Obama launches ‘My Brother’s Keeper’ to help young minority men

[AngryBlackMail]

Nice troll account. Coward.

Do you support stop and frisk amongst African Americans?

[goody1]

Do you support stop and frisk amongst African Americans?

Post under your normal account and I'll answer your question

[ImproperOne]

Typical liberal rhetoric. Yes, because white Christian males arguing that aid should be given to all poor children regardless of race equates to "crying about persecution [sic] status" - Enjoy your white guilt goals of 2014 and beyond...

This initiative excludes no one, it's targeting a group based on the reality that minority groups ARE the ones in the most dire need of crime reduction help.

And using liberal as an insult is retarded, i'm a damn proud classical liberal who is NOT afraid to admit that blacks are over-represented when it comes to crime and poverty and a group that is in need of this help. Meanwhile others just love to blame that specific group for all crimes and turning their backs when it comes to trying to do anything about it.

"A study by the University of Chicago’s Crime Lab found that a year in the BAM program increased graduation rates by 10 to 23 percent and reduced violent-crime arrests by 44 percent. The program costs $1,100 per participant."

That is just AWFUL, how DARE they try to reduce crime and help these groups, IT'S RACIST!

[rugbybosher]

This is so phukking stupid, you yanks are obsessed with race, it should just be means tested, poor is poor.

[ImproperOne]

Liberals:


Why exactly can this not be a needs based? Any white/black/hispanic/asain kid who needs it will have access to it. Why exclude a child in need because the rest of his race on average is more fortunate? If you guys can't see this being racist then you're lost.

Targeting recognized statistical groups is ok in all other venues, why is it wrong when it comes to this?

And no, it's not like they refuse to help white kids too, it's just that they are recognizing the reality that is actually real and targeting that very real group.

[goody1]

Targeting recognized statistical groups is ok in all other venues, why is it wrong when it comes to this?

And no, it's not like they refuse to help white kids too, it's just that they are recognizing the reality that is actually real and targeting that very real group.

Then why not just support a program that helps ALL poor and underprivileged youths?
Every time a program like this cones out it increase the racial divide.
And I'll say it again, why does the left think the minority communities are incapable of helping themselves and the only way they can become successful is with handouts. That seems pretty racist to me. And if I was a minority I'd be insulted

[817TexasBrah]

Stop saying "minorities." Asians don't need it. Indians don't need it. Call it what it is. It is for black kids with a Mexican or 2 thrown in so we can act like it's not just for black kids.

Oh and targeting racial groups for any reason is wrong. Targeting someone because you have intelligence that that type of person ( above 6 foot, fat, and yes, even black) has commuted the crime is just fine.

[deadliftdang]

Hate to say it, but with gang violence still on the rise, fact is most people gravitating to gangs and lives of crime/failure tend to be minorities. Nutsy, I understand your criticisms that the program fails to reach out to white people who are discouraged and I agree to a certain extent. I think affirmative action as a whole is a failure in that regard because it looks at race/gender instead of actually examining poverty/disadvantage in everyone. In this case though... drive around Brooklyn or Ward 7/8 of DC on a Monday afternoon while everyone else is at work... you aren't going to see 15 white guys standing on a street corner gawking at women and acting tough. Aiming the program at people of color is the best way to address things like that.

[tsbalr120]

Targeting recognized statistical groups is ok in all other venues, why is it wrong when it comes to this?

And no, it's not like they refuse to help white kids too, it's just that they are recognizing the reality that is actually real and targeting that very real group.

You didn't answer the question. Why not fund programs that help all kids in need? Instead of hindering the scope by only a few races?

[817TexasBrah]

Yea? Go to West Virginia and you will find plenty of out of work, uneducated white people.

[ImproperOne]

Then why not just support a program that helps ALL poor and underprivileged youths?
Every time a program like this cones out it increase the racial divide.
And I'll say it again, why does the left think the minority communities are incapable of helping themselves and the only way they can become successful is with handouts. That seems pretty racist to me. And if I was a minority I'd be insulted

It's actually for poor neighbourhood kids, that the majority of them are black does NOT exclude the white kids.

But let me get this straight, racial profiling is ok when it comes to solving crimes but NOT when it comes to actually helping that group so they commit less crimes?

How is that not hypocrisy?

[HeroesFall]

Perhaps they should take that money and put it towards an outreach to teach the parent's to actually be there for their kids and not have a bunch of baby momma's running around with a missing father figure. Kids grow up and are developed by their surroundings. If the kid gets no parental guidance and spends their time watching TV, playing video games, or running the streets, that money won't do jack.

The failure is on parenting, and no amount of money will fix it. Its' a cultural issue that requires people to take responsibility for themselves, their families, and their decisions. That issue is not solely within the minorities either, but its certainly more acceptable in the ghetto's - where minorities are quite often located.


Donating millions does nothing more than continue to encourage people to suckle from the government teat. They already get lots of "help" - food stamps, welfare, government housing, scholarships, requirements for a percentage of minorities to work to for a tax deduct for companies. The perks have been there for a long, long time. What keeps the minority down isn't a lack of opportunity, its their decision to continue to wallow in the muck they are in. There are plenty of successful minority folk out there, because they applied themselves and got out. Ask anyone who "got out" and they'll tell you they have 0 desire to go back.



Also - former poor white kid who applied himself and moved up in life - 0 scholarship opportunities because I wasn't a minority and I've never gained anything from being white. Maybe people should learn work ethic and determination - you can't buy that.

[goody1]

It's actually for poor neighbourhood kids, that the majority of them are black does NOT exclude the white kids.

But let me get this straight, racial profiling is ok when it comes to solving crimes but NOT when it comes to actually helping that group so they commit less crimes?

How is that not hypocrisy?

Young men and boys of color does not mean white kids. And please point out where I said racial profiling is ok. Until then STFU about it.
I'm sure you'd be ok with Bush supporting programs that were intended to only help white kids. Right???

[ImproperOne]

You didn't answer the question. Why not fund programs that help all kids in need? Instead of hindering the scope by only a few races?

Why DON'T the look for white kids when the description of the robber was that he was a young black male? Because in the real world, targeting groups isn't a problem if they are recognized as problem groups.

It's like "why are there special classes in school, shouldn't everyone get equal attention". You note a problem, you recognize it and you try to solve it.

We ALL know that young minority males are overrepresented in crime statistics and supporting programs that actually work (a 44% reduction in violent crime is MASSIVE) doesn't seem like a bad idea.

Of course, it targets poor neighbourhoods specifically and while black people are overrepresented there it does not in ANY way exclude white people.

But since Obama said Black.... well i suppose people will just HAVE to whine about it.

Have any of you even READ the initiative proclamation?

[ImproperOne]

Young men and boys of color does not mean white kids. And please point out where I said racial profiling is ok. Until then STFU about it.
I'm sure you'd be ok with Bush supporting programs that were intended to only help white kids. Right???

It specifically targets a group that is KNOWN to be overrepresented, i did not hear any whining from you when Arabs were targeted, i did not hear it when black people were targeted in relation to crime but trying to help them and reduce crime... well... now you're whining like a little bitch.

Again, this is targeting poor neighbourhoods and no white kid living there will be turned away.

[GencFB]

wait wait. you think it's okay for police to stop and frisk african americans?

You realize it violates the 4th amendment?

Ladies and gentlemen this why Conversatives will NEVER WIN the black vote.

Thank you nusty and company.

I never said anything about Stop and Frisk.

That being said the key phrase in the Fourth Amendment you should focus your attention on is 'UNREASONABLE searches and seizures'

[RingDips]

Targeting recognized statistical groups is ok in all other venues, why is it wrong when it comes to this?

Your entire train of thought in this thread is predicated on the assumption that the authorities target high-crime groups.

In reality, this isn't the case at all. See the outcry over stop-and-frisk in NYC, racial arrest quotas for police officers, the lawsuits over profiling, and the recent initiative toward forcing schools to discipline an equal proportion of students from each racial group, regardless of who actually acts out.

[NYCBrah19]

This initiative excludes no one, it's targeting a group based on the reality that minority groups ARE the ones in the most dire need of crime reduction help.

And using liberal as an insult is retarded, i'm a damn proud classical liberal who is NOT afraid to admit that blacks are over-represented when it comes to crime and poverty and a group that is in need of this help. Meanwhile others just love to blame that specific group for all crimes and turning their backs when it comes to trying to do anything about it.

"A study by the University of Chicago’s Crime Lab found that a year in the BAM program increased graduation rates by 10 to 23 percent and reduced violent-crime arrests by 44 percent. The program costs $1,100 per participant."

That is just AWFUL, how DARE they try to reduce crime and help these groups, IT'S RACIST!

This has been repeated probably 10 times in this thread, but I'll try once more: no one is saying that blacks and mexicans aren't more impoverished on average than whites. They're saying that if you set up a fund for poor kids, blacks and mexicans will get most of the benefits anyway, since they comprise most of that category. There's no need to deny white or asian children to achieve that goal. If most special needs children live in town X, but there are some in town Y, is the government justified in only sending aid to town X because they comprise a statistical majority? Don't be an idiot.

[goody1]

It specifically targets a group that is KNOWN to be overrepresented, i did not hear any whining from you when Arabs were targeted, i did not hear it when black people were targeted in relation to crime but trying to help them and reduce crime... well... now you're whining like a little bitch.

Again, this is targeting poor neighbourhoods and no white kid living there will be turned away.

And when all else fails misrepresent your opponents views and claim victory. You know nothing about me. Again please point out where I supported racial profiling. Also I see you working hard to avoid the question about a program labeled as only helping poor white kids.

[ImproperOne]

This has been repeated probably 10 times in this thread, but I'll try once more: no one is saying that blacks and mexicans aren't more impoverished on average than whites. They're saying that if you set up a fund for poor kids, blacks and mexicans will get most of the benefits anyway, since they comprise most of that category. There's no need to deny white or asian children to achieve that goal. If most special needs children live in town X, but there are some in town Y, is the government justified in only sending aid to town X because they comprise a statistical majority? Don't be an idiot.

Yeah, you're not the first idiot to bring up that the world isn't a happy joyful place where everyone is completely equal at all times and even though it isn't we should act like it is and NOT target any problem groups because that means that white people are persecuted.

And you won't be the last.

[AngryBlackMail]

I never said anything about Stop and Frisk.

That being said the key phrase in the Fourth Amendment you should focus your attention on is 'UNREASONABLE searches and seizures'

It's ruled unconstitutional, brah.

A federal appeals court on Friday refused to toss out court rulings finding that New York City carried out its police stop-and-frisk policy in a discriminatory manner. The refusal ended what was likely the city's last chance to nullify the decisions before the arrival of a new mayor who has criticised the tactic.

A three-judge panel of the 2nd US circuit court of appeals issued a five-page order, saying the city could make its arguments to toss out the rulings when its appeal of the decisions of US district judge Shira Scheindlin is heard next year. Last month, the same appeals panel suspended the effects of Scheindlin's rulings and removed her from the case, saying she misapplied a related ruling that allowed her to take the stop-and-frisk case and made comments to the media during a trial that called her impartiality into question.

Source: theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/22/federal-appeals-court-upholds-rulings-stop-frisk-unconstitutional


You probably the same people that think the 1st and 2nd amendment shouldn't apply to minorities also, lol.

[ImproperOne]

And when all else fails misrepresent your opponents views and claim victory. You know nothing about me. Again please point out where I supported racial profiling. Also I see you working hard to avoid the question about a program labeled as only helping poor white kids.

OK, you don't support racial profiling but that is even WORSE because in the real world racial profiling is happening while you are ignoring that it is constantly occurring.

And no, sticking your head in the sand and pretending that there are not problem groups does not help AT ALL.

A solution requires one to recognize the problem and trying to fix it, if Obama is racist against anyone it's minority groups because he singles them out as "in need of help". While he is entirely correct on that one we have to whine about it?

[goody1]

OK, you don't support racial profiling but that is even WORSE because in the real world racial profiling is happening while you are ignoring that it is constantly occurring.

And no, sticking your head in the sand and pretending that there are not problem groups does not help AT ALL.

A solution requires one to recognize the problem and trying to fix it, if Obama is racist against anyone it's minority groups because he singles them out as "in need of help". While he is entirely correct on that one we have to whine about it?

I didnt represent my views on racial profiling one way or another. And yet again you make assumptions. I just asked you to point out where I said I supported racial profiling since you are so hung up on that.
Yet again no answer to the question I have asked multiple times

[PSToolman]

I swear, Obama could resign tomorrow and you guys would criticize him for being a quitter.

[goody1]

I swear, Obama could resign tomorrow and you guys would criticize him for being a quitter.

And another guy that would have no problem if Bush supported programs to only help poor white kids

[GencFB]

Yeah, you're not the first idiot to bring up that the world isn't a happy joyful place where everyone is completely equal at all times and even though it isn't we should act like it is and NOT target any problem groups because that means that white people are persecuted.

And you won't be the last.

So your answer to righting inequality is to promote an inherently discriminatory initiative? What?

[baknforth101]

black people continue to scream "racial equality" but then keep doing things like this. we can all live prosperous lives if we try. or we can just keep giving handouts in order to insure that we stay poverty forever. most minorities choose the latter.

[GencFB]

It's ruled unconstitutional, brah.

Source: theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/22/federal-appeals-court-upholds-rulings-stop-frisk-unconstitutional

You probably the same people that think the 1st and 2nd amendment shouldn't apply to minorities also, lol.

Again I didn't voice my support in favor or against Stop and Frisk, I am very much aware of it's legal status, I was simply trying to demonstrate that there IS an argument to be made.

[AngryBlackMail]

Again I didn't voice my support in favor or against Stop and Frisk, I am very much aware of it's legal status, I was simply trying to demonstrate that there IS an argument to be made.

lol@ argument to be made


80% of gun crimes are committed by African Americans, do you also want to 2nd amendment not to apply to blacks or ban blacks from owning weapons?

Btw, just looked at your post history, you're Turkish.

Turks commit the majority of crimes in Berlin, Germany, would you support the same "stop and frisk" in the turkish community in Germany?

[GencFB]

lol@ argument to be made


80% of gun crimes are committed by African Americans, do you also want to 2nd amendment not to apply to blacks or ban blacks from owning weapons?

Btw, just looked at your post history, you're Turkish.

Turks commit the majority of crimes in Berlin, Germany, would you support the same "stop and frisk" in the turkish community in Germany?

Sure if it was demonstrated to be reasonable as understood by the law and decreased crime, why not; unlike most liberals I don't let personal emotional sentiment cloud my judgment on what constitutes sound policy.