Do you know your own self-interest?

[Walker]

Well I'll not do any research to answer this because I absolutely hate American History and Government. I know, I know, I know, that coming from an American that served with the US DOD for 16 years, how strange? Now ancient history is another animal altogether. But suffice it to say, there must have been something of value in their decision. So what's your theory? If it's juicy enough I might be compelled to formulate a worthy rebuttal. Now remember, you'll really have to piss me off.

You exhibit the intellectual curiosity of a typical Democrat. Don’t know and don’t want to know, agreeing and disagreeing out of ignorance, blathering from a base of unsubstantiated belief.
You're a blooming idiot that has absolutely no idea what is or is not important in such a case. Like historical dead fucks that had their own version of political ideologies/agendas has any bearing on today's politicians more than simply curiosity. Unlike dipshits like you, most don't try and make themselves simply half-assed clones of past archaic halfwits. I for one am my own fucking man, no mans ideologies, dead or alive cloud my vision, they can all go to hell. I always choose the best of the best, nothing less! A mere sprinkling or a dash of this or that halfwit because during their life long attempt at understanding the universe, they got lucky enough to experience a second of genius. I'm sorry you're so confused that you require the antiquated viewpoint, complete, of some dead dude to make you whole, that you're steeped in the mysticism that labels have a life of their own, instead not merely a sign of the times, morphing as they go, dependent upon the people that redefine them. All the signs of an "ignorant inbred country fuck." I bet you got a rebel flag on your pick em up truck.

I’ve identified the factual turning point.
Who the fuck cares, live in the current day my friend, the past is dead, existing simply to inform the people of now of the human follies of the past, not as a fucking model to shape the future, as truly intelligent humans evolve, relative to their lackluster dead counterparts, take a hint from this general view of history, as it surely indicates progress. We need no back peddling!

Before Roosevelt, blacks vote Republican.
After Roosevelt, blacks vote Democrat.
Why?
Who the fuck cares, it has absolutely no bearing on which of the most popular current political parties is more, "...dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal..." and a "...government of the people, by the people, for the people...," which is all that matters, and it's proof is in the pudding, not some age old dead moment of change. Maybe you want to waste your time, not I, as so little is left. I believe you need to refresh your understanding of the word "democracy."

Do your own research to learn why, instead of ignoring all that doesn’t support the party screed.
Don't need too, it's a waste of time, as the proof of which party is better, is in the pudding. And so far the better recipe is only to be found in the current ideologies of the democrats. The repubs are only interested in the slaves that make them richer, responsible for the greatest disparity between the poorest and richest in the history of this nation. Killing our kids as a means to increase their family's oil business, evil incarnate they are! Can you say, "Halliburton," in the face of global warming. Fucking goddamn greedy idiots! To hell with them all!!!


*

Jim Crow was Democratic: The Politics of Jim Crow

• Democrats were in complete control of the South during the entire Jim Crow era, from 1877 through 1965. Jim Crow’s political purpose was to keep “the white man’s party” in power.

• The Ku Klux Klan functioned as the paramilitary wing of the Democratic Party, and was used to drive Republicans out of the South during the Reconstruction period.

• While serving as the first Grand Wizard, or chief executive, of the KKK, Nathan Bedford Forrest was a delegate to the 1868 Democratic National Convention.

• Democrats resisted, blocked and repealed Republican civil rights and anti-lynching laws throughout the Jim Crow era, including repeal of the GOP’s 1875 Civil Rights Act.

• In September 1957, Arkansas Democratic Governor Orval Faubus prevented the Little Rock Nine from entering Central High School. At the urging of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Republican President Dwight Eisenhower sent in the 101st Airborne Division to escort the black students.

• Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson, D -Texas, blocked the GOP’s 1956 civil rights bill, and gutted the 1957 Civil Rights Act. Democrats filibustered the GOP’s 1960 Civil Rights Act.

• In 1963, Alabama Democratic Governor George Wallace personally blocked two black students attempting to enter the University of Alabama. Bull Connor, a member of the Democratic National Committee, turned fire hoses and dogs on peaceful Birmingham civil rights protestors.

• Senate Democrats, led by former KKK leader Robert Byrd, set a record by filibustering the 1964 Civil Rights Act for 57 days. Democrats later elected Byrd to be their Senate Majority Leader.

http://www.theacru.org/wordpress/wp-con ... ummary.pdf

*

The Truth About Jim Crow

“The Jim Crow era concluded with the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. According to SCLC veteran Bruce Hartford, Martin Luther King, Jr. had to twist LBJ’s arm to get him to push the bill: ‘My understanding is that after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, President Johnson told King that there had been enough civil rights legislation. No more civil rights legislation could be passed for a couple of years, things had to be quieted down, particularly because it would affect the campaign against Goldwater. Remember the phrase ‘Cooling off period?’ So Johnson told King that he was not going to do any more civil rights acts for the foreseeable future. And the reason King decided to do the Selma campaign was to force Johnson — to create such a public pressure and turmoil — that Johnson would be forced to act. It was not that Johnson asked him to do it — it was in opposition to Johnson.’”

http://www.theacru.org/wordpress/wp-con ... row_v2.pdf

Who really gives a fuck about this particular past, wanting to live in it's shadow? I'd be more worried about the past as it pertains to the continuation of global warming. It's your smoke screen of deception that I find so alarming, you inbred country dumb fuck! Oh, your god, your god, I know! Money and power, thus control, money and power thus control, The wisdom of The Denial of Death is lost on ingrates such as you, as well as an understanding of the riddle of M.A.D.!

You concentrate on the fucking wrong things my friend, you wouldn't understand wisdom if it smacked you up side your silly little head. Or maybe you do, at least understand what you believe you're doing; satisfying your own selfish interests, believing instead that you're a sly little wolf in sheep's clothing. I can smell your stinking little agendas a mile away, regardless of their specifics! I have a sixth sense when it comes to Gríma Wormtongue's.

You’re a nasty little germ.

On cue, you once again soil yourself with your own filth.

*

Straighten Up and Fly Right
Nat Cole 1943


Beautiful pure voice tone right here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=648TF0tg6kQ

[Walker]

I’ve identified the factual turning point.

Before Roosevelt, blacks vote Republican.
After Roosevelt, blacks vote Democrat.
Why?

You got that wrong.
Roosevelt represents the point at which Reps and Dems got roughly similar portions of the black the vote.

But what you are looking for really is the point in time where the republican share of that demographic collapsed and it became a huge achievement for any Republican to get more than 20%

Do your own research to learn why, instead of ignoring all that doesn’t support the party screed.

That is advice you have ignored yourself.

Jim Crow was Democratic: The Politics of Jim Crow

• Democrats were in complete control of the South during the entire Jim Crow era, from 1877 through 1965. Jim Crow’s political purpose was to keep “the white man’s party” in power.

• The Ku Klux Klan functioned as the paramilitary wing of the Democratic Party, and was used to drive Republicans out of the South during the Reconstruction period.

• While serving as the first Grand Wizard, or chief executive, of the KKK, Nathan Bedford Forrest was a delegate to the 1868 Democratic National Convention.

• Democrats resisted, blocked and repealed Republican civil rights and anti-lynching laws throughout the Jim Crow era, including repeal of the GOP’s 1875 Civil Rights Act.

• In September 1957, Arkansas Democratic Governor Orval Faubus prevented the Little Rock Nine from entering Central High School. At the urging of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Republican President Dwight Eisenhower sent in the 101st Airborne Division to escort the black students.

• Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson, D -Texas, blocked the GOP’s 1956 civil rights bill, and gutted the 1957 Civil Rights Act. Democrats filibustered the GOP’s 1960 Civil Rights Act.

• In 1963, Alabama Democratic Governor George Wallace personally blocked two black students attempting to enter the University of Alabama. Bull Connor, a member of the Democratic National Committee, turned fire hoses and dogs on peaceful Birmingham civil rights protestors.

• Senate Democrats, led by former KKK leader Robert Byrd, set a record by filibustering the 1964 Civil Rights Act for 57 days. Democrats later elected Byrd to be their Senate Majority Leader.

That's a list of reasons why it made no sense for the Republicans to nominate Barry Goldwater for the 64 presidential run as he was an opponent of that year's Civil Rights Act. But they did. Goldwater lost quite badly, but his protege Reagan would soon become quite the Republican bigwig.

It was in 1964 that Strom Thurmond crossed the aisle from Democrat to Republican because he realised that the latter party was more open to States Rights based arguments to allow local application of lots of little racist laws rather than one big one.

Strom Thurmond was one of the architects of Nixon's Southern Strategy by which Republicans assumed they had lost the Black vote and chose to capitalise by raising their share of the white vote (very successfully).

The Republicans aren't victims of black abandonment. They just lost their civil rights mojo at the wrong time. When the Baby Boom generation was on the civil rights marches, out of state Democrats got their back versus the in-state Dixiecrats. But the Republicans were nowhere to be seen.

The shift to Democratic happened around the time of Roosevelt.
- 71% of the black vote in 1936
- 77% to his successor in 1948.

You’re looking on the wrong side of Roosevelt if you’re trying to answer the question of how Democrats appropriated the same voters they have historically tried to suppress.

. Look to Roosevelt himself.
- Also, look to the “before” side of Roosevelt. To the precursors.
- Roosevelt wasn't all that long after the Civil War, in relation of now to Roosevelt.

[prof]

As I've said earlier, my system of Ethics holds that "one size does not fit all." All benefits granted by the government ought to be contingent on the assumption of somee responsibility. Show that you are being socially useful in some way and you can then get your benefits.
NO RIGHTS WITHOUT RESPONSIBILITY
The only exceptions to this are youngsters ;(children under 16); very disabled and handicapped; and seniors older than 65. All others ought not get government grants except to ward off starvation. As a society we do not want to encourage free-riding nor dependency.

Earlier in this topic you linked to this page advocating Universal Basic Income
https://www.good.is/articles/issue-37-c ... ncome-work

And you have advocated for that same thing before here:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=18794&p=247664

UBI explicitly goes entirely against this idea [quoted in the first paragraph above] though: ...
It seems to me that even if we pretend you don't have a massive circularity problem with its foundation, your ethical construct serves no purpose because it can't help you make consistent decisions about right and wrong.

You are right, Flash about the question of (rigid ) consistency - for I have since evolved from advocating UBI {If the "U" here stands for "Unconditional"} but you are wrong about the 'circularity', and about the imputing of pretense on my part.

We do have a serious problem to solve, for in the next 20 years, even a job, such as truckdriver - (which today provides work-based income for many relatively-unskilled workers) - will be obsolete, with the advent of self-driving vehicles guided by intelligent robotics. Traditional jobs will be disappearing at a rapid rate. We ought to think ahead and have some solutions for chronic unemployment and the lack of a livable income that results

I propose that governments sponsor a massive subsidized apprentice program wherein a person of any age can study under some successful entrepreneur or business mentor ...until he learns the business well, adds value, and can be responsible for himself or herself.

The event that provoked my evolution, and adaptation to complexity, was the outcome of the Swiss referendum in June, 2016 on going to UBI for the entire nation. It wa voted down (by over 70% against, to 23% for) because the Swiss were concerned about losing their work ethic, which to them is precious. They Intrinsically-value it.

You misunderstand formal Value Theory, perhaps because I failed to explain it better, although if you look at the tenth line of the o.p. it says: "the more properties an individual finds in something, the more likely that it has some value for that individual." IT IS THE VALUER WHO BREAKS OFF THE LIST OF PROPERTIES WHEREVER HE FEELS IT'S RELEVANT TO DO SO, where he decides it's not necessary to go any further - in order to make the point (that there is value here.) The fact remains that for purposes of theory, value is still a function of properties.
This situation is much like what happens in the science of Optometry. The doctor administering the Refraction Examination asks the patient (something to the effect of): "Which of these lenses provides you with the sharpest, most acute, vision?" "How far can you read down on the chart?" The patient informs the doctor which lens, so to speak, "has the most value."

We speak of woods, or a forest, as "thick" or "thin." this is a measure, though a rough measure. Before value-scientists delineate the fine-structure within these dimensions, we speak of S, E, and I - the three basic value dimensions on the values spectrum. They are at present rough measures, but at least they are measures. They have cardnalities associated with each of them. [Hartman has explained how the concept Value" resembles, in its logical structure, the concept "Number"; I won't go into that right now, lest I get too technical.]

To illustrate: Think about why you decide to purchase a specific power drill or a certain clock-radio (or a cell-phone, or an auto); why one model rather than another. It's because It has the features (or even more) that you may have had in mind when you conceived of the idea of buying such a thing. Those qualities (features, functions, capacities, etc.) are what I meant by "properties." Either by reading the product description, or when the salesperson shows them to you, you may respond by saying, ""I'll take it!" You concluded it was "a value." And usually the more features listed, the higher degree of value (as reflected in the price.)

I hope this serves to clarify the matter. [Astute readers of course will not get hung up on the illustration.]

Although if you care, if you approach the topic constructively, it certainly would help if you read the original words of the philosopher/scientist himself. Acquire the small book: Rem B. Edwards, Ph.D. Editor - Formal Axiology and its Critics

[FlashDangerpants]

You are right, Flash about the question of (rigid ) consistency - for I have since evolved from advocating UBI {If the "U" here stands for "Unconditional"}

The U stands for Universal. Although that entails the Unconditional part so I guess that's ok. I wonder if you should be linking to it and making claims on it if you are ignoring one of its fundamental aspects that way though. It's a bit like people who talk about human rights but only in terms of conditional rights that not all humans get (like felons denied voting rights etc).

So this thing about the properties, and the value-scientists. You seem to be trying to have your cake and eat it.

Consider the science of optometry. There is hard science there (optics and biology and whatnot). Those are based on all sorts of rigidly objective data carried out in experiments that don't involve either the guy in the chair or the one sticking bits of glass in his eye.

Then we get to the data of what I can read aloud from a chart, and that seems to be objective unless I undermine the whole thing by non compliance. I might sneakily break into the office one night and memorise all the charts so that I can cheat an eye test. Or I might decide to fail extra hard for some reason so that I stop reading halfway through even though the smaller letters are visible to me. If I decide the next row of letters isn't valuable and I don't want to read them, that isn't a problem of optometry, it is a matter for psychologists.

As for the drill. I would never bother choosing between drills, the first one I see that looks up to the job is the one I would buy. Some would probably compare them all, and look at online reviews, and then get a test plank to make a test hole in. But I would be more interested in the colour.

You can have a science of shopping behaviour if you like (it's not new), but the values bit is a fail. Most of the choices people make aren't a matter of measurable values at all, there is a phenomenon called decision fatigue that sets in whenever we have a wide range of choice.

Economists (practitioners of the Dismal Science) have been grappling with similar problems for a couple of centuries now - they have not arrived at anything like a good solution yet. Most macro-economic theories depend on assumptions about how people choose, and that people will choose rationally. The data confirms that we never really do.

You may also want to check in with dieticians, psychologists and also opinion pollsters (are those latter guys 'value-scientists' in your theory btw) about the reliability of self-reported motives too. Some talking heads might have told you that the Swiss valued the work ethic above all, but presumably they had been told about prior studies showing that UBI has little effect on work ethic. So perhaps they were valuing greed, or they were afraid of change (valuing the status-quo). But if work ethic was the main factor, then they also must value not being told by experts they are wrong - which would be a bit a Cath-22 for your plans.


But that is all preamble. You're still trying to make a science of objective morality out of collected subjective value judgments. The results will disappoint.

[FlashDangerpants]

The shift to Democratic happened around the time of Roosevelt.
- 71% of the black vote in 1936
- 77% to his successor in 1948.

You’re looking on the wrong side of Roosevelt if you’re trying to answer the question of how Democrats appropriated the same voters they have historically tried to suppress.

. Look to Roosevelt himself.
- Also, look to the “before” side of Roosevelt. To the precursors.
- Roosevelt wasn't all that long after the Civil War, in relation of now to Roosevelt.

In 1948 the Southern Democrats split from the Democratic party to run a 3rd party campaign because they objected to Truman's strong pro civil rights stance and his ending of military segregation. So that 77% was actually low given that blacks in South Carolina, Mississippi and couple of other states voted Republican because Strom Thurman had got his name in place of Truman's in those states (where blacks always voted Rep anyway for obvious reasons).

The 1936 election was one of the most one-sided of all time anyway. Roosevelt got 61% of the national popular vote. Now factor in that FDR was much more popular with the poor of all races than with the wealthy. Now consider the comparative wealth of the black and white populations of the USA in 1936, and I would say that explains the extra 10% quite easily.

Your point that 1936 was a jolly long time ago is well made. Perhaps you should now ask a different question. Why - in all that time - have black voters stayed with the dems for so long? One answer you should consider is the rampant gerrymandering of congressional districts in the USA. Whenever the state house is held by Republicans at redistricting time, one of the things they tend to do is draw boundaries that wrap up all their black constituents into the smallest number of districts possible. This is short-term advantageous because it creates fewer safe seats for the other party. But it also means that Republican politicians seldom work very hard to get black votes. It's no good appealing to them only when you want to be president - the Republicans should be trying a little bit harder to represent some black people at every level of government.

[SpheresOfBalance]

You exhibit the intellectual curiosity of a typical Democrat. Don’t know and don’t want to know, agreeing and disagreeing out of ignorance, blathering from a base of unsubstantiated belief.
You're a blooming idiot that has absolutely no idea what is or is not important in such a case. Like historical dead fucks that had their own version of political ideologies/agendas has any bearing on today's politicians more than simply curiosity. Unlike dipshits like you, most don't try and make themselves simply half-assed clones of past archaic halfwits. I for one am my own fucking man, no mans ideologies, dead or alive cloud my vision, they can all go to hell. I always choose the best of the best, nothing less! A mere sprinkling or a dash of this or that halfwit because during their life long attempt at understanding the universe, they got lucky enough to experience a second of genius. I'm sorry you're so confused that you require the antiquated viewpoint, complete, of some dead dude to make you whole, that you're steeped in the mysticism that labels have a life of their own, instead not merely a sign of the times, morphing as they go, dependent upon the people that redefine them. All the signs of an "ignorant inbred country fuck." I bet you got a rebel flag on your pick em up truck.

I’ve identified the factual turning point.
Who the fuck cares, live in the current day my friend, the past is dead, existing simply to inform the people of now of the human follies of the past, not as a fucking model to shape the future, as truly intelligent humans evolve, relative to their lackluster dead counterparts, take a hint from this general view of history, as it surely indicates progress. We need no back peddling!

Before Roosevelt, blacks vote Republican.
After Roosevelt, blacks vote Democrat.
Why?
Who the fuck cares, it has absolutely no bearing on which of the most popular current political parties is more, "...dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal..." and a "...government of the people, by the people, for the people...," which is all that matters, and it's proof is in the pudding, not some age old dead moment of change. Maybe you want to waste your time, not I, as so little is left. I believe you need to refresh your understanding of the word "democracy."

Do your own research to learn why, instead of ignoring all that doesn’t support the party screed.
Don't need too, it's a waste of time, as the proof of which party is better, is in the pudding. And so far the better recipe is only to be found in the current ideologies of the democrats. The repubs are only interested in the slaves that make them richer, responsible for the greatest disparity between the poorest and richest in the history of this nation. Killing our kids as a means to increase their family's oil business, evil incarnate they are! Can you say, "Halliburton," in the face of global warming. Fucking goddamn greedy idiots! To hell with them all!!!


*

Jim Crow was Democratic: The Politics of Jim Crow

• Democrats were in complete control of the South during the entire Jim Crow era, from 1877 through 1965. Jim Crow’s political purpose was to keep “the white man’s party” in power.

• The Ku Klux Klan functioned as the paramilitary wing of the Democratic Party, and was used to drive Republicans out of the South during the Reconstruction period.

• While serving as the first Grand Wizard, or chief executive, of the KKK, Nathan Bedford Forrest was a delegate to the 1868 Democratic National Convention.

• Democrats resisted, blocked and repealed Republican civil rights and anti-lynching laws throughout the Jim Crow era, including repeal of the GOP’s 1875 Civil Rights Act.

• In September 1957, Arkansas Democratic Governor Orval Faubus prevented the Little Rock Nine from entering Central High School. At the urging of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Republican President Dwight Eisenhower sent in the 101st Airborne Division to escort the black students.

• Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson, D -Texas, blocked the GOP’s 1956 civil rights bill, and gutted the 1957 Civil Rights Act. Democrats filibustered the GOP’s 1960 Civil Rights Act.

• In 1963, Alabama Democratic Governor George Wallace personally blocked two black students attempting to enter the University of Alabama. Bull Connor, a member of the Democratic National Committee, turned fire hoses and dogs on peaceful Birmingham civil rights protestors.

• Senate Democrats, led by former KKK leader Robert Byrd, set a record by filibustering the 1964 Civil Rights Act for 57 days. Democrats later elected Byrd to be their Senate Majority Leader.

http://www.theacru.org/wordpress/wp-con ... ummary.pdf

*

The Truth About Jim Crow

“The Jim Crow era concluded with the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. According to SCLC veteran Bruce Hartford, Martin Luther King, Jr. had to twist LBJ’s arm to get him to push the bill: ‘My understanding is that after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, President Johnson told King that there had been enough civil rights legislation. No more civil rights legislation could be passed for a couple of years, things had to be quieted down, particularly because it would affect the campaign against Goldwater. Remember the phrase ‘Cooling off period?’ So Johnson told King that he was not going to do any more civil rights acts for the foreseeable future. And the reason King decided to do the Selma campaign was to force Johnson — to create such a public pressure and turmoil — that Johnson would be forced to act. It was not that Johnson asked him to do it — it was in opposition to Johnson.’”

http://www.theacru.org/wordpress/wp-con ... row_v2.pdf

Who really gives a fuck about this particular past, wanting to live in it's shadow? I'd be more worried about the past as it pertains to the continuation of global warming. It's your smoke screen of deception that I find so alarming, you inbred country dumb fuck! Oh, your god, your god, I know! Money and power, thus control, money and power thus control, The wisdom of The Denial of Death is lost on ingrates such as you, as well as an understanding of the riddle of M.A.D.!

You concentrate on the fucking wrong things my friend, you wouldn't understand wisdom if it smacked you up side your silly little head. Or maybe you do, at least understand what you believe you're doing; satisfying your own selfish interests, believing instead that you're a sly little wolf in sheep's clothing. I can smell your stinking little agendas a mile away, regardless of their specifics! I have a sixth sense when it comes to Gríma Wormtongue's.

You’re a nasty little germ.

On cue, you once again soil yourself with your own filth.

*

Straighten Up and Fly Right
Nat Cole 1943


Beautiful pure voice tone right here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=648TF0tg6kQ

Did I hurt you walker? I'm sorry my friend, I just ABSOLUTELY HATE being REMINDED of the DREGS of this nation, crap no, rather of the world.

Here's my folly: I usually hate southerners from the starting line, until the prove they've finally fully embraced anti bigotry regarding blacks. So I'm a fucking retard, because I'm being a bigot of southern whities. They, the southern whities, crackers, are one of my targets to make me feel better, my scapegoats. Yet I know I can't blame all southern whites, because I've met plenty of good ones. I hate politicians because for the most part they're just LIARS, all about the money, they are bought and sold by corporations via lobbists, money, money, money, moooney, moooney. I hate corporations because many are dirty cancer causing enterprises, with their refuse, whether air land or sea. I hate the FDA for being bought and sold, so as to allow corporations to kill people with cancer causing chemicals in foodstuffs. I hate those in charge of corporations, still killing the planets current inhabitants, with global warming, among everything else, i.e., deforestation, etc. I hate the fact that dumb ass humans still burn fossil fuels, A FINITE RESOURCE, dumb asses; what are they gonna do when the last bit is spent. I hate that solar power, relatively a INFINITE RESOURCE, isn't being subsidized and being reduced in price so everyone can afford to help reduce global warming, and save more money. It's obvious that the repubs are the main contributors to many of the things I hate, though I know I really can't trust any human, whether democrat or not, as every body is chasing MORE MONEY. I'm sick of us human beings for "building machines that we can't control, and burring the waste in a great big hole," --Sting-- , And I mean all the fucking machines, both literally and figuratively, i.e., the WAR MACHINE, the ECONOMY MACHINE, the SOCIAL MACHINE, the GREEDY MACHINE, the TERRORIST MACHINE, and the one that fuels them all, the FEAR MACHINE!

So it wasn't really personal Walker, you just got in the way, of my focused hate, because of the topic at hand, I was just shooting the misguided messenger!

Forgive me or not, it's up to you, but hopefully you understand at least a little bit of my pain!

And you're correct, it's eating me alive! Atlas has nothing on me, my friend, accept that he's usually represented as physically much bigger than I am, which is probably why he can bear so god damn much weight without crumbling!

[Walker]

It washes off.

*

Money plays a big role in explaining why folks would vote for the Democratic political party that suppresses them.

*

“Not only has family breakdown coincided with increased government spending, but the money has not done much to reduce the rate of poverty. From 1965 until now, the government has spent $15-20 trillion to fight poverty. In 1949, the poverty rate stood at 34 percent. By 1965, it was cut in half, to 17 percent -- all before the so-called War on Poverty. But after the war began in 1965, poverty began to flat line. It appears that the generous welfare system allowed women to, in essence, marry the government -- and it allowed men to abandon their financial and moral responsibility, while surrendering the dignity that comes from being a good provider. Psychologists call dependency ‘learned helplessness.’”

- Larry Elder
http://townhall.com/columnists/larryeld ... s-n1808196

*

“Anytime you throw your weight behind a political party that controls two-thirds of the government, and that Party can't keep the promise that it made to you during election time, and you're dumb enough to walk around continuing to identify yourself with that Party, you're not only a chump, but you're a traitor to your race.”

- Malcolm X
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BYVv4LY_KQ

[SpheresOfBalance]

It washes off.

*

Money plays a big role in explaining why folks would vote for the Democratic political party that suppresses them.
Your words that I highlighted in blue above are utter bullshit! See Below!

*

“Not only has family breakdown coincided with increased government spending, but the money has not done much to reduce the rate of poverty. From 1965 until now, the government has spent $15-20 trillion to fight poverty. In 1949, the poverty rate stood at 34 percent. By 1965, it was cut in half, to 17 percent -- all before the so-called War on Poverty. But after the war began in 1965, poverty began to flat line. It appears that the generous welfare system allowed women to, in essence, marry the government -- and it allowed men to abandon their financial and moral responsibility, while surrendering the dignity that comes from being a good provider. Psychologists call dependency ‘learned helplessness.’”

- Larry Elder
http://townhall.com/columnists/larryeld ... s-n1808196

*

“Anytime you throw your weight behind a political party that controls two-thirds of the government, and that Party can't keep the promise that it made to you during election time, and you're dumb enough to walk around continuing to identify yourself with that Party, you're not only a chump, but you're a traitor to your race.”

- Malcolm X
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BYVv4LY_KQ

You still don't get it, you get your facts from times too far gone by. Malcolm X died on February 21, 1965. How pertinent do you really believe his words are, relative to now? Here's something more recent:

As to poverty:
pewresearch.org
January 29, 2014

"To be sure, majorities of 60% or more among Republicans and Democrats across the ideological spectrum agree that inequality is on the rise, and about 90% of liberal and centrist Democrats say the government should do something about it. But while a 61%-majority of moderate and liberal Republicans say the government should do something to reduce the gap between the rich and everyone else, 55% of conservative Republicans don’t want the government to do much or anything at all about inequality."

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... democrats/

And
washingtonpost.com
February 09, 2016

"Among Democrats, poverty was the second-most important economic issue. Among Republicans, it was the seventh. Republicans felt more strongly about “cutting tax rates” and “reducing government regulation.”"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... -the-poor/

As to economy:
dailykos.com
Sep 02, 2012

"As the historical record shows, from economic growth and job creation to stock market performance and just about every other indicator of the health of American capitalism, the modern U.S. economy has almost always done better under Democratic presidents. Despite GOP mythology to the contrary, America generally gained more jobs and grew faster when taxes were higher (even much higher) and income inequality lower."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/9/2/ ... even-close

And
usnews.com
October 08, 2015

"Trump's Republican rival Jeb Bush has promised 4 percent annual gross domestic product growth if he's elected to office. But four of the five presidents who have overseen the largest average economic expansions since World War II have been Democrats – John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Clinton and Jimmy Carter."

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-m ... he-economy

So unfortunately your assertions seem like half baked propaganda, are they?

Most often, Repubs are self serving idiots, that don't care who they step on to get to the top.

[Walker]

You can't possibly be that stupid.

The past explains the present.
The present doesn't explain the present.
The present explains the future.
Duh.

Always look for the turning points.
They are in the past.
If you ever wake up,
You'll also find them in the present.

*

This vocal energy is simply outstanding.

That Sunday That Summer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0oU_xZ ... -F_nwSnuH7

- Joe Sherman and George David Weiss - 1963

[Walker]

Warning: tonal quality may induce headaches.
I listened to the first half and can't quite focus my eyes.

Hillary Clinton On Why Should Black People Support Her After 1994 Crime Bill
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HApWwKBWYJk

[FlashDangerpants]

Money plays a big role in explaining why folks would vote for the Democratic political party that suppresses them.

Are you artlessly suggesting that Black people vote Democrat to get free stuff and handouts?
Republicans saying stuff like that is a large reason why they don't get a lot of black votes.

Here, try this:

Not so four years later, when the Republicans nominated Goldwater, an arch-conservative who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and whose law-and-order message struck many observers as a thinly veiled appeal to white backlash. That year, Goldwater scored roughly 6 percent of the nonwhite vote. “If the Republicans can do nothing to include the Negroes in their vision of America,” White observed, “they enter any Presidential race with one ninth of the nation locked against them.”

The immigration act vastly compounded this problem for the Republican Party. When White proposed that the GOP faced a stark choice—get right with nonwhite voters, or become the party of white retrenchment—he was thinking strictly of African-Americans. He wondered how a party could write off 11 percent of the electorate and still have a future. It could not have occurred to him that the Republicans would chose to write off 40 percent of the electorate, or more.


[...]

Second, and more important, this emerging political alignment never needed to happen. Immigrants who have settled in the United States since 1965 represent vastly divergent faiths and backgrounds. They include evangelical Christians, traditional Catholics, anti-statist refugees and the kind of upwardly mobile, economic strivers whom the GOP courted assiduously in past decades. Had the GOP focused more on ideology and less on skin color, the party could have thrived from the immigrant influx.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... z4IjqvNbnn

[SpheresOfBalance]

You can't possibly be that stupid.

The past explains the present.
The present doesn't explain the present.
The present explains the future.
Duh.
No, you're fooling yourself into believing these absurd notions of yours, because you hate losing once again to the better people of the world, as it would seem the good guys are gaining ground. Duh!


Always look for the turning points.
They are in the past.
If you ever wake up,
You'll also find them in the present.
The facts I've presented, speak for themselves, if it's actually possible that you can open your ears, eyes and mind to actually understand for a change, yet I fear, not!


*

This vocal energy is simply outstanding.

That Sunday That Summer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0oU_xZ ... -F_nwSnuH7

- Joe Sherman and George David Weiss - 1963

Did you read what I provided, they're facts my friend, but then you can lead a fool to knowledge, but you can't make him think!

[SpheresOfBalance]

Warning: tonal quality may induce headaches.
I listened to the first half and can't quite focus my eyes.

Hillary Clinton On Why Should Black People Support Her After 1994 Crime Bill
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HApWwKBWYJk

I served my country for 16 years, laying my life on the line, what the hell have you done except bitch and moan, when you repubs are seen as the self serving demons that you are?

[Walker]

Warning: tonal quality may induce headaches.
I listened to the first half and can't quite focus my eyes.

Hillary Clinton On Why Should Black People Support Her After 1994 Crime Bill
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HApWwKBWYJk

I served my country for 16 years, laying my life on the line, what the hell have you done except bitch and moan, when you repubs are seen as the self serving demons that you are?

There you go again. All insults and apologies, veering wildly from one side of the goat path to the other.

May I remind you, it’s not about me.

Military tends to vote Republican, which is why Democrats like POTUS have been known to disenfranchise the military vote with red-tape when possible. Watch for Clinton to try that crafty little piece of politicking.

As a proud veteran of the armed forces, you may want to consider if fraternizing with a disenfranchising organization of Democrats is in the best interest of the principles which shape your pride. You may be doublethinking unawares against your own interest.

[Walker]

Money plays a big role in explaining why folks would vote for the Democratic political party that suppresses them.

Are you artlessly suggesting that Black people vote Democrat to get free stuff and handouts?
Republicans saying stuff like that is a large reason why they don't get a lot of black votes.

Here, try this:

Not so four years later, when the Republicans nominated Goldwater, an arch-conservative who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and whose law-and-order message struck many observers as a thinly veiled appeal to white backlash. That year, Goldwater scored roughly 6 percent of the nonwhite vote. “If the Republicans can do nothing to include the Negroes in their vision of America,” White observed, “they enter any Presidential race with one ninth of the nation locked against them.”

The immigration act vastly compounded this problem for the Republican Party. When White proposed that the GOP faced a stark choice—get right with nonwhite voters, or become the party of white retrenchment—he was thinking strictly of African-Americans. He wondered how a party could write off 11 percent of the electorate and still have a future. It could not have occurred to him that the Republicans would chose to write off 40 percent of the electorate, or more.


[...]

Second, and more important, this emerging political alignment never needed to happen. Immigrants who have settled in the United States since 1965 represent vastly divergent faiths and backgrounds. They include evangelical Christians, traditional Catholics, anti-statist refugees and the kind of upwardly mobile, economic strivers whom the GOP courted assiduously in past decades. Had the GOP focused more on ideology and less on skin color, the party could have thrived from the immigrant influx.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... z4IjqvNbnn

Nothing dangerous about PC except it will rot your brain. So, perhaps Roosevelt was popular at the turning point because hungry, Depression Era folks with lots of free time were all read-up on political/economic theory and had hashed out the hair-splitting fine points of government’s relationship to the autonomy of mans’ free spirit.

Actually, Roosevelt provided quite a few government funded jobs. He was a big thinker. Big experimenter. *

Sometime after Roosevelt, working for the government money became a form of cruel and unusual punishment. The other day I saw a street sweeper. What that means is, I saw a man driving a big machine that cost a lot of money. The machine swept the street. Naturally I thought, give thirty hungry men brooms and pay them to do the work.

Except hungry men don’t have that option any more. Unions, legal liability, insurance, technology.

Cheaper to skip all that, skip the work, and just hand out the surplus cheese.
Less complicated for all concerned for folks to have just enough to not be hungry, because hungry can never be complacent.
(Humm. With N. Korea in mind, that requires a closer look.)

Face it. Folks don't flock to the US of A, legally and illegally, for the bad life.
They break laws to get to the USA, for the good life.
For the cheese.


* check out this Democratic insanity.
http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farmin ... ps_17.html