Board 8 > Freedom, Liberty, Ron Paul - Where all da white refugees at? [dwmf]

(+) Yeah! (+)

Trump and his supporters cried so much about that? lmao
---

https://twitter.com/drewtoothpaste/status/1017810938991448064
---

Is this the first time shitpost has been legally distinct from trolling?
---

I'll bet there's an FBI agent making over six figures whose job is to review social media posts and distinguish between shit-posts and regular posts.
---

https://www.facebook.com/BBCPolitics/videos/2329172733766238/

He's literally never heard of brexit

Nationalist God for sure
---

https://www.facebook.com/KaitsUnsafeSpace/posts/262102191038810

god that long curly hair makes her look so white trash trailer park appealing

i cant look away

quick get her on fox news where they'll make her straighten that shit out and look like a sorority chick
---

https://imgur.com/Bh7fadA

Easy money. They still don't even have her listed for Democratic Nominee though. The odds on that will be amazing when they eventually add her.
---

https://twitter.com/RichardHaass/status/1018245342989516805

these people are fucking hilarious
---

Normally it's some young person who has only seen 1 major (non-US) invasion in their lifetime saying something like that

But this guy looks like he was around for WW2 so I dunno
---

Putin reading Hillary's e-mails was literally the first time in history a nation didn't respect the sovereignty of another nation
---

http://reason.com/blog/2018/07/15/germany-just-agreed-to-essentially-close

Reason's analysis here is hilarious.

On the one hand, they claim Germany "needs" refugees and asylum seekers because:

Without a lot of new workers, the aging population and its shrinking taxpayer base will lay ruin to the country's generous welfare system.

On the other hand, they openly acknowledge that 90% of these people receive massive government assistance and don't work:

Instead, hundreds of thousands of people would sit in camps, in limbo, living on taxpayer money, indefinitely. A report from the Institute for Employment Research found that just 10 percent of the working-age refugees who arrived in 2015 were employed by 2017.

Hey idiots, immigrants won't help you pay for your domestic welfare programs unless they are net taxpayers, not welfare recipients. But no, I'm sure racism is the only reason Germans are waking up to this and opposing more of it. Just keep telling them that letting in more welfare-collecting non-working people will make everyone richer!
---

wake up schafle
---

SmartMuffin posted...

But no, I'm sure racism is the only reason Germans are waking up to this and opposing more of it.

not the only reason but it is one reason
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Hey idiots, immigrants won't help you pay for your domestic welfare programs unless they are net taxpayers, not welfare recipients

How do you know they won't beb net taxpayers?

Keynesianism requires an endless stream of labor and spending to sustain itself. This is the only way.
---

How do you know they won't beb net taxpayers?

Keynesianism requires an endless stream of labor and spending to sustain itself.

If you want a stream of labor, then importing groups of people where the ratio of workers to welfare recipients is 1:9 seems like a very bad idea.

This is why Germans, and everyone else, are rebelling at this nonsense. They were told "We will admit these people and they will come in and work hard and pay for your welfare!" But the reality is that these people come in and don't work and compete for welfare resources.

Importing people who pay a lot of taxes to subsidize welfare for native citizens would be a great idea. The problem is those people are all Indian/Chinese MBAs/IT people. It turns out that unassimilated hordes of unskilled Mexicans/Arabs/Africans don't actually pay that much in taxes. Who would have guessed?
---

The labor is an investment, the spending is immediate. Watch where Germany is in 50 years compared to Japan. If keynesianism survives that long.
---

The labor is an investment, the spending is immediate

The article shows that over a three year span, 90% of migrants are not working.

How long do you project it will take to get that number above 50%? How many years of welfare do you have to pay them before they start working? At what point will they pay back all of that previous "investment" and start to become net tax contributors? How would that work in a country like the US where half the population is already a net tax recipient and not a contributor?

The math on this isn't even close to working. You can call it an "investment" all you want, but the fact of the matter is, these people cost a lot more money than they generate. It's like "investing" in a boat under the logic that "well boats can be used for fishing and those generate positive returns so surely my luxury yacht is also a great investment." No, the vast majority of boats are money pits. If you want a boat that generates a positive return, you have to very carefully select a fishing boat.

If you want immigrants to make your economy stronger, you have to very carefully select for young, single, high-skilled, likely-to-assimilate, English-speaking immigrants.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

If you want immigrants to make your economy stronger, you have to very carefully select for young, single, high-skilled, likely-to-assimilate, English-speaking immigrants.

These people are already selected for by the realities of migration. You don't have to do much to get them.

Also: English-speaking immigrants in Germany?
---

These people are already selected for by the realities of migration. You don't have to do much to get them.

You have to stop actively kicking them out, for one. The U.S. tells tens of thousands of such immigrants every year, who are already here, that they have to leave.

Also: English-speaking immigrants in Germany?

1. You know what I meant
2. But given the realities of the global economy, actually, yes.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

How long do you project it will take to get that number above 50%?

15-30 years

If the math doesn't work then how did history work? Clearly your math is wrong, because you're assuming the money you're talking about is real. It's like the leftists crying about how the tax cut could pay for all student debt or whatever. It's government keynesianism. It doesn't exist if it's not spent. So they're spending a small amount of money now to ensure their bubble stays alive longer and all their fake money retains its value.

Again, you can cry about it now all you want cuz you hate brown people or whatever, but you'll see what happens in the future.
---

https://twitter.com/nytopinion/status/1018770963813490688

Remember, gay jokes are OK so long as the target is someone you disagree with politically.
---

Nope. Only to centrist dorks like the NYT
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Nope. Only to centrist dorks like the NYT

Which other media outlets are denouncing them for this?

Has the world's favorite 25-year old socialist commented on it yet?
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Which other media outlets are denouncing them for this?

breitbart
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Has the world's favorite 25-year old socialist commented on it yet?

why does it matter how old she is?
---

No, shes compromised.

Just prominent leftists on Twitter that work for places like Vice and Buzzfeed

https://twitter.com/krangtnelson/status/1018880326389649409?s=21

https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/1018908840677593090?s=21

Just search NYT homophobia for loads of other rightfully offended progressives
---

Like seriously, Im not sure who the target demo is for the NYT anymore beyond the hypocritical liberal elite.

Asshole conservatives are absolutely right to call them out for this double standard
---

also, the joke is that trump and putin love each other to the point of being in a relationship. it's not the "GAY PEOPLE SUCK LOL" kind of joke - that's the kind that people have a problem with.
---

i'm glad muffin suddenly became an ambassador for the LGBT community just because people were making fun of trump though
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

also, the joke is that trump and putin love each other to the point of being in a relationship. it's not the "GAY PEOPLE SUCK LOL" kind of joke - that's the kind that people have a problem with.

This cartoon is decidedly meant to laugh at two dudes being all kissy kissy
---

Hypocrisy is okay when I do it.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

This cartoon is decidedly meant to laugh at two dudes being all kissy kissy

it's not just "two dudes," though. it's trump and putin.

pretty sure this cartoon would also have been made if putin had been a woman.
---

And I disagree
---

Muffin loves gays and Musk now because of the mainstream media

Master Persuader indeed
---

I've been watching the Mises U lectures live on Youtube, and the entire comment section is people arguing about whether or not Elon Musk is a great entrepreneur or a corporate welfare statist shill.

This is the most annoying libertarian debate ever.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Muffin loves gays and Musk now because of the mainstream media

Master Persuader indeed

Nope - I still intend to make gay jokes. Just don't want to be lectured about it by other people who also make gay jokes.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

And I disagree

you think the NYT hates gay people?
---

I think that it's unintentionally homophobic. If Germany was the one that hacked our election and Trump was going out of his way to praise how Angela Merkel was running her country well, while outright refusing to offer ANY criticism on the negative things Germany was doing, then similar opinion pieces would be leveled towards Trump x Merkel. It just happens that Putin, like a large percentage of world leaders (particularly dictators throughout history) is male, so the joke appears to be easy gay bashing, when the gay bashing (while still terrible) is just coincidental.
---

i just don't get why it's necessarily "gay bashing," i guess.

if there's a cartoon about trump and merkel kissing, is it "straight bashing"?
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i just don't get why it's necessarily "gay bashing," i guess.

if there's a cartoon about trump and merkel kissing, is it "straight bashing"?

I think it's the historical difference in how heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships are viewed in society. Heterosexual relationships are historically "normal", while homosexual relationships are historically "abnormal", so making a political cartoon about two male leaders in a relationship carries more of a connotation of "look how weird and deviant this is" that Trump x Merkel wouldn't have.
---

Inviso posted...

while homosexual relationships are historically "abnormal",

yeah, maybe it's just a cultural difference.

i live in the netherlands so the "homosexual relationships are abnormal" thing is kinda laughable to me >_>
---

https://resistancehole.clickhole.com/resistance-win-this-artist-was-going-to-draw-trump-and-1825887102
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Inviso posted...

while homosexual relationships are historically "abnormal",

yeah, maybe it's just a cultural difference.

i live in the netherlands so the "homosexual relationships are abnormal" thing is kinda laughable to me >_>

homosexual relationships are abnormal by definition
---

i obviously meant "abnormal" in the "people think they're weird and yucky and wrong" way, not the literal way
---

And Inviso clearly meant it in the literal way
---

if he meant it in the literal way i don't understand his point at all.

making a cartoon about a homosexual couple is seen as homophobic because homosexuality is abnormal (but not a negative thing)? why? are cartoons about abnormal things negative by default?
---

Inviso posted...

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i just don't get why it's necessarily "gay bashing," i guess.

if there's a cartoon about trump and merkel kissing, is it "straight bashing"?

I think it's the historical difference in how heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships are viewed in society. Heterosexual relationships are historically "normal", while homosexual relationships are historically "abnormal", so making a political cartoon about two male leaders in a relationship carries more of a connotation of "look how weird and deviant this is" that Trump x Merkel wouldn't have.

---

I meant what Lasa said. The historical portrayal homosexual acts as "icky and gross and wrong" (even if unintentionally) is what makes OpEds and comedy bits like that SEEMS homophobic.

They're not abnormal by definition. I've had this argument with Smuffin before. If one believes homosexuality is inherently abnormal, then one would subsequently have to believe redheadedness or subcribing to the Jewish faith to also be abnormal, as those traits cover a smaller percentage of the global population than homosexuality does.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

And I disagree

you think the NYT hates gay people?

I think they nominally support gay rights but arent above gay humor
---