Happy Fathers day Illegal Aliens!

[annunaki]

Rather than repeating ourselves and the similar responses being thrown out, it's better we leave this matter to the politicians and the lawmakers of the country.

Can't we have something lighter and more fun to talk about anymore?

PS: It is 4:04 pm now, so my mind might not be working properly after a long day of work. Forgive me if I'm wrong voicing my opinion.

I think this (some of your statement) is what has gotten us into much of the messes we complain about to begin with.

Many of the elected officials simply do not represent the people anymore. They represent those who pile money into their re-election coffers, be it big businesses or special interest groups. They get away with it because we let them. The people still have the power to get things done in this country. We simply need to make our voices heard. Call/write your senators and representatives.

I am not trying to single you out, many people feel the same as you. However, complacency is breeding many of our problems.

 

[markw]

Well now, there's other ways to view this situation.

There are millions dying in the Congo, Sudan, etc. in Africa that we don't help. Now, maybe if they had the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world America would find it worth invading and occupying them to help the people there.

One could be that since we've been entangled with the middle east for the last oh so many years, we might have somewhat of an obligation to try to straighten it out.

Africa, OTOH, has been beyond our sphere of influence from the beginning of their recorded history. Europe had been the overpowering influence there. France, Belgium, Holland and Germany have had their hands in that pot all along. They still do. Remember the French problems in the Ivory Coast recently? How about the German farmers in Zimbabwe? South Africa can be dropped on the Netherlands, no-one else.

No, since Africa is their baby, I'm more than happy to let them change it's diapers. Do you remember the last time we took over a European created problem? It's called VietNam. We're still taking grief from that one.

But, I must say, Islam is making strong inroads in Africa, particularly in the Eastern Sub Sahara regions. Do you really want to see us, the Great Satan, to get involved there too? Europe and Canada castigate us now. Just think of the field day they'll have if we do.

It's about time the rest of the world took part in cleaning up it's messes and stop looking at us to do it for them. ...and then bad mouth our every move.

But, on a more positive note, quite a few faith based groups (my church included) have been sending tons of materials and monies to these impoverished countries for years. It's kinda like bailing out a boat with a teacup but at least they know some people care enough to want to help.

If anyone is concerned enough to want to contribute money or time to help these places, I can post some web sites where you can donate.

 

[Craig234]

Bush and Africa

You can't just look at the number of dollars spent in Africa, you need to look at who theyr'e going to, for what.

Africa - including the issue of AIDS, weakening the security forces - has now been identified by the right wing as an important security issue for the US.

That's why they're spending more.

To the extent there is some 'humanitarian aid', sadly, it's often crippled by linking it to things like 'abstinence' and no-abortion requirements, or linked to dollars that must be spent on high-priced American drug companies' products, filling their coffers with yet more tax dollars under the banner of a program few can criticize. Of course, the drug companies are the GOP's biggest donor industry (also reflected by the unnecessary transfer of over $150 billion *more* in profit under the administration's one big domestic aid program, the drug bill, when the republicans put in a clause that the government cannot use its buying power to negotiate the prices.)

Cedit where it's due - but do the research.

One link FYI:
http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=53e591b8bb2797bd76b159ef8ab4739a

 

[annunaki]

Pick it all apart if you will. Remember, at least someting was done/tried. Rather than just point out the problem, they tried to help.

Edit: After checking out your source, it is pretty clear that they are quite liberal, and sympathizers of illegals. I am sure that they would spin things to sound as badly as possible. Like I said, at least they are actually trying.

 

[Matt34]

One could be that since we've been entangled with the middle east for the last oh so many years, we might have somewhat of an obligation to try to straighten it out.

Africa, OTOH, has been beyond our sphere of influence from the beginning of their recorded history. Europe had been the overpowering influence there. France, Belgium, Holland and Germany have had their hands in that pot all along. They still do. Remember the French problems in the Ivory Coast recently? How about the German farmers in Zimbabwe? South Africa can be dropped on the Netherlands, no-one else.

No, since Africa is their baby, I'm more than happy to let them change it's diapers. Do you remember the last time we took over a European created problem? It's called VietNam. We're still taking grief from that one.

But, I must say, Islam is making strong inroads in Africa, particularly in the Eastern Sub Sahara regions. Do you really want to see us, the Great Satan, to get involved there too? Europe and Canada castigate us now. Just think of the field day they'll have if we do.

It's about time the rest of the world took part in cleaning up it's messes and stop looking at us to do it for them. ...and then bad mouth our every move.

But, on a more positive note, quite a few faith based groups (my church included) have been sending tons of materials and monies to these impoverished countries for years. It's kinda like bailing out a boat with a teacup but at least they know some people care enough to want to help.

If anyone is concerned enough to want to contribute money or time to help these places, I can post some web sites where you can donate.

We're damned if we do and damned if we don't, where would we even start? Right now Iraq, Afkrackistan, Syria, Iran and Kim "I should be in a strait jacket" Jong are going to have our attention for the foreseeable future.

 

[markw]

So, the drug companies should give away their goods?

You can't just look at the number of dollars spent in Africa, you need to look at who theyr'e going to, for what.

Africa - including the issue of AIDS, weakening the security forces - has now been identified by the right wing as an important security issue for the US.

That's why they're spending more.

To the extent there is some 'humanitarian aid', sadly, it's often crippled by linking it to things like 'abstinence' and no-abortion requirements, or linked to dollars that must be spent on high-priced American drug companies' products, filling their coffers with yet more tax dollars under the banner of a program few can criticize. Of course, the drug companies are the GOP's biggest donor industry (also reflected by the unnecessary transfer of over $150 billion *more* in profit under the administration's one big domestic aid program, the drug bill, when the republicans put in a clause that the government cannot use its buying power to negotiate the prices.)

Cedit where it's due - but do the research.

One link FYI:
http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=53e591b8bb2797bd76b159ef8ab4739a

Europe's got some pretty big drug companies, too. Hoccum they aren't expected to shoulder the burden? And, now here's a new concept... how about the UN PAY us for the goods we give. wotta thought, eh? After all, it's our tax dollars that pay for the research. ...and then Indian drug companies make generics and make pure profit. Nice, eh?

And, as far as AIDS goes, abstinence and condoms do go pretty far in helping prevent it, doncha think? And, these would obviate the need for abortions, no?

If they want to freely stick it in any opening they can find without taking precautions, then don't expect sympathy from me when something bites 'em. It's merely Darwin at work and the sooner the infected dumb asses are gone and unable to spread it, the quicker it will die down.

Now, as far as the "ethnic cleansing" going on in the East, again, let The African Union, The UN or the EU do something aside from Monday morning quarterbacking and petitioning us to do more.

But, it's pretty hard to help people when they adamantly refuse to accept it.

http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2004/march/polio.htm

It sure looks to me like their religious leaders would rather have them dead than accept our help. ...and then they blame us anyway!

 

[markw]

We're damned if we do and damned if we don't

Ah, yep. It's tough being the big dog.

 

[Tomorrow]

You can't just look at the number of dollars spent in Africa, you need to look at who theyr'e going to, for what.

Africa - including the issue of AIDS, weakening the security forces - has now been identified by the right wing as an important security issue for the US.

That's why they're spending more.

To the extent there is some 'humanitarian aid', sadly, it's often crippled by linking it to things like 'abstinence' and no-abortion requirements, or linked to dollars that must be spent on high-priced American drug companies' products, filling their coffers with yet more tax dollars under the banner of a program few can criticize. Of course, the drug companies are the GOP's biggest donor industry (also reflected by the unnecessary transfer of over $150 billion *more* in profit under the administration's one big domestic aid program, the drug bill, when the republicans put in a clause that the government cannot use its buying power to negotiate the prices.)

Cedit where it's due - but do the research.

One link FYI:
http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=53e591b8bb2797bd76b159ef8ab4739a

...and thank you for yet another lecture.

You see, Craig234, you are so driven by your morality instead of logic...your biases instead factual research, you keep making the same old mistakes and pontifications.

You wail and whine about the Republicans and their evil ways while espousing the 'goodness' and "moral niceness" of the liberal Democratic positions. The reality is that the liberals are just as corrupt of purpose and act. Here is one of the single largest DEMOCRAT donors (and all-around Enron bad guy) managing the huge bucks the Bush administration is running into Africa.

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/bushenrontainted.html

Most corporations donate to both parties. Drug companies for the Republicans? Oh yeah, check out Johnson & Johnson's, CEO Ralph Larsen...

http://www.campaignfinance.org/federalhtml/who_the_corporate1.html?tableuuid=980228004

As you say, "do the research".

Here is a good rule of thumb for you...I hope you don't mind my parsimony as it contrasts against your style. ALL COUNTRIES AND THEIR LEADERSHIP ACT IN THEIR OWN BEST INTERESTS. It has always been that way. It always will be that way.

 

[rr2465]

Some Humor?

Let your Congress or the Senate work this out

Now thats funny!

 

[~JC~]

Special interests

I believe that one of the best things we could do, is to somehow reduce the ability of special interests groups to control legislation. That is, get big business out of the govt. The catch 22 is that the legislators are not motivated to pass regs against the people that are supporting them. Probably would need to be a grass roots effort.

 

[cyberbri]

I believe that one of the best things we could do, is to somehow reduce the ability of special interests groups to control legislation. That is, get big business out of the govt. The catch 22 is that the legislators are not motivated to pass regs against the people that are supporting them. Probably would need to be a grass roots effort.

Sounds like what I said a week ago on another thread:
http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=186816#post186816

Actually, the money goes to whoever has the power. It's been the Republicans for years, so that's why all the scandals and ethical corruption issues with Republicans now. If Democrats had any power to affect any change, they'd be funded and lobbied and bribed just like the Republicans.

The only way, IMO, to solve this, is to move to a publicly funded campaign system. It would be branded as "damn liberals wanting to raise YOUR taxes," but do you think Americans would mind paying an extra $20 a year or whatever to fund equally and fairly campaigns for all candidates, so they wouldn't have to spend half or more of their time fundraising, getting themselves deeper into the pockets of big oil, big medicine, big energy, big finance, and more? The big boys wouldn't like that, though, since it means they wouldn't be able to write any more of our laws (bankruptcy reform, prescription drug act, energy policy, etc. etc.).

 

[markw]

Initiative and Referendum.

I believe that one of the best things we could do, is to somehow reduce the ability of special interests groups to control legislation. That is, get big business out of the govt. The catch 22 is that the legislators are not motivated to pass regs against the people that are supporting them. Probably would need to be a grass roots effort.

that's the ONLY way for people to have any say on what gets proplsed and what gets done. Othewise, it's all left in the hands of those we've chosen to represent us to use their better judgement, and I say that quite tongue in cheek.

Some states have it. Ours won't allow it and it's not as if it's not been pushed.

 

[~JC~]

Yes, But

Yes, Cyberbri, I think we basically agree, but why does the electoral process need to be supported by tax dollars? Why can't people simply run for office, and raise what money they can? No money allowed from businesses, and very stiff penalties for people making contributions on behalf of business? I agree, a bit old-fashioned. But not everything old is bad.

 

[cyberbri]

Yes, Cyberbri, I think we basically agree, but why does the electoral process need to be supported by tax dollars? Why can't people simply run for office, and raise what money they can? No money allowed from businesses, and very stiff penalties for people making contributions on behalf of business? I agree, a bit old-fashioned. But not everything old is bad.

Because campaigns costs millions of dollars - ads, air time, flying around the country to press the flesh. Somebody has to pay. How many people here have made campaign contributions in their lives?

Would you not pay $20 a year, or less than $2 a month, to get politicians out of the pockets of big business?

 

[Resident Loser]

First...

Resident Loser,

Can you please tell me how illegal immigrants are a direct burden on your life/living? I'm being serious here. I want to understand that aspect to the debate.

...sorry for the delay in responding...

Nothing is as simple or isolated as it might seem to be at first...even seemingly un-related items can be traced to common roots...the ol' domino effect...

Starting with people who are willing to work for less than the minimum wage and it blossoms from there...Without going into all the possible permutations, that simple fact has wide ranging effects...from giving their "employers" carte-blanche over them and undercutting their competitors who play by the rules and provide benefits to their workers, all the way to overburdening the infrastructure and taxing municipal services...and every possible scenario in between. There are hidden, and not-so-hidden ramifications resulting from the current situation.

Additionally, there are companies who feel it necessary to provide redundant services in a myriad of languages to cope with those who refuse to accept English as the national tongue...who do you think pays for that inefficiency? And it's not simply an economic payment.

If you think long and hard, there isn't one facet of life that isn't affected...

jimHJJ(...not a one...)

 

[cyberbri]

...sorry for the delay in responding...

Nothing is as simple or isolated as it might seem to be at first...even seemingly un-related items can be traced to common roots...the ol' domino effect...

Starting with people who are willing to work for less than the minimum wage and it blossoms from there...Without going into all the possible permutations, that simple fact has wide ranging effects...from giving their "employers" carte-blanche over them and undercutting their competitors who play by the rules and provide benefits to their workers, all the way to overburdening the infrastructure and taxing municipal services...and every possible scenario in between. There are hidden, and not-so-hidden ramifications resulting from the current situation.

Additionally, there are companies who feel it necessary to provide redundant services in a myriad of languages to cope with those who refuse to accept English as the national tongue...who do you think pays for that inefficiency? And it's not simply an economic payment.

If you think long and hard, there isn't one facet of life that isn't affected...

jimHJJ(...not a one...)

Good points.

Just to play the devil's advocate, though...
With lower wages come lower end costs to consumers.

Of course I am not for this, and I hate the vicious "Wal Mart" cycle.


As far as the language issue goes, though -- it takes time to learn a language, often years. People need time to adapt and learn the language. I don't see how offering services in other languages is a bad thing. If you were to go to say China, Japan, Germany or Brazil, for travel or perhaps because you've been transferred by your job, wouldn't you be appreciative of places offering services in English - whether or not you were trying to learn the language or not? So I don't see it as "refusing to accept our language," personally. And to naturalize and become citizens of the US, people must know the language and more about our country's history than probably a lot of high school graduates.

 

[annunaki]

On the topic of running for office, there should be no contributions allowed from businesses or special interests. Individuals would be the only contributors to a campaign. Also, major offices, senate, governor, president, would have to debate live on Television multiple times. ALL eligible candidates would be allowed. This allows the "small guy" to have a chance. For an individual without deep pockets, it is nearly impossible to win an election. This is even beginnning to happen at the local level in some areas.

 

[cyberbri]

But then you get certain parties making donations to 3rd party organizations, that then fund/sponsor ads for candidates and/or against opponents. You would think people would be smarter than to believe these ads, but they sway a lot of voters on issues and candidates.

Political ads are the only kind of ads that aren't required to be truthful. Ever seen a commercial from one company trashing and making up lies about another company? It's not allowed.

And yet now we have a brand new from the last Pres election - "Swiftboating." It's getting dirtier and dirtier, more divisive and more divisive.

And then you have $#!% like this:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-06-26-e-voting_x.htm?csp=34
(not new news, but it's pretty exciting to see regular media outlets starting to catch on to what many have known for a long time)

 

[Tomorrow]

Two thoughts.....

As in the joke traveling around the internet..."Why do I have to press 1 for English?!!" IMO, the requirement is utterly ridiculous.

Concerning voting...it's miraculous when the U.S. gets 50% of it's eligible voters to actually vote in a national election. That tells me that 1/2 the population really doesn't give a squat about its leadership or direction, or they feel powerless. How do you deal with that kind of apathy, even in these so-called testy, politically polarized times?

 

[markw]

So, brian, what do you suggest?

But then you get certain parties making donations to 3rd party organizations, that then fund/sponsor ads for candidates and/or against opponents. You would think people would be smarter than to believe these ads, but they sway a lot of voters on issues and candidates.

Political ads are the only kind of ads that aren't required to be truthful. Ever seen a commercial from one company trashing and making up lies about another company? It's not allowed.

And yet now we have a brand new from the last Pres election - "Swiftboating." It's getting dirtier and dirtier, more divisive and more divisive.

And then you have $#!% like this:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-06-26-e-voting_x.htm?csp=34
(not new news, but it's pretty exciting to see regular media outlets starting to catch on to what many have known for a long time)

Overthrowing the world and setting you up as the supreme dictator? You do believe you've got the answers to everything and people like you scare me even more than the current yahoos running the country.