I don't get it?

Remember when Trump 1st got into office he publicly condemned Chitcagos government said they were doing a piss poor job. He even referenced NBA Star Dwayne Wades cousin who literally stepped outside her house with her infant baby pushing a stroller and was shot and killed!!!

Very quickly the DemoRats and celebrities chimed in and called him racist.... Since when is SPEAKING FACTS racist? Anyways Trump threatened them if they don’t step up and fix the escalating violence he’s gonna send in the Feds and national guard. Every single liberal News media outlet chastised and criticized him. The mayors and governors refused his help and aid all claiming that Chicago was a safe place!?!?!? Even tho they’ve been the murder capital of America for much of the past decade! That right there tells you everything you need to know. The powers that be don’t want chit fixed they would rather watch it burn
Donald Trump says he's a racist. What's your point. You people find a clock that's right twice a day and think it's Nostradamus. We're done brother, no point in talking to someone who spells Democrat "DemoRat".
 

Lol who would have thought... the president should be held accountable for accusing kyle of being a white supremacist and the media disinformation about the entire case vilifying him before all the facts and evidence was presented in the court of law. Now who's going to protest (steal) me a new big screen T.V for Christmas?
 
The "have nots" I'm talking about are going into homes with weapons and killing for what the "haves" own...and the "haves" don't have to be rich either.
I think those may all be "have nots" by my definition. The "haves" live in places where the "have nots" do not live. Where there is risk, the "have nots" are paid to protect the "haves" against other "have nots."

LOL after paying in an extra $20k tax surprize this year, I am getting confused whether I am still a "have" or a "have not". My Busa I still "have", but every time I twist my right hand there is the risk that I may become a "have not".

At the end of the day, the choices made in life by a person, determines whether he/she is a "have" or a "have not".

Very successful folks, who grew up in a "have not" home become very big "haves" and accordingly some "have nots" come from homes of "have a whole lot."

So Bee, in short I do not agree with your philosophy.
 
I have always believed that your attitude, open-mindedness, work ethic, skillset, ingenuity, and risk tolerance are the big factors in being as successful as your lot in life will allow you to be, But it's pretty much a sociological fact that how far you can climb the ladder of life depends on where you start.

For the last 3-4 generations, it's unlikely you will rise above your parent's demographic level in life. It's funny but people don't get this. While we worry about race, religion, and other conspiracies, the real conspiracy is that this lack of social mobility is not natural. It is engineered by a very few who control the world we live in.
 
The (choices) that one makes do not entirely determine one’s social status. Many times the ‘choices’ are made for you.
Sounds as if you have chosen to let others make choices for you?

Ever heard about FIFO?

It stands for “Fit In or F$$k off,”

If you choose to go to a riot and get shot, really the primary blame is on you yourself.

And if you choose to go to riot carrying an AR15 and others choose to threaten you, the choice still started with you yourself.

If your boss makes choices for you which you don’t like, FIFO kicks in.
 
Last edited:
I have always believed that your attitude, open-mindedness, work ethic, skillset, ingenuity, and risk tolerance are the big factors in being as successful as your lot in life will allow you to be, But it's pretty much a sociological fact that how far you can climb the ladder of life depends on where you start.

For the last 3-4 generations, it's unlikely you will rise above your parent's demographic level in life. It's funny but people don't get this. While we worry about race, religion, and other conspiracies, the real conspiracy is that this lack of social mobility is not natural. It is engineered by a very few who control the world we live in.
There are many who would disagree with you, including Obama. Several very successful folks come from humble, sometimes troubled beginnings.

During my career I have worked with folks who can be coached, trained, developed towards growing and becoming very successful. Alternatively I have worked with folks who are determined to not listen, make bad decisions, allow their ego’s to drive decisions and in the end presented with great opportunities, they get fired and end up unemployed.

Right now, I am working with a guy who has five kids, lives from paycheck to paycheck, is a really good guy, hard worker but he has been fired four times in the last three years. I felt sorry for him and took him under my wing. I am starting to realize it is a lost cause. He is a man on a mission of his own, lives in a world of chaos by his own choice and takes absolutely no criticism, or advice from anyone.
 
Last edited:
I think those may all be "have nots" by my definition. The "haves" live in places where the "have nots" do not live. Where there is risk, the "have nots" are paid to protect the "haves" against other "have nots."

LOL after paying in an extra $20k tax surprize this year, I am getting confused whether I am still a "have" or a "have not". My Busa I still "have", but every time I twist my right hand there is the risk that I may become a "have not".

At the end of the day, the choices made in life by a person, determines whether he/she is a "have" or a "have not".

Very successful folks, who grew up in a "have not" home become very big "haves" and accordingly some "have nots" come from homes of "have a whole lot."

So Bee, in short I do not agree with your philosophy.
You are over complicating this.

A "have" could be someone with a Hayabusa and a "have not" could simply be a person who wants one and doesn't want to work for it-and thusly steals it from the "have." This is not a new concept nor is it complicated. You have something somebody else either wants or feels they are entitled to it and then tries to take it from you-sometimes they are successful and sometimes they aren't.

In a larger scale, take somewhere like Somalia for instance, the "haves" there are very basic...they might have water or food and the "have nots" will take that at gun point.
 
You are over complicating this.

A "have" could be someone with a Hayabusa and a "have not" could simply be a person who wants one and doesn't want to work for it-and thusly steals it from the "have." This is not a new concept nor is it complicated. You have something somebody else either wants or feels they are entitled to it and then tries to take it from you-sometimes they are successful and sometimes they aren't.

In a larger scale, take somewhere like Somalia for instance, the "haves" there are very basic...they might have water or food and the "have nots" will take that at gun point.
Reading your first sentence, one has to ask the question of whether it has anything to do with material wealth.? Or is it rather a question of morals?

You get bad people and good people in all walks of society, from the wealthiest to the poorest.
 
Reading your first sentence, one has to ask the question of whether it has anything to do with material wealth.? Or is it rather a question of morals?

You get bad people and good people in all walks of society, from the wealthiest to the poorest.
I don't think it has anything to do with material wealth...if someone has something (anything) that another person wants, there will be an attempt to acquire it.
 
Lol who would have thought... the president should be held accountable for accusing kyle of being a white supremacist and the media disinformation about the entire case vilifying him before all the facts and evidence was presented in the court of law.
Rittenhouse outed himself hanging out in a bar with Proud Boys members and having a picture taken making a white power hand jesture. Pretty tricky to come up with a popular jesture that has meant something else for decades, but that's what racists do, they hide in their own stink.

The riots are not much different from a tantrum and aren't helpful.
 
Last edited:
There are many who would disagree with you, including Obama. Several very successful folks come from humble, sometimes troubled beginnings.

During my career I have worked with folks who can be coached, trained, developed towards growing and becoming very successful. Alternatively I have worked with folks who are determined to not listen, make bad decisions, allow their ego’s to drive decisions and in the end presented with great opportunities, they get fired and end up unemployed.

Right now, I am working with a guy who has five kids, lives from paycheck to paycheck, is a really good guy, hard worker but he has been fired four times in the last three years. I felt sorry for him and took him under my wing. I am starting to realize it is a lost cause. He is a man on a mission of his own, lives in a world of chaos by his own choice and takes absolutely no criticism, or advice from anyone.
Yes, look at most people who are unsuccessful and there is something they can control that is mainly to blame. However, it's like looking at a football game and saying "I'm going to do that". Every player on that field is an exceptional person who won the DNA lottery for that application. So we don't want a culture where only exceptional people thrive.

Whether or not you agree with Obama's politics, clearly he was an exceptional guy. My sister met him when she was in law school and even then people introduced him as "This is Barrack, he's going to be president someday". That was back when being a CEO was a stretch for a Black person. On the other hand, Trump is a special guy too, and the winner of a completely different DNA lottery, haha.

When we look at people in bad childhood situations that manage to cross over into mainstream life and be successful there is a common thread: Their parents (or in many cases parent), managed to insulate them from the cancerous cultures around them. It's easier for athletes because sports are more or less all-consuming time-wise. Also being an athlete makes a kid the physical type A's. But it is very difficult to raise an intellectually oriented person in a bad environment (doctor, lawyer, business person, etc.).

When I talk to disadvantaged young people it's clear they don't realize the game they are playing. Thugs live about 20-30 years. After that, they are either dead or permanently incarcerated and out of the mainstream game. So they can be rich, but wealth is being sustainably rich. A lot of these kids don't understand what being wealthy is. Thug rich basically means always being worried about money. It's a feverish treadmill-on-high experience where you are always desperately searching for the next score. Being wealthy means not having to worry about money.

The important thing about wealth here is that it doesn't mean you can buy a fleet of Lamborghinis. It means you can live within your means. Most people don't realize that most of the bad decisions we make have a financial component. Upset your financial equilibrium and you become a slave to debt. You can't move up in life until you understand this. It's a hard sell to kids though who idolize gold chains and bling. Today every kid wants to be famous (viral) when success usually means being anonymous to all but those who need to know you or that you want to be known by.

Whenever you talk to kids about their future, they are focused on the things that will stop them. Race, being poor, being outside the good old boy network, it's easier for White people. But if you let the possibility of those things be your obstacles, then you are in effect oppressing yourself. It's like the proverbial elephant tied to a stake with a thread. Life is about overcoming obstacles and you have to consider everything just another obstacle to be overcome.

So, yes I have also encountered those rock heads that just can't play by the rules (written and unwritten) and they want the world to roll over for them. The resources I have to help people are limited, so I cut ties and move on to the next person.
 
A "have" could be someone with a Hayabusa and a "have not" could simply be a person who wants one and doesn't want to work for it-and thusly steals it from the "have." This is not a new concept nor is it complicated. You have something somebody else either wants or feels they are entitled to it and then tries to take it from you-sometimes they are successful and sometimes they aren't.
This is true and some, you would have never expected would steal from you but they will if they can rationalize it. There's a lot of poor and lowerish income people who won't steal though. Those of us in this financial situation are sort of on the edge of "have-notitude" and we may have been true have-nots at some point. Being a have-not doesn't automatically make you bad. It has to do with what kind of person you are aside from your socioeconomic level. As has already been mentioned, people of all socioeconomic levels steal and they aren't all what we would call have-nots.
 
Rittenhouse outed himself hanging out in a bar with Proud Boys members and having a picture taken making a white power hand jesture. Pretty tricky to come up with a popular jesture that has meant something else for decades, but that's what racists do, they hide in their own stink.

The riots are not much different from a tantrum and aren't helpful.
Yeah, and the judge not allowing a lot of that probably shielded the fact that Rittenhouse went there on a hunting mission - which changes everything. Still, we need to stop getting pissed about what didn't happen. The reality is this was a white guy who shot 3 white guys. Riots are most effective when they are about real wrongs and are peaceful. Rioting about a hypothetical is stupid.
 
This is true and some, you would have never expected would steal from you but they will if they can rationalize it. There's a lot of poor and lowerish income people who won't steal though. Those of us in this financial situation are sort of on the edge of "have-notitude" and we may have been true have-nots at some point. Being a have-not doesn't automatically make you bad. It has to do with what kind of person you are aside from your socioeconomic level. As has already been mentioned, people of all socioeconomic levels steal and they aren't all what we would call have-nots.
I think poor people tend to be more moral than many rich. Remember the rich are often stealing on an industrial scale, we just don't call it stealing and look the other way. Anyway, our materialistic society inspires stealing. Not to bring up Karl Marx, but he said that capitalist systems would become more and more hindered by crime. Obviously, this doesn't explain Russia and China, haha.
 
I don't think it has anything to do with material wealth...if someone has something (anything) that another person wants, there will be an attempt to acquire it.
Really? I think you need to carefully read your sentence again. What you are saying, is that if we met and became friends and I had something you thought was really nice, you will attempt to take it from me? C'mon man???

Perhaps we are just two very different people.

My values are such that I would refuse to claim unemployment or financial aid in any form. If that means I have to go flip burgers at McDonalds, so be it. I was raised in a culture where one ALWAYS gives more than one takes. Just a very different set of values.
 
Really? I think you need to carefully read your sentence again. What you are saying, is that if we met and became friends and I had something you thought was really nice, you will attempt to take it from me? C'mon man???

Perhaps we are just two very different people.

My values are such that I would refuse to claim unemployment or financial aid in any form. If that means I have to go flip burgers at McDonalds, so be it. I was raised in a culture where one ALWAYS gives more than one takes. Just a very different set of values.
I think social safety nets are necessary because in a fast-moving capitalistic system people fall through the cracks. Our system is always out of balance and people get caught in it. The safety net ensures that we don't have streets lined with beggars.

There is a lot of propaganda about welfare. Most people on assistance are kids and single women. And yes whites. Men tend to stay on assistance for a pretty short period of time actually.
 
Back
Top