Francis Xavier

Should I get these?

Well, let's see the boots.

http://lookbook.nu/look/76342-And-leaves-soften-with-every-step

I like the funny-looking petite type who barely get it. My god. Body and face type are perfect for me. I mean, her style is mediocre but c'mon. So cute...

I was eating a tin of sardines when I saw this and now I wanna FuCkInG PuKe!

While waiting for diablo 3 to come out... who wants to play diablo II? im starting again today with my brother. U.S. West HC... pm if you want to playyyy.

I'm down. I play... DRUID!

Seriously, though. I'm down.

I never beat 2. Beat 1 about a million times.

I loved that music. Especially the Tristram Theme. By a fellow named Matt Uelmann, I believe. I don't know if they brought him back for 3. It would be a huge shame if they didn't. If anything, the music really helped make this game.

Has anybody ever been to farinellis?

What's it like?

Thanks for the advice. I suspect that this is one of those products where the line between conservative and liberal use is a thin one. It claims to texturize very well, which is my main concern along with a little volume. Thus far every single product i've ever used just weighs my hair down. I'm eager to see what effect this stuff has.

I think I'm going to pick up a tub of this shit.

renamed it to craft clay, don't trip my asian nukkahs

true, couple months ago i went to reupp on the crude clay and was told that they're out but they have craft clay now, tried it, same shit

So it's exactly the same? This stuff has been recommended to me before but I've never tried it. My problem is very fine hair that shows very little texture and falls flat. Is this shit good for that? Will it just weight white folk hair down?

to maintain a high and tight (the sides of your pomp haircut or ss youth cut or whatever you're renaming it) buy a pair of clippers from target/walmart and have your girlfriend, boyfriend, mom, friend run the sides every few weeks, the top shouldnt need it near as often. everyone i know who has this haircut, including me, goes about it that way.

This is true.

If you have somebody who knows how to tight-taper without just giving a full buzz up the sides or who knows how to blend subtly only at the very top. I still can't believe that one gent was able to do such a good job on himself, especially when you usually have to switch hands to do the opposite side.

Jesus.

Hubert.

Christ.

^^^

Hi,are you black?

Time to party like it's 1929!

Here's an article that I read a while back that hits the nail on the head.

How Marketing The American Dream Caused Our Economic Crisis

John Quelch 1:24 PM Monday October 27, 2008

Tags: Economy, Marketing

The current economic crisis has been blamed on the greed of Wall Street, on bankers' excessive leveraging of assets, on irresponsible banks and mortgage brokers who fabricated applications for no downpayment home loans knowing that the risks could be readily laid off on unsuspecting third parties.

But underpinning the collapse of the housing bubble is a demand-side problem - the American Dream - that has been hijacked in countless political speeches from an embodiment of America's core values into a crass appeal to materialism and easy gratification.

Right wing politicians touting the American Dream consistently advocate lower taxes. The more money citizens can keep, the faster they can attain their dreams. But these same politicians are consistently unwilling to raise taxes when required. The massive budget deficits run up during the last eight years of war (now projected at 3.8% of GDP in 2009) reflect a Federal government living beyond its means like a drunken sailor, setting anything but a good example for the average citizen.

Left wing politicians are equally guilty of framing the American Dream in material terms. They claim the Dream is increasingly out of reach of middle class Americans, pointing to a $2,000 decline in median family income over the past eight years. On this basis, they justify policies to redistribute wealth so that we can cross-subsidize each other's dreams. The most egregious recent example: so-called affordable housing policies to enable as many Americans as possible to own their homes. It started appropriately enough with the 1977 Community Investment Act, which challenged redlining policies of local banks that set higher hurdles for home-ownership among minorities. But it ended with the recent $5.2 trillion guarantee of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac assets after these quasi-government housing agencies over-leveraged themselves by lending against inflated home prices and requiring minimal evidence of ability to repay from borrowers.

Politicians on both sides have been equally culpable in defining the American Dream in material terms, in encouraging Americans to live beyond their means in its pursuit, and then putting in place policies that enable them to do so. Hardly any politician has had the courage to call for restraint.

Average household debt in the United States is currently 130% of average household income, up 20% since 2005 and double what it was twenty years ago. The US household savings rate is close to zero. Consumer confidence has plummeted with the value of 401K plans and retirement nest-eggs. Retail sales fell 1.2% in September, double the expected decline. Car sales are at a fifteen year low. And credit card defaults look like the next shoe to drop as cash-strapped Americans have run up credit card debt to postpone the day of reckoning.

Americans need a refresher course on the American dream. The Constitution speaks of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not an automatic chicken in every pot. The American Dream embraced by immigrants over the past two centuries has been the opportunity to set one's own goals and pursue them honestly to the limits of one's ambition and ability. Too many Americans have been expressing the Dream through the acquisition of stuff. Others see the Dream as raising a family in a land that delivers Franklin Roosevelt's (and Norman Rockwell's) four freedoms. Still others dream of their children accessing the highest possible level of education, living healthy lives, being good citizens in their communities.

As defined by historian James Truslow Adams, who spoke first of the American Dream in his 1931 book Epic of America: "It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position."

Marketers as well as politicians have doubtless helped to distort the meaning of the Dream. A barrage of commercial advertising encourages people to focus on the acquisition and consumption of goods, to be consumers first and citizens second. Credit card offers flood the mail. Media supported by advertising encourage consumers to aspire to celebrity lifestyles, to keep up with the Jones's by acquiring more stuff. Even President Bush, following the shock of 9/11, called on Americans to show their patriotism by going out to shop.

The injustice of the current crisis is that citizens who acted responsibly and were saving for their retirement have seen the values of their homes and 401K plans collapse. Those who acted irresponsibly, living day-to-day, and not saving at all have barely been inconvenienced. They have been able to walk away from homes they couldn't afford with, in many cases, no penalty. Meanwhile, responsible citizens, and their children and grandchildren, will pay in extra taxes to clean up the mess.

In past downturns, the resilience of consumer spending has saved the day. Until recently, it has accounted for 72% of the American economy, compared to around 60% in European countries where government spending is higher. Given the likely depth and length of the current recession, consumers will not continue to spend at the same level. Christmas retail sales will be an early indicator. But, not to worry, the Federal government promises to come to the rescue, with both parties supporting a fiscal stimulus in the form of tax rebates and infrastructure spending that will pump more money into the economy, run up the deficit further and mortgage our children's ability to achieve their American Dreams.

This post is based on John Quelch's commentary, "Redefining The American Dream," in The Washington Times.

YOU FAIL TO REALIZE THAT THE "LUXURY TAX" IS IMPLIED IN THE HIGHER COST OF DOMESTIC PRODUCTION. I'm not talking about a literal tax added on by the government. Even if Americans would willingly make the sacrifice, I fail to recognize how the rest of the world could justify the increase in price.

Nationalism is not the answer to a global problem. Maybe I'm in the globalist mindset too much already, but I fail to see how preferential treatment to some fatass in Michigan is of higher moral value that providing jobs and sustenance to third world countries trying to rise out of poverty. Americans need to evolve if they wish to survive, because it's awfully hard to make a living on an assembly line in this country.

In short, you're a fucking moron and I don't give two shits about you or your future. Good luck with the part-time job, and stay in school. I'll handle my own.

Haha. Luxury tax. Just stop. Also, preferential treatment? Supporting third world countries trying to get out of poverty? You try to boost your argument by injecting it with some warped set of big brother values because I spoke of core communal values before. Let's talk about the "preferential treatment" of manufacturing in countries where the values we hold to be fundamentally democratic here in the united states are never extended to the people who make our goods because its CHEAPER. People who are paid unfair wages and live in complete shit. Sweat labor isn't "a start" if that's what you're implying and it won't lead to anything better for them. Our rights come at a price. And I'll laugh my head off if you try to prop your argument back up on China. It sickens me that some people are perfectly fine with propping our comfy material living conditions up on the violation of basic human rights that we're protected from experiencing in this country and claim we hold so universally due to all men. Your moral disengagement proves how much of a tool you truly are.

Over-taxation of production is a problem, yes. A problem that I already said needed to be addressed. Again, read what I write. You may be an idiot, but I extend you the courtesy of reading your arguments. As far as the global demand for everyday products that are "essential" to our daily lives, producing a larger chunk of what we consume here is entirely viable. Why? Because there are nations who's economies are driven by our own very high level of consumption. The majority of the people of those nations won't really benefit much from that over-consumption.

I don't think you understand that a large part of a long term solution to our situation within this global crisis is reducing our global dependence. You speak of globalism but I don't really think you see things on a macro or micro scale with great clarity. Instead you promote this depressing it doesn't matter because nothing will change. We'd rather just die off then allow our standards of living to materially reverse and stagnate mentality while claiming that the answer lies within exporting science and technology primarily as a long term solution (which is very funny). On top of that, you're only really attacking me because we fought a few times in the past, once over the welfare of the polar bear. Loller. Now you throw insults at me in threads which is fine, obviously I'm very willing to make sport because you become so emotional. But if you're going to do so, please stop ignoring my actual posts by twisting things to fit your responses.

"Nationalism is not the answer to a global problem"

Actually, yes it is.

Maybe not the kind of nationalism that is the "boogeyman in the closet" type of concept that we're taught over and over again from a very young age that will divide us and encourage active and organized racism. Ironic, coming from a person who usually likes to play a straight-right ticket in every political conversation I've seen him involved with on sufu. Polar Bears? Please. It's funny to see how you feel considering the ardent conservatism you always seem to promote.

Nationalism? Our national "identity," a national identity that was defined by our rather lavish standards of living. The american dream grew into a big ugly monster and now that we rely on an absurd amount of "necessary commodities" to maintain the material wealth of our daily living standards (most of which are made outside of this country and which we don't really need), we can't imagine a world either without them or facing the fact that these things don't bring happiness or stability. That identity will have to reinvent itself after that standard of living is lowered by the reality of our current global situation. What you fail to realize, you angry little ugly person, is that our communal identity is defined by things, many of which we don't really need. Those things are going away. Come to terms with that. While you're at it, you can stop propping up your argument against mine by putting words into my mouth (for the 100th time). What we do need, we need to focus at least SOME of our domestic production on so that we can be... Self sufficient. You seem to avoid that topic at all costs.

Consume less, export more to end crisis

Tom Abate, Chronicle Staff Writer

Sunday, January 25, 2009

(01-24) 19:40 PST -- Recession doesn't begin to describe the crisis over which President Obama now presides. For decades Americans have been living beyond their means, financing consumption with credit that is no longer cheap nor easy to obtain.

We are not alone. European and Asian economies are slowing down as a worldwide credit bubble bursts, undermining the financial system that overheated things in the first place.

"This is not an American problem, this is a global problem," said economist Nariman Behravesh with IHS Global Insight.

But it will be up to the United States, as the global leader, to pull the planet out of this tailspin and, to do so, experts say Americans will have to rebuild the engines that drive our economic growth. They say we'll have to throttle back on consumption and rev up production, borrow less and export more. We'll also have to figure out how to supervise global financial markets so they don't melt down again and make sure that, when prosperity returns, it is more broadly shared.

Mark Zandi with Moody's Economy.com calls this "a major inflection point" in business affairs.

"For over a quarter-century the global economy has been driven by U.S. consumers spending aggressively beyond their incomes by borrowing," Zandi said. "It will take time to adjust."

The forces at play are complex and interconnected. They include how technology and globalism have reshaped competition and changed employment, making today's office or retail worker just as vulnerable to job loss as the factory workers of the 1980s.

Transformation of work

"My grandfather worked for Illinois Bell for 41 years until he retired," said Daniel Pink, whose book "Free Agent Nation" charts the transformation of work. "Nowadays I don't think any organization is going to outlive us."

But the crisis may also provide a chance to rebuild transportation and electronic networks, expand training and education, and stimulate Silicon Valley's green industries, according to Mark Baldassare, president of the Public Policy Institute of California.

"Think about how we could rebuild our infrastructure and reboot our economy," he said.

Most experts agree that the first step toward recovery requires a big federal stimulus package to stop the erosion of jobs and get economic output growing.

"The bigger the better," Behravesh said. "The danger is doing too little, not too much."

But even if Congress passes such a package and the gross domestic product starts expanding by year end, the job market will take a lot longer to recover, Behravesh said.

That's because technology and globalization have made it possible to redistribute labor over computer networks. Behravesh said it took longer for employment to bounce back after the recessions of the early 1990s and 2001, as some jobs moved to cheaper overseas locations and others shifted within the United States.

"In the best-case scenario, GDP and profits turn up around the second half of 2009 but employment doesn't pick up until the second half of 2010," he said.

The U.S. economy that emerges from the current crisis will be more export-oriented because that's the only way output can grow, said Zandi of Economy.com.

From mall to airport

"Our focus will be selling our wares to the world," Zandi said. "Instead of the shopping mall as the symbol of the American economy, it will be the port or the airport or the e-commerce site."

It's all about the math, he said. About 25 years ago, before the United States started running deep trade deficits, consumer spending made up roughly 62 percent of GDP. That figure recently peaked at about 70 percent. Zandi said consumer spending as a percent of GDP must decline because we can no longer use our homes like ATMs to finance a lavish way of life.

"It's going to be a recovery, but it won't feel that way because we've been consuming more of the world's goods than we sold, and we're going to have to turn that around," said Zandi, adding that these exports will include high-tech, medical and biotech products as well as financial and other services in which we excel.

Productivity and wages

But even if the United States pulls off this export-driven recovery, complex problems will continue to put pressure on our standard of living, notably the disconnect between productivity and wages.

"As economists, we used to think that increases in productivity would lead to increases in wages and prosperity, but that just isn't the case," said Sylvia Allegretto, a labor economist at UC Berkeley.

Allegretto has charted federal data going back 60 years. From 1947 through 1973, as productivity rose 104 percent, median family income rose an equal amount.

But from 1973 through 2007, as workers got 82 percent more productive, median family income increased just 22 percent.

"We need policies to make sure that real wage growth and productivity are reconnected," Allegretto said. "Without this we can't have a broadly based, broadly shared prosperity."

Such policies would be complex and controversial, ranging from liberal solutions such as strengthening labor laws and unions to more conservative fixes that rely on things like expanding education and job-retraining programs.

Obama touched on this issue of sharing the wealth in his inaugural speech when he said, "The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity."

Silicon Valley entrepreneur Judith Estrin, a former chief technology officer at Cisco, said the modern economy has helped sharpen the divide between haves and have-nots.

Borrowing to buy

"We've had this polarization between the few that were becoming more prosperous and the broad base that were not," she said. "But businesses didn't notice this because people were borrowing to buy."

Estrin recently wrote "Closing the Innovation Gap," a book that argues for replacing the bubble mentality of the dot-com era with a more sustainable and equitable approach to entrepreneurship. She said green tech and medical technology should help broaden the base of prosperity because these industries create jobs, like solar installers and medical technicians, that don't require advanced degrees.

But she said investors and entrepreneurs must first quit expecting the quick returns they experienced during the dot-com and housing bubbles.

Bubbles have all gone bust

"We have gone from bubble to bubble, and now they've gone bust," Estrin said. "Sustainable growth sometimes means moving more slowly."

Baldassare, with the Public Policy Institute, said California has suffered disproportionately from the housing collapse and recession, but it could also benefit enormously from the infrastructure investments being considered in the stimulus package.

"We have let a lot of good work that was done in the '50s and '60s fall into disrepair," he said. "We have an opportunity to reshape the built landscape in California."

But Baldassare said state leaders must first solve California's budget crisis.

"If they don't, I worry we'll get left behind," he said.

The ultimate solutions to this many-layered economic crisis will require global cooperation, said Manuel Castells, a sociologist at the University of Southern California's Annenberg School for Communication. Castells is a co-author of "On the Edge," a collection of essays in which financier George Soros, former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volckerand others presage the current meltdown.

"This is first and foremost a financial crisis in which technology played a part, by linking together the finances of everybody and controlling these constructs with mathematical models that created wealth by selling derivatives," Castells said. "These systems existed with a lack of supervision and regulation. We have global flows of capital but we have no global regulators."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/25/MNTO15F8SM.DTL

When times get hard, people will make sacrifices required to get by. They will not pay a luxury tax on domestic goods just so they can feel good about themselves.

Corporations are migratory in the sense that they tend to move their bases of production to areas of the globe that have more favorable tax rates for them. This can explain the Irish tiger and more recently the huge economic boom occurring in Asia. The corporate tax rate in America is too high, and the average salary per capita is also too high to run a profitable operation, hence many corporations will not be setting up shop here.

The expansion in credit in the past decades is what led to our supposed increase in prosperity and wealth, and we are witnessing a violent contraction of that credit. With the purchasing power of Americans diminishing, our consumption based economy has an incredibly pathetic outlook.

In short, you have yet to provide me with a viable reason as to why I should sacrifice more of my disposable income with preferential domestic consumption. The fact that you completely disregard technological advancement as a solution to maintaining our standard of living completely negates all the progress made in the last century in the fields of medicine, science and communication. We can go from Walkmans to iPods in a decade, and you think we can't somehow improve our energy efficiency enough to maintain our current standards of living? I, for one, will not willingly live like I'm in a third world country when other solutions are available.

-- I never said ANYTHING about luxury taxation -- You really, really need to stop putting words into my mouth to support whatever argument you muster.

With that last entry we actually agree on a lot more than we disagree on. I never said over-taxation of corporate entities within our borders was a good thing. I've actually gone on and on about how it killed the city in which I live and how democrats do this to create and maintain poverty -- thus creating a need for democrats. And I also said that, idealistically, we can create demand through an idealistic push. This is no new concept to americans. This has been practiced before. We inject our idealism into much of what we buy knowingly in that people react harshly to sweat-shop labor. Those people make the choice. And again, I'm saying idealistically, as i've said about a HUNDRED TIMES BEFORE, that americans can make this change only if they are willing to sacrifice. You're insistance that I'm saying that this is already and will naturally be the state of natural consumption by americans again proves that you're not reading what I'm saying. It's a matter of values. Values that many of us don't have, true. But values that we will need in order to become self sufficient. You're arguing to argue here. You're not actually reading what I'm saying and you're putting words into my mouth.

Also, i didn't completely disregard science and technology as an economic resource of export. I never, ever said that. I said that it could not support us alone. Like any portfolio we obviously need to diversify. The "viable reason" i'm providing you with, is values. Have a soul? Have a concern for your common man? A concern for your country and your countrymen. I'm asking you to be nationalistic in the best possible way.

Stealing pictures; serious business!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/arts/design/10fair.html?8dpc

Haha, copyright!? That motherfucker is contradicting his ideals in the worst of ways.

Your argument for domestic consumption is short-sighted, in the sense that you fail to grasp the concept that it is entirely impossible for us to maintain our current standard of living if we are to be making and purchasing everything within our own country. Flat-screen HDTVs are popular and in high demand because they are so cheap. Being preferential to domestic production makes sense when there is an actual competition between the value and price of the goods on a global scale, but if you cannot create the same good in the United States at a relatively similar cost, there is no way the average consumer will pay the extra price just for the feel good "buy American" bullshit.

There are too many people, with too many modern conveniences for us to be self-sufficient. We couldn't even feed and clothe ourselves, let alone provide all of our energy without imports. The only result of your poorly thought out solution would be a drastic decrease in the quality of life across the board, as Americans would no longer to be able to afford their wants and needs via domestic production.

Did you not read "sacrifice, sacrifice, sacrifice?"

Whether you like it or not, the standard of living for most americans is going to deteriorate. We were purchasing with a fiat currency that never had the value that we thought it did. Relying on a technological race is a ludicrous answer to "maintaining our standards of living" through this mess. Our inflated views of prosperity and happiness stunted our national identity to the point that they became our national identity. What I'm saying is, its going to require americans to do the right thing for your country to get us out of this mess. The solution will not come from the top down. It's going to come from the bottom up. Saying that our consumption patterns will never change might be true, but if that's the case then that will be the reason that we fail to fix this. America sells its consumption above all else. It needs to sell some of that consumption back to itself. Right now, what we eat is immediately being shat out to fertilize other economies instead of using some of those nutrients to feed our own body. Our purchases will have to be highly political and informed. And as I've stated before, yes, it's idealistic. Yes, it's conceptual. I never stated that it would be a natural progression that could be enforced or promoted from the top down. You seem to be insisting that I'm implying cutting out all exports, which means you're not even reading what I write. Good job, there.

Makes me want to turn that neg into a pos.

the only way to get people buying US exports again is to debase the dollar.

that and we dont really make shit worth buying in north america... sure we have services..

The first one is off, the second one is a viable solution. Quality, design, and desirability of goods seems to be far more important than a lot of people here are willing to think. In many ways that's a biproduct of tradition and in many ways not. People buy Italian for a good reason. Exporting "information and services" was never a stable investment and we all know that.

Despite the attempted reaming, you have made a strong point against Xavier's argument. I don't think simply buying American is the answer. We live in a global economy now, and I just don't think the world is big enough anymore to go all protectionist successfully.

Not really. I think you've distorted my argument a bit by implying that I'm promoting isolationist economics. I'm not at all, I'm promoting self sufficiency which can compensate for job loss and create a buffer-zone for hard hits like the one we're seeing now. We would have experienced this with the policies of the last few years no matter what. A self-sufficient economy that produces its own goods and services, at least more so than it imports or at least half, would have been able to take this blow with less panic than we're seeing now. In an opposite scenario a government that had a shortage of workers would mechanize labor. At one time, that's what the japanese did instead of importing labor. During a job shortage, jobs can be created through promoting self sufficiency in regard to goods. That's one of the ways germany rebuilt itself after experiencing the treaty of versailles, which was meant to cripple the german economy long-term. Less money coming into a country than going out is part of this huge problem, especially at the disproportionate levels we see here in north america. Nobody is really addressing that because it was a slow trend. The effects of a slow, long term trend like that are felt when we experience a seemingly unrelated calamity like the one we're in now. Buying american is a propaganda movement that's been around for a while now simply because dogooders had the forsight to see that outsourcing would be a huge pothole if and when we ended up on crutches. We'll now we're on crutches. Yes, Jayrock. It's an idealistic movement that isn't necesarilly the "better deal." That's why I insisted, over and over, that this was a sacrifice. You see, in times like this, a nation with a strong feeling of community should make the necessary sacrifices to its comfort level to fix a huge problem that threatenes the whole. Buying american asks you to kindly not be so selfish and cheap. It asks you to pay more for a product you could have easily bought cheaper with sweat labor (like designer clothes!).

Jayrock thinks that exporting technological development is the answer, and it can be if you're able to keep pouring a ton of money into science and technology. Whether you like it or not though, that's a very temporary solution and an unstable one at that on top of being tragically short-sighted. It's a huge gamble because it's a race and the only solid insurance policy against taking a bath would be that we had few competitors in our league. That might not be the case soon. I was never promoting isolationism. That's an absurd thing to think from reading my rhetoric. I was promoting self-sufficiency. Renewable energy, yes. But don't count on that being a great and effective export once renewable energy is the norm in the better half of the developed world. To do so would be like relying on an arms race or munitions manufacturing to stabilize your economy as long as there's enough war constantly stimulating that market and nobody else is manufacturing their own guns. Eventually demand will run out as soon as other countries embrace self sufficiency.

in just four easy steps you too can have a functioning nation.

in all seriousness though while greed and unfettered capitalism is often blamed for the current crisis (and certainly wall st was a big part of the problem), It was loose monetary policy that created the real estate bubble. We live in a reality now where people realized that what they owned wasnt worth what they may have paid. Perhaps that's a good thing.

what scares me is this return to protectionism, and the fact that everyones putting their faith in government.

the government can only do so much, we shouldn't rely on government to "fix" the economy, and the fact that we are speaks volumes..

everyone is at fault, individuals, governments, and businesses. that being said though .. even if you were prudent and responsible you too will be affected and lose out over the duration of this recession ..

and that is the biggest shame.. we will all suffer for the mistakes that greedy idiots made

This needs to be re-posted on the same page.

Good thread.

Bedtime, g'night.

you missed number 4

i can recognize the fact that 1) an american cannot, and will not, do the same job that a vietnamese person does, for the same pay. on that note, please inform us as to what we as americans should start manufacturing for export, aside from corporate logos and cluster bombs.

2) americans need to save more. chinese consumers need to spend more. 3) changing consumption habits with regard to country of origin has little effect if we're still living on 17.9%APR, a second mortgage and two car loans.

re: original topic

get money get paid. being a debt slave in the global depression is not looking to promising.

1) We should, we could. Buying american would create a demand. Creating a demand creates a marketplace. In this case, domestically. Imagine that, sacrificing together to fix a problem. What a radical, unrealistic concept. You're pathetic. You're the type of hopeless person we really don't need right now. Jump ship and sink.

2) Heh, heh. Boy, oh boy.

3) So, what you're saying is: our consumption habits will never change our consumption habits because we don't change our consumption habits. Cool, thanks for that.

in just four easy steps you too can have a functioning nation.

Yes, exactly.

^^^

I second that.

francis, I agree with you for the most part, but you and I part ways when it comes to racial inequality in America. I'm no big fan of people who are quick to talk about "handouts" but do not acknowledge the shameful way this country has treated black people. from slavery, to jim crow & using laws/police to maintain control after abolition... 1) redlining by banks, political districting, zoning laws, unequal drug sentencing laws, the list goes on and on... 2) you'd be lying if you said the color of someone's skin isn't of huge importance, even in 2009

but 3) I agree. it isn't about race anymore, but class. divisions between ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation -- are all encouraged to distract and alienate people, in order to maintain the status quo.

2) I'm glad we can agree that this is happening to the black community. Let's address now how that is happening in every community and kill all man birds with one stone. Drugs are a tool used to slander character. This is strategic. Liken them to witch trials. Cliche truth: The War on Drugs = Divide and Conquer.

1) Lets talk about economic divide and conquer of the masses:

For instance, a large chunk of baltimore's worst crime and least development is centralized into specific areas. The areas that were manufacturing, processing, factories etc... These jobs were outsourced. There's nothing there anymore because it's not makings its own money. That matters whether you can admit it or not. People move out, properties die, the traps are set.

The organized initiatives that are taking place to divide us are coming from syndicates composed of individuals who care not for race or community. They are carving pies strategically. Those who are not tied down by the community of its "subject people" will inevitably care little for their well being and decisions that directly effect the long term future of our living standards.

There is no longer an organized initiative by, consciously, the common people of this country to sabotage upward economic and, put inappropriately, "social" mobility through jobs and educational resources of any other citizen. Those citizen fringe groups that do hold supremacist beliefs are so low on the totem pole that they're not even worth mentioning. Our enemy is not tribal.

3) That is not what I meant, really. There's truth to that in many applications but... Not that you were -- but many people do -- employ wildly unhealthy and obsolete flash-science to try to debunk race. Race exists. Here is what I mean by that. Race is an omnipresent force that naturally divides us (not negatively alone). It's simply too easy to manipulate people racially and for any organized syndicate with a reason to control the population to resist using it. We have to look at race much differently than we did before. I'm not claiming to have an answer as to how.

Please read

1) I, Jayrock, can't distinguish between economics and ethics.

2) american manufacturing jobs are not coming back. period.

you could have more accurately described the problem by saying that americans 3) don't save for cars, they finance. there are a lot of other factors involved, but adjusting our import/export ratio is 4) hardly a fix for government incompetence and corporate shortsightedness.

^^^

See how easy it is to mold people into blithering idiots ideologically? The consistency they seem to have blows my mind. So many of them.

Most animals are controlled by pheromones: how to feel about things, what to do about things. The patterns are predictable.

1) Fixed.

2) That's right Americans! They were here once but they're never coming back! We can never change the behavior in which we consume! Give up! Thanks, Jayrock! While we're at it, lets run away from everything else as well. That'll fix the problem!

3) It's true. American's don't save. We pay for it later. We're encouraged to to be the selfish, childish, materialistic fools you know we've been. Normally I'd say, "nice eye", but you're just using cheap ammunition. The sloganeering was obvious with that one.

francis, I agree with you for the most part, but you and I part ways when it comes to racial inequality in America. I'm no big fan of people who are quick to talk about "handouts" but do not acknowledge the shameful way this country has treated black people. from slavery, to jim crow & using laws/police to maintain control after abolition... 1) redlining by banks, political districting, zoning laws, unequal drug sentencing laws, the list goes on and on... 2) you'd be lying if you said the color of someone's skin isn't of huge importance, even in 2009

but 3) I agree. it isn't about race anymore, but class. divisions between ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation -- are all encouraged to distract and alienate people, in order to maintain the status quo.

2) I'm glad we can agree that this is happening to the black community. Let's address now how that is happening in every community and kill many birds with one stone. Drugs are a tool used to slander character. This is strategic. Liken them to witch trials. Cliche truth: The War on Drugs = Divide and Conquer while increasing the value of the drug market in north america so that people make a fuck-ton of money off of our tax dollars. Right.

1) Lets talk about economic divide and conquer of the masses:

For instance, a large chunk of baltimore's worst crime and least development is centralized into specific areas. The areas that were manufacturing, processing, factories etc... These jobs were outsourced. There's nothing there anymore because it's not makings its own money. That matters whether you can admit it or not. People move out, properties die, the traps are set.

The organized initiatives that are taking place to divide us are coming from syndicates composed of individuals who care not for race or community. They are carving pies strategically. Those who are not tied down by the community of its "subject people" will inevitably care little for their well being and decisions that directly effect the long term future of our living standards.

There is no longer an organized initiative by, consciously, the common people of this country to sabotage upward economic and, put inappropriately, "social" mobility through jobs and educational resources of any other citizen. Those citizen fringe groups that do hold supremacist beliefs are so low on the totem pole that they're not even worth mentioning. Our enemy is not tribal.

3) That is not what I meant, really. There's truth to that in many applications but... Not that you were -- but many people do -- employ wildly unhealthy and obsolete flash-science to try to debunk race. Race exists. Here is what I mean by that. Race is an omnipresent force that naturally divides us (not negatively alone). It's simply too easy to manipulate people racially and for any organized syndicate with a reason to control the population to resist using it. We have to look at race much differently than we did before. I'm not claiming to have an answer as to how.

Please read

1) I, Jayrock, can't distinguish between economics and ethics.

2) american manufacturing jobs are not coming back. period.

you could have more accurately described the problem by saying that americans 3) don't save for cars, they finance. there are a lot of other factors involved, but adjusting our import/export ratio is 4) hardly a fix for government incompetence and corporate shortsightedness.

^^^

See how easy it is to mold people into blithering idiots ideologically? The zeal they seem to have blows my mind.

Most animals are controlled by pheromones: how to feel about things, what to do about things. The patterns are predictable.

1) Fixed.

2) That's right Americans! They were here once but they're never coming back! We can never change the behavior in which we consume! Give up! Thanks, Jayrock! While we're at it, lets run away from everythign else as well. That'll fix the problem!

3) It's true. American's don't save. We pay for it later. We're encouraged to to be the selfish, childish, materialistic fools you know we've been. Normally I'd say, "nice eye", but you're just using cheap ammunition. The sloganeering was obvious with that one.