U.S. Presidential says black children had a more stable family life under slavery

Yahew · 10-07-2011 09:16PM

My own feeling is that peasant families were more stable too, but I - a man whose ancestors are certainly peasants - would prefer to be richer meself.

mikemac · 10-07-2011 09:17PM

Sink The Banana wrote: »

That's a bit hard to read look at the wiki link ,republicans historically have started wars and got America into debt.

WW1 Wilson
WW2 Roosevelt
Korea Truman (even if this a United Nations operation)
Vietnam Kennedy and Johnson
The farce of Operation Eagle Claw under Carter
All Democrats

Is it only the last twenty years you're looking at?

Biggins · 10-07-2011 09:18PM

Does anyone of intelligence actually bother to vet their speeches before they go off on such daftness?
If they do, they ought to be sacked.

strobe · 10-07-2011 09:19PM

Sink The Banana wrote: »

Republicans have always been crazy with money historically.

U.S. president Party Term years Start debt/GDP End debt/GDP Increase debt ($T) Increase debt/GDP
(in percentage points) House Control
(with # if
split during term) Senate Control
(with # if
split during term)
Roosevelt/Truman D 1945–1949 117.5% 93.1% -0.01 -24.4% 79th D, 80th R 79th D, 80th R
Harry Truman D 1949–1953 93.1% 71.4% 0.01 -21.7% D D
Dwight Eisenhower R 1953–1957 71.4% 60.4% 0.01 -11.0% 83rd R, 84th D 83rd R, 84th D
Dwight Eisenhower R 1957–1961 60.4% 55.2% 0.02 -5.2% D D
Kennedy/Johnson D 1961–1965 55.2% 46.9% 0.03 -8.3% D D
Lyndon Johnson D 1965–1969 46.9% 38.6% 0.04 -8.3% D D
Richard Nixon R 1969–1973 38.6% 35.6% 0.10 -3.0% D D
Nixon/Ford R 1973–1977 35.6% 35.8% 0.24 +0.2% D D
Jimmy Carter D 1977–1981 35.8% 32.5% 0.22 -3.3% D D
Ronald Reagan R 1981–1985 32.5% 43.8% 0.68 +11.3% D R
Ronald Reagan R 1985–1989 43.8% 53.1% 0.75 +9.3% D 99th R, 100th D
George H. W. Bush R 1989–1993 53.1% 66.1% 1.14 +13.0% D D
Bill Clinton D 1993–1997 66.1% 65.4% 0.73 -0.7% 103rd D, 104th R 103rd D, 104th R
Bill Clinton D 1997–2001 65.4% 56.4% 0.29 -9.0% R R
George W. Bush R 2001–2005 56.4% 63.5% 1.71 +7.1% R 107th Split, 108 R
George W. Bush R 2005–2009 63.5% 84.2% 3.97 +20.7% 109th R, 110th D 109th R, 110th D
Barack Obama
D 2009– 84.2% 93.2% (2010) 1.65 (2010) +9.0% (2010) 111th D, 112th R D
(Source: CBO Historical Budget Page and Whitehouse FY 2012 Budget - Table 7.1 Federal Debt at the End of Year PDF, Excel, Senate.gov)

That's a bit hard to read look at the wiki link ,republicans historically have started wars and got America into debt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

fnord. That's because Republicans are the thin edge of the wedge. They are the cartoon badies brought in when people need to be murdered, the proles need to be taken down a notch and liberties need to be restricted. Then once that has been accomplished the Democrats get a spin in order to placate the masses and intelligentsia. fnord.

iPlop · 10-07-2011 09:22PM

strobe wrote: »

fnord. That's because Republicans are the thin edge of the wedge. They are the cartoon badies brought in when people need to be murdered and the proles need to be taken down a notch and then once that has been accomplished the Democrats get a spin in order to placate the masses and intelligentsia. fnord.

I agree and 9/11 would not have happened if democrats were in power, but that's a different story..

My name is URL · 10-07-2011 09:27PM

If this was just a comment made in passing then it wouldn't seem quite as bad as it does, but your one has a lot of form in making silly claims/comments. She also stated that a recent healthcare reform bill may allow kids to have abortions while at school without their parent's knowledge.

She's batshit crazy just about intelligent enough to realise that she needs to appeal to stupid people.

Chuck Stone · 10-07-2011 09:39PM

JohnMc1 wrote: »

She is right. Welfare has all but destroyed the nuclear family. When a single Mother can get an extra 1000 a head, all her utilities and rent paid for and eventually moved into a bigger place all on the tax payer you can see why the traditional family concept is practically dead.

This is a lazy (ideologically informed) analysis of a complex problem.

jhegarty · 10-07-2011 09:40PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

This is a lazy (ideologically informed) analysis of a complex problem.

Your going to do the complex analysis ?

hatrickpatrick · 10-07-2011 09:48PM

To those arguing genuinely about the content, it's highly unlikely that they could have had a stable family life when they were viewed as property. Piss off your owners or just end up with particularly sh*tty people as owners and a slave could (legally, I'd imagine) expect an incredible amount of abuse, sexual and otherwise.

Chuck Stone · 10-07-2011 09:50PM

jhegarty wrote: »

Your going to do the complex analysis ?

Too hungover.

I'm probably not smart enough to know everything that contributes to black people having problems.

I just know enough to know that blaming welfare alone is lazy.

JohnMc1 · 10-07-2011 09:53PM

craggles wrote: »

JohnMc1 wrote: »

She is right. Welfare has all but destroyed the nuclear family. When a single Mother can get an extra 1000 a head, all her utilities and rent paid for and eventually moved into a bigger place all on the tax payer you can see why the traditional family concept is practically dead.

Fail to see how this somehow makes their current situation worse than when they were enslaved.

Because they went from being by landowners to being for all intents and purposes owned the Govt. They have (and whites and others who are welfare lifers) them hooked on these entitlements like it heroin.

aligator_am · 10-07-2011 09:56PM

My name is URL wrote: »

Are there any sane Republicans in the US..? Seriously..

Yep, Ron Paul.

dlofnep · 10-07-2011 10:00PM

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Because they went from being by landowners to being for all intents and purposes owned the Govt. They have (and whites and others who are welfare lifers) them hooked on these entitlements like it heroin.

Do you have an issue with any form of welfare, or is it just welfare fraud?

aligator_am · 10-07-2011 10:00PM

orourkeda wrote: »

Yes. They're called democrats.

Are you serious? Obama is George W Bush 2.0, where's the change you can believe in?

He's a lier, but a brilliant campaigner, both parties currently are mostly bad as each other IMO.

Kevin Duffy · 10-07-2011 10:04PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

None of the posters, as yet, have addressed the question of if she's right or not.

There's a difference between liberty, equality, and stability. Now, personally, I would prefer to be free, equal, and unstable, but the amount of broken or dysfunctional black families in the US today is rather high. You can argue that it's a function of societal stratification, and that she may be drawing a false conclusion (or that there is no conclusion that she's drawing at all), but you can't just go at her for making a comment about something being true back in the slavery days.

The question is not over if she is being offensive (the statement itself is not), or if she is wrong (which she may not be, and nobody is addressing), but really over if you take her statement at face value as true, "so what?" What is the proposed solution to the decline in familial stability, other than just saying that it's worse now than it used to be, and "what has Obama's administration done to make it worse?" That's more important, and a little depressing that nobody has asked it instead of making reflex comments.

NTM

Are you for real? Of course the statment is offensive. It's also not right and is just a pathetic attempt to score a point against Obama, not some clever analysis of history.

The statement's stupidity come from the fact that anyone would even pretend there was some benefit in slavery for the slaves. The only way to make it worse would have been to add that slaves got free travel from Africa, got to learn a new language and had 100% employment, ergo it was all rather good for them.

amacachi · 10-07-2011 10:06PM

Plenty of righteous indignation on this thread anyway.:rolleyes: Factually I can see little issue with what she said but it was a very stupid thing to say and her point is more than off the radar.

craggles · 10-07-2011 10:07PM

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Because they went from being by landowners to being for all intents and purposes owned the Govt. They have (and whites and others who are welfare lifers) them hooked on these entitlements like it heroin.

And that's worse than slavery and everything that came with it?

Cop on.

amacachi · 10-07-2011 10:08PM

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

The statement's stupidity come from the fact that anyone would even pretend there was some benefit in slavery for the slaves. The only way to make it worse would have been to add that slaves got free travel from Africa, got to learn a new language and had 100% employment, ergo it was all rather good for them.

Oddly enough any "benefits" there were for the slaves would be called benefits only under the kind of government/state that the republicans are supposed to loathe.

southsiderosie · 10-07-2011 10:34PM

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Because they went from being by landowners to being for all intents and purposes owned the Govt. They have (and whites and others who are welfare lifers) them hooked on these entitlements like it heroin.

Not all blacks receive benefits. The federal government does not take children away and sell them. Welfare officers don't rape women. Comparisons between slavery and the modern welfare state are absurd.

amacachi wrote: »

Plenty of righteous indignation on this thread anyway.:rolleyes: Factually I can see little issue with what she said but it was a very stupid thing to say and her point is more than off the radar.

So factually you think black families were better off when they were owned by other people and could be split up and sold for profit than they are today?

The entire premise of the statement is beyond offensive.

amacachi · 10-07-2011 10:44PM

southsiderosie wrote: »

So factually you think black families were better off when they were owned by other people and could be split up and sold for profit than they are today?

The entire premise of the statement is beyond offensive.

Seriously? Really? Factually the family unit was more likely to stay intact back then. That's generally seen as a good thing. Obviously the rest of the implications of slavery more than balance out that one benefit.
Factually it's correct but of course I'm not suggesting black people in the US were better off back then.

aligator_am · 10-07-2011 10:51PM

This woman and her husband run a clinic designed to turn gay people straight, God is with them apparently.

LenaClaire · 10-07-2011 10:55PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

None of the posters, as yet, have addressed the question of if she's right or not.

There's a difference between liberty, equality, and stability. Now, personally, I would prefer to be free, equal, and unstable, but the amount of broken or dysfunctional black families in the US today is rather high. You can argue that it's a function of societal stratification, and that she may be drawing a false conclusion (or that there is no conclusion that she's drawing at all), but you can't just go at her for making a comment about something being true back in the slavery days.

The question is not over if she is being offensive (the statement itself is not), or if she is wrong (which she may not be, and nobody is addressing), but really over if you take her statement at face value as true, "so what?" What is the proposed solution to the decline in familial stability, other than just saying that it's worse now than it used to be, and "what has Obama's administration done to make it worse?" That's more important, and a little depressing that nobody has asked it instead of making reflex comments.

NTM

Are you serious? Black men and women could not even legally get married since they were owned. Your husband, wife and children could be sold to a different owner at any time. Your wife could be forced to sleep with any white male in the vicinity and if you tried to do anything about it you would by lynched. And this is a healthier family relationship that what there is now??

Where do you think the dysfunction in African American families came from in the first place? If the family unit is repeatedly broken over and over again, you take away all concept of familial love and recognition and then one day go...whoops.. our bad.. now go back and figure out how to live a normal life. But not really because we are going to keep oppressing you even though you are not owned anymore.

Yes, there are issues in that need to be discussed but to imply that things were better under slavery conditions is just absurd.

southsiderosie · 10-07-2011 10:56PM

amacachi wrote: »

Seriously? Really? Factually the family unit was more likely to stay intact back then. That's generally seen as a good thing. Obviously the rest of the implications of slavery more than balance out that one benefit.
Factually it's correct but of course I'm not suggesting black people in the US were better off back then.

Considering that 'family units' often consisted of children who were the product of rape and partners who needed permission to marry and could be sold at will, I would beg to differ with your interpretation of that particularly sorry period of American history.

amacachi · 10-07-2011 11:00PM

southsiderosie wrote: »

Considering that 'family units' often consisted of children who were the product of rape and partners who needed permission to marry and could be sold at will, I would beg to differ with your interpretation of that particularly sorry period of American history.

Cool beans.

KeithAFC · 10-07-2011 11:02PM

It is typical of Republicans. Typical BS.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 10-07-2011 11:03PM

Putting aside the obvious idiocy of the statement... have things actually gotten worse for Black families under Obama - say compared to the previous 8 years of republican rule under Bush?

Seems a bit like sideshow bob's election campaign "the current mayor released dangerous criminal sideshow bob - how can you trust him? vote sideshow bob instead"

Tomtata · 10-07-2011 11:06PM

Stopped reading when I got to,

"signed a Christian conservative pledge"

What has religion got to do with Politics?

miss no stars · 10-07-2011 11:08PM

out of curiosity i'd like to know if the same/economically-normalised decline in familial stability can be seen for white children. and since when was a violent and dysfunctional two parent family automatically more stable than a functional, loving and caring single parent family.

gotta love US elections, always makes for some funnies.

southsiderosie · 10-07-2011 11:08PM

Tomtata wrote: »

Stopped reading when I got to,

"signed a Christian conservative pledge"

What has religion got to do with Politics?

Um, is this your first exposure to American politics?

miss no stars · 10-07-2011 11:09PM

Tomtata wrote: »

Stopped reading when I got to,

"signed a Christian conservative pledge"

What has religion got to do with Politics?

a lot

(sure wasn't bertie a grand catholic? never got divorced!)

U.S. Presidential says black children had a more stable family life under slavery

Comments