• Welcome to BellGab.com Archive.
 

Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread

Started by Jackstar, January 02, 2016, 02:04:57 AM

Dr. MD MD

Quote from: 21st Century Man on April 15, 2016, 01:24:13 AM
Sharon Stone on Bernie Sanders.

Lack of experience is also the reason Stone doesn't think Bernie Sanders is qualified for the job. "I do not believe that Bernie Sanders is in any way, shape or form prepared to be president. I think he's a very intriguing, outspoken, energetic campaigner â€" but there's a big difference between knowing how to put on a campaign and actually being president of the United States of America," she says. "And at 74 years old, some of his learning curve is not totally on the beat."

She went on to add that Sanders' age might be working against him. "Bernie seems pretty old just in general, and some of his ideas are a little bit old. He's not young doing this, and he didn't really work until he was 40 so I wonder, like, how much acid has this guy taken?" she says. "I really do, that's not a joke. We were so aggressive asking people, 'Did you smoke pot?' But in reality, how much acid has Bernie Sanders taken? Because there's a certain edge to his personality and way about his behavior that makes me wonder, 'How much LSD have you taken?'"


More at:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/sharon-stone-donald-trump-bernie-883894

Sharon Stone has just clearly not done enough acid in her life. Nice crotch though!  ::)

Quote from: Dr. MD MD on April 15, 2016, 01:29:21 AM
Sharon Stone has just clearly not done enough acid in her life. Nice crotch though!  ::)


LOL.  If t wasn't for that crotch shot, she would be forgotten.  Sharon who?

136 or 142

Quote from: 21st Century Man on April 15, 2016, 01:24:13 AM
Sharon Stone on Bernie Sanders.
He's not young doing this, and he didn't really work until he was 40 so I wonder, like, how much acid has this guy taken?"

This is false and ridiculous.  Bernie Sanders was not a wealthy young man so he had to work to support himself.  Unless she is alleging that his work consisted of selling acid (in rural Vermont? I doubt he could have made a living doing that)  her comment makes no sense.  Prior to getting elected mayor Sanders was a writer/documentary filmmaker and did contract work in carpentry.  As someone who has tried working with my hands, I would be offended if I were a carpenter and was told that  didn't count as work. 

136 or 142

Quote from: Schlyder7 on April 14, 2016, 08:04:22 PM
LOL  lies, unicorns and rainbows,  ban assault rifles!!!111... and carbon tax.  What a couple of fucking clued out people.

I'm not sure what your point is but global warming (climate change) is real and a carbon tax (AKA carbon or pollution pricing) is by far the most efficient and effective way to address this problem.  If you are disputing either, then it's you who is clued out.

I know 'efficient and effective' is kind of a cliched phrase, but sometimes cliches become cliches because they are real.

136 or 142

Quote from: albrecht on April 14, 2016, 08:51:13 PM
Does she have a "self" at this point? Or, after the decades of political make-overs, political focus-group flip-flopping, scandal avoidance, bimbo eruptions, accent changes, and cover-ups and "changing narratives" to defend against scandals of about every type is she, finally imploding? Maybe there is no personality or "self" left and it is just a core of dissembling and obfuscation?

Hilary Rodham Clinton has always been secretive and 'lawyerly' but with the possible exception of the bizarre situation of her billing records somehow just turning up, all of these 'scandals' have been investigated and have found to be accusations with no evidence to back them up.  Ken Starr spent millions investigating the Clintons and all he could find was a stain on a dress.

Republican leaders in Congess have admitted that the Benghazi hearings are nothing but cynical politics.

Of course, there are still several aspects of her private email server she had when she was Secretary of State that are under active investigation, and some things that she did with that may have been illegal, but I personally see no reason to believe she had this private server set up because she is naturally secretive and not due to some grand conspiracy.

Hilary Rodham Clinton has lived in Illlinois, Arkansas, Washington D.C and New York, of course she's going to have changes in her accent.  It's also normal that when a person returns to places they've spent a good deal of time they will start speaking with their old accent.  This doesn't just happen to politicians.

Also, just to go over a couple things, with futures trading, it's normal to either win big or lose everything invested.  I see no reason to believe she simply wasn't one of the lucky ones.

The person who said he fired her from the Watergate Committee was actually the liar.  He was in no position to fire her and Nixon resigned, so the committee was terminated and when it was she was still in their employ.

Finally, when pressed, the person who wrote the book 'Clinton Cash' admitted his book was based on rumors and speculation, not hard evidence. (and it was, I believe, Chris Wallace at Fox News who forced this out of him.)

Or course, I don't like the idea of a secretive President, but until either humans are perfected or robots start running for office, no candidate is going to be a 'ten.'  (This doesn't refer to her physical appearance or the Dudley Moore/Bo Derek movie, but to the political axiom 'you can be a successful 3 out of 10 running for office if all your opponents are a two.')

In my opinion, of the five remaining candidates, Hilary Clinton and John Kasich are the only two with the experience, knowledge, judgement and temperament to be President, and John Kasich isn't going to be the Republican nominee.

136 or 142

Quote from: albrecht on March 31, 2016, 06:32:56 PM
I like some of Sander's ideas (vis-a-vis finance and banking regulation and his former stances on guns) but for the most part I don't like the majority of them. The open-border and amnesty and his new anti-gun stances are troubling, if not outright ridiculous.

I don't think any candidate has any realistic plan to deal with the border, so they're all effectively for open-borders, even Trump.

Sanders apparently is much less pro-immigration than most Democrats when it comes to his position on foreign workers (H1-B visas.)

In regards to his position on opposing free trade, which you didn't mention, but I know you agree with:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/consumer/poll-americans-prefer-low-cost-over-higher-priced-u-s/article_0fae8255-c9a8-56af-b78f-407a06152c84.html

" The vast majority of Americans say they prefer lower prices instead of paying a premium for items labeled “Made in the U.S.A.,” even if it means those cheaper items are made abroad, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll."

I don't know who paid for that poll, but I don't think the AP would conduct a leading survey for anybody, so this poll is likely reputable. 

"Incomes have barely improved, forcing many households to look for the most convenient bargains instead of goods made in America. Employers now seek workers with college degrees, leaving those with only a high school diploma, who once would have held assembly lines jobs, in the lurch. And some Americans who work at companies with clients worldwide see themselves as part of a global market.

Nearly three in four say they would like to buy goods manufactured inside the United States, but those items are often too costly or difficult to find, according to the survey released Thursday. A mere 9 percent say they only buy American."



So, which consumers would get hurt the most without free trade?  The poor.

You'd argue (as I think you have in the past) that without free trade these jobs would come back to America and these poor people could get jobs (or higher paying jobs), but the products they'd make would have higher prices than the present foreign imports.  So, the poor might benefit a little as employees, but they'd probably lose a lot more as consumers.

You might also argue, as Bernie Sanders, does that increasing the minimum wage would address this problem for poor people, but it's generally acknowledged that a large increase in the minimum wage would disrupt the economy (though to what degree is debated.)  Also, businesses would try and pass on the increase in a large minimum wage rise as much as possible, but most U.S made goods are already at a competitive disadvantage to foreign imports, so this would make consumers just purchase more foreign goods.

=Schlyder=

Quote from: 136 or 142 on April 15, 2016, 06:47:55 AM
I'm not sure what your point is but global warming (climate change) is real and a carbon tax (AKA carbon or pollution pricing) is by far the most efficient and effective way to address this problem.  If you are disputing either, then it's you who is clued out.

I know 'efficient and effective' is kind of a cliched phrase, but sometimes cliches become cliches because they are real.

Bullshit. As bullshit as the falsified data on global warming.  The whole con is nothing more than a wealth redistribution scam.

136 or 142

Quote from: Schlyder7 on April 15, 2016, 08:03:04 AM
Bullshit. As bullshit as the falsified data on global warming.  The whole con is nothing more than a wealth redistribution scam.

If you truly believe that, you are a far bigger moron than George Noory.  You are also far more gullible than he is.

=Schlyder=

Quote from: 136 or 142 on April 15, 2016, 08:29:40 AM
If you truly believe that, you are a far bigger moron than George Noory.  You are also far more gullible than he is.

Take your "man made global warming/climate change"  and ram it straight up your ass.  The earth warms and cools due to natural fluctuations and cycles.  The area on the planet I currently occupy, was several kilometeres under a glacier, some 12,000 years ago.  It will be covered by another glacier in the future. 

Maybe you would like to explain to everyone what you consider "Climate Stability", and when in the history of the planet Earth,  that has occurred?

WildCard

Quote from: henge0stone on April 14, 2016, 08:00:47 PM
Clinton doing the usual blaming white people, guns and Republicans for everything while riding on Obama's coat tails.

Yep, all red-herrings.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN9N3v9UsXE

Unfortunately, Birdie is taking the bait, hook, line and sinker.

Just heard an interview with another(!) life-long Democrat who will be voting for Trump. His dad was a steel-worker, (not a manager, just a guy on the floor), had 6 kids, a stay-at-home mom, went on vacation every year, etc.

The problem is the 1%. The problem is G.O.D.

Guns - NOT individual gun owners, but the military/industrial complex.
Oil - the Seven Sisters.
Drugs - Big-Pharma, the insurance companies, and narco-trafficking, (which, in a vicious cycle, feeds the rehab industry and the military/industrial/prison complex).

WildCard

Quote from: Schlyder7 on April 15, 2016, 08:03:04 AM
Bullshit. As bullshit as the falsified data on global warming.  The whole con is nothing more than a wealth redistribution scam.

For the sake of discussion, let's take climate change off the table. Isn't it time we evolve past fossil fuels?

And, "wealth redistribution"? Heaven forbid! You're o.k. with the wealth gap in this country/world?

=Schlyder=

Morons told us 45 years ago that we would be in a global ice age by now, and that we would run out of oil. Some of those morons now claim the world is warming out of control, and we should DO SOMETHING NOW111!!!!!1!!1!11         Maybe you weren't around to hear all that bullshit back then?  It is the same bullshit now, and it's all to take the money out of your fucking pocket.  If you haven't figured that out... you are also a moron. 

=Schlyder=

Quote from: WildCard on April 15, 2016, 08:59:07 AM
For the sake of discussion, let's take climate change off the table. Isn't it time we evolve past fossil fuels?

And, "wealth redistribution"? Heaven forbid! You're o.k. with the wealth gap in this country/world?

yes take it off the table when you lose the argument on it.  LOL

Earn your own fucking money, you have no rights to the fruits of someone else's labour. And you have no right to vote for a government to take it by force from one who earns it, and give it to the voter who doesn't earn a thing.

=Schlyder=

 "But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy."   Edenhofer,  co-chair of the IPCC's Working Group III, and a lead author of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007

WildCard

Quote from: Schlyder7 on April 15, 2016, 09:09:45 AM
yes take it off the table when you lose the argument on it.  LOL

Nice dodge. Do kid's have ecology in school anymore?

Quote from: Schlyder7 on April 15, 2016, 09:09:45 AM
Earn your own fucking money, you have no rights to the fruits of someone else's labour. And you have no right to vote for a government to take it by force from one who earns it, and give it to the voter who doesn't earn a thing.

Yeah, I've read John Galt's speech, too. At the time, I thought it was Holy Scripture. Then I grew up.

=Schlyder=

Quote from: WildCard on April 15, 2016, 09:17:27 AM
Nice dodge. Do kid's have ecology in school anymore?

Yeah, I've read John Galt's speech, too. At the time, I thought it was Holy Scripture. Then I grew up.

ecology.  LOL you want to talk ecology. The fucking weather is the same as it ever was.  It fucking snows here around the 1st of November, and melts in April. We can get brutal cold -45F  to mild cold -10c   and everything between.. sometimes 6 ft  of snow, sometimes 2 ft of snow.   Frost free in this region is from May 15, to Sept 15   In between it gets hot, it rains, it gets windy.  And it's been like that for the last 50+ years I have been living here.   Pollution in most regards has been decreased quite a bit over that time.  In areas where pollution has increased, as in plastic shopping bags.. that was created by the fucking environmental assholes who didn't want us to use ecofriendly compostable non polluting paper bags.  I heard all about how we would save the fucking world by saving the trees from becoming paper bags. Now the world is littered with fucking plastic shopping bags.

=Schlyder=

more ecology for you... CO2 levels are around 400ppm.....  plants are damn near fucking starving for CO2.  Food production and basically life would thrive vigorously with an increase to about 1000ppm of CO2.  which would put the % of CO2 in the atmosphere at a mere 3/25ths of 1% of the atmosphere.   

VtaGeezer

Quote from: 21st Century Man on April 15, 2016, 01:24:13 AM
Sharon Stone on Bernie Sanders.
.
.
.
I'm withholding judgement until we hear from Anne Hathaway.

VtaGeezer

Quote from: WildCard on April 15, 2016, 09:17:27 AM
Nice dodge. Do kid's have ecology in school anymore?

Yeah, I've read John Galt's speech, too. At the time, I thought it was Holy Scripture. Then I grew up.
+1.  That mentality is why the Titanic didn't have enough lifeboats.

136 or 142

Quote from: Schlyder7 on April 15, 2016, 09:04:13 AM
Morons told us 45 years ago that we would be in a global ice age by now, and that we would run out of oil. Some of those morons now claim the world is warming out of control, and we should DO SOMETHING NOW111!!!!!1!!1!11         Maybe you weren't around to hear all that bullshit back then?  It is the same bullshit now, and it's all to take the money out of your fucking pocket.  If you haven't figured that out... you are also a moron.

Except the issue isn't whether the climate is changing (algebra) but the rate that it is changing (calculus.)  I can see why you wouldn't understand this as from your posts you probably had difficulty with simple addition let alone higher math.

136 or 142

Quote from: WildCard on April 15, 2016, 08:51:09 AM
Just heard an interview with another(!) life-long Democrat who will be voting for Trump. His dad was a steel-worker, (not a manager, just a guy on the floor), had 6 kids, a stay-at-home mom, went on vacation every year, etc.

The vast majority of these life-long Democrats who plan on voting for Trump (if he is the Republican nominee) are actually so-called Reagan Democrats who have been regularly voting Republican for President since, depending on their age, 2000, 1984 or 1972.  Some of them voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 or more likely in 1996.  They have been voting mostly consistently Republican for Congress since 1994.

I don't doubt that Trump will take some votes of some of the working class whites (especially working class white males) who have still been voting Democratic However,  in addition to losing votes from many Republican neo-cons and religious right supporters of Ted Cruz who likely won't vote at all (probably especially many religious-right women who seemed to be especially turned off by Trump's foul mouth) I would also expect that if Hilary Rodham Clinton is the nominee, that many of the 'business class,' especially the Republican members of the  managerial, professional and executive classes will vote for Clinton.

I would expect that along with white working class mainly males, that small business owners will also heavily back Trump.  For some reason, small business owners in the United States are not only overwhelmingly Republican, but are overwhelmingly hard right Republicans.

VtaGeezer

Quote from: 136 or 142 on April 15, 2016, 12:35:07 PM
Except the issue isn't whether the climate is changing (algebra) but the rate that it is changing (calculus.)  I can see why you wouldn't understand this as from your posts you probably had difficulty with simple addition let alone higher math.
Math is a bore.  We have calculators on our phones.

136 or 142

I'm not sure if I should post this as I'm not sure if Schlyder7 is sincere or is simply a troll (don't feed the trolls.)  But, I did want to make a couple points based on what he wrote.

He complained about carbon taxes and then he called them wealth redistribution and then he quoted (I don't know if the person being quoted actually said that or not) some U.N official as saying that the real goal is to redistribute wealth from wealthy nations to poorer nations.

A carbon tax charges people for their carbon pollution (externality), by itself it does not transfer that money to anybody, how the dollars from it would be spent would be entirely up to the Congress and the President of the day.  The  idea that money from it (or from any other sources) would be sent to poorer nations makes even less sense as the U.S spends very little on foreign aid as it is (contrary to what some people think, American foreign aid spending is usually between 0.1 and 0.2% of GDP per year - U.N agencies and NGOs want the number to be 0.7% - and I believe a good deal of that money goes to places like Israel, which is hardly a poor nation.

It's been more than 25 years since the first U.N summit on global warming and so far, the U.S still hasn't imposed any national carbon tax, so, if Global Warming is nothing more than some kind of scheme to redistribute wealth from some Americans to poorer people and/or nations it's been an awfully slow moving conspiracy.  Also, all taxes are redistributionist in some form, so the same argument that 'climate is always changing' can also be used here: given that all  taxes are redistributionist who needs to come up with some grand conspiracy to do more of it?

henge0stone

Quote from: 21st Century Man on April 15, 2016, 01:24:13 AM
Sharon Stone on Bernie Sanders.

Lack of experience is also the reason Stone doesn't think Bernie Sanders is qualified for the job. "I do not believe that Bernie Sanders is in any way, shape or form prepared to be president. I think he's a very intriguing, outspoken, energetic campaigner â€" but there's a big difference between knowing how to put on a campaign and actually being president of the United States of America," she says. "And at 74 years old, some of his learning curve is not totally on the beat."

She went on to add that Sanders' age might be working against him. "Bernie seems pretty old just in general, and some of his ideas are a little bit old. He's not young doing this, and he didn't really work until he was 40 so I wonder, like, how much acid has this guy taken?" she says. "I really do, that's not a joke. We were so aggressive asking people, 'Did you smoke pot?' But in reality, how much acid has Bernie Sanders taken? Because there's a certain edge to his personality and way about his behavior that makes me wonder, 'How much LSD have you taken?'"


More at:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/sharon-stone-donald-trump-bernie-883894

Typical bullcrap media attack on one of the few genuinely honest candidates. He released his '14 tax returns today no surprises in them. So where is Hillary's wallstreet transcripts? How fucking naive are voters to think that speeches to the most corrupt bankers behind closed doors that she WONT RELEASE has no effect on her.

136 or 142

Quote from: Schlyder7 on April 15, 2016, 09:09:45 AM
Earn your own fucking money, you have no rights to the fruits of someone else's labour. And you have no right to vote for a government to take it by force from one who earns it, and give it to the voter who doesn't earn a thing.

Schlyder7 gets around this by denying the reality of global warming (he presumably also doesn't believe that any other pollution causes any problems either) but the concept of negative externalities, of which pollution is the most well known, is that it involves a direct transaction between two groups, but imposes an external cost on third parties who receive no direct benefit from the transaction.  As such, any negative externality does claim a right to some third person's labour.  (This is also referred to as privatizing the benefit while socializing the cost.)  This is why many economists refer to pollution taxes as 'pollution pricing' and not as a 'tax' as it is an attempt to charge the beneficiaries of the transaction for some of the costs imposed on third parties. 

Of course, pollution can have direct negative harm on most people's health, but, for instance, the burning of coal also stunts the growth of some trees resulting in losses for other natural resource companies and workers and global warming is already causing droughts in some parts of the U.S, which is leading to losses for farmers as well as rising prices for consumers of those farm products.

If two people are going to engage in a transaction that pollutes the atmosphere, I think it's only fair to expect them to pay for some of the harm they cause  third parties. 

It's too much detail to go into, but pricing externalities is based on the 'equimarginal principle' and the idea is to levy essentially a transaction tax for the level of the harm caused to third parties up to a certain point, and not to charge them for the entire externality. (It's the point where the declining marginal benefit of the tax meets the rising marginal cost.)

136 or 142

Quote from: VtaGeezer on April 15, 2016, 10:20:05 AM
I'm withholding judgement until we hear from Anne Hathaway.

I'd rather hear the opinions of Anne Hathaway and even Sharon Stone than the opinions of Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

VtaGeezer

Quote from: 136 or 142 on April 15, 2016, 06:48:09 PM
I'd rather hear the opinions of Anne Hathaway and even Sharon Stone than the opinions of Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity.
Agreed. Their success in demagoging so many is an indictment of the  American education system.

albrecht

Quote from: 136 or 142 on April 15, 2016, 07:28:05 AM
I don't think any candidate has any realistic plan to deal with the border, so they're all effectively for open-borders, even Trump.

Sanders apparently is much less pro-immigration than most Democrats when it comes to his position on foreign workers (H1-B visas.)

In regards to his position on opposing free trade, which you didn't mention, but I know you agree with:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/consumer/poll-americans-prefer-low-cost-over-higher-priced-u-s/article_0fae8255-c9a8-56af-b78f-407a06152c84.html

" The vast majority of Americans say they prefer lower prices instead of paying a premium for items labeled “Made in the U.S.A.,” even if it means those cheaper items are made abroad, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll."

I don't know who paid for that poll, but I don't think the AP would conduct a leading survey for anybody, so this poll is likely reputable. 

"Incomes have barely improved, forcing many households to look for the most convenient bargains instead of goods made in America. Employers now seek workers with college degrees, leaving those with only a high school diploma, who once would have held assembly lines jobs, in the lurch. And some Americans who work at companies with clients worldwide see themselves as part of a global market.

Nearly three in four say they would like to buy goods manufactured inside the United States, but those items are often too costly or difficult to find, according to the survey released Thursday. A mere 9 percent say they only buy American."



So, which consumers would get hurt the most without free trade?  The poor.

You'd argue (as I think you have in the past) that without free trade these jobs would come back to America and these poor people could get jobs (or higher paying jobs), but the products they'd make would have higher prices than the present foreign imports.  So, the poor might benefit a little as employees, but they'd probably lose a lot more as consumers.

You might also argue, as Bernie Sanders, does that increasing the minimum wage would address this problem for poor people, but it's generally acknowledged that a large increase in the minimum wage would disrupt the economy (though to what degree is debated.)  Also, businesses would try and pass on the increase in a large minimum wage rise as much as possible, but most U.S made goods are already at a competitive disadvantage to foreign imports, so this would make consumers just purchase more foreign goods.
For the record I'm against any Federal minimum wage law and most other employment laws, excepting some worker safety and some environmental laws, for the interstate businesses and externalities that can be caused, and also against anti-discrimination, or weird, equal-pay, laws. People, landlords, and businesses should be allowed- assuming no government money, tax-breaks, loans, or contracts- to freely associate, rent, and do business with, or choose not to do so, with whomever they wish, or don't wish. And let the market and likely loss of business determine their success or failure. Public entities shouldn't be allowed to discriminate but also shouldn't have preference in awarding contracts etc based on some "status"- like the "minority-based" business fraud that happens so often. I will allow granting tax-breaks (even though there is much fraud there also) to try to attract businesses or housing to poor/minority areas simply because otherwise, currently at least, there is not much of a better option. So there!

136 or 142

Quote from: albrecht on April 15, 2016, 08:38:21 PM
For the record I'm against any Federal minimum wage law and most other employment laws, excepting some worker safety and some environmental laws, for the interstate businesses and externalities that can be caused, and also against anti-discrimination, or weird, equal-pay, laws. People, landlords, and businesses should be allowed- assuming no government money, tax-breaks, loans, or contracts- to freely associate, rent, and do business with, or choose not to do so, with whomever they wish, or don't wish. And let the market and likely loss of business determine their success or failure. Public entities shouldn't be allowed to discriminate but also shouldn't have preference in awarding contracts etc based on some "status"- like the "minority-based" business fraud that happens so often. I will allow granting tax-breaks (even though there is much fraud there also) to try to attract businesses or housing to poor/minority areas simply because otherwise, currently at least, there is not much of a better option. So there!

National Canadian columnist Andrew Coyne can be annoying, and at times a right wing leaning ideologue but he's also by far the most interesting and he seems to have an extremely high level of understanding of economics for some one who I don't believe has ever formally studied the subject.  This column of his fits into the interesting, insightful and economically accurate category in my opinion:

Mincome (GAIN) not a minimum wage.
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/andrew-coyne-guarantee-a-minimum-income-not-a-minimum-wage

Quote from: albrecht on April 15, 2016, 08:38:21 PM
For the record I'm against any Federal minimum wage law and most other employment laws, excepting some worker safety and some environmental laws, for the interstate businesses and externalities that can be caused, and also against anti-discrimination, or weird, equal-pay, laws. People, landlords, and businesses should be allowed- assuming no government money, tax-breaks, loans, or contracts- to freely associate, rent, and do business with, or choose not to do so, with whomever they wish, or don't wish. And let the market and likely loss of business determine their success or failure. Public entities shouldn't be allowed to discriminate but also shouldn't have preference in awarding contracts etc based on some "status"- like the "minority-based" business fraud that happens so often. I will allow granting tax-breaks (even though there is much fraud there also) to try to attract businesses or housing to poor/minority areas simply because otherwise, currently at least, there is not much of a better option. So there!

I agree.

Powered by SMFPacks Menu Editor Mod