|
|
|
|
|
| The Overwhelming of America
Posted: 1/5/2008 9:37:49 AM | Yes this is a result of NAFTA. If we remember correctly NAFTA was put into motion by our illustrious former President Bill Clinton. Now look what he has done to the American worker whose wages have either dropped or stayed the same. Thanks Bill again you have done America wrong!
I'm certainly no fan of Bill Clinton but American workers wages have either dropped or stayed the same as the result of NAFTA? Really? Can you back that statement up? And what is it? Have workers wages dropped or stayed the same? Only one can be true huh?
Illegal homo sapiens
Hahahaha. I love it. I am so happy I found this place. Well said.
"Isn't this the natural result of NAFTA, which permitted American corporations to go mining for cheap labor?"
Yes it is. The north American Union will soe the same seeds as well as the growing trend for gloablization.
Ah yes. More borders. How could anybody think that fewer borders, economic, social, political or geographical, could possibly affect human society in a positive manner?
The current Administration for not doing away with NAFTA. I hope whomever wins the Presidency next will do what it takes to rid us of a scam
Uh. NAFTA is an "act" inacted by congress as is it's power given to it in article one of the constitution. The president, whose powers are established in article two, cannot do anything about an act or law other than complain about it. Have you read the constitution lately? Have you ever read it? | |
|
| The Overwhelming of America
Posted: 1/5/2008 9:47:22 AM | | Americans are going to have to get used to competing on a global level for work and wages. we proclaim our own capitalism then **** when we dont feel properly compensated by the wages that the system we created arrives at. policies like NAFTA and GATT are international agreements made between men in the highest places of power in the richest countries of the world in attempt to grow and govern an economic system that is beginning to transcend the idea of a nation state and physical borders. Americans might have to face the fact that our standard of living has been artificially high for the last century or so while much of the third worlds has been artificially low. so while NAFTA, GATT and the men behind them seek to open up markets and go where the labor is cheapest they will also cause an equilibrium of wage across a far wider swath of the planet then has existed before. we can pretend that illegals are the cause of our falling standard of living, but they're only a symptom. | |
|
| |
| The Overwhelming of America
Posted: 1/5/2008 10:21:28 AM | it is a fact that the American constitution opens up with "We the People" which points out the fact that this nation is based ultimately on what the people want,their lanquage,culture and values.
Hmmmm. Close but not at all correct. "We the People" of course are the first three words of the rest of this sentence which comprises the Preamble to the Constitution. The preamble in it's entirety:
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
You see what we the people said here was why we were writing the Constitution and language,culture and values are mention nowhere here nor in the body of the document itself nor any of the twenty seven amendments. Many get this wrong. We the people wrote ourselves a constitution only. And the make up of we the people has morphed into a much different and diverse cultural society than it was when we the people people lived in the late seventeen hundreds. Indeed, for some of we the people to decide that the language, culture and values of others of we the people should be restricted to what other we the people might want then we the people would be in violation of the very Constitution that we the people wrote. Fortunately, we the people put protections in the Constitution that we the people wrote to prevent we the people from ever doing that. | |
|
| The Overwhelming of America
Posted: 1/5/2008 11:12:09 AM | No...absolutely correct ! we the people means just as much here and now as it did then,this country is a place that people want to come to because what we the people created,200 years ago,100 years ago or 50 years ago...here and nowThe law of cause and effect is what many get wrong in their P.C/everyone's a winner arguements..if the people of Mexico or Honduras or any other South American country had created what we the people of the United States have created we would probably be going there,hopefuly with enough common sense to know that we are going there because they got it closer to right than we did and would be learning their lanquage and ways so we to create the same thing.
The arguement that an apple can be made into a peach so it will taste like an orange and there is realy no difference anyway makes no sense and has no historical precedent,it is the common lanquage and culture of a people that makes a country strong and able to survive times of crisis,not a bunch of differences "strength through diversity" is P.C nonsense,perhaps anyone who wants to defend it can answer this question...what war has ever been fought between two groups of people of the exaxct same race,lanquage,religion,culture,political and economic system ? | |
|
| The Overwhelming of America
Posted: 1/5/2008 3:29:33 PM |
I'm here to exchange real dialog with real people who can form cognitve thoughts to argue their positions on real issues. I am not here to read articles, especially opinionated articles, that people post here thinking that others like me will consider that they have made a point. If I wish to research opinionated articles concerning an issue I have my own sources including a search engine every bet as good as the OPs.
Uh... good for you.. Then dont post here. I asked for another opinion in general, not some diatribe of your life and where you find your information.
And dont go Hijacking my thread for bashing people. Get your own. LOL... People here have an opinion, and I wanted to hear it.. Thanks | |
|
| The Overwhelming of America
Posted: 1/5/2008 3:46:19 PM |
Uh... good for you.. Then dont post here. I asked for another opinion in general, not some diatribe of your life and where you find your information.
What you asked for is of absolutely no concern to me. If I choose to post a diatribe of my life and where I find my information I'll do it anywhere I please. Especially on an open public forum such as this.
And dont go Hijacking my thread for bashing people. Get your own. LOL... People here have an opinion, and I wanted to hear it..
Nah think I'll stick around. Like posting here you see. Also like to discourage threads like yours and copy/paste posts like yours both of which express opinions of others not even present here to defend what may be deluional thought processes whenever I can. That is what a forum is for. How can I debate the merrits of the opinions expressed in an article when the person who formed and expressed the opinion is not even present?
Yes people here do have an opinion and you can read those opinions where you chose. But you also likely have a scroll wheel on your mouse which makes it easy to simply scroll on past opinions like mine that you don't care for. I used that exact technique in bypassing the idiocy that we are speaking about here. But don't tell me to don't go doing anything. | |
|
| The Overwhelming of America
Posted: 1/5/2008 4:02:23 PM | No...absolutely correct ! we the people means just as much here and now as it did then
Sure we the people means as much here and now as it did then. Never said differently. What I did say is the We the People that was referred to was the first three words in our Preamble. And that preamble states that WE the People are writing this here constitution and this is what we expect it to accomplish and why we are writing the sucker in the first place. The preamble means nothing more than that. Other than in the preamble, the three words are used nowhere in the constitution. Why? Because the constitution lays down a republic as our system of government and we the people do not govern in the US, the representative republic does.
Another word you wont find in the constitution but is often referred to when speaking of our government structure is the word "democracy". Why can you not find it in the constitution? Because democracy is a philosohpy and not a government structure as is a republic. And although we can live in a government structure like a republic, we cannot live in a phlosophy like democracy. We the People, at least as individuals, are not even given the right to vote in the constitution. You folks really need to quit listening to polital soundbites on CNN and FOX if you ever are to understand our system of government. The constitution requires only about twenty minutes of your time to read in it's entirety including the preamble and all twenty seven amendments. Just skip the commercials on the Factor and you got it done. | |
|
| |
| The Overwhelming of America
Posted: 1/5/2008 7:44:53 PM | Indeed I have. 68th Medical detachment, 25th aviation battallian, 25 Infantry division, Bien Hoa and Cu Chi, Republic of South Vietnam, July 8th, 1969-August 6th, 1970. Duties, Medivac helicopter pilot in command. A total of nine years and six days US Amy. Highest rank, CW3. Senior aviator, medivac and assault helicopter pilot, instructor pilot, instrument examiner. Twenty three air medals, several Vietnam Campaing ribbons, Broken wing award, and nominated for a bronze star for valor. Never did figure out what happen with the last. Probably still floating around from desk to desk as a paper document in a cyber world. Oh well. It's knowing I served that counts huh? Oh yeah, six pencil tracings of the names of my comrads from the wall. You may know it as The Vietnam Memorial. I am looking at them here in my home office as I write this. Thanks for asking if ever I've defended the constitution. Proud of my efforts to do just that. Thank you for your service and efforts as well.
Perhaps you do know the constitution. You've just fooled me though by your statements here. The ones I pointed out are wrong. Dead wrong. | |
|
| The Overwhelming of America
Posted: 1/6/2008 4:33:20 AM |
Nah think I'll stick around. Like posting here you see. Also like to discourage threads like yours and copy/paste posts like yours both of which express opinions of others not even present here to defend what may be deluional thought processes whenever I can. That is what a forum is for. How can I debate the merrits of the opinions expressed in an article when the person who formed and expressed the opinion is not even present?
Yes people here do have an opinion and you can read those opinions where you chose. But you also likely have a scroll wheel on your mouse which makes it easy to simply scroll on past opinions like mine that you don't care for. I used that exact technique in bypassing the idiocy that we are speaking about here. But don't tell me to don't go doing anything.
LOL... fine then.. stick around.. Whats the mantra...?? "I may not like you voicing your opinion, but I'll defend you the right"
Personally, I thought it was an interesting article. As far as bashing it because the original writer isnt here to defend it... I think thats a bit unfair of you, since I could very well take your arguements, post them somewhere else, and have people bash you.
Also like to discourage threads like yours
So, by 'discourage' you mean you would prefer that I not have the option to ask others thier opinion, as to better judge the impact of the overall article. Isnt that like censorship on your part?? Restricting my freedom of speach as it were, because you dont like it?? LOL..... I thought you said you knew the constitution...
Besides, I think you said it best, and provide the arguement as well, for me to post "cut/paste" articles, and ask for opinions...
That is what a forum is for. | |
|
| The Overwhelming of America
Posted: 1/6/2008 6:31:55 AM | As far as bashing it because the original writer isnt here to defend it... I think thats a bit unfair of you, since I could very well take your arguements, post them somewhere else, and have people bash you.
You may think it unfair of me but just like you have your reasons for being here, I have mine. If my reasons envolve the exchange of ideas with real people and not to read cut and paste opinion articles when I can't challenge the opinion then I consider that unfair to me and the author and I'll so state in my posts. If you read the forum rules, you will see that it is not permitted to open a thread with a reference to a link on the internet. I think that is one good rule and it would appear to me that the operator of these forums has a somewhat similar desire as I to provide a public forum for the exchange of real ideas and views with real people. Of course you could say that a copy/paste from a website is not the same as posting a link to the website and I suppose I'd have to agree. But I consider such a copy/paste as violating the very spirit of the rule. So, I'll do my best to discourage it.
Oh yeah, post my arguments anywhere you like and have people bash away without giving me a chance to defend my arguments. If you consider this to fall within what you believe to be fair then I now understand why I was having some difficulty understanding your concept of fairness. This clears it up alot. So if I don't pay much attention in the future to what you consider to be fair, you'll know why huh?
So, by 'discourage' you mean you would prefer that I not have the option to ask others thier opinion, as to better judge the impact of the overall article. Isnt that like censorship on your part?? Restricting my freedom of speach as it were, because you dont like it?? LOL..... I thought you said you knew the constitution...
Now this is amusing. I do know the constitution. Quite well. And should you and I ever find ourselves discussing it's innards, you will find that nowhere is it said that I do not have the right to restrict your freedom of speach. Wanna test it? Come on over to my house and start saying things I don't like. When I toss you out on your butt go complain to a court that I restricted your freedom of speach in violation of the constitution. You may want to specify the first amendment. See how far you get. Sure, I do know the constitution. Do you?
Besides, I think you said it best, and provide the arguement as well, for me to post "cut/paste" articles, and ask for opinions...
I'm glad you got my point. And correctly so. You do have the right to cut/paste and ask for opinions. And you got my opinion. Which is all I can give you since we're not in my living room where I have the right to show you the door and prevent you from ever doing the equivilant of a copy/paste in my house again. Simple really. | |
|
| The Overwhelming of America
Posted: 1/6/2008 8:46:31 AM | | They say the definition of insanity is doing something the same way and expecting different results,insanity can also be defined by doing something differently and expecting the same results,to ignore the role of common laquage,loyalties and culture in favor of some "we are the world" hand holding,flower power,P.C nonsense is insanity,there is no historical precedent for such.The cry of "we are a nation of immigrants" goes up as if this out of context statement is supposed to prove something,any serious study of immigration of the past shows a strong history of assimilation along with a certain amount of old world tradition,what we have now are people coming and saying screw you,accomodate me,my laquage,my culture and the fact that when it comes down to i am still a(fill in the blank) | |
|
| The Overwhelming of America
Posted: 1/6/2008 10:12:12 PM | Romantic Heretic...
Ought to read up on your history.
The Free Trade Agreement, the precursor to NAFTA, was negotiated and signed by Ronald Reagan. NAFTA was basically an extension of that.
And most of the negotiations around NAFTA took place on George H. W. Bush's watch.
NAFTA was a bipartisan effort.
Sigh. Hearing mythology being used as reasons for things happening, rather than history, gets so tiresome after a while.
Actually Chevelle was correct. You state this, but not clearly in which to disagree with him. The FTA was a completely different animal and could not pass bipartisanship. NAFTA was a compromise of the FTA and under the Clinton Administration. Papa Bush's negotiations were aferwards.
The 'idea' itself was to enter into global competition as you know...much more thought should have been given. Reagan himself knew this and did not work to push the FTA through for this reason. Clinton did, but with good intent I'm sure as Europe's free trade holds success. | |
|
| The Overwhelming of America
Posted: 1/7/2008 8:11:52 AM | ROFL...
Besides, I think you said it best, and provide the arguement as well, for me to post "cut/paste" articles, and ask for opinions...
Taken out of context... done very nicely.
Now this is amusing. I do know the constitution. Quite well. And should you and I ever find ourselves discussing it's innards, you will find that nowhere is it said that I do not have the right to restrict your freedom of speach. Wanna test it? Come on over to my house and start saying things I don't like. When I toss you out on your butt go complain to a court that I restricted your freedom of speach in violation of the constitution. You may want to specify the first amendment. See how far you get. Sure, I do know the constitution. Do you?
Hmmm Last I checked... this "forum" was NOT your house... unless Im mistaken, and suddenly you have become the 'forum' police, and plan on making every attempt at the discouragment of my post and question.
As far as testing anything.... LOL... Going along with the "spirit" of the "forum rules" I do believe that may be considered a vieled threat. Which is a violation of the "rules"... no matter how they are presented..
I found the article interesting, and had some questions about it. Reading several of the posts that others have provided, I have found my answers. Which in turn has led to more questions and another tangent of research.
No, I dont know the constitution enough to recite it verbatum... I dont suppose that you do either. But if you like, you are more than welcome on my dock, we'll have a beer and discuss its merits...
Have a good day! | |
|
| The Overwhelming of America
Posted: 1/7/2008 8:35:40 AM | Hmmm Last I checked... this "forum" was NOT your house... unless Im mistaken, and suddenly you have become the 'forum' police, and plan on making every attempt at the discouragment of my post and question.
You had to check to determine this was not my house? Check again, you'll also find that this forum is not the US government which is the only entity in this country that is not allowed to restrict your right to free speech.
As far as testing anything.... LOL... Going along with the "spirit" of the "forum rules" I do believe that may be considered a vieled threat. Which is a violation of the "rules"... no matter how they are presented..
Who's doing the forum policing now? I'm all for people abiding by the rules here and encourage anybody to report any violation of them or any "spirit". Including me. So quit policing and if you feel you have a civic duty to report me for what you rediculously consider a veiled threat then get on with it.
No, I dont know the constitution enough to recite it verbatum... I dont suppose that you do either. But if you like, you are more than welcome on my dock, we'll have a beer and discuss its merits...
Be careful with what you "don't suppose". The constitution and the supreme court have been a very active hobby of mine for a quarter century. I think you'd be surprised how much of it I can recite verbatum. Especially the bill of rights the first of which you seem quite confused about. Here, you'll doubt that I did anything other than the rediculous copy/paster you're so fond of doing but in any case, the fisrst amendment to the US constitution typed here from my memory verbatum. Hell it's only one friggin sentence for crying out loud:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Not unlike my poor english skills to mess up the punctuation here and there but check it out. See how close I came otherwise. I'll buy the first round. Love to discuss the merits of this near perfect document. | |
|
| The Overwhelming of America
Posted: 1/7/2008 4:16:46 PM | LOL......
Look, Im glad you know it... Im not about to argue with you over anything. Life is too short....
But like I said, I would love to sit on the dock... pull up the cooler... come on along! | |
|
| |
| The Overwhelming of America
Posted: 1/7/2008 11:41:38 PM | 1. Allow more (double, triple) LEGAL immigration, with a fast track to citizenship within certain parameters. Civilian and even military service could help.
2. Prosecute those who knowingly hire illegals, eventually closing their business in that area. This is working in Arizona right now.
3. Fine homeowners who use illegal labor, enough so that they won't continue to do it; the wealthier they are, the larger the fine, based on tax return. Bet it works!
4. Repeal NAFTA and other "free market" enablers which help to cause immigration through economic necessity.
5. US should financially assist our southern neighbor countries to help put in place better "safety nets" for those in need, like a food stamp program or free healthcare.
6. This assistance can come as a result of de-funding the clusterphuck in Iraq, for about a week. If we withdraw completely, the only pain felt will be in the arms manufacturer's pockets, and the end of political bribery by corporate lobbyists could hurt some Senators, but they could adjust to eating tortillas y frijoles and living with 3 other families, I'm sure.
7. This doesn't sound very liberal of me, but if there was a law requiring incarceration instead of repatriation, with a 1 year term, and a "sunset clause" (phase out law) of 5 years, border jumping would take a big break. Sometimes the people try 5 or 10 times, until they make it. Create a situation where they don't want to, and they don't NEED to. If they can make it there, they don't have to make it here. They can stay with their families and communities and survive. | |
|
| The Overwhelming of America
Posted: 1/8/2008 12:53:01 AM |
Ah yes. More borders. How could anybody think that fewer borders, economic, social, political or geographical, could possibly affect human society in a positive manner?
Who would have thought compressing peanut oil would power the worlds biggest ships? But that's where it came from.
It's callled "research" and "education". Try readiong a few zillion issues of The Economist.
In a nutshell, any barrier to trade hurts both countries. That's what the WTO is all about, removing barriers to international trade. If you were paying 1000% tarrif on crap you bought in Wal Mart you wouldn't have the lifestyle you do. | |
|
| The Overwhelming of America
Posted: 1/8/2008 4:55:47 AM | One question my friend, how do you think your life would have turned out if your parents had not emigrated to the USA when they did?
In my opinion, I think that immigrants add to americas Economy, which helps to pay for the welfare of those who do not want to work and hence, not contribute to the pot.
One of the ways that Britain has got around it, has been to introduce the minumum wage. Another way that I think this system can be enhanced to the benefit of any nation is to have the welfare benefits which Immigrats get, somehow linked to the study of that coutries language so that eryone enventually can add to the economy by working. | |
|
| The Overwhelming of America
Posted: 1/8/2008 6:18:09 AM | [QUOTE]Who would have thought compressing peanut oil would power the worlds biggest ships? But that's where it came from.
It's callled "research" and "education". Try readiong a few zillion issues of The Economist.
In a nutshell, any barrier to trade hurts both countries. That's what the WTO is all about, removing barriers to international trade. If you were paying 1000% tarrif on crap you bought in Wal Mart you wouldn't have the lifestyle you do.
Uh. Have you never seen sarcasm before? Jeez. | |
|
| |
| The Overwhelming of America
Posted: 1/8/2008 7:07:13 PM | | I'll see if I can get the guy in the slip next to me let you all borrow his humongous dock box refrigerator that he hardly ever uses. That should be able to produce an ample supply of coldies for your discussion. Sounds like you all may need some extras...LOL | |
|
| The Overwhelming of America
Posted: 1/9/2008 1:16:24 AM | | By two in the morning the dingy ride around the marina should be interesting. Thing there's any chance of staying dry? | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
