Tax Refunds are less this year, must be Trumps fault

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2019 04:56:39 -0700, trader4 wrote:

More BS. The civil rights acts could not have passed without a lot of
GOP support. And you ignore that the Jim Crow laws, the vast
discrimination against blacks, was practiced in the South and mostly
presided over by DEMOCRATS.

And what morons like Sloman don't like to be reminded of is that the KKK
was founded by and its ideals propagated by his precious Democratic Party.



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

 

On Saturday, April 27, 2019 at 10:28:15 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

On Sunday, April 28, 2019 at 6:26:24 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Saturday, April 27, 2019 at 10:45:08 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Saturday, April 27, 2019 at 9:56:43 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Saturday, April 27, 2019 at 12:34:02 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Saturday, April 27, 2019 at 3:00:11 AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 07:27:34 -0700, trader4 wrote:

snip

The Civil Rights Movement managed to undo some of the legal barriers to blacks getting jobs, but the social barriers can't be legislated out of existence.

Yeah, the problem is always with whitey, never with the blacks and
personal responsibility.

Personal responsibility doesn't get you a job if potential employers look at you and decides that you are black and that they doesn't want to hire you.

Personal responsibility gets you educated and employed. Irresponsibility
and listening to the race baiters and libs likd you who blame whitey,
leaves you uneducated, no skills, barefoot, pregnant and on welfare.
BTW, unemployment is at 3%, fool. Capitalists are eager to make a buck,
they will hire anyone who can do the job.

Funny how Asians can come here from Vietnam,
with $20 and in a few years, they are making decent money, in a generation
their kids are in college.

They weren't brought into country as slaves and badly educated in separate and rather less than equal schools for generations.

That ended 50 years ago. And they were getting better educations before that
then they are now.

First generation immigrants are enterprising people - they wouldn't be immigrants otherwise - and they tend to do well.

So, maybe it's time for blacks to take ownership, pull up their pants,
fly right, and pull themselves up by their collective boot straps?
No, let's just have another welfare program and blame whitey.

But heh, it can't be because of the culture,
the excuses, the lack of personal responsibility in the black community..
It must be because of "social barriers".

Which you happen to be too stupid to recognise.

Because it's mostly a lie. And WTF do you know? You're pontificating
about things you know little about, sitting in Australia. It would be
like me lecturing you about kangaroos, which I would never do.

gangs, gangster rap where they celebrate calling women
bitches and hoes, call each other nigger, and run around with their pants
down around their knees, butts showing.

You may see this on TV shows out to attract racist white attention, but treating these exhibitionists as representative of the entire black community is a trifle stupid, even for you.

I never said it's the entire black community.

Actually, you did.

That's a lie, you're the one that said that.

But how many of the rest of the black community calls out the rappers, the
gang bangers, the ones that just keep blaming everyone but themselves?

Gangster rap is a form of entertainment, not a life-style. You are clearly too stupid to realise this.

Sure, calling women bitches and hoes, celebrating shooting cops, all that
is just swell, it's "entertainment". ROFL

The last guy I saw do that was Bill Cosby and it's funny, because that's
exactly when all the attention got focused on him, to bring him down. Prior to > that, no one cared that he was drugging women and raping them. But boy, once > he told the blacks to pull up their pants and fly right, that was the
beginning of the end.

Bill Cosby was one of the many victims of the "me too" movement. Harvey Weinstein made the papers earlier

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/from-harvey-weinstein-to-bill-cosbys-trials-convictions-timesup-sends-clear-message/hollywoods-walk-of-shame/slideshow/62307879.cms

Blacks aren't the only people who have had to cope with institutionalised bad behavior.

It's "institutionalized" by blacks, in their own communities. And then libs
like you make excuses. Black rappers that celebrate killing cops, drug,
call women hoes and bitches, well that's cool, no issues there. Run around
as gang bangers, pants down, drop out of school, it's all
whitey's fault.

Any virtues that Cursitor Doom may attribute to the "typical black family" mainly represent those enforced by poverty - they couldn't afford drugs or alcohol and church-going was the only entertainment that was financially accessible. Individuals could do better - Louis Armstrong and Art Tatum come to mind.

Oh what total BS. Even if true, it would show what the welfare state has
done, given them money to spend on drugs.

Welfare payments aren't generous enough to support heavy drinking or any kind of drug habit beyond the occasional spliff.

ROFL. One fallacy is you assume that's all the money they get. No one
would *ever* think to game the system, do work for cash, for example.
Oh no. Libs come up with something and they can never think of the
obvious.

Welfare systems get gamed, like every other system. There isn't a lot of cash in there to game, and people who develop expensive habits tend to turn to crime to finance them. Drug dealing pays a lot better than defrauding the welfare system.

Silly kangaroo, you can do BOTH. Thanks for pointing out another revenue
stream.

That's a lie. The poverty rate today is just about the same as it was in 1965 when the war on poverty started.

Wrong. It was about 17% in 1965, and it's 12.3% now

Here is the chart, fool.

That chart presents exactly the same information as the chart I posted.

Well then fool, it shows that trillions of dollars later, the poverty rate
is the SAME! The fucking graph is flat. Even a silly lib should be able
to read a graph.

You are clearly a total idiot to imagine otherwise. You made a specific claim, and it happened to be wrong. After the limited initial success in the war on poverty nothing much happened for the next fifty years. The GFC pushed poverty up for a bit, but it has gone back down recently.

You are the one imagining things. There was no initial improvement, the
fucking chart is a fucking flat line.

Fifty years of the war on poverty and it's
still the same. You'd have to be a real liar to call that chart
anything other than an obvious failure, it's FLAT.

It's not flat, but it doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

ROFL. Not flat, but not going anywhere. ROFL



Today's poverty threshold is appreciably higher than it was in 1965, and being below it isn't quite as much of a disaster as it was then.

https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-united-states

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Number_in_Poverty_and_Poverty_Rate,_1959_to_2017.png

Both graphs seem to present the same information.

Imagine if all those trillions had been
left with taxpayers, to spend and invest, what a boost it would have been
to the economy and how much better off everyone would be. Instead, we had
a program that rewarded people to have fatherless families and to puke out
more kids.

Relatively little welfare money goes on supporting single parent families - the Republicans managed to cut back that spending around 1996

BS.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/how-welfare-reform-left-single-moms-behind/361964/

You can't process the information, so you think that you can get away with labelling it as BS. Dumb.

the black community could afford some of the vices practiced by similarly poor white families.

The US Democratic Party were more sympathetic to the Civil Rights movement than the Republicans,

More BS. The civil rights acts could not have passed without a lot of
GOP support. And you ignore that the Jim Crow laws, the vast
discrimination against blacks, was practiced in the South and mostly
presided over by DEMOCRATS.

Southern Democrats were a different bred of cat, and most of them stopped being Democrats when the mainstream Democrats embraced the Civil Rights movement.

Oh, really? What did they all do, quit?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond

Strom Thurmond switched to the Republican party. Even I know that.

I remember guys like Robert KKK
Byrd hung around for a long, long time and his fellow Dems didn't denounce
him. Fulbright, a segregationist, was Bill Clinton's mentor, I never
saw Bill denounce him.

That's US politics for you.

No, that's Democrats for you. It was the Democrats, BTW, that were opposed
to ending slavery in 1865 too. Every Republican voted for it. Lincoln had
to bribe enough Democrats to get it passed. That continued until the 60s,
when suddenly the Democrats came up with a new strategy, cultivate blacks
with govt programs and get them to vote for them. Just ask LBJ, another
Democrat racist who called them niggers.

The Jim Crow laws were a hangover from a much earlier period.

Yeah, that just happened to "hang" around.

Laws stay on the books until somebody goes to the trouble of organising enough votes to repeal them.

Yes, those southern Democrats were just too busy, they didn't want to go
to the trouble of repealing Jim Crow laws. That's what it was about, not
deliberately denying blacks their rights.

I guess those Democrats just plumb forgot about them.

The Southern Democrats were very attached to them, and didn't like it when they turned out to in conflict with the US constitution.

Yes, they were attached to blacks, attached to them by using them as slaves..

ROFL Hell as recently as the early 60s,
the feds had to send troops down there to deal with the likes of George
Wallace and Lester Maddox, (DEMOCRATS) who were fighting for segregation
and blocking blacks rights.

Southern Democrats really were a different bred of cat. George Wallace ran for president in 1968 as a third party candidate, and while he ran again in 1972 as a segregationist candidate for the Democratic Party nomination, he wouldn't have got anywhere even if he hadn't been shot (and stuck in a wheelchair for the rest of his life).


and can - to that extent - be blamed for the fact that US blacks got enough money to afford the same vices as the US white poor, but that doesn't make them responsible for the current "sadness" of the state of the US black population (who don't seem to be much worse off than similarly poor whites, but at least have enough sense not to have voted for Trump).

The sadness of the US blacks is due to the welfare state

This is a popular right-wing claim. It seems to be total nonsense.
The US hasn't got a any kind of welfare state

ROFL

- just a ragbag of half-baked support programs that never have enough money to make much difference.
Places which do welfare properly - like Sweden - can manage to eliminate the disadvantage of growing up in a single parent household.

and the black community.

The black community did start well behind the game. If you compare it with groups of similarly impoverished whites it looks less disadvantaged.

BS. Vietnamese boat people can come here with nothing, and in a few years,
they are making decent money. In ten years, they have their own business,
in a generation, their kids are in college.

Vietnamese boat people were first generation immigrants who chose to take the risk of coming to the United States. They are necessarily enterprising people.

So, who's the racist again? Vietnamese are enterprising, but blacks, after
50 years of everything from massive welfare, to affirmative action, can't be?
BTW, if everything is so rigged against blacks, if whitey is so prejudiced
here, how is it that OBama got elected, TWICE?

The US black community wsn't self-selecting. Their ancestors got captured and sold as slaves. Having the get-up-and-go to try to get out from under as a slave gets you killed, often before you can reproduce.

As soon as they start taking responsibility and address their
own problems, instead of trying to blame whitie, the sooner they will get
somewhere.

Quite a few of them seem happy to take responsibility and address their own problems. I can't say I'm aware of anybody in the US black community who wastes their time blaming whites for their problems

ROFL

You really are out of touch. We have a whole industry of race hustlers
here.

Name one.

Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan are at the top of the heap.
Plenty more on CNN and the like, commenting, like you do that it's all
whitey's fault. More recently we just had that scum actor Jussie Smollet,
enter the game, hiring two black guys to stage a hate crime, then telling
police that two white guys saying, "this is MAGA country", did it.
And how about the Black Lies Matter bunch? That was founded on a total
lie, where they claimed that Michael Brown was just an innocent kid,
shot by a racist cop, for no reason. And there have been countless since
then, most of them pure BS. Again, instead of the blacks telling their
fellow blacks, straighten up, fly right, don't be stupid, cooperate with
police, they just bitch every time one gets shot. And how does that happen
in most cases? The black perp creates the hostile situation? Instead
of cooperating, they run, it's night, in some alley, they suddenly make
a move into their pants, the cop kills them. Then because it turns out
they had no gun, well, it's all whitey's fault.

- the white community clearly isn't going to spend money on solving their particular problems, even of their ancestors created a lot of them.

WTF? We've spent TRILLIONS!

You have spent trillions, mostly on welfare for elderly white people.

That's a lie. Most of the elderly on on SS, not welfare.


Spending it in a way that might change society isn't a particularly American thing to do - somebody yells "socialism" if they think they see it happening.

If anybody is responsible, it's the slave merchants (English, Dutch and American) who bought their black ancestors as slaves in Africa and shipped them to the US to be sold as slave labour to plantation owners. Poor whites got bought and sold as "indentured labourers" in much the same way, but they weren't colour coded as "inferior" and some of them out from under.

Oh what total BS. I suppose next you'll be telling us we should pay
reparations to blacks today, when none of us were alive hundreds of years
ago or had anything to do with slavery.

A good socialist would point out that society as a whole has responsibility to help it's less successful elements.

We tried that with the war on poverty, the chart shows the results.

That might have been the initial intention, and poverty did go down - a bit - in the first few years of the campaign, but the US political system does give a lot of political power to people who have money, and they prefer to see the money going to people they like and can be expected to vote for them.

Oh, BS. There was no improvement, nothing, The fucking poverty rate today
is what it was 50 years ago! Nothing more than slight variations over
that period, in reaction to the economy. And the Democrats prefer to see
the money going to welfare recipients, so they will vote for them.
The bill for all this BS is coming due before too much longer. Greece
ring a bell?

The fact that more successful elements owe some of their current success to their ancestors exploitation of the ancestors of the less successful elements doesn't come into it.

This is exactly the victim mentality that's the problem.

It would be if it existed. Nobody in their right mind is going to expect American whites to accept any responsibility for the sins of their ancestors, or for the consequences of their own bad behavior either.

Well, see, I told you, sitting in Australia, you have no idea of what's
going on here. There are silly libs calling for reparations, including
most of the 20 Democrats running for president!

Post a link to such an appeal.

Google it yourself. You claim to know what's going on here. A whole
bunch of them have said they are either in favor of it, or studying it.

Blacks need to take ownership of their own sad state of affairs, straighten up > and fly right.

"Taking ownership" doesn't create any new resources to be devoted to "straightening up" the existing community. Flying to the far right wouldn't be any more helpful.

They don't need "resources", they just need to straighten out, fly right
and stop making excuses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_integration_in_the_United_States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_integration_in_the_United_States#/media/File:NAEP-longterm-Black-reading-ss07-13.gif

demonstrates that black students still aren't reading as well as their white counterparts. If the US education system isn't teaching them to read as well as it might, it's a trifle difficult for them compete on equal terms.

90% of the problem is in the home. When you pay people to have single mother
families, pay them to have more kids, have people like you telling them that
the US is racist, that they can't succeed on their own, when you have black
rappers spewing out their crap, race hustlers telling them it's whitey's
fault, that's what you get. Oh, and the GOP is in favor of school vouchers,
where everyone gets a voucher, good for X dollars, to send their kid to the
school of their CHOICE. Instead of private schools being only for the wealthy,
poor people would have a choice too. Who's against it? Why the Democrats,
of course. Because they are in the pocket of the teacher's union.

 

On Saturday, April 27, 2019 at 11:20:27 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:51862bdc-bc75-4793-a6f7-
8e9584b7446c@googlegroups.com:

And right now we have 3% unemployment, BTW.

That's only about 5.5 million working age folks.

Only... It should be near nil.

Like K says, always wrong. Try taking an economics class. Until quite
recently, 5% unemployment was considered full employment and normal.
There is always going to be some percentage that are between jobs,
choose not to work at least temporarily, etc.





3% is hardly that. And those

numbers are off. The actual number of non-working, able folks is
bigger than the number you give.

You're an idiot. We made cheap cars just so every American could
afford one. So too many corners were cut. Ya don't just turn your
backs on the industries that built your nation, dipshit.

Yes, and foreign competition made even cheaper and more reliable cars.
I never suggested everyone did or should turn their backs on the US car
industry. Consumers aren't stupid, like you. They look at all the
alternatives, figure out what's the best product, the best value, and
they make their choice. Competition from Japan started in the 60s.
Detroit ignored it, by the 70s and 80s, Japan was turning out great
product and good prices. A big part was also the unions, that had the
big three by the throat. Not only ridiculously high labor costs, but
also work rules that resulted in 2 workers where only one was needed.
US consumers made their choice. That's how
free markets work. You're a hoot. You keep bringing up Trump and how
you obviously hate him, yet here you are, thinking just like him.
Actually, you're much worse, because in another post you complained about
foreign car companies having plants here! Those plants create jobs
just like any other plant. Even Trump isn't that stupid, he's welcoming
that, trying to get more of it, as he should.

We could very easily have 'stepped to the pump' the foreign folks
were offering. The fact that so many Americans abandoned their own car
brands only means they didn't have enough brains to see the resulting
impact.

What they saw was the poor US quality, the poor reliability and the
better foreign alternative. That's how FREE markets work. And if they
instead were forced into US crappy cars, today we'd still have crappy
US cars.

 

On Sunday, April 28, 2019 at 7:30:33 AM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sat, 27 Apr 2019 04:46:22 -0700, trader4 wrote:

And it's not just the increase in out-of-wedlock births, it's the total
degeneration of much of the black community. They went from having
intact families and jobs, to out-of-wedlock births, high unemployment,
crime, gangs, gangster rap where they call women bitches and hoes,
running around calling each other nigger. and pants hanging around their
knees with their asses showing. Of course, WTF would you know, living
in Australia? Would I be so arrogant to tell you about kangaroos?


If you study the old newsreel footage of the early black immigrants to
Britain in the 1950s, you see only respectable, smartly-dressed people
with self-respect, eager to work and improve themselves; aspirational men
and women.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4B1rMXPY-g

They bear NO resemblance to today's blacks, all thanks to Left-wing
policies. It's really sad.

A huge factor in all this is the switch from PRIVATE charity to massive
govt programs. Back in the days you're talking about, most "welfare"
was taken care of at the local level, with soup kitchens, churches,
and charities that handed out aid. In most cases, they knew the people,
knew their situation, knew if they were deserving or not. They were
involved with those getting aid. Today you're just a number in a big govt
computer and they reload your debit card.

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 05:50:13 -0700, trader4 wrote:

90% of the problem is in the home. When you pay people to have single
mother families, pay them to have more kids, have people like you
telling them that the US is racist, that they can't succeed on their
own, when you have black rappers spewing out their crap, race hustlers
telling them it's whitey's fault, that's what you get. Oh, and the GOP
is in favor of school vouchers,
where everyone gets a voucher, good for X dollars, to send their kid to
the school of their CHOICE. Instead of private schools being only for
the wealthy,
poor people would have a choice too. Who's against it? Why the
Democrats,
of course.

Compellingly self-evident to anyone with an open mind. Sadly, those you
are attempting to debate with here only believe their own bullshit.
Reason won't win them round. BTW, Sloman is not just immensely ignorant
(as you have discovered for yourself) he's also vain, supercilious and
downright evil, as you will find out if you have the fortitude to argue
with him for any length of time.



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:7618a07f-1371-452c-905c-
a7780c8f6ad8@googlegroups.com:

Today you're just a number in a big govt
computer and they reload your debit card.

Today, idiots like you got a bump in your IQ by simple virtue that
there are so goddamned many of your stupid leaning fucktards that
the entire bell curve shifted.

Your true IQ, however, rests down toward the nil point... about
twenty, on a good day.

You have no clue about ANY program in ANY city in the entire
nation. You are a guess as you go and got it (all) wrong idiot!

You have no clue how aid is dispensed, much less tracked, or how
families get assistance getting back on their own.

Essentially, you are an oblivious fat fuck. And since you never
disputed that moniker, I assume it to be true. (see how that works)

So, what is the number, lard ass? 350# 450#???

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:7618a07f-1371-452c-905c-
a7780c8f6ad8@googlegroups.com:

Back in the days you're talking about, most "welfare"
was taken care of at the local level, with soup kitchens, churches,
and charities that handed out aid.

Bullshit. They were just an incomplete patch, at best. They are
STILL doing that in every city, some more than others, and it comes
nowhere near being able to do the job you seem to think it was ever
successful at.

You seem to be oblivious to population change, much less about a
hundred other factors.

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:f01131ef-21be-4f6c-81b8-
2ee632057894@googlegroups.com:

> What they saw was the poor US quality,

Whenever they saw a picture of your slut mother.

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 06:15:51 -0700, trader4 wrote:

A huge factor in all this is the switch from PRIVATE charity to massive
govt programs. Back in the days you're talking about, most "welfare"
was taken care of at the local level, with soup kitchens, churches,
and charities that handed out aid. In most cases, they knew the people,
knew their situation, knew if they were deserving or not. They were
involved with those getting aid. Today you're just a number in a big
govt computer and they reload your debit card.

Yes, and here's why: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward-Piven_strategy



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

 

On Sunday, April 28, 2019 at 9:33:46 PM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sat, 27 Apr 2019 13:04:52 -0700, trader4 wrote:

You're the racist and stupid to boot.

There's a reason why his initials are BS.
Unless you like arguing just for the sake of it, I suggest you KF Sloman.
You will *never* win him over with reason.

Cursitor Doom has never tried, wouldn't recognise reason if it were shoved down his throat, and seems to be perfectly incapable of constructing any kind of rational argument. The gullible fool may think that the right-wing twaddle that he cuts and pastes from the Daily Mail and Russia Today is "reasoned argument" but he's sadly and persistently wrong.

He and bitrex are two of the
biggest trolls on this newsgroup. Neither of them can see that it's THEY
who are by far the biggest racists here.

Cursitor Doom is much too modest. He's certainly the most active troll we've got.

He does believe a lot of total nonsense, so he may sincerely think that I'm a racist and that bitrex is a racist, but this just reflects his utter stupidity.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Sunday, April 28, 2019 at 9:20:29 PM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sat, 27 Apr 2019 04:56:39 -0700, trader4 wrote:

More BS. The civil rights acts could not have passed without a lot of
GOP support. And you ignore that the Jim Crow laws, the vast
discrimination against blacks, was practiced in the South and mostly
presided over by DEMOCRATS.

And what morons like Sloman don't like to be reminded of is that the KKK
was founded by and its ideals propagated by his precious Democratic Party.

What total morons like Cursitor Doom are happy to ignore is that the original KKK was founded in 1866. It was anti-Republican, and to that extent served the interests of the Democratic Party (which was rather different then from what it is now).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan

It got rooted out within a few years, and the 1915 revival invented a new organisation which wasn't aligned with either the Democratic or the Republican Party. That version eventually fell apart and didn't exist after 1944.

The third version of the KKK arose in the 1950's as a reaction against the Civil Rights Movement.

The national Democratic Party supported the Civil Rights Movement, but southern Democrats were less sympathetic, and mostly stopped being Democrats.

Strom Thurmond eventually switched to the Republican party.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Sunday, April 28, 2019 at 10:50:18 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

On Saturday, April 27, 2019 at 10:28:15 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Sunday, April 28, 2019 at 6:26:24 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Saturday, April 27, 2019 at 10:45:08 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Saturday, April 27, 2019 at 9:56:43 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Saturday, April 27, 2019 at 12:34:02 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Saturday, April 27, 2019 at 3:00:11 AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 07:27:34 -0700, trader4 wrote:

snip

The Civil Rights Movement managed to undo some of the legal barriers to blacks getting jobs, but the social barriers can't be legislated out of existence.

Yeah, the problem is always with whitey, never with the blacks and
personal responsibility.

Personal responsibility doesn't get you a job if potential employers look at you and decides that you are black and that they doesn't want to hire you.

Personal responsibility gets you educated and employed.

It may get you educated, but being black in the US tends to mean that you have to work harder yto get the same leve3lof education as an equally talented white kid.

Getting employed depends on other peoples decisions

Irresponsibility
and listening to the race baiters and libs like you who blame whitey,
leaves you uneducated, no skills, barefoot, pregnant and on welfare.

BTW, unemployment is at 3%, fool. Capitalists are eager to make a buck,
they will hire anyone who can do the job.

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate

says 3.8%. It also says "The labor force participation rate fell 0.2 percentage points to 63.0 percent and has shown little movement on net over the past 12 months" so there are quite a few people who aren't working and don't count as unemployed.

Employers may be currently willing to hire anybody they think can do the job, but they like the people they hire to look like everybody else who has been doing the job for years.

Funny how Asians can come here from Vietnam,
with $20 and in a few years, they are making decent money, in a generation
their kids are in college.

They weren't brought into country as slaves and badly educated in separate and rather less than equal schools for generations.

That ended 50 years ago.

It stopped being legal in 1954 (which is 65 years ago) but it is still prevalent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_integration_in_the_United_States

And they were getting better educations before that
than they are now.

Ask any reactionary idiot and they all agree on that.

First generation immigrants are enterprising people - they wouldn't be immigrants otherwise - and they tend to do well.

So, maybe it's time for blacks to take ownership, pull up their pants,
fly right, and pull themselves up by their collective boot straps?
No, let's just have another welfare program and blame whitey.

Welfare programs outside of the US do seem to work. The US has a unique capacity for spending money on welfare in a way that doesn't seem to do much for the people who are supposed to be being helped.

Of course US primary and secondary schools are organised and paid for by school districts, which are small, and of distinctly variable prosperity.

The US state average spending per head varies by a factor of three, from a bit over $6000 per head per year in the worst states to about $20,000 per head per year in the richest states. There are lots of school districts within each state.

But heh, it can't be because of the culture,
the excuses, the lack of personal responsibility in the black community.

Culture isn't actually controlled by skin colour. Areas of the US white community have also been known to be pretty badly behaved.

> > > It must be because of "social barriers".

They don't help.

Which you happen to be too stupid to recognise.

Because it's mostly a lie. And WTF do you know? You're pontificating
about things you know little about, sitting in Australia. It would be
like me lecturing you about kangaroos, which I would never do.

Of course not. The right-wing nitwits that you seem to be cutting and pasting don't care about kangaroos, so you haven't got any handy piles of nonsense to post about them.

gangs, gangster rap where they celebrate calling women
bitches and hoes, call each other nigger, and run around with their
pants down around their knees, butts showing.

You may see this on TV shows out to attract racist white attention, but treating these exhibitionists as representative of the entire black community is a trifle stupid, even for you.

I never said it's the entire black community.

Actually, you did.

That's a lie, you're the one that said that.

What you posted was

" the black community went
totally the other way. Now we have inner cities in decay, high black
unemployment, gangs, gangster rap where they celebrate calling women
bitches and hoes, call each other nigger, and run around with their pants
down around their knees, butts showing. "

"The black community went totally" means that the whole black community went that way. If you had intended to say something about a part of the black community going in for these antics, you'd have had to have used a different form of words.

You really are a total moron.

<snipped the rest of the moronic misapprehensions>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 12:40:58 AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 05:50:13 -0700, trader4 wrote:

<snip>

> Compellingly self-evident to anyone with an open mind.

Cursitor Doom's mind is wide open to any kind of right-wing nonsense.
It does have to be right-wing, and it does have to be nonsense.

Sadly, those you
are attempting to debate with here only believe their own bullshit.

Not true at all. Cursitor Doom and John Larkin beleive other people's bullshit, and don't seem to bother inventing any that is uniquely theirs.

> Reason won't win them round.

How would Cursitor Doom know? He's never tried reasoned argument, and doesn't seem to recognise it when other people serve it up to him.

BTW, Sloman is not just immensely ignorant
(as you have discovered for yourself) he's also vain, supercilious and
downright evil, as you will find out if you have the fortitude to argue
with him for any length of time.

I'm not so much immensely ignorant of the things that Cursitor Doom thinks that I ought to know, as totally unwilling to throw out the facts that I have been able to master to make room for demented fantasies that he peddles.

It may strike him as vain of me to think that I know more than he does, and it's hard not to be supercilious about the twaddle he peddles (at least if you want to retain some vestige of intellectual respectability).

"Evil" does seem to be a value judgement, and Cursitor Doom's judgement isn't impressive. I'd be a lot more worried if he started to approve of me.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydne

 

On Sunday, April 28, 2019 at 10:12:36 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:7618a07f-1371-452c-905c-
a7780c8f6ad8@googlegroups.com:

Back in the days you're talking about, most "welfare"
was taken care of at the local level, with soup kitchens, churches,
and charities that handed out aid.

Bullshit. They were just an incomplete patch, at best.

But what they were doing produced the SAME poverty rate that we have
today, after spending trillions of money on welfare and continuing
to do so. Less money, from mostly private sources, produced the same
poverty level. Now, trillions of dollars later, we have generations that
live off of welfare and we also have record low unemployment. There are
jobs for those willing to work.



They are

STILL doing that in every city, some more than others, and it comes
nowhere near being able to do the job you seem to think it was ever
successful at.

You seem to be oblivious to population change, much less about a
hundred other factors.

You're oblivious to the fact that the poverty rate today is the same as
it was 50+ years ago, when the war on poverty began.

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 10:01:00 -0700, trader4 wrote:

> You mean the part where I set you straight.

You'll *never* set him straight. The bloke is a total moron and deeply
committed to remaining so.



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

 

[bitrex]

On 4/28/19 1:01 PM, trader4@optonline.net wrote:

No, you have the lock on that pal. And reading comprehension problems too.
The black community going totally the wrong way, is not the same thing as
saying the total black community went the wrong way. And you're very selective,
here I said essentially the same thing, where I used the word "much".


And it's not just the increase in out-of-wedlock births, it's the total
degeneration of much of the black community. They went from having intact
families and jobs

Yeah same with a lot of other kinds of people the destruction and
selling-out of America's industrial base didn't help.

to out-of-wedlock births, high unemployment, crime,
gangs, gangster rap where they call women bitches and hoes,
running around calling each other nigger. and pants
hanging around their knees with their asses showing."

Happy now? No, of course not.

Remember back in the 80s when every other hair-metal song seemed to be
about banging underage girls? what's the deal with that. Anyway
complaining about gangster rap is about 25 years out of date there are
new genres of misogynistic black music that people like to complain
about these days. It's never been easier with anyone with a few dollars
to put together a recording setup so there's just more stuff out there
and most stuff has always been bad.

one of the most popular THUG RAP songs of the past decade has the lyrics:

"You used to call me on my cell phone
Late night when you need my love
Call me on my cell phone...Ever since I left the city, you
You and me we just don't get along
You make me feel like I did you wrong"

Wow. Scandalous material...

snipped the rest of the moronic misapprehensions



You mean the part where I set you straight.

I will be kinder and say they're only partly moronic. Some of the
misapprehensions are not necessarily completely moronic they're just 25
years out of date.

If you're going to complain about the lousy blacks/lousy kids/lousy
whatever you gotta keep up

 

[bitrex]

On 4/28/19 8:50 AM, trader4@optonline.net wrote:

demonstrates that black students still aren't reading as well as their white counterparts. If the US education system isn't teaching them to read as well as it might, it's a trifle difficult for them compete on equal terms.

90% of the problem is in the home. When you pay people to have single mother
families, pay them to have more kids, have people like you telling them that
the US is racist, that they can't succeed on their own, when you have black
rappers spewing out their crap, race hustlers telling them it's whitey's
fault, that's what you get. Oh, and the GOP is in favor of school vouchers,
where everyone gets a voucher, good for X dollars, to send their kid to the
school of their CHOICE. Instead of private schools being only for the wealthy,
poor people would have a choice too. Who's against it? Why the Democrats,
of course. Because they are in the pocket of the teacher's union.

the purpose of a school voucher system is primarily to take money from
low-income taxpayers and give it to the wealthy so they can have their
own private, segregated wealthy-people schools

 

On Sunday, April 28, 2019 at 11:41:06 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

On Sunday, April 28, 2019 at 10:50:18 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Saturday, April 27, 2019 at 10:28:15 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Sunday, April 28, 2019 at 6:26:24 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Saturday, April 27, 2019 at 10:45:08 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Saturday, April 27, 2019 at 9:56:43 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Saturday, April 27, 2019 at 12:34:02 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Saturday, April 27, 2019 at 3:00:11 AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 07:27:34 -0700, trader4 wrote:

snip

The Civil Rights Movement managed to undo some of the legal barriers to blacks getting jobs, but the social barriers can't be legislated out of existence.

Yeah, the problem is always with whitey, never with the blacks and
personal responsibility.

Personal responsibility doesn't get you a job if potential employers look at you and decides that you are black and that they doesn't want to hire you.

Personal responsibility gets you educated and employed.

It may get you educated, but being black in the US tends to mean that you have to work harder yto get the same leve3lof education as an equally talented white kid.

Getting employed depends on other peoples decisions

As it always has, for all races. Again, who's the racist? You're implying
that most US employers are racist, when they are not. How the hell did OBama
get elected twice, in this white racist country?

Irresponsibility
and listening to the race baiters and libs like you who blame whitey,
leaves you uneducated, no skills, barefoot, pregnant and on welfare.

BTW, unemployment is at 3%, fool. Capitalists are eager to make a buck,
they will hire anyone who can do the job.

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate

says 3.8%. It also says "The labor force participation rate fell 0.2 percentage points to 63.0 percent and has shown little movement on net over the past 12 months" so there are quite a few people who aren't working and don't count as unemployed.

Largely irrelevant of course. And who the hell cares abou the last 12 months
when we're talking about 50+ years? The facts are that the unemployment rate
is at historic LOWS. If you lived here instead of Australia, you'd see the
many help wanted signs in the window.

Employers may be currently willing to hire anybody they think can do the job, but they like the people they hire to look like everybody else who has been doing the job for years.

And there you have it folks! The bozo that accuses me of being racist,
just made a broad and very untrue characterization of all US employers,
You don't even live here, how the fuck would you know? Also, it's very
peculiar that these racist employers are not racist againt Latinos.
They've hired them by the BOATLOAD over the last couple of decades.
Look in any kitchen or bar, it's full of Latinos, many who just walked
into the US recently. Now, why would they employ them, if they are
so racist?

Funny how Asians can come here from Vietnam,
with $20 and in a few years, they are making decent money, in a generation
their kids are in college.

They weren't brought into country as slaves and badly educated in separate and rather less than equal schools for generations.

That ended 50 years ago.

It stopped being legal in 1954 (which is 65 years ago) but it is still prevalent.

BS. It's illegal and what you're bitching about now, is that in areas
that are mostly black, well, the schools are mostly black. Again, who's
the racist? I say let the chips fall where they may. You see that and
start making assumptions based on RACE. And in those areas where the schools
are bad, the GOP has long been in favor of school vouchers, so that any
family can send their kid to any school of their choose, using the voucher.
And how about this? If the blacks in the bad neighborhoods cooperated with
the police, installed neighborhood watch groups, didn't have kids they can't
afford, denounced gangster rap music, told their community that they own
their own problems, then improvement could come quickly. Instead they mostly
listen to libs like you, that tell them they are all victims and it's
whitey's fault.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_integration_in_the_United_States

And they were getting better educations before that
than they are now.

Ask any reactionary idiot and they all agree on that.

First generation immigrants are enterprising people - they wouldn't be immigrants otherwise - and they tend to do well.

So, maybe it's time for blacks to take ownership, pull up their pants,
fly right, and pull themselves up by their collective boot straps?
No, let's just have another welfare program and blame whitey.

Welfare programs outside of the US do seem to work. The US has a unique capacity for spending money on welfare in a way that doesn't seem to do much for the people who are supposed to be being helped.

Of course US primary and secondary schools are organised and paid for by school districts, which are small, and of distinctly variable prosperity.

The US state average spending per head varies by a factor of three, from a bit over $6000 per head per year in the worst states to about $20,000 per head per year in the richest states. There are lots of school districts within each state.

There is little correlation between money into a school system and results.
Here in the Peoples Republic of NJ, thirty years ago, a bunch of libs on
the SC decided to make new law and they decreed that money had to be taken
from the wealthier communities and given to the communities that were poor,
mostly black. Well, we've been doing that for 30 years, those schools now
have MORE money than even some of the best, wealthier areas schools. And
guess what? The kids are still coming out just as dumb as before.

But heh, it can't be because of the culture,
the excuses, the lack of personal responsibility in the black community.

Culture isn't actually controlled by skin colour.

BS. A whole lot of it obviously is.



Areas of the US white community have also been known to be pretty badly behaved.

It must be because of "social barriers".

They don't help.

Which you happen to be too stupid to recognise.

Because it's mostly a lie. And WTF do you know? You're pontificating
about things you know little about, sitting in Australia. It would be
like me lecturing you about kangaroos, which I would never do.

Of course not. The right-wing nitwits that you seem to be cutting and pasting

Show us where I've "cut and pasted". That's another one of your lies.




don't care about kangaroos, so you haven't got any handy piles of nonsense to post about them.

gangs, gangster rap where they celebrate calling women
bitches and hoes, call each other nigger, and run around with their
pants down around their knees, butts showing.

You may see this on TV shows out to attract racist white attention, but treating these exhibitionists as representative of the entire black community is a trifle stupid, even for you.

I never said it's the entire black community.

Actually, you did.

That's a lie, you're the one that said that.

What you posted was

" the black community went
totally the other way. Now we have inner cities in decay, high black
unemployment, gangs, gangster rap where they celebrate calling women
bitches and hoes, call each other nigger, and run around with their pants
down around their knees, butts showing. "

"The black community went totally" means that the whole black community went that way. If you had intended to say something about a part of the black community going in for these antics, you'd have had to have used a different form of words.

You really are a total moron.

No, you have the lock on that pal. And reading comprehension problems too.
The black community going totally the wrong way, is not the same thing as
saying the total black community went the wrong way. And you're very selective,
here I said essentially the same thing, where I used the word "much".


And it's not just the increase in out-of-wedlock births, it's the total
degeneration of much of the black community. They went from having intact
families and jobs, to out-of-wedlock births, high unemployment, crime,
gangs, gangster rap where they call women bitches and hoes,
running around calling each other nigger. and pants
hanging around their knees with their asses showing."

Happy now? No, of course not.

snipped the rest of the moronic misapprehensions

You mean the part where I set you straight.

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:0d53b9f8-dd3a-421c-b0f7-81a15248666e@googlegroups.com:

You're oblivious to the fact that the poverty rate today is the
same as it was 50+ years ago, when the war on poverty began.

You are oblivious to the fact that the very definition of poverty has
changed, because of the obliteration of the middle class.

Much less whatever your precious 'poverty rate' means. Yet another
stupid stat most likely.

You still seem to think that a single income is what operates a
household.

You are about as clueless as it gets.

 

[bitrex]

On 4/21/19 10:16 AM, trader4@optonline.net wrote:

On Sunday, April 21, 2019 at 9:37:36 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:68f8ed5c-f9cc-46b2-823e-5d31f29f68b4@googlegroups.com:

I don't want more from govt, I want LESS. The taxes to pay for
all the free stuff the Democrats are proposing would kill
taxpayers and even the libs know it.

'kill taxpayers'?

I am ashamed of some folks. You made the list. I am a republican.
You are a piece of shit. You do not represent my party. The proof is
in your inane, inept devisivness.

That's a new one, even for you. It's an expression. And if you think
that Republicans don't think that the high taxes from all the new
free stuff the Democrats are proposing would kill taxpayers, then
I'd say you're the one who doesn't even know what Republicans stand for.

The "mainstream right" stands for spend, spend, spend on all sorts of
stuff like it's going out of style and making handouts and kickbacks to
their corporate buddies as often as possible. and then wrapping that up
in some God and country patriotic free-market theory BS to sell it.

In exchange the average American will get some piddly little tax break
like 500 bucks. They think it's hilarious how cheap Americans can be bought.

And the "alt-right" is just what national socialism calls itself
nowadays they never really went away. it used to be called "third
position" in Europe. it's had a lot of names.