Jean Deaux

You desperately hope, dimwit!

Jean Deaux

Right. That is why the market is at a world record high, which reflects poorly on your information sources. Current unemployment figures are down to 4%, the lowest in 17 years. I have to believe all you do is exist in a make believe world, populated by other euphoric, out of touch libs. What elasticity in unemployment are you talking about? Hundreds of thousands of unemployed quit looking for work under obama and were removed from the unemployed statistics so they wouldn't show the true gravity of the situation. They are now out again looking for work. I'd say that is pretty spectacular, what would you call it?

PeterS

Well certainly you covered labor elasticity when you studied economics didn't you? More jobs were created in 2016 (2,240,000) then were created in 2017 (1,916,000) so the only way unemployment could go down in 2017 is if elasticity had been taken up during 2016--and no, people didn't jump into the labor market else it would be reflected in the numbers. As for the stock market it reached a record high in July of 2013 and continued to grow setting new highs each month--the only thing it continued to do was keep growing under Trump albeit at a slower rate than it had under Obama.

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth
http://www.macrotrends.net/1319/dow-jones-100-year-historical-chart

Hemiman Loc: Communist California

How about a $10,000 side bet or more if you prefer.

Jean Deaux

Logic indicates that if it reached a record high in July 2013 and has continued to grow albeit at a slower pace than it had under obama, it has to be at a new high as corroborated by current news reports. Further, the current unemployment rate is at 4%, the lowest it has been in seventeen years, elasticity be damned. Were it not for the hidden unreported millions that had given up looking for work under obama, the actual unemployment rate would be lower yet. The only thing obama was able to continually grow was the national debt.

straightUp Loc: California

I wasn't sure I was even going to bother with this one... But there's some points I wanted to make, so...


Interesting that you use the term "eclipse" because an eclipse is a relative thing involving two objects and one perspective. One object eclipses the other but only from a narrow view, which is what you have there Jean, a very narrow view as promoted specifically by the institutionalized national perspective. Your lack of experience outside that institutionalized perspective might preclude you from seeing this. For instance, I bet you didn't know that the British won the war of 1812 because our national perspective is far too proud to admit it and so 1812 goes down in our history as an obscure event where we only mention a few battles. We lost in Vietnam too and that's how every history book in the world see's it except for ours because again, we are too proud to admit we can ever loose a war, so Vietnam, as recent as it was (you were there) isn't even taught in our schools. In both cases you will find no shortage of excuses for not winning, but historians are harsh and excuses are often dismissed. The reason for mentioning this

Getting back to the races... there are two reasons why you might think the black race has been eclipsed by the white race. One being the selective bias of history as I just mentioned and the other I will explain as part of my answer to your second question...


That's like watching the second relay runner sprinting down the track while asking why the first one stopped running. Progress is a baton in a relay event that get's passed from one culture to another. In a nutshell, this is how it works... (cultures peak at different times) + (Technology develops over time and across cultures) = (cultures that peak later have access to more technology and if they are arrogant enough, they claim credit for all of it).

African culture most likely peaked very early in the game... Having called them the oldest race on earth that shouldn't be a surprise to you. We don't know much about that part of history because it predates a lot of linguistic evolution that makes it hard for researchers to translate, while people like you, make ignorant statements like this...


Actually, they did, just not the kind you're thinking of. I'm reading an interesting book called The History of Information by James Gleick that starts off with a description of the African communication system that blew the minds of 19th century European explorers. They used drums to send complex messages over great distances. The "alphabet" that you arrogantly assume didn't exist was actually far more sophisticated than our own alphabet, involving a wide range of tones and nuances that traveled at the speed of sound from one drummer to another who would repeat the message verbatim, succeeding in the sending of messages to remote locations far quicker than the letter in a dusty bag slung over a mule on a trail through the jungle. It wasn't until 1816 that a working telegraph system was developed in England with the capacity to send messages at speeds and distances that matched the capability of these African drums and it took almost a century before they could build sufficient telegraph networks to make it a viable option.

I'm using this response to your ignorant statement to further illustrate that just because we don't recognize the genius of what other cultures did, doesn't mean they didn't do it. Our institutionalized history, the one where the U.S. never lost a war, is VERY selective. For instance, American students generally only get one semester of "Western Civilization" to cover the thousands of years of human history up to the birth of the "Greatest Nation on Earth". It's called "Western Civilization" because it's only concerned about civilization in the western world, which in historical terms means anything that coincides with the "western religions" of Abraham and it typically starts with Egypt, which is the point where Semitic culture emerged from Africa. What *is* evident however, even in this narrow, selective, single-semester view is how the baton of technology is passed from one culture to another.

You mention some other examples of "progress" ...


As I've suggested the black cultures probably peaked before these technologies existed in the forms you recognize, but the white cultures that you are implying created these technologies didn't actually "create" them either. The basis for modern sewer systems and water sources for instance were developed in ancient times by a wide range of cultures including those that came out of Africa. Our perspective often cites the Romans as the inventors of plumbing, but there is archaeological evidence to suggest that they were only improving on previous designs, so again a passing of the baton. And even then, how "white" were the Romans, really? They were not the Germanic people that white supremacists typically hail. They were typically darker, with closer genetic and cultural ties to the middle eastern cultures, than with the Slavic and Germanic cultures to the north which were very much inferior at the time.

The middle ages was a period where the "white race" started to develop by learning from the darker races like the Arabs that taught them a whole range of technology such as advanced mathematics and architecture thus passing the baton. I'm not going to say the white race didn't make some great contributions, of course they did... but I *am* saying that it's ridiculous to call one relay runner the better athlete simply because he's the one running with the baton at the time.


I am very familiar with this selective and biased narrative. It's basically a sour grapes story about the end of white imperialism in Africa. I was raised by British conservative parents who would often glorify the virtues of the British Empire which of course owned the largest share of Africa that extended from Cairo to Cape Town. Many times I heard my father describe the "darkies" as brutal savages that turned Africa into a blood bath as soon as the British left. But I was also being educated by the American schools that launch the glorious history our nation with the defeat of the "evil" British Empire, so from an early age I was exposed to conflicting narratives and so started my habit of questioning everything. Doing so has led me to some interesting facts that your narrative ignores, such as the fact that white supremacy never actually left Africa, the colonies were simply swapped out for trade agreements, which is the basis of 20th century imperialism, sometimes referred to as neoliberalism.

Here's an example of how 20th century imperialism works... First, American farms are subsidized by the U.S. government to produce more grain than the farmers can even sell. The surplus is often wasted but taxpayers are forced to cover the loss in order to maintain the surplus. Next, some African farmers harvest a yield of corn and take it to the market. But that market is suddenly loaded with an over-supply of that subsidized grain the U.S. taxpayers paid for... shipped to the African market as part of a "foreign aid" program (nudge, nudge, wink, wink). That drops the price of corn to levels at which the African farmer is unable to get enough money to invest in better technology, so the African farmer appeals to their government but their government says there is nothing they can do because they signed a trade agreement with the U.S. that prohibits protectionism.

Each year, the African yields are devalued by an over-supply of U.S. grain, causing the prices to drop below levels that would allow local farmers to reinvest in better technology. This is an intentional system of oppression and while it explains the reason for the slow development of agriculture in the third world, the noxious mixture of ignorance and arrogance that we Americans have become famous for portrays it as a system of technical superiority and generosity.

This system of "helping" others stay in their chains extends to all aspects of post-colonial Africa including construction and mineral extraction. And BTW, black South Africans didn't rebel against the presence of white farmers, they rebelled against the system of apartheid.


The same can be said for a lot of white people. Even the tweets from the current POTUS exposes his 3rd-grade level of literacy.



Actually, the only thing you pointed to so far is your ignorance.


I wouldn't call Ben Carson a shining example of anything. He's like a rain man in the sense that he understands medicine but he's a complete idiot when it comes to anything else and if he wasn't a raving Republican you would be saying the same damned thing.


Well, your're certainly not an observer of circumstances as they are, but you certainly fit the description of a white supremacist, right down to your inability to spell the word.


LOL... yeah, right... Your entire perception of the world is based on labels and the fallacies attached to them.


Give me an example. I keep asking you to provide examples and you never do... gee, I wonder why.


Well, you don't seem to be aware of much other than your own delusions, Jean - including the imaginary "black privilege" that only exists as a white reaction to the audacity that blacks don't accept their place as niggers at the back of the bus. Once again, where is a single example of where BLM encourages ANY such violation of the laws that apply to ALL of us? You can't find any because there ARE NONE! What you are doing is lying.


What violence? What demands?


It doesn't show.


And how many BLMers do you know Jean? How many have you actually listened to?


Didn't you just say you were taught to respect others..? So, what's going on here Jean? We're you taught to respect others ONLY if they're white?


more baseless accusations without a shred of evidence...


I really don't know WTF you're blabbering about. My "gig" is exposing the truth about racists like you and doing everything I can legally do to prevent racists like you from having ANY influence over the better people of this great nation.

straightUp Loc: California

The industrial nations were in competition over world resources... The British, French and Americans all had their empires to draw from, while the Germans and Japanese (neither of them oil producing nations) were essentially cut off. I agree that that war might have been avoided if the British, French and Americans were willing to share, but none of them were, so the Germans and Japanese, naturally got aggressive.

The war broke out in Europe first when Germany started a relentless conquest of Europe and it became obvious that there was more to the picture than industrial competition... Germany had adopted the Nazi ideology so the war in Europe became a struggle against fascism too. The U.S. basically didn't care, but Britain and France drew a line at Poland and warned Hitler not to attack them. Hitler signed an alliance with Stalin and the two giants attacked Poland anyway so in 1939 Britain and France declared war and sent in the troops. The U.S. still didn't give a shit.

The war waged on until France was defeated, leaving Britain to face Germany alone. The U.S. still didn't care. Of course the "fat slob" (who's mother was American BTW) wanted Britain's closest friend to help and FDR *wanted* to help but he couldn't get the support from Congress which had too many business interests with Nazi links, not to mention the significant Nazi populist movement in a very racist America.

So, the British took their stance alone and delivered Hitler's first defeat in the summer of 1940. THEN Hitler made the mistake of turning on the Russians. Most Europeans agree THAT was the deciding factor in the war. The following winter the Russians served Hitler his second defeat and it was all down hill for Germany from then on. Meanwhile, the U.S. still didn't give a shit... until the very end of 1941 when Japan attacked Perl Harbor.

Naturally, it was easier for FDR after that point to bring the U.S. into the war, but it was only because we were attacked. We didn't join the war to protect anyone else like the British and French did. We joined because Japan attacked our property. We declared war on Germany at that point because Japan was aligned with Germany AND because we needed our entire fleet in the Pacific to deal with Japan so we needed to rely on the British Navy to protect our eastern seaboard from the Germans, which they did.

So, it's pure ignorance to say that we were drawn into someone else's war and it's utter arrogance to say we came in to save anyone. We sat out half the war until we were attacked. I've often heard (in Europe, not here) that the American entry into the war didn't answer the question about who would win the war as much as it answered the question... how long will it take? The who will win was pretty much answered by the Russians.

As it turns out, many of the pro-Nazi business interests in the U.S. were able to resume their economic strategies after the war and today, I think the U.S. looks pretty much the same as it would if we didn't fight in WW2.

straightUp Loc: California

Well, the American Revolution WAS a liberal movement... so maybe there's something to what you're saying. If the loyalist Tories were more extreme, say like Nazis or ISIS or any of those straight-and-narrow, might-is-right mono-cultures, the Sons of Liberty would probably have been killed before they could muster anything close to a revolution.


Cultural diversity wouldn't need to depend on invasions if law and order recognized social equality... and try not to confuse anti-fascism with anti-white. I'm an Anglo-Saxon and you are a fascist... I can tell the difference, why can't you?

Paybacktimeishere

Gleichschaltung!
Straightup: The drastic, changes within America
that I have observed, for just these past 35 year's has been the very same disharmony, anger, anarchy, rioting, confusion, assault & murder, that I also experienced, before, & during
The Vietnam War Period. Nationalism, is once again, starting to evolve, into a much stronger,
tougher, & powerful, Ideology, that this time,
will take, "No Prisoner's", or accept Any Excuses,
from those, that have shown their disloyalty, disrespect, & abstract hatred, of the U.S. & it's
Legally Elected, President. "With just a slight difference", the Hard-Core, Patriotic, America-First, Military Commander's, along with the Special Forces Unit's, will "Step Up", & Protect
President Trump, & the Patriotic, America Loving, Citizen's of this Great Country!!! The
Traitorous Scum, will be Deported!!'

straightUp Loc: California

That's a lot of brown-nosing there Payback.

Look.

The 35 years of drastic changes... of COURSE, they're going to be the same thing for you now as they were before and during the Vietnam intervention. That's just you staying true to your politics.

As for nationalism - well, nationalism has ALWAYS been one lunge away; and in my version of a free nation, it always will be. I think you folks (if I can assume you're among them) have just been waiting for some wind to pick up. Maybe a white knight, like how fat-ass donny see's himself ;)

I do agree that there's an uptick in the agitation factor... I think it's been building up for a while... I think Obama inadvertently created some of it and I think your boy donny jumped on it and he's a regular circus ring-master with a flair for agitation. Something far less certain though is how much of that translates to serious commitment. I honestly don't think you folks have what it takes. It's not that you're underestimating the enemy... it's that you don't seem to know who the enemy is.

...and then, yes - underestimating the enemy that you didn't know you had.

As for donny... yes, he is the legally elected president. You folks keep reminding us and we keep saying "yes, we know." ... (that means we get it). But that doesn't mean we have to respect him. There is no law that says I have to respect him or pledge my allegiance to him. I pledge my alligience to our constitutional republic, not to the asshole that got elected into office by a confused democracy.

As as for the hard-core, patriotic, America-First, military commanders and special forces, yada, yada, yada... they ain't gonna do sh*t. They might take orders from donny now, but donny doesn't own them, the oligarchy does - and the moment the oligarchy pulls the plug on donny, the military will drop him like they never knew him. In the meantime, the oligarchy will continue to control the military through their presidential puppets (each, with an act) as they continue to play checkers with political fronts like nationalism and socialism, which BTW ...is also on an uptick.

And about the "Traitorous Scum"... Let me ask you this... If someone is unable to tell who his enemy is - would it be reasonable to assume he would know who the traitorous scum are?

Jean Deaux

:



My use of the word eclipse is defined as "to make seem less brilliant, famous, etc.;overshadow outshine; surpass": as defined by Websters. I am well aware of the more common use of the word and don't really need any pointed guidance, thank you very much. First off, I am not a racist. Neither am I a deluded twirp that thinks he has all the answers, as you apparently do. I have far more influence over people than you in case you have a serious doubt: I provide reality of our national situation rather than your pie in the sky nonsense. Frankly, you have no idea what the "better people of this great nation" think about anything as your entire thought process is liberal and as whacked as that is, it is often thought of as a mental impairment. You evidently are a serious adherent of your misplaced ideals; far better you give some serious thought to the benefit of the nation rather than your miserable party politics.

Paybacktimeishere

Straightup: I know whom, the traitorous scum are, & how they must be dealt with!!! When the
North Vietnamese defeated South Vietnam, They sent, oh so many, of their so called enemies
to the notorious, "Re-Education" Camp's, where
many were tortured & executed, that is, those that had not fled the defeated, & abandoned last Remnant's of what once was known as South Vietnam. No further Aid from the U.S.!!! The RINO'S & Most
Demo-Rat's, already knew, to give up, to surrender
to North Vietnam; "Red" China, & The Soviet Union, first they had to Destroy President Richard M. Nixon, whom had promised the former South Vietnam President "Carpet Bombing" again, if North Vietnam, Launched Another Massive Invasion of The South. Once
Nixon was removed, The "American Coalition Of
Traitor's", in both Party's( Tweetle-E-Dee & Tweetle-E-Dum), Gave Away, The Entire Prize, "Hook, Line, & Sinker", Without Any Remorse or
Thought, for the 60,000 dead American's, The
Million's of South Vietnamese Killed, Nor a big Damn, for 1.4 Trillion Dollar's, worth of American
Military Gear, Left behind, for The North Vietnamese
Army( "The Victor's" ), to Capture Without A Fight. Yes, I Know The Enemy, Very Well!!! No
one, need Preach to me, about why The Vietnam War Was Lost!!!???

straightUp Loc: California

I know how you're using the word Jean... I wasn't trying to correct you. I was merely playing with word to make another point about what you were saying, but I guess your're too busy defending yourself to see it.


OK... So you're a person who is not a racist but just says racist things. Got it ;)


I don't think anyone here is claiming to know all the answers but your delusion *IS* pretty obvious.


Oh really now? LOL... OK, Jean, "whatever you say"...


'Sounds like something a delusional person would say. ;) Look, I've asked you numerous times to provide evidence or logical arguments to support what you're saying and you haven't delivered once. You just get all pissy because I don't simply accept what you say. So, you can squawk all you want about how you "provide reality" but unless you can show some substance, there's no reason for me to believe you.


LOL - yes, I know... That's what people often say to make themselves feel better when they clearly don't have a comeback, it's basically the same thing as throwing insults when you don't have a real argument, which you don't. And who are the "better people of this nation" Jean? White people? LOL... Whoever you think they are, you won't EVER find me making claims about who the "better people of this nation" are because it's impossible for one person to "know" all 350+ million people in this nation, therefore a claim like that can only come out of prejudice... and that seems to be more you're thing than mine.


Says the loyal Republican to the unaffiliated voter. LOL.

straightUp Loc: California

Who are they then?


Hey, that's some fancy tap dancing there Payback. ;)

So, the U.S. sent 2.7 million troops into combat, 1 out of 10 of them were casualties. 58,000 of them were killed. But that was just... "aid" and it was *South Vietnam* that actually lost the fight. ;)

Something similar happened in Dunkirk in 1940, when the British evacuated their troops and France fell. But at least the Brits are man enough to admit defeat. When you commit thousands of troops to front line combat you are part of the force that wins or looses, period. If you're coming up with stupid excuses like... "that doesn't count" then you're just not man enough to admit it.


RINO's were just Republicans back then, this was long before the right-wing fanatics took over the GOP and started marginalizing the old-school as RINO's. As for the pressure to withdraw, yes there was pressure from the left. That's because we were pouring billions of dollars and thousands of lives into a foreign war with no end in site. Americans were being drafted into this war and brought home in caskets and the politicians couldn't give the families of the fallen ANY good reason for it. So, they felt it was time to cut our losses.


Nixon appears on the list of genocides because of his carpet bombing in Cambodia, which was one of the most inhumane things our government has ever done. There is no excuse for killing innocent people and laying waste to their farms so that those who aren't obliterated starve to death. When Americans found out what Nixon did they knew a line had been crossed.


... by virtue of his own criminal actions...


What prize? We were there for 10 years... We could have continued for another 10 years and it wouldn't have made any difference. The military just didn't know how to fight that war.


You got that really turned around... The 60,000 didn't die from being removed, they died from being sent in... and we didn't spend 1.4 trillion on gear because were leaving either. The decision to withdraw was BECAUSE of the remorse for those losses. So sorry that the U.S. didn't send another 60,000 Americans to their deaths just so you can beat your chest and say we won but sometimes the more sensible people just need to say "enough, is enough."


Are you actually suggesting the people that pressured the withdraw from Saigon are the enemy? That pressure came from the American people, Payback. I would think twice about calling the American people your enemy.


Is that a statement or a question?

Paybacktimeishere

Straightup- Gleichschaltung!

If you are really that "dense"( I don't think you
actually are, you come across as very smart.).But, if You Really Do Not Know, Whom The Real Enemies Are, then that makes You One! You can't Play It Both Way's, & generally,
Disloyalty to one's Country, After Taking The Oath, to defend "Her", against "ALL ENEMIES, BOTH FOREIGN, & DOMESTIC", makes You an enemy!!!
PS: We No Longer, Live In An Actual Democracy,
We Now Live In A Very Corrupt, Unpatriotic, "Dumb, & Getting Dumber", POLITICAL HYPOCRISY!" The OLIGHARCH'S Love This!!!