Donald Trump

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On 5/25/2018 at 10:24 AM, caroljane said:

Political invective  when used by Trump is, to you and Michael...

Carol,

I looked over my comments and I've been riding you too hard.

Sorry. It's not my intention to humiliate or offend and I think I've gotten too close to both in our disagreements.

I have nothing but good feelings for you.

(Even though you're wrong and I'm right.  )

Michael

[9thdoctor]

On 5/27/2018 at 9:33 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

This is odd...

Louis Farrakhan: 'Mr. Trump is destroying every enemy that was an enemy of our rise'

I'm not much of a fan of Farrakhan, but if he gets on the Trump Train, this will form a major crack in the black community that will result in a flood of blacks moving away from voting Democrat by default.

What's more, I can't think of anyone on the Trump side, including Ben Carson, Candace Owens, Diamond and Silk, etc. who would actively court Farrakhan. It looks like he is coming around on his own.

And the anti-Trumpers keep on dreaming of the day when President Trump will be gone before the end of his two terms...

Dream on...

  

Michael

This is pretty close to getting an endorsement from David Duke.  I wouldn't foresee anything good coming from it. 

[anthony]

1 minute ago, 9thdoctor said:

This is pretty close to getting an endorsement from David Duke.  I wouldn't foresee anything good coming from it. 

Geez, yes. Essential to repudiate certain tainting 'supporters', on either wing.

[anthony]

21 hours ago, Peter said:

You are always a reasoning person with a unique perspective. I like your posts, so please keep composing your thoughtful letters.  

Much appreciated, Peter.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

32 minutes ago, 9thdoctor said:

I wouldn't foresee anything good coming from it. 

Dennis,

Except votes.

 

In talking about the black community, Farrakhan commands a pretty sizable voting block.

Just because he's in favor of Trump right now does not mean Trump is in favor of him.

I'm pretty sure this is clear to Trump supporters and even people on the fence. It may be used (say, as proof of bigotry or whatever) by some Trump enemies, but I just can't see the left or even the establishment anti-Trump Republicans playing the "crazy black man loves Trump, so why?" card in the midterms.  This is too easy to combat and nobody wants to be called a racist.

My point is this is one more fracture--and a serious one--within the black community re the Democratic Party's stranglehold on their votes.

Michael

[ThatGuy]

https://twitter.com/TheFinalCall/status/1000775830488997891

https://twitter.com/TheFinalCall/status/10007758

30488997891 So much for that alliance...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

7 minutes ago, ThatGuy said:

30488997891 So much for that alliance...

TG,

Who said anything about an alliance?

Not me.

Not anyone I know of.

I said something about a big crack opening up in the black community voting only Democrat and that Farrakhan's positive words about President Trump were an indication of that.

I get it that people hate Farrakhan, but that's no reason to blank out reality just to hammer the hatred point. The fact is, there is a growing discontent in the black community with liberals and progressives. It doesn't matter who says it if the person has a big following. An indication is an indication no matter where it comes from.

Besides, you're not going to seriously postulate that one outrageous thing Farrakhan says annuls something else he says, are you? Consistency has never been one of his strong points when he gets on a roll.

Michael

[ThatGuy]

Fair enough. (And I wasn't suggesting that you were indicating an alliance, sorry if it seemed so; I was just speaking loosely.)

[william.scherk]

On 5/27/2018 at 11:29 AM, william.scherk said:

Ford 4 premier Beer Promise: 

For too long beer consumers have been forced to pay inflated prices for beer in order to increase the profits of big corporations. Doug Ford will bring back buck a beer. #onpoli #onelxn pic.twitter.com/ZosD6Xa9fj

— Ontario PC Party (@OntarioPCParty) May 26, 2018

VICE Canada has a story that explores the attraction of the Ford family (and former councilor, now-candidate Doug Ford) for 'new Canadians.'  The Fords have never "racialized" their appeal -- in the sense of appealing to the prejudices of 'old-stock' Canucks.  In any case, after fifteen years in power, the Liberals are on the way out.

Excerpted from Why Doug Ford’s appeal transcends racial lines

Quote

“He’s a multicultural person. He knows deeply… Toronto, multiculturalism,” Abukar Ahmed, a Somali immigrant enthusiastically tells me, standing outside a mosque in Etobicoke after evening prayers in April. He’s accompanied by his friend Mohamed Mohamed, also a taxi driver on a short break from his shift for prayers.

He’s talking about Ford, whose family is a bit of an institution in the diverse Etobicoke neighbourhood where he grew up, and where his family made its wealth with a label company that his late father, himself a former provincial politician, co-founded.

“He knows what every culture feels, what they believe, what they face… this family, they are normal guys. They don’t behave like millionaires who are above the people. They are normal, they’ve penetrated the community, they reach every community,” said Ahmed.

The reasons behind immigrant support for Doug Ford are varied. They range from his promise to review Ontario’s controversial sex-ed curriculum — many immigrant parents, especially from faith groups, pulled their kids out of school when it was first introduced in 2015 — to their personal familiarity with him to his claims of “respect for taxpayers” to his background as a businessperson. Often in hushed tones, some bring up their discomfort with the “lifestyle” of Kathleen Wynne, Canada’s first openly lesbian premier. Ford is also riding off the popularity of his brother — his supporters often talk about the two as if they’re interchangeable.

 

Christine Liu, a Chinese immigrant who is a vocal opponent of Ontario’s current sex ed curriculum, believes Ford will open the province up for business.

“Doug Ford is a businessperson, and that’s what Ontario needs right now,” said Liu. “He knows his numbers, he knows how to control his costs, he knows how to open up Ontario for business. Doug Ford, if you want me to describe him in one word, it’s integrity, which Kathleen Wynne has completely lost. She says one thing and does another.”

My bet is that the NDP surge will collapse, and that Doug Ford will attain a slim majority of seats in the next legislature.

[9thdoctor]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Dennis,

Except votes.

 

Perhaps.  And perhaps those votes will come at the expense of other votes, such as Jewish ones.  Trump doesn't get much support from either demographic, so I suppose it can only be a net plus for him, however it shakes out. 

[Peter]

Will Trump st . . ., st . . ., still get the all-important libertarian / Objectivist vote and monetary support? Mommy, I'm scared. That’s a half witticism but our philosophical support carries a lot of weight behind the scenes and that is not a joke. We never shut up. I let the White House know when I disagree, though it has been a couple of years since I sent anything to them . . . . because I agree. But what about messing with trade? 

Fox News: Trump moving ahead with tariffs on China.

Jimbo Wales (Jimmy Donal Wales, creator of Wikipedia) once wrote, paraphrasing AR on Atlantis: Objectivist government has a monopoly over the retaliatory use of force, i.e. the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct, in a geographical area.  It has this power as a matter of right, and is not subject to dismissal by any particular landowner or other person within the territory.  It does not permit competing agencies within its territory.  It has a constitution, it has courts, judges, legislators, an executive, police, a military, etc.  (It may subcontract out some of those functions, but the key point is that it has final say over those things.) end quote

I wonder what Jimbo would say about retaliatory tariffs? Yup. I do get it. An individual importer or exporter may not have any sway over a government like China, so is this use of penalization by the American government, justifiable economic retaliation?

Will anyone in O’land disagree with our President?

From the Vault. Not that civility equates with economic warfare. I just thought the following letters were interesting. The net says Jimbo is worth 10 mill.

Peter

From: Jimmy Wales To: atlantis Subject: ATL: David Kelley on civility

Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 08:33:13 -0800. Here's a fairly long quote from David Kelley that is directly applicable to questions about why a civility policy is a good idea on a mailing list which makes an effort to be creative, open, and intensely intellectual. From “Unrugged Individualism: The Selfish Basis of Benevolence,” p. 38:

The forms of civility, and the broader realm of manners, are therefore dismissed by some people as arbitrary.  "Why should I confirm to arbitrary social standards?  I am an individualist."  But while the forms are conventional, what is conveyed through those forms is not. If my argument so far has been correct, then it _is_ objectively important to acknowledge each other's independence in some way or other, whether by saying 'please,' or 's`il vous plait," or by some gesture understood to have that meaning.  It doesn't matter which forms we use to convey this, any more than it matters which sounds we use to express a given concept in language.  But insofar as civility has a communicative function, it does matter that we use the same forms.  Someone who does not practice these forms is rude.  We can assume that his failure to comply reflects indifference to what the forms express (unless he is ignorant, as in the case of a foreigner).

A similar answer can be given to the complaint that the forms of civility are inauthentic.  "What if I don't like the present Grandma gave me and I don't really feel any gratitude?  Am I not falsifying my feeling if I say _thank-you_ nonetheless?"  The purpose of that thank-you is not to convey one's specific feelings about the gift, or the person who gives it.  Its purpose is to acknowledge that it was a gift, from an autonomous person, not something owed one by an underling.  (If Grandma wants more than this, and makes it clear that she really wants to know whether one liked the gift, then one should tell her, as tactfully as possible.)

Civility, then, may be defined as _the expression -- chiefly through conventional forms -- of one's respect for the humanity and independence of others, and of one's intent to resolve conflicts peacefully_. end quote

From: Jimmy Wales To: atlantis Subject: ATL: One Amendment Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 12:04:27 -0700: In the vein of the question about a bill of rights for a hypothetical Iraqi constitution, here's a similar question: if you had the power to put into place one amendment to the United States constitution, what would it be? I got this idea from libertarian law professor Eugene Volokh: http://volokh.blogspot.com/2003_02_23_volokh_archive.html#90381314

Be sure to read his post for all the "rules of the challenge" so to speak. My own suggestion, as you might have guessed from my comments earlier today, would be an amendment modifying the Article I, section 9 power to spend money:

"No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time."

My amendment would read: Section 1. No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary.

Section 2.  The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary.

The essential idea here is to restrain the size of government by raising the bar.  This would not result in overnight perfection, obviously, but it would help a great deal, I think.

--Jimbo

From: Jimmy Wales To: atlantis. Subject: ATL: Public goods Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 11:23:33 -0700. I'd like to motivate this discussion by pointing out that if there are real economic phenomena that are ignored or evaded by political theorists, then those theorists will come to invalid conclusions. Anti-capitalist theorists who ignore or evade the role of the price system in the distribution of information will fail to understand much about markets, and will come to invalid conclusions.  They will find themselves unable to make valid predictions of the future.

 

 

Similarly, pro-capitalists theorists who ignore or evade particular issues in economics (perhaps out of a fear that if they looked too closely, they'd have to give up some other cherished notions – but the motive isn't important, the results are) -- these theorists will fail to understand markets, and will end up coming to invalid conclusions, too. Additionally, a failure to grasp some important issue will mean that when the pro-capitalist theorist is arguing with people who are middle-of-the-road or anti-capitalist, the argument will fail to be persuasive.  If you don't understand the public goods problem, and if you go around telling people that it doesn't exist, or that it's a statist hoax, then people who *do* understand the public goods problem will not change their minds about politics -- they will decide that you don't know what you're talking about.

So, today, I want people to read and concentrate and understand two things -- public goods, and the public goods problem.

I.  What is a public good? A public good is a good which is nonexcludable and has nonrivalrous consumption.  If a public good is produced, then the producer can't control who gets it.  Anyone who wants it, gets it, and there's nothing the producer can do about it.

When we talking about public "goods", who gets to decide if it's really a good?  This is important.  It will not do for an economist to go around deciding what is really good, and then criticizing the people in an economy for not valuing the right things.  No, a valid concept of any "goods" *has to be from the perspective of agents acting in the economy*.

A classic example of a public good is a traditional radio broadcast. When the good is produced it is nonexcludable -- anyone can receive the broadcast, and there's nothing that the broadcaster can do about it. And it is also nonrivalrous in consumption -- my listening to the radio doesn't diminish anyone else's ability to listen to the radio.

II.  What is a public goods _problem_? The problem of a public good is a problem _from the perspective of the people participating in the economy_.  No other conception of the problem is valid.

The problem is that unless some solution is found to the problem, the public good will not be produced.

Traditionally, this is the point where statists jump in with their solution -- force everyone to pay for the public good, and have the state (or connected people) produce it. But this is hardly the only solution to a public goods problem, as the radio example shows.  Radio broadcasts are produced, and paid for with advertising. The problem here is that producers can't charge consumers for listening to the radio.  So some other means of financing must be found.  Advertising is one solution, applicable in the case of radio, but not applicable in other cases.

Notice, too, that another solution has become possible with radio in very recent years.  There is a new type of radio (XM radio, broadcast by satellite, and paid for by consumers) which is not tied to the advertising model.  This has become possible because of technological innovations which make it cheap for the satellite radio stations to encrypt their signal, so that only people who pay for the decryption codes can listen.  This type of radio is not a public good.

-------------

I'll stop here to let objections flow.  If any seem compelling, I'll post a corrected version of this.

But after that I'd like to get into the meat of this.  What are some important public goods problems related to the provision of justice services, and why do they impact negatively on traditional arguments for anarcho-capitalism?

That's what we were talking about a few months ago when George stunned me by completely denying the existence of public goods problems. --Jimbo

From: "George H. Smith" Reply To: "*Atlantis" <atlantis Subject: ATL: Re: Public goods Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 16:28:59 -0500

Jimmy Wales wrote: "I'd like to motivate this discussion by pointing out that if there are real economic phenomena that are ignored or evaded by political theorists, then those theorists will come to invalid conclusions.

"...Similarly, pro-capitalists theorists who ignore or evade particular issues in economics (perhaps out of a fear that if they looked too closely, they'd have to give up some other cherished notions -- but the motive isn't important, the results are) -- these theorists will fail to understand markets, and will end up coming to invalid conclusions, too."

I am not ignoring or evading anything. I suggest that Jimmy dispense with further excursions into hokey psychoanalysis if he wants to get this discussion off on the right foot and avoid the kind of personal recriminations that he professes to abhor. He has started the ball rolling here, but I will ignore his irrelevant and inaccurate speculations in an effort to focus on the issues. Suppose I did have the motive that Jimmy suggests, suppose that I did criticize the public goods problem because I didn't want to surrender some "cherished notions" -- what difference would that make? The validity or invalidity of my objections would not be affected thereby. (True, Jimmy doesn't refer to me specifically, but I don't think it's too much of a stretch to assume that he was writing with me in mind.)

Jimmy wrote: "I. What is a public good? "A public good is a good which is nonexcludable and has nonrivalrous consumption.  If a public good is produced, then the producer can't control who gets it.  Anyone who wants it, gets it, and there's nothing the producer can do about it."

I have no problem with this.

Jimmy wrote: “When we talking about public "goods", who gets to decide if it's really a good?  This is important.  It will not do for an economist to go around deciding what is really good, and then criticizing the people in an economy for not valuing the right things.  No, a valid concept of any "goods" *has to be from the perspective of agents acting in the economy*.

I agree entirely. So how can an economist determine what people "value" in an *economic* sense apart from what they are willing to pay for in a free market? People may claim they would like to see a Disneyland in every town, but if they aren't willing to pay for them this "value" has no *economic* significance. Moreover, it would be very misleading to speak of an economic "Disneyland Problem" owing to the fact that the demand is insufficient to pay for a Disneyland in every town.

Jimmy wrote: "II. What is a public goods _problem_? "The problem of a public good is a problem _from the perspective of the people participating in the economy_.  No other conception of the problem is valid. "The problem is that unless some solution is found to the problem, the public good will not be produced."

What "problem"? If enough people are willing to pay the market price for a good, it will produced in the market. If not, it will not be produced. So where is the "problem."?

Jimmy proceeds to present an example (radio) of the "public goods problem." But he has not specified exactly what the economic PROBLEM is supposed to be. I might like to see more philosophy books published in the market. Does this mean there exists an economic "philosophy books problem" if the market doesn't respond to my desires? People desire all kinds of things that the market doesn't produce, but we don't normally call these economic "problems."  The market may be unable to eliminate all poverty. Does this mean we have a "poverty problem" vis-a-vis the market? Not unless we import a value judgment from outside the realm of economics, according to which all poverty *should* be eliminated for moral or political reasons. The same reasoning applies to the so-called "public goods problem."

Jimmy concluded: "That's what we were talking about a few months ago when George stunned me by completely denying the existence of public goods problems."

I denied that there exists a public goods "problem" from the standpoint of ECONOMICS. A problem is generated only when a non-economic value judgment is applied to economics, a judgment which says that something *should* be produced apart from what the free market probably *will* produce. This "problem" is generated by a value judgment that is not part of economic analysis per se, a judgment about what *should* be the case, as determined by the value premises of the person rendering the judgment. Hence there might be no "problem" at all for another person who works from different value premises, even though both people might entirely agree in their value-free economic analysis of how the market is likely to behave. This was my basic point.

This objection has nothing whatever to do with the traditional tie between publics goods and government intervention. It is a very straightforward theoretical objection to the smuggling of an unacknowledged value judgment into an analysis that falsely represents itself as value-free. The traditional concept of a "public good" can be defined without reference to a value judgment. The traditional concept of a public goods PROBLEM cannot. Ghs

[Marc]

2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

VICE Canada has a story that explores the attraction of the Ford family (and former councilor, now-candidate Doug Ford) for 'new Canadians.'  The Fords have never "racialized" their appeal -- in the sense of appealing to the prejudices of 'old-stock' Canucks.  In any case, after fifteen years in power, the Liberals are on the way out.

Excerpted from Why Doug Ford’s appeal transcends racial lines

My bet is that the NDP surge will collapse, and that Doug Ford will attain a slim majority of seats in the next legislature.

From your mouth to God’s ears 

[Marc]

1 hour ago, 9thdoctor said:

Perhaps.  And perhaps those votes will come at the expense of other votes, such as Jewish ones.  Trump doesn't get much support from either demographic, so I suppose it can only be a net plus for him, however it shakes out. 

#Jerusalem , every single Jew should vote for Trump in 2020 on this point alone .  

My guess is that 90% if Jews will vote Trump in 2020 . 

All 50 States for The Emperor 

[Peter]

18 minutes ago, Marc said:

From your mouth to God’s ears 

I thought Ford was going to be one of those elusive, black Canadians, but he looks like just another Scot to me. Say, are you telling me Jews vote with their wallets?

[Marc]

21 minutes ago, Peter said:

I thought Ford was going to be one of those elusive, black Canadians, but he looks like just another Scot to me. Say, are you telling me Jews vote with their wallets?

 Rob Ford R.I.P. was really loved by the black community in Toronto . 

To be honest, I don’t understand what thought process most Jews use to vote because they usually vote Dems for some bizarre reason . 

Me , speaking of Jews and money though , I have a standing offer of USD $200 to buy me a US voter who will sell me their vote in 2020 . 

Trump voters need not apply as I’m looking for a Democrat voter . Figure I will get tons of offers here on OL but first come first served 

[william.scherk]

1 hour ago, Marc, slightly redacted said:

From your mouth to [God’s OL] ears 

 

via GIPHY

Spoiler

It's no secret:  Caribana is fun ... but yes indeed there are a lot of potential Ford voters in the Toronto metropolitan area who indulge a little conservative populism when the time is right and the balloting is secret. Here the fleshy side of official Multiculturalism trundles on during the biggest street party in North America.  Who imagines that none of these people smile on the USA and its present leader?

 

Edited May 29, 2018 by william.scherk
Trump captures the imagination; more Caribana video; link to Caribana: https://www.caribanatoronto.com/event/caribanaparade

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

5 hours ago, 9thdoctor said:

Perhaps.  And perhaps those votes will come at the expense of other votes, such as Jewish ones.

Dennis,

I don't think that's how it works in this context. Anyway, we shall see.

For the midterms, I predict President Trump just now picked up a buttload of new votes because of the Roseanne thing:

Remember when everybody said Trump was done because of the grab 'em by the pussy remark? (And all that other stuff?)

But he wasn't done, was he? In fact, he got stronger support. He became President Trump.

I think the same dynamic is going to play out here.

I bet a lot of heartland people in the middle class are going to be so fed up with the PC mind control speech control horseshit, they will show up and vote to give President Trump a nice big fat majority in Congress (both houses) when they normally would stay home.

Besides, I wonder what went on backstage for Roseanne to go off on her rant. The idea that she's a bigot is ludicrous. Maybe she was drunk, but I bet she was threatened or something. I read they were dogging her a lot to cut down on pro-Trump comments. (And we know Susan Rice is now on the board of Netflix, don't we? I wonder if the forces behind that beauty of an appointment are also at work over at ABC and Disney.)

Anyway, in my opinion, both ABC and Disney made a huge mistake and they are going to pay a painful price they didn't expect.

What's more, I expect to see Roseanne on a different channel before too long if they can get the legal stuff worked out. Or maybe they will uncancel her show after the backlash starts.

Michael

[william.scherk]

The President in Nashville, Tennessee (cued to his speech, from a six-hour live broadcast):

Edited May 30, 2018 by william.scherk
Cued to Trump remarks

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

18 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

... in my opinion, both ABC and Disney made a huge mistake and they are going to pay a painful price they didn't expect.

I think President Trump sees it, too. So he twists the knife.

Bob Iger of ABC called Valerie Jarrett to let her know that “ABC does not tolerate comments like those” made by Roseanne Barr. Gee, he never called President Donald J. Trump to apologize for the HORRIBLE statements made and said about me on ABC. Maybe I just didn’t get the call?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 30, 2018

LOL...

 

Michael

[Peter]

22 hours ago, Marc said:

 Rob Ford R.I.P. was really loved by the black community in Toronto . 

To be honest, I don’t understand what thought process most Jews use to vote because they usually vote Dems for some bizarre reason . 

Me , speaking of Jews and money though , I have a standing offer of USD $200 to buy me a US voter who will sell me their vote in 2020 . 

Trump voters need not apply as I’m looking for a Democrat voter . Figure I will get tons of offers here on OL but first come first served 

Marc, someone selling their vote might be expected to vote the opposite of what you want, because there is no way to verify what they do in the voting booth. If they are willing to thwart the honest voting system (it is verified after the voting is done) then they may snicker as they pull the opposite lever, unless they think you REALLY want them to vote democrat in which case they may vote . . . well, it is a “Seinfeld-ian duplicity possibility.”

I’ve mentioned before how on election day up until the late 1970’s, half pints of liquor were free if you would vote for a particular candidate, and back then it seemed to work. Paintings of drunkards voting the party line were commonplace going back to the founding of the United States. Buses or vans would pull up around liquor stores to taxi the tipsy voters to the polls.  

So, we will take your foreign cash but put it into ads for the candidates who matter to you, and the way to do that is to contribute to the Republican Party. Or an individual candidate. Are there restrictions on that for conservative libertarians? Look at Soros and the Clintons. Left wing cash is just fine. 

Peter

[Peter]

Thanks William for educating us about black celebrities. The guy on SNL is outstandingly honest and funny.

[Peter]

Marc wrote: To be honest, I don’t understand what thought process most Jews use to vote because they usually vote Dems for some bizarre reason. end quote 

It is odd. The only significant persons of higher achievement with higher IQ’s are the people of European Jewish ancestry, with an average IQ of 117. Yet on average they vote for higher taxes and punitive, restrictive laws. It may be the old altruistic, control freak syndrome, which materialized in America after WWII.

Depictions in movies and books of the Jews in Germany prior to the rise of Nazism, shows them as the richer, snobbish class, who gave alms to the poor, stupid goys in limited amounts. Like “Royals” they did not marry outside of their class and religion. Ba’al may know a bit about that.

People who are smarter than the average bear, and able to produce great wealth, sometimes MENTALLY fall into the class of “upper sensibilities,” like Stephen Spielberg and the Hollywood elite. It is almost like they refuse to use their reason and are mentally ill. Just look at that recent chick flick with four older, female stars. The other three stars including Candice Bergen were willing to stand next to the traitorous Hanoi Jane Fonda.

Peter

[Peter]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I think President Trump sees it, too. So he twists the knife.

 

LOL...

 

Michael

Roseanne Barr was dumb to say what she said, but she is ROSEANNE the loud mouth, prejudiced, blue collar character (and person) that she is. Doesn’t she live in Hawaii, a state of extreme tolerance to racial issues? Left wingers can say the most horrible outrageous things, like wishing someone were decapitated and get away with it, but the Social Justice hypocrites could care less. Roseanne should have been booed, and maybe lose some of her viewership, but it was a bit much to just fire her, like ABC and her talent agency did.

And talk about intolerance and an agenda! Interracial couples all the time. Gay couples. All black shows? (I do remember there were few if any blacks on American TV in starring roles. But today is now and two wrongs don’t make it right.) When you put SJ Warriors and liberal blacks in charge of programming and ads that is when you get the worst kind of racism and cronyism. I won’t watch those shows. And I won’t buy those products.            

Peter

[william.scherk]

41 minutes ago, Peter said:

Interracial couples all the time. Gay couples. All black shows? [...] I won’t watch those shows.      

Do you have a personal issue with mixed-race couples? Who gives a shit?

I do think you owe it to yourself to watch Blackish. It's a hilarious, poignant show, IMHO.

[Peter]

8 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Do you have a personal issue with mixed-race couples? Who gives a shit?

I do think you owe it to yourself to watch Blackish. It's a hilarious, poignant show, IMHO.

NO! Just the fact that it is hyped by the left wingers. Guys with top-nought buns. Whites with black friends. Trying to make the abnormal, normal. Every liberal cause put into shows and commercials. That is what is disgusting to me.