So says Pat Murphy, Democrat state representative from Iowa. He espoused this brilliance on Iowa Public Radio.
Read this in The Daily Caller per link from Drudge Report today. Sorry, my daughter is not here to post the link for me!
This guy proudly calls himself "the liberal's liberal." That should tell you something. He's part of a group that is trying to draft Elizabeth Warren to run.
I think he even gave an analogy to the Brit that supposedly beheaded Mr. Foley. They are nuts, and SOME people agree with them.
DaisyJane :huh:
Quote from: DaisyJane on August 24, 2014, 03:06:31 PM
So says Pat Murphy, Democrat state representative from Iowa. He espoused this brilliance on Iowa Public Radio.
Read this in The Daily Caller per link from Drudge Report today. Sorry, my daughter is not here to post the link for me!
This guy proudly calls himself "the liberal's liberal." That should tell you something. He's part of a group that is trying to draft Elizabeth Warren to run.
I think he even gave an analogy to the Brit that supposedly beheaded Mr. Foley. They are nuts, and SOME people agree with them.
DaisyJane :huh:
I think THIS (http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/21/dem-politician-grant-illegals-amnesty-or-theyll-become-terrorists/) is what you're referring to.
Quote from: TboneAgain on August 24, 2014, 04:48:29 PM
I think THIS (http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/21/dem-politician-grant-illegals-amnesty-or-theyll-become-terrorists/) is what you're referring to.
Yes, it is. Many thanks!
DaisyJane :smile:
Amnesty isn't necessary, nor would it even work on its own. Just as it didn't work in '86.
QuoteMurphy said he supports the immigration reform bill that passed in the Senate last year, which creates a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants
I can't even call that bill a "good start", it fails to address the cause, while making certain symptoms worse.
Quote from: DaisyJane on August 24, 2014, 03:06:31 PM
Sorry, my daughter is not here to post the link for me!
POSTING LINKSRight-click the address (for example,
http://www.link.org) to save the address to your clipboard. Then select where you want that link to appear in your post, and LEFT-click to embed the link.
Some videos carry an address with
https:// as the prefix. CPF software causes these to ONLY appear as text links, and NOT as whole images sampling the video contents. For best results, manually delete the "
s" from
https://.
QUOTES For copyright and "fair use" purposes, do try to keep your quote brief, usually four paragraphs or 200 words, whichever is less. Infringement is an extreme no-no. Always cite your source: plagiarism charges can result if you don't credit the originator.
Every post has a QUOTE button feature at the upper right of every post. To reply, just press that button and a set of bulletin-board code will appear, quoting the entire post. (To sidestep a technical issue, I use regular parentheses here and not brackets.) A typical quote would contain (quote) to open that text-block and (/quote) to close it.
(quote) (/quote)
OUTSIDE SOURCES:Here, it's useful to have two browser windows open: CPF and the original source you wish to quote from.
First, add your thread title. (Sounds obvious, but it's easy to forget if you're busy doing a lot of other things here.)
Then go to the message-block of your post and paste in your quoted text. Now right-click your text in the CPF window and press QUOTE to add those opening and closing bracket-sets on each end of that quote. (The other way is to manually type those bracket-sets and then paste text in-between. For best results add a blank space or two between those sets, to avoid burying your quote in the wrong spot and screwing the whole thing up.
Finally, add the link from where you got that text.
PREVIEW IS YOUR FRIEND. Check what the post will look like after it's published. You then can correct before it goes out. The PREVIEW button is next to POST. It's impossible to miss.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 24, 2014, 05:25:53 PM
Amnesty isn't necessary, nor would it even work on its own. Just as it didn't work in '86.
I can't even call that bill a "good start", it fails to address the cause, while making certain symptoms worse.
[/quotheree]
Whenever I hear those few words, "a pathway to citizenship", I want to smack whoever started them the first time to explain away the simple give-away of the safeguards in place to insure that America is kept a safe place to work and raise families. All these liberals are doing is endangering law-abiding citizens and their families. But, wait.....lest I forget that this is the age when black is white, wrong is right, and there is no right or wrong answer.
Quote from: keyboarder on August 24, 2014, 05:42:22 PM
Whenever I hear those few words, "a pathway to citizenship", I want to smack whoever started them the first time to explain away the simple give-away of the safeguards in place to insure that America is kept a safe place to work and raise families.
We don't even need that. Many who come here have no desire to be a citizen, either because they plan to go back, or because being an American citizen makes it harder to send money back home due to trade & finance restrictions.
All we need, is an immigration policy that tailors itself around people's desire to come and work or sell their wares here. If we had that, we could snuff out what's growing the illegal population. If it's not growing, it'll melt away of its own accord.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 24, 2014, 06:14:27 PM
We don't even need that. Many who come here have no desire to be a citizen, either because they plan to go back, or because being an American citizen makes it harder to send money back home due to trade & finance restrictions.
All we need, is an immigration policy that tailors itself around people's desire to come and work or sell their wares here. If we had that, we could snuff out what's growing the illegal population. If it's not growing, it'll melt away of its own accord.
BS, as usual.
Quote from: DaisyJane on August 24, 2014, 03:06:31 PM
So says Pat Murphy, Democrat state representative from Iowa. He espoused this brilliance on Iowa Public Radio.
Read this in The Daily Caller per link from Drudge Report today. Sorry, my daughter is not here to post the link for me!
This guy proudly calls himself "the liberal's liberal." That should tell you something. He's part of a group that is trying to draft Elizabeth Warren to run.
I think he even gave an analogy to the Brit that supposedly beheaded Mr. Foley. They are nuts, and SOME people agree with them.
DaisyJane :huh:
THIS sure sounds like a terrorist threat to me. Arrest that libtard!
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 24, 2014, 06:14:27 PM
We don't even need that. Many who come here have no desire to be a citizen, either because they plan to go back, or because being an American citizen makes it harder to send money back home due to trade & finance restrictions.
All we need, is an immigration policy that tailors itself around people's desire to come and work or sell their wares here. If we had that, we could snuff out what's growing the illegal population. If it's not growing, it'll melt away of its own accord.
I have a couple friends from Honduras. They are decent, hard working guys, and I consider them friends, but they aren't interested in citizenship. They're only interested in working here, sending a few bucks home to their family, retiring and MOVING BACK to Honduras to retire on their Social security. I really don't blame them (they're not here illegally).
I do wonder how many Illegals really do care about becoming American citizens. I doubt very many UNLESS there is some economic benefit in doing so. Right now, they can get a lot of goodies without citizenship.
Quote from: keyboarder on August 24, 2014, 06:30:12 PM
BS, as usual.
Tell that to Eisenhower, who lowered illegal immigration by 95% in his time through just this logic.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 24, 2014, 06:14:27 PM
We don't even need that. Many who come here have no desire to be a citizen, either because they plan to go back, or because being an American citizen makes it harder to send money back home due to trade & finance restrictions.
All we need, is an immigration policy that tailors itself around people's desire to come and work or sell their wares here. If we had that, we could snuff out what's growing the illegal population. If it's not growing, it'll melt away of its own accord.
Alaska you're on to a solution.
When a multinational firm establishes legal residence in Nation X and wishes to remit earnings
earned in that Nation, to its Nation of origin (Nation A); it is subject to with a holding tax by
Nation X; per the tax treaty agreed between the two countries.
Therefore, have the remitting bank w/h, say, 40% of every dollar sent to Mexico, Honduras etc.
Then when the individual sender files his tax return the following year, he can claim a tax
credit for the amount w/h. This is exactly what multinationals do every day when they need
to move cash by repatriating earnings, interest, dividends, royalties, etc. and the FX markets
facilitate these transactions by buying and selling foreign exchange!
And as a bonus, such a system would enable the US Treasury to track these individuals!!!
Quote from: Walter Josh on August 24, 2014, 07:26:45 PM
Alaska you're on to a solution.
When a multinational firm establishes legal residence in Nation X and wishes to remit earnings
earned in that Nation, to its Nation of origin (Nation A); it is subject to with a holding tax by
Nation X; per the tax treaty agreed between the two countries.
Therefore, have the remitting bank w/h, say, 40% of every dollar sent to Mexico, Honduras etc.
Then when the individual sender files his tax return the following year, he can claim a tax
credit for the amount w/h. This is exactly what multinationals do every day when they need
to move cash by repatriating earnings, interest, dividends, royalties, etc. and the FX markets
facilitate these transactions by buying and selling foreign exchange!
And as a bonus, such a system would enable the US Treasury to track these individuals!!!
If I'm understanding your plan, I don't believe I'm opposed.
As to DotT tracking, they...
already do... the IRS is just not allowed to talk to DHS or INS about them.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 24, 2014, 08:42:22 PM
If I'm understanding your plan, I don't believe I'm opposed.
As to DotT tracking, they... already do... the IRS is just not allowed to talk to DHS or INS about them.
Alaska,
The dynamic behind this concept is to force all immigrants into the open
where they will have to comply w/ our laws or they will be unable to
transfer money to their nation of origin; rules any serious nation enforces.
This means these immigrants will first have to get a valid SS# before they
can get an IRS Tax# to effect any FX transactions.
Quote from: Walter Josh on August 24, 2014, 10:35:09 PM
Alaska,
The dynamic behind this concept is to force all immigrants into the open
where they will have to comply w/ our laws
Well that's a non-starter unless you're going to change the law.
Most by our current law had no way of entering in legally. We don't have a process for them.
Quote from: quiller on August 24, 2014, 05:33:21 PM
POSTING LINKS
First, highlight the URL address (for example, http://www.link.org) you want to use (swipe it with the mouse with the left button held down), then right-click the URL address you just highlighted and select 'Copy' from the menu box to save the address to your clipboard. Then select where you want that link to appear in your post, right-click on the spot, and left-click 'Paste' in the menu box. Feel free to jump between browser tabs or move back or forward during this process -- your system's clipboard will hold the information while you find where you want to put it.
Some videos carry an address with https:// as the prefix. CPF software causes these to ONLY appear as text links, and NOT as whole images sampling the video contents. For best results, manually delete the "s" from https://.
QUOTES
For copyright and "fair use" purposes, do try to keep your quote brief, usually four paragraphs or 200 words, whichever is less. Infringement is an extreme no-no. Always cite your source: plagiarism charges can result if you don't credit the originator.
Every post has a QUOTE button feature at the upper right of every post. To reply, just press that button and a set of bulletin-board code will appear, quoting the entire post. (To sidestep a technical issue, I use regular parentheses here and not brackets.) A typical quote would contain (quote) to open that text-block and (/quote) to close it.
(quote) (/quote)
OUTSIDE SOURCES:
Here, it's useful to have two browser windows open: CPF and the original source you wish to quote from.
First, add your thread title. (Sounds obvious, but it's easy to forget if you're busy doing a lot of other things here.)
Then go to the message-block of your post and paste in your quoted text. Now right-click your text in the CPF window and press QUOTE to add those opening and closing bracket-sets on each end of that quote. (The other way is to manually type those bracket-sets and then paste text in-between. For best results add a blank space or two between those sets, to avoid burying your quote in the wrong spot and screwing the whole thing up.
Finally, add the link from where you got that text.
PREVIEW IS YOUR FRIEND. Check what the post will look like after it's published. You then can correct before it goes out. The PREVIEW button is next to POST. It's impossible to miss.
Rewritten for Windoze. :tounge:
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 24, 2014, 10:40:32 PM
Well that's a non-starter unless you're going to change the law.
Most by our current law had no way of entering in legally. We don't have a process for them.
Really, what was stopping them?
^ Already told you, we have 4 requirements, if you don't meet any we don't legally let you in. Ever. You must:
1. Have skills a Bureaucrat is looking for.
2. Have family already legally living within the United States.
A chart examining just these two. (http://reason.org/files/cb299f0134ca8bb75243c69caa92eea7.pdf)
Additionally:
3. The Diversity lottery, 1 in 7 chance if you're from a nation we don't get a lot of immigration from
4. The EB-5 Visa, for investors. $500,000 - $1M over a decade.
The system is dysfunctional and incentives illegal immigration, not just by the immigrant, but also by the companies & farmers who try to hire them. They buck the system too because they're not getting enough workers.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 25, 2014, 05:58:02 AM
^ Already told you, we have 4 requirements, if you don't meet any we don't legally let you in. Ever. You must:
1. Have skills a Bureaucrat is looking for.
2. Have family already legally living within the United States.
A chart examining just these two. (http://reason.org/files/cb299f0134ca8bb75243c69caa92eea7.pdf)
Additionally:
3. The Diversity lottery, 1 in 7 chance if you're from a nation we don't get a lot of immigration from
4. The EB-5 Visa, for investors. $500,000 - $1M over a decade.
The system is dysfunctional and incentives illegal immigration, not just by the immigrant, but also by the companies & farmers who try to hire them. They buck the system too because they're not getting enough workers.
This a stupid question, but you never know with the government these days, do you just have to show $1 million in your savings or do you have to invest it in an American company or do you have to pay $1mill to the directorate to complete the application?
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 25, 2014, 05:58:02 AM
^ Already told you, we have 4 requirements, if you don't meet any we don't legally let you in. Ever. You must:
1. Have skills a Bureaucrat is looking for.
2. Have family already legally living within the United States.
A chart examining just these two. (http://reason.org/files/cb299f0134ca8bb75243c69caa92eea7.pdf)
Additionally:
3. The Diversity lottery, 1 in 7 chance if you're from a nation we don't get a lot of immigration from
4. The EB-5 Visa, for investors. $500,000 - $1M over a decade.
The system is dysfunctional and incentives illegal immigration, not just by the immigrant, but also by the companies & farmers who try to hire them. They buck the system too because they're not getting enough workers.
Hello!!! And there's a reason it's referred to as "ILLEGAL", we don't want them, despite what you want to believe!
Quote from: Solar on August 25, 2014, 06:24:55 AM
Hello!!! And there's a reason it's referred to as "ILLEGAL", we don't want them, despite what you want to believe!
We didn't want them even
before they came here.
We say "Respect the system", but the system doesn't respect them nor does it give them a chance for entry. I wouldn't ask anyone to deal with such tripe.
Additionally,
the system disrespects Farmers (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/17/immigration-guest-workers/1946699/), who many times forgo it simply because it's costly and hard to use.
Government regulation, at its crappiest.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 25, 2014, 06:34:52 AM
We didn't want them even before they came here.
We say "Respect the system", but the system doesn't respect them nor does it give them a chance for entry. I wouldn't ask anyone to deal with such tripe.
Additionally, the system disrespects Farmers (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/17/immigration-guest-workers/1946699/), who many times forgo it simply because it's costly and hard to use.
Government regulation, at its crappiest.
Hmm these are one of the instances where Norway is more conservative than the US, we have immigration stop and to gain entry you have to have a family member that makes 15% more than the median income to cover all your expenses for a minimum of 5 years and you have to reapply every year to show that you still can support the person and the person is not eligible for welfare until you gain citizenship after 5 years during which time you have to pass both a hard language test and cultural understanding/history test. The entire process takes 1 year and cost about $680 to gain entry, 3 years for permanent residence and 5 years for citizenship.
The problem is the refugees who don't have to pass any test and get immense instant parity welfare from day 1, they get free house, free car and monthly income with no work which is more than most ethnic Norwegians have. This of course doesn't create any racism at all :rolleyes:
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 25, 2014, 06:34:52 AM
We didn't want them even before they came here.
Says you. I, personally, don't have a problem with legal immigration from specific countries.
Quote
We say "Respect the system", but the system doesn't respect them nor does it give them a chance for entry.
They don't live here. They have their own country.
Quote
I wouldn't ask anyone to deal with such tripe.
We're not the babysitters of the world, just like we're not the world's police. We have borders.
Quote
Additionally, the system disrespects Farmers (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/17/immigration-guest-workers/1946699/), who many times forgo it simply because it's costly and hard to use.
The government needs to get out of farming. Let the farmers deal with farming.
Quote
Government regulation, at its crappiest.
I still can't wrap my mind around what prompts someone to want open borders.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 24, 2014, 07:12:47 PM
Tell that to Eisenhower, who lowered illegal immigration by 95% in his time through just this logic.
What were the #'s ? From 100 to 5 ?
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 24, 2014, 10:40:32 PM
Well that's a non-starter unless you're going to change the law.
Most by our current law had no way of entering in legally. We don't have a process for them.
I'm not being fanciful here.
The FED controls the Banking system, so impose any changes at that level
which effectively forces the individual to comply.
Before Kennedy, we had an immigrant quota system that was biased toward the
Europeans because of their work ethic which is how they added value to our economy.
Today they also have high tech and language skills. So perhaps it's worth another look?
Quote from: Walter Josh on August 25, 2014, 09:56:24 AM
Before Kennedy, we had an immigrant quota system that was biased toward the
Europeans because of their work ethic which is how they added value to our economy.
Today they also have high tech and language skills. So perhaps it's worth another look?
Sadly true, which was my point about crony capitalists wanting Latin slave labor.
I worked with a lot of foreign nurses.
IN the 1970's, they were encouraged to come here because we had a shortage of doctors and nurses. This is why you see a lot of foreign physicians today.
The nurses had to be nurses already in their country of origin. They had to pass the same boards the rest of us did. This was a problem for some due to difficulty with language.
They had to have a SPONSOR, usually other family members, who vouched for them, AND promised to support them financially should they not be able to.
This to me makes a LOT of common sense. The US got people with skills they needed, and the promise not to have to take care of them.
So, what happened?
DaisyJane :huh:
Quote from: taxed on August 25, 2014, 06:50:35 AM
Says you. I, personally, don't have a problem with legal immigration from specific countries.
They don't live here. They have their own country.
We're not the babysitters of the world, just like we're not the world's police. We have borders.
The government needs to get out of farming. Let the farmers deal with farming.
I still can't wrap my mind around what prompts someone to want open borders.
Some (e.g. Alaska Slim) think we're under some sort of moral imperative to let anyone and everyone in. They believe we have no right as a nation to say who comes and stays. So much for nationhood.
Others claim we have plenty of space and resources to share with anyone and everyone -- we'd be mean ol' hogs not to share. Look at all that open space in New Mexico! Why, there's hardly anybody there! Of course, if you've been to New Mexico, it ain't hard to figure out why there's hardly anybody there. Most of the place is fit for lizards and rattlesnakes and not much else.
I've also seen claims that we have no right to restrict our borders because it's not explicitly in the Constitution. Of course, I don't recall anything in the Constitution about speed limits on interstate highways either, or testing standards for new pharmaceuticals, or the redistribution of levied taxes in the form of food stamps, or bringing suit against landowners who build unpermitted ponds.
Those who believe in open borders simply don't see the reality of the situation, and they don't understand how drastically things have changed in 200 years. In 1814, people were coming here to find freedom from oppression, to build a new life in a new country, to start over on a 40-acre plot. In those days, the government offered them almost nothing -- just the 40 acres on a raw frontier. Today, our strange government offers them literally everything from free food to free health care to free housing. Free to them, that is; the rest of us have the privilege of paying for it. A hundred years ago, we picked and chose from prospective immigrants, making sure we got those who were healthy and productive. Today we take them, sick, poor, addled, old, little kids, known criminals, drug dealers, terrorists, and we do it wholesale, without regard for the laws we have on the books. Our motivation in doing this, I am utterly ashamed to say, is to attract dirt-cheap labor and to expand the Democrat voter base.
Quote from: taxed on August 25, 2014, 06:50:35 AM
Says you.
Says the system, you've already acknowledge this is the case.
The system doesn't people in, because it is cynical, and violates Natural Law.
QuoteWe're not the babysitters of the world, just like we're not the world's police. We have borders.
Had them in the 19th century too,
somehow, letting people in didn't erase them.
QuoteI still can't wrap my mind around what prompts someone to want open borders.
The American 19th Century. Best growth period we ever had. Disproves every single objection to immigration.
Quote from: TboneAgain on August 25, 2014, 12:34:22 PM
Some (e.g. Alaska Slim) think we're under some sort of moral imperative to let anyone and everyone in. They believe we have no right as a nation to say who comes and stays. So much for nationhood.
Others claim we have plenty of space and resources to share with anyone and everyone -- we'd be mean ol' hogs not to share. Look at all that open space in New Mexico! Why, there's hardly anybody there! Of course, if you've been to New Mexico, it ain't hard to figure out why there's hardly anybody there. Most of the place is fit for lizards and rattlesnakes and not much else.
I've also seen claims that we have no right to restrict our borders because it's not explicitly in the Constitution. Of course, I don't recall anything in the Constitution about speed limits on interstate highways either, or testing standards for new pharmaceuticals, or the redistribution of levied taxes in the form of food stamps, or bringing suit against landowners who build unpermitted ponds.
Those who believe in open borders simply don't see the reality of the situation, and they don't understand how drastically things have changed in 200 years. In 1814, people were coming here to find freedom from oppression, to build a new life in a new country, to start over on a 40-acre plot. In those days, the government offered them almost nothing -- just the 40 acres on a raw frontier. Today, our strange government offers them literally everything from free food to free health care to free housing. Free to them, that is; the rest of us have the privilege of paying for it. A hundred years ago, we picked and chose from prospective immigrants, making sure we got those who were healthy and productive. Today we take them, sick, poor, addled, old, little kids, known criminals, drug dealers, terrorists, and we do it wholesale, without regard for the laws we have on the books. Our motivation in doing this, I am utterly ashamed to say, is to attract dirt-cheap labor and to expand the Democrat voter base.
I don't see how anyone can say a country (any country) doesn't have the RIGHT to determine who does and does not get to stay. YOU have a right in your own home to that much.
That's the very LEAST a country is entitled to. The Constitution argument is plain dumb.
DaisyJane :confused:
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 25, 2014, 01:06:07 PM
Says the system, you've already acknowledge this is the case.
No, sweetie. I only want skilled, capable immigrants to come here legally. I want us to have the best of the best.
Quote
The system doesn't people in, because it is cynical, and violates Natural Law.
We're the best, so we have to keep the rest of the world out. Otherwise, they will come here and flood us and turn us into a 3rd world nation. Why is that hard for you to understand?
Quote
Had them in the 19th century too, somehow, letting people in didn't erase them.
The American 19th Century. Best growth period we ever had. Disproves every single objection to immigration.
I warned you about intentionally conflating legal vs. illegal. You get a 24 hour timeout.
I actually agree with this blithering idiot, Oh I don't support amnesty part but the illegals who are now invading our country WIIL turn into terrorists or criminals with amnesty or not. Every single one of these people who cross the border do so ONLY with the blessing of whatever criminal cartel gang controls human smuggling in their respective section. Likely they are indepted tot he cartels moneywise and must work off their debt by doing their bidding...that means prostitution, drugs, various criminal activety such as identity theft and if necessary murder and kidnapping, something that has turned several cities in Arizona into high crime areas with over 100% rise in REPORTED crimes over the last ten years....URBAN TERRORISM INDEED
This moron thinks he is doing them a favor by promoting this crap but he is actually doing them a disservice and scaring the crap out of ordinary citizens, hopefully it will work against him (them) and amnesty will be shot down again.
Quote from: taxed on August 25, 2014, 02:47:31 PM
No, sweetie. I only want skilled, capable immigrants to come here legally. I want us to have the best of the best.
We're the best, so we have to keep the rest of the world out. Otherwise, they will come here and flood us and turn us into a 3rd world nation. Why is that hard for you to understand?
I warned you about intentionally conflating legal vs. illegal. You get a 24 hour timeout.
A misunderstanding, and I was at fault for it. I apologize.
Quote from: DaisyJane on August 25, 2014, 02:05:09 PM
I don't see how anyone can say a country (any country) doesn't have the RIGHT to determine who does and does not get to stay.
The Constitution gives us the right to determine naturalization, or the process for becoming a citizen. The Naturalization act of 1798 and earlier such laws deal with just thus matter.
Who simply gets to come here, to work, to shop, to visit or otherwise, is an economic matter, and one the Founders saw fit to leave in the Economy's hands.
There
are conditions for which we can block entry, but that's not an open warrant to pass any immigration policy we wish.
Any immigration policy we have, must first acknowledge why the Founders left us with open borders, and structure itself with their principles in mind. This does not mean we should have open borders once again, but it does mean that our emphasis on liberty should be the same now, as it was then.
QuoteYOU have a right in your own home to that much.
What of businesses who hire immigrants, and are both part to blame and encourage illegal immigration to occur?
In this analogy, it's saying that the intruder was invited to your home by someone else (the business) who lives there, and the moment the intruder showed up, this other person hired them on the spot to go mow the lawn.
This comparison, doesn't quite track with average home experience does it? But it is the average experience for illegal immigration.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 26, 2014, 08:54:05 PM
A misunderstanding, and I was at fault for it. I apologize.
Thanks.
I'm more concerned about an immigrant's ATTITUDE about America than his skill level. Some of the best "educated" carry the dumbest ideas (like Communism).
I want people who WANT TO BE AMERICAN. Who understand what that means and not simply here to see how many goodies they can steal from the Taxpayer -- or people who bring their lesser culture here along with the problems that culture creates (like beheading anyone who disagrees with you.
Quote from: carlb on August 27, 2014, 06:21:01 PM
I'm more concerned about an immigrant's ATTITUDE about America than his skill level. Some of the best "educated" carry the dumbest ideas (like Communism).
I want people who WANT TO BE AMERICAN. Who understand what that means and not simply here to see how many goodies they can steal from the Taxpayer -- or people who bring their lesser culture here along with the problems that culture creates (like beheading anyone who disagrees with you.
Measuring attitude is a subjective business, far beyond the capabilities of the average INS or ICE worker. The idea behind using things like level of education, degrees, professional certifications, and so on, is close to what you're wanting, but less susceptible to the inevitable errors of a scenario in which a US/union worker bee spends 30 seconds passing judgement on a total stranger who doesn't even speak English.
Quote from: TboneAgain on August 27, 2014, 07:18:22 PM
The idea behind using things like level of education, degrees, professional certifications, and so on, is close to what you're wanting,
But this forgets we need low skill labor as well, and indeed bracero was specifically designed to bring in 1000s of the laborers thought needed by our farms. Skilled labor wasn't the target.
Raising the bar to skills, and only specific skills the government thinks the economy needs, is a messy and counterproductive mandate. The economy needs
both, that businesses seek to hire them is proof in of itself of that.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 27, 2014, 10:01:40 PM
But this forgets we need low skill labor as well, and indeed bracero was specifically designed to bring in 1000s of the laborers thought needed by our farms. Skilled labor wasn't the target.
Raising the bar to skills, and only specific skills the government thinks the economy needs, is a messy and counterproductive mandate. The economy needs both, that businesses seek to hire them is proof in of itself of that.
Yes, low skilled labor as in entry level jobs for American citizens, like prior to WWII, and after the war, jobs Americans should have been allowed to return to, Instead, they had been replaced by cheaper labor.
I speak from experience, in 1969 I tried to get a job at a sugar beat processing plant in Clarksburg Ca, the foreman asked if I spoke Spanish, I said no, he said how are you going to communicate then, all my workers are Mexicans, sorry, can't higher you.
A well paying entry level job, and I couldn't have it because I spoke English in America?
This is what you're proposing for all young Americans entering the work force, competition by people that shouldn't even be here.
I speak from experience, you speak from an emotional level regarding Liberty, all the while ignoring the Rights of American citizens, while giving corporations free reign to trample our Constitution.
This is not a free Mkt issue, no matter how many ways you spin it.
Quote from: Solar on August 28, 2014, 07:31:11 AM
Yes, low skilled labor as in entry level jobs for American citizens, like prior to WWII, and after the war, jobs Americans should have been allowed to return to, Instead, they had been replaced by cheaper labor.
I speak from experience, in 1969 I tried to get a job at a sugar beat processing plant in Clarksburg Ca, the foreman asked if I spoke Spanish, I said no, he said how are you going to communicate then, all my workers are Mexicans, sorry, can't higher you.
A well paying entry level job, and I couldn't have it because I spoke English in America?
This is what you're proposing for all young Americans entering the work force, competition by people that shouldn't even be here.
I speak from experience, you speak from an emotional level regarding Liberty, all the while ignoring the Rights of American citizens, while giving corporations free reign to trample our Constitution.
This is not a free Mkt issue, no matter how many ways you spin it.
As much as I hate too, I agree, because in Europe it functions like this
Slovenians, Estonians, Croatians etc go to Poland to work as carpenters and concrete workers, Polish workers go to Norway, and Norwegians go to the welfare office because they can't compete with $5/hour wages the polish get and there is nowhere else to go.
There is rampant unemployment in both Western Europe and United States, the current unemployment figures is not representative at all as the important variables are either removed
(like people who are unemployed but not searching for work) or tweaked to lower the bar
(people on welfare working 1 day out 30 is considered full employment in the unemployment statistics) or the definitions are Orwellian changed to give better impression.
The politicians get reelected since they can say "we created 100,000 jobs"
(by having 100,000 stop searching for work) and the bureaucrats get their raises and salaries.
A liberty based market can't compete with a slave based market without sacrificing social mobility, an essential pillar in a liberty based society with huge wealth differences. What this free movement of labor is creating is a permanent welfare social class which is detrimental to liberty.
Quote from: Mountainshield on August 28, 2014, 08:33:44 AM
As much as I hate too, I agree, because in Europe it functions like this
Slovenians, Estonians, Croatians etc go to Poland to work as carpenters and concrete workers, Polish workers go to Norway, and Norwegians go to the welfare office because they can't compete with $5/hour wages the polish get and there is nowhere else to go.
There is rampant unemployment in both Western Europe and United States, the current unemployment figures is not representative at all as the important variables are either removed (like people who are unemployed but not searching for work) or tweaked to lower the bar (people on welfare working 1 day out 30 is considered full employment in the unemployment statistics) or the definitions are Orwellian changed to give better impression.
The politicians get reelected since they can say "we created 100,000 jobs" (by having 100,000 stop searching for work) and the bureaucrats get their raises and salaries.
A liberty based market can't compete with a slave based market without sacrificing social mobility, an essential pillar in a liberty based society with huge wealth differences. What this free movement of labor is creating is a permanent welfare social class which is detrimental to liberty.
I don't think good people stop looking for work when there off Unemployment Benefits in the U.S. It's just a way for the government system to look good and say unemployment is down.
Quote from: Mountainshield on August 28, 2014, 08:33:44 AM
As much as I hate too, I agree, because in Europe it functions like this
Slovenians, Estonians, Croatians etc go to Poland to work as carpenters and concrete workers, Polish workers go to Norway, and Norwegians go to the welfare office because they can't compete with $5/hour wages the polish get and there is nowhere else to go.
There is rampant unemployment in both Western Europe and United States, the current unemployment figures is not representative at all as the important variables are either removed (like people who are unemployed but not searching for work) or tweaked to lower the bar (people on welfare working 1 day out 30 is considered full employment in the unemployment statistics) or the definitions are Orwellian changed to give better impression.
The politicians get reelected since they can say "we created 100,000 jobs" (by having 100,000 stop searching for work) and the bureaucrats get their raises and salaries.
A liberty based market can't compete with a slave based market without sacrificing social mobility, an essential pillar in a liberty based society with huge wealth differences. What this free movement of labor is creating is a permanent welfare social class which is detrimental to liberty.
Exactly correct! It is slave labor, and the pols take credit for feeding the coffers of crony capitalists.
This is not Capitalism, this is crony socialism.
Quote from: Solar on August 28, 2014, 09:15:41 AM
Exactly correct! It is slave labor, and the pols take credit for feeding the coffers of crony capitalists.
This is not Capitalism, this is crony socialism.
Indeed, and people are not willing to accept huge wealth differences in a crony socialist society and will demand higher taxes on all businesses and employees because there is no social mobility
(except for the politicians and bureaucrats ofc, they can live like the aristocrats they are).
Niall Ferguson was talking about this in one of his documentaries, people in America accept huge wealth differences because they believe there exist social mobility, but take that away and the US becomes just another European nondescript socialist nation.
Quote from: Mountainshield on August 28, 2014, 09:54:10 AM
Indeed, and people are not willing to accept huge wealth differences in a crony socialist society and will demand higher taxes on all businesses and employees because there is no social mobility (except for the politicians and bureaucrats ofc, they can live like the aristocrats they are).
Niall Ferguson was talking about this in one of his documentaries, people in America accept huge wealth differences because they believe there exist social mobility, but take that away and the US becomes just another European nondescript socialist nation.
Ya know, that gives me an idea. Lets make it legal to hire illegals, but if someone does, they pay a premium tax to offset a job stolen, an illegal alien migrant tax.
Enforce the shit out of it, and watch the wave of illegals come to a screeching halt.
Quote from: Solar on August 28, 2014, 12:39:12 PM
Ya know, that gives me an idea. Lets make it legal to hire illegals, but if someone does, they pay a premium tax to offset a job stolen, an illegal alien migrant tax.
Enforce the shit out of it, and watch the wave of illegals come to a screeching halt.
As our government likes taxing, also tax the
illegal alien big time as there not citizens of the U.S.
Quote from: walkstall on August 28, 2014, 12:44:45 PM
As our government likes taxing, also tax the illegal alien big time as there not citizens of the U.S.
I could deal with a direct withdrawal like other taxes, SSN etc.
The Dims should love the double taxation aspect, Hell, they've been doing it to us for decades. :biggrin:
Quote from: Solar on August 28, 2014, 07:31:11 AM
Yes, low skilled labor as in entry level jobs for American citizens, like prior to WWII, and after the war, jobs Americans should have been allowed to return to, Instead, they had been replaced by cheaper labor.
There is no connection between unemployment and immigration:
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi217.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fcc160%2FAlaskaSlim%2FEconomics%2Fnow-it-can-be-told-my-irish-an_zps2440de02.png&hash=861b43fc6210fb98a5bc95c5e0326e50f4e342ed)
The highest growing segment of our own unemployment/underemployed isn't blue collar workers, it's college-educated graduates, people who are only in competition with high skilled immigrants, and even then, not very, as very few Americans have the skills companies bring in immigrants at that level to do.
QuoteI speak from experience, you speak from an emotional level regarding Liberty, all the while ignoring the Rights of American citizens,
There is no "right to employment". We're not Europe. Thinking as such will only make things worse.
Quote from: walkstall on August 28, 2014, 12:44:45 PM
As our government likes taxing, also tax the illegal alien big time as there not citizens of the U.S.
A better recourse than keeping them out. Tax them, then give the money to the workers you think they're "disadvantaging" if you want, it's not nearly as bad for them or us than spending money to stop the commerce they're responsible for.
Quote from: Solar on August 28, 2014, 09:15:41 AM
Exactly correct! It is slave labor,
It is not. Not only are they being compensated, these people come here
by choice, whereas slave labor is by definition involuntary.
If it happens in the economy by choice, it's a free market phenomenon. The actions of people uncoerced.
Quote from: Solar on August 28, 2014, 12:39:12 PM
Ya know, that gives me an idea. Lets make it legal to hire illegals, but if someone does, they pay a premium tax to offset a job stolen, an illegal alien migrant tax.
Enforce the shit out of it, and watch the wave of illegals come to a screeching halt.
Set the tax at the absolute maximum amount that a duly-represented major union worker would receive for that job, and you'd probably win the layabout vote to carry the issue. If employers would have to pay for union rates, they'd think twice about hiring wetbacks for fear that the entire shop would demand equal wages......
Quote from: quiller on August 28, 2014, 02:57:59 PM
Set the tax at the absolute maximum amount that a duly-represented major union worker would receive for that job, and you'd probably win the layabout vote to carry the issue. If employers would have to pay for union rates, they'd think twice about hiring wetbacks for fear that the entire shop would demand equal wages......
I believe that's doable.
Now watch someone in the Senate float this idea, because we know they come here for inspiration. :biggrin:
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 28, 2014, 01:45:06 PM
There is no connection between unemployment and immigration:
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi217.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fcc160%2FAlaskaSlim%2FEconomics%2Fnow-it-can-be-told-my-irish-an_zps2440de02.png&hash=861b43fc6210fb98a5bc95c5e0326e50f4e342ed)
Nope. The graph is cute, but it tells us nothing. If you honestly think it's valid to compare the performance of the US economy to that of Luxembourg or Israel or Greece based on a single point of reference -- the presence of foreign nationals vs. unemployment -- we'll have to drastically rethink you as a competent debater. You might begin by wrapping your head around the fact that there is simply no way to present a valid comparison of the economy of the United states to that of Luxembourg or Israel or Greece or most of the other countries named on your graph.
Gun control advocates have long cited crime statistics from Japan as proof that gun control works to reduce crime, while gun rights advocates have cited the exact same statistics from Switzerland as proof that gun control doesn't work to reduce crime. All either side has actually done is show their asses. Simplistic comparisons like this are utterly meaningless. I can look at your graph and pick out obvious examples, like Greece, Germany and Spain, where relatively low levels of foreign nationals lead to relatively high levels of unemployment, and I can pick out the example of Luxembourg, which shows relatively high levels of foreign nationals is harmonic with low levels of unemployment. That arbitrary blue "trend line" is meaningless in a sampling so small and so minuscule in its scope.
Adjusted png size.
walks
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 28, 2014, 01:45:06 PM
There is no connection between unemployment and immigration:
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi217.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fcc160%2FAlaskaSlim%2FEconomics%2Fnow-it-can-be-told-my-irish-an_zps2440de02.png&hash=861b43fc6210fb98a5bc95c5e0326e50f4e342ed)
The highest growing segment of our own unemployment/underemployed isn't blue collar workers, it's college-educated graduates, people who are only in competition with high skilled immigrants, and even then, not very, as very few Americans have the skills companies bring in immigrants at that level to do.
There is no "right to employment". We're not Europe. Thinking as such will only make things worse.
OOOOPS! Missed this nonsense. But it's becoming blatantly obvious, you are masking your support of Marxist policy under the guise of Liberty.
And if can spot it, then most of our readers have as well.
So just come out of the closet and admit you're a Lib and quit giving Libertarians a bad name.
Adjusted png size.
walks
Quote from: Solar on August 28, 2014, 03:09:28 PM
I believe that's doable.
Now watch someone in the Senate float this idea, because we know they come here for inspiration. :biggrin:
I'll brush by the obvious question of, "Did YOU send a link to here to YOUR Congressdweeb?" and instead remark on the science fiction aspects of Congress taking
MY suggestions seriously in this or any alternate universe.
No, wait. Why invite SWAT teams before the elections? I probably wouldn't be let out to vote, see, and......
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 28, 2014, 01:47:33 PM
A better recourse than keeping them out. Tax them, then give the money to the workers you think they're "disadvantaging" if you want, it's not nearly as bad for them or us than spending money to stop the commerce they're responsible for.
Ain't gonna work, many of the illegals that come here work off the books...then there is the problem of criminal aliens...you think your gonna make drug dealers, hookers and stickup men pay taxes....... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Best idea is to do away with income taxes altogether and levy a big tax on everything else, that way you get your tax money from ANYTHING they buy....of course the rest of us pay too. BUT this would put taxation in control of the Individual states rather than the Federal Govt....NO MORE IRS!!!!! :popcorn:
Quote from: TboneAgain on August 28, 2014, 03:09:51 PM
Nope. The graph is cute, but it tells us nothing. If you honestly think it's valid to compare the performance of the US economy
It's not about performance, it's about the fundamentals to economic growth.
Immigration not affecting employment is a truism. To say that you think immigrants causes it, means you also think of the economy as a fixed pie, that there "only so much of it to go around".
The free market basis rejects this, it says that economics is the result of human action, thus the more people you have, the more economic activity you have as well. More labor = more consumers! which means more consumption, more production, more savings, more everything. Not less.
Economic growth is
heavily correlated with population growth. If your population is shrinking, or even just stagnating, chances are your economy is as well.
QuoteGun control advocates have long cited crime statistics from Japan as proof that gun control works to reduce crime,
And they'd be wrong, as Japan had such low rates before the laws came about. The same to Britain. You can't cite cause & effect, if the effect was there before the cause. Kind of like the relationship with rising carbon levels and rising heat.
But I digress, even in America,
this is what we see (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Yws68cGdlcM). Either immigration has no effect, or conversely, it in reality helps with American employment. For if you have more economic activity, you tend to have more jobs as well.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on August 28, 2014, 06:22:16 PM
Ain't gonna work, many of the illegals that come here work off the books...
Most that tend to stay here for a while don't, they get ITINs so they can still buy property, mortgages, insurance, and other things you need a SS number for in order to purchase.
QuoteBest idea is to do away with income taxes altogether and levy a big tax on everything else, that way you get your tax money from ANYTHING they buy....of course the rest of us pay too. BUT this would put taxation in control of the Individual states rather than the Federal Govt....NO MORE IRS!!!!! :popcorn:
All for this. A consumption tax to be precise. A flat tax would be better than what we have, but I don't consider it as ideal as a consumption one.
I say give them amnesty. Seriously. Give the people what they want.
^Why? It didn't work in '86.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 28, 2014, 09:20:10 PM
^Why? It didn't work in '86.
Exactly and please use the quote function.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 28, 2014, 10:12:48 PM
I'm not following. Care to elaborate?
Simple. Obama's entire presidency has been an introduction into what liberalism truly is. Democrats never run as liberals. They run as moderates. Democrats have been forced to enact their agenda incrementally. Obama was their chance to finally move this country all the way to the left. However as soon as he began the country revolted. Obamacare, the stimulus, taxes, his economic policies etc. He scares people. The country is finally understanding how destructive Democrats are. Amnesty will just help us in November. All of his policies have been enacted against the will of the people. Amnesty is no different.
I'm cynical myself when it comes to the States, they can enact any policies they wish in regards to enforcing immigration law, including ones that offer illegal aliens subsidies hand over fist. It's their choice, if they want to ruin themselves, let them. They will be examples for others (not) to follow.
Federally however, it's a different story. Amnesty would both drag along people in a ride they don't wish for, and further establish a false dilemma.
The choice here *isn't* just Amnesty or Border security, Barry Goldwater himself saw that:
"Don't offer amnesty to those already here illegally. Sanctions against employers who hire illegal immigrants are unfair; it is the government's responsibility to determine who is here legally.
Start a guest worker program to "channel the flow" of illegal immigrants through a legal mechanism.
And establish a clear immigration policy that is actually enforced. "
Goldwater wanted what Eisenhower had, a system that served as a sorting funnel for all immigrants coming to this country. And that is the real choice here. Either we have an immigration system that offers open access, with conditions as needed, or, we can have a black market in labor.
We currently choose the latter. Amnesty will encourage it.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 29, 2014, 12:16:32 AM
I'm cynical myself when it comes to the States, they can enact any policies they wish in regards to enforcing immigration law, including ones that offer illegal aliens subsidies hand over fist. It's their choice, if they want to ruin themselves, let them. They will be examples for others (not) to follow.
Federally however, it's a different story. Amnesty would both drag along people in a ride they don't wish for, and further establish a false dilemma.
The choice here *isn't* just Amnesty or Border security, Barry Goldwater himself saw that:
"Don't offer amnesty to those already here illegally. Sanctions against employers who hire illegal immigrants are unfair; it is the government's responsibility to determine who is here legally.
Start a guest worker program to "channel the flow" of illegal immigrants through a legal mechanism.
And establish a clear immigration policy that is actually enforced. "
Goldwater wanted what Eisenhower had, a system that served as a sorting funnel for all immigrants coming to this country. And that is the real choice here. Either we have an immigration system that offers open access, with conditions as needed, or, we can have a black market in labor.
We currently choose the latter. Amnesty will encourage it.
Who is this directed to?
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 29, 2014, 12:37:41 AM
Who is this directed to?
You, but I underlined "unfairly" to stress an earlier argument.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 29, 2014, 01:03:13 AM
You, but I underlined "unfairly" to stress an earlier argument.
Why not use the quote function?
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 29, 2014, 01:33:26 AM
Why not use the quote function?
The forum I've been on the longest discourage its use when it's not necessary.
Either the ^ or a
@name usually suffices.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 29, 2014, 01:40:24 AM
The forum I've been on the longest discourage its use when it's not necessary.
Either the ^ or a @name usually suffices.
The owner of this site spent nearly a million dollars constructing our quote function so he wants to get his money's worth.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 29, 2014, 01:40:24 AM
The forum I've been on the longest discourage its use when it's not necessary.
Either the ^ or a @name usually suffices.
Adjust.
Quote from: TboneAgain on August 29, 2014, 03:04:10 AM
Adjust.
It's a rule there so as to keep posts streamlined and from wasting space.
It's for the same reason they discourage "omnislashing", or post-battles where each person is breaking up the other's post into a list of portions to respond to that just grows and grows.
After going there for 7 years, it's ingrained habit for me to decide when and when not to use quoting. I meant no offense.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 29, 2014, 03:37:02 AM
It's a rule there so as to keep posts streamlined and from wasting space.
It's for the same reason they discourage "omnislashing", or post-battles where each person is breaking up the other's post into a list of portions to respond to that just grows and grows.
After going there for 7 years, it's ingrained habit for me to decide when and when not to use quoting. I meant no offense.
You will find most of us have been using the quote function for over 20 years. On this board please use the quote function. It's helps our Guests follow along also.
He's been repeatedly warned and every time has come up with some mealymouthed excuse to not follow basic rules here. How freaking long must this charade continue? Time him out for a while.
Quote from: quiller on August 29, 2014, 05:17:52 AM
He's been repeatedly warned and every time has come up with some mealymouthed excuse to not follow basic rules here.
Then can you point me to the thread or anywhere else where they're listed? I can't seem to find them.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 29, 2014, 03:37:02 AM
It's a rule there so as to keep posts streamlined and from wasting space.
It's for the same reason they discourage "omnislashing", or post-battles where each person is breaking up the other's post into a list of portions to respond to that just grows and grows.
After going there for 7 years, it's ingrained habit for me to decide when and when not to use quoting. I meant no offense.
Dang, you like to argue. Simply comply with "the rules of THIS forum". It's really not that difficult. You spent enough time to type in why you did things here as you did on the other forum/s. Most of us here have been on other forums. I was on a local forum 5+years and they had a different forum but adjusting here was easy enough.
Sometimes, due to poor eyesight, I skip a day or so posting or reading comments and it takes a good amount of reading to catch up. Say I want to comment on something that someone has said two pages back. If I don't use the quote function, no one will know to whose post I am citing. Try it 'cause you gonna' give my pal Boo a stroke and then you'll really pizz us off. :glare:
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 29, 2014, 05:29:45 AM
Then can you point me to the thread or anywhere else where they're listed? I can't seem to find them.
And yet you found my one-liner, while pumping out reams of unbelievably dense-packed text, which got ignored by everyone. You've been warned not to do it. Told not to do "block text" posts. Cajoled to follow the rules.
Find where this wasn't true until we finally started putting dents in your thick and empty skull.
Quote from: quiller on August 29, 2014, 06:56:00 AM
And yet you found my one-liner, while pumping out reams of unbelievably dense-packed text, which got ignored by everyone.
Are you confusing me with Aristophanes (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/war/geopolitical-shifts-demand-us-response/)?
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 29, 2014, 07:42:06 AM
Are you confusing me with Aristophanes (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/war/geopolitical-shifts-demand-us-response/)?
So you deny you weren't told by multiple people to use the quote function, yet pulled the troll's trick expecting us to let you continue, because that's how you did something elsewhere?
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 29, 2014, 03:37:02 AM
It's a rule there so as to keep posts streamlined and from wasting space.
It's for the same reason they discourage "omnislashing", or post-battles where each person is breaking up the other's post into a list of portions to respond to that just grows and grows.
After going there for 7 years, it's ingrained habit for me to decide when and when not to use quoting. I meant no offense.
Here we value continuity and relevance, so the quote function is very important, though not 100% mandatory or necessary. So many posts are replies to, or continuations of, previous posts, and the quote function allows everyone to see the flow of thought. Also, it's handy when a topic is especially hot, and others are posting in front of you while you're typing your own post; you may be composing a response to post #1 but by the time you hit the "Post" button, yours is #5. If you didn't use the quote function, it's gonna be tough for the rest of us to figure out what you're talking about.
I've never heard it called 'omnislashing' here, but I know what you're talking about, and have engaged in it myself once or twice. :blushing: Here I've heard it called 'parsing.' There's no rule against it that I know of, but I can say there's a pattern with regard to the practice -- quite often, one of the participants is a belligerent newbie (generally a militant liberal/progressive) who will soon be shown the exit. While there's not a 100% rule against it -- heck, just about all the mods and admins on the board have done it at one time or another -- it's usually a sign of someone yearning to be free, if you follow me.
Quote from: quiller on August 29, 2014, 10:32:23 AM
So you deny you weren't told by multiple people to use the quote function
Correct, The Boo Man... on this thread was the first to both question, and allude at all to me that this was a rule.
Here are a few times I used the ^ method, and no one called me on it as far as I see:
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/the-pit/would-you-vote-for-romney-if-he-was-the-nominee/msg203083/#msg203083 (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/the-pit/would-you-vote-for-romney-if-he-was-the-nominee/msg203083/#msg203083)
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/isis-uncovers-saddam%27s-wmd%27s-in-iraq (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/isis-uncovers-saddam%27s-wmd%27s-in-iraq)!!/msg203039/#msg203039
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/isis-uncovers-saddam%27s-wmd%27s-in-iraq (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/isis-uncovers-saddam%27s-wmd%27s-in-iraq)!!/msg203026/#msg203026
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/grant-illegal-aliens-amnesty-or-they-will-become-terrorists/msg202759/#msg202759 (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/grant-illegal-aliens-amnesty-or-they-will-become-terrorists/msg202759/#msg202759)
Btw, I could still use a link to the list of rules if you have one.
I think this following needs some reinforcement here. Not all of us are on broadband or even DSL. Dial-up users require extra time to do ANYTHING, and often are speedy at their end but slow at the delivery end, winding up #5 as you say. This may be the Internet but still and all, we are
not all equal technologically. Do use QUOTE and save endless confusion.
Quote from: TboneAgain on August 29, 2014, 12:48:54 PM
Also, it's handy when a topic is especially hot, and others are posting in front of you while you're typing your own post; you may be composing a response to post #1 but by the time you hit the "Post" button, yours is #5. If you didn't use the quote function, it's gonna be tough for the rest of us to figure out what you're talking about.
...And....
QuoteI've never heard it called 'omnislashing' here, but I know what you're talking about, and have engaged in it myself once or twice. :blushing: Here I've heard it called 'parsing.'
The first real name attached to this was "Fisking," after a notorious blogger named Robert Fisk whose posts broke somebody else's posts down into single sentences and monstrously-long replies to each item. Epic stuff, really.
QuoteThere's no rule against it that I know of, but I can say there's a pattern with regard to the practice -- quite often, one of the participants is a belligerent newbie (generally a militant liberal/progressive) who will soon be shown the exit. While there's not a 100% rule against it -- heck, just about all the mods and admins on the board have done it at one time or another -- it's usually a sign of someone yearning to be free, if you follow me.
Another take: it's also a sign someone REALLY rang your chimes! Or boredom. Nothing better to do. :wink:
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 29, 2014, 01:20:09 PM
Correct, The Boo Man... on this thread was the first to both question, and allude at all to me that this was a rule.
Here are a few times I used the ^ method, and no one called me on it as far as I see:
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/the-pit/would-you-vote-for-romney-if-he-was-the-nominee/msg203083/#msg203083 (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/the-pit/would-you-vote-for-romney-if-he-was-the-nominee/msg203083/#msg203083)
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/isis-uncovers-saddam%27s-wmd%27s-in-iraq (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/isis-uncovers-saddam%27s-wmd%27s-in-iraq)!!/msg203039/#msg203039
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/isis-uncovers-saddam%27s-wmd%27s-in-iraq (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/isis-uncovers-saddam%27s-wmd%27s-in-iraq)!!/msg203026/#msg203026
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/grant-illegal-aliens-amnesty-or-they-will-become-terrorists/msg202759/#msg202759 (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/grant-illegal-aliens-amnesty-or-they-will-become-terrorists/msg202759/#msg202759)
Btw, I could still use a link to the list of rules if you have one.
Why not explore all the features this forum has to offer, instead of demand a sherpa?
Quote from: quiller on August 29, 2014, 01:27:25 PM
Why not explore all the features this forum has to offer, instead of demand a sherpa?
I've looked in just about every subforum, I couldn't find a sticky that alludes to rules. Did I miss it somewhere, or am I looking in the wrong place?
Quote from: quiller on August 29, 2014, 06:56:00 AM
And yet you found my one-liner, while pumping out reams of unbelievably dense-packed text, which got ignored by everyone. You've been warned not to do it. Told not to do "block text" posts. Cajoled to follow the rules.
Find where this wasn't true until we finally started putting dents in your thick and empty skull.
Another long-time poster sent me this message....Actually, I think you ARE confusing him with Aristophanes. I almost did the same thing myself. You might want to look closely at the previous posts. Part of the problem is the fact that Slim doesn't much use the 'quote' button, and I've posted to help him understand why we value it so highly. Another part of the problem may be that Slim and Aristophanes showed up around the same time, and their posts can be confusing. Slim claims to be a libertarian (I have my doubts) and Aristophanes is a certifiable crackpot. But Aristophanes -- not Slim -- is the one whose posts tend to be ginormous monolithic blocks of gibberish. In fairness, I post it below my own remark and acknowledge I could have had my trolls confused. The older I get, they all seem to sound alike.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 29, 2014, 01:35:04 PM
I've looked in just about every subforum, I couldn't find a sticky that alludes to rules. Did I miss it somewhere, or am I looking in the wrong place?
I think the answer to your question is that there is no list of rules. That issue was addressed, as I recall, a long time ago, not long after the board started, and it was decided that a list of hard and fast rules would not be good. Instead of searching for rules, I suggest you look instead for customs. This board has an atmosphere, if you will, that you won't find other places, and much of that comes from the customs we have come to use over the years.
The use of the quote function is one of those -- when in doubt, use it, bandwidth be damned. As Quiller has correctly pointed out, we don't all have T1s piped into our houses, but at the same time, no matter how you connect, there's not much point viewing a comment on another comment if you don't know what the first comment was, or if you have to spend a lot of time looking for it.
Another custom we have is avoiding
ad hominem attacks. No one's opinion is banned here, but no one should be held up as a target for personal ridicule. That's just not what we do. When you see personal attacks cropping up in a thread, you can just about bet that one of the posters is headed for the door.
THIS IS NOT A CRITICISM OF YOU. I'm trying merely to share the sort of customs I'm talking about, and these two popped into my head.
Take your time and get into the site's groove, and I think you'll be glad you did.
Quote from: TboneAgain on August 29, 2014, 01:48:01 PM
I think the answer to your question is that there is no list of rules. That issue was addressed, as I recall, a long time ago, not long after the board started, and it was decided that a list of hard and fast rules would not be good. Instead of searching for rules, I suggest you look instead for customs. This board has an atmosphere, if you will, that you won't find other places, and much of that comes from the customs we have come to use over the years.
(. . . )
Another custom we have is avoiding ad hominem attacks. No one's opinion is banned here, but no one should be held up as a target for personal ridicule. That's just not what we do.
Mostly. :lol: