Liberal solution to illegal immigration
in [Golf]
|
Prev: March of the Titans (brief video re: White Race, 1 min, 30sec)
Next: What the heck is Tiger doing?
From: MNMikeW on 7 May 2010 08:56 "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:4be38a7a$0$18455$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > On Thu, 06 May 2010 19:58:10 -0700, kenpitts wrote: >> On May 6, 9:02 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >>>On Thu, 06 May 2010 15:55:59 -0700, dene wrote: >>>> "Carbon" <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message >>>>news:4be3419f$0$4888$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... >>>>> On Thu, 06 May 2010 10:26:03 -0700, dene wrote: >>>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote in message >>>>>> news:alangbaker-BBDD34.09552206052010(a)news.shawcable.com... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> They can't hold jobs. They go on welfare. They get sick and >>>>>>>> require medical care they can't pay for. They have children that >>>>>>>> they can't properly care for and those children grow up to be >>>>>>>> screw-ups who impose further costs on society. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> They're doing all that *now*. >>>>>> >>>>>> And the problem would worsen if it were legal. Duh! >>>>> >>>>> You're sure of this? >>>> >>>> I'm sure about human nature. Laws and consequences do much to temper >>>> our behavior. >>> >>> The Netherlands has an extremely liberal policy wrt drugs and all the >>> evidence I've seen suggests that the per capita social/financial costs >>> are much lower. >> >> And Amsterdam is an absolute cesspool because of their lax attitudes. > > Are you sure? Because according to the UN's 2009 human development index > the Netherlands is 6th and the US is 13th. I trust you're enough of a > grown up avoid accusing the UN of bias for reaching a conclusion you > find inconvenient... > > http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2009/ This same UN that put Iran on the Women's rights commission?
From: MNMikeW on 7 May 2010 09:01 "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:4be3461c$0$18607$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > On Thu, 06 May 2010 18:34:15 -0400, BAR wrote: >> In article <4be2ad6b$0$4893$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, >> nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... >>> On Thu, 06 May 2010 07:33:41 -0400, BAR wrote: >>> >>>> The Democrats are supported by big banking, big oil (BP) and Goldman >>>> Sachs. >>> >>> As are the Republicans. >>> >>> You see Bert, being a politician is expensive. Re-election campaigns >>> cost millions of dollars. So politicians, Democrat and Republican >>> both, are always looking for campaign contributions. In exchange for >>> these contributions, they do favors for their contributors. >> >> No kidding! Didn't Obama break his promise to accept federal matching >> funds and just go with contributions? He received well over $1 Bn >> dollars. Do you suppose all of those people who contributed wanted >> something for their contributions. >> >>> It's almost like it doesn't matter which party is in power, because >>> big banking, big oil (BP) and Goldman Sachs are happy to bribe >>> whoever happens to be in office. >> >> Sorry, Obama and the Democrats are on the hot seat right now and they >> are the ones who are sucking down the lions share of cash for play. >> >>> So ends our discussion of the blindingly obvious. >> >> Why, because you said so? Did you go to the Billy Clark school of >> discussion? > > The notion that politicians of both parties routinely do favors in > exchange for campaign contributions is so self-evidently true that I > thought even people as biased as yourself would instantly grasp it. I > sincerely apologize if I have over-estimated your capacity for rational > thought. ------------------------ Tell us the party the continually rails against big business yet is always in the top spots on the contribution lists. Take a guess who the biggest recipient of BP money was in 2008. You know, the company with the boot on their throats.
From: John B. on 7 May 2010 09:01 On May 7, 7:20 am, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <6e318b69-9e81-4041-b6bb-f0781698b645 > @e35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, johnb...(a)gmail.com says... > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 6:23 pm, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > > > In article <ac09e4e5-0f23-446d-8b62- > > > 6c139ab82...(a)o8g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>, johnb...(a)gmail.com says... > > > > > This is not a simple matter of what one does to oneself. Drug addicts > > > > impose costs on society. They commit crimes to get money for drugs. > > > > They can't hold jobs. They go on welfare. They get sick and require > > > > medical care they can't pay for. They have children that they can't > > > > properly care for and those children grow up to be screw-ups who > > > > impose further costs on society. > > > > You have just described the burden that illegal aliens place upon the > > > citizens of the USA. > > > That's ridiculous, but why would we expect anything different from you? > > Why is it ridiculous? Illegals come here and obtain services for free. > They never pay in but they take out and some are even granted social > security even though they don't qualify. Why should my social security > being going to an illegal alien who was here illegally? Why should my > taxes pay for other services illegal aliens receive just because we > don't have the political will to ship them back home.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Many undoc. workers pay income tax. Few if any get Soc. Sec. I'm not denying that undoc. workers impose costs on society, but I don't want to turn the US into something akin to Nazi Germany in order to get rid of them, as you do. Your position on this issue is based on hatred and bigotry.
From: MNMikeW on 7 May 2010 09:05 "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote in message news:84hdbvF2s2U1(a)mid.individual.net... > > "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message > news:4be37181$0$18707$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... >> On Thu, 06 May 2010 18:45:19 -0700, John B. wrote: >> > On May 6, 9:28 pm, kenpitts <ken.p...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On May 6, 6:09 pm, bkni...(a)conramp.net wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 6 May 2010 18:44:47 -0400, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> I would use the US military to secure our borders. Anyone >> >>>> attempting to cross at any point other than an official US border >> >>>> crossing will be shot dead on sight. >> >>> >> >>> This kind of shallow thought is to be expected of you. The death >> >>> penalty, without legal recourse? >> >>> >> >>> You're pitiful. >> >> >> >> That's about what the Mexicans do on their southern border. >> > >> > No it isn't, but what if it were? That would make it OK for us to do >> > it, too? >> >> Turns out the righties here are big fans of moral relativism. Right and >> wrong, good and evil are apparently totally irrelevant. Who knew? > > Righties want our borders honored and protected. Righties wants standing > immigration laws enforced and improved upon. Righties are tired of paying > for the medical bills, education, and court costs of illegal immigrants. > > -Greg > > Leftys don't want borders.
From: bknight on 7 May 2010 09:26
On Fri, 7 May 2010 08:05:30 -0500, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: >> >Leftys don't want borders. > Why do you make such statements???? There's too much "righty", "lefty" bullshit being thrown around, just disparaging epithets tossed out at anyone who disagrees with another's thoughts . Everything isn't dependent on political thought. I don't know anyone that doesn't want to see the influx of illegal's contained. Absolutely no one, and I'll bet that you can't come up with anyone either. The problem is way to complicated for the simplistic pap that's proposed here though. BK |