The Political Discussion Thread

[SoulReaver]

Australia is going to the dogs...

We have a PM that sees nothing at all wrong with trashing marine parks and sanctuaries and has granted them permits to have mining exploration done. INSIDE THEM.

here's wishing good luck to the eco-terrorists

[jelgate]

here's wishing good luck to the eco-terrorists

Or the conspiracy nuts?

[Coco Pops]

here's wishing good luck to the eco-terrorists

Or the conspiracy nuts?

Here's a link


http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politi...16-1mlvge.html

[jelgate]

`I stand by my first statement

[Coco Pops]

`I stand by my first statement

If I may ask. Why?

[Falcon Horus]

My apologies for not replying sooner, but well life has been busy as of late... Who knew going back to work cut so much of that well-loved internet-time.

actually they'll die sooner from burning up in Venus' heat
(talk about flames of passion)

Passionate death it is then.

I'm an agnostic, so I'm not the best authority on the topic but 30 seconds with a google machine turns up the following from the Bible, which several religions use.
Leviticus 18:22: You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
For other variations, refer to http://biblehub.com/leviticus/18-22.htm

Leviticus - yes, now I remember. However, my 15 second google-search turned up what else Leviticus has to say, yet is always so conveniently forgotten by them quoting that infamous Leviticus:

Don't let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19)

Don't have a variety of crops on the same field. (Leviticus 19:19)

Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)

Don't cut your hair nor shave. (Leviticus 19:27)

Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20:9)

If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10).

If a man sleeps with his father's wife... both him and his father's wife is to be put to death. (Leviticus 20:11)

If a man sleeps with his wife and her mother they are all to be burnt to death. (Leviticus 20:14)

If a man or woman has sex with an animal, both human and animal must be killed. (Leviticus 20:15-16).

If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be "cut off from their people" (Leviticus 20:18)

Psychics, wizards, and so on are to be stoned to death. (Leviticus 20:27)

If a priest's daughter is a whore, she is to be burnt at the stake. (Leviticus 21:9)

People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18)

Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16)

Again, a few seconds with a google machine:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/...-sex-weddings/

I found more on this at The Huffington Post - shall we say the other side of FoxNews' scope:

Two Ministers Claim They Could Face 180 Years In Jail For Refusing To Do Gay Weddings

Apparently they are making a lot of fuss out of nothing, cause yes the couple has turned away gay couples but no complaints have been filed.

From the article:

The Hitching Post case stands out, however -- not only because it is the first of these cases to involve ordained clergy, but also because no complaint has been filed against the Knapps, and because their business already appears to be exempt from the non-discrimination ordinance in Coeur d’Alene.

And then there's also this little tidbit:

The Hitching Post has certainly been inconsistent in how much its owners' religious faith has restricted its business practices. As blogger Jeremy Hooper revealed this week, the wedding chapel very recently altered its website to limit its service to "traditional Christian" ceremonies. But that was not always true -- at least according to the website.

The Hitching Post first made news in May, after a federal judge initially struck down Idaho’s ban on same-sex marriage, when the Spokane Spokesman-Review quoted Donald Knapp saying, “I cannot in good conscience perform same-sex marriages.” But the chapel's website said it would perform civil ceremonies and "wedding ceremonies of other faiths," in addition to religious ceremonies for Christian couples. At the time, the Hitching Post had also not yet filed for status as a religious corporation.

That is just one of many hits for "churches forced to perform gay marriages"

Except that this is not just a church, as they also had/have the state of being a business and thus they would have to adhere to the anti-discrimination law in place in Idaho. As far as I can tell from the article on Huffington they filed to become a church right before the ban was dropped and thus no longer had to adhere to the anti-discrimination law. And since no complaints from refused couples were being made, I think someone's making an elephant out of a very small mouse. Using any means to show how evil government is, and how some groups are forcing others to behave.

And in most states, they already have equality. There are few states left where gays can't legally marry.

I try to keep up-to-date about it on where it's legal and where it's not (yet). There's long ways to go still.

They are asking that their beliefs be placed above the beliefs of institutions whose religious values say that what they are doing is a sin, and that the power of government be used to enforce their demands.

But religious-inspired groupings do exactly the same. They also try to use government to enforce their demands.

www.rightwingwatch.org

National Organization For Marriage

Because what those 18th century guys wrote is the legal "rule book" of how the country is to be run, and defines the powers, responsibilities and authority of our government. Even more importantly, it defines limits upon that government.

Womble already made a point so I'm just gonna say that the time of the founding fathers of the USA, and today is a long time. The world has changed. Governments change. There's an evolution that one can't deny. Either you evolve right along, or you get stuck and are left behind.

My question is if you say that the government should force a church or other business to perform services they object to on the basis of their beliefs, shouldn't the government also force this hypothetical print shop owner to print signs which are contrary to his beliefs?

There's a tiny flaw in your hypothetical question, or in Rick's. The Baptist church would never go to a print shop with a gay owner.

However, anti-discrimination laws are in place for a good reason, and they don't just apply to gender or sexuality. They apply to race and religion as well. Then yes, they gay owner should, hypothetically speaking, have to print the anti-gay leaflets. But like I said, the chances of that happening really are zero to none. Why do I hear you think - cause if I wanted my leaflets to read anti-gay I'd make sure nothing can go wrong with them and print them myself then to leave them to a gay printer who might do goddess knows what to them.

My answer is of course not. Just as the church, bakery or whatever should not be forced to participate in something that they oppose, neither should this print shop be forced to print signs which would be offensive to him. In both cases, the buyer should simply go to another vendor who will do the work.

But offensive signs have nothing to do with religious believes.

Except that being gay or straight or bisexual or pansexual or whatever-else-sexual isn't a religion or a belief.

In less than 200 years, hardly the blink of an eye in historical time scales, the U.S. rose a fledgling upstart to the absolute top of the heap in the world in every measurable aspect. Standard of living for her citizens, technological ability, military capability, economic output, the list goes on. You can't deny that the U.S.'s manufacturing might and her military power were largely responsible for the defeat of the axis powers in World War II. If the U.S. didn't exist in the 1900's,. we would likely all be speaking German today, slaves of the Third Reich & the Nazis.
You can't argue with results, and those are pretty damned impressive results.

The US didn't have to deal with two destructive wars on their soil. They didn't have to rebuild from scratch, you mean. Europeans had to rebuild twice in 50 years, which can be considered a slight setback on development.

It wasn't until Japan attacked Pearl Harbor that the US activily joined the war. They were there pasivily, making sure their allies got the necessary equipment to fight the Germans. The war industry flourished during those years.

If the government is the only one authorized to use force, what recourse do the people have should that government lose the consent of the governed? Throw rocks?

How about voting?

An armed citizenry is the only real thing keeping a government in check. It's no secret that in any authoritarian state, the people are prohibited from owning firearms. There is a reason for that.

Bloodshed - is that what you want?

Allow me to show you what happens to armed citizens keeping a government in check:

French Revolution in 1789 - All hail the guillotine! Off with their heads!

Arab Spring in 2010 & 2011 - Hello civil war in Syria! Hello ISIS!

And a list of rebellions and revolutions, starting in 2.740 BC. Note how they occasionally mention slaughter and bloodshed.

Also, I dug up an interesting paper Revolt Of The Masses: Armed Civilians And The Insurrectionary Theory Of The 2nd Amendment -- Colonel Charles J. Dunlap, USAF

More on the author of the article - a Professor of the Practice of Law at the university of Duke Law, and Executive Director of the Center on Law, Ethics and National Security.

Well, we obviously have rather different outlooks on things. In my view, the best path the US should follow to regain her former glory is to return to what brought her that glory to begin with...

Slaughter the indigenous people and start over?

That's fine, we still have freedom of speech (sort of anyway, for now. That right is being slowly stripped away as well).

Don't worry - we never had free speech. That's just an illusion.

[Falcon Horus]

While it is true that with the exception of the Civil War, we've never fought a war on our own soil, a bigger part of that success is that we had a population that was willing to work to take advantage of the incredibly rich natural resources of this country.

No, you just migrated from all over the place. Chased the local folks into extinction and called the place your own.

Or did you forget what happened to the Native Americans?

Nowadays, we have large segments of the population who are unwilling to work even to support themselves.

Have you asked them why they won't work? Or why they act this way?

Instead they demand that those of us who do work support their useless existences as well as our own, and the government encourages this behavior in order to make the government more necessary to these people.

By any chance - how quick after graduating did you find a job? And have you ever been in a position where you were turned away at every single try?

Maybe they want to be useful but don't get the chance to do so. Oh no, it must be the useless folks own fault they are that way.

Then, round up every single person in this country illegally and immediately deport them, no excuses, no BS, no nonsense of any sort.

Even those contributing to your economy? Taken the risk to stick around, integrated and everything on the off chance they might just become legal if they try hard enough.

What if they're running from violent situations and a return would mean certain death?

But of course, their initial illegal entry into the country would be one of the factors considered. I don't see why we should do any favors for people whose respect for our laws is shown by their willingness to break them.

Where did your forefathers/mothers migrate from? Or more accuaretly when?

We need to look after our own best interests first, last and always, because the simple fact is that if we don't, no one will. And we have been doing the exact opposite for decades now.

Sounds to like you want the US to go back to a period of protectionism:

Protectionism is the economic policy of restraining trade between states (countries) through methods such as tariffs on imported goods, restrictive quotas, and a variety of other government regulations designed to allow (according to proponents) fair competition between imports and goods and services produced domestically.

This policy contrasts with free trade, where government barriers to trade are kept to a minimum. In recent years, protectionism has become closely aligned with anti-globalization and anti-immigration. The term is mostly used in the context of economics, where protectionism refers to policies or doctrines which protect businesses and workers within a country by restricting or regulating trade with foreign nations.

btw is healthcare in Israel more similar to that in the US or the EU??

You do realize that the European Union is comprised of different countries and we all have a different sort of healthcare, right?

In Texas is there really a push to teach creation as science over evolution? Education comes under politics so just curious if this is in any way true?

I found an article that might help you here:

Publicly Funded Schools That Are Allowed to Teach Creationism.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/03/03...ags-609544203/

Except that these aliens who shot the agent weren't just your every day run of the mill aliens trying to cross the border -- or as CNN News likes to say:

Source: Man gets 30 years in 'Fast and Furious' death of border agent Brian Terry

Osorio-Arellanes was the first conviction in a case with a connection to the "Fast and Furious" operation the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives began in 2009 with the purpose of tracking around 2,000 weapons intended for drug cartels.

Osorio-Arellanes admitted that on the night of December 14, 2010, he and four others were looking for drug traffickers to rob of marijuana.

The group encountered Terry and other Border Patrol agents along Arizona's border with Mexico, and a gun battle broke out.

They were out to do crime.

It's understandable why a border agent would be asked to use non-lethal force as a first option, except when it happens to be a special border patrol team (the likes of SWAT). They too should try non-lethal first, except that's a concept US cops seem to have problems with no matter the situation.

However, considering the situation... lethal force could have given a different outcome. And since the man convicted was shot, I think we can safely assume they did have real bullets along.

Funny enough, the Fast and Furious case was subject of the last NCIS episode. I think they said it at least 7 times.

So, because a person's native country can't provide for a person, it becomes the U.S.'s responsibility to provide for him?

People leave their native countries for different reasons - political, economical, social, war, oppression, in search of happiness and a better life.

Just because somebody doesn't like a law, that does not give them the right to disregard it. There are many laws here that I do not like, but I still have to abide by them.

I think it stands to reason that if you break the law, either as a legal or an illegal person, you have to deal with the consequences of your actions. Legal gets fined/goes to jail, illegal gets deported/goes to jail depending on the crime. No?

Of course people have value outside of their labor. But if you are not pulling the cart, but are simply riding in it, with other people pulling your dead weight along, I'm sorry, but you don't get to have a say regarding which direction the cart goes. By the same token, people who do not work or otherwise support themselves; who live via money forcibly taken from other people as taxes and paid out as social services benefits should not get a voice in how that system is run because they will simply vote for whomever promises to give them the most stuff. This is one of the larger problems faced by our country today.

There's a party in Belgium called the NV-A -- I'm fairly sure you'd love them.

So just why would people who are genuinely concerned with the environment want us to use plastic bags?

A paper bag can be used once or maybe twice. Plastic bags can be reused until they rip, and are then supposed to go into recycling to make new plastic bags.

And paper bags are made from trees... The kind we simply don't have enough off if we want to keep this planet alive for a just a little longer.

[SGalisa]

Thing is, California isn't an arid environment; they have all the water they need available to them, but they refuse to use it due to actions of the environmentalists.

If you're referring to the ocean for desalination, then the water is readily available. But one argument that's been in the news is that the desalination plants cost too much to operate, but at this point, I don't think that entire west coast has much of an option to keep ignoring the obvious (that the nearby inland water supplies are almost all gone). The other argument is some sort of wildlife is going to end up extinct.

There were other articles mentioning that on the European and Asian sides of planet earth, jellyfish or something --other than water-- in huge quantities have gotten stuck somewhere within the desalination process and clogged up the filtration piping, which the cleanup costs have ended up being on the high side.

If you're referring to surface and / or underground water supplies, it's not true that underground water is plentiful -- at least from the midwest to the entire west coast USA.

I did some research a while back on aquifers (and partly some of this info is noted in the "earth's future prophecies..." topic). Came across several articles mentioning how underground fossil aquifers might take thousands of years to rebuild the water once its supply is drained. Not to also mention underground water aquifers such as those that exist in Florida have often ended up having the ground's ceiling collapse, thus producing massive sinkholes, due to the support structure no longer existing with whatever weight exists on the ground above the empty, underground reservoir.

Anyway, in 2013, there was an article about how severe the water drought was in Texas.

Spoiler:

"Where We Stand: The Texas Drought"
July 12, 2013, 10:12 AM
By Holly Heinrich
{Texas (Report)--A reporting project of local public media and NPR}
http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/201...texas-drought/

"...
Far more of the state is in extreme or exceptional drought now than in July 2012. The Panhandle and the Southeast Texas coast, which are important regions for ranching and agriculture, have been especially hard-hit. According to the U.S. Drought Monitor, over 90 percent of Texas is in drought, and about 35 percent is in extreme drought.
...

The drought is not just a Texas problem. Most of the American West is in drought. The worst-affected regions are the state of New Mexico, and the entire Ogallala Aquifer region, stretching from the Texas Panhandle to Nebraska.
..."

and this other article in 2012 mentions about the underground fossil water supplies drying up--

Spoiler:

"Where the world’s running out of water, in one map"
By Brad Plumer, August 10, 2012
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...er-in-one-map/

"Many of the world's most important food-producing regions depend on freshwater from massive underground aquifers that have built up over thousands of years. The Ogallala Aquifer in the midwestern United States. The Upper Ganges, sustaining India and Pakistan.

Yet many of those aquifers are now being sucked dry by irrigation and other uses faster than they can be replenished by rainwater, according to a new study in Nature. It's unclear when many of these aquifers will be completely emptied — scientists are still trying to measure how much "fossil water" these aquifers actually hold. But it's a worrisome trend: About 1.7 billion people rely on aquifers that are rapidly being depleted. And once they're gone, it would take thousands of years to refill them.

...The Floridian Aquifer in the southeastern United States, for instance, can get quickly refilled by a big storm (though it still faces problems with saltwater contamination and overuse)..."

The Ogallala Aquifer storage is in the midwest USA, and has dried up so much that it shrunk. Even the rivers that supply water to the Niagra Falls in NY and Canada has dried up and is shrinking inch by inches with every passing every year. Thus, the rivers supplying freshwater to the great Lakes area has also been drying up.

For society being so worried about the oceans rising from "climate change", they are forgetting about nature's natural underground water structures disappearing faster than those can be replenished. Ignoring one problem isn't going to solve the other and vice-versa.

I'm not advocating trashing the planet, but I am highly distrustful of the true motive of the environmental lobbies. If their true goals are really saving the environment, their actions aren't all that bright. For example, 20-30 years ago, they pushed for and eventually mostly achieved conversion from paper shopping bags to plastic shopping bags.

Paper bags biodegrade in 6 months or so, as opposed to plastic bags which can last thousands of years, and have been shown to be hazardous to wildlife. So just why would people who are genuinely concerned with the environment want us to use plastic bags?

A paper bag can be used once or maybe twice. Plastic bags can be reused until they rip, and are then supposed to go into recycling to make new plastic bags.

And paper bags are made from trees... The kind we simply don't have enough off if we want to keep this planet alive for a just a little longer.

Discarded plastic bags also get blown by the wind and get stuck in trees, and people often leave them there (due to laziness? or its not their property to clean up), which makes the area messy and sometimes looks like a tornado blew thru. The plastic bags are also hazardous if someone is driving down the road and a bag just happens to get blown across the road and get stuck under the car's various piping or wheel systems. That's just a few major gripes about using plastic bags.

I think California has recently banned the use of plastic bags as store bags (or else they are charging for new plastic bags), and are forcing people to use some other means of carrying their items home. On the east coast, many people began using fabric bags, because the plastic ones break too much and the paper ones breed bugs (silverfish) if stored away for future use.

I personally prefer the fabric bags, because certain types of fabric bags are definitely stronger, hold more items, last many months longer than most plastic bags, and with the proper care, can be kept bug free until they fray apart.

Unfortunately, milk and meat still need to go into a plastic bag first, because they tend to leak, regardless of how upright they are placed on the ride home. One of our fabric bags got contaminated from leaking milk (because on the way home from the store, the bag tipped over on its side and milk leaked out), and all the Fabreze in the world didn't properly get the sour milk odor out completely without washing the bag and then having the bag shrink (which has happened to other people). So, the fabric bag got tossed out from further use. Ended up having to buy new fabric bags. Putting the milk in plastic bags still isn't spillproof, especially when the bag still flops over on many occasions, regardless of how well it gets propped up straight.

[Womble]

Unfortunately, milk and meat still need to go into a plastic bag first, because they tend to leak, regardless of how upright they are placed on the ride home. One of our fabric bags got contaminated from leaking milk (because on the way home from the store, the bag tipped over on its side and milk leaked out), and all the Fabreze in the world didn't properly get the sour milk odor out completely without washing the bag and then having the bag shrink (which has happened to other people). So, the fabric bag got tossed out from further use. Ended up having to buy new fabric bags. Putting the milk in plastic bags still isn't spillproof, especially when the bag still flops over on many occasions, regardless of how well it gets propped up straight.

If your milk leaks, it must be really badly packaged.

[SGalisa]

If your milk leaks, it must be really badly packaged.

Not really. It's those wretched plastic container bottles with the super plastic lock separators wrapped around them. The milk processers don't put heavy duty foil wrap on the lid part, which is probably a good thing, because I freeze my extra milk bottles (can't freeze the paper ones too well). So, I guess it gives some air pocket space / room for the milk to start deteriorating naturally inside the containers (air pocket for natural evaporation leakage, something like that). I don't know. I just like my milk super cold, close to ice milk. And the milk bottles do expand when the inside milk turns into its iced state. I'm surprised that the ice hasn't popped the lids off in the freezer yet. But once they are thawed out, they shrink back down to the way the bottle was when it was purchased in the grocery store.

I used to buy milk in the paper-waxed containers, but our recyclers don't like those containers in their bins -- and that includes whether or not the milk smells have been cleaned out from the container. Town/city residents were informed that the recycling crews frown upon anything with waxed innard packaging in them, including certain cereal boxes. Foil lined cardboard is also frowned upon, because we aren't permitted to mix our metals with cardboard in the recycling bins. These end up in the regular garbage, which the environmentalists don't like the items consuming space in the trash landfills.

Some people just toss whatever they want into the bins, if they aren't being observed at the actual recycling site; and the towns are super picky about what is left on the street curbs for picking up from individual residences. Everything going into the recycling has to be cleaned, including veggie oil bottles and peanut butter jars (and both are very ickky to clean out!). Otherwise, the folks doing the curbside pickups will refuse to take any of the recycling, and the home-owners end up stuck with a bigger pile next time, which each pick up is limited if its done for free (or part of one's tax bills).
Choice of two evils.

[Falcon Horus]

We've been recycling for years, and cleaning out my pots of chocolate spread or jam is but a little effort.

[Annoyed]

No, you just migrated from all over the place. Chased the local folks into extinction and called the place your own.

Or did you forget what happened to the Native Americans?

This is simply what happens when an advanced culture meets a primitive culture; the more advanced one displaces the more primitive one. It has happened many times throughout history. Even the article you cite admits that.

We, as the human race, must realize, however, that other genocides have occurred. Genocide against many particular groups is still widely happening today. The discrimination of the Native American population is only one example of this ruthless destruction.

It is also a pretty good reason why we should hope we don't encounter an another civilization from another planet until we are advanced enough to be making the contact. Although there is no guarantee that they are anything like mankind, the same rule might apply if they are the ones who make contact with us before we are ready for them.

Have you asked them why they won't work? Or why they act this way?

By any chance - how quick after graduating did you find a job? And have you ever been in a position where you were turned away at every single try?

Maybe they want to be useful but don't get the chance to do so. Oh no, it must be the useless folks own fault they are that way.

Yes, I know, the employment market in the U.S. today SUCKS. And has sucked for several decades now. More on that below.
I have had periods in my life where I've gone 5 years without being able to find work in my field at a decent rate of pay. I've also had to abandon the first skill I learned due to injury preventing me from doing that kind of work any more, forcing me to learn another skill to put food on the table with. During those times I did whatever I could regardless of pay rate to keep myself from starving. And I've also had periods where I couldn't find anything at any rate. And yes, I've had periods when I collected unemployment.

But at no time in my life have I made decisions such as having children or assuming other obligations that I was not in a financial position to care for, expecting that someone else (the taxpayers) would pick up the tab.

I do not object in the slightest to someone needing a TEMPORARY hand to pick themselves up after a fall on the road of life. But I do object to people who, generation after generation, consciously choose to be nothing but couch potatoes, doing nothing but breeding more couch potatoes for the taxpayers to feed, house and clothe. The youngsters take after the parents, and goes on, generation after generation.

If I am not in a financial position to take proper care of myself, what right do I have to father a child (or become pregnant if female), expecting that someone else will pay for it? None whatsoever. Yet I have money forcibly taken from me each pay period in order to pay for other people's irresponsible acts.

Even those contributing to your economy? Taken the risk to stick around, integrated and everything on the off chance they might just become legal if they try hard enough.

What if they're running from violent situations and a return would mean certain death?

Where did your forefathers/mothers migrate from? Or more accuaretly when?

Yes, even those that are contributing to the economy. If they are not here legally, then their very presence in this country is a crime. That is the meaning of the word "illegal".
My ancestors migrated here from Germany, prior to WWI. and they did it legally, using the established process. They did not flout or break the laws of the country they were coming to.

Sounds to like you want the US to go back to a period of protectionism:

You are correct with this one. I do believe that we should move towards protectionist policies.

As noted earlier, the job market in this country has been dismal for the past 20+ years, in some parts such as where I live, for far longer than that. In the mid eighties, the largest employer here, who was the unquestioned leader of the world in their product line, employed over 65,000 people locally. Today, they're less than 1000 as I recall the last stats, mostly due to outsourcing labor whenever possible, and a fair bit of stupidity on the part of management. The outsourcing of labor was made even worse by the confiscatory tax policies of the the very "blue" state where I live as well.

So, yes, I absolutely think we ought to scrap the various *afta "free trade" deals we have signed over the past 30 years, with the support of BOTH parties, and adopt trade policies that favor our interests first, last and always. And this is where my opposition to immigration at this time comes from, too. Our economy, as it currently stands, cannot provide enough work for our own citizens. We have no business whatsoever inviting others in as well.

Earlier on, you were talking about "people who want to be useful but don't get the chance to do so."
If we want to move people en mass off of welfare, our society has to be able to provide jobs for them to do so. Our "Free Trade" policies have trashed our job market. Remember Ross Perot, in 1992, with his "Giant Sucking Sound" ? He got that right on the money. So, Yes, I want to forcibly remove large numbers of people from the welfare rolls. But our economy has to be able to provide jobs for them. And our trade policies, and now immigration policies (Microsoft wants to increase H1B visas so they can pay dirt cheap wages to immigrant labor) only favor the wealthy and business interests. The are directly opposed to the interests of the average working stiff. Why the hell else do you think the Republican party on the national level is as soft as or softer than many Democrats on the immigration issue? They want to ensure a supply of cheap labor for their business pals.

I think it stands to reason that if you break the law, either as a legal or an illegal person, you have to deal with the consequences of your actions. Legal gets fined/goes to jail, illegal gets deported/goes to jail depending on the crime. No?

Absolutely. But many seem to forget that an illegal immigrant is breaking the law by his very presence here alone. Hence my stance of deportation upon detection. And use whatever means necessary to detect them. People in this country should NOT have the benefits of our legal protections against govt. overreach.

A paper bag can be used once or maybe twice. Plastic bags can be reused until they rip, and are then supposed to go into recycling to make new plastic bags.

And paper bags are made from trees... The kind we simply don't have enough off if we want to keep this planet alive for a just a little longer.

But trees are a renewable resource. Plastic bags (oil) is not. And aren't the enviros supposed to hate oil?

[Annoyed]

Discarded plastic bags also get blown by the wind and get stuck in trees, and people often leave them there (due to laziness? or its not their property to clean up), which makes the area messy and sometimes looks like a tornado blew thru. The plastic bags are also hazardous if someone is driving down the road and a bag just happens to get blown across the road and get stuck under the car's various piping or wheel systems. That's just a few major gripes about using plastic bags.

They are also a hazard to wildlife who choke on them, they can block small streams.. I could go on, but they are in general, far worse for the environment than the paper bags ever thought of being.

This lack of foresight is frequently seen among the enviros. Another example would be the forced switch to CFL lighting. CFL's contain mercury, a highly toxic substance. Just as with the plastic bags being discarded carelessly, do you really think people are going to go to the trouble of schlepping burned out bulbs to a recycling center, wasting gas to do so? And I'm sure, there will eventually be a "recycling fee", further discouraging proper disposal.

No, they won't. So we're going to end up with many worn out CFL's in the trash stream. Another fine example of prime thinking there, guys.

Might have been better off sticking with incandescent bulbs.

[Falcon Horus]

This is simply what happens when an advanced culture meets a primitive culture; the more advanced one displaces the more primitive one. It has happened many times throughout history. Even the article you cite admits that.

And that makes it all okay?!

I don't think so.

Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens lived side by side, so why can't we modern humans do the same.

It is also a pretty good reason why we should hope we don't encounter an another civilization from another planet until we are advanced enough to be making the contact. Although there is no guarantee that they are anything like mankind, the same rule might apply if they are the ones who make contact with us before we are ready for them.

Considering our planet will have nothing to offer as far as resources go, since we're well on our way of depleting the natural resources at an alarming rate, I don't think we'll have to worry about alien life wanting to pay us a visit after first contact.

I have had periods in my life where I've gone 5 years without being able to find work in my field at a decent rate of pay. I've also had to abandon the first skill I learned due to injury preventing me from doing that kind of work any more, forcing me to learn another skill to put food on the table with. During those times I did whatever I could regardless of pay rate to keep myself from starving. And I've also had periods where I couldn't find anything at any rate. And yes, I've had periods when I collected unemployment.

I was just checking cause usually such remarks as I quoted come from people who've never had the misfortune of having to look for a job for a longer period of time or were unfortunate to loose theirs at some point in their lives.

Coming from a 2-year unemployment period, I've heard plenty of such things.

But at no time in my life have I made decisions such as having children or assuming other obligations that I was not in a financial position to care for, expecting that someone else (the taxpayers) would pick up the tab.

Sometimes children just sorta happen, not always a thing that can be planned. Accidents happen.

But I agree with you there. Same here.

But I do object to people who, generation after generation, consciously choose to be nothing but couch potatoes, doing nothing but breeding more couch potatoes for the taxpayers to feed, house and clothe. The youngsters take after the parents, and goes on, generation after generation.

You should really give the youngsters more credit. I'm sure they would be willing and are probably trying their best to get to a better situation. I wouldn't condemn every youngster in that grouping.

If I am not in a financial position to take proper care of myself, what right do I have to father a child (or become pregnant if female), expecting that someone else will pay for it? None whatsoever. Yet I have money forcibly taken from me each pay period in order to pay for other people's irresponsible acts.

Childbenefits - I happen to work for the company that arranges childbenefits in Belgium. Every child has a right to it. At least they do here.

Yes, even those that are contributing to the economy. If they are not here legally, then their very presence in this country is a crime. That is the meaning of the word "illegal".

And are there Americans willing to do the jobs the "illegals" are doing, for same wage which I reckon is minimum at best?

My ancestors migrated here from Germany, prior to WWI. and they did it legally, using the established process. They did not flout or break the laws of the country they were coming to.

20th century migration - so looking for a better life then? Through Ellis Island?

You are correct with this one. I do believe that we should move towards protectionist policies.

However do the disadvantages of it weigh up against the advantages:

Source: Trade Protectionism: Definition, Advantages and Disadvantages

In the long term, trade protectionism weakens the industry. Without competition, companies within the industry won't innovate and improve their products or services. There's no need to. Eventually, consumers will pay more for a lower quality product than they would get from foreign competitors.

Job outsourcing is a result of declining U.S. competitiveness, itself a result of decades of the U.S. not investing in education. This is particularly true for high tech, engineering, and science. Increased trade opens new markets for businesses to sell their products. The Peterson Institute for International Economics estimates that ending all trade barriers would increase U.S. income by $500 billion.

Increasing U.S. protectionism will further slow economic growth and cause more layoffs, not less. If the United States closes its borders, other countries will do the same. This could cause layoffs among the 12 million U.S. workers who owe their jobs to exports.

But trees are a renewable resource. Plastic bags (oil) is not. And aren't the enviros supposed to hate oil?

Oil-spills kill, yes. Entire eco-systems are destroyed when oil leaks. Trees are only renewable if we allow them time to grow so they can be used.

Chopping trees means you have to replant the ones you chopped, otherwise not so much renewable.

[Annoyed]

Quote Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
But at no time in my life have I made decisions such as having children or assuming other obligations that I was not in a financial position to care for, expecting that someone else (the taxpayers) would pick up the tab.

Sometimes children just sorta happen, not always a thing that can be planned. Accidents happen.

But I agree with you there. Same here.

That is one of the purest forms of BS there is. We know what causes pregnancy, and it is easy to avoid becoming either pregnant or a sperm donor.
I will probably never have kids because I didn't feel that my own financial circumstances were sound enough to justify having them until I was in my upper 40's. So I made the responsible choice not to have any kids I couldn't afford to support. So don't even try to sell me the "accident" bit. Outside of rape situations, unless you are a wild animal, reproduction is ALWAYS a conscious choice.

Quote Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
If I am not in a financial position to take proper care of myself, what right do I have to father a child (or become pregnant if female), expecting that someone else will pay for it? None whatsoever. Yet I have money forcibly taken from me each pay period in order to pay for other people's irresponsible acts.

Childbenefits - I happen to work for the company that arranges childbenefits in Belgium. Every child has a right to it. At least they do here.

Where does the money for those benefits come from? As noted above, I'm firmly of the belief that if you can't afford to support your children, you have no business having them. Children are the responsibility of their parents, no one else. I can obviously see the taxpayer stepping in for some circumstances; death of both parents, etc. (NOT Divorce, you had kids, you're in it for the long haul for their sakes)

Quote Originally Posted by Annoyed
Yes, even those that are contributing to the economy. If they are not here legally, then their very presence in this country is a crime. That is the meaning of the word "illegal".

And are there Americans willing to do the jobs the "illegals" are doing, for same wage which I reckon is minimum at best?

Probably not. You won't get many US citizens to apply to be a fruit picker for 8 bucks an hour or whatever. Offer $25 bucks an hour, with benefits, and you're gonna need more fruit to pick. This is the plus side to a closed labor market. It benefits people at the lower ends of the economic ladder. The law of supply and demand. By allowing illegals to undercut U.S. citizens, you're cutting the legs out from those who could benefit from low skill jobs and entry level jobs the most. Not everyone can afford college, or has the brains to complete it. Do we want them to starve, live off the taxpayers or be able to support themselves?