Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Very biblical
Comments
-
It almost like you're not reading the entire poast.RaceBannon said:
Why are you in these threads about illegal immigration and securing the boreder making fucktarded arguments that have nothing to do with the subject you bloviating sod bustercreepycoug said:
Keep track? Of course. I don't dispute that as a legitimate national interest. Stipulated. You needn't beat that horse any more. My main issue is that it's been politicized and that has had some intended or unintended social consequences. I see it all the time.RaceBannon said:So Mexico couldn't benefit from the free illegal labor that is passing through on the way to us?
If its good for us its good for everyone!
Is anyone monitoring the numbers to make sure we hit that "free market sweet spot" of illegal dirt farmers in the country?
Isn't that why we would want to secure the border and actually you know keep fucking track of who is coming here?
Why is America alone supposed to say fuck it to border laws?
Yeah, fucking ludicrous dude
I didn't say America should say fuck it to border laws. You said yourself it was stupid for me to argue that you were arguing that I was arguing against legal immigration. You've gone full circle.
The sweet spot is when the market says so, and the market always communicates. When have we ever in our history counted at the border until a buzzer went off announcing that we'd hit a sweet spot? I'm just telling you that there is work HERE, and that "they" are doing a lot of it, and are doing it cheaper. In some instances, they're doing stuff people who grew up here just won't do. Then there's a lot of made-up shit out there that they aren't doing.
Nothing on the ground has changed that much, the country has done great things all along the way. This is just politics at this point.
Get better at securing the border? Sure. Have at it. Make it a political issue so that every fucking loser I ever knew now has renewed focus on the source of all of his problems? Well, it certainly worked well. I can't blame them on that score.
Still, sad.
If you want legal regulated immigration of people that are good for America we fucking agree
Take your victim schtick and get the fuck out
I don't have a problem with improving security at our borders.
But I also don't think that it's a huge problem.
And I also know that many people think it is entirely because of the way it's been positioned in our politics.
In short: it's not a huge issue we all need to freak out about; it's not the reason all of our dipshit friends can't get it done in our system; we've made a lot of money and enjoyed a higher standard of living on the backs of legal AND illegal immigrants; the current politicizing of this issue has not done these people any favors in our country, call it victim-thinking or what you will.
PS: this immigration screening game isn't as easy as you seem to think it is. The ones who will be "good for America" aren't always easy to spot. One of mine had a quite limited education and limited prospects, and not only contributed greatly himself, but in two generations his progeny are doing very well in this system. It's not an exact science. -
Of course, I know it (the Jefferson quote) is a fagazi. It still made me laff.creepycoug said:
I made up the quote about Jefferson. I thought you'd see that right away, but I forgot how far you've fallen. Sad.YellowSnow said:Furthermore, when
Yep, too late. I gave Hill $50 to try and stop it, but she's a loser and losers lose.creepycoug said:
Too late.YellowSnow said:Fucking, Christ. You said yourself not more than a few days ago that don't argue history with Yella snow.
@creepycoug , you ignorant slut, we were protectionists for the first 180 years or so of the Republic. We? closed the gates in 1924 for 41 years. And yet the country was considered a hell of a lot more laissez faire in the 1920s than it is now. I'm not saying to coddle the losers, but you can't fuck them over too badly either, lest they start revolting at the ballot box. We live in a democracy, Creep, not Soviet Russia, and the losers will go full pitchfork, populist.
HTH
Sad I had to point that out to you. I remember when you knew your shit. You and Race have been hanging around the wrong kinda people.
PS: Latin Americans were still allowed in under the '24 Act, so, yeah, you're all welcome. Imagine the shit-show if we'd be left out with other 2% countries. Criminy.
And, what happened 5 years later anyway?
See?
There is no American Utopia to which you can point. There has always been an advantageous exploitation (in the good way) of labor and capital in all of our historical upswings.
Plan for the losers and ye will be a loser. I think Jefferson said that. Not sure.
Bad, bad, history. Yes, there have always been Messicans in California, Tejas, New Messico, etc, but the flood gates didn't open until the 1960s. In 1960 there were 788,000 people residing in the US who were born in Latin America. By 2010 that number was 19,155,077. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4638184/table/T2/?report=objectonly
Quoting Jefferson in a discussion about free labor markets? If that's not fucking irony, then I don't no what is.
And is it your contention that the country has been in a free fall since 1960? And who cares that they were born in Latin America? Why does that matter ... at all? When the % of people who were born in Ireland started to move the needle here did the country fail? Were the people who were freaking out about it, then, doing so for valid reasons that were later validated?
Kreist almighty. This is my point. This isn't a major problem. It's been made one, like, in the last year or two.
I don't care that there were born in Latin America or Timbuktu. Rather, I was rebutting your claim that there was plenty of immigration from Mexico from 1924- 65. The spike didn't come until later.
Look, I would agree with you that from a strictly macro economic sense, high levels of low skilled immigration have probably been a net positive to date for the economy. I also haven't viewed it, thus far, as an existential crisis for the US. There are some other issues of higher importance on the fix it list. But that doesn't mean that (a) it has been a positive for all segments of the workforce (aka "the losers") or that (b) it (high levels of low skilled immigrations - legal or otherwise) it will continue to be net positive economically in perpetuity. I say, let's get our house in order once and for all, and then we can sort out how much outside labor we need to bring in based on sound economic reasoning. -
Yaeh that's why Kali is $300.00 a square with illegals doing the work and $125.00 in Idaho with white guys doing the work.CirrhosisDawg said:All of them. There’s a huge opportunity in California. The construction trades are a fucking scam and need a boost of competition and cost control. Guest workers to start, and with a path to citizenship.
-
I hate all politicization of the immigration debate be it nativism on the right as well as the Dems cynical attempt to demography their way to the White House. Securing the border shouldn't be considered nativist, or something we shouldn't do because the problem might be overstated.creepycoug said:
It almost like you're not reading the entire poast.RaceBannon said:
Why are you in these threads about illegal immigration and securing the boreder making fucktarded arguments that have nothing to do with the subject you bloviating sod bustercreepycoug said:
Keep track? Of course. I don't dispute that as a legitimate national interest. Stipulated. You needn't beat that horse any more. My main issue is that it's been politicized and that has had some intended or unintended social consequences. I see it all the time.RaceBannon said:So Mexico couldn't benefit from the free illegal labor that is passing through on the way to us?
If its good for us its good for everyone!
Is anyone monitoring the numbers to make sure we hit that "free market sweet spot" of illegal dirt farmers in the country?
Isn't that why we would want to secure the border and actually you know keep fucking track of who is coming here?
Why is America alone supposed to say fuck it to border laws?
Yeah, fucking ludicrous dude
I didn't say America should say fuck it to border laws. You said yourself it was stupid for me to argue that you were arguing that I was arguing against legal immigration. You've gone full circle.
The sweet spot is when the market says so, and the market always communicates. When have we ever in our history counted at the border until a buzzer went off announcing that we'd hit a sweet spot? I'm just telling you that there is work HERE, and that "they" are doing a lot of it, and are doing it cheaper. In some instances, they're doing stuff people who grew up here just won't do. Then there's a lot of made-up shit out there that they aren't doing.
Nothing on the ground has changed that much, the country has done great things all along the way. This is just politics at this point.
Get better at securing the border? Sure. Have at it. Make it a political issue so that every fucking loser I ever knew now has renewed focus on the source of all of his problems? Well, it certainly worked well. I can't blame them on that score.
Still, sad.
If you want legal regulated immigration of people that are good for America we fucking agree
Take your victim schtick and get the fuck out
I don't have a problem with improving security at our borders.
But I also don't think that it's a huge problem.
And I also know that many people think it is entirely because of the way it's been positioned in our politics.
In short: it's not a huge issue we all need to freak out about; it's not the reason all of our dipshit friends can't get it done in our system; we've made a lot of money and enjoyed a higher standard of living on the backs of legal AND illegal immigrants; the current politicizing of this issue has not done these people any favors in our country, call it victim-thinking or what you will.
PS: this immigration screening game isn't as easy as you seem to think it is. The ones who will be "good for America" aren't always easy to spot. One of mine had a quite limited education and limited prospects, and not only contributed greatly himself, but in two generations his progeny are doing very well in this system. It's not an exact science.
I like hot blodded Latins. My first ever girlfriend was half Cuban and her dad smoked bad ass cigars and made great rum based cocktails. -
(a) Not "probably". Definitely, and you're probably underestimating the extent to which it has.YellowSnow said:
Of course, I know it (the Jefferson quote) is a fagazi. It still made me laff.creepycoug said:
I made up the quote about Jefferson. I thought you'd see that right away, but I forgot how far you've fallen. Sad.YellowSnow said:Furthermore, when
Yep, too late. I gave Hill $50 to try and stop it, but she's a loser and losers lose.creepycoug said:
Too late.YellowSnow said:Fucking, Christ. You said yourself not more than a few days ago that don't argue history with Yella snow.
@creepycoug , you ignorant slut, we were protectionists for the first 180 years or so of the Republic. We? closed the gates in 1924 for 41 years. And yet the country was considered a hell of a lot more laissez faire in the 1920s than it is now. I'm not saying to coddle the losers, but you can't fuck them over too badly either, lest they start revolting at the ballot box. We live in a democracy, Creep, not Soviet Russia, and the losers will go full pitchfork, populist.
HTH
Sad I had to point that out to you. I remember when you knew your shit. You and Race have been hanging around the wrong kinda people.
PS: Latin Americans were still allowed in under the '24 Act, so, yeah, you're all welcome. Imagine the shit-show if we'd be left out with other 2% countries. Criminy.
And, what happened 5 years later anyway?
See?
There is no American Utopia to which you can point. There has always been an advantageous exploitation (in the good way) of labor and capital in all of our historical upswings.
Plan for the losers and ye will be a loser. I think Jefferson said that. Not sure.
Bad, bad, history. Yes, there have always been Messicans in California, Tejas, New Messico, etc, but the flood gates didn't open until the 1960s. In 1960 there were 788,000 people residing in the US who were born in Latin America. By 2010 that number was 19,155,077. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4638184/table/T2/?report=objectonly
Quoting Jefferson in a discussion about free labor markets? If that's not fucking irony, then I don't no what is.
And is it your contention that the country has been in a free fall since 1960? And who cares that they were born in Latin America? Why does that matter ... at all? When the % of people who were born in Ireland started to move the needle here did the country fail? Were the people who were freaking out about it, then, doing so for valid reasons that were later validated?
Kreist almighty. This is my point. This isn't a major problem. It's been made one, like, in the last year or two.
I don't care that there were born in Latin America or Timbuktu. Rather, I was rebutting your claim that there was plenty of immigration from Mexico from 1924- 65. The spike didn't come until later.
Look, I would agree with you that from a strictly macro economic sense, high levels of low skilled immigration have probably been a net positive to date for the economy. I also haven't viewed it, thus far, as an existential crisis for the US. There are some other issues of higher importance on the fix it list. But that doesn't mean that (a) it has been a positive for all segments of the workforce (aka "the losers") or that (b) it (high levels of low skilled immigrations - legal or otherwise) it will continue to be net positive economically in perpetuity. I say, let's get our house in order once and for all, and then we can sort out how much outside labor we need to bring in based on sound economic reasoning.
(b) You don't view it as an existential crisis; many now do. Politics.
(c) Losers lose, particularly in our system. We can't worry about them; we never have; and I never will.
(d) Nobody said in perpetuity. Nothing is in perpetuity. Not even our mighty [young] empire, which my great grand kids might just see fall.
(e) It doesn't work that way. There is no bean counting with markets. The markets aren't waiting for you to figure out the right amount. The markets want demand to do that. Come on. We were all more or less raised during Ford/Carter/Reagan/Bush I. We all know this shit. It was force fed to us as children. We don't plan our basic economic inputs with any degree of precision. Not well anyway. The Russians and Cuba gave it a really good go and failed miserably. All kinds of shit will cost more if we protect American labor. Get pissy about it all you all want to; I didn't make up the rules of the game. They were in place when I showed up. That's how it works. It's not just about mowing your own lawn. Do a mental inventory of all the shit you consume and then assume that some jack ass with a pension and 401-K and health bennies is the labor behind ALL OF IT. And then tell me what you have.
(f) The Creep Clan liked it the way we found it. Sorry if that offends. I was told there were no safe spaces for socialist snowflakes on this bored. -
I barely understand you anymore.Sledog said:
Yaeh that's why Kali is $300.00 a square with illegals doing the work and $125.00 in Idaho with white guys doing the work.CirrhosisDawg said:All of them. There’s a huge opportunity in California. The construction trades are a fucking scam and need a boost of competition and cost control. Guest workers to start, and with a path to citizenship.
-
Did you know that day care centers in Seattle that have mostly Messican employees (many with very limited Engrish) and benefits charge the exact same as ones with mostly non-Hispanic, whites? What the fucks that all about. Where's my ESL discount? You wouldn't know about such things because you were a big shot, pretend lawyer who bought a house a long time ago, but still.creepycoug said:
(a) Not "probably". Definitely, and you're probably underestimating the extent to which it has.YellowSnow said:
Of course, I know it (the Jefferson quote) is a fagazi. It still made me laff.creepycoug said:
I made up the quote about Jefferson. I thought you'd see that right away, but I forgot how far you've fallen. Sad.YellowSnow said:Furthermore, when
Yep, too late. I gave Hill $50 to try and stop it, but she's a loser and losers lose.creepycoug said:
Too late.YellowSnow said:Fucking, Christ. You said yourself not more than a few days ago that don't argue history with Yella snow.
@creepycoug , you ignorant slut, we were protectionists for the first 180 years or so of the Republic. We? closed the gates in 1924 for 41 years. And yet the country was considered a hell of a lot more laissez faire in the 1920s than it is now. I'm not saying to coddle the losers, but you can't fuck them over too badly either, lest they start revolting at the ballot box. We live in a democracy, Creep, not Soviet Russia, and the losers will go full pitchfork, populist.
HTH
Sad I had to point that out to you. I remember when you knew your shit. You and Race have been hanging around the wrong kinda people.
PS: Latin Americans were still allowed in under the '24 Act, so, yeah, you're all welcome. Imagine the shit-show if we'd be left out with other 2% countries. Criminy.
And, what happened 5 years later anyway?
See?
There is no American Utopia to which you can point. There has always been an advantageous exploitation (in the good way) of labor and capital in all of our historical upswings.
Plan for the losers and ye will be a loser. I think Jefferson said that. Not sure.
Bad, bad, history. Yes, there have always been Messicans in California, Tejas, New Messico, etc, but the flood gates didn't open until the 1960s. In 1960 there were 788,000 people residing in the US who were born in Latin America. By 2010 that number was 19,155,077. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4638184/table/T2/?report=objectonly
Quoting Jefferson in a discussion about free labor markets? If that's not fucking irony, then I don't no what is.
And is it your contention that the country has been in a free fall since 1960? And who cares that they were born in Latin America? Why does that matter ... at all? When the % of people who were born in Ireland started to move the needle here did the country fail? Were the people who were freaking out about it, then, doing so for valid reasons that were later validated?
Kreist almighty. This is my point. This isn't a major problem. It's been made one, like, in the last year or two.
I don't care that there were born in Latin America or Timbuktu. Rather, I was rebutting your claim that there was plenty of immigration from Mexico from 1924- 65. The spike didn't come until later.
Look, I would agree with you that from a strictly macro economic sense, high levels of low skilled immigration have probably been a net positive to date for the economy. I also haven't viewed it, thus far, as an existential crisis for the US. There are some other issues of higher importance on the fix it list. But that doesn't mean that (a) it has been a positive for all segments of the workforce (aka "the losers") or that (b) it (high levels of low skilled immigrations - legal or otherwise) it will continue to be net positive economically in perpetuity. I say, let's get our house in order once and for all, and then we can sort out how much outside labor we need to bring in based on sound economic reasoning.
(b) You don't view it as an existential crisis; many now do. Politics.
(c) Losers lose, particularly in our system. We can't worry about them; we never have; and I never will.
(d) Nobody said in perpetuity. Nothing is in perpetuity. Not even our mighty [young] empire, which my great grand kids might just see fall.
(e) It doesn't work that way. There is no bean counting with markets. The markets aren't waiting for you to figure out the right amount. The markets want demand to do that. Come on. We were all more or less raised during Ford/Carter/Reagan/Bush I. We all know this shit. It was force fed to us as children. We don't plan our basic economic inputs with any degree of precision. Not well anyway. The Russians and Cuba gave it a really good go and failed miserably. All kinds of shit will cost more if we protect American labor. Get pissy about it all you all want to; I didn't make up the rules of the game. They were in place when I showed up. That's how it works. It's not just about mowing your own lawn. Do a mental inventory of all the shit you consume and then assume that some jack ass with a pension and 401-K and health bennies is the labor behind ALL OF IT. And then tell me what you have.
(f) The Creep Clan liked it the way we found it. Sorry if that offends. I was told there were no safe spaces for socialist snowflakes on this bored. -
You should be paying moar to have your children raised bi-lingual. That will be one of the things you can give them to ensure they don't wind up on the LOSER side of the equation in America damn it!YellowSnow said:
Did you know that day care centers in Seattle that have mostly Messican employees (many with very limited Engrish) and benefits charge the exact same as ones with mostly non-Hispanic, whites? What the fucks that all about. Where's my ESL discount? You wouldn't know about such things because you were a big shot, pretend lawyer who bought a house a long time ago, but still.creepycoug said:
(a) Not "probably". Definitely, and you're probably underestimating the extent to which it has.YellowSnow said:
Of course, I know it (the Jefferson quote) is a fagazi. It still made me laff.creepycoug said:
I made up the quote about Jefferson. I thought you'd see that right away, but I forgot how far you've fallen. Sad.YellowSnow said:Furthermore, when
Yep, too late. I gave Hill $50 to try and stop it, but she's a loser and losers lose.creepycoug said:
Too late.YellowSnow said:Fucking, Christ. You said yourself not more than a few days ago that don't argue history with Yella snow.
@creepycoug , you ignorant slut, we were protectionists for the first 180 years or so of the Republic. We? closed the gates in 1924 for 41 years. And yet the country was considered a hell of a lot more laissez faire in the 1920s than it is now. I'm not saying to coddle the losers, but you can't fuck them over too badly either, lest they start revolting at the ballot box. We live in a democracy, Creep, not Soviet Russia, and the losers will go full pitchfork, populist.
HTH
Sad I had to point that out to you. I remember when you knew your shit. You and Race have been hanging around the wrong kinda people.
PS: Latin Americans were still allowed in under the '24 Act, so, yeah, you're all welcome. Imagine the shit-show if we'd be left out with other 2% countries. Criminy.
And, what happened 5 years later anyway?
See?
There is no American Utopia to which you can point. There has always been an advantageous exploitation (in the good way) of labor and capital in all of our historical upswings.
Plan for the losers and ye will be a loser. I think Jefferson said that. Not sure.
Bad, bad, history. Yes, there have always been Messicans in California, Tejas, New Messico, etc, but the flood gates didn't open until the 1960s. In 1960 there were 788,000 people residing in the US who were born in Latin America. By 2010 that number was 19,155,077. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4638184/table/T2/?report=objectonly
Quoting Jefferson in a discussion about free labor markets? If that's not fucking irony, then I don't no what is.
And is it your contention that the country has been in a free fall since 1960? And who cares that they were born in Latin America? Why does that matter ... at all? When the % of people who were born in Ireland started to move the needle here did the country fail? Were the people who were freaking out about it, then, doing so for valid reasons that were later validated?
Kreist almighty. This is my point. This isn't a major problem. It's been made one, like, in the last year or two.
I don't care that there were born in Latin America or Timbuktu. Rather, I was rebutting your claim that there was plenty of immigration from Mexico from 1924- 65. The spike didn't come until later.
Look, I would agree with you that from a strictly macro economic sense, high levels of low skilled immigration have probably been a net positive to date for the economy. I also haven't viewed it, thus far, as an existential crisis for the US. There are some other issues of higher importance on the fix it list. But that doesn't mean that (a) it has been a positive for all segments of the workforce (aka "the losers") or that (b) it (high levels of low skilled immigrations - legal or otherwise) it will continue to be net positive economically in perpetuity. I say, let's get our house in order once and for all, and then we can sort out how much outside labor we need to bring in based on sound economic reasoning.
(b) You don't view it as an existential crisis; many now do. Politics.
(c) Losers lose, particularly in our system. We can't worry about them; we never have; and I never will.
(d) Nobody said in perpetuity. Nothing is in perpetuity. Not even our mighty [young] empire, which my great grand kids might just see fall.
(e) It doesn't work that way. There is no bean counting with markets. The markets aren't waiting for you to figure out the right amount. The markets want demand to do that. Come on. We were all more or less raised during Ford/Carter/Reagan/Bush I. We all know this shit. It was force fed to us as children. We don't plan our basic economic inputs with any degree of precision. Not well anyway. The Russians and Cuba gave it a really good go and failed miserably. All kinds of shit will cost more if we protect American labor. Get pissy about it all you all want to; I didn't make up the rules of the game. They were in place when I showed up. That's how it works. It's not just about mowing your own lawn. Do a mental inventory of all the shit you consume and then assume that some jack ass with a pension and 401-K and health bennies is the labor behind ALL OF IT. And then tell me what you have.
(f) The Creep Clan liked it the way we found it. Sorry if that offends. I was told there were no safe spaces for socialist snowflakes on this bored. -
@Pitchfork51 true?1!?YellowSnow said:Fucking, Christ. You said yourself not more than a few days ago that don't argue history with Yella snow.
@creepycoug , you ignorant slut, we were protectionists for the first 180 years or so of the Republic. We? closed the gates in 1924 for 41 years. And yet the country was considered a hell of a lot more laissez faire in the 1920s than it is now. I'm not saying to coddle the losers, but you can't fuck them over too badly either, lest they start revolting at the ballot box. We live in a democracy, Creep, not Soviet Russia, and the losers will go full pitchfork, populist. -
Queer.Squirt said:
Kiss my assTurdBuffer said:
You just arrived and you're already in Hondo territory. Lurk awhile.Squirt said:I guess I haven't read enough of your comments to understand your view of the connection between immigration and suffering and family displacement. Oh well, probably not worth your time following up on it. We're not going to agree, and that's fine.
