Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: elmatador who wrote (57097)	10/30/2009 3:35:05 AM
From: Maurice Winn	4 Recommendations Respond to of 220194

There wasn't "seen in a negative way" commentary there other than that Moslems would bring cultural repression of others, by law. It obviously escaped you that I agree with those immigrant cultures I mentioned - no to bludgers. I was pointing out that those immigrants will not vote to look after wastrel local yokels in their old age. I don't see why they should either. Of course if they are offered free assets, they accept. You obviously need to read it for a third or fourth time to try to understand. New ideas are often difficult for people to understand because the ideas don't fit into their preconceived notions. The idea of tradable citizenship for example is completely new to you and you will have a great deal of difficulty understanding it, even before deciding whether you agree with it or not. Recently, we [wife and I and two grandchildren] attended a totally Brazilian family gathering to celebrate a 5 year old's birthday. I was thrilled to survive with no knife wounds or gunshots to the back. I had trouble understanding the Portuguese but they spoke english when speaking to me. You seem to think I should go into convulsions or something at the mere idea of being in proximity to so many foreigners all at once. You need to read more carefully for meaning. My objection to immigration is not the people themselves, it's the fact that the dopey politicians hand over the national assets for no payment. It was as ridiculous when we were migrants to other countries and were handed citizenships for no charge. In Belgium, they even paid large amounts [$1000 a month] to us just because we had a bunch of children. I explained that I was on a very good salary, didn't need the money, and so on to ensure that they weren't doing it by mistake. They were adamant that my wife was to get the money and that she was entitled to it. Oh well, thanks Belgians but it baffled me that they would do that. It was obviously some dopey rule that their politicians came up with. No wonder they have loads of Moslems taking over in Antwerp [but perhaps 20 years later they have stopped doing that]. Having grown up in a mongrel community, I quite like it and am comfortable with different people speaking different languages even if I have little idea what they are saying. You argue that there is some payment - the foreigners get jobs and pay taxes, but a high proportion of them consume more than they produce. The value of the assets handed over is not recognized. The proof that there is great value being handed over is the swindling, bribing and extensive efforts immigrants go to to win the lottery and be accepted as immigrants. If it was of little or no value, they'd stay where they were. You don't see people breaking into Somalia or sneaking into Bangladesh to live the high life. With tradable citizenships, values would be correctly assigned. Socialism, communism, hippiedom are superficially attractive, but they destroy value because unless price is properly assigned, value goes mostly unrecognized. Now, read it all again and think. Mqurice