tuscl

OT: United States of Squattin

ilbbaicnl
Keep it in my pants when I do OTC. If I were a stripper it would stand for I like big bucks and I can not lie.
Sunday, July 20, 2014 11:40 AM
Do you think Mexicans deserve any special status or consideration in the US, given that most of the western US was taken from Mexico in a war of aggression, with a lot of war crimes by the US against civilians?

74 comments

  • steve229
    •
    10 years ago
    Viva La Raza!
  • shadowcat
    •
    10 years ago
    Only the Mexican strippers. :)
  • mikeya02
    •
    10 years ago
    ^^^...and the ones that open up great Mexican restaurants, taco stands, and food trucks,
  • crazyjoe
    •
    10 years ago
    Are you mocking my heritage?
  • Clubber
    •
    10 years ago
    When I was growing up there was a large Mexican population south of Miami. They were called migrants. They would come and work very hard picking produce. They were migrants because they went home when the work was done. Now they are calling those coming in migrants. I believe that is an insult to the hard working REAL migrants of the past. These "migrants' come here, stay, and for the most part are like vampires sucking the life blood out of those in the US legally, INCLUDING Mexicans! I would think those here legally would be very pissed at the lawless they are required to support. The jobs the Mexicans used to do have been taken over by others from Central America. There are still some fine Mexican families that stayed after the farm jobs left them. And yes, my ancestors came from other countries, but legally. They had to follow the immigration laws of the time. Now, the WH idiot won't even enforce what little remains of those laws!
  • jabthehut
    •
    10 years ago
    Fuck illegal immigrants...no matter from where they came. All of my ancestors were extralegal immigrants. When the US committed the so called war crimes, they weren't war crimes. Now the Mexicans are shooting from Mexico into the US. IMNSHO our country is run by a bunch of eunuchs who refuse to enforce our laws (and not just Odumbo's administration, although there are a lot fewer balls to go around.)
  • bang69
    •
    10 years ago
    I agree with shadowcat
  • crazyjoe
    •
    10 years ago
    Send all illegal immigrants back to where they came from along with an invouce to their government to recoup tax payers dollars that should help you and I
  • jester214
    •
    10 years ago
    I have mixed feeling about the whole issue. I feel strongly that it's wrong for these people to simply walk in and set up a life especially when so many other people are going through the legal hurdles to get/stay here. Why should they be punished because they can't simply walk in? At the same time I hear a lot of misinformation about immigrants from South of the border. IMO many of them come here and bust their ass working while living in self-imposed abject poverty so they can save money for one reason or another. Not only do they do this without complaint they're happy about it. How many people born a citizen of this country don't want to do an honest days pay, take all they can from the government and then bitch and moan about how awful/unfair things are? To answer the OP, no I don't think they deserve any special consideration because of history. If you go back and look hard enough you'll find that every nation fucked somebody over a few times.
  • dallas702
    •
    10 years ago
    The tired, poor, huddled masses that came to the US before WWI were seeking opportunity and a fair chance at a better future. The depression and WWII slowed immigration for two decades and after the 2nd "Great" war immigrants were mostly refugees from the war torn nations - again looking for opportunity and a chance. With the LBJ "Great Society" that changed. For the first time in this nation, people who had nothing, did not have to work. For the first time in this country people got paid to NOT do anything. And for the last 50 years the number of people who took the "free ride" have grown, and grown. Unsurprisingly, people from Mexico, the Carib islands, Central America and even South America learned about the giveaways and free stuff available in America. It didn't surprise me to learn that second and third generation Welfare takers now represent over 50% of all welfare recipients. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the next largest group self identifies as Hispanic and born outside the US. If this county gives free food, housing, clothes, cell phones and money to people who won't work AND refuses to secure our borders to prevent aliens from coming here to get all that free stuff . . we cannot be surprised when uneducated, undisciplined people from poor countries sneak in. It should also not surprise us that drug lords, sex trafficers, and every other type of evil criminal also comes through that unguarded fence to prey on us as well as those newly arrived illegal aliens. If we actually stopped the free rides, secured the border, deported aliens and arrested the drug criminals this country would be different. I am not sure many people in D.C. would like that difference. I am certain the creditors of many in D.C. would not like the difference.
  • crazyjoe
    •
    10 years ago
    I like your style dallas
  • Clubber
    •
    10 years ago
    dallas, Giving the "freebies" is where the D.C. crowd get their power. Go most anywhere and ask a simple question to the masses, such as, "Who represents you in the US Congress?" You think even 50% would have a clue? Yet they vote. Sad, very sad!
  • skibum609
    •
    10 years ago
    The initial poster is an imbecile to stupid to know history and too lazy to look it up? Most of the western United States was taken from Mexico by a war of aggression? Except for the fact Mexico fired the first shots, right? Except for the fact Texas won its' own war of Independence from Mexiuco in 1836 and joined America as an independent nation. Except for the fact that we didn't even take all of Arizona, buying part of it in the Gadsden purchase. Except for the fact that Washington, Oregon, Wyo,ming, Idaho, Montana, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, and Northern California were all never part of Mexico. There were no war crimes against the Mexicans who murdsered everyone at the Alamo, that turn back 100% of all illegals after jailing them etcetera. Imbecile Maricon.
  • steve229
    •
    10 years ago
    Sheesh, Ibby, now you've got TUSCL's cranky old white guy contingent all in a tizzy, lol
  • SlickSpic
    •
    10 years ago
    If Mexicans are vampires then does that mean Alucard is Mexican?
  • ATACdawg
    •
    10 years ago
    When we lived in an apartment complex in Alexandria VA there was a substantial population of immigrants there. I can say that without exception I never had any trouble with their kids, only respect. Would that I could have said that about all of the WASP kids! I'm sure that not all of these people were legal. Our neighbors (three Alexandria cops) told us that with the previous tenants, they a counted a total of thirty (yes, 30!) people living in that 3br apartment. They must have been hot bunking with jobs at all hours. And no, this was not a cheap place to live. Without exception every Hispanic worker with whom I have come in contact has been honest, hardworking and competent. Are these the people you don't want to let into the country? What is my solution to the illegal alien problem? 1. Illegal immigration won't happen if there is no market. Criminal charges with serious consequences should attach to people and corporations found to be knowingly hiring illegals, whoever those people and companies may be. 2. Make sure every full time job in America pays a living wage. Don't drop people off a cliff if their income exceeds an arbitrary limit for subsidized housing - make a graduated scale so that the person is never worse off working than not. Yes, I have seen this happen, and sadly a person who was an excellent worker elected to quit while apologizing to his boss. Provide for employment in public service jobs as a condition of receiving welfare. These will be ratty jobs that no sane person would want to do on a long term basis. This will doubtless increase the price of a Big Mac. I can live with that. 3. Make it easier for people to enter the US. Make their continued presence in this country predicated on holding a legitimate, taxpaying job. Will doing this increase the burden on law enforcement an immigration? Sadly, yes. These are just my ideas for dealing with immigration issues. Every person in this country, even the "Indians" whose ancestors crossed the land bridge from Asia to North America come from immigrant stock. Let's seek constructive solutions to the immigration mess.
  • minnow
    •
    10 years ago
    No to both the question, and the flawed premise under which it was phrased. As for ilbbaicnl packing his ass out of this country, and moving to some land that has never had a territorial dispute, nor won/otherwise negotiated such land as a spoils of war, I vote yes.
  • jabthehut
    •
    10 years ago
    Well put Che.
  • jerikson40
    •
    10 years ago
    "Do you think Mexicans deserve any special status or consideration in the US, given that most of the western US was taken from Mexico in a war of aggression, with a lot of war crimes by the US against civilians?" No. The basic rules of life: If someone takes over your country, you lose it. Unless you can get it back somehow. Otherwise you're screwed. Whoever came up with this shit that we owe them anything? I have zero respect for Mexicans. Doesn't mean I don't like them, I just don't respect them. For many, their first order of business is to break US immigration law by coming here illegally and starting a family in order to get citizenship. Illegally. Why do they do this? Because their country, now and probably forever, sucks. And they are totally unwilling to do what it takes to improve their nation, which is a morass of poverty and corruption and people who don't give a shit. And if you look at the majority of Mexicans who come to the US you can see that attitude plainly. They strive to be no more than gardeners and whatever else low level employment they can find. Sure there are exceptions, but that's not the majority. But they will never accept that or admit it. They only care about getting more "rights" from the US. Now, if they bring that attitude to the US, what is our future? Well, at some point, when Mexicans become a majority in portions of the US, I predict we will look more and more like Mexico. Which sucks. So why the fuck do we owe them anything? In-fucking-sane.
  • ilbbaicnl
    •
    10 years ago
    @jerkison it seems like you are saying Americans deserve more respect cause they spilled a lot of blood to get what they have. Whereas Mexicans sneak in without any violence and take the jobs most Americans don't want, and a fairly small minority of them leech off of charity. Mexico would need a critical mass of people with a spine and principles to change, and they are far from having it. But the reason some Mexicans are willing to walk across the desert to cook our burgers and shingle our roofs is that they are the minority that does have a spine and some principles. And before we think too highly of ourselves, I doubt very much the average Tory, Redcoat, or German Mercenary in the 1700s was half the sadistic bastard that the average Mexican policeman is. One thing for sure, Mexico is the proof of why it was smart to include gun rights in the Bill of Rights. My opinion about immigration is that anyone (under 40 from any country) who seems to be of decent character and can find someone to hire them should be let in. There should be a tax on employing a foreigner, not sure how much it should be, probably in the $ 2 - 5 per hour range. Any foreigner who comes here, stays out of trouble, and keeps working steady for a few years should get a green card. (Probably the tax needs to go down in steps until the immigrant gets a green card.) But we do need a constitutional amendment so that kids born here are not automatically citizens. I also think the minimum wage needs to go up to $10 or higher. The super-rich Warren Buffett types should set up a foundation that buys land and sells long-term (30 - 100 year) leases on it. The foundation would go city by city, getting control of most of the urban and suburban land, then starting to rebate more and more money to its tenants. This would force down the value of the remaining land, making it easier to acquire. Maybe the Fed could loan money to this foundation so it could go faster. This would gradually stop the parasitic siphoning of investment capital by people who just happen to own property in a high-density location.
  • jerikson40
    •
    10 years ago
    "it seems like you are saying Americans deserve more respect cause they spilled a lot of blood to get what they have." Absolutely not. And thats why so many discussions of difficult issues become pissing matches. Apparently in the back of your mind you have decided about people who have opposite views from yours and you classify them and categorize them with, basically, no facts to support it. Kind of like Lopaw went all "anti-older-white-male" on my ass based on her incredibly racially and genetically biased views. Americans in general deserve respect because they built this nation into the most powerful, economically strong, and generous nations on earth in less than 300 years. That deserves respect. It was because of an attitude perpetuated thru multiple generations of hard work and self discipline. Not all Americans have that attitude, but enough did in our formative years, and enough were decent and hard working that this nation prospered. Now some will bitch and moan about how "greedy" we are and how evil capitalism is and all that liberal bullshit. But the fact is this nation became the most powerful, economically strong, and generous nation on earth. At the same time other nations did shit, because they were unwilling to do what it takes. And many nations will be shit for many more generations because they have a completely sucky attitude. And Mexico is just one of them. Being an American is a great honor, and provides many benefits. The bar to entry should be very high if we are to maintain the nation that Americans built in the last 300 years. If we lower the bar, then we'll end up with shit also. Very simple. Personally, I think we'll end up with shit in about a generation. Maybe less.
  • jerikson40
    •
    10 years ago
    "Illegal immigration won't happen if there is no market." Absolutely true. And the best way to take away the market? Mexico gets off its ass and builds a fucking middle class so that everyone isn't so desperate to get the fuck out of that good-for-nothing country. Do you know how many nations around the world are FILLED with people who's goal is to make it to the US? Un-fucking-believable. All because they won't do what it takes to improve their own shit-hole countries so that people are desperate to get the fuck out. It's shameful. Don't blame American immigration policy for a bunch of people who aren't willing to fix their own crappy countries.
  • ilbbaicnl
    •
    10 years ago
    @Jerkison problem is you are saying basically the same shit some people in this country have been saying since day one. Sends the Blacks back to Liberia, stop letting the Irish in, stop letting the Slavs in, stop letting the Italians in, stop letting the Orientals in, etc. etc. etc. If people in the past had taken your completely non-original shitty advice, the powerful, successful US as we know it would not exist. The successes of this country came from people who faced problems head on, not people who live in a fantasy world like you do. Yes we DID fuck over the Indians, yes we DID fuck over the Black population, yes we DID fuck over Mexico. Reality dude, grow a spine and deal with it. Doesn't erase the good things about the US. But neither do the good things make these bad things disappear. Just get real.
  • jester214
    •
    10 years ago
    "It was because of an attitude perpetuated thru multiple generations of hard work and self discipline." And because of slavery. And because of WWII. How high is the bar to be an American? I and (presumably) you did nothing to be Americans. It's ridiculous to suggest that people want to come to this country because they don't want to fix their own. So they're willing to come here and do shit jobs and bust their ass but won't do it at home? That's logical.
  • jerikson40
    •
    10 years ago
    "Sends the Blacks back to Liberia, stop letting the Irish in, stop letting the Slavs in, stop letting the Italians in, stop letting the Orientals in, etc. etc. etc." Again, that's total nonsense, and absolutely NOT what I'm saying. Many of the Europeans from the nations you mentioned, and others, made this nation great. Irish, Italians, Chinese, etc. Those are the ones who decided to work hard, be honest, and build a great nation. It's not about what nation you're from, it's about your attitude. And unfortunately, a majority of people in many nations have a shitty attitude. If you don't believe that then you're in a dream land. For example, look at what's called the Corruptions Perception Index. They show a map of the perceived corruption levels in all nations of the world. Which translates into people who don't fucking care, and allow dishonesty in their governments, and as a result will probably never succeed. Look at Mexico for example. One of the most corrupt nations in the world. In fact, it clearly shows that aside from Canada, the US, Japan, Northern Europe, and Australia, the remaining nations are considered highly or extremely corrupt. Which to me reflects a shitty attitude in those nations. Now, does it really make sense to you to open our borders to anyone? Even some corrupt, lazy, asshole who only wants to go on welfare? No. That's stupid.
  • jerikson40
    •
    10 years ago
    "So they're willing to come here and do shit jobs and bust their ass but won't do it at home? That's logical." Seems very logical. Its about how high people's goals are, and whether they're willing to do the very hard work to change a nation. You don't get that? It's a whole lot easier to run across the border and get a job as a gardener than to figure out, and do the work necessary, to erase corruption, start new industries, put people to work, etc. Geez, how difficult is that to understand?
  • jerikson40
    •
    10 years ago
    "And because of slavery. And because of WWII." Huh?? I'm speechless...
  • jerikson40
    •
    10 years ago
    "It's ridiculous to suggest that people want to come to this country because they don't want to fix their own." Again. Speechless.
  • jester214
    •
    10 years ago
    "It's a whole lot easier to run across the border and get a job as a gardener than to figure out, and do the work necessary, to erase corruption, start new industries, put people to work, etc." Is it easier to climb Everest or win an Olympic Gold? Is it lazy to give up trying to be an Astronaut and become an Engineer? You're acting as if fixing a nation is like mowing the yard and coming to America is lazily sitting inside and watching TV instead. We're talking about viable options here. Your assumption is ludicrous. Slavery and WWII are only 2 of the myriad of reasons this country has been successful that have NOTHING to do with hard work and self-discipline.
  • jerikson40
    •
    10 years ago
    jester, umm... Yeah, whatever. I have no idea what you're trying to say. But if it makes sense to you, then I suppose that's all that matters.
  • Clubber
    •
    10 years ago
    jester, You realize, of course, that slavery exists, today, in other parts of the world, yet have they become anything close to the US?
  • jester214
    •
    10 years ago
    Clubber, You realize, of course, that hard work and self discipline exists, today, in other parts of the world, yet have they become anything close to the US?
  • mikeya02
    •
    10 years ago
    In 1492, Columbus discovered America. Just think, the Mexicans were that close the whole time. Canadians too! So of course it was Americans(colonists), that carved out a great nation.
  • SlickSpic
    •
    10 years ago
    I thought that Mormons discovered America, with all that Moroni the Prophet and Lost Tribes of Israel talk.
  • Clubber
    •
    10 years ago
    jester, The US became what it is due to the freedom and liberty of it's people enshrined in the Constitution! Perhaps you are to young to have been taught this in civics. I doubt very much it is any longer taught in the liberal school systems of more recent times.
  • jester214
    •
    10 years ago
    Clubber, Perhaps you had a little to much civics and not enough history. I had both.
  • Clubber
    •
    10 years ago
    jest, You are entitled to your opinions no matter how incorrect they may be. I have known babies that can't read, middle-aged illiterates who can't write, and old fools who can't think straight. I'm trying to guess your age.
  • ilbbaicnl
    •
    10 years ago
    Right Jerkison, we let so many Irish and Poles come here in the 1800s cause they had fixed up their own countries so well. Oh no, wait, they fixed their own countries so well, their countries ceased to be on the fucking MAP! Do you have any capacity to write something that isn't a complete idiotic fantasy?
  • jerikson40
    •
    10 years ago
    Okay, well, it's been great discussing this with you guys, but at this point I can't even figure out what the fuck most of you are saying. Maybe it makes some sort of sense to you guys, but as far as I can tell it's just some strange rambling nonsense. So, discuss among yourselves... :)
  • farmerart
    •
    10 years ago
    Take a look at the birth rate in your country. American women are not producing enough babies to keep US population from falling into a death spiral. Trends like these are very difficult to reverse. The truth is: USA needs more immigrants. Japan is already deep into this death spiral, as is Russia. Germany soon to follow along with the Scandinavian countries. My country, Canada, faces a similar deadly birth rate dead end but we, at least, have the sense to permit enough immigration to keep the population at a healthy level. The Economist had a fascinating article last year about various nations' fates if current birth rate and immigration patterns were to continue along the current path. Extrapolations suggested that the last Chinese person on earth would die before the last Canadian or American were to die. Japan and Russia would be the first two nations to be completely denuded of people. 5,000 years in the future would see a world of mostly Indians and Nigerians with a few French and Poles left in Europe and a few Egyptians, Iranis, and Pakistanis scattered across the Fertile Crescent. Australia would be the first continent to become free of human beings followed by South America and then by North America.
  • jerikson40
    •
    10 years ago
    "Trends like these are very difficult to reverse. The truth is: USA needs more immigrants." Wow. When you really, really have nothing else to worry about, you worry about the population of your country in 5,000 years. Art, the US population is growing something like .7% per year, with a total population of about 300 million people. That's a growth of over 2 million people each year. Not enough for you? Thanks Art, for your insightful input. Geezus.
  • SlickSpic
    •
    10 years ago
    Mexicans must be doing a couple things right-Salsa outsells Ketchup every year and in the future, Taco Bell will demolish all the other chains.
  • farmerart
    •
    10 years ago
    @jerikson40, This whole subject is much more complicated than my brief post suggests. It is an immutable fact that the American birth rate is below the necessary 2.1 babies/woman needed for a static population. It is also an immutable fact that the average age that American women produce their first baby is rising inexorably. Other demographic and socio-economic trends complicate all this further e.g. widening income disparity, higher percentage of seniors for the economy to support, reversal in long term trend of increasing life expectancy, fewer marriages and more single parents. Look back to the 1950s and 1960s. US population was growing at a much greater rate than 0.7%/year. Trends, my man, trends. You should take your head out of your ass long enough to read and think about what I posted. What's so fascinating about the contents of your rectum that your head spends so much time admiring those contents.?
  • SlickSpic
    •
    10 years ago
    Art with the block shot and posterization! Get that shit out if here!
  • jerikson40
    •
    10 years ago
    Art, it's fine to call people names, but what you posted is basically irrational and irrelevant. Why? Because what you are describing is, apparently, a worldwide trend of not producing, in net, enough people to replace existing people. And what you are proposing is that you merely shuffle people, via immigration, from one country to another so that the latter country can boast a higher population growth, while the former country loses its growth rate. What the fuck difference does it make? If the world will run out of people in 5,000 years, then shuffling people from one country to another doesn't solve anything. What solve the problem is that either less people die (not likely) or people produce more kids. Moving people from one country to another increases on country's growth rate, but it also decreases another's. What the fuck good is that?
  • farmerart
    •
    10 years ago
    @jerikson40, Once again you prove my thesis of the deposition of your head. Nowhere in my post did I call you a name or use a gross obscenity; unless you consider the word 'ass' a gross obscenity. I don't. If you do, I will use a different word in the future when I wish to insult you. I am not worrying about what will happen in 5,000 years. I will be long dead as will you be. The only intent of my posts to this topic was to bring a different look to an interesting topic. I have no axe to grind here. When you produce some different data that refutes what I have presented I will be delighted to continue this discourse with you. Until then, continue to enjoy the enthralling events occurring in your large intestine.
  • jerikson40
    •
    10 years ago
    Art, it's very simple. You said "USA needs more immigrants" because we're not producing enough people. And you proposed immigration to help that. And I pointed out that's irrational, which it clearly is. And for some reason it causes you to say *I* have my head up my ass. How about "hmmm, j40, I didn't consider that. I guess you're right, my suggestion is kind of stupid. And yeah, it is totally irrelevant to the discussion". Or is that too much for you?
  • minnow
    •
    10 years ago
    Art, I'd never accuse you of having your head up your arse, but methinks that your postings in this thread are colored by your biased/parochial views , given your background as a farmer, and business owner. Naturally, you desire a robust population growth, because more people= more demand for arts' oil= more $$$ for art. Likewise, a greater lab(or?)(our?) supply= greater pool of workers for art to choose from= downward pressure (or at least a check on rate of upward pressure) on labor costs= higher profit for farmerart= more $$$ for his exotic cars and clubbing activities. As for immigration: I didn't see any posters calling for a complete ban on immigration. There does seem to be a wide opinion that the current state of affairs that exists in the flood of illegal immigrants into the USA is not good, or desirable. We all are well aware of USA history of immigration. Immigration can be a good thing, provided that immigrants are willing to assimilate into the society of their new country. I don't see this today, what with all this "press 1 for English" crap, and up to a half a dozen language choices for ATM transactions. I'm for immigration in general, people bettering their lives, etc. But not at the cost of having a bunch of illegals that don't want to assimilate creating a drain on the system. Where they use current circumstances as a badge of convenience vs truly assimilating into new country. I don't see this state of affairs as being desirable nor sustainable for the good of the country. Put another way: You stated that a 0.7% population growth is needed for a static population. But, given the productivity gains over the last several decades, do we really need so much population growth ? Particularly when there are fewer potential good jobs awaiting at the end of the tunnel? You (and other oilmen) need tankers to transport your oil to the global marketplace. Yet between the time that you were Estafadors/Go Vikings age, and now, the average size of the tankers has increased, while the tanker crew size has gone down. Less tanker crewmembers= less future babies needed. This is merely a microcosm of what is happening in other segments of society. Already, driverless vehicles are being tested, a 2 cockpit crew B747 airliner ( vs original 3 crew) has been operational since 1989. When was the last time that anyone called a business, and was actually able to talk to a live human being without going through a frustrating automated gauntlet ? Hence, with fewer people needed to do more work, the old paradigms of desired population growth need to be re-examined.
  • mikeya02
    •
    10 years ago
    ^^^^^ and minnow comes off the bench with more facts to think about
  • jerikson40
    •
    10 years ago
    Holy crap...minnow...bravo dude. Can't remember when I've seen such intelligence and rationality posted here. Not sure I get it all since I haven't had my coffee yet, but wow, I'm impressed.
  • jester214
    •
    10 years ago
    Minnow, interesting points but flawed. I don't think Art said .7% population growth is needed for static population growth. What he said is we need a 2.1 fertility rate (he may have said birth rate). 2.1 is the needed rate to maintain the same level of population. Mommy and Daddy pop out 2 kids who then replace Mommy and Daddy and so on and so forth. Now as a world this isn't really a big deal for the next 40 or so years. After that if the rates maintain the current trend then populations will start to decline.
  • jerikson40
    •
    10 years ago
    "Minnow, interesting points but flawed." Ummm, no. His points are not flawed solely because he mixed up some totally irrelevant population growth numbers related to a totally irrelevant and irrational argument proposed by Art. Whether the required growth rate is 0.7% or 2.1 or 5,673 it's all totally irrelevant. What's really relevant is slavery and WWII and climbing Everest and Olympic Gold. That's what's really important. :)
  • jester214
    •
    10 years ago
    I thought you were leaving so the adults could discuss among ourselves?
  • jerikson40
    •
    10 years ago
    "I thought you were leaving so the adults could discuss among ourselves?" Good response. Bravo. Not as good as "head up your ass", but nice try.
  • jester214
    •
    10 years ago
    I guess I got confused by: "So, discuss among yourselves... :)".
  • jerikson40
    •
    10 years ago
    Changed my mind. Is that not allowed? Do you have a real problem with it? Or you just ran out of ammunition, so you were looking for any mud you could find to sling my way? Yeah, I think that's it... :)
  • steve229
    •
    10 years ago
    "Changed my mind" So does this one work any better?
  • jester214
    •
    10 years ago
    When you insult everyone's posts by calling them "rambling nonsense" and say you're done with the discussion then 2 hours later hop back into it after the first response don't be surprised when someone calls you on your bullshit. As usual you display the attitude of a child.
  • DoctorPhil
    •
    10 years ago
    @ilbbaicnl. tell them about the oreos and the fig newtons. now that is some racist shit. and girl scout cookies. that’s just code for sexist old white men who think they can buy women like a commodity, er forget that last part – buying women as a commodity is okay if it is for sex and you can’t get it any other way but the cookies themselves are still sexist. solidarity brother
  • farmerart
    •
    10 years ago
    @minnow, Let's look at the real basis of what I was trying to express. We live in a capitalist economy. A dynamic capitalist economy requires growth. You recognize this - 'More people = more demand.' You also recognize the spectacular productivity gains of recent years. Well, there have been spectacular productivity gains for decades. Previously there was a rapidly growing population to absorb the products and services created by this productivity boom. Not so now. That is why there is so much excess unused productive capacity in the North American economy. If population in North America were still growing at former robust rates of 3% do you think Detroit, Windsor, Cleveland, and all those other bombed-out rust belt cities would look like what they are now? I don't really think I am grinding my personal axe with my arguments. Certainly I would like to be paying $3/hr for rig pig wages instead of the current $150K/yr but I don't want to go back to the 50% success rate for wildcat wells from the current 90+% and I also don't want to go back to $4 oil or $0.12 nat gas. All this has been predicated upon growing demand for my products from a growing population. If my industry was confined to meeting only North American demand my industry would be in serious trouble. Gasoline demand is declining in North America. Only the robust demand in the growing economies of Asia and Africa is keeping the price of my products at such a healthy level. Remember what you said - 'More people = more demand.' What works for my industry also works for widget manufacturers, cattle ranchers, video game designers, bankers, restaurant owners, etc. I reiterate. If a nation's population stops growing that nation's economy begins to atrophy. If a population stops growing because of a lack of fertility then immigration is the only way to continue population growth. I choose to live in a dynamic capitalist economy. It shocks me to see what is happening in Japan right now. A financial crisis that will rock the world much worse than the 2007/2008 meltdown will be the coming implosion of the Japanese economy. I pray fervently that I am dead before that happens.
  • jerikson40
    •
    10 years ago
    "If a population stops growing because of a lack of fertility then immigration is the only way to continue population growth." No, it is not. You increase the amount of babies produced. Just ask the Catholic Church how to do that. Many countries raise children to believe that you need 10 children or else you're strange. And much of that was due to Catholic and other missionaries instilling that belief in order to grow the church. Another is to outlaw the production of birth control pills. If it's really that big of a concern to you, then again consult with the Catholic Church. Immigration does not solve your problem, it just shifts the problem to another country. And since we are in a global economy, that does nobody any good. If the US fails, or Japan fails, or China fails, what happens to the rest of the world? Not good.
  • jerikson40
    •
    10 years ago
    "As usual you display the attitude of a child." Because I changed my mind and decided not to drop the topic. Attitude of a child. Okay..yeah, I guess you're right... Thanks for "calling me on my bullshit".
  • jerikson40
    •
    10 years ago
    Art sez: "Only the robust demand in the growing economies of Asia and Africa is keeping the price of my products at such a healthy level." So, Art, riddle me this... Since many nations in Africa boast the highest fertility rates on the planet (African women pop out between 4 and 7 kids EACH), the FarmerArt plan to save the world would be to encourage immigration from Africa to the US, right? You not only increase US population and therefore demand for products and services, you also generate more babies within the US because of those fertile African women. But wait, now the "growing African economy" you're relying on for your gasoline demand dissolves. And instead you have a population of incredibly poor Africans in the US, who will require huge expenditures in social services and support. Oh, wait, maybe you meant importing only wealthy people from other countries, who aren't as fertile. Which means you're back to the same problem of 2.1 babies produced per female. Hmmm...this isn't working out too well is it?
  • motorhead
    •
    10 years ago
    True story - May not be relevant to immigration at all...but it's curious. I wanted to hire a kid to mow my lawn this summer. I was going away for an extended time - and yeah, quite frankly, I'm a lazy bastard too. There happens to be a large mobile home park not far from where I live. It's a decent park, but I suspect most residents aren't making the $18 to $20 thousand per month most TUSCLERS are. And, it so happens, the resident population is about 80 percent Hispanic. (No jokes please about hiring Mexican gardeners.) I posted an advertisement for mowing in the community center of the park. The amount I offered for the job is double the going rate for a lawn my size. Even offered to furnish a mower. I thought I would get plenty of calls from teenagers wanting to earn a few bucks. How many calls do you think I got? And that's not all. The local school system serves free lunches too everyone in the park under 18 during the summer. I just wanna say huh?
  • SlickSpic
    •
    10 years ago
    Lots of opinion being labeled as facts. No sources cited. @Moto-Two things 1. Trailer trash is trailer trash, no matter what nationality. 2. You should've gone to Home Depot.
  • jerikson40
    •
    10 years ago
    "Lots of opinion being labeled as facts. No sources cited." Is your Google Search not working? :) Or you could always ask if you'd like reliable sources. I'm sure everyone can provide them huh? :)
  • SlickSpic
    •
    10 years ago
    Google works just fine. Like my college proffesor said, cite your sources young man.
  • steve229
    •
    10 years ago
    From now on we want footnotes
  • ilbbaicnl
    •
    10 years ago
    Jerkison, you ignorant slut. You just keep ignoring the obvious point, the modern US and Canada are products of letting lots of people immigrate from seriously fucked up countries. I'm not saying go back to that, because modern technology allows us to do better. The vast majority of illegal immigrants come to the US because employers want to hire them. It's funny the typical Republican attitude, because this is about trusting that business owners know their needs better than the government. We just need a well-designed immigrant labor taxation system to make sure employers don't use hiring immigrants as a tactic to force down wages. That will work a lot better than leaving employers at the mercy of the "judgement" of a government bureaucrat as to whether they need to bring in an immigrant. The government should limit itself to screening immigrants for basic good character, and assume that if the employer is willing to pay a tax on top of wages, they must really need the person.
  • minnow
    •
    10 years ago
    Art: Repeat after me: "Large segment of tuscl posters aren't against immigration or population growth. We just think that current state of affairs on relatively unfettered illegal immigration is not a good thing." I'm sure that you have plenty of data on tap to predict population growth/consumption trends for the benefit of your business. At the 101 level, more population=more potential business. But as you alluded to in an earlier post, there are more complicated factors that come into play. China is (I think still), and has been the most populous country since at least you and I have been alive. As far back as I can remember, Africa and India have been breeding like horny rabbits.Yet there is this thing called per capita GDP. The driver in this case is that more people in those countries are moving into the middle class versus fully developed countries- like a long time couch potato taking up jogging getting higher percentage improvements in their mile time, vs an Olympic athlete already in peak condition. Up to a point, more population is good, yet what good does it do if it drags down the standard of living? Put another way, I'd rather see USA at current ~ 300M population level with current "whatever is left of the middle class" than see it at 330M, but with 30M more people added to the abject poverty rolls. By your apparent rationale, the 1964 version of China (700M population) would be a much more attractive place to sell oil to vs 1964 USA version(~200M population.) I'm not even bothering to go into infant mortality rates, or questioning how so called fertility rates are calculated/compiled because I've already spent enough of my potential workout or clubbing time on this thread already. (Don't want to bring down USA productivity levels down too much...)
  • jerikson40
    •
    10 years ago
    "You just keep ignoring the obvious point, the modern US and Canada are products of letting lots of people immigrate from seriously fucked up countries" And if you actually READ what I say you'll realize I'm not ignoring it, I'm SUPPORTING it. However your apparently liberal bias prevents you from seeing anything other than thru your "I hate conservatives" glasses. As I said, this nation was built by the hard work and ingenuity of IMMIGRANTS. Mostly from Europe, but not all. That's a good thing. However, the difference between giving a green light to ALL nations and ALL people to immigrate here and what I'm suggesting is that you want people to immigrate who continue that ATTITUDE our forefathers had. And attitude of hard work and honesty and ingenuity, not of dishonesty and corruption and laziness. And you certainly don't open the doors of immigration as Art suggests, with the mere goal of increasing population so he has a market for his oil. I'm saying we need to be SMART about it. And be HONEST about it. And when you see people immigrating from countries that have been shit for generations, you have to pause a bit and be cautious. Doesn't mean all Mexicans are not good candidates for entry, it just means you should consider the very high likelihood that many will be bringing along the attitudes that have kept Mexico as a third world country for so long. Some countries offer retirement/residency visas to stay in their countries permanently, but have a very high bar you need to hurdle to get them. They might require proof of a certain income, etc. However, in the US, many people are just saying to open the borders solely because they feel so sad for the poor immigrants who only want a better life blah blah blah. It's fine to feel bad for them, but don't fuck up your own country in the process, or in the future those poor immigrants won't have your country to come to.
  • ilbbaicnl
    •
    10 years ago
    Jerkison, thanks for clarifying that you're a racist fuckwad. When there were lots of immigrants coming from Europe, they were coming from countries that were at least as fucked up then as Mexico is now. The point where your dumbassery really maxes out is when you think people whose birth country is OK have any fucking reason to emigrate in large numbers.
  • DoctorPhil
    •
    10 years ago
    @ilbbaicnl “Jerkison, thanks for clarifying that you're a racist fuckwad.” find a kindred spirit did you ilbbaicnl?
  • jerikson40
    •
    10 years ago
    "The point where your dumbassery really maxes out is when you think people whose birth country is OK have any fucking reason to emigrate in large numbers" Y'know I don't want to say you're just a dumbshit, but do you actually read what I say? You always misquote me and my intent. COMPLETELY !!! Geezus, are you that much of a fucking blockhead? Or you just want to go apeshit on me cuz you decided at some point you hate me for whatever childish 6 year old reason.
You must be a member to leave a comment.Join Now
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion