• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

What names will they call her?

Steve

Well-known member
What names will they call her?

my bet is the first will be she is not black enough..

Me_bigger.jpg


Sarah Palin backs Greg Abbott, Katrina Pierson in Texas

In the lengthy post, Palin also took the time to weigh in on another Texas race, praising Katrina Pierson, who is challenging Republican Rep. Pete Sessions for his House seat.

“Pierson is an emerging leader and important voice for the future of the grassroots conservative movement,” Palin said. Pierson will face off against Sessions in the GOP primary March 4.

Palin called Pierson “a feisty fighter for freedom” and, without naming Sessions, said he has “lost touch with the people of his district that he’s not even bothering to spend much time in Texas anymore.”

Pierson has also won the support of conservative commentator Michelle Malkin, who joined Pierson at a fundraiser in January, according to the Dallas Morning News.

more at
http://katpierson.wordpress.com/

several youtubes of her speaking on FOX news.. are shown as well as her letter.
 

Steve

Well-known member
The last thing Democrats want on the national stage is a black conservative Republican, anti-abortion, successful single mom

441282652_640.jpg

and to top it off.. she is a TEA party representative..
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
People with racist views will vote that way. Period. That gives her a whole bunch of black votes. No matter which side of the fence she is on.

She is lacking experience.

She will be attractive to younger voters, who can more relate to someone that age.

She has a record for shop lifting that will be caught up in the mud slinging. No way out of that. Which will lead to people questioning her values.

The most conservative of the conservatives in not conservative enough for me. But she is a better choice in many ways. Hence, the Palin endorsement.
 

Traveler

Well-known member
The race hustlers will try to destroy her as quick as 3-2-1..........While the brain damaged left wing parrots will keep puking out the talking points they've been fed about the racist tea party and all the uncle tom type BS.
 

Steve

Well-known member
some people make mistakes and learn from them..

some never learn from them,..

On and off the campaign trail, congressional candidate Katrina Pierson sometimes discusses the hardscrabble background that she says ultimately made her a conservative firebrand.

The troubles in her youth, records show, included an arrest for shoplifting.

In 1997, five days before her 21st birthday, Katrina Pierson, then named Katrina Lanette Shaddix, was arrested on a charge of theft.

She and the other woman were accused of trying to lift nine pieces of women’s clothing from a J.C. Penney store in Plano. They stuffed the clothes into shoe boxes in a clumsy, failed heist.

According to a Plano police report, Pierson said she and the woman with her, Laura Elizabeth Nelson, told police they needed the clothes for jobs they were trying to obtain.

Pierson told police she was “scared at first and did not want to go through with it.”

Pierson exited the store with four items of clothing in a shoe box inside her shopping bag. They were valued at $168. The report said Pierson had her young son with her when the incident occurred.

She was booked into the Plano City Jail. She eventually pleaded no contest to the charges and received deferred adjudication.

“That’s what the attorney guy told me to do,” she said. “My defense was as good as I could afford.”

Pierson, a tea party leader from Garland, said she knew her background would be open for scrutiny if she decided to take on Sessions, the powerful incumbent.

Pierson says the incident helped turn her life around, showing her that mistakes often come with consequences.

And the 37-year-old says the shoplifting charge was nothing compared with what could have happened in her life.

Pierson says she was born to a 15-year-old mother and grew up exposed to the wrong crowd, folks involved in gangs and other unsavory activities. An early marriage lasted just three months.

“I’m surprised I made it out,” Pierson said.

Pierson said Sessions’ supporters are mounting a smear campaign, but added that she has nothing to hide.


I would take her over that liberal who dumped her kids and husband..
 

ranch hand

Well-known member
I heard some democrats on the news the other day saying it wasn't fair to link Hilary to her husband. To bring up whitewater, or her previous views that her best friend let out, as that happened a long time ago and people evolve. Bet the rules are not the same for trashing any republican esp. Tea Party ones. :roll:
 

Tam

Well-known member
ranch hand said:
I heard some democrats on the news the other day saying it wasn't fair to link Hilary to her husband. To bring up whitewater, or her previous views that her best friend let out, as that happened a long time ago and people evolve. Bet the rules are not the same for trashing any republican esp. Tea Party ones. :roll:


Dems will say Hillary's past is off limits just like Obama's family was off limits but all you have to look at to know a Republicans past is not off limits is Romney. Him driving around with his dog on top his car was a friggin animal abuse scandal but Obama eating a dog was an OH WELL HE WAS YOUNG issue. Obama's family was off limits but every sick perverted liberal was making nasty comments about Sarah Palin's family even claiming her son was really her Grandson born to her under aged daughter. The late night funny guys were even making jokes about Sarah's daughter being raped by A Rod. Did any of the Dems say enough is enough when it was a Republican in the crosshairs? NO they just kept laughing it up.

Guaranteed Ms Pierson's criminal background will bring her down right along with the Republicans chances to keep the House and take the Senate if these are the types of people that are nominated. Remember Christine O'Donnell and a few of the others the Tea Party ran, which cost them the election? If you don't want the same election results the Tea Party groups NEED TO VET their candidate VERY CAREFULLY as political history has proven Dems can nominate liars, perverts and incompetence and their voters will vote for them as they know the government trough will be kept full, but Republicans not so much. They will just stay home and allow the Dems Liar, Perverts and Incompetence win the election and DESTROY the country verses voting for somebody with a lightly tainted past.

The TEA PARTY NEED TO BE SMART AND VET THEIR CANDIDATES and give the Dems NOTHING TO DESTROY THEIR CANDIDATE WITH.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Remember Christine O'Donnell and a few of the others the Tea Party ran, which cost them the election?

yep and I know of the guy she beat... he wasn't any better then electing a liberal..

O' Donnell was smeared so badly few actually were able to see if she had any potential at all..

it is either that or put up with those the party elite select for US

men Boehnor can be proud of who will work with Obama on all the issues..

for me I would rather lose a few elections then see more rinos elected ..

one thing is beyond dispute -- Castle is a card-carrying RINO. Here is a list of various grievances:

Voted YES on TARP
Voted YES on Cap and Trade
Voted YES on Cash for Clunkers
Voted YES on the auto bailout
Voted YES on bailing out Fannie and Freddie
Voted YES on SCHIP (w/ tax increase)
Voted YES to increase taxes on oil and gas companies
Voted YES to increase the minimum wage
Voted NO to open up ANWR
Voted YES on the pork-infested 2005 Highway bill
Voted NO to restrict eminent domain abuse
Voted YES to increase funding for PBS
Voted YES on No Child Left Behind
Voted YES on McCain-Feingold

But one point commentators are missing, I think, is the reason conservative primary voters may be willing to risk defeat in November for principle in the primaries. It is because of the leadership of the Republican Party in Washington.

If conservatives trusted that a Mike Castle, say, would be kept in line by the official GOP in Washington, they would be more willing to hold their noses and vote for him.

oh and castle did not support efforts to repeal Obamacare.. early on he felt it would be better to try to fix it.. then as the primary slipped away he said it wouldn't make sense to waste time trying to overturn it now..

I guess he bought that it is the law of the land argument before the liberals tried to make it..

with a liberal like Castle what is the point of having a GOP, we could have one big democratic party.. and divide it by moderate left and far left..
 

Tam

Well-known member
I'm not saying Tea Party groups should not try get as many STRONG CONSERVATIVES elected as possible but they need to vet them very carefully to make sure there is nothing in their backgrounds that the Dems can hook on to, to distract the voters to what is in their own backgrounds. The Dems are very good at getting their lies on the front pages and the Liberal bias media is more than happy to help them dig up dirt and if they can't find anything, like in the Palin example, they will make it up if need be. To beat the Dems in 2014 they have to be SMART and not give them ANYTHING and a shoplifting charge to a Dems is like candy to a baby.
 

Traveler

Well-known member
Tam said:
I'm not saying Tea Party groups should not try get as many STRONG CONSERVATIVES elected as possible but they need to vet them very carefully to make sure there is nothing in their backgrounds that the Dems can hook on to, to distract the voters to what is in their own backgrounds. The Dems are very good at getting their lies on the front pages and the Liberal bias media is more than happy to help them dig up dirt and if they can't find anything, like in the Palin example, they will make it up if need be. To beat the Dems in 2014 they have to be SMART and not give them ANYTHING and a shoplifting charge to a Dems is like candy to a baby.
Hard to find anyone that stellar when the commies make up lies as they go along, and there is such a double standard. Maybe the best thing to do is to admit mistakes and learning from them right off the bat to take a little wind out of the left's sails. I see few other options.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
What names will they call her?

my bet is the first will be she is not black enough..

Me_bigger.jpg


Sarah Palin backs Greg Abbott, Katrina Pierson in Texas

In the lengthy post, Palin also took the time to weigh in on another Texas race, praising Katrina Pierson, who is challenging Republican Rep. Pete Sessions for his House seat.

“Pierson is an emerging leader and important voice for the future of the grassroots conservative movement,” Palin said. Pierson will face off against Sessions in the GOP primary March 4.

Palin called Pierson “a feisty fighter for freedom” and, without naming Sessions, said he has “lost touch with the people of his district that he’s not even bothering to spend much time in Texas anymore.”

Pierson has also won the support of conservative commentator Michelle Malkin, who joined Pierson at a fundraiser in January, according to the Dallas Morning News.

more at
http://katpierson.wordpress.com/

several youtubes of her speaking on FOX news.. are shown as well as her letter.


Well if her "pedigree" isn't clean enough for the racists and extreme rightwingernut cases like Ted Nugent they will probably call her a "subhuman mongrel" if their m.o. holds true ... :shock: :cry: :cry:
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Steve said:
What names will they call her?

my bet is the first will be she is not black enough..

Me_bigger.jpg


Sarah Palin backs Greg Abbott, Katrina Pierson in Texas

In the lengthy post, Palin also took the time to weigh in on another Texas race, praising Katrina Pierson, who is challenging Republican Rep. Pete Sessions for his House seat.

“Pierson is an emerging leader and important voice for the future of the grassroots conservative movement,” Palin said. Pierson will face off against Sessions in the GOP primary March 4.

Palin called Pierson “a feisty fighter for freedom” and, without naming Sessions, said he has “lost touch with the people of his district that he’s not even bothering to spend much time in Texas anymore.”

Pierson has also won the support of conservative commentator Michelle Malkin, who joined Pierson at a fundraiser in January, according to the Dallas Morning News.

more at
http://katpierson.wordpress.com/

several youtubes of her speaking on FOX news.. are shown as well as her letter.


Well if her "pedigree" isn't clean enough for the racists and extreme rightwingernut cases like Ted Nugent they will probably call her a "subhuman mongrel" if their m.o. holds true ... :shock: :cry: :cry:

It disturbs me that you left out the most important feature words in that quote:
"a communist-raised, communist-educated, communist-nurtured, subhuman mongrel."

Instead..... the racist rightwinger nuts called this woman:
"Utterly Fearless!"

Huge stretch, even for you.

Wonder why the news media left out the "Communist" derogatories of Ted Nugent. Could they possibly be true? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Andy Borowitz

Republicans Slam Ted Nugent for Saying What They Think

And while Nugent gives all the KKK and wingernut Tea Party folks their jollies for the day- it does little for the Republican party's building of that "Big Tent" needed to win national elections...

But its long been known that rightwing extremist groups care little about elections- they want to create anarchy so they can go back to the social values of the 1850's....
They need the Ted Nugents to keep fearmongering and hatemongering to feed the week minded followers within their groups- and keep their agenda alive....
But in doing so they run the sound minded majority of this country further and further from them...
 

Traveler

Well-known member
I wonder if any of the Muslim Brotherhood White House visitors were racist? Doesn't matter, they get a pass. Isn't it nice that the Democrat tent has room for everyone? :lol:

"The remarkable thing is, many of these founders, who've been implicated in terrorism cases, named as unindicted co-conspirators in terrorism cases, are now consulting with the Obama administration," investigative journalist Patrick Poole explained.

Poole, who writes for PJMedia.com, says ISNA's founders were even given a tour of the White House in March 2013.
 

Steve

Well-known member
But its long been known that rightwing extremist groups care little about elections- they want to create anarchy so they can go back to the social values of the 1850's....

I really doubt that Texas TEA Party leader and spokesperson Katrina Pierson agrees with you.. :? :shock:

or are they no longer on your right-wing extremist enemies list?
 

Steve

Well-known member
Traveler said:
I wonder if any of the Muslim Brotherhood White House visitors were racist? Doesn't matter, they get a pass. Isn't it nice that the Democrat tent has room for everyone? :lol:

"The remarkable thing is, many of these founders, who've been implicated in terrorism cases, named as unindicted co-conspirators in terrorism cases, are now consulting with the Obama administration," investigative journalist Patrick Poole explained.

Poole, who writes for PJMedia.com, says ISNA's founders were even given a tour of the White House in March 2013.

you can't just go in and measure for prayer rugs and such on a new mosque and islamic community center of that size without a little planning...

and a tour would at least show them what they will have to work with .

obama-white-house-mosque.jpg
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Andy Borowitz

Republicans Slam Ted Nugent for Saying What They Think

And while Nugent gives all the KKK and wingernut Tea Party folks their jollies for the day- it does little for the Republican party's building of that "Big Tent" needed to win national elections...

But its long been known that rightwing extremist groups care little about elections- they want to create anarchy so they can go back to the social values of the 1850's....
They need the Ted Nugents to keep fearmongering and hatemongering to feed the week minded followers within their groups- and keep their agenda alive....
But in doing so they run the sound minded majority of this country further and further from them...

Why do you keep relating the KKK to the Republicans? :? :roll:

You must know and are ignoring the FACT the KKK was a Democrat group that was used to control the Blacks with fear and death. Now days, the Modern day KKK Democrats use government checks to keep them in line and the fear of losing that government handout is what keeps Blacks voting Democrat. Face it Oldtimer, it is still the DEMOCRATS that want to control them maybe not with guns but they are still controlling them WITH FEAR. The Dems support abortions as again it is their way to control the blacks birth rates. Keeping the Blacks NEEDY is a Democrat thing not a Republican thing.

As I see it Republicans/Conservatives would like to see everyone FREE, including BLACKS, to do as they want to BETTER THEIR OWN LIVES. But as long as the Dems are handing out money like there is no tomorrow and the debt ceiling is not a problem, the weak will take advantage of the handouts. Dems know this and that is why they are now pushing the fact Obamacare will allow people to quit their jobs and follow their dreams of sitting on their azz and having others subsidize their lives through higher taxes on those willing to work for a honest living. The More Dependent on the Government the longer the Dems have CONTROL. Anything the Dems do is not to better anyone's life it is about CONTROLING THEIR LIVES. :x

Where is a test for you Oldtimer :wink:

http://www.nbra.info/dyk-historytest

Now let's see what one of the Proud Democrat Programs have done to the Black shall we Oldtimer.

HOW THE WELFARE STATE HAS DEVASTATED AFRICAN AMERICANS


The rise of the welfare state in the 1960s contributed greatly to the demise of the black family as a stable institution. The out-of-wedlock birth rate among African Americans today is 73%, three times higher than it was prior to the War on Poverty. Children raised in fatherless homes are far more likely to grow up poor and to eventually engage in criminal behavior, than their peers who are raised in two-parent homes. In 2010, blacks (approximately 13% of the U.S. population) accounted for 48.7% of all arrests for homicide, 31.8% of arrests for forcible rape, 33.5% of arrests for aggravated assault, and 55% of arrests for robbery. Also as of 2010, the black poverty rate was 27.4% (about 3 times higher than the white rate), meaning that 11.5 million blacks in the U.S. were living in poverty.


When President Lyndon Johnson in 1964 launched the so-called War on Poverty, which enacted an unprecedented amount of antipoverty legislation and added many new layers to the American welfare state, he explained that his objective was to reduce dependency, “break the cycle of poverty,” and make “taxpayers out of tax eaters.” Johnson further claimed that his programs would bring to an end the “conditions that breed despair and violence,” those being “ignorance, discrimination, slums, poverty, disease, not enough jobs.” Of particular concern to Johnson was the disproportionately high rate of black poverty. In a famous June 1965 speech, the president suggested that the problems plaguing black Americans could not be solved by self-help: “You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line in a race and then say, 'you are free to compete with all the others,'” said Johnson.

Thus began an unprecedented commitment of federal funds to a wide range of measures aimed at redistributing wealth in the United States.[1] From 1965 to 2008, nearly $16 trillion of taxpayer money (in constant 2008 dollars) was spent on means-tested welfare programs for the poor.

The economic milieu in which the War on Poverty arose is noteworthy. As of 1965, the number of Americans living below the official poverty line had been declining continuously since the beginning of the decade and was only about half of what it had been fifteen years earlier. Between 1950 and 1965, the proportion of people whose earnings put them below the poverty level, had decreased by more than 30%. The black poverty rate had been cut nearly in half between 1940 and 1960. In various skilled trades during the period of 1936-59, the incomes of blacks relative to whites had more than doubled. Further, the representation of blacks in professional and other high-level occupations grew more quickly during the five years preceding the launch of the War on Poverty than during the five years thereafter.

Despite these trends, the welfare state expanded dramatically after LBJ's statement. Between the mid-Sixties and the mid-Seventies, the dollar value of public housing quintupled and the amount spent on food stamps rose more than tenfold. From 1965 to 1969, government-provided benefits increased by a factor of 8; by 1974 such benefits were an astounding 20 times higher than they had been in 1965. Also as of 1974, federal spending on social-welfare programs amounted to 16% of America’s Gross National Product, a far cry from the 8% figure of 1960. By 1977 the number of people receiving public assistance had more than doubled since 1960.


The most devastating by-product of the mushrooming welfare state was the corrosive effect it had (along with powerful cultural phenomena such as the feminist and Black Power movements) on American family life, particularly in the black community.
 As provisions in welfare laws offered ever-increasing economic incentives for shunning marriage and avoiding the formation of two-parent families, illegitimacy rates rose dramatically.

For the next few decades, means-tested welfare programs such as food stamps, public housing, Medicaid, day care, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families penalized marriage. A mother generally received far more money from welfare if she was single rather than married. Once she took a husband, her benefits were instantly reduced by roughly 10 to 20 percent. As a Cato Institute study noted, welfare programs for the poor incentivize the very behaviors that are most likely to perpetuate poverty.[2] Another Cato report observes:


“Of course women do not get pregnant just to get welfare benefits.... But, by removing the economic consequences of out-of-wedlock birth, welfare has removed a major incentive to avoid such pregnancies. A teenager looking around at her friends and neighbors is liable to see several who have given birth out-of- wedlock. When she sees that they have suffered few visible consequences ... she is less inclined to modify her own behavior to prevent pregnancy.... Current welfare policies seem to be designed with an appalling lack of concern for their impact on out-of-wedlock births. Indeed, Medicaid programs in 11 states actually provide infertility treatments to single women on welfare.”

The marriage penalties that are embedded in welfare programs can be particularly severe if a woman on public assistance weds a man who is employed in a low-paying job. As a FamilyScholars.org report puts it: “When a couple's income nears the limits prescribed by Medicaid, a few extra dollars in income cause thousands of dollars in benefits to be lost. What all of this means is that the two most important routes out of poverty—marriage and work—are heavily taxed under the current U.S. system.”[3]

The aforementioned FamilyScholars.org report adds that “such a system encourages surreptitious cohabitation,” where “many low-income parents will cohabit without reporting it to the government so that their benefits won't be cut.” These couples “avoid marriage because marriage would result in a substantial loss of income for the family.”

A 2011 study conducted jointly by the Institute for American Values’ Center for Marriage and Families and the University of Virginia's National Marriage Project suggests that “the rise of cohabiting households with children is the largest unrecognized threat to the quality and stability of children’s family lives.” The researchers conclude that cohabiting relationships are highly prone to instability, and that children in such homes are consequently less likely to thrive, more likely to be abused, and more prone to suffering “serious emotional problems.”

William Galston, President Bill Clinton's Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs, estimated that the welfare system, with its economic disincentives to marriage, was responsible for at least 15% to 20% of the family disintegration in the United States. Libertarian scholar Charles Murray has placed the figure at somewhere around 50%. By Murray's reckoning, the growth and increased liberalization of the “welfare complex” have eroded the traditional ethos of working-class communities that once held people who worked at low-wage jobs, and men who married the mothers of their children, in much higher esteem than unwed parents who became wards of the state.

The phenomenon that Murray describes has been in clear evidence for decades. Consider, for instance, a Harlem-based initiative in the 1980s known as Project Redirection, whose aim was to persuade young women who had already borne one child out of wedlock to avoid repeating that mistake. According to the Manpower Development Research Corporation's evaluation report on this project: “[M]any [beneficiaries] were beginning to view getting their own welfare grants as the next stage in their careers.... t became apparent that some participants' requests for separate grants and independent households were too often a sign of manipulation by boyfriends, in whose interest it was to have a girlfriend on welfare with an apartment of her own.”

The results of welfare policies discouraging marriage and family were dramatic, as out-of-wedlock birthrates skyrocketed among all demographic groups in the U.S., but most notably African Americans. In the mid-1960s, the out-of-wedlock birth rate was scarcely 3% for whites, 7.7% for Americans overall, and 24.5% among blacks. By 1976, those figures had risen to nearly 10% for whites, 24.7% for Americans as a whole, and 50.3% for blacks in particular. In 1987, for the first time in the history of any American racial or ethnic group, the birth rate for unmarried black women surpassed that for married black women. Today the illegitimacy rates stand at 41% for the nation overall, and 73% for African Americans specifically.[4]

Welfare not only increases illegitimacy and poverty in the short term, but it inflicts long-lasting, even permanent, handicaps on children who are raised in welfare-dependent homes. Dr. June O'Neill and Anne Hill, comparing children who were identical in terms of such social and economic factors as race, family structure, neighborhood, family income, and mothers' IQ and education, found that the more years a child spent on welfare, the lower the child's IQ. A similar study by Mary Corcoran and Roger Gordon of the University of Michigan concluded that the more welfare income a family received while a boy was growing up, the lower the boy's earnings as an adult.

The devastating societal consequences of family breakdown cannot be overstated. Father-absent families—black and white alike—generally occupy the bottom rung of America's economic ladder. According to the U.S Census, in 2008 the poverty rate for single parents with children was 35.6%; the rate for married couples with children was 6.4%. For white families in particular, the corresponding two-parent and single-parent poverty rates were 21.7% and 3.1%; for Hispanics, the figures were 37.5% and 12.8%; and for blacks, 35.3% and 6.9%. According to Robert Rector, senior research fellow with the Heritage Foundation, “the absence of marriage increases the frequency of child poverty 700 percent” and thus constitutes the single most reliable predictor of a self-perpetuating underclass. Articulating a similar theme many years ago, Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “Nothing is so much needed as a secure family life for a people to pull themselves out of poverty.”

Children in single-parent households are burdened not only with economic, but also profound social and psychological, disadvantages. As a Heritage Foundation analysis notes, youngsters raised by single parents, as compared to those who grow up in intact married homes, are more likely to be physically abused; to be treated for emotional and behavioral disorders; to smoke, drink, and use drugs; to perform poorly in school; to be suspended or expelled from school; to drop out of high school; to behave aggressively and violently; to be arrested for a juvenile crime; to serve jail time before age 30; and to go on to experience poverty as adults. According to the National Fatherhood Initiative, 60% of rapists, 72% of adolescent murderers, and 70% of long-term prison inmates are men who grew up in fatherless homes. With regard to girls in particular, those raised by single mothers are more than twice as likely to give birth out-of-wedlock, thereby perpetuating the cycle of poverty for yet another generation.

The calamitous breakdown of the black family is a comparatively recent phenomenon, coinciding precisely with the rise of the welfare state. Throughout the epoch of slavery and into the early decades of the twentieth century, most black children grew up in two-parent households.
 Post-Civil War studies revealed that most black couples in their forties had been together for at least twenty years. In southern urban areas around 1880, nearly three-fourths of black households were husband-or father-present; in southern rural settings, the figure approached 86%. As of 1940, the illegitimacy rate among blacks nationwide was approximately 15%—scarcely one-fifth of the current figure.
 As late as 1950, black women were more likely to be married than white women, and only 9% of black families with children were headed by a single parent.

During the nine decades between the Emancipation Proclamation and the 1950s, the black family remained a strong, stable institution. Its cataclysmic destruction was subsequently set in motion by such policies as the anti-marriage incentives that are built into the welfare system have served only to exacerbate the problem. As George Mason University professor Walter E. Williams puts it: “The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn't do, what Jim Crow couldn't do, what the harshest racism couldn't do. And that is to destroy the black family.” Hoover Institution Fellow Thomas Sowell concurs: “The black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and discrimination, began rapidly disintegrating in the liberal welfare state that subsidized unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life.”

Just as welfare policies discourage marriage and the formation of stable families, they also discourage the development of a healthy work ethic. As Heritage Foundation scholar Michael Franc noted in 2012: “[T]he necessity of phasing out [welfare] benefits as incomes rise brings a serious moral hazard. In many cases, economists have calculated, welfare recipients who enter the work force or receive pay raises lose a dollar or more of benefits for each additional dollar they earn. The system makes fools of those who work hard.” In testimony on Capitol Hill, Rep. Geoff Davis (R-Kentucky) concurred that although federal welfare programs “are designed to alleviate poverty while promoting work,” collectively they have “an unintended side effect of discouraging harder work and higher earnings.” “The more benefits the government provides,” he said, “the stronger the disincentive to work.” Yet another Capitol Hill witness, Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wisconsin)—herself a former welfare recipient—acknowledged in her oral testimony: “I once had a job and begged my supervisor not to give me a 50-cents-an-hour raise lest I lose Title 20 day care.” The same work disincentive came into play when Moore contemplated the health coverage she was receiving through Medicaid. “I would want to work if in fact I didn’t risk losing Medicaid,” she said.


Republicans Freed them only to have the Dems enslave them again with SOCIAL WELFARE.

Yep Dems have been really good for the Blacks Oldtimer. More dependent on a party that wants to control them for their own POLITICAL REASONS. :mad:

Stop linking the KKK to the Republicans you Democrat loving idiot. :roll:
 

Steve

Well-known member
one area that I noticed since the arrest was brought up is how many of the articles cite it..

but fail to list any of her actual work..
BS, Biology, University of Texas-Dallas, 2006

Member, Economic Development Board, Garland City Council
Member, Health Facilities Council, Garland City Council

Member, Citizens Advisory Committee, Dallas Area Rapid Transit
Member, Steering Committee, Dallas Tea Party
Founder, Garland Tea Party
Member, Advisory Committee, Texas Tea Party Caucus






but here is what one liberal wrote... (warning it is to nasty to post here)
ironically the title is: Who is this Sad Soul? Katrina Pierson, What Has Gone So Wrong in Your Life for You to Believe Such Things?

cursed for being black and conservative...and then it goes downhill from there..

http://www.chaunceydevega.com/2009/04/what-is-wrong-with-black-people-who-is.html
the author of this vile article:
I have been a guest on the BBC, Ring of Fire Radio, Ed Schultz, Joshua Holland's Alternet Radio Hour, the Thom Hartmann radio show, the Burt Cohen show, and Our Common Ground.

I can't post the article so I will instead post the one sane comment..
Why are you all disparaging this sister? because you disagree with her? So who should be kicked out of race-her for having a view of less taxes or you for suggesting she appear in a interracial porn video? Sick liberals!!!!
 
Top