Show Us Your Papers

[strategy 4]

You know some people come here to escape their countries, not just to get jobs. How do you respond to them once the labor needs are met?Pretty sure that your analogy that entry level jobs are available around you is not a valid line of reasoning to counter the unemployment numbers and the economic slowdown that has effected the country.But maybe I am wrong, as long as someone in the bottom of the job food chain is hiring, then we need to keep our borders open!

As more people enter the country, the increased demand for all the different resources those people consume will create additional jobs. It's not an instant phenomenon, but we would have absurd unemployment numbers today if population growth didn't trigger a corresponding increase in the number of jobs.

[CaneBrain 95]

Also, he has dubbed it the Insane War on Drugs because we keep trying despite the decades of abysmal results. See: our inability to keep drugs out of maximum security prisons.

Yes, although I also think it is a play on the phrase "doing something over and over and expecting different results is the definition of insanity."In that sense, it certainly is the insane war on drugs. Even silly Democrats can learn from Republicans that giving things a label matters. It's what the GOP does best.

[strategy 4]

I'm neither saying right nor wrong, but the Government legislates the Market all the time. To say it "never" works "period" is a typical Libertarian overstatement. Although I'd rather have (Demand) a Toilet that has more that 1.0 GPF, I haven't been "forced" to get a more dangerous product from the Illegal Black Market (Supply) - there is no "Toilet Meth Effect" due to the Government's Insane War on Toilets.

I'll try to keep my mouth shut on the topic. I think alcohol's history blows some gaping holes in your position, but I'm not entirely comfortable with H's either...

[CaneBrain 95]

I'll try to keep my mouth shut on the topic. I think alcohol's history blows some gaping holes in your position, but I'm not entirely comfortable with H's either...

come to the middle road. legalize pot on the West Coast where it is basically legal anyway. Evaluate. Decide if right for rest of country.anything but doing the same thing year after year without any success. I just cannot understand how anyone could possibly be against this given the history of "The Insane War on Drugs"tm.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

I'll try to keep my mouth shut on the topic...

More of us (often the "me" part of "us") should take your lead.

[hblask 1]

Again, you are arguing to the idea that since it would be hard to do, we shouldn't even try.

No, I'm stating, quite flatly, that it is impossible. Not "hard to do", impossible. Not once in history has prohibition worked, ever, even a little, and after billions of dollars and decades of trying, the insane drug war has not made a dent, not the slightest reduction, in drug use, and in many ways, has made the problem worse. Unless you have some reason to believe that that will suddenly change, you are supporting insanity.

[hblask 1]

I guess you are able to prove that the actions we took in the past resulted in a worse result than a different action had we taken it.Please feel free to share your data that shows that not fighting the drug war would have made everything better.

I've already proved that. Drug use rates do not change when prohibition is implemented. The degree of severity of enforcement does not affect usage and abuse rates. Countries where drugs are legal have *lower* usage rates than countries with prohibition.Many innocent (not involved in the drug trade) people die each year in collateral damage to the war on drugs, and transactions that could be as peaceful as buying a beer at the bar instead are turned into threats to the life of everyone involved.Zero gain, lots of harm. What more proof do you need? You are starting to sound like the Democrats and welfare: we need to keep it because it's good. We don't need no data, it's obviously good. That contrary data is just an exception, we'll fix that with in the next bill. Let's spend another billion. Now, which program is the italicized part defending?

[hblask 1]

I'm neither saying right nor wrong, but the Government legislates the Market all the time. To say it "never" works "period" is a typical Libertarian overstatement. Although I'd rather have (Demand) a Toilet that has more that 1.0 GPF, I haven't been "forced" to get a more dangerous product from the Illegal Black Market (Supply) - there is no "Toilet Meth Effect" due to the Government's Insane War on Toilets.

I could get you a real toilet in ten minutes if you really wanted one. They are still readily available if you know where to look.Any other examples you want to embarrass yourself with?

[hblask 1]

As more people enter the country, the increased demand for all the different resources those people consume will create additional jobs. It's not an instant phenomenon, but we would have absurd unemployment numbers today if population growth didn't trigger a corresponding increase in the number of jobs.

This is the correct response. People's demands are unlimited, their productive capacity is limited. That means that more people creates more demand.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

I could get you a real toilet in ten minutes if you really wanted one. They are still readily available if you know where to look.Any other examples you want to embarrass yourself with?

Again **** you. I am guessing you know how wrong you are and that's why you're trying to bait me with the emotional "arguments" and personal attacks. The government often regulates the market sometimes effectively, more often not. But don't try and act like it "never" works "period". Nice try. You really need to review the rules of logic and "proof". You are becoming so internally inconsistent I am starting to wonder if Nimue has hijacked your account....and I am certain you'll come up with another example to "embarrasses" yourself.

[hblask 1]

Again **** you. You're wrong and you know it. Nice try. Hope you're "embarrassed"

Which part of it am I incorrect about? (Hint: swearing at me doesn't refute facts.)

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

Which part of it am I incorrect about? (Hint: swearing at me doesn't refute facts.)

Facts?Seriously?Facts...?You've made a career in this thread out of making statements that are based on opinion and emotion completely devoid of fact. I honestly don't know if you know the difference....and I'll happily tell you to go **** yourself every time you take a silly childish personal shot like that.

[hblask 1]

Facts?Seriously?Facts...?You've made a career in this thread out of making statements that are based on opinion and emotion completely devoid of fact. I honestly don't know if you know the difference....and I'll happily tell you to go **** yourself every time you take a silly childish personal shot like that. Again, you're about 1/10th as clever as you seem to think of yourself as being.

Thank you for that fact-filled refutation of my post. You are doing great. Keep it up.EDIT: In case you can't tell, that was sarcasm.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

Thank you for that fact-filled refutation of my post. You are doing great. Keep it up.EDIT: In case you can't tell, that was sarcasm.

Yeah. You showed me with "facts". Whatever dude. I gave two examples where the Government has stepped in to regulate markets. There are any number of examples where the Government controls and regulates supply/demand and you know it. You've made a number of declarative absolute statements that have zero factual basis. I think you make these statements and suddenly realize you've dug a hole that is too deep to get out of without resorting to non-factual attacks and then demand to be "proven" wrong. In actuality you don't really understand a logical proof. But, hey, keep taking personal shots and making emotional arguments. Hope that works for you.

[hblask 1]

Yeah. You showed me with "facts". Whatever dude. I gave two examples where the Government has stepped in to regulate markets. There are any number of examples where the Government controls and regulates supply/demand and you know it. You've made a number of declarative absolute statements that have zero factual basis. I think you make these statements and suddenly realize you've dug a hole that is too deep to get out of without resorting to non-factual attacks and then demand to be "proven" wrong. In actuality you don't really understand a logical proof. But, hey, keep taking personal shots and making emotional arguments. Hope that works for you.

Government can distort supply and demand, but can never eliminate it. In the case of drugs, the demand is nearly inelastic, so the supply will not be affected by laws. All the laws can hope to do is create a violent environment for the transactions -- and statistics and history bear that out.In the case of high flush toilets, the demand is a bit more elastic. For the first few years after good toilets were made illegal, the black market for good ones was about as hidden as the black market for drugs. Since then, in a shocking development, legitimate manufacturers have stepped up to meet the demand by producing a product that is slightly less terrible, so that the people who were on the fence will now accept the legal product. The black market still exists, but is diminishing as manufacturers step up.Supply = demand. Every time.

[speedz99 145]

But, hey, keep taking personal shots and making emotional arguments.

...

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

...

Yeah, yeah, I know. Pot v. Kettle & all that. Not my best work.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

Government can distort supply and demand, but can never eliminate it. In the case of drugs, the demand is nearly inelastic, so the supply will not be affected by laws. All the laws can hope to do is create a violent environment for the transactions -- and statistics and history bear that out.In the case of high flush toilets, the demand is a bit more elastic. For the first few years after good toilets were made illegal, the black market for good ones was about as hidden as the black market for drugs. Since then, in a shocking development, legitimate manufacturers have stepped up to meet the demand by producing a product that is slightly less terrible, so that the people who were on the fence will now accept the legal product. The black market still exists, but is diminishing as manufacturers step up.Supply = demand. Every time.

...and so what you're saying is that the market was ultimately changed successfully by legislative fiat.Thank you.

[Ninjafoo 0]

No, I'm stating, quite flatly, that it is impossible. Not "hard to do", impossible. Not once in history has prohibition worked, ever, even a little, and after billions of dollars and decades of trying, the insane drug war has not made a dent, not the slightest reduction, in drug use, and in many ways, has made the problem worse. Unless you have some reason to believe that that will suddenly change, you are supporting insanity.

And your facts for this are where? I would love to see where cutting supply lines, arresting drug dealers, and destroying feilds or factories where the drugs are produced, makes no, as in 0%, difference in the availibility, distribution, and ultimate use in a specific area. Better yet, the data showing that the war on drugs increases use vs. allowing people to go down to the store and pick it up whenever they feel like it. I've not heard of any major company's marketing campaign where they make their product more diffucult to obtain, coca-cola and google don't subscribe to this idea. The assumption that legalizing meth would create a flood in the market, and thus, making it more readily available to people that might not have been previously exposed, increasing the number of addicts and crimes associated with certain addicts (such as murders and theft), is a lot more logical than the assumption of legalizing meth will make it go away because people just won't want it anymore. Please don't respond with the fantasy that they will make safe, fun, cheap meth the whole family can enjoy. Even if they could, it would be a better product phasing out meth, not the simple legalization. I'm by no means saying that the war on drugs is 100% effective, (before you go assuming shit again, like my stance on racism, or the other hypcritical stereotypical assumptions you've made) or that alternative means shouldn't be explored to be used with, or possibly in place of the war on drugs one day. However, just because the police in my city don't stop every single crime in my area, doesn't mean I want them to pack up their shit and go home either.

[Ninjafoo 0]

Wow, getting worse... we have a large number of immigrants here in Minnesota. I don't know what percentage is legal and illegal. The local horse track has almost exclusively Spanish speaking Hispanics working there. I welcome there with open arms, and thank them for taking care of the horses and the track.If I was in a car accident with an illegal alien, I would not feel any different than if I was in an identical accident with a native born person. Why would I? Because they would not be liable for damages in most cases Likewise, if I was robbed, I would not feel any differently if it were a native or an immigrant. Why would I? It would depend on the specific circumstance, but again they might not be brought to justice, instead just given a free ride home Are you suggesting that you use isolated incidents as justification for your racism? Racist against who? I thought we were talking about illegals? Oh I get it stereotyping is tottaly ok when you use it I was once held up at gunpoint by two black guys. Should I suggest that all black people be deported? No but you should take some solace in the fact if they are legal citizens and caught they will answer to justice, unless you're just going to say you don't care what people do to you, in which case, can I have you adress so I can come take all your shit? (In case you had to think about it, the answer is no, isolated incidents don't justify racism.)And yes, EVERY fast food place I go to here has help wanted signs. I'm not sure where the 7% unemployed is, but they apparently don't want to work fast food.

The point of that post was to show how perspective has a lot to do with things. You live in a place where there are help wanted signs in fast food places. That has nothing to do with the fact I live in a place where there are not, where instead there is business closing left and right. It was also to show how your assumption of every white cop being racist, is just as stereotypical and racist as you make out the immigration bill to be. By being just as racist and stereotypical as the people you are worried about, you have equalized your side of the problem.Racism towards, and implying racism can only come from, white people is really getting old.....especially when it comes from people constantly crying racism.

[hblask 1]

...and so what you're saying is that the market was ultimately changed successfully by legislative fiat.Thank you.

Exactly. That's what I've been saying all along. In the case of elastic demand with legal products, you can move to substitute products. In the case of inelastic demand where substitutes are illegal, you can create violence and death with no change in usage rates.You can't override the laws of supply and demand by legislative fiat.Do you see now?

[hblask 1]

And your facts for this are where? I would love to see where cutting supply lines, arresting drug dealers, and destroying feilds or factories where the drugs are produced, makes no, as in 0%, difference in the availibility, distribution, and ultimate use in a specific area.

It's called the United States.

Better yet, the data showing that the war on drugs increases use vs. allowing people to go down to the store and pick it up whenever they feel like it. I've not heard of any major company's marketing campaign where they make their product more diffucult to obtain, coca-cola and google don't subscribe to this idea.

Cocaine addiction rates in the US are *exactly* the same now as they were when cocaine was available over the counter. Google on "Law Enforcement Against Prohibition LEAP".

The assumption that legalizing meth would create a flood in the market, and thus, making it more readily available to people that might not have been previously exposed, increasing the number of addicts and crimes associated with certain addicts (such as murders and theft), is a lot more logical than the assumption of legalizing meth will make it go away because people just won't want it anymore.

Would you destroy your life with hard drugs if they were legal? I wouldn't. In case you hadn't noticed, drugs are already readily available to anyone who wants them. The drug war has not cut supply even a little. People who want to wreck their life will wreck it (I suppose you'll misunderstand that statement, too). People who don't want to wreck their life won't.

[hblask 1]

Because they would not be liable for damages in most cases

And an uninsured citizen would? See, the world I live in, I understand that not everything goes according to plans, so I have insurance for that case.

It would depend on the specific circumstance, but again they might not be brought to justice, instead just given a free ride home

So you are admitting that the insane immigration laws that prevent people from being here legally is causing a harmful consequence?

The point of that post was to show how perspective has a lot to do with things. You live in a place where there are help wanted signs in fast food places. That has nothing to do with the fact I live in a place where there are not, where instead there is business closing left and right.

Why would anyone take a legal risk and hire an illegal if there were legal workers available? The answer is that Mexicans will work for cheaper. Unless you believe you have a right to a specific job at a specific right of pay from a specific employer, I don't see how this is harming you.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

...and so what you're saying is that the market was ultimately changed successfully by legislative fiat.

Exactly......You can't override the laws of supply and demand by legislative fiat.

You need help. (And it wasn't until very recently you even tried to qualify your absolute statements with elasticity - so, no, it isn't at all what you've been saying all along. Not by a long shot.)

[85suited 0]

AZ legislature “fixes” new immigration law

The first concerns the phrase “lawful contact,” which is contained in this controversial portion of the bill: “For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency…where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person…” Although the drafters of the law said that the intent of “lawful contact” was to specify situations in which police have stopped someone because he or she was suspected of violating some other law — like a traffic stop — critics said it would allow cops to pick anyone out of a crowd and “demand their papers.”So now, in response to those critics, lawmakers have removed “lawful contact” from the bill and replaced it with “lawful stop, detention or arrest.” In an explanatory note, lawmakers added that the change “stipulates that a lawful stop, detention or arrest must be in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state.”“It was the intent of the legislature for ‘lawful contact’ to mean arrests and stops, but people on the left mischaracterized it,” says Kris Kobach, the law professor and former Bush Justice Department official who helped draft the law. “So that term is now defined.”