I’m not Snowboarder Bo, but his specific words were, “I do not think your statement bears any relation to reality. Cite, please?” [bolding added]
It seems rather redundant to ask him to say that he honestly doubts your statement when when he has already clearly stated exactly that. Or is some part of “bears no relation to reality” unclear?
And that’s supposed to prove what? That black people are inherently violent? :dubious:
You seem to be trying to make some kind of claim in a roundabout way, but I’m not 100% sure what it is yet. But I do know that you’re ignoring any number of possible alternate explanations for the situation you described other than a racially tinged one.
If you’re going to throw out Vermont and percentages as an example, my home city is at least 40% black and 5-7% Hispanic, but there’s a shooting there maybe once every 3 years. Sure, my hometown’s not exactly a sprawling metropolis, but where exactly in Vermont is considered gritty and urban?
It’s not clear to me what he’s talking about when he refers to “your statement” In fact, I thought about asking him to quote my “statement,” but it seemed easier to ask the question the way I did.
Anyway, it should be easy enough for him to verify his serious skepticism.
No. I’m trying to demonstrate exactly what I claimed. Nothing more, and nothing less. (actually a bit less). Anyway, brainglutton asked me a question, and I tried to answer it.
Just to follow up on my post, I agree that I should have explicitly asked him to clarify what he meant by my “statement.” Rather than make an assumption about what he was referring to and asking him to verify his serious skepticism.
Care to stand by that? I’ll bet Obama’s administration sees more economic growth (average per annum) than Bush’s. Loser never posts again.
Understand, I am just trying to satisfy myself that you are not saying what you appear to be saying: That socialism or social democracy might work here, if only we did not have so many negroes.
There is a point at which people will no longer attempt to achieve wealth if it is taxed away from them as they make it. People don’t just stop working under draconian taxation, but they do stop letting the government know about their income (barter system, black market, flat-out lying, etc.).
My concern for the US is that instead of having a small amount of socialism like Canada which seems to be working for us, you might go too far the other direction and end up like Sam Stone has said, in a system that will not promote economic growth when you need it the most. Plus, as lust4life has pointed out, the people making the new rules were the people who were benefitting under the old rules; it seems unlikely to me that the rich and powerful are going to enact the rules the US needs to put some checks on the rich and powerful.
That’s pretty close to what I’m saying. The “racial underclass” I have been referring to is mostly blacks and hispanics. Policies which work in an area without such an underclass (e.g. “Vermont Carry”) may very well not work so well in an area with this sort of underclass.
brazil84, as I am the creator of the OP, I wonder if I might be so bold as to request that you now refrain from further posting in this thread. I think we now all understand your thesis that a genetically inferior racial underclass is responsible for the problems in the USA.
We’ve heard you, and most have been trying to ignore the hijack.
Perhaps there is a more appropriate thread/forum/messageboard for you to find some fellow people who are interested in this kind of, shall we say, repulsive argument. Does Stormfront operate a messageboard?
Thank you for your cooperation.
Stormfront is a messageboard.
Not sure if this is a hijack, but as I was reading the thread I was thinking about the productivity and technological development that comes out of the atypical (for first world countries) US economic system.
Is the US subsidizing the rest of the world in terms of development of technology, productivity techniques, etc.? When it comes to, say, prescription drugs, other countries with nationalized health care system will force drug manufacturers to sell at a lower price - they get away with this because the marginal cost of producing more pills is so low that it’s better to sell them more cheaply than not at all, and because the US, where drugs fetch higher prices, is funding the R&D for the drugs. Essentially, the superior productivity and more free market of the US is exploited by those other countries.
If the US leans more towards socialism and our level of innovation and productivity drops, could the level of technological development and quality of life across the world decline since the US will be doing less of the R&D lifting for everyone else?
Perhaps people from socialist countries should be secretly hoping the US becomes even more extremely anti-socialist.
You seem to be assuming that R&D for new drugs only ever goes on in the US and only ever by US companies.
Moderator’s Warning: You are out of line–don’t do this again.
And you were just warned for insulting other posters outside of the Pit two hours before you threw this one–you need to either calm down or just quit posting for a while.
The problem is that IMHO, the current system doesn’t reward hard work and productivity. It rewards people with the wherewithall, connections and forsight to go into fields like investment banking, law or consulting. We are quickly becoming a nation that doesn’t make or invent anything and just pays a lot of money to people who push numbers around a spreadsheet or write rules for pushing those numbers around.
Half my engineering class didn’t become engineers after graduation. They went to work for Accenture (then Andersen Consulting). Why even study engineering anyway when a starting associate at Jones Day law firm makes like $160,000 out of law school? And short of becoming a professional baseball player, what industry besides I-banking could you become a millionare by age 30?
And yet the Joe the Plumbers and other “real America” folk think that when they talk about increasing taxes for the wealthy, they are talking about them. They think the Socialists are going to come and steal their “wealth” and give it to the Mexicans and Negros and homos or whoever. What is this mythical wealth they speak of? The $5 million Hamptons house they don’t have or the $400000 Ferarri they don’t drive?
Now I generally agree with Same Stone. Simply redistributing wealth creates disincentives. Why study hard and go to college to get a better paying job when you can just cruise and collect gubment handouts?
OTOH, why study hard and go to college so you can be saddled with crushing student loans for the next decade while trying to eek out an existance busting your ass for some CEO making $50 million a year until he decides to outsource your job?
SenorBeef, we did a thread on that topic a while ago (not to discourage you from bringing it up here, but to help you research it if you’re interested). I was sure there was a massive thread on the subject, but I am not seeing it.
Last I checked, the UK’s seriously punching above its weight in the Nobel prize for medicine stakes (i.e. in massive advances in medicine). Which would make sense, as a huge percentage of research in medicine is carried out in research labs in universities.
A great deal goes on in Cuba.
Have to agree here.
To take just one aspect of it, our vaunted health care system is fabulous for the young and healthy. A young worker, just out of college would probably have no problem finding his or her own health insurance with McCain’s $5K tax credit, if that should ever come to be. Older people can’t do that. People with pre-existing conditions are short on their luck. And anyone, no matter how young or healthy, can lose everything through an illness for which they are underinsured, or if they have no insurance. So even if you’re in the catbird seat now, and you’ve got a list of platinum level plumbing customers to whom you are selling golden pipes at a handsome profit, you can lose it all like that.
To take another aspect, I’ve argued previously against the practice of firing employees for off-hours activities, including lawful online activities. While this type of thing may be defensible in cases of clear conflict of interest or libel, it’s also been done just because the employer finds whatever the employee said to be distasteful or generally offensive. When you accept a job are you supposed to sign away your rights, or just agree to show up and work?
Really, I’m having a harder and harder time distinguishing between untrammeled capitalism and feudalism. What do Constitutional rights mean when they do not cover your relationship with the entity that has the most direct power over you?
We are not on your blog. This is not your website. Your rules do not apply here.
Please provide a cite to back up your statement re: risky, promiscuous sexual behaviours of the underclass.