The 2020 USA POTUS election politics, the civil war, and the world war (Part 2)

Ok, two generations ago my ancestors were mistreated by your ancestors so I’m going to round up a bunch of thugs and steal your stuff. Sound good? Any excuse for a good looting, like canonization of Saint Floyd showed us.

And in a similar Marxist vein, your beloved Critical Race Theory…

we can’t forget that Critical Race Theory is a Marxist ideology. It derives from critical theory, which is explicitly Marxist. And even one of the founders of Critical Race Theory, Richard Delgado, when he describes in an interview the first conference that established the discipline of Critical Race Theory, he describes the group as “a bunch of Marxists.”

At the time they weren’t hiding it, but they’re hiding it now because it’s unpopular. But we should really not underestimate the Marxist core of Critical Race Theory. And we should also not underestimate the Critical Race Theorist’s proposed solutions, which in the case of many and perhaps most of the scholars, involves state control over the economy. It involves collectivist enterprise. It involves race-based redistribution of wealth and property. That’s how they think they’re going to achieve equality, and I just fundamentally and wholeheartedly disagree with it. We have the evidence from a century of Marxist regimes in the previous century. We should absolutely and categorically reject that way of organizing society and of organizing the economy.

The progressives pushing this stuff are a bunch of terrorists, threatening your person, your family, your job, your freedoms and your government. And you don’t negotiate with terrorists. You kill them, or maybe if they’re lucky you throw them in jail where they can’t cause more trouble. You definitely don’t ask them how much White Guilt training and Hail Mary’s you should do as atonement in their weird religion.

4 Likes

Not generations ago. Right now. No one said to round up thugs and steal your stuff. That’s your dishonest take on simply equalizing the playing field.

Besides, white people have been plenty thuggish.

Critical Race Theory is not a “Marxist” theory.

Your whole shmear is dishonest, lying diatribes against civil rights by pretending it’s an attack on white people.

White supremacists like you are vicious racist terrorists who don’t care a whit about people and simply make things up to try and control others.

You propose no intelligent solution to a problem. You just want to make more problems to promote white supremacy.

Attack the idea, not the person. As someone who reads this thread with a bucket of popcorn, this was way out of line, imo.

3 Likes

He is the idea. His version of civil rights is to scare white people by claiming that it’s rounding up thugs to steal your stuff.

He is lying. White people have the patent on stealing stuff from other races.

He is not having a discussion, but propounding propaganda. He attempts to suppress any thought he doesn’t like.

Such people are trolls, They are not discussing honest ideas.

His idea of civil rights is rounding up thugs to attack blacks, Asians, and immigrants. He says so repeatedly. He doesn’t care about the violence against minorities at all.

He encourages and supports violence against others.

It’s across the line to claim that a simple explanation of racial injustice is part of a thuggish attack for something “generations” ago.

Are you aware that the large majority of “redlined” residents back in the day were white?

If the redlining maps were based on race alone, we would expect the black neighborhoods and their occupants to have better economic characteristics than their white counterparts at the time. But a study from the National Bureau of Economic Research finds the exact opposite. Redlined areas with a predominantly white population had better economic characteristics than redlined areas with above-average shares of black residents—“the opposite of what would be expected if Black neighborhoods had been targeted for the lowest security grade because of race.” Moreover, a full 85 percent of households in redlined areas were occupied by whites,

And these proposals of yours to lift the poor benighted minorities out of poverty have been tried and failed.

The War on Poverty was based on the notion that black poverty was unique because of historical racism, just as activists claim today. But the desired results were not forthcoming. Violence, single households, joblessness, welfare dependency, teen pregnancy, drug addiction, and all of the ills we associate with the urban ghettos today were accelerated in the late 60s, whether or not those policies were a cause of the decline or just an ineffective remedy. So, much of what is called for by modern anti-racist activists has already been tried and failed. And yet it is critics of such policies that are accused of not knowing their history.

You’re as likely to win a War on Poverty as a War on Drugs. The welfare state did more to disadvantage the current generation by destroying the black family than redlining ever did.

In their magnum opus, America in Black and White: One Nation, Indivisible , Abigail and Stephan Thermstrom show that, between 1940 and 1960, the percentage of black families with income below the poverty level was almost cut in half, from 87 percent to 47 percent. In key skilled trades, the income of blacks relative to whites more than doubled between 1936 and 1959,1 while black income rose absolutely and relative to white income across the board from 1939 to 1960.2 The rise of blacks into professional and other high-level occupations was greater during the years preceding the civil rights movement than in the years afterwards…

Liberal social policies are always doing the same bad thing - ignoring unintended consequences and failing while wasting a huge amount of money and then claiming it might have worked if only they’d raised taxes twice as much and burned even more money.

3 Likes

Of course no one said it. They just do it. Not generations ago. Right now.

There’s only one dishonest, lying diatribe against civil rights being advanced here, and it is unequivically coming from you. You are the only one who doesnt care a whit about people, you only care about your people and to hell with anyone else. Your entire argument is made up, to try and control others. You are the one making up more problems to promote white supremacy, to ensure you then have something ‘obvious’ to rail against.

3 Likes

I’m aware of everything. Given that redlining usually specifically mentioned black people, you are again, finding a minor, and here exaggerated, exception, and pretending it has more meaning than anything else.

It’s like saying, gee, some white people were suffering while black people were in slavery.

Until you acknowledge that black people suffered much more than white people, your absurd propaganda posts are just trolling.

It’s like saying German citizens were bombed by the Allies in WW2 and their suffering was more important and greater than anyone else they inflicted suffering on.

And what proposals of mine are you talking about? Or are you just lying about me again? As usual. Yes, you are lying about me, in case I did not make that clear.

Your propensity for lying and propaganda gives you near zero credibility.

Do you have any intelligent proposals to solve the problem? Other than apartheid, segregation, genocide, and blaming black people for racism?

Thanks, but don’t worry about me. His insults reflect so badly on him that they detract from whatever small merit his ideas and arguments might have, which is fine by me since I disagree with most of them :wink:

2 Likes

They are not insults. They are statements of your position.

You lie about me and you lie about historical facts. I want you to stop doing it and have an honest discussion.

Not even once is a solution to a problem suggested. You simply malign people and ideas without a shred of decency.

Why do you support almost every racist, anti-freedom idea there is?

These are pretty simple questions which you refuse to answer other than try to evade the issue by maligning other people and calling them names.

It’s trolling. There is apparently no room in your world for any idea but your own and no solution but crushing the opposition. You’ve repeatedly said your goal is “winning” the argument, but your “winning” simply ignores and maligns one side and offers no solution to a problem. Neither do you define “winning.”

The problem will remain until a cooperative solution is found, no matter how racist you are. Maybe you want no helpful solution.

I’ve asked you this before, like why do you support violence against minorities, and what is your solution. You have not answered yet.

Do you support looting and reparations? I’ve been posting on the violence against minorities fairly regularly, such as the Asian hate crimes in big cities at some length and yes, I’m against them if you couldn’t tell.

The solution is easy. Fund the police more, catch the criminals (or criminally insane) and throw them in a cell where they can’t hurt anyone and leave them there a long time. Take the old bail numbers and double ‘em for any violent or repeat offense would probably be a good start.

Then you can try to reform the conditions that gave rise to the criminals so that hopefully you don’t raise the next generation of thugs. Charter schools and vouchers, corruption investigations into big city politicians, welfare reform to encourage stable families and family planning, ending all illegal and unskilled immigration until we address economic opportunity for our citizens would all be good start. Ending affirmative action and actually enforcing civil rights would probably be good longer term too.

But then those people you help might not vote Democratic so reliably, as most people don’t once they see they can achieve economic success on their own merits, so don’t expect any real reform to happen under Biden’s watch. Meanwhile, speaking of failures, I see our Great Uniter has presided over the worst racial relations in decades. Learned from his mentor I suspect that more racial discord is more Democratic voter turnout and the state of the country be damned.

5 Likes

“looting and reparations?”

Since when are these in the same category?

That’s like saying justice and injustice, torture and health care, crime and peace.

By conflating these you are again attempting spin.

None of the things you suggest are comprehensive solutions for the problem of systemic racism.

They are mostly stopgap things and “end this” and “end that” without any solution.
And, as usual ,you just use your remarks to score political points to attack people.

Is there any solution where you don’t attack and malign people and that would help everyone?

Since y’all started routinely looting as the go-to reaction to stuf you dont like, and justifying it as a form of reparations?

None of anything you’ve rabbled on about is a solution to systemic racism. Your desired actions only compound the problem, promoting and endorsing even more systemic racism.

As has been said numerous times - in the past, minorities may have faced additional obsticles to attaining success. Now that those obsticles have mostly been removed, and rightfully so, they still have to put in the effort to attain success like anyone else. Instead you insist the only thing to do is move them to the front of the line just because. That isnt helping them succeed, that’s making them dependant on being an exception.

I still cant help but laugh at the implication that growing up in a 2-parent household is a white man’s priviledge. When the only solution that will make a damn bit of actual difference is the black man resolving to provide their children with a 2-parent household as well. And that doesnt happen overnight or with some policy change or by bitching nonstop about how unfair the system is, it happens by growing up and adopting the factors that are proven to lead to success.

2 Likes

(GOOD TO KNOW)

Biden announces yesterday:

“This is not a pandemic”

Well, ya could have fooled me. But Biden is POTUS now so we have to go with his take.

‘This is not a pandemic,’ Biden says

I’m not certain America can survive another three and one half years of this guy!

Pelosi moves to shroud her personal culpability for events of January sixth

In as deft a CYA move as ever existed, Nancy Pelosi yesterday tossed two Republicans off her supposedly non-partisan committee investigating the events of January sixth. Pelosi clearly is fearful of revelation of her own bad decisions which contributed to matters getting so badly out of hand on that day. She was attempting yet another cheap political assault on President Trump and it did not work. Now the old hag is left holding an empty bag!

Pelosi fails in effort to portray partisan witch hunt as fair and balanced

Think Pelosi is bad? Wait until next year when AOC will become Democrat leader . . . . . . . but not Speaker!!

1 Like

And if they do put in the effort, they do succeed without requiring the racist anti-white policies espoused by Argyll. Look at the success of Nigerian immigrants.

4 Likes

Maybe there’s no problem anymore because there’s no systemic racism? If it’s so systemic, surely you can find some proof of it beyond demographic disparities like how there are too many blacks in professional sports?

Whatever solution you might imagine, it won’t come from these progressive racists - they have only hate to sell.

Backup link

It was said in the era of Joe McCarthy that he and his followers saw a communist under every bed. The single-minded ideology of critical race theory sees racism in every white face—a racism systemic, pervasive, inescapable, damning. All white people are racists. The doctrine devolves to the crudest form of what might be called racial Calvinism: Americans are predestined—saved or damned, depending on the color of their skin. This doctrine merely reverses the theory of white supremacy, which damned black people—and consigned them to oppressive segregation—because of the color of their skin.

So critical race theory, protesting the old injustice, embraces its lie. This is not progress but revenge.

3 Likes

You’re just exaggerating again. By pretending it’s something extreme when it’s just about basic racial injustice.

You use that as a way to avoid dealing with it.

You mostly malign and attack other people with propaganda to prove them wrong and you superior rather than discuss anything intelligently.

Presently, the right wing is far more crazy and extremist if those are things you are looking at.

Both Venus and Serena Williams are pretty darn spectacular tennis players in my book. That is true today, and it was even more so back in 1998 when both girls were so much younger. Hence I found the following, from Newsweek, really quite remarkable . . . and telling:

Take the lesson learned by the Williams sisters, who once claimed they could beat any male tennis player ranked outside of the top 200. In 1998, a male tennis player ranked 203rd took them up on the challenge. He beat both Williams sisters decisively, 6-1 over Serena and 6-2 over Venus. “I didn’t know it would be that difficult,” said Serena afterwards. “I played shots that would have been winners on the women’s circuit, and he got to them very easily.”

No woman should be forced to compete against any biological/anatomical male. Period. It’s not fair to women.

4 Likes

It’s no different than Labron James deciding he wants to play womens basketball instead. We can argue all day about the reasons he might want to do so, but the reasoning is irrelevant - the effect on the court is the same regardless of the ‘why’.

I’ve said before, argue that segregated mens and womens sports should be eliminated, if you must. Dont argue that a select few are entitled to special treatment that gives them a significant competitive advantage. It’s nonsensical and only demonstrates your detachment to reality.

3 Likes

It surely is. There are voices out there now calling for the total elimination of women’s sports programs since any man may, according to Biden, invade those programs at will.

Marxist liberals want no distinction between the sexes. OK, fine. So we do not need “women’s sports” or “men’s sports” . . . . just sports, period, wherein any person may participate. That is what they want.

While the above might appear to some absurd on its face, trust me, it is not at all absurd when viewed from the Marxist perspective. I will explain:

Marxists know very well the absolute impossibility of imposing their totalitarian system prior to destruction of the existing order. Men’s and women’s sports are part and parcel of the existing order. Title 9, the entire enchilada, I mean it has been around for a while and it is known to work very well with fairness for an overwhelming majority of people, both men and women. This is not at all conducive to Marxism so, with complete support from today’s Marxist Democrats, they are doing something about what they view as an undesirable situation.

This should come as a surprise to nobody who pays attention to politics.

1 Like