Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What is our 4T contest about? Can we see it differently?
#61
(03-01-2017, 10:17 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:
(03-01-2017, 09:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(03-01-2017, 06:03 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: Do you seriously think the US ought to accept every refugee/immigrant there is in the whole wide world?  I don't.  There are limits. Have you read the Population Bomb?  Humans have already overbred and the mother nature will do the usual things to correct it.  War,famine,pestilence, and death will ride again, like it's always been.

No, I only mentioned the Syrians. And most of them are going elsewhere anyway. Today's most horrible, dangerous genocide going on is in Syria. Thus, a concern for refugees, which is what this country is based on. All Americans are refugees.

Overbreeding is a problem, but it's irrelevant to this question.

1,  "All Americans are refugees" is not correct.  Some were migrants that came a long time from Asia. Some came to move closer to family, a bunch were just born here, some came in chains, some came (from) assorted places as *voluntary immigrants, and of some were/are refugees.

2. Soooo... The question is a matter of quotas. Overbreeding fits here.  There is no American exceptional-ism  wrt physics.  There's a natural limit to the number of folks who can fit within US borders.  The borders have been the same since say, 1955.  The population is of course larger than it was in 1955. So the question and since it's a physics question, then the ultimate carrying capacity has to be taken into account. 

That's true. Overbreeding is irrelevant to that because immigration today is not the result of overbreeding.

Quote:That means we must ask ourselves if all existing citizens are allocated sufficient resources to have a habitable situation that the US considers adequate.

3. So first, make sure all homeless veterans' lives are adequate.
4. Next make sure all homeless regulars' lives are adequate.
5. Move the folks who are in prison due to mental illness to a proper case facility.  Prison isn't the proper place to treat mental illness.
6. Release non violent criminals on a case by case basis.  Make sure they get some help in going straight.
7. Now, and only now can we get to refugees. After all of those other people are taken care of, look at immigration budget and see if said refugee has some sort of sponsor. If OK on resources, let that 1 in and so forth.
8. Next go through legitimate yearly legal immigration queue and consider on one to one basis.
9. Now, Eric can decide on how to process legal immigration queue and or that along with resident aliens as he pleases. Do we agree on the process outlined above?
10. Would you agree with the either legal immigrant/resident alien option?

10 Is where I don't care which Eric can pick. If Eric agrees to said process, then all we have to discuss is
a. What the yearly quota is.
b. Which process items Eric wants some modification on.

You see, Eric,  I'm assuming you agree that physics has the final word on the US population limit. That's because all resources are limited. That's what Earth Day stuff in grade school told Rags when he was a little boy.

And... What limit do you think is correct wrt population limit for the space the US has?

We're not going to be able to make refugees wait while all of our domestic inadequacies are dealt with, especially in a country that refuses to deal with them. It depends on how much there is in the world to escape from at any given time. Right now there's far more than usual, though they are not mainly coming to the USA. Reading my astrology predictions could have helped, since this current refugee crisis was something I predicted for this time as a once in several-generations event.

I thought the bipartisan immigration bill that the Tea Party House rejected a couple of years ago was adequate. I don't know what the population limit is for the USA; it's not just a question of space, probably. Personally, I think we have enough humans on Earth. The USA is probably less densely populated than many countries.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#62
(03-02-2017, 06:40 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(03-01-2017, 10:17 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:
(03-01-2017, 09:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(03-01-2017, 06:03 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: Do you seriously think the US ought to accept every refugee/immigrant there is in the whole wide world?  I don't.  There are limits. Have you read the Population Bomb?  Humans have already overbred and the mother nature will do the usual things to correct it.  War,famine,pestilence, and death will ride again, like it's always been.

No, I only mentioned the Syrians. And most of them are going elsewhere anyway. Today's most horrible, dangerous genocide going on is in Syria. Thus, a concern for refugees, which is what this country is based on. All Americans are refugees.

Overbreeding is a problem, but it's irrelevant to this question.

1,  "All Americans are refugees" is not correct.  Some were migrants that came a long time from Asia. Some came to move closer to family, a bunch were just born here, some came in chains, some came (from) assorted places as *voluntary immigrants, and of some were/are refugees.

2. Soooo... The question is a matter of quotas. Overbreeding fits here.  There is no American exceptional-ism  wrt physics.  There's a natural limit to the number of folks who can fit within US borders.  The borders have been the same since say, 1955.  The population is of course larger than it was in 1955. So the question and since it's a physics question, then the ultimate carrying capacity has to be taken into account. 

That's true. Overbreeding is irrelevant to that because immigration today is not the result of overbreeding.

Quote:That means we must ask ourselves if all existing citizens are allocated sufficient resources to have a habitable situation that the US considers adequate.

3. So first, make sure all homeless veterans' lives are adequate.
4. Next make sure all homeless regulars' lives are adequate.
5. Move the folks who are in prison due to mental illness to a proper case facility.  Prison isn't the proper place to treat mental illness.
6. Release non violent criminals on a case by case basis.  Make sure they get some help in going straight.
7. Now, and only now can we get to refugees. After all of those other people are taken care of, look at immigration budget and see if said refugee has some sort of sponsor. If OK on resources, let that 1 in and so forth.
8. Next go through legitimate yearly legal immigration queue and consider on one to one basis.
9. Now, Eric can decide on how to process legal immigration queue and or that along with resident aliens as he pleases. Do we agree on the process outlined above?
10. Would you agree with the either legal immigrant/resident alien option?

10 Is where I don't care which Eric can pick. If Eric agrees to said process, then all we have to discuss is
a. What the yearly quota is.
b. Which process items Eric wants some modification on.

You see, Eric,  I'm assuming you agree that physics has the final word on the US population limit. That's because all resources are limited. That's what Earth Day stuff in grade school told Rags when he was a little boy.

And... What limit do you think is correct wrt population limit for the space the US has?

We're not going to be able to make refugees wait while all of our domestic inadequacies are dealt with, especially in a country that refuses to deal with them. It depends on how much there is in the world to escape from at any given time. Right now there's far more than usual, though they are not mainly coming to the USA. Reading my astrology predictions could have helped, since this current refugee crisis was something I predicted for this time as a once in several-generations event.

I thought the bipartisan immigration bill that the Tea Party Houses rejected a couple of years ago was adequate. I don't know what the population limit is for the USA; it's not just a question of space, probably. Personally, I think we have enough humans on Earth. The USA is probably less densely populated than many countries.

OK, since you've decided to queue jump refugees, which other party[s] are you going to tell will have to wait.?  Sorry, you have to pick, since each choice has consequences.  You'll know what I mean if you've played Sim City.   There are no unicorns that shit golden bricks.

Wrt immigration reform,  let's learn from a prior FUBAR.  Before any amnesty or path to citizenship, the border needs to be plugged.  That means we need the wall built, drones deployed, and other border control measures are fully implemented , before proceeding with a path to citizenship.  I would not just  go off and do a mass deportation thingie, because that's messy. Just get rid of the felons and of course whacking employers.  Employers of illegal aliens are disgusting. They do that to exploit labor and to make their stuff cheaper.  They need some huge fines and then hit for tax violations after that.  Then, the US can implement a population overshoot prevention plan.  No tax write offs for more than 2 kids and stuff like that.

The US does have an overbreeding problem, right now.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW

The goal of course if for the US to achieve the golden goose egg.
---Value Added Cool
Reply
#63
(03-02-2017, 06:13 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:
(03-02-2017, 06:40 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(03-01-2017, 10:17 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:
(03-01-2017, 09:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(03-01-2017, 06:03 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: Do you seriously think the US ought to accept every refugee/immigrant there is in the whole wide world?  I don't.  There are limits. Have you read the Population Bomb?  Humans have already overbred and the mother nature will do the usual things to correct it.  War,famine,pestilence, and death will ride again, like it's always been.

No, I only mentioned the Syrians. And most of them are going elsewhere anyway. Today's most horrible, dangerous genocide going on is in Syria. Thus, a concern for refugees, which is what this country is based on. All Americans are refugees.

Overbreeding is a problem, but it's irrelevant to this question.

1,  "All Americans are refugees" is not correct.  Some were migrants that came a long time from Asia. Some came to move closer to family, a bunch were just born here, some came in chains, some came (from) assorted places as *voluntary immigrants, and of some were/are refugees.

2. Soooo... The question is a matter of quotas. Overbreeding fits here.  There is no American exceptional-ism  wrt physics.  There's a natural limit to the number of folks who can fit within US borders.  The borders have been the same since say, 1955.  The population is of course larger than it was in 1955. So the question and since it's a physics question, then the ultimate carrying capacity has to be taken into account. 

That's true. Overbreeding is irrelevant to that because immigration today is not the result of overbreeding.

Quote:That means we must ask ourselves if all existing citizens are allocated sufficient resources to have a habitable situation that the US considers adequate.

3. So first, make sure all homeless veterans' lives are adequate.
4. Next make sure all homeless regulars' lives are adequate.
5. Move the folks who are in prison due to mental illness to a proper case facility.  Prison isn't the proper place to treat mental illness.
6. Release non violent criminals on a case by case basis.  Make sure they get some help in going straight.
7. Now, and only now can we get to refugees. After all of those other people are taken care of, look at immigration budget and see if said refugee has some sort of sponsor. If OK on resources, let that 1 in and so forth.
8. Next go through legitimate yearly legal immigration queue and consider on one to one basis.
9. Now, Eric can decide on how to process legal immigration queue and or that along with resident aliens as he pleases. Do we agree on the process outlined above?
10. Would you agree with the either legal immigrant/resident alien option?

10 Is where I don't care which Eric can pick. If Eric agrees to said process, then all we have to discuss is
a. What the yearly quota is.
b. Which process items Eric wants some modification on.

You see, Eric,  I'm assuming you agree that physics has the final word on the US population limit. That's because all resources are limited. That's what Earth Day stuff in grade school told Rags when he was a little boy.

And... What limit do you think is correct wrt population limit for the space the US has?

We're not going to be able to make refugees wait while all of our domestic inadequacies are dealt with, especially in a country that refuses to deal with them. It depends on how much there is in the world to escape from at any given time. Right now there's far more than usual, though they are not mainly coming to the USA. Reading my astrology predictions could have helped, since this current refugee crisis was something I predicted for this time as a once in several-generations event.

I thought the bipartisan immigration bill that the Tea Party Houses rejected a couple of years ago was adequate. I don't know what the population limit is for the USA; it's not just a question of space, probably. Personally, I think we have enough humans on Earth. The USA is probably less densely populated than many countries.

OK, since you've decided to queue jump refugees, which other party[s] are you going to tell will have to wait.?  Sorry, you have to pick, since each choice has consequences.  You'll know what I mean if you've played Sim City.   There are no unicorns that shit golden bricks.

Wrt immigration reform,  let's learn from a prior FUBAR.  Before any amnesty or path to citizenship, the border needs to be plugged.  That means we need the wall built, drones deployed, and other border control measures are fully implemented , before proceeding with a path to citizenship.  I would not just  go off and do a mass deportation thingie, because that's messy. Just get rid of the felons and of course whacking employers.  Employers of illegal aliens are disgusting. They do that to exploit labor and to make their stuff cheaper.  They need some huge fines and then hit for tax violations after that.  Then, the US can implement a population overshoot prevention plan.  No tax write offs for more than 2 kids and stuff like that.

The US does have an overbreeding problem, right now.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW

The goal of course if for the US to achieve the golden goose egg.

The wall is nothing but a campaign slogan. More border enforcement is not needed; illegal immigration is not a problem now. Obama was doing an adequate job.

I would agree with your population prevention plan. Employers should not employ "cheap labor." There should be no such thing. All workers, illegal or not, should be paid a living wage. If we want to bring back jobs, then one thing that can be done is to tax goods at the border produced with cheap labor abroad. A reasonable tax negotiated, and not imposed out of anger. I doubt Trump can accomplish this.

The path to citizenship was fine as proposed. Blocking it was just more Republican crap. But, it looks like you'll get your way, at least partially.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#64
(03-02-2017, 08:24 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: <snip>

The wall is nothing but a campaign slogan. More border enforcement is not needed; illegal immigration is not a problem now. Obama was doing an adequate job.

I would agree with your population prevention plan. Employers should not employ "cheap labor." There should be no such thing. All workers, illegal or not, should be paid a living wage. If we want to bring back jobs, then one thing that can be done is to tax goods at the border produced with cheap labor abroad. A reasonable tax negotiated, and not imposed out of anger. I doubt Trump can accomplish this.

The path to citizenship was fine as proposed. Blocking it was just more Republican crap. But, it looks like you'll get your way, at least partially.

1.  Even if the wall were a campaign slogan, I think it's a good idea, provided we as the beneficiaries there of pay for it unto ourselves. The sloganeering part, I think was the silly idea that Mexico should pay for it.

2. Uh, there is a WTO compliant border tax, it's call the VAT. You''re not proposing going against the WTO are you?

3. Yes, but the first the wall/other border security items/hope for war on drugs to be ceased/.   After that , start path of citizenship.  I want the bricks in the wall of priority setting to be well, built so that this:






yeah, this kind of thing.   It's just a sad, but so true thing, from past, present, and future, humans are just so, so, tacky.

lyrics Wrote:oo many slaves in this world
Die by torture and pain
Too many people do not see
They're killing themselves, going insane
Too many people do not know
Bondage is over the human race
They believe slaves always lose
And this fear keeps them down
Watch the damned (God bless ya)
They're gonna break their chains (Hey)
No, you can't stop them (God bless ya)
They're coming to get you
And then you'll get your
Balls to the wall, man
Balls to the wall
You'll get your balls to the wall, man
Balls to the wall, balls to the wall
You may screw their brains
You may sacrifice them, too
You may mortify their flesh
You may rape them all

ne day the tortured stand up
And revolt against the evil
They make you drink your blood
And tear yourself to pieces
You better watch the damned (God bless ya)
They're gonna break their chains (Hey)
No, you can't stop them (God bless ya)
They're coming to get you
And then you'll get your
Balls to the wall, man
Balls to the wall
You'll get your balls to the wall, man
Balls to the wall, balls to the wall
Come on man, let's stand up all over the world
Let's plug a bomb in everyone's arse
If they don't keep us alive, we're gonna fight for the right
Build a wall with the bodies of the dead, and you're saved
Make the world scared, come on, show me the sign of victory
Sign of victory, sign of victory
You better watch the damned (God bless ya)
They're gonna break their chains (Hey)
No, you can't stop them (God bless ya)
They're coming to get you
And then you'll get your
Balls to the wall, man
Balls to the wall

You, know what such CEO's like Bezos have goin'g on now...

expose on Amazon.com Wrote:he following narratives were assembled from oral and written contributions from Employees J, K, and L, three individuals with recent Amazon warehouse work experience.  All three provided general information, while J related the personal experiences in today’s episode and K those in tomorrow’s.  All three employees reviewed the final draft for accuracy and fidelity to their experiences.
If you live somewhere in flyover country like I do, you might have seen billboard ads for jobs at an Amazon warehouse. That’s where I work, and my shift has just begun.  I carry around a small device called a scanner.  It asks me:
Quote:How do you feel about working at Amazon?
(1) Great!
(2) Great!  I’m proud to work at Amazon!
I select the correct answer and begin my ten hour shift.
I work as a picker.  The scanner tells me to fetch a book on a particular shelf.  I hurry to the shelf, rummage through a box containing children’s toys, clothes, sex toys, and other assorted objects, and find the book.  I throw it into a tote on my cart and then the scanner tells me to get a new item.  When the tote is full, I put it on a conveyor belt.
It’s a bit like being a peon in Warcraft.  While trying to keep up with the target rate of 100-120 items an hour, I walk about 12 miles per shift.  As I hurry past the shelves, I’m always under surveillance.  Throughout the warehouse, there are videocameras every ten feet – literally.  Thousands and thousands of them.
You aren’t allowed to listen to music or audiobooks while working.  The stated reason is that it would represent a safety hazard, but you are allowed to wear earplugs to protect your eardrums from the incessant noise, so I’m not sure what’s up with that.  Sitting anywhere at any time is also considered a safety violation.  That, we are told, is why there are no chairs in the warehouse.  If five minutes ever passes without you accomplishing a task, the scanner informs management.  This, combined with the independent nature of each individual’s tasks, makes conversation a short random gift from the gods.
I’m not sure if I will have to come in for mandatory overtime this week.  They expect us to be available for at least one extra shift each week and sometimes give us only a day’s notice.  Thankfully I don’t have kids, so I don’t need to worry about scrambling to find child care when the automated phone call arrives.
here’s the quiz question again:
Quote:How do you feel about working at Amazon?
(1) Great!
(2) Great!  I’m proud to work at Amazon!
I’m about to select (2) as always, but I recently figured out that there’s a way to scroll down the screen (it involves an orange button and the number 8, in case you were curious).  This reveals two more answers:
Quote:(3) I wish I was working a job using different skills.
(4) Prefer not to answer.
“Huh, that’s funny,” I think to myself.  “I wonder how many other people never realized that there were extra answers.”  At any rate, the correct answer hasn’t changed, and so I select it.
A special time of year
Peak season arrives, and we are now required to work sixty hour weeks (six ten-hour shifts).  When I get off work, I hurry to do laundry and other necessary errands, and the rest of my time off is spent watching TV and Netflix.  I know I should do more, but my brain just wants to unwind.
My scanner has another question for me:
Quote:How do you feel about this statement?
“Amazon gives me all the training I need to do my job successfully.”
(A) strongly agree
(B) agree
© neither agree nor disagree
I’m about to respond, but mindful of my previous experience, I realize that there might be additional hidden answers.  I scroll down and, what do you know, there are two more options:
Quote:(D) disagree
(E) strongly disagree
As usual, the correct answer was in the first set.  I select it and continue with my shift.
Those of us who have stuck around for a while sometimes get rewarded by being assigned to “indirect work.”  This involves ten hour shifts of replenishing stacks of totes, taking them off conveyor belts, or emptying out large bins filled with used cardboard.  It’s just as monotonous as picking, but maybe managers think it breaks up the monotony of the week.  Sometimes I’ve talked to workers who are unhappy about missing out on these special assignments.  However, I’ve heard that they plan in the future to decide who gets indirect work based on a computer algorithm, and then there won’t be any basis for complaints about unfairness.
To interrupt the routine, I go to the only place in the warehouse without cameras in plain view: the bathroom.  Inside, a new factoid is posted above the urinal.  It reads:
Quote:When asked whether they had all the tools necessary to do their job correctly, 82% agreed or strongly agreed!  If you ever feel you do not have adequate training, please contact HR.
I’m stunned.  18% of the people did not give a positive response to an obviously loaded question that might threaten their company prospects??  You respond to the question after logging in, so it’s not like they don’t know who you are.
My ears start ringing
Despite wearing earplugs to muffle the noise of conveyor belts and other machinery, my ears have started ringing.  I go to an urgent care clinic and meet a professional doctor.  She talks to me compassionately for more than half an hour, gives me a small amount of Prednisone, and recommends wearing headphones over my earplugs at work.  In her official report, she says she suspects the symptoms are work-related.
The next day at work, I am grilled about my symptoms and sent to an occupational health clinic.  The Amazon-paid doctor I meet chats with me for ten minutes, glances at the other doctor’s report, and then tells me my symptoms are certainly not work-related.  “I’ve been in those warehouses before, and they’re not that loud,” he explains.  I told him the other doctor disagreed.  “They’re going to take my word over hers,” he answers.  “If the noise bothers you, maybe you could try wearing earplugs?”  I grit my teeth.
He’s right – the Amazon worker’s compensation people deny my request to see an ear, nose, and throat specialist.  I try to call them back and speak with the doctor, and receive a message telling me that he isn’t in and they can’t take messages.
It’s starting to seem really clear that I should have majored in econ and not English.
Some time later, after about half a year on the job, I decide to quit.  Of the twenty-some workers that signed up with me, only one is still there.
If you are still puzzled over the meaning of the title, read tomorrow’s installment, in which all will be made clear.








Neoliberalism, building the ultimate wall, brick by brick, one resentment at a time, man.  [Image: weed-2.gif]
---Value Added Cool
Reply
#65
(03-02-2017, 08:49 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:
(03-02-2017, 08:24 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: <snip>

The wall is nothing but a campaign slogan. More border enforcement is not needed; illegal immigration is not a problem now. Obama was doing an adequate job.

I would agree with your population prevention plan. Employers should not employ "cheap labor." There should be no such thing. All workers, illegal or not, should be paid a living wage. If we want to bring back jobs, then one thing that can be done is to tax goods at the border produced with cheap labor abroad. A reasonable tax negotiated, and not imposed out of anger. I doubt Trump can accomplish this.

The path to citizenship was fine as proposed. Blocking it was just more Republican crap. But, it looks like you'll get your way, at least partially.

1.  Even if the wall were a campaign slogan, I think it's a good idea, provided we as the beneficiaries there of pay for it unto ourselves. The sloganeering part, I think was the silly idea that Mexico should pay for it.

2. Uh, there is a WTO compliant border tax, it's call the VAT. You''re not proposing going against the WTO are you?

3. Yes, but the first the wall/other border security items/hope for war on drugs to be ceased/.   After that , start path of citizenship. 

1. We already have all the walls we need. The Trump Wall is a boondoggle. It was a campaign slogan in its entirety. I admit, "make Mexico pay for it" was a brilliant appeal to red-voter prejudice and anger. Trump is a marketing genius--- and the worst president we have ever had, already. But I'm sure he'll put his name on the Wall every 300 yards. In big gold letters.

By the way, the people near the would-be wall don't want it. It would infringe on their rights and their commerce and much else. Enforcement is going fine; I don't really want to tear down the wall we have just yet (despite my comment below which I actually wrote first).

2. The border tax is called a tariff; what's wrong with that label? It worked for 200 years.

3. Those who want to build the wall, also want the war on drugs, and to seize drugs at the border.

Who's against drugs? Remember this?





Quote:Neoliberalism, building the ultimate wall, brick by brick, one resentment at a time, man.  [Image: weed-2.gif]

Build bridges, not walls, man! Kudoes to Pope Francis Smile
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#66
(03-02-2017, 08:57 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(03-02-2017, 08:49 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:
(03-02-2017, 08:24 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: <snip>

The wall is nothing but a campaign slogan. More border enforcement is not needed; illegal immigration is not a problem now. Obama was doing an adequate job.

I would agree with your population prevention plan. Employers should not employ "cheap labor." There should be no such thing. All workers, illegal or not, should be paid a living wage. If we want to bring back jobs, then one thing that can be done is to tax goods at the border produced with cheap labor abroad. A reasonable tax negotiated, and not imposed out of anger. I doubt Trump can accomplish this.

The path to citizenship was fine as proposed. Blocking it was just more Republican crap. But, it looks like you'll get your way, at least partially.

1.  Even if the wall were a campaign slogan, I think it's a good idea, provided we as the beneficiaries there of pay for it unto ourselves. The sloganeering part, I think was the silly idea that Mexico should pay for it.

2. Uh, there is a WTO compliant border tax, it's call the VAT. You''re not proposing going against the WTO are you?

3. Yes, but the first the wall/other border security items/hope for war on drugs to be ceased/.   After that , start path of citizenship. 

1. We already have all the walls we need. The Trump Wall is a boondoggle. It was a campaign slogan in its entirety. I admit, "make Mexico pay for it" was a brilliant appeal to red-voter prejudice and anger. Trump is a marketing genius--- and the worst president we have ever had, already. But I'm sure he'll put his name on the Wall every 300 yards. In big gold letters.

By the way, the people near the would-be wall don't want it. It would infringe on their rights and their commerce and much else. Enforcement is going fine; I don't really want to tear down the wall we have just yet (despite my comment below which I actually wrote first).

2. The border tax is called a tariff; what's wrong with that label? It worked for 200 years.

3. Those who want to build the wall, also want the war on drugs, and to seize drugs at the border.

Who's against drugs? Remember this?





Quote:Neoliberalism, building the ultimate wall, brick by brick, one resentment at a time, man.  [Image: weed-2.gif]

Build bridges, not walls, man! Kudoes to Pope Francis Smile

I prefer "good fences make for good neighbors" <- common sense.  I want everyone's kids off my lawn!!!!


Yes, your usual politician is an idiot thingie.  War on drugs?  Seriously.  Stupid politicians,  drugs are inanimate substances or just assorted plants and odd toad.

We declare war on toads!  Toads are evil and give you warts and shit.  Go forth and slaughter all toads you see.

We declare war on meth,  OK meth, [img=1057x791]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/90/Methamphetamine_molecule_from_xtal_ball.png/1280px-Methamphetamine_molecule_from_xtal_ball.png[/img]

Yes, there it is, meth, go kill it all now.  Every last molecule, go kill it now.

Uh, Trump, the US , I think has the best bud now, so we send weed to Mexico.  Yeah, and other drugs like mercury and arsenic your coal crap sends everyone around it.  How about those drugs?  Is OK for Big Coal to send those drugs out?
---Value Added Cool
Reply
#67
We need to legalize those buds & tax em
Heart  Bernie/Tulsi 2020    Heart
Reply
#68
Bit of humor I found on Reddit:

Quote:Okay. History has a writers strike and we clearly have reruns of the Nixon years. 2016 was a rerun of 1968 with Sanders as Eugene McCarthy, Clinton as Humphrey, and Nixon as Trump.

We skipped 1969 to 1972, except for the Russian hacking which is dead similar to Watergate with a dose of heavy treason. In Watergate, DNC was broken into for campaign advantage. 2016, DNC was broken into for campaign advantage.

Now we know Pence is Agnew. If he's replaced with that Gerald Ford expy Kevin McCarthy, that's when I toss my hands up and start looking for signs we're living in some goofy Truman show that didn't bother hiring any writers.
As I mentioned to Jordan a few weeks ago, we seem to be replaying parts of the Awakening...
#MakeTheDemocratsGreatAgain
Reply
#69
Five possible results:

1. Greasing the skids for President Trump should he prove unduly reckless and incompetent.
2. Finding ways in which to shield America and the world from his most dangerous tendencies.
3. Making him irrelevant in 2019 or so by getting the Democrats to win back one or both Houses of Congress so that there will be strong and effective checks and balances in play.
4. Waiting him out, expecting him to lose the 2020 Presidential election or decide that he will not run for re-election, with the prospect of new American leadership that can undo most of the damage.

Those could range from benign to horrid. Something that would have never happened under any prior President, a military or political coup is possible... and that could lead to a long period of dictatorial rule itself horrible. Think of Chile under Pinochet. The best possibility is that we make reforms to our political order so that we never experience the depravity of the Trump era again.

OK, what is the 5th possibility?

5. Picking up the pieces after a calamity that he has either perpetrated or bungled his way into.

Imagine the worst and how we would deal with it as a nation. This President thinks much like the political leaders who bungled their way into World War I. (Note well; our President is not comparable to Hitler, Tojo, or Mussolini).

All in all -- it is all about survival, personal, institutional, and national. When all those things matter, then we are undeniably in a Crisis Era.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#70
(03-11-2017, 11:09 AM)Odin Wrote: Bit of humor I found on Reddit:

Quote:Okay. History has a writers strike and we clearly have reruns of the Nixon years. 2016 was a rerun of 1968 with Sanders as Eugene McCarthy, Clinton as Humphrey, and Nixon as Trump.

We skipped 1969 to 1972, except for the Russian hacking which is dead similar to Watergate with a dose of heavy treason. In Watergate, DNC was broken into for campaign advantage. 2016, DNC was broken into for campaign advantage.

Now we know Pence is Agnew. If he's replaced with that Gerald Ford expy Kevin McCarthy, that's when I toss my hands up and start looking for signs we're living in some goofy Truman show that didn't bother hiring any writers.
As I mentioned to Jordan a few weeks ago, we seem to be replaying parts of the Awakening...

It. Just. keeps. getting. worse.

Donald Trump is Richard Nixon without the political savvy.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)