Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Hillary Clinton Pitches Plan for 'Growth and Fairness Economy'

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

boards of FL

boards of FL
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/hillary-clinton-pitches-plan-growth-fairness-economy-n391121


Hillary Clinton offered her vision Monday of a "growth and fairness economy," saying that her agenda would boost Americans' incomes and push companies to share profits with their employees.

"I believe we have to build a growth and fairness economy. You can't have one without the other," she said during remarks at the New School in New York City.

The 2016 Democratic candidate said that incomes have stalled even as corporate profits have skyrocketed, creating inequality that is "a drag on our entire economy."

"Wages need to rise to keep up with costs," she said. "Paychecks need to grow. Families who work hard and do their part deserve to get ahead and stay ahead."

She took an explicit shot at Republican rival Jeb Bush, directly referencing his statement last week that Americans "need to work longer hours."

"Well, he must not have met very many American workers," she said. Referencing nurses and fast food workers with grueling schedules, she added: "They don't need a lecture. They need a raise."

She also mentioned by name Republican candidates Sen. Marco Rubio, whose tax plan she derided as a "budget-busting giveaway to the super wealthy," and Gov. Scott Walker, whose fights against labor unions in Wisconsin she branded as "mean-spirited and misguided attacks." Walker is slated to formally announce his run later Monday in Wisconsin.

During her remarks, Clinton also called for companies to expand profit-sharing with their employees, pledging to change the tax code to incentivize such moves.

"Studies show profit-sharing that gives everyone a stake in a company's success can boost productivity and put money directly into employees' pockets. It's a win-win," she said.

And she promised to "break down barriers to joining the workforce - especially for women."

The Democratic frontrunner did not explicitly mention progressive rivals like Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who has won accolades from the party's left wing for his criticisms of Wall Street and big banks.

But she vowed to go beyond the Obama-backed Dodd-Frank banking reforms to "rein in excessive risk on Wall Street," and she called for prosecution of "criminal behavior" of culpable individuals in the banking industry.


_________________
I approve this message.

2seaoat


GDP growth without median income growth is the formula for the demise of America as we have known it.  The primary goal is the real dollar improvement of average Americans.....not foreign owners of corporations, our Oligarchy, or the wealthy who live off inherited wealth and contribute nothing to America.  The battle lines are drawn, but I am still awaiting anybody breaking the chains of servitude which the Oligarchy maintains by monetary control of Congress.

Markle

Markle
boards of FL wrote:http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/hillary-clinton-pitches-plan-growth-fairness-economy-n391121


Hillary Clinton offered her vision Monday of a "growth and fairness economy," saying that her agenda would boost Americans' incomes and push companies to share profits with their employees.

"I believe we have to build a growth and fairness economy. You can't have one without the other," she said during remarks at the New School in New York City.

The 2016 Democratic candidate said that incomes have stalled even as corporate profits have skyrocketed, creating inequality that is "a drag on our entire economy."

"Wages need to rise to keep up with costs," she said. "Paychecks need to grow. Families who work hard and do their part deserve to get ahead and stay ahead."

She took an explicit shot at Republican rival Jeb Bush, directly referencing his statement last week that Americans "need to work longer hours."

"Well, he must not have met very many American workers," she said. Referencing nurses and fast food workers with grueling schedules, she added: "They don't need a lecture. They need a raise."

She also mentioned by name Republican candidates Sen. Marco Rubio, whose tax plan she derided as a "budget-busting giveaway to the super wealthy," and Gov. Scott Walker, whose fights against labor unions in Wisconsin she branded as "mean-spirited and misguided attacks." Walker is slated to formally announce his run later Monday in Wisconsin.

During her remarks, Clinton also called for companies to expand profit-sharing with their employees, pledging to change the tax code to incentivize such moves.

"Studies show profit-sharing that gives everyone a stake in a company's success can boost productivity and put money directly into employees' pockets. It's a win-win," she said.

And she promised to "break down barriers to joining the workforce - especially for women."

The Democratic frontrunner did not explicitly mention progressive rivals like Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who has won accolades from the party's left wing for his criticisms of Wall Street and big banks.

But she vowed to go beyond the Obama-backed Dodd-Frank banking reforms to "rein in excessive risk on Wall Street," and she called for prosecution of "criminal behavior" of culpable individuals in the banking industry.

One hysterical speech.

boards of FL

boards of FL
Markle wrote:One hysterical speech.  


The highlight of the speech appears to be Clinton's plan to promote corporate profit sharing via tax incentives.  This seems reasonable.  We're seeing corporate profits explode and set records almost every quarter.  This has been the case for some time now.  At the same time, wages are stagnant.

Corporate profits are breaking all time highs every quarter.

Wages are stagnant.

Let's think about this a bit more.  Let's see.

Corporate profits are breaking all time highs every quarter.

Wages are stagnant.

Hey, I think I got it.  What if some sort of corporate profit sharing program were introduced in order to boost overall wages?  


Seriously though, Markle.  You clearly disagree with such a policy - which is clearly aimed at addressing the gross redistribution of wealth that has occurred over the last 30 years.  Do you care to say why?  And do you care to say what alternative is being promoted by any of the candidates that you support?

Or does policy not matter in Markle-land?


_________________
I approve this message.

Markle

Markle
boards of FL wrote:
Markle wrote:One hysterical speech.  


The highlight of the speech appears to be Clinton's plan to promote corporate profit sharing via tax incentives.  This seems reasonable.  We're seeing corporate profits explode and set records almost every quarter.  This has been the case for some time now.  At the same time, wages are stagnant.

Corporate profits are breaking all time highs every quarter.

Wages are stagnant.

Let's think about this a bit more.  Let's see.

Corporate profits are breaking all time highs every quarter.

Wages are stagnant.

Hey, I think I got it.  What if some sort of corporate profit sharing program were introduced in order to boost overall wages?  

Seriously though, Markle.  You clearly disagree with such a policy - which is clearly aimed at addressing the gross redistribution of wealth that has occurred over the last 30 years.  Do you care to say why?  And do you care to say what alternative is being promoted by any of the candidates that you support?

Or does policy not matter in Markle-land?

Wages had not been stagnant until semi-retired President Obama took office.  

Don't those profits go to the STOCK HOLDERS?  Do you have a retirement account that invests some of its money in stocks?



Last edited by Markle on 7/14/2015, 3:48 pm; edited 1 time in total

boards of FL

boards of FL
Markle wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
Markle wrote:One hysterical speech.  


The highlight of the speech appears to be Clinton's plan to promote corporate profit sharing via tax incentives.  This seems reasonable.  We're seeing corporate profits explode and set records almost every quarter.  This has been the case for some time now.  At the same time, wages are stagnant.

Corporate profits are breaking all time highs every quarter.

Wages are stagnant.

Let's think about this a bit more.  Let's see.

Corporate profits are breaking all time highs every quarter.

Wages are stagnant.

Hey, I think I got it.  What if some sort of corporate profit sharing program were introduced in order to boost overall wages?  

Seriously though, Markle.  You clearly disagree with such a policy - which is clearly aimed at addressing the gross redistribution of wealth that has occurred over the last 30 years.  Do you care to say why?  And do you care to say what alternative is being promoted by any of the candidates that you support?

Or does policy not matter in Markle-land?

Wages have not been stagnant until semi-retired President Obama took office.  

Don't those profits go to the STOCK HOLDERS?  Do you have a retirement account that invests some of its money in stocks?




The questions were:

You clearly disagree with such a policy - which is clearly aimed at addressing the gross redistribution of wealth that has occurred over the last 30 years.  Do you care to say why?  And do you care to say what alternative is being promoted by any of the candidates that you support?


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest
She's just trying to horn in on bernie's populist speak... the problem is that they are both flawed... and hillary is no friend to the average citizen. She is owned lock stock and barrel by corp, banks, wall st, foreign interests. Obama made the same promises.

http://fee.org/anythingpeaceful/detail/bernie-sanders-thinks-the-middle-class-is-deteriorating-hes-wrong

VectorMan

VectorMan
Let's see.....Hillary Clinton, a known liar. Evil, corrupt and very wealthy. Hasn't paid her fair share.

She makes a speech about income equality and we're supposed to believe her? LOL. I don't think so. But the gullible (you know who you are) will eat it up with a spoon.

Markle

Markle
boards of FL wrote:
Markle wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
Markle wrote:One hysterical speech.  


The highlight of the speech appears to be Clinton's plan to promote corporate profit sharing via tax incentives.  This seems reasonable.  We're seeing corporate profits explode and set records almost every quarter.  This has been the case for some time now.  At the same time, wages are stagnant.

Corporate profits are breaking all time highs every quarter.

Wages are stagnant.

Let's think about this a bit more.  Let's see.

Corporate profits are breaking all time highs every quarter.

Wages are stagnant.

Hey, I think I got it.  What if some sort of corporate profit sharing program were introduced in order to boost overall wages?  

Seriously though, Markle.  You clearly disagree with such a policy - which is clearly aimed at addressing the gross redistribution of wealth that has occurred over the last 30 years.  Do you care to say why?  And do you care to say what alternative is being promoted by any of the candidates that you support?

Or does policy not matter in Markle-land?

Wages have not been stagnant until semi-retired President Obama took office.  

Don't those profits go to the STOCK HOLDERS?  Do you have a retirement account that invests some of its money in stocks?




The questions were:

You clearly disagree with such a policy - which is clearly aimed at addressing the gross redistribution of wealth that has occurred over the last 30 years.  Do you care to say why?  And do you care to say what alternative is being promoted by any of the candidates that you support?

The questions were answered.

Why would I support the redistribution of wealth supported by the Socialists and Communists?

boards of FL

boards of FL
Markle wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
Markle wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
Markle wrote:One hysterical speech.  


The highlight of the speech appears to be Clinton's plan to promote corporate profit sharing via tax incentives.  This seems reasonable.  We're seeing corporate profits explode and set records almost every quarter.  This has been the case for some time now.  At the same time, wages are stagnant.

Corporate profits are breaking all time highs every quarter.

Wages are stagnant.

Let's think about this a bit more.  Let's see.

Corporate profits are breaking all time highs every quarter.

Wages are stagnant.

Hey, I think I got it.  What if some sort of corporate profit sharing program were introduced in order to boost overall wages?  

Seriously though, Markle.  You clearly disagree with such a policy - which is clearly aimed at addressing the gross redistribution of wealth that has occurred over the last 30 years.  Do you care to say why?  And do you care to say what alternative is being promoted by any of the candidates that you support?

Or does policy not matter in Markle-land?

Wages have not been stagnant until semi-retired President Obama took office.  

Don't those profits go to the STOCK HOLDERS?  Do you have a retirement account that invests some of its money in stocks?




The questions were:

You clearly disagree with such a policy - which is clearly aimed at addressing the gross redistribution of wealth that has occurred over the last 30 years.  Do you care to say why?  And do you care to say what alternative is being promoted by any of the candidates that you support?

The questions were answered.

Why would I support the redistribution of wealth supported by the Socialists and Communists?



Our economy is currently structured such that wealth is redistributed upwards.  This has proven to be a drag on our economy over the last thirty years.  A majority of economists agree on that.  This is why you see democrats offering policies aimed at addressing that gross redistribution of wealth.

Clinton offered a policy idea yesterday.   You claim that you don't agree with that because it is a "redistribution of wealth supported by the socialists and communists".  Ok.  But don't you understand the idea that the policy is aimed at addressing the structural redistribution of wealth that we have seen take hold over the last 30 years?  

If you don't agree with Clinton's policy, what policy do you agree with?  In other words, who on the republican side is offering a policy aimed at addressing the same thing, and what is that policy?  Why do you support it?

You haven't answered that.   Are you going to run away again for the 548,327,896th time? You don't actually know anything about policy, do you? You just vote for republicans because you vote for republicans, but you have no idea why, do you? Feel free to correct me here and lay out the policy that you prefer and the candidate who is pushing it.

You can answer that, right? You're not a low information voter, are you?


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest
boards of FL wrote:

Our economy is currently structured such that wealth is redistributed upwards. This has proven to be a drag on our economy over the last thirty years.  A majority of economists agree on that.  This is why you see democrats offering policies aimed at addressing that gross redistribution of wealth.

Clinton offered a policy idea yesterday.  

Pardon me for pulling some of the meat from your post to Markle and deleting the rest.  I'd like to offer some input to these points you make, Boards.

First, beyond political sides, I am for our economy continuing to grow and am not for slamming every idea because some say it is socialist or communist.  

As I look back to more prosperous times - not attributing this to Dem or Repub -
the wealth was distributed upward and downward.  How so, you might ask?

Joe and Judy Workerbee made a wage where, even if $25 dollars a pay period, they could place money in a savings account or save up for a small CD and receive a decent return.  Or, depending on their vocation and their employer, they could but shares in the company (Walmart did this in the early years.)

We've seen the wages stay the same, taxes increase, and the power of the dollar fall.  Many factors weigh in to this and if Hillary can see a way out of it - redistributing profits back to the worker - that would be great.  So long as she still has a plan where corporations do what they are intended to do - increase shareholder's investment.  

We have to invest in both directions to see the economy grow.   If offered a minimum way job with the ability to buy shares/stock each pay period vs being paid more wages...I'd take the shares/stock.

Banks give spit on investment.  

These issues, along with government being better stewards of the nation's contributions, I will listen to and decide on a candidate based on sound financial proposals.

It can't be a campaign of stick it to the rich - I won't listen.  It has to be a plan that is laid out and makes good sense for the economy regardless of Democratic and Republican "social" issues.  

I'll listen to all candidates in regard to these issues I've mentioned.

boards of FL

boards of FL
SheWrites wrote:We've seen the wages stay the same, taxes increase, and the power of the dollar fall.  Many factors weigh in to this and if Hillary can see a way out of it - redistributing profits back to the worker - that would be great.  So long as she still has a plan where corporations do what they are intended to do - increase shareholder's investment.  


Taxes have steadily decreased over the last thirty years.  And they have decreased regressively.  That is sort of the problem here.  Also, the dollar has strengthened and inflation has remained well below historical averages for several years now.


Corporate profits:

Hillary Clinton Pitches Plan for 'Growth and Fairness Economy' Showimage



Shareholder investment:

Hillary Clinton Pitches Plan for 'Growth and Fairness Economy' XNLj1PA



Hmm.  It seems as if corporate profits and shareholder investment have never been better.   Meanwhile, wages are stagnant and the middle class is evaporating.  What to do?  

Wait a second.  I think I've got it.  What if someone offered a policy aimed at boosting wages through corporate profit sharing?

Seriously?  Why is it so difficult for right wingers to account for the worker in the economic equation?  Why is it that the worker is the very last on the list of priorities, every...single...time?  Or worse, they aren't a priority at all! Corporate profits, check. Shareholder wealth, check. Well I guess we're done here!


_________________
I approve this message.

gatorfan


HRC has described a well-known problem but offers essentially the same Obamanomics "vision" (not a plan) as in '08.

How will she coerce big business into profit sharing while raising taxes on those with the most to lose in that same type of program? I'm sure those thieves will be more than willing to play......

What is the root cause of stagnant wages? Is it because corporation are holding onto too much cash because of so many global problems? Or is it because work opportunities are so fragile that workers are willing to shut up and work for less?

What is her plan?

boards of FL

boards of FL
gatorfan wrote:How will she coerce big business into profit sharing while raising taxes on those with the most to lose in that same type of program?


Tax incentives.


gatorfan wrote:What is the root cause of stagnant wages? Is it because corporation are holding onto too much cash because of so many global problems? Or is it because work opportunities are so fragile that workers are willing to shut up and work for less?

What is her plan?


Work opportunities are fragile? I'm not sure if you realize this or not, but job openings are currently sitting at a 15 year high.


_________________
I approve this message.

gatorfan


boards of FL wrote:
gatorfan wrote:How will she coerce big business into profit sharing while raising taxes on those with the most to lose in that same type of program?


Tax incentives.


gatorfan wrote:What is the root cause of stagnant wages? Is it because corporation are holding onto too much cash because of so many global problems? Or is it because work opportunities are so fragile that workers are willing to shut up and work for less?

What is her plan?


Work opportunities are fragile?  I'm not sure if you realize this or not, but job openings are currently sitting at a 15 year high.

Uh Huh, I'm not sure if you realize this or not but job openings are one thing, worker qualification for those same openings are another. Perhaps you've heard of the lack of skilled manufacturing workers, etc?

boards of FL

boards of FL
gatorfan wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
gatorfan wrote:How will she coerce big business into profit sharing while raising taxes on those with the most to lose in that same type of program?


Tax incentives.


gatorfan wrote:What is the root cause of stagnant wages? Is it because corporation are holding onto too much cash because of so many global problems? Or is it because work opportunities are so fragile that workers are willing to shut up and work for less?

What is her plan?


Work opportunities are fragile?  I'm not sure if you realize this or not, but job openings are currently sitting at a 15 year high.

Uh Huh, I'm not sure if you realize this or not but job openings are one thing, worker qualification for those same openings are another. Perhaps you've heard of the lack of skilled manufacturing workers, etc?


If only we adopted Obama's policy of guaranteeing a community college or equivalent education...

The solutions are there.  They're right in front of you.  You vote against them in favor of....what?  Here again, can you name any policy that is specifically driving you to vote for any republican candidate within the context of addressing gross wealth redistribution and the evaporating middle class?


_________________
I approve this message.

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI
boards of FL wrote:
gatorfan wrote:How will she coerce big business into profit sharing while raising taxes on those with the most to lose in that same type of program?


Tax incentives.


gatorfan wrote:What is the root cause of stagnant wages? Is it because corporation are holding onto too much cash because of so many global problems? Or is it because work opportunities are so fragile that workers are willing to shut up and work for less?

What is her plan?


Work opportunities are fragile?  I'm not sure if you realize this or not, but job openings are currently sitting at a 15 year high.


http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0310/p17s01-cogn.html



Why the new jobs go to immigrants
In the past four years, the number of immigrants into the US, legal and illegal, has closely matched the number of new jobs. That suggests newcomers have, in effect, snapped up all of the new jobs.


"There has been no net job gain for natives," says Andrew Sum, an economist at Northeastern University.

.....What employers really want in many cases by hiring immigrants is to hold down wage costs, experts say.

gatorfan


boards of FL wrote:
gatorfan wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
gatorfan wrote:How will she coerce big business into profit sharing while raising taxes on those with the most to lose in that same type of program?


Tax incentives.


gatorfan wrote:What is the root cause of stagnant wages? Is it because corporation are holding onto too much cash because of so many global problems? Or is it because work opportunities are so fragile that workers are willing to shut up and work for less?

What is her plan?


Work opportunities are fragile?  I'm not sure if you realize this or not, but job openings are currently sitting at a 15 year high.

Uh Huh, I'm not sure if you realize this or not but job openings are one thing, worker qualification for those same openings are another. Perhaps you've heard of the lack of skilled manufacturing workers, etc?


If only we adopted Obama's policy of guaranteeing a community college or equivalent education...

The solutions are there.  They're right in front of you.  You vote against them in favor of....what?  Here again, can you name any policy that is specifically driving you to vote for any republican candidate within the context of addressing gross wealth redistribution and the evaporating middle class?

More Bofshit.

I vote against improving the workforce? When have I done that and how in the hell would you know anyway?

I'm not a Republican and have actually stated on this forum that Sanders has some good ideas - something I haven't said about any of the 3.5 million R candidates.

As I asked previously and you failed to address (no surprise) what is HRCs plan?

Regarding Obamas education ideas, ever heard of the government monstrosity called WIOA? I didn't think so.

WIOA COULD be a good program for worker training and workforce integration but is so complex and tied to specific interests as to be practically useless in it's ROI.

boards of FL

boards of FL
gatorfan wrote:As I asked previously and you failed to address (no surprise) what is HRCs plan?


You're asking me this within a thread titled "Hillary Clinton Pitches Plan for 'Growth and Fairness Economy'.   In the first post, I point out what I think is the key element of that plan:  A corporate profit sharing program driven by tax incentives.  I also link you to an article that discusses the plan. Then there is Google.

What am I missing here?


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest
Specifics and similar results... obama promised the same bs.

boards of FL

boards of FL
PkrBum wrote:Specifics and similar results... obama promised the same bs.


Any politician can propose any idea they want.  They only become reality if they are passed.  The reason why we don't have Obama's community college plan and will likely not have Clinton's corporate profit sharing plan is because of republicans.  They simply oppose any attempt to address the current economic structure that redistributes wealth upwards. Until they either evolve on the issue, or until house district gerrymandering is addressed, or until people like you get smarter, that will continue to be the case.

Long story short, a combination of house district gerrymandering and low information voters - such as yourself - is why we do not have these policies in place.


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest
He could've... and did pass anything he wanted for the first two years during the economic downturn.

He choose a fascist "solution" to takeover our healthcare system... another entitlement. And to bailout banks, corps, wall st.

boards of FL

boards of FL
PkrBum wrote:He could've... and did pass anything he wanted for the first two years during the economic downturn.

He choose a fascist "solution" to takeover our healthcare system... another entitlement.


And we got the ARRA and the ACA.  Win win.  But then when the majority of Americans voted for democrats in the 2010 election, republicans took the house anyways due to district gerrymandering.  

And the ACA is not a takeover of the the healthcare system.  Not to anyone who understands what the word 'takeover' means.  Further the ACA has been a success.  The number of uninsured americans has plummeted, and the growth of health care costs has slowed and in some cases even decreased.

Go ahead and queue up the college freshmen libertarian one-liner "Regulation is effective control".  Because it's not as if you have anything original or intelligent to say in the realm of politics.  Your contributions to this forum are comparable to those of a child eavesdropping on the grown-ups table. You can repeat one-liners but you really don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.


_________________
I approve this message.

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI
boards of FL wrote:
PkrBum wrote:He could've... and did pass anything he wanted for the first two years during the economic downturn.

He choose a fascist "solution" to takeover our healthcare system... another entitlement.


And we got the ARRA and the ACA.  Win win.  But then when the majority of Americans voted for democrats in the 2010 election, republicans took the house anyways due to district gerrymandering.  

And the ACA is not a takeover of the the healthcare system.  Not to anyone who understands what the word 'takeover' means.  Further the ACA has been a success.  The number of uninsured americans has plummeted, and the growth of health care costs has slowed and in some cases even decreased.

Go ahead and queue up the college freshmen libertarian one-liner "Regulation is effective control".  Because it's not as if you have anything original or intelligent to say in the realm of politics.  Your contributions to this forum are comparable to those of a child eavesdropping on the grown-ups table.

Your Darwin Avatar suits you....

http://starstoshame.blogspot.com/2012/02/charles-darwin-sexist-racist-lunatic.html

Charles Darwin: Sexist, Racist, & Lunatic

He held white, European men higher than all the other races or sexes. He did not think that people of color had any intelligence and civilization. He also thought women were inferior and beneath men. Not only was he racist, but also sexist. He had no right or proof to say that about anyone. It is amazing to me how many people respect him and follow his beliefs when he believed in things like that.

boards of FL

boards of FL
TEOTWAWKI wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
PkrBum wrote:He could've... and did pass anything he wanted for the first two years during the economic downturn.

He choose a fascist "solution" to takeover our healthcare system... another entitlement.


And we got the ARRA and the ACA.  Win win.  But then when the majority of Americans voted for democrats in the 2010 election, republicans took the house anyways due to district gerrymandering.  

And the ACA is not a takeover of the the healthcare system.  Not to anyone who understands what the word 'takeover' means.  Further the ACA has been a success.  The number of uninsured americans has plummeted, and the growth of health care costs has slowed and in some cases even decreased.

Go ahead and queue up the college freshmen libertarian one-liner "Regulation is effective control".  Because it's not as if you have anything original or intelligent to say in the realm of politics.  Your contributions to this forum are comparable to those of a child eavesdropping on the grown-ups table.

Your Darwin Avatar suits you....

http://starstoshame.blogspot.com/2012/02/charles-darwin-sexist-racist-lunatic.html

Charles Darwin: Sexist, Racist, & Lunatic

He held white, European men higher than all the other races or sexes. He did not think that people of color had any intelligence and civilization.  He also thought women were inferior and beneath men.  Not only was he racist, but also sexist.  He had no right or proof to say that about anyone. It is amazing to me how many people respect him and follow his beliefs when he believed in things like that.  


In reality, you are a racist homophobic paranoid lunatic. No joking there. That really is you in reality. You really are that guy.

Say what you want about my avatar, at least I'm not a paranoid racist homophobic who can't quite wrap his head around the concept of vaccinations.


_________________
I approve this message.

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum