RE: Bush; "Protectionism will cost U.S. jobs."

RE: Bush; "Protectionism will cost U.S. jobs." (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

meatcleaver -> RE: Bush; "Protectionism will cost U.S. jobs." (10/16/2007 10:54:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Well, I first have to say that since George has been absofuckinglutely wrong about so much, it seems like there should be some reality check along the lines of cum granis salis on any statement he makes including this. Ron Hi Ron Epgah just doesn't get it. Admitting that the history of one's country is total shite doesn't mean those alive today are guilty. Sssh! I'm British, we plundered the world. I don't feel guilty for everything the Brits did but I do acknowledge it.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Bush; "Protectionism will cost U.S. jobs." (10/16/2007 10:57:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EPGAH Imagine calling the police for protection from savages trying to rape your wife and daughters and kill your sons and livestock (Or is that kill your wife and daughters and rape your sons and livestock? I forget...), the cops arrive, and hold YOU at bay, and wink and nod to the savages ruining your life's work, if not your life? You pay for protection and you get restriction instead.. MrE please stick to the point and leave Robert Mugabe out of this lol

mnottertail -> RE: Bush; "Protectionism will cost U.S. jobs." (10/16/2007 10:58:06 AM)
And I am guilty because the Chinese are communist.......we could have prevented it and installed a democracy there like we did in Iraq, and so many other places, time and time again. Ron

EPGAH -> RE: Bush; "Protectionism will cost U.S. jobs." (10/16/2007 11:16:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: EPGAH As to your claims, meatcleaver, yes, I did indeed mean the Proclamation Line. Imagine calling the police for protection from savages trying to rape your wife and daughters and kill your sons and livestock (Or is that kill your wife and daughters and rape your sons and livestock? I forget...), the cops arrive, and hold YOU at bay, and wink and nod to the savages ruining your life's work, if not your life? You pay for protection and you get restriction instead...Somehow, I doubt that would sit well with you. However much sellers' remorse the Indians had is NOT a reason to get violent! EPGAH it was the colonists that were doing the raping and killing not the natives. So scalping (As in removing the top layer of the head, since concert and sports tickets weren't yet on sale in America) is just a Hollywood invention? I am admitting the Americans were aggressively buying all the territory the Indians were willing to sell. There is a semi-ironic part in that the Indians apparently thought the settlers were just giving them gifts, and the "buying land" part was some kind of international prank. If they were truly this naive (or perhaps drunk off British "firewater"), then yes, you could claim rape, in that the Indians weren't "competent" in the modern sense of the term. However, some settlements were razed (As in burned to the ground) by hostile Indians. Since the Indians were reluctant to turn each other in, Americans simply counterattacked against ALL of them (The beginning of stereotyping minorities due to their OWN Conspiracies Of Silence!) However, getting back to the initial post, tariffs were originally used to coerce Americans to buy goods from America's fledgeling industries, rather than cheaper goods from elsewhere. England had, after all, wanted us to grow raw materials for them to refine and sell back to us, which is HIGHLY predatory capitalism! Our independence cut us off of Britain's "goodwill", so they wanted to gut America's industrial base by undercutting them, pricewise. Heavy protective tariffs were needed. Now, the opposite seems to be playing out, and American industries aren't waiting for foreigns to invade us to take our jobs, they're sending our jobs abroad for anything that doesn't actually require physical presence. Additionally, greedy unions are demanding raises--because prices are rising for all goods and services. I still remember when "price-war" meant two competitors tried to make their prices LOWER than each other, now it appears to be a contest of who can raise their prices HIGHEST without cutting themselves off entirely. (And actually, there was a gas-station locally that got sued by the gas-company for selling gas at too LOW a price!) Americans are over a barrel (of oil?), since most of us don't have large enough estates to mine/manufacture everything we need, so we HAVE to buy it. With our limited incomes of our jobs--maintained lower because they have the unspoken option of firing us all and replacing us with illegal foreign invaders--we have to buy cheaper products, with an expectation of similar quality. The "invisible hand of free market" is supposed to eliminate products of lesser quality, particularly in the Food and Drug area...We HAVE a Government Administration that is supposed to be in charge of Food and Drugs, but they must be asleep or something. Regardless, foreign countries' products are now being proven less safe, from deadly dog-food to toxic toys. If China had the equivalent of a Food&Drug Administration over there--or ANY quality-control, their prices would be higher, possibly even on par with our own. And yes, I am aware that China had executed some official for "allowing" this, but I think it was more for "allowing" himself to get caught. Americans play by rules and naively expect other countries to play by the same rules, and sometimes that naivete kills us! Protective tariffs, sadly, are the ONLY way to "retaliate", since if some American goods poisoned some foreigns, we'd never hear the end of it, in media and lawsuits--and these from people in our OWN country, to say nothing of the hammering we'd take from the "international community"!

philosophy -> RE: Bush; "Protectionism will cost U.S. jobs." (10/16/2007 11:20:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EPGAH Sociopathy is CLAIMED to be hereditary, whether because they raise their kids to be little sociopaths, or because it's innate genetics, either way, it falls to us First Worlders to SOMEHOW stop the criminals from making more of themselves. ...are you suggesting that first world citizens can't be sociopaths? Additionally, the irony of a first world citizen suggesting forced castration for those in the third world is entirely lost on you isn't it? As to large families.........well, when the child mortality rate is high, then it is an economic imperative to have many children. It's nothing to do with not being as good as a first worlder....it's a sane response to a rotten situation. You strike me as someone who is an almost perfect sophist.

EPGAH -> RE: Bush; "Protectionism will cost U.S. jobs." (10/16/2007 12:06:29 PM)
I don't know why you seem to be taking such offense at what I say. meatcleaver: Yes, all nations have done bad things in the past. ONLY America's, though, seem to be thrown back in our faces everytime we want to close ourselves off from foreigns who wish to do us harm. Was or was not your comment something along the lines of a sarcastic, "Yes, the Indians should've done that to the Euro-Americans" Maybe they should have, but they didn't have either the technology or the will to do so. America HAS the technology to do so, but everytime we try, our efforts are undermined by people with arguments like that, who imply that America getting taken over and invaded by Mexico/El Salvador/China/Africa is some kind of karmic vengeance. Let's leave "turning back the clock" to the realm of sci-fi, and focus instead on protecting what we've still got! seeks: I am not INTENTIONALLY referencing Mugabe, Noriega, or any other dictator who got rich off crime and tried to stop The Law from interdicting the criminals...I just wonder about the odd double-standard the media shows: America is SUPPOSED to defend itself, but when we try, we're terrible, horrible, awful, bigoted, Fascist, Nazi racists. (Did I forget any adjectives?) So all we're allowed to defend ourselves against is our fellow Americans? philosophy: YES, First Worlders can be sociopaths--Oil-executives make an almost perfect example. YES, many children is a "defense" of sorts against child mortality, BUT once they get aid from First Worlders, their mortality rate drops, and they experience a population boom, since they don't adjust their breeding-rate to compensate, given their "culture" or "religion" prevents them from doing so. THAT is not sane! You implied, "Who appointed America the world's morality judge?" I respond, "Who appointed America to feed and medicate the ever-growing masses?" And failing that, why is America painted as "evil" everytime we try to cut costs by reducing or eliminating foreign-aid to "sovereign and independent" countries who are apparently QUITE dependent on America's generosity, although they refuse to pay their way, so to speak? Third, and perhaps most importantly, I did NOT suggest forced castration for those IN the Third World, I suggested it for Third World invaders into America, which is still trying valiantly to hang on to First World status, even while supplying so much money, food, and medicine to countries--even ones that hate us--to avoid being called racist! Every dollar and/or crate of food/medicine we send to the ungrateful Third World is one dollar or crate of food/medicine that can't be spent HERE, making our OWN education and/or health-care better! But we can't shut off the gravy-train, or else America is being discriminatory and racist! Isn't an accusation of "racism" sophistry in and of itself, since it is meant to squelch intellectual debate? If someone broke into your house and stole your food, your money, your medicine...and just STAYED in your house, eating your food, running up your utility bills, leaving messes everywhere, you would try to throw them out, right? Would their minority or foreign status change your mind? And if you DID throw them out, if they just came right back and called you racist, despite your (involuntary) support of their leeching lifestyle, wouldn't that be both frustrating and ungrateful? What about if the burglar had children--the hospital bills sent to your account, obviously? What about if it DEMANDED you learn its language? When it DEMANDED you subsidize its spawn's college education? How much time would you devote to the invaders, knowing that every hour you spend cleaning up after them is an hour you can't spend on yourself or your family? How much money would you let them waste, knowing that that money could be spent making the lives of you and yours better? How much would you PERSONALLY be willing to sacrifice to make the invaders comfortable? And if the answer is "not much" or something to that effect, why do you take offense when I say America shouldn't have to be burdened with "involuntary guests" either? There is a post by Termyn8or http://www.collarchat.com/m_1347524/mpage_1/key_/tm.htm#1350594 Almost verbatim what I tried to convey! (And at the end, he veers off into statistics just like I do!) Or is it simply the WAY I'm saying it that makes everyone bristle, even those who would normally be "on my side"?

philosophy -> RE: Bush; "Protectionism will cost U.S. jobs." (10/16/2007 3:50:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EPGAH If someone broke into your house and stole your food, your money, your medicine...and just STAYED in your house, eating your food, running up your utility bills, leaving messes everywhere, you would try to throw them out, right? Would their minority or foreign status change your mind? ..... .........What about if the burglar had children--the hospital bills sent to your account, obviously? What about if it DEMANDED you learn its language? When it DEMANDED you subsidize its spawn's college education? How much time would you devote to the invaders, knowing that every hour you spend cleaning up after them is an hour you can't spend on yourself or your family? How much money would you let them waste, knowing that that money could be spent making the lives of you and yours better? How much would you PERSONALLY be willing to sacrifice to make the invaders comfortable? And if the answer is "not much" or something to that effect, why do you take offense when I say America shouldn't have to be burdened with "involuntary guests" either? ........at the end of the day we have a basic difference of opinion. i believe that everyone, regardless of nationality, legal status or mental state ought to be treated as a human being. i regard the idea that all humans are created equal as self evident. It doesn't matter to me, for instance, if they're sitting in guantanamo or in a mainland prison.....they're all entitled to the same concept of justice. From what you have posted you make exceptions for US citizens. You demand, fairly, that visitors to your shores observe your laws....but then, in another thread, you suggest that Turkey (another sovereign nation) should waive its own laws to make things easier for US interests. It is that discrepancy that many here object to in your posts. You are not, apparently, someone who sees humans first and nationalities second. This is a fundamental difference between us. Do you support castrating American citizens who break the law in foreign countries? If not, then you ought not to suggest castrating foreign nationals who break US laws.

meatcleaver -> RE: Bush; "Protectionism will cost U.S. jobs." (10/16/2007 11:09:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EPGAH So scalping (As in removing the top layer of the head, since concert and sports tickets weren't yet on sale in America) is just a Hollywood invention? I am admitting the Americans were aggressively buying all the territory the Indians were willing to sell. There is a semi-ironic part in that the Indians apparently thought the settlers were just giving them gifts, and the "buying land" part was some kind of international prank. If they were truly this naive (or perhaps drunk off British "firewater"), then yes, you could claim rape, in that the Indians weren't "competent" in the modern sense of the term. However, some settlements were razed (As in burned to the ground) by hostile Indians. Since the Indians were reluctant to turn each other in, Americans simply counterattacked against ALL of them (The beginning of stereotyping minorities due to their OWN Conspiracies Of Silence!) However, getting back to the initial post, tariffs were originally used to coerce Americans to buy goods from America's fledgeling industries, rather than cheaper goods from elsewhere. England had, after all, wanted us to grow raw materials for them to refine and sell back to us, which is HIGHLY predatory capitalism! Our independence cut us off of Britain's "goodwill", so they wanted to gut America's industrial base by undercutting them, pricewise. Heavy protective tariffs were needed. Now, the opposite seems to be playing out, and American industries aren't waiting for foreigns to invade us to take our jobs, they're sending our jobs abroad for anything that doesn't actually require physical presence. Additionally, greedy unions are demanding raises--because prices are rising for all goods and services. I still remember when "price-war" meant two competitors tried to make their prices LOWER than each other, now it appears to be a contest of who can raise their prices HIGHEST without cutting themselves off entirely. (And actually, there was a gas-station locally that got sued by the gas-company for selling gas at too LOW a price!) Americans are over a barrel (of oil?), since most of us don't have large enough estates to mine/manufacture everything we need, so we HAVE to buy it. With our limited incomes of our jobs--maintained lower because they have the unspoken option of firing us all and replacing us with illegal foreign invaders--we have to buy cheaper products, with an expectation of similar quality. The "invisible hand of free market" is supposed to eliminate products of lesser quality, particularly in the Food and Drug area...We HAVE a Government Administration that is supposed to be in charge of Food and Drugs, but they must be asleep or something. Regardless, foreign countries' products are now being proven less safe, from deadly dog-food to toxic toys. If China had the equivalent of a Food&Drug Administration over there--or ANY quality-control, their prices would be higher, possibly even on par with our own. And yes, I am aware that China had executed some official for "allowing" this, but I think it was more for "allowing" himself to get caught. Americans play by rules and naively expect other countries to play by the same rules, and sometimes that naivete kills us! Protective tariffs, sadly, are the ONLY way to "retaliate", since if some American goods poisoned some foreigns, we'd never hear the end of it, in media and lawsuits--and these from people in our OWN country, to say nothing of the hammering we'd take from the "international community"! Your history is total wank and based on comforting national myth and not reality. The Native Americans learnt to scalp by copying the colonists!!!! It was the European settlers that introduced all those native barbarities!!! As for British predatory capitalism. The colonies smeltered more steel than Britain along with making a lot of other products they exported to Britain, the colonies were a vibrant economy and the average colonist was wealthier than the average Englishman. The US has all theeconomic records so there is no reason for your ignorance on this matter. The wealth the colonies got from the British can be shown by the fact that after independence it took fifty years for the economy of the colonies to recover. Every colony had its own functioning assembly that was not interfered with by the British. The reason for independence was that the colonies had basically matured into a fully functioning country and wanted to make their own decisions like snatching more land if that is what they wanted. The founding fathers wanted to consolidate their political positions and become the bosses of the colonies. Why do you think the founding fathers never gave ordinary colonists the vote or freed the slaves or have any problem with stealing land from the natives because they truely believed in the rights of man? The average Canadian under the British yolk (or so your founding fathers would have you believe) had more freedom than your citizen of the new regime, an Englishman had more freedom so don't believe the crap you are told that the founding fathers cared for the poor colonist, they cared for themselves like all establishments do.

Politesub53 -> RE: Bush; "Protectionism will cost U.S. jobs." (10/17/2007 2:46:08 AM)
Meatclever...... I always thought the same about scalping, althought the Europeans practiced it, there is evidence the tribes used to scalp each other prior to the settlers. Also your theory about being under the yolk is scrambled..... just my little "yoke" for the day [;)] Egpah......I dont know why you think America is the only country to help when there is an earthquake...... British rescue teams are always at the forefront in any such events, including the one in Iran recently. Impressment of sailors did take place, the British only impressed deserters from our own navy, and people who originally had British Citizenship. In anycase, although that was an issue, it wasnt the main reason for the 1812 war, thats more linked to the war between England and France at that time. Mainy due to us trying to stop France trading with the US. There are really two ways a country can go, with regards to trade. Either be self sufficient, and dont trade with anyone. Or to trade freely using agreed tarriffs and such. Since most countries dont have all the raw materials they need, then fair trade is the only way forward.

meatcleaver -> RE: Bush; "Protectionism will cost U.S. jobs." (10/17/2007 3:12:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Meatclever...... I always thought the same about scalping, althought the Europeans practiced it, there is evidence the tribes used to scalp each other prior to the settlers. I thought it was introduced by the Spanish and moved north into what was to become the USA. I could be wrong. quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Also your theory about being under the yolk is scrambled..... just my little "yoke" for the day [;)] The egg I had for breakfast keeps repeating itself.[:D] quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Impressment of sailors did take place, the British only impressed deserters from our own navy, and people who originally had British Citizenship. In anycase, although that was an issue, it wasnt the main reason for the 1812 war, thats more linked to the war between England and France at that time. Mainy due to us trying to stop France trading with the US. Don't Give Up The Ship is a good book at dispelling myths around the 1812 war, the reasons for which were manufactured by the Washington administration and were excuses to try and grab Canada. Though Americans claim to have won the war or say it played out to a stalemate, in reality the war was a just as stupid a move as was invading Iraq and very costly for the US. This reminds me 70 or so years later the US threatened to invade Canada for harbouring a terrorist (yes, terrorist, that was the language used). The terrorist was Sitting Bull who was fighting for the survival of his people. http://rbstudiobooks.com/dguts.html

LadyEllen -> RE: Bush; "Protectionism will cost U.S. jobs." (10/17/2007 3:55:15 AM)
You know? Epgah, for all his historical errors and hysterical approach is expressing some important matters, badly. Its my view, expressed in another thread a while back, that a country exists as an association of people who come together for mutual benefit and protection, living according to mutually agreed rules which provide best for that benefit and protection. They may appoint some from amongst them to administer those rules and deal with infractions, and some to represent them outside of their country and still some more to provide for the country to be defended from outside threats - but then again, they may choose not to. The association exists and prospers, because everyone knows the rules and in the most part, everyone follows them, recognising that for each to derive benefit and protection requires that each do so. The problem that we have walked into is that we have long since departed from being a functioning association as described. Instead of being an association for mutual benefit and protection, we have become more akin to a herd of cattle whose role is to provide for the exclusive benefit of a select few and to be exposed without protection to the depredation of wolves entering from outside, which for some reason are the chosen pets of the select few. We no longer appoint some from amongst us to administer our association, but rather are presented with a choice from the select few exploiting us who then of course, exploit us. We no longer decide the rules of our association, but the select few decide and we follow, still believing (for the select few ensure we do) that the new rules are for our benefit and protection. This select few are the same who allow the wolves into the cattle pen, choosing to benefit from the compensations offered to them personally when the stock are ravaged. But I'm afraid, it gets worse than that. For amongst us right now in our crumbling associations are those who refuse to follow the ideals of our association, yet appeal to it to provide for their benefit and protection - and strangely for some reason, these people are exempted from the wolves' attacks too. And no, we're not talking about illegal immigrants - we're talking about a sizeable proportion of those born into the association - a far larger number of people than illegal immigrants, who should know better, but even if they do know better, refuse to show it. These are those people who want the benefits and protections, but feel they owe nothing in return; the benefits and protections being some sort of birthright for them which someone else should provide. And whilst they receive these benefits and protections, for no effort on their part - they bemoan the success of immigrants, legal and illegal, who do make the effort to contribute and prosper as a result. But, again there is more. Because the select few who instead of representing us exploit us, have bred this generation of people who believe they should get benefits and protections for nothing, in two ways. Firstly, by making outrageous and unrealistic promises which could never be fulfilled, in order to secure votes and become one of the select few - thus breaching that trust in the association which is necessary to inspire contribution. Secondly, by allowing their pet wolves to predate us and removing the opportunity to contribute for many. One asks the question, how can one contribute, when wolves take one's job? Why should one contribute, when a select few value the teeth of the wolf over one's efforts? Perhaps then, the error is with the select few who have brought us here, not with the disillusioned and disenfranchised? And certainly not with those who join our association for its benefits and protections, contribute, and yet would be denied. E

EPGAH -> RE: Bush; "Protectionism will cost U.S. jobs." (10/17/2007 7:14:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen You know? Epgah, for all his historical errors and hysterical approach is expressing some important matters, badly. Its my view, expressed in another thread a while back, that a country exists as an association of people who come together for mutual benefit and protection, living according to mutually agreed rules which provide best for that benefit and protection. They may appoint some from amongst them to administer those rules and deal with infractions, and some to represent them outside of their country and still some more to provide for the country to be defended from outside threats - but then again, they may choose not to. The association exists and prospers, because everyone knows the rules and in the most part, everyone follows them, recognising that for each to derive benefit and protection requires that each do so. But I'm afraid, it gets worse than that. For amongst us right now in our crumbling associations are those who refuse to follow the ideals of our association, yet appeal to it to provide for their benefit and protection - and strangely for some reason, these people are exempted from the wolves' attacks too. And no, we're not talking about illegal immigrants - we're talking about a sizeable proportion of those born into the association - a far larger number of people than illegal immigrants, who should know better, but even if they do know better, refuse to show it. These are those people who want the benefits and protections, but feel they owe nothing in return; the benefits and protections being some sort of birthright for them which someone else should provide. And whilst they receive these benefits and protections, for no effort on their part - they bemoan the success of immigrants, legal and illegal, who do make the effort to contribute and prosper as a result. But, again there is more. Because the select few who instead of representing us exploit us, have bred this generation of people who believe they should get benefits and protections for nothing, in two ways. Firstly, by making outrageous and unrealistic promises which could never be fulfilled, in order to secure votes and become one of the select few - thus breaching that trust in the association which is necessary to inspire contribution. Secondly, by allowing their pet wolves to predate us and removing the opportunity to contribute for many. One asks the question, how can one contribute, when wolves take one's job? Why should one contribute, when a select few value the teeth of the wolf over one's efforts? Perhaps then, the error is with the select few who have brought us here, not with the disillusioned and disenfranchised? And certainly not with those who join our association for its benefits and protections, contribute, and yet would be denied. E Wow, someone actually agreeing with me...Thank you...And yes, that is one of the positions I espoused: After all, isn't our welfare system, whether burdened by illegals or lazy Americans taking advantage of our system in the same way, now called "entitlements"?[;)] What entitles some to break the law, and/or to get paid just for existing? Is this the old Nietzchian Superman (NOT to be confused with the Man of Steel) complex in a new form?

LadyEllen -> RE: Bush; "Protectionism will cost U.S. jobs." (10/17/2007 7:27:34 AM)
Yes, but Epgah, this is where we see things differently The "lazy" people are in the main that way, because the opportunities they need have been exported. Yes, there are some for whom its an inherent trait, but the majority do want to work but find they cant do so and achieve the same income as they get on benefits, because all thats left when the factories have been sent abroad is part time, low wage, temporary and the like. These jobs still need doing though - and without the immigrants they wouldnt get done. There then comes a problem in saying these immigrants should not get the benefits, when we are paying natives to stay home and not work at all and getting those benefits. The real blame for the situation doesnt lie with immigrants or the unemployed - its with the so called leaders of our countries who have failed spectacularly in looking after our nation's interests - thats nation as in the people, not the country. The leaders would like us to blame the immigrants and unemployed for the situation of course - it deflects the blame from them. E

EPGAH -> RE: Bush; "Protectionism will cost U.S. jobs." (10/17/2007 7:37:38 AM)
I agree that the opportunities are exported, but I disagree that we "need" illegals in any capacity except target-practice. Wages are lower because any job that needs doing, if the Americans actually DARE to demand a living wage, the Bosses can just fire'em all, and replace them with cheap imbeciles from Mexico...Sure, they can't understand a lick of English! Yes, they'll breed a legion in America, and our welfare system, educational system, health-care system, police and jail infrastructure will be taxed by it. But to the CORPORATIONS, it's "cheap" labor, insofar as that the costs are all spread to the taxpayers at large. And speaking of taxes, our educational system, for all its flaws, is funded by property taxes. If 40 people live in a one-family dwelling, that is cheating the zoning laws, and the property taxes (As well as more than a little unsanitary, but that's why illegals clog our ERs...and the local one was closed due to too many "indigent" cases!) Take THAT, American educational system! The only good thing I can see from illegal invasion of Ameria is that since the unwanted are encouraged to breed by loopholes in our system, Charles Darwin is now turning in his grave fast enough to generate electricity! Since this is America, why not block all services to people too stupid to learn English after 159 years? Press 1 for English, press 2 for ICE agents to home in on your phone-signal and bust one illegal at a time...One by one until there's none...?

LadyEllen -> RE: Bush; "Protectionism will cost U.S. jobs." (10/17/2007 7:53:56 AM)
But Epgah - youre falling into the exact trap the select few have prepared for you. Blame the immigrants! One cannot blame people for making the best choice for themselves given their circumstances - but one can blame those who produce the legal environment which make those choices the best choices. The more we concentrate on blaming "lazy" natives and immigrants for the troubles of our nations, the happier are those who have constructed the situation - they are benefitting from it and someone else gets the blame. E

EPGAH -> RE: Bush; "Protectionism will cost U.S. jobs." (10/17/2007 8:12:47 AM)
I am not blaming IMMIGRANTS, I am blaming INVADERS. There's a large difference between immigrants and illegals. Immigrants, because it's so "hard" to get into our country, and there's such a long line, etc., once they DO get in, they have a stake in keeping their noses clean, learning the language, contributing, NOT becoming a ward of the State(s), and generally being the "Good, Hardworking, Assimilated Foreigner"(TM) As a local official said recently, "I'd LOVE some diversity...Please shut off the flood of [Primarily Mexican] illegals that is drowning our diversity, and even our language!" That said, call the DELL or AT&T/Yahoo DSL support line, you'll get conected to someone in India. 180 THOUSAND miles away, but somehow, they've learned English? I am not so delusional as to assume America "conquered" India, or that they're doing it for us, they're learning English because they want OUR MONEY! Illegal scum from Mexico ALSO want our money...yet they want to force US to learn THEIR language! Why can't/won't these idiots learn English, having been next to us for over 1½ centuries? If it goes against their "culture", that's too damn bad, they can sneak back to Mexico probably EASIER than they snuck into America, right? And furthermore, what has their "culture" done for them? It certainly hasn't educated them...Given them a strong set of morals (I think it's given them a strong sense of beliefs, though, they BELIEVE America is supposed to support them and however many spawn they generate, in their own language, and without complaining about the disease and crime they bring!)...But more importantly, there is no profit in staying foreign. If they truly "want a better life", they could learn English, or keep silent. Alternately, if they truly are here only for the "Jobs Americans Won't Do"(TM), they could do those jobs, and stop burdening our educational and health-care systems, stop trying to seek any status higher than "thief in the night", since that was the choice they made...they could've stayed in Mexico, working the factories American (and other) companies establish there...But they CHOSE not to, they CHOSE to invade a country where their kind would be unwanted, and they CHOSE to continue being unwanted by behaving in a way contrary to the Greater Good of America!

philosophy -> RE: Bush; "Protectionism will cost U.S. jobs." (10/17/2007 8:12:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EPGAH I agree that the opportunities are exported, but I disagree that we "need" illegals in any capacity except target-practice. Wages are lower because any job that needs doing, if the Americans actually DARE to demand a living wage, the Bosses can just fire'em all, and replace them with cheap imbeciles from Mexico... ....target practise? On the one hand you suggest that illegal immigrants should be summarily executed, then (in response to LE's reasoned argument) you point out how good ol' American Corporate greed is creating the situation in the first place. It is this kind of double standard that makes your arguments so distasteful. .....and you never answered me when i asked if you support catrating US citizens who break the law in foreign countries.

LadyEllen -> RE: Bush; "Protectionism will cost U.S. jobs." (10/17/2007 8:31:32 AM)
Yet again Epgah - you miss the point I'm making, entirely. Who is responsible for letting illegals in so easily? Who benefits from their readiness to take work at under regular wages? Who allows, even encourages them to retain their own culture whilst doing so? Who might see in their presence some possible electoral advantage, should allowances be made? Yes, you and many others are angry about all this - but the illegals are not the enemy. The enemy is the select few - Democrat and Republican, who see and/or enjoy the benefits of the situation (and indeed the benefit of allowing jobs to be exported) at the expense of you and the many others. The more vitriolic you and the many others get about it, the better; not only is the wrong enemy targetted, but you can all be written off as racist nutcases - and all of this is nothing whatever to do with race, ethnicity, religion or what one eats for Sunday lunch. E

EPGAH -> RE: Bush; "Protectionism will cost U.S. jobs." (10/17/2007 9:20:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy ....target practise? On the one hand you suggest that illegal immigrants should be summarily executed, then (in response to LE's reasoned argument) you point out how good ol' American Corporate greed is creating the situation in the first place. It is this kind of double standard that makes your arguments so distasteful. .....and you never answered me when i asked if you support catrating US citizens who break the law in foreign countries. Each country has their own penalties for lawbreakers. There was a huge stink raised when the kid in Singapore got caned, but America refused to do anything about it. A half-dozen Special Ops could've broken into the prison, "summarily executed" (your phrase is cute...I like it) everyone in the way, and extracted the kid, but because he wasn't a bigwig, they didn't. I don't see any double-standard about this: If the invaders think that by coming in and popping out a legion of subhuman intellect, they can stay, then naturally, they're going to breed and keep "bleeding the beast" as hard as they can! The more kids, the more money THEY get, but the more money is siphoned OUT of America's economy...Americans BRING money, foreigns (especially illegals) TAKE money! Please note that "remittances" (Polite word for "plunder") has finally outstripped oil royalties as a source of income for Mexico, the nation, but this MONEY hasn't generated WEALTH, it's just generated more illegals who want to plunder America so they can be pseudo-"successful" like the ones who have already invaded America. We HAVE border-enforcement (to some degree), but the illegals have found there is no LASTING punishment, so everytime they're sent back, they can try again with no penalty. We have one that was caught last week who has been deported THIRTEEN TIMES! Since 13's unlucky, he'll probably do it again; he's clearly proven he believes America's laws...are for others to follow! Asset-seizure laws would be good, but it needs to hurt the enemies where they live, and Mexican culture seems based on how big a litter they can breed. Therefore, enforced castration would be a good remedy for first offense, and perhaps enforced organ-removal for third offense...MAKE them give back to the health-care system, we cannot afford to be the HMO for EVERYONE, without taking something back from the freeloaders! Even failing that, though, if they believe all that awaits them on the civilized side of the border is pain, humiliation, and death if they don't come in legally, they'll wait in line, and be happy about it...We need to have SOME punishment, otherwise, they'll just keep invading again and again. Hell, it's even counted as our "fault" when their excess population dies crossing our desert...Noone asked them to, in fact you could even say, "Stay in your own country, and you won't die", but that might have too many syllables for Mexicans to process? (Since Mexico is using America to get rid of their excess population, isn't this a GOOD thing for both parties? Mexico loses a malcontent, yet America doesn't gain one?) To preempt any whining about "Well, Americans expect things in their language when THEY go to other countries!", please remember, AMERICANS BRING MONEY...In fact, you might say tourists are charged MORE than natives. You've heard of the Golden Rule, right? Whoever has the Gold, makes the Rules? Mexico "helped" prove this during Hurricane Katrina, they had ARMED SOLDIERS lock down the borders, preventing AMERICANS from returning to perceived "safety" in AMERICA! The prices "magically" doubled or tripled for the literally CAPTIVE audience, and those who went broke were forced to stay in Mexican jail (Which is nowhere NEAR as nice as an American jail--which is why Mexicans try to get into American jails![;)]) However, this just proved that Mexico CAN lockdown their borders when they "want" to...the trick is making them "want" to...Can America sue them for defective merchandise and/or market-flooding. Something along the lines of, "Thanks, we have enough criminals, we don't need yours", with a monetary penalty attached? Or sue them for the upkeep of their excess population, which, if we charge enough, might make them reevaluate their priorities...Just an idea!

EPGAH -> RE: Bush; "Protectionism will cost U.S. jobs." (10/17/2007 9:29:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Yet again Epgah - you miss the point I'm making, entirely. Yes, you and many others are angry about all this - but the illegals are not the enemy. The enemy is the select few - Democrat and Republican, who see and/or enjoy the benefits of the situation (and indeed the benefit of allowing jobs to be exported) at the expense of you and the many others. The more vitriolic you and the many others get about it, the better; not only is the wrong enemy targetted, but you can all be written off as racist nutcases - and all of this is nothing whatever to do with race, ethnicity, religion or what one eats for Sunday lunch. E Like I said before, illegals and their spokespeople make it a "race" issue, when criminals aren't a race. In fact, LEGAL immigrants are even up in arms about this too. There's an organization called "You Don't Speak For Me", which is supposedly LEGAL Hispanics asking us to get rid of the illegals too...It could be a hoax, but even if so, it's a very well-written hoax! America has enough criminals (Or to be politically correct, people whose "needs" outweigh the public morality and the Greater Good), we shouldn't have to shoulder the rest of the world's too! We can't afford to keep being the world's Sheriff, HMO, CEO, and referee. 3 out of those 4 positions don't pay, and the one that does, doesn't bring in NEARLY enough to offset the rest... And actually, me and "people like me", have stopped eating Tyson foods, and started calling in any incidents of illegals we find, slowly America can purge itself of this "cheaters always prosper" philosophy! Of course, it would be faster if they'd just declare open season on illegals, but they won't, because a lot of LEGALS would suffer too...But it WOULD give our hunters something to do in the off-season![;)] That said, I understand 3 of your 4 points. But I don't see any benefit in encouraging them to keep their proto-culture, and dumb down our schools enough to allow illegals (and others with NO interest in actually LEARNING!) to catch up...Teachers ALLEGE they get frustrated with having to give failures passing grades or else risk losing Federal funding...Could it be that compulsory education is as obsolete as unions or the NAACP? The only one who might benefit is an illegal demagogue, but they deported Elvira Arellano, and so far, no other Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson wannabe has stood forth from either legal or illegal Hispanics--LUCKILY! Their previous hero, Cesar Chavez, actually had his followers GUARD THE BORDER and turn away illegals because they lowered wages for him and his followers. How did he figure that out?

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125