Rand Paul on Ferguson...I agree with him 100%

[gtopa1]

I am so OVER this debate about Nature and Nurture. There is no doubt that the entrapment of groups in Welfare Poverty creates an environment where the idle get into lawlessness. But what is the real history of that? Labour Unions for one which had laws in place against "cheap labour"......meaning no poor blacks need apply. So to the welfare trap......why on earth would one take up a job which paid less than welfare and was unreliable. One can whine all one wants about the evil law enforcers, but the true sources of the disparities of opportunity are liberal repressive policies. Of course they are well intentioned; using other people's money always is. But the OUTCOME is devastating to self respect. Without that, dear reader, the slide into criminal conduct is a short cone away.

But make NO MISTAKE: being trapped in the welfare cycle is no excuse for criminal conduct; it simply makes the options of criminality more appealing. The responsibility for criminal actions remain solely with the perpetrator!!

Greg

 

[Derideo_Te]

Rand Paul blamed the War on Poverty, not the phony War on Drugs.

Thanks for confirming my statement that you idiots just won't read, or else you just have the attention span of a King Charles Spaniel:

"""" The War on Drugs has created a culture of violence and put police in a nearly impossible situation."""

Rand Paul was not only talking about the WoD. He made several pertinent points the War on Poverty.

As I’ve visited our nation’s urban centers and predominantly white, impoverished rural areas, I sense an undercurrent of unease. It’s not just lack of justice, but also a cycle of poverty, to crime, and back to poverty again. There is a sense of helplessness. To be sure, we all hold a certain degree of responsibility for our lives and it’s a mistake to simply blame others for our problems.

Reforming criminal justice to make it racially blind is imperative, but that won’t lift up these young men from poverty. In fact, I don’t believe any law will. For too long, we’ve attached some mythic notion to government solutions and yet, 40 years after we began the War on Poverty, poverty still abounds.

When you look at statistics for the white community alone, you see that we’ve become two separate worlds in which the successful are educated and wait to have children until they are married, and those in poverty are primarily those without higher education and with children outside of marriage.

This message is not a racial one. The link between poverty, lack of education, and children outside of marriage is staggering and cuts across all racial groups. Statistics uniformly show that waiting to have children in marriage and obtaining an education are an invaluable part of escaping poverty.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

I think he is right.....This nightmare is a culmination of the artificial and extremely stupid federal "War on Drugs". LIke I said in another thread, a black trying to buy a bag of weed in Harlem has a far greater chance of arrest and incarceration than a Wall Street banker snorting cocaine on the Upper East Side.

You're missing a far more important point:

The failure of the War on Poverty has created a culture of violence and put police in a nearly impossible situation.


The War on Drugs is a byproduct of the War on Poverty.

That's your opinion and usual, a lame one.

 

[daws101]

I am so OVER this debate about Nature and Nurture. There is no doubt that the entrapment of groups in Welfare Poverty creates an environment where the idle get into lawlessness. But what is the real history of that? Labour Unions for one which had laws in place against "cheap labour"......meaning no poor blacks need apply. So to the welfare trap......why on earth would one take up a job which paid less than welfare and was unreliable. One can whine all one wants about the evil law enforcers, but the true sources of the disparities of opportunity are liberal repressive policies. Of course they are well intentioned; using other people's money always is. But the OUTCOME is devastating to self respect. Without that, dear reader, the slide into criminal conduct is a short cone away.

But make NO MISTAKE: being trapped in the welfare cycle is no excuse for criminal conduct; it simply makes the options of criminality more appealing. The responsibility for criminal actions remain solely with the perpetrator!!

Greg

another false bias comparison !

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I see the laziness on this board day in and day out of the righties who refuse to go beneath the surface of a story and broaden their understanding of something. They just dumb down and let the PAC political ads on television make their voting choices for them.

I know what I speak of, I've created some of those hit pieces for direct mail campaigns by politicians. And the Republican pols want to keep it very simple, with lots of spin and drama. Obviously works.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Until that willful ignorance changes, we will never move forward.

 

[boedicca]

I think he is right.....This nightmare is a culmination of the artificial and extremely stupid federal "War on Drugs". LIke I said in another thread, a black trying to buy a bag of weed in Harlem has a far greater chance of arrest and incarceration than a Wall Street banker snorting cocaine on the Upper East Side.

You're missing a far more important point:

The failure of the War on Poverty has created a culture of violence and put police in a nearly impossible situation.


The War on Drugs is a byproduct of the War on Poverty.

That's your opinion and usual, a lame one.

And as usual, you can't even understand reality when it stares you in the face.

It's clear that your Bubble is not properly ventilated.

 

[gtopa1]

I am so OVER this debate about Nature and Nurture. There is no doubt that the entrapment of groups in Welfare Poverty creates an environment where the idle get into lawlessness. But what is the real history of that? Labour Unions for one which had laws in place against "cheap labour"......meaning no poor blacks need apply. So to the welfare trap......why on earth would one take up a job which paid less than welfare and was unreliable. One can whine all one wants about the evil law enforcers, but the true sources of the disparities of opportunity are liberal repressive policies. Of course they are well intentioned; using other people's money always is. But the OUTCOME is devastating to self respect. Without that, dear reader, the slide into criminal conduct is a short cone away.

But make NO MISTAKE: being trapped in the welfare cycle is no excuse for criminal conduct; it simply makes the options of criminality more appealing. The responsibility for criminal actions remain solely with the perpetrator!!

Greg

another false bias comparison !

I am so OVER this debate about Nature and Nurture. There is no doubt that the entrapment of groups in Welfare Poverty creates an environment where the idle get into lawlessness. But what is the real history of that? Labour Unions for one which had laws in place against "cheap labour"......meaning no poor blacks need apply. So to the welfare trap......why on earth would one take up a job which paid less than welfare and was unreliable. One can whine all one wants about the evil law enforcers, but the true sources of the disparities of opportunity are liberal repressive policies. Of course they are well intentioned; using other people's money always is. But the OUTCOME is devastating to self respect. Without that, dear reader, the slide into criminal conduct is a short cone away.

But make NO MISTAKE: being trapped in the welfare cycle is no excuse for criminal conduct; it simply makes the options of criminality more appealing. The responsibility for criminal actions remain solely with the perpetrator!!

Greg

another false bias comparison !

Why would you want the data to get in the road of your "white racist society" meme??

Regressions of admission rates on
men’s labor market outcomes indicates the negative effects of wages and employment
on black men’s incarceration, and the negative effects hourly wages
for white men. ......
Incarceration might be connected to economic inequality in two main
ways. Rising inequality may increase crime at the bottom of the social hierarchy,
generating more arrests, convictions, and prison admissions. Thus
Richard Freeman (1996) argued that young black men turned to crime in
response declining job opportunities through the 1980s and 1990s. Troy
Duster (1997), similarly claims that the collapse of legitimate employment
in poor urban neighborhoods drew young black men into the illegal drug
trade, steeply increasing their risks of arrest and incarceration. For sociologists
of punishment, criminal law functions not just to control crime, but
also to contain marginal populations that are perceived as threatening by
elites and voters. The direct link between contemporary economic inequality
and punishment was forcefully claimed by Lo¨ıc Wacquant. Like Freeman and
Duster, Wacquant (2000) sees recent growth in the penal system as closely
connected to the decline of urban labor markets in the later postwar period.
In Wacquant’s analysis, the “prisonization of the ghetto” represents just the
latest form of institutionalized white supremacy—a social response to the
demise of the ghetto as an economically viable, yet controlling, institution in
the lives of African Americans.

Economic Inequality and the Rise in U.S. Imprisonment

I am on very firm ground indeed.

Greg

 

[Publius1787]

I understand and acknowledge that the righties on this board hate reading more than just a headline, but this time put on your big boy and big girl pants and give it a shot.


"...Three out of four people in jail for drugs are people of color. In the African American community, folks rightly ask why are our sons disproportionately incarcerated, killed, and maimed?

African Americans perceive as true that their kids are more likely to be killed.

ProPublica examined 33 years of FBI data on police shootings, accounted for the racial make-up of the country, and determined that: “Young black males in recent years were at a far greater risk of being shot dead by police than their white counterparts – 21 times greater.”

Rand Paul: The Politicians Are To Blame in Ferguson
Nov. 25, 2014
The failure of the War on Poverty has created a culture of violence and put police in a nearly impossible situation.

Ferguson Rand Paul Blames Pols in Michael Brown-Darren Wilson Case

Well, when you commit 50% of the nations murders while making up only 12% of the U.S. population you can see why blacks are more likely to go to jail than whites. Indeed, when blacks commit crimes in multiples higher than the white rate you can bet your ass that police are going to scrutinize black neighborhoods. Likewise, when blacks are crammed into small intercity/projects where much of this crime happens, you can bet your ass that catching people for drug offenses is much easier in those areas than in the country/suburbs. Also, when you commit violent crime in multiples of the white rate you are multiple times as likely to get shot or go to jail. Those are the facts.

The State of the Black Union US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
The Real Race War US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[bucs90]

Drug dealers sell drugs because they dont have any money...and they dont want an honest job.

Sure we can legalize drugs. Then the people selling drugs would just steal more property to make money.

Then they'd bitch about how many more are in jail for larceny.

 

[daws101]

I am so OVER this debate about Nature and Nurture. There is no doubt that the entrapment of groups in Welfare Poverty creates an environment where the idle get into lawlessness. But what is the real history of that? Labour Unions for one which had laws in place against "cheap labour"......meaning no poor blacks need apply. So to the welfare trap......why on earth would one take up a job which paid less than welfare and was unreliable. One can whine all one wants about the evil law enforcers, but the true sources of the disparities of opportunity are liberal repressive policies. Of course they are well intentioned; using other people's money always is. But the OUTCOME is devastating to self respect. Without that, dear reader, the slide into criminal conduct is a short cone away.

But make NO MISTAKE: being trapped in the welfare cycle is no excuse for criminal conduct; it simply makes the options of criminality more appealing. The responsibility for criminal actions remain solely with the perpetrator!!

Greg

another false bias comparison !

I am so OVER this debate about Nature and Nurture. There is no doubt that the entrapment of groups in Welfare Poverty creates an environment where the idle get into lawlessness. But what is the real history of that? Labour Unions for one which had laws in place against "cheap labour"......meaning no poor blacks need apply. So to the welfare trap......why on earth would one take up a job which paid less than welfare and was unreliable. One can whine all one wants about the evil law enforcers, but the true sources of the disparities of opportunity are liberal repressive policies. Of course they are well intentioned; using other people's money always is. But the OUTCOME is devastating to self respect. Without that, dear reader, the slide into criminal conduct is a short cone away.

But make NO MISTAKE: being trapped in the welfare cycle is no excuse for criminal conduct; it simply makes the options of criminality more appealing. The responsibility for criminal actions remain solely with the perpetrator!!

Greg

another false bias comparison !

Why would you want the data to get in the road of your "white racist society" meme??

Regressions of admission rates on
men’s labor market outcomes indicates the negative effects of wages and employment
on black men’s incarceration, and the negative effects hourly wages
for white men. ......
Incarceration might be connected to economic inequality in two main
ways. Rising inequality may increase crime at the bottom of the social hierarchy,
generating more arrests, convictions, and prison admissions. Thus
Richard Freeman (1996) argued that young black men turned to crime in
response declining job opportunities through the 1980s and 1990s. Troy
Duster (1997), similarly claims that the collapse of legitimate employment
in poor urban neighborhoods drew young black men into the illegal drug
trade, steeply increasing their risks of arrest and incarceration. For sociologists
of punishment, criminal law functions not just to control crime, but
also to contain marginal populations that are perceived as threatening by
elites and voters. The direct link between contemporary economic inequality
and punishment was forcefully claimed by Lo¨ıc Wacquant. Like Freeman and
Duster, Wacquant (2000) sees recent growth in the penal system as closely
connected to the decline of urban labor markets in the later postwar period.
In Wacquant’s analysis, the “prisonization of the ghetto” represents just the
latest form of institutionalized white supremacy—a social response to the
demise of the ghetto as an economically viable, yet controlling, institution in
the lives of African Americans.

Economic Inequality and the Rise in U.S. Imprisonment

I am on very firm ground indeed.

Greg

it's no meme it's fact but not all whites a racist..
your lame assessment that liberal programs are to blame is the oldest racist conservative ploy there is.

 

[daws101]

When white man arrived in North America, there were about 5,000,000 native red indians. After 20 years of European occupation, several wars and deliberate hunting and destruction of most of the buffalo herds (the Indian's primary food supply)... this population dropped to only about 250,000 native Indians.

When white Europeans landed in Australia, they killed over 40,000 native black aborigines in a deliberate campaign of genocide and slaughter.

During World War 1, over 21 million people died for no good reason.

During World War 2, over 50 million people died, also for no good reason. Who do you think paid for Hitler's rise to power, and who PAID for the growth of his army?

Given some of these facts, ask yourself: Which RACE of human beings has proven itself to be the most aggressive, violent and harmful compared to other races of people? Which RACE has been involved in more killing and imperial military invasions and occupations of other countries than any other RACE?

This goes the heart of the question about "racial superiority"... since nobody can choose their genetics or their parents...

 

[Publius1787]

I am so OVER this debate about Nature and Nurture. There is no doubt that the entrapment of groups in Welfare Poverty creates an environment where the idle get into lawlessness. But what is the real history of that? Labour Unions for one which had laws in place against "cheap labour"......meaning no poor blacks need apply. So to the welfare trap......why on earth would one take up a job which paid less than welfare and was unreliable. One can whine all one wants about the evil law enforcers, but the true sources of the disparities of opportunity are liberal repressive policies. Of course they are well intentioned; using other people's money always is. But the OUTCOME is devastating to self respect. Without that, dear reader, the slide into criminal conduct is a short cone away.

But make NO MISTAKE: being trapped in the welfare cycle is no excuse for criminal conduct; it simply makes the options of criminality more appealing. The responsibility for criminal actions remain solely with the perpetrator!!

Greg

another false bias comparison !

I am so OVER this debate about Nature and Nurture. There is no doubt that the entrapment of groups in Welfare Poverty creates an environment where the idle get into lawlessness. But what is the real history of that? Labour Unions for one which had laws in place against "cheap labour"......meaning no poor blacks need apply. So to the welfare trap......why on earth would one take up a job which paid less than welfare and was unreliable. One can whine all one wants about the evil law enforcers, but the true sources of the disparities of opportunity are liberal repressive policies. Of course they are well intentioned; using other people's money always is. But the OUTCOME is devastating to self respect. Without that, dear reader, the slide into criminal conduct is a short cone away.

But make NO MISTAKE: being trapped in the welfare cycle is no excuse for criminal conduct; it simply makes the options of criminality more appealing. The responsibility for criminal actions remain solely with the perpetrator!!

Greg

another false bias comparison !

Why would you want the data to get in the road of your "white racist society" meme??

Regressions of admission rates on
men’s labor market outcomes indicates the negative effects of wages and employment
on black men’s incarceration, and the negative effects hourly wages
for white men. ......
Incarceration might be connected to economic inequality in two main
ways. Rising inequality may increase crime at the bottom of the social hierarchy,
generating more arrests, convictions, and prison admissions. Thus
Richard Freeman (1996) argued that young black men turned to crime in
response declining job opportunities through the 1980s and 1990s. Troy
Duster (1997), similarly claims that the collapse of legitimate employment
in poor urban neighborhoods drew young black men into the illegal drug
trade, steeply increasing their risks of arrest and incarceration. For sociologists
of punishment, criminal law functions not just to control crime, but
also to contain marginal populations that are perceived as threatening by
elites and voters. The direct link between contemporary economic inequality
and punishment was forcefully claimed by Lo¨ıc Wacquant. Like Freeman and
Duster, Wacquant (2000) sees recent growth in the penal system as closely
connected to the decline of urban labor markets in the later postwar period.
In Wacquant’s analysis, the “prisonization of the ghetto” represents just the
latest form of institutionalized white supremacy—a social response to the
demise of the ghetto as an economically viable, yet controlling, institution in
the lives of African Americans.

Economic Inequality and the Rise in U.S. Imprisonment

I am on very firm ground indeed.

Greg

it's no meme it's fact but not all whites a racist..
your lame assessment that liberal programs are to blame is the oldest racist conservative ploy there is.

 

[Publius1787]

When white man arrived in North America, there were about 5,000,000 native red indians. After 20 years of European occupation, several wars and deliberate hunting and destruction of most of the buffalo herds (the Indian's primary food supply)... this population dropped to only about 250,000 native Indians.

When white Europeans landed in Australia, they killed over 40,000 native black aborigines in a deliberate campaign of genocide and slaughter.

During World War 1, over 21 million people died for no good reason.

During World War 2, over 50 million people died, also for no good reason. Who do you think paid for Hitler's rise to power, and who PAID for the growth of his army?

Given some of these facts, ask yourself: Which RACE of human beings has proven itself to be the most aggressive, violent and harmful compared to other races of people? Which RACE has been involved in more killing and imperial military invasions and occupations of other countries than any other RACE?

This goes the heart of the question about "racial superiority"... since nobody can choose their genetics or their parents...

Before I begin, it has been well documented that the overwhelming majority of those Native Americans you cited died out due to weak immune systems; unable to handle the pox that European settlers brought with them. Now that your first misrepresentation has been formally trashed allow me to deconstruct the rest.




The conflict principle transcends cultures, races, and ethnicities. Therefore, the question is not whether whites were evil in dominating others, ALL civilizations utilized their technology to dominate others, but whether others would have done the same to whites if the tables were turned. The answer to that question is a resounding YES. Thus, the fallacy of your thinking is clear.

Whites dominated the world not because of racial superiority, but cultural superiority that led to technological superiority. They indeed had an incentive to produce such a culture. They were never but a moment away from war with other white cultures. Hence they raced each other to colonize Africa, Asia, and the Americas, so that they would remain economically competitive against each other and therefore militarily dominant against a war with other white cultures.

The fact that others who were taken over by whites could not band together to flush out invaders is telling. Whites used warring Native American tribes against each other just as they used warring African tribes against each other to their advantage. Generally, whites would go to the losing tribe and offer technologically advanced weapons to them in return for land, treaties, and alliances. Now we must again ask ourselves if this would have happened to whites if the situation was reversed for Native Americans, Africans, or Asians. Indeed, they held the same practices in their smaller and technologically less advanced societies. The answer must be yes.

With that said it is also telling that Japan was never colonized. They did not resist white imperialism because they knew they could not. Instead they took the strengths that white culture produced, adopted them, and quickly became a world power. Indeed, this is how civilizations advance. They took what works from the working model and applied it to themselves. For the past 300 years whites have held the working formula. It has nothing to do with racial superiority, but cultural and technological superiority. So Japan became stronger due to white imperialism, as did every other country (colonized or not) with the technology that with introduced into their cultures.

The wars created by whites were so violent simply because whites ruled the world due to cultural and technological superiority. You cannot tell me that the violence that whites created would not have happened if the shoe was on the other foot. Your argument is a whole bunch of unfounded leftist gobbly gook designed on stoking hatred toward the working model of mainstream Western Civilization so as to replace it with the failed western ideology of Marxism which has led to the destruction of untold millions of domestic populations in their various countries. With that said you aren't really against western ways of thought, you just don't like the current Western Model. Indeed, you are attempting to discredit one civilization with/for an ideology produced by that same civilization. You don't really care about other peoples, you simply want them to be pressed under a different western ideology.

Well there you go. I have answered your question and more. Your argument has been deconstructed, discredited, and proved null and void. Have a nice day. Now enjoy this Japanese orchestra playing Beethoven. You're welcome Japan. In Japan no dispute about No. 1 holiday song - CBS News

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Apparently, lefties believe drug abuse is inevitable so let's all smoke some crack in celebration of the revelation.

 

[daws101]

When white man arrived in North America, there were about 5,000,000 native red indians. After 20 years of European occupation, several wars and deliberate hunting and destruction of most of the buffalo herds (the Indian's primary food supply)... this population dropped to only about 250,000 native Indians.

When white Europeans landed in Australia, they killed over 40,000 native black aborigines in a deliberate campaign of genocide and slaughter.

During World War 1, over 21 million people died for no good reason.

During World War 2, over 50 million people died, also for no good reason. Who do you think paid for Hitler's rise to power, and who PAID for the growth of his army?

Given some of these facts, ask yourself: Which RACE of human beings has proven itself to be the most aggressive, violent and harmful compared to other races of people? Which RACE has been involved in more killing and imperial military invasions and occupations of other countries than any other RACE?

This goes the heart of the question about "racial superiority"... since nobody can choose their genetics or their parents...

Before I begin, it has been well documented that the overwhelming majority of those Native Americans you cited died out due to weak immune systems; unable to handle the pox that European settlers brought with them. Now that your first misrepresentation has been formally trashed allow me to deconstruct the rest.




The conflict principle transcends cultures, races, and ethnicities. Therefore, the question is not whether whites were evil in dominating others, ALL civilizations utilized their technology to dominate others, but whether others would have done the same to whites if the tables were turned. The answer to that question is a resounding YES. Thus, the fallacy of your thinking is clear.

Whites dominated the world not because of racial superiority, but cultural superiority that led to technological superiority. They indeed had an incentive to produce such a culture. They were never but a moment away from war with other white cultures. Hence they raced each other to colonize Africa, Asia, and the Americas, so that they would remain economically competitive against each other and therefore militarily dominant against a war with other white cultures.

The fact that others who were taken over by whites could not band together to flush out invaders is telling. Whites used warring Native American tribes against each other just as they used warring African tribes against each other to their advantage. Generally, whites would go to the losing tribe and offer technologically advanced weapons to them in return for land, treaties, and alliances. Now we must again ask ourselves if this would have happened to whites if the situation was reversed for Native Americans, Africans, or Asians. Indeed, they held the same practices in their smaller and technologically less advanced societies. The answer must be yes.

With that said it is also telling that Japan was never colonized. They did not resist white imperialism because they knew they could not. Instead they took the strengths that white culture produced, adopted them, and quickly became a world power. Indeed, this is how civilizations advance. They took what works from the working model and applied it to themselves. For the past 300 years whites have held the working formula. It has nothing to do with racial superiority, but cultural and technological superiority. So Japan became stronger due to white imperialism, as did every other country (colonized or not) with the technology that with introduced into their cultures.

The wars created by whites were so violent simply because whites ruled the world due to cultural and technological superiority. You cannot tell me that the violence that whites created would not have happened if the shoe was on the other foot. Your argument is a whole bunch of unfounded leftist gobbly gook designed on stoking hatred toward the working model of mainstream Western Civilization so as to replace it with the failed western ideology of Marxism which has led to the destruction of untold millions of domestic populations in their various countries. With that said you aren't really against western ways of thought, you just don't like the current Western Model. Indeed, you are attempting to discredit one civilization with/for an ideology produced by that same civilization. You don't really care about other peoples, you simply want them to be pressed under a different western ideology.

Well there you go. I have answered your question and more. Your argument has been deconstructed, discredited, and proved null and void. Have a nice day. Now enjoy this Japanese orchestra playing Beethoven. You're welcome Japan. In Japan no dispute about No. 1 holiday song - CBS News

wake up Dorothy you're having that dream again. The one where you believe you're important and your biased ramblings are fact!

 

[daws101]

Apparently, lefties believe drug abuse is inevitable so let's all smoke some crack in celebration of the revelation.

in your case it is it's in your genes

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Apparently, lefties believe drug abuse is inevitable so let's all smoke some crack in celebration of the revelation.

in your case it is it's in your genes

No, I don't use drugs. Why would you suggest that?

 

[Publius1787]

When white man arrived in North America, there were about 5,000,000 native red indians. After 20 years of European occupation, several wars and deliberate hunting and destruction of most of the buffalo herds (the Indian's primary food supply)... this population dropped to only about 250,000 native Indians.

When white Europeans landed in Australia, they killed over 40,000 native black aborigines in a deliberate campaign of genocide and slaughter.

During World War 1, over 21 million people died for no good reason.

During World War 2, over 50 million people died, also for no good reason. Who do you think paid for Hitler's rise to power, and who PAID for the growth of his army?

Given some of these facts, ask yourself: Which RACE of human beings has proven itself to be the most aggressive, violent and harmful compared to other races of people? Which RACE has been involved in more killing and imperial military invasions and occupations of other countries than any other RACE?

This goes the heart of the question about "racial superiority"... since nobody can choose their genetics or their parents...

Before I begin, it has been well documented that the overwhelming majority of those Native Americans you cited died out due to weak immune systems; unable to handle the pox that European settlers brought with them. Now that your first misrepresentation has been formally trashed allow me to deconstruct the rest.




The conflict principle transcends cultures, races, and ethnicities. Therefore, the question is not whether whites were evil in dominating others, ALL civilizations utilized their technology to dominate others, but whether others would have done the same to whites if the tables were turned. The answer to that question is a resounding YES. Thus, the fallacy of your thinking is clear.

Whites dominated the world not because of racial superiority, but cultural superiority that led to technological superiority. They indeed had an incentive to produce such a culture. They were never but a moment away from war with other white cultures. Hence they raced each other to colonize Africa, Asia, and the Americas, so that they would remain economically competitive against each other and therefore militarily dominant against a war with other white cultures.

The fact that others who were taken over by whites could not band together to flush out invaders is telling. Whites used warring Native American tribes against each other just as they used warring African tribes against each other to their advantage. Generally, whites would go to the losing tribe and offer technologically advanced weapons to them in return for land, treaties, and alliances. Now we must again ask ourselves if this would have happened to whites if the situation was reversed for Native Americans, Africans, or Asians. Indeed, they held the same practices in their smaller and technologically less advanced societies. The answer must be yes.

With that said it is also telling that Japan was never colonized. They did not resist white imperialism because they knew they could not. Instead they took the strengths that white culture produced, adopted them, and quickly became a world power. Indeed, this is how civilizations advance. They took what works from the working model and applied it to themselves. For the past 300 years whites have held the working formula. It has nothing to do with racial superiority, but cultural and technological superiority. So Japan became stronger due to white imperialism, as did every other country (colonized or not) with the technology that with introduced into their cultures.

The wars created by whites were so violent simply because whites ruled the world due to cultural and technological superiority. You cannot tell me that the violence that whites created would not have happened if the shoe was on the other foot. Your argument is a whole bunch of unfounded leftist gobbly gook designed on stoking hatred toward the working model of mainstream Western Civilization so as to replace it with the failed western ideology of Marxism which has led to the destruction of untold millions of domestic populations in their various countries. With that said you aren't really against western ways of thought, you just don't like the current Western Model. Indeed, you are attempting to discredit one civilization with/for an ideology produced by that same civilization. You don't really care about other peoples, you simply want them to be pressed under a different western ideology.

Well there you go. I have answered your question and more. Your argument has been deconstructed, discredited, and proved null and void. Have a nice day. Now enjoy this Japanese orchestra playing Beethoven. You're welcome Japan. In Japan no dispute about No. 1 holiday song - CBS News

wake up Dorothy you're having that dream again. The one where you believe you're important and your biased ramblings are fact!

You made I claim, I maid a counter claim. I specifically described why your claim was false and backed it up with historical fact. If my claim or the facts presented are less than accurate then an intelligent person would debate it. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that you would be reasonable and intelligent enough to meet my argument with one of your own. But you did not. Why should I accept you as a reasonable person if you cannot defend your position? What was it about my argument that was false? Where did I go wrong? Did I misrepresent the facts? If so then how? Will you not defend your argument? Do you require sources? I would provide them. Why wont you defend your position? Isn't that what you are here to do?

 

[gtopa1]

I am so OVER this debate about Nature and Nurture. There is no doubt that the entrapment of groups in Welfare Poverty creates an environment where the idle get into lawlessness. But what is the real history of that? Labour Unions for one which had laws in place against "cheap labour"......meaning no poor blacks need apply. So to the welfare trap......why on earth would one take up a job which paid less than welfare and was unreliable. One can whine all one wants about the evil law enforcers, but the true sources of the disparities of opportunity are liberal repressive policies. Of course they are well intentioned; using other people's money always is. But the OUTCOME is devastating to self respect. Without that, dear reader, the slide into criminal conduct is a short cone away.

But make NO MISTAKE: being trapped in the welfare cycle is no excuse for criminal conduct; it simply makes the options of criminality more appealing. The responsibility for criminal actions remain solely with the perpetrator!!

Greg

another false bias comparison !

I am so OVER this debate about Nature and Nurture. There is no doubt that the entrapment of groups in Welfare Poverty creates an environment where the idle get into lawlessness. But what is the real history of that? Labour Unions for one which had laws in place against "cheap labour"......meaning no poor blacks need apply. So to the welfare trap......why on earth would one take up a job which paid less than welfare and was unreliable. One can whine all one wants about the evil law enforcers, but the true sources of the disparities of opportunity are liberal repressive policies. Of course they are well intentioned; using other people's money always is. But the OUTCOME is devastating to self respect. Without that, dear reader, the slide into criminal conduct is a short cone away.

But make NO MISTAKE: being trapped in the welfare cycle is no excuse for criminal conduct; it simply makes the options of criminality more appealing. The responsibility for criminal actions remain solely with the perpetrator!!

Greg

another false bias comparison !

Why would you want the data to get in the road of your "white racist society" meme??

Regressions of admission rates on
men’s labor market outcomes indicates the negative effects of wages and employment
on black men’s incarceration, and the negative effects hourly wages
for white men. ......
Incarceration might be connected to economic inequality in two main
ways. Rising inequality may increase crime at the bottom of the social hierarchy,
generating more arrests, convictions, and prison admissions. Thus
Richard Freeman (1996) argued that young black men turned to crime in
response declining job opportunities through the 1980s and 1990s. Troy
Duster (1997), similarly claims that the collapse of legitimate employment
in poor urban neighborhoods drew young black men into the illegal drug
trade, steeply increasing their risks of arrest and incarceration. For sociologists
of punishment, criminal law functions not just to control crime, but
also to contain marginal populations that are perceived as threatening by
elites and voters. The direct link between contemporary economic inequality
and punishment was forcefully claimed by Lo¨ıc Wacquant. Like Freeman and
Duster, Wacquant (2000) sees recent growth in the penal system as closely
connected to the decline of urban labor markets in the later postwar period.
In Wacquant’s analysis, the “prisonization of the ghetto” represents just the
latest form of institutionalized white supremacy—a social response to the
demise of the ghetto as an economically viable, yet controlling, institution in
the lives of African Americans.

Economic Inequality and the Rise in U.S. Imprisonment

I am on very firm ground indeed.

Greg

it's no meme it's fact but not all whites a racist..
your lame assessment that liberal programs are to blame is the oldest racist conservative ploy there is.

So you have no argument except that it's not what you want to think? lmao

OK: tell me what are the causes according to daws?? Who knows: there may be common ground yet.

Greg

 

[JFK_USA]

Thank you Rand Paul for stating the obvious that the war on drugs have failed. Legalize weed now!