Random Politics & Religion #28: The Last One

It's better this way tho.

And thus you have destroyed your own position and severely damaged the position of your ideology. You just admitted that race isn't the issue while also admitting that labels are stupid. Which is exactly what I've been saying the entire time.


And how I'm going to blow everyone's minds, or cause their heads to explode in righteous indignation.

Success is highly correlated with intelligence. It's not absolute, yet an intelligent person is more capable of making sound decisions and the most out of opportunities. Intelligence is also highly hereditary. When these are applied to history we see a pattern emerge that sends SJW's into flying fits of rage while also explaining the deaths of tens of millions when Socialist / Communism is applied as an economic system.

Smart people become wealthy, they then chose intelligent partners (via arranged / controlled marriages) for their children. Those children then produce intelligent children who then repeat this process. Centuries later, we've created an entire subset of the species who are on average, more intelligent and thus more successful then the rest.

Now lets add an imported slave labor force into the mix who's members where chosen for their physical ability instead of their intelligence. In fact intelligence would of been selected against as intelligent blacks would of been better able to avoid the tribal raiding and capture of defeated tribes members that supplied slaves. Those slaves were eventually freed and had families and children with other ex-slaves and continues that genetic legacy.

Should be rather easy to see how genetic differences would cause a whole *** ton of social issues revolving around the unequal distribution of intelligence and athletic ability. That kind of ***takes centuries to naturally correct itself.

But hey "unearned white privilege" is totally responsible right.

Thus

My ideology is pretty fluid.

I was a pretty conservative teenager.

I swung pretty far left.

Coming back round a bit more center now because people on either fringe are very scary for very different reasons.

Problem is, nobody is talking about unfettered free markets, but certain people (aka the Bernie crowd of idiots) is talking about unfettered socialism, because, you know, free stuff.

Even moving one step towards socialism will hurt our society, and especially our economy. But certain people not only want to take that first step, they want to make a running start of it.

That was Ramy's rebellious years in life.

"I'm going to make smart decisions about who I will be and conserve my ability to do it!" - Rebel Ramy, back in the heyday.

Jesus I would never advocate for unfettered free markets, that's nearly as bad as Communism. It would create a pure form of social Darwinism where humans were 100% disposable assets.

What free markets do is create the most efficient utilization of available capital and resources. When there are no artificial restraints intelligent people have the freedom to experiment and explore all market opportunities. The problem with this is the same as free and unregulated medical research. We would be able to develop drugs and treatments at a 10x faster rate if they were allowed to freely do human experimentation with zero restrictions.

The social cost of these practices is too horrifying to even contemplate. There absolutely must be limits and restrictions placed because humans are predominately greedy selfish short-sighted *** who operate on incentives.

That is why I said "absolutely necessary", meaning I recognize the need for some sort of necessary limits. The limits should be to prevent abuse, not encourage social change.

And this is where current Progressive ideology differs from classic liberalism. Progressives want to use government regulations and free market restrictions as a platform to enact social change and grant themselves more power to enact further social change. Progressives believe that the government, and by extend themselves, knows whats best for society and should be the ones responsible for modeling it, regardless of the human cost. That is an abhorrent and evil belief.

No, this was on my swing out of the rebellious years.

We...we don't discuss those.

Weren't those the years you listened to Rush Limbaugh? You rebel you!

No.

No, there was little political going on in those years.

I was very liberal and continued to be more liberal until my late twenties when I realized how much *** the left was feeding everyone and how completely irrational the whole thing was. I'm not a "modern conservative" because I honestly believe government shouldn't be involved in our social lives and don't want religion anywhere in government.

Progressives -> Homosexuals should be allowed to marry

Conservatives -> Marriage is a sacred institution that should be protected by the state.

Me -> Why the *** is government involved in how we live our lives and who we form a partnership with. Why are we using a religious tool as a government sanctioned concept.

My solution to the whole "homosexual marriage" was to dispose of "marriage" entirely and just have neutral civil unions apply everyone. There would be no limit to the number of partners entered into said union, though all would be afforded the exact same consideration and rights in the event of a dissolution of that union.

No, but whites who get busted for drugs get diversion way more than blacks, and poor black neighborhoods are policed far more heavily than poor white neighborhoods.

Not really, under Holder it was scaled way back but Sessions is trying to dial it back up.

Ehh, if they want to have a ceremony about it, it's their choice.

All the government should care about marriages is income taxes and estate planning.

Florida Democrat* calls Niger ambush 'Trump's Benghazi'
Politico.

And so it begins.

*Yes that Florida Democrat.

Evidence? Can you prove it happens every time? Or even majority of the time?

Crimes that involve both drug-related and non-drug-related offences are also much higher in poor black neighborhoods than poor white neighborhoods. In most locations.

Of course police presence is going to be higher in high-crime areas than in low-crime areas. Anyone who expects otherwise is an idiot.

He isn't going to get it back up to the Reagan/Bush Sr./Clinton levels.

I think we’re all waiting with bated breath to hear how Trump will pronounce “Niger”

A) That liberal/democrat is on borrowed time. She will be out the next election, and she knows it.

B) lolpolitico. Stubbing one's foot on the table is paramount to Trump's Benghazi according to that source.

Whites get hammered just as hard as blacks, the issue rests on criminal records because blacks get hit more often due to population density.

You mentioned poor neighborhoods but you failed to mention the size and location of those neighborhoods. Poor black neighborhoods tend to be in urban area's where the number of police offers per square mile is far higher then poor white neighborhoods which tend to be in rural areas.

Poor blacks live in inner city ghettos in police districts with more resources and dedicated anti-drug task forces. Poor whites tend to live in trailer parks and run down rural towns where police have a far greater area to patrol, very few resources and almost no dedicated drug task forces. The results is that black drug dealers on streets get arrested more often then white drug dealers in trailer parks.

So again it's not a racial issue, no matter how hard you try to contort it. It's a population distribution issue. This is a pattern, many issues that are labeled and paraded as "racial issues" turn out to be nothing more then symptoms of other underlying issues. Treating the root cause of a problem is far more beneficial then treating the symptoms. Yet its the symptoms that provide the most profit, thus the Progressives crank the "white racist!" rhetoric to max volume and hope people are dumb enough (you are) to believe them.

The stooges can fight against legalized marijuana all they want, but eventually RJR and PM are going to decide it would be better to grow and sell it themselves than it would be to dump money into politicians to defend tobacco.

And I, for one, can't wait to buy my Marlboro Greens.

Which is why we come back to KN and I talking about forceful relocation to maximize the use of all our land!

WOOHOO!

HOMESTEAD ACT 2020 BABY!

The word "marriage" is too loaded a term that people throw fits about, see the whole cake baker situation. I say dispose of the word entirely, if people what a recognized religious figure to say some words and make some agreement, that's 100% on them. That's why I wanted to just use the word "union" to reference everything and drop the whole "one man one women" ***.

If two men, one women and one otherkin want to live their lives together in a government recognized union, more power to them. If one guy and three chicks want to do the same, no problem. If one guy and one women want to do that same, sure thing. It's not my place to go around telling people how they can live their lives.

A) *** NO. Last thing I want is a bunch of Californians who *** up their state to the point of insolvency to come to Texas to *** up my state. It's already happening, but not that rapidly. At least we are getting the smart ones who moved out on their own, not the idiots who stay there and make the situation worse.

B) See A.
C) See B.
D) See the mole on my ***.

Texas has plenty of people already. Just gotta get them spread out a bit better. Get some of those weirdos in Houston inland and teach them to do some real work. Perfect time for it too!

We'll send the Californians to the Dakotas or something.

Maybe Michigan.

If we really want to punish them move them somewhere, we should probably move them to Wyoming. Or Montana.

Hell, they can take Austin with them too.

Damn hippies.

We got a *** ton of unused land, look at Wyoming, Montana and other mid-west states. It's also why I laugh at people saying "world is over populated", which is ***. Specific area's are overpopulated, the world has plenty of unused space. Now people gathered at those specific spots for reasons, usually having to do with access to ports / roads for commercial transportation or consistent food supply's. Modern technology has largely solved these problems, but we're too wrapped up in the political death match to determine the world government to actually use that technology to better our people.

racism and poverty are both byproducts of stupidity.

and granted... it's a lot easier to blame 'rich people' than actually teach basic money management skills... but the idea that I/we created racism to distract poor people while we made our escape with all our ill gotten gains is laughably absurd.

stfu saevel...