Joe Legal Vs Jose Illegal

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]archiewhittaker wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]archiewhittaker wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]archiewhittaker wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]archiewhittaker wrote:

“Tell me, BR, can you read through the propaganda, between the lines, and comprehend that the same teqniques were implemented when the national socialists were “building up” their case against jews?” ← you comparing your opponents to Nazis.[/quote]

No, that is not an example of comparing my “opponents” to Nazis, but it sure seems to be an effective way of making you whine. I was comparing old rhetoric to new rhetoric.
In order to understand exactly what I’m writing about, you should read “Landlich Ethik” and “Neues Volk”. They both started out as equivalents to Britain’s “Telegraph”, but ended up as propaganda leaflets.

(I am in no way suggesting that the OP:s text will end up sending Mexicans to the gas-chambers, so please… please. Take it as a history lesson, only.)[/quote]

Do you generally relate all such “propoganda” to nazis, or just ones you don’t like?

quote]

It’s spelled P-R-O-P-A-G-A-N-D-A.
Do you think I conlude that a lot of things I don’t agree with, are Nazi-related? I don’t make a habit of drawing those paralells, but in this case, there are lots of similarities! You would agree with me after you’ve read what I suggested you read, and I’m sure you’ll take my advice, instead of whining and misspelling simple words.[/quote]

No, I was wondering if you point out leftist prop-a-ganda as nazi when there are parallels.

Would you not agree there were many parallels between the propaganda of US presidents like FDR and that of nazism? Doesn’t that make liberal rhetoric nazi-ish?

My point being, politics is full of propaganda inside and out. Why did you feel the specific need to point it out here? (even though you’ve yet to prove it propaganda at all)

Oh, and I apologize for missing 1 letter in an uncommon word.

teqniques TECHNIQUES

conlude CONCLUDE

paralells PARALLELS

These are just the spelling mistakes I see within the post you mock me for spelling. I didn’t feel like pointing out some of your erroneous punctuation.

You make me feel like I need to get out a crayon to reply to you at your own level.

62

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]archiewhittaker wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]archiewhittaker wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]archiewhittaker wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]archiewhittaker wrote:

“Tell me, BR, can you read through the propaganda, between the lines, and comprehend that the same teqniques were implemented when the national socialists were “building up” their case against jews?” ← you comparing your opponents to Nazis.[/quote]

No, that is not an example of comparing my “opponents” to Nazis, but it sure seems to be an effective way of making you whine. I was comparing old rhetoric to new rhetoric.
In order to understand exactly what I’m writing about, you should read “Landlich Ethik” and “Neues Volk”. They both started out as equivalents to Britain’s “Telegraph”, but ended up as propaganda leaflets.

(I am in no way suggesting that the OP:s text will end up sending Mexicans to the gas-chambers, so please… please. Take it as a history lesson, only.)[/quote]

Do you generally relate all such “propoganda” to nazis, or just ones you don’t like?

quote]

It’s spelled P-R-O-P-A-G-A-N-D-A.
Do you think I conlude that a lot of things I don’t agree with, are Nazi-related? I don’t make a habit of drawing those paralells, but in this case, there are lots of similarities! You would agree with me after you’ve read what I suggested you read, and I’m sure you’ll take my advice, instead of whining and misspelling simple words.[/quote]

No, I was wondering if you point out leftist prop-a-ganda as nazi when there are parallels.

Would you not agree there were many parallels between the propaganda of US presidents like FDR and that of nazism? Doesn’t that make liberal rhetoric nazi-ish?

My point being, politics is full of propaganda inside and out. Why did you feel the specific need to point it out here? (even though you’ve yet to prove it propaganda at all)

Oh, and I apologize for missing 1 letter in an uncommon word.

teqniques TECHNIQUES

conlude CONCLUDE

paralells PARALLELS

These are just the spelling mistakes I see within the post you mock me for spelling. I didn’t feel like pointing out some of your erroneous punctuation.

You make me feel like I need to get out a crayon to reply to you at your own level.[/quote]

I had a feeling you weren’t quite done whining yet. Get your crayon out, big boy.

“Would you not agree there were many parallels between the propaganda of US presidents like FDR and that of nazism?”
The Nazi propaganda itself was very unlike any other political propaganda, because it produced unreal/horrible results. It was aimed at a “domestic enemy” (jews,gypsies) , while US propaganda was aimed at the Jap. Emperor, and the axis soldiers. Yes, the U.S. created internments camps for the Japanese, but they weren’t blamed for the economy. It was a paranoid response, as I’m sure you know.

Domestic Enemy - are you following along with your crayon? The OP:s text was not exactly criticizing the President of Mexico.

Another Disclaimer: I’m not CALLING anybody a nazi. Please understand that. Even if I knew the name of the person that wrote the text, he/she is not a nazi. People agreeing with it are not Nazi’s. Damn.

BTW, you are clearly an expert on Hispanic immigration into California, what’s it like in your state? Let’s get back on track, nobody has been called a Nazi.

63

I’m really not interested in reading posts from a person who smears with Nazi accusations and then pretends such a meaning was never there. Or in reading posts from spelling flamers. There’s some stuff that is simply crap that is not worth reading, and I can’t imagine anything fitting the bill any more closely than does the above.

64

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I’m really not interested in reading posts from a person who smears with Nazi accusations and then pretend such a meaning was never there. Or in reading posts from spelling flamers. There’s some stuff that is simply crap that is not worth reading, and I can’t imagine anything fitting the bill any more closely than does the above.[/quote]

Leave the thread.

65

[quote]archiewhittaker wrote:

I had a feeling you weren’t quite done whining yet. Get your crayon out, big boy.

[/quote]
Whining is asking a very simple very straightforward question pertaining to your post and thoughts? I donâ??t think you know what the word means.

Why are you continually avoiding a very simple question?

Results have little do with that actual event in question. Something is not generally classified as bad or good because of result. Either way, you specifically point out later in your post, that this is in contrast to the original post.

So jap internment camps were not like the Nazis because it was a â??paranoid responseâ??? This directly contradicts your previous point of results being a judgment criteria.

Besides, much of the US propaganda was locally driven (Blue eagle program, selling domestic social policy, est.)

Then PLEASE answer the question? Why did you feel the need to bring up the Nazis? Itâ??s pretty obvious you donâ??t do it other times it would be as warranted.

[quote]

BTW, you are clearly an expert on Hispanic immigration into California, what’s it like in your state? Let’s get back on track, nobody has been called a Nazi.[/quote]

I donâ??t know where you got this. This is some of the worst made up crap you’ve invented yet.

66

476×600 89.3 KB

Even visual themes are nazi like.

67

Now you’re just trolling.

Since you refuse to look at ACTUAL nazi propaganda contrasted with the text, it’s pointless to keep answering your questions.

Thread could be more than a pissing match, you know. For example, answer this: how’s Tennessee, you see a bunch of day-laborers outside of hardware stores? Any “illegals” pissing you off in traffic/getting rich while you spiral down into peasantry? (sarcasm)
Stick to the topic from now on, unless you don’t understand how uncomplicated hateful/erroneous doctrine can be disguised as “truth”.

68

[quote]archiewhittaker wrote:

Stick to the topic from now on, unless you don’t understand how uncomplicated hateful/erroneous doctrine can be disguised as “truth”.
[/quote]

Take your own advice.

I asked people to discuss the truths/untruths to the original post. Given you are from CA like me, do you think the billions we spend on the programs for illegals are a good thing?

Is this spending for them contributing to our deficit?

Do you think it’s ok to work under the table and take money from CA entitlement programs??

Do you think that we should keep subsidizing and rewarding illegal crossings on our border?

Nothing written here is hateful. It’s just one concerned man stating the facts of how these people work our system to benefit from a government that takes money from legal workers to give to illegal “workers”.

69

There seems to be an assumption by a lot of people here that illegals are privvy to all the same benefits that citizens are, or even that they can get a comparable amount of benefits. They cannot. According to FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform) the cost of illegal immigration on the state of California is about 9 billion a year. This number takes into account any taxes paid by illegals. However, only about 1.5 billion of that is from social services/healthcare benefits. Here is a link showing what illegals do and do not get in America.

http://www.workingforamerica.org/documents/checklist.asp

The bulk of the cost accrued by California from illegals is education and then incarceration. The incarceration part would be easy to overcome: they get arrested for committing a crime? No trial; ship them back across the border.

But the education part is more problematic and it accounts for more than 7 billion of the cost to California. Should the children of illegals born stateside be given access to public education? I think so, but I think that the children of illegal immigrants not born here in America should be excluded. I don’t know how many of these children are or are not born here, but I’d be willing to bet that most of them are born here rather than snuck across the border as children.

Another thing to think about: the availability of a cheap labor force guarantees lower prices for a wide variety of services and goods. Food grown, packaged and shipped by illegals is provided to us at a lower cost than it would be if the owners of these products had to hire citizens at decidedly higher costs, especially if they had to provide healthcare. Commercial and residential construction costs are likewise affected.

Does the benefit that we enjoy from products that would most likely be more expensive without a cheap work force outweigh the cost we accrue to maintain that workforce?

70

Let us examine that argument.

Scenario A - we allow illegals to remain, pay them a very low wage, in exchange for low prices of low-skilled services. We also spend for the entitlements that come along with a high illegal alien population. That includes education, welfare, government assistance, health care, and incarceration. They mostly use an underground economy to save their money, as they send a good portion of it back home.

Scenario B - we remove all illegal aliens, causing workers in those respective fields to be paid minimum wage, but having citizens and legal residents who will recycle the money back into the economy through the regular purchase of goods and services. Because of this reduced or eliminated illegal population, we have a massive reduction in costs in education, incarceration, health care, welfare, government assistance, reduced cost of car insurance, reduced strain in city infrastructure, decrease in crime, reduced negative gentrification, and reduced level of poverty.

From a financial prospective, which has a higher cost?

71

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Let us examine that argument.

Scenario A - we allow illegals to remain, pay them a very low wage, in exchange for low prices of low-skilled services. We also spend for the entitlements that come along with a high illegal alien population. That includes education, welfare, government assistance, health care, and incarceration. They mostly use an underground economy to save their money, as they send a good portion of it back home.

Scenario B - we remove all illegal aliens, causing workers in those respective fields to be paid minimum wage, but having citizens and legal residents who will recycle the money back into the economy through the regular purchase of goods and services. Because of this reduced or eliminated illegal population, we have a massive reduction in costs in education, incarceration, health care, welfare, government assistance, reduced cost of car insurance, reduced strain in city infrastructure, decrease in crime, reduced negative gentrification, and reduced level of poverty.

From a financial prospective, which has a higher cost? [/quote]

In scenario A, how many of those businesses would remain viable without the available cheap labor force? It’s not out of the question by any means to assume that there would be businesses that fail if they had to take on the added cost of more expensive labor. This would transfer a larger cost onto taxpayers in the form of unemployment and other similar costs.

Also, in Scenario B the only cost that probably would make any significant difference regarding the cost to the state (keeping in mind the possibility of an increase in failed businesses due to added costs) is education. That is a significant savings for the state (7 billion a year). But the other savings are pretty insignificant. Incarceration and healthcare/social services only account for about 2 billion a year. Given we are facing a 40 billion dollar deficit this year, it’s hardly the social services or the limited amount of healthcare benefits available to illegals that is bankrupting the state.

72

Your numbers are WAY off. The state deficit is 20 billion, not 40 billion.

http://www.lao.ca.gov/2009/bud/fiscal_outlook/fiscal_outlook_111809.aspx

“Our forecast of Californiaâ??s General Fund revenues and expenditures shows that the state must address a General Fund budget problem of $20.7 billion between now and the time the Legislature enacts a 2010â??11 state budget plan. The budget problem consists of a $6.3 billion projected deficit for 2009â??10 and a $14.4 billion gap between projected revenues and spending in 2010â??11. Addressing this large shortfall will require painful choicesâ??on top of the difficult choices the Legislature made earlier this year.”

From your numbers in education and incarceration, you have saved 9 billion, we are now talking 45% of the deficit. 45% of anything is worth looking in to. Not to mention the welfare from illegals costing nearly a billion a year, and that is in the County of Los Angeles alone. That is not reflective of the whole state.

/thread.

73

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Your numbers are WAY off. The state deficit is 20 billion, not 40 billion.

http://www.lao.ca.gov/2009/bud/fiscal_outlook/fiscal_outlook_111809.aspx

“Our forecast of Californiaâ??s General Fund revenues and expenditures shows that the state must address a General Fund budget problem of $20.7 billion between now and the time the Legislature enacts a 2010â??11 state budget plan. The budget problem consists of a $6.3 billion projected deficit for 2009â??10 and a $14.4 billion gap between projected revenues and spending in 2010â??11. Addressing this large shortfall will require painful choicesâ??on top of the difficult choices the Legislature made earlier this year.”

From your numbers in education and incarceration, you have saved 9 billion, we are now talking 45% of the deficit. 45% of anything is worth looking in to.

/thread. [/quote]

Well, you’re right on the deficit I suppose. I went and looked at the number I found and realized that the PROJECTED deficit by June of this year is 42 billion, but this projection is from over a year ago. I have agreed all along that immigration reform, on a massive scale, is necessary for this state to survive; I’m simply trying to play devil’s advocate here and to point out that the bulk of the cost of illegal immigration does not come from entitlement programs (I don’t consider public education an entitlement program in the same vein as welfare and other such services). As far as the deficit, I was wrong and stand corrected. Take note Pushharder: it’s ok to admit when one is wrong.

To move to another, but equally relevant, point; how do you propose the state keep illegals out? I think the only way to effectively keep them out is to build a wall at the border, but something about this just doesn’t sit well with me. It always reminds of the saying “walls to keep people out can also be used to keep people in.”

I suppose a massive increase in border patrols could suffice, but wouldn’t this cost possibly end up being similar to the 9 billion a year cost we currently are looking at anyway?

74

Build a wall, put the military on the border, mandatory E-Verify for all businesses, no citizenship for anchor babies, you have to give them no incentive to come here.

75

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Build a wall, put the military on the border, mandatory E-Verify for all businesses, no citizenship for anchor babies, you have to give them no incentive to come here. [/quote]

There’s something I’ve been thinking about a lot lately and it may have some relevancy here. In California, the biggest cash crop (other than weed) is rice. But water pollution is one of the largest, if not the largest source of pollution in the state. Agriculture is the largest source of water pollution by far. However, we subsidize farmers by paying them not to grow rice in some years and we also subsidize them by providing them with water at about 6$ per acre foot whereas the rest of the state pays anywhere from 5-6 grand per acre foot. This would be fine, except that anywhere from 45-60% of the rice grown here is shipped out of the country. It’s agricultural welfare to a certain degree.

What if half of the rice farms were eliminated? A lot of jobs would be lost, but why subsidize an industry that is being paid to pollute the shit out of our water so they can provide the Southeast Asia and Europe with rice? We could cut the farms in half, cut the water pollution way down, lessen the taxes used to subsidize these farms, lessen the taxes used to clean this water up as it enters the ocean and the SF Bay, and remove a huge incentive for illegals to come here?

I live in the middle of the North Valley here in California and it’s the biggest rice-growing region in the world. Believe me, the farmers out here are the super-rich; they’re hardly existing on the verge of bankruptcy and virtually all of their employees are illegals. If half the farmland used for rice was eliminated, I suppose half the jobs would go, but that means a huge cut in illegal labor, a huge drop in the demand for it and a potentially huge drop in state expenditures to subsidize the pollution of the state so that China can get enough rice in their diet.

76

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Build a wall, put the military on the border, mandatory E-Verify for all businesses, no citizenship for anchor babies, you have to give them no incentive to come here illegally. [/quote]

x2 with a minor change

77

Illegal immigrants support social security by billions of dollars even though they are not eligble to receive the benefits.

They are a burden to states but over a lifetime an illegal immigrant will actually pay more in taxes than he receives in benefits.

78

[quote]archiewhittaker wrote:
Now you’re just trolling.

Since you refuse to look at ACTUAL nazi propaganda contrasted with the text, it’s pointless to keep answering your questions.

[/quote]
Keep answering? I’ve been asking 1 question, over and over. You haven’t answered one yet. The rest of my post has been a factual rebuttal of your arguments. If you don’t want to adress them, fine, but don’t pretend you’re tired of answering when the truth is that you’re tired of dodging.

First off, I don’t how living in TN disqualifies me from calling you out on your asinine claims. I actually haven’t yet made any statements about illegals. I’ve only reflected on your assertions. This is once again another red herring you are throwing out because you can’t address my points.

You are the one who tried to use the negative association of Nazis to detract from the other side. I called you out on it. You proceed to back track, dodge the question, and now tell me I’m off topic for discussing YOUR assertion.

You have yet to point out any flaws in the original post other than relating it to nazi propaganda. If you’d wanted this line of discussion to stop, you simply could have admitted what you did, and admitted it was a dumb argument. Instead, you decided to drag it out, defend your dumb post, and get beaten up. Oh, but I’m off topic.

79

What I think this whole thread boils down to is this. The people on the bottom of the “pay into it” scale should be better off than the people at the top of the “recieve aid” scale. No ifs ands or buts. If you have a scale where you CAn be better off for doing less than for doing more, there is going to be problems. Jose Illegal comes here because it is very beneficial for him to do so. Why the hell else would he? He isn’t coming here if it sucks here.

2 solutions, ratchet up the tax line so you have to earn even more money before you start paying into the system. This in my opinion is a horrible idea as you will have even less revenue and even more beneficiaries. The other solution is to reduce the benefits to the beneficiaries, and or lower the threshold for which one starts actually paying into the system.

I want the US to be a place where if you don’t pay taxes, you are dirt poor, living in a shithole, you are skinny because you can only afford so much food. You have ratty old clothes because you have to stretch a pair of jeans for 6 years. I mean really poor people, and then you don’t need to work and I’m not going to bitch, but it’s not goin to be a party for you.

I know a couple who are living together and have a child together. They aren’t married and the mother has a job. BUT because she is a single mother, she gets roughly $8-$10,000 per year from the federal government through various programs. He also works fa full time job and makes decent money. They file individually, he pays a small amount of taxes and she rakes in a huge check every year. If she didn’t get any money from the federal government, they would not be struggling at all, they would be fine. They don’t NEED the assistance, they are not helpless dirt poor people, they are just two people who found a way to milk a little out of the system and the governemnt just keeps writing the check.

Out of all the benefits the government gives out, not much of it goes to the people standing in bread lines at homeless shelters, the people who really have nothing. MOST of the money goes to people who just know or are in a position to work the system. Oh and guess who they supported openly in the elections. And I’ll even quote her, I almost threw up in my mouth when she said it too. here it is… “I’m voting for Obama, gotta keep that money coming in you know” Absolutely sick.

V

80

[quote]Vegita wrote:
What I think this whole thread boils down to is this. The people on the bottom of the “pay into it” scale should be better off than the people at the top of the “recieve aid” scale. No ifs ands or buts. If you have a scale where you CAn be better off for doing less than for doing more, there is going to be problems. Jose Illegal comes here because it is very beneficial for him to do so. Why the hell else would he? He isn’t coming here if it sucks here.

2 solutions, ratchet up the tax line so you have to earn even more money before you start paying into the system. This in my opinion is a horrible idea as you will have even less revenue and even more beneficiaries. The other solution is to reduce the benefits to the beneficiaries, and or lower the threshold for which one starts actually paying into the system.

I want the US to be a place where if you don’t pay taxes, you are dirt poor, living in a shithole, you are skinny because you can only afford so much food. You have ratty old clothes because you have to stretch a pair of jeans for 6 years. I mean really poor people, and then you don’t need to work and I’m not going to bitch, but it’s not goin to be a party for you.

I know a couple who are living together and have a child together. They aren’t married and the mother has a job. BUT because she is a single mother, she gets roughly $8-$10,000 per year from the federal government through various programs. He also works fa full time job and makes decent money. They file individually, he pays a small amount of taxes and she rakes in a huge check every year. If she didn’t get any money from the federal government, they would not be struggling at all, they would be fine. They don’t NEED the assistance, they are not helpless dirt poor people, they are just two people who found a way to milk a little out of the system and the governemnt just keeps writing the check.

Out of all the benefits the government gives out, not much of it goes to the people standing in bread lines at homeless shelters, the people who really have nothing. MOST of the money goes to people who just know or are in a position to work the system. Oh and guess who they supported openly in the elections. And I’ll even quote her, I almost threw up in my mouth when she said it too. here it is… “I’m voting for Obama, gotta keep that money coming in you know” Absolutely sick.

V[/quote]

I agree with you V.

I know of a family that was married making $100k a year, and one of their children needed an operation. They did not have medical insurance and now the child has a prexisting condition so they can not get insurance. What did they do? They got a divorce so the mother and the children go go on Medicaid and Welfare. They still live like they are a married couple. Infact the children do not even know about the divorce. This is just morally wrong and they are gaming the system, and our tax dollars are paying for their ignorance. The man still makes $100k a year. This is the minority so there are people that need help, but this type of gaming the system is just criminal.