OT: What are the chances of this getting through?

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, July 31, 2019 at 6:03:31 PM UTC+10, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, 31 July 2019 03:31:21 UTC+1, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Tue, 30 Jul 2019 22:14:33 -0000 (UTC)) it happened Cursitor
Doom <curd@notformail.com> wrote in <qhqfg9$tel$4@dont-email.me>:
On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 09:05:32 -0700, tabbypurr wrote:

I didn't say we don't have it, I said it was abolished.
I've never seen any examples of modern day slaves here. Can you give us
examples?

This gypsy family were heavily into it:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4782154/Traveller-family-forced-
homeless-victims-slaves.html

And thanks to the EU, Britain can't deport them after their prison terms
end, because it would violate their human rights. (the EU is a wholly
controlled sub-set of the United Nations, for those unaware of it).

I dunno,
in my view it is just big business wanting to create a larger market,
Philips for example, from origin Dutch, wanted the world.
Removing trade barriers, borders, is good for that,
and that is how EU started and where the support comes from.
Is a win-win for companies AND consumers.

What US Precedent trump now does is break world trade down
protectionism, and will ultimately lead to the destruction of US companies.
And the US.

More trade is all well & good. The EU is about something else as well, and there lies the problem.

The EU looks forward to some kind of political union. Precisely how that might be a problem escapes me - it isn't as if competing nation-states starting wars with one another from time to time represents some kind of epitome of political organisation.

NT taste for gnomic utterances about stuff he thinks he understands is irritating, particularly in a gullible twit.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, July 31, 2019 at 6:18:47 PM UTC+10, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Wed, 31 Jul 2019 01:03:27 -0700 (PDT)) it happened
tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote in
04403033-76f0-4a97-a907-08cf84f28b54@googlegroups.com>:

On Wednesday, 31 July 2019 03:31:21 UTC+1, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Tue, 30 Jul 2019 22:14:33 -0000 (UTC)) it happened Cursitor
Doom <curd@notformail.com> wrote in <qhqfg9$tel$4@dont-email.me>:
On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 09:05:32 -0700, tabbypurr wrote:

I didn't say we don't have it, I said it was abolished.
I've never seen any examples of modern day slaves here. Can you give us
examples?

This gypsy family were heavily into it:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4782154/Traveller-family-forced-
homeless-victims-slaves.html

And thanks to the EU, Britain can't deport them after their prison terms
end, because it would violate their human rights. (the EU is a wholly
controlled sub-set of the United Nations, for those unaware of it).

I dunno,
in my view it is just big business wanting to create a larger market,
Philips for example, from origin Dutch, wanted the world.
Removing trade barriers, borders, is good for that,
and that is how EU started and where the support comes from.
Is a win-win for companies AND consumers.

What US Precedent trump now does is break world trade down
protectionism, and will ultimately lead to the destruction of US companies.
And the US.

More trade is all well & good. The EU is about something else as well, and there lies the problem.

Could you perhaps be a bit more specific about what you mean by 'something else'?

Not a chance. NT has learned that he gets roasted if he fleshes out his superficial ideas.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Wednesday, 31 July 2019 09:18:47 UTC+1, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Wed, 31 Jul 2019 01:03:27 -0700 (PDT)) it happened
tabbypurr wrote in
04403033-76f0-4a97-a907-08cf84f28b54@googlegroups.com>:
On Wednesday, 31 July 2019 03:31:21 UTC+1, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Tue, 30 Jul 2019 22:14:33 -0000 (UTC)) it happened Cursitor
Doom <curd@notformail.com> wrote in <qhqfg9$tel$4@dont-email.me>:
On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 09:05:32 -0700, tabbypurr wrote:

I didn't say we don't have it, I said it was abolished.
I've never seen any examples of modern day slaves here. Can you give us
examples?

This gypsy family were heavily into it:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4782154/Traveller-family-forced-
homeless-victims-slaves.html

And thanks to the EU, Britain can't deport them after their prison terms
end, because it would violate their human rights. (the EU is a wholly
controlled sub-set of the United Nations, for those unaware of it).

I dunno,
in my view it is just big business wanting to create a larger market,
Philips for example, from origin Dutch, wanted the world.
Removing trade barriers, borders, is good for that,
and that is how EU started and where the support comes from.
Is a win-win for companies AND consumers.

What US Precedent trump now does is break world trade down
protectionism, and will ultimately lead to the destruction of US companies.
And the US.

More trade is all well & good. The EU is about something else as well, and there lies the problem.

Could you perhaps be a bit more specific about what you mean by 'something else'?

There's no lack of stuff written about the problems with the EU. I need hardly rewrite it all. If it were just a let's trade club I'd be all for that.


NT

 

>The Irish came here voluntarily! Nobody went to Ireland and >forced tens of thousands of Irish onto ships at gunpoint!

From what I know, which is not extensive on this subject, most of them agreed to be indentured servants to pay their way to get here. HA, in a way you could say Blacks got it for free so shuddup.

Outside of a few manual labor industries (like railway >construction, or picking fruit, say) for
the most part, at the time, they were unwanted here, for any >reason!

They were putting Men here out of work. I am almost surprised anyone fought for the south among the commoners. They are over here, desperate for work and this slave labor comes in and their families starve. They were desperate enough to fight against their own best interests. Men who want to work do not want to see a bunch of people coming in to take their jobs. Somehow they were desperate enough to join the Confederate army. They didn't know they were fighting against themselves. You think information is controlled now ? Try then.

>Slaves had actual cash value to their owners, poor Irish >immigrants didn't have cash value of nothing.

You could buy their contracts. The major difference here is they were not owned. To the indentured servant it doesn't really matter. At the end of their contract they are free.

>And the Irish were not to my knowledge ever available for >retail sale, like property - I couldn't have ever gone down to >the Irish Auction in 1850 and buy a redhead Irish lass of my >choosing off-the-shelf for $15. if this is incorrect please >provide a reference otherwise!

I will not argue that you could buy Irish people, but as I stated you could buy their contract. And they aren't the only ones. Go to a Chinese restaurant and I bet there is at least one indentured servant there. They do the same thing, contract to supply labor for a certain period of time for their passage here. I am not sure what they could do to an indentured servant who violates the contract. It may have been different then but now the only way breach of contract can put you in jail is if it turns into contempt of court. They are reluctant to do that but maybe it was different then. Remember after the Dred Scott decision free states would return escaped slaves to slave states.

Slavery was a ripoff. There were Men dying (literally) for work. you pay them they go on their way, get some food for the Wife and kids, whatever problems they have is their problem. Show up tomorrow and make another day wages. They would have worked so cheap it is unbelievable.

Their kids get sick you do not care. Wife pregnant, you don't care. Their well ran dry, you don't care. their mule died, you don't care. They get sick, you don't care. Add to that that you do not need strawbosses with whips, or chains or cages or anything. They WANT to be there.

If you own them, all that shit is on you. I have given this much thought and looked up a few things. First of all slaves were not $15. It was an expensive game only for the rich. Given the labor pool and other conditions I quite suspect they were on a power trip and WANTED to own people. To think of some as less human to feel more human. But that is only supposition at this point. It is just there are indicators. Like, why do people hunt ?

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, July 31, 2019 at 10:08:15 PM UTC+10, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, 31 July 2019 09:18:47 UTC+1, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 31 Jul 2019 01:03:27 -0700 (PDT)) it happened
tabbypurr wrote in
04403033-76f0-4a97-a907-08cf84f28b54@googlegroups.com>:
On Wednesday, 31 July 2019 03:31:21 UTC+1, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Tue, 30 Jul 2019 22:14:33 -0000 (UTC)) it happened Cursitor
Doom <curd@notformail.com> wrote in <qhqfg9$tel$4@dont-email.me>:
On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 09:05:32 -0700, tabbypurr wrote:

I didn't say we don't have it, I said it was abolished.
I've never seen any examples of modern day slaves here. Can you give us
examples?

This gypsy family were heavily into it:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4782154/Traveller-family-forced-
homeless-victims-slaves.html

And thanks to the EU, Britain can't deport them after their prison terms
end, because it would violate their human rights. (the EU is a wholly
controlled sub-set of the United Nations, for those unaware of it).

I dunno,
in my view it is just big business wanting to create a larger market,
Philips for example, from origin Dutch, wanted the world.
Removing trade barriers, borders, is good for that,
and that is how EU started and where the support comes from.
Is a win-win for companies AND consumers.

What US Precedent trump now does is break world trade down
protectionism, and will ultimately lead to the destruction of US companies.
And the US.

More trade is all well & good. The EU is about something else as well, and there lies the problem.

Could you perhaps be a bit more specific about what you mean by 'something else'?

There's no lack of stuff written about the problems with the EU. I need hardly rewrite it all. If it were just a let's trade club I'd be all for that.

Sadly, free trade areas need harmonised regulations. It rapidly gets moderately complicated, and half-witted journalists want to see an over-complicated bureaucracy, and fly-by night manufacturers of cheap junk want no regulations at all.

It would be interesting if you identified which of the claimed problems areas with the EU strike you as being actual problems, as opposed to journalists finding something to complain about.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 05:08:11 -0700, tabbypurr wrote:

There's no lack of stuff written about the problems with the EU. I need
hardly rewrite it all. If it were just a let's trade club I'd be all for
that.

As would I. But the EU is really only about *control* and controllers can
never have enough control. The reason it's so hard for the UK to break
out of the EU is because it, the EU, was never supposed to have a reverse
gear. The momentum was all about swallowing up smaller countries through
unashamed bribery. And the same thing is going on elsewhere in the world,
too. Elsewhere and *everywhere* in fact. Once the world has been
consolidated into 5 or 6 massive trade blocs, it will be much easier for
the Globalist parasites to combine them all into one. At that point we'll
have the one world government and total tyranny that's been the end goal
all along. But by then it'll be too late to do anything about it.



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 1:56:24 AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 05:08:11 -0700, tabbypurr wrote:

There's no lack of stuff written about the problems with the EU. I need
hardly rewrite it all. If it were just a let's trade club I'd be all for
that.

As would I. But the EU is really only about *control* and controllers can
never have enough control.

Actually, the EU is about trade, and the control - such as it is - is designed to facilitate that, so that the goods being sold are equally fit to do their job in all the markets they are being sold into.

The reason it's so hard for the UK to break
out of the EU is because it, the EU, was never supposed to have a reverse
gear. The momentum was all about swallowing up smaller countries through
unashamed bribery.

Offering a larger market to those industries in a small country that offer good value, and cheaper goods to the rest of the population isn't any kind of bribery - it's just practical capitalism.

And the same thing is going on elsewhere in the world,
too. Elsewhere and *everywhere* in fact. Once the world has been
consolidated into 5 or 6 massive trade blocs, it will be much easier for
the Globalist parasites to combine them all into one.

Where large scale manufacture makes sense, manufacturing in high volume for the largest possible market delivers the cheapest goods.

This is thinking globally. You do have monitor competition and, break up incipient monopolies, but you have to do that within domestic markets anyway.

Cursitor Doom is the kind of idiot who thinks it worthwhile to stick a capital letter on Globalism and paint it as one more of his idiot conspiracies.

> At that point we'll have the one world government and total tyranny that's been the end goal all along. But by then it'll be too late to do anything about it.

We've had federated states for quite a while - the the union of Scotland, Wales and Ireland with England goes back a few hundred years, as do the unites states of America. The Federal republic of Germany is more recent.

None of them looks remotely like a total tyranny but Cursitor Doom seems to imagine that there's some kind of bigness effect that changes the consequences when you cross the line into the next structure up.

In fact he's just saying that he's conservative, and can't imagine that doing anything in a way that hasn't been done before isn't automatically a bad thing.

He hasn't grasped that "different" doesn't automatically mean worse.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney