Republicans want less peoples votes to count not more and Puerto Rico just might vote Democratic so guaranteed they are out of luck with our GOP government.
THE DISEASE OF LIBERALISM (as demonstrated by BLM)
1. White people, if you don’t have any descendants, will your property to a black or brown family. Preferably one that lives in generational poverty.
2. White people, if you’re inheriting property you intend to sell upon acceptance, give it to a black or brown family. You’re bound to make that money in some other white privileged way.
3. If you are a developer or realty owner of multi-family housing, build a sustainable complex in a black or brown blighted neighborhood and let black and brown people live in it for free.
4. White people, if you can afford to downsize, give up the home you own to a black or brown family. Preferably a family from generational poverty.
5. White people, if any of the people you intend to leave your property to are racists assholes, change the will, and will your property to a black or brown family. Preferably a family from generational poverty.
6. White people, re-budget your monthly so you can donate to black funds for land purchasing.
7. White people, especially white women (because this is yaw specialty — Nosey Jenny and Meddling Kathy), get a racist fired. Yaw know what the fuck they be saying. You are complicit when you ignore them. Get your boss fired cause they racist too.
8. Backing up No. 7, this should be easy but all those sheetless Klan, Nazi’s and Other lil’ dick-white men will all be returning to work. Get they ass fired. Call the police even: they look suspicious.
9. OK, backing up No. 8, if any white person at your work, or as you enter in spaces and you overhear a white person praising the actions from yesterday, first, get a pic. Get their name and more info. Hell, find out where they work — Get Them Fired. But certainly address them, and, if you need to, you got hands: use them.
10. Commit to two things: Fighting white supremacy where and how you can (this doesn’t mean taking up knitting, unless you’re making scarves for black and brown kids in need), and funding black and brown people and their work.
Liberalism solves nothing. These people are the results of cultural liberalism. This is what you get people. And more white people are going to be pushed SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO FAR to the right before it's over with, I promise ya.
You better come to your senses fast and embrace communism or we're going to end up under Nazi rule. Mark my words.
Doesn't matter. This is what it leads to. Liberalism tolerates capitalism and capitalism is inherently divisive. Notice that every one of their demands is to do with capitalism (property, $$$, land rights, etc). Until that's abolished it will only continue. Enjoy it.
There can never be equality under capitalism because the people with the $$$ and power are willing to do whatever it takes to keep it. Racism and all forms of inequality are a product of the capitalist system.
Equality under capitalism is IMPOSSIBLE. Changing the complexion of the kings does nothing to undermine the monarchy. Are we trying to take over the plantation or are we trying to abolish it? BLM are trying to take it over. They've been taught well...competition is good, right? People are just grouping up in the ways they've taught under liberalism. You're going to see an uptick in racialism before it's over with. Enjoy.
Or you can embrace the Marxist dialectic...which is time tested and shown to be true again, and again. Your choice America.
That's a classic straw man argument: I will define what you believe as X, even though you actually believe Y. I will then go on to pontificate about how much X sucks.
That's a classic straw man argument: I will define what you believe as X, even though you actually believe Y. I will then go on to pontificate about how much X sucks.
So liberals don't believe in capitalism or mixed capitalist economies?
Whatever...
I actually support BLM. I think the cops are too trigger happy and that if people are content to have their capitalism then black people should have the same chances as everyone else.
My point is that it's coming to a head right fast and it could be so much better than this. But there is a greater danger...and that's reactionism. That's what this is all leading to. You think Charlottesville is the end? It's not even the beginning. It's going to get worse from here on out. Liberals don't have the answer. Europe is falling apart and America is one tick behind it. France elected someone who in America would be considered a typical moderate democrat and they already have buyers remorse. La Pen is next, and then you can bid France Adieu. Trump is a moderate compared to who white rural America will turn to next. It's coming to head right fast. Get your popcorn out and enjoy the show.
But I'm done here. This site is supposed to be for gaming and I don't want to continue the political discussions...I have soviet empire, pofo and revleft for that. See you guys in BG/IWD forums in the future. Peace. Enjoy your echo-chamber.
That mainstream Democrats have tripled down on identity politics should be obvious by who they picked as their DNC leaders and the context of the debates they had among candidates for those positions. A former member of a black nationalist group in one of the top Democrat positions and not a peep from the ostensible bigotry police. Truly stunning when the party has clearly made fighting alleged racists the hill it wants to die on.
Like it or not, the democrats are not the party of anti corporatism or anti racism but the Anti White party, the Anti American History party, the party of chasing the boogeymen of ever shrinking bigotry rather than tackling substantive issues that matter. You might not like it, you might not agree with it, but there it is.
That mainstream Democrats have tripled down on identity politics should be obvious by who they picked as their DNC leaders and the context of the debates they had among candidates for those positions. A former member of a black nationalist group in one of the top Democrat positions and not a peep from the ostensible bigotry police. Truly stunning when the party has clearly made fighting alleged racists the hill it wants to die on.
Like it or not, the democrats are not the party of anti corporatism or anti racism but the Anti White party, the Anti American History party, the party of chasing the boogeymen of ever shrinking bigotry rather than tackling substantive issues that matter. You might not like it, you might not agree with it, but there it is.
The anti-American history party?? Why?? Because we refuse to whitewash the Civil War as something other than what it was?? I'd challenge any random Trump voter in the country to a American History trivia contest and put $100 down on it blind. Of course, what would be the point?? If I won they'd just claim they were "fake questions" based on "fake history" and refuse to honor the bet.
The soul of history does not exist inside statues like a Lich's phylactery. It exists because people document it as it happens, and then others study those accounts and write books about them.
But this argument in society right now is not a surprise. A recent poll found that a whopping 58% of Republicans think colleges and universities are bad for America. So it's no great mystery why many of the same people want to simplify history and reduce it to a bronze idol sitting in a park. It's Cliff Notes citizenship.
Like it or not, the democrats are not the party of anti corporatism or anti racism but the Anti White party, the Anti American History party, the party of chasing the boogeymen of ever shrinking bigotry rather than tackling substantive issues that matter. You might not like it, you might not agree with it, but there it is.
I'd say in counter that one could argue that individual transactions aren't really part of 'economics' proper, which isn't entirely true. I think the problem with the fully aggregate decision making is that stupid or unwise or just plain ignorant people get to make choices, and we can be confident that most people rely on emotional decision making... it can work, but compared to expert opinion? I tend not to subscribe too strongly to the theory that the unwashed masses make great decisions when we have gambling and lotteries thriving! I think my position is that macro decisions are best left to experts, but people get unhappy without the freedom to feel like they are choosing things, so I don't really think the government needs a Department of Convenience Store Stock Management! I don't think having currency or freedom to spend it on a range of government sponsored business is anything but central planning, but ymmv. I think China is good proof of concept that the 'hands off' economics so dogmaticly adored by the West is not the only way.
By Chinese standards though housing has been pretty stagnant since they started intervening, which was the stated goal. Regarding Chinese construction, note carefully the sheer magnitude of their international infrastructure investment; I'd argue its unprecedented in history, and they do use significant Chinese labour remember, in addition to local in some cases. I think they are imho addressing your very issue, and the State is a big supporter of these kinds of projects. Silk Road 2.0 is going to be very, very big. Even in Canada we have Chinese projects being discussed seriously.
I'm hardly a fan of every single thing a given government does, but I find it interesting that China is stepping up in a very big way as the US and UK become more insular. China may well win over Africa, a feat that will garner them material supplies on a prodigious scale, and we Westerners sit on our hands, having not invested either in security/stability in Africa, let alone development, when we had the money to do it. I suppose its a given that China will supply manufactured goods to Africa like they already are, and Chinese factories are getting more advanced, able to produce more competetive goods. Africa isn't a big msrket yet, but its getting richer fast.
But I'm done here. This site is supposed to be for gaming and I don't want to continue the political discussions...I have soviet empire, pofo and revleft for that. See you guys in BG/IWD forums in the future. Peace. Enjoy your echo-chamber.
I find it ironic that any political discussion that doesn't degenerate into a polarized exchange of insults, death threats and extremism will eventually be called an echo-chamber. You'd have to ignore a whole lot of things that people have said in this thread to call it an echo-chamber.
Capitalism is not synonymous with liberalism (or conservatism).
Liberalism and conservatism are ideologies that exist in relation to capitalism.
Liberals (the American variety) usually advocate for a mixed economy (what Europeans would call social democracy) and social freedoms (regardless of how they harm society as a whole). Conservatives advocate for a purely free market, less government restrictions, but also a social restrictions (irrespective of how they harm society as a whole).
Both positions are completely inadequate to solve the problems of capitalism. Usually the only thing they really accomplish is to muddy the waters and get people on either side fighting one another while the 1% of society continues to fleece us and destroy the environment and exploit and ravage "third world" countries. Democrat and Republican is all just superficial BS. Take Trump for example. How has your life changed personally since Trump has been in office? It hasn't and it won't. It never changes in any real or meaningful way regardless who "rules" us. Because in actuality we are ruled by an entrenched bureaucracy and their corrupt media cronies, the right and left hand of capital respectively. The people have no power under the current system. The American dream is an utter farce and people appeal to useless abstractions as a means of bringing people together and solving problems. But nothing ever gets done that really matters and it never will. The only thing that matters is that people keep consuming. Enjoy your ipads, twitter and coca-cola because that's ALL America is and it's all America ever will be as it relates to actual substance. This is capitalism. Enjoy.
If you haven't seen it, recommend you watch (or read) Fight Club. Its a fictional story but has got exactly the same pessimistic view of empty lives in the material world that you are talking about.
Capitalism is not synonymous with liberalism (or conservatism).
Liberalism and conservatism are ideologies that exist in relation to capitalism.
Liberals (the American variety) usually advocate for a mixed economy (what Europeans would call social democracy) and social freedoms (regardless of how they harm society as a whole). Conservatives advocate for a purely free market, less government restrictions, but also a social restrictions (irrespective of how they harm society as a whole).
Both positions are completely inadequate to solve the problems of capitalism. Usually the only thing they really accomplish is to muddy the waters and get people on either side fighting one another while the 1% of society continues to fleece us and destroy the environment and exploit and ravage "third world" countries. Democrat and Republican is all just superficial BS. Take Trump for example. How has your life changed personally since Trump has been in office? It hasn't and it won't. It never changes in any real or meaningful way regardless who "rules" us. Because in actuality we are ruled by an entrenched bureaucracy and their corrupt media cronies, the right and left hand of capital respectively. The people have no power under the current system. The American dream is an utter farce and people appeal to useless abstractions as a means of bringing people together and solving problems. But nothing ever gets done that really matters and it never will. The only thing that matters is that people keep consuming. Enjoy your ipads, twitter and coca-cola because that's ALL America is and it's all America ever will be as it relates to actual substance. This is capitalism. Enjoy.
Life changed a hell of a lot for people who got insurance who didn't have it before Obamacare, and for people who weren't allowed to get married before the Supreme Court decision that legalized gay marriage nationwide. People who don't see many changes in their own lives when the White House and Congress change hands are often people who have a pretty good and stable life, all things considered.
"I found myself thinking about this advice as I walked down Franklin Avenue in Brooklyn this past weekend. I noticed a white person walking her dog. Another listening to his music. And a third having dinner with her friends.
Do all of these people harbor a thinly veiled hatred for me, I wondered? Is there a secret white conspiracy scheming against me? How do I escape all this toxic whiteness I keep hearing about?"
I have an insight I would like to share with black people (and, by extension, all non-white people) everywhere: the vast majority of us don't care about your skin color *at all*. It means nothing to us.
There seems to be a trend growing here of people quoting linked articles and picking out one or two sentences and extrapolating that the whole piece follows that line of thinking. The whole purpose of her saying that was to be blatantly honest with the reader about what she sometimes feels, and then proceeds to spent the rest of the article reasonably dissecting WHY she feels that way, in her opinion. This reminds me of exactly what Andrew Breitbart did to Shirley Sherrod. She was giving a speech in which she was telling a story about how she used to harbor hatred toward white people (a white man had killed her father), and how her jobs in agriculture had caused her to see the light and reject that thinking. And that toxic piece of shit took her story of personal growth and betterment, edited it so ONLY the parts of the speech where she was talking about how she USED to feel were included, all because she was black and worked in the Obama Administration. Taking things out of context is just one of my biggest pet peeves. The lack of context in general in this society is one of our biggest problems.
I'm not ascribing motive, simply encouraging people to, if they are interested in the topic being presented, to read the articles in full to get a clearer picture of where the author is coming from, especially if it is an opinion piece.
Hmm...maybe I was too hasty in giving up on you guys. Let's have a dialogue, shall we?
Democrat and Republican is all just superficial BS. Take Trump for example. How has your life changed personally since Trump has been in office? It hasn't and it won't. It never changes in any real or meaningful way regardless who "rules" us. Because in actuality we are ruled by an entrenched bureaucracy and their corrupt media cronies, the right and left hand of capital respectively.
Tell that to the flocks of Haitian refugees streaming into Canada.
Tell that to the people of Cornwall, Ontario who are attempting to find a long term solution to the problem with little answers coming from the Federal government.
Tell that to the people stranded at airports while he signs a racist executive order.
Tell that to the 1000s of soldiers who are about to shipped off to another tour of Afghanistan.
The best thing about capitalism is that it gives people hope. Come up with a brilliant idea, you are the one rewarded for it. Take that away, people will only give the bare minimum, they won't strive for anything better if everything is equal.
And sure consumerism distracts people from the big picture, but in reality, a lot of people are contempt regardless of what is going on around them. There is nothing wrong with that. Nothing gets done, because the government is doing it job properly (they may have some fuck ups from time to time but...). If the great majority has shelter, working infrastructures and some form of entertainment, they have nothing to complain about. Expecting a revolution when all of this is provided for isn't going to happen.
Capitalism offers social mobility with one hand but has a finger of the other on the scales. Countries which have an extensive welfare safety net - like Denmark- are only a little better at providing opportunities to the less well off but are much better at cushioning disappointment and delaying the revolution .
Looking at the communist playbook one could take the dialectic materialist view of Engels that capitalism's internal contradictions, as wealth is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, necessarily will result in social unrest. Or one can imagine that elites will realise that instead of demolishing social benefits such as universal healthcare (extreme Brexit = unfundable NHS for example), they are better served by the provision of minimum standards for all.
However, even if you see capitalism as necessarily resulting in an unequal society with a oligarchic ruling class, the question remains as to whether any social system will be free of a pecking order. We have a biological propensity to protect our genetic 'investment' in our children and our relatives, there's a reason why as we become older and more propertied our views on taxes etc. change. My fear would be that as more extreme solutions in the direction of left or right are explored- and the centre cannot hold- more countries may experience the final similarity of extremes of left and right once again as they meet in totalitarian forms of government.
I love how Trump is constantly attacking Amazon. Is he under the impression most people hate Amazon?? I get the feeling most Americans shop there at least once a week. I think their Prime Service is beyond a great deal. I mean, really, Amazon?? Might as well attack cheeseburgers and apple pie. As for this rally, I don't think I've ever seen such a distillation of self-pity and narcissism. And by that, I mean Trump AND the crowd.
Now speaking, in ARIZONA, about the attempts to take away our "history and our heritage". Oh boy. Ok then. Arizona didn't even become a goddamn State until 50 YEARS AFTER THE CIVIL WAR!!!!!
Me, last week: Trump has announced another rally on 8/22 in Arizona. I'll predict right now he will either again float the idea, or straight up say he is going to grant a pardon to recently convicted Joe Arpaio at that event. Here is Trump, tonight, as promised:
He now just threatened a government shutdown unless he gets funding for the border wall. A wall that, for the 100th time, he promised that Mexico was going to pay for. He promised it every....single....day....of....the....campaign. Does that matter to this crowd?? Pffffhhh.....of course not. These people are easier to program than a VCR.
As an side note: have you ever seen a bunch of people who WON the Election so pissed about, well, anything?? They got 3 million less votes, got their guy anyway, and yet the bitching and moaning about how they are ignored and treated badly by the media and blah blah blah blah blah blah blah never f*****g ends. This is an entire movement of people locked in a state of perpetual aggrievement.
I'd like to note that Taibbi went to dozens upon dozens of his rallies during the campaign, and wrote a whole book about the spectacle. Coming from him, that is saying quite a bit.
So it looks like most of the notorious Bundys, who basically stole federal land for years and led an armed insurrection are getting off the hook. These white guys pointed gun at law enforcement agents, and not only do they walk away not-dead. but were found not guilty of all charges. There is something seriously wrong with the people that let these guys go free.
There's something in the article about a pardon too possible from one of Trump's Russian guys. Whatever I was too disgusted to really read it. Why can these guys get away with this? The key is to lie really big and do wrong really bigly or something. And it helps to be white and armed I guess.
And the Trump rally.. I guess it was like an hour and a half of whining about the media repeating the words he says accurately and not the lies he wanted to spin instead. Whah.
It sounds like police got bored and decided to start pepper spraying people which led people to throw water bottles and rocks back which caused the police to shoot pepper bullets and throw stun grenades. I'm not entirely shocked, I attended a concert in phoenix once many a year ago and everything was fine but the cops were in riot gear and a couple jackholes started moshing a bit too aggressively and the cops sprayed everyone with pepper spray. What I'm saying is that the Red State of Arizona is pretty pro-police brutality rough em up by slamming their head as you load them in the squad car as Trump would say.
I'd say in counter that one could argue that individual transactions aren't really part of 'economics' proper, which isn't entirely true. I think the problem with the fully aggregate decision making is that stupid or unwise or just plain ignorant people get to make choices, and we can be confident that most people rely on emotional decision making... it can work, but compared to expert opinion? I tend not to subscribe too strongly to the theory that the unwashed masses make great decisions when we have gambling and lotteries thriving! I think my position is that macro decisions are best left to experts, but people get unhappy without the freedom to feel like they are choosing things, so I don't really think the government needs a Department of Convenience Store Stock Management! I don't think having currency or freedom to spend it on a range of government sponsored business is anything but central planning, but ymmv. I think China is good proof of concept that the 'hands off' economics so dogmaticly adored by the West is not the only way.
By Chinese standards though housing has been pretty stagnant since they started intervening, which was the stated goal. Regarding Chinese construction, note carefully the sheer magnitude of their international infrastructure investment; I'd argue its unprecedented in history, and they do use significant Chinese labour remember, in addition to local in some cases. I think they are imho addressing your very issue, and the State is a big supporter of these kinds of projects. Silk Road 2.0 is going to be very, very big. Even in Canada we have Chinese projects being discussed seriously.
Expert opinion sounds good, but if it results in 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs' it doesn't reflect human nature. If surpluses you've worked hard for are removed because you don't need them, then 99% of people simply won't work hard for them. That effect was largely responsible for the 5m dead of famine in Russia when communism was tried in practice for the first time following the 1st world war. I agree that people are driven by emotions in their decision making, but I don't believe telling them what to do is the answer - even if you went to the extremes of a slave economy you still have the problem that productivity is always going to be very poor.
On infrastructure I did note previously their international investment, but I see the reason for that slightly differently to you. Rather than just reflecting a desire to promote Chinese ideals and power internationally I think a major driver for the current projects is to utilise the surplus capacity that has been built up in construction domestically. That may work, but if the projects don't ultimately bring the anticipated returns they will just exacerbate the domestic problems.
I think the Chinese have done a remarkable job in improving their country over the last 40 years, so I'm not trying to knock their system - just pointing out that any system has flaws. - our discussion started around what central planning means in an economy. I think you accept that the Chinese have not been trying to micro-manage at the level of individual decisions since 1978. That has allowed them to harness the power of emotional decision-making in order to attain the levels of growth they've had. However, it also means that the economy is now too big for them to control directly. Even efforts to nudge it in the desired path (through currency manipulation and international investment for instance), have the potential to require more resources than the country has available. That means that central planning is becoming more difficult over time, not less. - emotional decision-making is not limited to individual consumers, but applies to all humans. I hinted in an earlier post that full central planning might theoretically be possible using advanced AI, but that's not currently on the horizon. In the absence of that the desire of humans to stick to a plan well past the time it should have been changed is a big danger for a centrally planned economy. I'm an accountant and have seen this type of effect numerous times in major companies - where they effectively fiddle the figures (usually not illegally, but through shading their views on provisions, changing accounting policies etc) in order to continue to meet plans / expectations for years past when they should have changed their behavior. At some point though they meet reality and the company collapses, restructures or recapitalises. In most cases that doesn't affect the wider economy too much, though the last financial crash was a result of that type of effect. The lack of checks and balances in a centrally planned economy though means the potential effect of a crash is far greater even than in western economies.
There seems to be a trend growing here of people quoting linked articles and picking out one or two sentences and extrapolating that the whole piece follows that line of thinking. The whole purpose of her saying that was to be blatantly honest with the reader about what she sometimes feels, and then proceeds to spent the rest of the article reasonably dissecting WHY she feels that way, in her opinion. This reminds me of exactly what Andrew Breitbart did to Shirley Sherrod. She was giving a speech in which she was telling a story about how she used to harbor hatred toward white people (a white man had killed her father), and how her jobs in agriculture had caused her to see the light and reject that thinking. And that toxic piece of shit took her story of personal growth and betterment, edited it so ONLY the parts of the speech where she was talking about how she USED to feel were included, all because she was black and worked in the Obama Administration. Taking things out of context is just one of my biggest pet peeves. The lack of context in general in this society is one of our biggest problems.
I'm not ascribing motive, simply encouraging people to, if they are interested in the topic being presented, to read the articles in full to get a clearer picture of where the author is coming from, especially if it is an opinion piece.
I did read the article in its entirety and I did not try to reframe her thoughts in any way. All I did was address one point she found herself thinking to let her--as well as all people--know that most people stopped caring about skin color 30 years ago.
Expert opinion sounds good, but if it results in 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs' it doesn't reflect human nature. If surpluses you've worked hard for are removed because you don't need them, then 99% of people simply won't work hard for them. That effect was largely responsible for the 5m dead of famine in Russia when communism was tried in practice for the first time following the 1st world war.
Not really (about hunger). As far as I remember economy lessons, the famine was result of exactly bad planning - a believe that farmers are capable to feed modern cities. It's not true now and it was not true even at that time. Or do you really believe that small farms are feeding megalopolises? Revolution removed big landlords, who were producing (not them, their peasants did, of course) all the food cities needed. When the land was granted to individual families, those families on their farms produced enough food to feed themselves and a little more to sell - this is it. Cities begin to die, "food gathering" troops sent to farms to take by force what farmers had - so, farmers begin to die. The solution was found in food producing communities: conglomeration of farmers, working first for states on states land, and only then for themselves.
As of impossibility 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs' - depends of the way you raise your children. And China is a perfect example here. Can not recall the even (some big data for China) but a film was made with every world famous Chinese actor, director and so on. And all of them - those super stars! - worked for free, because they worked for the good of the country.
Economy does not exist in the vacuum. It's bound to social structure, education, ideals (propaganda too, of course). You can see small scales examples of completely different communities with their standards of life all around you. Take Amish communities - self sustained and with world view very far from most of people here. You might not want to live in such community, but they exist and people can be raised in believe that this is the (only) way.
So it looks like most of the notorious Bundys, who basically stole federal land for years and led an armed insurrection are getting off the hook. These white guys pointed gun at law enforcement agents, and not only do they walk away not-dead. but were found not guilty of all charges. There is something seriously wrong with the people that let these guys go free.
Contrast these people with those who actively support "sanctuary cities", cities where the local police department does not cooperate with Federal immigration authority or requests. What you will have is a group of people on one side (sanctuary city adherents) who are defying Federal authority in one area and call it "good" but those same people think that defying Federal authority in a different area (the Bureau of Land Management) is somehow "bad". In both cases, though, people are defying Federal law/authority--either both instances are good or both instances are bad, they cannot both be true.
The cattle grazing on Federal land weren't hurting anyone or anything but the Federal government wanted its money, and it is generally unwise to stand between the government and some money that it wants. They *will* come after you with guns, as history has proven.
So it looks like most of the notorious Bundys, who basically stole federal land for years and led an armed insurrection are getting off the hook. These white guys pointed gun at law enforcement agents, and not only do they walk away not-dead. but were found not guilty of all charges. There is something seriously wrong with the people that let these guys go free.
Contrast these people with those who actively support "sanctuary cities", cities where the local police department does not cooperate with Federal immigration authority or requests. What you will have is a group of people on one side (sanctuary city adherents) who are defying Federal authority in one area and call it "good" but those same people think that defying Federal authority in a different area (the Bureau of Land Management) is somehow "bad". In both cases, though, people are defying Federal law/authority--either both instances are good or both instances are bad, they cannot both be true.
The cattle grazing on Federal land weren't hurting anyone or anything but the Federal government wanted its money, and it is generally unwise to stand between the government and some money that it wants. They *will* come after you with guns, as history has proven.
There is a big difference. That land was owned by the public, taxpayers. They took it in an armed takeover. It wasn't just defying federal authority, it was open sedition on live TV, and they were allowed to do it for over a month with no consequences.
Sanctuary cities are nothing more than local law enforcement allocating their limited resources the way they see fit. They've decided they don't have the money to waste tracking down people who are simply in the country illegally, and that their law enforcement priorities are focused elsewhere.
And the main point about the traitor Bundy Boys is this: if a group of Muslims or black people had tried to take over any federal property with guns, they would have been shot dead on the spot within hours. You know it, I know it, even the most conservative poster here would know it. But they were white and conservative. Thus not only didn't they get a rightly deserved bullet in the head, but they were allowed to drive back and forth to town for OVER A MONTH to get supplies and mail. Patently absurd. They should have been taken out in Nevada when they took up sniper positions (look at the photos) against federal agents. Again, no person of color in this country would have EVER been allowed the insane leeway the Bundy Boys were shown in Nevada and Oregon. Some black people can't even survive a routine traffic stop (Sandra Bland and Philando Castillo), much less an armed takeover of federal land.
Contrast these people with those who actively support "sanctuary cities", cities where the local police department does not cooperate with Federal immigration authority or requests. What you will have is a group of people on one side (sanctuary city adherents) who are defying Federal authority in one area and call it "good" but those same people think that defying Federal authority in a different area (the Bureau of Land Management) is somehow "bad". In both cases, though, people are defying Federal law/authority--either both instances are good or both instances are bad, they cannot both be true.
So you think we have to agree with the Feds on everything or nothing? That doesn't make any sense either.
Comments
THE DISEASE OF LIBERALISM (as demonstrated by BLM)
1. White people, if you don’t have any descendants, will your property to a black or brown family. Preferably one that lives in generational poverty.2. White people, if you’re inheriting property you intend to sell upon acceptance, give it to a black or brown family. You’re bound to make that money in some other white privileged way.
3. If you are a developer or realty owner of multi-family housing, build a sustainable complex in a black or brown blighted neighborhood and let black and brown people live in it for free.
4. White people, if you can afford to downsize, give up the home you own to a black or brown family. Preferably a family from generational poverty.
5. White people, if any of the people you intend to leave your property to are racists assholes, change the will, and will your property to a black or brown family. Preferably a family from generational poverty.
6. White people, re-budget your monthly so you can donate to black funds for land purchasing.
7. White people, especially white women (because this is yaw specialty — Nosey Jenny and Meddling Kathy), get a racist fired. Yaw know what the fuck they be saying. You are complicit when you ignore them. Get your boss fired cause they racist too.
8. Backing up No. 7, this should be easy but all those sheetless Klan, Nazi’s and Other lil’ dick-white men will all be returning to work. Get they ass fired. Call the police even: they look suspicious.
9. OK, backing up No. 8, if any white person at your work, or as you enter in spaces and you overhear a white person praising the actions from yesterday, first, get a pic. Get their name and more info. Hell, find out where they work — Get Them Fired. But certainly address them, and, if you need to, you got hands: use them.
10. Commit to two things: Fighting white supremacy where and how you can (this doesn’t mean taking up knitting, unless you’re making scarves for black and brown kids in need), and funding black and brown people and their work.
Liberalism solves nothing. These people are the results of cultural liberalism. This is what you get people. And more white people are going to be pushed SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO FAR to the right before it's over with, I promise ya.
You better come to your senses fast and embrace communism or we're going to end up under Nazi rule. Mark my words.
There can never be equality under capitalism because the people with the $$$ and power are willing to do whatever it takes to keep it. Racism and all forms of inequality are a product of the capitalist system.
Equality under capitalism is IMPOSSIBLE. Changing the complexion of the kings does nothing to undermine the monarchy. Are we trying to take over the plantation or are we trying to abolish it? BLM are trying to take it over. They've been taught well...competition is good, right? People are just grouping up in the ways they've taught under liberalism. You're going to see an uptick in racialism before it's over with. Enjoy.
Or you can embrace the Marxist dialectic...which is time tested and shown to be true again, and again. Your choice America.
Whatever...
I actually support BLM. I think the cops are too trigger happy and that if people are content to have their capitalism then black people should have the same chances as everyone else.
My point is that it's coming to a head right fast and it could be so much better than this. But there is a greater danger...and that's reactionism. That's what this is all leading to. You think Charlottesville is the end? It's not even the beginning. It's going to get worse from here on out. Liberals don't have the answer. Europe is falling apart and America is one tick behind it. France elected someone who in America would be considered a typical moderate democrat and they already have buyers remorse. La Pen is next, and then you can bid France Adieu. Trump is a moderate compared to who white rural America will turn to next. It's coming to head right fast. Get your popcorn out and enjoy the show.
But I'm done here. This site is supposed to be for gaming and I don't want to continue the political discussions...I have soviet empire, pofo and revleft for that. See you guys in BG/IWD forums in the future. Peace. Enjoy your echo-chamber.
Like it or not, the democrats are not the party of anti corporatism or anti racism but the Anti White party, the Anti American History party, the party of chasing the boogeymen of ever shrinking bigotry rather than tackling substantive issues that matter. You might not like it, you might not agree with it, but there it is.
Or capitalism, or communism, or fasism or socialism or amy other ism.
You know why not?
Because there is no answer.
No solution, no magic bullit that will make the world better.
Get over it.
The soul of history does not exist inside statues like a Lich's phylactery. It exists because people document it as it happens, and then others study those accounts and write books about them.
But this argument in society right now is not a surprise. A recent poll found that a whopping 58% of Republicans think colleges and universities are bad for America. So it's no great mystery why many of the same people want to simplify history and reduce it to a bronze idol sitting in a park. It's Cliff Notes citizenship.
I'd say in counter that one could argue that individual transactions aren't really part of 'economics' proper, which isn't entirely true. I think the problem with the fully aggregate decision making is that stupid or unwise or just plain ignorant people get to make choices, and we can be confident that most people rely on emotional decision making... it can work, but compared to expert opinion? I tend not to subscribe too strongly to the theory that the unwashed masses make great decisions when we have gambling and lotteries thriving! I think my position is that macro decisions are best left to experts, but people get unhappy without the freedom to feel like they are choosing things, so I don't really think the government needs a Department of Convenience Store Stock Management! I don't think having currency or freedom to spend it on a range of government sponsored business is anything but central planning, but ymmv. I think China is good proof of concept that the 'hands off' economics so dogmaticly adored by the West is not the only way.
By Chinese standards though housing has been pretty stagnant since they started intervening, which was the stated goal. Regarding Chinese construction, note carefully the sheer magnitude of their international infrastructure investment; I'd argue its unprecedented in history, and they do use significant Chinese labour remember, in addition to local in some cases. I think they are imho addressing your very issue, and the State is a big supporter of these kinds of projects. Silk Road 2.0 is going to be very, very big. Even in Canada we have Chinese projects being discussed seriously.
I'm hardly a fan of every single thing a given government does, but I find it interesting that China is stepping up in a very big way as the US and UK become more insular. China may well win over Africa, a feat that will garner them material supplies on a prodigious scale, and we Westerners sit on our hands, having not invested either in security/stability in Africa, let alone development, when we had the money to do it. I suppose its a given that China will supply manufactured goods to Africa like they already are, and Chinese factories are getting more advanced, able to produce more competetive goods. Africa isn't a big msrket yet, but its getting richer fast.
Capitalism is not synonymous with liberalism (or conservatism).
Liberals (the American variety) usually advocate for a mixed economy (what Europeans would call social democracy) and social freedoms (regardless of how they harm society as a whole). Conservatives advocate for a purely free market, less government restrictions, but also a social restrictions (irrespective of how they harm society as a whole).
Both positions are completely inadequate to solve the problems of capitalism. Usually the only thing they really accomplish is to muddy the waters and get people on either side fighting one another while the 1% of society continues to fleece us and destroy the environment and exploit and ravage "third world" countries. Democrat and Republican is all just superficial BS. Take Trump for example. How has your life changed personally since Trump has been in office? It hasn't and it won't. It never changes in any real or meaningful way regardless who "rules" us. Because in actuality we are ruled by an entrenched bureaucracy and their corrupt media cronies, the right and left hand of capital respectively. The people have no power under the current system. The American dream is an utter farce and people appeal to useless abstractions as a means of bringing people together and solving problems. But nothing ever gets done that really matters and it never will. The only thing that matters is that people keep consuming. Enjoy your ipads, twitter and coca-cola because that's ALL America is and it's all America ever will be as it relates to actual substance. This is capitalism. Enjoy.
"I found myself thinking about this advice as I walked down Franklin Avenue in Brooklyn this past weekend. I noticed a white person walking her dog. Another listening to his music. And a third having dinner with her friends.
Do all of these people harbor a thinly veiled hatred for me, I wondered? Is there a secret white conspiracy scheming against me? How do I escape all this toxic whiteness I keep hearing about?"
I have an insight I would like to share with black people (and, by extension, all non-white people) everywhere: the vast majority of us don't care about your skin color *at all*. It means nothing to us.
I'm not ascribing motive, simply encouraging people to, if they are interested in the topic being presented, to read the articles in full to get a clearer picture of where the author is coming from, especially if it is an opinion piece.
Tell that to the flocks of Haitian refugees streaming into Canada.
Tell that to the people of Cornwall, Ontario who are attempting to find a long term solution to the problem with little answers coming from the Federal government.
Tell that to the people stranded at airports while he signs a racist executive order.
Tell that to the 1000s of soldiers who are about to shipped off to another tour of Afghanistan.
The best thing about capitalism is that it gives people hope. Come up with a brilliant idea, you are the one rewarded for it. Take that away, people will only give the bare minimum, they won't strive for anything better if everything is equal.
And sure consumerism distracts people from the big picture, but in reality, a lot of people are contempt regardless of what is going on around them. There is nothing wrong with that. Nothing gets done, because the government is doing it job properly (they may have some fuck ups from time to time but...). If the great majority has shelter, working infrastructures and some form of entertainment, they have nothing to complain about. Expecting a revolution when all of this is provided for isn't going to happen.
https://www.google.co.jp/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/494141/
Looking at the communist playbook one could take the dialectic materialist view of Engels that capitalism's internal contradictions, as wealth is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, necessarily will result in social unrest. Or one can imagine that elites will realise that instead of demolishing social benefits such as universal healthcare (extreme Brexit = unfundable NHS for example), they are better served by the provision of minimum standards for all.
However, even if you see capitalism as necessarily resulting in an unequal society with a oligarchic ruling class, the question remains as to whether any social system will be free of a pecking order. We have a biological propensity to protect our genetic 'investment' in our children and our relatives, there's a reason why as we become older and more propertied our views on taxes etc. change. My fear would be that as more extreme solutions in the direction of left or right are explored- and the centre cannot hold- more countries may experience the final similarity of extremes of left and right once again as they meet in totalitarian forms of government.
Now speaking, in ARIZONA, about the attempts to take away our "history and our heritage". Oh boy. Ok then. Arizona didn't even become a goddamn State until 50 YEARS AFTER THE CIVIL WAR!!!!!
Me, last week: Trump has announced another rally on 8/22 in Arizona. I'll predict right now he will either again float the idea, or straight up say he is going to grant a pardon to recently convicted Joe Arpaio at that event. Here is Trump, tonight, as promised:
He now just threatened a government shutdown unless he gets funding for the border wall. A wall that, for the 100th time, he promised that Mexico was going to pay for. He promised it every....single....day....of....the....campaign. Does that matter to this crowd?? Pffffhhh.....of course not. These people are easier to program than a VCR.
As an side note: have you ever seen a bunch of people who WON the Election so pissed about, well, anything?? They got 3 million less votes, got their guy anyway, and yet the bitching and moaning about how they are ignored and treated badly by the media and blah blah blah blah blah blah blah never f*****g ends. This is an entire movement of people locked in a state of perpetual aggrievement.
I'd like to note that Taibbi went to dozens upon dozens of his rallies during the campaign, and wrote a whole book about the spectacle. Coming from him, that is saying quite a bit.
There's something in the article about a pardon too possible from one of Trump's Russian guys. Whatever I was too disgusted to really read it. Why can these guys get away with this? The key is to lie really big and do wrong really bigly or something. And it helps to be white and armed I guess.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/22/us/bundy-trial-nevada-verdict.html
And the Trump rally.. I guess it was like an hour and a half of whining about the media repeating the words he says accurately and not the lies he wanted to spin instead. Whah.
It sounds like police got bored and decided to start pepper spraying people which led people to throw water bottles and rocks back which caused the police to shoot pepper bullets and throw stun grenades. I'm not entirely shocked, I attended a concert in phoenix once many a year ago and everything was fine but the cops were in riot gear and a couple jackholes started moshing a bit too aggressively and the cops sprayed everyone with pepper spray. What I'm saying is that the Red State of Arizona is pretty pro-police brutality rough em up by slamming their head as you load them in the squad car as Trump would say.
On infrastructure I did note previously their international investment, but I see the reason for that slightly differently to you. Rather than just reflecting a desire to promote Chinese ideals and power internationally I think a major driver for the current projects is to utilise the surplus capacity that has been built up in construction domestically. That may work, but if the projects don't ultimately bring the anticipated returns they will just exacerbate the domestic problems.
I think the Chinese have done a remarkable job in improving their country over the last 40 years, so I'm not trying to knock their system - just pointing out that any system has flaws.
- our discussion started around what central planning means in an economy. I think you accept that the Chinese have not been trying to micro-manage at the level of individual decisions since 1978. That has allowed them to harness the power of emotional decision-making in order to attain the levels of growth they've had. However, it also means that the economy is now too big for them to control directly. Even efforts to nudge it in the desired path (through currency manipulation and international investment for instance), have the potential to require more resources than the country has available. That means that central planning is becoming more difficult over time, not less.
- emotional decision-making is not limited to individual consumers, but applies to all humans. I hinted in an earlier post that full central planning might theoretically be possible using advanced AI, but that's not currently on the horizon. In the absence of that the desire of humans to stick to a plan well past the time it should have been changed is a big danger for a centrally planned economy. I'm an accountant and have seen this type of effect numerous times in major companies - where they effectively fiddle the figures (usually not illegally, but through shading their views on provisions, changing accounting policies etc) in order to continue to meet plans / expectations for years past when they should have changed their behavior. At some point though they meet reality and the company collapses, restructures or recapitalises. In most cases that doesn't affect the wider economy too much, though the last financial crash was a result of that type of effect. The lack of checks and balances in a centrally planned economy though means the potential effect of a crash is far greater even than in western economies.
Revolution removed big landlords, who were producing (not them, their peasants did, of course) all the food cities needed. When the land was granted to individual families, those families on their farms produced enough food to feed themselves and a little more to sell - this is it. Cities begin to die, "food gathering" troops sent to farms to take by force what farmers had - so, farmers begin to die. The solution was found in food producing communities: conglomeration of farmers, working first for states on states land, and only then for themselves.
As of impossibility 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs' - depends of the way you raise your children. And China is a perfect example here. Can not recall the even (some big data for China) but a film was made with every world famous Chinese actor, director and so on. And all of them - those super stars! - worked for free, because they worked for the good of the country.
Economy does not exist in the vacuum. It's bound to social structure, education, ideals (propaganda too, of course). You can see small scales examples of completely different communities with their standards of life all around you. Take Amish communities - self sustained and with world view very far from most of people here. You might not want to live in such community, but they exist and people can be raised in believe that this is the (only) way.
The cattle grazing on Federal land weren't hurting anyone or anything but the Federal government wanted its money, and it is generally unwise to stand between the government and some money that it wants. They *will* come after you with guns, as history has proven.
Sanctuary cities are nothing more than local law enforcement allocating their limited resources the way they see fit. They've decided they don't have the money to waste tracking down people who are simply in the country illegally, and that their law enforcement priorities are focused elsewhere.
And the main point about the traitor Bundy Boys is this: if a group of Muslims or black people had tried to take over any federal property with guns, they would have been shot dead on the spot within hours. You know it, I know it, even the most conservative poster here would know it. But they were white and conservative. Thus not only didn't they get a rightly deserved bullet in the head, but they were allowed to drive back and forth to town for OVER A MONTH to get supplies and mail. Patently absurd. They should have been taken out in Nevada when they took up sniper positions (look at the photos) against federal agents. Again, no person of color in this country would have EVER been allowed the insane leeway the Bundy Boys were shown in Nevada and Oregon. Some black people can't even survive a routine traffic stop (Sandra Bland and Philando Castillo), much less an armed takeover of federal land.