Conquer Club

Napoleon Ier wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:People can economically benefited if skilled workers come here, then bugger off. Not if they settle, demand benefits family allocations social security etc, reproduce like rabbits and then burn our cars, veil our women, beat up whites etc, and literally seize control of entire departments of the national territory

Well these are some of the problems of living in a free society to some extent, you leave yourself powerless to a point against some of those things. Now i dont really believe every muslim is out to ruin your culture, like you may (to an extent) but this is necessarily a product of some of those great ideals that make up perhaps some of the best of the culture. If you really want an open society, then there are going to be some necessary negatives.

I want muslims the F*ck outta my country. In Britain some contribute economically, but frankly, in France...
Open society??
Im a liberal, dont get me wrong, but its like HE said "A Nation without borders is not a Nation"

the problem is you dont really get to pick and choose who gets in. At leats not very often anymore. In this day and age, it would probably do more harm than good in the long haul to try and follow such a philsophy.

Aside from the fact that the terminology was missed...the fact of the matter is soverignty of borders is going to eventually become a thing of the past, good or bad. Even if not in a strict sense, we have choosen the path toward integration. Its not all bad, and i think people would be best served by finding ways to grow and develop the things they want to hold on to and from there to learn to adapt to a new system.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:People can economically benefited if skilled workers come here, then bugger off. Not if they settle, demand benefits family allocations social security etc, reproduce like rabbits and then burn our cars, veil our women, beat up whites etc, and literally seize control of entire departments of the national territory

Well these are some of the problems of living in a free society to some extent, you leave yourself powerless to a point against some of those things. Now i dont really believe every muslim is out to ruin your culture, like you may (to an extent) but this is necessarily a product of some of those great ideals that make up perhaps some of the best of the culture. If you really want an open society, then there are going to be some necessary negatives.

I want muslims the F*ck outta my country. In Britain some contribute economically, but frankly, in France...
Open society??
Im a liberal, dont get me wrong, but its like HE said "A Nation without borders is not a Nation"

And I wonder how many muslims do you know personally?

Norse, check out the unemployment figures, and the immigration figures, and do the maths. Its not difficult.

And how has the immigration issue affected the British economy, which is enjoing its most sustained peiod of growth since 1945?

got tonkaed wrote:
Aside from the fact that the terminology was missed [1]...the fact of the matter is soverignty of borders is going to eventually become a thing of the past[2], good or bad[3]. Even if not in a strict sense, we have choosen the path toward integration[4]. Its not all bad, and i think people would be best served by finding ways to grow and develop the things they want to hold on to and from there to learn to adapt to a new system[5].

[1]What?
[2]I disagree
[3]bad
[4]Constitution : NON 54%/OUI 46%
[5]I got a new way to defend what we wanna hold onto :
passion in your heart; FAMAS in your shoulder

Napoleon Ier wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:
Aside from the fact that the terminology was missed [1]...the fact of the matter is soverignty of borders is going to eventually become a thing of the past[2], good or bad[3]. Even if not in a strict sense, we have choosen the path toward integration[4]. Its not all bad, and i think people would be best served by finding ways to grow and develop the things they want to hold on to and from there to learn to adapt to a new system[5].

[1]What?
[2]I disagree
[3]bad
[4]Constitution : NON 54%/OUI 46%
[5]I got a new way to defend what we wanna hold onto :
passion in your heart; FAMAS in your shoulder

1 - states not nations is probably the proper term (i was being a jerk)
2 - well its certainly not for certain yet, but it does seem to be a lot of the product of the way the world economies have developed. Its seemingly a gradual process, but one i think a lot of social scientists and economists would agree with
3 - of course you are entitled to your opinion but there are positive aspects as well
4 - Ill admit i dont know what that vote is for, but i would argue that politics may be at times slower to change than some of the aspects that work beyond the politics
5 - you arent the only one to think that...muslims all over the middle east would argue the same.

Illegal immigrants make our nation seem less dumber than it actually is.

got tonkaed wrote:
1 - states not nations is probably the proper term (i was being a jerk)
2 - well its certainly not for certain yet, but it does seem to be a lot of the product of the way the world economies have developed. Its seemingly a gradual process, but one i think a lot of social scientists and economists would agree with
3 - of course you are entitled to your opinion but there are positive aspects as well
4 - Ill admit i dont know what that vote is for, but i would argue that politics may be at times slower to change than some of the aspects that work beyond the politics
5 - you arent the only one to think that...muslims all over the middle east would argue the same.

[I'll avoid long quotes so it can read it easier]

1. I quoted Reagan directly (but yeh I do the same sometimes with irrelevant pernickity points )
2-5. Explain in further depth, I'm sure someone of your intellect will have perfectly sound points to make, but at the moment I fail to see why a people would want to sign away their autonomy, the vote being the famous EU constitution rejection in May 2005 in France, I believe, even if as we speak that popular expression is flouted by the political elite who perservere in their eurofederast and immigrationist policies, that this will be resisted and overthrown. Dont seek to amalgamate legitimate resistance with defenseof barbaric ideals.

In the words of the Greatest flame of Resistant Spirit :

C'est Vichy recommençe, le Peuple trahi par ses élites
(Vichy again, the People betrayed by their élites--deGaulle)

Chris7He wrote:Illegal immigrants make our nation seem less dumber than it actually is.

and f*ck up the economy in the process

Napoleon Ier wrote:I want muslims the F*ck outta my country. In Britain some contribute economically, but frankly, in France...

..and you "hate the faggots" as well.

You sure do hate a lot of people with your broad brush.

Iliad wrote:And I wonder how many muslims do you know personally?

I would bet the number is close to, if not zero...for both gays & muslims.

Backglass wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:I want muslims the F*ck outta my country. In Britain some contribute economically, but frankly, in France...

..and you "hate the faggots" as well.

You sure do hate a lot of people with your broad brush.

Iliad wrote:And I wonder how many muslims do you know personally?

I would bet the number is close to, if not zero...for both gays & muslims.

I know quite a few muslims, though, you're right only about a half dozen gays

I never said I hated faggots, just called them that.

Also Ill concede some muslims benefit us, but the vast majority, 95%, are hugely detrimental (in France, that is)

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Chris7He wrote:Illegal immigrants make our nation seem less dumber than it actually is.

and f*ck up the economy in the process

I don't think so. They take all the jobs we don't wanna do for big corporations who end up paying less and are able to sell stuff cheaper to people with high paying jobs.

ok...as far as maybe some of the explanation.

Many have argued that part of the outcome of capitalism globalizing through large corporations, is that countries have less and less of a say in how business is run. As a quick example, as part of NAFTA, foreign companies can sue if they feel the government policies are impeding their potential for profit. Very often, the closed court cases are successful for the plantiff.

Likewise, in order for countries to move their goods freely, borders are inevitably going to have to be relaxed. In a world where time is incredibly important, since many of the other costs of business have been reduced because of technology, countries cannot afford to make their borders slow, because labor markets and goods markets will be available somewhere else.

In the same fashion, part of the world opening up, is that similar forms of stratification (ordering of society) will occur on a larger level. There are three divisions of this, typically called, core, semi perhiphery and periphery nations. Typically exploitation flows down, and labor markets move up. However, since this benefits core nations economically, they are apt to do so, even if it means their soverignity is a bit diminshed.

Since much of investment and business is more mobile than ever, there is less of a reason to be tied down than ever before. A famous quote from a corporate executive claimed (who ive shamefully forgoton and im paraphrasing) corporations are only beholdent to their investors and no one else. Therefore they are going to have a competitive advantage over governments, who are beholdent to the people who live in their jurisdiction.

As a result, nations have sought to regionalize, in order to benefit, through a strength in numbers philosophy. By standardizing as much as possible in as many places as possible, regions will be able to gain some control back from their economies they are tied to. However this does come at a cost, they are force to give up some of their solidarity to participate in the group.

However, most of this isnt necessarily my idea, it is the argument on both sides (for and against) all over my discipline of sociology. Ever since the era of reagan and thatcher we have been heading down this path, and by nature this form of capitalism is as good if not better at self replicating than other forms of economics.

As a result, protective economics, and the soverigity that grows from it, are essentially lost. The old notion that if an individual chooses to seperate themselves from the economy, it matters not to the economy irrospective of that persons talent or ability. The same is rapidly becoming true for nations...if you choose not to follow the rules, theres a whole lot of the world who is looking to.

Chris7He wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Chris7He wrote:Illegal immigrants make our nation seem less dumber than it actually is.

and f*ck up the economy in the process

I don't think so. They take all the jobs we don't wanna do for big corporations who end up paying less and are able to sell stuff cheaper to people with high paying jobs.

ok I was being half-serious...I dont know enough about the US economy to be ableto argue convincingly so Ill shut up about that

Chris7He wrote:Illegal immigrants make our nation seem less dumber than it actually is.

I washoping to stay out of this, but this comment forced me in at least for the time being.

When people ignorantly make such comments, it is throwing dirt into legal immigrants' faces for coming here legally. Allowing illegals to stay with no punishment is a slap in the face to the legal immigrants who paid for coming over here, pay taxes, became a citizen, etc. If anything, illegal immagration only takes, not gives.

muy_thaiguy wrote:

Chris7He wrote:Illegal immigrants make our nation seem less dumber than it actually is.

I washoping to stay out of this, but this comment forced me in at least for the time being.

When people ignorantly make such comments, it is throwing dirt into legal immigrants' faces for coming here legally. Allowing illegals to stay with no punishment is a slap in the face to the legal immigrants who paid for coming over here, pay taxes, became a citizen, etc. If anything, illegal immagration only takes, not gives.

I'm a legal immigrant and I know how hard it is, but I was saying in general about immigrants. Sorry.

Chris7He wrote:I'm a legal immigrant

Do i call you Pablo Abdul or Chang?

poor taste

I'm Chris Z. He.

look, this country will fall apart without illegal immigrants. people keep dodging the facts. i live in AZ and i've worked my share of labor jobs. there's so much work american citizens will not do that illegals do for subhuman wages and we need most of it done. i would love it if phoenix would put a cap on growth and all the construction jobs would disapear. but as much as i love the sonoran desert it's not happening anytime soon. and there's so much work besides home building that's necessary in the west. if all illegals were sent back we would have no agriculture industry!

Illegals are the base for the legal immigrants. Legal immigrants fight for illegals' rights because they're pretty much the underbelly of immigrant society.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Chris7He wrote:I'm a legal immigrant

Do i call you Pablo Abdul or Chang?

poor taste

dude, i'm not sure you know anything well enough to argue convincingly

suggs wrote:Economic imigration is tricky. It rathet depends on the level of necessity.
But political immigration (ie, those fleeing tyrannous regimes) is easy: Let them all in, no exceptions. Otherwise England stands for nothing.

Bravo!

*lites touch paper and awaits a Norse shaped explosion*

jiminski wrote:

suggs wrote:Economic imigration is tricky. It rathet depends on the level of necessity.
But political immigration (ie, those fleeing tyrannous regimes) is easy: Let them all in, no exceptions. Otherwise England stands for nothing.

Bravo!

*lites touch paper and awaits a Norse shaped explosion*

Yes Bravo!

So these "imigrations" , that "rathet" depend on necessity?

You carry on "liting" that touch paper. ( I hope that was irony jim)

Norse wrote:

jiminski wrote:

suggs wrote:Economic imigration is tricky. It rathet depends on the level of necessity.
But political immigration (ie, those fleeing tyrannous regimes) is easy: Let them all in, no exceptions. Otherwise England stands for nothing.

Bravo!

*lites touch paper and awaits a Norse shaped explosion*

Yes Bravo!

So these "imigrations" , that "rathet" depend on necessity?

You carry on "liting" that touch paper. ( I hope that was irony jim)

Easy there Tiger.

suggs wrote:Norse, check out the unemployment figures, and the immigration figures, and do the maths. Its not difficult.

And how has the immigration issue affected the British economy, which is enjoing its most sustained peiod of growth since 1945?

Exactly. I think inward migration adds something like 10-15% economic growth each year. Migrant works categorically do not 'steal' jobs from 'native' workers. If that were the case then we'd see spikes in 'native' unemployment in the areas where migrant workers are highest, demographically. We don't.

Guiscard wrote:

suggs wrote:Norse, check out the unemployment figures, and the immigration figures, and do the maths. Its not difficult.

And how has the immigration issue affected the British economy, which is enjoing its most sustained peiod of growth since 1945?

Exactly. I think inward migration adds something like 10-15% economic growth each year. Migrant works categorically do not 'steal' jobs from 'native' workers. If that were the case then we'd see spikes in 'native' unemployment in the areas where migrant workers are highest, demographically. We don't.

To an extent true. My liberal principles do make room for economic immigration, however Guiscard, bear in mind the vast majority of "immigrants" to the UK are American and Australian skilled workers who come purely for the job, you then get lots of hardworking indians etc,then you get lots of araab leeches (though I shant say all, forfear of making unjustified generalistaions)