glassgowkiss Posted April 30, 2010 Posted April 30, 2010 You have no idea? You can't tell whether the people who passed and promoted this law are the same who serenade us continuously about "small government"? Are you clueless, Bill? a border.. is a border.. is a border. we all set boundary's and wish them to be respected. a douchebag is a douchebag is a douchebag- my boundaries include bitch slapping cunts like you. now go and fuck some sheep teabag asshole. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted April 30, 2010 Posted April 30, 2010 Yes! DRAMA!!! Shut your face! PUT UP A WEBSITE ROB OR YOU'RE A PUSSY!!!!! Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted April 30, 2010 Posted April 30, 2010 Mexico on one side of the fence, Merka on the other. It really is that simple. Quote
LostCamKenny Posted April 30, 2010 Posted April 30, 2010 ahhhhhhhh, the internet at its finest - full of idiots, jackasses, assholes, douchbags, pricks, and cocksuckers. then there's bill, ow and porter, the models for us all. Quote
rob Posted April 30, 2010 Posted April 30, 2010 Yes! DRAMA!!! Shut your face! PUT UP A WEBSITE ROB OR YOU'RE A PUSSY!!!!! NO way, I provided the pithy burrito protest sign pic. Pics are worth way more than webpages. Porter gets extra points for spamming his farside image across 5 different threads, within seconds of each other. Bot? Quote
The Slayer Hippy Posted April 30, 2010 Posted April 30, 2010 You have no idea? You can't tell whether the people who passed and promoted this law are the same who serenade us continuously about "small government"? Are you clueless, Bill? a border.. is a border.. is a border. we all set boundary's and wish them to be respected. a douchebag is a douchebag is a douchebag- my boundaries include bitch slapping cunts like you. now go and fuck some sheep teabag asshole. wow, you must be quite the BadAss. looks like a barked up the wrong Twig Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted April 30, 2010 Posted April 30, 2010 Yes! DRAMA!!! Shut your face! PUT UP A WEBSITE ROB OR YOU'RE A PUSSY!!!!! NO way, I provided the pithy burrito protest sign pic. Pics are worth way more than webpages. Porter gets extra points for spamming his farside image across 5 different threads, within seconds of each other. Bot? YEAH, BUT WHEREZ UR WEBSITE OH BRAVE ONE?????!!!!! Quote
billcoe Posted April 30, 2010 Posted April 30, 2010 ahhhhhhhh, the internet at its finest - full of idiots, jackasses, assholes, douchbags, pricks, and cocksuckers..... I made it this far agreeing and thinking I need to try harder to stop being like that. .....then there's bill, ow and porter, the models for us all. I got here and went....Uhhh....whaaa....oh? Me? ........whoh....W00t! LOL LCK! Quote
JayB Posted April 30, 2010 Posted April 30, 2010 The spread of drug cartel violence is probably the biggest Mexican border issue. We could, you know, work on our drug policies to address that issue, but that might be too direct and successful solution for a criminal justice system that wishes to continue expanding its so far very successful job creation engine. I've noticed over the years that the Right, and this law was certainly championed by the same, always pushes a solution that degrades civil liberties and seldom, if ever, backs a solution that has even the remotest prayer of actually addressing the problem. This is indeed a very unwise, unsound law. Legalizing drugs would have a dramatic impact on the murder, mayhem, and corruption plaguing the Mexican border zone, and we'd waste a hell of a lot less money punishing consenting adults for things that they do to themselves. Even if we did legalize drugs, I'm pretty sure that Mexico will be a fucked-to-death political and economic basket case that people are willing to risk their lives to escape from, so I don't see it having a major impact on the numbers of people that want to cross the border. I'd put more stock on ending agricultural subsidies and wage-loopholes for farmers and shifting the production of non-machine harvestable crops to where the labor force is. Seems like that'd work better than creating incentives for US farmers to import a labor force that they can pay below market wages to. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted April 30, 2010 Posted April 30, 2010 The spread of drug cartel violence is probably the biggest Mexican border issue. We could, you know, work on our drug policies to address that issue, but that might be too direct and successful solution for a criminal justice system that wishes to continue expanding its so far very successful job creation engine. I've noticed over the years that the Right, and this law was certainly championed by the same, always pushes a solution that degrades civil liberties and seldom, if ever, backs a solution that has even the remotest prayer of actually addressing the problem. This is indeed a very unwise, unsound law. Legalizing drugs would have a dramatic impact on the murder, mayhem, and corruption plaguing the Mexican border zone, and we'd waste a hell of a lot less money punishing consenting adults for things that they do to themselves. Even if we did legalize drugs, I'm pretty sure that Mexico will be a fucked-to-death political and economic basket case that people are willing to risk their lives to escape from, so I don't see it having a major impact on the numbers of people that want to cross the border. I'd put more stock on ending agricultural subsidies and wage-loopholes for farmers and shifting the production of non-machine harvestable crops to where the labor force is. Seems like that'd work better than creating incentives for US farmers to import a labor force that they can pay below market wages to. Legalize pot and we're gonna need all the farmworkers we can get our hands on, Bucko. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted April 30, 2010 Posted April 30, 2010 I don't think drug legalization would change the migration patterns much. Mexicans don't generally come here to escape cartel violence; they come for the jobs. Reducing scheduled subsidies would very likely increase the demand for farm labor over time by allowing smaller, non-subsidized farms to compete more fairly with the big subsidized boys, which tend to be much more highly mechanized. Natural and organic farms would fare better, and they are typically more labor intensive operations. Quote
JayB Posted April 30, 2010 Posted April 30, 2010 I don't think drug legalization would change the migration patterns much. Mexicans don't generally come here to escape cartel violence; they come for the jobs. Reducing scheduled subsidies would very likely increase the demand for farm labor over time by allowing smaller, non-subsidized farms to compete more fairly with the big subsidized boys, which tend to be much more highly mechanized. Natural and organic farms would fare better, and they are typically more labor intensive operations. Agree on both counts. I'm not a consumer of boutique produce, but I don't think that they should have to compete against folks that have the labor market rigged in their favor via special exemptions for agricultural workers. No other industry that I'm aware of, no matter how labor intensive, gets this special treatment farmers aren't any more entitled to special protections for their livelihoods than factory workers or anyone else IMO. I also think there'd be a substantial social and economic upside relative for Mexico if the folks working the harvests didn't have to leave their country to do so. Quote
Nitrox Posted May 1, 2010 Author Posted May 1, 2010 Yes! DRAMA!!! Shut your face! PUT UP A WEBSITE ROB OR YOU'RE A PUSSY!!!!! NO way, I provided the pithy burrito protest sign pic. Pics are worth way more than webpages. Porter gets extra points for spamming his farside image across 5 different threads, within seconds of each other. Bot? YEAH, BUT WHEREZ UR WEBSITE OH BRAVE ONE?????!!!!! I must have really hit a nerve if you've got to bring this up in multiple threads. There is nothing quite the same as a bag of fucking wind with unshakable ideals. Heavy lifting...you sure aren't about it. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted May 1, 2010 Posted May 1, 2010 IF YOU REALLY WANNA HIT A NERVE PUT UP A WEBSITE!!!! Quote
prole Posted May 1, 2010 Posted May 1, 2010 Razing Arizona: Given Its Authors, New Law Is No Surprise Mark Potok Given the author of Arizona's new law to legalize racial profiling, no one should be surprised about its draconian nature - or its intended targets. The legislation was drafted by Kris Kobach of the Immigration Reform Law Institute, which is the legal arm of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). FAIR's founder, John Tanton, has longstanding ties to white supremacists and is perhaps the person most responsible for launching the contemporary immigration-restriction movement in this country. Tanton has warned of a "Latin onslaught," complained about Latinos' allegedly low "educability" and suggested that maintaining American culture requires a clear "European-American majority." For its part, FAIR has accepted $1.2 million from the Pioneer Fund, a foundation established in 1937 to encourage "race betterment"; employed key staffers who have also joined white supremacist groups; had board members who write regularly for hate publications; promoted racist conspiracy theories about Latino immigrants; and produced television programming featuring white nationalists. Tanton, a retired Michigan ophthalmologist who remains on FAIR's board of directors today, once wrote that John Trevor Sr. should serve as FAIR's "guidepost to what we must follow again this time." For those who've never heard of Trevor, he was the founder of the racist American Coalition of Patriotic Societies and a key architect of the racially restrictive Immigration Act of 1924. He also distributed pro-Nazi propaganda and warned shrilly of "diabolical Jewish control" of America. Tanton's own papers at the University of Michigan's Bentley Historical Library show clearly that he has been at the heart of the white nationalist scene for decades. During this time, he has corresponded with Holocaust deniers, former Klan lawyers and the leading white nationalist thinkers of the era. My organization, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), has written extensively over the years about Tanton's history and FAIR, which has yet to refute anything of substance that we've reported. Last night, FAIR president Dan Stein was interviewed by Rachel Maddow, who cited information we've uncovered. As he has in the past, Stein attacked the SPLC rather than deal with any of the inconvenient facts about his organization and its web of questionable associations. He denied only one allegation by Maddow, who said that FAIR had financially supported a group called Protect Arizona Now (PAN), which was advised by self-described "white separatist" Virginia Abernethy. Maddow's blog later found old language from FAIR's own website that confirmed that the group committed $150,000 to PAN's efforts to get an anti-immigrant initiative on the ballot. Kobach, meanwhile, has been the prime mover behind numerous city ordinances that seek to punish undocumented immigrants and those who help them. Before joining FAIR, he served as U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft's top immigration adviser. After the 9/11 attacks, he developed the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System, which called for close monitoring of men from Arab and Muslim nations, even legal U.S. residents. The program collapsed due to complaints of racial profiling and discrimination. State Sen. Russell Pearce, the principal sponsor of the Arizona legislation, has his own history of hate. In 2006, he forwarded an email to his supporters with a screed taken from the website of the neo-Nazi National Alliance titled "Who Rules America?" (answer: the Jews). The article concluded, "If our race fails to destroy it ['Jewish media control'], it certainly will destroy our race." More recently, Pearce has been photographed hugging J.T. Ready, a Phoenix-area resident who is a member of the neo-Nazi National Socialist Movement. It's not much of a surprise that this was the cast of characters behind the mean-spirited new law in Arizona, which will have the effect of making citizens with brown skin second-class in every way. What's truly shocking is that an entire state legislature would enact such an un-American law and that a governor pandering to far-right elements in her base would sign it.--from here. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted May 1, 2010 Posted May 1, 2010 But, but, this is about solving the illegal immigration problem.... Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted May 1, 2010 Posted May 1, 2010 How are you going to stop that if you don't randomly stop and search every brown person in the state? Hmmmm, Einstein? I mean, those illegals are causing all the crime, right? So let's re-direct the police to border patrol duty right away and watch those crime rates plummet! Quote
Fairweather Posted May 1, 2010 Posted May 1, 2010 You have no idea? You can't tell whether the people who passed and promoted this law are the same who serenade us continuously about "small government"? Are you clueless, Bill? a border.. is a border.. is a border. we all set boundary's and wish them to be respected. a douchebag is a douchebag is a douchebag- my boundaries include bitch slapping cunts like you. now go and fuck some sheep teabag asshole. You comin' to the picnic, champ? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.