Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
Online
583 guest(s) and 0 member(s)
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
so this problem of migrants is getting on my nerves.......a beautiful country like italy now flodded by migrants from africa and most of them are islamic
its like a virus pathogen affecting a handsome beautiful body. so much of money being wasted in handling, processing these ppl. and most of them wont even assimilate the Italian culture of values. like a virus they are gonna spread the islamic values and create more problems in European countries.
my solution is simple
1) Either shoot the boats once they cross into territory. if there is an international hue and cry about it, let those countries give safe passage for those migrants. now lets see who talks loud.
2) The other option is quite simple, accept them, but then let their lifes be govered by strict laws. Literally they are slaves, with limited freedoms. Certainly being of a generous nature, a few handful with talents may be allowed into the general population. But alias the vast majority of smelly islamic migrants will need to be menial labour....like building construction, roads, bridges, toilet cleaning, garbage disposal, underground sewer cleanup..etc and slaves for orgies. if they feel they are fed up and cannot take it any more, they are free to return back to their under developed African countries.
And oh one thing i forgot to mention is that reproduction of migrants is strictly forbidden. Think of a virus rapidly spreading around. Now we dont want that do we? Certainly that will not deter them, so new laws certainly need to be introduced. migrants offspring's will simply be property of state. They will be catholized and send off to do duties for the state. They get wages less than the average and thus saving the tax payers money being wasted on these dumb idiots. Sorry that's the punishment for creating new underdeveloped humans. This will act as a effective deterrence policy.
_________________ persequor persequi persecutus
Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2015 9:11 am
Pogma9
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 19, 2008
Posts: 2522
LOL....
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2015 7:36 pm
FUCK_YOU_ALL
A Winner is me!
Joined: Feb 02, 2009
Posts: 630
Location: Why so serious? Seriously, why? It doesn't make sense.
Britain will still be bound by international human rights conventions. Unless they wish to cancel those too of course. Whoever is stupid enough to get out of the EU, can do anything I suppose, although cancelling international human rights conventions would really be a step back. But I suppose that's what they are after, right?
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2016 9:53 am
Pogma9
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 19, 2008
Posts: 2522
Oh, what are the benefits of being in the EU?
U do understand that the major difference is that they get out from the stranglehold of the bank's right?
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2016 11:40 am
Alez
A Winner is me!
Joined: Apr 09, 2009
Posts: 669
Location: Romania
You probably think that the EU is a JEWISH CONSPIRACY.
_________________ Sigs are for n00bs!
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2016 11:49 am
Pogma9
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 19, 2008
Posts: 2522
Alez wrote:
You probably think that the EU is a JEWISH CONSPIRACY.
Who controls the banks Jew lover?
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2016 1:51 am
_Master_
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 18, 2009
Posts: 1711
berzerker wrote:
But I suppose that's what they are after, right?
they who? oh wait....you mean the queens ppl who voted for brexit? well on the bright side there will still be tea
_________________ follow me or get out of the way
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2016 5:25 am
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
Pogma9 wrote:
Oh, what are the benefits of being in the EU?
Well, what's the advantage of Texas being in the USA? Or of NSW of being in Australia? Or of Kopenhagen of being in Denmark? Of Scotland of being in the UK? I suppose you are trying to pull my leg.
Pogma9 wrote:
U do understand that the major difference is that they get out from the stranglehold of the bank's right?
I have heard a lot of reasons why the Brits considered leaving, but 'banks' was not among any of them.
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2016 11:41 am
Pogma9
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 19, 2008
Posts: 2522
berzerker wrote:
Pogma9 wrote:
Oh, what are the benefits of being in the EU?
Well, what's the advantage of Texas being in the USA? Or of NSW of being in Australia? Or of Kopenhagen of being in Denmark? Of Scotland of being in the UK? I suppose you are trying to pull my leg.
Pogma9 wrote:
U do understand that the major difference is that they get out from the stranglehold of the bank's right?
I have heard a lot of reasons why the Brits considered leaving, but 'banks' was not among any of them.
THE FUCKEN UK IS STILL IN THE EU REGION FUCKER, THE DIFF IS THAT COCKSUCKERS IN BRUSSELS CAN'T CONTROL THEM AS MUCH, AND THAT INCLUDES COCKSUCKER JEWISH CENTRAL BANKS.
THERE'S SO MUCH INFO ON JEWS/CENTRAL BANKING THAT YOU MUST BE A FUCKING JEW TO DENY IT AND IT'S PROBLEMS.
Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2016 2:52 am
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
You seem to live in a world that you have created with your fellow conspirationalists. In the real world however, Brits voted for Brexit for many reasons, the top 3 of which was:
1. immigration
2. immigration
3. immigration
Anything relating to banks would probably not be in the top 100.
If the EU would limit the free movement of people (which means 'anyone who is allowed to be in any EU country, is free to work in any other EU country'), then the Brits would no doubt vote in again. But that is not going to happen, free movement of people is one of the cornerstones of the EU and has been since its inception (so it was like this way before the UK joined the EU at all), if you change this you might as well do away with the EU altogether, which only idiots want.
Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2016 10:13 am
Pogma9
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 19, 2008
Posts: 2522
LOL, immigration COSTS MONEY, the central cocksucking banks put the cost on the bill, and current and future gen must pay it back+INTEREST, plus it dilutes WAGES.
Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2016 11:07 am
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
Why would immigration cost money when we are talking about *inter-EU* immigration? This is not about Africans / Arabs / Pakis.
How much would it set Australia back if someone 'migrated' from NSW to Queensland or vv?
BTW almost everyone in Australia is an immigrant or an immigrant descendant, yet it seems to have done relatively well in the last 100 years or so, how is that possible? It must have been very poor now with all these immigrant costs.
Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2016 12:52 pm
Pogma9
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 19, 2008
Posts: 2522
It really isn't complicated...."if" people move into an area where jobs are scarce, they don't get a job and must survive via welfare/charity/crime, if however, the economy is booming or in demand, then as long as the number of immigrants doesn't greatly exceed job opportunities, the country does well and INCREASES GDP....by most criteria, and certainly by economic criteria, this is ideal.
The problem England or Italy for that matter{I think Italy is a ridiculous 130% debt/GDP ratio, another Greece in the making}have is twofold, one, the dislike of muslims/non assimilators, and also, the burden additional immigrants place on job positions and wages by virtue of oversupply of labour.
FYI....I like most people, but typically get along with those who're intelligent and can speak fucken english, but I must say, I don't like the sound of LARGE numbers of muslims coming here or any white/caucasian country.... plus they openly declare they'll out breed us and take over slowly but surely.
My father was a serb, mother 4th gen australian.
Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2016 12:58 pm
Pogma9
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 19, 2008
Posts: 2522
berzerker wrote:
How much would it set Australia back if someone 'migrated' from NSW to Queensland or vv?
A few individuals does nothing.....and in my case{Brisbane}, we've gone from maybe 600-750 000 in the early 80's to 2.4million, and the Gold Coast is now bigger than Brisbane used to be with 800 000.
But most of these people either bought money with them, or filled job vacancies as our economy was growing....the SE region has 3.5million people all up.
Atm however, we got a modest economy and 80 Billion in debt{don't ask me how}, so any significant number of poor/low skilled people will "hurt us", at least on paper.
Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2016 12:44 am
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
AFAIK EU law doesn't require countries to give social security benefits to anyone who happens to move there from another EU country. The freedom of movement is only there to work (and once someone has worked for a while, it makes sense that he builds up some social security rights too). By far the largest group of Immigrants is Polish: most of them do jobs that the Brits wouldn't want to anyway.
It is possible that the generally felt dislike of *muslim* immigrants (which i share - but these are almost all non-EU citizens anyway) is projected on those Polish people. Yet most of them are model immigrants.
Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2016 1:52 am
Pogma9
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 19, 2008
Posts: 2522
There has to be reasons why immigration is supposedly the largest factor, and i don't think it has to do with hard working Poles.
If England has the strongest economy, naturally it attracts the higher rates of immigration from all over the EU, however this is a muslim/regulation/anti eu problem imo.
edited...
Last edited by Pogma9 on Sat Jul 02, 2016 1:58 pm, edited 1 time in total
Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2016 1:32 pm
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
I suppose you are right, but then immigration laws haven't been much regulated, so the Brits should blame their own government, not the EU. And the Brits have been anti-EU for decades, each time for different reasons. Let them move out and stay out I'd say. All these lies about them thinking to become party to a merely trade organisation (which the EU never was solely; it was always a political union and much more than a mere trade organisation).
Anyway, it probably is just another expression of the 'fed up with politics'-feeling that is behind the rise of populists and idiots (Berlusconi springs to mind, but Trump would fall in the same category). The economic growth of the last decades has benefitted the rich far more than the middle classes and the poor, so the latter are to be expected to vote against anything that reeks like 'traditional politics'.
Taxing the big corporations much higher and also taxing capital higher and labour much lower would probably cover that. Those are measures that make sense in any case IMHO.
Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2016 2:22 pm
Pogma9
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 19, 2008
Posts: 2522
berzerker wrote:
Trump would fall in the same category). The economic growth of the last decades has benefitted the rich far more than the middle classes and the poor
You can thank Globalization/mechanization for that, as wage growth will be limited relative to competing overseas workers and any immigrants who will work for less.
You've also got inflation[especially on property}, which always hurts the poor but favours the wealthy, but also mechanization and general productivity improvements which translate into bonuses for the executives, but job losses for the poor/Mclass.....you also have the termination of promotion thru the ranks as this is now given way to 25yr olds with dual degrees.
Btw, TRUMP is one of the best things that could happen to America, but as usual, people don't understand how wealth is created, and seem to overlook the outright sabotage of domestic economies in favour globalization.
I forget the timeframe, but for the longest time, America's been exporting 600 000jobs/year....no wonder they have approx 92 MILLION unemployed.
Quote:
Taxing the big corporations much higher and also taxing capital higher and labour much lower would probably cover that. Those are measures that make sense in any case IMHO.
NO, NO, NO....you can't actually heavily tax the rich, haven't you heard of accountants, tax shelters/havens?.....that's why they exist, so there's no longer any such thing as increasing the tax on the rich unless you target LUXURY items, many of which are optional, lol.
If you drop the tax rate on those who DO PAY taxes, where's the deficit going come from given you can't actually tax the rich as much as you'd like?
The simple facts are that fucktarded governments are using DEBT as a substitute for real or traditional GDP growth, ie, mechanization can increase profits and add to GDP, but it doesn't create jobs, mechanization MUST displace more manual labour than its total cost, ie, if the total cost of robots/machines in any given economy is 2 billion, it must displace 2billion+ in manual wages.
The reason traditional GDP growth is limited is because of the state of the environment, the amount of debt, debt used as a substitute, and excess regulations.
It's also the case that lobbyists and special interests control politicians, whereby the megacorps can make reasonable profits, but they exclude/limit competitors, which limits small business success and inflates the cost of consumption.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 2Goto page 1, 2Next
