SmokeyDan
Well-Known Member
Idaho is a poor choice for any comparison because their population there is almost exclusively one race and incredibly small
Cash raised for Mo. cop surpasses Brown donations
- Thread starter sheskunk
- Start date
earnest_voice
Well-Known Member
we truly had no idea what you were capable of, especially with respect to your own self delusion
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
Unclebuck chose Idaho, he also copy and pasted some stats that embarrassed him.
Obviously he deleted it pronto.
What a drunken fool.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
someone else deleted that because i pointed out that you cite holocaust deniers, washere.
idaho is in the top 20 welfare recipient states.
not sure why that would embarrass me, since it supports my point.
go read up on some more holocaust deniers, washere.
SmokeyDan
Well-Known Member
I've not seen anyone even mention the holocaust here but you.
With what is all considered welfare in your links it is skewed against low population states.
The more people, the more efficient. The fewer people, the less efficient welfare is.
After all, it wasn't just dollars/people.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
You should be ashamed of posting this racist rant article belittling the plight of the hard-working black Americans and portraying them as lazy ne'er-do-wells.Not much has changed since then. In an Aug. 31 blog post, the nonpartisan Pew Research Center wrote that “the unemployment rate for blacks has averaged about 2.2 times that for whites” since 1954 — which is the earliest that BLS has reliable unemployment data by race.
The current 12.5 percent unemployment rate for blacks is unquestionably high. But by historical standards the current black unemployment rate is consistent with the average from 1972 to 2004, and the ratio of black-to-white unemployment rates is actually below the historical average.
We looked at the average rate of unemployment for blacks and whites in the first 58 months of the last four presidents who were reelected to a second term: Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. (We averaged the monthly unemployment rates from the first February in office to the first November in their second term.)
Obama had the lowest average ratio (1.9), followed by Bush (2.1), Clinton (2.2), and Reagan (2.3).
Paul was talking about the November unemployment rates and ratio — not the 58-month average unemployment rate and ratio — but even by that measure the black-to-white unemployment ratio is lower under Obama (2) than it was under Reagan (2.6), Clinton (2.4) and Bush (2.5) at this point in their second terms.
Paul also said that the black unemployment rate “hasn’t budged” under Obama, but it has. It reached a high of 16.8 percent in March 2010 and dropped to a low of 12.5 percent in November — lower than the 12.7 percent rate when Obama took office. That wasn’t the case for two of his recent predecessors, Reagan and Bush.
Under Reagan, the black unemployment rate went up a full percentage point from 14.6 percent in January 1981 to 15.6 percent in November 1985 — even as the white unemployment rate fell from 6.7 percent to 5.9 percent.
Under Bush, the rates went up for both blacks and whites. But it went up faster for blacks, from 8.2 percent in January 2001 to 10.6 percent in November 2005 — the biggest increase in the black unemployment rate of any of the four presidents at that point in their second terms. The white unemployment rate went up more than a half percentage point, from 3.6 percent to 4.3 percent.
(We did not compare Obama to George H.W. Bush, since he did not serve two terms. But, for the record, the average black unemployment rate was 12.4 during the elder Bush’s four years in office, while the white rate was 5.5 percent. That’s an average black-to-white ratio of 2.3 to 1 — identical to the historical average from 1972 to 2004.)
Few would disagree with Paul that the black unemployment rate is unacceptably high and he is entitled to his opinion about the president’s policies. But to blame Obama for the black unemployment rate being double the white rate ignores decades of data and fails to put this president in historical context.
– Eugene Kiely
Categories: The Wire
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
really? you say blacks are "worthy of fear and distrust" and are "inclined to criminality".
have a fucking stroke, red? or just too much meth? or not enough meth?
ASMALLVOICE
Well-Known Member
Poor raging alcoholic bucky, got so many hate irons in the fire, he is bound to burn his own ass from time to time.
what a miserable, bitter coward you are bucky.
I bet his wife hangs her head in shame on a regular basis watching him rant in front of his preferred square headed bitch.
Keep up the hate work bucky, your damn good at it......................LMAO!!!
Peace
Asmallvoice
what a miserable, bitter coward you are bucky.
I bet his wife hangs her head in shame on a regular basis watching him rant in front of his preferred square headed bitch.
Keep up the hate work bucky, your damn good at it......................LMAO!!!
Peace
Asmallvoice
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
is the multi-level irony of your post lost on you?
ASMALLVOICE
Well-Known Member
oh cmon, that's all you got.
Lets see that hate bubble out. I love it, just be careful you don't burn yourself, AGAIN...lol
Peace
Asmallvoice
earnest_voice
Well-Known Member
"PEACE"
a small "PENIS"
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
white and on welfare
Votes republican
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
Looks to me the democrats have a lock on the low income voters.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/13/1291314/-FLYERS-101-Use-If-Jesus-Was-A-_-Red-State-_-Republican-to-Burn-Em-Down-They-ve-Earned-It
SmokeyDan
Well-Known Member
Does anyone else think that being on public assistance programs, other than social security and Medicare ought to preclude that individual and perhaps other members of that person's household from voting?
I am of a strong opinion that the founders got it right when they set the rules for elections to not be universal suffrage.
I would not deny the vote based on sex, race, or other factors as they did.
But I quite like their 25 year old land owning requirement.
I think modern law should replace land owner with tax payer. More specifically one who does not get money from government hand outs.
I am of a strong opinion that the founders got it right when they set the rules for elections to not be universal suffrage.
I would not deny the vote based on sex, race, or other factors as they did.
But I quite like their 25 year old land owning requirement.
I think modern law should replace land owner with tax payer. More specifically one who does not get money from government hand outs.
TakeTheTicket
Well-Known Member
I like the idea of having to prove that you paid taxes and didn't receive government support. I would like this idea even better if it could somehow be applied to corporations.
Although property tax is the biggest fucking scam ever. PAYING FOR SHIT YOU ALREADY OWN. Get that revenue from increased income tax or sales tax in my opinion.
Julius Caesar
Active Member
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Awesome.
Another way to get rid of those social security republican voting senior citizens