Child support as USA politics

by JP Cusick Wed Nov 09, 2011 8:34 pm

First topic message reminder :

I am NOT campaigning here as I just want to discuss such things, but I am a candidate in my Maryland for the US Senate 2012, but if I win then my politics will affect the entire USA.

My point and platform is to radically reform the Child Support laws under federal mandate. Link HERE.

As like the law says the c/s must be taken as a percentage but instead the State Courts only order fixed set amounts which is severely abusive and detrimental to all concerned.

Thereby the laws have unjustly turned parenting into a crime and turned parents into criminals and it destroys the family unit and alienates the children.

The system needs to be stopped or dramatically reformed and yet most people are just determined to pretend that the injustices and ruin are just acceptable conditions.

Child Support claims to be helping children when it is really just playing politics with our society.

So I was wondering if anyone here has any input onto this subject?

by dimsum Mon Nov 28, 2011 6:45 pm

Hell-o True Blue nice to meet you... Smile

Morning Jst how be you?

by dimsum Mon Nov 28, 2011 6:51 pm

If a man chooses to have children then he does not get a pass if he divorces the mom or was not married to the Mom. Same goes for women too. There is one very good way Mr C could of avoided paying support but a raincoat on. Problem solved. He chose not too now he has responsibilities. I feel no pity for him. Defacing public propertyy put him in jail and was not paying then..What were his kids supposed to do then? You get no sympathy here.

by Guest Mon Nov 28, 2011 7:55 pm

True Blue wrote:
Why don't they use welfare or wage garnishment instead of prison in the US? Too humane perhaps?

In Texas, the state “welfare” agencies can initiate and participate in collecting child support payments from absent parents if the custodial parent is receiving AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children), Food Stamps, or other state/federal aid (most such programs are 90/10, the federal government funding 90% and the state government funding 10%).

Garnishment of wages/salaries? I know that IRS (the bums) can garnishee certain portions of one wages/salary. I’m not sure that power is allowed any state agency. Jail time (gaol?) occurs because judges can order a person to be jailed indefinitely for disobeying a court order. Child support payments are court orders, so…

by True Blue Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:01 pm

So what the US needs is a federal law allowing access to IRS data for the purpose of wage garnishment in order that child support is paid where a parent is found to be in breach of a court order.

It's a cheaper option. It's a kinder option. Therefore it ain't gonna happen in the USA!

by Guest Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:03 pm

True Blue wrote:
Therefore it ain't gonna happen in the USA!

You got a beef with the USA?

by True Blue Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:10 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
True Blue wrote:
Therefore it ain't gonna happen in the USA!

You got a beef with the USA?

The people? No! The system? Yes!

by Guest Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:15 pm

True Blue wrote:
RockOnBrother wrote:
True Blue wrote:
Therefore it ain't gonna happen in the USA!

You got a beef with the USA?

The people? No! The system? Yes!

Why?

by True Blue Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:42 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
True Blue wrote:
RockOnBrother wrote:
True Blue wrote:
Therefore it ain't gonna happen in the USA!

You got a beef with the USA?

The people? No! The system? Yes!

Why?

Too many reasons to name however to just name a few....

Lack of universal medical care
Shoddy accounting practices that do not include the Aged and Disability Pension obligations thereby masking the real state of the US economy.
The Military Industrial Complex
Legislation that has amendments which have nothing to do with the bill in question and everything to do with buying votes to get the bill passed.
Excessively punitive... I think the US has more citizens per capita in prison than does any other Western Nation.

And so it goes. Maybe we should have a debate on this?

by Shirina Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:44 pm

Shirina, are you allowed to multinic on this board?

Nope. We don't want sockpuppets clogging the board nor do we want people creating "disposable" accounts with which to troll. Changing your nick is up to Ivan, and Ivan is pretty thorough about keeping multi-nicking to zero.

by Shirina Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:45 pm

And so it goes. Maybe we should have a debate on this?

There's nothing to debate since I agree with you - and I live in America.

by True Blue Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:56 pm

Shirina wrote:
And so it goes. Maybe we should have a debate on this?
There's nothing to debate since I agree with you - and I live in America.

Ah well... that's done and dusted then. Maybe, the US could look to Canada for inspiration...

by Shirina Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:59 pm

Ah well... that's done and dusted then. Maybe, the US could look to Canada for inspiration...

LOL! Sorry. I'm always up for a good debate, but I'm not so good at playing the devil's advocate. Rock may go a few rounds with you though.

by dimsum Mon Nov 28, 2011 9:19 pm

While Canada does have health care they have their own issues esp with the enviroment. There fish farm may be carrying a virus that could wipe out the wild salmon here. They do mine for coal and I am sure I heard someone talking about fracking there. While I like our neighbors to the North I also realize they like any country has it's issues.

True Blue, I am an American but I agree for the most part of what you said. That said I am sure you also have issues with your country too.

Everyone one likes to bash the US until/when they need us. Just saying

by Guest Mon Nov 28, 2011 9:29 pm

True Blue,

Given the fact that both Canada and Australia styled their simultaneous sovereignty federal governments from the US model (15 December 1791), perhaps Aussies ought to be grateful to the good old US of A rather than focusing solely upon its faults, two of which are not a lack of universal health care and over punitive-ness (if it’s not, it ought to be a word).

On those last two, we can go a few rounds if you wish, mate.

by True Blue Mon Nov 28, 2011 9:30 pm

dimsum wrote: That said I am sure you also have issues with your country too.

The issues with my country are minuscule compared to those of the USA. I'd say that of greatest concern is the plight of the outback Aboriginals. How do we Australians get their standard of living on par with the rest of us... they are so isolated, that servicing their needs is an opperational nightmare.

Everyone one likes to bash the US until/when they need us. Just saying

Australia has never needed the US, but the US has no problems seeking our military assistance. Just saying. Wink

by Guest Mon Nov 28, 2011 9:32 pm

True Blue wrote:
Australia has never needed the US, but the US has no problems seeking our military assistance.

Port Moresby.

by True Blue Mon Nov 28, 2011 9:37 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:[color=black]
True Blue,

Given the fact that both Canada and Australia styled their simultaneous sovereignty federal governments from the US model (15 December 1791), perhaps Aussies ought to be grateful to the good old US of A

So that's why we are a Constitutional Monarchy using the Westminster System eh? (epic giggles)

over punitive-ness (if it’s not, it ought to be a word).

Too messy... try 'overly punitive'.

On those last two, we can go a few rounds if you wish, mate.

OK... I'll let you start a new thread and I'll be back latter to attend to it.

by True Blue Mon Nov 28, 2011 9:39 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
True Blue wrote:
Australia has never needed the US, but the US has no problems seeking our military assistance.

Port Moresby.

Geez mate... you mean to say that you guys joined the war to save Australia's bacon? What a beaut! cyclops

PS: Here is the Australian account of that Battle. Have you got an American account that I could read?

by Guest Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:39 pm

True Blue wrote:
RockOnBrother wrote:
True Blue wrote:
Australia has never needed the US, but the US has no problems seeking our military assistance.

Port Moresby.

Geez mate... you mean to say that you guys joined the war to save Australia's bacon?

The Empire of Japan declared war on the United Kingdom and Australia (not sure about NZ) right after its attack on Pearl Harbor. In short order, Hong Kong, the Malaysian peninsula, and Singapore fell. I believe the Royal Navy’s Prince of Wales, thought to be a game changer, was nullified by Japanese air power during this time in early 1942.

Papua/New Guinea was in the Empire of Japan’s plans as a staging point for the invasion and subjugation of Australia. Port Moresby was one of the finest examples of Aussie grit in history, along with that place I can’t pronounce near Constantinople/Istanbul during WWI where a quick knockout blow designed to put the Ottoman Empire on its back turned into a quagmire in which ANZAC troops built a legend of loyalty and courage.

But Port Moresby wasn’t solely an Aussie operation’ American troops fought just as tenaciously, just as savagely, to defend Australia from Japanese tyranny. This was beneficial to Australia and the US. Or perhaps you would have enjoyed living in a subjugated country in which Japanese was a required second language, that you might understand and respond to the orders of your masters in their native tongue?

Port Moresby: World War II and after

by oftenwrong Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:43 pm

A further example, if any were needed, of the problems arising from acquiring Colonial-style possessions.

by True Blue Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:51 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
But Port Moresby wasn’t solely an Aussie operation’ American troops fought just as tenaciously, just as savagely, to defend Australia from Japanese tyranny. This was beneficial to Australia and the US. Or perhaps you would have enjoyed living in a subjugated country in which Japanese was a required second language, that you might understand and respond to the orders of your masters in their native tongue?
[/color]
Port Moresby: World War II and after

Come now... the US weren't there to save Australia, they were there fighting the Japs. AU and US were allies because we were both fighting the same foe.

Did you read that reputable link I provided where it states most clearly that historians have found that Australia was not under threat by the Japanese? And you gave me a Wiki link when I asked for a comparable US interpretation of the Coral Sea Battle. No fair! Wiki sucks. Got anything better and more reliable than that?

by JP Cusick Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:54 pm

Shirina wrote:

LOL! I had no idea that "deadbeat" was a legal term. Huh, you learn something new every day.

Well, then, if you don't perceive it as an attack and the word is actually a legal term, then I won't stand in the way. No harm, no foul.

I do respect and appreciate your consideration and humility in reversing your stance, but I expected some thing more.

I expected some revulsion in the fact that our government trashes citizen parents with such words - but no.

This is a complication which infuriates me over and over again.

As in if some one here calls names then that is wrong, but if the Gov calls names then that is okay.

If a citizen steals money then that is a crime, but if the Gov steals money then that is okay.

If a person takes a child then that is kidnapping, but the Gov takes children from their parents by the thousands and million which is okay.

Why is it so acceptable that our government goes on trashing parents with hateful slanderous name calling? as if it is okay.

It is legally trashing parents and yet people wonder why the families are falling into ruin - as if 1+1 does not = 2 when it is the Gov doing the evil.

In regard to the Child Support and Custody laws people treat them as if they are infallible commandments from our God-Gov.

by JP Cusick Mon Nov 28, 2011 11:26 pm

jstnay wrote:

I'd like him to tell us what else he's running on. Also most of the time he spent in either Jail or Prison was for defacing Public Property NOT child support.

I am not running on any other issue other then reforming the Child Support laws because I need the mandate in case I win the election.

Also running for any political office then it is the best strategy to have as few issues as possible as like just one (1) thing is all one needs to break through the election and win.

Too many subjects confuses the people and weakens the candidate and it is a way to lose votes.

As to my time in jail and prison then the defacing / spray painting property was still in regard to the Child Support as it was my nonviolent civil disobedience against those evil laws.

Therefore I was a political prisoner.

So most of my incarceration time was not for Child Support as it was in direct opposition to the evil Child Support.

==========================

jackthelad wrote:

JP Cusick, says he has served two terms of imprisonment, is there no laws in America that stops a person who has served time in prison from becoming a Senator or Congressman.
What is the difference in civil law imprisonment and criminal law imprisonment,

There is no real difference between imprisonment for civil law or criminal law as they both go to the same jails (goals) and same prisons and treated the same way while inside. There are different levels of minimum security and medium then maximum security but that is just administration differences which can get complicated.

In my Maryland then it is against the law here for a convicted felon to serve in political office, but I was only charged with misdemeanors which are minor crimes and not felonies.

In fact when I got sentenced to three (3) years in Maryland prison (2000-2003) for spray painting the State House with "Child Support thieves" and "Thou shalt not steal" then I might have been the ONLY prison inmate with a misdemeanor as most if not all the other inmates were there for their felony crimes, but I got along well most of the time with the other inmates. It was the prison guards and the prison rules which I did not get along with very well.

So if I had been charged and convicted of a felony then I could not now run for political office, so in that I escaped.

by Guest Tue Nov 29, 2011 12:06 am

True Blue wrote:
RockOnBrother wrote:
But Port Moresby wasn’t solely an Aussie operation’ American troops fought just as tenaciously, just as savagely, to defend Australia from Japanese tyranny. This was beneficial to Australia and the US. Or perhaps you would have enjoyed living in a subjugated country in which Japanese was a required second language, that you might understand and respond to the orders of your masters in their native tongue?
Come now... the US weren't there to save Australia, they were there fighting the Japs.

Come now… had US soldiers, airmen, and sailors not joined their Aussie brothers in the defense of Port Moresby, Darwin 2011 might be headquarters for the Empire of Japan’s Australian Occupation Command, and Sydney, Perth, Adelaide, Melbourne, and Brisbane might be Japanese troops’ R&R destinations.

Vichy Australia; that would have had a nice ring to it in the ears of Tojo.

True Blue wrote:
Did you read that reputable link I provided where it states most clearly that historians have found that Australia was not under threat by the Japanese?

Not very “reputable” spreading that nonsense. Tell that to each surviving Aussie and American troops who sacrificed his future peace of mind in the defense of Australia at Port Moresby and the Coral Sea.

True Blue wrote:
And you gave me a Wiki link when I asked for a comparable US interpretation of the Coral Sea Battle. No fair!

Absolutely fair. Wiki was founded by an American.

True Blue wrote:
Wiki sucks.

No, it does not. Allow yourself to absorb a true story.

In 1969, a double murder and double attempted murder, intended to be a quadruple murder, occurred on a major US university campus. Details which were made know to me were provided by eyewitnesses. Your “reliable” sources jacked up the story big time. Wiki got it right, scoring a dead center bulls-eye.

Past performance s the best predictor of future performance. Wiki has the track record; wake up and smell the coffee.

True Blue wrote:
Got anything better and more reliable than that?

Nope. But “Wiki do.”

References
6. “Australian War Memorial - AJRP Essays”. Ajrp.awm.gov.au. Retrieved 2010-04-25

7. American Caesar, William Manchester, 1978, Little Brown Company,793 pages, ISBN:0-316-54498-1, pp.306: On and about Jul-Sep 1942 and MacArthur's troops stop the Japanese in the difficult jungles of New Guinea and General Kenney gifts Port Moresby to the SAC by moving the bomber line 1800 miles to five new air bases.

8. “Amazon.com listing for the ‘Four Corners: A Journey into the Heart of Papua New Guinea’”

9. Salak, Kira. “Nonfiction book about Papua New Guinea, ‘Four Corners’”

10. American Caesar, William Manchester, 1978, Little Brown Company,793 pages, ISBN:0-316-54498-1, pp.290-307: On and about Feb-Dec 1942 and MacArthur's reorganization of troops, lack of theater priority, his support for Guadalcanal and his daring offensive gamble in going to meet the Japanese in the difficult jungles of New Guinea as a way of conducting a forward defense of Australia, rather than risk a war of maneuver when he had insufficient forces to move around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Moresby#References

by Guest Tue Nov 29, 2011 12:45 am

True Blue wrote:
RockOnBrother wrote:
True Blue,

Given the fact that both Canada and Australia styled their simultaneous sovereignty federal governments from the US model (15 December 1791), perhaps Aussies ought to be grateful to the good old US of A
So that's why we are a Constitutional Monarchy using the Westminster System eh?

Read carefully:

“Given the fact that both Canada and Australia styled their simultaneous sovereignty federal governments from the US model…”

Or do you actually believe that y’all got Australia’s federal system of government (Australian Federal Police, Canberra, the federal capital, etc.) from Westminster?

True Blue wrote:
(epic giggles)

(Disrespectful giggles when confronted by facts unbeknownst to you.)

True Blue wrote:

over punitive-ness (if it’s not, it ought to be a word).
Too messy... try 'overly punitive'.

Too impatient… try reading my edited post. Meanwhile, as I’ve said, it ought to be a word.

Perhaps we Texans will create it; if you’re nice, we’ll share it with y’all.

True Blue wrote:

On those last two, we can go a few rounds if you wish, mate.
OK... I'll let you start a new thread and I'll be back latter to attend to it.

No you won’t. If you’re ready to rock and roll, start the thread.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:20 am

This thread is still rolling? lol

by True Blue Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:20 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
Read carefully:

“Given the fact that both Canada and Australia styled their simultaneous sovereignty federal governments from the US model…”

Yes my bad... lack of sleep is my excuse; something I have since resolved.

I have looked into this claim of yours and am not satisfied that you are correct. So far as Australian History is concerned, the constitutions of GB, USA, Canada and Switzerland were studied before forming our own. Elements of those constitutions as well as our own unique take on the matter played a role in the creation of the Australian Constitution.

I understand how you can come to think that the Australian Constitution seems connected to American Federalism, however, if it is viewed in context with 'Responsible Government' which is a Westminster concept, you will come to appreciate that looks are deceptive and that our legislative and executive branch are united, unlike that of the USA which is separated.

I also took a look at Canadian Confederacy and again am not satisfied that you are correct.

True Blue wrote:
(epic giggles)
(Disrespectful giggles when confronted by facts unbeknownst to you.)

No... not disrespectful giggles, but if you must seek for ill will... be my guest. It will affect you more than me.

Nonetheless, I am most appreciative of the fact that you pushed the envelope on this as it caused me to study the matter in detail and learn more of the history of my country. I have many gaps in my learning and you had hit upon one causing me to rectify that. Therefore purpose of my being on forums has been satisfied yet again.

So thank you and epic giggles. Laughing

True Blue wrote:

over punitive-ness (if it’s not, it ought to be a word).
Too messy... try 'overly punitive'.
Meanwhile, as I’ve said, it ought to be a word.
Perhaps we Texans will create it; if you’re nice, we’ll share it with y’all.

It should never be a word... it sounds messy and ugly when spoken IMO. And I doubt it would be something Australians would be inclined towards... From our perspective why use complex words when the simple variants would suffice? Australians also have a habit of using the least amount of syllables possible... so your addition of a suffix would fail on that account also in Oz. (A sad reality, given the exceptional abilities of the English language to express the nuance of thought and feeling.)

True Blue wrote:

On those last two, we can go a few rounds if you wish, mate.
OK... I'll let you start a new thread and I'll be back latter to attend to it.
No you won’t. If you’re ready to rock and roll, start the thread.

You invite me to debate and you decide the topic of debate but refuse to open that debate as per the demands of common courtesy! How extraordinary! To say that I am profoundly affronted by your ill kept affectation, would be an overstatement writ large and bold. Very Happy

I cannot help but think however that you are most worthy as a sparing partner in debate, so will overlook this slight... nay... assume the slight to be a means of hiding your lack of confidence that is necessary for initiating debate... and accept the responsibility of initiating such proceedings as my own.

I am as ever I was most unhumblely yours. Laughing

by GreatNPowerfulOz Tue Nov 29, 2011 12:00 pm

"It should never be a word... it sounds messy and ugly when spoken IMO. And I doubt it would be something Australians would be inclined towards... From our perspective why use complex words when the simple variants would suffice? Australians also have a habit of using the least amount of syllables possible... so your addition of a suffix would fail on that account also in Oz. (A sad reality, given the exceptional abilities of the English language to express the nuance of thought and feeling.)" ~ True Blue

Our African Americans are always trying to bling up the lingo....

by True Blue Tue Nov 29, 2011 12:44 pm

GreatNPowerfulOz wrote:"It should never be a word... it sounds messy and ugly when spoken IMO. And I doubt it would be something Australians would be inclined towards... From our perspective why use complex words when the simple variants would suffice? Australians also have a habit of using the least amount of syllables possible... so your addition of a suffix would fail on that account also in Oz. (A sad reality, given the exceptional abilities of the English language to express the nuance of thought and feeling.)" ~ True Blue

Our African Americans are always trying to bling up the lingo....

There's nothing wrong with that. English is a living language and so ripe for change anew. And African Americans have added a vibrant lingo to the language some of which goes beyond the the constraints of localized culture to become universally used and abused by fellow folks of the English tongue. Why, it's positively Shakespearian what they do to the English Language.

However... adding a suffix so as to messy the verbal delivery of a word is not of the linguistic bling to which you speak.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Tue Nov 29, 2011 12:49 pm

"In fact when I got sentenced to three (3) years in Maryland prison (2000-2003) for spray painting the State House with "Child Support thieves" and "Thou shalt not steal" then I might have been the ONLY prison inmate with a misdemeanor as most if not all the other inmates were there for their felony crimes, but I got along well most of the time with the other inmates. It was the prison guards and the prison rules which I did not get along with very well." ~ Windus Baggio

So, basically, what I'm getting from your statement is that you're more comfortable surrounded by felons than following the law...just what we need in a politician. Maybe you should move to Detroit and campaign there...I understand now that they don't even ask if you've been convicted of a felony when you apply for a city job

by JP Cusick Tue Nov 29, 2011 2:16 pm

GreatNPowerfulOz wrote:

~ Windus Baggio

So, basically, what I'm getting from your statement is that you're more comfortable surrounded by felons than following the law...just what we need in a politician. Maybe you should move to Detroit and campaign there...I understand now that they don't even ask if you've been convicted of a felony when you apply for a city job

I like the way you call names as it is done very classy and with style. You do get my sincere compliments for such - and you have done it funny too - cheers.

As to felony criminals in prison then it is true that I came to appreciate them as I had never before, in that I saw how the laws were corrupt and the incarceration was detrimental and that African Americans are unjustly targeted and prosecuted.

You might see some humor in claiming a convicted felon can get such city jobs, but the harsh reality is that ex-cons have a hard time getting any job or getting housing and in many if not most states they are denied Public Assistance programs and they can not vote or seek Political Office to fight back against their oppressors.

My own case is a glaring exception to that process - which might be based on my white privilege being given so freely in the USA.

The Child Support and Custody laws were originally empowered under President Reagan as a way of countering the population growth of the African Americans along with providing extensive access to legal abortions, but that included some of us poorer white folks getting entangled under it too.

It is true that Reagan was politically against abortions, but he was only against the abortion of Caucasians.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:02 pm

lessening the impact of being a felon upon job opportunities, etc. lessens the impact of the effectiveness of the punishment of being a criminal in the first place. one of the most basic ideas of law and punishment is that there are consequences to being a criminal....if you lessen the consequences, then you lessen the deterent factor for becoming a criminal.

african americans seem to go to jail more than any other race because they are not able to conform to laws as well as others....it's just that simple.

regarding abortion....liberals/democrats most certainly agree with eugenics so I'm confused as to the issue of Reagan and abortion. Planned Parenthood was instituted to rid America of the poor and ignorant blacks before they became a welfare caste and burden on society as a whole....Planned Parenthood is a sacred cow of liberalism in America. Are you sure that you are a Democrat?

by jstnay Tue Nov 29, 2011 4:29 pm

It is true that Reagan was politically against abortions, but he was only against the abortion of Caucasians.

Reagan decided he was against abortion when he started running the first time for president, he ran 3 times.
Reagan signed the abortion act in California while he was governor on June 14, 1967.
Prior to his signing this law there were only 518 abortions in that whole year, after signing this law there were an average of 100,000 per year. There is no way you can prove that these were African Americans.
My opinion is that the 518 were the wealthy among us who were able to 'use the system', after the new law anyone could have an abortion.

I do not believe in abortion, I do however believe in the right to choose. I would not encourage anyone to have one, but I would not be in their face it they did. It is not my business or the governments business.

FYI, poor people as a rule don't have abortions.
I have a friend that is a CPS worker I wish she would come here and tell you what she sees and it isn't poor black women getting abortions.

by jstnay Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:13 pm

Are you sure that you are a Democrat?

I've wondered that a number of times, he speaks Republican not Democrat.

by Guest Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:52 pm

GreatNPowerfulOz wrote:
african americans seem to go to jail more than any other race because they are not able to conform to laws as well as others....it's just that simple.

The true Oz emerges.

by Guest Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:59 pm

jstnay wrote:
I do not believe in abortion…

No one should “believe in abortion.”

jstnay wrote:
… I do however believe in the right to choose.

So do I.

Each of the four entities involved in every abortion, (1) the unborn child, (2) the father, (3) the mother, and (4) the Creator of all human life, has the right to choose.

by jackthelad Tue Nov 29, 2011 6:26 pm

JP, thank you for answering my question about ex-convicts standing for the Senate and Congress.

RockOnBrother wrote:
GreatNPowerfulOz wrote:
african americans seem to go to jail more than any other race because they are not able to conform to laws as well as others....it's just that simple.

The true Oz emerges.

Why do you have to say African Americans, or Latin Americans, white Americans are not natural habitants of America, the native American, is what everyone calls the Red Indian.
White Americans have come from practically every country in Europe, Italian Americans, German Americans, French, Russian, Swedish, not forgetting English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh. If you are going to call the people with black skins African Americans, why arn't you calling the white skinned Americans Mongrel Americans. I suppose there are as many Mongrel Americans in prison as there are Black Americans. Al Capone was one.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Tue Nov 29, 2011 6:51 pm

I refer to them as "African Americans" because that's th term they've preferred for almost 2 decades as a "minority group".

If you don't like their monikers, I'd suggest you take it up with them. They're the ones who insist on their skin color and heritage being recognized as part of their cultural identity.

Additionally, there ARE white people who would like to be known as "Anglo-Americans" but that, ironically, is considered "racist" by African Americans and represents oppression. Go figure.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Tue Nov 29, 2011 6:55 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
GreatNPowerfulOz wrote:
african americans seem to go to jail more than any other race because they are not able to conform to laws as well as others....it's just that simple.

The true Oz emerges.

The "true Oz" has always been obvious...the one who doesn't rely on mythical rhetoric of "racism". Pray tell, what other reason do you suppose blacks are incarcerated at exponential rates of other races besides not being able to conform to laws as well as others without resorting to unsubstantiated allegations of "racism" and "oppression"? Go ahead...I'm all ears. Maybe Japanese Americans are just racist for being the least incarcerated group?

How about we go one further...maybe it's because the Africans might well be the least "domesticated" of all the races, with the possible exception of arabs. After all, real Africans still live in the bush and shanty towns...reproducing like cockroaches. Pick any predominantly "black" city anywhere on the planet and it's crime rates are greater than "white" cities and it's standard of living is lower. It's not racist to just make objective observations. Shanty town culture is something blacks bring with them wherever they settle, anywhere around the globe.

by jstnay Tue Nov 29, 2011 7:07 pm

The "true Oz" has always been obvious...the one who doesn't rely on mythical rhetoric of "racism". Pray tell, what other reason do you suppose blacks are incarcerated at exponential rates of other races besides not being able to conform to laws as well as others without resorting to unsubstantiated allegations of "racism" and "oppression"? Go ahead...I'm all ears. Maybe Japanese Americans are just racist for being the least incarcerated group?

One major reason is that the laws for using Crack Cocaine are much harsher than the laws for Cocaine.
I believe that has changed recently, so maybe we'll get to see what happens when they are given equal sentences for using/selling the same drug by a slightly different name.

by Guest Tue Nov 29, 2011 7:11 pm

GreatNPowerfulOz wrote:
RockOnBrother wrote:
GreatNPowerfulOz wrote:
african americans seem to go to jail more than any other race because they are not able to conform to laws as well as others....it's just that simple.
The true Oz emerges.
The "true Oz" has always been obvious

To those who see clearly, yes. Note highlighted text.

by Sponsored content