America's "first black president" endorsed a theory that blacks were genetically dumber than whites.

Ironic, no?

I might have been willing to pretend that Bill's actions on welfare, NAFTA, three strikes, etc weren't Hillary's fault. But Hillary lost me forever with the Iraq war vote.

what else qualified her to be a senator from NY, bought a house a year before the election?

Her whole candidacy is about him calling in his markers for the selling out
he did during the 90's. She only got SoS because she blackmailed PBO into
it and her whole tenure there was rife with failure and unethical and criminal
activity. A nobody stole the '08 election right out from under her entitled
nose and her unfavorables have only risen since then. She's poison.

I wrote it straight from the book page 112, hard cover edition
reading it last night while BBQ on the central coast of California

The author of The Bell Curve is uses pseudo-science and misleading statistics to make his racist points. I am not inclined to take his word on anything. So where did the quote come from? Mayer (who is a liar) or some third party?

The only thing that I could find that Bill Clinton every said about him was that he was completely full of shit.

And his theory has been completely debunked.

Sorry. Murray is the liar.

on response to Murray, words taken directly from Clinton Library

Or at least part of it. And of course Murray took it completely out of context.

"He did the country a great service. I mean, he and I have often disagreed, but I think his analysis is essentially right. ... There's no question that it would work. But the question is ... Is it morally right?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Losing_Ground_(book)#Later_discussion

So the truth is a bit more complex than your OP makes it out to be. A better title might be "Charles Murray makes a disingenuous statement by taking Bill Clinton's words out of context. That is why progressives can't trust Murray" although I doubt that would get as many clicks.

In the future, can you cite quotes properly in your OP so people who actually care about the truth can verify? I learned to be VERY cautious about accepting things like that at face value. And it is difficult to have a legitimate debate if you don't understand where the quote is coming from.

what I put down, it was by Mayer, not Murrary, so I didn't understand why you called Mayer a liar
this is what Bill Clinton wrote about Murrary In a December 1993 interview with NBC News, then US President Bill Clinton wrote of Murray and Losing Ground: "He did the country a great service. I mean, he and I have often disagreed, but I think his analysis is essentially right. ... There's no question that it would work. But the question is ... Is it morally right?"[11]

so do us a favor when reading please utilize comprehension

don't be condescending, if you have a problem, it is not with me it is with Mayer, which was quoted verbatim

Bill Clinton writes that Murrary is right but is it Morally right and then Clinton adopts his policy for his welfare reform what is hard to understand,,
advice do not respond unless you understand the text of the post

For posting stuff with no link that is designed to smear Bill Clinton by connecting him to The Bell Curve. "Progressives can't trust Clinton" is a pretty heavy accusation. Then you bend over backward to make CERTAIN we all know he is somehow connected to a guy who wrote something that is known to be racists.

And then I hunt around to find the source of quote, and it is not even in context in the quote YOU provided. With no citations or links.

So I think it is a REASONABLE request that people link their sources when they make posts like yours. It saves time and keeps everyone honest.

is directly from the book, therefore not a link, I gave the page number 112 so if you want to see it for yourself buy the book'
the writer you called a liar is Jane Mayer, who has been hounded by the Koch brothers because what she wrote and now you are calling her a liar, or was it Murrary,?

and if you have a problem with the quote take it up with Mayer

and by the way Murrary was funded by the Olin Foundation, who backed the Collegiate Network, who financed a rightwing net work of college newspapers, one being the Dartmouth Review, who published a disgusting article on Ebonics, they hosted a feast of Lobster and champagne to mock students fasting against global hunger, when students built a shanytown to protest south African apartheid they took a sledge hammer to their encampment and they secretly taped a meeting of gay students and outed them

So this foundation that funded Murrary (of the Bell Curve) and then Bill Clinton utilizes his ideas for welfare reform and Bill Clinton ask is morally right, I guess he did think so because he implemented his ideas

all of this is from Mayers book
so stop being disingenuous, deal that Bill Clinton adopted rightwing social engineering ideas

Charles Murrary didn't make statement Bill Clinton wrote it
I know when you find something that goes against what you believed it is hard to come to grips
Bill Clinton's policy did no favors to people of color, so to support Hillary because of Bill one must look past their record

You have no idea. You are just making assumptions (again) that you cannot prove.

All I am asking is for the debate to be transparent and honest. For that to happen, we need SOURCES. We can't even begin to have the discussion without those basics.

you are a fan of the Clinton's and anything knocking them goes against your paradigm

Bill Clinton is a complex guy with a loooong career and a myriad of successes and failures. My feelings about him are also complex.

But I DO object to your blanket statement that "progressives can't trust the Clintons" and then the attempt to tie him to The Bell Curve (he SPECIFICALLY said that book was full of shit, BTW). Seems like you are the one with the paradigm issues to try to tie him to something this weak.

but you don't have a problem that Bill Clinton used the writers of the Bell Curve ideas for welfare reform?

why would a progressive trust the Clintons, (NAFTA, Crime Bill, Iraq war, Hillary protecting bankers,)

He refused to oppose anti-lynching laws, appointed an ex-KKK member to the Supreme Court, and just generally sucked up to the racist Dixiecrats to get his New Deal legislation passed.

He was also a total hawk on foreign policy. Nothing would have avoided war with Germany, but the Japanese conflict was completely avoidable through diplomacy. And he dropped nuclear bombs on not one but two major cities full of civilians. That was soooooo progressive

The court packing scheme was a crazy power grab, too.

See what happens when you cherry pick information?

Eleanor was the REAL liberal in the family, but she didn't have to get elected or find the votes to pass legislation so it was much easier for her to be pure. Same dynamic with Bill Clinton. He did what he needed to do in the minute to get legislation passed because he thought that served the greater good. You can agree or disagree with what he did, but saying that progressives can't trust him is the same as saying they can't trust FDR. You can't fully trust POLITICIANS. They have to get elected and they have to find enough consensus to get their legislation passed if they want to be successful. It is what it is.

Or some just throw sand in the gears, screw up the entire system when they don't get their way. I am not a proponent of that. Maybe you are? But if that had been the case with FDR, if he had been too pure to compromise, ever, no New Deal. Worth it or not?

and you support Bill Clinton's Welfare reform plan, inspired by the guy who wrote the Bell Curb
It is not cherry picking it is real, the DLC, the Third Way, turned away from liberal FDR policy and of Johnson Domestic agenda (Johnson a New Dealer)
And since you don't trust politicians you don't trust Hillary either do I

and as for WW2, I guess you are isolationist t something Hillary is not, I guess you don't care about the invasion of China rape of Nanking, oh can you tell me when those happened before 1939 maybe

Deal with it Bill and Hillary on economic issues are center right, and rightwing on foreign policy, liberal on social issues when expedient
Eleanor great , but it seems in your all night research, forgot or don't know who was actually the brains behind it Francis Perkins
his labor secretary
And changing the subject like you did does not change the fact that the Clinton's Welfare Reform was inspired by the guy who wrote the bell curve,

you are wrong be an adult admit it,

learn something listen to FDR sounds like he is saying the same thing Bernie is talking about

I love FDR. That is why I have taken time to read so many books about him, and LONG before Sanders started exploiting his legacy for his own political gain.

And I posted all FACTS. Just pointing out that you can cherry-pick facts about ANY successful politician's career and make them look bad. Like you are doing to Bill Clinton.

I don't trust ANY politician too far. Because I understand the nature of that particular beast.

Fact: FDR supported white supremacy to get the New Deal done. Do you think it was worth the compromise? He did something that was morally and ideologically repugnant, not because he is a huge a-hole or a closet conservative or a racist, but because he though it was WORTH it to get the New Deal done. Lots of black people agreed and they STILL voted for him, in great numbers, loved him, even. Because he was STILL 100x better than any other candidate. Just like Bill Clinton.

And we are also judging FDR's actions by today's standards. It was a very different time. Segregation was FIRMLY entrenched in the American South. There is no way to make not supporting an anti-lynching legislation, ok, but by the standards of the time, it was probably much less shocking than it is to our modern ears. And that is what you are ALSO doing to Clinton. Judging policies from decades ago by TODAY's standards.

So if you say yes, enabling white supremacy was worth it to get the New Deal, then you need to re-evaluate your hard stance on the Clintons. And THAT is why you can't "trust" politicians, at least good ones. Because they compromise. Always. That is the nature of democracy.

I guess I find all the Clinton hating around here hypocritical. FDR would have sold his grandmother to get his important legislation passed. LBJ probably did. So why is Bill Clinton held to such a different standard? I don't get it.

and yes Bill should be held to a different/higher standard because the 1990's was a lot different time than the 1930's
the Civil Right laws were passed in the 60's when CLinton was graduating HS and getting ready to enter college, segregated military until Truman, The dixiecrats walk out in 48, Separate but equal law of the land until 54.

Bill Clinton should not have exploited race issues to pass Welfare reform, the audience that Clinton too was the conservative who think welfare recipients are lazy can't believe you can justify this, just because you support Hillary, seems like some care more about the idea of a person than their actions

and 1990's a lot closer to today than the 1990's are 1930's

I think the Clinton loving is hypocritical to the liberals/progressive ideals
at best Hillary is a moderate like her husband and at worst center right
remember in 08 she was conservative on guns now she is not, remember when Obama mockingly called her Annie Oakley,she is a panderer I guess that is how all politicians are, so we should just accept it according to your logic

So we are going to disagree on this one.

just like Clinton did with NAFTA, it was Bush 1 creation and Clinton signed into law 1993

white supremacy too. Nuclear f'ing bombs on not one but TWO major civilian centers. I can do Elizabeth Warren next. Apparently she flip flopped on some student loan legislation.... It's called CHERRY PICKING Picking the facts that fit your narrative and IGNORING the others. Not cool, and what you are doing with Clinton.

You wanna keep going with this? I politely agreed to disagree, but you can't seem to let it go. I think we need a "Clinton Haters Anonymous" group on this website. One day at a time, maybe you guys can learn to control your irrational bitterness.

And he dropped nuclear bombs on not one but two major cities full of civilians.

But just about the bomb. My error. But if FDRbeen a little less hawkish and had done a better job at the diplomacy thing early on, perhaps that ENTIRE thread of history would have been different.

And if I am rewriting the history on FDR, as you claim, then y'all do the same thing with the Clintons. It is called an ANALOGY. I know that is complex, but sit still for a little and try to understand.

Like many smears against the Clintons.

the OP read, but I am too tired from battling the irrational Clinton hate and misinformation to ask about it now Gawd this primary is dragging ON. I am bored and so ready to discuss other topics.

read the book losing ground, Clinton used the ideas for welfare reform,

You used it to add to "proof" that we should not "trust" Bill Clinton. But either the Bell Curve dude or the writer of the book you read took it out of context by not including the last sentence where Clinton questions if the policy is morally right. Only someone with progressive values would ask that question. So the fact that is was left out complete erodes your entire premise.

It is clear that Clinton understood the ideas. But like I said, he is an intelligent guy. He reads lots of things. And the economy was one of the things that was changing fast during his terms. I don't think that being open to new ideas makes you non-progressive. It means you are not an ideologue. I dislike ideologues more than anything. They are more attached to a philosophy than to facts, and will do whatever they have to to make the facts fit their narrative. It gets old, don't you think?

Not completely your fault since the quote came directly from the book. But SOMEONE didn't use due diligence when they put that in the book. And you could have looked it up, too, to be certain you were quoting it correctly. If you had provided a LINK in your original OP, you would have known it was incomplete.

because the "research" is off

not a smear it is true, I mean the Koch brothers liked Clinton

your just looking for confirmation for your candidate and her Husband that incorporated the Bell Curve author into his welfare reform act

the Koch brothers went after her, it is well documented

has many interesting chapters having nothing to do with race. Including a prediction that wealth and political power will become concentrated at the top, a theme that Bernie has made an issue.

The Olin foundation, do you know who they are

I don't blame the Clintons for listening to him. He's not Kissinger.

there is, they rescued this Murray guy from obscurity and had him write articles that they could place in the OPed sections of papers like the Wall Street Journal,
I guess we have a disagreement

and the Welfare Reform act?
Yes I did read the big by the way because it was all the rage in the 90's

The reasons, not so much.

The leading reason, stereotype threat, seems destined to fall victim to the replication crisis. It is a species of priming, which does not exist.

What causes this difference is very much a matter of debate.

Fuck this shit implying that a woman can't independent from her husband.

well tell her to stop mentioning her husband admin on the campaign trail then

She mentions Obama too, I'm sure you hate him as well for being a Democrat.

My post was challenging you that it is Hog wash that we can't separate Hillary from her husband,
when she basically claims his administration for justification to run for the senate

Since she does that then is it appropriate that talk about that administration short comings?

And I am a Democrat, I don't like Republican lite democrats, and the DLC Clinton's big players in it, turned away from the legacy of FDR, all we have to look at is welfare reform

I think it's appropriate to bring Obama in here since she's promotes Obama's much more recent policies much more than ancient stuff from her husband's administration.

I hope she is a better President than her husband

It's taken at the Stone Mountain, GA, Correctional Facility. That's Bill flanked by Sam Nunn and Zell Miller. The facility as its name suggests is near Stone Mountain and it's famous monument to the Confederacy. Stone Mountain was also where the KKK was reborn in 1919. There seems little ambiguity over the implied symbolism, though because it is implied, it can always be denied. I'd compare it to Reagan giving a speech early in his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, MS, the place where the murder of three civil rights workers took place.

Both Clintons are masters at staging this kind of imagery.

to chime in on this, what excuses are they going to make

Is Clinton agreeing that welfare creates dependency or that blacks have lower IQs?

not low IQ
but Charles Murrary co-author of the Bell Curve, compared race and low IQ
I guess from what another person posted Clinton rejected that argument, I have no reason to doubt it
Clinton did incorporate Murrary Losing Ground into his welfare reform act arguing that big gov't anti-poverty programs created a dependency, Clinton lauded the work

that I share. I don't think requiring recipients to seek work is unreasonable. 80% of Americans support that.

and I assume you are a Hillary supporter, not a progressive, playing into the myth
that welfare recipients are lazy and do not want to work,

http://www.vox.com/2015/4/14/8411221/welfare-work-benefits

The debate over public benefits almost always treats "welfare" and "work" as counterparts to each other. There are people who get public benefits — and people who work for their paychecks.

But it turns out a lot of those people overlap: a majority of public benefits go to working families, a new analysis from two Berkeley economists finds. Their work shows that $152 billion in public programs like Medicaid and welfare — 56 percent of overall spending — goes toward supporting low-wage workers.

thanks for proving my point

does not mean that you buy into the idea that welfare recipients are lazy.

It makes sense to encourage the work because it allows workers to gain skills.

The problems right now is that it is being used punitively by the GOP (quelle surprise!), the wages are too low and the cost of childcare is too high. There is also a HUGE problem with affordable housing, so many of these low wage workers are dealing with homelessness or right on the edge, making it impossible to work consistently. It also assumes that there are jobs available, and that is not always the case. During Bill Clinton's time there were, because the economy was smoking hot, but that varies.

My personal experience, these "welfare recipients" are NOT lazy, but the few I employ lack skills and need time and mentoring to develop. Since I am cool like that, I give it to them, but I am also a small business and can do what I please. Corporations will not. And the biggest problem I see is the housing insecurity. They WANT to learn and improve, but once they get evicted (and it happens all the time) it is nearly impossible to get back on track.

So my .02, working on the housing issue will give us more bang for our buck than anything right now.

I am a Hillary supporter and I don't call myself a progressive. I call myself a moderate Democrat. However, I don't think most welfare recipients are lazy and do not want to work. When Clinton was president, unemployment went down and with it the roles reduced. I concluded from that that most of the recipients would work if they had the chance.

When I lived in the city, I knew people who were on welfare who probably would have accepted a good job if one came their way, but they were indignant when I offered tips about jobs that required hard work for low pay. I didn't attribute that to laziness. It seemed like they felt like those kinds of jobs take advantage of people and they didn't want to be fools. I don't believe those people were typical of all recipients. I've never seen scientific facts about what proportions of the recipient population are eager to work or not. Most people base their thinking about who recipients are on nothing more than their world view. All I know is that its possible for people to be in the system who could work but won't.

Because of that, seeking employment should be mandatory for benefits. If somebody is already working the shouldn't be affected by a requirement to seek work.

I knew that many working people were still below income thresholds and eligible for benefits. I didn't know how many and appreciate your information on that. When I was talking about requirement to seek employment I was talking about TANF.

I'm glad I proved your point even though I don't know what that point was.

You are trying to couch it as some sort of neo-confederate stronghold. Despite the monument that exists there, it is an African American part of the Atlanta area with nearly 80% of the stone mountain area being black.

http://www.areavibes.com/stone+mountain-ga/demographics/

I didn't say it was a neo-confederate stronghold. What I said is that it is a symbol of the Confederacy and the place where the KKK was reborn in 1919. Clinton and friends chose that location and the prison. Lined up the inmates who were almost entirely African American, behind them and gave the standard DLC speeches. Are you trying to say they were there campaigning for the African American vote? Are you arguing that Stone Mountain is an African American symbol?

The real significance of Stone Mountain is that currently its one of the most predominantly African American areas of Atlanta.

And no, you didn't SAY it was a neo-confederate stronghold, you implied something similar. Several times.

chose that spot near Stone Mountain in front of dozens of African American convicts to celebrate one of the most predominately African American areas of Atlanta? You honestly believe they weren't sending a message to those Reagan Democrats, those disaffected southern white males? Please tell me you don't really believe that bullshit!

He appealed more to the Republicans than he did to the Democrats.

It is not about the primary. Bill Clinton is not running and we seem to be talking about policies from the 90's. It is a mildly interesting discussion, but why is it here?

classic straw man approach
did Clinton use rightwing inspired work for his welfare reform or not?
hopefully you can answer without a straw man

the definition an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument:

He says out of one side of his mouth that it isn't so, and then he acts on the advice that it is.

I was in a sociology class we read a book read a small book with that same theory. And yes it is often found in the thinking of white southerners. No all of course but some - like George Wallace.

Why do AA communities support these robber barons?

did you

give it up

comparing the world of the 1930's to the world of the 1990's

I am making an ANALOGY (google if you are confused bout what the word means) by cherry picking facts from FDR's life to fit the narrative that he was not progressive. We all know FDR was progressive, yet with my cherry picked facts, he looks like a f'ing monster. Like YOU cherry pick facts from Bill Clinton's life to make him look bad. So I am not comparing the 1930s to the 1990s, just demonstrating why your debate tactics are dishonest and misleading.


Your OP is a CLASSIC example of cherry picking, right down to the use of anecdotal information.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cherry_picking

And you mixed that up with a No True Scotsman violation. "No true progressive would take info from X source."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman

So YOU should give it up. The original facts that you used to construct the OP are not even correct!