US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1271

And that specific rhetoric fits the undoubtedly racist narrative propaganda commonly used in the more extreme parts of the right (who tend not to admit to such clarifications)

So I am clear I wasn't calling you racist just the statement. But it's how wrong and baseless it was that bothered me, the racist part was just a reminder about how that exact rhetoric is commonly used.

'passed by paying' yeah see they have to be hired/payed by someone who is dodging the taxes before they even have a chance to 'dodge' them (as if they wouldn't prefer being a legal tax paying worker)...So no. Nothing. You have NO taxes they are avoiding that aren't first being avoided by a legal resident (offsetting most if not all net dodging).

Your indignant attitude at the evocation of privilege says more than you know, but again, not my point.
My point was that in talking about 'ruining California' you created this imaginary world where 'illegal immigrants pay no, some, less, taxes'. I was just pointing out far more tax revenue is lost from non-illegal immigrants dodging taxes (all of the illegal employers and then some) and that scapegoating the taxes of illegal immigrants was totally (even self-admittedly) unfounded other than your unnamed sources (who probably didn't account for the fact that their employers had to avoid taxes in order to pay them too).

On September 05 2014 16:15 IgnE wrote:
How does the spending of the employer offset the spending of the paid illegal immigrants?

On September 05 2014 16:01 IgnE wrote:


What? You said it's weird that we use driver's licenses in voter ID laws because poor people can't afford cars, although they can get an ID card. I said, it's not just that they can't afford cars that they don't get a driver's license to fulfill (proposed) voter id laws.

Many people have multiple forms of identification, including those that display their pictures — like employee badges or credit and debit cards. But states with strict voter ID laws require people to have certain photo IDs issued by governments.

That typically means driver's licenses. But many seniors and many poor people don't drive. In big cities, many minorities rely on public transit. And many young adults, especially those in college, don't yet have licenses.

On September 05 2014 16:22 coverpunch wrote:


I was referring articles like this:


My point was that if you think about it, it's quite weird that Americans have come to assume that drivers licenses are a primary form of identification (including purposes like voting), even though a DMV can issue identification cards. It's quite bizarre that we take it so much for granted that people rarely even acknowledge that the (state) government can and does issue ID cards.

I see it in a new light having a driver's license from a country where it is treated strictly as granting the privilege to operate a motor vehicle with 4 wheels, an automatic transmission, and weighing less than 3 tons.

EDIT: "because they can't afford cars" was an inartful way of putting it.

On September 05 2014 16:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

What? One spending doesn't offset the other. You're adding the two together. You're either adding up all expenditures to arrive at GDP or adding up all income to arrive at GDP. Either way, you're getting to the same thing.

On September 05 2014 16:18 Introvert wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +



It was so racist that unions (at least used to) believe it. I saw nothing racist in what I said. It's not like I said "those Mexicans are so useless, all they're good for is picking food or weeds!" That would be racist, stupid, and contrary to my own experiences and interactions.

A) I've made at least 3 corrections through my hundreds of posts here. I don't object. I clarified and corrected what I was saying like TWO (three?) posts after the initial one.

B) You've also used extreme language before, as well. (If I recall, it was something about how most conservatives [or was it creationists] had tortured childhoods). Let's not pretend that these things don't happen. What annoys me is the fact that you are still talking about it.



I agree. Two wrongs make a right. Again, the rich person part wasn't the point.



Lawlessness it just one way to ruin a state. It is by no means an exclusive way.

Perhaps you should take off your race/privileged colored glasses and not try to extract something I didn't say from what I did. The topic was, from Danglars very first post, about illegal immigration. I was reacting to that.

It seems to me that you just liked "close the backdoor, open the front door" because it sounded really nice and tidy. So far all you've done is make an extra effort to argue for having both doors open. What did you think closing the backdoor meant, if it didn't mean stopping illegal immigration? Did you suppose he was concerned about feeling a draft?

But I have work in the morning, so I'm afraid this is it.

I don't like cheats- tax cheats, political cheats, pro-gamer cheats, etc. Moreover, there could be a compelling economic reason to oppose illegal immigration. Perhaps. Perhaps not.

On September 05 2014 17:17 Sub40APM wrote:

I would retort by saying that
car ownership in America became ubiquitous at exactly the time when identity documents became more important so the two things coincided. I used to have an internal passport for the Soviet Union, and then you had to get a seperate drivers license too. My mom doesnt know how to drive but she has a Canadian provincial ID from where she lives now that looks like a drivers license but isnt. Again, I think its just an American cultural thing that the rise of increased demands for id coincided with the rise of a car society.

On September 05 2014 17:38 GreenHorizons wrote:


It was racist, it's extremity was irrelevant. You might not of meant to say something racist but you did (We all do it, just we don't all feel remorse) . Perhaps racially insensitive is a more palatable term for you though. But it was, what it was, when you said it, and it would of been if unions or anyone else said it. As I said I was just noting it so you don't ever say it again.

I stand by my characterization and supported it when it was challenged (show don't tell). People could choose whether they agreed or not (though my argument was pretty definition based so the argument is almost exclusively semantic). Your statement in contrast had no linguistic nuance (beyond correction). As far as it belongs here, the more cult like sects I think definitely deserve state interference under child protection laws but we aren't there as a country yet.

I was under the impression conservatives felt like states were pretty helpless to do anything to create or enforce laws that would significantly change immigration itself. So except for the weird "they come here for our license's" conspiracy theory I haven't really seen the 'lawlessness' (seriously?) regarding the parts of immigration state officials actually control? Though I guess we do agree about the people flouting the law by employing the illegal immigrants (except I would rather see their employees and practices come out into the open rather than try to prosecute them all).

For instance educating, feeding, and documenting (license/ID cards) children and adults that are here (that can not be practically removed [like they have American children with no legal guardian resident) makes a hell of a lot more sense than just leaving children with parents who have no way to provide for them or forcing their parents to leave to a crappier country.

There are more crappy Americans than there are crappy immigrants legal or illegal, (just from shear numbers) so I figure if we can make room and provide for crappy Americans we can absorb some crappy immigrants (though we should try to screen them out) in order to give as many as possible of the good ones a fair shot at life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

So while I wish that every immigrant came here legally, to perpetuate the falsehood that the ones that are here are a burden to great to bare or that the immigrants themselves are the problem does everyone a disservice. The implicit suggestion in your rhetoric (whether you realize it or not) is for some form of mass deportation also. Unless of course all the ones that are contributing to 'ruining California' you would like to give a path to citizenship?

I don't have a problem with closing the back door, the problem basically boils down to republicans not trusting the democrats would close the backdoor and democrats not trusting republicans would open the front. Of course there was a compromise, but those don't happen in the house very often so we sit here doing nothing for who knows how many years... I guess republicans think if they can win the senate they can pass something more like the house. If not I don't know how much longer they will be able to hold out.

I didn't extract anything from your statement that wasn't there. It's talking about issues in isolation that is one of the most common pettifogging techniques for the rhetoric you used. You start by saying they ruined it and don't pay anything. If that goes unchallenged it never gets corrected (plenty in the tea party will just say ' nuh uh' instead of acknowledging such a statement is patently false, misleading, and tainted with racism). Then from there one weasels around until we get back to "well I'm against them all and they all ruin it, but we are talking about the one's that don't belong here, so let's not address the much larger offenders who contribute far more to the problem. But don't dare suggest the hyper focus on the immigrant's role has any racial animosity to it".

On September 05 2014 17:21 IgnE wrote:


And so how do employers balance the books when they are paying a lot of workers off the books in case of audit? Don't they find expenses elsewhere? Double the expenses.

An airman stationed at Creech Air Force Base in Indian Springs, Nevada, was prohibited from reenlisting in the U.S. military last month for omitting the words “so help me God” from a service oath he was required to recite and refusing to sign the oath on his enlistment form, according to the American Humanist Association (AHA).

In a letter of complaint sent to the Air Force’s inspector general on Tuesday, Appignani Humanist Legal Center, the AHA’s legal wing, said the soldier – who is an atheist – “was told that his options were to say ‘so help me God’ or to leave the Air Force.’”

The AHA, which describes itself as “advocating values and equality for humanists, atheists, and freethinkers,” characterized the ultimatum as a civil-rights violation and demanded the Air Force correct the matter.

“Requiring [redacted] to take an oath containing this religious affirmation violates his clearly established constitutional rights under the First Amendment. This letter demands that you immediately allow [redacted] to reenlist using a secular affirmation,” the letter stated.

"The Air Force cannot compel anyone to swear to God as a condition of enlistment," AHA attorney Monica Miller told Al Jazeera. "Doing so violates the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment."

“Numerous cases affirm that atheists have the right to omit theistic language from enlistment or reenlistment contracts,” Miller added.

On September 06 2014 06:23 Sub40APM wrote:

yea whatsup with the airforce and its love of Christianity, wasnt there a scandal a couple years back about how evangelical christians have penetrated the air force academy pretty thoroughly too?

On September 06 2014 06:49 Danglars wrote:
If its worrisome that members of a certain faith have "penetrated" some aspect of the armed forces, would that make you a bigot too? I don't talk about how gays have penetrated the army or atheists have penetrated the educational lobby. It's the advocacy, not the identity.

On September 06 2014 06:49 Danglars wrote:
If its worrisome that members of a certain faith have "penetrated" some aspect of the armed forces, would that make you a bigot too? I don't talk about how gays have penetrated the army or atheists have penetrated the educational lobby. It's the advocacy, not the identity.

On September 06 2014 07:50 Nyxisto wrote:


Do gays turn the army gay? Do atheists try to teach people atheism and impose their values on other people?

On September 06 2014 07:50 Nyxisto wrote:


Do gays turn the army gay? Do atheists try to teach people atheism and impose their values on other people?

On September 06 2014 08:01 coverpunch wrote:

Um, yes, they are imposing their values on other people by demanding accommodations and refusing to comply with existing rules. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but this has an effect on existing rules and traditions and those groups want to have that effect. Some atheists do challenge religious people in efforts to persuade them away from their beliefs.