George Zimmerman, the killer of young Trayvon Martin, was found 'not guilty'.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by maycocksean

Exactly. I'm not sure Sharpton ever had much in the way of influence. He's an attention hound and always has been. He only wishes he had the kind of reach that Limbaugh and his other counterparts on the Right have. He's more famous as the Right's bogeyman than anything else.

Then why is he always invited to speak on the major news channels?

[AEON]

Originally Posted by iron yuppie

Ah yes, the conservative myth of people living high off welfare. How often we have seen it and in so many forms.

I actually think they should get more.

I've followed some links on Reddit for the idea of Basic Income.

However - unlike this article, I think everyone should receive about 50k a year (un-taxed), no matter what. No questions asked. If we can print for the banks and control inflation - we can print for the people and control inflation.

Also - I think the idea that people would just sit around and be lazy is wrong. Sure, maybe for a few months or even a few years people might just kick back and read, study, travel, surf - how horrible. However, most people have a desire to be a part of something bigger than themselves - and if they weren't so afraid of receiving their next pay check - they'll get the chance to find/create careers that is a better fit for their talents.

I also think this would break the cycle of poverty in the urban black neighborhoods. Once the kids realize they can truly do/be just about anything they want - you would see less and less choose the criminal path.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by AEON

Irvine, both parties have had plenty of involvement in fiscal policy over the last thirty years. Both parties have created the great chasm between the uber-rich and the rest of us (which is becoming a global phenomenon, where the Left leaning parties have held the most control).

Like you - I can't stand the GOP. Unlike you - I can't stand the Democrats either.

i'm making distinctions between parties, not saying one is fantastic and the other is awful. there are real distinctions, and i'd like us to be a bit more like Sweden and Denmark and a bit less like a 3rd world dictatorship.

Originally Posted by maycocksean

He's more famous as the Right's bogeyman than anything else.

exactly. the Right needs him much more than the left.

Originally Posted by AEON

Then why is he always invited to speak on the major news channels?

Ann Coulter is invited to speak on the major news channels.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by nbcrusader

I know this fits the current narrative of the left, but I think you've mixed up the parties here. When universal health care was proposed in the 90's, opposition was not labeled as "sexist" because the most vocal proponent was Hillary Clinton.

For the current administration, opposition to major legislation inevitably gets tagged as racist by some leader on the left. The weapon here is meant to silence valid criticism/debate of political policy.

so you're playing the "you're playing the race card" card?

did HRC ever have to provide a birth certificate?

any look at the narrative, images, and discussion since the election of Obama and the rise of the Tea Party demonstrates that race and, even more specifically, "otherness" is designed not to object to specific points of policy but to whip up broad-based generalized opposition to anything Obama amongst the base of the GOP such that it has become a Dixie-based protest movement and does not function as an actual political party in a liberal democracy.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

Ann Coulter is invited to speak on the major news channels.

Does she appear on anything other than Fox News?

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by nbcrusader

His numbers may be off - but a system that creates multi-generational dependency on government support is no longer a "safety net". And a way to maintain political loyalty.

I once spent two years in a small town in upstate New York where a significant portion of the student population lived on welfare in a large trailer park. They were politically unengaged and ignorant about a lot of things.

My experience in that small town and living most of my life in NYC has made me come to believe that multi-generational dependency on welfare comes from environment and family, not politics.

[maycocksean]

Originally Posted by AEON

Then why is he always invited to speak on the major news channels?

Well, now that is a puzzle. Every week when we have our Black Community meetings and we vote on who our representative will be to the nation, he somehow keeps getting enough votes every time. . . .It's weird. Rumors are that he's guaranteeing food stamps to whoever votes for him, but that is unsubstantiated. . .

[Irvine511]

thank you for keeping your cool head and sense of humor, sean.

i can imagine that some things are very aggravating to read.

[maycocksean]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

thank you for keeping your cool head and sense of humor, sean.

i can imagine that some things are very aggravating to read.

Eh, that wasn't so bad. There have been worse. . .

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by maycocksean

Eh, that wasn't so bad. There have been worse. . .

i just meant in general, not that specific comment.

[nbcrusader]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

any look at the narrative, images, and discussion since the election of Obama and the rise of the Tea Party demonstrates that race and, even more specifically, "otherness" is designed not to object to specific points of policy but to whip up broad-based generalized opposition to anything Obama amongst the base of the GOP such that it has become a Dixie-based protest movement and does not function as an actual political party in a liberal democracy.

The narrative portrayed is selective and polarizing in nature. It is perfectly reasonable to characterized the "Tea Party" movement as libertarian in nature, objecting to excessive growth in government. Yet, we hear the replacement name “tea baggers” and the focus on racism in the partisian blogosphere trumped the core discussion.

And that’s the problem – a discussion of a core issue is avoided by a discussion of perceived motives.

Looking back at this thread (including the original one with the slanderous title) and despite frustrations over all too familiar partisian polarization overshadowing discussion of a single matter, we find ourselves back to that same pointless place.

There were a number of highlights through the tread. Discussions of gun control and the duty of retreat popped up throughout. There was good analysis of facts introduced into evidence, along with speculative analysis with changes in fact. A good deal of frustration was exhibited in the parallel discussions of the reality of perceived racial bias and the lack of direct evidence of racial bias in this case. And, on occasion, there was the in-depth analysis of statistics which produced a conclusion contrary to the assertion purportedly supported by the statistics.

I hope we can collectively elevate our game here.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by nbcrusader

The narrative portrayed is selective and polarizing in nature. It is perfectly reasonable to characterized the "Tea Party" movement as libertarian in nature, objecting to excessive growth in government. Yet, we hear the replacement name “tea baggers” and the focus on racism in the partisian blogosphere trumped the core discussion.

And that’s the problem – a discussion of a core issue is avoided by a discussion of perceived motives.

Looking back at this thread (including the original one with the slanderous title) and despite frustrations over all too familiar partisian polarization overshadowing discussion of a single matter, we find ourselves back to that same pointless place.

There were a number of highlights through the tread. Discussions of gun control and the duty of retreat popped up throughout. There was good analysis of facts introduced into evidence, along with speculative analysis with changes in fact. A good deal of frustration was exhibited in the parallel discussions of the reality of perceived racial bias and the lack of direct evidence of racial bias in this case. And, on occasion, there was the in-depth analysis of statistics which produced a conclusion contrary to the assertion purportedly supported by the statistics.

I hope we can collectively elevate our game here.

I'm guilty of getting off tangent a few times and making some of the weaker points, but overall this (and Part 1) has been a very informative and engaging thread.

[tim722]

Originally Posted by Diemen

Probably because the government doesn't give you anywhere close to $40k/year on welfare.

Ummm. Let's see. Section 8 will pay 1,500 to rent a home for 1,600 a month. You take responsibility for two of you're nephews for 800 a month. You get 1,200 a month welfare and food stamps. That's over 40,000 i believe.

[tim722]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

I agree mostly about Sharpton/Jackson, and I don't think they hold much influence like they did in the 1980s.

The war on drugs locked up black men at a disproportionate level for possession of marijuana when white and black rates of drug use are about the same. Walk through any college dormitory in America and you'll likely find much higher rates of marijuana use than in your average inner city black neighborhood. But guess who goes to jail?

Glad you do on Sharpton and Jackson.

The war on drugs was a failure. We need to release all the prisoners in there who only had a bad habit. Totally agree with you.

[tim722]

Originally Posted by iron yuppie

Ah yes, the conservative myth of people living high off welfare. How often we have seen it and in so many forms.

I've seen people live off it their whole lives. People who are completely capable of getting a real job. Instead they get cash jobs and din't report it. Then they sell their food stamps at the grocery store. They get 150 for 200 in stamps. Total fraud. Is this right? Give me a break.

[tim722]

Originally Posted by maycocksean

Well, now that is a puzzle. Every week when we have our Black Community meetings and we vote on who our representative will be to the nation, he somehow keeps getting enough votes every time. . . .It's weird. Rumors are that he's guaranteeing food stamps to whoever votes for him, but that is unsubstantiated. . .

Wow. Ignorant comment. You're not black and have no right go speak for them.

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by tim722

Wow. Ignorant comment. You're not black and have no right go speak for them.

I'm just going to pop a bag of popcorn and watch.

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by tim722

Wow. Ignorant comment. You're not black and have no right go speak for them.

[tim722]

Originally Posted by nbcrusader

The narrative portrayed is selective and polarizing in nature. It is perfectly reasonable to characterized the "Tea Party" movement as libertarian in nature, objecting to excessive growth in government. Yet, we hear the replacement name “tea baggers” and the focus on racism in the partisian blogosphere trumped the core discussion.

And that’s the problem – a discussion of a core issue is avoided by a discussion of perceived motives.

Looking back at this thread (including the original one with the slanderous title) and despite frustrations over all too familiar partisian polarization overshadowing discussion of a single matter, we find ourselves back to that same pointless place.

There were a number of highlights through the tread. Discussions of gun control and the duty of retreat popped up throughout. There was good analysis of facts introduced into evidence, along with speculative analysis with changes in fact. A good deal of frustration was exhibited in the parallel discussions of the reality of perceived racial bias and the lack of direct evidence of racial bias in this case. And, on occasion, there was the in-depth analysis of statistics which produced a conclusion contrary to the assertion purportedly supported by the statistics.

I hope we can collectively elevate our game here.

Thanks for keeping you're cool nbcrusader. You know the truth. Too bad they lack the real life experience to understand it.

[deep]

Originally Posted by tim722

Wow. Ignorant comment. You're not black and have no right go speak for them.

what would this guy know

I asked my black girlfriend about it. She can't stand Sharpton and Jesse and understands their motives. They would be unemployed without racism so they have to accuse it whenever they can. They became rich because of it. She understands their motives and stated that most of her friends who are black understand that Sharpton and Jesse are full of b.s.

so with your black girlfriend and her 'like minded' friends who are black surveyed we should all defer to you as our resident expert on what black people think