RSS Feeds
Contact Us |
|
|||||||||||||
Columnists » Clayson
Article rated a 2
by 6
users |
~ADVERTISING~
We Get the Government We Deserve
Dennis Clayson
The primary elections of last week reinforced an old saying that people get the government they deserve. It can be a hard dictum when we look at the sum of human misery stacked to ever increasing heights by one government after another.
Does this mean, for example, that the Germans in the 1930s "deserved" Hitler, or that the people of Russia "deserved" Stalin, or that Americans "deserved" Bush?
Except for some isolated examples in both time and place, the proposition is more true than false.
It certainly explains a lot in American politics.
Someone asked me recently why we have the crazy primary elections.
"Why," she asked, "don't we just vote and get it over with?"
This is an excellent question. We have created a system that goes on forever. A system that gives power to the media and the spin doctors, one that almost guarantees to eliminate any candidate who actually has an honest stance on issues. A system that gives us bland, homogeneous presidents who will do almost exactly what everyone in Washington is already doing.
Why do we have this system? The answer is simple. We want it that way.
We want the drama and the money. Deep within us, we are still marching out of Babylon with a mystery religion still burning in our hearts. We want to elevate an individual to god-king status and then crucify him for our collective sins. We expect he will then rise from the dead, forgive, and save us all.
We are illogical and corrupt.
We want "change." So even though Congress has approval ratings close to 10 percent, we create an election in which our only choice is one senator or another. We despise Washington, so we eliminate every candidate who isn't a Washington insider.
We hate wasteful government spending, so we give ourselves a choice of people who will spend more than any of their predecessors.
This little bit of craziness reminds me of a man who hired a worker who turned out to be a thief. He fired the man and hired another worker who also turned out to be a thief. The original worker came back and offered him a deal. "Get rid of that thief," he said, "and rehire me. I'm not a thief like him, I'm better at it."
We keep voting for magic that even Santa Claus couldn't deliver. We elevate candidates who promise to give us what can't be given. We buy into it because we want what is in our neighbors’ wallets. We vote for politicians who promise to use the coercive force of government to take property from others and give it to us.
We vote for candidates who promise to punish those we envy. We say, "I'm getting poorer. It must be someone else's fault."
Sure enough, a politician stands up and points to the "others" and shouts, "It's them. They are the ones who are making you poor. Elect me and I will make them pay."
"Yes, there are two Americas. Elect me and I'll take your revenge for you."
It all echoes like Europe in the 1930’s.
So we want a president that is a god. One that will give us things we have not earned. One that will punish those we dislike. One that will feed us when hungry, house us when homeless, warm us when cold, cool us when hot, educate our children, and guarantee us an ever increasing list of "rights" that can only be obtained by restricting someone else's freedom.
But most of all, we want a president who will do all this without telling us any of the very nasty details that are necessary to pull it off. We want this president to say the right things, to use the correct words, to calm us and remove our anxiety, and evoke the blessing of heaven down on our heads at the end of every feel-good communication.
Corrupt people can't believe that everyone else isn't corrupt. They can't tolerate a decent person because that person must be a phony, or hypocritical, which oddly enough is the ultimate sin for the corrupt.
So the tyrants, the liars, the cons, or those who walk a tightrope down the middle while pretending not to be insanely messianic become our candidates to run our government for the next four years.
We deserve what we get.
The primary elections of last week reinforced an old saying that people get the government they deserve. It can be a hard dictum when we look at the sum of human misery stacked to ever increasing heights by one government after another.
Does this mean, for example, that the Germans in the 1930s "deserved" Hitler, or that the people of Russia "deserved" Stalin, or that Americans "deserved" Bush?
Except for some isolated examples in both time and place, the proposition is more true than false.
It certainly explains a lot in American politics.
Someone asked me recently why we have the crazy primary elections.
"Why," she asked, "don't we just vote and get it over with?"
This is an excellent question. We have created a system that goes on forever. A system that gives power to the media and the spin doctors, one that almost guarantees to eliminate any candidate who actually has an honest stance on issues. A system that gives us bland, homogeneous presidents who will do almost exactly what everyone in Washington is already doing.
Why do we have this system? The answer is simple. We want it that way.
We want the drama and the money. Deep within us, we are still marching out of Babylon with a mystery religion still burning in our hearts. We want to elevate an individual to god-king status and then crucify him for our collective sins. We expect he will then rise from the dead, forgive, and save us all.
We are illogical and corrupt.
We want "change." So even though Congress has approval ratings close to 10 percent, we create an election in which our only choice is one senator or another. We despise Washington, so we eliminate every candidate who isn't a Washington insider.
We hate wasteful government spending, so we give ourselves a choice of people who will spend more than any of their predecessors.
This little bit of craziness reminds me of a man who hired a worker who turned out to be a thief. He fired the man and hired another worker who also turned out to be a thief. The original worker came back and offered him a deal. "Get rid of that thief," he said, "and rehire me. I'm not a thief like him, I'm better at it."
We keep voting for magic that even Santa Claus couldn't deliver. We elevate candidates who promise to give us what can't be given. We buy into it because we want what is in our neighbors’ wallets. We vote for politicians who promise to use the coercive force of government to take property from others and give it to us.
We vote for candidates who promise to punish those we envy. We say, "I'm getting poorer. It must be someone else's fault."
Sure enough, a politician stands up and points to the "others" and shouts, "It's them. They are the ones who are making you poor. Elect me and I will make them pay."
"Yes, there are two Americas. Elect me and I'll take your revenge for you."
It all echoes like Europe in the 1930’s.
So we want a president that is a god. One that will give us things we have not earned. One that will punish those we dislike. One that will feed us when hungry, house us when homeless, warm us when cold, cool us when hot, educate our children, and guarantee us an ever increasing list of "rights" that can only be obtained by restricting someone else's freedom.
But most of all, we want a president who will do all this without telling us any of the very nasty details that are necessary to pull it off. We want this president to say the right things, to use the correct words, to calm us and remove our anxiety, and evoke the blessing of heaven down on our heads at the end of every feel-good communication.
Corrupt people can't believe that everyone else isn't corrupt. They can't tolerate a decent person because that person must be a phony, or hypocritical, which oddly enough is the ultimate sin for the corrupt.
So the tyrants, the liars, the cons, or those who walk a tightrope down the middle while pretending not to be insanely messianic become our candidates to run our government for the next four years.
We deserve what we get.
More Stories from Columnists » Clayson
jerome wrote on Feb 10, 2008 9:34 AM:
" Finally a Clayson colume I can agree with. Nobody likes Congress but every election Iowa voter goes to the polls and votes Grassely and Harkin. We don't like all the money Congress spends but we vote for our two porkers because they bring money back to us. The tax money we get is OK, it's just the money others get that is wrong. We get what we deserve. "
cross1242 wrote on Feb 10, 2008 2:18 PM:
" In Prof. Clayson’s earlier columns, I have noted a tendency to “dis” his readers. This week’s column is entirely devoted to telling his readers that they are going to get what they deserve. And, what they apparently deserve is misery.
In his traditional fashion, Prof. Clayson provides us largely with only his personal opinion on the matter and expects it to carry the day. His opinion this time is breathtaking in scope.
Consider this opinion: “Deep within us, we are still marching out of Babylon with a mystery religion still burning in our hearts. We want to elevate an individual to god-king status and then crucify him for our collective sins. We expect he will then rise from the dead, forgive, and save us all.
“We are illogical and corrupt.”
Prof. Clayson seems to be condemning both “Judeo” and “Christian” parts of the “Judeo-Christian Tradition” as being not just the cause of the failure of government but for our universal personal failures of being, “illogical and corrupt.” I find that conclusion to be amazing. Perhaps Prof. Clayson has just had enough of all that jazz about taking care of one’s “brother.”
And consider the sentence immediately preceding the one just quoted. It’s, “We want the drama and the money.”
What does that sentence have to do with the one that immediately follows? Their juxtaposition of those two sentences says that all the Judeo-Christian tradition gives us is a desire for “drama and money.” Prof. Clayson adds insult to the predominant religion as well as showing contempt for his readers. (It also brings up the question of whether Prof. has an editor who, when confronted by those two sentences, would say, “I don’t think that there is any connection between the first and second sentences. Please rewrite them.”)
The next portion of Prof. Clayson’s proof that “we get the government that we deserve” consists entirely of repetition several times but using different words of the standard right-wing contention that candidates talking about economic justice are really promoting class warfare. It is as if the use of progressive taxation is nothing more than the poor stealing from the rich. But, perhaps if the term “compassionate conservative” meant something other than acceptance of social Darwinism, the right-wingers would not now be expecting the election results that Prof. Clayson now fears and that they so richly deserve.
I suggest that Prof. Clayson’s argument this week is really about something that he leaves unsaid. (I admit that on this I am attempting to read Prof. Clayson’s mind. So, I could be wrong. However, it would be useful if Prof. Clayson said directly what he meant rather than leaving it to his readers to read between the lines.) I think that what Prof. Clayson is really saying is that, “I already know that my view of the best government is going to be soundly rejected by the people in November. Instead, the view that will be successful will be exactly the one I don’t like: Jeffersonian goals achieved by Hamiltonian means.” So, like a petulant child, he’s saying that, “you deserve what you’re going to get” while imagining that they’ll get a disaster.
Surely, those of you who believe in conservative principles can find a better opinion maker than one who is already throwing in the towel.
"
In his traditional fashion, Prof. Clayson provides us largely with only his personal opinion on the matter and expects it to carry the day. His opinion this time is breathtaking in scope.
Consider this opinion: “Deep within us, we are still marching out of Babylon with a mystery religion still burning in our hearts. We want to elevate an individual to god-king status and then crucify him for our collective sins. We expect he will then rise from the dead, forgive, and save us all.
“We are illogical and corrupt.”
Prof. Clayson seems to be condemning both “Judeo” and “Christian” parts of the “Judeo-Christian Tradition” as being not just the cause of the failure of government but for our universal personal failures of being, “illogical and corrupt.” I find that conclusion to be amazing. Perhaps Prof. Clayson has just had enough of all that jazz about taking care of one’s “brother.”
And consider the sentence immediately preceding the one just quoted. It’s, “We want the drama and the money.”
What does that sentence have to do with the one that immediately follows? Their juxtaposition of those two sentences says that all the Judeo-Christian tradition gives us is a desire for “drama and money.” Prof. Clayson adds insult to the predominant religion as well as showing contempt for his readers. (It also brings up the question of whether Prof. has an editor who, when confronted by those two sentences, would say, “I don’t think that there is any connection between the first and second sentences. Please rewrite them.”)
The next portion of Prof. Clayson’s proof that “we get the government that we deserve” consists entirely of repetition several times but using different words of the standard right-wing contention that candidates talking about economic justice are really promoting class warfare. It is as if the use of progressive taxation is nothing more than the poor stealing from the rich. But, perhaps if the term “compassionate conservative” meant something other than acceptance of social Darwinism, the right-wingers would not now be expecting the election results that Prof. Clayson now fears and that they so richly deserve.
I suggest that Prof. Clayson’s argument this week is really about something that he leaves unsaid. (I admit that on this I am attempting to read Prof. Clayson’s mind. So, I could be wrong. However, it would be useful if Prof. Clayson said directly what he meant rather than leaving it to his readers to read between the lines.) I think that what Prof. Clayson is really saying is that, “I already know that my view of the best government is going to be soundly rejected by the people in November. Instead, the view that will be successful will be exactly the one I don’t like: Jeffersonian goals achieved by Hamiltonian means.” So, like a petulant child, he’s saying that, “you deserve what you’re going to get” while imagining that they’ll get a disaster.
Surely, those of you who believe in conservative principles can find a better opinion maker than one who is already throwing in the towel.
"
Leo46 wrote on Feb 10, 2008 5:43 PM:
" Cross, as usual you completely miss Claysons point. Or maybe you do get it but must rewrite his opinions into something easier to attack?
Why don't you attack what he actually says instead of attacking what you THINK he MEANT?
You even attack his writing style instead of the point of the article. Seems like you have a personal issue with Clayson, in which case nothing you write in response has any credability at all. "
Why don't you attack what he actually says instead of attacking what you THINK he MEANT?
You even attack his writing style instead of the point of the article. Seems like you have a personal issue with Clayson, in which case nothing you write in response has any credability at all. "
Whyonearth wrote on Feb 10, 2008 5:59 PM:
" Cross-I don't believe Professer Clayson is throwing in the towel at all. His OPINION (as being located on the OPINION section) is that if the majority of American's don't exercise their right to vote, then they get the government that they deserve. Never has this country been more divided than it has been the last 16 years under Bill Clinton and G.W. Bush. The elections of recent memory (the past 20 years) have revealed only 1 person has received greater that 50% of the cast ballots to become President. The point being that even though we may disagree with our elected officials, we should still support and respect the job they do and the position they hold. If we are unable to do this, the the options are to run for office yourself, find a candidate that more closely supports your positions and do everything possible to help them get elected, or withdraw yourself from the election process and criticize columnists on a weekly basis that have the audacity to point out that, in fact, we get, and have gotten, the government we deserve. "
jeroze wrote on Feb 10, 2008 7:39 PM:
" Cross Feb 10, 2008 2:18 PM:
as usual I find your comments strike a sympathetic nerve in my own reactions to the article.
Leo46, Feb 10, 2008 5:43 PM:
you bring up something that deserves some discussion. Your question is "Why don't you attack what he actually says instead of attacking what you THINK he MEANT?" Please expand upon that comment and plain tell us the point that Cross has missed.
I am not sure that Professor has any other point than that he doesn't like what happened last week in the primaries. Period. In the first blog I have politely argued with the Professor that it is not true that we always select Washington Insiders as our nomination for the Presidency. In fact it can be argued that outsiders get the nomination and win the election because they have no record to attack. (Carter, Reagan for example)
The rest of the column appears to be filler items to fill up space and also provoking the reader by stirring up emotions to get a reaction. Many statements are abrasive to say the least. They are jabs against the religious and political ideas that are precious to a lot of people who do not share the Professor's preferences. They also provoke some blogging about ideas that are often far from anything that has to do with the main point of the article.
Now I have to admit that this might sell a dozen or so copies of the Sunday Waterloo Courier.
And perhaps the Professor feels better after venting his opinions by jabbing at those who disagree with him. "
as usual I find your comments strike a sympathetic nerve in my own reactions to the article.
Leo46, Feb 10, 2008 5:43 PM:
you bring up something that deserves some discussion. Your question is "Why don't you attack what he actually says instead of attacking what you THINK he MEANT?" Please expand upon that comment and plain tell us the point that Cross has missed.
I am not sure that Professor has any other point than that he doesn't like what happened last week in the primaries. Period. In the first blog I have politely argued with the Professor that it is not true that we always select Washington Insiders as our nomination for the Presidency. In fact it can be argued that outsiders get the nomination and win the election because they have no record to attack. (Carter, Reagan for example)
The rest of the column appears to be filler items to fill up space and also provoking the reader by stirring up emotions to get a reaction. Many statements are abrasive to say the least. They are jabs against the religious and political ideas that are precious to a lot of people who do not share the Professor's preferences. They also provoke some blogging about ideas that are often far from anything that has to do with the main point of the article.
Now I have to admit that this might sell a dozen or so copies of the Sunday Waterloo Courier.
And perhaps the Professor feels better after venting his opinions by jabbing at those who disagree with him. "
Newswatcher wrote on Feb 10, 2008 7:43 PM:
" Cross, with you it's just
Yadda, Yadda, Yadda. You are so predictable with your rants against Prof. Clayson and anyone well, anyone one who isn't YOU! "
Yadda, Yadda, Yadda. You are so predictable with your rants against Prof. Clayson and anyone well, anyone one who isn't YOU! "
Leo46 wrote on Feb 11, 2008 7:21 AM:
" jeroze: I’ll hit on only a few of Crosses comments. Understand this is my “opinion”
Cross wrote:”I have noted a tendency to “dis” his readers”
Where he gets that, I have no idea. I agree with most of what Clayson writes, never have I felt he was “dissing” me. Of course when you dislike someone as bad as Cross does Clayson, anything they say can come across as “dissing”
Cross wrote: ”Prof. Clayson provides us largely with only his personal opinion on the matter and expects it to carry the day”
Cross can’t seem to get it through his head that Clayson is writing an “OPINION” piece, not an editorial column. Clayson is not trying to convince anyone of anything, he is just stating his “personal opinion” on different topics.
Clayson wrote: “Deep within us, we are still marching out of Babylon with a mystery religion still burning in our hearts. We want to elevate an individual to god-king status and then crucify him for our collective sins. We expect he will then rise from the dead, forgive, and save us all.”
Simple statement, and very true.”
Cross wrote: ”Prof. Clayson seems to be condemning both “Judeo” and “Christian” parts of the “Judeo-Christian Tradition”
How does Cross comes up with that conclusion? Remember we are talking about Pres. Candidates here. Seems to me Clayson is saying that we elevate a candidate to god-king (or if you will rock star) status the we “crucify” him/her ( media attack adds, personal attacks by candidates, etc) Then when the election is over we expect new president to rise up, forgive all the attacks, and lead us to new hights of glory. Now understand this is my “OPINION”
The rest of Crosses rant is full of the same intentional misunderstandings. "
Cross wrote:”I have noted a tendency to “dis” his readers”
Where he gets that, I have no idea. I agree with most of what Clayson writes, never have I felt he was “dissing” me. Of course when you dislike someone as bad as Cross does Clayson, anything they say can come across as “dissing”
Cross wrote: ”Prof. Clayson provides us largely with only his personal opinion on the matter and expects it to carry the day”
Cross can’t seem to get it through his head that Clayson is writing an “OPINION” piece, not an editorial column. Clayson is not trying to convince anyone of anything, he is just stating his “personal opinion” on different topics.
Clayson wrote: “Deep within us, we are still marching out of Babylon with a mystery religion still burning in our hearts. We want to elevate an individual to god-king status and then crucify him for our collective sins. We expect he will then rise from the dead, forgive, and save us all.”
Simple statement, and very true.”
Cross wrote: ”Prof. Clayson seems to be condemning both “Judeo” and “Christian” parts of the “Judeo-Christian Tradition”
How does Cross comes up with that conclusion? Remember we are talking about Pres. Candidates here. Seems to me Clayson is saying that we elevate a candidate to god-king (or if you will rock star) status the we “crucify” him/her ( media attack adds, personal attacks by candidates, etc) Then when the election is over we expect new president to rise up, forgive all the attacks, and lead us to new hights of glory. Now understand this is my “OPINION”
The rest of Crosses rant is full of the same intentional misunderstandings. "
andydandy wrote on Feb 11, 2008 10:26 AM:
" Clayson is spot on with this column. Never have I heard so many politicians and the public crying about "what can this country do for me?". Its no wonder we have no great leaders emerging from this society, only ones that can pander to it. "
cross1242 wrote on Feb 11, 2008 10:35 AM:
" I'll try to respond to a few of the objections to my response to Prof. Clayson's column this week.
Leo46 says, "Cross wrote:”I have noted a tendency to “dis” his readers” Where he gets that, I have no idea."
Where I get that is simply from the idea that he tells us all, "We get what we deserve." He is using "we" in the universal sense. He's not saying that, "the lefties are going to get what they deserve while we righties will have to suffer along with you." He's making the universal claim that everyone out there, including his readers, deserve the misery that he thinks we are going to get." I have never seen a published author who seems be as openly contemptuous of everyone but himself or herself.
Leo46 says, "Prof. Clayson provides us largely with only his personal opinion on the matter and expects it to carry the day.” Cross can’t seem to get it through his head that Clayson is writing an “OPINION” piece, not an editorial column."
I'll give anyone the right to depend on his or her opinion. But, when someone says, "It's my opinion that all we have to do to get to the moon is flap our arms," then it's my right to say, "That opinion is just so unreasonable that you'll have to prove it before I believe it." Prof. Clayson doesn't get a free pass from being rational as long as he's stating his personal opinion. And, I'm exercising my critical capacity to say that nobody should believe his "opinion" when it's so unreasonable -- require him to prove it.
And, as long as I'm at it, there is no difference that I have ever heard about between an "editorial" and a "commentary." The former is just the collective opinion of the editors while the later is just the personal opinion of the author. In both cases, if their opinions are silly, then they should both be called upon to prove it.
Leo46 agrees with Prof. Clayson on his statement about people marching to a "mystery religion."
In the paragraph that Prof. Clayson makes that statement, he could have just stopped at the first sentence, "We want the drama and the money." The next sentence just isn't connected to the first. To me, when Prof. Clayson eventually says, "We are illogical and corrupt." he is saying that it is Judeo-Christian belief that is "illogical and corrupt."
Whyonearth explains away Prof. Clayson's remarks by asserting that all Prof. Clayson is saying is that people who don't vote deserve what they get.
I'm sorry, but I see nothing in what Prof. Clayson says that would indicate that he's just providing an exhortation to everyone to vote. Again, he is using the universal "we" in saying "we get what we deserve." He never says or implies that he means, "If you don't vote then you get what you deserve."
And, in the examples he cites, he again uses a universal "we" as being taken in by politicians who offer something for nothing. There is no attempt by Prof. Clayson to make his argument just that all citizens must vote.
Lastly, I think that jeroze has a good point that the column seems like a reaction to Mitt Romney folding his campaign last week. That's a more precise analysis of what I meant by saying that Prof. Clayson was throwing in the towel. Prof. Clayson doesn't like McCain because McCain isn't sufficiently conservative. All Prof. Clayson sees that will come out of the November election now is the election of either a conservative who doesn't think like he does or one of those hated Democrats.
It is a recommended rule of writing to now write about something until you have cooled off. I suspect that this weeks column was written before Prof. Clayson had cooled off.
"
Leo46 says, "Cross wrote:”I have noted a tendency to “dis” his readers” Where he gets that, I have no idea."
Where I get that is simply from the idea that he tells us all, "We get what we deserve." He is using "we" in the universal sense. He's not saying that, "the lefties are going to get what they deserve while we righties will have to suffer along with you." He's making the universal claim that everyone out there, including his readers, deserve the misery that he thinks we are going to get." I have never seen a published author who seems be as openly contemptuous of everyone but himself or herself.
Leo46 says, "Prof. Clayson provides us largely with only his personal opinion on the matter and expects it to carry the day.” Cross can’t seem to get it through his head that Clayson is writing an “OPINION” piece, not an editorial column."
I'll give anyone the right to depend on his or her opinion. But, when someone says, "It's my opinion that all we have to do to get to the moon is flap our arms," then it's my right to say, "That opinion is just so unreasonable that you'll have to prove it before I believe it." Prof. Clayson doesn't get a free pass from being rational as long as he's stating his personal opinion. And, I'm exercising my critical capacity to say that nobody should believe his "opinion" when it's so unreasonable -- require him to prove it.
And, as long as I'm at it, there is no difference that I have ever heard about between an "editorial" and a "commentary." The former is just the collective opinion of the editors while the later is just the personal opinion of the author. In both cases, if their opinions are silly, then they should both be called upon to prove it.
Leo46 agrees with Prof. Clayson on his statement about people marching to a "mystery religion."
In the paragraph that Prof. Clayson makes that statement, he could have just stopped at the first sentence, "We want the drama and the money." The next sentence just isn't connected to the first. To me, when Prof. Clayson eventually says, "We are illogical and corrupt." he is saying that it is Judeo-Christian belief that is "illogical and corrupt."
Whyonearth explains away Prof. Clayson's remarks by asserting that all Prof. Clayson is saying is that people who don't vote deserve what they get.
I'm sorry, but I see nothing in what Prof. Clayson says that would indicate that he's just providing an exhortation to everyone to vote. Again, he is using the universal "we" in saying "we get what we deserve." He never says or implies that he means, "If you don't vote then you get what you deserve."
And, in the examples he cites, he again uses a universal "we" as being taken in by politicians who offer something for nothing. There is no attempt by Prof. Clayson to make his argument just that all citizens must vote.
Lastly, I think that jeroze has a good point that the column seems like a reaction to Mitt Romney folding his campaign last week. That's a more precise analysis of what I meant by saying that Prof. Clayson was throwing in the towel. Prof. Clayson doesn't like McCain because McCain isn't sufficiently conservative. All Prof. Clayson sees that will come out of the November election now is the election of either a conservative who doesn't think like he does or one of those hated Democrats.
It is a recommended rule of writing to now write about something until you have cooled off. I suspect that this weeks column was written before Prof. Clayson had cooled off.
"
hawkiiis wrote on Feb 11, 2008 4:48 PM:
" I don't have anything to say regarding this article, but comments on the comments...
Andydandy is completely correct in his post. People now vote based on 'What's in it for me?' and not 'What's in it for our country?'.
Jeroze, your statement "Of the outsiders my choice would now be Jimmy Carter" made me laugh and puke at the same time. Failure to learn from mistakes, dooms us to repeat them. "
Andydandy is completely correct in his post. People now vote based on 'What's in it for me?' and not 'What's in it for our country?'.
Jeroze, your statement "Of the outsiders my choice would now be Jimmy Carter" made me laugh and puke at the same time. Failure to learn from mistakes, dooms us to repeat them. "
Newswatcher wrote on Feb 11, 2008 7:01 PM:
" Cross, go back and read your 10:25 entry of 2/11. You are so full of yourself to assume you know what someone is saying, you think you know what they SHOULD be saying, you think your opinions are above others and others need to PROVE theirs (if they seem silly to you), etc. etc. I cannot imagine how you take yourself so seriously. You contradict everything you write by only writing about yourself. Take a look in the mirror image of your own words. You ARE what you are complaining about. Which btw is what most unhappy people do. "
hetfield wrote on Feb 11, 2008 7:15 PM:
" I'm not going to try to argue with anyone or sway others. What I take from this article is contempt for the election system currently in place. It's very similar to big-government, big spending, little results; which seem to be a leftist take on all. The media hype(clearly left),redistribution of wealth(take from the rich, give to the poor), and blaming others who are doing better(ditto) are all typical of liberals and democrats as a whole.
Why we can't accept that we are worth what we earn and we should be able to keep what we make is beyond me. "
Why we can't accept that we are worth what we earn and we should be able to keep what we make is beyond me. "
prodigal son wrote on Feb 11, 2008 10:58 PM:
" Is this cross guy serious? Nobody could get me to write that much without putting me on the payroll. Holy smokes man, you must really hate Clayson or have no life. "
cross1242 wrote on Feb 11, 2008 11:38 PM:
" hetfield @ Feb 11, 2008 7:15 PM said, "Why we can't accept that we are worth what we earn...."
And that, hetfield is what is known as "social Darwinism." But, perhaps you already know that but don't care. "
And that, hetfield is what is known as "social Darwinism." But, perhaps you already know that but don't care. "
Leo46 wrote on Feb 12, 2008 6:53 AM:
" Cross, there you go again, interpreting what someone says into a negative comment. No question you are a "glass half empty" type of person.
Now what I got from hetfields comment was, "We are worth every cent of what we earn and shouldn't have to share with those who make less" That is not the same as your interpretation of social darwinism. "
Now what I got from hetfields comment was, "We are worth every cent of what we earn and shouldn't have to share with those who make less" That is not the same as your interpretation of social darwinism. "
Phil wrote on Feb 12, 2008 7:35 AM:
" I am not going to pick apart Mr. Clayson's article - the overall point that we get the government we deserve is essentially correct - and one of his themes - that we have a childlike, me-first attitude in what we want is also pretty correct.
hetfield's comment that is being debated here - "We are worth every cent of what we earn and shouldn't have to share with those who make less" - is a prime example of that type of attitude.
What Mr. Clayson doesn't address is how the situation got to where it is. That would take more space than I care to write and anyone would care to read.
Basically, though it is money, greed and special interests that have created many of the problems we have with our system and candidates. Plus the lack of will of the people to study history and find out what has gone on and is going on with our government and its relationships with other governments and big business.
Case in point - go here and click on the video link on the left. Learn what Winston Churchill and Truman/Eisenhower did in Iran. Does that put some of the current Middle East situation in perspective for you?
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iran/ "
hetfield's comment that is being debated here - "We are worth every cent of what we earn and shouldn't have to share with those who make less" - is a prime example of that type of attitude.
What Mr. Clayson doesn't address is how the situation got to where it is. That would take more space than I care to write and anyone would care to read.
Basically, though it is money, greed and special interests that have created many of the problems we have with our system and candidates. Plus the lack of will of the people to study history and find out what has gone on and is going on with our government and its relationships with other governments and big business.
Case in point - go here and click on the video link on the left. Learn what Winston Churchill and Truman/Eisenhower did in Iran. Does that put some of the current Middle East situation in perspective for you?
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iran/ "
cross1242 wrote on Feb 12, 2008 8:37 AM:
" Newswatcher @ Feb 11, 2008 7:01 PM objected that I'm being woefully inconsistent in demanding proof from others when I don't myself.
Actually, I don't demand more of others than I insist upon for myself. If you don't buy my unsupported analysis then don't believe it. I frequently do cite sources to prove a point and I know when what I say doesn't have proof or is incapable of proof. (And, even if I do cite sources, the righties here dismiss the proof as from an unbelievable source -- not that they have proof of their own.)
So, feel free to reject what I don't prove. But, I still have the right when some rightie claims as a fact something silly. "
Actually, I don't demand more of others than I insist upon for myself. If you don't buy my unsupported analysis then don't believe it. I frequently do cite sources to prove a point and I know when what I say doesn't have proof or is incapable of proof. (And, even if I do cite sources, the righties here dismiss the proof as from an unbelievable source -- not that they have proof of their own.)
So, feel free to reject what I don't prove. But, I still have the right when some rightie claims as a fact something silly. "
cross1242 wrote on Feb 12, 2008 8:44 AM:
" Leo46 @ Feb 12, 2008 6:53 AM objected to my claim that hetfield is urging us to follow the principles of social Darwinism. He says that all hetfield meant was, "We ... shouldn't have to share with those who make less."
Okay, if he and you mean that, then I'll remind you of the Bible principle that, "We are our brother's keeper." That principle cannot be reduced to, "Let those folks rot who aren't as well off as yourself."
And, don't cite "Christian charity" back to me. There is nothing wrong with us (and the government is "us") being the instrument of or charity because it is a hell of a lot more effective than depending on the grace of others. "
Okay, if he and you mean that, then I'll remind you of the Bible principle that, "We are our brother's keeper." That principle cannot be reduced to, "Let those folks rot who aren't as well off as yourself."
And, don't cite "Christian charity" back to me. There is nothing wrong with us (and the government is "us") being the instrument of or charity because it is a hell of a lot more effective than depending on the grace of others. "
Kramerica wrote on Feb 12, 2008 9:37 AM:
" Cross, the Bible principle you site isn't speaking to government, it's speaking to us individually. And give up that line about US being the government. That's now a silly notion. We have to take the government back from the special interests on BOTH sides. As far as Christian charity, does that make Bush's Faith-based Initiative OK with you? Since you're mushing Christian charity together with us being the government, I'm sure you have no problem with it. "
cross1242 wrote on Feb 12, 2008 11:08 AM:
" Kramerica, that's an interesting interpretation of scripture. So, we should take care of an occasional stranger by the wayside and, if we do, it excuses us from worrying about people across town or on the other side of the world. That sounds like conscience money to me.
I can't complain about your desire to take government away from the special interests. That is a problem. You might want to look at Obama as a possible solution to that problem.
On a technical basis, I don't object to "faith-based initiatives." However, I do object to W's implementation of it. On one hand, it seems more oriented to supporting the government-approved faiths than the people needing help. And, on the other hand, it seems like conscience money for the W's Administration since in total he's devoting a pittance to solving people problems and spending the money to fight a war. "
I can't complain about your desire to take government away from the special interests. That is a problem. You might want to look at Obama as a possible solution to that problem.
On a technical basis, I don't object to "faith-based initiatives." However, I do object to W's implementation of it. On one hand, it seems more oriented to supporting the government-approved faiths than the people needing help. And, on the other hand, it seems like conscience money for the W's Administration since in total he's devoting a pittance to solving people problems and spending the money to fight a war. "
Leo46 wrote on Feb 12, 2008 12:52 PM:
" Cross, there you go with your missdirection of topics again. We were talking about "social Darwinism"
As far as keeping what we earn and quoting Christian principals, are you saying that athiests, muslims, budists, taoists, and agnostics don't have to give taxes that go to poor people? Don't you believe in separation of church and state? If you do, why are you quoting Christian principals when the subject is government and taxes? "
As far as keeping what we earn and quoting Christian principals, are you saying that athiests, muslims, budists, taoists, and agnostics don't have to give taxes that go to poor people? Don't you believe in separation of church and state? If you do, why are you quoting Christian principals when the subject is government and taxes? "
Kramerica wrote on Feb 12, 2008 1:07 PM:
" I was questioning YOUR interpretation, Cross, but you know that and everyone reading this knows that, but they've come to expect this kind of garbage from you. Nice NON-answer. "
hetfield wrote on Feb 12, 2008 2:20 PM:
" I'm glad my comments were so thought provoking. Unfortunately I was not able to make myself understood(to libs anyways). What I was trying to convey was simple. If I am able to earn 100k a year, I am worth that much on the open market. I should be able to choose how I want to spend my dollar, not depend on big government to make that choice for me. I do not presume, like democrats do, that the government knows more than I do or will make better choices then I would when it comes to helping others.
For some reason, Cross likes to always spin others words to try to make his points make more sense. I have always said those that truly need help should be helped and not left to rot on the side of the road. Cross, how dare you.
I also dont agree with Phils attempt to make those who are capable of earning(worth) more are greedy and childlike. This difference in beliefs is one of the gaps that the parties cant close. I can't understand how/why it exists.
Perhaps the libs can explain it better, but no doubt will only dip further into my pockets for the explanation. "
For some reason, Cross likes to always spin others words to try to make his points make more sense. I have always said those that truly need help should be helped and not left to rot on the side of the road. Cross, how dare you.
I also dont agree with Phils attempt to make those who are capable of earning(worth) more are greedy and childlike. This difference in beliefs is one of the gaps that the parties cant close. I can't understand how/why it exists.
Perhaps the libs can explain it better, but no doubt will only dip further into my pockets for the explanation. "
cross1242 wrote on Feb 12, 2008 4:31 PM:
" leo46 asks, "are you saying that athiests, Muslims, Buddhists, Taoists, and agnostics don't have to give taxes that go to poor people."
Actually, I think that all those religions (and even atheists and agnostics) believe in finding ways to help their fellow humans who need help. And I think its wrong to say "let the poor depend on charity" when it's never enough. Government, in the capacity of doing the direction of all citizens to see that the need is met, is the only entity that can meet the need.
Kramerica, to be honest, I have no idea what you mean in your last post. I do get your general idea that you don't much care about others in our society because you don't want to have them helped if it means lessening your wealth.
hetfield, you also seem to not care all that much about the health and welfare of others if it means your wealth will be reduced by a dime. It is entirely proper for our society, through its government, to decide that people aren't going to die on our watch when people don't have the good grace to meet the need on their own. Charity is wonderful. But, it's also clear that charity can't meet the need. And, even if it could, people should not have to depend on private charity in a fabulously rich society.
All of you, become lefties. It's the only way to meet the need. "
Actually, I think that all those religions (and even atheists and agnostics) believe in finding ways to help their fellow humans who need help. And I think its wrong to say "let the poor depend on charity" when it's never enough. Government, in the capacity of doing the direction of all citizens to see that the need is met, is the only entity that can meet the need.
Kramerica, to be honest, I have no idea what you mean in your last post. I do get your general idea that you don't much care about others in our society because you don't want to have them helped if it means lessening your wealth.
hetfield, you also seem to not care all that much about the health and welfare of others if it means your wealth will be reduced by a dime. It is entirely proper for our society, through its government, to decide that people aren't going to die on our watch when people don't have the good grace to meet the need on their own. Charity is wonderful. But, it's also clear that charity can't meet the need. And, even if it could, people should not have to depend on private charity in a fabulously rich society.
All of you, become lefties. It's the only way to meet the need. "
WTH wrote on Feb 12, 2008 4:57 PM:
" I stopped reading when he listed The President of OUR United States in the same paragraph as Hitler and Stalin. No thanks! "
hetfield wrote on Feb 12, 2008 7:06 PM:
" Cross, I actually misread your last line to read ' it's the only way to meet the end.' That is more close than your quote I think.
People, rise up, ye and let your all knowing, all spending, all judging government decide what to do with your wealth! Grow government so much that everyone will be employed by it, socialize all health care, spare all red-eyed tree frogs, especially at the cost of developing natural resources, ensure our wants as rights for all! Welcome all immigrants; illegal, criminal, diseased, doesnt matter. We have an open heart and checkbook. When we find some more money to spend, by all means spend it. Tax the wealthy at higher rates than others, heck, they can afford it, and are overpaid anyway. Unionize all workers; they cant think for themselves. Oh and turn the lights off when the last person leaves.
Sounds like a beautiful little nirvana libbies have cooked up for us all. Of course, we will all be speaking Chinese by then so what the heck. I love rice. "
People, rise up, ye and let your all knowing, all spending, all judging government decide what to do with your wealth! Grow government so much that everyone will be employed by it, socialize all health care, spare all red-eyed tree frogs, especially at the cost of developing natural resources, ensure our wants as rights for all! Welcome all immigrants; illegal, criminal, diseased, doesnt matter. We have an open heart and checkbook. When we find some more money to spend, by all means spend it. Tax the wealthy at higher rates than others, heck, they can afford it, and are overpaid anyway. Unionize all workers; they cant think for themselves. Oh and turn the lights off when the last person leaves.
Sounds like a beautiful little nirvana libbies have cooked up for us all. Of course, we will all be speaking Chinese by then so what the heck. I love rice. "
hetfield wrote on Feb 12, 2008 7:09 PM:
" Cross, I just read that you think we are a 'fabulously rich society.' I thought our economy was in peril. Arent we in a midst of the greatest economic crisis in our history? What the heck are the papers and media all sqwaking about?
Of course we are a rich society. But not if you and your bunch have your way we wont be.
Sorry for the double post. "
Of course we are a rich society. But not if you and your bunch have your way we wont be.
Sorry for the double post. "
hillaryc wrote on Feb 12, 2008 7:44 PM:
" For all you out there that continue to argue with Cross, I am flabbergasted that you folks are so simple minded as to not recognize the brilliance that we are lucky enough to be subjected to on a weekly basis. How ignorant of you neocons to think that you are capable of making decisions without us (remember us is the government). We (also the government) have earned the right,through our years of good stewardship and unparelled success, to spend and take your money as we (government) feel the need. Those of us who really think know that when left to their own devices, people will always fail and fail miserably. However when We (government) take you people (failures) by the hand and lead you to the trough of goodness and charity (HHS)
then you will truly find Us (government)always needed.
Cross, I took a good look at Obama, but can't decide if we as a country are more in need of Hope,,,, or if we are more in need of Change. The deepness of that message, justs awes me. I think I will just wait and see who Mr Soros wants all of us to vote for as I understand he has taken over the leadership role in our party. "
then you will truly find Us (government)always needed.
Cross, I took a good look at Obama, but can't decide if we as a country are more in need of Hope,,,, or if we are more in need of Change. The deepness of that message, justs awes me. I think I will just wait and see who Mr Soros wants all of us to vote for as I understand he has taken over the leadership role in our party. "
jeroze wrote on Feb 12, 2008 10:59 PM:
" WTH
wrote on Feb 12, 2008 4:57 PM:
" I stopped reading when he listed The President of OUR United States in the same paragraph as Hitler and Stalin. No thanks! "
I usually do not travel in the same orbit as does Professor Clayson, either, but here was one paragraph that I might have been tempted to write to vent some of my apprehensions about W's assumption of power. "
wrote on Feb 12, 2008 4:57 PM:
" I stopped reading when he listed The President of OUR United States in the same paragraph as Hitler and Stalin. No thanks! "
I usually do not travel in the same orbit as does Professor Clayson, either, but here was one paragraph that I might have been tempted to write to vent some of my apprehensions about W's assumption of power. "
Phil wrote on Feb 13, 2008 8:41 AM:
" What is interesting is watching the ongoing debate between those who say they should get to keep their money versus those who advocate allowing the government to redistribute part of it.
The debate seems to focus on social programs - welfare, healthcare (which only is given to the elderly and very poor), etc. - but never the area that is 20% of our total budget - the military. Only Social Security - which is funded separately - is larger than the military.
This of course is madness and a huge wealth redistribution program of its own. We need the largest military budget in the world to protect ourselves from who? A couple of thousand fanatics that hide in caves? No, so we can control other countries and their natural resources for our industrial complex.
hetfield - I want to keep the money I earn too - and quit wasting it on wars, weapons and soldiers we don't need. At least when my tax money goes to a needy person it gets spent on food, shelter or other personal needs and not blowing somebody up. "
The debate seems to focus on social programs - welfare, healthcare (which only is given to the elderly and very poor), etc. - but never the area that is 20% of our total budget - the military. Only Social Security - which is funded separately - is larger than the military.
This of course is madness and a huge wealth redistribution program of its own. We need the largest military budget in the world to protect ourselves from who? A couple of thousand fanatics that hide in caves? No, so we can control other countries and their natural resources for our industrial complex.
hetfield - I want to keep the money I earn too - and quit wasting it on wars, weapons and soldiers we don't need. At least when my tax money goes to a needy person it gets spent on food, shelter or other personal needs and not blowing somebody up. "
hetfield wrote on Feb 13, 2008 10:03 AM:
" Phil, come on. While I dont want to debate Iraq, we need a strong military well equipped with the lastest technology. I am satisified that the portion of my tax money appropriated for defense is worth every penny.
While we all have seen abuses in the system, let's agree we cant short change the military. "
While we all have seen abuses in the system, let's agree we cant short change the military. "
Phil wrote on Feb 13, 2008 10:10 AM:
" Read how your tax dollars are being spent here - and how it is upsetting our allies who we strong arm into helping us. This is written by another Republican who I read on a regular basis.
http://www.ericmargolis.com/ "
http://www.ericmargolis.com/ "
Kramerica wrote on Feb 13, 2008 10:19 AM:
" Cross, you know darn well I didn't say that but keep up the spin, you must be very dizzy by now. "
jeroze wrote on Feb 13, 2008 11:57 AM:
" please permit me to quote a description of the first Christian
Community in Jerusalem about 33 AD or CE if you prefer.
"All who believed were together and had all things in common; and they sold their possessions and good and distributed them to all, as any had need." Acts 2:44
Too bad it was such a short lived phenomena??? "
Community in Jerusalem about 33 AD or CE if you prefer.
"All who believed were together and had all things in common; and they sold their possessions and good and distributed them to all, as any had need." Acts 2:44
Too bad it was such a short lived phenomena??? "
cross1242 wrote on Feb 13, 2008 12:31 PM:
" hillaryc @ Feb 12, 2008 7:44 PM said:
"you folks are so simple minded."
I'd ask everyone to remember that the language is hillaryc's and not mine. And her statement does not represent my thoughts (on that or anything else). "
"you folks are so simple minded."
I'd ask everyone to remember that the language is hillaryc's and not mine. And her statement does not represent my thoughts (on that or anything else). "
cross1242 wrote on Feb 13, 2008 1:32 PM:
" hetfield @ Feb 12, 2008 7:06 PM wrote what he expects the government by lefties will bring. In is view, it is a nightmare.
Would we lefties do what hetfield says, I'd join him is saying it would be a nightmare. But, as everyone probably expects, I see nothing of the kind.
hetfield's scenario brings up one thing that I have suspected motivate a substantial portion of the right-wing. I think that many are gripped by an abiding fear of the future. They feel that they are living on the thin edge of disaster and the lefties are likely to bring about exactly what they fear: destabilizing change.
I'd suggest that they have more to fear from Republicans, particularly one's like those in W's Administration more than they have to fear lefties.
The principle reason is the folks running the current administration are lying to us all about what their intentions are. Those intentions are to rip-off the government and everyone who is not a millionaire and give it to the millionaires. If they get their way, the millionaires will live in a halcyon world of vast estates and conspicuous consumption. It will be (and, to some extent, already is) a return to the Gilded Age.
So, if you fear losing you modest wealth and income, you should fear folks like those in W's Administration and not the lefties.
Anyone who feels panicked about whether they might yet wind up living with their family under a bridge somewhere, should take a close and realistic view of what W's boys and girls are doing and what the lefties have done in the past (like under FDR) and want to do now. The reasonable conclusion is that your fears are likely to be realized under more of W's politics. But, if you get some capable Democrats in office, their first goal will probably be to remind us all that we have "nothing to fear but fear itself." "
Would we lefties do what hetfield says, I'd join him is saying it would be a nightmare. But, as everyone probably expects, I see nothing of the kind.
hetfield's scenario brings up one thing that I have suspected motivate a substantial portion of the right-wing. I think that many are gripped by an abiding fear of the future. They feel that they are living on the thin edge of disaster and the lefties are likely to bring about exactly what they fear: destabilizing change.
I'd suggest that they have more to fear from Republicans, particularly one's like those in W's Administration more than they have to fear lefties.
The principle reason is the folks running the current administration are lying to us all about what their intentions are. Those intentions are to rip-off the government and everyone who is not a millionaire and give it to the millionaires. If they get their way, the millionaires will live in a halcyon world of vast estates and conspicuous consumption. It will be (and, to some extent, already is) a return to the Gilded Age.
So, if you fear losing you modest wealth and income, you should fear folks like those in W's Administration and not the lefties.
Anyone who feels panicked about whether they might yet wind up living with their family under a bridge somewhere, should take a close and realistic view of what W's boys and girls are doing and what the lefties have done in the past (like under FDR) and want to do now. The reasonable conclusion is that your fears are likely to be realized under more of W's politics. But, if you get some capable Democrats in office, their first goal will probably be to remind us all that we have "nothing to fear but fear itself." "
jeroze wrote on Feb 13, 2008 1:48 PM:
" Maybe if the snow would melt and the schedules of school and community and church would get back to normal we could rise above all the e rage that seems to be plaguing e systems. "
hillaryc wrote on Feb 13, 2008 2:12 PM:
" Cross, I am shocked, shocked I say, that you would throw me underneath the bus like that. Here I am trying to be a good little lefty and support you in the re-education of the neanderthals who live on the right side of the political spectrum and you denounce me as if I am a neocon.
I will however forgive you as I know, you only treat me this way for my own good. I was really hoping you would help me get a better handle on Obama though. What is he going to accomplish first,,, Hope or Change,,, because I hope he gets change first and then he can change the definition of hope because the change he brings will by definition be hope for a better future. I mean I so agree with you about the righties being all about fear, as I get so tired of hearing the neocons and Republicans, pushing the fear of climate change and the fear of us losing our moral authority in the world, and the fear of us defending our borders, and the fear of all the people dying from lack of health insurance and the fear of all the homeless and poverty stricken dying from starvation every day. I mean these darn righties come up with a new crisis every couple of weeks or so to keep the fear of the future right there in front of us.
one of the first and greatest progressives was the honorable Woodrow Wilson and I hope if we elect another Democrat they bring back the sedition act, a truly honorable way to deal with fear, and we teach the righties a lesson by throwing them in jail for their treasononous beliefs. "
I will however forgive you as I know, you only treat me this way for my own good. I was really hoping you would help me get a better handle on Obama though. What is he going to accomplish first,,, Hope or Change,,, because I hope he gets change first and then he can change the definition of hope because the change he brings will by definition be hope for a better future. I mean I so agree with you about the righties being all about fear, as I get so tired of hearing the neocons and Republicans, pushing the fear of climate change and the fear of us losing our moral authority in the world, and the fear of us defending our borders, and the fear of all the people dying from lack of health insurance and the fear of all the homeless and poverty stricken dying from starvation every day. I mean these darn righties come up with a new crisis every couple of weeks or so to keep the fear of the future right there in front of us.
one of the first and greatest progressives was the honorable Woodrow Wilson and I hope if we elect another Democrat they bring back the sedition act, a truly honorable way to deal with fear, and we teach the righties a lesson by throwing them in jail for their treasononous beliefs. "
hillaryc wrote on Feb 13, 2008 2:52 PM:
" Just to comment a little more on the fear that all the righties live by, I think it is really horrible the way the righties forced FDR to lock up people during the forties for simply being an ethnicity they feared.
It was like the righties were saying the only thing we have to fear is fear itself and the ethnicity of those we don't trust. I never realized all the fear the right had until Cross pointed it out. I mean I used to fear that Hillary and Obama would not only take all the profits from private companies but they would also take my profits from me. Thanks to Cross I now know that they are only going to take profits from people and companies who they decide make too much money and then give me the money they take because I deserve it for being held down by the evil policies of W and some other guys who we don't really know who they are but Cross says they are millionaires and ripping off the Government(and us is the government) so I believe him. I mean in all honesty, I never knew what a horrible,horrible country we lived in until Cross spent day after day after day telling us how terrible it is. Thankfully Cross has provided us the answer to fixing these horribble things and that is to elect a progressive leader like FDR or Woodrow Wilson. "
It was like the righties were saying the only thing we have to fear is fear itself and the ethnicity of those we don't trust. I never realized all the fear the right had until Cross pointed it out. I mean I used to fear that Hillary and Obama would not only take all the profits from private companies but they would also take my profits from me. Thanks to Cross I now know that they are only going to take profits from people and companies who they decide make too much money and then give me the money they take because I deserve it for being held down by the evil policies of W and some other guys who we don't really know who they are but Cross says they are millionaires and ripping off the Government(and us is the government) so I believe him. I mean in all honesty, I never knew what a horrible,horrible country we lived in until Cross spent day after day after day telling us how terrible it is. Thankfully Cross has provided us the answer to fixing these horribble things and that is to elect a progressive leader like FDR or Woodrow Wilson. "
Phil wrote on Feb 13, 2008 4:28 PM:
" hetfield - I am not trying to debate Iraq, any more than I am trying to debate South Korea, Japan, Germany, Kuwait, or any of the dozens of other places we have bases that we don't really need any more.
I repeat, other than a couple of thousand fanatics - who don't have tanks, planes, aircraft carriers, just some IED's and some machine guns - who are we defending ourself against?
Wars - so to speak - are economic now - and we are losing. Losing jobs, losing manufacturing, we have worse health insurance, the list goes on. Yet with the cost of the wars we will spend over $700 Billion this year on the military while the rest of the world combined spends $500 billion.
Doesn't that trouble you at all? How many jobs could we create if half that money was invested in upgrading our roads, bridges, railroads, etc.? Or in "green" technologies? Our priorities are wrong. "
I repeat, other than a couple of thousand fanatics - who don't have tanks, planes, aircraft carriers, just some IED's and some machine guns - who are we defending ourself against?
Wars - so to speak - are economic now - and we are losing. Losing jobs, losing manufacturing, we have worse health insurance, the list goes on. Yet with the cost of the wars we will spend over $700 Billion this year on the military while the rest of the world combined spends $500 billion.
Doesn't that trouble you at all? How many jobs could we create if half that money was invested in upgrading our roads, bridges, railroads, etc.? Or in "green" technologies? Our priorities are wrong. "
Phil wrote on Feb 13, 2008 4:36 PM:
" hillaryc - you are getting pretty good at tongue-in-cheek comments. And you bring up some pretty good points about Wilson and FDR - those were terrible things they allowed to happen. I will assume you are serious about thinking that they should not have happened.
On the other hand, I hope you see the similarities with what Bush is doing regarding torture, denying habeus corpus, and spying on American citizens. There is no execuse for any of these things - Democrat or Republican in charge - to occur. "
On the other hand, I hope you see the similarities with what Bush is doing regarding torture, denying habeus corpus, and spying on American citizens. There is no execuse for any of these things - Democrat or Republican in charge - to occur. "
Whyonearth wrote on Feb 14, 2008 7:09 AM:
" Sorry--Phil's post of 2/13/08 requires the following statistics:
WHAT COSTS MORE PER YEAR THAN THE IRAQ WAR
Here are 14 items that address illegal immigration. We spend more per year on illegal immigration than we do on the military, the Iraq war, and the war on terrorism. I have included the URL's for verification of the following facts:
1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year. http://tinyurl.com/zob77
2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens. http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
3. $2.5 Billion dolla rs a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens. http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary
school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word
of English! http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.0.html
5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the
American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare and Social Services by the American taxpayers. http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html
9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are
>> caused by the illegal aliens.
>> http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate
that's two-and-a-half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In
particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html
11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our South ern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal
aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine,
meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border.
Homeland Security Report. http://tinyurl.com/t9sht
12. The National Policy Institute, 'estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.'
http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf
13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances
back to their countries of origin.
http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm
14. 'The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex < BR>>> Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States '.
>> http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml
Total cost is a whooping... $338.3 BILLION A YEAR!!!
I apologize for the length of the post, but I have been taking notes from Professor Cross and feel the information is necessary to include.
"
WHAT COSTS MORE PER YEAR THAN THE IRAQ WAR
Here are 14 items that address illegal immigration. We spend more per year on illegal immigration than we do on the military, the Iraq war, and the war on terrorism. I have included the URL's for verification of the following facts:
1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year. http://tinyurl.com/zob77
2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens. http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
3. $2.5 Billion dolla rs a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens. http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary
school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word
of English! http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.0.html
5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the
American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare and Social Services by the American taxpayers. http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html
9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are
>> caused by the illegal aliens.
>> http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate
that's two-and-a-half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In
particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html
11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our South ern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal
aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine,
meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border.
Homeland Security Report. http://tinyurl.com/t9sht
12. The National Policy Institute, 'estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.'
http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf
13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances
back to their countries of origin.
http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm
14. 'The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex < BR>>> Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States '.
>> http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml
Total cost is a whooping... $338.3 BILLION A YEAR!!!
I apologize for the length of the post, but I have been taking notes from Professor Cross and feel the information is necessary to include.
"
hillaryc wrote on Feb 14, 2008 7:22 AM:
" Phil,, I really see no similarities between Pres Bush and FDR and Wilson.
FDR and Wilson were forced to do their deeds by the evil right and never would have done those things unless they were forced to. To compare their deeds to the thousands of people Bush has "tortured" and the fact that Habeus Corpus has been denied to millions of American citizens with no cause,, not to mention the multi-millions of american citizens Bush is spying on right now is simply foolish. I do not have the time to cite any examples of these misdeeds as I have to get going but I am sure you can help me with a few examples.
Obama in 08, Change is Hope,,, Hope is Change "
FDR and Wilson were forced to do their deeds by the evil right and never would have done those things unless they were forced to. To compare their deeds to the thousands of people Bush has "tortured" and the fact that Habeus Corpus has been denied to millions of American citizens with no cause,, not to mention the multi-millions of american citizens Bush is spying on right now is simply foolish. I do not have the time to cite any examples of these misdeeds as I have to get going but I am sure you can help me with a few examples.
Obama in 08, Change is Hope,,, Hope is Change "
cross1242 wrote on Feb 14, 2008 8:51 AM:
" Whyonearth @ Feb 14, 2008 7:09 AM provided information on why "illegal immigrants" are costing us a bundle.
I have no problem with saying that everyone who wants to immigrate must follow the law. But, the problem in dealing with the "illegal immigrants" is to figure out something that will REALLY l work as far as controlling their arrival in the United States.
I recall a story told by the late Molly Ivins about a community celebration held every year in a south Texas town. It seems that one of the more popular events was the "border-fence climbing contest." For the contest, a special 20-foot high chain-link fence topped by razor wire was constructed. The "rules" of the contest were that the contestants had to go over the fence. They couldn't cut through it or dig under it. The winner was always determined by a lead as low as a few tenths of a second. And none of the competitors even broke into a sweat during the competition.
The point is that no amount of fencing can keep people out. If we were to really try, we'd have to build a 2,500 mile fence with armed guards fulling willing to machine-gun anyone who tries to cross it. (Think -- the Berlin Wall)
It must also be remembered that the people coming from Mexico are driven here by necessity and not because they want a vacation in the US. When it's a matter of survival or starvation not only of a particular person but a whole family, nothing will keep them from trying.
Nor is it an answer to say, "Pass a law so that employers are liable if they hire immigrants." All that does is: (1) create a tremendous business opportunity for dealers in illegal high-quality documents; and (2) make life exceedingly difficult for Hispanic citizens.
And the border fence that W got passed is a joke. What does anyone expect is going to happen when you build a 750-mile fence to cover a 2,500-mile border? And W knows the whole bill is a joke too. The bill he got passed actually provides that if the money for the fence is NOT spent, then it can be moved to anything else. So, it looks as if some show fence will be built and then the rest probably moved to paying for Iraq.
The only thing that will work is to eliminate the reason for coming. That means an economic development package for Mexico to build its economy to be equivalent to that of the US. It would take time, but eventually when people can get jobs at home, then they won't need to come here.
I think that a lot of Lou Dobbs' facts are bogus. But, even if they are not, a realistic solution is necessary. And, that solution is not going to be cheap. It's my conclusion that those who are hot on "illegal immigrants" think the solution is cheap and easy. It's not. It's complicated and very expensive. "
I have no problem with saying that everyone who wants to immigrate must follow the law. But, the problem in dealing with the "illegal immigrants" is to figure out something that will REALLY l work as far as controlling their arrival in the United States.
I recall a story told by the late Molly Ivins about a community celebration held every year in a south Texas town. It seems that one of the more popular events was the "border-fence climbing contest." For the contest, a special 20-foot high chain-link fence topped by razor wire was constructed. The "rules" of the contest were that the contestants had to go over the fence. They couldn't cut through it or dig under it. The winner was always determined by a lead as low as a few tenths of a second. And none of the competitors even broke into a sweat during the competition.
The point is that no amount of fencing can keep people out. If we were to really try, we'd have to build a 2,500 mile fence with armed guards fulling willing to machine-gun anyone who tries to cross it. (Think -- the Berlin Wall)
It must also be remembered that the people coming from Mexico are driven here by necessity and not because they want a vacation in the US. When it's a matter of survival or starvation not only of a particular person but a whole family, nothing will keep them from trying.
Nor is it an answer to say, "Pass a law so that employers are liable if they hire immigrants." All that does is: (1) create a tremendous business opportunity for dealers in illegal high-quality documents; and (2) make life exceedingly difficult for Hispanic citizens.
And the border fence that W got passed is a joke. What does anyone expect is going to happen when you build a 750-mile fence to cover a 2,500-mile border? And W knows the whole bill is a joke too. The bill he got passed actually provides that if the money for the fence is NOT spent, then it can be moved to anything else. So, it looks as if some show fence will be built and then the rest probably moved to paying for Iraq.
The only thing that will work is to eliminate the reason for coming. That means an economic development package for Mexico to build its economy to be equivalent to that of the US. It would take time, but eventually when people can get jobs at home, then they won't need to come here.
I think that a lot of Lou Dobbs' facts are bogus. But, even if they are not, a realistic solution is necessary. And, that solution is not going to be cheap. It's my conclusion that those who are hot on "illegal immigrants" think the solution is cheap and easy. It's not. It's complicated and very expensive. "
Kramerica wrote on Feb 14, 2008 8:55 AM:
" 10% of the Muslims subscribing to the extremist/violent faction of Islam is not a couple thousand. It's a couple hundred million. "
hetfield wrote on Feb 14, 2008 9:10 AM:
" Oh Cross you are dead wrong again. You're propaganda spin is getting out of control. For you to actually state that conservatives have a natural fear about the future is incorrect. By nature conservatives are thriving individuals who pour their hard earned dollars into our economy because they know the future is bright. These investments drive the economy, and create a vibrant arena to spark research and development. This continues to gain momentum, until, alas, the naysayers(libs) want to stifle this mechanism by ever-increasing taxation and government interference. Instead of building the economy by investment, democrats vie to drain these resources by handing out to illegals, and those that have no productive contributions to society.
Now before you chastise me again, I am not talking about those who really need our help, but those who wont help themselves.
The fear mongerers are the left(think Gore) not the right. "
Now before you chastise me again, I am not talking about those who really need our help, but those who wont help themselves.
The fear mongerers are the left(think Gore) not the right. "
hetfield wrote on Feb 14, 2008 10:17 AM:
" Cross, as long as you dont think Dobbs' fact are correct, that is ok with me. Your facts you report are always correct however. "
cross1242 wrote on Feb 14, 2008 10:47 AM:
" hetfield, I will admit that the stuff I wrote on rigthties being controlled by fear really is "spin." Or, more accurately, my conjecture on what motivates what I see a a visceral reaction to so many issues. It is, however, meant honestly to those folks to consider their own motivations. (And, yes, turn-about is fair play.)
And, on Dobbs' facts compared to may own, I will state that when I cite something that I believe it to be true. But, I will not claim infallibility on finding the correct facts. Anyone may point out other facts that might dispute them. (I will say that I'm a bit tired of having folks respond to everything I cite that, "They are just part of the liberal establishment press and can't be believed.") "
And, on Dobbs' facts compared to may own, I will state that when I cite something that I believe it to be true. But, I will not claim infallibility on finding the correct facts. Anyone may point out other facts that might dispute them. (I will say that I'm a bit tired of having folks respond to everything I cite that, "They are just part of the liberal establishment press and can't be believed.") "
cross1242 wrote on Feb 14, 2008 12:24 PM:
" hetfield, and while I'm at it, I don't want to get into arguing about Dobbs' facts. There is a problem. The "problem" is the solution. But, how to control it effectively -- particularly from Mexico -- is the problem. And I don't think many folks are being realistic on what it takes to solve the problem. "
Whyonearth wrote on Feb 14, 2008 2:24 PM:
" Cross--You say that it is not an answer to "2) Make life exceedingly difficult for Hispanic Citizens." While I agree that life may become uncomfortable for them, I have no problem making life exceedingly difficult for Hispanic non-citizens. If life in the USA was difficult for Hispanic non-citizen's, perhaps they would not come and break our laws and bleed our tax dollars away from helping the legal Hispanic citizens. "
cross1242 wrote on Feb 14, 2008 4:18 PM:
" Whyonearth, for the reasons I stated earlier, I don't think that there's a chance that "making life exceedingly difficult for Hispanic non-citizens" will do anything. The come here as a matter of life-or-death and not for a vacation. And, it's not even for a job that pays a little better than one in Mexico. They can't get work in Mexico -- particularly in the rural areas.
I also mind making Hispanic citizens bear the burden of an exceedingly effective idea. It will get so they have to wear their citizenship papers on a string around their necks just to keep from getting hassled.
There is no cheap and easy solution. The only one is exceedingly expensive. "
I also mind making Hispanic citizens bear the burden of an exceedingly effective idea. It will get so they have to wear their citizenship papers on a string around their necks just to keep from getting hassled.
There is no cheap and easy solution. The only one is exceedingly expensive. "
Whyonearth wrote on Feb 14, 2008 6:07 PM:
" Sounds like cross wants to raise taxes to give to the illegals by his statement "There is no cheap and easy solution." There is a cheap solution. Quit giving them our tax money, divert the money saved to stopping illegal immigration, fine employeres that hire workers without documentation, Mandatory life imprisonment or deportation for possesion of falsified documents (the immigrants choice), Hard labor in jail if they choose deportation and are caught in the USA again, Hard labor for people convicted of assisting illegal immigrants by providing false documents or transporting across the border, and not allowing citizanship to new babies of illegals born in the US. "
cross1242 wrote on Feb 14, 2008 9:41 PM:
" Whyonearth, I think that there are substantial problems from the US Constitution in doing a large portion of what you want to do.
Life imprisonment for possession of bad papers is probably a "cruel and unusual punishment."
Hard labor is also probably "cruel and unusual punishment."
No citizenship for children born here violates the provision of the Constitution that says that if you're born here then you're a citizen.
Yes, the Constitution can be amended. But given it's 2/3rds and 3/4 requirements, you might want to look at something a tad more practical.
And most of the bad papers are made in Mexico and I doubt that they give a fig on what happens to the people who use them.
And, BTW, my proposal was not to give anything to illegal immigrants. It was to provide economic development in Mexico so it's people don't have to come here to survive. "
Life imprisonment for possession of bad papers is probably a "cruel and unusual punishment."
Hard labor is also probably "cruel and unusual punishment."
No citizenship for children born here violates the provision of the Constitution that says that if you're born here then you're a citizen.
Yes, the Constitution can be amended. But given it's 2/3rds and 3/4 requirements, you might want to look at something a tad more practical.
And most of the bad papers are made in Mexico and I doubt that they give a fig on what happens to the people who use them.
And, BTW, my proposal was not to give anything to illegal immigrants. It was to provide economic development in Mexico so it's people don't have to come here to survive. "
MAC wrote on Feb 15, 2008 5:59 AM:
" Illegal immigration will cease as soon as the government we all deserve prosecutes the companies and individuals who HIRE these people to the FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW. It's simple, really. No jobs...no illegal immigration. But as we all know, this just isn't going to happen. Too many political contributions would be stopped as well. "
hillaryc wrote on Feb 15, 2008 7:30 AM:
" amen Mac,,, This is the simplest problem to solve,,,enforce the laws we already have and make companies responsible for proving they have a need for immigrant labor. If Swift needs 75 people to run their factory in Colorado,, let them prove it and then have the cost of importing and educating and social services for the labor they need be their problem,,, not the taxpayers. Smacks a little bit of indentured servitude but with proper regulation and a path to citizenship, these immigrants could live out in the open and start contributing more to our society. "
hetfield wrote on Feb 15, 2008 8:01 AM:
" Cross, let's just send them back, keep sending them back, stop paying them, housing them, treating them. Mexico should have to be forced to deal with them themselves. We will have to update the Constitution regarding this issue, as part of future efforts to stop immigration and terrorist efforts anyhow.
I take a liberal stance on this issue. I prefer more government, hiring more border patrol and spending more money securing this border than we currently spend. This is a view you should support it seems. "
I take a liberal stance on this issue. I prefer more government, hiring more border patrol and spending more money securing this border than we currently spend. This is a view you should support it seems. "
Whyonearth wrote on Feb 15, 2008 8:15 AM:
" Cross--Why should it be the US's responsibility to provide economic development in Mexico. We couldn't and shouldn't do that with out raising taxes, but you have made your position crystal clear. There is not a tax that addresses your liberal agenda that you don't support, yet you support castrating the military that keeps us safe and fights for your right to spew the leftist rhetoric. "
Kramerica wrote on Feb 15, 2008 9:23 AM:
" Yep, that darn Constitution. Damn that rag!!! And as usual, the "answer" is giving even MORE money to prop up Mexico, on top of the BILLIONS we already give them. Naturally. "
cross1242 wrote on Feb 15, 2008 9:55 AM:
" MAC @ Feb 15, 2008 5:59 AM said, "Illegal immigration will cease as soon as the government we all deserve prosecutes the companies and individuals who HIRE these people."
Yeah, I know that a lot of people think that. They probably think that because other folks, particularly on TV, have said it over and over and over again.
But just think about it for a while. Imagine you're a citizen of Mexico. You have a wife and two children. You can't get work except occasional jobs. You are slowly starving to death and so are your wife and children. You could start stealing or get into the violent drug trade. It doesn't seem too attractive. Or, you could pay for a coyote to get you over the boarder and provide first-class documents of citizenship. And, even taking the most grubby work around, you can still send money back to your family.
And the company in the US that you apply to looks at the documents and they do look real. You check out the SS database and the report back is that it's a good SS number. They have done a reasonable attempt to comply with the law. And, if they take the only step that would prevent prosecution, not hiring anyone who seems at all Hispanic, they get prosecuted for that.
You know that you'll be in a heckofa jam if you get caught. But, it's either taking a chance or let your family starve.
What would YOU do? If YOU would not go, then you're not made up of as stern stuff as the average citizen of Mexico.
Most people think that the possibility of prison would deter illegals because it would certainly deter HIM of HER if in the same situation. They just can't empathize with others to realize that there is no real choice to stay home.
Only if we give them a real choice, and the threat of force is not a real choice, will we keep them at home.
So, think about it. Think of it from their perspective and not your own. Maybe then you'll start seeing what I mean that economic development of Mexico is our only choice.
"
Yeah, I know that a lot of people think that. They probably think that because other folks, particularly on TV, have said it over and over and over again.
But just think about it for a while. Imagine you're a citizen of Mexico. You have a wife and two children. You can't get work except occasional jobs. You are slowly starving to death and so are your wife and children. You could start stealing or get into the violent drug trade. It doesn't seem too attractive. Or, you could pay for a coyote to get you over the boarder and provide first-class documents of citizenship. And, even taking the most grubby work around, you can still send money back to your family.
And the company in the US that you apply to looks at the documents and they do look real. You check out the SS database and the report back is that it's a good SS number. They have done a reasonable attempt to comply with the law. And, if they take the only step that would prevent prosecution, not hiring anyone who seems at all Hispanic, they get prosecuted for that.
You know that you'll be in a heckofa jam if you get caught. But, it's either taking a chance or let your family starve.
What would YOU do? If YOU would not go, then you're not made up of as stern stuff as the average citizen of Mexico.
Most people think that the possibility of prison would deter illegals because it would certainly deter HIM of HER if in the same situation. They just can't empathize with others to realize that there is no real choice to stay home.
Only if we give them a real choice, and the threat of force is not a real choice, will we keep them at home.
So, think about it. Think of it from their perspective and not your own. Maybe then you'll start seeing what I mean that economic development of Mexico is our only choice.
"
Kramerica wrote on Feb 15, 2008 2:35 PM:
" Cross, you want the law changed, great. Work to get it changed. Until then understand the government, much to your chagrin, doesn't operate on fuzzy feelings and pie-in-the-notions, or people's IDEAS of how it SHOULD operate. What matters is what the law says TODAY. Again, don't like it, you want changed, work towards that. Until then, accept reality. "
MAC wrote on Feb 15, 2008 2:59 PM:
" I would think that with NAFTA and all of the manufacturing jobs American companies have already moved to Mexico (a la RCA, Ertl, et. al.), our part in the 'economic development' of that country is already underway.
It is pretty hard to assist in economically developing a country when said country's leadership is inherently corrupt and that corruption is deeply entrenched in their moral fabric. Corporate America WANTS illegals...it's good for THEIR business.
This is from sources I READ as I rarely watch news programs on television. I do, however tend to pay more attention to social commentators ...other than the regular AMATEURS who post on the Courier's blog. "
It is pretty hard to assist in economically developing a country when said country's leadership is inherently corrupt and that corruption is deeply entrenched in their moral fabric. Corporate America WANTS illegals...it's good for THEIR business.
This is from sources I READ as I rarely watch news programs on television. I do, however tend to pay more attention to social commentators ...other than the regular AMATEURS who post on the Courier's blog. "
hillaryc wrote on Feb 15, 2008 3:09 PM:
" right on Cross,you hit the nail on the head as usual,, we need to send our jobs to Mexico, so we can develope their economy,,,, Don't tell Jeroze or Phil that though as they are sensitive about our jobs going to other countries. "
Leo46 wrote on Feb 15, 2008 3:22 PM:
" Cross.. They just busted a big Human-Smuggling ring in Arizona. The smugglers got $2500 from each person they smuggled across the border. So this family that is starving in Mexico, where did they get the $2500?
"
"
cross1242 wrote on Feb 15, 2008 3:29 PM:
" For any thinking that solving the immigration problem from Mexico is a simple matter of rigorous enforcement of law or other cheap solution, you might remember what H. L. Mencken said: "There is always an easy solution to every human problem -- neat, plausible, and wrong."
"
"
hetfield wrote on Feb 15, 2008 3:35 PM:
" Cross, your example of the poor mexican family man trying to help his starving family is a tear-jerker. Now let's imagine the other 98% of the illegals; convicted felons who squat near the border, waiting for the chance to leap back into the states to steal and prey on the legal citizens of this country. They know they basically have it made until they are caught and sent back, only to repeat the same thing over and over and over again. Do you need a tissue yet?
"
"
hillbillytea wrote on Feb 15, 2008 4:10 PM:
" cross your Idea about economic development in mexico sounds good.but there's one problem.is there any gaurentee that jobs down there will pay as well as they do up here?for all we know it could end up just as bad as china.what ever happened to the good old days when a person could go through costoms and imigration to get a work permit so they can earn the good life just like the rest of us "
cross1242 wrote on Feb 15, 2008 6:25 PM:
" hetfield produces yet another piece of rightwing mythology. Immigrants to this country both illegal and legal have a LOWER incidence of crime than the rest of the population.
Read this:
http://www.azstarnet.com/news/171109
That article is from the Arizona Star which has a clear interest in the issue.
The claim that new immigrants are criminals has been SOP by nativeists as each new wave of immigrants came to this country.
hillbillytea, the best guarantee that they will stay there is to ask whether you would stay at your home now if you can. If people come here for work and they have work at home and if they stay there they won't have trouble with the law, it seems to be the only reasonable choice.
But it is complicated and expensive and will take years to accomplish. But, understanding the real causes and developing programs to meet those causes is the only thing that will work. "
Read this:
http://www.azstarnet.com/news/171109
That article is from the Arizona Star which has a clear interest in the issue.
The claim that new immigrants are criminals has been SOP by nativeists as each new wave of immigrants came to this country.
hillbillytea, the best guarantee that they will stay there is to ask whether you would stay at your home now if you can. If people come here for work and they have work at home and if they stay there they won't have trouble with the law, it seems to be the only reasonable choice.
But it is complicated and expensive and will take years to accomplish. But, understanding the real causes and developing programs to meet those causes is the only thing that will work. "
Leo46 wrote on Feb 15, 2008 6:52 PM:
" Cross, that study was done by an immigrant-advocacy group, you will have to come up with a study by an independant group, not on with an obvious bias. At least that is usually YOUR criteria for PROOF.
"
"
jeroze wrote on Feb 15, 2008 7:03 PM:
" Yes Hillaryc, I am sensitive to the jobs that leave the U S. I am more sensitive about the companies who will give U S A skilled workers and professionals the pink slip because they can get the work done for less somewhere else while the employees who served them for years are left without job. And I am sensitive who have the practice of companies who give the pink slip one day before those who are about ready to qualify for benefits and an increase in wages they were expecting to get after working for six months for the company faithfully. In some areas of industry temporary workers are employed and experience that very thing more than once. I certainly am sensitive to that.
All this is minor compared to what could easily happen in the next two years as we see what seems to be desparation to get our economy back on track. In the first energy crisis we came to stagflation and it was blamed on Jimmy Carter. The next president is stepping into a similar situation and it is excentuated by outsourcing and a costly war. Anyone want to be President?? It looks to me like a one term president will be elected in 2008. "
All this is minor compared to what could easily happen in the next two years as we see what seems to be desparation to get our economy back on track. In the first energy crisis we came to stagflation and it was blamed on Jimmy Carter. The next president is stepping into a similar situation and it is excentuated by outsourcing and a costly war. Anyone want to be President?? It looks to me like a one term president will be elected in 2008. "
Leo46 wrote on Feb 15, 2008 7:09 PM:
" Cross, maybe you should read these articles:
http://www.vdare.com/misc/walsh_interview.htm
http://www.rasmusen.org/x/2007/06/29/illegal-immigrants-%20cause-21-of-crime/
http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_the_illegal_alien.html
"
http://www.vdare.com/misc/walsh_interview.htm
http://www.rasmusen.org/x/2007/06/29/illegal-immigrants-%20cause-21-of-crime/
http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_the_illegal_alien.html
"
Kramerica wrote on Feb 15, 2008 7:30 PM:
" Cross, what part of illegal don't you understand? If they didn't come across with proper paperwork in hand via established procedures............ILLEGAL.
I also like your Feb 15, 2008 3:29 PM: post: When in doubt, quote somebody that seemingly agrees with you, as if that solves anything.
Oh, and $23 BILLION per year. That's what we currently send to Mexico as part of a "stimulus" package.
I will agree with you slightly. Simple enforcement of current laws probably won't do it....because it's been such a HUGE problem for SO long that precedent and being absolutely overwhelmed with it for so long has numbed most people to the problem. "
I also like your Feb 15, 2008 3:29 PM: post: When in doubt, quote somebody that seemingly agrees with you, as if that solves anything.
Oh, and $23 BILLION per year. That's what we currently send to Mexico as part of a "stimulus" package.
I will agree with you slightly. Simple enforcement of current laws probably won't do it....because it's been such a HUGE problem for SO long that precedent and being absolutely overwhelmed with it for so long has numbed most people to the problem. "
cross1242 wrote on Feb 15, 2008 10:42 PM:
" Leo46 and Kramerica either cite to authors saying that illegals are a major crime wave or obliquely object that anyone claiming they aren't major criminals can safely be ignored.
This particular point is a good one to make my point again for people to read around and make up your own mind. Don't believe me and don't believe them. Go find all you can and read it and make up your own mind.
I'll give you one hint. The various claims are 180 degrees out from each other. You can't fit them together. Someone is lying. You'll have to figure it out yourself. "
This particular point is a good one to make my point again for people to read around and make up your own mind. Don't believe me and don't believe them. Go find all you can and read it and make up your own mind.
I'll give you one hint. The various claims are 180 degrees out from each other. You can't fit them together. Someone is lying. You'll have to figure it out yourself. "
Leo46 wrote on Feb 16, 2008 8:37 AM:
" Cross, you are correct. One side says there is no problem, the other says there is a huge problem. Stands to reason the actual situation is somewhere in the middle. Which means there IS a problem, just not as bad as one side says. "
cross1242 wrote on Feb 16, 2008 8:59 AM:
" Leo46 @ Feb 16, 2008 8:37 AM said: "Stands to reason the actual situation is somewhere in the middle."
No, Leo, the truth is not always half-way between two points. In this case, someone is lying. People need to read all they can. If they do, they'll figure it out. "
No, Leo, the truth is not always half-way between two points. In this case, someone is lying. People need to read all they can. If they do, they'll figure it out. "
Leo46 wrote on Feb 16, 2008 11:08 AM:
" Cross-do you have a problem with both sides lying? Each taking bits and pieces of the truth to justify their beliefs? Or do you only believe the side that agrees with YOUR view? "
Leo46 wrote on Feb 16, 2008 1:20 PM:
" Cross, I took your advise and did some extensive research to see if I could find out who is lying about "illegal immigrant crime rates". To my surprise not only did I find out who is lying but how they are doing it. Part of the problem are studies that lump illegal immigrants with legal immigrants. Since legal immigrants are screened this obviously leads to highly missleading figures. The other thing that is being done is a large number of cities prohibit the police from asking criminals if they are illegal. This also leads to missleading figures. So guess who I found to be lying Cross? "
Due to the amount of spam and negative comments received, the Courier implement a registered-user system for participation in the comment portion of our site. In doing so, the Courier reserves the right to ban any user(s) at any time without notice if we feel they are not following the terms of agreement.
DISCLAIMER: The Courier provides our story commenting feature in order to solicit feedback, debate and discussion on topics of local interest. Please keep in mind that civility is a necessary component of productive conversation. All blatantly inflammatory or otherwise inappropriate comments (i.e. vulgarity, marketing, etc.) are subject to rejection and/or removal. Comments will appear if and when they are approved. For a more in-depth explanation of our policy, please see our Rules of the Road. Thanks for reading, and thanks for participating.
~ADVERTISEMENT~
NEWS |
SPORTS |
COMMUNITY |
BUSINESS |
ENTERTAINMENT |
FEATURES |
OPINIONS |
OBITUARIES |
CLASSIFIEDS |
PRIVACY POLICY |
CONTACT US |
CARRIER PAGES
|
jeroze wrote on Feb 10, 2008 8:13 AM:
Will your ballot be thrown out if you write in Mitt Romney? One year I voted for a man who ran named Anderson who ran as an independent. Twice I voted for a man named Jim Leach when I could not support either the Republican or Democratic candidate. Almost every election the majority of the Electoral College has elected someone I did not vote for. Once the Supreme Court voted to declare a president I did not vote for. My question is did we deserve George Bush? He was not a Washington insider, neither was Jimmy Carter, nor was Ronald Reagan. Of the outsiders my choice would now be Jimmy Carter but I did not vote for him. Nor did I ever vote for Ronald Reagan, nor did I ever vote for a Bush. Am I a sour grape sore head? Yes I am, Yes I am, Yes I am, Yes I am, Yes I am.....
"