Immigration is a great thing; we're a country of immigrants.

But if you want to come into this country, do it the right way.

 

yes invade and kill the people and animals living there.

Dude, they're trying to fix the huge problem of illegal immigration in our country which the federal government is doing nothing about. It's not about race.

 

Immigration is a great thing; we're a country of immigrants.

But if you want to come into this country, do it the right way.

 

It's so easy to get in the "right way" eh?

 

 

 

 

I never said it was easy, and the immigration law definitely needs to be reformed.

 

But just by coming into the country illegally, you're a criminal.

I know it's to be expected that without anything protecting the border that people will cross it, but that doesn't make it any less wrong to do so.

Would you also agree to the fact that the republicans who passed the immigration act in Arizona are dumbasses pricks who want America just to be white? They're so blinded from history, and from the diversity of this country.

 

Dude, they're trying to fix the huge problem of illegal immigration in our country which the federal government is doing nothing about. It's not about race.

 

Immigration is a great thing; we're a country of immigrants.

But if you want to come into this country, do it the right way.

 

Okay, maybe there weren't trying to go as far as WHITE SUPREMACY FTW, but that law was quite offending and it did promote some sort of racial profiling. And yeah, it's fucking hard trying to get in the "right" way. People are not gonna wait years and years and then face rejection and go wait more years to live the American dream.

 

 

 

 

:sombrero:

Yeah, It is getting a little extreme.

They asked my mom if she had plans to kill the president :stunned:

Not racist, just a little stereotypical.

It's not like they're going to stop someone on the street for looking illegal, they can only check the legal status of a person who has been stopped or arrested.

It's definitely not a perfect law, but at least they're doing something about it.

Yeah, but still. If someone looks Mexican or like an "immigrant" they're gonna tell you to pull out your green card or your proof of citizenship? And they stop the next person, and they're white, they're not gonna ask them for their green card.

 

I sniff much racial profiling.

the thing that's bullshit about that law is that arizona & the whole southwest region of our country originally belonged to mexico until the US invaded & annexed it

anyways, to answer the questions:

Question 1. Is there a God?

yes

Question 2. What is the meaning of life?

to please God by helping others

Question 3. Left, middle or right wing politics?

LEFT WING FTW! i love politics, & i can't believe practically no one else here does!

lol so you are an atheist to all those other Gods? why?

I pray to one god you're not really this dense.

Yeah, but still. If someone looks Mexican or like an "immigrant" they're gonna tell you to pull out your green card or your proof of citizenship? And they stop the next person, and they're white, they're not gonna ask them for their green card.

 

I sniff much racial profiling.

 

But how is it a big deal to have to show your proof of citizenship? You already have to show your driver's license and your insurance when you get pulled over, showing proof of citizenship is just one more thing. And how often does a person get pulled over? Once or twice a year maybe? It's not like a person will be harassed every time they go out just because they look like an immigrant, or at least I would hope not. I don't know what Arizona is like. But to be more fair and avoid racial profiling, they should probably ask for proof of citizenship for every person they stop, no matter what race they are.

That's such a non-argument it's unbelievable. It's never been "adopted" because no government will ever willingly give up its power. The person who I linked you to has put in thousands of hours into researching this subject, and you're just going with what you've been told since you were a little baby. That's like refusing to believe Santa Claus isn't real.

 

1. You're the one that said you didnt want to get into it.

2. As some other guy said this is a pie in the sky so i dont think it deserves real criticism.

3. People put millions of hours into circulating conspiracy theories, myths & nonsense so that doesnt mean a thing. This could never work, what would happen to criminals, what would happen to the sick, who would educate our children?

4. You may dismiss these questions as elementary but if you cant effectively answer them your idea of non government cannot possibly work. You are increadibly naive to even consider this.

I pray to one god you're not really this dense.

 

Yes i am dense, wtf do you mean?

Question 3. Left, middle or right wing politics?

LEFT WING FTW! i love politics, & i can't believe practically no one else here does!

 

lol everyone is either against the government, thinks it should be abolished or doesnt give a damn!

3. People put millions of hours into circulating conspiracy theories, myths & nonsense so that doesnt mean a thing. This could never work, what would happen to criminals, what would happen to the sick, who would educate our children?

 

I think the idea is we would be forced to co-operate with one another on issues like this to survive and solve the problems. Instead of a government trying to run 67859428977620, almost all things and doing them all badly.

After reading the thread on drugs i have decided to explore some even deeper questions, Im in a thinking mood. I want to get other peoples opinions and just get some general kind of debate going.

 

Question 1. Is there a God?

 

Question 2. What is the meaning of life?

 

Question 3. Left, middle or right wing politics?

 

I realise these questions are nothing new but I think they are still relevant. Ill give my views later.

 

1. I don't think so.

 

2. There is no such a thing as the meaning of life. Life is what you make. It depends on your choices.

 

3. I'm left wing. If I put it on scale from 1 - 10, where 1 is the left and 10 is right I'm about 3.

I think the idea is we would be forced to co-operate with one another on issues like this to survive and solve the problems. Instead of a government trying to run 67859428977620, almost all things and doing them all badly.

 

Its a nice idea but almost impossible. I think the government deserve more credit from the public to be honest, There are so many unknown problems, decisions and immense pressures that politicians have to face, all of which are thankless tasks. Co-operation is what happens in the governments of the world anyway, they are a microcosm of their countries in most cases, but if everyone had a direct say it would be complete chaos.

Hard men talk: :dozey:

1.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQZJ7j7fPIE

 

2.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGsZp8OU5Xs

 

3.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMMkCT3dY_Q

1. You're the one that said you didnt want to get into it.

2. As some other guy said this is a pie in the sky so i dont think it deserves real criticism.

3. People put millions of hours into circulating conspiracy theories, myths & nonsense so that doesnt mean a thing. This could never work, what would happen to criminals, what would happen to the sick, who would educate our children?

4. You may dismiss these questions as elementary but if you cant effectively answer them your idea of non government cannot possibly work. You are increadibly naive to even consider this.

 

Anarchy is about as naive as socialism imo, I am not under the impression either of them would work very effectively but it does have the potential to work, look at the research people have done, there are some seriously good points about libertarianism and anarchy out there, give it a shot at least. You're being dumb by not at least considering it reasonably.

 

Personally I'm drifting between libertarianism and... not libertarianism, imo there will always be governments or at least tax-collecting strongmen, but limited government at least has the potential to be far better than the system we have in place right now. (I sort of oscillate around my philosophy though, I don't want to accept any one philosophy without being sufficiently educated)

Anarchy is about as naive as socialism imo, I am not under the impression either of them would work very effectively but it does have the potential to work, look at the research people have done, there are some seriously good points about libertarianism and anarchy out there, give it a shot at least. You're being dumb by not at least considering it reasonably.

 

Personally I'm drifting between libertarianism and... not libertarianism, imo there will always be governments or at least tax-collecting strongmen, but limited government at least has the potential to be far better than the system we have in place right now. (I sort of oscillate around my philosophy though, I don't want to accept any one philosophy without being sufficiently educated)

 

we used to have it, it was called the bronze age. I stand by the comment, pie in the sky im afraid. Unification and a world government is the route the future will take us, not devolution. Our civilization will have to become Type 1 or Type 2 to survive in the future anyway. Throughout history we are reminded that combining governments, tribes, etc is a benefit to the nations.

we used to have it, it was called the bronze age. I stand by the comment, pie in the sky im afraid. Unification and a world government is the route the future will take us, not devolution. Our civilization will have to become Type 1 or Type 2 to survive in the future anyway. Throughout history we are reminded that combining governments, tribes, etc is a benefit to the nations.

 

Of course you can't have a world without governments of any form, but think about the benefits free market competition would provide over the government-standardized system we have now. Just give it some thought.

we used to have it, it was called the bronze age. I stand by the comment, pie in the sky im afraid. Unification and a world government is the route the future will take us, not devolution. Our civilization will have to become Type 1 or Type 2 to survive in the future anyway. Throughout history we are reminded that combining governments, tribes, etc is a benefit to the nations.

 

Government consolidation doesn't last very long, usually only one or two lifetimes in a row. The closest the world has ever come to having a single government was during the USSR/USA Cold War. But the politicians in each country preferred to use fear of the other government as a method to extract more money from their tax bases.

 

You'll never have a situation where politicians voluntarily give up power/money in order to create a combined government. Wars are fought over potential increases in tax revenue. The supposed social reasons are hooey.

 

Anarchy is about as naive as socialism imo, I am not under the impression either of them would work very effectively but it does have the potential to work, look at the research people have done, there are some seriously good points about libertarianism and anarchy out there, give it a shot at least. You're being dumb by not at least considering it reasonably.

 

Anarchism, unlike socialism, is incredibly complex. Whatever you imagine anarchy to be like in your head is probably wrong, because of what Hayek refers to as the "discovery process" - people voluntarily working together to discover the best ways to manage societal problems typically don't use the same methods governments impose. Price signals determine what each individual values and in what ratios they value it - for instance, one family might rather take their chances with a less-safe car, while spending their money on superior structural quality of their home. Other families might choose the opposite, or might rather just save their money. You can't predict these things. Politics is about forcing everyone to make the same choices, which destroys the price-signal system that communicates scarcity.

 

Socialism, on the other hand, is very simple. It is a denial of reality. Whatever scarcity/abundance that exists for any good/service is ignored by bureaucrats who wish to shape society in their "ideal" way. Don't have enough food for everyone? No problem, ignore the existence of scarcity and FORCE everyone to share their calories. It works in the short-term, but it doesn't address the underlying problem - scarcity of food. So now that food is socialized, there is no profit to be had in discovering new ways to expand the supply of food. That sector of the economy stagnates like swamp water, and progress is lost. The exact same thing happens in any area of the economy - whether it's education, healthcare, security, transportation... whatever. Government regulations destroy our ability to discover alternatives and make progress.

You'll never have a situation where politicians voluntarily give up power/money in order to create a combined government. Wars are fought over potential increases in tax revenue. The supposed social reasons are hooey.

 

 

QUOTE]

 

This has already happened in the UK, The British government has given up almost all of its powers to Brussells and the EU, Most of the laws we have to abide here in Britain are from the EU. I agree it is not going to happen anytime soon on a global scale (I wanna hear both sides of the tale, see its not about races, its the places, faces, where your blood comes from..) but It is essential for the future.

Of course you can't have a world without governments of any form, but think about the benefits free market competition would provide over the government-standardized system we have now. Just give it some thought.

 

Ok, ill give it some thought, Im not denying there would be benefits though, I just think its unfeasible. I

also saffire, that kid the barefoot bandit is a legend, did you know a hollywood producer wants to make a film about him?