"racial superiority of the rich and powerful?" I was not aware that "rich" was a race?
Nor was I aware that the "common man" was a race either.
I think Tomcat talked himself blue in the face trying to explain this to someone recently, that certain tax brackets were not races.
I do not understand how the two can be confused.
Indeed. How much one makes is much more important than what skin color they are today. A rich black dude is going to get a much more fair shake than a poor white man.
Indeed. How much one makes is much more important than what skin color they are today. A rich black dude is going to get a much more fair shake than a poor white man.
I know it is hard realizing when someone is joking on the internet, but yes, I was being facetious.
We actually do not disagree that often. Not as often as say... Tomcat, or Sargon, or Jason (whatever the advocate for the French's name is) And especially not Crustybone, <---------------This guy has nothing to say worth taking up space on the internet in my opinion.
All seriousness though, without looking up hard statistics, I believe Hitler had a MUCH larger following than Obama EVER has.
Also, in all seriousness, I would also rather be under Obama than Hitler.
Probably. But the fact remains that most of the rich people are white, and an alarming number of the poor people are black.
So no, rich is not a race. But in practice, the distribution of wealth does markedly favor one race over the other.
"wealth" does not have free will to favor any individual bases on their skin color. I believe more white people have wealth simply because they had a head start, you know, since they not only gained wealth during slavery, but had an exponentially lower overhead.
"wealth" does not have free will to favor any individual bases on their skin color. I believe more white people have wealth simply because they had a head start, you know, since they not only gained wealth during slavery, but had an exponentially lower overhead.
Yep, and the fact that full legislative equality didnt come until the 1960s- with the civil rights act, abolishment of poll taxes, etc. Hard drugs like crack cocaine, along with stupid no tolerance drug laws, have decimated minority (especially) black families- is there any wonder why they still have disproportionally low economic numbers? They make up a disproportionate amount of the prison population, numbers of kids born into welfare families, single parent households, etc. First order of business? End the drug war. Second? Release all non violent drug offenders from prison, except for the large scale dealers. FInd some way to fix education.
Well, to split hairs . . . I didn't say that "wealth" favors one race over another, I said that its distribution does . . . and I meant "favors," not in the sense of involving free will, but in the more general sense of "to be favorable to": "affording advantage, opportunity, or convenience; advantageous: a favorable position."
I'm not sure I understand what "lower overhead" you mean. As for whites having a head start, I would agree with you. Unfortunately, that gap has never been closed.
But having a war against drug dealers has much the same effect for those in power in the US as did having a war against jews in nazi Germany. A way to split the country into them and us and appear to be doing something to bring back order to society. If the underclass are predominantly black, it is also an easy to recognise way to encourage white solidarity, when in fact the majority of whites have more in common with their black neighbours than their hereditary rich white rules. As indeed was the case in nazi Germany.
Advertising only affects the minority of swing voters? This still means advertising is worthwhile if it gives you that extra few votes and a few extra congressmen in a fairly even match, but it also means that if the public really sees a candidate who stands out on his own merits, no amount of advertising spend will change that.
I'm a little late on the upswing here (I've been gone for a week) but I wanted to post this in response;
I don't think you have an appreciation of just how different our politics are in the United States than they are in the UK. Firing soldiers who return from active duty to save money? That's... that's not how the system works and even suggesting a plan wherein something like that was enacted would be suicide for said advocate, politically and potentially literally. (Seriously, even jokingly saying "I don't support the troops" can get you in hot water.)
61 million people live in the UK. 307 million people live in the US. Our candidates for President cross four times zones sometimes more than once a day. That's expensive. Money spent campaigning in this country isn't just for advertisements on television. We're talking about yard signs, rallies, registration events, and all manner of other ways a Candidate gets their message out to the people. We probably do spend too much time campaigning and too little time governing but that doesn't mean that the campaigns are a waste of time, aimed only a handful of swing voters. It's an important part of the process in a society that is inundated with a 24 hour news cycle.
Without said financial backing, Ron Paul doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell. And since he's not aligned with a third party that is already established in this fashion, he's going to lose the Republican nomination and be left right where he was the last time he ran for President- with a handful of dedicated, vocal supporters, and dream and a prayer.
JSZ
You cannot fix these problems for anyone, first, they would have to want them to be fixed. When crime carries social accolades within the community, when a higher social status is given to the dealer driving a Mercedes, wearing louis vitton, raising children as a single mother is seen as being a strong woman, until these, and similar situations are changed in a social eye view, the disproportions will remain. It cannot be fixed from the top down through legislation and the like. The Chang must begin on an individual level.
And I doubt it ever will. When the element affords the opportunity, the majority will segregate themselves ie prison, or schools both grade and graduate.
You have no idea what it is like to be poor in this country.You cannot fix these problems for anyone, first, they would have to want them to be fixed. When crime carries social accolades within the community, when a higher social status is given to the dealer driving a Mercedes, wearing louis vitton, raising children as a single mother is seen as being a strong woman, until these, and similar situations are changed in a social eye view, the disproportions will remain. It cannot be fixed from the top down through legislation and the like. The Chang must begin on an individual level.
And I doubt it ever will. When the element affords the opportunity, the majority will segregate themselves ie prison, or schools both grade and graduate.
well...I can see then why the budget deficit may be insoluble and why the US may default.The British empire was never attached to soldiering per se. It always ran its armies on minimum necessary force and scrambled about raising armies when need arose. The British army was and I think is, staffed with excessive numbers of officers with the idea of recruiting men quickly but having officers ready. At this minute, the news has a story about redundancy notices being sent out to returning soldiers.I don't think you have an appreciation of just how different our politics are in the United States than they are in the UK. Firing soldiers who return from active duty to save money? That's... that's not how the system works and even suggesting a plan wherein something like that was enacted would be suicide for said advocate, politically and potentially literally.
The uk government has trodden the fine line between saying they are doing a great job but we do need to get rid of some of them.(Seriously, even jokingly saying "I don't support the troops" can get you in hot water.)
wiki says uk 200,000 servicemen, 200,000 reserves costing $56 bn. US 1.5million troops, 1,5 milllion reserves, $692bn. So per head of population the US has 50% more troops and spends 100% more on each. One might have thought that economies of scale would mean the US could get by with a proportionately smaller force cheaper per head?61 million people live in the UK. 307 million people live in the US.
Have they not got the telephone in the US yet? Well, ok, in the Uk there is no equivalent single election for head of state. But if there were, I think it would be accepted the candidates could not possibly go out and meet every single voter personally. I can understand the temptation to try to meet as many as possible, but in reality surely most must get their information second hand however much the candidate runs around.Our candidates for President cross four times zones sometimes more than once a day. That's expensive.
In what way? what does all this actually achieve except to bore voters?Money spent campaigning in this country isn't just for advertisements on television. We're talking about yard signs, rallies, registration events, and all manner of other ways a Candidate gets their message out to the people. We probably do spend too much time campaigning and too little time governing but that doesn't mean that the campaigns are a waste of time, aimed only a handful of swing voters. It's an important part of the process in a society that is inundated with a 24 hour news cycle.
Because americans are such fools they will not pay any attention to the single letter they get or what it says in their newspaper? They weigh the election letters they get and count up the one with the most tv time? I presume there is some sort of state funded minimum information drop? (there is in the UK)Without said financial backing, Ron Paul doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell.
Well surely this means he at least has a technical chance of winning. If this was in the UK I would imagine the con or lab candidate would get a fairly automatic block of voters carried across as party supporters. If this had been a presidential election in the UK at the time of the last general election here, then a liberal candidate might have carried some voters by being liberal, and might just have stood a chance because of the general dislike of both main parties. To return to the US, I would think a third candidate can only win if voters are wholly disenchanted with the two main parties. Then the question would be whether those two parties could get back enough support to win by throwing money at the problem. It isnt open to an outsider to win in this sort of situation, but up to the established candidates to make such a mess of it that they both loose. Id think the outsider needs to be distinct from both main parties as well as them both being generally disliked if he is to stand a chance.And since he's not aligned with a third party that is already established in this fashion, he's going to lose the Republican nomination and be left right where he was the last time he ran for President- with a handful of dedicated, vocal supporters, and dream and a prayer.
well...I can see then why the budget deficit may be insoluble and why the US may default.The British empire was never attached to soldiering per se. It always ran its armies on minimum necessary force and scrambled about raising armies when need arose. The British army was and I think is, staffed with excessive numbers of officers with the idea of recruiting men quickly but having officers ready. At this minute, the news has a story about redundancy notices being sent out to returning soldiers.
The uk government has trodden the fine line between saying they are doing a great job but we do need to get rid of some of them.
wiki says uk 200,000 servicemen, 200,000 reserves costing $56 bn. US 1.5million troops, 1,5 milllion reserves, $692bn. So per head of population the US has 50% more troops and spends 100% more on each. One might have thought that economies of scale would mean the US could get by with a proportionately smaller force cheaper per head?
Have they not got the telephone in the US yet? Well, ok, in the Uk there is no equivalent single election for head of state. But if there were, I think it would be accepted the candidates could not possibly go out and meet every single voter personally. I can understand the temptation to try to meet as many as possible, but in reality surely most must get their information second hand however much the candidate runs around.
In what way? what does all this actually achieve except to bore voters?
Because americans are such fools they will not pay any attention to the single letter they get or what it says in their newspaper? They weigh the election letters they get and count up the one with the most tv time? I presume there is some sort of state funded minimum information drop? (there is in the UK)
Well surely this means he at least has a technical chance of winning. If this was in the UK I would imagine the con or lab candidate would get a fairly automatic block of voters carried across as party supporters. If this had been a presidential election in the UK at the time of the last general election here, then a liberal candidate might have carried some voters by being liberal, and might just have stood a chance because of the general dislike of both main parties. To return to the US, I would think a third candidate can only win if voters are wholly disenchanted with the two main parties. Then the question would be whether those two parties could get back enough support to win by throwing money at the problem. It isnt open to an outsider to win in this sort of situation, but up to the established candidates to make such a mess of it that they both loose. Id think the outsider needs to be distinct from both main parties as well as them both being generally disliked if he is to stand a chance.