Well, nothing is ever really cut and dry so it's good to approach everything with an inquiring mind. As for links, I have done the "link dump" before so I don't think it's worth it again. I would say focusing it on one thing is unlikely to provide you the total picture you want as the topic is huge and complex.

If you want the easy statistical way to get a feel for the data just look at the intergenerational wealth reports. If "I have no chance because I wasn't born rich" can be disproved by 10% of people go from lowest 20% to highest 20% in their life then it makes it easy to know what the range of reasonable discourse is. Now you are just into arguing why it's not a perfect distribution, does that matter, and is there actually some better way?

Yes, I agree on the millionaire studies all have flaws (as do most studies) but almost any study trumps anecdotal information. So just above you have a long-term governmental report on intergenerational wealth, a set of self-funded reports on millionaires, and an industry report on how familial wealth is maintained over time which all say basically the same thing we know there is some stickiness between generations but its not anywhere on the order of what is usually claimed.

Rejoice (or despair) it looks like you really are (mostly) the captain of your own ship.

What type of statistic do you want?

Last USA intergenerational wealth report I read said that all quintiles are more likely to move to a different quintile than stay in the one they were born into. Also, the high to low transfer was about 10% which doesn't seem too shabby. It does seem like there is significant opportunities out there (in both directions).

How about percentage of millionaires that are "self made"? There are a whole raft of studies that say it's in the 75%-85% range.

Finally, outside a few families that seem to be doing it really well most don't stay rich. Studies show by second generation 70% of families are no longer wealthy and by the third generation 90% are no longer wealthy.

Well, another random quote that I can't seem to find anywhere. I presume it's something ascribed to Krik. The middle (not being incompetent) and the end (hating hate is a leftist saying easy to identify by its self-contradiction) sound both like him and seem pretty true. Want to share the context and argue if it was true in the end? I mean truth is what matters in the end isn't it, or have you entirely given up on the idea?

A nice list. If I hadn't commented on this thread I would up-vote you for the pure density of it.

Interesting that you consider that post ironic. Or that you think I made an account decades ago to post on irony today. Or for that matter that the person posting primarily during nighttime hours in the target location doesn't have a job.

So, Mr poor conclusions what type of point would you like? Yes, now that you mention it there is some irony that the people trying to kill election deniers now say the winners are not chosen by the people. Also, its always comical when a group wants to be "in service of the people" by using the force of government which is why they are not to be trusted. The only good politician is the one that you watch closely enough that he/she has no other choice but to be good.

*sigh* You made me actually have to go lookup these random crap talking points. God, these look like they are from that crap source Media Matters no less...

First one is a quote discussing not doing a prisoner swap for a marine but instead doing one for a WNBA player that got herself into trouble. He listed what the leftists thought were the salient characteristics (with the marine obviously being worth less). Sorry, I don't see discrimination there, other than the really old school definition where you can tell your ass from a hole in the ground.

The second one I can't find the video of but I dislike it because the frequency is overstated however exaggeration has been the name of the game for quite a while now. That being said without context I can only presume we are talking about things like the knockout game and we do know that has some racial targeting (although I would say Asian is also quite targeted). Sorry, its not raciest to tell the truth and there would need to be greater context to know.

The third one in context is just like the GP and the expanded quote says that he hates that by constantly pushing quotas and affirmative action when you hit these situations you have to wonder about the competency of the other individual because it is known that they are not promoting for competency above all else. Almost exactly like when encountering a nepo-baby or what I expect 75 years ago looked like in the south (with reversed races).

The last one is interesting and I am at least glad you quoted the right one not the one that says "all black women" as that one is a straight up slander from what I can tell. The context is that these are four women that came out and said that affirmative action is the reason for them getting where they are, so the list is perfectly rational. The idea that they think its racist for him to say it but not them is a telling point. I think the "white person's slot" is over blown as statistics say that it would probably have been two Asians and two Whites if it was by merit (probably 3:1 today). So, the only thing left is the brainpower part which is impossible to judge from out here. If you start with the idea that this is all a race hustle then it looks pretty true. If you think they are just your ideological gods then its false. In neither case does it seem racist.

So, as has probably been told to you innumerable times over the last 20 years, the definition of racist isn't that it disagrees with your sacred cows.

Ah dog whistles, that thing where Democrats ascribe their evil to others? I like the term projection better.

In context the guy was clearly saying that if you let one group off with lower qualifications then people will rightly wonder about any member of that groups qualifications in the future. All around poor for everyone.

Wow the KKK worried about qualifications?
Come on be real all they worried about was if people were black. Sounds awfully similar to one party today doesn't it...

I really am unsure which definition is more comical. One smacks of election denial and the other of extreme naivete.

Oh and I don't count that one as terroristic, just normal bad taste.

I know isn't it sad that Democrats caused that by constantly focusing on race. I guess Obama is right that's definitely one thing I didn't build.

Say it with me in a kiddy singsong voice, we are going to turn the page, turn the page...

Hot damn, I spotted the racist post. Can I get a sexist and a terroristic one to make a hat trick?

In general? All of them. They all say it at some time. None of them mean it as anything more than a slogan. It's like the rule of law in that way. We as humans like to say it but almost nobody likes to believe it.

On this issue at this time however, it appears to be the far left (punch a Nazi vibe). Although I think it could easily be the militant right too if you came up with the correct issue to work them up.

I am sorry you feel this way. Obviously you have not had your daily allowance of Hate-Ee-Ohs. Please stay tuned so we can help you with that.

--the_party_of_peace (sometimes)