|
On May 13 2010 12:57 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 12:48 JinMaikeul wrote:
Yurebis, let's just get down to it. What's the actual point that you're trying to make? I see a lot of quoting and responding, but little in the way of a cohesive message or opinion... I think I already said it in my first post in the thread? Illegal immigration is just immigration shunned upon by the state. It is otherwise just regular immigration, and there's no reason to oppose it any more than you'd oppose someone for moving from Nevada to California. Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 12:49 jpak wrote:On May 13 2010 12:48 JinMaikeul wrote:
Yurebis, let's just get down to it. What's the actual point that you're trying to make? I see a lot of quoting and responding, but little in the way of a cohesive message or opinion... Is it wrong to argue for the sake of arguing? I find it a bit fun. Not gonna lie.
You're making no sense again. Perhaps you should move to Mexico illegally and see how they like it.
|
On May 13 2010 13:02 jpak wrote:
I think he's arguing just to drive you nuts. But we all know you're better than that.
I'm having fun seeing how much of an idiot he is. I spend 30 seconds on my replies to him while he writes a whole dissertation while responding nonsense.
|
On May 13 2010 12:37 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 12:30 fight_or_flight wrote:
People don't understand that this country can only support a limited number of immigrants per year. What is that number, and how did you or the state come to know it? Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 12:30 fight_or_flight wrote:
These illegals crossing the boarder are likely making it difficult for others to get in to the US, such as those from Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, etc. How is that fair? How is a mexican crossing the border impeding someone from moving in? Directly, impossible. If you mean the state is tightening quotas due to illegal immigration, well, then, I'd say it's the state's decision, and the state's making alone that's making it difficult for others to come  Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 12:30 fight_or_flight wrote:
On top of it, there is a strong movement within the illegal hispanic community that is very un-american. For example, all those students who walked out when some kids wore an american flag on cinco de mayo and were sent home...that was a wtf moment for me. I see very terrifying things about americans too, like, wanting to blow up the middle east and stuff.  No merit in either argument.
I know some people who believe that it is a human's natural right to live wherever they want. People also believe they have other natural rights, such as the right to have kids, the right to make a decent living, the right to a bed at night, etc.
Unfortunately, when one faces reality, they quickly find out that only those who are strong enough to defend their rights actually has any rights. Other wise, someone who is strong enough will infringe upon them. For example, if there is only limited food, and one person has a gun and the other doesn't, the one with the gun will get the food.
If citizens in a country want to keep their rights, they must defend them. If illegal immigrants are putting a financial strain on the country, perhaps some citizens will lose their jobs, or their taxes will increase. There may be more competition in general for land, etc. Therefore, if one group wants to keep its rights of a certain lifestyle, they must restrain the rights of immigrants to immigrate. There cannot be both.
Particular problems arise when one culturally cohesive group invades a non-cohesive group. The more cohesive the group, the stronger it is. Therefore, all cultures must be cohesive, or at least equally non-cohesive, to avoid getting destroyed. All the arguments of "its good for the economy" etc, fail to address this point. Immigrants send money back to their own country or keep it within their community, because of there cohesiveness. They compete with citizens while avoiding competition among themselves if possible.
As long as one group is more cohesive than another, there is an asymmetric war. If one group is gaining wealth, the other is losing it. I'm sorry the world isn't idealistic.
|
On May 13 2010 12:57 Yurebis wrote:
I think I already said it in my first post in the thread?
Illegal immigration is just immigration shunned upon by the state. It is otherwise just regular immigration, and there's no reason to oppose it any more than you'd oppose someone for moving from Nevada to California.
That was as meaningless as it was obvious. Of course illegal immigration is just immigration shunned upon by the state. Illegal narcotics are also just narcotics shunned upon by the state. Slicing someone's throat open in a dispute is just a manner of dispute resolution shunned upon by the state. Otherwise, all these things are just normal everyday things...
If you've no respect for or belief in state sovereignty, then that's your business. But I assure you that just about every single country, state, province, and municipality in the world disagrees with you. Arguing against it is as pointless and impractical as arguing against the concept of currency.
|
On May 13 2010 13:02 tryclops wrote:If memory serves correctly, california voted to not give illegal immigrants benefits, like welfare, but the state courts overturned this. personally, as long as illegal immigrants are paying a share of the taxes and are productive members of society, that's ok with me. and if they aren't, then they can go defecate on themselves.
Problem is that illegals mostly leech from the government. I have no problem keeping all the high earners(above 100k) and buisiness owners who are illegal. They can stay. everyone else who makes pennies and steals US jobs should go back to Mexico or wherever else they came from assuming they aren't mexican citizens.
|
On May 13 2010 12:52 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 12:46 Yurebis wrote:On May 13 2010 12:33 hacpee wrote:
They're getting free food at a restaurant, which you're paying for whilst not getting any benefit from it yourself. Ok. Why complain about the freeloaders and not the restaurant?
Wow are you an idiot? If someone steals my money and buys a snack with the money do I complain about the crook or the convenience store? 1- The public funds are not yours. You forfeited them once you payed your taxes. Complain with the restaurant aka state. Vote wiser, send letters, all that wonderful democratic stuff. 2- The illegal aliens are not stealing from the public funds. The hospitals emergency rooms and schools are open tho whoever lives nearby. They do not ask for social security numbers or proof of citizenship for that exact reason. They could very well do so, but it would break the purpose of having a local public service. The illegal aliens are not stealing by entering and using them. On May 13 2010 12:38 Romantic wrote:
My argument is most people are completely oblivious to the actual content of what they are eating in a Big Mac. You can say that they should look for it themselves and it isn't the governments business, but the information literally would not exist if it weren't for government forcing the information to be available.
Studies have shown people will very often pick healthier choices if they are presented with the information and a healthier option. That information and a healthier option is typically not available for the average dude to make that choice that is ultimately better for them in the long run. So, of course the company would want to supply X (but almost everyone could agree that its in the best interests of society if X is healthier food). So to dumb things down for me, you mean there was this very life-standard-raising procedure that was unknown to all but government, and they selflessly obligated everyone to follow it for their own good? I don't get how wouldn't it be freely adopted if it was recognized as so. You think it's so, people who read those labels think it's so, I think it's so too. Why the heck would a company not put those on to outperform companies that do not on this very useful and cheap procedure? No, I don't want to FORCE anyone to follow a healthy diet as defined by experts, but I do want them to be informed on the options overwhelmingly shown to promote long, healthy life. All it would require is a menu with nutritional info on it.
Yeah well, you're forcing the companies to label their products the way you think customers would benefit from it. But companies already have the motive to do so on their own, don't they? So I don't think that's a good attempt to demonstrate why regulation is needed. You gotta mix child labor in, with environmental hazards and stuff.
On May 13 2010 12:52 Romantic wrote:
Forcing them to do it would be what some Democrats have been trying to do, literally making it illegal to sell high fat content foods, denying any option to eat something unhealthy if you felt like it.
I just want nutritional information to be available everywhere large chain restaurants serve people.
If the average person decides to continue eating Big Macs after being given the nutritional information, I would let them do it (were i a politician).
Yeah.
On May 13 2010 12:54 hacpee wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 12:46 Yurebis wrote:
1- The public funds are not yours. You forfeited them once you payed your taxes. Complain with the restaurant aka state. Vote wiser, send letters, all that wonderful democratic stuff.
2- The illegal aliens are not stealing from the public funds. The hospitals emergency rooms and schools are open tho whoever lives nearby. They do not ask for social security numbers or proof of citizenship for that exact reason. They could very well do so, but it would break the purpose of having a local public service. The illegal aliens are not stealing by entering and using them.
Why do you keep making the stupid restaurant analogy? You make no sense. If someone was eating restaurant food for free and it was because of him that I didn't get my order, I would give him an ass whooping. Next time, he'll know better.
The restaurant was already giving out food for free and for that exact purpose... the bastard didn't steal from anybody...
I'd say be mad at the restaurant for wasting your money. Beating on that one bastard alone won't stop others from coming in anyway~
On May 13 2010 12:57 hacpee wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 12:55 Yurebis wrote:On May 13 2010 12:42 JinMaikeul wrote:On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote:
Do the illegal immigrants pay taxes or not? Which taxes are they not paying? Which services are they using that they're not paying? Why not get to the crust of it and ask (+answer) yourself these questions before complaining about freeloading illegal aliens?
All the more reason that we need people living here to be documented rather than undocumented. So long as they remain undocumented, we'll never know, will we? You mean no one knows these things? 1- do illegal immigrants pay taxes or not? which? Should be easily answered by any tax expert or enthusiast (lol tax enthusiast.. sounds wrong) 2-Which services are they using? Should be easily answered by knowing what public services can be used without a social security number.. 3-Why not ask yourself that? Should be able to be answered without recoursing to "I can't answer it unless everyone is documented and therefore there are no illegal aliens to account for" ... On May 13 2010 12:42 JinMaikeul wrote:On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote:
Because as far as I know, they do pay for most public utilities that people complain about.
Such as? School for sure, through property tax, and I'm not sure but I'd say public hospitals' emergency rooms too, eagerly waiting to be corrected. On May 13 2010 12:42 JinMaikeul wrote:On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote:I just like to keep people honest. Once they realize that it's an outrageous idea, the whole statist argument falls... And that's even regardless of what I say. They'll know it when they'll know it. When there's no demand, the suppliers have to shut down... so if there's no demand for absolute landlords, then there won't be any more absolute landlords any further. Same with public, unaccounted services. The government and state are important and necessary despite any and all arguments you may make against them. To me, you seem very idealistic, but not very practical. There will always be landlords whether or not people want them or like them. Landlords, yeah, but absolute landlords that reign over all other landlords, seems silly to me. And it will indeed go on despite what I say, as long as people like you demand it (even without any logically explained reason) On May 13 2010 12:42 JinMaikeul wrote:On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote:The theater wasn't designed to show movies to everyone, it was designed to make a profit And before you ask, profit isn't a bad motive. I'm not explaining why, here, however. I never said profit was a bad motive. Just like a theater isn't designed to show movies to its patrons. Likewise, a government is designed with its citizens in mind. The government isn't a buffet table for anyone to come and take what they please. The government is very much like a business in that it has to manage its flow of resources, make investments, and maintain financial stability. But without the competition. And only as much fiscal responsibility as it takes for them to keep afloat (borderline revolution lol) On May 13 2010 12:42 JinMaikeul wrote:On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote:Limited budget? The state has a limited budget now? Since when? Before or after the trillion dollar deficit? Yes, despite what you may have heard, resources are limited... Hence, the word DEFICIT in budget deficit... haha It's limited by how much they can owe? doesn't sound that financially hard to manage to me, nor conventional finance for that matter Dude we've answered you millions of times. Fact is that illegals take more than they give in. Fact is that illegals are Mexican citizens, they should go back to mexico. You're being just as dumb as you were in the Kespa thread where you didn't even know what Kespa was yet you made pages of arguments.
What are they doing wrong if the system allows them to?
They are not stealing, period. The restaurant is giving food for free, and you're paying for it. Tell me how is that not a fair analogy. Tell me exactly where are they taking more in, and why is it wrong for them to do so. The system allows them to, and it could very well deny them. Yet it has not been so.
It's not just the illegals, is it? You should be pissed of about everyone on welfare and receiving unemployment checks on those same grounds...
And believe me, I dislike this whole mess, yet deporting a fraction of people won't stop it. Because it's the welfare system in place that promotes such as freeloading the "public good" (speaking in collective terms)... such persons will always exist.
|
On May 13 2010 13:07 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 12:52 Romantic wrote:On May 13 2010 12:46 Yurebis wrote:On May 13 2010 12:33 hacpee wrote:
They're getting free food at a restaurant, which you're paying for whilst not getting any benefit from it yourself. Ok. Why complain about the freeloaders and not the restaurant?
Wow are you an idiot? If someone steals my money and buys a snack with the money do I complain about the crook or the convenience store? 1- The public funds are not yours. You forfeited them once you payed your taxes. Complain with the restaurant aka state. Vote wiser, send letters, all that wonderful democratic stuff. 2- The illegal aliens are not stealing from the public funds. The hospitals emergency rooms and schools are open tho whoever lives nearby. They do not ask for social security numbers or proof of citizenship for that exact reason. They could very well do so, but it would break the purpose of having a local public service. The illegal aliens are not stealing by entering and using them. On May 13 2010 12:38 Romantic wrote:
My argument is most people are completely oblivious to the actual content of what they are eating in a Big Mac. You can say that they should look for it themselves and it isn't the governments business, but the information literally would not exist if it weren't for government forcing the information to be available.
Studies have shown people will very often pick healthier choices if they are presented with the information and a healthier option. That information and a healthier option is typically not available for the average dude to make that choice that is ultimately better for them in the long run. So, of course the company would want to supply X (but almost everyone could agree that its in the best interests of society if X is healthier food). So to dumb things down for me, you mean there was this very life-standard-raising procedure that was unknown to all but government, and they selflessly obligated everyone to follow it for their own good? I don't get how wouldn't it be freely adopted if it was recognized as so. You think it's so, people who read those labels think it's so, I think it's so too. Why the heck would a company not put those on to outperform companies that do not on this very useful and cheap procedure? No, I don't want to FORCE anyone to follow a healthy diet as defined by experts, but I do want them to be informed on the options overwhelmingly shown to promote long, healthy life. All it would require is a menu with nutritional info on it. Yeah well, you're forcing the companies to label their products the way you think customers would benefit from it. But companies already have the motive to do so on their own, don't they? So I don't think that's a good attempt to demonstrate why regulation is needed. You gotta mix child labor in, with environmental hazards and stuff. Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 12:52 Romantic wrote:
Forcing them to do it would be what some Democrats have been trying to do, literally making it illegal to sell high fat content foods, denying any option to eat something unhealthy if you felt like it.
I just want nutritional information to be available everywhere large chain restaurants serve people.
If the average person decides to continue eating Big Macs after being given the nutritional information, I would let them do it (were i a politician).
Yeah. Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 12:54 hacpee wrote:On May 13 2010 12:46 Yurebis wrote:
1- The public funds are not yours. You forfeited them once you payed your taxes. Complain with the restaurant aka state. Vote wiser, send letters, all that wonderful democratic stuff.
2- The illegal aliens are not stealing from the public funds. The hospitals emergency rooms and schools are open tho whoever lives nearby. They do not ask for social security numbers or proof of citizenship for that exact reason. They could very well do so, but it would break the purpose of having a local public service. The illegal aliens are not stealing by entering and using them.
Why do you keep making the stupid restaurant analogy? You make no sense. If someone was eating restaurant food for free and it was because of him that I didn't get my order, I would give him an ass whooping. Next time, he'll know better. The restaurant was already giving out food for free and for that exact purpose... the bastard didn't steal from anybody... I'd say be mad at the restaurant for wasting your money. Beating on that one bastard alone won't stop others from coming in anyway~ Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 12:57 hacpee wrote:On May 13 2010 12:55 Yurebis wrote:On May 13 2010 12:42 JinMaikeul wrote:On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote:
Do the illegal immigrants pay taxes or not? Which taxes are they not paying? Which services are they using that they're not paying? Why not get to the crust of it and ask (+answer) yourself these questions before complaining about freeloading illegal aliens?
All the more reason that we need people living here to be documented rather than undocumented. So long as they remain undocumented, we'll never know, will we? You mean no one knows these things? 1- do illegal immigrants pay taxes or not? which? Should be easily answered by any tax expert or enthusiast (lol tax enthusiast.. sounds wrong) 2-Which services are they using? Should be easily answered by knowing what public services can be used without a social security number.. 3-Why not ask yourself that? Should be able to be answered without recoursing to "I can't answer it unless everyone is documented and therefore there are no illegal aliens to account for" ... On May 13 2010 12:42 JinMaikeul wrote:On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote:
Because as far as I know, they do pay for most public utilities that people complain about.
Such as? School for sure, through property tax, and I'm not sure but I'd say public hospitals' emergency rooms too, eagerly waiting to be corrected. On May 13 2010 12:42 JinMaikeul wrote:On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote:I just like to keep people honest. Once they realize that it's an outrageous idea, the whole statist argument falls... And that's even regardless of what I say. They'll know it when they'll know it. When there's no demand, the suppliers have to shut down... so if there's no demand for absolute landlords, then there won't be any more absolute landlords any further. Same with public, unaccounted services. The government and state are important and necessary despite any and all arguments you may make against them. To me, you seem very idealistic, but not very practical. There will always be landlords whether or not people want them or like them. Landlords, yeah, but absolute landlords that reign over all other landlords, seems silly to me. And it will indeed go on despite what I say, as long as people like you demand it (even without any logically explained reason) On May 13 2010 12:42 JinMaikeul wrote:On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote:The theater wasn't designed to show movies to everyone, it was designed to make a profit And before you ask, profit isn't a bad motive. I'm not explaining why, here, however. I never said profit was a bad motive. Just like a theater isn't designed to show movies to its patrons. Likewise, a government is designed with its citizens in mind. The government isn't a buffet table for anyone to come and take what they please. The government is very much like a business in that it has to manage its flow of resources, make investments, and maintain financial stability. But without the competition. And only as much fiscal responsibility as it takes for them to keep afloat (borderline revolution lol) On May 13 2010 12:42 JinMaikeul wrote:On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote:Limited budget? The state has a limited budget now? Since when? Before or after the trillion dollar deficit? Yes, despite what you may have heard, resources are limited... Hence, the word DEFICIT in budget deficit... haha It's limited by how much they can owe? doesn't sound that financially hard to manage to me, nor conventional finance for that matter Dude we've answered you millions of times. Fact is that illegals take more than they give in. Fact is that illegals are Mexican citizens, they should go back to mexico. You're being just as dumb as you were in the Kespa thread where you didn't even know what Kespa was yet you made pages of arguments. What are they doing wrong if the system allows them to? They are not stealing, period. The restaurant is giving food for free, and you're paying for it. Tell me how is that not a fair analogy. Tell me exactly where are they taking more in, and why is it wrong for them to do so. The system allows them to, and it could very well deny them. Yet it has not been so. It's not just the illegals, is it? You should be pissed of about everyone on welfare and receiving unemployment checks on those same grounds... And believe me, I dislike this whole mess, yet deporting a fraction of people won't stop it. Because it's the welfare system in place that promotes such as freeloading the "public good" (speaking in collective terms)... such persons will always exist.
I'll explain it simply. Illegals leech from welfare programs meant for US citizens and legal immigrants. Illegals make pennies and will never pay it back. The state should kick the illegals out.
|
On May 13 2010 13:00 hacpee wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 12:58 JinMaikeul wrote:On May 13 2010 12:49 jpak wrote:On May 13 2010 12:48 JinMaikeul wrote:
Yurebis, let's just get down to it. What's the actual point that you're trying to make? I see a lot of quoting and responding, but little in the way of a cohesive message or opinion... Is it wrong to argue for the sake of arguing? Not necessarily, but it's a waste of everyone's time if all he's going to do is argue against what other people say while never really saying anything himself. It makes it worse when it feels like he's saying one thing one moment and another thing another moment so long as it conflicts with the other person's statements. He's just randomly saying random stuff. I think he's mentally confused.
On May 13 2010 13:02 jpak wrote:
I think he's arguing just to drive you nuts. But we all know you're better than that.
That is very nice of you both. Can you point out exactly where does my logic break?
I guess you can't, or else you'd have done it before badmouthing people who have a different opinion than you.
On May 13 2010 13:02 hacpee wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 12:57 Yurebis wrote:On May 13 2010 12:48 JinMaikeul wrote:
Yurebis, let's just get down to it. What's the actual point that you're trying to make? I see a lot of quoting and responding, but little in the way of a cohesive message or opinion... I think I already said it in my first post in the thread? Illegal immigration is just immigration shunned upon by the state. It is otherwise just regular immigration, and there's no reason to oppose it any more than you'd oppose someone for moving from Nevada to California. On May 13 2010 12:49 jpak wrote:On May 13 2010 12:48 JinMaikeul wrote:
Yurebis, let's just get down to it. What's the actual point that you're trying to make? I see a lot of quoting and responding, but little in the way of a cohesive message or opinion... Is it wrong to argue for the sake of arguing? I find it a bit fun. Not gonna lie. You're making no sense again. Perhaps you should move to Mexico illegally and see how they like it.
On May 13 2010 13:03 hacpee wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 13:02 jpak wrote:
I think he's arguing just to drive you nuts. But we all know you're better than that. I'm having fun seeing how much of an idiot he is. I spend 30 seconds on my replies to him while he writes a whole dissertation while responding nonsense.
Thanks. I'll take that as a compliment for actually spending time and thought in my responses, and not just calling people idiots.
|
On May 13 2010 13:09 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 13:00 hacpee wrote:On May 13 2010 12:58 JinMaikeul wrote:On May 13 2010 12:49 jpak wrote:On May 13 2010 12:48 JinMaikeul wrote:
Yurebis, let's just get down to it. What's the actual point that you're trying to make? I see a lot of quoting and responding, but little in the way of a cohesive message or opinion... Is it wrong to argue for the sake of arguing? Not necessarily, but it's a waste of everyone's time if all he's going to do is argue against what other people say while never really saying anything himself. It makes it worse when it feels like he's saying one thing one moment and another thing another moment so long as it conflicts with the other person's statements. He's just randomly saying random stuff. I think he's mentally confused. Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 13:02 jpak wrote:
I think he's arguing just to drive you nuts. But we all know you're better than that. That is very nice of you both. Can you point out exactly where does my logic break? I guess you can't, or else you'd have done it before badmouthing people who have a different opinion than you.
We're not badmouthing you. The website is. We're just punching the keyboard and somehow, through magical bits, the forum is translating as such. Blame computers not us.
|
No, I am forcing them to label their food with the chemical makeup of the food.
|
On May 13 2010 13:11 Romantic wrote:
No, I am forcing them to label their food with the chemical makeup of the food.
Who the hell cares about food? We're talking about illegals not some food regulation.
|
On May 13 2010 13:07 Yurebis wrote:
What are they doing wrong if the system allows them to?
They are not stealing, period. The restaurant is giving food for free, and you're paying for it. Tell me how is that not a fair analogy. Tell me exactly where are they taking more in, and why is it wrong for them to do so. The system allows them to, and it could very well deny them. Yet it has not been so.
It's not just the illegals, is it? You should be pissed of about everyone on welfare and receiving unemployment checks on those same grounds...
And believe me, I dislike this whole mess, yet deporting a fraction of people won't stop it. Because it's the welfare system in place that promotes such as freeloading the "public good" (speaking in collective terms)... such persons will always exist.
The point is that the system doesn't allow them to. They are not allowed to be here in the first place. You're essentially blaming the restaurant for people breaking in and stealing food off the plates of the paying customers. If that happened, would you seriously fault the restaurant or would you say that the guy breaking in and stealing food your food was an asshole? Then when the restaurant decides to throw out the people stealing food, you're accusing them of being unreasonable by throwing them out because the restaurant is an arbitrary piece of property defined by the restaurant owner and without that arbitrary boundary it would just be normal for people to be able to walk onto that land whenever they want at their own leisure. So following your logic, not only should the restaurant not throw them out, it should make no effort to stop them from coming and and continuing to eat off the customer's plates... Can you seriously not see the absurdity of what you're arguing here?
|
On May 13 2010 13:12 hacpee wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 13:11 Romantic wrote:
No, I am forcing them to label their food with the chemical makeup of the food. Who the hell cares about food? We're talking about illegals not some food regulation. Overall he is trying to argue in favor of complete anarchy, so yes this does fall along the same lines.
|
On May 13 2010 13:16 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 13:12 hacpee wrote:On May 13 2010 13:11 Romantic wrote:
No, I am forcing them to label their food with the chemical makeup of the food. Who the hell cares about food? We're talking about illegals not some food regulation. Overall he is trying to argue in favor of complete anarchy, so yes this does fall along the same lines.
You mean the Y guy? He's just making shit up as he goes. I entertain him with a few nibblets to chew and laugh as he frantically tries to come up with 1/2 a page of BS to try to confuse me.
|
maybe he is a clever little HS kid practicing for a speech and debate tournament
spews a lot of shit that sound kinda ok but, in essence, meaningless and completely bullshit
|
On May 13 2010 13:05 fight_or_flight wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 12:37 Yurebis wrote:On May 13 2010 12:30 fight_or_flight wrote:
People don't understand that this country can only support a limited number of immigrants per year. What is that number, and how did you or the state come to know it? On May 13 2010 12:30 fight_or_flight wrote:
These illegals crossing the boarder are likely making it difficult for others to get in to the US, such as those from Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, etc. How is that fair? How is a mexican crossing the border impeding someone from moving in? Directly, impossible. If you mean the state is tightening quotas due to illegal immigration, well, then, I'd say it's the state's decision, and the state's making alone that's making it difficult for others to come On May 13 2010 12:30 fight_or_flight wrote:
On top of it, there is a strong movement within the illegal hispanic community that is very un-american. For example, all those students who walked out when some kids wore an american flag on cinco de mayo and were sent home...that was a wtf moment for me. I see very terrifying things about americans too, like, wanting to blow up the middle east and stuff. No merit in either argument. I know some people who believe that it is a human's natural right to live wherever they want. People also believe they have other natural rights, such as the right to have kids, the right to make a decent living, the right to a bed at night, etc.
I do not claim to have such rights, I'm approaching it from an economical point of view. If you want X, you should do X.
Regretably, it turns out that the best means for you to own your piece of land, is to not have a state claiming power over it, since, that means the state actually owns your land, not you, got it?
If you want to have a state, then yeah, you should have a state.
If you want to deport people for arbitrary reasons, you should deport people for arbitrary reasons.
However, to claim that it is for the "public good", or for the GDP, is a hilariously broken argument that has yet to be demonstrated to be true. Am I being dishonest by asking people these unanswered questions?
On May 13 2010 13:05 fight_or_flight wrote:
Unfortunately, when one faces reality, they quickly find out that only those who are strong enough to defend their rights actually has any rights. Other wise, someone who is strong enough will infringe upon them. For example, if there is only limited food, and one person has a gun and the other doesn't, the one with the gun will get the food.
Might makes right? I can put up with that. Is that the image that the state tries to expose to people? No, it is not. If it would be, it would in fact become unpopular fairly quickly.
On May 13 2010 13:05 fight_or_flight wrote:
If citizens in a country want to keep their rights, they must defend them. If illegal immigrants are putting a financial strain on the country, perhaps some citizens will lose their jobs, or their taxes will increase. There may be more competition in general for land, etc. Therefore, if one group wants to keep its rights of a certain lifestyle, they must restrain the rights of immigrants to immigrate. There cannot be both. Where are the illegals putting a strain that is not freely given to them by the very system you hold to be accounted for? Again, you are blaming the freeloaders in a soup kitchen which you pay for.
-Are the illegals "stealing" jobs from the legals(I'll be using that term from now on)? No, since the legals are not entitled to a job, the employers choose from the lowest demanding employee.
-More competition for land? Is land really that scarce for you? More competition is no threat to any economy, it means there's more demand or supply, it can be dealt with productively, and not as a public hazard like any bureaucrat wants you to believe it is. More demand means more profit opportunity, more supply means cheaper products and services, either way, people can cope without pulling out a gun.
-If one group wants to keep it's peaceful lifestyles, more often than not, it can do so without state regulation... now if violence and war is your lifestyle, then that's the go-to place indeed.
On May 13 2010 13:05 fight_or_flight wrote:
Particular problems arise when one culturally cohesive group invades a non-cohesive group. The more cohesive the group, the stronger it is. Therefore, all cultures must be cohesive, or at least equally non-cohesive, to avoid getting destroyed.
What's the problem with that? Culture is not forcefully binding, unless you mean, a state comes into power and legislate that everyone must perform a certain ritual or face punishment...
...unless you mean, government is protecting people's culture by restricting other cultures from coming in? But that would be silly, why do you need government to protect something that can only be voluntarily transmitted?
On May 13 2010 13:05 fight_or_flight wrote: All the arguments of "its good for the economy" etc, fail to address this point. Immigrants send money back to their own country or keep it within their community, because of there cohesiveness. They compete with citizens while avoiding competition among themselves if possible. And people could donate to Haiti, wasting precious resources elsewhere!
What you fail to address is that people have different goals, and they can only perform them best if left to decide... Government regulation can only restrict people's goals, and people's priorities and means may change, but their ends do not.
On May 13 2010 13:05 fight_or_flight wrote:
As long as one group is more cohesive than another, there is an asymmetric war. If one group is gaining wealth, the other is losing it. I'm sorry the world isn't idealistic.
That is far too brief. Could you perhaps illustrate how is it that one's wealth gain impoverishes another's?
|
On May 13 2010 13:05 JinMaikeul wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 12:57 Yurebis wrote:
I think I already said it in my first post in the thread?
Illegal immigration is just immigration shunned upon by the state. It is otherwise just regular immigration, and there's no reason to oppose it any more than you'd oppose someone for moving from Nevada to California. That was as meaningless as it was obvious. Of course illegal immigration is just immigration shunned upon by the state. Illegal narcotics are also just narcotics shunned upon by the state. Slicing someone's throat open in a dispute is just a manner of dispute resolution shunned upon by the state. Otherwise, all these things are just normal everyday things... If you've no respect for or belief in state sovereignty, then that's your business. But I assure you that just about every single country, state, province, and municipality in the world disagrees with you. Arguing against it is as pointless and impractical as arguing against the concept of currency.
Negative. Illegal immigration is a different thing, since there's even less to objectively discern people for. Theft and murder can be discerned and observably disgraceful in countless societies. Drugs can have certain characteristics, and the ones that are more mind-altering can arguably be restricted for having no good purpose to anyone (though I disagree as well, it's another topic).
However, there's nothing in people being born in different places that tells that one is a productive person and the other one is not. People can be productive everywhere, for all sorts of purposes, and the state does a failing job trying to restrict it. So much because there is still demand for illegal aliens to work here, so much because it is so still, with millions in fact. To keep this broken premise as an unfailing axiom, with no logic behind it is just wishful thinking.
Is it asking too much for people to elaborate why they feel people born elsewhere can be such a threat to them, that they should be forcibly restricted from freely moving here, for everyone's benefit? Or do I just have to accept it and shut up?
(...is the state the new God?)
|
On May 13 2010 13:09 hacpee wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 13:07 Yurebis wrote:On May 13 2010 12:52 Romantic wrote:On May 13 2010 12:46 Yurebis wrote:On May 13 2010 12:33 hacpee wrote:
They're getting free food at a restaurant, which you're paying for whilst not getting any benefit from it yourself. Ok. Why complain about the freeloaders and not the restaurant?
Wow are you an idiot? If someone steals my money and buys a snack with the money do I complain about the crook or the convenience store? 1- The public funds are not yours. You forfeited them once you payed your taxes. Complain with the restaurant aka state. Vote wiser, send letters, all that wonderful democratic stuff. 2- The illegal aliens are not stealing from the public funds. The hospitals emergency rooms and schools are open tho whoever lives nearby. They do not ask for social security numbers or proof of citizenship for that exact reason. They could very well do so, but it would break the purpose of having a local public service. The illegal aliens are not stealing by entering and using them. On May 13 2010 12:38 Romantic wrote:
My argument is most people are completely oblivious to the actual content of what they are eating in a Big Mac. You can say that they should look for it themselves and it isn't the governments business, but the information literally would not exist if it weren't for government forcing the information to be available.
Studies have shown people will very often pick healthier choices if they are presented with the information and a healthier option. That information and a healthier option is typically not available for the average dude to make that choice that is ultimately better for them in the long run. So, of course the company would want to supply X (but almost everyone could agree that its in the best interests of society if X is healthier food). So to dumb things down for me, you mean there was this very life-standard-raising procedure that was unknown to all but government, and they selflessly obligated everyone to follow it for their own good? I don't get how wouldn't it be freely adopted if it was recognized as so. You think it's so, people who read those labels think it's so, I think it's so too. Why the heck would a company not put those on to outperform companies that do not on this very useful and cheap procedure? No, I don't want to FORCE anyone to follow a healthy diet as defined by experts, but I do want them to be informed on the options overwhelmingly shown to promote long, healthy life. All it would require is a menu with nutritional info on it. Yeah well, you're forcing the companies to label their products the way you think customers would benefit from it. But companies already have the motive to do so on their own, don't they? So I don't think that's a good attempt to demonstrate why regulation is needed. You gotta mix child labor in, with environmental hazards and stuff. On May 13 2010 12:52 Romantic wrote:
Forcing them to do it would be what some Democrats have been trying to do, literally making it illegal to sell high fat content foods, denying any option to eat something unhealthy if you felt like it.
I just want nutritional information to be available everywhere large chain restaurants serve people.
If the average person decides to continue eating Big Macs after being given the nutritional information, I would let them do it (were i a politician).
Yeah. On May 13 2010 12:54 hacpee wrote:On May 13 2010 12:46 Yurebis wrote:
1- The public funds are not yours. You forfeited them once you payed your taxes. Complain with the restaurant aka state. Vote wiser, send letters, all that wonderful democratic stuff.
2- The illegal aliens are not stealing from the public funds. The hospitals emergency rooms and schools are open tho whoever lives nearby. They do not ask for social security numbers or proof of citizenship for that exact reason. They could very well do so, but it would break the purpose of having a local public service. The illegal aliens are not stealing by entering and using them.
Why do you keep making the stupid restaurant analogy? You make no sense. If someone was eating restaurant food for free and it was because of him that I didn't get my order, I would give him an ass whooping. Next time, he'll know better. The restaurant was already giving out food for free and for that exact purpose... the bastard didn't steal from anybody... I'd say be mad at the restaurant for wasting your money. Beating on that one bastard alone won't stop others from coming in anyway~ On May 13 2010 12:57 hacpee wrote:On May 13 2010 12:55 Yurebis wrote:On May 13 2010 12:42 JinMaikeul wrote:On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote:
Do the illegal immigrants pay taxes or not? Which taxes are they not paying? Which services are they using that they're not paying? Why not get to the crust of it and ask (+answer) yourself these questions before complaining about freeloading illegal aliens?
All the more reason that we need people living here to be documented rather than undocumented. So long as they remain undocumented, we'll never know, will we? You mean no one knows these things? 1- do illegal immigrants pay taxes or not? which? Should be easily answered by any tax expert or enthusiast (lol tax enthusiast.. sounds wrong) 2-Which services are they using? Should be easily answered by knowing what public services can be used without a social security number.. 3-Why not ask yourself that? Should be able to be answered without recoursing to "I can't answer it unless everyone is documented and therefore there are no illegal aliens to account for" ... On May 13 2010 12:42 JinMaikeul wrote:On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote:
Because as far as I know, they do pay for most public utilities that people complain about.
Such as? School for sure, through property tax, and I'm not sure but I'd say public hospitals' emergency rooms too, eagerly waiting to be corrected. On May 13 2010 12:42 JinMaikeul wrote:On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote:I just like to keep people honest. Once they realize that it's an outrageous idea, the whole statist argument falls... And that's even regardless of what I say. They'll know it when they'll know it. When there's no demand, the suppliers have to shut down... so if there's no demand for absolute landlords, then there won't be any more absolute landlords any further. Same with public, unaccounted services. The government and state are important and necessary despite any and all arguments you may make against them. To me, you seem very idealistic, but not very practical. There will always be landlords whether or not people want them or like them. Landlords, yeah, but absolute landlords that reign over all other landlords, seems silly to me. And it will indeed go on despite what I say, as long as people like you demand it (even without any logically explained reason) On May 13 2010 12:42 JinMaikeul wrote:On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote:The theater wasn't designed to show movies to everyone, it was designed to make a profit And before you ask, profit isn't a bad motive. I'm not explaining why, here, however. I never said profit was a bad motive. Just like a theater isn't designed to show movies to its patrons. Likewise, a government is designed with its citizens in mind. The government isn't a buffet table for anyone to come and take what they please. The government is very much like a business in that it has to manage its flow of resources, make investments, and maintain financial stability. But without the competition. And only as much fiscal responsibility as it takes for them to keep afloat (borderline revolution lol) On May 13 2010 12:42 JinMaikeul wrote:On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote:Limited budget? The state has a limited budget now? Since when? Before or after the trillion dollar deficit? Yes, despite what you may have heard, resources are limited... Hence, the word DEFICIT in budget deficit... haha It's limited by how much they can owe? doesn't sound that financially hard to manage to me, nor conventional finance for that matter Dude we've answered you millions of times. Fact is that illegals take more than they give in. Fact is that illegals are Mexican citizens, they should go back to mexico. You're being just as dumb as you were in the Kespa thread where you didn't even know what Kespa was yet you made pages of arguments. What are they doing wrong if the system allows them to? They are not stealing, period. The restaurant is giving food for free, and you're paying for it. Tell me how is that not a fair analogy. Tell me exactly where are they taking more in, and why is it wrong for them to do so. The system allows them to, and it could very well deny them. Yet it has not been so. It's not just the illegals, is it? You should be pissed of about everyone on welfare and receiving unemployment checks on those same grounds... And believe me, I dislike this whole mess, yet deporting a fraction of people won't stop it. Because it's the welfare system in place that promotes such as freeloading the "public good" (speaking in collective terms)... such persons will always exist. I'll explain it simply. Illegals leech from welfare programs meant for US citizens and legal immigrants. Illegals make pennies and will never pay it back. The state should kick the illegals out.
Wait, welfare programs meant for US citizens? How are the illegals able to enroll in them, if they don't have any proof of citizenship?
And why can't the state simply require proper documents if it's true? Instead of you know, spending another bajillion dollars deporting everyone back. (Only so they can enter the country again through the same means, because you know, the market demand for them hasn't been altered)
On May 13 2010 13:11 hacpee wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 13:09 Yurebis wrote:On May 13 2010 13:00 hacpee wrote:On May 13 2010 12:58 JinMaikeul wrote:On May 13 2010 12:49 jpak wrote:On May 13 2010 12:48 JinMaikeul wrote:
Yurebis, let's just get down to it. What's the actual point that you're trying to make? I see a lot of quoting and responding, but little in the way of a cohesive message or opinion... Is it wrong to argue for the sake of arguing? Not necessarily, but it's a waste of everyone's time if all he's going to do is argue against what other people say while never really saying anything himself. It makes it worse when it feels like he's saying one thing one moment and another thing another moment so long as it conflicts with the other person's statements. He's just randomly saying random stuff. I think he's mentally confused. On May 13 2010 13:02 jpak wrote:
I think he's arguing just to drive you nuts. But we all know you're better than that. That is very nice of you both. Can you point out exactly where does my logic break? I guess you can't, or else you'd have done it before badmouthing people who have a different opinion than you. We're not badmouthing you. The website is. We're just punching the keyboard and somehow, through magical bits, the forum is translating as such. Blame computers not us. Ha.
On May 13 2010 13:11 Romantic wrote:
No, I am forcing them to label their food with the chemical makeup of the food. And why do you think they would not do so without such regulation, as it supplies the demand for it, a demand noticeable given that voters wanted it as well?
|
On May 13 2010 13:14 JinMaikeul wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 13:07 Yurebis wrote:
What are they doing wrong if the system allows them to?
They are not stealing, period. The restaurant is giving food for free, and you're paying for it. Tell me how is that not a fair analogy. Tell me exactly where are they taking more in, and why is it wrong for them to do so. The system allows them to, and it could very well deny them. Yet it has not been so.
It's not just the illegals, is it? You should be pissed of about everyone on welfare and receiving unemployment checks on those same grounds...
And believe me, I dislike this whole mess, yet deporting a fraction of people won't stop it. Because it's the welfare system in place that promotes such as freeloading the "public good" (speaking in collective terms)... such persons will always exist. The point is that the system doesn't allow them to. They are not allowed to be here in the first place. You're essentially blaming the restaurant for people breaking in and stealing food off the plates of the paying customers. If that happened, would you seriously fault the restaurant or would you say that the guy breaking in and stealing food your food was an asshole? Then when the restaurant decides to throw out the people stealing food, you're accusing them of being unreasonable by throwing them out because the restaurant is an arbitrary piece of property defined by the restaurant owner and without that arbitrary boundary it would just be normal for people to be able to walk onto that land whenever they want at their own leisure. So following your logic, not only should the restaurant not throw them out, it should make no effort to stop them from coming and and continuing to eat off the customer's plates... Can you seriously not see the absurdity of what you're arguing here?
Okay, so the restaurant has an open door, doesn't require people to prove their "restaurant membership", just gives them the food, and you're blaming people for taking it, because they're not really members?
Really? That's an awfully broken system that's been purposely devised that way.
Make them require social security numbers at those places, problem solved.
Make them pay for it, problem solved.
It's not really that hard solving problems without using the cops... people used to be praised for that in fact, but today it seems like it's the opposite. I'm the one being called an idiot for trying to, heh.
|
The economics of illegal immigration, deporting, etc are way too complicated for me. Not smart enough for it. Not gonna try.
I like to think of it more like:
"Hey, I'd like to sleep on your couch. I promise I won't steal anything or make a mess. I'll even sweep your living room."
"Thanks, but I'd really rather you didn't."
"Well, that's fine. Your door locks aren't so great. I can get in without damaging anything, or anyone noticing. You won't even know I was here. Thanks!"
I don't think this law was made in good spirit, and it really isn't a good idea. But anyone defending illegal immigrants needs to get a clue. The word is right there. Illegal. Advocate immigration law reform if you will; something probably needs to be done if the problem is as systemic as it's made to seem. Illegal immigrants, right now, are breaking US law, period.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
