After enduring 400 days of possible xenophobia, the Asian community has gotten funds allocated to them

[Joe Money]

The specific piece of legislation that passed had to do with data reporting and stat keeping. And many asian activist groups say its not enough and not effective. Essentialy saying its just sympbolic or some half assed measure but you ignore that too.

The specific piece of legislation centers anti-Asian hate crimes, even though "...ias against African Americans overwhelmingly comprised the largest category of race-based hate crime incidents, with a total of 56% of race-based hate crimes being motivated by anti-Black bias" per the FBI!

Besides, we know how you feel about "data reporting" and "stat keeping." As you've told us, you "care not to look at numbers."

SCOTUS has been debating the length and effectiveness of affirmative action since is inception. Elements of it has been struck down over the decades long before this rise in Asian awareness. Over the decades cacs have been USING asians as fodder to strike down AA in school admissions. none of this is anything new or different you should know this. that issue would go down whether or not bts met with any president. If anything theyre just jumping on a bandwagon...one that needs an interpreter to help them speak on it since only one of them even speaks english.

This particular Supreme Court case concerns alleged anti-Asian discrimination in college admissions. It is specific to that!!

Geechie, as I said earlier, you simply don't get it, even though others in this thread have explained it to you over a year ago. Just accept it for what it is. Some people just don't get certain things.

 

[Supersav]

Can I jump in here? Geechie is hilarious

 

[Joe Money]

Can I jump in here? Geechie is hilarious

If you enjoy having a "discussion" with a brick wall, then go ahead!!

 

[gene cisco]

Can I jump in here? Geechie is hilarious

He brought more comedy to this and the Monique thread than I thought possible.

But on the real side, I thought they gave up the Asian hate narrative in 2021. Wonder why Biden needs the photo op now. As for the Supreme court case, let's see what happens if they rule to stop discriminating against them in colleges. Who will be bitching about that ruling the most? Hypocrisy on full display.

 

[BKF]

The specific piece of legislation centers anti-Asian hate crimes, even though "...ias against African Americans overwhelmingly comprised the largest category of race-based hate crime incidents, with a total of 56% of race-based hate crimes being motivated by anti-Black bias" per the FBI!

Besides, we know how you feel about "data reporting" and "stat keeping." As you've told us, you "care not to look at numbers."



This particular Supreme Court case concerns alleged anti-Asian discrimination in college admissions. It is specific to that!!

Geechie, as I said earlier, you simply don't get it, even though others in this thread have explained it to you over a year ago. Just accept it for what it is. Some people just don't get certain things.

It seems you folks don't get it because you guys have tunnel vission. This case is before a majority conservative court. When it was pointed out back when Hillary was running against Trump to be president that there will be Supreme Court opening occurring. Well it didn't seemmto be a factor in you guys scorched Earth/dems are the same/voting don't matter crusade.

 

[Supersav]

It seems you folks don't get it because you guys have tunnel vission. This case is before a majority conservative court. When it was pointed out back when Hillary was running against Trump to be president that there will be Supreme Court opening occurring. Well it didn't seemmto be a factor in you guys scorched Earth/dems are the same/voting don't matter crusade.

Word salad
Me voting doesn't change this. RBG not retiring when she should have is one of the problems.

 

[Supersav]

He brought more comedy to this and the Monique thread than I thought possible.

But on the real side, I thought they gave up the Asian hate narrative in 2021. Wonder why Biden needs the photo op now. As for the Supreme court case, let's see what happens if they rule to stop discriminating against them in colleges. Who will be bitching about that ruling the most? Hypocrisy on full display.

Rulings laws it's all just a show. That HBO show we own the city touched on that. All the law changing in the world won't make police act right. Like the anti lynching bullshit. I didn't know killing someone wasn't considered a crime before lol

 

[BKF]

Word salad
Me voting doesn't change this. RBG not retiring when she should have is one of the problems.

So lets say Obama wasn't elected and RBG retired early. How would voting not have mattered???
Lets not forget that not having a democratic majority in the senate prevented Obama from getting one justice through.

Then Trump being elelcted allowed him to put three consecutives on the court.

 

[Supersav]

So lets say Obama wasn't elected and RBG retired early. How would voting not have mattered???

Ok in your scenario who becomes president? Voting doesn't matter because WE voted for Obama and nothing big changed for Black people and he was supposed to be black. So who do we have to vote for to get something passed for just us? Even if it's performative bullshit?

 

[BKF]

Ok in your scenario who becomes president? Voting doesn't matter because WE voted for Obama and nothing big changed for Black people and he was supposed to be black. So who do we have to vote for to get something passed for just us? Even if it's performative bullshit?

We are are talking aboiut Supreme Court picks right? If Obama had a majority dem senate. Then he could have put one more persin on the court. If Hillary was elected a d had a dem majority senate. Then she would have had three Supreme Court picks and the Supreme Court would not be a conservative majority and this particular case more than likely would jot have been picked up by the Supreme Court as it was rejected innthe lower courts.

 

[Supersav]

We are are talking aboiut Supreme Court picks right? If Obama had a majority dem senate. Then he could have put one more persin on the court. If Hillary was elected a d had a dem majority senate. Then she would have had three Supreme Court picks and the Supreme Court would not be a conservative majority and this particular case more than likely would jot have been picked up by the Supreme Court as it was rejected innthe lower courts.

What case the Asian shit? What would a dem supreme court do for black people because that's my point and what I care about

 

[BKF]

What case the Asian shit? What would a dem supreme court do for black people because that's my point and what I care about

So you responded to my post about the Asian case before the Supreme Court but you don't care? Then why even respond to my post?
Do you not realize that the case I'm referring to will affect black folk??

 

[Soul On Ice]

It seems you folks don't get it because you guys have tunnel vission. This case is before a majority conservative court. When it was pointed out back when Hillary was running against Trump to be president that there will be Supreme Court opening occurring. Well it didn't seemmto be a factor in you guys scorched Earth/dems are the same/voting don't matter crusade.

Why don't yall ever put the blame on the Dems? It's always the people's fault.
Smh

 

[Supersav]

So you responded to my post about the Asian case before the Supreme Court but you don't care? Then why even respond to my post?
Do you not realize that the case I'm referring to will affect black folk??

Everything affects black folk in a negative way never positive. If we vote we get shitted on if we don't people like you shit on people for not voting. You are gonna have to realize the system is the problem

 

[Supersav]

So you responded to my post about the Asian case before the Supreme Court but you don't care? Then why even respond to my post?
Do you not realize that the case I'm referring to will affect black folk??

 

[jack walsh13]

 

[BKF]

Oh this is one of those twitter finger critical thinking post?
This country is already a mix of capitalism and socialism.

 

[Supersav]

Oh this is one of those twitter finger critical thinking post?
This country is already a mix of capitalism and socialism.

I think people don't really understand what socialism is. In socialism workers own the means of production. Welfare and hand outs isn't socialism sir

 

[BKF]

I think people don't really understand what socialism is. In socialism workers own the means of production. Welfare and hand outs isn't socialism sir

Can you name a successful socialist country?
If there is one, then why are you still living in the USA?
What then was socialism?

" Socialism was an economic system where the means of production (e.g., factories), capital (i.e., banks), and agricultural land (i.e., farms) were owned by the state. In some socialist countries, like Poland, small privately owned farms were allowed to operate. In other countries, like Yugoslavia, small mom‐and‐pop shops also remained in private ownership. Strict limits on private enterprise limited accumulation of wealth and supposedly provided for a relatively high degree of income equality.


Two important caveats need to be kept in mind. First, lack of private enterprise resulted in low economic growth and, consequently, low standards of living. Thus, while income equality was relatively high (if party bosses and their cronies were excluded from the calculations), people in Soviet‐bloc countries were much poorer than their counterparts in the West. Nobody has yet figured out a way of combining genuine socialism with high rates of growth over a long period of time.


Second, top members of the communist parties, which ran socialist countries, were generally exempted from limits on wealth accumulation. As such, communist leaders from Josip Broz Tito in Yugoslavia to Kim Il Sung in North Korea enjoyed luxuries unimaginable to the rest of the populace.

Most importantly, top members of the government were above the law. They could not be accused, arrested, or convicted of ordinary or even extraordinary crimes (e.g., Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot). As such, inequality of status between the governing class and the governed masses in socialist countries was as great, if not greater, as it was under feudalism."

 

[Supersav]

Can you name a successful socialist country?
If there is one, then why are you still living in the USA?
What then was socialism?

" Socialism was an economic system where the means of production (e.g., factories), capital (i.e., banks), and agricultural land (i.e., farms) were owned by the state. In some socialist countries, like Poland, small privately owned farms were allowed to operate. In other countries, like Yugoslavia, small mom‐and‐pop shops also remained in private ownership. Strict limits on private enterprise limited accumulation of wealth and supposedly provided for a relatively high degree of income equality.


Two important caveats need to be kept in mind. First, lack of private enterprise resulted in low economic growth and, consequently, low standards of living. Thus, while income equality was relatively high (if party bosses and their cronies were excluded from the calculations), people in Soviet‐bloc countries were much poorer than their counterparts in the West. Nobody has yet figured out a way of combining genuine socialism with high rates of growth over a long period of time.


Second, top members of the communist parties, which ran socialist countries, were generally exempted from limits on wealth accumulation. As such, communist leaders from Josip Broz Tito in Yugoslavia to Kim Il Sung in North Korea enjoyed luxuries unimaginable to the rest of the populace.

Most importantly, top members of the government were above the law. They could not be accused, arrested, or convicted of ordinary or even extraordinary crimes (e.g., Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot). As such, inequality of status between the governing class and the governed masses in socialist countries was as great, if not greater, as it was under feudalism."

I can name plenty but you can read about some here https://www.google.com/amp/s/financ...-socialist-countries-succeeded-130731664.html

Socialism has thrived in plenty of countries until the US interfered and fucked it up. See Indonesia before the mass genocide the CIA had admitted to just because the country was socialist and wouldn't let US businesses in. Cuba, Venezuela, Russia the biggest example and Mao's China. Poverty and unemployment is an outake of capitalism

 

[BKF]

I can name plenty but you can read about some here https://www.google.com/amp/s/financ...-socialist-countries-succeeded-130731664.html

Socialism has thrived in plenty of countries until the US interfered and fucked it up. See Indonesia before the mass genocide the CIA had admitted to just because the country was socialist and wouldn't let US businesses in. Cuba, Venezuela, Russia the biggest example and Mao's China. Poverty and unemployment is an outake of capitalism

So why haven't you moved out of the US yet??

Btw from your link:


"No country has ever experimented with pure socialism because of structural and practical reasons. The only state that had come the closest to socialism was Soviet Union and it had both dramatic successes and dramatic failures in terms of economic growth, technological advancement and welfare. In the end however, the state collapsed.

Other experimenters like Cuba improved only in very narrow areas like healthcare. On the other hand, some countries are prospering with highest scores in happiness indexes like Sweden and Norway through Democratic Socialism.

Democratic Socialism stresses the need for a democratic society that retains a competitive capitalist market but is complemented with the “ethical” economic ideals of Socialism and while the term Democratic Socialism is interchangeably used with Social Democracy due to identical socio-politico-economic frameworks, the latter theory argues in favor of transitioning to socialism through reform of existing societal structures gradually rather than revolutionarily. (O’Hara, 2003)

Most people believe that China is a purely socialist country which is not true. China practices state capitalism but has integrated their model with some socialist and some experimental policies.

However, the Chinese President Xi Jinping has stated that China will have fully transitioned into socialism by 2050. Most countries have simply adapted or modified socialist policies to work with their economic model. So we’d be analyzing different countries with their different models that have adapted to socialism in their own ways."

 

[Supersav]

So why haven't you moved out of the US yet??

Btw from your link:


"No country has ever experimented with pure socialism because of structural and practical reasons. The only state that had come the closest to socialism was Soviet Union and it had both dramatic successes and dramatic failures in terms of economic growth, technological advancement and welfare. In the end however, the state collapsed.

Other experimenters like Cuba improved only in very narrow areas like healthcare. On the other hand, some countries are prospering with highest scores in happiness indexes like Sweden and Norway through Democratic Socialism.

Democratic Socialism stresses the need for a democratic society that retains a competitive capitalist market but is complemented with the “ethical” economic ideals of Socialism and while the term Democratic Socialism is interchangeably used with Social Democracy due to identical socio-politico-economic frameworks, the latter theory argues in favor of transitioning to socialism through reform of existing societal structures gradually rather than revolutionarily. (O’Hara, 2003)

Most people believe that China is a purely socialist country which is not true. China practices state capitalism but has integrated their model with some socialist and some experimental policies.

However, the Chinese President Xi Jinping has stated that China will have fully transitioned into socialism by 2050. Most countries have simply adapted or modified socialist policies to work with their economic model. So we’d be analyzing different countries with their different models that have adapted to socialism in their own ways."

You expect an American media source to be unbiased towards socialism?

And to answer your other question...because if I move to a socialist country your country would probably sanction it or bomb it.

 

[BKF]

You expect an American media source to be unbiased towards socialism?

And to answer your other question...because if I move to a socialist country your country would probably sanction it or bomb it.

Dude...you posted the link to prove that there are successful socialist countries.

You aint moved because you're comfortable in this country.
Your talk is cheap.

 

[Supersav]

Dude...you posted the link to prove that there are successful socialist countries.

You aint moved because you're comfortable in this country.
Your talk is cheap.

When the alternative is starvation or death..lol

 

[Supersav]

Dude...you posted the link to prove that there are successful socialist countries.

You aint moved because you're comfortable in this country.
Your talk is cheap.

I posted the link so you can educate yourself. I know there are successful socialist countries and you're team America so why wouldn't you trust yahoo. Once you become more educated on history and the world you will have a greater understanding of why capitalism is a bad system

 

[Joe Money]

Can you name a successful socialist country?
If there is one, then why are you still living in the USA?
What then was socialism?

" Socialism was an economic system where the means of production (e.g., factories), capital (i.e., banks), and agricultural land (i.e., farms) were owned by the state. In some socialist countries, like Poland, small privately owned farms were allowed to operate. In other countries, like Yugoslavia, small mom‐and‐pop shops also remained in private ownership. Strict limits on private enterprise limited accumulation of wealth and supposedly provided for a relatively high degree of income equality.


Two important caveats need to be kept in mind. First, lack of private enterprise resulted in low economic growth and, consequently, low standards of living. Thus, while income equality was relatively high (if party bosses and their cronies were excluded from the calculations), people in Soviet‐bloc countries were much poorer than their counterparts in the West. Nobody has yet figured out a way of combining genuine socialism with high rates of growth over a long period of time.


Second, top members of the communist parties, which ran socialist countries, were generally exempted from limits on wealth accumulation. As such, communist leaders from Josip Broz Tito in Yugoslavia to Kim Il Sung in North Korea enjoyed luxuries unimaginable to the rest of the populace.

Most importantly, top members of the government were above the law. They could not be accused, arrested, or convicted of ordinary or even extraordinary crimes (e.g., Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot). As such, inequality of status between the governing class and the governed masses in socialist countries was as great, if not greater, as it was under feudalism."

So you're encouraging people to vote Democratic yet you're quoting from a LIBERTARIAN thinktank?!?

https://www.cato.org/commentary/bernie-not-socialist-america-not-capitalist

Make it make sense BKF! I can only imagine if one of US did this!!

 

[geechiedan]

The specific piece of legislation centers anti-Asian hate crimes, even though "...ias against African Americans overwhelmingly comprised the largest category of race-based hate crime incidents, with a total of 56% of race-based hate crimes being motivated by anti-Black bias" per the FBI!

Besides, we know how you feel about "data reporting" and "stat keeping." As you've told us, you "care not to look at numbers."



This particular Supreme Court case concerns alleged anti-Asian discrimination in college admissions. It is specific to that!!

Geechie, as I said earlier, you simply don't get it, even though others in this thread have explained it to you over a year ago. Just accept it for what it is. Some people just don't get certain things.

The specific piece of legislation centers anti-Asian hate crimes, even though "...ias against African Americans overwhelmingly comprised the largest category of race-based hate crime incidents, with a total of 56% of race-based hate crimes being motivated by anti-Black bias" per the FBI!

Besides, we know how you feel about "data reporting" and "stat keeping." As you've told us, you "care not to look at numbers."



This particular Supreme Court case concerns alleged anti-Asian discrimination in college admissions. It is specific to that!!

Geechie, as I said earlier, you simply don't get it, even though others in this thread have explained it to you over a year ago. Just accept it for what it is. Some people just don't get certain things.

you know WHY it centers on anti asian hate crimes because when they tried to figure out the precise numbers of crimes committed against them they found out that NO ONR GAVE A SHIT! Not enough to rattle off a precise number like 56% of race based hate crimes being motivated by anti black bias. So your complaining about asians getting something Blacks already have (otherwise you wouldn't be able to quote such a precise stat). the extra added bonus in the political maneuvering is not only should that data already been there but because they called it THE ANTI ASIAN HATE CRIME BILL they get to LOOK like they're doing something on behalf of the Asian community when in fact its just another fact finding report that will take YEARS to compile while not actually doing anything to prevent or punish anything. You know...the same performative bullshit blacks have been getting.

As far as the SCOTUS shit...again thats NOT NEW theyve been using Asians as a reason to knock down AA for DECADES (all a part of the "model minority scheme)...conservative cacs have been playing the long game in stacking SCOTUS since the 80s..all kinds of shits coming to head now that includes AA and Roe V Wade and asians are just CANNON FODDER in that scheme.

So what are we looking at precisely in this BTS meets Biden photo op?? A symbolic/performative bit of political theater that suppose to bolster support from the asian community for a particular party while not delivering anything substantive that actually benefits that group. Hmm who else gets the okaydoke for votes run on them like that???

Now you guys go on and on about how blacks only get performative/symbolic ineffective BS then when other minority groups get the SAME THING you all complain theyre getting something we're not! When its the SAME political BS. Then the same peanut gallery of complainers and conspiracy theorists circle jerk each other off with name calling or make snide remarks as if you actually discovered something new and different when in reality its the same game being run on Asians thats BEEN run on blacks

And YALL STILL HAVEN'T SAID what's significantly different with BTS meeting with Biden?? Compared to when black celebs meet with a president??

 

[geechiedan]

Can I jump in here? Geechie is hilarious

can you jump in anywhere??? you know what's hilarious....you thinking the federal reserve being abolished is a real actionable thing!

 

[BKF]

So you're encouraging people to vote Democratic yet you're quoting from a LIBERTARIAN thinktank?!?

https://www.cato.org/commentary/bernie-not-socialist-america-not-capitalist

Make it make sense BKF! I can only imagine if one of US did this!!

Are you serious? One thing has nothing to do with the other. Secondly I didn't encourage anyone to vote for democrats. I reminded you guys how your scorched Earth view lead to a conservative Supreme Court and now you're bitching about the possible out of the affirmative action case they have before them.

 

[geechiedan]

He brought more comedy to this and the Monique thread than I thought possible.

But on the real side, I thought they gave up the Asian hate narrative in 2021. Wonder why Biden needs the photo op now. As for the Supreme court case, let's see what happens if they rule to stop discriminating against them in colleges. Who will be bitching about that ruling the most? Hypocrisy on full display.

you guys clearly have no idea what the fucks going on do you??

 

[Supersav]

can you jump in anywhere??? you know what's hilarious....you thinking the federal reserve being abolished is a real actionable thing!

I said this?

 

[geechiedan]

I said this?

oh no that was xcactor...my bad...after a while you all start to sound the same...

 

[Joe Money]

you know WHY it centers on anti asian hate crimes because when they tried to figure out the precise numbers of crimes committed against them they found out that NO ONR GAVE A SHIT! Not enough to rattle off a precise number like 56% of race based hate crimes being motivated by anti black bias. So your complaining about asians getting something Blacks already have (otherwise you wouldn't be able to quote such a precise stat). the extra added bonus in the political maneuvering is not only should that data already been there but because they called it THE ANTI ASIAN HATE CRIME BILL they get to LOOK like they're doing something on behalf of the Asian community when in fact its just another fact finding report that will take YEARS to compile while not actually doing anything to prevent or punish anything. You know...the same performative bullshit blacks have been getting.

"The number of attacks against Asian Americans increased from 161 to 274, the FBI data shows."

Looks like a precise number to me!

And you say "the same performative bullshit blacks have been getting". So you acknowledge that Black people only get performative bullshit from the Dems. Which is what I've been saying to you all along.......you AGREE with what we're saying, yet you're arguing anyway!!

As far as the SCOTUS shit...again thats NOT NEW theyve been using Asians as a reason to knock down AA for DECADES (all a part of the "model minority scheme)...conservative cacs have been playing the long game in stacking SCOTUS since the 80s..all kinds of shits coming to head now that includes AA and Roe V Wade and asians are just CANNON FODDER in that scheme.

So what are we looking at precisely in this BTS meets Biden photo op?? A symbolic/performative bit of political theater that suppose to bolster support from the asian community for a particular party while not delivering anything substantive that actually benefits that group. Hmm who else gets the okaydoke for votes run on them like that???

I'll say it again........you AGREE with what we're saying, yet you're arguing anyway!!

Now you guys go on and on about how blacks only get performative/symbolic ineffective BS then when other minority groups get the SAME THING you all complain theyre getting something we're not! When its the SAME political BS. Then the same peanut gallery of complainers and conspiracy theorists circle jerk each other off with name calling or make snide remarks as if you actually discovered something new and different when in reality its the same game being run on Asians thats BEEN run on blacks

No, it isn't the exact same game, because Asians do not vote Dem to the same extent as Black people do and do not have an entire political class constantly exhorting them to vote Dem without tangible benefits.

I find it ironic that you don't see how the "Asian hate crime" is being pushed from the Left as they meet with Democratic leaders while the "Asian higher education discrimination" lawsuit is being pushed from the Right by conservatives. They're playing on both sides of the fence. Why aren't we allowed to do that without opposition from people like you?

And YALL STILL HAVEN'T SAID what's significantly different with BTS meeting with Biden?? Compared to when black celebs meet with a president??

Ummm....we have. You simply chose not to read it. Can't help you with that.

 

[Joe Money]

Are you serious? One thing has nothing to do with the other. Secondly I didn't encourage anyone to vote for democrats. I reminded you guys how your scorched Earth view lead to a conservative Supreme Court and now you're bitching about the possible out of the affirmative action case they have before them.

So why are you using a Libertartian thinktank as your source on socialism?

And how did our "scorched-Earth view" lead to a conservative Supreme Court?

 

[Supersav]

So why are you using a Libertartian thinktank as your source on socialism?

And how did our "scorched-Earth view" lead to a conservative Supreme Court?

Because we didn't vote lmao