RE: Stupid question

RE: Stupid question (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

mnottertail -> RE: Stupid question (3/1/2017 7:44:50 PM)
The law is clear, employing them is criminal and civil in violation illegal aliens are only a civil matter. Nutsuckers such as you Felchgobbler Gobbles as you nurse out that PutinJizz are batshit insan, pimping pedophiles and commies

tamaka -> RE: Stupid question (3/1/2017 8:10:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka Maybe it will end up that robots do all of the work and instead of printing money, everyone will be given x number of points every week to use instead of money. Maybe the idea of having to 'earn' it will dissipate and it will just be given to everyone... like giving tickets to a kid at an amusement park. Someone will still have to work, unless the robots are going to maintain themselves. And, there goes innovation, unless you give the robots a damn good AI, at which point, they might end up deciding that humans are entirely unnecessary.... That's actually what is predicted to happen.

Aylee -> RE: Stupid question (3/1/2017 9:04:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: The other solution is that birth on US soil does not confer US citizenship. But you cannot write that change in as a regulation to a program. *All persons born* or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.** ~14th Amendment, U.S. Constitution Like I said, you cannot write a change to that in as a regulation. Now there is a Federal judge that is looking at the jurisdiction issue I believe with regard to illegal aliens and whether or not their children should be considered citizens or not.

BamaD -> RE: Stupid question (3/1/2017 9:48:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: The other solution is that birth on US soil does not confer US citizenship. But you cannot write that change in as a regulation to a program. *All persons born* or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.** ~14th Amendment, U.S. Constitution Like I said, you cannot write a change to that in as a regulation. Now there is a Federal judge that is looking at the jurisdiction issue I believe with regard to illegal aliens and whether or not their children should be considered citizens or not. How about this idea. We can deport the parents as they are here illegally. While we may not be able to deport the children they should go with the parents. When they are old enough to come back and support themselves of course they can come back. Illegals gone, families kept together, those who are citizens can return at a time they can function on their own. Only problem is that we still have a sovereign nation with secure borders and we don't have catch and release.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Stupid question (3/1/2017 11:37:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 Why is it up to Libs & Dems to create businesses to employ people? Isnt that what Trump campaigned on and said he would do, Make America Great Again & all that shite? He won, thats on him now.. Just sayin'.. [;)] Because it's the Libs/Dems that are pissing and moaning about ebil corporations not paying people enough and outsourcing jobs, or simply not hiring enough people. so then you are fine with outsourcing and paying people so little that they cant pay for the basics (which is why most people become homeless)? I dont recall people/Libs & Dems complaining about corps not hiring enough people, other than ya can never find a store clerk (etc) when ya need one.. [;)] Again, those things are what Trump campaigned on (he condemned outsourcing low wage workers, etc, signed EO about "cheap" HB1 workers, etc) so obviously Rs arent happy about it either cuz they voted for and elected him.. again, its on him now.. he wanted the job, he got it.. [:D] Personally, I dont care about outsourced jobs, cuz I grew up with outsourced shite from the US (cuz US corps could produce cheaper than Canadian corps could).. Now the US is seeing the effects of what I grew up with and funny thing, they dont seem to like it much when the shoe is on their foot.. Go get the duct tape and wrap your head with it before you read the rest. It's probably going to make your head explode... I'm not an R, and I didn't vote for Trump, so what he stumped for on the campaign trail is immaterial. I believe Trump is wrong in opposing outsourcing. The left sees it as being businesses' responsibilities to lower unemployment (hire more people) and pay better wages. Yet, they don't pick up the ball themselves and create those businesses to hire more people and better wages. They don't put their money where their mouths are. I'm fine with outsourcing and paying market rates. I'm fine with a person being allowed to work for whatever he or she is willing to work for (oppose minimum wage laws). I support voluntary Union membership, but if a worker doesn't want to join the Union, he or she shouldn't have to as a condition of employment (right to work).

DesideriScuri -> RE: Stupid question (3/1/2017 11:45:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 Why is it up to Libs & Dems to create businesses to employ people? Isnt that what Trump campaigned on and said he would do, Make America Great Again & all that shite? He won, thats on him now.. Just sayin'.. [;)] Because it's the Libs/Dems that are pissing and moaning about ebil corporations not paying people enough and outsourcing jobs, or simply not hiring enough people. Really. Then what's all this GOP/Trump hoopla about creating jobs? Somehow, DS missed the whole economic nationalism of the Trump campaign and early presidency. Didn't miss it at all. But, just because Trump is railing against outsourcing now doesn't mean the Libs/Dems weren't doing it before. And, I think Trump is wrong for railing against outsourcing. Trump is more of a mercantilist in his campaign planks. There's a reason mercantilism died oh so many years ago.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Stupid question (3/1/2017 11:47:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka Maybe it will end up that robots do all of the work and instead of printing money, everyone will be given x number of points every week to use instead of money. Maybe the idea of having to 'earn' it will dissipate and it will just be given to everyone... like giving tickets to a kid at an amusement park. Someone will still have to work, unless the robots are going to maintain themselves. And, there goes innovation, unless you give the robots a damn good AI, at which point, they might end up deciding that humans are entirely unnecessary.... That's actually what is predicted to happen. Humans will be entirely unnecessary to be continue to exist. I'm talking SkyNet and Battlestar Galactica shit here. [:D]

DesideriScuri -> RE: Stupid question (3/1/2017 11:50:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: The other solution is that birth on US soil does not confer US citizenship. But you cannot write that change in as a regulation to a program. *All persons born* or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.** ~14th Amendment, U.S. Constitution Like I said, you cannot write a change to that in as a regulation. Now there is a Federal judge that is looking at the jurisdiction issue I believe with regard to illegal aliens and whether or not their children should be considered citizens or not. If we go by intent, the Amendment was supposed to apply to the newly freed slaves, so anchor babies shouldn't be a thing. It wasn't intended to confer citizenship to children foreign nationals who happened to be birthed here. But, intent will get you nowhere if it disagrees with their beliefs.

vincentML -> RE: Stupid question (3/2/2017 5:35:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: The other solution is that birth on US soil does not confer US citizenship. But you cannot write that change in as a regulation to a program. *All persons born* or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.** ~14th Amendment, U.S. Constitution Like I said, you cannot write a change to that in as a regulation. Now there is a Federal judge that is looking at the jurisdiction issue I believe with regard to illegal aliens and whether or not their children should be considered citizens or not. How about this idea. We can deport the parents as they are here illegally. While we may not be able to deport the children they should go with the parents. When they are old enough to come back and support themselves of course they can come back. Illegals gone, families kept together, those who are citizens can return at a time they can function on their own. Only problem is that we still have a sovereign nation with secure borders and we don't have catch and release. We can't deport the children but they should go anyway? . . . to a foreign country where they may not know the language and culture. How is that not deporting them? A sovereign nation? We are the strongest sovereign nation in world history. Our southern border has been open for more than 150 years. What's the harm? What is the fucking harm??? Separating families is cruel, traumatic and inhumane. That's what was done to slave families. A truly embarrassing tradition.

vincentML -> RE: Stupid question (3/2/2017 6:05:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: The other solution is that birth on US soil does not confer US citizenship. But you cannot write that change in as a regulation to a program. *All persons born* or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.** ~14th Amendment, U.S. Constitution Like I said, you cannot write a change to that in as a regulation. Now there is a Federal judge that is looking at the jurisdiction issue I believe with regard to illegal aliens and whether or not their children should be considered citizens or not. yes, I understand that "jurisdiction" is raised by opponents of birthright citizenship. This from Congressman Steve King of Iowa: Counter to this logic, proponents of universal automatic birthright citizenship claim that those born in the United States necessarily are subject to the jurisdiction of the country. However, this renders the language “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” superfluous. Why would the drafters of the 14th Amendment include this qualifier at all if it was met simply by virtue of being born in the United States? The legislative history outlined below will make clear that the addition of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was designed specifically to make sure the people granted citizenship did not have divided political loyalties. Right, designed specifically to ensure that people did not have loyalty to a foreign power. How has that worked out with native born Jihadists? And how pray tell can a new born child have loyalties to a foreign power? Hopefully, the equal protection clause will prevail should the issue come before the Court. The attack on babies will be seen in the true light of its cruelty and panicky anti-illegals hysteria. Why are you so exorcised about illegals?

vincentML -> RE: Stupid question (3/2/2017 6:18:50 AM)
quote: I'm fine with outsourcing and paying market rates. I'm fine with a person being allowed to work for whatever he or she is willing to work for (oppose minimum wage laws). I support voluntary Union membership, but if a worker doesn't want to join the Union, he or she shouldn't have to as a condition of employment (right to work). Outsourcing of labor and right to work laws have had the effect of commoditizing labor and destroying the union movement. The short time result benefits employers but in the long run, very quickly coming upon us, they also destroy our consumer market. We can see the dire straits of the brick and mortar merchants. We have become consumers who can only afford shopping on line or at Walmart. Our manufacturers will have to sell their goods overseas but EU nations and the UK are experiencing the same issues. Consumers are the true job creators.

thompsonx -> RE: Stupid question (3/2/2017 6:21:33 AM)
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri If we go by intent, the Amendment was supposed to apply to the newly freed slaves, The newly freed slaves were illegal aliens dumbass. so anchor babies shouldn't be a thing. It wasn't intended to confer citizenship to children foreign nationals who happened to be birthed here. Slaves were foriegn nationals dumbass. But, intent will get you nowhere if it disagrees with their beliefs. Obviously not with you dumbass.

thompsonx -> RE: Stupid question (3/2/2017 6:29:58 AM)
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I'm not an R, and I didn't vote for Trump, so what he stumped for on the campaign trail is immaterial. I believe Trump is wrong in opposing outsourcing. The left sees it as being businesses' responsibilities to lower unemployment (hire more people) and pay better wages. Yet, they don't pick up the ball themselves and create those businesses to hire more people and better wages. They don't put their money where their mouths are. Cite please I'm fine with outsourcing and paying market rates. Are you fine with taxing imports? If not then you are actively for slavery. I'm fine with a person being allowed to work for whatever he or she is willing to work for (oppose minimum wage laws). How hungry will you have to be before you are "willing" to suck my cock just to have something warm in your mouth? I support voluntary Union membership, but if a worker doesn't want to join the Union, he or she shouldn't have to as a condition of employment (right to work). That is called "freeloading". Others pay union dues to maintain their benifits while you want the same benifits without paying for them. That is how the lazy get "fat"

thompsonx -> RE: Stupid question (3/2/2017 6:32:14 AM)
ORIGINAL: vincentML Outsourcing of labor and right to work laws have had the effect of commoditizing labor and destroying the union movement. The short time result benefits employers but in the long run, very quickly coming upon us, they also destroy our consumer market. We can see the dire straits of the brick and mortar merchants. We have become consumers who can only afford shopping on line or at Walmart. Our manufacturers will have to sell their goods overseas but EU nations and the UK are experiencing the same issues. Consumers are the true job creators. Isn't that how henry ford managed to sell so many cars???Pay his employees enough so they could afford them?

PeonForHer -> RE: Stupid question (3/2/2017 6:46:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka Maybe it will end up that robots do all of the work and instead of printing money, everyone will be given x number of points every week to use instead of money. Maybe the idea of having to 'earn' it will dissipate and it will just be given to everyone... like giving tickets to a kid at an amusement park. Maybe rich people will have armies of robot servants while everyone else dies jobless, homeless and alone in the streets. A lot of those robot servants would have to be security guards .... One of the major reasons why Disraeli, one of the founding fathers of British conservatism, thought that it might be prudent for rich people not to be so greedy as to allow too large a part of the population get too poor and desperate. You can convince a lot of people for a lot of the time that their misery is their own fault - but it's not good to push your luck too far with that line. Rightly or wrongly, a lot of the poor inevitably end up thinking that you're taking the piss, and they get angry about it .... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-nation_conservatism (Just in case some aren't familiar.) The really funny thing is that by American standards, Disraeli was practically a Marxist. Strewth, tell me about it. I've taught Americans at the OU: the grief they've had trying to get their heads around terms like 'liberal', 'socialist' and 'conservative'. I feel for them, having to handle non-US definitions of those things for the first time.

thompsonx -> RE: Stupid question (3/2/2017 6:52:43 AM)
ORIGINAL: BamaD How about this idea. We can deport the parents as they are here illegally. Which is a misdomeanor while you are silent on the matter of the felony committed by those amerikans who employ them...Why is that? Is it because you hate mexicans and are a korporate kock sucker? While we may not be able to deport the children they should go with the parents. All because you hate mexicans??? Not a good enough reason, try again dumbass. When they are old enough to come back and support themselves of course they can come back. Why do they need to be able to support themselves? They are amerikan citizens and entitled to all the benifits there of.

mnottertail -> RE: Stupid question (3/2/2017 7:10:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka Maybe it will end up that robots do all of the work and instead of printing money, everyone will be given x number of points every week to use instead of money. Maybe the idea of having to 'earn' it will dissipate and it will just be given to everyone... like giving tickets to a kid at an amusement park. Maybe rich people will have armies of robot servants while everyone else dies jobless, homeless and alone in the streets. A lot of those robot servants would have to be security guards .... One of the major reasons why Disraeli, one of the founding fathers of British conservatism, thought that it might be prudent for rich people not to be so greedy as to allow too large a part of the population get too poor and desperate. You can convince a lot of people for a lot of the time that their misery is their own fault - but it's not good to push your luck too far with that line. Rightly or wrongly, a lot of the poor inevitably end up thinking that you're taking the piss, and they get angry about it .... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-nation_conservatism (Just in case some aren't familiar.) The really funny thing is that by American standards, Disraeli was practically a Marxist. Strewth, tell me about it. I've taught Americans at the OU: the grief they've had trying to get their heads around terms like 'liberal', 'socialist' and 'conservative'. I feel for them, having to handle non-US definitions of those things for the first time. Does the US have actual definitions for them?

PeonForHer -> RE: Stupid question (3/2/2017 7:34:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Strewth, tell me about it. I've taught Americans at the OU: the grief they've had trying to get their heads around terms like 'liberal', 'socialist' and 'conservative'. I feel for them, having to handle non-US definitions of those things for the first time. quote: Does the US have actual definitions for them? It's not been my job to find out, Ron, so I've not really bothered, to be honest. I just had to get them up to passing their exam in the UK, that's all. The way I've usually dealt with it is to get them to grasp the following: 1.) Obama isn't socialist. He's conservative. (Point to Edmund Burke and B. Disraeli; compare to Blair, Thatcher and Heath.) 2.) Difference between New Right and Traditional Right; One-Nation Conservatism versus neoliberal/neoauthoritarian Toryism. 3.) Accurate and balanced difference between 'conservative' and 'reactionary'. The political-scientific senses of those words. 4.) Distinguish between communist, socialist, democratic socialist, social democrat. (I once asked here at CM what people understood by 'social democracy'. Americans answered with words to the effect of 'What's that?' There's this weird thing that I've only ever seen in Americans: they cannot really grasp something that isn't capitalism, but isn't 'hard socialism', either. There's little sense of 'in between', as there is in Europe.) 5.) Distinguish between classical liberal, neoliberal, and modern liberal. 6.) Show what the post-WW2 consensus was - philosophically why, and how, liberal, socialist and conservative parties came broadly to agree with one another.

WhoreMods -> RE: Stupid question (3/2/2017 7:47:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Strewth, tell me about it. I've taught Americans at the OU: the grief they've had trying to get their heads around terms like 'liberal', 'socialist' and 'conservative'. I feel for them, having to handle non-US definitions of those things for the first time. quote: Does the US have actual definitions for them? It's not been my job to find out, Ron, so I've not really bothered, to be honest. I just had to get them up to passing their exam in the UK, that's all. The way I've usually dealt with it is to get them to grasp the following: 1.) Obama isn't socialist. He's conservative. (Point to Edmund Burke and B. Disraeli; compare to Blair, Thatcher and Heath.) 2.) Difference between New Right and Traditional Right; One-Nation Conservatism versus neoliberal/neoauthoritarian Toryism. 3.) Accurate and balanced difference between 'conservative' and 'reactionary'. The political-scientific senses of those words. 4.) Distinguish between communist, socialist, democratic socialist, social democrat. (I once asked here at CM what people understood by 'social democracy'. Americans answered with words to the effect of 'What's that?' There's this weird thing that I've only ever seen in Americans: they cannot really grasp something that isn't capitalism, but isn't 'hard socialism', either. There's little sense of 'in between', as there is in Europe.) 5.) Distinguish between classical liberal, neoliberal, and modern liberal. 6.) Show what the post-WW2 consensus was - philosophically why, and how, liberal, socialist and conservative parties came broadly to agree with one another. I think that pretty much boils down to "No, Ron, the US doesn't seem to." [:D]

tj444 -> RE: Stupid question (3/2/2017 5:32:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 Why is it up to Libs & Dems to create businesses to employ people? Isnt that what Trump campaigned on and said he would do, Make America Great Again & all that shite? He won, thats on him now.. Just sayin'.. [;)] Because it's the Libs/Dems that are pissing and moaning about ebil corporations not paying people enough and outsourcing jobs, or simply not hiring enough people. so then you are fine with outsourcing and paying people so little that they cant pay for the basics (which is why most people become homeless)? I dont recall people/Libs & Dems complaining about corps not hiring enough people, other than ya can never find a store clerk (etc) when ya need one.. [;)] Again, those things are what Trump campaigned on (he condemned outsourcing low wage workers, etc, signed EO about "cheap" HB1 workers, etc) so obviously Rs arent happy about it either cuz they voted for and elected him.. again, its on him now.. he wanted the job, he got it.. [:D] Personally, I dont care about outsourced jobs, cuz I grew up with outsourced shite from the US (cuz US corps could produce cheaper than Canadian corps could).. Now the US is seeing the effects of what I grew up with and funny thing, they dont seem to like it much when the shoe is on their foot.. Go get the duct tape and wrap your head with it before you read the rest. It's probably going to make your head explode... I'm not an R, and I didn't vote for Trump, so what he stumped for on the campaign trail is immaterial. I believe Trump is wrong in opposing outsourcing. The left sees it as being businesses' responsibilities to lower unemployment (hire more people) and pay better wages. Yet, they don't pick up the ball themselves and create those businesses to hire more people and better wages. They don't put their money where their mouths are. I'm fine with outsourcing and paying market rates. I'm fine with a person being allowed to work for whatever he or she is willing to work for (oppose minimum wage laws). I support voluntary Union membership, but if a worker doesn't want to join the Union, he or she shouldn't have to as a condition of employment (right to work). Oh my head won’t explode, its screwed on right.. [:D] Yes, I know you have said before that you aren’t an R, that doesn’t matter imo, as you are bashing Libs/Dems when its been Trump who has bribed voters with the promise of bringing jobs back (presumably at businesses), so it seems to me that it’s the R’s/Trump that is saying its businesses responsibility to employ Americans.. After all, the D’s/Obama didn’t do anything to stop outsourcing so how can they believe what you are claiming they do? Both parties whore themselves out to the 1% & big corps, neither of them give a shite about the voters.. (at least I bash both parties.. [;)]) So you oppose minimum wage laws, then you must also oppose unemployment insurance and medicare and workers compensation and social security and veterans affairs, after all, if a worker takes a job where they risk getting injured or die then its on them for taking the job in the first place, right? And children working for next to nothing in coal mines is their right to do also.. cuz they are willing to work for that.. same thing with those that join the military, if they get their damn fool legs shot off then its on them for taking the job in the first place.. The US has just gone thru the worst “recession”/depression since the 30s, without protections in place this would have been ten times worse than it was.. One thing I can’t get over is just how humanitarian and caring so many Americans are.. [8\|]

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 [5] 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875