New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

President Johnson and civil rights act

EatTheRich

President
This doesn't make sense. A decline in births to married women doesn't increase births to unmarried women.
No, but if fewer married women are giving birth, then the percentage of children born to single women is going to be higher.

In 1970, there were (officially) about 572,000 babies born to Black mothers. 37.5% of them (about 215,000) were born to the roughly 2.3 million unmarried Black women of childbearing age, for a birthrate of 95.5 per 1000 unmarried Black women. 62.5% of them (about 358,000) were born to the 2.7 million married Black women of childbearing age, for a birthrate of 132.6 per 1000 married Black women.

In 2010, there were (officially) about 436,000 babies born to Black mothers. 72.1% of them (about 315,000) were born to the roughly 4.9 million unmarried Black women of childbearing age, for a birthrate of 65.3 per 1000 unmarried Black women (a 42% decline since 1970). 27.9% of them (about 121,000) were born to the 1.9 million married Black women of childbearing age, for a birthrate of 63.7 per 1000 married Black women (a 52% decline since 1970).

So although 40% fewer unmarried Black women are having babies, the percentage of Black babies born to unmarried mothers has risen, because the birthrate for married Black women has fallen even more.
 

EatTheRich

President
A lot of blacks who originally came to this country were slaves, so that limited their ability to help themselves a great deal.

Despite that fact, there are more poor whites in the US than blacks, and they were born learning the language. They cry about being poor, sure, but many of their white brothers don't want too hear it--they're fixated on the blacks.

I say attack the roots of inequity at its source. I say, "Screw Affirmative Action and create a nationwide program in its stead meant to improve the lives of the poor regardless of race."
I think affirmative action is needed to unite the poor by striking at the race and sex discrimination that divides us.
 

EatTheRich

President
I don't care that Blacks only make up 13% of the population, is that supposed to make it right. When upward to 60% of that 213% have unwed babies there is a huge culture problem. Affirmative action itself discriminates so does two wrongs make a right. It all needs to end now, its been over 50 years.
Only 29% of Black households are headed by single mothers. At any rate, the problem is not with single women having children, it is with a sexist social structure that punishes a woman and her children when she doesn't surrender herself sexually to a man.
 
Last edited:

EatTheRich

President
The small percentage of Blacks 13% account for 50 or more of the prison population, they are the ones doing the crimes. The percentage of them living on welfare is huge. The drop out of school at 50 % or higher and are unemployable. This is costing a fortune in government costs, I resent so much of my tax dollar going to a specific group of people that live like animals.
Actually, most Blacks in prison are there for drug crimes, because Blacks are far more likely to be imprisoned for drug crimes, even though whites are more likely to actually use illegal drugs.

The percentage of working-age Black adults receiving cash benefits from the government is not "huge"--it is less than 2%. The Black dropout rate is 8%--and in fact Black college graduates are less likely to get jobs than white high school graduates, not because of inferior education, but because of racism.

"Welfare" under the TANF program amounts to less than 0.2% of the federal budget, or $1 out of every $500 you pay in taxes, and the majority of it goes to white people.

The problem with racists is that they know so many things about Black people that just aren't so.
 
Last edited:

gigi

Mayor
No, but if fewer married women are giving birth, then the percentage of children born to single women is going to be higher.

In 1970, there were (officially) about 572,000 babies born to Black mothers. 37.5% of them (about 215,000) were born to the roughly 2.3 million unmarried Black women of childbearing age, for a birthrate of 95.5 per 1000 unmarried Black women. 62.5% of them (about 358,000) were born to the 2.7 million married Black women of childbearing age, for a birthrate of 132.6 per 1000 married Black women.

In 2010, there were (officially) about 436,000 babies born to Black mothers. 72.1% of them (about 315,000) were born to the roughly 4.9 million unmarried Black women of childbearing age, for a birthrate of 65.3 per 1000 unmarried Black women (a 42% decline since 1970). 27.9% of them (about 121,000) were born to the 1.9 million married Black women of childbearing age, for a birthrate of 63.7 per 1000 married Black women (a 52% decline since 1970).

So although 40% fewer unmarried Black women are having babies, the percentage of Black babies born to unmarried mothers has risen, because the birthrate for married Black women has fallen even more.
No.
If fewer married women are giving birth, the percentage of single women giving birth does not increase, unless more single women become pregnant and give birth. That is completely independent of what decisions the married women make.
You're approaching this as if we begin with a given number of babies and have to assign them to single or married mothers, with the stipulation that less married women are giving birth. You're just cooking a number.

Now, you don't offer a source for your figures. And it'd be nice to see one. But even without, the numbers you show don't support your conclusion in any way, shape, or form.
If in 1970 37.5% percent of all black children born were born to single mothers, and in 2010 72.1% of children born were born to single mothers, that shows a sharp increase in the birth rate among single women that has nothing to do with the decisions the married ones make.
 

gigi

Mayor
Only 29% of Black households are headed by single mothers. At any rate, the problem is not with single women having children, it is with a sexist social structure that punishes a woman and her children when she doesn't surrender herself sexually to a man.
No, the problem is with fathers who do not support their children, and that epidemic runs across all races in America.... and with liberal policies that excuse fathers and replace them with checks.

Outside of cases of rape and artificial insemination, each human being on the planet is proof that two people....not just a woman..."surrendered" themselves sexually to each other.
Women who don't want to be with the fathers of their children anymore should not have to continue to "surrender themselves sexually" to these men. But that only becomes necessary when the liberal inspired policies that let fathers off the hook make a woman feel like she has to make nice on a man she doesn't love just to keep him WANTING to keep himself and his paycheck within reach.

Men are NOT held accountable for their children...not the way women are. And when people complain about that fact and suggest that we drag these deadbeats back to reality and make them support their kids instead of making women reliant on the state, they're called sexist and accused of punishing women.
Only in the liberal mind does making fathers respect their families equate to punishing women.

The liberal ideology has done a helluva hack job on the family.
 

EatTheRich

President
No.
If fewer married women are giving birth, the percentage of single women giving birth does not increase, unless more single women become pregnant and give birth. That is completely independent of what decisions the married women make.
You're approaching this as if we begin with a given number of babies and have to assign them to single or married mothers, with the stipulation that less married women are giving birth. You're just cooking a number.

Now, you don't offer a source for your figures. And it'd be nice to see one. But even without, the numbers you show don't support your conclusion in any way, shape, or form.
If in 1970 37.5% percent of all black children born were born to single mothers, and in 2010 72.1% of children born were born to single mothers, that shows a sharp increase in the birth rate among single women that has nothing to do with the decisions the married ones make.
The point is that the percentage of single Black women giving birth did NOT increase. In fact, it decreased by over 40%. What increased was the percentage of Black mothers who were single. You are confusing these two different numbers.

You seem to be having some trouble with the math, so let's use simplified numbers so hopefully you can follow along. Let's say that in 1970, 2 single Black women and 8 married Black women have babies (and of course they have only one baby each). Then, 20% of the babies will be born to single Black women. Let's say that in 2010, the population has stayed the same size, but only 1 single Black woman has a baby, and no married Black women have babies. Then, even though there will only be half as many babies born to single Black women, 100% of the babies who are born are born to single Black women. Do you see how this works, and how the principle is still the same if you plug the real numbers back in?

Here are the sources for those numbers btw:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2011/007.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr62/nvsr62_09.pdf
 

EatTheRich

President
No, the problem is with fathers who do not support their children, and that epidemic runs across all races in America.... and with liberal policies that excuse fathers and replace them with checks.

Outside of cases of rape and artificial insemination, each human being on the planet is proof that two people....not just a woman..."surrendered" themselves sexually to each other.
Women who don't want to be with the fathers of their children anymore should not have to continue to "surrender themselves sexually" to these men. But that only becomes necessary when the liberal inspired policies that let fathers off the hook make a woman feel like she has to make nice on a man she doesn't love just to keep him WANTING to keep himself and his paycheck within reach.

Men are NOT held accountable for their children...not the way women are. And when people complain about that fact and suggest that we drag these deadbeats back to reality and make them support their kids instead of making women reliant on the state, they're called sexist and accused of punishing women.
Only in the liberal mind does making fathers respect their families equate to punishing women.

The liberal ideology has done a helluva hack job on the family.
Pregnancy and childbirth aside, the family in and of itself is the main thing keeping men from being held accountable for children the way women are. Replacing it with public creches and schools as the main source of socialization for children would be a major stride toward sex equality.
 

Jen

Senator
.
In 1964 President Johnson he sign civil rights act. It was President Kennedy that did the work for this when he is in office. He meet with civil rights groups and give a speech on this before he die. When President Johnson he get in office, do you think he want to complete this for memory of President Kennedy or did he believe for himself this is best for America

.
President Johnson was a racist, purely and simply.
I know people who knew him personally.
It is what it is.
 

gigi

Mayor
The point is that the percentage of single Black women giving birth did NOT increase. In fact, it decreased by over 40%. What increased was the percentage of Black mothers who were single. You are confusing these two different numbers.

You seem to be having some trouble with the math, so let's use simplified numbers so hopefully you can follow along. Let's say that in 1970, 2 single Black women and 8 married Black women have babies (and of course they have only one baby each). Then, 20% of the babies will be born to single Black women. Let's say that in 2010, the population has stayed the same size, but only 1 single Black woman has a baby, and no married Black women have babies. Then, even though there will only be half as many babies born to single Black women, 100% of the babies who are born are born to single Black women. Do you see how this works, and how the principle is still the same if you plug the real numbers back in?

Here are the sources for those numbers btw:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2011/007.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr62/nvsr62_09.pdf
I appreciate the dumbing down but I got what you were saying...however, you're now making a different stipulation.
So I should say to you that the percentage of single parent black households has increased instead?
Okay, fine. So why is that? Some folks here are only too eager to lay some BS down about traits and tendencies indemic to ethnicity. But why do you think it is? Why do you think that there are so many single parents, particularly black families, in the U.S. today?
 

gigi

Mayor
Pregnancy and childbirth aside, the family in and of itself is the main thing keeping men from being held accountable for children the way women are. Replacing it with public creches and schools as the main source of socialization for children would be a major stride toward sex equality.


You're looking for a bandaid fix to a chronic problem. And though I really don't intend to insult you, I am inclined to say....that's the liberal way: Take a trend and legislate, pontificate, grow your solutions around the trend so the trend can go on while the problems it causes,at face value, look to be solved, until the bleeding starts in again even worse down the road.

Family is not the problem. Family doesn't need to be replaced with public creches and schools as the main source of indoctrination. That's so Brave New World. I'm getting the impression you're impatient for society to develop into what YOU think we should be and you'd like to move it along.
We talk about the liberal agenda to separate families, and the way they manipulate the human condition for their own agenda, and liberals say we're crazy. But that's exactly what you're talking about. You've as much as come out and said it.

Family needs to be reinstated. Personal responsiblity needs to be reinstated. We didn't see society fall apart the way it is now until people started selling the idea that it was okay to leave our families, break our promises, terminate our children, for the sake of immediate gratification. The first idea peddled was that every single one of our desires, both momentary and long term were "needs" that we owed to ourselves to fulfill.Hard work and effort were somehow repackaged as "unfulfillment". The next idea was that not only are we obligated to serve these "needs" for the sake of our wellness, but entitled to have them met as well.
It doesn't make sense that a father who used to devote 100% of his income to his family now only devotes 24 or 31% of it to them after he leaves. But society doesn't bat an eye. In fact, society is what set the laws that allow him to do that. After all, he left to go make a life with some other family, and he has "needs" to attend to.It doesn't make sense that a father who moves hundreds of miles away from his kids, sees them a couple times a year, skypes a couple times a week and requests the occasional report card is viewed as a "good parent". But there we have it.
What's interesting and telling, though, is that while fathers who make these decisions are still viewed as good and fit fathers, fathers who stay in the household and continue supporting and caring for their families are not compared as outstanding fathers. Instead, we are led to believe that many couples who stay married are "stuck with each other".

These new definitions of family and parenthood damage our kids and our society. They're also also emasculating. Not surprising that often fathers that abandon their kids go make more kids with other women. It's also not surprising that 40% of abortion patients are having their second and third abortions. Many women talk about becoming pregnant on purpose after their first abortion in an effort to replace a decision that feels wrong into something right, but then the same circumstances that led to their first abortion lead them to the same decision.

We're instinctually inclined to care for and protect our loved ones, especially our kids. We're wired for love and security. And because of this, we used to take pride when we maintained all of this with work that was sometimes hard. But we're being taught that gratification with minimal and no effort are what's normal,and deserved. And we're acting on these ideas we absorb intellectually. The divorce rate, single parent rate, abortion rate, definitely support the fact that we're buying these ideas. But these ideas conflict with our instincts and you often see people repeating the same behaviors. The divorce rate among second and third marriages is no better than among first marriages. It's that instinct that's not being satisfied that drives us to recreate the same situations over and over.

You have it backwards. You view equality among the sexes as neither parent having to take responsibility for the kids. I guess you think that because people have been conditioned to believe it's okay to make a family and just change your mind and go, we have to provide the means for that decision. The truth, the thing that's always served the family the best is when BOTH parents take responsibility for their kids. You can't remove the need for love and security, or the instincts of a parent...particularly mothers, with a program.
 
Last edited:

BitterPill

The Shoe Cometh
Supporting Member
President Johnson was a racist, purely and simply.
I know people who knew him personally.
It is what it is.
Nonetheless, he understood that national integration, voting and civil rights were necessary. In those regards, he is less racist than many people on this forum.
 

Fast Eddy

Mayor
Yeah, "it all needs to end now" except that we still have idiots with hiring power walking around saying things like "I'm sure there are some good ones."
Yes, that person might be right, somewhere there are good qualified blacks, I just haven't met them.
 

gigi

Mayor
Nonetheless, he understood that national integration, voting and civil rights were necessary. In those regards, he is less racist than many people on this forum.
Sure looks that way on the surface. Until we look at those other remarks he made and we can see that plainly he had a strategy in mind for exploiting black folks for their votes.
 

EatTheRich

President
I appreciate the dumbing down but I got what you were saying...however, you're now making a different stipulation.
So I should say to you that the percentage of single parent black households has increased instead?
Okay, fine. So why is that? Some folks here are only too eager to lay some BS down about traits and tendencies indemic to ethnicity. But why do you think it is? Why do you think that there are so many single parents, particularly black families, in the U.S. today?
Because marriage is becoming increasingly irrelevant and obsolete, particularly to the working class and its Black cultural leadership.
 

EatTheRich

President
We didn't see society fall apart the way it is now until people started selling the idea that it was okay to leave our families, break our promises, terminate our children, for the sake of immediate gratification.
In what respect is society "falling apart" and to what extent is that due to, say, the sexual revolution?

BTW, aren't the reasons for divorce usually something other than "immediate gratification"? Things like fundamental philosophical or sexual incompatibility, financial irreconcilability, economic pressure?

It doesn't make sense that a father who moves hundreds of miles away from his kids, sees them a couple times a year, skypes a couple times a week and requests the occasional report card is viewed as a "good parent".
Unless it's a Black man leaving his kids to go where the jobs are. Right?

We're instinctually inclined to care for and protect our loved ones, especially our kids.
This is true of the entire community of adults, not just the biological parents.

You have it backwards. You view equality among the sexes as neither parent having to take responsibility for the kids.
"Among" the sexes? I commend you for being progressive enough to acknowledge that there are more than 2. Anyway, in this context I view sex equality as requiring that the female sex is not held responsible for nearly all the labor involved in raising children.

I guess you think that because people have been conditioned to believe it's okay to make a family and just change your mind and go, we have to provide the means for that decision. The truth, the thing that's always served the family the best is when BOTH parents take responsibility for their kids. You can't remove the need for love and security, or the instincts of a parent...particularly mothers, with a program.
The question is not what best serves the family, but what best serves all concerned. The family is very important to the bourgeois gentlemen because it guarantees the labor and sexual service of a wife and children for his disposal, while providing a means for him to pass on his property. And, in the absence of alternative structures, it is important to women as a source of security (economic security as well as protection against the rape and molestation that are the social complements to the family). But the nuclear family is a relatively recent social invention, and alternative social structures such as the clan have historically provided greater security to women without reinforcing male dominance the way the family does.
 

EatTheRich

President
We talk about the liberal agenda to separate families, and the way they manipulate the human condition for their own agenda, and liberals say we're crazy. But that's exactly what you're talking about. You've as much as come out and said it.
As the "Communist Manifesto" puts it:

Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.

The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.


I, and no doubt the liberals as well, merely find it ridiculous that you attribute the views of communists, who do not believe in the sanctity of the family, to liberals, who almost always do.
 
Last edited:
Top