.

Feel free to continue the discussion in new threads with more specific topics. This one has turned into a catch-all that swamped out other stuff.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

n/t

Out of curiosity, would you prefer a system where the candidates party would have no effect and you'd vote for persons only? Let us assume that you would cast two votes in the election. First vote would be for the guy you wanted to vote and the second would be a backup vote for someone you think will likely pass. The second vote would be counted only if the guy you gave your first vote to wouldn't get elected.

You actually think I like the ####faces in Column A or the ####faces in Column B?

The whole slew of them are useless lying ####bags who I wouldn't hire to watch my dog let alone run my country.

The system sucks because a bus full of mentally handicapped people have more input into our government than a tax paying citizen like myself does and as such its much like playing craps against loaded dice. Guess what, if you're like most CF'ers, probably top 10% SAT Scoring (I know you're not an American, but bear with me here), intelligent, logical and rational minded person who knows about the issues and has opinions, you aren't their target audience. They don't care about your opinion or your vote, because there's another 13 million dumbasses that will vote for them because "they are for education" (while simultaneously, doing absolutely nothing consequential about it).

Frankly, I'm not sure what a better solution would be and I'm not entirely sure there is one, but this one just isn't cutting it for my tastes at least. Not enough, at the very least, to get me excited about the process like a naive drooling idiot. Accountability is watered down to nothing because the vast majority of voters are uninformed, to say the least, and concerned with trivial nonsense or actually believe these jackasses will actually fix social security or fix our education system or lower our taxes or illegalize abortion or whatever flavor of the week crap they put on their campaign ads (hint: they won't do any of these things).

>You actually think I like the ####faces in Column A or the
>####faces in Column B?

The political spectrum is wider in Finland than it is in United States. We currently have eight parties(National Coalition party(conservative, 42 seats), Centre party(rural/coutryside, 54 seats), Social Democratic party(slightly on left, 53 seats), Left Alliance(left, 19 seats), Green League(enviromental, 14 seats) Swedish People's Party(9 seats), Christian Democratic Party(Christian values(whatever they mean) 6 seats) and Basic Finns(Corner patriotic(against EU), 3 seats)) in the parliament, so there is more to choose from than in USA. The little extremist parties like Liberals(to whom National Coalition wasn't right wing enough), Communists(to whom Left Alliance wasn't left enough) and Neo-Nazis(corner patriotic racists) don't tend to make it to the government. Also, there have been cases where a single independent candidate makes it to the parliament. One such example is Pertti "Veltto" Virtanen, who calls him self humane shaman, who went to the parliament because he got many votes that would have otherwise been given to Donald Duck.

The academic Green candidate I voted for last time was elected to the parliament. Like most people who vote Greens, I'm a shifting voter who switches party loyalties like jacket if their line doesn't

>The whole slew of them are useless lying ####bags who I
>wouldn't hire to watch my dog let alone run my country.

That's more true in America where campaigns contain too much throwing dirt on the other candidate. We Finns value honesty and expect the politicians to try to keep their promises. That puts some pressure on the politicians on what they will promise to people.

>The system sucks because a bus full of mentally handicapped
>people have more input into our government than a tax paying
>citizen like myself does and as such its much like playing
>craps against loaded dice.

Democracy is dictatorship on majority. Would you prefer aristocratic system where only select few have power?

>Guess what, if you're like most
>CF'ers, probably top 10% SAT Scoring (I know you're not an
>American, but bear with me here)

I'm not familiar with SAT, but if it's comparable to IQ tests, then yes(my IQ test scores varying between 135 and 145 depending on the test and it's nature).

>you aren't their target audience. They don't care
>about your opinion or your vote, because there's another 13
>million dumbasses that will vote for them because "they are
>for education" (while simultaneously, doing absolutely nothing
>consequential about it).

Vote the ones that actually consider you as their target audience. If no-one is good, you might as well not vote or run for the office yourself and vote yourself.

Maybe we'll see more sensible politics in USA now that Bush can't run around as rampant as before.

My opinion is that the republican party definately went away from its base and guess what, people voted for more conservative leaning democrats. It was a victory for democrats, but thankfully not for liberals. IMO. Lets see if Nancy Pilossi (?) doesn't hurt their ability to keep or gain seats in 2008. I personally think its going to hurt them with all the senior party members being farther left leading committees and holing the chairs.

I truely felt like a Libertarian this time around. I only voted for a few Republicans this time around.

I hadn't kept up with my local judges along party lines this time around so I didn't vote for them at all.

nt

When Virginia was down to a handful of precincts (and with Allen slightly ahead), CNN finally got wind of which ones weren't counted, and the bulk of the votes were coming out of Richmond. That was where I said "Gee, I wonder how well Allen will do in a heavily African-American district after MacacaGate, his collection of Confederate memorabilia, and his 'colorful' nicknames for classmates of color in college?"

It wasn't helped by the fact that he claimed he didn't know what 'macaca' meant-- it's a Tunisian racial slur roughly meaning 'monkey' (from 'macacque') and exclusively applied to dark-skinned people, and George Allen just happened to grow up in a household with a Tunisian mother. Even The One Republican Scientist Left (she works down the hall) didn't buy that he didn't know what he was saying multiple times, directed at virtually the only non-Caucasian in the room.

If Allen ends up losing, that's what did him in. This is a guy who was considered a frontrunner for President in 2008 roughly a year ago, and man, did he self-destruct.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

nt

In 2000, 30% of Virginia self-identified as non-white, a number that's been steadily increasing over the last several decades. When a pretty sizable number of incidents (his voting record included) point towards him having a negative opinion of race-related issues, it's very reasonable that at least those 30% (as well as a chunk of the 70% who empathize) are going to want someone else making decisions on their behalf. Allen's less-reported followup comment ("Welcome to the real Virginia") underscored what he thought of the more diverse northern section of the state, also.

I'd consider that a character flaw worth real attention, whereas I'd be perfectly happy if the media ignored marital status (and difficulties), speaking blunders, whether or not someone smoked pot 30 years ago, etc.

William Jefferson with $100,000 in unexplainable cash in his freezer? Report that too. Harold Ford drinks beer and frequents the Playboy Mansion? Who cares? (So long as he's not drunk on the job.)

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

Do you think many more of these mansion/yacht-club elitists simply aren't racists or merely hide it better?

While, I can appreciate the idea of the 'lesser of two evils', I just don't see how this can really excite you. To me, a lesser douchebag still a douchebag is.

Do you think many more of these mansion/yacht-club elitists simply aren't racists or merely hide it better?

I don't think Jim Webb is a racist. (I'm guessing he doesn't call his Vietnamese wife "Macaca".) He has a pretty solid civil rights background. I obviously can't prove what the guy thinks deep down, but he took up a number of telling causes long before he ever ran for elected office.

It's quite a stretch to call him a "mansion/yacht-club elitist" as well, if you look at the guy's background. If anything, one of the reasons I was wary of him was that his background basically reads "Marine, Marine, Marine, Marine", and sometimes people with that background can be heavy-handed in governance.

While, I can appreciate the idea of the 'lesser of two evils', I just don't see how this can really excite you. To me, a lesser douchebag still a douchebag is.

Why is Webb a douchebag? Just because he's a Senator? There are douchebag Senators, but not all Senators are douchebags.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

There are douchebag Senators, but not all Senators are douchebags.

Please cite your research and sources to support this statement

Looks like myself and my Fellow Comrades in Most Glorious Socialist Stronghold of Beltway may just have swung Virginia (and possibly the Senate if Montana's count stands up) over to the blue. It was tough getting to the polls in our solar-powered adobe cars, but we had campfire bongo circles along the roadsides to keep spirits high.

If the secret plan continues on schedule, in January, can surrender to the Mexican Army (*), grab some Dos Equis, and secede to Mexico! Arriba! You'll never stop us now, El Norte!

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

(*): And Navy, I guess, since our +5 Fence of Invincibleness will obviously keep out the Army. Virginia Beach is pretty cold in January for a D-Day, but I'm sure my crack squad of filthy hippies can provide some Quetzal Cocoa with cinnamon sticks.

You have to be trying not to see what's going to happen in 20 years, if that long.

Maybe you yourself are a supporter of Atzlan. Seems that way.

I'll be straight up honest with you, man. I sort of divide the world into thirds: there are things that I believe are true, things that I believe are false, and a third category which contains things that I believe to be false, yet, also believe are so obviously silly that no rational adult would believe them.

Like, if I came up to you and told you your head was on fire, when they obviously weren't. Technically I'm lying to you there, but at the same time, I have to assume you're not going to take me seriously.

Stuff like the Easter Bunny goes into that third category, and so does this whole Aztlan thing. I feel like someday you'll either wake up and get it or the adults will tell you it was just a fairy tale they made up because they thought it would be fun for you, and you'll feel really silly for believing in it.

Below, you mistook my "pointy hood" reference to imply I thought you wore a tinfoil hat. I do, but it wasn't what I was getting at.

The "pointy hood" I was referring to is the hood of the KKK. "Aztlan" isn't a real movement, which is why you can't find anything substantive about it the news, and politicians don't mention it. (Toss it in Google News, and see what comes up.) It is, however, a major talking point for neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups.

This isn't new. Precisely analogous arguments have been used by groups like the KKK throughout modern American history to try to keep black voters disenfranchised, defend Jim Crow laws, and rationalize their domestic terror campaigns. Worldwide, similar arguments have been used to demonize Jews, branding them as insidious individuals who only move to a country to infiltrate it and pillage it from within, even going so far as to claim it's a coordinated plot, a la the (forged) Elder Protocols. Your arguments (available all over this forum) about how immigrants poison what "America" is, subverting the creations of white Americans, are on every neo-Nazi leaflet. Just replace "Jew" with "Mexican" and "Zion" with "Aztlan".

(And if anyone disagrees with you, you just do what you do in the post above-- brand them a traitor who is part of the subversive movement.)

The only new twist is that in modern society, virulent racists such as yourself find it difficult to get those opinions taken seriously by anyone with a modicum of education, because society has advanced past you. It's why no one buys your Aztlan ####.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

>The only new twist is that in modern society, virulent racists
>such as yourself find it difficult to get those opinions taken
>seriously by anyone with a modicum of education, because
>society has advanced past you. It's why no one buys your
>Aztlan ####.

The conspiracy theories are nuts, yeah, but it's possible to take the position that uncontrolled immigration (largely from Mexico) has a deliterious effect on the American economy without being a virulent racist.

The Aztlan stuff gets its "legs", so to speak, from statements made by nutjobs on the opposite side of the spectrum, who actually do think the U.S. should give the southwestern territories back to Mexico. Those guys just aren't representative of immigrants as a whole.

The conspiracy theories are nuts, yeah, but it's possible to take the position that uncontrolled immigration (largely from Mexico) has a deliterious effect on the American economy without being a virulent racist.

That isn't what Pro has been purporting, however. He's specifically and repeatedly described the immigration as a political movement, sponsored by the Mexican government, designed to lead to the secession of the Southwest. There's zero data for it, but the white supramecist movement (Stormfront, White Nationalist, Council of Conservative Citizens, National Alliance, etc.) in the U.S. uses it heavily to fearmonger.

The Aztlan stuff gets its "legs", so to speak, from statements made by nutjobs on the opposite side of the spectrum, who actually do think the U.S. should give the southwestern territories back to Mexico. Those guys just aren't representative of immigrants as a whole.

But it doesn't have "legs". Who is advocating this now? A couple of college students?

You're right that the immigration issue is complex, and the current system has flaws. (I happen to be in favor of essentially legalizing the majority of workers, and view immigration as a largely positive force, but there are pros and cons to my position.) But that's a very different discussion from what Pro is pushing (and is in line with Pro's previous comments on black Americans, Latino culture and its influence in the US, etc.), and I think it's dangerous to ignore the elephant in the room and pretend he's fanatical about it because of economic reasons.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

>That isn't what Pro has been purporting, however.

Granted.

>But it doesn't have "legs". Who is advocating this now? A
>couple of college students?

Here's what that was based on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztl%C3%A1n#Use_by_Chicano_Movement_after_1968

Obviously the people coming across the border these days aren't motivated a "cause" started by 1960s univeristy radicals.

>That isn't what Pro has been purporting, however.

Granted.

I am not holding myself as superior to anyone because of my race.I am preserving my culture. Why is it they can spread theirs but I am a demon for holding on?

>But it doesn't have "legs". Who is advocating this now? A
>couple of college students?

Here's what that was based on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztl%C3%A1n#Use_by_Chicano_Movement_after_1968

Obviously the people coming across the border these days aren't motivated a "cause" started by 1960s univeristy radicals.

They are however comming as a result of it's engineering. Get 20% of people to believe in a cause and the other 80% will follow aware of it or not.

>I am preserving my culture. Why is it they can spread
>theirs but I am a demon for holding on?

You're not being criticized for holding on to your own, unique culture. From what I've seen, you're being criticized for viewing the presence of other cultures as being a threat to your own.

>They are however comming as a result of it's engineering.

Not really. Quotas for legal immigration may have risen somewhat in the last 40 years, but if the only immigrants were legal immigrants then we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Those who immigrate illegally aren't doing so because of a secret Aztlan plot, they're immigrating because doing so increases their standard of living.

Those who immigrate illegally aren't doing so because of a secret Aztlan plot, they're immigrating because doing so increases their standard of living.

Partially true. They are moving here to make a dollar sure, but it's made easier by now mature Anchor Babies and 3rd generation Anchor Grand Babies who are absolutely loyal to Mexico and who do inact legislation favorable to their ancestral culture.

You can point the finger at Pro all day long and laugh "HAHAHAHAHA! Racist! RACIST!" but that doesn't change the fact that this notion of multi-culturalism is going to mean the end of our Nation as we know it.

If this trend continues you are going to be telling your grand-kids, "I remember where there was still 50 stars on the flag, not 43."

>You can point the finger at Pro all day long and laugh
>"HAHAHAHAHA! Racist! RACIST!" but that doesn't change the fact
>that this notion of multi-culturalism is going to mean the end
>of our Nation as we know it.

That would depend on how it changes. Imho, "the end of our Nation as we know it" might not be so bad a thing.

>If this trend continues you are going to be telling your
>grand-kids, "I remember where there was still 50 stars on the
>flag, not 43."

I'll make you a bet. If the Southwestern states become part of Mexico during your (and my) lifetimes, I'll send you a check for $100. Write this address down and put it somewhere safe:

jhoward "at" alumni "dot" utexas "dot" net

>>>That would depend on how it changes. Imho, "the end of our Nation as we know it" might not be so bad a thing.

Love it or leave it man.

Immigrate to Canada if you think we are this evil empire. It eats my craw that you people can't realize that you are losing everything.

You can keep your Hundred bucks. If you have your way, we'll need pesos and I plan on being dead.

I also love CF. Both leave room for improvement, and I'm not about to give up all the good because it isn't perfect. Baby and bathwater etc.

Seriously no one in this thread is saying America isn't great. What they are saying is that it isn't perfect. You say love it or leave it. How about the American way of love something and strive to make it better.

End of America as we know could be the end of big overreaching federal government which is so far beyond the scope of it's power (by the definitions set forth in the consitution) that it's mind boggling. Is that a bad thing?

Also, you are a biggot, and I hope you go away. Valg and Isildur are more mature than me, so they say it nicer, but truely you are an ignorant xenophobe who anyone can recognize as racists just by your statements regarding our ESL players.

You lack the maturity to see the issue ot hand.

I am not a bigot, or a xenophobe. I know full well why I feel the way I o and attack phrases (The favorite Ammo of the Left) will not deter me from doing what is right.

to support your arguments with facts, I'll do for you.

Bigot:

n. a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

noun
a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own

noun
a person who constantly and stubbornly holds a particular point of view etc

Xenophobe:

–noun
a person who fears or hates foreigners, strange customs, etc.

n. A person unduly fearful or contemptuous of that which is foreign, especially of strangers or foreign peoples.



Now that we both know what the words mean, please explain how you are not in fact the definition of what is a bigot and a xenophobe. Please try to use facts, because otherwise I'm more than capable of going through your posts and coming up with many (probably dozens) example of you being a bigot, a xenophobe or both.

Tac

Facts are your friend.

p.s. Valg: Citation isn't so much a skill as a way of thinking. I've found that the act of wishing to use citable facts is all that is really necessary.

p.p.s. The definitions are from dictionary.com

>I am not a bigot, or a xenophobe.

These quotes sure sound pretty xenophobic:

"...most Americans don't want to go work with a road gang of people the share no language with and only minimal cultural similarities."

I work with a Muslim from Pakistan. Know what? Doesn't bother me in the slightest.

"They aren't us, they don't belong here..."

That's pretty much the definition of xenophobia. You don't want anyone who's "not us" being in the country, legally or illegally. That attitude pretty much stands in opposition to all immigration.

I work with a Muslim from Pakistan. Know what? Doesn't bother me in the slightest.

I work in a secure military facility, and we have multiple employees who are not U.S. citizens, and are practicing Muslims who attend services weekly, won't consume alcohol or non-Halal foods, fast during Ramadan, etc. The only consequence is that they cannot obtain security clearances, and that's only because of the citizenship issue.

It's funny that the Department of Defense can see the utility of having these immigrants working within our military's research and development structure, but Pro thinks having immigrants taking low-income manual labor jobs will somehow undermine our nation. (Heck, Keith Ellison will soon have all sorts of security privileges after he swears in on his Koran in January.)

If half of the stuff Pro said about getting into barroom brawls on a regular basis in the martial arts thread is true... he'd fail the background check that my co-workers passed.

When I was a graduate student, I was frequently in the minority as a U.S. citizen. Our lab was composed of as much as 2/3 foreign nationals. Many of them spoke English... how you say, not so well. Their opinions of America as a country ran from very positive to fairly negative.

Quoth Pro: "...most Americans don't want to go work with a road gang of people the share no language with and only minimal cultural similarities."

This American thought it was fascinating. I probably learned as much over those lunches than I did getting my PoliSci minor. It definitely dispelled a lot of misconceptions I had regarding quality of life elsewhere vs. here. By a lot of objective standards (lifespan, median purchasing power, crime rates, individual rights, educational standards, etc.), it's ludicrous to pretend we're this City on the Hill that all other nations envy. America is a great nation, but it's not the only great nation.

I think that as humans we're wired for a bit of xenophobia/tribalism, largely because it had evolutionary value in protection. That said, we inherit a lot of traits (craving fatty foods was my favorite example when I taught this topic) that were great for our ancestors, but are counterproductive, morally repugnant, or just plain useless in a modern context. One of America's strengths has always been the synergy gained during the fusion of multiple cultures, and that's the guiding principle that feeds my opinions on a fairly permissive immigration policy.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

>Love it or leave it man.

Or change it. For instance, many people thought giving women the vote would be the "end of the nation as we know it". Or ending state-enforced segregation. Etc. etc. In many ways those folks were right on target. Those changes did represent the "end of the nation as we know it." The nation was radically changed. For the better.

>Immigrate to Canada if you think we are this evil empire.

My family's here, my job's here, and it's a bitch to get Canadian citizenship. Plus it's too damn cold. Why should I leave? I'd rather vote in people who'll make the sorts of changes I consider beneficial. If it ever gets bad enough for me to leave, which I doubt will ever happen, then I'll consider Canada.

>You can keep your Hundred bucks. If you have your way, we'll
>need pesos and I plan on being dead.

You'd only need pesos if you were living in one of those southwestern states. How about this. Email me when it happens and I'll send the $100 to your next of kin.

Women voting slaves being freed are all positive changes that have come about.

What you seem to be missing is that these came about from within our society. We changed them, we weren't invaded.

The Mexicans can change it within there society, buy remaining their and pressuring their leaders.

People like you and Valg are the some of the greatest assets the Mexican Government has. Your right to free speech keeps the focus on the condition not the cause.

Look to Mexico as the problem. Not us. It could all be fixed and we could have a stable trading partner that wasn't a 3rd world nation to our south.

There is all the evidence in the world. Circumstantial and physical. The "Why" of it's absence is of course the media and BOTH political parties playing it down by saying that there are only 11-12 million of them here (Who really believes that? Let‘s say 40,000,000) or roasting people as racist who oppose it. It’s out there. You find can find it when you want the truth.

Just a few quick checks on Google netted this:

"Mexican invasion" = 270,000 hits

"Aztlan" = 1,330,000 hits.

"Nation of Aztlan" = 11,100 hits.

"La Raza" = 4,040,000.



And I throw it back at you, that it is the tool of the enemy to label the conservative a Racist and thus disavow themselves any responsibility for a fair conversation.

It is possible to be a traitor to one's countrymen. I said this with regard to you because you are an intelligent person and though I can only surmise you are deliberately misleading in your assertion their is no evidence this is a deliberate and methodical invasion of our country.

Your Jim Crow laws and such that you spin, as well as the KKK were products of the Southern Democrats who admittedly were markedly different from today’s liberal Democrat.

I am for the preservation of our society. You say we advanced beyond a certain point which is impossible. Societies can't advance on a social level they can only change view points. The Ancient Greeks laid the ground work for our western governments and the Arabs laid out our religions. That they have changed is apparent, that they have advanced is debatable. Your so called advancement appears to me as a down ward spiral into destruction and dissolution.

The human condition does not seem to change, only the quality life and the manner in which it is lead. All wars are fought over resources that humans want to have to improve their quality of life.

This war has already begun whether it will be fought with guns or we lose the SW through a dynamic cultural shift remains to be see. Humanity being what it is, I do not hold out for the later.

I’m not surprised you want amnesty. It’s the liberal thing to do; America is wrong and no amount of good we do will ever be enough. It’s our fault Mexico has a corrupt government that is driving these people to break our laws and burden our economic system and educational and health system.

I’m sorry to break your heart Valg but I’m not ignorant. I’m patriotic, politically aware and martially inclined. As such I am not predisposed to giving ground. My IQ is at or around genius level. My IQ tests rated me at 132 on one and 141 on another. My ACT Put me at a 27 average (being pulled down by an admittedly low math score), I have tested out and passed prerequisite tests for acceptance into Mensa(I never pursued it, but there you have it for whatever that’s worth both intellectually and socio-economically.) I have always graduated in the top 10% of my military schools, and My GPA is around a 3.1 nothing incredible but there it is. I've been in two wars and have come under fire in both. I've been to Italy, Germany, Canada, Mexico, Spain, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq, South Korea, and Panama. I've seen the world Valg, have you? I'm not putting this out as an E-penis challenge, but more as a get off your "high horse." I speak not only in word but in deed.

My written word may leave much to be desired on the game forums where I don’t use a spell checker or proof read but they are not a true measure of who you think I am.

Your own personal dislike of me shouldn’t be your measure of truth or fiction. You disagree with my politics, fine, but your Ad Hominem attacks are irrelevant to the truth of our national condition.

There is all the evidence in the world. Circumstantial and physical. The "Why" of it's absence is of course the media and BOTH political parties playing it down by saying that there are only 11-12 million of them here (Who really believes that? Let‘s say 40,000,000) or roasting people as racist who oppose it.

Now why would the entire media (excepting skinhead/neo-Nazi groups) fail to cover a pending invasion/secession movement? The simplest explanation is there isn't one, and if you want anyone to take you seriously, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Of course phrases like "La Raza" generate a lot of hits-- it's a slogan of unity, just like if I type "Black Power" I get lots of hits. That doesn't mean a "Black invasion" is coming.

You're correct that the Latino population is increasing in the United States, both in absolute and relative terms (*).

Where your argument breaks down is your assumption that the increase in population from other groups is a priori a bad thing. America's been getting more diverse steadily since the Revolutionary War. Yes, culture will change. Yes, religious diversity will increase. Yes, there will be more people on the street that don't look like you. All of these are continuing trends.

Why is that bad?

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

(*): From the census, racial increases from 1990-2000, using 'race alone' data (i.e., you have to self-report as one, not several):
White: +5.9%, Black: +15.6%, Native American/Alaskan: +26.4%, Asian: +48.3%, Pacific Islander: +9.3%, Other: +56.6%, Hispanic, regardless of race: +57.9%.

P.S.: Citing IQ scores on the Internet: Priceless.

I see Black American's as American as White American's. If you're and American you are an American.

You've loaded up on the assumption that because I am Pro American I am a Racist. I'm not, though I see no problem with wanting to be Homogenious along racial lines for any people. You may want to out cultural reasons, familial preasures or socia-economic reasons, what ever, that is a free choice and an Idea I support for anyone of any color, nationality.

My problem is assimilation. The Mexicans are not assimilating. They are invading. They come here demanding intruction and instructions in Spanish. They are criminals no matter how noble their cause or dire their needs. They export U.S. Dollars to fund the Mexican Governemt. Poverty on any level breeds crime and we have an entire "Ghost Nation" of people who we are unable to maintain any but the most marginal sort of accountability on with reguard to criminal tracking.

Your quip about the short answer being "There is none" is wrong. You said in one of your posts you don't listen to talk radio. You also cited a lot of your informational sourses and they are far left. If you've been listening to right wing media on any level, you will find that their has been a lot of buzz about this. I would go so far as to say this is the number one reason the Republicans lost the elections. The war has people on both sides upset, but when the Republicans didn't face this issue, their support didn't just drop away, it plummeted.

Enforce our borders, preserve our culture, maintain our language assimilate and create new Americans. That's me, that's what I am about. I'm not the simple, "Damn for-uh-noors" hick you paint me as.

>I see Black American's as American as White American's. If
>you're and American you are an American.

BUT THEY'RE FROM AFRICA!!?!?!?!?!? WTF???????? They r not Merican.

>You've loaded up on the assumption that because I am Pro
>American I am a Racist. I'm not, though I see no problem with
>wanting to be Homogenious along racial lines for any people.

If you see no problem with disallowing people of different races to live and be equals in America then, yes. Yes, Pro, you are racist.

>My problem is assimilation. The Mexicans are not assimilating.
>They are invading. blahblahblah
>They export U.S. Dollars to fund the Mexican Governemt.

?????????????????????????????? You mean, Mexicans move here from Mexico, Panama, Guatemala, Spain, Cuba, etc., and send the cash they earn at the meat-packing plant to the Mexican government?

>You also cited a lot of your informational sourses and
>they are far left.

How's that? He didn't consult Fox News?

>If you've been listening to right wing
>media on any level, you will find that their has been a lot of
>buzz about this.

By buzz, do you mean stirring up the old "cultural dilution" criminal evil Mexicans stealing American jobs knee-jerk bull####? Don't they do this before every ####ing election? Oh yeah, so they do!

I would go so far as to say this is the
>number one reason the Republicans lost the elections.

I was going to say it's because they're a bunch of lying, thieving, torturing, murderous bastards. But your theory is pretty good, too.

>Enforce our borders, preserve our culture

You mean, preserve white, male privilege?

>I'm not the simple, "Damn
>for-uh-noors" hick you paint me as.

Yeah, it sounds so much more complex than that.

?!!!!!!?????????111111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!???>>>>!!!1

>You've loaded up on the assumption that because I am Pro
>American I am a Racist.

I think he considers you racist for other reasons entirely.

>My problem is assimilation. The Mexicans are not assimilating.

What is assimilation? Did the 19th century Swedes and Norweigans who immigrated to Minnesota assimilat? Then why do they still have their own church denominations, their own ethnic foods, their own holidays and customs? Even a unique accent and ethnic surnames? I'm guessing your criteria for assimilating is speaking English. That's reasonable. Did first-generation Swedish and Norweigan immigrants, living in communities of other Swedes and Norweigans, start speaking English as their everyday language? I'm guessing not. Their children probably did. Or their children's children. If we apply the same criteria to Mexican immigrants, they're really not doing that bad.

Another (obvious) fact is that a large percentage of Mexican immigrants aren't actually citizens. If the U.S. won't even let you be a legal, permanent resident, why should you bother to learn its language and customs? Give more people citizenship and they'll be alot more likely to assimilate.

>They come here demanding intruction and
>instructions in Spanish.

There's nothing magical about English that makes it the necessary "official language" of the United States. It's simpler to only print forms, signs, etc. in English, but that's just an argument from efficiency.

>I would go so far as to say this is the
>number one reason the Republicans lost the elections.

And you'd be wrong. They lost because people were upset about rampant spending related to the Iraq war, and generally associated Republicans with the DeLay and Abrahamof scandals. Also, imho the religious right felt (and not without some reason) like Bush gave them the colossal shaft after they did so much to get him elected.

Was a fart in a hurricain.

People don't even understand this.

People vote out of fear and there ar two great fears today. The war and illegal immigration.

I think that's the only reason the Democrats have been using such negative ads lately. They don't really have anyway to scare people other than by doing the opposite of the Republicans who claim to be "Low taxes, Enforce Current Laws, enforce Borders, Protect America"

What are the dems suposed to say? Raise taxes, let criminals slide, open the borders, and lets cut and run?

This war is run by Generals who will serve under either party, so if the Dems get in and take over they pretty much have to go along eith the same plan the Republicans had.

Politically they were ####ed until the republicans waffled this last.

>People vote out of fear and there ar two great fears today.
>The war and illegal immigration.

If that's the case, why wouldn't anti-immigration Republicans win their primaries and earn the right to represent their party in races against the Democrats, which they would (of course) win, since the public is so concerned about all the illegals?

That didn't happen. Instead, we saw more Democrats win, which is the opposite of what you'd expect if people were voting out of fear, and were primarily swayed by the immigration issue.

It *may* be the case that die-hard Republican supporters were/are so disgusted by Bush & Co. (partly due to immigration, partly due to their handling of the war, partly due to the ethics violations) that they just stayed home on election day, whereas folks who only occasionally vote (but vote Democrat when they do) were energized by their opposition to the Iraq war and decided to get off their asses and vote.

On enforcing our laws. They lost.

The US is ethically challenged as it is. There is nothing to suggest that those scandals have any affect on either side other than to cause supporters to dig in and back their man.

Lawinski litteraly blew Clintons ratings sky high for instance.

>On enforcing our laws. They lost.

Guys like Tom Tancredo (Colorado) take a hard line when it comes to immigration. If his views were a "winning ticket" in more districts then you'd see more candidates with those views winning Republican primaries. They aren't winning. In other words, if you were to emulate Tancredo you would be unelectable in the vast majority of congressional districts.

No Hard line Republican can get elected there.

Here in Missouri. A shoe in.

Last I checked, Colorado's U.S. senators split one Democrat, one Republican, and their representatives also split about half and half.

At most, they're a balanced/centrist state... unless everyone less reactionary than you is now a Democrat.

Also:

1) Colorado went to Bush in both 2000 (51%-42%) and 2004 (52%-47%).

2) Hell, Colorado narrowly voted for Dole in 1996 (45.8%-44.4%) in an election where Dole got spanked nationally.

3) Colorado just voted to ban gay marriage, and also voted against domestic partnerships.

4) Colorado did elect a Democratic governor in 2006, though incumbent Republican Bill Owens was unable to run (and may well have won) in that election due to term limit laws. Bill Ritter ran on a centrist platform (opposed to immigrant amnesty, in favor of penalizing businesses that employ undocumented workers, etc.) in order to win against a conservative opponent.

It's a sign of how weak the present Republican party is that the Democrats were able to pick up a seat outside of Denver. (They benefited from an open seat, since the 7th's Republican incumbent ran for governor instead.) Even with that, the state went 4 Dems, 3 Reps.

So by anyone else's definition, Colorado is pretty divided. Pro's just not in touch with reality.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

I work in a forensic mental hospital. As a team psychologist, I'm often called upon to try and orient the patients to reality. It didn't take me long to realize just how monumental a task that was going to be. Think of the most obviously factual piece of information that you can and then imagine the person you're talking to coming up with 50 reasons why that fact isn't true. Now imagine that every one of those 50 reasons is rooted in that person's belief that they are, in fact, Zeus.

Pro = Zeus.

I WILL CALL THE THUNDERS ON YOU!

Actually, I heard a guy say that once while dressed in midevil garb outside a movie theatre at the opening of a Star Trek movie.

Scarred me for life.

Colorado House = 35 Democrats, 28 Republicans, 2 vacant

Colorado Senate = 17 Democrats, 16 Republicans

It's a red state, but it's not conservative.

Kudo's to Valg for more personal attacks.

>No Hard line Republican can get elected there.

I can't tell if this is a troll or not. You say no hard-line republican can get elected in Colorado. Okay, then how do you explain Tom Tancredo? Or governor Bill Owens, who's largely considered conservative even among Republicans?

I can't tell if this is a troll or not. You say no hard-line republican can get elected in Colorado. Okay, then how do you explain Tom Tancredo?

Colorado's 5th district? Has elected a Republican to Congress every election since its creation. This year Lamborn won on a platform of opposing gun control, abortion, stem cell research, and immigration.

Meanwhile, in the 6th, Tancredo actually founded a PAC called (I'm not making this up) "Team America", devoted to slashing immigration into the US. (He's proposed 10,000 people per year as a reasonable cap.) It's run by Pat Buchanan's sister, since Tancredo cannot legally run a PAC while holding office.

Yeah. What a bunch of Marxist hippies. Let the accusations of treason begin!

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

Gun control, Abortion, stem cell, and Immigration control are not right wing topics. They are core American concepts that the Republican party has the lion share of support on.

A Democrate would win on that ticket if it weren't for the fact that his/her party would throw them out.

They're definitely not centrist topics. If you want to split hairs between right-leaning and right-wing or whatever, I guess that's your prerogative.

(Gun control, I'm convinced, is an urban vs. rural divide which happens to look like a red vs. blue divide because cities are more 'blue' and rural areas are more 'red'. The rest of that stuff is definitely not "center" issues.)

Yeah, I tend to agree. I'll also note that Republican party has little to nothing to do with textbook conservativism and its important that people note that.

Who was the last Republican front-runner who genuinely stood behind smaller government? Church mongering != conservatism, and in action, the Republican party has let down its conservatives/constitutionalists for a long time.

If anything, the only thing that IMHO has hindered the Democrats from winning the last two white house bouts was the types of people running for office. Sadly, Bible thumping means a lot more in American politics than the Democrats have given due credit to. Its the reason why a guy like Lieberman, who I personally like, would never get elected. Based purely on religious viewpoint, despite our whole spiel about separation of Church and State.

People say it boils down to stances on abortion, but given the anti-climatic nature of what's going on in that arena, I think thats an excuse. Republicans just make more believable Christians, due to the topic stances. If the Democrats were smart, they'd get a guy through primaries who faked being anti-abortion and just did absolutely nothing about the abortion topic while in office (just like most mainstream politicians, since they don't want to touch the topic with a 10 foot pole after the ballots get cast). I guarantee you, a very devout protestant middle aged white guy Democrat would have beaten the pants off of Bush and no matter how we falsely pride ourselves in being a diverse country without overt religous dogma, thats exactly what wins more elections than voting histories.

Gun control, Abortion, stem cell, and Immigration control are not right wing topics. They are core American concepts that the Republican party has the lion share of support on.

Sorry, but you don't get to define what American is. The reason centrist candidates don't take your extreme viewpoints is precisely because most Americans won't vote for them.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

Couple of things to point out here...

>Gun control, Abortion, stem cell, and Immigration control are
>not right wing topics. They are core American concepts that
>the Republican party has the lion share of support on.

Prove this. Gun control I can maybe see. Abortion is genearlly split, with the pro-choice side enjoying a slight advantage. I suspect the same is true w/ regard to embryonic stem cell research.

You said earlier, when speaking about how Colorado wasn't a conservative state, that Missouri was. Didn't Missouri just pass a measure in favor of allowing stem cell research? If a measure like that can pass in Missouri, which is supposedly a red state, are you really willing to claim that a majority of Americans oppose embryonic stem cell research?

>A Democrate would win on that ticket if it weren't for the
>fact that his/her party would throw them out.

How do you explain pro-life democrats? (Yes, there are a few.)

http://www.democratsforlife.org/

Some polls on all four issues. Lots of sources, lots of questions on each. This site gives the exact questions and results, without any added commentary. It's completely ridiculous to say that the Republican/conservative positions are the "American" angle, given the numbers.

Abortion: Very evenly split. Most Americans are neither purely pro-life nor pro-choice. This is a remarkably consistent trend, even in polls that go back 30 years:

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

Guns: A clear, sizable majority of Americans favor stricter gun laws, and 1/3 take the extreme stance that handguns should be illegal in civilian hands. A slight majority thinks having a gun in your house makes it a more dangerous place.

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

Stem Cells: A clear, sizable majority of Americans prefer that scientists be allowed to obtain federal funding for stem cell research.

http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm#Stem

Immigration control: Complicated. Most Americans want higher security at the borders. However, they also think the Democratic Party's approach is a better choice than the Republican Party's approach. A large majority of Americans favor a guest worker program to allow illegal immigrant to register for continued employment. A large majority of Americans favor illegal immigrants being allowed to remain in the U.S. Americans are very evenly divided as to whether or not the current immigration siutation helps or hurts the country overall.

http://www.pollingreport.com/immigration.htm

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

>You also cited a lot of your informational sourses and
>they are far left.

Some, sure. Most of that list... not really, no.

Well, he responded to say that he considered Fox News to be the center. From that perspective, any international source (even the BBC and Der Speigel) looks left, as does the rest of television, and any wide-circulation print media. Even the Wall Street Journal and such looks left of Fox News, since it's primarily purely fiscally conservative, compared to Fox's preference for a blend of conservatism and authoritarianism (*).

(For perspective, one of the Speigel's leads right now is "NATO CHAOS DEEPENS IN AFGHANISTAN: The Germans Have to Learn How to Kill", favoring an increase in combat missions for the German troops in Afghanistan.)

America doesn't really have a far left, in the sense that most European countries do. While the Senate now has a self-described Socialist member-elect (Bernie Sanders), for the most part it's a choice between intermediate capitalism and strong capitalism. A combination of religion and xenophobia has bred a far right capable of electing officials regionally, however.

Most political "tests" (and my undergraduate TAs) categorize me as a barely left-leaning, but strongly Libertarian (**)-- small, socially permissive government, economic capitalism with a moderate safety net. I just look far left next to Shooty McKlansman over here.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

(*) I view neither the outgoing Congress nor the current Executive branch as "conservative", since they do nothing to limit the scope of government (in fact, they expand it), and have attempted to change long-standing principles in a radical fashion. I think the Executive Branch is best-described as "authoritarian"-- primarily interested in consolidating power in a single entity with limited or absent accountability.

(**): Very separate axes, really.

I said Fox was right of center.

They toss in some pocket liberals in order to bring themselves some credibility toward being "Fair and Balanced".

But I actually agree with what you posted.

Because Europe is so far left, I'm resistant to any influences that lead us toward that path.

And yes, Bush is not a fical conservative. No Bush has ever been, and he cost his party seats.

I think the term to describe a person with your views is cultural racist. A friend of mine used the term when he was describing himself, explaining it. You fit into that kind of picture too.

I have no problem with immigrants, ie, people from other countries who go through the immigration process and become legal citizens. What I do have a problem with is all the illegal aliens, or as I call them 'criminals' or 'prospective terrorists'. I won't get into how easy it would be for Al Qaeda to bribe mexicans to bring explosives across the border. But how can we even consider allowing criminals from other countries to become citizens? I would think we have enough American criminals without outsourcing to other countries. Every mexican that crosses into USA without going through the proper channels is a criminal and deserves either deportation or prison, deportation being the cheaper alternative.

They're 'criminals' in the same sense Jean Valjean was a 'criminal' in Les Miserables. He stole bread when he was starving. You seem determined to play Javert.

If the majority of illegal immigrants had a realistic chance of successfully navigating the U.S. immigration system and getting a visa or green card, then I might agree with you that illegal immigrants should be dealt with more harshly. But the fact is, most of them would never be able to immigrate legally, either because they can't afford the cost or because the quota is so small their request would just be denied.

Do you think they *want* to be illegal? Make it easier/cheaper to immigrate legally and more people would do so.

because their country is worse than ours? With that mindset it won't take long before that is no longer the case. The Department of Naturalization plays an important role in keeping America from becoming overpopulated. If we are to turn a blind eye on every mexican who crosses the border illegally, lets save the taxpayers money and give the Department of Naturalization and the Border Patrol their walking papers, send them to the unemployment lines. No sense paying them if we are sending out the message that any Juan, Julio, or Jesus can sneak in and have the same rights as US citizens. Hell, if that's the case, I might just renounce my citizenship so I can work and not have to pay taxes while getting free medical attention! Sounds like those illegal aliens have the right idea.

http://media.americancomedynetwork.com/FILES/MexTourism.swf

Hell, if that's the case, I might just renounce my citizenship so I can work and not have to pay taxes while getting free medical attention! Sounds like those illegal aliens have the right idea.

Your ignorance of the quality of life illegal aliens have here is staggering. Not being a citizen comes with enormous limitations that crush being outside the tax system. (Not that most of the people in question would have to pay taxes if they were citizens, given their income levels.) And "free medical attention" amounts to minimal emergency services, just like visitors, tourists, felons, and any other humans within our borders get.

Wake the #### up. The people in these situations are desperate. They aren't cruising around on a free meal ticket. The current system amounts to "look the other way" which benefits you at their expense (cost of living, primarily), not the other way around.

The system needs reform, but the likely direction it will go is towards allowing large numbers of people in legally, pending minimal checks for criminal backgrounds and such. It worked wonders for us a century ago, even over the protests of people who thought "inferior" Irish, Polish, Jewish, Italian, etc. immigrants would ruin their country.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

>The system needs reform, but the likely direction it will go
>is towards allowing large numbers of people in legally,
>pending minimal checks for criminal backgrounds and such. It
>worked wonders for us a century ago, even over the protests of
>people who thought "inferior" Irish, Polish, Jewish, Italian,
>etc. immigrants would ruin their country.

To play devil's advocate for a moment, one important difference between today's situation and that of 100 years ago is the level of entitlements available to the poor. In 1900, letting in a ton of people didn't "cost" as much. Immigrants were allowed to live in relative squalor in ethnic ghettos, providing cheap labor without receiving much in return. Contrast that with today. Our system of entitlements relies on a certain distribution of incomes, with those at the top funding programs that benefit those at the bottom. If the country becomes too "bottom heavy" then the current system will eventually become impossible to sustain.

Immigrants were allowed to live in relative squalor in ethnic ghettos, providing cheap labor without receiving much in return. Contrast that with today.

I admit I'm having trouble.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

>I admit I'm having trouble.

ca 1900 immigrants were citizens, yet still represented "free" labor, since the level of public entitlements at the time was essentially nil. Current illegal immigrants fill a similar niche, but that wouldn't remain true if they were suddenly granted citizenship, or if the U.S. were to suddenly adopt a policy of ulimited legal immigration from Mexico.

Consider the working poor (citizens) who receive welfare, live in subsidized housing, etc. Say there are 30 million such people. Their net per-capita contribution to the tax base, after you subtract out any entitlements they receive, is either negative, or if positive is substantially smaller than middle and upper-class citizens. I'm fine with that. But let's say that instead of 30 million there were all of a sudden 60 million, with a high unemployment ratio to boot. It would be a serious strain on the economy.

There are two main reasons we have "only" 10-20 million illegal immigrants (instead of many more):

1. That's all the job market will support, and since illegal immigrants are by definition not citizens (and thus not able to take advantage of the entitlements that otherwise be available to them) it's not feasible for them to remain (or come) here without a job.

2. It sucks being illegal and having to live as a fugitive 24/7.

Take away those two disincentives and I'm convinced the population of low-income low-education legal immigrants from Mexico would skyrocket far past the current population of illegals.

>>Take away those two disincentives and I'm convinced the population of low-income low-education legal immigrants from Mexico would skyrocket far past the current population of illegals.<<

This is what we have checks and Balances for.

I want there to be more legal immigrants because I consider it a given that some number of people are going to immigrate, either legally or illegally. Given that's the case, I'd rather they become naturalized citizens than "off the grid" illegal residents.

And "free
>medical attention" amounts to minimal emergency services, just
>like visitors, tourists, felons, and any other humans within
>our borders get.

Really, 'free' minimal emergency services. Well, I have no health insurance and no free medical services, I have the thousands of dollars of unpaid medical bills to prove it.

>
>Wake the #### up. The people in these situations are
>desperate.

We have plenty of desperate people in America already, legal citizens, people who are supposed to be here, have social security cards, lets try helping them first. We continue to ignore our homeless, hungry citizens while sending money and food overseas. It's time to start taking care of ourselves for once.

They aren't cruising around on a free meal ticket.
> The current system amounts to "look the other way" which
>benefits you at their expense (cost of living,
>primarily), not the other way around.

Hm, the illegal alien I saw on CNN a few months ago, when the hispanic community was going to organize a 1 day strike, didn't seem too bad off. He was self employed, did roofing jobs, owned 2 cars and his wife looked well dressed. Yep, must suck being that bad off. Now tell me how looking the other way "benifits" me? How does it benefit other small time roofing contractors that are losing business to this person who doesn't exist in America?

Keep pretending that these aliens are a benefit to our country and that they only do jobs that we don't want to. The truth is, we have plenty of people who would do the same job if the employers paid better, but since the employers can pay cash under the table at $2/hr, the Americans lose out.


>The system needs reform, but the likely direction it will go
>is towards allowing large numbers of people in legally,
>pending minimal checks for criminal backgrounds and such. It
>worked wonders for us a century ago, even over the protests of
>people who thought "inferior" Irish, Polish, Jewish, Italian,
>etc. immigrants would ruin their country.

If we are to reform the system to allow more immigrants in legally, we first have to block the leak in the dam that's about to burst. Stop the constant flow of mexicans illegally crossing the border, kick the illegal aliens out, assign a committee to look at the population of the US and determine how many immigrants can enter our country per year without becoming a burden to taxpayers and set up a program to watch these immigrants for a year or two to ensure that they have the same quality of pay and benefits expected of any other US citizen.

My Grandfather came to America as a child over 90 years ago. His father went through the immigration system during the time you are talking about, the difference is, he didn't sneak over. He wasn't here on a work permit and never left, he did things legally.

I find it hard to believe there are so many Liberals out there that honestly believe that there is nothing wrong with breaking the law, or that when one is caught breaking the law, it should go unpunished. I am lower middle class, a million dollars would greatly improve my quality of life, if I commit a crime such as robbing a bank to improve my life, should it go unpunished?

I firmly believe that we need to do something about the growing number of illegals in this country. I have reported one place of business to the INS already. A place in Chicago that employed 90% hispanics, none of them spoke english. I don't know if anything ever came of it though, I haven't been back since.


>
>valguarnera@carrionfields.com

Keep pretending that these aliens are a benefit to our country and that they only do jobs that we don't want to. The truth is, we have plenty of people who would do the same job if the employers paid better, but since the employers can pay cash under the table at $2/hr, the Americans lose out.

Is the fact that most Americans don't want to go work with a road gang of people the share no language with and only minimal cultural similarities.

They aren't us, they don't belong here, they need to go home and preasure their government into change.

>Really, 'free' minimal emergency services. Well, I have no
>health insurance and no free medical services, I have the
>thousands of dollars of unpaid medical bills to prove it.

You're not going to the right place, then, or you're paying for services that aren't considered "emergency".

>We have plenty of desperate people in America already, legal
>citizens, people who are supposed to be here, have social
>security cards, lets try helping them first.

So are you arguing for greater entitlements for poor American citizens? That doesn't seem like something you'd support. We don't give much help to illegals as it is. If we stopped entirely, and instead used the money to provide additional services for the American poor, I'm not convinced it would make a significant difference in most peoples' lives.

>We continue to ignore our homeless, hungry citizens while sending
>money and food overseas. It's time to start taking care of >ourselves for once.

You can thank Reagan for that, who turned everyone out of the mental hospitals. Homeless people largely suffer either from mental illness or substance addiction. Or both. What do you propose "we" do about them, in place of sending charity overseas?

>Hm, the illegal alien I saw on CNN a few months ago, when the
>hispanic community was going to organize a 1 day strike,
>didn't seem too bad off. He was self employed, did roofing
>jobs, owned 2 cars and his wife looked well dressed.

Like everyone else, some are more self-motivated and competant than others. This guy most likely did more than just work as part of a crew; he probably managed his own crew. He's the kind of guy we probably should have let immigrate legally in the first place, considering he apparently has a successful construction business and is contributing to society.

>Now tell me how looking the other way
>"benifits" me? How does it benefit other small time roofing
>contractors that are losing business to this person who
>doesn't exist in America?

It benefits you when your house, your food, your meals at restaurants, and your hotel rooms are substantially cheaper than they might otherwise would be.

>Keep pretending that these aliens are a benefit to our country
>and that they only do jobs that we don't want to.

In some ways they clearly do benefit citizens. That's undisputed. The question is whether it's a net benefit or the costs outweigh the gains. As for the jobs, those are jobs that Americans clearly won't do for the wages being offered, so in that sense they are taking jobs Americans don't want to do. The sorts of jobs illegals typically fill are those for which almost any American is overqualified.

The unskilled citizen without even a high school degree is still overqualified to pick grapes or clean hotel rooms. Why? Because he speaks English. So in the pantheon of jobs, "grape picking" is still going to rank near the bottom. In every economy there is a spectrum of jobs. Some require a very high degree of skill (surgeon) others require no skill (picking fruit). If the labor market were truly fluid, then the going rate for fruit pickers would be closer to what illegals earn than it would be to the current U.S. minimum wage. When we (as a country) import our menial labor and pay rates well below what we consider "humane" even for our own citizens, we're giving U.S. owned corporations a huge break, allowing for cheaper domestic prices and allowing those corporations to be more competitive overseas (which benefits American shareholders, and employees of those companies). It's sort of like like Nike with its overseas sweatshop workers, except we bring the sweatshop workers here, where at least they funnel some portion of their earnings back into the U.S. economy.

Now, clearly there's a cost associated with this. We (the taxpayers) subsidize this cheap menial labor when we pay (through our taxes) for those few services illegals actually do use. Roads, schools, emergency medical services. I'm not entirely convinced we "lose" once everything's taken into account.

>If we are to reform the system to allow more immigrants in
>legally, we first have to block the leak in the dam that's
>about to burst. Stop the constant flow of mexicans illegally
>crossing the border...

How would you propose we stop that flow? A fence sure isn't going to do it. Neither will upping the amount of border patrol agents. And as I pointed out earlier, half of illegal residents crossed the border legally. Are you going to forbid all Mexicans from entering the United States, even temporarily?

>My Grandfather came to America as a child over 90 years ago.
>His father went through the immigration system during the time
>you are talking about, the difference is, he didn't sneak
>over. He wasn't here on a work permit and never left, he did
>things legally.

90 years ago the rate of legal immigration (as a percentage of total population) was higher than the current rate of total immigration (legal + illegal). In other words, it was a heck of a lot easier for your grandfather to legally immigrate 90 years ago than it would be today.

>I find it hard to believe there are so many Liberals out there
>that honestly believe that there is nothing wrong with
>breaking the law, or that when one is caught breaking the law,
>it should go unpunished.

Few people think there's nothing wrong with breaking the law. They do recognize extenuating circumstances, which you seem unwilling to do. Many people are realistic about the situation with the Mexican border, and the fact that it's almost impossible to keep people out who want to come in. Problems that are "almost impossible" can often be solved by just throwing a ton of money at them, and this one is no different. Hypothetically, we could hire enough border patrol agents to link arms across the entire US-Mexico border and work in shifts so that the human chain remains unbroken 24 hours a day. But would that be a good national investment? I highly doubt it. The only feasible solution for reducing illegal immigration to either 1) let everyone immigrate legally who wants to, 2) create a large disincentive to immigrating illegally (e.g. summary execution), or 3) remove or greatly reduce the incentives to immigrate illegally.

And they need to go back to their own country and fix it. It's now our job to do that. What's more people who support them are criminals.

We are making the problem worse by letting them come here. They have to fix this in house.

Why do you think the Mexican Government opposes any sort of Border Control Measure or legislature?

>So we should allow illegal aliens to cross the borders because
>their country is worse than ours?

No, we should let a large percentage of them immigrate legally. Incidentally, allowing immigrants to enter the United States from countries that are "worse than ours" has been a hallmark throughout U.S. history.

>If we are to turn
>a blind eye on every mexican who crosses the border illegally,
>lets save the taxpayers money and give the Department of
>Naturalization and the Border Patrol their walking papers,
>send them to the unemployment lines.

We don't turn a blind eye. Actually, we try to stop them from crossing the border. It's just a colossally difficult (read: expensive) task, and we're doing a crappy job of it. There's also the issue that approximately 1/2 of all illegal residents crossed the border legally.

>Hell, if that's the case, I might just renounce my citizenship
>so I can work and not have to pay taxes while getting free medical
>attention!

Yeah, tell me how that goes. You'll be stuck doing manual labor and subsisting on emergency room medical care. Preventative care? What's that? Social security? What's that? Access to the justice system? What's that?

Yeah, tell me how that goes. You'll be stuck doing manual labor and subsisting on emergency room medical care. Preventative care? What's that? Social security? What's that? Access to the justice system? What's that?<<<<<

Emergency Room Care costs us money, not them.

Most Americans perform Manual Labor and are proud of it.

Most Americans don't have Preventative care, and paying for Illegals isn't helping.

Most Americans wont have Social Security and funds are diverted away from it because of Illegals.

All people, Illegal or not have access to justice. If they are afraid to go file a complaint because they are illegal, they should have stayed home.

So why would we make it possible for everyone to come here?

.

voting liberal or any third party is better than not voting at all.

http://www.cato-unbound.org/2006/11/06/bryan-caplan/the-myth-of-the-rational-voter/

Have I mentioned that only stupid people are breeding?

Tac

It's alright... no one likes me.

I don't vote.

I don't even believe I'm registered to vote.

I do not follow politics. I do have the time nor the urge to follow them. (generally speaking) Therefore I have no idea who is running for what office, OR what they stand for/plan to accomplish.

Because of my lack of knowledge it would be stupid for me to "just vote" for the sake of voting because I have no clue what I am voting for.

I don't believe people should just vote for the sake of voting, -especially- if they are ignorant about it like I am. That's just Stupid!

I do not vote because I do not possecess enough knowledge about the canidates(sp) or their posistions to make an accurate decision on who I want to repersent my needs in a position of power.

"Then hunger proved more powerful than grief." - Count Ugolino and the Tower of Hunger

I think most of the voters that turn out these days have not a clue what the person/bill/law etc stands for muchless the effect it may have on their lives or someone elses.

I don't vote for the same reason, watching these guys squirm on TV and fling poo at each other doesn't appeal to me, so I rarely know what they are about or what the supposidly intend to do in office.

Chances are that you are smarter than the average voter by virtue of the fact you enjoy a text based roleplaying game over mindless reality tv show number 234098265. Letting someone stupider than you make decisions which can adversely affect you is a stupid choice.

That I believe there are people out there who watch those commercials and ads and base their votes on those. There was a commercial here in MI that said the republican running for senate was the key vote that swung a crucial issue in the Michigan House, basically saying it was all HIS fault something passed. I just had to laugh because apparently all the other folks that voted to pass it don't count, just him. However, people believe crap like that and all the other dumb attack adds out there.

And here is my advice... Are you insanely happy with each and every way the US government is currently being run? If yes, vote republican straight ticket, and you've done your part. If no, vote independent for every race. Vote green, Vote libertarian. You've cast your vote that you are unhappy, but without having it influence the real stuff (dem vs rep) so you can be happy that your uninformed vote didn't really count.

Then... get ####ing informed. You have the internet, so becoming informed isn't incredibly difficult. Start now. You've got two years to become informed. You've got two years to learn what issues you care about, and what the facts are. You've got two years to find a candidate that supports your viewpoints in that area. If you can't find one, refer to first paragraph. Even if you are insanely lazy and spend 1 hour a month, or 1 day over the next two years, you'll still be more educated than most of those who do vote (I'm making this up, and have no statistical backing - for Valg) so YOU know better than them. That means you are informed.

WEEEE politics suck. I gunning for Emporer of Earth. Just gotta find a way to usurp the current Dreadlord and get my lich quest.

>Then... get ####ing informed. You have the internet, so
>becoming informed isn't incredibly difficult.

Actually I'm only on the internet once a week (if I'm lucky) and would rather spend what few hours I have developing and playing my character on this lovely game of ours.

>Start now... Even if you are insanely lazy and spend 1
>hour a month, or 1 day over the next two years, you'll still
>be more educated than most of those who do vote.

Going to work early and coming home late leaves me with little motivation to do anything that doesn't directly increase my entertainment meter. I'm just trying to enjoy what little time I have here.

Plus issues that -would- interest me should I choose to get involved, I highly doubt they (governers and such smaller offices) care much about. Seeing as how I don't hold many political views very close, the few I do are more of a White House/Supreme Court kind of thing.

>WEEEE politics suck. I gunning for Emporer of Earth. Just
>gotta find a way to usurp the current Dreadlord and get my
>lich quest.

Tell you what. Get your campaigne(sp) running, and you got my vote!

"Then hunger proved more powerful than grief." - Count Ugolino and the Tower of Hunger

A system where a vote for third party doesn't count sucks. Are you saying that the small parties don't get any representatives at all? People aren't represented well enough if only the biggest party of the state gets voice on federal level. One example of democracy not happening is when GW Bush was elected president while Al Gore got more votes in USA than he did. The system where you can win a state and get all its votes when all its ihabitants didn't vote for you is just retarded.

The election system in the US is broken. One of the reasons I encourage third party votes is that if say 10% of population votes independent (across the nation) you aren't going to get anyone elected, but it'd be real hard to say that a third party doesn't deserve any seats if 10% of the population voted for them... Might lead to some badly needed election reform... perhaps not, but until I take over, it's the best plan I can think of.

We are actually a republic, not a democracy, but who is counting

To tell the Truth is to Lie to your Self.-Rho, The Liar

Its only a conspiracy against the democrats that this happened to Al Gore? Come on man, it goes both ways as well. I live in a blue state where its not even close, so basically my vote never counts either. If you didn't intend this to say Al Gore got cheated, then I'll let it all slide, but its a tired arguement.

My point is that your vote should always count. The system where majority of the voters didn't get the candidate they wanted to be elected in a two candidate election is flawed. My opinion is that whoever gets more votes should win the election and that candidates shouldn't win a state and get 100% of it's votes if 100% of it's population didn't vote for them.


Whether or not Al Gore got cheated is not relevant for this discussion, for it was not my point.

You don't need to know alot of politics to see that someone like George Allan is a bigot, or at the very least a total jerk. Unless the opposition were particularly unsavory, I'd vote against him just on the basis of his "character".

Even if you're not someone who reads the news daily, it's not hard to know what some of the major issues are. Going to your each candidate's webpage and clicking on "issues" typically gets you the basics. (Though, interestingly, neither of my U.S. congressional candidates, Republican and Democrat, listed their stance on abortion on their respective websites.) If there are certain issues you consider more important than others, vote according to those.

nt

"Then hunger proved more powerful than grief." - Count Ugolino and the Tower of Hunger