FYI, I do think that sending the military to the border is a shit-show, not because I don't think the military should defend the border, but because I don't think Trump's talk is going to match the actions taken against the "caravans".
They were already offered asylum in Mexico, and turned it down, so they have no realistic claims to asylum. But Orange Judas is going to give a decent % of them asylum anyway.
Trump is a cuck. He masturbates as a secret service agent bangs his wife in the Lincoln bedroom in the White House.
Last edited by MrSmiley21 on Nov 4, 2018, 9:08:25 AM
FYI, I do think that sending the military to the border is a shit-show, not because I don't think the military should defend the border, but because I don't think Trump's talk is going to match the actions taken against the "caravans".
They were already offered asylum in Mexico, and turned it down, so they have no realistic claims to asylum. But Orange Judas is going to give a decent % of them asylum anyway.
Trump is a cuck. He masturbates as a secret service agent bangs his wife in the Lincoln bedroom in the White House.
If Trump goes full /pol/ he'll be the lamest duck you've ever seen. He'll also get assassinated.
GGG banning all political discussion shortly after getting acquired by China is a weird coincidence.
If Trump goes full /pol/ he'll be the lamest duck you've ever seen. He'll also get assassinated.
Then, the decline and ultimate end game of the USA turning into a 3rd world country is unavoidable. And voting in elections doesn't matter. Might as well stay home for the midterms. 2020? Why does it matter? (Putin paid me to say this, FYI).
Last edited by MrSmiley21 on Nov 4, 2018, 11:02:39 AM
Calling mere immigrants refugees mocks the concept of being a refugee. Here are some real examples: blacks fleeing the slave plantations of the southern US; business-owners fleeing Soviet Russia; Jews and Roma fleeing Nazi Germany. I don't think it would be appropriate to call a blonde Christian fleeing Nazi Germany a refugee, unless they'd been politically active against the Reich in a demonstrable way. Those are refugees.
What you're doing is pointing at all immigrants and acting as if living in any non-Western nation is such an intolerable existence that, by that circumstance alone, it is beholden uppn us to rescue them from their suffering. In some cases I might agree to this, e.g. a homosexual fleeing the Sharia law of Middle Eastern Islamic theocracy. Who I wouldn't consider refugees are the fundamentalists who would chuck such people from rooftops.
Where I draw the line is who or what is doing the oppressing. If the source of the people's oppression is Nature, that is, they are struggling to survive economically using systems that are perhaps deeply flawed but not evil, then those aren't refugees. On the other hand, if people are being actually persecuted in a foreign country due to the malicious acts of a corrupt power, then I would welcome those so persecuted into a freer land — but emphatically NOT their persecutors.
In either case, the idea that a flow of people could be allowed into my country unregulated, without an authority to judge worthy from unworthy and/or persecuted from persecutor, is unconscionable. To casually allow refugees to be followed into your land by the very oppressors they're risking their lives to distance themselves from is an insult to refugees everywhere.
That is the joke though. What you want and what your government do are different things. Your immigrant policy isn't much of poverty program rather more like talent recruitment program. It is akin to stealing the most affluent upper-class, doctors, engineers, scientists and skilled workers from poorer nations. The countries that pay the most and offer the greatest chance for advancement tend to get the top talent. It doesn't solve world poverty, it is rather self serving. That is the harsh realities of the real world. People don't want to take refugees. Refugees are usually a small minority of the immigrant population.
Last edited by deathflower on Nov 4, 2018, 12:57:12 PM
If Trump goes full /pol/ he'll be the lamest duck you've ever seen. He'll also get assassinated.
Then, the decline and ultimate end game of the USA turning into a 3rd world country is unavoidable. And voting in elections doesn't matter. Might as well stay home for the midterms. 2020? Why does it matter? (Putin paid me to say this, FYI).
I don't want to go full redpill but essentially voting is comparable to going to church. You go to church to reinforce your belief in the Lord. You vote to reinforce your belief in Democracy and the entire system our society is based on. That's the true and only point of voting, because if people don't believe in the system, chaos ensues and everything falls apart. If you're naive, voting also gives you the illusion of power. But voters don't have any real power. It was even scientifically proven.
Calling mere immigrants refugees mocks the concept of being a refugee. Here are some real examples: blacks fleeing the slave plantations of the southern US; business-owners fleeing Soviet Russia; Jews and Roma fleeing Nazi Germany. I don't think it would be appropriate to call a blonde Christian fleeing Nazi Germany a refugee, unless they'd been politically active against the Reich in a demonstrable way. Those are refugees.
What you're doing is pointing at all immigrants and acting as if living in any non-Western nation is such an intolerable existence that, by that circumstance alone, it is beholden uppn us to rescue them from their suffering. In some cases I might agree to this, e.g. a homosexual fleeing the Sharia law of Middle Eastern Islamic theocracy. Who I wouldn't consider refugees are the fundamentalists who would chuck such people from rooftops.
Where I draw the line is who or what is doing the oppressing. If the source of the people's oppression is Nature, that is, they are struggling to survive economically using systems that are perhaps deeply flawed but not evil, then those aren't refugees. On the other hand, if people are being actually persecuted in a foreign country due to the malicious acts of a corrupt power, then I would welcome those so persecuted into a freer land — but emphatically NOT their persecutors.
In either case, the idea that a flow of people could be allowed into my country unregulated, without an authority to judge worthy from unworthy and/or persecuted from persecutor, is unconscionable. To casually allow refugees to be followed into your land by the very oppressors they're risking their lives to distance themselves from is an insult to refugees everywhere.
That is the joke though. What you want and what your government do are different things. Your immigrant policy isn't much of poverty program rather more like talent recruitment program. It is akin to stealing
No, it is not. Bidding for something and having the seller voluntarily choose to make one the buyer is not stealing. It is the polar fucking opposite of stealing. To say that it is stealing is to say that foreign governments have a claim of ownership of the lives of their citizens; it is to say that to be a foreigner is to be a slave to a foreign government, and that such slavery is to be recognized as legitimate.
The countries that pay the most and offer the greatest chance for advancement tend to get the top talent. It doesn't solve world poverty, it is rather self serving.
Free markets are the solution to poverty. Free markets worldwide are the solution to world poverty. But one can't force freedom. A backwards nation can look to one that isn't to see how it's done, but the latter can't simply do it for the former.
"
VOTE
I did. Started off straight Republican ballot, but I noticed one of them had Bush for a last name, so I voted for one Democrat.
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted.
No, it is not. Bidding for something and having the seller voluntarily choose to make one the buyer is not stealing. It is the polar fucking opposite of stealing. To say that it is stealing is to say that foreign governments have a claim of ownership of the lives of their citizens; it is to say that to be a foreigner is to be a slave to a foreign government, and that such slavery is to be recognized as legitimate.
Oh come on slavery? If citizenship to one's country is slavery, they would be slaves for life. Governments do have jurisdiction over its citizens. Governments do block people from leaving their countries. Depending on the circumstances People who leave their homes in search of better life can also be considered citizens who abandon their own countries. A citizen who swear allegiance to a country shouldn't be citizen of another country. It is more to do with whether the country should discourage the affluent upper-class from country hopping or to allow them dual Citizenship. Countries with negative net immigration would discourage immigration.
"
Free markets are the solution to poverty. Free markets worldwide are the solution to world poverty. But one can't force freedom. A backwards nation can look to one that isn't to see how it's done, but the latter can't simply do it for the former.
That is the propaganda. Rich countries today, including Britain and the US become rich through the combinations of free markets and protectionism, subsidies and other policies that today they advise the developing countries not to adopt.
Last edited by deathflower on Nov 4, 2018, 2:51:10 PM
