Don’t even think you’ll be able to get a job flipping burgers, you’re already shut out by the competition there. You’re supposed to just dry up and starve off quietly somewhere.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2003/06-30-2003/vo19no13_trading.htm
I thought you were all supposed to be eating the globalist rainbow soup by now, with unlimited employment and a secure tech job the rest of your life. Shut up slave, get in the back of the bread line and get your barcode tattoo.
Our plans to enslave the mud people are going exactly as I planned. In the next phase the useless anglos will be liquidated, and those who show some worth will be given jobs abroad, managing our beasts of burden…
The conflict between the libertarian fetish for unrestricted contracts and protectionist fear of the darkies is really funny.
Cleve hasn’t really evidenced very much libertarianism recently. I think his political attitudes have shifted since his old school Ayn Rand mustache loving days.
With his mercury thing and now this, he’s officially a hippy. I guess Cleve found some common ground with the hippies in that he likes being wrong about everything too.
I’m not agreeing with Cleve but pretty much my last company I worked for (American) was bought out by a French company and outsourced pretty much all there Engineering and Programming positions to India! About 80% of the work force was non-American, and the office was in the Chicago burbs. I don’t know if its indicative of all industries, but pretty much all the IT companies I worked for already have folded up or outsourced to Asia/Mexico! I’m not lying! I’m just outsourcing myself…
bah… oh well… my contract ended last month there.
etc
Mercury thing?
Anecdotal evidence seems to indicate that it’s really cheap, but so hard to manage effectively (read: you never get anything back) that it’s not cost-effective.
Not that it matters to Cleve, but The New American is the propaganda magazine published by the crackpot John Birch Society. It is, shall we say, a less than credible source.
Just so you know where they stand, the JBS president, John McManus, wrote a book claiming William F. Buckley Jr. was part of the liberal establishment. I think when you start considering the founder of National Review to be a liberal, you’re well on your way to kookery land.
William F. Buckley is the hardest of the hardcore leftist fake opposition. Buckley is what a liberal thinks a conservative is. Buckley’s Trotskyist rag NR is so far left it is falling into the Pacific.
That’s adorable Cleve.
Buckley and NR may not be the hardest of the hard right, but they in no way can be accurately described as “leftist,” much less “Trotskyist.” If they are, one can only wonder where you place rags like The Nation and Mother Jones on the political spectrum.
“Look at me, everybody! I’m the rightwing! Buy guns! Defense! Study history! Rah! Rah!” and they usually prance around editorializing about how leftists actually have great ideas - in moderation, of course!
They are stage puppets, fake opposition, theatrical heads put in place to shut out any real diversity of opinion. They’re about as conservative as corporate owned and managed rock stars are “rebels.”
There are 200 million Americans with no political representation. Fact.
Conservative media? Zionist managed butt marionettes like O’Reilly. “Shut up, you damn liberal, or I’ll shut off your microphone!” Yeah, they’re conservatives all right.
There are 200 million Americans with no political representation. Fact.
Cleve, would you care to explain why you think Buckley and his fellow neocons are “leftists,” or would you prefer to just froth at the mouth?
As near as I can tell, the JBS crowd’s main beef with Buckley and company is that he moved conservatism away from an isolationist worldview, principally (I would say almost exclusively) because they saw a need to robustly challenge the spread of Soviet influence. And given the events of the past half-decade, most conservatives agree that was the right approach.
Even if you want to cling to the notion that “real” conservatism must necessarily include isolationism as a fundamental tenet, that doesn’t mean that Buckley can accurately be termed a “leftist.” At best, given his position on virtually every other domestic and foriegn political issue, it only means he isn’t quite as far right as the Birchers.
Oh, you’re trying to figure out why nobody is biting at the bait. Maybe the label on the dog food should be a different color, you think.
Well, maybe the dog doesn’t like that dog food, period. You can change the label on the can, add different colors or claim it is pate and eggs.
Buckley is a sad shell of a human being who got bought out by Zionists many years ago and was only kept on as a figurehead at NR so as not to spook the goy. Buckley is not a liberal, not a conservative, he’s not anything. He’s a tired old man like Winston Smith in 1984 who just wants the bullet in his head to end the pain.
I’ve got an idea. How about I don’t bite at your bait and I don’t engage in your false dichotomy and I don’t even debate with you why Buckley is this or that political label? Buckley is the liberal elite’s official party conservative. Like Goldberg in 1984, he’s owned and operated by the State and is frankly a sad little critter.
As for his positions on “domestic and foreign issues,” well all I see is two Trotskyists arguing at the left end of the spectrum pretending they are the bandwidth. If you think Buckley is supposed to be a “conservative,” I can safely say you’d be a little shocked at what 100 million Americans are thinking behind closed doors. Buckley is a milquetoast barrel organ who says what he is told to say.
Read Joe Sobran’s account sometime of what an amazingly pussy-whipped lap dog Buckley became after he had his testicles snipped. Buckley to this day breaks out in a nervous mumbling sweat when anybody breaches the subject.
So what you’re saying is, “you should accept my view of Buckley as a stealth fighter for the liberal establishment with nary an explanation as to why that view is accurate.” Sorry, I’m not playing that game. “Because I said so” is not a persuasive argument, not even from a self-described supergenius.
As for his positions on “domestic and foreign issues,” well all I see is two Trotskyists arguing at the left end of the spectrum pretending they are the bandwidth. If you think Buckley is supposed to be a “conservative,” I can safely say you’d be a little shocked at what 100 million Americans are thinking behind closed doors. Buckley is a milquetoast barrel organ who says what he is told to say.
Doubtless in your fevered mind Buckley is at the left end of the spectrum. But I’m curious: if Buckley’s at the left, what characterizes the middle?
Read Joe Sobran’s account sometime of what an amazingly pussy-whipped lap dog Buckley became after he had his testicles snipped. Buckley to this day breaks out in a nervous mumbling sweat when anybody breaches the subject.
The same Joe Sobran who was canned from NR for praising Holocaust-denial publications? Disgruntled employees are hardly a credible source.
And I suppose a link to the story would be too much to ask.
Oh, I’m a postmodernist?
Yeah, you’re in touch with reality, alright.
So are you Cleve.
I’ll be expecting Grimoire on my desk for review any time now. And given how great it’s supposed to be, I should just give it 100% and an Editor’s Choice in advance, right?
Are you one of those newfangled communists (neos) who can shift his features like wax into something resembling conservative and then begins screaming he’s sick and tired of the damned liberals?
Scary, frightening biological horrors produced by natural selection. The shadows of Europe produced a hideous, freakish blood curdling teratism who can alter his form to appear as almost anything at any time.
I present: Cleve’s Word Of The Day
ter·a·tism
n.
A congenital malformation or anomaly.
Tom, you just made Gary’s previous great Cleve response your bitch. Funniest thing ever. I predict that the gold Cleve-baby will become the dinosaur of Cleve threads.