California Taxpayer Protection Act of 2012

[Coito ergo sum]

You then made baseless assumptions about these immigrants from your stories, and quite sadly, alll the worst ones... that they are essentially lazy, unmotivated, leechlike criminals.

I'm pretty sure you're the only one in this thread who has posted anything about illegal immigrants being "lazy, unmotivated, leechlike criminals".

Just paraphrasing Warren...but fine, I'll agree with you. You have nothing else to respond to in that post? This is it?

Oh, the irony.

[
The United States simply cannot afford to take in all the "huddled masses yearning to breathe free" any longer.

If they're yearning to breathe free, we can take them. If they're yearning to suckle on the government tit, then we can't.

That's a big "if," their Mai. I did not suggest that all, or most, illegal immigrants are yearning to suckle on the government tit. And, thanks for taking the comment completely out of context, wherein it was following another poster's comment using that turn of phrase.

For the record, I have said that most immigrants, illegal and otherwise, are very hard-working, industrious, and good people, like any other.

You are being quite intellectually dishonest, and very nasty to me personally. First you attack my wife, who is an immigrant, and then you attack me and attribute to me arguments I never made. Dirty pool, Mai.

[Seth]

Notice how right-wingers somehow presume to speak on behalf of all taxpayers. Just like with the so-called "TaxPayers' Alliance" over here.

The cool thing is that if you don't like the fact that your government doesn't have enough money to fund its social welfare programs, you, like Warren Buffet, can simply send more of your paycheck to the government to make up for the deficit. You can send as much as you like, even 100 percent of your income, to help the poor. Nobody's going to stop you, but then again nobody's going to force you to do so.

You, however, have no compunctions about forcing other people to pay more because of YOUR sense of entitlement, do you?

Pretty damned selfish, but then again that's what socialism is all about, selfishness.

What the hell does that crap have to do with what I posted?

Everything.

I was pointing out the arrogant presumption of extreme right-wingers in proclaiming themselves spokespeople for a so-called "silent majority". How dare they!

How dare you presume that "right-wingers" are speaking for anyone but themselves?

On what evidence do they do this when any "silent majority" out there that may-or-may-not exist is, by definition, silent?

On what evidence do you claim they do what you suggest they are doing?

You could on just as much (or rather, little) evidence invoke "silent majority" support for just about any political or economic position you like.

I don't believe I've every invoked the "silent majority." I have, however, pointed out that taxpayers generally don't like paying taxes, they do it because they are compelled to do so by the force of government, but I'm sure most taxpayers would rather have their taxes go down than go up. I don't think that's too much of a logical stretch and I don't think it's cause for invoking insult and derision.

The use of the word "taxpayer" to implicitly mean "libertarian" is the lowest form of rhetorical sewage - it's an appeal to argumentum ad populum without even bothering to provide evidence for the "populum" bit.

The only taxpayers I'm aware of who indicate that they want to pay more taxes and have government spend more of their money are Warren Buffet and Barack Obama, and perhaps Nancy Pelosi.

Everybody else I know wants their own taxes lower and less government spending. I think it's reasonable to assume that this is the case for most people.

Socialists, you see, never want THEIR taxes raised, they only want OTHER PEOPLE'S taxes raised to pay for their own selfish needs and desires.

[Clinton Huxley]

ye, Mai. Conservatives are, by definition, cowards and bigots. And usually proud of it.

What's the law in the UK, Hux? Everyone from other countries are allowed in without proper documentation? No immigration laws there? If someone does sneak into the UK illegally, can the police check their immigration status? And, if so, what happens? Are they allowed to stay?

Enlighten us.

I thought this thread was about the California Taxpayer thingy. By all means start a thread on UK immigration policy.

[Coito ergo sum]

So, to conclude:-

A) the global trading system is perfect
B) idealism must be crushed whenever it rears its silly head
C) Americans are just more important than anyone else.

That's about as logical as:

A) The global trading system must be changed, but it doesn't matter to what. Just change it. Anything is better.
B) Practical concerns like "if you suggest something different, please describe what it is that you suggest," are irrelevant because, well, see A.
C) Europeans are just more enlightened and advanced than anyone else, particular Americans.

Oh, CES, there really is no hope for you.

Look - all I asked for was a fair to middling summary of what one or the other of you proposes the system to be changed to. I've never suggested that the "global trading system is perfect," and I don't see anyone else here who has either. However, identifying an imperfection is half of the analysis -- what to do about it is quite another. In addition, I never said idealism must be crushed, and I also don't see anyone else here who has done that. Have all the ideals you want -- but, idealism and what can pragmatically be done to change things for the better are two different things, and we don't just trod down primrose paths anytime someone mentions one. It's not really unreasonable to say "what is your suggestion, specifically, and how will it make things better." If your only response is -- like yours has been so far -- "everything kind of sucks, and so change it to something that makes it better" then excuse me if I don't take you too seriously. And, finally, I've never said Americans are more important, and neither has anyone else here that I can see.

In short, your post was ridiculous, insipid nonsense.

[Clinton Huxley]

CES, sometimes you need to take your galumphing size 12s off and stop being such a ninny.

[Coito ergo sum]

ye, Mai. Conservatives are, by definition, cowards and bigots. And usually proud of it.

What's the law in the UK, Hux? Everyone from other countries are allowed in without proper documentation? No immigration laws there? If someone does sneak into the UK illegally, can the police check their immigration status? And, if so, what happens? Are they allowed to stay?

Enlighten us.

I thought this thread was about the California Taxpayer thingy. By all means start a thread on UK immigration policy.

Yes it is. However, let's be clear about this. Your reference to "cowards and bigots" is referencing those who don't find the new law to be problematic. She calls them conservatives, and you call them cowards and bigots - and proud of it.

Yet - what of this law is not common throughout the world? UK and other countries - are they issuing drivers licenses to illegal immigrants? Are they extending public benefits to illegals. One person posted here about being denied benefits and he was legally in the UK.

The point of me asking about the UK is to point out how normal, and how commonplace, in the "enlightened" western world these kinds of restrictions on illegal immigrants are. We are often confronted by the injunction that the US ought to come up to speed with the "rest of the enlightened or industrialized world." If all of western Europe has similar laws to these -- if all of western Europe regulates the influx of immigrants into their jurisdictions for a variety of valid reasons - then why can't the US do the same?

The point is to highlight the common practice of folks from other countries, like the UK, criticizing what the US does, while saying nothing about what their own countries do. Surely, if you are suggesting that the US issue drivers licenses to illegal immigrants, then you would also be in favor of that in the UK. Surely, you would want to provide free college and health care to all those illegally in the UK, yes? Does that sound reasonable to you? Do you wish to "share" in the way Mai says we should? If so, then great, by all means --- I'm going to head over to the UK without a visa -- I'm going to overstay my visit, and remain illegally in England. Then I'll just take my free health care, and go to college full time on your and the rest of the UK population's dime, and then after college, you'll be a good chap and have your immigration service give me a proper UK passport will you?

That's what Mai is asking us to do here. Are you saying that to oppose that, one has to be a conservative bigot and coward?

[Coito ergo sum]

CES, sometimes you need to take your galumphing size 12s off and stop being such a ninny.

Yes yes...

I see the error of my ways.... I will from henceforth imagine a dream world where someone else takes care of all the problems in the world and others pay for it. Then I'll call that "sharing," and pat myself on the back. Then I'll be enlightened and most non-ninnyish.

[Clinton Huxley]

I thought this thread was about California. Please feel free to start threads about the immigration policy of the EU country of your choice. I would probably find fault with all of 'em.

[Clinton Huxley]

CES, sometimes you need to take your galumphing size 12s off and stop being such a ninny.

Yes yes...

I see the error of my ways.... I will from henceforth imagine a dream world where someone else takes care of all the problems in the world and others pay for it. Then I'll call that "sharing," and pat myself on the back. Then I'll be enlightened and most non-ninnyish.

The first step is always the most difficult. Well done.

[Coito ergo sum]

I thought this thread was about California. Please feel free to start threads about the immigration policy of the EU country of your choice. I would probably find fault with all of 'em.

So, good thing to issue drivers licenses to those illegally in the country? Good thing to pay for their college? Then, put them ahead of law-abiding folks waiting in the proper queue? That's what you think is right for California, is it?

[Coito ergo sum]

CES, sometimes you need to take your galumphing size 12s off and stop being such a ninny.

Yes yes...

I see the error of my ways.... I will from henceforth imagine a dream world where someone else takes care of all the problems in the world and others pay for it. Then I'll call that "sharing," and pat myself on the back. Then I'll be enlightened and most non-ninnyish.

The first step is always the most difficult. Well done.

I can only be grateful for having stumbled upon the true path.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I thought this thread was about California. Please feel free to start threads about the immigration policy of the EU country of your choice. I would probably find fault with all of 'em.

Personally, I wish they'd attend to the beam in their own eyes before mouthing off about our motes. The only thing more laughable than European superciliousness is its lack of justification.

[Coito ergo sum]

The requested thread on UK immigration law: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 9#p1112834

I wonder, will those who are so against the California proposed concept, use the same terminology and descriptors relative to the British law? Are they selfish? Are they racist? Is British immigration law "garbage?" Ought the Brits learn to "share?"

How bad do they suck?

[Clinton Huxley]

The requested thread on UK immigration law: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 9#p1112834

I wonder, will those who are so against the California proposed concept, use the same terminology and descriptors relative to the British law? Are they selfish? Are they racist? Is British immigration law "garbage?" Ought the Brits learn to "share?"

How bad do they suck?

Dear boy, you seem to take any criticism of American personally. Which is quite odd.

[Coito ergo sum]

The requested thread on UK immigration law: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 9#p1112834

I wonder, will those who are so against the California proposed concept, use the same terminology and descriptors relative to the British law? Are they selfish? Are they racist? Is British immigration law "garbage?" Ought the Brits learn to "share?"

How bad do they suck?

Dear boy, you seem to take any criticism of American personally. Which is quite odd.

No, that isn't it at all. I am simply baffled by the fact that what is a commonplace, typical and inoffensive policy choice in most every western democracy is, for some reason, racist, oppressive and unacceptable if tried in the U.S.

It's not that I take the criticism personally. It's that I find the criticism to be monumentally hypocritical.