Why are Mexicans given a special privilege over other countries? If you want to immigrate here from China, good luck. But from Mexico? No problem, just keep running in until you stay long enough to have kids here.
Your ignorance is amazing. Do you know what percentage of immigrants, documented or otherwise, are from Mexico? You want privilege, look to the Irish. They can come here and not only find jobs, but get laid with no problem either. That's privilege. And yet you call risking your life, which people from all over central and South America do not just Mexicans, privilege?
Now put this guy working as in US for 1300 USD/month. It may seem to little for you, but for him, it's a dream came true.
I'm going to have to assume that this is a hypothetical number, because I have, on average, made about that much for jobs I have worked, and I was born and raised here in the US. I would guess that an illegal immigrant would make at most half that, maybe even a third.
The market tells us very clearly what that labor is worth
That is the crux of the issue, does the market really tell us this? From your answer I'll assume you're a libertarian, libertarian enough to oppose border control, apparently. I'll say I agree with you on the border control. Why is it that we allow goods to flow freely between Mexico and the U.S. and yet restrict people, clearly not because we want to "open up the markets," because if that were the case we would need to normalize all kinds of legal statutes between the two countries and allow for transnational unions. (which I, for the record, support)
So does the market really tell us what labor is worth? I'd say that under a limited definition of worth it does. That definition is the one most people, especially libertarians, use, which is essentially "what people will pay." Now, thats all well and good, but that's a circular definition. The way you use it is in such a manner as to seemingly pick out some essential quality, the worth of a job picking strawberries for example, and say that the market through its great and all knowing methodology can determine the value of this quality. So yeah, the market will tell us what the labor is worth, but oly because that is how we determinse worth.
PayPal is annoying.I can't start a new account with them because I never verified my old account which was connected to a bank account I no longer have. Not that I really want to, I wouldn't trust those guys any further than I could throw them.
Yeah, there's that problem; and also the fact that it is 100M known victims of identity theft.
On a side note, why is it that I get all these credit card offers from companies whom already have my SSN, I know you got it guys, and they tell me I'm "pre-approved" for credit, and yet I have to send all this info in?
Come on big brother! If'n you're going to know everything about me please dont make me fill out all the damn forms in triplicate!
Which is why "Google's motive is not saving money but rather continuing to retain employees with stock incentives in the face of considerable price volatility." is a bunch of nonsense. Google (possibly) found a novel way to increase the salaries of their employee with out having to pay them more.
There isn't anything wrong with saving money, especially when it can be done in a way that benefits the company and the employee.
The ice floating wouldn't cause sea level changes if it weren't for the fact that sea water is not pure water, it has salt disolved and is thus denser than the ice, so when the ice melts the sea water rises.
1) Iraq stopped being a threat after the first gulf war. 15 years of sanctions sufficiently crippled the regime. Even before that it took American support for them to be a threat to Iran.
2)Capturing one man is an excuse for a war that has killed tens to hundreds of thousands of people? Sorry, if this was a goal then I would consider our action failure.
3) There was no goal to prove that there was no WMD program, the goal was for Saddam to not have WMDs.
Nope. Evacuating one's embassy under fire is a defeat. An enemy's flag on your government building(s) is a defeat.
But feel free to pretend otherwise.
Funny, I would consider what amounts to a complete failure to accomplish any goals we started out with as a defeat.
As for our government buildings being occupied, of course that doesn't happen, nor will it. The embassy thing, give it some time, I'd expect it before the end of next year.
I hereby put forth AoT's Corollary to Godwin's Law. Whenever someone calls others French in a sad attempt to imply that they are the proverbial "surrender-monkey" the thread is officially over.
Try ignoring the media and talking to your soldiers some time if you want a realistic picture of how things are going in Iraq.
Sure, I'll run right over there and ask them. Or maybe I'll check our some picture they can no longer send. Oh, wait I know I'll ask someone who is essentially *ordered* to have a positive outlook how things are going.
Maybe you need to go ask an Iraqi how things are going.
Quote:In a recent intelligence assessment, senior Marine Intelligence Officer in al-Anbar, Col. Peter Devlin, concluded that without a massive infusement of more troops, the battle in al-Anbar is unwinnable.
That sounds like defeat to me, but feel free to pretend otherwise.
I'm not as worried about the Shiite dominated area. I think that, in the long run, Arab/Persian tension will keep them from being dominated by Iran. It would be nice to have alternative leadership for the Shiite world.
You should be worried, of course given your apparent dearth of knowledge about the region it is no surprise you see it that way. But here's the problem: Saudi Arabia also has Shi'a areas. And, surprise, surprise, those area have oil. You separate the Shi'a in Iraq and they get a base of operations to foment resistance to the Saudi regime.
As for the Sunni area? They basically become irrelevant, especially since Baghdad will become Shiite. The Saudis will likely step in and offer some sort of support to stabilize this area.
Wow, tacit approval of ethnic cleansing, nice.
All in all you seem to miss the point, the US in reality has no say on whether Iraq splits or not, there is and will continue to be a civil war which will decide these matters.
Arguing about whether it was right for the US to invade Iraq is rather academic now - however, if the US quits now, you can expect it to be spun as a huge victory for radical Islam. It will also destroy what little credibility the US has left.
Man, what world do you live in? Credibility, the US? I think that was gone a while ago. As for "the terrorists winning", nonsense, the US is not going to win in Iraq and the only people whom do not already see that the insurgents there have defeated the US are the "optimists" like you.
P.S. sorry to be so harsh, but when optimism consists of hoping the UN will help out there isn't much hope left.
Scientific consensus is the closest we can get to proofs of hypotheses, again, if you have some method of proving inductive logic or even explaining how we can get true knowledge about the world through mediated experiences then I'm all ears, but I suspect that you don't even really understand the problems.
"Consensus is NOT proof. I don't know how else to say this. When someone tells you that there is a consensus among scientists on a certain issue, they have proved nothing about the issue itself.. I'm not arguing that global warming is not real, or is not the fault of humans. But I'm tired of people trying to strong-arm me into acquiescing to the point using blatantly un-scientific methods."
If you have a method of proving things about the world I would love to see it.
Slashdot Mirror
Why are Mexicans given a special privilege over other countries? If you want to immigrate here from China, good luck. But from Mexico? No problem, just keep running in until you stay long enough to have kids here.
Your ignorance is amazing. Do you know what percentage of immigrants, documented or otherwise, are from Mexico? You want privilege, look to the Irish. They can come here and not only find jobs, but get laid with no problem either. That's privilege. And yet you call risking your life, which people from all over central and South America do not just Mexicans, privilege?
Now put this guy working as in US for 1300 USD/month. It may seem to little for you, but for him, it's a dream came true.
I'm going to have to assume that this is a hypothetical number, because I have, on average, made about that much for jobs I have worked, and I was born and raised here in the US. I would guess that an illegal immigrant would make at most half that, maybe even a third.
The market tells us very clearly what that labor is worth
That is the crux of the issue, does the market really tell us this? From your answer I'll assume you're a libertarian, libertarian enough to oppose border control, apparently. I'll say I agree with you on the border control. Why is it that we allow goods to flow freely between Mexico and the U.S. and yet restrict people, clearly not because we want to "open up the markets," because if that were the case we would need to normalize all kinds of legal statutes between the two countries and allow for transnational unions. (which I, for the record, support)
So does the market really tell us what labor is worth? I'd say that under a limited definition of worth it does. That definition is the one most people, especially libertarians, use, which is essentially "what people will pay." Now, thats all well and good, but that's a circular definition. The way you use it is in such a manner as to seemingly pick out some essential quality, the worth of a job picking strawberries for example, and say that the market through its great and all knowing methodology can determine the value of this quality. So yeah, the market will tell us what the labor is worth, but oly because that is how we determinse worth.
PayPal is annoying.I can't start a new account with them because I never verified my old account which was connected to a bank account I no longer have. Not that I really want to, I wouldn't trust those guys any further than I could throw them.
Nice idea, but we don't need high-tech transparent transistors. Existing HUD technology would do the job just fine.
And I'm sure the transparent display would cost a lot more to fix.
Which means all car windshields should be made of it in about 10 years.
Yeah, there's that problem; and also the fact that it is 100M known victims of identity theft.
On a side note, why is it that I get all these credit card offers from companies whom already have my SSN, I know you got it guys, and they tell me I'm "pre-approved" for credit, and yet I have to send all this info in?
Come on big brother! If'n you're going to know everything about me please dont make me fill out all the damn forms in triplicate!
Which is why "Google's motive is not saving money but rather continuing to retain employees with stock incentives in the face of considerable price volatility." is a bunch of nonsense. Google (possibly) found a novel way to increase the salaries of their employee with out having to pay them more.
There isn't anything wrong with saving money, especially when it can be done in a way that benefits the company and the employee.
The ice floating wouldn't cause sea level changes if it weren't for the fact that sea water is not pure water, it has salt disolved and is thus denser than the ice, so when the ice melts the sea water rises.
mostly water.
Point by Point
1) Iraq stopped being a threat after the first gulf war. 15 years of sanctions sufficiently crippled the regime. Even before that it took American support for them to be a threat to Iran.
2)Capturing one man is an excuse for a war that has killed tens to hundreds of thousands of people? Sorry, if this was a goal then I would consider our action failure.
3) There was no goal to prove that there was no WMD program, the goal was for Saddam to not have WMDs.
You must live in some alternate world where there was a threat to the US from Iraq.
So what happens after we bomb a bunch of cities and Saddam still doesn't cough up the non-existent WMDs?
Nope. Evacuating one's embassy under fire is a defeat. An enemy's flag on your government building(s) is a defeat.
But feel free to pretend otherwise.
Funny, I would consider what amounts to a complete failure to accomplish any goals we started out with as a defeat.
As for our government buildings being occupied, of course that doesn't happen, nor will it. The embassy thing, give it some time, I'd expect it before the end of next year.
My goodness, I knew it was only a matter of time.
I hereby put forth AoT's Corollary to Godwin's Law. Whenever someone calls others French in a sad attempt to imply that they are the proverbial "surrender-monkey" the thread is officially over.
Goodnight.
Try ignoring the media and talking to your soldiers some time if you want a realistic picture of how things are going in Iraq.
Sure, I'll run right over there and ask them. Or maybe I'll check our some picture they can no longer send. Oh, wait I know I'll ask someone who is essentially *ordered* to have a positive outlook how things are going.
Maybe you need to go ask an Iraqi how things are going.
Good point, but we're talking about Iraq. The only plans available besides withdrawal are counterproductive.
Really?
Then why are we going to quit the al-Anbar province
Quote:In a recent intelligence assessment, senior Marine Intelligence Officer in al-Anbar, Col. Peter Devlin, concluded that without a massive infusement of more troops, the battle in al-Anbar is unwinnable.
That sounds like defeat to me, but feel free to pretend otherwise.
Never mind that it's technically impossible for them to lose,
Hmmm, never thought of that. I guess since we don't have any goals in Iraq then it's impossible to fail at those goals, ergo we cannot lose.
Good god man, you're a genius.
Call the white house.
Stupidity on Slashdot brought to you by NeoFascist trolls via generous donations of talking points from the retard right.
Go team, go!
I'm not as worried about the Shiite dominated area. I think that, in the long run, Arab/Persian tension will keep them from being dominated by Iran. It would be nice to have alternative leadership for the Shiite world.
You should be worried, of course given your apparent dearth of knowledge about the region it is no surprise you see it that way. But here's the problem: Saudi Arabia also has Shi'a areas. And, surprise, surprise, those area have oil. You separate the Shi'a in Iraq and they get a base of operations to foment resistance to the Saudi regime.
As for the Sunni area? They basically become irrelevant, especially since Baghdad will become Shiite. The Saudis will likely step in and offer some sort of support to stabilize this area.
Wow, tacit approval of ethnic cleansing, nice.
All in all you seem to miss the point, the US in reality has no say on whether Iraq splits or not, there is and will continue to be a civil war which will decide these matters.
Arguing about whether it was right for the US to invade Iraq is rather academic now - however, if the US quits now, you can expect it to be spun as a huge victory for radical Islam. It will also destroy what little credibility the US has left.
Man, what world do you live in? Credibility, the US? I think that was gone a while ago. As for "the terrorists winning", nonsense, the US is not going to win in Iraq and the only people whom do not already see that the insurgents there have defeated the US are the "optimists" like you.
P.S. sorry to be so harsh, but when optimism consists of hoping the UN will help out there isn't much hope left.
It's a simple one step process we can follow to its finish:
Step one: Leave Iraq.
Taadaa!!! Problems solved.
Don't tell anyone we can't win, we Americans hate the truth.
No, it's not. It's not even related to proof.
This is what I was talking about when I said you don't really understand the problem. You seem to miss the point of what a scientific consensus is.
Scientific consensus is the closest we can get to proofs of hypotheses, again, if you have some method of proving inductive logic or even explaining how we can get true knowledge about the world through mediated experiences then I'm all ears, but I suspect that you don't even really understand the problems.
"Consensus is NOT proof. I don't know how else to say this. When someone tells you that there is a consensus among scientists on a certain issue, they have proved nothing about the issue itself.. I'm not arguing that global warming is not real, or is not the fault of humans. But I'm tired of people trying to strong-arm me into acquiescing to the point using blatantly un-scientific methods."
If you have a method of proving things about the world I would love to see it.