Emron posted:

1stGear posted:

Oh wow, that does sound really nice, let's look up Anguilla:



An island nation with no natural resources who's economy is completely reliant on tourism and offshore banking and does actually have an income tax? Yeah, sounds like an economic paradise sign me the gently caress up.

quote:

The inflation rate (consumer prices) is 5.3% (2006 est.)

Floppy Dingo posted:

I recently got sent this on skype by a friend:

http://pro.stansberryresearch.com/1304PWAUP2YR/PPSIP740/

Apparently this video is convinced that the United States will be going under NEXT YEAR, and we're all doomed. I listened to it far longer than I should've.

Or...or is it true and I am just sheeple?!

Idiot Kicker posted:

Libertarians would sure love Anguilla, seeing as how they're all about the Queen and royalty.

quote:

"PROUD TO BE WHITE"
This is great. I have been wondering about why Whites are racists, and no other race is......
Michael Richards makes his point........................
Michael Richards better known as Kramer from TVs Seinfeld does make a good point.

This was his defense speech in court after making racial comments in his comedy act. He makes some very interesting points...

Someone finally said it. How many are actually paying attention to this? There are African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Arab Americans, etc.

And then there are just Americans.

You say that whites commit a lot of violence against you.. so why are the ghettos the most dangerous places to live?
You have the United Negro College Fund. You have Martin Luther King Day.

You have Black History Month. You have Cesar Chavez Day.

You have Yom Hashoah. You have Ma'uled Al-Nabi.

You have the NAACP. You have BET. If we had WET (White Entertainment Television), we'd be racists. If we had a White Pride Day, you would call us racists.

If we had White History Month, we'd be racists.

If we had any organization for only whites to 'advance' OUR lives, we'd be racists.

We have a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, a Black Chamber of Commerce, and then we just have the plain Chamber of Commerce. Wonder who pays for that??

A white woman could not be in the Miss Black American pageant, but any color can be in the Miss America pageant.

If we had a college fund that only gave white students scholarships... You know we'd be racists.

There are over 60 openly proclaimed Black Colleges in the US ... Yet if there were 'White colleges', that would be a racist college.

In the Million Man March, you believed that you were marching for your race and rights. If we marched for our race and rights, you would call us racists.

You are proud to be black, brown, yellow and orange, and you're not afraid to announce it. But when we announce our white pride, you call us racists.
You rob us, carjack us, and shoot at us. But, when a white police officer shoots a black gang member or beats up a black drug dealer running from the law and posing a threat to society, you call him a racist.

I am proud...... But you call me a racist.
Why is it that only whites can be racists??

There is nothing improper about this message.. Let's see which of you are proud enough to send it on. I sadly don't think many will. That's why we have LOST most of OUR RIGHTS in this country. We won't stand up for ourselves!

BE PROUD TO BE WHITE!

It's not a crime YET... but getting very close!

BatteredFeltFedora posted:

1996:
2013:
Spot the difference!

quote:

We seem to be fond of saying that Ronald Reagan couldn't win the Republican nomination today. That is, not THE Ronald Reagan - if someone had a clone of Reagan who was at his 1980 levels of health and vitality, who could run for another term as President, they would definitely field that man in 2016. But what we mean is a man who was like Reagan in POLICY, but a distinct individual in personality, name, etc.

So I had a thought: Isn't this true the other way around as well? And more recent?

Would the Democrat party run a Bill Clinton today?

I'm thinking probably not. Bill Clinton was for a lot of things that Democrats now are not. Additionally, he was misogynistic, and both terribly male AND terribly white. Further, he was even homophobic, giving us the dark blight on the Human race that is Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and even was and is a supporter of traditional marriage (just like Barack Obama was before last spring.)

The Clinton years were not a time of great strides on FDR-continuation-legacy. Bill Clinton even committed America to warfighting. WHILE undergoing a scandal related to sexual harassment of a female employee. And, unlike President Obama, after huge losses in the Congress in his first midterm elections, President Clinton tacked rightward to the center, whereas President Obama doubled down to the left to the clamors and screams of his party and people on the far left who complained he wasn't doing enough for what they put him in office for.

And while Clinton did this and was reelected (with less than popular vote majority, but that was thanks to Perot), President Obama had some in his party rallying against him not being left ENOUGH (even though he was the most leftist President along trend lines since probably FDR), and only turned around to support him in 2012 because of buying into the falsity that Romney would reinstitute slavery and revoke women's suffrage.

.

Given, we haven't had a Democrat nomination lately, and the last one we had was basically between a mere two people - they were both trying to out-minority (Clinton played up her womanhood, Obama his race) each other and out-left each other, though in different ways (for example, candidate Obama opposed an individual health insurance mandate); Clinton and Obama were both in the top 5 (possibly in the top 3) most liberal Senators in the US Senate. Unlike the Republican primaries that produced two moderates in a row (McCain and Romney), the Democrat primary put forth the two most liberal candidates they could find to have them duke it out. And, likely, if Obama had lost, the Democrats would have continued to track to the left with Clinton (who was seen in 2008 as being MORE liberal than Obama - part of the reason he won.)

So while it is often claimed that Republican candidates have to out-right each other to win the primary, and that this will produce Republican Presidential nominees who are right of center, the converse is true of the Democrats as well - their primaries are won by whoever is farthest to the left. President Obama was MUCH farther from the political center than McCain, and far less qualified for the job in terms of experience and personal ability, though he arguably won due to his race and the historic fervor that produced in the electorate.

.

But anyway, just as a Ronald Reagan might not be able to win the Republican nomination today, I'm starting to wonder if a Bill Clinton would be able to secure the Democrat one today. Hillary is not nearly as centrist as her husband was, or as much as he had to become to win reelection.

Neither is Obama.

Can a moderate win the Democrat nomination for President? I believe not.

So this "tut tut, Republicans! You would even shoot down the man who you consider your greatest in recent memory!" business likely applies to Democrats as well.

A man who is not Bill Clinton, but held the same views he held in 1996 couldn't win the Democrat nomination today. A man who is not Bill Clinton, but held the same views he held in 1992 likely couldn't win the Democrat nomination today.

seiferguy posted:

This is what I'm referring to earlier, posted by a former coworker of mine:


ARE white people rights

Fulchrum posted:

I think this is the root of why racism is getting harder and harder to eradicate - shame of being an actual racist is dead, instead replaced by shame by oppressed minorities of being called "oversensitive".

THE GAYEST POSTER posted:

I think the worst part is that Kramer had to go to court after being arrested for saying something racist!

Also, you should link them this: http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/dubiousquotes/a/michaelrichards.htm

It points out that this mostly shows up on white power and neo nazi sites.

seiferguy posted:

This is what I'm referring to earlier, posted by a former coworker of mine:


ARE white people rights

Job Truniht posted:

They get a lot of their information from Heritage Foundation and use only that to say that places like Singapore and Hong Kong are free market paradises- while conveniently ignoring things like press censorship.

quote:

We have a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, a Black Chamber of Commerce, and then we just have the plain Chamber of Commerce. Wonder who pays for that??

Emron posted:

Pope Guilty posted:

Wait, what's supposed to be wrong with this?

Emron posted:

This one had the caption of "Unions, that's why:"

Pope Guilty posted:

Wait, what's supposed to be wrong with this?

Fulchrum posted:

I think this is the root of why racism is getting harder and harder to eradicate - shame of being an actual racist is dead, instead replaced by shame by oppressed minorities of being called "oversensitive".

Pope Guilty posted:

Wait, what's supposed to be wrong with this?

RC and Moon Pie posted:

gently caress you. Seriously, gently caress you.

Radish posted:

A ton of people lately seem to be incredibly offended they can't say n*****, are chomping at the bit to say it and defend anyone who does (Micheal Richards, Paula Dean, etc). I'm not sure WHY they feel like not being allowed to say an incredibly racially charged word is unfair if they aren't racist since they should never have a reason to use it that another word wouldn't work fine for.

Ferroque posted:

This conveniently leaves out the murderers getting life in prison. You are supposed to be outraged at them not getting the death sentence and that's supposed to be as much of an outrage as the zimmerman case.

Ghost of Reagan Past posted:

I thought we were outraged that the case wasn't getting media attention on the scale of the Zimmerman case?

Which means, as we could all guess, they don't really get it.

Ringo Star Get posted:

If I remember correctly, that case did get a lot of attention around here in Illinois where I live.

Radish posted:

A ton of people lately seem to be incredibly offended they can't say n*****, are chomping at the bit to say it and defend anyone who does (Micheal Richards, Paula Dean, etc). I'm not sure WHY they feel like not being allowed to say an incredibly racially charged word is unfair if they aren't racist since they should never have a reason to use it that another word wouldn't work fine for.

Bili Rubin posted:

Prior to 2008, most people in my family had no interest in politics or any real political affiliation. I never heard them say anything racist. But now, jesus christ, they parrot the disgusting poo poo I see in this thread. As of late my family has taken to posting links on fb to news articles about white people "being attacked" by black people. I've already called out a couple for the story actually being far different than the link they posted. It's almost like they live in a fantasy land where they're a poor minority living in fear, underrepresented in the media, if reported on at all, under the jackboot of a fascist president that despises their very existence. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

Vulin posted:

Zimmerman(n) is the german word for carpenter. You know who else was a learned carpenter?

Ghost of Reagan Past posted:

I thought we were outraged that the case wasn't getting media attention on the scale of the Zimmerman case?

Which means, as we could all guess, they don't really get it.

Amused to Death posted:

And here in CT, and here in terms of "the whole drat country". The difference being is that guy was arrested near immediately, it took a month of outrage to arrest Zimmerman.