NYC Black Lives Matter marches can continue despite large-event ban, de Blasio says

YOU'RE FIRED!

 

They already

Yes, that is what they want for anyone who fails to support the delusion. Since I'm the head of my own corporation- I fire them instead.

 

The fact is that African Americans want a total monopoly on victimhood in the US.

The doors are thrown wide open for them but they don’t seem to be taking advantage.

 

Not even their political allies on the left want that! There's too many victims for there to be any monopoly on victimhood.

 

Where the hell in any of that have I expressed any anti-first amendment... anything?

When I said "quote" I'm not asking you just throw in random quotes. Obviously I am referring to something that is relevant to your accusation: "you have expressed anti-First Amendment viewpoint discrimination!"

Please tell us briefly and in your own words what you think the First Amendment is. Especially as it is relevant to the accusation you made.

 

I interpreted your posts as you expressing that the BLM protests are acceptable and should be perfectly legal during the pandemic, but other events are NOT. If I've got that wrong, then I retract, but I suspect that you won't be able to bring yourself to saying that a right wing mass gathering would be acceptable at the moment!

In my own words? I'm not going to do it such as disservice. The original text makes it pretty clear I think: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

 

Not that you actually fire people for these kind of reasons I assume!

 

Ah..still pushing your mantra of personal responsibility as the SOLE determinant of individual success, I see.

Like many, you have no awareness of the the systems problem we are dealing with here.



There IS an alternative:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/mmt-overcoming-the-political-divide.569365/


Meanwhile the current economic orthodoxy is rapidly approaching its use-by date:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/isabel...h-to-pay-for-coronavirus-impact/#7280d7da6cc8

‘Please Tax Us’: Dozens Of Millionaires Urge Governments To Tax The Rich To Pay For Coronavirus Impact

[Actually, a sovereign currency-issuing government doesn't need the taxes of rich people to support a lock-down of the (non-essential) economy during this pandemic. Any assertion to the contrary is just a reflection of the current evil neoliberal mythology.]

 

Too late for that. You already did.

Where's the retraction?

 

Nothing like a politician demonstrating selective enforcement to appease his base....

 

I don't hire people who can't think straight in the first place- and if I find I've made an error in that, I correct it.
I run a business, not a day care center for immature minds and misfits.

 

I completely disagree. I think that line depicts Obama, Pelosi, Schummer, Maxine Waters, Biden, Schiff and Nadler. Just to name a few.

 

It defies reason. People don't have to protest, especially when that to which they object doesn't exist. People do have to work to provide for themselves. But DeBlasio forbids working, which is necessary, and upholds protesting which is not necessary. It is counter intuitive, not to mention a violation of basic constitutional rights.

 

I already gave a conditional retraction. Again, if I've got it wrong, then I retract,
but I suspect that you won't be able to bring yourself to say that a right wing mass gathering would be acceptable at the moment! Given that you cut this part out, I'll assume that I'm correct!

 

One of the most devious perceptions is to tell people that they can do the job they have never done better than those who have succeeded at it- based on their perception, but lacking expereince.
It's almost pointless to try to get past the pile of trash in their heads and get them to see. However, I'm not guessing. I've accomplished and taught what I advocate, I do know what I'm talking about. PhD psychologists recognize this truth- and are amazed that any person could actually do what I have done, told me so to my face in classes. If you ask any competent psychologist, I think you will find they agree on the premise as well.

Personal Responsibility does not guarantee a level of success, and how well you can accept it and act because if it will alter the results too.

However- the lack of Personal Responsibility DOES GUARANTEE YOU WILL FAIL.

IF you can stand on your own feet and support yourself without leaning on others, you are demonstrating personal responsibility. Rich or not- YOU have power over your own life. FREEDOM as a human being.
Our tax system already places the bulk of the social burden on the more productive- so even if you take no outside support, you are being supported by this graduated tax plan. We don't consider that as assistance, but in fact it is a concession that allows a life style benefit to those who produce less, at the expense of those who produce more.
10% of the taxpayers pay 70% of the taxes- almost 50% pay no taxes. That is presenting opportunity to those who have less, and might be called a very generous hand-up. Not appreciated at all, but it is.

If you expect others to provide you with additional benefits beyond that, you become dependent on others. That means you are not fully accepting personal responsibility, that you are not your own man, that others have power over you, that you will never feel you are free and independent. It's like you must always have someone to carry you- because you lack the will to walk on your own. This is a miserable condition I wish on no man- and it exists not only among the homeless, but in many outwardly successful people who are inwardly full of doubt of their own value. This is why we sometimes see suicides among highly successful people; the success is an external illusion to them, and despite it, inside they feel life itself has no value for them. The turning point in changing that IS the acceptance of personal responsibility. Anything else is a band-aid treating the symptom and procrastinating to avoid the cure.

Personally- I know that the feeling of being free and independent is a critical component of self-respect, and I value self-respect over everything else- because it is the key to finding peace and satisfaction with life, to making it all worthwhile. I would wish that for all people- that they may thrive and find life worth living. So I do not support subsidizing them, making them dependent, cheating them out of the power to control their own destiny. The more distant from that people are, the more they tell themselves that others are responsible and owe them- and the stronger the wall of the prison they build for themselves become.

Shall we work to free them, or imprison them? It takes courage to do the first- and indifference to their personal spirit to do the second.

 

Who are we?

 

The politically correct who think they know what’s best for us and what kind of speech should be allowed.

 

I should have guessed that.

 

That is not a retraction. A right wing or left wing or middle wing or no wing mass gathering for something as trivial as a political rally, should never happen in the middle of a deadly pandemic.

A mass gathering to defend civil rights, when all other options have been spent, is completely justifiable. Be it a BLM protest that follows another racist assault, or a protest if, for example (just an example) because some state decided to allow Jewish temples to hold services, but not Catholic Churches (or viceversa)

Mass gatherings protesting for efforts to save human lives that follow scientific facts and expert advice is whining and even more trivial than political rallies, and should be treated as such. They have nothing to do with the First Amendment. Claiming that not allowing trivial gatherings in the middle of a deadly pandemic is "an assault on the right to protest" is as idiotic as claiming that not allowing people to come near Notre Dame when it was burning is "an assault on freedom of religion"

The world is not black and white. Though people who lack the intellectual capacity to view nuances only comprehend binary choices. Reality is too much for them to comprehend.

 

Alright, but who gets to decide 'validity' - whether or not something is "trivial?"

 

People ARE allowed to work though aren't they?

 

What industry?

 

OK.,,,although I see a contradiction between

"It's almost pointless to try to get past the pile of trash in their heads", and

"I've accomplished and taught what I advocate". ...which presumably is: "you (ie anyone) can take control of your life".

Agreed. I have not said differently.

There's that little word 'If" at the start...many require assistance at least initially: but in any case we have a systems problem which I will address below.

But note: we have a systems problem: our neoliberal economic system presupposes a certain level of unemployment as posited by the NAIRU dogma, to control wages and inflation.

So would you be interested in learning about a system in which sovereign currency-issuing governments - as employer of last resort - can fund a job guarantee, at no cost to taxpayers?

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/mmt-overcoming-the-political-divide.569365/

Some points:

Today's AI, IT, and robot-assisted economies have sufficient productive capacity to enable government to include a government-funded above poverty job guarantee, at a minimum, for all working age citizens.

Note: real wealth creation, as opposed to the production, transport, retailing and advertising of grog, cigs. junk-food, tattoo parlours and all the rest of it, to name only a few examples of the profit-seeking junk consumerism that is a large part of the consumer economy - 'worth' $trillions right there - real wealth creation only requires a modest proportion of the workforce, in our time (eg only 2% of the workforce is now required to produce food)].

The above is all based on, and derives from classical liberalism and its offshoot, classical economics which is based on the outmoded theory of scarcity in the face of unlimited wants.

Now we have achieved economies with an almost unlimited capacity for production.

That means we can afford to pay people to maintain public parks, and to pay cleaners a living wage...at no cost to the taxpayer (all explained in the link above)

IOW, we have new possibilites for economic production and distribution, never experienced in history , with economic production assisted by AI, IT and robots, in which notions of the 'worth' of a particular individual's contribution are rendered almost meaningless.

(And the world has never correctly appreciated 'worth' anyway: on his death Mozart - composer of the famous - and still widely-loved Requiem - was tossed into a paupers' grave along with several others, because his widow could not afford better).

Neither. There is a better alternative, as discussed above; the government as employer of last resort can guarantee the right and the responsibility of all to participate in and contribute to the nation's economic prosperity.

 

Manufacturing, specialty industrial goods and product development.