News of the day

Epignosis wrote: UndercoverBoy wrote: That reminds me of this: http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html Not trying to offend you of course.  However, using the "burden on society" argument can be very risky and sort of distasteful in my view.  I still understand your point, even if I disagree.  It is true that people need to be more careful on having kids, but they shouldn't have to live a life of misery if they made that mistake. Swift's "modest proposal" was about dealing with Irish poverty, not immigrants coming into another country illegally, having a bunch of children and then relying on the government to finance their education, health care, nutrition, etc. I find it ironic that liberals use the "fair share" rhetoric to impose tax increases (particularly on business owners), and then say, "Oh those poor illegal immigrants" when it comes to this subject.

UndercoverBoy wrote:  However, do you really think that anyone, a citizen or not, should be denied basic rights or have their children separated from them?

Yes, I do.  Child molesters, drug dealers, murderers, thieves...in other words, people who commit felonies.

UndercoverBoy wrote: I don't think so, and these people are not burdens on society at all.

Do you work and pay taxes?  If not, then you are a burden on society (most likely you have parents who pay into the system, though).

UndercoverBoy wrote: I'm sure the U.S. would be very different if it weren't for the immigrants who came here.

That the US would be very different place is not a good argument for anything.  It's sheer speculation.

And I have no problem with immigrants.  Legal ones.  The US would be a better place without illegal immigrants.  Arguing otherwise is kind of naive.

I also thought it was pretty audacious for the Mexican President to express his disapproval of the Arizonan bill in front of Congress.

If I were the President of Mexico, I would be ashamed that so many of my countrymen were heading for the hills.

Epignosis wrote: I also thought it was pretty audacious for the Mexican President to express his disapproval of the Arizonan bill in front of Congress. If I were the President of Mexico, I would be ashamed that so many of my countrymen were heading for the hills.

Touche and agreed.

Epignosis wrote: UndercoverBoy wrote: I don't think so, and these people are not burdens on society at all.  Do you work and pay taxes?  If not, then you are a burden on society (most likely you have parents who pay into the system, though).

KoS wrote: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/05/the-proud-ignorance-of-rand-paul/56995/ Rand is .

jplanet wrote: Speaking of Ayn Rand Paul, apparently it's un-American to criticize a British corporation for causing an ecological disaster on our soil, but totally patriotic to bash the President for not being happy about it! Further proof that the Teabag Party is thinly-disguised racist fascism: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100521/pl_ynews/ynews_pl2182_5

I read the article.  That's simply not what it says, and certainly not what the quote means.

Even the headline is disingenuous.  Paul wasn't calling Obama's criticism of BP "un-American," he was calling Obama's reaction to BP regarding businesses in general un-American.

And how is this "proof" that the Teabag group is "racist" or "fascist?" 


Edited by Epignosis - May 21 2010 at 18:14

Epignosis wrote: Presumably, the elderly people have already paid their dues.  Let them now bask in this hot heat here in Florida and wear floral printed shirts and drink pina coladas if they so wish.  Illegal immigrants have not paid their dues.

Epignosis wrote: jplanet wrote: Speaking of Ayn Rand Paul, apparently it's un-American to criticize a British corporation for causing an ecological disaster on our soil, but totally patriotic to bash the President for not being happy about it! Further proof that the Teabag Party is thinly-disguised racist fascism: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100521/pl_ynews/ynews_pl2182_5 I read the article.  That's simply not what it says, and certainly not what the quote means. Even the headline is disingenuous.  Paul wasn't calling Obama's criticism of BP "un-American," he was calling Obama's reaction to BP regarding businesses in general un-American. And how is this "proof" that the Teabag group is "racist" or "fascist?"

I ain't buying it. News reports all over are saying that GOP leaders are frantically trying to do damage control after this statement. The most conservative people I know are calling it absurd. Your re-phrasing of what he said doesn't sound any different, or even less incriminating than the headline.

The proof of fascism is in the belief that corporations deserve to be protected from accountability, criticism, and regulation. The belief that corporations should go unchecked by government. It is proven in the demonization of the word "government". Remember, we live in a Democracy. That means the government is the people - that's us. You and I have a say in our government - we can vote. Take away the government's ability to regulate, criticize, and hold corporations accountable, then the only way you and I have a say in anything is if we own a controlling percentage of shares in that company.

Essentially, it takes control away from the people, and hands it over to corporations.

You see these unemployment numbers? 10%? A lot of these people are unemployed because of errors made by corporations. Do you honestly think that anybody actually responsible for the financial crisis is hurting for money? Or even without a job? No. innocent people who have no part in these shenanigans suffer because of their mistakes. I will never hand over my vote as a citizen to someone who will hand that control over to corporations. Do you think that if the government cancelled unemployment that the corporations would pay for it themselves? Do you think they would pay for our healthcare? of course not. But the Teabag philosophy is that people should learn to fend for themselves and not the government. So, corporations screw up and lose the ability to employ millions of people - so they should fend for themselves? WTF? Is it a choice for these workers who lost their jobs because of corporate criminals to not be able to afford their own health insurance? Don't drink the Kool Aid, it's not being handed out for our health - it's for theirs.

As for the racism part - what part of "restaurants should be allowed to refuse service to minorities" isn't racist? Do you think a purist Libertarian view like this would have freed the slaves or allowed interracial marriage? No f**ing way. The only purpose of putting forth a view like that is to send the signal that racism is permissible. What other purpose would a statement like this serve? Who would take advantage of such a freedom other than a racist business owner? What do you do for the black family that lives near one supermarket where they are not allowed to shop, and then have to drive 10 miles to get to one that will? And then that one decides not to let them shop there? Then you want to privatize education - so this means schools would be able to deny education to minorities!!!! Do you not understand what the horror of this is? Oh, and do keep in mind that in many states, white people are the minority - so picture yourself in a neighborhood where you can no longer eat out, send your kids to school, or find a job because of your race. This isn't playground stuff, this is off-the-hook out-and-out racism.

People need to friggin wake up,  you're being duped into thinking that the government is trying to impose on your lives - it's not - WE are the government, and corporations want the freedom to impose on our lives even more than they do every day already.



Edited by jplanet - May 21 2010 at 23:55

UndercoverBoy wrote: Epignosis wrote: Presumably, the elderly people have already paid their dues.  Let them now bask in this hot heat here in Florida and wear floral printed shirts and drink pina coladas if they so wish.  Illegal immigrants have not paid their dues. Yes, they have.  They fill up the jobs that otherwise would not be filled (according to one analysis, over 2.5 million, which would cause)  They do these jobs incredibly efficiently (trust me I've seen it), and I think that they have most definitely paid their dues.  Also, according to an article I read, only 2-3% of Mexican immigrants have used welfare or social security with 84% paying income taxes (http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/basic-facts-on-illegal-immigration/) Green this time! These statistics are only interesting to you because of your obvious rejection of free market principles (which, as we'll see later, you don't really grasp in the first place).  These jobs would be filled (there's simply no way to prove that they would not be).  And if they weren't filled, the employers would have to increase wages / benefits to attract people to their company.  That's supply and demand in the workforce, a simple principle of capitalism. I also don't believe the source you linked to (since it relies on "studies suggest" without telling us who conducted those studies or how their figures were attained).  Try this article, which tells you both, as well as the shortcomings of the study: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33783-2004Aug25.html But notice how expense isn't just entitlement programs.  Expenses include federal prisons, court systems, and other such things that often go unnoticed when calculating the cost of illegal immigration. Epignosis wrote: How do you know how hard these people work?  How many illegal immigrants do you know?  What are their names and for whom do they work? "Hold the fabric of society together?"  Jesus.  While I do not know many illegal immigrants (although I still know some from my mother's workplace as well as have seen some of them at work), I do have some friends who are legal immigrants and do in fact work very hard (I would say that about 40% of my friends have Mexican heritage, as well as half of my family.)  While I do not want to give any names, some of their workplaces include dishwashers at restaurants, roofing and construction companies, and plumbing services.  I'm sure that this is just the tip of the iceberg. When I say that they hold the fabric of society together, I mean the working class (which pretty much all immigrants are in.)  They are the ones who do the menial labor, and society would be nothing without that. Why is this significant?  Most citizens are working class people. And guess what?  These people don't just work in the magical jelly bean factory in the clouds.  If you didn't have the business owners to hire people, the working class would be out of work. Epignosis wrote: Do you not know what the definition of "burden" is?  My children are a burden to me.  They cost money and time.  I love them.  I don't mind them being burdensome. Let me ask you a question.  Where do you draw the line?  Let's say the entire population of Mexico somehow sneaked into the US.  That's about 107 million people.  They might not pay taxes but they work.  That's millions of jobs going to illegals (and I say BULLsh*t to the idea that there aren't citizens or legal immigrants who won't gladly do "the jobs nobody else will do."  Two years ago I looked for any work I could get).  Then they have children here.  The children are American citizens but the people who are supporting them are me, my wife, our parents, etc.  I'm not cool with that. I don't want to hear the whiny, "But they're just looking for a better life."  Everybody is looking for that.  If people want to come to the USA, they can.  If they want to benefit from this great country, then let them respect its laws and taxpaying citizens.  If they can't do that much, then I don't want them here. If all of Mexico's population came, I certainly would not be happy about it but would support them.  As I stated above, I discovered that many illegals do in fact pay their dues and are not a burden to taxpayers.  Also, if you don't want them here, propose to me how you think we should "get rid" of them.  Deporting 12 million people is no easy task, and separating them from their children just seems immoral and unethical, sorry. As I said, it's a sh*tty situation. What if we just gave illegal immigrants a choice?  "Your children can stay here and you can go or your children can go with you."  As I said in an earlier post, children suffer for their parents' bad decisions all the time.  Illegal immigrants shouldn't be protected from this fact of life more than anybody else is. (Note: I have to say this because most of you will take me seriously in order to be offended and try to discredit me on the basis of being "a bad person," so here's your disclaimer: This is not actually my position.  I said "What if"). I would support the idea of letting these people pay penalties and work towards citizenship.  The problem is, if these people are so poor and are making such low wages, then how would they pay penalties?  It is easy to spout idealistic solutions without showing how to implement them pragmatically. You can be idealistic all you want to, but at sometimes, problems advance beyond idealistic solutions.  Hearts have to be broken, and the country has to admit, "We dropped the ball, but now we're getting back into the saddle."  It isn't pretty, but no matter what solution you look at, there's a nasty catch or two.  I just choose to support ideas that honor the people who came here legally and followed the rules, as well as the citizens who obey the law and pay taxes. Epignosis wrote: Lots of people are poor because of their choices?  I find that most people are poor because there parents are poor, and many of the rich are rich because their parents are rich.  Even if they did make poor choices, do you really think that they deserve to suffer because of them?  Um...yes. To an extent, maybe.  But to deny someone the basic rights like food, shelter, education and healthcare because of an ill choice seems to be a bit, well, wrong. Let's use another analogy.  This time, it's your house, and you are the homeowner (with a family). A homeless man knocks on your door and asks for food and shelter.  You take him in, feed him, and give him a bed.  He tells you he has a fractured finger, so you take him to the doctor, and pay for that out of pocket (since he's uninsured).  Then you discover he cannot read, so you begin teaching him elementary educational skills.  He's thankful for this. Then his brother shows up, pretty much in the same predicament. Later on, a dozen people are at your door.  You have no idea where these people come from. So my question- how many people do you support for free before it's enough?  Do you trust all the people you help and welcome into your home, or are some of them potentially criminal (you have children, remember)?  Think carefully about this.  At some point you have to deny someone his "basic rights." The US is a nation, not a charity, and even still, we are the most generous nation on earth.  Davy Crockett, a TN Representative, said ""We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity, but as members of Congress, we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money." Nowhere in the US Constitution does the government guarantee food, water, shelter, eduction, or health care.  These are basic human needs, not basic human rights.  Epignosis wrote: Since are you incredibly knowledgeable on the Bible, can you possibly explain to me how that is consistent with Christian ethics at all?  If I remember correctly, Jesus said that the poor are blessed and must be helped.  (Sorry if you didn't want to bring religion into the argument, so you can skip this if you want to.) Quote a passage (book, chapter, verse) please. "And he, lifting up his eyes on his disciples, said: Blessed are you poor: for yours is the kingdom of God." (Luke 6:20) [Admittingly, the Beatitudes in St. Luke are external while in St. Matthew they are internal, so it is up to you to decide if this is referring to physical poverty.] Lots of folks make the mistake that all of Jesus's teachings are for everyone.  They are not.  They are for his followers, both then and now.  Notice the context in verse 22: "On account of the Son of Man."  In other words, you are blessed (i.e., honored in God's sight) because you became poor because of your devotion to Christ.  Jesus isn't making a blanket statement about everyone (how would someone who squandered all of his money away on gambling be "blessed?").   "Jesus said to him: If you will be perfect, go sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me." (Matthew 19:21) There are so many cultural hurdles to this passage (and so much amazing truth you are ignoring by bringing it into a debate about- of all things- illegal immigration). Jesus was asking the man to part with what was most precious to a Mediterranean person: His family and his land- the kinship unit (and this is precisely what is meant.  See verses 27-30).  And then the rich man was to follow Christ.  The main point is following Christ, not helping the poor. There is no physical Jesus Christ walking this earth for modern disciples to leave their families and follow.  Still, we learn that we are to be devoted to honoring Christ first and foremost (including by using our possessions) from this passage.   Yeah, I know there are more examples than these; the gospels are littered with them.  I'm too tired right now to look them up right now.  I think that Christian ethics obviously says that the poor should be assisted rather than criticized. There are passages that say this (the two you gave are not those), but they all have very particular contexts. Still, the present subject isn't about helping the poor.  It is about honoring the law of the land (Romans 13).  If a poor person is committing a crime, should the government allow that poor person to continue committing the crime and provide for his basic needs?  I would say no.   Epignois wrote: Also, you have said that you are poor as well.  How did you end up in this situation- because you were born into a poor family or because you made poor choices? I never said everyone was poor because they made bad choices.  I said lots of people are, and I am one of them.  I have made poor choices since I got married (largely regarding credit), and I'm still suffering because of them. I would say that about 80% of the people my family is acquainted with is poor, and I would say most of them have not made poor choices.  At least most of them work very hard, and according to Capitalist dogma that means that most of them should be very rich. So you have access to these people's credit reports, tax returns, and bank statements?  No?  Then I don't see how you can make such a judgment.  I've made plenty of poor choices financially, as I said.  You would not know it unless I told you, and most people aren't proud about their financial errors. And it is by that last statement now abundantly clear that you have no idea what capitalism is.  Where does capitalism claim that hard work = very rich? Epignosis wrote: Good Lord you make a lot of generalizations you can't back up.  "Wealthy people are wealthy because their parents were wealthy."  Fail.  All celebrities and business tycoons grew up wealthy?  That's simply not true.  "Most gamblers are stupid."  Fail.  You've never been in a casino (I would assume).  I have multiple times.  Most of the people I met I wouldn't call stupid.  Gambling is entertainment.  People who don't understand that may be stupid, but most of the people I've gambled with realized they were merely paying for entertainment.  "Most poor people like yourself are not all like that."  That sentence syntactically doesn't even make sense. You want poor people to live a respectable life?  Let them work for it and do it legally.  Like my wife and I have. A lot of generalizations?  Sorry, it seems to me that most celebrities and business tycoons inherited their wealth from their parents.  I'm surprised you used this example, as they seem to be the worst at inheriting wealth rather than earning it.  To be fair, I have never been inside a casino, so it was indeed foolish of me to call gamblers "stupid."  (Still, the very popular casino in my city seems to make an awful lot of money, and people continue to come and come.)  I would wager (I don't mind gambling!  ) that without the help of the Internet, you could not name 100 celebrities and their parents, let alone 100 business tycoons and their parents.  You can make up unfounded statistics all you want ("It would seem to me that most" =/= facts), but you aren't doing yourself any favors. I think the story of one Stanley K. Burrell is interesting.  He grew up with his mom (a secretary) in a little Oakland apartment.  He got a job as a batboy with the Oakland As.  After doing Christian hip hop music, his record deal went south, so he borrowed about $40 grand from a couple of Oakland As players to start a record company.  He sold records from his basement and the trunk of his car.  Eventually, his label grew, and he amassed about $33 million just from one album.  Due to a lavish lifestyle and supporting friends and family, he became $13 million in debt and filed bankruptcy in April, 1996.  His name?  M.C. Hammer.  Rags-to-riches-to-rags.  Quite common, actually.  Here's just some celebrities who started out relatively poor (and many even came from broken homes): -The Beatles -Michael Jackson -Erin Brockovitch -50 Cent -Fantasia Barrino -Halle Berry -Susan Boyle -Steve McQueen -Madonna -Dolly Parton -Ralph Lauren -Shia LaBeouff -Whoopi Goldberg -Stephen King -Johnny Cash -Jackie Chan -Napoleon Bonaparte -Oprah Winfrey -Tina Turner -Prince -Tyler Perry -Tom Cruise -J.K. Rowling -Tupac -Gordon Ramsay -Ray Charles -Sam Worthington -Bill Clinton -Jewel -Ralph Lauren -Cher -Marilyn Monroe -Ronald Reagan -Arnold Schwarzenegger -Ozzy Osbourne Epignosis wrote: Don't take any of this personally, Rob.  I enjoy this debate. No worries, buddy.