Uh, 'kay, "context." Again, I ask - assuming your costs of illegal immigration, I'll repeat my above question: I'm fairly certain I can grasp anything you want to toss my way, Mojo. Just sincerely seeking to discern the root of your discontent. By the way - in all this, you might have missed it, several posts back. I work with cops alot, tactical defense. I know the tough job you have to do, and thank you for your service. I don't agree with you at all in the context of this thread and others, but honor you for serving.
Yes, it is not about the "Race: of the illegal immigrants because, as shown in the link, there is no mexican race.. they as composed of white, brown, black and asian. The cost for America though, is substantially different. the only benefit is for the illegals.
It is not about the race for the majority. In my personal experience we have 3 groups of people who are loud mouth about immigrants. 1) The lazy asses who have no skills and blame all their failure in life on immigrants and claim that if it was not for immigrants they could have a job cleaning toilets for $50/hour. 2) Those who their girlfriend or wife left them while informing them that the Mexican is much better in bed or those who can not get a girl while seeing the Mexican with the "white" girls and imagine that if it was not because of Mexicans, they could get laid too. 3) Since these losers can also vote, the politicians who repeat the same nonsense to get these losers votes.
You didn't say America, though. You said White America. Stand by what you wrote, or change it and clarify - but don't dodge, please. You also extrapolated to individual Mexicans from your judgement of Latin America generally, and decried the effects of affirmative action on you personally. All which, together, I surmise, get to the root of what's troubling you. This we can honestly and openly discuss.
We all know that aiding federal criminals is against the law and we can be criminally prosecuted for it. You weren't merely *implying* that I broke the law. Title of liar goes back to you. Enjoy! As for any on-topic parts of your posts, "What gworld and northpointaiki said."
yes, the symptom is harming white Americans, making them minorities in their own land, but alienating them from federally mandating alocations deemed for minorities. That isn't saying this is about race of those coming into the nation; the symptom however IS a racial one seeing as a white mexican can still get preferances while a white American cannot. Can you follow this yet? Yes, and? Oh, so if I mentioned people from the asian sub-continent (say, india) and then said "and asians", you'd consider them the same too? there is most deffinately a difference. they don't even speak the same spanish and are generally into their own nationalities, while foregoing the rest. Aiding criminals is against the law? wrong, aiding AND abetting is.. Example: You can rent a house to a criminal and not be held liable. You cannot rent a house to a criminal knowing he is dealing drugs out of the house and doing so with your consent. *volley's back to the liar* see the difference?
Is there a federally mandated allocations for illegal immigrants? It seems you are switching from hatred for illegal immigrants to hatred for all immigrants and minorities. I knew I was right about you, you belong to the first group in my previous post. Those who are not good enough or too lazy to work hard enough and then blame their failure on immigrants, minorities, federal government or anything else except themselves. I have a news for you, there will be no job paying $50/hour for cleaning toilets even if there was not one Mexican in USA. Start working and stop complaining about Mexicans.
If you rent a house to a criminal and he deals drugs even without your consent, the house can be seized. I reject your lame attempt to evade the question MOJO. At this point I don't even believe you're in law enforcement.
Most likely rent a cop or a parking attendant that couldn't get in LAPD and now blames the minority allocation programs.
I was thinking high school kid but you may be right gworld. He certainly doesn't write very well, I doubt a member of the LAPD would write so poorly.
California was rather loosely populated. Although I must say, I do have a handful of friends that have 'mexican' blood in them and have families native of California. They have the last names of the city e.g Vallejo. lol. Mexico lost it's land due to conflicts between texans and mexican government officials. Mexico ironically created a rather open border immigration policy for white americans, and they lost Texas because white americans no-longer wanted them governing. The US took Texas's side, because it wanted to take the rest of the land in the west, and the rest is history. That's just another reason why you don't have open border policies. Eventually people decide it's their 'own'. But two wrongs doesn't make a right.
Mexico existed for thousands of years? I thought Mexico came into existence when the Spainards conquered it? Other than that it was more or less loose tribes. One big one a long time before the Spaniards, but it for the most part it was a region of tribes. I guess it's just a matter of semantics. It actually didn't have a formal written language among the masses. Well it did, but it never evolved enough to travel throughout the America's. Reason being:North to south migration is much harder than east to west. Especially in trade....back then. Europe, the middle east, and Asia are very blessed in a way. Trade (both of ideas and products) were very established. No such think occured in the Americas to such a vast scale. Therefore advancements were rather limited.
An interesting read, in this context, The European Miracle, by Eric Jones. I have previously mentioned A Population History of the United States, by Herbert Klein, for its first couple of chapters on the paleohistory and paleoeconomic history of the Americas.
Perhaps I'll pick that up. Reading one of the reviews I see this: I remember watching a documentary on that, and that's were I garned some of my above opinions. Other than killing 95% of the natives of the Americas through disease, europe has been good....*said with sarcasm* The Americas were just disadvantaged by their geographical realities. Otherwise they'd likely be on a similiar path as Europe, even before Europe came. They'd probably tell us to only migrate according to their laws...lmao. Unfortunately open border didn't work for them. It never does.
This was what I found interesting about Jones' book (bear with me - Berkeley, over 20 years ago now) - like Guns, Germs and Steel, it looks at endowments. But I was especially interested in Jones' look at geographic structure as endowment - e.g., mountain structures encouraging local, intensive trade, and later, state building, as opposed to vast plains and dispersed vistas discouraging same. When I came to know something of punctuational evolution, I saw obvious parallels with Jones' thesis. I really enjoyed the book.
Makes you wonder what the internet will do in the long-run? Or what real-world effect it has had....kind-of hard to gauge. Considering that the isolation of ideas is 'structural', yes. The internet is an avenue where ideas are vastly expansive among the population of the world. Trade combined with ideas over the net, should be a huge benefit over time.... just guessing we're better off with it, then without it.
You know, that's funny - I wasn't even thinking "structure" as in a structuralist argument. I meant literally, physical layout of the mountain lines. Seems our conversation on structure and ideas is destined to continue. I'm glad for it. Maybe I'll learn something. My PhD work, in a sentence: nationalism grew up with industrialization. To take Germany, as but one example, the infrastructure of national railroads, commerce associations, and the like, led to a breaking down of particularistic loyalties, and increased sense of "Germanness," for instance, v. the sense of personal subjecthood to the Prussian King; such patterns were picked up elsewhere throughout Kleindeutsch German lands, and, voila - the German national state. If "ideas" were what flowed, the "nation" was the pipeline, the structure, through which they flowed. Both were very important, and served different purposes. (OK, more than 1 sentence).
I was at St Kilda beach in Melbourne on a 90 degree day last year and there were a couple of young guys from Monterey Mexico. They were funny guys actually. They were drinking their Jim Beam on the beach chatting up the same bikini clad Aussie girls I was. Likable guys too... even though they were loud mouths and uncouth. (See maybe they're not so different from you American's after all )
Believe me, I'll never demean your view; I've always believed in it. I think the two are interchangeable, personally. In fact that's my own issue at the moment. What structure enables ideas to be best facilitated? For example. Say you wish to accomplish a said goal. But the goal is vastly different in opinions and ways (all goals are). Could you keep the structure of that system (to accomplish goals) as open as possible and as effective as possible? Just a thought straying in my mind. Sort of linked to a loose net theory of mine. .[/QUOTE] Veins and blood. Same would go for a corporate structure. They dictate the blueprint 'idea' of the company down the structure of the company. The structure is part of the idea, but the structure itself can influence the effectiveness of the idea. Not that people really get proud of working for a corporation, ehhh... Are you done with that work? I'd love to read it. Oddly an influence of mine is with another Phd of the Freestateproject.com. He was implying if you get a lot of like-minded people together, you could bring back quite a bit of federalism. That's where some of my 'idea' view comes from. But the organization doesn't have the appropriate 'structure' in my opinion, and I think the vast majority of people aren't willing to move to a state for nominal changes. Although I feel kind-of guilty for abandon it. I think Libertarians are probably the most ethical people out there. But organizing 'rebels' is so hard.
I defy you to prove that bold part. I bet dimes to dollars that you cannot find ONE instance of that happening in California. You cannot be held liable as a landlord for events that you know nothing about. It's the law, regardless if you like it or not. Reject it or swallow it, doesn't make it false. That is not an evasion of the question, it's the answer. If it fuddles your motives, tough shit.. I do not exist to make you life more pleasurable. Well I'm not here to prove anything to you, if that is what you are looking for... but believe me, with the salary we make, it's not something worth me lying about. Like it or not, this is the way of the world... and until you can show differently, instead of mere mudslinging or name calling, it's the way it is. Your bias is showing.