sh*thole countries

[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

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

[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

[Pete F.]

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

[Sea Dangles]

Never mind, I already know the answer.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Never mind, I already know the answer.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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

[Jim in CT]

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

no one will deny that he's not presidential.

"The president is required to inspire us to do our best"

That's not remotely close to what I teach my kids. Our history is full of presidents who were not great role models. Not to Trump's magnitude, I grant that.

"He’s our leader"

true. And in many respects, especially the economy, he's a great leader. Nebe, I have always worked for large businesses. I'd rather have a world-class pr*ck as my CEO, who can outsmart my competition...than a well-meaning idiot who can't do anything right.

"What we have is a classless douche who’s obviously a narcissist. Sad."

He is all of those things. But that doesn't come close to meaning that he's not a good leader.

[Sea Dangles]

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 agree wholeheartedly except with the president inspiring us. Not happening now,didn't used to happen for me. What about you, did a certain president inspire you?
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

[PaulS]

now the claim is that instead of Trump saying Shiitehole he said shiitehouse. yeah that changes the intent or the underlying sentiment. What a bunch of clowns.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

now the claim is that instead of Trump saying Shiitehole he said shiitehouse.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Clintonian...

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by PaulS

now the claim is that instead of Trump saying Shiitehole he said shiitehouse. yeah that changes the intent or the underlying sentiment. What a bunch of clowns.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Does this imply that you don't like shiites?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Does this imply that you don't like shiites?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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

[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

[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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Here are some great examples of why Trump is labeled a racist.
In my eyes, when I see people defend this douchebag, I just see another racist or closet racist. Especially when they say ' everyone thinks these things, he just says what he thinks'.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...imes&smtyp=cur

The only item in that list of supposed racisms that is more solid rather than innuendo, guilt by association, or outright misrepresentation, is Trump supposedly saying "laziness is a trait in blacks." But I would have to see the full context. And we may have some preconception of a particular trait in a race (many previous anthropologists, such as Margaret Meade, have claimed various traits in tribes or races based on their personal observations that proved out to be too selective or more general in human nature). And while we may comment on one perceived negative trait, we may have other perceptions of that race that are positive. For most of us who have not studied racial characteristics in depth and in a scientific manner, we fall prey to stereotypes. If you believe the stereotype that the Irish are drunkards, it won't necessarily mean that you dislike the Irish or think that they are inferior. If you say that white men can't jump, that doesn't mean you believe white men are inferior. Obviously, even if there were some genetic trait in the Irish to drink in excess, most probably don't. And some white men can jump. And you may just carelessly be latching on to a stereotype.

As for the rest of the article, my opinion is that it is mostly misinformation, and deliberately so. I was particularly amused by one large section presenting the titles of articles in Breitbart as some indication of racism. Really? The title of an article? Correctly reading the articles, as I did with the Milo Yiannopoulos article, doesn't bare out the supposed racism that your article claims to be inherent in their titles. And Breitbart is not Trump, anyway. And assuming guilt by association is deceitful.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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

you mat need to think again their action contradict your observation

If you don't want to, or can't, actually have a thorough discussion on what is constitutional, then don't pretend you're making any point with this post.

[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 spence

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

Thought you didn't approve of circle jerks.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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 . . . .