Illegal Aliens

[MsTerry]

I have never been able to walk in a circle,
I always followed the straight line

Right!
Ms Terry what would you do if they took your circle that you are running around and around in away???

[Lorrie]

I have never been able to walk in a circle,
I always followed the straight line

Yeah, but you can sure talk in a circle huh!?

*You mean forward...line, right? ...Never straight! ha ha

[Lenny]

This was nominated as the best joke of the year.!'

At a Klan rally?

[Lenny]

More than one observer has called China a fascist country as it moves to a capitalist economy. Capitalism and fascism have always been happy bedfellows as both are anti labor.

I've heard that anti-labor bit before but I am not sure it's so. Were I a capitalist I would want my workers to buy my product, thus paying a wage to do so. The hidden notion behind your 'capitalist' definition is that all 'evil capitalists' want is money. While that may be the motivating factor, it does not die there.

Yes, communism is an ideal that will never be reached on earth except possibly among small, committed, idealistic groups of people and then usually briefly. It was to be the ultimate free society, but has never been attained.

And never will be. The fear is that as we slouch toward socialism what folks give up is also an ideal that is compatible with our nature to be free.

The labor unions in this country were built by communists. Considering the gains made by the labor movement in improving the lot of workers, this was not a bad thing. Remember that before labor unions workers had no rights at all, and the 16 hour work day was not uncommon. There were no health and safety laws, no minimum wages and no workers compensation should you become injured by your work. During the cold war when communism became the enemy, the communists were forced out of the labor unions and they were taken over by organized crime, a great improvement in the minds of some as organized crime can be bought more easily than a bunch of idealists.

While a large element of fact & truth you write above has merit, like all "organic" notions, there are other factors involved such as industrial/mechanical advancements, technical innovations (beyond the reach of the uneducated worker), unanticipated wealth for so many, resource allocation and now disposition, amongst others. The unions have all but outlived their usefulness in this day and age and are considered a determent by many. Could not another point of view be that as wealth became greater labor demanded a greater voice and share, with an eye (by the bosses) to the future that mechanization would eliminate the laborer (as it has). While the communists were seminal in formation of labor matters, their rhetoric and ideals grew out of step and away from what the potential & capability was on this side of the pond.

Mexico has no social programs, no workers compensation, no health and safety regulations, and a gross minimum wage of around $1,700 a year, etc. Since the implementation of NAFTA flooded their markets with cheap, heavily subsidized agricultural products from the US, approximately 2 million farmers have been put out of business as there are no social programs to subsidize farming in Mexico to make their products competitive with ours. There are no social programs to feed their families also, so they come to the US to work to keep their families from starving, and they bring their families with them when they can so they can partake of our social services. Had there been a strong and successful communist movement in the 1930s in Mexico as there was in the US leading to the development of strong labor unions and social programs they wouldn't be coming here to keep from starving to death. Had it not happened here, we would look a whole lot more like Mexico.

Excellent approach to Mexico's issues, however the base and launch of what makes Mexico is so radically different than what happened with US. Their approach to power is so much more like Old World Europe, that is the mentality that power emanates from above, held onto tightly and never questioned without horrible consequences. The indigenous genocide in Mexico was not as devastating nor total as here, but rather used as an example to shore up power. The several revolutions from 1860's, 1910, and 1930s can only be addressed in a long boring tome and in different medium than this. IOW, while we occupy the same space & time, the origins, conditions, results are almost beyond comparisons.

[phooph]

I've heard that anti-labor bit before but I am not sure it's so. Were I a capitalist I would want my workers to buy my product, thus paying a wage to do so. The hidden notion behind your 'capitalist' definition is that all 'evil capitalists' want is money. While that may be the motivating factor, it does not die there.

One would think that capitialist would be wise enough to understand that if they under pay their workers they will sell fewer of their productss. It only seems logical, but in observation we can see that not all capitalists think that way. I guess they assume that the employees of more generous capitalists will be able to buy their products.

Capitalism has been defined as controlled greed. The problems seem to arise when control is lacking, in which instances capitalism tends to become both fascistic and feudalistic. When some capitalists hoard their capital and work to restrict access for others it creates a destructive situation.

And never will be. The fear is that as we slouch toward socialism what folks give up is also an ideal that is compatible with our nature to be free.

I believe the definitive book on this subject would be Joseph Shumpeter's Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy in which he observes that as societies become more developed they become more socialistic. Schumpter coined the term "creative destruction" that is used in economic circles to describe changes wrought by progress. The entire book is available to read at questia.

While a large element of fact & truth you write above has merit, like all "organic" notions, there are other factors involved such as industrial/mechanical advancements, technical innovations (beyond the reach of the uneducated worker), unanticipated wealth for so many, resource allocation and now disposition, amongst others. The unions have all but outlived their usefulness in this day and age and are considered a determent by many. Could not another point of view be that as wealth became greater labor demanded a greater voice and share, with an eye (by the bosses) to the future that mechanization would eliminate the laborer (as it has). While the communists were seminal in formation of labor matters, their rhetoric and ideals grew out of step and away from what the potential & capability was on this side of the pond.

I concur with most of what you say but question the obsoleteness of labor unions. Without an opposing political force, pressures would be put upon politicians to roll back gains made by labor. We have already observed this as labor unions became weakened in recent decades. Management has also responded to the pressures of labor by off shoring jobs and welcoming unorganized labor in the form of undocumented workers who are less able to become organized. It would seem that the answer would be for labor unions to become as globalized as business.

I Excellent approach to Mexico's issues, however the base and launch of what makes Mexico is so radically different than what happened with US. Their approach to power is so much more like Old World Europe, that is the mentality that power emanates from above, held onto tightly and never questioned without horrible consequences. The indigenous genocide in Mexico was not as devastating nor total as here, but rather used as an example to shore up power. The several revolutions from 1860's, 1910, and 1930s can only be addressed in a long boring tome and in different medium than this. IOW, while we occupy the same space & time, the origins, conditions, results are almost beyond comparisons.

All of the former colonies of Spain exhibit the lingering effects of European feudalism. Unlike the US and Canada which had a strong dose of religious idealists in the mix, the colonies of Spain were acquired with a sharp eye toward plunder. They still operate with much of the old patronage system in place welded to more modern political realities.

There is a great irony in that as Spain has produce such a dismal legacy around the world, in Spain itself has grown the most successful answer to the problem, the Mondragon Co-operative:
https://www.justpeace.org/mondragon.htm
https://tinyurl.com/5z55h8

[Lorrie]

At a Klan rally?

What? What are you talking about????

It had nothing to do with a clan rally!!

It was about some poor foriegner going around trying to find an American to 'Thank you, Mr. American, for letting me in this country , giving me housing, food stamps, free medical care, and free education!'
for having an America to come to...:sigh:

[MsTerry]

'Thank you, Mr. American, for letting me in this country , giving me housing, food stamps, free medical care, and free education!'

Free housing. free medical care, and free education!
Where do I sign up?

[Lenny]

One would think that capitialist would be wise enough to understand that if they under pay their workers they will sell fewer of their products. It only seems logical, but in observation we can see that not all capitalists think that way. I guess they assume that the employees of more generous capitalists will be able to buy their products.

That is how Henry Ford came to it when he paid them $5/hr instead of the pennies others were making. He wanted his workers to buy his cars. Others caught on and it was a "push-pull" way of capitalism. Others, like the mine owners, had a more "mercantile", British approach to labor. Marketing also came into play, but that moves to quickly for me, as "consumerism" becomes its own monster. Maybe "Enlightened Capitalists"?

Capitalism has been defined as controlled greed. The problems seem to arise when control is lacking, in which instances capitalism tends to become both fascistic and feudalistic. When some capitalists hoard their capital and work to restrict access for others it creates a destructive situation.

Here is where I need help in understanding. It is my "belief" that absent "Christian" notions, what you write above becomes the horror and ceases to be "Capitalism".
Such a system will then become totally Utilitarian and "hang the rest" will be the norm thus creating mass suffering, no? Unlike Bill Gates, after a point, what IS all that money for? The movie "THERE WILL BE BLOOD" indicated the matter I wrestle with, and in the movie, evil wins.

I believe the definitive book on this subject would be Joseph Shumpeter's Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy in which he observes that as societies become more developed they become more socialistic. Schumpter coined the term "creative destruction" that is used in economic circles to describe changes wrought by progress. The entire book is available to read at questia.

Well written and thanks. Schumpter even approaches the "marketing" notion in 1941 language, as it had not become the behemoth it is today. The whole book is a bit daunting as I don't read books on the computer. I am THAT old, but I'll take a running jump at it. Thanks again.

>The unions have all but outlived their usefulness in this day and age and are considered a determent by many

I concur with most of what you say but question the obsolescence of labor unions. Without an opposing political force, pressures would be put upon politicians to roll back gains made by labor. We have already observed this as labor unions became weakened in recent decades. Management has also responded to the pressures of labor by off shoring jobs and welcoming unorganized labor in the form of undocumented workers who are less able to become organized. It would seem that the answer would be for labor unions to become as globalized as business.

I must concede that you are right in that management needs its "opposition" in labor negotiations or it could get to lopsided, however it is my experience that unions have the same amount of "integrity" as management with about the same regard to the grunts pulling the load. Too often I've witnessed union leaders drink their own wine that they make, getting them heady with that old aphrodisiac, power. From what you've posted before, you know it is more complicated than that in regards to "organizing labor" world wide. You are slipping into that "ideal" thinking again. Office workers/service employees can't organize here, let alone the undocumented alien workers from afar.

All of the former colonies of Spain exhibit the lingering effects of European feudalism. Unlike the US and Canada which had a strong dose of religious idealists in the mix, the colonies of Spain were acquired with a sharp eye toward plunder. They still operate with much of the old patronage system in place welded to more modern political realities.

Too true. The wrestling away of power in the Americas will not be neat, clean, or easy, but as $ makes the world go around, it will come to pass. We, in the North, have it easy in comparison, but as emergence occurs.......well, it may not be so easy for US.

There is a great irony in that as Spain has produce such a dismal legacy around the world, in Spain itself has grown the most successful answer to the problem, the Mondragon Co-operative:
https://www.justpeace.org/mondragon.htm
https://tinyurl.com/5z55h8

Thanks. Will surf there post haste.

[amalia]

This joke deserves a place on Lou Dobbs' program. It appeals to those who wish to keep racism alive and well in the U.S. This joke sends out a powerful message, no different than the more overt racist slurs that are in our every day language.
We can do better than that on WACCO.

Amalia


Lorrie, I wonder who nominated this the joke of the year. It chills me to the bone, as its implication is that immigrants do not work, which would be a stupid and cruel message. Sometimes I don't get jokes, and may be missing something.
Kathy[/quote]

[theindependenteye]

Dear Lorrie—



>>Does everyone have to take everything so seriously? Can't there be jokes? ... The desired response is generally laughter; when this does not happen the joke is said to have "fallen flat".


>>it was sent to me from the mid US. Where people are not so up tight. The people there are friendly even if they don't know you.

>>PULEEEZ! Its just a joke. Nothing personal. Lighten up... forget it.[/quote]

[theindependenteye]

This website has it in for me, subjecting my posts to premature ejaculation. Try this again:

***

>>Does everyone have to take everything so seriously? Can't there be jokes?

Dear Lorrie--

I share your exasperation at the humor police, and so I feel pretty uncomfortable being one myself. But it feels disingenuous to expect that a political joke will be seen as "just a joke." As I understand it, the whole point of the joke is that there are a throng of foreigners in this country who don't identify as Americans, while all the Americans are hard at work, presumably supporting their presence. If that's not the core of the joke, I can't imagine what is -- there's nothing incongruous or meaningful if the guy's just encountering a bunch of tourists. It's probably funny if you agree that (a) we're overwhelmed with non-working aliens and (b) we're all supporting them. That's what the joke's built on, that's why it's circulating, and that's why some of us take it as more than a joke.

The recently quoted Reagan joke about communism being possible only in Heaven, where they don't need it, or in Hell, where they've already got it — well, to me that's a political joke I don't agree with, and didn't roll on the floor laughing, and I loathed Reagan, but it's funny -- it snaps right in your face. The construction works, and it's big and broad, not small and mean.

Anyway, you've surely got a right to post it, but in doing so there's no way it's not going to be questioned. Ask any stand-up comic or politician if there's any such thing as "just a joke."

>>it was sent to me from the mid US. Where people are not so up tight. The people there are friendly even if they don't know you.

Having grown up there, I would agree that people are friendly even if they don't know you. Less uptight? Hardly. Maybe uptight about entirely different things. Try telling a joke at my uncles' dinner tables about lazy-ass farmers or dumb, bigoted rednecks and see how many yucks you get.

Cheers--
Conrad

[Lorrie]

Well I guess I am a simpleton. I took it exactly how it was put. A person going around trying to thank americans for they're country and finding nothing but other aliens or (visitors) finding all the americans at work. Was funny to me. but not for any connotations implied by the people who didn't think it was funny. Or turning it political.
I think it was blown out of proportion, but that's just me.
I can laugh at that kind of stuff with out making it a political thing. Just every day americans and tourist and aliens. We are a free country to do that in all the forms mentioned. I am allowed.
You all can just forget I said anything.... If you can.
I have moved on from it.

Oh and maybe this will help...

I am sorry if I offended anyone. That was not the intention of posting.

Better?

This website has it in for me, subjecting my posts to premature ejaculation. Try this again:

***

>>Does everyone have to take everything so seriously? Can't there be jokes?

Dear Lorrie--

I share your exasperation at the humor police, and so I feel pretty uncomfortable being one myself. But it feels disingenuous to expect that a political joke will be seen as "just a joke." As I understand it, the whole point of the joke is that there are a throng of foreigners in this country who don't identify as Americans, while all the Americans are hard at work, presumably supporting their presence. If that's not the core of the joke, I can't imagine what is -- there's nothing incongruous or meaningful if the guy's just encountering a bunch of tourists. It's probably funny if you agree that (a) we're overwhelmed with non-working aliens and (b) we're all supporting them. That's what the joke's built on, that's why it's circulating, and that's why some of us take it as more than a joke.

The recently quoted Reagan joke about communism being possible only in Heaven, where they don't need it, or in Hell, where they've already got it — well, to me that's a political joke I don't agree with, and didn't roll on the floor laughing, and I loathed Reagan, but it's funny -- it snaps right in your face. The construction works, and it's big and broad, not small and mean.

Anyway, you've surely got a right to post it, but in doing so there's no way it's not going to be questioned. Ask any stand-up comic or politician if there's any such thing as "just a joke."

>>it was sent to me from the mid US. Where people are not so up tight. The people there are friendly even if they don't know you.

Having grown up there, I would agree that people are friendly even if they don't know you. Less uptight? Hardly. Maybe uptight about entirely different things. Try telling a joke at my uncles' dinner tables about lazy-ass farmers or dumb, bigoted rednecks and see how many yucks you get.

Cheers--
Conrad

[theindependenteye]

>>I am sorry if I offended anyone. That was not the intention of posting.

No problem, Lorrie, and nothing personal intended.

Peace & joy--
Conrad

[MsTerry]

I am sorry if I offended anyone. That was not the intention of posting.

What the hay, Lorrie
If it had been about ILLEGAL Aliens, at least it would have been on topic!

[Lorrie]

What the hay, Lorrie
If it had been about ILLEGAL Aliens, at least it would have been on topic!

You are being sarcastic. Aren't you.

[kpage9]

Lorrie, I hope you don't take this discussion too personally. It's a good one, and I"m glad you started it. I think what we're looking at is not you or your unique point of view--a point of view I often find refreshing. It is the larger issue--how it is that some people are ok with with what others are not ok with, and how we can raise each other's awareness. (yep, mine too.)
Kathy

You are being sarcastic. Aren't you.

[Lorrie]

Lorrie, I hope you don't take this discussion too personally. It's a good one, and I"m glad you started it. I think what we're looking at is not you or your unique point of view--a point of view I often find refreshing. It is the larger issue--how it is that some people are ok with with what others are not ok with, and how we can raise each other's awareness. (yep, mine too.)
Kathy

Well I did. But like I said I am over it.

I do have a unique point of view... don't I?
I am glad I could refresh you with it!

Yeah, yeah, yeah, larger issue...
Waccobb land is definately on top of the "larger issue"
I tell you that!

[Lenny]

Well I guess I am a simpleton. I took it exactly how it was put. A person going around trying to thank americans for they're country and finding nothing but other aliens or (visitors) finding all the americans at work. Was funny to me. but not for any connotations implied by the people who didn't think it was funny. Or turning it political.
I think it was blown out of proportion, but that's just me.
I can laugh at that kind of stuff with out making it a political thing. Just every day americans and tourist and aliens. We are a free country to do that in all the forms mentioned. I am allowed.
You all can just forget I said anything.... If you can.
I have moved on from it.
Oh and maybe this will help...
I am sorry if I offended anyone. That was not the intention of posting.
Better?

It's all good with me. And so are you.
But will have to go to the Midwest some time for the comedy bits. I know I'd be strung up in Texas for sure, but now? Nebraska? Wisconsin? Yikes!
Lions & tigers & bears, Oh My!

[MsTerry]

Only about the 'hay' part

You are being sarcastic. Aren't you.

[thewholetruth]

This website has it in for me, subjecting my posts to premature ejaculation. Try this again:

***

>>Does everyone have to take everything so seriously? Can't there be jokes?

Dear Lorrie--

I share your exasperation at the humor police, and so I feel pretty uncomfortable being one myself. But it feels disingenuous to expect that a political joke will be seen as "just a joke." As I understand it, the whole point of the joke is that there are a throng of foreigners in this country who don't identify as Americans, while all the Americans are hard at work, presumably supporting their presence.

That's exactly the gist of it, Conrad, and it's true. The best humor is that which points to the truth about human behavior, and that joke does. WE are supporting the medical services for these people who are hiding and working illegally under the table. WE are providing the food stamps and the GA for the women who pretend to be desititute while their illegal husbands go work under the table for cash. WE are supporting illegal aliens, Conrad. Irony is the point of some great humor. It's ironic that you would have a problem with someone pointing out the truth, but that you don't seem to have a problem with the truth itself. It's OUTRAGEOUS that we support these people and you don't complain. It's OUTRAGEOUS that it continues, even when we all know what's going on. That's what makes the joke so funny. It reveals what fools people are.

If that's not the core of the joke, I can't imagine what is -- there's nothing incongruous or meaningful if the guy's just encountering a bunch of tourists. It's probably funny if you agree that (a) we're overwhelmed with non-working aliens and (b) we're all supporting them. That's what the joke's built on, that's why it's circulating, and that's why some of us take it as more than a joke.

The recently quoted Reagan joke about communism being possible only in Heaven, where they don't need it, or in Hell, where they've already got it — well, to me that's a political joke I don't agree with, and didn't roll on the floor laughing, and I loathed Reagan, but it's funny -- it snaps right in your face. The construction works, and it's big and broad, not small and mean.

Anyway, you've surely got a right to post it, but in doing so there's no way it's not going to be questioned. Ask any stand-up comic or politician if there's any such thing as "just a joke."

>>it was sent to me from the mid US. Where people are not so up tight. The people there are friendly even if they don't know you.

Having grown up there, I would agree that people are friendly even if they don't know you. Less uptight? Hardly. Maybe uptight about entirely different things. Try telling a joke at my uncles' dinner tables about lazy-ass farmers or dumb, bigoted rednecks and see how many yucks you get.

Cheers--
Conrad

Despite your denial, people in the mid US are not as uptight as Californians. Lorrie's right about that. Nor are they as codependent of social sickness and bigotry as Californians are.

[thewholetruth]

This joke deserves a place on Lou Dobbs' program. It appeals to those who wish to keep racism alive and well in the U.S. This joke sends out a powerful message, no different than the more overt racist slurs that are in our every day language.
We can do better than that on WACCO.

Amalia


Lorrie, I wonder who nominated this the joke of the year. It chills me to the bone, as its implication is that immigrants do not work, which would be a stupid and cruel message. Sometimes I don't get jokes, and may be missing something.
Kathy

It's the truth, Kathy. Immigrants get money just for being here. Americans do not.

[thewholetruth]

Lorrie, I hope you don't take this discussion too personally. It's a good one, and I"m glad you started it. I think what we're looking at is not you or your unique point of view--a point of view I often find refreshing. It is the larger issue--how it is that some people are ok with with what others are not ok with, and how we can raise each other's awareness. (yep, mine too.)
Kathy

I find it interesting that you and others will speak up against even an iNsInUaTiOn about aliens, yet none of you say a freaking word when the inimitable Ms. Terry goes about her Christian bashing here. I would hope that we can "raise each other's awareness" too, Kathy, but the truth is that it's not about not being aware. It's about being bigotted and it's about political correctness. I mean, sure, let's criticize a woman who posts a joke and tell her you're trying to raise her conscience, but then let's be sure to say nothing when someone attacks a Christian.

I just shake my head at this kind of thinking. This kind of thinking is the problem. It's not the joke. It's the thinking that goes on in someone's head who quietly supports biggotry against Christian citizens but goes out of their way to correct someone who makes a joke about noncitizens.

[kpage9]

Lord a'mighty, Don. It's raining gobstoppers in your neck of the woods. So many odd and unwarranted assumptions, here and in your previous post.


Can you show the stats behind your statement about how immigrants get free money just for being here, and "Americans" don't?

Are immigrants and Americans mutually exclusive categories?

Do you think if a person only speaks up in protest about one thing it means they're condoning everything else?

Does my comment about the joke translate to a criticism of Lorrie herself?

and that's only the beginning....but I do wish you a good night's sleep if possible.

and i wish you would have the integrity to reveal your identity.

I find it interesting that you and others will speak up against even an iNsInUaTiOn about aliens, yet none of you say a freaking word when the inimitable Ms. Terry goes about her Christian bashing here. I would hope that we can "raise each other's awareness" too, Kathy, but the truth is that it's not about not being aware. It's about being bigotted and it's about political correctness. I mean, sure, let's criticize a woman who posts a joke and tell her you're trying to raise her conscience, but then let's be sure to say nothing when someone attacks a Christian.

I just shake my head at this kind of thinking. This kind of thinking is the problem. It's not the joke. It's the thinking that goes on in someone's head who quietly supports biggotry against Christian citizens but goes out of their way to correct someone who makes a joke about noncitizens.

[thewholetruth]

Lord a'mighty, Don. It's raining gobstoppers in your neck of the woods. So many odd and unwarranted assumptions, here and in your previous post.

I look forward to you pointing them out for me, Kathy.

Can you show the stats behind your statement about how immigrants get free money just for being here, and "Americans" don't?

Surely you've been in this country long enough to know that our government more freely gives money to immigrants to start businesses than they do to Americans. Hence, all of the 7-11s and mini-marts and dry cleaners now owned by folks who barely speak our language. Did you miss that, Kathy? Perhaps it hasn't happened in your neighborhood yet?

Are immigrants and Americans mutually exclusive categories?

Not exactly "mutually exclusive", but in one sense they are. Once an immigrant becomes a citizen, they become "Americans". Until that time, they remain "immigrants" who associate themselves with their citizenship of another country. While they will always be "immigrants", after their conversion to citizenship they are commonly proud to identify themselves as "Americans" (historically speaking, anyway). Part of the meltdown in our nation's fabric is due to the huge influx (estimated at 12-13 million people) of illegal aliens, who are not merely "immigrants", but are more precisely "illegal immigrants", who have no interest in America other than how they can stay hidden, steal/obtain money illegally, send it home and eventually return to their homeland or remain underground here. Becoming an "American citizen" is no longer the goal with that huge group of illegal immigrants, nor is learning our language, like it was with legal immigrants in past generation. But Generation L (L stands for Losers), as I have come to identify our generation (some call us "Baby Boomers") is collectively so sick mentally, socially, spiritually, phyically (drug/alcohol dependent) and relationally, that Gen L'ers practice the insane codependence and misplaced faith that has made us (I use the term "us" loosely - some have actually recovered from the 60s/70s/80s "Lookin' out for number 1/If it feels good do it" mentality) collectively so off track for so long. Making people who suffer from relational problems, personal problems, mental problems, emotional problems, sexual problems and thus spiritual problems the "darlings" of the generation is both bizarre and irrational. Those folks should be encouraged to get help, but instead Gen L'ers cluster around them trying to convince them that they are "normal", when they describe themselves as "freaks and weirdos". Same can be said about the social sickness which reveals itself when Gen L'ers commonly and seemingly instinctively attack Christians and Christian values, yet do everything they can do to protect criminals (illegal aliens) rather than insisting - like we normal people insist - that those illegal immigrants follow the same legal process that immigrants have followed in the generations prior to ours. Dang! You had to get me started, didn't you. (Rhetorical question, really)

Do you think if a person only speaks up in protest about one thing it means they're condoning everything else?

Why on Earth would you ask me this? Please clarify. I have no idea what you're referring to or why you would ask me this.

Does my comment about the joke translate to a criticism of Lorrie herself?

Your comment about the joke criticized Lorrie's judgement and discernment, as well as implied that there is something wrong with Lorrie's thinking.

and that's only the beginning....but I do wish you a good night's sleep if possible.

Good morning, Kathy!

and i wish you would have the integrity to reveal your identity.

Oh, I have integrity, Kathy. Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the definition of the word, as you're misusing it here in your effort to discredit me personally. Only a fool would wear a 49's jersey into the Raider's locker room, Kathy. Also, why would knowing who I am be important to you? I have to wonder why knowing who I am would have anything to do with the comments that I make here. Try this: focus on my comments and don't worry about me personally. If you find my thoughts too much of a challenge then don't reply to my posts. My experience has been that it doesn't matter who people are when posting on a message board like this. We're here to exchange thoughts and opinions, not to seek out individuals in our community who disagree with us. Wanting to know who a person is, really, is what the mind does when we want to figure out a way to attack someone on a personal level. That doesn't seem very nice to me, Kathy. Does that seem like a nice thing to do, IYO? Principles before personalities seems to facilitate better communication, IMO, in a forum like this.

[theindependenteye]

>>The best humor is that which points to the truth about human behavior,...

Agreed, totally.

>>and that joke does. WE are supporting the medical services for these people...

Those statements are regarded as incontrovertible Truth by some, and those people will laugh at the joke. They're regarded as absurd exaggeration by others, and those people won't. We differ, as eye witnesses often do, on our descriptions of the Truth.

>>It's ironic that you would have a problem with someone pointing out the truth, but that you don't seem to have a problem with the truth itself.

See above.

>>Despite your denial, people in the mid US are not as uptight as Californians. Lorrie's right about that. Nor are they as codependent of social sickness and bigotry as Californians are.

Sonoma County is California, and Orange County is California. Likewise, there are many Midwests. The one I grew up in (Southwestern Iowa and briefly South Dakota) and the one I toured extensively in for about 10 years (Ohio to Wyoming, Minnesota to Texas, had many beautiful people, much hospitality, much awareness, much creativity, side by side with what I would regard as great narrowness & conformity, and a bigotry as deep as anything I've seen in the Deep South. The question depends on the definition of "uptight" and on ones personal experience.

With regard to California, I won't resort to the phrases perpetually flung at leftists by right-wingers — "Love it or leave it" — "If you don't like it here go back where you came from" — because many, many different life circumstances land a person where he winds up living, and because change does happen only when somebody right on the spot stands up and says it ought to. And there's lotsa stuff around here that I think's ripe for satire, and in fact I've written some. So, suffice it to say that calling people co-dependent, bigoted, or sick isn't going to win you many friends — or promote change — whether it's in Des Moines, Selma, or Sebastopol.

-Conrad

[thewholetruth]

>>The best humor is that which points to the truth about human behavior, and that joke does. WE are supporting the medical services for these people...

Those statements are regarded as incontrovertible Truth by some, and those people will laugh at the joke. They're regarded as absurd exaggeration by others, and those people won't. We differ, as eye witnesses often do, on our descriptions of the Truth.

I agree with you there. It's called "perspective", and that varies from person to person. The truth about a given situation or circumstance, however, doesn't change. It is what it is, despite what we might perceive it to be. While that seems to create a huge opportunity for confusion, I don't see it that way. Those who value the truth will seek it and cling to it, leaving far less opportunity for the author of confusion to be at work. What we're experiencing in California today has everything to do with lazy, self-centered individuals who are far more interested in their own agendas and opinions than they are in the truth. Without any real interest in what is true, they've become so deluded as to imagine that their opinion or perspective is "their truth", so blatantly egomaniacal I can't believe anyone even admits they actually think that. The truth is what it is. True seekers of the truth find it. Lazy self-centered people make it up as they go along, seemingly oblivious that they're living in a dream world, ecstatic about their creation (their "truth") while Life literally passes them by. The rub begins when they ask the rest of us to cosign their hallucination. I won't do it.

>>It's ironic that you would have a problem with someone pointing out the truth, but that you don't seem to have a problem with the truth itself.

See above.

You ignored my point completely. I wasn't referring to our perspective. Let's not confuse perspective with the truth, sir. You don't have a problem with the ridiculousness of our codepending aliens both legal and illegal, but you have a problem with someone commenting (the joke) on that problem. That's frightening to me, to a degree. You're an intelligent man. Why would you have the courage to come against someone making social commentary regarding injustice, but not have the courage to be shouting out your outrage about the injustice itself? I find that all too common.

>>Despite your denial, people in the mid US are not as uptight as Californians. Lorrie's right about that. Nor are they as codependent of social sickness and bigotry as Californians are.

Sonoma County is California, and Orange County is California. Likewise, there are many Midwests. The one I grew up in (Southwestern Iowa and briefly South Dakota) and the one I toured extensively in for about 10 years (Ohio to Wyoming, Minnesota to Texas, had many beautiful people, much hospitality, much awareness, much creativity, side by side with what I would regard as great narrowness & conformity, and a bigotry as deep as anything I've seen in the Deep South. The question depends on the definition of "uptight" and on ones personal experience.

With regard to California, I won't resort to the phrases perpetually flung at leftists by right-wingers — "Love it or leave it" — "If you don't like it here go back where you came from" — because many, many different life circumstances land a person where he winds up living, and because change does happen only when somebody right on the spot stands up and says it ought to. And there's lotsa stuff around here that I think's ripe for satire, and in fact I've written some. So, suffice it to say that calling people co-dependent, bigoted, or sick isn't going to win you many friends — or promote change — whether it's in Des Moines, Selma, or Sebastopol.

-Conrad

Then again, if winning friends was my goal, I'd be coming alongside others with "my truth", applauding "their truth", ignorning The Truth and codepending mental/emotional/spiritual sickness and calling it "normal" while I supported harboring criminals who are contributing in a huge way to bankrupting our nation. Winning friends isn't high on my list, Conrad. Finding like-minded individuals who put the truth above their selfish interests is high on my list. They will become friends. Seeking the truth in all it's Glory is very high on my list, as well. Friends come and friends go, as people are nomadic. The Truth is forever...

[theindependenteye]

>> Those who value the truth will seek it and cling to it, leaving far less opportunity for the author of confusion to be at work. What we're experiencing in California today has everything to do with lazy, self-centered individuals who are far more interested in their own agendas and opinions than they are in the truth. Without any real interest in what is true, they've become so deluded as to imagine that their opinion or perspective is "their truth", so blatantly egomaniacal I can't believe anyone even admits they actually think that. The truth is what it is. True seekers of the truth find it. Lazy self-centered people make it up as they go along, seemingly oblivious that they're living in a dream world, ecstatic about their creation (their "truth") while Life literally passes them by. The rub begins when they ask the rest of us to cosign their hallucination. I won't do it.

Obviously not. But I gather from your words that if I don’t agree with your stated truth, then I’m simply clinging to my “perspective,” making it up as I go along, oblivious to living in a dream world, etc. As one who disagrees with you on this point, and on many others, I nevertheless don’t see myself as (a) lazy, (b) self-centered, (c) disinterested in the truth, (d) egomaniacal, (e) oblivious to reality, (f) passed by by Life, or (g) hallucinatory.

In my view, I work very hard, think I do some good in the world, and am at least enough in touch with reality to have a fantastically good credit rating. My fatal flaw seems to be that I disagree with you in your view of the truth.

>>You don't have a problem with the ridiculousness of our codepending aliens both legal and illegal, but you have a problem with someone commenting (the joke) on that problem.

That’s presuming I agree with your statements about “co-depending aliens.” But I don't. If I did, I’d be damned mad at those teeming masses of nogoodniks. I’m quite willing to believe that there are characters out there who are ripping us off -- illegal aliens, native-born sonsabitches, corporate executives, etc. etc. -- and that you could probably come up with more individual anecdotes than Reagan was able to when he was making jokes about “welfare queens.” I don’t have any illusions about the nobility and virtue of the underclass. But as a broad generalization, no, I don’t buy it.

As for having “a problem with someone commenting on it”, no, I don’t have a problem with that. My comment had to do with the woman wondering why people jumped on it when it was just a joke. You seem to agree with me that it was more than “just a joke” – it was a political statement, as jokes often are, depending for its humor on your believing its premise. But hey, let’s have more of’em.

>>That's frightening to me, to a degree.

Don, lots of things are frightening to me too. They’re very different, many of’em at least, than the things that are frightening to you. A huge percentage of people agree that this country is heading the wrong direction, but we disagree pretty profoundly on which is the right direction, or who’s got his hands on the map. I guess that's the problem with democracy: we have to vote on which of us is the bigger fool. Which at least is better than having a shoot-out about it.

>> Winning friends isn't high on my list, Conrad. … Seeking the truth in all its Glory is very high on my list, as well.

“Winning friends” was the wrong phrase. I guess I meant convincing anybody who disagrees with you.

I’m not sure what you mean by “seeking the truth.” I can’t recall a single post of yours I’ve read where you seem to be “seeking.” To me, you seem to be absolutely unshakeable in every one of your statements, whether religious or political or moral, so what’s the search?

Wouldn’t a better term be “witnessing”? That is, simply standing up to state what you believe. That’s a worthy thing, and I’d never call you a fool for doing that.

-Conrad