Leaderboard

I can't give Sara any grief on her English given the many typos I make (I just fixed 5 typoes in my last post). Besides I have no expectation of error free typing unless the message is unclear because of it. Personally I found Sara impossible to communicate with. I stopped engaging with her months ago, and I've long stopped trying to understand her motivation for participating on this forum. I do know she had no interest in exchanging ideas, or learning anything. But that would not make her any different than most people... If she is actually a published author I think she missed a great opportunity here. The fact that I have no clue who she is or what books she has written is a colossal waste, because at the very least I would have created a presence for her on the website at no cost and used any opportunity to promote her work where it made sense. But I have to say I never did understand why you felt it necessary to exchange barbs with her. I wished I started deleting those earlier on, but I actually thought you two were having a bit of immature fun. The other problem is when people read these types of base exchanges they get intimidated, turned off, and are less likely to join the fray. Obviously, I have no problem with a heated debate, but the ongoing tit-for-tat, back and forth, that every conversation between you and Sara devolved into was a waste of everyone's time and it more difficult to read the more interesting parts of a conversation. The idea that Harry's post on Nat Turner could so so quickly devolve into you being called a "ni--er bi-ch" is disturbing. It seemed like a bad pattern was just getting worse. That was something I wanted to prevent.

All we can do when it comes to Hillary being elected is to hope that the will end justify the means. I still think her goal is to become a female FDR, and put America on the road to economic stability and social justice. The days of a "man on a white horse" appearing in time of crisis to save his country from ruin are over. If a bitch in a red pants suit can make headway in getting the job done, then so be it. Take cover and stay safe. Hurricane Matthew is merciless and color blind.

It's called Globalism..... It's not just New York, it's taking place in urban areas all over the United States. Wealthy people are trying to take back the urban core of American cities because they're running out of land. If you look at the "norm" that exists outside the United States....today as well as in the past it is the POOR who live outside of the inner city. They tend to live in the townships, villages, and rural communities. It's the wealthy who live in the inner cities where the amenities are. But the United States for the past 60 years or so became the opposite and the wealthy people started moving out into the suburbs after WWII. Partially to get away from Black people and partially because of the fear of nuclear war. I'm sure they figured that the further away they got form "ground zero" which would be the core of most urban areas....the better they'd fair during an attack. If you notice, most of the gentrification started AFTER the collapse of the Soviet Union when they felt that the threat of a nuclear attack was over. So now the wealthy want their cities back and they're tearing down the projects, patching up the ghettoes, and shipping the poor and working class...not too far out...but out into the boroughs and inner ring suburbs so that they're close enough to commute to the city and work for them but not close enough to socialize or send their children to the same schools. No more middle class or working class. Just the educated wealthy elite inhabiting the cosmopolitican cities, and the TRAINED (educated just enough to do the job) WORKING (not on welfare or any other type of benefit that may prevent them from having to slave to eat) poor that have been regulated to the outskirts and boondocks. In my opinion the social planners are making a huge mistake because this structure is typical of that of a third world country...and third world societies are notoriously unstable as the poor constantly get fed up and seek to overthrow the system. One of the reasons the United States HAS been so stable since the 60s was because the poor and working class were given some dignity. You take that away and force them to either bust their ass working 2 jobs just to afford to SHARE a roach infested apartment or end up out in the street begging...and you're asking for skyrocketing crime and revolutions every 20 years or so. As Troy alluded to, a much wiser plan would be to build affordable housin in the city for working class people so that people earning a modest salary can still afford to support themselves and their families. Most people don't ask for much anyway. It's not like everyone is demanding masions with guest houses or trying to keep up with what billionaires have and demanding the same. Most people just want a clean place free of roaches or bedbugs, make sure the plumbing and lighting is working, and some cable and wifi where they can sit down and relax at the end of the day of work. Over 90% of the population would be happy with that and could care less how much more the wealthy had.