Most will agree that the larger cities vote democrat. Most will agree there are a lot of problems in the inner city, yet democrats are still voted in year after year. What do you think the reason for this is? It brings to mind a case of a councilwoman in Dorchester, who got caught taking bribes. When they interviewed people on the street in Dorchester, they said they would vote for her again, and she was just caught doing what everybody else does anyways. :smash:

Most will agree that the larger cities vote democrat. Most will agree there are a lot of problems in the inner city, yet democrats are still voted in year after year. What do you think the reason for this is? It brings to mind a case of a councilwoman in Dorchester, who got caught taking bribes. When they interviewed people on the street in Dorchester, they said they would vote for her again, and she was just caught doing what everybody else does anyways. :smash:

Cities statistically have a higher density of people on government support. Democrats are more apt to expand welfare. Thus, they vote for the people who provide their freeloader checks.

Just as one reason wealthier people vote Republican is to keep more of their earned money in their pocket, inner city voters vote Democratic to get handed money to put in their pocket.

The Dorchester councilwoman is a different case (in my opinion). Dorchester is a battle ground - high drug dealing, high gang activity, people "doing want we need to do to get by". They perceive it as her doing what everyone else in Dorchester is already doing. I remember when it happened, there was a person on the 7 o'clock news that said (paraphrased) "She deserved to have that money."

When I worked for Fallon Ambulance, Dorchester was one of our major coverage areas. Many of the people in Dorchester live by a different ruleset than the rest of society. If you drive down BlueHills Ave in the middle of a weekday, you'd think it was a Sunday afternoon with the number of people sitting outside their houses hanging out just waiting to collect their weekly handouts.

also,

the democrats have created an illusion that republicans are
- against civil rights
- against immigration

2 things that anyone who paid attention in history class would know are incorrect.

it's called Stockholm Syndrome

Stockholm syndrome is a psychological response sometimes seen in abducted hostages, in which the hostage shows signs of loyalty to the hostage-taker, regardless of the danger or risk in which they have been placed.

it's called Stockholm Syndrome

Stockholm syndrome is a psychological response sometimes seen in abducted hostages, in which the hostage shows signs of loyalty to the hostage-taker, regardless of the danger or risk in which they have been placed.

This isn't a dig at the Right, because I agree with much of their policies when it comes to Welfare...

but what do Republicans have to offer someone with no education, no job or a mother of 3 at 21 years old? The answer is nothing. That's why they vote Democratic. As I said above, the Dems are the ones that will put money in their pocket without having to get a job.


also,

the democrats have created an illusion that republicans are
- against civil rights
- against immigration

2 things that anyone who paid attention in history class would know are incorrect.

You're absolutely right. But the Republican and Democrat parties people learned about in history class are much different from the parties that exist today.

I think that I'm going to hang out here in my easy chair and see where this blog is going. :)

but what do Republicans have to offer someone with no education, no job or a mother of 3 at 21 years old? The answer is nothing. That's why they vote Democratic. As I said above, the Dems are the ones that will put money in their pocket without having to get a job.

The Dems offer permanent, subsidized, underclass existence. It's a sort of cause and effect generational cycle. The widespread incidence of 21 year old (or younger) mothers of 3 with no job is to a great extent caused by the lack of pressure to abstain from that behaviour (it's not their fault, societal discrimination, hundreds of years of slavery, etc. in the case of blacks; lack of behavioural standards in the case of whites) coupled with the welfare safety net. The Republicans offer them tough love, emphasis on crime reduction and business expansion, opportunity to gain self-respect. This is, obviously, an over-simplification, but the answer to your question would require more space than is available here.


You're absolutely right. But the Republican and Democrat parties people learned about in history class are much different from the parties that exist today.

Yes, they both have moved considerably to the left since those history books were written. The Dems, in olden days, enforced slavery with a stick, today, they cajole it with a carrot.

For some reason, the promise of lower taxes, smaller government and greater personal responsibility does not resonate with people below the poverty line.

I wonder how all those poor people could afford tickets to the city in the first place?

-spence

I wonder how all those poor people could afford tickets to the city in the first place?

-spence

A nice ride on the Section 8 train. Guaranteed check and housing.

A nice ride on the Section 8 train. Guaranteed check and housing.
I'm thinking a bit before Section 8.

-spence

I'm thinking a bit before Section 8.

-spence

How far back do you want to go? And which poor folks? All of them? That would be a very diverse group with many different stories. Do you mean narrowed down by race? By ethnicity? By immigration? By slavery? By indentured servitude? By loss of fortune and hard luck? By ancestors who searched for a better life? By escape from the law? Your mysterious question is impossible to answer unless you flesh it out. I'm sure there will be an interesting, if not controversial, point to be made.

Hillary Rodham was once a conservative. She was "Goldwater Girl" in 64' and a supporter of Nelson Rockefeller in 68'
She left the republican party after attending the 1968 Rep Convention because of Nixon's “veiled racist invective" in order to appeal to white southerners and swing them over to the GOP.
Nixon proved this approach to be very successful - it came to be known as the "Southern Strategy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy)."

Yes, they both have moved considerably to the left since those history books were written. The Dems, in olden days, enforced slavery with a stick, today, they cajole it with a carrot.

The history books have move to the left also.

I think the republicans should be more concerned with why North Carolina and Virginia turned from red to blue last cycle than they should be with courting the inner city vote. Better to concentrate on the voters you just lost than the ones you never had.

Personally, I think its lack of involvement/information. If people are getting a check every week for nothing, they really dont have a reason to go out and get a job, if they are lazy slobs with different diseases for each of their kids. We all know how rare that is. And thats where "community organizing" comes in. The local person or people from that organization comes in to poor areas, let them know that the republicans want to take their free money. They vote democrat, because they dont know any better and dont want to know any better. I think its so engrained in the 'hood that its never going to change. Yet another reason to keep a close eye on community organizers, otherwise they might get as far as the white house...... wait, never mind. Too late.

You guys are all missing the boat.

-spence

enlighten me Spence you seem to know alot about politics, and/or have an excuse for everything thats wrong with liberal politicians and policies. Im really just looking for something, anything so that I can say, "oh, ok, now I understand" because I am apparently "missing the boat". Or dont answer. It really doesnt matter to me, I just thought id throw it out there and see what came back.

People seem to be missing the obvious, that the city is where a lot of the money is, the jobs are and this caused a lot of population density that persists today.

A lot of people living in close confines requires different rules than in the country. A city is an inherently dense system, where in the country it's much easier to live by your own rules. An example of this might be restrictive handgun laws, which to a moderate might make more sense in a city than in the country.

The needs of the city aligns better with some pure liberal values (that our strength comes from the village, which is nearly intrinsic) than perhaps pure conservative values (that our strength comes from the individual).

Certainly if everybody shared the same high ethical convictions, this may not be the case. But in the real world, biasing towards the rights of the individual could easily prove disastrous in the city. Granted, there are some who advocate if everybody had a gun, there would be no crime, but I think this view is wacky.

None of this is meant as an excuse for bad behavior, but rather how things may have come to be. I'd also note that both parties have a habit for hypocrisy and a base attracted often to less universal qualities.

-spence

People seem to be missing the obvious, that the city is where a lot of the money is, the jobs are and this caused a lot of population density that persists today.

A lot of people living in close confines requires different rules than in the country. A city is an inherently dense system, where in the country it's much easier to live by your own rules. An example of this might be restrictive handgun laws, which to a moderate might make more sense in a city than in the country.

The needs of the city aligns better with some pure liberal values (that our strength comes from the village, which is nearly intrinsic) than perhaps pure conservative values (that our strength comes from the individual).

Certainly if everybody shared the same high ethical convictions, this may not be the case. But in the real world, biasing towards the rights of the individual could easily prove disastrous in the city. Granted, there are some who advocate if everybody had a gun, there would be no crime, but I think this view is wacky.

None of this is meant as an excuse for bad behavior, but rather how things may have come to be. I'd also note that both parties have a habit for hypocrisy and a base attracted often to less universal qualities.

-spence

I cannot stop laughing...
you asked for it Bo:rotf2: is it clearer now? do you get the "obvious"?

the city is where a lot of money is $$$$....:uhuh:

a city is inherently dense....:bgi:

in the country it's much easier to live....:tooth:
our strenght comes from the village....:gh:
ther rights of the individual could prove disasterous....:buds:
I think this view is whacky....:fury:
less universal "qualities"??? :confused:

you can always tell when Spence isn't transposing talking points...he doesn't sound quite as ahhhhhhh....knowledgable? like Obama without the teleprompter...

too freakin' funny......:rotf2:

People seem to be missing the obvious, that the city is where a lot of the money is, the jobs are and this caused a lot of population density that persists today.

This paragraph is totally circular. Did population density occur because there was a lot of money and jobs in a lowly populated city and that attracted a density of newcomers, or, ipso facto, large numbers of people means more money and jobs.

A lot of people living in close confines requires different rules than in the country. A city is an inherently dense system, where in the country it's much easier to live by your own rules. An example of this might be restrictive handgun laws, which to a moderate might make more sense in a city than in the country.

You, of course, mean a large city of relatively small area. There are smaller cities that are not as dense a system and a bit larger ones that sprawl a bit. Unfortunately, laws are promulgated in uniform codes. That is, the country and city have to abide by the same laws. Close confines are a relative concept as well. The concept might more aptly apply to large families or tenants living in the same housing, or to a lesser degree to compacted housing that is not indicative of all large cities, nor to every district of our large cities in the U.S.

The needs of the city aligns better with some pure liberal values (that our strength comes from the village, which is nearly intrinsic) than perhaps pure conservative values (that our strength comes from the individual).

Of course, villages, by definition, are small "usually ranking in size between a hamlet and a town." Many, if not most small towns are of conservative persuasion. It seems that your perspective lends itself to a divergence from the views of our founding fathers.

Certainly if everybody shared the same high ethical convictions, this may not be the case. But in the real world, biasing towards the rights of the individual could easily prove disastrous in the city. Granted, there are some who advocate if everybody had a gun, there would be no crime, but I think this view is wacky.

It sounds like your concept of a city is like that of a commune. Almost marxist. "biasing towards the right of the individual" no matter the size of his community is, I think, what was meant by a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Given that any group of people have differing personalities and pursuits, to constrain them to the ant hill of a group contradicts what we have been about for three hundred years. I understand that extreme leftists want to change that (even for folks who live in the country), but to be so open about it is a bit frightening. If we can divide now, not only by race, sex, financial status, but by city and country, how will we stand?

I don't think anybody advocates that if everybody had a gun there would be no crime. Gun advocates argue that those who have guns can better defend themselves against criminals who have guns. Whether this would lower crime rates is not the question. As for murder, Switzerland, which may have the highest percentage of gun ownership, ranks #56 our of 62 in murders per capita. The UK, which may have close to the lowest percentage of gun ownership, ranks #46 out of 62 in murders per capita.

None of this is meant as an excuse for bad behavior, but rather how things may have come to be. I'd also note that both parties have a habit for hypocrisy and a base attracted often to less universal qualities.
-spence

If this is so, we have come to be in a bad way.

I don't know, I think if I was a robber, I would think twice before breaking and entering into a home, if I knew that every house had a gun in it, with a citizen ready to use it in defense of his or her home.

Remember "Any which way but loose" with Clint Eastwood, the scene where his old mother is on the porch and the biker gang comes into her yard? What happened when she brought out that 12 guage and started shooting?

Also how many people were robbed in the old west? Bandits didn't hit citizens carrying guns, instead they went for the banks and stage coaches, because if you are going to risk getting shot, make sure the pay out is worth the risk.

$40 from an old lady isn't worth a possible bullet hole.......

still doesn't explain why dwellers of inner cities continually vote democrat criminals and reprobates into office, or why larger democrat dominated areas like say, RI, continually vote moron, drug addict, alcoholic trust fund children like Patrick Kennedy into office...I mean, it's one thing to vote a guy or gal in and then find out that they are completely corrupt or inept....but when there's ample evidence that the person is a complete crook(Charlie Wrangle), idiot(Kennedy) or worse, and you live in conditions that are generationally miserable and the same politicians from the same party are still promising you the same thing and 35,000 of you run to get in line for more handouts because Obama is giving out money I think it's pretty obvious that you are willing to trade the one thing that you are told each election season is your most precious right, your vote, for the promise of government largess..."gettin' paid"....not "Hope and Change"....someone else's bills and change...the far left and the Democrats have convinced an entire portion of our population that they are entitled to the product of the work of others, they have so tied these populations(most of which are around the city centers and easy to control at election time) to government handouts that are only designed to remove responsibility from every aspect of their lives that the vast numbers are simply content to "exist"...a few may rise out of the neighborhood but the odds are surely against that....they feed at the hands of democrat politicians and need to perpetuate the programs that they are enslaved to... in order to continue their existence....these are the trial grounds for democrat policies, programs and social engineering and look what they have wrought.....

this is the failed model that Obama and the dems would like to follow for the rest of the nation.......it's all about government dependence....not independence

SCOTTW

U R right on.

When I worked for Fallon Ambulance, Dorchester was one of our major coverage areas. Many of the people in Dorchester live by a different ruleset than the rest of society. If you drive down BlueHills Ave in the middle of a weekday, you'd think it was a Sunday afternoon with the number of people sitting outside their houses hanging out just waiting to collect their weekly handouts.

I observed something similar at the Morton's Steak House on Connecticut Ave in D.C. some years back. I distinctly remember this one K street thug boast "I'm here to get money from the government for my clients...that's why were all here". The laughter from all at the table was almost instinctive.

I doubt the clients referred to above are any of those you saw idling about. Those "people in Dorchester" you referred to are not the only ones waiting on handouts.

Corporate welfare is very real.

And by the way, It's Blue Hill Avenue.

This paragraph is totally circular. Did population density occur because there was a lot of money and jobs in a lowly populated city and that attracted a density of newcomers, or, ipso facto, large numbers of people means more money and jobs.
Doesn't really matter, cities had these properties long before American cities were founded.

You, of course, mean a large city of relatively small area. There are smaller cities that are not as dense a system and a bit larger ones that sprawl a bit. Unfortunately, laws are promulgated in uniform codes. That is, the country and city have to abide by the same laws.
A city can pass different laws than a rural area, they just have to be constitutional.

Of course, villages, by definition, are small "usually ranking in size between a hamlet and a town." Many, if not most small towns are of conservative persuasion. It seems that your perspective lends itself to a divergence from the views of our founding fathers.
Adjective, not noun.

It sounds like your concept of a city is like that of a commune. Almost marxist. "biasing towards the right of the individual" no matter the size of his community is, I think, what was meant by a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Given that any group of people have differing personalities and pursuits, to constrain them to the ant hill of a group contradicts what we have been about for three hundred years. I understand that extreme leftists want to change that (even for folks who live in the country), but to be so open about it is a bit frightening. If we can divide now, not only by race, sex, financial status, but by city and country, how will we stand?
So by your logic we shouldn't have a Federal government to provide interstate highways and a common defense.

Funny how some can only interpret ideas in their most extreme form.

I don't think anybody advocates that if everybody had a gun there would be no crime.
Yet, I've heard it time and time again...

Gun advocates argue that those who have guns can better defend themselves against criminals who have guns. Whether this would lower crime rates is not the question. As for murder, Switzerland, which may have the highest percentage of gun ownership, ranks #56 our of 62 in murders per capita. The UK, which may have close to the lowest percentage of gun ownership, ranks #46 out of 62 in murders per capita.
It's difficult to understand statistics in that narrow context. It's like saying Hawaii's health care works so it should work in any state.

If this is so, we have come to be in a bad way.
That's quite a negative view of ourselves, we are after all, a product of history.

-spence

Cities statistically have a higher density of people on government support. Democrats are more apt to expand welfare. Thus, they vote for the people who provide their freeloader checks.



Bingo! That about says it all. Just enough to keep the people happy.
Complete dis-service to the people.

Bingo! That about says it all. Just enough to keep the people happy.
Complete dis-service to the people.

Let them eat cake, said Nancy Pelosi

That's quite a negative view of ourselves, we are after all, a product of history.-spence

I said IF! When I said "if this is so, we have come to be in a bad way," I was referring to your views, not mine. I didn't express views about us. I view some of us positively (the doers, creators, warriors, strivers, the free and independent minded, especially constitutional originalists), and I view some of us negatively--slackers, those who wait for help when they have the ability to help themselves, socialists, marxists.

Your view that we are a product of history defines, concisely, the difference in our views--probably an essential difference between conservatives and liberals. My view is that history is a product of us.

How do you feel about the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of teeming shores, the homeless and the tempest-tossed?

How do you feel about the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of teeming shores, the homeless and the tempest-tossed?

depends....are they coming here for opportunity and the chance to work for a better life for themselves and their children or are they coming here to become generationally dependent on government programs and as such, loyal democrat voters in return for subsidising their existence ?...

As long as they come here legally i have no problem, it's our own poor citizens that concern me.

The free handouts by the bleeding heart, vote wanting politicians, have kept our poor down with little or no hope. :(
These handout politicians have no clue what it's like to live in the inner city, let alone what really needs to be done to help.

They want the vote, period.

How do you feel about the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of teeming shores, the homeless and the tempest-tossed?

If you're tired, get more sleep or take vitamins. If you're poor and able, get a better job or create your own. If you yearn to breathe free, blow your nose and learn to be independent--dependency is a sure road to loss of freedom. If you are a wretched refuse, you require quite a bit, how much you can do for yourself in that condition (what is a wretched refuse?) may be minimal--you may need some help, then, if you can ever recover from such a state, and if that state was caused by some power that reduced you to it, you will probably desire to be free of any power that can do it again, and you will probably cherish the freedom to resist it. Same for the homeless and tempest-tossed. The Statue of Liberty was given to us as gesture of our unique contribution to freedom and the individual's yearning to breathe that air. (That's just my twisted take on the gift--their was probably some yearning for Socialism in the giver--if so, send it back.)

My take on the overused phrase "the American Dream" is that the original American Dream was freedom. Somehow, that dream got debased to something like a house, a car, a chicken in every pot, and health care. Perhaps, freedom has become so taken for granted that we find it too burdensome to exercise the "eternal vigilance" required to keep it. The comforts that have ensued through freedom and hard work have become more valued than what has been required to gain those comforts.

I know, I know. . .the Statue of Liberty was a gift recognizing friendship between France and The U.S. But it has become a symbol of much more than that, the above is my personal symbolism, especially since that supposed friendship has so deteriorated.

Thank you Spence for clarifying that.

My take on the overused phrase "the American Dream" is that the original American Dream was freedom. Somehow, that dream got debased to something like a house, a car, a chicken in every pot, and health care. Perhaps, freedom has become so taken for granted that we find it too burdensome to exercise the "eternal vigilance" required to keep it. The comforts that have ensued through freedom and hard work have become more valued than what has been required to gain those comforts.



Well said. :btu:

Doesn't really matter, cities had these properties long before American cities were founded.

It matters a great deal. American cities were not founded with the massive population density that some have now. How they got that way and what has changed is the crux of this discussion. American cities have many similarities in their founding to earlier cities--commerce being a major point. But their are also differences. Post colonial American cities were founded bottom-up and required greater exercise of freedom and personal responsibility than cities forged under kingly/imperial regimes. What has happened to them as they have become more governed, assuming a top-down nature with more responsibility rising to the "governers" rather than the "people" is a sapping of vitality. The population density remains but the jobs and money are not as great. Your "obvious" reason that everybody was missing ("the city is where a lot of the money is, the jobs are") does not explain why the urban poor, especially those who do not avail themselves of the jobs, vote Democrat. The top-down nature has created a dependency class who do not value freedom with responsibility, but require the handouts that give them the indentured "freedom" to do very little and get the more than deserved little in return. And those remaining who are still responsible and desire more freedom to pursue their happiness in their INDIVIDUAL way, are coerced into paying for the underclass who are there for the redistribution.

The needs of the transformed post-welfare city certainly, as you say, align better with "some" pure liberal values--BECAUSE THEY WERE TRANSFORMED SO BY THOSE LIBERAL VALUES!--which is again, like your first paragraph, circular.

So by your logic we shouldn't have a Federal government to provide interstate highways and a common defense.

In order to have a common defense (which IS an original duty of the Federal Gov., not the host of "duties" it has absconded from the states) we must BE in common. The liberal tactic of dividing us to conquer votes defeats the commonality required for a common defense. We must have internal wars between our opposing sexual, racial, financial, city/country, pro or anti Americans, marxist/capitalists, labor/management, and on and on groups who must not agree on anything that might defeat their party's chance to win the next election, before we can conduct a war against those who would destroy us, and even do that poorly because anti-war chatter subverts the mission.

Funny how some can only interpret ideas in their most extreme form.

Funny how you can complain about extreme interpretation when you can say that biasing towards the rights of the individual could easily prove DISASTROUS in the city. And bring up the federal gov. building interstate highways as if my logic precluded that.

Yet, I've heard it time and time again...

If you have heard time and time again that if everybody had a gun there would be NO crime, perhaps you have been listening to the same person or persons time and time again. I have heard some say, with good reason, that there would be LESS crime. The NO crime thing I have not yet heard. Of course there are, as you say, extremists.

It's difficult to understand statistics in that narrow context. It's like saying Hawaii's health care works so it should work in any state-spence

The statistics in that narrow context and in other narrow contexts, which add to a larger context, show that restrictive gun laws do not necessarily do what they advocate. And this has nothing to do with Hawaii's health care plan.

depends....are they coming here for opportunity and the chance to work for a better life for themselves and their children

The ones that come here illegaly usually are here for just that reason....to work and support their families. Should they be entering the country legally......absolutely.

or are they coming here to become generationally dependent on government programs and as such, loyal democrat voters in return for subsidising their existence ?...

These are usually the ones that are here Legally...and US Citizens....they are the ones that are lazy and s#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g on the government teat.

These are 2 seperate problems and if they want to fix both of them they need to treat them that way....if they lump them together it will just go on and on and on and on............

this is beautiful!

https://www.safelinkwireless.com/EnrollmentPublic/home.aspx

this is beautiful!

https://www.safelinkwireless.com/EnrollmentPublic/home.aspx

Well of course. How are "income eligible" people going to make their drug deals without a cell phone?

These are usually the ones that are here Legally...and US Citizens....they are the ones that are lazy and s#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g on the government teat.

Yes, to a great extent, I agree with you. Although there are also the illegals that do come here for the handouts. But the legals who you speak of that suck on the big teat are the descendents of immigrants who came here for the original American dream of freedom to work for their quality of life. Their children, that they worked hard to educate, learned in our school systems and our mainstream media that they and other minorities were oppressed, and this oppression was the cause of poverty and all its ills. And the way to defeat that was to vote for those who would help rather than oppress. They learned about the compassion of liberalism, and the promise of the party that would eliminate poverty, not by the hard work of their parents, but by government fiat. By government largesse. They were seduced by that promise and helped to spread the message of that dream. And it became easier for their generation and their children, in times of dire need, to suck on the teat than to suck it up, and that dream expanded into the underclass nightmare of a generational underclass society constantly looking to the teat for survival and by that necessity, perpetually voting to sustain it.

These are usually the ones that are here Legally...and US Citizens....they are the ones that are lazy and s#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g on the government teat.

As is the major issue of the United States' Open-Door Policy on immigration.

What this country needs to do is restrict all immigration (and working Visas) to those people that will actually benefit society. This country needs to get out of the business of making everyone feel good, and back into the business of getting our heads above the water.

You have a Master's Degree and are already set up with a job? Welcome to America!

You're 35 years old, don't have a secondary education nor any technical training skills? Goodbye!

As is the major issue of the United States' Open-Door Policy on immigration.

What this country needs to do is restrict all immigration (and working Visas) to those people that will actually benefit society. This country needs to get out of the business of making everyone feel good, and back into the business of getting our heads above the water.

You have a Master's Degree and are already set up with a job? Welcome to America!

You're 35 years old, don't have a secondary education nor any technical training skills? Goodbye!


I'm 90% onboard with this.....But I don't feel they need to come here all trained and ready to go.....If they want to come here....willing to work for what they get I'm OK with that....If that means janitor by night and schooling during the day......so be it.

Just come here and plan on working for your dream.

I'm 90% onboard with this.....But I don't feel they need to come here all trained and ready to go.....If they want to come here....willing to work for what they get I'm OK with that....If that means janitor by night and schooling during the day......so be it.

Just come here and plan on working for your dream.

Schools are already over populated and prices for a BA or advanced decree are increasing at an exponential rate.

No immigrant janitor will be making enough money to put themselves through school. So, they stop attending school because they can't afford it, or petition for one of the dozens of programs that will pay to put them through school.

These are people you might dub as "potential contributors to society". As I tell my sales people, you can't run a business on potential customers.

This country is like one big Charity Foundation. Let's get the homeless veterans and homeless children that already live here taken care of first, before we open the door to more people needing handouts.

I'm 90% onboard with this.....But I don't feel they need to come here all trained and ready to go.....If they want to come here....willing to work for what they get I'm OK with that....If that means janitor by night and schooling during the day......so be it.

Just come here and plan on working for your dream.

I agree 100%. My girlfriend did it while raising 2 kids. It's called the American Dream and it's still there( for now) for those that are willing to work for it. No excuses

Maybe we should implement one or two requirements that the Aussie's have for citizenship

Skilled worker
Have a job
English language ability

This country is like one big Charity Foundation. Let's get the homeless veterans and homeless children that already live here taken care of first, before we open the door to more people needing handouts.

Agree JD, but at this point how do we do it?

Interesting though how some immigrants work menial jobs, or sleep 10 to an apartment until they raise the capital for a convenience store, motel or restaurant, and then within one generation their children enter the professional class.

People from other countries see opportunity that many native Americans don't - or look down upon as beneath us. The top three ways Americans acquire wealth are: inheritance, business ownership, a distant third is working in a well-paying field. Yet our culture only really respects professionals.

But if you've been sewing shirts in Ecuador for thirteen hours a day for $5 a day, then working twelve hours a day in a bodega and sleeping upstairs with a full stomach, tax-free money in your pocket, a high speed internet connection, cable television and a window air conditioner - is paradise.

I said IF! When I said "if this is so, we have come to be in a bad way," I was referring to your views, not mine. I didn't express views about us.
It's also part of who we are. If someone behaves in a socialistic manner out of a genuine sense of charity or belief in equality does that make their intention bad? Like usual, this isn't a world of extremes.

I view some of us positively (the doers, creators, warriors, strivers, the free and independent minded, especially constitutional originalists), and I view some of us negatively--slackers, those who wait for help when they have the ability to help themselves, socialists, marxists.
What about the socialist/marxist creaters and doers? For example, a lot of good art and music certainly came out of mother Russia.

One could even argue that the "slacker" mentality in the US is a byproduct of the wealth from a free market society. Does that mean it's rooted in socialism? Seems a bit contradictory to me.

Your view that we are a product of history defines, concisely, the difference in our views--probably an essential difference between conservatives and liberals. My view is that history is a product of us.
This is relative to your particular reference frame. Generally speaking, most of us don't have influence beyond ourselves, our family and perhaps our job. I expect my influence on history to be somewhat contained, although I am working hard to prove otherwise.

The influence on history of the few in selected positions of power or more importantly the behavior of the mass has a much larger bearing on how history will be written.

I have noticed you tend to look for differences where as I tend to look for similarities. This would make sense as I usually operate on a spectrum where you seem to go towards extremes.

I'm not sure this has anything to do with ideology though, unless it's just validation that I'm a centrist and you're perhaps on the fringe.

-spence

It's also part of who we are. If someone behaves in a socialistic manner out of a genuine sense of charity or belief in equality does that make their intention bad? Like usual, this isn't a world of extremes.

The intentions of socialists are good. When they are expressed in a personally charitable way, that is, helping others out of their own pocket or their own labor-- I don't consider that socialism. That's just the true milk of human kindness. I consider socialism to be a much more EXTREME form of goodness, in which out of the desire to eliminate the ills that befall mankind, the socialist COERCES some to redistribute their sustenance and redirect their labor for the benefit of others, to create an artificial, unsustainable equality--a collapse, if you will, of your spectrum into a dense black hole where there are no extremes, just the boring gray of an ant hill existence.

What about the socialist/marxist creaters and doers? For example, a lot of good art and music certainly came out of mother Russia.

The best art and music that came out of mother Russia was during its imperial, not communist, era. Marxist art is, to me, a blatant exaltation of the power of revolution of the masses. It makes godlike the proletarian who, in actuality, only serves an unimaginative and brutal ruling clique.

One could even argue that the "slacker" mentality in the US is a byproduct of the wealth from a free market society. Does that mean it's rooted in socialism? Seems a bit contradictory to me.

Slackers in a free market society don't have to be rooted in socialism. Never said that. I just have a negative view of them.

This is relative to your particular reference frame. Generally speaking, most of us don't have influence beyond ourselves, our family and perhaps our job. I expect my influence on history to be somewhat contained, although I am working hard to prove otherwise.

To view ourselves as a product of history is to see us as rather helpless--a PRODUCT predetermined by machinations beyond our control. This does fit the concept of the victim needing the intentional power of the history making Leviathan to protect and succor him.

I like what De Sousa says about what is uniquely American--here more than anywhere else, you have the freedom to make yourself what you wish. You are not trapped into a particular tradition or social class or occupation if you CHOOSE otherwise. And your INTENTION is not to influence history, but history will result from all our efforts (including yours, Spence). To the individualist, the capitalist, the conservative, history is the product. It is the record of our accomplishments, not the master that mashes us into a proletarian mold.

I have noticed you tend to look for differences where as I tend to look for similarities. This would make sense as I usually operate on a spectrum where you seem to go towards extremes.

I don't look for differences or similarities, I see them as they exist on the continuum of life. If you only LOOK for one, you miss the other. Does your spectrum only contain similarities? That seems rather extreme. It does conform to the socialistic, anti-individualistic view, though.

I'm not sure this has anything to do with ideology though, unless it's just validation that I'm a centrist and you're perhaps on the fringe.
-spence

Just what are you in the center of? Does quantum theory, or relativity theory have a center? Does the universe have a center? What is the center of your existence? Do you exist in the middle of some pre-determined historical warp? What is the center of the constant motion and evolution of life? Even more curious, what is the fringe? Is not every point in space and time the center? And at the same moment, is not every point the fringe? You are no more in the center than I, nor I anymore on the fringe than you.

Maybe we should implement one or two requirements that the Aussie's have for citizenship

Skilled worker
Have a job
English language ability

I can fully agree with this.

The whole English language in the US subject is one of the few issues in this country that actually angers me quite considerably. Don't know why, but everyone has their few triggers, and that is one of mine. I'm not going to get started aside from saying that it'll never happen because we want everyone to feel good and welcomed in this state. Make sure to Press 1 for English.


justplugit,
To answer your question, lock down the doors except to those in Fly Rod's post.

Interesting though how some immigrants work menial jobs, or sleep 10 to an apartment until they raise the capital for a convenience store, motel or restaurant, and then within one generation their children enter the professional class.

People from other countries see opportunity that many native Americans don't - or look down upon as beneath us. The top three ways Americans acquire wealth are: inheritance, business ownership, a distant third is working in a well-paying field. Yet our culture only really respects professionals.

But if you've been sewing shirts in Ecuador for thirteen hours a day for $5 a day, then working twelve hours a day in a bodega and sleeping upstairs with a full stomach, tax-free money in your pocket, a high speed internet connection, cable television and a window air conditioner - is paradise.

Unfortunately, this is not the case for most. Considering that 95% of small businesses fail (and a higher rate for restaurants), that's not a good outlook for the immigrants that come here with hopes of the American dream.

For every CNN headlined story about someone who came to the states and accomplished "The American Dream", I'd be willing to bet money there are more than a thousand more that came to this country with the same hopes and failed. As such, it is not in the United State's best interest to allow these people to come here.

This isn't the early 1900s where enough money for a steamship ride to America, combined with hard work, yields a good chance to solidify a better, self-sustaining life for you and your family. We have shifted away from a country with a strong factory and manufacturing job base, to one that is significantly service based with jobs that require specialized skills and experience in order to make similarly waged jobs.

And to make it even more difficult to achieve the so-called "American Dream"...
Today's Bachelor Degree, is yesteryear's High School Diploma.

Schools are already over populated and prices for a BA or advanced decree are increasing at an exponential rate.

No immigrant janitor will be making enough money to put themselves through school.

Didn't say the guy had to go to Harvard Law School.....He could go to a trade school or take a course @ ITT Tech for all I care...as long as he comes here, Works, and pays his taxes I'd be happy to sit down and have a beer with the guy.

So, they stop attending school because they can't afford it, or petition for one of the dozens of programs that will pay to put them through school.

Instead of always looking at the worst case scenario....which of course will happen....how about looking at the best case scenario....where the guy actually does work hard and puts his kids though school and eventually get his own house.....That happens too you know

These are people you might dub as "potential contributors to society". As I tell my sales people, you can't run a business on potential customers.

Every Kid born in America is a Potential Contributor to Society. Until they stop Crapping their diaper or Raiding the refrigerator and enter the work force they really don't contribute do they?

Do you tell your Sales guys to ignore folks without giving them a chance to make a purchase? Or do you tell them to look at every opportunity that is presented as a Sales Opportunity

This country is like one big Charity Foundation. Let's get the homeless veterans and homeless children that already live here taken care of first, before we open the door to more people needing handouts.

Whats weird is I agree with this statement......I'm not saying that every dipchit that wants to come here should be allowed to stay....if they are here legally w/ a work visa you can see if they are productive....and they are welcome to stay....if not, See Ya.....Don't let the door knob hit ya where the good lord split ya.

It's also part of who we are. If someone behaves in a socialistic manner out of a genuine sense of charity or belief in equality does that make their intention bad? charity involves donation of your own money not the confiscation of someone else's for your "charity"

What about the socialist/marxist creaters and doers? For example, a lot of good art and music certainly came out of mother Russia. yes, the propoganda art and the roaring anthems praising the STATE, those were great... and don't forget the starvation and slaughter by the socialist/marxist "creaters and doers"

One could even argue that the "slacker" mentality in the US is a byproduct of the wealth from a free market society. Does that mean it's rooted in socialism? Seems a bit contradictory to me. One could argue that the slacker mentality is a byproduct of decades of increasing government handouts which have destroyed the family unit and created huge swaths of dependent individuals that know only that they need government programs to continue their existence......this would be rooted in socialism....


I expect my influence on history to be somewhat contained, although I am working hard to prove otherwise. ummmmm...if you plan on influencing "history"...you might consider expanding you "influence" beyond the political section of a fishing website and away from Detbuch because he continually beeeotch slaps you :rotf2:



I'm a centrist... :rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2:

:rotf2::rotf2::rotf2:
-spence

:rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2:

[QUOTE=JohnnyD]95% of small businesses fail
Wow! I did not know that.

[QUOTE=JohnnyD]95% of small businesses fail
Wow! I did not know that.

it's not accurate

from USA Today
"In other words, they had what David Birch, former head of a research firm specializing in studying small business data, called the "I Had No Idea" syndrome. Would-be entrepreneurs don't realize what's truly involved with running a business.

So what is your chance of success? I think Birch's statistics are probably as accurate as any. His survival rates:

• First year: 85%
• Second: 70%
• Third: 62%
• Fourth: 55%
• Fifth: 50%
• Sixth: 47%
• Seventh: 44%
• Eighth: 41%
• Ninth: 38%
• Tenth: 35%

"Once you've hit five years, your odds of survival go way up," Birch said. "Only two to three percent of businesses older than five shut down each year."

The lesson? To greatly increase your chance of success, find out as much as you can BEFORE you open your doors. Talk to people who run their own businesses, especially businesses similar to yours, and get a realistic understanding of the time, financial, and emotional resources necessary. Keep your eyes open — not to the possibility of failure, but to the very real demands of running your own business.

So … what about that 90% failure rate cited on the radio? I went to the station's Web site and replayed the story. Listening closely, I realized they didn't mention any time period. So, perhaps the professor is right after all. I think it's safe to assume that within some period of time — oh, let's say 50 years — 90% of all businesses will close. I can live with those odds.

Rhonda Abrams is author of The Successful Business Plan: Secrets & Strategies and president of The Planning Shop, publishers of books and other tools for business plans. Register for Rhonda's free business planning newsletter at The Planning Shop - Write a successful business plan (http://www.PlanningShop.com)

When I was taking business classes as an adult student there was a professor who did an informal poll of where students expected to find employment after graduation - about 1/3 expected to work in a family business after graduation.

it's not accurate

from USA Today
"In other words, they had what David Birch, former head of a research firm specializing in studying small business data, called the "I Had No Idea" syndrome. Would-be entrepreneurs don't realize what's truly involved with running a business.

So what is your chance of success? I think Birch's statistics are probably as accurate as any. His survival rates:

• First year: 85%
• Second: 70%
• Third: 62%
• Fourth: 55%
• Fifth: 50%
• Sixth: 47%
• Seventh: 44%
• Eighth: 41%
• Ninth: 38%
• Tenth: 35%

And this article says 80% 5-year fail rate:
USI: College of Business--Small business failure rates (http://business.usi.edu/news/2007/2007-06-05-Murphy.asp)

This one says 70% over 10-years:
Startup Failure Rates — The REAL Numbers | Small Business Trends (http://smallbiztrends.com/2008/04/startup-failure-rates.html)

In his book, E-Myth Revisited, Michael Gerber states over 80% fail rate over 5 years.


As such, while my 2:47AM post after a night of fishing was grossly over exaggerated, it doesn't change the fact that somewhere between 7 and 8 out of 10 small businesses fail within 5 years. That letting people immigrate here with the mindset "maybe they'll live in squander with 10 other people to save up and start a successful business" is horribly misguided.

Like I said before, take care of people in this country first before worrying about those from another country. America is neither the worlds Police Force, nor its Welfare department.

Also, how many small businesses stay alive for extra years, on life-support strictly because the owner thrusts him/her self into debt and works 18 hours/day?


Joe, I don't think the sample of students in a business class is an accurate sample. If I had a kid and was planing on having them work for my business, I'd want them to have formal business training.

Didn't say the guy had to go to Harvard Law School.....He could go to a trade school or take a course @ ITT Tech for all I care...as long as he comes here, Works, and pays his taxes I'd be happy to sit down and have a beer with the guy.


Instead of always looking at the worst case scenario....which of course will happen....how about looking at the best case scenario....where the guy actually does work hard and puts his kids though school and eventually get his own house.....That happens too you know

The best case scenario is not the statistically most probable scenario. I own a small business. I know how much hard work it can be, how much feeder money they can take, how considerably unanticipated expenses can add up in a flash. Serial Entrepreneurs often fail more than they succeed (but when they succeed, they do so very big).

Every Kid born in America is a Potential Contributor to Society. Until they stop Crapping their diaper or Raiding the refrigerator and enter the work force they really don't contribute do they?

Nope. As I'm sure you've read in some of my other posts, if they don't grow up, get a job and contribute to society, then they shouldn't benefit from it either with a free paycheck/health care to sit on the couch.

Do you tell your Sales guys to ignore folks without giving them a chance to make a purchase? Or do you tell them to look at every opportunity that is presented as a Sales Opportunity
Apples to Oranges. But, bringing this up provides a convenient analogy for my point. We run about a 10-15% successful sales rate on potential customers. Most phone calls, RFPs, site inspections and meetings are at a loss because we never see a cent of business from that person. However, the sales we do make, pay out very well at a high margin.

Quite exactly like a statistical sample of Start-ups. Most Fail - plain and simple. The ones that don't, tend to pay out dividends well (be it to provide a better quality of life, more money in the pocket, or just financial security).

Whats weird is I agree with this statement......I'm not saying that every dipchit that wants to come here should be allowed to stay....if they are here legally w/ a work visa you can see if they are productive....and they are welcome to stay....if not, See Ya.....Don't let the door knob hit ya where the good lord split ya.

Thanks to the US open-door policy, there is no way for INS to keep track of all these people. If a VISA expires, the only way that person gets deported, is if they somehow fall across the system - they try to fly, get arrested, (or as a personal friend did) took a bus to visit family in Canada without renewing their work VISA and get denied re-entry.

[QUOTE=JohnnyD;717373]

As such, while my 2:47AM post after a night of fishing was grossly over exaggerated.yes it was

That letting people immigrate here with the mindset "maybe they'll live in squander with 10 other people to save up and start a successful business" is horribly misguided. who suggested that anyone is "letting" anyone immigrate here with that horribly misguided mindset?...I'm guessing most would just like some kind of stable employment, starting a business is a LONG way from basic employment....that would be a funny sign at the border though..."IF YOU THINK YOU CAN JUST COME HERE AND LIVE IN "SQUANDER" WITH 10 OTHER PEOPLE AND SAVE UP TO START YOUR OWN BUSINESS...YOU'VE GOT ANOTHER THING COMING:uhuh:"


. America is neither the worlds Police Force, nor its Welfare department. currently it is both

MANY BUSINESSES CLOSE FOR MANY REASONS AND NOT NECESSARILY BECAUSE THEY "FAILED"

QUOTE]

The best case scenario is not the statistically most probable scenario. I own a small business. I know how much hard work it can be, how much feeder money they can take, how considerably unanticipated expenses can add up in a flash. Serial Entrepreneurs often fail more than they succeed (but when they succeed, they do so very big)..

They can also work for somebody else...they don't need to neccesarily start their own business. They can be electricians, plumbers, carpenters, roofer, landscapers....and work for somebody else....and do so legally and pay their share of taxes



Nope. As I'm sure you've read in some of my other posts, if they don't grow up, get a job and contribute to society, then they shouldn't benefit from it either with a free paycheck/health care to sit on the couch.

Nothing wrong their...I agree with that


Apples to Oranges. But, bringing this up provides a convenient analogy for my point. We run about a 10-15% successful sales rate on potential customers. Most phone calls, RFPs, site inspections and meetings are at a loss because we never see a cent of business from that person. However, the sales we do make, pay out very well at a high margin.

Also helps illustrate my point....you still don't ignore the other 85-90% until they don't pan out.....you allow it the chance turn into a sale...if it doesn't then you drop it


Thanks to the US open-door policy, there is no way for INS to keep track of all these people. If a VISA expires, the only way that person gets deported, is if they somehow fall across the system - they try to fly, get arrested, (or as a personal friend did) took a bus to visit family in Canada without renewing their work VISA and get denied re-entry.

And there in lies where the Fixing needs to come in...thats the part of the system that is screwed up and causing the problems. I said earlier I didn't want an open door policy...they need to come here legally through a System that actually works

As such, while my 2:47AM post after a night of fishing was grossly over exaggerated.yes it was

That letting people immigrate here with the mindset "maybe they'll live in squander with 10 other people to save up and start a successful business" is horribly misguided. who suggested that anyone is "letting" anyone immigrate here with that horribly misguided mindset?...I'm guessing most would just like some kind of stable employment, starting a business is a LONG way from basic employment....that would be a funny sign at the border though..."IF YOU THINK YOU CAN JUST COME HERE AND LIVE IN "SQUANDER" WITH 10 OTHER PEOPLE AND SAVE UP TO START YOUR OWN BUSINESS...YOU'VE GOT ANOTHER THING COMING:uhuh:"


. America is neither the worlds Police Force, nor its Welfare department. currently it is both

MANY BUSINESSES CLOSE FOR MANY REASONS AND NOT NECESSARILY BECAUSE THEY "FAILED"

QUOTE]

What kind of conservative are you?

With regards to the 10 people living in squander comment I made, if you had actually read the whole thread as opposed to trying to pick a fight, Joe mentioned that some immigrants live 10 to an apartment to save up the money to start a business.

I challenge anyone to demonstrate a situation where 10 people living in an apartment is not living in squander.

The minute the US customs says welcome to America to a non-citizen here for an extended stay, they're potentially "letting" someone immigrate here. My position is that they shouldn't unless it's for good reason and they can contribute to society.

I still stand that America *is not* the worlds Police Force or Welfare Agency. The problem is that many think it should be - like those that think we should get involved with Iran, send Aid to Africa or any number of international issues we get involved with more than any other country does.

Yes, businesses do close for many reasons, but the number one reason is because they could no longer sustain themselves - ie: They Failed.

They can also work for somebody else...they don't need to neccesarily start their own business. They can be electricians, plumbers, carpenters, roofer, landscapers....and work for somebody else....and do so legally and pay their share of taxes

Without any skills or education, they can't do any of those things - aside from landscaping, which I did find as a fun job while in high school.

Also helps illustrate my point....you still don't ignore the other 85-90% until they don't pan out.....you allow it the chance turn into a sale...if it doesn't then you drop it
The reason you cannot let anyone come here and see if it pans out is because there is currently no capability for oversight. INS is overstretched beyond any effective operating capability. The Dallas bomb plotter that was just arrested was here on an expired VISA.
This article demonstrates that the US has *no* effective way of tracing whether Foreign Visitors have actually left the country or not.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2360429/posts
I believe at least one of the 9/11 hijackers was here on an expired visa.

Without the capability for oversight, the "benefit of the doubt" method can't be used. So yes, if they don't have any skills, aren't here to 100% pay for their own education or aren't here merely for a visit (with confirmed travel plans), they should not be allowed to enter.


And there in lies where the Fixing needs to come in...thats the part of the system that is screwed up and causing the problems. I said earlier I didn't want an open door policy...they need to come here legally through a System that actually works
Until that system actually works, everything else needs to be stopped. I'm not saying that eventually, your suggested "give people a chance" shouldn't happen. My argument is that under the current circumstances of INS and all other government offices that deal with immigration, the oversight is not there to prevent these people from possibly becoming an additional leech on an already overburdened economy.

[QUOTE=JohnnyD;717396]What kind of conservative are you?

With regards to the 10 people living in squander comment I made,




I don't think it's possible to live in "squander" and save money at the same time...:soon:

Yes, businesses do close for many reasons, but the number one reason is because they could no longer sustain themselves - ie: They Failed.[/QUOTE]


99% ?

[QUOTE=JohnnyD;717396]What kind of conservative are you?

With regards to the 10 people living in squander comment I made,




I don't think it's possible to live in "squander" and save money at the same time...:soon:

True. That is the completely wrong word than the thoughts going on in my head.

Yes, businesses do close for many reasons, but the number one reason is because they could no longer sustain themselves - ie: They Failed.


99% ?[/QUOTE]

When was 99% ever mentioned?

Without any skills or education, they can't do any of those things - aside from landscaping, which I did find as a fun job while in high school..

Really, You need extensive schooling to be a roofer.

I got a friend that is a GC and he started by just being a day laborer lugging building supplies around. Learned on the job started carpentry, pay when up opportunities went up and he is where he is now.......and no additional schooling needed.

Any profession takes time to master. An Electrician can go to school and then has to log in so many hours as a journeyman....I'm pretty sure thats the same for a plumber


The reason you cannot let anyone come here and see if it pans out is because there is currently no capability for oversight. INS is overstretched beyond any effective operating capability. The Dallas bomb plotter that was just arrested was here on an expired VISA.
This article demonstrates that the US has *no* effective way of tracing whether Foreign Visitors have actually left the country or not.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2360429/posts
I believe at least one of the 9/11 hijackers was here on an expired visa.

I'm not arguing with you about the fact that the US INS service sucks....I know it does....it needs to be fixed. There needs to be a screening process, a checkin process......a lot of processes....I know that

and the terrorist examples are kind of weak.....c'mon 3 million untrackable VISA's and your going to pull out the fact that 2 of them are terrorists......your better than that

Without the capability for oversight, the "benefit of the doubt" method can't be used. So yes, if they don't have any skills, aren't here to 100% pay for their own education or aren't here merely for a visit (with confirmed travel plans), they should not be allowed to enter.

and this will give the same red tape headaches as the current system.

Once they're in....they're in. no guarantees they're leaving or are going to pay their own way

Yes, businesses do close for many reasons, but the number one reason is because they could no longer sustain themselves - ie: They Failed.


99% ?[/QUOTE]

you said that "the number one reason" was a result of "failure"...based on your recent record of exaggeration I assumed that to be around 99%...I won't ask how big the fish was that you caught last night....:rotf2:

Really, You need extensive schooling to be a roofer.
You're right about that. But, we also have millions of Americans here without jobs. So let more people come in without any skills to take them?

I got a friend that is a GC and he started by just being a day laborer lugging building supplies around. Learned on the job started carpentry, pay when up opportunities went up and he is where he is now.......and no additional schooling needed.

Any profession takes time to master. An Electrician can go to school and then has to log in so many hours as a journeyman....I'm pretty sure thats the same for a plumber
I don't know the details of how the tradesman fields work aside from Electrician.



I'm not arguing with you about the fact that the US INS service sucks....I know it does....it needs to be fixed. There needs to be a screening process, a checkin process......a lot of processes....I know that

and the terrorist examples are kind of weak.....c'mon 3 million untrackable VISA's and your going to pull out the fact that 2 of them are terrorists......your better than that

The terrorist example is just a high profile one. Also, I believe both of those people had been pulled over by police at one point or another and released (I know this minimally the case for the hijacker), which demonstrates yet another hole in the system. I used it as an example of the ultimate price paid for the system being extremely over-burdened and essentially made impotent by the current open-door policy.


and this will give the same red tape headaches as the current system.
How? People could be culled out during the application process. Anything is better than the current state of things.

Once they're in....they're in. no guarantees they're leaving or are going to pay their own way
You're right. But if there was a system in place to increase the odds those people will be productive citizens, we're already at a net-gain. Then, there are fewer immigrants needed to be overseen - another net-gain.

Ultimately, the country needs a policy of that if they apply for government assistance, the only assistance they get is enough for a plane ticket back where they came.

99% ?

you said that "the number one reason" was a result of "failure"...based on your recent record of exaggeration I assumed that to be around 99%...I won't ask how big the fish was that you caught last night....:rotf2:

Oh I see. The Glen Beck method of debate.

The number one cause of death in America is heart disease. I guess that means 99% of people die of heart disease?

How? People could be culled out during the application process. Anything is better than the current state of things..

How do you verify that a guy is going to pay his own way. Now you need to tie Banking systems into the approval process. How do you verify that a guy has Skill sets? Based on the schooling aspects you now have to tie in access to the places of Higher Learning into the approval process. Here for a vacation, what hotel are you staying at? oh you're not staying at a hotel? who's house then will you be staying at? Oh you're here to visit the national park.....which ones, what Campsites are you staying at?

Also, how about a criminal background check. That is one that should be mandatory....you got a record....see ya.

that's a lot of red tape.

I agree they need an approval process...and also a monitoring process....but you still have to let people in at some point.

If we didn't just think how crappy the Indian, Chinese, and Mexican food would taste

You're right. But if there was a system in place to increase the odds those people will be productive citizens, we're already at a net-gain. Then, there are fewer immigrants needed to be overseen - another net-gain..

Again, that's the system that needs to be fixed. There should be a minimum waiting period, an interview process, and a "Business Plan" submitted.......Like Twisted Sister Said "what are you going to do with your life"

Ultimately, the country needs a policy of that if they apply for government assistance, the only assistance they get is enough for a plane ticket back where they came.

See we can agree...I'm all for that one.

Oh I see.
The number one cause of death in America is heart disease. I guess that means 99% of people die of heart disease?


if you keep making these crazy statements, noone is going to believe anything that you say....

if you keep making these crazy statements, noone is going to believe anything that you say....

If you keep selectively deleting the parts of a quote that you don't like, no one is going to believe anything that you say.

You're actually the one that's made crazy statements. See your last 3 posts as a reference.

If you keep selectively deleting the parts of a quote that you don't like, no one is going to believe anything that you say.

You're actually the one that's made crazy statements. See your last 3 posts as a reference.

You think anyone believes anything he says now?

I'm not sure what purpose he serves aside from increasing the entropy of the system.

-spence

If you keep selectively deleting the parts of a quote that you don't like, no one is going to believe anything that you say.

You're actually the one that's made crazy statements. See your last 3 posts as a reference.

JD, it's.... SQUALOR....and it's NOT 95%......got it?... I'm crazy...right...:devil2:


Spence, better get back to affecting history from your Mom's basement one fishing website at a time...:uhuh: you'd better be nice to me now that you've divulged that we are blood brothers from another mother....:love: