Politics

[BobD]

Which race is most prejudiced or do we have equality there?

 

[IRISHDODGER]

You mean besides the obvious ones such as that we incarcerate more of them and they get disproportionately longer sentences then white individuals (which makes it pretty hard to be a father) for the same crime? About 20% longer in fact. How bout the fact that black individuals are more likely (3 to 5 times) to be arrested for drug offenses than white individuals even though they use drugs at about the same rate. How about hiring http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/13/business/wells-fargo-to-settle-mortgage-discrimination-charges.html?_r=0hernstudies.org/2013/09/bank-of-america-ordered-to-pay-22-million-for-raci.html"]http://www.southernstudies.org/2013/09/bank-of-america-ordered-to-pay-22-million-for-raci.html[/URL] How about home loans.

The truth is that there is lots of reasons why they have such a high rate of fatherless households but if you don't believe that racism (more likely to go to jail, get longer sentences, discrimination for jobs, loans, etc) plays a part then you are just ignoring the facts. It isn't the whole picture by any means but it is definitely a significant portion of it.

Wide Racial Divide in Sentencing - WSJ
US: Drug Arrests Skewed by Race | Human Rights Watch

Your avoiding the issue...again. Your emotions (guilt) want it to be about racism, but it just isn't. Fatherless rates adversely affect all races. I routinely facilitate courses in correctional institutions. One of the first questions I ask the inmates is, "How many of you were raised by your fathers?". Whether black, white or Latino, only a handful of hands are raised. So while the fatherless rate across races is too high, you can't just sit in your ivory tower and dismiss the abnormally high rate for blacks as "racism".

Growing up without a father is a far better forecaster of a boy’s future criminality than either race or poverty. Regardless of race, 70 percent of all young people in state reform institutions were raised in fatherless homes, as were 60 percent of rapists, 72 percent of adolescent murderers, and 70 percent of long-term prison inmates

When you're at your country club or university teachers' lounge, you can feel better about yourself by blaming the evil white guys, but that's a cowardly cop out. BTW, just b/c a man is incarcerated doesn't mean he's not a father or can't continue to be a father. Incarceration rates and stiffer penalties for blacks are not the reason for a 70+% fatherless rate. Your logic says that seven out of 10 black males that impregnate a female follows that up w/ being arrested and sentenced to life in prison b/c of the color of their skin and it's the flawed crinminal justice system that is responsible for a 70+% fatherless rate. So what's the excuse for the other incarcerated minorities? While I'm confident that incarcerated Latinos, Asians, etc are likely fatherless; their respective races don't have a similarly high fatherless rate overall.

 

[Bluto]

You do realize that racism doesn't just apply to the black race? History is based on facts, so please answer the fact why ONLY the black race has a 70+% fatherlessness rate.

No shit Sherlock. My dad came here as a Bracero from Mexico in the late 40's and I grew up in the farm labor movement of the late 60's and 70's, so yeah I know all about racism from first hand experience. Now that being said no two ethnic groups have faced the consistent, institutional and systemic racist polices right to the present as African Americans and Native Americans over the course of a couple hundred years and when you look at how that has completely dismantled the cultural institutions of both of those groups that will give you your answer. Government assistance programs such as food stamps is not the underlying problem and to try to frame it as such is complete bullshit.

 

[pkt77242]

Your avoiding the issue...again. Your emotions (guilt) want it to be about racism, but it just isn't. Fatherless rates adversely affect all races. I routinely facilitate courses in correctional institutions. One of the first questions I ask the inmates is, "How many of you were raised by your fathers?". Whether black, white or Latino, only a handful of hands are raised. So while the fatherless rate across races is too high, you can't just sit in your ivory tower and dismiss the abnormally high rate for blacks as "racism".



When you're at your country club or university teachers' lounge, you can feel better about yourself by blaming the evil white guys, but that's a cowardly cop out. BTW, just b/c a man is incarcerated doesn't mean he's not a father or can't continue to be a father. Incarceration rates and stiffer penalties for blacks are not the reason for a 70+% fatherless rate. Your logic says that seven out of 10 black males that impregnate a female follows that up w/ being arrested and sentenced to life in prison b/c of the color of their skin and it's the flawed crinminal justice system that is responsible for a 70+% fatherless rate. So what's the excuse for the other incarcerated minorities? While I'm confident that incarcerated Latinos, Asians, etc are likely fatherless; their respective races don't have a similarly high fatherless rate overall.

Actually you are avoiding the issue, I provided facts that make it difficult for a father to be involved with their child and you dismiss it without providing any facts just anecdotal evidence. Nice. There is no doubt that it is a cyclical issue but that doesn't mean that what I am saying is wrong. In fact since it is a cyclical issue it is very likely that the fatherless issue stems from a racism in some form. You have given exactly zero proof for your point except your own opinion. Nice try.

Also it doesn't have to explain 70+ (actually it is a little under 70+) it just has to explain the difference between blacks and other races. That is a huge fallacy on your part. How about you try posting some facts now. I have given you numbers to back up my opinion. Also if you read what I posted you would see that I said it was a significant portion of why the rate is so high, not that it was the only reason but you have bought into your own belief and so are ignoring any evidence contrary to it.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

Republican-led report debunks Benghazi accusations - CNN.com

 

[wizards8507]

How about home loans.

Home loans, are you kidding me? Manual underwriting is dead in 2014. Home loan approval is a computer formula, there's no possible way race could influence the process. Mortgage reps stick your income and credit score in a program and it spits out a yes or no.

 

[phgreek]

Home loans, are you kidding me? Manual underwriting is dead in 2014. Home loan approval is a computer formula, there's no possible way race could influence the process. Mortgage reps stick your income and credit score in a program and it spits out a yes or no.

well...there is the "self-employed" bias...

somehow being self-employed is a serious risk, but a guy working for a small business on a one year DoD contract isn't. I'd say lenders deserve to get smoked for doing stuff in as automated/detached a fashion as they do...except they never really pay for their stupidity...we do.

As for racial bias...eliminating the ability for that to happen is about the only good thing I can say about automated lending...

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Almost impossible to watch anything political on TV anymore without gagging.The shit that comes out of their mouths is ridiculous.

Right or wrong, republican or democrat, on this issue of immigration it's nice to see someone act with some brass balls.

Serious question for you and any other supports of the imperial president's action this week:

It's not like the immigration problem came up this year. It's been a problem for decades. What the hell was this president (with a Dem controlled House and Sentate) doing from 2008 to 2010? They could've passed anything they wanted with no resistance.

So are you saying the president since then has grown some brass balls and acted outside his authority? (again) Give me a break.

 

[pkt77242]

Home loans, are you kidding me? Manual underwriting is dead in 2014. Home loan approval is a computer formula, there's no possible way race could influence the process. Mortgage reps stick your income and credit score in a program and it spits out a yes or no.

Are you kidding me? Did you see the link I provided about Wells Fargo and how they put minorities into subprime loans even though they qualified for a standard loan. It wasn't this year but it was during the 2005-2008 period when most places had gone to computerized loans (and Wells Fargo for sure had).

 

[Buster Bluth]

Serious question for you and any other supports of the imperial president's action this week:

It's not like the immigration problem came up this year. It's been a problem for decades. What the hell was this president (with a Dem controlled House and Sentate) doing from 2008 to 2010? They could've passed anything they wanted with no resistance.

So are you saying the president since then has grown some brass balls and acted outside his authority? (again) Give me a break.

Seems to me like a move for legacy grasping and/or purely political 2016 chess move. I'm guessing more of the latter.

From a Dem POV, what better way to give the finger to the GOP than making immigration a central issue. They already lose every demographic outside of white males, might as well play that card strongly.

 

[IrishLax]

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/JUDSeb2zHQ0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[IrishinSyria]

Seems to me like a move for legacy grasping and/or purely political 2016 chess move. I'm guessing more of the latter.

From a Dem POV, what better way to give the finger to the GOP than making immigration a central issue. They already lose every demographic outside of white males, might as well play that card strongly.

I think your probably right.

A less cynical way of looking at it would be that it was something he thought was important and he thought he could get bipartisan support for so he held out as long as possible for congress to give him something to sign. When it became clear that that would never happen, he went ahead and did it his own, providing a modicum of stability for millions of immigrants and the employers who rely on them.

 

[NDRock]

Serious question for you and any other supports of the imperial president's action this week:

It's not like the immigration problem came up this year. It's been a problem for decades. What the hell was this president (with a Dem controlled House and Sentate) doing from 2008 to 2010? They could've passed anything they wanted with no resistance.

So are you saying the president since then has grown some brass balls and acted outside his authority? (again) Give me a break.

FYI, I'm not an Obama supporter (vote 3rd party) but I wondered the same thing as to why the Republicans didn't do anything on this topic from 2003-07 when they had Congress and the Presidency. The answer is that both parties have figured out it's better to do nothing and criticize the other side for their policies.

Look at Obamacare, it would have been better for the Dems to do nothing about the health care in this country. All it did was give the Reps ammo for this past election.

 

[magogian]

This whole issue of which party (that was in control of Congress) is to blame for inaction on immigration misses a major point.

Congressional inaction doesn't magically make an unconstitutional Presidential action constitutional. Congress is free to decide it doesn't or can't pass a bill on an issue. There is no "Congressional deadlock" exception to the Constitution.

Article I of the Constitution states: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States."

Article I doesn't include, "except when the President disagrees with Congressional action or inaction."

 

[IrishinSyria]

This whole issue of which party (that was in control of Congress) is to blame for inaction on immigration misses a major point.

Congressional inaction doesn't magically make an unconstitutional Presidential action constitutional. Congress is free to decide it doesn't or can't pass a bill on an issue. There is no "Congressional deadlock" exception to the Constitution.

Article I of the Constitution states: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States."

Article I doesn't include, "except when the President disagrees with Congressional action or inaction."

Right, except that this wasn't a legislative action. It's well established that the executive branch has the power/responsibility to enforce the legislation Congress passes. Part of that power is interpreting exactly how to go about doing so. If Congress doesn't like Obama's executive order as much as they say they don't, they can easily pass an amendment to the legislation clarifying their intentions. Of course, they won't do this, because it's better political theater to blame Obama than it is to force him to interpret a law in a manner that would damage the economy.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

FYI, I'm not an Obama supporter (vote 3rd party) but I wondered the same thing as to why the Republicans didn't do anything on this topic from 2003-07 when they had Congress and the Presidency. The answer is that both parties have figured out it's better to do nothing and criticize the other side for their policies.

Look at Obamacare, it would have been better for the Dems to do nothing about the health care in this country. All it did was give the Reps ammo for this past election.

I get what you're saying, but Republicans didn't have control during that time frame. They got their asses handed to them in the 2006 election and GW was a lame duck through 2008.

My issue here is that our president claims he did this because Congress wouldn't pass a bill. That's horse shit. If immigration were that important to him and the Dems, they would've passed it between 2008 and 2010 when they had House and Senate.

But it's more fun to do it now, the whimpy Repubs will do nothing, and anyone who opposes this "executive action" is racist and hates immigrants. Outstanding.

 

[pumpdog20]

People are confusing unconventional with unconstitutional. If it's truly unconstitutional, than I imagine the judicial branch to deem it as such, and thus nothing the president did would be actionable.

 

[NDRock]

I get what you're saying, but Republicans didn't have control during that time frame. They got their asses handed to them in the 2006 election and GW was a lame duck through 2008.

Well they had control for 4 years, guess you could call it from 02-06 then.

 

[kmoose]

Right, except that this wasn't a legislative action. It's well established that the executive branch has the power/responsibility to enforce the legislation Congress passes. Part of that power is interpreting exactly how to go about doing so. If Congress doesn't like Obama's executive order as much as they say they don't, they can easily pass an amendment to the legislation clarifying their intentions. Of course, they won't do this, because it's better political theater to blame Obama than it is to force him to interpret a law in a manner that would damage the economy.

Actually, in practicality, that is more left up to the judicial branch.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I get what you're saying, but Republicans didn't have control during that time frame. They got their asses handed to them in the 2006 election and GW was a lame duck through 2008.

My issue here is that our president claims he did this because Congress wouldn't pass a bill. That's horse shit. If immigration were that important to him and the Dems, they would've passed it between 2008 and 2010 when they had House and Senate.

This is too simplistic. The Democrats did not have the 60 votes in the Senate to bring it to a vote. You know this and so do I.

But it's more fun to do it now, the whimpy Repubs will do nothing, and anyone who opposes this "executive action" is racist and hates immigrants. Outstanding.

The Right wants to talk about the Constitutional aspects but doesn't want to talk about the actual policy. Americans don't support EOs, but they support the path to citizenship. So stop being so simplistic, the people who are being called out are the ones who oppose a path to citizenship.

The way I see it: there are like 15 million illegal immigrants here. Removing them from the US would be a bigger undertaking that Hitler removing the Jews from central Europe. Quite literally impossible considering the political correctness, the cost, the fact that many have legal children who would be orphaned. The mere thought of trying to round up 15 million people is just absurd. It's an impossibility. And...do we really want to eliminate 15 million consumers from this economy? It's not like they're living off the land. They're someone's costumers. 15 million, plus the 315 million Americans means illegal immigrants make up 4.5% of the people living here...what would the economic impacts be of removing those consumers from the economy? I would think it'd be pretty harmful to an economy dependent on consumer spending.

I think the wiser thing to do is to get them to pay taxes. Give them a reasonable path to citizenship if only because the government is truly unable to get rid of them.

If the Republicans had a brain they'd take what Obama did and compromise to include what they want done: restrictions on hiring illegals, better border control, etc. Instead they'll spot Democrats 12% of the voting block (Hispanics are 17%, Dems get 71% of votes) in general elections and wonder why they keep losing everyone but white males. That's what you get when you have a party catering primarily to xenophobic suburbanites and southerners.

 

[kmoose]

The way I see it: there are like 15 million illegal immigrants here. Removing them from the US would be a bigger undertaking that Hitler removing the Jews from central Europe. Quite literally impossible considering the political correctness, the cost, the fact that many have legal children who would be orphaned. The mere thought of trying to round up 15 million people is just absurd. It's an impossibility. And...do we really want to eliminate 15 million consumers from this economy? It's not like they're living off the land. They're someone's costumers. 15 million, plus the 315 million Americans means illegal immigrants make up 4.5% of the people living here...what would the economic impacts be of removing those consumers from the economy? I would think it'd be pretty harmful to an economy dependent on consumer spending.

I think the wiser thing to do is to get them to pay taxes. Give them a reasonable path to citizenship if only because the government is truly unable to get rid of them.

I don't really disagree with what you have stated above, but my concern is this: What is your plan to deal with the tens of millions MORE illegals who will come flooding across the border, when the word gets out that the US will not deport them?

 

[Buster Bluth]

I don't really disagree with what you have stated above, but my concern is this: What is your plan to deal with the tens of millions MORE illegals who will come flooding across the border, when the word gets out that the US will not deport them?

Well the US has done a pretty miserable job doing so thus far, and Mexico is plagued by warring drug cartels...so where are they? You know what I mean?

Is it that bad that, say, twenty million hard working people want to come here and become Americans? Can't we find a way to create a sensible path to citizenship that doesn't expose the American public to massive welfare costs? I thought more consumers was a good thing.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Actually, in practicality, that is more left up to the judicial branch.

Every now and then, the judicial branch will step in and say that the executive branch overstepped it's authority (e.g. Rapanos v. United States) but more often than not, Congress lays out general outlines and the executive branch takes cares of the details.

 

[kmoose]

Well the US has done a pretty miserable job doing so thus far, and Mexico is plagued by warring drug cartels...so where are they? You know what I mean?

Is it that bad that, say, twenty million hard working people want to come here and become Americans? Can't we find a way to create a sensible path to citizenship that doesn't expose the American public to massive welfare costs? I thought more consumers was a good thing.

And amnesty is a sensible path to citizenship? What is the plan for the extra tens of millions?

 

[BobD]

.......And what do we do when the real aliens get here?

 

[pkt77242]

.......And what do we do when the real aliens get here?

That is easy, Will Smith is saving our asses.

 

[zbikowski88]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>BREAKING: AP Source: Defense Secretary Hagel resigning from Obama Cabinet Monday.</p>— The Associated Press (@AP) <a href="https://twitter.com/AP/status/536887463604944896">November 24, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[phgreek]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>BREAKING: AP Source: Defense Secretary Hagel resigning from Obama Cabinet Monday.</p>— The Associated Press (@AP) <a href="https://twitter.com/AP/status/536887463604944896">November 24, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

...My Shocked Face.

You have previous Def. Secs abusing the Obama admin regarding handling conflicts ... and now this poor bastard has to stand there and take the spears for continued FAIL...I don't think so.

I actually respect Hagle more for separating himself from this steaming pile of crap. It is one thing to stay and fight to do the right thing if you think logic governs decision making...however when faced with the truth from past guys in your chair...you know change is not possible out of Mr. Obama...Just more FAIL you need to try to explain...

 

[IrishinSyria]

...My Shocked Face.

You have previous Def. Secs abusing the Obama admin regarding handling conflicts ... and now this poor bastard has to stand there and take the spears for continued FAIL...I don't think so.

I actually respect Hagle more for separating himself from this steaming pile of crap. It is one thing to stay and fight to do the right thing if you think logic governs decision making...however when faced with the truth from past guys in your chair...you know change is not possible out of Mr. Obama...Just more FAIL you need to try to explain...

You realize that Hagel is stepping down at the request of the administration, right?

 

[GoIrish41]

...My Shocked Face.

You have previous Def. Secs abusing the Obama admin regarding handling conflicts ... and now this poor bastard has to stand there and take the spears for continued FAIL...I don't think so.

I actually respect Hagle more for separating himself from this steaming pile of crap. It is one thing to stay and fight to do the right thing if you think logic governs decision making...however when faced with the truth from past guys in your chair...you know change is not possible out of Mr. Obama...Just more FAIL you need to try to explain...

He was asked to resign by Obama. He was brought on to oversee the drawdown of the military following the wars. With the emergence of ISIS, it was decided that he was not the right man to deal with that issue. A quote in one article I read earlier today from a source close to Hagel said that he was brought on to oversee the ending of the wars, not to start a new one. Your reaction seems to be of the knee-jerk, pile on Obama variety.