[Samseau]

There also needs to be a real-talk about race on this forum. This election wasn't between "Whites" and "minorities". It was between men and women.

If it was only men who had the vote, Romney would have won.



Guys always talk about race, but they ignore the true enemy within the ranks. The average white man has more in common with the average black man than he has in common with the average white woman. The same is true of black men.


Here's why:



The race bullshit ought to stop.

[Ramon Zarate]

(11-07-2012 09:38 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(11-07-2012 08:23 AM)j r Wrote:  

There is no excess labor supply. One good indicator of that is the high unemployment rate. I don't mean to cast aspersions on you and maybe I'm dead wrong on this, but it sounds like your understanding of labor economics comes from reading Steve Sailer's blog.

(11-07-2012 08:32 AM)Ramon Zarate Wrote:  

So apparently there's excess labour supply... yet unemployment is a lot higher than before the recession... ok that doesn't make sense unless you use the 'structural unemployment' argument, which doesn't hold because jobs haven't been lost disproportionately more in construction.

Guys, this is easy math. High immigration (especially illegal) = high unemployment.

Supply and demand. If there's more workers (supply) than jobs (demand) then there is high unemployment, more competition between workers, and lower wages.


Case in point: Japan. Lowest immigration rates in the developed world. Check their unemployment rates. Sub-6% for the last 30 years.

You're right. I should have put demand instead of supply, given the arguments i then gave supported excess labor supply. Me not thinking straight again. That said there are things the US can do to increase demand so this excess labour supply without having to kick out a ton of illegals in the process. Of course one of the main factors keeping wages high in OECD countries is not having open borders and lots of labor mobility between them and significantly poorer countries.

[Ramon Zarate]

(11-07-2012 09:48 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

There also needs to be a real-talk about race on this forum. This election wasn't between "Whites" and "minorities". It was between men and women.

If it was only men who had the vote, Romney would have won.



Guys always talk about race, but they ignore the true enemy within the ranks. The average white man has more in common with the average black man than he has in common with the average white woman. The same is true of black men.


Here's why:



The race bullshit ought to stop.

Getting pussy is the great uniter of men.

[ColSpanker]

I think this says it all:

http://open.salon.com/blog/alysa_salzber...ade_me_cry

Obama made me cry.

You can't make this shit up.

[Vicious]

If I was American I would have voted on Obama just because of that god damn Hungarian guy.

[thegmanifesto]

Anyone else notice this:

All the shitty parts of the country voted for The Male Cheerleader Romney.

All the cool parts of America voted for Obama.

Thoughts?

[Samseau]

(11-07-2012 10:18 AM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

All the cool parts of America voted for Obama.

Thoughts?

What parts of America are cool?

[thegmanifesto]

(11-07-2012 10:45 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(11-07-2012 10:18 AM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

All the cool parts of America voted for Obama.

Thoughts?

What parts of America are cool?

Coastal California.

South Florida East Coast.

New Orleans/ Orleans Parish

Chicago

Las Vegas

NYC

Hawaii

It is truly amazing. Only the worst places in America voted for Romney.

[bojangles]

Mark Minter said the below at Rational Male (Rollo Tomassi)

Quote:

This is my analysis of the election. And this is my manifesto.

Here you had a sitting president that had everything going against him in voter sentiment, ambivalent economic data, if not bad data, a general lack of confidence of his ability to be a significant leader, and still he could not be beaten by his opponent.

This has been the on going theme of my comments. Women are winning. Women are going to win and impose the changes on society that they wish and there is nothing you can do to stop it.

The reason Obama won this election and why the Republicans were not able to gain any ground in the legislature was women. Pure and Simply. This election was about women. And the men lost. If the economy had improved even by a few percent more, then the election would never have been this close. Obama appealed to women and would’ve blown Romney away. Romney was only in the race because of his ability to run on the economy and the antipathy that conservative white voters have towards Obama. In the Senate races, Women won every race except for Maine where an independent candidate won, and the woman came in second. The conservative came in last.

The forces arrayed against you, socially, economically, and politically are insurmountable. You can scream, whine, blog, comment, whatever, and you will not turn back the march of history. Even if the number of Red Pill aware men increases ten fold in the next few years, it still will not stop the inevitable erosion of the position of men, not only in America, but throughout the rest of the world.

Now, I am going to tell you in no uncertain terms, if you have a dick then you are on your own and the forces of the world are arrayed against you. You can expect no political support, no social support, no support in the workplace, no support in the courts, with the police. Whether you realize it or not, women are a bigger enemy to you than any Arab, any Iranian, any Chinese.

Your last chance to even slow this march was just lost. Democrats made a lot of hay about the Clint Eastwood presentation during the Republican convention where he used a chair as a prop and addressed a hypothetical Barrack Obama in the chair. It was said that was the essence of the Republican party, angry, old white men railing in their anger at a black Democratic president. And more and more of are those old, angry, white men are going to die and not be replaced in the pipeline. In 2016 there will be even fewer of them and more and more non-white voters will move onto the voting rolls to replace those white male voters that will die over the next four years. Obama received 93% of the black vote, 69% of the hispanic vote, and 74% of the Asian vote. Romney won 59% of white voters. There will a smaller percentage of white voters in every election cycle from here on out.

But the real issue was the gender gap. Women favored Obama, 54 percent to 44 percent, while men chose Romney by an almost identical margin, 53 percent to 45 percent. Mothers were more likely to support Obama (55 percent to 45 percent), while fathers sided with Romney (55 percent to 43 percent).

“Democrats effectively made the case that issues important to women, not just issues like abortion and reproductive rights but economic issues of equal pay and access to jobs, those issues resonated with women,” said Ron Schurin, a political scientist at the University of Connecticut. “The Romney campaign seemed at times to be tone deaf on those issues. They tried to make a case, they just didn’t do it effectively.”

The key race in the election cycle, the bellweather indicator of things to come, was the race between Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren. Expect this formula to be repeated by Democrats in subsequent elections. Elizabeth Warren was an academic, a law professor from Harvard, with a specialization in Bankrupty. So expect more races where a female former professor without any political baggage or experience will run, and win, on women’s issues that are masked as issues for families, for the “middle class”. It is my opinion that Elizabeth Warren will run for president in 2016 and will become the nominee. And more and more women will move into elected office and those women will push issues favorable to women as their primary agenda masking those issues as “for children”, “for education”, “for families”.

Also, the story of the next four years will be stagnation on issues involving spending, spending cuts, unless it is a measure that effects women. Then public opinion, the media, and the army of women will coerce the Republican legislature into caving. When there are cuts or spending deals to be made, expect the deal not to cut things that would have a more direct effect on women and pushed towards cuts that will affect men. If defense is cut, that effects men, fewer soliders, fewer defense contracts. Expect less stimulus spending on infrastructure, again more jobs for men. Expect this ongoing deal, tax cuts for the wealthy or business in exchange for what women want. Expect head start, health benefits, food stamp progams, education, aid to dependent children to be untouched. Expect more legislation like WAVA and IMBRA. Expect an EEO interpretation that further broadens sexual harrassment and sexual discrimination.

You all need to understand in no uncertain terms, women despise you, they think little of you. They believe you brutish and violent, bull headed, and fundamentally stupid. They see you as big children that must be controlled and disciplined in order make you useful to them. And if you are not useful to them, if you do not provide those things that they wish from you, actually, more correct to say, those things they need from you, then you will not be a part of their lives.

And they are earnest and driven in structuring society and the law in such a manner that you are no longer needed.

They are now avoiding marriage in droves, deferring pregnancy and motherhood, and using men, more and more, as forms of recreation and, less and less, as a necessary partner in the scheme of life as they are defining it. Their job and their female friends are more important to them than you are. They are celebrating and defining single motherhood as the form of child rearing preferrable to a two parent household.

And you should expect the bad behavior of women in relationships and in social situations to only get worse. There is a massive demographic shift that has been occuring since the end of the birth control. Compare the dearth of child bearing age women against the number of men from 19-55 that chase those women, men that throw deals and enticements at the feet of those women, with the rise in social media mechanisms available today that permit women to be approached and have those deals thrown at their feet, and you have a recipe for more trouble ahead for men. Pity the poor boy born in 2007 when there was a birth rate of 4.32 babies born per 1000 people to the birth rate in 2011 of 1.9. There will be no girls for 50% of those boys, given that men tend to pair with younger women. If you wish to see the impact of demographic discrepancy on female behavior, study the history of Wyoming. Men literally had to pay women to have relationships and she shopped for the best offer. She would go to a dance with one man and leave with another because she received the better offer.

So, I say to all of you, on this key date, this moment of national introspection that occurs every 4 years on election night when the character of our society unveils itself in the form of the ballot, we most certainly have entered into a new era of history. I call it the PostModern because I can only define it right now as what it isn’t and I am not yet able to define it for what it is. You can call it Post Industrial. You can call it the Third Wave, the first being agriculture, the second being industrial.

But you can expect to see the world, society, and the relationships between men and women begin to organize in other means, other forms, other measures, than anything that has ever come before. The Modern Era, for as long as we have any sort of social memory has been organized along the lines of the family and the marriage between men and women. Everything was based on this, from work, to taxes, to even how houses are aligned along steets, neighborhoods are built, and how maps are drawn.

You need a new paradigm, new thinking about how you filter the information that your senses provide you and what you make of it. You need to question any value, any moral, any religion, your patriotism, your chivalry, your male code of conduct, any generalization, any stereotype, any caricature, anything that is an artifact from the Modern Era. And you need to replace it with something, something more PostModern. You can’t look back any fucking more. Those days are gone and will never, never return.

Start with this statement right here and make it the first declaration in who you are, what you will be, and will do, what you won’t be and what you won’t do, and how you judge and think about the world

“I will be nobody’s fucking slave and nobody’s fool”.

You owe nobody anything. You owe women nothing. You owe society nothing. All of those things, those forces, those structures wish to impose a slavery on you and you need begin to reject it right now. You need redefine to yourself, “What it means to be a man.” And you need to begin to live that declaration of what it could, should, and would to be a man if you filter that determination with the first filter.

“I will be nobody’s slave and nobody’s fool”.

We will stop being men that are useful to women, useful to society and start being men that live life on their terms. You have a power that you give away. We voluntarily let chains be placed on you because we think that is what “The Good Man” does.

Re-evaluate everything.

Revolt.

You cannot change where the world and society is going. But you have the power to change your life so that you live it on your own terms. There will be no “macro” solution to the angst that you are feeling. There will be no grand social movement to correct the wrongs that you experience in your dealings with women and in how society views and what it expects from men.

But you have the solution in your hands.

Game.

Not just “Game” as pick-up lines, but “Game” as a way of viewing women, as a way of viewing life, as a way of reconstructing what is right and what is wrong, as a way of reacting to the changes that are beyond your control, as a way of dealing with the structural and social changes that already have come and inevitably are coming.

Don’t worry about the world, worry about your world.

“I will be nobody’s slave and nobody’s fool.

Ever.

So when future historians look back on this PostModern time and make generalizations of this age, let them say:

“It was time when the men started being men, free men, that lived free, and no longer accepted the roles as slaves that society and women had imposed on them.”

[ManAbout]

(11-07-2012 01:15 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Look, you're preaching to the choir, you won't find anyone that's more opposed to illegal immigration than me. I also think we need to sharply limit low-skill immigrants. What I took objection to is Brian using Athlone's background to attack him.

America was built on "illegal immigration". Do you think that the pilgrims went to the American embassy and got visas before they got on the Mayflower? I doubt that the millions of Italians who landed on Ellis Island had work visas either. The fact is that humans have been migrating for better economic opportunities for thousands of years. These nation states are a very recent phenomenon. For most of our existence, human beings have moved freely in search of food and better prospects, the only hindrances being natural, i.e oceans, mountains etc.

[thegmanifesto]

Why are all the Republican Male Cheerleaders so quiet today?

Did something happen last night that I am unaware of?

[Tbone]

(11-07-2012 11:37 AM)ManAbout Wrote:  

(11-07-2012 01:15 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Look, you're preaching to the choir, you won't find anyone that's more opposed to illegal immigration than me. I also think we need to sharply limit low-skill immigrants. What I took objection to is Brian using Athlone's background to attack him.

America was built on "illegal immigration". Do you think that the pilgrims went to the American embassy and got visas before they got on the Mayflower? I doubt that the millions of Italians who landed on Ellis Island had work visas either. The fact is that humans have been migrating for better economic opportunities for thousands of years. These nation states are a very recent phenomenon. For most of our existence, human beings have moved freely in search of food and better prospects, the only hindrances being natural, i.e oceans, mountains etc.

Exactly. Many people seem to forget the fact that this country was built by immigrants.

[ManAbout]

This is what America was built on:

Quote:

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

[ElJefe]

(11-07-2012 11:37 AM)ManAbout Wrote:  

America was built on "illegal immigration". Do you think that the pilgrims went to the American embassy and got visas before they got on the Mayflower? I doubt that the millions of Italians who landed on Ellis Island had work visas either. The fact is that humans have been migrating for better economic opportunities for thousands of years. These nation states are a very recent phenomenon. For most of our existence, human beings have moved freely in search of food and better prospects, the only hindrances being natural, i.e oceans, mountains etc.

Is it America's job to save the 3rd world from poverty? If yes, who's going to pay for that? You?

Or is it the concern of Americans to make America the best damn country in the world?

Most people who voted this election are too dumb to understand either of those choices, who is for which one or why, but I'll tell you this: the latter is the one you SHOULD be voting for.

I'm glad we agree.

Because now that we agree that's the goal, we can have a rational discussion on the merits and demerits of immigration. In particular, the trade-offs, ups and downs, of third world immigration.

But don't take me at my word: Vernon Briggs at Cornell University and George Borjas at Harvard are both top-notch economists who have labor and migration economics down to a science (literally). You'll get a good argument for why third world immigration is a bad idea seen from the eyes of workers, ie. voters, and of course implicity, why it's a good idea for employers. Then you won't have to swallow raw the narrative liberals have been feeding you, and you'll be smarter than most conservatives at the same time. Win/win.

[chyamor]

looks like we have our 2016 contenders

http://news.yahoo.com/race-2016-starts-t...itics.html

2016 might have a latino president take office.

[thegmanifesto]

Rough day for Republicans.

1. They had to vote for a Male Cheerleader

2. They lost

3. Most of them live in the shittiest parts of America

4. Obama the socialist is president

There is a lot of crying in Khaki pants today.

[americanInEurope]

I think that both guys are sincere and love the country, but have two different backgrounds and ways to fix it. If there ever were a justification for America to have a Prime Minister, this would be a case. When you have two equally good candidates run, but only one is chosen. Obama is better I think at foreign policy and social issues, while Romney would have probably been a better person to tackle the economy and spending.

However, what we don't need is this horseshit:

pretty much another "47%" type of comment. thinking like this is the reason they lost. stick to the issues and stop insulting other Americans who don't think like you. fucking foxnews fucktwats.

[speakeasy]

(11-07-2012 11:37 AM)ManAbout Wrote:  

(11-07-2012 01:15 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Look, you're preaching to the choir, you won't find anyone that's more opposed to illegal immigration than me. I also think we need to sharply limit low-skill immigrants. What I took objection to is Brian using Athlone's background to attack him.

America was built on "illegal immigration". Do you think that the pilgrims went to the American embassy and got visas before they got on the Mayflower? I doubt that the millions of Italians who landed on Ellis Island had work visas either. The fact is that humans have been migrating for better economic opportunities for thousands of years. These nation states are a very recent phenomenon. For most of our existence, human beings have moved freely in search of food and better prospects, the only hindrances being natural, i.e oceans, mountains etc.

Your argument is of no use to me in 2012. First, it's a misnomer to say the pilgrims came here illegally. There were no laws here. There must be laws for something to be illegal. There was no country here with a national border. They had lose territories that they settled in as hunters and gatherers, but it's not like they didn't fight wars with each other over territory. The pilgrims might as well have been just the latest tribe that showed up.

And how does this have any relevance today anyhow? So we're supposed to dissolve the border now because the pilgrims weren't invited here? What do you think would happen to the economy?

[OGNorCal707]

I bet Tenderman and Brian love Bill O'Reilly.

[ManAbout]

(11-07-2012 02:07 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

And how does this have any relevance today anyhow? So we're supposed to dissolve the border now because the pilgrims weren't invited here? What do you think would happen to the economy?

How are these "illegal immigrants" hurting you? Are you willing to clean the toilets or work on california farms for 12 hours a day or in some hot kitchen in a disgusting fast food restaurant? The vast majority of them are honest, hard working people who contribute to the economy, more so than many "Americans". All they want to do is feed their families.

They are doing the jobs that nobody wants to do. Having a poor Mexico on the southern border is not good for US interests. The solution is to make it easier for them to come to US legally and contribute to the economy, instead of persecuting them and making them prey to unscrupulous businesses. It is a win-win situation.

[ManAbout]

(11-07-2012 02:08 PM)OGNorCal707 Wrote:  

I bet Tenderman and Brian love Bill O'Reilly.

And Rush Limbaugh. Anybody that listens to this guy, admits to it, and repeats his talking point should be immediately identified as somebody of limited intelligence.

Then there's Bush's brain, Karl Rove. What an asshole.

Ann Coulter.

DONALD TRUMP!!

The list of wingnut idols is endless.

[NYJ]

(11-07-2012 02:29 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Obama is basically a moderate Republican:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_p...e_gop.html

Pretty much

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

Pretty much all the electorate voted for the same guy.

[speakeasy]

(11-07-2012 02:24 PM)ManAbout Wrote:  

(11-07-2012 02:07 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

And how does this have any relevance today anyhow? So we're supposed to dissolve the border now because the pilgrims weren't invited here? What do you think would happen to the economy?

How are these "illegal immigrants" hurting you? Are you willing to clean the toilets or work on california farms for 12 hours a day or in some hot kitchen in a disgusting fast food restaurant? The vast majority of them are honest, hard working people who contribute to the economy, more so than many "Americans". All they want to do is feed their families.

They are doing the jobs that nobody wants to do. Having a poor Mexico on the southern border is not good for US interests. The solution is to make it easier for them to come to US legally and contribute to the economy, instead of persecuting them and making them prey to unscrupulous businesses. It is a win-win situation.

Why do you put the word illegal in quotes? Are you openly saying that you don't recognize the border or believe in immigration laws?

Look I've seen your boiler plate arguments above for decades. They've all been thoroughly debunked. I've had this debate so many times ad nauseum that I don't feel like even bothering.

[LoveBug]

(11-07-2012 02:24 PM)ManAbout Wrote:  

(11-07-2012 02:07 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

And how does this have any relevance today anyhow? So we're supposed to dissolve the border now because the pilgrims weren't invited here? What do you think would happen to the economy?

How are these "illegal immigrants" hurting you? Are you willing to clean the toilets or work on california farms for 12 hours a day or in some hot kitchen in a disgusting fast food restaurant? The vast majority of them are honest, hard working people who contribute to the economy, more so than many "Americans". All they want to do is feed their families.

They are doing the jobs that nobody wants to do. Having a poor Mexico on the southern border is not good for US interests. The solution is to make it easier for them to come to US legally and contribute to the economy, instead of persecuting them and making them prey to unscrupulous businesses. It is a win-win situation.

You. must. be. hispanic. Lol, the situation is to actually protect our borders and make it more illegal for employers to hire them. There are no jobs nowadays that Americans aren't willing to do, are you aware of the jobs crisis?

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

Now that illegal immigrants have been mentioned, don't make it illegal to hire them. That'll never work. Just make it illegal to pay them less than anyone else for the same job.
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=walmart