n23x

Don't mistake "pointing out the fact that some people sounded like a bunch of racist country bumpkins" for "having nothing else to debate about". .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Are you suggesting that car mass is the only contributor towards the forces experienced by a passenger in a car accident? Rhetorical question: Is it possible to build lightweight vehicles that can absorb a tremendous amount of energy from impact while protecting the occupants? (Look at F1 cars before you say no, unless you think 1300lbs is heavy.) Large vehicles don't necessarily represent safety. They do, however, represent the general US population's demand for luxury, convenience, and penile augmentation. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

If we agree that all people uninsured are taxing to hospitals, then I agree. From a general point of view, I see both groups to be a social burden (which is ok, and expected) but the fact that they're "illegal" makes little difference to me. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Here's what I don't get: A common argument used is that "the illegals are taking up our hospital resources"! Yet, I see little to no comparative data to suggest that it really is "illegals" as opposed to BillyJoBob who was too busy cooking up some meth to get health insurance (obviously, I'm being facetious ). Note, I'm generally not complaining about people who can't financially afford health insurance, I'm complaining about those that take advantage of it that aren't illegal immigrants. If there's no method to determine that, say, 59% of hospital no-pays were contributed to illegal immigrants, you can't really make that argument. (ok, ok, you probably can, you're a lawyer!

Care to provide some data to back this up? I don't doubt uninsured people use hospitals all the time. I do question how often it's uninsured-illegal immigrants as opposed to uninsured-everybody else. edited to add: And in response to any article you post, you should know I'm going to ask: And how were they able to identify the patient as an illegal immigrant, rather than the guy that came in and gave his name as john somebody with the address of 123 fake street? Find an article that resolves this issue as well, please. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Were you going to cite the original author on this? At least it's not wikipedia edited to add: And if you liked that, you should definately buy the book. A favorite quote is: "Men who refer to her breasts as hooters, milk silos or wiener barns will do so only in just, for there's only one word to describe them: heavenly." .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Can you expand on this? .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Fine, then we'll examine some simile from your earlier posts: Would you define, "swarm your car like rats" as a phrase of even the least amount of respect? And excuse me for misquoting, they were referred to as "fuckers", not "fucking mexicans". Way different. Admit it, the initial posts in this thread were about the same as the other threads where a bunch of retards ask, "was his name Muhammad"? Your logic is flawless. While I take others in this conversation seriously, some people I don't, and am not interested in opening up a dialog with them. Stupid questions/statements get stupid answers and the like... .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

You know, a 14 year old girl might make the same arguement about britney spears driving her kids around on drugs. Being a celebrity or hero in someone's eye doesn't excuse them from acts of violence, or exclude them from the law. They're BOTH still pricks. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

God, some of you guys sound like you'd suck him off if you ever met him. Granted, he did an awesome (and I mean truly awesome) thing, but he should also recognize that he's in the public eye, he still does interviews, and as such will possibly have to deal with accusations of fraud. This is also not the first time he did it (I believe the first time was on Letterman, and without provocation). At least this guy was getting in his face... The guy should have knocked him one back, "Hey guys, I got one of Aldrins teeth!". They're both pricks. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Alright. Then why don't you explicitly tell me HOW your individuality and the sovereignty of the nation will be affected. You've certainly indicated that this is true, so it should be hard for you to back it up with legitimate claims. I'm actually curious on this one, so please don't scoff it off, or I'll be forced to make WHITE PAWRRR!/Confederate flag jokes. I really am interested in this part of your perspective though.

I absolutely agree that we should be concerned and take action on the issues that face the USA today. We should be working on the internal issues that we face each day, not blowing billions a week in Iraq! (but that is another conversation for another day) However, I would only consider border security to be a small, if not insignificant, component in the gang issue. Yes, gangs/organized crime are a problem. But if there isn't an infrastructure to organize gangs members, then gangs won't be a problem. So go after that infrastructure, rather than one of the MANY sources for new gang members. Money better spent, I think! Letting new immigrants in won't affect or sovereignty or individuality in the least! Did the US become polish when people immigrated from Poland? Just because we let in more mexicans doesn't mean that we have to take on their laws, politics, etc. However, they are certainly free to bring their heritage, religion, and language, just like our forefathers were allowed to do. On a side note: Should they learn english? I think so. Communication is a critical component to integration, but I don't have a problem with ESL (english as a second language). The US has always been a melting pot of people from many different home countries, but that's not a bad thing, nor should you feel that it takes away from your individuality. Remember, the US is not about Group individuality, but Personal individuality.

No, what is rediculous is the thought that we can have better than low to intermediate success with border security. We can't. You want to talk about a real security risk to the US? Port security. I'm not proposing elimination of border security either, we just don't need to spend more money on it. Rather, we should take some of that funding and infrastructure WASTED on securing something that can never be fully secure, and spend it on something that will provide incoming tax dollars to the US. (As well as improved data about the people coming inside the US). .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Go back to 3rd grade english class to learn the rules of punctuation? I am not a political scientist, so I'm not entirely sure... However, there are a couple of continual issues that are obviously a big hinder in PROMOTING people to become documented citizens. a.) Speed/rate of acceptance. We need to develop a quick, simple method for entrance into the US, documentation, and issuance of something similar to a work visa. People come over here illegally because, as Kalland has pointed out before, the time to be issued documentation is slow as shit, and it doesn't need to be like that. And for people who'll say, "the government needs time to inspect each person as a terrorist threat," the answer is, no, they don't. Our border security is a JOKE, and always will be. If I was a terrorist and I really wanted to get into the US, I'd go to canada, and the row a goddamn boat across the lake to the US. So now do we: -1.) Uphold a system that rewards those that illegally enter. -2.) Promote a system that quickly documents ALL coming in the US? b.) Extend said visa to all current unregistered immigrants in the US. From these new, EFFECTIVE work visas, a time duration could be set to allow conversion to US citizen. This should also be an easy and quick process. Now here's the neat thing: you can tax all the people now, so they can support all public services (few of which they take advantage of during their illegal status, despite what everybody seems to parrot). c.) AGGRESSIVELY enforce punishments for employers who hired/contracted undocumented immigrants. Now this is critical. We need to stop blowing our money on border patrol, which is flat out retarded, and spend it on something that CAN be better regulated. And that is businesses. Promoting a system of acceptance, NOT EXCLUSION, has always done, and will do again, the best for the USA. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Once again, if the process is broke... .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

At masterrig, You say you resent the inferrance, and yet nearly every post prior to my initial comment in this thread indicated the dislike of "fucking mexicans". My last sentance was more directed at the overall group of people in this thread, not specifically at you. As for John Rich, perhaps my hillbilly comment was meant to provoke a sense of irony. Don't be pissed at me because it zoomed over your head. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

A process that doesn't work (even if it's 'on the books') is an ineffective process. Inability to correctly implement this process indicates poor process design. Fix the system, or just keep complaining about how you hate mexicans, it's your choice. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Nobody's saying "just let them in". We're saying, "improve the process to allow people people to come into the US so they can be appropriately documented and taxed". To everyone else that likes to say, "my parents came through Ellis Island, there's NO similarity between me and other immigrants, blah, blah, blah," why don't you guys tell us (specifically, please) what the process is to legally immigrate to the US. We'll use Mexico as a starting place for this exercise, assume no prior criminal background, and a middle class income. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Brilliant comparison John, I'd expect nothing less. While we're on the subject of foolish comparisons lets not forget the crazy conservative republican gun nuts that go rub down their guns every night, ok? To everybody else: Are DOT road construction employees in a union? If so, they're a model of inefficiency and few are mexican. On the other hand, looking at them, I'd say they appear to have the highest probability of robbing me or breaking into my house. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Don't be pissed at them. Let them whistle through their hillbilly teeth (let's be honest, a majority are probably wearing coveralls with no shirt, or a just a wifebeater and shitstained whitey tighties). At the end of the day, we all know that they're just pissed about the lack of drive/success in their own life, and have to take it out on somebody intent on improving their own life. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

I disagree. When you're in an emergency situation would you rather be partially disabled, or partially disabled as well as actively hindered by the additional weight/malfunctioning device attached to you? Regardless, I think the power requirements for such a device places this outside the realm of common use. Tethered operation was neat, though. Oh well, many of us enjoy funding of this nature, so I won't complain if the man wants to (unsuccessfully) weaponize it. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

It's neat! but, 1.) How much do you think it weighs when the battery runs out and some poor guy has to lug it back. (I can see it's tethered right now, duh.) 2.) How effective is it once one of those joints gets shot out, or gets sand in it? I bet we'll see it in the field... in the next decade or so. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

you get to drive the SWAT van around when you're off the clock? Sounds like the perfect plan to pick up some skanks to me. edited to add: I'm sure they're nice skanks, though .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Uhhh, apparently I did realize that people shouldn't be allowed to do that. (Maybe you should re-read my post?) On top of that, I provided a parallel with drunk/hungover jumping and getting high and jumping, so that the poster I was responding to could equally share his disdain for those that chose to get intoxicated and jump. In short, one group of people should not be disciminated against more because they go out for "safety meetings", while the popular (or perhaps just more common place) hungover/still drunk jumper doesn't get as much flak. Regardless, both groups of people are still dummies. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

8 hours bottle to throttle? Who hasn't heard of it? What's your point? .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC