Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (162137)	3/26/2006 1:42:35 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793964

It would seem that we must first of all, conduct policy on the CURRENT immigration law. Forget for the minute all the "genuine consensus"... the folks you mentioned are "lobbyists" in a large way. I posted these yesterday: Message 22295569 Message 22295570

To: Ilaine who wrote (162137)	3/27/2006 12:04:35 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793964

CB, I thought there already was a consensus on illegal immigration, ipso facto by the use of the word illegal. It's usually considered true that the existence of a law implies that there is, or at the very least was, consensus to sufficient extent that the laws were passed. Invasion is casus belli in normal circumstances. Millions of people invading is super casus bellicosi. The fact that they aren't bearing arms is just a detail. And what's with "libertarians who hate the idea of criminalizing people who just want to work". I'm a dinkum Libertarian and I consider trespass a crime. I don't want swarms of "just want to work" people blocking up my highways, draining my water supplies, polluting my air, using my hospitals and otherwise bludging on what I and my ancestors have created. We have the same problem here, so I'm not calling the USA highways "my" highways. The Israeli wall and Great Wall of USA are like the Great Wall of China ... plus ca change. Though I expect the Great Wall of China was also a make-work project for hordes of otherwise landless and not much use young males who were surplus to requirements, who were traditionally, around the world, given arms and told to go and conquer some territory nearby, and far away too if possible. That whole concept is from a time gone by, increasingly, if not completely. Which is why I think politics is increasingly a female job. Blokes should get a real job for real men and leave politics to the sheilas. Germany, New Zealand, Maggie Thatcher, Condoleezza/Hillary, France, Phillippines, India, Israel, Pakistan, Liberia, many other countries. Increasingly, women are being given control . Check out the XX dominance of NZ politics. NZ leads in stuff like this, I suppose because we are all extreme emigrants who ended up as far from anywhere as it's possible to be [Easter Island notwithstanding]. Even the blokes who are left tend to be gay, if not actual sex-change types [we have one of them too]. Males and their rampant testosterone and Y chromosome are good for being like Genghis Khan, Idi Amin, Adolf, Saddam and even the more benign British Empire which had some good stuff going for it, which is why it made such progress [just as the USA empire has lots going for it and why it garners such support around the world]. But when women are having none, one or two children and territorial shortages/hunger/resources are not at issue and conquest of other tribes is pointless, a country and also the world, becomes more like a house. Women run the house. Blokes go and mess around in the shed, blowing up cyberspace or something. Mqurice PS: My mother explained to me decades ago [about 1970] that you can tell when women are going to take over because the occupation loses it's status, and pay rates. Bank tellers, teachers - used to be male and well-paid. The pay rates dropped and women took over. My mother was an early women as equals person.