Will an Obama loss turn to rioting?

[8537]

Uncensored believes that SA was more civilized when Blacks were kept in segregated poverty and devoid of any constitutional rights.

You truly are a moron, ergo you are a leftist. What is this SA constitution you keep yapping about? Please post it so we can peruse the pertinent sections.

Do you deny that Apartheid allowed whites to constitutionally prevent blacks from accessing their rights?

Of course their economy is larger, dumbass. Our economy dwarfs the U.S. Economy in 1955 - but are any of you leftists going to claim we are more prosperous now? (In fact, we actually are, but that is a different argument.)

In real terms, their economy is larger.

 

[8537]

GDP is not cumulative. YOu need to slap who ever told you such a stupid thing. GDP is a measure of a nation's total income, not total wealth.

Oh good god, you can't be this stupid.

Gross Domestic Product, a measure of the capital transactions in a year. OF COURSE it is cumulative. Populations increase and GDP along with it. Per Capita is the ONLY valid measure of GDP.

GDP is not cumulative. It's a measure of a single year. IF it was cumulative it would be impossible to have a recession because each year would be larger than the last.

Your first graph was not per capita.

My second one wasn't either. The first was nominal GDP. The second, real GDP.

I'm not sure in which manner you are more ignorant: economics or South Africa's history of Apartheid.

 

[Katzndogz]

The white folk just blow up buildings and shoot up churches.

Them white folks is scary!

And those WHITE folk were wrong and I hope they are paying for their sins in the afterlife. But since those white folk were monsters, it excuses the horrendous acts of Black folks?

This thread was about are there going to be riots when Obama loses and you call it RACIST to point out that the black community will be in enraged!

You can bet your bottom dollar, though, that should the worst happen and obama supporters erupt in violence, there will not only be NO accusation of racism, there will be vehement defense of the violence as being justified because the perpetrators are "disadvantaged", "disenfranchised", "poor", or some other such nonsense.

Or because the victims were white and therefore deserved it.

 

[8537]

You see, you fucking moron, you are attempting to extend the United States Constitution to a foreign nation.

No, i wasn't. Please show me where I made any reference to the US Constitution.

I'll wait. Go ahead.






Still waiting.

With racist fucks like this populating the right, is it any wonder blacks vote Democrat?

 

[ConzHateUSA]

With racist fucks like this populating the right, is it any wonder blacks vote Democrat?

The tea party is racist, in fact they are the most racist organization on the planet, the largest racist org too...

Each and every member of the tea party is a vile, filthy asshole.

There are a few who are minorities, but they hate themselves for some damn reason.

The planet knows who the tea party is, dont worry

 

[gallantwarrior]

With racist fucks like this populating the right, is it any wonder blacks vote Democrat?

The tea party is racist, in fact they are the most racist organization on the planet, the largest racist org too...

Each and every member of the tea party is a vile, filthy asshole.

There are a few who are minorities, but they hate themselves for some damn reason.

The planet knows who the tea party is, dont worry

Enjoy trolling much?

 

[ConzHateUSA]

With racist fucks like this populating the right, is it any wonder blacks vote Democrat?

The tea party is racist, in fact they are the most racist organization on the planet, the largest racist org too...

Each and every member of the tea party is a vile, filthy asshole.

There are a few who are minorities, but they hate themselves for some damn reason.

The planet knows who the tea party is, dont worry

Enjoy trolling much?

pure, vile, filthy racists...and the whole world knows it

 

[Uncensored2008]

Do you deny that Apartheid allowed whites to constitutionally prevent blacks from accessing their rights?

So you deny that water freezes and becomes ice?

ROFL, morons and logical fallacy.

You made the claim that some were being denied "constitutional rights." Please post the sections of the South African constitution of the time that supports your claim.

In real terms, their economy is larger.

Economies are cumulative. In developed or semi-developed nations, additional people increases the gross production.

Again, only per capita is relevant to the wealth of the population.

 

[8537]

You made the claim that some were being denied "constitutional rights." Please post the sections of the South African constitution of the time that supports your claim.

Indeed! And you are so stupid you thought I was referring to the US Constitution.

Hint: if you find yourself vehemently defending a racist position such as apartheid, it might mean you're a racist.

In real terms, their economy is larger.

Economies are cumulative. In developed or semi-developed nations, additional people increases the gross production.

GDP is not cumulative. Anywhere. Ever. At all. Period. It's a measure of a nation's total income in a given year, not the accumulated wealth of a nation.

 

[Uncensored2008]

GDP is not cumulative.

Sigh.

It is cumulative in that as population accumulates this increases the GDP.

It's a measure of a single year. IF it was cumulative it would be impossible to have a recession because each year would be larger than the last.

Seriously, that is what you got from this? No one ever even hinted that GDP spans years. I stated very clearly that it is the measure of the annual gross domestic product - IE the total capital transactions, of a population. YOU, being a simpering fool, think that the increase in total GDP is indicative of an increase in wealth.

My second one wasn't either. The first was nominal GDP. The second, real GDP.

I'm not sure in which manner you are more ignorant: economics or South Africa's history of Apartheid.

Your graph is bullshit, as I stated, the only thing it shows is an increasing population, not increased wealth. As population increases, it has a CUMULATIVE effect on GDP.

Do you really think you're being clever?

 

[8537]

Hint: if you find yourself vehemently defending a racist position such as apartheid, it might mean you're a racist.

GDP is not cumulative.

Sigh.

It is cumulative in that as population accumulates this increases the GDP.

that would come as quite a surprise to nations that have seen population increases and GDP decreases. Resource limits mean that population growth does not always lead to GDP growth - and it's not cumulative. ever.

It's a measure of a single year. IF it was cumulative it would be impossible to have a recession because each year would be larger than the last.

Seriously, that is what you got from this? No one ever even hinted that GDP spans years. I stated very clearly that it is the measure of the annual gross domestic product - IE the total capital transactions, of a population. YOU, being a simpering fool, think that the increase in total GDP is indicative of an increase in wealth.

You claimed GDP was cumulative. I pointed how wrong that statement was. You started spinning...

Tell us more about how nominal GDP per capita is the relevant measure. By that standard, Zimbabweans got filthy stinking rich with hyperinflation.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Nah, I don't think the obamabots are going to wait until they lose in order to become violent.

Paul Ryan speaks in Iowa; protesters grow violent - Conservative News, Views & Books

 

[ConzHateUSA]

Nah, I don't think the obamabots are going to wait until they lose in order to become violent.

Paul Ryan speaks in Iowa; protesters grow violent - Conservative News, Views & Books

Lies lies lies

women get thrown around by you fascists, you do know that at some point the adults will say enough is enough with you fascist scum

 

[Uncensored2008]

Hint: if you find yourself vehemently defending a racist position such as apartheid, it might mean you're a racist.

Hint: If you find yourself erecting a straw man, it means you've lost the argument.

that would come as quite a surprise to nations that have seen population increases and GDP decreases.

I understand that you think you are being clever, but you're not.

Words like "developed" have particular meanings. It's fairly rare for a country to see an actual decline in GDP relative to population growth. A decline for 2 consecutive quarters marks a recessionary period. Rarely are recessions the result of population increases.

Resource limits mean that population growth does not always lead to GDP growth - and it's not cumulative. ever.

Your an idiot and working from a position of desperation. GDP is relative to population, always. Posting a chart showing an increase in GDP in a growing population is utterly meaningless, a bullshit chart in context of this discussion.

You claimed GDP was cumulative.

As it is, in direct measure to the accumulation of population.

I pointed how wrong that statement was. You started spinning...

No need to spin.

Tell us more about how nominal GDP per capita is the relevant measure. By that standard, Zimbabweans got filthy stinking rich with hyperinflation.

Son, you provided nominal GDP over a time frame as some sort of supposed evidence of prosperity. I added 'per capita' as a requirement for that to have any meaning at all.

 

[8537]

I understand that you think you are being clever, but you're not.

Words like "developed" have particular meanings. It's fairly rare for a country to see an actual decline in GDP relative to population growth. A decline for 2 consecutive quarters marks a recessionary period. Rarely are recessions the result of population increases.

You said "as population accumulates this increases the GDP."

I simply pointed out that this is not always the case. In fact, in resource-poor areas quite the opposite can be true. Incomes can decline dramatically as populations increase.

Tell us more about how nominal GDP per capita is the relevant measure. By that standard, Zimbabweans got filthy stinking rich with hyperinflation.

Son, you provided nominal GDP over a time frame as some sort of supposed evidence of prosperity. I added 'per capita' as a requirement for that to have any meaning at all.

Kid, you claimed nominal GDP per capita was the relevant measure.

This econ lesson comes free of charge: nominal GDP per capita is not the relevant measure. If it was, Zimbabwe would be considered an economic miracle.

Real GDP. Real. Not nominal. Real income, not nominal income.

 

[Uncensored2008]

8537, I see what you're doing here, trying to divert from the issue at hand.

Will dims riot if their little tin Messiah® loses the election? if you're any indication, yes.

 

[8537]

8537, I see what you're doing here, trying to divert from the issue at hand.

Will dims riot if their little tin Messiah® loses the election? if you're any indication, yes.

Oh, I see. I'd run to a new topic as well.

Will white folks blow up a federal building if Obama wins?

 

[Twin Fist]

if these suppression efforts were done in any country we had diplomatic relations with we would likely be called in to help stop the stealing of the elections

you guys want a war cuz you are pissed that Blacks are no longer slaves

wow, you went right past stupid and at top speed jumped right into crazy

 

[bigrebnc1775]

if these suppression efforts were done in any country we had diplomatic relations with we would likely be called in to help stop the stealing of the elections

you guys want a war cuz you are pissed that Blacks are no longer slaves

wow, you went right past stupid and at top speed jumped right into crazy

He likes it that way.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Oh, I see. I'd run to a new topic as well.

What was the thread title? 8537 is a lying hack showing nominal GDP as evidence of wealth?

Uh, nope.

I think it's "Will an Obama loss turn to rioting?"

Will white folks blow up a federal building if Obama wins?

They never have before in response to political events.

BTW, Tim McVeigh is dead (rightly so,) but Football Williams is alive and walked free after 4 years. (Until he murdered yet another white person, but you don't mind, they were white, so deserved to die, for being white.)