Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://standwitharizona.com/blog/2011/12/21/alabama-miracle-dramatic-drop-in-unemployment-continues-after-crackdown-on-illegals/




This blog entry smacks of dishonesty. For one, the unemployment rate looks like it was sharply dropping BEFORE the bill was passed. Secondly, there was a drop in all four states when the federal court upheld most of H.B. 56.

So this smacks of more dishonest Republicanism that is just outright racism.

Am I wrong? If so, why. Am I right? If so, why?

How is it "outright racism" to tell illegals to piss off? I don't want illegal immigrants in my nation, period, particularly when they're unskilled workers depressing the wages of the poor while enriching the elite at the top. And then, on top of it, their kids vote Democrat. (The nerve!)

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
How is it "outright racism" to tell illegals to piss off? I don't want illegal immigrants in my nation, period, particularly when they're unskilled workers depressing the wages of the poor while enriching the elite at the top. And then, on top of it, their kids vote Democrat. (The nerve!)

It's quite lucky that their children, being American citizens, can vote for whatever they want in their nation.

Lets not even address your dumb lie of illegal immigration depressing wages.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's quite lucky that their children, being American citizens, can vote for whatever they want in their nation.

Lets not even address your dumb lie of illegal immigration depressing wages.

Yea it is a shame about the jobs through.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's quite lucky that their children, being American citizens, can vote for whatever they want in their nation.

Lets not even address your dumb lie of illegal immigration depressing wages.

Incorrect, if farmers/growers paid say $10.00 an hour instead of the $4.25 they do to illegals to pick crops, hard-working Amurcans would be out in those fields happily toiling and picking them fruits and veggies. /fact <--- that mean's it's true

Originally posted by Robtard
Incorrect, if farmers/growers paid say $10.00 an hour instead of the $4.25 they do to illegals to pick crops, hard-working Amurcans would be out in those fields happily toiling and picking them fruits and veggies. /fact <--- that mean's it's true

I love your sarcasm, you complete me.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Yea it is a shame about the jobs through.

For a nation that has thrived and grown completely due to immigration (and some slavery), Americans are ridiculously against the concept.

http://img.sparknotes.com/figures/3/38bf88807fd6b1e5beccc807f687acf4/choc4.gif

http://i.imgur.com/t1Xam.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/bP32v.jpg

(edited)

I love that the writer doesn't bother to point out that it ridiculous to think that all anti-immigration people are Nazis. More of a "Yes I think Hitler was right but so what?" attitude going on.

In any event I tend to agree with the content of his arguments. On another level I just have a problem with the policy of pretending to have open borders while actually not having them. You just end up rewarding people who violate the law and punishing the people who don't.

That's an official warning for that direct flame, zeal. Another and you will be banned.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
(edited)

So I take it you won't be crying when your apples cost $3.75 a piece?

Cos shit rolls down-hill, not up; I know you realize this, the corporations won't be sucking up the increase in overhead, should all these illegals be kicked out and the cheap labor force is lost.

I shouldn't have been so absolute, nor so antagonistic in my earlier reply to you. I apologize.

What I am trying to say is that immigration (illegal or not) is not such an easy issue to judge, there are good and bad sides to immigration, in some cases they may be more negative in others more positive. On top of that many of the negative aspects of illegal immigration could be avoided by giving an easier and more reasonable path to citizenship.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5312900



http://www.factcheck.org/2010/05/does-immigration-cost-jobs/

From what I gather our immigration system is horribly inefficient and many "real" American citizens would fail the tests that prospective legal immigrants must take.

Meh.

I think at this point amnesty for most of the eleven million illegals (not all, obviously, some of them are actual criminals with no legitimate business being here) seems the only working option that doesn't involve Naziesque relocation/extermination.

Amnesty and serious immigration reform.

Totally gonna agree there Omega.

There are a lot of problems with illegal immigration but there are also a lot of really good people behind those numbers and they end up getting a bad name because of the ones who come here to commit crime.

Serious immigration reform is very necessary.

Curiious to see if K-12 student population went down too, as well as services for the so called poor, food stamps and healthcare.

The hidden social costs of unlawful immigration.

I thought NAFTA was supposed to open investments into Mexico so they would be no need for unlawful immigration. Although it would help if MEXICO had the same social programs we do.

It's probably less important what the truth is on the matter than it is how the various parties will use it to their advantage. Obviously this is a bit of a straw man for the country's unemployment though, whether it's a legit problem or not.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
How is it "outright racism" to tell illegals to piss off?

The racism is not telling them to leave when they are illegal. The racism is the overall attitude of the article writer. He seems to think that getting rid of immigrants is the solution to all of Alabama's economic problems (and implies it would work for the US) and he supports that position with what appears to be misleading information. As Marius pointed out, there are bad and good to immigrants.

Overall, I think it is slightly to moderately bad for illegal immigrants; It is really good for the US if they do it legally. Disclaimer: That's my opinion based on some facts but it is not entirely factually supported.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
That's an official warning for that direct flame, zeal. Another and you will be banned.
It is the inevitable conclusion of our interactions.
Originally posted by Robtard
So I take it you won't be crying when your apples cost $3.75 a piece?

Cos shit rolls down-hill, not up; I know you realize this, the corporations won't be sucking up the increase in overhead, should all these illegals be kicked out and the cheap labor force is lost.
This is what I love about leftists. They cry and whine about evil Republikkkans ruining America for the sake of corporate profits...and then they go on about how cheap labor costs for large corporations are good for everyone else. Doublethink, how does it work?

PROTIP: I wouldn't pay $3.75 for an apple. And neither would most anyone else. Ergo, demand would drop and prices would lower until they were acceptable to the consumer.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
It is the inevitable conclusion of our interactions.

This is what I love about leftists. They cry and whine about evil Republikkkans ruining America for the sake of corporate profits...and then they go on about how cheap labor costs for large corporations are good for everyone else. Doublethink, how does it work?

PROTIP: I wouldn't pay $3.75 for an apple. And neither would most anyone else. Ergo, demand would drop and prices would lower until they were acceptable to the consumer.
Demand would drop and price would drop but so would production...which would mean a contraction in spending and industry. Ergo, not a good thing.

What I don't get is right wingers foaming at the mouth over immigrants stealing jobs that no one else wants.

I saw a news report where an American woman was paid $11 an hour (2-3 times what illegals would be paid) to harvest crops in Alabama and said that it just wasn't worth it and that she couldn't possibly do that every day given the physical demands of the job.

Ending what amounts to corporate handjobs is a far greater good than keeping apple production at an all-time high. The overall reduction in the power of the corrupt agribusiness is a net good, too.

Which just tells you that the market wages/working conditions haven't reached market equilibrium yet.

this talk of apple prices by movie forum economists is pretty funny.

please, continue.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
this talk of apple prices by movie forum economists is pretty funny.

please, continue.
Anti-semitic movie forum economists. And I joined for the comics discussion, you plebian.

sorry i suggested that you were anti-semitic. its sad that in this ridiculous PC environment, one cannot simply call jewish people enemies of america without being bombarded with accusations of bigotry.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
sorry i suggested that you were anti-semitic. its sad that in this ridiculous PC environment, one cannot simply call jewish people enemies of america without being bombarded with accusations of bigotry.
Inorite?

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo


Which just tells you that the market wages/working conditions haven't reached market equilibrium yet.
What it tells you is that the conservative whining is bullshit.

Nope.jpg.

I just love Conservative logic and the fact that they aren't even burying the lead about being neo-feudalists anymore. First you deregulate business and weaken the unions creating a situation where hiring of illegal immigrants becomes easier since the justice system is focused on workers and not employers and workers have a hard time policing themselves. Then you sign free trade agreements and create tax policies which ship job overseas, shrinking the demand for domestic labor while simultaneously ignoring burgeoning overseas and domestic demand for American-Made goods (especially in China!). The effect along with a well timed financial collapse is a large labor surplus with job growth kept artificially low. The conservative solution? Deporting all illegals while eliminating the very concept of retirement, legalizing child labor, utilizing prison labor for-profit, and signing new free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South (and therefore, through their labor exchange, North) Korea. Thereby further shrinking the demand for labor while vastly increasing the labor force to every American between the ages of four and eleventy. And now HB 56 is declared a success in lowering unemployment because illegal workers are being replaced by dubiously legal prison labor? I guess it makes sense if you consider the increasing frequency of judges and illicit collections agencies using improper procedures to circumvent federal law and sentence debtors to prison. They're technically still in the labor force, right?
This is the logical equivalent of treating AIDS by ****ing virgins.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
It is the inevitable conclusion of our interactions.

This is what I love about leftists. They cry and whine about evil Republikkkans ruining America for the sake of corporate profits...and then they go on about how cheap labor costs for large corporations are good for everyone else. Doublethink, how does it work?

PROTIP: I wouldn't pay $3.75 for an apple. And neither would most anyone else. Ergo, demand would drop and prices would lower until they were acceptable to the consumer.

I'm not a "leftist".

"Corporate America" doesn't really have a Left or Right angle, haven't you figured that out yet?

The "$3.75" was an obvious exaggeration. You dodged the question though. You'll happily take the benefits(lower prices) that illegal cheap labor provides as a consumer, yet shit on said labor force. Hypocrisy in the works.

Prices would still increase due to overhead from wage increases, just a fact.

Originally posted by Robtard
I'm not a "leftist".

I strongly disagree with this claim about yourself. Your political leanings indicate that you are definitely a leftist.

Many of the political thoughts you express are in some way "egalitarian" ones.

Unless you're being a smartie.

Keep in mind that you have stated to be a moderate in the past and I am aware of such statements.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I strongly disagree with this claim about yourself. Your political leanings indicate that you are definitely a leftist.

Many of the political thoughts you express are in some way "egalitarian" ones.

Unless you're being a smartie.

Keep in mind that you have stated to be a moderate in the past and I am aware of such statements.
Maybe he just disagrees with the idea of labeling someone because they share certain opinions with a defined political group.

I for my part am admittedly now closer to the left on the political spectrum than I am to the right, but that doesn't mean I embrace leftist ideology or consider myself a liberal.

I'm still a registered Republican, I still think the Democratic Party is a collection of waffling failures and pushovers.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Maybe he just disagrees with the idea of labeling someone because they share certain opinions with a defined political group.

I for my part am admittedly now closer to the left on the political spectrum than I am to the right, but that doesn't mean I embrace leftist ideology or consider myself a liberal.

I'm still a registered Republican, I still think the Democratic Party is a collection of waffling failures and pushovers.

Everyone hates labels because they think it "locks them down" to certain ideas. That's not true. Being a leftist leaves lots of wiggle room. You could be a "strong leftist (ultra left)", "center leftist", or even anarchy.

Generally, I think most of the GDF KMC is some form of left, including myself. I am probably center leftist, though. I want some form of economic inequality in society...but I don't like it to be extreme like it is in Russia and the US. This is why I consider myself mostly a moderate.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I strongly disagree with this claim about yourself. Your political leanings indicate that you are definitely a leftist.

Many of the political thoughts you express are in some way "egalitarian" ones.

Unless you're being a smartie.

Keep in mind that you have stated to be a moderate in the past and I am aware of such statements.

I am about as far Right as I am Left. politically.

Originally posted by Robtard
I am about as far Right as I am Left. politically.

In what ways are you right?

(Because I have no seen one thing you stated to be "right"

American left, maybe...

Originally posted by inimalist
American left, maybe...

Not this time.

I am using the "real" definitions: not the American flavors.

Originally posted by dadudemon
In what ways are you right?

(Because I have no seen one thing you stated to be "right"

Some of my stances on abortion, Welfare, Political Correctness and the 2nd Amendment can be seen as Right-leaning more-so than Left, to name a few.

Now I'd appreciate getting back on topic and no more of these Ad Hominems.

Originally posted by Robtard
Some of my stances on abortion,

Some, not all. Your overall stance is quite left. Just because you want some couples to take responsibility for their actions, doesn't mean that you are a bible thumping conservative.

Originally posted by Robtard
Welfare,

What is your stance on Welfare? Cause a true left finds taxes to be "bad", not good. It is a necessary evil on the path to a "clean" and "pure" society. Are you forgetting about Marxists?

Originally posted by Robtard
Political Correctness

Political correctness? How...Well, if you're for the freedom to say whatever you want that would not be PC, then that's left.

Originally posted by Robtard
and the 2nd Amendment can be seen as Right-leaning

I'm talking about in general, not in the US. Gun ownership argument. Technically, gun control is a "right" issue. It is only the US that has skewed what that means to where the left supports gun control. A true "left" is for responsible but quite liberal gun freedom. Keep in mind that the further left you go, the closer to anarchy you get (the good kind).

Originally posted by Robtard
more-so than Left, to name a few.

Other than abortion, I don't see you supporting your case, very well.

Originally posted by Robtard
Now I'd appreciate getting back on topic and no more of these Ad Hominems.

Thinking that you're being attacked when there is nothing wrong with being called leftist on a board full of college educated political philosophers is hardly an insult. I just did not find your denial of "leftist" to be apt. More like you were denying it to spite a poster that thinks calling someone "leftist" is an insult.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Some, not all. Your overall stance is quite left. Just because you want some couples to take responsibility for their actions, doesn't mean that you are a bible thumping conservative.



What is your stance on Welfare? Cause a true left finds taxes to be "bad", not good. It is a necessary evil on the path to a "clean" and "pure" society. Are you forgetting about Marxists?



Political correctness? How...Well, if you're for the freedom to say whatever you want that would not be PC, then that's left.



I'm talking about in general, not in the US. Gun ownership argument. Technically, gun control is a "right" issue. It is only the US that has skewed what that means to where the left supports gun control. A true "left" is for responsible but quite liberal gun freedom. Keep in mind that the further left you go, the closer to anarchy you get (the good kind).



Other than abortion, I don't see you supporting your case, very well.



Thinking that you're being attacked when there is nothing wrong with being called leftist on a board full of college educated political philosophers is hardly an insult. I just did not find your denial of "leftist" to be apt. More like you were denying it to spite a poster that thinks calling someone "leftist" is an insult.

this has a lot to do with the current and projected u.s. job market. thanks for sharing.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
this has a lot to do with the current and projected u.s. job market. thanks for sharing.

It does. Understanding where each side is coming from is important when discussing how the left or the right is viewing job creation and unemployment problems.


Actually, it is fundamental to the conversation because it shows us where each side is coming from and where labels are sometimes wrong.

no, its actually a logical fallacy. "ad hominem tu quoque" to be specific. since you can not validly argue against his point in such a fashion, maybe its time to bark up a relevant tree.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
no, its actually a logical fallacy. "ad hominem tu quoque" to be specific. since you can not validly argue against his point in such a fashion, maybe its time to bark up a relevant tree.

Learn what words mean before you use them. I'll take your troll bait. Just because a poster thinks they are a certain political leaning, does not mean that they are correct. They could have a misunderstanding of what those definitions are especially since the US has ****ed up with "right" and "left" are on some issues (as Robtard clearly misunderstand that I was talking about political science in general, not US politics).

Here's what actually happened:

"I am Russian because most of my ancestors were natives of Argentina."

"No, you're NA because you said you're Native American, are mostly NA, your ancestors are NA, and you have the DNA tests to prove it."

"Nu uhhh! One of my great-great-grandfathers is from Russia, so I'm Russian."

"I agree you are part Russian, but you're mostly NA."


Here's you: "RAWR! Dat's ad hominem tu quoque! RAGE!"

That's hardly the ad hominem tu quoque that you are trying to pass it off as.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Learn what words mean before you use them. I'll take your troll bait. Just because a poster thinks they are a certain political leaning, does not mean that they are correct. They could have a misunderstanding of what those definitions are especially since the US has ****ed up with "right" and "left" are on some issues.

Here's what actually happened:

"I am Russian because most of my ancestors were natives of Argentina."

"No, you're NA because you said you're Native American, are mostly NA, your ancestors are NA, and you have the DNA tests to prove it."

"Nu uhhh! One of my great-great-grandfathers is from Russia, so I'm Russian."

"I agree you are part Russian, but you're mostly NA."


Here's you: "RAWR! Dat's ad hominem tu quoque! RAGE!"

That's hardly the ad hominem tu quoque that you are trying to pass it off as.

it was not my intention to stultify you and throw you into a defensive position. since i obviously did that, i apologize. perhaps my words were a bit curt. the point i was making is that, as per fact, arguing against an opponent's point based solely on their general principals is in fact an avoidance of said point and an argument 'against the man'. its a dead end and can only lead to pointless bickering and a complete lack of topic.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
no, its actually a logical fallacy. "ad hominem tu quoque" to be specific. since you can not validly argue against his point in such a fashion, maybe its time to bark up a relevant tree.
What on Earth are you talking about? This is not even remotely tu quoque. Tu quoque is basically "Because you don't practice what you preach, what you preach is wrong". That is indeed a fallacy but I can't see how it has the least resemblance to anything said in this thread.

i don't want to waste anyone's browsing time by posting links to sites which clearly outline this fallacy just as it was labeled, but its an easy google.

*edit* ok fine, lets lay it to rest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

Originally posted by focus4chumps
it was not my intention to stultify you and throw you into a defensive position. since i obviously did that, i apologize. perhaps my words were a bit curt. the point i was making is that, as per fact, arguing against an opponent's point based solely on their general principals is in fact an avoidance of said point and an argument 'against the man'. its a dead end and can only lead to pointless bickering and a complete lack of topic.

That was not me being defensive, trust me. And your words were not "curt".

When the person's point is about their political positions and it is the opposite of what their actual political positions are (from a poli-sci perspective), pointing that out to them is not an argument against the man. It's letting them know that they hold beliefs that are not correct by the definitions. Throw in the fact that the US has skewed what Left and Right actually are and you have arrived at where the present conversation actually is. Basically, Robtard is still right and I am still right. Neither of us are wrong. I just wanted to bring up the "left" and what the US considers "left" is not the same thing: Robtard is quite left. Abortion rights, gay rights, equal opportunity for women, anti-discrimination/racism (basically, egalitarian in almost all political leanings). There's nothing wrong with it but it is a "dirty word" in the US for many people. That's how Zeal was using it, that's not Rob took it, and I wanted to get rid of that notion. It's not a dirty word. You have also skewed it to be an "attack on the man" but it's hardly an attack against the man when I am dispelling virtual political myth. Yes, liberal gun rights are actually left leaning.

Additionally, it is not a dead end. Many in the US think that the US version of right-wing politics solves job problems. Then they tote false conclusions such as the one in the article. Understanding the extreme left is closer to anarchy than the "right-wing" politics in the US, "they turk or jerbs" becomes even more comical.

i'll give it to you that zeal initiated this downturn in discussion by focussing the debate on robtard's supposed position in the political spectrum (which is confusing enough when dealing with american polictics).

you seem like an intelligent person when you take the time to organize your thoughts and focus on the prize, but please take a step back and see this for what it is. a contributor's general position has nothing to do with the point they argue. so, even if you somehow successfully abuse and humiliate the entire population of left-leaning americans into submission, you have still not argued his point.


here, i'll throw you a bone:

"Prices would still increase due to overhead from wage increases, just a fact."

thats the point you would want to focus on shoot down, right?
not whether robtard has intercourse with multicultural men while eating organic tofu and writing checks to the aclu. see?

Originally posted by focus4chumps
so, even if you somehow successfully abuse and humiliate the entire population of left-leaning americans into submission, you have still not argued his point.

This is not the goal. Nor will it ever be. Abusing left-leaning Americans into submission will not work. Letting them know that the US has ****ed up how most Americans view "left" and "right" is a far better way to go about it...especially in the thread were a person on the "far right" is clearly an idiot and almost deliberately lying about immigration laws and reform (lest this be used as troll certain members (Zeal), I am referring to the article writer, not a KMC poster).




Originally posted by focus4chumps
"Prices would still increase due to overhead from wage increases, just a fact."

thats the point you would want to focus on shoot down, right?
not whether robtard has intercourse with multicultural men while eating organic tofu and writing checks to the aclu. see?

I did type of a reply to that. I erased it because I don't feel like arguing that much with Robtard. I try to be nicer to people I consider friends.

But my reply consisted of an exception, rather than the rule. The exception is one manufacturer decided to bring back their operations to the US because it was cheaper. Legal Americans are who they employed. They did it with "smart" management and very transparent processes. That's not something worth debating because what he said is largely true. Most companies are far too short-sighted to create a tangible strategic plan beyond 2-years. Something about share-holders and profit margins being the focus of modern global businesses...

Originally posted by dadudemon

I did type of a reply to that. I erased it

this was your error.


your logical options are:

- form a valid retort to said point (even if it means remembering your erased win and posting it finally)

- ignore said point and go on to argue another relevant point(s)

- let it go

its just that this focus on 'robtard from the internet' and his previous political leanings has got to go. that really is the sum total of my argument here. nothing more.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
this was your error.


your logical options are:

- form a valid retort to said point (even if it means remembering your erased win and posting it finally)

It wasn't an erased "win". It was a "lose" because it was the "exception".

Did you read my post?

Originally posted by focus4chumps
- ignore said point and go on to argue another relevant point(s)

Mission accomplished.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
- let it go

Mission accomplished.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
its just that this focus on 'robtard from the internet' and his previous political leanings has got to go. that really is the sum total of my argument here. nothing more.

So I should pretend to not know anybody when I'm on the internet? Gotcha.

Are you done playing white knight?

Originally posted by focus4chumps
i don't want to waste anyone's browsing time by posting links to sites which clearly outline this fallacy just as it was labeled, but its an easy google.

*edit* ok fine, lets lay it to rest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
He never argued that a position was wrong because Robtard didn't consistently support it. He was just pointing out that he was possibly labeling things incorrectly. What does that have to do with the fallacy.

maybe your internet passions have gotten the best of you mr. kandy. this is the initial post i addressed, and the more thorough dissection which followed, pertaining to personal appraisals and his posts which followed. maybe there is an interference with internet signals and we're reading entirely different posts. maybe the laws governing logic are applied differenty on movie forums. i admit i am a newbie in this regard.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I strongly disagree with this claim about yourself. Your political leanings indicate that you are definitely a leftist.

Many of the political thoughts you express are in some way "egalitarian" ones.

Unless you're being a smartie.

Keep in mind that you have stated to be a moderate in the past and I am aware of such statements.

and ddm, understanding where a 'side' (individual with a point to express) is 'coming from' has nothing to do with a stated point. that point is removed from the individual. if someone with down syndrome tells you that the sky is blue, is he wrong because he's mentally handicapped?

Originally posted by focus4chumps
maybe your internet passions have gotten the best of you mr. kandy. this is the initial post i addressed, and the more thorough dissection which followed, pertaining to personal appraisals and his posts which followed. maybe there is an interference with internet signals and we're reading entirely different posts. maybe the laws governing logic are applied differenty on movie forums. i admit i am a newbie in this regard.


I don't want to argue Kig Kandy's points for him but you are obviously playing foolish on purpose (you have already made it apparent that you're just another troll). I explained to you already why such a statement, from myself, cannot be ad hominem tu quoque. Correcting a miss-perception about political labels is far from tu quoque. I'll refer to that text for your future replies.



Originally posted by focus4chumps
and ddm, understanding where a 'side' (individual with a point to express) is 'coming from' has nothing to do with a stated point. that point is removed from the individual. if someone with down syndrome tells you that the sky is blue, is he wrong because he's mentally handicapped?

Maybe you don't like to know of any prior information from anyone when it comes to politics. Generally, a wise person would want to understand where a person is coming from when they make statements that seem crazy or outright lies. Again, we are talking about the article, not Robtard. If you prefer to judge a person based on what they have said in the last 5 minutes rather than the last 30 years, that's your prerogative: very foolish, but still your choice.

Edit - This is not to say that I find it foolish to forgive a man his trespasses or that I don't believe a person can change their mind. To confuse what I'm saying for that would be missing my point.

Double edit- Calling me "ddm" reveals a bit much. Don't you think? You should work harder.

I think the term left and right are just too vague and encompassing to be of any real use outside of specific political systems where they might as well be "chocolate" and "rainbows" though as it is just used to explain leanings towards a certain political party in this system as outlined on a predefined axis. As in "Republicans are just way more chocolate than these rainbowist Democrats".

Originally posted by Bardock42
As in "Republicans are just way more chocolate than these rainbowist Democrats".


hmm


That also works as a double entendre. Was that on purpose?

Originally posted by dadudemon
hmm


That also works as a double entendre. Was that on purpose?

No, I think it's just our culture, everhttp://www.killermovies.com/forums/editpost.php?s=&action=editpost&postid=13658348ything works as a double entendre, if we just try hard enough...

Originally posted by dadudemon
Some, not all. Your overall stance is quite left. Just because you want some couples to take responsibility for their actions, doesn't mean that you are a bible thumping conservative.

What is your stance on Welfare? Cause a true left finds taxes to be "bad", not good. It is a necessary evil on the path to a "clean" and "pure" society. Are you forgetting about Marxists?

Political correctness? How...Well, if you're for the freedom to say whatever you want that would not be PC, then that's left.

I'm talking about in general, not in the US. Gun ownership argument. Technically, gun control is a "right" issue. It is only the US that has skewed what that means to where the left supports gun control. A true "left" is for responsible but quite liberal gun freedom. Keep in mind that the further left you go, the closer to anarchy you get (the good kind).

Other than abortion, I don't see you supporting your case, very well.

Thinking that you're being attacked when there is nothing wrong with being called leftist on a board full of college educated political philosophers is hardly an insult. I just did not find your denial of "leftist" to be apt. More like you were denying it to spite a poster that thinks calling someone "leftist" is an insult.

If you haven't deduced that I'm telling you that I don't lean heavily either way politically, then I don't know, dude. I'm as much a "bible thumping conservative" as I am a 'bleeding heart liberal', the answer being neither, I'm a moderate/moderate-left. I know this of myself better than you may think you know me. Another fact.

No, I don't think the label "leftist" is a negative, but I did correct Zeal's comment on the merits A) it was not true B) He tried to dismiss my points based on said accusation by using it as a negative label(not that it would either way).

Now if you're done focusing on my personal political stances, the thread topic if you will.

Originally posted by Robtard
If you haven't deduced that I'm telling you that I don't lean heavily either way politically, then I don't know, dude. I'm as much a "bible thumping conservative" as I am a 'bleeding heart liberal', the answer being neither, I'm a moderate/moderate-left. I know this of myself better than you may think you know me. Another fact.

No, I don't think the label "leftist" is a negative, but I did correct Zeal's comment on the merits A) it was not true B) He tried to dismiss my points based on said accusation by using it as a negative label(not that it would either way).

Now if you're done focusing on my personal political stances, the thread topic if you will.

And I'm telling you that what you label yourself is incorrect (from the correct use of the term, not the US-politics centric application). We have discussed almost all facets of the "political topics" so there is not much left to define or for me to discover.

I will give you that you are moderate, for US, on Abortion but that is just about it. Every other stance I can think of, concerning you, is left. Not far left, mind you, but left. I seem to remember you saying you were also a fiscal conservative in the past which further lends to your claim of "moderate".

I am also aware that Zeal was using it as an insult. Since I am largely a leftist, as well...I hardly see it as an insult.

BTW, I also thought I was a moderate until I actually researched what it really meant to be a "leftist" during the spring semester. You'd be surprised at how many things the US has screwed up in our "labels".

Granted, and this will be my final word on it, both you and I are moderates in the US.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And I'm telling you that what you label yourself is incorrect (from the correct use of the term, not the US-politics centric application). We have discussed almost all facets of the "political topics" so there is not much left to define or for me to discover.

I will give you that you are moderate, for US, on Abortion but that is just about it. Every other stance I can think of, concerning you, is left. Not far left, mind you, but left. I seem to remember you saying you were also a fiscal conservative in the past which further lends to your claim of "moderate".

I am also aware that Zeal was using it as an insult. Since I am largely a leftist, as well...I hardly see it as an insult.

BTW, I also thought I was a moderate until I actually researched what it really meant to be a "leftist" during the spring semester. You'd be surprised at how many things the US has screwed up in our "labels".

Granted, and this will be my final word on it, both you and I are moderates in the US.

K.

ok so you've set out to derail your own thread and you have succeeded. congratulations?

Originally posted by Bardock42
For a nation that has thrived and grown completely due to immigration (and some slavery), Americans are ridiculously against the concept.

True.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
ok so you've set out to derail your own thread and you have succeeded. congratulations?

I'm devastated about "my" thread. I can't even cope, man.

BUTTDEVASTATED.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm devastated about "my" thread. I can't even cope, man.

hmmm....perhaps i should get in the spirit of things instead of being so stuck up. maybe i'll post a thread about the nigeria church bombings and open the discussion by pointing out zeal's brazen anti-semitism.

I agree with your point in general ddm. The four-corner designation is definitely a way better way of understanding politics. Trying to sum it as "left vs right" only confuses things, it literally cannot communicate political views with any accuracy. People's views are 3-dimensional. Summing it with 2 you just barely get a picture, summing it with 1 is just a failure.

I took an online test recently and got:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-8.62&soc=-8.21

Originally posted by King Kandy
I agree with your point in general ddm. The four-corner designation is definitely a way better way of understanding politics. Trying to sum it as "left vs right" only confuses things, it literally cannot communicate political views with any accuracy. People's views are 3-dimensional. Summing it with 2 you just barely get a picture, summing it with 1 is just a failure.

Indeed. And coming down with a bit of logic and reasoning on someone with obvious "right leaning" opinions can be confusing because of the conflation between what the "right" and "left" even are.


Originally posted by King Kandy
I took an online test recently and got:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-8.62&soc=-8.21





I KNEW IT!


But, yeah, I routinely score near the center with a slight lean to the left and libertarian.



http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-1.50&soc=-1.38



I took a much better test from a professor doing a study at OU. It had over 200 questions and it was based on a similar "4 point" system. I scored similarly on that test. For instance: I think that some criminals cannot be rehabbed...but the focus of prison should primarily be rehab. I think that spanking your children is mostly not necessary but for some kids and situations, it is a very useful tool. School should be mandatory up to a certain level of learning but after that, it should be voluntary and you should be allowed to study what you want. And companies should be regulated and wrong-doers fined...but there should not be nearly as much regulation as we have now. I do not like how high taxes are, period, but I am okay with certain types of taxes. So the list goes on and on: I really do not fit into a specific cookie cutter mould (sp?) because I feel that some of the "polarizing" questions don't have just two options. Some of those questions have third (or dozens) options. Ultimately, the best way for humanity to live is something like pure anarchy or pure communism (emphasis on the "pure" part...so any of you out there that do not understand that, go educate yourselves on what those ultimate forms really mean before you criticize such a position). I don't think that's possible with how humans are now. We will need to improve our genetics before we can undertake such a task.

I didn't read every post, so I hope this question hasn't been asked already.

Could it appear that unemployment in certain states have dropped, simply because those that were on it exhausted their benefits?

Originally posted by Stoic
I didn't read every post, so I hope this question hasn't been asked already.

Could it appear that unemployment in certain states have dropped, simply because those that were on it exhausted their benefits?

That's not what unemployment is based off of.

This site explains how it is done in quite thorough detail:

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm



The methods used have been brought up by the critics of the "unemployment" measures. The unemployment measure only measures those that are still looking for a job but do not have one.

Here are the definitions:

People with jobs are employed.
People who are jobless, looking for jobs, and available for work are unemployed.
People who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force.


That means that people who give up are no longer included.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's not what unemployment is based off of.

This site explains how it is done in quite thorough detail:

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm



The methods used have been brought up by the critics of the "unemployment" measures. The unemployment measure only measures those that are still looking for a job but do not have one.

Here are the definitions:

People with jobs are employed.
People who are jobless, looking for jobs, and available for work are unemployed.
People who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force.


That means that people who give up are no longer included.

Ah okay, thanks for the pointers. However in order to figure out the total amount of unemployed people that there are out there, wouldn't they have to count the people who are collecting unemployment benefits. This has to play into the entire number no?

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's not what unemployment is based off of.

This site explains how it is done in quite thorough detail:

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm



The methods used have been brought up by the critics of the "unemployment" measures. The unemployment measure only measures those that are still looking for a job but do not have one.

Here are the definitions:

People with jobs are employed.
People who are jobless, looking for jobs, and available for work are unemployed.
People who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force.


That means that people who give up are no longer included.

Hey thanks, I'm checking it out now. I never knew all of this or imagined it being this complex.