Right Wing Terrorists Arrested In Kidnaping Plot Of Governor Whitmer

[New Improved DC Tom]

2 hours ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

...why the hell can't they be LEGAL and come through Ellis Island like my late grandparents did, coming from Italy?......what's changed?

 

Electoral politics.  Both parties need illegal immigration as an issue to campaign on.  It's why the immigration system will never be fixed.

 

Same reason Roe v. Wade will never be overturned, and deficit spending will never be reined in.  

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 10/21/2020 at 8:28 AM, Tiberius said:

Immigrants create jobs. Learn a little economics, you won’t look so ignorant. And the wall won’t stop any drugs, that’s stupid 

 

Tiberius and Brueggs: I’ll stay out of whatever remains of your debate, but I wanted to add a tiny recommendation from an economic point of view and not from any ethical or national sovereignty one. It’s helpful to think of two distinct sets of jobs: the set where there is a labor supply market of American workers and the set where there isn’t. With the latter (such as many manual labor jobs in the agricultural industries), the overall American economy most definitely benefits from illegal immigrants. With the former (such as jobs in the construction and hospitality industries), there is a net overall damage to the national economy mostly from wage suppression. And if you replace illegal immigrants with legal ones (naturalized citizens or those with foreign worker visas), the same effects hold true but the degree of these effects is subdued. I believe that is what the economic data tells us, at least, which also happens to match up with economic intuition.

 

On 10/21/2020 at 8:33 AM, I am the egg man said:

...... yeah, whatever.

 

Congratulations, Egg Boy. You are now on The List. As soon as my communist buddies take over the American government, you will be immediately assigned to Gulag #716. Yours truly will be your supervisor. But before you fret, know that I’m one of the kinder gentler ones. Most of our time will be spent on politically themed arts and crafts using those annoying plastic Sisyphus boulder-esque wrong-handed safety scissors. There will also be forced feedings of my experimental vegan recipes (I don’t measure anything…I just “eyeball” it all) and required viewings of Drought Era Bills games versus the Browns (special emphasis on the Jauron years).

 

On 10/21/2020 at 3:25 PM, snafu said:

I get your point but your example is awful -- whether I agree with your point at all.

Jim Crow repressions were codified and implemented by more government intervention, not less.

 

To me, more government intervention is going to step on someone's toes.  Your example points that out nicely. Freedom is freedom, and you don't really have to agree with the freedom being sought.

 

“Awful” is a stretch. I’ll only partly concede my point in that I could have chosen a better example that couldn’t be flagged for technicalities. Jim Crow laws varied greatly by state, legal domain, legal language, and time period. In the early morning while typing my post, I was thinking of laws that ALLOWED Southern whites to decline services to blacks on account of race and not the laws MANDATING they do so. I thought the context would have made that clear enough, as I also referenced the 1964 Civil Rights Act…a government enforcement of non-racist behavior from most Southern whites, who were otherwise inclined to routinely exercise their freedom to be racists.

 

You are correct when you state that government intervention is going to step on someone’s toes. That is always the case. Government restricts the freedoms in one place so to (hopefully) increase the freedoms in another. It is up to the lawmakers to decide which freedoms are valued and which are not, within certain obvious limits of course (i.e. protections of Constitutional rights). This really should not be considered a controversial assertion. All the time, rational citizens are choosing to value one set of freedoms over another: the freedom to breathe clean air versus an industrial company’s freedom to cut financial corners by polluting, the freedom to not be murdered from mentally unstable individuals versus the freedom to purchase flamethrowers/grenades/bazookas/tanks/anti-aircraft artillery on a whim, the freedom from labor exploitation (inhumane work conditions, unfair compensation) versus the freedom to run a company entirely as one sees fit, etc…I think we all get the point. I’m assuming that everyone here accepts the social contract and, therefore, the belief that not all government intervention is inherently wrong.

[Kemp]

This is how the sitting US president today described an armed terrorist plot to kidnap Michigan @GovWhitmer : “I mean, we’ll have to see if it’s a problem. Right? People are entitled to say maybe it was a problem, maybe it wasn’t.”

What an ahole.

[SoTier]

21 hours ago, Kemp said:

This is how the sitting US president today described an armed terrorist plot to kidnap Michigan @GovWhitmer : “I mean, we’ll have to see if it’s a problem. Right? People are entitled to say maybe it was a problem, maybe it wasn’t.”

What an ahole.

 

Covid Donnie is a sociopath unfit to be a dogcatcher's assistant much less POTUS.  I think that constitutional amendments to remove a president that Congress deems unfit for office and to deal with a defeated POTUS who refuses to leave office are likely to be proposed in the US Congress.

[Tiberius]

On 10/27/2020 at 7:24 PM, RealKayAdams said:

 

Tiberius and Brueggs: I’ll stay out of whatever remains of your debate, but I wanted to add a tiny recommendation from an economic point of view and not from any ethical or national sovereignty one. It’s helpful to think of two distinct sets of jobs: the set where there is a labor supply market of American workers and the set where there isn’t. With the latter (such as many manual labor jobs in the agricultural industries), the overall American economy most definitely benefits from illegal immigrants. With the former (such as jobs in the construction and hospitality industries), there is a net overall damage to the national economy mostly from wage suppression. And if you replace illegal immigrants with legal ones (naturalized citizens or those with foreign worker visas), the same effects hold true but the degree of these effects is subdued. I believe that is what the economic data tells us, at least, which also happens to match up with economic intuition.

 

 

Congratulations, Egg Boy. You are now on The List. As soon as my communist buddies take over the American government, you will be immediately assigned to Gulag #716. Yours truly will be your supervisor. But before you fret, know that I’m one of the kinder gentler ones. Most of our time will be spent on politically themed arts and crafts using those annoying plastic Sisyphus boulder-esque wrong-handed safety scissors. There will also be forced feedings of my experimental vegan recipes (I don’t measure anything…I just “eyeball” it all) and required viewings of Drought Era Bills games versus the Browns (special emphasis on the Jauron years).

 

 

“Awful” is a stretch. I’ll only partly concede my point in that I could have chosen a better example that couldn’t be flagged for technicalities. Jim Crow laws varied greatly by state, legal domain, legal language, and time period. In the early morning while typing my post, I was thinking of laws that ALLOWED Southern whites to decline services to blacks on account of race and not the laws MANDATING they do so. I thought the context would have made that clear enough, as I also referenced the 1964 Civil Rights Act…a government enforcement of non-racist behavior from most Southern whites, who were otherwise inclined to routinely exercise their freedom to be racists.

 

You are correct when you state that government intervention is going to step on someone’s toes. That is always the case. Government restricts the freedoms in one place so to (hopefully) increase the freedoms in another. It is up to the lawmakers to decide which freedoms are valued and which are not, within certain obvious limits of course (i.e. protections of Constitutional rights). This really should not be considered a controversial assertion. All the time, rational citizens are choosing to value one set of freedoms over another: the freedom to breathe clean air versus an industrial company’s freedom to cut financial corners by polluting, the freedom to not be murdered from mentally unstable individuals versus the freedom to purchase flamethrowers/grenades/bazookas/tanks/anti-aircraft artillery on a whim, the freedom from labor exploitation (inhumane work conditions, unfair compensation) versus the freedom to run a company entirely as one sees fit, etc…I think we all get the point. I’m assuming that everyone here accepts the social contract and, therefore, the belief that not all government intervention is inherently wrong.

Can you link a realizable source that shows immigrants suppress wages and for whom? 

 

And i I stand firmly on my point that immigrants create jobs, wealth and national growth. 

[B-Man]

 

 

[Kemp]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

I'm sure it's just an error on your part that you left some interesting things out.

 

1 This refers to only one of the accused militia members.

 

2. That same gentleman also wanted to kill Obama.

 

Nice try, though. Well, not really. Just more bullshite from the Trumpers.

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 10/28/2020 at 8:24 PM, Tiberius said:

Can you link a realizable source that shows immigrants suppress wages and for whom? 

 

And i I stand firmly on my point that immigrants create jobs, wealth and national growth. 

 

Hmmm…how deep are you willing to delve into this subject?? I’d begin with the research work of the ever-so-controversial Professor George Borjas at Harvard and then follow the trail of co-authors and highly cited papers as you see fit. Some more advice for your joyous intellectual journey:

 

1. Don’t focus solely on studies of Latin American immigration to the Southwest. Lots of relevant research has been done on stuff like H-1B visa immigration trends, Islamic immigration to the EU, and low-skilled/unskilled Eastern European laborers in the UK.

2. Without knowing your background, I’d say that it helps to have a basic knowledge of microeconomics, macroeconomics, and statistics at a freshman/intro college course level to get anything truly meaningful out of this exercise.

3. Note how markets for low-skilled/unskilled labor follow typical supply-demand curves for goods and services (that is to say, no Giffen Paradox observed to elevate wages).

4. Also look into studies on the effects of globalization (NAFTA, CAFTA-DR, TPP, China PNTR, etc.) on non-college educated American workers. Job outsourcing is not quite the same as immigrant hiring, of course, because of how and where the generated wealth gets distributed, but the same basic mechanisms of wage suppression are present and exaggerated (i.e. more easily measurable).

5. Pay close attention to the differences in job type (i.e. skills and/or education required), immigration numbers, and economic consumption habits of the immigrant populations. These differences matter! Part of my disagreement with your stance on this topic is that I feel you are ignoring these subtleties and overgeneralizing.

6. The other part of my disagreement is a moral one: you may be valuing the slightest of economic improvements for the many (as measured by GDP or national unemployment percentage) over significant economic damage for the few (wage suppression in specific industries and substantially increased unemployment prospects for population subsets).

 

Did this response help…? So start with Professor Borjas and his publication record at his website, Tibs! Godspeed!!

[snafu]

On 10/28/2020 at 8:24 PM, Tiberius said:

Can you link a realizable source that shows immigrants suppress wages and for whom? 

 

And i I stand firmly on my point that immigrants create jobs, wealth and national growth. 

 

If they’re paid on the books, no problem.

If they’re paid cash to avoid taxes and withholding then yes, problem.

 

[Tiberius]

12 hours ago, RealKayAdams said:

 

Hmmm…how deep are you willing to delve into this subject?? I’d begin with the research work of the ever-so-controversial Professor George Borjas at Harvard and then follow the trail of co-authors and highly cited papers as you see fit. Some more advice for your joyous intellectual journey:

 

1. Don’t focus solely on studies of Latin American immigration to the Southwest. Lots of relevant research has been done on stuff like H-1B visa immigration trends, Islamic immigration to the EU, and low-skilled/unskilled Eastern European laborers in the UK.

2. Without knowing your background, I’d say that it helps to have a basic knowledge of microeconomics, macroeconomics, and statistics at a freshman/intro college course level to get anything truly meaningful out of this exercise.

3. Note how markets for low-skilled/unskilled labor follow typical supply-demand curves for goods and services (that is to say, no Giffen Paradox observed to elevate wages).

4. Also look into studies on the effects of globalization (NAFTA, CAFTA-DR, TPP, China PNTR, etc.) on non-college educated American workers. Job outsourcing is not quite the same as immigrant hiring, of course, because of how and where the generated wealth gets distributed, but the same basic mechanisms of wage suppression are present and exaggerated (i.e. more easily measurable).

5. Pay close attention to the differences in job type (i.e. skills and/or education required), immigration numbers, and economic consumption habits of the immigrant populations. These differences matter! Part of my disagreement with your stance on this topic is that I feel you are ignoring these subtleties and overgeneralizing.

6. The other part of my disagreement is a moral one: you may be valuing the slightest of economic improvements for the many (as measured by GDP or national unemployment percentage) over significant economic damage for the few (wage suppression in specific industries and substantially increased unemployment prospects for population subsets).

 

Did this response help…? So start with Professor Borjas and his publication record at his website, Tibs! Godspeed!!

All I am saying is that it takes workers to move the economy forward. That business that can't find workers can't create jobs, can't order supplies (which creates more jobs), can't pay for shipping (that creates trucking jobs elsewhere), can;'t buy insurance and other services, all of which creates jobs down line. Also, it lower costs to consumers. The money put into the pockets of the new workers creates more jobs through consumer spending. 

[snafu]

18 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

All I am saying is that it takes workers to move the economy forward. That business that can't find workers can't create jobs, can't order supplies (which creates more jobs), can't pay for shipping (that creates trucking jobs elsewhere), can;'t buy insurance and other services, all of which creates jobs down line. Also, it lower costs to consumers. The money put into the pockets of the new workers creates more jobs through consumer spending. 

 

No s**t.

Just make sure they're paid on the books.

And tax remittances, too.

 

 

 

[Tiberius]

14 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

No s**t.

Just make sure they're paid on the books.

And tax remittances, too.

 

 

 

And that's not an economics issue, its a political one. But sure, yes 

[snafu]

4 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

And that's not an economics issue, its a political one. But sure, yes 

Do you want the government to be funded by the widest range of citizens?

It is an economics issue.

 

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, snafu said:

Do you want the government to be funded by the widest range of citizens?

It is an economics issue.

 

My point stands, immigrants create jobs. Other issues remain, yes. And yes I do 

[BillsFanNC]

With the passage of time once again the thread title is just a bit misleading. Shocker!

 

 

[dpberr]

49 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

With the passage of time once again the thread title is just a bit misleading. Shocker!

 

 

I think the government will find a "reason" to stop prosecuting this case.  Quietly.

 

One, the facts of the case will be lay bare that federal agents largely created the scenario.  Two, it requires identifying agents.  Three, it'll expose tactics and strategies, and they really don't want to do that.  

 

 

[BillsFanNC]

Long thread covering opening statements this morning.

 

 

[BillsFanNC]

 

[BillsFanNC]

 

[Orlando Tim]

3 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

I want to know if any supplies were put together for this operation and who put the supplies together? If this all hinges on them discussing it, no matter how deeply, and the FBI dude started the conversation then it is entrapment. If this operation got to the point of supplies being put together then we can have a discussion of charges.