On Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 09:55:04AM -0400, Bryan-TheBS-Smith wrote:
> Paul M Foster wrote:
> > You probably know more about this than I do. I don't know in what way
> > they're screwed up.
>
> The H-1B Visa system is abused by 50% of employers that use it.
I don't think I can really argue this. I don't have enough information.
But I suspect that the 50% figure is exaggerated.
> > And the point is? We can't stop them all, so don't try?
>
> No, the point is that if you don't let anyone in, only the illegals
> get in. America has always been a great nation _because_ of its
> immigration and the income of talent.
Not true at all. What makes America great is primarily its productivity.
Our freedoms and abundant natural resources augment that productivity.
Yes, we do gain from an influx of new ideas and talent.
> Unfortunately, we are not
> making it near-impossible for anyone with intelligence to get into
> this country. So all we are getting is illegals who don't bother to
> work because they can get free social services. For God sakes, at
> least let in the people who already speak English (not that that is
> a requirement, but why are we turning them away???)!
>
Wow, that's not true. You're exaggerating. There are tons of intelligent
foreigners in our major universities. And I think the percentage of
"shiftless" aliens is low. And I think learning English _should_ be a
requirement.
<snip>
> > That's not really an argument, just rhetoric. Foreigners are welcome to
> > apply for citizenship.
>
> Yeah, which is only taking a good 8-15 years now! Unless you have a
> million dollars to invest.
There's a rule that says you have to wait 8-15 years? I don't think so.
It depends on how bad you want to be a citizen.
> > Examples? I believe profiling has assisted us in catching quite a number
> > of criminals. That's why the FBI invests so heavily in it.
>
> There is a _difference_ between "forensics" and "profiling".
> Forensics is the careful, scientific deduction of statistics and
> facts to a final conclusion. Profiling is the application of quick,
> general application of sterotypes without facts to an immediate
> conclusion. The problem is that profiling is *NOT* very scientific,
> and sometimes _dead_wrong_!
>
Sometimes it is dead wrong. But most of the time, it's not. Which is why
it is used. And conclusions based on profiles are necessarily tentative.
<snip>
> > Besides which, most of the reasons why I've heard are completely
> > without foundation.
>
> I think arresting an old black woman and confiscating her money for
> 10 years only to be found innocent and get half her money back in
> the end (let alone lost the rest in lawyer fees) is pretty pitiful.
> She was returning to her home in Miami after receiving an
> inheritance. But she was black, and had over $10,000 on her so she
> was an obvious drug dealer heading down to Miami, right???
>
Okay, you've cited one case. Yes, I'm sure there are other examples of
profiling abuse. But again, that doesn't mean the method is inherently
flawed.
> > Do Mexicans or Canadians commit an overwhelming number of crimes in this
> > country? Frenchmen, Brits, Germans? And neither do Arabs, but some of
> > them have committed some pretty heinous crimes within our borders.
>
> Like??? You've got 9/11, what else??? What about the Oklahoma City
> bombing??? Did that teach us anything???
>
Compare magnitudes.
> > Gosh, there must be a lot of terrorism going on domestically that I
> > don't know of. Let's see, there's Oklahoma City, and the Unabomber. What
> > else?
>
> I guess you only listen to the Liberal media, eh?
>
I don't trust the liberal media any more than you do. You're
sidestepping the question.
> > I didn't say Arabs as a culture/race support terrorism. But let's
> > compare. Of all the Arab countries, how man support terrorism? Now, of
> > all the European countries, how many support terrorism?
>
> Actually, I'd guess about 5 each. Seriously.
Okay... and what European countries support global terrorism? Skip
Northern Ireland. Their terrorism isn't generally global, and if they
want to blow each other up, let England sort it out.
>
> > But that's not even the point, which you missed. If your brother goes
> > and joins Hamas, you know it, right?
>
> But Hamas is a known group. I agree. But how many Arabs have
> family members in the Hamas? An very small amount dude!
>
Okay. How many international terrorist groups are there? How many
members in all? For each of those members, how many friends and family
members do they have? Compared to the millions who live in Arab
countries, yes it's a small percentage. But that's irrelevant. The
point, again, is that it is up to these people to police their own
family and friends. If they fail to, then you get the inevitable third
party which has to clean things up.
> > And what do you do? Ignore it, or turn him in? If
> > you ignore it (as obviously most of the families in Arab countries do),
>
> Most??? Dude, you really need to check those statistics for
> _reality_!
>
Stats? Reason with me, here. If Mohammed Booboo joins El Quaida, the ten
other members of his family likely know it, right? If any one of them
turned Mohammed in and he was arrested, we would have one less
terrorist, right? Okay, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe for every hundred
terrorists, a thousand get turned in by family and friends, and
arrested. But I doubt it.
> Just because the single ruling family of Saudia Arabia was
> supporting the Hamas doesn't mean everyone is!
>
> > then you are condoning and encouraging this terrorism.
>
> Of course! But it is *NOT* "most"!
>
> The overwhelming majority of Islamic believers and Muslims are peace
> loving, and are quick to rebuke anyone who would join such an
> organization.
>
I doubt that. My view is that most people in any country (including this
one) simply want to live their lives and be left alone. They don't want
to fight with people and they don't want their lives intruded upon by
their government. I'm sure most Arabs feel the same way. However, I
disagree that they would generally rebuke someone for joining a
terrorist cell. I don't necessarily think they would encourage them
either.
> > Eventually, your brother is going to fly a plane into a large building
> > and call the wrath of a large and powerful country down upon you. The
> > point is, the ethics of a community-- any community-- are the
> > responsibility of the members of that community to enforce.
>
> With your logical, you are saying the American public should be held
> accountable for its foreign policy, right???
>
In answer to your specific question, yes. Who elected these yoyos in
Washington? If we aren't responsible for the idiotic (or intelligent)
things they do, who is? The French?
> > When the members of a community fail to enforce the ethics on that
> > community, then it falls to others to use justice to enforce ethics.
>
> The problem with your argument is that the "Arab community" has
> *ZILCH* to do with these small factions. It's just like here in the
> US, violent partisan groups and organized crime exist no matter how
> much we try to prevent them. Same concept dude.
>
Obviously that's not true, since some Arab governments harbor
terrorists.
> > You are correct. There is no excuse for this behavior, and those who
> > knew of and ignored it are guilty as well.
>
> Take a lesson from Vietnam, the enemy is among us and we often
> cannot distinguish. One of the leaders of the Hamas was a professor
> at USF!!
>
_Who_ can't distinguish? People _ignore_ things which are right in front
of them. And academia is the absolute worst institution in America for
knowingly allowing subversives within its ranks.
<snip>
> > It's been said that the population of that country
> > didn't really know what was going on, either. Yet Mein Kampf was a
> > bestseller in that country. Arab nations know, and so do the people
> > within them.
>
> Dude, you continue to miss my point.
>
Must be. What is it?
> > You've been listening to too much Arab propaganda.
>
> Some of it *IS* propaganda. But some of it is *FACT*. The Israelis
> do not follow a code of conduct as our country does. When we
> support this, this enfuriates Arab nations. Especially when _they_
> follow one better than the Israelis!
>
As far as I know, the Israelis do follow a code of conduct. And I don't
know what about any Arab code of conduct makes it superior to that
followed by the Israelis.
> > None of this is truly about Israel.
>
> Unfortunately, Israel continues to make the situation worse. I hope
> that Bush starts holding them responsible for their own, horrendous
> acts. They do *NOT* follow the rules of engagement, and they do
> *NOT* follow civilized warfare at times. They often instigate
> actions and answer to no one!
>
Sorry, I have to sympathize with Israel. Every single country for
thousands of miles around them hates them, and so far as I can tell,
they mostly react to the psychotic attacks of Arabs and Palestinians.
Quite effectively, I might add.
> > This is about men who crave power and manipulate ignorant
> > populations to get it.
>
> I don't see any "ignorant populations" being manipulated??? Even
> the Palastine is mouring over this whole incident. Or are you
> assuming the whole dozen childred the media was able to tape as
> proof that all of Palastine agreed with the actions taken 9/11???
>
According to what I've read, most of the Afghans are illiterate.
Likewise, Palestine operates thousands of terrorist indoctrination
centers where followers (most illiterate) learn some normal academic
subjects, along with a heavy dose of Israel-hate and distorted Koran.
The fact is that no sane population will follow psychos. One of the
first steps in making a population more sane is giving them a good
education.
> > Israel is simply a convenient target.
>
> Israel will continue to be an ally that is a thorn in our side at
> the same time.
>
I agree.
<snip>
> So don't you _dare_ say the Arab nations are the same as the Taliban
> and Afganistan! Don't be so ignorant.
>
Never said it. However, the Taliban does control the government in
Afghanistan, and does harbor and encourage terrorism. I've heard that
Osama funds these folks, which may or may not be true.
<snip>
> I rest my case. Nothing is worse that putting justice in the hands
> of the violated.
>
Well, if we leave it to the Chinese or the Philipinos, what do you think
will happen. Guess what? By bombing our largest city, Osama and his
buddies elected us to mete out justice. Sucks to be them.
<snip>
> > You're right about the Taliban. But the Arabs in the Gulf War coalition
> > specifically forbade us from going after Saddam.
>
> No, a 1975 Presidential mandate forbade us.
I disagree. From what I've read, the Arab countries of the coalition
only would agree to the liberation of Kuwait, not the bringing to
justice of Saddam.
(Now, if you want to know what I really things, move a little closer. I
think the Gulf War was mostly fought over oil. Don't tell anyone,
though.)
> > They were okay on liberating Kuwait, but not on bringing to justice the
> > fellow who started the whole thing.
>
> I'm not going to get into that debate. But just know that *IF* we
> wanted to get him, it would have taken a lot more resources than
> Americans realized.
>
> You save that "expediture" for people who directly threaten innocent
> Americans, like Bin Laden.
>
> > The guy who gassed his own people.
>
> Yeah, the same people who the Turks regularly have to combat as
> well. Dude, I know it is wrong to use chemical weapons, but that
> overused statement is getting old.
>
> > They idiot who built weapons of mass destruction for use on-- who?
> > His Arab neighbors. The fact is that the Arabs have no stomach for
> > ensuring peace in their own neighborhood.
>
> Just like the British and Northern Ireland don't. Just like the
> Balkin states. Same principle, more countries. Don't lump all
> Arabs into the same boat, they disagree with each other over there.
>
> > If you disagree, please cite the Arab country which
> > volunteered to go into Bagdad and capture Saddam on their own.
>
> Iran? You _know_ Iran hates them, as they hate Afganistan. But
> Iran played nice and got almost 100 free Migs out of the deal.
> Smart move. ;-PPP Iran is like the France of the Arab world.
>
> > Look, this is a matter of personal and group responsibility. If you want
> > a sane and orderly society, the only way you'll get it is for the
> > members of that society to ensure it. Not the government. That's just
> > shirking individual responsibility. As a libertarian-leaner, you ought
> > to agree with that.
>
> I don't agree with the application you are trying to use. It's not
> relevant. The great majority of Muslims are free thinkers who
> follow their own path. They are not so different my friend.
>
> > But by the same token, when things go wrong because
> > the society didn't handle it in the first place, it falls to some other
> > entity to enforce order. In WWII, it was the Allies who were elected to
> > enforce order on a continent which allowed psychotic fascism to take
> > hold unchecked.
>
> That's interesting, because the current US economic model is quickly
> becoming facist itself. As a result, this is quickly turning into a
> facist social model as well. But only us Libertarians see it.
> ;-PPP
>
I'll be making a shrine to you later this evening. ;-}
<snip>
> The point I'm making is that both the war on drug and crime have
> become _political_ nightmares. Whether you agree with them or not,
> they are political battleground where PC rules. Crime has steadily
> gone down over the last decade. Columbine was an isolated innocent
> and was *NOT* the worst (some of the worst were in the '80s), but
> the liberal media won't let it go. And we are damn lucky a Democrat
> wasn't in the White House when this happened or guns would probably
> be outlaws right now.
>
I agree with you completely.
<snip>
> > My main point is that the ethics of a group are enforceable primarily
> > by that group. When the group fails to enforce ethics, justice enters
> > in the form of some outside entity.
>
> And that's the "holy war" attitude that is such a "double
> standard." No wonder! I mean, think about it!
>
There is no double standard here, and this is in fact the lesson of
history. If _you_ fail to handle the ethics of your fellows, eventually
someone else will step in and handle the matter, usually in a much more
bloody way. It's not even a questionable point; it's a fact of history.
The ethics of a group are the responsibility of that group. To ignore
the ethical mistakes of your fellows only seals your own fate.
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 19:41:34 EDT