American Politics

[Soapy Smith]

I might have added this to the post in the Manila thread, LOL. The military industrial complex had a heyday and huge boon under Reagan and how many wars did THAT complex get us into? I would not count Grenada as a "war", OTOH in terms of impact on global stages I might certainly include Afghanistan (mujahideen, stingers etc) , though that one clearly came back to bite us in the arse. Wait, wasn't that a DEMOCRAT's War? (Charlie Wilson)

I'm impressed that you actually followed through to the "USA Politics" unused thread. This is where many of these conversations probably belong, and now that you've created the precedent I have no excuse not to move my occasional political diatribes here. I will check out these links, but I am going to try to copy and paste them again here to see if I can get them to got hot. They don't seem to be hotlinks in your post.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/05/op...pagewanted=all

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...x-2186133.html

It worked. The trick seems to be to do a hard carriage return after each url.

[Pete Benetar]

I might have added this to the post in the Manila thread, LOL. The military industrial complex had a heyday and huge boon under Reagan and how many wars did THAT complex get us into? I would not count Grenada as a "war", OTOH in terms of impact on global stages I might certainly include Afghanistan (mujahideen, stingers etc) , though that one clearly came back to bite us in the arse. Wait, wasn't that a DEMOCRAT's War? (Charlie Wilson)

A few decent recent iterations of M-I complex

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/05/opinion/the-permanent-militarization-of-america.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ike-was-right-all-along-the-danger-of-the-militaryindustrial-complex-2186133.html

[Clandestine782]

And Constitutionalists find that any time spent providing rational arguments to Progressives is wasted as well - upon people who are unwilling to process information that challenges their dogmatic beliefs. So what goes around comes around.

Thank you! I get so tired of listening to Progressives (whatever that may mean, since forward motion in time is not always necessarily for the better). I enumerated my points and didn't get a single answer from that other poster.

I had checked his posting history before I made the first response, I agree with your conclusions about him. I also think that Progressives waste a lot time providing rational arguments to people like birthers, creationist and racist who are unwilling to process information that challenges their dogmatic beliefs.

My brain works just fine. It is too active, in fact, and that is why I take sleeping pills.

I think that you are also a liar. How can I believe that either of you read over (and understood) my earlier posts when I have made about 10 posts on this topic and neither of you read or understood them? I didn't say anything about white supremacy. (For what it is worth, the book that I quoted the most was "The Bell Curve," and it, in turn was about "intelligence and class structure in American life." The racial component of the book was only 2 chapters-- even though those are the ones that everyone skipped to and read first. The authors pleaded with the readers to go back and read the whole book before the racial chapters.) It's plain old mainstream psychology. Nothing fringe or racist about it.

For the third or fourth time, this post is about American politics. What I discussed was the fact that every time a black administration has taken over a city, it has collapsed. Why can't we talk about that in a sub-forum that is titled "American Politics"?

If you had read carefully any of the things that I posted (you didn't) or understood any of the enumerated points (you didn't), then you might have at least come back with one or two intelligent questions (you didn't).

The idea that I was sketching while on the drive home today (with respect to intelligence) and that Murry and Herrnstein talked about was: If you have people who have lower IQs, then it might not be that they can't understand the things that are necessary to make an advanced society, but that the cognitive investment might just be too high. Lots of people will accept the easiest answer about something *because* it is easy. (Religious people. Other types of chauvinists.) Could it be that intelligence really *does* explain that? I mean, people who have used intelligence to try to predict things such as medical school admissions are successful. Why not try to scale up and explain the direction of whole societies based on native talent?

I guess Mr. Whopping-3-posts must have been a bit slow. I haven't gotten any clear answers to the enumerated points from him. So much for that.

[DeepCover]

And Constitutionalists find that any time spent providing rational arguments to Progressives is wasted as well - upon people who are unwilling to process information that challenges their dogmatic beliefs. So what goes around comes around.

I have no problem with debating Constitutionalists as long as we are debating the constitution and rights. The constitution is an objective reality. I draw the line at arguing mythology such as "Jews are inherently evil" and other such bigotry.

[Westy]

I also think that Progressives waste a lot time providing rational arguments to people like birthers, creationist and racist who are unwilling to process information that challenges their dogmatic beliefs.

And Constitutionalists find that any time spent providing rational arguments to Progressives is wasted as well - upon people who are unwilling to process information that challenges their dogmatic beliefs. So what goes around comes around.

[DeepCover]

DC stopped arguing back and forth with this guy. He is on some type of mental medication. He comes on a sex forum to debate the failures of the black race and spread white supremacy theories.

I had checked his posting history before I made the first response, I agree with your conclusions about him. I also think that Progressives waste a lot time providing rational arguments to people like birthers, creationist and racist who are unwilling to process information that challenges their dogmatic beliefs.

[Clandestine782]

DC stopped arguing back and forth with this guy. He is on some type of mental medication.

He comes on a sex forum to debate the failures of the black race and spread white supremacy theories. If you do a quick check of his posting history appears he spent time in an Indonesian jail. Was he sexually abused? I have no idea why the moderator allows him to post unabated on this forum he serves no purpose.

Are you weighing in on a conversation that ended 3 days ago? And that I ended in my last quote?

Why don't you RTFF so that you can know what happened? I see that you have a whopping 3 posts to your name. I hope that you aren't a member who is posting under an alias and who was part of a flame war that was finished (by Jackson the moderator) approaching a year ago.

So, I am going to enumerate these points since you may be a bit slow.

1. I have posted on the internet about the use of Seroquel for insomnia (I've had this for many years). No different to if I had high blood pressure or insulin-dependent diabetes. Or if I was too old to have erections without the assistance of Vitamin V. Just that simple. (If there was a medicine that helped poor reading comprehension, I wouldn't hold it against you if you admitted to taking it.)

2. I believe that I wrote that I went to Indonesia for a summer vacation and took a teaching job there. It just happened that I was in the wrong place at the wrong time (read the story for the particulars) and had to spend the night in a jail for working on the wrong type of visa. Live and learn.

3. No, I wasn't abused as a child. And even if I was, that doesn't make my questions any less valid. (None of which Deep Cover answered).

4. The point of the argument (did you bother to read the argument?) was that people are always whining about changes of government and that what comes along later might actually be worse than what went before. And that black people have fallen into this trap MANY times-- both in and out of the USA. (Who knows? It may be genetic, but I am not sure yet.)

5. I'll extend the same courtesy to you that I did to the other person. If you kindly tell me the point in the discussion at which you got lost, I'll try to make it simpler for you. Someone was babbling about some cities being "systematically defunded and deindustrialized," but didn't bother to present any evidence one way or another about it. That same person babbled on about my being "imitation vanilla." (I guess they were saying that only a real white person could speak on these matters.)

6. There are lots of things that lots of people on this board find offensive. (Think about all the anti-sex perverts that don't like the idea of P4P.) If Jackson dealt with every single thing that everyone found offensive (and was not a violation of forum rules), I don't think he'd have time for anything else.

7. I do post sexual reports-- even though this sub-forum is about American Politics, and nothing that I've posted here with respect to this is out of place. I've specialized in cities/ places that are out of the way. (Most recently I've been reporting in Changzhou. I left the number of a reliable driver that can provide door to door girls. 400RMB for 2 shots, but he only speaks Chinese, as do all the service providers.)

[Clandestine782]

You are right about the quote function and little else.

Bottom line: You can talk like us (although based on your usage of the term Black Society, I doubt it). You can try very hard to act like us and even parrot white racist rhetoric. You will always be a pathetic Black man imitating someone what you think a white man should be. Better to be yourself and maintain your self respect.

1. There there now, little lady. You sure have put up the b.itch guard! I guess I will have to make it even simpler for you. The word "society" means "company." As in (def. 7) "companionship; company: to enjoy one's society. " (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/society)
2. If you're a white guy, then you've done a good job demonstrating that both races have people on the low end of the IQ distribution (i.e., not understanding the arguments or even being able to come up with a decent response/ rebuttal).
3. Sneering is not answering the argument. (I can't believe how often people think that if they just act convincingly smug that is an answer to an argument.)
4. If you can't tell me where you got lost in the discussion (so that I can clarify the reasoning), I can't help you. If you yourself don't know, then there's not much more I can say. Even other people have responded to the arguments with at least *some* salient/ coherent points.

So, with that all said, this conversation is over. I have books to read and people with higher IQs with whom I can pursue conversation.

[DeepCover]

You are right about the quote function and little else.

Bottom line: You can talk like us (although based on your usage of the term Black Society, I doubt it). You can try very hard to act like us and even parrot white racist rhetoric. You will always be a pathetic Black man imitating someone what you think a white man should be. Better to be yourself and maintain your self respect.

[Westy]

What has most stifled human potential in American blacks is the victim mentality constantly drilled into their heads by the Left.

A very good and very important point! And it's not just true of Blacks. It's true of anyone, any group, who has been "pronounced Victim." (Except, of course, the "historical victimizers" - the scapegoats to be blamed for one's Victimhood.)

Victimhood means never having to acknowledge your own part in your "degraded" condition. It means "You OWE me" to the people you're blaming for your victimhood, to the seventh generation and beyond. It means you can blame, and blame, and blame - "It's all THEIR fault!"

If "victim" sounds like a good life-role, a cushy gig, "Rescuer!" is even more dramatic and seductive. You get the white hat, the white horse, the shining armor, all of it! "Here I come, to save the day!"

Ay, but there's the rub: You can't be a Rescuer without victims to rescue. You've got to keep reminding your followers of their victimhood; keep pointing out to them how "The Victimizers" have kept them down, even when they've stopped doing so; you've got to keep selling victimhood to stay in the Rescue Industry. So you do that, even when your followers have nothing in the way of their standing up and "being a Man." You promise milk and honey, if your followers will just keep behind you and keep pushing you up, keep polishing your shining armor and feeding your white horse. "When we Win!"

But - then you win. You've kicked out "The Oppressors" and YOU are in power. You're The Man! Your followers expect you to come through on your promises. "Where's that damn milk and honey? I'm hungry!" Well, you can buy a certain amount of milk & honey with the funds the Oppressors left in the Treasury; but you just kicked the dairy-farmers and bee-keepers the hell out, and your devoted cadre, your inner circle, have no idea which end of a bee to milk. Now what?

Just a parable....

We've seen countless examples over the centuries of Rescuers coming to power, and running their cities, their states, their nations into the ground. And it's been an equal-opportunity field, all the way. Blacks have done it, Whites have done it, Hispanics have done it, Asians have done it, the French did it in a big way in the 1790's - there is a WEALTH of bad examples.

How about some GOOD examples, of presidents and prime-ministers who have gotten it right - who have profited from the lessons of history, and managed to say "Not that way" and make it stick? One candidate is Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, President of Liberia; are there other Good Examples out there?

[Clandestine782]

Bullshyt! the idea that Black people are inferior is more than simply preference. History has shown those that promoted it have stifled the human potential of millions. It is no less odious when the person promoting it claims to be Black.

1. You really need to work on using the "quote" function.
2. Not trying to impress you with big words. Everyone knows what the word "society" means. And the dictionary is free online (in case you didn't).
3. You didn't answer the questions that I put forth.
4. I see that you didn't follow the reasoning. Could you please tell me where you got lost, and I'll try to make it *even simpler.*
5. What was asserted was that: If someone decides that they don't want to hang around black people (or whatever people) for WHATEVER REASON, then that is no different to preferring chicken to beef. Or Asian girls to black ones. Or Islam to Chrisianity. It's just a matter of preference.

[Josechung]

History has shown those that promoted it have stifled the human potential of millions.

What has most stifled human potential in American blacks is the victim mentality constantly drilled into their heads by the Left.

[DeepCover]

That's not what I said. I just said that it appears (from all evidence) that they can't run governments.

Jumping to that conclusion based upon what goes on in some American Cities is like saying American Indians can't run governments because of the condition of Indians on reservations. The same can holds true of post colonial African governments.



If some person says that he doesn't enjoy the society of black people (for whatever reason), then he is not being any less rational

The "Society of Black People"? Don't try to impress me with big words.

/ more irrational than a man that says he likes shaved vagina compared to a man that won't have one. Or steak vs. pork chops. Just a matter of prefernce.

Bullshyt! the idea that Black people are inferior is more than simply preference. History has shown those that promoted it have stifled the human potential of millions. It is no less odious when the person promoting it claims to be Black.

[Clandestine782]

thomas sowell was interviewed recently on the bbc where he complains that there are too many smart people in control of government. this underscores the american conservative lionization of ignorance. little wonder that american conservatives loved the idiot george bush and are all weak in the knees over the dumbass from the north, sara palin.

i wonder who is dumb now? thomas sowell has been writing for decades and makes a great salary at the hoover institution after someone found out that his talents were much better used as a writer and speaker. i think he gets about $20,000 for an hour speech. as it happens, i have just read (and sold) his book "intellectuals and society" (it was reviewed on amazon.com) and so i know what he said on the bbc.

his point was (are you reading?-- one of the benefits of the written language is that you can read it as many times as necessary before you understand it without my repeating it) that: people who are intelligent in one area (such as linguistics), will over-extrapolate that intelligence to try to make/ speak on public policy. now, if you think of someone like lee kwan yew (who was a brilliant man), he was not a person who did a lot of talking. instead, he looked back on historical examples when he built singapore and engineered a *very* successful city state-- possibly the most successful majority chinese state in over 20 centuries. you could compare him to someone like the current president of the us (b. hussein obama), who is an attorney (like about 44% of the congress of the us is/ has been). his expertise is with verbal dexterity, but not necessarily engineering things (as in, "what would be the best way to allocate educational resources so as to get the optimum output?"). so, b. hussein can talk and make you believe that something will happen-- it's just that it has no resemblance to reality. (since every single word out of his mouth-- including "the" and "and" are lies-- i can pick an easy example.) remember the thing about "saving or creating x number of jobs?" that sentence was repeated so many times, that is was almost easy enough to forget that they are two separate claims. so, which is which? he was also giving speech number 10,001 talking about education. but no one seriously believes in reforming education, because if they did, they would hire an economist and then make implementations in the same no-nonsense way that japanese/ chinese people educate. (as in, if you pass this test you can move on. if not, we are going to just make a cut and it's not open for discussion.)

black conservatives like one of our fellow mongers below actually wants to argue the innate inferiority of black people forgetting that he too is allegedly "blackish".

that's not what i said. what i was saying (over the course of this conversation) is that for some reason, every time black people take over a government, it is a disaster. (haiti-- a 208 year disaster. almost every country in africa. nearly every black-administered city in the united states.) what you came back with--with neither defense nor proof-- was "oh, they were systematically defunded and deindustrialized," to which i replied that (1) there are cities next door that are doing just fine (and that never had any industry) and (2) the things that detroit and east st. louis highland park and (well, you get the idea) can't even do things that are funded locally-- you know, police and public transport and things like that. there may be a mechanism behind this. (you can read murry and herrnstein where they discuss an example at great length. much of it deals with people who are not conceptually able to understand laws because of low cognitive ability.) do i need to mention that the congressional black caucus has all of the current cases for corruption? something like 42 members and (less than 10% of congress but 100% of the cases for corruption at once?). then there was that asshole jefferson (forget his name) that hid money in his freezer (???!!!??!!!).

before you diss black conservatives, why don't you actually read some things that they have written? everyone has an opinion on clarence thomas and hasn't even read his book (he's written exactly one). everyone has an opinion on bt washington and hasn't even read his one single book.

what can i say if i do make a better living in a place where i can't vote (and never will be able to) and where no one is black compared to if i did move to detroit? i wouldn't even be able to find a job washing dishes there (and that's with two degrees) because no one else can find a job there (because the city was that badly mismanaged). does "political empowerment" really matter that much? chinese people are not politically empowered (in china, indonesia, malaysia, or in the united states) but getting rich (in taiwan/ hk/ macau/ singapore/ indonesia/ malaysia they are already rich). zimbabweans are politically empowered and dying of aids. nigerians are dying of aids and relying on the chinese to maintain their infrastructure in exchange for preferred access to their oil? and the chinese come there and use their own people to do everything and don't hire even a single african. but the africans are politically free! (and unemployed and not able to handle their own infrastructure.)

having traveled to all continents but australia i can safely say few are as stupid and hypocritical as the american conservative. dick cheney claimed that ronald reagan proved (after spending more than all previous presidents combined) that deficits don't matter.

do you have any numbers to back this up?

bush occupied two nations and threatened more war but american conservatives have yet to say one billion dollars per month is too much. in fact they want to attack iran.

for the same reason that they wanted to attack adolf hitler.

in the long run american conservatives will take up arms against the nation they claim to love just as their dim witted confederate forebearers did over a century ago. it is then that they will learn that not all progressives believe in gun control.

they don't have to take up arms against their nation. it will tear itself apart long before that is necessary. it could be language conflict (very likely) or just a general weakining of law enforcement (for any variety of reasons, including weird federal judiciary behavior or too much money invested in fighting drugs or financing a 5th column (universities) inside their country or [you fill it in]).

but after it is all said and done: i can't repeat enough times (since you didn't read any of sowell's many books or even follow his argument) that getting enough of the right people in the wrong place is enough to make a nation collapse. and that's happened many, many, many times.

so, if you look at the imperial examination system of china (textbook example) china went absolutely nowhere for 2,200 years because everyone was so busy studying the confucian classics and not trying to do any practical innovation on anything. now, they have finally come up with the idea of a republic (sort of) and they have engineers that are at the head of government-- and the government here makes policies like engineers and runs the country that same way.

something that they realize (the prc government, that is) is that: 1. most people cannot understand most of what happens around them with respect to the management of a country. (if you stipulated an average iq one standard deviation above the mean to be able to comment intelligently on a policy issue, that successfully excludes 68% of the population.); 2. there is no use trying to promise things that you can't pay for/ produce anyway, and so the easiest way to do that is to just not allow the citizens to vote so that you don't have to deliver on any promises you can't keep in any case. (i would not go that far, but i would put in an iq/ civics test as a condition of being able to vote. people who could not pass the civics test and have a score in excess of 108 would be politely refused the right to vote.)3. the easiest way to not have to get bogged down in a discussion about public policy is to just not start the discussion to begin with.

[Hunts]

I just hope my Social Security checks keep coming until I die. Following the mantra that social welfare like Social Security must be privatized is like lemming going off a cliff. I am a WASP, retired blue collar and I fear America is imperiled by TeaBaggers, and Repugs who want to return to the good old days. Whenever that was, I certainly don't want it.[/QUOTE]When Slick Willy was Pres the congress was Republican. It seems that as a typical lefty you are only concerned that your social security keeps coming.Who said socialism is great until you run out of other peoples money?