The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: Tucker on May 31, 2012, 03:30:39 PM
-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014132136
Grassy Knoll (3,505 posts)
View profile
Joe Walsh: Democrats Want Hispanics, African Americans 'Dependent On Government'
Source: huffingtonpost
WASHINGTON -- Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Ill.) made another controversial remark last week, telling constituents that Democrats want Hispanics to be dependent on government -- and claiming that African Americans already are.
"The Democratic Party promises groups of people everything," Walsh, a conservative freshman from suburban Chicago, said during a Schaumburg, Ill., speech caught on video provided by CREDO SuperPAC, an anti-tea party group. "They want the Hispanic vote, they want Hispanics to be dependent on government, just like they got African Americans dependent on government. That's their game."
Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/30/joe-walsh-hispanics-african-americans_n_1557480.html
*Disgusting ****ing Asshole*
Anyone with half a brain knows that to be true.
Not all but a large segment of both blacks and latinos are so dependent on Government handouts, that they vote for the democrat party to keep the free money coming in.
Word to the wise, it's not going to last forever. When the minority are working to support the majority deadbeats, watch out. It's at 48% now.
Not long to go.
Off topic for a sec: Anyone notice that the DUmmy post count is now visible full time.
Now back to the moonbats.
David__77 (13,217 posts)
3. It's the wealthy and powerful are far more "dependent" on government.
View profile
Bailouts, geopolitical aggression, on and on. Without the state, these elites would get swept away.
Now I realize why the DUmbasses are against the job providers. Work is an alien concept. Maynard G Krebs had it figured out long before the hippy klan did.
Work, Work.
safeinOhio (6,590 posts)
6. A 50% increase in the
View profile
minimum wage might make a lot of people less dependent on the gov. It would also greatly increase demand and spur the economy.
That's never gonna work unless the socialist in charge initiates price control.
erpowers (4,803 posts)
10. Pay People More
View profile
So that is why Democrats are always pushing for people to get paid more money. That is also why the Republicans are always fighting for people to get paid less. You see, the more you pay someone the more dependent they become on the government. On the other hand, the less you pay someone the less dependent they become on government.*sarcasm*
Actually the desire to make more money is an incentive to make yourself and skills more desirable.
ErikJ (870 posts)
16. They want to get rid of minimum wage, unions, child labor laws and trade laws for slave labor.
View profile
and to kill the Democratic Party.
For the most part, you're correct.
-
You gotta admit they have it pretty good now. Back in the day they had to work their ass off to subsist. On the democrat plantation, all they have to do is get off their ass & vote every couple of years.
-
Only in left-wing bizzaro world is telling the truth "controversial".
-
safeinOhio (6,590 posts)
6. A 50% increase in the
minimum wage might make a lot of people less dependent on the gov. It would also greatly increase demand and spur the economy.
(http://www.nickadamsweb.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/dude-wait-what.jpg)
-
If you point this out you get accused of being a grand wizard of the KKK. The reality is, the Democrats have told these minorities that only the government can provide for them, and that they are owed by evil whitey. Any minority that strays from this is called horrible racist names by those on the left, just look at what they say about Allen West, Herman Cain, JC Watts, Condi Rice, Marco Rubio, and on and on. Hell even a liberal like Bill Cosby pissed them off when he said that young black males need to pull up their pants and make something of themselves. The left is despicable.
-
If you point this out you get accused of being a grand wizard of the KKK. The reality is, the Democrats have told these minorities that only the government can provide for them, and that they are owed by evil whitey. Any minority that strays from this is called horrible racist names by those on the left, just look at what they say about Allen West, Herman Cain, JC Watts, Condi Rice, Marco Rubio, and on and on. Hell even a liberal like Bill Cosby pissed them off when he said that young black males need to pull up their pants and make something of themselves. The left is despicable.
Oh no!!1!1!11 The unspeakable bootstrap word.
-
Grassy Knoll (3,505 posts)
View profile
Joe Walsh: Democrats Want Hispanics, African Americans 'Dependent On Government'
Source: huffingtonpost
WASHINGTON -- Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Ill.) made another controversial remark last week, telling constituents that Democrats want Hispanics to be dependent on government -- and claiming that African Americans already are.
"The Democratic Party promises groups of people everything," Walsh, a conservative freshman from suburban Chicago, said during a Schaumburg, Ill., speech caught on video provided by CREDO SuperPAC, an anti-tea party group. "They want the Hispanic vote, they want Hispanics to be dependent on government, just like they got African Americans dependent on government. That's their game."
Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost...-americans_n_1557480.html
*Disgusting ****ing Asshole*
Ummm, Grassy Hole, please show us where he's wrong. :popcorn:
-
90% of Black children are on food stamps.
http://news.change.org/stories/90-of-black-children-on-food-stamps <- From 2009. But it wouldn't surprise me if it was the same today.
-
Grassy Knoll (3,505 posts)
*Disgusting ****ing Asshole*
Of course the DUmb ass has already sent Julia down the memory hole.
http://www.barackobama.com/life-of-julia/
Your own DUmb ass POTUS is even campaigning on this.
-
If you are a minority and collec.....steal the taxpayers money you can get a net (legally) of $34,600/yr. THAT"S NET!!!!
You need to be earning about $52,400 to net that much. So yeah we who pay the bills are not real happy about that.
-
90% of Black children are on food stamps.
http://news.change.org/stories/90-of-black-children-on-food-stamps <- From 2009. But it wouldn't surprise me if it was the same today.
If the evil whitey would pay the po folk 30 an hour, then they wouldn't need to be on food stamps.
Only problem with that is that the black male has a graduation rate of 25% and for those who do graduate, their reading and writing skills are at a third grade level. What are they qualified to do?
Micky D's had to use pictures on the register for taking orders because the people couldn't read. You want fries with that, push the french fry button.
A fine product of public education.
What's Anne Pritchette's and Pam Dawson's solution to this problem? Give the teachers a raise.
-
That's a totally true statement that Walsh made, that was the intent of Johnson and Democrats when they decided to "fight" the war on poverty, all they did was "fund" it and destroyed the black family, and they want to do the same with hispanics.
As far as the minimum wage goes? how's that working out in California and in particular San Francisco?
-
That's a totally true statement that Walsh made, that was the intent of Johnson and Democrats when they decided to "fight" the war on poverty, all they did was "fund" it and destroyed the black family, and they want to do the same with hispanics.
As far as the minimum wage goes? how's that working out in California and in particular San Francisco?
Queers can now go to the gay baths twice a week....not that there's anything wrong with going to a gay bath and not taking a bath there or anything (liberal disclaimer inserted for political correctness).
-
That's a totally true statement that Walsh made, that was the intent of Johnson and Democrats when they decided to "fight" the war on poverty, all they did was "fund" it and destroyed the black family, and they want to do the same with hispanics.
As far as the minimum wage goes? how's that working out in California and in particular San Francisco?
Memories from childhood-----Every time we have a Democratic president we have a war.
Today, the paranoid in the family believes this is a big plot by the Democrats to enslave the blacks and Latinos for cannon fodder. The draft will be brought back and if the blacks and Latinos want food stamps and government hand outs, they will have to work for it. Government service of some kind for those 17 - 25. If the kids refuse then their intire family is cut off from welfare from the new baby to grandpa.
They point to Detroit and the projects when whole family's were put on the street if a family member be they 12-60 years old committed a felony. It seemed to work for a few months until the ACLU stopped it.
Big problem for the schools the parents were so afraid their kids would skip school and do wrong that the schools became over loaded with kids that were more afraid of their MAMA then the truant officer or the Cops.
Some of the older farts really believe that had Germany utilised the Jews instead of killing them, we would now be the United States of Germany. Must say I have to agree with them there. All that manpower and brilliant minds destroyed, the very people that could have taken over the world for them.
Yes I know most of us have some one or two in the family that come up with odd ideas from time to time but these ideas are not all that strange when we try to figure out just what OBAMA is up to and why some of his management makes less sense then the crack pots.
Like a maze there has to be some sort of Master plan in the works, we just cannot see it yet. We just see ourselves and cannot be bothered to worry about why any of this is happening to our Glorious America.
One thing for sure, life is never simple and easy as we scramble to find out ----Just what the F is going on.
And if we are told, no way would we believe it, comprehend it, we would be trapped in the Twilight Zone.
Old saying, as long as the troops are grumbling no problem. When the troops are quiet, then big problems are a foot.
-
Memories from childhood-----Every time we have a Democratic president we have a war.
But yet the liberals will make you think it is all the Republicans fault. Look at history. All the wars since WWI, except maybe two, have been signed by a liberal President.
-
Rep. Joe Walsh had better watch himself.
He could end up like former Sec. of Agriculture Earl Butz, even though both of them spoke the truth.
-
Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Ill.) made another controversial remark last week, telling constituents that Democrats want Hispanics to be dependent on government -- and claiming that African Americans already are.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that the above remark is an accurate description of reality in America. Are African-American adults who are dependent on government handouts, and who have custody and control over children, more likely than other adults to raise a generation that is dependent on government handouts? Please note that custody over children is a legal concept. Has there been any push by Republican legislators to give children an option of ceasing to be in the custody of their biological parents?
Please note that a child's parents are the child's direct ancestors. By assigning legal authority over children to their biological parents, governments ensure that how children are treated depends on who the children's ancestors are. Other legislation has also ensured that how children are treated depends on who their ancestors are: for example, legislation providing for multi-generational slavery, and legislation that gives refugee status to the children of Palestinian refugees.
-
Please note that a child's parents are the child's direct ancestors. By assigning legal authority over children to their biological parents, governments ensure that how children are treated depends on who the children's ancestors are. Other legislation has also ensured that how children are treated depends on who their ancestors are: for example, legislation providing for multi-generational slavery, and legislation that gives refugee status to the children of Palestinian refugees.
What the **** are you talking about? Does any of that make sense to you?
Let's assume for the sake of argument that the above remark is an accurate description of reality in America. Are African-American adults who are dependent on government handouts, and who have custody and control over children, more likely than other adults to raise a generation that is dependent on government handouts? Please note that custody over children is a legal concept. Has there been any push by Republican legislators to give children an option of ceasing to be in the custody of their biological parents?
Where else would the children go? Into the foster system? Not likely. What benefits would the Republican party see from pushing for that?
Damn, but you are dense.
-
Where else would the children go?
Maybe they could get into communication with other children, children whose parents want more children, but not necessarily more biological children. I presume that checks that would normally go to the biological parents to cover the cost of caring for their own biological children would be redirected to adults who are already parents and who have made a mutually agreeable arrangement with children who don't want to be under the custody and control of their own biological parents.
-
Maybe they could get into communication with other children, children whose parents want more children, but not necessarily more biological children. I presume that checks that would normally go to the biological parents to cover the cost of caring for their own biological children would be redirected to adults who are already parents and who have made a mutually agreeable arrangement with children who don't want to be under the custody and control of their own biological parents.
Can't do it. The nanny state has to have their say in the matter. Just the way liberals like it. It creates jobs for social workers, a field dominated by moonbats.
-
Maybe they could get into communication with other children, children whose parents want more children, but not necessarily more biological children. I presume that checks that would normally go to the biological parents to cover the cost of caring for their own biological children would be redirected to adults who are already parents and who have made a mutually agreeable arrangement with children who don't want to be under the custody and control of their own biological parents.
[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzspsovNvII[/youtube]
-
Teh Truth, it buuuurrrrrnnnnnsssss!!!!
:popcorn:
-
Maybe they could get into communication with other children, children whose parents want more children, but not necessarily more biological children. I presume that checks that would normally go to the biological parents to cover the cost of caring for their own biological children would be redirected to adults who are already parents and who have made a mutually agreeable arrangement with children who don't want to be under the custody and control of their own biological parents.
What you just described is foster care.
Again, do you have some other plan to fix the problem that Walsh pointed out, or are you just going to keep playing pointless what-if games while wasting everyone's time?
-
What you just described is foster care.
Again, do you have some other plan to fix the problem that Walsh pointed out, or are you just going to keep playing pointless what-if games while wasting everyone's time?
Chris, some times the what if games need to be played to understand the crazy problems that one never suspects.
We all play what if at work and at home, Fire drills, chemical spills, how to pay a mortgage if one looses a job.
Had Japan played the what if game and had planned for every and all possibility's and not so possible scenarios, much of the problems of loosing their reactors to a natural disaster could have been not eliminated but lessened the impact.
What if's are important for social society, we just need to imagine the unthinkable and sooner or later it will happen some where to some one.
Who would ever have thought Abortion or 8 month abortions would ever become legal and as common as having your appendix removed. Much of society has worked well in the past, now we have messed with the old ways and society is now chugging away to the benefit of none but those that insist on change. It never gets better only worse so to play the what if game is a survival method.
Paranoia is what keeps us alive, those fools that do not recognise the signs of trouble ahead and prepare for it are the dead that decide to ride out a Hurricane in a beach front bar.
-
Who would ever have thought Abortion or 8 month abortions would ever become legal and as common as having your appendix removed. Much of society has worked well in the past, now we have messed with the old ways
That "we" you mentioned are the same liberals that put social and government policies in place that destroyed the black community creating the problem we're dealing with now. Allowing people like Boojatta free reign with his ill-concieved (and flat-out stupid) ideas would only make the problem worse.
I noticed the city put townhouse-style awnings over the entrances on the public housing projects here. Instead of attemping to fix the problem, they've just made it less offensive to the eye. That was a mistake and a waste of money, and I gaurantee you a liberal Democrat came up with the idea.
-
Let's assume for the sake of argument that the above remark is an accurate description of reality in America. Are African-American adults who are dependent on government handouts, and who have custody and control over children, more likely than other adults to raise a generation that is dependent on government handouts? Please note that custody over children is a legal concept. Has there been any push by Republican legislators to give children an option of ceasing to be in the custody of their biological parents?
Please note that a child's parents are the child's direct ancestors. By assigning legal authority over children to their biological parents, governments ensure that how children are treated depends on who the children's ancestors are. Other legislation has also ensured that how children are treated depends on who their ancestors are: for example, legislation providing for multi-generational slavery, and legislation that gives refugee status to the children of Palestinian refugees.
Why the **** should this even be a consideration? This is ****ing nuts! You know, I've talked about this before but there are many, many ways the Democrats could have truly given these poor black people a hand up (the whole teach a man to fish thing) instead of a handout. Instead, they've got as many of them as they can enslaved on these inner city plantations. How about instead of going to such extremes (I swear you must be 16 years old to even think like this). Historically, you can trace the destruction of the black family and their descent into extreme poverty directly to Johnson's great society. Since then, every time anyone proposes welfare reform the democrats scream and yell and moan and get their dependent class all scared and worked up. It's very sad since we do know that giving them opportunities (even if done with tough love) they'll take advantage of it. Americans want to succeed.
When Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming to signing welfare reform, more single parent (mostly female) families were lifted out of poverty than since the beginning of the racist "great society". When Dubya was president, the poorest children in Washington DC were finally able to get out of their poor, failing schools and get vouchers to attend the private school of their parent's choice, because parents always want a better life for children than they have. Those families who took advantage of the opportunity found their children, not just thriving but succeeding. What did the boy king do when he got into office? Cancelled a very, very successful program that gave poor children a chance to have the quality education his children take for granted. Or maybe it was just that he didn't want to have the first daughters rubbing elbows with poor black children. And, of course, a generation that educated themselves off of welfare would no longer need the left. What other explanation could there be? It didn't take any extra money because it used the same funds that would've gone to their failing school.
But how about this. How about instead of continuing to hand out money, we use it to improve impoverished neighborhoods and the families that live there. Granted, slum lords like Tony Rezko & Valerie Jarrett would be held accountable and might have to actually use some of the government subsidies they get for owning these inner city plantation buildings on real improvements. Being that many of these slum lords have the ears of prominent dems (0bama) it's no wonder change never comes. If the left truly cares about poor minorities, they'd realize the war on poverty has been an abysmal failure almost a half a century in the making. I'm no genius but I do know if you give people an opportunity and teach them to take pride in themselves, their families and their communities, the majority will rise to the occasion.
Using money already being poured into these families and into the pockets of the rich (0bama's good friends) slumlords, entire neighborhoods could be changed. Have job training programs and vouchers to go to a community college or trade school. Have community daycare centers so someone can watch their children while their parents are bettering their lives. As these parents get jobs, they can start paying, just a little bit at a time, for their children's daycare. There are plenty of loving grandmothers who would love to take care of children. Pay them a wage instead of giving them a welfare check. Make sure the building owners bring the plumbing up to standards, fix the heat, paint the buildings inside and out. Fix playgrounds for children and build fences as high and strong as possible because simply being able to be children will do wonders for their neighborhood. I can't imagine the fear and strain of not being able to let your children out to play for fear they'll be shot.
As for gang violence, have sweeps (just like they've done in other neighborhoods and with other kinds of crime) so that it becomes too uncomfortable for them to be there. They've been allowed to run these neighborhoods for too long and we can expect it will be violent and sometimes bloody, but it's that way already and the end result of running them out is a better life for everyone who lives there. If these neighborhoods are suspicious of white police officers (and why shouldn't they be, they've been taught to) then bring in black police at first. And, without a doubt, arm these citizens and teach them to shoot and gun safety. You can definitely see the truth in the adage "if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns" here. Because only outlaws (i.e. drug dealers and gangbangers) have guns in these places. Strict gun control laws or a complete ban means law abiding citizens are at the mercy of every violent criminal in the neighborhood. It's just wrong to not allow ("allow" shouldn't even be used in this context because it's a 2nd Amendment right) them to defend themselves. A "stand your ground law" would be perfect for the inner cities.
As things improve and it gets safer to walk outside, improve yards, neighborhoods and start community gardens. REQUIRE schools to show significant improvement or allow the families to take that same money and use it to send their children to the private school of their choice. With proper training and incentives, there's no reason these schools can't rival the best public schools (an oxymoron, IMO) in the country. Simply put: fire ineffective teachers, give raises and other incentives to teachers who work hard and whose students show improvement. And children don't have to be grouped in artificial divisions like "grade" just group them together by ability. Better they learn what they need to be productive citizens than worry about artificial bullshit like "self esteem". Charles Manson has scads of self esteem.
So why hasn't anyone on the left proposed these kinds of changes instead of blaming Republicans for not signing on for more handouts? Why is it that every single time Republicans have called for reform the Democrats immediately start whining & hyperventilating and running into these neighborhoods screaming that Republicans want to take their welfare checks away. Generations of these poor people have been so conditioned to react instead of using critical thinking skills they're never able too see there are ways to have a better life. And the only reason I can think of for not wanting to improve the life of poor blacks is racism and the fear of what will happen if the poor suddenly find themselves upwardly mobile, even (gasp) middle class. They'd no longer need government handouts. They'd no longer have need of the democrat party. Democrats would have to earn their vote instead of automatically getting it out of fear.
Cindie
-
We need a good old fashioned Jesse "High" Jackson rhyme to sum this all up...
Maybe something like "I'm black and I'm proud, and I got both hands out".