• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Mitt Romney the next new leader of the free world!!!

just looked at Rush Limbaugh's homepage - and the banner ad at the top..................

1226_trs_rush_limbaugh_owe_20k_728x90_12162011.jpg

damn those scroungers, not wanting to pay taxes - you want it, you gotta pay for it!!
(unless you can dodge it of course!)
 
People are saying that Romney would have won if he stuck with his principles as he couldn't have won in Massachusetts if not a moderate. The assumption was that he only became Teapot Mitt to get the nomination. But isn't it equally likely that he became Mass Mitt for exactly the same reason?

The problem is that no one knows where he stands politically but we can look at his actions. We do know that he is a supporter (one of the creators?) of vulture capitalism, taking over companies on borrowed money, cutting wages and jobs and running up debt in companies, while paying himself large fees for the advice, getting out with a large profit on his small investment and leaving a bankrupt shell. His vision of America is not one where small job creating businesses prosper and create wealth, but one that favours big corporations making profits by takeovers and shifting work and profits offshore, focusing on profit over wealth creation. There is a difference between the two and the financial crisis illustrates why focusing on profit alone fails. This vulture capitalism, along with its sister crony capitalism, are destroying the good name of free market economics.
 
ArcspacE said:
Why is the Arizona immigration law fundamentally seen as 'bad' - surely illegal leaching maggots have no place in any country.
Click to expand...

Do you know the particulars of the law?

A police officer, upon having 'suspicions' that someone may not be from this country, can ask them for their documentation. Surely this is discrimination. Similar to how NYC's stop and frisk laws work; you look suspicious (aka black, latino), you're getting a patdown.
 
Perhaps the 'approach/implementation' is questionable but stamping out illegal maggots is hardly the antichrist?
 
Last edited:
ArcspacE said:
Perhaps the 'approach/implementation' is questionable by stamping our illegal maggots is hardly the antichrist?
Click to expand...

The Arizona law is definitely questionable, even though other states have followed suit. But the federal government hasn't done anything meaningful to address the immigration issue, it's only sued states for implementing their own immigration policies that the Department of Justice deems to be discriminatory. Hopefully something meaningful will get done soon, because it's a serious problem.
 
There is no real doubt that the Republicans will change. In a two party system there will always be adjustments and eventually the party will return to power. The only exception is when there is a third party and that is much more difficult in the US with the primary system.

The big question is when they change. We saw in Britain that the Labour party went left and stayed left, long after it should have been obvious that it made them unelectable. It took Thatcher and Major winning elections when unpopular to finally cause the shift. The desire for power finally trumped ideology. I think there are a lot of parallels between the Labour Party then and the Republicans then. Both were puppets of vested interests (unions, corporations and people like the Koch Bros), both promoted an economic policy where those interests overrode the free market, both were seemingly blind to what was happening.

The first signs are that the Republicans who matter, those that influence and those that have power, are in denial, despite some lip-service to the concept of cooperation. They seem convinced that Romney didn't win because he wasn't a true conservative. There also doesn't seem any sign of softening on social issues and immigration. So while I agree with NYspur that they will be back, I don't think it is imminent. Possibly the prospect of Clintons in the White House will force change but they have a long way to go and have some rich and powerful backers trying to make sure they go further right.
 
ArcspacE said:
Perhaps the 'approach/implementation' is questionable by stamping our illegal maggots is hardly the antichrist?
Click to expand...

Of course I have no problem with deporting illegals, but it's kind of a complicated situation. We almost depend on their extremely cheap labor, and they are willing to do bricky jobs that most Americans scoff at for half of minimum wage. This doesn't justify them staying in the country, not paying taxes. The point is that if we deported them all today, our country would probably come to a standstill.
It's the Arizona law in particular that I see as discriminatory, to be able to use racial profiling in order to assess whether that person is a citizen. I would be so angry if I was a citizen and was stopped every other day and asked to show my papers.
 
NewYorkSpurs said:
The Arizona law is definitely questionable, even though other states have followed suit. But the federal government hasn't done anything meaningful to address the immigration issue, it's only sued states for implementing their own immigration policies that the Department of Justice deems to be discriminatory. Hopefully something meaningful will get done soon, because it's a serious problem.
Click to expand...

Why don't they clamp down on employers who hire legal immigrants? Many are pretty obvious, the farming communities for instance. If its reasonable to stop people who look vaguely foreign on the street, then it shouldn't be a problem to demand employers check IDs in a serious way.

Its strikes me that they don't really want to stop illegal immigration. I lived in LA for nearly a decade and there was a strong demand for cheap labour as cleaners, gardeners, builders, "recyclers" (people who go through the trash bins and pick out recyclable materials). California agriculture requires illegal immigrants and so does the clothing industry. Its not a coincidence that clothing industry has largely moved to places like China and Pakistan, yet somehow continues to thrive in one of the richest places in the world.

A free market approach would be to target the demand, not the supply, or do both.

PS. I've just seen PS's post and obviouly agree. I'll add that a lot of illegal immigrants pay taxes. The system is flexible enough to allow this, which kind of makes illegals acceptable. If "no taxation without representation" was actually believed, the illegals who pay taxes should be allowed to vote.
 
Last edited:
jts1882 said:
Why don't they clamp down on employers who hire legal immigrants? Many are pretty obvious, the farming communities for instance. If its reasonable to stop people who look vaguely foreign on the street, then it shouldn't be a problem to demand employers check IDs in a serious way.

Its strikes me that they don't really want to stop illegal immigration. I lived in LA for nearly a decade and there was a strong demand for cheap labour as cleaners, gardeners, builders, "recyclers" (people who go through the trash bins and pick out recyclable materials). California agriculture requires illegal immigrants and so does the clothing industry. Its not a coincidence that clothing industry has largely moved to places like China and Pakistan, yet somehow continues to thrive in one of the richest places in the world.

A free market approach would be to target the demand, not the supply, or do both.

PS. I've just seen PS's post and obviouly agree. I'll add that a lot of illegal immigrants pay taxes. The system is flexible enough to allow this, which kind of makes illegals acceptable. If "no taxation without representation" was actually believed, the illegals who pay taxes should be allowed to vote.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I meant income tax. You are talking about sales tax?
 
jts1882 said:
Its strikes me that they don't really want to stop illegal immigration. I lived in LA for nearly a decade and there was a strong demand for cheap labour as cleaners, gardeners, builders, "recyclers" (people who go through the trash bins and pick out recyclable materials). California agriculture requires illegal immigrants and so does the clothing industry. Its not a coincidence that clothing industry has largely moved to places like China and Pakistan, yet somehow continues to thrive in one of the richest places in the world.

A free market approach would be to target the demand, not the supply, or do both.

PS. I've just seen PS's post. A lot of illegal immigrants pay taxes. The system is flexible enough to allow this.
Click to expand...

With respect, fella - buit this is completely off the mark (speaking generacially - not only The States) - cheap labour and illegal immigration are two separate aspects

How did you reach the conclusion they 'require' illegal immigrants to sustain their economy (in California's case)? Perhaps seasonal workers is a far better alternative being utilisied in many countries - legally so. Which clothing industry thrives in the USA and what is their output?

Are you somehow pro-illegal immigration - judging from the premise of your post?
 
papaspur said:
Sorry, I meant income tax. You are talking about sales tax?
Click to expand...

No. A lot of illegals have SS numbers and pay payroll taxes. Not the casuals, but those working for big businesses. These businesses would be asked questions if they had lots of employees and paid no taxes.

There has been discussion of this with respect to the amnesty for those entering the country before they are 16. They have been brought up in America, gone to American schools, have parents who work and pay their taxes, and live a normal American life. The problem comes when they want to go to college and need loans.
 
ArcspacE said:
With respect, fella - buit this is completely off the mark (speaking generacially - not only The States) - cheap labour and illegal immigration are two separate aspects

How did you reach the conclusion they 'require' illegal immigrants to sustain their economy (in California's case)? Perhaps seasonal workers is a far better alternative being utilisied in many countries - legally so. Which clothing industry thrives in the USA and what is their output?

Are you somehow pro-illegal immigration - judging from the premise of your post?
Click to expand...

Do you know anything about the California economy? Thought not, so perhaps less of the condescending tone ... fella!

If you read my post you would know the answer to the last question
 
I asked you which thriving clothing manufacturing econmoies are based in California seeing that you've spent a decade over there and appear to be an expert on everything and anything - thank you for the informative response and ignorant assumptions on my knowledge and life experience.

As for condescending - see your very own reply
 
Last edited:
ArcspacE said:
As for condescending - see your very own reply
Click to expand...

Deliberately so. I was copying yours in style, including the fella bit. I thought that would have been obvious. Perhaps if you find that style offensive and ignorant you should ask yourself a question.
 
Again you have failed to answer my question but instead looking for strawman arguments in a word no different to 'mate'. Not sure if English is your first language but the day 'fella' is considered offensive is the day something has gone very, very PC-wrong
 
I didn't say "fella" was offensive, I implied it was condescending and used it in the same way, which you seem to have taken offence to. Use of mate in the same way would also be condescending.
 
So you aren't going to answer my question but argue instead over use of 'implied' tone in writing on a message board?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back