It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Study In Welfare,Liberal Ideology, Racism & Diversity

page: 7
25
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 10:08 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Have you read the Old Testament? It calls for the same type of actions.

What is missing from this thread is this: This country was founded on genocide and built upon slave labor. Until we confront those particular truths, any discussion about multiculturalism and assimilation are useless.

edit on 1-3-2017 by Thejaybird because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 10:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Thejaybird

Well, when Islam exits their Old Testament phase we can talk.

As for how America was built, your point? All of history is comprised of strong societies taking advantage of weaker ones... it was what it was, and to be honest it got us here so it would be disingenuous to stress over it while embracing all it did for this nation.



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 10:22 PM
link   
a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

Part of America's national identity is accepting immigrants and being a place where you are free to practice whatever religion you prefer. It isn't even a requirement to learn English. Lots of immigrants have settled with people from the same country or religion throughout the history of the United States and even before that.

If we were going to be "one" with the original culture of America, we would have to start studying the Native American ways. Even in the 1700's and earlier, different religions settled here and they tended to settle together (see, it isn't just Hispanics or Muslims who do this).


Protestants discontented with the Church of England formed the earliest religious settlements in North America. Soon, the colonies became a focal point for religious immigration as separatist Puritans and others established themselves in what were to become the 13 colonies. The non-separatist Anglicans became entrenched in Virginia. The rest of the colonies developed diverse religious settlements such as Quaker communities in Pennsylvania, Catholics in Maryland and Jews in New Amsterdam.


The Religious Settlements in the 13 Colonies

America as a Religious Refuge

Our national identity is one that allows for diversity. It always has been. It started out as a place for religious people to flee their home countries, where they were under persecution because their views were different from the national ones.

What would you suggest be required of a citizen of the United States? Do you want them to be Christian? Know English? Believe it or not, values like a hard work ethic are already prevalent in most immigrants who come here, whether they are Hispanic or Islamic or European. The Hispanics who immigrate here illegally have a better work ethic than most white people (as far as manual labor is concerned) and get paid less than minimum wage.

This country started out as a place for different religions to flee to, and the founding fathers wanted to have free religion because they wanted to have a place where they wouldn't be told what to believe.
edit on 01pmWed, 01 Mar 2017 22:24:04 -0600kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 11:58 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

First, the Christian church hasn't exited their Old Testament phase. Go to pretty any much church on any given Sunday and you will hear a Pastor/Preacher proclaiming a bizarre mix of law and grace (and let us not lose sight of the fact that I am more than happy to claim Christianity as my belief system, am Seminary trained, and want to let you know that you do not want to go to battle with me over what the Bible teaches).

Disingenuous? Not at all. Quite the opposite. The Founding Fathers and their armies committed genocide against the indigenous people of this land mass to establish their dominance, and then used slaves brought from other countries to build their empire. To say otherwise is "disingenuous", and such a statement ignores the reality of our actual history. That is the history of American Imperialism and hegemony.

My point is that we cannot have a real discussion about multiculturalism or assimilation until America admits it's wrongs and injustices in the first place. I am sorry you cannot see that reality.

I have to admit that I am surprised that someone who is so black and white (and misinformed) in their thinking is allowed to moderate threads on a site like this.

edit on 2-3-2017 by Thejaybird because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-3-2017 by Thejaybird because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 02:45 AM
link   
I think this krazyshot kid is a bit low on the IQ scale.

Immigrants who refuse to assimilate are GOOD for a country??????

Jesus H Christ



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 03:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

exactly, being intolerant of new immigrants is as american as apple pie!!! every wave of immigrant has faced hostility by the "native population" so what we are experiencing is nothing new.

the amount of immigration happening now does seem pretty extreme but that's probably exactly what someone might have said 100 years ago in new york city when italians were coming in in droves and some native born american at the time was probably complaining about the greasy wife beating mafioso italians taking over the tenements. history repeats itself!!!

i liken it to old people complaining about the younger generation having no respect, they have been saying that since the dawn of time lol

i will give you this if a person wishing to emigrate to another country does not respect that countries people or culture in general they should not want to emigrate there in the first place nor should they be accepted. immigration should always be vetted and controlled by the amount of immigrants the host country can comfortably handle.



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 03:59 AM
link   
a reply to: ClovenSky

I realise diversity and multiculturalism has been forced upon us but I can't say why or what the agenda is, if there even is one. I have always been lead to believe that it was a forced social experiment dating back to the 70's approx.

I look at the dot map of Chicago and I see diversity, I see NO multiculturalism whatsoever. There is self segregation between blacks, hispanics asians and whites, all distinct areas. Chicago is not a honeypot of rainbow people. The violence is out of control between ethnics and minorities with unannounced borders. Poverty is blamed but that poverty is perpetuated by continual preferential treatment by liberals and the Welfare State. Women are paid to have babies, there is no need for a father to go out and provide because the State is providing, and what the State doesn't provide for they steal rob and murder for. During the 50's & 60's there were black neighbourhoods, in one of the most difficult times for blacks, however there were more families with fathers providing for them than there has ever been. There was a work ethic and an eagerness to succeed which now appears as absent as the many fathers. It all goes back to personal responsibility and the dependency mindset

I've read many stories & testaments from Blacks & Hispanics who have got out of the hood as soon as they could and are doing well now.



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 04:23 AM
link   
i was born and lived in chicago and still live just outside of it, while self segregation is a reality, there is also integration. rogers park a neighborhood on the north side is one of the most diverse neighborhoods in the country, it has its good parts and its bad, oak park a town just outside of chicago has an affluent population with many people being bi-racial it has its good parts and bad parts as well. there are neighborhoods and suburbs of chicago that have middle class and affluent african american populations. so while crime has been on the rise and definitely needs to be taken on, its not the worst it has been. the 70's - 90's were much worse imo.

i agree with many of your points but the welfare problem is not just a black or hispanic problem it is an all around problem.it should mainly be used in emergency and to get one back on ones feet. i believe it can kill self motivation.



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 04:36 AM
link   
a reply to: ClovenSky




It is a war by the globalist to make the final thrust into countries that are still somewhat sovereign and will thwart their agenda.


So true



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 06:37 AM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

I'd just as soon increase job benefits back to what they were in the 50's. Why is it that we need to save manufacturing jobs that will soon be replaced by robots when we can just improve the #tier jobs we have no so they aren't so #ty? I see that as time better spent rather than chasing a dying dream.

There is quite a bit of modern life that is supported by globalism. Things may get manufactured elsewhere, but they may come back here to be assembled. Globalism also keeps costs low. You DO realize that if we bring all these jobs back, costs are going to SKYROCKET. Especially if workers are going to demand quality of life pay.



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 06:53 AM
link   
a reply to: conspiracy nut

To be honest, most of these conservatives have me pegged wrong. I'm not AGAINST border enforcement. I just don't have a problem with excusing the ones that have slipped through the cracks here long enough that they've grown roots. If you can obey the laws and your only offense was that you hopped the border, if you can get away with it long enough then let them stay. HOWEVER, if you are caught having recently crossed the border then I don't have a problem sending you home. Plus criminals should be deported no matter how long they've been here (criminals outside of just hopping the border).



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 07:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The other side of the argument could be summed up as follows....if you send back ALL the illegal immigrants you'd have to raise the living wage to something that would make Americans take up those jobs the immigrants did



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 07:31 AM
link   
a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

Which drives costs up. But then again, Americans don't want to do these jobs anyways. Alabama found that out the hard way.
edit on 2-3-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 07:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well in that case I think the answer can only be if they don't want to do the jobs stop the benefits! Here in the UK if the JobCentre sends you for a job and you refuse it, you are sanctioned for up to 6months i.e. no social security benefits



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 07:40 AM
link   
a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

So Alabama also discovered that when you make people do a job under duress, they end up doing a #ty job. Alabama had been forcing inmates to do the jobs these illegals left and they did a worse job. The simple fact is that these guys are REALLY hard workers and do a reliable job. That kind of motivation and drive cannot be replaced by just changing the people doing the job.

Things aren't so simple as "just deport them all". That is childish logic.
edit on 2-3-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 08:33 AM
link   
My mom grew up in Erie Penn. She would occasionally talk about her childhood friends, listening to her, I kind of got the idea that there was a polish section, a jewish section, an italian section, and she lived in the german section of the city.
It took time for all those immigrants from all those different countries to fully integrate into our country to the point where there are no longer such invisible boundaries within the cities and I wouldn't be surprised if in some areas there aren't sections of the citiy that isn't predominently from one heritage. I don't really believe that today's immigrants are that much different that those of old when it comes to the amount of time to assimilate.

as far as welfare, I think that both the liberals and the conservatives, unless they are within the upper echelons of the gov't, fail to see both sides of the coin and therefore just how both sides contributed to the current failures in the system. you can demonize those who are finding the need to go to these programs and call for these programs end all you want, but as long as you are in the mindset that corporate profits and the stock market is the ultimate goal of your economic policies, ignoring the need for higher wages and higher paying jobs and lower standards of living well...
ya go ahead cut those programs totally... and watch how fast the healthcare industry along with so many other industries that cater more to the meeting the basic needs of the people end up failing. those in the top echelons of the gov't knows this, they know that the welfare programs have been playing a very vital part in the smooth running of the economy and is becoming more vital year by year. so, no matter how much they gripe, complain, demonize, and warn us about them... they will never totally cut any of these programs because they are allowing the business sector to keep reducing their labor costs, increasing their prices, and walking away with bigger salaries for their upper managements and more and more profits year by year. all they will do is cut them just a little when they realize that the pool of "we can't afford to live" people gets so small that they are losing their justification to increase the aide so the business sector can lower their wages more and raise the prices more and harvest more wealth from the people.
I don't know if it's the solution but I think it would help if we would just tie the minimum wage to the value of all those benefits that they are giving to those of what is considered a average family size and adjust the eligibility charts so that they are in line with those. maybe have a secondary minimum wage for the kids and young adults who are just starting out and more than likely haven't started building a family yet.. that is adjusted to the cost of living for a single person. and, well, recognize that those businesses out there that can't meet those wages (many could they just don't want to, why should they when they know that the gov't is open to doing it for them) that are high enough to keep their workers alive and functioning enough in the workforce are the charity cases and either help them to meet those wages with a gov't program or help them adjust their business plan so they can.
a company like wal mart that is walking away year after year with such high profits, paying their upper management such high wages shouldn't be able to take advantage of our welfare system and expect the taxpayer to keep their employees healthy, happy, and returning to work.
at the present time, outside of unemployment, most of the welfare programs require the adults that are in their programs to be employed, in training, volunteering, or disabled. and even then, most of them also have the requirement that they have dependents ... in other words our welfare programs are aimed more at helping kids than adults...
so, those who are griping about them, how they are allowing the people to be irresponsible, are you willing to call for their complete end, even when there are kids that are benefiting from them? or are you gonna just be calling for the end of the few programs that are still helping adults that are finding themselves in tough spots, working low paid jobs for corps that are raking in huge profits, trapped in the temporary labor market finding themselves getting laid off everytime the company has to decide weather they should hire them and provide them with the benefits or let them go?



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Thejaybird

You misunderstand me. I'm not denying it happened, I'm saying that it would be disingenuous to apply modern principles to it and castigate the actions of America's pioneers because it was that aggressive domination over the indians and the use of slave labor which allowed America to become the most powerful and prosperous nation in the world. At that time it was standard practice and not considered wrong.



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
You DO realize that if we bring all these jobs back, costs are going to SKYROCKET. Especially if workers are going to demand quality of life pay.


Yet I'm fairly sure I've seen you argue that the minimum wage could be raised to $15 an hour without consumer costs increasing that much. Curious.



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 05:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport
Numerous studies have shown that when migrant number increase significantly, there is a tendency for migrants already in the host country, to reintegrate into the migrant society and not the other way around.

I can't believe that people have actually read the studies or links I provided which are not just click bait or msm propaganda grr!


I did. I even asked one of my diverse neighbors to come look at the one, since she attended U Chicago. I think I've seen that before.

Yes we're on the west side of Chi here and it is pretty diverse and people do get along. One of the things often overlooked is - it's not necessarily people "choosing to live with their own kind" - up until fairly recently (70s, 80s?) real estate companies deliberately steered certain people to certain areas. Happened elsewhere too, this is usually referred to as "red lining" and you can look that up.

So from that, people were in many ways forced into certain areas. It's a mixed bag here on the w side, is diverse, and people do get along. I got a live JEW right here!!! (You can lure them with beer). There's an Italian and a Moroccan down the street - and a whole ton of Mexicans. And enough of blacks.

Should I be scared?

I let a Jew into my house! Uh oh....

I was going to say, as a compliment, my friend here is an excellent cook, they make the Mediterranean foods, she remembered this one incident at a grocery store...

And this store, this is in a nearby 'hood over here that has more black people, and the workers and customers at this store are mostly black. So we were in there one time - and the power failed. Lights went out. Whole place went pitch black. And everybody said Oooo! Ha. And then the emergency power came up, half the lights and such, I do think I overheard some worker there say they had a generator. So (half) the lights came up quickly and everyone was laughing, just a weird thing. And then because their computer system was out or just limping along, they had to shut down most of the cashiers and herd us all to the two or three of the working terminals.

Which everyone did in an orderly fashion while still talking and laughing about the surprise power loss, I'm sure I saw others helping the elderly, or let them in line first, or people with just a few things or with kids, everyone is always very polite there, it's a nice store. This was no big deal and everyone seemed to find it more amusing than anything. And for once shoppers could actually see a reason why stores ever wonky systems have failed!

No, riots and shooting did not break out, HA. No. It was kind of weird funny. You don't expect a power outage like that, there weren't storms at the time, just a weird thing.

- LIGHTS OUT! -

OOO!

(And you're surrounded by black people.)

Did anything bad happen? NO. If anything it was kind of fun / interesting / broke up the monotony of grocery shopping


(post by Breakthestreak removed for political trolling and baiting)

new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join