Total Members Voted: 17
Fair? Wtf are you talking about. Ok, look it. There are things in life you have to deal with. Like a wealthy country getting immigration from a poor bordering country, I mean shi.t man what would you think would happen. We all pay for services and projects that are used by people that didn't pay for them. If not, we would have no roads, no bridges, no fire depts., no administration for anything including courts, basically nothing needed for a functional society. So yes, you cannot only pay for what you get- that's not just selfish its impossible as a practical matter. To have anything you and I must pay for things used by us and people who didn't pay for it. Sorry, but otherwise none of us would have anything.It seems the arguments behind the positions you are advocating are based on morals or beliefs and not numbers (naively reminiscent of abstinence education arguments- thinking human beings or any animal will avoid sex is just plain gullibility inspired by morality). Illegal immigrants using U.S. based facilities maybe morally deplorable to you, but as a practical matter of course it will happen. You can't stop it. Understanding the numerical situation is important and relatively small. You may not like poor immigrants using "your" stuff, but the drain is relatively small and unavoidable.Its hard for me to piss on the poor and the destitute from my nice warm apartment at my nice expensive computer. But that's just my morality and possibly just as naive. Maybe I can express my point in an contrapositive way: why is Alabama so harsh on illegal immigrants with a peek Hispanic population of less than %4 (just to be clear that means that not only is the Hispanic pop insanely small in Bama, but the illegal immigrant population is yet even smaller within that)? - Morality: illegal immigration is wrong so they made crazy harsh regs and caused problems to solve a problem that never existed. I doubt they will say the obvious- "opps". They should though.
Yes. Nothing is perfect. Ratifying health care to deal with "free loaders", i.e. the poor does make sense. No argument here. Ostracizing people who make 17k a year for being unable to pay a 100k medical bill after a car accident or afford 2k per year in insurance is a little obtuse, yeah I'll admit that. The attacks and the blaming is what I criticize. Nothing is perfect, yes we have to deal with things we don't like. Adults should know that. You can them hate all you want, I'm just saying: mathematically/fiscally/numerically/practically/quantitatively- illegal immigration is not very consequential and horribly predicable- we really don't have to pay for their debt- the math isn't there (not to mention that they are poor as sh.it and we are asking them to give our rich asses money). The problem comes in where morality become the center piece over reality. It shouldn't be, doesn't seem to matter if it matters if it is or isn't seems a weak position to me. As to the state I.D.s. "Why"- is the first thought that comes to mind. Who is being targeted. Are you referencing the voter I.D.ing controversy? Is it racist? I'm not sure about that. Is it designed to limit who can or will vote, thus changing voter demographics? Yes, that is very likely.The problem with process is that the poor and/or uneducated won't participate even if it is free. They have to know about it. Regs like that are often designed to limit them or worse target a specific group (which has been done directly to black communities in the past with voter laws). Why would you want a state I.D. card? We already have one by proxy: driver's licenses.
Illegal immigrants are poor. Otherwise they wouldn't be illegal- they're migrating for jobs, man, poor country to rich country- a very, very old and typical story. They can't pay their medical bills. Immigrants with means can afford to go through the process, or at least know what it is. You think people make the crossing work as dishwashers for $5/hr because they are wanderlasting (I actually have know one person who did that because he was wanderlasting, but only one)? MOST ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ARE POOR.I never said voting shouldn't be limited to legal voters- whatever that means. I said politically, in the modern climate, the voter I.D. controversy is likely a means to restrict certain demographics from voting- its an old story done many, many times in the past in a variety of ways. I'm actually on the fence with this issue- both sides have merit if and only if there is excessive voting by non registered voters or the dead or voters voting more than once. Are you broadening my premises and is that where you see a flaw in logic? From my perspective that is precisely what it looks like (this is the nicest way I could think of to say it).I guess a few questions I'm asking are: Who are the people who are voting that shouldn't be voting? How big of a problem is it (in numbers please- if only 5 illegal immigrants are voting then it is not a problem)? I suspect that in most jurisdiction its not a big problem, but if in some it is it should be addressed. But, broadly addressing it with a mandatory ID program seems excessive and tactical in a politically purposeful way- that isn't good.
then why bother to vote at all?Quote from: mortons on January 12, 2012, 01:08:48 PMVoted for the most likely winner. Not who I would want to win.
Voted for the most likely winner. Not who I would want to win.
ok, you raise some good points. How can it truely be "racist" though? I heared Jesse Jackson ranting on his "news" show (for the 5 minutes I could stomach it) that it was racist towards black voters somehow. WTF is that? It's a FREE ID and race is not a factor.