RobinReborn Posted July 12, 2015 Author Share Posted July 12, 2015 Differences between the current Costa Rican immigrant and the pre 1922 immigrant are:1) legal entry;2) medical exam;3) sponsorship;4) no safety net other than family and charity.Respond to that please, then we can proceed.A...Actually, many 'immigrants' in the USA's early history (including before it was the USA) had no medical exams and brought diseases which wiped out the Native Americans. They had no safety net other than their religion and Native American generosity. The Pope was their sponsor. Then they wrote racist irrational immigration laws to continue their takeover of this country.As for"Second, we have an absolute right to control who enters our nation and whether we want them to."No, "we" don't. It's completely impractical. Matters of immigration should be determined by principle, not popular vote. Right now there are more criminals in the DEA fighting a destructive drug war which is destabilizing Mexico. Our government is the problem, not the immigrants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikee Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 Keeps getting better for Trump...Feel the love...Carly is better in every possible way, brains, self control, leadership, but the loud over-sized male chimp gets all the love. DNA rules.[just tying together a couple of threads] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 Differences between the current Costa Rican immigrant and the pre 1922 immigrant are:1) legal entry;2) medical exam;3) sponsorship;4) no safety net other than family and charity.Respond to that please, then we can proceed.A...Actually, many 'immigrants' in the USA's early history (including before it was the USA) had no medical exams and brought diseases which wiped out the Native Americans. They had no safety net other than their religion and Native American generosity. The Pope was their sponsor. Then they wrote racist irrational immigration laws to continue their takeover of this country.As for"Second, we have an absolute right to control who enters our nation and whether we want them to."No, "we" don't. It's completely impractical. Matters of immigration should be determined by principle, not popular vote. Right now there are more criminals in the DEA fighting a destructive drug war which is destabilizing Mexico. Our government is the problem, not the immigrants. All realationships are basically defined by applicable power and force. As soon as the first immigrants got settled enough to call themselves "Native Americans" other tribes followed and it was displacement after displacement until whitey arrived and did the same thing. To complain about whitey using whitely Christian values thus turns the discussion racist, much of it auto-racism. Since I was born in the United States, btw, I too am a native American. "Native American" is partly racist exclude the white man or all who came to North America after those "innocent" brown-skinned tribes. Never mind how they butchered each other up. Regardless, for other reasons I have to support the use of the term as much better than "Indian" or "American Indian," which is too much a collectivist, cultural slur, especially because of many bad or even rotten movies or, even worse, some very good movies.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 The argument rages here too in a different way, most white South Africans consider themselves fully African, born here, after several generations before them. It's a losing battle since who decides what you are (in a collectivist society) but the collective majority holding the power. "Europeans", go back to Europe! is 'reverse', pay-back racism, as well. But the fact is ignored, because who heard of racism of blacks upon whites? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 Interesting...Ben Carson on Donald Trump as a Running Mate: Anything Is PossibleMichael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 Keeps getting better for Trump...Feel the love...Carly is better in every possible way, brains, self control, leadership, but the loud over-sized male chimp gets all the love. DNA rules.[just tying together a couple of threads]Mike, am I right to say that what you look for is an intellectual individualist? My attraction to Trump was largely his contrast with the present incumbent, and that he seems to offer a sharp turn back towards American individualism, something I think is missed badly. However I concede that his may well be simply a non-intellectual and pragmatic ("counterfeit" or "subjective" - to use Nathaniel's terms) individualism. Then ultimately he might be a long-term setback to the cause, after some short-term improvements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 As for"Second, we have an absolute right to control who enters our nation and whether we want them to."RR,Are you interested in solving the problem as your frame or in promoting utopia?Your comments sound utopic, core story and all with an automatic villain: You keep portraying the heroic productive underdog (any collective not white) against a scummy, lazy, brutal, obnoxious, disease-ridden, bullying white class.This sounds exactly like the indoctrination core story they teach in schools nowadays, right out of Howard Zinn.Note: This is not racism per se, although it uses races. This is a typical class warfare perspective.Once again, I myself think in terms of individuals. It's hard to address your comments when the frame is "us against them" as the defining fundament of "good versus evil" instead of "which individuals have merit against which are bad guys."On another aspect of the utopia perspective, I agree that the government is the root of most evils. But it is also the root of some good. Pretending that government will go away, saying that government practices are "impractical" and so on is typical of utopic thinking.You can't change the government by saying it should not exist. Sure, a few utopic people will agree with you, but the rest of everybody--those who make and sanction governments--will ignore you. That means the government you live under will continue and likely grow whether you want it to or not. Utopic visions only work for violent uprisings (like communism).Within a modern cultural context, utopic visions of "us against them" merely become factions jockeying for a piece of the power pie. Ironically they do not result in the promotion of rational principles. Even more ironically, this is one of the fundamental problems of spreading Objectivism as a philosophy.Fact: A government without borders is not a government. Real estate alone is not a country.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 It's good to see Carly backtracking from this:Carly Fiorina Jabs at Trump in N.H.To this:Fiorina: Trump tapping into an ‘anger’The usual path from no to yes is maybe.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikee Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 Keeps getting better for Trump...Feel the love...Carly is better in every possible way, brains, self control, leadership, but the loud over-sized male chimp gets all the love. DNA rules.[just tying together a couple of threads]Mike, am I right to say that what you look for is an intellectual individualist? My attraction to Trump was largely his contrast with the present incumbent, and that he seems to offer a sharp turn back towards American individualism, something I think is missed badly. However I concede that his may well be simply a non-intellectual and pragmatic ("counterfeit" or "subjective" - to use Nathaniel's terms) individualism. Then ultimately he might be a long-term setback to the cause, after some short-term improvements.More accurately an intelligent principled individualist. I believe Carly is sincere when she criticizes the IRS and the huge amount of regulation in this country which crushes individual initiative. She believes in the founding principles of this country. Trump, I believe, is a crony capitalist, he inherited his business, is "connected", and given power will take care of his friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 Trump, I believe, is a crony capitalist...Mike,This isn't precise. Trump openly bribes politicians to get them out of his way so he can build stuff. That's not crony capitalism. That's more like Nat Taggart.Trump even says in his speeches that he will be immune to lobbyists because he employs lobbyists. That if Jeb Bush, for example, were to receive a complaint from his own lobbyists that he is hurting a crony, Bush will modify his stated goals because such crony gave him a lot of money.Trump said this is how it works and his exact words from the FreedomFest speech (if I remember correctly) were: "I should know." (Followed by laughter in the audience.)A crony capitalist seeks regulations and protections to keep competitors out while seeking as much government money as possible.As to taking care of friends, Trump will probably take care of some friends, but Fiorina would, too. I don't see either wearing a T-Shirt marked "Ordained Saint."Carly Fiorina is not an angel to Trump's devil.I predict she will end up fully endorsing him. And I predict he will soften his views on her. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 If anybody is interested in Tiffany:Meet the wild card Trump daughter that no one's talking aboutThere's this from the article:And some might prefer this:Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 I have a comment on Trump coverage.A crapload of pundits all say a variation of the same thing as they stare gobsmacked at Trump's surge: Donald Trump is not going to be the Republican presidential nominee in 2016.They say this to qualify their need to comment on Trump's sudden success--after all, they can't ignore him and still do their job--and they all refer to polls that show a high rejection number as their reason.But this is bullshit. They preach that public opinion will change for candidates they like, but believe any negative indication about Trump will not change--that it is set in stone.Well it isn't.Trump has a way of winning over people. That's what he does for a living and he has done it spectacularly in all his pursuits. He's very competent at it and I don't think his winning skills are going anywhere at all during his run. Just yesterday, anybody and everybody were calling him a buffoon who would go away soon.Heh.I believe the intelligentsia did this double standard thinking to Reagan, too, back in the day, as they looked on gobsmacked. MichaelEDIT: I'm not going to link to the latest intelligentsia theories, but they concern pop culture. They are trying to link Trump to more superficial aspects of the pop culture in order to show just how superficial he is. They are calling him the Kardashian candidate, a rapper and so on.I predict even this will backfire, though. Mainstream fans of these things are not big on voting. But if someone knows how to mess with them and give them a little attention, they move like herds. Trump is a marketing genius, so I have little doubt he will be picking up new fans of his own from these pools of politically apathetic people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobinReborn Posted July 12, 2015 Author Share Posted July 12, 2015 All realationships are basically defined by applicable power and force. As soon as the first immigrants got settled enough to call themselves "Native Americans" other tribes followed and it was displacement after displacement until whitey arrived and did the same thing. To complain about whitey using whitely Christian values thus turns the discussion racist, much of it auto-racism. Since I was born in the United States, btw, I too am a native American. "Native American" is partly racist exclude the white man or all who came to North America after those "innocent" brown-skinned tribes. Never mind how they butchered each other up. Regardless, for other reasons I have to support the use of the term as much better than "Indian" or "American Indian," which is too much a collectivist, cultural slur, especially because of many bad or even rotten movies or, even worse, some very good movies.--BrantThere was one wave of Native Americans that crossed the bering straight when sea levels were lower. There were also polynesians who settled the Americas before Columbus. I'm sure there was violence between the groups but there's no evidence of the genocidal conquest that (some) Europeans participated in. It's pretty clear to me that Europeans also exaggerated the amount of violence between Native Americans and that some of it was caused by Europeans (and later Americans) pushing them westward. There were Europeans who peacefully traded with Native Americans but I don't think they were ever the majority. I am not trying to hold the Native Americans as some sort of "noble savage" but I think it's irrational and racist to absolve the Europeans (or more specifically, the hypocritical Christian/nationalistic philosophy they held) from blame.It's not racist to acknowledge that Europeans had Christian values, it's supported by historical facts.The difference between you and a Native American isn't whether you were born here, it's how long your ancestors have lived here. I doubt you could claim American ancestry going back more than 500 years, Native Americans can claim it going back more than 10,000. It's true that in a sense this is irrational, but it's the way land rights, property rights and nationality work in nearly every country in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 RR,If your are interested in pure facts about who did what to whom, I cannot recommend the following book highly enough:The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined by Steven PinkerIt's a long book, but not boring despite a crapload of data in it. I did the audio version during drives and walks and got through the whole thing.Nobody comes out a saint in the end except, believe it or not, the printing press.It seems that books have helped violence decline over the centuries because man's inherent nature has traditionally been extremely violent. Books help people experience the perspective of others. And once people see something or someone suffering, they tend to empathize with it.Regardless, young adult males are the worst offenders. Young adult males in all cultures are the ones who have inflicted the most one-on-one violence of anybody.They are the majority, but they are not exclusive. Humans have done horrible things to humans since the beginning.We are now in a wonderful age of peace. That seems counterintuitive, but it's true. Data is data and facts are facts.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobinReborn Posted July 12, 2015 Author Share Posted July 12, 2015 As for"Second, we have an absolute right to control who enters our nation and whether we want them to."RR,Are you interested in solving the problem as your frame or in promoting utopia?Your comments sound utopic, core story and all with an automatic villain: You keep portraying the heroic productive underdog (any collective not white) against a scummy, lazy, brutal, obnoxious, disease-ridden, bullying white class.This sounds exactly like the indoctrination core story they teach in schools nowadays, right out of Howard Zinn.Note: This is not racism per se, although it uses races. This is a typical class warfare perspective.Once again, I myself think in terms of individuals. It's hard to address your comments when the frame is "us against them" as the defining fundament of "good versus evil" instead of "which individuals have merit against which are bad guys."On another aspect of the utopia perspective, I agree that the government is the root of most evils. But it is also the root of some good. Pretending that government will go away, saying that government practices are "impractical" and so on is typical of utopic thinking.You can't change the government by saying it should not exist. Sure, a few utopic people will agree with you, but the rest of everybody--those who make and sanction governments--will ignore you. That means the government you live under will continue and likely grow whether you want it to or not. Utopic visions only work for violent uprisings (like communism).Within a modern cultural context, utopic visions of "us against them" merely become factions jockeying for a piece of the power pie. Ironically they do not result in the promotion of rational principles. Even more ironically, this is one of the fundamental problems of spreading Objectivism as a philosophy.Fact: A government without borders is not a government. Real estate alone is not a country.MichaelI am setting an ideal for immigration, once that ideal is set then problems can be solved using rationality and practicality. Right now most people are only using short term practicality to solve the immigration 'problem'.My arguments are against this notion that people like Columbus, the Conquistadors and Andrew Jackson were heroes. I think this is fairly ingrained in people from the USA because of the educational system (books that advocate this narrative are much more common than Zinn's books).As for governments growing, that will happen. But right now the population of Hispanic people is growing faster than the government. These people will start businesses, become elected officials, get PhDs etc, it's happening right now. They will use their power to make it easier for other Hispanics to come into the country.As I've said, this isn't different from any other group. The Europeans (from Ireland and Southern and Eastern Europe) who came to this country around the turn of the century were involved in crime and people complained about them. But I think it's clear that restricting immigration against these groups would have been bad in the long term interest of this country. I don't see myself as advocating utopia, I see myself as advocating long term thinking.What's the difference between Mexicans and Italians/Irish/Polish etc. Race is the most obvious. I suppose that all the Europeans that came here had to buy a boat ticket as opposed to just walking across a border but I don't think that's too significant.I've never advocated getting rid of the borders, but I do believe about 90% of people who want to come to the US should be allowed in. A nation which uses race as criteria for admitting immigrants is fascist.Here are a couple of podcasts on immigration, most of them are in agreeance with my view:http://www.peikoff.com/?s=immigrationThis one is specifically about Mexicans:http://www.peikoff.com/page/3/?s=immigration#list Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobinReborn Posted July 12, 2015 Author Share Posted July 12, 2015 Michael, I read Pinker's Blank Slate Myth ages ago and enjoyed it.I've looked into the book you've mentioned but have read some criticisms of it. Firstly I think his estimates of how violence early humans were could be entirely wrong and biased towards his preconceived notions. Secondly, warfare has changed and all it would take would be somebody launching a nuclear missile/bomb for his hypothesis to be completely disproven.But I've added it to my list of books to read (unfortunately there are over a hundred books on that list!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 Firstly I think his estimates of how violence early humans were could be entirely wrong and biased towards his preconceived notions. Secondly, warfare has changed and all it would take would be somebody launching a nuclear missile/bomb for his hypothesis to be completely disproven.RR,First, they are not his estimates. He presents the data from many, many different sources. All with high standards for inclusion. (Pinker, after all, is a typical academic in this regard.)Second, he deals with weapons of mass destruction and wars where they have been deployed and future threats (as of 2013, when he stopped writing the book and published it).You are arguing against the title of the book, not its content. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 A nation which uses race as criteria for admitting immigrants is fascist.RR,Which nation does that?I don't know of a single one these days.Nor do I know of anyone in the mainstream who is proposing this.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 Rival Republican Blasts Donald Trump as a ‘Wrecking Ball’That rival is Lindsey Graham.If this election does nothing else, getting this out of Stinkball was worth it.He said Trump is a "demagogue."He...Lindsey Graham...He said that...Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 Here's a sense of life comment. Although the TV series, Breaking Bad, has nothing to do with Donald Trump, the protagonist's swagger does. In spades. Americans love it. That is why they put that show to No. 1 for 5 seasons and consider it as one of the greatest TV series of all time. This love of swagger is shown perfectly by Bryan Cranston, who played Walter White, in a silly little live episode at some event or other. The video is only 37 seconds long. It was uploaded two days ago and already has over 3,700,000 views. The reaction in the comments go from gushing to being outraged and folks bashing each other. This is exactly the effect Trump has on people. And Trump has the public presentation chops to make his own moments on the fly just like Cranston did. I think Trump is going to do a lot of this stuff, too. He kept The Apprentice up there in the ratings in the same format for 14 seasons, so he knows how to perfectly balance the familiar with the surprising and stay in character. The vast majority of Americans love this. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobinReborn Posted July 13, 2015 Author Share Posted July 13, 2015 @Michael, you're right I haven't read the book so I can't argue against the content, but I have read reviews.As for what nation uses race as a criteria for immigration, Israel clearly does, as do most middle eastern countries. The US certainly used to, and I imagine that many bureaucrats still do in an unofficial capacity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 As for what nation uses race as a criteria for immigration, Israel clearly does, as do most middle eastern countries. The US certainly used to, and I imagine that many bureaucrats still do in an unofficial capacity.RR,Clearly?I tried to look this up, but I couldn't discover which races the Israeli government prohibits from immigrating to Israel. Blacks? Orientals? Amerindians? Also, I couldn't discover this for other middle eastern countries. Which middle eastern countries have race criteria for immigration?If you don't know for sure, could you tell me where I can get this information?As to the USA, I don't recall race being a criterion for immigration. Certainly not for blacks. Especially not during slavery times. I mean, how did the blacks get here in the first place? They may not have wanted to immigrate as slaves, but immigrate they did. I haven't researched this, but I suspect the USA has only used immigration restrictions against people from specific countries or sworn enemies (or people with police records at country of origin and so on). I am unfamiliar with any racial criteria.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 The US certainly used to, and I imagine that many bureaucrats still do in an unofficial capacity.What race was excluded and from what years?Was this exclusion statutory?A.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jjeorge Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Perhaps this anecdotal, but I have seen and heard a number of people say that Trump either pushes their buttons or males them smile "just like that Palin woman."It seems he is speaking to the same crowd then, and that's good news for his candidacy -- a ton of people on the right think McCain lost the election for Palin rather than the other way around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 JJ,Sarah has already said good things about Trump and her people do love him.Anyway, check this out.Wapo Dude keepin' it classy...WAPO’S MILBANK: TRUMP A ‘ROTTEN PIG,’ ‘FRAUD,’ ‘SARAH PALIN PHENOMENON’The Donald is scaring the holy shit out of the left. The right, too.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now