Major Upset in USA politics

[Gin1984]

Gary Johnson   New Mexico

Rand Paul    Kentucky

Neither is my perfect candidate, but they are closer than many

Skimming the wiki page for Gary Johnson, he actually seems to be a pretty reasonable guy.  Is he a tea party member though?

I disagree with him on most things, but I agree Johnson does not appear nuts.  Rand Paul on the other hand, if that is your idea of sane, I'm concerned. 
I too, could not find any tea party involvement for Johnson.

[gdgyva]

read David Heigel's articles on Gary Johnson

he is a political writer from slate

he was the first one to use Johnson and the Tea Party together

imo Johnson is more libertarian, than tea party

but he has enough similar things to bring in both sets of voters

and for those of you thinking it....i would LOVE IT if the tea party would move more to the left socially

there are a lot of fiscally sane liberals out there......and some would cross over if the tea party were to let up on the religious rhetoric

[DoubleDown]

One thing I've seen a lot of people mention is that illegal aliens are "doing the jobs Americans won't do," but this is not true. Most legal residents just won't do those jobs at the artificially low wages. For example, take an illegal resident working 12-14 hours a day in a hot field picking tomatoes during the summer, for maybe $7-8 an hour (which is the actual wage paid to many immigrant workers in the fields in California).

If, theoretically, there were ZERO illegal workers available to do that work, then economics tells us that employers would have to pay whatever prevailing wage to legal residents that the market would support for that labor. So (and I'm making this up since I have no idea what the market would support), let's just say the wages for such labor would go up to $12/hour. At that rate, they are able to find enough resident workers (aka "Americans") to pick all the tomatoes. Correspondingly, the price of tomatoes would go up.

In the end, everything would balance out. People might buy less tomatoes if the price goes up, but eventually the market would stabilize with supply/demand/price. It's not that Americans are unwilling to do those jobs at those wages, it's that employers are (illegally) able to hire workers and pay them less-than-prevailing wages, thereby crowding out legal workers at higher pay. And the workers getting less-than-prevailing wages are unable to afford supporting their families at reasonable levels in many cases, thereby creating a drain on the rest of society (no health insurance, no ability to pay taxes, unable to buy enough food to feed the family, etc.).

Who cares if tomatoes cost more? The other side of that tomatoes-cost-more equation is we end up with more unemployed legal residents (aka "Americans") who become a drain on society, collecting social welfare. This is no different than any other consumer product. Employers hire workers, pay wages, produce a product, and sell the product to cover expenses plus make some kind of profit. Introducing illegal and artificially low wages into the equation upsets the otherwise healthy balance. I have nothing but compassion for a person who comes to America seeking a better life, but in the macro sense, allowing the illegal and unequal pay situation to continue creates a problem for society at large.

[GuitarStv]

^ You would think then that the easiest solution would be to massively crack down on employers who hire illegal immigrants.  Why spend tremendous amounts of resources going after the workers when you could fine money from the people who financially benefit from the low wages?  Seems like some truly misplaced priorities.

[Gin1984]

One thing I've seen a lot of people mention is that illegal aliens are "doing the jobs Americans won't do," but this is not true. Most legal residents just won't do those jobs at the artificially low wages. For example, take an illegal resident working 12-14 hours a day in a hot field picking tomatoes during the summer, for maybe $7-8 an hour (which is the actual wage paid to many immigrant workers in the fields in California).

If, theoretically, there were ZERO illegal workers available to do that work, then economics tells us that employers would have to pay whatever prevailing wage to legal residents that the market would support for that labor. So (and I'm making this up since I have no idea what the market would support), let's just say the wages for such labor would go up to $12/hour. At that rate, they are able to find enough resident workers (aka "Americans") to pick all the tomatoes. Correspondingly, the price of tomatoes would go up.

In the end, everything would balance out. People might buy less tomatoes if the price goes up, but eventually the market would stabilize with supply/demand/price. It's not that Americans are unwilling to do those jobs at those wages, it's that employers are (illegally) able to hire workers and pay them less-than-prevailing wages, thereby crowding out legal workers at higher pay. And the workers getting less-than-prevailing wages are unable to afford supporting their families at reasonable levels in many cases, thereby creating a drain on the rest of society (no health insurance, no ability to pay taxes, unable to buy enough food to feed the family, etc.).

Who cares if tomatoes cost more? The other side of that tomatoes-cost-more equation is we end up with more unemployed legal residents (aka "Americans") who become a drain on society, collecting social welfare. This is no different than any other consumer product. Employers hire workers, pay wages, produce a product, and sell the product to cover expenses plus make some kind of profit. Introducing illegal and artificially low wages into the equation upsets the otherwise healthy balance. I have nothing but compassion for a person who comes to America seeking a better life, but in the macro sense, allowing the illegal and unequal pay situation to continue creates a problem for society at large.

Have you EVER tried doing that work?  There is no reasonable amount you would be able to pay me to do it again.  My mom worked with the migrant farm workers union and went in to help organize.  They had to bring workers into replace because they were paid by the amount they picked, not by hour (I will say that one of the California elected officials does own a farm and over pays her workers, last I knew it was per hour and it was $9.25) so us kids can and helped.  I have NEVER worked so hard and I did maybe half of what the adults were doing and that was just for a couple hours.  I would rather work as a waitress, which was also physical labor than that.

[trailrated]

Am I the only person who thinks it is un-genuine and lazy to paint people with opposing views as delusional crazy folks so you can dismiss their arguments and avoid any discussion.

As stated before I would consider myself a tea party person and have been told that I am the following (you can look at my earlier posts to see my actual opinions, which don't match up to any of these)
-I am racist
-Throw in Obama birther too
-I wear a tinfoil hat
-I am an anarchist
-I am extreme when it comes to religion
-I hate gay people
-I am pro life and hate women and women's rights

That would be like me saying that ALLLLL Democrats
-Hate the United States
-Hate religion
-Are Communists
-Hate successful people
-Want the government to control everything

I can admit there are batshit crazy people on both sides of the political aisle but rhetoric as stated above is lazy and a waste of time to pretend like everyone with a different view is so insane that conversation is impossible.

[Jamesqf]

Gary Johnson   New Mexico

Rand Paul    Kentucky

Neither is my perfect candidate, but they are closer than many

Skimming the wiki page for Gary Johnson, he actually seems to be a pretty reasonable guy.  Is he a tea party member though?

Johnsom is a Libertarian.  There are VAST differences between Libertarians (big or small L) and TEA Partiers.  Indeed, about the only things I think they'd agree on are lower taxes and the right to bear arms.

As for immigration, legal or illegal, not everone has the same set of reasons for opposing it.  For me, it's nothing to do with racism or culturalism - I'd be perfectly happy to swap a bunch of our native-born Americans for immigrants on a head-for-head basis.  It's basically the same reason I live by myself, instead of having half a dozen roommates.  The plain fact is that this country, and the planet, are just too damn crowded.  I'm just as much against white folks having 19 kids as I am against brown folks sneaking across the border - if not more so, since the border crossers at least show some initiative :-)

Have you EVER tried doing that work?  There is no reasonable amount you would be able to pay me to do it again.

Yes, I have.  (Since you're in California, maybe you're familiar with the Delano area, north of Bakersfield?.)  And I'd do it again in a heartbeat, if it meant the difference between eating & going hungry, or having to live on welfare.

[Gin1984]

Am I the only person who thinks it is un-genuine and lazy to paint people with opposing views as delusional crazy folks so you can dismiss their arguments and avoid any discussion.

As stated before I would consider myself a tea party person and have been told that I am the following (you can look at my earlier posts to see my actual opinions, which don't match up to any of these)
-I am racist
-Throw in Obama birther too
-I wear a tinfoil hat
-I am an anarchist
-I am extreme when it comes to religion
-I hate gay people
-I am pro life and hate women and women's rights

That would be like me saying that ALLLLL Democrats
-Hate the United States
-Hate religion
-Are Communists
-Hate successful people
-Want the government to control everything

I can admit there are batshit crazy people on both sides of the political aisle but rhetoric as stated above is lazy and a waste of time to pretend like everyone with a different view is so insane that conversation is impossible.

When I asked for ONE of the elected leadership to be mentioned that is not nuts, not one person was name.  Johnson was named, but with no proof of being part of the tea party.  It is like complaining when people say "Catholics oppose birth control", when the leadership clearly does.  If you join a group with a certain MO, they you have to expect that people will think you are like them.  I can point to a bunch of elected officials that disagree with your "democrat list", but no one seems to be able to point to one elected, or even candidate in tea party who does not hit some of those.

[rosaz]

A quick question for gdgyva:

Why call yourself Tea Party if there aren't any Tea Party candidates you can really support (and I don't mean 100% support... but maybe 75%?) From what I can see, the Libertarian party would match your views far better than the Tea Party... so what is the appeal of the Tea Party label?

[Franklin]

There are VAST differences between Libertarians (big or small L) and TEA Partiers.

I for one believe that government should be one man sitting in a dark room deciding who to nuke.
Ron Swanson, Libertarian
Parks and Rec

(sorry, had to lighten the mood)

[trailrated]

Am I the only person who thinks it is un-genuine and lazy to paint people with opposing views as delusional crazy folks so you can dismiss their arguments and avoid any discussion.

As stated before I would consider myself a tea party person and have been told that I am the following (you can look at my earlier posts to see my actual opinions, which don't match up to any of these)
-I am racist
-Throw in Obama birther too
-I wear a tinfoil hat
-I am an anarchist
-I am extreme when it comes to religion
-I hate gay people
-I am pro life and hate women and women's rights

That would be like me saying that ALLLLL Democrats
-Hate the United States
-Hate religion
-Are Communists
-Hate successful people
-Want the government to control everything

I can admit there are batshit crazy people on both sides of the political aisle but rhetoric as stated above is lazy and a waste of time to pretend like everyone with a different view is so insane that conversation is impossible.

When I asked for ONE of the elected leadership to be mentioned that is not nuts, not one person was name.  Johnson was named, but with no proof of being part of the tea party.  It is like complaining when people say "Catholics oppose birth control", when the leadership clearly does.  If you join a group with a certain MO, they you have to expect that people will think you are like them.  I can point to a bunch of elected officials that disagree with your "democrat list", but no one seems to be able to point to one elected, or even candidate in tea party who does not hit some of those.

One whose campaign I helped with is James Settlemeyer, a State Senator from Nevada, someone who is "not nuts" and would disagree with the list that I put forth. I would almost equate the tea party opposite as being the Occupy movement. If you went to one of their rallies and talked to people and asked why they were there you would get so many different answers. Once again if you ask people why they identify with the tea party you would get a lot of different answers. But if it makes you feel better to pretend I am racist and you can't get through my tinfoil hat to talk some sense into me... to each his own.

[gdgyva]

i call myself libertarian

i also joined up with the tea party because i think they also have some of the same ideals.....

when is the last time you heard about a libertarian rally?

the people i meet with are just regular folks.....tired of our country going to hell in a handbasket

the dont like the crony capitalist pubs.....they dont like the socialist dems

their biggest things are small government, liberty for the individual, lower taxes, getting out of debt, and what government is needed being mostly done at state and local levels

i can deal with other issues one by one....those are my hot buttons if you will

i voted Johnson in the last election, and as of right now, the only candidate who is even close is rand paul

but there is time for others to emerge.....

[golden1]

Government is a force for good.  It's an expression of our collective will and it enables us to do great things.  I love the internet.  I love spaceflight.  I love the fact that we have national parks, clean air to breath and water to drink.  I love fire and police protection.  I love that I can hop in my safe, fast car and drive anywhere in this nation.  I love that nearly everyone around me is reasonably well educated.  I love that people aren't just totally fucked if their lives take a negative turn.  I love that hospitals have to treat you, even if you don't have cash.  I could go on for a long time.

I get all that for a mere fraction of my income, meaning my taxes are the BEST DOLLARS I SPEND.  The ROI on all those investments is sky high.

I don't even understand the logic of the small government folks.  Are they agitating for some kind of Mad Max dystopia where everyone takes what they want by force?  Do they think groups of like-minded people will come together to form a collective to get stuff done (i.e. recreate government but in some different form).  Do they believe that all the things that make our lives work will somehow magically appear?  Do they believe that private companies will somehow give them a fairer deal then their own government (see Comcast, our health system, private education, Enron, Wall St., etc).  I just don't get it. 

No large organization is perfect; our government certainly isn't.  It can't and shouldn't do everything.  As has been pointed out here before, it's actually pretty small when compared to other governments around the world.  However, trying to burn it down is ridiculous.  The small government crowd must propose actual solutions to the problems we face.  How do we solve climate change if not by governmental regulation?  How do we fight poverty, hunger and inequality if not with government?  How do we ensure public safety and protection of rights?  How do we educate ourselves?  How do we do research that doesn't have immediate financial benefit?  How do we complete long-term, high-cost infrastructure projects?

I agree with this, for the most part.  We hear about the stuff government screws up, because it is fun to complain., but we don't hear about what they get right, and it is a lot more than you think.  It isn't just competition and free markets that move us forward as a species, it is the ability to collaborate on a large scale.  When you look at the trajectory of human civilization, we go from small bands of people to larger bands, then tribes with increasing specialization and bureaucracy, to nation-states and now getting closer to a global society (although a long way away from that).  Why do we want to disrupt that natural trend that has brought us to this point technologically by breaking things back down into smaller components?   Why not try to address the inefficiencies of the federal government instead of doing away with it entirely?

What I see from the tea party and libertarianism is a gross oversimplification of what it takes to run a large society with a lot of different people that have a lot of different interests.   I also see that they tend to simplify the idea of personal freedom and not realize that in a large, intertwined society, some peoples personal freedoms impinge on other freedoms, and it is necessary to balance them in order to get the benefits that a large society gives us.   It is really a very idealistic point of view that doesn't have much grounding in reality. 

There is also a lot of Privileged Distress going on with the tea party - http://weeklysift.com/2012/09/10/the-distress-of-the-privileged/.  When a group of people lose their advantage, they tend to naturally feel upset about that.

[randymarsh]

Am I the only person who thinks it is un-genuine and lazy to paint people with opposing views as delusional crazy folks so you can dismiss their arguments and avoid any discussion.

I can admit there are batshit crazy people on both sides of the political aisle but rhetoric as stated above is lazy and a waste of time to pretend like everyone with a different view is so insane that conversation is impossible.

I'm not painting them anything. They paint themselves.

From a University of Washington poll:

73% of Tea Party supporters disapprove of Obama's policy of engaging with Muslim countries
82% do not believe that gay and lesbian couples should have the legal right to marry, and that about 52% believe that "[c]ompared to the size of the group, lesbians and gays have too much political power".

From a CBS/NYT poll:

Asked to volunteer what they don't like about Mr. Obama, the top answer, offered by 19 percent of Tea Party supporters, was that they just don't like him.

Sixty-four percent believe that the president has increased taxes for most Americans, despite the fact that the vast majority of Americans got a tax cut under the Obama administration.

Nearly as many, 57 percent, have a favorable impression of former President George W. Bush, despite his role in raising the deficit and overseeing TARP bailout of the financial sector.

Fifty-three percent say the Roe v. Wade decision was a bad thing (compared to 34 percent of Americans overall),

And while the vast majority opposes the health care reform bill, 62 percent say programs like Social Security and Medicare are worth the costs to taxpayers.

Fifty-two percent believe too much has been made of the problems facing black people.

[rosaz]

i call myself libertarian

i also joined up with the tea party because i think they also have some of the same ideals.....

when is the last time you heard about a libertarian rally?

Why not start one?

To my mind "small government, liberty for the individual, lower taxes, getting out of debt, and what government is needed being mostly done at state and local levels" = Libertarianism. To get to Tea Party from there (from what I see), you have to throw in a heap of big military spending, a big dollop of extreme social conservatism, and a ton of anger. If that doesn't describe you, why not just let go it at Libertarianism?

I'm against cruelty to animals, but I don't say go and joinPETA. Because there's a lot of  unnecessary vitriolic in there which doesn't do the debate any good.

[gdgyva]

Am I the only person who thinks it is un-genuine and lazy to paint people with opposing views as delusional crazy folks so you can dismiss their arguments and avoid any discussion.

I can admit there are batshit crazy people on both sides of the political aisle but rhetoric as stated above is lazy and a waste of time to pretend like everyone with a different view is so insane that conversation is impossible.

I'm not painting them anything. They paint themselves.

From a University of Washington poll:

73% of Tea Party supporters disapprove of Obama's policy of engaging with Muslim countries
82% do not believe that gay and lesbian couples should have the legal right to marry, and that about 52% believe that "[c]ompared to the size of the group, lesbians and gays have too much political power".

From a CBS/NYT poll:

Asked to volunteer what they don't like about Mr. Obama, the top answer, offered by 19 percent of Tea Party supporters, was that they just don't like him.

Sixty-four percent believe that the president has increased taxes for most Americans, despite the fact that the vast majority of Americans got a tax cut under the Obama administration.

Nearly as many, 57 percent, have a favorable impression of former President George W. Bush, despite his role in raising the deficit and overseeing TARP bailout of the financial sector.

Fifty-three percent say the Roe v. Wade decision was a bad thing (compared to 34 percent of Americans overall),

And while the vast majority opposes the health care reform bill, 62 percent say programs like Social Security and Medicare are worth the costs to taxpayers.

Fifty-two percent believe too much has been made of the problems facing black people.

i wouldnt count too much on what polls say

ask Eric Cantor if you need a reason why

might be better to actually talk to people....

[Cressida]

As stated before I would consider myself a tea party person and have been told that I am the following (you can look at my earlier posts to see my actual opinions, which don't match up to any of these)
-I am racist
-Throw in Obama birther too
-I wear a tinfoil hat
-I am an anarchist
-I am extreme when it comes to religion
-I hate gay people
-I am pro life and hate women and women's rights

That would be like me saying that ALLLLL Democrats
-Hate the United States
-Hate religion
-Are Communists
-Hate successful people
-Want the government to control everything

Here's the thing though. It would be trivially easy to find scads of people with a platform for promulgating the former viewpoints. But find me one talking head who's out there speaking in favor of the latter viewpoints. You can't. It's a straw man.

This "both sides are crazy" argument is flat wrong. So your analogy doesn't hold.

[Gin1984]

Am I the only person who thinks it is un-genuine and lazy to paint people with opposing views as delusional crazy folks so you can dismiss their arguments and avoid any discussion.

As stated before I would consider myself a tea party person and have been told that I am the following (you can look at my earlier posts to see my actual opinions, which don't match up to any of these)
-I am racist
-Throw in Obama birther too
-I wear a tinfoil hat
-I am an anarchist
-I am extreme when it comes to religion
-I hate gay people
-I am pro life and hate women and women's rights

That would be like me saying that ALLLLL Democrats
-Hate the United States
-Hate religion
-Are Communists
-Hate successful people
-Want the government to control everything

I can admit there are batshit crazy people on both sides of the political aisle but rhetoric as stated above is lazy and a waste of time to pretend like everyone with a different view is so insane that conversation is impossible.

When I asked for ONE of the elected leadership to be mentioned that is not nuts, not one person was name.  Johnson was named, but with no proof of being part of the tea party.  It is like complaining when people say "Catholics oppose birth control", when the leadership clearly does.  If you join a group with a certain MO, they you have to expect that people will think you are like them.  I can point to a bunch of elected officials that disagree with your "democrat list", but no one seems to be able to point to one elected, or even candidate in tea party who does not hit some of those.

One whose campaign I helped with is James Settlemeyer, a State Senator from Nevada, someone who is "not nuts" and would disagree with the list that I put forth. I would almost equate the tea party opposite as being the Occupy movement. If you went to one of their rallies and talked to people and asked why they were there you would get so many different answers. Once again if you ask people why they identify with the tea party you would get a lot of different answers. But if it makes you feel better to pretend I am racist and you can't get through my tinfoil hat to talk some sense into me... to each his own.

I agree, he looks, at a quick glance conservative but not nuts.  But, again, I don't see ANYTHING joining him with the tea party.  Do you have anything that does?  When over and over, your leadership says one thing, you can't blame people for believing it, just fyi.

[Russ]

might be better to actually talk to people....

yeah, it would be great if someone invented a thing where they talk to a large random sample of people and ask them what they think about a topic, in such a way that this smaller group reliably represented the larger population...

oh wait, that's a poll

[gdgyva]

most polls tell you there is a margin for error

+/- 3-4% for most i have seen

the problem with polls that i see, is that they paint with a real broad brush

just like a lot of posters here are doing.....

well....the leaders of the tea party say this, so everyone must think that

not quite....

well cantor's internal polls put him up by over 30%.....what happened?

was the poll flawed? were the questions flawed? did they not get a good representation?

i bet i have been called 30x in last 4-5 years to do a poll.....i always refuse

wonder how many out there are like me?

[gdgyva]

i call myself libertarian

i also joined up with the tea party because i think they also have some of the same ideals.....

when is the last time you heard about a libertarian rally?

Why not start one?

To my mind "small government, liberty for the individual, lower taxes, getting out of debt, and what government is needed being mostly done at state and local levels" = Libertarianism. To get to Tea Party from there (from what I see), you have to throw in a heap of big military spending, a big dollop of extreme social conservatism, and a ton of anger. If that doesn't describe you, why not just let go it at Libertarianism?

I'm against cruelty to animals, but I don't say go and joinPETA. Because there's a lot of  unnecessary vitriolic in there which doesn't do the debate any good.

imo, it is easier to try and change a few minds of people already at a rally...than to start a political rally by oneself

common sense usually wins out.....not always, but usually

[randymarsh]

i wouldnt count too much on what polls say

ask Eric Cantor if you need a reason why

might be better to actually talk to people....

That's such a cop out.

[Gin1984]

most polls tell you there is a margin for error

+/- 3-4% for most i have seen

the problem with polls that i see, is that they paint with a real broad brush

just like a lot of posters here are doing.....

well....the leaders of the tea party say this, so everyone must think that

not quite....

well cantor's internal polls put him up by over 30%.....what happened?

was the poll flawed? were the questions flawed? did they not get a good representation?

i bet i have been called 30x in last 4-5 years to do a poll.....i always refuse

wonder how many out there are like me?

If you vote them in, you either agree with them or do not have a problem with them having those beliefs.  So, either way, you are ok with their actions or you would not vote them in. 

[DoubleDown]

One thing I've seen a lot of people mention is that illegal aliens are "doing the jobs Americans won't do," but this is not true. Most legal residents just won't do those jobs at the artificially low wages. For example, take an illegal resident working 12-14 hours a day in a hot field picking tomatoes during the summer, for maybe $7-8 an hour (which is the actual wage paid to many immigrant workers in the fields in California).

If, theoretically, there were ZERO illegal workers available to do that work, then economics tells us that employers would have to pay whatever prevailing wage to legal residents that the market would support for that labor. So (and I'm making this up since I have no idea what the market would support), let's just say the wages for such labor would go up to $12/hour. At that rate, they are able to find enough resident workers (aka "Americans") to pick all the tomatoes. Correspondingly, the price of tomatoes would go up.

In the end, everything would balance out. People might buy less tomatoes if the price goes up, but eventually the market would stabilize with supply/demand/price. It's not that Americans are unwilling to do those jobs at those wages, it's that employers are (illegally) able to hire workers and pay them less-than-prevailing wages, thereby crowding out legal workers at higher pay. And the workers getting less-than-prevailing wages are unable to afford supporting their families at reasonable levels in many cases, thereby creating a drain on the rest of society (no health insurance, no ability to pay taxes, unable to buy enough food to feed the family, etc.).

Who cares if tomatoes cost more? The other side of that tomatoes-cost-more equation is we end up with more unemployed legal residents (aka "Americans") who become a drain on society, collecting social welfare. This is no different than any other consumer product. Employers hire workers, pay wages, produce a product, and sell the product to cover expenses plus make some kind of profit. Introducing illegal and artificially low wages into the equation upsets the otherwise healthy balance. I have nothing but compassion for a person who comes to America seeking a better life, but in the macro sense, allowing the illegal and unequal pay situation to continue creates a problem for society at large.

Have you EVER tried doing that work?  There is no reasonable amount you would be able to pay me to do it again.  My mom worked with the migrant farm workers union and went in to help organize.  They had to bring workers into replace because they were paid by the amount they picked, not by hour (I will say that one of the California elected officials does own a farm and over pays her workers, last I knew it was per hour and it was $9.25) so us kids can and helped.  I have NEVER worked so hard and I did maybe half of what the adults were doing and that was just for a couple hours.  I would rather work as a waitress, which was also physical labor than that.

No, I have not personally done that work, but that has nothing to do with the validity of my argument (I've done other very hard work for $4.25/hour, full time, as a young man, not that it matters). People will do all kinds of hard jobs for the right pay. Paying people less-than-market wages, illegally, is an unfair and unbalanced situation that causes lots of trouble. And think of it the other way: If coming to America meant having no job, no pay, no social welfare, or earning less than one could in their native country, there would be virtually no incentive to come here. As it is, employers are taking advantage of the situation. Like I said, I'm not demonizing the people that come here. At the same time, I don't agree with the idea that allowing people to flock here illegally is good either.

Illegal immigrants are, in fact, taking jobs away from legal residents -- just at a lower pay.

[GuitarStv]

Illegal immigrants are, in fact, taking jobs away from legal residents -- just at a lower pay.

Right.  So the best way to fix this is to police and fine the employers . . . thereby forcing demand for american employees to do the job, thereby paying higher wages.  Nobody's going to hire an illegal immigrant if it's going to cost them a million dollars for each illegal found working at the place.

Yet . . . the focus is always on busting a few people who smuggle their way over the border, rather than the guys who get rich by exploiting them.  Stupid.

[DoubleDown]

Illegal immigrants are, in fact, taking jobs away from legal residents -- just at a lower pay.

Right.  So the best way to fix this is to police and fine the employers . . . thereby forcing demand for american employees to do the job, thereby paying higher wages.  Nobody's going to hire an illegal immigrant if it's going to cost them a million dollars for each illegal found working at the place.

Yet . . . the focus is always on busting a few people who smuggle their way over the border, rather than the guys who get rich by exploiting them.  Stupid.

Agreed (well, mostly*). It seems that only in the most super-egregious situations does the govt. ever go after an employer. Almost as if a blind eye is turned towards it in the name of lower-priced tomatoes...

* I gave my caveat of "mostly agree" because I'm not certain there's much focus on stopping people from smuggling over the border, either, and disagree that it's only a "few." Even when people are caught crossing, they are given food and water, processed, and dropped off back across the border where they can (and do) try again tomorrow.

[Luck better Skill]

Illegal immigrants are, in fact, taking jobs away from legal residents -- just at a lower pay.

Right.  So the best way to fix this is to police and fine the employers . . . thereby forcing demand for american employees to do the job, thereby paying higher wages.  Nobody's going to hire an illegal immigrant if it's going to cost them a million dollars for each illegal found working at the place.

Yet . . . the focus is always on busting a few people who smuggle their way over the border, rather than the guys who get rich by exploiting them.  Stupid.

  Guitarstv, I agree with that some, but illegals are not just paid in cash under the table.  I know a construction company that did background checks with the PD on it employees, hiring only those that passed.  An immigration raid found 18 of 20 were illegal.  They had documents, SSN, etc at a quality able to fool law enforcement.  The only way a company can really be sure it is not hiring illegals would be to discriminate.
  Our entire green card, work visa, citizenship, structure is a debacle.  It is 200 years old and needs a major tuneup/overhaul.  That is compounded that neither party wants the other to get credit for a working system.

[oldtoyota]

i resemble that remark....about older, white, libertarian guys

but i disagree on the no practical solutions

this is from a meeting a few months back

to help solve the illegals, and what to do with them, and border security

we need to have border security first....how do we get it.....we close down the majority of bases worldwide that house our military.....we leave a few open in critical areas, or as staging bases
maybe we need 5 total.....close all the rest
with the money saved, we can use those troops to secure the border, or hire agents to seal the border
i want it lethal to try and cross....a few may make it, but we wont have 800k crossing per year
we put teeth into the hiring of illegals.....first offense 500k.....second offence 1million......third offence loss of the business and all related assets
we make e-verify national and the law
for those businesses that try to continue to use illegals paying cash under the table, i dont have a solution yet....

for those here, we put together a plan to help them gain citizenship
we make it hard, but doable
and learning the language is one of the requirements
maybe it takes 7-10 years, but at the end, they become full fledge citizens

there are solutions to the problems.....no they arent easy......nor will they be palatable to all

I don't agree with e-verify. It could work in a utopia where people are not evil. However, I see it was a way to single out people that the gubment doesn't like…to make it impossible for people who disagree w the government to get jobs.

Learn the language? Which one? The US doesn't have an official language. If you want to make English the official language, you gots yourself some work to do.

[Gin1984]

i resemble that remark....about older, white, libertarian guys

but i disagree on the no practical solutions

this is from a meeting a few months back

to help solve the illegals, and what to do with them, and border security

we need to have border security first....how do we get it.....we close down the majority of bases worldwide that house our military.....we leave a few open in critical areas, or as staging bases
maybe we need 5 total.....close all the rest
with the money saved, we can use those troops to secure the border, or hire agents to seal the border
i want it lethal to try and cross....a few may make it, but we wont have 800k crossing per year
we put teeth into the hiring of illegals.....first offense 500k.....second offence 1million......third offence loss of the business and all related assets
we make e-verify national and the law
for those businesses that try to continue to use illegals paying cash under the table, i dont have a solution yet....

for those here, we put together a plan to help them gain citizenship
we make it hard, but doable
and learning the language is one of the requirements
maybe it takes 7-10 years, but at the end, they become full fledge citizens

there are solutions to the problems.....no they arent easy......nor will they be palatable to all

I don't agree with e-verify. It could work in a utopia where people are not evil. However, I see it was a way to single out people that the gubment doesn't like…to make it impossible for people who disagree w the government to get jobs.

Learn the language? Which one? The US doesn't have an official language. If you want to make English the official language, you gots yourself some work to do.

So the second person on this board I want to kiss. :P

[oldtoyota]

Tea partiers are mostly white people who feel their power is being taken away. Illegal immigrants represent something "different". Teapartiers do not like "different" things: gays, immigrants, non-white skin colors, religions other than Christianity, etc.

I consider myself to be a "tea party" person and I think you are delusional.

-I am white
-I do not feel like my power is being taken away
-I am for amnesty for illegal immigrants that are here already along with stricter border control
-I am pro gay marriage
-Saying I do not like different things like non-white skin colors is the stupidest thing I have ever heard
-I am not religious

So I guess what I am trying to say is you are as ignorant as you claim we are if you actually believe what you wrote. I will fully admit there are some crazy people on both sides of the political spectrum but trying to write off everyone is lazy, ignorant, and delusional.

POTD......post of the day!

btw

i am white
i am not religious
i am not a gun nut
i am pro choice
i am pro marriage for all
i want small government
i hate taxes, and think they should be abolished
i think we need to stop being the world police force
my best friend is black, and he too is a conservative (fiscal)

dont believe everything you hear and read about the tea party

most of it is pure bunk

It's fine if those are your views, but I'm sorry, the tea party candidates do not agree. The candidates your party is throwing its weight behind are extreme right wingers. They're typically homophobic, racist, "pro-life", Christian and do not want to cut spending in any meaningful areas.

You've been sold a lie by the Koch brothers.

Hear, hear!

[oldtoyota]

i resemble that remark....about older, white, libertarian guys

but i disagree on the no practical solutions

this is from a meeting a few months back

to help solve the illegals, and what to do with them, and border security

we need to have border security first....how do we get it.....we close down the majority of bases worldwide that house our military.....we leave a few open in critical areas, or as staging bases
maybe we need 5 total.....close all the rest
with the money saved, we can use those troops to secure the border, or hire agents to seal the border
i want it lethal to try and cross....a few may make it, but we wont have 800k crossing per year
we put teeth into the hiring of illegals.....first offense 500k.....second offence 1million......third offence loss of the business and all related assets
we make e-verify national and the law
for those businesses that try to continue to use illegals paying cash under the table, i dont have a solution yet....

for those here, we put together a plan to help them gain citizenship
we make it hard, but doable
and learning the language is one of the requirements
maybe it takes 7-10 years, but at the end, they become full fledge citizens

there are solutions to the problems.....no they arent easy......nor will they be palatable to all

I don't agree with e-verify. It could work in a utopia where people are not evil. However, I see it was a way to single out people that the gubment doesn't like…to make it impossible for people who disagree w the government to get jobs.

Learn the language? Which one? The US doesn't have an official language. If you want to make English the official language, you gots yourself some work to do.

So the second person on this board I want to kiss. :P

Oo, la la! =-)

[Jamesqf]

Government is a force for good.  It's an expression of our collective will and it enables us to do great things.  I love the internet.  I love spaceflight.  I love the fact that we have national parks, clean air to breath and water to drink.  I love fire and police protection.  I love that I can hop in my safe, fast car and drive anywhere in this nation.  I love that nearly everyone around me is reasonably well educated.  I love that people aren't just totally fucked if their lives take a negative turn.  I love that hospitals have to treat you, even if you don't have cash.  I could go on for a long time.

And I could poke holes in about half of those.  I don't think anyone is saying that government isn't doing some things that are worth doing, just that it's doing some desirable things very inefficiently, and a whole bunch of things that shouldn't be done at all.

For instance: what's government got to do with the modern-day internet, other than spying on our internet use?  Spaceflight?  Well, government also decides that we're not going to have spaceflight any more, unless we pay the Russians for taxi rides.  Clean water?  Yeah, but it can also dictate that you can't drink the clean, natural water of your area, but must have expensive treatment.  Police protection?  Maybe a good idea in principle, but in real life a lot of us would be better off with protection from the police.  Your car may be fast and safe, but it's also thanks to government that (unless you've got lots of money) it's also oversized, overweight, and guzzles gas.  It's also thanks to government that a lot of us can't hop on trains instead of driving.

[gdgyva]

i love the fact that government no longer even needs congress to pass laws

epa can freaking pass it's own laws now...no congressional oversight

bad enough we have presidents using executive orders

but now agencies are just making shit up.....

this is not the way our country is supposed to work

there are supposed to be checks and balances....

[matchewed]

i love the fact that government no longer even needs congress to pass laws

epa can freaking pass it's own laws now...no congressional oversight

bad enough we have presidents using executive orders

but now agencies are just making shit up.....

this is not the way our country is supposed to work

there are supposed to be checks and balances....

Citation Needed on EPA making laws. Sounds like someone needs an overview of the process which has been in place. Or just a refresher on what is a law and what is a regulation. The head of the EPA is also chosen by the President and approved by Congress. So there are checks and balances. You just seem to not like something. So out with it. What's got your goat?

[greaper007]

One thing I've seen a lot of people mention is that illegal aliens are "doing the jobs Americans won't do," but this is not true. Most legal residents just won't do those jobs at the artificially low wages. For example, take an illegal resident working 12-14 hours a day in a hot field picking tomatoes during the summer, for maybe $7-8 an hour (which is the actual wage paid to many immigrant workers in the fields in California).

If, theoretically, there were ZERO illegal workers available to do that work, then economics tells us that employers would have to pay whatever prevailing wage to legal residents that the market would support for that labor. So (and I'm making this up since I have no idea what the market would support), let's just say the wages for such labor would go up to $12/hour. At that rate, they are able to find enough resident workers (aka "Americans") to pick all the tomatoes. Correspondingly, the price of tomatoes would go up.

In the end, everything would balance out. People might buy less tomatoes if the price goes up, but eventually the market would stabilize with supply/demand/price. It's not that Americans are unwilling to do those jobs at those wages, it's that employers are (illegally) able to hire workers and pay them less-than-prevailing wages, thereby crowding out legal workers at higher pay. And the workers getting less-than-prevailing wages are unable to afford supporting their families at reasonable levels in many cases, thereby creating a drain on the rest of society (no health insurance, no ability to pay taxes, unable to buy enough food to feed the family, etc.).

Who cares if tomatoes cost more? The other side of that tomatoes-cost-more equation is we end up with more unemployed legal residents (aka "Americans") who become a drain on society, collecting social welfare. This is no different than any other consumer product. Employers hire workers, pay wages, produce a product, and sell the product to cover expenses plus make some kind of profit. Introducing illegal and artificially low wages into the equation upsets the otherwise healthy balance. I have nothing but compassion for a person who comes to America seeking a better life, but in the macro sense, allowing the illegal and unequal pay situation to continue creates a problem for society at large.

The thing is, there are areas of the country that have attempted to give these jobs to legal workers.   The result was that there weren't enough workers available to pick the crops and farmers had to bring in migrants on a guest worker visa.    That program is a huge headache for employers because of paperwork and housing requirements, so most just look the other way and employ undocumented workers.   

I think the real result of restricting illegal farm workers wouldn't be higher wages for Americans, it would be more importation of foreign grown food.    Food would go the way of textiles and other manufacturing facilities.   

I used to be a union member (albeit a very skilled and highly paid profession) and I still have lots of sympathy for labor.    Still, if you think you can have security in a job that someone in China can do for a quarter of your wage, you're dreaming.   Low skill workers that don't have an actual mental deficiency need to increase their innovation and education.    There's plenty of openings in both the trades and medical field that pay a solid middle class wage for a relatively low amount of training.   When I did construction, the union trades told me that apprentices made in the $30-$40k range with benefits and got bumped up to $50+ once they were done with the apprenticeship.    That's a solid wage in most areas of the country for essentially free education.   My mom is an RN and could break $100k if she pushed the overtime.    That's only a 2 year program.

There's no reason to get mad at poor migrant workers because you didn't take advantage of apprenticeships and community college programs.

[milesdividendmd]

Aside from the enjoyable Schadenfreude of watching the conservative movement implode, it is actually quite sad that the Republicans have gone batshit crazy.  Eric Cantor's loss, while suprising, is no great loss.  I think the best analysis of the meaning of this development can be found here.

http://ericcantorsbitchface.tumblr.com/

Where is the space in the currrent republican party for intelligent conservatives like Jon Hunstman? 

Sometimes lower taxes and fiscal austerity are the best options.  But who can make that case now?  Louis Gomert?  Steve King?  Ted Cruz?

My feeling is that this current era of republican politics represents the inevitable hangover from Nixon's Southern strategy.  A coalition based on racism and old white feelings of entitled privilege has become irrelevant in this era of changing demographics and broadening diversity.  Republicans are now the Dixiecrats, and about as relevant.

[Jamesqf]

Where is the space in the currrent republican party for intelligent conservatives like Jon Hunstman?

Same place where there's space in the current Democratic party for intelligent liberals like...  Well, I can't think of a name offhand, but I sure hope that's more a measure of my ignorance than of the non-existence of intelligent liberals in politics.

[milesdividendmd]

[ql Well, I can't think

Bingo


MOD EDIT: Don't be a dick.  Forum rule #1.

[Blindsquirrel]

  Meh, a one DC lifer gets to move on to stunningly well paid consulting or lobbying. Can't say I care one way or the other really.  I view this as more of a vote for anybody but the establishment guy. Seems like a few folks are irked at DC in its current state. Not enough to matter yet though. I am mildly irked at the current state of DC but not enormously so as I am pretty sure I can do jack to change the ongoing erosion of civil liberties in the USA. Democrat/Republicans are two sides of the same coin. Between, Federal, States, Township, County, City, School District, Village etc, the USA is awash in governments.  One new guy will not change much at all as he will be buried deep in the Congress seniority system. By the time he or she is there long enough they will be an insider and not much will change.

[greaper007]

Aside from the enjoyable Schadenfreude of watching the conservative movement implode, it is actually quite sad that the Republicans have gone batshit crazy.  Eric Cantor's loss, while suprising, is no great loss.  I think the best analysis of the meaning of this development can be found here.

http://ericcantorsbitchface.tumblr.com/

Where is the space in the currrent republican party for intelligent conservatives like Jon Hunstman? 

Sometimes lower taxes and fiscal austerity are the best options.  But who can make that case now?  Louis Gomert?  Steve King?  Ted Cruz?

My feeling is that this current era of republican politics represents the inevitable hangover from Nixon's Southern strategy.  A coalition based on racism and old white feelings of entitled privilege has become irrelevant in this era of changing demographics and broadening diversity.  Republicans are now the Dixiecrats, and about as relevant.

Good observation with the southern strategy.    I agree that it was a shortsighted ploy to pick up some votes for a decade that eventually imploded.    I think most American's wouldn't even name the Republicans as the party of Lincoln if asked on the street today.

I also think that Reagan's big tent strategy might have finally backfired.    Wrangling disparate groups to function under one banner was a genius level leadership move, but where have the leaders been for the last 26 or so years?    The Republicans locked up a certain group of people during the Reagan years.    They functioned autonomously when they had Reagan as a leader, but eventually they broke down into their own personal, narrow issue groups.

The Democrats had the same problem in the late 60s all the way through the 80s.    Most of the country's kooks leaned left.   You had groups like the weathermen or the black panthers pushing a really negative view of progressive ideals on a daily basis.   It made it hard for people that just wanted to give poor people a meal and a decent education to cut through the chaff.     

I really think the Republicans are going to have to turn their backs on organizations like the tea party if they ever want to move forward as a viable party.    They should embrace ideas like realistic fiscal conservatism, progressive personal politics that are in line with small government ideals and the end of corporate welfare.   Embrace Lincoln instead of the tea party.

[milesdividendmd]

Well said Greaper.

[Luck better Skill]

  Current GOP leadership would consider Reagan a RINO.  And he struck compromises with the Democrats in Congress, can you say, "Speaker of the House, Tip O'neill"  Reagan like Clinton was a solid president.  The GOP has lost its way.

[hybrid]

Am I the only person who thinks it is un-genuine and lazy to paint people with opposing views as delusional crazy folks so you can dismiss their arguments and avoid any discussion.

You make a fair point. It's when serious people point out that a lethal border is bat-shit crazy, that's the demographic the Tea Party truly struggle with.

When serious people point out that while the Tea Party is big on "Don't Tread On Me", yet the majority of self-identified members favor restricting abortion access or same-sex marriage ("I'll Tread On You"), the Tea Party struggles. When serious people point out that the Tea Party has no effective filtering mechanism, so that the Michele Bachmanns of the world can talk their crazy talk about clinics that "cure gays" (her husband runs one) or about how vaccines can cause autism, the Tea Party struggles for an effective response. The Tea Party still embraces not-ready-for-prime-time-can't-finish-her-term Sarah Palin for heavens sake.

In short, the Tea Party struggles with the bat-shit crazy image because it's greatest weakness is it's unblinking tolerance of bat-shit crazy within its ranks.

Every party struggles with this to some degree, but the Tea Party are such a loose confederation that there is no body to take the wing nuts aside and say "Your idiotic position is hurting us more than it is helping us."

[trailrated]

Am I the only person who thinks it is un-genuine and lazy to paint people with opposing views as delusional crazy folks so you can dismiss their arguments and avoid any discussion.

You make a fair point. It's when serious people point out that a lethal border is bat-shit crazy, that's the demographic the Tea Party truly struggle with.

When serious people point out that while the Tea Party is big on "Don't Tread On Me", yet the majority of self-identified members favor restricting abortion access or same-sex marriage ("I'll Tread On You"), the Tea Party struggles. When serious people point out that the Tea Party has no effective filtering mechanism, so that the Michele Bachmanns of the world can talk their crazy talk about clinics that "cure gays" (her husband runs one) or about how vaccines can cause autism, the Tea Party struggles for an effective response. The Tea Party still embraces not-ready-for-prime-time-can't-finish-her-term Sarah Palin for heavens sake.

In short, the Tea Party struggles with the bat-shit crazy image because it's greatest weakness is it's unblinking tolerance of bat-shit crazy within its ranks.

Every party struggles with this to some degree, but the Tea Party are such a loose confederation that there is no body to take the wing nuts aside and say "Your idiotic position is hurting us more than it is helping us."

While I consider myself one of the un-crazies and know plenty more tea partiers with similar views... hard to argue with anything you just put forth. Well said.

[gdgyva]

can "freedom" exist without security?

can "liberty" exist without security?

protecting our nation, and securing our borders used to be a priority for this country

i find more and more people who now just dont give a shit whether or not that happens

i am not a tin foil hat, cabin in the middle of nowhere type of alarmist

but i saw what happened at the pentagon as the jet flew right over my head

i saw the carnage on tv just like the rest of you from new york....

if 14 yr olds can hop the fence down south, doesnt it make sense that others can too?

maybe it will take another 9-11 event for this to get through to the public at large....i dunno

i would rather we tighten it up before that happens.....

and if that makes me bat shit crazy, i guess i am guilty as charged

[matchewed]

can "freedom" exist without security?

can "liberty" exist without security?

protecting our nation, and securing our borders used to be a priority for this country

i find more and more people who now just dont give a shit whether or not that happens

i am not a tin foil hat, cabin in the middle of nowhere type of alarmist

but i saw what happened at the pentagon as the jet flew right over my head

i saw the carnage on tv just like the rest of you from new york....

if 14 yr olds can hop the fence down south, doesnt it make sense that others can too?

maybe it will take another 9-11 event for this to get through to the public at large....i dunno

i would rather we tighten it up before that happens.....

and if that makes me bat shit crazy, i guess i am guilty as charged

Yes freedom can exist without sealing every single crack in our borders. Yes liberty can exist too. These things existed before the border with Mexico existed and they will exist afterward. Invoking 9/11 is alarmist whether you live in a cabin or where a tin foil hat or not. Whether we put a massive wall next to Mexico or not we will probably be attacked again. More than likely it will be by a fellow American. Erecting a wall will not prevent that.

If you truly believe that sealing the border with Mexico will prevent 9/11 from happening again could you walk me through that (removing the fact that the idea of sealing a nearly 2k mile border is laughable as it would be a) impossible we don't have the resources to seal that length of land, b) cost prohibitive in that this wouldn't be a simple military action but something that would need to be sustained indefinitely, and c) what technology does anyone hope to think would be able to constantly monitor 2000 miles of border)? Step 1, seal the border. How does that prevent a terrorist attack?

[randymarsh]

Will you please stop connecting illegal immigration to 9/11.

[gdgyva]

Yes freedom can exist without sealing every single crack in our borders. Yes liberty can exist too. These things existed before the border with Mexico existed and they will exist afterward.

lets just say i completely disagree with this statement.....

Invoking 9/11 is alarmist whether you live in a cabin or where a tin foil hat or not. Whether we put a massive wall next to Mexico or not we will probably be attacked again. More than likely it will be by a fellow American. Erecting a wall will not prevent that......no invoking 9-11 is hopefully the way we get people off their ass, and solving this issue.....saying there is no problem is burying ones head in the sand, and hoping like hell that shit doesnt come back to bite you on the ass

If you truly believe that sealing the border with Mexico will prevent 9/11 from happening again could you walk me through that (removing the fact that the idea of sealing a nearly 2k mile border is laughable as it would be a) impossible we don't have the resources to seal that length of land,

we dont have the capability to build a fence/wall? are you kidding? china built one a lot bigger than we need, and they did it with a lot less technology than we have....and their is what 8k miles long?  i think we do have the capability

as far as sealing the border, nothing is 100%.....but it can be "close enough".....we just have to WANT to do it

and NO, i didnt say it WOULD prevent another 9-11...nice try.....i said it could, or might....kind of depends on what 3k + american lives are worth to you


 b) cost prohibitive in that this wouldn't be a simple military action but something that would need to be sustained indefinitely, and     
yes...it would have to be sustained....satellites, fence monitors, cameras, and people are just a few of the things we can use to do so....we have all the tech.....pretty simple to employ it's use
shut down a few bases overseas, and presto, there are your savings to pay for the additional border agents needed to guard it




 c) what technology does anyone hope to think would be able to constantly monitor 2000 miles of border)?   already answered

 Step 1, seal the border. How does that prevent a terrorist attack?     it HELPS....it doesnt necessarily prevent.....but again, i like to live more cautiously than others....
«

[Gin1984]

Yes freedom can exist without sealing every single crack in our borders. Yes liberty can exist too. These things existed before the border with Mexico existed and they will exist afterward.

lets just say i completely disagree with this statement.....

Invoking 9/11 is alarmist whether you live in a cabin or where a tin foil hat or not. Whether we put a massive wall next to Mexico or not we will probably be attacked again. More than likely it will be by a fellow American. Erecting a wall will not prevent that......no invoking 9-11 is hopefully the way we get people off their ass, and solving this issue.....saying there is no problem is burying ones head in the sand, and hoping like hell that shit doesnt come back to bite you on the ass

If you truly believe that sealing the border with Mexico will prevent 9/11 from happening again could you walk me through that (removing the fact that the idea of sealing a nearly 2k mile border is laughable as it would be a) impossible we don't have the resources to seal that length of land,

we dont have the capability to build a fence/wall? are you kidding? china built one a lot bigger than we need, and they did it with a lot less technology than we have....and their is what 8k miles long?  i think we do have the capability

as far as sealing the border, nothing is 100%.....but it can be "close enough".....we just have to WANT to do it

and NO, i didnt say it WOULD prevent another 9-11...nice try.....i said it could, or might....kind of depends on what 3k + american lives are worth to you


 b) cost prohibitive in that this wouldn't be a simple military action but something that would need to be sustained indefinitely, and     
yes...it would have to be sustained....satellites, fence monitors, cameras, and people are just a few of the things we can use to do so....we have all the tech.....pretty simple to employ it's use
shut down a few bases overseas, and presto, there are your savings to pay for the additional border agents needed to guard it




 c) what technology does anyone hope to think would be able to constantly monitor 2000 miles of border)?   already answered

 Step 1, seal the border. How does that prevent a terrorist attack?    it HELPS....it doesnt necessarily prevent.....but again, i like to live more cautiously than others....
«

You have shown no evidence to support this conclusion.

[gdgyva]

Will you please stop connecting illegal immigration to 9/11.

i am connecting BORDER SECURITY to 9-11

if you think that isnt relevant, well.....think on it a bit more

maybe it will come to you