Religion and Guns in small-town America

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by VJ
continue to shout this prejudice about the imagined motives and thoughts of people demanding an end to the growth of illegal immigration as an universal truth

I'd like to know where I brought up illegal immigration, you pathetic excuse for a poster. The first recollection I have of it being mentioned in the previous thread was by Slowwhand, and I deliberately cut that direction of conversation short. I have never argued with the sovereign right of a government to control immigration, nor do I particularly care what steps are taken to enforce immigration controls. I have no stance on "get tough with illegals" laws.

My problem is with the reasoning behind the attempt to control immigration flows beyond rejecting applicants for their individual defects, such as criminality, a tendency to live off public welfare, disease, etc. There are, in general, two sets of arguments for such an attempt. The first is social/cultural, and generally smacks of nativism. The second is economic, and seems to imply a belief in the effectiveness of central economic planning and an ignorance of the theory of comparative advantage.

I try not to conflate opposition to illegal immigration with opposition to immigration in general, and do not appreciate your attempt to conflate the opposite positions.

[RGBVideo]

liar

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I'd like to know where I brought up illegal immigration, you pathetic excuse for a poster. The first recollection I have of it being mentioned in the previous thread was by Slowwhand, and I deliberately cut that direction of conversation short. I have never argued with the sovereign right of a government to control immigration, nor do I particularly care what steps are taken to enforce immigration controls. I have no stance on "get tough with illegals" laws.

My problem is with the reasoning behind the attempt to control immigration flows beyond rejecting applicants for their individual defects, such as criminality, a tendency to live off public welfare, disease, etc. There are, in general, two sets of arguments for such an attempt. The first is social/cultural, and generally smacks of nativism. The second is economic, and seems to imply a belief in the effectiveness of central economic planning and an ignorance of the theory of comparative advantage.

Originally posted by KrazyHorse, http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...64#post5255964

Why do conservatives think that...
the government can "manage" migration better than the market?

Except for those who call for a total ban on immigration, those who wish to restrict immigration generally want the gubmint to decide (usually by prioritising highly skilled individuals) who gets in and who doesn't.

I thought conservatives were convinced of the government's inability to intelligently intervene in the labour market? If they're smart enough to figure out what the "economy needs" in terms of external labour supply then why not just have them set wages and prices too?

looks like i hit a nerve, for the knee-jerk response was three paragraphs of severely hostile backtracking

I try not to conflate opposition to illegal immigration with opposition to immigration in general, and do not appreciate your attempt to conflate the opposite positions.

your thread was essentially based on the theme that illegal immigration was to be called "immigration" (otherwise, why did you use the umbrella term "conservative"? people demanding lower levels of legal immigration are an extremely marginal group in the US, and conservative leadership in parliament along with conservative causes was/is only requiring law enforcement of illegal immigration) , just like demanding regulation on immigration is "nativism" and demanding lower immigration levels is "xenophobia". all standard politically motivated bull****-lexicon straight from orwell's playbook: he who controls the language, etc.

since your retort for me pointing out internal inconsistencies within your post history was so hostile, i suspect further retorts will be consisting of increasing levels of personal attacks on my intelligence fueled by insecurity about your moral infallibility, rendering future discussion fruitless

so continue lying and living in your bubble i guess, you're only doing it for yourself.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Of course he would. What makes you think Kid is opposed to a police state?

It might be the fact that I've stated my objection to it many times, well if people weren't such trolls anyway.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Why do some lefties chide folks in places like Kansas for not voting their economic interests, but are very happy that people in places like New York or California don't vote their economic interests? Could it be that there are certain values that people vote on aside from economics? That matter just as much if not more?

I'm not sure what you mean. New York and California are blue states. Of course we are glad that they vote in accordance to their economic interests.

How about this... say the Democrats nominated a person who was for raising taxes on the rich, universal health care, getting out of Iraq, but was for more surveillance, more curtailing of civil liberties, and less willing to tolerate dissent. Would you vote for him because it'd be better for your "economic interests"?

That depends on what civil liberties you are talking about and what type of dissent you are talking about. Generally rich people don't take to the street. So there's nothing really to worry about.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm not sure what you mean. New York and California are blue states. Of course we are glad that they vote in accordance to their economic interests.

Rich folks' economic interests are to vote Republican (tax breaks help them).

Generally rich people don't take to the street. So there's nothing really to worry about.

Civil liberties as in freedom of speech, right against unreasonable searches and siezures (not that that matters these days anyway), freedom of association, etc.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I'm not sure what you mean. New York and California are blue states. Of course we are glad that they vote in accordance to their economic interests.

Rich folks' economic interests are to vote Republican (tax breaks help them).

And you think everyone in California is rich?

Generally rich people don't take to the street. So there's nothing really to worry about.

Civil liberties as in freedom of speech, right against unreasonable searches and siezures (not that that matters these days anyway), freedom of association, etc.

No. I would not vote for such a person.

[KrazyHorse]

Re: liar

Originally posted by VJ


looks like i hit a nerve, for the knee-jerk response was three paragraphs of severely hostile backtracking

No backtracking, and the hostility is based on multiple experiences with your complete lack of intelligence, knowledge and humour. You obnoxious prat.

your thread was essentially based on the theme that illegal immigration was to be called "immigration" (otherwise, why did you use the umbrella term "conservative"? people demanding lower levels of legal immigration

As always, a boring predictable response from VJ.

a) The problem is not that conservatives wish to further restrict legal immigration (though some do); the problem is that conservatives want to retain significant restrictions. Even among those who wish to extend legal immigration while restricting illegal immigration most would wish to change (through retaining significant restrictions) the linguistic makeup or skill distribution of immigrants (both legal and illegal) entering the US (presumably in favour of highly-skilled English speakers).

b) The reason I addressed my thread to conservatives is that they, above all, should be suspicious of the government's competence in managing the labour market via immigration controls. At least liberals can claim that they are suspicious of market mechanisms and have a general belief in government's role there.

In other words, go **** yourself. You've been a constant waste of my time since I first got here. You are literally the most valueless poster around.

[Kuciwalker]

You are literally the most valueless poster around.

Come on. Even worse than AAHZ?

[KrazyHorse]

Yes. AAHZ has, on occasion, made me laugh.

I cannot recall a single instance where a VJ post made me think or laugh.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
And you think everyone in California is rich?

You think everyone in Kansas is poor?

No. I would not vote for such a person.

Then you've vote against your economic interests? Why is it so horrible that those who vote for the Republicans do it then?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You think everyone in Kansas is poor?

Most people are not rich in both places. Geez Imran, this is going nowhere.

Then you've vote against your economic interests? Why is it so horrible that those who vote for the Republicans do it then?

I don't know where I said that, except where I said they are insane. But hey that's their choice I guess. My point is that there is no reason to try to get their vote. In fact, I think it's better to just stand up for what you believe and speak the truth as you see it. Maybe Kansas will change one day.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

"The answer to `What's the matter with Kansas' is not that there's something the matter with Kansas," Garin argued. "There's something the matter with Democrats who can't make a connection with voters whose economic interests are closely tied to what the Democratic Party stands for."

That's a brilliant, brilliant answer. And he's right.

And that's the point of Frank's book: Economic reversals should create a natural left-leaning (i.e. Democratic) constituency, but don't because economic frustration gets deflected onto some other issues, like illegal immigration or gay rights or whatever, that are only tangentially related (if at all) to the plight of the Kansas farmer or the Pennsylvania steelworker. The GOP is brilliant at encouraging that dynamic, and the Democrats completely suck at countering it.

Obama's remarks, it seems to me, were a ham-fisted attempt to say that deflecting economic frustrations onto other issues or beliefs happens, and is not productive. He said it very, very, very, very badly. But he's right. Moreover, he had the balls to go into the heart of the rustbelt (not in teh SF speech, but in others)and essentially say to people there, "your old economy -- your old way of life -- is gone, and its not coming back. And neither party did much of anything to keep that from happening." He's right. I'm not sure whether that's a reason to vote for him but (and I'm going with Sloww on this one, believe it or not) there's nothing wrong with telling the truth.

[Kidlicious]

But Imran thinks he's a politics as usual politician. I don't call that politics as usual. That's the kind of talk we need, even if it might be said better.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Kidicious
But Imran thinks he's a politics as usual politician. I don't call that politics as usual. That's the kind of talk we need, even if it might be said better.

What specifically are you referring to that you don't believe is "politics as usual"?

Blaming your predecessor for job losses and all of society's ills, real and imagined, is pretty by the book for a candidate.

[asleepathewheel]

I would have zero problem with decrying bitterness due to economic frustrations. Unfortunately by including guns and religion in the equation, Obama really leaves himself open to attacks which detract from his message. Gives an opening that the right wingers can drive a truck through.

Its similar to the Wright controversy-the discussion is important to have, but due to clumsiness of delivery, opponents can muddy the water by using his own words against him, very easily.

Dunt tak away r guns, bama