If you think it is all a conspiracy, you can present evidence of such. If all you are doing is ignoring something because you don't want to believe the source, you are anti-intellectual and unthinking. If you choose to ignore it and keep it to yourself, no one will know you are intentionally stupid. If you bragg about it, then don't be upset or surprised when you get called out on it.
All it would take for you to become a blundering idiot (as in the original meaning) is for sources you think are valid for whatever reason to ignore it too. This in and of itself is cause to at least investigate the claims. Otherwise you become a mindless puppet of powers greater than you.
You should look into creating an account if you actually care. Anon posts start lower in the first place and should bypass the metamod system. You can also adjust your threshold to view negative scored posts and your post starting scores can increase once you build karma. .
But if you cannot even log in, I have little sympathy.
The links seem referenced enough to be just as valid as anything on Wikipedia or any other site. If you are dismissing it out of hand because of your dislike of the politics of the site you literally are no different than a flat earther. You even proudly proclaim it just like they do.
This isn't some hocus pocus alternative health link but your reaction is typical of the antivaxers. They made specific charges and backed them up from what i can tell with a cursory glance. You can close your eyes and claim it isn't happening all you want. It doesn't make it true. It just makes you wilfully stupid. Your argument boils down to "no way and I am not going to look " which fits the stupid model exactly. It is borderline dishonest.
Either the information is accurate or it isn't. The source doesn't matter outside that regard. If you have reasons to believe it is inaccurate outside of you not wanting to believe it, then list it. If not, either accept it or understand that you are wilfully remaining stupid and blindly ignoring information presented. You will be no better than a flat earther.
Budget burning as it is called is still wasteful if they keep the funds rather than send it back. For instance if your department has a 1 million surplus, that million can be used more effective either doing something else government should be doing or staying in the hands of taxpayers who will increase economic activity and thereby increase future revenue. But if it sits in an account because you didn't need it, neither will happen and your department will simply be over funded yet again the next year making it a hoarding situation.
What needs to happen is accurate budgeting and the ability to justify going over budget. If your budget more than needed, justify the difference as a one time thing and not have a cut on the next year's budget. But if the surplus is permanent like say technology allows two process to be combined into one or the demographics of the area changed and not as many people are using your department, there is no need to maintain the surplus amounts and there should be a cut.
Yes you are. You have a clear opportunity to communicate what you want or expect when you can actually express it via communication (language). When you cannot express it, you are frustrated endlessly by an inability to communicate.
I actually supported the Iraq war and think that it should have happened back in the 1990s when Bill Clinton was president. That being said, I did say that there was legitimate reason to criticize Bush for without making crap up. This is a legitimate criticism about something that actually happened and is presented in the context of the real situation.
While I do not agree with your conclusion (hanging), I do not fault your accumulation of facts.
He probably got the distance wrong a bit but I can see his scenario being accurate. The fatal flaw in your reasoning is that you worked through the problem he mentioned chronologically as presented. With 40 years of driving he has likely encountered similar situations where a vehicle pulled out in front of him and he had to brake because they didn't get up to road speed before he approached an assured clear distance limit. This happens a lot more often than a car pulling across two lanes and stopping to turn left. So even if it was subconscious, he likely was already anticipating a braking situation and possible lane change assuming he is intelligent enough to learn from history. It is entirely possible that his reaction time started ticking well before he realized that the car was stopping instead of continuing on.
I seen crap like that all the time when I drove an 18 wheeler. I had one idiot who forgot they were pulling a trailer and tried to dart from a side road to the medium strip to turn left into the south bound lanes. As i approached the intersection, i had already seen a car to my left beside me. The smallish SUV pulled out and I stood on the brakes going from 60 mph to about 28 mph when passing the trailer. I had to swerve right onto the shoulder and luckily due to the crossroad the shoulder was extra wide because the car beside me went right to avoid also and was probably less than a foot away from me and inches away from the trailer crossing their path. If another car had pulled up to the cross road, i would have hit them. But I'm positive that my reaction actually started before the situation required a reaction due to previous experiences. I'm really amazed that the car beside me reacted quickly enough because their view would have been obstructed by my vehicle and they would have had even less time to notice impending danger.
There is absolutely no revisionism. Perhaps English is not your first language or something so I will give you a pass on your complete ignorance but here are a few of your errors. First, it doesn't matter what Micheal Powell said, he used absolutely no regulatory power or procedure to change the classification from a telecommunications service to an information service (neither did Bush) as the idiot I originally replied to implied (probably you). Second, the Bush lawyers did nothing but kept the historical stance of the FCC since the late 1960s in which network communications were just starting to appear in telecommunications networks. They took the exact same stance the FCC under Bill Clinton took when they filed their briefs with the court saying it was an information service. Nothing was historically different.
Nothing you said changes the fact that- Neither Bush nor congress or the FCC at the time had invested any regulatory or law making abilities in making that happen (the change in classification of the internet). It was the result of a court case in which the classification changed both times. The FCC held the exact same position consistently in all the court cases involved that it had historically held since before what you would consider the internet was actually around.
Your facts seem to be born of ignorance. That or blind stupidity and hatred wanting to demonize someone at any costs that you actually believe the shit being made up. There is a reason you will not do my supposed homework. That is because you will not find any authoritative citations supporting your claim of Bush being behind it. You will if anything, find like minded idiot bloggers without the facts or links to real facts that refute the premise of Bush reclassifying the internet.
I'm not entirely sure why there aren't low power level wireless devices that can penetrate into these building from say a block away or so. Then competitors who come across a locked situation like this could place a device on the utility pole or the utility service box and not need to run wires on the property.
The downside would be a shared connection that might eventually become saturated but cable providers could possibly use something with enough bandwidth to deliver tv service also making it minimal. We certainly have the tech available and if low power is used, the same frequencies could be deployed in multiple parts of the town. The renter might need to place a box near a window ledge or something to get signal but from there, it should be as normal as regular networking through their router and stuff.
I'm just not sure why this isn't being deployed unless there isn't really enough demand/money to make it feasible.
I don't know why you are blaming Bush.. He had absolutely nothing to do with it. The FCC until recently took the position that the internet was always an information service until a court rejected the premise and made it a telecommunications service (subject to common carrier regulation) in which another court overturned that ruling taking it back to the original information service designation. Neither Bush nor congress or the FCC at the time had invested any regulatory or law making abilities in making that happen.
There are a lot of things to criticize Bush over. We do not need to make things up because of your ignorance of the matter.
There has always been exceptions to the distribution clause in the gpl. This exception covers system libraries and operating systems if they are already readily available from other normal sources.
It is possible that they do nothing more than configure an operating system for a system on chip processor with the configuration app and do not need any source code.
It is probably that one is set in the past while the other is set in the future. Starwars reflects our history or a vision of it and star trek reflects a vision of what someone wants our future to become.
Maybe Hillary can stand on the next red line and push the reset button with Russia? Shrewd indeed.
If you think Russia prefers one over the other you are naive. They simply do not care because they can walk around both with ease. With the unpredictability of trump, you have the possibility of retaliation for their aggression but he has already said we won't be the world's police so still little to fear.
You democrats never get it until it is too late anyways. You made fun of Palin for her comments about Russia invading Georgia and watched them dumbfounded and clueless as they attack our allies in Syria and take parts of the Ukraine as if you never saw that coming. Now your trying to push a narrative that Russia is afraid of Hillary and behind some major conspiracy to elect trump. Simply amazing.
I think he is referring to the penalty difference between cocaine and the cheaper derivative crack cocaine. One is more associated with whites and the other minorities and the penalty difference was eventually ruled unconstitutional.
All that blabbering and you still either refuse to pay attention or do not understand the subject matter at hand. I even attempted to spell it out for you in the simplest terms possible.
You should ask your mom to explain it to you or something.
Why? Because the feds use crap like the interstate commerce clause to push authority it doesn't have. It isn't an r or d issue either as they all do it. Most of the states have laws making federal laws applicable unless it is in conflict with a state law which gives the feds the appearance of greater powers than it have.
Not at all close. The laws are already established just like the car's specs when purchased and people are knowingly violating them. It is not a situation where one day ford comes around and removes seat belts or fires employees who would ad extra seat belts.
And what would be racists about Ford saying they have too many black employees anyways? If they are required to have a count for quotas in the first place and that is not racist, meeting those quotas certainly cannot be racist.
First, you are absolutely right. The people who knowingly employ illegals should be in prison too. Perhaps for longer terms because they are purposely exploiting the illegals for financial gain. But the issue is knowingly. If someone steals the identity of another and participates in the labor market pretending to be a citizen, it would be difficult to justify putting you in prison because you hired someone who was identical on paper to a citizen unless it is obvious that you participated in this ruse.
As to felons. Mexico doesn't grant illegals rights in the first place but the reference to felony was more of a demarcation on the prison sentence. In the U.S. any sentence over a year in length is considered a felony and misdemeanor infractions are less than a year.
It should also be noted that foreigners legally in Mexico have less rights than citizens already too. For instance, you would not have the freedom of speech in Mexico to participate in a rally trying to influence the government to change policy- whether in Mexico legally or not.
I'm not entirely disagreeing with you but it also depends on how wet the dough is. When I worked at a pizza shop, the stone bottom oven was set to 725f. We started cooking on a pan and removed the pan about 2/3 through the process. The pies only stayed in the oven about 4-5 minutes. A minute or two longer when busy due to temps dropping from the doors opening so much. We ran 2 double deck ovens (4 doors and bottoms) during peak and turned the bottom set down to 300f after the rush so it could be cranked up easily if it got busy again. They took about 4 hours to heat up after being off all night but retained most of the heat when down so it could be brought back up to temp in about 45 minutes or so if needed again.
What does overabundance mean to you? How do you reconcile the definition with the definition of xenophobia seeing how it is not foreigners that are the problem, it is too many foreigners?
What you wrote is about as ignorant as calling Ford Motor Company racist because a car they produce only seats 4 people and two people in a group of 6 minorities are left without a seat belt.
Thinking poor immigrants, or even educated immigrants, are taking your jobs is a justification for those who want to find an easy scapegoat for the problems in their life.
Who said anything about jobs? I specifically said "when it taxes a finite system of opportunities". That could include jobs or it could include taxes being allocated for different purposes than ideal, increased, and so on. Resources are not free nor are they un-exhaustible.
It is an irrational fear of these immigrants, which defines xenophobia.
There is no fear rationale or not. It is the realization that laws are in place to control who enters the country (for valid reasons) and those laws need followed else it harms the well being of the country and people within the country.
This doesn't even include the moral argument for taking in the poor of the world to give them opportunities and increase the economic pie with the immigrant work ethic that natives rarely match.
I'm not sure what this has to do with your complete misunderstanding of the illegal immigration problem or the people against it or your incorrect use of the term xenophobia.
You take one group of people who are only criminals because of horrible laws and are inadvertently comparing them with another group who are only criminals because of horrible laws.
Actually, no, I am taking one group who are criminals because of horrible laws and comparing them to another group who believe they have the right to violate state sovereignty (wars have been started for the same in the past from incursions like this). Illegal immigrants and citizens of other countries have absolutely no political say in the laws of another country unless it is specifically granted to them by said country.
If the speed limit was 10 mph, and you were considered an illegal driver for breaking it, almost everyone would be illegal drivers. That wouldn't make them dangerous drivers, it would make them a victim of horrible laws.
It doesn't really matter because I am a natural born citizen and actually have a right to be there. Illegals are not and do not have any legitimate right to be there. It simply is not the same.
We need to stop calling them illegal immigrants, and just consider them people who have broken some laws. Just like I did earlier today when I drove 45 mph in a 35 mph speed limit zone. The only reason we have 11 million immigrants breaking or immigration laws is because we do not have a sufficient naturalization process.
No, we need to treat them as criminals and put them in prison for a term just like other countries do when you violate their sovereignty. For instance, in Mexico, it is a felony with a 2 year prison sentence for illegally immigrating and if you have already been deported for it once, it is a 10 year prison sentence.
The only reason why we have over 11 million illegal immigrants is because we do not make them suffer any consequences for violating national sovereignty or participating on various felonies. How many illegals enter Mexico a year (who are not passing through to sneak into the US)? Mexico is a hell hole compared to the US but it is still a hell of a lot better than a lot of the shit holes further south. They measure their illegal immigration counts in the hundreds of thousands not millions. And they actively throw illegals in jail and deport them without any due process.
Buy I noticed your aversion to using the term illegal. It is because it ends up wrapping in all the legal immigrants who many people against the illegals actually welcome with open arms. Why are they welcomed? Because they generally become productive members of society and actually increase the well being of others. It allows you to make bigoted statements about citizens and use words like xenophobia that I'm still convinced you do not understand the meaning of.
Going by that same logic, I assume you are in favor of the states breaking off from the union as well? Why should Texans have to cater to some federal rule making body several thousand miles away? (Washington DC is a lot further away from many Americans than Brussels is from Britain).
They do not, unless Texas ceeded sovereignty to the federal government. Actually, that is what the US constitution is about. It sets a framework for for the powers of the US federal government and reserves the rest not provided for or expressly prohibited to the states and the people. The constitution united 13 separate countries (the colonies became countries) which is why this is set so differently than the UK and other areas. The states keep their sovereignty outside of what is granted to the federal government.
If you doubt me, look to Colorado and the legalization of pot. Federal law still makes it highly illegal to grow and sell. It is illegal to prescribe as medication to. But states have rights and as long as they do not venture into areas of their sovereignty surrenders to the federal government, there isn't shit that can be done about it.
Nations are just as arbitrary as the EU... the only difference being that they have (typically) been around longer so people have gotten used to them. Hopefully in a hundred years or so, people in Europe will identify themselves more as Europeans than as Dutch/French/German... And if that trend could continue, we might one day in the distant future, have a unified globe... One without jingoism and nationalistic crap.
lol.. I'm read this and it was the entire basis for my reply seeing how it is so silly. The only attempts to unify the globe that were successful enough in the past to earn a place in history were sad stories of death and oppression. I guess first you could evoke the roman empire, the British empire that the sun never set in, Hitler's Germany us another one. I guess Napoleon should be considered as well. None of those ended well and most of them went to shit in the process.
The problem is in who gets to tell others what to do. The further removed they are, the more people being ordered around want to say fuck you in reply. This idea of global unification is crazy when you cannot even get people to stop killing others over religious beliefs let alone geopolitical beliefs.
Slashdot Mirror
If you think it is all a conspiracy, you can present evidence of such. If all you are doing is ignoring something because you don't want to believe the source, you are anti-intellectual and unthinking. If you choose to ignore it and keep it to yourself, no one will know you are intentionally stupid. If you bragg about it, then don't be upset or surprised when you get called out on it.
All it would take for you to become a blundering idiot (as in the original meaning) is for sources you think are valid for whatever reason to ignore it too. This in and of itself is cause to at least investigate the claims. Otherwise you become a mindless puppet of powers greater than you.
You should look into creating an account if you actually care. Anon posts start lower in the first place and should bypass the metamod system. You can also adjust your threshold to view negative scored posts and your post starting scores can increase once you build karma. .
But if you cannot even log in, I have little sympathy.
The links seem referenced enough to be just as valid as anything on Wikipedia or any other site. If you are dismissing it out of hand because of your dislike of the politics of the site you literally are no different than a flat earther. You even proudly proclaim it just like they do.
This isn't some hocus pocus alternative health link but your reaction is typical of the antivaxers. They made specific charges and backed them up from what i can tell with a cursory glance. You can close your eyes and claim it isn't happening all you want. It doesn't make it true. It just makes you wilfully stupid. Your argument boils down to "no way and I am not going to look " which fits the stupid model exactly. It is borderline dishonest.
Either the information is accurate or it isn't. The source doesn't matter outside that regard. If you have reasons to believe it is inaccurate outside of you not wanting to believe it, then list it. If not, either accept it or understand that you are wilfully remaining stupid and blindly ignoring information presented. You will be no better than a flat earther.
Budget burning as it is called is still wasteful if they keep the funds rather than send it back. For instance if your department has a 1 million surplus, that million can be used more effective either doing something else government should be doing or staying in the hands of taxpayers who will increase economic activity and thereby increase future revenue. But if it sits in an account because you didn't need it, neither will happen and your department will simply be over funded yet again the next year making it a hoarding situation.
What needs to happen is accurate budgeting and the ability to justify going over budget. If your budget more than needed, justify the difference as a one time thing and not have a cut on the next year's budget. But if the surplus is permanent like say technology allows two process to be combined into one or the demographics of the area changed and not as many people are using your department, there is no need to maintain the surplus amounts and there should be a cut.
Yes you are. You have a clear opportunity to communicate what you want or expect when you can actually express it via communication (language). When you cannot express it, you are frustrated endlessly by an inability to communicate.
I actually supported the Iraq war and think that it should have happened back in the 1990s when Bill Clinton was president. That being said, I did say that there was legitimate reason to criticize Bush for without making crap up. This is a legitimate criticism about something that actually happened and is presented in the context of the real situation.
While I do not agree with your conclusion (hanging), I do not fault your accumulation of facts.
He probably got the distance wrong a bit but I can see his scenario being accurate. The fatal flaw in your reasoning is that you worked through the problem he mentioned chronologically as presented. With 40 years of driving he has likely encountered similar situations where a vehicle pulled out in front of him and he had to brake because they didn't get up to road speed before he approached an assured clear distance limit. This happens a lot more often than a car pulling across two lanes and stopping to turn left. So even if it was subconscious, he likely was already anticipating a braking situation and possible lane change assuming he is intelligent enough to learn from history. It is entirely possible that his reaction time started ticking well before he realized that the car was stopping instead of continuing on.
I seen crap like that all the time when I drove an 18 wheeler. I had one idiot who forgot they were pulling a trailer and tried to dart from a side road to the medium strip to turn left into the south bound lanes. As i approached the intersection, i had already seen a car to my left beside me. The smallish SUV pulled out and I stood on the brakes going from 60 mph to about 28 mph when passing the trailer. I had to swerve right onto the shoulder and luckily due to the crossroad the shoulder was extra wide because the car beside me went right to avoid also and was probably less than a foot away from me and inches away from the trailer crossing their path. If another car had pulled up to the cross road, i would have hit them. But I'm positive that my reaction actually started before the situation required a reaction due to previous experiences. I'm really amazed that the car beside me reacted quickly enough because their view would have been obstructed by my vehicle and they would have had even less time to notice impending danger.
There is absolutely no revisionism. Perhaps English is not your first language or something so I will give you a pass on your complete ignorance but here are a few of your errors. First, it doesn't matter what Micheal Powell said, he used absolutely no regulatory power or procedure to change the classification from a telecommunications service to an information service (neither did Bush) as the idiot I originally replied to implied (probably you). Second, the Bush lawyers did nothing but kept the historical stance of the FCC since the late 1960s in which network communications were just starting to appear in telecommunications networks. They took the exact same stance the FCC under Bill Clinton took when they filed their briefs with the court saying it was an information service. Nothing was historically different.
Nothing you said changes the fact that- Neither Bush nor congress or the FCC at the time had invested any regulatory or law making abilities in making that happen (the change in classification of the internet). It was the result of a court case in which the classification changed both times. The FCC held the exact same position consistently in all the court cases involved that it had historically held since before what you would consider the internet was actually around.
Your facts seem to be born of ignorance. That or blind stupidity and hatred wanting to demonize someone at any costs that you actually believe the shit being made up. There is a reason you will not do my supposed homework. That is because you will not find any authoritative citations supporting your claim of Bush being behind it. You will if anything, find like minded idiot bloggers without the facts or links to real facts that refute the premise of Bush reclassifying the internet.
I'm not entirely sure why there aren't low power level wireless devices that can penetrate into these building from say a block away or so. Then competitors who come across a locked situation like this could place a device on the utility pole or the utility service box and not need to run wires on the property.
The downside would be a shared connection that might eventually become saturated but cable providers could possibly use something with enough bandwidth to deliver tv service also making it minimal. We certainly have the tech available and if low power is used, the same frequencies could be deployed in multiple parts of the town. The renter might need to place a box near a window ledge or something to get signal but from there, it should be as normal as regular networking through their router and stuff.
I'm just not sure why this isn't being deployed unless there isn't really enough demand/money to make it feasible.
I don't know why you are blaming Bush.. He had absolutely nothing to do with it. The FCC until recently took the position that the internet was always an information service until a court rejected the premise and made it a telecommunications service (subject to common carrier regulation) in which another court overturned that ruling taking it back to the original information service designation. Neither Bush nor congress or the FCC at the time had invested any regulatory or law making abilities in making that happen.
There are a lot of things to criticize Bush over. We do not need to make things up because of your ignorance of the matter.
There has always been exceptions to the distribution clause in the gpl. This exception covers system libraries and operating systems if they are already readily available from other normal sources.
It is possible that they do nothing more than configure an operating system for a system on chip processor with the configuration app and do not need any source code.
It is probably that one is set in the past while the other is set in the future. Starwars reflects our history or a vision of it and star trek reflects a vision of what someone wants our future to become.
Maybe Hillary can stand on the next red line and push the reset button with Russia? Shrewd indeed.
If you think Russia prefers one over the other you are naive. They simply do not care because they can walk around both with ease. With the unpredictability of trump, you have the possibility of retaliation for their aggression but he has already said we won't be the world's police so still little to fear.
You democrats never get it until it is too late anyways. You made fun of Palin for her comments about Russia invading Georgia and watched them dumbfounded and clueless as they attack our allies in Syria and take parts of the Ukraine as if you never saw that coming. Now your trying to push a narrative that Russia is afraid of Hillary and behind some major conspiracy to elect trump. Simply amazing.
I think he is referring to the penalty difference between cocaine and the cheaper derivative crack cocaine. One is more associated with whites and the other minorities and the penalty difference was eventually ruled unconstitutional.
Well yeah but that is just another way of saying the same things. The rest of the GOP field had similar attitudes.
Sure they do. Except now instead of powering the processor, It is tucked into a locket kept around the processor's neck for nostalgia and luck.
All that blabbering and you still either refuse to pay attention or do not understand the subject matter at hand. I even attempted to spell it out for you in the simplest terms possible.
You should ask your mom to explain it to you or something.
Why? Because the feds use crap like the interstate commerce clause to push authority it doesn't have. It isn't an r or d issue either as they all do it. Most of the states have laws making federal laws applicable unless it is in conflict with a state law which gives the feds the appearance of greater powers than it have.
Not at all close. The laws are already established just like the car's specs when purchased and people are knowingly violating them. It is not a situation where one day ford comes around and removes seat belts or fires employees who would ad extra seat belts.
And what would be racists about Ford saying they have too many black employees anyways? If they are required to have a count for quotas in the first place and that is not racist, meeting those quotas certainly cannot be racist.
First, you are absolutely right. The people who knowingly employ illegals should be in prison too. Perhaps for longer terms because they are purposely exploiting the illegals for financial gain. But the issue is knowingly. If someone steals the identity of another and participates in the labor market pretending to be a citizen, it would be difficult to justify putting you in prison because you hired someone who was identical on paper to a citizen unless it is obvious that you participated in this ruse.
As to felons. Mexico doesn't grant illegals rights in the first place but the reference to felony was more of a demarcation on the prison sentence. In the U.S. any sentence over a year in length is considered a felony and misdemeanor infractions are less than a year.
It should also be noted that foreigners legally in Mexico have less rights than citizens already too. For instance, you would not have the freedom of speech in Mexico to participate in a rally trying to influence the government to change policy- whether in Mexico legally or not.
I'm not entirely disagreeing with you but it also depends on how wet the dough is. When I worked at a pizza shop, the stone bottom oven was set to 725f. We started cooking on a pan and removed the pan about 2/3 through the process. The pies only stayed in the oven about 4-5 minutes. A minute or two longer when busy due to temps dropping from the doors opening so much. We ran 2 double deck ovens (4 doors and bottoms) during peak and turned the bottom set down to 300f after the rush so it could be cranked up easily if it got busy again. They took about 4 hours to heat up after being off all night but retained most of the heat when down so it could be brought back up to temp in about 45 minutes or so if needed again.
Is English not your first language?
What does overabundance mean to you? How do you reconcile the definition with the definition of xenophobia seeing how it is not foreigners that are the problem, it is too many foreigners?
What you wrote is about as ignorant as calling Ford Motor Company racist because a car they produce only seats 4 people and two people in a group of 6 minorities are left without a seat belt.
I suggest you google it. You are wrong.
Who said anything about jobs? I specifically said "when it taxes a finite system of opportunities". That could include jobs or it could include taxes being allocated for different purposes than ideal, increased, and so on. Resources are not free nor are they un-exhaustible.
There is no fear rationale or not. It is the realization that laws are in place to control who enters the country (for valid reasons) and those laws need followed else it harms the well being of the country and people within the country.
I'm not sure what this has to do with your complete misunderstanding of the illegal immigration problem or the people against it or your incorrect use of the term xenophobia.
Actually, no, I am taking one group who are criminals because of horrible laws and comparing them to another group who believe they have the right to violate state sovereignty (wars have been started for the same in the past from incursions like this). Illegal immigrants and citizens of other countries have absolutely no political say in the laws of another country unless it is specifically granted to them by said country.
It doesn't really matter because I am a natural born citizen and actually have a right to be there. Illegals are not and do not have any legitimate right to be there. It simply is not the same.
No, we need to treat them as criminals and put them in prison for a term just like other countries do when you violate their sovereignty. For instance, in Mexico, it is a felony with a 2 year prison sentence for illegally immigrating and if you have already been deported for it once, it is a 10 year prison sentence.
The only reason why we have over 11 million illegal immigrants is because we do not make them suffer any consequences for violating national sovereignty or participating on various felonies. How many illegals enter Mexico a year (who are not passing through to sneak into the US)? Mexico is a hell hole compared to the US but it is still a hell of a lot better than a lot of the shit holes further south. They measure their illegal immigration counts in the hundreds of thousands not millions. And they actively throw illegals in jail and deport them without any due process.
Buy I noticed your aversion to using the term illegal. It is because it ends up wrapping in all the legal immigrants who many people against the illegals actually welcome with open arms. Why are they welcomed? Because they generally become productive members of society and actually increase the well being of others. It allows you to make bigoted statements about citizens and use words like xenophobia that I'm still convinced you do not understand the meaning of.
They do not, unless Texas ceeded sovereignty to the federal government. Actually, that is what the US constitution is about. It sets a framework for for the powers of the US federal government and reserves the rest not provided for or expressly prohibited to the states and the people. The constitution united 13 separate countries (the colonies became countries) which is why this is set so differently than the UK and other areas. The states keep their sovereignty outside of what is granted to the federal government.
If you doubt me, look to Colorado and the legalization of pot. Federal law still makes it highly illegal to grow and sell. It is illegal to prescribe as medication to. But states have rights and as long as they do not venture into areas of their sovereignty surrenders to the federal government, there isn't shit that can be done about it.
lol.. I'm read this and it was the entire basis for my reply seeing how it is so silly. The only attempts to unify the globe that were successful enough in the past to earn a place in history were sad stories of death and oppression. I guess first you could evoke the roman empire, the British empire that the sun never set in, Hitler's Germany us another one. I guess Napoleon should be considered as well. None of those ended well and most of them went to shit in the process.
The problem is in who gets to tell others what to do. The further removed they are, the more people being ordered around want to say fuck you in reply. This idea of global unification is crazy when you cannot even get people to stop killing others over religious beliefs let alone geopolitical beliefs.