Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Who'se illegal?

Posted 1 year ago on Feb. 13, 2013, 5:01 p.m. EST by repubsRtheprob (1209)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

486 Comments

486 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by JohnNash (15) 1 month ago

The issue is who is politically correct? Illegality is not an issue.

In a free democracy or a free republic consent is extremely important.

Immigration reform is unnecessary. It would be detrimental to the United States which should be more restrictive towards immigration and have negative impact on many immigrants and their country of national origin.

Drawing on the wisdom of Orwell, this is a good time to repeat what is already manifest: Latin America remains poor and backward not despite multilateral "assistance" but, in a large part, because of it. The IDB has been going at the problem of poverty in Latin America since 1959, but it hasn't acted alone. In the postwar period the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and untold bilateral agencies have blanketed the region with aid. World-wide foreign aid has boomed. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, "in 2008, total net official development assistance (ODA) from members of the OECD's Development Assistance Committee (DAC) rose by 10.2% in real terms to USD 119.8 billion. This is the highest dollar figure ever recorded."

Does it follow that poverty persists because the amounts have been just too measly to do the job? It did for Mr. Geithner and the foreign-aid brigades. But rather than rely on those with vested interests, it's more useful to look at the empirical evidence. A 2006 paper titled "Foreign Aid, Income Inequality and Poverty," from the research department of the IDB itself, looked at the period 1971-2002 and found "some weak evidence that foreign aid is conducive to the improvement of the distribution of income [sic]. When the quality of institutions is taken into account, however, this result is not robust. This finding is consistent with recent empirical research on aid ineffectiveness in achieving economic growth or promoting democratic institutions."

So now that we know it didn't work, Mr. Geithner wanted more of it. This is what the late, great development economist Peter Lord Bauer called "the disregard of reality." In a 1987 essay in the Cato Journal, he called the claim that poverty is a trap that cannot be escaped without external aid an "obvious conflict with simple reality." "All developed countries began as underdeveloped," Bauer wrote. "If the notion of the vicious circle were valid, mankind would still be in the Stone Age at best."

"The decisive element" in bringing a society out of poverty is "the development of the entrepreneurial reserves that exist in its men and women," Mr. Vargas Llosa writes. "The institutions that grant more freedom to their citizens and more security to their citizens' possessions are those that best facilitate the accumulation of wealth."

It is obvious that economic liberty and property rights are the key drivers of development, and that there is no correlation between the volume of foreign aid a country receives and its respect for these values. Yet what is more troubling is the IDB's reputation for working against liberalization in the region, most notoriously, against the flat tax. With its institutional checkbook it easily overpowers civic groups that try to limit the power of government. In doing so it promotes neither development nor just societies.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB123897316163590919

Do immigrants expect a free lunch when they come to the United States? The 70,000 Central American children certainly would be housed, fed, clothed and receive medical care while waiting for their deportation without having worked to produced anything to pay for it.

The best thing for many immigrants would be to return to their country and start businesses there.

[-] 1 points by Crackpot (44) 1 month ago

Sgt Tahmooressi was driving a truck loaded with all of his possessions, including a few guns, when he crossed the border. Before he could get back on the right track the Mexican military quickly surrounded him. He declared that he had the weapons and he went to jail.

http://www.wowt.com/home/headlines/Wrong-Turn-Lands-Marine-in-Mexican-Prison-269635521.html

[-] 1 points by DouglasAdams (183) 1 year ago

Why not turn the conversation toward companies that hire illegal immigrants?

ICE's hunt for those hiring illegal immigrants:

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement reached its highest number yet of companies audited for illegal immigrants on their payrolls this past fiscal year.

Audits of employer I-9 forms increased from 250 in fiscal year 2007 to more than 3,000 in 2012. From fiscal years 2009 to 2012, the total amount of fines grew to nearly $13 million from $1 million. The number of company managers arrested has increased to 238, according to data provided by ICE.

The investigations of companies have been one of the pillars of President Obama's immigration policy.

When Obama recently spoke about addressing immigration reform in his second term, he said any measure should contain penalties for companies that purposely hire illegal immigrants. It's not a new stand, but one he will likely highlight as his administration launches efforts to revamp the nation's immigration system.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/23/employer-audits-skyrocket-in-ice-hunt-for-those-hiring-illegal-immigrants/#ixzz2NQLsE789

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

AP drops "illegal" immigrant. Small victory for petitioners. Now we pressure NYTimes (the paper of record) to use undocumented

http://www.signon.org/sign/it-is-never-too-late/?source=mo&id=65400-14080434-vsjXDTx

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

The fun never ends with these racist motherfuckers!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/29/john-boehner-don-young_n_2979277.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

Don't believe the apology. It's not honest, just part of the"rebranding"

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

i believe the corps who attract/facilitate/exploit undocumented workers are the real criminals.

And of course as the corp at the rot of the problem they haven't suffered a bit.

I am for much more easy/open immigration, but i agree the corps should be punished not the decent, desperate workers!!

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2614) 1 month ago

We benefit more from immigrants than without them.

We've always benefitted more. In fact we need them.

No human being is "illegal". Use of that meaningless, derogatory hatespeech is unproductive at best.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-george-w-bush-institute/the-us-needs-more-immigra_b_1917220.html

[-] 0 points by DouglasAdams (183) 1 month ago

Do Americans need thousands more unemployed to compete with for too few jobs?

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2614) 1 month ago

We need more jobs, & immigrants. Millions more of both!

Right?

[-] 1 points by DouglasAdams (183) 1 month ago

if millions of more immigrants come to the USA it will cease to be USA and become a country like Mexico. China is importing so much stuff. The average worker in mainland China earns about $3500/yr. This is what capitalists want. Cheap labor. That is less than $10/day. What Americans live on $10/day? Those without property, without education, and without jobs...

Mexicans are already the largest group of immigrants in the USA. There are 12 million undocumented aliens in the USA already. China has an immigrant population less than 2%.

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2614) 1 month ago

I support real enforcement of min wage laws!.

Any company executive taking advantage of immigrant labor by underpaying & committing wage theft should be sent away for 20 years.

I say we need more immigrants, and more good paying jobs.

"It's the only way to be sure"

[-] 1 points by DouglasAdams (183) 1 month ago

That's the inherent problem. More immigration means more oversight will be necessary for their protection and criminal prosecutions to punish violators.

We had immigration law, but bad employers broke the law. It is the way capitalism works. Capitalist break the laws but don't go to jail.

Capitalists ripped of their fellow countrymen. They won't willing give anybody a good deal because it is more profitable to give them a bad deal.

Untouchables on Wall Street

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqmyrWDQljw

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2614) 1 month ago

We can insist on prosecution of those illegal corps. Protests, boycotts, the whole thing.

[-] 4 points by DouglasAdams (183) 3 weeks ago

Untouchables on Wall Street was the best example of US Senate Committee and FBI investigating Capitalists who committed a list of crimes of the century with the Justice Department unwilling to present findings to a grand jury.

Who Goes To Jail? Matt Taibbi on American Injustice Gap From Wall Street to Main Street (1/2)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WwGyN58gbY

The defendants are Chinese immigrants.

Who Goes To Jail? Matt Taibbi on American Injustice Gap From Wall Street to Main Street (2/2)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIROHfbl3Bg

[-] 2 points by 99nproud (2614) 3 weeks ago

Owners hiring illegal immigrants need perp walk & jailtime!

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20140826_Philly_s_unregulated__underground_economy__is_ripe_for_tragedy.html

remove demand for cheap workers & they will stop comin.

[-] 1 points by DouglasAdams (183) 3 weeks ago

Another sad story. Odily Castro, the mother, must have had a case worker. She was granted political asylum a process that should have documented her dependents. The1980s were during the Reagan/Bush administrations.

It was a time when Reagan wanted more deregulation and smaller federal government. There is probably an Iran/Contra connection in this. Let's blame him. .

[-] 0 points by 99nproud (2614) 3 weeks ago

Ok. As long as we deal with the problem

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28393) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 weeks ago

USA should Stop causing and arming strife in other countries ( like south of the border for instance ) - perhaps if populations in other countries didn't have to flee to another country to try to stay alive - well you see where I am going.

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2614) 3 weeks ago

Agreed. For 400 years the west has dominated & managed the planet for OUR benefit.

Time to stop bein' the 'takers' & start givin' back.

We broke it, we bought it.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28393) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 weeks ago

We broke it, we bought it.

Agreed = shock doctrine = breaking things so that the USA ( TPTB ) can control from a safe distance ( well that is the plan anyway ).

If the USA were concerned about and were actually trying to foster peace health and prosperity - well then - the USA would be sending REAL aid. Like clean energy/industry/transportation/farming technology to other countries in the effort to remove poverty hunger disease ( strife of all kinds ) - and the USA would be doing the same at home ( in the USA ) as proper leaders should.

[-] 0 points by 99nproud (2614) 3 weeks ago

Agreed, & it's our job to agitate for just that!

End fossil fuel burning, implement renewable energy NOW!!

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (1349) 1 month ago

i would rather challenge my debt

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2614) 1 month ago

I like some absolving of debt myself.

Should be a punishment (for banks) for crashing the world economy with the corrupt greedy criminal bankster behavior.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (1349) 1 month ago

no.

personal inquire flag

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by DouglasAdams (183) 1 year ago

Why do immigrants come here instead of organizing and reforming their own government, or taking that regime to court?

Sex-trafficking operations expand outside of Queens into New York City suburbs

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/sex-trafficking-horror-spreads-nyc-suburbs-article-1.1342182#ixzz2YxH9Z2w8

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

So true.

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

Ignorant people, right? The Natives were immigrants, too. You know, too, since this was not a "nation," this is not a case of "immigration" - it is "migration."

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

This is why repubs don't support immigrants

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/14722-how-migrant-demographics-are-reshaping-us-politics

They know they can't get their votes!!!

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

Nobody but a fool supports the illegals... it's all about increased crime, drug use, disease, the decimation of community.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Immigrants give more than they take from the country. Always have.

We need immigrants.

And the term "illegals" is inaccurate and offensive.

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

True, they should properly be deemed "outlaws." Because they live outside the law.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

The proper term is "undocumented worker.", because they are neither illegal or outlaws if a court has not found them so.

In America we believe in innocent until proven guilty, Are you a citizen?

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

That's bullshit... these are outlaws as people who live outside the law. The Constitution fails to define "citizen" but I know in the colonial vernacular these people do not fit that definition. Because citizenship requires fidelity and reciprocity.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I submit the immigrants we are discussing in fact fit your definition. And they are NOT illegals until a court decides.

In America we believe in innocent until proven guilty, A citizen would know that. Are you a citizen?

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

You might label them refugees (?) but you can't label them citizens unless they are born here, or elsewhere of an American mother, or they are otherwise naturalized.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I'll leave the labeling to you. I consider them fellow human beings, decent hard working people trying to support their families, and improve their lives.

In the process they improve our country. As all immigrants before them have, and all in the future will.

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

That IS blatant racism. And America must oppose that disgusting original sin of racism at the root of our founding.

"The dude cannot abide"

In fact our past crimes dictates that we give special treatment to African Americans, Latinos/Hispanics, & American indians.

We owe them, & most of the peoples of the world whom we have exploited to enrich ourselves.

[-] -1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

Well, when we were a country that actually produced things the idea of growing the market for our goods, proportionally, was vital. But that is no longer the case. Give us the worlds tech, science, and medicine and throw everything else back because they are nothing but an economic drain. It's either that or our rich will one day flee for the next Dubai and this entire country will be just as impoverished as south of the border. Setting and maintaining one's standard of living is a personal choice.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

You are absolutely wrong. Most immigrants (even hispanics) give more back than they take.

They create more businesses, hire more workers than your average citizen.

They real takers are the wealthy who take low tax rates, corp welfare, subsidies, loopholes., shelters, shell companies, offshore accounts etc.

We lose a whole lot more money that way.

Let's just take our money back from those greedy, selfish, unamerican, lazy rich fucks who invest in non American business, stole our govt, and rigged the system to allow the massive redistribution of wealth from the 99% to the 1% over the last 30 years.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Have no fear, no one is fleeing. We need tech and new consumers/workers to use that tech.

And no is fleeing

http://occupywallst.org/forum/no-rich-people-dont-flee-when-taxes-go-up/

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

I'm just saying that the economic environment is entirely changed. We no longer have companies seeking to grow who employ unskilled labor. Our tech has relocated to China and those that enter now come in search of handouts. They will not grow the market in the US; they will only grow the market for corporations that import extremely cheap products and the Fed which constantly loans to provide government services. If we want to reverse this we have to say no to the uneducated and impoverished and yes to the wealthy and the educated in science, tech, and medicine. Clinton himself said the very same thing - roll back immigration to pre-Reagan levels. Working class America, both black and white, lost some 3 trillion last year to illegal hispanics who exported much of that via the US postal money order.

[-] -1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

How's that multiple personality disorder going, VQ?

Your second-last sentence is actually the most racist attitude shown in this thread.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Stop harassing me.!!!

Can you read moron? My username IS inclusionman!! Focus on substance if you arguments are strong enough to stand up to debate. If your args are weak, you should distract with meaningless, inaccurate harassment about old, unused usernames.

[-] -2 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

Go root your boot simpleton. And stop upvoting yourself. It's embarrassing.

This is what you stated; "In fact our past crimes dictates that we give special treatment to African Americans, Latinos/Hispanics, & American indians."

In fact, giving anyone "special treatment" is racist. But dullards like you don't get that.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Forget the personal attacks and immature conspiracy theories.

Support OWS efforts to help the immigrant population.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/report/2013/03/20/57351/the-economic-effects-of-granting-legal-status-and-citizenship-to-undocumented-immigrants/

It's good for them, us, and the economy.

FYI a reminder to help you comment on the thread and refrain from the unfounded personal attacks.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Enslaving, oppressing, exploiting, and attempted genocide based on race is racism.

Seeking redress, reparations, through special treatment for those groups is justice you fuckin moron.

Do not presume to educate me about racism, I got your ignorant ass number long ago. Fuck off, you can't spread your bizarro world non sense to me. I know better.

[-] -2 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

Hehehehehe. Freudian slip showing?

You certainly are no better. You're psychotic.

[-] 0 points by conservatroll (161) 1 year ago

Uh, "outlaw" is short for "outside the law" When they entered this country without following our laws, they came here outside the law, hence, they are "outlaws".

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

IF they have. A court will have to establish that before we can properly call them outlaws.

Certainly all immigrants found to be living outside the law by a court can fairly be called outlaws or illegals, but most haven't gone through that process.

In America we believe in innocent until proven guilty, A citizen would know that. Are you a citizen?

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

"We" do not need immigrants, the Fed needs immigrants.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

WE, the USA has always, and will always benefit greatly from immigration.

The US needs immigrants more than they need us.

You are absolutely wrong!!

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

The US has always benefited from the import of tech, science, and medicine and at times even cheap labor. But it has no use for the cheap labor we are importing now by illegal means; there is a labor glut and the illegals are nothing but an economic liability; only the Fed Reserve benefits - everybody else suffers, nationwide.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Nope!!

WE, the USA has always, and will always benefit greatly from immigration.

The US needs immigrants more than they need us.

You are absolutely wrong!!

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

What ticket are you running on? And why are you not representing your constituents?

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I support human beings, and their rights to improve their lives,and I know that this country has always, ann will always benefit from robust immigration.

Not running for anything. Just trying to help anti immigrants see the light.

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

You're wasting your time. Because these people are impacting the market value of homes, the cost of public education, the cost of our healthcare, the cost of law enforcement and incarceration - there are no positives here unless you're trying to expand your American market. How many have died of TB lately in LA? And it's all coming from Mexico and South America - virtually all of them test positive.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Housing prices collapsed because of greedy, selfish, corp 1% banksters. Health care is obscenely costly because of price gauging and fraud by the private health insurance industry, big pharma, medical device supplies, and other medical 'players'. Immigrants ain't got nothing to do with these problems.

They are victimized by the same1%'rs that vicctimize us.

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

Not true... many neighborhoods took a double hit - first for the Mexicans and then again in '08 with the crash. And they are closing hospitals where I am because 9 out of 10 are illegals who have no plan whatsoever to pay the bill.

[-] 4 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

You are absolutely wrong!! It IS the price gauging and fraud by the private health insurance industry, big pharma, medical device supplies, and other medical 'players'. Immigrants ain't got nothing to do with these problems.

Sorry, not immigrants but good old fashioned white American corp 1%'rs, putting profits over people and fuckin the 99%.

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

Well there is that, too. Yes, I agree.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

I disagree. Since they were the 1st peoples to settle on this land they get to be called indigenous people.

Sorry. Good try.

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

They were not the first.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Who was?

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Humans......Homo sapien sapiens.......

"race" is a completely made up concept.........

[-] 2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Then we should have no problem with immigration from mesico right/

We're all of the same race (human), and we shouldhave the right to live anywhere we like.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

There should be universal citizenship. The Roman Republic fell because it failed to treat all people like actual people. The US republic will follow suit if it doesn't start treating all people like people.

There should not be any border control whatsoever.

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

As of now, we are uncertain who or what predated Clovis. We are only certain that it occurred.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

The native American people came here thousands of years ago when the land was uninhabited.

There is a possibility that some european, stock may have mixed the earliest indigenous people, but before about 500 years ago when european invasion/attempted genocide of the indigenous peoples of north America (& the planet) they were unbothered.

So whatever you think about some vikings skipping icesheets from france, the American Indian was NOT an immigrant, they ARE the indigenous people of north America.

[-] -2 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

We don't know what happened to pre-clovis so there is no way anyone can say definitively that what we label as Native American through DNA analysis was indigenous. I'm not sure of what significance it is, either.

[-] 2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Give the great plains states to Native Americans as reparations for our genocidal treatment of their ancestors..

Open the borders

End the racist anti immigration agenda of the republican party!!

[-] -2 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

The Native Americans already have far more land than the average American. And the only case of actual government sanctioned genocide occurred in CA in 1848.

[-] 2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

We slaughtered the native americans for hundreds of years from sea to shining sea.

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

And they slaughtered a lot of us in very brutal ways, where is your compassion for those?

[-] 2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Is that a joke? You clearly are ignorant of history. We killed 80% of them and took their land.

Their violence against us was self defense.

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Violence is NEVER justified.

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

Not true, they were shooting at us before we even got off the boat.

[-] 2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Oh yeah, we are the victims. LOL

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

Powhatan, Pequot, King Philip's War - all initiated by Natives; we were two wholly incompatible peoples. And had the white man lost, I would not exist.

[-] -3 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090108121618.htm

And the word "indigenous" is defined as "occurring or originating naturally in a particular place."

If they didn't spring up here naturally, if they migrated from somewhere else, they aren't indigenous by definition.

And if you have proof that human beings just sprouted on the North American continent roughly 17,000 years ago, you're going to be famous.

[-] 2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Open borders! Give Native Americans the great plains states as reparations for our genocidal treatment of their ancestors.

End the racist anti immigration agenda of the republican party!!

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Reparations would make the situation worse. Just treat people like people no matter who they are.

The democrats are just as bad; don't kid yourself.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

I disagree. Reparations would be justice.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

For their long dead ancestors maybe; but the fact is that I didn't, nor anyone else alive did anything to them, nor has a single native American alive today been systematically victimised by the us government.

Reparations would only open old wounds.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

I agree, the individual victims, and criminals are long gone.

But the crime against humanity was perpetrated by the US govt, that's still around right? and was perpetrated against many indian tribes, many of which also still exist.

Ok? Now you agree?

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

The individuals who committed the crimes should be punished. Since this is not possible, reparations should not take the place of actual justice.

What do you suggest exactly?

[-] 2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

You ARE responsible. Protest all you want. You benefited from cheap petroleum products, and the best standard of living on the planet.

All our leaders are voted for, whether you voted or not, you will be held accountable.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

That is the complete lunacy of the American system.

[-] 2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

If you live in a western nation then the US military is YOUR responsibility.

Sorry. You ain't innocent.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

So because (without my consultation or authorization) I was born in a western nation, the actions of others who happen to be from roughly the same place as me, are my problem. Is that right?

No matter what I think about what the US military does, I am responsable for thier actions?

Im not responsable for the actions of others, i am only repsonsable for MY actions.

[-] 2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

The US military is doing what our chosen leaders have told them to do and therefore they're doing it in OUR name.

You god damn well, will be paying! Crack open the wallet time to pay the piper for your cheap gasoline!

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

'Our' leaders? I didnt vote for them........ I dont remeber being consulted on whether to invade a foriegn country guns ablazing or not. I dont even remember being asked if i wanted to be an american citizen or not. They may be your 'leaders', but the only leader of me is myself.

I dont drive. I could care less how much other people pay for thier gasoline.

[-] 2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

US military fixing what we broke in Afghan can be part of reparations.

And of course there is a great cost to that.

Is that something you support?

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Im not going to help pay for it. But then again, I didnt do the 'wrong'. The US military did.

[-] 2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Reparations must include a correction of the wrong, not just recognition ("Sorry"), and not just partial ("leaving") but also correcting thedamage done.

Some cost is inevitably involved. YOU said you were "focused" on the current crimes we've committed.

Shouldn't we pay for the damage we've done in Afghan?

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Is ending the military occupation of thier country not enough? What else could be done to 'right those wrongs'?

Instead of paying the Afghans, why doesnt the US military fix the damage they caused themselves, then leave?

[-] 2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Saying sorry to Iran, NYC, Mexico (& others) is fine but not reparations.

Leaving Afghan, Germany, S Korea, UK is fine as well but also not reparations.

Turning over our leaders for justice is also fine, but again NOT reparations.

So How about reparations for all the crimes we've perpetrated that you are "much more focused on"?

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

So what are 'reperations' in your opinion? a check? a hunk of land?

are reperations simply not the 'righting of a wrong'?

[-] 2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

How about reparations for all the crimes we've perpetrated that you are "much more focused on"?

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Like leaving Afghanistan? reperations enough?

or saying sorry to the Iranian people for screwing the pooch numerous times. Including propping up the Shah, then allowing the Shah's dictatorship to be replaced by one just as bad.

or saying sorry to the people of NYC for allowing a terrorist attack to occur. The BIGGEST ever.....

or turning over every living president (former and current) over to the ICC so they can be prosicuted for war crimes.

Leaving Germany. Leaving South Korea. Leaving the UK.

Saying sorry to the Mexican people for propping up thier entire nation wide organized criminal organizations by purchasing billions or dollars of drugs every year from these criminal organizations.

[-] 2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

I agree, the individual victims, and criminals are long gone.

But the crime against humanity was perpetrated by the US govt, that's still around right? and was perpetrated against many indian tribes, many of which also still exist.

2nd time I'm tellin you this.

Ok? Now you agree?

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

The US government has continually committed various crimes against humanity during my lifetime. I am much more focused on these, since they affect me.

No, reperations will only make the situation much worse.....

[-] 2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

It ends when justice is served!

And any country that has committed crimes against humanity should pay.

The land for native Americans has already been specified. The great plains, but I'm not against other lands as well.

The cost must be born by the countries that committed the crimes. Us!

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

So punishing the ancestors of criminals (most of whom are not criminals themselves) is the only way to achieve 'justice'?

Why should I be punished for the transgressions of my distant and dead relatives of whom I never met in my life?

I did nothing wrong to the native americans (of which I am one, since I am native to North America by virtue of being born here). My ancestor's crimes are not my crimes.

[-] 2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

The govt of the USA committed the crimes against humanity (along with other European govts).

So justice/reparations (the great plains) should be extracted from those govts.

Understand? Agree?

[-] -1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

So you want the casinos back?

[-] -2 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

And where is the government going to get the money, land, ect. from?

Should the Chinese govt. pay reperations the Tibetians? Should the Indian government pay reperations to the Sikhs? Should the Australian govt. pay reperations to the aborigines? Should the Egyptian govt pay reperations to the Coptics?

When does it end and how will reperations fix the original cause of the injustice?

[-] -2 points by BIGBRUISER (-4) 1 year ago

Yes ! Yes ! VQ you are right !!

But, don't stop at taking down our borders. Make all DOORS illegal too. Yes ! Take away everybody's doors !, fences !, locks ! It's all about "Inclusion" man. Take the wedding ring off the wife. She's for everybody now. Yes VQ, I think you're really onto something here !!

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Hey!!

I like the Doors.

I like the song "Don't Fence Me In" too.

And "Changed the Locks On My Front Door" as well.

You just don't like music.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Please stop harassing me!

[+] -4 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

What if the Native Americans don't want the great plains? What if they want New York or California?

If you want to make future generations pay for the actions of their dead ancestors, then you must be willing to pay for crimes that we might be able to pin on your long dead uncles and aunts and great grandparents. If we found out that your great, great grandfather was a serial killer, but he's long dead, are you willing to serve his sentence for him? According to you, that would be the "just" thing to do.

Reparations are only "just" if those reparations come from those who either perpetrated the crimes or allowed them to occur. It is completely UNJUST to make innocent parties pay for the crimes of others. My ancestors didn't kill or oppress any Native Americans. My paternal grandmother was 1/2 Cherokee and I don't want the great plains...thanks.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Your welcome. NO Plains for YOU!!!

I think current reservations in NY can easily be expanded.

It is not the children of criminals serving their sentence. It is a country making amends. It was the government of the USA that perpetrated the war crimes against humanity against the native Americans. And as such the US govt MUST make amends.

Don't you think?

[-] -2 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

If you truly believe that your way is "just" then lets put President Obama and his administration on trial today for the war crimes of George Bush and his administration.

[-] 2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

The govt should be put on trial, and if the individuals (not their descendents) are alive they can also be tried.

But to stay on the thread topic:

I'm ok with pushing for reparations for the native Americans, who are the only people here legally. Right?

[-] -1 points by freakzilla (-161) from Detroit, MI 1 year ago

Go give them some of your money then. Nobody's stopping you. Lead by example if it's the right thing to do.

[-] 2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

"loon"? Why so? You don't give a shit. I stated that truth. Embrace it. Be the heartless piece of shit you are.

[-] 2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Oh well. You're not alone, plenty of people don't give a shit about the people we slaughtered and whose land we stole.

So it goes.

[-] -2 points by freakzilla (-161) from Detroit, MI 1 year ago

I'm sorry. I just remembered what a loon you are. Forgot I said anything.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

The US govt perpetrated the crime. That is where any justice should come from.

Sorry. But you agree we should correct the crime against humanity our govt has perpetrated. Right?

[-] 0 points by freakzilla (-161) from Detroit, MI 1 year ago

Nope. The British govt was pretty mean to my Irish ancestors. Know what I'm owed? Nothing. If you feel guilty, fine. Go do something about it. Nobody is stopping you except yourself.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

The US govt perpetrated the crime. That is where any monies should come from.

In the end that will mean taxing even the freakzillas of the country.

Sorry. But you agree we should correct the crime against humanity our govt has perpetrated.?

[-] 1 points by freakzilla (-161) from Detroit, MI 1 year ago

Instead of money, give them your time then. Here's a list of organizations, many in NYC. Go volunteer for one of them and tell them you are there to make up for the sins of our fathers. Put your money where your mouth is. Or you could just sit in front of a computer all day.

http://www.diversitybestpractices.com/news-articles/20-native-american-organizations-you-need-know

[-] -2 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

You actually believe that any of the individuals who participated in wars between the US and Native American Indians might still be alive? Wow.

Define legally. To me-something has to be written and or clarified and adopted by all of a given society in order to become a law. Something cannot be illegal if there is not a previously established and agreed upon "legal" behavior.

I know of no law prior to the pilgrims landing here stating that people from another country could not come to this land and set up residence. Do you? Indian law? Intercontinental Land Law agreement? If there was no such law, you can't say that the pilgrims were "illegal" aliens.

And if you want to go after the governments responsible for those early "illegal immigrants" then address Spain and England. They should be among those from whom you seek reparations right? I mean, you have to be consistent. If the early American settlers weren't here legally (because there is some mysterious law I haven't heard of) then NONE of the people living on American soil today are here legally either. Not the Anglo Saxons, the Russians, the Mexicans, the Cubans, the Irish, the English, the Iranian, the Swiss.....etc.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

I already stated all victims and criminals are long gone. In so far as trials for individuals I was referring to your suggestion of Bush Admin crimes/trials.

And sure any European country who settled here without expressed/clear permission should be part of the trial.

Very good. Now you're thinking. Spread the cost around. We will have to buy out a lot of homeowners.

[+] -4 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

"The reference to Eve may lead to the misconception that she was the only living female of her time, even though she co-existed with other females. However, her female contemporaries failed to produce a direct unbroken female line to every woman living in the present day."

That's what I read from your first link. Nowhere does it say she "just sprouted" out of the earth.

"The adjective indigenous is derived from the Latin etymology meaning "native" or "born within" formed from indigena, literally " born within (the tribe)". According to its meaning in common English use, any given people, ethnic group or community may be described as being indigenous in reference to some particular region or location to which they trace their traditional tribal land claim."

Again, proves my point, BUT adds the caveat that since I can trace my traditional tribal land claim to the United States, I am indigenous to the US. People coming to the US today who cannot trace their tribal land claim to the US are given the title IMMIGRANTS because they are "non-indigenous" .

[-] -1 points by beautifulworld (20940) 1 year ago

You are so ridiculous. You are showing a very shallow understanding of anthropology.

[-] -3 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

I had no idea you were an expert on all things ridiculous and anthropological. If you'd like to provide your credentials and evidence that proves that your statements regarding me are indeed facts, rather than just opinion, I'd be most interested.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

I had no idea you were an expert on all things

I'm 46 , It's hard to answer the question "tell me about yourself?"

Frank Sinatra - That's Life

[-] -1 points by beautifulworld (20940) 1 year ago

You still have no idea who Mitochondrial Eve is, yet you want to speak as if you know. You don't even understand the word "indigenous." If you had any knowledge at all you'd know that it doesn't take an expert to understand those concepts. Those are elementary concepts.

[-] -2 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Maybe you just don't understand that elementary concepts detailed in your links. Did you read them?

I posted a response to someone else including the most basic definition of indigenous there is, as well as the idea that Native Americans came from somewhere else...they didn't just spring up out of the earth.

YOU decided to interject links to Mitochondrial Eve and "indigenous people" along with the admonition to "read a little".

Now, nothing in your links disproves what I said, and seems to actually prove me right. So I cannot imagine why you felt the need to say anything in the first place, because at an elementary level most people would find such behavior assumptive and rude.

Now, since all I posted about Mitochondrial Eve was a quote DIRECTLY from your link, you're again being assumptive and rude to reply that I "want to speak as if I know" because I'm not the one who brought her up in the first place.

The fact that YOU want to argue about the most elementary definition of the word "indigenous" and pretend to be some kind of expert on me or what I know or what I want is my point here. It's arrogant. That's an elementary concept.

[-] -1 points by beautifulworld (20940) 1 year ago

You miss the point again. No surprise.

[-] -2 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Please continue to post points you know I'll miss so you can announce you aren't surprised by the behavior you expected! It's so much fun to watch.

[-] -2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

No flag, no country?

Hmmm.........yanno, that argument is usually presented when one is trying to break treaties and steal land.

[-] -1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

As we all know, Clovis was preceded by other peoples... what we don't know, is where these pre-Clovis originated. But today's Native American was certainly a migrant and an invader.

It's not about flags or countries, it's about nations. An im-migrant cannot 'im' if there are no territorial boundaries - what a border represents in evolutionary language is the limit of one's defensible territory - and at the time of initial European settlement, in MA Bay, there were no borders - they settled on abandoned real estate, in part, because the Native American did not like waterfront property.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Yawn.

No, you didn't win the right to break treaties. You get a C for effort.

[-] -1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

People are the same everywhere; the Native American was capable of vulgarity, too. And this isn't about rights; it's about evolution and migrations and the development of nation states. It's not about people or peoples, it's about populace, and as such it is a force that lives outside ourselves. And we continue to evolve as we speak.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Sadley, you are now down to a D.

[-] -3 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

Good. I have always preferred more intelligent females.

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

I like intelligent, cocky, witty, confident men. You are not one of them.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

I like idiotic, naive, moronic women. You are not one of them.....

Is this really neccesary?

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

The entire conversation is stupid. Don't be an ass.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

I cant help it sometimes........ ;)

Ok, most of the time..........

HONK!!!!!!!!!

[-] -2 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

Keep talking... I'm getting closer.

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago
[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

No, not really. Cool movie, btw. I love that scene!

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Best down vote ever.

[-] 2 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

Oh come on, that's a great scene.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

VQkag, i believe the theme for this year's May Day rally in NY is Workers' Rights, Immigrant Rights, and Jobs for All

~Odin~

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Well those are worthy issues. thoroughly occupy and most important.

Thanks

[-] -1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

you're welcome.

odin

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

You replied to your own comment. Everything ok?

[-] 1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

Yeah, I noticed lol, just busy and tapped away with one finger while having lunch

~Odin~

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Cool. Jobs for all that is a high priority for us. Glad to see that being highlighted

[-] 1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

Healing the divides between whites, minorities, and immigrants that were encouraged by neoliberalism is key to our success

~Odin~

[-] 7 points by Renneye (3856) 1 year ago

Yes, encouraged.

With all the think tanks out there trying to abolish these divides... the best word they could come up with was "tolerance"?

Try saying these two sentences one after the other and see which one feels better...

"I accept you."

"I tolerate you."

The first is positive and loving, makes you want to smile, and to look in a persons eyes as you're saying it. The second is negative, makes your face go into a natural frown and not want to meet eyes. One encourages acceptance and healing, the other encourages reminders of why we are divided.

Its the simplest of things, how could they mess it up that bad? Language is so important...and 'they' know it.

[-] 4 points by gnomunny (6587) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Very insightful, Ren. I would posit that they didn't "mess" anything up at all. They chose the word 'tolerance' very carefully and deliberately.

[-] 2 points by Renneye (3856) 1 year ago

Well, I do believe, kind sir...that you posit correctly. ~.^

A link I saw earlier today on another thread, that I think you may enjoy...

POWELL Memo - http://www.thwink.org/sustain/articles/017_PowellMemo/index.htm

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6587) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

"Kind sir," heheheh.

I saw that link earlier but didn't click on it until now. Wow, interesting. And there looks to be a whole lot more on that site than just the Powell memo. I've bookmarked it so I can check out the rest of it as well. Thanks again, Renneye.

But, damn people! Quit posting all these interesting links! There's not enough time in the day to read 'em all!

Just kidding, of course. The links are one of the best tools on this forum. Keep 'em comin'.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Well said. Acceptance and expressing acceptance is far superior to simply tolerance.

Of course I do support all groups who are advocating tolerance because unfortunately this long trip requires the effort to get haters to 1st tolerate then accept.

Nice contribution, meaningful and to the point.

[-] 1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

I totally agree with the distinction that you make between the words "accept" and "tolerate"

There is a lot of people who are working hard at strengthening these alliances/ACCEPTANCE!.

You can add to that community groups, churches, 'radicals' that's us ;-), and reformers of all stripes who simply will not TOLERATE ;-) the corrupt status quo...that promoted divisions between us.... any longer.

Hence, again.. the theme for this year's May Day rally, Workers' Rights, Immigrant Rights, and Jobs For All

~Odin~

On a side note, i haven't forgotten your last ~.^ post. This time man keep woman waiting

[-] 5 points by Renneye (3856) 1 year ago

Now that's the proper context for those words. This isn't the first time I've seen your love of words. As I recall, there was some kind of poetry going on not too long ago!

'Radical'...now that wouldn't be anti-government, would it? You're just asking to be thrown in jail now!

Incidentally, in Montreal, Quebec, there was recently an anti-protest law put in place, that states that people are not allowed to protest without permission and an itinerary. Also, no masks allowed during protests/demonstrations. 279 students were arrested on Friday while protesting the new by-law.

You're right Odin, its the youth that will take the brunt of this. But we'll help in any way we can. You've been, & are the inspiration here, for that.

"This time man keep woman waiting" - vous êtes une allumeuse

[-] 3 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

Thanks Renny. The "poetry" only happens when the inspiration comes.

Anyone who wants systemic change....a sea change, or "radical" change in the cesspool-like way that our political and financial institutions are run could rightly be termed a "radical"

Radicals were present in the early 20th century labor movements; the Civil Rights movement; and the Vietnam War protests. All great struggles that wanted and achieved at least 'near' systemic change had radicals in them. 'They' rarely get what they want, but we have gotten so much more than we would have without them. The question we have to ask ourselves today is: Considering the crisis (which encompasses the whole world) that we find ourselves in now, will reform be enough?

Clara Lemlich was a communist, and Rose Scheiderman who was a great friend to the Roosevelts was a socialist

When you are going up against a powerful, perverted "radical" system that has a lot to lose when we are successful, you need an equally powerful "radical" movement to do it. We, OWS are 'that,' but we have alliances with less radical groups that are willing to settle for far less

There is nothing subversive about peacefully building COMMUNTY, doing OUTREACH, and buiding RESISTANCE including protesting the current corrupt status quo

Admittedly, i have not been following what has been happening in Montreal. The last i had heard at a Columbus Circle speak-out from a young lady from Quebec was that both the civil liberty restrictive Bill 78, and the tuiition hikes had been rescinded, after more than once they had tens of thousand of people in the streets

Yes I take a perverse delight in "allumeuse[ing]" you. Errr i did find the right meaning for that word, right? Ut-oh another ban may be in the works...lol

~Odin~

[-] 6 points by Renneye (3856) 1 year ago

I then, would be considered a 'radical' in the extreme. I am of the mindset that reform is not only, 'not enough'...but not even possible. The .01% own and rule everything ...at least anything of importance concerning wealth...but more importantly, control. How can we use the system then...'their' system...to put anything right?

My father was an entrepreneur...and one of his philosophies was 'go big, or go home'. That's the way he raised us and achieved stability for us, and right or wrong...it made an impression on me. I have my eye on the 'global' picture...and I sense that the only way we will ever have a free future for our kids is if we take our world back. In essence, 'leave the oligarchs' system and create a 'People's Society'.

'Demanding' anything from these psychopaths is futile. Spinning our wheels. We simply must turn our backs on them and start taking care of ourselves and each other. Only WE know how regular folks live and what our fellow human beings need to live in dignity. Tall order? Uh-huh.

When I say leave their system behind...I mean ALL of it...down to every archaic, antiquated descriptive term...and start fresh from the ground up, with new terminology. We will NEVER convince 6 to 7 billion people that communism or socialism is safe. Whether they are 'safe & fair' or not isn't even the issue. Lets start with something all together different...like, "Self-Rule".

If the global uprising happened fast enough, we could conceivably succeed, but alas, my fear is that the bulk of the population is not waking up fast enough. Its slow going, Odin. I admire your patience.

At the pace the 'awakening' is happening now, the .01% is able to stay ahead of us and meet our sporadic uprisings with new laws that make it 'legal' for them to do whatever they want. They are quite adept at it. Its easy...all they have to do is make just about everything illegal. Pretty soon they'll be able to haul us in for chewing gum. It doesn't even have to make sense, so long as they are within their 'legal right'.

But despite it being slow going, what choice do we have really, but onward. So YES, building COMMUNITY, OUTREACH and RESISTANCE. The Gandhian style is my personal favourite. Future generations need to see that we fought for them.

Oh my, Odin...and I thought I was bad. Lol!!! You're incorrigible!

[-] 2 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

OK now Renny just to confuse you now, it is my contention that you are not a radical.

Assuming you just want a better more just world for yourself and your children, where justice is restored, and people are put before profits how the hell can you consider yourself a radical? I mean, what's so radical about that? In the world we now live in where nearly everything is twisted, you are not a radical in that context. But what has been, and continues to go on is very radical.

Building our own more just world is a worthy goal, and something we should all pursue in both our minds and in our actions, but considering how huge and embedded the corrupt system is, I think that we have to devote a lot of our energy to changing it as well. This will only change when this corrupt system is extremely pressured to do so. I am not sure how even I want to interpert that, but I believe it to be true.

I am not promoting communism, but socialism would be a big step forward, but even that would not be enough at this point. I am glad other people in OWS are giving more thought to this, so i am leaving myself open on that one.

I'm not sure if "patience" is the right word in describing me. It's just the slow realization that I have had that this is going to take a while which is disappointing to me, and many others here. So I think the attribute that we will all need is PERSEVERANCE, all while building COMMUNITY, doing OUTREACH and building RESISTANCE along the way in our struggle. That means being there for each other in celebrating our victories, and comforting each other in our defeats which inevitably we will have both. I know that might sound a bit lofty, but we are in a noble struggle Renny, and we will be ensuring ourselves a legacy which our progeny will be proud of, just by being here

Thanks for another 'stimulating' response Renny...;-)

~Odin~

[-] 4 points by Renneye (3856) 1 year ago

Odin...my dear man. I'm not confused. You wouldn't be implying that I'm stupid, now would you? Would you like your cyber-slap now, or later? Heheheh!

I know I'm not a radical...and you know I'm not a radical, but I would certainly be 'considered' as such by a government whose sorry keester I want to kick to the curb and start a "People's Society". A society, 'for the people...by the people'.

In the US, terrorism now means indefinite detention, and protesters are deemed "low-level terrorists". Given that the Department of Defense considers protesting to be a form of terrorism...you too are seen as a radical, though in reality you are a peaceful person, hoping for the same things for our children and future generations, that others the world over, are hoping for.

Bearing that the US took a massive step in the direction of a totalitarian regime, that squelches dissent with imprisonment...I can't see how we will change anything from the outside. They have law on their side and every system/department/military/agency by which we could have conceivably used to 'change' the heavily embedded corrupt system.

For all intended purposes a 'People's Society' would be very close to the purest meaning of socialism. The cardinal difference being that "WE" the people would control it, and operate via an unadulterated democracy. Dignity, justice, freedom, education, safety and indeed love for all.

I am of the thinking that turning our backs on the existing global governments, oligarchs and monarchs is the only true path to freedom. Governments under ANY banner throughout ALL of history become infiltrated, corrupt and dark within relative short order. 'They' have shown, over time, their governance to be an abject failure. We MUST take care of ourselves and our fellow human beings, because they never have, and they NEVER will.

I grant you, it is a monumental task, and we are in it for the long haul...but, we have a monumental struggle ahead of us no matter what we do at this point. We may as well do it right and start from the ground up.

You're right, Odin. Though 'patience' is certainly one of your attributes, I did not use the right word to describe your predominant trait. Though there are many fine words that would fit here, 'perseverance' definitely describes the over-arching mettle.

In closing, and because I can not say it any better than you, I will quote your universal message...

"The attribute that we will all need is PERSEVERANCE, all while building COMMUNITY, doing OUTREACH and building RESISTANCE along the way in our struggle. That means being there for each other in celebrating our victories, and comforting each other in our defeats which inevitably we will have both."

Stimulating?...I just don't know 'what' you mean, Odin. ~.^

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

From your post, Renneye, what I'm getting is, that rather than globalising, and multiplexing, we need to head in the other direction, which is basically tribalism.

Local law, suiting local groups, governed by local decision-making processes, invented by the locals themselves.

[-] 4 points by Renneye (3856) 1 year ago

Yes, working locally, but with a global overview. I think realistically there would need to be a central global agency for oversight. But loosely so. The cardinal issue to be guarded against will always be infiltration, hence the need to never have any one person in a key position of that agency, or local agency for that matter, for too long. Critical too, will be the need for agencies to be made up of a very diverse group ethnically and racially. In a 'People's Society' it would stand to reason that a fluid system of 'ordinary' people take care of local and global agencies.

The internet will be critical for democratic voting on issues. Iceland seemed to be making inroads, but I think they're being met with resistance now. I'll have to update and see.

The key, is 'Self-Rule'.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

The extremist conservative racist fucks who spew anti immigant rhetoric should all be identified, denounced, and retired.

THAT is the best course of action. They know it and some are getting the message cause they are scrambling to "evolve", others haven't gotten it and are planning to filibuster and/or vote against immigration reform.

We gotta smoke 'em out!!!

[-] -1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

This is not a political group in terms of being part of the putrid system

We have seen many good liberal initiatives fail over the years when they played within the system

Both parties stink, one mostly for spewing racist rhetoric to advance their neoliberal agenda, and the other for pretending to be 'on our side'

In reality, they are both on the side of $$$

~Odin~

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Yeah!!! I'm with you! Everyone sucks!!

I focus on the issues. And in regards to immigration issue/topic of this post I propose we identify, denounce, and retire all pols who do not support the immigration position that occupy has taken.

[-] -2 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

Yes the two party political system does suck

While it is good to keep up with what is going on in that DC cesspool, our focus should remain in RESISTANCE, OUTREACH, and building COMMUNITY

~Odin~

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

And fighting for the progressive agenda occupy supports like on the immigration issue.

Forward!!

[-] -1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

We are fighting for a return to 'justice,' and that is impossible to do from within the putrid two party system

~Odin~

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

And for the many progressive issues like student debt/free college, foreclosure prevention, living wage, ending outsourcing, abolishing health debt, immigration reform, single payer healthcare, strong fin regulations, homelessness, job training,

I mean it is endless. Justice covers all of it in a general sense so I agree. I just think there is great power in specifying the issues.

Makes clear what we are about

Right?.

[-] 1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

Yes, but these are not 'progressive issues' as much as they are 'human rights issues,' hence our struggle is about right vs wrong

And since both parties are to blame for the economic policies that got us to this point in our history, we cannot expect either of them to get us out of it,

~Odin~

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Yeah those 2 parties suck!!!

That's why I focus on the issues.

So now you have a problem with the word progressive?

Human rights issues (healthcare for instance) can be addressed with a progressive approach- single payer, public option, or a conservative approach- insurance mandate.

So I agree the issues occupy has taken a stand on are Human rights but I don't understand your objection to the word progressive.

Progressive is good. Progress!!!

On wages Occupy supports living wage. That IS progressive (whether we like it or not)

On immigration we support leniency, and citizenship. Again progressive.

Why are against this word.

[-] -1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

Just like the people who promoted the neoliberal agenda by being 'repetitive' with their little catch phrases, i too have adapted their modus operandi for far more humane reasons

So no, no mental disorder yet and hopefully never

And yes, both parties suck. We can agree on that now

~Odin~

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Yes. I understand. but I am making extra efforts to avoid partisan discussions, and staying on the issues.

You seem to feel you must do it with me, I assure you you do not. But if you must I will grin and bear it.

[-] -1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

Of course I support immigration reform, as i went to three community lectures/workshops at Columbia University Saturday that discussed this and incarceration, and the detrimental effects it had on communities

Occupy's place is outside the putrid political system though

~Odin~

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Action Alert: Occupy supports path to citizenship!

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

You keep repeated that which we've agreed to already.

Tourettes much? LOL, kidding! don't be sore!

The parties suck!!!!

[-] -1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

Replying here. I'll let it go... for now as I've said what I wanted to say.

~Odin~

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

You are most generous. I appreciate your understanding in allowing me to say 'progressive' without squabbling (or fighting)

I will assume you support immigration reform like Occupy.

[-] -1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

Oh, i understand VQkag, you are 'above' partisanship....now. That's cute.

You may succeed in dragging us into the dem fold here in the 'virtual world' again, but that will not be so in the 'real world'

~Odin~

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I'm trying very hard to steer clear of discussions about the parties and you keep "pullng me back in". LOL (Godfather 3)

I do not WANT to drag us into a party here or anywhere.

Why do you think that? And Why won't you comment on the immigration issues I brought up that ARE on topic.

[-] -1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

Replying here. You can say and "reject" whatever you like while this is still a relatively free country despite efforts from both parties that have curtailed many of our freedoms

You don't think "patriotism" became synonymous with supporting the repubs and/or the Iraq war? Really?

~Odin~

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I'm not gonna repeat myself, and I'm really not comfortable discussing the parties so much with you.

For me it is critical that I focus my time and efforts here specifically on the issues that occupy has taken a stand on and that will benefit the 99%.

This post is about immigration.

Do you have feelings on this issue? Do you support Occupies position?. What actions are you aware of? I heard there will be marches scheduled to coincide with congressional action (those corrupt fucks)

This is much more valuable to me than discussions about the parties. I hope you understand.

[-] -1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

The more we term ourselves "progressive" the more we are pigeonholing, and associating ourselves with the party of lost hope, the dems

I do understand that OWS promotes "progressive" ideas, but that 'word' has become synonymous with the democrats, much like the word 'patriotism' had twistedly become with the repubs and support of the Iraq war. The dems have betrayed us, and OWS should have no association with them. We have the chance in reaching well into the middle right (if they ever wake up) for support WITHOUT the word "progressive" ...which has become 'code' on here for democrats.... WITH that word our chances of success fall

And at this point having the term "Justice" being associated with either of these parties is ludicrous

~Odin~

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I reject your contention that the word 'progressive' is code for one party! I also reject that 'patriotism' is code for any party as well.

It ain't that way for me. I can't speak for you.

In any event I will leave all the party bullshit to you and others.

I gonna continue focusing on the issues that occupy has taken a stand on and embracing the obvious progressive solutions we push.

And for anyone who claims that means we are aligning with Dems I say why? Dems have moved right since Reagan, Dems ain't progressive. No one owns the word.

I hope I'm allowed to say progressive. As you said it is what occupy promotes. I certainly don't want to squabble (or fight) over this accurate word.

[-] -1 points by DouglasAdams (183) 1 year ago

In Congress, many Republicans recall that an amnesty in 1986, which was supposed to solve illegal migration, was followed by an even larger unauthorized influx.

In Arizona in 2005, more than 577,000 apprehensions were made of migrants crossing illegally, a surge that sparked a political furor in the state. Border officials declared that they would make a “last stand” here.

Last year in Arizona, the apprehensions (an imperfect but still useful indicator of unauthorized flows) dropped to 126,500, a 78 percent decline from 2005, a sharper decrease than seen elsewhere along the border. The recession in this country and drug-trafficking violence in Mexico also contributed to the falloff, here and along the length of the border. But in 2005, about half of all apprehensions in the Southwest were made in Arizona. Today, it is closer to one-third, with the largest share now shifted to Texas.

With tighter security along the line, more undocumented foreigners are trying to come through the border station. But recent changes have made it more difficult for smugglers to pass their clients with forged papers. Instead, officials said, smugglers rent out valid United States documents, and encourage their clients to make themselves look as much as possible like the people in the photographs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/16/us/arizona-border-security.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

We should make it easier to come here no?

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

To DKAtoday and JesseHeffran: no reply button:

"Politically swaraj is self-government and not good government (for Gandhi, good government is no substitute for self-government) and it means a continuous effort to be independent of government control, whether it is foreign government or whether it is national. In other words, it is sovereignty of the people based on pure moral authority."

"Adopting Swaraj means implementing a system whereby the state machinery is virtually nil, and the real power directly resides in the hands of people. Gandhi said, "Power resides in the people, they can use it at any time."[10] This philosophy rests inside an individual who has to learn to be master of his own self and spreads upwards to the level of his community which must be dependent only on itself. Gandhi said, "In such a state (where swaraj is achieved) everyone is his own ruler. He rules himself in such a manner that he is never a hindrance to his neighbour";[11] and also "It is Swaraj when we learn to rule ourselves."[12]

Gandhi explained his vision in 1946:

"Independence begins at the bottom... A society must be built in which every village has to be self sustained and capable of managing its own affairs... It will be trained and prepared to perish in the attempt to defend itself against any onslaught from without... This does not exclude dependence on and willing help from neighbours or from the world. It will be a free and voluntary play of mutual forces... In this structure composed of innumerable villages, there will be ever widening, never ascending circles. Growth will not be a pyramid with the apex sustained by the bottom. But it will be an oceanic circle whose center will be the individual. Therefore the outermost circumference will not wield power to crush the inner circle but will give strength to all within and derive its own strength from it."[13]"

These are wikipedia explaining Swaraj or self rule.

LeaderLESS can only mean anarchy, which implies violence. Self-rule is egalitarian rule.

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Anyone who wants citizenship should be given citizenship.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I'm ok with that. We need immigrants, more than they need us.

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

My position is not based on economics. My position is based on the fact that all people have the right to choose thier place of residence regardless of political boundries.

It has very little to do with who needs who.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Very good. I like the freedom to live where you want to.

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Persistance works!! We agree!!!!

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Indeed. planets must be aligned.

[-] 2 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

I just keep trying to keep them there.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I suppose that is not really possible. Certainly when we disagree in we can do it in respectful ways. That should be doable.

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Like have said before, we actually agree on alot of substance. What you and me like to discuss is Means and Ways.

We have two completely different approaches to the same problem.

Student Loans are bad=we agree. But you want to fight the US government, where as I want to circumvent the US government and let it beat it'self up.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I will speak for myself thank you very much.

I must fight the powers that be. Corp 1% oligarchs and their puppet pols.

I can't pretend they don't have power & control. I MUST recognize that my govt, the peoples govt has been co opted, & corrupted and I can't resist fighting to take it back.

I won't speak for you because I do not know what you want to do. You can speak for yourself.

So I should ask, what does"circumvent ...& let govt beat itself up" entail?

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

This : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_March

Fuck the government!! Do what YOU think is right regardless of what they threaten do to you. If you feel salt bans are an injustice, then go make salt. If you feel that student loans are an injustice, then dont pay them back.

Gandhi was very good at doing thing his way, regardless of what the British Empire threatened to do to him.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Gandhi rules.

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Gandhi's rules......

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

I can agree with that!

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

hallelujah

[-] -1 points by RwOrn (-290) from Berkeley, CA 1 year ago

a victory for the P.C. police.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Set me straight on Soros. Somebody, please. I get that he adapted to Nazis and did their work. I get that he is rich and has alternative motives of which we have to guess. I get that he was a kind of bearish investor or made a lot of money by knowing which organizations were too much in debt to survive ... and would go bankrupt.

I get that people say George Soros is a kind of communist/socialist/Liberal that may want to fun a kind of New World Order or UN Organization....

How can I understand George Soros? Is he really a bad man? Is his goal to destroy the current constitution? Or is he just a Banker who wants to allow banks to get Rich? Is he some kind of elitist that wants to excuse TBTF Bankers and let them avoid prosecution?

Seems like he is probably, a white collar crime guy, where he thinks we should allow executives to rip everyone off... a Real Bankers Friend. Some of the talk about communists under every bush is way over the top. No one wants to be a communist in the US or Europe today... since they really can't get rich in those places that are communist. Well, except for a few connected dudes.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

So this guy who you describe as becoming rich through capitalist behavior you call a communist?

LOL

You don't see that contradiction? Listen we put anti communism behind us 20 years ago. We're on anti terrorism now. You wanna fling that slur at him too?

Who cares about Soros? Forget the character assassinations, it's childish. He is clearly a wealthy liberal supported. His stated positions are similar to goals that occupy has taken.

In regards to this post topic he has similar positions on immigration as occupy as well, Do you have any comment on topic of immigration.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Well, I posted some questions. Here is your answer: he is a wealthy liberal who seems to support OWS & Immigration. I guess I sort of remember that from last year.

I guess Soros is a Banker, so maybe he is a terrorist. Bankers & the Banker Trust that Roosevelt fought against seem to have taken over the Economy of the US ... and probably Europe. The Banker Trust seems to be creating all kinds of Dollars out of control really ... and instead of investing it into small businesses (the core of the US Economy) ... they invest in derivatives causing a huge imbalance in the US Economy and the US Federal Budget.

Let's see what damage we have:

1) FTC was created specifically to deal with the Banker Trust (1914), but the authority of the FTC to deal with banks was taken away from the FTC.

2) 1995 the Private Securities Litigation Act prohibits Anti-Trust and RICO charges be leveled at banks in Lawsuits... probably as a result of the Arrests and Lawsuits aimed at Fraudulent Banks in the Savings & Loan Scandals through the 1990s which resulting in prosecutions of 4000 people.

3) 1999, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repealed the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act which seems to have created a Deregulation Banking Free For All and Gresham's Dynamic where there are incentives for fraud and high risk casino bets.

4) 2002 Campaign (Financing) Reform Act seems to have open the doors to even more soft money going into Washington campaigns.

5) Citizens United VS. Federal Elections Commission obviously codifies Corporations as People who can make unlimited gifts to Politicians in Supreme Court Ruling.

6) Obviously Banks are Corporations that can buy politicians and changes to Regulations at will ... after all they also occupy key government offices and agency positions in cozy relationships which could be termed "Incestuous".

7) Obviously the power of the Bank Trust is stronger today than in 1913 when the Clayton Act was Signed & Ratified. You can't hope to win in court against corporations unless you have millions of dollars behind you as funding.

-Sorry those are just the main reasons that Banks Terrify me.

-I'm lost on Immigration. Immigrants from Central America are just men and women who need money and want to help their families. On the other hand having open borders has always helped small and large businesses with larger profit margins and downward pressure on wages. It could be that open borders was corporate strategy to fight Unions. Unions have been called Communist or Socialist. And you have to talk about the Banana Wars to put cheap labor and corporate strategy in context.

-The only thing I know for sure about Immigration - is that there has always been an imbalance between wages and opportunity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trade_Commission

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Securities_Litigation_Reform_Act

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_Reform_Act_of_2002

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Great. Very thorough statement.

I don't think Soros is a terrorist, I do support immigration, and high wages so we must agitate for that.

Business will have to adapt or die. They'll manage, I have no sympathy for them.

[-] 0 points by RwOrn (-290) from Berkeley, CA 1 year ago

americanprogress.org is a soros funded group. i wouldn't my waste time with it.

[-] 4 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

But the info is true. And Soros is a great progressive soldier for the 99%, why would that bother you.?

[-] -2 points by RwOrn (-290) from Berkeley, CA 1 year ago

As an adolescent , Soros ( who is Jewish) worked for the nazis against the Jews, and said ( later in life) that was a happy time for him. I have no interest in a person like that.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Bullshit. Read the specifics below.

You're just spewing partisan non sense.

[-] -2 points by RwOrn (-290) from Berkeley, CA 1 year ago

I read it. George Soros collaborated with the nazis, he turned on/in his own people.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

he was an ignorant child bystander NOT a "collaborator working with", trying to survive.

These are ridiculous, dishonest partisan, personal attacks from 7 decades ago.

Soros is a committed progressive who uses his money to fight right wing wackos without fail.

A tireless soldier fighting for change that will benefit the 99%.

Soros is one of the few 1% who supports occupy and the 99% agenda.

That is his efforts this decade not the lies your spewing about 7 decades ago.

Whatta joke?

Do you support immigration reform/pathway to citizenship.

[-] -2 points by RwOrn (-290) from Berkeley, CA 1 year ago

Don't be fooled, Soros supports his own agenda.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Who is illegal?. An immigrant by definition is someone who has come legally.

How can you be an illegal legal entrant. It ain't accurate and only meant to stigmatize, and slur a group of people who have not been found guilty.

And in the USA we believe in innocence 'till PROVEN guilty.

Ever hear of that?

[-] -2 points by RwOrn (-290) from Berkeley, CA 1 year ago

you cannot just come into this country from another country and be a legal citizen with all the constitutional rights and opportunities that go with that. slur? stigmatize? too bad. that's p.c garbage.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Do your own research. I ain't your slave.

[-] -2 points by RwOrn (-290) from Berkeley, CA 1 year ago

I have no need your research YOUR statements.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

There are absolutely quotas by country as well as the catagories you listed.

[-] -1 points by RwOrn (-290) from Berkeley, CA 1 year ago

list them.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Yeah I know we are about 330 million, and we could absorb any and all who want to come.

So guess again. Gee why do wr have quotas and smaller quotas from brown skin countries.

Uhh let me think.

[-] -1 points by RwOrn (-290) from Berkeley, CA 1 year ago

the usa has quotas f2a, f2b, eb1, eb2 ,..............partial list. do your own research. those quotas are NOT based on skin color or nationality.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

There is plenty for another billion people in the USA.

That ain't the reason there are quotas.

Try again boss.

[-] -1 points by RwOrn (-290) from Berkeley, CA 1 year ago

the population of the usa is just over 300 MILLION.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

So they got in and shut the door behind them. You sound so informed, Are you aware of the asian quotas (non white!), & south Americans (non white!!), What about African (way non white!!). You probably conveniently are uninformed about the the low quotas for those groups.

Are you informed about those details? Maybe those north western Europeans should have just let the policy that allowed them in continue.

Doesn't really seem fair.

What about now. Are you informed about the quotas per country. Have you detected a pattern as you became informed about those facts.?

[-] -1 points by RwOrn (-290) from Berkeley, CA 1 year ago

Yes, i know there are quotas,..(quotas are not a new thing.)...........there should be. quotas are not just about nationality, they are also about skills the resources of the usa are finite.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

But you ain't talkin about the hundreds of millions of Europeans (descendents) who "just came in".

Personally the borders were opened for Europeans for hundreds of years and then they decided to shut the door behind them especially for the brown people (that were her 1st!!).

So that ain't right.

And this country depends on increasing the workforce by large numbers in order to cover those European baby boomers retiring.

So I'm afraid we do need them more than they need us.

Open the goddamn borders you greedy selfish racist fucks!!!

[-] -1 points by RwOrn (-290) from Berkeley, CA 1 year ago

around 1891 the us govt officially assumed the task of inspecting, admitting , rejecting ( due to disease) and processing all immigrants seeking admission into the usa. this covered people from ALL countries.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

The term just ain't accurate and Europeans "just came in" why not non europeans?

Seems like a double standard to me.

Don't you think we should just open the borders,insist on large minimum wage increases and enjoy the benefits that immigrants have always brought us.

I mean we need them more than they need us. Right?

[-] -1 points by RwOrn (-290) from Berkeley, CA 1 year ago

I did not specify any particular nationality.I was speaking of anyone who comes into this country, place of origin does not make a difference. People coming here illegally obviously need us more than we need them. And no, I do not believe in open borders.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Which coincides with progressive goals and against right wing fascist policy.

Is that why you attack him personally with lies instead of commenting on the post topic? (immigration reform)

[-] -2 points by RwOrn (-290) from Berkeley, CA 1 year ago

through the open society institute, soros funds la raza, casa de maryland,migration policy institute, and the national immigration forum and other such groups.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Not at all, exciting and full, loved ones & friends always around.

Are you spent? Resorting to personal attacks usually means you have nothing of substance left regarding the argument.

I guess you're a loser! Smoked your sorry, anti progressive, right wing ass.

[-] -2 points by RwOrn (-290) from Berkeley, CA 1 year ago

the need for you to feed your ego with imagined " wins" is childlike.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

This thread is about immigration. Got anything on that?

[-] -2 points by RwOrn (-290) from Berkeley, CA 1 year ago

this thread is about illegal immigration.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I don't feel pompous. In any event at least my position ain't so weak I gotta engage in dishonest personal attacks, I got dat goin for me, anyway.

[-] -1 points by RwOrn (-290) from Berkeley, CA 1 year ago

And ebonics too !

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

What need? There's no need. There's only fighting for issues and challenging anti progressive right wing shills.

If you fail to stay on topic and choose dishonest immature personal attacks then I am honor bound to inform you and obligated to ensure you understand that your mistake constitutes bad form, low class, bad karma, so that you can learn from your mistake.

I don't establish you as a loser to boost my ego but only as a service to help you avoid that form of loss.

That's me being generous.

Your welcome. LMFAO

[-] -2 points by RwOrn (-290) from Berkeley, CA 1 year ago

That's you being pompous.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I know much but recognize I have a lot to learn, and I rarely listen to anyone.

Least of all ignorant anti progressive partisan shills.

[-] -2 points by RwOrn (-290) from Berkeley, CA 1 year ago

You must have a lonely life.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I know La Raza, And I know Soros, As well as his progressive efforts through Open Society Inst.

Do you wanna slur these groups now?

[-] -2 points by RwOrn (-290) from Berkeley, CA 1 year ago

You know nothing. you do as you're told.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

And you support these good progressive groups?

[-] -2 points by RwOrn (-290) from Berkeley, CA 1 year ago

Did you look up each group and see what they are about?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Why are you here, sweet pea?

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

From a 60 minutes interview:

When the Nazis occupied Budapest in 1944, George Soros' father was a successful lawyer. He lived on an island in the Danube and liked to commute to work in a rowboat. But knowing there were problems ahead for the Jews, he decided to split his family up. He bought them forged papers and he bribed a government official to take 14-year-old George Soros in and swear that he was his Christian godson. But survival carried a heavy price tag. While hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews were being shipped off to the death camps, George Soros accompanied his phony godfather on his appointed rounds, confiscating property from the Jews.

http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=43876

"Well, actually, in a funny way, it's just like in markets -- that if I weren't there -- of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would -- would -- would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the -- whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the -- I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt."

That same lack of guilt is what allows a few to take billions at the expense of the many. Same with Buffet and Paulson and Gates. Now is it really Soros' actions as a teen in Hungary you abhor or is it just his political beliefs?

[-] -3 points by RwOrn (-290) from Berkeley, CA 1 year ago

If I didn't do it someone else would is a poor defense. He knew what he was an accomplice in. By the way, Snopes is also funded by Soros. His flagship organization is the Open Society Institute which in turn funds media matters, moveon, the midwest academy, etc. It's a long list.

[-] 4 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

I'm going to train you in how to back up your arguments with credible links. If you continue to repeat the false info that currently floods the internet, you will drown in it's slimy stench. Grab my hand and pull yourself out.

http://www.snopes.com/info/aboutus.asp

[-] -3 points by RwOrn (-290) from Berkeley, CA 1 year ago

Snopes is funded by Soros.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Provide a credible link that backs up your statement.

[-] -2 points by RwOrn (-290) from Berkeley, CA 1 year ago

you can go to http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/ and do a search on that site.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Since you can't provide a link to support your statement we must conclude there is none, case closed, your statement is false.

[-] -2 points by RwOrn (-290) from Berkeley, CA 1 year ago

what i said was true, it's your mind that is closed.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Since you can't provide the facts that support your statement, your statement is meaningless.

[-] -2 points by RwOrn (-290) from Berkeley, CA 1 year ago

if you are able to type ( which i see you are) then you can do the search with what i already provided for you. if not, you're too lazy and dim to learn.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

It's up to the person making a statement to support it with facts. Since you can't provide any facts, we have to assume there is no basis for your statement, that you've been caught repeating another person's fabricated lie.

[-] -2 points by RwOrn (-290) from Berkeley, CA 1 year ago

Is that in your rule book ? how silly you are. i told you how to research it, you're lazy. i havent been " caught" repeating a lie ( more silliness). by the way,..also take the time to look up what fabricated means.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

If you can't provide the facts that support your statement, "Snopes is funded by Soros", then that statement is invalid.

[-] -1 points by RwOrn (-290) from Berkeley, CA 1 year ago

I told you what to do, You're lazy.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

You're bluffing. Provide a link that supports your statement.

[-] -1 points by RwOrn (-290) from Berkeley, CA 1 year ago

re-read my post. go to the website, read whats there and THEN , on your own do search.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Discoverthenetworks.com is right leaning organization. Hardly a credible source. From their home page:

"This website describes the networks and agendas of the political Left."

It's also up to you to provide a direct link to the information that supports your statement.

[-] -2 points by RwOrn (-290) from Berkeley, CA 1 year ago

If you go to the site and do a search "guide to the george soros networks", you will a long page of information, you can then check out each group on your own without using Discover.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

You shouldn't make stuff up.

It's bad for you.

http://www.americanprogress.org/about/staff/

That name is curiously missing.

[-] -3 points by RwOrn (-290) from Berkeley, CA 1 year ago

I didn't make it up. Do a search. I found the info on source watch ( George Soros and americanprogress.org)and for George Soros specifically, I found the info on wiki.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

wiki is bullshit on such subjects.

Turning off Glenn Beck would aid you in forming a reality based World view.

[-] -2 points by RwOrn (-290) from Berkeley, CA 1 year ago

There are other sources beside wiki , souce watch is one of them. You discount wiki on this subject, what subjects do you think wiki is credible for ?

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/SourceWatch

It would seem the lions share of influence peddling is done by people other than Soros.

wiki is good for definitions and geography.

Did you refute Glenn Beck yet?

[-] -2 points by RwOrn (-290) from Berkeley, CA 1 year ago

since I dont watch or is it listen? to glen beck, i cant refute what he says.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

What is it you watch and or listen to then, that misinforms you?

Care to provide some links?

[-] 0 points by RwOrn (-290) from Berkeley, CA 1 year ago

I watch old movies. i read lucianne, a compilation of news from various sources ( all separately posted) from around the world.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Which one of these informed you of the perceived Soros issue?

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Nah. Immigrants aren't illegal until they are adjudicated so in a court.

It's not politically correct. It is accurate.

And of course to spew the term illegal is not accurate and used to demonize decent hard working people only trying to provide for their families.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

It sounds splendid, but here in reality we have a system that allows some people to dictate law to other people. And if lots of people embrace Swaraja, then that leaves an open playing field for those who still participate in our Republic.

The study of Swaraj sounds like it would be an interesting class if I was back in school, but here in the real world, it has no real bearing. Also, I am still not sure how conflict is resolved or enforced under such a regime . After all, that seems to be the reason we have a political body.

I believe the reason our nation is in the state it's in is because its current state is advantageous to a majority of Americans. At least a majority of Americans who are politically active, that is. Everyone else must be practicing Swaraj, leaving politics to the other.

I like the idea of ruling myself. But how do I get justice when others form cliques and corporations that wish to usurp my sovereignty?

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Swaraj does not and shouldnt preclude the existance of a interstate-governmental body among soveriegn individuals. Self rule is not anarchy.

Constructivists beleive that 'states behave like individuals'. This is only true if individuals are treated like states. Therefore government ceases as a national institution and becomes an international institution.

A common law republic would be this international institution established to preserve each individual's right to rule themselves.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

Does your system incorporate direct democracy as a check on Common law?

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

it incorporates a form of 'direct democracy', but does not include the traditional democratic principles such as 'majority rules' and 'communal soveriegnty'.

The good is for the 'one as many' and not the 'many as one'.

[-] 0 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

I don't follow. Say we democratically vote for universal healthcare by a three quarter majority would that than be the law of the land ? Or could a majority find that the chemicals you dump in your stream on your property is detrimental to others and vote to have you cease and desist.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Yes, if a univeral health care law passed via a consensus, it would become a common law. Meaning that it exists by the merit of it being a generally accepted norm and or custom.

Law exists only if it is followed and accepted.

If said individual is violating a common law, the yes he should punished for braking the law somehow. But if there is no common law prior to the majority deciding that what this particular individual is doing is wrong, then the majority does not have the right to pass a new law directed a single individual.

For the individual dumping chemicals to be required by law to cease and desist, there would have to be a common law outlawing such a practice.

After the fact justice is not justice.

[-] 0 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

I hear you? people would be grand fathered in. That is pretty much what we have now. except democracy is twice removed from the individual, and common law works best for those with the best lawyers.

For what it is worth, I believe your system would probably be just as prone to form into cliques and clubs, the only difference would be that instead of two strong parties In DC you would have multiple weak parties. Now whether this is good or bad I'm not going to pretend to know. But the point being: even if we were all sovereigns onto our self eventually people would begin to see that it is more advantageous to consolidate and incorporate. Even the Founders believed this. History is made by alliances, caucuses, and allegiances.

It may feel good to be an army of one, but it's great when you have allies at your back.

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

History is made through alliances among individuals, not communes.

The collegium of the common law republic is this 'alliance' you speak of.

[-] 0 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Wow.cool

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

I try. The rest is up to you.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (28393) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Who'se illegal?

For One:

Members of government that are not supporting the best interests of the people.

[-] -1 points by BlueMonday (-154) 1 year ago

that would be the obama administration.

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (28393) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Including - Boner and Bitch and Can't-or and Ayn Ryan and and and and ?

You know - all of the members of government that sat in their chairs like they were glued to them during the state of the union speech/address ?

[-] 0 points by BlueMonday (-154) 1 year ago

why would they applaud and obama campaign speech?

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Join OWS in support of immigrant workers

http://maydaynyc.org/

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (28393) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

You are correct in that - The campaign for presidency "is" over for the next couple of years. But the assholes in office should have been seen supporting the forwarding of good social concerns of the people.

That being said - I was surprised that the assholes stayed seated when Obummer said that he would be pushing forward opening more land to fucking um raping - I mean - Fracking and drilling for fossil fuel. I thought that they would be stupid enough to give a standing ovation in support of their buyers/masters in the fossil fuel corpoRATions/industries.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Obamas comments and actions favoring fossil fuel is profoundly disappointing and illustrates how powerful those corporations are.

It is up to us to pressure ALL politicians to end fracking, mountaintop removal, arctic drilling, tar sands pipelines, nuclear energy, etc.

It is up to us to agitate for greentech implementation. We cannot expect any politician to just do what is right, or what we want.

The powers that be, the corp 1% have bought and paid for our govt. Only large scale pressure/demonstrations can have any hope of changing that influence.

Good luck, we're gonna need it.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (28393) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Fundamental change for the better For ALL - will only come from the involvement and actions of THE PEOPLE. TRUTH

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Without a doubt. ALL pols must be made aware that our numbers are greater than corpoRAT campaign contributions.

The power of the people is greater than the people in power.

We are still relearning that truth.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (28393) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

The people need to understand the fact of their power - and get involved.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

That's what we (OWS) is doing. Growing & informing our numbers, & emboldening many other pro 99% groups against corpoRAT interests and ALL pols who submit to them.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (28393) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Best function for this site is outreach/education

[-] 0 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

And most valuable action on & off the site.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (28393) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Absolutely - spread knowledge - spread good food for thought - spread opportunities to unite.

[-] -1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Build an army of informed 99% to stand against the billions of corpoRAT $

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (28393) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

An army that operates on the principals of peace for healthy change and growth and prosperity for ALL.

Shifting the paradigm.

[-] -1 points by BlueMonday (-154) 1 year ago

what he says and what he does, vastly different. remember that promise,.......no one making less than $ 250,000 will have their taxes go up? of how about ( regarding obamacare) if you like your current health insurance you can keep it AND it will cost you less?

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (28393) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

What? - you don't see the machinations of Bitch or Boner or Can't-or or Ayn Ryan or Bitchell or or or or any of the other corpoRAT sellouts in government influencing this SHIT ???

[-] -1 points by BlueMonday (-154) 1 year ago

none of the republicans you mention voted for obama care.

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (28393) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

None of them supported universal health care either.

So was your point in your comment that you see their obstructionism?

[-] 0 points by BlueMonday (-154) 1 year ago

thats obama care,.................by its formal name. didnt you know that? obstructionism, very funny., they didnt go along to get along.

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (28393) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Obummer care falls far short of universal health care - but it is what he got enough support for to pass. It is a step in the right direction but has many flaws that need to be addressed.

No the corpoRatists ( most visible in the repub party ) in office have done their best to stand in the way of good legislation to support the people and fix our economy.

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by BlueMonday (-154) 1 year ago

he only got support because the dems were in the majority in congress and the senate at the time. it wouldnt pass today.

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (28393) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

he only got support because the dems were in the majority in congress and the senate at the time. it wouldnt pass today.

Perhaps.

It would also not get the CorpoRatists in office working to make a good health care program for all - Either.

[-] -3 points by BlueMonday (-154) 1 year ago

No, not perhaps. the ONLY reason it passed was because the dems held the majority in both houses.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

Dude, you really need to stop replying because your posts are showing how stupid you really are. Don't you know the most controversial part of ACA, the mandate, was designed by the Heritage Foundation and is philosophically right wing.

The mandate was concocted in a 1989 Heritage Foundation brief titled “Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans."

So if you want to hang this blunder on the head of one party, you better do a little research and re think your thought. http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/assuring-affordable-health-care-for-all-americans

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (28393) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

If you mean that if the corpoRatists had had the majority - that good legislation for supporting the people/environment/economy would meet a concrete roadblock - well - then I would have to agree.

This is already apparent in the failure of much that has been put forward that would support the people environment and the economy.

[-] -1 points by DouglasAdams (183) 1 year ago

More than half of U.S. citizens believe that most or all of the country's 11 million illegal immigrants should be deported, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Wednesday that highlights the difficulties facing lawmakers trying to reform the U.S. immigration system. The online survey shows resistance to easing immigration laws despite the biggest push for reform in Congress since 2007.

Thirty percent of those polled think that most illegal immigrants, with some exceptions, should be deported, while 23 percent believe all illegal immigrants should be deported.

Only 5 percent believe all illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay in the United States legally, and 31 percent want most illegal immigrants to stay.

These results are in line with other polls in recent years, suggesting that people's views on immigration have not changed dramatically since the immigration debate reignited in Congress last month, according to Ipsos pollster Julia Clark.

"It's not Americans' views that are shifting. It is that the political climate is ripe for this discussion," after the November election when Hispanics voted overwhelmingly in favor of Democratic President Barack Obama, she said.

http://news.yahoo.com/majority-u-citizens-illegal-immigrants-deported-010930979.html;_ylt=ApVXrGIzyn2X81wODBF.pkdtzwcF;_ylu=X3oDMTNuOGI0MGJkBG1pdANUb3BTdG9yeSBVU1NGBHBrZwNiMzI0MjIwNC1iODIwLTNmMGQtOGY0OC05Y2M0ZmU2NzgyNTUEcG9zAzIEc2VjA3RvcF9zdG9yeQR2ZXIDYmFjMDI1NTAtN2JjMy0xMWUyLWJmNDctMWZjY2JkNzgxMWNm;_ylg=X3oDMTF2NTEwdHRsBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdAN1LXMEcHQDc2VjdGlvbnMEdGVzdANUZXN0X0FGQw--;_ylv=3

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

I disagree. Open the borders! We need immigration. We are ALL better off. Immigration has always been a positive influence in America.

[-] -1 points by DouglasAdams (183) 1 year ago

What does citizenship mean? It has nothing to do with economics - the illegal immigraants don't understand the country as a sovereign state.It's more like a economic frontier territory that already had a higher living standard before they arrived.

Our national values have been diluted as evienced by the Mayor of New York tryng to win the Hispanic vote by speaking broken Spanish during his campaign for a third term.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdT-4Yrt6Yc

It is a political maneuver pandering to bilingualism. At what point will political correctness require closing summariztions in three or more languages?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/mayor-bloomberg-starts-speaking-spanish-pressers-article-1.420341

Who is being helped by this?

http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/News/mayor-bloomberg-speaks-spanish/story?id=17606109

There are English speaking communities still suffering from the havoc caused by Hurricane Sandy and decades of neglected infrastructure upgrades and planning!

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/-Rockaway-St-Patricks-Day-parade-battles-financial-crisis-after-storm-damage---VIDEO-191997881.html

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Speaking bad spanish means our national values have been diluted?

Why?

[-] 1 points by DouglasAdams (183) 1 year ago

OK The title of this post should read "who's illegal" not "whose illegal".

Incalculable numbers of hours are taken away from thinking about real problems of good government to learn to be fluent in a second or third language.

Imagine someone entering the country illegally with the belief that California still is a part of Mexico.

The hero of the Battle of Buena Vista, General Zachary Taylor, replaced James K. Polk as President early in 1848. One of the principal issues facing the Taylor administration was the status of California. The conflict with Mexico had ended, the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo had been signed. Americans hardly give the statehood of California a second thought.It maybe astonishing that some Mexicans living and working here in New York question the validity of this treaty.

Do we have to explain it to transplanted Mexicans until they agree or will there be some doubt remaining always? Why?

Ignoring the border and not recognizing important treaties are not problems United States citizens have to address. Are our politicians being misled by pressures of pursuing the Hispanic voters while neglecting Anglos that have been here legally for generations?

[-] 2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

We get more from immigrants than they take. Always have.

[-] 0 points by DouglasAdams (183) 1 year ago

Whoa! Immigrants travel thousands of miles across oceans and deserts to give us something? What? Like the Spanish traveled across oceans to give the Aztecs and Incas something? Like Earthlings will travel to Mars to give the Martians something? How about plunder and/or stay?

The United States has a quality of life that attracts more immigrants than any other nation. Americans who have lived here for generations have noticed a decline in the quality of life due to influx of immigrants.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/philips-abstract.html

[-] 2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

You are absolutely wrong. America cannot survive without continued growing immigrants expanding the tax base, & starting businesses..

And as they become voters they push the country further towards the desirable progressive govt we need.

[-] -1 points by DouglasAdams (183) 1 year ago

Broadening the tax base in order to pay more taxes does not necessarily increase the quality of life. America doesn’t need more Dunkin Donuts shops and so forth sprouting up around the nation as a strategy to broaden its tax base. The Republican controlled House probably has one leg to stand on and not raising taxes on the rich is it. The working class is expected to shoulder the burden of paying more taxes. Immigrants didn’t come half-way around the world to pay higher taxes in the United States.

The economic solution is in changing the trade deficit to a trade surplus. America needs to export more valuable and profitable products than it imports. How can immigrants help with this? By going home and buying American or selling American. Not by staying here to buy and sell imports.

The capitalist idiots that outsourced and offshored an aggregate of American manufacturing are largely responsible for today’s economic dilemma.

[-] 2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

I agree the corp 1% outsourcers are responsible for our economic problems.

As such we MUST invest in job creation like manufacturing, Immigrants are critical because they are more likely to start businesses, & take risks, and they will work! Work expands the tax base.

We need immigrants! They give more than they take.

[-] -1 points by DouglasAdams (183) 1 year ago

It doesn't make sense if any serious thought is given to it. Why would immigrants come here to start a business? Can't they start one at home?

Ask the Lebanese if immigrants give more than they take!

Syrian Refugees

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/world/middleeast/syrian-flood-into-lebanon-stirs-fear-of-looming-disaster.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0

Would you prefer that Syrian refugees come to the United states instead of Lebanon?

The US is much larger than Lebanon. But the US already allows more immigration than the rest of the world combined. This policy was never put to a popular vote. Polls prove the majority Americans are for illegal immigrants being deported. The USA is aware of its limits.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

The US economy is the strongest in the world, we can absorb immigrants from all over the world. And do. And our economy is stronger for it.

So I would welcome Syrian immigrants, We have many already.

And immigrants prefer to start businesses here because we are the strongest economy in the world, we have the largest consumer middle class market that has been conditioned to buy any plastic crap put in front of us.

We have more disposable income than any other nation.

[-] -1 points by DouglasAdams (183) 1 year ago

If you notice what is going on right now there will be automatic spending cuts forced on the economy March 1, 2013 because the Republican controlled House of Representatives doesn't want to increase taxes on the rich and the Democrat controlled Senate doesn't want to cut entitlements. If all of this immigration was helping the country then why are we having these fiscal and economic crises?

The government spends more than its revenues. Do you imagine China will relocate its factories to the US? Americans import too much stuff. For example, do Americans need to import chocolate chip cookies and chocolate bars from the Near East?

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Immigration does not solve ALL problems. They do improve the economy.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/06/why-immigrants-are-good-for-our-economy/240209/

The current budget problems are because of repubs refusal to tax the rich. Certainly cutting earned benefits of sick/old/poor is out of the question.

China relocate factories?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonchang/2013/02/24/is-foxconn-fleeing-china-sure-looks-like-it/

It is our responsibility to relocate our jobs back here. No doubt about it.

Are you with us?

[-] 0 points by DouglasAdams (183) 1 year ago

yes

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Does the majority decide what is right and wrong? Just because the majority of anything say something, doesnt meant what they decide is correct or right.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago
[-] 0 points by DouglasAdams (183) 1 year ago

On a jury or on the Supreme Court, yes. The majority can decide what is right or wrong sometimes. In elections the majority of the vote decides the result. If electorate, the populace is educated and informed the majority can decide what is right or wrong. The problems arise when they are not educated and ignorant.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

The majority decides morality? Right and Wrong?

So what ever a jury and/or the supreme court says, goes without any dissent whatsoever because what has been decided is Right?

Majority rule is a dictatorship of the majority. Right and Wrong are Right and Wrong no matter what the majority says.

[-] -1 points by DouglasAdams (183) 1 year ago

Well said. What we have here is derived from English tradition.

The questions of morality and legality start over a thousand years ago! Was it moral for illegal aliens to come here in the first place? Is their coming here saying that United States is more moral than where they came from? Americans should be more involved in illegal alien issues than they appear to be or Congress could really continue to botch this just like they botched the fine details of the federal budget crisis -

English law is the legal system of England and Wales, and the basis of common law legal systems in the Republic of Ireland, Commonwealth countries and the United States. The essence of English common law is that it is made by judges sitting in courts, applying legal precedent (stare decisis) to the facts before them.

English Common Law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_law

Since 1189, English law has been described as a common law rather than a civil law system (i.e. there has been no major codification of the law, and judicial precedents are binding as opposed to persuasive).

Civil law (or civilian law) is a legal system originating in Western Europe, intellectualized within the framework of late Roman law, and whose most prevalent feature is that its core principles are codified into a referable system which serves as the primary source of law. This can be contrasted with common law systems whose intellectual framework comes from judge-made decisional law which gives precedential authority to prior court decisions on the principle that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different occasions (doctrine of judicial precedent).

The great changes in European philosophy the 17th and the 18th didn't affect the Spanish world [very much]. Spanish believed in the efficacy of monopoly, a belief stemming from their desire to control.

Government and Law in Spanish Colonial America

http://historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?action=read&artid=296

The Spanish Colonial System A Functional Approach

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/445407?uid=3739832&uid=2129&uid=2134&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101886741847

Conceptually, civil law proceeds from abstractions, formulates general principles, and distinguishes substantive rules from procedural rules. It holds case law to be secondary and subordinate to statutory law, and the court system is usually inquisitorial, unbound by precedent, and composed of specially-trained, functionary judicial officers with limited authority to interpret law. Jury trials are not used, although in some cases, benches may be sat by a mixed panel of lay magistrates and career judges.

The mishandling of illegal aliens by making new law creates a precedent that undermines our judicial system. Without the new law the illegal aliens would be deported. The will of the majority of Americans is not being followed by our elected leaders.

There must have been millions of cases of legal deportations. Just not in the same year. Thank the Republicans for creating another mess no one wants to clean up.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

The problem is representative democracy. Both parties are equally as guilty of ignorance.

majoritarianism has failed. clear and simple.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (28393) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Right now "WE" (USA) have minority rule - a very small minority of the wealthy and corpoRAT - because the majority of the population has no real say - they actually do - they just do not recognize their power.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

We have a majority that props up an oligarchy.

The majority of people like the oligarchy. Anyone who voted for Obama and or anyother person that was successfully elected to office, supports the continued existance of this oligarchy.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (28393) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Fine - you go ahead with that view - the fact of the matter "is" that the public has no real say once any representative is put in office - WHY? - because we do not confront them when they do not act in our interest.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Representaive democracy simply just does not work. Direct government rids power from the majority and oligarchy.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (28393) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Even direct democracy has representatives - difference being they are tied to group consensus and are not free to do their own thing - but must present their group's positions.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

I want direct government, not direct democracy. Direct democracy has delegates and majority rules. Direct government only implies self-rule.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (28393) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Yeah ? - good luck with that chaos. Talk about the wild west.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Self-rule is not anarchy........anarchy is 'no' rule, I want 'self' rule.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (28393) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

You have no understanding of anarchy or an incomplete understanding at best. Anarchy believes in a horizontal structure - not no structure.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Dictionary Definition of "Anarchy": 1.A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.

Anarchy literally means "absense of a leader".

Self-rule means leaderFULL, Anarchy means leaderLESS.

I want everyone to be the leader of themselves, I dont want no one to be the leader of anything.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

Dude that is semantics. The difference you are trying to make does not exist

In your utopia, how does conflict get resolved if say everyone is a leader?

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (28393) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

There are dozens of varying definitions to anarchy - not very many are flattering - why would they be? as they challenge the status-quo hierarchy.

Anarchy is not leaderless it is leader full as each member of the society is equal.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Why are there immigration quota in the 21st century? and why is Obama pushing 'English only'?

I dont get it..........

[-] 0 points by DouglasAdams (183) 1 year ago

Do you for a minute believe Mexico or Columbia or Venezuela or any countries in the Western or Eastern hemispheres are without immigration quotas?

The economic, social, and political aspects of immigration have caused controversy regarding ethnicity, economic benefits, jobs for non-immigrants, settlement patterns, impact on upward social mobility, crime, and voting behavior. In 2006 the United States accepted more legal immigrants as permanent residents than all other countries in the world combined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Still not enough. Quotas encourage crime and involuntary poverty. The US should afford all people equal freedom.

[-] 1 points by DouglasAdams (183) 1 year ago

I'd encourage would be immigrants to go back home and have elections, change the politics, or have a revolution instead of filling up all the free space over here.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

or 'americans' could provide basic humanity to any and all 'humans' regardless of their physical location in space and time. what is so objectionable about universal freedom?

[-] 1 points by DouglasAdams (183) 1 year ago

It is not constitutional. There is no legal requirement to do that. It's something the Catholic Church and United Nations, and other world charities are doing.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

If it would be done, it wouldnt be because it is a 'requirement'. It would be done because it is nice to be nice to the nice.

Why cant the US government be charitable on its own?

[-] 1 points by DouglasAdams (183) 1 year ago

US is the largest source of foreign aid on the planet. It has been so since the end of WWII. A lifetime of largess.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/30/us-foreign-aid-by-country_n_1837824.html

[-] -1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

What is that about? There should be open borders and no language requirements.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Obama, in his state of the union said that immigrants would have to learn English in order to become a citizen.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Sign up for the call, in support of immigration.

http://myaccount.maestroconference.com/conference/register/A1A48WZUV1RNQSS

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Why do I need to sign up for something that I can do without having to pass on support to an organization or lobbyist group or whatever?

Cant I just support it(universal citizenship) in my own way?

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

No.

Not if you live here.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

So I can't hold my own opinions because I live in America?

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Expressing your opinion is just fine.

But if you live here, you can't avoid supporting Wallstreet and so by proxy, all the organizations and lobbies they and those they own support, along with those of all the private equity firms and their organizations and lobbies.........................

That's the way it is.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Well then I'm fucked, now aren't I? Why resist at all if the outcome is certain?

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

If you want to be and you see yourself as such, then yes, it is and you are.

However, if you would take a glance at the top of the page you will see a solution.

OccupyWallStreet.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

And how has that worked so far for you?

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Overall?

It's an improvement.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

base camp at mount everest is at 1000 feet above sea level. you gotta start somewhere..... ;)

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Exactly, and it's a long steep climb that could take upwards of 100 years.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

I dont think you understood my analogy.

Ingnorance=sea level

OWS=1000 feet

US Constitution=1001 feet

Common Law Republic=100 feet below the summit

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Let's do both. Let's support every effort to right the wrong of anti immigration policies.

C'mon do the right thing.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

the 'right thing' is sign up for something that I disagree with?

How does that make sense?

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

The righteousness of this effort has nothing to do with whether you agree.

The call supports ending anti immigration discrimination. THAT is right.

It makes sense for YOU and all to do the right thing and support that effort.

You don't support anti immigration discrimination do you?

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

I dont disagree with thier desired ends, just thier means to achieve those ends.

Lobbyists and NGO type of organizations only make things worse for themselves and the people they claim to be helping.

I dont need someone else to tell me what I already think.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Good! no one is telling you what to think..

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

So why 'sign up' for something?

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

To support the effort and end the discrimination.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

I already do that.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Reparations=money? Land? What do you want?

Obama wants an "English only" society.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Do you support Obamas position on immigration?.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Not even a little bit.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

So you don't support an 'english only' society? Good for you.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

I believe in freedom of Speech. Any speech........

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

How about releasing Illegal immigrants? You good with that.?

http://news.yahoo.com/dhs-releasing-illegal-immigrants-sequester-172435129.html

LOL

[-] 2 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

If their only crime is immigration, the YES they should be released. If they have committed literally any other crime than NO they should not be released.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Wow. enlightenment.

Good for you. Apparently we've released no violent criminals. So I think it an effort to release lotsa decent working people under cover of the sequester.

That'll learn those republicans.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

What do the republicans have to do with it?

"illegal' immigrants have committed no crime but existance in a country that doesnt recognize them as human. There is nothing 'violent' about that.

If any person has committed a crime like stealing or murder, then they should be punished regardless of whether the government recognizes them as human or not.

This isnt a political debate, it is a moral one.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

You didn't say what the Dr said as I asked.

I just disregarded the esoteric comedy.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

My point is that immigration restrictions are immoral no matter what the government says on the matter.

Both parties and a majority of americans want at least some restrictions on immigration.

I want universal citizenship.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Yeah, cool. Question still stands.

Did your dr say your skin problem was shared by all Mexicans or is it just you with the poor hygiene?

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

I said that my skin problem is shared by ALL mexicans.......

This is because I am ALL mexicans. You are ALL americans, I am ALL mexicans. Didnt we go over this already? ;)

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Did your dr say your skin problem was shared by all Mexicans or is it just you with the poor hygiene?

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

I am all mexicans. Just like you're all americans........

Goes both ways my friend......

We are all individuals, seperate from one another. You cant clump together people based on origin or skin color or citizenship status, it just doesnt work.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I know many mexicans who smell fine. I think you are mistaken about your 'generalizations'.

I believe most Americans recognize that immigration is good, and support legalizing the undocumented immigrants currently here.

I also think most Americans don't generalize Mexicans as people with bad hygiene.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Im a mexican and my doctor told me that i have "skin problem", what ever that means........

Universal citizenship is my goal. Anything less is not enough in my opinion.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I like immigrants, & I'm an American. I know a whole lot more as well. Been to huge rallies also.

Why would say "I dont think americans of any political party in general like immigrants. Especially ones from Mexico."

No facts support that.

And what's wrong with Mexicans.?

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

I said 'generally'. I didnt point the figure at you, nor do your actions as an american mean that ALL americans behave like you do.

Generally, americans are in favor of immigration quotas. Generally, americans are in favor of an 'english-only' immigration policy.

Mexicans smell funny........good food......bad hygene........ ;)

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Dem DHS has released the illegal immigrants in order to save money, because the sequester has not been averted. So republicans hate immigrants and so dems are trying to make repubs look bad.

By releasing them dems are saying repub intransigence created this release.

Get it?

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

I dont think americans of any political party in general like immigrants. Especially ones from Mexico.

Obama wants 'english only' immigration.

Neither party is willing to treat all people as citizens.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

A court can decide.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

I asked "what do YOU want".

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

And I answered "A court can decide"

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

You cant decide for yourself? You are a True american my friend!

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Americans certainly believe in justice by a court trial, in front of a jury of your peers.

You never heard of that?

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Why do you need a jury to make up your mind about the morality of immigration?

This is not a legal argument. This is moral argument.

Do jurys decide 'right' and 'wrong'? or do they decide guilty or not guilty?

[-] 2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

"need"? never said that. "to make up your mind"? Already did that.

It is legal & moral. In this case the court will adjudicate right/wrong & guilt/innocent.

[-] -1 points by DouglasAdams (183) 1 year ago

The law of the land depends on borders and language. Without such wouldn't there be anarchy?

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Nah. Don't worry about it. welcome our immigrant brothers & sisters. we get more from them than they take from us.

[-] -2 points by DouglasAdams (183) 1 year ago

What? Getting more from them isn't the point and isn't reality. Americans don't need that. Americans have given the world telephones, airplanes, television, transistors, penicillin, computers, American music, Internet, nuclear energy, rockets to the moon and beyond, and a sense of security to our allies.

Here are housing, automobiles, telephone, potable water, plenty of food, fast food, McDonalds, free medical care, drivable roads of concrete and asphalt, electric power, television, radio, cable, theaters, free public education, and very few prejudices. This stuff is already here because it was invented here.

Some immigrants might think living in a homeless shelter is like living in a luxury hotel back home.

What immigrants have to learn is that also here is a nation and culture defined by American traditions, history, values, and a common language, English.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

None of the things you mentioned would have happened here without immigrants.

We need immigrants! They give more than they take.

[-] -1 points by DouglasAdams (183) 1 year ago

It wouldn't have happened without Americans either. If immigrants give more than they take and Americans invented all of this stuff then why is the nation so deep in debt?

National Debt Graph by President

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Mexican-Born Population in the US

http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/2012/04/2012-phc-mexican-migration-01a.png

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

The nation has massive national debt because Repub Pres incompetent financial stewardship has blown up the debt whenever they're in office.

Reagan/Bush increased the national debt 400%. Clinton added 20% to the national debt, but changed the annual deficit to an annual surplus.

Bush II increased the national debt 100% and changed Clintons annual budget surplus to a $1.4T annual deficit, and the worst economic crash since Repub P.res Hoover.

That Bush $1.4T annual deficit is being cut every year by the current admin despite the obstruction of republicans in congress.

So Immigrants didn't create the massive national debt, Repubs did.

http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm

[-] 0 points by DouglasAdams (183) 1 year ago

Very interesting report!

About 1 out of 8 Americans is foreign born. Speculation about how Republicans were elected to high office in 7 out of 10 times from Nixon until Obama suggests immigrants were voting Republican.

Immigration Levels Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

70+% of hispanics and asians voted for the Dems.

The repubs have lost the popular vote in 4 of the last 5 pres elections.

[-] 0 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Republicans are scared shitless that they can never win a presidential election again with suppressing the dem vote.

Heres another chart.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/11/12/the-gops-demographic-problem-in-1-chart/

[-] 0 points by DouglasAdams (183) 1 year ago

Republicans are very vocal about self-sufficiency, private enterprise, smaller government. Their domination of government for the last 40 years has pulled the national mindset to the conservative right, including Democrats. Obama and Clinton are not Roosevelt Democrats. We would have had more job creation and Glass Steagall would still be alive if these were Roosevelt Democrats.

Immigrants who wanted to start their own businesses and grow the laissez-faire economy probably voted Republican during the last 50 years. On the other hand people that wanted more social programs and entitlements were Democrats.

Does The United States need more restaurants?

[-] 0 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Why?

[-] 0 points by DouglasAdams (183) 1 year ago

The US trade deficit is appalling. The combination of outsourcing , off-shoring , mergers and trade deficits will sink the economy like the Titanic! The U.S. has run a trade deficit since 1975. In 2011, the deficit in goods and services was nearly $560 billion. U.S. exports of $2.1 trillion was less than its imports $2.67 trillion in goods and services.

Americans should consider importing less as a patriotic gesture to encourage our economic development to fill the vacuum created when factories moved overseas . This frenzy of importation is a major contributor to the economic collapse of the American auto industry and the city of Detroit in particular.

US Trade Deficit

http://useconomy.about.com/od/tradepolicy/p/5_trade_deficit.htm

What will it take to create a more chauvinistic consumer?

Much more manufacuring needs to be done here

The iPhone contributed US$1.9 billion to the US trade deficit with the People's Republic of China (PRC). Unprecedented globalization, well organized global production networks, repaid development of cross-country production fragmentation, and low transportation costs all contributed to rational firms such as Apple making business decisions that contributed directly to the US trade deficit reduction. Global production networks and highly specialized production processes apparently reverse trade patterns: developing countries such as the PRC export high-tech goods—like the iPhone—while industrialized countries such as the US import the high-tech goods they themselves invented.

  • See more at:

http://www.adbi.org/working-paper/2010/12/14/4236.iphone.widens.us.trade.deficit.prc/#sthash.M5Rq82od.dpuf

Greed can be blamed for the decision to make iPods overseas and import them back to the United States without cutting the price to reflect the cost of labor to produce them.

Consumers are guilty of buying a lot of things they don't need!

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

The manufacture of larger consumer goods you mentioned is an important goal that we all must advocate for.

Unfortunately we do have the larest middle class consumer market (China comin up fast) so obviously most economies tap in & sell to us.

In time that will level off, but I agree we MUST bring manufacturing back.

[-] 2 points by DouglasAdams (183) 1 year ago

Stuffed flamingo(s)?

The main point is the telephone, television, airplane, electronic computer, transistor, personal computer, Internet, nuclear energy, moon landing, Hubble space telescope and many other products that define modernization were invented in the United States.

The real question is "Why has there been a trade deficit since 1975?"

The Republicans were in charge from 1970 through 2008 with exceptions of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton Presidencies!

Should it have been legal to allow a trade deficit? How is the trade deficit helping us? Wouldn't it be illegal for the means of production and manufacturing and synthesis to be packed up and shipped out of town or out of the country in socialism?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Gosh, I can remember unions warning about this since the late 70s.

No one listened then.

They hollered about union thugs.

They sung the praises of WallStreet and the wonders of corporatism.

The unions kept warning.

No one listened.

They called them thugs.

Then all the jobs went away.

And POOF!

So did a lot of the middle class.

They still holler about union thugs.

And that sounds so fucking hollow.

[-] 2 points by DouglasAdams (183) 1 year ago

Americans were blinded by their own capitalist-anti-socialist propaganda while not understanding why socialism is good and capitalism is bad until the irreversible damage is done!

Ayn Rand in 21st Century Politics

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-06/will-this-election-settle-republicans-ayn-rand-debate-.html

Are Republicans so intoxicated they cannot increase taxes on the rich?

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Um, over 50% of the nation doesnt vote. And here is the balance of power in Congress http://sightsonpennsylvania.blogspot.com/2010/10/democrat-vs-republican-control-of.html

Seems to be pretty balanced to me.

[-] 1 points by DouglasAdams (183) 1 year ago

Balance of power?

The current class of Republicans in the House - led by Boehner - are obsessed with checking and obstructing the President's agenda - and anything Democratic.

Republican Presidents controlled the White House 70% of the time from Nixon through G W Bush . The Republican Presidents vetoed more legislation than Democratic Presidents

Presidential Vetoes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Isnt the 'english' language an 'english' tradition? 'Americans' borrowed 'english', from the 'english'.

Anyway, what kind of english should be required? Larry the Cable Guy? Shakespeare? Cockney Rhyming? California accent?

[-] 0 points by DouglasAdams (183) 1 year ago

Marco Rubio responded to the State of the Union address in English and Spanish.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/marco-rubio-state-union-response-235107316--election.html

Shall there be Hindi, Arabic, Chinese, Russian, Korean, Portuguese, Urdu, etc. State of the Union responses ad infinitum?

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

First of all I said 'Obama', not 'Rubio'.

Second, Rubio is in favor of "english-only" immigration.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (28393) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Marco Rubio = Dick Head and token corpoRATist.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by justiceforzim (-17) 1 year ago

The American Indians can surely show us what happens when you don't enforce your immigration laws or defend your border! What more do we need to see?

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Immigration reform=economic boost.

http://thinkprogress.org/progress-report/a-trillion-dollar-boost/

Join the effort to strengthen the economy. Encourage immigration!

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

We need immigrants more than they need us. The country benefits greatly from the hard working, business starting, risk taking people who come here to build lives.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

It depends on your economic level. Those in the upper and middle classes benefit from the lower wages the immigrants charge for their labor, but the indigenous lower classes see their wages stagnate or fall because of the new immigrants.

That's the reason why we've heard talk of closing the porous borders for decades, but with no real force behind it. The rich know they benefit so they remain open. Even after 911 illegal immigration continued just as it had before.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

We can improve wages even with immigrants coming.

But you are correct, corporations love immigrants (always have) to low ball the low income wage earner.

Stopping immigration ain't the answer. The problem is corp malfeasance. focus some prosecution on the corps and prevent the low balling with strong high min wage levels and real enforcement.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Enforcing laws enacted by Congress against the corporations who have purchased Congress won't happen.

The people need representatives that they elect. Without campaign finance reform, the people really have no voice in government. The last Presidential election clearly showed that with 98.5% of the vote going to just two parties.

[-] 0 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Real campaign finance reform is absolutely required. We agree on that much. Movetoamend.org is on the right track as well.

Otherwise the political duopoly will continue being owned by and serve the corp 1%.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Exactly, and it won't happen until the minds of Americans are reformed.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Well that's what we are doing. And many other like minded orgs. The PTB have a powerful stranglehold on the minds of America. And no one ever gives up control/power without a fight.

We have years of hard work in the streets & on the web ahead of us.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

It looks like the PTB still have a stranglehold on your username.

[-] -1 points by justiceforzim (-17) 1 year ago

Indeed. Just read a story about the reasons Reagan's immigration reform failed. That law laid out punishment for those that hire illegals. The rich that plunder these folks weren't too happy. As long as there are people willing to hiire them they will keep coming here illgally and know that in another generation they will be forgiven and in the mean time they will escape prosection for their law breaking.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

It's interesting that the wealthy not only benefit from low wage immigrant labor, but also from the incarceration, added litigation in the justice system, and eventual deportation of the same illegal immigrants.

I wonder how many people are ever prosecuted for hiring the millions of illegals?

Here's my favorite video regarding the immigration issue.

http://www.upworthy.com/watch-that-awkward-moment-when-anti-immigration-protesters-realize?g=2&c=upw1

[-] -2 points by LeoYo (5767) 1 year ago

Everyone who willingly came here after 1492.

[-] -1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Agreed.

[-] -2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Wow.

That was awesome.

[-] 0 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Wasn't a big anti immigration protest but because of the camera i think they were embarrassed and scattered.

Priceless indeed

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

It was priceless.

[-] 0 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

So theres profits to consider. That is the hold up. betcha it's GOP connected right?

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/thettaya think?-for-profit-immigration-imprisonment-racket-20130222

whatta ya think?

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

omg

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

If Profit is involved no wonder they don't wanna make undocumented workers legal.

http://www.thenation.com/article/173120/how-private-prisons-game-immigration-system

[-] 1 points by freakzilla (-161) from Detroit, MI 1 year ago

Oh, what fun I would have had if I were there...

'If you take a look at all of you here and you think about your salaries and your benefits and what you have left undone – plus my fee – plus the expense of the team that’s putting the video together, this is a huge expense,' says Betances in the video.

Throughout the presentation, Betances has the USDA employees shout 'Bam!' when he makes a point he considers to be of note - psychologically making them reinforce his assertions.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago
[-] -1 points by freakzilla (-161) from Detroit, MI 1 year ago

blah too long. can you give me the cliff's notes?

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Really? REALLY?

Over 14,000 complaints filed. No prior investigation done.......well. 3,800 potential merit after a review by Vilsack) but 80 % of them the statute of limitations ran out.

The 5 states selected for civil rights training for the Farm Service Agency state leadership accounted for a total of 40% of FSA program complaints in FY 2008, and the 5 states selected for Rural Development trainings represented 42% of RD program complaints in the same period. These two agencies account for the bulk of USDA program complaints.

Need more?

[-] -1 points by freakzilla (-161) from Detroit, MI 1 year ago

Don't worry. I'm sure repeating "The Pilgrims were illegal aliens" over and over solved all those problems and made the world a better place. "Citizen of the world" Samuel Betances saved the day. Nothing like real solutions to fix real problems.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

The actual fact that you need a course not to be a racist prick is absolutely astounding. That said, the site you pulled from took everything out of context and that makes them a bunch of lame ass dipshits. I don't trust that shit.

[-] -2 points by freakzilla (-161) from Detroit, MI 1 year ago

Do you kiss your mom with that mouth?

Nobody needs a course like this. Bozos like this guy take advantage of the lame ass dipshits and make a killing. And you paid for it.

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

And you pay for settlements.............

How do you like those mother fucking apples?

[-] -2 points by freakzilla (-161) from Detroit, MI 1 year ago

Pretty mother fucking awesome. Except your fucking money makes funnier fucking videos, I'll fucking give you that.

[-] -1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

language!

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

And the fucking video is cheaper than the fucking settlements.

[-] -1 points by freakzilla (-161) from Detroit, MI 1 year ago

dang