Bush is a hero

okb2 wrote:

<quoted text>
If illegal immigrants could not get a job they would not come. They come because we need them (we can debate ways in which we could get by with less, but in the meantime we need them.)
If we were to make a concentrated effort to get rid of illegal immigrants we would have to increase the number of legal immigrants (even if it means just work permit immigrants) to make up some of the shortage caused by getting rid of illegals.
To the best of my knowledge, they have to be reasonably sure that they will not use welfare programs when they get here. That does not mean that they won't however if they arrive and things change.

"If illegal immigrants could not get a job they would not come."

My point, exactly. Why is the INS so lax in rooting out those employers who hire them? Shouldn't they be identifying employers for these folks, before they are allowed to claim de facto citizenship by applying for government benefits? And shouldn't we be more concerned with making sure our current laws are enforced, before we go about making more, which are likely to be even less enforceable?

"They come because we need them (we can debate ways in which we could get by with less, but in the meantime we need them.)"

I'd like to debate whether or not we need them. Since jobs in the private sector are already at a dismal low, and the public sector which employs highly skilled labor is shrinking rapidly (and rabidly!) why do we "need" so much uneducated and unskilled labor? We have a huge labor force, who are already citizens. The jobs are there because the employer needs the labor; but wants to hire for chicken feed, based on a profit margin. Illegal labor is much less expensive. Unless the employer is willing to follow the law too, and not hire non-citizens, employment of illegals will continue at a rapid rate - because the law against doing so has no teeth. And the technology exists to keep track of illegals - good grief, the government keeps track of everybody - so why are we using it against citizens instead?

Lyndi wrote:

<quoted text>
LOLOLOL
In the end it will go down, huh?
WE'RE AT 7 BILLION NOW.
Tell me. If you think we'll be at 1-2 billion in the next few years, where are the extra 5 BILLION people going go?

Increase until about 2050 to maybe 9 Billion and then start going down from there. It may take a 100 years or more, so say until 2150. Most of them will go under our feet or up in smoke.

You mentioned food and water shortages. We hve been having famines in Africa (which tends to reduce fertility) and that will spread to India and other high population density countries.

There is only so much of each finite resources. Even with recycling you will still lose some each cycle.

A broad swath of the middle of the United States will become essentially uninhabitable when the aquifier supporting it is gone, and that will get rid of a lot of farmland as well. We could support drinking and bath water, but irrigation will be gone from that area.

Climate change only exasperates this with drought and heat.

Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:

<quoted text>
"If illegal immigrants could not get a job they would not come."
My point, exactly. Why is the INS so lax in rooting out those employers who hire them? Shouldn't they be identifying employers for these folks, before they are allowed to claim de facto citizenship by applying for government benefits? And shouldn't we be more concerned with making sure our current laws are enforced, before we go about making more, which are likely to be even less enforceable?
"They come because we need them (we can debate ways in which we could get by with less, but in the meantime we need them.)"
I'd like to debate whether or not we need them. Since jobs in the private sector are already at a dismal low, and the public sector which employs highly skilled labor is shrinking rapidly (and rabidly!) why do we "need" so much uneducated and unskilled labor? We have a huge labor force, who are already citizens. The jobs are there because the employer needs the labor; but wants to hire for chicken feed, based on a profit margin. Illegal labor is much less expensive. Unless the employer is willing to follow the law too, and not hire non-citizens, employment of illegals will continue at a rapid rate - because the law against doing so has no teeth. And the technology exists to keep track of illegals - good grief, the government keeps track of everybody - so why are we using it against citizens instead?

Touche- Nice post.

WildWeirdWillie wrote:

<quoted text>Yeah, right.
You can peddle that stuff someplace else, but I don't believe it for a minute.

As far as I know, nobody can prove where obama was born... apparently, not even obama. I can't say he wasn't born in Hawaii any more than I can say he was.

WildWeirdWillie wrote:

You're right - I have never bothered to attempt to dissuade you. In case you haven't noticed, I don't encourage truthers much either.

That's why I think you're an obama-zombie... you don't question anything that barry says. If he tells you that obamacare will save you $2,500/year in health care premiums, you nod your head in agreement, and wait at your mailbox for your check.

WildWeirdWillie wrote:

Oddly enough, their response (usually including a reference to bot) is very similar. I wonder why that is.

One huge difference, I had found, and have provided, the proof that the "truther" evidence was bogus.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/en...

Nobody has been able to provide proof that the fraudulent birth certificate on whitehouse.org is legitimate. I wonder why that is.

Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:

<quoted text>
"If illegal immigrants could not get a job they would not come."
My point, exactly. Why is the INS so lax in rooting out those employers who hire them? Shouldn't they be identifying employers for these folks, before they are allowed to claim de facto citizenship by applying for government benefits? And shouldn't we be more concerned with making sure our current laws are enforced, before we go about making more, which are likely to be even less enforceable?
"They come because we need them (we can debate ways in which we could get by with less, but in the meantime we need them.)"
I'd like to debate whether or not we need them. Since jobs in the private sector are already at a dismal low, and the public sector which employs highly skilled labor is shrinking rapidly (and rabidly!) why do we "need" so much uneducated and unskilled labor? We have a huge labor force, who are already citizens. The jobs are there because the employer needs the labor; but wants to hire for chicken feed, based on a profit margin. Illegal labor is much less expensive. Unless the employer is willing to follow the law too, and not hire non-citizens, employment of illegals will continue at a rapid rate - because the law against doing so has no teeth. And the technology exists to keep track of illegals - good grief, the government keeps track of everybody - so why are we using it against citizens instead?

I agree that much of it has to do with pay. But to increase the pay for the work we have to be willing to pay more for the product. Take food as an example where illegals are used a lot. If the price of food goes up, not only do we have to pay more, but we have to pay more in taxes so those people that need help getting food can still get the food.

I am not saying that is good or bad, only that it has to be included in the equation.

okb2 wrote:

<quoted text>
Increase until about 2050 to maybe 9 Billion and then start going down from there. It may take a 100 years or more, so say until 2150. Most of them will go under our feet or up in smoke.
You mentioned food and water shortages. We hve been having famines in Africa (which tends to reduce fertility) and that will spread to India and other high population density countries.
There is only so much of each finite resources. Even with recycling you will still lose some each cycle.
A broad swath of the middle of the United States will become essentially uninhabitable when the aquifier supporting it is gone, and that will get rid of a lot of farmland as well. We could support drinking and bath water, but irrigation will be gone from that area.
Climate change only exasperates this with drought and heat.

That wasn't remotely close to what you stated but thanks for the quick fact check. Next time maybe you could post your source.

Does anyone on this thread ever say "I was wrong," or "I don't know" or is it most peoples goal to make big statements and then pretend they didn't?

Lyndi wrote:

<quoted text>
Touche- Nice post.

;

Thanks.

okb2 wrote:

<quoted text>
I voted for Obama. You need to go back and find out when that "super" majority Senate came about. Had McCain picked a better VP AND had been more like the McCain of 2000 he would have had my vote hands down. I preferred him or/and Bradley over either Gore or bush.
But you are picking a point in our political times that had special issues and not quite what you paint. The Dems did not have a "veto" proof Senate until after the election.
Reagan is considered a good President and had both a split Congress and a Dem Congress but no Republican Congress. Clinton was better after the Republicans took over. bush was better after the Dems took over. We were headed for trouble under Clinton and were in trouble with bush when Congress changed.
The Dems tried to work with the Republicans after Obama's election. But the Republicans did not want to work with the Dems when they were in power under bush and they don't want to work with the Dems today. What makes you think they will work with the Dems if they get both sides of Congress?
Belly laugh or not, it is a logical and reasoned explanation.

Compared to your other fairytales, I'm sure it seems logical to you.

(I left the smile off that wink. Oops.)

:)

Lyndi wrote:

<quoted text>
Maybe you could start with a few of these and compare them to prohibition for me.
Economic crisis in Europe
Oil Oil Oil
Global water crisis
Global hunger
Middle East
Immigration
Rapid climate change
National debt
Substance abuse
Illegal drug sales
Do terrorist threats count?

Do you really think that I consider prohibition an issue as significant as civil rights, women's suffrage, or rearmament in the late 30s?

Maybe I wasn't clear, but the actual significance of the problem wasn't my only point - it was about the noise made about it, the passions and feelings it aroused.

Climate change is the only thing on your list that's new - and I must warn you, stand by for heavy seas coming your way for mentioning it.
That's tantamount to blasphemy and treason combined 'round these parts.

We have faced economic crises in Europe (and Asia) before. World hunger and the need for fresh water have always been with us, and probably always will. Immigration has been a hot-button issue in this country off and on since the 1840s. The Middle East and the rest of the 'third world' have been with us since the end of WWII and will remain with us as long as we're a first rate power; that's just the never-ending struggle between have and have-nots.

Energy is no more a problem today than it was 40 years ago - unfortunately, not less of a problem either.

Terrorism is a problem, and requires that we deal with it - but the decades we lived under the constant threat of mutually assured destruction, or the threat of a Nazi-dominated Europe, puts that in perspective. Yes, under the worst case scenario it could develop into something approximating those threats - but it's nowhere near that level today.

Even the debt has been with us since the end of WWII. Yes, it's large; yes, it requires that we deal with it and soon. The problem is, the doom and gloomers and the agenda-pushers drown out the responsible adults who know that to fix it we have to cut spending and increase revenues. We will have to do both, and nobody seems to want to accept that.

I wouldn't have included drugs and substance abuse on my list. You left off the rising military and economic power of China. You left off nuclear proliferation.

I don't share your crisis mentality.

As a little kid I remember thinking (based on what the grownups were saying) we were all going to die tomorrow and freaking out when an F4 Phantom on a test flight created a sonic boom over my second grade classroom (Cuban Missile Crisis). I remember watching kids my age of a different pigment getting set upon by police dogs and fire hoses on the six o'clock news, night after night after night. I remember people being murdered for wanting to vote or trying to help others get that most basic right.

I remember watching city after city after city burn for year after year. I remember being glued to my short wave radio following news reports out of the Middle East as the Israelis fought for survival - TWICE. I remember burying a President, a civil rights leader, a Presidential candidate. I remember watching campuses erupt.

My point is not to say it was worse then, or that we don't face real problems. We do - but our problems today, the problems we face, are no more difficult, no more contentious, no more real, no more critical than the problems we faced yesterday, or the day before that, or the day before that ...

okb2 wrote:

<quoted text>
I voted for Obama. You need to go back and find out when that "super" majority Senate came about. Had McCain picked a better VP AND had been more like the McCain of 2000 he would have had my vote hands down. I preferred him or/and Bradley over either Gore or bush.
But you are picking a point in our political times that had special issues and not quite what you paint. The Dems did not have a "veto" proof Senate until after the election.

The House and Senate fell under Democratic control in the 2006 election. Almost everyone predicted that the Democrats would improve their hold on Congress in the 2008 election, as they did.

Keep spinning.

okb2 wrote:

<quoted text>
No need to supply documentation. You never proved it was a fake, you said it was a fake. I say it is not a fake. You provided some documentation from some rather dubious sites which are discounted out of hand.

I notice you didn't provide even one link in support of your statement, not one.

okb2 wrote:

The good Sheriff in Arizona refuses to make any official announcements in his official capacity which shields him from actions if he is wrong......so you can't use him either.

He didn't conduct the actual investigation, others did. He was summarizing their findings.

okb2 wrote:

He has no more credibility than the "Swift Boat Liars" who refused to make "sworn" statements under oath which would have put them at risk of USMJ actions.

Just how dark is it where you stick your head?

BobinTX wrote:

<quoted text>
As far as I know, nobody can prove where obama was born... apparently, not even obama. I can't say he wasn't born in Hawaii any more than I can say he was.
<quoted text>
That's why I think you're an obama-zombie... you don't question anything that barry says. If he tells you that obamacare will save you $2,500/year in health care premiums, you nod your head in agreement, and wait at your mailbox for your check.
<quoted text>
One huge difference, I had found, and have provided, the proof that the "truther" evidence was bogus.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/en...
Nobody has been able to provide proof that the fraudulent birth certificate on whitehouse.org is legitimate. I wonder why that is.

Truther, birther, Kennedy assassination, one-world government, Pearl Harbor, Elvis alive, Area 51 ... ya'll can't help but label anyone who doesn't agree with your pet theories a zombie or bot or something like it.

Carry on, birther-boy. Carry on.

okb2 wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree that much of it has to do with pay. But to increase the pay for the work we have to be willing to pay more for the product. Take food as an example where illegals are used a lot. If the price of food goes up, not only do we have to pay more, but we have to pay more in taxes so those people that need help getting food can still get the food.
I am not saying that is good or bad, only that it has to be included in the equation.

But why does it have to be? If we were less concerned with an ever increasing profit margin, and more concerned with conservation of resources, we could feed the nation without strain on either household budgets, or safety nets. There have to be smart enough people in the world to figure this out - and who may have done so already - but their voices are either being lost in the static, deliberately ignored by the politicians, or actively suppressed by those whose profit margins "must" increase exponentially, rather than ever become level, or gradually climbing. I know - I'm no economist, and I do love a free market, but man, I just have such a problem with the new golden rule...

JMO

karlVII wrote:

Romney's spokesperson shocked conservatives by suggesting that a woman whose husband was laid off from a Bain Capital-owned plant would have lived if she had lived in Massachusetts under Romney's number one accomplishment as Governor RomneyCare, similar and the blueprint to President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act.
Many on the right claim that President Obama is trying to paint the picture of Obama calling Romney a murderer.
IT WAS A CITIZENS testimony a CITIZENS TRUE STORY of how Romney's vulture capitalist corporation (Bain) left them with-out insurance.
Romney's spokesperson was simply telling the TRUTH something the right had a hemorrhage over. The never ending LIAR Rush Limbaugh for the first time in recent history was left speechless, Even Ann Coulter is having a complete meltdown over this one and wants the girl fired...for telling the truth!
I know the TRUTH is a foreign concept to the right but to want the spokeswoman fired for being honest...Good Grief...

You're the d@mned big mouth LIAR, Troll!

And where's all these (*imginary*) friends you wanna bring in here,
butch?

karlVII wrote:

Romney's spokesperson shocked conservatives by suggesting that a woman whose husband was laid off from a Bain Capital-owned plant would have lived if she had lived in Massachusetts under Romney's number one accomplishment as Governor RomneyCare, similar and the blueprint to President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act.
Many on the right claim that President Obama is trying to paint the picture of Obama calling Romney a murderer.
IT WAS A CITIZENS testimony a CITIZENS TRUE STORY of how Romney's vulture capitalist corporation (Bain) left them with-out insurance.
Romney's spokesperson was simply telling the TRUTH something the right had a hemorrhage over. The never ending LIAR Rush Limbaugh for the first time in recent history was left speechless, Even Ann Coulter is having a complete meltdown over this one and wants the girl fired...for telling the truth!
I know the TRUTH is a foreign concept to the right but to want the spokeswoman fired for being honest...Good Grief...

I was watching Hannity last night when Ann Coulter had her temper tantrum. They right distorted the crux of the political advertisement and then demonized Romney's spokesperson for being truthful. Shame on them. I even heard one conservative say this is the day Romney lost the election.

bad bob wrote:

<quoted text>
You're the d@mned big mouth LIAR, Troll!
And where's all these (*imginary*) friends you wanna bring in here,
butch?

You do not know KarlVII I have corresponded with him starting in 2007 before the last election. He comes across brash and agitated but if you get through his abrasiveness and sometimes rash exterior he really does bring some very interesting and thought provoking insight to many topics and issues. Just sayin'

karlVIIII wrote:

<quoted text>
You do not know KarlVII I have corresponded with him starting in 2007 before the last election. He comes across brash and agitated but if you get through his abrasiveness and sometimes rash exterior he really does bring some very interesting and thought provoking insight to many topics and issues. Just sayin'

Oh

My

Goodness

WildWeirdWillie wrote:

<quoted text>
We got through all that and more. We can get through what we face today.

Sure we can, but will we. Just because we've done it before doesnt make it automatic. What I see is a lot of people thinking the same way you do. Well, were America, we'll just get through it like we always do.

These are different times. We're overpopulated with water shortages, bad weather patterns that are costing billions in repairs and caring for the victims. Theres alot of pressure on alot of people and our leaders.

I just dont think its as automatic as you Willy.......... And I think there is plenty to be concerned about.

Rider on the Storm wrote:

<quoted text>
Sure we can, but will we. Just because we've done it before doesnt make it automatic. What I see is a lot of people thinking the same way you do. Well, were America, we'll just get through it like we always do.
These are different times. We're overpopulated with water shortages, bad weather patterns that are costing billions in repairs and caring for the victims. Theres alot of pressure on alot of people and our leaders.
I just dont think its as automatic as you Willy.......... And I think there is plenty to be concerned about.

Hang on a second here.

I'm not singing 'Don't worry, be happy' or anything like that.

There is a lot of pressure on people and leaders. Nobody, least of all me, is denying that. There are lots of things to be concerned about - but there always have been, and there always will be.

Nothing is automatic. It took work to get through the problems of the past, it takes work to get through the problems of today, and it will take work to get through the problems of the future.

Don't mistake not buying into the gloom and doom, the exaggerated crisis, for me saying we got nothing to worry about. That's just not the case.