# Howard Dean Calls GOP the "WHITE party"



## Big Don (Aug 15, 2008)

Video on Breitbart


> "If you look at folks of color, even women, they're more successful in the Democratic party than they are in the white, uh, excuse me, in the [laughs] Republican party."


Another infamous quote from Dean:


> You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room?, Dean asked to laughter. Only if they had the hotel staff in here.


Yeah, I guess Colin Powell wasn't nominated Secretary of State by a Republican, nor was Rice...


----------



## Steve (Aug 15, 2008)

What the bush administration did to Colin Powell was criminal.  Talk about a token black.  When he had the temerity to voice his own opinions, they sold him out, undermining him at every turn.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 15, 2008)

Let' see....I'll see you Howard Dean (democratic maniac) and raise you David Duke-former head of the KKK and _Republican_ congressman from Louisiana....oh, and let's not forget former  _Republican_ Attorney General John Ashcroft, who opposed racial integration and the appointment of African Americans to offices as Missouri governor and attorney general and has uttered pro-Confederate views...or Dick Cheney, who opposed measures strengthening laws against housing discrimination and collecting hate-crime data while in Congress from 1979 to 1989. ....or _Republican_ politicians in Georgia and South Carolina, such as Sonny Perdue, the  _Republican_ governor of Georgia, who were elected in 2002 on platforms that included "restoring pride" in the Confederate flag. ...or Jefferson Sessions of Alabama. Sessions has called a black assistant U.S. attorney "boy" and a white civil rights attorney a "disgrace to his race." As a prosecutor, Sessions pursued civil rights workers on phony voter fraud charges. As Alabama attorney general, he again pursued allegations of voter fraud in African-American communities, looked the other way in Anglo communities, and refused to aggressively investigate burnings and bombings of black churches. He also said he thought KKK members were "OK" until he heard some might have smoked marijuana, and charged the NAACP with being "un-American" and "Communist-inspired." Despite such a past, Bush and other _Republicans_  campaigned for Sessions....or  former _Republican_ Sen. George Allen of Virginia, who as governor of that state, issued a proclamation recognizing "Confederate History and Heritage Month." Allen, the new National Republican Senatorial Committee chairman, also displays a Confederate flag in his living room.

Idiots are in both parties-plain and simple.

BEsides, Don, as far as the "racist roots of the Democratic party" theme that you've been bleating on, they all became Republicans. See, back in 1948, the southern democrats were ...._dismayed?_ at Harry Truman's integration of the armed forces, and his including civil rights as a plank of the Democratic party platform-in fact, a large number of delegates from the south-like the entire delegation from Mississippi and Alabama-walked out when it was included, and formed their own party-the Dixiecrats. They ran then South Carolina governor Strom Thurmond as their candidate for President, and, while they didn't win, it set the stage for the emigration from the Democratic party to the Republican party, ala Strom Thurmond back in 1960. Consequently, places like Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and the Carolinas became largely "red" states-because of the racism of the people who lived there, and _the anti-racism platform of the Democratic party._

Like I said, there's all kinds of idiots.


----------



## crushing (Aug 15, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Let' see....I'll see you Howard Dean (democratic maniac) and raise you David Duke-former head of the KKK and _Republican_ congressman from Louisiana


 
That Byrd dog won't hunt.  Certainly you would find a considerable difference between someone running as a Republican to the protest of nearly all Republicans two decades ago and the DNC chairmen not only representing the Democratic Party, but presently leading the same?



elder999 said:


> Idiots are in both parties-plain and simple.


 
That's for sure!


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 15, 2008)

Robert Byrd


game over, Elder loses...


----------



## elder999 (Aug 16, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Robert Byrd
> 
> 
> game over, Elder loses...


 
Game over? Hardly. Like I said, theres all kinds of idiots. 

Yeah, Robert Byrd has a very racist past-hes also old, so he probably still harbors a lot of racist feeling. Hes got a pretty anti-civil rights voting record in my opinion, anyway, but the NAACP has rated him at a little over 80% on civil rights, meaning he has a mixed record.

In any case hes endorsed Barack Obama for President. By your own logic, voiced by you here time and again, that means hes _not_ a racist.

On the other hand

In 1998, the following endorsement from then Senator John Ashcroft appeared in the _Southern Partisan_: 



> Your magazine...helps set the record straight. You've got a heritage of doing that, of defending Southern patriots like  Lee, Jackson and  Davis... We've all got to stand up and speak...or else we'll be taught that these people were giving their lives, subscribing their sacred fortunes and their honor to some perverted agenda.


 
Ashcroft was endorsing a publication that has defended slavery, white separatism, apartheid and David Duke; a publication that celebrates the assassination of Abraham Lincoln... Southern Partisan articles have said that Southern slave-owners sought _"to further the slaves' peace and happiness,"_  called Abraham Lincoln a _"consummate conniver, manipulator and a liar,"_ referred to _"the *sinister* Emancipation Proclamation"_] as _"an invitation to the slaves to rise against their masters,"_  characterized Lincoln assassin John Wilkes Booth as _"not only sane, but sensible,"_ praised former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke as _"a Populist spokesperson for a recapturing of the American ideal,"_ and proclaimed that non-whites _"have no temperament for democracy."_ The magazine also sells t-shirts with Lincoln's image over the words "sic semper tyrannis" ("ever thus to tyrants")-John Wilkes Booth's cry as he fled the Ford Theatre after shooting Lincoln. Timothy McVeigh was wearing this t-shirt when he was arrested for the Oklahoma City bombing.

Many Republicans are associated with the openly-racist Council for Conservative Citizens, including Georgia Congressman Bob Barr, who has spoken before the segregationist group, and Republican National Committee leader Buddy Witherspoon, who has resisted calls that he resign his CCC membership. 

This is a group that says:



> *We believe the United States is a European country and that Americans are part of the European people.* We believe that the United States derives from and is an integral part of European civilization and the European people and that the American people and government should remain European in their composition and character. We therefore oppose the massive immigration of non-European and non-Western peoples into the United States that threatens to transform our nation into a non-European majority in our lifetime.*<snip!>*
> We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called affirmative action and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races.


 
Game over indeed.


----------



## Ninjamom (Aug 16, 2008)

Hey, no one needs to add any data to convince me that hypocrites, bigots, and idiots come in all shapes, sizes, races, and political parties.


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 16, 2008)

Robert Byrd-still in office, and keeps getting elected, BY DEMOCRATS

john ashcroft-private citizen now, was NOT an elected official

doesnt work, but nice try elder


----------



## elder999 (Aug 16, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Robert Byrd-still in office, and keeps getting elected, BY DEMOCRATS
> 
> john ashcroft-private citizen now, was NOT an elected official
> 
> doesnt work, but nice try elder


 

Before he was Attorney General, John Aschcroft was Senator, and Governor of Missouri.

The *Republican* Governor and Senator of Missouri,btw, elected BY REPUBLICANS. 

GUess you didn't know that.

Objugation, objugation, onjugation! :lol:


----------



## Big Don (Aug 16, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Yeah, Robert Byrd has a very racist past-hes also old, so he probably still harbors a lot of racist feeling.


Oh, he's old? Well, then anything he says or does no matter how flagrantly racist is excusable... 
Shoot, Ted Kennedy is old now too, that makes Chappaquiddick excusable.
Funny, I seem to recall Reagan's advanced age getting a much different slant from the leftists...


----------



## Big Don (Aug 16, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Before he was Attorney General, John Aschcroft was Senator, and Governor of Missouri.


Yeah, that negates the fact that Byrd is still a sitting Senator...
BTW, when was it that Aschroft used the dreaded "N" word on national television?


----------



## Big Don (Aug 16, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Many Republicans are associated with the openly-racist Council for Conservative Citizens, including Georgia Congressman Bob Barr,


This Bob Barr, you know, the NOT a republican?
Oh, you mean like the plethora of politicians who pander to La Raza?
Their NAME indicates their racism.


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 16, 2008)

I was thinking of Ashcroft as Atty General.Not an elected position.

Elder, I admire your efforts, but you will never convince me the democratic party isnt racist to the core.

here is the simplest litmus test:

Which of these statements is potentially more racist?

1. you cant do it alone, you need help
2. you can do it alone, work hard and you will succeed.

sorry, i know the dems have bought the black vote in america with 40 years of hand outs, but it doesnt change the basic way they think and treat people. Not the people per se, but the basis of the party thought


----------



## elder999 (Aug 16, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> sorry, i know the dems have bought the black vote in america with 40 years of hand outs,


 
What exactly do you mean by that?


----------



## MJS (Aug 17, 2008)

Folks,

Given the nature of this thread, I'm asking everyone to please keep things civil and to refrain from making comments that may be deemed racial in nature.

Mike Slosek
MT Asst. Admin


----------



## elder999 (Aug 17, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Oh, he's old? Well, then anything he says or does no matter how flagrantly racist is excusable...
> Shoot, Ted Kennedy is old now too, that makes Chappaquiddick excusable.
> Funny, I seem to recall Reagan's advanced age getting a much different slant from the leftists...


 

No, it's not excusable-it's sometimes laughable. What his being old means is that he's a product of his time, and, no matter how much he's changed with the times, or tried to change with the times, he's still going to be-inevitably, in some ways-the man who voted and campaigned as a Dixiecrat, back in 1948, even though it's something that he claims to regret, along with his KKK membership, as a "foolishness of youth." This is, after all, the same Robert Byrd who voted to increase the budget for the Martin Luther King, Jr. memorial by $10 his dream was the American Dream."

I'll remind you again  of this post , where there are quotes from the greatest of Republicans, some would call the founder of the party, and a great President-perhaps the greatest, Abraham Lincoln. I'll point out, Don, that unlike you, most constituencies judge their politicians by their deeds, ultimately, and not necessarily every single stupid thing they say. 

More importantly, I'll point out that maybe Byrd keeps getting reelected, not because his constituency is composed of "racist Democrats," but is made up of less than 4% blacks, and  94.6% _whites_ , who-Democrat or Republican-might tend at the very least, to forgive him the fooolishness of his youth, if not embrace even more overtly racist thought in word and deed themselves.-being, of course, products of their place and time themselves....


----------



## elder999 (Aug 17, 2008)

While he was obviously joking, and one has to consider the audiences as well, Howard Dean was _wrong_ to say what he said, as a representative of his party. On the other hand, he was not incorrect. The number of registered Republicans that are of African American descent currently hovers at something less than 10%-reported statistics vary from as low as 4% to as high as 8%. That's pretty much the way it's been for nearly 50 years. Discounting Asians, Latinos and Native Americans, that still makes the Republican party pretty white-not that that should matter.

In the matter of West Virginia and Robert Byrd, one has to remember that the African American population there is less than 4%, making West Virginia one of the whitest and poorest states in the country.It is also, apparently full of voters like these. 

and these.... :lol:

Telling that so many avowed lifelong legacy Democrats from West Virginia have said that they'll vote for McCain rather than Obama-apparently their racism runs a bit deeper than their, or their parent's and grandparent's, party affiliation.

Hmmm, maybe their racism has to do with something other than their being Democrats?


----------



## Big Don (Aug 17, 2008)

It was the democratic party who placed slavery and Jim Crow laws in their party's platforms, not republicans. It was republicans who the KKK attacked... But, since the republican model treats people equally, rather than pandering to this race or that race, now they MUST be racists. 
Treating all equally is not racist. Treating different races in different manners is. 
If a Republican had called the GOP the "White Party" he would have been pilloried, and rightly so. So why is it that Howard Dean calling the GOP  the "White Party" given a pass?


----------



## elder999 (Aug 17, 2008)

Big Don said:


> If a Republican had called the GOP the "White Party" he would have been pilloried, and rightly so. So why is it that Howard Dean calling the GOP the "White Party" given a pass?


 
THat's a fair question-maybe, by yours and TF's own logic, since he holds no public office. Maybe because it was supposed to be a joke. 

The rest of your post is hardly  relevant.


----------



## Big Don (Aug 17, 2008)

elder999 said:


> THat's a fair question-maybe, by yours and TF's own logic, since he holds no public office. Maybe because it was supposed to be a joke.
> 
> The rest of your post is hardly  relevant.


Yeah, the *FACT* that the KKK's most frequent victims were republicans interferes with your zeal to paint republicans as racists, so, that clearly cannot be relevant.
The *FACT* that the democratic party has a shamefully racist history is well shameful and therefore cannot be relevant.
The *FACT* that the Republican party was SPECIFICALLY founded to end slavery, not relevant.

He holds no public office? So? He is the CHAIRMAN of the Democratic Party! Michael Richards and Mel Gibson have never held any elected office and they were slapped around pretty well after their idiotic rants.

David Duke holds no public office, but, he gets thrown in to these discussions. a tidbit :





> Despite getting an official reproval by the Republican Party, Duke ran for Louisiana Governor in 1991


Gee, I guess that means me and TF were right, doesn't it? 
BTW, the ONLY time Duke won, he won as a Democrat...


----------



## elder999 (Aug 17, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Yeah, the *FACT* that the KKK's most frequent victims were republicans interferes with your zeal to paint republicans as racists, so, that clearly cannot be relevant....


 
It isn't _I_ who "zealously" portrays "republicans as racists"; it is *you* who quite zealously portrays democrats as racists, rather than simply accepting that there are idiots of that type in both parties, and judging them as individuals. 

I mean, I'll agree with you-Howard Dean's a first class tool. And?

I'd be more than content to leave the David Dukes, John Aschcrofts and Trent Lotts out of this, if you hadn't brought it up in the first place.....*again.*


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Aug 17, 2008)

Why the big emphasis over political parties?  Why dont we choose, in every election, the person that we believe is best suited for the position in which they are running?

In this debate amongst MT members, we see the same defensiveness in the issues on both sides.  One person can use on tactic in describing the other side, but when it comes to that other side using the same tactic, its a foul play.

Parties are parties.  The question is, what does each individual candidate stand for.  What is you philosophy behind the way the country/state/county/city should be run.  

I grew up Democratic.  But, based on my own studying of political issues, human behavior, and history, I have come to a different conclusion.  It is the unthinking person that is slavish to a party point of view.  That is why I analyze the positions taken by candidates of either side and act accordingly.

That is not to say that party politics is not important at all.  But, if every American voted their beliefs and not their party, then we would all be better off.


----------



## DocWard (Aug 17, 2008)

Hello, new guy here, and I may be jumping into the middle of a fire storm by the looks of it. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't it the Republican Party that pushed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, while the Democrats attempted to filibuster it?

Oh, and G.W. Bush continues to have blacks, asians, hispanics and females on his cabinet, as he has from day one. Currently a black female is Secretary of State, rendering her fourth in the line of Presidential succession, behind the VP, the Speaker of the House (a white female, at this time) and the President pro tempore of the Senate.

While it is not politically correct to suggest that the Democratic party has bought the vote of minorities with handouts, the fact is that the policies of the Democratic party, regardless of their intention, have had the effect of creating a long term situation of dependency on government, and has been a factor, if not a key factor, in magnifying the disparity between minorities and whites in education, earning potential, and other socio-economic factors.

The disparity also exists between whites living in Appalachia and outside of Appalachia, for similar reasons, although the whites in Appalachia and the  South in general can also trace the blame for their condition back as far as the colonial era and the fact that slave labor created a lack of employment for them, up through the post-Civil War Era, where (mostly) northern Republicans and corporations worsened their condition by taking control of virtually all of the economy, up through the present, where the Democrats have created the same dependency that minorities experience.


----------



## Big Don (Aug 18, 2008)

For a party that values diversity, things look mighty white at the DNC


----------



## elder999 (Aug 18, 2008)

KarateEsq said:


> Hello, new guy here, and I may be jumping into the middle of a fire storm by the looks of it. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't it the Republican Party that pushed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, while the Democrats attempted to filibuster it?


 
Hi &#8220;new guy.&#8221;

You&#8217;re not exactly wrong, and you&#8217;re not quite right. 

In fact, you&#8217;re mostly *wrong*

The bill that became the Civil Rights Act was introduced into congress by then President John F. Kennedy. It was managed in the Senate by Emmanuel Celler, a democrat from New York, and in the House by Hubert Humphrey, a democrat from Minnesota.After Kennedy&#8217;s assassination, it was championed by LBJ, though it was mostly opposed by democrats _from the south_, not surprisingly, and filibustered by none other then Senator Byrd, something he has since publicly and repeatedly said he regrets.

A look at the voting record shows that it was passed by a largely democratic majority in both houses, with dissenting votes coming from _southern_ states, regardless of party affiliation, as follows:



> By party and region
> Note : "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.
> The original House version:
> Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
> ...


 
In fact, as you can see, the majority of dissenting &#8220;northerners&#8221; were republicans.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 18, 2008)

Big Don said:


> For a party that values diversity, things look mighty white at the DNC


 
But,but.....aren't you _against_ simply giving a position to someone because they're in the minority? In fact, wouldn't you say that going out and finding someone like Jesse jackson, Jr. to sit on the committee would be a form of racism?

Isn't the presence of a woman on there enough for diversity?

In fact, these folks  seem to have about the same degree of diversity.....

*Less, even*:   Lottie Shackleford, vice chairman of the DNC, is a black woman.

 Linda Chavez-Thompson, is a Mexican-American woman.

Mike Honda is a Japanese American who spent part of his childhood in an internment camp during WWII.

Nope, not much diversity there...


----------



## elder999 (Aug 18, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Yeah, the *FACT* that the KKK's most frequent victims were republicans interferes with your zeal to paint republicans as racists, so, that clearly cannot be relevant.


 
As I said, there's no zeal on my part in that regard. I have only one aim in replying to your threads.



Big Don said:


> The *FACT* that the democratic party has a shamefully racist history is well shameful and therefore cannot be relevant.


 
I suppose that all the southern states, as well as some midwestern ones should be equally ashamed. In fact, my home state of New York should be ashamed for not allowing blacks, Jews and Catholics to vote for its first 20 years. 



Big Don said:


> The *FACT* that the Republican party was SPECIFICALLY founded to end slavery, not relevant.


 
I'll concede that that was one among many reasons at the Republican party's inception. It's as relevant as the Episcopal Church's SPECIFICALLY being founded by Henry VIII so he could get a divorce and remarry, or as Dartmouth College's SPECIFICALLY being founded as an Indian School-strike that; Native Americans still get full scholarships to Darmouth if they're accepted.



Big Don said:


> ]David Duke holds no public office, but, he gets thrown in to these discussions. a tidbit :
> Gee, I guess that means me and TF were right, doesn't it?
> BTW, the ONLY time Duke won, he won as a Democrat...


 
ER....no.He switched from the Democratic to the Repulican party in 1988. In 1989 Duke ran against a fellow Republican for Metairie's seat in the Louisiana State Legislature, and won-as a _republican,_ in spite of calls of support for his opponent from various Republican  quarters.In subsequent elections, much could be made of the perccentages he garnered, especially among white voters, but I'll avoid that because, well, he lost, and how much of anyone voted for him-with the exception that they were voting _Republican_ isn't.......relevant.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 18, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> IElder, I admire your efforts, but you will never convince me the democratic party isnt racist to the core.


 
It isn't my intention to convince you-or Big Don- of anything, TF. I have only one goal in those efforts you profess to admire.....


----------



## DocWard (Aug 18, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Hi &#8220;new guy.&#8221;
> 
> You&#8217;re not exactly wrong, and you&#8217;re not quite right.
> 
> ...



Nope, I think I am about where I thought I was. Even though numerically, you are correct, the majority of dissenting northerners were Republicans, what is also clear is that the vast majority of northern Republicans voted for the bill. Most would consider 85% (27 for, 5 against) to be quite a large number. Evidently you don't. Is it because it doesn't play well within your paradigm?

Further, the history is pretty clear that the Democrats, particularly Humphrey and LBJ, knew they needed Republican support to pass the bill into law, given the southern Democrats' leanings on the issue. Both knew it would take a substantial number of Republicans to gain cloture, once the promised filibuster took place. Sen. Everett Dirksen (R),  of Illinois, made it happen.

There are two very interesting views of the events. One, that Humphrey hoodwinked Dirksen, thereby getting what he wanted. The other is that the Republicans knew that the effect of passage would be to break the hold the Democrats had on the south. In fact, LBJ is said to have uttered something to the effect of "we have given the South to the Republicans" upon signing the bill into law.

That isn't to say you are incorrect regarding the nature of the South and the role the southern Democrats have played. From Dixiecrats to Reagan Democrats, the socially conservative southern Democrats have been helpful to the Republican party platform for their own reasons, whether racially motivated or not.

However, I have to say that giving Byrd a pass because he has publically apologized for his past and his voting record, and excoriating the Republican party for specific instances of distasteful conduct seems at least a little hypocritical.

What seems clear to me today is that both parties are willing to include persons of any race, gender or ethnic background, if they are intelligent and their views and opinions work within the framework of the party. The real question is which party, if either, has the best plan for future American success.

As a libertarian (small L, I'm not a party member, it is my political philosophy), my preference is to have smaller government, greater self-reliance, and more ability to maintain what I earn, instead of having it doled to federal pork barrel spending and often wasteful social programs. One of the major problems, as I see it, is the fact that half of the nation pays no income tax to speak of, and we have the term "federal tax dollars" ingrained upon us. They aren't federal tax dollars, they are our tax dollars. Calling them anything else causes us to loose sight of responsibility for their careful use.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 18, 2008)

KarateEsq said:


> However, I have to say that giving Byrd a pass because he has publically apologized for his past and his voting record, and excoriating the Republican party for specific instances of distasteful conduct seems at least a little hypocritical.


 
Only as hypocritical as insisting that the Democratic party is the "party of racism" *because* of that racist history.Take a look at Big Don's post history-it's illuminating.



KarateEsq said:


> What seems clear to me today is that both parties are willing to include persons of any race, gender or ethnic background, if they are intelligent and their views and opinions work within the framework of the party. The real question is which party, if either, has the best plan for future American success.


 
Wel.....duh-and well said.
Good post, BTW.


----------



## DocWard (Aug 18, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Only as hypocritical as insisting that the Democratic party is the "party of racism" *because* of that racist history.Take a look at Big Don's post history-it's illuminating.



Fair enough. I must admit I was focusing on your arguments, which I find to be cogent, even if I don't necessarily agree with them fully. I was chalking up much of what was said about the Democrats being the "party of racism" as hyperbole. As I mentioned earlier, I think the effect of their actions has been unfortunate, but I wouldn't assert that they were done out of racial motivation. I sometimes wonder if it isn't done as a way to expand power, both personal and governmental. But then, I look for that same thing from the Republicans as well.





> Wel.....duh-and well said.
> Good post, BTW.



Thanks, and you as well. I do enjoy a good political discussion once in awhile, although I must admit that I am considering founding PA, Politics Anonymous, for those of us who become addicted to politics, and arguing the same, particularly over the internet, where the addiction can consume far too much of our time. We can just say "Friends of Roger W."


----------



## elder999 (Aug 18, 2008)

elder999 said:


> It isn't my intention to convince you-or Big Don- of anything, TF. I have only one goal in those efforts you profess to admire.....


 
There seems to be some misunderstanding, so I'll just put this here for all to see.....

My only intention in replying to your threads-or anyone's- is to _help_ you. Help you in demonstrating your intelligence and knowledge. I mean that in the most sincere and civil way, btw.

Of course, it's not as though anyone _needs_ my help. Why, the punctuation, spelling and overwhelming _content_ of your posts are demonstration enough to all of your intellectual capabilities, but, I have to say, I can't help but lend what meager assistance I can to your endeavors.

In fact-and again, I say this with the utmost sincerity and civility,and only with the best intentions in mind-it's my sincere hope that I can continue to assist you until the day that you no longer feel the need to enlighten us all with your obvious intelligence, wit and erudition. In the meantime, you can expect me to fulfill what I feel to be my obligation to aid you, whenever I have time and the need arises, of course.....


----------



## elder999 (Aug 18, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> sorry, i know the dems have bought the black vote in america with 40 years of hand outs, but it doesnt change the basic way they think and treat people. Not the people per se, but the basis of the party thought


 
Some here might not understand quite you meant, here, TF, though it seems pretty clear to me.

_allow me to help._

What I think is being said here is that the democrats have bought black votes with "social programs, like welfare..........55% of all welfare expenditures go to white 
people.

24.7% of African Americans live below the poverty line, so the other 75.3% of us must be voting for welfare too.....

Oh, and most welfare recipients, black, white or otherwise, are single mothers........and most of them _don't vote_.....

Is that what you meant? _Glad I could help._


----------



## DocWard (Aug 19, 2008)

elder999 said:


> There seems to be some misunderstanding, so I'll just put this here for all to see.....
> 
> My only intention in replying to your threads-or anyone's- is to _help_ you. Help you in demonstrating your intelligence and knowledge. I mean that in the most sincere and civil way, btw... etc...



I'm not sure if that was directed to me or not. Just curious.



> What I think is being said here is that the democrats have bought black votes with "social programs, like welfare..........55% of all welfare expenditures go to white
> people.
> 
> 24.7% of African Americans live below the poverty line, so the other 75.3% of us must be voting for welfare too.....
> ...



I believe it was Mark Twain who said that there are "lies, damn lies, and statistics." In regard to social programs, one, or at least I, would expect whites to receive the majority of the expenditures. Considering whites are, for the moment, still the majority race in the U.S. So what percentage of whites receive assistance, as compared to other races?

In regard to the poverty line, I'm not sure what relevance that has, although I am sure it has some. What percentage of blacks are in the bottom fifty percent of wage earners? That percentage would have very little in the way of tax burden, since the top fifty percent of wage earners pay something around 96% of taxes taken in by the federal government. The relevance of that? One who is not having money taken out of his pocket may have no qualms about voting largesse out of the pocket of another, especially if it is beneficial to he or someone he considers in his social or ethnic group. And yes, the exact same can be said for poor whites.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 19, 2008)

KarateEsq said:


> I'm not sure if that was directed to me or not. Just curious.


 
Wasn't "directed" at anyone-that would be *wrong.*

Or, if you prefer, it was directed at _everyone._

Well, it certainly wasn't directed at _you_, anyway.:lol:




KarateEsq said:


> IIn regard to the poverty line, I'm not sure what relevance that has, although I am sure it has some. What percentage of blacks are in the bottom fifty percent of wage earners? That percentage would have very little in the way of tax burden, since the top fifty percent of wage earners pay something around 96% of taxes taken in by the federal government. The relevance of that? One who is not having money taken out of his pocket may have no qualms about voting largesse out of the pocket of another, especially if it is beneficial to he or someone he considers in his social or ethnic group. And yes, the exact same can be said for poor whites.


 
According the to 2000 U.S. census, there were 34.5 million people in the U.S. who identified themselves as "african american."

The median income for that group was $29,470-not bad for a group with a median age of 29.5 yrs.

The adjusted income per capita was a little over $14,900- above the poverty line.

Of  that 34.5 million population, about 8.1 million were identified as "poor," or living below the poverty line.

In any case, your logic is somewhat flawed-if someone earns "wages" over $150,000 per year, their income taxes, depending upon the skill of their accountant and other factors, should be safely around $40,000/yr.-significantly  more if they lack the benefit of skilled fiduciary management, a 401K and other factors, though the odds of this are slight-in fact, it's likely that if they earn wages such as these, they have other sources of income that are afforded even more protection, and their annual income is in excess of their wages. It's also equally likely that they pay _less_ than $40,000/yr. with solid-and legal-fiduciary management. 

In any case, someone who makes that much money is far less likely to "miss" their $40,000/yr. than the someone who makes $29,000 per year is going to miss their five or six thousand per year, especially given the fact that they aren't likely to be paying that much anyway.Consequently, one tends to find people in this higher income bracket split across party lines when it comes to increasing taxes-especially when they know they can find means to retain their wealth and reduce their tax payment anyway, through avenues that those who make less cannot afford.  My wife and I, for instance, are for more likely to vote for social programs (no surprise) than may inlaws, who have always voted for candidates who promised "tax cuts."

Asidse from which, only 57% of African Americans were recorded as voting in the 1996 presidential election-again, according to the 2000 census. While this percentage wasn't broken down by income, it's a safe bet that most of those voting were either relatively young and without income, or well above the poverty line-and equally likely that they would be of an income that stands to lose more-"more" being relative to their lower income-than those who earn so much more,and pay more as well.

So how, exactly, were they voting for _their_ handout?

That question, btw, was not really directed at _you_, KarateEsq.-though you-or anyone-should feel free to answer.

In that respect, it's directed at _everyone_. :wink:

Census bureau facts for African Americans.


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 19, 2008)

elder999 said:


> What I think is being said here is that the democrats have bought black votes with "social programs, like welfare..........55% of all welfare expenditures go to white
> people.



yes, and whites are over 70% of the overall population.

so, by YOUR OWN NUMBERS, non whites collect welfare at a higher rate than whites, relative to overall population.

welfare
food stamps
AA

nope, no buying the black vote there.................

you aint fooling anyone elder. You can play nice all you want, i am onto your game. Back on the ignore list you go. I will not give you the satisfaction of goading me into an infraction


----------



## elder999 (Aug 19, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> yes, and whites are over 70% of the overall population.



That's including "white hispanics," of course-it's somewhat less than 70% if one subtracts them from the equation.....



Twin Fist said:


> welfare
> food stamps
> AA
> 
> ...


 
Buying what black vote, exactly? I mean, you can ignore me all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that-at best-they'd be "buying" something less than 34.5 million votes-and most of those are unlikely, as I demonstrated earlier, to be any more supportive or welfare and food stamps than you are, just as those who receive welfare are less likely to vote.

I'm not trying to "goad you into an infraction";that would be _*wrong*_. I'm trying to _help._

What's "AA?"


----------



## elder999 (Aug 19, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> you aint fooling anyone elder. You can play nice all you want, i am onto your game. Back on the ignore list you go. I will not give you the satisfaction of goading me into an infraction


 
And why is it that when your ideas require elaboration, or appear to be weak, you fail to offer any, and instead ignore me for fear of an infraction?

There are plenty of users on this forum-over 10,000-some of them would probably agree with you, if you'd just say something, instead of talking around it. 

Heck, I might even agree with you, at least in part.....I'm certainly not goading....or trolling..._I'm trying to help you._

(you might note how the OP has been conspicuously absent, though, as far as that goes.  )


----------



## MJS (Aug 19, 2008)

*THREAD CLOSED PENDING REVIEW*

*Mike Slosek*
*MT Asst. Admin*


----------

