Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I know I have to work and give my money to those damn deadbeat kids and wife, they should get a job but one is too young and is in school and the other is working on taking care of her 91 year old Mom...Damn deadbeats...Let me get this straight, I have to work overtime then give MY money to deadbeats?
well if that mentality is allowed free access to our borders, all it does is contaminate the people. period. there is nothing else. this world's history is always power over the minions along with hate and death. The fact that San Francisco is allowing public defecation on public property is another example of perpetuating historical bacterial disease among the minions. And the power allows it to happen.usually due to war and famine..But we as a Christian nation should shun these people and avert our eyes, Amen...yes, and we have history of all those changes and many are so vulgar it isn't funny. why are there refugees from countries?Hardly so. Humans have adapted with changes in methods and technologies. I don't think it's fair in many instances how humans accumulate wealth and then follow a religion which says to disperse that accumulated wealth but don't...would they if they didn't have oil?Alaska seems to do okay with it...
you have 1 opportunity in life - to go do something with it. nothing is ever guaranteed. not even being alive in an hour. so "base income" is another way of saying "yes, i can live being this lazy" and we cater again to that group.
no. i'm not in favor of it as i understand it today.
as the old saying goes....
Better is bread with a happy heart than wealth with vexation..
Yes it is historical bacteria since it has existed since yesterday...In NYC spitting is a crime, puking is free....well if that mentality is allowed free access to our borders, all it does is contaminate the people. period. there is nothing else. this world's history is always power over the minions along with hate and death. The fact that San Francisco is allowing public defecation on public property is another example of perpetuating historical bacterial disease among the minions. And the power allows it to happen.usually due to war and famine..But we as a Christian nation should shun these people and avert our eyes, Amen...yes, and we have history of all those changes and many are so vulgar it isn't funny. why are there refugees from countries?Hardly so. Humans have adapted with changes in methods and technologies. I don't think it's fair in many instances how humans accumulate wealth and then follow a religion which says to disperse that accumulated wealth but don't...would they if they didn't have oil?Alaska seems to do okay with it...
you have 1 opportunity in life - to go do something with it. nothing is ever guaranteed. not even being alive in an hour. so "base income" is another way of saying "yes, i can live being this lazy" and we cater again to that group.
no. i'm not in favor of it as i understand it today.
as the old saying goes....
Better is bread with a happy heart than wealth with vexation..
I know many people who shit in the woods. I watched a guy shit behind a utility hut near Chicago's Midway airport cell phone parking lot. the lot was full and the dude didn't care. that tracks back in the drinking water. Any disease that homeless fk had. contaminating everyone near that spot. I have a higher expectation from mankind.Yes it is historical bacteria since it has existed since yesterday...In NYC spitting is a crime, puking is free....well if that mentality is allowed free access to our borders, all it does is contaminate the people. period. there is nothing else. this world's history is always power over the minions along with hate and death. The fact that San Francisco is allowing public defecation on public property is another example of perpetuating historical bacterial disease among the minions. And the power allows it to happen.usually due to war and famine..But we as a Christian nation should shun these people and avert our eyes, Amen...yes, and we have history of all those changes and many are so vulgar it isn't funny. why are there refugees from countries?Hardly so. Humans have adapted with changes in methods and technologies. I don't think it's fair in many instances how humans accumulate wealth and then follow a religion which says to disperse that accumulated wealth but don't...would they if they didn't have oil?
you have 1 opportunity in life - to go do something with it. nothing is ever guaranteed. not even being alive in an hour. so "base income" is another way of saying "yes, i can live being this lazy" and we cater again to that group.
no. i'm not in favor of it as i understand it today.
as the old saying goes....
Better is bread with a happy heart than wealth with vexation..
I shit where I want or need to also in the woods...
and since you're never going to get rid of greedy shelfish bastages, you may as well understand how to - you know, adapt to your surroundings vs. go WAH GIMME.Amazingly it was how humans started, by sharing for mutual survival....Yet greedy selfish bastards stopped that practice...humans are hypocritical by nature. we seem to call it out in others but seldom ourselves.Hardly so. Humans have adapted with changes in methods and technologies. I don't think it's fair in many instances how humans accumulate wealth and then follow a religion which says to disperse that accumulated wealth but don't...
as the old saying goes....
Better is bread with a happy heart than wealth with vexation..
we've adapted to survive. you are not guaranteed a living or even to be alive by simply being born. if you wish to sit around and call mcdonalds a career those are poor choices you need to learn from.
not their poor choices i need to pay for or subsidize. until we put accountability into these decisions they'll keep making shitty decisions. if their decision becomes "keep whining and starve" or "shut up and figure out how trap dinner" then their decision.
not my responsibility.
Perhaps people will see that it is not good to replace humans with too much technology and they will reverse the process, but I do not think that will be the case.
As technology improves even more there will be less and less need for humans in the work place.
Barring a global level event that either lowers the population significantly or reduces technology, there will come a point to where there are less and less jobs while at the same time more and more people. Eventually there will be more people without a means to support themselves than with. Something will have to be done to avoid a total collapse of a society.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
we've always faced this as we've developed. tractors took the jobs, microwaves, self-serve pumps, assembly lines replaced manual labor, and now robots have replaced them.
and yet our population continues to grow.
not disagreeing about needing to keep this in mind, but historically we've always found a way to manage and likely still will. new problems just need new solutions which is why the next generation seldom does things the way the previous done did anymore.
sure. but then again we're going to adapt regardless. or die. in that time frame a lot of industrialization has occurred and taken jobs also. not sure you're point here but we've had to deal with automation and technology replacing jobs for awhile now. this is nothing new, just a different version of it.and since you're never going to get rid of greedy shelfish bastages, you may as well understand how to - you know, adapt to your surroundings vs. go WAH GIMME.Amazingly it was how humans started, by sharing for mutual survival....Yet greedy selfish bastards stopped that practice...humans are hypocritical by nature. we seem to call it out in others but seldom ourselves.
we've adapted to survive. you are not guaranteed a living or even to be alive by simply being born. if you wish to sit around and call mcdonalds a career those are poor choices you need to learn from.
not their poor choices i need to pay for or subsidize. until we put accountability into these decisions they'll keep making shitty decisions. if their decision becomes "keep whining and starve" or "shut up and figure out how trap dinner" then their decision.
not my responsibility.
Perhaps people will see that it is not good to replace humans with too much technology and they will reverse the process, but I do not think that will be the case.
As technology improves even more there will be less and less need for humans in the work place.
Barring a global level event that either lowers the population significantly or reduces technology, there will come a point to where there are less and less jobs while at the same time more and more people. Eventually there will be more people without a means to support themselves than with. Something will have to be done to avoid a total collapse of a society.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
we've always faced this as we've developed. tractors took the jobs, microwaves, self-serve pumps, assembly lines replaced manual labor, and now robots have replaced them.
and yet our population continues to grow.
not disagreeing about needing to keep this in mind, but historically we've always found a way to manage and likely still will. new problems just need new solutions which is why the next generation seldom does things the way the previous done did anymore.
Someone else in this thread mentioned war and famine, I wonder if that is how we have always adapted.
Between 1860 and 1960 we lost over 1.2 million people in wars alone, the vast majority of those would have been working age males.
Do you think that is one of the reasons we have been able to adapt?
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Which is when Fabian socialism was introduced....sure. but then again we're going to adapt regardless. or die. in that time frame a lot of industrialization has occurred and taken jobs also. not sure you're point here but we've had to deal with automation and technology replacing jobs for awhile now. this is nothing new, just a different version of it.and since you're never going to get rid of greedy shelfish bastages, you may as well understand how to - you know, adapt to your surroundings vs. go WAH GIMME.Amazingly it was how humans started, by sharing for mutual survival....Yet greedy selfish bastards stopped that practice...
Perhaps people will see that it is not good to replace humans with too much technology and they will reverse the process, but I do not think that will be the case.
As technology improves even more there will be less and less need for humans in the work place.
Barring a global level event that either lowers the population significantly or reduces technology, there will come a point to where there are less and less jobs while at the same time more and more people. Eventually there will be more people without a means to support themselves than with. Something will have to be done to avoid a total collapse of a society.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
we've always faced this as we've developed. tractors took the jobs, microwaves, self-serve pumps, assembly lines replaced manual labor, and now robots have replaced them.
and yet our population continues to grow.
not disagreeing about needing to keep this in mind, but historically we've always found a way to manage and likely still will. new problems just need new solutions which is why the next generation seldom does things the way the previous done did anymore.
Someone else in this thread mentioned war and famine, I wonder if that is how we have always adapted.
Between 1860 and 1960 we lost over 1.2 million people in wars alone, the vast majority of those would have been working age males.
Do you think that is one of the reasons we have been able to adapt?
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
i'd have to say if we're backing out to philosophy it's how a lot of thought processes are formed. you can't look at a single aspect of social evolution as to why evolution happened. it doesn't always happen because of something in as much as in spite of.Which is where Fabian socialism was introduced....sure. but then again we're going to adapt regardless. or die. in that time frame a lot of industrialization has occurred and taken jobs also. not sure you're point here but we've had to deal with automation and technology replacing jobs for awhile now. this is nothing new, just a different version of it.and since you're never going to get rid of greedy shelfish bastages, you may as well understand how to - you know, adapt to your surroundings vs. go WAH GIMME.
Perhaps people will see that it is not good to replace humans with too much technology and they will reverse the process, but I do not think that will be the case.
As technology improves even more there will be less and less need for humans in the work place.
Barring a global level event that either lowers the population significantly or reduces technology, there will come a point to where there are less and less jobs while at the same time more and more people. Eventually there will be more people without a means to support themselves than with. Something will have to be done to avoid a total collapse of a society.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
we've always faced this as we've developed. tractors took the jobs, microwaves, self-serve pumps, assembly lines replaced manual labor, and now robots have replaced them.
and yet our population continues to grow.
not disagreeing about needing to keep this in mind, but historically we've always found a way to manage and likely still will. new problems just need new solutions which is why the next generation seldom does things the way the previous done did anymore.
Someone else in this thread mentioned war and famine, I wonder if that is how we have always adapted.
Between 1860 and 1960 we lost over 1.2 million people in wars alone, the vast majority of those would have been working age males.
Do you think that is one of the reasons we have been able to adapt?
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
sure. but then again we're going to adapt regardless. or die. in that time frame a lot of industrialization has occurred and taken jobs also. not sure you're point here but we've had to deal with automation and technology replacing jobs for awhile now. this is nothing new, just a different version of it.and since you're never going to get rid of greedy shelfish bastages, you may as well understand how to - you know, adapt to your surroundings vs. go WAH GIMME.Amazingly it was how humans started, by sharing for mutual survival....Yet greedy selfish bastards stopped that practice...
Perhaps people will see that it is not good to replace humans with too much technology and they will reverse the process, but I do not think that will be the case.
As technology improves even more there will be less and less need for humans in the work place.
Barring a global level event that either lowers the population significantly or reduces technology, there will come a point to where there are less and less jobs while at the same time more and more people. Eventually there will be more people without a means to support themselves than with. Something will have to be done to avoid a total collapse of a society.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
we've always faced this as we've developed. tractors took the jobs, microwaves, self-serve pumps, assembly lines replaced manual labor, and now robots have replaced them.
and yet our population continues to grow.
not disagreeing about needing to keep this in mind, but historically we've always found a way to manage and likely still will. new problems just need new solutions which is why the next generation seldom does things the way the previous done did anymore.
Someone else in this thread mentioned war and famine, I wonder if that is how we have always adapted.
Between 1860 and 1960 we lost over 1.2 million people in wars alone, the vast majority of those would have been working age males.
Do you think that is one of the reasons we have been able to adapt?
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
italy had to deal with pompeii.sure. but then again we're going to adapt regardless. or die. in that time frame a lot of industrialization has occurred and taken jobs also. not sure you're point here but we've had to deal with automation and technology replacing jobs for awhile now. this is nothing new, just a different version of it.and since you're never going to get rid of greedy shelfish bastages, you may as well understand how to - you know, adapt to your surroundings vs. go WAH GIMME.
Perhaps people will see that it is not good to replace humans with too much technology and they will reverse the process, but I do not think that will be the case.
As technology improves even more there will be less and less need for humans in the work place.
Barring a global level event that either lowers the population significantly or reduces technology, there will come a point to where there are less and less jobs while at the same time more and more people. Eventually there will be more people without a means to support themselves than with. Something will have to be done to avoid a total collapse of a society.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
we've always faced this as we've developed. tractors took the jobs, microwaves, self-serve pumps, assembly lines replaced manual labor, and now robots have replaced them.
and yet our population continues to grow.
not disagreeing about needing to keep this in mind, but historically we've always found a way to manage and likely still will. new problems just need new solutions which is why the next generation seldom does things the way the previous done did anymore.
Someone else in this thread mentioned war and famine, I wonder if that is how we have always adapted.
Between 1860 and 1960 we lost over 1.2 million people in wars alone, the vast majority of those would have been working age males.
Do you think that is one of the reasons we have been able to adapt?
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
The point is the pain of lost jobs to automation was muted by 1.2 million less people looking for those jobs
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
italy had to deal with pompeii.sure. but then again we're going to adapt regardless. or die. in that time frame a lot of industrialization has occurred and taken jobs also. not sure you're point here but we've had to deal with automation and technology replacing jobs for awhile now. this is nothing new, just a different version of it.Perhaps people will see that it is not good to replace humans with too much technology and they will reverse the process, but I do not think that will be the case.
As technology improves even more there will be less and less need for humans in the work place.
Barring a global level event that either lowers the population significantly or reduces technology, there will come a point to where there are less and less jobs while at the same time more and more people. Eventually there will be more people without a means to support themselves than with. Something will have to be done to avoid a total collapse of a society.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
we've always faced this as we've developed. tractors took the jobs, microwaves, self-serve pumps, assembly lines replaced manual labor, and now robots have replaced them.
and yet our population continues to grow.
not disagreeing about needing to keep this in mind, but historically we've always found a way to manage and likely still will. new problems just need new solutions which is why the next generation seldom does things the way the previous done did anymore.
Someone else in this thread mentioned war and famine, I wonder if that is how we have always adapted.
Between 1860 and 1960 we lost over 1.2 million people in wars alone, the vast majority of those would have been working age males.
Do you think that is one of the reasons we have been able to adapt?
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
The point is the pain of lost jobs to automation was muted by 1.2 million less people looking for those jobs
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
all wars have taken their toll.
it's like, to me, arguing a subset to be greater than the set itself.
italy had to deal with pompeii.sure. but then again we're going to adapt regardless. or die. in that time frame a lot of industrialization has occurred and taken jobs also. not sure you're point here but we've had to deal with automation and technology replacing jobs for awhile now. this is nothing new, just a different version of it.we've always faced this as we've developed. tractors took the jobs, microwaves, self-serve pumps, assembly lines replaced manual labor, and now robots have replaced them.
and yet our population continues to grow.
not disagreeing about needing to keep this in mind, but historically we've always found a way to manage and likely still will. new problems just need new solutions which is why the next generation seldom does things the way the previous done did anymore.
Someone else in this thread mentioned war and famine, I wonder if that is how we have always adapted.
Between 1860 and 1960 we lost over 1.2 million people in wars alone, the vast majority of those would have been working age males.
Do you think that is one of the reasons we have been able to adapt?
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
The point is the pain of lost jobs to automation was muted by 1.2 million less people looking for those jobs
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
all wars have taken their toll.
it's like, to me, arguing a subset to be greater than the set itself.
Let me try again, I think I did not do a good job getting my point across.
You said we have always adapted, which is true. But I think we have always adapted because we always had events, be them manmade or natural that removed parts of the population, often times the very segment that would be competing for the fewer jobs.
So, what I am asking I guess is, can we adapt without such events decreasing the number of people competing for the remaining jobs?
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
thank you for the extra explanation.
