Fascism Alive and Well in 2012


Off-Topic Discussions

601 to 650 of 788 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>

Nicos wrote:

In my case I learned to read english thanks to the supernintendo RPGs, and now I am practicing my writing skills in paizo forum :P

I supose that i can tell my mother that the longs hours of leisure playing Rpgs are not wasted time :P

Oh, Spacequest on my old 286 probably helped too!


RedPorcupine wrote:
Aretas wrote:

In my learned opinion the US should have stayed out of both conflicts. In addition to that I believe we bombed the wrong combatants in both conflicts.

I just have to ask: Why ? What do you mean by " learned " ? I happen to know some people who were personally and professionally involved, so i´m fascinated.

I have always suspected that the U.S. weren´t as gung-ho as usual for Yugoslavia, because there wasn´t anything to gain. No oil, or as Bismark put it : The balcan is not worth the bones of a single pommeranian grenadier. A legitimate opinion. For Bismark.
But the wrong combatants ? While the croatians propably had nationalist militias that would have richly deserved a bombing and the UCK maybe were a nasty bunch of partly or mostly criminals, you seem to suggest that the Bosnians should have been bombed ? As far as i know the Bosnians were primarily busy being besieged in Sarajevo by serbian mortars and snipers.
Or the Kosovo-Albanians who faced a ethnic-cleansing ?

My brother in law was based at camp Bondsteel in Kosovo in 2009. Nobody will go public and say the Serbs were being ethnically cleansed out of Kosovo for generations. The humanitarian crisis that developed was greatly due to our bombing campaign against the Serbs. The massacres by Serbs were later blamed on the KLA which has / had strong ties with radical Muslim terror organizations. (wag the dog is spot on)
Anyway, I'm sure You can look this up yourself, I have never asked anyone for their credentials.
You have much to learn my friend. Not being snarky. It was a hot mess all around.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aretas wrote:
Zoe Oakeshott wrote:
Aretas wrote:
This is NOT counting all the illegal immigration who we the tax payers provide free healthcare and wellfare services for.
Is there any proof of this statement? My understanding is that the last thing an illegal immigrant wants to do is deal with the government, and that most of the ones trying to get money actually grew up in the US (the whole college tuition thing).
Seriously? You could go on public assistance, be in America illegally and have a child at no charge of your own. You could find the proof you need by looking it up or asking anyone in the healthcare industry or an E.R staffer.

According to the IRS, illegal immigrants contribute $7 billion every year to Social Security, but unless naturalized, they will never be able to draw any of it.

Illegal immigrants account for approximately 2% of health care spending nationally.

Immigrants have always been demonized, each and every wave of them. Yet they've always provided us with an overall economic gain. You know, part of that American Dream you keep talking about.

Alabama is projected to see a net-loss of $10 billion in GDP, $255 million in state taxes and $90 million in local taxes lost as a result of their laws enforcing immigration rules.

The experience in Alabama proves what is going to happen to us as a country if we try to force them out more aggressively. Employers complained about not being able to fill jobs. Crops went unpicked and new crops haven't been sown in many cases. This has led to farmers not buying new equipment, which means lay offs at factories that manufacture this equipment. By kicking illegals out of the state, or getting them to self-deport, Alabama will rid itself of 40,000 to 80,000 illegal immigrants and will probably lose around 70,000 to 140,000 jobs.

Yay forward progress!


Aretas wrote:
My brother in law was based at camp Bondsteel in Kosovo in 2009. Nobody will go public and say the Serbs were being ethnically cleansed out of Kosovo for generations. The humanitarian crisis that developed was greatly due to our bombing campaign against the Serbs. The massacres by Serbs were later blamed on the KLA which has / had strong ties with radical Muslim terror organizations.

I largely agree. Each faction's nationalist militias were carrying out horrendous atrocities, but, at least in the American media, it was only the Serbian population who were demonized.

I have to ask, though, Citizen Aretas, what you mean by "generations?" I was unaware that any of the ethnic cleansing crap was going on pre-Yugoslav break-up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Aretas wrote:
Zoe Oakeshott wrote:
Aretas wrote:
This is NOT counting all the illegal immigration who we the tax payers provide free healthcare and wellfare services for.
Is there any proof of this statement? My understanding is that the last thing an illegal immigrant wants to do is deal with the government, and that most of the ones trying to get money actually grew up in the US (the whole college tuition thing).
Seriously? You could go on public assistance, be in America illegally and have a child at no charge of your own. You could find the proof you need by looking it up or asking anyone in the healthcare industry or an E.R staffer.

According to the IRS, illegal immigrants contribute $7 billion every year to Social Security, but unless naturalized, they will never be able to draw any of it.

Illegal immigrants account for approximately 2% of health care spending nationally.

Immigrants have always been demonized, each and every wave of them. Yet they've always provided us with an overall economic gain. You know, part of that American Dream you keep talking about.

Alabama is projected to see a net-loss of $10 billion in GDP, $255 million in state taxes and $90 million in local taxes lost as a result of their laws enforcing immigration rules.

The experience in Alabama proves what is going to happen to us as a country if we try to force them out more aggressively. Employers complained about not being able to fill jobs. Crops went unpicked and new crops haven't been sown in many cases. This has led to farmers not buying new equipment, which means lay offs at factories that manufacture this equipment. By kicking illegals out of the state, or getting them to self-deport, Alabama will rid itself of 40,000 to 80,000 illegal immigrants and will probably lose around 70,000 to 140,000 jobs.

Yay forward progress!

They also lose all their burritos.

I hear the whole "immigrants are taking our jobs and gaming our welfare and medical systems" argument all the time. It's a crock. Not to mention the fact that we have always had to rely on cheap immigrant labor. Irish, Germans, Italians, and Chinese were all doing it before Mexicans. It's just harder for poor people to immigrate legally now, so our poor immigrant labor is illegal. Kick the cheap labor out for being illegal, and the system is borked, seeing as how we've been relying on it for over a century.


Irontruth wrote:
Aretas wrote:
Zoe Oakeshott wrote:
Aretas wrote:
This is NOT counting all the illegal immigration who we the tax payers provide free healthcare and wellfare services for.
Is there any proof of this statement? My understanding is that the last thing an illegal immigrant wants to do is deal with the government, and that most of the ones trying to get money actually grew up in the US (the whole college tuition thing).
Seriously? You could go on public assistance, be in America illegally and have a child at no charge of your own. You could find the proof you need by looking it up or asking anyone in the healthcare industry or an E.R staffer.

According to the IRS, illegal immigrants contribute $7 billion every year to Social Security, but unless naturalized, they will never be able to draw any of it.

Illegal immigrants account for approximately 2% of health care spending nationally.

Immigrants have always been demonized, each and every wave of them. Yet they've always provided us with an overall economic gain. You know, part of that American Dream you keep talking about.

Alabama is projected to see a net-loss of $10 billion in GDP, $255 million in state taxes and $90 million in local taxes lost as a result of their laws enforcing immigration rules.

The experience in Alabama proves what is going to happen to us as a country if we try to force them out more aggressively. Employers complained about not being able to fill jobs. Crops went unpicked and new crops haven't been sown in many cases. This has led to farmers not buying new equipment, which means lay offs at factories that manufacture this equipment. By kicking illegals out of the state, or getting them to self-deport, Alabama will rid itself of 40,000 to 80,000 illegal immigrants and will probably lose around 70,000 to 140,000 jobs.

Yay forward progress!

I'm sorry we dont agree on this my friend. How can your monetary projections be so accurate while the numbers of illegals range so wildly? I'm not being combative.

From what I have heard and read illegal immigrants this time around take far more than they contribute to the economy. From dollars sent back to their home countries to wellfare services.
How about we encourage legal immigration so that person in Mexico can come to Alabama to fill those jobs.

Yay rule of law!


So what campaigns are you all in?


Aretas wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Aretas wrote:
Zoe Oakeshott wrote:
Aretas wrote:
This is NOT counting all the illegal immigration who we the tax payers provide free healthcare and wellfare services for.
Is there any proof of this statement? My understanding is that the last thing an illegal immigrant wants to do is deal with the government, and that most of the ones trying to get money actually grew up in the US (the whole college tuition thing).
Seriously? You could go on public assistance, be in America illegally and have a child at no charge of your own. You could find the proof you need by looking it up or asking anyone in the healthcare industry or an E.R staffer.

According to the IRS, illegal immigrants contribute $7 billion every year to Social Security, but unless naturalized, they will never be able to draw any of it.

Illegal immigrants account for approximately 2% of health care spending nationally.

Immigrants have always been demonized, each and every wave of them. Yet they've always provided us with an overall economic gain. You know, part of that American Dream you keep talking about.

Alabama is projected to see a net-loss of $10 billion in GDP, $255 million in state taxes and $90 million in local taxes lost as a result of their laws enforcing immigration rules.

The experience in Alabama proves what is going to happen to us as a country if we try to force them out more aggressively. Employers complained about not being able to fill jobs. Crops went unpicked and new crops haven't been sown in many cases. This has led to farmers not buying new equipment, which means lay offs at factories that manufacture this equipment. By kicking illegals out of the state, or getting them to self-deport, Alabama will rid itself of 40,000 to 80,000 illegal immigrants and will probably lose around 70,000 to 140,000 jobs.

Yay forward progress!

I'm sorry we dont agree on this my friend. How can your monetary projections be so accurate while the numbers of...

You haven't proved anything about them and welfare services. As for legal immigration, sure. Hand out more visas, and increase the quotas.


Aretas wrote:
So what campaigns are you all in?

Currently playing a Factotum in a 3.5 crooks-archeologists campaign set in a "post roman empire-like floating islands" setting. Fun.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Interestingly one of the reasons behind the change in illegal immigration over the last decades is our attempts to close the border.
When it was relatively easy to cross many would cross for seasonal work and return home when the season was over and they'd made enough money. Then come back again next year. Now it's too risky and expensive to go back and forth, so they stay, bring their families, settle down here.

Another, of course, is that NAFTA devastated Mexican agriculture. Small Mexican farmers couldn't compete with subsidized US corn. Mexico got more factories (and more millionaires) but not enough to employ all those who couldn't keep afloat farming any longer.


CunningMongoose wrote:
Aretas wrote:
So what campaigns are you all in?
Currently playing a Factotum in a 3.5 crooks-archeologists campaign set in a "post roman empire-like floating islands" setting. Fun.

Just finished council of thieves about 6 months ago. Doing home brews now. Currently playing a wizard abjuration/banishment specialist. Sorta like Constantine. Looking for the umbral blade a weapon that can tear through reality and create gates to other planes. The antagonists are Demon worshipers who want it bad!


Camila Marina Garrido Espinosa wrote:
Aretas wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Aretas wrote:
Zoe Oakeshott wrote:
Aretas wrote:
This is NOT counting all the illegal immigration who we the tax payers provide free healthcare and wellfare services for.
Is there any proof of this statement? My understanding is that the last thing an illegal immigrant wants to do is deal with the government, and that most of the ones trying to get money actually grew up in the US (the whole college tuition thing).
Seriously? You could go on public assistance, be in America illegally and have a child at no charge of your own. You could find the proof you need by looking it up or asking anyone in the healthcare industry or an E.R staffer.

According to the IRS, illegal immigrants contribute $7 billion every year to Social Security, but unless naturalized, they will never be able to draw any of it.

Illegal immigrants account for approximately 2% of health care spending nationally.

Immigrants have always been demonized, each and every wave of them. Yet they've always provided us with an overall economic gain. You know, part of that American Dream you keep talking about.

Alabama is projected to see a net-loss of $10 billion in GDP, $255 million in state taxes and $90 million in local taxes lost as a result of their laws enforcing immigration rules.

The experience in Alabama proves what is going to happen to us as a country if we try to force them out more aggressively. Employers complained about not being able to fill jobs. Crops went unpicked and new crops haven't been sown in many cases. This has led to farmers not buying new equipment, which means lay offs at factories that manufacture this equipment. By kicking illegals out of the state, or getting them to self-deport, Alabama will rid itself of 40,000 to 80,000 illegal immigrants and will probably lose around 70,000 to 140,000 jobs.

Yay forward progress!

I'm sorry we dont agree on this my friend. How can your monetary projections be so accurate while
...

FOR CAMILA:

I'm not going to convince you anyway with any numbers or facts I present bc you will just invalidate their sources.
Anyway with the current economic conditions why would America increase quotas? Especially with bringing in unskilled migrants.


Because the labor those unskilled migrants perform is important. Just look at the above explanation of what is going on in Alabama.


Irontruth wrote:

According to the IRS, illegal immigrants contribute $7 billion every year to Social Security, but unless naturalized, they will never be able to draw any of it.

Illegal immigrants account for approximately 2% of health care spending nationally.

Of course we do realize that Social Security isn't the same as health care spending.


pres man wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

According to the IRS, illegal immigrants contribute $7 billion every year to Social Security, but unless naturalized, they will never be able to draw any of it.

Illegal immigrants account for approximately 2% of health care spending nationally.

Of course we do realize that Social Security isn't the same as health care spending.

I have a feeling that you decide to be obtuse, which is why I don't bother responding to you normally. There are multiple areas of the economy and society that illegal immigrants are having an effect on. Those are two different things. I put them in different sentences, indeed, I even put them in different paragraphs, to indicate that they were separate concepts. This is a common technique that used in writing.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Aretas wrote:
So what campaigns are you all in?

Playing a Kirthfinder Monk/Fighter in Kirth's Aviona "In the King's Guard" campaign, and a Kirthfinder Ranger in his "On The Frontier" campaign.

Also playing a Cleric of Ilmater in a 3.5 "Silver Marches" Forgotten Realms game.

And also playing a Fighter/Cleric in mdt's Sullania homebrew Pathfinder game, with an eye towards Holy Vindicator.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Aretas wrote:
My brother in law was based at camp Bondsteel in Kosovo in 2009. Nobody will go public and say the Serbs were being ethnically cleansed out of Kosovo for generations. The humanitarian crisis that developed was greatly due to our bombing campaign against the Serbs. The massacres by Serbs were later blamed on the KLA which has / had strong ties with radical Muslim terror organizations.

I largely agree. Each faction's nationalist militias were carrying out horrendous atrocities, but, at least in the American media, it was only the Serbian population who were demonized.

I have to ask, though, Citizen Aretas, what you mean by "generations?" I was unaware that any of the ethnic cleansing crap was going on pre-Yugoslav break-up.

I like the sound of that "Citizen Aretas" ; )

Yeah its a pretty long story, very interesting. It could clutter up this thread pretty quick.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Aretas wrote:
So what campaigns are you all in?

My Nordic/Inuit homebrew is currently on hiatus, so I'm pretty much all PFS currently.


Aretas wrote:
So what campaigns are you all in?

I'm playing a Catfolk Magus in Tomb of Horrors, and building up a medieval magitech campaign setting based in a fantasy analogue of the Americas, Polynesia, and Australia. I have plans for a flamboyant "Spanish" Dwarven Crossbow Sniper (Gunslinger that uses crossbows, homebrew by Epic Meepo) character, but haven't written her up yet.


Aretas wrote:
So what campaigns are you all in?

Well, for the last year or so, I've been playing a 3rd-level Teamster steward/4th-level Revolutionary Socialist goblin.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The first casualty of war is truth, friends. This happens with ANY kind of war, whether on drugs, terror, an enemy state, an enemy ideology, immigrants, and so on. Humanity always ignores truth when it comes to their jobs, lives, money or even interests at large. We consider it justified. We even elect politicians that consider it justified. And first on the agenda is to revisit and rewrite history to justify our beliefs. It should not surprise anyone.

Every somewhat well to do country has immigrants, and they generally are not popular. They are blamed for all sorts of things. Chief among them is that they take our jobs. Note then that the jobs they can take are the unskilled ones, since they lack diplomas and such. The pay for these jobs is so low that generally, these jobs are populated by only immigrants. Apparently then, these people take the jobs nobody else wants to do. Another piece of criticism usually directed their way is that they send money to their families. Woo. Remember what I wrote above about pissy pay? Think about how you would manage having their pay and still send money to your family. Finally, it is about social security and health care. Understand this, then. They are illegal immigrants. They do not get much of it, do they?

In the larger picture, it is even worse. The entirety of the american civilization as it stands today is built by immigrants. There are more swedish descendants in the US than in Sweden. Excepting some of the native americans, you all come from immigrants. And just like your ancestors, these illegal immigrants are the most driven, fearless and resilient of their generation. Moving somewhere else, to a place where you will be generally despised, just for a chance at a decent life is TOUGH. Don't kid yourself, it is not something just anyone could, or would, do. You are getting the best and the brightest... And complain about it? Grow up.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


Is there any chance that those critiquing the history we've been presenting as "revisionist" could point out in what way, shape, or form the "revisionist" history is even REMOTELY incorrect?

This idea that America should act like it used to and be "the good guy" like it used to only works if WW2 was the only thing America ever did. The US has rarely if ever lived up to our stated ideals and the glowing sainthood that people ascribe to it.

People are confused and angry about why the us isn't acting the way it did in their history class. The answer is simply that the history class is wrong. People keep trying to send the us back to a time that simply didn't exist. If you want the US to be a beacon of hope, freedom, and honesty you can't go back to the past. That vision can only be brought into reality in the future.

Yep. And for this, you need to know your past and keep your eyes open about what you are. True for any nation, mine included.

It is also enligntening to remember that without one man (F. D. Roosevelt) and the japanese attack incentive, the USA would most probably have been content to sit out the war in Europe without doing nothing. At the time, the dominant political climate was isolationist, and Mr Lindbergh was quite the german sympathizer : as POTUS, he wouldn't probably have made the same choices (no cash and carry program to keep the UK afloat, for instance).


Aretas wrote:
Smarnil le couard wrote:

Okay, let's resume our discussion about US exceptionalism. So, according to you, a second defining criteria would be that "people from all over the world can come (t)here, work hard, have the freedom to do what they wish".

As in Canada. As in most if not all European Union countries. As in Australia. Again, where is the qualitative difference ?

The request was made so we could discuss topics without outside interruptions.

I knew that I would get slapped about the American exceptionalism comment so hope you all can see that people are coming to America as a destination for a better life.
An estimated 12.6 million legal permanent residents are living in the US as of 1/1/10.
8.1 million of those were eligible to naturalize. How can you compare that to any other country and say what your saying? It's all on the DHS website. This is NOT counting all the illegal immigration who we the tax payers provide free healthcare and wellfare services for.

Smarnil, you called me a neocon which I am not offended bc it's coming from you. You should not label people. I'm still waiting for you logic with regards to US intervention in the Balkans and your criticism or perhaps contempt of US foreign policy.

Well, discussing topics and getting "interrupted" by the input of other interested people is the whole point of public forums, don't you think ?

As for immigration, the European Union had 20,2 millions legal immigrants on its soil in 2010 according to Eurostat (link here to an english document, courtesy of mine; note that for the sake of comparison this number excludes people moving inside the EU, AND people who got en european nationality since their arrival but were born elsewhere. Otherwise it would be 30+ millions). Even given the slightly higher european population, it's quite an higher number. In fact, according to the United Nations's International Office of Migration, EU is the main destination in the world for migrants. So much for US exceptionalism on this topic too.

Maybe you can prove me wrong on that topic, but it will take more than a Weekly Standard blog.

Your feelings about that topic were true in the past, but not nowadays. Things change, and you aren't doing yourself a service by blinding you to them.

Last, neocon isn't an insult. It's a ideology held by some people, who are entitled to their ideas provided they don't forcefeed them to others. I just pointed out that you use neocon magazines as your main source of data. If your are not a neocon, it's a weird thing to do.


Aretas wrote:

My brother in law was based at camp Bondsteel in Kosovo in 2009. Nobody will go public and say the Serbs were being ethnically cleansed out of Kosovo for generations. The humanitarian crisis that developed was greatly due to our bombing campaign against the Serbs. The massacres by Serbs were later blamed on the KLA which has / had strong ties with radical Muslim terror organizations. (wag the dog is spot on)

Anyway, I'm sure You can look this up yourself, I have never asked anyone for their credentials.

You have much to learn my friend. Not being snarky. It was a hot mess all around.

You are so far away from the facts that I don't know where to begin...

What we are talking about here is the Bosnian war (1992-1995), or the Kosovo war (1999). NATO didn't intervene in the Croatian war (1991-1995) or the Slovenian one (1991), except at the very end for the first one.

"Ethnic cleansing" is a word for using terror tactics or actual murders targetting people of a given ethnicity to make them flee some part of a country. Can you cite one instance of such a thing happening in Kosovo before the war, please ? You must understand that your brother-in-law testimony (well, hearsay) can't be taken at face value : that serbian propaganda claimed such things is a given, but that doesn't mean it's the truth.

It 's a known fact that Serbs were not alone in the war crimes department. After the croatian war, two croat militias leaders were condemned by the TPIY (including the former croatian president Trudjman, posthumously), along with a big bunch of serbian leaders. No bosnian leader was ever convicted of such a thing.

But overall, you have got your facts wrong, again. The NATO bombardments (Operation Allied Force) were about the Kosovo war (in 1999), FOUR YEARS after the end of the bosnian war and the Srebrenica massacre, the worst slaughter of civilians since WW2 (in july of 1995). Slaughter which, incidentally, was witnessed by the NATO forces and triggered the all out offensive which in august put an end to the war and brought Milosevic to the Dayton table.

Exactly WHO is blaming the slaughters in Bosnia (and the Srenrenica one, in particular) on "islamists"? Sources, please?

Are you aware that the bosnian population isn't made up of muslisms in the religious sense, and that "muslim" was an administrative tag created for the sake of recordings in former yugoslavia (on the same level as "serb" or "croat") ?

You should look it up a litlle bit yourself before getting uppity with RedPorcupine.


Aretas wrote:
So what campaigns are you all in?

In Campaign # 1 I am a 10th lvl Cloistered Cleric of Wee Jas.

In Campaign # 2 I am a 11th lvl Druid of Silvanus.

In upcoming Campaign # 3 Age of Worms I plan to be a human wizard with alot of force spells so I don't have to worry about resistance at all.

In campaign # 4 I am building a half-vampire Death Knight cleric of Morning Glory (libris Mortis, eternal love & beauty through undeath)

So far that is all. As you can tell I only play spell-casters.


I'm running kingmaker for 4 players and I am running a darklight sisterhood game (an unfortunately defunct faction in the pfrpg) for 5. Naturally, the darklight sisterhood game is composed solely of women.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Aretas, if you believe your sources and numbers can be so easily invalidated, why do you trust them so? Better to question them and/or seek things out that you have greater faith in. Or, just say that you know it can't be verified, but you believe what it states to be true. There is nothing wrong with that.

Aretas wrote:
Camila Marina Garrido Espinosa wrote:
Aretas wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Aretas wrote:
Zoe Oakeshott wrote:
Aretas wrote:
This is NOT counting all the illegal immigration who we the tax payers provide free healthcare and wellfare services for.
Is there any proof of this statement? My understanding is that the last thing an illegal immigrant wants to do is deal with the government, and that most of the ones trying to get money actually grew up in the US (the whole college tuition thing).
Seriously? You could go on public assistance, be in America illegally and have a child at no charge of your own. You could find the proof you need by looking it up or asking anyone in the healthcare industry or an E.R staffer.

According to the IRS, illegal immigrants contribute $7 billion every year to Social Security, but unless naturalized, they will never be able to draw any of it.

Illegal immigrants account for approximately 2% of health care spending nationally.

Immigrants have always been demonized, each and every wave of them. Yet they've always provided us with an overall economic gain. You know, part of that American Dream you keep talking about.

Alabama is projected to see a net-loss of $10 billion in GDP, $255 million in state taxes and $90 million in local taxes lost as a result of their laws enforcing immigration rules.

The experience in Alabama proves what is going to happen to us as a country if we try to force them out more aggressively. Employers complained about not being able to fill jobs. Crops went unpicked and new crops haven't been sown in many cases. This has led to farmers not buying new equipment, which means lay offs at factories that manufacture this equipment. By kicking illegals out of the state, or getting them to self-deport, Alabama will rid itself of 40,000 to 80,000 illegal immigrants and will probably lose around 70,000 to 140,000 jobs.

Yay forward progress!

I'm sorry we dont agree on this my friend. How can your
...


Sissyl wrote:

The first casualty of war is truth, friends. This happens with ANY kind of war, whether on drugs, terror, an enemy state, an enemy ideology, immigrants, and so on. Humanity always ignores truth when it comes to their jobs, lives, money or even interests at large. We consider it justified. We even elect politicians that consider it justified. And first on the agenda is to revisit and rewrite history to justify our beliefs. It should not surprise anyone.

Every somewhat well to do country has immigrants, and they generally are not popular. They are blamed for all sorts of things. Chief among them is that they take our jobs. Note then that the jobs they can take are the unskilled ones, since they lack diplomas and such. The pay for these jobs is so low that generally, these jobs are populated by only immigrants. Apparently then, these people take the jobs nobody else wants to do. Another piece of criticism usually directed their way is that they send money to their families. Woo. Remember what I wrote above about pissy pay? Think about how you would manage having their pay and still send money to your family. Finally, it is about social security and health care. Understand this, then. They are illegal immigrants. They do not get much of it, do they?

In the larger picture, it is even worse. The entirety of the american civilization as it stands today is built by immigrants. There are more swedish descendants in the US than in Sweden. Excepting some of the native americans, you all come from immigrants. And just like your ancestors, these illegal immigrants are the most driven, fearless and resilient of their generation. Moving somewhere else, to a place where you will be generally despised, just for a chance at a decent life is TOUGH. Don't kid yourself, it is not something just anyone could, or would, do. You are getting the best and the brightest... And complain about it? Grow up.

Sissyl, the majority of the immigrants who come to the US illegally are not the best and the brightest. I'm not sure they would be welcomed in any country due to their lack of specialized skills. Aside from polical asylum & family why would/does the United States absorb more and more unskilled workers into the economy? Why would any nation?

I don't believe that an unemployed American would not take a job to feed his family b/c he or she thinks its beneath them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's not so much "jobs no one else would do" as "jobs no one else would do for the pay" or under the conditions. Pay and conditions that are often illegal: below minimum wage, unsafe, promised wages not actually paid, etc. What are the illegals going to do? Go to the police and be deported?

Without them, wages and conditions would have to rise until legal workers would be willing to take the job. That would reduce profits, raise prices, or put companies out of business.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

Without them, wages and conditions would have to rise until legal workers would be willing to take the job. That would reduce profits, raise prices, or put companies out of business.

Or the other jobs would have to disappear, or get their unions busted or a whole bunch of things that are going on today.

And, once again, the owners of this country benefit through divide-and-conquer, pitting race against race, native againt foreign-born.


Aretas wrote:

My brother in law was based at camp Bondsteel in Kosovo in 2009. Nobody will go public and say the Serbs were being ethnically cleansed out of Kosovo for generations.

Anyway, I'm sure You can look this up yourself, I have never asked anyone for their credentials.
You have much to learn my friend. Not being snarky. It was a hot mess all around.

I don´t/wouldn´t mind snarky, but i do mind a bit being patronized.

My father proudly claims responsibility for convincing the guy who was foreign minister of Germany at that time, that military intervention in Kosovo was nessecary. While i am not in the business of the " Great Game" myself, i have been fed background/inside-information and been thoroughly trained for it since i was old enough to ask if Asterix&Obelix really existed, so please don´t. You´re not Yoda.
The serbs have occupied, oppressed and "colonized" the Kosovo since they won the battle of the Amselfeld, some 600 years ago, which is their single best claim to it. Tito would have stomped brutally on any kind of commotion there and after him Yugoslavia was mostly dominated by Serbia.


Aww...I was enjoying the Deutsche-sprechen. I took it in Highschool and a semester of it in college. Was nice to know I knew enough to read and comprehend it.
I've been using Rammstein as continuing education ;)


Here's something for the lefties who are hip to revisionist history to ponder and it's meant as a theoretical exercise, not my actual position:

Given that the United States has killed millions of people all over the globe from Vietnam to Iraq;

Given that the British and the French killed a heck of a lot, too, in Africa and the Middle East and who knows where else (I specialize in American crimes);

Given the horrendous state of affairs in Stalinist Russia and Maoist China;

How much worse do you really think the world would have been if the Axis had won World War II?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd speak better German, that's for sure.


Irontruth wrote:
pres man wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

According to the IRS, illegal immigrants contribute $7 billion every year to Social Security, but unless naturalized, they will never be able to draw any of it.

Illegal immigrants account for approximately 2% of health care spending nationally.

Of course we do realize that Social Security isn't the same as health care spending.
I have a feeling that you decide to be obtuse, which is why I don't bother responding to you normally. There are multiple areas of the economy and society that illegal immigrants are having an effect on. Those are two different things. I put them in different sentences, indeed, I even put them in different paragraphs, to indicate that they were separate concepts. This is a common technique that used in writing.

Just to be clear. You quoted some posts discussing immigration and health care and you responded with a discussion of immigration and health care, but between these two things (the quote and the response), you put a comment about immigration and social security. You are now saying that placement was purposeful (clearly separated, but placed in between the quote and the response to immigration and health care). And you are implying that this is good communication style. I am just a layman, and am not a writer by trade or training, so please understand that I do not always understand the more elite styles of writing. I was not aware that it is now considered good style to place an unrelated topic in between a quote and the direct response to that quote. Thank you for enlightening me.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Here's something for the lefties who are hip to revisionist history to ponder and it's meant as a theoretical exercise, not my actual position:

Given that the United States has killed millions of people all over the globe from Vietnam to Iraq;

Given that the British and the French killed a heck of a lot, too, in Africa and the Middle East and who knows where else (I specialize in American crimes);

Given the horrendous state of affairs in Stalinist Russia and Maoist China;

How much worse do you really think the world would have been if the Axis had won World War II?

You are not talking about "revisionist" history (whatever that may be, as history is history : it can be revised with the acquisition of new data, but "revisionist" history going against facts is best called BS), but of an uchronia here (a "what if" hypothesis, wondering what may have happened if history had taken another course from one point).

So, it's every bit as difficult as discussing the future. There is no way to give a satisfactory answer, but I am willing to play, just for fun.

What's the exact starting point? Did the USA got involved and soundly beaten on the normandy beaches, or did they stood neutral in your scenario?


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

I don't actually speak German--or anything other than English.

Pity, such a wonderfull word. And concept: VÖLKERFREUNDSCHAFT, means

people/nation - friendship.


RedPorcupine wrote:
Aretas wrote:
You have much to learn my friend. Not being snarky. It was a hot mess all around.

I don´t/wouldn´t mind snarky, but i do mind a bit being patronized.

My father proudly claims responsibility for convincing the guy who was foreign minister of Germany at that time, that military intervention in Kosovo was nessecary. While i am not in the business of the " Great Game" myself, i have been fed background/inside-information and been thoroughly trained for it since i was old enough to ask if Asterix&Obelix really existed, so please don´t. You´re not Yoda.
The serbs have occupied, oppressed and "colonized" the Kosovo since they won the battle of the Amselfeld, some 600 years ago, which is their single best claim to it. Tito would have stomped brutally on any kind of commotion there and after him Yugoslavia was mostly dominated by Serbia.

Hey, your dad knows Fischer ? (not sure about spelling)

He's still quite popular down here, as he stood by us in the UN during the Iraq war crisis. Don't think that will make him shine in the eyes of Aretas, though !


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
How much worse do you really think the world would have been if the Axis had won World War II?

A lot, believe me. The Nazi´s would never have run out of people to sent to the KZ´s.

As for a starting point: What if German had become the official language of the U.S. ? I read somewhere that it was a very close second, when the question was put to vote.


Then how do you explain what occurred in Alabama and other areas where crops died in the fields because there was noone to pick them? The farmers were paying a very small amount to pick them, but it was cash money.

Aretas wrote:
Sissyl wrote:

The first casualty of war is truth, friends. This happens with ANY kind of war, whether on drugs, terror, an enemy state, an enemy ideology, immigrants, and so on. Humanity always ignores truth when it comes to their jobs, lives, money or even interests at large. We consider it justified. We even elect politicians that consider it justified. And first on the agenda is to revisit and rewrite history to justify our beliefs. It should not surprise anyone.

Every somewhat well to do country has immigrants, and they generally are not popular. They are blamed for all sorts of things. Chief among them is that they take our jobs. Note then that the jobs they can take are the unskilled ones, since they lack diplomas and such. The pay for these jobs is so low that generally, these jobs are populated by only immigrants. Apparently then, these people take the jobs nobody else wants to do. Another piece of criticism usually directed their way is that they send money to their families. Woo. Remember what I wrote above about pissy pay? Think about how you would manage having their pay and still send money to your family. Finally, it is about social security and health care. Understand this, then. They are illegal immigrants. They do not get much of it, do they?

In the larger picture, it is even worse. The entirety of the american civilization as it stands today is built by immigrants. There are more swedish descendants in the US than in Sweden. Excepting some of the native americans, you all come from immigrants. And just like your ancestors, these illegal immigrants are the most driven, fearless and resilient of their generation. Moving somewhere else, to a place where you will be generally despised, just for a chance at a decent life is TOUGH. Don't kid yourself, it is not something just anyone could, or would, do. You are getting the best and the brightest... And complain about it? Grow up.

Sissyl, the majority of the immigrants who come to the US illegally are not the best and the...


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Here's something for the lefties who are hip to revisionist history to ponder and it's meant as a theoretical exercise, not my actual position:

Given that the United States has killed millions of people all over the globe from Vietnam to Iraq;

Given that the British and the French killed a heck of a lot, too, in Africa and the Middle East and who knows where else (I specialize in American crimes);

Given the horrendous state of affairs in Stalinist Russia and Maoist China;

How much worse do you really think the world would have been if the Axis had won World War II?

I would imagine that we would have all ended up with goatees. ... wait a minute ... *looks in the mirror* ... did that already happen?


Smarnil le couard wrote:
Aretas wrote:

My brother in law was based at camp Bondsteel in Kosovo in 2009. Nobody will go public and say the Serbs were being ethnically cleansed out of Kosovo for generations. The humanitarian crisis that developed was greatly due to our bombing campaign against the Serbs. The massacres by Serbs were later blamed on the KLA which has / had strong ties with radical Muslim terror organizations. (wag the dog is spot on)

Anyway, I'm sure You can look this up yourself, I have never asked anyone for their credentials.

You have much to learn my friend. Not being snarky. It was a hot mess all around.

You are so far away from the facts that I don't know where to begin...

What we are talking about here is the Bosnian war (1992-1995), or the Kosovo war (1999). NATO didn't intervene in the Croatian war (1991-1995) or the Slovenian one (1991), except at the very end for the first one.

"Ethnic cleansing" is a word for using terror tactics or actual murders targetting people of a given ethnicity to make them flee some part of a country. Can you cite one instance of such a thing happening in Kosovo before the war, please ? You must understand that your brother-in-law testimony (well, hearsay) can't be taken at face value : that serbian propaganda claimed such things is a given, but that doesn't mean it's the truth.

It 's a known fact that Serbs were not alone in the war crimes department. After the croatian war, two croat militias leaders were condemned by the TPIY (including the former croatian president Trudjman, posthumously), along with a big bunch of serbian leaders. No bosnian leader was ever convicted of such a thing.

But overall, you have got your facts wrong, again. The NATO bombardments (Operation Allied Force) were about the Kosovo war (in 1999), FOUR YEARS after the end of the bosnian war and the Srebrenica massacre, the worst slaughter of civilians since WW2 (in july of 1995). Slaughter which, incidentally, was witnessed by the NATO forces and triggered the all out...

Where are your sources? Al Jazeera?

I'll just say your wrong, again.
Are you denying that Mujahideen were involved in Bosnia & Kosovo committing atrocities against the Serbian population?

http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=348

Must see
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wx-REROXvtg

I never said Srebrenica "massacre" was committed by Jihadist? Strangely I have read articles saying that Screbrenica was a center for Jihadist activity and they commited ethnic cleansing against the Serbian population by wiping out Serb villages. The Bosnian War was a series of pay backs and vendettas.

Listen to this for more propaganda from the US/British media.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xss0Ep1MJM

In Kosovo in particular a lot of the massacres and killing were commited by the KLA (Albanians) against other Albanians.

Tid bit about the KLA terror organization.

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/BIS111A.html


Smarnil le couard wrote:

Fischer ? (not sure about spelling)

Yup, Fischer, the guy who told Colin Powell : I am not convinced.

Poor sod, btw, i think he actually believed what he was telling.


thejeff wrote:

It's not so much "jobs no one else would do" as "jobs no one else would do for the pay" or under the conditions. Pay and conditions that are often illegal: below minimum wage, unsafe, promised wages not actually paid, etc. What are the illegals going to do? Go to the police and be deported?

Without them, wages and conditions would have to rise until legal workers would be willing to take the job. That would reduce profits, raise prices, or put companies out of business.

Go to the police and get deported? Thats laughable. LOL.

In Chicagoland metro area you can drive around with a Mexican drivers license and the cops wont do anything to you.

I know 3 fellas from Mexico that have 3 D.U.I's! They are still in the US with no fear of deportation.


RedPorcupine wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
How much worse do you really think the world would have been if the Axis had won World War II?

A lot, believe me. The Nazi´s would never have run out of people to sent to the KZ´s.

As for a starting point: What if German had become the official language of the U.S. ? I read somewhere that it was a very close second, when the question was put to vote.

America doesn't have an official language. English (American) is the unofficial language, but we don't have an official language. Any time suggestions of making English the official language comes up people scream "racism!".


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Here's something for the lefties who are hip to revisionist history to ponder and it's meant as a theoretical exercise, not my actual position:

Given that the United States has killed millions of people all over the globe from Vietnam to Iraq;

Given that the British and the French killed a heck of a lot, too, in Africa and the Middle East and who knows where else (I specialize in American crimes);

Given the horrendous state of affairs in Stalinist Russia and Maoist China;

How much worse do you really think the world would have been if the Axis had won World War II?

fairly worse, with a handful of things staying the same. I am fairly sure I and the bulk of my friends would not exist.


Freehold DM wrote:
Aretas, if you believe your sources and numbers can be so easily invalidated, why do you trust them so? Better to question them and/or seek things out that you have greater faith in. Or, just say that you know it can't be verified, but you believe what it states to be true. There is nothing wrong with that.

I took his comment not as they would be so easily invalidated, but so easily dismissed. People can dismiss statistics quite easily if they come from a source they don't trust, no matter how accurate or well documented the statistics are.

EDIT: On the topic of immigration, stories such as Mauro Manuel shows that even the more enlightened european countries still struggle with issues of immigration. This is not an issue that the US is the only one seen as the bad guy for trying to deport immigrants who have lived in the country since they were children.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Here's something for the lefties who are hip to revisionist history to ponder and it's meant as a theoretical exercise, not my actual position:

Given that the United States has killed millions of people all over the globe from Vietnam to Iraq;

Given that the British and the French killed a heck of a lot, too, in Africa and the Middle East and who knows where else (I specialize in American crimes);

Given the horrendous state of affairs in Stalinist Russia and Maoist China;

How much worse do you really think the world would have been if the Axis had won World War II?

Well, I severely doubt that the Nazis would have acted any nicer than the US, Britain, and France, for starters, so casualties from screwing with Third World countries would probably be equal or worse. Then we have the fact that the Nazis were also willing to slaughter Eastern Europeans for. The casualties of the Soviet dictatorship would have been just as bad under Nazism. Plus, Hitler planned to invade the US. That's going to be millions more, especially with America's high gun ownership, large military capability, and likely willingness to resist the Nazis. Then we have the final solution, only about a little more than half of whom's victims were Jews. That is unlikely to stop with a Nazi victory.

This is just assuming a German victory (which is the only likely axis victory), not a Japanese one. A Japanese victory wouldn't have been very nice, either, considering what they did in the Pacific. An Italian victory wouldn't have happened without Germany propping them up and likely absorbing them at some point, so it ties into the result of a German victory.

So, yes, I do think it would have been much worse if there was an axis victory. What really happened was bad, but the alternative is even more horrific.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Aretas wrote:
Where are your sources? Al Jazeera?

You may actually want to read about Al Jazeera. Even if they are far from perfect, they are much closer to objectivity than any of Murdoch's News Corporation media and certainly not worse.

Al Jazeera


Re: Serbia, I visited there a year or two ago (Belgrade is probably the most vibrant, optimistic city I have ever been to, and Novi Sad is a yuppie paradise). The attitude seemed to be something along the lines of, "You know, some of our guys really went overboard, and we probably deserved the bombings, but man, something had to be done -- Albanian Muslims took over my parents' village and we were forced to leave; Tito was a great man but would tolerate no reprisals, so things like that kept happening, and the animosity kept festering. Something had to give, sooner or later."

One really smart guy I talked to said something like this: "It's too soon to pretend like we know exactly what happened, or why. A hard look at facts, and time for tempers to cool and for some historical perspective to come in, will make things much clearer to the world, I think."

My quotes may be off a bit; in the interest of full disclosure, it should be noted that in Belgrade, a liter of beer cost the equivalent of about 35 cents U.S.

601 to 650 of 788 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Fascism Alive and Well in 2012 All Messageboards