Tom_Kalbfus wrote:I have German ancestry too, so I do not completely disassociate myself with your country, Kalbfus is after all a German name, that said, Germany is not only know for Nazism, but also as the homeland of a certain Karl Marx, Germany was also split in two until 1989 one part was occupied and then controlled by the Russians. What the Russians did to Germany was not justifiable.
1: You can't prove it's your real name, no Ethnix card for you.
1a: You don't
want to try and prove it's your real name. Trust me on that.
2: This has the fuck what to do with anything? Smells like smoke screen and red herring.
Does the Tea Party have Storm Troopers? Does the Tea Party have Brown Shirts?
No. Mostly because they are not yet in power and there is an effective force of law arrayed against them.
Your assuming they are like the Nazi Party, the Nazis had Storm Troopers before they attained power in Germany, they kept order during those Nazi rallies and disrupted those rallies of their opponents.
Oh no? Five seconds of searching You Tube. You must be completely disconnected to think that the tea-party types aren't having assholes disrupting the political gatherings of their opponents. Off the top of my head I recall during the '08 campaign free-for-all that the right wing was encouraging it's members to shit down on the "left" (which means "anyone left of Dear Departing Cowboy-Leader Bush") when they tried to talk sensibly by yelling bullshit at them.
As far as them not having people ready and willing to commit violence for the movement's causes,
George Tiller and Scott Roeder would both disagree with you on that point, from opposite ends of the barrel of a gun. However, thankfully, this country still has an effective rule of law, which means only the truly fanatical are ready to commit violence and face the music for it in the name of their causes. The rest are waiting until law and order has broken down to the point where they won't face personal consequences for doing it before they join in.
Some people don't like other people for whatever reason, sometimes its because of race, and sometimes its because of one's political views, so long as that racism doesn't prevent people from living peacably with ones neighbors and getting along with life, it is none of anyone's business what one thinks. People are free to think or say whatever they want so long as it doesn't cause direct harm like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater and there is no fire, resulting in a panic causing needless death and injury.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you're white. I'm going to further surmise that your community and social groups (that is, those that meet face-to-face, if you have any,) overwhelmingly consist of people who are extremely similar to you in all respects. Let me tell you a story.
Warning to the forums:
Anecdote territory ahead. Awooogah! Skip down to the next quote block if you want to avoid it.
In my employment with the Census bureau, I worked with a fairly diverse set of ten people. Though it is primarily Caucasian, we have an African-American woman (who's addicted to
The Young and the Restless, FWIW) a Korean-American woman, and a Hispanic man. Some of us hold down or held down other employ, and the Hispanic guy, who's a great guy in all, was relating the story of his other employment at some kind of packing plant. He related the tale of how his fellow employees, including superiors, were in the overall racist towards him; his own boss would very frequently call him "wetback" in lieu of his actual name. (He's Guatemalan, he's an American citizen, BTW.) Eventually it got so frustrating to him that he simply quit his job. When he related this story, everyone, including especially our crew leader's boss, was horrified, she especially so, as he had earlier mentioned it and she'd advised him that he needed to contact his company's HR department and file complaints.
But, the guy felt it was hopeless; surrounded by people who loathed him because English wasn't his first language, he didn't feel as if he had any remedy to what had become an unbearable workplace full of (incorrect) ethnic slurs and racist remarks. Not, that is, that anybody ever did or treated him any different than anyone else - except for the unpredictable but frequent espoused racism. In the end, it cost him his job and any hope of obtaining severance.
But hey, people should be free to say or think whatever they like so long as it doesn't cause direct harm, right?
You can indeed hate blacks for being black, just like many hate Americans for being American, just ask the Iranians about that. You seem to demonstrate a hatred towards me for expressing my views, that you disagree with, you call me names and so forth.
You're a loathesome cunt, a waste of valuable protein matter, water and oxygen that could be another, more valuable human being. Having read very little of your beliefs or views, I have come to the conclusion that you fall within the group of "irredeemable fundietard kool-aid drinkers," and worthy of the range of emotions spanning from disgusted contempt (at best) to roaring rage (at worst.)
(I am not a very nice person towards those I find reason to hate.)
However, there is a difference. You have
earned my emnity by espousing political, economic, and sociological views that I consider to be directly hostile nemesi to myself and my views, and I'm sure you have no love for my views either. You'd probably call me some kind of crazy communist if I tried to explain them, and if that be the case give me my ushanka and kalashnikov, comrade.
Racism, on the other hand, is like (and sometimes actually is) judging someone by the color of their hair. It's foundless and baseless, and serves only to create a permanent schism between artifically-drawn-up castes of human beings. I don't hate you because you're white as sour cream, I hate you because your politics are terrifying and I believe that if you had your way, we'd all wind up on an express train to hell.
The guy who's hated because he's black has done nothing to earn that hatred. If he robs a guy at gunpoint, sure, he's a shitheaded miserable wasteful excuse of human blood and organs, but guess what? So is anybody who commits armed robbery, whether they're blond-haired, blue-eyed Njordic* ubermen with names that have more umlauts than consonants, anybody with a ridiculous, vaugely-African-sounding name that is pronounced or spelled (or both) as if it has an apostrophe in it somewhere, or a guy who's name is Bob Jones and who fits the painful archtypical "average american" mold to a T.
Racism causes harm, and passing judgment on someone based on their ethnicity or skin tone or name is incomparable to passing judgement on them for deeds done, membership in groups, or views espoused.
*intentional hyperbolic misspelling.
A Chart? Who knows where that chart came from or whether its accurate, it also ends at 2006, about two years before Barack Obama landed in the White House, a lot has happened since the end of the Bush Administration. Bush was reacting to the attack on 9/11 against the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and another airplane that was hijacked by terrorists and was downed in Pennsyvania, Wars as you know can be expensive, and the reason this one was expensive was in part because we tried very hard to avoid unnecessary civilian casualities, it would have been cheaper to fight the war the way Hitler would have, or for that matter Eisenhower, but in the 21st century standards are much higher than during World War II, perhaps too high, but for whatever reason the War against Terror was and is expensive, and we can't just surrender to it, so we keep on fighting. The War on the other hand is cheap for the terrorists, because they don't care who they kill, just so that some Americans number among those killed. Exploding car bombs are cheap compared to precision guided weapons, that are nevertheless never precise enough for our liberal left-wing critics who criticise our right to defend ourselves.
Wow, you're all over the map! And to think Thanas accuses
me of hyperventilating! You spend one sentence vaugely impugning - and by that I mean "dismissing out of hand" because the chart's information is a few years old. Okay, fine. How's data accurate to within 2009 suit you?
Here you go. Yes, it's Wikipedia, but it's a Wikipedia article with data gathered and collated from three different sources. Go ahead, use the data from the Heritage Foundation, since that's the one you trust since they're a nice, conservative, right-wing, corporation-fellating think tank. Guess what - it's
still only 28.2~28.3%. The OECD average, of course, remains 36.0%, so you're still being taxed over 7% less than by rights you ought not be - but since it's 3.2-3.3% more than you "believe" you should be taxed, you complain.
You are a moron if you think your tax burden is egregious.
Anyway, you
then go on to an impressive hyperventilating red herring about "OH NOES TEH TERRORISTS!" Really, frankly? Shut the
fuck up! You don't get a free pass on being a shit-head just because some shitheads were shitheady towards you, and this applies doubly so when one is a nation, and you don't get a free pass by trying to play the "b-b-b-b-b-b-b-but THE TERRORISTS ATTACKED US! WE HAVE TO KILL THEM ALL!" card. Sew your dribbling fear-hole the fuck up and try to locate the testicles that apparently popped off your body sometime around 9/11/01. So someone gave us a black eye and a bloody lip, boo fucking hoo. It doesn't give us the right to break out the Imperial March and twist off people's scrotes.
You want to play the tangent card? I'll play the tangent card.
Six times as many people died in the United States in 2002 from a lack of healthcare as died in 2001 from the actions of terrorists. I don't see you taking up the cause of
those people who got killed, now, do I?
Because the power to tax is a temptation that needs to be resisted. If you are a private company, you can't just arbitrarily raise the prices of the product or service you sell, because your compeditor may keep his prices low and take a greater share of your customers as the flock to the lower price seller to save money. For a government the tax is their price they charge customers called taxpayers, unlike a customer of a private business, the taxpayer has no choice but to pay his taxes or else be arrested, therefore it is incumbant upon government to tax as little as necessary, because taxation causes real harm to the economy and slows growth. If the government taxes at 25% it consumes 25% of the economy, leaving its citizens with only the 75% that is left. Governments also don't have to worry about losing their customers, as customers cannot legally choose another provider for government services without moving to another country. Corporations on the other hand have less compunction about moving to another country, and taking the jobs they provide with them. The people who are stuck in their countries or for reasons having to do with language, culture, or national pride choose to stay, often find jobs harder to find as their employers flee to other countries in search of lower taxes. Fewer jobs mean less tax revenue for the government, and hiking the taxes to a higher percentage of income causes more corporations to flee, so even if they tax at 90%, few will want to stay in the country and provide jobs because their profit margin is reduce to only 10% of what it was before taxes, they will go to another country that taxes them at 25% so they can keep 75% of their profits and thus provide them with a greater return on their investments.
What's that? Sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of you
guzzling the kool-aid. How about you set the retard juice down for a minute and speak up? Okay? Good.
YOU ARE AN IDIOT. Your "personal belief" means about as much as Micheal Jackson's "personal belief" against the supernatural: IE, your personal beliefs and a fiver will get you a foot-long sub. You've picked an arbitrary number without any consideration whatsoever about what taxes are for, what and how the money is distributed, what needs to be done (especially looked at versus what is
getting done,) or any other consideration other than your own personal reluctance to part with more than a quarter of your income. You want a personal belief? My personal belief is that your personal belief is based entirely on the fact that the number you choose as being the appropriate amount of taxation is the number of fingers on your left hand multiplied by the number of brain cells in your head!
Newsflash, shit needs to get done. The shit that needs to get done needs to be paid for, and the shit that needs to get done isn't going to politely and consonantly accept your "personal belief" that only 25% of every American's income and no more should go in taxation to pay for it, and bid itself accordingly. Shit needs to be paid for, it will cost what it will, and your choices are to live with the cost or without the end product. Or, alternatively, to live with the end cost and put the paying off until later, when it will cost more.
Morons like
you aren't willing to live without things like roads and police forces and fire brigades and educators and so forth and so on, but you're also not willing to live with the cost.
You are the reason they keep taking option three, because if they dare mention in passing that they're considering implementing a raise on the taxes you shriek and fling your own fecal matter and threaten to throw them out of office, and if they try to cut back on things like roads and police forces and fire brigades and educators, you... Pretty much do the exact same thing.
Also, try and get your economic education from someone who hasn't got a corporation's cock so far up his ass he can taste their precum next time, will ya? That mongling bullshit is painful to read.
Government must then prioritize that which it does from most important to least important and spend within a certain limit instead of taking more and more from the taxpayer. We all have a budget, and we don't have the option of taking from our neighbors that which we need to buy all the stuff we wish to purchase. The government sector only expands at the expense of the private sector, and the private sector is the part with generates the income from which government takes its revenue. Every increase in taxes reduces the return on investment for many companies, making those firms less profitable thus reducing investments. If a certain firm makes a calculation that a certain investment will yield x% of return, at a 25% tax rate it will realize 0.75x% return after taxes and this will attract a certain amount of investment create a certain number of jobs and expand the business thus rewarding the investors, but if the tax rate jumps to 90%, the after tax return will drop to 0.1x% which was less than what it got before, so fewer people are willing to invest their money for this smaller return, the business doesn't grow as fast as a result, and fewer jobs are created.
Newsflash, asshole. Nobody is talking about 90% tax rates, but your ridiculous belief in the magic of the 25% tax rate is as stupendously ridiculous as the belief in pyramid power. It's almost as ridiculous, in fact, as the notion that cutting taxes stimulates jobs; guess what? They've been cutting taxes for decades, and companies have been quite cheerfully pocketing the extra and handing it out to the executives and shareholders. The only thing trickling down is the steady stream of thin urine from the collective bloated, pustulent, swollen penis of corporate America into the faces of everybody else. This Econ 101 crap (with an apparent honors in Reaganomics,) is painful to say the least.
Government doesn't have the luxury of choosing "what it should do and what it shouldn't do" the way you have the luxury of choosing "do I want a new laptop, or an iPhone 4G." Rather, it has as much luxury of choosing what it spends it's money on as you do on choosing whether to pay for car insurance (necessary so you can go to work,) car maintenance (necessary so you can go to work,) food (necessary so you can continue to live,) or house payments (necessary so you don't wind up expiring of exposure and also for fun little things like having someplace comfortable to sleep and someplace to defecate in.)
Government exists to do the things which are beyond the means of all but the wealthiest of individuals and which cannot be effectively monetized and so will not be done by corporations. You can't defend your home from an army, and Wal-Mart Corp isn't going to raise and maintain a standing army, so government has to do it. Likewise, you can't afford to hire someone to protect you, to investigate crimes committed against you and to detain and charge those who perpetrated against you, and nobody in their right mind should want their police force's badge to be a yellow smiley face, so again, it's the kind of thing that falls to government. You can't afford to hire a fire brigade to run out to your house and put out the fire if it catches light, and the Wal-Mart Fire brigade isn't going to put out your house for free, so again, it falls to government. You can't afford to hire a genius Renaissance Man skilled and versed in everything from advanced mathematics to political sciences to educate the hypothetical fruit of your loins (dear Sol I hope you never factually breed,) and if the Wal-Mart Corp School accepts your kid it's probably going to be on conditions amounting to indentured servitude. Again, it falls to government - these and
every other fucking thing in the world that is beyond the scope and ability of any Rugged goat-fucking Individual and which corporations are unsuited to, disinclined to, or untrustworthy to perform. Things like counting everybody, for instance.
You can't just pigeonhole an arbitrary amount and say "make it fit," unless you want a slapdash half-assed job done on everything (how would you like it if the police came to your house, saw it was trashed and all your stuff was gone, said "there's no evidence you're not responsible for all of this" and fucked off down the bar for a drink?,) or you want some area or areas
completely neglected in favor of paying for the others?
So, what would you particularly care to do without? The Census? Hope you don't mind not being represented in Congress. Police? Please, tell me you want to live in an area which is unregulated by law and where it is to be found, I'll be 'round shortly with a shotgun and several large vehicles with which to relieve you of your material and financial goods. Fire Brigade? I sure hope that asshole snot-nosed pyrobug punk next door doesn't set his house alight and Sun forbid it should spread to your place! Roads? So, how exactly are you planning to get to work, did your Jetsons jetpack arrive? A military? I hope nobody gets any funny ideas about conquering us, because militia ain't gonna cut it in this day and age.
Oh, that's right.
You want it all, but you don't want to spend a dime more than
you personally believe you should spend on it! Here's one for you - I believe I should have Healthcare, and I don't want to spend more on it than whatever average percentage of the tax rate average for all of Europe goes to Healthcare!
Unlike you, my personal belief on the matter is not unreasonable. I haven't arbitrarily decreed - nay,
demanded - that all my healthcare requirements be provided for at the mere sum of 1% of my annual income or something similarly assinine.
That 25% is how much of the economy that I think government operations should take up, barring national emergencies such as war for example. I do not think more that 25% of all the salaries paid should be in the government sector, and if government is doing things that private industry can do, then government should stop doing it.
Do you have any argument other than "i personally believe"?
No, he hasn't.
Government frequently can, and should, perform functions that private industry
can do, simply because the free-market outcome with
suck compared to the nationalized outcome. For example, it's certainly within the scope of the budget of some of the really, really huge corporations to band together and come up with the dough to raise an army, but armies generally aren't profitable things.
It can also do things like provide a post office. Sure, private businesses can and do offer their entries into the field, but the difference is that the
Post Office does not have to make a profit, and if subsidized from the general tax fund does not even have to break even. This is an actual savings which is then passed on to the consumer of the post office's services; to wit, sending parcels and postal letters from one place to another. Less so if the post office is subsidized, but it's still a hell of a lot cheaper than paying UPS or Fed-Ex.
The World isn't a perfect place and there is nothing government can do to make it a perfect place. Health care costs a certain amount, the doctors need to be paid, the drugs need to be bought, Government can help with health care costs but it cannot insure anyone's health.
Um... Yes. Yes, in fact it can.
In fact, it
does, in literally every other first-world country but this one, and in many second-world countries and even some of the better-off third-world countries. Government can damn well insure not only 'anyone' but
everyone. It does so a hell of a lot more cheaply on the public, and provides for better outcomes. The free market simply cannot compete with a single-payer not-for-profit, tax-funded system; it is hopelessly incapable of offering any sort of competitive alternative,
because by nature it's designs are incompatible with those of their ostensible customers.
It's very simple here,
PAY ATTENTION. The government doesn't have a profit motive in getting people healthcare. It only has a social outcome motive. How can it do the most good with the money it's been able to pull together. The health-care industry, on the other hand, has
only a profit motive. It doesn't care about social good at all, all it cares about is another line of coke snorted by a hooker off the cock of a viagra'd-up withered old asshole on his fifth yacht off the coast of Grand Cayman.
Let's put this in a simple analogy form you'll understand, shall we? Repair Facility A (the national insurance system) is handed an arbitrary amount of Resource Units, which are good for repairing Damaged Robots. Some repairs may cost more than others, but Repair Facility A, being the only game in town, has a high degree of ability to muscle around the dealers and manufacturers to make sure he's getting the best parts for the job as cheaply as possible. Repair Facility A's only programmed motivation is to maximize the amount of damage it can repair with the RUs it has. It has otherwise no care whatsoever for the RUs.
Repair Facilities B through Z, on the other hand, have ganged up and prevented Repair Facility A from being built. Now, Repair Facility B through Z are defective; instead of repairing damaged robots, their sole goal is to hoard RUs. They do not intrinsically care about repairing robots, but because they are repair facilities (and repairing damaged robots is what they do,) they start telling undamaged robots that if they pay them their RUs in advance, they'll be repaired for free if they get damaged for less than it would cost if they didn't pay in advance. So the robots like this sort of deal, and they start paying the Repair Facilities.
The only problem is that as soon as the robot has paid the Repair Facility, the Repair Facility has achieved it's goal;
it has RUs in it's stockpile. Now, it's only goal is to hoard RUs, so when a robot gets damaged,
it gets further from it's goal because it has to spend RUs repairing that damaged robot. Ah-hah! So now they decide to get Law-Bots involved, to draft up huge and complicated contracts with ridiculous amounts of loopholes and technicalities. Eventually, the situation is that they can arbitrarily decide to repair a robot or not, regardless of whether that robot has paid them the RUs. The only consideration they need to take into account is the number of RUs they hoard, so the equation becomes whether the cost of repairing the damage will be less than or greater than the cost of paying a law-bot to fight the demand for repair in front of a court.
I hope you understood that, I even went to the trouble of involving robots. I wish I had the skill to draw you a visual aid. Suffice to say the point is the motives involved are different, and the profit motive does not apply to such a necessity as staying alive. It's not something you can choose to do without, so they have you by the balls.
Emergency rooms are required by law to treat people regardless of their ability to pay, certain charities make donations to help poor people with healthcare, and one of those charities is the government through social security, medicade and medicare, but we have to decide on how much we want to spend on healthcare as a societal good as opposed to an individual expense. I don't thinkoney we can spend unlimited amounts of money, there is a limit, whether it is what the individual can afford or society as a whole, we must prioritize here as well, the choice is whether we prioritize as individual patients or as a society, I think we do some of both.
Emergency Rooms are required by law to
stabilize people regardless of their ability to pay,
but no more. If you come in with a pair of hacked-off arms and absolutely penniless, they'll cauterize it, but that's all they're required to do. They're not required to find you a prosthesis. If you come in in a state of cardiac distress, they're required to prevent you from dying, but they're not required to
treat your problems.
Charities are bullshit, and social security and medicare/medicaid are not charities, they're woefully-thin-spread vital government social functions.
Ideally, citizens should be taxed for healthcare, that tax should go into a sort of national healthcare assurance program (go ahead and just co-opt Medicare, since it's a name Americans already react well to,) and be sitting there. When people need something taken care of, they get treated, and only when the really crazy shit comes up do they start to think about prioritizing the good of the many over the good of the one. They might have to - if someone comes down with something that can be cured but it'll cost six billion dollars to do so, you have to look at how many other people you can treat with those six billion. If you have enough of a monetary surpluss to do it, go ahead, but if not... You might have to compromise somewhere.
On the other hand, let's look at the way it is now. The healthcare industry prioritizes keeping your money over spending any of it to help you. If at all possible it will avoid paying your claim, and it doesn't care about how much social good it causes, or personal good it creates for you. All it cares about is hoarding your money.
they prioritize as a society, they tax that society more thus leaving the individual with less money to spend on his own healthcare on that part which the government won't cover. There are always trade offs and limits on resources whether they are of the government or of the individual.
PAY ATTENTION, MORON! The point of a national healthcare system is so that you
don't have to spend a dime out of pocket on your own healthcare. Get the snuffles? They take care of it. Take one of those "world's most shocking, can't believe he survived that" headers off a a bridge into a barge full of steel tubes and I-Beams, get every limb in your body broken and then a gigantic blade falls on you severing your hand at the wrist yet still you survive? They take care of it.
Healthcare is a seller's market by nature. They can crank the cost up to whatever and make you pay if at all within your means because the alternative is failboat. However, by condensing the buying power to a few sources, the sellers find the market reversed on them; now they have to sell at a price acceptable to the guy who's buying, because if they don't someone else
will. Condense it down to 1, and suddenly everything becomes sane and clear, especially in comparison to what nonsense we have now.
I think tax money that is not spent towards a legitimate government responsibility designed to benefit society as a whole, can be considered stolen money. I think there should be a Contitutional limit on the percentage of one's income government can tax, and if it wants to increase revenue, it should do so by fostering economic growth rather than by taking a greater slice of one's income. Now as a German, you should know what real racism is, and Hitler is not largely regarded as infamous for his tax cuts, so the Tea Party and the Nazi Party obviously don't belong in the same category.
Is there an applause smiley? I gotta give you props guy, that was an amazingly non sequitor red-herring segue. No? okay, second-best to a :golfclap: -
. Let me go down it by the numbers.
1: Exactly what the hell do you imagine they're
doing with that tax money, spending it on hookers and blow? (Last I heard, that was the GOP.) Newsflash, stop the presses - governments spend money on projects supposedly in the best interest of the taxpayers. They don't always make the best decisions (corruption is a problem, yes,) but as a percentage of the whole the truly egregious things (bridge to nowhere) are vanishingly small. A lot of stuff is marginal, like making sure one's own state gets a lot of highways and education money, but isn't that why elected officials are supposed to do anyway?
2: You're a fucking
moron, having taken leave of your senses, if you think the idea of a constitutionally-mandated cap on the amount of money which may be taxed as a percentage is a good idea. You familiar with California's current financial situation in requiring a ridiculous majority to levy taxes but allowing joe average to demand something be written into law without provisions for how to pay for it? Yeah,
this is that bad. Might even be worse.
3: How in the world do you get from your
retarded political views on socioeconomics to
Hitler? What is this, a "Psych! Heil Hitler!" Are you going to start shooting people next? Or are you just the cpi fail at using the enter key?
A certain level of racism is a given, and frankly is not worth addressing, as the cost of remedying it involves the loss of certain individual freedoms such as the freedom of speech, freedom of association and so forth.
You have the individual freedom to swing your fist 'round like a punch-drunken pugilist. Your right to swing your fist stops at another man's nose.
Racism can be just as harmful as a fist swung into a nose, but it's far, far more insidious. It can - and does - engender hopeless, frustration and anger in it's victims, even if the perpetrators never lay a finger on the victim. It's effects are very real, simply intangible.
Just because something may be inevitable doesn't mean it's not worth fighting against, or doing something about.
Everybody faces some sort of prejudice or another in his life, I do, we all learn to live with it and make the best with what we got, the point is to keep it down, the overt harmful prejudice that prevents groups of people from succeeding in life regardless of talent - as had happened in Germany, and to a lesser extend in America at times past. I think the level of prejudice has dropped to a level where most blacks can simply ignore it and grow some thick skin rather than suspecting racial discrimination at every corner. If a person feels racism is holding him back, he can simply try harder and if he tries hard enough, he can succeed. Complaining about racism past a certain point is a crutch, because it removes the responsibility for success from the individual as he can always blame the "other" for not getting that job and so forth.
Wow! I'm impressed. Gotta give you props, I didn't think anyone was actually asinine enough to deliver a genuine, honest-to-goodness "try harder or cry moar" rugged individualism screed.
I think you're a fucking semiprivledged to privledged white anglo-saxon (probably protestant, at least nominally,) most-likely suburban or housing-development
moron who doesn't have the faintest fucking idea what being any race other than white is like, and probably not even a good idea of what someone of another race even looks like outside of ridiculous caricatures. I'll admit, I don't know what it's like to be anything but white either, but I'm not such a fucking moron that I'll tell another race to "grow a thick skin" if they don't like what's being said about them for no good reason.
Racism can never be completely eliminated, people will keep their thoughts to themselves, they might not hire someone because they are black but they will never admit as much, and there is nothing the German government can do about it, and the loss of freedom caused by hiring quotas just aren't worth the trouble for the meager benefit they would deliver. Freedom once lost, is hard to regain, as a German you should know that.
You have this
bizzare fetish for Germany, you know that? Now you're espousing the idea that blacks and other minorities should just shut up and take the effects of the silent-but-insidious form of racism that winds up with resumes being filed in the circular bin because the name on it sounds "darkie," because any regulation on it would represent an unacceptable loss of the freedom of someone to... Fuck over someone in a very real and tangible way?
