Arizona vs. Illegal Aliens

[Phatscotty]

From Obama's speech yesterday, regarding the new law in Arizona.

The law is an understandable expression of the public's frustration with the government's failure to overhaul the immigration system, but it also is ill-conceived, divisive and would put undue pressure on local police departments.

... No, dumbass. It is the public's frustration and anger over the federal government's very conscious and calculated refusal to enforce federal law for political benefit.

And people buy into this man's shite. It's incredible, really. I blame public schools and the mass-media which cc'er Doctor whats-its is always harping on.

No they don't. But they accept the lies because at least it isn't a Republican telling them....

The awakening is underway. s'all good......s'all good.

[silvanricky]

people buy into this man's shite. It's incredible, really. I blame public schools and the mass-media which cc'er Doctor whats-its is always harping on.

People bought into this man's shite in 2008. They're not buying it anymore. You'll see that 4 months from today.

[Nobunaga]

I blame public schools and the mass-media which cc'er Doctor whats-its is always harping on.

Yet I suggested that finding a way to force the mass-media to present balanced and non-partisan news coverage, and everybody threw a hissy fit and accused me of trying to murder freedom...

This forum is a very confusing place sometimes.

I actually found much of what you said in that portion intriguing. You should have (still not too late) started a new thread, as we were all drifting off topic in the other with that conversation.

I quit watching television news completely (save local), as I do not trust a word of it. That really sucks.

[Woodruff]

people buy into this man's shite. It's incredible, really. I blame public schools and the mass-media which cc'er Doctor whats-its is always harping on.

People bought into this man's shite in 2008. They're not buying it anymore. You'll see that 4 months from today.

I do believe this is the case. The many very things that I agreed with him on have...mysteriously not happened.

[PLAYER57832]

Yet I suggested that finding a way to force the mass-media to present balanced and non-partisan news coverage, and everybody threw a hissy fit and accused me of trying to murder freedom...

The founding fathers had a very interesting perspective on this, neatly avoided and denied by current conservative thinkers.

They felt that a free media was entirely critical to a functioning democracy. However, they also argued that having 2 opinions was essentially no different than having 1, because you would basically get just the positive/negative of the same debate.... point and counter, no alternative thinking. They instead felt that three voices were important as a minimum.

At the same time, they recognized that these were too important to be left to the market. Markets respond to popularity and income potential, not necessarily real truth or ideas. The suggestion was forwarded to actually establish a minimum of 3 periodicals with opposing views and have them supported by tax dollars, to keep them functioning regardless of market whims.

Instead, what we get now is, with few exceptions, what benefits those already in power, already making money. And, those people usually fail to distinguish between what is good for them and what is good for everyone else over the very long term.

[PLAYER57832]

From Obama's speech yesterday, regarding the new law in Arizona.

The law is an understandable expression of the public's frustration with the government's failure to overhaul the immigration system, but it also is ill-conceived, divisive and would put undue pressure on local police departments.

... No, dumbass. It is the public's frustration and anger over the federal government's very conscious and calculated refusal to enforce federal law for political benefit.

And people buy into this man's shite. It's incredible, really. I blame public schools and the mass-media which cc'er Doctor whats-its is always harping on.

Hmm... put up walls , spend billions and billions in an gauranteed ineffective measure, particularly against the real and true "bad guys" trying to cross; OR, concentrate on the cause of the problem .. employers willing to hire illegals. And note, "concentrating on the employers" ALSO MEANS allowing employers who legitimately cannot find citizen workers, to hire non-citizens in a controlled manner.


Obama is not the one blowing smoke and burying his head here!

[King Doctor]

Yet I suggested that finding a way to force the mass-media to present balanced and non-partisan news coverage, and everybody threw a hissy fit and accused me of trying to murder freedom...

The founding fathers had a very interesting perspective on this, neatly avoided and denied by current conservative thinkers.

They felt that a free media was entirely critical to a functioning democracy. However, they also argued that having 2 opinions was essentially no different than having 1, because you would basically get just the positive/negative of the same debate.... point and counter, no alternative thinking. They instead felt that three voices were important as a minimum.

At the same time, they recognized that these were too important to be left to the market. Markets respond to popularity and income potential, not necessarily real truth or ideas. The suggestion was forwarded to actually establish a minimum of 3 periodicals with opposing views and have them supported by tax dollars, to keep them functioning regardless of market whims.

Instead, what we get now is, with few exceptions, what benefits those already in power, already making money. And, those people usually fail to distinguish between what is good for them and what is good for everyone else over the very long term.

See, now that is interesting.

Of course, periodicals are somewhat outdated these days, the real problem being with the mass TV/Radio media that has been so neatly appropriated by a very small number of wealthy individuals.

A system such as the one you are alluding to, only concerning those types of media, is one that I would be very keen to debate.


Do you have any links to sources of information on the original proposals for the periodicals system?

[PLAYER57832]

Yet I suggested that finding a way to force the mass-media to present balanced and non-partisan news coverage, and everybody threw a hissy fit and accused me of trying to murder freedom...

The founding fathers had a very interesting perspective on this, neatly avoided and denied by current conservative thinkers.

They felt that a free media was entirely critical to a functioning democracy. However, they also argued that having 2 opinions was essentially no different than having 1, because you would basically get just the positive/negative of the same debate.... point and counter, no alternative thinking. They instead felt that three voices were important as a minimum.

At the same time, they recognized that these were too important to be left to the market. Markets respond to popularity and income potential, not necessarily real truth or ideas. The suggestion was forwarded to actually establish a minimum of 3 periodicals with opposing views and have them supported by tax dollars, to keep them functioning regardless of market whims.

Instead, what we get now is, with few exceptions, what benefits those already in power, already making money. And, those people usually fail to distinguish between what is good for them and what is good for everyone else over the very long term.

See, now that is interesting.

Of course, periodicals are somewhat outdated these days, the real problem being with the mass TV/Radio media that has been so neatly appropriated by a very small number of wealthy individuals.

A system such as the one you are alluding to, only concerning those types of media, is one that I would be very keen to debate.


Do you have any links to sources of information on the original proposals for the periodicals system?

First, let me clarify that I mean "periodicals" in the most general sense, to include newspapers, etc. My understanding is there was no clear distinction back then.

Anyway, my source was a speech by Raph Nadar. Unfortunately, accessing that speech requires paying money. (it was an Alternative Radio broadcast several months, maybe over a year, ago).

[Nobunaga]

From Obama's speech yesterday, regarding the new law in Arizona.

The law is an understandable expression of the public's frustration with the government's failure to overhaul the immigration system, but it also is ill-conceived, divisive and would put undue pressure on local police departments.

... No, dumbass. It is the public's frustration and anger over the federal government's very conscious and calculated refusal to enforce federal law for political benefit.

And people buy into this man's shite. It's incredible, really. I blame public schools and the mass-media which cc'er Doctor whats-its is always harping on.

Hmm... put up walls , spend billions and billions in an gauranteed ineffective measure, particularly against the real and true "bad guys" trying to cross; OR, concentrate on the cause of the problem .. employers willing to hire illegals. And note, "concentrating on the employers" ALSO MEANS allowing employers who legitimately cannot find citizen workers, to hire non-citizens in a controlled manner.


Obama is not the one blowing smoke and burying his head here!

... Wow, we mostly agree on something.

... Strictly enforce laws vs hiring illegals - great, and I agree Arizona should handle this because nobody else is. Huge fines and prison time!

... Arizona also should do as they intend with their new law vs illegals, as again, nobody else will enforce it (which makes this law suit going on now a completely transparent farce).

... Obama is not burying his head. I never said he was and it's interesting that you assume I believe that. The President does nothing as he wishes to secure a vote for amnesty and so then gain a boat-load of votes for his party. How is this not obvious to anybody paying attention?

[Night Strike]

... Obama is not burying his head. I never said he was and it's interesting that you assume I believe that. The President does nothing as he wishes to secure a vote for amnesty and so then gain a boat-load of votes for his party. How is this not obvious to anybody paying attention?

It IS obvious, but the supporters don't want to admit it because it'll be similar to how mandatory health care wasn't a tax before it passed but has to be a tax after it passed. EVERY single action the administration has taken in regards to immigration is contrary to reality (saying the border is safer now while putting up off-limits signs) and to the people's wishes (large majorities think the government is wrong to sue Arizona and want their own states to pass similar laws). I guess as long as the policies don't to irreversible harm to the country, we'll let their naivete stand until they are voted out of office.

[Phatscotty]

The fact that the federal government posted signs saying citizens had to stay away from AMERICAN land because illegals could not be controlled in those areas shows that the federal government has willingly failed to do their 1 job of protecting the citizens and territory of this nation. It's a travesty that deserves prosecution for failure to execute the nation's laws.

That's exactly what I voted for...

[Phatscotty]

your Q on libertarianism, may I ask you to rephrase please?

The idea of Libertarianism doesn't seem to follow closely with the idea of racial profiling. How do you juxtapose the two?

Where is the racial profiling claims? Because it sure in the hell is not in the suit the Federal gov't is bringing against AZ. It seems Obama can make the point of racial profiling to a bunch of idiots that do not know any better, yet, in a court of law, his own department of justice is not bringing up any charges of racial profiling or discrimination to a judge.

exploitation of racism, all for public consumption, by Obama, who in no way is a race-baiting racist whatsoever...

[Nobunaga]

your Q on libertarianism, may I ask you to rephrase please?

The idea of Libertarianism doesn't seem to follow closely with the idea of racial profiling. How do you juxtapose the two?

Where is the racial profiling claims? Because it sure in the hell is not in the suit the Federal gov't is bringing against AZ. It seems Obama can make the point of racial profiling to a bunch of idiots that do not know any better, yet, in a court of law, his own department of justice is not bringing up any charges of racial profiling or discrimination to a judge.

exploitation of racism, all for public consumption, by Obama, who in no way is a race-baiting racist whatsoever...

... That last bit was funny.

... The feds cannot challenge the law on any manner of "racial" grounds insofar as it might be unconstitutional without shredding the same laws they have on the books.

... "Racial Profiling"... If you say it enough and hear it enough I guess you start to believe it in spite of reality.

...

[PLAYER57832]

your Q on libertarianism, may I ask you to rephrase please?

The idea of Libertarianism doesn't seem to follow closely with the idea of racial profiling. How do you juxtapose the two?

Where is the racial profiling claims? Because it sure in the hell is not in the suit the Federal gov't is bringing against AZ. It seems Obama can make the point of racial profiling to a bunch of idiots that do not know any better, yet, in a court of law, his own department of justice is not bringing up any charges of racial profiling or discrimination to a judge.

Maybe because racial profiling, while objectionable, is very, very difficult to actually prove in a court of law -- never mind having to address the problem of which federal law, if any it would fall under.

exploitation of racism, all for public consumption, by Obama, who in no way is a race-baiting racist whatsoever...

As opposed to right wingers who begin by blowing all of this up into things it is not.. namely NOT about making the US safer or a better place to live, in truth.

[Bruceswar]

What if you put up some ice cream and candy stores in Mexico so there's something to stay in for?

This is the REAL solution.


As a side note, Arizona is now losing lots of business from Mexican tourists, they are not all illegal, ya' know.

BS! You will be hard pressed to find a Mexican tourist in the USA. Simple reason, most cannot afford to visit here. There are very few good jobs in Mexico and many people there work for little to nothing there. Hence why they are coming over here in droves illegally. The only people from Mexico you will generally see are people who come over for the day to shop at a border town. I have traveled in Mexico many times, but refuse to cross the border now. It is totally unsafe for any Americans right now. What makes you think some line drawn in the sand, fence, or by a river is gonna keep that violence from spilling across into the US? Arizona is just doing what is needed to keep themselves afloat. More power to them for stepping up and trying to do the right thing. Also want to talk about racial profiling? Just ask any middle eastern person about an airport here.

P.S. If you build a candy and ice cream shop in Mexico, it will be robbed daily by the cartel and thus nobody will want to go there.

[PLAYER57832]

What if you put up some ice cream and candy stores in Mexico so there's something to stay in for?

This is the REAL solution.


As a side note, Arizona is now losing lots of business from Mexican tourists, they are not all illegal, ya' know.

BS! You will be hard pressed to find a Mexican tourist in the USA. Simple reason, most cannot afford to visit here. .

I was quoting the Merchant association leaders interviewed in several Arizona towns. They have seen direct and immediate losses in profits.

[Nobunaga]

What if you put up some ice cream and candy stores in Mexico so there's something to stay in for?

This is the REAL solution.


As a side note, Arizona is now losing lots of business from Mexican tourists, they are not all illegal, ya' know.

BS! You will be hard pressed to find a Mexican tourist in the USA. Simple reason, most cannot afford to visit here. .

I was quoting the Merchant association leaders interviewed <EDIT: By NPR, no doubt> in several Arizona towns. They have seen direct and immediate losses in profits.

... Above EDIT is Nobunaga's, not Player's, just to be clear.

[PLAYER57832]

What if you put up some ice cream and candy stores in Mexico so there's something to stay in for?

This is the REAL solution.


As a side note, Arizona is now losing lots of business from Mexican tourists, they are not all illegal, ya' know.

BS! You will be hard pressed to find a Mexican tourist in the USA. Simple reason, most cannot afford to visit here. .

I was quoting the Merchant association leaders interviewed <EDIT: By NPR, no doubt> in several Arizona towns. They have seen direct and immediate losses in profits.

... Above EDIT is Nobunaga's, not Player's, just to be clear.

correct citation, though. However, it was the merchant's own words... and, lest you imply they were trying to fictionalize it, they looked into the whole range of impacts, talked to border gaurds, cops, people in industries that tend to employ many illegals (though of course the ones they intereviewed were legal), students... etc, etc, etc.

In fact, I remembered this point because it disagreed a bit with what I thought.

[jimboston]

Just because NPR uses a merchant's own words... that does not necessarily mean the reporting is NOT biased.

#1 - Could not NPR have interviewed 20 people who said there was no financial impact... and then they found one who said there was, and used his/her comments.

#2 - What part of town was this merchant... if the merchant was in a part of town that has a high percentage of mexican/latin-american immigrants; one might assume then that after the law goes into effect some of the illegals would leave... thereby causing a small drop in business.

#3 - What was this merchant's business? If he/she sold good primarily attractive to people or mexican or latin-american heritage (i.e. like mexican groceries, or spanish language books) one would expect to see a drop in business.

[PLAYER57832]

Just because NPR uses a merchant's own words... that does not necessarily mean the reporting is NOT biased.

#1 - Could not NPR have interviewed 20 people who said there was no financial impact... and then they found one who said there was, and used his/her comments.

They could have, but if they did, they say that is what they did. Usually they worry less about giving a "consensus" view and just try to cover as many sides of issues as they can. When it comes to impacts and percentages, then they stick with statistically valid polls, and definitly try to look into bias', even talk about why one poll might say one thing and another might say another thing.

In this case, I was just making the point that its not all one-sided, but that was MY point, not theirs. However, it was a valid point. There ARE two sides, and its not just one or two merchants.

#2 - What part of town was this merchant... if the merchant was in a part of town that has a high percentage of mexican/latin-american immigrants; one might assume then that after the law goes into effect some of the illegals would leave... thereby causing a small drop in business.

No. These are malls, stores along the border that specifically cater to Mexican citizens. You apparently ahve this idea that all Mexicans are starving or some such. That is true for some groups, particularly Mexican minorities, farmers in some areas. However, there are plenty of middle class, even wealthy Mexicans and many of them do come here for advanced Medical care (sometimes.. Mexico has some good care in places, too), and fashion, etc.

#3 - What was this merchant's business? If he/she sold good primarily attractive to people or mexican or latin-american heritage (i.e. like mexican groceries, or spanish language books) one would expect to see a drop in business.

Mexicans don't come to the US to buy spanish language books. Mexicans who live here do, but those who visit come to buy clothes, name brand stuff, appliances, etc.

All of what you indicated -- loss of illegals buying things, etc. is a definite impact. However, like all things, there is much more to this.

Arizona also lost several convention contracts, etc.

[jimboston]

They could have, but if they did, they say that is what they did. Usually they worry less about giving a "consensus" view and just try to cover as many sides of issues as they can. When it comes to impacts and percentages, then they stick with statistically valid polls, and definitly try to look into bias', even talk about why one poll might say one thing and another might say another thing.

Huh? So you think NPR is unbiased? LOL

I listen to NPR quite a bit (I like to hear what the enemy is talking about). There is no way they are unbiased.

They could have talked to 20 people to get the one guy who says what they want to hear. There is no way they would report how many people they questioned, and no way you would know how many people they talked to.

No. These are malls, stores along the border that specifically cater to Mexican citizens. You apparently ahve this idea that all Mexicans are starving or some such. Please.. .must you keep making it evident how biased you are on this subject!

#1 Where did I ever suggest or imply Mexicans where starving????
LMAO

I was speculating/asking if the stores catered to mexican/latin-americans.
I was right.

#2 Why do I/we want a mall within the US that specifically caters to Mexicans who cross the border? Put a mall on that side and stay over there!

[jimboston]

Arizona also lost several convention contracts, etc.

Arizona lost convention contracts because people in this country are afraid to be perceived as being politically incorrect... i.e. not being politically correct.

My own State, Massachusetts, boycotted something... I think it was one of the state employees unions that boycotted a convention there.

It's a shame and a disgrace to hurt hardworking people with these boycotts... instituting boycotts to protest reasonable and legal laws.

[Timminz]

Knowledge is the enemy! Home school your children.

[saxitoxin]

Remarkably Jim is right about NPR and, unremarkably, Player is wrong.

NPR uses a programming model called VALS ... it stands for "Values and Lifestyle [something]"; it was the alternate programming methodology created by public radio in the USA in '70's when they were in the shitter versus mega-corporate radio. Where commercial radio programs based on gender / ethnicity / age, VALS programs based on perceptual worldview that crosses demographic categories, this necessarily requires programming designed for specific ideological peculiarities.

In commercial radio, if you want a radio station that reaches 18-35 year old African-American males you will program a Hip-Hop and Urban format. If you want a radio station that reaches 35-54 year old white males you will program a conservative Talk format. If you want a radio station that reaches 25-45 year old white women you will program Hot AC or AC or Soft Rock.

In the VALS model, programming is targeted to ideological worldview by segmenting the population into one of 8 personality types: Believers, Achievers, Strugglers, Experiencers, Makers, Achievers, Actualizers and Fulfilleds. NPR and Pacifica Radio (Saxi listens to the latter) specifically targets Actualizers and Fulfilleds. The Actualizers and Fulfilled personality models tend to correlate to US mainstream center-left orientation.

FOX News was one of the first non-public media outlets to also adopt the VALS model, though in their case they target Experiencers, Achievers and Believers. These personality types tend to correlate to US mainstream center-right orientation.

The entire funding/programming model of NPR and Pacifica Radio is based on providing center-left oriented programming. It's not a conspiracy, it's just their marketing paradigm. However, to suggest they're somehow unbiased or moderate or some golden ombudsman of impartiality is patently absurd. Sit through even one strategic planning session for just a local NPR affiliate and you'll hear very specific discussion about VALS and targeting a "progressive consumer" demographic.

[ViperOverLord]

Obama talked a good game during the campaign. The media wanted to bury their heads in the sand on his racist church and his racist mentors. But that's really what it comes back to. People don't just suddenly change who they are. That is why he looks the other way on the Black Panther thing and is carrying the torch for illegals. Obama is part of the problem, not the solution and I'll be very dissappointed in the American people if they give him a 2nd term.