This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Universe Prince
Pages: 1 ... 228 229 [230] 231 232 ... 244
3436
« on: December 01, 2006, 05:05:33 PM »
Yes- you read it with and closed & vacuous mind. It is funny that the younger you are the more certain , but seldom right , you are especially when what could have been a mind is controlled by a silly & extremist ideological religion .
It is funny that you said "the younger you are the more certain, but seldom right, you are" because no one around here is more certain or more seldom right than you are. You talk big, trying to puff yourself up by insulting people with judgmental condemnations, but the actual substance of what you say is usually vapid and absurd. I dislike you and think you lack credibility not because you are a liberal or because you espouse liberal ideas. It's because you, Knute, talk in a hypocritically self-righteous manner while you spout foolish political dogma and condemn anyone who does not generally agree with you politically. You either cannot or will not open your mind to the notion that people who don't hold your political beliefs can be good people who want to help others, but they just disagree with you on how to do it. You either refuse or are incapable of considering the reasoning of those who don't hold to what you find acceptable. So when you try to accuse someone of being close-minded and vacuous, that really is funny. It's hilarious.
3437
« on: December 01, 2006, 08:28:51 AM »
The Death of American Imperialism
Perhaps, but I doubt it. At the very least, the desire for American hegemony is still robust.
3438
« on: December 01, 2006, 08:24:21 AM »
The biggest problem with your comments is your apparent desire for a "leader who will save us". You condemn Bush for believing he is appointed by God, and then speak as if you were waiting for a messiah.
3439
« on: December 01, 2006, 08:17:47 AM »
Or in other words , if this is causeing such problems , why can't conditions in Mexico , China or wherever improve enough to staunch the flow?
Excellent question. The answer is they can improve, but multiple things need to happen for that to occur. The two primary ones would be a reduction of trade barriers (including subsidies) and recognition of property rights. The former we can do something about, at least for ourselves. The latter is a more difficult matter requiring change with in the governments and political structures of other countries. However, I think America, both in business and in government, could campaign and even put some pressure on other countries to begin to recognize property rights. If we did those things, I think we would see conditions in Mexico and other countries begin to improve to the point that immigration to this country would become much less of an economic issue. But then, of course, people would complain because international companies would make use of workers in those other countries, the way they do in places like India and Taiwan, but that is another issue.
3440
« on: December 01, 2006, 08:03:50 AM »
I think what you're saying is that you don't like their style, so they lose their credibility.
No, what I'm saying is that in this instance their style is indicative of their lack of credibility.
That they happen to be right most of the time doesn't enter into it.
'Most' is not an adjective I would use there. I would be more inclined to compare them to a broken analog clock.
Somewhere along the line, I think you've confused sobriety with credibility.
Not at all. I'm merely acknowledging their status as a couple of poseurs.
3441
« on: December 01, 2006, 12:33:16 AM »
They are right about step One, which is close the border as much as possible, as soon as possible.
I'm curious as to exactly what you think that would achieve.
3442
« on: December 01, 2006, 12:31:23 AM »
I guess credibility comes from matching words to facts.
I agree, hence my comment. I have zero qualms about criticizing Knute or Mr. Gilliard. I do not support either the war in Iraq or the current administration, so I'm not a blind Bush follower or a cheerleader or crazy. And despite all that, neither Knute nor Mr. Gilliard have any credibility, imo. I realize they don't care about my opinion, but I don't believe it's a good idea to let them rant unchallenged as if they were somehow credible adults acting a sober manner on the issue. They're pontificating like teenagers who feel smug because they've got a buzz on. One can almost see them atop a high-horse of daddy's Coors Light, pointing at themselves every time they say the word 'adult' and wagging their fingers with every insult and puffing up their chests every time they say "shut the f--- up". And if they're going to start talking about credibility, sober discussion and letting the adults explain things, I see no reason not to criticize their credibility, or rather their lack thereof.
3443
« on: December 01, 2006, 12:03:30 AM »
How would you know?
Simple. I read what you write.
3444
« on: November 30, 2006, 05:04:16 PM »
Thank you, JS.
3445
« on: November 30, 2006, 04:59:53 PM »
What makes you think that this is an ordinance with the single motive of preventing food poisoning?
My guess is that the government of Fairfax County is hoping that less handouts to the homeless will encourage them to find another local government's boundaries to emigrate into.
For some reason, that doesn't make me any less angry about it.
3446
« on: November 30, 2006, 04:55:33 PM »
To quote JD Hayworth, "The idea that this plan would be onerous for illegals is insulting, especially to legal immigrants who have patiently gone through the laborious process of lawfully coming into this country."
My great-grandparents immigrated to this country without a laborious process other than essentially checking in at the door. And not so long before that there were effectively no regulations about immigrating to the U.S.A. And I think what is insulting is that people who are so desperate to make a better life here that they are willing to risk their very lives to get here and willing to risk jailtime just to get work with crappy pay because it's better than what they had, are to be despised and thrown out of this country. The insistence that doing away with laborious process of legal entry would be insulting to those who went through it is nothing less than adult male bovine excrement. To stop doing something we should not be doing in the first place is not mean or insulting to those who had to suffer through it. Is it insulting to someone who had to struggle through meeting onerous government regulations to start and run a business if those regulations are reduced and the next person doesn't have to struggle to start and run his business? No, of course not. The insult is in the onerous regulations, both in the business example and in the immigration issue.
So while you may lament the "egregious ramifications" of the proposed law, I think it does not go nearly far enough. We don't need to fix our immigration laws. We need to scrap them altogether and start again with something not xenophobic, onerous or insane.
Yes, I know. You're not xenophobic. You're not opposed to immigration. You just support the laborious process we have now out of the goodness of your heart, a fine sense of patriotism, and a desire to keep out undesirables. What was it you said... you love this country and "and the immigrants that made it what it is." Then why don't you support going back to the sort of immigration policy we had in, say, the late 1800s, when the immigrants most of us think of as making this country great were coming to America? People were making the same complaints then as are made now about poor, uneducated immigrants coming to America not assimilating, taking low paying jobs and sending money out of the country. Prior to the Civil War, some folks feared that Irish immigrants were going to prove ruinous to the traditions of democracy and Protestantism. And when folks from places like Poland and (gasp!) China started pouring in, well something just had to be done. And when poor people immigrated here to find that the streets were not paved with gold (and in many cases not paved at all) they could at least go to small communities where they could speak (gasp!) in their native language. These immigrants contributed to making America what it is today. And what little entry process they had took 3-4 hours. Not years, not months, not days. Hours. And before you start talking about criminals and terrorists, back then there were supposedly communists and anarchists who were going to come sabotage our country, and immigrants were blamed for crime as much then as they are now. Somehow America still survived and prospered.
What made this country great was not strict control of immigration or closed borders. What made this country great were open borders and freedom of opportunity. We harm ourselves if we turn our back on that in the name of a security we can never genuinely have.
So with all due respect to Congressman Hayworth, the idea that we need a laborious and onerous process to control immigration to this country is an insult to those who are trying to come here now and to those who have come before us. And, if I may speak idealistically, it is an insult to the very foundation of this country, a foundation both of people coming here to this land to make a better life and the principals of liberty.
3447
« on: November 30, 2006, 03:31:51 PM »
I hope the solution is something that simple, Lanya, so that people can get back to helping the homeless.
3448
« on: November 30, 2006, 03:29:05 PM »
You and Mr. Gilliard are like smug teenagers. You talk about credibility and sober discussion as if you think you actually have credibility as sober and adult commentators. Here's a clue: you don't.
3449
« on: November 30, 2006, 12:12:50 AM »
And in the "using government as a tool to help society" department we find a new story at washingtonpost.com about protecting the homeless:Under a tough new Fairfax County policy, residents can no longer donate food prepared in their homes or a church kitchen -- be it a tuna casserole, sandwiches or even a batch of cookies -- unless the kitchen is approved by the county, health officials said yesterday.
They said the crackdown on home-cooked meals is aimed at preventing food poisoning among homeless people.
But it is infuriating operators of shelters for the homeless and leaders of a coalition of churches that provides shelter and meals to homeless people during the winter. They said the strict standards for food served in the shelters will make it more difficult to serve healthy, hot meals to homeless people. The enforcement also, they said, makes little sense.
Whole article at the other end of this link.
Never mind that there have been no outbreaks of food poisoning among the homeless, and never mind that many shelters that homeless people depend on during the cold months now have to be closed during that time this year. Yeah, they can't get food poisoning if they don't get any food. And the best part is, somewhere down the line someone is going to tell me about how shelters are overwhelmed and how we therefore need government to do something because the private charities just can't handle it.
I'd say more, but this story makes me angry.
3450
« on: November 29, 2006, 08:00:39 PM »
Unadressed is the need to name the fense .
A huge engenering project, probably visible from space ,deserves a name.
A printable name please.
How about the 'Waste of Taxpayer Dollars Fence'? Perhaps we should go with something more appropriate to the nature and intent of the fence, like, the 'Keep Out the Mexicans Fence'. Or perhaps the 'Xenophobia Fence', which could be shortened to the much cooler sounding 'X-F'. We need something more dramatic. Maybe the 'Fence of Enduring Cultural and Ethnic Security', but you probably wouldn't like that acronym. No, we need something more Orwellian... oh, I got it! The 'Freedom Fence'. It even has alliteration.
Pages: 1 ... 228 229 [230] 231 232 ... 244
Show Posts