Ah, outliers for the outliar. Wonder where the doggy is? Edit, see the pooch has arrived.

 

There it is; divert.
PUTZ

 

My comment goes straight to your silly claim that German and Japanese conduct during the Second World War disproves hereditarianism.

 

No it doesn't, in fact all it is is a bunch of cut and paste "facts" that are inaccurate, irrelevant, and unreliable.
They do not answer the question of why, if intelligence is genetic, Orientals for half a century were stupid heathens and then, in less than a generation, became once again your gentle intelligent society. I mean, how does one ignore one's genetic programming? how do I change my eye color, the width of my nose, or the color of my skin through my behavior?
I don't.
That's the point.
And not one of your "facts" refutes that.
But you already know that.
And so does everyone else.

 

Fox takes its orders from Rupert Murdoch and he takes his orders from the Rothschild's.........

 

You really shouldn't make any attempt at slang no offense

 

LOL.....I will take under consideration....however with whom I was replying to....

 

And what caused the German and Japanese to commit such atrocities? Do you think is was a nationalistic mindset that they were immune to punishment for their crimes? Just as the majority of urban criminals are never apprehended, few that are ever face jail time and even then they are freed early because we go soft on them. Since the defeat of the South African white minority, there has been almost no law enforcement there.

In both the pre-WWII and the modern urban societies, criminals were/are rarely punished, they have no fear of consequences.

This is societal not genetics.

 

The Germans and the Japanese had weak traditions of democracy. They were used to doing what they were told to do.

Think back to the War in Vietnam. There was no legitimate reason for that war. Nevertheless, it continued year after year because most Americans thought that if we did not stop the Viet Cong over there, they would invade California. Think of all the atrocities we committed there, the napalm, the Agent Orange. In a sense our guilt was even worse because our media was not censored like the media of Germany and Japan during the Second World War. Plenty of Americans knew what was going on. Nevertheless, the war went on year after year after year.

In 1972 George McGovern promised "immediate, unilateral, unconditional withdrawal." He carried one state. Nixon won the other forty nine states. The killing continued.

 

Does every thread in general discussion eventually get racial ?

 

It's like watching two morbidly obese people trying to fuck in the middle of a train wreck.

It's sad to watch, yet you still get that tingling sensation in your loins.

 

Exactly

 

You bet your black ass...

 

I have found that if you allow Distant Lover into any discussion that is of real import you will have that discussion die in the depths of his idiocy. But since there are those that continue to engage the arrogance and ignorance they are to blame as equals.
Can we please get back to the real topic?

 

I agree, I have watched him destroy many good discussions with the help of well meaning idiots to prove him wrong....

 

What a terrible analogy.
It's just nonsense.

Companies downsizing do not "lay off" customers or clients ,
and they certainly don't [intentionally] downsize them. [though the effect may be the same , lol]


since i'm here now;
In terms of an anolgy;
I always think and say ,
If a company was run like the government , they'd be out of business quick smart , bankrupt , gone and forgotten.

so
If you think about that , then it would seem likely , a country could well benefit from being run more like a [successful] company.
But that is a whole different thread/subject.

 

A successful businessman/woman would not make the best president for each of the citizens of the US. Not by a long shot, there are far too many who have no interest in the long term viability of the country. Those who are self-centered, looking for instant gratification or wanting to live on government support, would be very dissatisfied.

However, for the short term, a business like approach to government may be the best choice for the long term, but it wouldn't be painless or pretty.

Imagine if tomorrow, a new President and Congress were to adopt stringent businesslike controls on the budget: Imagine that every single: redundant, ineffective, unnecessary or otherwise expendable government employee was fired. If the DoD was directed to close ever single military installation that was not necessary to meet realistic objectives in national security. Next imagine that every budget line item had to be recalculated based on a zero starting place. Then imagine that every person who was receiving government assistance was re-qualified and vetted to eliminate a benefits to those failing to qualify. While this was happening, the IRS would restructure the tax code to eliminate every single deductible that did not fit a strictly applied set of cost/benefit criteria.

Forget about worrying over illegal immigration, they would be headed back to their home country faster than they arrived, as a businessman would not likely interfere with the states rights to controlling commerce within their jurisdiction. Foreign policy decisions would be based on realtime benefits to our country and not on pie-in-the-sky goals such as nation building. Negotiating treaties that have no sustainable strategic or economic benefits to our country would be illegal.

There would be over a hundred million people on the streets practically overnight.

Try running on that platform.

 

This is the type of post that I was going to do.

The question is;

What does Trump actually have to offer to this country as POTUS?

What is his actual intentions for this country?

Will his policies make this country what it was intended to be by he founders?

I believe you may have touched on some of the questions, and gave a very honest answer to them, as you envision Trumps (businessman) concepts.

 

they would not need to
to do it correctly they would do it based on an futures principal
investment ideaology
look at what promises to be an earner and go from there
start with basic value and worth and then look at promise value
if the investment is not able to to yield a profit or return then it will be a loss
while not a platform any intelligent person would run on it is a more inline thought process
but since most conservative pundits only want more for war and most liberals only want more welfare maybe someone that comes in and says no more free rides would be fresh and welcomed