|
Liberal_L33t posted:Firstly, I think it's a little bit gross to mention diffuse, statistical employment discrimination as a proximate cause for murderous suicidal terrorism. Not being able to find a job absolutely sucks and my heart goes out to them, but it's a pretty loving common problem in virtually every country on Earth, and somehow, 95% of the populations who suffer chronic long-term unemployment and statistical discrimination manage to not produce, on a yearly basis, dozens of mass-murderers who engage in mass-casualty attacks on civilians. Go back to my post and see if I mention terrorism even once. Can you read? Liberal_L33t posted:There is something wrong with the communities producing these terrorists that employment discrimination does not begin to explain, much less justify. Ending employment discrimination is a worthy cause but it sure as hell doesn't let the cultures and communities that are producing a bumper crop of suicidal mass-murderers off the hook. The roots of the terrorism problem are within those cultures and communities and have far more to do with their religious identity and cultural taboos than with any economic factors. When you have a poor, discriminated-against population in a rich country, you expect that community to have a lot of petty crime, theft, drug abuse and so forth. Those are normal (albeit unhealthy) responses to poverty. Terrorism is NOT, and I hate seeing it normalized as a response to comparatively minor acts of discrimination like not getting hired. I quite agree, we really shouldn't be afraid to confront the factors in French culture and society that have led to these events. One of them is absolutely systemic discrimination towards French citizens of African descent (black or arab), though. That has been the case ever since they started arriving in the country ~60 years ago. The latest wave of concern about Islam (or those shadowy "communities" you keep mentioning, I guess) is just window dressing on this old trend. Liberal_L33t posted:Secondly - and I'm genuinely asking you here, since you would know - are French people really just 100% reacting to the color of someone's skin with the discrimination and random ID checks you are talking about? Or are there other reasons aside from physical appearance that they might not want to share a workplace with someone from one of these cultures? I'm not saying that this discrimination is necessarily justified, but aren't there other factors aside from just race and national origins in play here? Isn't someone, regardless of skin color, who has adopted and assimilated into French culture much less likely to suffer this kind of discrimination? You are aware that I'm talking about people who've lived in France their entire lives? Guess what's the criteria for judging that they're not "integrated enough"? It's that they didn't magically turn white. And of course the random ID checks are done on the basis of skin colour, it's racial profiling. Liberal_L33t posted:And thirdly, if it is such a huge issue, why don't these victims of employment discrimination just change their last names to something more French sounding? Why is that such a big deal?  Real answer: Many black French citizens have French-sounding names. Still discriminated against.
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 08:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 21:17 |
|
|
The Kingfish posted:The Warsaw Pact countries created a buffer zone of client states between the USSR and Western Europe and prevented the USSR from being encircled. OK, Russia wasn't encircled - the Russian bloc was encircled. It's a semantic difference. Shockingly this Russian strategy of abusing its neighbours as ablative armor and economic buffer backfired, and now Russia is salty that they are even more encircled, through nobody else's fault but their own.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 08:58
|
|
|
Dawncloack posted:Are you playing dumb now, my friend? Just because one side isn't covered doesnt' mean it's not encirclement. Have you not been following the news? Or do you really believe that the ballistic missile systems in Poland are there to stop Iranian missiles? I've never understood the logic behind arguing a defensive system is somehow a threat. It's not like we're planning to nuke Russia and trying to sabotage their second strike capabilities, the systems are clearly a deterrent against a Russian first strike. (Or Iranian missiles.  )Also I disagree about your logic, for me an encirclement means you have at least try to surround someone, not just put a defense system and some guys around some parts of your "enemy's" border. Tesseraction posted:I believe he's referring to the NATO countries having arms on their Russian borders as opposed to 'countries who share a border with Russia' Most of those forces are ludicrously weak though, since they're meant as a deterrent against Russian invasion and not part of some mythical "encirclement".
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 09:08
|
|
|
Ligur posted:imported taharrush gamaes. this isn't actually a thing, you know?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 09:15
|
|
Libluini posted:Most of those forces are ludicrously weak though, since they're meant as a deterrent against Russian invasion and not part of some mythical "encirclement". The Russian elite is looking at the Ukraine and is terrified because they might end up getting lynched if something like the Maidan would actually happen in Moscow. The encirclement in their eyes is not the prelude to an actual military invasion but it means that Russia no longer has the military power to threaten vital strategic interests of the US (without resorting to nukes) should internal pressure, supported by the CIA, start to actually threaten the Russian oligarchy.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 09:22
|
|
|
KoldPT posted:this isn't actually a thing, you know? In this instance, used as a blanket term (hence lower case plural), isn't the term just "group harassment" translated from Arabic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 09:23
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:Hey rear end in a top hat, you are aware that this is a largely-anonymous internet politics board, and that if the arguments you are making here were applied to basically any other issue, it would shut down any and all debate on the topic in the exact same way? Let's put it this way: threads on nuclear power work better when the people start them in good faith, and have people willing to learn about nuclear power and discuss the negative effects of, for instance, a reactor failure sensibly. They don't do well when science-hating dullards burst in decrying all nuclear power as rape of the planet and my man did you hear about Cherynobl? Likewise the Climate Change thread works better when people discuss it from the premise that rising temperatures suggest climate change and not a liberal conspiracy to steal coal from starving millionaires. Good faith arguments about the mistreatment of women in majority-Muslim countries? Fine. Islamophobia disguised behind a blatantly hollow veneer of 'won't somebody please think of the women?' not so much. As your most recent probations might remind you, you're not a good faith arguer about the problems in Islam.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 09:23
|
|
|
Libluini posted:I've never understood the logic behind arguing a defensive system is somehow a threat. It's not like we're planning to nuke Russia and trying to sabotage their second strike capabilities, the systems are clearly a deterrent against a Russian first strike. (Or Iranian missiles. The idea is by putting SDI in place you destroy MAD which makes that other country vulnerable to both conventional and nuclear attacks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 12:33
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:The idea is by putting SDI in place you destroy MAD which makes that other country vulnerable to both conventional and nuclear attacks. Let me expand on this, for Libluini's benefit. Imagine that the Star Wars project worked exactly as advertised and could shoot down every single incoming Russian ICBM. If that was the case, Russian command would know that as soon as it came on line, they would have lost, the US could bully them as much as they wanted and there would be nothing they could do against it, because the US would have nukes and Russia wouldn't. In this scenario, do you see that Russian command has all the motivation in the universe to do a first strike before the system comes online? Do you want to risk that? PS. Cool LP, yours. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 12:46
|
|
|
Fair points, but as I understand it ICBMs are only vulnerable during a short time window after launch, so the Russians could just use more submarines or put more launch silos into Siberia to fire ICBMS into directions a missile defense system in Poland can't cover. In hindsight, I'm not even sure if a missile defense in Poland would be any good, since it's essentially the US betting the Russian Federation will just leave all their nuclear silos unchanged, instead of slowly relocating launchers and ICBMs to regions uncovered by the Polish defense system. I think the Russians can start to feel threatened when China joins NATO and puts up a missile defense. Then indeed NATO could intercept basically everything Russia could launch, except some submarines of course. That would be an encirclement and a rather strong one. When that actually happens, I'll gladly concede that Russia is indeed encircled. None of you will be able to read that future post though, since all of Europe will be a radioactive hellhole. Dawncloack posted:PS. Cool LP, yours. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 13:49
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Let's put it this way: threads on nuclear power work better when the people start them in good faith, and have people willing to learn about nuclear power and discuss the negative effects of, for instance, a reactor failure sensibly. They don't do well when science-hating dullards burst in decrying all nuclear power as rape of the planet and my man did you hear about Cherynobl? Likewise the Climate Change thread works better when people discuss it from the premise that rising temperatures suggest climate change and not a liberal conspiracy to steal coal from starving millionaires. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black in this case. The same can work, and in real life really does work both ways. You yourself cannot make two posts in a row, if one, without starting about "white people", "brown people" and calling those you thought will not agree with your view racists or just otherwise horrible monsters. You actually don't have a highly developed psychic internet radar that can determine the motives of other posters from thousands of miles away by "reading between the lines" or something, you know? But that is how any talk about Islam or the (actual, real, verifiable) negatives of mass migration to Europe ends up within two and a half posts in a liberal forum: an internet mentalist arrives, and instead of discussing what person X said, they start discussing the motives of the person. Not whatever merits his post otherwise might have nor not have. "You just say that because you want to say nasty things about brown people!" As if such people are somehow common these days.... Recognize anyone who might say something like that? The reasons you listed before, quote quote:loudmouths on the subject are racist shitheads are exactly why I don't discuss in or even read alt-right forums or forums profilic in migration topics: I just can't be bothered with all the "gaaahh, all mussulmen are really jihadists and the rest is takiiya" (or how the hell you spell it, any way that is a common argument or claim, instead of the racism -stuff you are stuck on) but frankly, people like you make it almost as bad in more pro-migration, pro-left forums like D&D. Sorry, I know you mean well probably...
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 13:51
|
|
|
Dawncloack posted:Let me expand on this, for Libluini's benefit. Well, they don't necessarily have every reason to initiate a nuclear strike before it comes online, since they come out worse off than if they lose MAD protection by doing that. But they do have an interest in trying to stop an SDI from being implemented. That would entail espionage (including attempted coup in the country implementing SDI), pressure in non-nuclear allies, threats of proxy wars, or treaties to prevent SDI from being activated. Which we are seeing a lot of from Russia. Including them trying to impact this year's elections in the USA.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 13:57
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Well, they don't necessarily have every reason to initiate a nuclear strike before it comes online, since they come out worse off than if they lose MAD protection by doing that. Fair enough, I see your points. And now I'm going to go to other threads to find if there's proof it was Russia or it's just BS.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 14:19
|
|
|
Ligur posted:Talk about the pot calling the kettle black in this case. The same can work, and in real life really does work both ways. You yourself cannot make two posts in a row, if one, without starting about "white people", "brown people" and calling those you thought will not agree with your view racists or just otherwise horrible monsters. Threads also go better when people don't lie like a rug.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Threads also go better when people don't lie like a rug. You can elaborate?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
Ligur posted:Talk about the pot calling the kettle black in this case. The same can work, and in real life really does work both ways. You yourself cannot make two posts in a row, if one, without starting about "white people", "brown people" and calling those you thought will not agree with your view racists or just otherwise horrible monsters. Uh, so have you forgotten all those probations you've gotten for racism? Also check the other guy's rap sheet - he's also routinely probated for racism. I mean sure you can keep claiming that actually you're the least racist person in the world but at some point denial just looks sad. Ligur posted:The reasons you listed before, quote D&D is not 'pro-left' even if its political average is to the left of you. It's anti-racist, sure. As to the idea of a thread discussing the problems in Islam, I'm not against them, but when it's people like tsa and liberal_leet, two people whose experience of Islam is posting on internet forums calling Muslims awful, I see no benefit to such a thread. We do, in fact, have Muslim posters who can talk about the problems in Islam, and they have not shown an interest in creating such a thread because they know full well they will not get good faith arguments from the people who will come in. Heck one of our fellow goons from Saudi Arabia routinely gets attacked for being from there because he hasn't personally and single-handedly overthrown the Saudi government. Given that happens when he's not even talking about his country, do you think he'll get a fair discussion if he opens himself up to people criticising Islam as a whole?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
The Commission has looked at the "problem" of Portugal and Spain's excessive deficits and responded in the usual way - by punting the problem into the longest grass available and hoping it'll go away of its own accord: http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2016/0727/805204-european-commission-spain-portugal/quote:The European Commission has backed away from slapping fines on Spain and Portugal for running high deficits, in what would have been a landmark move by the EU to impose tough budget rules.  Poland, however, may not receive such clemency: https://next.ft.com/content/c9174d12-b9f6-11e5-bf7e-8a339b6f2164 quote:Poland risks becoming the first EU member state to be punished for endangering the rule of law after Brussels said it would formally examine a burst of controversial reforms undertaken by the country's new ultra-conservative government.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:The Commission has looked at the "problem" of Portugal and Spain's excessive deficits and responded in the usual way - by punting the problem into the longest grass available and hoping it'll go away of its own accord: http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2016/0727/805204-european-commission-spain-portugal/ Holy moly, two sensible decisions in a row? Is the EU feeling all right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 17:44
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:Uncle Wolfie is doubtless very disappointed. He was the driving force behind this decision, mostly because he wanted to support his Spanish friends.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Uh, so have you forgotten all those probations you've gotten for racism? Also check the other guy's rap sheet - he's also routinely probated for racism. I mean sure you can keep claiming that actually you're the least racist person in the world but at some point denial just looks sad. I wasn't talking about me or that other guy. Anyone here during the past decade that has doubted the wisdom of the European immigration project has been attacked by guys like you, no matter what they say or how they formulate their worries. I understand many posters were not here 5 or 10 years ago, but it in the past it was forbidden to even suspect the sound economic results of asylum seeking based immigration. Otherwise u = hittlarrr. You are one of the guys who shits up those threads with everyone else. From this POV, it looks sad you do not see or understand this, at all, and don't even have the ability to glimpse beyond your own prejudices to understand why someone would say so. That said, my rap sheet doesn't mention "racism" apart from some truly cryptic poo poo but is filled with weird stuff I don't even know what they are supposed to mean: like "cheerleading" and thus fort. As for the racism charges that is wholly subjective: Someone thinks saying migration from Muslim countries isn't beneficial to the EU is "just racist" (I suppose you are that person, you can correct me if wrong) and that's the end of it , some people understand this is an actual valid worry by Europeans met with a surge of migration nobody really asked for, and do not consider it a racist position. I have never posted any pro-white, white supremacy, nazi or whatever poo poo during the past 15 years. If I wanted to do that, I would post like that, but I don't. I don't really care when someone calls me a racist monstarrr, but I have never seen anyone explain why exactly, my views are racist either. Whatever. Being worried about migration trends (or crime committed by foreigners, whatever) is not racist in an on itself, no matter which your ilk accuses people of. quote:D&D is not 'pro-left' even if its political average is to the left of you. It's anti-racist, sure. I am aware of quite a lot of people who would disagree. How many threads are in D&D that ridicule the left? IIRC when D&D had a presidential vote thread back in day, Obama only got 95% of the votes... GBS or FYAD probably are not left or right or anything, let's limit the political orientiation to D&D but can you seriously deny most of the posters are something to the tune of socialists, social democrats, liberal left wingers, or at least anti-conservatives, seriously? quote:As to the idea of a thread discussing the problems in Islam, I'm not against them, but when it's people like tsa and liberal_leet, two people whose experience of Islam is posting on internet forums calling Muslims awful, I see no benefit to such a thread. We do, in fact, have Muslim posters who can talk about the problems in Islam, and they have not shown an interest in creating such a thread because they know full well they will not get good faith arguments from the people who will come in. That thread is a bad idea I agree. But I have to ask, do you really believe that people who are worried about the European migration trends only post or are interested about these issues because... - They want to say bad things about "brown people", yet are so devious that they talk about poorly handled migration and integration, just because that is just a way they get to say bad things about other people. - And not because they are genuinely worried about something and might have some valid reasons to feel like this. quote:Heck one of our fellow goons from Saudi Arabia routinely gets attacked for being from there because he hasn't personally and single-handedly overthrown the Saudi government. Given that happens when he's not even talking about his country, do you think he'll get a fair discussion if he opens himself up to people criticising Islam as a whole? That is bullshit of course, a position I would have always maintained. I don't know if he should even try or not. Probably not. If someone is hostile to your (supposed) cause he will find a way to attack you no matter what. The thing that you seem unable to see, perhaps because you think you are in the right and everyone who disagrees must be wrong (you can suggest other reasons), is that you are that exact person.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
Ligur posted:I wasn't talking about me or that other guy. Anyone here during the past decade that has doubted the wisdom of the European immigration project has been attacked by guys like you, no matter what they say or how they formulate their worries. I understand many posters were not here 5 or 10 years ago, but it in the past it was forbidden to even suspect the sound economic results of asylum seeking based immigration. Otherwise u = hittlarrr. You are one of the guys who shits up those threads with everyone else. From this POV, it looks sad you do not see or understand this, at all, and don't even have the ability to glimpse beyond your own prejudices to understand why someone would say so. It must be an enormous psychological stress to keep up this pretense.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
Ligur posted:If someone is hostile to your (supposed) cause he will find a way to attack you no matter what. The thing that you seem unable to see, perhaps because you think you are in the right and everyone who disagrees must be wrong (you can suggest other reasons), is that you are that exact person.  Do you not see that the exact same criticism you're levelling at me if the exact same thing you're accusing me of doing? Why is it okay for you to do it and it an argument-losing position if I do it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:
Oh gee, he couldn't answer a single question but made up one of his own, nice dodging. Yes, you, too, are a thread shitter, and to take the high horse on that ("deh racists make discussion imposible") is loving ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
Ligur posted:Oh gee, he couldn't answer a single question but made up one of his own, nice dodging. Well if you guys didn't take silence as agreement we wouldn't have to do our level best to oppose you at every turn.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
will brussels move if Netherland nexits?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:will brussels move if Netherland nexits? I don't know that they've come to a conclusion as to wtf to think of the brexit referendum outcome. A Nexit is literally unthinkable to them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
Any X-exit was. Juncker and his cronies couldn't believe their ears and freaked out so bad the following weeks
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
Ligur posted:Oh gee, he couldn't answer a single question but made up one of his own, nice dodging. Nice of you to admit to it, but I'm not a thread shitter and only reply to people like yourself to as to not tacitly endorse your poor faith arguments by ignoring them. Also saying "a single question" is pretty rich when you asked two, both of which were special pleading. But okay let's deal with your questions, but first: Ligur posted:That said, my rap sheet doesn't mention "racism" apart from some truly cryptic poo poo but is filled with weird stuff I don't even know what they are supposed to mean: like "cheerleading" and thus fort. Forth. Don't use stupid deprecated English if you don't know how to use it properly. But let's just suggest that maybe things like Probation reason: "'Somalis are pouring into Sweden and raping Nordic women'  ": Ligur posted:Hmmm Swedish politics dribbling over to our side as 6-8 "Swedes" (Somalis) gang rape a woman on a Viking Line cruise. Hmm, yes, clearly the unbiased eye of a totally-not-racist idiot waxing lyrical there. Ligur posted:I have never posted any pro-white, white supremacy, nazi or whatever poo poo during the past 15 years. If I wanted to do that, I would post like that, but I don't. Well, apart from all those times you've been probated for it. Like seriously picking basically any of your probation reasons by D&D mods leads to you saying dumb racist poo poo, often incoherently, but then apparently your fellow Finns say you post that badly in Finnish too so maybe you're just too stupid in any language to make your totally-sensible-points-about-black-people. Also, friendly reminder that you've been given an av of a Finnish Nazi because even your fellow Finnpol posters think you're a dumb racist gently caress. Right, that out of the way, your two questions. Ligur posted:I am aware of quite a lot of people who would disagree. How many threads are in D&D that ridicule the left? IIRC when D&D had a presidential vote thread back in day, Obama only got 95% of the votes... GBS or FYAD probably are not left or right or anything, let's limit the political orientiation to D&D but can you seriously deny most of the posters are something to the tune of socialists, social democrats, liberal left wingers, or at least anti-conservatives, seriously? So your questions are: 1) how many threads in D&D make fun of the left? 2) can I deny that D&D has 'most' posters from socialist, social democratc, 'liberal left wingers' or 'anti-conservative'? So let's answer these: 1) none that I've seen, but it's clearly an easy subject since we're all a bunch of babies who can't handle criticism in your eyes, and clearly you're not alone, so why not make a thread? Or are you aware that the best you can come up with is tumblr teens who are more easily made fun of outside of formal discussions of politics? 2) maybe, but if you can argue in good faith then the mods should guarantee you a fair argument, so my question back at you is: are you so insecure in your worldview that you can only defend it with the backing of biased moderation? If you believe that the mods in D&D are biased in the opposite way, as in, towards a socialist worldview, where is your evidence? You can perhaps point to the mod status of ExMarx who is openly left-wing, but he is one of many mods and has to have his actions approved by the admins.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
Tesseraction, do you think it is possible to argue against mass immigration from Middle East and not be racist? If it is, would you play the devil's advocate for a minute and show how such an argument would look like? Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:Tesseraction, do you think it is possible to argue against mass immigration from Middle East and not be racist? I suspect that the vagueness of this request foretells a certain level of disingenuity on your part.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
Ligur posted:Oh gee, he couldn't answer a single question but made up one of his own, nice dodging. are you still holding a grudge for when someone called you racist because you were saying blatantly racist poo poo yes it turns out that "Swarthy foreigners are barging into our country and taking our Proud Nordic Women" is not conductive to a discussion
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I suspect that the vagueness of this request foretells a certain level of disingenuity on your part. Your attempt would also be welcome.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:Tesseraction, do you think it is possible to argue against mass immigration from Middle East and not be racist? It may be possible but I've honestly yet to see a convincing one. Honestly I doubt I could play devil's advocate in such a situation because it would boil down to one of: 1) culture 2) economics 3) population (density) Of which the latter two are tied, somewhat. I suppose I have to question whether any of the three are under crisis, or even are being affected at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:It may be possible but I've honestly yet to see a convincing one. Honestly I doubt I could play devil's advocate in such a situation because it would boil down to one of: OK, let's say that someone claims that culture and economics of the host country are threatened by the immigration wave. They could be wrong in two ways. One is that culture and economics are not in fact threatened, and the other is that it's irrelevant because saving refugees is more important than preserving culture and economics. Would you agree with this?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:OK, let's say that someone claims that culture and economics of the host country are threatened by the immigration wave. They could be wrong in two ways. One is that culture and economics are not in fact threatened, and the other is that it's irrelevant because saving refugees is more important than preserving culture and economics. Not necessarily, it's not a binary between true and false with your specific suggestion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:Your attempt would also be welcome. Okay. "European countries should machine-gun refugees because death is good and they won't face much popular opposition, unlike with slaughtering their own citizens" is an example of an argument that is not racist, instead being evil in a different way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:Tesseraction, do you think it is possible to argue against mass immigration from Middle East and not be racist? You can make non-racist arguments against mass immigration from the Middle East. You cannot make non-shithead arguments against it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
Remember when the USA took in a bunch of poor immigrates from Europe and collapsed from internal strife to become a 3rd world nation?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Remember when the USA took in a bunch of poor immigrates from Europe and collapsed from internal strife to become a 3rd world nation?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 21:17 |
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:That's a perfect analogy, America being mostly empty and most jobs requiring little if any education aside. That far off distant past of 1990. http://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/Annual-Number-of-US-Legal-Permanent-Residents
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 22:57
|
|