I think a good part of it is regulation. Not just federal regulation either, though a lot of EPA and OSHA and other regulations don't help either.
Before anybody screams about libertarianism or small-goverment or even socialism lets take a dispassionate look at things.
In 1960 if you wanted to start a business washing cars you rented a place, hired some people and dumped your dirty water either in the street or the sewers. In other words you externalized your disposal cost.
The same thing if you had a company that constructed batteries. You dumped your used chemicals somewhere at no cost. You externalized your disposal costs.
Now the EPA came along and suddenly you have to pay fro proper disposal. Your company is less profitable. The small guys, the ones most likely to running on the edges with little profit now become unprofitable.
So prohibiting companies from externalizing their disposal cost is good for society, however it does reduce the number of new business that are started because it raises the bar necessary to enter the market. This might be a societal bad, but on balance is better than allow cost externalization that we all pay, in both cost and reduced quality of life.
Do this for a number of decades and of course you're going to see a decline in the number of new business.
Would that be the Republicans, not one of which voted for it or had any say in the contents of the bill?
You can't have it both ways. If the ACA sucks it's because the Democrats passed it. If it's great its because Democrats passed it.
Anyone with a brain knew that if you make a business take on a large cost for employees who work more than 30 hrs a week all of a sudden there's going to be a lot more employees working 29 hours a week. So now instead of working 32-40 hours a week and not having benefits you get to work 29 hours a week and don't have benefits. So less money and still no benefits.
I have no problem with five different network structures hanging off a pole, but it's not necessary that be the case. There are lots of ways to fix the problem.
One is to do what the government did in US vs. Paramount Pictures et. al. Prevent ISPs from owning companies that create content. At the same time prevent exclusive contracts for content.
Allow municipalities to own networks, just like they do water and sewage. If internet is a utility that should go to every structure then let the city own the pipes. Users pay the ISPs for access to the wider Internet and all ISPs pay the city the same for use of the pipes all the way to the structures.
Absolutely make it illegal for a local government to give a company exclusive access.
Address the rural problem. Once you get out of the metropolitan corridors there is no broadband at all. Without the Rural Electrification Act there would have been no electricity outside cities and towns. We need a Rural Internet Act that does the same thing, else we're never going to get people in most of the nation hooked up.
This is why both the mainstream Republicans and the Democrats are terrified of Trump and what he will do. I don't agree with everything he does, but it's quite clear to me he intends to fulfill everyone of his campaign promises, and he intends to fight dirty to do it.
His EO to end family separation is an example. I have no doubt in my mind it is illegal and if taken to court will be struck down. But who's gonna do that? Do you want to be the guy who takes the US to court to reinstate family separation?
I think people better start taking a closer look at what Trump promised to do in his campaign. I expect there are a few things in there that both opponents and supporters said, "That's really great/terrible but he's not really gonna do that." I think they're going to be surprised again.
I lived through the closest chance this country had to get a third party during the 1990s. And I saw why the likelihood of there ever being a third party in the US is vanishingly small.
Plenty of people supported Perot at the beginning because they were so discussed with both Republicans and the Democrats. That worked out great until he actually started to take policy positions. As soon as he did that he started to lose support. That's because everybody hates the Democrats and Republicans, but they hate them for all different reasons.
The Democrats are too socialist. The Democrats are not socialist enough. The Republicans are not isolationist enough. the Republicans do not push US international leadership enough. The government should support content providers more. the government should support content creators more. Anti-choice. Pro-choice. Etc.
We need to face that neither party really supports all we believe in or think should be done. Yes money is an overriding force in politics. But we should also face the fact that without money in the mix no one can run for office. Even in places that have laws to limit expenditures money plays a part and poor slups still don't get elected to office. How many carpenters, IT professions or bakers hold office anywhere in Europe? How many hold national (as opposed to local office)? No it's all business people, lawyers, doctors and people with money. That's how the world works.
First off the law is a misdemeanor. You don't rip kids from families for a misdemeanor. You just don't.
That is just not factual. If you get picked up for DWI, which is a misdemeanor, and you have children. Guess what? You're going to jail. If your children are home alone (or in the car) they are going to social services.
If you don't make bail, which is likely if there is an 80% chance you won't show up in court then social services either places your kids in foster care or they go to a holding facility.
Guess what? You just got your children taken away because you committed a misdemeanor.
This is the Democrats fault. They had the presidency and both houses of congress. They could have fixed the immigration mess if they wanted to. They didn't want to. They still don't want to. This is the same policy Obama had. Heck even the pictures being used are from the Obama era not the Trump era.
This whole thing is being orchestrated by the left to stop zero tolerance for law breakers who jump the border. It's based on lies. None of these people are eligible for asylum under present law. The US doesn't give asylum to people just because they're poor.
I think that is BS, because our laws should allow for more open immigration. But we can't do that until we can control who enters, and the Democrats have no interest in controlling who enters. They would rather support MS-13 than ensure a foreign worker who just wants a chance to work legally in the US gets a chance to come in legally.
Yes they do, and somehow their politician still end up being rich and from the monied class.
It's not about how much is spent on election ads. In the US, for example, in order to be on a ballot for an election you must be registered. in order to register you must have so many signatures. How do you think people get those signatures? To do that they must have an organization. Do you think that the people who organize that kind of think work for free? If it is a national election you must be on the ballot in every state, which means an organization in every state. All that costs money. Even for a local election you need an office where your volunteers work. While the volunteers might be free I can tell you your PR guy, campaign manager, and caterer are going to want to be paid.
No body get elected dog catcher spending only $5000
They keep shadow accounts on people who never join Facebook. Do you really think they're ever going to throw away data that they've collected on people they actually already have the name of?
The most they're likely to do is make an account inactive so that you can't log into it anymore. They'll continue to collect data on you and if by some chance you ever log in again it will all be waiting for you. So it's a service. Right?
I think the marriage thing had two causes. One was that characters not being married meant that it was easier for the writers to introduce guest stars as romantic interests. Look at other shows of the times. Unless the show was a specific family program, like Dick Van Dyke or Danny Thomas the protagonists were almost always single.
The other is the fact that through most of history sailors and other explorers who were separated from their homes were not married. As far back as the Roman Empire only senior officers were allowed to be married. There is an old saying in the military:Lieutenants can't marry, captains may marry, majors must marry. Often lower ranked enlisted were the same way with only seniors like sergeants and above being expected to marry.
O'Brian actually talk about how most Starfleet officers don't marry. Gordi talks to his parents several times and its made clear they are both Starfleet officers and are stationed at different places, but no mention is made if they are married or not, or whether they had ever been married.
Enterprise was not Starfleet. Starfleet didn't exist at that time. As a matter of fact in the last show (occurring 10 years after the rest of the show) Archer gives the speech that leads to the formation of Starfleet.
At best Enterprise describes an experimental ship sent out by a United Earth. After the terrorist attack which destroys Florida it becomes a more or less military platform with soldiers embarked sent on a specific mission to catch/stop the terrorists.
The problem is that the story wasn't very impelling. it was obviously colored by the events of 9-11. Much of the first season was setup for the Original Series: Why do they use Red Alerts? Why does the captain have a special chair? Why is Vulcan society and government the way it is? What is the relationship between the Vulcans and the Andromidans?
Any social issues were well thought out and often solid answers on which side was right were left to the viewer to decide. Unlike modern shows where the SJW just want to preach to you. It's gotten so bad that I'm about done with the CW DC shows. I watch to see metahuman's kicking butt. I don't need to hear an LGTB lecture or why gun control is bad, in a story where the vigilantes are armed to the teeth and all the cops are crooked. How much sense does that make?
This has _nothing_ to do with stopping human trafficking, except as a gig-leaf for those who still don't realise that 'someone' is using human misery as a political distraction.
We agree. Liberals and the Democratic party are using these children as a political distraction. They don't really care about illegal immigrants because if they did they would have done something about immigration a decade ago when they controlled the presidency and both houses of congress with a filibuster proof majority.
So what percent of criminals should the government actually prosecute? Since you don't like 100% you must have some other number in mind. Is it 10%? 5%? 0%?.
I elect my government representatives to enforce 100% of the laws. If members of the legislature don't like the laws let them change them. The best way to get a bad law changes is to enforce it. If you ignore it it gets selectively enforced and becomes a weapon of the government against the people.
When 100,000 illegal immigrants invade your country in less than a year you are under invasion. Most countries would have called out the military by now. The legislature would have declared war on the country from whom the invaders are coming.
Personally I think are immigration laws suck. But I also think the Congress, who is responsible for passing laws, are the ones who need to fix them.
The one you get by appearing at a port of entry or US Embassy or consulate overseas. You fill out paperwork and when your asylum is approved you enter the US.
Of course something like 95% of these people don't qualify for asylum, which is why they're trying to sneak in.
Why throw the parents in one cage and the children in a different cage? Why not keep them together?
Because the USSC handed down a ruling that prevented holding parents and children together. It's the law. You know the thing that sets behavior in a country run under the rule of law instead the rule of man (with a pen and a phone).
Even if you ignore the humanitarian grounds, it surely costs more to provide free childcare that the parents would otherwise have given.
Agree. So congress should pass a law fixing the problem. Securing the border is the first part. Changing immigration law to open access for non asylum seekers who are not terrorist or criminals is another, but you can't do the second part until you do the first part.
Let's drop the pretence. This is being done to put pressure on the Democrats and to discourage migrants. It's not a legal requirement or procedural issue, it's a deliberate decision to separate children from their parents for political reasons.
Yes let's stop the pretense. The previous administration separated children from their parents also, until Obama illegally instituted catch and release (a program with a 80% failure to appear rate.) It is absolutely a legal requirement unless the DHS ignores a Supreme Court ruling. But I guess we just ignore laws we don't like.
Making an issue of it is a deliberate decision to force the administration either ignore the law or look bad by infusing the issue with emotional terms like 'concentration camp' when most of these children never had it so good. Let's not forget that 11,000 of these children are unaccompanied minors. Children whose parents sent them over the border without them.
They are if they don't present themselves at a port of entry or a US embassy in a foreign country.
Under US law they are not allowed to just cross the border. There is a place for them to report and a process fro them to get in. They choose to ignore it because they know there chances for them to actually get legal asylum are pretty slim. For example if they are from Mexico and only want to enter because they are poor they have 0% chance of getting in for the next 60 years or so.
I think that sucks. But the right answer is to change the law. Write your congress person and tell them that you're sick of the Democrats using immigration and kids as political leverage. They can fix the problem tomorrow by fixing the law. They didn't bother to do it when they had the presidency and both houses of congress, and a filibuster proof majority. They were more interested in giving the insurance companies a wet dream over healthcare.
That wasn't misinformation. The military only cares about military effectiveness. If a radiation dose doesn't make you immediately militarily ineffective it's not considered a lethal dose.
So any dose rate that results in you still being militarily effective for the next 24 hours isn't lethal as far as they're concerned. You can die after you win the battle.
Then a year or so to isolate who cause the infection, and about 30 minutes to turn them into a green glass sheet, because when you screw with a nations ability to survive they pretty much don't care if people get mad at them because nuke you.
I remember it well. Local affiliate of networks called me requesting I call the cable company telling them I wanted to ensure they paid to keep carrying their signal. The shill didn't know what to say when I told them their stuff was dregs and I'd be glad if the cable company stopped carrying them all together.
Most of the networks have been living off of sports broadcasting for years, but the leagues are starting to get smart. They can sell access directly to viewers and not have to deal with the networks at all. Once that happens the major reason anyone wants live access is gone. Goodbye networks.
Since its only the US I guess Australia has never taken action to prevent asylum seekers from Indonesia from entering their country. Offshore detention is just a myth? Are Australian detention centers concentration camps?
I'm not picking on Australia. They have a perfect right to control immigrants, just as the US does.
Is Greece running 'concentration camps' because they don't want to be overrun by economic refugees? They're actively processing people in their refugee camps and still it takes sometimes up to a year to decide whether someone is an actual refugee or just poor, because like under US law, just being poor is not a reason to give someone asylum. So are they running 'concentration camps'?
Not picking on Greece here because the European Union has the right to determine who they want to let into their borders
I'm just sick of people blaming the US because we don't have open borders either.
The use of the phrase "concentration camp" is a disingenuous PR stunt. It is intended to invoke an emotional response that cannot be defended against. So I guess in your worldview any time Social Services places a child in an institutional setting because their parents have abused them they are being placed in a 'concentration camp'? And make no mistake using you child as a pawn in a bid to invade a sovereign nation is abuse.
What do you expect the DHS to do? Allow invaders to enter our country unmolested? That's right I said invaders. What else would you call tens of thousands of foreign nationals assaulting our borders?
Get 10,000 of your closest friends and try to enter Canada and see the kind of reception you get. Or try the same thing with France or Australia
A country that cannot defend its sovereign boarders from invaders has no sovereignty.
Sorry Mr. Ratzo but entering the US illegally is still a crime. That means that if you enter the US illegally you have committed a crime.
If you want asylum there are two ways that you can request it legally. you can appear at a port of entry and request asylum or you can go to a US Embassy in your home or another country and request asylum
It doesn't matter though because both of us know that none of these people would be granted asylum anyway. In the US being poor is not a valid cause for being granted asylum. Being the target of a criminal gang is not a valid cause for being granted asylum
That's the law. Don't like it? Get congress to change the law. I don't like seeing kids separated from their parents and used a pawns either. I blame their parents, who either chose to break US law by crossing the border illegally or encouraged them to cross the border illegally unaccompanied. I also blame the Democrats who could have spent their time in 2010 when they held the presidency and both houses of congress fixing immigration, instead of trying to destroy our healthcare system. But of course Democrats don't want to fix immigration. Having large numbers of illegal immigrants serves their purpose. Fixing the problem would not.
Slashdot Mirror
I think a good part of it is regulation. Not just federal regulation either, though a lot of EPA and OSHA and other regulations don't help either.
Before anybody screams about libertarianism or small-goverment or even socialism lets take a dispassionate look at things.
In 1960 if you wanted to start a business washing cars you rented a place, hired some people and dumped your dirty water either in the street or the sewers. In other words you externalized your disposal cost.
The same thing if you had a company that constructed batteries. You dumped your used chemicals somewhere at no cost. You externalized your disposal costs.
Now the EPA came along and suddenly you have to pay fro proper disposal. Your company is less profitable. The small guys, the ones most likely to running on the edges with little profit now become unprofitable.
So prohibiting companies from externalizing their disposal cost is good for society, however it does reduce the number of new business that are started because it raises the bar necessary to enter the market. This might be a societal bad, but on balance is better than allow cost externalization that we all pay, in both cost and reduced quality of life.
Do this for a number of decades and of course you're going to see a decline in the number of new business.
Would that be the Republicans, not one of which voted for it or had any say in the contents of the bill?
You can't have it both ways. If the ACA sucks it's because the Democrats passed it. If it's great its because Democrats passed it.
Anyone with a brain knew that if you make a business take on a large cost for employees who work more than 30 hrs a week all of a sudden there's going to be a lot more employees working 29 hours a week. So now instead of working 32-40 hours a week and not having benefits you get to work 29 hours a week and don't have benefits. So less money and still no benefits.
Was it an error? Or did the exiting manager purposefully 'forget' to renew his contract?
I have no problem with five different network structures hanging off a pole, but it's not necessary that be the case. There are lots of ways to fix the problem.
One is to do what the government did in US vs. Paramount Pictures et. al. Prevent ISPs from owning companies that create content. At the same time prevent exclusive contracts for content.
Allow municipalities to own networks, just like they do water and sewage. If internet is a utility that should go to every structure then let the city own the pipes. Users pay the ISPs for access to the wider Internet and all ISPs pay the city the same for use of the pipes all the way to the structures.
Absolutely make it illegal for a local government to give a company exclusive access.
Address the rural problem. Once you get out of the metropolitan corridors there is no broadband at all. Without the Rural Electrification Act there would have been no electricity outside cities and towns. We need a Rural Internet Act that does the same thing, else we're never going to get people in most of the nation hooked up.
This.
This is why both the mainstream Republicans and the Democrats are terrified of Trump and what he will do. I don't agree with everything he does, but it's quite clear to me he intends to fulfill everyone of his campaign promises, and he intends to fight dirty to do it.
His EO to end family separation is an example. I have no doubt in my mind it is illegal and if taken to court will be struck down. But who's gonna do that? Do you want to be the guy who takes the US to court to reinstate family separation?
I think people better start taking a closer look at what Trump promised to do in his campaign. I expect there are a few things in there that both opponents and supporters said, "That's really great/terrible but he's not really gonna do that." I think they're going to be surprised again.
I lived through the closest chance this country had to get a third party during the 1990s. And I saw why the likelihood of there ever being a third party in the US is vanishingly small.
Plenty of people supported Perot at the beginning because they were so discussed with both Republicans and the Democrats. That worked out great until he actually started to take policy positions. As soon as he did that he started to lose support. That's because everybody hates the Democrats and Republicans, but they hate them for all different reasons.
The Democrats are too socialist. The Democrats are not socialist enough. The Republicans are not isolationist enough. the Republicans do not push US international leadership enough. The government should support content providers more. the government should support content creators more. Anti-choice. Pro-choice. Etc.
We need to face that neither party really supports all we believe in or think should be done. Yes money is an overriding force in politics. But we should also face the fact that without money in the mix no one can run for office. Even in places that have laws to limit expenditures money plays a part and poor slups still don't get elected to office. How many carpenters, IT professions or bakers hold office anywhere in Europe? How many hold national (as opposed to local office)? No it's all business people, lawyers, doctors and people with money. That's how the world works.
First off the law is a misdemeanor. You don't rip kids from families for a misdemeanor. You just don't.
That is just not factual. If you get picked up for DWI, which is a misdemeanor, and you have children. Guess what? You're going to jail. If your children are home alone (or in the car) they are going to social services.
If you don't make bail, which is likely if there is an 80% chance you won't show up in court then social services either places your kids in foster care or they go to a holding facility.
Guess what? You just got your children taken away because you committed a misdemeanor.
This is the Democrats fault. They had the presidency and both houses of congress. They could have fixed the immigration mess if they wanted to. They didn't want to. They still don't want to. This is the same policy Obama had. Heck even the pictures being used are from the Obama era not the Trump era.
This whole thing is being orchestrated by the left to stop zero tolerance for law breakers who jump the border. It's based on lies. None of these people are eligible for asylum under present law. The US doesn't give asylum to people just because they're poor.
I think that is BS, because our laws should allow for more open immigration. But we can't do that until we can control who enters, and the Democrats have no interest in controlling who enters. They would rather support MS-13 than ensure a foreign worker who just wants a chance to work legally in the US gets a chance to come in legally.
Yes they do, and somehow their politician still end up being rich and from the monied class.
It's not about how much is spent on election ads. In the US, for example, in order to be on a ballot for an election you must be registered. in order to register you must have so many signatures. How do you think people get those signatures? To do that they must have an organization. Do you think that the people who organize that kind of think work for free? If it is a national election you must be on the ballot in every state, which means an organization in every state. All that costs money. Even for a local election you need an office where your volunteers work. While the volunteers might be free I can tell you your PR guy, campaign manager, and caterer are going to want to be paid.
No body get elected dog catcher spending only $5000
They keep shadow accounts on people who never join Facebook. Do you really think they're ever going to throw away data that they've collected on people they actually already have the name of?
The most they're likely to do is make an account inactive so that you can't log into it anymore. They'll continue to collect data on you and if by some chance you ever log in again it will all be waiting for you. So it's a service. Right?
I think the marriage thing had two causes. One was that characters not being married meant that it was easier for the writers to introduce guest stars as romantic interests. Look at other shows of the times. Unless the show was a specific family program, like Dick Van Dyke or Danny Thomas the protagonists were almost always single.
The other is the fact that through most of history sailors and other explorers who were separated from their homes were not married. As far back as the Roman Empire only senior officers were allowed to be married. There is an old saying in the military:Lieutenants can't marry, captains may marry, majors must marry. Often lower ranked enlisted were the same way with only seniors like sergeants and above being expected to marry.
O'Brian actually talk about how most Starfleet officers don't marry. Gordi talks to his parents several times and its made clear they are both Starfleet officers and are stationed at different places, but no mention is made if they are married or not, or whether they had ever been married.
Enterprise was not Starfleet. Starfleet didn't exist at that time. As a matter of fact in the last show (occurring 10 years after the rest of the show) Archer gives the speech that leads to the formation of Starfleet.
At best Enterprise describes an experimental ship sent out by a United Earth. After the terrorist attack which destroys Florida it becomes a more or less military platform with soldiers embarked sent on a specific mission to catch/stop the terrorists. The problem is that the story wasn't very impelling. it was obviously colored by the events of 9-11. Much of the first season was setup for the Original Series: Why do they use Red Alerts? Why does the captain have a special chair? Why is Vulcan society and government the way it is? What is the relationship between the Vulcans and the Andromidans?
Any social issues were well thought out and often solid answers on which side was right were left to the viewer to decide. Unlike modern shows where the SJW just want to preach to you. It's gotten so bad that I'm about done with the CW DC shows. I watch to see metahuman's kicking butt. I don't need to hear an LGTB lecture or why gun control is bad, in a story where the vigilantes are armed to the teeth and all the cops are crooked. How much sense does that make?
This has _nothing_ to do with stopping human trafficking, except as a gig-leaf for those who still don't realise that 'someone' is using human misery as a political distraction.
We agree. Liberals and the Democratic party are using these children as a political distraction. They don't really care about illegal immigrants because if they did they would have done something about immigration a decade ago when they controlled the presidency and both houses of congress with a filibuster proof majority.
So what percent of criminals should the government actually prosecute? Since you don't like 100% you must have some other number in mind. Is it 10%? 5%? 0%?.
I elect my government representatives to enforce 100% of the laws. If members of the legislature don't like the laws let them change them. The best way to get a bad law changes is to enforce it. If you ignore it it gets selectively enforced and becomes a weapon of the government against the people.
When 100,000 illegal immigrants invade your country in less than a year you are under invasion. Most countries would have called out the military by now. The legislature would have declared war on the country from whom the invaders are coming.
Personally I think are immigration laws suck. But I also think the Congress, who is responsible for passing laws, are the ones who need to fix them.
The one you get by appearing at a port of entry or US Embassy or consulate overseas. You fill out paperwork and when your asylum is approved you enter the US.
Of course something like 95% of these people don't qualify for asylum, which is why they're trying to sneak in.
Why throw the parents in one cage and the children in a different cage? Why not keep them together?
Because the USSC handed down a ruling that prevented holding parents and children together. It's the law. You know the thing that sets behavior in a country run under the rule of law instead the rule of man (with a pen and a phone).
Even if you ignore the humanitarian grounds, it surely costs more to provide free childcare that the parents would otherwise have given.
Agree. So congress should pass a law fixing the problem. Securing the border is the first part. Changing immigration law to open access for non asylum seekers who are not terrorist or criminals is another, but you can't do the second part until you do the first part.
Let's drop the pretence. This is being done to put pressure on the Democrats and to discourage migrants. It's not a legal requirement or procedural issue, it's a deliberate decision to separate children from their parents for political reasons.
Yes let's stop the pretense. The previous administration separated children from their parents also, until Obama illegally instituted catch and release (a program with a 80% failure to appear rate.) It is absolutely a legal requirement unless the DHS ignores a Supreme Court ruling. But I guess we just ignore laws we don't like.
Making an issue of it is a deliberate decision to force the administration either ignore the law or look bad by infusing the issue with emotional terms like 'concentration camp' when most of these children never had it so good. Let's not forget that 11,000 of these children are unaccompanied minors. Children whose parents sent them over the border without them.
No they aren't. They are misdemeanors.
This is very simple to resolve:
A. Don't enter my figgin' sovereign nation illegally.
B. Change the law.
They are if they don't present themselves at a port of entry or a US embassy in a foreign country.
Under US law they are not allowed to just cross the border. There is a place for them to report and a process fro them to get in. They choose to ignore it because they know there chances for them to actually get legal asylum are pretty slim. For example if they are from Mexico and only want to enter because they are poor they have 0% chance of getting in for the next 60 years or so.
I think that sucks. But the right answer is to change the law. Write your congress person and tell them that you're sick of the Democrats using immigration and kids as political leverage. They can fix the problem tomorrow by fixing the law. They didn't bother to do it when they had the presidency and both houses of congress, and a filibuster proof majority. They were more interested in giving the insurance companies a wet dream over healthcare.
That wasn't misinformation. The military only cares about military effectiveness. If a radiation dose doesn't make you immediately militarily ineffective it's not considered a lethal dose.
So any dose rate that results in you still being militarily effective for the next 24 hours isn't lethal as far as they're concerned. You can die after you win the battle.
Then a year or so to isolate who cause the infection, and about 30 minutes to turn them into a green glass sheet, because when you screw with a nations ability to survive they pretty much don't care if people get mad at them because nuke you.
Sounds to me like we need to get Rainbow Six in on this. Don't they have experience dealing with eco-terrorists using bioweapons?
I remember it well. Local affiliate of networks called me requesting I call the cable company telling them I wanted to ensure they paid to keep carrying their signal. The shill didn't know what to say when I told them their stuff was dregs and I'd be glad if the cable company stopped carrying them all together.
Most of the networks have been living off of sports broadcasting for years, but the leagues are starting to get smart. They can sell access directly to viewers and not have to deal with the networks at all. Once that happens the major reason anyone wants live access is gone. Goodbye networks.
Right 1995 McIntyre v. Ohio:
Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.
Let's see how many companies follow that rather than bending to the will of the EU. I don't have much confidence
Since its only the US I guess Australia has never taken action to prevent asylum seekers from Indonesia from entering their country. Offshore detention is just a myth? Are Australian detention centers concentration camps?
I'm not picking on Australia. They have a perfect right to control immigrants, just as the US does.
Is Greece running 'concentration camps' because they don't want to be overrun by economic refugees? They're actively processing people in their refugee camps and still it takes sometimes up to a year to decide whether someone is an actual refugee or just poor, because like under US law, just being poor is not a reason to give someone asylum. So are they running 'concentration camps'?
Not picking on Greece here because the European Union has the right to determine who they want to let into their borders
I'm just sick of people blaming the US because we don't have open borders either.
The use of the phrase "concentration camp" is a disingenuous PR stunt. It is intended to invoke an emotional response that cannot be defended against. So I guess in your worldview any time Social Services places a child in an institutional setting because their parents have abused them they are being placed in a 'concentration camp'? And make no mistake using you child as a pawn in a bid to invade a sovereign nation is abuse.
What do you expect the DHS to do? Allow invaders to enter our country unmolested? That's right I said invaders. What else would you call tens of thousands of foreign nationals assaulting our borders?
Get 10,000 of your closest friends and try to enter Canada and see the kind of reception you get. Or try the same thing with France or Australia
A country that cannot defend its sovereign boarders from invaders has no sovereignty.
Sorry Mr. Ratzo but entering the US illegally is still a crime. That means that if you enter the US illegally you have committed a crime.
If you want asylum there are two ways that you can request it legally. you can appear at a port of entry and request asylum or you can go to a US Embassy in your home or another country and request asylum
It doesn't matter though because both of us know that none of these people would be granted asylum anyway. In the US being poor is not a valid cause for being granted asylum. Being the target of a criminal gang is not a valid cause for being granted asylum
That's the law. Don't like it? Get congress to change the law. I don't like seeing kids separated from their parents and used a pawns either. I blame their parents, who either chose to break US law by crossing the border illegally or encouraged them to cross the border illegally unaccompanied. I also blame the Democrats who could have spent their time in 2010 when they held the presidency and both houses of congress fixing immigration, instead of trying to destroy our healthcare system. But of course Democrats don't want to fix immigration. Having large numbers of illegal immigrants serves their purpose. Fixing the problem would not.