Political Roundtable Part IX

[DCZards]

You don't want to go there.

It doesn't get covered much, but Africa has been in a state of near constant war for 50 years. Africa has accounted for 88% of the world's war-related deaths since 1990. There are currently wars in Uganda, Somalia, Nigeria, Central African Republican, Sudan, Mali and Burundi. The 1998-2003 Congo War alone has taken more lives than any war since World War II.

yes i do want to go there. very convenient of u to take a single snapshot of history to come up with your racist beliefs.
why not turn the clock back a bit further... see what you find in europe, the americas, asia etc. and then tell me again that blacks are the most violent group. not to mention that much of the violence u see in africa today is - in part - a consequence of white greed

...and decades of European colonialism/domination that often pitted tribe against tribe.

[crackhed]

You don't want to go there.

It doesn't get covered much, but Africa has been in a state of near constant war for 50 years. Africa has accounted for 88% of the world's war-related deaths since 1990. There are currently wars in Uganda, Somalia, Nigeria, Central African Republican, Sudan, Mali and Burundi. The 1998-2003 Congo War alone has taken more lives than any war since World War II.

yes i do want to go there. very convenient of u to take a single snapshot of history to come up with your racist beliefs.
why not turn the clock back a bit further... see what you find in europe, the americas, asia etc. and then tell me again that blacks are the most violent group

I could keep going back if you want. I just don't have the time to give a seminar on African history. But I'm sure that in the past century, even if you include World War II, blacks have killed more per capita in wars than whites. WWII took 30 million lives (excluding the Sino-Japanese War). So that's about 3% of the average number of whites in the past century. Sub-Saharan Africa has lost 10 million in just the past 20 years alone, that's about 2% of it's average population at the time. And wars during the 60's, 70's and 80's were just as deadly (while the population was substantially lower).

But I was simply being generous in indulging on this war=violence debate. Frankly, it's irrelevant to the topic being discussed. This was all brought up in the context of TGW's question on whether or not there is "white privilege" and whether or not it is justified. The fact that WWII killed 30 million people in an organized, declared war has no bearing on whether an individual walking down the street is going to consider an average white guy or an average black guy more dangerous, or whether or not one wants to move into a black neighborhood or a white neighborhood. In that context, violent crime rate is the relevant determinant, not war history from 75 years ago.

this response illustrates why i used the words myopic and shallow.
u cant take a simple snapshot of history and come up with valid racist themes

[dckingsfan]

Sanders can't win based on the at large delegates alone. His path to win is to convince some of the super delegates to change their minds. If Sanders has a clear majority of the delegates obtainable via popular vote, he'll be able to credibly argue that the people want him, not Hillary, and that if the elites force Hillary down their throat, the people might stay home on Election Day. That could be a powerful argument.

Possible... just don't think it is very probable unless he really surges in some of the "big" states. But that he is still in the mix shows you just how much voters are fed up with the status quo.

Normally that wouldn't be the case when the economy is doing so well.

I'm curious dcking, the economy is growing very slowly by historical standards even with interest rates held artificially low for years. The low rates prop up Wall Street and stimulate home and auto sales, etc. If all we can manage is 2% growth fueled by $13.5 Trillion in stimulus spending ($9 Trillion debt plus $4.5 Trillion Fed balance sheet over last 7 years) then what would the economy look like if we were living within our means? I think $2 Trillion of the $9 Trillion of debt was appropriate to mitigate the damage from the 08 recession. The remaining $7 Trillion in debt plus the $4.5 Trillion Fed printing is masking what our real economy would look like absent that stimulus. What's your take?

My take is that during the election cycle - folks are looking at jobs and if you are dropping into a recession. Neither is the case right now. So, from a political point of view my argument stands - I think (we will see, this has been a really weird election cycle). And there has been a nice slight of hand to get folks to look away from our spending problem and to an equality problem (although they are very much one in the same).

From an economic point of view:

I would say we are on approximately the same curve:


Although you have probably heard that this recovery isn't going quite as well as previous recoveries:


And yes, the debt per capita is definitely going the wrong way (frighteningly so):

[nate33]

yes i do want to go there. very convenient of u to take a single snapshot of history to come up with your racist beliefs.
why not turn the clock back a bit further... see what you find in europe, the americas, asia etc. and then tell me again that blacks are the most violent group

I could keep going back if you want. I just don't have the time to give a seminar on African history. But I'm sure that in the past century, even if you include World War II, blacks have killed more per capita in wars than whites. WWII took 30 million lives (excluding the Sino-Japanese War). So that's about 3% of the average number of whites in the past century. Sub-Saharan Africa has lost 10 million in just the past 20 years alone, that's about 2% of it's average population at the time. And wars during the 60's, 70's and 80's were just as deadly (while the population was substantially lower).

But I was simply being generous in indulging on this war=violence debate. Frankly, it's irrelevant to the topic being discussed. This was all brought up in the context of TGW's question on whether or not there is "white privilege" and whether or not it is justified. The fact that WWII killed 30 million people in an organized, declared war has no bearing on whether an individual walking down the street is going to consider an average white guy or an average black guy more dangerous, or whether or not one wants to move into a black neighborhood or a white neighborhood. In that context, violent crime rate is the relevant determinant, not war history from 75 years ago.

this response illustrates why i used the words myopic and shallow.
u cant take a simple snapshot of history and come up with valid racist themes

You are the one taking a snapshot. You are taking a snapshot of World War II and applying it to an argument about racial propensity for everyday violent crime today. And somehow you are calling me myopic. I'm wondering if you understand the meaning of the word.

[crackhed]

I could keep going back if you want. I just don't have the time to give a seminar on African history. But I'm sure that in the past century, even if you include World War II, blacks have killed more per capita in wars than whites. WWII took 30 million lives (excluding the Sino-Japanese War). So that's about 3% of the average number of whites in the past century. Sub-Saharan Africa has lost 10 million in just the past 20 years alone, that's about 2% of it's average population at the time. And wars during the 60's, 70's and 80's were just as deadly (while the population was substantially lower).

But I was simply being generous in indulging on this war=violence debate. Frankly, it's irrelevant to the topic being discussed. This was all brought up in the context of TGW's question on whether or not there is "white privilege" and whether or not it is justified. The fact that WWII killed 30 million people in an organized, declared war has no bearing on whether an individual walking down the street is going to consider an average white guy or an average black guy more dangerous, or whether or not one wants to move into a black neighborhood or a white neighborhood. In that context, violent crime rate is the relevant determinant, not war history from 75 years ago.

this response illustrates why i used the words myopic and shallow.
u cant take a simple snapshot of history and come up with valid racist themes

You are the one taking a snapshot. You are taking a snapshot of World War II and applying it to an argument about racial propensity for everyday violent crime today. And somehow you are calling me myopic. I'm wondering if you understand the meaning of the word.

that's laffable buddy.. tell me how it's a snapshot when i didn't reference a particular war or historical era. u referenced ww2 not me.
meanwhile you are looking at violent crime today completely absent of circumstance or historical context

[CobraCommander]

Time to start a party

Yeah now that the basketball season is over and we have all this time on our hands....lets start a party that leads righteously. Wait...who gets to decide what is righteous? If it's ME - then let's roll ..but if it's you...we should slow down and have elections.

I would think that party would leave the righteous behavior to the hard political left & right

Actually, isn't that what the Rs and Ds have become, the parties of the righteous?

Yes- but it is impossible for both of them to be righteous regarding the same issues. Someone has to be wrong if the other one takes the opposing position and they claim their position is righteous

[nate33]

this response illustrates why i used the words myopic and shallow.
u cant take a simple snapshot of history and come up with valid racist themes

You are the one taking a snapshot. You are taking a snapshot of World War II and applying it to an argument about racial propensity for everyday violent crime today. And somehow you are calling me myopic. I'm wondering if you understand the meaning of the word.

that's laffable buddy.. tell me how it's a snapshot when i didn't reference a particular war or historical era. u referenced ww2 not me.
meanwhile you are looking at violent crime today completely absent of circumstance or historical context

sigh.

I've had enough of this conversation.

Understand that this came all came from TGW's question about white privilege, which boils down to the question of whether or not a white guy gets the benefit of the doubt in an encounter more so than a black guy.

When an average person makes initial judgements about who he wants to associate with, like when moving to a new neighborhood or a new school, for example, he is going to make preliminary judgements based on what he can readily determine. Among other things he will consciously or subconsciously note the race of the person/people in question and compare it to his experiences with that race in the past. But in this analysis he is not going to consult history books and compare death counts in wars 75 years ago. He'll draw on his knowledge of watching the evening news about local crime, he'll recall the patterns he had seen personally, and maybe he'll catch a passing reference to crime statistics. In all of those endeavors, he will note that blacks are more violent, at least in the context that matters to him (personal safety for him, his family and his children). I can't fathom why you are having trouble grasping this point.

Maybe there are circumstances or context that explain the greater propensity for violence among blacks. But that's irrelevant. He does not care why blacks are more violent, he just cares that they are. And he will likely pick a neighborhood or school with fewer blacks. Blacks are saddled with the fact that these prejudices exist and are associated with blacks. Whites are not. This is white privilege. Like it or not, it is based in reality, not blind hatred or ignorance. Many black people want to move to white neighborhoods and schools too.

This theoretical discussion about which race is more violent in the abstract, based on wars and conflicts throughout history, is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. I'm happy to argue you about war history if you like, but there's no point.

[crackhed]

You are the one taking a snapshot. You are taking a snapshot of World War II and applying it to an argument about racial propensity for everyday violent crime today. And somehow you are calling me myopic. I'm wondering if you understand the meaning of the word.

that's laffable buddy.. tell me how it's a snapshot when i didn't reference a particular war or historical era. u referenced ww2 not me.
meanwhile you are looking at violent crime today completely absent of circumstance or historical context

sigh.

I've had enough of this conversation.

Understand that this came all came from TGW's question about white privilege, which boils down to the question of whether or not a white guy get the benefit of the doubt in an encounter more so than a black guy.

When an average person makes initial judgements about who he wants to associate with, like when moving to a new neighborhood or a new school, for example, he is going to make preliminary judgements based on what he can readily determine. Among other things he will consciously or subconsciously note the race of the person/people in question and compare it to his experiences with that race in the past. But in this analysis he is not going to consult history books and compare death counts in wars 75 years ago. He'll draw on his knowledge of watching the evening news about local crime, he'll recall the patterns he had seen personally, and maybe he'll catch a passing reference to crime statistics. In all of those endeavors, he will note that blacks are more violent, at least in the context that matters to him (personal safety for him, his family and his children). I can't fathom why you are having trouble grasping this point.

Maybe there are circumstances or context that explain the greater propensity for violence among blacks. But that's irrelevant. He does not care why blacks are more violent, he just cares that they are. And he will likely pick a neighborhood or school with fewer blacks. Blacks are saddled with the fact that these prejudices exist and are associated with blacks. Whites are not. This is white privilege. Like it or not, it is based in reality, not blind hatred or ignorance. Many black people want to move to white neighborhoods and schools too.

This theoretical discussion about which race is more violent in the abstract, based on wars and conflicts throughout history, is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. I'm happy to argue you about war history if you like, but there's no point.

i've trolled u enuff on this subject.

historical context is important when racists start making permanent declarative comments about black tendencies. no-one is happy with the way things are today in some black neighborhoods but listening to your types we'll never reach a solution.

i'll exit with this thought... human beings the world over regardless of race are essentially the same, and regardless of your statistics there is equal amount of good and evil in all races

edit: also don't know who ur 'average person' is but i wouldn't trade my mixed neighborhood (latino, african-american, african, asian) for a mostly white neighborhood

[dckingsfan]

Yeah now that the basketball season is over and we have all this time on our hands....lets start a party that leads righteously. Wait...who gets to decide what is righteous? If it's ME - then let's roll ..but if it's you...we should slow down and have elections.

I would think that party would leave the righteous behavior to the hard political left & right

Actually, isn't that what the Rs and Ds have become, the parties of the righteous?

Yes- but it is impossible for both of them to be righteous regarding the same issues. Someone has to be wrong if the other one takes the opposing position and they claim their position is righteous

Actually - not (and this is a very quick summary, but you will get the drift). Take SS. The Ds have refused to look at funding (well Reid anyway), are talking about expanding it further (Bernie) (quickening its demise). And at the same time Rs took a stance about privatizing.

Both are complete knuckleheads on the subject.

Your logic is, if there is an issue with two opinions, one must be right. But I think upon examination, you will agree that is fallacious logic.

[TGW]

You don't want to go there.

It doesn't get covered much, but Africa has been in a state of near constant war for 50 years. Africa has accounted for 88% of the world's war-related deaths since 1990. There are currently wars in Uganda, Somalia, Nigeria, Central African Republican, Sudan, Mali and Burundi. The 1998-2003 Congo War alone has taken more lives than any war since World War II.

So the wars in Africa have nothing to do with European influence?

By the way, Nate...you share the same opinions of white supremacists and white nationalists. They cherry-pick statistics without using context, to support their racist agenda. Honestly, don't bother replying...I already know I'm going to get some pseudo-scientific response that's been conjured up in your head. You remind me of the slavemaster Candy in Django with your nonsense.

[nate33]

You don't want to go there.

It doesn't get covered much, but Africa has been in a state of near constant war for 50 years. Africa has accounted for 88% of the world's war-related deaths since 1990. There are currently wars in Uganda, Somalia, Nigeria, Central African Republican, Sudan, Mali and Burundi. The 1998-2003 Congo War alone has taken more lives than any war since World War II.

So the wars in Africa have nothing to do with European influence?

By the way, Nate...you share the same opinions of white supremacists and white nationalists. They cherry-pick statistics without using context, to support their racist agenda. Honestly, don't bother replying...I already know I'm going to get some pseudo-scientific response that's been conjured up in your head. You remind me of the slavemaster Candy in Django with your nonsense.

I'm sure you would find a way to blame any and all of Africa's troubles in Europe. The place was a paradise before the 1400's. No societal ills whatsoever. No war. No violence. Just a bunch of angels prancing around on clouds. But the moment the Portuguese arrived...

[dckingsfan]

Wow, WikiLeaks Panama Papers show just how corrupt most of the world really is. You know it - but it is even more shocking than you expect.

[Zonkerbl]

So, back on topic. Should potential immigrants coming to the United States accept our Common Law? Is it a bargained for exchange for becoming a citizen.

Or do we feel that the new citizens should be allowed to have their own cultures and laws?

This is a nonsense question. Immigrants SHOULD be allowed to have their own culture. THAT'S THE POINT OF AMERICA. Don't you get it?

I assume you threw in the "laws" question to confuse the issue. Of course the law of the country applies when you're a citizen. How dumb do you think we are?

What we're talking about is whether immigrants have to abandon their culture at the border. The answer is no. DUH! Can't believe you're even asking this.

[Zonkerbl]

So the point I was getting at is that, precisely because of the experience of Jews in the 20th Century, there are two things you can say that are unequivocally true:

1) White Christian culture is NOT the defining culture of the United States of America. Because Jews. Much of the success of Ashkenazi Jews can be traced back to the middle ages when Christians decided money lending was dirty, shameful work, and systematically denied Jews permission to ply any trade but banking. It worked out ok for us anyway.
2) The United States of America is great because of its non-European citizens, mainly Jews.

Because Jews basically you don't get to make any of the crazy assumptions you have made in this discussion about immigration. As was pointed out before, several centuries of persecution and murder have made it pretty clear the dominant Christian culture of Europe did not include Jews.

And to clarify, before Israel, the United States was the ONLY. THE ONLY. country in the world where Jews could feel safe. The United States is NOT Europe. The United States is great BECAUSE it is not Europe. Because in the United States Jews are not systematically persecuted, herded into ghettos, and exterminated in gas chambers.

Europe SUCKS.

The United States is better than Europe precisely because we do not persecute minorities. Full stop. End of discussion. :drops mic:

[Zonkerbl]

You don't want to go there.

It doesn't get covered much, but Africa has been in a state of near constant war for 50 years. Africa has accounted for 88% of the world's war-related deaths since 1990. There are currently wars in Uganda, Somalia, Nigeria, Central African Republican, Sudan, Mali and Burundi. The 1998-2003 Congo War alone has taken more lives than any war since World War II.

So the wars in Africa have nothing to do with European influence?

By the way, Nate...you share the same opinions of white supremacists and white nationalists. They cherry-pick statistics without using context, to support their racist agenda. Honestly, don't bother replying...I already know I'm going to get some pseudo-scientific response that's been conjured up in your head. You remind me of the slavemaster Candy in Django with your nonsense.

I'm sure you would find a way to blame any and all of Africa's troubles in Europe. The place was a paradise before the 1400's. No societal ills whatsoever. No war. No violence. Just a bunch of angels prancing around on clouds. But the moment the Portuguese arrived...

I thought the violence in Africa was because during the Cold War the United States and the Soviet Union spent several decades propping up tinpot dictators leading to a culture of institutionalized corruption and violence?

Oh, what the hell do I know, it's just what I do for a living.

[Benjammin]

Gosh, and just some pages ago real progress was being made in this thread, and actual common ground found.

[Zonkerbl]

Nate, I live in Anacostia and a lot of what you say is true. My racist mom took one look at the neighborhood and said "In order for this neighborhood to turn around THOSE people have to go." White people look at statistics, associate them with race and make judgments. This is true. White people also like to hang out with people who look like them and that's fair.

The one thing I disagree with is blacks wanting to move to white neighborhoods. This isn't true. I have coworkers who were forced out of Anacostia due to violence and lack of opportunity, but they would move back if they could because all their friends and family live there.

Like you say, white privilege is not some evil racist thing that white people do to black people. White people like to hang out with other white people, and when they're surrounded by white people they don't really see the advantages they have over everybody else. It's not a conscious thing, it's a lack of information thing.

The problem is that there are certain aspects of white privilege that are not just wrong but damaging to our society. Like how the war on drugs systematically targets non-white people, or like how our system of locking people up in prisons is systematically biased to imprison non-whites relatively more often. A white person committing the same crime as a non-white gets the benefit of the doubt, is a little bit more likely to get a break. Play that bias out over millions of court cases over a period of more than a century and it leads to a significant long term disadvantage to minority groups.

Putting people in prison is damaging to families. Systematically put one group of people in jail and you have systematically damaged the entire group.

When someone points out white privilege to you it's not to accuse you of being a racist but to ask that you acknowledge that white privilege exists, is a problem, and we should do something about it.

[nate33]

So, back on topic. Should potential immigrants coming to the United States accept our Common Law? Is it a bargained for exchange for becoming a citizen.

Or do we feel that the new citizens should be allowed to have their own cultures and laws?

This is a nonsense question. Immigrants SHOULD be allowed to have their own culture. THAT'S THE POINT OF AMERICA. Don't you get it?

I assume you threw in the "laws" question to confuse the issue. Of course the law of the country applies when you're a citizen. How dumb do you think we are?

What we're talking about is whether immigrants have to abandon their culture at the border. The answer is no. DUH! Can't believe you're even asking this.

Dckingsfan didn't include laws to confuse the issue, it's the crux of the issue. If you throw people of entirely different cultures together, and you let them keep their original culture with no value judgements, it will be extremely difficult to construct a system of laws that will suit the purposes of all cultures simultaneously. The end result will be lawlessness as various ethnic groups choose to ignore certain laws.

So if you are interested in having a country, the starting point is the law. What laws should we agree on? Those provide the boundaries for what types of cultures we should permit in. Cultures that do not fit the boundaries of those laws should be restricted from entering, or we should insist that they modify their culture to fit the existing laws.

We are seeing this in Europe already with "no go zones" in Brussels and parts of Britain. Muslim enclaves are insisting on ruling their community via Sharia Law and are forbidding the police from entering to enforce the law of the government.

[Zonkerbl]

You don't want to go there.

It doesn't get covered much, but Africa has been in a state of near constant war for 50 years. Africa has accounted for 88% of the world's war-related deaths since 1990. There are currently wars in Uganda, Somalia, Nigeria, Central African Republican, Sudan, Mali and Burundi. The 1998-2003 Congo War alone has taken more lives than any war since World War II.

So the wars in Africa have nothing to do with European influence?

By the way, Nate...you share the same opinions of white supremacists and white nationalists. They cherry-pick statistics without using context, to support their racist agenda. Honestly, don't bother replying...I already know I'm going to get some pseudo-scientific response that's been conjured up in your head. You remind me of the slavemaster Candy in Django with your nonsense.

Oh, take it easy on Nate. He's here talking to us, instead of hanging out in a little internet bubble of likeminded people. Like my facebook page. Badum tish.

[dckingsfan]

So, back on topic. Should potential immigrants coming to the United States accept our Common Law? Is it a bargained for exchange for becoming a citizen.

Or do we feel that the new citizens should be allowed to have their own cultures and laws?

This is a nonsense question. Immigrants SHOULD be allowed to have their own culture. THAT'S THE POINT OF AMERICA. Don't you get it?

I assume you threw in the "laws" question to confuse the issue. Of course the law of the country applies when you're a citizen. How dumb do you think we are?

What we're talking about is whether immigrants have to abandon their culture at the border. The answer is no. DUH! Can't believe you're even asking this.

Are you asking how confused do I think you are? hehehe...

Just wanted to make sure everyone was in agreement that those coming in need to agree to our Common Law. Do we then have a problem if we have a check box on the immigration form that says something to that affect? Is it reasonable to have an interview to see if they will orally state their agreement?