Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2021 20:10:40 GMT
This appears to be a suggestion that all international borders are removed, or ignored to allow global free movement. OK, who sets laws, tax rates, commercial standards, employment rights, wages, how do you plan infrastructure to accommodate health care / education / housing etc whilst this 'new world order' beds in and stabilises. Will the destination countries of choice be able to tolerate the influx of migrants in terms of food sustainability etc, or do air miles etc no longer count, and in that scenario, are we to expect a farmer elsewhere to continue to work to achieve a relatively modest lifestyle when European and American borders are open and all are welcome? What do we do with the now semi-abandoned continent of Africa? That’s exactly what these Marxist ideologists want, Duke. Reduce the whole world to its lowest common denominator and then try and run it according to their lunatic ideals. Let's wait for Oldie's reply. I can't think how a world without formalised, and enforced borders can function, but he obviously has a plan, so let's wait to hear what it is. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2021 22:26:39 GMT
None of this is Marxist. I have to wonder
how much Marx some of you read, and how
many Marxists some of you've met. I'm not
blaming you, though. Some of the absolute
narcissists who claim Marxism or Marxist
these days have even less clue. Talk about
the stupid leading the naïve.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2021 23:28:15 GMT
None of this is Marxist. I have to wonder how much Marx some of you read, and how many Marxists some of you've met. I'm not blaming you, though. Some of the absolute narcissists who claim Marxism or Marxist these days have even less clue. Talk about the stupid leading the naïve. Who are you talking to here? There appears to be a plural yet only one person has made that accusation. I agree with the next bit. If people studied history and understood where communism leads they would be horrified and would never, ever, associate themselves with the filthy ideology. |
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 1,885
|
Post by oldie on Nov 16, 2021 6:31:35 GMT
That’s exactly what these Marxist ideologists want, Duke. Reduce the whole world to its lowest common denominator and then try and run it according to their lunatic ideals. Let's wait for Oldie's reply. I can't think how a world without formalised, and enforced borders can function, but he obviously has a plan, so let's wait to hear what it is. Don't be silly, I am musing as to how long we (the Nation States) can carry on like this. Very interesting article in that bastion of Marxist ideology, Foreign Affairs (US Publication). This details how the wheel is turning... www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/world/2021-11-16/new-economicsJust a thought. |
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 1,885
|
Post by oldie on Nov 16, 2021 8:50:04 GMT
None of this is Marxist. I have to wonder how much Marx some of you read, and how many Marxists some of you've met. I'm not blaming you, though. Some of the absolute narcissists who claim Marxism or Marxist these days have even less clue. Talk about the stupid leading the naïve. Whisper it quietly Shoveller. The rage you will invoke....well |
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 6,590 
|
Post by eppinggas on Nov 16, 2021 9:30:24 GMT
Anyone have any stats on what percentage of 'asylum seekers' actually turn out to be economic migrants? If they wanted asylum - why don't they claim it in France? Because the French don’t put them up in hotels and give them money, food, clothes etc. They let them set up shanty towns on the edge of the beaches and live in insanitary conditions at the mercy of traffickers. The civilised French an integral part of the EU. Never a word of condemnation from the Oldies, Yattons, Stewart’s, Grovers etc of this world. Can you imagine the indignant uproar from the Lefty, dishonourable treasonous Remainers if, on arrival in Britain, we made these people live in shanty towns in the woods and on the beaches where they arrived? Perhaps we should, that would soon discourage them. That is a very fair point. Though the UK would never do that to illegal immigrants. Because we are far more civilised, inclusive and tolerant than the French. The UK is bloody brilliant. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2021 9:33:23 GMT
Let's wait for Oldie's reply. I can't think how a world without formalised, and enforced borders can function, but he obviously has a plan, so let's wait to hear what it is. Don't be silly, I am musing as to how long we (the Nation States) can carry on like this. Very interesting article in that bastion of Marxist ideology, Foreign Affairs (US Publication). This details how the wheel is turning... www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/world/2021-11-16/new-economicsJust a thought. Will look at your link later. You did specifically state that you were opposed to borders. It would be much easier to hold these discussions if you could say what you mean, or qualify your comments at the outset. Carry on like what? |
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Nov 16, 2021 9:40:57 GMT
None of this is Marxist. I have to wonder how much Marx some of you read, and how many Marxists some of you've met. I'm not blaming you, though. Some of the absolute narcissists who claim Marxism or Marxist these days have even less clue. Talk about the stupid leading the naïve. Whisper it quietly Shoveller. The rage you will invoke....well I think rage is your area of expertise Oldie. Nobody is sure with regard to "some of you" as to who Shoveler is talking to? |
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Nov 16, 2021 9:43:13 GMT
Will look at your link later. You did specifically state that you were opposed to borders. It would be much easier to hold these discussions if you could say what you mean, or qualify your comments at the outset. Carry on like what? Good luck reading that link. It's an advert for Biden and his economic policies. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2021 9:47:08 GMT
Because the French don’t put them up in hotels and give them money, food, clothes etc. They let them set up shanty towns on the edge of the beaches and live in insanitary conditions at the mercy of traffickers. The civilised French an integral part of the EU. Never a word of condemnation from the Oldies, Yattons, Stewart’s, Grovers etc of this world. Can you imagine the indignant uproar from the Lefty, dishonourable treasonous Remainers if, on arrival in Britain, we made these people live in shanty towns in the woods and on the beaches where they arrived? Perhaps we should, that would soon discourage them. That is a very fair point. Though the UK would never do that to illegal immigrants. Because we are far more civilised, inclusive and tolerant than the French. The UK is bloody brilliant. This is precisely the point. Despite what the Liberal Elite minority constantly claim, Britain is a great country. The media must have been devastated when after 3 black players missed penalties in that Euro final, the racist abuse that they received originated almost exclusively abroad. I forget the exact number, but from a population of almost 70,000,000 people, something like 30 incidents of on line racial abuse were traced as originating from the UK after that game. That's 31 too many, but considering how low the bar is set for things that are now deemed offensive, it hardly paints a picture of a divided society. I have a Brazilian friend, he's lived in Brazil, obviously, France, Germany, Italy and here. He says that he's had issues with racism everywhere, except here, in the UK nothing, nada, not a comment, not a funny look, nothing. He's started a little business and intends to raise his family here. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2021 9:49:53 GMT
Will look at your link later. You did specifically state that you were opposed to borders. It would be much easier to hold these discussions if you could say what you mean, or qualify your comments at the outset. Carry on like what? Good luck reading that link. It's an advert for Biden and his economic policies. Good, have been waiting for him to stray in to economics. It's an area where he's absolutely convinced he has a robust understanding when in actuality, he could simply be outmanoeuvred by a blind innumerate with a broken abacus. |
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 1,885
|
Post by oldie on Nov 16, 2021 10:44:59 GMT
Will look at your link later. You did specifically state that you were opposed to borders. It would be much easier to hold these discussions if you could say what you mean, or qualify your comments at the outset. Carry on like what? Good luck reading that link. It's an advert for Biden and his economic policies. That's reading it with blinkered eyes. |
|
|
|
Post by baselswh on Nov 16, 2021 12:28:02 GMT
Good luck reading that link. It's an advert for Biden and his economic policies. Good, have been waiting for him to stray in to economics. It's an area where he's absolutely convinced he has a robust understanding when in actuality, he could simply be outmanoeuvred by a blind innumerate with a broken abacus. That's me out then.Those dam blind innumerates with their faulty abacus' confusing me with they decimal points and what have you. |
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Nov 16, 2021 12:56:44 GMT
Good luck reading that link. It's an advert for Biden and his economic policies. That's reading it with blinkered eyes. No Oldie. It is an unashamed advert for Biden and his policies. This is from near the beginning :- "Even as Biden has succeeded in getting a historic $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill, he has had to make significant compromises in the negotiations for his even larger social spending package, the Build Back Better bill. But this momentary setback is not a ceding of the vision. Of far greater significance is that such legislation is now under discussion at all. For in its size and ambition, it suggests how far the U.S. administration has already come in embracing an entirely new understanding of how the government can play a crucial role in not only the domestic but also the international economy—an approach that offers powerful new tools for addressing some of today’s greatest challenges." |
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 1,885
|
Post by oldie on Nov 16, 2021 13:54:06 GMT
That's reading it with blinkered eyes. No Oldie. It is an unashamed advert for Biden and his policies. This is from near the beginning :- "Even as Biden has succeeded in getting a historic $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill, he has had to make significant compromises in the negotiations for his even larger social spending package, the Build Back Better bill. But this momentary setback is not a ceding of the vision. Of far greater significance is that such legislation is now under discussion at all. For in its size and ambition, it suggests how far the U.S. administration has already come in embracing an entirely new understanding of how the government can play a crucial role in not only the domestic but also the international economy—an approach that offers powerful new tools for addressing some of today’s greatest challenges." Yes, but the piece explores much more than that doesnt it? This was more about economic liberalism as practiced since the 1980s, and the now emerging consensus that the State has a direct role to play to iron out the problems caused. Of course the piece is US centric because it is an American publication. But Foreign Affairs is not a Democratic Party mouth piece, far from it. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2021 17:46:38 GMT
No Oldie. It is an unashamed advert for Biden and his policies. This is from near the beginning :- "Even as Biden has succeeded in getting a historic $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill, he has had to make significant compromises in the negotiations for his even larger social spending package, the Build Back Better bill. But this momentary setback is not a ceding of the vision. Of far greater significance is that such legislation is now under discussion at all. For in its size and ambition, it suggests how far the U.S. administration has already come in embracing an entirely new understanding of how the government can play a crucial role in not only the domestic but also the international economy—an approach that offers powerful new tools for addressing some of today’s greatest challenges." Yes, but the piece explores much more than that doesnt it? This was more about economic liberalism as practiced since the 1980s, and the now emerging consensus that the State has a direct role to play to iron out the problems caused. Of course the piece is US centric because it is an American publication. But Foreign Affairs is not a Democratic Party mouth piece, far from it. My upper intestine has just threatened to launch itself up through my esophagus and strangle my brain if I continue reading that rubbish. 1. Globalism. 2. Protect domestic industry. Good luck squaring that joe. 3. Tax and spend. 15% minimum tax on all businesses. 4. Climate change. It's been written by some starry eyed kid who hasn't the first idea how things really work. Sorry, it's garbage. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2021 20:28:01 GMT
Wonder what the majority of the British public would make of it if we saw scenes like this at Dover?
Personally I think Poland are crazy, treating all those doctors, lawyers and rocket scientists in that way.
|
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 1,885
|
Post by oldie on Nov 16, 2021 21:42:44 GMT
Yes, but the piece explores much more than that doesnt it? This was more about economic liberalism as practiced since the 1980s, and the now emerging consensus that the State has a direct role to play to iron out the problems caused. Of course the piece is US centric because it is an American publication. But Foreign Affairs is not a Democratic Party mouth piece, far from it. My upper intestine has just threatened to launch itself up through my esophagus and strangle my brain if I continue reading that rubbish. 1. Globalism. 2. Protect domestic industry. Good luck squaring that joe. 3. Tax and spend. 15% minimum tax on all businesses. 4. Climate change. It's been written by some starry eyed kid who hasn't the first idea how things really work. Sorry, it's garbage. FELICIA WONG is the president and CEO of the Roosevelt Institute. She was the US representative on the independent G7 Panel on Economic Resilience. As opposed to.... |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2021 22:06:39 GMT
My upper intestine has just threatened to launch itself up through my esophagus and strangle my brain if I continue reading that rubbish. 1. Globalism. 2. Protect domestic industry. Good luck squaring that joe. 3. Tax and spend. 15% minimum tax on all businesses. 4. Climate change. It's been written by some starry eyed kid who hasn't the first idea how things really work. Sorry, it's garbage. FELICIA WONG is the president and CEO of the Roosevelt Institute. She was the US representative on the independent G7 Panel on Economic Resilience. As opposed to.... Another reason you are almost impossible to hold a discussion with. If you want to say something or make a point, just do it. I'll make your point for you, and demonstrate why you are wrong. Wong believes that corporations should pay more tax, She's as thick as mince and can't even grasp Laffer. She stands on a mantra, I know what it is, but I'll bet you don't. It's Curb Corporate Power. What a pathetic, idealistic student , trite, cute bit of nonsense. She'll get eaten alive if she ever tries to do a real job. In case anybody is still bothering to follow this schoolboy nonsense he's leading us in to, guess what the front page picture on the Roosevelt Institution website is? It shows a BLM demonstration. You couldn't make this up. This is what happens every single time he tries to talk about economics. It's painful. |
|
towngas
Joined: February 2021
Posts: 566
|
Post by towngas on Nov 18, 2021 7:01:59 GMT
FELICIA WONG is the president and CEO of the Roosevelt Institute. She was the US representative on the independent G7 Panel on Economic Resilience. As opposed to.... Another reason you are almost impossible to hold a discussion with. If you want to say something or make a point, just do it. I'll make your point for you, and demonstrate why you are wrong. Wong believes that corporations should pay more tax, She's as thick as mince and can't even grasp Laffer. She stands on a mantra, I know what it is, but I'll bet you don't. It's Curb Corporate Power. What a pathetic, idealistic student , trite, cute bit of nonsense. She'll get eaten alive if she ever tries to do a real job. In case anybody is still bothering to follow this schoolboy nonsense he's leading us in to, guess what the front page picture on the Roosevelt Institution website is? It shows a BLM demonstration. You couldn't make this up. This is what happens every single time he tries to talk about economics. It's painful. Time and again he makes nebulous claims and statements about the various successful businesses he's run around the world. He is always very coy when asked what those businesses are. Heres a direct question Oldie : What businesses have you run, in what countries, with what success. What is your current business, what is it, where do you operate? In the context of this discussion it is important we have these facts. It will allow us to give credence to the statements and claims you make here. It will lend provenance to your arguments. |
|
