Confederate Flag Debate - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Those who do not remember the past are condemned to relive it. Note: nostalgia *is* allowed.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15100997
Tainari88 wrote:Anyway, what you said about capitalism not being responsible for class systems is so false and untrue in its entirety? That I am debating in my head if I should continue with you on that point?

Well, to put it simply, class systems more or less become more institutional with agricultural society. Before then, you have strong and weak, male and female, young and old, smart and stupid, etc. With the agricultural revolution, humans become remarkably more territorial, concepts of property arise, defense of property becomes its own class of military people, and so forth.

You can look at capitalism as markets and money only, but capitalism in its modern form is about much more than that. It involves substantially more specialization of labor, beyond what medieval guilds would offer. It involves capital formation, fractional ownership, offsetting risk, etc. Communism, capitalism and any other system that post-dates the agricultural revolution necessarily inherits a bunch of things from earlier times that aren't necessarily doctrinaire. Marx is reacting against industrial capitalism, but doesn't carefully consider what preceded it other than the short shrift that all prior fights have been basically class struggles.

Tainari88 wrote:Because even very right-wing people and anarchists who have read him do concede that the way Marx analyzed the class system in capitalism is truth.

Oh, I don't disagree there. It's his prescriptions that are dramatically oversimplified, and this is a common problem with Jewish intellectuals--not unlike the Natan Sharanksy example I provided to you. I read Eric Hobsbawm's trilogy: the Age of Revolution, the Age of Capital, the Age of Empire and the Age of Extremes. I thought he broke it down better and in more detail than Marx, and obviously saw a lot of things that were outside the scope of Marx's lifetime.

Tainari88 wrote:To think that you deny that as the system and that capitalism wants to abolish class systems? Is sheer fucking foolery BJ.

Yet, historically it has been doing much of that. You have the right to vote, for example. That happened in capitalist societies first. Granted, there were some late bloomers like France (1944), Greece (1952) and Switzerland (1971). Capitalism also called for the abolition of slavery, which largely occurred in capitalist states first in the 19th Century--although, Britain still had indentured servitude until the 1920s. Capitalism is for free resource allocation. Now, it has some pre-capitalist historical elements too, like lending money at interest. So you can certainly make some arguments against it, but again that sort of thing pre-dates capitalism and that's why I think Marxists tend to be so prejudicially disposed to anti-capitalism, because understanding what came before requires quite a bit more scholarship.

Tainari88 wrote:The only thing that might save your ass is if you admit you never read Marx? If you admit that? I might have a shot at believing you?

Reading Marx does not imply agreeing with Marx in all things. Have you read Smith, Malthus, Ricardo, Say, etc? All of them have something to say, but it's what proves out empirically that is kept and taught as capitalism, not every little quibble of everything they said. The reason I push back on that is that every time those of us who prefer capitalism point out the problems of socialist societies, you all go into the No True Scotsman mode of argument, and suddenly socialism or communism has never really been tried or achieved or whatever. It gets tiresome to argue that way, so I will just throw my own wrench into your assumptions--shifting the Overton window I believe they call it.

Tainari88 wrote:He will checkmate you forever and if he pins you as an anarchist?

Me? An anarchist? He's just tweaked that I didn't jump in and call Lee, Davis, et. al. traitors. Washington and Jefferson were traitors too.

Tainari88 wrote:Didn't you read the debates between Lenin and Trotsky? Lenin criticized Trotsky for thinking permanent revolution is the way to cope with human societies. Human beings don't have the energy for permanent revolution.

No, but I'm familiar with them. I concur that permanent revolution isn't helpful, which is why I do not think gay rights, gay marriage, LBGTQ+ is anything substantial as it does nothing to address active efforts to depress wages among the working class of the West.

Tainari88 wrote:People need structure and avoid chaos and instability with a lot of vigor.

Boy, you sure became a right winger awfully quick. :lol:

Tainari88 wrote:The Left by definition is self-critical and always fighting hard and strongly among itself. Always.

FWIW, it's much more critical of virtually everyone else.

Tainari88 wrote:I am shocked at what you said. it means you have no grasp of what you thought your society was about. You had no clue.

I just don't assume fractional ownership, corporations, wages for labor, the law of negotiable instruments, industrial capital, etc. is synonymous with land ownership, slavery or lending money at interest from the feudal past. You seem to think that they walk hand in hand; and, maybe that's what revolutionary types taught you so that you'd rail against capitalism rather than focusing on the problems of the feudal precepts and even the jus gentium it inherited from Rome.

Might I recommend Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition

If it's not in your budget, you can give me a PO Box to send you a copy. Berman actually felt that he didn't adequately make his point, and wrote a second book on the topic to underscore the Protestant Reformation, which along with the Italian city states is where you start to see the beginnings of capitalism as we know it today. You need to understand what existed before capitalism to understand what capitalism is and what it inherited from the feudal past. Have you ever read Berman? I'm guessing no. If you read Berman, you'll never run to the assumption that I'm some sort of village idiot. Even most trained lawyers haven't read him.

annatar1914 wrote:Was he, my friend? What good is a ''Union'' if one can enter or leave it at will, nullify it's laws if a State government doesn't like it, secede if they don't like the results of a national election? We're dealing with much the same issues potentially once more, ironically from the same Democratic party machine that you decry.

What they are doing within the union is illegal, and they are able to get away with it because there isn't the deep commitment to Christianity today that there was in the 19th Century. We live in a country ruled by people that have and will continue to sell our people out to the highest bidder. There is no right of unilateral secession, but it can be agreed by both the state and federal legislatures by 2/3 vote. I'm sure the Supreme Court--given how fucked up it has become--would presume to have the authority to adjudicate something like that too.

annatar1914 wrote:President Lincoln opposed slavery and destroyed it, but wasn't an ''Abolitionist'' per se, an important distinction pregnant with meaning...

Indeed. He wasn't exactly tender-hearted toward the Sioux Rebellion.
#15101001
@blackjack21 , well friend looks like some good replies as is usual with you, you said in response to this comment;

'' annatar1914 wrote:
Was he, my friend? What good is a ''Union'' if one can enter or leave it at will, nullify it's laws if a State government doesn't like it, secede if they don't like the results of a national election? We're dealing with much the same issues potentially once more, ironically from the same Democratic party machine that you decry.''


With the implication that there is a certain continuity... You stated;

What they are doing within the union is illegal, and they are able to get away with it because there isn't the deep commitment to Christianity today that there was in the 19th Century. We live in a country ruled by people that have and will continue to sell our people out to the highest bidder. There is no right of unilateral secession, but it can be agreed by both the state and federal legislatures by 2/3 vote. I'm sure the Supreme Court--given how fucked up it has become--would presume to have the authority to adjudicate something like that too.


If it comes to that, may the break-up be a peaceful one, better than what happened to the former Soviet Union for sure. But it won't come to that. Again as I suggested with a Straussian reading;

'' annatar1914 wrote:
President Lincoln opposed slavery and destroyed it, but wasn't an ''Abolitionist'' per se, an important distinction pregnant with meaning...''


So it seems clear that we're on the same page at least with this;

Indeed. He wasn't exactly tender-hearted toward the Sioux Rebellion.


No, he sure wasn't. It's not easy doing the right thing, fallen that we are. I think we two can at least agree that nothing worth having for the future can be built on a foundation of lawlessness, rebellion, and political corruption...
#15101016
annatar1914 wrote:If it comes to that, may the break-up be a peaceful one, better than what happened to the former Soviet Union for sure. But it won't come to that.

Well, it won't for different reasons. The Soviet Union was effectively an empire. It might have made sense for Ukraine and Belarus to continue with Russia, but much of Central Asia is culturally different, and always will be. The Warsaw Pact even more so when considering Hungary, Poland, Czechia, etc. However, that is a resurgence of ethnic and national identity, which isn't something that would happen in the United States right now.

Outsourcing and driving down wages has made the working classes more desperate and more inclined to substance abuse. Even with the case of George Floyd, what Chauvin did was so wrong that it only resonated because of how wrong it was. That is to say, George Floyd wasn't a very sympathetic character, and that is true throughout the working class. That's why Hillary Clinton felt very comfortable with her "basket of deplorables" remark. However, much of the struggle the face comes directly from the elite outsourcing jobs and flooding the domestic market with illegal alien labor. The irony now is that if you oppose exploiting someone based on their race or ethnicity, you are called "racist."

annatar1914 wrote:I think we two can at least agree that nothing worth having for the future can be built on a foundation of lawlessness, rebellion, and political corruption...

Right. That's why I don't think America's version of a political left has anything to offer right now. It leaves us stuck with Trump, because the Democrats are not only promising lawlessness, but fomenting it. They actively decided to let people out of jail because of coronavirus, and many of these people have re-offended multiple times and get bailed straight away. Then, you get people who just seem to get away with it no matter what. Man accused of knocking 92-year-old woman to ground in NYC has been arrested over 100 times since 2005.
#15101018
blackjack21 wrote:Outsourcing and driving down wages has made the working classes more desperate and more inclined to substance abuse. Even with the case of George Floyd, what Chauvin did was so wrong that it only resonated because of how wrong it was. That is to say, George Floyd wasn't a very sympathetic character, and that is true throughout the working class. That's why Hillary Clinton felt very comfortable with her "basket of deplorables" remark. However, much of the struggle the face comes directly from the elite outsourcing jobs and flooding the domestic market with illegal alien labor. The irony now is that if you oppose exploiting someone based on their race or ethnicity, you are called "racist."


The entire paragraph is agreeable until the final sentence. I cannot help but believe some kind of placement marketing has happened.


blackjack21 wrote:Right. That's why I don't think America's version of a political left has anything to offer right now. It leaves us stuck with Trump, because the Democrats are not only promising lawlessness, but fomenting it. They actively decided to let people out of jail because of coronavirus, and many of these people have re-offended multiple times and get bailed straight away. Then, you get people who just seem to get away with it no matter what. Man accused of knocking 92-year-old woman to ground in NYC has been arrested over 100 times since 2005.


I believe that picking a side in the United States is picking the lesser of two evils in the said individual's perspective. I won't say one is better than the other, but if one side has made enough damage then it is time for the other to take over so that the battered area can get some recuperation. Think of it like crop rotation.
#15101020
Patrickov wrote:The entire paragraph is agreeable until the final sentence. I cannot help but believe some kind of placement marketing has happened.

In America, if you propose arresting and deporting illegal aliens taking jobs that Americans can do (namely black Americans), you get called a "racist." You have to experience it to believe it, but that's the way it is here.

Patrickov wrote:I believe that picking a side in the United States is picking the lesser of two evils in the said individual's perspective. I won't say one is better than the other, but if one side has made enough damage then it is time for the other to take over so that the battered area can get some recuperation. Think of it like crop rotation.

Trump is the first bit of "crop rotation" we've had since 1988. Bush I ended the Reagan era, and handed it off to Clinton. There is a reason the Clintons and Bushes are so friendly--their political rivalry was an illusion, as it was with Obama. Ever notice how friendly George W. Bush is with Clinton and with Michelle Obama? They all like each other. I have no interest in seeing the establishment recuperate. The onslaught must continue, and we must also pull back supply chains from communist China, starting with medical supplies.

I'm sure that will get equated in some way with being a confederate the way things are in this country.
#15101022
blackjack21 wrote:In America, if you propose arresting and deporting illegal aliens taking jobs that Americans can do (namely black Americans), you get called a "racist." You have to experience it to believe it, but that's the way it is here.


I do not agree branding all such accusation as unreasonable. For example, if everyone in the said discussion knows that the said jobs would more likely go to under-educated Caucasian American instead of African American, then this accusation would be appropriate, because the proposer knowingly suggests enhancement of the privilege Caucasian Americans currently enjoy.


blackjack21 wrote:Trump is the first bit of "crop rotation" we've had since 1988. Bush I ended the Reagan era, and handed it off to Clinton. There is a reason the Clintons and Bushes are so friendly--their political rivalry was an illusion, as it was with Obama. Ever notice how friendly George W. Bush is with Clinton and with Michelle Obama? They all like each other. I have no interest in seeing the establishment recuperate. The onslaught must continue, and we must also pull back supply chains from communist China, starting with medical supplies.


I believe that they believe the friendliness to each other to be a basic code of conduct, rather than whatever they might actually think of each other.

A similar situation had happened in Hong Kong before the Communists and Radical HK Democrats both had it enough in the 2010s. Despite being polar opposites, the members of the Legislature often engage in amicable activities together. This was believed to be basic code of conduct, or the British way as I know it.


blackjack21 wrote:I'm sure that will get equated in some way with being a confederate the way things are in this country.


I have no knowledge with the final sentence so I cannot make a comment. Although I can sense this to be the sentence most related to the thread's topic.
#15101030
Patrickov wrote:I do not agree branding all such accusation as unreasonable. For example, if everyone in the said discussion knows that the said jobs would more likely go to under-educated Caucasian American instead of African American, then this accusation would be appropriate, because the proposer knowingly suggests enhancement of the privilege Caucasian Americans currently enjoy.

This theoretical exercise is what legitimizes a charge of racism for people who oppose those who enter the country illegally, work illegally, fail to pay taxes, and enjoy immunity under state and local governments where such exploitation occurs. It is done precisely to cut the wage of working class Americans--blacks, Hispanics and whites.

Patrickov wrote:I believe that they believe the friendliness to each other to be a basic code of conduct, rather than whatever they might actually think of each other.

If you understand George H.W. Bush to be the US Spymaster in the 1970s, he basically groomed Clinton, his own son, and Obama. They were all creatures of the deep state. Both Obama and Clinton came from broken families, which generally makes them easier to manipulate. This is post-presidency amicability, meaning the supposed hostility was just a show to keep the masses fooled that they weren't just two sides of the same coin.
#15101045
if you look at the history of the Americas you repeatedly see the conflict between the White Supremacist racist democrats on the one hand and the Nazi, fascists on the other. Ferdinand and Isabella were opposed to the enslavement of the Indians. They were extreme elitists who looked down on down every one else regardless of race. They didn't need slavery, any more than Bill Gates or Geroge Soros does, they were already fabulously wealthy. Isabella like Hitler believed in the Fuhrerprinzip, believing she had been ordained by providence to rule, she worked to neuter the power of the Cortes.

Four hundred years later and you see the same dynamic. Adolph Hitler took away White people's vote, both in his own country and the countries he occupied. The Nazis first act was to set up an archipelago of concentration camps and throw White people in them. What was Roosevelt's first act on entering the war? He set up a set of concentration camps and threw non-White Japanese people into them. Roosevelt didn't throw Germans and Italians into concentration camps, because he cared about White people, he cared about the civil liberties, their democratic rights and their right to self determination.

In the Boer war the British created concentration camps and forced White and Black people into them. White people across the world were outraged by their treatment of the Boers. No one cared about the Blacks. Even prior to Hitler taking power many Americans were outraged by the SA's treatment of Jews, insulting them, spitting at them, hitting, kicking even on occasion killing them. This was despite the fact that Black people were still being regularly lynched, murdered in their own country. This was because Jews were White people. When the Americans invaded North West Africa with the British in 1942, they took Morocco, Algeria and Tunis from Vichy, do you think they gave these countries back to the North African Muslims? Of course they didn't any-more than than they gave Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos back to their Asian inhabitants. Of course they didn't because for the allies, the second world war was completely and totally about White people's rights.
#15101051
blackjack21 wrote:This theoretical exercise is what legitimizes a charge of racism for people who oppose those who enter the country illegally, work illegally, fail to pay taxes, and enjoy immunity under state and local governments where such exploitation occurs. It is done precisely to cut the wage of working class Americans--blacks, Hispanics and whites.


Note that I did not say the argument itself being right or wrong. I just do not agree universally making this statement. I believe the correctness of this argument is on a case-by-case basis, and is difficult to generalise.


blackjack21 wrote:If you understand George H.W. Bush to be the US Spymaster in the 1970s, he basically groomed Clinton, his own son, and Obama. They were all creatures of the deep state. Both Obama and Clinton came from broken families, which generally makes them easier to manipulate. This is post-presidency amicability, meaning the supposed hostility was just a show to keep the masses fooled that they weren't just two sides of the same coin.


I am afraid that I am not qualified to comment on conspiracy theories.
#15101108
@blackjack21 that line about Black Americans are going to do what illegal aliens do? And that doesn't sound racist to you? Are you thinking straight? Do you know how many years African Americans did farm labor work? Domestic servant work? Nannies? Porters? Dishwasher jobs? Low menial paid labor? MLK was killed in Memphis during a sanitation worker strike that he was asked to deal with back then. Guess what race were the sanitation workers? One of the few jobs they could get. The reason Blacks are not picking strawberries in California is the same reasons why white ex prisoners and others are not doing it. It doesn't pay well and it is backbreaking labor with few safety and job protections.

For you to say, "Blacks can do it." Do you know how racist that sounds? Most African Americans who could get hired for higher paying work have moved on and have done so. Those jobs are not jobs that citizens want. You can probably sit home on unemployment and get paid more than going to work every day. The Brookings Institute does job types analysis. Many people never apply for many jobs that are paid badly because if they accept it they can't find appropriate work in their field when their last job is strawberry picker when they used to be a welder or a machinist or some skilled person.

And those jobs are not for the lazy either.

Ave Maria BJ. Then you question why people like me think you write such racist shitty things? You write racist shitty stuff. I then think...no, he has not moved on from racism. He is that.
#15101111
Tainari88 wrote:@blackjack21 that line about Black Americans are going to do what illegal aliens do? And that doesn't sound racist to you?

No. It doesn't sound racist to me. It sounds like you understand the capitalist game really well, and you approve of the establishment providing unemployment for people who refuse to work.

Tainari88 wrote:Do you know how many years African Americans did farm labor work? Domestic servant work? Nannies? Porters? Dishwasher jobs? Low menial paid labor?

Many years. So did white people. What's your point? They shouldn't have to take those jobs if they are available? The government should pay them not to work, and then allow illegal aliens to come in, do those jobs and not pay taxes?

Tainari88 wrote:MLK was killed in Memphis during a sanitation worker strike that he was asked to deal with back then. Guess what race were the sanitation workers?

My garbage man is Italian. My SO calls him "guido", and sometimes runs out early in the morning and gives him a coke.

Tainari88 wrote:One of the few jobs they could get.

Before labor unions and automation cut them right back out.

Tainari88 wrote:The reason Blacks are not picking strawberries in California is the same reasons why white ex prisoners and others are not doing it. It doesn't pay well and it is backbreaking labor with few safety and job protections.

Cry me a river. They don't do it, because the government buys their votes.

Tainari88 wrote:For you to say, "Blacks can do it." Do you know how racist that sounds?

:roll: For you to say, "Illegal aliens can do it"? Do you know how much you sound like a shill for capitalists scheming to drive down wages? What kind of socialist are you?

Tainari88 wrote:Most African Americans who could get hired for higher paying work have moved on and have done so.

Right. So what I said doesn't really sound racist does it? African-Americans are not "trapped" in such jobs anymore, as you have just acknowledged.

Tainari88 wrote:Those jobs are not jobs that citizens want. You can probably sit home on unemployment and get paid more than going to work every day.

That is PRECISELY my point. The state pays citizens not to work, and then works non-citizens. It's a vote buying scheme. That's not democracy, is it? If you think agricultural price supports are corporate welfare paying wealthy landowners not to grow, why is paying poor people not to work such a brilliant idea in your mind?

Tainari88 wrote:Many people never apply for many jobs that are paid badly because if they accept it they can't find appropriate work in their field when their last job is strawberry picker when they used to be a welder or a machinist or some skilled person.

Picking strawberries isn't badly paid. It's hard work and seasonal.

Tainari88 wrote:And those jobs are not for the lazy either.

Gasp! Do you know how racist you sound Tainari88? You're really going to call African-Americans lazy? I'm shocked. Shocked! I thought you were sincere in your beliefs, and now to hear you go on about blacks the way Che Guevara did. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. :lol:

Tainari88 wrote:Then you question why people like me think you write such racist shitty things? You write racist shitty stuff. I then think...no, he has not moved on from racism. He is that.

You're secretly a capitalist aren't you. That's the establishment's line as I just laid it out for you. You're too smart to fall for that, so you must be a secret capitalist.
#15101123
Pants-of-dog wrote:I fully support black people taking down the flags without permission.

Circumvent the debate.



Educating POD:

When all the flags are burned and all the monuments destroyed (including the Jefferson and Washington Monuments in DC) many poor black kids will still be fatherless, dying of gun violence, doing a lot of crime, going to prison, increasing teen pregnancy, and not graduating from school. You are misdirecting your efforts. The flag does not even crack the top 1000 problems with poor black people in America
#15101127
Julian658 wrote:Educating POD:

When all the flags are burned and all the monuments destroyed (including the Jefferson and Washington Monuments in DC) many poor black kids will still be fatherless, dying of gun violence, doing a lot of crime, going to prison, increasing teen pregnancy, and not graduating from school. You are misdirecting your efforts. The flag does not even crack the top 1000 problems with poor black people in America


And?
#15101129
blackjack21 wrote:No. It doesn't sound racist to me. It sounds like you understand the capitalist game really well, and you approve of the establishment providing unemployment for people who refuse to work.


Many years. So did white people. What's your point? They shouldn't have to take those jobs if they are available? The government should pay them not to work, and then allow illegal aliens to come in, do those jobs and not pay taxes?


My garbage man is Italian. My SO calls him "guido", and sometimes runs out early in the morning and gives him a coke.


Before labor unions and automation cut them right back out.


Cry me a river. They don't do it, because the government buys their votes.


:roll: For you to say, "Illegal aliens can do it"? Do you know how much you sound like a shill for capitalists scheming to drive down wages? What kind of socialist are you?


Right. So what I said doesn't really sound racist does it? African-Americans are not "trapped" in such jobs anymore, as you have just acknowledged.


That is PRECISELY my point. The state pays citizens not to work, and then works non-citizens. It's a vote buying scheme. That's not democracy, is it? If you think agricultural price supports are corporate welfare paying wealthy landowners not to grow, why is paying poor people not to work such a brilliant idea in your mind?


Picking strawberries isn't badly paid. It's hard work and seasonal.


Gasp! Do you know how racist you sound Tainari88? You're really going to call African-Americans lazy? I'm shocked. Shocked! I thought you were sincere in your beliefs, and now to hear you go on about blacks the way Che Guevara did. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. :lol:


You're secretly a capitalist aren't you. That's the establishment's line as I just laid it out for you. You're too smart to fall for that, so you must be a secret capitalist.


The left often practices condescending racism of low expectations with black people and other minorities (except Asians and Indian immigrants).
#15101130
Pants-of-dog wrote:And?

POD

I am glad you are speechless. Perhaps you are about to take the red pill. :lol: :lol: :lol:
#15101131
Pants-of-dog wrote:And?


Seriously:

One could say absent fathers, teen pregnancy, crime, drugs, inability to graduate from high school are due to so-called institutional racism. More than anything I believe it is due to breakdown of the family structure. In any event if I was as antiracist (a religion) as you are I would direct all my efforts to alleviate these problems. Burning flags or destroying statues does very little for poor black people.
Last edited by Julian658 on 18 Jun 2020 18:44, edited 1 time in total.
#15101142
blackjack21 wrote:No. It doesn't sound racist to me. It sounds like you understand the capitalist game really well, and you approve of the establishment providing unemployment for people who refuse to work.


Many years. So did white people. What's your point? They shouldn't have to take those jobs if they are available? The government should pay them not to work, and then allow illegal aliens to come in, do those jobs and not pay taxes?


My garbage man is Italian. My SO calls him "guido", and sometimes runs out early in the morning and gives him a coke.


Before labor unions and automation cut them right back out.


Cry me a river. They don't do it, because the government buys their votes.


:roll: For you to say, "Illegal aliens can do it"? Do you know how much you sound like a shill for capitalists scheming to drive down wages? What kind of socialist are you?


Right. So what I said doesn't really sound racist does it? African-Americans are not "trapped" in such jobs anymore, as you have just acknowledged.


That is PRECISELY my point. The state pays citizens not to work, and then works non-citizens. It's a vote buying scheme. That's not democracy, is it? If you think agricultural price supports are corporate welfare paying wealthy landowners not to grow, why is paying poor people not to work such a brilliant idea in your mind?


Picking strawberries isn't badly paid. It's hard work and seasonal.


Gasp! Do you know how racist you sound Tainari88? You're really going to call African-Americans lazy? I'm shocked. Shocked! I thought you were sincere in your beliefs, and now to hear you go on about blacks the way Che Guevara did. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. :lol:


You're secretly a capitalist aren't you. That's the establishment's line as I just laid it out for you. You're too smart to fall for that, so you must be a secret capitalist.



:lol: Don't you do this to me when I can't quote and my technical issues continue. Because you are a foolish man BJ. It is not about laziness bj, it is about not having to be exploited. Who do you know of any ethnic group in this world who says? Exploit me and I am loving it? NO ONE. If a worker who is making $7 bucks an hour is noticing that the guy down the road is paying $7,50 an hour for the same job? Guess what? They are terminating the employer-employee relationship and going with the higher paying employer. It is about OPTIONS. Not being lazy. You are the one who thinks people work these jobs because they don't have a work ethic. Not me. They don't work the jobs because they are avoiding exploitation BJ. As much as people can avoid it. There would be no illegal aliens/undocumented workers working those farm jobs in California BJ, if the Mexican employers would be paying a lot higher wages in Mexico. But they don't. They keep the wages depressed because they favor international globalists and capitalists and banks who invest in Mexico for their low labor costs and high margins of return on labor. That is why.

Avoiding being exploited is something all workers in these capitalist run systems do. I would too. You would too. It has nothing to do with racism BJ it has to do with the need to exploit someone. A point I made earlier about Bacon's Rebellion which you never address. You don't address anything that a far-Left point of view is right about. Which is obfuscation as Noemon pointed out as one of your avoidance tactics. It is not working.

African Americans are not interested in serving iced tea to some white racist women in Alabama because they got sick of being told how dirty and diseased they were and that even though they were cleaning the house well every day and polishing the silver with their bare hands that the white racist women would eat off every day...they had to go and take a poop separately because everyone knows that the white racist shit is better than the black maid's shit. That is the problem with them accepting those jobs they dumped a long time ago. Why did they get out of those professions? I would too if I had to deal with these women every day being Black BJ.

But you are completely incapable of putting yourself in that position. Why? I can put myself in their shoes? Are you so narcissistic like Trump that you can't understand why African Americans who were never lazy by the way, would avoid working in those positions like picking fruit and vegetables and watching kids and cleaning houses? They avoid exploitation. That is why many people hire only cleaning services nowadays. Because if you have a permanent maid or servant in your home? The rich and middle-class pendejo employers would slide into exploitation shit mode, and the Department of Labor had to cope with it. Get involved because they would start acting weird like forcing them to work overtime and conveniently not pay them overtime salaries. Etc.

Get with it BJ. I have answers to all your replies. Just wait till I can get the quote buttons fixed.

Here is a little clip reminding you why a Black woman in those times and with that job might consider saying no to that job if she had a choice of another job or even working for her own janitorial business instead? Just say no as Nancy Regan did. To racist exploiters and people who think that those jobs should go to Americans who are loving exploitation. No, they don't love it. No one does. Get that through your skull BJ. No one in the world loves being exploited. A zero amount of people love that crap.

Relampaguito you sound racist in the worst possible way. Lol. Now they have Latin American women doing the jobs and they are still complaining about their lack of being able to find English speaking help. Assholes I say.

#15101148
Julian658 wrote:POD

I am glad you are speechless. Perhaps you are about to take the red pill. :lol: :lol: :lol:


So you have no argument.

Why are you posting, then?

Julian658 wrote:
Seriously:

One could say absent fathers, teen pregnancy, crime, drugs, inability to graduate from high school are due to so-called institutional racism. More than anything I believe it is due to breakdown of the family structure. In any event if I was as antiracist (a religion) as you are I would direct all my efforts to alleviate these problems. Burning flags or destroying statues does very little for poor black people.


And?

Do you have an argument?

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]