Posted on 08/23/2013 7:55:15 AM PDT by chessplayer
As our dear friends at Twitchy observed, Neblett on Wednesday had some things to say about the black unemployment rate both nationally and in specific parts of the country.
Follower MojoMoe retweeted one saying "Blame slavery."
Neblett - who's actually a co-host of a nationally televised, weekday program on a so-called cable "news" network! - retweeted MojoMoe's pathetic comment and added, "That's obviously part of it."
Never mind that the 13th Amendment abolished slavery on December 6, 1865 almost 150 years ago.
Did I mention that this genius is a host on a nationally televised cable "news" network?
Oh, I’d fix the fathers too after doing the blood tests. They’d get snipped. But following my plan, in many cases society would be left with only one child for the single mothers to take care of rather than a large dissolute family from several different fathers. I don’t see anything but a radical solution changing the disastrous situation in the black community. Incredible rates of crime and poverty caused by people whose worthless lives are subsidized by tax-paying Americans. Enough is enough.
lol
wonder which of the neoyankees here this clown is
One tends to fight when fear is involved (fight of flight) the Slave states could not leave therefore flight was not an option.
There is a good LEGAL argument that the CSA or any state could succeed but when the State of South Carolina fired on Ft Sumter that was caucus belli.
Birmingham is mostly a post Civil War construct founded and developed by newly arrived immigrants from Northern England
Sorry we don’t agree. I’m 63. I’ve an ex-liberal who used to believe in the government solving societal problems (LBJ’s War On Poverty) when I was very young. I’ve seen all those anti-poverty programs fail miserably. As you know, they’ve compounded the problem rather than helped. Nothing is as permanent as a government program. Since the people involved will not voluntarily give up their counterproductive ways, it must be forced on them. But like I said, nobody would be forcibly sterilized. Only if they wanted to get on welfare.
Color included.
I read up on him when I first started seeing his name.
He was really envious of the stars in the rap and hip-hop community, going out of his way to take them down.
Not that I'm a rap/hip-hop aficionado, but he really did his best to make sure Tupac Shakur was not only convicted, but would have had a horrible time in prison. TN's reporting probably contributed to Tupac's murder.
He bragged about helping to make a Wu Tang Clan album a flop.
I think he had a show on the now-defunct Halogen (now Pivot-think Current & pMSNBC on steroids) network TN
We agree on the problem just not the solution.
A geneal lowring of benifits and a stricter and well workable acconting of the use of public assiatance would go a long way to solving this issue I think.
the “ebt” card was SUPPOSED to remove the second US currency (food stamps) but in actual use it has only made the system only slightly if at all more accountable. Anecdotally, watch in the check out line and see how many split purchases (SNAP/EBT) and then CASH are made.
The low income phone (lifeline) program is on par with the most corrupt and venal programs in the history of the union and should be removed. IF it must exist the phone should only be able to contact 911 or the equivalent for LIFE SAVING measures.
(/sarc)
Agreed in part, the founders could not solve all issues but tabling them till 1861 was not the best choice either.
That the DEMOCRAT party made the post civil war era attempts to set the slaves on the path to FULL economic parity is probably more to blame at this point than slavery itself.
Read the list of civil rights laws passed by the post war Republican congress as attempts to solve the issues (none stong enough or at least no enforced enough sadly)
WHoa....
The Founders did not impose slavery.
The imposition of slavery was done far away; the sale of the slaves conducted on these shores. The bottom line is that the Founders did not impose an institution which continued to exist after the Revolution, and though stopping it was discussed, that did not happen.
Still, the only difference such an early manumission would have produced in today's climate is that the institution being blamed for modern cultural failures would be another 80 years removed from the present.
If something which ceased 150 years ago can be blamed, what's a few more decades?
Yep. Plenty.
"....but when the State of South Carolina fired on Ft Sumter that was caucus belli."
Seems a more prudent approach would have been to deal with South Carolina's indiscretions solus.
Blacks would probably have a lot better record on employment if we only gave public assistance to what we used to call "the deserving poor". Paying able bodied people not to work is very seductive to people who don't want to work in the first place.
Any number of solutions MIGHT have been tried, but as a matter of historical not, when WAR is declared by ACTION the rebuttal is seldom one of WORDS.
True and the effect is quite colour blind as well.
I was “self unemployed” for a bit 25 years ago and one day I thought it is to easy to coast.. a week later I was a 40hour a week man and have been ever since.
The 3/5th person is about as imposed as it gets.
Also a good point. But it is presumed that slavery was the tipping point that started the move for secession. And if that is true then it is as likely that Lincoln purchasing all the slaves would have started a shooting war nonetheless.
I wouldn’t consider what they did as “tabling” the slavery issue at all. There was much debate and in fact they were able to win a victory against the pro-slave states via the 3/5th’s clause. With that clause, they lowered the represenation of pro-slave states when compared to anti-slave states and they also were able to get the pro-slave states to admit that their slaves were “men” as defined by the Declaration.
This set a heck of a foundation for the future abolotionist movement. In addition, they also gave us a founding document that allowed for the eventual abolition of slavery.
They were able to take it as far as was possible without losing half the colonies from adopting the constitution and bill of rights. It is rather amazing after all.
Well, at least until John Roberts declared it constitutional for the federal government to confiscate the ownership of my physical being.
Just a bit of insight into some of their views:
George Washington: “there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it.”
—Letter to Morris, April 12, 1786, in George Washington, A Collection, ed. W.B. Allen (Indianapolis: Liberty Classics, 1989), 319.
John Adams: “Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States…. I have, through my whole life, held the practice of slavery in …abhorrence.”
—Letter to Evans, June 8, 1819, in Selected Writings of John and John Quincy Adams ed. Adrienne Koch et al. (New York: Knopf, 1946), 209-10.
Benjamin Franklin: “Slavery is …an atrocious debasement of human nature.”
—”An Address to the Public from the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery” (1789), Benjamin Franklin, Writings ed. J.A. Leo Lemay (New York: Library of America, 1987), 1154.
Alexander Hamilton: “The laws of certain states …give an ownership in the service of negroes as personal property…. But being men, by the laws of God and nature, they were capable of acquiring liberty—and when the captor in war …thought fit to give them liberty, the gift was not only valid, but irrevocable.”
—Philo Camillus no. 2 (1795), in Papers of Alexander Hamilton, ed. Harold C. Syrett (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961-), 19:101-2.
James Madison: “We have seen the mere distinction of colour made in the most enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man.”
—Speech at Constitutional Convention, June 6, 1787, in Max Farrand, ed., Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1937), 1:135.
“The 3/5th person is about as imposed as it gets.”
This shows you have no understanding whatsoever of the time, nor of the founders intention. The 3/5th’s clause was a victory for the anti-slave position, not a diminishing of persons of a certain color. That all of the states adopted this clause, including the pro-slavery states, is proof of the accomplishment of the founders.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.