sh*thole countries

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I don't know too many Shiites.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Great defense
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Raider Ronnie]

Originally Posted by Nebe

There’s this cool term. It’s called “acting presidential”. The president is required to inspire us to do our best. He’s our leader. What we have is a classless douche who’s obviously a narcissist. Sad.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I’ll bet you thought Bill Clinton #^&#^&#^&#^&ing any & every woman he could, willing or not, was presidential !
Did he Inspire you ?
How about Hillary threatening some of the women he raped, did she inspire you ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Here is an interesting article about immigration and you can read the sources also.
Surprise, immigrants have always typically been poor people, even Norwegians.
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsan...ut-we-once-did

This was an interesting article which, though it may not be its intention, supports Jim's idea that importing low skilled people can have a negative impact on the economy of the immigrant receiving country. As in this from the article:

"Back then Norway was quite poor. Wages were less than a third of what they were in the United States. And the wave of emigration out of the country quickly benefited those who remained. That's because it reduced the supply of workers in Norway, so those left behind could demand higher wages. And this helped narrow Norway's wage gap with the U.S. by 25 percent over that same 40-year period, putting Norway on the path toward its status today as one of world's most prosperous nations."

So reducing the supply of workers allows the remaining workers the ability to get higher wages. And, conversely, as in Norway when it had excess workers, (and was a sh*thole) it decreases the wage potential of the receiving country by supplying it with more unskilled workers thus making it easier to fill the demand for them and to pay lower wages because of the competition for jobs. (And thus creates pockets of sh*tholes.)

Norway became "one of the world's most prosperous nations" today by dumping a whole lot of their low skill workers into America. And, today, many American low skill citizens are unemployed, on welfare, and those who are employed are paid less because there is an over supply of them.

Now, the notion that Trump is off the mark when he would rather have immigrants from Norway than unskilled ones from sh*tholes because the past immigrants from Norway were just as unskilled and poor as are those from present day sh*tholes is not, at least if this article is correct, off the mark. The immigrants from Norway today would not be the same as the ignorant, unskilled ones of the past. That's the point of why he would prefer immigrants from places like Norway of today. He wants the kind of immigrants who made Norway one of the most prosperous countries in the world.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

This was an interesting article which, though it may not be its intention, supports Jim's idea that importing low skilled people can have a negative impact on the economy of the immigrant receiving country. As in this from the article:

"Back then Norway was quite poor. Wages were less than a third of what they were in the United States. And the wave of emigration out of the country quickly benefited those who remained. That's because it reduced the supply of workers in Norway, so those left behind could demand higher wages. And this helped narrow Norway's wage gap with the U.S. by 25 percent over that same 40-year period, putting Norway on the path toward its status today as one of world's most prosperous nations."

So reducing the supply of workers allows the remaining workers the ability to get higher wages. And, conversely, as in Norway when it had excess workers, (and was a sh*thole) it decreases the wage potential of the receiving country by supplying it with more unskilled workers thus making it easier to fill the demand for them and to pay lower wages because of the competition for jobs. (And thus creates pockets of sh*tholes.)

Norway became "one of the world's most prosperous nations" today by dumping a whole lot of their low skill workers into America. And, today, many American low skill citizens are unemployed, on welfare, and those who are employed are paid less because there is an over supply of them.

Now, the notion that Trump is off the mark when he would rather have immigrants from Norway than unskilled ones from sh*tholes because the past immigrants from Norway were just as unskilled and poor as are those from present day sh*tholes is not, at least if this article is correct, off the mark. The immigrants from Norway today would not be the same as the ignorant, unskilled ones of the past. That's the point of why he would prefer immigrants from places like Norway of today. He wants the kind of immigrants who made Norway one of the most prosperous countries in the world.

That was over a hundred years ago.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

That was over a hundred years ago.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We can all read. Why are you essentially repeating a not terribly significant bit of information that's in the article?

[detbuch]

Immigration is used, admits a Democrat, as a means to gain political power.

http://www.gopusa.com/?p=37084?omhide=true

The memo states that: “The fight to protect Dreamers is not only a moral imperative, it is also a critical component of the Democratic Party’s future electoral success,”

“If Democrats don’t try to do everything in their power to defend Dreamers, that will jeopardize Democrats’ electoral chances in 2018 and beyond,” Palmieri concluded her memo to Democratic leaders.

[detbuch]

The U.N. classifies Haiti very low on its human development index:

http://hdr.undp.org/en/composite/HDI

The U.N. is racist.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

We can all read. Why are you essentially repeating a not terribly significant bit of information that's in the article?

I was under the assumption a little critical thinking would draw out my intent.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Immigration is used, admits a Democrat, as a means to gain political power.

http://www.gopusa.com/?p=37084?omhide=true

The memo states that: “The fight to protect Dreamers is not only a moral imperative, it is also a critical component of the Democratic Party’s future electoral success,”

“If Democrats don’t try to do everything in their power to defend Dreamers, that will jeopardize Democrats’ electoral chances in 2018 and beyond,” Palmieri concluded her memo to Democratic leaders.

The idea that supporting a policy most Americans agree with that will bring crucial Hispanic support is in any way a gotcha is absurd.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Great defense
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I do get praised for my good defense in our Thur. night basketball games

[Pete F.]

Now combine low skilled immigrants with this and reach a logical conclusion:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.2c43446e79f5

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Now combine low skilled immigrants with this and reach a logical conclusion:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.2c43446e79f5

The article admits that we have a low fertility rate and that it is a problem. But it avoids a deeper analysis of why that is. It claims that Republican policies are the problem. However, it doesn't mention that low birth rates, even lower than in the U.S., are endemic to all Western societies, especially in Europe which has the kind of economic policies that the article says Republicans should promote.

It doesn't mention the impact of the thousands of babies aborted every year for convenience. It doesn't mention leftists policies that push free birth control. It doesn't mention environmentalist's (I'm sure WAPO is in favor of environmentalist policies) call for lowering population numbers. It doesn't talk about Progressive deconstruction of genders which normalizes various sexualities which don't reproduce. It doesn't reflect on life style choices in the West that call for less and later birth choices--it claims that these choices are due to economic policies. It takes money to raise children. If you want more and better things, having less or no children helps to pay for that.

But it's not that middle or upper America can't afford more children. It's that they choose not to for what Ryan might consider selfish reasons.

It's the poorer (and yes "minorities are a large part of the poor) who are more "careless" about getting pregnant, who we want to get, and to help get, abortions. But we already have policies to help the poor raise children. The child tax credit favors middle and upper income families way more than the poor. And the middle and upper can afford children, but choose to have less or none or later because they value more goodies than more children.

The article blames the Republican tax plan for potentially suppressing birth rates. But lower birth rates have occurred already before the implementation of the tax plan. And the plan gives some more money back to the lower economic ladder. And generous European social welfare plans do not help boost birth rates. If the resulting lower birth rates are any evidence, they seem to suppress or lower birth rates.

So, rather than change the Western cultural shift which trends toward pleasure rather than parenthood, the article suggests that since the Republicans won't fix our "demographic difficulties" with government economic manipulation, we should resort to immigration to fill the void. It doesn't explore what demographic and cultural changes will result from such a solution. Perhaps the WAPO, being leftist, knows the change would favor the election of Progressives to power and the ensuing growth and power of government--the power of the State rather than of the individual. And that is perfectly reasonable for those who have been acculturated into the me-without-responsibility type or offshoot of individualism--the selfish "me generation" Boomers who have now come of age in the power circles of our country. Those who have accepted the Faustian bargain of selling their souls to the power of government to take care of all their society's functional needs as well as many of their personal ones so that they can spend their time and money on having the materially "good life."

Western Europe, especially Germany, has long used immigration as a means to supplement its working class to compensate for it's low fertility rates. It is now reaping an unanticipated result. There has been a demographic shift from a Post WWII freer democratic society to a more authoritarian one where the "native" Europeans have less to say about a maintenance of their characteristic cultures and are forced to change into a global view of their identity. And as the immigrant families have higher birth rates complimented with the continuing influx of even more numerous immigration from other cultures antithetic to the European's own, European culture is gradually replaced. Culturally and individually complex Western civilization "evolves" into a homogenous one world dominated by a strong "politically correct" centralized government, but a weak population of disempowered (but nice "life style" for the few better offs) citizens.

Ultimately, the responsibility of maintaining a free society rests on the people, not the government. Government is the antithesis of freedom. The more powerful and expansive the government is, the less free are individuals. The old adage still applies to a free society--that government which governs least, governs best."

Selfishness has its good use. What you are selfish about determines the type and quality of life you have in a free society. Of course, under forms of predominantly authoritarian government you have limited ability to be selfish. In a society of free people, if you make the wrong selfish choices, you endanger your freedom. If you choose not to produce the next generation that will maintain your culture of freedom, the children you do produce may well lose that freedom. If you are selfish to preserve that which you consider being free and being good, you had better not constrain your natural drive of bearing children to the point that there are not enough to maintain what you desire.

And then, there is also that Progressive contradiction--the notion that we must somehow preserve the natural world against our degradation of it. Yet, there is this unnatural predilection of progressives to denature us. To make us these automatons of the State who can be manipulated into various genders and sexualities, who can be artificially manipulated from one class into another, who can be transformed into a universal "correctness" in which we are somehow "diverse" yet essentially the same and equal. Somehow, the power in the natural universe must not be endangered by humans, but the natural proclivities and power of humans must be molded into a preferred image concocted by some supposedly super class of technocrats. And the triumph of this ideology, of course, will solve all problems including the obsolescence of nations and cultures and discriminations and any need to "immigrate" or to choose life styles or to choose the number of children to have. The "nature" of child birth is reduced to some form of central planning. And the embedded, artificially created and implanted notion of some blissfully controlled future surely has an effect, subliminally if not actually, on the psyche of those when they think about having children.

But more to the immediate point, if you choose to keep bringing in more people from other cultures who have different views of government and different selfish goals, and they have birth rates which exponentially and naturally expand, while your birth rates fall below even replacement numbers naturally devolve into a smaller and disappearing population, then the "logical conclusion" is obvious.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

"But more to the immediate point, if you choose to keep bringing in more people from other cultures who have different views of government and different selfish goals, and they have birth rates which exponentially and naturally expand, while your birth rates fall below even replacement numbers naturally devolve into a smaller and disappearing population, then the "logical conclusion" is obvious."

We will get browner?
Or less Christian?
Luckily I am an acceptable blend: One grandparent heritage from new Amsterdam and ones heritage from england with a recent swede and recent norwegian, I assume that did not dilute the Master Race.
You don't think it costs a lot to have a child in the USA?
And what do you get for spending the long dollar?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...rth-in-america

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

That was over a hundred years ago.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So supply and demand was a real thing 100 years ago, but sometime after that, it ceased to exist?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So supply and demand was a real thing 100 years ago, but sometime after that, it ceased to exist?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So why did America not suffer from the influx of all those immigrants from Norway when they arrived ? This counters your argument it doesn’t support it. And after 20 some years those from Norway were making 20% less the native born workers very similar to today’s immigrants
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[TheSpecialist]

Exactly, better than even under Obama, and his approval rating among black minorities is up too

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Black unemployment is at an historical low. If he's a white supremacist, he's not a very good white supremacist.

He's an unbelievable jerk.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

"But more to the immediate point, if you choose to keep bringing in more people from other cultures who have different views of government and different selfish goals, and they have birth rates which exponentially and naturally expand, while your birth rates fall below even replacement numbers naturally devolve into a smaller and disappearing population, then the "logical conclusion" is obvious."
We will get browner?
Or less Christian?
Luckily I am an acceptable blend: One grandparent heritage from new Amsterdam and ones heritage from england with a recent swede and recent norwegian, I assume that did not dilute the Master Race.
You don't think it costs a lot to have a child in the USA?
And what do you get for spending the long dollar?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...rth-in-america

Are you trying to instill race into my point of view? If you believe that brown people, whatever you mean by that, cannot have the same view on government as that on which this country was founded, perhaps you're a racist.

And I congratulate you on your acceptable blend of white European people. My blend may not be as acceptable to you. It has some different colors in it, different cultures, different religions, but I choose to adhere to the founding governmental principles of this country. And I don't know which race is the master. It seems that different parts of the world have different racial masters. Ask the Chinese which is the Master Race.

If all people are fungible, then it doesn't matter if you replace home grown people on whom we have spent resources, blood and treasure, to educate and acculturate to American values of individual freedom and limited government, with anybody else from anywhere in the world. If all people are equally replaceable, nothing fundamental will change with waves of immigration.

But if all people are fungible, then why do we have so many of our own who will not do what folks from other countries will? And why do so many of our own prefer socialism to free markets? If bringing in millions to provide the labor that we lack to run the market system we have, how are we assured that they will not essentially be the same fungible types as those who are born here and would rather be dependent on government. And who will not, with higher fertility rates, produce even more of those who are socialist minded, thus requiring even more immigrants who we hope will provide us the labor to sustain what will become an overwhelming mass who are dependent on the labor of others.

Under socialism, there is no need to import people. All the able bodied people must work. In a free market system, people cannot be forced by government to work. They must be personally motivated to work. One sure way of destroying a free market system is to dilute the motivation to work by creating an overweening welfare system. And then to top that off with a demand for forced equality. Then, ironically, bringing in millions more to do what our welfare recipients won't, and who will then participate in and add, with their fecundity, to the same systemic problem. Which will eventually overburden a free market's ability to sustain. The answer then, will be to instill a form of true socialism.

It's curious that you posted an article which showed Norway's success in transforming its status from a sh*thole to one of the most prosperous countries by dumping masses of its poor into this country, but now you seem to accept that bringing in masses of the poor from sh*thole countries will benefit us. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

And, yes I know the cost of raising children. But passing the cost off to society does not lower it. When society takes on cost, it raises taxes or borrows (which is a hidden way of passing on the cost back to us, especially to the children for whom we were given money to raise). There is a level of governmental funding beyond which it becomes unsustainable. Government funding costs are already unsustainable. Funding even more to make it easier for a mass influx of low wage immigrants who have a high birth rate is far more destructive of an economy than helpful.

We are given, by nature, the motivation to have children. It is an essential feature of being living creatures. We humans have this fabulous ability to sidestep nature and to create ever increasingly unnatural worlds. Do you think that the masses of natural breeders will have some children and many grandchildren who won't want to participate in all the artificial wonders. And who won't sidestep nature by not reproducing at sufficient rates.

Our problem, as a society, stems from our own disconnect with our fundamental nature. And it is an extremely seductive disconnect. Immigration cannot solve it. We have enough people. We shouldn't have to import more. The imports or their progeny will succumb to the same problem. And it will either bankrupt us, or we will go whole hog and create an entirely regulated system which determines how many . . . and whom. Some say AI is the answer--evolving into computerized robots.

Or we can more seriously reconnect with our inherent, somewhat messy but freedom loving natural humanity with its love of children, having, and raising them. And securing that free and loving way of life for them.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

So why did America not suffer from the influx of all those immigrants from Norway when they arrived ? This counters your argument it doesn’t support it. And after 20 some years those from Norway were making 20% less the native born workers very similar to today’s immigrants
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

At that time, we didn't have poor Americans who would not do what the poor immigrants will do. At that time, there was actually a shortage of and a need for workers in an expanding market economy. Now we are told that we have a supply of Americans who simply won't do what immigrants will do for the wages they will accept. So we have an artificial need for workers. And the system that allows for people not to work and still get by, will entice a lot of immigrants (if we allow a lot) to take advantage of such benefits. And their children and grandchildren will certainly learn the American way of avoiding doing what immigrants will do, and so will enlarge the problem and create the constant need to import more people, and the cycle will continue until a big enough crisis occurs to finally do something to stop it. That something may be more undesirable than the cycle itself. Or it might be a good thing. Whatever it is, it will be necessary.

We are already seeing the cycle occurring. We have had floods of immigrants, legal and illegal, since the 1960's. But that has not solved our so-called shortage of labor problem. We still, supposedly, need more.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I was under the assumption a little critical thinking would draw out my intent.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

My post did quite a bit of critical thinking. You post here did none.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

The idea that supporting a policy most Americans agree with that will bring crucial Hispanic support is in any way a gotcha is absurd.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It wasn't a gotcha, it was factual evidence, proof, that the Dems use immigration as a means to get power. And the "most Americans agree with" meme is conjured up with a great deal of moral sounding propaganda supported by a willing Progressive press. And "crucial Hispanic support" is part of the symbiotic relationship that the Democrat party needs to persuade various minority groups to vote for it. It thrives on dividing us into group rights which it promises to enforce. It divides us to win. They may call it a moral imperative. But it is an immoral, deceitful way of creating a Progressive system of government. They pretend to support a constitutional system of government which guaranties some elusive "equality" for all, but will actually nullify the Constitution and subjugate us all to that which their experts decide is good for us.

[detbuch]

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

At that time, we didn't have poor Americans who would not do what the poor immigrants will do. need more.

oh ok .. and the welfare argument

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

It's curious that you posted an article which showed Norway's success in transforming its status from a sh*thole to one of the most prosperous countries by dumping masses of its poor into this country,

We actually got more people from Sweden during the same time period then from Norway sent a higher % .. which is the size of new Mexico ...
So to praise Norway as becoming one of the most prosperous countries is not really True for that time period and that took like 60-to 70 years to make the transition

More time machine reasoning comparing today with something that happened over 100 years ago.. So lets go back to the roman days i am sure we could find an event that you could use as well

it is true that today ...Norway it is ranked 1st
on the Legatum Prosperity Index 2017 and the USA 18th

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

They pretend to support a constitutional system of government which guaranties some elusive "equality" for all, but will actually nullify the Constitution and subjugate us all to that which their experts decide is good for us.

You think Trump and the republicans are supporters a constitutional system of government???

you mat need to think again their action contradict your observation

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

We can all read. Why are you essentially repeating a not terribly significant bit of information that's in the article?

Becaus it's terribly significant.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

It wasn't a gotcha, it was factual evidence, proof, that the Dems use immigration as a means to get power. And the "most Americans agree with" meme is conjured up with a great deal of moral sounding propaganda supported by a willing Progressive press. And "crucial Hispanic support" is part of the symbiotic relationship that the Democrat party needs to persuade various minority groups to vote for it. It thrives on dividing us into group rights which it promises to enforce. It divides us to win. They may call it a moral imperative. But it is an immoral, deceitful way of creating a Progressive system of government. They pretend to support a constitutional system of government which guaranties some elusive "equality" for all, but will actually nullify the Constitution and subjugate us all to that which their experts decide is good for us.

It means they are acting in the interests of their constituents.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

oh ok .. and the welfare argument

?????????????????????????

[PaulS]

Maybe Trump called Haiti a shiitehouse bc he knew the story of his paying off hookers to keep quit was about to break.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

Exactly, better than even under Obama, and his approval rating among black minorities is up too

What because Trump says so and his news network Fox says so, I'd say it ain't so.


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/17/u...s-support.html

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

We actually got more people from Sweden during the same time period then from Norway sent a higher % .. which is the size of new Mexico ...
So to praise Norway as becoming one of the most prosperous countries is not really True for that time period and that took like 60-to 70 years to make the transition

Yes, as the article implied, Norway was a sh*thole at that time. Shipping out its poor unskilled allowed it to gradually get out of the hole and rise to prosperity. From sh*thole to #1 in 60 years is not an easy task. Know any other countries that have done that. And, along the way there was a constant rise to get there. Norway didn't, nor has anyone else risen from the bottom to the top immediately.


More time machine reasoning comparing today with something that happened over 100 years ago.. So lets go back to the roman days i am sure we could find an event that you could use as well

Historians make such comparisons all the time. What is your time limit for searching the past for how political and human actions affect society?

it is true that today ...Norway it is ranked 1st
on the Legatum Prosperity Index 2017 and the USA 18th

And . . . .