Show Posts

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 2 [3] 4 5 ... 244
31
3DHS / Re: Republicans want review of birthright citizenship
« on: August 05, 2010, 01:22:24 AM »

Since you don't support significantly relaxed immigration restrictions and making immigrating here relatively easy, clearly the issue is immigration, not legal vs. illegal.

And clearly, you're in denial



It's simply an arduous process, and painstaking process, and given how great this country is, and the finite resources it has, which includes healthcare, it SHOULD be arduous.  It SHOULD be an effort to get in, but simply because its burdensome, doesn't equate to a closed border.


Clearly, I'm not.

32
3DHS / Re: Republicans want review of birthright citizenship
« on: August 05, 2010, 01:19:24 AM »

It SHOULD be an effort to get in, but simply because its burdensome, doesn't equate to a closed border.


No one said it was a closed border.

33
3DHS / Re: Republicans want review of birthright citizenship
« on: August 05, 2010, 01:17:47 AM »

Interstate travel without visa is an important part of American citizenship.


I'm not advocating immigration without visa or passports. All I did was explain why your questions were irrelevant.

34
3DHS / Re: Republicans want review of birthright citizenship
« on: August 05, 2010, 01:14:52 AM »

They aren't. They simply need to properly fill out the required paperwork.


Not true. People are denied entry all the time. The notion that it's just a matter of paperwork is a lie. If it were as easy as you claim, we would not be having this discussion.

35
3DHS / Re: Republicans want review of birthright citizenship
« on: August 05, 2010, 01:08:05 AM »

That's too bad, since it's never been a fear issue.


You're in denial if you believe that.


Go to the end of the line, pay your dues just like every other current American Immigrant, and Welcome to the U.S.A.  And guess what, MILLIONS have done just that.  If we want to talk about lessening some of the rules, shortening some of the time, I'm open to that, just so long as its applied to anyone wanting to enter this country, LEGALLY.....which ironically keeps reinforcing the point that this is indeed a LEGAL vs ILLEGAL immigrant issue


No, actually, you're reinforcing that it is an immigration issue. No one is saying we should have lots and lots of illegal immigration. If we significantly relaxed immigration restrictions and made immigrating here relatively easy, then the people coming in would be legal immigrants, and likely there would still be some illegal immigrants. Since you don't support significantly relaxed immigration restrictions and making immigrating here relatively easy, clearly the issue is immigration, not legal vs. illegal.

36
3DHS / Re: Republicans want review of birthright citizenship
« on: August 05, 2010, 12:55:02 AM »

Why are they better off here?

These are great people , if they had to stay home would they not be usefull and influential in the improvement of their homeland?


One could ask the same of the skilled folks, the athletes and scientists that we say are perfectly okay to come to this country and often try to recruit.

Why is anyone better off somewhere? Why do people move from one state to another for work within the U.S.? Why do some people move to the big city? Why do some people move to the suburbs? Why do some people move to the coast? Why does anyone leave where they are for somewhere else?

Does it matter if immigrants are better off here by some measurable, objective standard? They believe they are better off here. What's wrong with that?

If the person who wants to be an actor stayed home in Wyoming rather than moving to New York or California, would he not be able to be useful and/or influential in the improvement of Wyoming? If the young architect in Louisiana had to stay home rather than move to Chicago or Seattle or Albuquerque, would he not be able to be useful and/or influential in the improvement of Louisiana? The point isn't what might a person do if he was unable to move somewhere else. The point is, why should he be prevented from going somewhere else?

And many people who want to come here to work want also to go back home. Many are not looking to come here to stay forever. Many who have remained only do so because immigration law makes leaving and coming back if desired is more difficult than simply staying.

So I would say your questions, Plane, are largely irrelevant.

37
3DHS / Re: Health Care Lawsuits Are Just Partisan Politics
« on: August 05, 2010, 12:15:40 AM »
I am astonished that anyone would so lightly scoff at the idea people might truly object to the government requiring people to buy something and punishing them if they don't. I get that Republican politicians are using the issue for politics, but then, so are and have the Democrats. But the author of the article seems to dismiss the very idea that there could be any legitimate concern for freedom in the objections raised. She seems either ignorant or foolish.

38
3DHS / Re: Adult human relationships
« on: August 04, 2010, 11:56:10 PM »
I thought for sure someone would have something to say here. Oh well.

39
3DHS / Re: Republicans want review of birthright citizenship
« on: August 04, 2010, 11:54:45 PM »

Subtract the egregious fear use,


Unfortunately, that isn't up to me.


You can say legal immigrants are welcome all you like, but so long as legal immigration is made expensive and difficult (unless one is famous like David Beckham) and the intent is to tightly control borders, it's not a legal vs. illegal issue.

Since there are millions who have and do go thru the process, it's PRECISELY the issue


AMBE. There are millions who want to come to this country to work, and the policy you support would keep the vast majority of them out because they are poor and/or "unskilled". And a great many of those people who do manage to make it through the process still have to wait years if not decades. And those are the ones who can afford not only the immigration fees but the legal fees necessary for navigating the labyrinthine red tape. That makes it an immigration issue, not a legal vs. illegal issue.

Notably, nothing you said refutes my previous post to you. So the fact that you ignored the bulk of it seems telling.

40
3DHS / Re: Republicans want review of birthright citizenship
« on: August 04, 2010, 05:36:11 PM »

we are part of very few that allow such crap!


It's not crap. It's a point of pride. We are not a society of classes based on race or gender or nationality. That is a very good thing.

41
3DHS / Re: Republicans want review of birthright citizenship
« on: August 04, 2010, 05:32:36 PM »

Close.......the arguement is largely that we need to keep stop ILLEGAL Mexican immigrants and ILLEGAL Central and South American immigrants from coming here to have babies.

Legal Mexican, Central & South American immigrants can have all the babies they want.  Same holds for legal Irish & Eastern Eropean immigrants that choose to make America their new home

But you knew that


Sirs, you can dance around the issue all you like. I've had it with the whole illegal vs. legal issue. What it comes down to is fear and a desire for control. You can say legal immigrants are welcome all you like, but so long as legal immigration is made expensive and difficult (unless one is famous like David Beckham) and the intent is to tightly control borders, it's not a legal vs. illegal issue. It's an immigration issue. It's about stopping ordinary people from coming here for reasons that have do with old and repeatedly unfounded fear. "Few of their children in the country learn English. The signs in our streets have inscriptions in both languages. . . . Unless the stream of their importation could be turned . . . they will soon so outnumber us that we will not preserve our language, and even our government will become precarious." Benjamin Franklin said that in 1753. He was worried about German immigrants. Even Thomas Jefferson worried about immigrants coming here and ruining everything. This push to control immigration/borders is nothing new, and little good will come of it.

Ultimately, the immigration issue is a distraction. Immigrants make a handy scapegoat. "We can't afford the drain on public resources..." Really? Welfare, Medicaid, et cetera, we've decided cannot touch those problems. So we say immigrants are coming here and unfairly taking advantage of us. "They steal jobs..." Without the laws making immigration difficult there would not be a black market in labor. "They disrespect the sovereignty of our nation/law when the come here illegally..." So? The law is not just. I cannot blame them for breaking it any more than I could have blamed a thirsty black man drinking from a "whites only" water fountain in the 1950s. When laws are unjust is the real problem the lawbreakers or the law?

Is the real problem that people are coming here, legally or illegally, to give birth to children? Is the real problem that people are coming here to work? Or is the problem that we have allowed unfeasible government run social programs to be propped up over and over while we try to keep out of the country people who want little more than to work here? Is the problem that people who are poor and needy want to come here to help themselves and their families stop being quite so poor and needy, or that we want to control the decisions other people make?

And no, I don't mean the decision to come here illegally. I mean the decision to hire people from other countries. I mean the decision of something as non-rights-violating as looking for work where the opportunity is better. We say poor people here can work hard and make money. Poor people can move from state to state to change their situation and look for work. But we say you poor people from outside the nation, too bad, we don't want you here. And if you do live here legally, and you want to hire poor people from Mexico to work for your business, too bad, you shouldn't be allowed to hire them. It's about control and getting in the way of what would otherwise be legal and reasonable agreements between individuals, agreements that should largely be no business of anyone else.

42
3DHS / Re: Republicans want review of birthright citizenship
« on: August 04, 2010, 03:52:02 PM »

If the change in the amendment would not affect Irish and Eastern European descendants the same way it would affect Hispanics you might have a point, but as far as i can see it would, so you cries of racism reflect more your preference for false demagaoguery than truth.


Perhaps. But I have not seen anyone talking about needing to stop Irish immigrants or Eastern European immigrants from coming here to have babies. Pretty much exclusively the argument is made that we need to stop Mexican immigrants and Central and South American immigrants from coming here to have babies. That the effects of the change would be more broad than that does not mean the people pushing for the change are not motivated by irrational prejudice directed at a specific ethnic segment of immigrants.

43
3DHS / Adult human relationships
« on: August 04, 2010, 04:04:55 AM »
A pair of blog posts to share. First up, a feminist woman (no, that's not redundant) gets in touch with her inner slut. No, really. She says so.

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2010/07/26/my-sluthood-myself/
         My Sluthood, Myself.
by Jaclyn on 7.26.2010

Last summer, I suffered the breakup of a relationship that I had thought would be permanent. Now, I’ve been through my share of break-ups, even of quite serious relationships, but nothing ever broke me like this one.

Since then, I’ve had sexual interactions of the orgasmic kind with 9 different people, none of which I was at any time in a committed relationship with.

I’m not telling you this to shock (though I am specifying the number because we all need to get over the whole “OMG! Be ashamed of your NUMBER! It’s either too big or too small!” thing). I’m telling you this because of something else that’s also true about me: I’d really like to be in a long-term, probably monogamous relationship. That’s right, folks, I’m a slut who craves a stable, loving, committed relationship. File me under “Lookin’ fer luv: ur doin it wrong.”

That’s the story we get sold, right? That women who sleep around are destroying their chances at True Love. Something to do with bonding hormones getting all used up? Or is it that we have so little self-esteem that no one could love us? Or maybe it’s that we’re all used candy wrappers or dirty masking tape. I can never remember.

Thing is: I’ve done it the other way. Until my mid-30s, I was largely a serial monogamist. Not for any grand ethical or philosophical reasons – it was just what felt comfortable to me. That’s not to say that I didn’t have some wild adventures in college, or never went to bed with someone on a first date – I did on occasion. It’s just that when I did, I’d often wake up the next day in a relationship. Let me tell you: not the best recipe for partnership bliss.

[...]

I’m telling you this because sluthood is scary. Because we’ve been taught to fear it all our lives, and that training doesn’t just go away because we understand the agenda behind it. And because there are real risks involved. Society likes to punish slutty women. And so do a lot of individual men, some of whom frequent Craigslist Casual Encounters.

[...]

I’m telling you this because sluthood requires support. Because any woman who indulges these urges carries with her a lifetime of censure and threat. That’s a loud chorus to overcome. A slut needs a posse who finds her exploits almost as delicious as she finds them herself, who cares about her safety and her stories and her happiness but not one whit about her virtue. A slut alone is a slut in difficulty, possibly in danger.

[...]

I’m telling you this because sluthood saved me. Sluthood gave me the time and space to nurse a shattered heart. It gave me a place where I could exist in pieces, some of me craving touch, some of me still too tender to even expose to the light. Sluthood healed the part of me that felt my body and my desires were grotesque after two years in a libido-mismatched partnership. Now I felt hot, wanted, powerful. My desire and enthusiasm was an asset, not an unintended weapon. Even now, with more time passed, now, when I am actually ready for and wanting a more emotional connection, sluthood keeps me centered. It keeps me from confusing desire and affection with something deeper. It means I have another choice besides celibacy and settling. It means I won’t enter another committed relationship just to satisfy my basic need for sex and affection. It gives me more choices, it makes room for relationships to evolve organically, to take the shape they will before anyone defines them.

[...]

I’m telling you this because juries still think women who even look like they might possibly be sluts are “asking for it.” I’m telling you this because some people still think it’s OK to drive a teenage girl to suicide because she was probably a slut. I’m telling you this because our policymakers would rather girls get sometimes-fatal diseases than be perceived as condoning sluthood. I’m telling you this because it’s important for everyone to understand: Sluthood isn’t a disease, or a wrong path, or a trend that’s ruining our youth. It isn’t just for detached, unemotional women who “fuck like men,” (as if that actually meant something), consequences be damned. It isn’t ever inevitable that sluthood should inspire violence or shame. Sluthood isn’t just a choice we should let women make because women should be free to make even “bad” choices. It’s a choice we should all have access to because it has the potential to be liberating. Healing. Soul-fulfilling. I’m telling you this because sluthood saved me, in a small but life-altering way, and I want it to be available to you if you ever think it could save you, too. Or if you want it for any other reason at all. And because even if you don’t ever want sluthood for yourself, you’re going to be called upon to support a slut. I’m telling you this because when that happens, I want you to say yes.
         

Next up, a man shares some things he has learned about women and about being a man.

http://micah.sparacio.org/07/28/2010/10-things-ill-teach-my-sons-about-women/
         10 Things I’ll Teach My Sons About Women
July 28, 2010

Sometimes the truth is not comfortable.

So if you’re not comfortable with a reality that betrays our ideals, don’t read on.

The most important thing I’ve learned about women is that you’ve got to be indifferent to their attempts at harnessing you in an emotional net and controlling you. Sounds harsh, but you’re the man. You need to be in charge of yourself. You should not be controlled. You need to lead. You need to make decisions. Forget all the nonsense about equality. Women don’t want that, even if they say that they do (duplicity of intentions is not uncommon in relationships).

What’s important is to understand how women operate at a biological and emotional level. Ultimately, women are not looking for nice guys. They are looking for strong, confident, powerful men. Men who make them feel secure… comfortable. This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective as women needed men they could rely on to protect both them and their children.

[...]

You must become the man you want to become without regard to women… it is only then that you will find that the task of gaining and keeping the attraction of a woman is as simple as breathing. And by doing this you can beat the jerks and the thugs (the one’s who get all the girls) at their own game.

[...]

1. Be confident

Women are attracted to confidence. The irony is that your confidence should not be for the sake of women. It should be natural. Make yourself the best man you can be. Let your confidence derive from who you are. Aim to be the best man you can be simply because that’s who you want to be.

[...]

5. Understand hypergamy

At a biological (subconscious) level women are always trying to upgrade. Men have a hard time understanding this because for most men, at a subconscious level, all that matters is that a woman have a certain level of fitness. Any woman who meets that threshold is fair game. Doesn’t matter if she’s an upgrade or downgrade.

With women it is different. Women are constantly keeping their eyes out for an upgrade (usually in the form of acquiring more power). But they are also constantly keeping their eyes on other women that might be a threat to their current situation (flirting with other women on occasion, within view of your partner, is a great way to fight hypergamy).

So why does this matter? Well, because awareness is the key here. Don’t for a second think that the girl you are with transcends her biological nature. Be prepared. Women are not nearly as innocent as the media portrays.

But it matters even more because you can do things to control hypergamy. 1) don’t be a pushover 2) don’t give her emotional control over you (once she’s dominated you, she’ll definitely start looking for the next guy) 3) keep relationships with other women and flirt from time to time

Most importantly, prepare yourself for reality. Don’t get caught of guard. Know what you want. Keep an eye out. Confront. And be prepared to walk away.

[...]

9. Ditch the nice guy stuff

A friend once said to me: “Things changed when I became a nice guy. Women started to hate me.”

Your goal is not to be nice. Your goal is to be a confident you. There’s no need to be an arrogant prick or a bad boy. You can beat the thugs and pricks and bad boys at their own game. All they have going is that women perceive them to be strong, confident men. And that’s what women want. You can outdo them by being strong and confident and smart.

Oh, one other thing. It’s out of fashion, but you shouldn’t be afraid to maintain the high ground as an honorable gentleman. A guy who treats his woman well, but who also isn’t afraid to walk away with dignity when she starts playing games.
         

Yes, I know. This is a long post. I am certain you can handle it. This is important stuff. So pause for a moment, rest your eyes, take a drink of water, and read it again.

44
3DHS / Re: The Myth of Technological Progress
« on: August 03, 2010, 10:07:40 PM »

The difference in speed has more to do with the density of air at their respective operating altitudes than with "need". The SR-71 flies at such a high altitude that getting enough air into the engines to sustain ignition was more of a problem. The F-22 must actually restrict it's air intake at high speed.


Good point. But there is a tactical reason why after the SR-71 came out, we didn't rush to try to create fighter jets that fly at Mach 3. No one was doing aerial dog fights at that speed. A fighter jet traveling at Mach 3 would be, and probably would still be, overpowered to say the least, and traveling too fast to properly engage in combat. I have little doubt that a fighter jet that travels at Mach 3 could be designed and produced, if the military said it needed one. As best I can tell, the military has not said it needed one. The F-35, which has (I believe) already replaced the F-22, doesn't even reach Mach 2.

45
3DHS / Re: Auto Post
« on: August 03, 2010, 05:36:19 AM »
The Auto/Robo posts are, basically, links to articles by actual people, not some sort of computer generated ideas. Either you'll find something in those articles to comment on, or you won't. The same as when members here post links and/or articles. I don't get why this is a controversy.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 244