Can you argue against Bill O'Reilly's talking points?

Black leaders are not doing what they need to, to get fathers to stay and support their families. When Bill Cosby spoke about it he got condemned. When Obama said Black fathers need to step up and support their children, Jessie Jackson got caught on an open mike saying he'd like to cut his nuts out. The Left seems to want to ignore the real problem, or blame it on everything else.

 

*Cough* Unions driving out manufacturing jobs held predominately by the African American Communities *Cough*

 

In 1950, 17 percent of African-American children lived in a home with their mother but not their father. By 2010 that had increased to 50 percent. In 1965, only eight percent of childbirths in the Black community occurred out-of-wedlock. In 2010 that figure was 41 percent; and today, the out-of-wedlock childbirth in the Black community sits at an astonishing 72 percent. The number of African-American women married and living with their spouse was recorded as 53 percent in 1950. By 2010, it had dropped to 25 percent.

http://yourblackworld.net/2013/03/0...rse-off-today-than-in-the-1960s-report-shows/

 

These statistics are meaningless if not compared to non-black households at the same time. I bet the single-parent numbers increased dramatically for those too.

As to the OP:

Maybe it would have been good for O'Reilley and his followers, who often paint themselves as experts in economics because they think they understand the free market, to read the Freakonomics book.

The Freakonomics data clearly shows that for educational outcomes in school, what matters is educated parents. What doesn't matter is single or dual parent household.

To make it simple: Highly educated parents with high socioeconomic status are likely to produce highly educated children with high socioeconomic status, no matter if they are single parent households or not. Overall, socioeconomic status of the parents is the best predictor of socioeconomic status of the child.

So, in those households with low socioeconomic status, maybe the single parent situation is rather a symptom of being poor rather than a cause of perpetuating poverty to the next generation, indicating that poverty is the elephant in the room, not having children out of wedlock.

Of course, that wouldn't fit the narrative though that the poor should blame only themselves for their situation in life.

 

Lyndon Johnson did it.

 

"I'll bet" is a well researched argument of someone who dislike others just because of what they represent in their mind. What do you have to back up your not-well-thought-out comment about O'Reilly?

 

Ahhhh, the Great Society scheme of the dems & LBJ. He sure knew how to keep those "uppity negroes" in line. Again, repression rears its ugly head within the democrat party, and BS talk like Al Sharpton does nothing to advance the cause of poverty. Sharpton wants to nationalize the police (I wonder who told him to use that line, cuz he isn't smart enough to come up with that on his own), so we can see the dems solution again is more and bigger government...because they solve problems so well.

 

Many problems in our society could be solved by allowing abortion up to the child's 18th birthday.

 

When you have 72% of your children being born without a father to help support and guide you, which has shown to cause not only high crime, but high drop outs. It limits greatly the higher educated parent.

 

Just look at how rapidly these numbers are going up. In just a little less than 5 short years the number of kids born without marriage increased 31%.

 

are you saying O'Reilly supports planned parenting and birth control....?

 

Don't know what O'Reilly supports, but it's obvious what we're doing now isn't working. I think it could work a lot better if these Black leaders would speak out on fathers staying and supporting their children. Press upon the Black community how fatherless children leads to poverty, high drop outs and crime. They obviously would rather blame it on Whites, slavery, lack of jobs and anything else they can think of , except admitting the real problem.

 

Indeed. I can see that you agree with me here.

But I think youre trying to say that the welfare state and secularism destroyed the black family. Is that correct?

Would you agree that family breakdown and deprivation, as well as poor life choices have always been more prevalent in poor communities ? That being the case why would you think this shouldnt be even more the case in black communities with their deeper levels of historic poverty?

 

Intersting, but it never happened.

- - - Updated - - -

Interesting, and you dont think the increased stresses of poverty make marriage choices and others more difficult?

 

The Unions hit Detroit hard in the 80's and 90's. I'm unsure of other cities but I did research it for an essay in college.

 

Uh no they didnt. They struck for conditions, as did car workers across the world, those car firms with enlightened management survived.

 

I'm saying "I'll bet" is a meaningless comment that lacks substance. As to O'Reilly's stand on the mentioned issues, You'll have to ask him. I'm presuming you meant Planned Parethood, the liberal's abortion mill. Planned parenting is something I can see O'Reilly supporting, which would be taking a proactive approach to natural family planning, vs baby killing like the liberals support under the guise of "women's reproductive rights."

 

Are we still listening to him? I could've sworn he just got busted for the 5th time for making up (*)(*)(*)(*). Dude's a sociopath, so I really don't think anything he has to say about society is going to be anything that actually serves society and only serves himself. And apparently black people don't serve him, so they're okay to talk mess about. And mexicans. And brown people in general. The only white people that ever get criticism outright from BillO are just democrats or people labeled 'liberal'. Other than that, you won't see BillO criticize anything that might hit him close to home.

Protect that bubble, yo.

But if you want me to, I'll spend this next 30 minutes writing up a rebuttle to what he says for you to skim and then ignore.

His first point:
"You cannot fix present problems by looking at the past."

My response:
Um..."Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it." The apparent timeframe of this talking points memo was shortly after the Trayvon Martin shooting. Without getting into those specifics, the anger isn't about the shooting and just that shooting. IT's a systematic 'benefit of the doubt' that light skinned people (including Zimmerman) receive when accused of a crime of any sort. Statistics show that black people are incarcerated unevenly (which is why 60% of prisons are black but they only represent about 15% of the population...it's not because they're more violent, it's because the cops are targeting them, using something we call 'prejudice'). So the first thing I'd ask is 'If George Zimmerman was walking down the street unarmed with candy and a tea and Trayvon thought he was a threat and shot him after an IDENTICAL STRUGGLE as we saw played out in the case, can you honestly expect the same outcome? I don't think anyone could expect the same outcome with Trayvon going scott free after not being arrested for several hours after the cops showed up and then let free to walk around the police station. You can insert any white crime and do research on penalties between the races (don't look at arrest rates, just look at sentences...you'll see white people get systematically easier sentences for their crimes to this day).

((*)(*)(*)(*) THIS VIDEO IS 8 MINUTES AND IVE ONLY GOTTEN INTO HIS FIRST 3 SENTENCES)

Okay, Bill's next point is:
"When someone wants to have a conversation about racism, be prepared for bloviating."

Okay this isn't even a point. This is instructing the audience to shut their ears off and not even listen. So based on what I said in the first point to rebute him, he's basically saying, "None of that stuff is something I want to hear because it completely doesn't align with my world view, therefore it's 'bloviating'." Discussion is basically one person saying, "This is what I think" and another person saying "I agree" or "Actually it's more like this, I think" and then that goes back and forth until the two parties agree on what reality is and what they want reality to be.

Bill's next point:
"The government has no clue at all about how to deal with the race issue in america"

For this I agree. At the federal and state levels, you have almost a predominately white population running the government and then saying black people are violent. I mean, just on a the surface, this looks pretty (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up. But even on the deep down side, we still have jim crowe laws on the books in many states. So yeah, BillO's right. Our government doesn't know how to deal with it because it's not truly representative of the people (by race OR income).

BillO:
"The grievance industry is to blame for our inability to talk about race relations."

I'd also agree, but here's the ironic thing. This whole piece BillO is doing is part of the grievance industry he's (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing about. Maybe I'm being unfair since you can't have a grievance against a grievance system and not be in it. But I digress from the paradoxial statement, his point about 'black people shouldn't complain' is him complaining. So I don't really understand why this is a point either.

BTW, I"m only at 2:14 of this 8 minute video.

Next Bill says:
"The grievance industry has made an appoint to frame any critique of black community as race baiting."

Some people do this, however, I wouldn't say it's the norm. Race baiting is something completely fabricated by white people (as a white person, I'm telling you, it's completely made up). Minorities that we've at one time enslaved 'lawfully' (and then tried to justify it with bible verses and what not) are constantly told 'don't bring up slavery'. Well, for black person in America, that's reality. I don't personally know of any relatives of mine that were slaves. So my position in society was elevated LONG before I got here. LONG before, wheras black folks started lower and are still lower because if you don' teven remember, an interracial marriage was illegal as recent as 30 years ago in some states. So it's not some LONG GONE history. Those people who had deeply held racist prejudices are still around. Laws don't change how people feel and obviously if you look how the law is applied, it seems odd that with two populations of people committing crimes at equal rates have inequal rates of prisoners behind bars in a 1:1 ratio. Amazingly enough, what happens if you start looking at the income of these black folks...oh snap, they're poor...because they started behind all of the white people YEARS ago. So yes, bring up the past is relevant because 30 years ago for equality in marriage, 50 years ago for civil rights...I mean, seriously...there's countries with problems that have gone on for HUNDREDS of years and we think we're just going to wake up and be 'Okay, we're no longer racist', you're a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing idiot.

And actually, you know what, I've already written enough...nothing else he says is valid because his opening statements are full of (*)(*)(*)(*)...

So then finally he makes a blanket statement saying black parents are (*)(*)(*)(*)..

I...can't even.


EDIT: One last thought I had before posting...

White people run the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing country and consist of the largest group of people here...and ...somehow black people are the problem of everything? Surely you jest.

 

Not the problem of everything, but when your group consist of only 13% of the population and commit over 50% of all major crimes, and I'm not considering drugs a major crime, there is a problem. To talk about how sentencing is so uneven, where Blacks get such a more heavy sentence then Whites, you only need look at this kid just killed by police who had a record for mostly using and pushing drugs a mile long and here he is out. If it is like you said, he should be an old man before he saw the light of day from a prison cell with his record. The biggest difference between sentencing is Blacks are usually pushers and Whites are mostly users. But you are right, if you have the money to get a good lawyer, many times you can get off or get a light sentence. Look at O.J., murders two people, one his wife and his blood all over everything and he got off.

Yes, I'm sorry for slavery. Our country did it. Down through history, most countries did it. It wasn't only Blacks who were slaves either. Even the Irish were slaves at one time. We were a young country so we were one of the last to get into it and do away with it and unlike other countries, almost a half a million Whites died giving it to Blacks. No one today was ever a slave.

Most living today never went through the Jim Crow area. Blacks have come a long way in the last 50 years. They can live anywhere they want, eat anywhere they want. They have one leg up on Whites on any job doing business with the government. Blacks over these last 50 years have held office in every part of government this country has except V.P. Who would have ever thought that a Black would become President in 1950, or even 1960 or 1970.? There are laws against discriminating against them in almost everything.

Before the War on Poverty, even though many Blacks were poor, crime was down. Blacks families stuck together. Kids born to Black women without fathers was only about 7 1/2%. Close to Whites. Today it's about 72% and here lies the trouble that Blacks have. You raise kids without a father to help support and guide the lives of children, your bringing a family that is bound to grow up in poverty in most case and get their education from the street. Crime goes way up and Blacks get frustrated because many have dropped out of school, got in trouble with the law and can't even begin to think of getting any kind of meaningful job with no education and a rap sheet. So they continue getting into trouble and take their frustration out on everyone. They see no way out of the mess they're in. Police are one of the main people that are going to face these frustrated people. They are the ones who take their verbal abuse and resisting arrest. They get hit on, shot at and many times have to chase them down. Cops know every time they go into a Black neighborhood, they could be killed, hurt or verbally abused. That makes them worried. That makes them nervous and makes them react to moves done by Blacks they normally wouldn't feel with other groups. Some times that leads to a cop shooting a Black when he shouldn't. Some times he takes his frustration out on Blacks, in beatings or shootings. But like everyone else a cop is human. He can lose it. But all cops don't lose it. More Whites are killed by cops than Blacks are. But the frustration of being poor, not having what other's have only builds up more frustration. Causes more crime. That's why when a black or group of Blacks go into a store, people keep a watch on them. A reputation brings on consequences. Being constantly watched only brings on more frustration and hate. Gives these kids a chip on their shoulder. Which some easily take it out on others.

So what's the answer. There isn't any one answer. But the biggest problem is the absence of the father. The father makes chances of growing up in poverty much less. It makes the chances of the children dropping out of school less, living in the ghetto less, having their daughter having kids out of wedlock less. Stealing and growing up with a police record less. It gives the kid a chance to compete in life, to make it. To grow up and be a good citizen. And if things are going to change for the better for the Black community, it has to start with keeping the family unit together. Because there will only be higher percentages having babies out of wedlock and continuing the cycle.

 

The divorce rate is about even between white and black populations as well as illigetimate children...however, it's notable to show that white mothers have greater access in general to services like planned parenthood and abortion clinics.

I'd also like to point out for the record you're kind of insulting all mothers with your statement outright. Especially single mothers and not just black single mothers but single mothers of all cultures and creeds.

Because of this, I'd think you'd do best to rethink your logic because I'm sure quite a few people could tell you outright this 'lack of father' issue is utter bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

The divorce rate might be about even, I never looked that up, but having children without a father isn't even close to being even. It's about 37% for Whites and 72% for Blacks. And it matters not if your White or Black or Brown the chances of landing in poverty, dropping out of school and getting a rap sheet is about the same for fatherless children. I don't think there should be that much difference on who has access to those places.

As far as saying the lack of a father is bull. That my friend is another problem that mostly Blacks and Liberals have. They refuse to see the problem of fatherless children, even though the evidence is there to see and plenty has been studied and written about it. It is one of, if not the main problem of poverty and crime of all fatherless children.

 

Jul 19, 2013 - Children raised by married parents have substantially better life outcomes ... People on the left claim that poverty causes crime, but they don't look for the ... So what is the main tool that the anti-marriage people use to increase ...
The Consequences of Fatherlessness | National Center for ...
www.fathers.com › Statistics and Research
Boys are more likely to become involved in crime, and girls are more likely to become pregnant as teens. 1. Poverty. – Children in father-absent homes are almost four times more likely to be poor. ... Sources: The Lancet, Jan. ... assault, child maltreatment, other types of major violence, and non-victimization type of adversity, ...
Father Facts - National Fatherhood Initiative
www.fatherhood.org/father-absence-statistics
National Fatherhood Initiative
Below is data on the positive impact of father involvement, and data on the effects of father absence on poverty, maternal and child health, incarceration, crime, ...
Studies reflect the damage of the one parent – fatherless ...
www.commdiginews.com › Life › Family
May 15, 2014 - In the 1980s, only 13 percent of children born to moderately educated ... drug use and crime, most social problems cannot be properly understood without ... head of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission argues that the “chief cause of poverty ... children born out of wedlock, it set off a major national discussion.
THE ROOT CAUSES OF CRIME
www.quebecoislibre.org/000610-9.htm
Jun 7, 2000 - Fatherless children are more likely to commit suicide, run away, have ... that the reason for crime is « child poverty » and « discrimination ».
Articles: Poverty Is Not The Cause of Criminal Behavior
www.americanthinker.com/.../poverty_is_not_the_cau...
American Thinker
Aug 22, 2014 - ◾More than half of poor families with children have a video game system, such ... Idle hands and fatherless homes are the root causes of crime.
The Tragedy Of Fatherless Homes - Online Study
www.cog-onlinestudy.com/.../Tragedy Of Fatherless Homes....
Violent crime, substance abuse, unwed mothers, chronic depression, and an abundance ... The great misconception today is that poverty is the main incubator of the ... What is most disturbing is that fatherless children are much more likely to be ... Divorce is the number one cause of women falling into the “poverty” category.
Experiments in Living: The Fatherless Family - Civitas
www.civitas.org.uk/.../...
Civitas: The Institute for the Study of Civil Society
The Results: How does the Fatherless Family Affect Adults, Children and Society? ... Are more likely to live in poverty and deprivation; Have more trouble in school; Tend to ... Increased crime and violence; Decreased community ties; A growing 'divorce culture' .... Cohabitation is one of the main routes into lone parenthood.
The Facts on Fatherlessness, Part One - CultureWatch
billmuehlenberg.com/2013/05/17/the-facts-on-fatherlessness-part-one/
May 17, 2013 - The poor fatherless baby of eight months is now the utterly ... By the turn of the century, nearly 50 percent of American children may be ... rather than unemployment, is the main cause of the rise in poverty levels in Australia. ... its rates of violent crime and burglary, but the community's poverty level does not.
The Real, Complex Connection Between Single-Parent ...
www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/...crime/265860/
The Atlantic
Dec 3, 2012 - Worse, it implies that children—or their mothers—would be better off with a ... We could design a chart demonstrating that crime rates and poverty ... that fatherlessness—or any other factor—actually causes people to .... In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General ...

 

I think with Blacks, much of fatherless children is because Blacks have more children out of wedlock.

 

Father-absent families—black and white alike—generally occupy the bottom rung of our society’s economic ladder. Unwed mothers, regardless of their race, are four times more likely to live in poverty than the average American. Female-headed black families earn only 36 percent as much as two-parent black families, and female-headed white families earn just 46 percent as much as two-parent white families. Not only do unmarried mothers tend to earn relatively little, but their households are obviously limited to a single breadwinner—thus further widening the income gap between one-parent and two-parent families. Fully 85 percent of all black children in poverty live in single-parent, mother-child homes.

While the overall black poverty rate remains about two-and-a-half times higher than the white poverty rate (24 percent vs. 10 percent), the “face” of black poverty has changed dramatically in recent decades. At one time, almost all black families were poor, regardless of whether one or both parents were present. Today, however, two-parent black families are rarely poor. Among black families where both the husband and wife work full-time, the current poverty rate is a mere 2 percent. Moreover, the relatively small (13 percent) income disparity between black and white two-parent families completely disappears when we take into account such factors as occupational choices, educational attainment, age, geographic location, and comparative skills

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/v...ry.asp?id=1261

 

I showed you earlier that although back in the 1950's and early 60's most Blacks were poor, but the percentage of fatherless children was very small. Why after over 50 years haven't they progressed? Especially after all the things that have passed to give them an edge? Why is crime so much higher now than it was before Johnson's Great Society? While it's down compared to 20-30 years ago per thousand, it's nowhere near as low as it was in the 1950's and 60's per thousand when fathers stayed with their families.

Murder
1991 – 24,700
1962 – 8,530
2010 – 14,748

Rape
1992 – 109,060
1960 – 17,190
2010 – 84,767

Assault
1993 – 1,135,610
1960 – 154,320
2010 – 778,901

Burglary
1980 – 3,795,200
1960 – 912,100
2010 – 2,159,878

Vehicle Theft
1991 – 1,661,700
1960 – 328,200
2010 – 737,142

http://leftcall.com/4557/u-s-crime-r...-surprise-you/
amilies stuck together.