Atlanta Skins Fan Posted January 24, 2003 Author Share Posted January 24, 2003 Originally posted by TheKurp Try taking on the overweight and obese. OK, I'm in. But you're going to have to make that another thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 No, the suggestion was for YOU and/or TEX to take on the overweight and the obese. At least you're used to taking the heat. I start another thread criticizing people's eating habits and for sure I'll feel the wrath of every cheese-doodle-eating couch potato on this fine board. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tex Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 Originally posted by Art I haven't read this debate. Don't know which side is right and which is wrong. I don't care really. Maybe I'll go look again. But, Tex, it is often untrue that namecalling is a sign of weakness in a debate. Often it is a sign of absolute truth and completely appropriate. If I were to say we should sterilize all Hispanics in this thread, and someone were to label me with a name, it would be appropriate, true, and powerful. Just not to me since I don't see how stupid I am. But, stupidity is easily seen. I'm not saying the names that have been used in this thread are appropriate or not, as I haven't read anything . But, in the general sense, very often, name calling is a sign of strength, because it is very often true :0. Art, I find myself agreeing with you on many occasions but must disagree with you here because name calling techniques do nothing more than link a person or an idea with a negative label. The user of this technique hopes that the audience will reject the labeled person or idea based on the negative connotation of the name and not on the available evidence. An example of this technique is the use of the label "Communist" or "Commie" by people like Sen. Joseph McCarthy. A more subtle form of name-calling involves words that are selected because of their emotional context. Propaganda by opponents of a budget cut might portray conservative congressmen as "stingy", because of the emotional reaction most hearers would feel upon hearing that word. We should ask ourselves the following questions when we spot an example of name calling. What does the name mean? Does the idea in question have a legitimate connection with the real meaning of the name? Is an idea that serves my best interests being dismissed through giving it a name I don't like? Leaving the name out of consideration, what are the merits of the idea itself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tex Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 Originally posted by TheKurp No, the suggestion was for YOU and/or TEX to take on the overweight and the obese. At least you're used to taking the heat. I start another thread criticizing people's eating habits and for sure I'll feel the wrath of every cheese-doodle-eating couch potato on this fine board. :laugh: Not me brother. I used the term "when the fat lady sings" once in the wrong company. It was not pretty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 You can call me a bigot or whatever but that is not gonna stop me from criticizing a certain group if what they are doing is wrong. And so yeah a flood of illegal mexicans not assimilating or waiting in line like all other immigrants as well as swelling welfare rolls, filling up prisons can potentially affect the american identity and the reasons why my country is great. When the he11 did hispanic become a group not to be criticized? Hispanic: white dudes and black dudes that dont habla inglez. New americans: white dudes and black dudes that habla espanol and english and came into the country leagally don't loaf on welfare, dont commit crimes then run back to mexico or where ever and have loyalty and allegiance to the US. (Dudes can be babes too) And yes 1/2 of my ancestry is native american while the other have is homeboy to squash the your people were immigrant nonsense. And my profile is troglodyte and I'm proud of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 Originally posted by NavyDave You can call me a bigot or whatever but that is not gonna stop me from criticizing a certain group if what they are doing is wrong. And so yeah a flood of illegal mexicans not assimilating or waiting in line like all other immigrants as well as swelling welfare rolls, filling up prisons can potentially affect the american identity and the reasons why my country is great. All right NavyDave, I'll call you a bigot. On top of that I'll add "ignorant". Illegal mexicans cannot "swell welfare rolls" because they're not eligible for welfare. On top of that, very few, if any employers can get away with hiring illegal immigrants without filing and deducting social security from their paychecks. Since illegal immigrants cannot receive social security benefits, they are paying millions into the system that they will not be able to collect on unless they become legal residents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atlanta Skins Fan Posted January 24, 2003 Author Share Posted January 24, 2003 Originally posted by Atlanta Skins Fan the U.S. is greatly dependent on Mexico for oil (as well as cheap labor here and there). The U.S. Dept of Energy says that Mexico has the second largest oil reserves in the Western Hemisphere after Venezuela, at 26.9 billion barrels. We are importing 511 million barrels of oil per year from Mexico. That's a massive amount of oil-based commerce, and the oil industry has repeatedly shown itself to be perhaps the most effective subverter of national interests in preference to its own. (For example, many major oil companies not only do not pay income tax -- they receive huge cash subsidies [yes, checks] from the U.S. government.) So the combination of our dependence on Mexico for oil and the effectiveness of the U.S. oil industry to have its way, means that Mexico has far more influence on our affairs and policies than we realize. Understand here that I am talking about Mexico, not Americans of Mexican descent. Mexico is still a foreign country, last I checked. Other large U.S. corporate interests are also aligned for massive Mexican immigration. Notably, corporate agribusiness benefits from greatly reduced labor costs. And agribusiness is another industry notoriously effective in its political influence. If anyone thinks I'm kidding about oil companies not paying income tax (and in fact being paid cash from the U.S. treasury, a direct subsidy by U.S. taxpayers), check out this Corporate Tax Avoidance study. 41 of the top 250 U.S. companies paid zero income tax in recent years. 24 companies got net U.S. subsidies, including such familiar energy companies as Texaco, Chevron, Philips Petroleum and Enron. Chevron alone was paid $187 million in 1998. That's right: we're paying Chevron to do business. Oil companies, from a taxpayer perspective, shouldn't be considered U.S. companies. They are a kind of occupying army, sucking money from our treasury and perverting national policies for their interest. I realize that many fine Americans work for these companies, and not everything that the companies do is bad. But from a macroeconomic view, oil companies are acting independently from U.S. interests, and in some cases are opposed to our interests. This has great bearing on a variety of world affairs, from Mexican immigration to U.S. Middle East policies to the development of alternative sources of energy. Oil companies are highly influencial in calling the shots, and their interests are not aligned with ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atlanta Skins Fan Posted January 24, 2003 Author Share Posted January 24, 2003 Originally posted by TheKurp very few, if any employers can get away with hiring illegal immigrants without filing and deducting social security from their paychecks. Since illegal immigrants cannot receive social security benefits, they are paying millions into the system that they will not be able to collect on unless they become legal residents. You need to get out more. Just because our parents told us about Santa and the Tooth Fairy doesn't mean they exist. Millions of illegal aliens are working jobs here, and most of them are being paid under the table tax-free. That's not what our parents told us about how businessess operate, but the official story is full of a lot of fairy tales. As for those who do get taxes deducted, you are correct that they are almost always paying only social security/medicare/medicaid taxes. That's better than nothing, but it's not income tax. When I fill up the tank at the gas station and the tab comes to $20, throwing $5 on the counter and driving off still isn't pulling my weight. Illegal aliens certainly suffer a lot of hardships. Their employers can abuse them endlessly in horrible jobs, because they can silence complaints with a single-word threat: "INS". So I'm not saying that illegal aliens are living the good life. All of us are getting screwed by massive waves of illegal aliens -- all of us except the corporate interests (and parents hiring nannies) who employ the illegals at tax-free, low wages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 Ok, I just read what Kurp said. I may have to join in. Kurp, you couldn't be further from the truth and if you are going to brandish ignorant as a label, you need to be damn sure you haven't said the most ignorant thing I've seen of late. Well, today at least . Illegals do cause a huge drain on tax dollars. We have to educate their children. We have to treat them in hospitals when they require medical attention. They work. Very well. I'm having a couple put in a patio in the spring for me. They wouldn't be coming to America if they had no opportunity for jobs, Kurp. I hope you're just kidding or something with that post to ND. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 Art, I stand by my statements. For your perusal. Please note the date, June 24, 2002. NOT 1990. http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba400/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atlanta Skins Fan Posted January 24, 2003 Author Share Posted January 24, 2003 Originally posted by TheKurp I stand by my statements. For your perusal. Please note the date, June 24, 2002. NOT 1990. http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba400/ Well if you read your "2002" data, you'd notice it's based in large part on a 1976 study. Something to remember about studying illegal aliens: the ones you can study are the ones most likely part of the official tax-paying system. The ones being paid under the table aren't lining up for studies. Oh, and sorry about the Tooth Fairy and Santa references. I didn't want to spoil anything for you. I'm out of here for a while. Enjoy the fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 Kurp, The article you put forth discusses legal immigrants. We allow some 100,000 legal immigrants to this country every year. I have no doubt they get less coming here than a typical American gets. I have absolutely NO DOUBT AT ALL. But, that doesn't mean illegal immigrants don't cause a drain. Every child of an illegal immigrant is educated in public schools on our dollar. The cost to educate a student in this country is said to be $8,000 plus per student per year, as discussed in another thread here. They receive medical treatment free. We're talking about illegal immigrants here. Already these undocumented illegals are required to be treated for free when they go to an ER. But, don't worry, not only are they required to be treated, but the federal government wants to give some $200 million back out of our tax dollars to support it. http://domenici.senate.gov/newscenter/record.cfm?id=187411 Simply put, I'm all for legal immigration. We should have it and encourage it. I know in a couple of years friends of mine from England are going to move here, legally. What I don't support because of the drain on this countries resources is illegal immigration. And, I believe that's a great deal of what is being discussed here, is it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 Originally posted by Atlanta Skins Fan You need to get out more. Just because our parents told us about Santa and the Tooth Fairy doesn't mean they exist. Millions of illegal aliens are working jobs here, and most of them are being paid under the table tax-free. That's not what our parents told us about how businessess operate, but the official story is full of a lot of fairy tales. As for those who do get taxes deducted, you are correct that they are almost always paying only social security/medicare/medicaid taxes. That's better than nothing, but it's not income tax. When I fill up the tank at the gas station and the tab comes to $20, throwing $5 on the counter and driving off still isn't pulling my weight. Illegal aliens certainly suffer a lot of hardships. Their employers can abuse them endlessly in horrible jobs, because they can silence complaints with a single-word threat: "INS". So I'm not saying that illegal aliens are living the good life. All of us are getting screwed by massive waves of illegal aliens -- all of us except the corporate interests (and parents hiring nannies) who employ the illegals at tax-free, low wages. Nice way to leave Californian "Mexican Immigrants" out of your statements there ASF. I guess you only qualify it as a group when it suits your arguments, eh? Most of the Mexican immigrants that come into this country, aka California, come here to work farm jobs. Most of the farms are owned by big corporations. Large corporations neither want the bad publicity nor the sizable fines that come with paying "under the table, tax-free" as you put it. The other fact that's slipped under your high-flying radar is that there aren't enough American workers who are either available or want to work farm jobs. Thus the U.S. government has granted certain priviledges to farmers through provisions like the Replenishment Agricultural Worker (RAW) program. The US government did not find farm labor shortages in the 1990s, largely because illegal immigration continued, and workers and employers found it easy to use counterfeit documents to satisfy employee verificiation requirements, which DOES NOT INCLUDE proof of legal status. As for pulling "your weight". The next time you eat anything that comes out of the ground, think about how much you paid for it. And then think about how much you WOULD have paid for it if it weren't for the sweat off the back of a HISPANIC immigrant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 Kurp, "Large corporations neither want the bad publicity nor the sizable fines that come with paying "under the table, tax-free" as you put it." Wow. And I thought all large corporations wanted the good publicity of shredding documents, reporting lies as income, or employing Asian workers at pennies a day to stitch the sole to the leather. Very large corporations, the type that farm, or the type that build buildings, or the type that do any number of things, routinely go to "lineups" where illegals stand out waiting for cash work, and they load them in a van and use them on jobs. Have you really never seen the commonality of this practice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 Art, The article discusses legal immigrants because illegal immigrants are just a blip with respect to using public assistance programs. Illegal immigrants are also very leery about accepting any assistance as well, for fear of getting caught and deported. NavyDave said, "welfare rolls". An illigal immigrant cannot be on a "roll" because they're ineligible to receive regular welfare payments. And read my response to ASF. Do you really think the illegal Mexican immigrant takes out of this country more than they give? Do you really think an orange would be less than a quarter if American workers were picking them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tex Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 The mill is going to busy for weeks. January 17, 2003 -- Dan Haskell: America first for Democrats? Janet Napolitano (D.) governor of Arizona is pushing her cabinet to pass a law allowing Arizona drivers licenses to be issued to illegal immigrants. Despite if they have insurance or not, so she is opening the flood gates to illegal immigration into the United States. Her reason being is to get illegal immigrants driving without a license, off the roads. She wants illegal aliens (who can‚t read English) driving on our roads, without insurance, endangering every other driver and national security. Nancy Polosi (D.) California, wants to pass a law that requires police and law enforcement as a whole to recognize and respect foreign identification cards, especially Mexico's. What these two politicians fail to realize is that terrorist can download a blank Mexican birth certificate off the internet, put any Spanish sounding name on it, drive to Juarez and get identification cards saying their Mexican nationals. Even if they‚re really from Pakistan and members of al Queda. Instead of grabbing up these leach‚s on our society and deporting them. Napolitano and Polosi want to reward them by letting them legally break the law, while legal citizens of this country must and do live within the law. Another nightmare that looms on the future, are lawsuits, say an illegal immigrant goes to work for a landscaper. The boss sees a legal Arizona drivers license and thinks the guy is okay. Then the person he hired plows through a stop sign in a company truck, killing someone because he can't read or write one word of English. The owner of the company gets sued into oblivion, losing his business. This kind of thinking confuses me to no end, if these laws pass our Southern borders will be wide open to illegal aliens, pouring across like Niagara Falls. Polosi and Napolitano are both limousine liberals with no grasp of reality. In there reality America‚s to blame for 9/11 and they're only out to make their lives easier. Napolitano thinks the way to get rid of illegal drivers is to give everyone legal Arizona drivers licenses and Polosi thinks she can eliminate illegal aliens in her state by making them legal with foreign identification cards. We might as well sign the title for the South West back over to Mexico. Because the Liberals are giving it away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 Perhaps I should state my objection to ASF's original post, and the one's that followed to which I objected, in another fashion. I have no problem if one wants to target an individual for illegal entry into this country, or criticize them because they fail to learn the English language, or urge them to seek higher education so that they can more effectively contribute to our country. What I object to is when you take an entire class or group of people and refer to them using attributes that in effect, is racial-profiling. You cannot state that every Hispanic is uni-lingual, poor, uneducated, and likely to be more of a burden than an asset to this country. Yet every argument, by use of statistics, set forth in this thread classifies all Hispanics in that very manner. The prison popluation will point towards the conclusion that blacks are more likely to be involved in criminal activity. Yet because there are millions of blacks in this country who are well-educated, law-abiding, and productive citizens, it is a disservice as well as unconstitutional, to have law enforcement officials use racial-profiling to combat crime. The arguments being presented here are tantamount to racial-profiling, and as such, are racist. That is my major objection. Talk about the issues, but leave race out of the equation. No matter how much the statistics seem to point to a conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.