[Discussion] The African American's worst enemy.

[YowYan]

who'd be that one common enemy? aliens? scum who dont like bacon? heretics?

Scram. asdasdasdasd

 

[Multiply]

Don't tar all AAs with the same brush.

All you're doing is perpetuating a stereotype that all are wannabe gangsters that go around wearing oversized "bling" and self-detrimant by dropping n-bombs like it was ever in fashion.

Truth is, there is a population of them in complete contrast to that. Good grief, there is already enough stereotyping in the world for any more reinforcement of the damned thing.

Never once said we were all acting the same way. I mean African Americans as a whole need to solve our problems before we ask others to help us.

You can't expect a community to overlook injustice done to it just because some or many misuse their right to demand for justice. A few or perhaps a lot might be "using the racism card", but that doesn't mean racism doesn't exist, because the statistics say it does exist.
And the youth finding what you call violent art more appealing is the result of economic and social conditions and can't simply be changed like that.
Basically you're oversimplifying matters, and I'm guessing you're doing so because you're racist and such a simple person that you think announcing that you're an African American gives your nonsense any credibility.

I didn't say we need to overlook the injustice.

I'm not oversimplifying anything... I'm stating the changes that absolutely must be made to help us advance as a community. I'm racist towards my own people because I want us to stop being looked down on? Lol...

You must be registered for see images

Clearly you are so simple you can't see the things I'm saying as truths.

I agree to a certain extent. Yes, their culture (which lacks class) isn't helping their cause, really.
Other than that; racial profiling and such should stop. If people would destroy the FED and stop paying taxes, citizens uniting for a bigger cause, poverty just might diminish and boundaries/categories between people would be broken down and they'd have one common enemy, eliminating petty issues like race.

If we destroy the FED who is supposed to back our money? Are we meant to go back to the gold standard. As great as it sounds to get rid of the FED, it's not that simple because we'll need to find substitutes for them.

 

[Tartarus]

The so called "african americans" are the real hebrew isrealites suffering from curses in the bible!

You must be registered for see images

 

[Aim64C]

I agree to a certain extent. Yes, their culture (which lacks class) isn't helping their cause, really.
Other than that; racial profiling and such should stop. If people would destroy the FED and stop paying taxes, citizens uniting for a bigger cause, poverty just might diminish and boundaries/categories between people would be broken down and they'd have one common enemy, eliminating petty issues like race.

I'm not sure it's as simple as destroying the federal reserve - or the federal government.

Simply removing the impetus for the collapse of black communities doesn't necessarily mean they will recover. Racism isn't nearly the issue that it is - the system has been set up, however, for 'black' to be a privileged status. White opinions on the issue are invalid unless it is in support of a political agenda that favors blacks. Blacks who did not use the system in this way have multiplied less than those who do (who have been encouraged to use food stamps and other such means to breed uncontrollably).

It's become so endemic to the culture that any destruction of the fed will necessarily involve a destruction of those who wish to use the fed to attain privileged status. Which, unfortunately, will manifest itself as an apparent ethnic cleansing.

This is a catch-22 scenario that will ultimately end in a war with the U.N.

You can't expect a community to overlook injustice done to it just because some or many misuse their right to demand for justice. A few or perhaps a lot might be "using the racism card", but that doesn't mean racism doesn't exist, because the statistics say it does exist.

What statistics?

The statistics I've seen indicate a higher incidence of crime among blacks. Then you are going to point to higher incarceration rates among blacks.

The statistics I've seen indicate a higher incidence of illiteracy and what many deem to be indignant behavior toward authority systems. Then you are going to point to harsher sentencing against blacks.

The problem is that you can't determine racism by looking at statistics. If you look at the way many blacks who are stopped by an officer react to that officer and compare them to an equal sampling of whites - you'll find that there is a very big difference between the two experiences - and thus a very big difference in the statistical outcome.

That isn't to say that no one, anywhere, in any uniform, is racist - but that is to say that there is no institutional racism except as practiced by politicians to single out one group or another as being above reproach.

And the youth finding what you call violent art more appealing is the result of economic and social conditions and can't simply be changed like that.

-Social Conditions-... and what might those "social conditions" be?

Mothers and fathers who scream: "Burn this ***** down?"

Or how about brothers who talk about putting pigs in blankets before executing police officers in their car?

Or the sister who responds: "Shame those officers weren't white."

Because - you know, those officers were of Chinese and Mexican ethnicity.

And how do they factor into your statistics and "white privilege?"

Or are they "white" when discussing "privilege" and "Asian/Latino" when discussing "Income Inequality?"

Basically you're oversimplifying matters, and I'm guessing you're doing so because you're racist and such a simple person that you think announcing that you're an African American gives your nonsense any credibility.

Oversimplifying matters is stating that this would all be solved if there weren't any black people to upset.

Being real is saying that the problem lay almost exclusively within the 'black community.'

If racism was institutional, as you seem to believe is a valid statement, then there would be more consistency across the black people all over the U.S. who are not poor, whose kids are not gunned down in the street, etc - IE - they would have more experiences to reinforce the idea that there was a racial element at the root of all of this.

The difference between the successful blacks I know, and the ******s that I know, is that the successful blacks do a lot less rapping and a lot more reading. They don't think of themselves as belonging to a black community - but as belonging to a national identity. They teach their kids to speak properly and encourage them to learn and perform well academically. They don't take any odd looks or disparaging comments to be rooted in the color of their skin. They tend to not even refer to white people as 'white people.'

Basically - the difference between a successful black person and an unsuccessful black person is that one acts like any normal human being and the unsuccessful black person builds their life around being black.

Simply - if blacks don't like getting 'gunned down in the street' - they should stop robbing stores, shooting each other, and pulling weapons on police officers while speaking nearly incomprehensible profanity. They should sit up, learn up, and stop acting like something I would smack with a rolled up newspaper.

If we destroy the FED who is supposed to back our money? Are we meant to go back to the gold standard. As great as it sounds to get rid of the FED, it's not that simple because we'll need to find substitutes for them.

This is a good question - and it largely revolves around preparation.

The best way to get rid of the federal reserve is to return to metal backed currencies. The problem is that few of those are in standard circulation and all of them, presently, are valued against the treasury bond (or federal reserve bond, depending upon how many prisms you wish to look through) - IE - the dollar.

The challenge is getting enough of these alternative currencies in circulation for the economy to transition to them -when- the dollar explodes into hyper-inflation (it is not a matter of if - it is a matter of when). Currently, there exists a lot of gold bullion - but the value is generally too high for standard consumer use. You would buy, say, household appliances with something around the size of an ounce of gold (at current dollar exchange rates) - and I mean the $1000+ size appliances.

Even if you got down into gram sizes of gold - you are looking at a very long list of groceries.

From a macroscopic standpoint - this isn't exactly a problem. Banks could issue 1mg gold certificates that would circulate around and occasionally be exchanged en-mass for the physical gold. The problem is that there aren't many banks doing this, currently, and even if they were - there aren't really any businesses accepting them for much.

It is a chicken-and-egg problem. It is increased hassle to try to do business in gold or silver in addition to the dollar (not to mention how that works out with taxes). While computers and online banking have made it easier to handle fractional exchanges and conversions - it is still an extra dynamic that most companies don't want to deal with if they can avoid it.

What I propose is a very interesting scheme to completely destroy the economic backbone of the federal government.

Basically - each citizen would claim themselves as exempt when filling out their W-2; meaning no deductions are taken out of their pay for that tax year. Each person would then have to put roughly a minimum of 10% of their income into precious metals or coinage (while few U.S. coins in circulation have precious metal content of noteworthy amount, the fact that they are not easy to reproduce and represent a limited physical standard will be enough to preserve some exchange value to them outside of the life of the dollar). Prior to the end of the year, all savings accounts should be placed into a physical precious metal bullion.

Ideally, this could be coordinated so that there was relatively little speculative bubbling of metal prices (silver, in particular, is prone to explosive stock values because it is a very small market with much of the produced quantity consumed by industry - in some years, more is consumed than produced) - or at least, a more gradual bubbling of prices relative to the dollar. This would allow people at various incomes to actually afford to convert some of their currency without completely chaotic swings in value.

Either way - the end result would essentially torpedo the federal reserve and break her in half.

The Federal Reserve revolves around the power of the IRS to seize dollars in circulation in order to account for the debts on federal reserve bonds. The IRS can freeze your bank account and essentially seize all of its contents. It can also garnish your wages and demand your employer take away huge chunks of your paycheck before giving it to you (and, of course, if they don't comply - the IRS will seize their account(s)).

When the IRS can't make the payments on the bonds - those who have purchased those bonds (often times using resources - such as oil) do not get reimbursed. If they do not get reimbursed - there is no reason for people to continue purchasing those bonds. If no one purchases the bonds - then there is no value going into the printed dollars. If there is no other economic value to 'back' the issuing of the dollar.... then it's simply dollars for the sake of dollars. This essentially forces the dollar into a hyper-inflationary collapse.

The IRS can't, however, seize physical assets without the assistance of a police force or military. Even if they did have an all-compliant arm of enforcement (they don't) - this would require an immense investment into enforcing collection on a non-compliant populace. No matter how effective their teams - the cost to collect will always outstrip the actual collection. Worse - what they would be attempting to recollect would legitimize the alternative currency as it would produce a holder of money and a need to exchange it.

This means that the government, in its forced collection of held assets, would find it more practical to trade in gold and silver, directly, for contracted government services than the dollars it prints.

This means that even pro-government supporters will eventually be paid in gold and silver for their services - they will have no other choice but to accept those exchanges (or the government will have to begin issuing dollars as gold/silver backs - either way it plays out much the same). This legitimizes the 'rebel economy' even further and eventually causes it to usurp the 'old economy' dominated by the federal reserve.

Without the aggressive actions of a government - the transition plays out in a somewhat similar manner.

Businesses will ultimately have little choice but to begin accepting gold/silver in exchange for goods/services. It may start with small businesses prior to the collapse of the dollar - but things will pick up as employees can no longer receive pay because of frozen accounts (and garnished wages) and a lack of people with dollars to do business with (but an increasing abundance of people looking to do business in gold and silver).

Gold and silver are difficult for the IRS to control - not just as a physical standard, but even if converted to a crypto-currency that serves as a sort of "authorized metal currency," the IRS has absolutely no practical means to freeze and seize the activity of corporate (or even 'cloud') servers. Currencies like bitcoin are absolutely uncontrollable and the system is nearly indestructible so long as the internet exists. If there exist bitcoin clients connected via network - there exists bitcoin functionality. It doesn't matter whose servers and HQ you hit with drones.

Now - as for "what would I actually shop at the store with?"

More than likely, what would end up happening is that you would actually end up doing business in grams and milligrams of precious metals. Some of those values would exist as physical coins (a one ounce silver coin from a recognized mint, for instance - there are plenty of private bullion mints). Others would exist as paper slips redeemable for the specified amount at various banks upon demand.

Basically - one of the original ideas behind paper money. Rather than carry around 20 kilograms of silver, one would carry around a number of slips equaling 20,000 grams of silver that could be traded at the bank for units as small as, say, 10 grams.

Since anyone can redeem those slips - it makes it "as good as" whatever it says on the front. So long as the authorizing authority is not known for writing more slips than it can cover.

This system would be consistent with online banking. The difference is that you -should- be able to go to your bank and take out the specified amount of gold/silver/whatever that it says in your savings account. If it says you have 200kg of silver - then the bank chain is responsible for giving you 200kg of silver if you ask for it (although most banks would have a limit on the amount you could withdraw without a notice - IE - they can't be expected to have -all- of the stated amount in any given bank you may walk into at any given time - particularly with other people using that bank).

I would estimate, though, that many private banks would shift to a system of crypto-currency that is more secure against attempts to defraud it than current systems that amount to encrypted spreadsheets (they can get away with things, currently, because of the lack of consequence for 'not having' the money in the bank - gold and silver are much less forgiving as you can't simply tally fraud as an unsecured loan... not if you want to stay in business, at least - Mt. Gox found this out when they claimed bitcoins existed in their system that didn't... and people wanted their bitcoins back... - bitcoin, like gold and silver, is unforgiving and answers to no authority but the math created by God to regulate our endeavors).

The difference to the end user would not be all that apparent - spare for the first decade or so would see quite a few banks go out of business because they try to create gold and silver that isn't there by claiming it does.

This system would mean a return to savings accounts that have practical value to the investor. A savings account would mean that you authorize a bank to take out loans against your savings account and in exchange pay you a percentage of the interest. Since the available amount of precious metals is limited and not easy to reproduce, it means banks will have a real need for things like savings accounts and certificates of deposit.

It also means credit cards will become much more rare along with much more scrutiny when applying for a loan. Stock market values will cease closing at "record highs" every week (the various 'market point' systems are essentially a measure of inflation - the higher they climb, the more dollars are necessary to represent the same chunk of the same company that has seen little relative change in their revenues/markets for the past 4 years). Without the ability to print endless amounts of gold/silver/whatever - the markets will normalize around the values of gold and silver. There will still be speculative bubbles from time to time - but they will virtually never become what they were in 2008 (or in 1929). They will be more localized bubbles that build and 'burst' or 'correct' - affecting much smaller regions of the economy and rarely building to extremes.

That isn't to say the stock market will stagnate - but that the 'average' trend of the stock market will be less chaotic (or inflationary) and that individual stocks will perform more closely with the value of the company in the economy (a relative function of what role it plays in the economy, its market volume, and the execution as carried out by owners/managers/employees).

It won't be "insta-better" - but in 5 years things would be 'returning to normal' and in 10 years the actual transition would be a relatively distant memory. In 20 it would be purely a subject of history.

The free market responds incredibly fast.

 

[YowYan]

Never once said we were all acting the same way. I mean African Americans as a whole need to solve our problems before we ask others to help us.



I didn't say we need to overlook the injustice.

I'm not oversimplifying anything... I'm stating the changes that absolutely must be made to help us advance as a community. I'm racist towards my own people because I want us to stop being looked down on? Lol...

You must be registered for see images

Clearly you are so simple you can't see the things I'm saying as truths.



If we destroy the FED who is supposed to back our money? Are we meant to go back to the gold standard. As great as it sounds to get rid of the FED, it's not that simple because we'll need to find substitutes for them.

Not really, the people do not have to be dependent on another private run fed government. The people need to be able to make their own decisions, community wise, or state wise. That calls for a little Ron Paul but I guess ppl wouldn't quite grasp his suggestions. Most do though..

 

[ZK]

I agree to a certain extent. Yes, their culture (which lacks class) isn't helping their cause, really.
Other than that; racial profiling and such should stop. If people would destroy the FED and stop paying taxes, citizens uniting for a bigger cause, poverty just might diminish and boundaries/categories between people would be broken down and they'd have one common enemy, eliminating petty issues like race.

Seriously, you need to stop posting this kind of stuff. You're so terribly misinformed. Are you one of Hayek's grandchildren?
Revolution won't solve shit. It never has. Don't tell me about Che; all he did was set the stage for another authoritarian government. Don't tell me about libertarianism; it's a sure way to economic inequality, social inequality and everything that's bad for society. Read Piketty. He knows what he's doing.
The thought of citizens uniting for a bigger cause is nice. It is. It really is. But it's not the only, nor the most surefire way to overcome racial tension. Using a common enemy to unite a people has worked before, but it's a temporary measure and it usually ends badly for all parties involved.

 

[Luther]

In my opinion they biggest problems are the white who always look down on us and try to diminish our value.

 

[Multiply]

In my opinion they biggest problems are the white who always look down on us and try to diminish our value.

Luther stop being e-racist please.

 

[xcoyote]

smh...Coli members have invaded Narutobase.

 

[Aim64C]

Seriously, you need to stop posting this kind of stuff. You're so terribly misinformed. Are you one of Hayek's grandchildren?

This is like the fireplace calling the kettle burned.

Revolution won't solve shit. It never has.

Revolution has solved plenty of problems.

The error in your reasoning is that you fail to realize that the reason we face the similar problems to our ancestors is due to those problems being re-created by a complacent society.

The problems were solved.

Don't tell me about Che; all he did was set the stage for another authoritarian government.

That's because Che and Fidel were Marxists and too stupid to understand what happens under Marxist systems. Or, rather - Che was.

Don't tell me about libertarianism; it's a sure way to economic inequality, social inequality and everything that's bad for society.

Please, tell me what the benefits of economic equality are.

If it doesn't matter what I choose to do in my life - I get to have whatever I want - please tell me how that's going to be a good thing.

Or... if it doesn't matter what I want in life - I can only have the same economic value to apply to those wants - please tell me how that's going to be good.

You, boy, need to do some deep soul searching. Take a trip out to the woods, live in the world of nature. Tell the trees growing in the groves of the benefits of resource equality. Tell the wolves of social equality. Tell the squirrels of all the wonders that come with a fair world.

By all means. Stand at the heart of creation, itself, and tell God what he did wrong and how you are going to be the one to fix it.

Obviously - God is stock-raving mad and there is nothing his pitiful creation could teach you. There are no lessons in life. There is no rhyme or reason to it. There is no pattern, no underlying systemic laws or rules. You can make fantasy a reality IF only we would all bow down and say there is no God but Equality and Zero Kelvin is its judge.

Read Piketty. He knows what he's doing.

There's a difference between a sociologist and an economist. Piketty is actually a sociologist - he's not an economist by any stretch of the imagination spare for the fact that he can be trusted to perform arithmetic.

The problem with Piketty is that he doesn't understand real things. He's done nothing real in his life and understands nothing of the numbers he analyzes.

For example - the most basic question in his research is left unanswered.

Who are the wealthy?

There is a substantial difference between an economy where one family remains rich over generations and does nothing but accumulate wealth and an economy where the average citizenry rises to wealthy status yet most of their kids end up being above average.

My grandmother came from a household with a dirt floor. I grew up in a house in a subdivision next to some of the wealthiest people in town (and my father was not really hurting for money at the time). There has been an accumulation of wealth within my family but largely through the efforts of people within that family. My cousins have become corporate directors and other such people. They live in an area with a low cost of living and can dedicate more of their income toward savings and other such things. They would be living more 'average' in a place like California or New York.

But by that same token - their kids aren't going to simply be millionaires who play the stock market. These are also the same people who have started businesses - taken that money and reinvested it in opportunities for others to be employed.

So I don't really see the problem with economic inequality in and of itself.

It is the nature of an inflationary currency to accumulate in investment pools. That is how it is designed. Of course - fencepost doesn't understand this.

The thought of citizens uniting for a bigger cause is nice. It is. It really is. But it's not the only, nor the most surefire way to overcome racial tension. Using a common enemy to unite a people has worked before, but it's a temporary measure and it usually ends badly for all parties involved.

The problem, dear boy, is what is known as the "circle of safety."

You see, sociologists and psychologists who have stuck to things they understand have done studies into how people behave and what causes some groups of people to stick together and other groups to fall apart.

There is no such thing as "the people." You and I are not the same person and our interests are not at all the same. In realistic terms, I'd just as soon put a bullet in your head as I would engage you in open conversation. There is absolutely zero reason for either of us to trust each other because we have very little knowledge of each other.

It is an act of desperation to engage in conversation with anyone we don't know, much less someone we have absolutely no reason to trust. We must take it on faith that the individual has no intention to cause harm or is willing to abide by certain minimum rules.

This is how people react to things when they do not feel they are secure - or 'safe.' Other people default to being a threat.

This is what defines leaders.

Leaders are able to establish a 'circle of safety' or a 'zone of safety.' People believe that this leader has both the desire and capability to make it so that they are no longer under threat from others. Leaders make it so that you and I don't feel as if we need to be freaking out about the stranger who just got on the elevator with us. We are in 'their territory' and know that the leader sees fit to enforce common minimum rules and to act with justice when those rules are broken.

We trust that leader's ability to preserve the integrity of those around us - to let no one in who is not trustworthy.

People who are not leaders (or, at least, who are very poor if in a leadership position) do not preserve integrity - people do not trust that the 'group' is secure. They fear being 'backstabbed' and find it difficult to accept decisions made by those leaders.

Invariably, under poor leadership, people default to more localized examples of leaders. They form 'cliques' - those who are part of the clique are 'cool' - those who are not are viewed with suspicion and distrust until proven otherwise. In the military - this is more casually referred to as "The Bubba Effect."

In the U.S. - the leader can be thought of to most immediately be the President. The President is the single face and voice that is turned to by the nation. The President is responsible not for 'speaking' - but for actually executing the government's policies in a fashion that preserves and/or strengthens the integrity of our nation. He is responsible for cutting tape, for facilitating investigations, and for ensuring the appointed offices are staffed with responsible people of integrity that are willing to see to the function of the office and not a separate agenda.

More indirectly - the legislature sets the tone for the federal leadership. The legislature is responsible for ensuring that the correct agencies exist for the function of government, to oversee the finances of the government, and to ensure that the function of government is actually meeting the needs/demands of the people. If the legislature sets a tone where the laws no longer feel like the laws they wish to live by and are completely unnecessary for the function of government and/or society - then do the people really feel 'safe' in the nation?

Of course not.

Translation:

With the proper governmental system that allows for minimal intrusion yet effective enforcement of necessary criminal enforcement, most people no longer see the need to turn to divisional leadership to feel secure. This means divisional leaders (also known as "community organizers" - "Warlords" in other parts of the world) lose much of their following and influence - which minimizes the damage that their personal quests for power can do.

No government system is going to fix all of the cultural problems in the world - but it will help to allow people to resolve and heal those cultural issues in a more neutral environment where other cultures/ideas are not seen as a defacto threat.

Which is precisely the environment we had not 20 years ago. Actually... I'd say we had that environment 8 years ago. As out of control as our government was, there was still the view that it was simply flawed as opposed to partisan.

This is precisely what happened to Yugoslavia after Tito died. Tito - dictator though he was, was able to unite the various groups by establishing his government as being one of Yugoslavia as opposed to one of Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, Etc. The different sub-nations were largely willing to work with him because they knew that he was not giving preference to one group or the other. There was not as much need to view the others with outward suspicion.

That changed considerably after Tito died. The government became more partisan and the sub-nations wanted to secede. It became a mess and they started killing the shit out of each other after regional warlords began gaining influence in the vacuum of strong, decisive leadership.

In America - Our Constitution lays down the framework for how we are to choose our leadership and be our own leaders in our own right. It outlines how the nation is not a race, nor is it a simple institution - it is how the people go about resolving their differences and preserving a fair way of life.

The further away from it we wander, the more divided and violent our lands will become.

The biggest challenge will not be toppling our own government. It is doomed as we speak. Nothing will save it short of Divine Intervention. The government system I was born under will not see 2020. I highly doubt it will see 2016.

The question is in what we will become.

That is what the revolution will be fought over. It is not so much a revolution against the current - but three separate revolutions attempting to decide the future.

The Marxists on one side, the Fascists on another side, and the Libertarians on the other (the Republican/Conservative groups will split between the Fascists supporting a military-industrial complex with intrusive and arbitrary moral laws and the Libertarians that will borderline on anarchist views; Democrat/Liberal groups will divide between the Marxists and the Fascists with a little bit of a blurring of the lines since all Marxists ultimately require Fascism for enforcement of arbitrary economic principles).

The conflict is coming whether we like it or not. The question as to how many people get shot over it is one that our decisions in the coming months will influence, considerably.

 

[YowYan]

Seriously, you need to stop posting this kind of stuff. You're so terribly misinformed. Are you one of Hayek's grandchildren?
Revolution won't solve shit. It never has. Don't tell me about Che; all he did was set the stage for another authoritarian government. Don't tell me about libertarianism; it's a sure way to economic inequality, social inequality and everything that's bad for society. Read Piketty. He knows what he's doing.
The thought of citizens uniting for a bigger cause is nice. It is. It really is. But it's not the only, nor the most surefire way to overcome racial tension. Using a common enemy to unite a people has worked before, but it's a temporary measure and it usually ends badly for all parties involved.

Gee, you do no quite understand libertarianism and revolutions at its core, do you? The solution is always simple and I tend to simplify even that. Thus confusing dimwits like yourself. ok, imagine this. If Ron Paul would have been in the oval office and he calls back all troops spread out worldwide, closes all military bases around the world, puts all those soldiers at your own borders, stops giving aid to Israel, saving trillions of taxpayer dollars a year..and then all that money would be spent on the wellbeing of the lower- and middle class citizens, careful not to make them too dependent on govt aid. Wouldn't that be one hell of a start to civil abudance? Now, they've made that option an impossibility so what people are left with is to unite and stop paying taxes altogether, but it would take such a large amount of effort in organizing and planning self-sustainability and frankly, people wouldn't be able to achieve that by themselves on a large scale. A whole town would have to be like the 'living natural man'.

And no, I'm not misinformed, I'm actually pointing out the root causes of issues and (potential) solutions for it. But I keep my posts short and thus people don't grasp my view properly, which is my fault. I just type what comes to mind at that moment, leaving out tons of info. I'd be typing like Aim64C if I actually spent more than 3 minutes typing a post and I don't have the patience for that. But I see he made some good in-depth points I'd use in my defence that I'd use if I would be bothered to.

 

[ZK]

This is like the fireplace calling the kettle burned.

How witty of you, but I suppose that's what I should've expected from a guy with your edge. Keep at it.

Revolution has solved plenty of problems.

The error in your reasoning is that you fail to realize that the reason we face the similar problems to our ancestors is due to those problems being re-created by a complacent society.

The problems were solved.

What ancestors, exactly? Revolution had its merits, sure, - and I agreee, I spoke out of turn when I dismissed it entirely - but I'm having a hard time remembering any instance of succesful revolution that resulted in a non-authoritarian regime. You could mention the French Revolution, but I would argue that its first years were rather brutal.

I'd very much like for you to tell me what exactly these problems are and why 'complacent society' has a hand in 're-creating' them.

That's because Che and Fidel were Marxists and too stupid to understand what happens under Marxist systems. Or, rather - Che was.

They weren't Marxists. 'Marxism' is not an umbrella term. At best, they were late Leninists.
And a Marxist system has never really existed, so to judge what 'happens in a Marxist system' is impossible. Don't mention the Paris Commune. It worked, but the French army killed it.

Please, tell me what the benefits of economic equality are.

If it doesn't matter what I choose to do in my life - I get to have whatever I want - please tell me how that's going to be a good thing.

Or... if it doesn't matter what I want in life - I can only have the same economic value to apply to those wants - please tell me how that's going to be good.

You, boy, need to do some deep soul searching. Take a trip out to the woods, live in the world of nature. Tell the trees growing in the groves of the benefits of resource equality. Tell the wolves of social equality. Tell the squirrels of all the wonders that come with a fair world.

By all means. Stand at the heart of creation, itself, and tell God what he did wrong and how you are going to be the one to fix it.

Obviously - God is stock-raving mad and there is nothing his pitiful creation could teach you. There are no lessons in life. There is no rhyme or reason to it. There is no pattern, no underlying systemic laws or rules. You can make fantasy a reality IF only we would all bow down and say there is no God but Equality and Zero Kelvin is its judge.

You need to stop. Please. No. What are you even talking about?
Sure there are benefits. Read Piketty, I'm sure you can't-......

Spoiler

There's a difference between a sociologist and an economist. Piketty is actually a sociologist - he's not an economist by any stretch of the imagination spare for the fact that he can be trusted to perform arithmetic.

The problem with Piketty is that he doesn't understand real things. He's done nothing real in his life and understands nothing of the numbers he analyzes.

For example - the most basic question in his research is left unanswered.

Who are the wealthy?

There is a substantial difference between an economy where one family remains rich over generations and does nothing but accumulate wealth and an economy where the average citizenry rises to wealthy status yet most of their kids end up being above average.

My grandmother came from a household with a dirt floor. I grew up in a house in a subdivision next to some of the wealthiest people in town (and my father was not really hurting for money at the time). There has been an accumulation of wealth within my family but largely through the efforts of people within that family. My cousins have become corporate directors and other such people. They live in an area with a low cost of living and can dedicate more of their income toward savings and other such things. They would be living more 'average' in a place like California or New York.

But by that same token - their kids aren't going to simply be millionaires who play the stock market. These are also the same people who have started businesses - taken that money and reinvested it in opportunities for others to be employed.

So I don't really see the problem with economic inequality in and of itself.

It is the nature of an inflationary currency to accumulate in investment pools. That is how it is designed. Of course - fencepost doesn't understand this.

The problem, dear boy, is what is known as the "circle of safety."

You see, sociologists and psychologists who have stuck to things they understand have done studies into how people behave and what causes some groups of people to stick together and other groups to fall apart.

There is no such thing as "the people." You and I are not the same person and our interests are not at all the same. In realistic terms, I'd just as soon put a bullet in your head as I would engage you in open conversation. There is absolutely zero reason for either of us to trust each other because we have very little knowledge of each other.

It is an act of desperation to engage in conversation with anyone we don't know, much less someone we have absolutely no reason to trust. We must take it on faith that the individual has no intention to cause harm or is willing to abide by certain minimum rules.

This is how people react to things when they do not feel they are secure - or 'safe.' Other people default to being a threat.

This is what defines leaders.

Leaders are able to establish a 'circle of safety' or a 'zone of safety.' People believe that this leader has both the desire and capability to make it so that they are no longer under threat from others. Leaders make it so that you and I don't feel as if we need to be freaking out about the stranger who just got on the elevator with us. We are in 'their territory' and know that the leader sees fit to enforce common minimum rules and to act with justice when those rules are broken.

We trust that leader's ability to preserve the integrity of those around us - to let no one in who is not trustworthy.

People who are not leaders (or, at least, who are very poor if in a leadership position) do not preserve integrity - people do not trust that the 'group' is secure. They fear being 'backstabbed' and find it difficult to accept decisions made by those leaders.

Invariably, under poor leadership, people default to more localized examples of leaders. They form 'cliques' - those who are part of the clique are 'cool' - those who are not are viewed with suspicion and distrust until proven otherwise. In the military - this is more casually referred to as "The Bubba Effect."

In the U.S. - the leader can be thought of to most immediately be the President. The President is the single face and voice that is turned to by the nation. The President is responsible not for 'speaking' - but for actually executing the government's policies in a fashion that preserves and/or strengthens the integrity of our nation. He is responsible for cutting tape, for facilitating investigations, and for ensuring the appointed offices are staffed with responsible people of integrity that are willing to see to the function of the office and not a separate agenda.

More indirectly - the legislature sets the tone for the federal leadership. The legislature is responsible for ensuring that the correct agencies exist for the function of government, to oversee the finances of the government, and to ensure that the function of government is actually meeting the needs/demands of the people. If the legislature sets a tone where the laws no longer feel like the laws they wish to live by and are completely unnecessary for the function of government and/or society - then do the people really feel 'safe' in the nation?

Of course not.

Translation:

With the proper governmental system that allows for minimal intrusion yet effective enforcement of necessary criminal enforcement, most people no longer see the need to turn to divisional leadership to feel secure. This means divisional leaders (also known as "community organizers" - "Warlords" in other parts of the world) lose much of their following and influence - which minimizes the damage that their personal quests for power can do.

No government system is going to fix all of the cultural problems in the world - but it will help to allow people to resolve and heal those cultural issues in a more neutral environment where other cultures/ideas are not seen as a defacto threat.

Which is precisely the environment we had not 20 years ago. Actually... I'd say we had that environment 8 years ago. As out of control as our government was, there was still the view that it was simply flawed as opposed to partisan.

This is precisely what happened to Yugoslavia after Tito died. Tito - dictator though he was, was able to unite the various groups by establishing his government as being one of Yugoslavia as opposed to one of Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, Etc. The different sub-nations were largely willing to work with him because they knew that he was not giving preference to one group or the other. There was not as much need to view the others with outward suspicion.

That changed considerably after Tito died. The government became more partisan and the sub-nations wanted to secede. It became a mess and they started killing the shit out of each other after regional warlords began gaining influence in the vacuum of strong, decisive leadership.

In America - Our Constitution lays down the framework for how we are to choose our leadership and be our own leaders in our own right. It outlines how the nation is not a race, nor is it a simple institution - it is how the people go about resolving their differences and preserving a fair way of life.

The further away from it we wander, the more divided and violent our lands will become.

The biggest challenge will not be toppling our own government. It is doomed as we speak. Nothing will save it short of Divine Intervention. The government system I was born under will not see 2020. I highly doubt it will see 2016.

The question is in what we will become.

That is what the revolution will be fought over. It is not so much a revolution against the current - but three separate revolutions attempting to decide the future.

The Marxists on one side, the Fascists on another side, and the Libertarians on the other (the Republican/Conservative groups will split between the Fascists supporting a military-industrial complex with intrusive and arbitrary moral laws and the Libertarians that will borderline on anarchist views; Democrat/Liberal groups will divide between the Marxists and the Fascists with a little bit of a blurring of the lines since all Marxists ultimately require Fascism for enforcement of arbitrary economic principles).

The conflict is coming whether we like it or not. The question as to how many people get shot over it is one that our decisions in the coming months will influence, considerably.

What 'people?' I thought there was no people.
Who are 'they?'
What the hell are you talking about?
I'm not sure what to say to this. You sound stark-raving mad, but I'll be back in 2017 to point and laugh at this.
It's great that you can ignore nobel laureates like Paul Krugmann and just call Piketty a sociologist. I'm sure you know what you're talking about.

Final grade:

Spoiler

F. [citations needed]

 

[Aim64C]

What ancestors, exactly? Revolution had its merits, sure, - and I agreee, I spoke out of turn when I dismissed it entirely - but I'm having a hard time remembering any instance of succesful revolution that resulted in a non-authoritarian regime. You could mention the French Revolution, but I would argue that its first years were rather brutal.

I'd very much like for you to tell me what exactly these problems are and why 'complacent society' has a hand in 're-creating' them.

The American Revolution.

You should familiarize yourself with the U.S. Constitution and how it specifically limits the power and authority of both the Federal government and the State governments. Contrary to popular misconception, it provides no rights to the people - only excludes lawmaking power of governments.

A review of U.S. legislative history will turn up with the conclusion that successive generations have authorized amendments that permit various governments to write laws and penalize actions. A review of educational history will reveal that the tone of teaching within the U.S. has shifted from the Constitution being a firm document that rigidly defined governing authority to the idea that the Constitution may be interpreted as a 'living document.' Further, the tone has shifted from the Constitution being a limitation on government to being a system of individual rights that the government is to protect.

These subtle and gradual shifts in educational tone have permitted a progressive expansion of regulatory laws and principles designed around the idea of 'protecting the rights of others' even though the Constitution does not provide for the authority. You should familiarize yourself with the concept of "Enumerated Powers" - a term applied to the authorities of the federal government within the Constitution.

To spoil the surprise - it means that the federal government's powers are numbered - defined. If the power is not enumerated - IE - defined - within the Constitution - then it doesn't have it. If a law acts on something or in such a way that is not expressly stated within the Constitution as being a power of the Federal Government - it's unconstitutional, end of story.

Where is the authority in the Constitution for the EPA?

Doesn't exist.

How about Student Loans?

Doesn't exist.

The FBI?

Doesn't exist.

We can go even farther back to the establishment of the Federal Reserve and the Personal Income Tax. The Income Tax is made constitutional by the Sixteenth Amendment - though one should take note that the Supreme Court, in 1895, ruled that taxing Rents, Dividends, and Interest was a direct tax by the federal government and therefor unconstitutional in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. -

You must be registered for see links

.

Although it is not entirely clear how this falls in line with other parts of the Constitution as found in Article 1, Section 2-3; Article 1, Section 8-1; the idea of graduated incomes can be seen as non-uniform - and I would certainly make the argument that a graduated tax is not a tax that is uniform throughout the United States.

An interesting review of taxes and historical tax concepts within the U.S. can be found here:

You must be registered for see links

Should you actually choose to review the Federalist Papers and historical records regarding the debate around the framing of the Constitution (Federalist versus Antifederalist) - you can see that the concept of what our government is supposed to be responsible for has shifted well beyond the authoritarian structure that they first rebelled against.

The founders of our nation would likely support an open rebellion against it for the cause of restoring the Constitution to something more along its original context.

I, personally, believe that a new Constitution should be drafted. The original Constitution contained a lot of language specific to the formation of a new nation and the founders had little idea that they would spawn the most powerful nation the world has ever known (at least in documented history). The idea that our nation would overtake the British in military capability and that the President would one day head a military that could strike anywhere in the world within hours - long before Congress could intercede - was just not even considered nor language provided for it.

The capabilities of a modern nation need to be taken into account when structuring a new Constitution in the vein of the Libertarian roots that began our original Constitution.

They weren't Marxists. 'Marxism' is not an umbrella term. At best, they were late Leninists.
And a Marxist system has never really existed, so to judge what 'happens in a Marxist system' is impossible. Don't mention the Paris Commune. It worked, but the French army killed it.

Child, answer me this:

What does Leninism do?

That's right. It implements the ideals of Marxism. The problem is that Marxism is inherently restrictive of the relationship between the people working collaboratively (employees) and those who initiate collaborative efforts (Investors, owners, executives - sometimes, themselves, employees). Thus, in order to provide for that restriction, an authoritarian system is necessary to impose the ideals of Marxism.

Which fundamentally destroys Marxism and makes it "not a real example of Marxism."

Except you'll find no free society behaving according to the principles of Marxism. About as close as you'll get to the effect of Marxism is a Libertarian society with a free market economy, ironically enough.

You need to stop. Please. No. What are you even talking about?
Sure there are benefits. Read Piketty, I'm sure you can't-......

What benefits?

Name them.

Now.

What 'people?' I thought there was no people.
Who are 'they?'
What the hell are you talking about?

The simple answer to your question is that you will find out.

You seem to think there is something inherently new and refreshing about things you have been told.

There isn't. This is a very, very old war of ideologies.

I'm not sure what to say to this. You sound stark-raving mad, but I'll be back in 2017 to point and laugh at this.
It's great that you can ignore nobel laureates like Paul Krugmann and just call Piketty a sociologist. I'm sure you know what you're talking about.

Piketty has not once done any formal research or contributed anything to the field of economics. His only notable work has been in the study of income statistics. That is a sociologist.

Krugmann is actually an economist. His noteworthy contribution has been the analysis of trade and how consumers prefer diverse market offerings.

The thing is that Krugmann can be said to be a very detailed analytic thinker... but a terrible predictive thinker. There is a gulf between his analysis of economies and his beliefs on economic policies. In many cases - his analysis directly conflict with his stated views on economic policies.

But, yes, I'll go ahead and toss his statements aside. The world of physics doesn't listen to people with degrees - even when they have degrees in physics. The world does precisely what it does and makes fools of everyone who believes it works otherwise. Therefor - I will form my own theories and my own opinions off of what I know and understand to be true after considering the relative knowledge and data of others as I am aware of them.

To do otherwise would be taking a god before that of our universe.

But you continue to worship man-gods. I'm sure their semen tastes simply glorious. Might I recommend a set of knee-pads for while you're under their desk?

Final grade:

Spoiler

F. [citations needed]

[/quote]

Says the boy who cites nothing nor provide any form of reasoning.

Tell me, though, boy; who gave you the authority to hand out grades?

Have you been given command over world economies? Have you been made master of the human spirit?

Are you God?

If so - then, by all means, grade me.

Otherwise - there is only one metric in this world that matters: "Is it functional?"

Is the theory functional? Does it -work-? Can it be used for some means to a productive end?

I find it curious that one so infatuated with dysfunction would call one such as myself 'mad.' You live in such a facade that you are no longer capable of discerning the real from the unreal. You build theories around fantasy and delude yourself into thinking that you... you... are something new - a bearer of light into a world that has never before seen such glory. If only the light existed a thousand years ago... oh, think of where we'd be.

But you aren't.

The light you carry is the perversion described in the fall of 'lucifer' - the same perversion that created the war among the angels. There is no god but equality and lucifer is its judge. Turn the focus away from what you have and center it on what others have. Thou shalt covet thy neighbor's things. After all, how can the world be fair and just if another has more than you?

And what should be done with those who resist your equality but to utterly destroy them?

Pikette has no clue what he is talking about, nor whom he serves.

Ferguson is the end result of his ideology. Palestine is the product of his ideology.

My words will make a lot more sense to you as time goes on and the world provides you with more mandates to learn what is real.

"Oh, a man of religion proceeds to tell me what is real" - you say?

As I said - you are so wrapped up in a world built upon facades that you can't determine what is and isn't real. The reality will reveal itself in time. Even the most pious of religious peoples will be equally surprised and flabbergasted by it. Like I said - a whole world built upon facades.

Mad, you say?

In the court of the jester-king, what other way is there?

In one of my other days, following one of my first days, they had a saying - Metus est Plenus Tyrannis.

A well read young man such as yourself should be able to catch the meaning if I were to show you a sword engraved with that saying while sheathed in burning paper with the words: "We The People" visible on it.

Be careful under what table you please the Jester-king, young one. Once unsheathed, that sword has a tendency to cause collateral damage.

 

[Multiply]

Gee, you do no quite understand libertarianism and revolutions at its core, do you? The solution is always simple and I tend to simplify even that. Thus confusing dimwits like yourself. ok, imagine this. If Ron Paul would have been in the oval office and he calls back all troops spread out worldwide, closes all military bases around the world, puts all those soldiers at your own borders, stops giving aid to Israel, saving trillions of taxpayer dollars a year..and then all that money would be spent on the wellbeing of the lower- and middle class citizens, careful not to make them too dependent on govt aid. Wouldn't that be one hell of a start to civil abudance? Now, they've made that option an impossibility so what people are left with is to unite and stop paying taxes altogether, but it would take such a large amount of effort in organizing and planning self-sustainability and frankly, people wouldn't be able to achieve that by themselves on a large scale. A whole town would have to be like the 'living natural man'.

And no, I'm not misinformed, I'm actually pointing out the root causes of issues and (potential) solutions for it. But I keep my posts short and thus people don't grasp my view properly, which is my fault. I just type what comes to mind at that moment, leaving out tons of info. I'd be typing like Aim64C if I actually spent more than 3 minutes typing a post and I don't have the patience for that. But I see he made some good in-depth points I'd use in my defence that I'd use if I would be bothered to.

Sorry to bring this thread back but I was reading this and I just had to say one thing.

@Bold is low-key the dumbest shit I've ever heard in my life.

Closing all military bases around the world would put millions of people out of jobs. Think of all the people in the US that can't find jobs because the job market is horrible right now. Then close all of our military bases and bring the boys on home and what are they going to do? As you suggest, they should guard our national borders? Lol... Who is going to pay for all of this, because unfortunately the US does not give Israel trillions of dollars; closer to 2-3 billion a year. Combining the entire military's budget gets you a little over 600 billion so how does stopping our foreign aid to Israel save us money? XD

These people are just supposed to come home and do what? We already have a problem with the veterans we have now. Now you want to add millions to the fold? Bruh... As much as it would warm peoples hearts to bring all of our troops home, it would prove detrimental to the job market and the economy as a whole.

 

[Anorien16]

Sorry to bring this thread back but I was reading this and I just had to say one thing.

@Bold is low-key the dumbest shit I've ever heard in my life.

Closing all military bases around the world would put millions of people out of jobs. Think of all the people in the US that can't find jobs because the job market is horrible right now. Then close all of our military bases and bring the boys on home and what are they going to do? As you suggest, they should guard our national borders? Lol... Who is going to pay for all of this, because unfortunately the US does not give Israel trillions of dollars; closer to 2-3 billion a year. Combining the entire military's budget gets you a little over 600 billion so how does stopping our foreign aid to Israel save us money? XD

These people are just supposed to come home and do what? We already have a problem with the veterans we have now. Now you want to add millions to the fold? Bruh... As much as it would warm peoples hearts to bring all of our troops home, it would prove detrimental to the job market and the economy as a whole.

And he apparently is ignorant of how much the US spends on what too ...

You must be registered for see images

This is the plan for 2015 as of now.

You must be registered for see images

While this one was in the past .....

Which also kinda implies US spends nearly 50% on Welfare and Medical ... while about 18-20% goes to the Military. And totally unaware of the fact that some people are already overly dependent on the government, and often exploit the social security system.

 

[YowYan]

Sorry to bring this thread back but I was reading this and I just had to say one thing.

@Bold is low-key the dumbest shit I've ever heard in my life.

Closing all military bases around the world would put millions of people out of jobs. Think of all the people in the US that can't find jobs because the job market is horrible right now. Then close all of our military bases and bring the boys on home and what are they going to do? As you suggest, they should guard our national borders? Lol... Who is going to pay for all of this, because unfortunately the US does not give Israel trillions of dollars; closer to 2-3 billion a year. Combining the entire military's budget gets you a little over 600 billion so how does stopping our foreign aid to Israel save us money? XD

These people are just supposed to come home and do what? We already have a problem with the veterans we have now. Now you want to add millions to the fold? Bruh... As much as it would warm peoples hearts to bring all of our troops home, it would prove detrimental to the job market and the economy as a whole.

You see, I crop the bigger picture into a short, rushed post (almost always) thus confusing some members making them hungry to reply. It's a poorly thought-out post indeed. But true, nonetheless if you have eyes to see. Which you clearly don't.

You forgot that completely stopping foreign interventionism would help with rebuilding good relationships with other nations. That would improve the trade market on the long run. And it's kind of sad to see that some think that bringing back all military personnel would just create more homeless people when you have billions, if not trillions that you can now spend on more progressive projects. And on top of that, taking off some workload off the citizens shoulders by lowering the income-tax as the agenda of policing the world has been halted (temporarily sadly).

And we have a problem with the veterans because the govt has no use for them anymore. In other words; fulfilling agendas has more value over veterans who fought for what they thought was right. Not for freedom as most of them were starting to realize, but with good intentions nonetheless. Here we have thousands of empty houses confiscated by the federal bank or what not, scattered across the u.s., enough to house an enormous amount of homeless people including homeless veterans.

None of this would be a problem if foreign interventionism, and basically all spendings that do not go along with the people's wishes, was no more. And as to people losing jobs, regaining some freedom would give them the chance to take charge of some things themselves and organizing amongst each other, community wise. Ron Paul would strive for a taxfree nation and in which the wellbeing of the people is nr.1 priority and not trying to be ''the best country in the world'' (which they never were or will be) by forcing democracy on other nations with sly war propaganda and insider-manipulators. and most americans, who're not deluded by the media and fake education programs, would support that man or people like him.

This actually goes way way more intodepth in various ways concerning the deliberate, manipulated distribution of wealth from the poor to the rich. But i'm not up for it. I'd have to look up some things to remember.

 

[Multiply]

You see, I crop the bigger picture into a short, rushed post (almost always) thus confusing some members making them hungry to reply. It's a poorly thought-out post indeed. But true, nonetheless if you have eyes to see. Which you clearly don't.

You forgot that completely stopping foreign interventionism would help with rebuilding good relationships with other nations. That would improve the trade market on the long run. And it's kind of sad to see that some think that bringing back all military personnel would just create more homeless people when you have billions, if not trillions that you can now spend on more progressive projects. And on top of that, taking off some workload off the citizens shoulders by lowering the income-tax as the agenda of policing the world has been halted (temporarily sadly).

And we have a problem with the veterans because the govt has no use for them anymore. In other words; fulfilling agendas has more value over veterans who fought for what they thought was right. Not for freedom as most of them were starting to realize, but with good intentions nonetheless. Here we have thousands of empty houses confiscated by the federal bank or what not, scattered across the u.s., enough to house an enormous amount of homeless people including homeless veterans.

None of this would be a problem if foreign interventionism, and basically all spendings that do not go along with the people's wishes, was no more. And as to people losing jobs, regaining some freedom would give them the chance to take charge of some things themselves and organizing amongst each other, community wise. Ron Paul would strive for a taxfree nation and in which the wellbeing of the people is nr.1 priority and not trying to be ''the best country in the world'' (which they never were or will be) by forcing democracy on other nations with sly war propaganda and insider-manipulators. and most americans, who're not deluded by the media and fake education programs, would support that man or people like him.

This actually goes way way more intodepth in various ways concerning the deliberate, manipulated distribution of wealth from the poor to the rich. But i'm not up for it. I'd have to look up some things to remember.

We proved you wrong and you still want to babble about this?

Foreign interventionism... You only said Israel, which I proved costs the US 2-3 Billion a year. Even so, you said foreign aid initially, changing it to foreign intervention doesn't help your argument. Considering we're only intervening in two countries currently, I don't see how that would help our trade. Before you get on your soap box and say oil from the middle east, we get more oil from Canada than we do the middle east.


I still don't see where these people coming home are getting jobs? Your initial statement was to guard our borders but that makes no sense. So now what jobs are these men and women going to get that aren't already taken by people with better qualifications from college/experience. Lowering the price of income tax would increase the cost of living so I don't see how that really helps. Especially considering all of those vets are coming home and don't have jobs. They're living off their benefits and if the did not serve for 20 years, then they are pretty much beat.

So your plan is to give houses to these homeless people yet how are they going to pay their bills? They have no jobs. That's what it ultimately boils down to. Unless they are receiving a government pension, they are beat for a job. Some how thousands of houses are supposed to house millions. Please don't put our vets in projects.

Lol... Sometimes what the people want is not always the best thing. Do you forget that the "war on terror" was the presented by the government and accepted nationally by the people. Which people are going to decide government spending? The people working at McDonald's that don't even know who the 44th President is? Really...? Also a tax free nation; Lol. The hell does he decide that will even work in 4 or 8 years?

You need to pass that reggie fam. You're on some crazy shit.

 

[Daemon]

im just saying. *****s needa chill with the trap music and we'd be okay.

 

[YowYan]

We proved you wrong and you still want to babble about this?

Foreign interventionism... You only said Israel, which I proved costs the US 2-3 Billion a year. Even so, you said foreign aid initially, changing it to foreign intervention doesn't help your argument. Considering we're only intervening in two countries currently, I don't see how that would help our trade. Before you get on your soap box and say oil from the middle east, we get more oil from Canada than we do the middle east.


I still don't see where these people coming home are getting jobs? Your initial statement was to guard our borders but that makes no sense. So now what jobs are these men and women going to get that aren't already taken by people with better qualifications from college/experience. Lowering the price of income tax would increase the cost of living so I don't see how that really helps. Especially considering all of those vets are coming home and don't have jobs. They're living off their benefits and if the did not serve for 20 years, then they are pretty much beat.

So your plan is to give houses to these homeless people yet how are they going to pay their bills? They have no jobs. That's what it ultimately boils down to. Unless they are receiving a government pension, they are beat for a job. Some how thousands of houses are supposed to house millions. Please don't put our vets in projects.

Lol... Sometimes what the people want is not always the best thing. Do you forget that the "war on terror" was the presented by the government and accepted nationally by the people. Which people are going to decide government spending? The people working at McDonald's that don't even know who the 44th President is? Really...? Also a tax free nation; Lol. The hell does he decide that will even work in 4 or 8 years?

You need to pass that reggie fam. You're on some crazy shit.

I see you twisted my words in your benefit Lol
My point has always been foreign interventionism. Giving Israel financial aid was just one topic adding to the whole.

2 countries? haha

I will reply tomorrow, I have to get up for work at 4:30 am so I'll leave it at this for now. (didn't read the rest yet)

edit: As I said before, as they stop wasting money on trivial things like foreign interventionism, foreign financial aid, and hopefully the war on drugs (which adds up to another couple of billions) they'll have more time and money to focus on projects that involve the wellbeing of the people. Creating jobs being one of them, and forcing giant international companies to raise the minimum wage and pensions, etc.

Are you really that gullible? So, just because you see no solution as of yet for getting the veterans jobs, you think they should just keep on wasting billions, if not trillions on harrassing other nations with their meddling? All those billions could house homeless people, fund more abudance-aimed projects and blablabla i'm going to take a shower, deadbeat from work.

 

[BrillyMac]

In my opinion, the African American's worst enemy are themselves. They destroy their youth with violence in their music and media. They destroy themselves in their own communities. They destroy themselves by placing the blame of their failing status as civilized beings on White people because they believe they are still being oppressed.

As an African American, I believe the only way to save our race is to usher in change for our people. Which would include getting rid of WSHH(that shit alone sets us back hundreds of years). Inspiring our youth to listen to artists like Kendrick Lamar, J. Cole, and even a radical like Kanye. They all speak of increasing the worth of the African American, which is what we need to consider ourselves civilized beings. We need to stop all of this idiotic behavior that is called being "ratchet"(in our defense even white people exhibit ratchet symptoms). Black women need to be taught that they have worth and aren't just accessories. They don't have to just give it up to any many who asks. Our youth needs to learn that your brain is the most powerful weapon a human being possesses.

We can't continue to blame our struggle on the government or white people. The government helps out those struggling plenty enough and most whites have joined our arms as brothers in the recent protests. Who can we blame now?

Anyway what do you guys think the worst enemy of the African American is? How can we help ourselves?


*Please keep this discussion mature and don't be racist.

Although we can be our own worst enemy rap didn't start that way and neither did we. Rap started off with awareness and knowledge. It wasn't until the greedy and evil record labels came in and saw rap was big money and also saw it influenced the mind. They changed the culture (which shapes the people by the way) and they changed the lyrics. Sure there were some ignorant rappers back then that started talking about doing illegal things, but its waaaaay deeper than that. Naturally, black people are peaceful.