Gloominary wrote:Healthy and happy workers (like the ones in say Germany, who work less than Americans and Brits but're more productive) manufacture high quality products, not sickly, suicidal ones.
The only people benefitting from domestic and foreign cheap labor, is the wealthy internationalists, not 1st world consumers, nor 3rd world producers.
We should be boycotting China, and corporations who hire illegals at home.
Gloominary wrote:Forcing your employees to work 14 hours a day, 7 days a week in hazardous, perilous conditions for a bowl of rice a day in a country with grossly substandard quality control, certainly doesn't increase the quality of products being manufactured, it decreases it, it merely increases the quantity, not to mention, it's inhumane.
Healthy and happy workers (like the ones in say Germany, who work less than Americans and Brits but're more productive) manufacture high quality products, not sickly, suicidal ones.
The only people benefitting from domestic and foreign cheap labor, is the wealthy internationalists, not 1st world consumers, nor 3rd world producers.
We should be boycotting China, and corporations who hire illegals at home.
Gloominary wrote:@SerendipperProgressives are not gunning for white people, but against disparity.
If you think Mestizos, Mulattos and Muslims are going to treat whites as kindly as whites treat them today, when we're the minority, and they have most of the wealth and power, you got another thing coming.
Mestizos and Mulattos will say, the only way we can achieve genuine parity, is for whites to be brought to the brink of extinction the way Native Americans were,
or enslaved the way African Americans were,
and many, or most Muslims will say, finally we can finish the Islamization of the west our ancestors began.
Mass immigration (especially illegal, but also legal, and multicultural rather than assimilatory) can easily undermine a nations integrity, a prime example being Rome.
Just as the Roman empire fell to German immigrants, who weren't assimilated, the US and EU may very well fall to Mexican and/or Muslim immigrants.
They're trying to equal the playing field between weak and strong independent of color. Color is irrelevant.
Color, like the millions of other ways the races differ from one another, from cranial capacity to what diseases they're susceptible to, is relevant.
Some colors are better for surviving in some, many, most or all environments than others.
While every race has its strengths and weaknesses, and what constitutes a strength or weakness is somewhat dynamic, some races are a little, or a lot stronger than others.
There's no such thing as absolute parity between the races, just as there's none between individuals.
It's not a case of if, but how much stronger is X race than Y.
Conservatism is all about disparity and it's a core premise. Disparity of race; disparity of wealth; disparity of privilege. That's what it's about. Progressivism is the opposite.
If that's the case, than both are equally irrational.
When disparity is earned, and/or when it benefits who, or what I care about most, than I'm in favor of it, and conversely when it's not earned, and/or when it detriments who, or what I care about most, than I'm opposed to it.
No I'm not saying anyone deserves to be bombed, but that whites are a bigger terroristic threat than browns.
Firstly, while white countries can easily dominate most non-white countries when they choose to exert themselves, for they're more wealthy and powerful, I'm not so sure whites start more wars, or kill more people in war than non-whites.
Secondly, by terrorism, I meant mass murder committed by civilians for political gain, not by militaries.
911 wouldn't have happened if not for our presence in the middle east,
Tell that to victims of Islamic terror living in India, and all over the third world.
No it wouldn't've happened if we had a Muslim ban.
but what's the motive of Paddock in Vegas and all the other white terrorists shooting innocent people?
Muslims have been trying to Islamize Europe, Subsaharan Africa and South Asia for over a thousand years.
You seem to be under the impression that only whites oppress others.
I've got news for you, not just a couple or a few, but millions of individuals within other races want to subjugate, or destroy whites, and others.
In a roundabout way, you're the white supremacist here, for you believe only whites have been, are, and will be able to oppress other races.
Reasonable whites have to take steps to prevent, and prepare for a time when they may be oppressed again, which, by the looks of it, may not be far off.
Perhaps Paddock's terrorism can in part be blamed on white genocide, third wave feminism, the breakdown of the family, and the overthrow of western civilization, maybe all that helped drive him to it.
If you want to talk temperament, look at the Irish. Arabs are just uneducated. What's excuse of the Irish?
The Irish aren't known for committing terror against anyone other than the British, because they were oppressed by Brits for centuries, Brits took Northern Ireland from them.
However nowadays, the Irish rarely terrorize Brits.
And uneducated?
You seem to think education is the answer to everything.
At one time, Arabs were (far) more educated than Subsaharan Africans, Europeans and South Asians, but that didn't stop the former one from trying to takeover the latter three, did it?
And look what humans have done to nature, as we've gotten more educated about it.
Often we study things precisely because we want to learn how to more thoroughly dominate them.
Education can teach us there's limits to how much we can consume, but it doesn't necessarily stop us from consuming things to the limit, or beyond, hence modernity.
That recipe is guaranteed to backfire. Show me one instance where prosperity has not caused less reproduction. Show me one instance where adversity has not caused population explosions.
Less reproduction isn't good enough, they shouldn't reproduce at all, certainly not as much or more than people who work.
While the average person living in poverty may have 4 kids, and the middle class 2, the upper class may have 1.9, so there may be a cut off, where greater affluence increasingly doesn't impact birthrates.
Decline in birthrates may have more to do with greater access to contraception than affluence itself, which means we should be promoting contraception instead of affluence, as affluence harms the environment.
Greater affluence may still harm the environment more than reduced birthrates helps it.
Some classes and races, for cultural or genetic reasons, may have more kids than others, so even if we were to lift them out of poverty, they're birthrate may still exceed their death rate, again, see how eastern Europeans, Russians and Chinese are poor, yet have a low birthrate, and yes, while the Chinese have come a ways, they still have a long, long way to go to catch up with the west and Japan, assuming they can that is, some (sub)races may not be able to, Chinese GDP per capita is still several times lower than the west and Japan, I mean China is still trailing Brazil, Mexico and Russia.
Gloominary wrote:@SerendipperWe can't hurt nature. I appeal to George Carlin on this.
I'll appeal to the thousands of scientists who say we're on brink of mass extinction.
Being mean to them just makes more of them.
If a one child policy worked for China, it can probably work for our underclass.
Not according to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demograph ... e_1950.svg
According to Canadian psychologist Philippe Rushton, whites and east Asians are more K selective (nurturing offspring over quantity of offspring) than other races.
I mean, is it any wonder only East Asians (Japanese and South Koreans) have been able to emulate the west's success?
They have the biggest brains and highest iQs.
Prosperity = more environmental laws for conservatives to complain about. It's illegal to cut down a hardwood greater than 8 inches at breast height without permission in many if not all municipalities. In MN, it's illegal to ride an atv through a bog on your own land.
And environmental laws prevent unnecessary prosperity, as they ought to, unnecessary prosperity is the enemy of the environment.
We shouldn't consume a hell of a lot more than we need to.
The evidence doesn't support that. Go on a dating site and see who has the most kids (whites). See if you can find any browns or yellows with kids.
It's a fact brown people have 2 or 3 times more kids than whites and East Asians.
Yes and they've abandoned it now since the people are prosperous and not having enough kids.
Despite The End Of China's One-Child Policy, Births Are Still Lagging https://www.npr.org/2018/07/16/62936187 ... ll-lagging
China is poorer than Mexico per capita, yet they're having less kids.
Races, and cultures aren't the same, it's folly to treat them as tho they were.
The japs landed on an asteroid not long ago. https://www.space.com/41912-japanese-ho ... eroid.html
One exception doesn't disprove the rule, whites gave us the modern world, some races haven't given us anything.
I don't see it outside of an asteroid impact or something.
Thousands of scientists beg to differ.
AI won't take over. They're too intelligent. Intelligence = peace.
Tell that to the thousands of species that've gone extinct, and the thousands of species that've been subjugated, thanks to man.
Jacque Fresco said it was possible in the 70s
They also told us we'd cure AIDS and cancer by now, and I'm still waiting for my flying car and my ray gun.
Nah we just need the old folks to get out of the way. Go fishing and stay out of the voting booth.
Young folks tend to get more conservative as they age.
There's a time to progress, and a time to conserve, in the 21st century, now more than ever, we need to find creative ways to conserve, not only the environment, but what remains of our race and, some of its customs, not progress.
Wealth disparity correlates with the decline in inventions.
Resources allow creative people to be more creative.
Creative people should have more resources than uncreative people, if we want to increase creativity.
I agree that a country without borders is not a country (for the same reason infinity doesn't exist), but this country was founded on immigration and hardly anyone is indigenous.
It was founded on legal, European immigration till 1965.
And indigenous is somewhat of a social construct (well, perhaps everything in science, and thought is, but perhaps this in particular).
How many millennia, or centuries does something have to be confined to a land, with no, or 'little' external influence before becoming indigenous?
Europeans have been settling the Americas at least since the Vikings over a millennium ago.
And so called 'Native Americans' are more European now than Native American after centuries of miscegenation with us, which's why I call them mestizos.
Not unless you're referring to the Amish. They are the only whites I can think of who have a decent work ethic. Everyone else is looking for a way out of work.
Whites tend to work hard, and they don't cause too much trouble...at least within their borders, that's why we're prosperous, and others are poor.
Animals or machines do it. Or the work is not hard.
The point is whites can do it, we don't need illegals.
Gloominary wrote:@SerendipperI don't entirely disagree with you as it does seem a waste for one guy to tie-up resources, but I think you're presupposing that "development" is better than undeveloped unless by "developed" you mean managed (like a state park which is undeveloped but managed).
I have mixed feelings about this and would probably have to judge on a case by case basis. If a guy is hoarding land with no real plan for it and isn't managing the land, but letting invasive species take over, then maybe there is a case to be made that he should be compelled to justify his continued ownership if the land could be put under better stewardship by someone else.
I also feel this way about money in that if someone is hoarding money with no productive use for it then maybe the community by virtue of numbers should gangup and take it back. An example is Bezos using his fortune to explore space rather than feed people on earth or some other more pressing need that could be addressed with that money rather than doing what NASA does anyway. One man shouldn't have control of that many of society's resources. I'm not against private property, but that is too much.
If someone doesn't develop their land soon, say within a year, even if they're paying taxes on it, it should be returned to the commons.
From there, either government can develop, or designate it a national park/nature reserve, or another private entity can develop it, or it can be left undeveloped until someone does.
I don't disagree, but that is a slippery slope that gives me pause. When we say that ownership is contingent upon obscure notions like "productive use", then ownership is determined by one's ability to perpetually defend their position in court against an onslaught of people who claim they could be more productive with it. I could assume ownership of this site merely by claiming I could serve society better than Carleas, so anything would be up for grabs based on pipe dreams.
I just meant that someone has to, umm, unambiguously, if you will, develop land, in order to own it, not that it should belong to whoever claims they can develop it most.
Morality went out the window when we said might makes right. Anyway, society, by virtue of numbers, determines what morality is, so morality is just an intermediate step bridging the gap between might and right which fools us into believing that morality isn't still might making right.
Might is to right what apples are to oranges.
Might is about what you can do, right is about what you, or others think you, or others ought to do.
Not everyone with might does the same thing with it, psychopaths have different considerations than men and women of compassion and conscience (which's not to say men and women of compassion and conscience can't also be selfish, or that compassion and conscience are necessarily incompatible with selfishness, or that compassion and conscience can't manifest differently in different people or circumstances).
You're talking about what you think is right all over the place, irrespective of what the bourgeoise, bureaucrats (qualitative might) and proletariat (quantitative might) think, I don't know why you won't talk about it here.
Trump would have beat any republican because he was the not-politician candidate which appeals to republicans,
If that were true, non-politician republicans would win every term.
And if republicans didn't value education, every republican politician would be uneducated.
While republicans may not value formal political education quite as much as democrats, because more republicans are rural, and weary of leftist state education (whereas more democrats are urban, and weary of the rightist church), they still value it, it's a wild exaggeration to say they don't.
And what Trump lacks in formal political education, he makes up for in worldliness.
Trump lost the popular vote
People vote differently because of the electoral college, for example, a lot of republicans in California and New York didn't even bother voting, for they knew their vote wouldn't count in all probability.
Hillary had a lot of baggage
So did Trump, accusations of racism and sexism, Russian collusion, tax evasion, etcetera.
woman
I think a lot of people wanted a woman for a change, they were just too worried about illegals, Muslims and offshoring to take a chance on one this election.
Anyone without all those issues would have wiped the floor with Trump.
She beat the other democratic candidates, who didn't have all those issues, and Trump beat her, so he probably would've beat them too.
He doesn't even represent his fans because he's not pro-gun, he raised their taxes (tariffs, online sales tax, proposed a gas tax), filled the white house with jewish bankers, and he supports perpetual 0% interest rates. His only redeeming attribute is he's unimaginably stupid which is what resonates with his fans while he's screwing them.
That tells you republicans were less concerned about guns and so on, and more about illegals, Muslims and offshoring.
If his IQ is triple digits. I'll eat my hat.
He's smarter than that plodding, mumbling, stuttering Obama.
It's not a mischaracterization, but it is gross. Check your local paper and see who is committing the most crime.
Here are some examples:
Mestizos, Mulattos and others commit more crime than whites, per capita.
I can't imagine how we will not be a global society one day. How are we to transition from a class zero society to a class 1 or 2 with power to move stars and intergalactic travel if we're still bickering about race?
Firstly, at this point in time, a class 1 or 2 society is science fiction.
Secondly, I don't want to put all my eggs into one basket, having one culture, nation and race makes us vulnerable, because if they fail, we won't've anything to fall back on + we can't as effectively specialize.
My point was the worker's rights. A society is only as rich as the poorest members and the Europeans take care of their poor.
Worker's rights?
The poorest people in society don't work at all.
I say a society is only as rich as the sustainably productive are sustainably prosperous.
And both the unproductive (the underclass, and the overclass), and the unsustainably productive (them who mainly needlessly produce/consume) should be less prosperous than the sustainably productive (them who mainly needfully produce/consume).
What I'm proposing here is a little bit different than the traditional left/right paradigm.
The US has been trending the opposite direction and we have the weak growth to show for it.
I thought you said disparity/exploitation = growth?
Immigration is irrelevant to growth except to the extent they can be made into slaves.
economic growth isn't necessarily a zero sum game, at least for humans, individuals and groups can work together to more effectively exploit nature than they could alone for the benefit of all, or exclusively, or predominantly for the benefit of the (most) (sustainably) productive.
Well even if we open the flood gates and let the world pour in, you'd still have your white community of like-minded people right?
My community is now majority brown.
What's the difference? If your neighbor is brown, you say hello and go about your business. What difference does it make? Maybe I can see a point if they are cooking your food, but vocal interaction shouldn't be a problem.
I want to be surrounded mostly by people who reason and look like me.
The races differ, not just on the outside, but on the inside, their personalities, differ, the way they think, differs.
And to that you can add cultural differences.
So the analogy is planting one type of grass (monostand) as opposed to many types; they don't interbreed, but coexist on the same plot. The monostand looks nicer, but is much harder to maintain without having large bald spots that fill with weeds.
Some people will interbreed resulting in new breeds in addition to the ones who choose to preserve their heritage. Keeping them separate results in bald spots.
Most whites will choose to breed with whites and most browns will choose to breed with browns and some will intermix giving us 3 lines of defense against extinction rather than 2. Add the yellows and we have 3 purebreds, white/yellow, white/brown, brown/yellow, and white/brown/yellow for 7 lines of defense plus the white/brown/yellow breeding with brown/yellow or white/yellow or white/brown and the complexity explodes.
I get what you're saying, there's more genetic diversity in bringing races together, because of the hybrids they'll beget, than keeping them apart, but still there's pros and cons to diversity.
A homogeneous population will produce fewer kinds of cancers/diseases, requiring fewer cures/treatments, whereas a heterogenous population will produce more kinds of cancers/diseases, requiring more cures/treatments.
A heterogenous population will have more body types, with heterogenous nutritional and toxicity requirements (convoluted, difficult), whereas a homogenous population will have fewer body types, with homogenous nutritional and toxicity requirements (simple, easy).
It'll also be harder to get your diverse population to agree on anything, from what temperature a mall should be, to morals, values, politics and law.
What do you mean by develop? And how is land different from masses of money that isn't utilized?
There is no right. If a bunch of people gangup and proclaim something right, then it is by their might that they do so. If no one is imposing their will on me, then there is nothing I ought to do unless I have a goal in mind.
If I play a game and I want to win, then I ought to make certain moves, but if I don't care about winning, then any move will do.
If I want to have a conversation, then I ought to be considerate or else I may not have anyone to talk to, but if i don't care about running everyone off, then it doesn't matter how I act. That is unless someone else takes offense and forms an army to come kick my ass for being an ass and we're back to might making right.
So I can be nice because I'm smart enough to see that is what's best for me or I can have an army impose its will on me to force me to be nice or else be locked up.
Trump is the only non-politician republican I can think of.
I don't know how you can equate education with religion as the two are antipodal. The religious see education as a threat to their faith. Most republicans cannot be educated because they already know everything.
The only certain barrier to truth is the conviction you already have it and therefore religious dogma cannot be circumvented and therefore the religious can never find truth, even in infinite time.
They would still vote for the senators and such.
And why no one really liked Trump, but he was better than Hillary. No one was singing Trump's praises before the election, but he wasn't Hillary.
They sure changed their minds 2 year later as the women were elected to the House 2 for every man.
The DNC rigged it for Hillary to win because they needed her money to pay their debts. Bernie didn't have the funds, so he was backstabbed. He would have won in a fair election. Plus, it was supposed to be Hillary's turn since she stepped aside to let the Black man have a go at it first. The DNC made it happen, but people didn't like her.
Every republican I know has guns as the top issue. They'll vote to make life harder on their own kids just to protect their guns. Second to that is the mexicans having their hands in wallets, even though the whites have their hands in wallets far more than mexicans. Hatred of the poor is high on the list.
I'm not saying obama is particularly smart, but Trump makes him appear much smarter than he is.
TRUMP SPEAKS AT FOURTH-GRADE LEVEL, LOWEST OF LAST 15 U.S. PRESIDENTS, NEW ANALYSIS FINDS https://www.newsweek.com/trump-fire-and ... ama-774169
Break it down by income. And break it down by real crime; not drugs n silly stuff. Look at violent crime exclusively of the poverty level incomes by race.
Yes they do. My mom worked 2 jobs and I essentially raised myself. Heck, I could have been Elon Musk if I had different parents. Who knows what society lost by not investing in me and instead they invested in asswipes like Trump because he's the big "job creator" who creates jobs for people to barely scrape by at... as if that's anything to value. "Hey, I created this place for you to go slave for me. You're welcome. And when you get off work, there will be a parade in my honor for enabling you to make me rich." These people should be swinging from lampposts; not pedestalized on thrones and having money thrown at them as if they contributed anything.
No, that's the irony: when you cut off your own nose to spite your face, you still get the short end of the ugly stick. You can't win by holding others down in order to raise yourself up. So the wealthy are wealthier, but society experiences less growth than if the wealth had been spread around. So the wealthy are wealthier, but they're also less wealthy because the society they live in is less advanced and prosperous.
Think of it this way: would you rather live in a society where you have ALL the money and everyone else has hardly anything or a society where you're middle class and lots of people have money?
It is zero sum. If we were on a gold standard and one more person is born, who gives up their gold for the new person? If the rich get richer, where is the new gold coming from? If gold is fixed and the rich get richer, then obviously the gold is coming from the lower classes. Now switch to a debt-based currency like we have now and the same thing happens with the only difference being the new money that enriches the rich becomes debt to the lower classes. This is why debt has exploded since reagan and why every republican drives us deeper in debt.
So why worship whites? Who cares? You get big brains and big egos which cancels the effects of the brains lol
Where did the big brains come from? So we have 2 variables: big brains and k-selection which = nurturing environment (abundance of fatty food).
That just means the chinese and mexicans interpret stress differently. The fact remains that the more prosperous each of them get, the less kids they have.
Yes, whites took advantage of their advantages.
Scientist could give odds for an asteroid impact, volcanoes, pandemic, the earth drifting into or out of a galactic arm, but they can't say we're going to kill ourselves because that's pure speculation.
Man is not very smart. AI will exceed iq 100.
There is too much profit in not curing disease. If anyone cured cancer, they'd be executed. What's possible and what will happen are two different things. It's possible to have a cashless society, but people won't let it happen because there is no profit in it.
What do we need to conserve? Everything recycles.
How can we tell who is creative and who isn't until they have the resources?
The statue of Liberty says "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Seems an odd way to say "rich, big-brained white folks".
I have been convinced for some time that the reason Natives were brought so close to extinction is they were good for neither friend nor slave, to put it bluntly. Had they been more "easy-going", I think they could have assimilated in some way and survived with larger representation today.
The simple lesson to be learned is: be nice and you won't be driven to extinction.
There is no war on white women because the white women relate to the brown women and don't mind inclusiveness. Look at how many white women were elected to the House. There were 2 women elected for every man and at least half the women were white.
The war is on white men, but not just white men since gays are ok; it's the bullheaded ones struggling to retain power in order to force their proclivities (drug wars, christian values, one must struggle to live, get healthcare, education, etc) on a population that doesn't want it.
If you'd simply concede that people deserve a min standard of living (health, education, food, shelter) instead of being unable to stomach people getting something for nothing, end prohibitions based on the bible, then people will stop cheering your extinction.
Do what Bernie does and they will love you! Bernie has the highest approval rating of any senator in spite of being an old white guy.
But they survived.
All I can think is americanized women. Bring them here and they'll become feminists in time. It's like a contagious disease. I can't see america being saddled with that goofy religion; it's worse than Christianity!
But Romans still exist right? I think the German blondes had more to worry about.
Why did the Vikings disappear off Greenland but the Inuit did not?
There is no such thing as strong or weak, but optimized for an environment or not.
Luck can't be earned.
You're essentially saying that Bezos should have all that disparity because he found a way to capitalize on millions of people which is essentially saying that disparity is deserved because disparity is caused.
I was talking about domestic terror and not military invasions. The premise for bombing brown people is they cause trouble in the US, but that isn't so because the whites are causing all the trouble.
Muslim ban or brown people ban? They could have recruited white muslims to fly the planes. And how do you ban a religion?
Ok I guess so, but I don't see that desire progressing into the future. Americanized women is my evidence.
No I'm not saying only white oppress, but only whites have been oppressing... from what I can see.
Chris Hedges has a theory to explain that and I think I've mentioned it here before that whites are the only ones who fall for the myth of the american dream while the other races have accepted from a young age that they have to eat shit, so they don't have a midlife crisis and decide to shoot-up a crowd. That also explains why whites commit suicide more.
Why do they call them "The Fighting Irish"? Why can't that Irishman in the UFC keep it in his pants? They all seem to be loose cannons and proud of it.
Isn't it? If any question is answered, then someone has been educated lol. So yes, education is the answer to everything. I realized a long time ago that it's impossible to be angry if I have a good understanding on what's going on.
Being more-smart is not the same as sufficiently smart. One idiot can be smarter than another idiot, but still be an idiot.
Dominate doesn't mean exterminate. If anything, it means coddle because if it meant destroy, then there would be nothing left to dominate.
Is the uneducated or educated person more likely to recycle?
No, it's a survival mechanism exhibited by all organisms. When life is stressful, it's best to reproduce as much as possible in hope of some genetic mutation to overcome the environmental challenge. If you want lots of brown people, all you have to do is make life hard on them.
Gloominary wrote:The Aztecs, Incas, and especially the Egyptians, west, south and east Asians had plenty of domesticated animals, and plenty of other places probably could've had domesticated animals as well.
and the meek shall inherit the earth according to the white jesus.
The fit shall inherit the earth, according to Darwin.
Sometimes it's beneficial to open your borders, and minds to foreigners, sometimes it's detrimental, foreigners bring good and bad, again it depends on the context, and your preferences.
North Africa is not always a desert. Every 20k years or so due to the axial precession the land turns green. The earth changes its tilt.
North Africa was a desert when Egyptian Civilization sprung.
Interesting how civilization arose in the harshest place in Africa, where Caucasians lived.
How do they drive down wages? Oh by being willing to work for cheap because the SOL is such a step up even at low wages? Doesn't that mean Americans have a sense of entitlement then? (They're too good to work for cheap.)
We're citizens, and we pay taxes, they're illegal, and they do not.
Altho perhaps it's best each state mandates its own minimum wage, like each Canadian province mandates theirs.
I don't like this idea. Trump is nostalgic for a time passed. American workers are inefficient and expensive and it's best to avoid them in favor of Chinese who pay more attention to detail, respect their jobs, and are willing to do it for cheap. I go out of my way to avoid anything made in America and every Briggs engine I've seen is a pile of junk. They can't even stamp the model number on right so I can find a manual without sending pics to Briggs for identification. American products cost twice as much and are half as good.
everyone knows made in China or Mexico stands for cheap, low quality, potentially hazardous, toxic products.
And if you go out of your way to buy from China or Mexico, you support child slave labor.
Oh you don't have to deal with roadblocks where you are? The republicans haven't made it that far then. You can get a dui here for drinking a beer and mowing your own lawn.
Democrats want to turn the US into the world's largest safe space, free from all accountability,
We'll need lawyers present during copulation.
Again, cutting taxes for the middle class.
Fairer trade.
Helping to prevent further illegal immigration and offshoring.
Forcing other countries to fend for themselves, instead of relying on the US for financial and military aid.
Trump has at times talked favorably of raising the minimum wage, and he knows most Americans, including his base, are in favor of raising it, I highly doubt he'll reduce it.
I'm uncomfortable with Jewish bankers, but overall, I think he's been okay for the poor
, unemployment is down,
wages and working conditions are up,
even the democrats admit the economy is his strongpoint.
Something still has to work; not someone.
If no one did any work, we'd all starve.
You can try to force your ideals on nature, but it doesn't work that way. The more you hate the poor, the more they will reproduce and overwhelm you.
You're talking about running everything on machines, terraforming planets and economic and social re-engineering, and I'm the one trying to force my ideals on nature?
Oh yes because the threat of punishment always deters crime which is why we never have crime anymore, right. You're a prohibitionist. All you'll accomplish is having lots of kids in state care which will cause more poor to exist and cause more kids to be in state care until you eventually resort to throwing them in ovens.
Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't, a one child policy worked for China.
I mean are you saying prohibiting theft, rape and murder doesn't work, are you an anarchist then?
I disagree. There is no benefit to making people suffer; you only hurt yourself.
Because allowing criminals and drug addicts to have and raise kids doesn't cause suffering?
I'm not advocating we prohibit anyone from doing anything, I'm just saying society shouldn't just hand people money, without expecting anything in return, it shouldn't be completely unconditional.
If you want something form us, we have the right to expect some things from you in exchange.
It's not in the region, but the region connects the hemispheres so they can talk to each other.
I don't associate interregional brains with creativity anymore than intraregional brains.
Creation of something such that's it's not understood how it was created and can't be mimicked or mechanized.
That sounds more like intuition to me than creativity.
Creativity is intelligently making a new discovery, or making something new and useful or interesting.
It should be obvious from merely looking at a gay and straight person who is more creative because their attire will be different.
Gays are more feminine, and so they're more sensual, fashionable, and perhaps more creative at some artistic things than straight men.
But probably worse at philosophy, science and engineering.
If you look at most philosophers, scientists and inventors, they're unkempt, and their attire is pretty plain, drab.
Gays are probably good at pop art, but poor at the sort of art Beethoven, and Goethe are known for.
Well, I'm not sure, but I don't see it outside of a cataclysmic event. Civilizations collapsed before and yet here we are, smarter than ever. I don't see humans as self-limiting. I believe (as a matter of personal opinion) that whatever caused this universe wants to be more complex, so even if we go extinct, we'll be back. I think the humanoid is the optimal design (thumbs, binocular vision, air-breathing, yellow star, bipedal, etc)
We don't know that, life may not get another chance, but even if does, it may not resemble us at all, and it'll probably always be behind where we could've been had we not destroyed ourselves.
Sure it can and the consequence of free energy is free stuff.
When someone invents a replicator, than I'll concede, we don't have to work, but until then, we do.
I see what you're saying, but my point is we lost a skill necessary to survival outside of dependence upon technology and we're becoming more and more dependent upon tech to survive while we lose more and more skills. Just like hunting, working is being antiquated and becoming unnecessary.
I see what you're saying, but while we probably shouldn't have to work as much as we do, everyone who can work, should have to do some work, until there's no work left to do, which'll be somewhere between thousands and millions of years from now, if not impossible.
I think you're acting more entitled than her. For instance you think your race is entitled to special considerations and I think it should have less for that very reason. As Alan Watts said, "we're not better because we want to be." Arrogance. Thinking you're special is proof you're not.
She wants special considerations on account of her race, religion and sex, in a majority white, Christian country, it's absurd.
I'm pretty sure the aztecs and incas didn't have any more than a turkey. I'm not sure about the egyptians.
Read the theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Ger ... _of_theory
I can't think of an instance where arrogance has been a property of the fit, but usually a property of the soon-to-be defeated. Pride cometh before a fall.
How do you know? If they are so smart, then why settle in a desert?
They pay sales tax, gas tax, property tax (if they own any), and if they filed taxes, they'd get money anyway, so they pay the same taxes as anyone in their income group. The purpose of importing them is to serve the capitalist cause of working for cheap to maximize profits so that we don't need to employ lazy, entitled, and expensive white people.
How will capitalists make all that money with no cheap immigrants or offshoring? They won't be competitive on the global stage and will go out of business.
Not defending other countries can only hurt us. Keeping the peace is in our interest.
This fact is one of the principle pillars of the theory and if it were this easy to topple, surely it wouldn't still be a theory.
No I'm saying tax the machines and distribute to the community. I don't think I mentioned terraforming planets.
You're saying make it harder on the poor to make them go away, but you can only create more poor by doing that.
Prohibiting things that many people want to do doesn't work. Many people do not steal, rape, kill, but many people like alcohol, drugs, sex.
There wouldn't be criminals and drug addicts without the imposed philosophy of suffering.
That's probably because you haven't researched it.
And by definition something new cannot be mimicked because there is nothing in existence to mimic since the thing to be mimicked hasn't been created yet.
Yes, probably. They wouldn't want to be bogged down with intense focus.
I think gays are good at all things art while straights are good at all things science. Science is mechanisms while art is the opposite which is all things that can't be mechanized.
The people can be any religion, but the country itself should be tolerant of any religion. Same with race. Our attitudes should be blind to these things like we are to the ultraviolet spectrum.
Jakob wrote:Liberals... those people that vote criminals in office and support them during 8 years of bomb raids, starvation, and mass slavery campaigns and then, when hundreds of thousands of Arabs are dead and enslaved, they turn to the guy who tries to stop it all and blame him for all of it-
except that Liberals never really count an Arab life as a human life.
"Madeleine Albright says 500,000 dead Iraqi Children was "worth it".....wins Presidential Medal of Freedom from Obama"
Again, to all you scumbag sickening evil whore of satan liberals: may the deaths that happened due to your votes haunt your miserable entitled lives. You don't deserve anything but to reap what you sowed.
Gloominary wrote:Democrats refuse to have an open, honest conversation with the American people about immigration,
instead they bully, guilt trip, shame, slander, smear and threaten anyone who dares to.
They refuse to address the real concerns the American people have about immigration, instead they talk down to them like they're children or ignorant, unwashed peasants,
all the while having the audacity to accuse Republicans of authoritarianism and elitism.
Gloominary wrote:I don't hate liberals, and consider myself liberal on some issues.
The problem with many liberals, and practically all mainstream liberals, is they fervently believe anything to the right of a Cruz, Jeb, Kasich or Rubio on some issues, is a homophobe, racist, sexist, fascist, Nazi and so on...Hitler, Mussolini, Freddie Kruger, Jason, Michael Myers or the devil himself.
They're every bit as bad as the folks who believe everyone to the left of Hillary Clinton is the next Lenin, Stalin or Mao.
Well actually they don't believe any of that tripe, it's just a scare tactic to win more votes.
Gloominary wrote:(as much as I like perogies)
Europeans have given so much to the world (art, philosophy, science, democracy, human rights) we don't get credit for!
Gloominary wrote:Progressives love making sweeping, negative generalizations about class, so why not race, religion and sex?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users