By-Tor.com

Big Blue Owl wrote:

ElfDude wrote:

Big Blue Owl wrote:OK, boss! I got your violin! I'm bringinitin! Oops!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA_r1Ynl4Ls

"My father owns the store." Good stuff

Frank Nelson was the best. "Yeeeesss?"

Something to think about:

CHEAP LABOR?

Isn't that what the whole immigration issue is about?

[] Business doesn't want to pay a decent wage

[] Consumers don't want expensive produce


[] Government will tell you Americans don't want the jobs

[] But the bottom line is cheap labor
The phrase "cheap labor" is a myth, a farce, and a lie;
there is no such thing as "cheap labor."

Take, for example, an illegal alien with a wife and five children.

He takes a job for $5.00 or $6.00/hour.

He qualifies for Section 8 housing and subsidized rent

He qualifies for food stamps

He qualifies for free (no deductible, no co-pay) health care

His children get free breakfasts and lunches at school

He requires bilingual teachers and books

He qualifies for relief from high energy bills

If they are or become, aged, blind or disabled, they qualify for SSI.

Once qualified for SSI they can qualify for Medicare.

All of this is at that the taxpayer's expense.

He doesn't worry about car insurance, life
insurance, or homeowners insurance.

Taxpayers provide Spanish language signs, bulletins
and printed material.


He and his family receive the equivalent of $20.00 to
$30.00/hour in benefits

Working Americans are lucky to have anything at all left after paying their bills, and his.

Cheap labor?
YEAH RIGHT!

MEXICO CITY, Mexican President Felipe Calder?n said Friday that U.S. border policies are marred by many "absurd" paradoxes that hurt the Mexican economy and force more Mexicans to migrate illegally to the United States.

In an interview en route from Mexicali, Mexico, to Mexico City on his presidential jet, Calder?n criticized construction of more border fencing and accused U.S. border agents of slowing the flow of commerce between the countries by sometimes failing to staff enough crossing booths.

He also argued against plans to line with concrete the massive All-American Canal, which connects the Colorado River to farms in California. Calder?n said the project would cut off groundwater that flows into Mexico and possibly hurt the businesses of Mexican farmers enough that they would need to migrate illegally to make a living.

The border debate has become increasingly personal for Calder?n, after recent revelations that some of his relatives have migrated. During President Bush's visit to Mexico this week, Calder?n said he has relatives "working in vegetable fields" and restaurants in the United States. "They probably handle what you eat," he said at a news conference.

Gross

Calder?n is pushing for a comprehensive revamping of the U.S. immigration system and said he believes there is a better chance of achieving that goal now that Democrats have control of Congress. But he noted that progress on immigration could take place only if "Democrats told the truth and did not trick" voters with promises during last fall's election campaigns.

Calder?n has argued that improving Mexico's economy will stem the flow of illegal migrants across the U.S. border. He cited the example of Spain, a country that once had mass economic migrations but has improved its economy so much that it now is a destination for migrants. Hoping to replicate such successes, Calder?n boasted that Mexico created 116,000 jobs in February.

I have the solution. Get all of the illegals that we can loaded up and shipped south. Dump them across the border, seal it with soldiers that we take back from Bushraq.

Then the war begins.

We teach those enemy illegals that they are not wanted here, and if you try to come here illegally, you will become a casualty of war. Since being at war seems to be the only honorable and legal way to throw megatons of weight around, and the only way to make this weary world listen and take notice, I think it's time to point the guns southward. Democrats who want to caress and spoon with these parasites can get the hell out as well. Do I sound uncharacteristically pissy? I always am when speaking to this subject, but when their leader, (who should be attempting to control his criminal country rather than encouraging it) begins to complain that U.S. border policies are marred by many "absurd" paradoxes that hurt the Mexican economy, it makes my red, white and blue blood BOIL!!!!!!

What happens on the southern Mexican border when people try to sneak into Mexico? They get shot. That guy is showing quite the double-standard here...

ElfDude wrote:What happens on the Mexican border when people try to sneak into Mexico?

Yeah. On the Northern Border, If you're a gringo.....

you GO TO JAIL. YOU GO DIRECTLY TO JAIL.

YOU "DO NOT PASS GO", and YOU "DO NOT COLLECT $200."

CygnusX1 wrote:

ElfDude wrote:What happens on the Mexican border when people try to sneak into Mexico?

Yeah. On the Northern Border, If you're a gringo.....

you GO TO JAIL. YOU GO DIRECTLY TO JAIL.

YOU "DO NOT PASS GO", and YOU "DO NOT COLLECT $200."

The person or persons doing is more than likely running from something or up to no good.

I say let em all in, fuck it lets have a free for all. No work, no food, no food die come to good ole USA and work for a dime. I make enough to support a few if they want to come work in my yard clean my house and cook for me I'd be glad to help them out. Love a little man, love to much hate as it is now.

I see a problem with open immigration, though. If we allow in anyone and everyone, we will get just that. Our land can only sustain so much at this time (we could add to our infrastructure to accomodate more people, and indeed we are doing this). The sudden influx that would occur if we opened our borders totally would overwhelm our infrastructure quite assuredly. If you think traffic is bad now, or lines in the store, or any number of things, think of it if we suddenly had literally hundreds of thousands of people show up.

Just look what happened to Dawn's ancestors... all because THEY didn't protect the borders!

*notes Elf is joking, but can't resist responding*

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmhmmm....

Now I have to deal with the lot of you! Some of whom actually visit me once and let me visit you, too!

And I have that cute lil German doggie.

Oh, and the medical care I received that saved my life mutliple times, that was good.

And I enjoy things such as running water, toilets, screaming loud amplifiers,...

It's just plain fucked up to think a government of corporations is going to be anyone's savior. By the corperation, for the corporation, there like the 3 stoogies in a china shop. Take Katrina for example there more worried about the billions of lost toilet paper squares than being concern about any carbon releases. We can't even correctly run our own affairs, yet were running around the world losing life and limb and it pisses me off that I have to pay for it!
I think in part, by-tor makes a dam good comic strip.

Well life is a challenge all over the place and we all have something that puts us thru hell.
If we can't go somewhere and be goofy to let off some steam, then we are all ate up.

To steal a phrase from Neil, let us all remain a "loveable mass of contradictions".

ElfDude wrote:

DoctorX wrote:

ElfDude wrote: Many years ago our congress did vote on whether our nation should function in English or German. English won.

http://www.snopes.com/language/apocryph/german.asp

The United States has no official language, and never has. I hope it won't either.

Read my statement again. Though I could have worded it better, I never used the term "official language". The source you used to debunk my statement pretty much confirmed it (though I should have said "Senate did vote" instead of "congress did vote"):

The House debated translating federal statutes into German again on 16 February 1795, but the final result was the approval of a bill to publish existing and future federal statutes in English only. This bill was approved by the Senate as well and signed into law by President George Washington a month later.

There remains a distinct difference between having the laws printed in a single language, and having the country "function" under said language. A nation is composed of its people, not the government they elect to represent them.

awip: My apologies. I was unaware that you had Native American heritage. I was merely attempting to make a broader point about language, culture, and national identity.

As recently as the 19th century, persons commonly believed that each culture deserved its own nation, and this community should be united under a state: the nation-state concept.

Thus, all Italians should be united into one Italy (Garibaldi in 1867), Poles should have a Poland, Germany should be unified under a single German state (boy, did that one get out of hand)....

I lean strongly toward the multicultural model of politics. I believe national identities (which overlap closely with one's mother tongue) are, to a large extent, what give the world its color and depth. The American melting pot model has its advantages in expecting the gradual assimilation of everyone around a uniform Homo Americanus, but it's doubtful how many Americans today still prefer conceiving of their country as a melting pot and not a salad bowl.

And thus we enter into the issue of national identity. Does each cultural and linguistic group deserve its own nation via popular sovereignty, or ought diverse populations be expected to respect their differences in polyglot societies?

A nation is the embodiment of its people, but this concept becomes more complex with cultural plurality (and language IS the basic unit of culture). Many modern nations (especially those with open pro-immigration policies) contain a multitude of peoples, and have thus come to question their national identity. I welcome such questions.

DoctorX wrote:

ElfDude wrote:

DoctorX wrote: http://www.snopes.com/language/apocryph/german.asp

The United States has no official language, and never has. I hope it won't either.

Read my statement again. Though I could have worded it better, I never used the term "official language". The source you used to debunk my statement pretty much confirmed it (though I should have said "Senate did vote" instead of "congress did vote"):

The House debated translating federal statutes into German again on 16 February 1795, but the final result was the approval of a bill to publish existing and future federal statutes in English only. This bill was approved by the Senate as well and signed into law by President George Washington a month later.

There remains a distinct difference between having the laws printed in a single language, and having the country "function" under said language. A nation is composed of its people, not the government they elect to represent them.

awip: My apologies. I was unaware that you had Native American heritage. I was merely attempting to make a broader point about language, culture, and national identity.

As recently as the 19th century, persons commonly believed that each culture deserved its own nation, and this community should be united under a state: the nation-state concept.

Thus, all Italians should be united into one Italy (Garibaldi in 1867), Poles should have a Poland, Germany should be unified under a single German state (boy, did that one get out of hand)....

I lean strongly toward the multicultural model of politics. I believe national identities (which overlap closely with one's mother tongue) are, to a large extent, what give the world its color and depth. The American melting pot model has its advantages in expecting the gradual assimilation of everyone around a uniform Homo Americanus, but it's doubtful how many Americans today still prefer conceiving of their country as a melting pot and not a salad bowl.

And thus we enter into the issue of national identity. Does each cultural and linguistic group deserve its own nation via popular sovereignty, or ought diverse populations be expected to respect their differences in polyglot societies?

A nation is the embodiment of its people, but this concept becomes more complex with cultural plurality (and language IS the basic unit of culture). Many modern nations (especially those with open pro-immigration policies) contain a multitude of peoples, and have thus come to question their national identity. I welcome such questions.

I agree DocX and when the whole world turns into a salad bowl peace is going to be the dressing