American Politics

[QUOTE=DeepCover]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.[/QUOTE]
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.

[QUOTE=Josechung]What has most stifled human potential in American blacks is the victim mentality constantly drilled into their heads by the Left.[/QUOTE]
A very good and very important point! [b][i]And it's not just true of Blacks.[/i][/b] It's true of [i]anyone, any group,[/i] 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?

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.

[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]
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. " ([url]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/society[/url])
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.

[QUOTE=Mephisto667]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.[/QUOTE]
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.)

[QUOTE=Mephisto667]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=DeepCover]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.[/QUOTE]
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 [i]their[/i] dogmatic beliefs. So what goes around comes around.

[QUOTE=Westy]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 [i]their[/i] dogmatic beliefs. So what goes around comes around.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=Westy]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 [i]their[/i] dogmatic beliefs. So what goes around comes around.[/QUOTE]
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.
[quote]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.[/quote]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.

[b]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"? [/b]

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.

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

[QUOTE=Pete Benetar; 1428732]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) [/QUOTE]

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.

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

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

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

[QUOTE=Pete Benetar;1428732]The military industrial complex had a heyday and huge boon under Reagan and how many wars did THAT complex get us into?[/QUOTE]Soviet Union, Cold War, mutual deterrence, uhm. How fast we forget. Sole hegemon now thinks it can do whatever it wants.

[QUOTE=Golfinho;1429144]Sole hegemon now thinks it can do whatever it wants.[/QUOTE]Copy that; we'll see you in another six years or so

Excellent articles, thank you gentlemen.

in the philippines politics thread pete benetar wrote:

"comical the preponderant liberal bent of postings here when reality is moderate politicians of both wings are captured in usa, not so unlike what wallace writes of the pi. how many criminal indictments has the obama administration served in the six years he's been in office following the trillions of dollars stolen and redistributed upwards? how many usd has he clawed back from the scores of billionairres who's wealth grew feverishly while average incomes dropped? nada. frontline's expose on obama's doj esp criminal div point man lanny breuer illustrates to all but the delusional the capture in the us, even under the liberal's precious democratic banner."

i agree with pete's argument about politicians of both parties being in the capture of wall street. in fact, hillary will be giving a speech at a goldman sachs conference in about 14 hours, presumably for her usual speaking fee of about $200, 000. assuming she plans to run for president, she clearly knows which side of the bread gets buttered:

[url]http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/hillary-clinton-goldman-sachs-98958.html[/url]

her husband, of course, employed robert rubin, former goldman sachs ceo, as his treasury secretary, george w. bush employed henry paulson (also a former goldman sachs ceo) as his treasury secretary, and both clinton and obama kept larry summers, a close friend and consultant for goldman sachs, employed in their administrations for short periods of time when he wasn't busy pissing off the feminists at harvard.

as to how many criminal indictments the obama administration has served on wall street types, it all depends. in general, no big fish have been indicted. some individuals are just too important to prosecute:

[url]http://us.macmillan.com/withlibertyandjusticeforsome/glenngreenwald[/url]

but there have been prosecutions of investment bankers. such as:

somewhere between eight and 17 'employees' at steven a cohen capital advisors, and now it appears that, although cohen himself may evade prosecution, his firm has probably been effectively eliminated:

[url]http://money.cnn.com/2013/07/17/investing/wall-street-usattorney-sac/[/url]

[url]http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/07/25/sac-capital-is-indicted/?_r=0[/url]

three 'traders' at flow traders:

[url]http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/sb10001424127887323980604579031034025132054[/url]

and overall, more than 70 insider trading guilty convictions and pleas during the obama administration:

[url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/23/us-insidertrading-jiau-idusbre99m1du20131023[/url]

oh yeah, one goldman sachs board member went down:

[url]http://www.pe.com/business/business-headlines/20111026-wall-street-ex-goldman-board-member-indicted-in-insider-case.ece[/url]

but, following the "too important to be prosecuted" rule, it appears individual jp morgan chase executives will skate for their roles in concealing bernie madoff's activities, although the bank has agreed to a $13b penalty. what will be the long-term effect of this fine? only time will tell:

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/27/business/a-13-billion-reminder-of-whats-wrong.html?partner=rss&emc=rss[/url]

and jp morgan was apparently not as lucky as goldman sachs following rep001hing senate hearings in 2010:

[url]http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-people-vs-goldman-sachs-20110511[/url]

for my part, do i find the democratic banner precious? no, i'm registered with no party affiliation. but the democrats do deserve some credit for the regulatory efforts they produced in dodd-frank. republican majorities in both houses of congress, on the other hand, were responsible for repealing the glass-steagall act in 1999, with bill clinton's acquiesence, thus eliminating protections intended to separate investment and commercial banking activities.

but as to humor in the situation, i'm sorry, i must be dense. dc's grievances are quite different from those ge and i have expressed, but i doubt that any of us see much humor in the problems we perceive in american politics. so help me out here. please explain the punch line to me.

one more apology: i don't have the patience to repair the hotlinks that get evaporated when posting them to the forum. if you care, figure out some keywords to look up the related stories. if you don't care, which is probably most readers, just ignore.