|
Post by Rob G on Jun 22, 2005 3:44:27 GMT -5
And Now Robs Presidential Depth Chart (Concerning Candidates from the last 8 years)
Nader (if i thought he could atleast get 20%) Mccain Bradley Dean Lieberman Gore Clark Edwards Kerry Gephart Pat Buchanon Anyone No one Bush
This makes me wonder why Mccain gets no props. I think an enormous amount of people would have voted for him.
Concenring Dean: This guy was discarded for being passionate. Thats BS, I dont give a damn about how a politican is supposed to think. This guy got where he is being a regular guy and talking more like us, less like them. He was totally crushed by everyone though. All press, liberal and conservative. He was betrayed by his own party but i mean thats what primaries are all about. That shit sucks.
IMO The print press is more or less equally shared by Liberal and Conservative. Ratios more or less matching regional political demographics. However television and Radio seems 80% dominated by Conservative press but the rate is falling. Basically the republicans and the democrats do the same dirty shit but the republicans are just better at it. If it is a race of competency then the republicans should and do win.
However i still strongly feel that the Republicans are the more evil and harmful both to me and everyone by a large margin. All a man can do is join the only alternative and feign enthusiasm.
|
|
|
Post by abisai on Jul 19, 2005 11:58:52 GMT -5
What is the Karl Rove sentiment? I thought on this and it is a silly story in the press, kind of like a movie about a movie. I hate that. But someone leaked a name of an operative. Whether or not she was actively undercover, this is not cool. Publishing her picture in Newsweek is a crime I say, regardless where they found that information. If they leaked plans for making nuclear weaponry that would be a crime too. I'm just pointing out that I think they should be held liable. The story at this point is Rove learned from a reporter the Wilson guy was going to Africe at the behest of his wife. He called another reporter and informed them Wilson went to Africa not at the direction of the White House and confirmed that it was Wilson's wife. This is guilty enough for me, since he should not be participating in telephone games about operatives regardless of where he found that information or what he knows about them. Feeding the fire is guilt. Secondary to the original leak, but still guilt. Damn right he should lose his job and serve some punishment, no matter how slight it ends up being. The original leak source should go to federal jail for a couple years. Regardless the politics of the situation, shit like this is crazy and people need to bear responsibility. What about shield laws to protect reporters from revealing their sources? The states all (almost) have this, but it does not exist at the federal level. To me this makes sense, since if it is something imperative it will get to the federal level where they should not have to put up with BS protections. I feel like this is a special exemption that holds no water to me. If someone robs a bank and confesses to me they did it, tells me what they did, my inaction would be a crime as aiding and abetting a fugitive. I think reporters should have the same rights as the rest of us. Sure you can plead the fifth, but you will go to jail. Sounds about right to me. The situation will dictate whether prosecution deems the information worthy of taking to that level. It just seems to me like whenever something like this happens, people throw their arms up and call timeout waiting for Congress to pass some special exemption bill for them. I hate that. People talk about special interests, but no one actually gives a crap. My two cents.
|
|
|
Post by Rob G on Jul 19, 2005 16:22:46 GMT -5
I agree entirely with everything DKB just said.
My Boss is a republican and former deputy mayor of wappengers. i asked him abou this and he says this is all some stuff Schumer made up. NICE
|
|
|
Post by Ken on Aug 8, 2005 9:19:35 GMT -5
Peter Jennings died last night from lung cancer. While I feel bad for the loss of a public figure as prolific as Jennings, I feel bad for the fact that he worked up until four months before his death. And that thought helped me realize my true feelings for all "talking heads." I basically despise all talking heads, They are totally conceited, wrapped up in themselves and I think the pinnacle of arrogance. One would think that movie stars would be more arrogant, but these talking heads, from Independents such as Bill O'Reilly, to Republican attack dogs like Sean Hannity, to liberals like... all the rest, they think way too highly of themselves and of their own importance in a field crowded with lots of arrogant, tunnel-visioned, sycophants.
|
|
|
Post by abisai on Aug 8, 2005 21:41:33 GMT -5
Sure. We deserve it though. People change the channel if someone is not arrogantly espousing their opinion. Leaving the more normalized ones to waste the dredge arises. How the fuck can Geraldo Rivera ever be given a microphone under any circumstances? He is a trainwreck and we can't help ourselves from a moment of his pathetic time. I loathe most mass media. Have you ever noticed how they sign off their names? Who gives a shit the name of the person telling me the stock market advances, there is an edittor off-screen scripting every line they say. The local ones are aboslutely the worst ever.
Don't worry though, AL GORE is breaking into TV. I think he invented it, really he did. or maybe it was the remote control he invented I forget which.
|
|
|
Post by Ken on Aug 9, 2005 11:01:30 GMT -5
They were reporting that Jennings logged in 60 hours straight after 9/11. Who the fuck does this guy think he is? Like the country really NEEDS to see his face?! Nobody cared about Jennings, they cared that our country was being attacked! To me, this is the height of arrogance. In reality, he was SCARED and INSECURE that somebody would come on and take his place, that his bosses would recognize a new talent.
So now he's dead, and his whole life was about work, because of obsession, or insecurity, or fear, or arrogance. As for his place in history, he didn't create history, he just reported on it. I hope he found his life worth it.
|
|
|
Post by abisai on Aug 13, 2005 3:10:34 GMT -5
As for his place in history, he didn't create history, he just reported on it. A truer statement could not be made. Just wondering about Rove/Plume/Novak story. This is a little odd, but was this chick under cover when her husband is publishing stories in the press about his CIA missions to Africa? And she worked in the CIA HQ in DC for several years, basically not a covert operative in the field. And both of them making themselves publicly linked to one another. Then husband writes articles about his own CIA work ( www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm). It is still a breach that needs to be addressed, but this does to me temper it a bit more than I had thought of it before. Mostly it irks me that this guy outs himself in articles and then argues that his wife's cover was blown by someone else. Did she even have a cover? I read that Wilson's wife's name was to be found in Who's Who in America. Regardless, there was some breach of code of conduct. I hope the federal investigations punish every writer and publisher involved (printing the name was the actual crime), Rove for being assinine in dealings with the press, and Wilson for outing himself and impuning his wife with the content of his article. Peversely, the entire thing from the Wilson side of things skews the focus away from the article itself and towards this entire fiasco of who said what and when did they know it. Personally, a guy sent to Niger for eight days talking to bureaucrats does not seem like the best informed person on whatever did or did not occur there. But basically he has all the pieces to make the story without interjecting his personal trip there. Which he does and background checks lead to his wife and her name getting involved. So all that bullshit detracts from the actual point he is trying to make. Maybe the talk about media arrogance reminded me of this. Anyhow, knowing a little more about it only makes me hate everyone involved in any way shape or form that much more. Neither side seem much concerned with the nation itself, only their personal goals. This guy gets to interview and promote his writing. Karl Rove got to crap on him in turn. The media got a story. And everything was nothing but a distraction from the larger point of what information was flawed and how the hell our intelligence community could make any failures that allow forged documents to be presented as evidence instead of following a scientific methodology of seeking evidence. In other news, a recent Time article addresses roadside bombins. In it they picture every military vehicle and depict what the soft spots are in each and what they are susceptible to. Basically a shortcut for how to target out vehicles in Iraq. Sure many insurgents would likely know this already in Iraq. But they might not all know it there and might not know this in other nations. I thought it was plain stupid to put this information out in the public domain. To the larger point of US needing more armored vehicles, no one wants to lose lives over there - including military officials and politicians. So those forces have every reason to properly address the issue and I would presume would do so promptly and immediately as circumstances warrant. No matter what is printed in any magazine, we don't know the entirety of the situation and those involved would. There was voiced concern about the armor and that is worthy of news. But to take it to the next step and have pictures with bubbles showing where each type is vulnerable is over the line.
|
|
|
Post by Rob G on Aug 14, 2005 17:18:49 GMT -5
If any american passes on or publishes any information that will aid the enemy during time of war that American is breaking the law and should be punished. Like whatever asshole published the weak spots of our vehicles. Like Heraldo Revivera drawing a map in the sand of his location in Iraq. Its fucking rediculous. And the blame cannot fall to the those who do this. The blame must fall on those who fail to punish such a crime. This shit pisses me off.\
|
|
linearone
Ill tempered Jedi
MR.T IS THE MAN
Posts: 70
|
Post by linearone on Aug 14, 2005 18:10:37 GMT -5
Ringo, Ring said something I thought was very accurate. "We are lazy and they are hungry" Thats the god damn truth. We live in fucking wonderland land and they live in shit. Nothing motivates like living in shit. We are without a doubt the Eiloi and they are the morlocks. Now they threaten our perfect existence. Regardless the circumstances we are within or rights to protect ourselves though. wow.. I have thought the same thing about eiloi and morlocks for some time but I dont usually mention it. (most wouldnt get it) right on man.... couldnt have said it better , ad as far as the original post I agree %100
|
|
|
Post by abisai on Aug 30, 2005 2:07:21 GMT -5
Robert Vasquez was coincidentally the name of a trippy hippy from Beacon High. It is also the name of a Hispanic official lobbying for tighter immigration controls. "Why," he asks, "should I have to 'Press 1 for English?' " He resides in Idaho as a grandchild of a Mexican immigrant. Yet he uses labor arguments to bolster border controls. Specifically, federal racketeering statutes to sue employers who hire illegal immigrants.I bring this up specifically because some guy like this nobody came make the same exact arguments as some nobody that looks like me, but he will not have the shadow of race lingering in the equation. I still think immigration is a real issue. One polls of Mexican desires to migrate here do nothing to stem. One I think needs more attention. Or at least more debate threat commentary! The old model (myth?) which most of us likely followed went something like this: 1st generation people come over on boats, work as slaves or indentured servants to the people that were here already. They scrounge up every penny and secure a better future for the next generation in a place where their debts cannot be passed along but their wealth can be. In some instances there is opportunity for free or cheap land to develop. In others some meager advancement. But largely just a move for the sake of the legacy. The second generation picks up where they left off, but as American citizens. The folks learn English as their parents demanded. Old ways are shunned for the sake of becoming American and adapting to the culture of the land, whatever that may be. Nominal enclaves for people from similar backgrounds persist. Financial advances are made to some degree. From here, the future generations continue to shun the old ways and even the enclaves of their people. These become true Americans, interbreeding and moving throughout the country with amazing opportunity. Economies spread with their travels as technologies bridge the nation. This is storybook crap, but there is some truth in the kernel. So what is different now? Modern immigrants know full well the meaning of culture and seek to preserve their old ways. They also tend to cling to enclaves, perhaps with linguistic necessity as English is not required for sweeping portions of the country. Even worse, the future generations may be born back in their homeland as the workers bring their earnings to another nation without enabling future generations to reap the rewards of American citizenry. Vast portions of the country are not able to accept them to work per language barriers and legal status. Their opportunities remain limited to the hardest jobs available and they cannot make economic progress within the US. They lack rights as a worker and cannot defend themselves with any branch of the law or collective bargaining. The poverty perpetuates for the immigrants and the other Americans suffer from wage deflation, leading to conflicting blame over the source of the problems at hand. So what from here? Clearly my great granddad could not have been in a position to put my granddad somewhere livable if he lacked citizenry, a common language, some legal rights, and a chance for advancement. The alternative seems much to be like a national indentured servant pool. They can work but only enough to remain poor in the US. Or they can return home with these meager wages and by so doing refuse their legacy within these borders. So what from here? All employment law should extend to all regardless the legal status of the worker. And it should be inforced, monitored, and routinely regulated as a matter of course. Labor laws should also be uniform across the NAFTA borders, allowing education of collective bargaining to seep throughout the labor pool. A prompt raise of the minimum wage might spark enough interest in spurring workers to at the bear minimum demand living wages. I would concede the Mexican border and bring the battle to the Latin American borders below Mexico as smaller points of entry. Make English the official national language, doing away with all others in the schools and government. This would induce millions of Mexicans to try living in the US, but also give them some of the same chances that our ancestors did. It would also compel them to keep their children in English classes if they can earn a living US wage and remain living here. This could be a good thing. The problems remain the lack of new and budding technologies to make use of a labor pool, but perhaps the IT shift could eventually go to Mexican Americans living in Texas instead of Indians living in Asia. This would retain jobs, resources, and distribution of wealth within our economy. Land and urban development would become nightmares. But the reality is that this is an inevitability. Our challenge is to design a new metropolis model capable of flowing with millions more than the present capacity. Specifically, mass transit among and between states would become a necessity. OK enough rambling for now. Now respond/react.
|
|
linearone
Ill tempered Jedi
MR.T IS THE MAN
Posts: 70
|
Post by linearone on Aug 30, 2005 11:40:17 GMT -5
Robert Vasquez was coincidentally the name of a trippy hippy from Beacon High. whatever happened to that guy anyway?
|
|
|
Post by abisai on Aug 30, 2005 16:11:41 GMT -5
I can't believe you called out Fred only to turn around a one line post here.
|
|
|
Post by Ken on Aug 31, 2005 15:17:05 GMT -5
Buck, I think the "Old Model" is spot on, certainly not a myth. Immigrants came here to find the "streets paved with gold," an analogy for plenty of work to go around which equals personal wealth. These immigrants worked hard doing what we would refer to these days as manual labor. Now of course we have machines, mechanical assembly lines, and/or robots to do this kind of labor. Most of this labor was back-breaking work. It follows that these immigrant/parents would want better for their children and encourage them to be educated, maybe not in the ways of reading and writing, but in a trade. Consequently, on and on, future generations of these families would gain more success until they plateau. But the common thread was that they were successful HERE and spent their money HERE, and acclimated to their environment HERE.
I think your idea for enforcing labor laws throughout NAFTA is phenomenal! It would force Mexico to get their shit together, which would in turn keep their labor force in-country, so-to-speak. Mexicans seem to want to remain loyal to Mexico, which is to say that they want to remain citizens there, send their money there, and keep family there. If they could earn an honest wage, they might just stay there. I wonder though, if Canada and the U.S. should have made that a requirement of Mexico before they signed the NAFTA treaty, similar to what the European Union forces prospective members to do before they are accepted.
Frankly, sometimes I think the U.S gov't should spend more time on the N. and S. American continents and the countries residing on those continents, then in the Middle East and in Europe.
English SHOULD TOTALLY BE DECLARED THE FUCKING national language as loud as we can scream it! This in turn would force alot of non-english speakers to tow the line and conform into society better.
Why do these Mexican immigrants NOT want to conform? Not want to stay here, raise a family, and raise future generations here? Are these statements true? They seem so. Is it selfishness? Laziness?
I'm afraid a raise in the minimum wage won't solve the problems discussed here, although I'm all for one. The illegal immigrants work off the books and as such are at the mercy of their employers. Although I believe that their landscaping employers pay better than minimum wage anyway, and don't withold taxes either!
I think a key part of any plan would have to be to work closely with the Mexican government and end all the corruption there from the local level all the way to the top.
Increase Mexican entrepeneurship from the lowliest deli to the highest corporation.
Your idea to shift outsourcing from India to Mexico is a great idea. Mexico has to lure companies there somehow.
Law enforcement has to be in place, to keep mafia-type organizations from developing there and keeping workers and wage-earners safe.
I'm sure these are just a few modest suggestions.
|
|
|
Post by Ringleader1 on Aug 31, 2005 21:54:09 GMT -5
In brief I like the Nafta Idea. However, to count on the Mexican Government to do anything is wishful thinking. This is becoming a big problem everywhere. I think they should rename the Village of Wappingers to Little Mexico. When i lived in Staten Island by Park Hill (projects). I was expecting allot of blacks and some P.R.s but half of the projects were full of Mexicans. These little guy are like human roaches. They are everywhere. I don't want to get racist but what are we to do? They do work hard and the don't cause trouble. Is there anyway we can ship all the non-working trouble causers to hot ass Mexico and we can let the Mexicans stay?
|
|
|
Post by Dave B uckley on Sept 1, 2005 20:08:58 GMT -5
There was a key difference in the methods employed by Spain/Portugal/Holland and England in conquering the western hemisphere; one to pillage and the other to settle. Both ended up very different, with ramifications for settlers and governments alike. One merely a financial transaction to create subordinate economies and the other a vested interest in spreading the empire. Settlers differed in that South America was mostly full of single sailors, soldiers, and mercanaries who spread their seed in mixing of races along coastlines and whose sole purpose was to route out wealth to their homeland. North America featured full families and entire relocations of peoples with vested interests in maximizing their potential in the New World.
Likewise, early 20th century immigrants sought to relocate their entire families to the US, divest themselves of links to their old ways and become Americans. This was a celebrated path that we still like to think is the proper route to take.
Modern immigrants benefit from increases in communication and travel that allow them the option to relocate for long periods of time to make money with the very reasonable expectation of being able to remain in touch and even return home to families left behind - specifically women, children, and elders remaining home to await the return of the breadwinners. A far cry from the surprisingly common behavior in the early 20th century of sending infants and children asea by themselves to find a new way of life, in hopes that it would be better.
This is a distinction made possible by technology mostly. I think if the modern modes of travel and communication were possible this would have been very similar in the original settlers. That could have resulted in more of a Conquistitor attitude by settlers who could have repeatedly done grab and ditch missions to the North America like the South American efforts tended to be more like. Regardless what we like to think about religious freedom, a lot of people came here to escape bondage or debts, or just to make more money than they thought they could in their native lands.
So what? Realizing that the current mode of immigration is unlikely to alter, we must accept it. Likewise, realizing the Mexican government is intentionally not acting and even encouraging the current labor surge to the US, we have only one recourse. We must act. I would used a forked strategy of giving the Mexican powers that be a motivation to encourage their cooperation in the least and proactive behavior at best. What on Earth can we give them? Well, Mexico actually has oil. Maybe we could invest in some refineries there, in the form of a national loan extention. Maybe we could offer to police their Southern borders in - from mafia/drugs/kidnappers/Communists/rebels/anything turn for their cooperation in labor rights and policies. This would include assuring the laws on the books are made to be congruent with one another and the playing field is crafted more level for both sides. The eventuality is that Mexico should "catch up" as was NAFTA's intent, but sitting idly by and waiting for this to happen without federal assistance is folly given the stakes for boths sides and the fate of the entire western hemisphere's economy in the face of global competition. All in all, I think the largest carrot we have to offer is worker rights in the US. Any Mexican politician would be maniacal to oppose giving his people the opportunity to fully and legally explore the US workplace. That is the golden nugget Mexico could reap and the people will compel their leaders towards that goal. I think anything approaching it could give our nation considerable leeway in advancing our goals as well as the development of the Mexican economy.
|
|