"You have a teen-aged communist going to bat for you - watch your wallet. "
Dammit! You too?
How many times do I have to repeat that I’m not a communist.
[quote]nopal_juventus wrote:
"You have a teen-aged communist going to bat for you - watch your wallet. "
Dammit! You too?
How many times do I have to repeat that I’m not a communist. [/quote]
Walk like a duck, quack like a duck.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
I’m not asking for a civics lesson, hspder. It was a hypothetical. But the avenue of change you are advocating takes time - at least a year and 9 months from today.[/quote]
So it takes time. So what? Impatience does not justify taking matters into your own hands.
You know what? I think white, christian, heterossexual men are spoiled in this country. They had it easy for over 200 years. No right to fight for within these borders – they were always in control. Now that you see a situation were you are NOT in control, you want to take matters into your own hands and refuse to go through the motions.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
There are those out there who can see that there is no cavalry coming. No border patrol agents. They are left to fend for themselves.
What are the options for these folks if they are told to stop? The gov’t has yet to lift a finger, so trusting them to step up now would be a bit of a stretch.[/quote]
They need to go through the motions. Play within the system. Lobby. Be patient. Lobby again. Advertise. Rally.
When gays tried to take matters into their own hands in San Francisco, you cried foul. As you should – it was foul.
You keep talking about the “activist judges” that are so bad by also taking matters into their own hands.
So, if women, and blacks, and gays, and the pro-choice movement, and just about anyone that is not white, christian, and heterossexual cannot take matters into their own hands and have to go through the motions, why is this different?
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
BigMike wrote:
if you have a problem with illeagel aliens stop eating fruit , wine and vegi’s then have a boycott of all produce , if you think bush is really going to do anything about really really cheap labor coming over here and pumping money into SS then you are an idiot.
no one’s taking your jobs ,if you have a problem with mexicans you have a problem with the southwest region of the U.S. love it or leave it. ask your self who was here firs
pumping what money into SS? they TAKE money from social security, they don’t contribute. Illegal. As in paid under the table.
And who cares who was here first? It’s ours. We won it–back when we were an imperialistic nation ;)[/quote]
why don’t you read a news paper , they get fake id’s ,they get money taken out of there checks just like you and me
[quote]Al Shades wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:
Ya know Al, I can’t think of the last time we charged a Border Patrol officer with the task of saving Health Care. But you’re right. Those dang border cops are really screwing up Social Security reform, too. You know what I think would help? If they would get out there and make everyone get jobs and raise all these poor people out of poverty.
My fault. You’re right. The afore-mentioned professionals are not the ones charged with saving Social Security or winning the War on Drugs or any of the other things I mentioned. They are the ones responsible for keeping the border safe and closed off to illegal immigration. Just look at their success!
Question of the day: Did I really have to make this post, or do you simply enjoy pretending to be a moron?
[/quote]
Al
Your effort to join the post and make it about your self serving ego doesn’t work here. It has nothing to do with the people who have the job of patroling our borders, it does in fact have something to do with 2000 people protecting 2000 miles of open space.
Stay where you belong, on your own little threads where you are king of your own domain.
You (kid) are not wanted here, nor have you contributed one positive thing in your 2 posts.
I’m pretty sure that would make you the moron here. And not just someone -pretending- to be one.
"nopal_juventus wrote:
Oh really? You expect them to pay minimum wage? Think… why would a conservative white house promote illegal immigration? What do they gain from it?
Way to dodge the issue. Americians did the labor years before way before imagrants did. What changed?
Immigrants did the labor before illegal immigrants did. The only thing that changed were the specific immigrants that did it. Chinese and japanese immigrants started up the whole fruit/vegetable business.
“Things such as raising minumum wage to such a high level that
A: It eliminates the potential for people who don’t meet minmum wage requirements. If minumum wage is say 5 dollars, people will not hire someone who is only worth 4 dollars. There are lots of handicap, under qualified, and people with no knowladge of anything other then work. They can’t get jobs today because no one will hire them, because they can’t afford to.
B: When minumum wage goes up, everything else in production and sales go up. 2 dollars an hours would be just fine if people could live off that. If we didn’t have such a high inflation rate.”
No. when minimum wage goes up, aggregate supply (and output) goes down, so unemployment and prices rise. You get ‘stagflation’.
“Thus, a change in the wage rate paid by agricultural firms will have a significant impact on the wholesale and retail cost/price of fruits and vegetables” <---- Taken from How much is that Tomato in the Window. You merely chose some facts from the study that conviniently supported your point. You also forgot to mention that the study works under the impression that efficiency would be the same without illegal workers, which seems somewhat of a stretch to me.
“Listen buddy. The study also states that illeagal imagrants only count for a small fraction of the end cost. What you keep doing is taking the TOTAL money Cali makes off of agriculture, and not factoring in that only like 5% of these so called billions are generated by illegals. Take 95% OFF of that high number you are throwing around. Even if you paid legal workers twice as much, it would still only raise production costs by about 10% at the most, that is by and large NOT a big leap.”
You didn’t read what I posted. The study is conducted under the impression that efficiency would remain the same, which even the 2 guys conducting it admit it wouldn’t. There have also been many other studies that refute the findings of this one.
“The problem is not that people will not do the work, it is people like you saying “we don’t have to when they will”. Explain to me, please, who in the hell did the work before our large illegal population showed up? Americians. Why don’t they do it now? People like you sir, telling everyone how they should be able to sit on their fat ass and not do a thing, and gett large sums of money for it.”
Really? There’s nothing preventing someone like you from going there and working. I have worked in the fields.
“Lou Dobbs recently reported that 33 percent of our prison population is now comprised of non-citizens. Plus, 36 to 42 percent of illegal aliens are on welfare.”
I’d like to see these studies, as I have some in front of me that show that illegals are finding it harder and harder to actually use welfare (again, look up the latino raids). And if illegals were so expensive, why would the costs of them being here triple should they immigrate legally?
“Please sir, DEAL WITH THE ISSUE of our prison systems being so full off ileagal imagrants. I don’t have the welfare facts on me off hand, but I do the prison stats. The urban areas like california with large illegal populations also have some of the highest crime rates in the nation. You aren’t figuring that into your “cost off illegal immagrant” statements.”
Yes I am. The CIS concluded that about 18 percent of the ‘costs’ of illegals comes from prison maintanance.
"The growth in the prison population has largely been attributable to changes in law that increased the length of prison sentences. The recent slowdown in the growth is probably primarily due to the decrease in crime in California. The decline in 2002 and the relative small increases are also due to the voters approval of Proposition 36 in the November 2000 election, which will redirect some drug offenders into treatment rather than prison. " <— from the government website.
Instead of saying deal with it, show me the data that backs you up, like I have.
“…the average illegal household pays more than $4,200 a year in federal taxes, for a total of nearly $16 billion.” <— Taken from CIS findings.
Yet this apperantly isn’t enough to stop hospitals from closing is it?"
I’m merely showing that illegals do pay taxes. Again, show me the reasons why ‘all the hospitals’ have closed.
"What does, then, if more cops don’t? The answer is obvious, but it can be hard seeing the obvious sometimes. The better the economy, the lower the crime rate. There are many reasons for this, but let me just list three: idle hands, lack of need, lower stress.
A man down in Southern California wrote a little pamphlet called, “Three Reasons Why Police Increase Crime”.(1) In it, he shows, using computer models that the more cops you have, the more crime you have. Basically, he shows that the more money a town spends on cops, the less it spends on producing goods and services that can be offered to other towns. As a result, the more cops a town has, the worse its economy is. Therefore: the more cops a town has, the more crime it has.
I call bull on that. Using computer models? I am not aware that a comupter has yet been able to completley simulate human action. Other wise you would not have two cities, with the same police force size, and different crime-citizen ratios, which we have in our country.
Police do not cause or prevent crime, they enforce the law."
Again, it looks like you just read the first sentence and threw the rest out. It doens’t say that cops directly increase the crime rate. It says that when funds are spent on things like cops, poverty increases, and this causes an increase in the crime rate.
“In the year 2000 California had an estimated population of 33,871,648 which ranked the state 1st in population. For that year the State of California had a total Crime Index of 3,739.7 reported incidents per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 30th highest total Crime Index”
30th out of 50 isn’t exactly one of the highest…
Lets see, doing a crime-population ratio in one of the largest populated states in the nation? How about this, compare the total crime in California with the rest of the US, instead of doing a crime-citizen ratio.
Or better yet, compare crime rates in highly populated illegal areas to that of less illegals. Heck, most of the crime happens in souther Cali and not northern. Try runing that stat, but only do the study on southern cali. You are factoring in northern Cali, which has a lower crime rate then southern. "
So you want the gross crime rate instead of a per-10,000 citizens one? That’s like analyzing the economic development of the U.S. and Luxembourg via GDP instead of per-capita GDP. You can’t compare that way.
http://www.losangelesalmanac.com/topics/Crime/cr02.htm <----L.A. crime rate. LA has traditionally been ‘infested’ with illegals (to borrow from rainjack’s vocabulary), yet it experiences a steady decrease in both violent and property crime rate. Gee willickers, but the illegals are supposed to be crazy gangbangers. This is the same stereotype that puts so many innocent ethnic minorities behind bars (mostly blacks and latinos).
"Walk like a duck, quack like a duck. "
Oh, so just because I don’t say flat out that communism is evil and capitalism/imperialism rocks, I’m automatically a communist? Same way if I dennounce Bush I’m a democrat/liberal?
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
And who cares who was here first? It’s ours. We won it–back when we were an imperialistic nation 
[/quote]
Were an imperialistic nation…hahaha.
“And who cares who was here first? It’s ours. We won it–back when we were an imperialistic nation ;)”
So you’re/we’re not now? You didn’t ‘win’ it. Polk just looked for an excuse to get California, so he provoked a war with Mexico and invaded without real reason. For Christ’s sake, even Lincoln opposed the war! I’ve already said it twice here.
"Absolutely not. Both of those countries have market-based economies. The most accurate description of their system is “State Capitalism”. Way to many people talk about communism without knowing anything about it.
And to the guy saying you were comparing the US to a “communist country”, first, Marx made no distinction between socialism and communism. What many people call “socialism” is top-down socialism, which is qualitatively different from bottom-up socialism (communism). Top-down socialism is capitalism, with some “good” social policies. The problem is these concessions are temporary, and if the economy fails, they are dropped.
Further, there has NEVER been a communist country. I can understand how this statement might be confusing, if you get all your world knowledge from the fox news, and have never tried this thing called “learning”. One of the key features of communism is that it is a world-wide phenomenon (much like capitalism is world-wide; it wouldn’t work otherwise). The idea of having a communism in a single country is not plausible, as Lenin probably realized in his final days. "
Of course there hasn’t been a pure communist nation (it wouldn’t even be a nation, there wouldn’t be nations anymore), same way there hasn’t been a pure capitalist nation. The point that I was making was that I have experience with nations that nearly everyone considers communist. Cuba isn’t purely communist, same way that the U.S. isn’t purely capitalist (bad example, I know that the U.S. is more capitalist than Cuba communist).
Do yourself a favour, and forger that continuum of
capitalism---------------socialism
you learn in high school. It is just wrong, and not based on any economic theory. A more appropriate continuum might be
no gov involment------------------complete gov control
Communism DOES NOT equal government control. That is state capitalism, and includes ecenomies such as the former USSR, Cuba, and China.
I never learned the fascist-imperialist-capitalist-socialist-communist thing until I came to the U.S., and even then I don’t agree with it. Please read my posts in the communist thread and you’ll see that I argue against considering Mao’s China, Stalin’s Russia, and Castro’s Cuba communist.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
So - what about it? you say you answer questions and don’t switch topics, but you still have yet to answer this, and let me spell it out a little more clearly for you, Which do you support, Illegal Immigrants crossing into our country to do work that you think we need them to do, including criminal elements. OR Americans, guarding our borders to prevent them from coming in illegally, with the possibility of them still gaining acess to our country LEGALLY. All in an attempt to LOWER crime, and keep the bad ones from getting in. [/quote]
Neither as long as the “Americans” you speak of are average people who are not trained professionally for that job carrying guns. The simple fact that I had to explain that to you again makes me wonder about your ability to actually comprehend what is written.
hspder wrote:
[quote]So it takes time. So what? Impatience does not justify taking matters into your own hands.
You know what? I think white, christian, heterossexual men are spoiled in this country. They had it easy for over 200 years. No right to fight for within these borders – they were always in control. Now that you see a situation were you are NOT in control, you want to take matters into your own hands and refuse to go through the motions.
…
So, if women, and blacks, and gays, and the pro-choice movement, and just about anyone that is not white, christian, and heterossexual cannot take matters into their own hands and have to go through the motions, why is this different? [/quote]
This was well written. If this was truly simply about doing the right thing, there would be even more people getting ready to drive to Washington than there are people claiming they are about to drive to the border in Texas to “help out”. If anyone who took it into their own hands in history is looked down upon, most specifically in the Civil Rights movement wth regards to those like The Black Panthers, why are people suddenly above the process? Republicans control nearly every facet of US government yet you have people grabbing guns and heading for the border instead of going to the people that THEY elected into office to make changes. That doesn’t strike anyone as odd?
Where is the Million Republican March? Why aren’t protests the order of the day and not support of a group of guys that no one really knows, aside from random interviews, with guns? It would seem like the energy is being thrown into the wrong place.
wow…a commie nut luv fest.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Where is the Million Republican March? Why aren’t protests the order of the day and not support of a group of guys that no one really knows, aside from random interviews, with guns? It would seem like the energy is being thrown into the wrong place.
[/quote]
We don’t need a million republican march. We’ve had it every Nov. for the last few years.
You guys keep getting kicked further back.
Smarten up.
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
wow…a commie nut luv fest.
AND
We don’t need a million republican march. We’ve had it every Nov. for the last few years.
You guys keep getting kicked further back.
Smarten up.
[/quote]
Interesting. Your attempt to deregate those with whom you disagree does not go unnoticed. However, you should know that using diminuitive and insulting tones when arguing a point makes you look unprepared, to say the least. Simply put, you sound like you’ve got nothing left to say. So why don’t you try not saying anything?
As for not needing a million republican march, good! That means you are happy with how the government is handling things; stop complaining. If the government is doing a good job, there is no problem, and thus no action needs to be taken. Clearly, that contradicts what you guys have been saying, so you are either lying now, or you were lying then. Which is it? What is your motivation? Is it party loyalty, or do you just HAVE to try to “win”. Because as i see it, everyone so far has agreed that governmental inaction and bad immigration policies are to blame. Why do you diverge from the rest of the people with whome you seem to share opinions?
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
actually, I think the question of the day is what do you do with that other .1 of banana.[/quote]
Throw it away, because it’s the bad part. Only a moron or a slob would callously disregard tenths of food portions when utilizing a tracking program that takes them fully into account. But hey, possessing a physique which makes it apparent that you train with weights - rather than sitting on the coach and eating all day - ain’t for everybody!
Now go whip the dead horse some more, and stuff your face with some BBQ while you’re at it.
[quote]hspder wrote:
So it takes time. So what? Impatience does not justify taking matters into your own hands.
You know what? I think white, christian, heterossexual men are spoiled in this country. They had it easy for over 200 years. No right to fight for within these borders – they were always in control. Now that you see a situation were you are NOT in control, you want to take matters into your own hands and refuse to go through the motions. [/quote]
Do you know for sure that these ‘motions’ haven’t been exhausted? Or are you merely making baseless assumptions? You guys have done nothing but speculate and judge people who you know nothing about. Please prove that these minutemen have “refused to go through the motions” - short of that, you are just venting your all too visable bias.
[quote]So, if women, and blacks, and gays, and the pro-choice movement, and just about anyone that is not white, christian, and heterossexual cannot take matters into their own hands and have to go through the motions, why is this different?
[/quote]
I love the way you anti-bubbites lump together civil rights, gay rights, and the right to murder roll them all together and somehow equate those with the defense of property, home and family. I don’t have any idea how big a brush you have, but it is the broadest brush I’ve ever seen.
So I guess you answered the question I asked earlier - this is time for the gringo to get his come-uppance.
Reverse racism is still racism. You and the good Prof just keep proving it over, and over, and over.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Where is the Million Republican March? Why aren’t protests the order of the day and not support of a group of guys that no one really knows, aside from random interviews, with guns? It would seem like the energy is being thrown into the wrong place.
[/quote]
Partisan and racist? geez.
It may not be a million, but there are a bunch of folks marching on the Arizona border as we speak.
Go figure - those idiots are doing what the gov’t won’t, and not breaking any laws.
Maybe we don’t need a Milloin Republican March. Maybe there are those still around who won’t wait on the gov’t to wipe their ass, erase their debt, and buy their food.
Nice to see some true colors shining through.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Reverse racism is still racism. You and the good Prof just keep proving it over, and over, and over. [/quote]
Uau. Now I’m a “reverse racist”? Against my own race (I’m white, remember?), of all things?
That’s just hilarious man. Best one I’ve ever heard.
Next thing I know you’re going to accuse me of bumping up my black student’s grades. Obviously, from the angry way they color the multiple choice checkboxes and the strong language they use in their essays I can guess which ones are written by blacks and I immediately give them a 100% bonus. Surely that has to be the only reason they have good grades!
But keep going, keep going. This is fun… I’m always dying to hear what will be your next “witty” remark to my posts.