2016 Election
If any liberals or progressives hereabout or anywhere else favor stringent border controls, this would be a good opportunity to make that clear. Otherwise the OP's statement stands as clear as daylight.Quote: beachbumbabsYou're (as the self-designated rightist) the only one who twists this problem into a claim that anybody is supporting illegal immigration.
Quote: SanchoPanzaIf any liberals or progressives hereabout or anywhere else favor stringent border controls, this would be a good opportunity to make that clear. Otherwise the OP's statement stands as clear as daylight.
Well, I take the same stance as on Democratic National Committee.
Quote:□Responsibility from the federal government to secure our borders: The Obama administration has dedicated unprecedented resources to securing our borders and reducing the flow of illegal traffic in both directions.
□Responsibility from unscrupulous businesses that break the law: Employers who exploit undocumented workers undermine American workers, and they have to be held accountable.
□Responsibility from people who are living in the United States illegally: Undocumented workers who are in good standing must admit that they broke the law, pay taxes and a penalty, learn English, and get right with the law before they can get in line to earn their citizenship.
I mean, I'm not for the BerlinTrump Wall.
Quote: rxwineWell, I take the same stance as on Democratic National Committee
Obama administration sues Alabama over immigration law.
Obama administration sues Arizona over immigration law.
Maine Democrats threaten state government shutdown over welfare for illegal immigrants
Read more at http://redalertpolitics.com/2015/06/10/maine-democrats-threatened-state-government-shutdown-welfare-illegal-immigrants/#Zolhb3gMXK6VQEar.99
Obama amnesty creates loophole for illegal immigrants to vote in elections.
And this is just examples in 10 minutes before work. Actions speak louder than words.
Quote:I mean, I'm not for the BerlinTrump Wall.
You need to learn some history, the Berlin Wall was to keep people IN, not secure the border.
Considering that the organization is violating federal laws, it isn't worth much to brag about.Quote: rxwineWell, I take the same stance as on Democratic National Committee.
Quote: AZDuffman
You need to learn some history, the Berlin Wall was to keep people IN, not secure the border.
You need to recognize sarcasm.
They might as well build it like the Berlin wall if they actually want it to work.
How much will an unmanned wall really slow people down?
Likewise, if they can't man every inch of the border now, what difference does it make when they build a wall?
breaching ladders, El chapo tunnels, lawn chair balloon rides. Who knows. that's probably not half of it. Probably will blow holes in it with explosives.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/united-airlines-chief-to-step-down-amid-federal-investigation/2015/09/08/de44c496-566c-11e5-abe9-27d53f250b11_story.html
It sounds as if you're advocating no border protection at all, thanks to the futility of it all. Or that could be just another expression of "sarcasm."Quote: rxwineLikewise, if they can't man every inch of the border now, what difference does it make when they build a wall?
Quote: SanchoPanzaIt sounds as if you're advocating no border protection at all, thanks to the futility of it all. Or that could be just another expression of "sarcasm."
Nope, already explained elsewhere what should be done if people are serious.
Quote: rxwineYou need to recognize sarcasm.
I recognize it. I am a master of it. However, that line is old and is not sarcasm but rather a faulty analogy.
Quote:How much will an unmanned wall really slow people down?
Depends how you build it. You man parts more and other parts less. Israel virtually eliminated their homicide bomber problem when they sealed off Gaza and the West Bank Palestinian areas.
Quote:Likewise, if they can't man every inch of the border now, what difference does it make when they build a wall?
Do you bother shutting and locking the front door on your house? I mean, if you are not there why even bother? A wall is part of a larger security system.
Pretty sad these guys cant figure out separation of state and religion.
Donald Trump is a breath of honest fresh air.
His view is Kim Davis needs to find another job :-)
Go Donald
https://www.yahoo.com/tv/s/donald-trump-rips-bill-o-reilly-bad-researchers-153218611.html
Quote: terapinedI see Republican presidential candidates Cruz, Huck, Jindal and Santorum getting behind Kim Davis.
Pretty sad these guys cant figure out separation of state and religion.
Donald Trump is a breath of honest fresh air.
His view is Kim Davis needs to find another job :-)
Go Donald
https://www.yahoo.com/tv/s/donald-trump-rips-bill-o-reilly-bad-researchers-153218611.html
I'm sure all four of her marriages were to relatives also!
Quote: terapinedI see Republican presidential candidates Cruz, Huck, Jindal and Santorum getting behind Kim Davis.
Pretty sad these guys cant figure out separation of state and religion.
I have to wonder what the difference in liberal opinion and media coverage would be if she were muslim.
Quote: AZDuffmanI have to wonder what the difference in liberal opinion and media coverage would be if she were muslim.
The "media" needs to keep their opinions to themselves and just report news like they're supposed to.
Quote: AZDuffmanI recognize it. I am a master of it. However, that line is old and is not sarcasm but rather a faulty analogy.
It would be a faulty analogy if it was not sarcasm, which is exactly why it's sarcasm.
And the following was also sarcasm
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/off-topic/15693-2016-election/208/#post465693
good.
Quote: SteveButteI'm new to this forum and I'm going to go ahead an assume I'm the only Marxist here.
There's at least one Anarchist here, and some of my own views I would describe as "Anarchist-lite". I look forward to you stirring the pot and hearing something other than typical Right/Left jabbering.
Quote: FaceThere's at least one Anarchist here, and some of my own views I would describe as "Anarchist-lite". I look forward to you stirring the pot and hearing something other than typical Right/Left jabbering.
I do like pot stirring! I used to be a Libertarian back in my 20's, now I'm a Red. One common misconception about Marxism/Communism is that we want a big, centralized gov't. While the attempts at Communist states devolved into this, eventually failed and mutated into weird hybrid Capitalist/Socialist/Authoritarian regimes, the actual goal of Marxism is to eliminate 'The State' completely, something we share with Libertarians, although coming from a different angle.
I'm genuinely curious as to why, if you don't have a substantial amount of money, anyone would believe that any of these candidates will represent your interests or the interests of the general population over the interests of the big banks and major industries.
Quote: SteveButteI'm genuinely curious as to why, if you don't have a substantial amount of money, anyone would believe that any of these candidates will represent your interests or the interests of the general population over the interests of the big banks and major industries.
Well, I do think the political profession does occasionally attract good people with good intentions. But even still it's always a mixed bag of opportunists, liars, hucksters, the power hungry, sleazy and a number of other possibilities. And there is pressure even on good people after they get in office.
Quote: rxwineWell, I do think the political profession does occasionally attract good people with good intentions. But even still it's always a mixed bag of opportunists, liars, hucksters, the power hungry, sleazy and a number of other possibilities. And there is pressure even on good people after they get in office.
I actually believe Sanders is sincere and has good intentions, but 1.) he in all likelihood won't get the nomination as we forget that the nominee isn't picked by the voters but by the party delegates and 2.) should he get the nomination the Democratic Party will make sure that he's in line with their agenda, i.e. the agenda of their corporate backers. This is the conundrum. The office of President of the United States is little more than a proxy for the ruling class to mouth their agenda to the lower classes and take the blame (well earned blame) for the men behind the machine. I'd rather break the machine at its roots than pin my hopes to a candidate who, even if well-intentioned, has no ability to significantly change things for the better.
Quote: SteveButte
I'm genuinely curious as to why, if you don't have a substantial amount of money, anyone would believe that any of these candidates will represent your interests or the interests of the general population over the interests of the big banks and major industries.
No different than a Marxist system, just there they represent different interests.
Quote: AZDuffmanI have to wonder what the difference in liberal opinion and media coverage would be if she were muslim.
Doesn't make any diff
Christian, Muslim, atheist, Martian (Reading The Martian, Bring Watney home)
Cant do the job due to gay hatred, get another job
Quote: terapinedDoesn't make any diff
Christian, Muslim, atheist, Martian (Reading The Martian, Bring Watney home)
Cant do the job due to gay hatred, get another job
Thing is, we won't really know until a muslim has an issue with gays how it gets played. When it does, I can't wait to see how the broad reaction goes on the left.
Quote: terapinedDoesn't make any diff
Christian, Muslim, atheist, Martian (Reading The Martian, Bring Watney home)
Cant do the job due to gay hatred, get another job
Kind of surprised it's okay for atheists to get married. There are god believing gays who are discriminated against.
You would think it would be worse for atheists who reject the whole shebang and sometimes go as far to denounce Christianity regularly -- yet is okay.
That god works in mysterious ways.
Quote: AZDuffmanThing is, we won't really know until a muslim has an issue with gays how it gets played. When it does, I can't wait to see how the broad reaction goes on the left.
What an absurd statement.
A particular religion has nothing to do with this.
Kim Davis is WRONG. She needs to do her job or quit.
Donald Trump got it right. He said she needs to get another job.
If Kim Davis was a Muslim, she would still be wrong. She needs to do her job or quit.
Libs and Trump would come to the same conclusion regardless if Ms Davis was a Christian or a Muslim.
I'm an atheist, I think all religions are people simply believing in make believe.
You can believe anything you want, people have that right.
You just cant deny people their rights due to make believe beliefs
Quote: rxwineKind of surprised it's okay for atheists to get married. There are god believing gays who are discriminated against.
You would think it would be worse for atheists who reject the whole shebang and sometimes go as far to denounce Christianity regularly -- yet is okay.
That god works in mysterious ways.
Pretty good point. Rejection of Christ as your Lord and Savior is, if I'm not mistaken, the greatest sin of all. Yet here I am, having a church marriage under my belt, and I was the biggest atheist I knew until I met EB and Nareed.
Quote: SteveButteI do like pot stirring! I used to be a Libertarian back in my 20's, now I'm a Red. One common misconception about Marxism/Communism is that we want a big, centralized gov't. While the attempts at Communist states devolved into this, eventually failed and mutated into weird hybrid Capitalist/Socialist/Authoritarian regimes, the actual goal of Marxism is to eliminate 'The State' completely, something we share with Libertarians, although coming from a different angle.
Rudeboyoi is our resident Anarchist. He used to post so much about it in so many threads I actually made a containment thread for him, titled "Voluntarism". I haven't seen him in a bit, but I'd say he's pretty passionate about it.
Quote: SteveButteI'm genuinely curious as to why, if you don't have a substantial amount of money, anyone would believe that any of these candidates will represent your interests or the interests of the general population over the interests of the big banks and major industries.
If you can get through the rah-rah-rah of Red vs Blue, I think you'd find most here share that view. I don't think anyone here believes any of these candidates are there for them personally. Rather, most vote for the one closest representing their beliefs. Everyone is (hopefully) aware that this is nothing more than an oligarchy with the illusion of choice.
Quote: FacePretty good point. Rejection of Christ as your Lord and Savior is, if I'm not mistaken, the greatest sin of all. Yet here I am, having a church marriage under my belt, and I was the biggest atheist I knew until I met EB and Nareed. .
Damm, didn't make the cut. Maybe I need to post more in the religion threads over at DT.
Quote: Face
Rudeboyoi is our resident Anarchist. He used to post so much about it in so many threads I actually made a containment thread for him, titled "Voluntarism". I haven't seen him in a bit, but I'd say he's pretty passionate about it..
Rudeboyoi is a very passionate Anarchist. I am pretty shocked at some of his views.
By the way, totally cool in person, I've met him.
Quote: Face
If you can get through the rah-rah-rah of Red vs Blue, I think you'd find most here share that view. I don't think anyone here believes any of these candidates are there for them personally. Rather, most vote for the one closest representing their beliefs. Everyone is (hopefully) aware that this is nothing more than an oligarchy with the illusion of choice.
Politics is entertainment.
We are not changing anybody's mind on this board.
I simply enjoy the count counterpoint of ideas and views from the right and left.
Sometimes we have winners and losers due to the effective use of logic but overall, we agree to disagree.
Its fun to communicate with those that have different beliefs and compare notes on the logic of our positions.
I follow Presidential politics very closely. But its entertainment for me.
Regardless of who gets elected, my life is not going to change at all.
Quote: terapinedDamm, didn't make the cut. Maybe I need to post more in the religion threads over at DT.
Wouldn't matter. You're too hippy, content to hold your views but otherwise live and let live. Nareed is the Patton of Militant Atheism. You couldn't hold a candle to her =)
Quote: terapinedRudeboyoi is a very passionate Anarchist. I am pretty shocked at some of his views.
By the way, totally cool in person, I've met him.
Quite passionate. His views are crazy, and I love it. My containment of him had only to do with his mentioning it in every post he made, not that I found his ideas unwelcome. It's an interesting topic, and parts of his views I completely agree with.
Quote: terapinedPolitics is entertainment.
We are not changing anybody's mind on this board.
I disagree. Perhaps your age has resulted in a sort of solidification of your believes and values. Mine are still fluid and have been deeply affected (both positively and negatively) by the experiences with members of this very board. They've pulled me out of extremism, pulled me more to the Right, made me reevaluate American Liberalism, and all but ensured that I've written off the GOP for good.
It's been a fun ride, and I'm still enjoying the trip.
Quote: terapinedRegardless of who gets elected, my life is not going to change at all.
My condolences =p
Quote: AZDuffmanNo different than a Marxist system, just there they represent different interests.
No Marxist system has ever been fully realized or implemented. Should one be, profit, private property, money, trade, hierarchies, the state as we know it - would all be eliminated. The only interests are that of ending exploitation of the worker and putting all resources into the public trust. Whether that's achievable or not, it's a lot different than casting a vote for people you know don't represent you.
From your avatar I assume your beliefs are to the far Right. If you believe in the ideals of free market and free enterprise, those ideals aren't achievable until the ruling class' monopoly over finance capital and natural resources are broken up, so we (should) have a common enemy.
But if you look at history, the early Capitalism that grew from monarchy and Feudalism which fostered competition and free enterprise - if mostly for land owning White men - led us to our current state of affairs of giant multi-national banks pretty much running the show (among many other horrors). Even if we were able to hit the reset button on Capitalism and start over with a level playing field, I don't see it playing out any differently. Which is why I'm for radical social change.
Quote: SteveButteI do like pot stirring! I used to be a Libertarian back in my 20's, now I'm a Red. One common misconception about Marxism/Communism is that we want a big, centralized gov't. While the attempts at Communist states devolved into this, eventually failed and mutated into weird hybrid Capitalist/Socialist/Authoritarian regimes, the actual goal of Marxism is to eliminate 'The State' completely, something we share with Libertarians, although coming from a different angle.
I'm genuinely curious as to why, if you don't have a substantial amount of money, anyone would believe that any of these candidates will represent your interests or the interests of the general population over the interests of the big banks and major industries.
What is wrong with owning and controlling a means of production?
Also, without a state what will prevent people from owning and controlling the means of production?
Attempts devolve into those kind of regimes because Marxism assumes that people will do the right thing without the threat or force or the incentive of capital.
Quote: SteveButteNo Marxist system has ever been fully realized or implemented. Should one be, profit, private property, money, trade, hierarchies, the state as we know it - would all be eliminated. The only interests are that of ending exploitation of the worker and putting all resources into the public trust. Whether that's achievable or not, it's a lot different than casting a vote for people you know don't represent you.
From your avatar I assume your beliefs are to the far Right. If you believe in the ideals of free market and free enterprise, those ideals aren't achievable until the ruling class' monopoly over finance capital and natural resources are broken up, so we (should) have a common enemy.
But if you look at history, the early Capitalism that grew from monarchy and Feudalism which fostered competition and free enterprise - if mostly for land owning White men - led us to our current state of affairs of giant multi-national banks pretty much running the show (among many other horrors). Even if we were able to hit the reset button on Capitalism and start over with a level playing field, I don't see it playing out any differently. Which is why I'm for radical social change.
I'm not against change, but tell me how you would compensate these two people?
--A guy who has the talent to get through school but quits anyway. He gets a variety of jobs paying above minimum wage, but never more than $15 an hour
--A guy who is exactly the same but who uses his talents, graduates from school, and goes on to become a doctor. He endures a tough undergrad course, an even tougher medical education, and then a strenuous residency
Quote: SanchoPanzaIf any liberals or progressives hereabout or anywhere else favor stringent border controls, this would be a good opportunity to make that clear. Otherwise the OP's statement stands as clear as daylight.
I'm favorable of stringent border controls and of returning illegal immigrants home. That said, the cost of doing so is enormous, and a hybrid solution should be desirable which allows the illegals to stay under a number of conditions.
(1) Pay a hefty fine (payable over time)
(2) Apply for a new X class Visa with standard entry requirements (no criminal record, sponsor or ability to support oneself)
(3) Submit to IRS investigation, admit to any income earned and pay taxes and penalties on that income.
(4) Only be allowed to stay if they have been in the country for x number of years or more (say 6).
Upon application, these folks would be issued a Green Card and a EA with strict conditions. This would also allow them to legally obtain a driver's license, send their kids to school, access benefits, etc.
Give them 18 months to apply.
Start booting after 18 months are up.
And no excuses after 18 months are up.
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/09/09/438903503/anti-virus-pioneer-john-mcafee-enters-presidential-race-with-cyber-party
I don't think he'll get my vote; he is a person of interest in the murder of someone I went to school with...
http://jimfishertruecrime.blogspot.com/2012/11/did-computer-pioneer-john-mcafee-murder.html
Rampant capitalism isn't better. All of the power ends up in corporate hands and the government becomes corrupt. The middle class have to work harder to stay even - global competition, they say, and the ruling classes (government) and corporations forcing you to consume their goods and services at their price end up overtaking your life.
Anarchy is no better. Society is necessary to live in cities, and an world of anarchy would quickly destroy the global food chain and billions go hungry and die. Anarchy works on small and rural scales where one has to fend for yourself. Once you have to start relying on other people, anarchy fails because everyone has definitions of what is right and wrong. Works fine on the farm, doesn't work when you're taking the subway to work.
Quote: terapinedWhat an absurd statement.
A particular religion has nothing to do with this.
I disagree. There is a lot of Christian-hate among liberals and gays. At the same time. liberals defend islam to the end. A conflict between a muslim and a gay would be received differently.
Quote: boymimbo
Anarchy is no better. Society is necessary to live in cities, and an world of anarchy would quickly destroy the global food chain and billions go hungry and die. Anarchy works on small and rural scales where one has to fend for yourself. Once you have to start relying on other people, anarchy fails because everyone has definitions of what is right and wrong. Works fine on the farm, doesn't work when you're taking the subway to work.
Anarchy would be great, but most of the population cannot accept what it means when it is not what they want. Best example is the gay wedding cake thing. Those that say the government should not prevent them from a marriage to who they want will demand that the government compel people who do not want their business to take it.
Under true anarchy, any kind of discrimination would be legal. When you look at in theory, that should be good. Let me hire and do business with who I like, if I am missing out on better talent or more business then I will be punished in the marketplace. I doubt 10% of the population could both grasp and accept this. Like the hockey team with all the talent but no cup, "They look good on paper, but they play on ice."
The Soviet Union, China and North Korea, among quite a few attempts, have come close. If they couldn't achieve your nirvana, none can.Quote: SteveButteNo Marxist system has ever been fully realized or implemented. Should one be, profit, private property, money, trade, hierarchies, the state as we know it - would all be eliminated. The only interests are that of ending exploitation of the worker and putting all resources into the public trust.
That is because you apparently do not believe that some people have superior abilities and/or luck, that some have inferior abilities and/or luck and that most are in the middle of the bell curve. The levelizing of human potential is what truly explains the failure of Marxism/Socialism.Quote: SteveButte. Even if we were able to hit the reset button on Capitalism and start over with a level playing field, I don't see it playing out any differently. Which is why I'm for radical social change.
Tell that to the flight attendant who is suing this week because she was suspended for refusing to serve alcohol.Quote: terapinedIf Kim Davis was a Muslim, she would still be wrong. She needs to do her job or quit. Libs and Trump would come to the same conclusion regardless if Ms Davis was a Christian or a Muslim
Quote: SanchoPanzaThe Soviet Union, China and North Korea, among quite a few attempts, have come close. If they couldn't achieve your nirvana, none can.
Marxist always end up saying a few things:
1. They say that all these countries were not "real Marxism" so that is why it did not work
2. They say that the "right people were not in charge, so that is why it did not work:
3, Because there were still capitalist countries around, it did not work as it must be worldwide
4, And my favorite, because of people "like me" who I guess are greedy and want a better life, it does not work
The real problem is Marxism goes against human nature. Remove the rewards for work and little to no work results. The USSR paid people, but there were no goods for them to enjoy. So people quit working, they just showed up. It collapsed.
Quote: AZDuffmanI disagree. There is a lot of Christian-hate among liberals and gays. At the same time. liberals defend islam to the end. A conflict between a muslim and a gay would be received differently.
Not from me. Christians are ok in my book. They can believe whatever they want, I could care less.
Too me Christians and Muslims are the same. They believe in a make believe god.
Why would why I treat a Christian differently then a Muslim.
In my eyes both are deluded.
Quote: SanchoPanzaTell that to the flight attendant who is suing this week because she was suspended for refusing to serve alcohol.
I think its a ridiculous lawsuit.
She needs to find another job just like the clerk in KY
Should I think differently?
All this religious make believe is absurd.
Grow a pair and do your job
Quote: GandlerWhat is wrong with owning and controlling a means of production?
Also, without a state what will prevent people from owning and controlling the means of production?
Attempts devolve into those kind of regimes because Marxism assumes that people will do the right thing without the threat or force or the incentive of capital.
Good questions. Nothing is wrong with owning and controlling the means of production. Marxists are for the workers taking this ownership and control rather than having that control rest in the hands of a relatively few people who comprise of the ruling class.
To summarize thousands of years of human history and civilization for purposes of this discussion: Early humans lived in tribes and produced only for their needs, i.e. sustenance production. At some point, there was a division of labor between men and women where family line began being traced through the father as opposed to the mother. Property, which wasn't much at the time, passed from father to son. As people transitioned into sedentary lives and formed cities, there was another division of labor between those who worked the fields and those who lived in the city. Farmers then began producing not just for their own sustenance but for society as a whole. This is where we see the rise of The State.
Obviously, I'm leaving out a lot but this is just for a point of reference. Marxists see 'The State' as an entity that formed in pre-Capitalist societies as a direct result from the antagonism between those who produce the food, clothes, other needs of society - the slaves, serfs, peasants - and those who produce little to nothing of value to society - the aristocracy, the managers, government officials. The State appears as if it is a mutually agreed upon body which represents all parties equally, that stands above and outside society as an impartial judge, but it is very clearly an instrument of the ruling class created to put a wall between them and the peons. I recommend reading "The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State" by Friedrich Engels for an in depth study. You can download a PDF of it for free if you Google it.
Marxists don't assume people will do the right thing. We're against forcing people to work with the threat of violence or the threat of poverty and giving power to those who would employ those tactics as a means to enrich themselves. Capitalism gives far too much incentive to those who do the wrong thing. Morals don't enter the profit motive. Numbers just need to create more numbers in computer. Capitalism is incredibly new to humanity which survived ~200,000 years without it. If people were intrinsically "lazy" or "bad" as the assumption goes, then we would have went extinct long ago.
Anyway I'm itching to play some blackjack.
Quote: SteveButteWe're against forcing people to work with the threat of violence or the threat of poverty and giving power to those who would employ those tactics as a means to enrich themselves.
So, I'll bite, then how do you get them to work? No carrot and no stick?
Quote:Capitalism gives far too much incentive to those who do the wrong thing.
What is the "wrong thing?" Capitalism has lifted billions of people from poverty and improved their lives to levels unimaginable even 300 years ago.
Because a significant proportion of Muslims pose a far greater threat to your liberties and physical security than the vast majority of Christians.Quote: terapinedWhy would why I treat a Christian differently then a Muslim.
That is far-out opinion that is so far not shared by the airline, the lawyers, the news media or even the courts. Would you like the over or the under?Quote: terapinedI think its a ridiculous lawsuit. She needs to find another job just like the clerk in KY
Got any examples of successes or just more complaints about unfairness or whatever?Quote: SteveButteMarxists are for the workers taking this ownership and control rather than having that control rest in the hands of a relatively few people who comprise of the ruling class.
All that represents nothing more than an extremely strong incentive to continue massive illegal immigration. It is basically a regurgitation of the current system, which the government has admittedly refused to administer. Witness the "sanctuary cities" BS. After being lost in the U.S. for 18 months, the chances of their being located are zero to nil. That is based on the loud and painful experience of (take yer choice) the last half-dozen or 35 years.Quote: boymimboI'm favorable of stringent border controls and of returning illegal immigrants home. That said, the cost of doing so is enormous, and a hybrid solution should be desirable which allows the illegals to stay under a number of conditions.
(1) Pay a hefty fine (payable over time)
(2) Apply for a new X class Visa with standard entry requirements (no criminal record, sponsor or ability to support oneself)
(3) Submit to IRS investigation, admit to any income earned and pay taxes and penalties on that income.
(4) Only be allowed to stay if they have been in the country for x number of years or more (say 6).
Upon application, these folks would be issued a Green Card and a EA with strict conditions. This would also allow them to legally obtain a driver's license, send their kids to school, access benefits, etc.
Give them 18 months to apply.
Start booting after 18 months are up.
And no excuses after 18 months are up.
Quote: SteveButteGood questions. Nothing is wrong with owning and controlling the means of production. Marxists are for the workers taking this ownership and control rather than having that control rest in the hands of a relatively few people who comprise of the ruling class.
To summarize thousands of years of human history and civilization for purposes of this discussion: Early humans lived in tribes and produced only for their needs, i.e. sustenance production. At some point, there was a division of labor between men and women where family line began being traced through the father as opposed to the mother. Property, which wasn't much at the time, passed from father to son. As people transitioned into sedentary lives and formed cities, there was another division of labor between those who worked the fields and those who lived in the city. Farmers then began producing not just for their own sustenance but for society as a whole. This is where we see the rise of The State.
Obviously, I'm leaving out a lot but this is just for a point of reference. Marxists see 'The State' as an entity that formed in pre-Capitalist societies as a direct result from the antagonism between those who produce the food, clothes, other needs of society - the slaves, serfs, peasants - and those who produce little to nothing of value to society - the aristocracy, the managers, government officials. The State appears as if it is a mutually agreed upon body which represents all parties equally, that stands above and outside society as an impartial judge, but it is very clearly an instrument of the ruling class created to put a wall between them and the peons. I recommend reading "The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State" by Friedrich Engels for an in depth study. You can download a PDF of it for free if you Google it.
Marxists don't assume people will do the right thing. We're against forcing people to work with the threat of violence or the threat of poverty and giving power to those who would employ those tactics as a means to enrich themselves. Capitalism gives far too much incentive to those who do the wrong thing. Morals don't enter the profit motive. Numbers just need to create more numbers in computer. Capitalism is incredibly new to humanity which survived ~200,000 years without it. If people were intrinsically "lazy" or "bad" as the assumption goes, then we would have went extinct long ago.
Anyway I'm itching to play some blackjack.
Your history on food production is spot on, the easier food production becomes (technology, maximizing soil, obtaining better seeds, breeding techniques, etc...) the less human labor is required to produce food, this allows everyone else to engage in other enterprises. That is why societies with animals easy to domesticate locally evolved far faster than other societies.
But I don't understand the conclusion that you draw from that history. Food production is now easier than ever, and as GMOs continue to become more advanced it will soon be even better. This is great, it allows the large majority of us to work in non-farming industries.
The idea of trade has been around for a while. I don't want to get into a historical debate of exactly what historically counts as capitalism or not. The idea of currency may be newer. But this just allows an easy system of selling your labour and purchasing labor or goods.
I have never read that but I will download it to my e-reader.
But we live in a different climate and culture than thousands of years ago. If you didn't hunt, fish, gather, or farm (later on) back then you starved. We live in a world where most people don't do any of those things non-recreationally. Capitalism allows innovation, the exchange of ideas and information as labor. Sure, a few people control a lot of wealth, but that can change (and has).
So how exactly do be substance themselves in a Marxist utopia? Who will produce the food? Who will transport it? Who will store it? Why would anyone want to work if they are guaranteed everything?
If I am an unskilled laborer, I am sure not going to sweat working in a field, when I can just sit at home and be guaranteed food and anything that I need. And, without a government who would force me? I can't claim to be an expert on Marxism, but pure socialism is authoritarian by design otherwise it will never work.
Quote: AZDuffmanI disagree. There is a lot of Christian-hate among liberals and gays. At the same time. liberals defend islam to the end. A conflict between a muslim and a gay would be received differently.
The issue for Liberals isn't religious freedom; it's the Separation of Church and State, and following the Rule of Law as a public official charged with enforcing it. The whole point is that religion is completely irrelevant to the problem, and the only one making it an issue is the person breaking the law and using it as her excuse. Hatred, bigotry, and intolerance are no less socially unacceptable for the fervency of her belief that she's right in her actions..
There is not, in fact, a lot of "Christian-hate" among liberals and gays. The generalization is inaccurate; the sentiment is reactionary to specific tactics because of "Christians" (what a misnomer among those I'm talking about - Christ would repudiate them) forcing their value-set on other Americans, who are Constitutionally protected from their religious bias and should not have to continually fight off these impositions. If "Christians" lived their lives by their own values and left the rest of us alone to do the same, with all of us sharing a secular government structure (as the Founders designed it), this would be a much better country.
Quote: SanchoPanzaThat is far-out opinion that is so far not shared by the airline, the lawyers, the news media or even the courts. Would you like the over or the under?
So, are you for religious freedom for the stewardess and Kim Davis?
I think the founders were concerned with persecution, but I have no idea if they imagined all these nits to be picked by people claiming religious freedom.
I can't do this, I can't do that? Blah. Blah Blah!
Maybe it was that sort of thing that led to the more serious persecution of religions. People just got fed up and started running religious nuts out of the villages and towns.
--I am not in favor of gay marriage nor the SCOTUS ruling on it; I believe it should have been handled state by state.
--Now that gays have marriage, I am sure they will screw it up like all of the rest of us...
--I think the tide had turned and gay marriage may well have become properly passed in most, if not all states.
--I thought the Supreme Court tossed out laws more than changing them; that is, that their ruling would stand but that the states would then be compelled to create a law that followed the ruling. They are a judicial body, not a legislative one so, overall, their power to actually change laws as written should be limited, but they may well have been within bounds...I don't even pretend to be any kind of scholar!
--Once it was decided that gay marriage was "instantly" the law of the land, the law should be followed (notwithstanding the above)
--Kim Davis should have either issued licenses when ordered to do so (she could protest under my fourth point if her and her legal team thought it valid), allowed her assistants to issue the licenses, or resigned from office.
--Judge Bunning was grandstanding by starting with jail; he could just as easily have done what he did this week last week and made it clear that she would go to jail if she did not follow his order exactly. Give her a day or two to screw up, then toss her in a cell...or maybe just temporarily remove her from office or restrain her from executing the duties of the office...
Then I read some of the comments by "liberal" "loving" "compassionate" people and I get a sick feeling. Comments like "let her rot in jail", "throw away the key", "bitch", and other various comments from supporters of gay marriage that make me question how much a lot of them really love anyone. So many people bringing up how many times she has been married and seeming hypocrisies about her while acting as if she should be treated as a murderer or something.
Misguided? Perhaps. Making the wrong stand? Sure. The truth of the matter in "comment world" is that those kind of comments make the person who said them just as bad as her. The real truth of the matter is that some liberals and their positions are just as bad, and worse, than some conservatives and their stances. They just don't get judged the same.
Quote: SanchoPanzaBecause a significant proportion of Muslims pose a far greater threat to your liberties and physical security than the vast majority of Christians.
I have to disagree
I live in Florida
A lot of crime in Florida
A lot of criminal violence in Florida
When you look at criminal statistics, I'm sure the majority arrested, much greater chance they are Christian rather then Muslim here in Florida.
Quote: SanchoPanza
That is far-out opinion that is so far not shared by the airline, the lawyers, the news media or even the courts. Would you like the over or the under?
So what.
I'm supposed to support some person that cant do their job due to religious mumbo jumbo.
I don't care if you are Muslim or Christian, do your job.
All this religious objection is a bunch of BS. Its all make believe.
Do your job or find another one.
