GeorgiaDon

You have GOT to be kidding me... I take it you believe homosexuals should not be allowed to be police officers (or "police community support officers", whatever that is)? What other professions do you think should be forbidden based on sexual orientation? Would you refuse to be treated by a gay doctor? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I don't get the impression that Mexico is a big draw for international investment. The US still is. Why would you want to screw that up? It has nothing to do with PC. It has everything to do with being a bunch of stupid ideas. Why do you care so much about what Mexico does? Sure, their government is hypocritical in criticizing us for doing some things they also do. Who cares, the Mexican government is outrageously incompetent at everything. There is a reason Mexicans want to come here, and Americans aren't sneaking into Mexico. All in all I think we're better off not trying to emulate anything the Mexican government does. I'm genuinely curious about one of your comments, the one regarding voting in the presidential election. I am quite certain it is illegal for a non-citizen to vote at any level, be it federal, state, or local. You imply that the restriction applies only to the presidential election. Can you offer any specific examples of situations in which it is legal for non-citizens to vote for any level of public office in any jurisdiction in the US? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Recognizing that these are Mexican laws (I'll assume that, since I haven't verified that they aren't the usual right-wing exaggerated BS), and assuming you're actually interested in whether or not they should be applied in the US (an unlikely proposition), I'll bite. Fine, as long as you are willing to accept the loss of competitiveness in international business. Believe it or not, English (or American for you conservatives) is not the only language in the world, and if you want to trade with other countries you just might need people able to speak their language. Also America has a long tradition of attracting the best and brightest people from around the world to legally immigrate, but I guess in Conservativeland you can tell them to leave their damn funny-talking kids behind and they will still be happy to come here. Anyway we don't need no foreign help, everybody knows that Americans are just naturally better than everybody else at everything. What is "this nation's language", officially? You seem to have skipped a step here, i.e. enacting a constitutional amendment to establish an official language. Interesting that the Founding Fathers didn't seem to think that was important, and they were in hindsight remarkably prescient in crafting a constitution that can cope with all kinds of circumstances they could never have anticipated. Also, if you expect the rest of the world to subject themselves to English only if they want to do business with Americans, you have an exaggerated notion of America's importance in the world. It really does seem you conservatives want America to become an isolated little backwater, cut off from the rest of the world as much as possible. Non-residents (and even legal residents) have neither the right to vote or the right to hold political office. That's pretty much what citizenship is all about. When I was a legal permanent resident (green card holder), it was my understanding that I was not eligible for any government assistance programs. Which was never an issue for me, but it did piss me off that I had to pay taxes to support all those programs but was ineligible for coverage, even though I was a legal immigrant who came in through the front door. Also, why should a legal immigrant not be able to buy health insurance, or pay out of pocket for health care? Again, if you tell people they can legally immigrate, but if they or their families get sick they can't get health care, don't expect too many takers. Seriously? I guess you want the trade imbalance to get even worse? Or you're really really set on that backwater thing with the rest of the world passing us by. Maybe rules like this are part of why Mexico's economy sucks and ours doesn't. Still, no cost to too great to pay for a little perceived "security". Again with the restrictions on foreign investment. You must really like the Mexican economy. Plus I'm pretty sure their would be constitutional issues. Also, there are existing restrictions on foreign ownership of certain industries deemed to be of "national security interest". Finally, when I lived in Ontario there were a lot of cottages on lakes and rivers that were owned by Americans, so you won't object when Canada goes tit-for-tat and confiscates those properties? Can't help but break a few eggs I guess, and anyway they should have bought in America not Canada. That whole friendly border thing is so overrated. 9. Foreigners may have no protests; no demonstrations, no waving of a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies. These will lead to deportation. * * * * * * * * You really don't like the Constitution, do you? I believe we do deport illegals when we catch them. As far as "all assets will be taken", maybe you need to get familiar with due process. Do you think the value of the confiscated assets will pay for housing the alleged illegals in this country, feeding them, etc while the confiscation proceedings go through the courts? Overall, I'd say these "laws" seriously disrespect the Constitution, and are a good roadmap to a third world economy as an insular backwater ignored and shunned by the rest of the world. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

How many years do you think it might take for these cases to work their way through the courts? What do you suggest businesses and people who have had their livelihoods disrupted should do in the interim? Why shouldn't BP, or any entity who causes harm to an innocent third party, be required to redress that harm in a timely manner, in order to minimize the extent of the damage? I'm really amazed that so many people seem to believe that the best practice for a government, during a crisis, is to do nothing. You conservatives object to efforts to minimize the damage from the recession, you object to efforts to salvage the economy of the Gulf Coast, you object to efforts to help people after a natural disaster. I'm sure if there was a massive epidemic of bubonic plague you would object to the government distributing antibiotics. All the better if it allows you to take a swipe at Obama (and/or liberals) in the process. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

OK. Then I suggest you personally volunteer to give whatever property you may own to the people whose land and livelihoods are being taken from them. I'm sure you won't mind at all being one of those broken eggs. After all, demanding that others give up what you won't would be hypocrisy, wouldn't it? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

While I resent greatly the closure of any parkland to American citizens because of illegal crossing activity, the FOX news article seems to be rife with the usual inaccurate hyperbole. The closed area within the Wildlife Refuge extends for about 5 miles, and North for 3/4 to about 1 mile, a total area of 3500 acres or less than 3% of the area of the park. See here for a map. Nothing close to the 80 miles described in the FOX article. Also, Interstate 8 is no-where close to the Refuge, or the border, so I've no idea what they're talking about there. The US Fish and Wildlife Service issued the following statement today (see here for one source): " Several media outlets have been inaccurately reporting that a massive stretch of the US border at Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was recently closed. Buenos Aires NWR in southern Arizona has not been closed to the public. Nearly 5-years ago, a very small portion of the Refuge closed to public access due to public safety concerns. However, the remainder (97%) of the refuge's 118,000 acres is open to the public for recreational activities such as hiking, camping, birdwatching, and seasonal hunting. Recent news items further falsely stated that the closure extends from the border 80-miles to the north. This distance is far from accurate. On October 6, 2006 roughly 3500 acres, or 3% of the Refuge, was closed to public access due to human safety concerns. At that time there was a marked increase in violence along the border due to human and drug trafficking. The closed area extends north from the international border roughly ¾ of a mile. A notice of the closure, including a map has been on the Refuge website since 2006. At this time there are no plans to reopen this southernmost 3/4-mile wide portion of the Refuge. However, since 2006 the Refuge has experienced a significant decline in violent activity in the area thanks to ongoing cooperation between the US Fish and Wildlife Service and US Customs and Border Protection. The Refuge will reopen the area at such time that it is determined to be safe for visitors." Incidentally, for all those advocating a border fence along the whole or much of the US/Mexico border, surely you realize that such a fence would result in the closure of land along the length of the fence, an area many hundred times the area currently closed. There is no way the Border Patrol would be able to patrol the fence and still allow camping/hiking/ranching etc right up to the fence, at least a mile or more "buffer zone" would be needed. Also construction of the fence requires confiscation of private property from landowners, in some cases decimating ranches and farms that have belonged to families for generations. Here is an article from Dec 2007, but the issue remains much the same today: "On Dec. 7, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said he would give landowners in South Texas 30 days to consent to letting federal officials survey their properties to determine whether they are suitable for a planned border fence. If the owners don't give permission, Chertoff said the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will turn to the courts to gain temporary access. If the agency finds the land appropriate for fencing and landowners refuse to cooperate, the department will seek court action to confiscate the land. (Los Angeles Times, Brownsville Herald, Dec. 8) Chertoff said the DHS needs access to 225 miles of noncontiguous land, most of it in Texas and Arizona, in order to build 370 miles of border fencing by the end of 2008."The door is still open to talk, but it's not open for endless talk," Chertoff said. "We won't pay more than market price for the land," he added. Ranchers and farmers in Texas, where much of the land along the border is privately owned, say the fence would cut off their access to the Rio Grande, the only regional source of fresh water. Business groups also complain that the fencing will slow cross-border traffic crucial for local economies. Juan D. Salinas, a judge and chief administrator of the local government in Hidalgo County, Texas, said the community opposes the planned fence based on economic, cultural and environmental concerns. "I tell you, on this one issue, the Farm Bureau, the United Farm Workers, Democrats and Republicans, white, black, brown, everybody is against the border fence. It just doesn't make sense," said Salinas. "It's a disappointment that again the Department of Homeland Security is not listening to local taxpayers."" Building a fence along the whole border seems to be an overly simplistic response to the illegal immigration problem, easily circumvented by the would-be immigrants but with major adverse consequences for people who live or own land on the border. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

From the article linked by skyrider: "This is the new face of "gun control" in the age of Obama." "... especially now that, thanks to the NRA and the Brady Campaign joining forces, "mental health" records are being sent by the states to the Obama administration. " The article strongly insinuates that the police action is related to Obama or the Obama administration. Typical right-wing tactics: fan the flames of paranoia, then use that fear to solicit donations. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

And that right there is why the Texas Board of Education wanted to write him out of the history textbooks. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Funny how he said nothing of the sort. He was replying to my post in which I wondered if people really believed that Obama personally ordered the raid. Believe it or not, it is possible for people to disagree with the police action in this case without feeling the need to blame it on Obama. It does seem, though, that the people who are most vocal about 2nd amendment rights seem to have a tendency towards an irrational paranoia about Obama. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Regarding the article you posted, what the hell does Obama have to do with any of that? Do members of/subscribers to oregonfirearms.org really believe that the White House had anything to do with the police overstepping their limits in this specific incident? Or is this just another opportunity for a drive-by swipe at Obama? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Not to suggest that I agree with the police tactics in this incident (because I don't), but how many people did the police kill in this incident? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I wonder how many skydivers, liberal, conservative, libertarian, or whatever, have called in sick on a sunny day so they could go jumping? Do you think conservatives are less likely to do so than liberals? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Deja vu all over again. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I'm surprised that someone who seems (from the general tone of your posts) to be against "big government" expects the government to build and maintain fleets of skimmers, booms sufficient to protect thousands of miles of coastline, plus the trained crews to operate all of that. It would (as a wild ass guess) cost 100 million to build the fleet, plus many more millions to maintain a state of readiness and pay the crews to be on standby while training so as to be able to respond effectively. This is all an investment you think the taxpayer should shoulder? Why shouldn't the petroleum industry be required to maintain the ability to contain a spill? They're the ones reaping the profit, while putting others at risk. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I had to hunt for your "correction", and finally found it in the "in reply to" part of a post you wrote in response to Amazon. It's not surprising people missed it there; that's not very legit changing what people are responding to after the fact. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Not to spoil the fun or anything, but I believe Bill is responding to what you actually wrote, which (I hope) is not what you think you wrote. You (Turtle) said: Usually I'm OK at trying to guess what you and other literary paragons on this site are trying to say, despite the fractured English (or American), but this one has me stumped. Did you perhaps leave out a couple of words? And how is drying either distracting or diverting? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

So, another politician caught "padding" his resume. Hopefully the voters will reward his integrity with the appropriate vote, although these days the most important issue seems to be "I'm NOT the incumbent" so maybe honesty (or a functional memory) is not so critical. Anyway when I saw the title I thought this thread would be about how someone read your "Obama disrespects again" thread and mistook your front end from your back. Easy to do I guess, turtles are kind of symmetrical so they can look similar coming and going. Hope you and everyone has a safe Memorial day. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Agreed. But there are additional problems too. The percentage of black kids who are born into single parent families is astonishingly high, much higher than is the case for whites. There seems to be a subculture that just accepts that caring for children is "womens work"; men are free to go from partner to partner, and when a child results there is no social pressure to man up and take responsibility. It's extremely difficult for a single mom to escape poverty, especially if she dropped out of school to raise a child. I can't understand why the women let men get away with this. If you look at the black middle class, they are almost all living as two-parent families (if kids are involved at all). Humans always have and always will compete for social status. In some cultural groups, competition is channeled in creative directions, if status is awarded on the basis of behaviors that ultimately lead to economic success (such as education, hard work, being good at music, etc). In other cultures, status is given on the basis of being the most aggressive, the most bad-ass, the one everybody is afraid of. The natural result is a gang culture. That kind of competition is obviously destructive, but it does seem to be celebrated in certain cultural groups. These cultures seem to fall along economic lines, but in the US economic status and race have been linked by history, so the negative effects of choosing one form of competition over another tend to work against blacks more than whites. Please note that I am NOT saying that blacks are any more aggressive by nature, just that a history of not being rewarded for academic success (for example), as a result of Jim Crow laws and other aspects of segregation, fostered competition on other grounds. Many will say "that's all in the past", but cultural forces are very difficult to change, it takes generations. I suspect even the American love affair with sports works against black kids more than white kids. Whenever I do outreaches in the local schools, and I ask the kids what they want to do when they "grow up", by middle school almost 100% of the black boys say they are going to play in the NBA or the NFL, and almost none of the white boys say that. If being a professional athlete is your chosen career path, it makes sense to spend as much time as you can playing sports, and to let the boring school stuff slide. Colleges (including the one where I teach) aid and abet the problem by allowing lower admission standards for "student athletes". Unfortunately only a small percentage of these kids will actually grow up to play professional sports, and yet they all think they will be the ones to make it and so they don't need to worry about having a "plan B". Even the skinny short kids think they'll make it in the NFL, no question. When they don't, or by the time they figure out that they won't, they are so far behind academically that it's almost impossible to compete for programs leading to a "real" profession. Of course, all the above is based only on my observation and anecdotal musings, so make of it what you will. I expect I'll get flamed for some of it. But, I do think that some significant cultural changes will have to occur, from within the black community, before the problems of poverty can be addressed on a broad scale. Cosby has said it all much better than I can. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I suppose the fact that he gets comfort from his faith is a good thing for him; being responsible for the death of your children due to a stupid mistake has been known to drive people crazy. But, "it could have been worse" is really astonishingly poor evidence of God's mercy! I wonder what happened to the occupant (or occupants) of the car he pulled out in front of, were they killed or did they get some "mercy" too? I guy I knew some years ago was visiting Egypt and while there took a bus trip. He said it was the most terrifying four hours of his life, as the driver was speeding, passing on blind corners, driving after dark without headlights, and other crazy stuff. When he asked the driver to slow down, the response was "it's all in Allah's hands, if he wishes us to be safe we'll be safe, and if not nothing we can do will matter." That's a dark side of religion, the idea that God is in charge so we really aren't responsible when bad things happen, it's all just part of the "divine plan". Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

No fence has been more than an inconvenient nuisance, illegals manage to climb over, cut through them, or tunnel under them. Drug runners in Douglas AZ have dug tunnels that are hundreds of yards long, longer than the spacing between double fences. The point is that fences without border security are worthless, so you'll be mistaken to assume building a double fence will be cheap border security. If you actually believe that, you certainly are confused. The left wingers I know do consider illegal immigration to be a problem, and they are proponents of solutions that will have a high likelihood of success without violating the constitution. Right wingers seem more interested in kicking ass, whether or not ass-kicking is effective or constitutional. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Possibly so. If the North had had the gumption to follow through on rights for former slaves, things could have been very different and we might have had an extra 100 years to shake off the effects of the history of racism in this country. Blacks were allowed to vote and some were elected to office for a few years following the war, but soon appeasement let the Confederacy snatch a sort of victory from the jaws of defeat, and at least preserve much of their old way of life. Maybe, maybe not. Evolution isn't striving towards a goal or "progress", it just reinforces whatever is most successful. As long as 90% of the green is in the hands of the whites, and whites prefer to patronize businesses that only cater to whites, there is no selective pressure for businesses to integrate. For that to have happened, non-white purchasing power would have had to increase to where it could offset losses resulting from racist whites redistributing their purchasing to white-only businesses. In fact, "evolution" could easily have strengthened racist business practices by directing more and more cash flow to white-only businesses and away from those willing to integrate. I've observed the same thing. In some cases that is likely true. Certainly, if in the past 100% of the jobs (say as business CEOs) went to Caucasian males, then even if positions are allocated based on ability less than 100% will go to Caucasians, and they may feel discriminated against. Attempts to redress historical wrongs through affirmative action and quotas is more overtly reverse-racist. There have been threads in the past (that got quite heated) about affirmative action, and I don't want to get into that again, except to say that the debate about "was it ever necessary" vs "is it justifiable today" is pretty similar to the present discussion about the civil rights act. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Yep, I did. I also read the interesting article he linked to in the first post. I don't disagree at all that accusations of racism are used to bludgeon political opponents. I myself do not think Paul's comments make him a racist, he does ask an interesting question. (His comments about dead miners and "sometimes accidents just happen" is actually much more bothersome to me.) But there are two questions here it seems to me. Firstly, was the Civil Rights Act ever needed or justified? Then, if it was needed in the first place, how long does it need to go on before the "cost" (say in terms of suppressing free speech) exceeds the benefit? For the first part, the CNN article suggests that the Libertarian position is to stand aside and wait for "market forces" to correct the situation. Since Jim Crow laws stood for almost 100 years, and were not in obvious decline in 1963, there is no reason to suppose we wouldn't be living with Jim Crow today. Some might say that one more day of people being deprived of basic, constitutionally guaranteed rights is one day too many. Some may say "wait for your turn, the market will catch up eventually". Is it now time to stop, or at least severely scale back, enforcement of the Civil Rights Act? I don't think we could go back to Jim Crow any more. Maybe the courts could set a high bar so only the most egregious cases would be prosecuted. So-called victims could be required to show that their constitutional rights were infringed, and not just that they felt insulted. Certainly we should be able to talk about it without being assailed with cries of racism. Oh, and I'm not cynical about politics (or people) either. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Cool. But since Libertarians oppose any laws aimed at actually changing peoples behavior, what would have been an appropriate Libertarian response, had they been in a position to actually do anything, in 1963? _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Prior to the Civil Liberties Act, part of the country had adopted a set of Jim Crow laws that systematically deprived a large segment of the populace of their constitutional rights. If the Civil Rights Act is contradictory to Libertarian philosophies, what would have been the appropriate response to the situation in your opinion? For the government to continue to do nothing, and just wait until the white people decided voluntarily to allow non-whites to exercise their allegedly constitutional rights? Maybe in a few more centuries they'll decide to "do the right thing"? If Libertarians aren't willing to take action to defend the Constitution, what does it mean to be a Libertarian and an American? As for civil rights, perhaps the day will come when there are no violations worth the effort to prosecute, when we will all treat each other "based on the content of our character and not on the color of our skin". When that day comes, civil rights laws will be as meaningful as laws about double-parking horses on Main Street. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Maybe not so easy to get up-and-running for the over 300 million existing citizens. It will be expensive and involve creating a new bureaucracy to do so accurately and in a timely manner, as everyone's documentation will have to be independently verified. Otherwise, it will just be an amnesty program: mail in a fake birth certificate, nobody checks, they mail back your citizenship card, and hey presto! you're a citizen. Of course these days there's not much support for expensive new programs, even ones near and dear to the conservative heart, such as stopping illegal immigration. The Feds did try to do it on the cheap, by foisting the bill on the states as an unfunded mandate, but when the states realized the cost and the security issues they rebelled and refused to implement RealID. And then there are the folks who just think it's a bad idea for the Feds to be prying into their business. Of course the same people expect the Feds to be prying into the illegal's business, but they should just magically know who's who and leave the real citizens alone. I've no idea how that's supposed to work. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)