EBSB52

War on drugs? Prohibition? What? Man your all over the place here. Stay on topic and stop trying to drag this into some sort of Geopolitcal argument about how every thing else has failed so we should just give it all away. We will probably never stop the flow of illegal immigration but we must slow it down. ------------------------------------------------------- I still haven't read anyone saying they would just stay there in poverty because it's the law if it were them and their family. --------------------------------------------------------- Well I guess that this argument makes everything O.K. Their system has failed and so now ours should fail also? How many do we let into the life boat before it sinks and kills us all? --------------------------------------------------------- We know your American perspective of shot em where they stand, ----------------------------------------------------- What the fuck are you talking about? Who said that? Oh wait, that is just more of that inflammatory rhetoric crap designed to create fear regarding what the volunteers are doing. You forgot to add. Kill em all. let god sort em out. I get it. War on drugs? Prohibition? What? Man your all over the place here. Testing logic by using other major issues is logical. The point made is that tightening things down won't work. I realize you don't want to admit that so you attack the test of the logic. In science, to test something you try to maintain only 1 variable, this is called the independant variable. In social science you can do the same. Now you can take the John Wayne approach and try to oversimplify it, but that isn't contemporarily intelligent. I haven't taken a stance on Mexican immigration whatsoever in this thread, I'm just arguing the merits of people's arguments. Stay on topic and stop trying to drag this into some sort of Geopolitcal argument about how every thing else has failed so we should just give it all away. Explain how I've done that. While you're at it. explain the viability of gross Capitalism through examples of current America. Don't forget Enron and the sort. We will probably never stop the flow of illegal immigration but we must slow it down. We won't do either. See, it's like Iran-Contra, we didn't want to stop the flow of drugs and guns, we just wanted to use them as fodder, then pretend we had no clue to protect or criminals in chief. Well I guess that this argument makes everything O.K. Their system has failed and so now ours should fail also? How many do we let into the life boat before it sinks and kills us all? Kevin, why not just admit you would do the same to take care of your family if you were in that mess of a country - I know I would. What the fuck are you talking about? Who said that? Oh wait, that is just more of that inflammatory rhetoric crap designed to create fear regarding what the volunteers are doing. You forgot to add. Kill em all. let god sort em out. I get it. And mine is inflamatory rhetoric? I think the mere presence of the volunteer border guards exhibits the fear-mongering. Are you sayingthese volunteers don't have the attitude that these Mexicans are somehow trying to rob America? The US gov is pissed about their presence and will make a speedy example out of them just like they would for a murderer of an abortion doctor or the Viper Militia. Vigilatiism is poular in the movies, not so much with the gov.

I hear what you're saying, but I think it's pretty easy to cross back to Mexico. The logic that more control means a tighter ship is BS. Look at prohibition in the 20's, look at the war on drugs - both ineffectove.

_________________________ I like this guy's approach _________________________ yes!!! free lunches for everyone!! we can pay the hospital bills by going to the money tree and plucking a few bushels. if that doesn't work, we can go get the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow! i hope the little leprechauns won't mind...maybe we could all work for free and make sure that everyone gets everything whether they are productive or not. we could call it happy land!!! I still haven't read anyone saying they would just stay there in poverty because it's the law if it were them and their family. We know your American perspective of shot em where they stand, but how about your hypothetical Mexican perspective of trying to get your kids healthcare?

It smokes the US in social treatment, but the cold sucks hard.

I could really care less to be honest. Let them puke, their aid from us will still arrive on time... That's your opinion.. I happen to know Bush's view and what you say is not it.. Speak for yourself not our President. What's your point? We were talking about our borders here not Iraq.. Does any of your posts have a point to it or are you just venting your anger? Rhino I could really care less to be honest. Let them puke, their aid from us will still arrive on time... You mean, "couldn't." WHat you've just done is to support my position that America is Imperialistic. In Imperialism, fiscal or occupational, you force or leverage through $$$ the controlof other countries. So, I agree. Or is that, I could agreemore?" That's your opinion.. I happen to know Bush's view and what you say is not it.. Speak for yourself not our President. Let me support my opinion. Remember the deal with trucks from Mexico not needing safety inspections and I believe even insurance to operate on US raodways? Ya, the truckers unions were against it, as well as many groups advocating safety on US roadways, but that was to flooow Fascist daddy Reagan's footsteps and kill labor unions via cheap Mexican labor. To be more global, he's offered tax incentives and was quoted to say that sending work overseas is a good thing for the US. We can talk about the Overtime Law that he spent his first 2 1/2 years pushing thru Congress until he succeeded. We can talk about the Bankruptcy Bill that passed the Senate very recently, and is now in the House awaiting signature. Even though that's not his baby he is chomping at the bit to sign it and is urging its quick passing in Congress. See, the Mexican green card and general love of Mexican immigration is just 1 small component to sell out the blue-collar guy. What's your point? We were talking about our borders here not Iraq.. You wrote: "...It wasn't a plane full of Mexicans that slammed into the WTC.. " So I was just answering you, and now you are running by writing: "Does any of your posts have a point to it or are you just venting your anger? " It makes no sense for you to make an assertion, then have someone answer it, then ask what the point is. As for my posts being vented anger or a point, the theme of thsi thread is illegal Mexican immigration into the US. I'm giving supporting statements to validate my points, if you don't have the ability to answer them then just ignore them.

Yet we have to be the example for the rest of the world. Do you realize how, "the rest of the world" pukes when they read this? If America is such a young country, which it really isn't from an ideological relative index, then how is it we are the big brother for everyone? Bush knows the Mexicans are just trying to feed their families. That is why he has implemented the temporary worker cards for them. Bush despises them, but loves their cheap labor and the heat it places on the rest of American citizens to work cheap and crap on benefits, that's why he let's them in. Call me a racist.. I'm not.. It wasn't a plane full of Mexicans that slammed into the WTC.. It wasn't a plane full of Iraqi's either - it was done by Muslim radical extremists that almost exclusively came from Saudi Arabia, our alli. So whackjob volunteer will spend the rest of his life in the slammer for being a so-called patriot when he offs one of them. You can bet prosecutors are just waiting for it to come across their desk.

Sorry, but I have a problem with your spin. You mentioned that 1/2 of all bk's are from people trying to shaft hospitals and doctors who are hoping to get paid for treating them. Then you mentioned that "whne [sic] you deprive people of basic care, you have a depraved system that is headed for destruction." Um, the problem is apparently not that people are deprived of care. Quite the opposite, everybody gets care. It's simply that people don't want to pay for it. Hell, it's a pretty good deal, of you can get it. "Thank you doctors, hospital, and everyone for saving my life. And thank you, organ donor, for that brand new liver. Thank you nurses, blood donors, and everyone else who kept me fed, clothed and showered while I was in ICU for 10 days awaiting the liver and in recovery for 20 days after the surgery. Your care was the best care money could buy. "Most of all, thank you, BK laws, for making sure that I never have to pay a cent for it! If anyone asks me what's going on, I'll just tell anyone who will listen about how bad our health care system is by depriving people of needed care. "Why, in Canada, I would have never gotten billed for that surgery. It would have gotten it for free. "Of course, I got great treatment here for free, too. But that's not the point." By the way - you did get one thing right. This system is headed for destruction unless some things get changed. Either socialize medicine or get the government out of it completely. Sorry, but I have a problem with your spin. You mentioned that 1/2 of all bk's are from people trying to shaft hospitals and doctors who are hoping to get paid for treating them. No, that was your misquoted interpretation. No spin, just looking at the entirecorpoarte medical scam from a macrostructural viewpoint. Furthermore, medically related BK's are virtually all on hospitals rather than a local doctor's office as you've tried to infer. Also, the debt is usually so high at that point that they cannot bail out, whereas countries with socialized medicine don't have that problem. Then you mentioned that "whne [sic] you deprive people of basic care, you have a depraved system that is headed for destruction." Yep, true. Um, the problem is apparently not that people are deprived of care. Quite the opposite, everybody gets care. It's simply that people don't want to pay for it. Um, no, people get emergency care, but not office care unless they are, as you would likely state it, crafty enough to scam the access system out of free care. Point is, the US gov/Supreme Court has placed corporate profits above citizen's health - fine country that America. Hell, it's a pretty good deal, of you can get it. "Thank you doctors, hospital, and everyone for saving my life. And thank you, organ donor, for that brand new liver. Thank you nurses, blood donors, and everyone else who kept me fed, clothed and showered while I was in ICU for 10 days awaiting the liver and in recovery for 20 days after the surgery. Your care was the best care money could buy. You may not get the liver transplant or the kidney dialysis, just when you are on death's doorstep you will get care then, and then kicked out when you are well enough to walk. "Most of all, thank you, BK laws, for making sure that I never have to pay a cent for it! If anyone asks me what's going on, I'll just tell anyone who will listen about how bad our health care system is by depriving people of needed care. This is just a reiteration of the same sarcasm. And the corps/gov (same thing = Fascism) should thank us for working in hazardous conditions making them billions by picking up the tab for our healthcare. By the way - you did get one thing right. This system is headed for destruction unless some things get changed. Either socialize medicine or get the government out of it completely. BTW, you have no clue. If we get the gov out completely, like the commander in chimp wants, then corporations will run the gov, like in much of the rest of Fascist America. The the corps run Wall Street, but make the gov (w/o corps) run medicaide, medicare, SS, etc.... Most of the rest of the world has a socialized medical system, but we do not - they're all wrong / we're right..... whatever...

All of your references about, "your gov your problem" aren't what is being asked here. From the side of a Mexican National, if you were one with no knowledge and/means of legal immigration would you jumo the border in hopes of a better tomorrow for your family? I know you won't answer that, so consider it rhetorical. how patriotic is it to allow your country to be invaded after being attacked???? Uh, you mean conterattacked? Don't dismiss allof the decades of BS going on over in that region, especially since 1948. All of these wars and attacks are trading punches. It's one-sided to think all we do is golde,; what they do is an attack.

Inhumanity before $$$ is the American mantra. We know if the shoes were switched they would understand. Question is, would the other folks be as calous as this?

Yes it does. OK, try getting a llittle boo-boo and going to ER, then find there are foreghners w/serious injuries - you have insurance, they don't even have ID - see how gets helped first.... As for money, non-emergency care is king with cash, but for emergencies.... triage. OK, you have given several problems, what is your solution? Shoot em at the border? Don't forget, they do contribute to the American economy by way of Maquilladoras, which are the factories located along the Mex-Amwer border. They work for 8 bucks a day stitching steering wheels so corp America can pay us more, of course after they pay themselves multi-mill $ bonuses.

Ok, that does nothing to substantively reply to my post, but I'll answer your sarcasm anyway. Why even worry about Mexican Nationals illegally immigrating when we turn away our own citizens from some longterm care? This corporatized medicine scheme starves needy Americans form healthcare, nevermind foreigners. Hell, the maggot monkey in chief has pushed thriugh the Overtime Bill and now the Bankruptcy Bill tocrap on poor Americans. 3/4 of all medically-based BK's are by people that have medical insurance, so these are 3/4 fair players of the system and now monkeyman wants to remove the right to BK on enormous debt. Great system we have. BTW, 1/2 of all BK's are by people trying to dissolve medical debts. There is a happy medium, but whne you deprive people of basic care, you have a depraved system that is headed for destruction.

Hell, as a resident of AZ I don't free medical care.... maybe we should explore that; socialized medicine. Most importantly, will the hospitals be open when a tax paying citizens like my self or my family need them most? Triage knows no color. Let me ask this Kevin, what would you do if you were a Mexican National? WOuld you stay oppressed in your 3rd world nation, or try to get out for the best for your family and send money home? Which is more OBJECTIVELY honorable?

Having lived in Arizona for 14 years now, I can attest to the fact that there are no racists in AZ.

Please explain this statement. I simply do not unerstand your meaning The court is out on the "former." Obvious mis-type that means, "the one before." The original statement was something about how God made man, Colt made us equal. I was agreeing with Kennedy that guns do make us equal, regardless of size. The thing about God making us was simply saying that procreation is still unproven, just as is evolution. The emphasis of my statement was to agree that guns are the eqaulizer.

The court's out on the fromer, very true with the latter.

And then the Feds use RICO, Patriot Act, and Terrorism Law out of whack, for purposes for which it was not intended. And corporations misuse the Overtime Law and many other federal laws. Same story, different measures - very non-partisan for much of it. Guy illegally sells a gun used in any of the 72 gun deaths in the city so far this year? Guy could face a murder charge. Felony murder might apply here. Think that might be a deterrent? And now we have Disneyland. Treating the crime of selling guns illegally the same as the crime of using guns illegally strikes me a fairly good way to attack gun violence Again, felony murder, or at least an accessory. She added, "Of course we would not make a deal with that defendant, charged with perhaps a murder, robbery or rape, in order to have the evidence necessary to prosecute another individual." Why not, New Yrk did it to nab John Gotti? Than was 19+ murders for testimony to sink 1 guy.

I guess none of you get why I'm mad. This is last time I will try to explain - I don't expect anyone to agree with me or side with me, Its just the way I feel. 1. He didn't follow her wishes promptly. Brain dead is brain dead. 2. He strung along her family for too long giving them false hope. 3. Her family was not allowed in the room until after she died. 4. MY impression of him - insincere. He and especially his attorney give me the creeps. I don't think anyone being starved to death is looking the best they have in their life. My family is important to me. It appears to me that Terri was important to her family and they were desperate enough to call in the troops (media). I can't blame them for loving their daughter. 1. He didn't follow ... 2. He strung along ... 4. MY impression of him ... It sounds a bit like an Ad Hominem. Is this about him or about her? I realize her wishes are vicariously delegated by him, but she chose him so whatever you say about him vicariously transfers to her because: 1. She decided to mary anyone, knowingthese matters become the general interest of said spouse. 2. She decided to chose this guy. If you chose an attorney and he/she fucks you, then you made a bad decision. 1. He didn't follow her wishes promptly. Brain dead is brain dead. He is the general owner of those decisions. Also, how do you know she didn't say for him to do whatever could be reasonably done, then pull the plug if all is lost? I would have been critical if he pulled it very soon. Polls have indicated that he acted prudently. Now the religious right and much of the church would disagree, but they are focused on their agenda. 2. He strung along her family for too long giving them false hope. This makes no sense. Ho strung them along how? He didn't create this mess, he didn't want for this, he dealt with it in a way that is considered prudent. Please tell me what was strung along. 3. Her family was not allowed in the room until after she died. From what point? From the feeding tube removal until her death? If so, was there a reason like they would have forcibly tried to insert the tube? I think this lacks a few details. MY impression of him - insincere. OK, so did that translate to imprudence, I mean objectively, not in your opinion? He and especially his attorney give me the creeps. Few attorneys don't give me the creeps - what's the point? I don't think anyone being starved to death is looking the best they have in their life. She wasn't starve to death by force. She could have eaten whenever she wanted, it's just that she lacked the capacity to do anything for herself except breath. It appears to me that Terri was important to her family and they were desperate enough to call in the troops (media). Call in, they couldn't beat the meadia off with a stick. No one called anyone in, they just allowed an abundant source of hounds in. I think they used the media just as the media used them. We could rehash this to death, but I just want to understand the logic pathways here and see if they are being even somewhat followed with all like issues. 1. Sanctity of marriage: Should we allow gays to marry? If marriage decisions recognized today can be overruled by parents, it must not be a very supreme bond, so all the other aspects of marriage should be considered very casually as well. You can't have it both ways and pick-n-choose. Even courts ecognize the sanctity of marriage - if you're being tried for any crime, your wife cannot be compelled to testify against you. The courts, the church, and all other entities place marriage high, but you want to tear it down by allowing other relatives to supercede intra-marriage decisons, why? 2. Cost - how can we pay for this when our current medical pay structure doesn't allow this? Most people that are for the forever support of this now dead woman also oppose socialized medicine; is there any consistency of logic there? Summation is: like most things the religious right does and somewhat the conservative right does, things come down to symbols. Terri was a symbol of christian solidarity and pro-life, now she a martyr for how evil the secular community is. They are exploiting this shell of a person to their benefit to perpetuate their message, nothing more. So now that this is finished, they will move on to their next battle of ensuring some SOB murderer of a 5 year old child gets his too. So you see it's not about life, but about control. BTW, you can lick your elbow... http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/index.asp?id=48925

Unfortunately, I don't see cars getting smaller anytime soon, at least until people choose a vehicle based on its intended use rather than its aesthetic value. Don't you have a hybrid bill? What's a hybrid bill? Is it a cross between bill and ??????

Wasn't it the aluminum oxide paint they used on the Hindenburg that made it so volatile when it went up? Not merely just the hydrogen itself? It was aluminum powder, not aluminum oxide, in the paint. But yes, it seems the paint burned first. And, of course, aluminum powder is a component of solid rocket fuel! But the hydrogen did ignite too. Mixtures of hydrogen and air are explosive between 4.1 to 71.5% hydrogen. This is, I believe, the widest explosive range of any known mixture of gases. The physics PHD guythinks he knows it all . On a gloom and doom note, I think the lack of energy will be the front-runner for anarchy in the world, especially the more energy-dependant countries. It won't be the lack of food or nukular (written for Bush fans) war that ends it, it will be energy shortages, especially so-called fossil fuels.

People get married and people get divorce, but your parents are always you parents! Again without a living will the parents should trump spouses period. Says who???? You? That is fine then.... WHen you get married, have a will that states your parents can make all the decisions for you incase of an accident. When someone gets married they make a binding contract with the eachother and the state. At that point, your closest relative becomes your spouse. Like it or not that is the LAW. If you don't like it, don't marry :-) It is true of all things... I just got married 2 weeks ago, and had to change my beneficiaries form for my pension, 401K and Life insurance... and do you know what all forms say on them? In the event that no primary beneficiary is selected, your spouse will become your primary beneficiary. (Not your parents or kids). The only way to change that is with a notarized letter of consent from your spouse stating they forfiet the right to your benefits.... otherwise it is assumed by law. That is fine then.... WHen you get married, have a will that states your parents can make all the decisions for you incase of an accident. That might not be absolutley binding. To desribe what you want done is one thing, to transfer power is another, especially if it involves any costs since all of her money is now his money. These issues are far too complicated for us to define, even for the lawyers on the board. Hey I know, don't get matrried and write a trust giving your parents full control! The only way to change that is with a notarized letter of consent from your spouse stating they forfiet the right to your benefits.... otherwise it is assumed by law. That'll happen. The ex\ception is for a will that is drafted b4 the marriage pertaining to premarital assets only.

Right, if he had divorced her then there would be other selct words for him. This was a no-winner for the hubby.

I don't blame him. I don't agree with it, but I can't blame him. They made his life hell, called him every name in the book, claimed he beat her, abused her, blamed him for her condition....ect. I think it would have been nice of him to let them see her, but I don't blame him for not letting them one bit. I agree - and maybe now we can sort out who has supremacy in regard to a spouse.

It's not some suppression conspiracy against Marines or guns, it's about the lawyers directing the school board, hence teachers what not to do. A lawyer for the school would say absolutley not, because if a kid brought a gun to school, shot some people and stated he wanted to be like the cool guy in the picture, the school would be sued under tort for negligence. Furthermore, what if an Arab-American was offended by the picture of the gun, imagining some of his relatives being killed by that gun? There are many angles, but I say no to the pic too. The brother is still a hero and should be celebrated for his sacrifice in spite of the fact that he is fighting in a meaningless war - he's still sacrificing for the US.

Americans acted virtually to a man with honor and distinction once they entered the fray. However many Poles, Frenchmen, Czecks, Canadians, Austrailians, Kiwis, South Africans, et cetera died for want of their assistance during the period before Pearl Harbour. The official American stance was 'not our problem' until they were attacked. WWII was not a meaningless war. There was a very clearly defined bad guy. The fact that it was Poles and Frenchmen dying and not Americans was no excuse The free world may not be able to save Taiwan but you better believe the US will try. GWB was very clear about this and so has congress been over the last thirty years. When the US was attacked four years ago their friends showed up. Canada was not attacked, but our servicemen and women spilled blood in Afghnistan, and are still there. Americans acted virtually to a man with honor and distinction once they entered the fray. However many Poles, Frenchmen, Czecks, Canadians, Austrailians, Kiwis, South Africans, et cetera died for want of their assistance during the period before Pearl Harbour. The official American stance was 'not our problem' until they were attacked. And now we overreact as part of our Imperialism protocol - I liked it before. WWII was not a meaningless war. There was a very clearly defined bad guy. The fact that it was Poles and Frenchmen dying and not Americans was no excuse Go back and reread. The pint that I was making was that WWII and the Civil War were substantive, the Itar War and VN were meaningless inthat there is no goal acheived at the end.... basically masturbation at the cost of thousands of lives. The free world may not be able to save Taiwan but you better believe the US will try. GWB was very clear about this and so has congress been over the last thirty years. When the US was attacked four years ago their friends showed up. Canada was not attacked, but our servicemen and women spilled blood in Afghnistan, and are still there. The US will do nothing with China, just likethe P3 matter 5 years ago, remember? We only fuck with small countries that can't get 1 single acft off the ground, like Iraq. And then we brag superiority. What has America done with/against China for the last 30 years besides throw gobs of $$$ at them to improve their manufacturing base so they can work wth Russia to buikd their respective militaries? We were attacked by a man with an army (OBL), not a country. We and a very few of our allies counter-attacked by going after a leader of a country where the SOB was supposed to be hiding - no OBL, no WMD. Subsequently our friends are pulling out. I'm notunderming any countries sacrafices, just that many allies help the US do unsavory tasks for the help in other areas. I think far more highly of Canada than do I think of the US for their internal policies.