ProfD Posted March 29 Report Posted March 29 https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/3/29/not-how-you-talk-to-allies-danish-fm-tells-the-us-over-greenland Since day 1 of assuming office, the current administration has been talking about acquiring Greenland. Nevermind that Greenland is not up for sale. The inhabitants have not expressed a burning desire for their territory to become a part of the US. Greenland would rather remain sovereign or at least tucked in with Denmark. The question for the forum is 1) should Greenland should become a part of the US and 2) will it become a vacation destination.
Pioneer1 Posted March 29 Report Posted March 29 ProfD See, I KNEW all of that interaction with richardmurray was affecting you...lol. First you started calling out the Black "tribes" of America...lol. Now you're asking the forum questions. Next you'll be doing polls and shit....talking about DOSer this and DOSer that, lol. Absolutely Greenland would be a good fit for the U.S. We could use the land, and it IS a pretty good strategic location. If there was any REAL conflict with Russia....Greenland would be a good buffer zone where you could set up enough bases and interceptors to thwart any major blows. For some reason, I thought the U.S. already had military bases in Greenland anyway. 1
ProfD Posted March 29 Author Report Posted March 29 40 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said: ProfD See, I KNEW all of that interaction with richardmurray was affecting you...lol. First you started calling out the Black "tribes" of America...lol. Now you're asking the forum questions. Next you'll be doing polls and shit....talking about DOSer this and DOSer that, lol. Nah bro. I've still got my own flow. No polls. 1) I can recognize a good point. Brotha @richardmurray was spot on with tribes. 2) I posed the questions to see if it would increase participation in the discussion. 40 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said: Absolutely Greenland would be a good fit for the U.S. We could use the land, and it IS a pretty good strategic location. Once the ice melts through climate change there is belief it will open shipping lanes. Additionally, there's oil, gas and rare earth minerals. 40 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said: If there was any REAL conflict with Russia....Greenland would be a good buffer zone where you could set up enough bases and interceptors to thwart any major blows. They claim Russian and Chinese ships are already there. Vlady Putin says it would be great for the US to have an interest in Greenland. 40 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said: For some reason, I thought the U.S. already had military bases in Greenland anyway. The US military already has a presence there. 1
richardmurray Posted March 29 Report Posted March 29 @Pioneer1 very funny:) haha @ProfD it is an old trick, you rattle the saber to start wars. Schrumpt knows, if you sable rattle long enough someone will bite and then you have a war, which is the most financially profitable or governmentally safe state in the usa, in the last few decades easily
Pioneer1 Posted March 29 Report Posted March 29 Well if Russia and China are already there, WE need to be there...and push them out. I personally DO believe that the United States should rule the world. As long as: 1. I'm a citizen of the United States and 2. There is no other nation I know of on this planet that is better for Black people to live in as of right now. In the future my mind may change, however as of right now...I want the U.S. to rule and totally support taking over Greenland if that's what it takes. Like DMX said...we'll SNATCH they asses up like change off the dresser, if we have to...lol.
richardmurray Posted March 29 Report Posted March 29 @Pioneer1 2 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said: I personally DO believe that the United States should rule the world. As long as: 1. I'm a citizen of the United States and 2. There is no other nation I know of on this planet that is better for Black people to live in as of right now. well right:) you are the common self interested patriot or matriot 1
Pioneer1 Posted March 29 Report Posted March 29 4 minutes ago, richardmurray said: @Pioneer1 well right:) you are the common self interested patriot or matriot Well, you, me, and the rest of the Black tribes of the U.S. certainly won't benefit by CHINA or RUSSIA taking over the planet...lol. I can tell you that much.
ProfD Posted March 29 Author Report Posted March 29 @Pioneer1, I don't see much difference between the US, China an Russia as it relates to Black folks. Youre not going to get any more or less butter biscuits.
Pioneer1 Posted March 29 Report Posted March 29 17 minutes ago, ProfD said: @Pioneer1, I don't see much difference between the US, China an Russia as it relates to Black folks. Youre not going to get any more or less butter biscuits. Well look at it THIS way...... How many Black folks are IN Russia and China? That should give you some idea of how they feel about us and how much they value our presence.
ProfD Posted March 29 Author Report Posted March 29 41 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said: Well look at it THIS way...... How many Black folks are IN Russia and China? That should give you some idea of how they feel about us and how much they value our presence. White people are only tolerating Black folks being in the US because they brought some of our ancestors here. If they could send us back *somewhere* ships and planes would have been loaded up already. OTOH, as NF Jr. taught, white folks need Black folks here to mistreat as a class beneath themselves.
richardmurray Posted March 29 Report Posted March 29 @Pioneer1 1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said: Well, you, me, and the rest of the Black tribes of the U.S. certainly won't benefit by CHINA or RUSSIA taking over the planet...lol. I can tell you that much. i comprehend your position or your point , but it has one fatal flaw, the future is never really known, and remember one little thing, you speak of the usa as you live in it, but the usa has fewer black people in it than brasil, the usa has far fewer black people than in south america or africa or asia. maybe black people in africa/asia/south america will be better off if the usa is defeated by russia/china... I don't know to be honest, but I can't say I am sure either way
Pioneer1 Posted March 30 Report Posted March 30 umbrarchist It can move? Provided there's an Earthquake...lol. ProfD White people are only tolerating Black folks being in the US because they brought some of our ancestors here Honestly..... I don't think they have much of a choice. Like Dr.Dre said: I'm a nigga you can't remove ....lol. They CAN'T remove us. If they could send us back *somewhere* ships and planes would have been loaded up already Right. They've actually TRIED to several times, but couldn't. Because it's not up to them. We're here for a reason. OTOH, as NF Jr. taught, white folks need Black folks here to mistreat as a class beneath themselves. Well that's another reason. The wise White folks at the top know history and they know that if you got rid of the people of color in society, soon Whites will start oppressing and slaughtering eachother over things like religion or "who's whiter" than the next one. Look at Germany. You gotta have some people of color sprinkled around in every White society to have someone to target and point the finger of blame at. richardmurray i comprehend your position or your point , but it has one fatal flaw, the future is never really known, and remember one little thing, you speak of the usa as you live in it, but the usa has fewer black people in it than brasil, the usa has far fewer black people than in south america or africa or asia. Yeah but what are the Black folks in Brazil and the rest of Latin America DOING? Do they have as much political and social power as us in their society? Are they making as much money as us in their society? Do they have as much global influence as Black Americans? Father to Son: If all you're doing around here is just eating and shitting, I'll let you hang around the house as long as you don't get in the way. But if you start trying to buck up and take over and sit in MY chair, then I might have to kick yo' ass out. ....lol.
richardmurray Posted April 4 Report Posted April 4 @Pioneer1 On 3/30/2025 at 4:43 PM, Pioneer1 said: Yeah but what are the Black folks in Brazil and the rest of Latin America DOING? Do they have as much political and social power as us in their society? Are they making as much money as us in their society? Do they have as much global influence as Black Americans? I will answer your questions, but i want to go back and say, you suggested black people, which i consider a global populace, is better off with the usa as the utmost. But my problem is most black people on earth do not live in the usa, so to assume the ascendency of another country wouldn't do better for most black people is unfounded. I am not saying I know the future, I am saying no one does. Now if you would say that the betterment to black people in the usa is conditional as you say based on the usa, then I am in full agreement. But to suggest that black people who are larger in number in multiple places outside the usa will all do worse with a fall of the usa can't be proven. It is assumption. Now to your questions Yeah but what are the Black folks in Brazil and the rest of Latin America DOING? In my opinion the same as the black folk in the usa or north america. most black folk in either region are simply the financial poor in a country dominated by a people who don't look like them with a black financial aristocracy in government/entertainment that don't lead the larger black populace. Do they have as much political and social power as us in their society? I say yes. You have to comprehend that phenoptyical race has a variance in history in brasil compared to the usa. Are they making as much money as us in their society? I think relatively yes, brasil doesn't make as much money as the usa, so I think and the existence of quilombos in brasil as compared to the gullah/geechee and similar folk in the usa is a balance. Do they have as much global influence as Black Americans? white brasilians don't have as much global influence as white statians. When I think about regga , capoeira, samba, and so much that has been influenced by black people of brasil . Your questions are about influence but wasn't the question the betterment of black people in humanity and I argue it is possible that most black people in humanity are better off absent the usa ap top.
Pioneer1 Posted April 4 Report Posted April 4 richardmurray ALL Black people on the planet have had SOME influence on the planet to various degrees, but none have had the impact and influence that Black Americans have had and continue to have.....politically, socially, and entertainment wise. We don't KNOW the future, however I'd argue that if the ENTIRE world were to collapse...including the United States...then perhaps the entire Black population of the planet may be better off because that would allow us to start a new civilization. However if ONLY the United States were to collapse but the rest of the world remained intact...NO...ABSOLUTELY NOT...would the rest of the Black population be alright. I'd argue that things would probably be WORSE because that role of "world leader" will quickly be filled by OPENLY racist anti-Black nations like China or Russia or some Arab nation. And unlike some in the U.S. government...they will be less "covert" in their various anti-Black operations. No sir, we're better off with the U.S.A. in charge...in MY opinion. Atleast with the U.S.A. incharge....you have enough Black Americans WITH power to influence America to intervene and keep the other racists from being TOO violent toward the rest of the global Black population. Look at our influence on de-colonizing Africa and the role we played in ending Apartheid in South Africa! That wouldn't have happened as quickly if there was no U.S. with her Black American influence. We don't need Russia or fucking China ruling the world. They'd enslave and decimate much of the Black population and wouldn't feel guilty about it. The Arabs would keep the Black WOMEN to fuck...but they'd probably treat the Black MEN like they did for centuries when they first started enslaving Africans - make "eunuchs" out of many of them. Which gives you an idea of how they see YOU and what they'd DO to you if they ruled the world. No sir..... I say we keep America incharge UNTIL a better nation comes along to rule the planet. Like a sorry ass husband who's barely helping a woman get by....lol. He may not be ideal...but if she ain't got nobody else then he'll just have to "do" until a better man comes along....lol. U.S.A....U.S.A...U.S.A.....all day. 1
richardmurray Posted April 4 Report Posted April 4 @Pioneer1 I see your position. I comprehend it. All i will add now is one reminder, all countries in human history change as they gain or lose power through war, and while some changes are planned by the powerful in any country , some are not planned or wanted.
ProfD Posted April 4 Author Report Posted April 4 On 4/4/2025 at 4:52 AM, Pioneer1 said: I say we keep America incharge UNTIL a better nation comes along to rule the planet. I don't believe the planet is supposed to be ruled by any nation. Living things were put here to make it alive. Some humans just find it necessary to disturb the peace and harmony. Live and let live. 1
Pioneer1 Posted April 5 Report Posted April 5 richardmurray I see your position. You do???? Shit! Let me close the curtains on my living room window then....lol. All i will add now is one reminder, all countries in human history change as they gain or lose power through war, and while some changes are planned by the powerful in any country , some are not planned or wanted. Understandable. But in the MEAN time...IN BETWEEN time...let us enjoy and take advantage of our citizenship in the world's currently most powerful nation. Most other Black people around the planet would give all they currently have to be in our position as American citizens. We need to be appreciative for that much. ProfD I don't believe the planet is suppsed to be ruled by any nation. I personally believe that in any system...SOMEBODY has to be in charge. Whether you're talking about a school system, economic system (business) or global system. Somebody has to be the clear head authority. If everybody is in charge and doing their own thing that SOUNDS nice...on paper...but it would actually lead to MORE chaos and instability because stronger nations would be bullying and taking over weaker nations without any fear of punishment or retaliation.
ProfD Posted April 5 Author Report Posted April 5 8 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: But in the MEAN time...IN BETWEEN time...let us enjoy and take advantage of our citizenship in the world's currently most powerful nation. Most other Black people around the planet would give all they currently have to be in our position as American citizens. We need to be appreciative for that much. Advantage is a matter of condition and perspective. The Black folks thriving in their own countries have a better quality of life than most AfroAmericans. The Black folks who flee their home countries are usually not in the most favored class of their society. To that end, surely those Black folks would run to a predominately white country in order to have a *better life* instead of building it at *home*. 8 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: I personally believe that in any system...SOMEBODY has to be in charge. Whether you're talking about a school system, economic system (business) or global system. Somebody has to be the clear head authority. Study the system of *democracy*. It's imperfect but works. There's no clear head of authority running it. 8 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: If everybody is in charge and doing their own thing that SOUNDS nice...on paper... It's not about everybody being in charge. It's about empowering people to do what they are capable of within their knowledge, skills and abilities. 8 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: but it would actually lead to MORE chaos and instability because stronger nations would be bullying and taking over weaker nations without any fear of punishment or retaliation. The world is relatively stable because the leaders engage in a certain amount of cooperation. Leadership is not about being in charge. It is having the ability to accomplish goals and objectives through management of people and resources. A dictatorship might look and sound good but it requires a different mentality. A willingness to kill or be killed. Heavy security. Constantly on the lookout for enemies. Food taste testers. Trust nobody. I IMO, any man who desires to rule with an iron fist has a mental disorder. A case could be be made for a benign dictatorship providing that leader has the qualities of a Supreme Being...love and peace.
Pioneer1 Posted April 5 Report Posted April 5 ProfD Advantage is a matter of condition and perspective. Absolutely. It is also often a matter of logical decision making. The Black foks thriving in their own countries have a better quality of life than most AfroAmericans. See, you just CONDITIONED it by saying "thriving". What about the AVERAGE Black person in most African countries. Are THEY experiencing a better quality of life than MOST AfroAmericans? Study the system of *democracy*. It's imperfect but works. There's no clear head of authority running it. The only problem is....Democracy DOESN'T EXIST on the planet. There is no nation on this planet that is a Democracy. It's just a nice sounding name that people throw around. It supposedly (and I stress the word "supposedly" because Minister Farrakhan taught what that word could also mean) means "rule of the people" or majority. That right there cancels out the world because no place on the planet does the MAJORITY govern and rule themselves. They are all ruled and governed by LEADERS. Some are elected and chosen...others inherit the position...others are dictators. But in every case...the majority are governed and ruled over by an elite few with the power to make decisions for the rest no matter what LABEL people want to slap on it. Republic Democracy Direct Democracy Oligarchy Choose any name you like, the core concepts remain the same.
ProfD Posted April 5 Author Report Posted April 5 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: See, you just CONDITIONED it by saying "thriving". What about the AVERAGE Black person in most African countries. Are THEY experiencing a better quality of life than MOST AfroAmericans? First, we have to define quality of life. Then, we have to ask the people if they would rather trade places. For example, I wouldn't trade my house in the suburbs for a condo in midtown Manhattan. Conversely, the person living in a crowded azz city may not want to live in a quiet, suburban location. Condition and perspective and experience matters. 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: The only problem is....Democracy DOESN'T EXIST on the planet. It supposedly...means "rule of the people" or majority. That right there cancels out the world because no place on the planet does the MAJORITY govern and rule themselves. They are all ruled and governed by LEADERS. Some are elected and chosen...others inherit the position...others are dictators. But in every case...the majority are governed and ruled over by an elite few with the power to make decisions for the rest no matter what LABEL people want to slap on it. Choose any name you like, the core concepts remain the same. Democratically elected leaders up and down the ballot holding political offices represent the majority of the people who voted for them. As I mentioned, democracy is imperfect but seems to work. Same goes for communism and fascism and every other form of government. The alternative would be anarchy. I cannot think of any country on the planet that doesn't function under some type of system.
Pioneer1 Posted April 5 Report Posted April 5 ProfD First, we have to define quality of life. That would be hard to do because everybody has a different idea of what a "quality life" is. For some people..... Smoking blunts and bar-b-quing pork ribs every weekend is their idea of living the "American Dream"...lol Democratically elected leaders up and down the ballot holding political offices represent the majority of the people who voted for them. But that still means it's an OLIGARCHY....rule of the few. Whether they're elected or selected...they are still a tiny fraction of the population but are known as the "Legislators" because they are the only ones who can make the laws. As I mentioned, democracy is imperfect but seems to work. Same goes for communism and fascism and every other form of government. Yes, it works for SOME people....but not for others. Communism works for the members of the Communist Party...lol. The citizens who have to wait on rations of milk and bread and are forced to work or get sent to prison...may have another opinion on whether things are working out or not...lol. The alternative would be anarchy. I cannot think of any country on the planet that doesn't function under some type of system Correct. You need a system where most of the population cooperates with eachother in order to have a functioning nation.
ProfD Posted April 5 Author Report Posted April 5 2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: First, we have to define quality of life. That would be hard to do because everybody has a different idea of what a "quality life" is. For some people..... Smoking blunts and bar-b-quing pork ribs every weekend is their idea of living the "American Dream"...lol Right. The gamut runs wide. Some folks are content with Chinese takeout food and laying up watching Netflix. 2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Democratically elected leaders up and down the ballot holding political offices represent the majority of the people who voted for them. But that still means it's an OLIGARCHY....rule of the few. Whether they're elected or selected...they are still a tiny fraction of the population but are known as the "Legislators" because they are the only ones who can make the laws. The US may be heading in that direction but we're not there yet. We still operate under 3 branches of government. More than a handful of people run the country. 2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: The citizens who have to wait on rations of milk and bread and are forced to work or get sent to prison...may have another opinion on whether things are working out or not...lol. They always have the option of organizing themselves and overthrowing the government if unsatisfied with it. I'm inclined to believe Russia, China and North Korea remain unchanged because overall the people don't have a problem with their style of government. Many people will follow a benevolent dictator especially if their basic needs are met (food, clothing, shelter and healthcare). No desire to rich or wealthy.
Pioneer1 Posted April 6 Report Posted April 6 ProfD Some folks are content with Chinese takeout food and laying up watching Netflix I'm not going to lie to you homie.... I LOVES my Chinese food...lol. I don't know how much I'd enjoy living in ANY country if I didn't atleast have the OPTION of ordering some General Tso's Chicken and a side of shrimp fried rice for the cold nights...lol. The US may be heading in that direction but we're not there yet. We still operate under 3 branches of government. More than a handful of people run the country. That's what I'm saying...the U.S. is ALREADY an Oligarchy. Nearly every country is. They always have the option of organizing themselves and overthrowing the government if unsatisfied with it. I'm inclined to believe Russia, China and North Korea remain unchanged because overall the people don't have a problem with their style of government. Well.... In many cases...especially in Russia and China....things probably aren't THAT bad for them. China's middle class seems to be EXPANDING as the nation grows in wealth and power, so there is no need to "ruin" it with a revolution. Russia...certainly no third world country.....so the living there seems to be pretty good for many people. I know a few Russians and most of them don't have much bad to say about the living conditions there when they were growing up and especially now. Many people will follow a benevolent dictator especially if their basic needs are met (food, clothing, shelter and healthcare). No desire to rich or wealthy. True. They say that my historically favorite U.S. President...Franklin D. Roosevelt...was a benevolent dictator who single handedly reversed the Great Depression, lead the U.S. into a period of prosperity, and established most of the social programs the nation enjoys today.
ProfD Posted April 6 Author Report Posted April 6 39 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said: Some folks are content with Chinese takeout food and laying up watching Netflix I'm not going to lie to you homie.... I LOVES my Chinese food...lol. I don't know how much I'd enjoy living in ANY country if I didn't atleast have the OPTION of ordering some General Tso's Chicken and a side of shrimp fried rice for the cold nights...lol. If all you ever knew was Shaka Zula bushmeat and fried monkey with cassava, you would probably feel the same way. 39 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said: Well.... In many cases...especially in Russia and China....things probably aren't THAT bad for them. China's middle class seems to be EXPANDING as the nation grows in wealth and power, so there is no need to "ruin" it with a revolution. While both China and Russia have ethnic minorities who aren't middle class, they're content with their way of life. 39 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said: Russia...certainly no third world country.....so the living there seems to be pretty good for many people. Russia only has a 7% poverty rate compared to 11% in the US. 39 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said: They say that my historically favorite U.S. President...Franklin D. Roosevelt...was a benevolent dictator who single handedly reversed the Great Depression, lead the U.S. into a period of prosperity, and established most of the social programs the nation enjoys today. Franklin D. Roosevelt served as POTUS from 1933-1945. He didn't have to deal with the pesky stuff....Women's Rights or Civil Rights. All FDR had to do was provide white men with a better quality of life post-depression. World War II helped as well. The US was a lot different during FDR's time.
Pioneer1 Posted April 6 Report Posted April 6 ProfD While both China and Russia have ethnic minorities who aren't middle class, they're content with their way of life. Their "minorities" tend to look just like or almost like them. The people THEY call "minorities" in their society may just have a slight tribal or religious difference going back centuries ago and it just stuck to them. But trust, almost none of their official minorities are actual BLACK PEPOLE...lol. The Russians and Chinese are so cold-blooded, they don't even have a MULATTO/COLORED class...lol. Except for a few African students...no Africanoid populations or ethnic groups...period. I'm always suspicious of a nation that doesn't have ANY Black folks in it. Because our people tend to have a native population everywhere; so what happened to them???? Franklin D. Roosevelt served as POTUS from 1933-1945. He didn't have to deal with the pesky stuff....Women's Rights or Civil Rights. All FDR had to do was provide white men with a better quality of life post-depression I'm going to go out on a limb on this one and say that I believe FDR was one of the best presidents for Black Americans this side of Lincoln. He did help a lot of us financially through his anti-poverty programs. And his wife Elanor was VERY friendly towards AfroAmericans and encouraged her husband to promote benefits and programs that helped our people. I'm not saying he was a savior...but economically speaking he probably was the best President WE as AfroAmericans have had so far.
ProfD Posted April 6 Author Report Posted April 6 40 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said: I'm always suspicious of a nation that doesn't have ANY Black folks in it. Because our people tend to have a native population everywhere; so what happened to them???? Black folks don't really like cold weather especially if there's no incentive to stay fhere. We split. 40 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said: I'm going to go out on a limb on this one and say that I believe FDR was one of the best presidents for Black Americans this side of Lincoln. I'm not saying he was a savior...but economically speaking he probably was the best President WE as AfroAmericans have had so far. Those anti-poverty programs didn't make Black folks wealthy. Very few Black folks had white collar jobs during his administration. Black folks weren't integrated into the military under FDR. Maybe I'm overlooking the economic gains Black folks enjoyed under FDR's leadership. Enlighten me. FDR lifted the boats for white folks with the New Deal. Any benefits to Black folks was incidental. Not my intention to knock down your favorite POTUS. FDR served up a healthy batch of benign neglect to Black folks.
Pioneer1 Posted April 6 Report Posted April 6 ProfD While you're right that FDR didn't make a lot of Black people "wealthy"...those anti-poverty programs weren't designed to make you rich. They were designed to do what they said...take you out of poverty. Provide government relief (funds), government housing, and commodity foods to sustain you and your family until you get back on your feet and can support yourself adequately. A lot of the public housing FDR build was initially segregatd or simply didn't allow Black residents in them period. His wife Elanor pushed him to DE-segregate some of those buildings. ((Behind a great man is often an even GREATER woman???)) It's not so much that he TARGETED Black folks with his programs or gave us Reparations....lol...but he targeted the poor and needy Americans and Black folks who were among them got the benefit from that. I'll take that over nothing...lol.
ProfD Posted April 7 Author Report Posted April 7 9 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: It's not so much that he TARGETED Black folks with his programs or gave us Reparations....lol...but he targeted the poor and needy Americans and Black folks who were among them got the benefit from that. I'll take that over nothing...lol. Every POTUS elected has been doing the same thing in one way or another for nearly 100 years. The current POTUS claims his policies will bring manufacturing jobs back to the US. That might benefit Black workers too but he's definitely not doing it on purpose. Incidental. Crumbs falling from the table. Black folks' willingness to take crumbs from the table instead of insisting that metaphorically we own and control a whole bakery has been our Achilles heel.
Pioneer1 Posted April 7 Report Posted April 7 ProfD That might benefit Black workers too but he's definitely not doing it on purpose. Incidental. Crumbs falling from the table. For a man who's starving...... Crumbs falling INTO his mouth would be better than having crumbs snatched FROM his mouth...lol. I'll take incidental progress over PURPOSEFUL neglect and abuse...lol. Black folks' willingness to take crumbs from the table instead of insisting that metaphorically we own and control a whole bakery has been our Achilles heel. I hear (read) you. However when it's all said and done, Roosevelt's programs helped us as AfroAmericans TREMENDOUSlY whether he intended for them to or not. Again, Elanor made a CONSCIOUS effort to target the AfroAmerican community for help regardless as to how her husband felt about us. We're STILL benefiting off of the programs he initiated like public housing, Welfare, Social Security, and Medicaid. Programs that places like Demark and Sweden actually adopted FROM US. They're still funding these programs for their people but WE'RE the ones who actually started them during the Roosevelt Administration and Western Europe adopted them after WWII to get their people back on their feet.
ProfD Posted April 8 Author Report Posted April 8 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: For a man who's starving...... Crumbs falling INTO his mouth would be better than having crumbs snatched FROM his mouth...lol. A starving man who is not a prisoner of war needs to re-evaluate himself. There's no reason for an able-bodied man to be dependent on someone else for his daily bread. 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: I'll take incidental progress over PURPOSEFUL neglect and abuse...lol. Still dysfunctional. Incidental progress is the cousin of purposeful neglect and abuse. 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Roosevelt's programs helped us as AfroAmericans TREMENDOUSlY whether he intended for them to or not. We're STILL benefiting off of the programs he initiated like public housing, Welfare, Social Security, and Medicaid. Public housing and welfare are not benefits. 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Programs that places like Demark and Sweden actually adopted FROM US. They're still funding these programs for their people but WE'RE the ones who actually started them during the Roosevelt Administration and Western Europe adopted them after WWII to get their people back on their feet. Not sure of who US and WE'RE are but those programs were started here to benefit white folks. Black folks were not allowed into public housing and welfare until later. Those programs were not intended to run through several generations. Public housing and welfare are supposed to be temporary especially when it comes to men.
Pioneer1 Posted April 10 Report Posted April 10 ProfD A starving man who is not a prisoner of war needs to re-evaluate himself. I agree. If that man is so inclined. Not everyone has the mental power or motivation for self-evaluation. There's no reason for an able-bodied man to be dependent on someone else for his daily bread. What about not being able-MINDED? Still dysfunctional. Incidental progress is the cousin of purposeful neglect and abuse. But is it STILL a better state or condition, though? Living in a roach infested housing project unit is the cousin of being homeless, but it's still better than sleeping behind garbage cans. Public housing and welfare are not benefits. A lot of people who RELY on them to survive, would beg to differ. They may not be ideal, but compared to that big NOTHING BURGER that a lot of poor people get in other countries, it's welcomed. Not sure of who US and WE'RE are but those programs were started here to benefit white folks. Black folks were not allowed into public housing and welfare until later. LOL...well shit may'on... CARS were invented to benefit White folks, should Black folks stop driving? MOVIE THEATERS were invented to benefit White folks, should Black folks stay out of them? Just because something was started with the intention of helping out and benefiting White folks, doesn't mean we can reap the benefits ourselves! Those programs were not intended to run through several generations. I know there are MANY factors to it. Factors beyond THEIR control. However if a mother spends most of HER life on welfare and raises her daughters and THEY choose to spend their lives on welfare and raise their children on it....who's fault is that? Is that the fault of Roosevelt who started it? Is it the fault of the Social Workers who investigate the cases? I think Kanye West's "Jesus Walks" song calls people on welfare "victims" as if somebody MADE them get on it and is FORCING them to collect benefits from it. Ok...then GET OFF and see what happens. Public housing and welfare are supposed to be temporary especially when it comes to men. It's my understanding that most men can't even get on welfare by the way. My Father used to say when he was younger men could get public housing and live in the projects; but that changed later and soon ONLY women with children could get a place.
ProfD Posted April 11 Author Report Posted April 11 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: There's no reason for an able-bodied man to be dependent on someone else for his daily bread. What about not being able-MINDED? A mental problem needs to be evaluated and treated properly. 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Still dysfunctional. Incidental progress is the cousin of purposeful neglect and abuse. But is it STILL a better state or condition, though? Living in a roach infested housing project unit is the cousin of being homeless, but it's still better than sleeping behind garbage cans. Depends on perspective of the individual. Some folks would see roach infested housing projects, homelessness and sleeping behind garbage cans as the same thing. 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Public housing and welfare are not benefits. A lot of people who RELY on them to survive, would beg to differ. They may not be ideal, but compared to that big NOTHING BURGER that a lot of poor people get in other countries, it's welcomed. The rhetorical question is why are people relying on public housing and welfare. 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Not sure of who US and WE'RE are but those programs were started here to benefit white folks. Black folks were not allowed into public housing and welfare until later. LOL...well shit may'on... CARS were invented to benefit White folks, should Black folks stop driving? MOVIE THEATERS were invented to benefit White folks, should Black folks stay out of them? Just because something was started with the intention of helping out and benefiting White folks, doesn't mean we can reap the benefits ourselves! Public housing and welfare aren't benefits. Cars and movie theaters are luxuries. 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Those programs were not intended to run through several generations. I know there are MANY factors to it. Factors beyond THEIR control. However if a mother spends most of HER life on welfare and raises her daughters and THEY choose to spend their lives on welfare and raise their children on it....who's fault is that? Generational welfare is the fault of those who choose to wallow in it. 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Is that the fault of Roosevelt who started it? FDR wasn't at fault for creating poverty but he certainly knew who was hoarding wealth. 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Is it the fault of the Social Workers who investigate the cases? They were just doing their J-o-b. Just over broke themselves. 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Public housing and welfare are supposed to be temporary especially when it comes to men. It's my understanding that most men can't even get on welfare by the way. My Father used to say when he was younger men could get public housing and live in the projects; but that changed later and soon ONLY women with children could get a place. Right. Public housing and welfare was a temporary situation men could use to support their families until they made enough money to move up. The system of public housing and welfare as we know it became a thing later. It was not intended to be a way of life.
Pioneer1 Posted April 12 Report Posted April 12 ProfD A mental problem needs to be evaluated and treated properly. When I say able-minded. I'm not talking about mental illnesses like bipolar or schizophrenia; I'm talking about a man being slow, stupid, low intellect. I'm not sure how much treatment you CAN give a man who is too dumb or too stupid to provide daily bread for himself besides staying out of his way OR giving him a low skilled job that he can easily do and contribute to the community while providing food FOR him. Depends on perspective of the individual. Some folks would see roach infested housing projects, homelessness and sleeping behind garbage cans as the same thing True. Personally, I'd rather live OUTSIDE than in a roach infested home. The rhetorical question is why are people relying on public housing and welfare. Many reasons..... However we should be glad it EXISTS in this nation for those who need and want it. Public housing and welfare aren't benefits. You don't believe so? What's your idea of a benefit? FDR wasn't at fault for creating poverty but he certainly knew who was hoarding wealth. Yep...and he went after a lot of them. Among a lot of the wealthy and elite circles, Roosevelt was known as a "traitor to his class". There is actually a book out about it: The system of public housing and welfare as we know it became a thing later. It was not intended to be a way of life. I understand and I agree; however I think we should be glad and grateful that it DOES exist for those who need it. It's better than NO system at all like they have in a lot of countries where people who are destitute and can't provide for themselves basically crawl off into the woods and die alone.
ProfD Posted April 12 Author Report Posted April 12 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: I'm talking about a man being slow, stupid, low intellect. I'm not sure how much treatment you CAN give a man who is too dumb or too stupid to provide daily bread for himself besides staying out of his way OR giving him a low skilled job that he can easily do and contribute to the community while providing food FOR him. According to NF Jr., those who need help should get it. However, we should not allow mentally challenged people to reproduce. They should be sterilized. Animals do this instinctively. They kill offspring that has no chance of independent survival. 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Many reasons..... However we should be glad it EXISTS in this nation for those who need and want it. Public housing and welfare aren't benefits. You don't believe so? What's your idea of a benefit? In this case, a benefit is a solution to a temporary condition. Again, public housing and welfare should not be a way of life. 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: The system of public housing and welfare as we know it became a thing later. It was not intended to be a way of life. I understand and I agree; however I think we should be glad and grateful that it DOES exist for those who need it. The problem is too many people rely on it which makes them unproductive to society. 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: It's better than NO system at all like they have in a lot of countries where people who are destitute and can't provide for themselves... Blame greedy and corrupt leaders for allowing those conditions to exist. 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: ...basically crawl off into the woods and die alone. I beleieve any able-bodied, able-minded man who cannot afford to take care of himself is better off dead.
Pioneer1 Posted April 12 Report Posted April 12 ProfD However, we should not allow mentally challenged people to reproduce. They should be sterilized. Damn.... What happened to "love" and "compassion" to make the world a better place -you usually talk about??????? LOL I don't necessarily disagree. However it depends on WHY they are mentally challenged and if it's acutally genetic. And depending on the severity of it we may have to look into WHO is having sex with and making babies WITH a person in that condition and whether or not they should be prosecuted. In this case, a benefit is a solution to a temporary condition. Again, public housing and welfare should not be a way of life. For some people, it HAS to be. They have no choice if they can't help themselves in any other way. Especially if they're too stupid to work or do a job correctly. The problem isntoo many people rely on it which makes them unproductive to society. While I agree, the problem is housing and welfare is NOT available to them...that will generate a host of OTHER problems. -more crime committed by more desperate people. -more homelessness because of lack of housing -increased incarceration rates for those who are lazy and/or desperate and WILL NOT work regardless of situation. I beleieve any able-bodied, able-minded man who cannot afford to take care of himself is better off dead. Man.....you cold blooded, lol.
ProfD Posted April 12 Author Report Posted April 12 4 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said: What happened to "love" and "compassion" to make the world a better place -you usually talk about??????? Sure. Human beings should have love and compassion among themselves instead of fighting and killing each other for no reason. 4 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said: I don't necessarily disagree. However it depends on WHY they are mentally challenged and if it's acutally genetic. And depending on the severity of it we may have to look into WHO is having sex with and making babies WITH a person in that condition and whether or not they should be prosecuted. For some people, it HAS to be. They have no choice if they can't help themselves in any other way. Especially if they're too stupid to work or do a job correctly. While I agree, the problem is housing and welfare is NOT available to them...that will generate a host of OTHER problems. -more crime committed by more desperate people. -more homelessness because of lack of housing -increased incarceration rates for those who are lazy and/or desperate and WILL NOT work regardless of situation. Conditions is the reason dysfunctional people exist. The system feeds off it i.e. poverty, crime, punishment, law enforcement, judicial, social services, etc. 4 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said: I beleieve any able-bodied, able-minded man who cannot afford to take care of himself is better off dead. Man.....you cold blooded, lol. Not really. Survival of the fittest.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now