Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Fewer jobs means blood in the streets.

falconduler
Posts: 228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2012 6:12:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
General Electric's quarterly report shows that most of their revenue came from outside the country.

This is true throughout most of the big fortune 500 companies.

Little revenue coming from domestic business means that the population of over 300 million will be fighting over fewer and fewer jobs in the future.

There's little that this country produces that isn't made either in china ,india,brasil or mexico. at a much cheaper cost.

The situation becomes gravely more compounded when you factor in all of the unskilled workers in this country's work force.

Schools will not make a difference on a large segment of newly arrived immigrant class, hardly able to find productive employment ,or can afford to study and learn new skills.

We are becoming a nation, not just of immigrants, but a nation of idle ,unproductive elements sapping this country dry.

This is not something you will learn watching the 6 o'clock news!

What it means is that large scale violence is just right around the corner!
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2012 4:57:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Fewer jobs means blood in the streets."

And then there will be even fewer jobs. But look on the bright side, there will be abortion and gay marrige.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2012 8:53:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/4/2012 8:13:27 PM, Danielle wrote:
Blood in the streets isn't always a bad thing. That's pretty much how every Revolution looked.

I seriously think it's time for another revolution. I would fight in it. And I think this is consistent with the NAP which I don't 100% subscribe to but generally think is a pretty good calculus... I'll keep it at that because if I really went into detail, the feds might be at my door one of these days. Certainly most Americans would say (whether they really believe it or have been propagandized, either way) that the American Revolution was justified and necessary and heroic and all that. Thomas Jefferson once said that there should be a revolution every 19 years, I think something along those lines anyway. He wasn't kidding or being metaphoric. Given all this it's quite ironic how must of us in the north, particularly the northeast, view the civil war, and how the south was supposedly unjustified in seceding but the north was justified in launching a war of aggression to preserve the union. Unfortunately, that forever settled the question of the right of secession from the United States of America. And unfortunately, any actual seceeders today who would be prepared to fight and die if challenged would just be portrayed as rogue domestic terrorists and they'd be put down in a heartbeat. Sigh....
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2012 8:55:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/4/2012 8:13:27 PM, Danielle wrote:
Blood in the streets isn't always a bad thing. That's pretty much how every Revolution looked.

I seriously think it's time for another revolution. I would fight in it. And I think this is consistent with the NAP which I don't 100% subscribe to but generally think is a pretty good calculus... I'll keep it at that because if I really went into detail, the feds might be at my door one of these days. Certainly most Americans would say (whether they really believe it or have been propagandized, either way) that the American Revolution was justified and necessary and heroic and all that. Thomas Jefferson once said that there should be a revolution every 19 years, I think something along those lines anyway. He wasn't kidding or being metaphoric.

Given all this it's quite ironic how must of us in the north, particularly the northeast, view the civil war, and how the south was supposedly unjustified in seceding but the north was justified in launching a war of aggression to preserve the union. Unfortunately, that forever settled the question of the right of secession from the United States of America. And unfortunately, any actual seceeders today who would be prepared to fight and die if challenged would just be portrayed as rogue domestic terrorists and they'd be put down in a heartbeat. Sigh....
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2012 8:56:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Woops, sorry for the double post, first time I got a notification saying it wasn't "unique" despite it having apparently posted so I made it 2 paragraphs and did it again.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2012 8:17:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/4/2012 8:56:24 PM, jat93 wrote:
Woops, sorry for the double post, first time I got a notification saying it wasn't "unique" despite it having apparently posted so I made it 2 paragraphs and did it again.

I read both of them anyway.
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2012 3:21:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
First of all, illegal immigrants do work, harder than you and for less money. But if you mean their naturalized children will be jobless, you can safely be dismissed as essentially a Luddite; you're not taking into account capital's capacity to expand production. Don't you worry your conservative little mind; work will be imposed upon them yet.
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2012 4:08:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/4/2012 8:55:07 PM, jat93 wrote:
Given all this it's quite ironic how must of us in the north, particularly the northeast, view the civil war, and how the south was supposedly unjustified in seceding but the north was justified in launching a war of aggression to preserve the union. Unfortunately, that forever settled the question of the right of secession from the United States of America. And unfortunately, any actual seceeders today who would be prepared to fight and die if challenged would just be portrayed as rogue domestic terrorists and they'd be put down in a heartbeat. Sigh....

Most people, most revolutionaries even, sided with or would have sided with the North, albeit reluctantly. You're correct, it was a war to preserve the union and thus a war of aggression. It should have been a war to end slavery; if it were, both slavery and the war would have ended sooner. But the fact is that the war ultimately did end slavery, which is more important than the South's right to sell the products of slavery tax-free.