Why do poor communities exist in America?

[blUntc0ncUssi0n]

Yeah after WW2 ... 70-years ago.

When the government starting creating those neighbourhoods.

Exactly. That's generations and 10 decades ago.

What's this generations excuse? still the Government's fault? despite giving minorities more tools than you're average white folk from poor backgrounds.

Isn't it the government's fault? America is as lawless as it gets. Maybe I'm racist or ignorant or something for saying that too but it doesn't make it any less true and I'm sure you're already aware of it.

No you aren't racist. Not at all.

I'd say Ignorant but it's not even your fault - kids today are brainwashed and get taught to blame everything and everyone else other than the actual root of these problems because it's more comfortable blaming the Government than an actual person you feel sorry for. It's an emotional thing. It's easier to look at the big bad faceless system even if it was a policy 7 decades ago whilst ignoring the fact that minorities have all the tools now.

It comes down to personal responsibility.

If the music industry is considered a niche market then what do you call the opposite of a niche market? A regular market?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm from Harlem, New York, and I just started my first day of school today at Bergen Community College, but while I was there, I couldn't help but notice how different people act in Paramus, New Jersey, as opposed to how people act in my part of town.

Aside from the uncomfortably obvious racial difference, people in this area act very unfamiliar with the difficulties that people deal with in poor communities, such as the lack of financial opportunities, abundance of poverty and desperation, pressure to get into illegal business, oppressive police activity, violent gang activity, constant drug use and trafficking, public lewdness and intoxication, overall hopelessness, etc.

Some individuals don't only seem unaware of the characteristics of my type of neighborhood, but also intolerant of the regular tenants of its atmosphere, like the trend of wearing designer clothing, listening to rap music, smoking weed, avoiding romance, as well as maintaining a guarded, skeptical mentality. Even professionals from the ghetto who aren't gang affiliated in any way do most if not all of these things in the 21st century. Despite this however, people's heads spun regardless when I was casually talking about my older brother who did 7 years in Riker's.

It doesn't seem to me like some anyone is really that concerned with what goes on in these communities, and it does seem like this lack of consideration often extends to hatefulness and resentment towards the so-called "vibes."

That aptly brings me back to my question. Quick history lesson here, communities such as Harlem started being developed into poor neighborhoods in the 1960s, when the civil rights movement had finally gained momentum. If that is the case, then the federal government is obviously responsible for every step of the development of these areas ranging from their conception to their final establishment. I can definitely understand the ghetto perhaps having been established to keep certain members of our society "in line," which brings me back to my question.

Why was it even established? Why would the government think it's a good idea to create dangerous neighborhoods all of a sudden? If it really was to keep certain Americans in line, then which ones? Of course, many would assume black people but they clearly don't make up the entirety of the ghetto's demographics. There are also Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, Jews, Russians, (and definitely lots of Dominicans!) in New York City's poorest areas. While hate towards the vibes of the ghetto is certainly prejudice on a whole laundry list of levels, it cannot be considered a form of racism. So if people are separated by race in this country, then all five of the races I mentioned before, as well as black people, must have something in common that the federal government finds incredibly dangerous, and thus wishes to inhibit it. (edit: which sounds absolutely silly)

However, if it isn't actually a race issue, then what determines who goes where? Do a couple of senators just flip a coin and get to see who lives in poverty and who gets to live as a middle class citizen? It seems to me like something else must be a deciding factor here.

If someone could help me understand this basic question as it's been sufficiently elaborated (for those who are about to say TL;DR ) that would be great!

Government policy, specifically Democrat policy.


From Peter Ferrara, “America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb,” chapter five.

1. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Such should be the epitaph of Liberalism.
2. ‘Welfare’ as a wholly owned subsidiary of the government, and its main result is the incentivizing of a disrespect for oneself, and for the entity that provides the welfare. As more folks in a poor neighborhood languish with little or no work, entire local culture begins to change: daily work is no longer the expected social norm. Extended periods of hanging around the neighborhood, neither working nor going to school becoming more and more socially acceptable.
   1. Since productive activity not making any economic sense because of the work disincentives of the welfare plantation, other kinds of activities proliferate: drug and alcohol abuse, crime, recreational sex, illegitimacy, and family breakup are the new social norms, as does the culture of violence.
   2. "The lessons of history … show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."
      These searing words about Depression-era welfare are from Franklin Roosevelt's 1935 State of the Union Address.
   3. On Dec. 7, 2012, liberal New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof offered an unexpected concession:
      “This is painful for a liberal to admit, but … America’s safety net can sometimes entangle people in a soul-crushing dependency. Our poverty programs do rescue many people, but other times they backfire.”

 

[whoisit]

I'm from Harlem, New York, and I just started my first day of school today at Bergen Community College, but while I was there, I couldn't help but notice how different people act in Paramus, New Jersey, as opposed to how people act in my part of town.

Aside from the uncomfortably obvious racial difference, people in this area act very unfamiliar with the difficulties that people deal with in poor communities, such as the lack of financial opportunities, abundance of poverty and desperation, pressure to get into illegal business, oppressive police activity, violent gang activity, constant drug use and trafficking, public lewdness and intoxication, overall hopelessness, etc.

Some individuals don't only seem unaware of the characteristics of my type of neighborhood, but also intolerant of the regular tenants of its atmosphere, like the trend of wearing designer clothing, listening to rap music, smoking weed, avoiding romance, as well as maintaining a guarded, skeptical mentality. Even professionals from the ghetto who aren't gang affiliated in any way do most if not all of these things in the 21st century. Despite this however, people's heads spun regardless when I was casually talking about my older brother who did 7 years in Riker's.

It doesn't seem to me like some anyone is really that concerned with what goes on in these communities, and it does seem like this lack of consideration often extends to hatefulness and resentment towards the so-called "vibes."

That aptly brings me back to my question. Quick history lesson here, communities such as Harlem started being developed into poor neighborhoods in the 1960s, when the civil rights movement had finally gained momentum. If that is the case, then the federal government is obviously responsible for every step of the development of these areas ranging from their conception to their final establishment. I can definitely understand the ghetto perhaps having been established to keep certain members of our society "in line," which brings me back to my question.

Why was it even established? Why would the government think it's a good idea to create dangerous neighborhoods all of a sudden? If it really was to keep certain Americans in line, then which ones? Of course, many would assume black people but they clearly don't make up the entirety of the ghetto's demographics. There are also Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, Jews, Russians, (and definitely lots of Dominicans!) in New York City's poorest areas. While hate towards the vibes of the ghetto is certainly prejudice on a whole laundry list of levels, it cannot be considered a form of racism. So if people are separated by race in this country, then all five of the races I mentioned before, as well as black people, must have something in common that the federal government finds incredibly dangerous, and thus wishes to inhibit it. (edit: which sounds absolutely silly)

However, if it isn't actually a race issue, then what determines who goes where? Do a couple of senators just flip a coin and get to see who lives in poverty and who gets to live as a middle class citizen? It seems to me like something else must be a deciding factor here.

If someone could help me understand this basic question as it's been sufficiently elaborated (for those who are about to say TL;DR ) that would be great!

Government policy, specifically Democrat policy.


From Peter Ferrara, “America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb,” chapter five.

1. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Such should be the epitaph of Liberalism.
2. ‘Welfare’ as a wholly owned subsidiary of the government, and its main result is the incentivizing of a disrespect for oneself, and for the entity that provides the welfare. As more folks in a poor neighborhood languish with little or no work, entire local culture begins to change: daily work is no longer the expected social norm. Extended periods of hanging around the neighborhood, neither working nor going to school becoming more and more socially acceptable.
   1. Since productive activity not making any economic sense because of the work disincentives of the welfare plantation, other kinds of activities proliferate: drug and alcohol abuse, crime, recreational sex, illegitimacy, and family breakup are the new social norms, as does the culture of violence.
   2. "The lessons of history … show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."
      These searing words about Depression-era welfare are from Franklin Roosevelt's 1935 State of the Union Address.
   3. On Dec. 7, 2012, liberal New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof offered an unexpected concession:
      “This is painful for a liberal to admit, but … America’s safety net can sometimes entangle people in a soul-crushing dependency. Our poverty programs do rescue many people, but other times they backfire.”

Yes and every since welfare came along America has been in a decline.
As poor whites and minorities have proved in the long run it is destructive.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm from Harlem, New York, and I just started my first day of school today at Bergen Community College, but while I was there, I couldn't help but notice how different people act in Paramus, New Jersey, as opposed to how people act in my part of town.

Aside from the uncomfortably obvious racial difference, people in this area act very unfamiliar with the difficulties that people deal with in poor communities, such as the lack of financial opportunities, abundance of poverty and desperation, pressure to get into illegal business, oppressive police activity, violent gang activity, constant drug use and trafficking, public lewdness and intoxication, overall hopelessness, etc.

Some individuals don't only seem unaware of the characteristics of my type of neighborhood, but also intolerant of the regular tenants of its atmosphere, like the trend of wearing designer clothing, listening to rap music, smoking weed, avoiding romance, as well as maintaining a guarded, skeptical mentality. Even professionals from the ghetto who aren't gang affiliated in any way do most if not all of these things in the 21st century. Despite this however, people's heads spun regardless when I was casually talking about my older brother who did 7 years in Riker's.

It doesn't seem to me like some anyone is really that concerned with what goes on in these communities, and it does seem like this lack of consideration often extends to hatefulness and resentment towards the so-called "vibes."

That aptly brings me back to my question. Quick history lesson here, communities such as Harlem started being developed into poor neighborhoods in the 1960s, when the civil rights movement had finally gained momentum. If that is the case, then the federal government is obviously responsible for every step of the development of these areas ranging from their conception to their final establishment. I can definitely understand the ghetto perhaps having been established to keep certain members of our society "in line," which brings me back to my question.

Why was it even established? Why would the government think it's a good idea to create dangerous neighborhoods all of a sudden? If it really was to keep certain Americans in line, then which ones? Of course, many would assume black people but they clearly don't make up the entirety of the ghetto's demographics. There are also Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, Jews, Russians, (and definitely lots of Dominicans!) in New York City's poorest areas. While hate towards the vibes of the ghetto is certainly prejudice on a whole laundry list of levels, it cannot be considered a form of racism. So if people are separated by race in this country, then all five of the races I mentioned before, as well as black people, must have something in common that the federal government finds incredibly dangerous, and thus wishes to inhibit it. (edit: which sounds absolutely silly)

However, if it isn't actually a race issue, then what determines who goes where? Do a couple of senators just flip a coin and get to see who lives in poverty and who gets to live as a middle class citizen? It seems to me like something else must be a deciding factor here.

If someone could help me understand this basic question as it's been sufficiently elaborated (for those who are about to say TL;DR ) that would be great!

Government policy, specifically Democrat policy.


From Peter Ferrara, “America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb,” chapter five.

1. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Such should be the epitaph of Liberalism.
2. ‘Welfare’ as a wholly owned subsidiary of the government, and its main result is the incentivizing of a disrespect for oneself, and for the entity that provides the welfare. As more folks in a poor neighborhood languish with little or no work, entire local culture begins to change: daily work is no longer the expected social norm. Extended periods of hanging around the neighborhood, neither working nor going to school becoming more and more socially acceptable.
   1. Since productive activity not making any economic sense because of the work disincentives of the welfare plantation, other kinds of activities proliferate: drug and alcohol abuse, crime, recreational sex, illegitimacy, and family breakup are the new social norms, as does the culture of violence.
   2. "The lessons of history … show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."
      These searing words about Depression-era welfare are from Franklin Roosevelt's 1935 State of the Union Address.
   3. On Dec. 7, 2012, liberal New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof offered an unexpected concession:
      “This is painful for a liberal to admit, but … America’s safety net can sometimes entangle people in a soul-crushing dependency. Our poverty programs do rescue many people, but other times they backfire.”

Yes and every since welfare came along America has been in a decline.
As poor whites and minorities have proved in the long run it is destructive.

It serves the purpose it was designed to serve: to buy Democrat votes.

 

[DGS49]

As a wiser person than I has observed, "If you pay people to do something, they will do it. If you punish people for doing something, they will do less of it, or stop doing it altogether."

Why do we now have the phenomenon of thousands of small businesses that can't get people to work for them? Extended and enhanced UEC.

How stupid do you have to be to be surprised at this?

 

[whoisit]

Yeah after WW2 ... 70-years ago.

When the government starting creating those neighbourhoods.

Exactly. That's generations and 10 decades ago.

What's this generations excuse? still the Government's fault? despite giving minorities more tools than you're average white folk from poor backgrounds.

Isn't it the government's fault? America is as lawless as it gets. Maybe I'm racist or ignorant or something for saying that too but it doesn't make it any less true and I'm sure you're already aware of it.

No you aren't racist. Not at all.

I'd say Ignorant but it's not even your fault - kids today are brainwashed and get taught to blame everything and everyone else other than the actual root of these problems because it's more comfortable blaming the Government than an actual person you feel sorry for. It's an emotional thing. It's easier to look at the big bad faceless system even if it was a policy 7 decades ago whilst ignoring the fact that minorities have all the tools now.

It comes down to personal responsibility.

If the music industry is considered a niche market then what do you call the opposite of a niche market? A regular market?

I promised myself to stay away from politics but here i am again,

I'd call it crony capitalism.

 

[danielpalos]

I'm from Harlem, New York, and I just started my first day of school today at Bergen Community College, but while I was there, I couldn't help but notice how different people act in Paramus, New Jersey, as opposed to how people act in my part of town.

Aside from the uncomfortably obvious racial difference, people in this area act very unfamiliar with the difficulties that people deal with in poor communities, such as the lack of financial opportunities, abundance of poverty and desperation, pressure to get into illegal business, oppressive police activity, violent gang activity, constant drug use and trafficking, public lewdness and intoxication, overall hopelessness, etc.

Some individuals don't only seem unaware of the characteristics of my type of neighborhood, but also intolerant of the regular tenants of its atmosphere, like the trend of wearing designer clothing, listening to rap music, smoking weed, avoiding romance, as well as maintaining a guarded, skeptical mentality. Even professionals from the ghetto who aren't gang affiliated in any way do most if not all of these things in the 21st century. Despite this however, people's heads spun regardless when I was casually talking about my older brother who did 7 years in Riker's.

It doesn't seem to me like some anyone is really that concerned with what goes on in these communities, and it does seem like this lack of consideration often extends to hatefulness and resentment towards the so-called "vibes."

That aptly brings me back to my question. Quick history lesson here, communities such as Harlem started being developed into poor neighborhoods in the 1960s, when the civil rights movement had finally gained momentum. If that is the case, then the federal government is obviously responsible for every step of the development of these areas ranging from their conception to their final establishment. I can definitely understand the ghetto perhaps having been established to keep certain members of our society "in line," which brings me back to my question.

Why was it even established? Why would the government think it's a good idea to create dangerous neighborhoods all of a sudden? If it really was to keep certain Americans in line, then which ones? Of course, many would assume black people but they clearly don't make up the entirety of the ghetto's demographics. There are also Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, Jews, Russians, (and definitely lots of Dominicans!) in New York City's poorest areas. While hate towards the vibes of the ghetto is certainly prejudice on a whole laundry list of levels, it cannot be considered a form of racism. So if people are separated by race in this country, then all five of the races I mentioned before, as well as black people, must have something in common that the federal government finds incredibly dangerous, and thus wishes to inhibit it. (edit: which sounds absolutely silly)

However, if it isn't actually a race issue, then what determines who goes where? Do a couple of senators just flip a coin and get to see who lives in poverty and who gets to live as a middle class citizen? It seems to me like something else must be a deciding factor here.

If someone could help me understand this basic question as it's been sufficiently elaborated (for those who are about to say TL;DR ) that would be great!

Due to unequal protection of the laws. It really is that simple.

 

[Soupnazi630]

I'm from Harlem, New York, and I just started my first day of school today at Bergen Community College, but while I was there, I couldn't help but notice how different people act in Paramus, New Jersey, as opposed to how people act in my part of town.

Aside from the uncomfortably obvious racial difference, people in this area act very unfamiliar with the difficulties that people deal with in poor communities, such as the lack of financial opportunities, abundance of poverty and desperation, pressure to get into illegal business, oppressive police activity, violent gang activity, constant drug use and trafficking, public lewdness and intoxication, overall hopelessness, etc.

Some individuals don't only seem unaware of the characteristics of my type of neighborhood, but also intolerant of the regular tenants of its atmosphere, like the trend of wearing designer clothing, listening to rap music, smoking weed, avoiding romance, as well as maintaining a guarded, skeptical mentality. Even professionals from the ghetto who aren't gang affiliated in any way do most if not all of these things in the 21st century. Despite this however, people's heads spun regardless when I was casually talking about my older brother who did 7 years in Riker's.

It doesn't seem to me like some anyone is really that concerned with what goes on in these communities, and it does seem like this lack of consideration often extends to hatefulness and resentment towards the so-called "vibes."

That aptly brings me back to my question. Quick history lesson here, communities such as Harlem started being developed into poor neighborhoods in the 1960s, when the civil rights movement had finally gained momentum. If that is the case, then the federal government is obviously responsible for every step of the development of these areas ranging from their conception to their final establishment. I can definitely understand the ghetto perhaps having been established to keep certain members of our society "in line," which brings me back to my question.

Why was it even established? Why would the government think it's a good idea to create dangerous neighborhoods all of a sudden? If it really was to keep certain Americans in line, then which ones? Of course, many would assume black people but they clearly don't make up the entirety of the ghetto's demographics. There are also Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, Jews, Russians, (and definitely lots of Dominicans!) in New York City's poorest areas. While hate towards the vibes of the ghetto is certainly prejudice on a whole laundry list of levels, it cannot be considered a form of racism. So if people are separated by race in this country, then all five of the races I mentioned before, as well as black people, must have something in common that the federal government finds incredibly dangerous, and thus wishes to inhibit it. (edit: which sounds absolutely silly)

However, if it isn't actually a race issue, then what determines who goes where? Do a couple of senators just flip a coin and get to see who lives in poverty and who gets to live as a middle class citizen? It seems to me like something else must be a deciding factor here.

If someone could help me understand this basic question as it's been sufficiently elaborated (for those who are about to say TL;DR ) that would be great!

Due to unequal protection of the laws. It really is that simple.

Fallacy as usual, it is not due to law equal or otherwise.

 

[Oldestyle]

I'm from Harlem, New York, and I just started my first day of school today at Bergen Community College, but while I was there, I couldn't help but notice how different people act in Paramus, New Jersey, as opposed to how people act in my part of town.

Aside from the uncomfortably obvious racial difference, people in this area act very unfamiliar with the difficulties that people deal with in poor communities, such as the lack of financial opportunities, abundance of poverty and desperation, pressure to get into illegal business, oppressive police activity, violent gang activity, constant drug use and trafficking, public lewdness and intoxication, overall hopelessness, etc.

Some individuals don't only seem unaware of the characteristics of my type of neighborhood, but also intolerant of the regular tenants of its atmosphere, like the trend of wearing designer clothing, listening to rap music, smoking weed, avoiding romance, as well as maintaining a guarded, skeptical mentality. Even professionals from the ghetto who aren't gang affiliated in any way do most if not all of these things in the 21st century. Despite this however, people's heads spun regardless when I was casually talking about my older brother who did 7 years in Riker's.

It doesn't seem to me like some anyone is really that concerned with what goes on in these communities, and it does seem like this lack of consideration often extends to hatefulness and resentment towards the so-called "vibes."

That aptly brings me back to my question. Quick history lesson here, communities such as Harlem started being developed into poor neighborhoods in the 1960s, when the civil rights movement had finally gained momentum. If that is the case, then the federal government is obviously responsible for every step of the development of these areas ranging from their conception to their final establishment. I can definitely understand the ghetto perhaps having been established to keep certain members of our society "in line," which brings me back to my question.

Why was it even established? Why would the government think it's a good idea to create dangerous neighborhoods all of a sudden? If it really was to keep certain Americans in line, then which ones? Of course, many would assume black people but they clearly don't make up the entirety of the ghetto's demographics. There are also Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, Jews, Russians, (and definitely lots of Dominicans!) in New York City's poorest areas. While hate towards the vibes of the ghetto is certainly prejudice on a whole laundry list of levels, it cannot be considered a form of racism. So if people are separated by race in this country, then all five of the races I mentioned before, as well as black people, must have something in common that the federal government finds incredibly dangerous, and thus wishes to inhibit it. (edit: which sounds absolutely silly)

However, if it isn't actually a race issue, then what determines who goes where? Do a couple of senators just flip a coin and get to see who lives in poverty and who gets to live as a middle class citizen? It seems to me like something else must be a deciding factor here.

If someone could help me understand this basic question as it's been sufficiently elaborated (for those who are about to say TL;DR ) that would be great!

Your own OP explains why "ghettos" still exist, Blunt! You're from one and you can't understand why people from other places don't have some of the same views as you do. Smoking weed and spending time in prison isn't accepted behavior in non ghetto areas. Getting good grades in school and working to put food on the table for your family are "expected" behavior in better neighborhoods. Your neighborhood stays poor because too many of the people that live in it have the view that schooling and a job is for "suckers".

As for Government's part in this whole mess? LBJ started the War on Poverty back in the early 60's and we've poured trillions of dollars into government programs to "help" the poor! So tell me how sixty years of entitlement programs has really helped the black community?

 

[Gabe Lackmann]

This is gold.

 

[Gabe Lackmann]

Everyone knows Harlem was a black neighborhood by the 1920's when the people of NYC were flocking to Harlem for the jazz and the dance halls (ever heard of the Savoy Ballroom?) Black poets, writers and intellectuals were blazing a trail for blacks who had moved north. The Harlem Renaissance was a cultural explosion that apparently fizzled with the Depression. By 1930, 70% of those in Harlem were black. Like everyone, jobs were lost in the Depression, but it hit blacks harder. Good history coverage here. Harlem - Wikipedia
Except for what cnm said about making it difficult for black people to move out to the burbs, I don't know that the government corralled people there; whatever happened to Harlem, it started a lot earlier than the 1960's, or even 1945.

And the hookers, and the heroin. Harlem has been gentrified a little of late, but in many areas still remains the stilted, violent community of poor Latins, and sub-Saharan's

 

[danielpalos]

Fallacy as usual, it is not due to law equal or otherwise.

Of course it is the problem or I wouldn't try to pass it off as the "gospel Truth" like right-wingers. Right-Wingers simply have no understanding of Constitutional law and only know how to censor (like overpaid process servers).

 

[Soupnazi630]

Of course it is the problem or I wouldn't try to pass it off as the "gospel Truth" like right-wingers. Right-Wingers simply have no understanding of Constitutional law and only know how to censor (like overpaid process servers).

They have better understanding than you.

You are clueless and stupid and have no idea what constitutional law is. You are proven wrogn and you post nothing but fallacies. No onme censors you and you state nothing but baldfaced lies because you can only bear false witness.

 

[danielpalos]

They have better understanding than you.

You are clueless and stupid and have no idea what constitutional law is. You are proven wrogn and you post nothing but fallacies. No onme censors you and you state nothing but baldfaced lies because you can only bear false witness.

lol. You are Wrong even though you are on the right simply because I say so. Any questions?

 

[Soupnazi630]

lol. You are Wrong even though you are on the right simply because I say so. Any questions?

You never answer questions and you are woefully unqualified to say what others are.

You are not educated or intelligent enough to make such judgements and I am right. I am better than you and own your ignorant ass.

 

[jbrownson0831]

I just want to know why. It's so unfair.

What's unfair, you choose to be a lazy dreg its not knighted on you or anything

 

[danielpalos]

You never answer questions and you are woefully unqualified to say what others are.

You are not educated or intelligent enough to make such judgements and I am right. I am better than you and own your ignorant ass.

You need more than ad hominems to prove your unsubstantiated opinion.

 

[Soupnazi630]

You need more than ad hominems to prove your unsubstantiated opinion.

I posted more.

You post only fallacies with no evience.

 

[danielpalos]

I posted more.

You post only fallacies with no evience.

In right wing fantasy you are Always Right. Are you even capable of a rational argument without resorting to fallacies? Equal work for equal pay!

Equal protection of the at-will employment laws can help solve this dilemma.

 

[Soupnazi630]

In right wing fantasy you are Always Right. Are you even capable of a rational argument without resorting to fallacies? Equal work for equal pay!

Equal protection of the at-will employment laws can help solve this dilemma.

No in these threads I always prove you wrong.

Do not ask for rational arguments when you ignore rational arguments and post nothing but fallacies.

No they cannot solve this dilemma and we have equality under the law already you ignorant fool