Bungee Jumper Posted November 18, 2006 Share Posted November 18, 2006 Looks like you're more than halfway there mooseman.Does anyone here ever call you on your racist drivel? 840623[/snapback] I used to, until I found out he's black. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 18, 2006 Share Posted November 18, 2006 A friend of mine who writes for a local publication as well as the NY Times once told me that one of these days, maybe soon, conservative libertarian types will truly come out of the closet and finally admit their real goal, which basically is they don't want to live near any minorities. You caught me, using the genius of another liberal and the stereotyping you clowns supposedly loathe. Good job, though I'm not surprised you needed someone else to tell you how to think. After all, that is your modus operandi - along with most of the other lemmings who follow the liberal mantra. Looks like you're more than halfway there mooseman.Does anyone here ever call you on your racist drivel? 840623[/snapback] Uh, because most people actually understand sarcasm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Balls Posted November 18, 2006 Share Posted November 18, 2006 You caught me, using the genius of another liberal and the stereotyping you clowns supposedly loathe. Good job, though I'm not surprised you needed someone else to tell you how to think. After all, that is your modus operandi - along with most of the other lemmings who follow the liberal mantra. Uh, because most people actually understand sarcasm. 840685[/snapback] No, "sarcasm" doesn't quite cut it for you. Self parody would be more like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 18, 2006 Share Posted November 18, 2006 No, "sarcasm" doesn't quite cut it for you. Self parody would be more like it. 840886[/snapback] Please, please don't judge me harshly. I don't know how I'll go on if someone with the intellectual fortitude to use "Joey Balls" as a screen name doesn't respect me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartshan-83 Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 I used to, until I found out he's black. 840640[/snapback] No, that's impossible. Ed told me he looks like Larry the Cable Guy soooo...let's be real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 This could be a hunch, but the folks who've been arguing for immigration reform probably contribute much more tax revenue to the welfare state than you do. 839302[/snapback] Yes, but they are also profiting off it more than the taxpayers who are stuck with the bill, the crime and the diseases that are being illegally imported by our pols in order to help their corporate puppeteers. The CEOs spend their lives insulated from illegals, other than to exploit their cheap labor. Do they live anywhere near them, or do they spend their entire adult lives gathering enough money to keep their children far, far away from them? Besides, the word that people seem to be forgetting is "illegal." It is amazing how some laws are enforced in such a strict manner, while our traitor pols smile as our country is being invaded. As you well know, there are billionaires in Mexico. They, with the smiling approval of corporate America and the lackey, asswipe politicians which they own, don't have to worry about nor provide for their underclass. They can simply import them to the United States, along with their drugs, diseases and anchor babies, and hand the bill to American taxpayers. Much of the money they illegally earn is sent "back home," and the foreign capitalists reap the rewards once again, only to leave us with crowded hospitals and jails and of course, inflated tax bills. Do you live in a "wealthy" school district? If so, do your school taxes serve to educate illegals, or make sure they cannot get into your district? Come on Gerry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 20, 2006 Share Posted November 20, 2006 Yes, but they are also profiting off it more than the taxpayers who are stuck with the bill, the crime and the diseases that are being illegally imported by our pols in order to help their corporate puppeteers. The CEOs spend their lives insulated from illegals, other than to exploit their cheap labor. Do they live anywhere near them, or do they spend their entire adult lives gathering enough money to keep their children far, far away from them? Again, the impact on the taxpayers is a fairy tale. The illegal workers' contribution to the economy and the tax base is far greater than their drain. You all seem to focus on the expenditures that they need for health & schooling without recognizing the growth of the economy and the increased tax revenue from that (which is far greater than the drain of the illegals) Plus, the "rich folk" who benefit most from illegals are likely smaller local employers like farmers, landscapers and other home remodeling contractors. Hardly the types who live on 5th Avenue. Besides, the word that people seem to be forgetting is "illegal." It is amazing how some laws are enforced in such a strict manner, while our traitor pols smile as our country is being invaded. And again, they are illegal because people fall for scare tactics to block any sensible immigration reform that is definitely needed to address the need for low skilled labor. Tell me, what kind of repression did Germans, Irish, Italians and Polish encounter in their home countries in the 19th century that led to compassionate US legilators to open up the doors to legal immigration? I think this Italian anecdote sums it up well: "When I got here, I found out three things: first, the streets weren't paved with gold; second, they weren't paved at all; and third, I was expected to pave them." As you well know, there are billionaires in Mexico. They, with the smiling approval of corporate America and the lackey, asswipe politicians which they own, don't have to worry about nor provide for their underclass. They can simply import them to the United States, along with their drugs, diseases and anchor babies, and hand the bill to American taxpayers. Much of the money they illegally earn is sent "back home," and the foreign capitalists reap the rewards once again, only to leave us with crowded hospitals and jails and of course, inflated tax bills. Do you live in a "wealthy" school district? If so, do your school taxes serve to educate illegals, or make sure they cannot get into your district? Come on Gerry. 841144[/snapback] And the issue is much deeper than that. People use California as the poster child of illegal immigration gone bad. But when you dig through the numbers, you see that the problems in CA are caused by a different set of issues than what the immigration reform programs that are on the table. Most of the illegal workers come here without families. They are working males, and their families are back in the home countries. I'm guessing that the anchor babies and the problems in CA are more due to legal immigrants and US citizens bringing their extended families here illegally. Which means that while focusing on idiotic efforts to stop workers crossing into the US (who actually help the economy) you won't do anything to solve the issues that are actually causing the drain on the economy. Brilliant plan, if you ask me. But we'll still have lots of slogans to protect us from the invasion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 Plus, the "rich folk" who benefit most from illegals are likely smaller local employers like farmers, landscapers and other home remodeling contractors. Hardly the types who live on 5th Avenue.And again, they are illegal because people fall for scare tactics to block any sensible immigration reform that is definitely needed to address the need for low skilled labor. 843461[/snapback] Yes and no. Sure, many illegals work for small contractors. This is fact. But if you look deeper, the corporate giants profit on this as well. For example, Wal-Mart doesn't have landscapers on their payroll. They contract out, and companies that hire illegals are sure to get the bid because they can come in cheaper. Let me know who you see doing the landscaping should you ever happen to pass by a Wal-Mart. Also, wasn't Tyson Chicken caught for employing and even smuggling illegal aliens into our country? I forgot, aren't those the friends of Bill and Hillary? With all due respect Gerry, I think that you sidestepped the issue of legality. Lord knows there are laws in place that I despise, but they are enforced every day. Bar owners are fined thousands of dollars for "Ashtray Possession," (you knew I had to tie this in ) while an invading force is streaming accross our borders. What about our laws Bro? Should they just be broken at will until our corrupt politicians can pass one on this issue that they like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 With all due respect Gerry, I think that you sidestepped the issue of legality. Lord knows there are laws in place that I despise, but they are enforced every day. Bar owners are fined thousands of dollars for "Ashtray Possession," (you knew I had to tie this in ) while an invading force is streaming accross our borders. What about our laws Bro? Should they just be broken at will until our corrupt politicians can pass one on this issue that they like? 844377[/snapback] I think I directly addressed the issue of legality, by raising the question of why are the current crop of workers illegal, while the workers of 100 years ago were legal? At some point 101 years ago, the European immigrants were illegal, yet some of these corrupt politicians decided that it may be a good thing to let a few more 100,000 in. Why was that? The US legal code is probably a block long, yet the laws are constantly broken, because people rationalize between natural laws (insert favorite 10 commandments) and laws of convenience (55 MPH speed limit). At certain points, people's deeds are emblematic if the existing laws make sense. A good litmus test is that when a good majority of the population breaks a law, the law does not make sense and needs to be reworked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 They are ILLEGAL BECAUSE THEY BROKE THE LAW GETTING HERE. The immigrants you mention went through the process. Come to CA and see all the illegals. You obvoiusly don't live here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 I think I directly addressed the issue of legality, by raising the question of why are the current crop of workers illegal, while the workers of 100 years ago were legal? At some point 101 years ago, the European immigrants were illegal, yet some of these corrupt politicians decided that it may be a good thing to let a few more 100,000 in. Why was that? 844434[/snapback] Why the hell are you people comparing immigration laws a century apart? They've changed, just a little, in the intervening hundred years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 Why the hell are you people comparing immigration laws a century apart? They've changed, just a little, in the intervening hundred years. 844534[/snapback] But the arguments against immigrants haven't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 But the arguments against immigrants haven't. 844581[/snapback] The arguments against illegal immigrants have, because the definition of "illegal" has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 lets see...holcombs arm has now proved that he knows nothing about... 1. The NFL QB position 2. The NFL in general 3. Statistics 4. Economics 5. Basic Math 6. Genetics 7. Heritability The list goes on and on But its cute to see his little butt buddy mike1011 try and stand up for him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted November 30, 2006 Share Posted November 30, 2006 lets see...holcombs arm has now proved that he knows nothing about... You, however, have proven you know nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted November 30, 2006 Share Posted November 30, 2006 You, however, have proven you know nothing. 853110[/snapback] Actually, logic would tell you that he knows that you know nothing about the topics he mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 You, however, have proven you know nothing. 853110[/snapback] No, i just made some errors and thereby regressed toward the mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 Actually, logic would tell you that he knows that you know nothing about the topics he mentioned. 853121[/snapback] The idea Ramius might know something is one of the more novel concepts I've seen on these boards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted December 2, 2006 Share Posted December 2, 2006 The idea Ramius might know something is one of the more novel concepts I've seen on these boards. 853860[/snapback] Yeah, right. Rolled a 3.5 on a die yet, genius? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted December 2, 2006 Share Posted December 2, 2006 Yeah, right. Rolled a 3.5 on a die yet, genius? 853913[/snapback] Number one, you're arguing semantics. Number 2, you're arguing about something that has nothing whatsoever to do with Ramius's level of competence (or lack thereof). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts