Will Europe wake up?

[choff]

According to this article, immigration(legal & illegal) to the U.S. has peaked and reversed. No wonder the big push to get Syrian refugees fill the gap.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-2 ... s-entering

[williatw]

The big mistake I see is letting net recipients of tax monies vote, allowing them to vote themselves more goodies at the expense of others.

You probably mean welfare/food stamp recipients...but the biggest example would be Social Security/medicare; elderly people who receive ultimately (especially with medicare) far more than they put in. Any plans on stripping old (mostly) white people of the right to vote?

[williatw]

A big contributor to the downfall in America was no fault divorce. The other big contributor was the abundance of resources. Females no longer had to depend on a man. Even less so when she could clean up at will through divorce laws. Or welfare. The Romans also made the welfare mistake.

The welfare state will gradually peter out and be replaced with some kind of mandatory pay at roughly at least minimum wage for some kind of work; if your able bodied swear you can't find work gov will find something for you to do. No more "free" money for the able-bodied; let's see how that effects the male/female dynamic. Also expect more "renegotiated" labor contracts (& including especially health care/retirement benefits) for city/state workers as cities/states gradually go bankrupt. Federal workers probably aren't to much better off either; though of course the fed can just borrow/print money at will, at least for awhile longer.

Giving women the vote was a huge mistake.

Well...whether I agree or not short of being taken over by a dictatorship or something that ship has sailed.

So how to get things back (somewhat) on the right track? Men are going to have to learn to dominate women. It is what attracts them. No matter how much the women complain about it. And end no fault divorce.

Me? I'm a bad boy. As was my dad. He stayed married until he died. Me? Still with the same woman for going on 42 years. Why can bad boys stay married? Because he attracts his woman. Other women are always chasing him. His wife had better behave. He has options.

Don't have kids myself but what about your occasionally mentioned sons MSimon? You teach/instruct them on the ways of the game? Working out well for them? To many young males today are raised by single parents (usually moms) who have neither the skill or especially the inclination to teach their sons such things.

We would do way better if we were pagan like the Islamics and kept women in their place. Ah. Well. When it comes to civilization success breeds failure. Always.

Well maybe there is some positive benefit to Europe's having an influx of these hungry, pushy, "traditional" Islamic males; Europe's young men will have to learn to "man up" or find themselves out competed for their own womenfolk. Natural selection is a bitch but it does get the job done one way or another; we should know in about 100 years or so.

But all too many guys have a romantic view of women. And women find that romantic notion to their advantage. I prefer realism.

Life/experience is usually the correction for that kind of thing...talk to any man who ever went through a nasty divorce or saw one's father go through one.

[choff]

Going farther back, you could also blame the tender years doctrine. Before this, husband and wife were basically considered the shared property of each other. After this change in divorce law, women were considered free and persons in their own right. What almost everybody else failed to appreciate was that the husband role remained unchanged, the legal property of his now ex-wife. Alimony slavery was henceforth introduced into society, it took a few generations and the introduction of birth control pills and antibiotics to become a serious problem.

[williatw]

Going farther back, you could also blame the tender years doctrine. Before this, husband and wife were basically considered the shared property of each other. After this change in divorce law, women were considered free and persons in their own right. What almost everybody else failed to appreciate was that the husband role remained unchanged, the legal property of his now ex-wife. Alimony slavery was henceforth introduced into society, it took a few generations and the introduction of birth control pills and antibiotics to become a serious problem.

Mandatory genetic tests at birth might not be a bad idea as well. Understand more than a few husbands end up raising inadvertently some other mans' child; the paternity testing shortly after birth could be part of normal genetic testing for potential diseases/illnesses the child might be more likely to suffer later on. Understand there was a time also that you could sue someone for sleeping with your missus breaking up your marriage; lawyers outta luv that. Another thing I can't believe is legal is that after a divorce when the wife (typically) gets custody of the kids she can move out of state as far away as she wants for any reason; the father/ex-husband is then effectively denied visitation or any parenting role (other than mailing checks) to his own kids. This happened to a cousin of mine he had to get a lawyer to fight it; unbelievable that is held to be just, either for the father's or the kids.

[williatw]

And yes, i'm thinking the 19th amendment was a mistake.

Tell us Dio...how does Mrs Diogenes and your daughters if you have any feel about that? After all the 21th century (1st century where American women (& most Western women) have had the vote in its entirety) so far is allot less bloody in relative terms than the 20th Century was by now; near end of 1915 WWI raging eventually killing 10 million plus; Russo-Japanese war, Boer War, Genocide of the Belgian Congo (5-10 million or so). They (your womenfolk) might argue that terrorist attacks and the war(s) we have had so far pale in comparison, even though our weapons today are much more destructive than what they had. Perhaps women having the right to vote and being in more positions of power now than then might have something to do with that regardless of whatever other problems you think that has caused.

..... and the 26th amendment was also a mistake.

And your probably adult (or nearly adult) kids/nieces/nephews how do they feel about that one? As far as I am concerned if they are "adult" enough, "mature" enough to be expected to bear up under the worst life has to offer, i.e. combat than they are mature enough to vote. Probably not a coincidence that the draft effectively ended at about the same time as those 18-20 yrs old got the right to vote. You can't have a de facto slave class (conscripts) if the "slaves" are allowed to vote; few people regardless of relative age/maturity would willingly vote themselves into even temporary slavery in all but name. Of course the caveat is that plenty might be willing to vote someone else into slavery as long as they were confident they were exempt; seem to recall reading that during the Civil War if you had money you could legally literally pay someone else to show up for you. Rough Rider Theodore Roosevelt's father was one of those who paid someone else to fight for him.

[ladajo]

It seems that willatw's "oppression" is showing again. You should tuck that back in, some might think you have a chip on your shoulder that keeps you from thinking rationally.

[williatw]

It seems that willatw's "oppression" is showing again. You should tuck that back in, some might think you have a chip on your shoulder that keeps you from thinking rationally.

?? tell me ladajo did you even read my post(s) or did you just see the word "slave" in there and just skim over the rest? If your alluding to what I said about the draft my feelings about that are:

I would probably prefer Robert Heinlein's system...those who want to vote become "citizens" by voluntary government service, i.e. military service. The idea being is that those willing to sacrifice themselves for their society by willingly taking the possible risk of death by military service make better trustees of what is in societies' best interest than merely owning property or paying taxes does. Seems to work somewhat that way in my State; your act of registering for the vote you are registering for Selective Service. A Mexican immigrant who earned citizenship by volunteering to serve in this country's armed forces probably cares more about what is in societies best interest than a rich man's son who pays copious amounts of taxes; the later wouldn't risk his own arse in Iraq or anywhere else. Their the type who shelter their money anyway they can, and couldn't care less what it does as far as our government meeting its obligations, or its long term viability.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5542&p=115897&hilit ... in#p115897

[ladajo]

Nope, I recall your position, but saw no need for you to take your argument into slavery.
This tendency seems to be a recurring theme with you.

I do not think that citizens who are a net negative should not be voting and have said this before. As a veteran with almost three decades of service, I also think this applies to veterans. I see this as a transitional condition, if you start contributing, then after a wait period, you can start voting again.

Maybe we need to merge both concepts into one, in order to direct the destiny of the nation, you must be a veteran of military or civil service, and you must be a contributor.

I for one am very tired of folks who take, having free reign to decide what more they want to take. We are all in this together, and as long as we allow the supported to drive the agenda, we will never climb out of the hole. Instead, we will all be buried together.

Just look at the recent headline regarding the mother of four under five years old children (some of which, the father was unidentified), who went to get pizza with her current boyfriend, and left the kids alone. She was even to lazy to tell her mother, who lived in the same building she was headed out. End result, two of the kids put the youngest (16 months old?) into the oven, locked it shut, and turned it on, thus roasting the child to death. What are the odds this woman is on welfare, and what are the odds that she has a new baby within the year to replace her "lost" income? She gets to vote. Why? So she can cement more free stuff.

[Diogenes]

The big mistake I see is letting net recipients of tax monies vote, allowing them to vote themselves more goodies at the expense of others.

I think it is the single most dominant factor in this nation's decline/collapse. It's always the economics that get nations.



Rome did the same thing. Allowing the non-producers to vote, and then bribing them with Bread and Circuses, and then letting in too many immigrants who held no loyalty to Rome.

[Diogenes]

You probably mean welfare/food stamp recipients...but the biggest example would be Social Security/medicare; elderly people who receive ultimately (especially with medicare) far more than they put in. Any plans on stripping old (mostly) white people of the right to vote?

Roosevelt's idea. Yeah, it was stupid at the time. He bribed tax payers with tax money too.


If you can explain how stopping them from voting would do anything about the massive debt already ran up on their behalf, i'm willing to listen to the idea.


But this story isn't over. I've been noticing for a long time now that the accounts receivable will in no way balance the accounts payable. Social Security is a pyramid scheme, and it always was. First woman ever to use it paid in three years worth of social security payments, and drew out $22,888.92 .


This is a consequence of letting women vote in 1919. They elected Socialist, caring, touchy feely, Roosevelt.


This social security tragedy has got a long way to go before people start to realize that it's going to crash.

[Diogenes]

williatw writes:

The welfare state will gradually peter out and be replaced with some kind of mandatory pay at roughly at least minimum wage for some kind of work; if your able bodied swear you can't find work gov will find something for you to do.

This is a topic in it's own right. With the "rise of the machines" unskilled work will become increasingly irrelevant. I wonder if there will be enough work of any sort in the future.

[Diogenes]

And yes, i'm thinking the 19th amendment was a mistake.

Tell us Dio...how does Mrs Diogenes and your daughters if you have any feel about that?

I do not care. My Daughter is too young to have any sense, and my wife is too old to get any. They both generally defer to my judgement.

After all the 21th century (1st century where American women (& most Western women) have had the vote in its entirety) so far is allot less bloody in relative terms than the 20th Century was by now;

You have got to be kidding. From where I sit, it's looking like we are about to see the sort of bloodshed that was unimaginable in the 20th century. Iran with Nukes? And Rockets? Ya gotta be kiddin me!

near end of 1915 WWI raging eventually killing 10 million plus; Russo-Japanese war, Boer War, Genocide of the Belgian Congo (5-10 million or so). They (your womenfolk) might argue that terrorist attacks and the war(s) we have had so far pale in comparison, even though our weapons today are much more destructive than what they had. Perhaps women having the right to vote and being in more positions of power now than then might have something to do with that regardless of whatever other problems you think that has caused.

Most of the people killed in the 20th century were killed by Communists. Heavy support among women for these socialist movements.

..... and the 26th amendment was also a mistake.

And your probably adult (or nearly adult) kids/nieces/nephews how do they feel about that one? As far as I am concerned if they are "adult" enough, "mature" enough to be expected to bear up under the worst life has to offer, i.e. combat than they are mature enough to vote.

I disagree. I've noticed a remarkable transition which occurs between the ages of 18 and 21. At 18 they tend to be cocky and know-it-all, but by the time they reach 21, they generally have a rudimentary grasp of work, bills and basic economics.


As the old joke goes, "When I was 16, my dad was an idiot. He didn't know anything. But by the time I turned 21, I was amazed at how much he had learned in those five years. "

It's not a joke. Children undergo a transformation between 18 and 21. I've seen it too many times.

Probably not a coincidence that the draft effectively ended at about the same time as those 18-20 yrs old got the right to vote.

Seriously? The only reason they wanted to vote was to end the draft. Right afterwards they went right back to tuning everything out. Their stated reasons for pushing the 26th amendment was that "If you are old enough to die for your country, you ought to be old enough to vote. "

I would have written the 26th amendment to grant the vote only to those 18 year olds who were serving in the armed forces. The D@mn teenage punk hippies could go suck donkey D*cks as far as I was concerned. The 26th was another example of the ole "Bait and Switch" tactic. They advertise it one way, and then far exceed what it was advertised as.

You can't have a de facto slave class (conscripts) if the "slaves" are allowed to vote; few people regardless of relative age/maturity would willingly vote themselves into even temporary slavery in all but name. Of course the caveat is that plenty might be willing to vote someone else into slavery as long as they were confident they were exempt; seem to recall reading that during the Civil War if you had money you could legally literally pay someone else to show up for you. Rough Rider Theodore Roosevelt's father was one of those who paid someone else to fight for him.

The Price was $300.00. Slaves of that era were going for over $1000.00 . While researching this topic for another argument I found out that during the New York Draft riots, one of rioters rallying cries was that their lives were worth less than that of slaves.

Worst riots in the nation's history.



But we have been bringing back slavery. It's been incremental, but it has made steady progress. The Fedzilla has us all shackled to the oars now, and they keep stealing the value of our money, our savings, our property, and so on, bit by bit.


In 2008 I could buy a Whataburger with Cheese for $2.52. Now it is very close to $5.00. Inflation has gone crazy. A Quart of oil was $0.85. Now it's $4.00. Milk has Doubled. My 2008 dollars are now worth almost 1/2 of what they were. ~50% taxation by stealth, and games played with the money supply.

[williatw]

In 2008 I could buy a Whataburger with Cheese for $2.52. Now it is very close to $5.00. Inflation has gone crazy. A Quart of oil was $0.85. Now it's $4.00. Milk has Doubled. My 2008 dollars are now worth almost 1/2 of what they were. ~50% taxation by stealth, and games played with the money supply.

From the CPI calculator: $2.52 then (2008) is now worth $2.78. Either the CPI is a f*%k*#g liar (a possibility I concede) or your being gyped somehow Dio. I respectfully suggest you ask the aforementioned allegedly too old to acquire any "sense" Mrs. Diogenes for tips on bargain shopping.

http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm


Speaking of inflation I just filled up my Honda Accord; cost me $1.649/gallon at Shell (counting my $0.10 off because of my Kroger plus card). Don't remember but I very much doubt gas was anywhere near half the price $.82/gallon in 2008.

http://www.gasbuddy.com/

[williatw]

near end of 1915 WWI raging eventually killing 10 million plus; Russo-Japanese war, Boer War, Genocide of the Belgian Congo (5-10 million or so). They (your womenfolk) might argue that terrorist attacks and the war(s) we have had so far pale in comparison, even though our weapons today are much more destructive than what they had. Perhaps women having the right to vote and being in more positions of power now than then might have something to do with that regardless of whatever other problems you think that has caused.

Most of the people killed in the 20th century were killed by Communists. Heavy support among women for these socialist movements.

Whether they did or not you could hardly blame the women of the world for that; after all the Bolshevik revolution in Russia was in 1917-1918 well before American women got the vote (to say nothing of Russian women who didn't have it then or really now). Don't see how the womenfolk of the world had much to do with Mao taking over in China, or Pol Pot in Cambodia or any of the other Communist takeovers. In any case the murder/genocide I have mentioned from the early 20th Century was before the Communist had taken over.