Swine Flu
#1
Posted 29 April 2009 - 03:20 PM
I really hope it's one of those things that is simply being over reacted to, but it seems to be getting worse. Someone tell me I'm being irrational.
#2
Posted 29 April 2009 - 03:35 PM
#4
Posted 30 April 2009 - 12:25 AM
#6
Posted 30 April 2009 - 01:42 AM
TheEnglishman, on Apr 29 2009, 02:20 PM, said:
I really hope it's one of those things that is simply being over reacted to, but it seems to be getting worse. Someone tell me I'm being irrational.
You're being
TheEnglishman, on Apr 29 2009, 11:25 PM, said:
lol, there've only been about 20 cases of it in America. You're quite possibly more likely to be struck by lightning in the middle of a ****ing tornado than to contract swine flu. This is another panic caused purely by the media's constant exaggeration (see: Y2K). If you wash your hands regularly and see a doctor if you get sick, you'll be fine. Treat it like the normal flu. (btw, you can't get it by eating pork lol, only people with great exposure to pigs can really catch it from them, and most strains of the virus haven't mutated enough to be easily passed from human to human)
sorry, im pretty baked but hopefully you can find some useful information from that brain vomit
#8
Posted 30 April 2009 - 11:00 AM
Still I am a bit worried about the whole thing. I guess it's just a case of seeing what happens over the next few weeks.
#9
Posted 30 April 2009 - 01:54 PM
#11
Posted 01 May 2009 - 05:35 AM
#12
Posted 01 May 2009 - 07:40 AM
#15
Posted 01 May 2009 - 02:14 PM
#16
Posted 01 May 2009 - 02:35 PM
#17
Posted 01 May 2009 - 03:36 PM
#18
Posted 01 May 2009 - 03:55 PM
On a more practical note, border security in the context of a microscopic specimen that's traveled around the globe is a bit of a misnomer.
#20
Posted 01 May 2009 - 05:05 PM
#21
Posted 01 May 2009 - 08:32 PM
Golden Legacy, on May 1 2009, 02:55 PM, said:
Only the ones that try to sneak across.
Golden Legacy, on May 1 2009, 04:05 PM, said:
Shut the fuck up. It'd be more likely a scenario if the swine flu had originated in your country than mine.
#22
Posted 01 May 2009 - 09:50 PM
Regret, on May 1 2009, 01:50 PM, said:
Jerry, black, SATs 1400
John, white, SATs 1250
John gets the job. It`s six of one and a half dozen of the other; you might not have said fuck niggers, fuck spics, but that doesn`t mean you`re not being racist. Silent racism is in my opinion worse than people who just come out and say ``I hate blacks``.
G-DUB 3000, on May 1 2009, 10:32 PM, said:
Shut the fuck up. It'd be more likely a scenario if the swine flu had originated in your country than mine.
Why must you always beat me to everything?
#23
Posted 01 May 2009 - 10:19 PM
If it began in the US itself, then that would certainly stifle all argument from here.
EDIT: I regret how I worded my post. I don't want to turn this into another flaming topic, so forgive me, this is my fault. Back on topic.
South Korea and Germany are the latest to report the outbreak.
#25
Posted 02 May 2009 - 07:43 AM
Caael, on May 1 2009, 08:14 PM, said:
But there's a difference because the cytokinetic storm it causes has in its nature a lot higher probability of killing a healthy adult than those weaker ones like old people, kids etc. and since I guess that a major part of Earth's population belongs into the first category.. you guess the outcome.
#26
Posted 02 May 2009 - 11:03 AM
Golden Legacy, on May 2 2009, 12:19 AM, said:
If it began in the US itself, then that would certainly stifle all argument from here.
EDIT: I regret how I worded my post. I don't want to turn this into another flaming topic, so forgive me, this is my fault. Back on topic.
South Korea and Germany are the latest to report the outbreak.
Mallick was clearly joking dude..
#27
Posted 02 May 2009 - 10:01 PM
But this does raise an interesting point that I hadn't thought of earlier.
Illegal immigrants may be an economical hazard, but they're a health hazard as well. You can control the flow of sickness through airport terminals and legal border crossing areas and things like that to at least some degree, but you have absolutely no control over the flow of diseases being brought into the country by illegal aliens.
#31
Posted 03 May 2009 - 02:01 PM
Just because I'm against illegal immigrants doesn't mean I'm racist.
You guys are more racist than I am for immediately associating illegal immigrants with one single race.
#32
Posted 03 May 2009 - 02:10 PM
Come on Toasty, I expected more.
On another note, the Egyptian government are stupid for putting to death all 300k of their pigs, despite nobody having pig flu in egypt and the fact that pigs dont transfer the disease seeing as the virus pigs have cannot be passed to humans. One virus mutated from 1 pig so it could be transferred to humans as far as i'm aware, so killing pigs I doubt will do anything.
#34
Posted 03 May 2009 - 02:23 PM
EDIT: This comment from the BBC's "Have Your Say" sums it up for me.
Suddenly the world economic crisis doesn't matter, the US torture memos disappeared, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are distant memories... suddenly all we hear about is the swine flu. I'm not concerned about swine flu. I even wonder if it really exists.
And there are even reports coming out that the pandemic in Mexico is now "stabilizing". This is the usual media scare for ratings and revenues.
#36
Posted 03 May 2009 - 03:13 PM
Golden Legacy, on May 3 2009, 01:23 PM, said:
I'm referring to US borders, numbnuts. And while the swine flu did originate in Mexico, and Mexicans do constitute a large sum of the illegal immigrants here in the US, they're not the only ones coming in, and they're not the only ones who might have dangerous diseases in their country.
Illegal immigration in the US poses a serious health risk. Period.
#37
Posted 03 May 2009 - 04:37 PM
There is no correlation between illegal immigrants and diseases spreading. They are two separate issues.
#38
Posted 03 May 2009 - 04:58 PM
Golden Legacy, on May 3 2009, 03:37 PM, said:
and
Quote
also, one confirmed case in united states? there have been over 200
#39
Posted 03 May 2009 - 05:09 PM
And I'm not seeing your point on what the "big jump" is.
#40
Posted 03 May 2009 - 05:17 PM
Golden Legacy, on May 3 2009, 03:37 PM, said:
There is no correlation between illegal immigrants and diseases spreading. They are two separate issues.
What I'm saying, is that illegal immigration has the potential to make things far worse. From a logical standpoint, an uncontrolled flow of people results in a higher rate of disease transmission.
And from what I understand, the first death caused by swine flu in the United States was a young boy who crossed the border. Could be wrong though.
Either way, there's more than just one confirmed case. There's two confirmed cases and four suspected cases here in Washington alone.
#41
Posted 03 May 2009 - 05:30 PM
Quote
... No. There is no correlation with an "uncontrolled flow of people" resulting in higher disease transmission. Not unless you're implying that that group of people are all more susceptible to the virus. You're trying to hammer this into another 'illegals cause problems' debate.
And actually, how about you answer this. Where did those "two confirmed cases, four suspected cases" in Washington come from?
#43
Posted 03 May 2009 - 08:39 PM
Golden Legacy, on May 3 2009, 04:30 PM, said:
And actually, how about you answer this. Where did those "two confirmed cases, four suspected cases" in Washington come from?
They weren't illegal immigrants, if that's what you're after.
And GL, it's only logical that a higher rate of immigration, illegal or otherwise, will increase the opportunity for a disease to spread.
However, there is a higher chance of stopping the person carrying the disease if they're going through a legal crossing point. Be it an airport or border station.
Illegal immigration only serves to increase the rate at which people enter/leave the US, and since it's uncontrolled and not monitored, there's no way of stopping a disease-ridden person from entering the US.
That's logic.
#44
Posted 03 May 2009 - 08:53 PM
#45
Posted 03 May 2009 - 09:56 PM
Golden Legacy, on May 3 2009, 07:53 PM, said:
But they DO originate..
#46
Posted 03 May 2009 - 10:06 PM
Golden Legacy, on May 3 2009, 07:53 PM, said:
FOR CHRIST'S SAKE THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.
Like I said before, GL, I'm not referring to one ethnicity. I'm talking about illegal immigration in general. Whether they're Mexican, Ukrainean, Canadian, Jamaican, or British, it doesn't freaking matter. The more people you have of any race or ethnicity flowing into your country, the higher chance you have of seeing an outbreak of some disease, or the more widespread the outbreak will be.
Because illegal immigration is uncontrolled, you now have no way of controlling the flow of people into your country, let alone catch a sick person trying to enter and throw him in quarantine. If you decide to close the borders and ports and prevent anyone from entering, it won't work, because they'll just walk across your borders.
Do you understand what I'm trying to say now?
If you weren't so stuck on associating illegal immigration with Mexico, you might have understood it better.
#47
Posted 03 May 2009 - 10:56 PM
That said, you still are remarkably blinded by your "logic". What makes "logical" sense to you =/= reality.
This:
Quote
can be substantiated how? (saying "this is logic!" regretfully doesn't cut it.) How is an illegal immigrant with the disease necessarily any different than a person going on a plane infecting 200 fellow passengers? For that matter, this is really the first time I've ever heard anyone seriously claim that there is a link between immigration and spreading of disease, even the "likely" possibility that it might be a greater chance is very arbitrary. It's not grounded in anything except your "logic". You are as always determined to find a link, saying that outbreaks could possibly be contained if this separate illegal immigration issue was resolved. There are countless other nations in the world that have experienced the outbreak and do not have the same degree or the number of illegals. The vast majority of these cases and deaths have occurred with their own citizens traveling on perfectly legal routes through legal means of transport.
Likewise, considering that according to PDM's link over 30 states have had cases, how do you explain that states hundreds and thousands of miles away have had these outbreaks? I would be more than impressed if you can show a single report - just one - that indicates illegal immigrants have contributed to the outbreak here in the US. That they have contributed to the distribution of the virus across the entire US as opposed to ordinary civilians going about their daily lives.
While we're at it, before I can continue I need to ask you a question. Do you think the current borders of the US are too open as they are? And do you actually believe yourself that illegals are contributing heavily to the outbreak, or is it just a possibility you are acknowledging?
#48
Posted 03 May 2009 - 11:16 PM
And holy crap GL, I can't believe you're having such a hard time understanding this.
The more people you have flowing into your country, the higher chance you have of an outbreak in your country.
The difference between legal immigrants/travelers and illegal immigrants, is that we can at least find out where the legal ones have been/are going to be to some extent. There is no way to do that with illegal immigrants, aside from determining what country they came from, and even that can't always be determined.
On top of that, if an outbreak has been confirmed, you can prevent further spreading by incorporating checkpoints at airports where you have to have a simple checkup if you show any signs of sickness.
Or you could even ground all flights and close up the border crossings.
But both of those are rendered useless if you don't have secure borders.
And any way you look at it, any way at all, illegal immigration is bad for any country. Period.
Also, I'm not saying that stopping illegal immigration will stop the spread of the disease. It will, however, make it easier to contain solely because you'll have more control over the flow of people.
[EDIT] I believe that it is a possibility that illegal immigration could be contributing to the outbreak. I'd have to confirm it to be sure, but I believe at least one swine-flu related death in the US was that of an illegal immigrant. But, I could be wrong.
And I do think the borders are too open and that they need to be tightened, because we're getting illegal immigrants flowing into our country.
#49
Posted 03 May 2009 - 11:38 PM
Toasty, on May 4 2009, 01:16 AM, said:
Yes, confirmation would be nice.
Quote
As before, do you think the flow of illegal immigrants is contributing to the disease, i.e. adding up cases? Put another way, let's say this outbreak hadn't occurred. Would you still be citing "spread of disease" as one of the negatives of such immigration, or did you add it in exclusively in the wake of the H1N1 virus?
#50
Posted 04 May 2009 - 01:34 AM
My point is that illegal immigration increases the chance that an outbreak could occur, and in doing so, also increases the possible severity, solely because there are more people than expected flowing into a given country. Ethnicity has nothing to do with it.
Do you agree with that statement?
#51
Posted 04 May 2009 - 02:46 AM
More anonymous people in the country= more chance of disease. The people coming in illegally may or may not be infected, and if they are, there's no way to control them seeing as they're in illegally and there's no way to completely seal off borders.
#52
Posted 04 May 2009 - 07:54 AM
#53
Posted 04 May 2009 - 08:29 AM
#54
Posted 04 May 2009 - 09:12 AM
#55
Posted 04 May 2009 - 10:14 AM
I don't agree with it.
It makes sense to you "logically", which is the basis of your entire "point". The evidence, or the lack there of, indicates that your point has not been validated. I have yet to be convinced of anything that suggests illegals have contributed to the spread of the disease in the US, any more than if there were only a legal flow of people across borders.
Let me phrase my point this way. Do you think that if illegal immigration was completely halted, if the borders were fully secure, if not a single illegal immigrant came in, do you think there would be no cases of the H1N1 virus in the States than now? What is your excuse for before when this pandemic was not occurring?
#56
Posted 04 May 2009 - 11:05 AM
Golden Legacy, on May 4 2009, 05:14 PM, said:
I don't agree with it.
It makes sense to you "logically", which is the basis of your entire "point". The evidence, or the lack there of, indicates that your point has not been validated. I have yet to be convinced of anything that suggests illegals have contributed to the spread of the disease in the US, any more than if there were only a legal flow of people across borders.
Let me phrase my point this way. Do you think that if illegal immigration was completely halted, if the borders were fully secure, if not a single illegal immigrant came in, do you think there would be no cases of the H1N1 virus in the States than now? What is your excuse for before when this pandemic was not occurring?
As much as I hate myself for saying this, I'm gonna side with Toasty. He's not stating it as a fact; it's a hypothetical statement. The more anonymous people in a country who have not been identified as disease carriers or not, the more likely it is that they would spread it.
Look at it this way; America closes all borders, doesn't let any people in at all, illegal or legal. Cases will still break out from pigs in america. The other situation, it stays as it is now. Legal immigrants will not be allowed to travel to the US if they are carriers. However illegal immigrants get into the country without authority; whether or not they are carrying it is unknown so they're potentially a threat; carriers or not seeing as we dont know that. If one of those 10000 illegals was a carrier, the chance of infection is increased.
As far as I'm aware, Toasty isn't saying that illegals=guaranteed outbreak, just that chances are increased.
#58
Posted 04 May 2009 - 06:50 PM
Caael, on May 4 2009, 10:05 AM, said:
Look at it this way; America closes all borders, doesn't let any people in at all, illegal or legal. Cases will still break out from pigs in america. The other situation, it stays as it is now. Legal immigrants will not be allowed to travel to the US if they are carriers. However illegal immigrants get into the country without authority; whether or not they are carrying it is unknown so they're potentially a threat; carriers or not seeing as we dont know that. If one of those 10000 illegals was a carrier, the chance of infection is increased.
As far as I'm aware, Toasty isn't saying that illegals=guaranteed outbreak, just that chances are increased.
Exactly
GL, to be honest all I can see that you're trying to do is to make this a "you're biased" argument.
It doesn't matter whether there's proof or not of my statement. It's like a sudoku. If one fact holds true, then so must another. If you're bringing more people into a country, you'll have a higher rate of infection. The illegals are simply extra people that shouldn't be flowing into the country.
Like I said before, I didn't just think of this because of the current situation.
#59
Posted 04 May 2009 - 07:23 PM
Quote
Regretfully you would be wrong. If you interpret it this way, then you've been missing my point all along. What I've been doing is trying to establish the precedent that these two issues are wholly separate of one another. They exist separately, and whatever relation they may have is limited in scope.
As I've said all along, I understand clearly what "makes sense" to you and what you and Caael have brought up. That said, I do find it quite ironic that:
Toasty, on May 4 2009, 03:34 AM, said:
Toasty, on May 4 2009, 08:50 PM, said:
Unless you're referring to the usual "illegals are responsible for all the problems in this country", in which case that attitude existed long before this outbreak ever began. Hence why the two issues are separate.
Likewise, you've gone on record saying you think the current borders are "too open". Why then have there not been any other diseases that have spread as rapidly, or new viruses brought over in the past solely as a result? After all, like you say, the borders are being absolutely flooded with these horrendous illegals. It would appear that the effects of them spreading disease are quite marginal.
#60
Posted 04 May 2009 - 09:52 PM
Humans are humans. Illegal or not, they're both capable of contracting a disease. For this to be completely and entirely unrelated to illegal immigration, all of the illegals would have to be immune to all diseases.
My point is that it doesn't matter who's coming in. They all could potentially be carrying the H1N1 virus (or something else), and the more that come in, the higher the chance that an outbreak could occur. The illegals are simply a group of people that are contributing to the chance of an outbreak solely because they can contract a virus, and are comming across the border. However, they constitute a group of people that shouldn't be there. They're not supposed to be coming over the border.
I'm not saying illegal immigrants are directly responsible for the outbreak. An outbreak is a possibility whether there's illegal immigrants coming over the border or not. However, because they add on to the current flow of people (the legal travelers), they are increasing the chance that an outbreak could occur, or the rate at which it will spread. The more people you have moving around, the faster a virus will spread.
Just because I hadn't thought of it until now does not mean that I blame everything on illegals. That said, illegal immigration does cause problems. Pretty serious ones. They cause our schools to be overcrowded, they suck up our tax money whenever they have to go to the doctor, and they don't pay taxes themselves. Quite a few of them also happen to be drug traffickers. I challenge you to give me one good reason why we shouldn't do something to stop illegal immigration.
#61
Posted 04 May 2009 - 10:45 PM
Toasty, on May 4 2009, 11:52 PM, said:
Let's put this in perspective.
This year, 20000 Americans will die of influenza (the normal virus), another 40000 from pneumonia, around the world 1.6 million will die from pneumonia alone.
This year another 70000 Americans will die from alcohol intoxication, another 20000 will die from prescription medicine overdose or abuse, 5000 will die from obesity, 30000 from guns, 910000 from heart disease.
America has other problems to worry about than this swine flu. All of the above, whether spreadable disease or lifestyle issues, are contained within the US, carried out by citizens, perpetuated by citizens.
Quote
I'm not saying illegal immigrants are directly responsible for the outbreak. An outbreak is a possibility whether there's illegal immigrants coming over the border or not. However, because they add on to the current flow of people (the legal travelers), they are increasing the chance that an outbreak could occur, or the rate at which it will spread. The more people you have moving around, the faster a virus will spread.
Your point is clear and it makes sense, the more the flow of people, the more viruses have to interact and spread. My question remains is, if by your admitted standards there are "too many" illegals flowing in, why have disease outbreaks been limited? Presumably you think the borders have been insecure for years, maybe decades. Why all of a sudden now the link between illegals and disease? They apparently did not add any meaningful contribution to cases of other diseases in the past, or else other outbreaks would have occurred.
Quote
The difference between you and I on this issue is that I don't believe illegals do any worse damage to the nation than drug dealers, gun users, or alcoholics who happen to be citizens. Stopping illegal immigration is an issue any country has to deal with, but to place substantial blame on people who make up a fraction of a percentage of the population as opposed to the actual majority is a cheap way of overlooking the greater issues.
That said, LOL @ the bolded part and not labeling other people.
#62
Posted 05 May 2009 - 12:14 AM
Golden Legacy, on May 4 2009, 09:45 PM, said:
This year, 20000 Americans will die of influenza (the normal virus), another 40000 from pneumonia, around the world 1.6 million will die from pneumonia alone.
This year another 70000 Americans will die from alcohol intoxication, another 20000 will die from prescription medicine overdose or abuse, 5000 will die from obesity, 30000 from guns, 910000 from heart disease.
America has other problems to worry about than this swine flu. All of the above, whether spreadable disease or lifestyle issues, are contained within the US, carried out by citizens, perpetuated by citizens.
I agree. We have to worry about illegal immigration, along with an avalanche of other problems that are only growing by the minute.
Golden Legacy, on May 4 2009, 09:45 PM, said:
Disease outbreaks have been limited because, like I said earlier, there haven't been many severe disease outbreaks in the last decade or so. Just because more people than expected are flowing in doesn't necessarily mean that more diseases are going to spread. It only means that if a disease such as the N1H1 virus surfaces, that it will be transmitted faster, and will cause more widespread damage. Illegal immigration acts like a catalyst in that sense for this situation
Golden Legacy, on May 4 2009, 09:45 PM, said:
Every single year, the size of our highschool's freshmen class gets bigger and bigger. And not just by a small amount. Our highschool is heavily over crowded, and it gets worse each year. The school just recently bought some portables to expand the number of classrooms.
This increase in student population is a serious problem over here, and it's not being caused by teen pregnancy or horny adults.
It also happens to be a bigger problem then alcohol abuse or guns. The only thing that compares over here is drugs, and that's being taken care of by the police pretty well. Besides the failing economy, the overcrowding of schools is probably the most important issue where I live.
And the majority of the population doesn't abuse drugs, alcohol, or guns.
And people who own guns aren't the problem. It's people who abuse them.
Golden Legacy, on May 4 2009, 09:45 PM, said:
So apparently it's considered racist to tell the truth.
Mexico sees a lot of drug traffic. Infact, most of the drugs enjoyed by Americans are produced in Mexico. Does saying that make me racist? No, it doesn't. But the fact that you claim that it does makes you fairly narrow minded.
#63
Posted 05 May 2009 - 08:30 PM
Toasty, on May 5 2009, 02:14 AM, said:
The use of the term "catalyst" is absolutely not valid here. Catalyst implies a greater affinity and a rapid pace of change. It would suggest a geometric or an exponential increase, not the amount that is barely registered in the H1N1 spreading.
Likewise, this is an all too convenient excuse. There are entire studies and courses devoted purely to the study of viruses and their innumerable classifications and types. That only this recent outbreak suddenly presents your "evidence" that illegal immigration contributes to spreading shows how limited its effects are and how little of a link there is between the two.
Quote
This increase in student population is a serious problem over here, and it's not being caused by teen pregnancy or horny adults.
It also happens to be a bigger problem then alcohol abuse or guns. The only thing that compares over here is drugs, and that's being taken care of by the police pretty well. Besides the failing economy, the overcrowding of schools is probably the most important issue where I live.
And you are absolutely certain that illegals are contributing to this? You can profile the kids in your school and figure out which ones do not belong? While we're at it, would you have the guts to tell them that you think they should leave? Those silly crazy illegals, how dare they try and have an education.
Quote
Likewise the majority of illegals don't abuse drugs, alcohol, guns, or contribute to spreading disease in significant amounts.
Quote
Ahh yes, the usual support for guns. We'll just follow along with your train of logic and say that therefore, drugs aren't the problem, it's people who abuse them. Cigarettes aren't a problem, it's people who abuse them. Abortions aren't the problem, it's women who abuse them. Illegals aren't the problem, it's the limited few who partake in illegal activities that are.
Quote
Two pages ago you were trying to avoid a statement just like this. Now apparently you're standing up like a grown man and saying with steely resolve that "it's the truth".
Quote
Absolutely false once more. Most of the marijuana enjoyed by Americans are produced within American borders. Meth is produced in countless drug labs across the continent. The biggest source of heroin is Afghanistan. Colombia in South America and various Southeastern Asian nations contribute heavily to the black market trade. Mexico's border is a key area where drugs flow from, but not produced in. Ports in major urban areas in the States contribute fair amounts.
#64
Posted 05 May 2009 - 08:57 PM
#65
Posted 05 May 2009 - 10:22 PM
Golden Legacy, on May 5 2009, 07:30 PM, said:
Catalyst is defined as a substance the speeds up the process of a reaction. In this case, the illegal immigration can potentially act as a catalyst and speed up the rate of transmission just because they are human beings who are adding to the flow of people.
Golden Legacy, on May 5 2009, 07:30 PM, said:
And you are absolutely certain that illegals are contributing to this? You can profile the kids in your school and figure out which ones do not belong? While we're at it, would you have the guts to tell them that you think they should leave? Those silly crazy illegals, how dare they try and have an education.
Actually, how dare those silly, crazy illegals use up our taxes by trying to get an education they don't have a right to. They are not citizens, and they do not pay taxes. Therefore, they shouldn't be allowed to have an education in this country.
There's also been a fairly large increase in the population of Mexicans and Ukraineans here in my city. Both of those ethnic groups constitute a fair amount of the population who do come into the US illegally. It may be a stereotype, but stereotypes do have some credit to them. Otherwise, they probably wouldn't exist.
Golden Legacy, on May 5 2009, 07:30 PM, said:
Ahh yes, the usual support for guns. We'll just follow along with your train of logic and say that therefore, drugs aren't the problem, it's people who abuse them. Cigarettes aren't a problem, it's people who abuse them. Abortions aren't the problem, it's women who abuse them. Illegals aren't the problem, it's the limited few who partake in illegal activities that are.
They contribute just as much as the average American. That added to the fact that they aren't supposed to be here, is why they should be kicked out.
Your first few statements were spot on. However, abortions are bad period. Also, no matter how good of a person an illegal is, they're still bad solely because they come into this country illegally, don't pay taxes but use taxpayer money, and soak up the jobs that would otherwise be available to a legal American citizen. Yes, the people employing the illegals are at fault, but there wouldn't be a problem in the first place if the illegals weren't here.
The fact that some of the illegals do partake in illegal activities (aside from crossing the border illegally) only serves to make matters worse. And I'd also like to ask you how you would know whether the illegals doing illegal things are of a limited number or not.
Golden Legacy, on May 5 2009, 07:30 PM, said:
No, two pages ago I was avoiding stating that "all illegals are Mexicans" because that's not the truth. The fact that Mexico has a large number of drug traffickers who happen to also be Mexican though, is the truth. Which is why I stated it, and stand by it. That does not, however, make me racist, because I'm not saying what I'm saying just to make Mexico look bad. I'm saying it because it's the truth.
Golden Legacy, on May 5 2009, 07:30 PM, said:
Allow me to restate that then. Most of the drugs Americans enjoy are shipped through Mexico, by Mexican drug cartels. Which is just as bad. Also, if I remember correctly, then Mexico is one of the leading producers of opium.
#66
Posted 06 May 2009 - 01:49 PM
Toasty, on May 6 2009, 12:22 AM, said:
My post would make sense if you remember basic (bio)chemistry. Your definition is absolutely accurate, with the exception I made in my earlier post. In a chemical reaction, catalysts increase the rate at orders of magnitude in the thousands, millions, even billions. Reactions that would take centuries to be carried out can happen in a matter of seconds. Illegals do not contribute to the spread of disease on this geometric, exponential scale.
Quote
LOL. You know what else is a stereotype? That Americans are ignorant, obese pricks who think the world revolves around them. How do we know? After all, there is some credit to them.
See how such claims are wrong?
Going to your point, how do you know they're illegal? It sounds like you're going beyond illegal immigration and even citing issues with immigration as a whole. Not all immigrants are illegal, far from it. As someone who comes from NYC, I can assure you that these stereotypes apply to a people who are here in the US quite legally.
Quote
Nope. They're bad for some people, period. For others it's ok, period.
Oh the beauty of having dissenting opinions and being open to them.
Quote
Illegals also take jobs that the average American wouldn't take, lower jobs that can give a foundation of the lowest parts of the economy. Those jobs are taken which otherwise wouldn't be lifts the status of the general population upward. I'll look up the actual name for the phenomenon, it has economic as well as sociological studies that I remember learning in class.
Yes, the part on taxes is certainly true.
Quote
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you hypocrisy.
Quote
People operating in Mexico, and people who are ethnic Mexicans, are two entirely different things.
Quote
If drugs would be legalized and decriminalized, the entire illegal drug market would collapse. Alas, there remain people who still believe that if it's a sin for some people, it must be a sin for everyone else.
#67
Posted 06 May 2009 - 02:08 PM
Golden Legacy, on May 5 2009, 07:30 PM, said:
Yes, yes I can. It's even a sort of pride/respect thing where I live. You're cool if your parents are here illegally. And no, I'm not going to tell them to leave, I don't want to get jumped by them and their ten cousins.
Quote
At my expense (eventually), my parent's expense, my neighbor's expense, my state's expense, my country's expense, and yes, even your expense.
Quote
Ahh yes, the usual support for guns. We'll just follow along with your train of logic and say that therefore, drugs aren't the problem, it's people who abuse them. Cigarettes aren't a problem, it's people who abuse them. Abortions aren't the problem, it's women who abuse them. Illegals aren't the problem, it's the limited few who partake in illegal activities that are.
What sounds more dangerous, GL? An American citizen (with a profile, health record, home address, psyche profile, and possible criminal record) or an anonymous illegal imigrant who crossed the border (it doesn't even have to be the south, for christs sake) secretly, who may or may not have have crossed with criminal intention, who may or may not have a criminal record in his country, who may or may not have brought an unregistered gun or disease with him?
Quote
I get the feeling you and called me and Toasty racist because we're white conservatives. But *shrug* it's just a feeling.
#68
Posted 06 May 2009 - 02:31 PM
Quote
Actually, undocumented workers do pay taxes, I just looked into it.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...tribute_plenty/
And an example for the state of Virginia, from the official government website:
http://www.hhr.virginia.gov/initiatives/Im...e_Imm_Study.pdf
That illegals and undocumented workers don't pay taxes would appear to be another myth. Of course a few links isn't enough on their own, so I personally will look into it. But yes, it would seem this is yet another classic line without substantiation.
Quote
Cute argument. It's a shame that in reality, the majority of victims and perpetuaters of manslaughter and homicide, the majority of victims of communicable disease and alcohol-induced accidents that kill tens of thousands of people, the majority of in-nation drug labs, etc. are all citizens.
Quote
It would be just a feeling. Just in case however, do see:
Regret, on May 6 2009, 04:08 PM, said:
#69
Posted 07 May 2009 - 11:41 PM
Golden Legacy, on May 6 2009, 12:49 PM, said:
But I'm not talking about the word-for-word definition. The "slang" term meaning, if you will, means pretty much what I said. i.e. no exponential growth.
Golden Legacy, on May 6 2009, 12:49 PM, said:
See how such claims are wrong?
I wouldn't necessarily say that claim is wrong, tbh. I see more than my fair share of stupid people on a daily basis, and the vast majorit of our student population in my city has about as much common sense as a guy jumping out of a plane without a parachute.
Golden Legacy, on May 6 2009, 12:49 PM, said:
legal immigration alone wouldn't be able to account for the increase in our student population.
Golden Legacy, on May 6 2009, 12:49 PM, said:
Oh the beauty of having dissenting opinions and being open to them.
Because not every unborn child should get the chance to live and decide for themselves whether they really want to be in the world. As people who are already born, we have full authority to decide who should get the right to come into this world and who shouldn't. Am I right?
Golden Legacy, on May 6 2009, 12:49 PM, said:
Yes, the part on taxes is certainly true.
You don't seem to realize that there are more than enough Americans who would be willing to take these jobs that you say they wouldn't take. You'd be surprised at what jobs people would be willing to take when money gets tight and they're at risk of being thrown out on the streets.
But that's not something you'd learn about in class.
Golden Legacy, on May 6 2009, 12:49 PM, said:
State the hypocrisy. If you're claiming racism again, then I think that you should shut your trap, sir.
Golden Legacy, on May 6 2009, 12:49 PM, said:
Are you freaking kidding me. Do you honestly believe that there aren't ethnic Mexicans who are operating drug cartels out of Mexico? By your reasoning, there's no way that heroin made in Afghanistan is being made by ethnic Afghanis.
Obviously, there's a very good chance that people from elsewhere in the world would have traveled to Mexico to set up a drug business (there's a reason for why the majority of America's out-of-country drug traffic goes through Mexico), but I absolutely guarantee you that there are ethnic Mexicans running drug rings in Mexico. Just as there are Afghanis running drug rings in Afghanistan.
Golden Legacy, on May 6 2009, 12:49 PM, said:
That is the stupidest statement I have ever heard. People don't just start to do drugs because it's illegal. They do it because their friends do it, and it seems fun. They do it because the drugs promise relief from everyday headaches that the world gives us. They take the drugs because they just want to see what the hell all the fuss is about.
And when they get addicted to them, if they're legalized, then they'll be much, much easier to obtain. That would only serve to make it harder for people to quit.
At the very least, when someone is trying to stop an addiction to a drug, they have the advantage of not having the convenience of a store where they can just go and buy it right there in public. That's not to say that it's all that hard to go out and get drugs, but it's harder than if the drugs were sold at your local supermarket.
Legalizing drugs is probably one of the worst things you can do.
#70
Posted 08 May 2009 - 12:28 PM
Toasty, on May 8 2009, 01:41 AM, said:
So you admit you're making an assumption. You don't know if they're legal or illegal. Do you think to yourself when you see some of your students "well you're probably the child of illegals and I would have you removed if I could?"
Quote
There is no "right" on the issue. This is your stance on abortion. You don't say you claim to be accepting of other people's opinions, then steadfastly say that they are wrong. Debate is allowed here. You holding on to your avidly pro-life stance makes as much a difference as someone who has an avidly pro-choice stance, i.e., it isn't the authority of anyone to decide what a woman chooses to do with her own body. See how this goes nowhere?
P.S. I actually lean pro-life myself.
Quote
You claim you don't want to label people. Then you ask:
Quote
This is illogical. There are citizens who commit "illegal activities" in far greater numbers, as the alcohol violence statistics and homicide rates clearly demonstrate. As usual, people would prefer making a scapegoat out of a fraction of a percentage of the population, to focus on the 1 case of wrongdoing by undocumented immigrants instead of the 500 cases of the 'average American' that occurs for each one.
Quote
I never said there weren't ethnic Mexicans carrying out drug cartels. What I said was to remove the distinction of making drug cartels a "characteristic" of Mexican peoples. You clearly did not know the extent of the drug trade operating from southeast Asia, the heroin from Afghanistan, or the various other locales in Colombia and nearby areas. It is an extensive trade that has participants on every continent.
Quote
Legalizing drugs is probably one of the worst things you can do.
Actually legalizing drugs is one of the best things America should do. Every 38 seconds, someone is thrown in prison for the possession of Marijuana. That amounts to 700,000-800,000 people who are thrown in jail for the simple possession of drugs, not even using them.
That takes up space, drains money (up to $700,000 for trial, court precedings, prison time for each individual), clogs up the structure, and limits sentences of people who actually commit genuine crimes such as assault.
Since Nixon's infamous "War on Drugs" in 1969, half a trillion to a trillion dollars has been spent combating drugs, and all that's happened is that drug use has gone up. If people want drugs and have addictions, they will simply resort to the black market which is far more dangerous.
Legalizing drugs, making a commodity out of them, and taxing them would make the existence of drug cartels worthless, would provide a stable source of revenue, and would reduce violence associated with the illegal drug trade significantly.
This is exactly what happened when the US famously tried to ban alcohol with the Prohibition Act. Violence and gang activity exploded, and when Congress had to issue an amendment that repealed the ban, all that violence subsequently faded and the black market collapsed.
--- ---
#72
Posted 08 May 2009 - 03:07 PM