OT: A Well Regulated Militia
Hawke
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed."
How much arguing have we done over the meaning of that sentence? Endless
right? Mainly because we can't agree why the first clause is in there,
or what it actually means. The anti gun side has placed its argument on
the theory that the amendment is about militias and doesn't therefore
apply to the people an individual right to keep and bear arms.
I just finished reading a book that had a quote from Machiavelli in
which he specifically used the term "a well regulated militia". It
explained by that he meant recruited from subjects, not from a mercenary
force.
From what I know of the Founding Fathers, no doubt they were familiar
with Machiavelli's writings. I wonder if they borrowed the term a well
regulated militia from him? When you read the second amendment with
Machiavelli's definition of what well regulated militia means, I think
it clarifies what the 2nd amendment means. It makes it much easier to
understand if by well regulated militia the writer means recruited from
subjects. I think if you use Machiavelli's definition of well regulated
militia that makes it clear that the 2nd amendment was always intended
to confer a right to the people and wasn't about protecting the rights
of militias. Yes? No?
Hawke
RBnDFW
I had not heard of that angle, but it makes sense.
I have not seen any other contemporary text which used the phrase
"well-regulated militia"
Wes
>"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
>state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
>infringed."
Regulated means in good order as in practiced and able. Think regulation when it comes to
a mechanical clock keeping good time. Don't think government alphabet agencies.
The security of a free state. State meaning us, the people, not State the despot or
despot in waiting.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That one is pretty
clear. Too bad our government can't seem or doesn't want to understand it. That should
be a clue as to how things are going.
To sum it up, the citizen militia meaning you and me, John Carrol, Ed, and Larry along
with rest of the adults should be armed and proficient in using arms to protect us all
against a government that denies our rights. The endorsement of armed resistance against
a tyrannical government is what Second Amendment is all about. To paraphrase Suzanne
Gracia Hupp, the 2nd is not about duck hunting.
Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller
Buerste
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:hi84dg$rdp$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Well thought out! We all know that there are no simple issues involving
firearms.
wmbjk...@citlink.net
wrote:
Now hold on there just a galdarn minute. How many times have you
claimed that everybody who disagrees with your crackpot ravings is a
leftist receiving "cheese checks"? And didn't you consider Hawke one
of those leftists right up until he said something about guns that you
agreed with? Is he now immune from being called a leftist? Will his
cheese checks now cease? Keeerist.
Wayne
Ed Huntress
<wmbjk...@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:eljfk5h2t88llbftm...@4ax.com...
Have you ever known someone with bipolar disorder? Watch Tawwwm's posts for
a while.
--
Ed Huntress
Alfred Pennyworth
<wmbjk...@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:eljfk5h2t88llbftm...@4ax.com...
Except that Hawke is still a leftist and it wasn't even an original thought.
Doubtful that he even read any of Machiavelli's works. A simple Google
search of the term "Machiavelli well regulated militia" reveals where Hawke
plagiarized his "original" thought from. Besides, anyone ho knows anything
about Machiavelli is aware that he only wrote in Italian.
Buerste
"Alfred Pennyworth" <Alf...@waynemansion.bs> wrote in message
news:4b47fbf1$1...@news.x-privat.org...
Hawke is way out there on most things. On firearms, we usually agree.
wmbjk...@citlink.net
Do the symptoms include a willful divorce from reality? I don't read
most of Tom's crap, but I distinctly remember him seriously declaring
some really cockamamie stuff, such as "dems never make good
employees". It seems to me that his need to believe and advocate silly
over-generalizations like that is a full time thing based on
ignorance, as opposed to being part of a manic or depressive period.
As far as I can tell, he suffers from the same disease as so many
other gun loons who always find a way to rationalize even the most
absurd thinking so long as they believe (usually erroneously) that
they're somehow on track for more gun love. Ironically, they're fond
of promoting one political party relentlessly while at the same time
declaring that all political parties are the same.
Here's an interesting movie called Dear Wendy that touches <chuckle>
on the subject. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0342272/ Wendy is a gun,
and I wouldn't be surprised if the writer got some inspiration from
Usenet. Certainly some of the characters here could have been cast in
the movie and the whole thing done ad lib. Spoiler: there *is* a
"great cull" at the end. :-)
Wayne
Ed Huntress
<wmbjk...@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:6c4hk5dck9a9l4k4p...@4ax.com...
I don't know. I'm just noticing the manic spurts, sometimes done in all
caps, versus the peaceful, calm posts sprinkled in between. I don't know the
full symptoms and I wouldn't even tried to diagnose such a condition, but it
struck me one day that I've seen that kind of behavior in my niece, who is
bipolar, and in the bipolar kids my wife teaches, as a special-ed teacher.
It's just a curious parallel. It could be lots of things.
> As far as I can tell, he suffers from the same disease as so many
> other gun loons who always find a way to rationalize even the most
> absurd thinking so long as they believe (usually erroneously) that
> they're somehow on track for more gun love. Ironically, they're fond
> of promoting one political party relentlessly while at the same time
> declaring that all political parties are the same.
>
> Here's an interesting movie called Dear Wendy that touches <chuckle>
> on the subject. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0342272/ Wendy is a gun,
> and I wouldn't be surprised if the writer got some inspiration from
> Usenet. Certainly some of the characters here could have been cast in
> the movie and the whole thing done ad lib. Spoiler: there *is* a
> "great cull" at the end. :-)
>
> Wayne
Funny.
--
Ed Huntress
Hawke
>>>> Well thought out! We all know that there are no simple issues
>>>> involving
>>>> firearms.
>>>
>>> Now hold on there just a galdarn minute. How many times have you
>>> claimed that everybody who disagrees with your crackpot ravings is a
>>> leftist receiving "cheese checks"? And didn't you consider Hawke one
>>> of those leftists right up until he said something about guns that you
>>> agreed with? Is he now immune from being called a leftist? Will his
>>> cheese checks now cease? Keeerist.
>>
>> Except that Hawke is still a leftist and it wasn't even an original
>> thought. Doubtful that he even read any of Machiavelli's works. A
>> simple Google search of the term "Machiavelli well regulated militia"
>> reveals where Hawke plagiarized his "original" thought from. Besides,
>> anyone ho knows anything about Machiavelli is aware that he only wrote
>> in Italian.
>
> Hawke is way out there on most things. On firearms, we usually agree.
Just thought you might want to know where I got the Machiavelli quote.
It came from a book I just finished reading titled A History of Warfare
by John Keegan. It's a direct quote from that book. You may disagree
with me on just about everything but do know that what I say is
accurate. I don't just throw shit around for the hell of it like some
people around here. Also, as someone who is financially conservative,
pro guns, and anti immigration, I think the label "leftist" is not what
I am. I have too many disagreements with true leftists. I know real
leftists and I argue with them all the time and think their views on
lots of things are out to lunch. The problem is that people who are
politically far to the right think anyone who disagrees with them is
a leftist. But when you are way out in right field everyone looks to be
to the left.
One last thing, as a political scientist I had to read Machiavelli, and
to those who are too unaware to know it, his works have been translated
into English.
Hawke
John R. Carroll
> Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>
>> "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
>> state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
>> infringed."
>
>
> Regulated means in good order as in practiced and able.
Likely not Wes. This is a chain of command issue. Didn't the local militia's
keep their weapons and ammo in an Armory?
Yeah, I think they did. The heavy stuff for sure.
>Think
> regulation when it comes to a mechanical clock keeping good time.
> Don't think government alphabet agencies.
Think local school board or PTA.
>
> The security of a free state. State meaning us, the people, not
> State the despot or despot in waiting.
>
> The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> That one is pretty clear.
Yep. It is.
>Too bad our government can't seem or
> doesn't want to understand it.
There isn't any evidence of that Wes.
What our government does also reflects the will of the people that elect it.
Every time some nut with a gun goes on a rampage, people stupidly demand
legislative action.
The same is true with other sorts of high profile crimes such as child
abductions and murders.
As far as I know it's never been legal to abduct and kill a child or anyone
else but it seems like every time that happens, Bill O'lielly goes on a
crusade for a new law, some elected official smells votes and we get another
wad of paper on the books.
It's gotten to the point that you are at risk as a parent if you spank your
kid.
> That should be a clue as to how
> things are going.
>
> To sum it up, the citizen militia meaning you and me, John Carrol,
> Ed, and Larry along with rest of the adults should be armed and
> proficient in using arms to protect us all against a government that
> denies our rights. The endorsement of armed resistance against a
> tyrannical government is what Second Amendment is all about.
No it isn't. Unless out into the context of it's time, you can't really get
a grip on the second.
Armed resistance to what was basically an occupying power is what this is
all about and as far as I know, we aren't currently occupied.
--
John R. Carroll
Ed Huntress
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
news:9cadnZ7cotdcydTW...@giganews.com...
That's exactly right. The "armed resistance against a tyrannical government"
business is a myth, as George Washington demonstrated when he marched 16,000
federalized militiamen into western PA to put down the Whiskey Rebellion.
And people often don't read Jefferson's "Tree of Liberty" letter very
carefully. Jefferson wasn't *advocating* armed action against the
government. He thought it could be motivated by good spirit but that it
essentially was a mistake on the part of the rebels. "The people cannot be
all, & always well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in
proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive....Let them take
arms," said Jefferson. "The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon
& pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two?"
The business about "setting them right...," then pardoning and pacifying
them, tends to be forgotten. But that's exactly what Washington did in
western PA.
--
Ed Huntress
jbsl...@gmail.com
A citizen of the United States, who is not an "American Indian", as
they were known for a few hundred years, who is anti immigration, is a
sort of a contradiction, aren't they?
Regards,
J.B.
Buerste
As I have told you many times, I'm NOT a Republican and you usually try to
put me in that box. I'm more liberal in a lot of areas than most Democrats.
The things that irk me the most involve stealing money under the guise of
doing something noble yet in reality it's only to fill the coffers of some
select few. THAT is what I associate with the "Left" the most. But, the
"Right" has the same problem. It's the waste, the lies and the immorality I
can't stand. Those that believe that their agenda justifies their means.
I find it interesting that some people I disagree with resort to ad hominem
attacks rather than refute what I have to say. Just read from my "fan
club". You'd think they stay awake nights thinking these petty attacks.
But they seem to enjoy it so...
I certainly don't mind spirited disagreement and will read what someone has
to say. (Except for the very few I have blocked.)
John Husvar
jbsl...@gmail.com wrote:
Just goes to show you what happens when you don't control illegal
immigration, doesn't it? If the "New World" had been
that-place-nobody-ever-returns-from, the Indians wouldn't have had a
problem, no?
>
> Regards,
>
> J.B.
Wes
>Wes wrote:
>> Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
>>> state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
>>> infringed."
>>
>>
>> Regulated means in good order as in practiced and able.
>
>Likely not Wes. This is a chain of command issue. Didn't the local militia's
>keep their weapons and ammo in an Armory?
>Yeah, I think they did. The heavy stuff for sure.
I'm looking into the heavy stuff. Private vessels had cannons on them so it is likely
there were privately owned cannons. I know that during the civil war there were privately
owned cannons.
Now if a village or city wanted to arm a standing militia, those arms would most likely be
kept in an armory. Some brought their own though.
>
>>Think
>> regulation when it comes to a mechanical clock keeping good time.
>> Don't think government alphabet agencies.
>
>Think local school board or PTA.
You think it, I'm staying with my interpretation.
>
>>
>> The security of a free state. State meaning us, the people, not
>> State the despot or despot in waiting.
>>
>> The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
>> That one is pretty clear.
>
>Yep. It is.
>
>
>>Too bad our government can't seem or
>> doesn't want to understand it.
>
>There isn't any evidence of that Wes.
>What our government does also reflects the will of the people that elect it.
>Every time some nut with a gun goes on a rampage, people stupidly demand
>legislative action.
I think you just contridicted your self.
>
>The same is true with other sorts of high profile crimes such as child
>abductions and murders.
>As far as I know it's never been legal to abduct and kill a child or anyone
>else but it seems like every time that happens, Bill O'lielly goes on a
>crusade for a new law, some elected official smells votes and we get another
>wad of paper on the books.
>It's gotten to the point that you are at risk as a parent if you spank your
>kid.
I'm going to agree with you that we have enough laws for most purposes. Ditto's on the
last sentence. Mom left me at home as a young kid if I was home sick. I knew how to call
Grandma a few blocks away if there was a problem. I also knew that I could head over the
neigbors if I could not get grandma. That would be child neglect in some jurisdictions
now.
>
>> That should be a clue as to how
>> things are going.
>>
>> To sum it up, the citizen militia meaning you and me, John Carrol,
>> Ed, and Larry along with rest of the adults should be armed and
>> proficient in using arms to protect us all against a government that
>> denies our rights. The endorsement of armed resistance against a
>> tyrannical government is what Second Amendment is all about.
>
>No it isn't. Unless out into the context of it's time, you can't really get
>a grip on the second.
>Armed resistance to what was basically an occupying power is what this is
>all about and as far as I know, we aren't currently occupied.
We will just have to disagree.
jbsl...@gmail.com
Actually I've read that there were 18 unsuccessful attempts to
establish a settlement in the "New World" prior to the settlement of
Jamestown. Them white folks are persistent!
Regards,
J.B.
John Husvar
jbsl...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Actually I've read that there were 18 unsuccessful attempts to
> establish a settlement in the "New World" prior to the settlement of
> Jamestown. Them white folks are persistent!
> Regards,
>
> J.B.
Shoulda been 19,20,21.....n then. :)
There went the neighborhood!
Jim Wilkins
> jbslo...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Actually I've read that there were 18 unsuccessful attempts to
> > establish a settlement in the "New World" prior to the settlement of
> > Jamestown. Them white folks are persistent!
> > Regards,
>
> > J.B.
>
> Shoulda been 19,20,21.....n then. :)
>
> There went the neighborhood!
In New England it appears that a large fraction of the natives died in
a plague beginning around 1616 that they may have caught from visiting
fishermen.
The first Spanish expedition to the southeastern US found it heavily
populated, the next ones didn't.
http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-1012
jsw
John Husvar
<4cb1ab0c-0c76-4548...@l30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Jim Wilkins <kb1...@gmail.com> wrote:
Yep, all those disease-ridden, unwashed, cheap-laboring illegals, doing
jobs the real Americans -- er, Seminoles -- er, Iroquois -- er, Mayans
-- er, whomever -- wouldn't do, wrecked a perfectly good continent! But
we'll get even in 2012, By Quetzelcoatl!.
John R. Carroll
> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
> news:9cadnZ7cotdcydTW...@giganews.com...
>
> government" business is a myth, as George Washington demonstrated
> when he marched 16,000 federalized militiamen into western PA to put
> down the Whiskey Rebellion.
>
> And people often don't read Jefferson's "Tree of Liberty" letter very
> carefully. Jefferson wasn't *advocating* armed action against the
> government. He thought it could be motivated by good spirit but that
> it essentially was a mistake on the part of the rebels. "The people
> cannot be all, & always well informed. The part which is wrong will
> be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they
> misconceive....Let them take arms," said Jefferson. "The remedy is to
> set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few
> lives lost in a century or two?"
>
> The business about "setting them right...," then pardoning and
> pacifying them, tends to be forgotten. But that's exactly what
> Washington did in western PA.
I'd recomend Larry Osborne's "10 Dumb Things Smart Christians Believe" to
Wes, or anyone really.
It's a good look at the "Things you think you know" issue in general.
--
John R. Carroll
Hawke
Not if what one means by anti immigration is that the policy of the
country on immigration is that it should be both dramatically reduced
but also that the policies that are currently in place are strictly
enforced. We have plenty of laws against illegal immigration but they
are a sham. Enforce the current laws strictly and drastically reduce the
number of people allowed to move here and I would be very happy. I don't
mean no one can immigrate here, just a lot less. So that is what I mean
by anti immigration. That's not exactly what you might think the term means.
Hawke
Hawke
Your post leads me to believe that we may have a lot more things we are
in agreement with than people would think. Like I said, I'm a moderate
on many issues, conservative on some, and liberal on others. Like Monty
Python's book was titled, How to argue with anyone, I am a full service
arguer. It's just that this group is so full of right wingers spouting
off far right views that it creates an atmosphere where you have to
argue with them or they will dominate the debate. The other thing is
that now Democrats are in power and are running things it is them that I
will be finding fault with. I always have.
Hawke
jbsl...@gmail.com
Luckily laws such as you advocate were not in effect when your
ancestors arrived in the New Country or you'd have been born in
Russia, the Pale of Settlement, or some other such begotten place :-)
But more realistically, easy immigration simply means that there is a
pool of downtrodden labour who will work cheap. Reduces manufacturing
costs. The transcontinental railroad was built with mainly Irish and
Chinese labour, the New England mills were staffed with low paid
immigrant labour. The N.E. pulp wood cutters were nearly all French
Canadian immigrants.
Of course, organized labour is violently opposed to this - the mantra
here is "keep 'em out", "keep our wages high". Perhaps the better plan
is destroy organize labour and let salaries depend on individual
ability, then the whole question of immigration becomes mote.
But to get back to my original theme. Most of the U.S.'s progress is
due to the waves of immigration that brought hordes of hungry workers
to these shores to built the railroads and man the factories. China's
greatest asset is its, mainly agricultural, population that is
available to man the factories.
What is the future for a country with the highest labour costs in the
world?
Regards,
J.B.
Hawke
Oh yeah, the good old days of unlimited immigration. Those were the days
weren't they? I have the anti immigration views I have exactly because
it's not the old days. Back then we had a continent underpopulated and
bringing in more people made sense. Not any more. We're full up as far
as I'm concerned. In fact, I think we're already overpopulated, which is
the only reason why I'm anti immigration. If we had 130 million I would
think differently. I think a cap of 300 million is a good idea. I don't
see much chance of that happening any time soon though.
There are ways to compete if you have the highest labor costs. Germany
does very well and pays well too. One way is to let the other countries
produce the simple stuff that doesn't pay to make. We need to produce
the high value, difficult to make stuff, and the creative things, plus
food. We just need to get smart and start planning ahead and forget
about letting the market be our guide. That is what we have done for the
last 30 years and all the country has done is decline by doing that. I'm
for changing before we're desperate. And we're close to that now.
Hawke
jbsl...@gmail.com
<davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
You think!
But apparently a great many other people do not think the way that you
do. After all the Mexicans, particularly, are mostly in this country
to earn money. Which is not the point of the discussion at all. The
point is that the Mexicans can and do get jobs and make more money
then they can in Mexico.... In other words a large segment of the
people who have jobs to be done are quite happy to have immigrant
labour do them.
I suggest that just exactly like illegal drugs, as long as there is a
market someone will fill the demand. As long as you offer a job that a
Mexican can fill, Mexicans will come to fill it. Imagine the effect of
a federal law making it a crime to employ an illegal worker with a
mandatory jail sentence - say 2 years in the slammer. How many illegal
workers would you find here? But you don't see the law, do you? So is
there any real pressure on elected officials to actually stop illegal
immigration, as apposed to taking some visible but generally
non-effective action?
>There are ways to compete if you have the highest labor costs. Germany
>does very well and pays well too. One way is to let the other countries
>produce the simple stuff that doesn't pay to make. We need to produce
>the high value, difficult to make stuff, and the creative things, plus
>food. We just need to get smart and start planning ahead and forget
>about letting the market be our guide. That is what we have done for the
>last 30 years and all the country has done is decline by doing that. I'm
>for changing before we're desperate. And we're close to that now.
>
>Hawke
Germany does not "do very well". They do just about the same as the
U.S. In fact there was an item in the news just the other day saying
that the German Finance Minister told the German government that they
had to cut costs - as a result of the financial crash the German
government could not go on with a deficit budget. Something that the
U.S. apparently hasn't faced up to as yet.
And while you are extolling Germany google on "guest worker". Germany
had mobs of so called "guest workers", immigrants from Turkey mainly,
who came to Germany for the high paying jobs and didn't want to leave.
And what did the guest workers do? Worked in the Mercedes and
Volkswagen factories - taking the jobs that should have been for the
German Worker. At least that is what the German Labour Unions said.
Regards,
J.B.
Hawke
>> Oh yeah, the good old days of unlimited immigration. Those were the days
>> weren't they? I have the anti immigration views I have exactly because
>> it's not the old days. Back then we had a continent underpopulated and
>> bringing in more people made sense. Not any more. We're full up as far
>> as I'm concerned. In fact, I think we're already overpopulated, which is
>> the only reason why I'm anti immigration. If we had 130 million I would
>> think differently. I think a cap of 300 million is a good idea. I don't
>> see much chance of that happening any time soon though.
>
> You think!
>
> But apparently a great many other people do not think the way that you
> do. After all the Mexicans, particularly, are mostly in this country
> to earn money. Which is not the point of the discussion at all. The
> point is that the Mexicans can and do get jobs and make more money
> then they can in Mexico.... In other words a large segment of the
> people who have jobs to be done are quite happy to have immigrant
> labour do them.
What do you expect? If you can get a job done and pay half what it
normally would cost you wouldn't you take advantage of that? Mexicans
get work because they work for half price, you pay no taxes for them,
and they get no benefits. The employer wins all around. The Mexican
worker and the American who would have had the job not so much. It's
simple exploitation.
>
> I suggest that just exactly like illegal drugs, as long as there is a
> market someone will fill the demand. As long as you offer a job that a
> Mexican can fill, Mexicans will come to fill it. Imagine the effect of
> a federal law making it a crime to employ an illegal worker with a
> mandatory jail sentence - say 2 years in the slammer. How many illegal
> workers would you find here? But you don't see the law, do you? So is
> there any real pressure on elected officials to actually stop illegal
> immigration, as apposed to taking some visible but generally
> non-effective action?
They aren't trying to stop illegal immigration because those workers are
what makes a lot of businesses a lot more in profits. Those same
businesses lobby the government to be lax about not getting rid of the
Mexicans. It works very well for the employers and no one else.
>> There are ways to compete if you have the highest labor costs. Germany
>> does very well and pays well too. One way is to let the other countries
>> produce the simple stuff that doesn't pay to make. We need to produce
>> the high value, difficult to make stuff, and the creative things, plus
>> food. We just need to get smart and start planning ahead and forget
>> about letting the market be our guide. That is what we have done for the
>> last 30 years and all the country has done is decline by doing that. I'm
>> for changing before we're desperate. And we're close to that now.
>>
>> Hawke
>
> Germany does not "do very well". They do just about the same as the
> U.S. In fact there was an item in the news just the other day saying
> that the German Finance Minister told the German government that they
> had to cut costs - as a result of the financial crash the German
> government could not go on with a deficit budget. Something that the
> U.S. apparently hasn't faced up to as yet.
Almost every country is doing poorly right now and Germany is facing
it's troubles too but as a rule Germany has done as well or better than
any other country economically. Have they spent more than they have
taken in? Is the pope a catholic? With the economic problems every
country has had a loss of revenue but the expenses have not declined. Is
that a problem for Germany? Sure, but they are addressing it. Lucky for
them they haven't started two wars like they did in 1939, or like we
have done right no or they would be as bad off as us. They learned their
from their mistake. We haven't.
> And while you are extolling Germany google on "guest worker". Germany
> had mobs of so called "guest workers", immigrants from Turkey mainly,
> who came to Germany for the high paying jobs and didn't want to leave.
> And what did the guest workers do? Worked in the Mercedes and
> Volkswagen factories - taking the jobs that should have been for the
> German Worker. At least that is what the German Labour Unions said.
The Turks are to Germany what the Mexicans are to the U.S. They made the
same mistake of letting in too many foreigners. The difference is they
aren't doing that any more. Can't say that about us. Their population
isn't growing because of foreign inflows. Our population is only growing
because of letting in more people. Say but you will but I think Germany
is doing better than we are and we are supposed to be the world's
leader. The thing is I have seen this country in a state of decline for
the last 30 years. That tells me we have been on the wrong path. The
conservative path is what we have been following and it is leading us to
becoming a declining power. I think we better quit it pretty soon or
we'll be a much weaker country and a much poorer one than we already
are. We owe more money than anyone. When you go bankrupt you can't fight
wars. We're in two wars we can't afford to fight. How about cutting
expenses by not doing that?
Hawke
wmbjk...@citlink.net
<davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>They aren't trying to stop illegal immigration because those workers are
>what makes a lot of businesses a lot more in profits. Those same
>businesses lobby the government to be lax about not getting rid of the
>Mexicans. It works very well for the employers and no one else.
Immigrant labor costs less and drives down other labor rates. Cheap
labor drives down new home and food prices. There are costs and
benefits to everyone. We're not alone in maintaining a slave labor
class, we're only better at blaming each other for it.
>Our population is only growing
>because of letting in more people.
Got a cite for that?
Here are a couple for the opposite trend.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2009/12/teen-pregnancy-us-birth-rates-death-rates-cdc-pediatrics-baby.html
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2009/01/07/44797.aspx
Bringing a child into the world when one can't afford the support, and
has no idea if there will be a job for the additional body, is about
the most irresponsible thing I can think of. Yet it seems to have
become almost fashionable for even high school students to have kids,
and there also seems to be less stigma than ever for people of all
groups to have children they can't afford. The infant death rate is
pathetic, but at the same time old folks are being kept alive longer
despite the truly frightening trend toward unhealthy lifestyles. It
seems to me that all of it points to more population growth, more
scapegoating, and a further decrease in personal responsibility.
>We owe more money than anyone. When you go bankrupt you can't fight
>wars. We're in two wars we can't afford to fight. How about cutting
>expenses by not doing that?
I think it's going to have get worse before it gets better. The
Soviets were still building space shuttles while their citizens were
standing in line for food. Heard any serious talk about acknowledging
reality here on that front? Hell, a lot of people are in favor of a
manned Mars mission. About 30% of US population will fight anyone who
works toward limiting denial of any kind. That's more than enough to
swing elections in favor of maintaining the denial for the foreseeable
future. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of folks in
line at a soup kitchen are in favor of all sorts of invasions, etc.
Wayne
jbsl...@gmail.com
<davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>
>>> Oh yeah, the good old days of unlimited immigration. Those were the days
>>> weren't they? I have the anti immigration views I have exactly because
>>> it's not the old days. Back then we had a continent underpopulated and
>>> bringing in more people made sense. Not any more. We're full up as far
>>> as I'm concerned. In fact, I think we're already overpopulated, which is
>>> the only reason why I'm anti immigration. If we had 130 million I would
>>> think differently. I think a cap of 300 million is a good idea. I don't
>>> see much chance of that happening any time soon though.
>>
>> You think!
>>
>> But apparently a great many other people do not think the way that you
>> do. After all the Mexicans, particularly, are mostly in this country
>> to earn money. Which is not the point of the discussion at all. The
>> point is that the Mexicans can and do get jobs and make more money
>> then they can in Mexico.... In other words a large segment of the
>> people who have jobs to be done are quite happy to have immigrant
>> labour do them.
>
>What do you expect? If you can get a job done and pay half what it
>normally would cost you wouldn't you take advantage of that? Mexicans
>get work because they work for half price, you pay no taxes for them,
>and they get no benefits. The employer wins all around. The Mexican
>worker and the American who would have had the job not so much. It's
>simple exploitation.
Exactly my point except for one thing. It is "exploitation" on one
part but "opportunity knocking" on the other. While the Employer may
think he is exploiting the worker the Worker is equally as happy
knowing that he is ripping off the employer - "imagine, a dollar an
hour... I was making a dollar a day back home."
>
>
>>
>> I suggest that just exactly like illegal drugs, as long as there is a
>> market someone will fill the demand. As long as you offer a job that a
>> Mexican can fill, Mexicans will come to fill it. Imagine the effect of
>> a federal law making it a crime to employ an illegal worker with a
>> mandatory jail sentence - say 2 years in the slammer. How many illegal
>> workers would you find here? But you don't see the law, do you? So is
>> there any real pressure on elected officials to actually stop illegal
>> immigration, as apposed to taking some visible but generally
>> non-effective action?
>
>They aren't trying to stop illegal immigration because those workers are
>what makes a lot of businesses a lot more in profits. Those same
>businesses lobby the government to be lax about not getting rid of the
>Mexicans. It works very well for the employers and no one else.
I was living in S. California some 40 years ago when some bright young
politician decided that the migratory Mexican labour was Bad! So they
were banned. The poor folks from L.A. county would be glad of gainful
employment and would gladly pick the peas and harvest the tomatoes.
The first day quite a few turned out; the second, fewer; the third day
they started frantically trying to locate some Mexicans to import.
Seems that the Poor Folks were making a dollar a day more picking
vegetables then they had been getting on the dole and decided that
they would rather lay in bed then make the extra dollar.
Hawke, you keep turning things into some sort of political discussion.
I, on the other hand, believe that for all practical purposes
politicians are all painted the same color - opportunist.
Review the political ranks and you find large numbers who have never
actually worked; others, that should probably be in jail - Kennedy
springs to mind here - and they are pretty evenly dispersed through
out all the parties. Democratic politics, historically, in
Massachusetts was crooked - Curley ran for election while physically
in jail - and won. The Chicago political machine is ????
Tammany Hall was Democratic...
I have read that the underlying cause of the Great American Crash was
the Fanny May underwriting of housing loans to people that a thinking
man wouldn't loan a nickel. There were even individuals who resigned
in protest over the (practically) unsecured loans but management was
determined that everyone should be able to get a home loan.
This was the republicans who were so enthusiastic that poor folks
should be able to get a loan?
I could go on but why bother. The people ultimately responsible for
the debacle are the public. After all they elected the scoundrels and
never said a word while they were looting the country. In fact the
majority gleefully followed along with the crowd. Then the crash and
everyone is standing there pointing the finger - He did it! No him!
The other guy! Not me!
Regards,
J.B.
Wes
>Oh yeah, the good old days of unlimited immigration. Those were the days
>weren't they? I have the anti immigration views I have exactly because
>it's not the old days. Back then we had a continent underpopulated and
>bringing in more people made sense. Not any more. We're full up as far
>as I'm concerned. In fact, I think we're already overpopulated, which is
>the only reason why I'm anti immigration. If we had 130 million I would
>think differently. I think a cap of 300 million is a good idea. I don't
>see much chance of that happening any time soon though.
>
>There are ways to compete if you have the highest labor costs. Germany
>does very well and pays well too. One way is to let the other countries
>produce the simple stuff that doesn't pay to make. We need to produce
>the high value, difficult to make stuff, and the creative things, plus
>food. We just need to get smart and start planning ahead and forget
>about letting the market be our guide. That is what we have done for the
>last 30 years and all the country has done is decline by doing that. I'm
>for changing before we're desperate. And we're close to that now.
>
>Hawke
I'm getting a bit nervous when I find my self in agreement with you. Immigration at this
point in our already full country, should be cherry picking and I don't mean migrants
picking Michigan cherries.
Made a few cubic inches of chips today machining. (On Topic content)
Wes
Hawke
I just bought a new welding helmet and am going to put in a patch panel
on my Jeep CJ, where the auxiliary gas tank used to be, as soon as the
weather permits (my metal content).
If you knew me better you would probably find there are quite a few
areas where we would agree. I'm socially liberal but fiscally
conservative, personally conservative, and have middle of the road views
on many issues. But I grew up in a republican family. I have seen what
they have done to the country since 1980 and I don't like it and I don't
like them. Mainly because I know they are both corrupt and they are
incompetent, Bush being a prime example, and worst of all they have a
belief system that has been proven to be outdated and unworkable. It's
not 1950 anymore but they seem to want to return to those days. I also
don't particularly like the Democrats either. They are bought off too
and they have some views I disagree strongly with. I'm not a Democrat.
I've been registered as an independent since the early 1990s. When you
add it up I think you would find that unless you are a rabid republican,
bible thumper, we would actually find quite a bit of common ground.
Hawke
Hawke