Did Barack "Spread the Wealth" Obama Just Blow the Election?

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland

Originally posted by: Vic
Suppose we cut all social and entitlement programs TODAY... no more food stamps, no more welfare, no more medicaid and Social Security. Shaniqua doesn't get her govt check next month, and neither does your grandmother.

What next?

Taxes drop by 80%, people take charge of their lives, pull themselves up by the boot straps, and start working for themselves? I know... crazy freaking idea... people being responsible for themselves.

No no... that's just crazy talk. Who would want that?

I'm a free market libertarian, and that really is nothing but crazy talk. What you suggest would be possible (and I strongly support it as an ends) if we phased in such a thing (over the course of decades probably, and with a greater level of economic justice and opportunity than we have now), but I said TODAY as in overnight.
In which case, you're as irrational as any revolutionary communist, just from the opposite (reactionary) perspective.
Hell, we'd probably have martial law within days, collapse of govt and economy not long after. In your idealism, you just don't understand why these things are in place. Welfare, etc. is how the wealthy bribe the poor so that they can stay wealthy, both by pacifying them and by giving them increased means to participate in the consumer economy.

It's part of the social contract that allows the wealthy to be and stay wealthy. Revolution or anarchy would follow without.
However, our systems are out-dated and not well thought-out. Our education systems are sorely in need of an overhaul, as education is the way that indoctrination fundamentally occurs. For all those who yell "if you come to this country, learn english!", well there needs to be a system in place to allow for that first.
Why is it that European countries have fully assimilated immigrants by 2nd generation, but America still has racial tensions centuries later? It's the high standard of uniform and equal education throughout Europe. There is no better equalizer.

Europe also has health care and welfare systems in place that are far more comprehensive than the ones in America, but they're not abused. Their citizens aren't raised to abuse them, and they help those they're meant to help, the sick and elderly. There's a minimum standard of living provided, but due to the superior pre-college education systems, there are much better options available to the average European.

 

[m1ldslide1]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
No, ofcourse he didn't blow the election. Those who lean left in this country(especially those who will vote for BHO) don't see anything wrong with wealth redistribution. They seem to thrive on the "robin hood" class warfare issues.

Someday people will realize that it's not the gov't place to take from some just to give to others.

Those who lean right in this country think it's a good idea to concentrate all the wealth in the hands of very few people that aren't accountable to citizens. When they sleep at night, they think happy thoughts of aristocracy. They seem to thrive on "trickle down" class warfare issues.

Someday, people will realize that it is a free nation's government's job to ensure that 10% of the population doesn't own 90% of the wealth, and therefore power, as such a situation is inherently unsustainable. A land of peasantry is not a free nation.

Wrong. I don't know a single person on the right who thinks it's a good idea to "concentrate all the wealth in the hands of very few people that aren't accountable to citizens"

Yes, hopefully someday you people will learn that it's NOT the job of the gov't to redistribute wealth. There is no Constitutional call for such a thing, nor does having more redistribution make this country "free".

When are you going to learn that the entire purpose of government is to collect and redistribute wealth? The more services the government offers, the more wealth must be collected and redistributed into those services. Some of those services financially benefit people directly - welfare, etc, and if you feel that the sum of those programs is a net loss for society then you should say so, instead of parroting an inaccurate generalization given to you by your scare sources.

Want to know why you were accused of saying 'marxist'? Because that contains about as much intellectual honesty as decrying 'wealth redistribution' as a blanket concept. Its meant to obfuscate and mislead people, and you're actively taking part. I'm not saying you're a bad guy - maybe you just didn't know?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: m1ldslide1
When are you going to learn that the entire purpose of government is to collect and redistribute wealth?

:Q :Q :Q

Holy shit! Please tell me you're not American... please?

Congrats, you just made it into my sig...

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Fox5

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland

Originally posted by: Vic
Suppose we cut all social and entitlement programs TODAY... no more food stamps, no more welfare, no more medicaid and Social Security. Shaniqua doesn't get her govt check next month, and neither does your grandmother.

What next?

Taxes drop by 80%, people take charge of their lives, pull themselves up by the boot straps, and start working for themselves? I know... crazy freaking idea... people being responsible for themselves.

No no... that's just crazy talk. Who would want that?

I'm a free market libertarian, and that really is nothing but crazy talk. What you suggest would be possible (and I strongly support it as an ends) if we phased in such a thing (over the course of decades probably, and with a greater level of economic justice and opportunity than we have now), but I said TODAY as in overnight.
In which case, you're as irrational as any revolutionary communist, just from the opposite (reactionary) perspective.
Hell, we'd probably have martial law within days, collapse of govt and economy not long after. In your idealism, you just don't understand why these things are in place. Welfare, etc. is how the wealthy bribe the poor so that they can stay wealthy, both by pacifying them and by giving them increased means to participate in the consumer economy.

It's part of the social contract that allows the wealthy to be and stay wealthy. Revolution or anarchy would follow without.
However, our systems are out-dated and not well thought-out. Our education systems are sorely in need of an overhaul, as education is the way that indoctrination fundamentally occurs. For all those who yell "if you come to this country, learn english!", well there needs to be a system in place to allow for that first.
Why is it that European countries have fully assimilated immigrants by 2nd generation, but America still has racial tensions centuries later? It's the high standard of uniform and equal education throughout Europe. There is no better equalizer.

Europe also has health care and welfare systems in place that are far more comprehensive than the ones in America, but they're not abused. Their citizens aren't raised to abuse them, and they help those they're meant to help, the sick and elderly. There's a minimum standard of living provided, but due to the superior pre-college education systems, there are much better options available to the average European.

I agree. Education is the answer. I'm not at all convinced we should model ourselves after Europe, but we do need to keep pace if we intend on remaining the world superpower.
Reactionaries like to pretend that everyone not with them wants welfare, social programs, etc. to last forever or to progress to some kind of socialist society of forced equality. Nothing could be further from the truth. What I'm looking for is not an equal society, but an equal opportunity society. Meaning that people start off with roughly the same opportunities, and how they lift themselves up from there is entirely up to them. We do not have that kind of system now, and NOTHING is a better means to that end that increased quality of education. Such a system means less social unrest, less crime, and greater prosperity for everyone, rich and poor alike, a rising tide lifts all boats.

In the words of Thomas Jefferson, "Bigotry is the disease of ignorance, of morbid minds; enthusiasm of the free and buoyant. Education & free discussion are the antidotes of both. "

Or, "I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power."

 

[techs]

At a time when the wealth of America is more concentrated in the smallest amount of people at the very top than ever, I think its time for tax laws to spread the wealth around.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: m1ldslide1

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
No, ofcourse he didn't blow the election. Those who lean left in this country(especially those who will vote for BHO) don't see anything wrong with wealth redistribution. They seem to thrive on the "robin hood" class warfare issues.

Someday people will realize that it's not the gov't place to take from some just to give to others.

Those who lean right in this country think it's a good idea to concentrate all the wealth in the hands of very few people that aren't accountable to citizens. When they sleep at night, they think happy thoughts of aristocracy. They seem to thrive on "trickle down" class warfare issues.

Someday, people will realize that it is a free nation's government's job to ensure that 10% of the population doesn't own 90% of the wealth, and therefore power, as such a situation is inherently unsustainable. A land of peasantry is not a free nation.

Wrong. I don't know a single person on the right who thinks it's a good idea to "concentrate all the wealth in the hands of very few people that aren't accountable to citizens"

Yes, hopefully someday you people will learn that it's NOT the job of the gov't to redistribute wealth. There is no Constitutional call for such a thing, nor does having more redistribution make this country "free".

When are you going to learn that the entire purpose of government is to collect and redistribute wealth? The more services the government offers, the more wealth must be collected and redistributed into those services. Some of those services financially benefit people directly - welfare, etc, and if you feel that the sum of those programs is a net loss for society then you should say so, instead of parroting an inaccurate generalization given to you by your scare sources.

Want to know why you were accused of saying 'marxist'? Because that contains about as much intellectual honesty as decrying 'wealth redistribution' as a blanket concept. Its meant to obfuscate and mislead people, and you're actively taking part. I'm not saying you're a bad guy - maybe you just didn't know?

Buahahahahahaaa!!!! No, the purpose of the gov't is not to collect and redistribute wealth. You people are hilarious in your defense/apologism of BHO's remarks. The gov't is there to specifically do what it is charged to do by the Constitution. Yes, that takes money(taxes) - however WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION isn't about those things and only morons would suggest that.
Wealth redistribution is about taking from the "haves" and giving to the "have nots"

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: m1ldslide1
When are you going to learn that the entire purpose of government is to collect and redistribute wealth?

:Q :Q :Q

Holy shit! Please tell me you're not American... please?

Congrats, you just made it into my sig...

How many US states are called commonwealths?

I disagree that what he said is the "entire" purpose of government, but there's no question IMO that enforcement of the social contract is a very large role of governments.
Why else do the people submit to it?

Don't agree, just take a dollar bill out of your wallet and read what's written on it. That's the government providing the very means for wealth redistribution right there.
Other great examples are public streets and roads, the legal and justice systems, public schools and higher education, protection services like fire and police, the military, etc. All forms of wealth redistribution. Govt collects wealth in the form of taxation from one source and redistributes it to some activity or thing considered to be in the "common good."
That's just what govt does. If you disapprove of it entirely, it's time to consider anarchy. OTOH, the real argument is over just how much or how little we want govt to do this activity and for what purposes.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Buahahahahahaaa!!!! No, the purpose of the gov't is not to collect and redistribute wealth. You people are hilarious in your defense/apologism of BHO's remarks. The gov't is there to specifically do what it is charged to do by the Constitution. Yes, that takes money(taxes) - however WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION isn't about those things and only morons would suggest that.
Wealth redistribution is about taking from the "haves" and giving to the "have nots"

Only in your bizarrely narrow little mind, CAD.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: m1ldslide1
When are you going to learn that the entire purpose of government is to collect and redistribute wealth?

:Q :Q :Q

Holy shit! Please tell me you're not American... please?

Congrats, you just made it into my sig...

How many US states are called commonwealths?

I disagree that what he said is the "entire" purpose of government, but there's no question IMO that enforcement of the social contract is a very large role of governments.
Why else do the people submit to it?

Don't agree, just take a dollar bill out of your wallet and read what's written on it. That's the government providing the very means for wealth redistribution right there.
Other great examples are public streets and roads, the legal and justice systems, public schools and higher education, protection services like fire and police, the military, etc. All forms of wealth redistribution. Govt collects wealth in the form of taxation from one source and redistributes it to some activity or thing considered to be in the "common good."
That's just what govt does. If you disapprove of it entirely, it's time to consider anarchy. OTOH, the real argument is over just how much or how little we want govt to do this activity and for what purposes.

....and you still try to claim you are a libertarian... :roll:

Also, you are dead wrong - those are NOT examples of wealth redistribution. They are infrastructure and don't redistribute wealth - they create infrastructure. Sheesh.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: m1ldslide1
When are you going to learn that the entire purpose of government is to collect and redistribute wealth?

:Q :Q :Q

Holy shit! Please tell me you're not American... please?

Congrats, you just made it into my sig...

How many US states are called commonwealths?

I disagree that what he said is the "entire" purpose of government, but there's no question IMO that enforcement of the social contract is a very large role of governments.
Why else do the people submit to it?

Don't agree, just take a dollar bill out of your wallet and read what's written on it. That's the government providing the very means for wealth redistribution right there.
Other great examples are public streets and roads, the legal and justice systems, public schools and higher education, protection services like fire and police, the military, etc. All forms of wealth redistribution. Govt collects wealth in the form of taxation from one source and redistributes it to some activity or thing considered to be in the "common good."
That's just what govt does. If you disapprove of it entirely, it's time to consider anarchy. OTOH, the real argument is over just how much or how little we want govt to do this activity and for what purposes.

....and you still try to claim you are a libertarian... :roll:

Also, you are dead wrong - those are NOT examples of wealth redistribution. They are infrastructure and don't redistribute wealth - they create infrastructure. Sheesh.

So what am I supposed to do here in order to meet your ideological criteria, CAD? Ignore reality? Abandon pragmatism for fear of your scorn? Scold one potentially abusive use of govt while praising another?

:roll:

Your arguments are laughably one-sided. If the govt takes tax money from the people of Vermont to build a freeway in California, or a bridge to nowhere in Alaska, that is wealth redistribution. If a taxpayer is forced to pay for an unnecessary war they don't approve of, but which the country is fighting because it provides jobs to millions, that is wealth redistribution.
I doubt you'll find a credible economist on this planet who would agree with you here, that wealth redistribution is a one-way street.

edit: BTW, you realize that I was cautioning Palehorse and readers here about what govt really does ("if you disapprove of it entirely, it's time to consider anarchy"), as opposed to forwarding some authoritarian ideal like you tried to claim. If anything, I was advocating libertarianism through cautioning against abuse of govt just because such abuses might be considered more ideologically acceptable.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: m1ldslide1
When are you going to learn that the entire purpose of government is to collect and redistribute wealth?

:Q :Q :Q

Holy shit! Please tell me you're not American... please?

Congrats, you just made it into my sig...

How many US states are called commonwealths?

I disagree that what he said is the "entire" purpose of government, but there's no question IMO that enforcement of the social contract is a very large role of governments.
Why else do the people submit to it?

Don't agree, just take a dollar bill out of your wallet and read what's written on it. That's the government providing the very means for wealth redistribution right there.
Other great examples are public streets and roads, the legal and justice systems, public schools and higher education, protection services like fire and police, the military, etc. All forms of wealth redistribution. Govt collects wealth in the form of taxation from one source and redistributes it to some activity or thing considered to be in the "common good."
That's just what govt does. If you disapprove of it entirely, it's time to consider anarchy. OTOH, the real argument is over just how much or how little we want govt to do this activity and for what purposes.

....and you still try to claim you are a libertarian... :roll:

Also, you are dead wrong - those are NOT examples of wealth redistribution. They are infrastructure and don't redistribute wealth - they create infrastructure. Sheesh.

They most certainly do redistribute wealth. Not everyone pays an equal share of the taxes that go to fund the fire department. Some people might pay $100, some might pay $20. In the end everyone gets the same fire protection, which means that some people are getting significantly more services than they are paying for. Wealth redistribution.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: the unknown
So Obama's a Marxist now? Because all the other weak accusations and unbased attacks worked out well for the McCain campaign? That will totally change where this election is going. :roll: (hint: it's not McCain)

Ummm...yes he has been for a while.

Didn't I see you on the youtube of the last Palin rally?

Yes that was me and I saw you at a rally also.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: m1ldslide1
When are you going to learn that the entire purpose of government is to collect and redistribute wealth?

:Q :Q :Q

Holy shit! Please tell me you're not American... please?

Congrats, you just made it into my sig...

How many US states are called commonwealths?

I disagree that what he said is the "entire" purpose of government, but there's no question IMO that enforcement of the social contract is a very large role of governments.
Why else do the people submit to it?

Don't agree, just take a dollar bill out of your wallet and read what's written on it. That's the government providing the very means for wealth redistribution right there.
Other great examples are public streets and roads, the legal and justice systems, public schools and higher education, protection services like fire and police, the military, etc. All forms of wealth redistribution. Govt collects wealth in the form of taxation from one source and redistributes it to some activity or thing considered to be in the "common good."
That's just what govt does. If you disapprove of it entirely, it's time to consider anarchy. OTOH, the real argument is over just how much or how little we want govt to do this activity and for what purposes.

....and you still try to claim you are a libertarian... :roll:

Also, you are dead wrong - those are NOT examples of wealth redistribution. They are infrastructure and don't redistribute wealth - they create infrastructure. Sheesh.

So what am I supposed to do here in order to meet your ideological criteria, CAD? Ignore reality? Abandon pragmatism for fear of your scorn? Scold one potentially abusive use of govt while praising another?

:roll:

Your arguments are laughably one-sided. If the govt takes tax money from the people of Vermont to build a freeway in California, or a bridge to nowhere in Alaska, that is wealth redistribution. If a taxpayer is forced to pay for an unnecessary war they don't approve of, but which the country is fighting because it provides jobs to millions, that is wealth redistribution.
I doubt you'll find a credible economist on this planet who would agree with you here, that wealth redistribution is a one-way street.

edit: BTW, you realize that I was cautioning Palehorse and readers here about what govt really does ("if you disapprove of it entirely, it's time to consider anarchy"), as opposed to forwarding some authoritarian ideal like you tried to claim. If anything, I was advocating libertarianism through cautioning against abuse of govt just because such abuses might be considered more ideologically acceptable.

Libertarian is smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom?.... yeah that sounds like Obama.

Vic is part of the Communist USA party and he supports Obama.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: m1ldslide1
When are you going to learn that the entire purpose of government is to collect and redistribute wealth?

:Q :Q :Q

Holy shit! Please tell me you're not American... please?

Congrats, you just made it into my sig...

How many US states are called commonwealths?

I disagree that what he said is the "entire" purpose of government, but there's no question IMO that enforcement of the social contract is a very large role of governments.
Why else do the people submit to it?

Don't agree, just take a dollar bill out of your wallet and read what's written on it. That's the government providing the very means for wealth redistribution right there.
Other great examples are public streets and roads, the legal and justice systems, public schools and higher education, protection services like fire and police, the military, etc. All forms of wealth redistribution. Govt collects wealth in the form of taxation from one source and redistributes it to some activity or thing considered to be in the "common good."
That's just what govt does. If you disapprove of it entirely, it's time to consider anarchy. OTOH, the real argument is over just how much or how little we want govt to do this activity and for what purposes.

....and you still try to claim you are a libertarian... :roll:

Also, you are dead wrong - those are NOT examples of wealth redistribution. They are infrastructure and don't redistribute wealth - they create infrastructure. Sheesh.

So what am I supposed to do here in order to meet your ideological criteria, CAD? Ignore reality? Abandon pragmatism for fear of your scorn? Scold one potentially abusive use of govt while praising another?

:roll:

Your arguments are laughably one-sided. If the govt takes tax money from the people of Vermont to build a freeway in California, or a bridge to nowhere in Alaska, that is wealth redistribution. If a taxpayer is forced to pay for an unnecessary war they don't approve of, but which the country is fighting because it provides jobs to millions, that is wealth redistribution.
I doubt you'll find a credible economist on this planet who would agree with you here, that wealth redistribution is a one-way street.

edit: BTW, you realize that I was cautioning Palehorse and readers here about what govt really does ("if you disapprove of it entirely, it's time to consider anarchy"), as opposed to forwarding some authoritarian ideal like you tried to claim. If anything, I was advocating libertarianism through cautioning against abuse of govt just because such abuses might be considered more ideologically acceptable.

Libertarian is smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom?.... yeah that sounds like Obama.

Vic is part of the Communist USA party and he supports Obama.

Your posts are like getting bukakeed with stupid.

In the real world, and not your paranoid fantasy one, it's simply a sad fact of the state of the Republican party that the Dems are the smaller government party right now, particularly in regards to freedom (and taxes too if one takes into account Republican spending as taxation, as I do).

I'm as anti-Communist as they come, but to reply like you do to almost every person in almost every post you make here, it's no wonder that a Nazi like yourself just back from the Klan meeting would think anyone to the left of Hitler is a communist.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Budmantom
Libertarian is smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom?

Sorry maybe I missed something - isn't that exactly what it means, almost by definition?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Budmantom
Libertarian is smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom?

Sorry maybe I missed something - isn't that exactly what it means, almost by definition?

They're falsely trying to claim that I'm not in favor of smaller govt, lower taxes, and more freedom, because I've pointed out that they're big govt proponents in their own way, which they are in complete ideological denial of.

 

[m1ldslide1]

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland

Originally posted by: Vic
Suppose we cut all social and entitlement programs TODAY... no more food stamps, no more welfare, no more medicaid and Social Security. Shaniqua doesn't get her govt check next month, and neither does your grandmother.

What next?

Taxes drop by 80%, people take charge of their lives, pull themselves up by the boot straps, and start working for themselves? I know... crazy freaking idea... people being responsible for themselves.

No no... that's just crazy talk. Who would want that?

You forgot to add "Jesus will return to earth" to your list of fantasy outcomes.

As for the rest of ignorance in your post, I'm just not going to take the bait. I'm sure someone else has anyway - I'm late to this thread.

 

[m1ldslide1]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: m1ldslide1
When are you going to learn that the entire purpose of government is to collect and redistribute wealth?

:Q :Q :Q

Holy shit! Please tell me you're not American... please?

Congrats, you just made it into my sig...

Maybe you've heard of the military, federally funded transportation, department of the interior, and federal funding for police and fire departments? Apparently not if you're so shocked that the government collects your money and redistributes it to various sectors and services deemed necessary.

I know that my definition is redistribution is different than yours, and that is to be expected. You simply swallow the talking-point definitions that are spoon-fed to you. I'm sure you feel that the war on terror is a legitimate concept as well. Are we winning? :roll:

And for the sake of full disclosure, here's the source of my definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns_germs_and_steel

Where's yours?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: techs
At a time when the wealth of America is more concentrated in the smallest amount of people at the very top than ever, I think its time for tax laws to spread the wealth around.

Tax laws, while covenient, are a poor way to achieve true wealth re-distribution.

Those who are already very wealthy, don't need income. It's the one's who aren't yet rich that need it. High income tax rates create a burden on those trying to rise.

Proper estate/gift tax is a far better method. Upon death we catelog all your assets, unlike a tax return where they aren't listed.

Any way is a wealth tax. Other countries have it. On a section attached to your tax eturn, you must list all your assets and a 5 is levied against total personal in excess of a certan amount.

Fern

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: m1ldslide1
You simply swallow the talking-point definitions that are spoon-fed to you. I'm sure you feel that the war on terror is a legitimate concept as well. Are we winning? :roll:

Absolutely. Wahabbi Islam is HUGE concern, and most Americans feel that way. And yes, there have been no new attacks on American soil, so I would say DHC is doing a great job. Obama isnt going to stop our operations in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere the CIA is fighting extremists, so i'm not sure there is even a candidate running that you should vote for.

Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror. It has everything to do with being a big money pit that is screwing our economy, and ruining lives. You cant lump that in with the legitimate war.

 

[Cattlegod]

obama = robin hood?

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Cattlegod
obama = robin hood?

Thats racist!

 

[AlienCraft]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
the government has been working on wealth distribution for a generation, unfortunately its been redistributing it up.

It's worked well for Big Oil, Big Pharm, Big Farm, and The Financial Sector, Well 3 out of 4 ain't bad....
Those guys at AIG made out all right after all. I won't lose any sleep over their affairs.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Cattlegod
obama = robin hood?

Thats racist!

http://www.karen.jendrzejek.com/robin_hood_MIT.jpg

Someone already beat you to it.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Fox5
Why is it that European countries have fully assimilated immigrants by 2nd generation, but America still has racial tensions centuries later?

yup all those muslim ghettos around paris full of disaffected and locked out youth don't exist!