And was it really the most efficient method? If I were a German at the time, I'd be sure to write a strongly-worded letter about wasting my tax money like that.
The problem is that she only says that in the context of Hitler invading other countries and apparently not genociding his own people because she’s trying to push the narrative that “pure” nationalism can not be wrong.
wat? Hitler literally had no clue what he was doing. He had his own fantasy vision of Germany that had nothing to do with reality and subsequently even prohibited and killed many German traditions to fit his narrative.
Remember Fraktur, 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖔𝖑𝖉 𝖌𝖊𝖗𝖒𝖆𝖓 𝖘𝖙𝖞𝖑𝖊 𝖔𝖋 𝖜𝖗𝖎𝖙𝖎𝖓𝖌? He prohibited it because he couldn't read it and thought it looked too "jewish"
Anti-semitism seems like a weird thing to add to fascism. Like here's this group of people who contribute too much to society, in a time when technological innovation was clearly related to success in economic and military competition between nations, so what do we do? Give them special treatment according to corporatist principles? Nope, just treat them like gypsies and watch your allies get nuked by tech invented by people who you turned into refugees.
Fascism generally requires an enemy, real or imagiend, against which to rally people; historical European antisemitism meant that Jews seemed like an easy target at the time, although in the long run a bad idea
They already had an enemy in the form of communism, though. Hitler could have claimed that Russian communists were going to systematically rape their way through the country, thus permanently ruining Germany on a genetic level, and he not only wouldn't have been lying, he wouldn't have been wrong. The sensible thing to do would be to recruit Albert Einstein and have him help in the effort to nuke Moscow.
The thing is that the Nazis funded themselves off of stealing other peoples shit to buy more guns for the government. It doesn’t take a genius to see who has more money out of Jews and Commies.
A lot of it was based on the idea that the Joos were the reason they lost WWI. The commies weren't a big deal in WWI Germany so they could only play second fiddle.
he fell for the meme that Jews are a religion, not a race
Sorry, but unlike you I fall for facts not memes. It's a fact that Judaism is a religion, not a race. Karlx Marx gave up his Judaism when he turn to atheism.
What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.…. Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man – and turns them into commodities…. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange…. The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general.
Wait, but this means that self-hating jews who reject their connection to their people and embrace antisemitism are evil and bring only death and destruction to the world while jews who don't behave like self-hating cucks create theory of relativity 🤔
>implying Einstein wasn't a worthless hack who stole the work of Poincare and Lorenz and leveraged his (((ethnic connections))) in the media to peddle it as his own
> Get into an unwinnable war because your foreign policy is being made by men who think of politics as a giant Wagnerian LARP.
> Waste your dwindling resources in the last months of the war on technologically impressive but militarily useless shit like inaccurate rockets and jet bombers that you don't have enough fuel to fly.
Hitler obviously sucks, but the war was started for more realist reasons then ideological ones. Germany had France on one side and Russia on the other. They needed to take both out or risk being crushed. Oc they ended up getting crushed anyway, but Germany used the same logic 25 years earlier in ww1, before the Nazis were even a thing so I don’t know why we assume this is ideological.
Yeah, but attacking Russia in the summer of '41 was idiotic. Even that might not have been fatal if Japan hadn't pulled America into the war, but it can't have been hard to see that war between the USA and Japan was imminent, with the only question being who would strike first.
Or, as happened beforehand with Spain and Italy, France wouldn't risk alienating their own fascists by starting beef with other county's facists, and if Hitler wouldn't have been so retarded as to attack Poland, nothing would have happened. He knew of the agreement to split up Poland, he should have just waited a year or something until moving in to "save the Polish against the red menace" and be a hero, instead of moving in one week before the Soviets and being the asshole.
nazi ideology started due to hitler reading the ravings of a half mad and assblasted russian general who blamed communism on da joos, so to nazi ideology, communism and Judaism are one and the same. Ignore the fact that commies are pretty damn antisemitic in their own ritghts
oh yes, Communism, the Frankfurt School, Modern Art, transgenderism, societal subversion, exploitation of the working class, all these wonderful contributions to society thanks to Jews
It makes perfect sense if you think they're disloyal. If they're going to work against the country, intelligence is only gonna make them more dangerous.
Plus, Jews were not know for their intelligence at the time. On the contrary, they were seen as untermensch.
Kind of a weird hypothesis, since he build his entire economy to go to war. "If Ted Bundy didn't feel the need to torture and kill all those women, would he have been a good guy"?
it was actually britians fault theholocaust happened. hitler wanted to send the jews to israel but britain said no you cant. no one brings that up though. oh ya and the people in britain who said hitler could not were jews. talk about egg on your face.
literally nothin i said was factually wrong though..if stating facts is bait then maybe i am in the wrong place....it was called haavara agreement. look it up..
no it is more like locking two people in a room and you know 1 really really hates the other and has a violent streak. the victim is pleading not to lock the door. for no good reason did you decide to lock the door. the person who locked the door deserves a lot of blame. simple anaology.
Wellllll.... The Brits knew petty much what was going on at the camps, especially at the end of the war. And they did nothing because the krauts kept putting resources to them instead of the war effort... Tbqh a tough call.
There was a lot of naive international hope that Germany would just treat Jews as shitty second class citizens (as awful as that was as a "best case scenario") and not wholesale intern and slaughter.
There were other attempts of expulsion but it was a shit show with no hindsight how the Nazi elite would decide to proceed.
Oh shit no. It was Germany's fault left right and centre. But it is erroneous to say that Britain's Intelligence Services had no idea about what was going on and let it continue in order to help their war effort.
One isn't quite innocent, one is holding the bloody knife in a storage container full of dead hookers. That sort of thing.
But the "moving Jews to Jerusalem" thing happened in 1933 according to Wikipedia, and the Holocaust started in 1941, 2 years after the war started. What was Britain meant to do besides win faster?
Exactly! Shipping them to the Mandate would've heightened already shitty tensions at the start of the war few thought Hitler would be so dumb to start, and as the war went on the dumb Nazis kept putting war usable resources to the camps. Besides there wasn't much for the RAF to do, and the MI-6/5 didn't want to give up actionable intelligence even if it'd turn public opinion (well more than the London Bombing did already).
I dunno if you're British but I think I'm calling it as I see it here...
What, you're saying that deficit spending to the tune of a deficit several times bigger than your GDP is a bad idea somehow? Please, we'll just fix it with government bonds that rely on a secondary informal currency!
Dan Carlin has a podcast where he talks about how the Nazi's retardation screwed them over again and again in making military decisions. It's pretty incredible they were able to cause so much damage considering how fucking retarded they were.
Tbh the only war Germany could've won and kept was the corridor war if they stopped there. Every thing else would have required too much resources to keep authoritarian client states in order.
This is what most, to me at any rate, people don't understand about the inherent nihilism of Nazism as an ideology. It's need to constantly have an enemy would have ultimately eaten itself alive.
I'm not sure why basketball americans don't jump on the conservative bandwagon. The mayos can't help but fall over themselves when they find a baste basketball american
Something about having enough dignity to not hop on board with the states that wanted to keep your ethnic group as legally-enforced second-guess citizens.
Even presuming that was true, that wasn't what he implied at all, the implication is that welfare cucked black people into becoming second class citizens
No, I'm saying Republicans should drop the pretense that they're looking out for black communities and just stick with the fact that ballooning welfare costs will eventually bankrupt the country. Cutting welfare benefits would negatively impact black communities in the short to medium term and there's no indication that they would be able to overcome historical and institutional circumstances to reach general socioeconomic parity with white people. However, there's no long term if the country goes broke. Maybe if Republicans stopped lying through their teeth that they care and just stick with pragmatism, they could get some more turnout. Instead, black people see some white conservative combover implying that welfare is the reason they're still disadvantaged and they rightfully respond with "fuck you".
Look at that, your retardation caused me to seriouspost.
That's a awfully long paragraph to just say welfare good
Good on you for making it through the whole thing! I'm proud of you.
If that was true then black families should have smaller income growth gap now than 40 years ago
Only assuming everything else is constant. Also assuming that household income growth is constant across all incomes. Actually, there are quite a lot of assumptions you would need to make before this metric could ever be of use in discerning the net socioeconomic benefits of welfare.
That was an awfully long paragraph to just say you're an idiot.
Now, ignoring you being salty, it's also amusing to see the attempt to rationalize the growing wealth grow gap without giving alternatives, perhaps it was all the racists governing Chicago?
Yeah, you presumed rich people are just shooting ahead, you anti semite
I didn't presume it, I flat out stated its possibility.
Unfortunately the gap has grown when measuring using median household income rather than simply average
If average growth rates between white and black household incomes remained the same while median growth rates increased for white households compares to black households, then that would mean that white households experienced greater degrees of income inequality in said growth. I don't know where you found coverage of average growth because I only saw median.
Regardless, median vs average does not impact the second derivative growth, at least as far as I'm aware.
If you suggest it as a "possibility" It's a presumption, if you stated it as a certainty it would not be
Also average growth gap isn't being used because the average would be too influenced by the numbers on top and the ones on the bottom, with median you get a picture of where the household in the middle sits, for black people this statistic is depressing because the gap between the median white household and the median black household has grown, while every other race has been closing it
If you suggest it as a "possibility" It's a presumption, if you stated it as a certainty it would not be
...I can't believe I'm responding with this, but presumption pertains to argumentation. The presumption would be something taken to be true, with this truth forming the basis of the proceeding claim(s).
Also average growth gap isn't being used because the average would be too influenced by the numbers on top and the ones on the bottom, with median you get a picture of where the household in the middle sits
I was talking about skewness in my previous comment.
Could you possibly be any more a stereotypical redditor? Are you really going to die on the hill that you didn't presume shit when you started talking about rich people? You obviously believe it to be true, so as per definition "an idea that is taken to be true on the basis of probability." It fits right in, and of course your subconsciousness is lucid enough to fathom that what you're writing is complete tripe and you want to kill yourself
Also your statistics is based on income, which is flawed, especially as we're discussing how welfare ruined black households, you can have a large income and still be a debt slave because of reckless spending
and of course your subconsciousness is lucid enough to fathom that what you're writing is complete tripe and you want to kill yourself
This is some serious autism on your part.
Also your statistics is based on income
You're the one that started on about income in the first place.
Accumulated household wealth is a much better statistic
Household income includes investment gains. Once families reach a certain threshold of income they can start investing it. This effect is cumulative. Congratulations on finally grasping my point about income growth nonlinearity. It only took you half a day.
Taking my joke seriously is some serious autism on your part.
Says the person who mistakes banter for being serious, holy shit dude, you must have been greedy hogging all those chromosomes
Also all your stated tripe is meaningless when every other race that began on the bottom has seen better progress than the black community, that has comparatively regressed, so even with about the same income as blacks, hispanics are growing wealth quicker than blacks, and the asians are even quicker
But I'm sure if people keep voting for more welfare it will sort itself out within the next decade or so
Says the person who mistakes banter for being serious
no u
when every other race that began on the bottom has seen better progress than the black community
You keep saying this even though all of the previously linked material demonstrates nearly identical trends of household income growth and wealth accumulation for non-white Hispanic and black populations.
You should have just stuck with me taking this seriously while you write your small essays
Also fucking lol at pretending hispanics and blacks are comparable, as I showed earlier median wealth for households used to be higher for blacks than hispanics, now they've changed places, and hispanics are doing better in areas such as home ownerships and households with both parents present, which are both good indications of future increase in wealth, and what is often linked with decrease in home ownership and single parent households, that's right, welfare
You should have just stuck with accusing me taking this seriously
That's what the "no u" was for.
earlier median wealth for households used to be higher for blacks than hispanics
A ~$2k difference in wealth between Hispanic and black households on both "ends" of that graph is trivial, particularly in relation to white household wealth levels.
hispanics are doing better compared to blacks in areas such as home ownerships
According to Pew Research, home ownership among Hispanic and black populations are almost the same. Meanwhile, the black population has higher rates of high school completion as well as college completion (whose trend is almost identical to that of the white population).
what is often linked with decrease in home ownership and single parent households? That's right, welfare
I was suggesting that accusing projection was a even more pathetic attempt than just presuming I was taking you seriously, but for your parents sake let's just hope you're being purposefully obtuse
I would also like to see you suggest to a poor person that having $2k is nothing, also interesting rounding where $20920-$17409=$2000
You've continuously argued from a basis of ignorance, and refuse to even entertain the notion that welfare can have a negative impact on the groups that receive it
I was suggesting that accusing projection was a even more pathetic attempt than just presuming I was taking you seriously, but for your parents sake let's just hope you're being purposefully obtuse
To be honest, I didn't read too much into the fluff.
I would also like to see you suggest to a poor person that having $2k is nothing,
I'm suggesting that the change itself is trivial to your argument because of the relative size, particularly when talking about wealth instead of income. Having $4k more of your mortgage principal paid off is going to be less impactful than a $4k increase in annual income.
also interesting rounding where $20920-$17409=$2000
~$2k difference in both ends, meaning if both ends have ~$2k difference in opposite directions, then the net difference would be ~$4k.
would include lots of hispanics born outside of the US
What percentage of the survey were born outside of the U.S.? The number of Hispanic people that immigrate in one year is a drop in the bucket compared to the existing U.S. Hispanic population.
refuse to even entertain the notion that welfare can have a negative impact on the groups that receive it
I can definitely entertain the notion that a decently sized subset of welfare recipients could be using welfare as a crutch. What I find very hard to believe is the idea that cutting off the remaining majority of families of their financial assistance will be a net positive for these families in the long run, especially those families that work while on welfare. I regard it as immoral to cut welfare on the basis of the bad faith participants. Even more so when the "arguments" behind such a policy are so full of holes.
See you know you're dealing with a redditor when they have to dissect a three sentence paragraph
$2000 out of $20000 is 10% of the household wealth, that is making it or breaking it at such income levels, have a little bit of reflection, and I commented on the strangeness of the rounding because the difference is about $3500, but instead of calling it at $3000 you attempt to lowball it to $2000, I don't know who you're trying to play but yourself
Also the percentage of foreign born hispanics in the US is 35%, 47% for those above the age of 18, nearly half of adult hispanics being born outside the US and therefore likely not educated in US colleges is not a small number, I would like to point out that again you're arguing from a position of ignorance
Lastly, it's not about punishing "bad faith participants", it's about not giving people the opportunity to become dependent on welfare, no matter the intentions of the recipient
See you know you're dealing with a redditor when they have to dissect a three sentence paragraph
t. Redditor
$2000 out of $20000 is 10% of the household wealth, that is making it or breaking it at such income levels, have a little bit of reflection
Once again, at that wealth level, you're looking at people just paying principal down. While important for financial security, it's not going to lead to higher wealth growth rates. Do you not understand how wealth acquisition works?
I commented on the strangeness of the rounding because the difference is about $3500, but instead of calling it at $3000 which one could call reasonable you attempt to lowball it to $2000, I don't know who you're trying to play but yourself
Lol, you are really fixated on that number.
Also the percentage of foreign born hispanics in the US is 35%, 47% for those above the age of 18, nearly half of adult hispanics being born outside the US and therefore likely not educated in US colleges is not a small number
I concede on the point that high school and college levels. I'm glad we'vw gotten that tangent out of the way.
Lastly, it's not about punishing "bad faith participants", it's about not giving people the opportunity to become dependent on welfare, no matter the intentions of the recipient
The entire basis of your argument that welfare is a net negative for the majority of it's recipients rests on a $4k net difference in wealth between Hispanic and black populations and the higher rates of single-parenthood among black households. That's incredibly weak grounds on which to justify depriving one-third of American families of likely necessary assistance.
While important for financial security, it's not going to lead to higher wealth growth rates.
Financial security is the most important factor for wealth growth, when you have money that doesn't all go to essentials is when the household can begin accruing wealth
Lol, you are really fixated on that number.
"No u", should have just let it go then when I pointed it out, or if not admit it either wasn't a very bright move or that it's purposefully deceitful
That's incredibly weak grounds on which to justify depriving one-third of American families of likely necessary assistance.
Let's be honest though, both hispanics and blacks are very dependent on welfare, so it's no wonder the net difference is no more than 1/5. The numbers get far more illuminating when comparing them to asians. At the end of the day the correlation between rise in welfare usage and decrease in household stability is strong, causation is of course tougher to prove, but it's certainly thunkful that the ethnic groups that received the least welfare avoided thing such as nonmarital brith rate growths the most, regardless of prior wealth
Financial security is the most important factor for wealth growth, when you have money that doesn't all go to essentials is when the household can begin accruing wealth
You don't get returns on mortgage equity that you can then invest. $4k extra a year (or around that post-tax) in income, though, can go to paying down more principal on your mortgage. It's meaningful, but in the grand scheme, an extra $4k in wealth does not have the same impact. That was my point.
Paying down your mortgage is an investment though, land property is the oldest and most solid investment, that's why it's so concerning that home ownership is lower now than it was half a century ago
Yes, it's very important. However, most people at lower incomes will probably be using all of their "investment money" to pay down principal, not investing in financial vehicles. Granted, net worth can increase through home price increase given sufficient equity, but these are very illiquid gains and cannot be readily reinvested.
Pretty sure poor white and poor black populations differ quite a bit in these areas. Poor whites are also on welfare. Maybe there's something else at play. Regardless, you've really demonstrated how magnanimous conservatives are toward black communities. You've made a believer out of me.
nah poor whites and blacks of equal monetary status still have quite different outcomes. Cultural factors! I'll just talk to my local poor POC and ask them to be more culturally accepting that will do great won't it
Are you retarded? I'm saying that poor white and poor black people live under very different circumstances in general, particularly rural vs urban differences.
and if you control for all of these socioeconomic and other factors black Americans still grow in income much more slowly than similarly located white families. Even the adopted ones! One wonders how they got there in the first place, since the same holds true no matter social class...
attempt to control ofc. No control is perfect. That said the difference is stark. I'll link u when I'm back home but here's what I found on discord: (I haven't read this one, not at my computer lol)
From what I've read, there was almost no attempt to control at all.
Mixed-race (Black–White) adolescents reported an intermediate number of sexual partners compared to the two parental populations, even after controlling for socio-economic status (Rowe, 2002).
This is the only mention of any kind of control within the study, and that sentence was preceded by this:
Race predicted sexual behavior better than did socioeconomic status.
Also, it's weird that you have a Discord you can casually refer to to readily find studies on race...
You know what else happened half a century ago? When the Hart-Cellar act was introduced, Ted Kennedy(a progressive by 60s standards) assured Americans that it "would not change the ethnic makeup of our cities". If he said that today he would be crucified by Republicans and Democrats alike.
Guess what Sherlock. the political landscape of a country changes.
I miss the times of Black Separatism. When they just spoke for themselves, instead of feeling the need to join the deranged PoC-worshiping whyte progressives or the fentanyl-induced racist mayo conservatives.
It's hilarious anyone thinks Candace Owens has a genuine bone in her body. She's just whoring herself out for an attempt at a media career and taking the easiest road possible.
This is doing a bunch to fight the (totally fake news) image that rightoids are all just a bunch of Hitler jacking degenerates. Did mention that Nazis are actually socialists despite how much righties jack off to the idea of strongman Adolf, minus the whole Jew thing.
The part about nationalism may be attention grabbing but the actual stupid part was where she said the problem with Hitler wasn't that he was a nationalist but that he was globalist, lol
She is illiterate but get away with it because she is black. White guilt rules the world of drama. More of it, can't wait for a confrontation with Commie Babe
Ever met someone that you're fairly certain should have had some sense beaten into them by their parents but never did? That's basically Candace Owens.
Did she really need to explain that Hitler was an Evil person? Does anyone honestly think that she was defending ANY of his actions? She was clearly talking about a single word being stained by history.
205 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2019-02-08
Providing a Safe Space™ from SRD since 2009!
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 BIknkbtKitNwniS 2019-02-08
Saying anything not bad about Hitler is always bad optics but she's actually right here.
Nationalism without imperialism isn't bad. But imperialism naturally follows nationalism.
1 Neon_needles 2019-02-08
"Eha, it's my back yard."
1 Ultrashitposter 2019-02-08
I mean, it depends on the gas. If you're giving them 20% oxygen then go ahead.
We can't just assume that "i want to gas the jews" means they're going to use lethal gas. We'll have to wait and see.
1 Neon_needles 2019-02-08
BBBRRRRAAAAAAAPPPpppff
Oy vey~ Israel needs to know of another gas attack and my throbbing erection
1 charming_tatum 2019-02-08
Also in hiphop vernacular to gas someone means to hype them up
1 BIknkbtKitNwniS 2019-02-08
I mean, did you see Hitler's gas bill? Sure glad I didn't have to pay that.
1 WreckingYourHome 2019-02-08
And was it really the most efficient method? If I were a German at the time, I'd be sure to write a strongly-worded letter about wasting my tax money like that.
1 BCUOSPSEY 2019-02-08
She literally calls “wanting everyone to be German” one of the negatives.
1 ImJustaBagofHammers 2019-02-08
The problem is that she only says that in the context of Hitler invading other countries and apparently not genociding his own people because she’s trying to push the narrative that “pure” nationalism can not be wrong.
1 BCUOSPSEY 2019-02-08
She’s probably down with exiling the Jews which would be a viable option if you are just MGGAing
1 dingdong_bannu 2019-02-08
wat? Hitler literally had no clue what he was doing. He had his own fantasy vision of Germany that had nothing to do with reality and subsequently even prohibited and killed many German traditions to fit his narrative.
Remember Fraktur, 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖔𝖑𝖉 𝖌𝖊𝖗𝖒𝖆𝖓 𝖘𝖙𝖞𝖑𝖊 𝖔𝖋 𝖜𝖗𝖎𝖙𝖎𝖓𝖌? He prohibited it because he couldn't read it and thought it looked too "jewish"
1 BCUOSPSEY 2019-02-08
I mean that is hard to read and does look like Hebrew. But anyway, she didn’t call him a good leader.
1 Starship_Litterbox_C 2019-02-08
𝖒𝖊𝖙𝖆𝖑 🤘😈
1 wfwfwfqwfqwef 2019-02-08
Hitler wasn't just a nationalist, though, he was also a fascist.
Revolutionary fascism by necessity leads to the casting of a group as an enemy; it cannot exist without an outside icon to rally against.
Remenber, she isn't saying if Hitler wasn't a fascist just if he had better intentions.
1 CherryKirsche 2019-02-08
1 westofthetracks 2019-02-08
yes it is
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2019-02-08
Lmao @ these political takes by dramacels thinking they're so woke
1 AlecOzzyHillPitas 2019-02-08
Nationalism is for cucks.
1 Whaddaulookinat 2019-02-08
I mean if you take out the holocaust, gross civil rights abuses, and entering Europe into the most horrific War ever...
Hitler was still a shit leader and Nazi Germany would've collapsed due to idiocy anyways.
1 dootwthesickness_II 2019-02-08
Now is as good a time as any to point out that the man who oversaw the Luftwaffe's aircraft production, Erhard Milch, had a Jewish biological father, and only kept his job by getting his mom to sign an affidavit stating that he was actually the product of an incestuous tryst she'd had with her own uncle. Yes, the Nazis literally would sooner have entrusted their fucking air force to an inbred freak than to a member of an ethnic group known for its intelligence.
1 UmmahSultan 2019-02-08
Anti-semitism seems like a weird thing to add to fascism. Like here's this group of people who contribute too much to society, in a time when technological innovation was clearly related to success in economic and military competition between nations, so what do we do? Give them special treatment according to corporatist principles? Nope, just treat them like gypsies and watch your allies get nuked by tech invented by people who you turned into refugees.
1 wfwfwfqwfqwef 2019-02-08
Fascism generally requires an enemy, real or imagiend, against which to rally people; historical European antisemitism meant that Jews seemed like an easy target at the time, although in the long run a bad idea
1 UmmahSultan 2019-02-08
They already had an enemy in the form of communism, though. Hitler could have claimed that Russian communists were going to systematically rape their way through the country, thus permanently ruining Germany on a genetic level, and he not only wouldn't have been lying, he wouldn't have been wrong. The sensible thing to do would be to recruit Albert Einstein and have him help in the effort to nuke Moscow.
1 jerkedpickle 2019-02-08
The nazis also got rich taking away Jewish property. Commies have always been dirt poor and always will
1 Baconlightning 2019-02-08
Stalin was pretty good at robbing banks.
1 The_runnerup913 2019-02-08
The thing is that the Nazis funded themselves off of stealing other peoples shit to buy more guns for the government. It doesn’t take a genius to see who has more money out of Jews and Commies.
1 Serial_Peacemaker 2019-02-08
A lot of it was based on the idea that the Joos were the reason they lost WWI. The commies weren't a big deal in WWI Germany so they could only play second fiddle.
1 Diddu_Sumfin 2019-02-08
And communism was invented by a ...?
1 GIANT_BLEEDING_ANUS 2019-02-08
German.
Deutschland Uber Alles!
1 Diddu_Sumfin 2019-02-08
No, it was invented by a Jew.
1 redblaze17 2019-02-08
A German atheist.
1 Diddu_Sumfin 2019-02-08
>he fell for the meme that Jews are a religion, not a race
1 redblaze17 2019-02-08
Sorry, but unlike you I fall for facts not memes. It's a fact that Judaism is a religion, not a race. Karlx Marx gave up his Judaism when he turn to atheism.
1 GreatEmuWarVeteran2 2019-02-08
And that why people say they're 1/4 Catholic just like how people say they're 1/4 Jewish
1 Matues49 2019-02-08
Go away, CAnimal
1 Firnin 2019-02-08
1 Diddu_Sumfin 2019-02-08
So what? There's been loads of self-hating Jews throughout history. Doesn't change their fundamental nature.
1 ineed750bucks 2019-02-08
Wait, but this means that self-hating jews who reject their connection to their people and embrace antisemitism are evil and bring only death and destruction to the world while jews who don't behave like self-hating cucks create theory of relativity 🤔
Right wing destroyed with facts and logic 😎
1 Diddu_Sumfin 2019-02-08
(((Theory of Relativity)))
1 Diddu_Sumfin 2019-02-08
>implying Einstein wasn't a worthless hack who stole the work of Poincare and Lorenz and leveraged his (((ethnic connections))) in the media to peddle it as his own
1 ineed750bucks 2019-02-08
Face it, goy, ashkenazi genes are superior.
1 Diddu_Sumfin 2019-02-08
That explains why Hasidim are so interested in "keeping it in the family".
1 ineed750bucks 2019-02-08
>Implying I care about any religious fundamentalists
1 Diddu_Sumfin 2019-02-08
I thought Jews were a religion, not a race? Surely, then, Hasidim must be the Jewiest Jews who ever Jewed.
1 ineed750bucks 2019-02-08
It's both, separately.
1 Firnin 2019-02-08
Sephardi girls are way hotter than ashkenazi ones
1 wfwfwfqwfqwef 2019-02-08
1 westofthetracks 2019-02-08
nah, doesnt work. "communism" is an ideology, not a people. fascism needs its Other to be as intrinsically Other as aryans or whatever are Self
1 dootwthesickness_II 2019-02-08
> Get into an unwinnable war because your foreign policy is being made by men who think of politics as a giant Wagnerian LARP.
> Waste your dwindling resources in the last months of the war on technologically impressive but militarily useless shit like inaccurate rockets and jet bombers that you don't have enough fuel to fly.
> Try to use your inaccurate rockets to destroy a precision target like a total sperg
> Send your fancy-ass jet bombers to take out all-important bridge, get most of them shot down.
> Bridge finally collapses on its own because it literally couldn't support the weight of the thousands of enemy soldiers who crossed it
> Lose the war
> Watch as your conquerors steal your rocket tech and repurpose it to go to the fucking Moon.
What a bunch of cucks.
1 Whaddaulookinat 2019-02-08
Also got mega cucked by Franco, let's not forget that
1 dootwthesickness_II 2019-02-08
Because the head of your foreign intelligence service, who was also cucking you on behalf of MI-6, personally persuaded Franco to not help you.
1 Whaddaulookinat 2019-02-08
Jesus Hitler was pathetic at pretty much every level.
1 recriminology 2019-02-08
Makes you wonder what kind of people would think he was a pretty cool guy. 🤔🤔🤔
1 cmakk1012 2019-02-08
G*rmans are subhuman, it is known
1 ironicshitpostr 2019-02-08
The Eternal Kraut, fucking it up for everyone since at least the time of the Romans
1 TranniesRMentallyill 2019-02-08
Old guard goyhaters who used hitlerski as a mouth piece because he was an intellectual retard.
1 allendrio 2019-02-08
Mostly the hugo boss uniforms, brits and muricans were wearing fucking garbage bags.
1 BlacJeesus 2019-02-08
Happy cuck day!
1 totalrandomperson 2019-02-08
fuck the nazis but the popularity of the Romans kinda have to do with their empire literally spanning 2 millennia.
They didn't "have cool shit". Your perception of "cool shit" was created by them.
1 allendrio 2019-02-08
There were plenty of other empires, the caliphate, mongols, the romans were just really big of being fancy peacocks about everything.
1 Ser_Black_Phillip 2019-02-08
Adolf Christ
1 CherryKirsche 2019-02-08
You have more backstory on this?
1 dootwthesickness_II 2019-02-08
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Canaris#Second_World_War
1 ironicshitpostr 2019-02-08
Falangism gang what what
1 cptnhaddock 2019-02-08
Hitler obviously sucks, but the war was started for more realist reasons then ideological ones. Germany had France on one side and Russia on the other. They needed to take both out or risk being crushed. Oc they ended up getting crushed anyway, but Germany used the same logic 25 years earlier in ww1, before the Nazis were even a thing so I don’t know why we assume this is ideological.
1 dootwthesickness_II 2019-02-08
Yeah, but attacking Russia in the summer of '41 was idiotic. Even that might not have been fatal if Japan hadn't pulled America into the war, but it can't have been hard to see that war between the USA and Japan was imminent, with the only question being who would strike first.
1 HP_civ 2019-02-08
Or, as happened beforehand with Spain and Italy, France wouldn't risk alienating their own fascists by starting beef with other county's facists, and if Hitler wouldn't have been so retarded as to attack Poland, nothing would have happened. He knew of the agreement to split up Poland, he should have just waited a year or something until moving in to "save the Polish against the red menace" and be a hero, instead of moving in one week before the Soviets and being the asshole.
1 TranniesRMentallyill 2019-02-08
1 vtesterlwg 2019-02-08
ah yes all those jets built by that industrious Jewish Air Force commander. He's serving his country like a loyal German!
1 WreckingYourHome 2019-02-08
Antisemitism was so rampant you could've added to any movement. Even Karl Marx was a rampant antisemite. And he was an ethnic Jew.
1 911roofer 2019-02-08
Nazism is an ideology of the untermensch.
1 Firnin 2019-02-08
nazi ideology started due to hitler reading the ravings of a half mad and assblasted russian general who blamed communism on da joos, so to nazi ideology, communism and Judaism are one and the same. Ignore the fact that commies are pretty damn antisemitic in their own ritghts
1 allendrio 2019-02-08
Thats the hottest take i have ever seen i would give you gold but im a thrifty jew.
1 GreatEmuWarVeteran2 2019-02-08
oh yes, Communism, the Frankfurt School, Modern Art, transgenderism, societal subversion, exploitation of the working class, all these wonderful contributions to society thanks to Jews
1 JumbledFun 2019-02-08
Stick with shooting fentanyl Cletus, your opinions are laughable
1 GreatEmuWarVeteran2 2019-02-08
so powerful and original
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2019-02-08
/u/captainpriapism on suicide watch 🤣🤣🤣
1 221967322 2019-02-08
It makes perfect sense if you think they're disloyal. If they're going to work against the country, intelligence is only gonna make them more dangerous.
Plus, Jews were not know for their intelligence at the time. On the contrary, they were seen as untermensch.
1 wfwfwfqwfqwef 2019-02-08
Some things never change.
1 throwawaythequays 2019-02-08
If some ethnic groups can be know for their intelligence, can others be known for their lack thereof?
1 GreatEmuWarVeteran2 2019-02-08
and inbreeding so really what's the difference
1 WreckingYourHome 2019-02-08
Kind of a weird hypothesis, since he build his entire economy to go to war. "If Ted Bundy didn't feel the need to torture and kill all those women, would he have been a good guy"?
1 Whaddaulookinat 2019-02-08
Or like saying "Alright we can all admit Idi Amin was a pretty bad guy, but a hell of a bbq master."
Well... What you're bringing up is why we generally look down on these people
1 RandolphCox 2019-02-08
it was actually britians fault theholocaust happened. hitler wanted to send the jews to israel but britain said no you cant. no one brings that up though. oh ya and the people in britain who said hitler could not were jews. talk about egg on your face.
1 Whaddaulookinat 2019-02-08
Oh you lovable scamp... I'm not taking that bait
1 RandolphCox 2019-02-08
literally nothin i said was factually wrong though..if stating facts is bait then maybe i am in the wrong place....it was called haavara agreement. look it up..
1 ioiidnsksi 2019-02-08
damn i really like ur new gimmick. its pretty entertaining, keep it up :)
1 RandolphCox 2019-02-08
not a gimmick. just tired of fake news and lies. people need to wakeup....and randy is just the alarm clock to do that..
1 AlveolarPressure 2019-02-08
Not getting many nibbles on this one bud. Probably a little too on the 👃
1 RandolphCox 2019-02-08
are you really a woman
1 AlveolarPressure 2019-02-08
Yah 💁
1 RandolphCox 2019-02-08
jw..
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2019-02-08
kek
1 RandolphCox 2019-02-08
why are you keking ed? did this son of abitch just lie to me?
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2019-02-08
No. It's the truth, Pastor Randy.
1 VapeOnYourNape 2019-02-08
challenge me in the realm of debate, you coward! Stop laughing at me!
1 ioiidnsksi 2019-02-08
i like it but it has to appear more autistic like how the_marx does it
1 AlternateProblems 2019-02-08
No maybe about it friend. You'd best be moving along now.
1 911roofer 2019-02-08
The holocaust happened but it missed a retard.
1 SirIllic 2019-02-08
"damn this foreign nation didnt take in my immgrants, better throw them in the oven instead"
Yeah this was all Britain's fault.
1 RandolphCox 2019-02-08
jews wanted to go to israel..look it up. thousands went before britain stopped more comin in..
1 SirIllic 2019-02-08
Stopping immigrants =/= Allowing a genocide you had no knowledge off.
That's like feeling guilty about your friend being robbed because you gave him a gift that the thief wanted.
1 RandolphCox 2019-02-08
no it is more like locking two people in a room and you know 1 really really hates the other and has a violent streak. the victim is pleading not to lock the door. for no good reason did you decide to lock the door. the person who locked the door deserves a lot of blame. simple anaology.
1 westofthetracks 2019-02-08
lol the harder you try to make this bait work the more retarded it becomes. do better
1 RandolphCox 2019-02-08
i am literally saying facts. you can wikipedi a all this
1 Whaddaulookinat 2019-02-08
Wellllll.... The Brits knew petty much what was going on at the camps, especially at the end of the war. And they did nothing because the krauts kept putting resources to them instead of the war effort... Tbqh a tough call.
1 SirIllic 2019-02-08
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement
Ah yes, I'm sure the Brits knew about the camps in 1933, and how they were going to be used against the Jews in the Holocaust in 1941.
1 Whaddaulookinat 2019-02-08
There was a lot of naive international hope that Germany would just treat Jews as shitty second class citizens (as awful as that was as a "best case scenario") and not wholesale intern and slaughter.
There were other attempts of expulsion but it was a shit show with no hindsight how the Nazi elite would decide to proceed.
1 SirIllic 2019-02-08
I fail to see how any of that makes The Holocaust Britain's fault and not Germany's.
1 Whaddaulookinat 2019-02-08
Oh shit no. It was Germany's fault left right and centre. But it is erroneous to say that Britain's Intelligence Services had no idea about what was going on and let it continue in order to help their war effort.
One isn't quite innocent, one is holding the bloody knife in a storage container full of dead hookers. That sort of thing.
1 SirIllic 2019-02-08
But the "moving Jews to Jerusalem" thing happened in 1933 according to Wikipedia, and the Holocaust started in 1941, 2 years after the war started. What was Britain meant to do besides win faster?
1 Whaddaulookinat 2019-02-08
Exactly! Shipping them to the Mandate would've heightened already shitty tensions at the start of the war few thought Hitler would be so dumb to start, and as the war went on the dumb Nazis kept putting war usable resources to the camps. Besides there wasn't much for the RAF to do, and the MI-6/5 didn't want to give up actionable intelligence even if it'd turn public opinion (well more than the London Bombing did already).
I dunno if you're British but I think I'm calling it as I see it here...
1 SirIllic 2019-02-08
Oh I didn't realise that until now, I thought your grammar and argument sounded a bit better lol.
1 Whaddaulookinat 2019-02-08
Tbh we are posting in /r/drama so it's a fair assessment I was a retard, but I assure you I'm just drunk enough to want to get into WWII debates
1 SirIllic 2019-02-08
Well I don't wanna disappoint you too much but you're arguments make too much sense, so no debate here unfortunately.
1 The_runnerup913 2019-02-08
Bomber Harris do it again to this fag
1 RandolphCox 2019-02-08
germany paid em money to go to israel and jews wanted to go. i wish someone who actually know shistory would reply instead of simpletons like oyu.
1 Whaddaulookinat 2019-02-08
Hey /u/annoysthegoys might need to pull the leash on your pet here
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2019-02-08
When he's acting up like this, he's just for looking attention. Ignoring it is really the best way to reinforce desired behavior.
1 Whaddaulookinat 2019-02-08
I know this shits funny tho
1 RandolphCox 2019-02-08
make sure to follow my Reddit profile!
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2019-02-08
https://i.imgur.com/msX4B7e.gif
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2019-02-08
kek
1 fingerpaintswithpoop 2019-02-08
Sir, have you been drinking tonight
1 RandolphCox 2019-02-08
i Have never been drunk (srs)
1 TranniesRMentallyill 2019-02-08
I'm 11 too. Does your coach do penis inspections also?
1 RandolphCox 2019-02-08
that joke of penis inspection day is literally older than 11
1 TranniesRMentallyill 2019-02-08
It's only 11 years old to me tho.
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2019-02-08
Based Pastor Randy
1 Singulaire 2019-02-08
What, you're saying that deficit spending to the tune of a deficit several times bigger than your GDP is a bad idea somehow? Please, we'll just fix it with government bonds that rely on a secondary informal currency!
1 Whaddaulookinat 2019-02-08
Who knew?
1 CJ_from_Grove_St 2019-02-08
Dan Carlin has a podcast where he talks about how the Nazi's retardation screwed them over again and again in making military decisions. It's pretty incredible they were able to cause so much damage considering how fucking retarded they were.
1 Whaddaulookinat 2019-02-08
It's like the belligerent guy at the pub. No real exit strategy but that pane window is getting smashed
1 TranniesRMentallyill 2019-02-08
It was their ideology that ruined them.
This speech is pretty good - https://youtu.be/5agLW7fTzBc
1 elwombat 2019-02-08
Blatant revisionist history.
1 Whaddaulookinat 2019-02-08
Any historian that thinks Germany could've come out on top is high.
Just look at the numbers there was no way.
1 Dr_Cocker 2019-02-08
Which numbers, the ones AFTER hitler decided to make a bunch of hair brained decisions or at the numbers during the polish and french campaigns?
America was isolationist at first and they had a non-aggression pact with their largest immediate threat.
1 Whaddaulookinat 2019-02-08
Tbh the only war Germany could've won and kept was the corridor war if they stopped there. Every thing else would have required too much resources to keep authoritarian client states in order.
1 TranniesRMentallyill 2019-02-08
That's exactly what all the generals wanted him to do though and he let the Nazi superiority complex dictate the next moves.
I'm going to agree with the doc here.
1 Firnin 2019-02-08
relevant
1 Kelloggs801 2019-02-08
This is what most, to me at any rate, people don't understand about the inherent nihilism of Nazism as an ideology. It's need to constantly have an enemy would have ultimately eaten itself alive.
1 boyoyoyoyong 2019-02-08
I'm not sure why basketball americans don't jump on the conservative bandwagon. The mayos can't help but fall over themselves when they find a baste basketball american
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2019-02-08
Something about having enough dignity to not hop on board with the states that wanted to keep your ethnic group as legally-enforced second-guess citizens.
1 boyoyoyoyong 2019-02-08
Thinking that isn't going on now
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2019-02-08
Thinking the Republicans aren't worse about it.
1 SNCommand 2019-02-08
Even presuming that was true, that wasn't what he implied at all, the implication is that welfare cucked black people into becoming second class citizens
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2019-02-08
No shit he was talking about welfare. It's a common conservative talking point.
1 SNCommand 2019-02-08
Are you saying black people are incapable of weighing short term benefits against long term stability
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2019-02-08
No, I'm saying Republicans should drop the pretense that they're looking out for black communities and just stick with the fact that ballooning welfare costs will eventually bankrupt the country. Cutting welfare benefits would negatively impact black communities in the short to medium term and there's no indication that they would be able to overcome historical and institutional circumstances to reach general socioeconomic parity with white people. However, there's no long term if the country goes broke. Maybe if Republicans stopped lying through their teeth that they care and just stick with pragmatism, they could get some more turnout. Instead, black people see some white conservative combover implying that welfare is the reason they're still disadvantaged and they rightfully respond with "fuck you".
Look at that, your retardation caused me to seriouspost.
1 SNCommand 2019-02-08
That's a awfully long paragraph to just say welfare good
If that was true then black families should have smaller income growth gap now than 40 years ago
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2019-02-08
Good on you for making it through the whole thing! I'm proud of you.
Only assuming everything else is constant. Also assuming that household income growth is constant across all incomes. Actually, there are quite a lot of assumptions you would need to make before this metric could ever be of use in discerning the net socioeconomic benefits of welfare.
That was an awfully long paragraph to just say you're an idiot.
1 SNCommand 2019-02-08
Now, ignoring you being salty, it's also amusing to see the attempt to rationalize the growing wealth grow gap without giving alternatives, perhaps it was all the racists governing Chicago?
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2019-02-08
Alternative what? Explanation? I already offered a fairly simple one in my last post. Let's see if you can get it.
1 SNCommand 2019-02-08
Yeah, you presumed rich people are just going ahead, you anti semite
Unfortunately the gap has grown when measuring using median household income rather than simply average, you're arguing from a position of ignorance
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2019-02-08
I didn't presume it, I flat out stated its possibility.
If average growth rates between white and black household incomes remained the same while median growth rates increased for white households compares to black households, then that would mean that white households experienced greater degrees of income inequality in said growth. I don't know where you found coverage of average growth because I only saw median.
Regardless, median vs average does not impact the second derivative growth, at least as far as I'm aware.
1 SNCommand 2019-02-08
If you suggest it as a "possibility" It's a presumption, if you stated it as a certainty it would not be
Also average growth gap isn't being used because the average would be too influenced by the numbers on top and the ones on the bottom, with median you get a picture of where the household in the middle sits, for black people this statistic is depressing because the gap between the median white household and the median black household has grown, while every other race has been closing it
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2019-02-08
...I can't believe I'm responding with this, but presumption pertains to argumentation. The presumption would be something taken to be true, with this truth forming the basis of the proceeding claim(s).
I was talking about skewness in my previous comment.
Black and non-white Hispanic median incomes seem pretty similar to me. I'm more curious about what the hell is going on with Asian median incomes.
1 SNCommand 2019-02-08
Could you possibly be any more a stereotypical redditor? Are you really going to die on the hill that you didn't presume shit when you started talking about rich people? You obviously believe it to be true, so as per definition "an idea that is taken to be true on the basis of probability." It fits right in, and of course your subconsciousness is lucid enough to fathom that what you're writing is complete tripe and you want to kill yourself
Also your statistics is based on income, which is flawed, especially as we're discussing how welfare ruined black households, you can have a large income and still be a debt slave because of reckless spending
Accumulated household wealth is a much better statistic, it's a telling clue to the relation people have towards money within the different racial groups
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2019-02-08
This is some serious autism on your part.
You're the one that started on about income in the first place.
Household income includes investment gains. Once families reach a certain threshold of income they can start investing it. This effect is cumulative. Congratulations on finally grasping my point about income growth nonlinearity. It only took you half a day.
1 SNCommand 2019-02-08
Says the person who mistakes banter for being serious, holy shit dude, you must have been greedy hogging all those chromosomes
Also all your stated tripe is meaningless when every other race that began on the bottom has seen better progress than the black community, that has comparatively regressed, so even with about the same income as blacks, hispanics are growing wealth quicker than blacks, and the asians are even quicker
But I'm sure if people keep voting for more welfare it will sort itself out within the next decade or so
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2019-02-08
no u
You keep saying this even though all of the previously linked material demonstrates nearly identical trends of household income growth and wealth accumulation for non-white Hispanic and black populations.
1 SNCommand 2019-02-08
You should have just stuck with me taking this seriously while you write your small essays
Also fucking lol at pretending hispanics and blacks are comparable, as I showed earlier median wealth for households used to be higher for blacks than hispanics, now they've changed places, and hispanics are doing better in areas such as home ownerships and households with both parents present, which are both good indications of future increase in wealth, and what is often linked with decrease in home ownership and single parent households, that's right, welfare
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2019-02-08
That's what the "no u" was for.
A ~$2k difference in wealth between Hispanic and black households on both "ends" of that graph is trivial, particularly in relation to white household wealth levels.
According to Pew Research, home ownership among Hispanic and black populations are almost the same. Meanwhile, the black population has higher rates of high school completion as well as college completion (whose trend is almost identical to that of the white population).
Lol, what?
1 SNCommand 2019-02-08
I was suggesting that accusing projection was a even more pathetic attempt than just presuming I was taking you seriously, but for your parents sake let's just hope you're being purposefully obtuse
I would also like to see you suggest to a poor person that having $2k is nothing, also interesting rounding where $20920-$17409=$2000
Also you're misinterpreting the Pew Reserach college statistics, % of hispanics and blacks 25 or older with college degrees would include lots of hispanics born outside of the US, while few blacks not raised in the US, meanwhile for the younger generation hispanics enroll at college at higher rates
You've continuously argued from a basis of ignorance, and refuse to even entertain the notion that welfare can have a negative impact on the groups that receive it
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2019-02-08
To be honest, I didn't read too much into the fluff.
I'm suggesting that the change itself is trivial to your argument because of the relative size, particularly when talking about wealth instead of income. Having $4k more of your mortgage principal paid off is going to be less impactful than a $4k increase in annual income.
~$2k difference in both ends, meaning if both ends have ~$2k difference in opposite directions, then the net difference would be ~$4k.
What percentage of the survey were born outside of the U.S.? The number of Hispanic people that immigrate in one year is a drop in the bucket compared to the existing U.S. Hispanic population.
I can definitely entertain the notion that a decently sized subset of welfare recipients could be using welfare as a crutch. What I find very hard to believe is the idea that cutting off the remaining majority of families of their financial assistance will be a net positive for these families in the long run, especially those families that work while on welfare. I regard it as immoral to cut welfare on the basis of the bad faith participants. Even more so when the "arguments" behind such a policy are so full of holes.
1 LongPostBot 2019-02-08
Wow, you must be a JP fan
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2019-02-08
rip
1 SNCommand 2019-02-08
See you know you're dealing with a redditor when they have to dissect a three sentence paragraph
$2000 out of $20000 is 10% of the household wealth, that is making it or breaking it at such income levels, have a little bit of reflection, and I commented on the strangeness of the rounding because the difference is about $3500, but instead of calling it at $3000 you attempt to lowball it to $2000, I don't know who you're trying to play but yourself
Also the percentage of foreign born hispanics in the US is 35%, 47% for those above the age of 18, nearly half of adult hispanics being born outside the US and therefore likely not educated in US colleges is not a small number, I would like to point out that again you're arguing from a position of ignorance
Lastly, it's not about punishing "bad faith participants", it's about not giving people the opportunity to become dependent on welfare, no matter the intentions of the recipient
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2019-02-08
t. Redditor
Once again, at that wealth level, you're looking at people just paying principal down. While important for financial security, it's not going to lead to higher wealth growth rates. Do you not understand how wealth acquisition works?
Lol, you are really fixated on that number.
I concede on the point that high school and college levels. I'm glad we'vw gotten that tangent out of the way.
The entire basis of your argument that welfare is a net negative for the majority of it's recipients rests on a $4k net difference in wealth between Hispanic and black populations and the higher rates of single-parenthood among black households. That's incredibly weak grounds on which to justify depriving one-third of American families of likely necessary assistance.
1 LongPostBot 2019-02-08
K
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 SNCommand 2019-02-08
Financial security is the most important factor for wealth growth, when you have money that doesn't all go to essentials is when the household can begin accruing wealth
"No u", should have just let it go then when I pointed it out, or if not admit it either wasn't a very bright move or that it's purposefully deceitful
Let's be honest though, both hispanics and blacks are very dependent on welfare, so it's no wonder the net difference is no more than 1/5. The numbers get far more illuminating when comparing them to asians. At the end of the day the correlation between rise in welfare usage and decrease in household stability is strong, causation is of course tougher to prove, but it's certainly thunkful that the ethnic groups that received the least welfare avoided thing such as nonmarital brith rate growths the most, regardless of prior wealth
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2019-02-08
You don't get returns on mortgage equity that you can then invest. $4k extra a year (or around that post-tax) in income, though, can go to paying down more principal on your mortgage. It's meaningful, but in the grand scheme, an extra $4k in wealth does not have the same impact. That was my point.
1 SNCommand 2019-02-08
Paying down your mortgage is an investment though, land property is the oldest and most solid investment, that's why it's so concerning that home ownership is lower now than it was half a century ago
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2019-02-08
Yes, it's very important. However, most people at lower incomes will probably be using all of their "investment money" to pay down principal, not investing in financial vehicles. Granted, net worth can increase through home price increase given sufficient equity, but these are very illiquid gains and cannot be readily reinvested.
1 vtesterlwg 2019-02-08
strange how income mobility is pretty high for poor whites then despite those gosh darn socioeconomic factors and cultural factors
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2019-02-08
Pretty sure poor white and poor black populations differ quite a bit in these areas. Poor whites are also on welfare. Maybe there's something else at play. Regardless, you've really demonstrated how magnanimous conservatives are toward black communities. You've made a believer out of me.
1 vtesterlwg 2019-02-08
nah poor whites and blacks of equal monetary status still have quite different outcomes. Cultural factors! I'll just talk to my local poor POC and ask them to be more culturally accepting that will do great won't it
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2019-02-08
Are you retarded? I'm saying that poor white and poor black people live under very different circumstances in general, particularly rural vs urban differences.
1 Matues49 2019-02-08
Yes. And an unabashed seriousposting one, to boot.
1 vtesterlwg 2019-02-08
and if you control for all of these socioeconomic and other factors black Americans still grow in income much more slowly than similarly located white families. Even the adopted ones! One wonders how they got there in the first place, since the same holds true no matter social class...
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2019-02-08
Rofl, what study did you find that was able to control for all of that shit?!
1 vtesterlwg 2019-02-08
attempt to control ofc. No control is perfect. That said the difference is stark. I'll link u when I'm back home but here's what I found on discord: (I haven't read this one, not at my computer lol)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886912000840
Btw if you don't respond I'll happily do your argument for you I desperately Need drama
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2019-02-08
From what I've read, there was almost no attempt to control at all.
This is the only mention of any kind of control within the study, and that sentence was preceded by this:
Also, it's weird that you have a Discord you can casually refer to to readily find studies on race...
1 vtesterlwg 2019-02-08
yes it is a completely unrelated study like I said I can't get that study since I'm not at my computer
1 CanadianAsshole1 2019-02-08
It was. Half a century ago.
You know what else happened half a century ago? When the Hart-Cellar act was introduced, Ted Kennedy(a progressive by 60s standards) assured Americans that it "would not change the ethnic makeup of our cities". If he said that today he would be crucified by Republicans and Democrats alike.
Guess what Sherlock. the political landscape of a country changes.
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2019-02-08
I'm not going to respond to someone touting the "welfare harms black people" shit with a serious response. Bait for bait.
1 WreckingYourHome 2019-02-08
I miss the times of Black Separatism. When they just spoke for themselves, instead of feeling the need to join the deranged PoC-worshiping whyte progressives or the fentanyl-induced racist mayo conservatives.
1 AlveolarPressure 2019-02-08
There's only room for a few based black conservatives. If too many jump on the bandwagon they won't be special anymore.
1 WistopherWalken 2019-02-08
They've basically scored Candice Owens and that's basically it
1 JumbledFun 2019-02-08
It's hilarious anyone thinks Candace Owens has a genuine bone in her body. She's just whoring herself out for an attempt at a media career and taking the easiest road possible.
1 Gogo-gadget-faggot 2019-02-08
wat
1 JumbledFun 2019-02-08
What was confusing about my post?
1 Woolgun 2019-02-08
Would you be willing to help her out and put your bone in her body? 😏
1 sadderreborn 2019-02-08
Yikes
1 WistopherWalken 2019-02-08
This is doing a bunch to fight the (totally fake news) image that rightoids are all just a bunch of Hitler jacking degenerates. Did mention that Nazis are actually socialists despite how much righties jack off to the idea of strongman Adolf, minus the whole Jew thing.
1 LaylaCumiaFan420 2019-02-08
Who?
1 MrGigantic 2019-02-08
Meh the actual quote isn't as bad as I thought.
1 Gogo-gadget-faggot 2019-02-08
NO IT WAS TERRIBLE! I ALREADY DIDNT LIKE HER AND I JUST WANTED ANOTHER REASON TO HATE ON HER GGRRRGRR CIRCLE JERK GFGRRRLGRREEGR
1 Plexipus 2019-02-08
The part about nationalism may be attention grabbing but the actual stupid part was where she said the problem with Hitler wasn't that he was a nationalist but that he was globalist, lol
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2019-02-08
Candice Owens is a turbo autist.
1 FrankVillain 2019-02-08
She is illiterate but get away with it because she is black. White guilt rules the world of drama. More of it, can't wait for a confrontation with Commie Babe
1 Plexipus 2019-02-08
It's not white guilt it's right wing BASED BLACK CONSERVATIVE tell in' it like it is
1 djlewt 2019-02-08
Ever met someone that you're fairly certain should have had some sense beaten into them by their parents but never did? That's basically Candace Owens.
1 Nammals 2019-02-08
Did she really need to explain that Hitler was an Evil person? Does anyone honestly think that she was defending ANY of his actions? She was clearly talking about a single word being stained by history.