Tiger Woods feels the hate of conservative slave states for him

[blackascoal]

I try and vote in every election. If Democrats are my only option on the ballot i'm still going to vote. But just as I can criticize Republicans I vote for I can criticize Democrats I vote for.

Cool .. but it's also confusing why you vote for republicans at all if 'market friendly' is the impetus.

Markets and the economy fare much better under democrats.

Forbes: Trump Is Right About One Thing: 'The Economy Does Better Under The Democrats'

It is simply a fact that since World War II, Democratic presidents have seen 24.4 million more jobs created on their watch—an average of 78.6% more jobs created per year of Democratic administrations—than have Republican presidents. Ditto real GDP growth, 44% higher under Democratic presidents. On the flip side, unemployment has been 18% higher under GOP presidents.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspi.../#738460236786

Dump those worthless racist ineffectual bastards. You don't belong with them .. you're better than that.

[Micawber]

Cue Desh stating I'm not a real Democrat.

I have no stake other than intellectual. I don't care if I am you are or BAC is a hypocrite. The only point of concern is acceptance of the obvious fact that Republicans are a party of overwhelmingly white people who overwhelmingly elect white men to office. While it is also true that parties bring forth a shopping cart full of ideas, interests and positions, no association in politics is more strong than the racial identification that we are speaking about. Then that gets us to intent. On my theory regarding intent, I tend to suppose results obtained are those that are intended, as opposed to chaos and stochastic noise. In the instant case, year upon year of feedback only reinforces my belief as the known result, if not salubrious would have corrected. Yet it persists. Indeed it will persist until such time as attitudes convince white people that they do not have a vested material interest or preferred status conjoined at the hip with their race.

[Mott the Hoople]

Capitalism is the economic system that has created more wealth and brought more people out of poverty in the world than any other economic system. I'm proud to call myself a capitalist. I'm a capitalist first and member of a political party second. I'm a Republican because of the two parties they are closest to what I believe. That doesn't define me though as a few of y'all seem to define yourself in life by your political party.

I still completely disagree that one's commitment to diversity is based on how they vote. Again, that says what you actually do in life means nothing. It's all about the box you check every two or four years when voting?

If we need to list what we all do in the real world to show diversity let's do it. Rana liked your post yet moved to a 95% white neighborhood. That's some great diversity there. But she gets a pass because she's a liberal even if she doesn't do shit for anyone else.

I do what I can to work for change in the Republican Party. But i realize i'm still evil and a racist. Fuck you guys. And fuck you Rana.

The Juice is loose! Well he will be in October if he doesn't screw up.

I love your opening sentence. This is why I lovingly call you a free market fundamentalist. You don't let facts get in the way of your beliefs. That is to say there is no basis in fact for your comment that capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any economic system. As a person who believes in free markets and free enterprise I wish that were true but facts speak otherwise. China may have adopted economic reforms that included market based reforms but don't shit yourself. China is very much a neo-command economy. Though the Chinese government may only own 3% of the corporations in China they are all strategic industries, such as iron & steel and primary metals, banking and telecommunications. Those represent around 30% of China's GDP. In addition all the major corporations in China have members of the politburo on their boards or members of their families and they dictate government policy to those corporations not to mention that Chinese stock exchanges and all land in China is owned by the government. China is not a capitalist nation. Yet in last fifty years China has grown economically at a far greater rate than Capitalist nations including the US. They have lifted hundreds of millions out of dire poverty to the point where the Chinese middle class exceeds the entire population of the US. China still has significant poverty problems as 40% of population lives in dire poverty but nearly 700 million Chinese do not and their national GDP is second only to the US.

Now let's compare that to India which now has a larger population than China. It's GDP is a fraction of China's and nearly 80% of Indians live in dire poverty. India is a Capitalist nation. Now let's look at subsaharan Africa which is the poorest region of the planet. Not one is a socialist nation but they are mired in the meanest poverty because of systemic corruption of capitalist in those nations extracts their resources then invest those profits abroad for their own personal enrichment. Nor should I need to point out how colonial capitalism impoverished vast swaths of the planet and its aftermath to this day is a root cause of poverty around the world.

So the facts simply don't support your belief. As a man of science I have to much respect for facts to diregard them.

You know what does lift the most people out of poverty? It's investment in education and domestic infrastructure and it does not matter if that investment is sourced from Capitalist or Command economic systems. It works for both. Educated people learn skills, knowledge and inovation that produce wealth and no economic system any where of any stripe is sustainable without a highly developed and maintained public infrastructure.

Now on a competitive basis is a well regulated Capitalist system superior to a command economy? I think the facts bear that out. However the notion that capitalism has lifted more people out poverty than any other economic system is not borne out by the facts. Particularly not in the last fifty years. It's simply a mythology fundamentalist cling too.

[cawacko]

The Juice is loose! Well he will be in October if he doesn't screw up.

I love your opening sentence. This is why I lovingly call you a free market fundamentalist. You don't let facts get in the way of your beliefs. That is to say there is no basis in fact for your comment that capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any economic system. As a person who believes in free markets and free enterprise I wish that were true but facts speak otherwise. China may have adopted economic reforms that included market based reforms but don't shit yourself. China is very much a neo-command economy. Though the Chinese government may only own 3% of the corporations in China they are all strategic industries, such as iron & steel and primary metals, banking and telecommunications. Those represent around 30% of China's GDP. In addition all the major corporations in China have members of the politburo on their boards or members of their families and they dictate government policy to those corporations not to mention that Chinese stock exchanges and all land in China is owned by the government. China is not a capitalist nation. Yet in last fifty years China has grown economically at a far greater rate than Capitalist nations including the US. They have lifted hundreds of millions out of dire poverty to the point where the Chinese middle class exceeds the entire population of the US. China still has significant poverty problems as 40% of population lives in dire poverty but nearly 700 million Chinese do not and their national GDP is second only to the US.

Now let's compare that to India which now has a larger population than China. It's GDP is a fraction of China's and nearly 80% of Indians live in dire poverty. India is a Capitalist nation. Now let's look at subsaharan Africa which is the poorest region of the planet. Not one is a socialist nation but they are mired in the meanest poverty because of systemic corruption of capitalist in those nations extracts their resources then invest those profits abroad for their own personal enrichment. Nor should I need to point out how colonial capitalism impoverished vast swaths of the planet and its aftermath to this day is a root cause of poverty around the world.

So the facts simply don't support your belief. As a man of science I have to much respect for facts to diregard them.

You know what does lift the most people out of poverty? It's investment in education and domestic infrastructure and it does not matter if that investment is sourced from Capitalist or Command economic systems. It works for both. Educated people learn skills, knowledge and inovation that produce wealth and no economic system any where of any stripe is sustainable without a highly developed and maintained public infrastructure.

Now on a competitive basis is a well regulated Capitalist system superior to a command economy? I think the facts bear that out. However the notion that capitalism has lifted more people out poverty than any other economic system is not borne out by the facts. Particularly not in the last fifty years. It's simply a mythology fundamentalist cling too.

It's a great day in America!! OJ will be free!

Welcome back and TLDR.

Not a fundamentalist. Just a realist

[Mott the Hoople]

You're not a realist if you believe in mythologies. I'm on vacation back to the grind on Monday. May not be back for a while.