I am having an issue trying to understand this whole illegal immigration thing. This new "amnesty" bill seems to miss the point. Here's my question: Isn't it the businesses/company's that hire illegal immigrants the ones that have caused this fiasco in the first place? The way I see it is if we let all these folks become "legal", those who hired them in the first place will now let them go as they will have to pay the minimum wages, the taxes, the insurance, etc. to hire these people. They will pursue hiring "new" illegal immigrants, thus starting a new influx of illegal migrants to the states. At this point we will be so saturated with these people that we may as well become part of Mexico or we should annex Mexico and make it part of these United States. Both scenarios we are not ready for as a country, by the way.
This also begs the question: How many of the current illegal immigrants will pursue becoming legal immigrants? Not many in my opinion. I think Mexico's plan is to drive their people up here to make money which they send back to Mexico. This makes money for Mexico. We get the labor and lose money from the States.
The other question I have: How many other types of "illegals" will attempt to become "legals"? I'm talking those with terrorist tendencies. Probably over thinking this, but it bothers me.
Mr. Kennedy, do we really need to "help" these poor people or are these poor people being used by their own government to help themselves?
Help me understand, people! I appreciate it.
Monday, June 04, 2007
Monday, May 28, 2007
FOXNews.com - Vandals Burn Dozens of American Flags Decorating Veterans' Graves, Replace With Swastikas - Local News | News Articles | National News |
FOXNews.com - Vandals Burn Dozens of American Flags Decorating Veterans' Graves, Replace With Swastikas - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News
Can you believe this! What is becoming of this country!? This is quite troubling. Where is this country going? I am outraged that something like this can and does happen in our country. Just a few years back you would never think such a thing could happen. Is this a definition of being liberal? This is scary.
What thoughts have you?
Can you believe this! What is becoming of this country!? This is quite troubling. Where is this country going? I am outraged that something like this can and does happen in our country. Just a few years back you would never think such a thing could happen. Is this a definition of being liberal? This is scary.
What thoughts have you?
Thursday, May 03, 2007
SavageStupidity.com - Fairness Doctrine
SavageStupidity.com - Fairness Doctrine
I read this and thought that there are some good points. One question that I do have is, "Why do the left winged talk shows not make it? Why do the left fear current broadcast shows?"
I think the issue is ownership. Since many broadcast companies are owned by the "public" through common stock that these companies will only air shows that make money. We are a capitalistic society. Why do these stations make money on these shows? People listen to them. The ratings for a liberal talk show host seem to always trail a conservative talk show host. Why is that? People do not want to listen to these people. Don't ask me why they don't, just accept that they don't.
Now there is a push to reel in broadcasters and have more government regulation, a theme that liberals are quite familiar with. If people will not conform to our wishes, then we will make laws and make the government force people to our will. Sounds like socialism and fascism to me. I found this article talking about the new push to revive "fairness": Fairness Doctrine Revisited.
So do you think this is a good thing or a bad thing? I'm curious. My feelings are if you do not like what is on the air, turn it off or change the channel. That is called freedom of choice.
Cheers!
I read this and thought that there are some good points. One question that I do have is, "Why do the left winged talk shows not make it? Why do the left fear current broadcast shows?"
I think the issue is ownership. Since many broadcast companies are owned by the "public" through common stock that these companies will only air shows that make money. We are a capitalistic society. Why do these stations make money on these shows? People listen to them. The ratings for a liberal talk show host seem to always trail a conservative talk show host. Why is that? People do not want to listen to these people. Don't ask me why they don't, just accept that they don't.
Now there is a push to reel in broadcasters and have more government regulation, a theme that liberals are quite familiar with. If people will not conform to our wishes, then we will make laws and make the government force people to our will. Sounds like socialism and fascism to me. I found this article talking about the new push to revive "fairness": Fairness Doctrine Revisited.
So do you think this is a good thing or a bad thing? I'm curious. My feelings are if you do not like what is on the air, turn it off or change the channel. That is called freedom of choice.
Cheers!
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Father killed family for being too western | Uk News | News | Telegraph
Father killed family for being too western | Uk News | News | Telegraph
I ask once again: If you do not want to live the way the locals live in a country that you move to or adopt, then why live there in the first place? I am so sick of people in such denial. If you live in a country you must accept the lifestyle. Share your culture, but don't try to change the local culture. If you do not like it, move to a place that suits your lifestyle.
Is common sense that obtuse?
I ask once again: If you do not want to live the way the locals live in a country that you move to or adopt, then why live there in the first place? I am so sick of people in such denial. If you live in a country you must accept the lifestyle. Share your culture, but don't try to change the local culture. If you do not like it, move to a place that suits your lifestyle.
Is common sense that obtuse?
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
JetBlue CEO sees costs of delays at $30 million - Feb. 20, 2007
JetBlue CEO sees costs of delays at $30 million - Feb. 20, 2007
Explain to me why an airline would be responsible for WEATHER related delays and cancellations? No one can control the weather, so why would I be compensated for such events?
If an airline is nice, they would honor the ticket for a future flight or at least the return as soon as possible.
Why are people so greedy? This "what's in it for me" attitude is going to kill this country.
Explain to me why an airline would be responsible for WEATHER related delays and cancellations? No one can control the weather, so why would I be compensated for such events?
If an airline is nice, they would honor the ticket for a future flight or at least the return as soon as possible.
Why are people so greedy? This "what's in it for me" attitude is going to kill this country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)