Eh of course not, I only referenced the rethugs because of the parties stance on business.

But republicans still suck the most :)

Yeah, they suck on your mom

I have no issue with an ID card as long as I don't have to carry it.
When a cop asks me who I am when at Ybor or a place like that my name is Dr. None of your damn business if I am not breaking the law.
I know it is a long name, but it is catchy.

No, I used my passport...the last item in that list. Closest thing we have to a national citizenship document.
I'm not sure I think a birth cert should be a citizenship document, there's discussion about what the Fourteenth Amendment says about who is a citizen.
The argument is made that illegal aliens have not subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the United States, being in flagrant contempt of that jurisdiction. Therefore being born inside the US to illegal alien parents shouldn't automatically make you a citizen. That "I tagged up at home so you can't touch me" argument again...
Actually, while there are abilities prerequisite to those documents, they also attest to the fact that the associated privileges haven't been withdrawn from a particular identified individual due to malfeasance. Any of those licences could be revoked for cause, even though my abilites were unimpeded. The PA CCW doesn't prove I know how to shoot; it proves I passed a criminal background check. The FL CCW does have a (rather minimal) training requirement, and included a fingerprint check. These are identity documents as well as competancy certificates.
That's a circular argument...if it was required for employment you'd need it.
OK, stop hand-waving and identify it for me.
No, I was responding to someone who wanted to know why enforcement of the existing law has been difficult to date. There's no existing universal fraud-resistant proof of citizenship document, which is the excuse exploiters use when caught with a payroll dripping with illegals who all presented fake SSAN cards (and in some cases real driver's licences).

HA! youre funny

LOL I try.

Well I actually think it is funny how people just say stuff about different groups of people suck. By saying Republicans suck, you are taking someones ideals and values and beliefs and making a personal attack against them. It speaks more for your character if rather than attacking someone personally if you take the issues you disagree with and respectfully debate the issue and try and understand the other side, even if you don't agree. Nothing is accomplished through personal attacks. Unless you are trying to make a point like I did in saying they suck your mom

I don't think that would work. If they weren't under the jurisdiction of the US, they couldn't be put in prison. That sounds like it is more applicable to people with diplomatic credentials.

Ok, I was generalizing. Let me rephrase:

The majority of elected officials that are republicans SUCK.
Our President and Vice President SUCK REALLY HARD
Tom Delay deserves to ROT IN FUCKING HELL along with Bill Frist...

Saying republicans suck is actually the opposite of a personal attack. It is a general attack :) . With that said, I must say, I do relate a lot to the ideals of the Rockefeller Republican. Unfortunately, at this point in time, the party seems to be catering to the psychotic extremeist of the religious right.

Actually, that's a generalization, not a personal attack.

Ok, well either way, using generalizations as well as personal attacks is no way to win an argument and definatly not very effective at swaying peoples' minds to your side.

Munchkin, you may think that all Republicans or the majority at least suck, you are entitled to that opinion. The point is, you aren't going to bring people to your side by saying stuff like that. (well maybe uneducated people) The key is, why do they suck? Do you not like them personally? Understandably, some people will just rub you the wrong way, but that isn't a reason to say that they suck. You should be respectful, even to people you don't like. Or is it you don't agree with thier policies? If that is the case, might I recommend you stop saying they suck and start saying, "I think that their stance on ____________ is wrong. I feel it could be done better/should be/etc. because ____________________" fill in the blanks. By saying what you disagree with and then stating your reasoning is much better and more respectful. I find it ironic that many people who say we need to treat terror suspects/illegal immigrants/criminals respectfully are the same ones who are completely disrespectful towards many of our leaders. And just like I said earlier if you don't like a law, get it changed, well if you don't like our leadership, well we have a midterm election coming up and a presidential election in a couple of years. Respectfully debate the issues and try and win people to your way of thinking so that you can make a difference in the elections.

Being outlaws, they're not under jurisdiction until apprehended; since they they haven't submitted to it. Being subject to a jursdiction and being under it aren't the same thing, in this case.

Someone who presents themselves for naturalization has submitted to US jurisdiction and is both subject to it and under it. A fugitive is not under jurisdiction even if they are subject to it. They can be brought under it only if apprehended, since they refuse to submit to it voluntarily.

A diplomat, being immunized (once their credentials are presented and accepted), is not even subject to that jurisdiction unless declared non grata.

"Republicans suck" doesn't exactly rise to the level of insightful analysis and critcal thought.

Name-calling like that doesn't serve any function other than

- helping members of the Lodge of Smug Liberals to identify each other, to enhance that same warm feeling of beleaguered cameraderie that causes Fundie Christians to put plastic fish and bumper stickers about the Rapture on thier cars, and

- alienating everybody else.

Oh jeez COME ON PEOPLE... I cant engage in some light hearted commentary about the suckiness of republicans?? I didnt feel that this thread was the place to go into detail about exactly why I feel that a lot of these republicans suck..

If I was trying to "bring people to my side" I wouldnt do it this way. If you want a conversation about the current state of the republican party and their current policies...and the people that they are pandering to, Id be happy to... I mean, I honestly feel sorry for the people who are republicans and actually have views other than just repeating the party talking points. The current administration is really representing them poorly.

To be fair here, I dont think the majority of Democrats are really doing all that well either . With the exception of a few... maybe say obama, dean, gore..pilosi... The party doesnt come together enough ... the republicans will stick with a strong party line, no matter how rediculous... the dems rarely can get all their numbers behind a good cause.

Tw (you idiot), your obsession with damning George W. Bush for everything including the Ice Ages again demonstrates how defective your mind is. You make cussing George look like something only the noncredible pusbrains will ever do, and thus you impair your own cause. Not that you can see this -- you have a singularly crippled mind and suffer from inappropriate mentation, which sounds like a symptom of mental illness to me. Idiot, idiot, thrice idiot. Get the hell back on your meds that you may once again think like a fully human being, and quit wearying us with your damned obsessions.

Now to topic: I figure that nothing done in Washington or the several States will have any perceptible effect on the "immigrant problem," which I put in quotes because it's not so much that we have a problem with illegal immigration as that Latin America in general has a terrible economic problem: no middle class visible without powerful magnification. The problem seems most severe in Mexico and its neighbors down the Isthmus, less severe in Brazil, Argentina and Chile, with the other nations in the region falling somewhere in the middle.

Expect either a greater influx of Bolivians, or a revolution down there to throw that dumb socialist Evo Morales out of power. Left to his own devices, he will personally collapse the Bolivian economy and then maintain power surrounded by poverty by using secret police, death squads, and political imprisonment.

Measures taken north of the Rio Grande will not strike at the root of the problem, which is the only place longterm solutions will be effectuated: Mexico needs a middle class and hasn't got one, which makes for an artificially enlarged poor class, one with no way up except out. The problem is in Latin America, and Latin America is where it must be solved.

With a large, enriched, and vibrant middle economic class, Mexico becomes the inmigrante magnet, and our problems are so much reduced as to be largely solved. Yeah, Mexico gets the problems instead, but too, the same reforms that work for Mexico will likely work for the other countries too; let libertarian reforms roll forward all the way to Tierra del Fuego. I keep telling the Cellar libertarians that this needs to happen -- they keep not understanding it.

Which is precisely how I feel about the Democrats. On the national level, the Jackass Party would rather fight a war for the White House than the war on terror, which is the most singularly inappropriate setting of priorities I've ever seen a group of Americans take, barring, of course, the Communist Party USA. The Dems are engaged in private empire-building while the Republicans are defending the Republic from bigots and jerks who break skyscrapers and made us bleed worse than Pearl Harbor.

So shit on the Democrats -- a useless lot of stupid donkeys. Shit on the Democrats twice -- they are very slow learners, and will require powerful stimulus to reform themselves back into being real Americans.

That is, the total cost of employment of such employees is low. A too-great total cost of employment means less hiring and more joblessness. See the 15% unemployment rates over in Europe for a textbook example.

The opposite case, of course, means maximum employment, though it doesn't necessarily do much by itself for greater pay.

Actually, the fact that they don't pay them benefits shouldn't even be an issue. No employer is required to supply any sort of benefits to their employees, legal or otherwise. That’s what makes it a benefit. Healthcare? Not required. Retirement plan? Not required. All an employer is required to provide for their employees is a safe work environment and a comparable wage that meets the minimum wage.

The Republicans are defending against bigots and jerks? How, by cleverly allowing them a major voice in their party? Is it some sort of sting operation?:lol:

If fighting the war on terror means setting up the world's largest terrorist training camp, then it's a big success. Of course, the current adminstration's success in finding the world's tallest muslim hooked up to a dialysis machine consists of invading the country 1000 miles away from the one suspected of harboring him, spending hundreds of billions in an attempt to 'fix' it, and placing the whole cost on the national credit card to insulate voters while saddling their children with a crushing national debt.

Considering this, the Democrats are right in assuming that the greatest threat to our nation is letting another incompetent into the White House.

Since it's been hijacked already...
My brother is a dyed in the wool Republican and even a minor elected official on the Republican ticket. But, he votes Libertarian because he's so disgusted with the direction the republicans have drifted. :lol:

More on immigration and employment
 

Not exactly accurate. The term "benefit" refers to all non-wage or salary compensation. Most employers are required to contribute to social security, purchase workers compesation insurance, and contribute to an unemployment fund. These all count as benefits.

An employer can avoid these expenses by entering into a cash arrangement with an employee and this is somewhat common in certain jobs such as housekeeping and lawn/garden work. The problem for the employer, of course, is accounting for the expense -- he cannot very well deduct the salary if it is off-the-books.

Interestingly, and I apologize for digressing here, a great many undocumented immigrants obtain forged documents suitable for employment -- social security card and driver's license for example. The current immigration law, in force since 1986 or so, requires the employer to verify his employee's identity, check the card and one other source of documentation. So, on the face of it, he employs a "legal" person, pays social security, unemployment, and workers compensation on that persons behalf, and books the wage and expenses. All appears above-board. In short, while there are certainly some businesses that avoid benefit expenses by using undocumented employees, many -- maybe even most -- gain no such advantage.

Perhaps the improperly documented workers work for lower wage. I am unaware of anyone attempting to measure wage levels but those who are attempting to measure the problem, estimate some 11 million undocumented persons live here and that 92% of them have jobs. This implies that there are indeed a great many job openings that would go wanting in the absence of these folks. Perhaps we should be reconsidering our process of admitting persons so that we would have a better knowledge of exactly who is here.

This is a typical republican talking point. The Dems are fine with fighting a war on terror... We should be hunting down Osama instead of killing our troops and iraqis... This administration lied to start a war....lied about outing a CIA operative that was working undercover in Iran .... breaking laws by spying on americans with no search warrents.. I can go on and on. The President isnt above the law, even though "the decider" seems to think he is. He is a disgrace to the office.

private empire building? you think thats the DEMS? Wow... okay..

regarding the "breaking skyscrapers", if yourereferring to 9-11, Iraq had nothing to do with it.

Youre entitled to your opinion...even if you just repeat the crap that people like O'Rielly spew.

Ive read about a lot of die hard republicans going that way. The ones that believe in the basic ideals of the party but arent willing to be dragged along by the BS thats happening now.

Ok guys, I'll come clean. I am a registered Republican. However, and I feel this is more important, is that I am first a conservative, and then a Republican. I am not going to vote along party lines and I am not going to agree with everything the Republican party does. I am going to follow my beliefs and ideology and vote for candidates who share those same beliefs, values, and ideology. I honestly don't care if they are Republican or Democrat as long as their ideology matches closely with mine.

Ok so anyways...back onto topic. I received this in my e-mail today - not really sure if this is a real quote or if it even happened like this, however, I do think that what the substance of the message says is very much correct and could possibly put some perspective on the immigration debate we are having now. This is supposedly a quote, taken from Teddy Roosevelt way back in 1907 about his feelings on immigration.

-Teddy Roosevelt, 1907

What I hear most often is exactly what you're saying,except with "fiscal" inserted in front of conservative.
They became Republicans because they wanted less government intrusion in their lives and feel betrayed.

In all honesty, it's hard to see how any party could deliver on that promise, with the increased complexity of our lives and decreased elbow room, that's only going to get worse barring the plague or something. But that said, they don't have to spend like drunken sailors.

TR's speech was right for the time. The immigrants coming here then were bunching up in sections of the big cities, "Little Italy", "Little Poland", "Little Timbuktu".....

In general these people worked hard to be self sufficient, to educate their kids, to become proficient in English (we all know how hard that is:lol: ), and to become real Americans. They didn't want to be hyphenated.

As TW pointed out, in a generation or two, the offspring of those immigrants did great things for this country and themselves. If you come here illegally, most of the chances to do those things are voided from the start.
You can make money...... but you can't be an American.

Absolutely nothing wrong with that. Im an issue voter.. I have a few main issues that I care most about. I just happens that I rarely see a republican that agrees with my stance on those issues, or isnt at least completely on the oposite end of the spectrum.

I agree with you here, and with Shocker also.

Swap out "Republican" for "Democrat" and you've got my view of things. In a local Congressional race the local liberal weekly paper ran a series of quotes from each, with no identification of who put each idea forth, and the reader could find if he agreed, disagreed, or had no opinion for each one. When I totaled it up, it was 85%-15% in favor of the Republican's ideas. I was a bit surprised at just how lopsided the outcome was. Among other things, this clued me that the Republicans are still significantly closer to the libertarian ideas I like than the socialists and money-burners the Democrats have spent the last two generations becoming.

Now Munchkin, the Capitol Hill Dems are simply not fighting the War on Terror. I'd notice it if they were, and I've noticed just about nothing. I pay attention to that kind of thing. The Iraq campaign is not some separate war, as the unclear-on-winning party would have you believe; it is part and parcel of the entire war. The Dems have no plan whatsoever to try for victory -- the Republicans at least understand that we shouldn't lose this war or we'll have to fight a couple more over there. What the Democrats need to convince me they are being anything but flaccid is a war-fighting strategy that actually works better than what the current Administration has come up with. They have not done this, and thus I have no faith in them.

This ninnyhammering on "all the fighting we're doing is a thousand miles away from where Osama is rumored to be" is about like saying the North African campaign was poor strategy because Hitler, who started the whole unpleasantness, was in Berlin at the time. Not an argument that I'd buy, you may be sure of that.

Where we get anti-American terrorists from is not where we're destroying and discrediting totalitarianism and fostering democracy in spite of what the Rump Saddamite slavemakers would try -- notice that their endeavor is stagnant, gainless, and has been for a year now? I have, and where were you looking? -- but from places that aren't democracies and have no immediate prospects of achieving democracy.

It is simply amazing to me how many Americans who presumably spend their days fully conscious are willing to believe that some other Americans think 9-11 was done by Iraq. I tell you this: I don't know any Americans at all who think that. Not one. Couldn't name anybody. It's the antiwar/anti-Administration party's inability to face or marshal facts like these that leaves me convinced they are unworthy of trust or confidence. As long as you're ill-informed enough to believe that some other Americans somewhere believe that, you are mired in error and doomed to perennial defeat.

Nothing to do with it? Not too directly, but the Saddam regime's providing him with surgery and therapy is the one reason al-Zarqawi still has both his legs (have to look up whether it's al-Zarqawi or al-Zawahiri -- I'd shoot either one, as near to center of mass as I might manage), and it's clear they were working on an operational relationship on the traditional old Middle-Eastern idea that "My enemy's enemy is my friend." Nothing to do with it except training Al-Quaeda, funding training of Al-Quaeda among others, and footsy-footsy-footsy on and on. Hey, asshole regimes run by sociopaths whose political advancement more resembles that of a Mafiosi than statesmen are going to act like assholes. This does NOT place upon us any obligation to accept what comes out of such places. Instead, real advancement of civilization comes with wiping these places slick, which the anti-Administration types will find any excuse to fail to do.

What an abomination!

P.S.: Got it -- Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is the leg-wound guy. That isn't even his proper birthname; it just says he fathered someone named Musab, sometime or other.

And while we are screwing around in Iraq the bad guys are taking back Afghanistan so that all hell will break loose in 2007. Great strategy.:eyebrow:

A little thumbnail sketch of Saddam's involvement with the mean & nasties pulled from Newsmax and quoted in The Museum Of Left Wing Lunacy:

There are reasons for me to think the way I do, gentlemen.

I don't see you exerting your talents towards something creative like winning the war, Bruce. All your ilk can be indicted on that score.

xoB's talents most definitely go towards winning the war. Of that I have no doubt.

I fear my doubts are not reduced by that, UT. Elucidate?

He builds war machines.

It would help more if he was a stealthy ninja LOL:ninja:

You know only what I expressed here. That we have done a bad job in Afghanistan which will bite us badly in the near future. And, invading Iraq was a mistake predicated on lies.

However, you have no clue as to what I "do" or even who my "ilk" are. Placing me in one pigeon slot or another doesn't make it so, it just makes your "fer us or agin us" position more ludicrous.

Gee, I hope I haven't offended UG. I'm so afraid he'll pummel me with his rapier wit and patriotic righteousness.:worried:

Consider yourself pummeled. ;) At least until we get some detail of the war machines. Tell, tell.

Sea Knights, Chinooks, Apache Longbows & V-22. ;)

Of course with the V-22 you could be accused of working for the other side.:3_eyes:

Homeland Security?

Yes, this is 20951.

Yes, I have it...G R I F F T O P I A.... got that?

When?

Remember, don't hurt the women or goats.

Thank you, but I feel it's my duty....as an American, Sir.

Heil Bu....ah, er, Goodbye.

:evil2:

@xoxoxoBruce: Say, I've jumped the Chinook from about 9,000 ft. (at or near it's service ceiling). Thanks for the ride up! ;)

It's service ceiling in closer to twice that. ;)

Of course, I misspoke. I should have said that the jump was at or near our service ceiling (approx. 10,500 ft. ) as we had not rigged the aircraft with an oxygen console and we weren't jumping with O2. From other aircraft, I've gotten several 18,500 ft. [22,000 ft. on a good day] jumps in (both HALO and HAHO). I never got the elusive 33,000 ft. jump. Flying around for 30 minutes, while the jumpers pre-breathed pure O2 to purge the nitrogen from their systems, just got too expensive for Uncle Sam. :sniff:

:confused: You bring up an interesting point. When operating in mountainous terrain, like Afghanistan, they routinely fly at 14, 15 or more thousand feet. Of course the crew have oxygen but I've never seen any provision for the troops they ferry. I'll have to ask.

xoB,

It was always BYO-O2 for me. :D We had transportable tanks and regulator systems with multiple service outlets (O2 console) that we would anchor inside an aircraft for those of us in coach.

It's been interesting to see how this "Immigration" thread has crossed over into aspects of the war on terrorism. It seems that the battle abroad and the battle on the home front are inextricably intertwined by politics.

BTW, many people do not realize that there are US Special Forces (a.k.a. Green Beret) National Guard units. They are specialists in unconventional warfare [including counterinsurgency operations and strategic reconnaissance] and they have already served in Afghanistan. Will they be deployed along the US border? I've previously posted the opinion "...I'm confident we will win the undeclared war on illegals." in another thread. I based my assessment of the situation upon this capability and the impact of the border threat upon our politicians. It was an educated guess: my military service was as an active duty SFer. Here's a handy listing of SF units (past and present) for anyone interested.

It's called spin. There is no war on terrorism. Where are all these terrorists massing on borders waiting to kill Americans? It's called TV fiction - where too many get reality. This hype because a president (actually Karl Rove) knows how to push 'our buttons'. So easy to manipulate those hyped on testosterone and TV shows such as The Unit. Get real.

We have various law enforcement problems. Had the George Jr administration not repeatedly stifled law enforcement, then 11 September would have not happened. But if you finally learn that fact, then the next step is to learn who really was most irresponsible before, on, and after 11 September. So they must hype a lie - spin a war on terrorism. Did we not have a movie with Dustin Hoffman doing the exact same thing that George Jr, el al do? The Mission Accomplished war is nothing more than what Japan did in Pearl Harbor. It has zero - ZERO - to do with terror.

Terrorism is a law enforcement problem. Only part of that problem that required military assistance was Afghanistan. Illegal immigration is a threat to the US? Total nonsense. Nonsense promoted on lies such as "they are all living fat and happy on the social services in Norristown PA". Or that those "illegal immigration channels are perfect avenues for terrorists". These myths so easy to promote when one does not first learn what illegal immigration is about and involves.

War on Terror? Look overseas. Are terrorists entering Europe to attack? Of course not. Even in Europe, attacks are from their own people. Do you forget who Timothy McVeigh was? Karl Rove hopes you forget. If it served Karl Rove's agenda, he also would be promoting riots in France as terrorism. I have no doubt some here then would be posting same. Some post using testosterone as gray matter.

It's nothing more than a law enforcement problem. In the case of illegal immigration, it is a problem created, in part, by silly laws to restrict the number of immigrants, to punish them with forms, waiting lines, and major lawyer bills. It is a problem we have created for ourselves - and then blame others.

There is zero relation between illegal immigration and terrorism - except when they have grabbed your prick to get your attention. By squishing to thoughts together and creating pain, then those who do their thinking there are easily manipulated by this Rush Limbaugh / Karl Rove logic.

Illegal immigration is a problem created by economic perversion in government AND by economics problems created, in part, by those same ridiculous laws. To spin you in circles, they would have you associate fear (hype about terrorism) and illegal immigration.

Get off the silly "war on terrorism" rhetoric. Its a phrase designed only for those who did not first ask some embarrassing questions. An expression they need to get lemmings to blindly follow "glorious leader" .... to hell. Had the George Jr administration done its jobs, then even 11 September would not happen. So instead, a mental midget administration blames CIA, et al.

Do you also believe that lie – a CIA failure? If so, then get down on your prayer carpet, point towards Washington DC, and god's choosen president. They spin. They are experts at spinning lies when too many Americans have a liberal arts, tree hugger, or big bad gun world perspective.

Wow...that's quite an intersection of sets.

So...that would be everybody but you and Ted Kaczynski, right? :-)

TW, stop telling me illegal immigrants are my, as an American, fault. That's bullshit.
So they live in a hellhole and want a better life. So what? That doesn't give them the right to break our laws no matter how many employers aid and abet them.
They are poor because they can't sell their sugar here? That's not my problem, it's theirs and I'm not responsible for the betterment of any other country.
I have enough trouble with the MBAs giving this one away. :rolleyes:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2.../bombs/Up2.jpgThat...
And regardless of it, we still subsidize that broken mess to try and get them to fix it every year so they still have nothing to bitch about.
As I have said several times... if they want prosperity, they need to stay and fix their own nation.

Terrorists don't mass, they operate in small cells or individually. Insurgents mass (like illegal aliens in the US recently). You don't seem to be astute enough to differentiate between the two. That's why you don't recognize the concerns of people who are. This is evident in your massing of words when you post. You equate numbers to strength and in a technology driven world it is not always so.

I've worked in Central America, it (like other poverty stricken areas) is fertile ground for the recruitment of terrorists. Recruits needn't even have an anti-US agenda. They may simply be unknowing; but, willing dupes in smuggling terrorists' needs (e.g. radioactive dust for use in a dirty bomb) across our border. The threat is real; but, you have sought to obscure it because the numbers are statistically insignificant. That's your spin when most everyone else recognizes that it took only a handful of operatives to bring down the World Trade Center, damage the Pentagon, and make a run for Washington DC.

Your rhetoric is predicated entirely upon problem solving. In the real world, we DO treat problems symptomatically (e.g. medicine) until a cure is found. Again, you don't seem astute enough to differentiate between short term and long term interventions. My perspectives come from real world experience: NO ONE else hands them to me, including you. The pen is indeed mightier than the sword; however, in your hands it's just a waist of good ink. Please continue to filibuster threads here, your impotency amuses me.

Well since you are more interested in personal attacks rather than facts, then get this fact. Terrorist are only massing in your brain. Yes you are that stupid. Or you can stop with your nonsense now. Stick to facts.

Anyone can recruit terrorists most anywhere. That is a fact. Most everywhere can be fertile ground for an extremist. So why would terrorists not use illegal immigration channels? Investing in a major terror attack is a major undertaking. People who become terrorists are typically so extremist as to require extensive training and extra careful planning. Need we cite Richard Reed who could not even give himself a hot foot? Need we cite Mousai. Complications for any terrorist attack are why Cheney et al insisted only states could perform such terrorism.

Entering America via illegal immigration channels is just too risky. Terrorist would use easier channels such as passports and visas - legal channels. When two out of three illegal immigrants get caught, then that channel is just too unreliable for terrorist use. Easier to go to England, get a plane to Canada (no passport required), then enter the US. It’s all legal.

But then if terrorists were so desperate to get into the US, where are those attacks every month. Oh. There is not and was not a massive world wide terror organization that required military deployment to the borders. Where are all these masses of terrorist that must exist according to your world perspectives? Only those hyped in a mythical 'war on terrorism' see terrorists 'massing' everywhere. The threat is minor, easily solved when law enforcement is permitted to do its job, and is an internal threat. Worldwide, the great acts of terrorism come from domestics.

Threat of terrorism via illegal immigration is obviously not how it would be done. Where they are recuited makes near zero difference. How they can be implemented in a plan is obviously far more critical. This terrorism threat is wildly over hyped in speculation to those who feel rather than first learn facts.

Noboxes - learn to post logically or we will have to discuss the penis hanging below your mother. We can make this messy - or you can end it now by being logical and civil. I did not start personal attacking. I am not the one who should stop it now. I am also not the one promoting 'fears and myths'; rhetoric from a George Jr administration and Rush Limbaugh. You have facts? Then post those facts - without all that smug mockery.

They cannot sell their sugar because our politicians created that problem. Bullshit is not answering the question: why did virtually the entire world walk out three days early in Cancun blaming the US for unfair trading? Why did they complain that we – using corporate welfare - make many agricultural jobs virtually impossible in Central and South American and Africa? It is their fault that American taxpayers subsidized sugar by 50%. It is their fault that the world's most productive producers of methanol cannot sell to the US? Oh. It’s not our fault that we should freely enrich the rich - at the expense of other nations?

When you are ready to stop denying the Doha round of GAAT, and then we are ready to discuss what has and has not created illegal immigration. They don't live in a hellhole. They live in what could be some of the world’s most productive region for sugar, cotton, methanol, corn, et al ... if America went back to being a free trade nation.

Did they dump sugar on world markets at prices lower than it costs to produce? No. America does that. We do that to enrich selective campaign fund contributors. And no, it is not your problem if you are the rich subsidized agricultural business executive being paid by the US government to pervert world sugar prices. But if you define why a hellhole exists in what could be productive nations, then tell us why virtually all nations pointed at the US in Cancun? Obviously they must be mistaken. Those involved in world agricultural trade point fingers at the problem makers – US and France.

And so from the AP: A mass of 17 terrorists. Now we must deploy troops on the Canadian border because terrorist acting as illegal Canadian immigrants are trying to kill us? Or maybe it is nothing more than a law enforcement problem?

17 terrorists is a mass?

I believe terrorists do salat, not mass.

(goin' to hell!)

Absolutely when what is not a mass is one or two. Or maybe the entire hype and fear about terrorism is too much hooey. Maybe all those terrorist attacks stopped before 11 September demonstrate what terrorism is really about, how much a threat it really is, and what is necessary to stop terrorism.

Terrorism tied to illegal immigration is akin to selling cheese mined from the moon.

Central America is so ripe for terrorism. Therefore terrorist will come from Central America. Maybe we should drink a Molson and think about it first.

More than one or two is a mass?

Shhh, UT, he's on a roll.

I was looking for an official definition for a 'mass of terrorists'. Found this picture from Abu Ghraid. A mass is five naked terrorists.

Apparently many have weird ideas of what massing is. Just watch Catholics chanting every Sunday morning.

Is it really important that we establish a critical threshold only after which we will pay attention to the people who want to see nothing more than dead Americans? :eyebrow:

tw,

I'm happy to see that your opinions aren't prejudiced by any knowledge on the subject. You come across as a been nowhere, done nothing kind of person who simply regurgitates what others have written and tries to reduce everyone else to that same low common denominator. Of course, your selections reflect only your agenda. Herein, I've regurgitated what you have written. Enjoy, it's your reward for continuing to amuse me as I requested.