Post by: Art Eatman on May 16, 2006, 07:41:04 AM
It seems to me that if illegals are taking jobs from U.S. citizens because they will work for lower wages, that's importing people to out-source jobs. After all, "out-sourcing" refers to jobs leaving US citizens and going to foreign laborers, right? Does it really matter if the foreign laborers are in Bangladesh instead of Los Angeles?
Just a thought to offer those who are supportive of having all the illegals be accepted as good guys...
, Art
Post by: Guest on May 16, 2006, 07:49:11 AM
Quote from: Art Eatman
I got to thinking, which is always dangerous:
It seems to me that if illegals are taking jobs from U.S. citizens because they will work for lower wages, that's importing people to out-source jobs. After all, "out-sourcing" refers to jobs leaving US citizens and going to foreign laborers, right? Does it really matter if the foreign laborers are in Bangladesh instead of Los Angeles?
...
No, but since there is nothing wrong with outsourcing, the point is moot.
It seems to me that if illegals are taking jobs from U.S. citizens because they will work for lower wages, that's importing people to out-source jobs. After all, "out-sourcing" refers to jobs leaving US citizens and going to foreign laborers, right? Does it really matter if the foreign laborers are in Bangladesh instead of Los Angeles?
...
Post by: InfidelSerf on May 16, 2006, 07:49:46 AM
That and when/if we offer amnesty. They certainly won't be ok with the lower wages. Since as a citizen they will get full protection under the law.
They will demand higherwages. So what is the advantage to "worker program"??
Post by: Dannyboy on May 16, 2006, 08:47:02 AM
Quote from: mercedesrules
Quote from: Art Eatman
I got to thinking, which is always dangerous:
It seems to me that if illegals are taking jobs from U.S. citizens because they will work for lower wages, that's importing people to out-source jobs. After all, "out-sourcing" refers to jobs leaving US citizens and going to foreign laborers, right? Does it really matter if the foreign laborers are in Bangladesh instead of Los Angeles?
...
No, but since there is nothing wrong with outsourcing, the point is moot.It seems to me that if illegals are taking jobs from U.S. citizens because they will work for lower wages, that's importing people to out-source jobs. After all, "out-sourcing" refers to jobs leaving US citizens and going to foreign laborers, right? Does it really matter if the foreign laborers are in Bangladesh instead of Los Angeles?
...
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on May 16, 2006, 08:50:16 AM
But one of the big arguments against outsourcing is that it's bad for national security to ship all of our manufacturing and industrial interests overseas. If so, wouldn't it be prudent to "outsource" these jobs to Mexicans living here, rather than to Chinese or Indians overseas? This way all of the jobs and factories and such-like remain here on our own soil.
You're right, though, about thinking being dangerous. I used to beleive all the ballyhoo about illegal immigration being bad. Then I thought about it some. Then some more. Now I don't really have a problem with immigrants, legal or otherwise. But that's a subject for another discussion...
Post by: garyk/nm on May 16, 2006, 08:52:03 AM
Quote from: mercedesrules
Quote from: Art Eatman
I got to thinking, which is always dangerous:
It seems to me that if illegals are taking jobs from U.S. citizens because they will work for lower wages, that's importing people to out-source jobs. After all, "out-sourcing" refers to jobs leaving US citizens and going to foreign laborers, right? Does it really matter if the foreign laborers are in Bangladesh instead of Los Angeles?
...
No, but since there is nothing wrong with outsourcing, the point is moot.It seems to me that if illegals are taking jobs from U.S. citizens because they will work for lower wages, that's importing people to out-source jobs. After all, "out-sourcing" refers to jobs leaving US citizens and going to foreign laborers, right? Does it really matter if the foreign laborers are in Bangladesh instead of Los Angeles?
...
Post by: Guest on May 16, 2006, 09:08:55 AM
Quote from: Headless Thompson Gunner
I agree with mercedez. There's nothing wrong with outsourcing, nor with Mexicans earning an income here.
But one of the big arguments against outsourcing is that it's bad for national security...
As an anarchist, I don't care about that either. The state makes me less safe, not more. Without the state how would some stranger thousands of miles away get the idea to harm me?
But one of the big arguments against outsourcing is that it's bad for national security...
Post by: Guest on May 16, 2006, 09:11:41 AM
Quote from: garyk/nm
Quote from: mercedesrules
Quote from: Art Eatman
I got to thinking, which is always dangerous:
It seems to me that if illegals are taking jobs from U.S. citizens because they will work for lower wages, that's importing people to out-source jobs. After all, "out-sourcing" refers to jobs leaving US citizens and going to foreign laborers, right? Does it really matter if the foreign laborers are in Bangladesh instead of Los Angeles?
...
No, but since there is nothing wrong with outsourcing, the point is moot.It seems to me that if illegals are taking jobs from U.S. citizens because they will work for lower wages, that's importing people to out-source jobs. After all, "out-sourcing" refers to jobs leaving US citizens and going to foreign laborers, right? Does it really matter if the foreign laborers are in Bangladesh instead of Los Angeles?
...
Post by: The Rabbi on May 16, 2006, 09:49:12 AM
Quote from: garyk/nm
Quote from: mercedesrules
Quote from: Art Eatman
I got to thinking, which is always dangerous:
It seems to me that if illegals are taking jobs from U.S. citizens because they will work for lower wages, that's importing people to out-source jobs. After all, "out-sourcing" refers to jobs leaving US citizens and going to foreign laborers, right? Does it really matter if the foreign laborers are in Bangladesh instead of Los Angeles?
...
No, but since there is nothing wrong with outsourcing, the point is moot.It seems to me that if illegals are taking jobs from U.S. citizens because they will work for lower wages, that's importing people to out-source jobs. After all, "out-sourcing" refers to jobs leaving US citizens and going to foreign laborers, right? Does it really matter if the foreign laborers are in Bangladesh instead of Los Angeles?
...
I will mention that illegals here do live someplace and pay rent. They do eat here and buy food, paying taxes along the way. They do buy things that the worker in Bangladesh does not.
I will also mention that the U.S. is a net IMPORTER of jobs, not exporter.
Post by: Harold Tuttle on May 16, 2006, 10:05:49 AM
the unions will gather
Post by: Art Eatman on May 16, 2006, 03:28:02 PM
The trouble with being an anarchist is that you tend to run short of allies. Like a lot of stuff, it looks good on paper...
, Art
Post by: The Rabbi on May 16, 2006, 03:40:53 PM
Quote from: Art Eatman
mercedesrules, I don't think anarchy would have worked all that well for you or us, from, say, 1939 through 1989.
The trouble with being an anarchist is that you tend to run short of allies. Like a lot of stuff, it looks good on paper...
, Art
Reminds me of a line in a book by Wesley Clark on the Bosnian War. He had to consult with and get permission from all the defense chiefs in NATO before any major undertaking. The worst was (of course) the French chief of defense. When Clark presented an idea for one operation the Frenchman's reply was "that sounds good in practice, but will it work in theory?" Clark waited for signs of irony.The trouble with being an anarchist is that you tend to run short of allies. Like a lot of stuff, it looks good on paper...
, ArtI dont understand anarchy as a solution to much, especially immigration.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 16, 2006, 04:44:43 PM
Quote from: The Rabbi
I dont understand anarchy as a solution to much, especially immigration.
You see, Rabbi, without states, everyone would be equally oppressed by stronger people, so there would be little point in moving elsewhere. Besides, it's dangerous to travel when as soon as you enter a different part of the world, any local can accuse you of violating his rights, at which point no one else in that community will respect your rights and you will be robbed, raped and/or murdered in short order. (At least that's the picture of anarchy that I get from mercedesrules.)This is why we should not stop anyone from coming in. That way, we will soon become another France and will be just as burdened by socialism as they are. Let's just blend into the rest of the socialist states of the world.
Post by: Guest on May 16, 2006, 04:54:47 PM
Quote
Without the state how would some stranger thousands of miles away get the idea to harm me?
Yeah, because the only reason muslim radicals want to enslave the planet is because you live under an American flag. If it werent for that, I'm sure they'd be more than happy to take thier aims of "one world under allah" elsewhere and leave you to your anarchy. Submission to allah wouldn't pertain to you at that point.Must be comforting to be so simple and naive.
Post by: Winston Smith on May 16, 2006, 04:58:30 PM
Quote
everyone would be equally oppressed by stronger people, so there would be little point in moving elsewhere. Besides, it's dangerous to travel when as soon as you enter a different part of the world, any local can accuse you of violating his rights, at which point no one else in that community will respect your rights and you will be robbed, raped and/or murdered in short order.
Umm. That sounds more like the current system to me. AKA statism.Illegal immigrants are people. The first whites here, the ones who founded this country, were "illegal" immigrants to this nation. Did the American Indians grant us amnesty? Did the mexicans when we took the southwest?
Also maybe the problem is more overpriced goods than too-high wages. And where do the overpriced goods come from? too high wages, paid so that individuals can buy overpriced goods. I'm not complaining because some people are coming along and make a living off our great hot-air filled economy.
Edit:
oh and
Quote
as you enter a different part of the world ... no one else in that community will respect your rights
yeah pretty much what is going on with the illegal immigrants.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 16, 2006, 05:19:49 PM
Quote from: Winston Smith
Umm. That sounds more like the current system to me. AKA statism.
How? Are you also an anarchist? Edited to add; that is not an insult, it is a sincere question, in context of mercedesrules's comments.Quote
Illegal immigrants are people.
Yes, most criminals are. Quote
The first whites here, the ones who founded this country, were "illegal" immigrants to this nation. Did the American Indians grant us amnesty? Did the mexicans when we took the southwest?
The American Indians had laws about who came into their territory and how? I've never heard of that. Which laws did the colonists break by the act of settling here? And for what it's worth, the Indians didn't have "countries," they had tribes living in villages and whatever hunting grounds they had taken by warfare. And no, Mexico ceded the southwest by treaty, so no amnesty could possible apply there.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 16, 2006, 05:22:33 PM
Quote from: Winston Smith
oh and
Which of their rights are being violated?
Quote
as you enter a different part of the world ... no one else in that community will respect your rights
yeah pretty much what is going on with the illegal immigrants.Post by: The Rabbi on May 16, 2006, 05:46:42 PM
Quote from: fistful
Quote from: The Rabbi
I dont understand anarchy as a solution to much, especially immigration.
You see, Rabbi, without states, everyone would be equally oppressed by stronger people, so there would be little point in moving elsewhere.Post by: Guest on May 16, 2006, 06:36:38 PM
Quote
Winston Smith wrote:
oh and
as you enter a different part of the world ... no one else in that community will respect your rights
yeah pretty much what is going on with the illegal immigrants.
All except the part about rights, show up in MY country ILLEGALY, and you don't have rights to *expletive deleted*it. Miranda rights perhaps.....oh and
as you enter a different part of the world ... no one else in that community will respect your rights
yeah pretty much what is going on with the illegal immigrants.
Winston, you are falling for the whole PC "Illegal Imigrant" label. These are not Immigrants, they are invaders, here illegally that, at BEST, just want to make money and send it back to mexico (and have no intention of assimilating and becoming Americans), and at worst think that they somehow have claim to OUR lands (read; aztlan)
*** the aztlan concept being utter *expletive deleted*it, because if you are somehow decended from the original inhabitants of this landmass, why are you speaking spanish, paco?
Post by: Guest on May 16, 2006, 06:41:29 PM
Post by: Winston Smith on May 16, 2006, 06:54:03 PM
Quote
All except the part about rights, show up in MY country ILLEGALY, and you don't have rights to *expletive deleted*it. Miranda rights perhaps.....
In my view rights are inherent, not government given.Quote
How? Are you also an anarchist? Edited to add; that is not an insult, it is a sincere question, in context of mercedesrules's comments.
No. I'm a leave me and other people the hell alone-istQuote
The American Indians had laws about who came into their territory and how?
I guess not, but I'm pretty sure that smallpox blankets broke some sort of law. Along with, you know the trail of tears, etcetera. And if it didn't I guess it didn't occur to the savages that people would want to do that sort of thing to them.Quote
OUR lands
What makes it ours? That were here? Well so are they. 12 million of them.Quote
Quote
Illegal immigrants are people.
Yes, most criminals are.Quote
Which of their rights are being violated?
Life, liberty. and the pursuit of hapiness.I dont know how many of you saw the rallies on that day without immigrants, but I stood at 7th Street and Market. here in san francisco, just a block from City Hall, and watched thousands of people protesting, just wanting to make burritos for overpaid white guys like me. I used to be firmly against. "Set .50 cals up on the wall we should build!" That's what I said.
And then I saw that these were people. What makes me better than them? What makes me entitled to live here in this land of milk and honey and not them? Who am I to exclude them? They just want what I want.
And that fifth column bullshit is just that. I'm sure a small percentage of them want to overthrow the government, but look to most poor people in general. Even those on welfare hate the government.
I'm not better than these people because of the place that they are born. Luckier maybe.
Post by: Guest on May 17, 2006, 03:41:56 AM
Get in line, take a number, Pedro.
come here legally, learn OUR language (the one spoken within the borders that make up OUR country), assimilate! enrich American culture and society!
I welcome any LEGAL immigrant with open arms. If these poor, oppressed hardworking folks just want to make a life for themselves (at sub minimum wage), do it in MEXICO. If they are so hardworking and willing to do *expletive deleted*it jobs, how about fixing thier own crappy county? ( Speaking of the MexGov )
Quote
Laws make criminals.
Explain to me how that isn't essentially anarchy..Quote
In my view rights are inherent, not government given.
So much for the whole concept of law and order. come one, come all, Enjoy your rights on our economy's tab...Don't bother yourselves with following OUR laws, they're all quite superflous really.
Quote
What makes it ours? That were here? Well so are they. 12 million of them.
OURS, because we've managed to take and keep them.Quote
I'm a leave me and other people the hell alone-ist
I couldn't agree with you more, so long as the .gov leaves productive,taxpaying CITIZENS the hell alone. I don't apply that to invaders.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 17, 2006, 03:47:01 AM
Quote from: Winston Smith
In my view rights are inherent, not government given.
I agree; in fact I am arguing for that in another thread here. However, I don't know where you get the idea that you have a right to go to any country at any time and take up residence and work. Do you believe that all such laws should be repealed?Winston, I am glad that you now understand that illegals are people, but the rest of us have understood that from the beginning. That is why we expect them to follow our law. If they were animals, we might not expect so much of them. Do you really think our immigration laws are based on the notion that we are better than other people? Look to France or Japan for that kind of nonsense, but American citizenship does not have that kind of racial basis.
Quote
No. I'm a leave me and other people the hell alone-ist
Me too, and I want Mexicans to leave my country alone, unless they wish to enter legally and be a benefit to my country. Quote from: Winston Smith
Quote
The American Indians had laws about who came into their territory and how?
I guess not,Quote
And if it didn't I guess it didn't occur to the savages that people would want to do that sort of thing to them.
Yeah, they probably only expected the warfare and slavery that was a part of their history. Quote
What makes it ours? That were here?
Try this. We built a nation here, the best and freest the world has ever known. Had we not taken the southwest, it would be in as big a mess as the rest of Mexico. Under US law, though, it has flourished.Quote from: WinstonSmith
Quote
Which of their rights are being violated?
Life, liberty. and the pursuit of hapiness.Post by: Guest on May 17, 2006, 06:34:33 AM
Quote from: Art Eatman
mercedesrules, I don't think anarchy would have worked all that well for you or us, from, say, 1939 through 1989.
The trouble with being an anarchist is that you tend to run short of allies....
....like Stalin, Saddam and Osama...The trouble with being an anarchist is that you tend to run short of allies....
Quote
... it looks good on paper...
For you, that's a breakthrough statement!
Post by: Guest on May 17, 2006, 06:46:21 AM
Quote from: Baus44
Quote
Without the state how would some stranger thousands of miles away get the idea to harm me?
Yeah, because the only reason muslim radicals want to enslave the planet is because you live under an American flag. If it werent for that, I'm sure they'd be more than happy to take thier aims of "one world under allah" elsewhere and leave you to your anarchy. Submission to allah wouldn't pertain to you at that point.Must be comforting to be so simple and naive.
Also, The US administration has said many times it wants the whole world democratized. What is the difference between one side wanting everyone to accept their way and the other side doing so?
If you haven't finally seen that 9/11 was a retaliation for the West's treatment of the Middle East I guess I don't really know what to say.
Post by: Art Eatman on May 17, 2006, 06:47:39 AM
E.g., the Mexican government paid for scalps of Indians during the 1800s; maybe earlier as well. Earlier, the Spanish invaded and intermarried with the indigenes and today's Mexicans are a mix of Spanish and Indio, plus pure or nearly-pure Indio. Within Mexico, the less Spanish blood, the lower in the pecking order. Similar to the Vietnamese vs Montagnard thing.
Worse, overall, is the political spin. Today's Mexicans have right at zero Aztec blood, so how can they claim "Aztlan"? Many of our illegals came from down around Oaxaca, for instance, so where is there any "historical claim"? And on and on.
What we're seeing is some pretty talented wordsmiths, twisting and torturing the language to justify something that isn't right, correct or legal. BS claims over territorial rights, the insulting allegation of racism, and all manner of justifications which mostly remind me of my kid's efforts at getting out of punishment for an act of childish idiocy. As usual, the Great American Leftist is right in there, skillfully performing his act as Useful Tool.
And in the meantime the hospitals of California are ceasing emergency-room services or even closing entirely, due to non-pay from "poor folks", over half of whom are illegals.
Funny-odd. Asian kids have come here at high school age with little or no English, yet finish with honors and even in a couple of known, published cases, as Valedictorian.
Post by: Guest on May 17, 2006, 06:58:36 AM
Quote
Must be terrifying to fear an ethereal (US agents can hardly find them) subset of a mainstream religious group thousands of miles and an ocean away. I see you've fully accepted the state's demonization of Muslims. What happened to "Never again!"?
Yeah, so many thousands of miles away they trained right here, in our own country. As to never again, I joined the Marines.Quote
Also, The US administration has said many times it wants the whole world democratized. What is the difference between one side wanting everyone to accept their way and the other side doing so?
If you can't understand how democracy is better than submission to allah i can't help you.Quote
If you haven't finally seen that 9/11 was a retaliation for the West's treatment of the Middle East I guess I don't really know what to say.
Uh huh. we just pushed em' too far and went and made em' mad. We couldn't possibly just take them at their word ("we want the whole world under submission to allah")I don't know why i dignify you with a response, its the same worn out lines of bullshit every time.
Sorry about the thread drift Y'all, back to Illegals.
Post by: Guest on May 17, 2006, 06:58:41 AM
Quote from: fistful
Quote from: The Rabbi
I dont understand anarchy as a solution to much, especially immigration.
You see, Rabbi, without states, everyone would be equally oppressed by stronger people, so there would be little point in moving elsewhere. Besides, it's dangerous to travel when as soon as you enter a different part of the world, any local can accuse you of violating his rights, at which point no one else in that community will respect your rights and you will be robbed, raped and/or murdered in short order. (At least that's the picture of anarchy that I get from mercedesrules.)Quote
This is why we should not stop anyone from coming in. That way, we will soon become another France and will be just as burdened by socialism as they are. Let's just blend into the rest of the socialist states of the world.
Soon? The US is the biggest debtor nation now. I am against all wlefare/socialism, BTW.
Post by: Guest on May 17, 2006, 07:08:20 AM
Quote from: Baus44
... show up in MY country ...
You don't own the country, either, Baus. If you own a house and yard, you have my blessing to keep immigrants off of it. Note: when I say own, I mean "possess legitimate title to". Own includes the individual right to sell, occupy, use or otherwise dispose of something.
This fantasy that US residents "own" the entire US gets them into a lot of logical difficulty.
Post by: The Rabbi on May 17, 2006, 07:31:34 AM
Quote from: mercedesrules
Quote from: Baus44
Quote
Without the state how would some stranger thousands of miles away get the idea to harm me?
Yeah, because the only reason muslim radicals want to enslave the planet is because you live under an American flag. If it werent for that, I'm sure they'd be more than happy to take thier aims of "one world under allah" elsewhere and leave you to your anarchy. Submission to allah wouldn't pertain to you at that point.Must be comforting to be so simple and naive.
Also, The US administration has said many times it wants the whole world democratized. What is the difference between one side wanting everyone to accept their way and the other side doing so?
If you haven't finally seen that 9/11 was a retaliation for the West's treatment of the Middle East I guess I don't really know what to say.
Yes, as pointed out, Muslims in general do not live thousands of miles away, but right down the block from me. Muslim terrorists are not an ocean away but present in this country (some documentary not too long ago demonstrated this.)
I see that the equivalence doctrine is alive and well. I remember back in the '70s when people said that the Soviets oppressed people and the U.S. oppressed people so what was the difference. Maybe someone would like to ask the Poles, Latvians, Slovenians, Czechs, etc etc ad nauseam about that theory.
And no, 9/11 was not retaliation by the Muslims. It was an Israeli plot to draw the U.S. into a protraced, unwillable war to help Israel destroy its enemies and emerge victorious, dictating policy to the bankrupt U.S. Or don't you read the web sites?
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 17, 2006, 08:35:11 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
9/11 was not retaliation by the Muslims. It was an Israeli plot to draw the U.S. into a protraced, unwillable war to help Israel destroy its enemies and emerge victorious, dictating policy to the bankrupt U.S.
You see? He admits it! Hee-hee.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 17, 2006, 08:45:54 AM
Quote from: mercedesrules
Don't blame me for your ignorance of market anarchy. You're on your own with this "explanation".
That's fine. Although with all property privately-owned, and with no law to keep folks in line, I would think people would be afraid to go anywhereQuote
I am against all wlefare/socialism, BTW.
Oh, I know you are. The problem is that when more immigrants come in to do low-wage jobs, few of them will assimilate and they and their children will change the political beliefs of our nation. Unless Mexicans and Central Americans are more libertarian than I think, our freedoms will shrink even farther as we are loaded down with further government entitlements. Which is why I mentioned France. Is that what you want?
Post by: richyoung on May 17, 2006, 09:21:16 AM
Quote from: mercedesrules
If you haven't finally seen that 9/11 was a retaliation for the West's treatment of the Middle East I guess I don't really know what to say.
Lets look at how the US in particular has "provoked" the Muslim world:Pre-WWII - the official position of hte government of the US is to discourage Jewish immigration to the Middle East.
Immediate post-WWII. The United States government puts an arms embargo on the new state of Isreal - it uses bombs and fighter aircraft supplied by Russian satellite states in Eastern Europe to fight for independence, along with whatever can be smuggled in past the embargo.
Mid- fifties...The Suez incident - the US government puts pressure on Israel, France, and Great Britain to stop their siezure of the Suez canal from Egypt, an Islamic country.
Early sixties - US still makes it difficult for Israel to obtain weapons - its armor corps consists of British tanks, and war-surplus Shermans upgraded by France - its Air force flies French war planes.
1967 - Six day war - the US puts pressure on Israel to stop advancing into Syria and Egypt. The USS Liberty is deliberately attacked by (unmarked!) Isreali jets and torpedo boats, who machine gun damage control parties and life rafts in an attempt to sink the ship and leave no surviviors. Evidence suggests the Israelis thought the Liberty was intercepting the orders to attack Syria - this was the motive for the attack that killed 37 American lives, destroyed a $40 million dollar intelligence ship, and earned the captain the Medal of Honor. Fighter aircraft sent to defend the Liberty were PERSONALLY recalled by Secretary of Defense Robert MacNamara, beleived to be acting at the behest of LBJ himself.
1973 - The US reveals secret SR-71 spy photos to the Russians to prove that, contrary to Egyptian claims, Cairo was in danger of being occupied by Israeli forces - this alows a peace to be negotiated before further Egyptian territory falls.
late 70s to present - the "Mid-East Peace Process", or, as I like to call it, "Pressuring Israel to Give Terrorists What They Want."
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 17, 2006, 09:40:56 AM
Quote from: mercedesrules
I see you've fully accepted the state's demonization of Muslims.
I certainly have. When the president calls Islam "a religion of peace," and repeatedly invites Islamic clergy to official functions, when he plans foreign policy on the assumption that Islamic nations can be democratic and peaceful, and when we continue to enforce peace between Muslims and Christians in Bosnia, I understand that this is really the government's way of saying that all Muslims are evil.Quote
The US administration has said many times it wants the whole world democratized.
No! It can't be true!Quote
If you haven't finally seen that 9/11 was a retaliation for the West's treatment of the Middle East I guess I don't really know what to say.
Would that justify the slaughter of innocents?
Post by: The Rabbi on May 17, 2006, 11:54:25 AM
Quote from: fistful
Quote from: The Rabbi
9/11 was not retaliation by the Muslims. It was an Israeli plot to draw the U.S. into a protraced, unwillable war to help Israel destroy its enemies and emerge victorious, dictating policy to the bankrupt U.S.
You see? He admits it! Hee-hee.Post by: Perd Hapley on May 17, 2006, 12:35:01 PM
I work in a neighborhood with a lot of Orthodox (or are they Conservative?) Jews. I see them walking to religious services on Holy Days, all dressed up, the girls are wearing skirts. A little down the road, there is a place called "Agudas Israel." Guys in stereotypical black suits with black hats are running in and out of there all the time, and standing around outside. I can't recall if they have the Hassidic, uh, dangling sideburns(?), or not, but they sometimes have the apron with the tassells. Anyhoo, I like to think that it is one of the centers from which Jews run the world. It puts a smile on my face, anyway.
Post by: The Rabbi on May 17, 2006, 12:37:56 PM
A Jew gets on a bus and sees his friend sitting there reading an anti-Semitic newspaper. He asks him "Shloimy, have you lost your mind reading that thing??" His friend answers "no. Whenever I read Jewish papers I read how a Jew was beaten up or how the Arabs are plotting against Israel. But when I read a paper like this I read how we control all the banking, all the media, all the politicians, and I feel better!"
Post by: Winston Smith on May 17, 2006, 01:16:33 PM
Quote
Quote
Also, The US administration has said many times it wants the whole world democratized. What is the difference between one side wanting everyone to accept their way and the other side doing so?
If you can't understand how democracy is better than submission to allah i can't help you.Now back to illegals:
These people pay taxes. It's just in the form of working for so low wages so employers can charge cheaper prices. Those selfsame hospitals that are being closed due to illegal immigrants were probably built and painted and cleaned by illegal immigrants. Not to mention all the food that the people in said hospital ate that was low priced due to illegal labor.
Now, no taxation, no representation, I don't think these people should vote, but let's be practical here. The tide cannot be stemmed, just tapered. And theres no way to deport all those here.
And when I talk about the Mexican Southwest being taken, I mean from the Mexicans. Texas, California, and other states were once part of the Mexican Empire. Look up: James Polk, Mexican American War.
I mean, seriously, remember the Alamo, glorious battle fought so that Texans could own the slaves that the Mexicans didn't want them to.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 17, 2006, 01:31:27 PM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Whenever I read Jewish papers
Aren't they all Jewish papers?
Post by: Guest on May 17, 2006, 01:42:37 PM
Quote
Hahah "better," oh you moral objectivists! But even aside from that, if you can't see how forcing democracy on people who don't want it isn't democracy, then you as well are beyond help.
Moral objectivists?? Guess i don't think on that deep a level, you conceited bastard. we aren't forcing anything on anyone. We ousted a tyrannical dictator (who happens to be crazy as a *expletive deleted*it house rat and threat to the US), and now all we are forcing on em is a decision, for THEM to decide how THEY want to be governed. They get to pick. Thats democracy in a nutshell, since you don't seem to get it.From where you stand, it seems that if we would've left Iraq alone, Saddam would've been re-elected by huge margins every time his term was up... Thats what those people would want right?(wait, he's been unanimously elected president for the past 30+ years??? well *expletive deleted*it, we screwed the pooch in ousting him, obviously they WANTED him at the helm... Our bad!)
Quote
but let's be practical here. The tide cannot be stemmed, just tapered. And theres no way to deport all those here.
Wrong and wrong again.To quote Kim du Toit, who puts this better and far more eloquently than i am capable of...
Quote
This is America. There is no problem too big for us to solve. We ended slavery; we built the Hoover Dam, the Golden Gate Bridge and the interstate highway system; we defeated the Nazis; we overcame Communism in the Cold War, and we are defeating even as nebulous and difficult an enemy as terrorism. There is no problem we cant overcome: the only way we can be defeated is through a lack of will on the part of our government.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 17, 2006, 01:59:38 PM
Quote from: Winston Smith
Basically, I see a lot of people talking about how we need to keep the country the way it is. Well, I don't think the way it is is so great. And I don't much like it 100 years ago. Oh, maybe for me, being an upper middle class white guy from an educated family, but even so maybe it's time for a change up.
"So great" compared to what? It ain't perfect, but it's better than Mexico and illegal immigration does not make America better, it makes it worse. Amen, it's time for a lot of big change-ups, but this ain't the way to go about it. Here are some things I'd like to change.
1. Take this cheap labor (the illegals) away from employers, so they will have to pay more.
2. Abolish nationalized welfare, and perhaps have states or local governments take on the truly needy cases. Suddenly, thousands upon thousands of Americans will be ready to do "jobs that Americans won't do."
3. Cut other unneccesary and/or unconstitutional spending and lower taxes drastically, so that purchasing power negates the effect of higher prices.
Quote
And when I talk about the Mexican Southwest being taken, I mean from the Mexicans.
And who did they take it from? You don't need to insult our intelligence by telling us about the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, though I had forgotten about the slavery issue with Texan Independence. Does it really matter to this discussion? No.Quote
Hahah "better," oh you moral objectivists! But even aside from that, if you can't see how forcing democracy on people who don't want it isn't democracy, then you as well are beyond help.
Please don't pretend not to believe in objective moral standards when you are reprimanding us for being hard-hearted meanies. That doesn't make sense. I await your apology and you still need to admit you were wrong about the colonists being illegal aliens.Winston, the Middle East is a swamp of terrorism, and we need to drain it. They don't want democracy? That's very nice, but I don't want another of the string of terrorists attacks we have been living with for decades. Besides, don't expect much of the democracy we're used to. As long as we can work with these governments, that's all that's needed. And that's about all I expect to get.
Post by: Art Eatman on May 17, 2006, 04:31:48 PM
Art
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 17, 2006, 05:52:09 PM
Quote from: Art Eatman
mercedesrules, I'm sorry, but I don't understand your response in post #26.
I get what he means, but I don't know that you could really say that Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Ladin were our allies. More of an enemy of our enemies, and I don't know that we dealt with Bin Ladin directly.
Post by: Winston Smith on May 17, 2006, 06:22:02 PM
Quote
you conceited bastard.
Oh god here come the ad hominem attacks!Quote
We ousted a tyrannical dictator ..., and now all we forcing on em is a decision, for THEM to decide how THEY want to be governed. They get to pick. Thats democracy in a nutshell, since you don't seem to get it.
Every day living under a tyranny is a forced decision. Either you knuckle under or you don't. The Don't part is shown by us during the revolutionary war. We didn't have big nanny America to hand us democracy, and we didn't need it. We wanted it, and we got it. And so would they. Some would say we were better off by earning it from bloodshed. Or rather, our very own blood being shed.
Quote
Guess i don't think on that deep a level
I find it can only be a good thing when I'm thinking about ending people's lives, destroying their livelihoods, toppling their nations, or uprooting their families. You might want to give it a try. Please don't read any sarcasm into that statement, I'm seriously trying to be as sincere and unvenomous as possible.Fistful:
Quote
Please don't pretend not to believe in objective moral standards when you are reprimanding us for being hard-hearted meanies. That doesn't make sense. I await your apology and you still need to admit you were wrong about the colonists being illegal aliens.
Who's reprimanding who? I've just been expressing opinions. The main one is that if one has moral objective standards they should probably only be applied to one's own self, not other people. After all, I have yet to meet someone who I want running my life. It seems that now the lines have been drawn I'm being treated like a mental defective for disagreeing.
Apologize? Show me where I've injured you and I will make amends.
In the literal sense, no, the colonists did not break any codified laws by settling where they did and expanding how they did. However, the effect is the same. Economy(ies) overturned, land taken, resources coopted. And since it seems that people are arguing about RIGHT and WRONG, then what's wrong then is wrong now.
Now I'm not saying the illegal immigrants or the colonists are WRONG or RIGHT (terms I generally don't apply to others actions), i'm saying that similarities can be drawn and the colonies obviously didn't have that bad of a result.
But here's what i mean to say: To say that the colonies were okay because there was no codified law against it and that this immigration is not okay because someone wrote something somewhere is pretty silly. Laws make crime.
Would you leave the country and denounce the USA if we found out that yes, it was true, the Colonialists did in fact break laws to emigrate?
Post by: grampster on May 17, 2006, 07:20:05 PM
The only variable in rebuttal to your argument is that 200 years ago we were dealing with smaller numbers with a large, undeveloped landmass.
Today we are dealing in larger numbers in the same landmass that is mostly developed with laws forcing income redistribution.
The greater the population in a developed landmass, the greater the demands on the resources.
Any comparison to the past, while having historical and educational value, is not germain today given the realities of human demands on resources.
Most of those who promote open borders are not necessarily acquainted with entropy.
Post by: Winston Smith on May 17, 2006, 07:30:22 PM
I have to say I generally agree with you, grampster. But I think if the government didn't suck up 1/3rd of every working persons resources (for in reality how much service) there would be alot more resources running around for sharing. So maybe the problem lies in actuality in another area.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 17, 2006, 08:48:40 PM
Quote from: Winston Smith
Who's reprimanding who? I've just been expressing opinions.
Read your post #23 in this thread. It is filled with your moral judgements about others beliefs and actions. Quote
I'm a leave me and other people the hell alone-ist
In my view rights are inherent, not government given.
What makes it ours? That were here? Well so are they. 12 million of them.
What makes me better than them? What makes me entitled to live here in this land of milk and honey and not them? Who am I to exclude them?
These are moral claims that other people should adhere to your standard of human rights and fair play. Even the idea of human rights is an explicitly moral concept that you expect me to follow. You should further consider that all law is based on moral beliefs, and as you are not an anarchist, you do believe in imposing your morality on others. So do I. In my view rights are inherent, not government given.
What makes it ours? That were here? Well so are they. 12 million of them.
What makes me better than them? What makes me entitled to live here in this land of milk and honey and not them? Who am I to exclude them?
Quote
It seems that now the lines have been drawn I'm being treated like a mental defective for disagreeing.
Well, you'll have that in most discussion forums, but I hope you'll tell me if I've done that. I gave up long ago thinking that people were stupid, just because they disagreed with me. Quote
Apologize? Show me where I've injured you and I will make amends.
I'm okay, but admitting your mistakes demonstrates intellectual honesty.Quote
Would you leave the country and denounce the USA if we found out that yes, it was true, the Colonialists did in fact break laws to emigrate?
What would that solve? I think your question is based on a poor understanding of the situation (even poorer than mine!) but let me save that for later. As far as I can tell, we most certainly pushed out American Indians and took their lands. Often, we dealt with them in a most treacherous manner. However, this cannot be undone and in fact undoing it would destroy the nation that is the best earthly hope for justice and freedom. And who would the land rightfully belong to? Pre-Columbian history is filled with warfare and migrations of peoples, much like that of the rest of the world. In fact, we have as good a claim to it as those our ancestors took it from, and they are long dead. I do not say that the end justifies the means. Rather, the means cannot be taken back or changed, and we are left with the ends, which we would not wish to change. However the Indians who occupied U.S. territory in the times of white expansion did not have modern nation-states. It is unwise to generalize overmuch about so many different groups, but as I understand it, they were as close to mercedesrules' anarchist vision as any group I can think of. Tribes or "nations" lived together and governed themselves loosely. A chief could command the alliegance of no one, but individuals often chose to follow his leadership. Any treaty made with another nation was binding on those present to make the treaty, so any in the group who didn't agree to the treaty could ignore it. Land boundaries were decided by treaties and warfare, and there were no standard procedures for those crossing over.
When the colonists came, some Indians chose to kill settlers, some made treaties, hoping the men with boomsticks could be powerful allies in their own wars and internecine rivalries, and some wanted to trade. Some protested, I am sure, but to compare this to our own laws and their enforcement is tricky, at best. One lesson to learn is this: let us not be over-run as we over-ran the American Indian. They failed to organize themselves to protect their land. They had no unified policy to regulate who should be allowed in or how. They fought among themselves.
I'm sure I could make my point far more cogently, were I not so sleepy.
Post by: Winston Smith on May 17, 2006, 09:07:46 PM
Quote
Quote
I'm a leave me and other people the hell alone-ist
In my view rights are inherent, not government given.
What makes it ours? That were here? Well so are they. 12 million of them.
What makes me better than them? What makes me entitled to live here in this land of milk and honey and not them? Who am I to exclude them?
These are moral claims that other people should adhere to your standard of human rights and fair play. Even the idea of human rights is an explicitly moral concept that you expect me to follow. You should further consider that all law is based on moral beliefs, and as you are not an anarchist, you do believe in imposing your morality on others. So do I.In my view rights are inherent, not government given.
What makes it ours? That were here? Well so are they. 12 million of them.
What makes me better than them? What makes me entitled to live here in this land of milk and honey and not them? Who am I to exclude them?
And I'm not an anarchist. I'm a leave me alone-ist. Even some anarchists beleive in forcing anarchy on people. Me, I think people can do whatever they want, as long as they don't force it on me.
Quote
Quote
It seems that now the lines have been drawn I'm being treated like a mental defective for disagreeing.
Well, you'll have that in most discussion forums, but I hope you'll tell me if I've done that. I gave up long ago thinking that people were stupid, just because they disagreed with me.I'm very interested in your point regarding the native americans. All I got out of your last post was a short history of it, with no thesis statement. I hope in the morning you post it. I feel like I'm learning a lot from this discussion.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 18, 2006, 03:25:12 AM
Quote from: Winston Smith
I felt when you said "I await your apology" it was pretty disrespectful.
No, just expressing my opinion. But you wouldn't shake your finger at me for being disrespectful, would you? That would be moralizing.I think the thesis was this:
Quote
When the colonists came, some Indians chose to kill settlers, some made treaties, hoping the men with boomsticks could be powerful allies in their own wars and internecine rivalries, and some wanted to trade. Some protested, I am sure, but to compare this to our own laws and their enforcement is tricky, at best. One lesson to learn is this: let us not be over-run as we over-ran the American Indian. They failed to organize themselves to protect their land. They had no unified policy to regulate who should be allowed in or how.
To be more succint, I think modern illegal immigration and the colonization of 17th century America is an apples/pineapples comparison.
Post by: Guest on May 18, 2006, 05:20:10 AM
About twenty years ago a very intelligent man, whom Ill call Robert (hes actually a sort of composite of several men), told me he was an anarchist. He didnt believe in any government, period.
At the time I considered myself a conservative, with libertarian leanings. Much as I respected Robert, I believed in limited government under the U.S. Constitution but none at all? That was taking a good idea too far, I thought.
Notice the illogic of my reaction. I was thinking of a philosophy as a matter of personal taste, as if you could draw an arbitrary line and stop there. Would you prefer a little bit of government, a moderate amount, or a lot of it? ....continued
Post by: Art Eatman on May 18, 2006, 06:15:34 AM
Any population is most comfortable when the newbies assimilate and are thus much less likely to be regarded as "others". That's the old biologically hard-wired thing all people have: A wariness about otherness. So, when any large number of newbies show up and don't make an effort to assimilate, problems will rise. When there is a deliberate disregard for the manners and mores of an existing society, the problems are even greater. Add in the fact of disregard for border-crossing laws and the emotions rise to what we're seeing today. Exacerbating the whole thing is the tax-dollar cost burden on the existing citizenry.
Other contributory factors tie in with what Grampster said. When I was born, the US population was just over 150 million. Hey, folks, I feel like there are just way too many people! Crowded beaches and highways and restaurants. Crowded highways. Crowded shopping malls. Land prices out of sight. And on and on.
We've used up a lot of our natural resources. Oil, natural gas, iron ore, silver and gold. We gotta import too much stuff that we need to try and maintain a standard of living for twice the number of people we had just 70-some years ago.
We got affluent, and quit having kids. It's less that welfare keeps people out of the job market; it's more that we're real short of young people. So, immigrants, whether legal or illegal.
Modern medicine has made it that my age group just isn't dying off fast enough, which is why investments in nursing homes and companies that make geriatric medicines and diapers for Old Farts are pretty good.
From a numbers standpoint, if you amnestied all illegals and fast-tracked legals and illegals into citizenship and got them into the Social Security system, there'd be a far better ratio of contributors to Old Farts. Fact. If you don't believe me, just look at the numbers. The unfunded liabilities of the SS system is in the single-digit trillions at 4.6 and rising. Medicare? A "mere" $32.1 trillion. That's trillion-with-a-t.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/3860772.html
You reckon maybe the Senate's vote might have been affected by those numbers?
"May you live in interesting times."
Art
Post by: Guest on May 18, 2006, 08:01:27 AM
Quote from: fistful
Quote from: mercedesrules
Don't blame me for your ignorance of market anarchy. You're on your own with this "explanation".
That's fine. Although with all property privately-owned, and with no law to keep folks in line, I would think people would be afraid to go anywhereQuote
Quote
I am against all wlefare/socialism, BTW.
Oh, I know you are. The problem is that when more immigrants come in to do low-wage jobs, few of them will assimilate and they and their children will change the political beliefs of our nation. Unless Mexicans and Central Americans are more libertarian than I think, our freedoms will shrink even farther as we are loaded down with further government entitlements. Which is why I mentioned France. Is that what you want?Post by: Perd Hapley on May 18, 2006, 08:12:42 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 18, 2006, 08:56:59 AM
But in the seventeenth century, did either side really understand borders, immigration or citizenship as we know them? The modern nation-state was still developing in Europe, from an earlier period when the continent was dotted with small kingdoms, principalities, duchies, free cities and the like. Had they any visas or customs checks at the borders? I don't know, although there were tarrifs and such.
So if settlers wished to enter the New World legally, how would they have gone about it? Making pacts, treaties, and alliances with the local nations or tribes would be one way, and that did happen, though I doubt it happened everywhere.
If they wished to assimilate into the local cultures, how would they do it? Well, first of all, they had no intention of doing this, but was there any place for them in the native cultures? I doubt many would have been welcomed, except perhaps as slaves. Like ancient tribes in the Old World, they considered themselves and their ways to be the best, and all others could go hang. Now of course, we do know of cases where Whites assimilated into Native cultures, but these are few and far between.
Any corrections are welcome, but my point is simply that illegal immigration may be a concept foreign to the Colonial/pre-Columbian milieu.
Post by: roo_ster on May 18, 2006, 01:43:58 PM
Quote from: Art
Does it really matter if the foreign laborers are in Bangladesh instead of Los Angeles?
Yes, it does. A lot.If it is done by illegal alien labor in LA, we have to provide that labor with USA/LA level of healthcare when the illegal alien gets injured. When the illegal in LA gets pregnant and has an anchor baby, we pay for that, too, at USA costs, not Bangladesh costs. When the anchor baby grows older and goes to school, we pay for that too.
If you have the choice between an illegal in LA or a Bangladeshi in Bangladesh, the rational choice is to outsource to Bangladesh.
Off Topic:
Quote from: WS
It seems that now the lines have been drawn I'm being treated like a mental defective for disagreeing.
No, not a mental defective. I would argue that you have been poorly served and miseducated, however. The old software saying, "garbage in, garbage out" applies. Garbage input through the best mind/CPU/software will result only in garbage output, not something useful. Winston Smith, I think you might benefit from reading some history texts written before 1970. Keep an eye open for primary sources. I like to haunt some of the bigger used book stores. I find all sorts of terrific, out of print history books for a pittance.
I detected so many factual errors in your arguments, I can not hope to possibly address them all with the rigor they deserve. Not error of opinion, but basic fact.
I feel like a doctor telling a patient they have been laboring under a handicap they were unaware of.
Good luck out west.
Post by: Guest on May 18, 2006, 02:08:27 PM
Quote from: jfruser
Quote from: Art
Does it really matter if the foreign laborers are in Bangladesh instead of Los Angeles?
Yes, it does. A lot.If it is done by illegal alien labor in LA, we have to provide that labor with USA/LA level of healthcare when the illegal alien gets injured. When the illegal in LA gets pregnant and has an anchor baby, we pay for that, too, at USA costs, not Bangladesh costs. When the anchor baby grows older and goes to school, we pay for that too.
Post by: garyk/nm on May 18, 2006, 02:31:04 PM
Quote from: mercedesrules
Quote from: jfruser
Quote from: Art
Does it really matter if the foreign laborers are in Bangladesh instead of Los Angeles?
Yes, it does. A lot.If it is done by illegal alien labor in LA, we have to provide that labor with USA/LA level of healthcare when the illegal alien gets injured. When the illegal in LA gets pregnant and has an anchor baby, we pay for that, too, at USA costs, not Bangladesh costs. When the anchor baby grows older and goes to school, we pay for that too.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 18, 2006, 03:31:43 PM
On the other hand (I think I'm on my third hand, now) we can't allow people to bleed to death in front of us, so someone's going to have to pay for healthcare. The patient ought to pay, but that won't always happen, especially if he dies on the table.
Post by: Winston Smith on May 18, 2006, 06:22:21 PM
Quote
I detected so many factual errors in your arguments, I can not hope to possibly address them all with the rigor they deserve. Not error of opinion, but basic fact.
Can you at least give me a few? I'd like to know where I'm miseducated, so to speak.Quote
"garbage in, garbage out" applies.
Okay so it's not my fault I'm a mental defective?And there's no excusing this:
Quote
you conceited bastard
Post by: Art Eatman on May 18, 2006, 07:39:01 PM
Art
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 18, 2006, 08:07:43 PM
Quote from: Winston Smith
And there's no excusing this:
I agree. That was uncalled for. Quote
you conceited bastard
Then again, he was responding to a rather dismissive comment on your part.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 18, 2006, 08:21:55 PM
Quote from: mercedesrules
I see you've fully accepted the state's demonization of Muslims.
I'm still waiting for you to admit that this statement is - well - detached from reality.
Post by: The Rabbi on May 19, 2006, 03:54:42 AM
Quote from: Art Eatman
jfruser, I didn't make myself clear: Whether a replacement worker is here or in Bangladesh, a U.S. citizen suffers if he loses his job to a lower-pay or below-scale person. Whether he loses his job to an illegal or to a Bangladeshi, his job--for all practical purposes--has been "out-sourced".
Art
Art, the other side of the issue is that for every citizen who so loses his job, about 1000 other citizens benefit by having lower priced goods and services. In some cases a company is able to continue employing people here only because they could outsource their most expensive operations. If not for that the entire company would shut down.
Art
Post by: roo_ster on May 19, 2006, 03:57:46 AM
Quote from: mercedesrules
Quote from: jfruser
Quote from: Art
Does it really matter if the foreign laborers are in Bangladesh instead of Los Angeles?
Yes, it does. A lot.If it is done by illegal alien labor in LA, we have to provide that labor with USA/LA level of healthcare when the illegal alien gets injured. When the illegal in LA gets pregnant and has an anchor baby, we pay for that, too, at USA costs, not Bangladesh costs. When the anchor baby grows older and goes to school, we pay for that too.
Accept? Yes. Taxation is not voluntary. If I decide not to pay and persist (in the face of gov't force) in resisting gov't attemps to claim what gov't considers its due, I will end up barricaded with a lot of guys wearing ninja suits pointing guns at me. It is hard to provide for a family when you have been burned beyond recognition by agents of the gov't.
So, what is one to do?
Though not an alcoholic, the following helps one deal with the reality of gov't gone wild and beyond the bounds of the COTUS:
Quote
God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
Taking, as He did, this sinful world
as it is, not as I would have it;
Trusting that He will make all things right
if I surrender to His Will;
That I may be reasonably happy in this life
and supremely happy with Him
Forever in the next.
Amen.
--Reinhold Niebuhr
At the moment, I can not roll back the welfare state and the extortionate taxation gov't exacts to support it. What I can do is work politically and morally towards that end and (this following point is key) ameliorate the effects the welfare state has on me, mine, and other citizens.to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
Taking, as He did, this sinful world
as it is, not as I would have it;
Trusting that He will make all things right
if I surrender to His Will;
That I may be reasonably happy in this life
and supremely happy with Him
Forever in the next.
Amen.
--Reinhold Niebuhr
Perhaps an analogy is in order:
A patient is given a diagnosis of cancer that may eventually prove fatal. The patient chooses to undergo chemotherapy and ratiation treatments, however, to make the cancer in them more tolerable. The patient holds on to the hope that the treatment may not only make their predicament more tolerable, but that, hopefully, the treatments will allow him to hold on long enough to find a cure.
Is that patient "defending" the cancer? Or is he doing the best he can given the cards he is dealt?
Post by: roo_ster on May 19, 2006, 04:03:23 AM
Quote from: Art Eatman
jfruser, I didn't make myself clear: Whether a replacement worker is here or in Bangladesh, a U.S. citizen suffers if he loses his job to a lower-pay or below-scale person. Whether he loses his job to an illegal or to a Bangladeshi, his job--for all practical purposes--has been "out-sourced".
Art
Yep, that job is gone & the guy who used to do it has to find work elsewhere.Art
I took that as given.
The two situations are the same to the guy who lost his job...but not to the rest of us, especially us taxpayers.
Post by: Art Eatman on May 19, 2006, 06:01:44 AM
What concerns me as we go through this transitionary period in world trade and all the changes that are happening is, "If we keep replacing highly-paid folks with low-paid folks, whence cometh the money with which to consume?" WalMart (et al) prices are low, but so much other stuff keeps getting more expensive. Anything which is energy-dependent is rising in cost to the producr and price to the consumer.
You've noticed the news articles about fears of serious unrest in Mexico? And the politics, leading up to the July elections? I don't foresee any slowdown in north-bound folks; if anything, the converse. You think we have problems now? Just wait!
Interesting times...
Art
Post by: roo_ster on May 19, 2006, 08:55:21 AM
Quote from: Winston Smith
Quote
I detected so many factual errors in your arguments, I can not hope to possibly address them all with the rigor they deserve. Not error of opinion, but basic fact.
Can you at least give me a few? I'd like to know where I'm miseducated, so to speak.Actually, they were as legal as you can be in those times, as can be seen at the Avalon Project.
Also, most of the FFs were born in America (with the exception of Alexander Hamilton).
Did the American Indians grant us amnesty?
The entire concept of codified law in general and amnesty in particular were unknown to most American Indians. Most were literally stone age hunter/gatherer tribes, some more sophisticated than others.
Did the mexicans when we took the southwest?
Not applicable. See Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
Also maybe the problem is more overpriced goods than too-high wages. And where do the overpriced goods come from? too high wages...
The market economy (with some ham-handed intervention by .gov) usually determines price. The component of cost attributable to labor varies with the product. For instance, the labor component of, say, lawn mowing is higher relative to the labor component of petroleum or iceberg lettuce.
...I'm pretty sure that smallpox blankets broke some sort of law.
I have never, in my formal & informal studies of history, come across a primary source indicating that there was an organized effort to spread smallpox through the North American Indian population.
There are some other objections, as well:
1. Germ theory did not exist when this was supposed to occur.
Code:
# van Leeuwenhoek, Anton (1670s)
# Semmelweis, Ignaz (1840s)
# Pasteur,Louis (1860s)
# Lister, Joseph (1860s)
# Koch, Robert (1870s)
# Iwanowski, Dmitri (1890s)
# Fleming, Alexander (1920s)
2. Even if it is given that the colonists waged biological warfare against the indians, why smallpox? Why not influenza, bubonic plague, measels, or something else? Or do we also have to assume that smallpox was determined by early colonists to be the one (of several) diseases which North America had not been exposed?# Semmelweis, Ignaz (1840s)
# Pasteur,Louis (1860s)
# Lister, Joseph (1860s)
# Koch, Robert (1870s)
# Iwanowski, Dmitri (1890s)
# Fleming, Alexander (1920s)
3. Does it not make more sense to attribute that the indians contracted smallpox the same way that europeans contracted plague and other diseases that originated in the Orient: through human contact & commerce?
4. Was there similar counter-warfare conducted by the indians against the colonists, since the colonists contracted diseases heretofore unknown to Europe? Were the indians pushing syphillic whores on the colonists since the indians--somehow--figured out that syphillis was new to europeans?
It does not pass the sniff test outside of university departments named "*-studies" or PC textbooks where history is boiled down to Sacajewia, Harriet Tubman, and the Buffalo Soldiers.
This myth rates right up there with the myth that Cleopatra was black and that sub-saharan african engineers discovered and implemented manned flight.
Laws make criminals.
Our lawyers can speak up, but there are essentially two kinds of laws: laws against things that are in and of themselves wrong (murder, rape, theft, etc.) and laws making certain acts/things illegal (zoning, nusiance weed ordinances, transporting vegetable matter across state lines, etc).
What makes me entitled to live here in this land of milk and honey and not them?
I assume you are a US citizen. All others have no right to even step foot on US soil, just as I have no right to bust in your apartment door and pop a squat in your living room.
Who am I to exclude them?
You are a citizen of the USA, a sovereign nation. US citizens, through their representatives, have the authority to let in whom we will, in whatever proportion we want, from wherever we want, with whatever skills/qualifications we dictate...or no one at all. It is our call to make, not anybody else's.
These people pay taxes. It's just in the form of working for so low wages so employers can charge cheaper prices.
Lower wages relative to someone else doing the same job is not equivalent to paying taxes. It is more in the nature of a subsidy to the employer by the taxpayers.
Those selfsame hospitals that are being closed due to illegal immigrants were probably built and painted and cleaned by illegal immigrants.
Assume that what you write is true. So, it is OK to cause the county hospitals to go tango uniform and bleed the local taxpayers dry, as long as some illegal alien, sometime, scrubbed one of the toilets?
The great likelihood is that those hospitals closed were not built with illegal alien labor, as they were built before the great post-1965 influx. The influx led many localities to close public hospitals and private hospitals to go bankrupt:
Quote
Bankrupt hospital serving Hispanic immigrants closing
Submitted by Editor on August 16, 2004 - 16:00. Health
Los Angeles, AP - A financially troubled hospital that served as a principal care destination for Hispanic immigrants must now close its doors and it has many concerned the closure will overwhelm resources in the city's remaining emergency rooms.
A federal bankruptcy judge Friday ordered the Elastar Community Hospital in East Los Angeles to shut down. The 80-year-old hospital has racked up more than $10 million in debt and it couldn't afford to pay its roughly 400 workers.
The hospital filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection last fall, but it didn't work. It has since been placed under Chapter 7 protection, which allows for a court-appointed trustee to begin liquidating its assets.
Elastar is the third hospital with an emergency room to close in the county this year.
"We cannot stand any more closures in an emergency system capacity in Los Angeles - this system is on the brink of absolute chaos," said Jim Lott, the executive vice president of the Hospital Assn. of Southern California.
Lemme see, 2004-80=1924. 41 years before the flood across the borders started.Submitted by Editor on August 16, 2004 - 16:00. Health
Los Angeles, AP - A financially troubled hospital that served as a principal care destination for Hispanic immigrants must now close its doors and it has many concerned the closure will overwhelm resources in the city's remaining emergency rooms.
A federal bankruptcy judge Friday ordered the Elastar Community Hospital in East Los Angeles to shut down. The 80-year-old hospital has racked up more than $10 million in debt and it couldn't afford to pay its roughly 400 workers.
The hospital filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection last fall, but it didn't work. It has since been placed under Chapter 7 protection, which allows for a court-appointed trustee to begin liquidating its assets.
Elastar is the third hospital with an emergency room to close in the county this year.
"We cannot stand any more closures in an emergency system capacity in Los Angeles - this system is on the brink of absolute chaos," said Jim Lott, the executive vice president of the Hospital Assn. of Southern California.
When my family visited Big Bend last year, we brought our 6MO boy with. Many times, in conversation with folks who lived nearby & on the way, the conversation turned to kids and the birthing of same.
When dining in the Reata restaurant in Alpine, Texas, we had a pleasant conversation with a BP officer & his pregnant wife. We learned that the closest labor & delivery ward in Midland, Texas was a 3 1/2 hour trip. Practically, if you wanted your baby born in a hospital, it had to be scheduled for induction or ceasarian.
A similar conversation was drummed up with the fellow who runs the Starlight Theater (restaurant) down on the border. His wife was was expecting and they planned on a home birth. If she wanted to birth her child in a hospital with a L&D ward & real, live OB/GYNs, she would have to drive 5 hours from the border to Midland.
These hospital closings have serious, deleterious effects on American citizens.
And when I talk about the Mexican Southwest being taken, I mean from the Mexicans. Texas, California, and other states were once part of the Mexican Empire. Look up: James Polk, Mexican American War.
Yep, I have. Wars have consequences. If you provoke one to rally popular support and lose, you usually end up taking it in the face. A more contemporary example would be the Faulkland Islands War. Yet another junta of latin american strongmen thought a military expedition to carve a little territory off an anglo country would be just the thing to solidify their political position. They choose...poorly.
And from whom did the Mexicans take Mexico? The Spanish. From whom did the Spanish take Mexico? The collection of indian tribes...with the help of other indian tribes who did not like being ruled by the Aztecs.
I mean, seriously, remember the Alamo, glorious battle fought so that Texans could own the slaves that the Mexicans didn't want them to.
Yes, the Mexican gov't had laws against slavery, but did not enforce them on anglos or mexicans. Kinda like our laws against employing illegal aliens.
You don't think there might have been more to it, since the vast majority of Texas did not own slaves? Maybe freedom of religion? A dislike of Mexican troops disarming Texans? Or maybe that they feared Santa Ana might do to them what he did to Zacatecas?
Quote
On May 11, 1835, Francisco GarcÃa's militia, was defeated at the Battle of Guadalupe by the forces of General Antonio López de Santa Anna. After his brutal victory, Santa Anna's forces ransacked the city of Zacatecas and the rich silver mines at Fresnillo. He then granted his soldiers two days of rape and pillage in which 2000 non-combatants were killed. Soon after this battle, President Santa Anna began calling himself "The Napoleon of the West".
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Quote from: Winston Smith
Quote
"garbage in, garbage out" applies.
Okay so it's not my fault I'm a mental defective?I'll be a bit more blunt in what I think the deal is: sh-t in your brains, not sh-t for brains. The brains seem to be working, but they have been fed ersatz facts rather than the real thing.
Why do I think this? Because you have some facility when expressing yourself in text. This is not a perfect proxy for mental facility, but it does point in that direction. Then you use that facility along with crap data to come to your conclusions.
For example, Ptolomy was a sharp fellow. But he was completely wrong in his conception of the solar system (geocentric). He just did not have good enough data. Fast forward to Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo. They were able to get it right (heliocentric), not because they were smart & Ptolomy was dumb, but because they were able to feed their minds with quality data.
Like I wrote before, older books (especially contemporaneous accounts), tend to be freer of politically correct nonsense such as the "Cleopatra was black," and "the colonists intentionally sold smallpox-ridden blankets," and "America was full of happy, in-touch-with-nature indigeonous folk who rarely warred on each other."
Quote from: Winston Smith
And there's no excusing this:
Yep, it is best to keep communication cordial, no matter what you may think to yourself.
Quote
you conceited bastard
Post by: The Rabbi on May 19, 2006, 10:25:45 AM
Quote from: Art Eatman
Rabbi, I'm fully aware of the benefits to the consumer. Hell's bells, I are one!
What concerns me as we go through this transitionary period in world trade and all the changes that are happening is, "If we keep replacing highly-paid folks with low-paid folks, whence cometh the money with which to consume?" WalMart (et al) prices are low, but so much other stuff keeps getting more expensive. Anything which is energy-dependent is rising in cost to the producr and price to the consumer.
You've noticed the news articles about fears of serious unrest in Mexico? And the politics, leading up to the July elections? I don't foresee any slowdown in north-bound folks; if anything, the converse. You think we have problems now? Just wait!
Interesting times...
Art
Art, we have been transitioning for like 30 years. Remember all those steel mills around Pittsburg? I doubt there is one left. They were some of the most highly paid workers in America. And those pay scales ruined the companies so now no one works for a steel co in Pittsburg (probably an overstatement here but you get the point). Meanwhile P'burg is not a depressed slum but a city with a large base of medical research, high tech, etc. What concerns me as we go through this transitionary period in world trade and all the changes that are happening is, "If we keep replacing highly-paid folks with low-paid folks, whence cometh the money with which to consume?" WalMart (et al) prices are low, but so much other stuff keeps getting more expensive. Anything which is energy-dependent is rising in cost to the producr and price to the consumer.
You've noticed the news articles about fears of serious unrest in Mexico? And the politics, leading up to the July elections? I don't foresee any slowdown in north-bound folks; if anything, the converse. You think we have problems now? Just wait!
Interesting times...
Art
It isnt a question of whether we outsource those jobs or not. We could more easily legislate the tides. It is a question of whether we can create policies that will ease that process, lower taxes and regulation chiefly.
Post by: Guest on May 19, 2006, 12:25:25 PM
Quote
you conceited bastard
The word I was looking for was arrogant. You want to be taken seriously when answering discourse with this:?Quote
Hahah "better," oh you moral objectivists!
I'm sticking to my guns on this one. Arrogant. sorry about delayed response, i've been without ISP