Black caucus reels from ethics,

[HogTrash]

I suppose I'm a racist for pointing this out?!

WASHINGTON (AP) - These were supposed to be heady days for African-Americans in Congress, with President Barack Obama occupying the White House and a half dozen blacks holding powerful committee chairmanships and leadership jobs.

Yet the past two weeks have been more of a nightmare.

Two of Congress' most senior African-Americans, Democratic Reps. Charles Rangel of New York and Maxine Waters of California, are fighting to save their reputations and quite possibly their jobs over ethics allegations. On Tuesday night, seven-term Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick of Michigan was ousted in the Democratic primary, and several other lawmakers have lost bids for higher office or struggled to get traction.

Further complicating matters, the relationship between members of the Congressional Black Caucus and Obama has frayed, with lawmakers seething over what they see as a neglected agenda. Their priorities such as jobs programs and emergency aid to needy families have repeatedly been stripped from spending bills in the face of Republican opposition.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9HCTSPO0&show_article=1

It's quite obvious to me that Black American Leaders are prone to the exact same corruption as the Black Sub-Saharan African Leaders.
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/132016

And Black American Voters continue to support them for no other reason than the 'color of their skin'.

What a sad mess the free world is in...Our enemies are destroying us from within, along with the hopes and dreams of mankind.

[Sweetchuck]

White people voted some white crooks into office along the way also.

I don't see this as a black/white thing, but more of a political corruption and "we're too stupid as a voting base to know any better" thing.

[HogTrash]

White people voted some white crooks into office along the way also.

I don't see this as a black/white thing, but more of a political corruption and "we're too stupid as a voting base to know any better" thing.You have completely missed the point, as you have been programmed to do.

The truth is easy to see with very little effort...All you have to do is 'want to'.

[Sweetchuck]

You have completely missed the point, as you have been programmed to do.

The truth is easy to see with very little effort...All you have to do is 'want to'.

Oh I got your point. You just didn't like the response because it included rationalization.

This is the hypocrisy that both sides of the racial spectrum display when in fact these accusations are true for both races.

The only significant difference is that black voters, due to the protection from the double standard that they enjoy, can openly express their dissatisfaction with the black candidates they voted into office.

[Kathianne]

You have completely missed the point, as you have been programmed to do.

The truth is easy to see with very little effort...All you have to do is 'want to'.

Actually you are the one 'seeing' 'what YOU want to.' Black corruption=Race White corruption=Greed or Party

I'm not arguing that you are 'in favor' of corruption, just that you are using the person's race to determine causality. Bet you do it for intelligence too?

On White corruption you attribute it to the individual's motivating factors.

And yes, that is being a racist, not 'facts on blacks.'

[HogTrash]

Actually you are the one 'seeing' 'what YOU want to.' Black corruption=Race White corruption=Greed or PartyThe primary motivations behind all corruption is greed and power, regardless of race.

As far as party corruption, it appears the left has had a noticeable edge on the right.


I'm not arguing that you are 'in favor' of corruption, just that you are using the person's race to determine causality.Indeed I do...Contrary to political correctness, there are subtle as well as distinct differences attributed to race other than simple appearance.

Statisticly, a black is more likely to commit a crime than a white, except for "White Collar Crime" for which whites have been the primary perpetrators.

Blacks have successfully entered into American Politics and I believe it is safe to say that political corruption could be considered a form of "White Collar Crime".

Because of current events, I have applied black crime statistics to black politicians while also taking into account the history of their counterparts in African politics.


Bet you do it for intelligence too?Scientific studies have shown a definate distinction in the IQ's of the Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid races, as I have posted in previous threads.

One source I have referred to is The Bell Curve published in 1994, by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray; http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/bellcurve.shtml#part3

As you can imagine, accusations of racism from the PC community were rampant when this book was published and still is everytime it is publicly quoted.


On White corruption you attribute it to the individual's motivating factors.As I stated above, the same motivating factors are true of most criminals regardless of race but they are more prominent in the black race.

Other than crime, the black race also has more of a propensity for acts of extreme violence and savagery.

I believe this is genetic because it is true regardless of their exposure to civilization or submersion in other cultures.

I will concede that several generations of exposure to other races does bring about a somewhat more intelligent and civilized Negroid.

This is no doubt due to contributions to their genepool by other races they have been exposed to, although still below Caucasoid/Mongoloid standards.

I am well aware that this is very painful and disturbing for the practitioners of political correctness, but we must learn to accept reality in order to solve our problems.

[Kathianne]

I've been waiting all morning for you to finally respond. Geez man, you've got it bad.

No to your nonsense on genetic inferiority.

Racist, racist, 1000X. In response to the nonsense about political correctness.

You are wrong about causality of Black crime and those who disagree with you.

[HogTrash]

I've been waiting all morning for you to finally respond. Geez man, you've got it bad.

No to your nonsense on genetic inferiority.Dr William Shockley, Dr Philippe Rushton, Dr Michael Levin, Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray are the primary sources of information for my opinions concerning race genetics.

Do you consider these doctors, scientists and scholars to be "racists"?...Unless I have misunderstood their findings from years of study and research, I believe they would agree with me.

You would most likely join with the PC crowd and accuse these brave men of racism...After all, character assassination and false accusations is the only strategy the left has to fight with.


Racist, racist, 1000X. In response to the nonsense about political correctness.

You are wrong about causality of Black crime and those who disagree with you. This is all you have?...Accusations of racism and opinions based solely on political correctness?...Debating is obviously not one of your strong points.

My only desire is to secure a future for my children and yours as well...My motivation is not hatred but survival, and I wish no harm to anyone Kathianne.

[Kathianne]

Dr William Shockley, Dr Philippe Rushton, Dr Michael Levin, Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray are the primary sources of information for my opinions concerning race genetics.

Do you consider these doctors, scientists and scholars to be "racists"?...Unless I have misunderstood their findings from years of study and research, I believe they would agree with me.

You would most likely join with the PC crowd and accuse these brave men of racism...After all, character assassination and false accusations is the only strategy the left has to fight with.

This is all you have?...Accusations of racism and opinions based solely on political correctness?...Debating is obviously not one of your strong points.

My only desire is to secure a future for my children and yours as well...My motivation is not hatred but survival, and I wish no harm to anyone Kathianne.

The men you listed are or were 'doctors' all in fields of social science.

Dr. Shockley

I never said that higher education meant ‘more intelligent,’ though Shockley seemed to have been very gifted in his field. That doesn’t translate though onto others. He created a theory, but seemed to be built on prejudiced, not to mention that it was his opinion, no better or worse than any other on the face of it.:

http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/0213.html


Dr. Shockley had alienated many of his fellow scientists by straying far beyond his ken. He drew further scorn when he proposed financial rewards for the ''genetically disadvantaged'' if they volunteered for sterilization…
He grew up in Palo Alto, not far from the Stanford campus. He received his bachelor's degree from the California Institute of Technology and earned a Ph.D. in physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1936. He then went to work for Bell Laboratories in Murray Hill, N.J.
Dr. J. Philippe Rushton
Again, studies are not involved with genetics, biology. He’s a social scientist.
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushton_bio.htm

…B.Sc. in psychology from Birkbeck College at the University of London in 1970 and in 1973 received my Ph.D. from the London School of Economics for work on altruism in children. I then moved to the University of Oxford for a one-year post-doc to continue my research on personality development in children. B.Sc. in psychology from Birkbeck College at the University of London in 1970 and in 1973 received my Ph.D. from the London School of Economics for work on altruism in children. I then moved to the University of Oxford for a one-year post-doc to continue my research on personality development in children…


Michael Levin PhD philosophy
For some reason can’t find a bio on this man outside of Wiki. Since they call him a racist, seems a bit biased. Philosophy again is his field.


Richard Herrnstein
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/09/16/obituaries/richard-herrnstein-64-dies-backed-nature-over-nurture.html

Richard J. Herrnstein, a Harvard University psychologist whose theory that intelligence was largely inherited made him a focus for debate, died at his home in Belmont, Mass., on Tuesday. He was 64.
The cause was lung cancer, said the Reardon Funeral Home in Belmont.
Dr. Herrnstein was the Edgar Pierce Professor of Psychology at Harvard, where he had taught for 36 years.
His writings drew intense hostility from liberal academics and support from conservative theorists, who saw them as compatible with their opposition to social programs like Head Start, which gives learning help to the disadvantaged.
Dr. Herrnstein first set off debate on I.Q., race and class in 1971 when he published an article in The Atlantic Monthly contending that intelligence is largely inherited, so no matter what efforts were made, egalitaranism would not work.
In a 1971 interview in The New York Times, he predicted that an inborn lack of ability would bar those of low I.Q. from career success, creating a "biological stratification" into castes based on "hereditary meritocracy." Dr. Herrnstein expanded his views into a 1973 book, "I.Q. and Meritocracy," which ignited arguments over the uses of I.Q. testing.
Dr. Herrnstein drew heavily on the data of Dr. Arthur Jensen, a psychologist at the University of California at Berkeley, who held that differences between the races in I.Q. were the result of heredity rather than factors like education or economic status. Because of this, Dr. Herrnstein was widely assumed in the academic debates to share Dr. Jensen's views on race and I.Q., which Dr. Herrnstein denied…


Charles Murray
http://www.aei.org/scholar/43

Education

Ph.D., political science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
B.A., history, Harvard University

All of the above were obviously good in their fields, the problem HT, is that doesn't give them expertise on other fields such as eugenics, genetics, biology.

Did they posit questions and provide their own answers? Yes. Were they published, seems most were. Then again, so was Hitler.

[HogTrash]

The men you listed are or were 'doctors' all in fields of social science.I'm proud of you Kathianne...You are posting links instead of insults and accusations...This is very un-PC of you and I approve. :clap:


Dr. Shockley

I never said that higher education meant ‘more intelligent,’ though Shockley seemed to have been very gifted in his field. That doesn’t translate though onto others. He created a theory, but seemed to be built on prejudiced, not to mention that it was his opinion, no better or worse than any other on the face of it.:

http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/0213.htmlDr Shockley won a Nobel Prize for a new groundbreaking scientific discovery that forever changed the world.


The invention of the transistor became the basis for the electronic age. From it flowed virtually every one of today's devices installed in airliners and cars, calculators and computers, wristwatches and washing machines.From this we can conclude that he was a unique thinker who was not afraid to look outside the box for new ideas.

He earned a Ph.D. in physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was a renowned scholar who lectured at Stanford University and was a professor of electrical engineering and applied sciences.

But, he was also a dedicated genuis who:

regarded his work on race more important than his discovery of the transistor. Quoting his wife, the announcement said he continued to sift data and prepare papers on it until a few days before he died.

This man was a scholar, not only in the field of physics, but of learing, who spent his life in the world of academia, scientific research and study with unlimited access to the findings of research scientists from around the world who were afraid to publish the results of their findings.

But Dr Shockley gathered their papers and studied them with the analitical mind of a dedicated scientist and put the truth ahead of the ridicule he knew would come to whoever made public these findings.


Dr. J. Philippe Rushton
Again, studies are not involved with genetics, biology. He’s a social scientist.
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushton_bio.htmDr Rushton is probably my favorite speaker on this subject.

J. Philippe Rushton, PhD
Altruism, Evolutionary Psychology and Ethnic Variations
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYe_jcmY7QE&feature=related


Michael Levin PhD philosophy
For some reason can’t find a bio on this man outside of Wiki. Since they call him a racist, seems a bit biased. Philosophy again is his field.If you did your research then you should be aware that all of these men were accused of being "racist"...It is an unavoidable consequence of speaking the truth in the era of Political Correctness.




Richard Herrnstein
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/09/16/obituaries/richard-herrnstein-64-dies-backed-nature-over-nurture.html

Charles Murray
http://www.aei.org/scholar/43Herrnstein and Murray did their homework...You should read their book...
The Bell Curve, published in 1994, was written by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray as a work designed to explain, using empirical statistical analysis, the variations in intelligence in American Society, raise some warnings regarding the consequences of this intelligence gap, and propose national social policy with the goal of mitigating the worst of the consequences attributed to this intelligence gap".

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/empirical
em·pir·i·cal (m-pîr-kl)
adj.
1.
a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.
2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.




All of the above were obviously good in their fields, the problem HT, is that doesn't give them expertise on other fields such as eugenics, genetics, biology.These men are geniuses and PHDs in there own respective fields of science and dedicated scholars of academic studies.

They compiled years of scientific research performed by the finest minds in the fields of eugenics, genetics, biology and psychology and their names are included in the credits of their books and papers.


Did they posit questions and provide their own answers? Yes. Were they published, seems most were. Then again, so was Hitler.You compare them to Adolf Hitler...This is an undeniable PC marker, Kathianne.

People who practice PC compares everyone who doesn't to Adolf Hitler.

A poker player would call this a "tell"...A giveawy to the cards someone is holding.

Because these men published information that was tabboo to the standards of political correctness, they were branded as racist and compared to Hitler.

Men like this are true American heros...They dared to speak the truth and stood alone against the ridicule they knew they would have to face.

If America survives as a nation we should build monuments to these great men in recognition of their honesty, courage, sacrifice and contributions to the defeat of political correctness using only the weapon of truth.

[Kathianne]

HT, you can post and post about links. I don't have to worry about such, I've already done so. I've posted enough over time to prove my abilities to provide linkage and in-depth connections when I choose to.

With you? Not now. You've failed to acknowledge or perhaps understand that the men you are referring to, as accomplished as the are or were in their fields did not have the expertise in the areas you are giving credence to. Your nonsense is every bit as 'expert' as theirs.

Your racist rants and trying to diminish those that call you out on it are not only getting old, they are boring. This is enough of a response.

[HogTrash]

HT, you can post and post about links. I don't have to worry about such, I've already done so. I've posted enough over time to prove my abilities to provide linkage and in-depth connections when I choose to.

With you? Not now. You've failed to acknowledge or perhaps understand that the men you are referring to, as accomplished as the are or were in their fields did not have the expertise in the areas you are giving credence to. Your nonsense is every bit as 'expert' as theirs.

Your racist rants and trying to diminish those that call you out on it are not only getting old, they are boring. This is enough of a response.Once again you glossed over my posts without understanding it...Read what these men wrote in their books and papers and listen to their lectures.

They provide you with all of the tools and resources they used to research this subject, and gave credit to everyone in their respective fields of expertise that contributed information.

If Albert Einstein had wrote a cook book on the southern cuisine using recipes and preperation techniques that he gathered from renowned cooks and chefs from the southern states, would you question the accuracy of his book because he was a physicist?

Before you dispute the accuracy of The Bell Curve, you should read it and I believe you would change your mind...As it now stands, your opinions are based on PC and emotions rather than science and common sense.

[Kathianne]

Once again you glossed over my posts without understanding it...Read what these men wrote in their books and papers and listen to their lectures.

They provide you with all of the tools and resources they used to research this subject, and gave credit to everyone in their respective fields of expertise that contributed information.

If Albert Einstein had wrote a cook book on the southern cuisine using recipes and preperation techniques that he gathered from renowned cooks and chefs from the southern states, would you question the accuracy of his book because he was a physicist?

Before you dispute the accuracy of The Bell Curve, you should read it and I believe you would change your mind...As it now stands, your opinions are based on PC and emotions rather than science and common sense.

Your stating your opinion does not make it fact, even when your opinion is based upon the opinions of others. Even when those others hold Phd's or MD's in other fields. One may be very educated and still form theories or opinions based upon prejudices. The difference between them and you, they may get published or can afford to publish on their own. They may try to equate their expertise in one area onto something that is less than tangential in another.

[HogTrash]

Your stating your opinion does not make it fact, even when your opinion is based upon the opinions of others. Even when those others hold Phd's or MD's in other fields. One may be very educated and still form theories or opinions based upon prejudices. The difference between them and you, they may get published or can afford to publish on their own. They may try to equate their expertise in one area onto something that is less than tangential in another.So the truth comes out...You believe these men based their writings on racism.

Why didn't you just say so to begin with...I suspected this was your belief all along.

[Kathianne]

So the truth comes out...You believe these men based their writings on racism.

Why didn't you just say so to begin with...I suspected this was your belief all along.

Did you think I thought you came up with your own thoughts? Of course not, you keep linking to those who think/thought the way you do.

[HogTrash]

Did you think I thought you came up with your own thoughts? Of course not, you keep linking to those who think/thought the way you do.Personal attacks is a liberal tactic that is not very flattering when practiced by an intelligent conservative.

Besides, my beliefs and opinions are much more unique and independent than anyone elses on this forum. :mm:

I refer you to my signature below, Kathianne. \/

[Kathianne]

Personal attacks is a liberal tactic that is not very flattering when practiced by an intelligent conservative.

Besides, my beliefs and opinions are much more unique and independent than anyone elses on this forum. :mm:

I refer you to my signature below, Kathianne. \/

And your circular thinking continues. :lol: