Trump Challenges the 14th Amendment
POSTED BY: SHINYGOODGUY
UPDATED: Saturday, May 13, 2023 00:28
VIEWED: 18093
PAGE 1 of 2
Talk about the blind leading the blind. Here we have the super-candidate, Trump, questioning the validity of the 14th Amendment saying it's un-Constitutional.
This is a real estate mogul using his superior intellect to comment on the Constitutionality of an amendment that has existed since before the Constitution was written. Plus the birthright issue has been tested in the courts and has, obviously, prevailed.
Tried, tested, game, set, match!
Commence au festival!
SGG
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Citizenship Clause represented Congress's reversal of a portion of the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision which had declared that African Americans were not and could not become citizens of the United States or enjoy any of the privileges and immunities of citizenship.
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already granted U.S. citizenship to all persons born in the United States "not subject to any foreign power". The 39th Congress proposed the principle underlying the Citizenship Clause due to concerns expressed about the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act during floor debates in Congress. The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment sought to entrench the principle in the Constitution in order to prevent the Civil Rights Act being struck down by the Supreme Court or repealed by a future Congress.
The Citizenship Clause's author, Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan, phrased it a little differently. In particular, the two exceptions to citizenship by birth for everyone born in the United States mentioned in the Civil Rights Act, namely, that they had to be "not subject to any foreign power" and not "Indians not taxed", were combined into a single qualification, that they be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, and while Howard and others, such as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, the author of the Civil Rights Act, believed that the formulations were equivalent, others, such as Senator James R. Doolittle from Wisconsin, disagreed, and pushed for an alternative wording.
If only Trump had been there, the wording would have been corrected, but he is 149 years late.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My reaction is: FINALLY!
This is something my liberal friends and I have disagreed abut for many years.
Hubby and I have looked to emigrate to someplace that is kinder to disabled adults than the USA, which is a dogpit. Having seriously looked at the immigration and citizenship requirements of many nations I can tell you that without question ...
The 14th Amendment is an international aberration.
There is NO OTHER nation that I've run across that has anything remotely like it in its legal structure. And to hear Mexico whine about the USA's possible rejection of "birthright" citizenship is just maddening, because
1) They have nothing at all like in their own legal code.
2) In fact, they have pretty stringent requirements for citizenship, and fairly large restrictions on non-citizens. Unlike the USA, Mexico doesn't allow foreigners to buy land.
3) They, in fact, have harsh policy and even worse treatment of illegal immigrants than we do, and...
4) Obviously, they're only trying to protect their OWN economic/political "safety valve", on the back of the USA economy.
5) The only entities which truly benefit from illegal immigration are corporations.
But, unlike Trump, I'd make this part of a larger policy change, not just on immigration but also to correct our policies which created this immigration problem to being with. I started out by asking ...
WHY is there so much immigration into the USA?
Well, it's because of poor economic and social conditions in Central and South America.
So, WHY are economic and social conditions so poor?
Well, among other things, it is probably because of relentless interference of the USA in its "southern neighbors'" political and economic affairs for- literally- over 100 years. There is not a single nation south of the USA (with the exception of Costa Rica) which has not been directly invaded by the US Marines (or other armed forces) (sometimes more than once) or destabilized with covert funding, arming, and training by USA (sometimes more than once). There is not a single nation which has not seen its social justice, democracy, land reform, education, dignity, or nationalization movements brutally quashed by US troops or paid armed forces in favor of plantations/ rancheros. international corporations, or banks ... starting with the "banana wars" beginning in 1898 ...
Quote:
These military interventions were most often carried out by the United States Marine Corps. The Marines were involved so often that they developed a manual, The Strategy and Tactics of Small Wars, in 1921. On occasion, the Navy provided gunfire support and Army troops were also used.
With the Treaty of Paris, Spain ceded control of Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines to the United States. Thereafter, the United States conducted military interventions in Panama, Honduras, Nicaragua, Mexico, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic. The series of conflicts only ended with the withdrawal of troops from Haiti in 1934 under President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_Wars
and as late as 2009, when Zelaya was militarily removed from office by US-friendly troops.
Needless to say, this interference prevented land and wealth redistribution, better education, democratic change, economic development, the meeting of people's natural aspirations for control over their future and well-being, and lawful governance; and promoted policies of gross inequality and the violent suppression necessary to maintain it. There was a joke going around in my young adult years about the number of revolutions south of the border, which went something like " Did you know that bullfighting is the most popular national sport in south America?" "Isn't that revolting?" "No, that's the second-most popular sport"
Then, from our imperial height, the USA twisted arms to get NAFTA and CAFTA signed, which had negative effects on BOTH t
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You can, of course, eliminate birthright citizenship.
The only thing it takes is a constitutional amendment.
Think about it. We couldn't pass one for women's equality, but I'm sure more people hate immigrants than hate women (although a substantial portion - a majority, really - of conservatives hate both with a passion).
Trump is a dolt. He wouldn't know how to poor piss out of a boot if the directions were on the heel.
Saying something in the Constitution is unconstitutional is just one of the dumbest fucking things anyone has ever said, and it should immediately disqualify him for office anywhere.
By the way, it's ironic that so many conservatives oppose birthright citizenship.
Marco Rubio wouldn't be a citizen if it weren't for birthright citiezenship.
Neither would Ted Cruz.
Nor Jeb Bush's kids (his wife wasn't a citizen when she had her first two kids).
Nor 4 out of 5 of Trump's kids (born to non-citizen immigrants).
Maybe it's telling us something about these people and their family values - they don't want their kids and families to live here with them?
Birthright citizenship is legal because it's in our Constitution. Kind of like guns and all your stupid religions.
Don't like it? Change the Constitution. But stop bitching about how Obama won't uphold the Constitution if you're not willing to.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay, let's say that is a reality, and Congress has the balls to amend the Amendment. Where do we begin? 5, 10, 20 years ago. How about 50 years ago or when the Amendment was ratified!?
Then, as you say, Trump and others, would 'catch up.'
Everyone having had children after that point would be deported, along with their carpetbagger parents because then all would be considered "anchor" babies. Can anyone say that they are really "natives" of this land. Do we go back to the landing on Plymouth Rock? Who can say that they were right here when all those foreigners showed up?
Well, let's not get carried away. Let's start right after independence was declared, you know we had taken the land from the 'natives' who were here long ago and imposed "our" language upon them. Might makes right you know. Too far back!?
Alright.....let's try this: In recent times, let's say 2000 until the present, how many are here illegally?
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/24/5-facts-about-illegal-
immigration-in-the-u-s/
According to this article, about half of the illegal workers (52%) are Mexicans. We get rid of them and build the Trump Wall using skilled American laborers (good luck with that, especially with Trump in charge). Then what about the 48% that are not Mexican? How do we keep them out? Quite the conundrum!
But I like your idea about having these illegals learn English. Well, one good thing comes out of this, we have to hire more teachers to teach English. That'll work, except in Jersey, Christie hates teachers. BTW New Jersey is one of those states who's numbers are up regarding illegals. The cleaning lady in the office where I work is from Croatia and has been here 14 years, she speaks broken English, owns a home (NJ) and has 2 daughters born and raised here in the U.S. Actually almost all the cleaning staff are foreign-born workers, even their supervisor. What a country! About half the staff are European and Asian. Each and every one terrified to lose their jobs, because they know they'll be replaced "toot suite". Slavery!, who said that, not in this country.
Deport them, I say, and give those jobs to Americans. Deport them and their children, send them back and rebuild America where our children could look forward to minimum wage and cleaning toilets for a living. Wait, isn't Bobby Jindal an anchor baby. And what about Ted Cruz, isn't he Canadian? Fuck it, get rid of them too. Good fucking riddance.
Citizenship: If anyone is here beyond 90 days, they register to get a provisional visa that'll start them on their way to becoming a citizen. Meanwhile, if they work they pay taxes like anyone else. Every year they must go to English class, that goes for all immigrants European and otherwise, not just Mexicans. They must progress in the language and after 10 years, apply to become a citizen. If they circumvent this path and leave the country, the clock starts over again. If they sneak back in illegally, the clock starts again and add 5 years. Third time's a charm, you get caught being here illegally you go under "house arrest" and wear an ankle bracelet for 20 years and no citizenship for you. How's that for democracy?
Jobs: NAFTA, PAFTA, CRAFTA, SHASTA whatever the fuck........abolish it. All it is is cheap labor for the Multinational Corporations. It destabilizes countries and soon their citizens are on their way here. The companies hire them, illegally, and bye-bye American worker. It's a form of Union Busting. The company heads then pay for advertising placing the blame on the immigrants looking to feed their families and provide a roof over their heads. It's not liberal bias or guilt when it's the truth. Why do you think they come flocking to us? They go where the jobs are, and the Corporations know because they planned it carefully. In this country money talks and bullshit walks. Just ask the Koch brothers.
But I say the children should not suffer because th
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Good points all, but let me fantasize for a moment:
I sometimes think that Trump is a Democratic plant. Why? because he's brought up what the Republicans have been avoiding since, well, the Reagan years, Immigration Reform. It's all economics. Cheap labor, more money for the Corporations. Want proof? Stagnant salaries and influx of illegal workers (although recent numbers show a slowdown), plus record profits. Hmmmmm, if it quacks like a duck.....!
But here's the Trumpster forcing the issue, leading in the polls and, with the average American fed up with the do-nothing Congress, well do the math. Were it not for him the rather large field of status quo politicians would be flapping their gums, but nobody home. Empty promises, as per usual. And the women, fuggitaboutit!
On second thought...................naaaaaaahhhhhhh!
Repeal of Birthright Citizenship would open up a can of worms that Pandora would be proud of.
Trump needs to be a vowel. I say repeal of the 14th Amendment, opens up the field for other possibilities. Like you have correctly stated, guns, religion etc. It's in the Constitution for a reason, fuck with it and this country will fall to fascism so fast................
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by ElvisChrist:
You can, of course, eliminate birthright citizenship.
The only thing it takes is a constitutional amendment.
Think about it. We couldn't pass one for women's equality, but I'm sure more people hate immigrants than hate women (although a substantial portion - a majority, really - of conservatives hate both with a passion).
Trump is a dolt. He wouldn't know how to poor piss out of a boot if the directions were on the heel.
Saying something in the Constitution is unconstitutional is just one of the dumbest fucking things anyone has ever said, and it should immediately disqualify him for office anywhere.
By the way, it's ironic that so many conservatives oppose birthright citizenship.
Marco Rubio wouldn't be a citizen if it weren't for birthright citiezenship.
Neither would Ted Cruz.
Nor Jeb Bush's kids (his wife wasn't a citizen when she had her first two kids).
Nor 4 out of 5 of Trump's kids (born to non-citizen immigrants).
Maybe it's telling us something about these people and their family values - they don't want their kids and families to live here with them?
Birthright citizenship is legal because it's in our Constitution. Kind of like guns and all your stupid religions.
Don't like it? Change the Constitution. But stop bitching about how Obama won't uphold the Constitution if you're not willing to.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Did you know Trump can have what he wants without amending the Constitution? To know that you got to read the footnotes.
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Okay, let's say that is a reality, and Congress has the balls to amend the Amendment. Where do we begin? 5, 10, 20 years ago. How about 50 years ago or when the Amendment was ratified!?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark#cite_ref-O
forji_167-1
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals criticized the granting of citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, suggesting that Congress can and should act to change this policy.
Oforji v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 609 (7th Cir. 2003). "[O]ne rule that Congress should rethink ... is awarding citizenship to everyone born in the United States (... United States v. Wong Kim Ark ...), including the children of illegal immigrants whose sole motive in immigrating was to confer U.S. citizenship on their as yet unborn children.... We should not be encouraging foreigners to come to the United States solely to enable them to confer U.S. citizenship on their future children.... A constitutional amendment may be required to change the rule ... but I doubt it.... Congress would not be flouting the Constitution if it amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to put an end to the nonsense.... Our [judges'] hands, however, are tied. We cannot amend the statutory provisions on citizenship and asylum."
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1423087.html
President Trump can do it without breaking the Constitution.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Talk about the blind leading the blind. Here we have the super-candidate, Trump, questioning the validity of the 14th Amendment saying it's un-Constitutional.
This is a real estate mogul using his superior intellect to comment on the Constitutionality of an amendment that has existed since before the Constitution was written. Plus the birthright issue has been tested in the courts and has, obviously, prevailed.
Tried, tested, game, set, match!
Commence au festival!
SGG
But YOU and a bunch of lib whores in the media are experts on the 14th amendment? Democrats want illegals here to cut their grass and clean their bathrooms. Republicans want them here for cheap labor in factory's and crush the unions The fact is the far left and right want to use these people, not help them. The Hollywood left wants them here to clean their homes, they have no chance to get jobs at film and TV studios filled with union crews. Do ya think some film producer will stop at a Home Depot parking lot at yell, I need 12 people to work on a film set! Ya think the unions would be OK with that? CEO's want these people to work in factory's and pay them as little as they can get away with. If we send these people home wages will go up because of the demand for workers. I know this because the trucking industry is short drivers and will pay drivers over $20 an hour to start. Meanwhile fast food workers make minimum wage because it's easy to find people to work there and they don't need any experience.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes, there should definitely be a requirement in all countries that nobody can go there to work or live who doesn't speak the prevailing language(s) fluently. A written and oral test should be administered on the tarmac at the airport and at every entry point into every country, as well.
If there's one thing that's proven to be bad for every person and every nation, it's exposure to other cultures!
Fuckin' idiots.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yesterday Donald J. Trump was in Mobile, Ala. at a campaign rally that he compared to a Billy Graham crusade.
Originally posted by ElvisChrist:
idiots.
One of the audience said to NYTimes: “Hopefully, he’s going to sit there and say, ‘When I become elected president, what we’re going to do is we’re going to make the border a vacation spot, it’s going to cost you $25 for a permit, and then you get $50 for every confirmed kill,’ ” said Jim Sherota, 53, who works for a landscaping company. “That’d be one nice thing.” -
www.nytimes.com/2015/08/22/us/donald-trump-fails-to-fill-alabama-stadi
um-but-fans-zeal-is-undiminished.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
First, let me start out by saying that I don't intend to vote for Trump.
I don't want Trump and his candidacy and his followers (who represent an kind of idiocracy) to turn into a surrogate discussion about MY issues with the 14th amendment.
Yes, changing the 14th Amendment would require an amendment process.
But, while it was inaccurate for Trump to say that the 14th Amendment is "unconstitutional" (it's clearly in the Constitution), it wasn't stupid of him to say that. He's playing to his reality-TV-show-watching base, and it's getting him lot and lots and lots and LOTS of free publicity. Heck, there's a whole thread here just for the purpose of discussing what Trump said. The guy sure knows how to drum it up!
All that being said, while the 14th Amendment was a good idea at the time (it was written to make citizens of former slaves, in order to correct a defect in the original framework which didn't recognize slaves as citizens) it is no longer a useful idea. In the realm of international law, it's an aberration; it sticks out like a sore thumb. Even some Chinese and Mexicans think we're really stupid to allow it; I know because they told me so.
As far as implementing the repeal (or modification) of the 14th Amendment, you can't apply new laws retroactively. It would have to be from the date of ratification. So all of those thoughts about going back to the days of the Declaration of Independence ... phhhffffttt! That's what those thoughts are worth.
As far as people having to learn English on the tarmac ... clearly, you don't know how a visa system works. One gets permission to be in the USA through a visa, and there are many kinds including tourist visas and student visas. For those kinds of visa classifications, you shouldn't have to know English. However, it you want to gain CITIZENSHIP, clearly, you SHOULD know the language! There should be absolutely no reason whatsoever to have to print election material in 17 different languages, as we do here in southern CA.
The value of amending the 14th amendment - in addition to its value to ending birthright citizenship, birth tourism (yes it really happens, mostly with Asians) and "if I have one kid in the USA he or she will be my anchor baby" - would be political: we could trade it for a mandatory citizenship pathway for long-term residents. Everyone would be happy: the right wing would be happy, and the illegal immigrants would have a pathway to citizenship.
Most of your responses are pretty off-target, I have to say.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
By the way, the claim that birthright citizenship is an American aberration is also quite off the mark.
33 countries do it. We're one of them.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Did you hear the people at the Trump/KKK rally shouting "WHITE POWER!" during his speech?
That's the Republican base. That's EXACTLY who they are and why they support Trump.
And Sig, next time you want to blather on about people needing to speak the language, how's about you do it in fucking Navajo, you asshole.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Look everybody! Whozit promoted me, I'm now an EXPERT. Yippee Ka Yay!
Truck Drivers: I know of one man who came here 20 years ago and drives a truck for a living.
I saw a video report of an illegal Mexican worker that works in New York at the Trump Soho Hotel. He said he's neither a rapist or drug dealer. He works for Trump.
He hired an illegal worker, who probably gets half of what an American would get in salary.
Yes, Trump for president!
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Talk about the blind leading the blind. Here we have the super-candidate, Trump, questioning the validity of the 14th Amendment saying it's un-Constitutional.
This is a real estate mogul using his superior intellect to comment on the Constitutionality of an amendment that has existed since before the Constitution was written. Plus the birthright issue has been tested in the courts and has, obviously, prevailed.
Tried, tested, game, set, match!
Commence au festival!
SGG
But YOU and a bunch of lib whores in the media are experts on the 14th amendment? Democrats want illegals here to cut their grass and clean their bathrooms. Republicans want them here for cheap labor in factory's and crush the unions The fact is the far left and right want to use these people, not help them. The Hollywood left wants them here to clean their homes, they have no chance to get jobs at film and TV studios filled with union crews. Do ya think some film producer will stop at a Home Depot parking lot at yell, I need 12 people to work on a film set! Ya think the unions would be OK with that? CEO's want these people to work in factory's and pay them as little as they can get away with. If we send these people home wages will go up because of the demand for workers. I know this because the trucking industry is short drivers and will pay drivers over $20 an hour to start. Meanwhile fast food workers make minimum wage because it's easy to find people to work there and they don't need any experience.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Like those 2 idiots that beat up a homeless man.........a homeless man!!!
From what I understand, Trump supporters make up approximately 25% of the conservative republican base. His hate speech, which is what it amounts to, will NOT fly across the majority of this country, no matter how frustrated people are.
There's no room in this country for fascism.
A whole war was fought to rid the world of such despicable behavior. That's the America I know and love.
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by ElvisChrist:
Did you hear the people at the Trump/KKK rally shouting "WHITE POWER!" during his speech?
That's the Republican base. That's EXACTLY who they are and why they support Trump.
And Sig, next time you want to blather on about people needing to speak the language, how's about you do it in fucking Navajo, you asshole.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Amendment was born out of an English law that existed well before the Constitution was ever writ. So it is not purely American.
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by ElvisChrist:
By the way, the claim that birthright citizenship is an American aberration is also quite off the mark.
33 countries do it. We're one of them.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Elvischrist did his homework...........................
Here's a list:
http://www.multiplecitizenship.com/worldsummary.html
Next!
SGG
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The 14th Amendment, it is the law of the land, Trump, if he becomes president, can issue an Executive Order (it's okay, he's white, so Congress won't obstruct), but it will still be Un-Constitutional.
It would take an act of Congress to change the law.
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:Did you know Trump can have what he wants without amending the Constitution? To know that you got to read the footnotes.
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Okay, let's say that is a reality, and Congress has the balls to amend the Amendment. Where do we begin? 5, 10, 20 years ago. How about 50 years ago or when the Amendment was ratified!?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark#cite_ref-O
forji_167-1
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals criticized the granting of citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, suggesting that Congress can and should act to change this policy.
Oforji v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 609 (7th Cir. 2003). "[O]ne rule that Congress should rethink ... is awarding citizenship to everyone born in the United States (... United States v. Wong Kim Ark ...), including the children of illegal immigrants whose sole motive in immigrating was to confer U.S. citizenship on their as yet unborn children.... We should not be encouraging foreigners to come to the United States solely to enable them to confer U.S. citizenship on their future children.... A constitutional amendment may be required to change the rule ... but I doubt it.... Congress would not be flouting the Constitution if it amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to put an end to the nonsense.... Our [judges'] hands, however, are tied. We cannot amend the statutory provisions on citizenship and asylum."
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1423087.html
President Trump can do it without breaking the Constitution.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:In the unlikely event that Trump is President, he'd likely have a Republican Senate and House. He would get his amended Immigration and Nationality Act. Years and years later the Supreme Court would eventually rule about that law's constitutionality. If the Court decides based on original intent of the writers of the 14th Amendment toward only ex-slaves and native tribes, Trump will have his way. If the Court decides based on English Common Law, Trump will lose his way.
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
The 14th Amendment, it is the law of the land, Trump, if he becomes president, can issue an Executive Order (it's okay, he's white, so Congress won't obstruct), but it will still be Un-Constitutional.
It would take an act of Congress to change the law.
In other news: Republicans were shocked — shocked! — to learn that Trump is not a team player. Where had they been? You would have thought, given that Trump assailed Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush by name right out of the gate when he first announced he was running for president, the Republican National Committee would have already figured out that Trump is only loyal to Trump.
Now there is a new movement afoot to get tough and bar from the next debate — which is scheduled to be televised on CNN on Sept. 16 — anyone who refuses to pledge support for the party’s eventual nominee. (Read: Donald Trump.)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:But curiously not implemented in modern England, nor in New Zealand, Australia, Wales, Scotland, or Ireland. Having looked this up, I find it IS purely "American", in the sense that it is only law in the Americas (north, central, and south ... and BTW you reveal your bias by referring to the USA as "America" when in fact there are many nations that are "American". That's why I refer to the USA as the USA.) and not in all "American" nations at that.
The Amendment was born out of an English law that existed well before the Constitution was ever writ. So it is not purely American.
Quote:
By the way, the claim that birthright citizenship is an American aberration is also quite off the mark.
33 countries do it. We're one of them. 33 countries out of 194 have birthright citizenship, and they're in the Americas. So I guess in that sense (altho not the sense that was intended) it IS an "American" aberration. Worldwide, it's 15%. The USA is not unique, OTOH, it's not common either.
Quote:Whatever. I've written more than once about the fact that America was born by mass genocide. Are you willing to leave the USA for the land of your parents' (or grandparents' or further back) birth? That's why I propose from time of adoption forward, not retroactive (which BTW is legally impossible).
And Sig, next time you want to blather on about people needing to speak the language, how's about you do it in fucking Navajo, you asshole.
Having to publish election material ... not restaurant menus, not business signs, but BALLOTS ... in 17 languages is ludicrous.
BTW- In order to be President of Navajo Nation (yes, it is a nation) you need to speak Navajo.
Yah-ta-hey!
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns. gallery.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I didn't vote for US policy on native Americans. I'm totally alienated from this government ... a point that I keep getting criticized for.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Maybe a restart on the conversation would be helpful.
Setting aside USA policy on illegal Hispanic immigrants, which brings up a host of other issues, if you were able to set immigration policy for some other random nation ... say, New Zealand .... what would your policy be? How would you balance the desire to extend a hand to others who might be less fortunate and treat immigrants in a humane fashion, against the need to be able to provide jobs and have a successful economy and integrated society?
So, which one of you brave souls will tackle the subject of fair immigration policies?
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think all countries should participate in "shelter in place" programs, based on their GDP, for victims of global warming, drought, earthquake, epidemics etc - natural disasters that may make life untenable under those conditions. For those people who must flee - for example, people whose islands are disappearing under the ocean - the fund pays for their resettlement and provision in the country of their choice. But of course many people displace themselves due to economics. In that case the country from which people are fleeing must pay 50% of the cost of supporting the emigrants in their new country, while the global fund pays the rest. And then of course there are millions on millions of people who are fleeing war. In that case the cost of providing for those people must be divided equally between all participants who are involved in ANY way besides simple humanitarianism.
Once the question of cost is settled, I don't think too many people will complain about immigration.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No other takers? Nobody wants to spend some quality-time thinking about how to solve the problem of immigration, and what mass movements of people mean in a world where there is no "free" land and every place is already occupied by a different group of people who may have their own ideas how to run a society and an economy?
------------
I think those are good ideas, but there has to be a geopolitical component to immigration. A lot of immigration is caused by man-made disasters ... war, primarily.
For example, on the reasons why Europe is the destination for a wave of immigrants is because the EU ... and France in particular... helped destroy Libya. And then the arms and jihadists were transported northeastward towards Syria (Thank you, Saudi Arabia and Qatar!) and also dispersed south and west, into Mali. So in a sense, the EU is simply paying for the problems it created. (Much like the USA and Latin America.)
And what about nations that are improvident? Even though no other nation has aggressively "intervened" in their internal policies, maybe they just fail to implement rational population control and fail to build up emergency supplies, and then when the inevitable disaster strikes, they expect help? Or maybe the government is so corrupt that no matter HOW hard people work, wealth is siphoned off at the top and development never occurs?
I haven't worked my way through all of the ins and outs of disaster relief, economic displacement, corruption, sanctuary, war, and the flow of capital and people, but so far I've gotten to the point where I know you shouldn't mess militarily in most other nations.
So, needs more thought.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You know, I wrote a lengthy and rather brilliant response, but, for some reason I never quite understand with this site, it sent me back to the Log In page. This is totally frustrating.................
Anyway, FUCK IT!
A whole lot of good it's going to do.
SGG
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:First try to work out an immigration policy for a place with "free" land: the Union of Allied Planets. This is a simpler case than Earth. It should be an easy first step toward a policy for our real world. In the Alliance there are no nations, no national borders, two common languages and everybody speaks at least one or the other. There is a single currency.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
No other takers? Nobody wants to spend some quality-time thinking about how to solve the problem of immigration, and what mass movements of people mean in a world where there is no "free" land and every place is already occupied by a different group of people who may have their own ideas how to run a society and an economy?
Figures.
It makes you wonder why there was a Unification War, does it not?
Once you work out this immigration policy, the entire 'Verse has to obey you since the Parliament overrules all jerkwater parochial interests: those people who are narrow-minded, provincial, small-town, conservative, illiberal, intolerant.
Now that you have the theoretical Alliance policy and have tested the results on a computer model or, at least, inside some of your friends' heads, expand your theory in small steps to cover a single world with two or ten or a hundred nations and two, ten, or a hundred languages and cultures. And do not forget those hundred internally squabbling national governments that go in & out of power at every election. That will be important to Immigration policy for Earth.
The Camp of the Saints (Le Camp des Saints) is a 1973 French apocalyptic novel by Jean Raspail. The novel depicts a Third World mass immigration to France and the West. The book returned to the bestseller list in 2011. Europe had 4 years (or 42 years depending on when the count begins) to decide about immigration. Does Europe need more time? Or will it never decide and simply flail about in a routine and daily crisis as has the USA?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm trying to figure out how if there is an approach which balances the needs of the immigrants with the needs of the people already there.
Do you want to see what uncontrolled immigration does? Just look at Native Americans. Or the Aborigines in Australia, or the Maori.
People living where they live have a right to live without being overrun or forced off their land. That means USAns have a right to live in the USA. Goose sauce = gander sauce.
I don't know what the source of your emotional reaction is ... you might want to explain what it is that you think feels threatened, and what you think you're defending, because you're lashing out like this is some sort of existential threat and as far as I'm concerned it's a discussion and a thought-exercise.
Take a deep breath, and please explain what you think is so wildly offensive about negating birthright citizenship.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
You know, I wrote a lengthy and rather brilliant response, but, for some reason I never quite understand with this site, it sent me back to the Log In page. This is totally frustrating.................
Anyway, FUCK IT!
A whole lot of good it's going to do.
SGG
It seems to me that the site logs people off almost at random. It doesn't seem to have to do with time of day because it has logged me off at any time, and it doesn't seem to have to do with how long I've been logged on with "no activity" because it has logged me off after just a few moments of being logged on. Maybe it has to do with the number of people who are logged on or trying to log on, because there's no apparent pattern or trigger.
What works for me when I try too "save response" or "update post" and get the "Please log in" message is
Before you do anything else, hit the browser "BACK" button. This should bring up the last page that was in PC memory, which should include the post that you just entered.
On the same screen, open up a text editor of ANY sort: Word, gedit, emailer... anything that will hold the text you're trying to save. Open up a blank email or a text editing page (new document).
Highlight your FFF post by left-mouse-button-hold-and-drag, and then once the text is highlighted, right mouse click on the highlighted text and select "COPY". This puts the text onto a little portion of memory called clipboard.
Right mouse-click on the blank text editor page and select "PASTE". This puts your post safely into another application, where it will remain while you ...
Log (back) into FFF.net, and open a REPLY TO window.
You can try just right-clicking on the open RELY window, and selecting PASTE. If your post is still on the clipboard, it will copy onto the newly opened window. But if the text has been lost from the clipboard for whatever reason, you can still highlight-COPY-PASTE from the copy that you placed in your other application, and the SAVE RESPONSE. If you get a chance to try out this recovery procedure, let me know how it works.
I wish that you would re-post your reply. I'm always interested in what you have to say. I may disagree with it, though!
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As usual, I've stepped into a hornet's nest and the only people that I agree with so far are WHOZIT (go figure!) and KIKI. Maybe if I took you thru the thought-process that got me here, it might help smooth the discussion.
Southern California is host to a number of contagious tropical diseases, including TB. My niece, when she was picking her ER residency, told me that interns like to come to LA County Hospital because not only do you see all the usual indigent patients, you get to see bot fly and TB and all kinds of weird diseases and parasites brought in by immigrants. Yanno, having sick people sneaking across your border doesn't do us any good, and it sure doesn't do THEM any good because they're not be diagnosed or treated either.
That got me to thinking how we treat illegal immigrants:
Out of sight, out of mind.
They're lucky to be here.
If we see them or think about them, maybe we'll throw them a few crumbs.
We had our A/C replaced, and the contractor was clearly using illegal laborers who couldn't speak English. He drove them like donkeys even without time for water or bathroom breaks... they were working in our VERY hot attic space in summer ... and threatened to deport them whenever they slowed down from breakneck speed. Also, because they couldn't speak English, they couldn't understand his instructions, and any sort of extended training would be beyond them, and they did a crappy job. Something I've had experience with with other immigrants who didn't understand English and had no job training either. Do you want someone like that replacing your wiring?
When I hired nannies for our daughter, I always made sure that they could speak English because communicating with a non-English speaker what a seizure looks like, and having THEM communicate with EMTs would have otherwise been a nightmare. (Also, I checked for valid Social Security numbers... but that's another story.)
So I came at the idea of immigration, not from the idea of saving USAn jobs, but of actually treating immigrants like they were human beings, not disposable laborers. WHEN we bring in immigrants, we should make sure that they are able to function fully in our economy and society, not assume they'll work in the shadows and only acknowledge them when we need someone to dig a ditch or change a diaper. Learning the language is important, because it allows access training and a host of other services.
The only reason why our immigration policy is a fucked up as it is is because it creates a pool of very cheap, very disposable labor.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You saw a crime called "Exploitation of Unlawful Workers". Don't just tell us.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
We had our A/C replaced, and the contractor was clearly using illegal laborers . . .
Visit the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement online tip form at http://www.ice.gov/tipline
Section I of the form allows you to include your name, email and phone number. This is optional, however, and you can omit it if you wish to remain anonymous. Under section II select "Employment/Exploitation of Unlawful Workers" and select that the complain involves a business or company. Provide the details about the company hiring undocumented workers in section III. Provide the location of the business and include a summary of up to 2,500 characters giving as much information as you have about the undocumented workers at this business.
Reporting by Phone
U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement also accepts anonymous tips via their toll free tip line. Call the line at (866) 347-2423. Do not report a company by phone if you have already done so online, however. When asked, provide as much information about the situation as possible. You should be able to give the name of the company and details about the undocumented workers. If you want, you can provide your name and contact information when making a tip, but you can remain anonymous if you prefer.
Followups and Rewards
U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement does not provide status updates on tips. It does provide the assurance that all tips "will be promptly forwarded to the responsible office for follow up action as deemed appropriate." If you have additional information however, you can call or submit it online. If you provide your contact information, it is possible that you will receive a monetary award. However, U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement states that, while it has the ability to pay for information, there is no guarantee that you will be compensated.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
THANKS. That's extremely useful information.
FWIW I don't believe I've ever hired anyone who used illegal labor. That's because I tend to hire contractors I know who hire people I know. Or for small jobs I hire and pay directly. But I've always been a bit ambivalent. These good wages aren't going to illegals. And while I'm not exploiting anyone, I'm not helping the problem, either.
The City and County of Los Angeles passed a living wage ordinance. If the whole state would pass a similar ordinance, it would help prevent abuse of illegals by contractors at least in California. That's because every contract drawn up would have to include the living wage calculation, instead of exploitative wages being hidden in the total amount.
I've had arborists use Spanish speaking people. But the (Anglo) arborist was fluent in Spanish, and it was obvious the workers had been with him a while - they were highly trained and very skilled in their work, had what seemed to be all the propers tools in good condition, and had, and used, safety equipment including harnesses and ropes. Sometimes non-English speakers aren't being exploited, even though I think that's pretty rare.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Since employers won't admit to cheating employees and employees won't go to the cops for fear of deportation, that leaves it up to the customers to report the crimes of employers. Most customers would rather do nothing than the right thing.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
The City and County of Los Angeles passed a living wage ordinance. If the whole state would pass a similar ordinance, it would help prevent abuse of illegals by contractors at least in California. That's because every contract drawn up would have to include the living wage calculation, instead of exploitative wages being hidden in the total amount.
"I know that virtually all of you feel that compelling our businesses to pay workers more is somehow unfair, or is too much government interference. Most of you think that we should just let good examples like Costco or Gap lead the way. Or let the market set the price. But here’s the thing. When those who set bad examples, like the owners of Wal-Mart or McDonald’s, pay their workers close to the minimum wage, what they’re really saying is that they’d pay even less if it weren’t illegal. (Thankfully both companies have recently said they would not oppose a hike in the minimum wage.) In any large group, some people absolutely will not do the right thing. That’s why our economy can only be safe and effective if it is governed by the same kinds of rules as, say, the transportation system, with its speed limits and stop signs." The Pitchforks Are Coming… For Us Plutocrats
www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-
us-plutocrats-108014_Page3.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Originally posted by second:
"Since employers won't admit to cheating employees and employees won't go to the cops for fear of deportation, that leaves it up to the customers to report the crimes of employers. Most customers would rather do nothing than the right thing."
Now, here's the thing. I work for a government agency. Landscaping, cleaning, maintaining agency vehicles, working at the lowest level in information management, and security are all contracted out. As a government agency, my employer is required to put these and other services out for bid, and unless there's a compelling reason to do otherwise, select the lowest bidder.
I have friends and acquaintances in all those areas, and I KNOW what kind of crap the employers are pulling with their employees. Shorting checks, bouncing checks, making them inscrutable so no one knows what exactly is being paid and deducted ... The contractor for security told one of their employees to intercept the bids coming in for the next security contract, and record who was bidding on the job. When the employee refused, she was fired. The contractors are THAT bad.
At the very least, the living wage ordinance airs out the bids for public institutions, and institutions that get public money. They have to show they're complying with the law in how they award contracts. And all of that information, is, by law, public.
This ordinance doesn't guarantee that all employers will stop exploiting workers. But by creating stiff competition for employees, and also public awareness, and even by potentially exposing exploitative contractors, it has the potential to improve the situation.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Trump is opposed to it. “Having a low minimum wage is not a bad thing for this country,” Trump said. It would certainly make us more competitive globally, because as Trump says, “it’s the United States against other places,” where the taxes and wages are lower. http://allenbwest.com/2015/08/trump-weighs-in-on-minimum-wage-and-the-
Originally posted by 1kiki:
At the very least, the living wage ordinance airs out the bids for public institutions, and institutions that get public money. They have to show they're complying with the law in how they award contracts. And all of that information, is, by law, public.
answer-is-nasty/
Scott Adams of Dilbert comic wrote, "I have no idea whether he would be a good President or not, and I don’t believe you know either. My man-crush is based on Trump’s persuasion skills. I have never seen better."
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/127479255236/trump-vs-bush-persuasion-war
s
Scott Adams says he has "no idea". I do. Adams is an ass.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes, I have done this a handful of times, whenever I'm in the 'zone' and writing something brilliant, and it has worked (I highlight my text and then have it ready to paste). It has saved me frustration on 2 occasions.
I have done this little thing a total of 5 times, so of course, I haven't had to use it 3 times and thought it was safe to fly without a net. I was wrong!
But thanks for the info anyway.
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
You know, I wrote a lengthy and rather brilliant response, but, for some reason I never quite understand with this site, it sent me back to the Log In page. This is totally frustrating.................
Anyway, FUCK IT!
A whole lot of good it's going to do.
SGG
It seems to me that the site logs people off almost at random. It doesn't seem to have to do with time of day because it has logged me off at any time, and it doesn't seem to have to do with how long I've been logged on with "no activity" because it has logged me off after just a few moments of being logged on. Maybe it has to do with the number of people who are logged on or trying to log on, because there's no apparent pattern or trigger.
What works for me when I try too "save response" or "update post" and get the "Please log in" message is
Before you do anything else, hit the browser "BACK" button. This should bring up the last page that was in PC memory, which should include the post that you just entered.
On the same screen, open up a text editor of ANY sort: Word, gedit, emailer... anything that will hold the text you're trying to save. Open up a blank email or a text editing page (new document).
Highlight your FFF post by left-mouse-button-hold-and-drag, and then once the text is highlighted, right mouse click on the highlighted text and select "COPY". This puts the text onto a little portion of memory called clipboard.
Right mouse-click on the blank text editor page and select "PASTE". This puts your post safely into another application, where it will remain while you ...
Log (back) into FFF.net, and open a REPLY TO window.
You can try just right-clicking on the open RELY window, and selecting PASTE. If your post is still on the clipboard, it will copy onto the newly opened window. But if the text has been lost from the clipboard for whatever reason, you can still highlight-COPY-PASTE from the copy that you placed in your other application, and the SAVE RESPONSE. If you get a chance to try out this recovery procedure, let me know how it works.
I wish that you would re-post your reply. I'm always interested in what you have to say. I may disagree with it, though!
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The only reason why our immigration policy is a fucked up as it is is because it creates a pool of very cheap, very disposable labor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ahhhhh, there's the key, or at the very least, one of the keys. The trouble stems from companies abusing the system and promoting cheap disposable labor. From which springs forth a whole slew of socio-economic maladies.
In turn you feed the Jingo monster: people blaming the poor slobs that come from other countries seeking a better life for their loved ones back "home."
For instance, I found out that someone I met a few years back arrived here from another country (in his country they spoke English) and he said that the exchange rate, he found out, was 6 to 1. Six of his 'dollars' for one of ours. His family was in some financial distress and had to ask an uncle for a loan. It took $6000 of his 'dollars' to get $1000 US dollars. And so, he worked to pay that loan back to his uncle. He said that in his country they lived ok, better than most, but not rich.
This story is repeated probably a thousand times over, maybe millions of times over. And in some of the poorer countries, it becomes the ONLY story.
I am dumbfounded when I see people speaking ill of those folks who are 'forced' to seek a better life, especially when I know that they would prefer to stay in their homeland. Many yearn to return to their native land, the land where they were born, to have peace and live in the land they love. Some even try desperately to hold onto their culture, language and customs to bring a piece of home with them.
I remember, when I was a teenager, travelling to the land of my parents and expecting to see huts and people living in caves, and how surprised I was when I saw how much it resembled the U.S. Burger King, McDonalds and Pizza Huts everywhere.
But here we have greedy employers looking to turn a profit at any cost. These are human beings folks, and underneath it all, they just want what any of us want - to live in peace and enjoy our families.
SGG
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The words were already ironic when "Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" was written by Emma Lazarus in 1883 because in 1882 the Chinese Exclusion Act became law. It was one of the most significant restrictions on free immigration in US history, prohibiting all immigration of Chinese laborers.
Originally posted by Brenda:
What about the words written on the board carried by the lady with the lamp, "Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses, yearning for freedom" ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Colossus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There's actually something global about the rise of Trumpism, and his blend of extreme hostility to immigration paired with centrist or even at times left-wing stances on elements of the welfare state.
In a wide range of countries across Europe, newish parties — often, though not always with roots in ideological extremism — are gaining support with platforms that emphasize economic nationalism and anti-immigrant politics, often paired with a more centrist view on the welfare state.
Roughly the Trump ideological mix, in other words, except without the bombastic billionaire. And one of the few exceptions to the trend is Italy, where the main center-right political party has long been lead by Silvio Berlusconi, a bombastic billionaire with anti-immigrant views.
Consider the current situation in Sweden: an August 20 poll showed Jimmie Åkesson’s Sweden Democrats Party . . . The examples continue at www.vox.com/2015/8/25/9203405/trump-european-far-right
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Trump is opposed to it. “Having a low minimum wage is not a bad thing for this country,” Trump said. It would certainly make us more competitive globally, because as Trump says, “it’s the United States against other places,” where the taxes and wages are lower."
There are a few national answers to the ponzi scheme of profit, which needs an increasing base of poor to keep the system going.
One is to compete on the cost of production aka 'cheap labor' - to be the fastest to get to the bottom of the barrel in terms of wages, safety, infrastructure, education and healthcare, and of course the environment.
Many countries follow that model. Did you know that Vietnam is China's China?
That seems to be the only solution Trump knows, which doesn't surprise me, as he's a dunderhead.
Another solution is to be advanced enough that you can offer something literally no one else can in terms of the products of labor. In effect, to have a market monopoly on technology.
That's the kind of solution Germany seems to be pursuing. But it's a solution only rarely available, because not everyone can be 'the' best.
If you're a country that has a valuable resource that's scare in other countries, then your people can subsist as "hewers of wood and drawers of water", extracting resources to sell on the global market.
Saudi Arabia is one country that follows that model. But it's a specialized solution, and it does put you at the mercy of technology finding a substitute for your resource; and other countries' economies, since if they're ailing, they're not going to buy your product.
And then there are people who are promoting isolationism as an answer to global competition. But isolationism and capitalism can't exist together, since capitalism can't survive in a closed system. It must expand, or it'll die.
Or you could exit the capitalist system and do something different, economically speaking.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I believe in that lofty ideal, very much so, and I used to think "where are those that feel the same way I do."
Even though I was born and raised in this country, I got that look from people and often a verbal taunt, "why are you here" "Hey, 'mira' a Spanish word meaning 'look' - but said with an American slang and 'go back where you came from 'Paydro' (Pedro with a heavy English accent).
Spic, roach boy and other lovely and dehumanizing, derogatory comments. All because I didn't look like the others. Back then I didn't know what to say, but I loved my country - the USA. I loved baseball, football and apple pie. I grew up watching patriotic movies like Sgt. York, the Sullivan Brothers, Run Silent; Run Deep and loved every minute of it. Those bullies, hurt my soul, I wondered what I did to deserve such venomous treatment. I felt less than.
Today, to those bullies I say: eat shit and die. I belong where I belong. I am 100% a red-blooded American male. I am not 'Paydro' or Hey, mira! You don't have to slow down and practically spell out words in English for me to understand - I speak perfect English, period. Actually, I was an honor student. I lived facing racism on a daily basis. Racism and bias were my constant tormentors. I am steadfastly Democratic, as my sainted grandmother, and cried when JFK was brutally assassinated. I was 10 years old.
I am a direct product of those 'yearning to be free' and that parchment declaring independence from a ruthless monarch.
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:
What about the words written on the board carried by the lady with the lamp, "Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses, yearning for freedom" ?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Let me get this straight. If I want the admiration and blessings of the most flamboyant, judgmental Christians in America, I should marry three times, do a queasy-making amount of sexual boasting, verbally degrade women, talk trash about pretty much everyone else while I’m at it, encourage gamblers to hemorrhage their savings in casinos bearing my name and crow incessantly about how much money I’ve amassed?
Seems to work for Donald Trump.
Polls show him to be the preferred candidate among not just all Republican voters but also the party’s vocal evangelical subset.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Polls show him to be the preferred candidate among not just all Republican voters but also the party’s vocal evangelical subset.
Personally, I find the teachings of Christ have very little to do with Christianity.
Some people see Ted Cruz as the inheritor of the religious republican wing if/ when Trump falls from grace.
http://www.salon.com/2015/08/26/ted_cruz_is_the_true_gop_dark_horse_ho
w_hes_winning_over_the_fanatical_right_at_exactly_the_right_time/
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Christians ought to notice Trump is un-presidential in tone and character. Example:
Trump opened a conference by yelling at Univision anchor Jorge Ramos, who he claimed asked a question without being called on. He continued to yell at Ramos at some length about being out of turn, then turned to one of his campaign staffers, nodded, and pointed at Ramos, whereupon the staffer removed Ramos from the conference.
The next reporter’s question, naturally, was, “Why did you have him thrown out?” Amazingly, Trump responded to this question, I’m not kidding, by answering, “I didn’t have him thrown out, you’ll have to ask security, whoever they are.” When reporters pressed him with the obvious fact that the person who had him removed was on his staff, he immediately changed his tune to say that it was because the reporter was a “highly emotional person,” with no mention of the fact that 30 seconds earlier he had been denying that he had Ramos thrown out at all.
When Trump is faced with someone willing to be as much of a bully as he is, he couldn't handle it, so he had the guy thrown out and then lied about doing it.
www.redstate.com/2015/08/25/awesome-terrible-majesty-donald-trump-pres
s-conference/
"Psychopaths often cover up their deficiencies with a ready and engaging charm, so it can take time to realize what you are dealing with. Kent A. Kiehl used to ask inexperienced graduate students to interview a particularly appealing inmate before acquainting themselves with his criminal history. These budding psychologists would emerge quite certain that such a well-spoken, trustworthy person must have been wrongly imprisoned. Until, that is, they read his file and went back to reinterview him, at which point he would say offhandedly, 'Oh, yeah, I didn't want to tell you about all that stuff. That's the old me.'...
www.delanceyplace.com/view-archives.php?p=2878
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The problem is JOBS.
Illegal immigrants are seen as taking jobs away from Americans ... and, they do! Illegals are an easy way of finding cheap exploitable foreign labor without the muss and fuss of transporting raw materials and products, all in the convenience of your own backyard!
People are stupid if they think Trump ... one of the mega-wealthy ... has a solution to spread the wealth.
But EVEN IF ... no, ESPECIALLY IF .... you have an economic plan that involves creating meaningful jobs for everyone who can and wants to work, you can't absorb a huge amount of incoming labor. And what if you want to be ecologically sustainable? Do you think, for example, that the southwest with its chronic water shortage can absorb a few ten million more?
Once upon a time, when "the west" was free for the taking ... once the Indians were gotten rid of, of course ... and forty acres and a mule could be gotten for the price of being willing to work the land ... there was a place for everyone.
To drive a point home, if you want to see an example of who paid for uncontrolled immigration, all you have to do is look at natives in any land settled by Europeans, whether is was north and south America, Australia, or New Zealand.
But, all of this for later.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You are not thinking big enough.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
The problem is JOBS.
To drive a point home, if you want to see an example of who paid for uncontrolled immigration, all you have to do is look at ...
If US were to undertake a mass deportation campaign its cost over five years would be $285 billion, which "would mean new taxes of $922 for every man, woman, and child in our country. $5,100 fewer dollars for the education of every public and private school student from prekindergarten to the 12th grade."
Check those figures at http://www.businessinsider.com/deporting-all-of-americas-illegal-immig
rants-would-cost-a-whopping-285-billion-2012-1
“Removing all undocumented immigrants would cause the labor force to shrink by 6.4 percent, which translates to a loss of 11 million workers. As a result, 20 years from now the economy would be nearly 6 percent or $1.6 trillion smaller than it would be if the government did not remove all undocumented immigrants.” http://immigrationimpact.com/2015/03/20/mass-deportation-would-be-a-co
stly-blunder/
Since you can buy the whole USA today with $100 trillion, these costs are not small. www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/Ni_FedBeaSna/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=
12&FirstYear=2011&LastYear=2015&Freq=Qtr
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, the reason to keep illegal immigrants in the USA is because they're cheap labor, and it's too expensive to deport them?
Sounds pretty corporatist to me!
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Don't get me started on the Evangelicals! The Corporate church and the teachings of Jesus have little to do with one another. Yes, I said it!
A true believer will pray and let Jesus. The Corporate church teaches their flock to stand up in what you believe in and pound it into the non-believers brain until they succumb. It's onward Christian soldiers, let's fight!
But it's no longer: "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8"For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.…"
Christians are being told that they must be aggressive to inherit what has been promised. It is no longer about faith and waiting on the Lord. That they could no longer stand idly by and watch as man commits these abominations. They feel that God gives them the right to judge and act in his stead. This is NOT the teachings of Christ, but a sick and twisted interpretation. It is Christian extremism, made flesh. God lessons through Christ, was to trust in him and allow him to exact judgment and punishment; that he would be judge, jury and executioner.
All these actions shows the wicked nature and imperfection of man; and, moreover, his impatience to obey and trust in God. Instead of standing silent and listening for his guidance and wisdom, man insists to show that he is smarter than God in his disobedience and wanton impatience for the perfect world or heaven on Earth. In addition to a lack of obedience, faith and patience, they show a total lack of humility. It is all interconnected. They encourage killing adults who perform abortions; to which I say, what's the difference? You're encouraging killing. It says: Thou shall NOT kill.
Christianity, in my mind, has become synonymous with extremism. But this country is slowly being turned over to extremism generally in the political sense. Evangelicals have been encouraged by their pastors to affect change and put God back in charge by voting. Before it was God bless the US and now it's God take the wheel.
They are trying to force everyone to believe as they do, or else. And they won't be content until everyone is a Christian, whether you like it or not. That notion, for me, flies in the face of what it means to be an American, we love our Freedom too much. Ted Cruz and his ilk are looking to control you and your life, NO Freedom!
No Choice! That's what it's come to.
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Polls show him to be the preferred candidate among not just all Republican voters but also the party’s vocal evangelical subset.
Personally, I find the teachings of Christ have very little to do with Christianity.
Some people see Ted Cruz as the inheritor of the religious republican wing if/ when Trump falls from grace.
http://www.salon.com/2015/08/26/ted_cruz_is_the_true_gop_dark_horse_ho
w_hes_winning_over_the_fanatical_right_at_exactly_the_right_time/
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's funny what people are willing to ignore. Trump backpedaled so fast, he nearly ran over his own words. His followers are the same people who voted for Bush II in hopes that he would restore the status quo: 'those in power or aspiring toward power, I got your back' but instead got Bernie Madoff. Bush/Cheney was a big middle finger to the Middle Class. The Evangelicals are still reeling from Bush II's betrayal, hence the T-Party.
Trump was asked what was his favorite verse from the Bible (which he claims is his favorite book, even over the Art of the Deal), and he couldn't/wouldn't give an answer. For me, it's Psalm 23, and I'm not even a died-in-the-wool Christian.
By the way, his answer was that it was too personal (Bullshit answer).
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
The Christians ought to notice Trump is un-presidential in tone and character. Example:
Trump opened a conference by yelling at Univision anchor Jorge Ramos, who he claimed asked a question without being called on. He continued to yell at Ramos at some length about being out of turn, then turned to one of his campaign staffers, nodded, and pointed at Ramos, whereupon the staffer removed Ramos from the conference.
The next reporter’s question, naturally, was, “Why did you have him thrown out?” Amazingly, Trump responded to this question, I’m not kidding, by answering, “I didn’t have him thrown out, you’ll have to ask security, whoever they are.” When reporters pressed him with the obvious fact that the person who had him removed was on his staff, he immediately changed his tune to say that it was because the reporter was a “highly emotional person,” with no mention of the fact that 30 seconds earlier he had been denying that he had Ramos thrown out at all.
When Trump is faced with someone willing to be as much of a bully as he is, he couldn't handle it, so he had the guy thrown out and then lied about doing it.
www.redstate.com/2015/08/25/awesome-terrible-majesty-donald-trump-pres
s-conference/
"Psychopaths often cover up their deficiencies with a ready and engaging charm, so it can take time to realize what you are dealing with. Kent A. Kiehl used to ask inexperienced graduate students to interview a particularly appealing inmate before acquainting themselves with his criminal history. These budding psychologists would emerge quite certain that such a well-spoken, trustworthy person must have been wrongly imprisoned. Until, that is, they read his file and went back to reinterview him, at which point he would say offhandedly, 'Oh, yeah, I didn't want to tell you about all that stuff. That's the old me.'...
www.delanceyplace.com/view-archives.php?p=2878
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Let me get this straight. Illegal immigrants crossed the border, left their families and their homelands, put a gun to the heads of upstanding, law-abiding Americans and forced them out of their jobs.
Is that what you're saying?
'Taking jobs away from Americans' implies just that.
And the owners? They, of course, had no say in the matter, did they?
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
The problem is JOBS.
Illegal immigrants are seen as taking jobs away from Americans ... and, they do! Illegals are an easy way of finding cheap exploitable foreign labor without the muss and fuss of transporting raw materials and products, all in the convenience of your own backyard!
People are stupid if they think Trump ... one of the mega-wealthy ... has a solution to spread the wealth.
But EVEN IF ... no, ESPECIALLY IF .... you have an economic plan that involves creating meaningful jobs for everyone who can and wants to work, you can't absorb a huge amount of incoming labor. And what if you want to be ecologically sustainable? Do you think, for example, that the southwest with its chronic water shortage can absorb a few ten million more?
Once upon a time, when "the west" was free for the taking ... once the Indians were gotten rid of, of course ... and forty acres and a mule could be gotten for the price of being willing to work the land ... there was a place for everyone.
To drive a point home, if you want to see an example of who paid for uncontrolled immigration, all you have to do is look at natives in any land settled by Europeans, whether is was north and south America, Australia, or New Zealand.
But, all of this for later.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
By George, she's got it, I think she''s got it!
(with apologies to My Fair Lady)
"Sounds pretty Corporatist" is correct!
Tell her what she's won Johnny!
Too expensive is an understatement. One figure I heard was approximately $50B (with a B) and 20 years. Is that fast enough for ya'? That'll get those jobs back from those backstabbing immigrants. Then American workers can go back to work earning peanuts! Right!?
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So, the reason to keep illegal immigrants in the USA is because they're cheap labor, and it's too expensive to deport them?
Sounds pretty corporatist to me!
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Trump has been asked about the 14th Amendment AND his favorite part of the Bible. We've seen this schtick from Trump before, of course. He's stunningly ignorant, and routinely refuses to answer whenever someone asks about a factual detail more than an inch below the surface. Needless to say, he refuses because he doesn't know, but he always pretends it's for some other reason. "I don't want to insult anyone by naming names," he'll say, as if this isn't his entire stock in trade. Or, in the case of his favorite part of the Bible, either Old or New Testament, "It's personal," as if he leads a deeply spiritual life that he never talks about.
The interesting thing is that this schtick shows how lazy he is. It's been evident for several days that someone was eventually going to ask him for his favorite Bible verse, but he couldn't be bothered to have one on tap. Ditto for everything else, including the 14th Amendment or the cost of enforcing Trump's immigration policy. Trump will get Mexico to pay for a wall and that's the end of Trump's discussion of money. Even when he says something that's going to raise obvious questions the next day, he never bothers to learn anything about the subject. He's got people for that.
Of course, there is an advantage to handling things this way. For example, by shutting down the Bible talk completely, he guarantees he'll never have to talk about details again. I mean, somebody might want him to name the Ten Commandments. It's obvious that he hasn't cracked open the Bible in decades (he has clergy for that), learned any Constitutional law (he has lawyers for that), or done any budget arithmetic (he has accountants for that). Better for lazy Trump to shut down questions about "details" right away.
Trump will talk "details" after he is President and not before Inauguration Day 2017.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The collection of your arguments against repealing the 14th Amendment:
1) Trump is a psychopath, a baboon, and a hypocrite, and so are his followers. And evangelicals are even worse.
2) People are prejudiced against anyone who looks Hispanic
3) Illegal labor is so cheap! And besides, it would cost too much to get rid of them, so their presence nets out to be economically positive.
4) Whatever happened to ... "Give me your tired"?
5)
Quote:
Let me get this straight. Illegal immigrants crossed the border, left their families and their homelands, put a gun to the heads of upstanding, law-abiding Americans and forced them out of their jobs. Is that what you're saying?
6) (see (1)) Trump is an ignoramus and a psychopath.
7) (see (3)) But they're so exploitable!
8) (see (2)) USAns are prejudiced against anyone who looks and sounds different.
Did I miss anything?
---------
1) It seems to me that you spend a lot of your time bashing Trump and I have no interest in explaining or defending Trump. But let's start another thread about Trump, he deserves to be discussed in detail, and not just about this.
2) SGG, this is what you experienced, and I feel sorry for you that it happened. But what you experienced was prejudice and bullying, and that's not caused by immigration policy and therefore not resolvable by changing the policy. Some kids will find ANY reason to bully, whether it's your skin color or accent, or that you're too fat or too tall, or socially awkward, or gay, or wimpy, any number of things. As far as prejudice is concerned, I think our entertainment media have something to do with that: They pick out who the "bad guys" are , or who the butt of all the jokes is going to be. If you're constantly being shown ignorant tatooed gangbangers speaking Spanglish, or violent young black men, that's what you'll come to expect. All I can say is: Imagine being an Arab Muslim in the USA about now! That needs to change, but it's not immigration policy that's going to change it.
So, are you a citizen? If yes, good for you. If NOT, have you lived in the USA for more than 15 years? MY policy would require you to become a citizen within 5 years, 10 max. Oh, and I'd straighten out the bag of snakes which is our naturalization process, which is really just a way of slow-walking people who are over our "quota". Because, in exchange for making English the official language and eliminating birthright citizenship, I'd offer full-on amnesty for anyone who lived here, crime-free, for 15 years or more. Actually, better than amnesty, I'd make citizenship a requirement.
3) Illegal immigrants are cheap. When liberals wind up on the side of exploitation, with corporations, I think it's time to really stop and see what it is you're trying to do. As far as the "expense" of getting rid of them... Let's see, we can "afford" to spend more than $600 billion per year "defending our way of life" in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Sudan, and we can't afford to spend $50 billion over ten years (less than 1% of the DoD budget per year) defending "our way of life" at home?
4) "Give me your tired". This is the only argument that's internally consistent. All I can say is: When I hear all of those dewy-eyed stories about how the natives provided the first settlers with food on that life-saving Thanksgiving, or watch the Disney version of Pocahontas, I just want to jump up and scream that "the natives" should have shot the settlers asses so full of arrows that there would be no one left alive to carry word back to the Old World about that wonderful "new" world to the west. THEY welcomed the immigrants, and look where it got them! Welcoming a mass migration generally doesn't work so well for the original inhabitants unless there's enough water and land and other resources for everyone, the origina
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, it happens in all directions. Our DD has a friend whose family is Cuban. All of that generation speak English and understand Spanish. The mom and dad speak fluent English AND Spanish. The grandparents (altho only one is alive now) only speak Spanish.
We were invited to friend's house for her birthday party, and all of the relatives... aunts, uncles, cousins, parents and grandparents ... were perfectly comfortable speaking Spanish around DD and me, and not speaking a word in our direction. I was curious as to how long this would go on, so I sat it out for an hour to see whether anyone would even attempt to be a polite host ... should I reiterate that we were invited guests? ... and then finally tried out my Spanish (I'm trying to learn Spanish) and it was like the dawn broke, and suddenly our presence was acknowledged. Yanno, my parent's generation and older spoke Polish at home, but if a non-Polish-speaking guest was invited, they would never have been so rude as to ignore them for hours at a time.
I didn't mind so much, but DD, who is brain-damaged, had a hard time making sense of the situation and I was frustrated and upset on her behalf.
I have a Jewish co-worker who married into an Hispanic family, and the lengths of rudeness that the Hispanic sister-in-law will go to to dis the Jewish woman ... to the point of shoving her in public ... is amazing. This seems to be a case of Hispanic pride gone haywire.
Anyway, you don't have to be of a different color to be targeted. I was picked on when I was little, too. There's nothing new or unique about bullying, and prejudice flows freely in all directions. There is no group that I know of that's innocent.
How about if we focus on getting rid of exploitation and dominance, no matter who's doing it and who's the target?
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, apparently, getting rid of exploitation and dominance isn't a good idea, because I'm not hearing any ringing endorsements of the idea???
Hey, yanno what?
We've all got dirt on our historic souls, expect maybe Brenda. But I get that the USA has got years of bad juju to make up for. My opinion is that unless the USA is willing to tackle the SOURCE of the problem ... ie, a history of maintaining "south of the border" as a colony for the convenience of our corporations and banks .... economic migration will keep on happening.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I agree. Getting rid of exploitation and dominance is vital to the survival of the human race. No advantage for anyone. PERIOD.
Is that ringing enough for ya'
Fuck historic dirt and pointing fingers. That will not move us forward, but only prove to stymie progress and peaceful coexistence. The whole holier than thou mentality will only serve to sink this country if we continue down that path.
It's that European/Anglo mentality or Monarch mentality that will doom us as a nation. The "I'm mightier because of my skin color" syndrome. And now it's language. We could argue and produce story after story of "bullying" and "rudeness" until Doomsday, but it will make no difference because either of us has 1 more story than the other. We must use history as a guide so as not to commit further
crimes and misdemeanors against one another. As long as one person uses "HATE" speech to attempt to put down another for their cultural differences, and we as a people allow it to fester and grow. Well, we will always have battles and wars.
Those Cubans, as my mother would say (God rest her soul), had a bad upbringing.
Had it been me to commit such an obvious and shameful act, I would have heard an earful from her. She taught us to treat guests better than family. It was her way, it is our way (in the old days as I was growing up). She taught me to introduce my friends to the family and surrounding friends at gatherings so as to make them feel at home. My girlfriend, as a teen, was of Irish/Scottish/American descent and both her and my mother fell instantly in love. They were friends until my mother's passing.
We lost touch over the years, but had we stayed together, we would have had those kids of mixed race, and God help anyone who would have brought any kind of harm to one of them. I spoke of my upbringing not to foster any type of sympathy, but to illustrate a point. It shouldn't matter what you are, but who you are. I was born here (my country was "conquered" by the Americans, and so we are American citizens. But that's another point for another discussion) and raised by two women who mean everything to me - my mother and grandmother. They raised me right. I love this country, I believe in the Constitution, PERIOD.
You want to repeal the 14th Amendment. You have every right to pursue that goal.
Will that change things, probably, but I don't think it will. Why?, because we have too many knuckle heads who feel that they are better than anyone. Starting with that megalomaniac Trump. He is the epitome of what's wrong with this country.
Do you really think he is what he says? Do you think he's out to help the average American? Do you think he cares, really cares about women? Do you think, even for a moment, that he's cracked open a bible since he was a kid? Do you believe that deporting 11-12 million immigrants will actually help this country, in any form?
Fuck history! Let's look forward.........shall we!?
"The right-leaning American Action Forum calculated the cost of deporting 11 million people." from an article in The Atlantic, posted March 6, 2015.
"The answer, researchers found, is quite a lot, both to taxpayers and the economy more broadly. Removing all 11.2 million undocumented immigrants, both forcibly and through Mitt Romney's infamous "self-deportation" policy, would take about 20 years and cost the government between $400 billion and $600 billion. The impact on the economy would be even larger, according to the study: Real GDP would drop by nearly $1.6 trillion and the policy would shave 5.7 percent off economic growth. Researchers Laura Collins and Ben Gitis also write that their estimates are conservative, since they do not include, for example, the cost of constructing new courts, prisons, and other buildings that might be needed to process and detain millions of immigrants."
My figures were WAAAAYYYYY off. Below I'm attaching the link to the article.
h
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I will not respond because we could go "tit for tat" until the Rapture and get nowhere.
Suffice it to say that this world has gotten smaller and that our problem as human beings is no longer isolated. What affects one, affects all.
Sending everyone back to where they came from to "reshuffle" the deck, will be that and nothing more. A reshuffling.
The world will keep on spinning and shrug us off at a moment's notice.
SGG
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Business can deal with Trump's constant shifting by binding him with contracts. Voters will have no written contract with Trump. All his words before election are words that he can and will disown after inauguration. He has done that in real estate all his life. It is in Trump's book The Art of the Deal. Say whatever to close the deal because those spoken words evaporate away, leaving only the words in the contract. President Trump will be bound only by his innate character, not by his spoken campaign promises.
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
. . . we have too many knuckle heads who feel that they are better than anyone. Starting with that megalomaniac Trump. He is the epitome of what's wrong with this country.
Do you really think he is what he says? Do you think he's out to help the average American? Do you think he cares, really cares about women? Do you think, even for a moment, that he's cracked open a bible since he was a kid? Do you believe that deporting 11-12 million immigrants will actually help this country, in any form?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:Business can deal with Trump's constant shifting by binding him with contracts. Voters will have no written contract with Trump. All his words before election are words that he can and will disown after inauguration. He has done that in real estate all his life. It is in Trump's book The Art of the Deal. Say whatever to close the deal because those spoken words evaporate away, leaving only the words in the contract. President Trump will be bound only by his innate character, not by his spoken campaign promises.
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
. . . we have too many knuckle heads who feel that they are better than anyone. Starting with that megalomaniac Trump. He is the epitome of what's wrong with this country.
Do you really think he is what he says? Do you think he's out to help the average American? Do you think he cares, really cares about women? Do you think, even for a moment, that he's cracked open a bible since he was a kid? Do you believe that deporting 11-12 million immigrants will actually help this country, in any form?
Trump is a scary guy. It's even scarier how many people are ready to follow him.
But what that means is that this society is coming apart at the seams. People are willing to scapegoat a relatively powerless group of people (illegal immigrants) who, while being "a" problem, are not THE problem. Assuming there are 10 million illegal immigrants in the USA, and that each one makes $10,000 per year (man, woman, and child) that only comes to $100 BUSD income, with nearly $0 in savings (wealth). In the grand scheme of the USA economy, that's not much.
The REAL problem is that group of ultrawealthy ... Gates, Soros, Dimon, Buffett, Ellison, the Koch bros, the Walton family etc and their troupe of merrie politicians - Dems and Repubs alike -who they've been buying since Bill Clinton days.
Surely, you won't find Trump pointing the finger at people like himself!
I hate to Godwin the thread, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law but I'm going to:
The closest analogy I can find to Trump is Hitler.
Who, BTW, was elected by the German population in times of extreme economic duress. (You may remember something about "hyperinflation"? It happened in Germany, right before Hitler was elected.) So yep, I "went there", all on my own. I think it's a close enough parallel to warrant being worried. USAns, for all their "freedom" bumper stickers, are notorious cowards who will bend over and go fascist any time they get a little frightened. Just look at how quickly people were willing to hand over their telecom privacy, to protect them from the big bad terrorists.
To go back to Trump, and what his popularity means. It means that the population of America is so thoroughly propagandized that they can't tell bullshit from beer. That a large part of the population has been so dumbed down (by religion, by adverts, by very poor education) that they will lap up even Trump-swill. It means there is a fairly large aggrieved group of people who feel that their interests aren't being represented ... that the bright promise of the Tea Party was thwarted by establishment (corporatist) Republicans, and that part of that betrayal is the internationalization of business and the loss of jobs. It means that for MANY people, the "economic recovery" is a mirage of phonied data (it is). But because they have been so trained to NOT respond to extreme differences in wealth ("more power to 'em" seems to be the response) Trump is able to capitalize on that inchoate and thwarted anger.
-----------
Which is why it's so hard to say ... yanno, Trump has a point there.
ANY nation needs to be able to control it's borders. Even with the BEST of intentions, it would be impossible to maintain economic and internal policies under a flood of immigrants. (Yes, I realize that Trump
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Bad history is very widely accepted out there. No, the 1923 hyperinflation didn’t bring Hitler to power ten years later; it was the Brüning deflation and depression in 1930-1932. Hard money and a gold standard obsession, not excessive money printing, was the proximate disaster.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Who, BTW, was elected by the German population in times of extreme economic duress. (You may remember something about "hyperinflation"? It happened in Germany, right before Hitler was elected.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic#Br.C3.BCning.27s_policy_
of_deflation_.281930.E2.80.931932.29
Quote:Why believe what Trump or any other Republican candidate says about immigration? They have had enough time since Reagan to shape immigration policy to your satisfaction and, in all that time, building a wall paid for by Mexico is as deep as their thinking goes. You need to know why they would do what they do and it is not a tidy explanation.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Which is why it's so hard to say ... yanno, Trump has a point there.
ANY nation needs to be able to control it's borders. Even with the BEST of intentions, it would be impossible to maintain economic and internal policies under a flood of immigrants. (Yes, I realize that Trump doesn't have the best of intentions.)
Donald Trump, with his multiple marriages and casinos, is the preferred candidate among Republican evangelicals. Others are shocked to see a crude mercantilist make so much headway in the alleged party of free markets. What happened to conservative principles?
Actually, nothing — because those alleged principles were never real. Conservative religiosity, conservative faith in markets, were never about living a godly life or letting the invisible hand promote entrepreneurship. Instead, it was all as Corey Robin describes it: Conservatism is “a reactionary movement, a defense of power and privilege against democratic challenges from below, particularly in the private spheres of the family and the workplace.”
It’s really about who’s boss, and making sure that the man in charge stays boss. Trump is admired for putting women and workers (and Mexicans) in their place, and it doesn’t matter if he covets his neighbor’s wife or demands trade wars.
The point is that Trump isn’t a diversion, he’s a revelation, bringing the real motivations of the movement out into the open. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/26/the-reactionary-soul/
Krugman, who wrote that, lives in NYC, out of Republican control, but I live in Texas and I'm sure Krugman correctly diagnosed the soul of the Republican Party, at least in my part of Texas.
With the particular Texas Republicans I'm familiar with, it is never about solving problems or clearly explaining your motives for what you are doing. And I'm talking about both GOP voters and politicians. It has always been about the GOP listening to demons whispering in their heads. So it is no surprise the GOP is attacking the weakest people in the USA. (I do know Republicans who are not afflicted with the strange mental quirks very common in Texas. They live in Lincoln, Nebraska.)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Hard money and the gold standard were a reaction to the hyperinflation of the Weimar era. And the Germans are STILL reacting to hyperinflation, which explains a lot about their policies towards Greece.
Bad history is very widely accepted out there. No, the 1923 hyperinflation didn’t bring Hitler to power ten years later; it was the Brüning deflation and depression in 1930-1932. Hard money and a gold standard obsession, not excessive money printing, was the proximate disaster.
Quote:
Which is why it's so hard to say ... yanno, Trump has a point there. ANY nation needs to be able to control it's borders. Even with the BEST of intentions, it would be impossible to maintain economic and internal policies under a flood of immigrants. (Yes, I realize that Trump doesn't have the best of intentions.) -SIGNY
Why believe what Trump or any other Republican candidate says about immigration? They have had enough time since Reagan to shape immigration policy to your satisfaction and, in all that time, building a wall paid for by Mexico is as deep as their thinking goes. You need to know why they would do what they do and it is not a tidy explanation. -SECOND
Who says I believe what Trump says? I've been saying the same thing about immigration for years, on this forum. Here, from 2011:
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=19153&p=1
You really should check it out. This was when there were, like, 50X more participants on this website, and the discussion was quite robust. And the comments are real eye-openers.
My explanation of who promotes illegal immigration isn't tidy. There is a combination of exploitation (by corporations, farms, construction companies, garment manufacturers, households etc), guilt, and empathy. My SOLUTION to the problem isn't tidy either, and it sure doesn't involve building a wall, or deporting people en masse.
Quote:
KRUGMAN
Donald Trump, with his multiple marriages and casinos, is the preferred candidate among Republican evangelicals. Others are shocked to see a crude mercantilist make so much headway in the alleged party of free markets. What happened to conservative principles?
Actually, nothing — because those alleged principles were never real. Conservative religiosity, conservative faith in markets, were never about living a godly life or letting the invisible hand promote entrepreneurship. Instead, it was all as Corey Robin describes it: Conservatism is “a reactionary movement, a defense of power and privilege against democratic challenges from below, particularly in the private spheres of the family and the workplace.”
It’s really about who’s boss, and making sure that the man in charge stays boss. Trump is admired for putting women and workers (and Mexicans) in their place, and it doesn’t matter if he covets his neighbor’s wife or demands trade wars.
The point is that Trump isn’t a diversion, he’s a revelation, bringing the real motivations of the movement out into the open.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/26/the-reactionary-soul/
Krugman has been wrong about many things, including in his specialty (economics). He's a shill for the banks, as far as I can tell. In this particular assessment, I happen to agree with him.
Quote:
Krugman, who wrote that, lives in NYC, out of Republican control, but I live in Texas and I'm sure Krugman correctly diagnosed the soul of the Republican Party, at least in my part of Texas.
With Republicans, it is never about solving problems or clearly explaining your motives for what you are doing. And I'm talking about GOP voters and politicians. It has always been about the GOP listening to demons whispering in their heads. So it is no surprise the GOP is attacking the weakest people in the USA.
OTOH, you won't find Democrats actually solving our problems either. They are BOTH protecting the wealthy.
I heard a very interesting talk about Bill Clinton yesterday ... who I've already pointed out many tim
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't understand the strong reaction against repealing the 14th. It was enacted to solve a particular problem, and that problem no longer exists. But it's causing its own problems now.
Perhaps it's because there are people who are thinking 'wow - if either, or both, of my parents would have had to become a citizen for me to be a citizen ... it might never have happened' ... ??? or 'why punish the children and keep them from the benefits of the US just because the parents are non-citizens' ... ???
I've read all the posts and I still can't get to an answer.
Maybe someone can explain to me what the problem is.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This is so easy to shoot down. Whether or not you back down says everything about how clear you think. Did USA have hyperinflation to justify a gold standard? No, but it was also on the gold standard when Germany was. Circa 1930 key decision-makers in USA and Germany had spent years equating adherence to gold not just with prosperity, but with morality, decency, civilization itself, that they couldn’t even contemplate breaking with that orthodoxy — even in the face of total catastrophe. You know it was NOT a catastrophe when Roosevelt and Hitler ended the gold standard? You know why they did it if you know anything about how a nation's money supply works, right? Germany and the USA remain off the gold standard. There are simple reasons that have to do with the quantity of gold in existence.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:Hard money and the gold standard were a reaction to the hyperinflation of the Weimar era. And the Germans are STILL reacting to hyperinflation, which explains a lot about their policies towards Greece.
Bad history is very widely accepted out there. No, the 1923 hyperinflation didn’t bring Hitler to power ten years later; it was the Brüning deflation and depression in 1930-1932. Hard money and a gold standard obsession, not excessive money printing, was the proximate disaster.
Same applies to the 14th Amendment. It is equated with morality, decency, civilization itself, that they can’t even contemplate breaking with that orthodoxy — even in the face of total catastrophe.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
This is so easy to shoot down. Whether or not you back down says everything about how clear you think. Did USA have hyperinflation to justify a gold standard? No, but it was also on the gold standard when Germany was. Circa 1930 key decision-makers in USA and Germany had spent years equating adherence to gold not just with prosperity, but with morality, decency, civilization itself, that they couldn’t even contemplate breaking with that orthodoxy — even in the face of total catastrophe. You know it was NOT a catastrophe when Roosevelt and Hitler ended the gold standard?
Wha... WHA???
Why are you throwing down the gauntlet on some irrelevant side issue (the gold standard)?
And what does this have to do with the 14th amendment?
I'm not an expert on German finance, my point was that the German economy was in extremis before WWII.
As far as the gold standard is concerned, the cause of hyperinflation in Germany is that it took itself OFF the gold standard before WWI. (World War One) Hyperinflation didn't hit until some time in the early 1920s. This is a quick gloss of what I understand happened at the time ...
Quote:
On the onset of the war, Germany made two critical financial mistakes: it took the mark off the gold standard and financed the war entirely through borrowing without raising taxes.
At the end of the war, Germany had its war debts and on top of those the reparations demanded by the Allies. The Mark fell from 1 US dollar to 8.91 Marks in 1918 to 1 US dollar to 60 Marks in 1921.
The Allied Reparations Commission insisted on payment in hard currency or foreign currency, not paper Marks. While Germany made its first reparations payment in June 1921, it did not have enough gold or foreign exchange reserves to cover the Versailles reparations or maintain faith in its war debt.
Germany began buying foreign currency to cover the reparations and entered into vicious circle, buying foreign currency drove the Mark down and the cost of covering the reparations up. The Mark slid to 330 Marks to 1 US dollar.
The bottom fell out when international negotiations on the war reparations failed. The Mark plunged to 8000 Marks to 1 US dollar. France, fearful that Germany would default on its war reparations, occupied the Ruhr and demanded repayment in goods if not in hard currency, touching off outrage and a general strike in Germany that further stoked hyperinflation as the Weimar government printed more money to cover striker’s salaries.
Hyperinflation was finally tamed by issuance of a new currency indirectly pegged to gold bonds. The Allies curbed their reparation demands and eventually forgave most of the war reparations it had imposed.
https://www.quora.com/What-were-the-causes-of-the-hyperinflation-in-th
e-Weimar-Republic
OK, so hyperinflation ends, but the economy tanks.
MOST empires - back to the days of Rome and Byzantium - and nations were on some sort of gold or silver standard until the development of international computerized banking.
ETA: The USA was founded on a silver standard, but wobbled back and forth between gold and silver (or both) throughout most of its history. There was, as I recall, a famous speech by Jennings Bryan about not crucifying mankind on a cross of gold (the gold standard), which was an argument to take the USA from the gold standard to a gold AND SILVER standard. What Roosevelt did was CONFISCATE gold. The USA didn't go off the gold standard until 1973 or thereabouts, under Nixon.
But the gold standard is not an answer to economic growth. Economic depressions have occurred during times of "hard money" as well as times of wildly inflating fiat money. There have been inflationary depressions as well as deflationary ones. The cause of depressions isn't what form of currency is being used, but its distribution (or concentration) throughout society, IMHO. It's a wonderful topic that deserves discussion.
But I have no idea what you're trying to say, I can't see a
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Corporate church teaches their flock to stand up in what you believe in and pound it into the non-believers brain until they succumb.
Oh, I forgot to reply SGG
What I find very very peculiar about x-tians is how often they refer to the ot and ignore the nt.
I belong to a credit union in a galaxy far, far away ... just kidding (of course). But the nearest branch is MILES away while the sister credit union - christian community cu - is less than a mile. So of course I go there.
One of the things that really caught my eye were the posters on the wall, all from the ot, about how you're supposed to work hard and be frugal with your money ... I've been so tempted to ask why they doesn't put up the quote beginning with 'regard the lilies of the field ...', or 'give up all you have and follow me ...', or 'it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle ...' or any number of examples where Jesus specifically said you were supposed to not focus on money.
Or, if you don't want to be a scold, and prefer to be positive, you could have two framed quotes on either side of the entrance 'love god above all else' and 'love your neighbor as yourself'.
But b/c they're a cu and not a bank, and ridiculously close by, I was curious about joining them. Apparently you can't be catholic or just claim to go to church. Nope. You have to be REGISTERED as a member in good stead of a very short list of congregations. Of course I thought about all the nt messages about loving your fellow man, and not focusing on the cinder in your brother's eye while ignoring the log in your own, he who is without sin .... and so on.
But at least the person who told me how much they excluded the wrong sort of people had the grace to look abashed, as if they had some dim awareness that, just maybe, that's not what jesus would do.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I've often heard or read this somewhere: you could go into church, but does church go into you. It took some thinking to understand what that meant, but I finally unraveled the meaning.
I think that many Christians still haven't gotten over the Bush Betrayal back in 2000 election. They have become far more political in modern times, and their catch phrase seems to be to put God back into America, sort of what Trump uses in his stumping campaign - Make American Great Again! This country was built on some basic principles and on religious freedom (which has come to mean something entirely different today).
It really irks me when these ignorant politicos use the Bible thumpers as so much canon fodder. They have totally distorted the meaning behind religious freedom, as described in the Constitution. They've become as bad as those ugly Americans that beat their chest and proclaim, to any who'll listen, "I'm American and better than all you peons from anywhere else."
They are the same ones who assume that our laws trumps (no pun intended, although it somehow fits perfectly) any of those overseas. Of course, that's a handful of people and doesn't represent the majority of good folk from here. Same goes for the evangelicals, it's just a handful of vocal people.
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
The Corporate church teaches their flock to stand up in what you believe in and pound it into the non-believers brain until they succumb.
Oh, I forgot to reply SGG
What I find very very peculiar about x-tians is how often they refer to the ot and ignore the nt.
I belong to a credit union in a galaxy far, far away ... just kidding (of course). But the nearest branch is MILES away while the sister credit union - christian community cu - is less than a mile. So of course I go there.
One of the things that really caught my eye were the posters on the wall, all from the ot, about how you're supposed to work hard and be frugal with your money ... I've been so tempted to ask why they doesn't put up the quote beginning with 'regard the lilies of the field ...', or 'give up all you have and follow me ...', or 'it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle ...' or any number of examples where Jesus specifically said you were supposed to not focus on money.
Or, if you don't want to be a scold, and prefer to be positive, you could have two framed quotes on either side of the entrance 'love god above all else' and 'love your neighbor as yourself'.
But b/c they're a cu and not a bank, and ridiculously close by, I was curious about joining them. Apparently you can't be catholic or just claim to go to church. Nope. You have to be REGISTERED as a member in good stead of a very short list of congregations. Of course I thought about all the nt messages about loving your fellow man, and not focusing on the cinder in your brother's eye while ignoring the log in your own, he who is without sin .... and so on.
But at least the person who told me how much they excluded the wrong sort of people had the grace to look abashed, as if they had some dim awareness that, just maybe, that's not what jesus would do.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
One of the things that really caught my eye were the posters on the wall, all from the ot, about how you're supposed to work hard and be frugal with your money ... I've been so tempted to ask why they doesn't put up the quote beginning with 'regard the lilies of the field ...', or 'give up all you have and follow me ...', or 'it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle ...' or any number of examples where Jesus specifically said you were supposed to not focus on money.
So, literally, just to be complete, when I was @ CCCU today I copied down the posters they prominently put up:
Remember the Lord your God, for it is He who gives you the ability to produce wealth.
Deuteronomy 8:18
The wise man saves for the future, but the foolish man spends whatever he gets.
Proverbs 21:20 LB
I think it would have been more in keeping as followers of Christ to post:
Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
You must give up all you have and follow Me.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SGG
I've been watching The Incredible Dr. Pol on Nat Geo Wild, and for the moment I'll take the people in the show as accurate portrayals of the majority of rural people in the vast 'flyover' country from north to south. (Of course we don't see any alcoholism, addiction, spousal abuse, child abuse, shootings, family dysfunction, racism, sexism, religious imperialism, poverty, or other human ails. And, fwiw, I know there are many places where people pretend to be reasonable in front of strangers, but if they think you're one of them - and being a dumpy old white woman, they do - they'll let their hair down and talk about cleaning out the niggrahs or other impolite topics.)
As they're broadcast, they're basically kind, decent, hardworking, responsible and hospitable. Given that, what I see is a religion that's been meshed with rural culture, modern technology, consumerism, patriotism, politeness and propriety, cultivated ignorance, political conservatism, and thrift as one big blob, where people smoothly and easily transition between the obvious internal contradictions within their beliefs, depending on circumstance.
I don't find them bad people. But they seem extremely provincial in their perspective, and lacking the practice of examining their beliefs for meaning, and lacking in the practice of examining the meanings for coherency.
The message of Jesus was and is radical, and is diametrically opposed to our economic system.
And I don't begrudge people their beliefs. I just object to their assumptions - made without any attempt at looking into them - that they're the word of Jesus, they're holy, they bless all the people do, they're superior to other beliefs, and they give the people and their country license to trample on other people.
And also, their lack of reflection and easy self-regard makes them targets to manipulate. All you have to do is wave enough of the right words at them.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SGG
And finally, as a separate topic, since you seem to be the one most attached to the 14th amendment, I was wondering if you could explain to me what you find valuable in it. I believe you have beliefs, hopes ... good things attached to it. I was hoping you would tell me what they are.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
SGG
I've been watching The Incredible Dr. Pol on Nat Geo Wild, and for the moment I'll take the people in the show as accurate portrayals of the majority of rural people in the vast 'flyover' country from north to south. (Of course we don't see any alcoholism, addiction, spousal abuse, child abuse, shootings, family dysfunction, racism, sexism, religious imperialism, poverty, or other human ails. And, fwiw, I know there are many places where people pretend to be reasonable in front of strangers, but if they think you're one of them - and being a dumpy old white woman, they do - they'll let their hair down and talk about cleaning out the niggrahs or other impolite topics.)
As they're broadcast, they're basically kind, decent, hardworking, responsible and hospitable. Given that, what I see is a religion that's been meshed with rural culture, modern technology, consumerism, patriotism, politeness and propriety, cultivated ignorance, political conservatism, and thrift as one big blob, where people smoothly and easily transition between the obvious internal contradictions within their beliefs, depending on circumstance.
I don't find them bad people. But they seem extremely provincial in their perspective, and lacking the practice of examining their beliefs for meaning, and lacking in the practice of examining the meanings for coherency.
The message of Jesus was and is radical, and is diametrically opposed to our economic system.
And I don't begrudge people their beliefs. I just object to their assumptions - made without any attempt at looking into them - that they're the word of Jesus, they're holy, they bless all the people do, they're superior to other beliefs, and they give the people and their country license to trample on other people.
And also, their lack of reflection and easy self-regard makes them targets to manipulate. All you have to do is wave enough of the right words at them.
I read your post alternating between chuckling and with my head in my hands. what I thought was profoundly revealing
But they seem extremely provincial in their perspective, and lacking the practice of examining their beliefs for meaning, and lacking in the practice of examining the meanings for coherency
and
their lack of reflection and easy self-regard makes them targets to manipulate. All you have to do is wave enough of the right words at them.
It could describe 99.9% of the people currently on this board.
It's late, and I have more to do. Later.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by ElvisChrist:
You can, of course, eliminate birthright citizenship.
The only thing it takes is a constitutional amendment.
Think about it. We couldn't pass one for women's equality, but I'm sure more people hate immigrants than hate women (although a substantial portion - a majority, really - of conservatives hate both with a passion).
Constitutional Amendments are nothing more or less than a potential future scar.
Personally, I'm thrilled that on a National level the issue of Gay Marriage is being handled how it is, instead of how GWB promised voters it would be if they re-elected him in 2004, which was to prohibit it with a Constitutional Amendment. An Amendment that I'm quite certain would have been repealed by 2016.
This isn't Wikipedia... our Living, breathing document.....
Amendment XVIII
SECTION. 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
Amendment XXI
SECTION. 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Forgive me for saying it, but that is a SCAR on a document so important.
IF GWB were to have successfully amended the constitution so that Gay Marriage was illegal in the US, it's almost certain that our next amendment would have read as follows:
Amendment XXIX
SECTION. 1. The twenty eighth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Let me ask you something....
Just how many times do you think this shit can happen before nobody believes in the document at all anymore?
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it's happened since the repeal of Prohibition. But you make a valid point, Amendments should be left for matters of National importance and not treated lightly.
I agree that, although the Gay Rights issue is of National concern, it was handled appropriately. Sometimes these issues are better off being handled through the courts, especially that our country is known as being a country of laws. My other thought is that Congress has failed miserably at effectively guiding the nation.
In order for government to work, there must be some form of common sense. I don't see a great abundance of that at the moment.
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by ElvisChrist:
You can, of course, eliminate birthright citizenship.
The only thing it takes is a constitutional amendment.
Think about it. We couldn't pass one for women's equality, but I'm sure more people hate immigrants than hate women (although a substantial portion - a majority, really - of conservatives hate both with a passion).
Constitutional Amendments are nothing more or less than a potential future scar.
Personally, I'm thrilled that on a National level the issue of Gay Marriage is being handled how it is, instead of how GWB promised voters it would be if they re-elected him in 2004, which was to prohibit it with a Constitutional Amendment. An Amendment that I'm quite certain would have been repealed by 2016.
This isn't Wikipedia... our Living, breathing document.....
Amendment XVIII
SECTION. 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
Amendment XXI
SECTION. 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Forgive me for saying it, but that is a SCAR on a document so important.
IF GWB were to have successfully amended the constitution so that Gay Marriage was illegal in the US, it's almost certain that our next amendment would have read as follows:
Amendment XXIX
SECTION. 1. The twenty eighth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Let me ask you something....
Just how many times do you think this shit can happen before nobody believes in the document at all anymore?
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I must start out by saying a couple of things as background for my prior comments:
1: When I was a kid in the Catholic religion, I had questions and doubts, but I didn't dare succumb to them. I thought I would go to Hell.
2: As an adult, I did question, but at one point decided to please others and made an attempt at becoming a Christian
3: But I have always, since I was a kid (around 11-12 years old) had doubts as to the validity of my fellow man keeping the faith. And so therefore, concluded that
this was better left to those who's heart was firmly entrenched in that belief system.
I deduced that this is how God made me, and therein lies the paradox of my belief and the system. The Corporate church and man. This is a simplified version of that, but, suffice to say, it is a complicated subject.
I agree in principle that Christians oftentimes, take matters quite literally when it comes to scripture. It has been my contention of late, that faith and science often contradict each other. Faith is a matter of belief, and to me it is a sacred bond of trust between the individual and God. That is MY belief. No one can tell another how to believe in God. Science is something that is measured and calculated, faith is not.
Can I tell you there is no God? No, because it's a matter of faith, not science.
Yet, this is what I find many Christians doing, telling people they MUST go to church or they will burn in Hell. Really!? And you know this how? Because the Bible tells me so, they often reply. But if that person doesn't believe it to be so, well, they won't believe it. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. If he's not thirsty, he won't drink. Christians think it's so simple, but that relationship with God is, for me, private and individual.
As far as that other thing goes; people being hospitable and accommodating, then suddenly turning into Trumps............well, there's precedent for that type of behavior. I came across some reading that described how back in 1920s & 30s Californians prejudged people from Oklahoma - I'm talking white folk vs. white folk - because the Californians felt the "Okies" were slightly inbred. They didn't want "their kind" mixing in with Californians. Imagine what they thought of Mexicans and Blacks. They also tried mass deportation, but in a unique way. Not through government so much, but through organized social measures - local police, sheriffs and general people forcing them out of jobs and pressuring them to voluntarily leave. They "encouraged" bosses to hire whites only, etc.
These measures are then justified by finding scripture to proclaim righteousness. All wrapped up in a pretty neat bow. To me organized religion, for the most part, is a sham.
But, having said that, I must say, this Pope surprises me.
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
SGG
I've been watching The Incredible Dr. Pol on Nat Geo Wild, and for the moment I'll take the people in the show as accurate portrayals of the majority of rural people in the vast 'flyover' country from north to south. (Of course we don't see any alcoholism, addiction, spousal abuse, child abuse, shootings, family dysfunction, racism, sexism, religious imperialism, poverty, or other human ails. And, fwiw, I know there are many places where people pretend to be reasonable in front of strangers, but if they think you're one of them - and being a dumpy old white woman, they do - they'll let their hair down and talk about cleaning out the niggrahs or other impolite topics.)
As they're broadcast, they're basically kind, decent, hardworking, responsible and hospitable. Given that, what I see is a religion that's been meshed with rural culture, modern technology, consumerism, patriotism, politeness and propriety, cultivated ignorance, political conservatism, and thrift as one big blob, where people smoothNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The Simpsons "PREDICTED" a Donald Trump presidency
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
. . . Christians oftentimes, take matters quite literally . . .
The Vigilant Christian wrote on Aug 27, 2015
Quote:
Once again the Simpsons have been caught brainwashing the masses with more satanic predictive programming. In this video we look at how Donald Trump became President in an episode that also featured the first woman president being Lisa (Hilary). Wake Up! Please share this video! God Bless, STAY VIGILANT & FEAR NO EVIL !!!
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, as I mentioned several times already, there is a similar refugee crisis in the EU, which is being flooded by refugees from Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan (in eastern Europe) and Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, Mali etc in western Europe. The flood of needy, desperate people is engendering two immediate responses
Pity the poor refugees! and Keep them out, our lifeboat's already full.
How can anyone possibly have any reasonable solutions ... or even intelligent discussion... on the problems of refugees, mass migrations, and immigration unless we get past REACTING to the situation and get to analyzing the causes and therefore coming up with a plan???
Even with the DIRECT cause of the immigration crisis in the immediate rearview mirror, has no one in Europe realized that these people are fleeing nations which were destroyed by the USA, with the willing and at times even gleeful help of France (Libya) and the Coalition of the Willing/ Billing/ Shilling* (Afghanistan and Iraq) and the anti-Assad forces (Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the EU)?
Does anyone think that the clusterfuck that was generated (and is continuing) across the Middle East and North Africa ... with blowback in the form of millions of refugees across the Middle East and hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants/ refugees in Europe ... is preferable to the situation that was? How is our "intervention" helping anyone?
Oh, that's right- it isn't.
The clusterfuck that the USA generated was done for geopolitical reasons, and all of the lies and rationalizations for our "interventions" such as being "pro-democracy" or for "R2P" or against "WMD" or for "free enterprise" or "fighting terrorism" have blown away in the winds of reality and left the truth naked for anyone who cares to see: there was no thought at all for the betterment of the nations so destroyed, or for the people who lived in therein. And therefore, a refugee crisis.
So now the EU has a refugee crisis which it had a hand in creating... altho several of the impacted nations are relatively blameless in the grand scheme of things*, like Greece and Austria, who wisely stepped back from the military-esque idiocy.
I read an interesting solution to the refugee crisis in the EU:
Send them all to Brussels, which is the HQ not only of the EU but of NATO. Let those who created the problem have to deal with the consequences, starting with Britain and France.
-----------
Which brings me to the USA and it's illegal immigration problem: There is a saying about Mexico, pointing out the USA's hand in reducing Mexico to poverty: Poor Mexico, so far from God ... and so close to the USA.
The USA's "illegal immigrant crisis" is a self-created problem, at least partly. IF the USA had not actively and violently blocked grassroots development movements, and had the USA not actively and violently supported banks, big business, the ultra-wealthy, and the military dictatorships required to enforce such extremes in wealth ...
Had the USA not roped and hogtied these nations into "free trade" agreement which stripped everyone except the very wealthy of their jobs...
We would not now be facing such a problem. And if we did, we would not feel any sort of moral obligation to make up for "our" bad behavior (altho the USA population had fuck-all to do with it).
-----
Which brings me back to a line of poetry that has really stuck with me, and serves as something of a touchstone for how I look at economics ...
"Pity would be no more, if we did not MAKE somebody poor" - William Blake
During the industrialization of England, many cottagers were tossed off their land and reduced to either working on plantations or scrabbling for jobs in the grimy underbelly of cities, so that SOME people (textile magnates, landholders, railroad magnates, shippers, etc) could get fabulously wealthy.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You are assuming that most Europeans truly care what happens to Muslim refugees from Syria, Libya, or wherever. I have an example of people pretending to care, slightly, but caring not enough to expend their own money. When slavery in the Northern States of the USA was no longer acceptable, most slave owners did not free their slaves. They sold their slaves to Southerners. That is how much Northerners cared about real people who were their slaves – not enough to avoid a going out of business slave sale. Money triumphs over morality.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
-----
Which brings me back to a line of poetry that has really stuck with me, and serves as something of a touchstone for how I look at economics ...
"Pity would be no more, if we did not MAKE somebody poor" - William Blake
Getting back to Trump. When you hear of his plans for America, take note that Donald Trump has lost between $1 and $6 billion over his business career. No one knows how much was lost because Trump is a liar about his net worth, as pointed out in detail by Forbes, Bloomberg, NYTimes reporter, banks, courts, et etc.. www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/09/donald-trump-has-lost-between-1
-and-6-billion-over-his-business-career
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My response to this paragraph of your contribution is literally a perfect match:
"And I don't begrudge people their beliefs. I just object to their assumptions - made without any attempt at looking into them - that they're the word of Jesus, they're holy, they bless all the people do, they're superior to other beliefs, and they give the people and their country license to trample on other people."
This is what I find most troubling about religion, and particularly, the Christian religion. The assumption that they're right and the rest of the world is wrong and going to hell. They don't pause and say "what if they don't believe as I do," it's as though it never occurred to them that someone may have a different thought on the matter.
It is arrogant and subject to hubris, and I equate it to the mentality exhibited by such regimes as ISIS and those fascists in Syria. They are in the midst of "cleaning" their country of all who think differently than they do. It is a type of colonial mentality that threatens to rewrite history for the worse, and rearrange the cultures of the world. The type of thinking that leads to mass murder and the lowest common denominator. I was once told that I MUST go to church to be saved and go to heaven, and to be able to communicate with God.
I told my friend, "isn't God everywhere, and doesn't he know your innermost thoughts." Then if I choose to commune with God in private and seek his presence
in other than the church, well that's between me and Him. It is a matter of choice.
SGG
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You are blaming America's religiousness when the fault is in America's love of Freedom.
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
This is what I find most troubling about religion, and particularly, the Christian religion. The assumption that they're right and the rest of the world is wrong and going to hell.
If there's one thing America loves, it's... well, war. But if there's two things America loves, it's war and torture. But if there's three things America loves, it's war, torture, and genocide. But if there are several dozen things America loves, they are war, torture, genocide, chattel slavery, apartheid, assassination, poverty, institutionalized bribery, remote-controlled flying death robots and somewhere down the list, between prison labor and lagoons of toxic hog manure, there is almost certainly a special place in America's heart for Freedom. Take Libya for example.
And so it was that the United States was fighting to free the Libyan people from the Libyan people by killing the Libyan people. The situation was fairly straightforward, after all - Libya faced a humanitarian crisis, and the only way to address a humanitarian crisis was to bomb it with hundreds of cruise missiles. I'm told that the American Red Cross delivered bottled water and medical supplies by duct-taping them to the nose cone of outgoing Tomahawks. More importantly, the Libyan people were oppressed by a bloodthirsty dictator - a dictator who killed his own people - and the least America could do was kill those people itself. How, I ask, could America stand idly by and allow people to be slaughtered by a ruthless tyrant when America could be slaughtering them instead?
You may ask, what makes getting killed by America any better than getting killed by Qaddafi? Because America was killing for a great American cause, in the name of Americanness. Libyans, in their last moments, as their houses were burnt and their schools destroyed and their neighbors incinerated and their families turned into hamburger, came to know American values of liberty and of Freedom.
Labels: eaters of the dead, everybody loves a winner http://fafblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/humanitarians-of-year.html
www.deviantart.com/art/Firefly-crew-558045286
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Which brings me back to a line of poetry that has really stuck with me, and serves as something of a touchstone for how I look at economics ...
"Pity would be no more, if we did not MAKE somebody poor" - William Blake =SIGNY
You are assuming that most Europeans truly care what happens to Muslim refugees from Syria, Libya, or wherever. I have an example of people pretending to care, slightly, but caring not enough to expend their own money. When slavery in the Northern States of the USA was no longer acceptable, most slave owners did not free their slaves. They sold their slaves to Southerners. That is how much Northerners cared about real people who were their slaves – not enough to avoid a going out of business slave sale. Money triumphs over morality.
One of us isn't understanding the other. Do you think that I'm saying that Europeans have to run around with their panties in a twist?
I'm saying that if Europeans (and Americans) want to avoid immigration crisis in the future, they should do .... NOTHING .... militarily, at least.
Yep, NOTHING.
Save their blood, sweat, tears, cash, bodies, bombs, and bullets and sit it out. Yeah, I know it's hard to sit back when the internet and MSM is blaring "Remember the Maine!" or "Do you want the next smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud?" or Responsibility to protect!" but there is only ONE use of force that makes any sense, and that it when there's a IMMEDIATE threat to national security ... And no, I don't mean a threat 8,000 miles away.
If the USA and the EU had simply REFRAINED from destroying four large secular middle east nations (one of which - Libya- was the most prosperous and developed nation in Africa) FOR NO GOOD REASON WHATSOEVER, the EU would not NOW be facing an "immigration crisis".
I'm not suggesting sacrifice and care, rather,
I'm suggesting a future of targeted indolence and self-interest. That's something we could be good at!
We run into trouble when TPTB provoke and bedevil us into thinking that destroying someplace is a good cause. We do more harm under impression that we're doing great good than if we just said "What the hell, we're taking their oil"! (Just as an aside, RAPPY used to point out that Saddam gassed 8000 Kurds, which made him a brutal dictator. Well, we killed a million Iraqis, so what does that make us?)
As far as the current immigration crisis is concerned, I think the responsibility for taking in these refugees should be in proportion to each nation's involvement in the destruction of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya (which had a terrible follow-on effect of scattering jihadists south and west into Africa, as well as northeast into Syria, putting Mali, Chad, Tunisia etc at risk) Yemen, and Sudan, and the ongoing efforts to destroy Syria. ("Because Assad", yanno?)
I would add up the military contribution of each of the nations involved: The USA, England, France, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the remainder of the "coalition of the willing/billing/shilling" ... and make each of those nations take a proportionate number of refugees. From the USA all the way down to Palau. That's on the basis of whoever cause the problem should bear the cost.
Quote:
Getting back to Trump. When you hear of his plans for America, take note that Donald Trump has lost between $1 and $6 billion over his business career. No one knows how much was lost because Trump is a liar about his net worth, as pointed out in detail by Forbes, Bloomberg, NYTimes reporter, banks, courts, et etc..
The interesting argument that I heard is that Trump would be a great President for the USA because he knows how to declare bankruptcy, since he's done it so many times before. And since, under the collective wisdom of the former Republicans and Democrats in office, the USA is technically BROKE by a few trillion dollars, and has been so for the past... sin
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ok, one more follow-on thought.
Once we STOP FUCKING PEOPLE OVER AND MAKING THEIR NATIONS A LIVING HELL, and once we stop creating the main source of refugees, we can, if we wish, go on to actually HELPING other nations deal with other causes of mass migration and refugee creation, and that includes water shortages (the initial cause of Syrian unrest was a drought which destroyed the livelihoods of farmers throughout northeast Syria), climate shift, natural disaster (I don't include climate change as a natural disaster since we did that all by ourselves!), overpopulation, and lack of opportunity.
But not with the military. NEVER using the military, because .... REALLY, because .... no, REALLY REALLY because ...
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SGG
Thanks for your post about religion.
The one thing I find is true about all religious teachings is that they are based on a self-contradiction that goes like this
1) god/s are unknowable and powerful
2) but we've got it figured out so you need to do what we say.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No, don't put words in my mouth. Religion is not exclusively an American problem, but, having said that, it was my contention that, in America, the Christian religion has lost it's collective mind. They have strayed, far and away, from the teachings of Christ and God.
Gone is the belief that we are all God's creation, and that his plan calls for unconditional love:
John 3:16 - For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
You always hear of this passage, this Bible verse, that so fittingly describes the true meaning of the religion. But, it has been perverted, like so many religions throughout the world. You have a handful of people wishing to impose their interpretation of religion.
Gone too is the belief we were all created in his image. For he so loved the World; not just whites, or brown, red or even yellow people. The World. It used to mean something profound.........and now they're just words. And that "whoever believes in him" has come to mean something so different than it's original meaning. Christians want to convert the non-believers, come hell or high water, and if you don't succumb, they force their so-called belief down your throat by subjecting others to God's Law regardless of commitment.
Is it the only problem in America? Far from it.
Freedom is only perfect when the people fight for it. We may not always achieve it, but that shouldn't stop us from trying.
Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's.
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:You are blaming America's religiousness when the fault is in America's love of Freedom.
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
This is what I find most troubling about religion, and particularly, the Christian religion. The assumption that they're right and the rest of the world is wrong and going to hell.
If there's one thing America loves, it's... well, war. But if there's two things America loves, it's war and torture. But if there's three things America loves, it's war, torture, and genocide. But if there are several dozen things America loves, they are war, torture, genocide, chattel slavery, apartheid, assassination, poverty, institutionalized bribery, remote-controlled flying death robots and somewhere down the list, between prison labor and lagoons of toxic hog manure, there is almost certainly a special place in America's heart for Freedom. Take Libya for example.
And so it was that the United States was fighting to free the Libyan people from the Libyan people by killing the Libyan people. The situation was fairly straightforward, after all - Libya faced a humanitarian crisis, and the only way to address a humanitarian crisis was to bomb it with hundreds of cruise missiles. I'm told that the American Red Cross delivered bottled water and medical supplies by duct-taping them to the nose cone of outgoing Tomahawks. More importantly, the Libyan people were oppressed by a bloodthirsty dictator - a dictator who killed his own people - and the least America could do was kill those people itself. How, I ask, could America stand idly by and allow people to be slaughtered by a ruthless tyrant when America could be slaughtering them instead?
You may ask, what makes getting killed by America any better than getting killed by Qaddafi? Because America was killing for a great American cause, in the name of Americanness. Libyans, in their last moments, as their houses were burnt and their schools destroyed and their neighbors incinerated and their families turned into hamburger, came to know American values of liberty and of Freedom.
Labels: eaters of the dead, everybody loves a winner http://fafblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/humanitarians-of-year.html
www.deviantart.com/art/Firefly-crew-558045286
http://pre07.deviantart.net/8ced/th/pre/i/2015/246/2/8/firefly_crew_byNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Water, or the lack of, will be the next great resource that will be at the center of the next World War.
No, religion is the driving force behind the latest mass exodus. And climate change is a natural disaster affected by the knuckleheads who refuse to listen to scientists, plus the lack of governments getting involved and affecting change.
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Ok, one more follow-on thought.
Once we STOP FUCKING PEOPLE OVER AND MAKING THEIR NATIONS A LIVING HELL, and once we stop creating the main source of refugees, we can, if we wish, go on to actually HELPING other nations deal with other causes of mass migration and refugee creation, and that includes water shortages (the initial cause of Syrian unrest was a drought which destroyed the livelihoods of farmers throughout northeast Syria), climate shift, natural disaster (I don't include climate change as a natural disaster since we did that all by ourselves!), overpopulation, and lack of opportunity.
But not with the military. NEVER using the military, because .... REALLY, because .... no, REALLY REALLY because ...
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Water, or the lack of, will be the next great resource that will be at the center of the next World War.
NO matter what anyone says, SGG.....
WATER is everything.
WATER is eternal.
Anyone who is preaching otherwise is naive....
There's a new world coming....
It's like this, but "I'm going Thirsty"
(Eddie and Scott before Pearl Jam and Soundarden)
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
“When you start studying yourself too deeply, you start seeing things that maybe you don’t want to see,” Mr. Trump once told Time. “And if there’s a rhyme and reason,” he continued, “people can figure you out, and once they can figure you out, you’re in big trouble.”
Donald Trump on why he never served in Vietnam:
“My number was so incredible, and it was a very high draft number. Anyway, so I never had to do that, but I felt that I was in the military in the true sense because I dealt with those people.”
www.nytimes.com/2015/09/09/us/politics/donald-trump-likens-his-schooli
ng-to-military-service-in-book.html
If it's Donald Trump's lottery number, then it's just got to be the very best. Low draft numbers are for losers.
And Trump's service at the New York Military Academy, an expensive prep school for boys, is military service "in the true sense". Trump served his country as 13 year old and thus he should be Commander-in-Chief.
Proud little soldier Donald Trump can be seen in uniform at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3168648/Donald-Trump-pictured-
uniform-cadet-captain-dodged-Vietnam-draft-four-deferments-bone-spur.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's not just the 14th Amendment, it's the Constitution in it's entirety. It is the document and it's people following the tenants of that document that make this country great, but mostly it's the people. The huddled masses yearning to be free.
Yes, I believe in that hokum, partially because there's a modicum of truth in it. We are a great nation of immigrants, a nation of travelers from throughout the world. All striving towards one goal - FREEDOM. Everything else is just plain BULLSHIT!
Now, if the Amendment is to be changed or modified, then I say change and modify the lot. How is it that the 14th is deemed obsolete, inadequate and stale but the 2nd is not? Both were written at a time in our history that is quite different from today's. The 2nd Amendment was ratified in 1791. Do you think that it may be stale and inadequate in regards to modern times? It talks of militias and state rights rather than it's import to the nation. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, is that really necessary in today's America? The language in the amendment was deliberately left vague and ambiguous. Why? Whom did it serve? What does this portend? What was going on in our country in 1791, that prompted it's creation?
Are we a nation of freedom? We must look closely at the history of our nation to determine the cause and the affect of these, and other, amendments. Trump obviously is playing to the crowd, but what of the affect of the 14th Amendment or of the Bill of Rights? No, I say leave them alone or review and change them all, to address the needs of the nation and match those in modern times.
This revolution is far from over.
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
SGG
And finally, as a separate topic, since you seem to be the one most attached to the 14th amendment, I was wondering if you could explain to me what you find valuable in it. I believe you have beliefs, hopes ... good things attached to it. I was hoping you would tell me what they are.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I think a completely new constitution in an old country is a very strong risk for disaster rather than improvement. Old constitutions are rewritten after old governments are defeated in war or revolution. Those are the most likely events before the U.S. Constitution is completely rewritten.
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
It's not just the 14th Amendment, it's the Constitution in it's entirety.
Now, if the Amendment is to be changed or modified, then I say change and modify the lot.
A rewritten constitution is likely to be similar to the existing constitution, but worse, following the path of the Constitution of the Confederate States; March 11, 1861.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_Constitution#Slavery
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:SGG, I believe that you're a well-intentioned guy who just wants the best for people, and what I would like to know is... what do you mean by "freedom"?
It's not just the 14th Amendment, it's the Constitution in it's entirety. It is the document and it's people following the tenants of that document that make this country great, but mostly it's the people. The huddled masses yearning to be free.
Yes, I believe in that hokum, partially because there's a modicum of truth in it. We are a great nation of immigrants, a nation of travelers from throughout the world. All striving towards one goal - FREEDOM. Everything else is just plain BULLSHIT!
What are people trying to leave behind ... specifically? Or what are they aiming for, specifically? Examples would be great, because I seem to understand best thru understanding the details.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:"some Republicans can be accused of loving liberty and freedom too much — or at least using those words as rhetorical crutches. Donald Trump is not one of them. The current GOP presidential front-runner rarely uses the words “freedom” or “liberty” in his remarks at all. Trump didn’t use the words “freedom” or “liberty” in his announcement speech. He didn’t use those words in his Nashville speech on August 29, or his Nashville rally on August 21, or his appearance at the Iowa State Fair on August 15, or his rally and news conference in New Hampshire on August 14, or his news conference in Birch Run, Mich., or his press conference in Laredo, Texas, on July 23. He didn’t use those words while discussing his signing of the Republican National Committee’s pledge last Thursday, or in his contentious interview with Hugh Hewitt the same day."
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
SGG, I believe that you're a well-intentioned guy who just wants the best for people, and what I would like to know is... what do you mean by "freedom"?
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423819/donald-trump-speeches-no-
liberty-freedom
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
My understanding of Freedom and the forming of the United States was to get away from religious persecution and the ability to make a better life for themselves and their children.-BRENDA
What you describe, Brenda, could perhaps be better described as opportunity. BTW- when you read the histories of the Founding Fathers (the signers of the Constitution) you will realize that very few actually came to the colonies for religious freedom.
That may have been true of some of the northeastern colonies, which were settled by Puritans, and Pennsylvania which was settled by Quakers, but MOST of the FF were plantation owners, merchants, bankers, businessmen, landowners/speculators, and adventurers. Many of them were looking for "freedom" ... not from persecution, but from the East India Trading Company (a Crown Corporation) and from an aristocracy which already owned all of the land in Europe. Washington himself stood to gain a lot of land (for speculation purposes) since he was the surveyor of the Ohio Valley. The thing that was holding him back was the British King, who wanted to keep the land for the natives.
In fact, I think land ownership (for the little guy) and land speculation (for the wealthy) was the big drawing card.
Quote:I guess Trump isn't as dishonest as some people make him out to be. Usually, when a politician uses the word "freedom" it's to promote the something else entirely. Entirely overused by TPTB.
"some Republicans can be accused of loving liberty and freedom too much — or at least using those words as rhetorical crutches. Donald Trump is not one of them. The current GOP presidential front-runner rarely uses the words “freedom” or “liberty” in his remarks at all.- SECOND
Still I'm sure SGG has something in mind, and for him it's an honest and passionate statement of belief and not a catch-phrase, and I wonder what that might be.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Don't think I knew about Washington and the Ohio Valley. Excuse me for saying this but I just can't believe that the British Crown wanted the land for the American Indian there.
East India Company for you and in Canada it was the Hudson Bay. Land and furs in Canada.
BRENDA
I recall reading that the reason King George didn't want to disturb the Iroquois people isn't because he was such a grand guy, but he was fighting the French, and since the French were allied with the Hurons, he allied with the Iroquois Five (then Six) Nations. Call it a proxy war.
Quote:
During the French and Indian War (the North American frontier of the Seven Years' War), the Iroquois sided with the British against the French and their Algonquian allies, who were traditional enemies. The Iroquois hoped that aiding the British would also bring favors after the war. Few Iroquois warriors joined the campaign. In the Battle of Lake George, a group of Catholic Mohawk (from Kahnawake) and French forces ambushed a Mohawk-led British column; the Mohawk were deeply disturbed as they had created their confederacy for peace among the peoples and had not had warfare against each other.
After the war, to protect their alliance, the British government issued the Royal Proclamation of 1763, forbidding Anglo-European (white) settlements beyond the Appalachian Mountains. Colonists largely ignored the order, and the British had insufficient soldiers to enforce it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois
It was a complicated time, but the settlers were on the whole much more anti-First Nation than King George, because the natives were directly defending their land and resources against the white folk, and King George was far, far away.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:SGG? Care to elaborate on what you mean by "freedom"?
It's not just the 14th Amendment, it's the Constitution in it's entirety. It is the document and it's people following the tenants of that document that make this country great, but mostly it's the people. The huddled masses yearning to be free.
Yes, I believe in that hokum, partially because there's a modicum of truth in it. We are a great nation of immigrants, a nation of travelers from throughout the world. All striving towards one goal - FREEDOM. Everything else is just plain BULLSHIT!
SECOND
I was just scrolling up. Hey, how did I miss this gem???
Quote:
You are blaming America's religiousness when the fault is in America's love of Freedom.
If there's one thing America loves, it's... well, war. But if there's two things America loves, it's war and torture. But if there's three things America loves, it's war, torture, and genocide. But if there are several dozen things America loves, they are war, torture, genocide, chattel slavery, apartheid, assassination, poverty, institutionalized bribery, remote-controlled flying death robots and somewhere down the list, between prison labor and lagoons of toxic hog manure, there is almost certainly a special place in America's heart for Freedom. Take Libya for example.
And so it was that the United States was fighting to free the Libyan people from the Libyan people by killing the Libyan people. The situation was fairly straightforward, after all - Libya faced a humanitarian crisis, and the only way to address a humanitarian crisis was to bomb it with hundreds of cruise missiles. I'm told that the American Red Cross delivered bottled water and medical supplies by duct-taping them to the nose cone of outgoing Tomahawks. More importantly, the Libyan people were oppressed by a bloodthirsty dictator - a dictator who killed his own people - and the least America could do was kill those people itself. How, I ask, could America stand idly by and allow people to be slaughtered by a ruthless tyrant when America could be slaughtering them instead?
You may ask, what makes getting killed by America any better than getting killed by Qaddafi? Because America was killing for a great American cause, in the name of Americanness. Libyans, in their last moments, as their houses were burnt and their schools destroyed and their neighbors incinerated and their families turned into hamburger, came to know American values of liberty and of Freedom.
I laughed my ass off thru the whole thing! That, and I had my head in my hands too!
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
FREEDOM!
That something in mind is a little thing called "The American Dream." It is as elusive as it is undefined, but I'll take a crack at it. It is somewhat religious freedom, but it's more an ideal. A place whereby our dreams, both individually and collectively, we can pursue and fulfill our needs and wants. That's very general and somewhat simplistic but it's my overall take on freedom. Both as a people and as individuals we can pursue what will make us, and those close to us, happy.
For example: we can worship as we please, without fear of control or retribution. That's freedom. This nonsense of religious "persecution" that folks like Huckabee and others on the right have conjured, is such a farce. They want to impose on others what "they" feel is right for everyone. That, to me, is the opposite of freedom. How can you force me to believe as you do? Or, for that matter, worship and follow your rule of law under your God? What if I believe differently than you do? This is a great reason why the Pilgrims came to North America, for the freedom to express their beliefs as they saw fit.
The Constitution, written with the truth of the times in mind, addressed these and other issues of freedom. The 14th Amendment addressed an important issue that threatened the very fabric of our collective quest for freedom. And so, we come to full circle. Religion is just one of the freedoms that the Constitution speaks to.
That self-same ideal is being threatened yet again, and there are those who feel that God and the Christian faith is the only true way to save this country. But in their fervor, the Christian right is distorting the very nature of that ideal, as well as, violating the tenants of Christ's teachings. Let go and Let God!
The freedom to pray and worship as any man, woman or child sees fit. It is your right to choose, in every aspect of American life; that is freedom. It is not YOUR right to choose how I should live. That is tyranny! Just ask the Pilgrims.
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:
My understanding of Freedom and the forming of the United States was to get away from religious persecution and the ability to make a better life for themselves and their children.-BRENDA
What you describe, Brenda, could perhaps be better described as opportunity. BTW- when you read the histories of the Founding Fathers (the signers of the Constitution) you will realize that very few actually came to the colonies for religious freedom.
That may have been true of some of the northeastern colonies, which were settled by Puritans, and Pennsylvania which was settled by Quakers, but MOST of the FF were plantation owners, merchants, bankers, businessmen, landowners/speculators, and adventurers. Many of them were looking for "freedom" ... not from persecution, but from the East India Trading Company (a Crown Corporation) and from an aristocracy which already owned all of the land in Europe. Washington himself stood to gain a lot of land (for speculation purposes) since he was the surveyor of the Ohio Valley. The thing that was holding him back was the British King, who wanted to keep the land for the natives.
In fact, I think land ownership (for the little guy) and land speculation (for the wealthy) was the big drawing card.Quote:I guess Trump isn't as dishonest as some people make him out to be. Usually, when a politician uses the word "freedom" it's to promote the something else entirely. Entirely overused by TPTB.
"some Republicans can be accused of loving liberty and freedom too much — or at least using those words as rhetorical crutches. Donald Trump is not one of them. The current GOP presidential front-runner rarely uses the words “freedom” or “liberty” in his remarks at all.- SECOND
Still I'm sure SGG has something in mind, and for him it's an honest and passionate statement of belief and not a catch-phrase, and I wonder what that might be.
--------NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Thank you.
FREEDOM
That something in mind is a little thing called "The American Dream." It is as elusive as it is undefined, but I'll take a crack at it.
Quote:Okay, free to believe in and worship whatever deity you choose ... or not. OTOH, there are limits even there. If your religion requires human sacrifice or sex with children or allows marrying more than one person, you'll fall afoul of our laws pretty quick! So, freedom- but within the ethical and legal limits of our culture.
It is somewhat religious freedom, but it's more an ideal.
Quote:
A place whereby our dreams, both individually and collectively, we can pursue and fulfill our needs and wants.
That's a lot of things wrapped up in one sentence, so let me try to de-construct it:
"Our dreams, both individually and collectively"
In all places, collective dreams and individual dreams conflict. It's impossible to always fulfill both at the same time. What the USA has is a rationale (excuse?) ... a not-realistic way of doing away with that conundrum ... by saying that individuals acting in their own best individual interest will create a better society. It's not explicitly in the Constitution, but it was developed from Jean Jacques Rousseau's "The Social Contract" in which he postulates that individuals give up some of their individual freedoms to take advantage of society's benefits. That train of thought later morphed into the idea that individuals, acting in their own self-interest, will create a self-regulating market.
So the USA has a fairly strong culture of individualism (versus a culture of collectivism). Is that what attracts you to the USA? Individualism?
"we can pursue and fulfill our needs and wants."
People can pursue their needs and wants anywhere. In fact, they have to, or they won't survive. It's more a question of HOW they pursue those needs and wants, and whether or not they'll be successful.
So, in what realm what specifically do you think the USA has the advantage over other places?
Quote:Again, people can do this anywhere. Not only "can" they, they MUST. Is it the emphasis on individualism that is attractive? The overall level of wealth that allows a more successful pursuit of "happiness" and overall better lifestyle?
That's very general and somewhat simplistic but it's my overall take on freedom. Both as a people and as individuals we can pursue what will make us, and those close to us, happy.
Quote:
For example: we can worship as we please, without fear of control or retribution. That's freedom. This nonsense of religious "persecution" that folks like Huckabee and others on the right have conjured, is such a farce. They want to impose on others what "they" feel is right for everyone. That, to me, is the opposite of freedom. How can you force me to believe as you do? Or, for that matter, worship and follow your rule of law under your God? What if I believe differently than you do? This is a great reason why the Pilgrims came to North America, for the freedom to express their beliefs as they saw fit.
The Constitution, written with the truth of the times in mind, addressed these and other issues of freedom. The 14th Amendment addressed an important issue that threatened the very fabric of our collective quest for freedom. And so, we come to full circle. Religion is just one of the freedoms that the Constitution speaks to.
That self-same ideal is being threatened yet again, and there are those who feel that God and the Christian faith is the only true way to save this country. But in their fervor, the Christian right is distorting the very nature of that ideal, as well as, violating the tenants of Christ's teachings. Let go and Let God!
But there are other freedoms built into the USA Constitution, such as freedom of assembly, right to privacy, right to a fair and open trial (as opposed to a Star Chamb
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh BTW BRENDA, I answered your question about King George and the Iroquois, several posts up. I hope you find it interesting.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anyway, SGG, in lieu of a specific reply as to what you mean by FREEDOM ... except for freedom of religion ... I'm leaning towards thinking that what YOU mean by FREEDOM is actually OPPORTUNITY.
The reality is that life is nicer here in the USA than a lot of other parts if the world ... the standard of living is higher and there is less day-to-day corruption ... thanks, in large part, to the USA pretty much stealing from everyplace else and enforcing dictatorships elsewhere ... and that people are coming here for the chance to make a "better life" (wealthier living standard) for themselves and their family.
It's a worthy goal, but it's not "freedom", by even the loosest definition. So, if you think my interpretation has missed the mark in some way, let me know.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Oh BTW BRENDA, I answered your question about King George and the Iroquois, several posts up. I hope you find it interesting. - SIGNY
I did see it and read it. I had sort of forgotten that the British and the French were using the Indians as Allies of a sort to suit their wants. Then when they were done, The French were a little better at keeping bargains than the British. The French were more accepting of their half-blood children than the English.- BRENDA
Curiously, at first it seems the English court (i.e. royalty) was accepting of the First Nations ... all kinds of First Nation leaders went to Britain to visit the lords and ladies of the day.
As far as the native north Americans under foreign rule ... The fairest comparison would be to compare how natives fared in USAn territory (exterminated, mostly), how they fared under British rule (most of Canada except in Quebec) and under French rule (Quebec). My guess is that natives did badly under USAn government, perhaps not quite as badly under British rule, and maybe somewhat less badly under French rule. But I'm not really familiar with the history and policies of France and Britain, so I'll leave it to you to tell me what happened.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Of course WE are not truly free. It just doesn't exist anywhere in this world. And yes the freedom here in the USA IS better than any where in this world, but that is a manufactured freedom.
You state, correctly so, that everywhere else life is difficult and, in comparison, WE'VE got it made. Why even here freedom comes in various colors and degrees, with varying attitudes and norms. Opportunity being just one. Each of us determines the type of freedom that exists within our individual worlds. You have yours, I have mine. That determination, at least for me, is constantly changing.
I used religion as an example, only as a type of measuring stick. But for some that is all that they need to define their freedom. For others freedom is expression or lack of constriction, free thinking, writing or movement. Freedom is a ship and a star to guide her by. Yep, each of us choose. Freedom is not being a slave. And for others is not having responsibilities. And for others is being able to travel from one part of the country to another without the need for "papers."
The direction in which public discourse in this country is going, that may be gone in the not-so-distant future. To me freedom is doing all of the above without fear of reproach.
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Anyway, SGG, in lieu of a specific reply as to what you mean by FREEDOM ... except for freedom of religion ... I'm leaning towards thinking that what YOU mean by FREEDOM is actually OPPORTUNITY.
The reality is that life is nicer here in the USA than a lot of other parts if the world ... the standard of living is higher and there is less day-to-day corruption ... thanks, in large part, to the USA pretty much stealing from everyplace else and enforcing dictatorships elsewhere ... and that people are coming here for the chance to make a "better life" (wealthier living standard) for themselves and their family.
It's a worthy goal, but it's not "freedom", by even the loosest definition. So, if you think my interpretation has missed the mark in some way, let me know.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Our dreams, both individually and collectively"
In all places, collective dreams and individual dreams conflict. It's impossible to always fulfill both at the same time. What the USA has is a rationale (excuse?) ... a not-realistic way of doing away with that conundrum ... by saying that individuals acting in their own best individual interest will create a better society. It's not explicitly in the Constitution, but it was developed from Jean Jacques Rousseau's "The Social Contract" in which he postulates that individuals give up some of their individual freedoms to take advantage of society's benefits. That train of thought later morphed into the idea that individuals, acting in their own self-interest, will create a self-regulating market.
So the USA has a fairly strong culture of individualism (versus a culture of collectivism). Is that what attracts you to the USA? Individualism?
"we can pursue and fulfill our needs and wants."
People can pursue their needs and wants anywhere. In fact, they have to, or they won't survive. It's more a question of HOW they pursue those needs and wants, and whether or not they'll be successful.
So, in what realm what specifically do you think the USA has the advantage over other places?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have always been exposed, since I was a kid, to that lofty goal of American Dream. Only coming to understand, to some degree, it's full meaning. It is an ideal, one that we choose to believe in, or not, and one that we choose to pursue, or not. That is "a chicken in every pot" type of dream. That is both a collective goal and a individual goal that we, as a nation and as individuals choose to strive towards. The promise of a better life - a house, car and money to burn.
There are those that DO NOT believe that goal exists for them, but others that do believe in that lofty ideal. And, depending on our circumstances, we choose. I'm not talking about markets, but of goals, dreams and ideas. What you speak of is of monetary status and position. Class.
You say that it doesn't exist or it's not real, that may be so but there are those that do believe and strive for it. For them it's real! They have heard of it all their lives, and so believe it to be real. I was in that number, but have come full circle and know that it's just that.....a dream, a carefully orchestrated marketing ploy. Clever, elusive and effective. Keep your shoulder to the wheel, they say. Work hard, others say. Streets paved with gold, yet others say. An American Dream.
SGG
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No, BRENDA, far from it! I appreciate the info. It sounds to me that one of major differences between the French and British approaches to the "New World" was that there didn't seem to be a large-scale desire by the French to actually move here. No mass migration. The French seemed content to stay at the level of traders, trappers, and priests, while the Brits seemed intent on moving their troublemakers to the new world (or perhaps the British people themselves were intent on moving here). Anyway, for whatever reason, far fewer French settled in North America.
Hey, I was going to post this is the RAIN! thread, but while I have your attention ... found a new show on TV called Roadway Through Hell, or something like that. It's a little like Deadliest Catch and Ice Road Truckers, but this show is about "heavy vehicle rescuers" ... the people with the extra-big tow trucks who pull jackknifed 18-wheelers out of the ditch, or right overturned trucks. The "roadway" they're talking about is the Coqihalla (sp??). It sounds really awful in the wintertime... yanno, like it's closed at least an hour a day due to some mishap!
Have you ever driven it? Is it as bad as they say?
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I have always been exposed, since I was a kid, to that lofty goal of American Dream. Only coming to understand, to some degree, it's full meaning. It is an ideal, one that we choose to believe in, or not, and one that we choose to pursue, or not. That is "a chicken in every pot" type of dream. That is both a collective goal and a individual goal that we, as a nation and as individuals choose to strive towards. The promise of a better life - a house, car and money to burn.
There are those that DO NOT believe that goal exists for them, but others that do believe in that lofty ideal. And, depending on our circumstances, we choose. I'm not talking about markets, but of goals, dreams and ideas. What you speak of is of monetary status and position. Class.
You say that it doesn't exist or it's not real, that may be so but there are those that do believe and strive for it. For them it's real! They have heard of it all their lives, and so believe it to be real. I was in that number, but have come full circle and know that it's just that.....a dream, a carefully orchestrated marketing ploy. Clever, elusive and effective. Keep your shoulder to the wheel, they say. Work hard, others say. Streets paved with gold, yet others say. An American Dream.
SO, not coming here for FREEDOM, but for a better life.
I can understand that ... most people in the world want a better life, seeing as aspirations tend to move up even as people achieve their previous dream.
But THIS thread isn't about the American Dream and whether we believe in it or not, or whether it even exists at all. THIS thread is about the 14th amendment, immigration, and immigrants. So, in relation to the 14th amendment ... does the USA have an obligation to open its borders to everyone who wants to move in to pursue that dream? What if the dream of those who want to immigrate conflicts in a very real way with the dream of the people already here? i.e. one dream can't be achieved without ruining the other?
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME