Page 2 of 3 [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,089
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

23 Nov 2013, 9:20 pm

Fnord wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
zacb wrote:
I guess I get what you mean by your thoughts on Latin Americans. I am for open immigration, but regardless of immigrants or not, we need to draw back on welfare. But on a posi-negative note, there is a net decrease in population for the US. On the positive end, many of them are quiet entrepreneurial.
I don't think we need any more immigrants from anywhere. When was the last time you were driving down the road and found yourself wishing there was more traffic on it? Or when was the last time you passed by a meadow or forest and thought how much better it would look with a strip center of tract housing subdivision on it?

Or when was the last time you were walking toward your car and thought how much better it would be if there were more panhandlers walking toward you?


Yes, there generally aren't panhandlers in forests or meadows.



Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,089
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

23 Nov 2013, 9:23 pm

zacb wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
zacb wrote:
I guess I get what you mean by your thoughts on Latin Americans. I am for open immigration, but regardless of immigrants or not, we need to draw back on welfare. But on a posi-negative note, there is a net decrease in population for the US. On the positive end, many of them are quiet entrepreneurial.


I don't think we need any more immigrants from anywhere. When was the last time you were driving down the road and found yourself wishing there was more traffic on it? Or when was the last time you passed by a meadow or forest and thought how much better it would look with a strip center of tract housing subdivision on it?


Then again I think we should privatize the roads, should it is kinda moot. I enjoy a larger smaller area (around 500,00), so I gotcha. But I believe in the free market of things, including goods and people. Although we should not subsidize it, which is half the problem.


The last time I saw such a figure, over a billion people would like to move here. And in a real free market, that could happen. If it does, much of the country will become one big city.



meems
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Dec 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,093

23 Nov 2013, 9:25 pm

I saw a Syrian girl off and on, who was sort of half-assed Muslim in the same way most American Christians are half-assed Christians.

We kind of hit it off but I wasn't interested in anything serious and she seemed pretty focused on having a committed relationship.

People vary, you just have to figure out where individuals stand. Most American Muslims I know are pretty lax about their religion.


_________________
http://www.facebook.com/eidetic.onus
http://eidetic-onus.tumblr.com/
Warning, my tumblr is a man-free zone :)


zacb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2012
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,187

23 Nov 2013, 9:29 pm

Thelibrarian wrote:
zacb wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
zacb wrote:
I guess I get what you mean by your thoughts on Latin Americans. I am for open immigration, but regardless of immigrants or not, we need to draw back on welfare. But on a posi-negative note, there is a net decrease in population for the US. On the positive end, many of them are quiet entrepreneurial.


I don't think we need any more immigrants from anywhere. When was the last time you were driving down the road and found yourself wishing there was more traffic on it? Or when was the last time you passed by a meadow or forest and thought how much better it would look with a strip center of tract housing subdivision on it?


Then again I think we should privatize the roads, should it is kinda moot. I enjoy a larger smaller area (around 500,00), so I gotcha. But I believe in the free market of things, including goods and people. Although we should not subsidize it, which is half the problem.


The last time I saw such a figure, over a billion people would like to move here. And in a real free market, that could happen. If it does, much of the country will become one big city.


Most of the foreigner I know want to move to London. I sure don't want to move there, but more power to them lol.



Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,089
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

23 Nov 2013, 9:32 pm

zacb wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
zacb wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
zacb wrote:
I guess I get what you mean by your thoughts on Latin Americans. I am for open immigration, but regardless of immigrants or not, we need to draw back on welfare. But on a posi-negative note, there is a net decrease in population for the US. On the positive end, many of them are quiet entrepreneurial.


I don't think we need any more immigrants from anywhere. When was the last time you were driving down the road and found yourself wishing there was more traffic on it? Or when was the last time you passed by a meadow or forest and thought how much better it would look with a strip center of tract housing subdivision on it?


Then again I think we should privatize the roads, should it is kinda moot. I enjoy a larger smaller area (around 500,00), so I gotcha. But I believe in the free market of things, including goods and people. Although we should not subsidize it, which is half the problem.


The last time I saw such a figure, over a billion people would like to move here. And in a real free market, that could happen. If it does, much of the country will become one big city.


Most of the foreigner I know want to move to London. I sure don't want to move there, but more power to them lol.


Even worse: How many more people do you think England needs? Should there be any countryside at all? According to the free market, developed land is worth far more. Is it possible that some countryside is a good thing in and of itself even if it's not making anybody a fortune?



zacb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2012
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,187

23 Nov 2013, 9:38 pm

Thelibrarian wrote:
zacb wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
zacb wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
zacb wrote:
I guess I get what you mean by your thoughts on Latin Americans. I am for open immigration, but regardless of immigrants or not, we need to draw back on welfare. But on a posi-negative note, there is a net decrease in population for the US. On the positive end, many of them are quiet entrepreneurial.


I don't think we need any more immigrants from anywhere. When was the last time you were driving down the road and found yourself wishing there was more traffic on it? Or when was the last time you passed by a meadow or forest and thought how much better it would look with a strip center of tract housing subdivision on it?


Then again I think we should privatize the roads, should it is kinda moot. I enjoy a larger smaller area (around 500,00), so I gotcha. But I believe in the free market of things, including goods and people. Although we should not subsidize it, which is half the problem.


The last time I saw such a figure, over a billion people would like to move here. And in a real free market, that could happen. If it does, much of the country will become one big city.


Most of the foreigner I know want to move to London. I sure don't want to move there, but more power to them lol.


Even worse: How many more people do you think England needs? Should there be any countryside at all? According to the free market, developed land is worth far more. Is it possible that some countryside is a good thing in and of itself even if it's not making anybody a fortune?
Then again I think it zoning was loosened in London or else where, property would be developed more efficiently before they moved on, thus eliminating the need to the countryside. You would als have to consider in a free market, that a factory , as well as other pollutants, would be limited severely in how they could emit. That would have some affect if they had to pay for any damages directed at other property owners.



Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,089
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

23 Nov 2013, 9:41 pm

Then again I think it zoning was loosened in London or else where, property would be developed more efficiently before they moved on, thus eliminating the need to the countryside. You would als have to consider in a free market, that a factory , as well as other pollutants, would be limited severely in how they could emit. That would have some affect if they had to pay for any damages directed at other property owners.

Zac, as an American who remembers the English countryside very fondly, I'm guessing most people think it is worth saving, as do I.

As far as pollutants would be limited by having to pay damages, can you cite any examples where such a policy works, and limits pollutants?



zacb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2012
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,187

23 Nov 2013, 9:48 pm

Thelibrarian wrote:
Then again I think it zoning was loosened in London or else where, property would be developed more efficiently before they moved on, thus eliminating the need to the countryside. You would als have to consider in a free market, that a factory , as well as other pollutants, would be limited severely in how they could emit. That would have some affect if they had to pay for any damages directed at other property owners.

Zac, as an American who remembers the English countryside very fondly, I'm guessing most people think it is worth saving, as do I.

As far as pollutants would be limited by having to pay damages, can you cite any examples where such a policy works, and limits pollutants?


Well let's take noise pollution, which to an extent could cause problems. There was a case where then government swooped so low with a plane that some man's chickens died because of it. It goes back to common law, in which a man owned all of his property, from the bowls of hell, the the very tips of the heavens. Thus was however thrown out in the Industrial era due to conflicts of interest (development). But I think that in many things, Common Law is all that is needed. Thus a man should be compensated if his property is destroyed, like the previous example. It is like Cap and trade, but it would be attached to a specific land piece, which it the flaw of current cap and trade.



Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,089
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

23 Nov 2013, 9:51 pm

"Well let's take noise pollution, which to an extent could cause problems. There was a case where then government swooped so low with a plane that some man's chickens died because of it. It goes back to common law, in which a man owned all of his property, from the bowls of hell, the the very tips of the heavens. Thus was however thrown out in the Industrial era due to conflicts of interest (development). But I think that in many things, Common Law is all that is needed. Thus a man should be compensated if his property is destroyed, like the previous example. It is like Cap and trade, but it would be attached to a specific land piece, which it the flaw of current cap and trade."

Both of my parents died of lung cancer, and within two years of each other. Since neither smoked, this was almost certainly a result of all the chemical plants in the area my parents live in. Since there are over a hundred chemical plants, exactly who should they have sued?



zacb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2012
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,187

23 Nov 2013, 9:55 pm

Thelibrarian wrote:
"Well let's take noise pollution, which to an extent could cause problems. There was a case where then government swooped so low with a plane that some man's chickens died because of it. It goes back to common law, in which a man owned all of his property, from the bowls of hell, the the very tips of the heavens. Thus was however thrown out in the Industrial era due to conflicts of interest (development). But I think that in many things, Common Law is all that is needed. Thus a man should be compensated if his property is destroyed, like the previous example. It is like Cap and trade, but it would be attached to a specific land piece, which it the flaw of current cap and trade."

Both of my parents died of lung cancer, and within two years of each other. Since neither smoked, this was almost certainly a result of all the chemical plants in the area my parents live in. Since there are over a hundred chemical plants, exactly who should they have sued?


Well, I am not a man of science, but I imagine an autopsy may or may not reveal certain levels of certain chemicals in their bodies. Which ever has the most should be liable, or perhaps something more scientific could be created.



Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,089
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

23 Nov 2013, 9:56 pm

"Well, I am not a man of science, but I imagine an autopsy may or may not reveal certain levels of certain chemicals in their bodies. Which ever has the most should be liable, or perhaps something more scientific could be created."

Has such a policy ever been tried anywhere?



zacb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2012
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,187

23 Nov 2013, 10:03 pm

I imagine in pre industrial revolution it held some weight, but I am not up on case history. If there was common law on it, there was probably some case on it. I know for non chemical pollution, there are probably more cases. I know with water pollution there are probably more cases (since it is taken a tad more seriously than air pollution, at least within this context). I find the whole talk going from dating to public policy quite humorous. :D



CharityFunDay
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Oct 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 625

23 Nov 2013, 10:26 pm

Foreigners can:


* Spread germs
* Introduce nasty foreign muck as foodstuffs
* Gibber incomprehensible moonspeak
* Wear brightly coloured clothes
* Push to the front of queues
* Smell funny
* Expect EQUAL TREATMENT
* Fail to understand jokes
* Introduce Western partners to perverse sexual practices
* Where they breed (God forbid) insist that 'their' children are brought up bilingual
* May have undesirable religious practices
* Demonstrate lack of appropriate manners
* Display inappropriate emotions in public
* Shop at Lidl
* Demonstrate inapplicable work ethics
* Take advantage of British politeness
* Vote Conservative
* Piss in public places
* Regard drink-driving as perfectly acceptable behaviour
* Indulge in witchcraft
* Regard child abuse as perfectly acceptable

For these, any many other reasons, I should think long and hard before establishing a personal relationship with a Foreigner.

If any friend or acquaintance of mine were to do so, I would be bitterly disappointed.

Foreigners are all very well -- in their respective countries. Let them stay there.



zacb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2012
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,187

23 Nov 2013, 10:34 pm

CharityFunDay wrote:
Foreigners can:


* Spread germs
* Introduce nasty foreign muck as foodstuffs
* Gibber incomprehensible moonspeak
* Wear brightly coloured clothes
* Push to the front of queues
* Smell funny
* Expect EQUAL TREATMENT
* Fail to understand jokes
* Introduce Western partners to perverse sexual practices
* Where they breed (God forbid) insist that 'their' children are brought up bilingual
* May have undesirable religious practices
* Demonstrate lack of appropriate manners
* Display inappropriate emotions in public
* Shop at Lidl
* Demonstrate inapplicable work ethics
* Take advantage of British politeness
* Vote Conservative
* Piss in public places
* Regard drink-driving as perfectly acceptable behaviour
* Indulge in witchcraft
* Regard child abuse as perfectly acceptable

For these, any many other reasons, I should think long and hard before establishing a personal relationship with a Foreigner.

If any friend or acquaintance of mine were to do so, I would be bitterly disappointed.

Foreigners are all very well -- in their respective countries. Let them stay there.


What is this perversion that you speak of XD ? And I thought it would be more labor or liberal if anything. Then again I am an American. Reminds me of a Doug Stanhope skit where he jokes how Bangladeshi sounds like an exotic pet, and how British and American should trade immigrants XD.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuHVAm4m6iM[/youtube]

With all due respect sir. :)



leafplant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Oct 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,222

24 Nov 2013, 6:06 am

Well, Sirs, and I use that term liberally, please consider that ALL the heads of your respective governments continue to let the immigrants in, therefore there must be some value in them after all.

In my more idle moments, I must confess, I do wonder if life wouldn't be nicer if there were less idiots about.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/10/31/how-the-worlds-populations-are-changing-in-one-map/