Buchanan's column is just the latest to write/talk about it. For those who have never heard about it this column is a good start. Google for lots more info. This thing starts construction next year???

WE HAVE GOT TO STOP THIS!!! MAKE IT DEADER THAN THE DUBAI PORTS DEAL!!!

Regardless of what you think about me, nobody in their right mind, American anyways, could possible want this thing to happen! http://buchanan.org/blog/?p=67

Oh, I can think of quite a few Americans who'd be more than happy to see this happen.

I can understand the reasoning behind a North American Economic Union, a la the EU, but a full political union is much ado about nothing and isn't even an absolutel certainty in Europe.

The EU model for travel and commodity transport seemed to me to work pretty darned well when I was in Europe.

I have to admit that Buchanan lost me when he started arguing that a big highway would threaten our national sovereignty, though. If that's all it takes, we're not very sovereign anyway.

WE HAVE GOT TO STOP THIS!!! MAKE IT DEADER THAN THE DUBAI PORTS DEAL!!!
http://buchanan.org/blog/?p=67

Efficient transport of people and goods? ACK!!! THE HORROR!!!

:rolleyes:

Efficient transport of people and goods? ACK!!! THE HORROR!!!

:rolleyes:

Not to mention the ecological horrors of such a road. Curious on how all the eco groups are very quiet on this, though. We can't slant-drill for oil in Alaska with no enviromental threat but this monster highway won't damage the landscape, wetlands and other natural wild-life habitats?

Not to mention the ecological horrors of such a road. Curious on how all the eco groups are very quiet on this, though. We can't slant-drill for oil in Alaska with no enviromental threat but this monster highway won't damage the landscape, wetlands and other natural wild-life habitats?
Do you have a specific example or examples from this plan where such damage would occur, or are you just making shit up again?

Dola -

I have concerns about greater integration between the U.S., Canada and Mexico, but there are also potential positives as well. I'd be interested in seeing more detailed and thoughtful examinations of such a possibility.

Not to mention the ecological horrors of such a road. Curious on how all the eco groups are very quiet on this, though. We can't slant-drill for oil in Alaska with no enviromental threat but this monster highway won't damage the landscape, wetlands and other natural wild-life habitats?

Umm...

They are not building a "huge NAFTA Super Highway, four football-fields-wide" or whatever the article is stating. It appears that they are attempting to coordinate existing infrastructure (i.e., the roads already exist, it's just a matter of tying them together).

No secret conspiracy here.

http://www.nascocorridor.com/
http://www.nascocorridor.com/NASCO_FAQs_072706.pdf

In my country there is problem,
And that problem is transport.
It take very very long,
Because United States is big.

Throw transport down the well
So my country can be free
We must make travel easy
Then well have a big party

Not to mention the ecological horrors of such a road. Curious on how all the eco groups are very quiet on this, though. We can't slant-drill for oil in Alaska with no enviromental threat but this monster highway won't damage the landscape, wetlands and other natural wild-life habitats?

Ecological horrors???

I wasn't expecting you to be grasping for flimsy arguements this early. ;)

And no, the landscape, wetlands and other natural wild-life habitats won't be significantly impacted.

As a matter of fact, construction of large capacity highways pretty much always result in a significant increase of wetlands, due to the requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (as well as the Army Corps of Engineers permitting process).

Umm...

They are not building a "huge NAFTA Super Highway, four football-fields-wide" or whatever the article is stating. It appears that they are attempting to coordinate existing infrastructure (i.e., the roads already exist, it's just a matter of tying them together).

No secret conspiracy here.

http://www.nascocorridor.com/
http://www.nascocorridor.com/NASCO_FAQs_072706.pdf

One cannot correlate facts with the blogosphere. Apples and oranges.

Too funny. It's nothing more than a reworking of already existing corridors. BW, as usual, forgets to mention that The "NASCO Corridor encompasses Interstate Highways 35, 29 and 94," which of course are already built and that its goal is to "develop key relationships along the EXISTING corridors we represent to maximize economic development opportunities along the NASCO Corridor, as well as coordinate the development of technology integration projects, inland ports, environmental initiatives, university research, and the sharing of "best practices".

In fact as NASCO states: "As of late, there has been much media attention given to the "new, proposed NAFTA Superhighway". NASCO and the cities, counties, states and provinces along our existing Interstate Highways 35/29/94 (the NASCO Corridor) have been referring to I-35 as the 'NAFTA Superhighway' for many years, as I-35 already carries a substantial amount of international trade with Mexico, the United States and Canada. There are no plans to build a new NAFTA Superhighway - it exists today as I-35."

This is what happens when your sole source of news comes from a limited right wing source. And is exactly why nobody gives a sh%t about BW's opinions.

Facts are not BW's strong suit.

The beneficiaries of this NAFTA superhighway project would be the contractors who build it and the importers and outlet stores for the Chinese-manufactured goods that would come flooding in. The losers would be U.S. longshoremen, truckers, manufacturers and taxpayers.

The latter would pay the cost of building the highway in Mexico and the United States, both in dollars and in the lost sovereignty of our once-independent American republic. BWAHAHAHAHAHA.

Oh Crash, you do make speeches....

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15497

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15497

Hmm. Ann Coulter and an injunction to "Stop Dating Liberals!" With some fairly fugly broad screaming that she can't date another liberal guy.

Yeah, that site's not biased in the least.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15497
About the batshit-crazy author:

Mr. Corsi is the author of several books, including "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry" (along with John O'Neill), "Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil" (along with Craig R. Smith), and "Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians," and most recently, "Minutemen: The Battle to Secure America's Borders." He is a frequent guest on the G. Gordon Liddy radio show. He will soon co-author a new book with Jim Gilchrist on the Minuteman Project.Credibility abounds!

Here is another link to an article that has many FACTS for you.

http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2006/aug06/06-08-23.html

Get Ready to spend your new north american currency, the Amero.

dola, Izulde you won't like the source on this one either, but facts are facts regardless of where they come from.

dola, Izulde you won't like the source on this one either, but facts are facts regardless of where they come from.

:D

Here is another link to an article that has many FACTS for you.

http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2006/aug06/06-08-23.html

Get Ready to spend your new north american currency, the Amero.

This article was written by Phillis Schlafy, who per wikipedia:

In 2006, Schlafly provided an interview which appeared in the March 30 New York Times in which she attributed improvement in women's lives during the last decades of the twentieth century not to feminism, but to labor-saving devices such as the indoor clothes dryer and paper diapers

dola, Izulde you won't like the source on this one either, but facts are facts regardless of who makes them up.I fixed that for you, and you're still wrong. ;)

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15497

Even funnier is the author of the piece wrote the Swift Boat Vets book against Kerry -- the same one that said Kerry basically shot himself to get medals. Definitely fair and balanced.


Edit: Ah you beat me to it. But remember, "if it's in print, it must be true!"

Ok, laying aside the partisan stuff. We are not likely to see a new currency replacing the dollar in our lifetime. But neither are we likely to see a tighter border between the US and Mexico. Other than that, I don't know what all the fuss is about. Free trade is good economic policy for both US and Mexico.

I fixed that for you, and you're still wrong. ;)
I’ve yet to see you dispute a single point in the article as incorrect or that you disagree with the premise. Are you saying the NAFTA super highway is bogus and not a project in process or do you believe the NAFTA superhighway is a good thing and are unsure how to support your points, so you are poking fun at the people who wrote the articles?

This article was written by Phillis Schlafy, who per wikipedia:
Phyllis Schlafly has been a national leader of the conservative movement since the publication of her best-selling 1964 book, A Choice Not An Echo. She has been a leader of the pro-family movement since 1972, when she started her national volunteer organization now called Eagle Forum. In a ten-year battle, Mrs. Schlafly led the pro-family movement to victory over the principal legislative goal of the radical feminists, called the Equal Rights Amendment. An articulate and successful opponent of the radical feminist movement, she appears in debate on college campuses more frequently than any other conservative. She was named one of the 100 most important women of the 20th century by the Ladies' Home Journal.

Mrs. Schlafly is a lawyer and served as a member of the Commission on the Bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution, 1985-1991, appointed by President Reagan. She has testified before more than 50 Congressional and State Legislative committees on constitutional, national defense, and family issues.
Mrs. Schlafly is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Washington University, received her J.D. from Washington University Law School, and received her Master's in Political Science from Harvard University.

Phyllis Schlafly is America's best-known advocate of the dignity and honor that we as a society owe to the role of fulltime homemaker. The mother of six children, she was the 1992 Illinois Mother of the Year.

Also from Wikipedia:
Phyllis Schlafly
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Phyllis Schlafly (born on August 15, 1924, in St. Louis, Missouri) is an American conservative political activist known for her best-selling 1964 book A Choice, Not An Echo and her opposition to feminism (see antifeminism) in general and the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in particular.

She is a widely-published author and commentator, and maintains an active presence on the lecture circuit. In 1972, she founded the Eagle Forum, a conservative organization originally headquartered in Alton, Illinois and now maintaining offices in St. Louis, Missouri and Washington, D.C. as well. She founded, and is president of, a sister organization known as the Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund, which resides in the Eagle Forum's St. Louis office. In 2006, she continues to be president of both organizations.

She was married to attorney John Fred Schlafly, Jr., (1909–1993) for forty-four years. They had six children: John, Bruce, Roger, Liza, Andrew, and Anne.
I did not see your wacko quote on Wiki.

Pretty good credentials. Likely just does not share your views so you consider her a wacko.

Ok, laying aside the partisan stuff. We are not likely to see a new currency replacing the dollar in our lifetime. But neither are we likely to see a tighter border between the US and Mexico. Other than that, I don't know what all the fuss is about. Free trade is good economic policy for both US and Mexico.
One key element is the receiving center that is being built in KC. It will be owned and run by a foreign corporation and will serve as a port of entry for goods into the US.

Much like the Dubai ownership of US ports, this presents real concerns over the US government’s ability to secure its borders and protect its people. Trucks will drive from Mexico direct to the center in KC without stopping at the border. It will be possible for people and cargo to stop along the way and exit the highway gaining access into the US without going through customs or immigration

Other concerns are around the use of eminent domain to take land from US citizens for the project.

Most concerns come from the lack of exposure something this big has received. The Dubai incident proves it is a major concern with US citizens and should be debated and in the open so the people of the US know what is planned and can weigh in.

I’ve yet to see you dispute a single point in the article as incorrect or that you disagree with the premise. Are you saying the NAFTA super highway is bogus and not a project in process or do you believe the NAFTA superhighway is a good thing and are unsure how to support your points, so you are poking fun at the people who wrote the articles?

I don't know what Todzilla's saying, but that's what I'm saying. Please, quit drinking the frickin' kool-aid.

Trucks will drive from Mexico direct to the center in KC without stopping at the border. It will be possible for people and cargo to stop along the way and exit the highway gaining access into the US without going through customs or immigration

Sit back for a second and actually think. Now, do you actually think the plan is to allow people to cross the border and allow people to just walk off into the hinterland?

"Alarmist." Look it up in the dictionary. By the way, you haven't heard about much, including in the media -- because it's not actually happening!

you won't like the source on this one either, but facts are facts regardless of where they come from.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The facts very much depend on the source, especially on the internet.

So let me get this striaght....

The Republicans in congress haven't done anything to increase border security...
The Republicans in congress haven't done anything to increase security in our ports...
The Republicans in congress haven't done anything to increase security in our airports...

Yet the Republicans are all up in arms over some pie-in-the-sky *highway*?

Slightly OT, but I love the word "Amero". We need to make that happen.

I did not see your wacko quote on Wiki.It is the last item for her under the section entitled "Life". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_Schlafly#Life)

And I apologize for appearing as if I consider someone wacko for simply not sharing my views. I'd like to think that I have higher standards than that. For example, I consider someone wacko who believes that diapers and not feminism contributed to the improvement of women's lives, or that John Kerry shot himself to get a Purple Heart, or that the Unites States of America is at risk of losing its soverignty. THAT kind of person is batshit-crazy.

I can see where disposable diapers had a bigger impact on many women's lives than feminism.

About the batshit-crazy author:

Credibility abounds!

Dont worry, I knew exactly who I was quoting. Im posting in a BubbaWheels thread afterall. ;)

In my country there is problem,
And that problem is transport.
It take very very long,
Because United States is big.

Throw transport down the well
So my country can be free
We must make travel easy
Then well have a big party

best Borat bit ever.

I think a POL in the thread title might be wise...

Unbelievable. What is really amazing is that, other than for Grammaticus, all these others have no clue as to how far outside the real American mainstream they really are. Waaaaayyyyy outside!!! I'd even venture a guess many are not even American.

The last is not a 'criticsm', just an obvious inference. Afterall, this NAFTA stuff is all pork and gravy for those south of the border or shipping into the U.S. from 3rd world countries.

Unbelievable. What is really amazing is that, other than for Grammaticus, all these others have no clue as to how far outside the real American mainstream they really are.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

It means in poll after poll the VAST majority of Americans do NOT want open borders, lower standards of living and the numbers of illegal aliens we now have. What do you think it means? :rolleyes:

It means in poll after poll the VAST majority of Americans do NOT want open borders, lower standards of living and the numbers of illegal aliens we now have. What do you think it means? :rolleyes:

I think it means you don't know the first rule of polling.

#1. Thou shalt shape the poll to thy preferences.

It means in poll after poll the VAST majority of Americans do NOT want open borders, lower standards of living and the numbers of illegal aliens we now have. What do you think it means? :rolleyes:

That's a good point. I don't know anybody in favor of lower standards of living.

Also, I cannot believe the number of those who want to call me 'stupid' or such and then state idiocies like '... I don't think the plan is to have them wander off into the hinterland..." What's stopping them? Your secret plan?

Or (paraphrase) '... the highway ALREADY exists!" No it does not! This is an ACTUAL to be constructed highway, as the article says, with the median being used for rail and pipeline purposes. IT GOES TO KANSAS CITY! It goes from Texas to Canada! How much more simple can that be???

Interestingly, but not surpisingly, the ones making those inane observations are the very ones usually attempting to pass themselves off as the more 'intelligent' board members. Not.

That's a good point. I don't know anybody in favor of lower standards of living.

Businesses that hire illegal aliens to keep from paying decent wages for legal labor. Not for themselves, of course, just for the rest of us.

I think it means you don't know the first rule of polling.

#1. Thou shalt shape the poll to thy preferences.

By your standards, there can never be a consensus on anything. Not likely.

Or (paraphrase) '... the highway ALREADY exists!" No it does not! This is an ACTUAL to be constructed highway, as the article says, with the median being used for rail and pipeline purposes. IT GOES TO KANSAS CITY! It goes from Texas to Canada! How much more simple can that be???
For one thing, a credible source showing such a new highway is actually in the works would be a start.

Interestingly, but not surpisingly, the ones making those inane observations are the very ones usually attempting to pass themselves off as the more 'intelligent' board members. Not.
Some proof of your claims would be a good place to start to establish your own "intelligence".

I still say Bubba would be the last person that would spread the gospel to those south of the border or to illegals here. Just imagine the look on Bubba's face if he gets to heaven and can't find the borders of the USA!

This is an ACTUAL to be constructed highway, as the article says, with the median being used for rail and pipeline purposes. IT GOES TO KANSAS CITY! It goes from Texas to Canada! How much more simple can that be???

You do realize that there are currently many roads that cross the USA's borders with Mexico and Canada........don't you?

Dola -

You might want to peruse the links that Klinglerware posted earlier in the thread, the info direct from the horse's mouth as it were. Might help clarify some of your misconceptions...

http://www.nascocorridor.com/
http://www.nascocorridor.com/NASCO_FAQs_072706.pdf

The fact that we are not, apparently, Americans by Bubba's definition makes me feel warm and fuzzy about the state of our country.

Businesses that hire illegal aliens to keep from paying decent wages for legal labor. Not for themselves, of course, just for the rest of us.

People that break the law do harm this country. I don't think there's any question of that. But free trade is GOOD for this country.

I still say Bubba would be the last person that would spread the gospel to those south of the border or to illegals here. Just imagine the look on Bubba's face if he gets to heaven and can't find the borders of the USA!

I'm pretty sure Bubba is more interested in building the Kingdom of America than the Kingdom of Heaven.

By your standards, there can never be a consensus on anything. Not likely.

I never said there can never be a consensus on anything.

Even a unanmious consensus is possible, if you're operating with a small enough unit (One of the criticisms I have with Rosseau's method of government is that he fails to realize applying it to anything larger than a county size would result in massive logistical headaches).

I still say Bubba would be the last person that would spread the gospel to those south of the border or to illegals here. Just imagine the look on Bubba's face if he gets to heaven and can't find the borders of the USA!

Way to graft an eggplant into an orange tree. What the heck does spreading the Gospel have to do with national soverignty and border control? Or are you saying that those outside of the U.S. are so ignorant that they could not possibly be reached within their own national borders?

Or, based on your last statement, are you just against national borders? Or just against the U.S. having borders? You raise more questions than you attempt to answer.

But free trade is GOOD for this country.

For this country, yes. :D

I disagree about free trade being good for nations much lower on the technological scale, but that's another argument entirely.

I'm pretty sure Bubba is more interested in building the Kingdom of America than the Kingdom of Heaven.

Read post to Izulde. Same questions apply to you.

Way to graft an eggplant into an orange tree. What the heck does spreading the Gospel have to do with national soverignty and border control? Or are you saying that those outside of the U.S. are so ignorant that they could not possibly be reached within their own national borders?

Or, based on your last statement, are you just against national borders? Or just against the U.S. having borders? You raise more questions than you attempt to answer.

Interestingly enough, Erich Kastner in Die Konferenz der Tiere (Conference of the Animals) makes the argument that there should be no national borders, along with some other things, such as the best teachers being the government officials if I remember right.

Fascinating stuff, but ultimately too optimistic of human nature for my tastes.

Interestingly enough, Erich Kastner in Die Konferenz der Tiere (Conference of the Animals) makes the argument that there should be no national borders, along with some other things, such as the best teachers being the government officials if I remember right.

Fascinating stuff, but ultimately too optimistic of human nature for my tastes.

The book I read was 'Animal Farm.' Seems to get to the heart of where your coming from.

Here in Detroit (or close by, as it may be) the teachers are talking strike because they want pay increases even though student enrollment is dropping by 10,000 a year. And even though each student gets the equivalent of $10,000 a year, administration is top-heavy and gets too much of the loot. This is actually one of the stated reasons the teachers are giving.

So your correllation between teachers/educators and government sounds about right. Never enough money and too much of it going where its least needed. You think that's a good thing?

What the heck does spreading the Gospel have to do with national soverignty and border control?

It doesn't...and that's the point!

The book I read was 'Animal Farm.' Seems to get to the heart of where your coming from.

My word... do you honestly mean to tell me that just because they both have Animal in their title you think there's a connection between the two?

I... I'm amazed.

Plus, Bubba and the Guardian Angels would be the first to keep our Lord out upon His return because 1) he's not a citizen of the USA and 2) he wouldn't have the proper documenation and approval from the Federal Govt.

It means in poll after poll the VAST majority of Americans do NOT want open borders, lower standards of living and the numbers of illegal aliens we now have. What do you think it means? :rolleyes:

The term "American mainstream" is not limited to just a few topics, or select topics of convience that you always stupidly dish out. Just because there is a majority against this one issue of NAFTA does not suddenly make those who do support it way outside of the "American mainstream". If the standard for if someone falls within the "American mainstream" is that they have to agree with the majority on all issues, then there is no "American mainstream" because no one in the country falls within the majority on every issue. Most of the people who posted in this thread probably agree with the majority on the majority of the issues, which would place them quite nicely within the "American mainstream"

Then again, this whole mainstream thing is just your typical red herring, and one you've pulled out before. It doesn't matter how well everyone's arguments fall within whatever it is you think the "American mainstream" is. It's completely irrelevent and the typical nonsense you give to avoid actually talking about the issue.

Plus, Bubba and the Guardian Angels would be the first to keep our Lord out upon His return because 1) he's not a citizen of the USA and 2) he wouldn't have the proper documenation and approval from the Federal Govt.

So you think that Jesus would come back as an illegal alien? You have alot to learn about God, my friend. Breaking the law is sin, unless that law is against God. And Jesus never sinned.

And although Jesus would forgive an illegal alien (who repented), He would never condone the action in the first place.

So you think that Jesus would come back as an illegal alien? You have alot to learn about God, my friend. Breaking the law is sin, unless that law is against God. And Jesus never sinned.

And although Jesus would forgive an illegal alien (who repented), He would never condone the action in the first place.

Congratulations, you have rendered me utterly speechless.

I still say Bubba would be the last person that would spread the gospel to those south of the border or to illegals here. Just imagine the look on Bubba's face if he gets to heaven and can't find the borders of the USA!

Doesn't it make you mad as hell that, because of people like Bubba, when some people think of "Christians", they can't help but to think of people like Bubba?

Congratulations, you have rendered me utterly speechless.

I'm sure thats never happened to you before. Take it all a step further. Mexicans make up the majority of illegal aliens. Should we be playing favorites with the Mexicans? Why, that's bigoted, isn't it?

Now suppose the majority of illegal aliens suddenly coming into the U.S. are Muslims from Middle East countries (actually happening more and more, many portraying themselves to be Mexicans.)

And with many Muslims wanting to control nations under Sharia law, if they then set that up in your hometown you have no problem with it? If you do, based on what you just stated earlier, your either a bigot (against Muslims) or a hypocrite (applying one set of rules/laws to one nationality and culture over another).

Doesn't it make you mad as hell that, because of people like Bubba, when some people think of "Christians", they can't help but to think of people like Bubba?

This is an easy one. Many other examples of 'Christian' exist far and wide out there. If one is utilizing myself as an example of why they would never become a 'Christian' that would simply be an excuse to ignore God and His works everywhere else.

I make my prediction based on the fact that many believe the U.S. was created by God (thru circumstances and the founders) to evangelize the world thru its missionary works (those preaching the Gospel of Christ, not those trying to win 'hearts and minds' by political means.)

That's a pretty clear connection that you say the USA is "God's chosen country", and supports what others were saying about your point of view earlier in this thread.

Waiting for the POL in the title...

Don't tell Bubba about the Alcan.

That's a pretty clear connection that you say the USA is "God's chosen country", and supports what others were saying about your point of view earlier in this thread.

That's just a personal opinion of mine and one that many in the Christian faith have. And many in the Christian faith may also believe in open borders.

But it doesn't make you any less of a Christian to believe that the U.S. is allowed to maintain borders and its national soverignty over them, unlike what many here seem to want to be saying. Read the Bible, God is all about laws and obeying them.

God says that He is the one that enables governments in the first place, for law and order no less. See that one word there, law I mean.

So you think that Jesus would come back as an illegal alien? You have alot to learn about God, my friend. Breaking the law is sin, unless that law is against God. And Jesus never sinned.

And although Jesus would forgive an illegal alien (who repented), He would never condone the action in the first place.

I think this is simultaneously the funniest thing and the scariest thing I've ever read.

Waiting for the POL in the title...

The title has the word NAFTA in it. Do you really think it needs the word POL? Or are you just anal retentive about thread titles but not about immigration laws?

The one question you illegal alien enablers cannot answer is this: If its ok to break our immigration laws to benefit yourself, then why is it not ok to break other laws to benefit yourself, like tax laws?

The one question you illegal alien enablers cannot answer is this: If its ok to break our immigration laws to benefit yourself, then why is it not ok to break other laws to benefit yourself, like tax laws?

Why are you equating a NAFTA corridor and illegal immigration? For all intents and purposes, this NAFTA corridor is going to either use or closely follow the current path taken by I-35, which already runs between Mexico and Canada. How is adding more lanes to I-35 enabling illegal immigration?

Why are you equating a NAFTA corridor and illegal immigration? For all intents and purposes, this NAFTA corridor is going to either use or closely follow the current path taken by I-35, which already runs between Mexico and Canada. How is adding more lanes to I-35 enabling illegal immigration?

It is two different issues, but some have used this thread to challenge my postion on illegal immigration. Equating being against the NAFTA highway to wanting to 'keep the Mexicans out."

So Jesus would cast an illegal immigrant into Hell unless he repented for his sin of crossing an invisible line.

Where does Jesus stand on speeding tickets and jaywalking?

More importantly, where does Jesus stand on porn, which is *not* against the law?

Wasn't Jesus born out of weblock? Wouldn't Mary and God be a sinner?

Read the Bible, God is all about laws and obeying them.

God says that He is the one that enables governments in the first place, for law and order no less. See that one word there, law I mean.

I never understood why the Bible is such a concerte view of what God wants. I mean, no one "knows" God, and he didn't write it.

...weblock?...

Isn't that what you call the relationship between people who meet through an online dating service?

Wasn't Jesus born out of weblock? Wouldn't Mary and God be a sinner?

Plus, I'm pretty sure that Jesus and Mary illegally traveled across the border to Egypt. Which would make Jesus a sinner. Except Jesus didn't sin.



Oh dear.

I note that, as per usual, Bubba is ignoring facts presented to him that contradict his poorly thought out views.

Plus, I'm pretty sure that Jesus and Mary illegally traveled across the border to Egypt. Which would make Jesus a sinner. Except Jesus didn't sin.



Oh dear.

There were no borders then. It was all Rome.

Isn't that what you call the relationship between people who meet through an online dating service?

Damn keyboard.

I think you should say you coined it and just start treating it like a real word. It's got moxie. It could catch on.

The title has the word NAFTA in it. Do you really think it needs the word POL? Or are you just anal retentive about thread titles but not about immigration laws?


I could give two flips about immigration laws. Everyone knows that thread titles are my pride and joy.

It is two different issues, but some have used this thread to challenge my postion on illegal immigration. Equating being against the NAFTA highway to wanting to 'keep the Mexicans out."

Yet, you were the first person to mention illegal immigration in this thread. Hmm...

I have found over the years in reading Bubba that it is best to think of him as not real, rather one of those emotion faces, maybe angry-isolated face.

On second thought, Bubba should change his name to Joshua, as in the emotionless, stubborn and destructive computer in War Games.

Now I know why I like Bubba so much.. he reminds me of Larry the Cableguy!

I'm just waiting for him to tell us that Jesus came to America on the Mayflower..

Also, it helps to understand that, despite 60% of Americans wanting the US to pull out of Iraq within a year, those 60% do not reflect the opinions of "mainstream Americans" - at least according to our President.

These concepts - "mainstream", "consensus", "sovereignty" - don't seem to have the same meaning to all of us.

So let me get this straight. Isn't Bubba a man of God, so to speak? So this religious person looks down his nose at anyone not fortunate enough to be born in America as less a human? Correct me if I'm wrong but that's what I'm taking away from this...keep the dirty illegals out.

That's fine I guess but smacks of hypocracy.

So let me get this straight. Isn't Bubba a man of God, so to speak? So this religious person looks down his nose at anyone not fortunate enough to be born in America as less a human? Correct me if I'm wrong but that's what I'm taking away from this...keep the dirty illegals out.

That's fine I guess but smacks of hypocracy.

Kinda like the extreme Islamics, expect you put in Muslim instead of America.

And with many Muslims wanting to control nations under Sharia law, if they then set that up in your hometown you have no problem with it?

As opposed to all those Christians who want to control nations under Christian law, which you have no problem with, right? It's ok to have fundamentalist Christians make laws in our hometowns based on their beliefs (such as blue laws, abortion, what constitutes marriage, etc.) but it's a horrible idea for Muslims?

Somthing about the way Bubba is talking and what he is saying sounds conspicuously like Katherine Harris...

Somthing about the way Bubba is talking and what he is saying sounds conspicuously like Katherine Harris...

Which is going to lead to hilarity when Harris gets spanked by Nelson (or even before that) and BW starts yelling how the entire state of Florida is outside the "mainstream" ;).

i think this is a political thread. common courtesy would be to put POL in the title...

i think this is a political thread. common courtesy would be to put POL in the title...

Yes, and not putting pol in the title should be a bannanable offense.

Yes, and not putting pol in the title should be a bannanable offense.


sounds good to me.

Is god the creator of everything?

Now I know why I like Bubba so much.. he reminds me of Larry the Cableguy!

I'm just waiting for him to tell us that Jesus came to America on the Mayflower..

Well, stand by for a little shock. The word 'Mayflower" was derived from the Biblical phrase "Lillie of the Field', a description of Christ. So the name Mayflower was meant to mean Jesus. Thanks for bringing that up.

I have found over the years in reading Bubba that it is best to think of him as not real, rather one of those emotion faces, maybe angry-isolated face.

On second thought, Bubba should change his name to Joshua, as in the emotionless, stubborn and destructive computer in War Games.

Yeah, you got me there. I must be both to keep posting in this forum. Keep getting too much fun out of the responses, though. Most of which are out of the 'mainstream', and probably do look like this when writing...:mad:

I also get a 'kick' out of seeing how many pages I can get a thread I start to go for. Think one of them actually has the record.

Well, stand by for a little shock. The word 'Mayflower" was derived from the Biblical phrase "Lillie of the Field', a description of Christ. So the name Mayflower was meant to mean Jesus. Thanks for bringing that up.

And the fact that the people on board were Puritans, a Christian Calvanist sect, had absolutely nothing to do with that. :rolleyes:

And the fact that the people on board were Puritans, a Christian Calvanist sect, had absolutely nothing to do with that. :rolleyes:

Duh, think probably it did. The response was to someone not understanding the fact that it actually was faith in Christ and the desire to worship Him freely that was the motivating reason for the Puritans aboard the Mayflower to come here in the first place.

See, public schools have sanitized the whole thing, including Thanksgiving, to something today like..." England was overpopulated so settlers came over here and then had a big party to thank the Indians for teaching them to grow corn." Or some similar-type variable.

Can't really blame the guy for his ignorance given the brainwashing his public education probably did on him, though.

Checked the poster's name: Coder...claims to be in Sweden. That would explain much. Europe turned its back on Christ long ago, now its paying for it by becoming Muslim.

See, Christ offers grace. But those who reject that grace will suffer consequences. I believe that Sharia is often that consequence, and no place is becoming Muslim faster than Godless Europe.

Somthing about the way Bubba is talking and what he is saying sounds conspicuously like Katherine Harris...

Isn't Katherine the woman who screwed up the 2000 election in Florida, full of fake breasts, and is pretty dishonerable?

This a serious question.

I think FOFC should write it's own bible :)

See, public schools have sanitized the whole thing, including Thanksgiving, to something today like..." England was overpopulated so settlers came over here and then had a big party to thank the Indians for teaching them to grow corn." Or some similar-type variable.

Hmm let's see here. I've gone to and been in public schools my entire life and overpopulation never came up as a reason. It's always been taught that religious freedom was the primary motivation for the Puritans to move to America (although they in turn didn't extend that right so much to others)

Frankly, without the Native Americans/Amerindians (whichever term you want to use. Indians live over in India), the Puritans wouldn't have survived. They'd have died out like Ronoake (sp) did.


Checked the poster's name: Coder...claims to be in Sweden. That would explain much. Europe turned its back on Christ long ago, now its paying for it by becoming Muslim.

See, Christ offers grace. But those who reject that grace will suffer consequences. I believe that Sharia is often that consequence, and no place is becoming Muslim faster than Godless Europe.

Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world and that includes the United States.

Europe? Godless? That's pretty amusing considering your own religion of Christianity is still the dominant religion in most countries of the region.

Isn't Katherine the woman who screwed up the 2000 election in Florida, full of fake breasts, and is pretty dishonerable?

This a serious question.

That is what the outraged, red-faced liberals would say. Conservatives understand Harris just did her job according to the State of Florida's own constitution.

Well, stand by for a little shock. The word 'Mayflower" was derived from the Biblical phrase "Lillie of the Field', a description of Christ. So the name Mayflower was meant to mean Jesus. Thanks for bringing that up.

So this means that Jesus was standing on board the Mayflower? Man, I'm sure they all just must have missed him while he was swabbing the deck or something.

See, public schools have sanitized the whole thing, including Thanksgiving, to something today like..." England was overpopulated so settlers came over here and then had a big party to thank the Indians for teaching them to grow corn." Or some similar-type variable.

BULLSHIT! Prove it. No book claims the Puritans came over because of overcrowding :rolleyes:. Yet another feeble attempt to claim that American education is somehow anti-Christian.

Hmm let's see here. I've gone to and been in public schools my entire life and overpopulation never came up as a reason. It's always been taught that religious freedom was the primary motivation for the Puritans to move to America (although they in turn didn't extend that right so much to others)

Frankly, without the Native Americans/Amerindians (whichever term you want to use. Indians live over in India), the Puritans wouldn't have survived. They'd have died out like Ronoake (sp) did.



Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world and that includes the United States.

Europe? Godless? That's pretty amusing considering your own religion of Christianity is still the dominant religion in most countries of the region.

Wait...you yourself think that Thanksgiving is about thanking the Indians? Seriously???

Checked the poster's name: Coder...claims to be in Sweden. That would explain much. Europe turned its back on Christ long ago, now its paying for it by becoming Muslim.

See, Christ offers grace. But those who reject that grace will suffer consequences. I believe that Sharia is often that consequence, and no place is becoming Muslim faster than Godless Europe.

Nice to see the tolerance that Christianity is suppose to share is being practiced. Your like a male version of Ann Coulter.

Wait...you yourself think that Thanksgiving is about thanking the Indians? Seriously???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanksgiving#Origins_of_Thanksgiving

I'm sure you'll say this is wrong, but whatever. I read this as both - a religious thing and inviting the Indians in recognition that they'd be dead without them.

How many others here think that Thanksgiving was about thanking the Indians? I am seriously interested in your answers here.

As I said, it was in part to thank the Indians - that's why they were at the feast in the first place.

How many others here think that Thanksgiving was about thanking the Indians? I am seriously interested in your answers here.

aw crap, timestamp bug.

Nice to see the tolerance that Christianity is suppose to share is being practiced. Your like a male version of Ann Coulter.

Like someone else so apptly pointed out in a previous thread, your types (those always preaching tolerance) really mean 'acceptance.'

And interestingly enough, thats the book I'm reading right now. Highly recommend it. Ann Coulter's Godless.

Bubba Wheels = Noddadropp

Wait...you yourself think that Thanksgiving is about thanking the Indians? Seriously???

No, because what's traditionally thought of as the first thanksgiving was nothing more than the annual harvest celebration common to England at the time.

No, because what's traditionally thought of as the first thanksgiving was nothing more than the annual harvest celebration common to England at the time.

Is that the reason you think/were taught that the Pilgrims celebrated the first Thanksgiving in this country (the U.S.)???

Seriously, I think that you really were taught that and now your stunned to learn that Thanksgiving was about the Pilgrims thanking God for their survival.

Bubba Wheels = Noddadropp

I have never posted under an alias or other name. But those like yourself that always suspect it may do so because of your own past experiences?

Like someone else so apptly pointed out in a previous thread, your types (those always preaching tolerance) really mean 'acceptance.'

And interestingly enough, thats the book I'm reading right now. Highly recommend it. Ann Coulter's Godless.

My types? So you don't accept other people? Not sure what you mean.

My types? So you don't accept other people? Not sure what you mean.

Liberals

Is that the reason you think/were taught that the Pilgrims celebrated the first Thanksgiving in this country (the U.S.)???

Seriously, I think that you really were taught that and now your stunned to learn that Thanksgiving was about the Pilgrims thanking God for their survival.

As I said, it was both (which you seem to be ignoring my statement)...

Yes, they of course were thanking God.. but they invited the Indians to the feast to also thank them because without them (or without God sending the Indians to them if they wanted to look at it that way) they would not have survived. There is no one or the other here, it was a combination of the two.

Is that the reason you think/were taught that the Pilgrims celebrated the first Thanksgiving in this country (the U.S.)???

I don't even know quite what you're trying to get at here.

When I was in elementary school, I was taught that the first Thanksgiving was at Plymouth, a joint celebration between the Puritans and the native tribe who'd helped them to survive the winter, etc.

But the teaching of history, like every other field, changes as new and more accurate information comes to light. Hence I now think (because Wiki's historical articles are usually exceptionally accurate and fair in their treatment of subjects) the first "Thanksgiving" was merely a continuation of a cultural tradition in England, a harvest celebration that dates back to, I would suspect, the original towns of mankind all those eons ago.

That's not to say the popular misconception of that festival as the first Thanksgiving is totally without merit though.

For in that story, you have two vastly different cultural and religious groups sitting down together and celebrating. There's tolerance and acceptance on both sides for their respective viewpoints in that tale.

Something many people today sorely lack, I might add.

Liberals

I'm no democrat.

But the teaching of history, like every other field, changes as new and more accurate information comes to light. Hence I now think (because Wiki's historical articles are usually exceptionally accurate and fair in their treatment of subjects) the first "Thanksgiving" was merely a continuation of a cultural tradition in England, a harvest celebration that dates back to, I would suspect, the original towns of mankind all those eons ago.


FWIW, I would imagine that in England the Harvest Feast could very likely have been a Feast in thanks to God. I do not know if this is the case, but it seems like a logical thought.

Not trying to support Bubba's attempt to bait people here, i'm just sayin'.

Bubba, you're the big fat* ignorant gift that just keeps giving.


*Okay, you may not be fat, but it's the internet and I can envision you however I like.

As an merry Englander, schools here still celebrate Harvest Festival every year (although now it is more a food drive to provide for old people's homes and shelters and so on), most have some kind of observance at the local church. Yes, it does have some Christian connotations to it, although not as much as it used to of course. But anyway, if you're searching for the true origins, it's simply a continuation of the pagan festivals that were hijacked by the church around 300-400 AD, just like Christmas was.

Bubba, you're the big fat* ignorant gift that just keeps giving.


*Okay, you may not be fat, but it's the internet and I can envision you however I like.

Well, Mr. Tanglewood, please enlighten the class on where I am wrong. You use the word ignorant, feel free to tell me in what area. I'm pretty sure your not just the usual run-of-the-mill Liberal engaging in personal attacks because you have found yourself bereft of thought on the subject.

I welcome your wisdom and await your keen, intellectual insights with baited-breath! Oh, sorry Mr. Moore, should'nt have used the word 'baited', right sir?

As an merry Englander, schools here still celebrate Harvest Festival every year (although now it is more a food drive to provide for old people's homes and shelters and so on), most have some kind of observance at the local church. Yes, it does have some Christian connotations to it, although not as much as it used to of course. But anyway, if you're searching for the true origins, it's simply a continuation of the pagan festivals that were hijacked by the church around 300-400 AD, just like Christmas was.

That is all pretty well known. But you jump your track like most when you attempt to say that a pretty devout group such as the Pilgrims would have any other priority first in a Thanksgiving event other than God Almighty.

And I also suspect that if I took the time to research your pagan rituals I would find some pretty significant differences between what you claim is a valid source for Thanksgiving and the one that the Pilgrims actually did practice/celebrate.

And I also suspect that if I took the time to research

You might actually be on to something here. Now if you'd only follow through...

In the interest of fairness, my U.S. History teacher in high school spent a couple of days explaining to us that the settlement of the U.S. (including the Pilgrims/Puritans) was actually about economic freedom and the religious motivation was "largely" a myth. And that was almost 20 years ago.

The quest for economic freedom and individual wealth was certainly responsible for much of the early colonization efforts, but I still find the fact that my teacher glossed over the religious elements in such a cavalier fashion pretty flabbergasting.

Liberals"Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things – every one. So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, 'Liberal,' as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won't work because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor."

You might actually be on to something here. Now if you'd only follow through...

Sorry, pagan rituals ain't my thing. But I am sure some googling might shed light on whether there were, in fact, even any so-called 'harvest rituals' at all in the first place. I think what our English participant may be actually refering to is Holloween.

Sorry, pagan rituals ain't my thing. But I am sure some googling might shed light on whether there were, in fact, even any so-called 'harvest rituals' at all in the first place. I think what our English participant may be actually refering to is Holloween.

Sometimes even the horse might stumble upon the water itself, but you still can't make it drink.

"Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things – every one. So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, 'Liberal,' as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won't work because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor."

Damn straight.

"Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things – every one. So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, 'Liberal,' as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won't work because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor."

Today's conservatives are yesterday's classical liberals...not the Marxist/socialist ones of today. Don't confuse today's socialists with yesterday's champions of individual and civil rights. Today's socialists are into group rights.

Somebody, anybody, please ban this asshole.

Somebody, anybody, please ban this asshole.

He's kind of funny, actually.

FWIW, I would imagine that in England the Harvest Feast could very likely have been a Feast in thanks to God. I do not know if this is the case, but it seems like a logical thought.

Not trying to support Bubba's attempt to bait people here, i'm just sayin'.

That I could see, but as tanglewood points out, it originally goes back to the harvest festivals of ancient religions, which were in turn tied to the cycles of nature and the seasons.

Somebody, anybody, please ban this asshole.

Gee, then we can all go out and roast marshmellows while we burn Ann Coulter's book.

Yes, ban me today and ten more will rise up in my place!

How many others here think that Thanksgiving was about thanking the Indians? I am seriously interested in your answers here.


I DO! I also think people should post POL in the title of their political threads. Or maybe we can just change that to NAFTA, and you would have already done you job.

Gee, then we can all go out and roast marshmellows while we burn Ann Coulter's book.

Again, somebody ban this asshole/troll.

That I could see, but as tanglewood points out, it originally goes back to the harvest festivals of ancient religions, which were in turn tied to the cycles of nature and the seasons.

I put claims like this on the same level as I do the Christian claim that Halloween is evil because it was originally samhain.

See, Christ offers grace.

Job Interviewer: Not many people have grace.
Elaine: Well, you know, grace is a tough one. I like to think I have a little grace. Not as much as Jackie O...
Interviewer: You can't have a little grace. You either have grace or you don't.
Elaine: Okay, fine. I have no grace.
Interviewer: And you can't acquire grace.
Elaine: Well, I have no intention of getting grace.
Interviewer: Grace isn't something you can pick up at the market.
Elaine: All right, all right, look, I don't have grace, I don't want grace, I don't even say grace, okay?

Yes, ban me today and ten more will rise up in my place!w00t! I'll take that chance. Mods? Admins? Please?

w00t! I'll take that chance. Mods? Admins? Please?

Hey, take a poll why don't ya? Really set a poll up: Should Bubba Be Banned?

I'll vote!

Hey, take a poll why don't ya? Really set a poll up: Should Bubba Be Banned?

How about you do it since you like attention whoring so much?

Today's conservatives are yesterday's classical liberals...not the Marxist/socialist ones of today. Don't confuse today's socialists with yesterday's champions of individual and civil rights. Today's socialists are into group rights.

Wait, if today's conservatives are yesterday's classical liberals, then doesn't this make you a liberal? :eek:

And you're the one who's confused by what makes up a liberal today by casting everyone who disagrees with you in that role. Not all liberals are socialists, just like not every conservative is a fascist.

How about you do it since you like attention whoring so much?

How are you able to see me with your ignore button on?

Surely I'm not the only one who sees nothing of merit in this thread and thinks it should be closed.

http://www.thegreatcornholio.com/images/pleasemakestop.jpg

How are you able to see me with your ignore button on?

Why would I put you on ignore when I can make fun of your grammar, lack of understanding of the Bible and God, and your ability to pull made up facts out of your ass?

Wait, if today's conservatives are yesterday's classical liberals, then doesn't this make you a liberal? :eek:

And you're the one who's confused by what makes up a liberal today by casting everyone who disagrees with you in that role. Not all liberals are socialists, just like not every conservative is a fascist.

This conservative/facist thing is the biggest myth pushed on kids today by the public indoctrination gulags. This is where I like to play...who am I?

Who Am I?

I started my career as a starving artist, wanting in fact to become a Catholic Priest. After fighting in a war where I was severly wounded and decorated, I became a political activist that demonstrated for changes during a time of democracy.

I was also a best-selling author.

I was elected to office and moved to consolidate my base. Believing in a strong, centralized government I quickly moved to institute national gun control. I also used money and influence to raise up political action groups to support my positions, using public demonstrations to my advantage.

An animal lover, I was also a firm believer in group rights. Individuals are always subject to the will of the state for the good of the masses.

Speaking of masses, public works and transportation were also at the head of my priorities. Ever the populist, one of my most enduring legacies has been a small, affordable motor car.

Oh yes, banning offending speech was also high on my list of priorities.

Who Am I?

HITLER!!

Bubba: What the fuck is that supposed to prove? Seriously.

Edit to add that Bubba's a moron.

Bubba: What the fuck is that supposed to prove? Seriously.

There was nothing 'conservative' about Hitler. He and Stalin were two sides of the same coin. In fact, they were actually allies when Hitler invaded Poland.

This conservative/facist thing is the biggest myth pushed on kids today by the public indocrination gulags. This is where I like to play...who am I?

Who Am I?

You are Adolph Hitler. So, we've determined that you're Hitler. What's your point? That Hitler had some socialist programs? Well, he was head of the National Socialist German Workers Party, but does that make him a socialist, especially given his absolute hatred of communism?

Do you deny that fascism is inherently conservative? Are you one of those that calls bin Laden an Islamo-fascist? Are you going to tell me that you consider bin Laden a liberal?

I got it first. As a prize, will you ad POL to the thread title?

There was nothing 'conservative' about Hitler. He and Stalin were two sides of the same coin. In fact, they were actually allies when Hitler invaded Poland.

Seriously, you really need to read some World War II history before you start spouting stuff like this. Hey, we were allies with Stalin during World War II also. I guess we must be communist as well. :rolleyes:

I got it first. As a prize, will you ad POL to the thread title?

Yes, Mr. Monk, because you won I will add the word POL to the title!

Jesus Bubba, you really have no understanding of history. To try to paint Hitler or Stalin as a modern day liberal or conservative is complete idiocy.

And do some reading about the Molotov/Ribbentrop Agreement. Allies they weren't and it was Hitler's belief that the Bolsheviks were part of the Jewish threat. There was never any doubt that eventually Germany would attack the Soviets.

Checked the poster's name: Coder...claims to be in Sweden. That would explain much. Europe turned its back on Christ long ago, now its paying for it by becoming Muslim.


Yup.. we're all Muslim here! I've even got a painting of Mohammed on my wall.. oh.. wait.. that's illegal according to the Koran!

I still think you're funny Bubba :)

Seriously, you really need to read some World War II history before you start spouting stuff like this. Hey, we were allies with Stalin during World War II also. I guess we must be communist as well. :rolleyes:

Many in our government were indeed communist, VP Henry Wallace being the most prominent. But that's another debate for another time. Read 'Treason' by, of course, Ann Coulter.

Yup.. we're all Muslim here! I've even got a painting of Mohammed on my wall.. oh.. wait.. that's illegal according to the Koran!

I still think you're funny Bubba :)

And my wife loves to shop at the new, local IKEA! :)

Jesus Bubba, you really have no understanding of history. To try to paint Hitler or Stalin as a modern day liberal or conservative is complete idiocy.

And do some reading about the Molotov/Ribbentrop Agreement. Allies they weren't and it was Hitler's belief that the Bolsheviks were part of the Jewish threat. There was never any doubt that eventually Germany would attack the Soviets.

Guess Stalin should have known that then, eh? Too bad for him.

And my wife loves to shop at the new, local IKEA! :)

I have several shelves named Billy.. none named Bubba. I'll get a message to Ingvar Kamprad and ask him to name a couch or something Bubba... :)

Seriously, about our degenerate European society with our backs against God.. well I can only speak for Sweden, but exactly how does this affect us? I mean, how do we fare worse than, lets say Americans (who have a great deal of respect for, having lived in the US)?

Do we have more crime? More murders perhaps? Do we have more sinners in general? Greedier people? More obese people? Less intelligent people?

I'm curious.

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d138/duckman76/e279f319.jpg (http://s34.photobucket.com/albums/d138/duckman76/?start=#imgAnch1)

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d138/duckman76/23c174b2.jpg (http://s34.photobucket.com/albums/d138/duckman76/?start=#imgAnch1)

I got it first. As a prize, will you ad POL to the thread title?
If only we knew a mod who could do that.

Many in our government were indeed communist, VP Henry Wallace being the most prominent. But that's another debate for another time. Read 'Treason' by, of course, Ann Coulter.

Thanks, but I'd rather spend my time reading legitimate books.

I don't doubt that there were some communists in our government, but that doesn't make the government as a whole communist. I'm sure there are Muslims in our government today (GASP!), but I don't think anyone in their right mind would call America an Islamic nation.

I have several shelves named Billy.. none named Bubba. I'll get a message to Ingvar Kamprad and ask him to name a couch or something Bubba... :)

Seriously, about our degenerate European society with our backs against God.. well I can only speak for Sweden, but exactly how does this affect us? I mean, how do we fare worse than, lets say Americans (who have a great deal of respect for, having lived in the US)?

Do we have more crime? More murders perhaps? Do we have more sinners in general? Greedier people? More obese people? Less intelligent people?

I'm curious.

Good questions. I'll give a try.

First of all, I have a great deal of respect for Europe culture. Never been to the Scandanavian countries but hear many good things about them.

My high school college social science teachers/professors always said that crime was lower in 'homogenius' societies. (No duckman, that's not what you think). I guess that's the standard mantra for why crime in the U.S. is so much higher than Europe.

Then again thats different in different parts of Europe. You can't get on a bus or train in Italy without someone trying to pick your pocket. One example.

Bible says that things don't exist in a vacuum. One consequence of Europe's modern lifestyle is a low and declining birth rate. As Pat Buchanan points out, the new Muslim immigrants have much higher birth rates and strong extended families. That alone would signal big changes in coming years for you.

In our country we have a similar thing with Mexican immigration, but at least the Mexicans (many being Catholic) have a strong Judeo-Christian heritage that Muslims in Europe would not. That seems to be self-explanitory.

Europe, once the cradle of Christianity, has turned its back on its Christian heritage in large measure. This has created a vacuum. Muslims, many whom believe in being governed by Muslim Sharia law and clergy, are now openly preaching this in European Mosques. PBS has done shows on this.

England seems to be a particular breeding ground for militant Islam. But I do believe that it was in Holland that the movie guy Van Gough (no duckman, not the artist, but a descendent of him) was stalked and killed by a Mulsim extremist for making some film critical of Mohammed. BBC special (think it was) showed that his demise was openly preached in Mosques before it occured.

Seems to be the trend in Europe, all I'm saying. But studying Biblical history shows that often these patterns and trends are a subtle form of God's judgement for not accepting and following His Way.

Think of it this way. You turn your back on God long enough, God may eventually turn His back on you.

Bubba,
Do you really believe that the "Bible" is 100% factual correct?

Bubba,
Do you really believe that the "Bible" is 100% factual correct?

Yes, but it has to be read in context. Many don't and get all the supposed 'contradictions.'

I love the term "Islamo-fascist". It's the new "weblock".

I love the term "Islamo-fascist". It's the new "weblock".

Well, from listening to the Frank Beckman show today (gritting my teeth cause you can actually squeeze out a few choice nuggets intermixed with all the stories Frank has about rubbing elbows with C-list types and state politicians during his golf events) some U.S. congressman now wants the term 'Jihadist-terrorists" used because the 'Islamo" tag besmirches the whole of the religion.

One sidenote about talk radio in Detroit these days...good gosh I miss the days of David Newman and Mark Scott. Mitch Album yesterday trying to drum up attention for his new book...appearing at the Fox Theater are 'some really big names' 'can't tell you, can't tell you, alright...actor Hank Azari, Joe Dumars and (some other supposed big-shot, Pee Wee Herman was busy?)

Man are things pathetic around here.

Speaking of facts, there were not a single Puritan on the Mayflower.

Eyewitness to history reports:

No Puritans on the Mayflower!













The only thing better than old jokes is short jokes.

If only we knew a mod who could do that.


I know a bunch who could, but I don't think there is one who will.

You want to know who Bubba is?

He is someone that does not have true faith in things that are unseen. Many are like that. Instead, he puts his faith in only what he can understand or more accurately, be told of. The scripture is not an end but a weapon to be used to justify a worldly means. Clearly his treasure lies in the cult of nationalism and therefore, where his heart lies also. It is not something new for many civilizations had their own cult of nationalism and many use holy writs to justify the cult. In others words, what is written in scriptures and by those within the cult (secular and quasi-religious books) become the twisted means for a more important end. One of the more famous examples of this is the Pharisees of Jesus' time - bound to the laws of man for power, wealth, identity and control. Jesus had more harsh words for this cult than any other subject he spoke of.

What those that are more mature in the faith believe is a higher calling, one that goes beyond man's laws and sinful segregation. Not above the law but not using man's laws as an end. We are called to look upon everyone that God loves (which is, well, everyone) as our brother or sister. We are called to love for it is the job of the Holy Spirit to convict, to nuture, to heal and to help - we are only instruments of the Spirit. We are called to be samaritans, helping those in need - whether it's your neighbor or someone across the world. It doesn't matter where they are from, how they got here, why they are here and how they got to be that way. If your heart does not love, then you do not know God. If your heart lies in the cult of nationalism, then you are confining God and using His words for sinful purposes.

Eyewitness to history reports:

No Puritans on the Mayflower!

The only thing better than old jokes is short jokes.

Actually, that's not too far off. I am descended by quite a few passengers on the Mayflower - particularly the one that was not part of the Leyden community and was only hired to watch over the barrels!

Many in our government were indeed communist, VP Henry Wallace being the most prominent. But that's another debate for another time. Read 'Treason' by, of course, Ann Coulter.HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Trying to use Ann Coulter as a source for facts.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

So is Bubba like the jb magic of political threads? surely if we just ignore them they'll go away... like crabs.

Psst: the crabs do not go away if you just ignore them. Pony up for the cream.

You want to know who Bubba is?

He is someone that does not have true faith in things that are unseen. Many are like that. Instead, he puts his faith in only what he can understand or more accurately, be told of. The scripture is not an end but a weapon to be used to justify a worldly means. Clearly his treasure lies in the cult of nationalism and therefore, where his heart lies also. It is not something new for many civilizations had their own cult of nationalism and many use holy writs to justify the cult. In others words, what is written in scriptures and by those within the cult (secular and quasi-religious books) become the twisted means for a more important end. One of the more famous examples of this is the Pharisees of Jesus' time - bound to the laws of man for power, wealth, identity and control. Jesus had more harsh words for this cult than any other subject he spoke of.

What those that are more mature in the faith believe is a higher calling, one that goes beyond man's laws and sinful segregation. Not above the law but not using man's laws as an end. We are called to look upon everyone that God loves (which is, well, everyone) as our brother or sister. We are called to love for it is the job of the Holy Spirit to convict, to nuture, to heal and to help - we are only instruments of the Spirit. We are called to be samaritans, helping those in need - whether it's your neighbor or someone across the world. It doesn't matter where they are from, how they got here, why they are here and how they got to be that way. If your heart does not love, then you do not know God. If your heart lies in the cult of nationalism, then you are confining God and using His words for sinful purposes.

Well, God will judge me same as he judges you. Cult of nationalism? Nice try...but I suspect when your backyard becomes the issue you'll be the first one posting protest signs in your front yard and picketing city hall. In other words, once your own interests are threatened closer to where you live you'll start reacting.

I've stated numerous times I have no problems with legal immigration. Those of you supporting illegal immigration are a threat to me and mine. One in twelve of these 'illegals' are criminals entering this country with no background checks and possibly hanging out in your neighborhood. Think about that. American citizens who are sex offenders are in an accessable data base you can look at. That illegal may be twice the rapist/murderer and you'd have no idea. Ignoring that doesn't make you Christian, pious or whatever. It just makes you stupid. And a threat to me.

Oh, btw, Scarborough just had video of illegals in California pulling down the American flag and raising the Mexican one over a U.S. post office. Looks like I'm not the only one with the 'cult of nationality' problem. Looks like alot of your buddies the illegals like their own brand of it.

Somebody say trout?

Well, God will judge me same as he judges you.

See, that's part of the problem people have with this. People have several beliefs in how God will judge us, and what God really is (and if he might even exist). However, many people in our country don't go pointing at "outsiders" (people who don't believe what you do) and start calling them names, ect.

See, that's part of the problem people have with this. People have several beliefs in how God will judge us, and what God really is (and if he might even exist). However, many people in our country don't go pointing at "outsiders" (people who don't believe what you do) and start calling them names, ect.

Hey, idiot, I never said that God doens't love illegal aliens. I just said if they want to be immigrants they should do it legally.

BTW, your toy shop called. Your new dungeons and dragons set is there. What a geek you are. Why am I wasting time here with the likes of you???

This thing has now hit clusterf*ck status.

Hey, idiot, I never said that God doens't love illegal aliens. I just said if they want to be immigrants they should do it legally.

BTW, your toy shop called. Your new dungeons and dragons set is there. What a geek you are. Why am I wasting time here with the likes of you???

Did I call you anything or attack you in that statement? Also, I never said anything about illegal aliens.

Hey, idiot, I never said that God doens't love illegal aliens. I just said if they want to be immigrants they should do it legally.

BTW, your toy shop called. Your new dungeons and dragons set is there. What a geek you are. Why am I wasting time here with the likes of you???

Considering this is a text football sim mesage board, I think geek would be a badge of honour, not an insult.

American citizens who are sex offenders are in an accessable data base you can look at. That illegal may be twice the rapist/murderer and you'd have no idea.

FYI, the sex offender database isn't filled with "rapists/murderers". A lot of people get caught in that because of petty laws lacking in common sense.

dola,

Not to mention the sex offender database attaches a stigma that really fucks people over and personally goes against the new life/liberty conceit that the American society is supposed to be about.

BTW, your toy shop called. Your new dungeons and dragons set is there. What a geek you are. Why am I wasting time here with the likes of you???


The Jerk Store called. They're running out of YOU.

I love how Bubba shifted gears in his own thread once it became clear the facts didn't support his initial hysteria.

Ok, laying aside the partisan stuff. We are not likely to see a new currency replacing the dollar in our lifetime. But neither are we likely to see a tighter border between the US and Mexico. Other than that, I don't know what all the fuss is about. Free trade is good economic policy for both US and Mexico.

Regional government is not a means to achieve "free trade". But rather "Free trade" is a means to achieve regional government. Doesn't seem logical to create a "north american union" when the economies vary so much.

Oops, just realized this thread has reached "clusterf*ck" status... disregard my post.

One in twelve of these 'illegals' are criminals entering this country with no background checks and possibly hanging out in your neighborhood. Think about that.
Actually, about 1 in 9 males in this country will go to prison during their lives, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. So 1 in 12 might be an improvement :)

Bubba: But you did imply that Jesus would send illegal immigrants to Hell unless they repented!

I love how Bubba shifted gears in his own thread once it became clear the facts didn't support his initial hysteria.

I too noted the self thread jacking to the Thanksgiving topic was a brilliant tactic. It was also, just about the funniest bit in the whole thread. Well maybe not as funny as Sach's continued carping about the lack of the "POL" in the title.

I too noted the self thread jacking to the Thanksgiving topic was a brilliant tactic. It was also, just about the funniest bit in the whole thread. Well maybe not as funny as Sach's continued carping about the lack of the "POL" in the title.

He's great.. i'm serious here.. anyone asking for his bannination doesn't have a sense of humour.. This board is great because people have so many different opinions.. diversity makes this place fun.. and Bubba is one of those extreme ones who always get my attention :)

Well maybe not as funny as Sach's continued carping about the lack of the "POL" in the title.


Ladies and gentlemen, may I present...hypocrisy!

In the interest of fairness, my U.S. History teacher in high school spent a couple of days explaining to us that the settlement of the U.S. (including the Pilgrims/Puritans) was actually about economic freedom and the religious motivation was "largely" a myth. And that was almost 20 years ago.

The quest for economic freedom and individual wealth was certainly responsible for much of the early colonization efforts, but I still find the fact that my teacher glossed over the religious elements in such a cavalier fashion pretty flabbergasting.

ditto

Regional government is not a means to achieve "free trade". But rather "Free trade" is a means to achieve regional government. Doesn't seem logical to create a "north american union" when the economies vary so much.

Oops, just realized this thread has reached "clusterf*ck" status... disregard my post.

I wasn't arguing for a "north american union." I was reacting to the implied economics being touted by Bubba, Gram, Buchanan, and Schlafly.

Ladies and gentlemen, may I present...hypocrisy!

You call me a hypocrite while I've always said that I didn't think the "POL" bit was necessary. How does that go? "You keep using that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means."

I do give credit where it is due, and you do deserve credit for not editing the thread title yourself. I'd say you show'd restraint, but honestly about the third page I had this mental image of you chained to a pole, gnawing off your own arm in efforts to get to an edit button.

I wasn't arguing for a "north american union." I was reacting to the implied economics being touted by Bubba, Gram, Buchanan, and Schlafly.
I actually support free trade and would like to see no tariff trade, etc. I don't see the point in creating protectionist policy for "American" industries.

I do not like the idea of locating an inland port of entry in KC. I don't like allowing trucks to cross the border without physical inspection until they get to KC. I also do not like the potential for the KC port of entry to be owned and operated by a foreign entity or to be potentially considered Mexican territory. Both of which are not guaranteed, but apparently discussion points.

So, for me it is not so much the economics of the issue that Schlafly and Buchanan present, but the lack of border control.

Also, if the whole topic were better covered by the press, I think we would see a better process around this issue.

I wasn't arguing for a "north american union." I was reacting to the implied economics being touted by Bubba, Gram, Buchanan, and Schlafly.

Damn it, I said disregard my post! ;)

I actually support free trade and would like to see no tariff trade, etc. I don't see the point in creating protectionist policy for "American" industries.

If all things were equal I would agree. The problem is that American companies can't compete with the slave labor (or super cheap labor) of other countries. I think we need to lay off the American business with the rediculous taxes and give them a chance to compete. Then we have a shot.

Or

We can harvest the babies of illegal aliens for profit.

The choices are quite clear.

You call me a hypocrite while I've always said that I didn't think the "POL" bit was necessary. How does that go? "You keep using that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means."

I do give credit where it is due, and you do deserve credit for not editing the thread title yourself. I'd say you show'd restraint, but honestly about the third page I had this mental image of you chained to a pole, gnawing off your own arm in efforts to get to an edit button.


No, I call you a hypocrite for calling out someone for carping.

I see you still haven't shaken the need to act like a tool in every post, though. I guess some people just feel the need to show their asses as often as possible. :(

Bubba: But you did imply that Jesus would send illegal immigrants to Hell unless they repented!

Fortunately for them, Satan's minions will turn them back at the border for lack of a visa...

If all things were equal I would agree. The problem is that American companies can't compete with the slave labor (or super cheap labor) of other countries. I think we need to lay off the American business with the rediculous taxes and give them a chance to compete. Then we have a shot.

Or

We can harvest the babies of illegal aliens for profit.

The choices are quite clear.

That cheap labour won't last forever. Eventually workers will demand greater compensation and it'll once again be more cost-effective to keep employees in the States.

If all things were equal I would agree. The problem is that American companies can't compete with the slave labor (or super cheap labor) of other countries. I think we need to lay off the American business with the rediculous taxes and give them a chance to compete. Then we have a shot.
What are these rediculous taxes that you speak of? How much would it cost the US Treasury and whose taxes will you raise or what programs will you cut to pay for it?

The best way to help businesses compete is to install universal health care. Health care is a huge expense for businesses in the US, and the Canadian and European companies that they compete with don't have to deal with that expense.

The best way to help businesses compete is to install universal health care. Health care is a huge expense for businesses in the US, and the Canadian and European companies that they compete with don't have to deal with that expense.

So, you're for corporate welfare in this instance? ;)

What are these rediculous taxes that you speak of? How much would it cost the US Treasury and whose taxes will you raise or what programs will you cut to pay for it?

The best way to help businesses compete is to install universal health care. Health care is a huge expense for businesses in the US, and the Canadian and European companies that they compete with don't have to deal with that expense.

The US corporate tax rate is one of the highest in the world. Heck, even socialist countries like Sweden and France are lower (18%). US corporate tax rate is around 40% once you fire in state crap. Not to mention all the unfair foreign tax laws.

No problem finding "programs" to cut. Start with all the bogus "pork" items that cost us $27.5 billion dollars in 2005.

I don't want to debate healthcare...been done. Starting another bloated government program to fix tax laws seems wrong.

That cheap labour won't last forever. Eventually workers will demand greater compensation and it'll once again be more cost-effective to keep employees in the States.

I wonder how well that will work in China?

I wonder how well that will work in China?

Oh it'll happen. China's been gradually shifting towards a more privatized economy over the last several years.

They're going about it the smart way by going slow and study as opposed to Russia, which rushed it and killed the ruble for years.

So, you're for corporate welfare in this instance? ;)
I'd hardly term it corporate welfare, but if calling it that will get Republicans to back it, I'm all for it :)

The US corporate tax rate is one of the highest in the world. Heck, even socialist countries like Sweden and France are lower (18%). US corporate tax rate is around 40% once you fire in state crap. Not to mention all the unfair foreign tax laws.
http://www.mof.go.jp/english/zei/report2/zc001d02.jpg

Effective marginal tax rates:
Germany 29.7
Japan 29.2
Canada 24.8
Australia 24.3
Netherlands 23.9
USA 23.6
Belgium 22.2
Norway 22.1
France 21.6
Spain 20.9
UK 20.3
Switzerland 20.0
Italy 19.7
Source: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/69xx/doc6902/11-28-CorporateTax.pdf


No problem finding "programs" to cut. Start with all the bogus "pork" items that cost us $27.5 billion dollars in 2005.
I'm against pork, as most people are, but corporate receipts to the state and federal governments will approach or maybe even exceed $400 billion this year. If you are going to drop the tax rate in a meaningful way like you are advocating, you are going to have to come up with another $100 billion or so in cuts. Keep in mind that we already have a $350B or so deficit. And keep in mind that any reasonable plan will require politicians to be able to get behind it, ie, it can't be a plan that if someone votes for it, they will be knocked out of office the next election.

I don't want to debate healthcare...been done. Starting another bloated government program to fix tax laws seems wrong.
I'm assuming you are a conservative from your rhetoric. I'm against big government in a lot of ways, it's why I am anti-illegal wiretapping. Are you anti-big government as a means or as an end? Meaning, do you disapprove of big government for just for the sake of being against government, or because of the inefficiences of some of it? Because all the research and available data suggest that universal healthcare would be more efficient and less bloated than the system we have now, and bring with it better outcomes. If you are just against government in general, I could see how someone would be against it, but as a matter of bloatedness, I can't see why reasonable conservatives can't get behind this. Eventually big business will demand it, and we'll get it.

You do realize if a universal healthcare system was installed, someone WILL have to pay for it? And living in a country of our size, as unfit as we are, and the pressure on doctors and medical stuff already, I don't want to imagine the cost (think of when the Boomers need it the most in a few years).

Corporate tax rates in federal levels are, http://www.worldwide-tax.com/index.asp#partthree:

France: 33.33
Finland: 26
Australia: 30
Germany: 25
Italy: 33
Japan: 30
UK: 30
USA: 35

Ireland's 12.5% rate is creating a Huge "Celtic Tiger" (a second one actually). The growth and development in Ireland is amazing.

[QUOTE=MrBigglesworth
Because all the research and available data suggest that universal healthcare would be more efficient and less bloated than the system we have now, and bring with it better outcomes. If you are just against government in general, I could see how someone would be against it, but as a matter of bloatedness, I can't see why reasonable conservatives can't get behind this. Eventually big business will demand it, and we'll get it.[/QUOTE]

Can to share the various research of data and level of effectiveness?

You do realize if a universal healthcare system was installed, someone WILL have to pay for it?
With our bloated system, we are already more than paying for it. That's the beauty of it: right now we pay more per capita for worse outputs. Hell, our government alone already pays more per capita than countries with UH, let alone private inputs. Just look at the VA system in our own country as a model, it is very streamlined with low overhead and produces the best outputs of any system in our country. It's just scare tactics ("bloated government!" "you'll wait decades for a simple surgery!") that keep it from being popular. Universal healthcare is inevitable, the sooner it comes though the better for the country.

If taxes weren't raised, I would be all for it, provided it can maintain a level of quality that we are used to.

Can to share the various research of data and level of effectiveness?
You don't have to ask me twice to threadjack this particular thread :)

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-healthcare.htm
http://www.everybodyinnobodyout.org/FAQ/fqIntl.htm
http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/health_of_nations/index.html
http://www.pnrec.org/2001papers/DaigneaultLajoie.pdf

Here is the Economist, no liberal rag, on the French system, my personal favorite:
Its hospitals gleam. Waiting-lists are non-existent. Doctors still make home visits. Life expectancy is two years longer than average for the western world.

....For the patient, the French health system is still a joy. Same-day appointments can be made easily; if one doctor's advice displeases, you can consult another, a habit known as nomadisme médical. Individual hospital rooms are the norm. Specialists can be consulted without referral. And while the patient pays up front, almost all the money is reimbursed, either through the public insurance system or a top-up private policy.

For family doctors too, liberty prevails. They are self-employed, can set up a practice where they like, prescribe what they like, and are paid per consultation. As the health ministry's own diagnosis put it recently: “The French system offers more freedom than any other in the world.”
All that for a cost of less than half of what we already spend per person.

If taxes weren't raised, I would be all for it, provided it can maintain a level of quality that we are used to.
I don't know if you can have a top quality system and not raise taxes. The reason is that part of the private spending would need to be converted to public spending, so instead of you or your employer paying $400 or so a month in private spending, your or your employer would pay some portion of that in taxes. But Medicare, Medicaid, and VA taxes would convert to UH funding which would cover a huge chunk of it.

http://www.mof.go.jp/english/zei/report2/zc001d02.jpg

I'm against pork, as most people are, but corporate receipts to the state and federal governments will approach or maybe even exceed $400 billion this year. If you are going to drop the tax rate in a meaningful way like you are advocating, you are going to have to come up with another $100 billion or so in cuts. Keep in mind that we already have a $350B or so deficit. And keep in mind that any reasonable plan will require politicians to be able to get behind it, ie, it can't be a plan that if someone votes for it, they will be knocked out of office the next election.


I'm assuming you are a conservative from your rhetoric. I'm against big government in a lot of ways, it's why I am anti-illegal wiretapping. Are you anti-big government as a means or as an end? Meaning, do you disapprove of big government for just for the sake of being against government, or because of the inefficiences of some of it? Because all the research and available data suggest that universal healthcare would be more efficient and less bloated than the system we have now, and bring with it better outcomes. If you are just against government in general, I could see how someone would be against it, but as a matter of bloatedness, I can't see why reasonable conservatives can't get behind this. Eventually big business will demand it, and we'll get it.

Yeah, I guess pulling numbers is useless. Can find numbers to support any arguement. My bad. I found another site that says we're #2 only to Japan. Useless.

I bet we could trim a lot of unconstitional programs from the budget. How much? No clue.

You are right about one thing (even though it wasn't your intent). We're so far gone now it truly is hopeless. To fix it would be utterly impossible I'm afraid. How could we fix it? Vote Democrat? Pfft.. yeah right. There's no difference between the D and the R. Same thing. Once one party is done sucking us dry, the next party moves in.

God, I'm so depressed.... :(

Yeah, I guess pulling numbers is useless. Can find numbers to support any arguement. My bad. I found another site that says we're #2 only to Japan. Useless.
That's just lazy. What site? What were the parameters? Yes, I'm sure you could find numbers out there somewhere to support anything, but that doesn't mean that there is no such thing as truth. That's just lazy thinking.

You spend an awful lot of time engaging in political arguments, and surfing for evidence to support them.

You spend an awful lot of time engaging in political arguments, and surfing for evidence to support them.
Your first post was a lot nicer. There is this website called "Google" that if you type something in it, it will return close to a million results in under a second. I don't think I have engaged in a political argument here in a week or so, I was just looking for a discussion to keep me occupied during commercials of the Eagles game.

And who asks for evidence, then demeans someone for providing it? Weird.

I'm against big government in a lot of ways, it's why I am anti-illegal wiretapping. Are you anti-big government as a means or as an end? Meaning, do you disapprove of big government for just for the sake of being against government, or because of the inefficiences of some of it?

As a libertarian, definitely as an end as matter of principle and practice, and it's just some of the effeciences. What they must do, they should do well, accountability-speaking. I am not anti-corporation because the power ultimately lies in the hands of the consumers. We used to say that the power of the government relies on the consent of the govern. Over the past 40 years, I have seen that become less and less true. A starting point would be to get out of the red/blue crap and vote for libertarian-minded candidates.

Your first post was a lot nicer. There is this website called "Google" that if you type something in it, it will return close to a million results in under a second. I don't think I have engaged in a political argument here in a week or so, I was just looking for a discussion to keep me occupied during commercials of the Eagles game.

And who asks for evidence, then demeans someone for providing it? Weird.

Problem is, making sure evidence is credible. The internet has a lot of "trash", so to speak. I was just making an observation.

Over the past 40 years, I have seen that become less and less true. A starting point would be to get out of the red/blue crap and vote for libertarian-minded candidates.

Would love to see the liberation party get some power.

Problem is, making sure evidence is credible. The internet has a lot of "trash", so to speak. I was just making an observation.
Agreed, but if you have fleshed out the facts beforehand and are just looking for something on the web to show others, it takes no time at all.

As a libertarian, definitely as an end as matter of principle and practice, and it's just some of the effeciences. What they must do, they should do well, accountability-speaking. I am not anti-corporation because the power ultimately lies in the hands of the consumers. We used to say that the power of the government relies on the consent of the govern. Over the past 40 years, I have seen that become less and less true. A starting point would be to get out of the red/blue crap and vote for libertarian-minded candidates.
Well what if a program was guaranteed to be more efficient and cost less if done by the government instead of the private sector, but will result in an increase in the size of government? If I am reading you correctly, you would be against that, right? I guess my question is, what is intrinsically bad about big government to libertarians besides inefficiencies?

(as an example, the IRS is about to outsource it's tax collecting because they don't have the money to hire collectors. It is estimated that it would cost the government 3% to do it themselves, but they will instead hire collection agencies for 25% commissions)

No, I call you a hypocrite for calling out someone for carping.

I see you still haven't shaken the need to act like a tool in every post, though. I guess some people just feel the need to show their asses as often as possible. :(
Hey Sach! That's your ass that's showing.

I find it interesting that you take this so personally. I don't have anything against you. It's the shit you do.

As for being a hypocrite because "I call you out for carping". Look. Here's the history between us.

-You, along with at least one of your cohorts, don't do a single shred of due dilligence before suspending my account. By not a single shred, I mean you don't even bother to read what I typed in the context it was written. No brain power was exercised, you guys simply reacted.

-I complain, once I discover the boxing had occurred.It's late, just before I go to bed. I'm told that at least one member and two mods felt my actions deserved the boxing, and that it would stand for two weeks. PERIOD

-I wake up the next morning, and I'm told that I'm no longer boxed. Technically I'm told that the boxing was "reduced to time served" or somesuch. Same difference.

-I determine that you and whoever screwed up, and over reacted.

-Some time passes.

-Someone gets banned, boxed, was somehow disciplined, or you capriciously edit a thread title. I carp about it.

-You PM me.

-I PM you.

-This continues, until you've made your position on moderation as clear as I've made mine.

-I tell you I see where you're coming from, but believe you to be wrong.

-Rinse and repeat the above few points a couple of times.

-Time passes

-I see you do some stupid shit in a thread and point it out.

-You call me a hypocrite

-I respond

-You make it personal.

-I finally begin to seriously consider whether you are Mod material. Seriously, I think you might be a bigger mistake than Blade. Although, you do get a few points for not editing Bubba's post on your own. I'm guessing you were only restrained by policy on that point, as you haven't exactly exhibited any real tendency toward self restraint.

Ok, excuse me for bumping this thread back up top, AND going back to the original topic, but I have waited all week for this so here it goes. Time for me to rip these 'articles' or blog comments a new asshole, because they are BS. They have taken 2% of the facts, and worded them to anger people.

I will start with this one first http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15497

First....Once complete, the new road will allow containers from the Far East to enter the United States through the Mexican port of Lazaro Cardenas, bypassing the Longshoreman’s Union in the process.

See the problem here is that the ports on the US west coast can longer handle our imports. LA and Long Beach are busting at the seams. The northwest ports have picked up some of the overflow, but they have their own problems including finding the drivers to work the ports. And freight coming into the US via Mexico is not a new thing either by the way.

The Mexican trucks, without the involvement of the Teamsters Union, will drive on what will be the nation’s most modern highway straight into the heart of America.

The teamsters? No offense, but what he hell do they have to do with longhaul trucking anymore? Pretty much jackshit in the big picture of things. A large majority of longhaul trucking is union-free.

The other part of this is the idea they are trying to pound into you about the Mexican trucks driving into the heartland, to scare you. I will believe it when I see it. Mexican trucks were to start having total access to our country 6 years ago and it hasn't happened yet. There is so much opposition to them being allowed over here, for many reasons, that I still think it is a ways away. The major reason is safety. Mexican regulations for truckers are pretty much nothing compared to here. They do not has an 'Hours of Service' rule for their drivers, they have a weight limit for their trucks about 75% higher then ours, and they don't care if the trucks are falling apart as they go down the road. In 2004 Bush tried to open the roads for them and I think it was Congress who ended up blocking that. Anyways, some kind of pilot program is planned for next year I guess for about 100 Mexican companies and will last one year. We shall see what happens though, people are fighting it.

The Mexican trucks will cross border in FAST lanes, checked only electronically by the new “SENTRI” system. I like this one, because the totally leave out what the FAST system is all about. They also act like this is a new thing, but it's been around since 2003.

The FAST system is not allowed for any frickin' truck. The product manufacturer, the importer, the carrier, and the driver all have to qualify. This includes shit like special high security seals being placed on the trucks, and the drivers being fingerprinted to have on record. Basically, any company or any person not considered low-risk does not get to use FAST. Go to customs.gov for more info if you want.

FAST is a good thing. It helps reduce border crossing times. Reduced border crossing times is good for everyone, including US drivers who won't be sitting at the damn border for half the damn day waiting for their load to cross. It also means less polution and fuel usage from trucks sitting waiting to cross, and those of use waiting for our load to cross.


As incredible as this plan may seem to some readers, the first Trans-Texas Corridor segment of the NAFTA Super Highway is ready to begin construction next year.

Where exactly is there proof that more the the TTC will be built or is planned? I have never heard of more then the TTC, and personally don't think there is any more construction planned beyond that because the Texas section of I-35 is just pure insanity sometimes with the amount of traffic on it.

The billions involved will be provided by a foreign company, Cintra Concessions de Infraestructuras de Transporte, S.A. of Spain. As a consequence, the TTC will be privately operated, leased to the Cintra consortium to be operated as a toll-road.

Big deal, a foreign company. Oh yeah, lets leave out the part about Cintra being only half of the group who is part of this, with the other half being San Antonio based Zackary Construction Company. Lets also not forget that the agreement does not:

Designate the alignment of TTC-35
Authorize construction
Set toll rates
Determine who gets the tolls
Eliminate competition for future services



Ok, now for a couple things from the Buchanan one. (http://buchanan.org/blog/?p=67)

Central feature: a ten-lane, 400-yard-wide NAFTA superhighway from the Mexican port of Lazaro Cardenas, up to and across the U.S. border, all the way to Canada. This guy is a real twat. All of a sudden the Trans-Texas Corridor means from southern Mexico up into Canada. Pretty soon this thing will go all the way to the southern tip of Chile and Santa's front porch at the North Pole.

trucks with Mexican drivers would run fast lines into the United States, hauling their cargo to a U.S. customs inspection terminal – in Kansas City, Mo. From there, the trucks would fan out across America or roll on into Canada. Not going to go over FAST again, but lets not make it sound like none of these trucks will have to go through the half dozen weig stations along their path, or the brand new Border Patrol check point above Laredo that is the biggest and nicest I have seen. As for the bold part, is he trying to make it sound like he means the Mexican trucks on purpose? That is what I get from this. If so I believe he is once again trying to mislead people. From what I have always understood, Canadian (and Mexican trucks once aloud) are only allowed to carry loads that cross the border, begining or ending in their home country. Basically they can drive in, then have to drive out on te next load. This may have changed at some point and I don't know though I guess.

The losers would be U.S. longshoremen, truckers, manufacturers and taxpayers.


Again, I point to the problems these groups have already. The ports in LA are packed, tose bastards can't handle anymore anyways from what I know. Truckers are going to hurt? From what? There are several groups out there that argue Mexican trucks being allowed into this country will hurt he US driver. I am not convinced. This is why....there is currently a shortage of about 20,000 long haul truckers in this country right now, with that number expected to grow to about 110,000 (currently 1.2 million long haul truckers in the US) by 2011 or 2012 (somewhere around there). Mexican drivers will end up being a help to this country if the driver shortage gets that big.


Some other random points. I didn't spend a lot of time looking into the KC Smart Port, which I have not heard of before this. I don't think it's a horrible thing though since I see one of their goals is to eliminate 'the bottleneck at Laredo,TX.' Hell yeah my man, Laredo blows. Too many trucks, too many docks, to many trailers, not enough space. And that is with a ton of expansion over the last several years. If there is going to be an increase of traffic because of the port at Lazaro Cardenas, then something will be needed like the KC SmartPort, or some other major frickin changes. I also noticed the railroad that would link KC to Lazaro Cardenas is all US owned. KC Southern runs down to Laredo, and they bought the company that goes from Nuevo Laredo the Lazaro Cardenas.


Ok. I'm done. :)

EDIT: Not done. I forgot, don't forget about I-69, which currently runs from Michigan to Indianapolis. It will soon extend to south Texas and the border (will split around in south Texas and go to Laredo, McAllen area, and Brownsville) to have a straight connection from south Texas/Mexico, up to Detroit/eastern Canada. Just though Bubba should worry a little more. :) And yes, I think it will be a great road.

dont you dare come here and be all factual and on topic you crazy truckdriver!!!

dont you dare come here and be all factual and on topic you crazy truckdriver!!!

Sorry, it really did build up all week and had to be released. :)

Sorry, it really did build up all week and had to be released. :)

:D

I do appreciate that post, though. Solid critique and analysis from someone on the ground level so to speak is always helpful to have.

Just look at the VA system in our own country as a model.....

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

I haven't had a good laugh like that in years. I've been a part of the VA system for 2 years now and it is far from the great system that you described.

When I was having numbness and losing function in my right arm, it took them nearly 2 months to get me a simple MRI that took 35-40 minutes to do. It took them another 2 weeks before I could get the surgery I desperately needed. You see, my spinal cord was severely compressed and one wrong move could have cost me my life.

Now, when they did do the surgery, they did a great job. I have very few effects from it other than the occasional neck cramp, but it should have done in a matter of days not weeks to do. The level of healthcare is better than it was in the 80's and 90's when my dad was using it, but it is inferior to private run facilities.

If I had walked into a emergency room at a local hospital, I would have the MRI and surgery done in just a few hours or worst case in a couple days. Not nearly 3 months. I'm very lucky to be alive right now.

Bubba, thanks for changing the thread title. You are a man of your word.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

I haven't had a good laugh like that in years. I've been a part of the VA system for 2 years now and it is far from the great system that you described.

When I was having numbness and losing function in my right arm, it took them nearly 2 months to get me a simple MRI that took 35-40 minutes to do. It took them another 2 weeks before I could get the surgery I desperately needed. You see, my spinal cord was severely compressed and one wrong move could have cost me my life.

Now, when they did do the surgery, they did a great job. I have very few effects from it other than the occasional neck cramp, but it should have done in a matter of days not weeks to do. The level of healthcare is better than it was in the 80's and 90's when my dad was using it, but it is inferior to private run facilities.

If I had walked into a emergency room at a local hospital, I would have the MRI and surgery done in just a few hours or worst case in a couple days. Not nearly 3 months. I'm very lucky to be alive right now.

Similar story in that my father-in-law, an injured vet from WW2, has been in and out of VA for 60 years - and it has been one gross incompetence after another. It has been an endless cycle of misdiagnosis, attempting to fix a problem and then coming back to fix a problem from the previous "fix". And he's not in some podunk place but in South Florida. At least they still try to care for him but it is far from any "model" to follow.

The point is that I get far, far better care in the past two years with private care (esp. with the brain surgery and other specialists) than he has in the past 60 with the VA.

Did Mr B. really hold up the VA system as a positive example of health care? *shudder* ... I wouldn't let the VA take my temperature!

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

I haven't had a good laugh like that in years. I've been a part of the VA system for 2 years now and it is far from the great system that you described.

When I was having numbness and losing function in my right arm, it took them nearly 2 months to get me a simple MRI that took 35-40 minutes to do. It took them another 2 weeks before I could get the surgery I desperately needed. You see, my spinal cord was severely compressed and one wrong move could have cost me my life.

Now, when they did do the surgery, they did a great job. I have very few effects from it other than the occasional neck cramp, but it should have done in a matter of days not weeks to do. The level of healthcare is better than it was in the 80's and 90's when my dad was using it, but it is inferior to private run facilities.

If I had walked into a emergency room at a local hospital, I would have the MRI and surgery done in just a few hours or worst case in a couple days. Not nearly 3 months. I'm very lucky to be alive right now.
I am shocked -- SHOCKED -- to discover that VA health care isn't perfect, which I clearly said it was earlier.

http://ajm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/15/5/207
Mortality is similiar in VA and regular hospitals

Technology has transformed the VA
Veterans' hospitals used to be a byword for second-rate care or worse. Now, thanks to technology, they're national leaders in efficiency and quality.

...The improved care at the VA hasn't been lost on veterans. This year the agency expects to treat 5.4 million patients, up sharply from the 2.9 million people it treated a decade ago. Customer satisfaction with the veterans' health system, as measured by the University of Michigan, has exceeded that for private health care in each of the past six years.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/05/15/8376846/index.htm

What’s behind the VA hospital turnaround?
Once derided, the system is now the envy of health care administrators

...But under a major restructuring that began during the Clinton administration, the VA has undergone an amazing transformation. It now offers what several surveys show to be the best medical care in the country.

"The VA health care system in the past few years has been rated exceptionally high in their quality of care," says Peter Gaytan with the American Legion. "And that rating comes from the patients themselves."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11844694/

VA pioneering low-cost care

It shows other medical providers more isn't always better

Thursday, October 23, 2003
By Jack Kelly, Post-Gazette National Security Writer

If Medicare and private health-care providers adopted reforms pioneered by the Department of Veterans Affairs, they could cut costs by as much as 30 percent while maintaining or improving the quality of health care, the New England Journal of Medicine reported in today's edition.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/03296/233494.stm

So all the research says that the VA meets or exceeds private health care, but at a fraction of the cost. But hey, if it's anything that proves countless research articles and factual data wrong, it's an isolated individual's experience :rolleyes:

Did Mr B. really hold up the VA system as a positive example of health care? *shudder* ... I wouldn't let the VA take my temperature!
What a surprise, st.cronin completely ignorant on a subject he insists on negatively commenting on. Color me shocked.

What a surprise, st.cronin completely ignorant on a subject he insists on negatively commenting on. Color me shocked.

Completely ignorant? I'm enrolled in a pre-medical program! I come from a family of doctors! What do you do with your time? Go fuck yourself, troll.

What do you do with your time?

Ooooh....ooooh...ask me, I know.

Ooooh....ooooh...ask me, I know.

Let's hear it.

Completely ignorant? I'm enrolled in a pre-medical program! I come from a family of doctors! What do you do with your time? Go fuck yourself, troll.
I DRIVE A DODGE STRATUS!

I don't care what your family does, you still have no idea what you are talking about with respect to the VA. Every objective source I can find says its better than private care. New England Journal of Medicine, Fortune, MSNBC, U of Michigan, everything. Do a google search yourself, it's very simple.

I fail to see how I am trolling. You posted for the express purpose of calling me out for something stupid that you thought I said. I called you on your ignorance, and noted that you have done that many times before (which you have, I could look them up if it would help). If that bothers you, call the Waaaambulance.

Would the publicly funded Waaambulance be more efficient than the HMO Waaambulance? Inquiring minds want to know! :)