| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Bill Steele" |
| Date: |
08 Nov 2005 06:44:44 PM |
| Object: |
Re: The real reason the French riots happened |
In article <1131397606.906258.214830@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"mullah" <muldoomstone@excite.com> wrote:
Let's admit the real reason the French riots happened: diversity.
France is a homeland of white people - whites are the indigenous group
there. Do you know what this means? It means whites have more of a
claim for France than any other race. France rightfully belongs to
white people and non-white immigrants in France are nothing but
colonists and invaders.
But unfortunately the white people of France bought the jew poison of
multiculturalism and diversity. For decades jews have been preaching
multiculturalism/diversity, that Europe belongs to all races, and that
whites should be forced to become a minority in their own land. Do you
remember South Africa? For decades jews complained about Apartheid, and
wanted the evil whites out of South Africa. Leftists, especially jewish
leftists, said blacks were the only race that belonged in Africa and
that blacks were the only race that should have any political power in
Africa, and that African countries should only be ruled by blacks. Do
you remember how blacks kicked the French out of other parts of Africa?
Do you remember how white leftists and jews cheered when that happened?
How about Nelson Mandela? How about Mugabe? Whites are in a similar
position now. Whites are being oppressed, because their native lands
are being invaded and conolized by non-whites. It's time for the white
race to rise up and fight the invaders.
The truth about France is that non-whites don't belong there, and are
colonists. Blacks and mideasterners should not be allowed to live in
France, because they don't belong there in the first place, it's not
their country. ANY non-white living in Europe is nothing but a colonist
and an invader.
Europe needs to realize the same thing South Africa and Zimbabwe did:
indigenous people rightfully own a country, and every other race are
colonists. Europe belongs to white people.
OK. When we send them all away, which job are you gonna take? Wanta
drive a taxi? Clean the restroom?
.
|
|
| User: "Birminghamabad Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The real reason the French riots happened |
08 Nov 2005 10:14:58 PM |
|
|
"Bill Steele" <ws21@cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:ws21-E73C85.13444408112005@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
OK. When we send them all away, which job are you gonna take? Wanta
drive a taxi? Clean the restroom?
I thought they were rioting because they are all unemployed ?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The real reason the French riots happened |
08 Nov 2005 10:28:15 PM |
|
|
OK. When we send them all away, which job are you gonna take? Wanta
drive a taxi? Clean the restroom? >
The economic fallacy in your argument is the assumption that relative
wages are fixed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: The real reason the French riots happened |
08 Nov 2005 10:52:47 PM |
|
|
<MikeinCamden@aol.com> wrote
OK. When we send them all away, which job are you gonna take?
Wanta drive a taxi? Clean the restroom? >
Strange, but there were janitors even in the days before management
"outsourced" those jobs to contractors who had to hire illegal aliens
at sub-standard wages, just to make a profit.
If minimum wage had kept up with the growth in "executive
compensation" since 1990 it would be $23 an hour right now.
You can't have that kind of "growth" in executive "compensation"
without taking it from somewhere. That "somewhere" is the people
at the bottom.
That's why the company "janitor" was replaced with a
spanish-speaking "contractor" who gets no benefits and
can barely support himself above the poverty line, never mind
a family.
Yes, there really was a time when a janitor was a company
employee, and earned a decent living. It was "Cost cutting"
on the part of management that drove away Americans, and
brought in illegal aliens, and *Not* any snobbery on the part
of Americans.
You'd best learn this lesson, quick, because already many
blue-collar jobs are being "outsourced." Your turn WILL
come. Better to fight and win that battle now, for the people
at the bottom, rather than expect their sympathies (or go it
alone) when your turn arrives.
.
|
|
|
| User: "lab~rat" |
|
| Title: Re: The real reason the French riots happened |
09 Nov 2005 01:36:04 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 17:52:47 -0500, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
puked:
<MikeinCamden@aol.com> wrote
OK. When we send them all away, which job are you gonna take?
Wanta drive a taxi? Clean the restroom? >
Strange, but there were janitors even in the days before management
"outsourced" those jobs to contractors who had to hire illegal aliens
at sub-standard wages, just to make a profit.
If minimum wage had kept up with the growth in "executive
compensation" since 1990 it would be $23 an hour right now.
You can't have that kind of "growth" in executive "compensation"
without taking it from somewhere. That "somewhere" is the people
at the bottom.
That's why the company "janitor" was replaced with a
spanish-speaking "contractor" who gets no benefits and
can barely support himself above the poverty line, never mind
a family.
That isn't always true, the school board for instance hires janitors
directly, and they are paid significantly more than minimum wage, plus
get benefits.
Yes, there really was a time when a janitor was a company
employee, and earned a decent living. It was "Cost cutting"
on the part of management that drove away Americans, and
brought in illegal aliens, and *Not* any snobbery on the part
of Americans.
You'd best learn this lesson, quick, because already many
blue-collar jobs are being "outsourced." Your turn WILL
come. Better to fight and win that battle now, for the people
at the bottom, rather than expect their sympathies (or go it
alone) when your turn arrives.
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: The real reason the French riots happened |
09 Nov 2005 08:05:22 PM |
|
|
"lab~rat" <chase@cheese.net> wrote
You can't have that kind of "growth" in executive "compensation"
without taking it from somewhere. That "somewhere" is the people
at the bottom.
That's why the company "janitor" was replaced with a
spanish-speaking "contractor" who gets no benefits and
can barely support himself above the poverty line, never mind
a family.
That isn't always true, the school board for instance hires
janitors directly, and they are paid significantly more than
minimum wage, plus get benefits.
Well I don't think the school board worries about the current levels
of "Executive compensation."
It's pretty clear I was speaking strictly in terms of the private
sector.
However, your examples goes a long ways towards proving
my point. Janitors aren't all that difficult to find, when they
are a real employee with a decent wage and benefits.
.
|
|
|
| User: "lab~rat" |
|
| Title: Re: The real reason the French riots happened |
10 Nov 2005 01:30:17 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 15:05:22 -0500, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
puked:
"lab~rat" <chase@cheese.net> wrote
You can't have that kind of "growth" in executive "compensation"
without taking it from somewhere. That "somewhere" is the people
at the bottom.
That's why the company "janitor" was replaced with a
spanish-speaking "contractor" who gets no benefits and
can barely support himself above the poverty line, never mind
a family.
That isn't always true, the school board for instance hires
janitors directly, and they are paid significantly more than
minimum wage, plus get benefits.
Well I don't think the school board worries about the current levels
of "Executive compensation."
No, their executives are compensated way more than they should be.
Even middle management is. The only ones getting douched are the
teachers.
It's pretty clear I was speaking strictly in terms of the private
sector.
However, your examples goes a long ways towards proving
my point. Janitors aren't all that difficult to find, when they
are a real employee with a decent wage and benefits.
Is there some janitor shortage I am unaware of?
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: The real reason the French riots happened |
11 Nov 2005 08:35:57 AM |
|
|
"lab~rat" <chase@cheese.net> wrote
Well I don't think the school board worries about the current levels
of "Executive compensation."
No, their executives are compensated way more than they should be.
Even middle management is. The only ones getting douched are the
teachers.
Well unless these "executives" have seen their salaries go up more
than 600% since 1990, they aren't in the same league as the private
sector.
Apples & oranges, babe. It's all apples & oranges...
Is there some janitor shortage I am unaware of?
According to the Reich-wing, yes. This is why those poor
dear executives (who deserve all our sympathies) are
FORCED to hire illegal aliens at sub-standard wages.
Apparently, no American is willing to work for poverty-level
wages...errrrrr..."Those jobs." No American is willing to
work at... "those jobs."
I keep forgetting, but we're supposed to pretend that it's all
about the type of work, and not the fact that it's expected
to be performed at poverty-level wages.
.
|
|
|
| User: "lab~rat" |
|
| Title: Re: The real reason the French riots happened |
11 Nov 2005 02:13:53 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 03:35:57 -0500, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
puked:
"lab~rat" <chase@cheese.net> wrote
Well I don't think the school board worries about the current levels
of "Executive compensation."
No, their executives are compensated way more than they should be.
Even middle management is. The only ones getting douched are the
teachers.
Well unless these "executives" have seen their salaries go up more
than 600% since 1990, they aren't in the same league as the private
sector.
Apples & oranges, babe. It's all apples & oranges...
It should be. If private corporations earn enough money to support
those salaries, the people that take the risks should be compensated.
Otherwise, where is the incentives in being an executive.
Conversely, why should people that take executive positions in the
public domain have the same compensation when they are being paid by
taxpayers and nearly invariably in the position for some future
political gain?
Is there some janitor shortage I am unaware of?
According to the Reich-wing, yes. This is why those poor
dear executives (who deserve all our sympathies) are
FORCED to hire illegal aliens at sub-standard wages.
Apparently, no American is willing to work for poverty-level
wages...errrrrr..."Those jobs." No American is willing to
work at... "those jobs."
I think you're quoting the President of Mexico.
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: The real reason the French riots happened |
12 Nov 2005 09:04:34 AM |
|
|
"lab~rat" <chase@cheese.net> wrote
It should be. If private corporations earn enough money to
support those salaries, the people that take the risks should
be compensated.
What "risk" are you imagining, and how many pounds of
illicit narcotics did you have to consume before achieving
this vision?
Risk? Please. That would be funny if so many people haven't
suffered at the hands of these crooks...
Please visit reality some time.
Thanks in advance.
.
|
|
|
| User: "lab~rat" |
|
| Title: Re: The real reason the French riots happened |
14 Nov 2005 05:37:26 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 04:04:34 -0500, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
puked:
"lab~rat" <chase@cheese.net> wrote
It should be. If private corporations earn enough money to
support those salaries, the people that take the risks should
be compensated.
What "risk" are you imagining, and how many pounds of
illicit narcotics did you have to consume before achieving
this vision?
Risk? Please. That would be funny if so many people haven't
suffered at the hands of these crooks...
Please visit reality some time.
Thanks in advance.
If I may, let me translate this from childish liberalese to adult
businessman.
"I don't know what risk is involved because I'm out of my element
taking about grownup stuff like business and whatnot."
Close?
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bulba!" |
|
| Title: Re: The real reason the French riots happened |
09 Nov 2005 11:22:07 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 17:52:47 -0500, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
If minimum wage had kept up with the growth in "executive
compensation" since 1990 it would be $23 an hour right now.
And subsequently there would be no work for the janitors.
The price is what it is either for good reasons (market forces)
or due to legal manipulation, the regulatory complex.
You can't have that kind of "growth" in executive "compensation"
without taking it from somewhere. That "somewhere" is the people
at the bottom.
That "somewhere" is econ growth.
Work and GDP are not fixed pies. You made
a version of "lump of labor" fallacy.
--
Two years after ''the day America changed forever,'' the culture is
in thrall to the same dopey self-delusion it held on Sept. 10, 2001:
There are no enemies, just friends we haven't yet apologized to.
(Mark Steyn)
Corollary:
There's a lot of enemies, not just friends we haven't yet
apologized to.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: The real reason the French riots happened |
09 Nov 2005 03:41:11 PM |
|
|
"Bulba!" <bulba@bulba.com> wrote
If minimum wage had kept up with the growth in "executive
compensation" since 1990 it would be $23 an hour right now.
And subsequently there would be no work for the janitors.
There isn't. Although I'm sure there just has to be one or two
around, I don't know of a single major employer around here
that hasn't "outsourced" those jobs... starting well before 1990.
Bear with me here. Just for the sake of argument, pretend that
you actually believe in capitalism.
Okay, in Capitalism, when a commodity (in this case, labor)
begins to out-strip demand, what happens?
The price goes up.
But in America, now, instead of Capitalism we have a
neo-Merchantile system dubbed "Capitalism," which is
centered on what's good for the uber rich elite.
Anyhow, where the rule says that the price of a commodity
rises when demand outstrips supply, the uber rich break
the rule... and in this case the law. They ARTIFICIALLY
increased supply with ILLEGAL aliens, ARTIFICIALLY
driving DOWN the price of said commodity ("labor"), and
keeping it down.
So where the price WAS below what the market could
support, they kept it low, even _lowered_ it.
Artificially. Illegally.
So now we have a situation where jobs that WERE filled
by Americans are no longer filled by Americans -- AS PER
THE INTENT OF MANAGEMENT -- and here you are
blaming the labor. Those jobs WERE taken by Americans.
Americans DID take those jobs. Only, Americans were
DRIVEN OUT of those jobs by management (which itself
has seen it's own "cost" explode).
That's sick.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bulba!" |
|
| Title: Re: The real reason the French riots happened |
09 Nov 2005 05:02:22 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 10:41:11 -0500, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
If minimum wage had kept up with the growth in "executive
compensation" since 1990 it would be $23 an hour right now.
And subsequently there would be no work for the janitors.
There isn't. Although I'm sure there just has to be one or two
around, I don't know of a single major employer around here
that hasn't "outsourced" those jobs... starting well before 1990.
If you mean 'America', I didn't see it, but in UK I sure have seen
that - all the "cleaning services" where I worked were coming
from external subcontractors.
Bear with me here. Just for the sake of argument, pretend that
you actually believe in capitalism.
Huh? I certainly _think_ I know how free market _operates_
(I prefer to avoid "believing").
Okay, in Capitalism, when a commodity (in this case, labor)
begins to out-strip demand, what happens?
The price goes up.
But in America, now, instead of Capitalism we have a
neo-Merchantile system dubbed "Capitalism," which is
centered on what's good for the uber rich elite.
I'm fully aware of power of legal regulatory complex.
Anyhow, where the rule says that the price of a commodity
rises when demand outstrips supply, the uber rich break
the rule... and in this case the law. They ARTIFICIALLY
increased supply with ILLEGAL aliens, ARTIFICIALLY
driving DOWN the price of said commodity ("labor"), and
keeping it down.
So where the price WAS below what the market could
support, they kept it low, even _lowered_ it.
Artificially. Illegally.
It's illegal, but I'm not sure if it can be counted as
"illegal" - half a million or so Mexicans going through
the southern border seems pretty natural to me.
So now we have a situation where jobs that WERE filled
by Americans are no longer filled by Americans -- AS PER
THE INTENT OF MANAGEMENT -- and here you are
blaming the labor.
But I'm not "blaming" the labor on anything.
Everyone wants their cut in the pie of the regulatory
complex erected by the state. Rich, poor, middle
class, investors, lawyers, janitors, everyone.
Just some are in better position to get Ricardian
rents and some are in worse position.
Those jobs WERE taken by Americans.
Americans DID take those jobs. Only, Americans were
DRIVEN OUT of those jobs by management (which itself
has seen it's own "cost" explode).
That's sick.
I would rather say that the rich left-liberals and lawyers
have driven their prices up thanks to their control of the
regulatory complex, while the wages of menial jobs were
left unchanged. So the GDP has grown and that overhead
was skimmed by those in regulatory complex, while the
real compensation of those outside regulatory complex was
left more or less unchanged.
It is in full agreement with public choice theory. This
is sort of "Smith abroad, Keynes at home" practiced
among the rich lawyers layer of society vs janitors
class. That's nothing new really.
This is an interesting read:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/272jumqc.asp
Montana
Demographics and economics are combining to push the middle-class
dream out West.
by Reihan Salam
10/28/2005 12:00:00 AM
THE FOLLOWING isn't about Harriet Miers or the collapse of an
administration weighed down by scandal. Rather, it's about why I'm
planning on moving to Montana in about 10 years. At this point, you
have every reason to wonder what this has to do with your life. I'll
tell you: I'm going to convince you to join me.
In stark contrast to the City College kids huddled in their Alcoves
circa 1939, focused like laser beams on the fate of mankind with brows
furrowed and fists raised, today's bright youth "ain't rebellin'." And
with good reason. The kind of intellectual ferment that leads to
social upheaval is invariably a product of rising expectations. The
French Revolution was, if you believe Tocqueville, less a response to
unusually intolerable oppression than to the steady hollowing-out of
what had been a very effective autocracy. Which is to say, good news
prompted a lot of murderous rage.
More recently, it was affluence as much as injustice (real and
imagined) that fueled America's Baby Boomers' desperate bid for
attention--a spoiled-child psychodrama that plagues us to this day.
Once again, very good news--dazzling economic growth, the steady
breakdown of caste barriers--turned a generation of mild-mannered Bill
Bixbys into a generation of crazed, pot-smoking Lou Ferrignos.
So what happens in an age of diminishing expectations? There's no
better way to win a bet than to wager that American life will, over
time, get better rather than worse. Because there are so many patsies
willing to bet otherwise, the rewards are almost always handsome. If
history tells us anything, it's that the future will be like the past,
only with fancier gadgets, larger homes, and prettier, healthier
people.
BUT WHAT IF OUR LUCK IS RUNNING OUT? In How We Got Here, David Frum
chronicled the various ways the 1970s scarred the country, leaving a
legacy of moral turpitude, garish pastels, and economic illiteracy.
Consider then that the rising generation, born at the tail end of
1979, is living through what looks increasingly like a 1970s revival.
They're coping with anxiety abroad and rising gas prices at home.
They're wearing the flared pants. They're baring the midriffs. And
they will need much better judgment than their parents if they are to
navigate their way out of the calamitous course set by the Baby
Boomers responsible for the Europeanization of American life.
By now, readers are undoubtedly familiar with rising income volatility
and the pervasive uncertainty that comes with it. For young workers,
resilience is the order of the day: They'll probably lose their job or
their benefits at some point, so they have to be prepared. The savvy
will survive and thrive--as for the rest, well, good luck. The end
result is, for many, a sense of shrinking horizons. That you will
necessarily do better than your parents is no longer taken as a given.
Take housing, for example. In the coastal urban regions prized by
immigrants and natives alike, resistance to new construction and
denser zoning is radically changing the character of the inner suburbs
(a shift Joel Kotkin has chronicled). As Kotkin puts it, those lucky
enough to have been in the right time and at the right place have
become a new landed aristocracy, enjoying a vast increase in unearned
wealth. Meanwhile, the cost of living has become prohibitively high
for young families. One might call this "the closing of the crabgrass
frontier," a historical development of epochal significance. The more
enterprising and ambitious are moving to low-cost metropolitan areas
and small towns, where the cycle begins anew.
Then you have the lifetime net tax rates. Say we continue on a
somewhat more responsible version of our current fiscal course, which
is to say, assume that big-ticket government entitlements are left
unreformed. If current trends hold, the amount the federal government
will take from you minus the amount it will give back (in the form of
transfer payments) will go from 17.68 percent of income for the
youngest people alive today to a staggering 35.81 percent for those
yet to be born. The pampered offspring of single-child families will
find their blood, sweat, and tears harvested by self-absorbed,
gastric-bypassed, face-lifted geezers living it up into their 90s.
Of course, most of those yet to be born will be cyborgs equipped with
hyper-intelligent brains and elaborate virtual reality environments
that can dull the pain of being stacked like cordwood in vast
warehouses, thanks to the sky-high price of real estate. This will
help dull the pain for most. Others will high-tail it to greener
pastures. Like Montana.
WHEN THE DECK is stacked against you, cheating is pretty much your
only recourse. The best way to "cheat" is to abandon the middle-class
mainstream and embrace alternatives. As high-quality public schools
grow increasingly inaccessible, the next generation of parents will
have little choice other than to supplement their children's
inadequate education. Some will turn to private tutoring chains--which
are already mushrooming across the cities and suburbs. Others will
create increasingly sophisticated cooperative networks that could,
over time, come to supplant conventional schools. Looking further out,
one can imagine these networks taking on even larger economic roles.
Despite steep tax burdens and a rising cost of living, a small handful
of would-be outlaws will in this way stumble upon a new birth of
freedom.
Where better to live the outlaw life than in Montana, where housing is
cheap and experiments in living are welcome? It wouldn't be the first
time ornery, ambitious, enterprising young people settled out West in
droves.
Reihan Salam is a writer in Brooklyn and a contributing writer to The
Daily Standard.
--
Two years after ''the day America changed forever,'' the culture is
in thrall to the same dopey self-delusion it held on Sept. 10, 2001:
There are no enemies, just friends we haven't yet apologized to.
(Mark Steyn)
Corollary:
There's a lot of enemies, not just friends we haven't yet
apologized to.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: The real reason the French riots happened |
09 Nov 2005 05:38:12 PM |
|
|
"Bulba!" <bulba@bulba.com> wrote
So where the price WAS below what the market could
support, they kept it low, even _lowered_ it.
Artificially. Illegally.
It's illegal, but I'm not sure if it can be counted as
"illegal" - half a million or so Mexicans going through
the southern border seems pretty natural to me.
It's not.
America is the Mexican government's "Pressure Valve."
They care even less about their own people than Bush
does (if you can imagine that), literally viewing them
as a waste product to be excreted onto the United States.
If they don't, pressure will build within the bowels of
the corrupt Mexican state, until finally exploding in a
massive ***** storm, de-throning Mexico's royalty-like
rich.
However, America would offer no solution for Mexico's
corrupt elite is America's corrupt elite weren't so willing
to exploit these illegals in their efforts to artificially drive
down market wages.
So now we have a situation where jobs that WERE filled
by Americans are no longer filled by Americans -- AS PER
THE INTENT OF MANAGEMENT -- and here you are
blaming the labor.
But I'm not "blaming" the labor on anything.
Everyone wants their cut in the pie of the regulatory
complex erected by the state. Rich, poor, middle
class, investors, lawyers, janitors, everyone.
This isn't as simple as an argument over regulations. This is
as much a legal matter as it is a social one. It is WRONG
for a company to trade in stolen materials in order to aquire
them at below market rates & increase it's bottom line. It's
illegal. And it's just as wrong and just as illegal (and just as
ANTI Capitalistic) to break the law with the intent of
procuring a commodity (i.e. "labor") at below market rates.
THE MARKET decided. The market determined that those
jobs were worth more money, and the elitist criminals
decided to BREAK THE LAW so they would NOT have to
pay market prices.
That means we DO NOT have capitalism here. The market
IS NOT deciding the value here. Because the elite BREAK
THE LAW there is no capitalism here, no market price.
Those jobs WERE taken by Americans.
Americans DID take those jobs. Only, Americans were
DRIVEN OUT of those jobs by management (which itself
has seen it's own "cost" explode).
That's sick.
I would rather say that the rich left-liberals and lawyers
have driven their prices up thanks to their control of the
regulatory complex,
Yeah, okay, you'd rather spew rhetoric than address the
actual issues. I understand. I suppose if I was trying to
defend crime and calling it "Captialism," like you're doing,
I'd choose that kind of mindless ***** over serious
debate, too.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bulba!" |
|
| Title: Re: The real reason the French riots happened |
09 Nov 2005 05:05:05 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 18:02:22 +0100, Bulba! <bulba@bulba.com> wrote:
So where the price WAS below what the market could
support, they kept it low, even _lowered_ it.
Artificially. Illegally.
It's illegal, but I'm not sure if it can be counted as
"illegal" - half a million or so Mexicans going through
the southern border seems pretty natural to me.
oops I obviously should have written "artificial"
here
--
Two years after ''the day America changed forever,'' the culture is
in thrall to the same dopey self-delusion it held on Sept. 10, 2001:
There are no enemies, just friends we haven't yet apologized to.
(Mark Steyn)
Corollary:
There's a lot of enemies, not just friends we haven't yet
apologized to.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AlanG" |
|
| Title: Re: The real reason the French riots happened |
08 Nov 2005 10:40:38 PM |
|
|
On 8 Nov 2005 14:28:15 -0800, wrote:
OK. When we send them all away, which job are you gonna take? Wanta
drive a taxi? Clean the restroom? >
The economic fallacy in your argument is the assumption that relative
wages are fixed.
Wages in the UK are based on what is needed to pay the police
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "lab~rat" |
|
| Title: Re: The real reason the French riots happened |
09 Nov 2005 12:50:33 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 13:44:44 -0500, Bill Steele <ws21@cornell.edu>
puked:
In article <1131397606.906258.214830@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"mullah" <muldoomstone@excite.com> wrote:
Let's admit the real reason the French riots happened: diversity.
France is a homeland of white people - whites are the indigenous group
there. Do you know what this means? It means whites have more of a
claim for France than any other race. France rightfully belongs to
white people and non-white immigrants in France are nothing but
colonists and invaders.
But unfortunately the white people of France bought the jew poison of
multiculturalism and diversity. For decades jews have been preaching
multiculturalism/diversity, that Europe belongs to all races, and that
whites should be forced to become a minority in their own land. Do you
remember South Africa? For decades jews complained about Apartheid, and
wanted the evil whites out of South Africa. Leftists, especially jewish
leftists, said blacks were the only race that belonged in Africa and
that blacks were the only race that should have any political power in
Africa, and that African countries should only be ruled by blacks. Do
you remember how blacks kicked the French out of other parts of Africa?
Do you remember how white leftists and jews cheered when that happened?
How about Nelson Mandela? How about Mugabe? Whites are in a similar
position now. Whites are being oppressed, because their native lands
are being invaded and conolized by non-whites. It's time for the white
race to rise up and fight the invaders.
The truth about France is that non-whites don't belong there, and are
colonists. Blacks and mideasterners should not be allowed to live in
France, because they don't belong there in the first place, it's not
their country. ANY non-white living in Europe is nothing but a colonist
and an invader.
Europe needs to realize the same thing South Africa and Zimbabwe did:
indigenous people rightfully own a country, and every other race are
colonists. Europe belongs to white people.
OK. When we send them all away, which job are you gonna take? Wanta
drive a taxi? Clean the restroom?
Deal drugs?
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
