Friday, August 29, 2008

I have my 20 week ultra-sound on Tuesday, Sept. 2nd! This is the one that if we wanted to, we could find out what we're having. I don't think we're going to, though. I've always thought that I would rather be surprised when the baby is born... but the closer we're getting I'm kinda thinking maybe it would be easier to just know. I don't know... thoughts?

On a slightly separate note, for those of you who are keeping tabs, it has been almost 10 whole days since the last time I was actually sick. That's a new record and doubles the old record!! Wooohooo!!! (I've felt like I was going to be sick a few times since... but I haven't and it's still major progress!) Sorry to gross you out, but I'm really excited about it! =)

781 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 400 of 781   Newer›   Newest»
Israel said...

Hitler!!

Israel said...

This Snoop guy is a real find. He thinks people are gonna rush out into the fields to pick tomatoes and food prices won't rise and the problem of unemployment will be solved and everything will be peachy.

What an idio--errr- funny guy!!

----

All this while saying that the Wall Street Journal is biased because it wants what is good for "business."

Well Duh!?! How is capitalism going to be a success without businesses? How is kicking illegals out and making things bad for business gonna help the economy?

Did you know that businesses employ people so that people can buy food for their families?

Geez! What a genius! I weep for the future of the legal profession...

Israel said...

BTW

Illegals get actual identification numbers (from the IRS )and pay taxes into Social Security. IRS doesn't care if they are illegal as long as the IRS gets its money.

Or some illegals get fake SS# and their employers pay into SS and the illegals never get that money back.

Or Illegals use someone else's SSN (like a citizen relative) and they pay money into the SS system that otherwise wouldn't be in there.

No matter what the IRS gets a windfall. Illegals also pay sales taxes, property taxes etc.

here in the San Joaquin Valley (also known as the breadbasket of America because more food is grown here than anywhere else) The entire economy would collapse without illegals and we all know it.

You don't know it, because you have no idea how things really work in Agri-business.

Unless you grow all your own food, you should get down on your knees and thank the Lord for illegals every single time you put food in your ungrateful mouth...

Daniel Arant said...

Actually, if you had been paying attention, you would see that I said that food prices WOULD rise, but that incomes would also rise, rendering the increased price inert.

On the contrary, I love business. Only, when assessing the overall economic impact of illegal immigrants, I'm NOT going to ask a representative of the one beneficiaries of cheap, illegal labor. That's an elementary principal of critical thinking.

If we really want to help business then we need to cut our corporate tax rate in half. We currently have the second highest tax rate in the world. It should be obvious to anyone that when you tax businesses they become less profitable, grow slower, and create fewer and lower quality jobs as a result. Illegal immigrants may add to the GDP but they detract from the per capita GDP.

I'm surprised at you, Israel, as a compassionate American for supporting the current practice of blackmailing illegal immigrants to work for slave wages for fear of having the INS called on them. I'm also surprised that you have no sympathy for the plight of legal immigrants who go through the system and gain legal status only to find that all of the jobs they're qualified for are already taken by illegals who disregarded the laws of the United States to get here. How, exactly, do you justify this?

Daniel Arant said...

You still have yet to cite a source to support your "windfall illegal alien profits" theory.

"You don't know it, because you have no idea how things really work in Agri-business."

And I suppose you do? I know Americans who already do just as difficult work in other sectors, and if the pay was good enough people would jump at the chance to pick tomatoes. I worked in fast food for a while and I can tell you that I would MUCH rather have worked on a farm.

Here are a few articles on the subject:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/28/beck.immigrantworkers/index.html

http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/markoped010704.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200603140822.asp

Israel said...

Again studies have shown that Illegals don't "take" people's jobs. They help the the economy run more efficiently so it actually creates more jobs.

The Republicans know this. They aren't gonna do anything about the system they are just gonna use it to work racist people into a lather so that they can get elected. It's just a convenient wedge issue nothing more.

Israel said...

The fact that you prefer working on a farm in the dust inhaling pesticides in 100 plus degree heat for 16 hour days rather than in an air conditioned restaurant shows how bright you are.

Did you know that by law farmworkers don't get paid overtime like other workers do?

You won't last a day in the fields.

Israel said...

Ha! He cites the National Review as an independent source for unbiased immigration policy news.

Dude! You crack me up!

Israel said...

This guy is so typical, it's just sad.

How far away is he from the border?

He thinks we're gonna spend billions on a fence across california, texas, arizona and people aren't gonna get over, under or through it?

He thinks the business lobby is gonna allow their bought-and-paid-for politicians to reform a system that benefits them to the tune of billions?

He thinks millions of people will be rushing out to work in the fields and do the hardest jobs in the world?

He must be from Ohio...

Anonymous said...

Ok snoops, I have one big problem with you saying how undocumented immigrants our costing us.

They are undocumented.

So how can you have documented proof about undocumented people. They'd have to documented. All they can do is estimate.

Here's another thing about your so called "documented proof", you can make numbers say anything.

For instance: Did you know that did you know that in 2005, nationally, 37% of fatal accidents in the US were caused by drunk drivers.

Which means that 63% of fatal accidents were cause by people who were not drunk.

RESULT: Sober drivers are more dangerous than drunk drivers.

Start drinking before you drive, you'll have a 26% less chance of killing someone in a car accident.

It's documented!!

I'm not saying their beneficial, but I am saying they are not a threat to our financial future. If corporations don't get cheap labor here, its a fact that they will move out of US, where they can get cheaper labor, or to Mexico. Thus taking away all the taxes that those corporations would have spent here in the US.

Don't get caught up in the old way of thinking. This economy is not gonna fall due to immigrants picking up a few jobs.

Immigration is nothing new. Illegal immigration is nothing new. Its not like this problem just arose overnight and OH NO! its gonna destroy our economy.

By the way, since your such a history buff, show me one nation that was ever destroyed in the history of mankind because of illegal immigrants destroying the countries economy.

It's ridiculous, why don't you focus on more real issues like how to solve the energy crisis.

Anonymous said...

I'll tell you one way illegals are a great benefit. They make a great scapegoat for companies to ask for more money because these undocumented people are all taking it.

Where's the money?? I don't know, I gave it to that undocumented person.

Never mind that big bulge of cash in my pocket.

Daniel Arant said...

What studies? Could you please cite just ONE study?

It's really not hard to understand...

A greater supply of labor cannot create jobs. That is tantamount to saying that inviting more people to a thanksgiving dinner will result in a surplus of food.

There's an excellent book by a famous economist that I would highly recommend called "Economics in One Lesson." The "One Lesson," according to Henry Hazlitt, is that when assessing the economic impact of an event or policy one musn't look only at the immediate affects on a limited group but also the secondary effect on all groups. In this case, illegal immigration benefits farmers in the short run, but incurs a much greater cost to the government purse which hurts everyone in the form of expenditure without tax revenue.

When analyzing a policy it can be useful to take it to its logical extreme. Try to imagine what would happen if we allowed anyone and everyone who wanted to come to the United States instant and unconditional citizenship. Would the ensuing deluge of immigrants help or hurt the economy?

It seems obvious to me at least that it would do irreparable harm. Prices for everything would skyrocket due to increased demand. A vast majority of the new immigrants would be completely unemployed, which would inevitably lead to rampant crime.

This obviously doesn't mean that immigration is bad, but that UNBRIDLED immigration is bad. That is exactly what illegal immigration is: unbridled. There's nothing evil or insensitive about wanting to regulate the number of people that immigrate to the United States, it's just a practical imperative.

I don't know how it could get any more clear.

Daniel Arant said...

You'll notice, genius, that National Review Online isn't the only source I cited. I understand, though. It's much easier to simply cling to what you already believe rather than to do some actual critical thinking to determine if what you believe is actually true.

Have you ever worked in fast food? Whatever "air conditioning" we had was kinda overpowered by the pots of boiling shortening. By the way, if indeed illegals do work 16 hour days it's only because their employers disregard labor laws since their employees are illegal anyway, which goes back to the slave labor issue.

You're bordering on dense. I never said that people wouldn't occasionally get through the fence (although even if they did the living, breathing border patrol agents would catch them anyway) only that MOST of them would be unable to cross. That's all it takes. But for some reason you and your brother live in some kind of bizarre world where things either work perfectly or not at all.

Americans already do some of the hardest jobs in the world. Besides, why is it okay to overwork and underpay Mexicans, but it's not okay to exploit American workers? If you weren't Hispanic yourself I'd say you were racist...

Anonymous said...

Oh yeah, it would just be terrible. Just as bad if a bunch of renegade religious fugitives climbed on a giant ship called the Mayflower and came to our country and lived and used our land.

That would just be awful.


"And I suppose you do? I know Americans who already do just as difficult work in other sectors, and if the pay was good enough people would jump at the chance to pick tomatoes. I worked in fast food for a while and I can tell you that I would MUCH rather have worked on a farm."

That statement right there from snoops absolutely PROVES that he has NO IDEA what's going on with these agricultural society. There is no way on earth someone who actually new what was going on there would ever say that people would "jump at those jobs". You'd have to pay an american $50 an hour plus room and board and meals to put up with what they put up with.

And you think the income of Americans would rise with food prices going up... he ..he he.hehahahehaheheahehaehaehaehhahHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.. SORRY i just can't hold that in! The jobs would move overseas.

Demand for cheaper labor would cause those companies to move their jobs away from the US. Its laughable if you think they would stay in America. It just wouldn't be feasable.

Anonymous said...

You think we live in a crazy world? I think its also funny that you think you can solve the border issue.

We live in a world where this is a real issue we actually see everyday, not something we just read on some commentary by somebody living deep in a forest in the middle of the country.

You are out of touch with reality, and miles away from any border. We live right here, we see the realities with our own eyes.

You've probably never even seen these fences you put your trust in.

It's like saying "Hey I got an idea, if you want to stop terrorists, lets stop selling them explosives!! Problem solved. NEXT!"

Its just not that simple

Anonymous said...

hey you asked for it... here it is
http://www.ggu.edu/about/headlines/attachment/
04-04-06+Business+Week+-+Connelly.pdf

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking/story.asp?ID=3803

http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/01/news/economy/
immigration_economy/index.htm

http://www.jwharrison.com/blog/2006/12/13/
illegal-immigrants-help-the-us-economy/

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4021/is_n5_v18/ai_18225773

http://www.ipi.org/ipi/IPIPressRele
ases.nsf/0e36cc57ef9cd9a
086257030006cb03e/2c1b5393bc0760af
86257279005d3dc9?OpenDocument

http://www.masslive.com/news/republ
ican/index.ssf?/news/immigrants/
090705immigrants.html

http://www.boston.com/business/arti
cles/2006/04/04
/illegal_workers_have_mixed_impact/

Daniel Arant said...

"So how can you have documented proof about undocumented people. They'd have to documented. All they can do is estimate."

Just because they are undocumented as far as the INS is concerned doesn't mean their activities aren't traceable. We know roughly how many are coming in. We seem to know where all of them work, what all of them do. I don't know why it's such a stretch to say we can estimate how much they're costing (or contributing) to us. Israel seems confident that they're more beneficial than not, based on some "studies" that mysteriously allude his ability to cite.

Numbers cannot be made to say anything. There is a correct and incorrect interpretation for any set of data, which, like any other scientific hypothesis, can be confirmed by further data. Furthermore, not all numbers are subject to interpretation. What other possible interpretation could you assign to data that says
illegals cost 40 billion dollars a year and only generate 20 billion a year?

"If corporations don't get cheap labor here, its a fact that they will move out of US, where they can get cheaper labor, or to Mexico."

I'm not a farmer, but I'm not sure how someone could outsource a farm to China. Furthermore, I'm not saying that deporting illegal immigrants will solve all of our financial problems. No idea where you got that impression.

"Don't get caught up in the old way of thinking."

Not sure how that's possible when I'm only 20...

I never said that immigrants were going to destroy our economy. I never even said that illegals were going to destroy our economy. Remember how this whole delightful "conversation" began? I said that Obama was stupid to complain about the plight of the working poor and then turn around and support amnesty for illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants aren't really affecting me all that much, but it's killing unskilled American laborers.

"Illegal immigration is nothing new."

No, but illegal immigration on this scale IS new. There was a time when America's leaders had the common sense to realize that one of the principle characteristics of a nation-state is that it has well defined and secure borders. People wanting to come to the U.S. in droves isn't new. Allowing them to do so illegally IS.

I don't need to find a historic example of a country that was destroyed by illegal immigrants because I never claimed that illegal immigrants were going to destroy this country.

Since you asked, though, France has an extremely high immigrant population. Coincidentally, they also have 15% unemployment.

Nobody needs to "solve" the energy crisis. We are swimming in oil and natural gas that we're not allowed to drill because of environmental laws. Want to solve the energy crisis? Shoot all of the environmentalists. Booooring!

Anonymous said...

BTW,
you don't have to be old, to have old thoughts.

Old thoughts are just thoughts passed from a previous generation.

Daniel Arant said...

You're totally ignoring what I'm saying. There's nothing that annoys me more than when someone decides to have an imaginary argument with themselves and pretend they're arguing with me. I never said immigration was bad. I said that too much immigration at one time is bad, and that ILLEGAL immigration is bad.

"There is no way on earth someone who actually new what was going on there would ever say that people would 'jump at those jobs'."

You're missing the point. The only reason conditions in those jobs are so bad is because the employers know they can get away with anything because the undocumented workers have no recourse. This wouldn't be the case if illegal immigration wasn't available.

"And you think the income of Americans would rise with food prices going up... he ..he he.hehahahehaheheahehaehaehaehhahHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.. SORRY i just can't hold that in! The jobs would move overseas."

Unfortunately, laughing doesn't change the facts of economics. If it did, I would laugh myself rich. If food prices went up it would only be because farmers were forced to pay decent wages. Thus, incomes would go up. Duh.

"Demand for cheaper labor would cause those companies to move their jobs away from the US. Its laughable if you think they would stay in America. It just wouldn't be feasable."

First of all, you can't outsource farm labor. A farm can't move overseas. Second, companies outsource because of taxes, not because of labor. We have the second highest tax rate in the world. If companies always moved wherever labor was cheapest, then incomes would be the same all over the world.

"I think its also funny that you think you can solve the border issue."

You still haven't explained why a fence and some border agents won't stop illegal immigration. Laugh all you want, but laughing doesn't constitute and argument. I ask again, do the Coyotes have some kind of anti-gravity shoes that allow them to float over fences, or stealth drilling machines, or devices that allow them to walk through solid objects?

"You are out of touch with reality, and miles away from any border. We live right here, we see the realities with our own eyes."

If that isn't a ditch attempt at argument I don't know what is. Once again, you haven't explained HOW exactly I'm out of touch. I'm about as informed as someone can be who doesn't live there. I've heard interview after interview with people who have lost loved ones to blatant acts of violence committed on American soil by Mexican gangs. Something like 27 people were kidnapped, and some of them beheaded by the same. It's gotten so bad that there's practically an army of VOLUNTEERS who help patrol the border. I may not live down there myself, but I've heard from an awful lot of people who do, and they overwhelmingly support building a fence.

"You've probably never even seen these fences you put your trust in."

No, but as I said, I've read about the fence in San Diego, which has worked marvelously, and I have studied schematics of the fence design. Israel uses this design, and Israel isn't the kind of nation that can afford to use something that doesn't work.

The first article you cite says that immigrants both help and hurt the economy, and these experts were unsure as to their net effect.

The second source only talks about what illegal immigrants contribute, and not what they cost.

The third source says "Undocumented immigrants produced $1.58 billion in state revenues, which exceeded the $1.16 billion in state services they received. However, local governments bore the burden of $1.44 billion in uncompensated health care costs and local law enforcement costs not paid for by the state."

That means there was a 2,000,000 dollar deficit caused by illegals.

Most of the articles you cited completely ignored the number of ways in which illegal immigration costs us money and completely ignored the cost in lives of having a porous border.

Once again, I'm not against immigration, I'm against illegal immigration. I think our immigration laws are ridiculous, and we would do well to loosen them, but we CANNOT just grant amnesty to those who are already here when there are others who have been trying to get here legally for years. When they finally do get here they won't be able to be exploited and blackmailed, they won't have to get fraudulent social security numbers in order to pay into the system and they'll have real futures to look forward to.

Daniel Arant said...

I'm filled with old thoughts. I love history, and I love the way people used to think and the way things used to be. Not in every way, mind you, but I think there's a lot we can learn from the past. One thing I hate about liberalism is that it's central guiding principle seems to me that anything new is automatically better. It leads to a lot of STUPID ideas being accepted as "progressive."

justin h said...

for some strange reason israel doesn't seem to like my question. Ok Israel what makes George Bush an ARROGANT IDIOT? i know you cant really answer the question since you couldn't answer it before when he was just an idiot. I am not sure if you know this but when name calling just adding another word doesn't explain why.

Unknown said...

The problem isn't illegal imigration and a lack of a fence.
Although the fence might "work" in that it can, at great expense, stem the flow of a symptom, the disease is still with us.

The disease is a broken imigration system and unethical businesses running on what ammounts to slave labor.

Make it easy for these migrant workers to become legal permament citizens. Amnesty may be a dirty word, but it's a whale of a lot cheaper than rounding up illegals, deporting them, and breaking up families. Cheaper in terms of cost and moral decency.

Interestingly enough, McCain supported an amnesty bill, but it was shot down. The democrats didn't do anything about it in the last two years either because they are in the union's back pocket.

Daniel Arant said...

I still don't know how we can justify granting citizenship to a bunch of people who totally disregarded our laws to get here in the first place when there are people waiting to become citizens legally. I agree we need to make it much easier to become a citizen, but we can't let these people in ahead of those who have been honoring our laws and waiting to get in legally.

Unknown said...

No it isn't fair, but it is what it is.
The current situation is just as much a result of our failed immigration policies and unethical businnesses as anything. We need to make it right.

*sounding presidential*
With MY immigration reform plan, the "good" imigrants would get processed faster too, so it's a win win for everybody.

1) crack down on slave labor business
2) speed up the imigration processing by a factor of 10
3) offer illegals and their families a 6 month period to register with a naturalization program that lasts 1 year, during which they must learn English and American history. You must not commit any crimes during that time or your out.

After the six months, if they are caught here illegally, ship their sorry behinds off to club gitmo (just kidding)

Unknown said...

Btw, Jeshanah. We really really appreciate you putting up with us. In the next week, Ill try to set up a blog called "Outside" so we can jabber on about the election. If we all start going off topic again, you can tell us to "take it Outside". That would be funny.

Cyndi said...

Wow! Talk about debaters! Interesting stuff...

AND, I can't believe this is happening, but I have to agree with Israel on some points.

The economy would collapse without some of the illegals doing the manual labor that they do. And I am from Ohio and I do grow some of my own food.

To give an example, I live in a small town. In the past ten years, 1/3 of the population has become Hispanic, because it is an inexpensive place to live, and there are many poultry farms for work.

Many are not illegal, but some are. Many are working at jobs that the white people in this area will not even look at and this is a rural community. We have very few problems (crime, drugs, etc.) that we didn't have before. A lot of people want to blame the problems that do exist on the Hispanics, but I haven't seen that to be true. They are very hard working.

The migrant workers in the fields work horrendous hours, in horrible conditions and are basically doing slave labor. Food prices would rise tremendously without the illegals, and not only that, there wouldn't be anyone doing the work at all.

I don't agree with the illegal aspect, but the fences don't work.

We need to work on the legal process and make it faster and simplier, and be selective if they should not be in the country.

We need to try to stop those who bring in the people and leave them to die in the desert. We need to go after these business owners who are making huge amounts of money from their illegal work staff.

Most of these people are just trying to make a better life for their families. I see the lines of men, waiting to wire money home each week to their families.

At one point, we all (our ancestors) arrived illegally in this country, only because there wasn't a fence to keep us out.

Sharla said...

I, being the Dee Dee Dee that I am, do not know what to think! It seems that all of you make valid points. I was always opposed to illegals on the basis that they were just that. Breaking our laws seems a poor way to start living here. Then a couple years ago, the nicest guy came into my store and had a conversation with me. After that I just wished he could be here legally. He wasn't a farm worker, he worked super long hours in a restaurant, the same hours I am working in my own business now. Actually, he was earning more money than I am right now, the difference being I am totally choosing to try this as an entreprenour

Jeshanah said...

"That is tantamount to saying that inviting more people to a thanksgiving dinner will result in a surplus of food."

Naaa, everyone brings something just like the Indians did, so there IS a surplus when there are more people! =)

PMB, don't you dare open a new blog and take away my entertainment. My mom's the one who started all this anyway! (Good job, Mom!) hahaha

Jeshanah said...

I think that this is the very first time that I have ever agreed with Israel. It's a strange feeling...

justin h said...

israel i dont think you answered my question as to why bush is an idiot you really just said what kind of an idiot he is but that doesn't state why. i am asking what he as done to become an idiot oh and by the way being a republican doesn't make you and idiot anymore than being a democrat would.

Daniel Arant said...

"Naaa, everyone brings something just like the Indians did, so there IS a surplus when there are more people! =)"

We're not just talking about "something" we're talking about jobs. Illegals don't bring jobs with them, the fill them once they get here.

If the same people came into the county legally, wages wouldn't be hurt as badly because these immigrants would be protect by U.S. labor laws and their employers subject to minimum wage. The supply would be forcing labor prices down, but not as badly.

Daniel Arant said...

You can all agree with Israel all you want, but he hasn't provided one source to back up anything he's saying. It's pure speculation on his part.

Israel said...

Zion is doing an amazing job of carrying this argument. He's wiping the floor with Snoop using little more than common sense, so my arguments are pretty much superfluous.

Snoop the fence in San Diego worked "marvelously" in fact there are no more illegals in California anymore because of that wonderful fence. It worked marvelously at getting people to go around it. That was the point right? To make a political point, without really doing much of anything.

And the actual labor laws in California are set up to treat farmworkers (almost all illegal) differently when it comes overtime etc. They are set up this way because everyone knows that farmworkers are being exploited and they can't vote.

According to economists you do create more jobs by making the economy more efficient. You let exploited underpaid workers do the hardest dirty work and you reap the benefits by freeing up people to create businesses and use their talents where they are most needed. That's why I can get an education and I don't have to be out in the fields digging stuff up with a pointy stick.

If you want a job in California you can get it, even though we have tons of illegal aliens here. It frees the rest of us up to create more businesses, more cutting edge technology, etc. We are the largest , richest state and we have the freshest food because it's grown right here. (Ohio might be a different story.)

Mexicans are also some of the best consumers, they buy houses, cars, etc and stimulate the economy that way.

Getting rid of all illegal aliens would mean that most farming jobs would go to Mexico and South America (because it would be tons more cost efficient) and we would have to import our food which would make our nation less secure.

BTW

I worked in fast food from age 15-18 so three years. I even made manager (woo hoo!) Only someone who has no clue would rather work in the fields than in a restaurant and believe me, you have no clue.

Israel said...

Hey Snoop, I have provided a source but since you are too lazy to use Google (one of those things we invented in California) here you go...


April 09, 2008
The case for open borders from an unlikely source

A new book is coming out promoting an open-border strategy -- and it hails from an unlikely source: a conservative on the Wall Street Journal editorial board.

A commentary piece by Robert Z. Nemeth highlights the the thesis of Jason L. Riley in his new book "Let Them In: The Case for Open Borders." The Wall Street Journal writer believes a liberal immigration policy is good for America. An excerpt from Nemeth's article:

"I wrote this book to put the debate in perspective and to offer a rebuttal to some of the more common anti-immigrant arguments I've come across while covering the issue as a Wall Street Journal editorialist," Riley explains.

Two general themes run through the book: One is that today's Latino immigrants aren't different from earlier immigrants, only newer; and the other is that an open immigration policy is not only compatible with free-market conservatism and homeland security, but it is also good for the economy.

"Most of the anti-immigrant sentiment comes out of the political right," Mr. Riley says. "As a free-market conservative, I find that disturbing."

Nemeth writes that Riley's book challenges notions that immigrants steal jobs, hurt the economy, fill prisons, exploit welfare and don't assimilate.

Time and again, [Riley] stresses that today's influx of Latino newcomers, legal and undocumented, is similar to the waves of Irish, Italian and Eastern European immigrants that hit our shores over the decades, making the country vibrant and strong. Mr. Riley rebuffs charges that immigrants take jobs from natives. The labor market is governed by supply and demand. Unskilled immigrants do low-level jobs Americans refuse to take, and highly skilled immigrants fill jobs for which there aren't enough native-born applicants. (More than 30 percent of Ph.Ds employed in the United States are foreign-born). ...

He offers ample data showing that immigrants, including undocumented ones, commit crimes at disproportionately lower rates than natives and that, over the past 15 years, violent crime has dropped in cities with the largest immigrant population. ...

Moreover, he says, the majority of illegal immigrants are paying their way. They are paying consumer taxes. They are paying Social Security and Medicare federal taxes, even though they are not eligible to receive benefits from either program. According to the Inspector General of the Social Security Administration, contribution to Social Security from unauthorized workers between 1937 and 2003 totaled an estimated $520 billion.

------------


How you like them apples smart guy?

Israel said...

Let's admit what is really behind all this anti-immigrant sentiment.

It is mostly scared racist white people.

You never see them complaining about white illegal canadians (there were tons of them here until their economy outstripped ours) and about building a fence across canada (it is documented that terrorists come through there.)

No, it's all about keeping out the bad brown people.

Israel said...

Oh yeah and I forgot to provide one other source. It's called my own personal experience. I live in California in the San Joaquin Valley so I see first hand how our economy is built on the backs of illegal labor.

I have been practicing employment and labor law for over 12 years and I have represented hundreds of illegal aliens and I see the abuses (and how hard they work and contribute) first hand.

I am also a lawyer for the Mexican Consulate and I have gone out on field studies into the community and seen how these workers live and where they work. I just did a talk last week at a Labor law symposium about the legal issues facing immigrant workers.

I'm not just some guy with no clue sitting in Ohio reading the national review and thinking I have it all figured out. But I don't blame you, if I was "that guy" I'd probably be full of baloney about this issue too...

Daniel Arant said...

Oh, Israel, I love it when people don't even read their sources to find out if it ACTUALLY backs up their point. That book isn't making a case for illegal immigrants, it's making a case for LEGAL immigrants, a case I entirely agree with.

Wiping the floor with me? So far all Zion has done is say that the border fence won't work, although he can't seem to explain why.

Common sense? Common sense says that one of the main characteristics of a sovereign nation is border integrity. The fact that we even have to debate whether or not our borders should be strictly guarded is symptomatic of a catastrophic loss of common sense in the last 100 years.

People went around the fence. Now, I might have to check, but I THINK (and don't quote me on this) that is because we DON'T have a fence on the rest of the border. You can't possibly be this stupid, so I can only assume that you're ignoring the obvious simply to help your argument.

"And the actual labor laws in California are set up to treat farmworkers (almost all illegal) differently when it comes overtime etc. They are set up this way because everyone knows that farmworkers are being exploited and they can't vote."

How, exactly, is that a case for allowing illegal immigration?

Of course efficiency leads to more jobs, but efficiency is accomplished by higher per capita productivity, not simply productivity. Which country has a more efficient economy, one that has 1,000,000 citizens and a $1,000,000 GDP or a country with 100,000 citizens and a $10,000,000 GDP? Obviously the latter.

I completely agree that unskilled labor allows the rest of us to get better jobs, etc. but the fact is that there is plenty of unskilled labor in the united states without illegal immigrants. We might not suffer from the competition within the unskilled labor market, the poorest among us DO.

You keep missing the whole point of what I'm saying. Illegal immigration = bad, legal immigration = good. Legal and illegal immigrant labor have many of the same characteristics except that legal immigrant labor can't be exploited.

"Getting rid of all illegal aliens would mean that most farming jobs would go to Mexico and South America"

I explained twice why that is impossible. I shouldn't even HAVE to explain it in the first place, because my seven-year-old brother could understand it. You can't outsource a farm. A farm is a piece of land. Unless farmers are equipped with the same anti-gravity devices as the people that are going to magically float over a sophisticated border fence, then that land isn't going to move to China.

You also keep missing the fact that if there were no illegal immigration then farmers would have to improve working conditions in order to get labor. I take it since you seem to know everything about the farming industry that you must have worked on and/or run a farm at some point?

Israel said...

For those of you who don't know, "The National Review" is a right wing rag.

Daniel Arant said...

If there's one thing I can't stand it's people who are so stubborn that they ignore the obvious in order to prop up their misguided notions.

Jeshanah said...

They have therapists for that, Snoop. You might consider looking into that. (Not liking yourself is a serious issue nowadays.)

Israel said...

You can't outsource a farm?

More Baloney.

Mexico is HUGE it has plenty of very fertile land.

But the workers come to the U.S. because they make more money here. If they can't come here, they will stay home and provide the competition that will drive our farms out of business. Without the cheap labor the farms will need even more government subsidies and our government is broke because the Republicans took us from the biggest budget surplus (under clinton) to the biggest budget deficit ever.

No I never worked on a farm, but I have relatives who own farms and I have represented plenty of people who have been farmworkers and I have talked to them about it. My mom and uncles and Aunts used to help on the harvest at some of those farms and I have talked to them.

It is backbreaking dawn to dusk work. People die of heatstroke all the time, (including a pregnant woman a few weeks back)

Jeshanah said...

Snoop kinda reminds me of a younger version of Israel. Both are seriously arrogant despite being on the wrong side of the argument. (Just to clarify, Israel is not on the wrong side of this particular argument... I'm just making a general observation.)

Anonymous said...

Why you are out of touch with reality..

How many Mexicans have you seen this year? 10??

How many times have you seen the border???

You said, "First of all, you can't outsource farm labor.
A farm can't move overseas"

I hardly need to explain this one, I think most people can see how naive of a statement this is.
You think you can't grow fields anywhere besides the US?

"Second, companies outsource because of taxes, not because of labor"

Corporations move not just because of taxes, they move to compete and to increase their profit margins
for ANY reason. It doesn't have to be tax relation. BTW, maybe they have high taxes for US Corporations, but corporations spend money, and get write offs, and pay less taxes than most people. C-corporations can write off nearly everything they do. S-Corporations can write off alot too, and get taxed on the remainder. There are so many loopholes corporations use, they hardly have to pay taxes on anything.

While it is true that Sole Proprietor ships and General Partnerships end up spending more taxes than any other type of corporation, NO ONE should own these types of corporations. It is just plain dumb. It offers no protection, no tax benifits and does nothing but increase your liability. Only people that don't understand corporations would own those types of businesses. Snoops, those are they highly taxed corporations your talking about.

Also you keep talking about little specific little spots that have fences that protect them. We aren't talking about 100's of miles, we are talking about thousands and thousands of miles. Israel is a tiny country, San diego, is a town. Your not talking about Russia, or China, or any country of significance.

Your examples don't offer any real solutions.
You said, "You still haven't explained why a fence and some border agents won't stop illegal immigration. " Can you not read?? First of all the logistics don't make sense. I don't think he's ever seen the wide open spaces here. Its completely different from Ohio. Just ask Sharla, or anyone else who has actually been here. There aren't houses every 10 miles, there are 100's of miles of nothing out here between the borders. The amount of people needed to man these borders like you are saying would be utterly ridiculous.

You said, "It's gotten so bad that there's practically an army of VOLUNTEERS who help patrol the border." Probably some dill weed from New York told you that. The borders aren't patrolled by volunteers. It's a job that starts out at $40,000 a year, and the border patrol is always looking for more people. That statement is another example of how you aren't in touch with reality. Whoever said that is just plain lying to you.

One last note: You said "I've heard interview after interview with people who have lost loved ones to blatant acts of violence committed on American soil by Mexican gangs. Something like 27 people were kidnapped, and some of them beheaded by the same." Look at you, acting like Mexican Gang automatically means Illegal mexicans. NAIVE!This shows your true feeling.

First of all, Mexican gangs are not gangs of illegal immigrants. They are mostly gangs made up of legal Mexican-Americans. Illegals don't come to America to join a gang. You are so naive its frustrating.
Lets see,
You haven't seen a border, or these fences that don't work.
You haven't probably seen more than 10 or 12 mexicans in the past year.
You don't live in a state where people have to come up with real solutions to combat the border problem
And we are supposed take your word and you stupid studies and act like you know what your talking about.
I don't care what you've read by a bunch of no brain racist cynics, and there are plenty of them. It doesn't make any fence work.

You can't move land, haha. You don't have to move the land, you just have to move WHERE you land.

Israel said...

It's a supply demand thing Snoop.

We have plenty of cheap food right now because we exploit illegal immigrants.

Take that away and food prices rise. High food prices mean that Farms in Mexico and South American now have the incentive to start producing food for export.

You always hear about saving our family farms etc., the competition from Mexico and South America will kill off all the family farms and eventually hurt the entire industry. Soon we will be importing food because it will be too expensive to produce ourselves.

Israel said...

Snoop kinda reminds me of a younger version of Israel. Both are seriously arrogant despite being on the wrong side of the argument. (Just to clarify, Israel is not on the wrong side of this particular argument... I'm just making a general observation.)

------

Yes, but my arrogance is warranted based on my superior intellect.

Snoops' is just based on delusions of grandeur...

;)

Jeshanah said...

lol

Daniel Arant said...

Ha.ha.ha. I've given ample support for my position. I didn't randomly arrive at the conclusion that illegal immigration is bad. I read about it, researched it. The only support anyone else has offered is that, uh "we live at the border so we're smarter than you!" and "nuh uh!!" Everyone keeps simply contradicting me and acting like contradiction constitutes logical argument.

What's it going to take to convince you people? Here's another source for good measure. Since I can't seem to convince you of the financial costs of illegal immigrants, let's talk about the cost in human lives:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53103

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52198

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51906

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50441

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49212

Fact: Open borders cost us IF ONLY in terms of human life.

Fact: humans can't walk through solid objects.

Conclusion: putting up a fence would go a long way toward preventing illegal alien incursion.

If you're still not convinced, I'm not sure what I can do for you other than a lobotomy.

Anonymous said...

Well since we are mexicans that must mean we are part of a mexican gang, so I wouldn't get to comortable with that head on your shoulders since we are beheading people all the time SNOOPS.

Israel said...

I see you figured out Google. Go ahead and hang your "Mission Accomplished" banner now Snoop because I'll take a full-frontal lobotomy just so I don't have to listen to your misguided tripe anymore.

See folks, this is how little Republican robots think.

They think they know it all despite having little or no practical experience.

Do you wanna be a Republican robot?

Take a bunch of arrogance, add a bunch of small mindedness, a quart of xenophobia and a dash of racism and "Voila!" Congratulations you have an instant Republican robot.

Israel said...

Wow! That lobotomy kinda hurt...

OK I'm convinced. We need to spend billions building and maintaining a huge wall Illegal aliens are the source of all societies problems and they are going around beheading people.

Jeshanah said...

rofl

Israel said...

Brown people bad.

Illegal aliens not white.

Therefore illegal aliens bad.

Israel said...

People cannot go through solid objects.

Wall solid object.

People cannot get past walls.

Israel said...

Beheading bad.

Mexicans behead people.

Mexicans bad.

Anonymous said...

I don't even know if we should be arguing with someone who obviously can't even figure out that there is no possible ways around fences. He obviously doesn't have any imagination and takes anything anyone says as true.

Snoops isn't even being a Republican, he's just being a ignorant narrow minded little hitler. Ignoramous over here thinks he can blame his problem on other people. Even most the "Ohio Republicans" see the error of his way.

Israel said...

Cute people good.

Palin and Palin's family cute.

Palin be Good President.

Israel said...

Zion:

I doubt most Ohioans see anything of the sort. I think they agree with him 100 percent.

Snoop has only managed to alienate these particular Republicans because he is almost more arrogant than I am (plus I'm funnier) and because you managed to infiltrate their ranks with your Mexican-ness.

And don't stael my thunder and call him Hitler, that's my schtick!!

Daniel Arant said...

Why farms can't outsource:

1. You assume all of the "fertile land" all over the world isn't already being farmed, and it is.

2. Most crops can't be transported very far before spoiling.

3. Not every kind of crop can be grown in every climate. Banana farms can't be outsourced from Cuba.

"How many Mexicans have you seen this year? 10??

How many times have you seen the border???"

Zion... you MUST understand that this is not an argument. Please tell me that you do. If not, then please explain how the fact that you have seen at least ten Mexicans this year, along with the border, makes you more qualified to make an immigration policy decision. You're not the only person who lives on the border, and when it comes to the illegal immigration issue you would find yourself terribly outnumbered by others that do.

"It is backbreaking dawn to dusk work. People die of heatstroke all the time, (including a pregnant woman a few weeks back)"

Why is it so hard for you to understand that the only reason those kind of conditions exist is because illegal immigrants aren't protected by U.S. labor laws?

Zion, if I'm not entirely mistaken (and I will defer to your obvious superior expertise in this area) write offs take into account the expenses of a business. Thus the "taxable income" would essentially be what a company makes above and beyond its expenses. I'm sure that's a simplification. In other words, businesses in the United States loose at least 15% and as much as 35% of their profit in the form of taxes. If that wasn't the case, then moving overseas to get some cheap labor would not longer make sense.

What does the size of Israel have to do with the fact that the fence is effective? You're just full of red herrings... The point is, the fence keeps people out, which directly contradicts your assertion that it does not. Is there some kind of linear measurement threshold where a fence magically becomes ineffective?

"The amount of people needed to man these borders like you are saying would be utterly ridiculous"

*pounds head on keyboard* THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF A FENCE!! FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE, MAN, JUST GIVE IT UP! The man power to guard the southern border properly WOULD be ridiculous, but not if there was a fence network. Why is that so hard to comprehend???

"The borders aren't patrolled by volunteers."

Um... have you ever heard of the Minuteman organization? The video on their website sure isn't staged... Do you realize how bad a problem has to be before Americans start using their own time and resources to correct it?

"Look at you, acting like Mexican Gang automatically means Illegal mexicans. NAIVE!This shows your true feeling."

Last time I checked, Mexico isn't part of the United States. Thus, a Mexican gang is illegal by definition. We're talking about Coyotes, not just a gang made up of Hispanics. You're assumption of my naivete just makes you look foolish.

"I don't care what you've read by a bunch of no brain racist cynics, and there are plenty of them. It doesn't make any fence work."

The ultimate political strategy. I you can't counter someone with rational arguments just claim that they're racist and try to discredit them. I hope everybody takes note of that. Now anyone who wants to preserve the integrity of the United States border is a racist.

I really really thought you were better than that.

Jeshanah said...

Snoops, go talk to your little brother, the rest of us aren't buying your nonsense, maybe he will. =)

Israel said...

1. You assume all of the "fertile land" all over the world isn't already being farmed, and it is.

-----
REALLY ALL OF IT? WOW! HAVE YOU CHECKED?

PROVE IT
-----


2. Most crops can't be transported very far before spoiling.

MEXICO ISN'T VERY FAR

EVER HEARD OF TRUCKS, PLANES AND REFRIGERATION? EVER HEARD OF THE CANNING PROCESS? EVER HEARD OF PRESERVATIVES?

3. Not every kind of crop can be grown in every climate. Banana farms can't be outsourced from Cuba.

TELL ME ONE MAJOR CROP YOU CAN GROW IN CALIFORNIA THAT YOU CAN'T GROWN IN MEXICO AND SOUTH AMERICA.

---------

THIS IS LIKE SHOOTING FISH IN A BARREL.

AND FOR THE RECORD, I DON'T THINK YOU'RE RACIST, JUST A LITTLE IGNORANT WHEN IT COMES TO THE IMMIGRATION ISSUE.

Israel said...

EVER HEARD OF CHOO-CHOO TRAINS?

That's how they get all our crops to the people in Ohio and Michigan and all those god-forsaken places which are much, much farther than Mexico.

Jeshanah said...

LOL, Israel!!

Israel said...

I wanna thank Snoop.

I woke up this morning with a sore throat and flu-like symptoms and you know what? Laughter really is the best medicine.

I was gonna take some Theraflu, but laughing at his ridiculous posts did the job just as well.

Thanks Snoop!

Jeshanah said...

Daniel, Are you SERIOUS?? Or are you just arguing for arguments sake at this point? I can't tell for sure... because your arguments are so out there...

Daniel Arant said...

You guys are the two most dense people I've ever had the displeasure of talking to. It's really pathetic.

Let's try something new. Instead of putting me down, let's try to have a rational debate. I'll make a point. You're only allowed to respond with verifiable fact or logical arguments. I'll number my arguments so you can reply to them in kind.

1. If I'm so racist, why would I be in favor of legal immigration?

2. You have both stated that a fence will not stop illegal immigration. In order to support that claim, you merely need to explain HOW illegal immigrants could circumvent the fence en masse. I never made the statement that the fence would stop each and every potential illegal so you can't argue that I'm wrong simply because a few will still slip through.

3. I have blamed nobody for any of my problems. If you can find ONE place in my previous comments where I attributed any problems I may be having to illegal immigrants then I will shut up.

4. I never said all Mexicans are gang members. Just a few comments ago you were accusing me of putting words in your mouth. What a hypocrite!

5. I never claimed to know everything. I'm providing OUTSIDE SOURCES to back up my position. You are not. You expect us to simply rely on your "superior intellect" and take your word for it. Who's the know-it-all again?

6. It's not just Ohioans who think this way. 75% of Americans are in favor of tighter border security. That includes Arizonians, New Mexicans and Texans. How are you more qualified than anyone else that lives on the border.

If you guys are just being stupid to yank my chain and have some fun with me, please tell me.

Jeshanah said...

Just one thing in response to that, Daniel. Who was it that said we all needed lobotomies? I think that was the rudest thing that has been said on here, and that was said by you my friend. (FOr the record, if Israel had said something equally rude to you, I would have deleted his comment. I've done it in the past... ask him!)

Anonymous said...

Snoops you are missing the point.

You can't tell an American soldier in Iraq that its not risky just because you read it in a book somewhere. They know the risks because they have experience it.

I know unmanned fences won't work, because we have fences out here, some that are unmanned, and they don't work. Simple as that.

I don't care what you read, if you come out here and look drive by the border and see people running through holes that they create in the walls, than you know that it doesn't work. You know it because you see it.

I have seen it first hand, you have not. That makes me more qualified to speak on the issue than you.

First of all, I have seen Mexican gangs. Mexican gangs aren't illegal because their illegals. They define mexican gangs as gangs mainly made up of mexicans.
I'm a mexican, am I an illegal? NO.

I want to see your study saying all the farmable land is taken up in the whole world. I know its not cause I can grow a mango and lemons and figs in my own back yard, but I'm not farming it.

And stop crying about us putting you down Mr. Lobotomy. Calling us dense.

And I can't argue with you on the corporation issue, because by your statement I see that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Corporations pay a percentage of their profits. That's not really true, they pay 15% of projected profits. You don't understand that they don't pay taxes like the rest of us do. We earn money, and get taxed, then spend. Corporations make money, spend money, then get taxed on what is left over. What does that mean, that means that they can buy new equipment, and new buildings, and pay employees, meaning the owners, and buy new assets, and whatever is left over at the end. That's what the government taxes! Imagine if you lived like that. You could go spend all you want, but if you want to save any money, we will tax you.

Your thinking is backwards because you don't understand how corporations work. Go read a book brainy lobotomist.

John S. Hullinger - A.D. said...

Wow, can't believe I have missed out on all this fun!

Snoop, I have studied illegal immigration extensively, probably more than anyone else on here, so I will offer up what I have learned.

1) Organizations such as FAIR, which has extensive financial ties to white-supremacist groups, are not reliable sources for "studies."

2) Fortress-style fencing is counterproductive. In other words, the fence makes the illegal immigration problem worse.

For decades, and especially since the WWII bracero program, migrant farm workers each Spring made the dangerous trek from their Mexican hometowns to work the fields in the U.S. Then, after the harvest, they would return home with enough money to feed and cloth their families until the next Spring.

When the U.S. government, in a knee-jerk reaction to the economic downturn of the early 90s, began spending billions of dollars "securing" the border, these same workers started to stay in the U.S. rather than return home. The reason: it had become much more risky to make the trip repeatedly.

Today, many more continue to come in in order to fill the vacuum in the U.S. economy. The risk is higher, but yet they continue to come.

The increased risk has only slowed the flow out, NOT the flow in.

3. Illegal immigrants actually pay MORE taxes than citizens. Because they are using false SSNs to obtain work, they are therefore unable to file returns. So while they might technically qualify for a return, they can't get it. So that money stays in the coffers to the tune of billions of dollars.

4. The crime rate for illegal immigrants is actually LOWER than for citizens. They want to fly under the radar and getting in trouble with the law in not the way to do that.

5. Sadly, I don't think there is a single politician in Washington who is genuinely interested in solving the problem. They only wish to use, manipulate, and spin it for political gain. I have been disgusted with both parties' posturing on the issue.

Any true fix must contain a realistic pathway to citizenship. I'm not saying a full amnesty. But deporting them all and making them "start all over" just isn't feasible. Is it fair to those who have tried to enter legally? No. But life isn't fair and we have to play the cards we're dealt.

Then, we have to have a guest-worker program that allows a safe, peaceful, and documented flow of temporary workers.

Finally, do some history research, Snoop. Look at what people said about the influx of Italian, Irish, and German immigrants into our country around the turn of the century. Read the vicious, hateful diatribe about how all of these people were going to make our streets less safe, take away our jobs, and sink our economy. It sounds exactly, word-for-word, like what is being said today. In fact, change the names of the nationalities and you wouldn't be able to tell who they were talking about. Yet none of those fears ever materialized. I've done the research. I've seen what was said. History is repeating itself.

Israel said...

Yes we are being purposely obtuse to yank your chain and it appears to be working.

The fence will not only cost billions and cover 100's of miles of scarcely populated border, it will need to be manned 24 hours a day by government employees costing billions more.

Right now dozens of tunnels exist under the border where tons of drugs and people can come and go at will. Some of the tunnels start inside houses and warehouses in Mexico and end in houses and warehouses in the U.S.

Build this stupid wall and there will be hundreds of tunnels. Not to mention that it takes about 20 seconds to cut a hole in the walls they are building now. (They've done tests on TV using actual illegals and it is laughably easy for them to get past that wall.

Plus you can be creative and get over a wall, if you don't believe me ask the Huns. Ever been to The Great Wall of China? I have. It is HUGE and it still didn't work. There is no way that we can build something that good. It's too expensive and we just can't compete with old-world craftmanship.

Regarding your patriotic volunteers. Sorry to burst your bubble but The Minutemen are a joke.

They bring cameras and patrol a tiny stretch of the border somewhere and claim they are making a difference, Then they ask for money and more Bozo volunteers. Posturing for bozos like you.

Anonymous said...

Finally he can shut up!

Snoop said "3. I have blamed nobody for any of my problems. If you can find ONE place in my previous comments where I attributed any problems I may be having to illegal immigrants then I will shut up."

He also said,
"I have to question the intelligence of someone who can look a moron like Obama in the face and take him seriously.

Take his stance on immigration. He's constantly complaining about the plight of the poor and middle class, yet he has no problem with letting a million people every year spill over our borders illegally. Gee, Barack, what do you think is going to happen to wages when a million undocumented persons willing to work for a pittance are allowed in to the country every year? This guy MUST have cheated his way through law school."

He is obviously blaming the plight of the poor and middle class on these millions of undocumented persons. Thank you, you can shut up now.

Sharla said...

Jeshanah, please stop being rude to Nathan. I'm starting to regret starting this. Even if you do agree with Israel there is no need to stoop being rude. I don't think Snoopy has been rude to you. THAT is beneath all of us.

Israel said...

Yeah, I was wondering when John was gonna weigh in on his pet topic.

Maybe you'll listen to him. He's very tall, white, devastatingly handsome (according to Jeshanah!)and he used to be a Republican.

Yup, Jeshanah is an incorrigible censor.I put up a huge list of Hypocritical Republican Politicians who are guilty of pedophilia and other sex crimes. She took it down.

You can still find it at www.armchairsubversive.org though.

She's kinda crotchety about stuff like that.

Sharla said...

Oh, Daniel?? I thought all along it was Nathan. Same respect thing should apply though.

Israel said...

I like the fact that Snoop is rude.

Finally someone who knows how to argue on the internet!

The rest of you panty-waists are just too darn nice.

Daniel Arant said...

"Daniel, Are you SERIOUS?? Or are you just arguing for arguments sake at this point? I can't tell for sure... because your arguments are so out there..."

You haven't said much so far Jeshanah. Please explain why my arguments are "out there."

To Israel: I am sincerely glad that I was party to your recovery from the flu. I'm almost as powerful as the Lord Barack Obama.

Mexico in particular only has 12.66 arable land. Furthermore, illegal immigrants don't just work for Californian farms. The climate is far too arid for many of the crops we grow in the United States.

If farm outsourcing is realistic then why are there any farms left in the United States? There are countries far more impoverished than Mexico where farmers could find even cheaper labor. Why haven't most of them already moved away? If you can answer that then I would concede the point. I might even take a picture of myself with a dunce cap and send you a picture, Israel, for future medical needs :)

Jeshanah said...

Mom, Snoopy isn't Nathan, it's Daniel. And he's been being way ruder than any of us. If he thinks he's old enough to play with the big boys and dish it out, he has to be able to take it, too.

Anonymous said...

Daniel read! The reason that the farms haven't moved is because its not too expensive to run those farms. If you had your way, there wouldn't be any farms left in the US.

Jeshanah said...

I said John was "devastatingly handsome", when? That's kinda embarrassing, he's my brother in law for pete's sake.

Daniel,
I don't have to post much in the way of politics. I'm the hostess! Besides, Iz and Zi are taking care of it for me. =)

I'm not the political person, I'm the one who talks about the fact that I'm pregnant and stuck out here in the desert surrounded by ILLEGALS!!!!!!

Daniel Arant said...

"I know unmanned fences won't work, because we have fences"

WHO IS TALKING ABOUT UN-MANNED FENCES!!!!!????? Zion, have you even been reading ANYTHING I've been saying!!?? I have made it plain over and over and over and over again that a border fence alone is insufficient. I guess there's no point in even responding to anything you say from now on since you just ignore it anyway?

Am I just losing my mind? Can anyone else tell me where I said that all we needed was a border fence and all of our problems would be solved?

Israel said...

Your figures on arable land are meaningless. Look at arable land estimates in the US and they are all over the place. (18% tops)

Plus these estimates change all the time by wide margins. China announced that their supply of arable land jumped 40 percent over prior estimates. How did that happen?

Mexico and South America have more than enough arable land to put U.S. farms out of business. Plus it's right next door.

Israel said...

I was just yanking your chain Jeshanah.

Maybe it's Zion that is devastatingly handsome and John is devastatingly ugly.

I get confused sometimes.

Jeshanah said...

John is tolerable I suppose, but he's not handsome enough to tempt me!


heheh, Gotta love Jane Austen!!

Sharla said...

Zion,

I think he meant he hadn't said it affected him 'personally". I think you're reaching to use that comment to make him "shut up". Why should he "shut up", he has a right to say anything he thinks as much as any of us. And "shut up" sounds so harsh.

John S. Hullinger - A.D. said...

"I get confused sometimes.

That would explain your support of Obama.

;-)

Israel said...

Snoop.

Do you have any idea how expensive government employees are?

The benefits alone would bankrupt us.

Wasting Billions so people can wait by hundreds of miles of fence for illegals when we have so many other problems that need fixing doesn't make fiscal sense.

Plus we are already wasting billions and accomplishing nothing in Iraq. You Big-Government Republicans need to pick your priorities because we're going broke and only the illegal aliens are keeping us afloat.

John S. Hullinger - A.D. said...

When pressed, I say Jeshanah is elegant.

Israel said...

Actually "Shut up" and censorship are about only thing I find offensive in internet discourse.

The internet is all about a free interchange of ideas. Some of Snoop's ideas are stupid, sure, but at least they are free, worth a laugh and good for medicinal purposes.

Anonymous said...

Daniels argument

1. Farm Outsourcing does not exist
2. All the farmable land in the world is being farmed
3. A farm cannot be transported.
4. It is impossible to grow plants anywhere except in their native land.

False False False False False.

By this reasoning, there are no tulips in Holland.

Tulips are actually not native to Holland, they were brough over during a big tulip craze.

Am I dreaming, or did snoopy say "

pounds head on keyboard* THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF A FENCE!! FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE, MAN, JUST GIVE IT UP! The man power to guard the southern border properly WOULD be ridiculous, but not if there was a fence network."

This shows that you think that fences replace the need the for people to guard those fences. You admit the cost would be ridiculous for manning these, which means you would not intend to have the fences guarded.

Sharla, snoops said he would "shut up". He didn't say he would be quiet. Or silently keep his thoughts to himself. I asked him to do what he said he would do. He blamed undocument illegal immigrants for the "plight of the poor and middle class" .

I proved it, apparently it doesnt' matter.

Sharla said...

Good one, John!

Israel said...

When pressed, I say Jeshanah is elegant.

-----

Are you kidding? Jeshanah is smokingly hot! ;)

Not as hot as my wife of course, but still...

Israel said...

Just kidding about the "smokingly hot" comment Jeshanah.

I don't wanna freak you out.

You are not "smokingly hot" at all and I'll be willing to take a lie detector test on that...

;)

Jeshanah said...

Mom, he's a big boy, he can take care of himself. He wanted to jump in here and got everyone riled up, now he can deal with the consequences or stop reading.

Besides, Snoop is the one who said, "Shut up" before any of the rest of us ever did. (He hasn't been around long enough to know my rules, and I being the generous hostess that I am didn't feel like I should start deleting his posts so soon after he started. Once again, if Israel had said "Shut up" to someone, I would have deleted the comment as inappropriate and rude, but I'm trying to give Snoops the benefit of the doubt!!)

He should be glad I'm not censoring him as harshly as I have Israel all these years.

Jeshanah said...

Gee, thanks Israel!

Israel said...

Now I wanna see if Jeshanah gets insulted because I said she is not "smokingly hot."

She is so much fun to play with...

John S. Hullinger - A.D. said...

Hey, she started it by calling me "devastatingly handsome."

Israel said...

Actually the Holsapples are all very good looking people. (A little Aryan for my tastes, but oh well...)

I think it was Justin that looked the most like a male model. (Hard to tell cuz all white people with "J" names look alike) I haven't seen him in a while though so he might be bald and have a huge gut now.

Anonymous said...

Alright, how long have all of us been sitting here blogging furiously?

Cyndi said...

Now, no lobotomies needed! We have enough empty-minded people in this world already!

All of you are very intelligent and present good points on all sides!

In fact, Zion - you ROCK! I think maybe you should follow your brother's footsteps and be an attorney... You know how to whip out those arguments. I am impressed!

And of course, we know that Israel can debate. He's still playing patty cake with you - you haven't seen anything yet!

I don't know who Snoopy is (or don't think I do), but he is obviously very current on current events and presents himself well too!

And now that devastating handsome Mr. H has arrived - I know he can hold his own...

And the smoking hot Jeshanah is about to take all the boys down...

There is so much to consider with the immigration situation. Quite honestly, I don't know the answer. No one has the perfect solution. And depending on where you live and your experience - we all see it differently.

I just put myself in the position - if I choose to go live in another country, I want the opportunity to do so and yet I would do it legally.

That won't happen because I love the USA, but I have visited many other places.

Yet, I admire a person who is determined to make a living for their family and willing to risk their life to come to America.

But at all costs we have to protect ourselves from terrorists arriving through open doors. That should be the first concern in securing our borders. Yet, how do you secure thousands and thousands of miles of borders? No amount of fence or people patroling will do that justice.

Israel is right - the internet is all about exchange of ideas and I say go at exchanging them - just don't get into name calling!

Some of us panty-waists like to play nice...

John S. Hullinger - A.D. said...

Justin's not bald.

Anonymous said...

We need to cool off, I think at 1000 posts, Blogger may EXPLODE!!

John S. Hullinger - A.D. said...

"We need to cool off, I think at 1000 posts, Blogger may EXPLODE!!"

Let's try it and find out!

BeccaHolsapple said...

Does that mean he has a big gut?

Israel said...

Didn't say he is.

It's just whenever I meet a guy that is really good looking, my handsomeness is so devastating to them that they end up going bald with shame in a few years.

You should see my former law partner, who was once extremely good looking and now has the world's worst comb over...

Jeshanah said...

It's been a while since we've seen him..

Anonymous said...

This Blog is getting too out of control!

We hereby elevate the threat level of this blog from green to yellow.

Sharla said...

Justin is still gorgeous, as are all my children, (although Heep tells me he has really put on a few pounds lately!) We'll have to go on a diet together and start an excercise program here at Love and Learn when they get here!

Israel said...

When do the Wildcats play Toledo? (thus proving that Arizona is superior to Ohio in every way)

Plus USC is gonna smack Ohio State into next month boys so get ready...

Israel said...

Cuz USC's Mexican quarterback is gonna behead Ohio State...

Israel said...

I hear Jeshanah's getting a little tubby too...

John S. Hullinger - A.D. said...

...not if the Minutemen have anything to say about it! :-D

Israel said...

Poor Snoopy. Where did he go?

He's probably out back laying on his dog house and pretending to fight the Red Baron.

John S. Hullinger - A.D. said...

Getting back on topic...

Wait, what was the topic?

Daniel Arant said...

Mr H:

First of all, we agree in principle. Our immigration system is broken and needs fixing. Immigration is good, illegal immigration is bad.

I have no doubt that you're correct about Fair, but Fair isn't the only organization to study the issue, and other sources I've found agree.

Assuming that illegals don't find some way to benefit from social security (and I don't know how they couldn't use the same false SSN to get back just like they use it to put in) how many of them actually have these fake social security numbers?

Now, the only problem I see with your arguments is that on at least three separate occasions there was a broad amnesty granted to illegal immigrants. The last time it was Ronald Reagan in 1986. That CLEARLY did not solve the problem. Why would it work today?

None of this changed the fact that there is a ridiculous amount of violence occurring on the border.

Your point about immigration in the early 1900's is valid, but irrelevant since I don't have anything against immigration.

Zion, ONCE AGAIN you have failed to read what I said. You claimed that I was blaming MY problems on illegal immigrants. I told you to find one place where I did this, and you come back by pointing to where I said that other people were affected by illegal immigration? How is that relevant?

We've gotten so far off topic it's mind boggling. I never even meant to get into a debate about illegal immigration. Aside from the violence that takes place on the border as a result of insufficient security, illegal immigration doesn't bother me all that much. I only meant to point out the contradictory nature of Obama's stance on the issue. He wants to give amnesty to illegal aliens while pandering to the lower class at the same time. More the mark of a demagogue than someone genuinely unaware of the consequences of such policies.

That, at least, I'm sure Mr. H and I can agree on.

Jeshanah said...

Snoopy seems to be gone, and he was the only one who disagreed so we are kinda at a standstill....


but wait, we can start something else!

What about Obama's stance on abortion?!??!

Jeshanah said...

nevermind.

Anonymous said...

Hey snoops, are you poor and middle class? Is there a plight of the poor and middle class?

Did you say it was because of undocumented workers?

1+1=2

Anonymous said...

that last statment was me

John S. Hullinger - A.D. said...

"Assuming that illegals don't find some way to benefit from social security (and I don't know how they couldn't use the same false SSN to get back just like they use it to put in) how many of them actually have these fake social security numbers?"

They can't use the same fake numbers to file a return because when the IRS gets a return with an unknown SSN they deposit the money into a separate account. I don't recall the exact number of illegals with fake SSNs. But I don know that billions of dollars are deposited into the unknown SSN account every year.

Daniel Arant said...

"In fact, Zion - you ROCK! I think maybe you should follow your brother's footsteps and be an attorney..."

You've got to be kidding. The only decent argument he's presented so far has been with regard to farm outsourcing, and that's only because it was an INCREDIBLY bad argument. :)

I believe Israel is intelligent, I really do. I'm just having a very hard time understanding how an intelligent person could support someone as vapid as Obama.

I believe Zion is intelligent as well, but it's mostly an act of faith :)

I do feel the need to apologize for my tone. It's completely uncalled for, but incredibly tempting on as impersonal a medium as the internet.

By the way everyone, do I know Cyndi?

Jeshanah said...

I don't think you do.

Daniel Arant said...

Every college student is poor/middle class. Fortunately I have some computer skills so my wages aren't affected by the supply of unskilled labor.

I'm taking a Spanish class this quarter, so if I ever do run into some job security problems at least I'll be able to mingle. :)

Unknown said...

Wow! Last I checked in this morning, there were only about 230 comments.

Mr. H, thanks for sharing that historical perspective.
So, your ideal solution would be a streamlined naturalization process along with a migrant worker program?

Makes sense. It balances the "illegal" concerns along with the needs of our agricultural industry.

As Israel pointed out, our farming economy could collapse without access to cheap labor. My only concern with that is, it sounds suspiciously like the same argument against outlawing slavery, circa 1780s-1860s. Many of these workers are in really deplorable conditions.

Any migrant worker program ought to include a level of guarantees for their working conditions and compensation. Would it raise the cost of food? Probably. But the current system smells too much like slavery for my tastes.

Israel said...

I don't agree that illegal immigration is bad. The more Mexicans the better I say.

California, Nevada, Arizona Texas were once Mexico and they will be again only better!!

VIVA LA RECONQUISTA!!

Now where the white women be at?

Daniel Arant said...

Should I just assume that Israel is almost never serious from now on?

Israel said...

Slaves didn't get paid and they didn't come of their own free will.

If people don't wanna be exploited they need to educate themselves.

Most Mexican illegal aliens are the poorest of the poor, if they weren't being exploited here they'd be exploited in Mexico.

At least here they have a chance to run around and have a bunch of kids. Within a few generations they'll be marrying or impregnating white Republicans right and left and making the U.S. a more colorful place.

That's the plan anyway...

John S. Hullinger - A.D. said...

"My only concern with that is, it sounds suspiciously like the same argument against outlawing slavery, circa 1780s-1860s. Many of these workers are in really deplorable conditions.

Any migrant worker program ought to include a level of guarantees for their working conditions and compensation. Would it raise the cost of food? Probably. But the current system smells too much like slavery for my tastes."


The working conditions reason is one of the most important in my mind. So many of these people, who are only trying to make a better life for their families, are taken advantage of by unscrupulous coyotes and find themselves in absolutely deplorable situations that would shock the senses of most Americans if they knew about it.

Israel said...

You see how I brought things around to the real topic of this blog? (The Mexi-child Jeshanah is bearing for the Reconquista?)

First Beanie babies were all the rage and next it'll be Beaner Babies. Everyone will want three or four.

See how I did that?

I'm pretty good...

Jeshanah said...

Good job, Israel!! That is after all the real crux of the matter.

Israel said...

Oh I'm serious Mr. Snoop!!

DEADLY SERIOUS!

Bid goodbye to hotdogs, hello burritos, bye bye ketchup, hello salsa!

Say goodbye to your English Language and Hello Spanglish!!'

(You guys can keep Ohio, we don't want it.)

Anonymous said...

You better join the Mexican side, otherwise in a few years the mexicans will be deciding what kind of fence to build to keep those pesky white immigrants out.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/14/usa1?
gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

Daniel Arant said...

To be honest I've never liked the south west that much. You can have it! I prefer temperate climates and deciduous trees.

Jeshanah said...

I actually agree with you on that one Snoopy! I don't much care for the southwest, either!

Unknown said...

California, Nevada, Arizona Texas were once Mexico and they will be again only better!!

This from the guy who was ripping Sarah VP's hubby for (supposedly) being a member of a (supposedly) secessionist Alaskan organization.

(yes, I know you are kidding.)

Anyway, for the record, I agree with Israel, Zion, and co. on the border fence and immigration thing - illegal part excepted. They should be here legally in some manner whether that be via citizenship or some migrant worker program. It's for their protection as much as promoting a lawful society.

That's my $0.20 (inflation adjusted).

Israel said...

Yeah I'm a step ahead of you guys (as always) and I've already joined the Chinese side.

And my wife is a a real medal-winner for those who haven't met her and our two little Lachinos -- they are not only smarter than your kids, they are also better looking...

But on a serious note, I'm very proud of all of my honky Republican brethren.

You do realize what just happened here right?

A typical Ohio Republican spouting the typical Republican gibberish about immigration just came in here and got a 300-plus-post, epic beat-down of Biblical proportions and I hardly had to lift a finger.

It warms my heart that my efforts over the years here have not been in vain. You do in fact retain the ability to learn (albeit slowly) and there is yet hope for humanity.

My work here is done... ;)

Daniel Arant said...

Sorry to disappoint you Israel, but I'm not a Republican.

I would hardly call what just happened a "beat down." It was certainly Biblical in proportion, but it was more a matter of quantity versus quality.

Daniel Arant said...

Don't know if you noticed, John, but Israel has demonstrated one of the differences between the European immigrants of the 1900 and the primarily Mexican immigrants of today. Many Mexican immigrants have no desire to assimilate.

Israel may be joking, but I get the impression that there a lot of Mexican immigrants who aren't. For some of them it's a reconquista, not a journey in search of American citizenship.

Did you see any indication of that in any of your research?

Israel said...

Bet you're voting for McCain though.

Well whatever you are Snoopy, you can't beat us so you might as well join us...

-----------

ZION'S ARTICLE

_____________


Minorities projected to outnumber white Americans by 2042

• Growth in Hispanic population most dramatic

• Black population expected to remain steady

* Ed Pilkington in New York
* guardian.co.uk,
* Thursday August 14 2008 18:33 BST
* Article history

The rapidly changing face of the American people is revealed in new census projections that predict that groups who are now labelled minorities will form the greater part of the nation's population by 2042.

According to the US Census bureau, the dominance of white people excluding Hispanics, who today account for two-thirds of Americans, will be whittled away, falling steadily to less than half in 2042 and 46% by 2050. In the opposite trajectory, those who describe themselves as Hispanics, blacks, Asians and native groups will increase in proportion from about a third now to 54% by 2050.

Such a rapid shift in the composition of the American people is in tune with trends that have been underway for some time, but it is happening much faster than experts predicted even four years ago. Demographers see it as among the most intensive changes of a country's racial and ethnic make-up in history, every bit as dramatic as the huge influx of Italians, Irish and East Europeans that transformed America in the early 20th century.

"The new projections move up some of the changes that are happening. The minority population now will become the majority eight or nine years earlier than we had thought," said David Waddington, who heads the Census Bureau's population projections team.

The mere shift in majority status from non-Hispanic whites, who have enjoyed the dominant position since European settlers from England, the Netherlands and elsewhere overtook the Spanish and native American population centuries ago, is likely to have profound implications. In the long term, it could prompt a sea-change in the American understanding of its politics and culture.

More immediately, it is likely to inform debates on immigration policy and reshape the electoral landscape.

Two underlying factors are strongly at play in the new projections. The first is that the overall population of the country is growing faster than expected.

It past the 300m-mark in October 2006, and is projected to cross the 400m landmark as early as 2039. By 2050 it will reach 439m.

That extraordinary rate of growth is in turn fuelling the second main underlying factor, which is the huge increase in the US Hispanic population. In the Census Bureau definition, Hispanic refers to a person's description of their origins in places such as Mexico or South America, rather than their race.

The projections suggest Hispanics will increase from 15% of the population today to almost a third by 2050. That would involve a numerical tripling, from 47m to 133m over the same period.

By contrast, the non-Hispanic white population remains relatively steady numerically, rising barely from 200m to 203m. For the first time in American history, whites will lose population in the 2030s and 2040s.

Of the other main groups, the black population remains relatively stable in proportional terms, rising from 14% of the population today to 15% in 2050, a numerical increase from 41m to 66m.

The Asian population is projected to climb more sharply from 16m or 5% to 41m or 9%.

The impact of the changes is likely to be further magnified by the seismic change in the country's age profile that is happening simultaneously. As the baby boomer generation passes through into older age it is causing an extreme bulge, like the shape of a snake's torso after eating a rabbit. Over 65s are 12% of the US population this year, but by 2050 they will expand to one in five of Americans.

Cross-tabulate those figures with the racial and ethnic composition of the nation and the results are even more striking. The growth in minority groups is heavily focused on younger age groups.

They already account for 45% of American children, aged under 18, and that proportion will rise to 62% by 2050.

"It means there's going to be a young-old divide," said William Frey, a demographer at the Washington-based Brookings Institution.

Frey points out that young adults aged 18 to 29 are already the most ethnically and racially diverse, and as a group are tending to back Barack Obama in this year's election. By the presidential election of 2028 Hispanics, blacks and Asians will be in the majority within that age range.

"But the over 65s will primarily remain white and will stay that way.
The challenge for any national politician will be appealing to such diverse interests at both ends of the spectrum."

The Census Bureau points out that its projections are based on assumptions about future births, deaths, immigration from abroad and internal migration that it has extrapolated from trends over the past 20 years. Those factors could change, particularly the rate of immigration which is already a matter of heated debate across the country.

Daniel Arant said...

Up until the nomination of Sarah Palin I was thinking of writing in Ron Paul. I'm much more of a libertarian than anything else.

Israel said...

Listen to Snoop resident expert on Mexicans:

Be afraid, he declares the Mexicans have: "No desire to assimilate."

In fact, I am sitting in my house, by the golf course in our gated community doing a Mexican hat dance right now.

You don't assimilate US Meester Snoopy -- we assimilate you and we don't need no Stinkin' papers to do it either!

Israel said...

I used to be a registered Liberarian but I got tired of wasting my vote.

Might as well be voting for Ru-Paul instead of Ron Paul.

Funny how you want to create a huge wall and government agency to man it in order to curtail freedom, yet you claim to be the member of a Party that wants a smaller less powerful government.

You do know that Libertarians believe in legalizing drugs and prostitution and that they don't believe that the government should be able to order a woman / a man or a martian to have a baby if they doesn't want to, right?

Sharla said...

Snoopy, and anyone else who doesn't know who Cyndi is, she is one of my very best friends in the world and has been forever. She was my maid of honor and her dad gave me away at my wedding. She was known as "Aunt Cyndi" as my children were growing up. She was an A+ student in school and is well educated as well as well traveled. She was born on my first birthday, which no doubt explains why she is extra special! ;)

Cyndi,
Snoopy is actually Daniel. He is a fabulous young man who is great on Adobe Photoshop (I think that is right) and is actually helping me on a children's book series I am writing. His family moved to our church several years ago from Nebraska? or maybe Iowa? His brother Nathan has worked for me in the store and his mom is a friend of mine. He is obviously very intelligent, but he is also very creative and a fun person to be around.

Israel said...

Libetarians are very much against creating the police state necessary to find and deport all illegal aliens.

Libertarians don't believe that government should make decisions that people are more equipped to make, Like whether or not a fetus should be aborted to save the life of a mother.

That's why I like Libertarians that actually have views consistent with those beliefs.

Israel said...

Snoop sounds like an OK sort.

As least he's smart enough not to be Republican, even though he has adopted some of their rhetoric.

Daniel Arant said...

We already have a government agency to man it, we don't need to create one.

Security is one of the essential enumerated powers of the Federal government. Libertarians are all for government as long as it stays within its constitutional boundaries. It's not about size, it's about scope.

How does supporting border security equate to me wanting to "curtail freedom?" Mexican's don't have the right to violate our laws and more than we ourselves do. They certainly don't have the right to traipse across the border and murder our citizens.

Notice that I deferred to John when it came to the attitudes of Mexican immigrants. I'd heard something to that effect and wanted to find out if it had any merit. You certainly aren't helping to quell those suspicions...

"You do know that Libertarians believe in legalizing drugs and prostitution..."

Yeah, and that's why I say I'm "more" libertarian.

Unknown said...

Israel,

A typical Ohio Republican spouting the typical Republican gibberish...

Now there's a grossly over-generic stereo type if I ever saw one...

John S McCain is a proponent of amnesty and was pushing a bill to that effect, but it got shot down.

The Dems haven't done much about the immigration issue either - I suspect it has something to do with their union backers.

Valid points, by the way, on the Libertarian platform. I'm actually very familiar with (and sympathetic to) that view. A lot of my rabidly pro-Second Amendment internet buddies are libertarians.

Just curious, how does one jump from Libertarianism to backing a socialist like Sheriff Bart?

Sharla said...

Yea, I would like to understand that one, too. I think Obama is absolutely a socialist but unfortuanately I find McCain to be only slightly less so. I wish we could just skip directly to Palin for Pres.

Israel said...

I think Obama is a socialist."

Based on what Sharla?

Seriously I don't think you even know the meaning of the term.

Go ahead, admit it, you don't really "think" or know that much about politics, you just regurgitate the stuff you hear Hannity and Rush spew out every day.

C'mon admit it, I'll still love ya.

-----

As far as we already have an agency Snoop? We don't have anything close to an agency with the manpower necessary to do what you are proposing and you know it.

Plus If you want to get rid of the millions of Mexicans already here, you need to curtail freedoms, engage in racial profiling and create a huge gestapo-like force.

Not very Libertarian of you is it.

Unknown said...

I hope the reasoning runs deeper than....(borrowing a meme from earlier)

Brown people good.
Barack Hussein Obama brown (sorta).
BHO be Good President.

;-)

Unknown said...

Questioning Sharla's knowledge of a political term isn't an answer.

Really.

I'd like to know how Obama fulfills your prior Libertarian leanings, or did you have an epiphany?

While Obama may not tout the label "socialist", his ideas (at least the ones he's willing to share with the uninitiated) hold a lot in common with a socialist platform.

Socialized medicine? Check.
Wealth redistribution (extra taxes for upper 5% that create jobs)? Check.
Disarm the proletariats? Check.
Heavily regulate private businesses? Che...err. Hah! Trick question. That's technically Mussolini-type fascism, just so you know I'm not BSing this. Yes, I know a bit about government classifications. Check anyway.

Now all we need is a personality cult for Obama, and we can have our own banana republic.

Anonymous said...

Why don't we tell all the illegals that they can become citizens as long as they all work as border guards,and we will pay them based on how much they decrease the illegal immigration in this country. That should give us enough man power.

Unknown said...

...but without the bananas.
Maybe a watermelon republic?

Anonymous said...

By the way, taxing the rich is a hoax. The poor people think it always sounds good, and they vote for it, and they end up getting taxed where rich people find ways to divert taxes legally.

The rich get rich by hanging on to what money they have. Not letting the government take it all away from them. They will always find loopholes and the poor will always end up getting stuck with the taxes they were trying to impose on the rich.

Unknown said...

Zion, it's not even quite so devious as the rich pulling one over on the poor and figuring out how to dump their taxes on the lower classes.

Less money in the pockets of the rich means (1) less money to pay workers (2) more money in the government's pocket. Then, more people are working for the Government, Inc. which wouldn't be a bad thing if the goons running that behemoth weren't so epically incompetent.

Sharla said...

Ok, I am not gonna google socialist or anything, so I may end up looking like a Dee Dee Dee yet again, but since I never claim to be all that smart (I'm trying to corner the "polite" market) here goes. I think it means that all of society is supposed to try to make it equal for all of society. Like the rich people have to share with the poor people to the point they aren't rich anymore. But it never really works, because the ruling powers like being rich. And, everybody gets poorer because, where's the incentive to work hard if you're gonna have to give it all away anyway. I also know I am not eloquent and have never claimed to be a debater of any kind, so, dear Israel, do not attack me too violently for my feeble effort. :) I do believe Obama promises more social progams which means more taxes to pay for them which means less money for those who have more which = socialism. McCain went off in his convention speech about programs for re-training workers for jobs to replace the jobs they lost, more programs= more taxes=socialism.

Speaking of the conventions, I know they are a waste of time that no intelligent voter would pay any attention to, but wasn't Christine attending one as a delegate or something a few years back that we were all sorta impressed with? I must have that wrong.

Anonymous said...

Obama doesn't believe the wealth really trickles down, at least thats what he said at the DMC.

I find something very interesting. Democrats complain to the common factory workers about Republicans giving tax breaks to the rich.

The factory workers get mad cause they realize that big companies are paying less in taxes.

The benefits that they are getting mad at are benefits that if they would do a little research, they could use too.

The large reason rich become rich is because when they are poor, they find ways to use the tax laws to their advantage, which in essence makes them rich. Then some other poor people come along and say how unfair it is. It really isn't all that unfair, its just that those factory workers only know one way to make money, by earning it through hard work, and they don't know how to invest and use tax laws to their advantage.

So I don't buy into this whole, we will tax the rich lie. The rich will continue to figure out smarter ways to make tax laws work for them, and poor people will complain about how "unfair" it is, because they don't know how to play the game.

An example: A poor house

If you own a house outright, and the roof leaks, you have to take your tax earned money, and fix it, and you lose that money. You want to upgrade windows or air conditioning, you better save your pennies cause its gonna cost you.

A Rich House.

The rich have a corporation own the house, and then the people themselves rent the houses from the corporation. With the money they rent, the corporation, as a business expense, upgrades and maintains the roof, or air conditioning, and then gets to write it off as a business expense, therefore ending up having to pay less taxes. Furthermore, if the people have to go bankrupt, they don't lose their house, because they don't own it, the corporation does.
The rich don't own, they control.

Don't think this is reality? Read books about owning corporations and find out.

Anonymous said...

Oh and one last thing, by owning your house through a corporation, you can write off deterioration of the value of a home, like carpets or paint, without even actually having to buy new things to replace it.

Israel said...

Sharla your analysis is incredibly simplistic and misguided but I like you so I won't attack it.

None of these "programs" you claim Obama supports, will cost anywhere near as much as the war in Iraq, or the building of a giant wall -- and some people just might get edumacated in the process so that they can have jobs.

Lets look at the Republican programs. The Iraq program or "Operation increase Haliburton Stock" has accomplished nothing other than killing a bunch of people and give Chevron and the other oil companies the highest profit margins in the History of the World.

I love that program. It doesn't make the world safer, it destabilizes the region and the Iraqis still hate our guts, but it sure puts money in the hand of Cheney's buddies and in the pockets of Bush's oil business cronies.
---

And yeah Christine was a delegate for Bill Bradley.

Doesn't mean she came out of the convention thinking that a newscaster / beauty queen could run the country because she has a "beautiful family" just because she can read a teleprompter.

Daniel Arant said...

Unfortunately, the massive socialistic system we already have makes up 50% of the total Federal. The Iraq war is a pittance by comparison, and hardly a target for government cutbacks considering that national defense is one of the enumerated powers and social security is not.

Sharla said...

I also am completely opposed to Obama because of his vote for partial birth abortion. THE ONLY ONE. In today's world where we have the technology to see precious little babies inside the womb and capture all their actions and reactions on video, taking their lives is barbaric in the extreme. There is absolutely no excuse for it, I don't care how hard you try to find one. But then to take it to even the next level and murder a baby that is partially born is outrageous in the extreme. I can't understand why any smart person wouldn't know that. And if an abortion fails and the poor baby lives, they don't even think they should take care of it? Any man who can't judge that as wrong doesn't have ANY judgement. Saying that decision was above his pay grade tells me any decision that our president would be called on to make would be above his pay grade as well.

Israel said...

I hope the reasoning runs deeper than....(borrowing a meme from earlier)

Brown people good.
Barack Hussein Obama brown (sorta).
BHO be Good President.

;-)

-------


Hey that sounds pretty good to me!!

Of course the fact that he is half White does give me grounds for pause, but I guess you can't have everything...

;)

(I like how you threw in the comments about bananas and watermelons and "Hussein" whan talking about Obama. Way to play the race card! You adorable ol' Republican racist you!!)

Israel said...

Wasting money in Iraq is national defense? Huh?


Oh yeah, I forgot about all those Weapons of Mass Destruction that never existed.

And McCain is gonna get Osama, cuz he said so and he looked really tough saying it. Bush on the otherhand must like Osama Bin Ladin because he hasn't been talking about him too much lately.

He knows where he is too, because he mentioned it was somewhere in the vicinity of the gates of Hell.

Anonymous said...

While Bush had some strong points, like defending our country from any other major attacks, he has done some things that have really hurt America financially.

He was in the banking a credit card companies pockets, and made some horrible decisions that will hurt the American people financially. He was, and continues to be very reckless with his spending of this war. Using broad strokes to say if you oppose his spending you are somehow unpatriotic because you aren't backing the troops.

Something needs to be done about that.

Bush did uphold a couple regular republican issues, like abortion issues and didn't increase taxes, per se, but the economic impact of his reckless spending will cause alot of havok in the future. If obama wins, he'll get blamed for it, if mccain wins, he will get blamed for it, by the opposing party.

Bush national security= A-
Bush Fiscal Policy = F-

Would I vote for Bush if there was a third term? Probably not.

Sharla said...

Well, simplicity has always worked for me. Why make things complicated? Are simplistic and misguided code words here for untrue and incorrect or just stupid and unimpressive?

Daniel Arant said...

I don't want to get started on WMDs. Regardless of whether or not Iraq had WMDs the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have crippled Al Qaeda terribly, and shown terrorists all over the world that gorilla tactics will not longer keep them safe.

There's a lot more we could be doing on the home front for national security, such as BUILDING A FENCE on the southern border, but Iraq isn't hurting us in the national security department.

Israel said...

Bush = Worst President Ever

So since he and his fellow Republicans have done such a great job let's all reward his party by giving them another 4 years to screw things up even more.

Daniel Arant said...

And you think Obama is going to be able to fix it all?

Tell me, what exactly do you like about Obama?

Israel said...

I don't want to get started on WMDs. Regardless of whether or not Iraq had WMDs the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have crippled Al Qaeda terribly, and shown terrorists all over the world that gorilla tactics will not longer keep them safe.


---------

LOL at "Gorilla" tactics...

Anonymous said...

Well I'm going to probably get alot of negative feedback for this one.

I mean alot.

Don't go all crazy on me.

ok here goes.

I feel abortion is murder, and even in cases of rape, I do not believe killing an innocent child is excusable. Yes I do believe that a raped mother should carry the baby to term. And if raising they child is too hard, they should give it up for adoption.

However there is one, and only option in where I would actually consider abortion as a option. (gasp), and that is if the child will kill the mother.

To me, its the same as if a child is holding a gun to the mother, and going to shoot.

It would be an absolute awful choice, but one that I would have to side with the mother. Besides, the mother can usually get pregnant again, and create a new life.

That and that alone is the only case where I believe it would be appropriate for abortion. Self Defense.

But I wouldn't not call it killing. However, if someone was going to shoot me or my wife, I would shoot them first.

Israel said...

Guess you haven't heard the news about Al Qaeda being stronger than ever.


Or about Iran and Russia thumbing their noses in our faces?

And terrorists don't use guerrilla tactics, terrorists use terrorist tactics.

There are far more terrorists in Iraq and everywhere else in the world than there were before 9-11.

Israel said...

So you believe that the Government should force a woman to serve as the incubator for a rapist's baby, even if she didn't want to?

That makes sense.

Maybe they should put her in a coma or tie her up for 9 months to make sure she does it. Then they can take the baby away afterwards.

Good idea, good idea...

Israel said...

And if she doesn't have the rapist's baby the Government should execute her for murder.

Man this idea is getting better and better all the time.

Sharla said...

It's her baby too, whether she wanted it or not. It is her own child. I am sorry for anyone in that situation, but it is not the baby's fault. It is only 9 months, it would be no worse than the pain of being raped anyway, she won't have recovered from that in a short 9 month period, I am sure.

Anonymous said...

I think they should protect life, and like it or not. The baby is alive.

Nine months is not that long Israel. Being an incubator is nothing like tying her up and putting her in acoma. People are free to do what they want for the majority of the pregnancy, its just a few months of burden to protect a life that is there.

If someone puts a baby that isn't yours on your doorstep, and you don't want it, you don't just leave it there to die, even though it may cost you money, and be a great inconvieniece for a while, because it is a life, a human life, and by simply being there, you become responsible for it.

Simply saying," well its not my kid, and not my problem " not enough reason to let it die out there. Even if you don't want it.

The only reason a raped mother would want to take another life is to ease her suffering. She can give it up and not think about again, and it will accomplish the same thing.

Sharla said...

Then she also has the pain of killing her child to live with the rest of her life. How can that be better?

Anonymous said...

You keep trying to act like the forcing the mother not to KILL the child is the same as tying somebody up, knocking them out and putting them under tortorous conditions. There are vast differences between torture and having a baby.

Your argument could be used for anything.

I have to pay taxes? You might as well knock me out cold, and steal my money.

I have to obey traffic laws? You might as well knock me out and stick me in a jail cell.

I have to care for my three year old who is a pain and won't listen to me? You might as well tie me up, knock me out only to wake me back up and beat me into submission. I don't want to deal with the kid.

Sharla said...

Women carry and have babies. It's not really a death sentence or anything. If you didn't want it, it might be inconvenient, but it is not the same as being chained up or something. That is not a logical comparison. Here is where I know what I am talking about, Mr. live closer to the border than you do, I have had four kids!

Sharla said...

c'mon! You gotta give me this one!

Anonymous said...

Maybe this is where his libertarianism kicks in.

Sharla said...

Since Israel didn't come back with my question about my explanation of socialism being untrue, I assume his comment meant it was just stupid and unimpressive. So, does that mean I got it right???

Anonymous said...

Ok look

Public Law 107-207
U.S. Code
Title 1, Chapter 1: Rules of Construction
Section 8.

''Person'', ''human being'', ''child'', and ''individual'' as including born-alive infant
(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words ''person'', ''human being'', ''child'', and ''individual'', shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term ''born alive'', with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being ''born alive'' as defined in this section.



WHY ON EARTH, would anyone with any moral fiber inside of them vote against this bill becoming law.

What is basically saying a child that fulfills the criteria listed above is considered born, and is protected by laws of born children.

Why on earth would Barak Obama say that this should not be law. He is saying that a child that is out of the womb, and not attached except through an umbilical cord should still be allowed to be aborted?

I give Barak Obama a big fat F on this one.

Anonymous said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NHG3_FoB24&eurl=http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/08/barack-obama-on-born-alive-infant.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Skq5M1Ksp_c&eurl=http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/08/barack-obama-on-born-alive-infant.html

I can let Obama defend himself. He said the wording wasn't exactly the way he wanted. Even though what it said was absolutely true, he writes it off as, they didn't word it right.

Israel said...

You guys are unbelievable.

How do you propose to force a woman to have a rapist's baby? What are the penalties if she doesn't?

Yet you think that the fetus should die so the woman can live.

Unbelievable, incredibly Dee Dee Dee and totally unworkable in the real world.

-------

Sharla I been doing some research on your gal Palin.

I like how she wore a shirt in with the words "I may be broke but I'm not flat busted" to draw people's attention to her breasts in college.

I also notice she wears enough makeup to make Bozo the Clown blush.

---

And Sharla, what do you think Brother Branham would think about members of the church getting all googly-eyed over this woman?

Just curious...

Sharla said...

Googly eyed? Because there is finally one person on the political stage that that I can relate to? Really? Make-up? Really?I wear make-up. I didn't notice any Tammy Fay stuff going on. A tee-shirt she wore in college? You are kidding me, right? What do you honestly think Brother Branham would think about a man who is on board with partial birth abortion?

Sharla said...

BTW. I don't agree with killing the baby to save the mother, that is your brother. I have heard of too many cases where they were sure that was the case, but the mother, a true mother in the Brother Branham sense of the word, wouldn't do it, and they both survived and thrived. Reader's Digest has had stories of that over the years. How would you know? God determines when you die, not man.

Israel said...

What about Capital punishment? (Which I'm all for by the way.)

Does God decide that?

Republicans think it's OK to kill a full grown person but not a collection of two cells.

Makes no sense to me...

----

I think brother Branham would say that "life" begins at "the quickening" not at conception.

Has Barack actually performed any partial birth abortions?

If he hasn't then maybe he isn't "for them" maybe he is against the government getting to make all of our private decisions for us.

On the other hand, you want a government on the other hand who forces women to have rapist's babies.

---

And I think you relate to Palin because you are both spectacularly unqualified to be president.

(OK that was kinda mean, but it's still true.)

Israel said...

I don't like abortion and I don't believe anyone should get one.

However unlike you Big Government Republicans I don't think that the Government should make that decision.

There is no way to stop abortions from happening unless the government incarcerates pregnant women or creates an agency to follow them around 24-7. Abortions have always and will always happen.

It ain't gonna happen people, no matter how many pie-in-the-sky scenarios you try to create.

So Sharla, I guess you would force a woman whose life is in danger to have the baby anyway.

If she dies, does that mean you've committed murder?

You guys need to think through the real-world consequences of your two-bit policy proposals.

Sharla said...

Oh! Now you've really hurt my feelings! I thought I would make a great president! I was gonna hit the campaign trail next week and see if I couldn't get enough people to just write me in! I know when I"ve been insulted.

Yes, I actaully do think that God determines how many days we have on this earth, nothing surprises Him, not cancer, not car wrecks, not death penalties, not cains slaying abels. He knows which innocent little babies will be murdered in the womb and which ones will will live to old age to die in their sleep.
Am I wrong in my thinking here too? (And in cases of the Word I usually defer to Zion's knowledge of scripture.)But I'd be interested in anyone's opinion on the subject.

Sharla said...

That mass of cells theory was easier to pedal before ultrasound

Israel said...

So lessee...

1) Government should create a giant agency to build and man a gigantic wall.

2) Government should create giant agencies to monitor all pregnancies and prosecute people who get abortions after conception. Also to make sure that all women who don't want to have bibies have them anyway.

3) Government should create another Giant agency to spy on and prosecute homosexuals.

Am I missing anything else on the Republican Giant Government Agenda?

Oh yeah lest I forget...

BUT Under no circumstances should government provide job training or health care for anyone. Education of all kinds is also highly suspect. Cuz people have the right to unemployment, starvation and death.

Genius!!

Sharla said...

Also, the baby is innocent, the Murderer is guilty

Israel said...

OH yeah and we should should send our troops all over the world as part of a Giant Police Agency.

Even to nations like Iraq that pose no threat to us whatsoever.

And another Agency to capture and deport illegal aliens.

And jails, lots and lots of jails. To keep aliens and raped pregnant women in.

Sounds good to me...

Sharla said...

Oh brother.

Israel said...

What about the mom that dies because you force her to have a baby, is she not innocent? Does she deserve to die because you say so?

A sperm and an egg one second after conception does not a baby make.

Is it a potential baby? Yes, but it isn't a baby. Are you against birth control too? Because that kills billions of potential babies every single day. Is that murder too?

Israel said...

BILLIONS!! PREOBABLY TRILLIONS OF MURDERS EVERY DAY!!

We're gonna need another Government agency...

Israel said...

Sound ridiculous? Yes and so do your ideas taken to their logical extremes.

Remember:

Less Government = Good government

Republicans used to believe that before they got taken over by the Evangelical Jihad against the separation of Church and State.

Jeshanah said...

Well, hopefully Zion and I never have to deal with that issue, because we apparently don't agree.

Israel said...

Well if you ever did have to deal with that issue hopefully you and Zion would be allowed to deal with it and the decision wouldn't be entirely up to some government bureaucrat who works for The Giant Government "Womb Control / Rapist Breeding Program / and Unborn Protection" Agency.

Anonymous said...

Ok, sharla may not agree with me, but the only way I kill another human being is self defense. Thats true whether they are old or young.

Trying to explain at what point a child is a human if its not at conception really makes it difficult, as you can tell by Obama's stammering and struggling to the questions on the video.

At what point is a human a human.

All men are created equal. All created man are equal. Created men are created. When are they created. Whats makes them men? The child that was pulled out of the womb, operated on, then placed back in the womb.

Is that child allowed to be aborted now because its back in the womb? How do you answer these questions.

Let me draw a comparison here. Should the government enforce a law to not allow murderers to murder. Yes.

Should the government enforce a law to not allow mothers to abort their children. Yes. Why?

Because its murder.

If you don't believe that, then read this story

http://www.babylune.com/baby-born-twice/

and answer a simple question.

Should the mother, once the child was placed back in the womb, have the right to choose to have the baby aborted after the first surgery? I mean, after all, they just operated on a "fetus", then put it back.

Tell me that, and see how it matches up with your convictions.

Israel said...

I don't see why anyone who wanted an abortion would have a baby taken out of their belly to give it a life-saving operation so that they can then put it back in so they can have an abortion.

That is an extremely ludicrous example.

It is also a very easy question to answer. Once a baby is born it's definitely a baby. I don't care if it is born 50 times.

Is this baby born twice phenomenon a big problem in Ohio?

Anonymous said...

But had that baby been left inside the body Israel, does that suddenly make it not a baby?
The same child, untouched by human hands, is not a child, but because humans messed with it, it is?

Please explain how this form of thinking makes sense.

I don't get it. The child is still the same child. Not more or less developed.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 400 of 781   Newer› Newest»