What do you think of Bush NOW? [Archive]

Goofball

03-27-2006, 18:49

Why a new thread? Because I hate the S.O.B.

Yes. Me. A Republican. I was borderline with his spending. :inquisitive:

He crossed the line with his support of illegal immigrants. :furious3:

Want to know what's really funny? I have pretty much hated everything about his presidency until I read this article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12034586/

where he said this:

“No one should play on people’s fears or try to pit neighbors against each other,” Bush said. “No one should pretend that immigrants are threats to America’s identity because immigrants have shaped America’s identity.
“No one should claim that immigrants are a burden on our economy because the work and enterprise of immigrants helps sustain our economy,” the president said. “We should not give in to pessimism. If we work together I am confident we can meet our duty to fix our immigration system and deliver a bill that protects our people, upholds our laws and makes our people proud.”

Then I thought to myself, "Hey, Bush is actually making a little bit of sense for a change..."

Hurin_Rules

03-27-2006, 19:05

To paraphrase Lyndon Johnson, if Bush has lost Divinus, he's lost the country.

Viking

03-27-2006, 19:09

Bush is fun. We need more Bushes. :2thumbsup:

Banquo's Ghost

03-27-2006, 19:18

I can't say I ever much approved of him, mainly because he was so clearly the creature of corporate interests. From what I read, his immigration policy is also dictated to him by big business rather than listening to the impact on ordinary people. Bush also seems to utterly disregard the Constitution, which disturbs me.

It's a pity he got that second term - this writing was on the wall then - but I can see why he was the lesser of two evils. If the Democrats could find so much as a woodchuck with a single principle, they would have a stranglehold on the next election, but it doesn't look promising. :wall:

Dr Rice seems both intelligent and politically astute - perhaps that's the death knell - is she likely to run, and if so, has she a chance?

Xiahou

03-27-2006, 19:28

Disaprove. The sad part about this is that I still think Kerry would have been worse. Jeez, the Dem leadership sucks...
Amen. As bad as Bush is, Kerry would've been that much worse. Pretty much everything I think Bush is doing wrong, Kerry campaigned on doing worse during his campaign. :no:

Craterus

03-27-2006, 19:58

Bush is, and always will be, a danger to humanity.

Kanamori

03-27-2006, 20:06

Gah! I actually liked his stand on the Dubai issue until his gave in (probably by asking them to give up behind the scenes). Other than that, Iraq has been terribly mishandled.

Louis VI the Fat

03-27-2006, 21:09

I actually slightly less disapprove of Bush in comparison to two or three years ago. His foreign policy has matured a bit. A lot, frankly. There's less of a 'with us or against us' mentality, less of that sophomoric 'let's bomb them into a first world democracy' view of the world, less paranoia. The foreign policy during his second term has been much more mature and realistic, more experienced.

Lemur

03-27-2006, 22:21

I guess he is sort of sexy when he does his Dr. Evil pose ...

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/bush_idiot.jpg

Sjakihata

03-27-2006, 22:32

I find it so funny that people begin to speculate that Kerry would have been worse, first of all it is speculation, it cannot be prove and secondly, it matters little whether he would have done a better or worse job, so why bother? Trying to put miscredit/discredit (what ever it is) on someone else instead of facing the problems.
And yes, I too have been anti Bush all along.

Byzantine Prince

03-27-2006, 22:36

He is a terrible American president but I am not necessarily disapproving of him.

Kaiser of Arabia

03-27-2006, 22:38

Lets make him president of San Marino. He'd do less damage.

Kralizec

03-27-2006, 22:39

“No one should play on people’s fears or try to pit neighbors against each other,” Bush said. “No one should pretend that immigrants are threats to America’s identity because immigrants have shaped America’s identity.
“No one should claim that immigrants are a burden on our economy because the work and enterprise of immigrants helps sustain our economy,” the president said. “We should not give in to pessimism. If we work together I am confident we can meet our duty to fix our immigration system and deliver a bill that protects our people, upholds our laws and makes our people proud.”

Wich would have made sense if he talked about immigrants, period. But from what I gather he said that to defend protests from illegal immigrants.

Quid

03-27-2006, 22:47

What!! Bush is still in power??!! You ******** me, right!

Nah, I didn't like him when he first came to power, I don't like him now. I care little, in fact. I don't think he will have much of a place in history anyway. In ten year's time he will be forgotten...

!!!GAH!!!

Quid

Devastatin Dave

03-27-2006, 23:21

Love 'em...:2thumbsup:

Goofball

03-27-2006, 23:34

I find it so funny that people begin to speculate that Kerry would have been worse, first of all it is speculation, it cannot be prove and secondly, it matters little whether he would have done a better or worse job, so why bother?

So that they can try to ease the burden on their own consciences for having voted for him.

t1master

03-27-2006, 23:59

i was led to believe that armageddon would occur the instant bush was re-elected... being curious......

....i'm still dissapointed. ~;)

Soulforged

03-28-2006, 00:32

¡¡¡Mr. Danger es un asesino y un genocida!!!:2thumbsup:

Al Khalifah

03-28-2006, 00:37

Is Bush really such a terrible president, or has he just had to reside over some very terrible times?
America hasn't become in the state it is in purely because of the events of the last 5 years. Bush has had a lot of bad events happen on his watch that were often out of his control.

I didn't (don't) like Bush, but I didn't have a clue who Al Gore was apart from the Vice President and I thought Kerry was a tool. I can't really see how America would be in any different a state to that which it is in now with one of the other choices.

I mean really, were any of the following truly great leaders of a nation?
LB. Johnson (wasn't elected)
R. Nixon (forced to resign, scandelous)
G. Ford (wasn't elected (AT ALL!))
J. Carter (need I say more)
R. Reagan (consumerist, Iran-Contra Affair, Beirut, scandelous administration)
GHW (Fathered GW Bush)
B Clinton (Scandal, shagged about managed to get impeached)

Alexander the Pretty Good

03-28-2006, 02:56

Reagan was! ~:pissed:

---

The only beacon of hope for Bush's presidency seems to be the judicial appointees. From what I can tell, they've been spot on.

Spending: sucks.
Immigration: sucks.
Foreign Policy: questionable to sucks.

Alexanderofmacedon

03-28-2006, 03:11

Disapprove...

What a moron...:no:

Tachikaze

03-28-2006, 03:19

Want to know what's really funny? I have pretty much hated everything about his presidency until I read this article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12034586/

where he said this:

Then I thought to myself, "Hey, Bush is actually making a little bit of sense for a change..."
Bush is an antichrist.

I agree with Goofball. This was one time when I thought Bush took the right side. I know he probably did it for the wrong reasons, but I agree with the result.

Divinus Arma

03-28-2006, 03:24

When libs agree with Bush, there is a problem.

Here are my thoughts about Bush right at this moment:

Warning: Suggestive Imagery
https://img353.imageshack.us/img353/38/split7mr.jpg (https://imageshack.us)

Strike For The South

03-28-2006, 04:30

He disgusts me. I use to midly dislike him but he supported the immgration bill. Selling out the soul of the country for a few votes. :no:

Samurai Waki

03-28-2006, 06:39

I've stayed out of the political scene for the most part. Bush is by no means a good president, in fact he just a bad president, who as it so happens got elected at the wrong time. Perhaps if he followed Reagan or his father instead of Clinton things would be a bit different, but alas, we cannot dwell on what ifs. I know Kerry wouldn't have been a great president either, he promised too much, and his arrogance was unbelievable. I like people who walk the razor's edge, people who ignore the bull**** and focus on the things that matter... I'm not concerned about right or left, I just want a President who knows how to get the job done not for his party, or for himself, but for the people he presides over. I think if Colin Powell was nominated he do fine, but as it stands he shows no interest, and John McCain is the second best choice in my views. He supported Bush on the Dubai Port Deal, when nobody else would, not because he has any love for the man, but because he knew it was right for diplomatic and financial reasons.

Divinus Arma

03-28-2006, 08:21

Call me old-fashioned.

If I felt that way (and the way communicated in the first post), and I was an active-duty military guy, oathed to support and defend the constitution and obey the prez, and all... and was aware, because of my extensive military training and experience, that the UCMJ has harsh penalties for mutiny or sedition, disparagement of the national command authority, and conduct that brings discredit to the service...

What's your point? I have every right to question the decisions of our leadership. I do not, however, have a right to act in a manner contrary to that oath which I have sworn to defend. I can say pretty much whatever I want so long as it does not interfere with my official capacity. I am still a citizen. Furthermore, what the hell are you talking about, discredit to my service. I suggest you clarify this point.

I guess that tomorrow, instead of sitting behind my taxpayer-paid-for computer at work (that military duty thing that taxpayers are also paying for, on top of the taxpayer-funded broadband internet),

And what point are you making now? What is that you are suggesting?

I'd just feel honor-bound to report to my commanding officer and tell him that I couldn't conscienciously continue showing up for work anymore, since our fearless leader/commander-in-chief disagrees so fundamentally with my own point of view.

That is so totally absurd, you insult me just making the comment. Your whole rant disgusts me.

Maybe instead, I'd just have another Starbucks, and show up at the office a bit after the cannon has fired, and see what more sedition and disaffection I could breed on an internet game forum.

What have they done to my military?

Get off your high horse and don't attack the character of my service. Have you lost your mind?

:old veteran rant ends:

Gee. I guess this qualifies you to be a dick, huh?

Ser Clegane

03-28-2006, 09:26

Please try to keep the discussion civil, guys (and avoid getting personal)

Thanks

:bow:

Ser Clegane

KukriKhan

03-28-2006, 09:34

:bow:

We shall abide. Thank you for your patience with us in your house. :bow:

We shall engage in PM.

Taffy_is_a_Taff

03-28-2006, 14:52

Bush, eh?

why doesn't he just create the 51st state: Old Mexico.
I'm sure Fox would be on side.

Tachikaze

03-28-2006, 18:26

:bow:

We shall abide. Thank you for your patience with us in your house. :bow:

We shall engage in PM.
I don't think you're the one who needs to apologize. Your criticisms were not personal.

. . . well, unless Bush is reading this.

Al Khalifah

03-28-2006, 22:59

Reagan was! ~:pissed:

If you would define "a great leader of a nation" as a man who authorised the selling of arms to Iran (and Iraq at the same time - while they were at war) and whose administration used the funds generated by said arms deal to fund an anti-populist terrorist group in Nicaragua (not to mention also using the CIA to wage covert warfare in the country as well), then yes, he was a pretty decent guy.

This is a man who routinely defied Congress and if you wanted a person to blame for the the the terror crisis that faces America right now, I'd have this guy high on my list. Interventionalism may as well have been this man's middle name - his policies may well have worked at the time, but he put America, both militarily and economically on a foundation of sand.

The continued belief that he is America's greatest president is beyond belief to me.

solypsist

03-29-2006, 00:21

"hating" bush is far different from hating the platforms and activities of his party and administration.

do i hate bush? no. do i think he's a manchurian candidate? you bet.

Lemur

03-29-2006, 03:14

Is Bush really such a terrible president, or has he just had to reside over some very terrible times?

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/bush_worstpresident.jpg

Alexander the Pretty Good

03-29-2006, 05:09

Al Khalifah - not the "greatest", just one of the greats.

Or at least, pretty good (~;)).

He did bring down the USSR, in my book - though arguing about that would be OT.

Soly - he works for the manchurians!?!?!!111 :juggle2:

Eh, I don't think that gives him enough credit, but probably isn't too far off, either.

Major Robert Dump

03-29-2006, 06:43

I dunno, raiding the federal Crime Victims Fund seems like such a good idea to pay for wanton spending and tax cuts, doesn't it? How can anyone disapprove of taking funds from the CVF and diverting it to the general treasury I don't know, I think rape victims and grieving families are stupid, who cares if most of the funds come from assets seized from the badguys in the crimes.

So lets see....an annual cap was put on the fund years ago to prevent excessive spending and abuse. Apparently that cap is a little low, since theres now 1.5 billion surplus, so rather than raising the cap or -- god forbid -- going back to help who were denied assistance because their crime happened too darned late in the fiscal year (sorry, ma'am if you were raped earlier in the year we could help you)

What a stupid, stupid idea.

Pretend this never happened:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040417-1.html

Of course lots of people were saying similar things about Bush early in his presidency, even when a good portion of folks who voted for him actually believed he represented them, but people just saw him as a bumbling, illiterate dooder and worried he would get smashed in the next election. Then a few planes came along and saved him

rory_20_uk

03-29-2006, 12:53

The economy is not in a state as he's managing to issue more and more treasury bonds (who many trillion is it now?) Basically giving the next person the consequences of his mess to sort out.

He might have stopped with the "them and us", but that's only because you can only wade into the swamp so far before stopping. He's gone further than the clinically sane, but it seems his corporate minders have finally restrained him.

Kerry is worse... good analysis guys. Whatever Bush has done, Kerry would have done worse. Slight partisan flavour here?

And with immigration. The country requires these immigrants to function, as Americans seemingly can't be bothered to do these jobs (same in the UK). So rather than leaving things in the mess they are at the moment he's trying to sort it out (I agree, business drives this, not humanity). I think that this is one thing he's done right recently.

~:smoking:

Taffy_is_a_Taff

03-29-2006, 13:38

Kerry is worse... good analysis guys. Whatever Bush has done, Kerry would have done worse. Slight partisan flavour here?

Edit: nevermind.

you should see Kerry in action, a true douche. I'm sure he could have done better in the elction campaign if he just didn't say anything.

Major Robert Dump

03-30-2006, 10:22

Rory said:

And with immigration. The country requires these immigrants to function, as Americans seemingly can't be bothered to do these jobs (same in the UK). So rather than leaving things in the mess they are at the moment he's trying to sort it out (I agree, business drives this, not humanity). I think that this is one thing he's done right recently

This is garbage. They arent doing jobs americans dont want to do. They are doing jobs that employers wont pay americans enough to do because the illegal workforce has driven down wages, which is also an indirect result of WORLD TRADE and a GLOBAL ECONOMY because as one sector outsources it drives down prices of everything related to it. Theres no need to pay people 9 dollars an hour to be a groundskeeper when you can buy a made-in-china lawnmower at wal-mart for 69 dollars or pay a landscaping company who uses 5.35 illegal laborers.

For gods sake, even the NYT and Wash -- two very liberal papers -- are running opeds with solid research showing that these people dont pay the taxes to cover the benfits they consume, and they have driven down the low/no-skill average wage by 8%.

70% dude. Thats the public speaking, and all the legislators are slowly morphing their opinions so they all look the same, that way the voters wont be able to snipe then off of their stump come election day. I hope they all fall hard.

Kommodus

03-30-2006, 19:04

I voted for Bush. Twice. And I don't regret it.

There, I said it. Do you all think I'm an idiot now?

The Iraq war has been mostly a fiasco. I thought it was a bad idea during the run-up to it. When it started I hoped it would have a good outcome. Now it's apparent that many of our fears are true after all - none of the supposed WMDs were found, finishing the job is taking quite a long time, and the Iraqis are incapable of sanely governing themselves.

Bush's handling of the budget leaves much to be desired, too. Almost from the beginning he's spent more like a liberal than a conservative. Under his administration the government has grown larger - hardly the smaller, more efficient government I'd hoped for. As an example, the new Medicare drug program, while I know little about it, seems ridiculous.

These are just a few of my serious disagreements with Bush. There are more. He bears little resemblance to the Republican president I'd prefer.

I don't blame Bush for the economic downturn - I doubt any president truly has much control over the economy. I don't blame him for the slow Katrina response, and I definitely don't blame him for global warming. I understand that many of the decisions he's had to make were difficult ones, and the correct choice is a lot clearer in hindsight.

Is it possible that Gore or Kerry would have handled things better? Is it possible they would have better handled the war on terror, the budget, the economy, the education crisis, etc? Yes, it's possible - I won't speculate. But regardless, there's no way I could have voted for either of them.

Why? Because I can't vote for someone who believes the killing of unborn children should be permitted. Sorry, but I just can't do it. Suppose Hitler had actually had sound economic, social, foreign, and environmental policies, but the one flaw in the ointment was that he favored the killing of Jews and other ethnic cleansing policies? Would you be able, in good conscience, to vote for such a man?

Of course I hope for better choices in the next election. I'll never agree completely with any candidate, that's for sure. And I'll always probably be wrong on a lot of issues, too. After all, where do I get my information but from a biased, selective media that can hardly be trusted?

I have my share of disagreements with Bush - probably more than I'd have with many presidents. But I'm hardly ready to believe the bleak picture the media paints. It's too fickle and untrustworthy.

A.Saturnus

03-30-2006, 19:24

Actually, I wasn't thinking of him right now.

Lemur

03-30-2006, 23:31

Why does Vermont hate freedom? (https://img142.imageshack.us/my.php?image=mar6bc.gif) (Looks as though the only states where Bush's approval tops 50% are Utah, Wyoming and Sweet Home Alabama.)

Watchman

03-30-2006, 23:46

I loathe Bush. Nothing new on the Western Front.

I also feel morbidly fascinated by the foaming racism that seems to make the formerly wavering turn against him.

Don Corleone

03-30-2006, 23:58

Not only does he talk to God, a clear sign of insanity with any person who isn't in office or can walk on water, he seems to have no idea as to what a 'budget' actually is, let alone knowing how to balance it. And he uses US soldiers to fight a war for personal glory (upstaging daddy).

So praying is a clear sign of insanity? Wow, I know atheists are trying to stack the deck by claiming you shouldn't be allowed to mention God in public, but this is ridiculous... now a belief system is grounds for insanity... Hmm...

I loathe Bush. Nothing new on the Western Front.

I also feel morbidly fascinated by the foaming racism that seems to make the formerly wavering turn against him.

I resemble that remark. I have no problem with large number of Latin Americans coming into this country. The US is built on immigration, always has been and most likely always will be.

But quite frankly Watchman, I don't think you know the first thing about which you are speaking. State governments are going bankrupt because citizens are being forced to provide social services, health care, education etc. for undocumented aliens that make no financial contribution to society. According to the socialists around here, like Idaho, not paying taxes is akin to treason.

What's more, La Raza and other large Latino groups have made it abundantly clear they are not here to become American. They want the language changed to Spanish (y hablo espanol bastante bien). They want the country to integrate into Mexico. They want to change the culture, the history and the direction of the country.. This isn't what I say, go visit La Raza's website or one of these other groups. No reconquista cultura here, thank you very much.

Or, en los verbos que ellos pueden entender, venga aqui! Venga aqui y trabaje' con nostotros, hage' esta pais ayun mejor. Pero no vamos a hacernos mexicanos. Somos norteamericanos, y norteamericanos vamos a quedarnos.

lars573

03-31-2006, 00:00

I was against him becoming president in 2000 nd nothing has changed.

Watchman

03-31-2006, 00:12

*snip*...and what all that amounts to is still The Evil Comes From The Outside. Not a second of wondering why things are going to Hell in handbasket when in the past immigration generally worked just fine (what now the already-established tended to resent the newly-arrived...), or why the newer arrivals don't feel like belonging in their new environs. Or if the curious issue of presumably reasonably affluent Americans being willing and, one suspects, eager to pay sub-minimum wage to illegals instead of hiring legally to do the same chores might be one of the roots of the problem, or for that matter grounds for some critical self-reflection.

No. It's them damn greaser Mexican illegals. The Evil Comes From The Outside. :dizzy2:

Did you know, I understand the spread of that attitude has tended to be characteristic of societies in decline with increasingly insoluble structural problems throughout history...? Other, related, symptoms have tended to include growing tendencies towards xenophobia, isolationism and general, often romantic and nostalgic, introvertism and longing after "better times when all was right"...

Alexander the Pretty Good

03-31-2006, 00:27

I may be totally off-base, but...

Weren't the immigrants that built this country here legally?!

The Irish, the Italians, etc, were they here illegally or not?

Watchman

03-31-2006, 00:36

So, why can't the folks who end up coming in illegally come in legally then ? Land of opportunity and all that ?

And I'll snort derisively at anyone who suggests the problem's with them.

Don Corleone

03-31-2006, 00:39

...and what all that amounts to is still The Evil Comes From The Outside. Not a second of wondering why things are going to Hell in handbasket when in the past immigration generally worked just fine (what now the already-established tended to resent the newly-arrived...), or why the newer arrivals don't feel like belonging in their new environs. Or if the curious issue of presumably reasonably affluent Americans being willing and, one suspects, eager to pay sub-minimum wage to illegals instead of hiring legally to do the same chores might be one of the roots of the problem, or for that matter grounds for some critical self-reflection.

No. It's them damn greaser Mexican illegals. The Evil Comes From The Outside. :dizzy2:

Did you know, I understand the spread of that attitude has tended to be characteristic of societies in decline with increasingly insoluble structural problems throughout history...? Other, related, symptoms have tended to include growing tendencies towards xenophobia, isolationism and general, often romantic and nostalgic, introvertism and longing after "better times when all was right"...

So, we enforce our laws, try to keep our social spending at an affordable level, and we're racist? Beautiful, way to encourage a dialogue...

If I were a Mexican, here legally, I would be more upset about all the illegals than anyone. You're giving the illegals free services that the legal immigrants have to pay for too, and they actually had to stand in line at the embassy to get their paperwork. Hardly seems fair.

For the record, I would imagine left leaning progressives, such as yourself would be the first to stand against illegal immigration. The only reason it's allowed is to artificially force wages down. Your statement about affluent Americans being unwilling to perform menial tasks betrays your ignorance of America. In fact, plenty of people WOULD work in construction, housekeeping, garbage collection, restaurants, etc. if they were paid a living wage. The only people that can live on $6.00/hour are those that aren't paying any taxes. If you're born here, the IRS has you in their ledgers at birth. No such restrictions on the newly arrived undocumenteds.

Don Corleone

03-31-2006, 00:42

So, why can't the folks who end up coming in illegally come in legally then ? Land of opportunity and all that ?

And I'll snort derisively at anyone who suggests the problem's with them.

I have no problems with increasing the number of legally admitted aliens from any part of the world, actually.

There does reach a certain point where our human services infrastructure can no longer keep up though. If everyone is entitled to health care, regardless of their ability to pay (and despite what you might have heard, that IS the law of the land here in the USA), hospitals have to raise costs on everyone else to recoup their losses from treating immigrants.

Prove that you're going to work, pay taxes and be a constructive member of society and come on in. Come for a free ride and I say stay home.

What's more, as I pointed out in the Port Authority discussions... there's no reason for us to be worried that the UAE would allow terrorists in.... if terrorists want in, all they have to do is walk across the Rio Grande like everyone else.

Oh, and by the way.. the Mexican government is a bunch of hypocrites. The rules that are being debated in Congress right now are already on the Mexican books... if the Mexican authorities catch an undocumented Guatamalan, off to jail they go.

Alexander the Pretty Good

03-31-2006, 00:43

Then prepare to snort in derision. If you decide to violate the law in my country by coming here illegally, I don't think you deserve to be a part of the land of opportunity. Allowing illegals in here takes away from opportunity - those of actual US citizens. Why should employers in Texas and California hire citizens, who demand better wages and such? And thus US citizens suffer, in addition to the cost of supporting those who cannot contribute to the nation as a whole.

Watchman

03-31-2006, 00:56

Good job missing much of the point. So it's the fault of the illegals that unscrupulous natives woud rather hire them for nominal wages rather than go the legal way ? R-i-i-i-i-ght.

I'd blame dubious business ethics, widespread, myself, in that regard.

Alexander the Pretty Good

03-31-2006, 01:06

I'll whole-heartedly agree with you - we need to drop the hammer on businesses that employ illegal immigrants. But that doesn't mean we should let illegal immigrants in scot-free just because Americans are also breaking the law. They should still be shown the door. It's a slap in the face to legal immigrants that we allow this to continue.

Watchman

03-31-2006, 01:14

There's actually a pretty simple solution to stemming the influx of illegal immigrants from poorer regions to richer rgions. Two, in fact, although one's really just semantics.

First, just let everyone in legally. No such thing as "illegal immigrant" anymore, right ? :balloon2:

Two, help the poorer regions get rich enough that people no longer want to move out of there en masse in search of better prospects. This is really sort of how like it's kinda pointless to wage "war on drugs" so long it's not economically viable for Colombian peasants to cultivate legal crops instead of poppy in face of competition from massively subsidized US agribusiness and no toll barrier for defense.

Simple in theory. Complicated in practice, all the more so as so far as I can tell the US has been pursuing roughly the polarly opposed policies vis-a-vis the main sources of "illegals" for quite a while...

Alexander the Pretty Good

03-31-2006, 01:51

First, just let everyone in legally. No such thing as "illegal immigrant" anymore, right ?
You're funny! :laugh4:

Two, help the poorer regions get rich enough that people no longer want to move out of there en masse in search of better prospects. This is really sort of how like it's kinda pointless to wage "war on drugs" so long it's not economically viable for Colombian peasants to cultivate legal crops instead of poppy in face of competition from massively subsidized US agribusiness and no toll barrier for defense.
So do we just send them all a monthly check or what?

If we stopped the widespread employement opportunities for illegal immigrants, we could solve the problem without resorting to the above ridiculous proposals. :juggle2:

Watchman

03-31-2006, 01:57

Yeah, well, that's not going to happen without a sea change in the value-sets of Americans then - namely the willingness to cut corners and hire illegals on the cheap rather than obey laws.

I wonder if it's that "social trust" thing again...?

Don Corleone

03-31-2006, 02:04

Hmmm. Watchman, you seem to have a pretty sanctimonious attitude about America and our attitude towards illegal-immigrants. That's kinda funny, as Finland has less than 2% immigrants, and of those 108K immigrants, only 25K are non-Caucasian. How about you tend to matters at home, open your own tightly closed borders, then maybe you can lecture us about what a bunch of exploitive, hypocritical bigots we Americans are, hmm?

Not too many immigrants in Finland (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/10/AR2005061001860.html)

Watchman

03-31-2006, 02:10

I'm all for it, thankyouverymuch. I'm also equally pissed at the "bad immigrants" discussion going on around here, in part as I'm well aware of just how out of proportion the complaints are.

The relevance, however, eludes me, and this makes me suspect a "red herring" evasion.

My point, anyway, is that you guys aren't following the causal chains through. You're taking the illegal immigrants themselves to be the disease, which they aren't. They're the (or rather, a) symptom of deeper problems. And those never go away merely by slamming the symptoms, no matter how convenient or righteous or expedient that may seem.

Alexander the Pretty Good

03-31-2006, 02:18

I'm not premed or anything, but I don't think you encourage the symptoms of the disease, either.

Watchman

03-31-2006, 02:21

Addressing the symptoms, while often necessary to a greater or lesser degree, rarely rids you of the actual disease.

Never, really, when speaking of social phenomenoms through medical references.

See what I mean ?

Alexander the Pretty Good

03-31-2006, 02:33

Well, we should criminalize the employment of illegals (or enforce such legislation if it exists) while deporting illegal immigrants - treating both the root and the symptoms.

Watchman

03-31-2006, 02:35

*BREEEP*
You forgot the biggest root of them all.

Divinus Arma

03-31-2006, 04:13

Someting that bothers me in this entire international discussion about American immigration policy, and it comes from our own leaders...

This business about "jobs Americans won't take".

If this were the case, then American does not have a lack of labor, it has a lack of virtue.

Since when did any job qualify as "unworthy" of Americans? I understand that agriculture labor in California has been predominantly hispanic since anyone can remember. But that is an indication of exploitation, not of "unworthiness".

I am pretty insulted by the entire concept of there being jobs that Americans won't take. Who deterines this and what is the criteria? Hard labor? It sets a very dangerous precednt for ethnocentrism in this country when our citizens belive they are "above" certain jobs.

I think this is political elitism at its worst. And anybody who promulgates this perception is simply facilitating the exploitation of a race while adopting an ethnocentric nationalist perspective- a dangerous combination with historical precedents in tragedy. Anyone with this perception is either evil or ignorant. There is no gray area on this one.

Don Corleone

03-31-2006, 04:33

Don Corleone

03-31-2006, 04:34

Divinus Arma

03-31-2006, 06:39

Totally agree Don. Illegal immigration is exploitation of an entire people.

That said, we must criminalize employers and expand opportunities for immigration, but do so for ALL the people of the world- not just Mexico. Now that is fair immigration policy.

Xiahou

03-31-2006, 08:37

Again, this 'jobs that Americans won't do' business is a myth.

You put enough money on the job, any job, and Americans will line up to do it.

What they should really say isn't that Americans won't do it, they should say "that Americans won't do it for the price that's being offered".

You offer somebody 50K to haul garbage or dig ditches all day, and more impotantly cut off welfare, you'd be shocked by how willing Americans are to do these jobs. Importing Latins to do these jobs simply holds the cost of labor artificially low, end of story.
Amen brother. 'Jobs that Americans wont do' is offensive to me. As you say, the reason Americans arent taking the jobs is because of pay. Now, when you have illegal aliens doing the job for pennies on the dollar you create another problem- they can't afford their own services, such as healthcare. So what you really have, is companies who employ illegals getting what amounts to tax subsidies. They're paying sub-minimal wages to their workers and then shovelling Social Security, Medicaid, ect costs onto legitimate employers and tax payers.

Banquo's Ghost

03-31-2006, 09:30

Amen brother. 'Jobs that Americans wont do' is offensive to me. As you say, the reason Americans arent taking the jobs is because of pay. Now, when you have illegal aliens doing the job for pennies on the dollar you create another problem- they can't afford their own services, such as healthcare. So what you really have, is companies who employ illegals getting what amounts to tax subsidies. They're paying sub-minimal wages to their workers and then shovelling Social Security, Medicaid, ect costs onto legitimate employers and tax payers.

Hit the nail right on the head. :2thumbsup:

Major Robert Dump

03-31-2006, 10:18

Okay so now Mr Will is saying illegals raises the average wage by 11%, but that doesnt necessarily conflict with the idea ofothers that non/lowskill wages are reduced by 8%...you can have the overall average go up while the bottom tier drops. The fact of the matter is lowskill labor is the backbone of an economy, because it frees up people to do/spend on other things. What I dont understand is how the social services vs tax input argument is being altogether avoided by the elected officials. We have SS reform shoved down our throats, yet we import poverty at the rate that the worker to retiree will be 2:1 in 10 years, whereas it it 4:1 right now, and it wa something like 40:1 in 1950.

I'll take my chances in investing, even if it means renting until I'm 50. I simply do not trust my government to maintain a cohesive balance anymore.

Watchman

03-31-2006, 22:39

I find myself agreeing with Xiahou, and even applauding his insight.

...I probably need to eat something, I think my head's getting a bit dizzy. :balloon2:

Divinus Arma

04-01-2006, 05:07

You know guys, the arguments that Don Corleone, Xihaou, and myself have just put forth are all the exact the same arguments we have been espousing all along. Even left-leaning media outlets have published studies in their op-eds that illegals consume more than they contribute. And look at the number! 400,000 a year! And consider the children that they have just from an economic perspective in social services used.

Don Corleone

04-01-2006, 15:57

Yeah, but the difference is you and I are a pair of racist, viscous exploitave thugs that hate Mexicans. Xiahou apparently hit every talking point (we must have missed one), so he is enlightened, and making progress.

Watchman

04-01-2006, 16:47

It rather helps he's willing to explicitly state Americans (or rather, the willingness of too many of them to profiteer illegally by employing illegals) form a part of the problem, you know.

Sort of like how it adds considerable credibility to a statement in a discussion about prostitution to make it clear you remember it's a transaction involving at least two people...

Proletariat

04-01-2006, 16:53

It rather helps he's willing to explicitly state Americans (or rather, the willingness of too many of them to profiteer illegally by employing illegals) form a part of the problem, you know.

Maybe they didn't state it because it's implicit. Of course it isn't other illegals hiring these people, it's the scumbag Mom n Pops that MRD did a great job of pointing out as the sacred cows in this whole mess.

Watchman

04-01-2006, 17:05

Oh yes, there was very much implicit in their posting, but it wasn't *that*...

Don Corleone

04-01-2006, 19:03

If you actually need to hear the words out of my mouth, Watchman, fine. I have a lot more animosity and vehemence against the people that are on the demand side of this equation, and I would happily suspend every license said entrepreneur needs to hold in order to do business could it be proven that they were in fact knowingly hiring illegals. Who the hell did you think I meant when I said 'they' are allowing immigrants into the country to keep the price of labor low, their friends already here in the States?

Oh yes, there was very much implicit in their posting, but it wasn't *that*... Don't be so spineless. If you have some names to call me, call me them. Just because I happen to disagree with you about a problem my country is facing that you don't happen to know all that much about is no excuse to go around with thinly veiled insults, and at the very least, you could show some moxie and come right out and say it.

Watchman

04-01-2006, 19:19

I looked through the thread and found you posting exactly one rather vague reference to the employer-side problem. And a lot of complaining of how all these nasty illegals who contribute nothing to the economy (cheap labor apparently doesn't count...) will bring about the downfall of the US economy, or at least most of what passes for social security over there.
:inquisitive:
The moral grounds on which you adopt such an offended tone seem to elude my powers of perception. I'll consider it a plus you haven't been going on about immigrants bringing crime or somescuh though.

Don Corleone

04-01-2006, 19:25

I neither need, nor desire, your approval of my views in any way, shape or form. In case you've missed the topic of the thread in the progress of your inquisition, it is about George Bush's approval ratings. You chose to turn it into a chance to call people that disagree with the proprosed amnesty program a bunch of racists.

If it makes you feel better to label everyone that disagrees with you in blanket negative terms, ala no-amnesty=racist, be my guest. But for all your self-anointed credentials as being the resident expert in psychology, American politics, and now immigration policies between Mexico and the USA, it doesn't speak very highly for the strength of your arguments that you feel the need to resort to such parlor tricks.

And, in my final words on the matter, prior to dismissing my position, go do a search on how much of the state budgets of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and North Carolina are dedicated to providing health, educational and social services to undocumented (i.e. non-taxpaying) immigrants. Oh, but I guess I'm a rascist for bringing that up. You're not worth discussing matters with. Call me any name you like, I'm done discussing things with you.