Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


Perhaps some of it is simply the realistic view that many people can't
handle certain things for themselves.

That's a shame. It's still not the government's role to mitigate
personal responsibility. That goes against the very principle of freedom
of choice.

When 100% of citizens and corporations demonstrate personal responsibility,
you will stop hearing people clamoring for more police on the streets and
more laws. Until then, live with it. This is human nature.

That's a cop out answer. If we were to apply that logic, we should all
be in jail, until we can all prove that we're responsible. Why should
the many suffer due to the acts of the few?


You think the government should
eliminate social security, which is what I assume you mean by
"retirement
funds", eliminating what is an important option for people who
habitually
make bad investment decisions with their "other" money?

That's exactly what I'm saying. If you put that money in interest
bearing accounts (such as a mutual fund or 401K), the interest accrued
will exceed what you would get back from the S.S. as it currently
stands. Those of us who manage our money effectively, would be way
better off in the long run. But of course, you want to let the those who
can't make their own decisions hold the rest of us back. Where's the
freedom of choice there?

Dave


You want a different retirement plan system? Do something about it. But,
you're the guy who can't even deal with the minor hurdles involved in
challenging your local town council, comprised of small-time political
players from your own neighborhood. So, stop complaining. You seem to
believe that voting for president is the end of your responsibilities as a
citizen.

I do support this change. That's why I vote for people who support
greater choice, and less government regulation. Since we live in a
system of representative democracy, there is little I can do, as a
common citizen, except to support elected representatives who most
closely align with my ideals. I do that.

If you're suggesting that I grab a picket sign and chain myself to a
state building like some leftover 60's wacko, that's not going to
happen. For one thing, I have a job, and a family to support. I don't
have the time to engage in such discretionary activities.

Dave

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"Curtis CCR" wrote in message
om...


No fruit or vegetables for you, Dave, for an entire year. Or, you
can
openly
admit your understanding that of all the produce picked HERE IN THIS
COUNTRY, 80% of the labor is done by illegals and YOU LIKE EATING
THE
RESULTS.

Yeah - but many of them do alright. I know illegals that own have
taken out mortgages and purchased their own homes. There is just
about zero enforcement of our immigration laws once you get into this
country.

I'd rather have productive illegal neighbors who appreciate living here.
Newcomers are often hungry for knowledge about their new home, and as a
result, end up being better informed citizens than "real Americans"
who've
become complacent.


You mean like the complacency to look the other way when immigration
laws are being broken?

Dave

It's irrelevant. All that's important is whether people make meaningful
contributions to society, and help preserve peace and order by being good
neighbors. The only difference between you and an illegal immigrant is a
piece of paper from Big Government.

That and the fact that I was born here. I don't need no "steenki'n"
piece of paper.

But I agree with your point. I try not to "label" anyone beyond
"productive" and "dependant". Where they originally came from is
irrelevent. So let's welcome the formerly illegal migrant workers with
open arms, and lets deport all of our career welfare recipients. But
they have to learn English first.....

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


Perhaps some of it is simply the realistic view that many people
can't
handle certain things for themselves.

That's a shame. It's still not the government's role to mitigate
personal responsibility. That goes against the very principle of
freedom
of choice.

When 100% of citizens and corporations demonstrate personal
responsibility,
you will stop hearing people clamoring for more police on the streets
and
more laws. Until then, live with it. This is human nature.

That's a cop out answer. If we were to apply that logic, we should all
be in jail, until we can all prove that we're responsible. Why should
the many suffer due to the acts of the few?

I know you hate hypothetical examples, but here goes: Our county is
considering a law which would affect the officers of corporations which
break the more serious environmental laws. Instead of their being able to
tie the NY DEC (dep't of environmental conservation) up with red tape and
lawyers for 183 years, they would be "arrestable" immediately for such
things as releasing dangerous chemicals into the community without reporting
them immediately, as the law requires.

How would this Big Government intrusion affect you personally? How does this
make the many suffer due to the acts of the few?




You want a different retirement plan system? Do something about it. But,
you're the guy who can't even deal with the minor hurdles involved in
challenging your local town council, comprised of small-time political
players from your own neighborhood. So, stop complaining. You seem to
believe that voting for president is the end of your responsibilities as
a
citizen.

I do support this change. That's why I vote for people who support
greater choice, and less government regulation. Since we live in a
system of representative democracy, there is little I can do, as a
common citizen, except to support elected representatives who most
closely align with my ideals. I do that.

If you're suggesting that I grab a picket sign and chain myself to a
state building like some leftover 60's wacko, that's not going to
happen. For one thing, I have a job, and a family to support. I don't
have the time to engage in such discretionary activities.

Dave

Nobody's suggesting that you march around with a sign. But, I doubt very
much that you know which pieces of legislation your elected officials are
working on at any given moment. And, I doubt you write letters to them or
call their offices to voice your opinions.

When you elect someone, you do so based on issues that are important to you.
We know from experience, though, that those issues are part of a much longer
list of priorities for most politicians. You cannot simply vote and then
turn your back and hope for the best. It is not patriotic.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

Doug Kanter wrote:

It's irrelevant. All that's important is whether people make meaningful
contributions to society, and help preserve peace and order by being
good
neighbors. The only difference between you and an illegal immigrant is a
piece of paper from Big Government.

That and the fact that I was born here. I don't need no "steenki'n"
piece of paper.

Your place of birth has no logical connection with your contribution to this
country.

On the subject of farm workers, this link will take you to an excellent
story on the subject as it relates to upstate NY. Don't be put off by the
phrase "Rochester's alternative newsweekly". The writer is a freelancer, and
the paper received quite a few complimentary letters from readers,
commenting on how balanced the story was.

http://www.rochester-citynews.com/gb...oid=oid%3A1940




But I agree with your point. I try not to "label" anyone beyond
"productive" and "dependant". Where they originally came from is
irrelevent. So let's welcome the formerly illegal migrant workers with
open arms, and lets deport all of our career welfare recipients. But
they have to learn English first.....

Dave

Nah...language isn't the big deal people make it out to be. Travel to Mexico
or Puerto Rico and you'll find that people try very hard to help non-Spanish
speakers. It takes very little effort for us to do the same for new
arrivals. Only America and France have such ridiculous attitudes toward
visitors.

Minimum wage jobs can not support our economy. Something will have to
give. Either the prices will come way down, or wages will have to be
adjusted accordingly.

Dave

Your premise surmises that the economy will be supported. Don't be so sure.

There are a lot of people who could give a dang less about the Golden Goose-
just as long as they *personally* get their share of
eggs before the old bird kicks off.

Actually, I should have said the "national pension plan". No SSI is a
totally different animal. And do not get me cranked up on that giveaway.
Only one example. My brother is married to an English women. She brought
her parents over here in the late 1960's, and shortly thereafter they are on
SSI.
Bill

"Gfretwell" wrote in message
...
They paid retirement benefits. But it appears to now be the total, full
load of benefits retirement plan.

Actually I suspect you are really talking about SSI that is basically a
welfare
program for people who may have never paid a penny in their life. It still
comes out of the SS funding tho.
Actually since 1968 it is all academic. Social Security was put "on
budget" and
all of the money is dumped into the general fund so I suppose you could
say
your FICA taxes are paying for the Iraq war. (along everything from
studies of
endangered beach mice in Florida to the drug war)

No SSI is a
totally different animal.

As I said, since 1968 it is really all the same animal. SS is comingled with
the general fund. Right now that means the $140 billion dollar surplus is
dumped into the federal operating budget. In a decade or so that will become a
deficiet and will have to be made up by increased taxation somewhere (AKA
redeeming the bonds).
Which of this money is "Social Security" and which is "general fund". The
difference is totally in how the polititians sell the program in question.

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

Doug Kanter wrote:

No kidding. My point is that the left is always critical of the
government when it's in their best interest, yet runs to hide behind
its skirt, when they feel the need for dependance.

Everyone feeds at the same nipple, Dave. Polluters love to complain
about
government control until a willing puppet is elected and that puppet
appoints another puppet to run the EPA. When the puppet then relaxes
regulations on pollution, the industries involved fall all over the evil
government with campaign contributions. It's not a left-wing thing,
Dave.
You know that.

You have nothing but speculation to support this point. You have no
first hand knowlege of what hand shaking, back slapping or "bribery" did
or did not occur, or the reasons behind them.

You can help: Please provide as many reasons as you to explain why George
Bush was a driving force behind the relaxation of emissions regulations in
Texas, and why he has needled the EPA to relax clean water regulations.

I have no first hand knowlege of these actions. In fact, I am unable to
find any credible evidence that this is anything more than more leftist
propaganda.


I am critical of things which deseve criticism. Too many people are
critical of things which they either do not understand, or are lacking
sufficient information to make an informed decision.

FWIW, I am a registered Republican, who happens to believe that
thought is more important than dogma. This country is FULL of
"me-too's", who are willing to believe whatever they are told by the
Party Line. Sheep. Nothing but sheep. Both parties.

Most of them are standing in line right now to throw rocks at GWB,
over
something they are ill-informed about.

Many are standing in line right now to spout theories about religions
and
cultures which are relatively new to this country.

Such as?

Such as your comments about Islam.

In what parts have I been incorrect?



I suspect your ancestors,
who were native Americans, didn't have to put up with such nonsense.
They
were natives, right? They must be. You speak as if you belong here and
others don't.

Where did you come up with that one? Never mind, I'm sure you have a
very active immagination.

With few exceptions, every new group of immigrants to this country have been
targets of prejudice, ridicule, misunderstanding, violence, to varying
degrees.

Yea, and what does this have to do with the price of tea in China? It's
funny that most ethnic groups HAVE had some sort of prejudice, and yet
managed to overcome it, and become an integral part of our society, with
the exception of a very visible few. I wonder why that is?


You speak as if everyone else is an alien, whether it be Mexican
farm workers or Muslims. So, I assume that in your mind, you feel you have a
special right to be here, more so than newer arrivals.


When have I said anything even remotely close to what you are implying?

You really do have a problem comprehending what I say. Either that or
you read far too much into my words than what I write. Maybe that's why
you buy into leftist propaganda so well....

Dave

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


Perhaps some of it is simply the realistic view that many people
can't
handle certain things for themselves.

That's a shame. It's still not the government's role to mitigate
personal responsibility. That goes against the very principle of
freedom
of choice.

When 100% of citizens and corporations demonstrate personal
responsibility,
you will stop hearing people clamoring for more police on the streets
and
more laws. Until then, live with it. This is human nature.

That's a cop out answer. If we were to apply that logic, we should all
be in jail, until we can all prove that we're responsible. Why should
the many suffer due to the acts of the few?

I know you hate hypothetical examples,

I love hypothetical examples, as long as they're based on reality, and
can have a direct correlation to a real situation.


but here goes: Our county is
considering a law which would affect the officers of corporations which
break the more serious environmental laws. Instead of their being able to
tie the NY DEC (dep't of environmental conservation) up with red tape and
lawyers for 183 years, they would be "arrestable" immediately for such
things as releasing dangerous chemicals into the community without reporting
them immediately, as the law requires.

Why stop there? Why not arrest them on the spot for ANYTHING improper or
illegal?

How would this Big Government intrusion affect you personally? How does this
make the many suffer due to the acts of the few?


Then you should have no problem with increases in surveilance
technology, which monitor movements outside of your home, or computer
systems which monitor your income, and spending habits, in order to spot
potential criminal activities.


You want a different retirement plan system? Do something about it. But,
you're the guy who can't even deal with the minor hurdles involved in
challenging your local town council, comprised of small-time political
players from your own neighborhood. So, stop complaining. You seem to
believe that voting for president is the end of your responsibilities as
a
citizen.

I do support this change. That's why I vote for people who support
greater choice, and less government regulation. Since we live in a
system of representative democracy, there is little I can do, as a
common citizen, except to support elected representatives who most
closely align with my ideals. I do that.

If you're suggesting that I grab a picket sign and chain myself to a
state building like some leftover 60's wacko, that's not going to
happen. For one thing, I have a job, and a family to support. I don't
have the time to engage in such discretionary activities.

Dave

Nobody's suggesting that you march around with a sign. But, I doubt very
much that you know which pieces of legislation your elected officials are
working on at any given moment. And, I doubt you write letters to them or
call their offices to voice your opinions.

Then you, once again, assume without any facts. Since the advent of
E-Mail, I have been keeping tabs on our elected officials quite closely.



When you elect someone, you do so based on issues that are important to you.
We know from experience, though, that those issues are part of a much longer
list of priorities for most politicians. You cannot simply vote and then
turn your back and hope for the best. It is not patriotic.

Patriotic? I'm not sure that I'd agree with the usage of that term, but
I would agree that it's not the most responsible. But someone who votes
for someone based on the issues, is head and shoulders above someone who
votes for someone because he has "good hair".

Dave

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

Doug Kanter wrote:

It's irrelevant. All that's important is whether people make meaningful
contributions to society, and help preserve peace and order by being
good
neighbors. The only difference between you and an illegal immigrant is a
piece of paper from Big Government.

That and the fact that I was born here. I don't need no "steenki'n"
piece of paper.

Your place of birth has no logical connection with your contribution to this
country.

No, but as a native born citizen, my legitimacy is established. Hence my
comment about not needing a "piece of paper".


On the subject of farm workers, this link will take you to an excellent
story on the subject as it relates to upstate NY. Don't be put off by the
phrase "Rochester's alternative newsweekly". The writer is a freelancer, and
the paper received quite a few complimentary letters from readers,
commenting on how balanced the story was.

http://www.rochester-citynews.com/gb...oid=oid%3A1940

So what do you want to do about it? I thought we settled this in another
thread? You want to pay triple the cost for produce?




But I agree with your point. I try not to "label" anyone beyond
"productive" and "dependant". Where they originally came from is
irrelevent. So let's welcome the formerly illegal migrant workers with
open arms, and lets deport all of our career welfare recipients. But
they have to learn English first.....

Dave

Nah...language isn't the big deal people make it out to be. Travel to Mexico
or Puerto Rico and you'll find that people try very hard to help non-Spanish
speakers. It takes very little effort for us to do the same for new
arrivals. Only America and France have such ridiculous attitudes toward
visitors.

There's a difference between visiting countries and those who settle
here. It is highly impractical for "native" Americans to have to learn
several different languages to "accomodate" the needs of immigrants. It
is far more practical, and a sign of comittment, for all immigrants to
become proficient in English, as at least a second language.

Dave