Jesus Prevents Illegal Immigration

[Braggi]

One of many ways to slow immigration.

Imagine if we spent the money going to "the fence" improving agriculture in Mexico.

-Jeff

https://www.goldmanprize.org/2008/northamerica

"In the Mixteca region of Oaxaca, Mexico, Jesús León Santos leads an unprecedented land renewal and economic development program that employs ancient indigenous agricultural practices to transform this barren, highly eroded area into rich, arable land. With his organization, the Center for Integral Small Farmer Development in the Mixteca (CEDICAM), a democratic, farmer-led local environmental organization, León has united the area’s small farmers. Together, they have planted more than one million native-variety trees, built hundreds of miles of ditches to retain water and prevent soil from eroding, and adapted traditional Mixteca indigenous practices to restore the regional ecosystem. Efforts are paying off as barren hillsides turn green again, aquifers are recharged, and the high rate of migration slows as indigenous farming families find they are able to make a living at home."

[phooph]

This is a very worthy effort, however NAFTA has put 1.5 million farmers out of work due to their markets being fooded with US subsidized agricultural products so it will take more than environmental restoration to stop them from coming here to work so they can send money home to their families to buy food.

One of many ways to slow immigration.

Imagine if we spent the money going to "the fence" improving agriculture in Mexico.

-Jeff

https://www.goldmanprize.org/2008/northamerica

"In the Mixteca region of Oaxaca, Mexico, Jesús León Santos leads an unprecedented land renewal and economic development program that employs ancient indigenous agricultural practices to transform this barren, highly eroded area into rich, arable land. With his organization, the Center for Integral Small Farmer Development in the Mixteca (CEDICAM), a democratic, farmer-led local environmental organization, León has united the area’s small farmers. Together, they have planted more than one million native-variety trees, built hundreds of miles of ditches to retain water and prevent soil from eroding, and adapted traditional Mixteca indigenous practices to restore the regional ecosystem. Efforts are paying off as barren hillsides turn green again, aquifers are recharged, and the high rate of migration slows as indigenous farming families find they are able to make a living at home."

[thewholetruth]

Why would anyone object to securing America's borders when (1) our government openly supports the blatant exploitation of illegal foreign laborers willing to work for less than minimum wage, (2) every terrorist in the world knows that Mexico is the back door for entering America illegally, (3) the economic impact of 12 million illegal aliens using services here but not contributing to supporting the services here is draining our arses and sucking up OUR taxes, leaving far less resources for Americans who need them, and (4) insisting that immigrants acknowledge that they are here and be accountable for being & working here will undoubtedly result in less criminal activity?

Why on Earth would we go spend millions or billions helping Mexican farmers when our own system is so broken and dysfunctional that farmers here get paid BIG BUCKS NOT to grow food?

Why not, instead, spend the money you propose on investigating which Senators and Representatives are guilty of pandering to special interests, investigating how many of our supposed "public servants" have gotten RICH SINCE BECOMING supposed "public servants" and then trace where their new-found money CAME FROM?

Why on Earth do we bother with Border Check Points when millions of people avoid them and walk/drive in anywhere BUT at the Border Check Points?

If you're against securing our borders, then why not just abandon all the check points, Jeff? Any potentially intelligent responses popping up in your head right about now? (As opposed to any all-too-typical sarcastic b.s. that might have popped up as you read, I mean. ;-)

"Imagine if we spent the money going to "the fence" improving agriculture in Mexico."

LOL Or better yet, imagine if we spent the money in America, for anything, for the benefit of Americans. It is, after all, American money you're talking about that you want us to spend in Mexico, Jeff.

Don

One of many ways to slow immigration.

Imagine if we spent the money going to "the fence" improving agriculture in Mexico.

-Jeff

https://www.goldmanprize.org/2008/northamerica

"In the Mixteca region of Oaxaca, Mexico, Jesús León Santos leads an unprecedented land renewal and economic development program that employs ancient indigenous agricultural practices to transform this barren, highly eroded area into rich, arable land. With his organization, the Center for Integral Small Farmer Development in the Mixteca (CEDICAM), a democratic, farmer-led local environmental organization, León has united the area’s small farmers. Together, they have planted more than one million native-variety trees, built hundreds of miles of ditches to retain water and prevent soil from eroding, and adapted traditional Mixteca indigenous practices to restore the regional ecosystem. Efforts are paying off as barren hillsides turn green again, aquifers are recharged, and the high rate of migration slows as indigenous farming families find they are able to make a living at home."

[phooph]

Illegal immigration in the US was on the decline untill the passage of NAFTA which began the flood of cheap, subsidized foods into Latin America. It has exploded since then. The number of Mexican farmers put out of business was extimated to be around 1.5 million a couple of years ago. Your taxpayer dollars are being used to put these people out of business.

As someone from an agricultural background who owns farm land I can tell you that American farmers are heavily subsidized by taxpayer dollars. Some know how to play the subisdy game well enough to become very wealthy and are able to sell their products at well below the cost of production. If you are thinking family farm here, you need to understand that the family farms are being swallowed up by or becoming large corporate entities.

With the various international trade agreements, markets have been expanded globaly. Cheap US agricultural products are flooding markets in developing countries putting local farmers out of business and leading to an increase in impoverishment. A US subsidized chicken is cheaper in a market in Africa than a locally produced one. The flood of US grown, heavily subsidized cotton has collapsed world cotton prices driving cotton farmers out of business around the world. I don't know if you remember the incident in Mexico a few years ago, but a 54 year old Korean farmer stabbed himself to death on the steps of the building where the WTO was meeting to protest having lost his farm as a result of first world subsidized crops depressing prices. These people can't compete because their governments do not subsidize their products and in developing countries there is no money for such programs. This is economic colonialism.

Building a fence will not do much to stop the inflow. It will simply create incentives to build more tunnels, and border guards are not so well paid that they don't find bribes attractive.

Pres. Bush has signed agreements with Mexico and Canada that set in motion the move toward erasing our borders. The powers that be want cheap labor. They also need poor Americans to keep joining the military to for a shot out of poverty. There is no incentive for the power structure to care about what is happening to the average American. As long as our members of congress and whoever sits in the White House, are more concerned about meeting the needs of those with deep pockets who's donations they need, our needs will not be addressed. The only thing that will break that chain is to eliminate their access to campaign donations. That would require the public funding of campaigns. Who do you think will vote for that in congress?

PS: it is estimated that illegal immigrants pay around 4 billion in FICA taxes but they cannot collect social securty.

Ruth

Why would anyone object to securing America's borders when (1) our government openly supports the blatant exploitation of illegal foreign laborers willing to work for less than minimum wage, (2) every terrorist in the world knows that Mexico is the back door for entering America illegally, (3) the economic impact of 12 million illegal aliens using services here but not contributing to supporting the services here is draining our arses and sucking up OUR taxes, leaving far less resources for Americans who need them, and (4) insisting that immigrants acknowledge that they are here and be accountable for being & working here will undoubtedly result in less criminal activity?

Why on Earth would we go spend millions or billions helping Mexican farmers when our own system is so broken and dysfunctional that farmers here get paid BIG BUCKS NOT to grow food?

Why not, instead, spend the money you propose on investigating which Senators and Representatives are guilty of pandering to special interests, investigating how many of our supposed "public servants" have gotten RICH SINCE BECOMING supposed "public servants" and then trace where their new-found money CAME FROM?

Why on Earth do we bother with Border Check Points when millions of people avoid them and walk/drive in anywhere BUT at the Border Check Points?

If you're against securing our borders, then why not just abandon all the check points, Jeff? Any potentially intelligent responses popping up in your head right about now? (As opposed to any all-too-typical sarcastic b.s. that might have popped up as you read, I mean. ;-)

"Imagine if we spent the money going to "the fence" improving agriculture in Mexico."

LOL Or better yet, imagine if we spent the money in America, for anything, for the benefit of Americans. It is, after all, American money you're talking about that you want us to spend in Mexico, Jeff.

Don

[Valley Oak]

Excellent post, Ruth. You really laid it out like it is in a summary fashion.

Thanks,

Edward

Illegal immigration in the US was on the decline untill the passage of NAFTA which began the flood of cheap, subsidized foods into Latin America. It has exploded since then. The number of Mexican farmers put out of business was extimated to be around 1.5 million a couple of years ago. Your taxpayer dollars are being used to put these people out of business.

As someone from an agricultural background who owns farm land I can tell you that American farmers are heavily subsidized by taxpayer dollars. Some know how to play the subisdy game well enough to become very wealthy and are able to sell their products at well below the cost of production. If you are thinking family farm here, you need to understand that the family farms are being swallowed up by or becoming large corporate entities.

With the various international trade agreements, markets have been expanded globaly. Cheap US agricultural products are flooding markets in developing countries putting local farmers out of business and leading to an increase in impoverishment. A US subsidized chicken is cheaper in a market in Africa than a locally produced one. The flood of US grown, heavily subsidized cotton has collapsed world cotton prices driving cotton farmers out of business around the world. I don't know if you remember the incident in Mexico a few years ago, but a 54 year old Korean farmer stabbed himself to death on the steps of the building where the WTO was meeting to protest having lost his farm as a result of first world subsidized crops depressing prices. These people can't compete because their governments do not subsidize their products and in developing countries there is no money for such programs. This is economic colonialism.

Building a fence will not do much to stop the inflow. It will simply create incentives to build more tunnels, and border guards are not so well paid that they don't find bribes attractive.

Pres. Bush has signed agreements with Mexico and Canada that set in motion the move toward erasing our borders. The powers that be want cheap labor. They also need poor Americans to keep joining the military to for a shot out of poverty. There is no incentive for the power structure to care about what is happening to the average American. As long as our members of congress and whoever sits in the White House, are more concerned about meeting the needs of those with deep pockets who's donations they need, our needs will not be addressed. The only thing that will break that chain is to eliminate their access to campaign donations. That would require the public funding of campaigns. Who do you think will vote for that in congress?

PS: it is estimated that illegal immigrants pay around 4 billion in FICA taxes but they cannot collect social securty.

Ruth

[thewholetruth]

What a plethora of information, Ruth! Thank you for that. NAFTA is straight up wrong and is part of the plan for one world government (i.e. everybody wants to rule the world).

I'm trackin' with ya on all of that. The only thing I take issue with you is this:

YOU SAID: "Building a fence will not do much to stop the inflow. It will simply create incentives to build more tunnels, and border guards are not so well paid that they don't find bribes attractive."

And making murder illegal won't do much to stop murderers from killing people. It's only created the incentive to try harder to get away with it. And making drugs illegal won't do much to stop drug addicts from using dope. It has simply created incentives to find ways not to get caught. But refusing to protect our borders because we IMAGINE it won't work isn't a logical or viable answer. We need to do what we can. Doing nothing about our open borders isn't working. I think you'll agree on that. And what amazes me is that the vast majority of Americans want to secure our borders. It's the government - aka the Wannabe Future Rulers of the World - who refuses to do anything about it. And so what do we do about that? We keep electing the same idiots to office over and over and over. We have the power to effect change. We're just too placated and lazy to actually take a stand, collectively speaking.

Don

Illegal immigration in the US was on the decline untill the passage of NAFTA which began the flood of cheap, subsidized foods into Latin America. It has exploded since then. The number of Mexican farmers put out of business was extimated to be around 1.5 million a couple of years ago. Your taxpayer dollars are being used to put these people out of business.

As someone from an agricultural background who owns farm land I can tell you that American farmers are heavily subsidized by taxpayer dollars. Some know how to play the subisdy game well enough to become very wealthy and are able to sell their products at well below the cost of production. If you are thinking family farm here, you need to understand that the family farms are being swallowed up by or becoming large corporate entities.

With the various international trade agreements, markets have been expanded globaly. Cheap US agricultural products are flooding markets in developing countries putting local farmers out of business and leading to an increase in impoverishment. A US subsidized chicken is cheaper in a market in Africa than a locally produced one. The flood of US grown, heavily subsidized cotton has collapsed world cotton prices driving cotton farmers out of business around the world. I don't know if you remember the incident in Mexico a few years ago, but a 54 year old Korean farmer stabbed himself to death on the steps of the building where the WTO was meeting to protest having lost his farm as a result of first world subsidized crops depressing prices. These people can't compete because their governments do not subsidize their products and in developing countries there is no money for such programs. This is economic colonialism.

Building a fence will not do much to stop the inflow. It will simply create incentives to build more tunnels, and border guards are not so well paid that they don't find bribes attractive.

Pres. Bush has signed agreements with Mexico and Canada that set in motion the move toward erasing our borders. The powers that be want cheap labor. They also need poor Americans to keep joining the military to for a shot out of poverty. There is no incentive for the power structure to care about what is happening to the average American. As long as our members of congress and whoever sits in the White House, are more concerned about meeting the needs of those with deep pockets who's donations they need, our needs will not be addressed. The only thing that will break that chain is to eliminate their access to campaign donations. That would require the public funding of campaigns. Who do you think will vote for that in congress?

PS: it is estimated that illegal immigrants pay around 4 billion in FICA taxes but they cannot collect social securty.

Ruth

[Reportanddeport]

So your point is that we Americans should spend our money improving the lives of Mexicans in Mexico instead of spending it on improving the lives of Americans in America?

[phooph]

People smuggling is a very profitable business, just like drug smuggling. We currently spend more on drug interdiction than was spent on the entire US budget of the late 70s but we still have drugs coming into the country in large quantities. Those who study such things say that the only thing that will stop the drug flow is to eliminate the demand. Same goes for illegals.

Please tell me how we are going to police several thousand miles of coastline and border?

And, who's going to set this up? The government has no interest in doing so because the deep pockets that fund the politicians have no interest. So talking about this is sort of moot. The majority of Americans may want something done, but until the people the politicians care about want it it's not going to happen.

Ruth

What a plethora of information, Ruth! Thank you for that. NAFTA is straight up wrong and is part of the plan for one world government (i.e. everybody wants to rule the world).

I'm trackin' with ya on all of that. The only thing I take issue with you is this:

YOU SAID: "Building a fence will not do much to stop the inflow. It will simply create incentives to build more tunnels, and border guards are not so well paid that they don't find bribes attractive."

And making murder illegal won't do much to stop murderers from killing people. It's only created the incentive to try harder to get away with it. And making drugs illegal won't do much to stop drug addicts from using dope. It has simply created incentives to find ways not to get caught. But refusing to protect our borders because we IMAGINE it won't work isn't a logical or viable answer. We need to do what we can. Doing nothing about our open borders isn't working. I think you'll agree on that. And what amazes me is that the vast majority of Americans want to secure our borders. It's the government - aka the Wannabe Future Rulers of the World - who refuses to do anything about it. And so what do we do about that? We keep electing the same idiots to office over and over and over. We have the power to effect change. We're just too placated and lazy to actually take a stand, collectively speaking.

Don

[Reportanddeport]

Just because you can't cure a problem is no reason not to fight it. Perfection is not possible. You're gonna die, but you still try to extend your life.
You DO WHAT YOU CAN.
And eliminating the demand is SUCH A COPOUT and a PHONY one at that. It is more unlikely than eliminating the supply.
People will ALWAYS want to get stoned, especially when they're young, ignorant and stupid.
I have always wanted to arrest Americans who hire illegal aliens and I still do. In fact, the American traitors have ALWAYS been my number 1 enemy in the illegal immigration problem, because they're the ones bringing the illegals in.
Our borders can be policed by the Border Patrol and National Guard. All you gotta do is pay for THAT, instead of paying hospitals for treating illegal aliens. I'LL do the patrols as a private security guard myself. And you can easily make military bases on the borders for a large, military presence.

Bush, Boxer, Feinstein, Woolsey and Pelosi have no interest in securing the borders nor deporting illegal aliens, so they will have to be replaced. But around the country, communities are starting to enforce local laws to do what Bush won't do. But eventually, if enough Americans actually want a secure country and jobs for Americans, then it will happen. As it stands now, well-intentioned Libs are THE BEST FRIENDS THE CORPORATIONS EVER HAD.

Talking about it is hardly "moot". If I already know what is the right thing to do, then I certainly don't need others to agree with me for me to do what is right.

You MUST inform the people FIRST, if you are to turn them against those who misrepresent us.

People smuggling is a very profitable business, just like drug smuggling. We currently spend more on drug interdiction than was spent on the entire US budget of the late 70s but we still have drugs coming into the country in large quantities. Those who study such things say that the only thing that will stop the drug flow is to eliminate the demand. Same goes for illegals.

Please tell me how we are going to police several thousand miles of coastline and border?

And, who's going to set this up? The government has no interest in doing so because the deep pockets that fund the politicians have no interest. So talking about this is sort of moot. The majority of Americans may want something done, but until the people the politicians care about want it it's not going to happen.

Ruth

[Dynamique]

maybe a better way to go about it (and think about it) is to use our resources to make life better for people -- not corporations -- on BOTH SIDES of our southern border!

So your point is that we Americans should spend our money improving the lives of Mexicans in Mexico instead of spending it on improving the lives of Americans in America?

[Dynamique]

And one of the best ways to make the interests of "the people" rather than the donors what the politicos care about is publicly financed political campaigns!

Check out Public Campaign (https://www.publicampaign.org/) and the Calif. Clean Money Campaign (https://www.caclean.org/) for more info.

- Kirsten

...And, who's going to set this up? The government has no interest in doing so because the deep pockets that fund the politicians have no interest. So talking about this is sort of moot. The majority of Americans may want something done, but until the people the politicians care about want it it's not going to happen.

Ruth

[phooph]

Undoubtedly.

Now how do we pry the politicians away from their donors long enough to get them to vote for it? Their donors won't give up that sort of influence without a fight and it could get very nasty.

Ruth

And one of the best ways to make the interests of "the people" rather than the donors what the politicos care about is publicly financed political campaigns!

Check out Public Campaign (https://www.publicampaign.org/) and the Calif. Clean Money Campaign (https://www.caclean.org/) for more info.

- Kirsten

[Reportanddeport]

OK, then you keep sending your paychecks to Mexico, and I'll spend mine on my life here in the U.S.A. But I don't want any of MY tax dollars going to develop Mexico's economy. But send as much of your own money as you want to.

maybe a better way to go about it (and think about it) is to use our resources to make life better for people -- not corporations -- on BOTH SIDES of our southern border!

[Reportanddeport]

How about public financing paid for by all the taxpayers that agreed to it? And the rest of us can use our money for stuff like food, rent, gas and LIVING OUR OWN LIVES AS WE SEE FIT.

You Commies LOOOOOVE spending OTHER people's money.

And one of the best ways to make the interests of "the people" rather than the donors what the politicos care about is publicly financed political campaigns!

Check out Public Campaign (https://www.publicampaign.org/) and the Calif. Clean Money Campaign (https://www.caclean.org/) for more info.

- Kirsten

[Reportanddeport]

You DON'T interfere with their contributors, because it's none of your business. But knowing who is buying who is necessary. Full, public disclosure of all the political whores should be required.

What political party is raking in the most cash this Presidential election season? Does anyone know?



Now how do we pry the politicians away from their donors long enough to get them to vote for it? Their donors won't give up that sort of influence without a fight and it could get very nasty.

Ruth[/quote]

[thewholetruth]

We vote them out of office and vote in real people who support it. We can accomplish this in the next election. We simply vote out everyone who has any experience in the legislature and elect regular folks to serve us, regular folks who have clearly stated that they support it. We can run this private campaign from the internet both locally and nationally. It is the COLLECTIVE WISDOM of our representatives which is supposed to be guiding our nation, yet every Senator/Rep. wants you to believe that they are something special, which is how they get your vote. The problem with that is that THEY start to believe they're special, and entitled to take certain liberties which don't serve the PEOPLE they represent.

The truth is that it's the PROCESS that works, and it's the PEOPLE WE ELECT who have learned to MANIPULATE the process that have screwed up our system of government. An endless stream of bills are submitted to Congress every year, and WHY?!? Because politicians think it validates their existence, that they're "working on important legislation" when really they're pretending that they're working. Most of these bills come with hidden bills inside of bills, designed to protect special interests and donors' pet interests and the truth is, don't we have ENOUGH LAWS ALREADY?!?

Don

Undoubtedly.

Now how do we pry the politicians away from their donors long enough to get them to vote for it? Their donors won't give up that sort of influence without a fight and it could get very nasty.

Ruth

[phooph]

We already have full disclosure mapped in several ways:

https://www.followthemoney.org/
https://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/
https://www.maplight.org/?gclid=CO2_...FQ7PYAodEQPw5g
https://www.opensecrets.org/parties/index.asp

Campaign financing is supposed to be public.

If you watch someone taking a fat bribe, excuse me, "contribution" from the head of a corporation that wants to keep cheap illegal immigrant labor flowing into the country is it still not a bribe?

Is that politician going to prioritize your agenda because he/she knows you see what is going on or is that politician going to give greater consideration to the person who produced the fat check?

Where do you think the saying 'Money talks' originated?

Now why is it none of our business that our political process is corrupted by monied special interests that profit from activities that are detrimental to the ordinary folks in this country?

Ruth

You DON'T interfere with their contributors, because it's none of your business. But knowing who is buying who is necessary. Full, public disclosure of all the political whores should be required.

What political party is raking in the most cash this Presidential election season? Does anyone know?



Now how do we pry the politicians away from their donors long enough to get them to vote for it? Their donors won't give up that sort of influence without a fight and it could get very nasty.

Ruth

[/QUOTE]

[phooph]

I have lived long enough to see the "bums" thrown out multiple times and replaced by "the people's" candidates only to see them transform into the next set of bums. They find themselves in a system that requires the very behavior we abhor in order to get anything done. It demonstrates the assertion by Bucky Fuller that there are no bad people, only bad systems (and I would protests that occasionally there are bad people).

Money is not the only corrupting influence in the halls of power. Threats of violence and public embarrassment are also corrupting influences. When Elliot Spitzer became too ambitious in going after people on Wall Street, they spilled the beans on his addiction to prostitutes. There is a cautionary term now used in politcal circles in relation to challenging the powers-that-be: being Wellstoned.

"Great nations are simply the operating fronts of behind-the-scenes, vastly ambitious individuals who have become so effectively powerful because of their ability to remain invisible while operating behind the national scenery." – R. Buckminster Fuller

We vote them out of office and vote in real people who support it. We can accomplish this in the next election. We simply vote out everyone who has any experience in the legislature and elect regular folks to serve us, regular folks who have clearly stated that they support it. We can run this private campaign from the internet both locally and nationally. It is the COLLECTIVE WISDOM of our representatives which is supposed to be guiding our nation, yet every Senator/Rep. wants you to believe that they are something special, which is how they get your vote. The problem with that is that THEY start to believe they're special, and entitled to take certain liberties which don't serve the PEOPLE they represent.

The truth is that it's the PROCESS that works, and it's the PEOPLE WE ELECT who have learned to MANIPULATE the process that have screwed up our system of government. An endless stream of bills are submitted to Congress every year, and WHY?!? Because politicians think it validates their existence, that they're "working on important legislation" when really they're pretending that they're working. Most of these bills come with hidden bills inside of bills, designed to protect special interests and donors' pet interests and the truth is, don't we have ENOUGH LAWS ALREADY?!?

Don

[Reportanddeport]

OK, then if there is full disclosure, then you know who is buying who and you know who not to vote for.

I don't want to work one minute longer to support someone's campaign, whether I agree with the candidate or not. YOU do it with YOUR money. Just get your laws off of me and get your hands off my wallet.

The politicians ARE being bought off by the corps that want illegal aliens. And there is a general awakening among the American people to that fact. So what a representative republic will do is to get rid of the politicians that represent the interests of the corps over the interests of the people.

The votes politicians make will depend on whatever they think will get them re-elected. Politicians are surfers, riding the waves of the public into office. And if your political whore is winning because your whore bought the best advertizing agency, then it shows that the people are swayed by slick advertizing over the substance of the candidate.

You can and SHOULD learn all there is to know about who is buying who, and spread that information to whoever will listen. And people will vote according to who and what they believe.

We already have full disclosure mapped in several ways:

https://www.followthemoney.org/
https://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/
https://www.maplight.org/?gclid=CO2_...FQ7PYAodEQPw5g
https://www.opensecrets.org/parties/index.asp

Campaign financing is supposed to be public.

If you watch someone taking a fat bribe, excuse me, "contribution" from the head of a corporation that wants to keep cheap illegal immigrant labor flowing into the country is it still not a bribe?

Is that politician going to prioritize your agenda because he/she knows you see what is going on or is that politician going to give greater consideration to the person who produced the fat check?

Where do you think the saying 'Money talks' originated?

Now why is it none of our business that our political process is corrupted by monied special interests that profit from activities that are detrimental to the ordinary folks in this country?

Ruth

[/quote]

[Reportanddeport]

I push an agenda that is something that I believe in that does not necessarily lead to my popularity, while a typical politician pushes an agenda that IS INTENDED to lead to his popularity. So it seems to me that a poltician's greatest interest is in him or herself, and not in acting in accordance with YOUR wishes or any other individual's.

It seems to me that if all you ever vote for is bums, then all you're ever gonna get is bums. It is because YOU THE VOTER can't tell who is and is not a bum that you keep voting for a string of bums.

There ARE bad people. And I think you are one of them, because you deny they exist, thus giving scum the cover it needs to survive.

Eliot Spitzer is a good example of scum that you want to protect. Whether he served my interests or your interests, Spitzer was a scumbag and it's good that he's gone.

If invisible people are more powerful than visible people, then I don't see what complaining about it is going to accomplsh, since no one knows who you're talking about, what they did, where they are or why they do what they do. It seems to me that your BELIEF in invisble people is an invention within your mind to help explain the things you don't understand.

It seems to me that conspiracy theories begin when the facts end but your mind keeps going.

I have lived long enough to see the "bums" thrown out multiple times and replaced by "the people's" candidates only to see them transform into the next set of bums. They find themselves in a system that requires the very behavior we abhor in order to get anything done. It demonstrates the assertion by Bucky Fuller that there are no bad people, only bad systems (and I would protests that occasionally there are bad people).

Money is not the only corrupting influence in the halls of power. Threats of violence and public embarrassment are also corrupting influences. When Elliot Spitzer became too ambitious in going after people on Wall Street, they spilled the beans on his addiction to prostitutes. There is a cautionary term now used in politcal circles in relation to challenging the powers-that-be: being Wellstoned.

"Great nations are simply the operating fronts of behind-the-scenes, vastly ambitious individuals who have become so effectively powerful because of their ability to remain invisible while operating behind the national scenery." – R. Buckminster Fuller

[phooph]

Most people are politically lazy and unwilling to look beyond campaign advertizing and the latest debate to figure out what's really going on. Last night's debate between Clinton and Obama had the highest viewer rating of any debate in history, yet it took a distant second place to all the sitcoms on other channels. How do you address apathy?

OK, then if there is full disclosure, then you know who is buying who and you know who not to vote for.

I don't want to work one minute longer to support someone's campaign, whether I agree with the candidate or not. YOU do it with YOUR money. Just get your laws off of me and get your hands off my wallet.

The politicians ARE being bought off by the corps that want illegal aliens. And there is a general awakening among the American people to that fact. So what a representative republic will do is to get rid of the politicians that represent the interests of the corps over the interests of the people.

The votes politicians make will depend on whatever they think will get them re-elected. Politicians are surfers, riding the waves of the public into office. And if your political whore is winning because your whore bought the best advertizing agency, then it shows that the people are swayed by slick advertizing over the substance of the candidate.

You can and SHOULD learn all there is to know about who is buying who, and spread that information to whoever will listen. And people will vote according to who and what they believe.

[/QUOTE]

[phooph]

Me thinks you misunderstand me.

I have seen many "real people" voted into office to replace bums, but in order to work within the politcal process, which is a battleground between competing interests, they end up becoming the next bums. The political system requires co-operation and compromise. If the "real people" don't work with the system they are marginalized and can get nothing done.

I recommend you have a conversation with a local politician about the political process. Better yet, run for a local office and if you get elected you can learn about it from the inside.

Ruth

PS: Maybe you can explain to me how you possibly draw some of the conclusions about me that you do. Where did I say I liked Eliott Spitzer? How do you know who I vote for?

I push an agenda that is something that I believe in that does not necessarily lead to my popularity, while a typical politician pushes an agenda that IS INTENDED to lead to his popularity. So it seems to me that a poltician's greatest interest is in him or herself, and not in acting in accordance with YOUR wishes or any other individual's.

It seems to me that if all you ever vote for is bums, then all you're ever gonna get is bums. It is because YOU THE VOTER can't tell who is and is not a bum that you keep voting for a string of bums.

There ARE bad people. And I think you are one of them, because you deny they exist, thus giving scum the cover it needs to survive.

Eliot Spitzer is a good example of scum that you want to protect. Whether he served my interests or your interests, Spitzer was a scumbag and it's good that he's gone.

If invisible people are more powerful than visible people, then I don't see what complaining about it is going to accomplsh, since no one knows who you're talking about, what they did, where they are or why they do what they do. It seems to me that your BELIEF in invisble people is an invention within your mind to help explain the things you don't understand.

It seems to me that conspiracy theories begin when the facts end but your mind keeps going.

[Dark Shadows]

What is the purpose of a border anyway? To keep people out who originally migrated from here? You may say it's to protect people. Protect them from what? We have laws here that make criminals out of citizens, so if there are cirminals on both sides of the border, what on earth could you be trying to secure?

[Braggi]

We vote them out of office and vote in real people who support it. We can accomplish this in the next election. ... [snip]

That would be nice if it were true. Sadly, the system supports the incumbent so much more than a challenger, it's very difficult to dislodge the old guard. Public financing of elections is about the only thing that's likely to improve that problem.

... politicians think it validates their existence, that they're "working on important legislation" when really they're pretending that they're working. Most of these bills come with hidden bills inside of bills, designed to protect special interests and donors' pet interests and the truth is, don't we have ENOUGH LAWS ALREADY?!?

Look at that Don! We pretty much totally agree on all this. How about a congressional prohibition on "riders" on bills. No more hidden legislation? No more "fast track" of any bill? That way they can't shove all this crap down out throats without public debate. But would it grind Congressional action to a halt? I doubt it, but it would be a good thing to slow all these very expensive decisions down a whole lot.

Imagine if they couldn't hide all that spending?

-Jeff

[babaruss]

What is the purpose of a border anyway? To keep people out who originally migrated from here? You may say it's to protect people. Protect them from what? We have laws here that make criminals out of citizens, so if there are cirminals on both sides of the border, what on earth could you be trying to secure?

I have made the transition long ago ...from flag waving, hand on heart, blind patriot long ago.
Who cares who comes here looking for a new life.
America is supposed to stand for land of opportunity.
Just because a bunch of frightened, unenlightened, people put laws in books to 'protect their alleged rights' is no reason to recognize the truth that migrating people has been on the move long before civilizations, let alone laws were ever written.
Who to hell are we to demand a country be closed to all but those we deem acceptable.
I have ancestors who wiped out indiginous people many years ago.
I have ancestors who were indiginous people, ancestors who were slaves, both Irish, and Black.
Fear of whatever kind, coupled with an arrogant sense of entitlement, is not sufficient grounds for building walls anywhere.
Grumble gripe mumble
Russ

[Braggi]

I do want to comment on the cost effectiveness of investing in Mexican infrastructure (as in, teaching them how to build topsoil and other permaculture techniques versus building a fence as long as the Great Wall.

Perhaps you all could just ponder the costs of helping out the peasants in Mexico (probably a few millions ... let's be generous and make it a few millions a year) versus the cost of a fence a thousand miles long: many billions and remember all the ongoing expenses including law enforcement personnel to police it, repair persons to fix the holes that will be cut into it nightly, jails to hold all the offenders captured, processing centers to deal with the invaders and on and on. It will cost hundreds of billions over its lifetime. For what? Who will be helped by this monument to our failed trade policies and mismanagement of our own labor forces? What a blight on the face of the planet. Imagine the deaths of all the migratory land animals that take that route. It's so sick.

Anyway, imagine which method will keep more Mexicans in Mexico? Good employment on their own land serving their own markets (once Nafta and GATT are written off) or putting one more obstacle in the way of people that have overcome hundreds of obstacles already to make it that far. Think they'll give up at that point for some chain link wire? Will they just say to themselves, "Wow! A wire fence. Surely I must turn around and go back to Guatemala." I doubt it. How stupid to think it would do anything to slow illegal immigration.

The fence is nothing more than another tax that will be funneled to a large corporation to build (Boeing, IIRC) and several others to staff and maintain. Maybe the contract for that will go to Blackwater.

Oh well. I went and wrote about it anyway. Just some quick thoughts.

-Jeff

[thewholetruth]

"Public financing of elections is about the only thing that's likely to improve that problem."

I agree.

"Look at that Don! We pretty much totally agree on all this. How about a congressional prohibition on "riders" on bills. No more hidden legislation? No more "fast track" of any bill? That way they can't shove all this crap down out throats without public debate. But would it grind Congressional action to a halt? I doubt it, but it would be a good thing to slow all these very expensive decisions down a whole lot.

Imagine if they couldn't hide all that spending?"

I hear ya, Jeff. I'm right alongside you on this one. It was bound to happen sooner or later, that we'd find agreement on something. LOL There are probably more things than this upon which we agree, but for now, let me not dillute the sweetness of this surprising, yet pleasant discovery.

Don

That would be nice if it were true. Sadly, the system supports the incumbent so much more than a challenger, it's very difficult to dislodge the old guard. Public financing of elections is about the only thing that's likely to improve that problem.

Look at that Don! We pretty much totally agree on all this. How about a congressional prohibition on "riders" on bills. No more hidden legislation? No more "fast track" of any bill? That way they can't shove all this crap down out throats without public debate. But would it grind Congressional action to a halt? I doubt it, but it would be a good thing to slow all these very expensive decisions down a whole lot.

Imagine if they couldn't hide all that spending?

-Jeff

[Valley Oak]

Sharp observations, Jeff. The idea of Blackwater getting the contract to police the border is chilling. Made me wonder if we might start seeing cases of mysterious, mass executions of Mexicans along the border or some such thing. With all that experience in Iraq and many of the border areas being desert, well, hey, it would be as if they never left!

Edward

I do want to comment on the cost effectiveness of investing in Mexican infrastructure (as in, teaching them how to build topsoil and other permaculture techniques versus building a fence as long as the Great Wall.

Perhaps you all could just ponder the costs of helping out the peasants in Mexico (probably a few millions ... let's be generous and make it a few millions a year) versus the cost of a fence a thousand miles long: many billions and remember all the ongoing expenses including law enforcement personnel to police it, repair persons to fix the holes that will be cut into it nightly, jails to hold all the offenders captured, processing centers to deal with the invaders and on and on. It will cost hundreds of billions over its lifetime. For what? Who will be helped by this monument to our failed trade policies and mismanagement of our own labor forces? What a blight on the face of the planet. Imagine the deaths of all the migratory land animals that take that route. It's so sick.

Anyway, imagine which method will keep more Mexicans in Mexico? Good employment on their own land serving their own markets (once Nafta and GATT are written off) or putting one more obstacle in the way of people that have overcome hundreds of obstacles already to make it that far. Think they'll give up at that point for some chain link wire? Will they just say to themselves, "Wow! A wire fence. Surely I must turn around and go back to Guatemala." I doubt it. How stupid to think it would do anything to slow illegal immigration.

The fence is nothing more than another tax that will be funneled to a large corporation to build (Boeing, IIRC) and several others to staff and maintain. Maybe the contract for that will go to Blackwater.

Oh well. I went and wrote about it anyway. Just some quick thoughts.

-Jeff

[Braggi]

...
Imagine if they couldn't hide all that spending?"

I hear ya, Jeff. I'm right alongside you on this one. It was bound to happen sooner or later, that we'd find agreement on something. ...

It's not the first time: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt...3469#post53469

-Jeff

[Reportanddeport]

Well I would rather watch sitcoms than Obama and Clinton, but it's not because I don't care about America, it's because I don't care about Obama and Clinton.

If people are going to be apathetic, then you can't FORCE them to care. You can only present them with news and information and hope that they pay attention and will do the right thing. I have done that in this forum.

Most people are politically lazy and unwilling to look beyond campaign advertizing and the latest debate to figure out what's really going on. Last night's debate between Clinton and Obama had the highest viewer rating of any debate in history, yet it took a distant second place to all the sitcoms on other channels. How do you address apathy?

[/quote]