On Federal Taxation in the United States

Aug 29, 2014 23:14:25 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Although there are, indeed, certain physical differences among the races--these are easily identifiable in human skulls--I quite agree that the only race that really matters is the human race; and that includes all of us, equally.

I really am unaware of the pledge, which you say was signed by most 2012 GOP presidential candidates, that you claim "contained a statement implying that black children were better off being raised as slaves." So it is difficult for me to comment intelligently upon it.  Would you link to the actual pledge, please?

I am, however, aware of the late Saddam Hussein's claim of slant drilling by the Kuwaitis. I am simply unaware of any verification of this charge. Are you certain that it was true?   

Asking for your understanding that I lost all of my bookmarks from the time when the media was reporting on the NOM pledge I have only found a reference to it by searching the internet. Hope this link will suffice.

archives.politicususa.com/2011/07/28/black-families-gop-slavery.html

Once agian it doesn't state that black children were better off under slavery but does imply it. Of note the "Family Leader" that was mentioned was a NOM organization in Iowa similar to ProtectMarriage.com that funded Prop 8 was a NOM organization in California. The "Pledge" was generally referred to as the NOM pledge in the media because of the connection between Family Leader and NOM.

Am I "certain" that the claims of slant drilling by Kuwait were true? Not certain but it does seem very likely considering the ease of the technology to accomplish this. Of course only Iraq could verify it by measuring a drop in the oil reservers that would result from the extraction of the oil. It was a well know fact of where the oil was (i.e. just across the border from Kuwait in Iraq) and was easily accessible from Kuwait drilling sites. So I'd rate it as a "probably true" allegation.

Aug 30, 2014 23:08:16 GMT pjohns1873 said:

I can certainly understand your no longer having, at your fingertips, a direct link to something from about two tears ago. I have no reason to doubt that the words you supplied, however, were accurate:

I think the implication of the above statement is this:  Whereas the institution of slavery was utterly horrendous--and this ought never be downplayed!--children in that era actually were more likely to have the advantage of living in a two-parent family.  That does not--does not--necessarily imply that slavery, on balance, was a good thing.  (Who but an unreconstructed Ku Kluxer might believe that?)  It simply implies that if we have advanced so very far in one way--we no longer view slavery as a perfectly acceptable (if somewhat "peculiar") institution--it seems odd that we would have actually retrogressed so much in a tangential way.

I agree that Kuwait could have "accomplish[ed]" the slant drilling of which it was accused by (the late) Saddam Hussein.  And you could probably "accomplish" a bank robbery.  But I seriously doubt that you would ever be indicted for any such thing, absent compelling evidence that you actually did it.

Apparently many forget that the children of slaves were often the result of forced breeding programs or rape by either the slave owners or other slaves as well and even if the child's parents were both on the same plantation they often weren't together and in any case living as a slave with both parents was far worse than being raised by a single free parent. Black slave children weren't allowed to be educated or to marry, were often sold, the young girls raped, the young boy abused, and they lived a horrible life by any and all standards. To make any statement about slavery implying it was better in any manner over living as a free person is reprehensible. A black child left to grow up on the streets of America as a homeless orphan today is better off than any black child raised as a slave. To claim otherwise is to disparage freedom itself.

The claim made in the pledge, that was repeated by numerous Republican politicians, was highly insulting to every black person in America. Is it any wonder that blacks won't vote for Republicans?

You asked for my opinion on whether Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraq and I believe it was highly probably but I never claimed there was enough evidence for a criminal indictment or prosecution. The House of Sabah had no problem with stealing oil from the Kuwaiti people so why would it have any problem with stealing oil from Iraq?

Aug 31, 2014 20:39:54 GMT pjohns1873 said:

I thoroughly agree with your assessment of slavery as a "disparage[ment] of freedom itself." Even those so-called "good" slavemasters--i.e. those who did not beat their slaves regularly, due to some streak of sadism--were, nonetheless, depriving those fellow human beings of their life and liberty; without which, nothing else matters much.

It just seems ironic that, the family structure in many black communities nowadays is far worse off than it was in the days of slavery, in many instances.  (At least, whenever the husband and wife were not forcibly separated.) 

I suppose you are entitled to the "opinion" that Kuwait would have had "no problem...with stealing oil fron Iraq"; but that is not tantamount to actual evidence that it did so. 

There were no husband-wife relationships under slavery as marriage was illegal for slaves.

Sept 2, 2014 0:16:27 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Well, that does not appear to be entirely correct.

As one source puts it, slaves in the antebellum South "were unable to a large degree to enjoy the sacrament of marriage. While many slaves considered themselves man and wife, living together as such a rare few of them even had the benefit of a bonafide clergy, judge, etc...." (Bold added)

Here is the link:  louisvilledivorce.typepad.com/info/2007/02/black_history_m.html

Please note that this is emphatically not intended to try to downplay the utter horrendousness of the institution of slavery! 

So basically many were "shacking up together" (subject to sale by their masters) and their children could not attend school and Republicans believed that those children were better off than free black children today. Seriously? Sorry, there was nothing, absolutely nothing, that was better for a black slave child when compared to a free black child and any politician that implied otherwise was not just extremely ignorant but also highly offensive in their statements that reflect the most fundamental racial prejudice imaginable.

There is absolutely no redeeming rationalization for propagating the racism in the Marriage Pledge.  I'm somewhat appalled that you would make any effort to defend it.

Sept 2, 2014 23:13:41 GMT pjohns1873 said:

For starters, I would prefer not to characterize the practice of many slaves in the antebellum South as mere "shacking up," as that appears to imply a sort of moral disapproval (even if that is not what you actually intended); and I can see no moral component here, for those (many) who were denied the so-called "benefit of clergy."

And I certainly do not--repeat, do not--believe that enslavement is preferable to freedom, in any fashion.  I would imagine, however, that the point of the article was merely that it is ironic that many African-American children nowadays--who (thankfully!) are not burdened with the institution of slavery--are nonetheless born into single-parent families in disproportionate percentages; and this is certainly not good for their general social and economic prospects.   

And what I recognized was elitist white supremacy racism where some "holier-than-thou" social conservatives were making a moral judgement of blacks in the most racially insensitive of statements possible and what was even more despicable was that many of these same Republicans kept right on repeating the same mantra well after it was exposed for what it was. 

Where did these people get off condemning a single black woman with a child by implying her child would be better off as a slave? Didn't they see that's exactly what they were doing? Were they really that ignorant of what the statement in the "pledge" implied?

Were they so ignorant as to not realize that it was racial discrimination that denies economic opportunity for blacks that is the reason the "family unit" has been destroyed in much of the black community? If a young black man cannot get a job they can't afford to get married and raise a family and discrimination results in very high unemployment for young black men.

This is a huge problem with many of the white social conservatives of the Republican Party. They simply don't have a clue about what it's like to grow up as a black person in America that is subjected to racial prejudice and oppression in America. They often make statements like "Raise yourself up from your bootstraps" while ignoring the fact that anti-black racial prejudice places boot on the necks of black Americans. They've stereotyped blacks as being inferior instead of making an attempt to understand that it isn't that blacks are inferior but instead that they're treated as being inferior in America.

The negative stereotyping of single black women with children is just an example of what's wrong with "white social conservatives" in America. 

Racial prejudice and discrimination (that results in a disproportionate number of children growing up in single parent black households) "is certainly not good for their general social and economic prospects."

Republicans demographically express the highest level of explicit anti-black racial prejudice in America today and if they want to do something about the disproportionate number of black children being raised by single mothers they should be seriously addressing this anti-black racial prejudice instead of acting morally superior to blacks. Instead of addressing the problem of racial prejudice they simply deny it exists within the Republican Party and do nothing about it.  

Of course this is not unique to Republicans. I'm a libertarian and I see extensive anti-black racial prejudice being expressed by libertarians and we're not addressing that problem either. Over 50% of Americans express explicit anti-black racial prejudice and it is, in my opinion, the most serious problem in America today and we're not only not doing anything to reduce it but instead we've allowed it to grow.

Sorry for standing on a soapbox but I'm intolerant when it comes to racism and racial prejudice.  

Sept 3, 2014 20:29:22 GMT pjohns1873 said:

I, too, am "intolerant when it comes to racism."  But I believe we view the definition a bit differently.

You appear to view racism as equivalent to "oppression." I view it, instead, as horribly uncivil--and therefore, fundamentally wrong--but not  as "oppressi[ve]."  Jews in America, for instance, have suffered the sting of anti-Semitism--and it has been far worse in Europe and the Middle East--yet Jews have generally prospered.  In a material sense, at least, they have refused to be "oppress[ed]." 

And I believe that the breakup of the family unit in the black community is due, not to "oppression" by racist whites, but, rather, to the post-Great Society legacy of The Welfare State in America that has made it more profitable (in the short run, at least) for low-skill Americans--a rather high percentage of whom are black--to accept government "assistance" instead of taking low-paying jobs and hiring a babysitter. 

Again, let me join in your condemnation of racism--it is entirely indefensible!--but I think we have fundamentally different views as to whether specific social ills are the result of racism, or something else.     

The belief that "Jews have prospered" is also a racial stereotype that is highly innaccurate. Jews are neither more or less prosperous than whites and the belief they are more properous is erroneous. They're also not subjected to oppression based upon appearance as it's virtually impossible to identify Jewish ancestory by appearance. They are targets of hate crimes by extremist right-wing neo-Nazi hate groups but generally they are simply mixed with the general population and not oppressed. I've never heard of a case in America of "being pulled over for being Jewish" but we know that is all too common with blacks.  

While prejudice exists for both you simply can't compare anti-Semitism with anti-black racial prejudice. Anti-black racial prejudice affects every black person while anti-Semitism doesn't affect every Jew or even a significant percentage of Jews that overwhelmingly go about their daily lives unnoticed by society.

You make a false racial stereotype when you claim that a black person would rather sit at home and collect welfare as opposed to working (the "welfare mom" stereotype). This is propaganda being spread by racists and you've fallen for the propaganda.

It is, in many cases, simply too expensive to provide childcare for young children for a low income person. The average cost of childcare in the US for a 1-5 yo child is over $7,200/yr/child and can run up to $12,000/yr in some major cities. Based upon the federal minimum wage and the average cost of childcare for just one child a person working fulltime would only net about $3.20/hr not including the costs associated with working (i.e. it can easily cost $10 to $20 per day just to go to work). If they have two children they would actually lose money by working fulltime at a federal minimum wage job.

Of course many couldn't secure fulltime work and the fact there are no inner-city jobs for them makes it all but impossible for many to work at all. They don't own cars and commuting to suburban jobs, if they could get one which is statistically unlikely because of racial discrimination in employment, can take hours each way on public transportation assuming it's available and that increases their childcare costs significantly.  

White social conservatives tend to believe that blacks live under the same social and economic conditions as whites and that simply isn't true. This false stereotype that single black women sit at home because they're lazy and would rather live off of government welfare is the most insidious forms of racial stereotyping. The "black welfare mom" racial stereotype is one of the most harmful myths being spread by racist propaganda and I'm very surprised you've fallen for it.       

Sept 4, 2014 20:40:03 GMT pjohns1873 said:

First, let me just say that you have fundamentally misrepresented my views. My view is not--is not--that black people are more prone that white people are to accept welfare assistance.  Rather, my view--as I stated it--is merely this:  Many low-skill Americans--a disproportionate percentage of whom tend to be black--would prefer to accept "public assistance" (a.k.a. welfare), rather than accepting a low-paying job; and, for precisely the reasons you have listed, that makes very good sense in the short run.  In the long run, however, it deprives one from getting in on the ground level of some company, in the hopes of eventually working one's way up. 

By the way, are you suggesting that Jews in America should attempt to "pass" as white, thereby denying their fundamental identity?   

"Many" is an undefined term. Are you talking about 20% of those that collect welfare assistance, 10%, 5% or perhaps less than 1% of those collecting welfare assistance?

One of the misrepresented facts about welfare assistance spread by the racists is the "duration period" for a person collecting welfare which reflects the first day a person collects assistance and the last day but often this is not continuous. If a person collects 6 months of assistance in 1994 and then collects 6 months of assistance in 2014 the government lists them as having received assistance over a 20 year time span but they really only received assistance for one year. Are you aware of that fact?

The fact is that there are very few that don't work and sit on their butts and collect welfare for an extended period of years. It is an insignificant percentage and certainly not enough to base our welfare assistance policies on. That's a problem with those that use the "makers and takers" argument. They want to base welfare policies on the word "many" when, in fact, "many" is "very few" so their policies harm the vast majority of those in need. We have 40 million households receiving SNAP assistance from what I last read and they are overwhelmingly "working" Americans.

Anecodtally I learned yesterday that a "welfare mom" was working not just one, not even two, but three different part time jobs to try and earn a living and support her children. She's divorced and is working her butt off trying to get by and she still needs public assistance and probably will for several years into the future.

No, I don't suggest the Jew or anyone else should have to attempt to "pass as white" but racism based upon appearance characteristics is the most common form of racism.