Provide a logical argument as to why the party that supports labor would want an oversupply of labor to drive wages down. Dems want legal immigrants.
It must be a magical time to be a racist
- Thread starter christiefan915
- Start date
Provide a logical argument as to why the party that supports labor would want an oversupply of labor to drive wages down. Dems want legal immigrants.
lol. nope they are pushing hard for illegals
if you guys had your way we would have open borders.The party of labor wants to ship out all the jobs and welcome more labor.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Such as?
Autobahns??
Volkswagons
lol. nope they are pushing hard for illegals
The party of labor wants to ship out all the jobs and welcome more labor.
Prove it. Your words mean less than nothing.
Airstrip One
Completely Effed
Suck.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Why do you hate Germans so much?
Obama has shown his hatred of the middle class for almost 8 consecutive years now
christiefan915
Catalyst
christiefan915
Catalyst
No of course not. From the conservative Christians, some of whom post here, who are always posting black crime statistics and ignoring everything else.
Legion Troll
A fine upstanding poster
I posted proof that many blacks attend church regularly. Perhaps that explains black crime.
christiefan915
Catalyst
I posted proof that many blacks attend church regularly. Perhaps that explains black crime.
You mean like practicing Islam "correlates" with Muslim crime?
Legion Troll
A fine upstanding poster
cawacko
Well-known member
You're not a labor party. Democrats love immigrants because they vote Democratic. You have serious cognitive dissonance on this issue.
And no reaction to Desh's response?
you really need to start doing research before you paint yourself in to corners.
"Metrics" have nothing to do with Guilliani, or the broken window.. what you are saying abut "meta-data" is so confused
even I can't explain what you are trying to say, though I've been forced to become a reluctant dot connector for Runespeak..
Dude. your normal state is one of confusion.
So I'm not going to try to define what you are trying to convey; instead here is more detailed info on how metrics ( think performance metrics)
are capable of being improved by an executive -without the top-down filter down pyramid traditional approach..
++
Performance Measurement: The New Norm
https://www.socrata.com/blog/performance-measurement-the-new-norm-2/
When Martin O’Malley took office as Maryland’s governor in 2007, he and his staff set an ambitious goal: eradicate childhood hunger in the state.
Expressing this kind of broad objective is hardly unusual for elected officials, but in this case O’Malley and his team meant business. The team tackled things in what, at that time, was considered innovative for a state government.
For starters, they converted their lofty objective into a measurable, pursuable metric: get 70 percent of children already eating a daily free/reduced school lunch to also eat a daily free/reduced school breakfast.
To help reach this goal, they gathered any relevant data they could get their hands on, from education to agriculture data, and then deployed breakfast programs (among other initiatives) where the data indicated to do so. From there, they frequently met with appropriate state personnel to examine fresh datasets underpinning the programs, and they continually tweaked the programs based on what the data showed was (and was not) working.
Six years later, the initiative is nearing its target. Sixty-two percent of Maryland students receiving a free/reduced lunch now also start their day with a school breakfast—a 38 percent increase from 2007 numbers.
The program’s success, however, is no surprise to Socrata’s Chris Rieth, a former O’Malley senior aide who helped the governor apply this face-to-face, data-driven, results-oriented approach to government problem solving.
This model, called performance measurement, is the new, effective way of doing things, says Rieth, which is why he’ll be hosting an insightful webinar on the subject on May 27.
What Is Performance Measurement?
One way to understand performance measurement, says Rieth, is to compare it to the common older method for using data to allocate government resources to programs and services.
Traditionally, he says, government departments have measured success by digging up a few stats once a year, compiling an annual report, and then meeting for a pat-on-the-back exercise that aims to maintain the past year’s budget and add a little fiscal growth, all the while paying little heed to program outcomes or changing conditions.
In contrast, as Maryland’s childhood hunger example illustrates, the performance measurement approach is an exercise in agility and real-world results. It calls for relevant personnel to constantly gather data, frequently meet face-to-face to discuss the data, and then use that data to adjust active programs on a weekly or biweekly basis—all with an eye toward achieving specific, overarching results........
cancel2 2022
Canceled
You mean like practicing Islam "correlates" with Muslim crime?
How many gang bangers attend church?
cancel2 2022
Canceled
This mirrors exactly what Blair did in 2004, he let in the A8 countries in Eastern Europe because they wanted cheap labour, a fresh supply of Labour voters and to rub the Tories' noses in diversity.
PETER HITCHENS: Blair's secret victory? He's taken control of the Tory party
This is Peter Hitchens's Mail on Sunday column
The most dangerous falsehood of the past 20 years has finally been exploded. The idea that Anthony Blair's New Labour was 'moderate' and 'centrist', a sort of pink conservatism, still grips the minds of millions. It certainly grips the minds of the monstrous regiment of political journalists, a vast gossip factory, few of whose toilers understand politics or care about the future of the country.
But one of the authors of the Blairite project has openly confessed the dangerous truth. Peter Hyman, once Blair's chief speechwriter and strategist, has blurted it out. The Blair project, he declared, was 'infinitely more revolutionary than anything proposed by Jeremy Corbyn'. Yes, you have heard this from me already, last October, when I wrote here: 'Our political media never understood that the Blairites were in fact far more Left-wing than Jeremy Corbyn.' But now you needn't take my word for it.
Let Mr Hyman explain. He says New Labour was devised 'to take and hold the levers of power... winning power and locking out the Tories to ensure that the 21st Century was a Labour century with Labour values'. The scale of that ambition was 'breathtaking'. He explained: 'If Labour could be in power for a serious amount of time, then the country would, we believed, change for good; not a burst of socialism for one time (if that), but changed institutions and values that could shape the country for all time.'
As you may have noticed, this was to involve a gigantic increase in spending and taxation, an imposition of radical Leftist dogma in the name of 'equality', the smashing up of the House of Lords and the impartial civil service, plus a sexual revolution – not to mention the growing domination of the EU and open borders. Some of this remains unspoken, though fairly obvious because of the visible results. Some of it doesn't.
Another New Labour apparatchik, Andrew Neather, famously revealed the driving purpose of mass immigration, 'to rub the Right's nose in diversity'. The biggest triumph – in fact the main purpose of the Blairites – was to turn the Tory Party into the neutered Blairite clone it now is. This it achieved, by utterly destroying William Hague (who never recovered from the experience) in the 2001 Election.
The veteran commentator Steve Richards, himself close to the Blair project, recalled that Blair and his entourage were often in 'an exasperated fury' during that contest. He wrote that they would occasionally scream: 'You don't get it! The Election is a historic referendum on a Right-wing Conservative Party. If we win a second landslide, we would kill off Right-wing Conservatism for good.' And so they did, starting the progressive collapse that ended with the election of the self-proclaimed 'Heir to Blair' as Tory leader. There was only one problem. They were too successful. When the Tories seized the Blairite torch, they left the husk of the Labour Party behind, with no real purpose. Its senior figures are indistinguishable from Mr Cameron's front bench. They look and sound the same and believe the same things. They even combined with Mr Cameron against their own leader and their own members. I suppose they could all just join the Tories. They might as well.
But Mr Cameron wouldn't like that, as his remaining conservative-minded voters might then finally notice that their old party has now become a coalition of radical Leftists.
And that would never do.
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co...tory-hes-taken-control-of-the-tory-party.html
Last edited:
cawacko
Well-known member
They vote when given citizenship.
So you claim Desh is very smart and an important voice to be heard in the progressive movement but now she means nothing when her position opposes yours.