Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
slavery
Oct 12, 2016 4:18:15 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2016 4:18:15 GMT -5
It is still legal in the UK and USA, I know what slavery is, I don't need wikipedia or to read the contents of the national library to that. It is work for less than a living wage, particularly working for basic subsistence in a wealthy country, such as the UK or USA whilst billionaire profit form it. It is sick pure and simple. You will note that only the companies who have paid politicians (ie the Clintons) for speeches will be allowed a slave, justthe big corps, never the needy. Wake up it is sick. No you are quite wrong Kronks. The situations you describe are not slavery no matter how much you want to say they are slavery. Why you persist in such a distorted view of slavery I cannot not understand as in doing so you are minimizing the worth of the lives of those really are slaves. Obviously slavery is part and parcel of the Islamic core values. Maybe you just want to try to drag all other people down to their level by trying to equate their slavery to economic positions in the West. Go ahead and continue in that effort as it only makes Islam more pathetically disgusting but they are your friends so do as you will. No one as an individual and no one as a scholar agrees with your perspective. Continue on living in the echo of your own voice. I understand the point that Kronks is trying to make. Look at large corporations: They employ people in a sort of pyramid-shape. The people at the bottom ultimately pull the most weight (labor-wise) with the worst compensation. It's abusive, but people have to pay rent and eat, so they continue to work at the jobs that are available - with inadequate compensation. Many have 2nd and 3rd jobs as well, and work to death. It is a form of slavery, although not a conspicuous one.
|
|
|
slavery
Oct 12, 2016 7:01:56 GMT -5
Post by fretslider on Oct 12, 2016 7:01:56 GMT -5
It is shameful you support slavery...You believe in Mohammed and he was a regular in the slave market. Do you, like most good muslims, try to emulate his example? Indeed in the Messenger of Allah (Muhammad SAW) you have a good example to follow for him who hopes in (the Meeting with) Allah and the Last Day and remembers Allah much.www.iqrasense.com/quranic-tafsir/prophet-muhammad-was-sent-as-an-example.htmlGreat example, eh. Slavery and paedophilia. The USA still used slaves (now) and allowed marriage at similar ages in the past. The age of consent in the USA was 7 just over a century ago (121 years). You really need look at your own country, ancestors, religion or lack there of before you start critising those further afield. Yes those non-Islam pedophiles in the USA, you don't mention them much do you!! And all of it approved and sanctioned by......George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, James Monroe and, of course, Benjamin Franklin. And the USA electorate, let's not forget those fine upstanding citizens. [img style="max-width:100%;" src=" Nice to see you're firmly rooted in the past, much like that 7th century ideology of yours. I look forward to the 20th and 21st century updates.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Oct 12, 2016 7:57:32 GMT -5
kronks wrote
"""Yes those non-Islam pedophiles in the USA,"""
and what exactly have non-Islam pedophiles ... And the USA electorate, to do with the history of slavery ?
|
|
|
slavery
Oct 12, 2016 10:07:46 GMT -5
Post by mouse on Oct 12, 2016 10:07:46 GMT -5
there is a book recently published entitled "Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast, and Italy, 1500-1800" by Robert Davis, a professor at Ohio State University.
According to the book, slave markets with Christian slaves kidnapped or raided from Europe or from European ships were on sale in Barbary coast slave markets until the trade was shut down by the invasion of Algiers by the French in 1830.
|
|
|
slavery
Oct 12, 2016 10:18:59 GMT -5
Post by mouse on Oct 12, 2016 10:18:59 GMT -5
mikedashhistory.com/2015/01/15/blonde-cargoes-finnish-children-in-the-slave-markets-of-medieval-crimea/, before 1700, even the largest. A second great market in slaves once sullied the world, this one less well-known, vastly longer-lasting, and centred on the Black Sea ports of the Crimea. It was a huge trade in its own right; in its great years, which lasted roughly from 1200 until 1760, an estimated 6.5 million prisoners were shipped off to new and often intensely miserable lives in places ranging from Italy to India. Slavery in the Crimea, however, differed in significant ways from the model made so familiar by the trans-Atlantic trade. The slaves sold there were drawn for the most part from the great plains of the Ukraine and southern Russia in annual raids known as the “harvesting of the steppe.” Their masters were successively Vikings, Italians and Tatars – the latter being, for nearly half of the trade’s life, the subjects of the Crimean Khanate, a state that owed its own long life to its ability to satisfy demand for slaves. And most of the slaves themselves were not male labourers. They were women and children destined for domestic service – a fate that not infrequently included sexual service. The latter sort of slave was always fairly commonplace in the Crimea. When the Ottoman writer Evliya Çelebi toured the north shores of the Black Sea in 1664, he noted down some examples of the local dialect that he hoped other travellers to the region might find useful. Among the phrases that Çelebi selected were “Bring a girl” and “I found no girl, but I found a boy
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Oct 12, 2016 12:04:54 GMT -5
No you are quite wrong Kronks. The situations you describe are not slavery no matter how much you want to say they are slavery. Why you persist in such a distorted view of slavery I cannot not understand as in doing so you are minimizing the worth of the lives of those really are slaves. Obviously slavery is part and parcel of the Islamic core values. Maybe you just want to try to drag all other people down to their level by trying to equate their slavery to economic positions in the West. Go ahead and continue in that effort as it only makes Islam more pathetically disgusting but they are your friends so do as you will. No one as an individual and no one as a scholar agrees with your perspective. Continue on living in the echo of your own voice. I understand the point that Kronks is trying to make. Look at large corporations: They employ people in a sort of pyramid-shape. The people at the bottom ultimately pull the most weight (labor-wise) with the worst compensation. It's abusive, but people have to pay rent and eat, so they continue to work at the jobs that are available - with inadequate compensation. Many have 2nd and 3rd jobs as well, and work to death. It is a form of slavery, although not a conspicuous one. Ariel, your feelings about the workers and they having substandard wages is not new as every generation goes through similar considerations. Such considerations have even been addressed in some societies, but never successfully. Some such as Marx and Engels gave great effort and time to defining Western societal structure as detrimental to the worker (far better than Kronks’ distorted efforts) and wanting to replace it with scientific socialism. Of course it didn’t work then and it also didn’t work with Communism. Western culture has primarily developed the Capitalistic Free Market System which sets on the foundation of Austrian economics. It is a system of individual voluntary association and no other economic system has supported individual freedoms as much as this one, nor has any other system advanced the level of the general welfare as has this one. Each of the Western nations has involved their societal structure and governmental type in their own way with this Capitalist Free Market System and all are less than perfect. For example, within the United States the running of government began to separate from the Constitution and the Capitalist Free Market System with increasing influence of Woodrow Wilson and his Theory of Administrative Government which (with other influences) laid the floor for the evolution of the alien (to the United States) concept of Progressivism and the slow deterioration of the individual’s voluntary association one with another. Along with this it has become easier for government special protections and special favors to be for sale, and when something is for sale there will always be those who will purchase which will lead to the bastardization of the system. There still remains the opportunity for competition within the Capitalist Free Market System. If someone truly believes that some industry is taking advantage of the workers, then that results in the availability of many trained workers and creates the opportunity to open a competing business that doesn’t take advantage to the workers. As long as government stays out of the Capitalist Free Market system with ever increasing rules and regulations, such competition (even the threat of such competition) will make the relationship of the workers to business owners more realistic. When the government involvement increases, the owners will become less willing to change and their industry will become static in all sorts of ways.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
slavery
Oct 12, 2016 14:41:54 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2016 14:41:54 GMT -5
I understand the point that Kronks is trying to make. Look at large corporations: They employ people in a sort of pyramid-shape. The people at the bottom ultimately pull the most weight (labor-wise) with the worst compensation. It's abusive, but people have to pay rent and eat, so they continue to work at the jobs that are available - with inadequate compensation. Many have 2nd and 3rd jobs as well, and work to death. It is a form of slavery, although not a conspicuous one. Ariel, your feelings about the workers and they having substandard wages is not new as every generation goes through similar considerations. Such considerations have even been addressed in some societies, but never successfully. Some such as Marx and Engels gave great effort and time to defining Western societal structure as detrimental to the worker (far better than Kronks’ distorted efforts) and wanting to replace it with scientific socialism. Of course it didn’t work then and it also didn’t work with Communism. Western culture has primarily developed the Capitalistic Free Market System which sets on the foundation of Austrian economics. It is a system of individual voluntary association and no other economic system has supported individual freedoms as much as this one, nor has any other system advanced the level of the general welfare as has this one. Each of the Western nations has involved their societal structure and governmental type in their own way with this Capitalist Free Market System and all are less than perfect. For example, within the United States the running of government began to separate from the Constitution and the Capitalist Free Market System with increasing influence of Woodrow Wilson and his Theory of Administrative Government which (with other influences) laid the floor for the evolution of the alien (to the United States) concept of Progressivism and the slow deterioration of the individual’s voluntary association one with another. Along with this it has become easier for government special protections and special favors to be for sale, and when something is for sale there will always be those who will purchase which will lead to the bastardization of the system. There still remains the opportunity for competition within the Capitalist Free Market System. If someone truly believes that some industry is taking advantage of the workers, then that results in the availability of many trained workers and creates the opportunity to open a competing business that doesn’t take advantage to the workers. As long as government stays out of the Capitalist Free Market system with ever increasing rules and regulations, such competition (even the threat of such competition) will make the relationship of the workers to business owners more realistic. When the government involvement increases, the owners will become less willing to change and their industry will become static in all sorts of ways. What is your feeling about unions? Unions became necessary to protect workers. Unfortunately, membership into a union is now a luxury for many people. Also, I want to point out ( ad nauseam) that Scandinavia and The Netherlands have been very successful at adopting socialist principles.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Oct 12, 2016 17:39:45 GMT -5
Look at large corporations: They employ people in a sort of pyramid-shape. The people at the bottom ultimately pull the most weight (labor-wise) with the worst compensation. It's abusive, but people have to pay rent and eat, so they continue to work at the jobs that are available - with inadequate compensation. Many have 2nd and 3rd jobs as well, and work to death. It is a form of slavery, although not a conspicuous one. Those at the top are obviously overpaid but, except for that, I don't agree with this. As long as we still have manufacturing in this country, the structure you outline is necessary. Those with the most basic skills are going to be more numerous and paid less well. They comprise the labor that is most plentiful ... jobs that are easiest to fill. As you move up into the data entry, record keepers, etc., rate of pay doesn't change very much, but is a little better because these workers have had more specialized training .. the company has invested more in them. After that, there are the management levels from lower level to board room. The pay definitely jumps. These are the coordinators and decision makers who are responsible for bringing everything together and making it happen for the business or factory or corporation. Their skills are vital and they cannot be replaced so easily. I'm all for a living minimum wage, but having worked for and with some of these companies, I know the "pyramid" IS SET that way for good reason. Men en tol could, doubtless, do a better job of laying that out than I.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Oct 12, 2016 17:40:10 GMT -5
Ariel, your feelings about the workers and they having substandard wages is not new as every generation goes through similar considerations. Such considerations have even been addressed in some societies, but never successfully. Some such as Marx and Engels gave great effort and time to defining Western societal structure as detrimental to the worker (far better than Kronks’ distorted efforts) and wanting to replace it with scientific socialism. Of course it didn’t work then and it also didn’t work with Communism. Western culture has primarily developed the Capitalistic Free Market System which sets on the foundation of Austrian economics. It is a system of individual voluntary association and no other economic system has supported individual freedoms as much as this one, nor has any other system advanced the level of the general welfare as has this one. Each of the Western nations has involved their societal structure and governmental type in their own way with this Capitalist Free Market System and all are less than perfect. For example, within the United States the running of government began to separate from the Constitution and the Capitalist Free Market System with increasing influence of Woodrow Wilson and his Theory of Administrative Government which (with other influences) laid the floor for the evolution of the alien (to the United States) concept of Progressivism and the slow deterioration of the individual’s voluntary association one with another. Along with this it has become easier for government special protections and special favors to be for sale, and when something is for sale there will always be those who will purchase which will lead to the bastardization of the system. There still remains the opportunity for competition within the Capitalist Free Market System. If someone truly believes that some industry is taking advantage of the workers, then that results in the availability of many trained workers and creates the opportunity to open a competing business that doesn’t take advantage to the workers. As long as government stays out of the Capitalist Free Market system with ever increasing rules and regulations, such competition (even the threat of such competition) will make the relationship of the workers to business owners more realistic. When the government involvement increases, the owners will become less willing to change and their industry will become static in all sorts of ways. What is your feeling about unions? Unions became necessary to protect workers. Unfortunately, membership into a union is now a luxury for many people. Also, I want to point out ( ad nauseam) that Scandinavia and The Netherlands have been very successful at adopting socialist principles. As with any economic system, what is being discussed should be defined, meaning, the foundational form of socialism is more historical than real in today’s world. That is, Socialism being a collective system of ownership and operation of the means of production, usually by the government, that is State Socialism. Of course in this definition of socialism ‘means of production’ is meant to be the production of capital goods as being representative of ‘value added production, which is the primary of developing growth in a specific economy. However, there are other approaches to socialism such as: Guild Socialism – Social ownership of the means of production (usually by the workers), with industrial operations managed by workers organized into associations comparable to medieval guilds. Local guilds would (usually) be federated into national guilds. Municipal Socialism – Ownership and operation of local utility services by a municipality, sometimes run by private corporation (generally nonprofits) Usually inclusive water supply, natural gas supply, electricity supply, but can also be considered to include police and fire services. Socialized Medicine – Professional healthcare provided for the public and paid for from public funds. In such a system government regulates which illnesses are to be cared for and how. Utopian Socialism – A name applied to a number of social reformers of the latter part of the 18th century as an imaginary account of an ideal society. Separate from these is Social Legislation – Laws to improve living conditions and to provide the individual some degree of security against various hazards such as unemployment, accident, illness, old age, natural disasters, and things like that. You will notice that some of this, notably municipal socialism is practice in most countries, the United States being one such. Those countries which have accepted socialism as the more classic sense have not done as well on the world economy without significant manipulation of some internal functions such as control of their monetary value to force some degree of competitiveness. Such acts are generally accompanied by internal negatives paid for by the people. As a general comment such socialistic directions of a country results in some degree of reduction in internal individual freedoms. Whether this is important of not will depend on the people and the degree with which they accept or reject the government birth to death care. The countries which have gone the way of socialism generally have little investment in military for self-protection. They can get away with this approach as long as there are other countries willing to protect them. Or, if they do travel a path of developing their own military it will mean that since they cannot produce enough additional wealth to invest in such a military, they will have to have the people reduce their standard of living, or acquire the needed wealth by consuming the resources of other countries. Unions are part of economic life and are part of the balance between the corporation and the workers, but this doesn’t always work to the betterment of both parties (which it should). Unions can be every bit as a detriment on workers as the worse management. As with all things, it requires an involved worker to ensure that the union is supporting their interest.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Oct 12, 2016 18:08:20 GMT -5
Look at large corporations: They employ people in a sort of pyramid-shape. The people at the bottom ultimately pull the most weight (labor-wise) with the worst compensation. It's abusive, but people have to pay rent and eat, so they continue to work at the jobs that are available - with inadequate compensation. Many have 2nd and 3rd jobs as well, and work to death. It is a form of slavery, although not a conspicuous one. Those at the top are obviously overpaid but, except for that, I don't agree with this. As long as we still have manufacturing in this country, the structure you outline is necessary. Those with the most basic skills are going to be more numerous and paid less well. They comprise the labor that is most plentiful ... jobs that are easiest to fill. As you move up into the data entry, record keepers, etc., rate of pay doesn't change very much, but is a little better because these workers have had more specialized training .. the company has invested more in them. After that, there are the management levels from lower level to board room. The pay definitely jumps. These are the coordinators and decision makers who are responsible for bringing everything together and making it happen for the business or factory or corporation. Their skills are vital and they cannot be replaced so easily. I'm all for a living minimum wage, but having worked for and with some of these companies, I know the "pyramid" IS SET that way for good reason. Men en tol could, doubtless, do a better job of laying that out than I. I think you did a very good job Beth for what is a complex societal structure. Particularly in a manufacturing company which is generally a very complex structure. The simplest of products become far more when viewed throughout the entire proses of production. Those interested can use their browser to seek the descriptive speech, “I, Pencil.” It is using the simplest of products (the number 2 yellow wood pencil) to describe why no single person can make a pencil but that everyday millions of people around the world make pencils and, every day get them in the correct quantity to the people who want them and in doing this, every person involved makes money. And most these people do not know any of the others or even what they do. Even more significantly, no government agency can accomplish the same goals and if they tried, within a short period we would have shortages on pencils while have over stocks for people who do not need them. Now consider the thousands of different types of pencils realizing that people use them with different goals in mind. No, do the manufacturing and distribution of them for all types (as is done with the number 2 wooden pencil) and get the right ones, made in the right quantities, to the right retail establishment, for the customer who wants their need fulfilled when he walks in the door. Now put yourself as the lead for the company, doing all that you company does to produce that product, paying and offering benefits for the employees, and do so for a profit that is realistically competing and producing a profit for the stockholders (many of whom are retires and retirement funds). Now run through the same exercise again but this time manufacturing chairs. Still not a complex product but more complex than a pencil.
|
|
|
slavery
Oct 12, 2016 18:19:28 GMT -5
Post by beth on Oct 12, 2016 18:19:28 GMT -5
Thanks, Men an tol. Very nice, to the point, post. We have to be able to envision the layers and levels within businesses to have realistic expectations. Doesn't really matter what kind of company it is, the same framework and the same or similar jobs exist. One I know very well is the big telephone companies and subsidiaries (Western Elec, etc.) as they were set up in the 80s and 90. I'm all for Unions, but sometimes Unions caused the employees more problems than they helped. Hopefully, things run more smoothly now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
slavery
Oct 12, 2016 18:42:57 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2016 18:42:57 GMT -5
What is your feeling about unions? Unions became necessary to protect workers. Unfortunately, membership into a union is now a luxury for many people. Also, I want to point out ( ad nauseam) that Scandinavia and The Netherlands have been very successful at adopting socialist principles. As with any economic system, what is being discussed should be defined, meaning, the foundational form of socialism is more historical than real in today’s world. That is, Socialism being a collective system of ownership and operation of the means of production, usually by the government, that is State Socialism. Of course in this definition of socialism ‘means of production’ is meant to be the production of capital goods as being representative of ‘value added production, which is the primary of developing growth in a specific economy. However, there are other approaches to socialism such as: Guild Socialism – Social ownership of the means of production (usually by the workers), with industrial operations managed by workers organized into associations comparable to medieval guilds. Local guilds would (usually) be federated into national guilds. Municipal Socialism – Ownership and operation of local utility services by a municipality, sometimes run by private corporation (generally nonprofits) Usually inclusive water supply, natural gas supply, electricity supply, but can also be considered to include police and fire services. Socialized Medicine – Professional healthcare provided for the public and paid for from public funds. In such a system government regulates which illnesses are to be cared for and how. Utopian Socialism – A name applied to a number of social reformers of the latter part of the 18th century as an imaginary account of an ideal society. Separate from these is Social Legislation – Laws to improve living conditions and to provide the individual some degree of security against various hazards such as unemployment, accident, illness, old age, natural disasters, and things like that. You will notice that some of this, notably municipal socialism is practice in most countries, the United States being one such. Those countries which have accepted socialism as the more classic sense have not done as well on the world economy without significant manipulation of some internal functions such as control of their monetary value to force some degree of competitiveness. Such acts are generally accompanied by internal negatives paid for by the people. As a general comment such socialistic directions of a country results in some degree of reduction in internal individual freedoms. Whether this is important of not will depend on the people and the degree with which they accept or reject the government birth to death care. The countries which have gone the way of socialism generally have little investment in military for self-protection. They can get away with this approach as long as there are other countries willing to protect them. Or, if they do travel a path of developing their own military it will mean that since they cannot produce enough additional wealth to invest in such a military, they will have to have the people reduce their standard of living, or acquire the needed wealth by consuming the resources of other countries. Unions are part of economic life and are part of the balance between the corporation and the workers, but this doesn’t always work to the betterment of both parties (which it should). Unions can be every bit as a detriment on workers as the worse management. As with all things, it requires an involved worker to ensure that the union is supporting their interest. OK. I'm going to ask you to answer my query from your gut. This is beginning to look like an elaborate defense mechanism.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2016 18:57:46 GMT -5
Look at large corporations: They employ people in a sort of pyramid-shape. The people at the bottom ultimately pull the most weight (labor-wise) with the worst compensation. It's abusive, but people have to pay rent and eat, so they continue to work at the jobs that are available - with inadequate compensation. Many have 2nd and 3rd jobs as well, and work to death. It is a form of slavery, although not a conspicuous one. Those at the top are obviously overpaid but, except for that, I don't agree with this. As long as we still have manufacturing in this country, the structure you outline is necessary. Those with the most basic skills are going to be more numerous and paid less well. They comprise the labor that is most plentiful ... jobs that are easiest to fill. As you move up into the data entry, record keepers, etc., rate of pay doesn't change very much, but is a little better because these workers have had more specialized training .. the company has invested more in them. After that, there are the management levels from lower level to board room. The pay definitely jumps. These are the coordinators and decision makers who are responsible for bringing everything together and making it happen for the business or factory or corporation. Their skills are vital and they cannot be replaced so easily. I'm all for a living minimum wage, but having worked for and with some of these companies, I know the "pyramid" IS SET that way for good reason. Men en tol could, doubtless, do a better job of laying that out than I. I don't agree with you. Perhaps when you were younger and in the work force a minimum wage could cut it. This is no longer true. The working poor are real. People cannot afford rents or decent foods - never mind the items that are essential in the modern world: a personal computer and cell phone. Why should there be a gulf between those at the bottom and those at the top? Should not a person's time and effort be factored-in despite their native gifts or lack thereof? BTW, there is no company loyalty anymore. It's pay to play.
|
|
|
slavery
Oct 12, 2016 19:52:21 GMT -5
Post by kronks on Oct 12, 2016 19:52:21 GMT -5
It is still legal in the UK and USA, I know what slavery is, I don't need wikipedia or to read the contents of the national library to that. It is work for less than a living wage, particularly working for basic subsistence in a wealthy country, such as the UK or USA whilst billionaire profit form it. It is sick pure and simple. You will note that only the companies who have paid politicians (ie the Clintons) for speeches will be allowed a slave, justthe big corps, never the needy. Wake up it is sick. No you are quite wrong Kronks. The situations you describe are not slavery no matter how much you want to say they are slavery. Why you persist in such a distorted view of slavery I cannot not understand as in doing so you are minimizing the worth of the lives of those really are slaves. Obviously slavery is part and parcel of the Islamic core values. Maybe you just want to try to drag all other people down to their level by trying to equate their slavery to economic positions in the West. Go ahead and continue in that effort as it only makes Islam more pathetically disgusting but they are your friends so do as you will. No one as an individual and no one as a scholar agrees with your perspective. Continue on living in the echo of your own voice. No you are wrong. Forced labour for subsistence is slavery no two ways about it where you chain are iron of economic circumstance, those who deny that as apologists for slavery same as there were apologists for black slavery in the past. Your acceptance of modern day slavery is appalling. I don't think any Islam states has an officail slavery program such as workfare. We are again living in the dark ages. I believe it was rapist Bill Clinton who brought it in so that is hardly a surprise is it? Monika Lewinsky was effectively his sex slave, working for nothing, which is what people have to do to get a decent job these days, ie decent jobs only for the wealth corrupt elite who can afford them. If she didn't so it she would end up on one of his workfare slavery schemes.
|
|
|
slavery
Oct 12, 2016 20:03:41 GMT -5
Post by kronks on Oct 12, 2016 20:03:41 GMT -5
I have a better idea, why don't you get real. Seems you are in favor of slavery safe in the knowledge you wont be forced into it. No the system is not abuse, the unemployed are being abused by greedy heartless folk like you. You demonisation of the unemployed is the same as Hitlers demonstration of the Jews, you are speaking the language of murder. Disgraceful. Pure evil. Similar arguments were used for enslaving blacks in the past. Sickening stuff. tsk tsk tsk...hit a nerve did I ? the system is abused on a grand scale and you know it ....as do the other Brits on here..gawd knows theres enough information about it...at every possible level..from serious internal and external reports and investigations ..court cases..medical reports/school reports....and tv abounds with the unemployed and unemployable..some with totally unrealistic expectations.. .theres no good reason why the unemployed shouldn't work for their benefits...they should be made to work in the voluntary sector work fare is aimed at the long term unemployed and is only one idea put into practise to get unemployed back into the routine and rythem of employment.. I save my sympathy for the genuine unemployed...not the likes of the case I posted earlier in the thread Demonisation of the unemployed...oh purlese....and I abuse the unemployed :Dand am heartless..oh my word... as for comparing any critical comment of the unemployed to the treatment of the Jews in Hitlers Germany..that is just plain hysterics..clearly you have an axe to grind and a big chip upon your shoulder """""Seems you are in favor of slavery safe in the knowledge you wont be forced into it""" WHAT !!!!!! Seems I touched a nerve, you are an apologist for slavery. Nothing more nothing less, you are like something out of the dark ages. I like to see you forced to work as a slave and see how you liked it. I suspect you would change your glib tune then.
|
|