How To Oppress the Lower Class(es)


Off-Topic Discussions

201 to 250 of 341 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
The Exchange

Irontruth wrote:
thejeff wrote:


We do cut back on the breeding. Birthrates drop with education and opportunity.

Of course, conservatives want to cut back on that cheap, available contraception. And the sex education.

Seriously, the best way to reduce birth rates is to send women to college. Want the illegals to stop breeding? Send all their women to college. The majority of single child families that I know, the mother went to college. Statistic bear this out as well.

Single women, 25-29 who have a college degree, have a birth rate of something like 30/1,000. High school or less is around 180/1000. A single year of college reduces birth rates to BELOW replacement levels.

Bull, get the illegals OUT, not give them more


DarkLightHitomi wrote:

Klaus, you forgot about those who are unwilling. That is what I keep getting hated for. I believe in equal chances for all, I also however separate those who try and fail vs those who don't try. The latter are the ones I don't believe are worthy.

I would like to thank Andrew R for saying what I wanted to say, in a way that people here can understand.

Well, I guess my experience has molded my view. For context, I spent 2 years of my life as part of a Church program where I had the opportunity to travel to some of the poorest parts of South America in order to provide professional services for free (in my case, a Financial Engineer, stuff like helping poor people start a micro-business, teaching about household economics, as well as more general stuff like teaching mathematics/economics/history and going hammertime to build things like houses, hospitals and churches).

During that time, I had the chance to see quite a lot of what you could call "unwilling", people who seems to be where they are because they don't try to lift themselves up. Thing is, as I found out while hanging out with Father Tomas Subercauseaux in an incredibly poor zone of Arequipa, Peru, there is always a reason for people to end like that, and that reason is usually utter and overpowering impotence. These people are usually born in extreme poverty, comming down from generations of extreme poverty; they are culturally handicapped in almost every manner you can imagine, and the tools they have to understand the world are very, very few.

To them, success is rarely interpreted in the same way you and I do. We can say "But hey, if he works hard enough, he'll find a way to make money", but they say "I was born poor, I will live poor, and I will die poor". It's such a deep level of absolute misery some of these people live in that I was in tears after Father Tomas took me to visit the first family. And we visited a whole lot of them.

So when you see that, you kind of realise that there is more to it than just wanting to get up. Some people simply cannot see the edge of the hole, so they don't struggle to get out of it.

To those people, I believe, we have a duty. Getting a bit more Catholic, making others happy is the whole reason we're here, and it is precisely those who seem unwilling to lift themselves up, for whatever reason, to whom we owe the most.

I see it like those parents who, no matter how many times their kids fail and disillusion them, still keep fighting to help them back up, because that's what parents do. And that's what humans should do, I believe.


Andrew R wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
thejeff wrote:


We do cut back on the breeding. Birthrates drop with education and opportunity.

Of course, conservatives want to cut back on that cheap, available contraception. And the sex education.

Seriously, the best way to reduce birth rates is to send women to college. Want the illegals to stop breeding? Send all their women to college. The majority of single child families that I know, the mother went to college. Statistic bear this out as well.

Single women, 25-29 who have a college degree, have a birth rate of something like 30/1,000. High school or less is around 180/1000. A single year of college reduces birth rates to BELOW replacement levels.

Bull, get the illegals OUT, not give them more

No, let 'em all in! And give 'em union jobs!


Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:


You are a stooge of the plutocracy!

What can I say, the plutocracy has better snacks than the bolsheviks.

The frozen horse butt with a siding of snow didn't really catch my attention on the Revolutionaire Faire 2011.


Me, I like blintzes.

The Exchange

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
thejeff wrote:


We do cut back on the breeding. Birthrates drop with education and opportunity.

Of course, conservatives want to cut back on that cheap, available contraception. And the sex education.

Seriously, the best way to reduce birth rates is to send women to college. Want the illegals to stop breeding? Send all their women to college. The majority of single child families that I know, the mother went to college. Statistic bear this out as well.

Single women, 25-29 who have a college degree, have a birth rate of something like 30/1,000. High school or less is around 180/1000. A single year of college reduces birth rates to BELOW replacement levels.

Bull, get the illegals OUT, not give them more
No, let 'em all in! And give 'em union jobs!

I know unions love gathering that dues money and all but we need more jobs and less people.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Klaus van der Kroft wrote:
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:


You are a stooge of the plutocracy!

What can I say, the plutocracy has better snacks than the bolsheviks.

The frozen horse butt with a siding of snow didn't really catch my attention on the Revolutionaire Faire 2011.

But the bolsheviks have better vodka.

You know what they say in Russia: Vodka makes potatoes taste better. Vodka makes black bread taste better. Vodka makes Vodka taste better!

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

And the arsenic and methyl alcohol build character.


Andrew R wrote:
I know unions love gathering that dues money and all but we need more jobs and less people.

"Less people" isn't the answer to unemployment. Fewer people does mean less competition for jobs, but it also means reduced consumer demand == lower profits == lay-offs == reduced consumer demand... It's not hard to see the vicious cycle there.

What we really need is to maximize the productivity of as many people as possible. legal or otherwise. Yes, this is easier said than done.

As for the anger directed at undocumented immigrants...I just don't get it.

The Exchange

bugleyman wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
I know unions love gathering that dues money and all but we need more jobs and less people.

"Less people" isn't the answer to unemployment. Fewer people does mean less competition for jobs, but it also means reduced consumer demand == lower profits == lay-offs == reduced consumer demand... It's not hard to see the vicious cycle there.

What we really need is to maximize the productivity of as many people as possible. legal or otherwise. Yes, this is easier said than done.

As for the anger directed at undocumented immigrants...I just don't get it.

Easy, illegal means they are breaking the law coming here. They are dragging drugs and disease with them far too often. they are flooding our schools and hospitals (without paying a dime) and FAR too many refuse to learn the dominant language and instead are forcing their native tongue on us. You want to come here? Follow the LAW.


A Man In Black wrote:
Under what programs? Enough making s!@% up, let's talk about actual numbers. What programs are giving these benefits "for life"?

SSI. At least until your kids turn 18. Solution? Have more!


As the proud descendant of illegal Italian immigrants: No.


Andrew R wrote:
I know unions love gathering that dues money and all but we need more jobs and less people.

More jobs--like the 10,000 full-time jobs at UPS created by the 1997 strike? I'm down.

The Exchange

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
As the proud descendant of illegal Italian immigrants: No.

Your criminal ancestors insult mine that worked to do things right


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, since I've been known to insult you, I guess it would make sense that it was genetic.


A Man In Black wrote:
DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Besides what could anyone need hollow-points for? They are illegal even in war you know. And for a reason.

I don't know. Let's go to Google! From the first result for "why would law enforcement agencies use hollow point bullets":

Wikipedia wrote:
Despite the ban on military use, hollow-point bullets are one of the most common types of civilian and police ammunition, due largely to the reduced risk of bystanders being hit by over-penetrating or ricocheted bullets, and the increased speed of incapacitation.
Stop reading Infowars and forwarded e-mails, they rot your brain.

I use. 40 caliber hollow-points for the reason outlined by A Man in Black. It's mostly the latter. The goal of shooting someone is to immediately and completely incapacitate them, generally though tearing through their vital organs with what is essentially a miniature flying buzzsaw.


Andrew R wrote:
Easy, illegal means they are breaking the law coming here. They are dragging drugs and disease with them far too often. they are flooding our schools and hospitals (without paying a dime) and FAR too many refuse to learn the dominant language and instead are forcing their native tongue on us. You want to come here? Follow the LAW.

I don't care about the lawbreaking part. It is self-evident that groups of people we define as illegal are breaking the law. I wouldn't do anything different in their place...should we hate them for an accident of birth?

As for "drugs and disease" -- got any hard data to back that up? Otherwise I'm going to have to attribute that to xenophobia.

As for flooding our schools and hospitals -- they come here to work, which by definition adds value. Taxing them would be nice, but since we'd rather not acknowledge them, it's hard to tax them.

No one is forcing anyone to learn someone else's language. More xenophobia.

We've already been over the lawbreaking part -- now you're just repeating yourself.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Well, since I've been known to insult you, I guess it would make sense that it was genetic.

*giggle*

Bad goblin!


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
As the proud descendant of illegal Italian immigrants: No.

As the proud descendent of English, Scottish, German and other immigrants who came here and kicked the inhabitants out and stole their land: No.

Ok. Maybe not so proud.

The Exchange

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Well, since I've been known to insult you, I guess it would make sense that it was genetic.

Well not being a socialist that believes the constitution is flawed and law is unimportant seems to get me few friends here


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
As the proud descendant of illegal Italian immigrants: No.

Fun fact: The US more or less had open borders until 1875. That's the first time Congress passed a law restricting immigration.

Despite the specters of drug-ridden, disease-carrying Chinese laborers, Slavs and Catholics (and Slavic Catholics!) from the "armpit of Europe", and the imagined plague of anarchists, with the exception of Asian immigrants the US didn't get very restrictive about immigration until the 1920s. But the nation did not fall.

Weird, that. It's like all those anti-immigration guys were a bunch of racist nutcases.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
I know unions love gathering that dues money and all but we need more jobs and less people.

"Less people" isn't the answer to unemployment. Fewer people does mean less competition for jobs, but it also means reduced consumer demand == lower profits == lay-offs == reduced consumer demand... It's not hard to see the vicious cycle there.

What we really need is to maximize the productivity of as many people as possible. legal or otherwise. Yes, this is easier said than done.

I'm not so sure about the maximizing productivity thing. We're far more productive than we were 50 years ago. Does that really help most of us?

If we can do twice as much with the same manpower, why can't we instead kick back, let everyone work half as much and still get the same amount done?
Wouldn't you really have more leisure time rather than more stuff? Or, rather more leisure time instead of rich people having more numbers in their broker's accounts? Since the vast majority of the gains from those productivity increases have gone to the owners not the workers.


Samnell wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
As the proud descendant of illegal Italian immigrants: No.

Fun fact: The US more or less had open borders until 1875. That's the first time Congress passed a law restricting immigration.

Despite the specters of drug-ridden, disease-carrying Chinese laborers, Slavs and Catholics (and Slavic Catholics!) from the "armpit of Europe", and the imagined plague of anarchists, with the exception of Asian immigrants the US didn't get very restrictive about immigration until the 1920s. But the nation did not fall.

Weird, that. It's like all those anti-immigration guys were a bunch of racist nutcases.

Yeah, that's all true. But fleeing from Italy because you're wanted for smuggling and then lying about your identity at Ellis Island must've broken a law or two.


bugleyman wrote:


No one is forcing anyone to learn someone else's language. More xenophobia.

My mother and I were in a Walmart in Montana, on the way out to pick up my father from an aborted bike trip, and a couple of men were speaking Spanish in a relatively normal tone of voice within our hearing. She gave me one of those "what's wrong with those people?" looks.

I pointed out that she had spent a week in Italy without speaking a word of Italian. I know because I was there doing the same thing. And we pretty much constantly spoke English amongst ourselves even in public places because, you know, it's our native language. She found this point somewhat awkward.

But there is a point here. Aliens have forced people who were already living in the place to learn their language before. It was part of a program that caused incredible suffering, even breaking up families. I refer, of course, to English-speakers in North America.

The Exchange

Samnell wrote:
bugleyman wrote:


No one is forcing anyone to learn someone else's language. More xenophobia.

My mother and I were in a Walmart in Montana, on the way out to pick up my father from an aborted bike trip, and a couple of men were speaking Spanish in a relatively normal tone of voice within our hearing. She gave me one of those "what's wrong with those people?" looks.

I pointed out that she had spent a week in Italy without speaking a word of Italian. I know because I was there doing the same thing. And we pretty much constantly spoke English amongst ourselves even in public places because, you know, it's our native language. She found this point somewhat awkward.

But there is a point here. Aliens have forced people who were already living in the place to learn their language before. It was part of a program that caused incredible suffering, even breaking up families. I refer, of course, to English-speakers in North America.

I have no issue with people choosing to speak whatever among themselves, my problem is people trying to live here UNABLE or UNWILLING to speak english and expecting the systems in place to accommodate them.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:


Yeah, that's all true. But fleeing from Italy because you're wanted for smuggling and then lying about your identity at Ellis Island must've broken a law or two.

Lying to the immigration examiners probably did, but it would be a really hard law to have enforced. It's not like they had a hotline to Rome and could ask the King to check his databases.


Samnell wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:


Yeah, that's all true. But fleeing from Italy because you're wanted for smuggling and then lying about your identity at Ellis Island must've broken a law or two.
Lying to the immigration examiners probably did, but it would be a really hard law to have enforced. It's not like they had a hotline to Rome and could ask the King to check his databases.

Yes, I know...

Goddamnit, Samnell, Citizen R. didn't know all that. Stop ruining my trolling!

Liberty's Edge

Andrew R wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
As the proud descendant of illegal Italian immigrants: No.
Your criminal ancestors insult mine that worked to do things right

You're all illegal immigrants.

I guarentee I had ancestors here whenever yours got off the boat.

The Exchange

Krensky wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
As the proud descendant of illegal Italian immigrants: No.
Your criminal ancestors insult mine that worked to do things right

You're all illegal immigrants.

I guarentee I had ancestors here whenever yours got off the boat.

And i bet yours took that land from someone else.


So, my great-grandfather should have come over and shot people and stolen their land and then your ancestors wouldn't have been insulted?


But, I guess you're right, immigrants do spread diseases.


Krensky wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
As the proud descendant of illegal Italian immigrants: No.
Your criminal ancestors insult mine that worked to do things right

You're all illegal immigrants.

I guarentee I had ancestors here whenever yours got off the boat.

I suspect I did too, though there's nothing definite.

Of course, that probably means some of my ancestors drove my other ancestors off the land.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Samnell wrote:
bugleyman wrote:


No one is forcing anyone to learn someone else's language. More xenophobia.

My mother and I were in a Walmart in Montana, on the way out to pick up my father from an aborted bike trip, and a couple of men were speaking Spanish in a relatively normal tone of voice within our hearing. She gave me one of those "what's wrong with those people?" looks.

I pointed out that she had spent a week in Italy without speaking a word of Italian. I know because I was there doing the same thing. And we pretty much constantly spoke English amongst ourselves even in public places because, you know, it's our native language. She found this point somewhat awkward.

But there is a point here. Aliens have forced people who were already living in the place to learn their language before. It was part of a program that caused incredible suffering, even breaking up families. I refer, of course, to English-speakers in North America.

One day, back when I was working in a record store, a Spanish-speaking family came into the store and started looking around. They spoke Spanish among themselves while this white dude, a real paragon of the race, by the way--muttered under his breath.

They both got to the checkout counter at around the same time, and the Spanish-speakers kept talking among themselves in Spanish. The white dude started getting more and more obnoxious making snide comments to me while I was waiting on them.

Finally, I couldn't stand it anymore and I looked at him and said "What is your problem?" He replied "I can't understand what they're saying!" to which I yelled "They're not f$%!ing talking to you!"

I don't know if the Spanish-speakers couldn't speak English, or were just playing dumb as the gringos yelled at each other, but they paid up and left. The white dude wanted to talk to the owner. When the owner heard the story, he told him to get out of the store.

Liberty's Edge

Andrew R wrote:
Krensky wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
As the proud descendant of illegal Italian immigrants: No.
Your criminal ancestors insult mine that worked to do things right

You're all illegal immigrants.

I guarentee I had ancestors here whenever yours got off the boat.

And i bet yours took that land from someone else.

Sorry, all the evidence points to the Lenape being the original inhabitants of their area.

Try again.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Samnell wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:


Yeah, that's all true. But fleeing from Italy because you're wanted for smuggling and then lying about your identity at Ellis Island must've broken a law or two.
Lying to the immigration examiners probably did, but it would be a really hard law to have enforced. It's not like they had a hotline to Rome and could ask the King to check his databases.

Yes, I know...

G&&#*~nit, Samnell, Citizen R. didn't know all that. Stop ruining my trolling!

All of this ruining your trolling got me to finally fight my way through Ellis Island's strange registration scheme (Why is it rejecting passwords that meet all the criteria it lists?!) and locate my great-grandfather, great-grandmother, and the two year old and ten year old they hauled with them across the ocean. Even had pictures of the manifest and ships.

Funnily enough both ships were involved in WWI. One was captured by the US and became the USS Von Steuben before being scrapped in 1923. The other was converted to an auxiliary cruiser and scuttled (according to the Germans) or sunk fair and square (according to the British) off Spanish West Africa.

Neat.


thejeff wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
I know unions love gathering that dues money and all but we need more jobs and less people.

"Less people" isn't the answer to unemployment. Fewer people does mean less competition for jobs, but it also means reduced consumer demand == lower profits == lay-offs == reduced consumer demand... It's not hard to see the vicious cycle there.

What we really need is to maximize the productivity of as many people as possible. legal or otherwise. Yes, this is easier said than done.

I'm not so sure about the maximizing productivity thing. We're far more productive than we were 50 years ago. Does that really help most of us?

If we can do twice as much with the same manpower, why can't we instead kick back, let everyone work half as much and still get the same amount done?
Wouldn't you really have more leisure time rather than more stuff? Or, rather more leisure time instead of rich people having more numbers in their broker's accounts? Since the vast majority of the gains from those productivity increases have gone to the owners not the workers.

I completely agree regarding distro of wealth...but that sounds downright socialist!

Baby steps. ;-)


bugleyman wrote:
thejeff wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
I know unions love gathering that dues money and all but we need more jobs and less people.

"Less people" isn't the answer to unemployment. Fewer people does mean less competition for jobs, but it also means reduced consumer demand == lower profits == lay-offs == reduced consumer demand... It's not hard to see the vicious cycle there.

What we really need is to maximize the productivity of as many people as possible. legal or otherwise. Yes, this is easier said than done.

I'm not so sure about the maximizing productivity thing. We're far more productive than we were 50 years ago. Does that really help most of us?

If we can do twice as much with the same manpower, why can't we instead kick back, let everyone work half as much and still get the same amount done?
Wouldn't you really have more leisure time rather than more stuff? Or, rather more leisure time instead of rich people having more numbers in their broker's accounts? Since the vast majority of the gains from those productivity increases have gone to the owners not the workers.

I completely agree regarding distro of wealth...but that sounds downright socialist!

Baby steps. ;-)

Not even redistribution of wealth. How about a 35 hour work week? There's nothing magic about 40 hours. That was a massive fight to win. The regular workweek was 60+ not long before. Productivity has grown massively since then.


thejeff wrote:
Not even redistribution of wealth. How about a 35 hour work week? There's nothing magic about 40 hours. That was a massive fight to win. The regular workweek was 60+ not long before. Productivity has grown massively since then.

I distribution, not redistribution. But that's beside the point.

You seem to think I'm suggesting we squeeze more from workers...I'm not. I was referring to overall productivity (as in GDP). I was simply making the point that more people != inherently bad for the economy.


A Man In Black wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
DO the search then, prove to me that disease and drugs coming out of mexico are not a problem. This is common knowledge as sure as the sun will rise, or do you need proof of that too.

No, you don't get to say "Drug mules and disease are documented facts, [immigrants] are bringing diseases we thought basically gone back into the nation" and then demand people prove you wrong when you're called on it! It's "common knowledge as sure as the sun will rise" among racist a*@!$%+s; everyone else is kind of skeptical of this xenophobic garbage.

Prove your claims or get out.

This.

Andrew R, if you're going to make claims that others are incredulous of, you have to show evidence. You can't just say stuff like "the moon is made of green cheese" or "Obama is a reptile" without getting challenged on it.

If you're hearing this stuff from somewhere, and not just pulling it out of your backside, then just show us. Yes, if it's solely from some crazy right wing source that is known for utter fabrications (like Fox News! HA!) then yes we'll pick it apart. But at least we'll understand where you get your talking points from, which only makes you naive, not batshit crazy or a racist a@%+&&*.


FWIW, some of my ancestors came here on the Mayflower.
Like, I know they weren't paragons of virtue by modern standards, but they were here quite a bit earlier than many of your (non-native) ancestors.

Lantern Lodge

Hollow points are internationally illegal to use in war (as in by the military against anyone other than their own people on their own land).

My problem with immigrants being illegal is they come don't learn our language and/or steal our jobs by being paid under the table for less wages then any American would accept. If an individual doesn't do either of those then I don't have much of a problem (well Spanish is grating on my ears but I do have some morals here)

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

DarkLightHitomi wrote:
My problem with immigrants being illegal is they come don't learn our language and/or steal our jobs by being paid under the table for less wages then any American would accept. If an individual doesn't do either of those then I don't have much of a problem (well Spanish is grating on my ears but I do have some morals here)

If you make it legal to immigrate to work, those immigrants benefit from all the nice worker protections that make it an even playing field. Plus, if you let immigrants go to school, then they can learn English! In the meantime, if it's super important that you know what someone who speaks Spanish is saying in Spanish, the obvious course of action is to learn Spanish, rather than complaining that people are speaking a language you don't.

Lantern Lodge

Except that they have come to my home and expect me to change when they are the new kids, this was my home first. When in Rome do as the Romans do.


DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Except that they have come to my home and expect me to change when they are the new kids, this was my home first. When in Rome do as the Romans do.

They expect nothing of the sort. /boggle

201 to 250 of 341 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / How To Oppress the Lower Class(es) All Messageboards