A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 15-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Your lefty-liberal "open border" and
"political refugee" policies are very scary, and it's been proven several
times that terrorists and other criminals have entered North America via
Canada. The 9-11 terrorists are hardly the only concerns here

The fact that Canada accepts more refugees than the US (but then, most
countries are more open to help others than the US) has nothing to
do with terrorism.

Unfortunately, you are mistaken.


If anyone gets into the US from Canada, the problem is at _your_ border.

Indeed. Which is why we ought not have an open border with Canada...because
you are careless about who you let in up there.

We do not check on who leaves our country - people are free to move
around here. If you are paranoid and want to keep people out, then fix
your own damned border.

That's precisely what I'm proposing.


The vast majority of illegal immigrants enter the US via the Mexican
border. Why would terrorists enter via Canada if the Mexican border
is so porous?

Because it's easier, physically. One can get to Toronto without any
scrutiny, and then it's a short car trip across the border to the US, rather
than having to walk a long way through the desert. Plus, a terrorist can
import weapons much more easily from Canada, once again because they don't
have to hump the Sarin precursors across the desert.


Corporate subsidies prop up ineffective and obsolete companies.

Sometimes. It's true that the programs have to be carefully assessed and
monitored, but the occasional abuse of the programs doesn't impeach the
overall benefits.

If you actually study the effects of government subsidies, you'll find that
_most_ of them prop up inefficient companies. Companies that are completely
viable can be dealt with by loan guarantees (like Chrysler 25 years ago),
not corporate welfare.

I dispute this assertion. While I agree that some companies are inefficient
to the point that subsidies ought to be withdrawn, the majority are not.



Steel [...] It's what caused Japan to go to war with us.

Read your history books, Japan went to war over oil.

You'd best reread yours. Japan went to war over steel. We embargoed the
export of steel to Japan and that's what triggered their aggression. We were
not exporting much oil to Japan prior to WWII.

The US
embargoed it and threatened to intervene if Japan tried anything
in the Pacific. Japan tried to secure oil in Indonesia and took
out Pearl Harbor and the bases in the Philippines to prevent
the Yanks from interfering.

Nope.


--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser