• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Mitt Romney the next new leader of the free world!!!

ArcspacE said:
With respect, fella - buit this is completely off the mark (speaking generacially - not only The States) - cheap labour and illegal immigration are two separate aspects

How did you reach the conclusion they 'require' illegal immigrants to sustain their economy (in California's case)? Perhaps seasonal workers is a far better alternative being utilisied in many countries - legally so. Which clothing industry thrives in the USA and what is their output?

Are you somehow pro-illegal immigration - judging from the premise of your post?
Click to expand...

:lol:

In industries that have to compete against China, the only real viable way for American companies to do so is to cut as many costs as possible. Obviously one of the largest expenditures for a company is wages, so to stay profitable, a company will hire illegals who don't need to get paid minimum wage or be given benefits.

The Dream Act is supposed to help those that are basically American, although illegally residing in the US not of their own volition. I don't see this immigration problem as black-and-white, no pun intended. But how do you treat someone who is in all aspects an American except the fact that they weren't born here?
 
papaspur said:
Of course I have no problem with deporting illegals, but it's kind of a complicated situation. We almost depend on their extremely cheap labor, and they are willing to do bricky jobs that most Americans scoff at for half of minimum wage. This doesn't justify them staying in the country, not paying taxes. The point is that if we deported them all today, our country would probably come to a standstill.
It's the Arizona law in particular that I see as discriminatory, to be able to use racial profiling in order to assess whether that person is a citizen. I would be so angry if I was a citizen and was stopped every other day and asked to show my papers.
Click to expand...

You'd think they'd have a system where they make them all wear some kind of badge or something wouldn't you?

[/godwin]
 
That's an odd typo. :)

The DREAM Act proviedes for certain individuals fo 'good moral character' and even so - they have to complete certain tasks before being given permanent residence. Personally I'd be against it for numerous reasons. But that is aimed at minors anyway - whereas, I think the real 'issue' lies with those of active economic age (naturally)


Illegally residing / working adults = no 2 ways about it
 
Last edited:
NewYorkSpurs said:
Some quality individuals here:
http://jezebel.com/5958490/twitter-racists-react-to-that-nigger-getting-reelected/gallery/1
Click to expand...

Wow. These idiots calling other people 'idiots' is especially amusing when they get the spelling of half their tweet wrong. Certainly not a coinensadince that they have such an ignorant outlook.


Kingdawson said:
Has Florida still not been counted yet? what my favourite buttplug.
Click to expand...

It's only my favourite buttplug if it were a one-off. This is the norm ;)
Seriously though, they really suck at counting ballots.
 
papaspur said:
Wow. These idiots calling other people 'idiots' is especially amusing when they get the spelling of half their tweet wrong. Certainly not a coinensadince that they have such an ignorant outlook.




It's only my favourite buttplug if it were a one-off. This is the norm ;)
Seriously though, they really suck at counting ballots.
Click to expand...

I see what you did there....I think.
 
galeforce said:
it is on infowars though, which means there is a decant chance is made up
Click to expand...

Any site with the endorsements on there always make me suspect. Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck...
They're pushing an agenda, not the truth.

Then there are the think-tanks on both sides.
 
jts1882 said:
People are saying that Romney would have won if he stuck with his principles as he couldn't have won in Massachusetts if not a moderate. The assumption was that he only became Teapot Mitt to get the nomination. But isn't it equally likely that he became Mass Mitt for exactly the same reason?

The problem is that no one knows where he stands politically but we can look at his actions. We do know that he is a supporter (one of the creators?) of vulture capitalism, taking over companies on borrowed money, cutting wages and jobs and running up debt in companies, while paying himself large fees for the advice, getting out with a large profit on his small investment and leaving a bankrupt shell. His vision of America is not one where small job creating businesses prosper and create wealth, but one that favours big corporations making profits by takeovers and shifting work and profits offshore, focusing on profit over wealth creation. There is a difference between the two and the financial crisis illustrates why focusing on profit alone fails. This vulture capitalism, along with its sister crony capitalism, are destroying the good name of free market economics.
Click to expand...

this.
 
jts1882 said:
Why don't they clamp down on employers who hire legal immigrants? Many are pretty obvious, the farming communities for instance. If its reasonable to stop people who look vaguely foreign on the street, then it shouldn't be a problem to demand employers check IDs in a serious way.

Its strikes me that they don't really want to stop illegal immigration. I lived in LA for nearly a decade and there was a strong demand for cheap labour as cleaners, gardeners, builders, "recyclers" (people who go through the trash bins and pick out recyclable materials). California agriculture requires illegal immigrants and so does the clothing industry. Its not a coincidence that clothing industry has largely moved to places like China and Pakistan, yet somehow continues to thrive in one of the richest places in the world.

A free market approach would be to target the demand, not the supply, or do both.

PS. I've just seen PS's post and obviouly agree. I'll add that a lot of illegal immigrants pay taxes. The system is flexible enough to allow this, which kind of makes illegals acceptable. If "no taxation without representation" was actually believed, the illegals who pay taxes should be allowed to vote.
Click to expand...

=D>

You are, IMO, correct.
 
ArcspacE said:
With respect, fella - buit this is completely off the mark (speaking generacially - not only The States) - cheap labour and illegal immigration are two separate aspects

How did you reach the conclusion they 'require' illegal immigrants to sustain their economy (in California's case)? Perhaps seasonal workers is a far better alternative being utilisied in many countries - legally so. Which clothing industry thrives in the USA and what is their output?

Are you somehow pro-illegal immigration - judging from the premise of your post?
Click to expand...

American Apparell would be the quickest example, and they were recently found to be hiring illegal aliens. About 20% of their workforce.

The US needs illegal aliens to operate because people are simply not prepared to pay more for quality goods produced by Americans. It's a fact.
From nannies to slaughterhouses to garment factories (the ones which aren't in 'US territories like Saipan which are a fudging disgrace BTW' or straight out in the 3rd World) illegal labor helps the country survive.

It's not about being 'pro-illegal immigration' it's about the reality that everyone, including those who slag it off, benefit from it's existence as it is cheaper. And most people, rather sadly in my view, will sacrifice quality of life/quality of community and just basic quality for the cheapest option!
 
ArcspacE said:
Perhaps the 'approach/implementation' is questionable but stamping out illegal maggots is hardly the antichrist?
Click to expand...

I don't know where you live Arcy, but I am prepared to say that you, like everyone, somehow benefits from illegal immigrants and their cheap labor. Unless you are off the grid that is.
 
It's almost as if there was no choice to buy the cheaper product of squalor and a product of more legitimate origins. To the consumer, who is so far removed from the process of manufacturing, it is a simple matter of finding the best bargain. There is no mental toll that is taken; the conscience can be totally clear in this decision, this selfish endeavor of materialism. Of course, I'm part of the problem and there's not really much I can do except to renounce all my possessions and live off the land somewhere.
At the very least, if we let this knowledge creep into our consciences, we can all slowly cause change instead of following the flock, and to BE changed ourselves.

Power to the people? Yes, power to the people at the top.
 
papaspur said:
It's almost as if there was no choice to buy the cheaper product of squalor and a product of more legitimate origins. To the consumer, who is so far removed from the process of manufacturing, it is a simple matter of finding the best bargain. There is no mental toll that is taken; the conscience can be totally clear in this decision, this selfish endeavor of materialism. Of course, I'm part of the problem and there's not really much I can do except to renounce all my possessions and live off the land somewhere.
At the very least, if we let this knowledge creep into our consciences, we can all slowly cause change instead of following the flock, and to BE changed ourselves.

Power to the people? Yes, power to the people at the top.
Click to expand...

Indeed.
I am guilty as well...if I can find something cheaper I will buy it (as long as it is quality)...but as I get older I realize that rarely is quality cheaper.
And I'm prepared to pay for quality.
Your final sentence is right. Essentially, we'd all have to agree that paying a few quid/bucks more for a t-shirt to know it's been made in the UK/US would be a true way of supporting our communities...
But just by being in an urban world, hypocrisy is sadly inevitable at a certain point of every day.
 
Does the political position of the parties make much difference? I was reading something elsewhere where the following was pointed out:

Reagan beat Carter and Mondale
Bush beat Dukakis
Clinton beat Bush and Dole
Bush beat Gore and Kerry
Obama beat McCain and Romney

In 8 of 9 elections since 1980 the most charismatic candidate won, with four presidents serving two terms. The elections may have been landslides, close reaults or disputed and decided in court, but the relative charisma of the winners is indisputable. The only exception was 1988 where neither were charismatic and that was a one term presidency.

The only problem for the Republicans is that none of the candidates were charismatic. Romney, Cain and Perry were dull as dishwater, as were a few others who escape my memory. Bachmann and Trump (was he ever officially in it?) were raving mad, which is not the same as charismatic, and Gingrich "charismatic" in a negative way.
 
It's a credit to the Republicans that the race was even that "close" in the popular vote. The irony of course is that for the party that's all about "personal responsibility," the blame for why they lost is on anyone but themselves.

Republicans are the party that won't budge on the taxes for the wealthy issue. But I think crying about redistribution of wealth is petty when two thing are true: a) taxes on the wealthy are the lowest they've been in decades and b) wealth has been redistributed from the bottom to the top when banks take taxpayer money and manipulate the market to suck even more money from the bottom. Redistribution is already part of our government so I think that's a rather weak argument coming from the Republicans. For the party that keeps claiming it is all about fiscal conservatism and balancing the budget, is it not a bit difficult to be cynical about their true motives? To continue to peddle the notion that by cutting taxes even further on the wealthy, we will somehow have jobs coming out of our ears despite the fact that under these policies, we've seen some of the weakest job growth in history under Bush. If banks would only be given the freedom to operate instead of having the government stranglehold on them is another argument that was proven wrong only 4 years ago. Where has common sense gone? Have we outsourced our thinking?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back