My Brother’s Keeper

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 7:36 am

I'm wondering how you feel about a govt. program that embraces one group of Americans and excludes others? Is it the job of the federal government to choose who succeeds and who doesn't all in the name of "fairness?:

"President Obama will launch a significant new effort Thursday to bolster the lives of young minority men, seeking to use the power of the presidency to help a group of Americans whose lives are disproportionately affected by poverty and prison.

The effort will seek “to make sure that every young man of color who is willing to work hard and lift himself up has an opportunity to get ahead and reach his full potential,” the White House official said"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html

So what about poor disadvantaged white or Asian men? How about young women of color or of any color? Is My Brother’s Keeper a sexist program? Your thoughts.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 7:45 am

woodchip wrote:I'm wondering how you feel about a govt. program that embraces one group of Americans and excludes others? Is it the job of the federal government to choose who succeeds and who doesn't all in the name of "fairness?:

of course not. Of course, no one has ever proposed same. Let's look at one example, shall we?

"President Obama will launch a significant new effort Thursday to bolster the lives of young minority men, seeking to use the power of the presidency to help a group of Americans whose lives are disproportionately affected by poverty and prison.

The effort will seek “to make sure that every young man of color who is willing to work hard and lift himself up has an opportunity to get ahead and reach his full potential,” the White House official said"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html

so who is 'chosen' to lose?

So what about poor disadvantaged white or Asian men? How about young women of color or of any color? Is My Brother’s Keeper a sexist program? Your thoughts.

no, it is but ONE program to help those that seemingly need the most help. No picking of 'winners and losers'. For instance, my daughter benefits from programs already extant to help single mothers. There have been programs targetted at poor white people, notably in Appalachia, but elsewhere as well. The concept is to HELP PEOPLE, and folks, like yourself, Woody, who imply that there is something wrong in tailoring programs to target groups with specific needs, are shortsighted. Broad-brush programs can help a lot, but sometimes, you have to do specific things for specific groups of people.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 7:54 am

I don't have a problem with him focusing efforts on a group that so clearly has become a serious cancer of dysfunction. It is a problem for all of us as the criminal element among them is so eager to prove.

Of course politicians posture by announcing they have formed a committee to study a problem with no other motive than to be able to take said posture...

So we shall see.
It is just as likely he will throw some community agitator types and former campaign bundler$ some Federal funds and check the problem off his to do list.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 8:15 am

actually, Will, I think there is a 'cancer of dysfunction' by and large among a lot of young males from all races. We are approaching a point where young men in general:
1. go on to college at half the rate of young women
2. remain unemployed for far longer than a generation ago(by choice, not a function of economy)
3. live at home far longer, by choice.
In general, they avoid adult responsibility far longer than would have been expected or even tolerated 40 years ago.

in short, young males are tending, more and more, to become a drag upon the society and the economy. I hope this program works, and am nowhere near as cynical about the effort than Woody and Will seem to be. I suppose that can be expected, because I come from the school of thought that knows that government CAN do good and help solve problems, whereas they seem convinced that nothing can possibly be done right by government.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 8:58 am

I’m always leery of programs to evaluate programs, and that’s about all I can say, with the lack of details.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 8:58 am

callmeslick wrote:actually, Will, I think there is a 'cancer of dysfunction' by and large among a lot of young males from all races. We are approaching a point where young men in general:
1. go on to college at half the rate of young women
2. remain unemployed for far longer than a generation ago(by choice, not a function of economy)
3. live at home far longer, by choice.
In general, they avoid adult responsibility far longer than would have been expected or even tolerated 40 years ago.

in short, young males are tending, more and more, to become a drag upon the society and the economy. I hope this program works, and am nowhere near as cynical about the effort than Woody and Will seem to be. I suppose that can be expected, because I come from the school of thought that knows that government CAN do good and help solve problems, whereas they seem convinced that nothing can possibly be done right by government.

Well slick, you seem to be making Woody's case for not focusing special attention on young minority males since you want us to believe singling them out as more dysfunctional is wrong.

Your reaction, one of deflection and excuse making, is a great example of one reason the problem has become so serious and why correcting it is so difficult. I'm surprised you didn't pull out your 'race card' and try to play it!

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 9:10 am

not making that point whatsoever, Will. I'm saying that ALL approaches, from general to specific are good things. This one, having read about it, seems to be a combination of private/public partnerships, with a bunch of corporations involved. That is a GREAT thing.....what you are prattling on about with 'excuses and deflections', I cannot fathom. Don't you want a better society?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 9:22 am

callmeslick wrote:not making that point whatsoever, Will. I'm saying that ALL approaches, from general to specific are good things. This one, having read about it, seems to be a combination of private/public partnerships, with a bunch of corporations involved. That is a GREAT thing.....what you are prattling on about with 'excuses and deflections', I cannot fathom. Don't you want a better society?

Of course.
And I think if the president wants to say we need to address young minority men in a focused way because of the problems that surround them then you should be able to accept the fact that there are some real problems specific to their group and the solution isn't going to be found in offering euphemistic commentary to lessen the impact of the focus!

Why did you immediately want to raise that smoke screen of implying all young men are equally represented in the cultural dysfunction category?
The President sees it. You want to obscure it. You are not helping.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 9:28 am

not at all, Will. I said there is a problem with young men in general, which I don't think can be disputed. That minority young men have that cultural issue, coupled with economic disadvantages tossed in, should be equally obvious. You seem to paint is as some sort of focus on 'criminal' elements among young black men. Neither the President, nor I am going along with that broad brush interpretation, although you citing it should surprise no one. It's core to your personal paranoia.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 9:45 am

callmeslick wrote:not at all, Will. I said there is a problem with young men in general, which I don't think can be disputed. That minority young men have that cultural issue, coupled with economic disadvantages tossed in, should be equally obvious. You seem to paint is as some sort of focus on 'criminal' elements among young black men. Neither the President, nor I am going along with that broad brush interpretation, although you citing it should surprise no one. It's core to your personal paranoia.

You are so full of it.
According to your back peddling excuse you merely wanted to introduce some parallel observation that dysfunction is evident in other groups as well? In context that is practically a non sequitur contribution to the topic.

Considering Woody's post and the context, are you suggesting the President is wrong in singling out minorities?!? No, I don't think so.
So are you actually in agreement with him that there is a disproportionate level of 'problem' experienced in the minority sub group culture?
Ah, but you don't like that being pointed out so you wanted to wrap it up in something that doesn't single them out....

You offer this sugar coated obfuscation in the context of the President suggesting that singular focus is needed!?!
In the context of Woody questioning if that singular focus is needed 'since we are all brothers to be kept equally by our President'...?!?

And I point out that just because the dysfunction isn't reaching tipping point among non minorities it actually is everyone's problem one example of that is a criminal element that spills out into everyone's life as a direct result of that dysfunction. A point that is absolutely truthful and relevant to the context. But you want to continue to blow smoke.

I guess the President is just a profiling Uncle Tom doing the racist white mans bidding for singling out the minorities....

With allies like you slick the minorities don't need any enemies.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 10:44 am

my view of Woody's original question is this: he was positing whether having programs specifically aimed at one subgroup is a good thing. I feel it is,
within the context of the whole. Now, were EVERY program, or even the vast majority aimed at any single group, no. But that isn't the case. As for Will's objection, he seems hell-bent on this being some sort of admission by me, or the President, that somehow black men are a singular 'problem' for the society. I'd disagree with that. We have problems all over our society. By addressing this subgroup, it is neither a panicked response to some outsized issue nor such an admission. It is merely a focused effort to better out society by addressing one of the myriad problems. And, such smaller, focused efforts are not, to my mind, in any way unfair to others, which was Woody's question.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 10:47 am

Will, why the obsession on 'criminal elements'? If this is such a concern, why don't you focus your ire at the most dangerous criminal element that affects the most people in the US? By which, I clearly mean the ongoing rape of the working people by a handful at the top of the economic foodchain. Why, for instance have but 7 people gone to prison for the excesses and thefts that led to the economic collapses of 2007-2009?

vision · Post by **vision** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 12:14 pm

Will has just one thing to say, over and over and over and over again. "Those criminal blacks are just no good! Nothing we do can help them! Let's not waste government resources on them since they choose to be criminals! Let's all use more exclamation points! Say no to Obama!"

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 12:42 pm

more exclamation points!!.....it's like the new 'cowbell'.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 12:50 pm

The context in which I raised the aspect of criminality as well as the specific implication of my use of it is so vastly different from the way slick and vision are characterizing it is remarkable!

You two are pathetic cowards.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 1:13 pm

Will Robinson wrote:The context in which I raised the aspect of criminality as well as the specific implication of my use of it is so vastly different from the way slick and vision are characterizing it is remarkable!

You two are pathetic cowards.

at least we don't walk around with sidearms in fear of the 'criminal element', so it's all relative.

Frankly, it's sort of sad how you hijacked the thread. I think, though it may shock some, that Woodchips original post was thought-provoking. It gets to the heart of the whole idea of government programs aimed at social welfare of the citizenry. The words he used around 'picking winners and losers' are loaded, to be sure, but indicates the feeling many have, for philosophical reasons with ANY type of government program aimed at benefitting members within the society. I, as noted, have a far less negative view of the role of government. Odd aside--my view of the role of government is, in the classical sense, conservative, as I feel that government is needed to keep people from succumbing to greed, avarice, selfishness and other bad traits. Apparently, Woodchip is a classical liberal, as he seems to feel that government should leave everything alone, and apparently feels that humankind is so inherently good as to insure a fine outcome when left to itself.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 1:29 pm

People that make bad decisions will continue to make bad decisions. No amount of money will fix that.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 1:35 pm

Funny, you talk about hijacking a thread...and thought provoking content....
But if someone says anything that you don't like you and others come out like bullies trying to shout down the conversation!

Should the foundations and leaders he has asked to look for solutions be afraid of your kind of tactics they will surely fail at finding a solution.

I could give the example of why scholarship money focused on the poor is good for all not just the poor but then surely you would twist that into hate as well....

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 1:36 pm

Duper wrote:People that make bad decisions will continue to make bad decisions. No amount of money will fix that.

so, do you fall into the camp that poor people are merely victims of bad decisions? Also, wouldn't such a program as this be at least partially aimed toward teaching people how to make better decisions? Or, do you feel that decision making is some sort of genetic gift that you either have or do not have from birth? Moreover, do you feel that it just might be easier to make good decisions when one is provided far more choices from which to decide?
Your brief post about, while on the face of it seeming simply wrong and overtly negative, raises some important questions.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 1:40 pm

Will Robinson wrote:Funny, you talk about hijacking a thread...and thought provoking content....
But if someone says anything that you don't like you and others come out like bullies trying to shout down the conversation!

really, I've done neither here, and as one can see, have attempted to keep the core discussion alive. Yes, I dismissed your rant about 'criminal elements' because I feel it to be ignorant. Get over it.

Should the foundations and leaders he has asked to look for solutions be afraid of your kind of tactics they will surely fail at finding a solution.

I have every conviction that some on the extreme right will do far worse, and my hope is that they perservere despite that fact.

I could give the example of why scholarship money focused on the poor is good for all not just the poor but then surely you would twist that into hate as well....

well, that would be an example of my whole point around targeting a few for the benefit of all.......no reason to twist anything. Your words and your choice of words expose your real agenda. Face it, Will, I've agreed with you when I felt it worthy, and disagreed when I thought your points deserved rebuttal. No 'shoutdowns' involved.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 2:40 pm

callmeslick wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:Funny, you talk about hijacking a thread...and thought provoking content....
But if someone says anything that you don't like you and others come out like bullies trying to shout down the conversation!
really, I've done neither here, and as one can see, have attempted to keep the core discussion alive. Yes, I dismissed your rant about 'criminal elements' because I feel it to be ignorant. Get over it.

And there it is in a nutshell! Your deceit.

My commentary was NOT 'about criminal elements'.
My comments were about the whole sub group and suggested it is a good thing to focus on the source of the dysfunction.

I only raised the specter of a criminal element, which I clearly described as NOT THE WHOLE SUB GROUP, as an element from within the dysfunctional group that cause problems.
And I attributed that criminality to THE DYSFUNCTION not the group, or race, or gender, or class, etc etc!.

You purposefully, and quite despicably, chose to mischaracterize my comments as bigotry on my part.
That's what you do, over and over, just like your Party, you attack the messenger to squelch the message.

I refered to you before as pathologically dishonest and that was accurate. You are proving it again.

For the federal government/President Obama to spend resources to give scholarships focused on minorities is EXACTLY the same as his effort in this case to focus on solving the extreme dysfunction among that group. And the reason it benefits all is EXACTLY the same.
That being, if a sub group of our society is so screwed up stuck in a cycle of dysfunction it inevitably spills over into all our lives.
I could have chosen to point out how it harms productivity, effects infant mortality, unwed mothers, or a number of other things etc but none of those lend themselves to the 'spillover' analogy as crime does. Since I was going to give one example of why the focus on minorities is actually a benefit for all I chose the biggest baddest example of spillover out there. It is correct, relevant and current.

The criminal element is not, however, 'what I was ranting about' as you would like others to believe. It was a mere facet of a supporting point to my assertion that the President's choice to focus on a sub group is in fact a benefit to us all.

I don't expect you to acknowledge this. Your tactics are well known and oh so predictable but I do enjoy spelling out how obvious you are in your attempts to shout down anyone you consider too conservative because you know I'm right on target with my assessment and you know your asshat is showing when I spell it out this way.

Your foo is weak so you pull out a race card.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 3:19 pm

callmeslick wrote:
Duper wrote:People that make bad decisions will continue to make bad decisions. No amount of money will fix that.
so, do you fall into the camp that poor people are merely victims of bad decisions? Also, wouldn't such a program as this be at least partially aimed toward teaching people how to make better decisions? Or, do you feel that decision making is some sort of genetic gift that you either have or do not have from birth? Moreover, do you feel that it just might be easier to make good decisions when one is provided far more choices from which to decide?
Your brief post about, while on the face of it seeming simply wrong and overtly negative, raises some important questions.

You don't get it if you have to ask. This should be really simple Slick. There was nothing difficult about my statement and I'm not going to repeat myself.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 4:45 pm

The only real problem I would have with these “programs” (none of which have been defined) is if they end up being discriminatory.

The government by its own laws and policy forbids discrimination, therefore while it would be ok to target certain groups among the whole, it would be illegal to disqualify anyone from grants, subsidies or scholarships (and alike) if they are not a minority.

So sure, target minorities, but if a white or other person can benefit, it better help them as well.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 6:31 pm

Duper wrote:
callmeslick wrote:
Duper wrote:People that make bad decisions will continue to make bad decisions. No amount of money will fix that.
so, do you fall into the camp that poor people are merely victims of bad decisions? Also, wouldn't such a program as this be at least partially aimed toward teaching people how to make better decisions? Or, do you feel that decision making is some sort of genetic gift that you either have or do not have from birth? Moreover, do you feel that it just might be easier to make good decisions when one is provided far more choices from which to decide?
Your brief post about, while on the face of it seeming simply wrong and overtly negative, raises some important questions.
You don't get it if you have to ask. This should be really simple Slick. There was nothing difficult about my statement and I'm not going to repeat myself.

wow, at face value, you're a complete tool, if you think that somehow bad decision-makers are born as opposed to created by their environment. I was hoping you'd elaborate otherwise, but, suit yourself.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 7:54 pm

Bad decision makers are anyone without the wisdom to be driven by the right motivators, or the character to learn from their mistakes. Government money may take some pressure off of those in poverty, but money does not make a fool into a wise man.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 9:32 pm

woodchip wrote:who is willing to work hard and lift himself up has an opportunity to get ahead and reach his full potential”

I thought this part was important. So I bolded it to refresh the memory of people who either glossed over it or mentally omitted it.

vision · Post by **vision** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 10:24 pm

woodchip wrote:...help a group of Americans whose lives are disproportionately affected by poverty and prison.

As long as we are bolding key phrases, this is another one. Anyone here know what the word disproportionately means?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 12:11 am

vision wrote:
woodchip wrote:...help a group of Americans whose lives are disproportionately affected by poverty and prison.
As long as we are bolding key phrases, this is another one. Anyone here know what the word disproportionately means?

Are you looking for the literal definition of the word or the inference the author of that sentence likely intended to draw from a reader?

Literally it would mean some Americans are affected (sic) more, or less, than others by poverty and prison.

Which becomes more curious since the author probably meant to use 'effected' instead of 'affected'.

Then again, the popular style of 'sagging' that emerged from the same minority sub culture, wearing your pants down below your butt, is an 'affectation' of the appearance of prisoners who have no belt in prison so their pants are always sagging....so who knows!

My guess is the author meant to imply young men of color suffer more from poverty and imprisonment than other young men.
If so it is still a bit ambiguous since young men of color are incarcerated at a higher ratio and also come from poverty at a higher ratio.....both conditions are unpleasant so of course, statistically they suffer more from it. Just stating the statistical reality does nothing to examine WHY that is the state of affairs...

A better statement would be to propose looking at WHY the obvious disparity in poverty and imprisonment exists between minority and non minority groups.

The fact they go to prison more often could be simply remedied by making them immune to prosecution. But that wouldn't be any kind of solution the President is going to support would it? It's as if the author wanted to reference the state of affairs without really talking about it. Considering the way some people are so hypersensitive or ideologically high strung its no surprise he didn't really say anything....

So, since the author of the statement, and his likely confused use of the American lexicon has left his meaning so unclear, maybe you should just tell us what your point is with regard to the use of the word.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:28 am

Ferno wrote:
woodchip wrote:who is willing to work hard and lift himself up has an opportunity to get ahead and reach his full potential”
I thought this part was important. So I bolded it to refresh the memory of people who either glossed over it or mentally omitted it.

As you snipped it Ferno, you are indeed right. My objection is to the qualifier that you omitted and shows a President who cares not to unify but to divide:

"young man of color who is willing to work hard and lift himself up has an opportunity to get ahead and reach his full potential"

Leave the word "color" out and you have a unifying statement. By including it you create divisiveness. Either we are a country where every young man, no matter the color of his skin, has the opportunity to succeed or else we sink into the abyss of racial divide. For the president of this country to promote such inequality is harmful at best.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 8:12 am

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Bad decision makers are anyone without the wisdom to be driven by the right motivators, or the character to learn from their mistakes. Government money may take some pressure off of those in poverty, but money does not make a fool into a wise man.

fools lurk in all economic classes. People are NOT poor, generally, from bad decision making. Especially, the young. Put another way, it's easier to make good choices, when you have a lot of options to choose from, and mentors who help you to develop the wisdom.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 11:49 pm

vision wrote:As long as we are bolding key phrases, this is another one. Anyone here know what the word disproportionately means?

I do... but i'm not telling.

woodchip wrote:
As you snipped it Ferno, you are indeed right. My objection is to the qualifier that you omitted and shows a President who cares not to unify but to divide:

"young man of color who is willing to work hard and lift himself up has an opportunity to get ahead and reach his full potential"

Leave the word "color" out and you have a unifying statement. By including it you create divisiveness. Either we are a country where every young man, no matter the color of his skin, has the opportunity to succeed or else we sink into the abyss of racial divide. For the president of this country to promote such inequality is harmful at best.

Actual divisiveness or perceived?

What I find perplexing is you of all people should applaud a decision to give an incentive to coloured people who are willing to work hard to make something of themselves. Something inline with the republican beliefs I imagine? There are hundreds of programs out there to help white people, and in my book there is nothing wrong with creating similar programs for coloured people. Do we really need redundancy to appease a select few? No. we don't.

You're just too focused on obama-bashing again, woody. Always gotta find something wrong with everything. It's made you look like a grumpy old man, always complaining about the same thing time and time again.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Feb 21, 2014 5:55 am

Would you mind, Ferny, to point out a few programs that specifically and only, help whites? And don't forget, it was the sounthern Democrats who tried everything in their power to keep their booted foot on the necks of black Americans. Why don't you look up which president sent troops to Little Rock to end school segregation (hint...it was not Kennedy, Carter, Clinton or Obama)

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Fri Feb 21, 2014 9:02 am

I'd like to hear a few of those myself.

(but, I won't hold my breath)

There is one (private) endowment I know of that was created specifically for poor white people. (and I also remember the uproar that it created)

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Feb 21, 2014 10:44 am

woodchip wrote:Would you mind, Ferny, to point out a few programs that specifically and only, help whites? And don't forget, it was the sounthern Democrats who tried everything in their power to keep their booted foot on the necks of black Americans. Why don't you look up which president sent troops to Little Rock to end school segregation (hint...it was not Kennedy, Carter, Clinton or Obama)

That is the problem with the reasoning employed by too many on the left.
They would sincerely answer that practically everything in our current system is a 'program' that favors whites.

The fact that the current system does not, by law, or by design, exclude non whites from its benefits and even has affirmative action and quotas to accelerate the equal access benefits is not a valid distinction to them! They still characterize the current system as bigoted by design and run by whites for whites.

Equality isn't equal access or equal opportunity for many of them. That isn't enough. Equality is a code word for something more vengeful.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Feb 21, 2014 12:53 pm

Will, if you don't think the current system still isn't heavily favoring whites(and white males more than females), you have your head in the sand. No one is suggesting vengeful programs to help address this. Most sane people realize that over time, this will continue to become less and less of an issue. Still, anyone who thinks targetted programs such as that laid out in the OP are a bad thing simply don't want to see the nation progress.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Feb 21, 2014 2:06 pm

callmeslick wrote:Will, if you don't think the current system still isn't heavily favoring whites(and white males more than females), you have your head in the sand. No one is suggesting vengeful programs to help address this. Most sane people realize that over time, this will continue to become less and less of an issue. Still, anyone who thinks targetted programs such as that laid out in the OP are a bad thing simply don't want to see the nation progress.

You misrepresent the point and the facts.
I DID NOT suggest the program was a bad thing. Perhaps you are a victim of your own rhetoric. You previously tried to portray me as being against it when in fact I was defending it.

As to saying no one is suggesting vengeful programs I have provided you links to House Resolution HR 40 as but one example of someone seeking more than equality...
But that is a tiny little crumb, go listen to the rhetoric of key black leaders and you can get an earful of vengeance is due agitation.

Is the current system benefitting whites more than blacks? Of course! We whites have a big head start and sheer numbers on top of that! Of course our support network is deep and wealthy!

But the naturally occurring support network is not something you can legislate into color blind equality....ever!
Humans are just like other mammals. We tend to flock together, seek those with the same appearance etc. that is undisputed scientific fact. You can't make humans have different instincts by way of legislation!

In fact you can get opposite results if you try to push that envelope to hard in a system that is built on the notion that we are all created equal and beyond that it is a free for all.
I know lots of people don't want to admit it but that is a very crude but acurate description of our foundation.

So when you take that in the context of a small unlike group of humans taking their freedom back and living amongst the larger group that enslaved them and treated them as Ted Nugent described the President, 'sub human and mongrel', (way to go Ted, you moron).
Well, expect the smaller group starting late against such a large belligerent group to have a lot of catching up to do in terms of building a similar support network.

That is the fly in the ointment, the monkey in the wrench...

The part of the system that can be legislated is very well corrected and monitored to a very detailed level.

On top of that we have included all sorts of, technically in-equal, but effective and justified assistance, subsidies, exemptions, incentives, etc. etc.
Like the program cited by this thread.

But you can't fast track some parts of it. It simply isn't possible. Only evolution of the culture moving in real time measured in generations....not 4 year election cycles....can get the results we need.

Demagoguing the disparity that can't be rapidly artificially corrected by saying 'it could be if not for those other guys who hate black people' just so you can harvest political gain or personal power is not only reversing progress made by sincere civil rights efforts it is also a dispicable tactic.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 12:27 am

woodchip wrote:Would you mind, Ferny, to point out a few programs that specifically and only, help whites? And since I don't have much of a case here, I'm just going to do my usual thing and blame democrats again.

Woody, you know I only acknowledge reasonable positions here, not kneejerk "it's all the dems fault!" ad hominems.

It's late where I am right now, so it's going to take me a while to get back to this. In the meantime, you want to take this one slick?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 7:05 am

Ferno wrote:
woodchip wrote:Would you mind, Ferny, to point out a few programs that specifically and only, help whites? And since I don't have much of a case here, I'm just going to do my usual thing and blame democrats again.

Woody, you know I only acknowledge reasonable positions here, not kneejerk "it's all the dems fault!" ad hominems.

It's late where I am right now, so it's going to take me a while to get back to this. In the meantime, you want to take this one slick?

Ferno, I simply pointed out one case where Dems were trying to keep segregation going and you interpret as a blanket statement. Nice you consider a simple question of white programs as a kneejerk response. Dodging?

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 8:20 am

not really wishing to take that specific wording, Fermo. My opinion is that while a LOT of programs inherently favor white people, and specifically well-off white people(farm and land abatements, tax shelters, etc), they are not race-specific in the wording because they need not be.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 11:39 am

That seems like quite a stretch, slick, in argument for programs which explicitly favor blacks.