Women and Minorities: A Question.
-
queencitybuckeye
I'd be interested as well (my firewall is kicking out the pdf as dangerous). If we're talking nominal dollars at historic rates of inflation, those two numbers are basically the same. I assume it's some sort of net worth measurement.FatHobbit;1397350 wrote:Can you explain that to me? The white families in the study had $85,000 more in 1984 and now they have $236,500 more? Does that mean in total assets? Is that per person? I must be missing something. -
sleeper
2010 Census wrote:Black or African American 38,929,319 12.6 %
http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/2011 Data wrote:Percent of recipients who are black 39.8 %
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States -
bigdaddy2003
Hm I don't agree with you so I'm a retard. That make sense. It's not like I made an outrageous statement. I mean out of all the posts made by people like isadore and you call me out for making a statement that holds water.Heretic;1397160 wrote:Remember, parents: never let your children grow up to be politards. -
O-Trap
I love that you put "2010 Census" as the poster. LOL!
-
Crimson streak
BoatShoes;1397356 wrote:Again, like others in this thread, your choice of language that you use without solicitation is quite revealing. Where are all these blacks collecting welfare checks (which doesn't exist anymore) crying race that you've come across??
Lol come to harrisburg. It's full of them. -
Crimson streak
O-Trap;1397360 wrote:There are still plenty of white people that do the same. I've listened to local people (and unfortunately even have friends) who view government assistance as a viable option for no purpose other than making the life they can already afford easier. To many of them, it's not for only those who absolutely need it. They, in some cases, have even foregone options for which they could afford to be responsible to instead take advantage of a tax-funded program.
In essence, they don't use it because they need it. They use it because, by hook or by crook, they qualify for it, so they don't understand why they wouldn't?
One couple in particular who is particularly bad about it is a white couple who were both born and raised in corn country Ohio. They had middle-class to upper-middle-class parents who still have great work ethics. The originally moved into the area in order to do volunteer work and have a positive effect on the people in the community. However, it appears more like many in the community have had a negative effect on them than the other way around. Their lives are now comprised of infrequent jobs, many of which only require 20-30 hours a week, and any governmental assistance.
The point being that it seems like even though their skin color didn't change, their community (complete with its ethics and principles) is what changed, and it seemed to make all the difference.
Oh I agree there are white people that do the same thing and it pisses me off too. Like get off your ass get a job and make something of yourself instead of popping out more kids to get more government assistance -
Heretic
It's the concept of disagreeing with a person's opinion with a statement that's nothing more than "you're wrong and if you can't see that it's because you live in your (insert political ideology) bubble. Which essentially says, "I don't know how to debate, so I'll just throw a label on you!!!!"bigdaddy2003;1397365 wrote:Hm I don't agree with you so I'm a retard. That make sense. It's not like I made an outrageous statement. I mean out of all the posts made by people like isadore and you call me out for making a statement that holds water. -
bigdaddy2003
Hm well taking all of his political posts that I've read and the posts in this thread into consideration it's pretty easy to see which side of the aisle he sits on. If I replied to one of his posts and said "man you're a retard" and hit post quick reply you would have a valid point.Heretic;1397371 wrote:It's the concept of disagreeing with a person's opinion with a statement that's nothing more than "you're wrong and if you can't see that it's because you live in your (insert political ideology) bubble. Which essentially says, "I don't know how to debate, so I'll just throw a label on you!!!!" -
Heretic
"You live in a political bubble" = "you're a retard" in that it really doesn't say anything other than "I disagree and you're wrong and that's that" without giving any reasoning as to what is wrong with their reasoning. While that's the way of the political board more often than not, it is kind of worthless when it comes to actual discussion of issues.bigdaddy2003;1397382 wrote:Hm well taking all of his political posts that I've read and the posts in this thread into consideration it's pretty easy to see which side of the aisle he sits on. If I replied to one of his posts and said "man you're a retard" and hit post quick reply you would have a valid point.
When a person's reply can essentially be "No, you live in your bubble!" and leave it at that, you didn't do too good at forming your argument. -
O-Trap
This couple isn't even popping out kids. They have one who was conceived despite the use of protection. They both have jobs. Just not ones that pay very well. Thing is, they both have the education and/or experience to have good paying jobs. She has a college degree and he actually has job offers on the table in a trade field. They choose occupations in which they don't make much.Crimson streak;1397368 wrote:Oh I agree there are white people that do the same thing and it pisses me off too. Like get off your ass get a job and make something of yourself instead of popping out more kids to get more government assistance
My problem with it is their attitude toward these programs. One of them is currently contemplating getting a better paying job, because they're tired of living so thin. I can't even say that they spend frivolously. They've downgraded their cell phones to regular, non-PDA ones. They have moved into a small, one-story home with two bedrooms ... I've lived in bigger apartments. And they have only one vehicle that they couldn't pay cash for (purchased when they found out she was pregnant ... a reasonable purchase). In many ways, they do what they can to live responsibly.
They do well in many ways, so they don't fit the stereotype of people on government assistance. However, their decision to take the jobs they have now essentially went thus: "Well, we can pay our bills with what we will make, and we will qualify for WIC and Medicaid, so those will be covered."
The flippant attitude toward assistance troubled me, possibly more-so than even them even using it. They don't view it as a safety net. They view it as an alternative life path. Somehow, I think they would do a lot better with helping the community by (a) setting an example of someone who doesn't use those programs, and (b) offering to help others who see them and ask about it. -
bigdaddy2003
I didn't think I really needed to back up a pretty simple statement. In his posts he's made it clear he thinks minorities are treated like dogs and all white people are born well off. That is the same position you would hear from a person on MSNBC such as Rachel Maddow. I'm sure she's a conservative...The situation we are debating isn't really opinion oriented. It's simple to see minorities aren't treated as bad as he thinks and not all white people are born into luxurious surroundings. I didn't call him a retard however. I simply meant his view of race is skewed by either the media or a college professor.Heretic;1397385 wrote:"You live in a political bubble" = "you're a retard" in that it really doesn't say anything other than "I disagree and you're wrong and that's that" without giving any reasoning as to what is wrong with their reasoning. While that's the way of the political board more often than not, it is kind of worthless when it comes to actual discussion of issues.
When a person's reply can essentially be "No, you live in your bubble!" and leave it at that, you didn't do too good at forming your argument. -
Crimson streak
O-Trap;1397391 wrote:This couple isn't even popping out kids. They have one who was conceived despite the use of protection. They both have jobs. Just not ones that pay very well. Thing is, they both have the education and/or experience to have good paying jobs. She has a college degree and he actually has job offers on the table in a trade field. They choose occupations in which they don't make much.
My problem with it is their attitude toward these programs. One of them is currently contemplating getting a better paying job, because they're tired of living so thin. I can't even say that they spend frivolously. They've downgraded their cell phones to regular, non-PDA ones. They have moved into a small, one-story home with two bedrooms ... I've lived in bigger apartments. And they have only one vehicle that they couldn't pay cash for (purchased when they found out she was pregnant ... a reasonable purchase). In many ways, they do what they can to live responsibly.
They do well in many ways, so they don't fit the stereotype of people on government assistance. However, their decision to take the jobs they have now essentially went thus: "Well, we can pay our bills with what we will make, and we will qualify for WIC and Medicaid, so those will be covered."
The flippant attitude toward assistance troubled me, possibly more-so than even them even using it. They don't view it as a safety net. They view it as an alternative life path. Somehow, I think they would do a lot better with helping the community by (a) setting an example of someone who doesn't use those programs, and (b) offering to help others who see them and ask about it.
Agreed. I've seen it happen also. I was on an access card for about 3-4 months. I first moved to pa and my fiancé was pregnant I was working at a fast food place just to pay our rent and get by. My fiancé had just lost her job but once I got a better job I called and told them to cancel it and they asked me why since I still made the requirements. I wouldn't go to the store and make my fiancé go bc I felt embarrassed that I couldn't provide for my family. The only thing we kept was the medic insurance for my daughter until I got my insurance through my job. I feel for the people that really need it. I just can't stand when people abuse it and take advantage of tax payers money. -
ernest_t_bass
FatHobbit;1397308 wrote:I assume they pick the officials with the worst vision.
Top criteria -
BoatShoes
Oh sheesh. I did not say anything to indicate that all minorities are treated like dogs and that white people live luxuriously. White men in the aggregate are suffering no negative racial discrimination worthy of complaining about. Minorities deserve some positive racial discrimination in the aggregate. It is bad faith to suggest that now that minorities might be the beneficiaries of positive racial discrimination that we as a society declare the end to positive/beneficial racial discrimination now that white males, who benefited from it for centuries and still by and large hold positions in society that reflect that fact, no longer get to be the sole beneficiaries of positive racial discrimination.bigdaddy2003;1397395 wrote:I didn't think I really needed to back up a pretty simple statement. In his posts he's made it clear he thinks minorities are treated like dogs and all white people are born well off. That is the same position you would hear from a person on MSNBC such as Rachel Maddow. I'm sure she's a conservative...The situation we are debating isn't really opinion oriented. It's simple to see minorities aren't treated as bad as he thinks and not all white people are born into luxurious surroundings. I didn't call him a retard however. I simply meant his view of race is skewed by either the media or a college professor. -
BoatShoes
So you're saying you're making a hasty generalization about a whole race of people based upon the opinions you infer about black people as a whole from your experience with a handful of black people you probably see sparingly in Harrisburg? Spend a lot of time asking these folks about their work habits do you?Crimson streak;1397367 wrote:Lol come to harrisburg. It's full of them. -
Crimson streak
BoatShoes;1397713 wrote:So you're saying you're making a hasty generalization about a whole race of people based upon the opinions you infer about black people as a whole from your experience with a handful of black people you probably see sparingly in Harrisburg? Spend a lot of time asking these folks about their work habits do you?
It was a joke dipshit -
sleeper
Google Affirmative Action. LOL :thumbup:White men in the aggregate are suffering no negative racial discrimination worthy of complaining about. -
sleeper
Once again, nothing like recognizing the wrongs and ignorance of the past but now using the same wrongs and ignorance in the future! LOL :laugh:It is bad faith to suggest that now that minorities might be the beneficiaries of positive racial discrimination that we as a society declare the end to positive/beneficial racial discrimination now that white males, who benefited from it for centuries and still by and large hold positions in society that reflect that fact, no longer get to be the sole beneficiaries of positive racial discrimination. -
sleeper
Remember, racism is okay as long as it is institutionalized. :laugh:
-
sleeper
Circa 2500: "It is bad faith to suggest that now that white people might be the beneficiaries of positive racial discrimination that we as a society declare the end to positive/beneficial racial discrimination now that minorities, who benefited from it for centuries and still by and large hold positions in society that reflect that fact, no longer get to be the sole beneficiaries of positive racial discrimination."
:laugh: -
sleeper
Like I said, minorities need to grow up.
-
Heretic
I think all you needed to say was that he just lives in his little conservative bubble, which explains his viewpoint.BoatShoes;1397711 wrote:Oh sheesh. I did not say anything to indicate that all minorities are treated like dogs and that white people live luxuriously. White men in the aggregate are suffering no negative racial discrimination worthy of complaining about. Minorities deserve some positive racial discrimination in the aggregate. It is bad faith to suggest that now that minorities might be the beneficiaries of positive racial discrimination that we as a society declare the end to positive/beneficial racial discrimination now that white males, who benefited from it for centuries and still by and large hold positions in society that reflect that fact, no longer get to be the sole beneficiaries of positive racial discrimination.
What's good for one is good for another. -
sleeper
Agreed. Let's take all the wealth in the US and divide it equally among everyone. That is fair and we all win! :thumbup:Heretic;1397727 wrote:I think all you needed to say was that he just lives in his little conservative bubble, which explains his viewpoint.
What's good for one is good for another. -
sleeper
Oh boo hoo we were slaves for 100's of years until a bunch of white guys in America sacrificed their lives in the bloodiest battle in US history fighting for our freedom. It then took 100 years for us to produce a non-lazy black man who finally woke up and said "You know we are homo sapiens too, we should be treated the same as other people". 50 years later we still complain that the white man is holding us down and putting us in jail for crimes that society made us commit despite every advantage in the world being laid at our feet.
THERE'S YOUR AFRICAN AMERICAN HISTORY IN A NUTSHELL. LOL :thumbup:
Signed,
Bill Cosby -
bigdaddy2003
Right. That makes a lot of sense to me. You call me out because you said my statement to boatshoes proves I can't debate but you reply with this to him after his post instead of replying to my last post aimed towards you. By the way doesn't your latter statement contradict your original statement towards me? I mean a person who calls someone out for what you did should never use the same reasoning as a retort even if it's supposed to be mocking another person. Here is why your statement makes 0 sense though. I've read a ton of boatshoes' political posts and every post on this thread and like I said he's made it clear about how he feels on the subject of race and it's aligned with the position of a person such as Rachel Maddow or Ed Schultz who are liberal Democrats. It's not hard to follow but I understand you've lost a few brain cells. You did make me laugh earlier in the thread though when you made it out that conservatives are the ones who call people names to avoid debates. I guess you need to read my Twitter interactions. I could go through and show you valid debate points I've tweeted to liberals who call me a moron or racist and then block me so they don't have to keep talking. I didn't just label him and stop talking. If I would've called him an idiot for his opinion and never returned to the thread then you would have a point. You're saying I'm a political retard because I'm not posting facts on the subject but neither is he. There are no facts regarding how you think a group of people should be treated. It's fine that he believes minorities should be allowed to have free reign in the country and white people have to take anything that happens to them but don't expect that opinion to be welcomed by everyone.Heretic;1397727 wrote:I think all you needed to say was that he just lives in his little conservative bubble, which explains his viewpoint.
What's good for one is good for another.