

These race haters always seem to do much better when Republicans are in the White House than when their affirmative action cronies run things.

I guess that's because it's so much easier to exploit white guilt during the good times than it is when incompetence and corruption permeates Wash. DC, like now, under fellow street criminalist Obama.

[Clocker]

Fair enough, but no matter how much wealth transference to minorities takes place, African Americans will still lose to white folks who receive their share of handouts.


10 companies receiving the biggest government handouts
Thanks to the hard work of Good Jobs First and its Subsidy Tracker database, we now know that a vast majority of the largest state and local government development subsidies have gone to just 965 large corporations.


So you are saying that no stockholders or employees of those companies are black, and no blacks or other minorities benefit from those "handouts"? And that blacks and other minorities receive benefits from the government only in the form of welfare payments?

[hcap]

Figures this would come up as a PA talking point about all them "laazy good for nothin anchors and takers in inner city environments----who are obviously Black and shiftless, however the middle class is now the real culprits

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/who-benefits-from-the-safety-net/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

Who Benefits From the Safety Net
By BINYAMIN APPELBAUM and ROBERT GEBELOFF
February 13, 2012 10:19 am

A new analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities underscores that the poor are no longer the primary beneficiaries of the government safety net.

Terms like entitlements, government benefits and safety net often conjure images of tax dollars sliding from the hands of the wealthy into the pockets of the poor. But as we reported Sunday, that image is badly outdated. Benefits now flow primarily to the middle class.

The center’s study found that the poorest American households, the bottom fifth, received just 32 cents of every dollar of government benefits distributed in 2010

....Another finding of the study is that the distribution of benefits no longer aligns with the demography of poverty. African-Americans, who make up 22 percent of the poor, receive 14 percent of government benefits, close to their 12 percent population share.

Therefore white folks THEMSELVES in addition to mostly white corporations, get at least as much gub-er-ment if not more handouts and benefits, as their Black brethren

[hcap]

So you are saying that no stockholders or employees of those companies are black, and no blacks or other minorities benefit from those "handouts"? And that blacks and other minorities receive benefits from the government only in the form of welfare payments?My second post clarified this issue. More white stockholders own stocks than Black. I will link to that later

[hcap]

Commies love Berkeley! :lol: :lol:

/-rtySUhuokM?

[tucker6]

Figures this would come up as a PA talking point about all them "laazy good for nothin anchors and takers in inner city environments----who are obviously Black and shiftless, however the middle class is now the real culprits

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/who-benefits-from-the-safety-net/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

Who Benefits From the Safety Net
By BINYAMIN APPELBAUM and ROBERT GEBELOFF
February 13, 2012 10:19 am

A new analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities underscores that the poor are no longer the primary beneficiaries of the government safety net.

Terms like entitlements, government benefits and safety net often conjure images of tax dollars sliding from the hands of the wealthy into the pockets of the poor. But as we reported Sunday, that image is badly outdated. Benefits now flow primarily to the middle class.

The center’s study found that the poorest American households, the bottom fifth, received just 32 cents of every dollar of government benefits distributed in 2010

....Another finding of the study is that the distribution of benefits no longer aligns with the demography of poverty. African-Americans, who make up 22 percent of the poor, receive 14 percent of government benefits, close to their 12 percent population share.

Therefore white folks THEMSELVES in addition to mostly white corporations, get at least as much gub-er-ment if not more handouts and benefits, as their Black brethren

wonder why you didn't post this section of your link. It explains why your numbers hold no water:

"The study found that older people received slightly more than half of government benefits, while the nonelderly with disabilities received an additional 20 percent. Most of these benefits are not means-tested – indeed, better-paid workers get more in Social Security.

Furthermore, the study notes that politicians have shifted benefits away from the “jobless poor,” through reductions in traditional welfare, and increased benefits for working families, for example through tax credits. The government also has steadily expanded eligibility for benefit programs.

“The safety net became much more work-based,” wrote Arloc Sherman and his collaborators at the center, a left-leaning research group. “In addition, the U.S. population is aging, which raises the share of benefits going to seniors and people with disabilities.”"

[hcap]

All that does is indicate that the African American share of wealth
transference has become less. Which is exactly what I said. So your "handout" meme is very flawed. Whites get em too. And does not mean dems "pay off" black voters with fried chicken and Obamaphones.

Only a matter of time before some ignorant con posts that Obamaphone lady video as proof of Laissez-faire capitalism :lol:

....Another finding of the study is that the distribution of benefits no longer aligns with the demography of poverty. African-Americans, who make up 22 percent of the poor, receive 14 percent of government benefits, close to their 12 percent population share.

[Clocker]

So your "handout" meme is very flawed. Whites get em too.

You are the one that played the race card here. You are assuming that any mention of welfare is code for racism, and you are still categorizing tax incentives as handouts to whites.

The "handouts" you cited are tax incentive plans designed to increase local jobs and, in the long run, increase the local tax revenues. They are not redistribution of income.

[tucker6]

All that does is indicate that the African American share of wealth
transference has become less. Which is exactly what I said. So your "handout" meme is very flawed. Whites get em too. And does not mean dems "pay off" black voters with fried chicken and Obamaphones.

Only a matter of time before some ignorant con posts that Obamaphone lady video as proof of Laissez-faire capitalism :lol:

....Another finding of the study is that the distribution of benefits no longer aligns with the demography of poverty. African-Americans, who make up 22 percent of the poor, receive 14 percent of government benefits, close to their 12 percent population share.

what handout meme is that exactly. The flaw in these studies is that they include handouts as income. Why not call it what it is, a handout without giving anything back to society. Why hide it behind a catchall word like "income". Why the embarrassment of redefining it as something else. Just say that it was free money, and during recessions, the govt feels the need to give more handouts rather than ask citizens to give more to charity. Honestly, let's predict the date when Michelle Obama holds up a # sign and ask Americans to give more to charity?? The chances are nil because she's more concerned with "our girls" in Nigeria.

Bottom line, we should be asking Americans to help Americans more without the govt seizing our assets to do it for us.

[reckless]

And does not mean dems "pay off" black voters with fried chicken and Obamaphones.

Left wingers just love to spew the racism and exploit the stereotypes, every chance they get.

But, as told to me directly by a life-long Democrat Party operative in Philadelphia, Dems do 'pay off' black voters with $50 and $20 dollar bills.

It's called walking around money to all the political know-it-alls here on the left.

[hcap]

what handout meme is that exactly. The flaw in these studies is that they include handouts as income. Why not call it what it is, a handout without giving anything back to society. Why hide it behind a catchall word like "income". Why the embarrassment of redefining it as something else. Just say that it was free money, and during recessions, the govt feels the need to give more handouts rather than ask citizens to give more to charity. Honestly, let's predict the date when Michelle Obama holds up a # sign and ask Americans to give more to charity?? The chances are nil because she's more concerned with "our girls" in Nigeria.

Bottom line, we should be asking Americans to help Americans more without the govt seizing our assets to do it for us.Then any graph posted of income whether White or Black must include white "handouts" as well as Black handouts. You objected by saying "I was looking to see whether govt handouts were considered "income' for the purposes of the study." Why do I get the distinct impression that you did not give a shit if "handouts" were inflating white income? You were obviously trying to douse the point of the study which was Blacks do better on the Dems watch by insinuating gains in Black prosperity were due to Dems buying Blacks with giveaways. Handouts. But I just reminded you that non-blacks also received welfare and if you must play the game that Blacks' gains in prosperity numbers were unfairly and heavily weighted by giveaways, recently white share of handouts increased and some of their prosperity increased as much if not more.

[tucker6]

You objected by saying Why do I get the distinct impression that you did not give a shit if "handouts" were inflating white income? You were obviously trying to douse the point of the study which was Blacks do better on the Dems watch by insinuating gains in Black prosperity were due to Dems buying Blacks with giveaways. Handouts. But I just reminded you that non-blacks also received welfare and if you must play the game that Blacks' gains in prosperity numbers were unfairly and heavily weighted by giveaways, recently white share of handouts increased and some of their prosperity increased as much if not more.

You completely misread me Cappy. I don't give a crap about the black/white/yellow/green issue. I'm simple trying to figure out where the lie is in the data, and what the true picture would be if I could retorture the data. It was interesting though that the elderly are taking money from the poor if that report is true.

[badcompany]

You are the one that played the race card here. You are assuming that any mention of welfare is code for racism, and you are still categorizing tax incentives as handouts to whites.

The "handouts" you cited are tax incentive plans designed to increase local jobs and, in the long run, increase the local tax revenues. They are not redistribution of income.


In Liberal Bizarroland, not taking money, from someone who earned it, is no different from giving money to someone who didn't earn it.

[BlueShoe]

Sorry Barry, but since you posted this concern more data has been made available, including some nifty graphs :jump:
But of course Comrade. We expected no less.

[hcap]

You completely misread me Cappy. I don't give a crap about the black/white/yellow/green issue. I'm simple trying to figure out where the lie is in the data, and what the true picture would be if I could retorture the data. It was interesting though that the elderly are taking money from the poor if that report is true.I don't think I misread anything. You resorted to a very poular conservative talking point. That of the "Democratic Plantation" You attempted to discredit the study by implying--NO outright saying Blacks favor Dems because they alone-not as any other group who vote their own interests-are enslaved by fried chicken and Obamaphones.

Very transparent.

If we are to do a valid critique, it boils down to a proper analysis of the data, not speculation and opinion. Anyone on either side can question any study, but unless we are willing to and have access to the raw data and that studies' methodology, we can not invalidate a study by using catchwords like "handouts" Which you being out of luck in discussing the study properly- interjected like a conservative dog owner calling his dogs with a conservative dog whistle. :lol:

Neither of us have details of the data or methodology of this study. Obviously I posted it to make a point, and hopefully irritate the other side. Par for the course here So what? But instead of postng other studies with an opposing view, used shady devices like Clockers' "circumcised graph" of recession incomes, and your Plantation meme

That was about the best you gents could offer.

Totally reminds me of our repetitious debates about AGW. Btw, Neil DeGrasse Tyson’ is the latest member of the International Fat Al Gore Communist/Social/Community Organizers' Conspiracy for AGW to prostitute himself nationwide on Cosmos :lol: :lol:

[tucker6]

I don't think I misread anything. You resorted to a very poular conservative talking point. That of the "Democratic Plantation" You attempted to discredit the study by implying--NO outright saying Blacks favor Dems because they alone-not as any other group who vote their own interests-are enslaved by fried chicken and Obamaphones.

Very transparent.

Cappy,

Can you point to the post where I said one word as to what you quoted?? I'll wait right here for the apology...

[hcap]

But of course Comrade. We expected no less.As I just said, post an opposing study. Not your personal opinion on why right wing policies are by far just peachy. :jump:

[hcap]

Cappy,

Can you point to the post where I said one word as to what you quoted?? I'll wait right here for the apology... Explain please. Quoted or demonstrated conclusively

You called out handouts as a possible flaw in the study, didn't you? i

[tucker6]

Explain please. Quoted or demonstrated conclusively

You called out handouts as a possible flaw in the study, didn't you? i
In post #38, you called me a racist for saying something I never said. Go check your source. Instead of apologizing for stepping well over the line by calling me a racist, you double down. And you wonder why you feel picked upon. Have the decency to admit you were wrong. Next time, be VERY sure you have the goods on someone before you call them a racist.

[hcap]

In post #38, you called me a racist for saying something I never said. Go check your source. Instead of apologizing for stepping well over the line by calling me a racist, you double down. And you wonder why you feel picked upon. Have the decency to admit you were wrong. Next time, be VERY sure you have the goods on someone before you call them a racist.You are delusional. Where in post 38 did I call you a racist? As boxcar would say chapter and verse.

Am I picked on? Of course but I expect that here just like others get called out for what they do for a living or wanting government to be effective

[Robert Goren]

Whereas the only republicans that do well under republicans are wealthy republicans.There is plenty of stats that show even wealthy republicans do better under democrats.

[tucker6]

You are delusional. Where in post 38 did I call you a racist? As boxcar would say chapter and verse.

Am I picked on? Of course but I expect that here just like others get called out for what they do for a living or wanting government to be effective
You don't think that someone saying the following is a racist comment??

"You attempted to discredit the study by implying--NO outright saying Blacks favor Dems because they alone-not as any other group who vote their own interests-are enslaved by fried chicken and Obamaphones."

By the way dolt, I never said any of that. That's my point to you, but you're too thick to realize it. I never said any of those words. I neither implied nor outright said any of that. Now do you understand??

[hcap]

"You attempted to discredit the study by implying--NO outright saying Blacks favor Dems because they alone-not as any other group who vote their own interests-are enslaved by fried chicken and Obamaphones."Fried chicken was a poor choice. But not Obamaphone.

One, my first point was the conservative meme that Dems enslave Blacks--the plantation shtick--by buying them off. As though other groups are never bought off by Rethugs

Two. You said Handouts. The usual handouts refereed to, by con talking points are: food stamps, housing assistance and welfare in general. The entire economy is blasted as a welfare economy, or evil socialist or Marxist screw up.

Obamaphones have also been spoken about many times as a drain on true-blue patriots, blah, blah, blah--- given with no cost to lazy anchors and takers. Why was the the Black lady, the Obamaphone lady, ridiculed so much by the right wing, over and over again? Is pointing out that she was Black, racist on my part? Or was there a racist element in that video? Why did it get so much mileage here and in lala land? I am not calling you a racist, but the entire conservative "plantation schematic is very RACIST

So, our discussion centering in on Black benefits and who gets elected, I thought got derailed by you implying handouts were why. Well, Obamaphones and food stamps constitute a major complaint/rant from the right as two of the benefits Dems use buying off Blacks.

If you took my "fried chicken" comment as calling you a racist I do apologize, but the rest stands

[PaceAdvantage]

Or was there a racist element in that video?A racist element? Why? Because she happened to be black AND moronic?

So now it's racist to show actual footage of any dumb-ass non-white person.

Great. What a country the left-wing is putting together here....

[johnhannibalsmith]

It was also racist to enjoy the video of the dude that helped rescue the girls from the crazy latino.

Who gives a **** anymore about trying not to offend when people find the opposite of offensive to be offensive and vice versa if they can make it work, a standard that is at an all-time low.

By the way, enjoy it again with me:

t6ZHZodoDgY

[Clocker]

So now it's racist to show actual footage of any dumb-ass non-white person.


I guess this means that I can't post the video of Melissa Harris-Perry on MSNBC saying that black NBA players are slaves, with the greedy NBA owners profiting "...from the sale of black bodies." :rolleyes:

[hcap]

It was also racist to enjoy the video of the dude that helped rescue the girls from the crazy latino.

Who gives a **** anymore about trying not to offend when people find the opposite of offensive to be offensive and vice versa if they can make it work, a standard that is at an all-time low.

By the way, enjoy it again with me: L never watched it

[hcap]

A racist element? Why? Because she happened to be black AND moronic?

So now it's racist to show actual footage of any dumb-ass non-white person.

Great. What a country the left-wing is putting together here....We did this thread before. It was meant to warm the hearts of conservative better-than-thou types

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2012/10/01/just_how_racist_is_the_039obama_phone039_video_291 728.html

[hcap]

I guess this means that I can't post the video of Melissa Harris-Perry on MSNBC saying that black NBA players are slaves, with the greedy NBA owners profiting "...from the sale of black bodies." :rolleyes:You can psst whatever you like, just don't claim sociological studies of why people vote certain political partys are swayed by giving away cell phones.

[Clocker]

You can psst whatever you like, just don't claim sociological studies of why people vote certain political partys are swayed by giving away cell phones.

You obviously have me confused with one of your other straw men.

But thanks for your gracious permission.

[hcap]

You gents, I assume 90%+ white did not pay attention to what most Black people thought of that Obamaphone Lady and how the video was used in conservative circles. Nor did you pay attention to Obama having very little to do withe program that made cell phones available to the poor.

http://newsone.com/2062051/barack-obama-free-phone/

http://cdn.thewire.com/img/upload/2012/09/27/Screen_Shot_2012-09-27_at_1.07.57_PM/large.png

[TJDave]

If someone offered me a free phone for my vote I'd go for it.

[hcap]

You obviously have me confused with one of your other straw men.

But thanks for your gracious permission.Excuse me. most of your straw men look all alike.

Oh yeah, you were the guy that posted a graph that had no value. And no pertinence.

And you complain about my graphs :lol:

[tucker6]

You gents, I assume 90%+ white did not pay attention to what most Black people thought of that Obamaphone Lady and how the video was used in conservative circles. Nor did you pay attention to Obama having very little to do withe program that made cell phones available to the poor.

http://newsone.com/2062051/barack-obama-free-phone/


That link is as racist as they come. Thanks for sharing such pure black racism.

[Clocker]

That link is as racist as they come.

A link is not racist in and of itself. It all depends on the intent of the poster. :rolleyes:

[tucker6]

A link is not racist in and of itself. It all depends on the intent of the poster. :rolleyes:
No, I meant the link itself was racist, not that Cappy was. Cappy has no idea how bad the link was because he has an agenda that sympathizes with the link. The article in the link has the following:

"Zora Neal Hurston had it right with “All my skinfolk ain’t kinfolk,” though some warrant much greater distance than others. For obvious reasons."

The black writer of the article is quoting a black woman speaking out against the black man who created the Obamaphone fiasco. The woman is saying that if you ain't with us (blacks), you're against us. That's pure racism, and if a white person said that, Cappy and others on here would be all over it as a form of racism. To those on my distant left, racism is racism is racism.

[Clocker]

No, I meant the link itself was racist, not that Cappy was.

I was being sarcastic. Like one person is racist for saying "handout" but another is not for saying "fried chicken".

[tucker6]

I was being sarcastic. Like one person is racist for saying "handout" but another is not for saying "fried chicken".
Sorry about that. I'm still fired up about Cappy insinuating that I said "fried chicken" and was racist when in fact I never use those words and am not racist. Just because I want to see everyone, blacks included, work their way to the top instead of getting freebies doesn't make me racist.

Cappy's apology was just like all the other "genuine" apologies you see on TV. If I offended, I apologize. :rolleyes:

[PaceAdvantage]

We did this thread before. It was meant to warm the hearts of conservative better-than-thou types

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2012/10/01/just_how_racist_is_the_039obama_phone039_video_291 728.htmlWho used that video to generalize half the country? I sure didn't...it's a video of a moron...nothing racist about it...

If others CHOOSE to make it racist, tough shit. That's their problem. Not mine or this website's.

[PaceAdvantage]

You gents, I assume 90%+ white did not pay attention to what most Black people thought of that Obamaphone Lady and how the video was used in conservative circles. Nor did you pay attention to Obama having very little to do withe program that made cell phones available to the poor.

http://newsone.com/2062051/barack-obama-free-phone/

http://cdn.thewire.com/img/upload/2012/09/27/Screen_Shot_2012-09-27_at_1.07.57_PM/large.pngHow is it mine or anyone else's problem how OTHERS choose to use that video? THAT somehow makes it racist?

I'm becoming more and more convinced that liberalism IS a mental disease... :lol:

[cj's dad]

I'm becoming more and more convinced that liberalism IS a mental disease... :lol:

Your point is well taken. This :lol: is redundant !

[cj's dad]

download.jpg (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=12907&stc=1)

[hcap]

How is it mine or anyone else's problem how OTHERS choose to use that video? THAT somehow makes it racist?

I'm becoming more and more convinced that liberalism IS a mental disease... :lol:The right is selling a product. The conservative resentment of anchors and takers. Blacks are often grouped among anchors.

"The Obama Phone (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10000872396390444592404578030511606922322) video belongs to a genre popular on conservative blogs in which poor people, usually black, confirm conservatives' worst 47-percent fears by saying they can get something for nothing because Obama's in office. The message is, 'Here's what Obama's supporters really look like.'

....."This video, if placed in a Romney ad, would make George H.W. Bush's 1988 Willie Horton ad look subtle by comparison: the other guy is supported by scary black people, vote Republican!"
"

...................

http://www.thewire.com/politics/2012/08/what-some-people-hear-when-mitt-romney-talks-about-welfare/55824/

Why are Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan talking about welfare so much? It doesn't have anything to do with the economy. It's not a big part of the budget. And the claim that President Obama "gutted" the requirement that recipients try to find work is false. Yet they've mentioned it in several speeches, and the campaign has released ads about it. Why? Racism, according to some liberal reporters.** It's not that Romney or Ryan are racist, it's that their campaign knows that a lot of white voters—but definitely not all—are, and they want to make sure those people vote for them.

"It’s no secret that working-class Americans deeply resent those just below them on the economic ladder whom they see as getting undeserved assistance," The New Republic's Alec MacGillis writes, and "it’s also no secret that politicians have been especially effective at stoking this resentment among white working-class voters... toward an unseen nonwhite other.

The Washington Monthly's Ed Kilgore is surprised others aren't calling the welfare claims racist. "I’d have to guess the amazingly persistent pushback from conservatives against the idea that any of them could possibly ever be guilty of an appeal to racism has, ironically, created a large zone of safety for racially motivated attack lines, even if they are based on lies." New York's Jonathan Chait says:

"In the mind of the conservative base, not all government spending, and not even all social spending, is inherently suspect. Conservative voters draw a distinction between what they see as earned benefits (which tend to accrue to people like themselves) and handouts (which go to poorer, disproportionately less-white recipients.)"


**It's no secret. I agree.

[hcap]

More from the article I linked

http://www.thewire.com/politics/2012/08/what-some-people-hear-when-mitt-romney-talks-about-welfare/55824/

As I quoted....

"The Obama Phone video belongs to a genre popular on conservative blogs in which poor people, usually black, confirm conservatives' worst 47-percent fears by saying they can get something for nothing because Obama's in office. The message is, 'Here's what Obama's supporters really look like.'


More on those blogs.

...let's move on to the blog Political Christian. There, Larry Miller reflects on a forwarded warning of a phishing scam that claims President Obama will pay your utility bills. Some might fall prey to the scam because they are desperate. Others? Well they're just used to handouts. He wrote on August 7:

For many, all their lives they have been conditioned to believe that years of being held down by “the man” have put them in a situation where they cannot make it through life without help from a government that will take from their oppressors and give to them the goodies that they rightly deserve, but are somehow incapable of getting for themselves...

A great majority of those lining up for “Obama money” are not physically incapacitated. Most are not mentally incapacitated – well, most ARE liberals. Yet through decades of building the welfare state, they have been denigrated to the point where their supposed supporters like Eric Holder think they are so incompetent that they are not even capable of getting a photo ID for voting. If we really think about it… is this not a form a racism far beyond anything those who believe in true equality have been accused of?

Further down the line, we have Nicholas Stix, Uncensored, who wrote on August 12 that unlike John McCain, Romney is fighting with just one hand behind his back, instead of two, with the welfare ads:

[C]onsidering that the John Doe calling himself “Barack Obama” is fighting with both hands, both feet, enjoys the power of incumbency, and has armies of MSM media goons pounding Romney (and his wife!); millions of non-citizen Hispanic immigrants and black citizens to illegally/repeatedly vote for him; the murder cult the Nation of Islam to engage in massive voter intimidation against whites; and turncoats at the RNC and at “conservative” media outlets like National Review on his side; I think it may take more than one hand to Romney to prevail.

[badcompany]

Hcap, how do you explain the appalling lack of diversity at Google? Racism?

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l142/thinlizzy21/95cc80a312b84358a9fd8b342a99b6fc_zpse6fde377.jpg

[Clocker]

http://www.thewire.com/politics/2012/08/what-some-people-hear-when-mitt-romney-talks-about-welfare/55824/

The irony of that article is staggering. The title is "What Some People Hear When Mitt Romney Talks about Welfare".

What the article is about is what liberal journalists think that conservatives think about when the GOP talks about welfare. Based on some articles by liberal journalists claiming to know the "conservative mind" and some anonymous postings on conservative blogs, the conclusion is that any mention by the right of welfare is really about race.

New York's Jonathan Chait says:

"In the mind of the conservative base..."

A liberal "journalist" in NYC, writing for "New York Magazine", knows what is in the minds of the conservative base out in the wilderness of the red states in fly-over country?

Right. He probably listens to a conservative say "handout" and thinks he heard "fried chicken".

[hcap]

How many timers have conservatives on this board told us all about what liberals think and how socialist they are? BFD!

[hcap]

Hcap, how do you explain the appalling lack of diversity at Google? Racism?

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l142/thinlizzy21/95cc80a312b84358a9fd8b342a99b6fc_zpse6fde377.jpgWh y would you ask me this? Are yiou saying I should stop using Google because they might be racist :lol: :lol: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I will not defend lack of diversity, or promote diversity here, but....

Google points out the low numbers of computer science degrees among women and many minority groups, and notes the "time and energy" the company has put into advancing computer science education to the under-served.

Diversity is more of a concern in public institutions.

Curious, do you know the diversity of other hi-tech computer firms?

[Robert Goren]

If you want to see racism in action, watch CNBC. The rare person that has black skin is almost always Asian(Indian, Pakistani Etc) or Mid Eastern. I watched it a lot recently and never saw an American Black person.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... an American Black person.

I nominate this to replace African-American ASAP.

[tucker6]

I nominate this to replace African-American ASAP.
I never use that or any other ____ - American. You are either African or you are American. You are either Irish or you are American. Pick one only.

The only time I use extra descriptive words is to describe American Indians from Asian Indians.

[RaceBookJoe]

If you want to see racism in action, watch CNBC. The rare person that has black skin is almost always Asian(Indian, Pakistani Etc) or Mid Eastern. I watched it a lot recently and never saw an American Black person.

not quite sure I would call that racism, unless they are actually keeping blacks off tv. not sure how many actually go into the field to be honest. Charles Payne probably the most "on-air" , but that's Fox. If a black person doesn't go into a field, they cant complain then when there aren't shown or counted and call it racism..or worse, when a white person calls that racism.

[Robert Goren]

not quite sure I would call that racism, unless they are actually keeping blacks off tv. not sure how many actually go into the field to be honest. Charles Payne probably the most "on-air" , but that's Fox. If a black person doesn't go into a field, they cant complain then when there aren't shown or counted and call it racism..or worse, when a white person calls that racism. I take it all back, I saw Teddy Bridgewater on CNBC this noon. :blush: :lol:

[RaceBookJoe]

I take it all back, I saw Teddy Bridgewater on CNBC this noon. :blush: :lol:

Gotta love it haha. ps: good to have you back, wishing the best for your health.

[BlueShoe]

If you want to see racism in action, watch CNBC. The rare person that has black skin is almost always Asian(Indian, Pakistani Etc) or Mid Eastern. I watched it a lot recently and never saw an American Black person.
But yet much maligned Fox, as the supposed outlet for all those alleged right wing racists, has many Black Americans as regular staff, as well as routinely having them on as guest commentators.

[Tom]

FOX - setting the standard for fairness.

[BlueShoe]

FOX - setting the standard for fairness.
Starting today at 6 EDT, 3 PDT, Charles Payne has his own hour long show on the Fox Business channel. Charles is a pretty sharp guy when it comes to the markets and investments, might be worth while to tune in.

[badcompany]

Starting today at 6 EDT, 3 PDT, Charles Payne has his own hour long show on the Fox Business channel. Charles is a pretty sharp guy when it comes to the markets and investments, might be worth while to tune in.

Yeah, if you want to lose money. Watch "Peter Schiff was Right" on YouTube. That fat jackass Payne was recommending financials right before the crash.

[BlueShoe]

Yeah, if you want to lose money. Watch "Peter Schiff was Right" on YouTube. That fat jackass Payne was recommending financials right before the crash.
So how many duds has Jim Cramer given out over the years? Had you followed all of his little theatrics quite likely any one that did would be sleeping in the park with the homeless people. :rolleyes: Compared to him, Charles is quite smart. No TV guru or commentator or advisor of any kind is always right. Some very famous managers have made horrible calls, it is part of the game. Just like horse racing, no one picks 100% winners.