100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Two walls for the price of one | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Just a laymans social science prediction
So it goes something like this: According to the social science, 2% was the defining number. This would include a student or two, a qualified worker or two, and the odd errant auntie what liked exotic men (she could not be helped because there was always one of those in every family). The problem was, in one particuliar environment their number had increased to 12%. This was a number that was 10% too high. The talk was that the 12% had built all 100% of the country and therefore deserving of it. Not true, 12% would deserve 12% of the land. It was suggested that the southern most tip nearest to their brethren islands was the most suitable location, and that the then leader of the country at the time could afford a wall or fence to then truncate that geographical region from the top of it. If word proved true for the time, infact two walls or fences would be required. This then would in turn relieve the pressure of the 10% and restore things to a more manageable balance, allowing the remaining 2% to stay as workers, students and errant aunties. It needn't have been the whole 12%, only 10% thereof. The place of which I speak is Florida. If this did not occur, the misplaced 12% would become a catalyst for a civil war, between the bleeding heart liberal left and the right. Would this prediction ever prove true? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not at those interest rates! ....but maybe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Could you say what you mean without the mix of political opinion and biased labels? All I can make out, is that you have a different opinion from various people having something to do with Florida. It APPEARS that you have made up your mind about SOME things that are actually opinions, and so you have them as facts, and that adds to the confusion as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just a laymans social science prediction So it goes something like this: According to the social science, 2% was the defining number. This would include a student or two, a qualified worker or two, and the odd errant auntie what liked exotic men (she could not be helped because there was always one of those in every family). The problem was, in one particuliar environment their number had increased to 12%. This was a number that was 10% too high. The talk was that the 12% had built all 100% of the country and therefore deserving of it. Not true, 12% would deserve 12% of the land. It was suggested that the southern most tip nearest to their brethren islands was the most suitable location, and that the then leader of the country at the time could afford a wall or fence to then truncate that geographical region from the top of it. If word proved true for the time, infact two walls or fences would be required. This then would in turn relieve the pressure of the 10% and restore things to a more manageable balance, allowing the remaining 2% to stay as workers, students and errant aunties. It needn't have been the whole 12%, only 10% thereof. The place of which I speak is Florida. If this did not occur, the misplaced 12% would become a catalyst for a civil war, between the bleeding heart liberal left and the right. Would this prediction ever prove true? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
liberals never learn as they're all blind.......i'm more counrt on the crimsons......some time details means nothing and also due to somekind of lie behide. and that's those whom highly drill with profesional.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and who is this "odd errant" aunt?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just a laymans social science prediction So it goes something like this: According to the social science, 2% was the defining number. This would include a student or two, a qualified worker or two, and the odd errant auntie what liked exotic men (she could not be helped because there was always one of those in every family). The problem was, in one particuliar environment their number had increased to 12%. This was a number that was 10% too high. The talk was that the 12% had built all 100% of the country and therefore deserving of it. Not true, 12% would deserve 12% of the land. It was suggested that the southern most tip nearest to their brethren islands was the most suitable location, and that the then leader of the country at the time could afford a wall or fence to then truncate that geographical region from the top of it. If word proved true for the time, infact two walls or fences would be required. This then would in turn relieve the pressure of the 10% and restore things to a more manageable balance, allowing the remaining 2% to stay as workers, students and errant aunties. It needn't have been the whole 12%, only 10% thereof. The place of which I speak is Florida. If this did not occur, the misplaced 12% would become a catalyst for a civil war, between the bleeding heart liberal left and the right. Would this prediction ever prove true? I agree and disagree with you... 100% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
crack kills
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
¿Que?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your AI has failed the Turing test.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think your right, I got into a massive YouTube fight debate over this one, I tried to explain it three times over in the simplest terms I know how. At the end of the day its only my re-interpretation of an idea, but I was getting some serious flak from this one guy over it.
I've had this idea rattling around in my head for years, I thought about it, and thought hey, what If I did something different with it other than just thinking it, like post it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, Thanks for sharing Jord.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I admit, I might not be one of my most clearest posts, hands up. It was one of my first posts, and its probably a bit cryptic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
""It was suggested that the southern most tip nearest to their brethren islands was the most suitable location..""
The most suitable location for what? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Setting up a new home. Or at-least it sounded good according to that ideology.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I still can't figure out what you were trying to say about Florida, but it looks overall, as though you are talking about someone proposing to "solve" a significant difference of culture or politics within a single society, by way of forced segregation.
Is that what the walls-in-Florida and the percentages stuff is about? It seems to be mixed in with an all-too-common modern socio-political problem we have, which consists of some powerful subgroups in the US, declaring that ONLY they contribute positively to the nation, and that they should therefore have 100% of the power to decide things. Segregating themselves might work out (at least functionally) if that were actually true, but since it's a complete pathological self-delusion, it is instead almost traitorously destructive to the nation. Just trying to guess what this is supposed to be about. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yes you are correct, this was based on an idea I'd heard roughly 17 years ago. My interest is in predictions, likelihoods and possibilities.
I'd brushed this particular prediction under the rug as unlikely and forgot about it. But with the presence of Trump rhetoric I wondered if this might possibly actually happen and prove true. Usually I only mention this kind of interest of mine to a few, but I've done something different on here sharing it on a community forum, I've never done that before, so I'm still trying to gage how to communicate it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok I am lost. Every country has immigration laws but somehow we are taken advantage of. Come here legally (as other countries) as we welcome you
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But Trumps argument isn't as simple as it might seem, If he gets rid of the Mexicans, does it stop with Mexicans? Because I my self have relatives from the Caribbean, their immigrants, do they all have to go as well for instance.
Can he get rid of all the dissident and separatist racial groups who have been bemoaning the US all this time, why not get rid of all them too. Why stop there, why not exile criminal blacks south of a Trump wall, because when you open this Pandora's box, where will it end. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
yellowrose10
on
Sun 12/25/16 02:22 PM
|
|
But Trumps argument isn't as simple as it might seem, If he gets rid of the Mexicans, does it stop with Mexicans? Because I my self have relatives from the Caribbean, their immigrants, do they all have to go as well for instance. Can he get rid of all the dissident and separatist racial groups who have been bemoaning the US all this time, why not get rid of all them too. Why stop there, why not exile criminal blacks south of a Trump wall, because when you open this Pandora's box, where will it end. You miss the point (maybe because you are from a different country) I live in a border state. It isn't about legal immigration. It's ILLEGAL immigration. |
|
|
|
|
