Yea he thinks that illegals are bringing down our economy by stealing american jobs and not contributing to the economy or something. I was saying that maybe he should think about the fact that many immigrant workers are underpaid and put into dangerous working conditions. I donno though, just seems like an issue that gets framed by the republican argument everytime.
oh yeah i guess kucinich even though he has a snow ball in hell chance of actually winning. otherwise if it's close in california i'll probably go obama/edwards/hillary, whoever is leading at least.
Yeah, I'm hoping he can pull some victories in the coming weeks. No one comes close in my opinion.
Edwards is okay but he is too close to the liberal (sorry, "progressive") blogs/moveon.org for me. Clinton ... mediocre Senator, too much micro-polling, nah. People are supporting her b/c of Bill, I don't see that as a valid reason.
Surprisingly McCain could be my second choice ... I am hesitant to have a country of one-party rule again, it has caused a lot of problems. I saw him speaking in NH last weekend and he sounded quite sensible. None of the other Republicans are appealing, too Orwellian/phony. Huckabee is funny at times but that's usually when he is avoiding a tough question.
by the way, here is a great place to see videos of candidates interacting with voters at campaign events
No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
Absolutely. If some Texas company ships in a truckload of illegal immigrants to daylabor at their factory, and one of them gets their hand cut off, they should without question be forced to bleed to death in the street. And his kids? Fuck 'em!
Now that your high-and-mighty doomsday scenario has been advanced, couldn't the Texan employer just pick up the hospital bill? I mean, beyond being cited/fined/jailed for emplying illegals...
Of course the illegal with the now-repaired hand would have to be deported. But that's just the chance he was taking.
On the flipside, what is your suggestion for who should pay for public services to illegals?
Dude your tripping.
Have you ever had a low paying job? Did your employer offer to pay your medical bills?
People who employee low wage immigrants aren't looking to pay medical bills.
No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
Absolutely. If some Texas company ships in a truckload of illegal immigrants to daylabor at their factory, and one of them gets their hand cut off, they should without question be forced to bleed to death in the street. And his kids? Fuck 'em!
Now that your high-and-mighty doomsday scenario has been advanced, couldn't the Texan employer just pick up the hospital bill? I mean, beyond being cited/fined/jailed for emplying illegals...
Of course the illegal with the now-repaired hand would have to be deported. But that's just the chance he was taking.
On the flipside, what is your suggestion for who should pay for public services to illegals?
My scenario wasn't meant to be high-and-mighty, my point was simply that illegal immigration is a little more involved than closing borders and kicking everyone out - it is financed, enabled and encouraged by US businesses both large and small, and just shutting off the services that these immigrants receive after being coerced into crossing the border seems pretty harsh to me.
Because that's the way you are framing it. I highly doubt that anyone is advocating that illegals bleed to death from minor hand injuries. Instead they are saying...treat the person, bill the employer, cite/fine/arrest the employer, and deport the illegal...just like I already stated. But you seem fixated on some wholly unrealistic extreme that apparently no one but yourself is proposing.
My worst-case-scenario was a response to Rockadelic's policies on immigration, attributed by him to Ron Paul, which were as hard-line as you'll find, and seem to have no sympathy whatsoever for the so-called "illegal" and treat them IMO as barely human. In summary: militant border closings/patrols, immediate deportation of all expired visas and illegals, with zero tolerance, including dissolution and no further discussion of amnesty whatsoever, immediate withdrawal of public services for undocumenteds, and removal of the citizenship by birth, a policy that has stood for over 100 years and allowed the families of countless Americans to exist, including mine.
My example was extreme, because his proposal was extreme. To top it all off, he quoted numbers from the Heritage Foundation, and being asked to accept the word of the Coors family and their followers as gospel was a bit more than I could stand without some kind of response.
but weren't the questions kind of slanted against business? Also I had to take a stand on a few issues where I had no opinion.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
Absolutely. If some Texas company ships in a truckload of illegal immigrants to daylabor at their factory, and one of them gets their hand cut off, they should without question be forced to bleed to death in the street. And his kids? Fuck 'em!
Now that your high-and-mighty doomsday scenario has been advanced, couldn't the Texan employer just pick up the hospital bill? I mean, beyond being cited/fined/jailed for emplying illegals...
Of course the illegal with the now-repaired hand would have to be deported. But that's just the chance he was taking.
On the flipside, what is your suggestion for who should pay for public services to illegals?
Dude your tripping.
Have you ever had a low paying job? Did your employer offer to pay your medical bills?
People who employee low wage immigrants aren't looking to pay medical bills.
I worked a summer for a fence company in Houston where I was basically the only one on the crew that wasn't illegal. I got paid $5 an hour, in cash with no dedcutions at the end of every Friday shift.
Anyway, my suggestion wasn't "let's just sit back and hope that employers of illegals pay their hospital bills when one of their employees gets hurt". It was let's force them to do so.
No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
Absolutely. If some Texas company ships in a truckload of illegal immigrants to daylabor at their factory, and one of them gets their hand cut off, they should without question be forced to bleed to death in the street. And his kids? Fuck 'em!
Now that your high-and-mighty doomsday scenario has been advanced, couldn't the Texan employer just pick up the hospital bill? I mean, beyond being cited/fined/jailed for emplying illegals...
Of course the illegal with the now-repaired hand would have to be deported. But that's just the chance he was taking.
On the flipside, what is your suggestion for who should pay for public services to illegals?
My scenario wasn't meant to be high-and-mighty, my point was simply that illegal immigration is a little more involved than closing borders and kicking everyone out - it is financed, enabled and encouraged by US businesses both large and small, and just shutting off the services that these immigrants receive after being coerced into crossing the border seems pretty harsh to me.
Because that's the way you are framing it. I highly doubt that anyone is advocating that illegals bleed to death from minor hand injuries. Instead they are saying...treat the person, bill the employer, cite/fine/arrest the employer, and deport the illegal...just like I already stated. But you seem fixated on some wholly unrealistic extreme that apparently no one but yourself is proposing.
Actually the unrealistic extreme is being imposed and enforced. The new federal medicade laws allow for only stablizing patients who can not show citizenship. I was talking to a health care worker about a landscaper who is going to lose sight in one eye because they can not do the surgery to remove whatever he got in his eye. Only give him antibiotics so he doesn't get an infection and die.
Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -7.75 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.28
how can that even be possible? You must feel strongly about everything.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
Absolutely. If some Texas company ships in a truckload of illegal immigrants to daylabor at their factory, and one of them gets their hand cut off, they should without question be forced to bleed to death in the street. And his kids? Fuck 'em!
Now that your high-and-mighty doomsday scenario has been advanced, couldn't the Texan employer just pick up the hospital bill? I mean, beyond being cited/fined/jailed for emplying illegals...
Of course the illegal with the now-repaired hand would have to be deported. But that's just the chance he was taking.
On the flipside, what is your suggestion for who should pay for public services to illegals?
My scenario wasn't meant to be high-and-mighty, my point was simply that illegal immigration is a little more involved than closing borders and kicking everyone out - it is financed, enabled and encouraged by US businesses both large and small, and just shutting off the services that these immigrants receive after being coerced into crossing the border seems pretty harsh to me.
Because that's the way you are framing it. I highly doubt that anyone is advocating that illegals bleed to death from minor hand injuries. Instead they are saying...treat the person, bill the employer, cite/fine/arrest the employer, and deport the illegal...just like I already stated. But you seem fixated on some wholly unrealistic extreme that apparently no one but yourself is proposing.
My worst-case-scenario was a response to Rockadelic's policies on immigration, attributed by him to Ron Paul, which were as hard-line as you'll find, and seem to have no sympathy whatsoever for the so-called "illegal" and treat them IMO as barely human. In summary: militant border closings/patrols, immediate deportation of all expired visas and illegals, with zero tolerance, including dissolution and no further discussion of amnesty whatsoever, immediate withdrawal of public services for undocumenteds, and removal of the citizenship by birth, a policy that has stood for over 100 years and allowed the families of countless Americans to exist, including mine.
My example was extreme, because his proposal was extreme. To top it all off, he quoted numbers from the Heritage Foundation, and being asked to accept the word of the Coors family and their followers as gospel was a bit more than I could stand without some kind of response.
I don't think that Ron Paul is that extreme about it though. At least, you put an idea like "cutting services from illegals" down on paper and it becomes much more static and absolute than the reality of enforcing such a law would entail. Again, I don't see Ron Paul as anywhere near that draconian an influence.
He just understands that if you are going to have a socialist-leaning nation, then you've got to enforce borders far beyond the current norm. In other words, the "harsh" rules should rightfully go along with the already-established infrastructure...not a particular candidate.
so basically if you just had no beliefs it would be a wash?
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
Absolutely. If some Texas company ships in a truckload of illegal immigrants to daylabor at their factory, and one of them gets their hand cut off, they should without question be forced to bleed to death in the street. And his kids? Fuck 'em!
Now that your high-and-mighty doomsday scenario has been advanced, couldn't the Texan employer just pick up the hospital bill? I mean, beyond being cited/fined/jailed for emplying illegals...
Of course the illegal with the now-repaired hand would have to be deported. But that's just the chance he was taking.
On the flipside, what is your suggestion for who should pay for public services to illegals?
My scenario wasn't meant to be high-and-mighty, my point was simply that illegal immigration is a little more involved than closing borders and kicking everyone out - it is financed, enabled and encouraged by US businesses both large and small, and just shutting off the services that these immigrants receive after being coerced into crossing the border seems pretty harsh to me.
Because that's the way you are framing it. I highly doubt that anyone is advocating that illegals bleed to death from minor hand injuries. Instead they are saying...treat the person, bill the employer, cite/fine/arrest the employer, and deport the illegal...just like I already stated. But you seem fixated on some wholly unrealistic extreme that apparently no one but yourself is proposing.
Actually the unrealistic extreme is being imposed and enforced. The new federal medicade laws allow for only stablizing patients who can not show citizenship. I was talking to a health care worker about a landscaper who is going to lose sight in one eye because they can not do the surgery to remove whatever he got in his eye. Only give him antibiotics so he doesn't get an infection and die.
Have a nice day.
If he can find a way to pay for that surgery, I'm sure he could get it done. That's why I'm saying that his employer should do so.
Plus, most of us carry insurance policies that don't cover everything we might need in our lifetimes, so it's hardly just illegals in that same boat.
No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
Absolutely. If some Texas company ships in a truckload of illegal immigrants to daylabor at their factory, and one of them gets their hand cut off, they should without question be forced to bleed to death in the street. And his kids? Fuck 'em!
Now that your high-and-mighty doomsday scenario has been advanced, couldn't the Texan employer just pick up the hospital bill? I mean, beyond being cited/fined/jailed for emplying illegals...
Of course the illegal with the now-repaired hand would have to be deported. But that's just the chance he was taking.
On the flipside, what is your suggestion for who should pay for public services to illegals?
My scenario wasn't meant to be high-and-mighty, my point was simply that illegal immigration is a little more involved than closing borders and kicking everyone out - it is financed, enabled and encouraged by US businesses both large and small, and just shutting off the services that these immigrants receive after being coerced into crossing the border seems pretty harsh to me.
Because that's the way you are framing it. I highly doubt that anyone is advocating that illegals bleed to death from minor hand injuries. Instead they are saying...treat the person, bill the employer, cite/fine/arrest the employer, and deport the illegal...just like I already stated. But you seem fixated on some wholly unrealistic extreme that apparently no one but yourself is proposing.
Actually the unrealistic extreme is being imposed and enforced. The new federal medicade laws allow for only stablizing patients who can not show citizenship. I was talking to a health care worker about a landscaper who is going to lose sight in one eye because they can not do the surgery to remove whatever he got in his eye. Only give him antibiotics so he doesn't get an infection and die.
Have a nice day.
If he can find a way to pay for that surgery, I'm sure he could get it done. That's why I'm saying that his employer should do so.
Plus, most of us carry insurance policies that don't cover everything we might need in our lifetimes, so it's hardly just illegals in that same boat.
billbradleyYou want BBQ sauce? Get the fuck out of my house. 2,890 Posts
Economic Left/Right: -2.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.13
Economic Left/Right: -1.62 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.36
A few of those questions I wasn't even sure what they meant, so by default I put "disagree" since I didn't want to agree with something I didn't understand. I suppose a "no opinion" button would have been helpful. I generally have no opinion about multinational corporations.
"Multinational companies are unethically exploiting the plant genetic resources of developing countries."
Comments
dave
Edwards is okay but he is too close to the liberal (sorry, "progressive") blogs/moveon.org for me.
Clinton ... mediocre Senator, too much micro-polling, nah. People are supporting her b/c of Bill, I don't see that as a valid reason.
Surprisingly McCain could be my second choice ... I am hesitant to have a country of one-party rule again, it has caused a lot of problems. I saw him speaking in NH last weekend and he sounded quite sensible.
None of the other Republicans are appealing, too Orwellian/phony. Huckabee is funny at times but that's usually when he is avoiding a tough question.
by the way, here is a great place to see videos of candidates interacting with voters at campaign events
http://www.campaignnetwork.org
According to the test, I'm hanging as a left-leaning anarchist along with my new buddies Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama.
I doubt anyone here would believe it based on how people respond to my posts, but that sounds about right.
Dude your tripping.
Have you ever had a low paying job? Did your employer offer to pay your medical bills?
People who employee low wage immigrants aren't looking to pay medical bills.
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian
My worst-case-scenario was a response to Rockadelic's policies
on immigration, attributed by him to Ron Paul, which were as
hard-line as you'll find, and seem to have no sympathy whatsoever
for the so-called "illegal" and treat them IMO as barely human.
In summary: militant border closings/patrols, immediate deportation
of all expired visas and illegals, with zero tolerance, including
dissolution and no further discussion of amnesty whatsoever, immediate
withdrawal of public services for undocumenteds, and removal of the
citizenship by birth, a policy that has stood for over 100 years and
allowed the families of countless Americans to exist, including mine.
My example was extreme, because his proposal was extreme. To top it all
off, he quoted numbers from the Heritage Foundation, and being asked to
accept the word of the Coors family and their followers as gospel was a
bit more than I could stand without some kind of response.
but weren't the questions kind of slanted against business? Also I had to take a stand on a few issues where I had no opinion.
I worked a summer for a fence company in Houston where I was basically the only one on the crew that wasn't illegal. I got paid $5 an hour, in cash with no dedcutions at the end of every Friday shift.
Anyway, my suggestion wasn't "let's just sit back and hope that employers of illegals pay their hospital bills when one of their employees gets hurt". It was let's force them to do so.
Actually the unrealistic extreme is being imposed and enforced. The new federal medicade laws allow for only stablizing patients who can not show citizenship. I was talking to a health care worker about a landscaper who is going to lose sight in one eye because they can not do the surgery to remove whatever he got in his eye. Only give him antibiotics so he doesn't get an infection and die.
Have a nice day.
Economic Left/Right: -7.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.28
how can that even be possible? You must feel strongly about everything.
I don't think that Ron Paul is that extreme about it though. At least, you put an idea like "cutting services from illegals" down on paper and it becomes much more static and absolute than the reality of enforcing such a law would entail. Again, I don't see Ron Paul as anywhere near that draconian an influence.
He just understands that if you are going to have a socialist-leaning nation, then you've got to enforce borders far beyond the current norm. In other words, the "harsh" rules should rightfully go along with the already-established infrastructure...not a particular candidate.
My results.....
I fell right around those two also. Harvey, you think you and Ron Paul would have similar answers to these questions?
so basically if you just had no beliefs it would be a wash?
If he can find a way to pay for that surgery, I'm sure he could get it done. That's why I'm saying that his employer should do so.
Plus, most of us carry insurance policies that don't cover everything we might need in our lifetimes, so it's hardly just illegals in that same boat.
Jeebus...no wonder I'm disgusted...
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.13
Not really all that surprising, I guess. Well, if you know me well, of course.
Which I do.
Economic Left/Right: -1.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.36
A few of those questions I wasn't even sure what they meant, so by default I put "disagree" since I didn't want to agree with something I didn't understand. I suppose a "no opinion" button would have been helpful. I generally have no opinion about multinational corporations.
"Multinational companies are unethically exploiting the plant genetic resources of developing countries."
What the hell does that even mean?
Anyway, just like a girl, I love a questionnaire:
Economic Left/Right: -7.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.92
name which one or y'all are soft!
yeah!
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.92