[bmn200]

(01-29-2012 02:03 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

(01-29-2012 11:44 AM)Roosh Wrote:  

I don't mean to turn this into a race thread, but I believe they really dislike black people, no matter the fact that they will claim to have a "black friend".

I read an interesting article today..

Quote:

In response to the apparent triumphs of the sixties, mass imprisonment became a way of reimposing Jim Crow. Blacks are now incarcerated seven times as often as whites. “The system of mass incarceration works to trap African Americans in a virtual (and literal) cage,” the legal scholar Michelle Alexander writes. Young black men pass quickly from a period of police harassment into a period of “formal control” (i.e., actual imprisonment) and then are doomed for life to a system of “invisible control.” Prevented from voting, legally discriminated against for the rest of their lives, most will cycle back through the prison system. The system, in this view, is not really broken; it is doing what it was designed to do. Alexander’s grim conclusion: “If mass incarceration is considered as a system of social control—specifically, racial control—then the system is a fantastic success.”

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/at...z1krmPSApl

I don't mean to turn this into a politics thread, but I think left wingers and supporters of Occupy Wall St and other such horseshit are really really REALLY dumb.

About that stuff, anyway.

Meanwhile, why are more black people in jail than white people? Well, here's the answer:

Black people commit more crimes.

However -- and stupidity isn't an exclusive characteristic of left wingers -- if you got rid of really stupid laws, such as 3 strikes or the truly insane idea of "felony possession of drugs" when you just have amounts that are for personal use, the prisons would clear out.

Frankly I think all drugs should be legalized (except for crack) sold by government stores, and taxed to high heaven.

But if you go out, try and kill a gang rival, and wind up killing an innocent 5 year old, you should be put in a 6 x 6 windowless room without a bed, chair, and just a bedpan...forever.

Except for crack. LOL this post is so full of fail.

[redneckpunk]

(01-29-2012 03:00 PM)kerouac Wrote:  

(01-29-2012 02:57 PM)redneckpunk Wrote:  

a higher percentage of republicans voted for the civil right act of 1964 than democrats (southerners of both parties were basically against it)

The Southern Democrats soon shifted over to the GOP after the civil rights act. Today's Democratic party is not the same Democratic party of Pre-Civil Right's act.

I just don't think the party is based on racist tenets and bigotry like people from the New York Times or MSNBC would lead you to believe.

Tuthmosis stated that Wall street bankers and born again christians have nothing in common...so obviously racism must be the link. I'd say they agree on conservative policies, which I don't find to be racist.

What does a millionaire in hollywood and a poor minority have in common?
zero, so they must both secretly be commies trying to destroy america or they both believe that liberal policies are best.

this concept of Left=good, Right=bad is ridiculous.

[Duke Castile]

It's just so hypocritical. Most of the guys on here bitch and moan about feminists (how stupid they are etc), how "wall street" is to blame for the financial meltdown (logical conclusion to GOV'T regulating the market), Call republicans racist (Black people who didn't know anything about Obama voted for him simply because he is black, Where Rev. Jerimiah Wright is openly racist) and it's all the result of that liberal ideology. Am I and tenderman the only ones that are scratching their heads?

Gman- Floyd is a troll, he acts obnoxious. I love watching him fight and I hate hearing him speak. I'm pretty sure it's his attitude most people (Republicans and Democrats) don't care for.

[Wizard]

First, Mixx your right I'm not a boxing fan so I didn't have any idea who that guy was, thanks for the clarification.

Quote:

Because, truth be told, there's an entire branch of the Republican Party that's fundamentally racist. By definition, "conservative" means hearkening back to a time when things were "better." For minorities--particularly blacks--in this country, that means a time of institutionalized racism. With the possible exception of strictly fiscal conservatives (which I also disagree with), Republicans appeal to deep-seeded racial prejudice to win elections.

That is an opinion, and one that has little evidence to back it up. While I'm sure there were tons ofracists in the Republican party, times have changed there are now a bunch of other diverse groups. Ranging from libertarians, to isolationists to fiscal conservatives or social conservatives. There are moderate Republicans, and even socially liberal Republicans... there are even gay Republicans.

Quote:

Keep in mind that today's Republican Party is a minority party that must assemble a coalition of very disparate interests to win elections. Wall Street Bankers and Born-Again Christians have very little in common, yet they vote for the same candidates. This is the product of deliberate action in the wake of the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the so-called "Southern Strategy"), that reached out to discontent on de-segregation and used fear-mongering about blacks (sometimes subtle, sometimes not) to win support. Republicans, in other words, need the racists. But, they themselves often harbor subtler, milder versions of the very racism they're appealing to.

Again, overt generalization.

The Democratic party is exactly the same; they have a bunch of different groups that have banded together under the same party name. You have die hard progressives, to moderate Democrats and everything in between. I could also accuse them of racially pandering to the African-American community or Hispanic Community, to the unions and environmentalists. The Democrats aren't a unified group just like the Republicans aren't either.

Considering there are only two main political parties in this country it's not surprising that various groups will flock together underneath the banner of one or the other.

I'm a registered independent because my social views are too liberal for the Republicans, and my fiscal views are too conservative for the Democrats.

There are people in each party I respect, but to simply paint all Republicans as racists is wrong.

[redneckpunk]

@Baldwin
"white Republicans don't have to step out of the white world"

"The white Republican fears the black man on account of no experience with black people"

please explain the vast experience white democrats in Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Seattle, Portland, etc. have with blacks?

and if blacks poured into their neighborhood would they be welcomed with open arms?

[Duke Castile]

Very good point Redneckpunk. In fact, a large majority of those VERY RICH white people think of black people and other minorities as inferior and needing their pity and charity because they "just can't do it on their own". Who's really the racists?

Also, Tuthmosis, I'm surprised by you. Bringing up videos from the 1960s of a REGIONAL election is not very representative of the republican party.

Republicans were the ones that freed the slaves

Republicans created laws to let women vote

If you're going to cherry pick items like that we can go back and forth all day with which party has the most racists in it.

[thegmanifesto]

(01-29-2012 04:53 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

It's just so hypocritical. Most of the guys on here bitch and moan about feminists (how stupid they are etc), how "wall street" is to blame for the financial meltdown (logical conclusion to GOV'T regulating the market), Call republicans racist (Black people who didn't know anything about Obama voted for him simply because he is black, Where Rev. Jerimiah Wright is openly racist) and it's all the result of that liberal ideology. Am I and tenderman the only ones that are scratching their heads?

Gman- Floyd is a troll, he acts obnoxious. I love watching him fight and I hate hearing him speak. I'm pretty sure it's his attitude most people (Republicans and Democrats) don't care for.

So, do you also think that Romney is also being "obnoxious" in that photo?

[worldwidetraveler]

I find it strange that many, on this forum, state that Republicans and Democrats are essentially the same. They serve the same masters so to speak. Now we have a post trying to make one party racist while the other not. How does that work? I am seriously interested in how both parties can serve the same agenda but one racist while the other not.

[Duke Castile]

Gman- I never said I thought Floyd looked obnoxious in his photo. I actually think both photos are cool. I'm not one of these people that stupidly thinks making money is evil or that just because someone is wealthy that they're "greedy".

Do you know who Obama's biggest campaign contributer was? Goldman Sachs. Do you know who Romney's biggest campaign contributer was? Goldman Sachs.

Vote Ron Paul! ; )

[thegmanifesto]

(01-29-2012 05:43 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

Gman- I never said I thought Floyd looked obnoxious in his photo. I actually think both photos are cool. I'm not one of these people that stupidly thinks making money is evil or that just because someone is wealthy that they're "greedy".

Do you know who Obama's biggest campaign contributer was? Goldman Sachs. Do you know who Romney's biggest campaign contributer was? Goldman Sachs.

Vote Ron Paul! ; )

Cool.

Yeah, I agree with you.

And just for the record, I have zero problem with either photo.

(01-29-2012 05:33 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

I find it strange that many, on this forum, state that Republicans and Democrats are essentially the same. They serve the same masters so to speak. Now we have a post trying to make one party racist while the other not. How does that work? I am seriously interested in how both parties can serve the same agenda but one racist while the other not.

They are more or less the same.

I just wanted to post a fun discussion.

And expose a little hypocrisy.

Personally, I think it is ok to hate both photos.

Or like both photos.

However, I would wager big dough that there are a lot of Republicans who hate Floyd's photo and like Romneys (or don't mind it).

And I am not saying there isn't hypocrisy in both parties.

Personally, I hate them both. Parties that is.

[bengalltigerr]

Mixx, poor Ukranian chicks sure are pretty.

As for why Republicans hate Floyd, well it's because they hate all boxers not just Floyd.

[Tuthmosis]

I'm starting to think that these political conversations do more harm than good. A lot of labels, invective, and talking points get thrown around that don't persuade anyone and just serve to lather people up.

I say we agree to disagree on some of these issues. We have so much common ground on more important matters (game) that I'd hate to see us use up precious resources on this shit.

Frankly, most of us who think we disagree on political matters agree on more than we even realize. We gotta drop the labels and realize it's an us-against-them, not Liberals versus Conservatives here. Bring my fucking jobs back. Fuck the Republican Party and fuck the Democratic Party. We need to take our shit back. That's what they (the man behind the curtain) wants us to do: fight for our team against each other while they sneak their hand into the cookie jar.

[worldwidetraveler]

(01-29-2012 05:55 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

They are more or less the same.

I just wanted to post a fun discussion.

And expose a little hypocrisy.

Personally, I think it is ok to hate both photos.

Or like both photos.

However, I would wager big dough that there are a lot of Republicans who hate Floyd's photo and like Romneys (or don't mind it).

And I am not saying there isn't hypocrisy in both parties.

Personally, I hate them both. Parties that is.

Thanks for the clarification G. Funny, I don't mind Floyds picture but that picture of Romney always rubbed me the wrong way.

[Wizard]

Quote:

I'm starting to think that these political conversations do more harm than good. A lot of labels, invective, and talking points get thrown around that don't persuade anyone and just serve to lather people up.

I say we agree to disagree on some of these issues. We have so much common ground on more important matters (game) that I'd hate to see us use up precious resources on this shit.

I'm going to have to agree wholeheartedly, I'm thinking the future it might just be better for me to opt out of all political discussion. The last thing I want to do is create resentment from anyone here over stupid political shit.

This community is small enough as it is without alienating other members.

[Tuthmosis]

(01-29-2012 06:23 PM)Wizard Wrote:  

I'm going to have to agree wholeheartedly, I'm thinking the future it might just be better for me to opt out of all political discussion. The last thing I want to do is create resentment from anyone here over stupid political shit.

This community is small enough as it is without alienating other members.

At the end of the day, what do we want?

1. The capacity for men to (again) live deep, fulfilling lives through an abundance of thin, feminine women; manageable work that, at least, generates enough income for us to meet our needs without overburdening us; and the capacity to advance our status and lifestyle if we so choose.

2. A meritocratic society that rewards people who work hard, display talent, or contribute to whole; and punishes and marginalizes those who don't.

3. A society that rewards feminine behavior in women and punishes feminine, beta behavior in men. A society that rewards masculine displays instead of proscribing them and shaming them.

4. A fair shot at a piece of the pie. A talented cat with good ideas can be poor one day but, through hard work, can stack up paper and status.

5. Fat shaming restored.

6. Basic slut shaming and distaste for attention-whoring restored. (But not to the extent that it destroys our abilities to smash regularly.)

Etc. Etc.

How we get these things is what we're disagreeing about. Let's keep that shit in mind when we try to cut each other's head off with these silly political talks.

[MiXX]

Question :

Is Mayweather is so full of Money as he wants the world to see, why doesn't he a) fight Pacquiao for free or b) donate 100% of his earnings on his next fight to charity?"

if he picks A, then the world would truly know he's rich...otherwise he's just another fool slave to the almighty greenback, like the 99% of North America.


Mixx

[thegmanifesto]

(01-29-2012 09:25 PM)MiXX Wrote:  

Question :

Is Mayweather is so full of Money as he wants the world to see, why doesn't he a) fight Pacquiao for free or b) donate 100% of his earnings on his next fight to charity?"

if he picks A, then the world would truly know he's rich...otherwise he's just another fool slave to the almighty greenback, like the 99% of North America.


Mixx

In all fairness, Floyd is pretty damn Philanthropic. He is probably the most Philanthropic boxer today.

Hencredible mentioned earlier in the thread how Floyd did a transformation from "Pretty Boy" to "Money".

The whole "Money Mayweather" thing is an act. I mentioned earlier in the thread that he is an "entertainer/boxer".

I wrote that on purpose with "entertainer" first.

If you watch interviews with Floyd now that aren't "Pre-fight" or earlier interviews, he is a cool guy.

The whole "Money Mayweather" thing is to separate people that hate him from their money.

And to rattle his opponents before a fight.

Watch him rattle De La Hoya. He had de la beat before they stepped in the ring:

http://www.thegmanifesto.com/2007/12/flo...ental.html

Want to see the real Floyd?

Watch him explain his defense. He is cool as f*ck.

(This is one of the better videos on youtube, explaining boxing.)

http://www.thegmanifesto.com/2010/04/flo...ained.html

[Hencredible Casanova]

(01-29-2012 11:44 AM)Roosh Wrote:  

I don't mean to turn this into a race thread, but I believe they really dislike black people, no matter the fact that they will claim to have a "black friend".

I read an interesting article today..

Quote:

In response to the apparent triumphs of the sixties, mass imprisonment became a way of reimposing Jim Crow. Blacks are now incarcerated seven times as often as whites. “The system of mass incarceration works to trap African Americans in a virtual (and literal) cage,” the legal scholar Michelle Alexander writes. Young black men pass quickly from a period of police harassment into a period of “formal control” (i.e., actual imprisonment) and then are doomed for life to a system of “invisible control.” Prevented from voting, legally discriminated against for the rest of their lives, most will cycle back through the prison system. The system, in this view, is not really broken; it is doing what it was designed to do. Alexander’s grim conclusion: “If mass incarceration is considered as a system of social control—specifically, racial control—then the system is a fantastic success.”

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/at...z1krmPSApl

Thanks for the article, but you gotta keep in mind that The New Yorker is a mouthpiece for the intellectual left.

With a country of over 300 million people and a two-party political system, it's a bit much to assume that the Republican Party (which is comprised of a very diverse group of Americans) is categorically racist.

By and large, the Republican Party has always been about the top 1% running the show. And most of the people in this group are rich white men. It's always been the party of the "cash flows." Even back in the antebellum period, the Republican Party fought to end slavery because it was in the country's economic interest to rid itself of the plantation economy and compete against a rapidly industrializing Britain.

What distinguishes the party today of the party of the past is the swelling of the party ranks and constituency with social conservatives, who are still seen with disdain by the elite Republican guard. They have risen since the introduction of Nixon's southern strategy, which saw many poor white southerners switch their allegiance from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party.

It's pretty easy to tell who the business conservatives are and who the social ones are. Mitt Romney is a classic Republican business conservative. He could care less about social issues and has flip flopped on far too many important ones to be taken seriously by social conservatives. Jon Huntsman is another business conservative.

Prior to the election of Barack Obama, the highest-serving black politicians in history were Republican appointees: Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice.

Colin Powell could have easily ran for President as a Republican several times. He is the right kind of black man that Republicans just love. Here's a guy born in the South Bronx in a West Indian family. He attended City College in NYC and joined ROTC, went into the Army, rose up the ranks and ended his career as a four-star general.

There is a belief among some in the Republican Party that many blacks and some other minorities (except Asians) don't believe in or respect the free market system. That's the extent to which many Republicans don't like blacks (or chronically poor people generally) and, instead, like hard-working immigrants. Newt Gingrich made this point very articulately a couple of years ago in two short 2-min clips, but they have been taken down from YouTube by his campaign.

The poor white southerners (some of whom are deeply racist) are viewed by elite Republicans with contempt, just as the black and latino vote in the Democratic Party is taken for granted. The elites on the left look at these groups with contempt as well. It takes a special kind of minority to win them over.

The elites from both parties are in bed together much more than you may think. They are literally in concert as this pic from an unpublicized meeting the other day shows:

[Hencredible Casanova]

(01-29-2012 10:11 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

(01-29-2012 09:25 PM)MiXX Wrote:  

Question :

Is Mayweather is so full of Money as he wants the world to see, why doesn't he a) fight Pacquiao for free or b) donate 100% of his earnings on his next fight to charity?"

if he picks A, then the world would truly know he's rich...otherwise he's just another fool slave to the almighty greenback, like the 99% of North America.


Mixx

In all fairness, Floyd is pretty damn Philanthropic. He is probably the most Philanthropic boxer today.

Hencredible mentioned earlier in the thread how Floyd did a transformation from "Pretty Boy" to "Money".

The whole "Money Mayweather" thing is an act. I mentioned earlier in the thread that he is an "entertainer/boxer".

I wrote that on purpose with "entertainer" first.

If you watch interviews with Floyd now that aren't "Pre-fight" or earlier interviews, he is a cool guy.

The whole "Money Mayweather" thing is to separate people that hate him from their money.

And to rattle his opponents before a fight.

Watch him rattle De La Hoya. He had de la beat before they stepped in the ring:

http://www.thegmanifesto.com/2007/12/flo...ental.html

Want to see the real Floyd?

Watch him explain his defense. He is cool as f*ck.

(This is one of the better videos on youtube, explaining boxing.)

http://www.thegmanifesto.com/2010/04/flo...ained.html

I like De la Hoya as far as what he did for boxing and just his overall "nice guy" personality, but I lost respect for him after the infamous fight against Felix Trinidad--his first loss. If you watch the early rounds of that fight, Trinidad was no match for De la Hoya. Not at all. I still do not understand what made De la Hoya decide to dance around in the middle to late rounds and choose not to engage with an opponent he could have easily destroyed. Was he scared to take a few hits to the face? Was he that much of a pretty boy? I still don't know. Ever since that loss, he was never the same.

[Hooligan Harry]

Discussion on racism and culture is difficult to have on this forum because white posters in general are often labelled ignorant and racist when they disagree with something. Its the automatic default position that is assumed the minute there is a disagreement of any sort, making the whole exercise completely pointless and a waste of time. There is no honesty in it as a result of that and no answers to be found either.

No different to the shaming tactics of feminists or any other liberals really. No one wants a frank and honest discussion, they want to hear what they want to hear, and so help you God if you disagree with them.

Ill give an example. Its become so pointless I did not even bother responding to the misinformation and bullshit in Pdogs thread about Black men in Australia. Better to save my energy and let you all blow a small fortune chasing gold at the end of a rainbow rather than give you a point of view you dont like to hear, only to be labelled as something I am not while everyone engages in one big circle jerk.

[tenderman100]

(01-29-2012 06:09 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

I'm starting to think that these political conversations do more harm than good. A lot of labels, invective, and talking points get thrown around that don't persuade anyone and just serve to lather people up.

I say we agree to disagree on some of these issues. We have so much common ground on more important matters (game) that I'd hate to see us use up precious resources on this shit.

Frankly, most of us who think we disagree on political matters agree on more than we even realize. We gotta drop the labels and realize it's an us-against-them, not Liberals versus Conservatives here. Bring my fucking jobs back. Fuck the Republican Party and fuck the Democratic Party. We need to take our shit back. That's what they (the man behind the curtain) wants us to do: fight for our team against each other while they sneak their hand into the cookie jar.

Disagree here totally.

I think politics is THE most important topic right now and, frankly, it's time for some very straight no bullshit talk. And if that offends people, I simply do not care.

This country is on a path to disaster. We have $15 trillion in debt, unfunded entitlement liabilities of all kinds amounting to 6 times that amount

It's fucking catastrophic.

Complaining about how Republicans hate Floyd Meriwether types because they're some visions of an intimidating black man is useless bit wasting here on the intertubes.

And frankly, I don't care if a black faced minstrel show pentecostal snake charming evangelist becomes president of the United States if he simply gets us on a the road to cutting spending and getting rid of our debt.

No Democrat is going to be able to do this. None. Will Romney? (who is going to win the nomination) Well, he has a helluva better shot at it that Mr. Petulant Hypocrite currently occupying the Oval Office. At least Romney has actually turned around failing enterprises.

I am approaching 60. For those of you out there in your 20s and 30s, if we don't get this fixed, your future is fucked big time.

[Hencredible Casanova]

(01-29-2012 11:28 PM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  

Discussion on racism and culture is difficult to have on this forum because white posters in general are often labelled ignorant and racist when they disagree with something. Its the automatic default position that is assumed the minute there is a disagreement of any sort, making the whole exercise completely pointless and a waste of time. There is no honesty in it as a result of that and no answers to be found either.

No different to the shaming tactics of feminists or any other liberals really. No one wants a frank and honest discussion, they want to hear what they want to hear, and so help you God if you disagree with them.

Ill give an example. Its become so pointless I did not even bother responding to the misinformation and bullshit in Pdogs thread about Black men in Australia. Better to save my energy and let you all blow a small fortune chasing gold at the end of a rainbow rather than give you a point of view you dont like to hear, only to be labelled as something I am not while everyone engages in one big circle jerk.

I see where you're coming from HH. That's why I get annoyed when I see race being brought up in threads that have nothing to do with the topic. That topic is one of the easiest ways to inflame passions and tarnish the quality of the forum.

Wrt Australia, I'm sure it has more than a few ignorant or unwelcoming people towards blacks.

However, I do think black American men would do very well there. I just think back to my own experience with Aussies; they probably make up my best and most consistent track record with foreign women. I've even heard from countless Australian white men that I would do well in their country.

[Hooligan Harry]

HC, any man will do well in Aus if he already does well in the USA or UK. But he is not going to do well because he is black or because he is American. Its pretty irrelevant, and while some may have their fetish I would not be counting on it considering the sort of cost associated with coming here. Australia is a country of 22 million backpackers. You cant go to a hostel on the planet that does not have a few of us passing through. We also do a shitload of business abroad, which means we are working all over the show. We have a massive tourism industry and its a country that has been built off the back of immigration. Its not some outpost where the people dont see foreigners. We are all foreigners here and being foreign makes you one of the majority. Shit, more than 50% of the country holds a current, active passport for the purposes of travel! Those are the aussie citizens, not the 1st and second generation dual immigrants either. Which put passport ownership close to 3/4 now.

The difference is that being black wont hurt you. Being Asian wont hurt you. For every racist fuckwit here, there is another who really does not give a shit, and that includes the women.

But I could not say this. Because as a white guy, the whole fucking forum would come down on me and think me racist for daring to suggest such a thing. I would immediately be classified as the ignorant dude with an agenda with a hate of all things non white.

And that belief pervades most threads on this forum. Its why race threads have a habit of degenerating into an abortion most of the time. The only time it wont happen is if the white members here just avoid the damn thing altogether. Which is why for the life of me I cant understand why we continue to see so many of these sorts of threads. Its not like the guys starting them are looking for any honesty or a different point of view, they are looking for consensus and validation all the time. If they were looking for any honesty or a different point of view, the shit slinging accusations of racism and ignorance would not be standard practice in almost all those threads.

Unfortunately, few people have the levels of maturity you do HC

[Brian]

God this shit is ridiculous. Republicans and Tea partiers are considered the biggest racists out there when thats just a huge crock of shit. Republicans and Tea partiers LOVED Herman Cain because 1) he had a real private sector job where he wasnt leeching off the government and 2) he understood the basic concept that you cant be financially successful as a nation/business/individual/condo association/anything if you continually spend more money then you make w/no plan on how to stop or pay off the debts you are running up. Think Greece is a fucking disaster? Well, I hate to bust your bubble but we are just as fucked. And do you want to know the difference between Romney and Floyd Money Mayweather?? I GUARANTEE you in 20 years Money aint goign to have any. He will get sucked dry by taxes (property, car, etc), insurance, attorneys, agents, baby mama's, ex wife, etc and will be broke. Not if, when. And Romney? Read this article...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/11/us/pol...wanted=all

He's got $200mil and when his kid loses a $20 anchor he's out paddling around looking for it. He cant bring himself to fly private or buy a 90k Porsche when he's got 200mil. meanwhile Floyd is making it rain at strip clubs, paying off back taxes, and lighting money on fire. Who would you rather trust to manage your money? Romney or Floyd? If you chose Romney does that make you racist, or just remotely intelligent, because if you pick Floyd you're pretty fucking stupid. As far as that picture - its a snapshot in time. Romney was young, somewhat immature, and flaunting his wealth, and he's probably regretted it for the last 20 years. Compare that to a guy whose investment strategy is "Giants +3". But if you pick the guy who used his brain to get rich instead of his fists that makes you a racist? whatever dude.

[Hencredible Casanova]

(01-30-2012 01:52 AM)Brian Wrote:  

God this shit is ridiculous. Republicans and Tea partiers are considered the biggest racists out there when thats just a huge crock of shit. Republicans and Tea partiers LOVED Herman Cain because 1) he had a real private sector job where he wasnt leeching off the government and 2) he understood the basic concept that you cant be financially successful as a nation/business/individual/condo association/anything if you continually spend more money then you make w/no plan on how to stop or pay off the debts you are running up. Think Greece is a fucking disaster? Well, I hate to bust your bubble but we are just as fucked. And do you want to know the difference between Romney and Floyd Money Mayweather?? I GUARANTEE you in 20 years Money aint goign to have any. He will get sucked dry by taxes (property, car, etc), insurance, attorneys, agents, baby mama's, ex wife, etc and will be broke. Not if, when. And Romney? Read this article...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/11/us/pol...wanted=all

He's got $200mil and when his kid loses a $20 anchor he's out paddling around looking for it. He cant bring himself to fly private or buy a 90k Porsche when he's got 200mil. meanwhile Floyd is making it rain at strip clubs, paying off back taxes, and lighting money on fire. Who would you rather trust to manage your money? Romney or Floyd? If you chose Romney does that make you racist, or just remotely intelligent, because if you pick Floyd you're pretty fucking stupid. As far as that picture - its a snapshot in time. Romney was young, somewhat immature, and flaunting his wealth, and he's probably regretted it for the last 20 years. Compare that to a guy whose investment strategy is "Giants +3". But if you pick the guy who used his brain to get rich instead of his fists that makes you a racist? whatever dude.

Exactly. If you have a black man who believes in free market principles and actually has the experience to back it up, he will find a shitload of supporters within the Republican party. The reason why many conservatives hate Obama is that, although he's intelligent, he's never had a real job. Community organizer? Con Law professor? Senator?

Here's a guy who's running the world's biggest free market enterprise and yet he's never had a real private sector job. He's in over his head and has no idea how to actually bring jobs into the US.

I think Romney would be a better president in this time of the country's situation. I don't think being wealthy and successful should preclude him from getting the job. If anything, him being president will rally the markets and start seeing some movement of all that cash that the corporate sector is sitting on.

Fundamentally, the US is a country of go-getters, type A's, and alphas. It's a highly competitive rat race here. You should be about getting yours regardless of who's president and you should support a president who's going to make sure that the principles that allow us to realize our dreams are being committed to. For me, Obama is NOT that guy.