magekillr

Agreed. America is light years ahead in some things, such as freedom of speech and such. With regard to most things, though, America is and has been consistently 20 years behind its European counterparts, and soon China as well. We're still debating a stupid tiny small rail line between Tampa and Orlando, and China is taking up a project to link all of China to Europe by high-speed rail in 10 years. That was an awfully long time ago, for one. For two, if we were talking about present times, you'd have found some more outliers. By and large, immigrating here is painful, expensive, and unless you have a college degree, practically impossible. Other countries in Europe have some serious problems with their immigration laws as well, but they at least have the European Union, allowing for the free movement of people. NAFTA doesn't allow that. So even though, say, Germany has worse laws than we do when it comes to this topic, they're still members of the EU. I don't think anyone is saying this, as I pointed out earlier: There are a lot of factual errors here. First of all, they are sending money into our economy. Deportation would reduce our GDP, whereas amnesty (or even the status quo) would add to it: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/01/raising_the_floor.html I normally don't like posting studies done outside of a university, but the same conclusions have been reached in the past. It's also why you'll never see the Federal government ever deporting them. Lindsey Graham has stated as much, it's not economically feasible, nor does it solve the problem. http://americasvoiceonline.org/blog/entry/senator_graham_deporting_12_million_wont_work_need_a_comprehensive_imm/ Second, yeah they're not making minimum wage and are therefore more desirable. However, they're not really stealing American jobs. http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_real_economics_of_immigration_reform And finally, they DO pay taxes. They also get a lot less of the same services that citizens who pay less in taxes than they do. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24054024/ and on the topic as a whole, this bill is likely unconstitutional. It removes 4th amendment protections.

That's fine if you disagree with something I've said, but please, tell me what I'm not "that much better" about? Accepting? Tolerant? Racism? Xenophobia? Boxing people in? I'm intolerant of intolerance, and I'm kind of intolerant with regard to religion (although I'd never support a law that took away the right to practice if you so choose, nor something that targets specific religious groups). It's never good for you to box yourself in with labels, that's a good thing and I'm glad that you made this realization. Still, no one is claiming that the left has a monopoly on intellectualism, nor that they're the only ones who accept science, nor that they're the only ones fighting corporate power. You don't need to make these claims, it's observable fact (in America, at least). In other countries it could be different. I disagree with the Angela Merkel on many issues, but I would accept her opposing views as acceptable discourse. What we have in America is a right-wing that IS anti-science, it IS anti-intellectual, and it IS in favor of corporate America. Exhibit A, from just yesterday: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/tea-party-targets-bailout-bob-corker.php?ref=fpb And edit: And on the topic as a whole, guess who granted amnesty to over 1.7 million people? St. Ronnie Reagan, every right-winger's hero.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleo-Indians Kind of hard to commit a genocide against a people that wasn't there, as the first humans didn't enter the continent until they did. edit: You found some outliers. Congratulations?

The very fact that Saruman is attempting to justify what is one of the most heinous and damaging genocides in the history of man is only bolstering my point. Score one for me. edit: And I see that you can't address what I've said. I'm not sure what true colors you speak of, I've never really held back in my posting here. You obviously didn't read my earlier post. Again: go after and fix the laws rather than making criminals out of people. The fact that you won't do this shows YOUR true colors.

Really? Interesting.: http://criminaljustice.change.org/blog/view/new_study_says_racist_beliefs_and_tough_on_crime_go_hand-in-hand You just said it in a different way. It's pretty well known in the academic world that people who profess to being "tough on crime" also hold racist leanings. It's seen in the justice system, it's seen in our drug laws, it's seen right here right now in this thread discussing this law. Your posts bleed, seep and reek of racism. It's the underlying tone that you have which makes it so obvious. Let me guess. You're also one of those "colorblind" people, right? http://news.illinois.edu/news/10/0421online.html You call them assumptions, I call it being exposed to dog whistles. Think of the word "thug." Not a racist word, right? However, usually in the context with which it is used, it carries racial connotations. You can get a very good idea of what a person thinks or feels just by examining the language that they use. It's how I can pick out people on here, and quite frankly, I've yet to be wrong about my supposed assumptions on this board. Yes, and there's literally no reason to be against immigration unless you're a xenophobic racist git like yourself. Obviously you have to limit it each year, as a nation's priority lies with its own interests. As such, there will be limits on how many and how often people can come here. As the law stands right now, though, it takes forever to immigrate here legally, which is why there's such a problem in the first place. Rather than going after the laws, you go after the people.

Immigration is actually very beneficial for the US because it gives us a cheap labor force willing to do hard work for [cabbage]ty pay. That's nice. Now we're talking about outsourcing American jobs and using foreigners for cheap "slave" labor. :thumbup: God bless our corporations. That's not what is being said. What he/she did say, however, is that these people are being abused doing jobs for little money, and have very little legal protection because if they go to the law, they're out. Corporations know this, which is why they take advantage of this labor. Reforming the immigration system would give them the protections that they need, and end this abuse. This law does nothing of the sort, and it only exposes what remains of the GOP: old, white, xenophobic and racist people.

Would you prefer xenophobic? And it's racist because you will NOT see any white people being pulled over.

Life's tough, get over it. And if you got in here illegally, you have no right to be in here. So get the [bleep] out and try again. Why do you think they're here illegally? It's because our immigration laws are ridiculously and unnecessarily complex. Not to mention that immigration improves our economy, whereas deportation not only breaks up and ruins families, but decreases our country's GDP and wealth. And all of this talk about undocumented workers using more services and such yet not paying any taxes? Get real. For one they don't have access to the same amount of services that citizens do. For two, the ones who are here illegally pay just about as much in taxes as a good portion of this country, possibly even more. They're also exploited by corporations and businesses, and don't have the same legal protections. That's what I call a piece of [cabbage] system. This is why most of the rage about "illegals" (which isn't a grammatically correct phrase, by the way) is nothing but fomenting racism. There's literally no other reason to be so against "illegals" and reforming our immigration system. This picture sums up our immigration laws: It comes from the right-wing publication Reason, too. And Nick, I apologize. That's the tone that I got from your post. Again, I'm sorry.

Yes! Let's ruin more people's lives by continuing to fund the failed drug war! That will show them. Or, you know, we could legalize/decriminalize drugs and pump money into rehab, thereby taking away the drug cartel's profits and helping people who have a health problem, not a criminal problem.

This law is nothing but racist bigotry written in the form of a law. All of this talk about "Well if Obama won't do anything, the states have to secure their borders themselves." Bullocks. I'm not a fan of George Bush, obviously. In fact I can't find more than 5 things in his presidency to praise him for. However, there's one thing that always stuck out to me that wasn't radically far-right, and was in fact sensible legislation that I could support: his immigration reform bill. It was a decent bill, something certainly worth supporting. What happened? His own party balked him, in what is perhaps the only time in recent memory that the Republicans didn't stick together. Their racism and hatred for people who aren't white and male was too much to bear, and they just couldn't help themselves. Granted, his bill wasn't something that I totally liked. For example, it didn't grant the people already here amnesty. However, it did give them a path to citizenship, and that's something that is fair and reasonable. I expect the same thing to happen when/if Obama pushes his own immigration reform. Which is sad for two reasons: families are being broken apart by our draconian immigration system, and it desperately needs reform; and also because when it fails to pass people will end up supporting disgusting pieces of legislation like this one, as we can see in this very thread.

Sorry for jumping into this conversation late, but I must interject here. Are you kidding me, romy? Zionism is racist and nationalist by its very definition. So is the Arab Nationalist Movement. It doesn't have to advocate apartheid, but the Zionists in power DO advocate for it. By refusing to grant the Palestinians with their own state, to get all of the Israeli settlers to abandon their settlements, and to give back EJ, the Zionists are in fact practicing apartheid. This is especially evident in EJ, where Israel has annexed it, yet not given citizenship status to the Palestinians who live there. That is the definition of apartheid, romy. With the settlements expanding, Israel is desperately trying to annex the West Bank and to ethnically cleanse the region, forcing the remaining Palestinians into Gaza, Jordan and Lebanon. They're trying to do, unsuccessfully, what China did to Tibet: send settlers into the region, have them procreate, and the population of the Israelis overshadows that of the Palestinians. Welp, too bad that won't work, as the Palestinians far outnumber the Israelis. I welcome them to extend their borders. Make my day, Zionists. Let's see you rationalize not giving rights to all of the Palestinians under your illegally-annexed land, not just those in EJ. I don't favor either side, but I empathize and sympathize with the Palestinians far more than I do with the Israelis. Nothing less than a one-state ruled by a secular government is good enough for me; and giving all refugees the right of return. In the mean time I can accept a two-state solution, I suppose, but I don't think it will end there. It's not going to be resolved until the apartheid ends, and both regions are unified under one secular flag. So am I calling for an end to the Jewish identity of Israel? Perhaps. One cannot or rather should not base a nation-state upon a single religion. It is asking for inequity within the confines of that society and whatever minority communities may exist within said society. That's all there is to it. However, this extends to France and Germany as well, who refuse to allow Turkey to be admitted into the EU. Why? Because that would mean the European culture would be killed. And by European culture I mean white people would need to be around brown people; France and Germany wouldn't just be French and German people anymore. The horror! The free movement of people is the best weapon against nationalism and racism. Sorry, but "ethnic regions/states" are a thing of the past. Europe and Israel are going to have to accept that.

Ah ok, that's not as bad as I thought lol. Here I was thinking methadone clinics were banned over one death or something, which would have been horrible policy as those clinics are the best treatment that we have for heroin addicts. Still, that doesn't sound like it was policy for the better nonetheless, especially because of the media hysteria. Lemme guess: it was the Times/Times Online and the Daily Mail mostly doing it, right? I was about to be sympathetic to will_holmes' argument until Jaziek said that it's not like the US. That's good to hear. So I'll continue rooting for a hung parliament outcome this election then :)

Wait, they made methadone clinics illegal in the UK?

Indeed, dusqi. I say this as a forewarning: do everything that you can to keep Murdoch the f*** out of your media. If he gets in somehow, he will drive the debate. That's why CNN and MSNBC suck so much. Fox lies over and over again with their pundits, their news people take lines from the pundits, and they drive the narrative with ratings. Wanting to keep up with their ratings, CNN and MSNBC are forced to cover the same damn stories with the same line of thinking. This is why back in the early 2000's, MSNBC was just as right-wing as Fox. They thought they could copy what Fox said and get the same ratings. It's kind of amusing because Fox claims that its pundits are separate from its news, but if you watch it for just one day you'll realize that there's literally no difference; both lie with the same frequency and use the same talking points, especially people like Neil Cavuto. You'd think that they wouldn't drive the debate so much, as only a few million people even watch cable news. However, the two main constituencies that watch it are old people, and the Beltway Elites; those are the two most important groups in policymaking. Then when they decide where the debate goes, that's where the debate goes...and that's all middle-aged and young people see, forcing those same narratives on them. Thus, I'm stuck defending a right-wing Republican health care bill that I detest, even though it's the best we could do, from attacks of "socialism."

Aww, how cute. At least you're open about your xenophobic bigotry. Do you feel pretty cool or smart using words like that through the internet or something? He's not even English? Just because he's not English doesn't mean he might not know what those words mean. This is how I talk in everyday language. I'm sorry if xenophobic is a "big" word for you, or if it's not in your vocabulary, but being in the politics business I use it on a semi-daily basis. And of all things, rather than attacking me for using a "big word," one would think you'd translate for him because of his disgusting attitudes towards Pakistanis.

Aww, how cute. At least you're open about your xenophobic bigotry.

The more I watch and discuss politics, the more I find this to be true. For example, a 60 year old who still votes Republican today even though that person voted Republican in the 1970's is obviously more committed to party than policy. The Democrats of today are what the Republicans were like before the Reagan revolution around 1965-1975. Hell, Dwight Eisenhower is probably more liberal than a lot of Democrats. So you'd think that someone who agreed with the Republican policy of the 1970's would vote Democratic today. Nope...voting trends are established when people are young, and they stay that way until the person dies. A person can be convinced to change parties only when they're younger and more open minded, but evidence shows that as they age they're unlikely to sway in the way they vote. I often hear about as people get older they get more conservative, but it's mostly bullocks. People establish who they vote for when they're young, and stick with that for the rest of their lives. However, I don't think that's what dusqi is talking about. While people might be more loyal to a party, they're only loyal because of the partisan atmosphere that America and Britain have. When there's really only two choices, yes, people are more loyal to party because that party is (or was) closest to their views when they were younger. With the emergence of another choice that actually has a chance, people might change who they vote for. It throws what I said above somewhat out of whack. If there was run-off voting here in America, I would vote Green party 99.9% of the time in every election. However, I'm forced to vote Democratic in order to prevent the religious far-right nutjobs of the Republican party from getting into power. I wouldn't be forced to do that with a viable alternative, and that's what dusqi's point is.

Not that controversial. I support the Lib Dems in this race, but they're not my ideal party. They have two factions: the libertarians, and the liberals. The libertarians are the Nick Cleggs. While they support a lot of the social safety net, a lot of them are still free-market fundamentalists. Socialists and Social Democrats in Britain don't know who to vote for in this election. Labour is tainted by Brown-Blair factions and won't be a true left party again unless Old Labour is given the reins again. Lib Dems are fine on social issues, electoral reform, and taxation, but they aren't really a haven for Social Democrats. Of the three, the Liberal Democrats are the best for a liberal, but I'm not convinced that they're a leftist party. Too much of their manifesto is given to the libertarians, and Clegg is of that faction. The Orange Bookers are kept in check by the liberal faction, but still...I'm wary as Clegg is one of them. The best reason for a liberal to support the Liberal Democrats is because of their views on the environment, the European Union, civil liberties and proportional voting.

I took that quiz on the Telegraph as well. My results were probably very skewed because I don't know the issues that are surrounding Parliamentary reform or anything, and they asked like 5-6 questions pertaining to stuff like that. Lib Dems: 74% Greens: 69% Labour: 55% Conservative: 39% The rest..lol. Anyway, for national elections I'd probably always vote Lib Dem, and for local elections I'd vote Green depending on the candidate. I like the Green party because the environment and climate change are my most important issues, and no one else is serious about actually doing something.

I'm an American but I still care about world politics. I have always rooted for the Lib Dems, so I'm hoping they do well. I haven't watched the debate yet but I've been hearing that Clegg was the clear winner, especially from the flash polling: The Liberal Democrats gained a huge advantage from last night's debate, mostly because they have been out of power for so long. They can make all sorts of promises because they have no real record. In short, Lib Dems have had the luxury of making promises that a party which will never be in power can make. In the aftermath of the scandal involving MP expenses, which puts every member of parliament anywhere near power in a terrible light, the instinct in the electorate to “throw the bums out” benefits a party that has not been in power. This has been true with America as well. The best results that I can realistically hope for is a hung parliament. The Tories would be a disaster, and Labour isn't much better. Their civil liberties record is absolutely appalling. So yeah, I'm hoping for a hung parliament. In the long run, last night's debate could be the turning point in British politics regarding the Tories. Most people hate them, but they're seen as a hereditarily necessary political party. If the Lib Dems take over that spot, we'll have debates being mostly between Lib Dems and Labour instead. That would be great.

Ah yes, those pesky journalists! They're just doing ANYTHING they can to strum up trouble and controversy. Do you listen to yourself, Bari? The media is an absolute failure, and the only reason we even know about this is because investigative journalists had the savviness and knowhow to even bring the story up. Journalism is just about dead in the United States. If they wanted to string up controversy and actually bring come forward with the truth, they'd stop treating the US government with such reverence. Why don't they call what we did for what it is: TORTURE. They don't. Any and every domestic media source has called it "enhanced interrogation techniques." Cut the [cabbage] and call it what everyone else around the world does: torture. We did it, the world knows it, and the War Criminal in Chief Barack Obama refuses to prosecute the actual war criminals for political expediency, despite our international treaties and the Geneva Conventions demanding that we do. I almost feel like your post is agreeing with me, in that you're calling the media a joke; and it is. And you got it right: "we the Democrats/Republicans say..." They report what the other one says, they never report what the reality is. "[bleep] Cheney claims he didn't violate the law. Everyone else except for Republicans say he didn't. That's what's happening, you decide which is true because we don't want to lose our anonymous sources to continue this charade!" That's another thing: the constant use of anonymous sources. Can we stop that, please? If a government official, WH official or something else is too afraid to put a name to their words, stop reporting on it. I understand the need to keep certain sources under wraps, but they do it so much that they rarely put a name to a statement anymore. However, you've got it backwards: they NEVER "milk" stories like this, they never "string up controversy" with things like this. The last thing the media wants is to make the United States look like it made a mistake. The last thing they ever want to do is the double cross the MIC and ruin all of the inside the beltway access that they have for their future political gossip like the sleazy Halperin-Heilemann book. Because that's where the real gold is: the gossip. The NY Times, WaPo, and every other major newspaper was practically beating the drums to go to war with Iraq. They're doing it now with Iran. This isn't a rare occurrence. This happens all of the time in these types of wars. Why do you think the civilian casualties are so high? We're trying to keep ours as low as possible, and conducting war in this manner is really the only way to minimize our own casualties. However, instead of putting so much on the soldiers, who are trained to do this and needed higher command's permission before they do, we need to focus on the real criminals: the Bush administration, and whomever in Congress allowed them to get away with this; that includes every Democrat, Republican and Independent who was involved. They're doing the same with the war in Afghanistan. That is a war I support, although I don't agree with how it's being conducted; I question the legality of using drones to target and assassinate people in this way. It may be legal, but I have yet to see any justification for it. I would like to see happen what should have happened when Reagan was in office: massive amounts of money to start the nation building throughout the entire nation. Afghanistan wasn't always war torn, it was once a great flourishing country. So the BS about it being the graveyard of empires isn't based on anything but fiction and hyperbole. Anyway, as usual, Greenwald details how they're doing the same in Afghanistan (the media misreporting it): http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/05/afghanistan/index.html Anyway, sorry for the hostility in the original post, as the media IS a joke...but when it comes to our own crimes, they're never trying to milk it.

Really? Please elaborate. It's nationalist, but not racist. As a civilian and anti-nationalist, I value all lives equally. However, as a nation's leader, you cannot have the same viewpoint. Your nation's soldiers will always have a higher value than the "others." It's just how it is. These are legitimate debates that are had in human right's courses, and eventually you have to start treating people as numbers; how many of their men is one of your men worth? etc. Oh, and I agree with everything that tortilliachp said in his last post. I believe that as a world power, a super world power, and as citizens of the world, it is imperative that we help other countries. However, that goes too far with "bringing democracy" to a country that clearly cannot function with one; democracy isn't just about elections, that's only one facet. It was obvious from the beginning that this would be the result. Even [bleep] Cheney knew this would happen as a result, as he argued back in the 1990's: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9YuD9kYK9I The winners of this occupation have been Iran and al Qaeda. The biggest losers have been the Iraqi people, especially Iraqi women.

A reader of Andrew Sullivan's blog, who happens to be an active duty soldier, writes: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/04/the-lies-of-the-pentagon-ctd-3.html I want to continue to emphasize that this is commonplace and not rare; I can't do that enough. The only thing that makes this different is that we saw it.

I'm still trying to figure out how this was a mistake when it's quite clear that this is regular behavior for how this war has been conducted.

Glenn Greenwald perfectly sums up why this video is so important: Well said, Glenn. http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/06/iraq/index.html