|
Post by Phrederick on Dec 24, 2004 23:13:34 GMT -5
Actually it could be reasonably argued, that Americans first conquered the world and especially Europe by their idiocy. It is known that idiocy "unites". Idiots are idiots wherever they may reside. A stupid joke make people of different ethnicities laugh. Is this the big secret of Americans, their hidden superweapon in conquering the world? Europe, was feeling very sad after two World Wars, so the Yankees, like clowns of the circus that came to town, provided the longed for laughter with their films and their culture (cowboys, etc). After that, it was easy to conquer us economically and politically. Europe is like a bunch of little kids. They need the Americans to watch after them or they get out of hand and start doing stupid things (world war 1, world war 2, cold war, Kosovo, etc etc)
|
|
|
Post by LibLabDog on Dec 25, 2004 1:04:59 GMT -5
Actually it could be reasonably argued, that Americans first conquered the world and especially Europe by their idiocy. It is known that idiocy "unites". Idiots are idiots wherever they may reside. A stupid joke make people of different ethnicities laugh. Is this the big secret of Americans, their hidden superweapon in conquering the world? Europe, was feeling very sad after two World Wars, so the Yankees, like clowns of the circus that came to town, provided the longed for laughter with their films and their culture (cowboys, etc). After that, it was easy to conquer us economically and politically. I actually strongly agree with Satyros on this one. It IS true that part of the charm of America after WWII was that it wasn't a country ripped apart by war as much as Europe was. (Sometimes American comedy is eye-rollingly stupid, and other times so stupid that it's almost genius.) ...Satyros does accurately describe why America was popular for many decades following WWII. And Americans should listen. Because it's pretty clear that America's place in Europe's heart is kind of uncertain these days. One thing is for sure though. America will not win any friends with prideful condescension. It really serves no useful purpose. ...I may take a poke every now and then at Europe, but it's out of fun, and in the hopes of stirring up some conversation. In my heart of hearts I know that Europe is a place with a lot of great people, progressive attitudes, and someone America should take seriously.
|
|
|
Post by vela on Dec 25, 2004 19:16:54 GMT -5
(start of messge truncated) In my heart of hearts I know that Europe is a place with a lot of great people, progressive attitudes, and someone America should take seriously. Although I'm not in Europe but in Latin America, I'd like to say that I'm making an effort to keep believing the same about Americans, in spite of your leadership and politicians making it harder and harder these days.
|
|
|
Post by LibLabDog on Dec 25, 2004 20:11:32 GMT -5
Although I'm not in Europe but in Latin America, I'd like to say that I'm making an effort to keep believing the same about Americans, in spite of your leadership and politicians making it harder and harder these days. Latin America? Damn! Why do you guys hate us? I figured South and Central America would like Bush. He personally favors a work visa program that would open the border to workers from this part of the world. Does anyone like G.W.?
|
|
|
Post by vela on Dec 25, 2004 20:36:39 GMT -5
Latin America? Damn! Why do you guys hate us? I figured South and Central America would like Bush. He personally favors a work visa program that would open the border to workers from this part of the world. Does anyone like G.W.? I'm just speaking for myself, LLD. And I didn't use the word hate. I appreciate your gesture towards the Europeans. I guess your attitude is the kind that we need the most now. Sorry if my comment sounded like a reproach. My disappointment, generally speaking, is with your country's belligerent nature. But I got no one to blame but myself for expecting way too much. And there's little or nothing I can do about it anyway. As for GW's immigration plan I think is wrong to reward those who break the law and at best this piecemeal approach is just a temporary solution.
|
|
|
Post by LibLabDog on Dec 25, 2004 21:58:37 GMT -5
Well, normally I'd be all for keeping the Mestizos picking the crud out of my toenails for 5 cents a day, and being able to call immigration on them when I get bored, but there's a larger problem.
The problem is, that the United States is a country based on the premise that all men are created equal. By having illegals in our country, we are essentially allowing a large body of people to live outside the system that protects basic rights and freedoms. We are becoming a split society by not deporting, but at the same time not incorporating these members of our society.
Bush's work visa program is not perfect, but it might be an improvement. It doesn't reward border jumpers, but regulates the very real trend of people who come north willing to work hard for a reasonable wage, because of economic conditions. It even reduces the rewards border jumpers get, by opening up the market to open competition in a Work Visa category.
I didnt' vote for Bush, but I still feel his proposed plan may be a good one.
And overall, lets' not forget that the United States benefits from Mexican and Latin American Labor. The quality of the work is good, and the conduct of the people is overall pretty good (minus the drug trade). ...And it's unfair that people who jump the border have to live in fear, and can't travel back home, to see family without having to take another risky crossing.
Once legalized, under a work visa, many of the workers could take advantage of education and other opportunities this country has to offer. It could help to form stronger ties to Latin America, and investment opportunities to some of the poorer regions. (We have tried with Nafta, to create a stronger relationship with Mexico, but it's really necessary to have actual people forming relations.)
What country are you from?
|
|
|
Post by vela on Dec 25, 2004 23:39:21 GMT -5
Bad for your health and your conscience! Not recommended.
Yeah! Like the cliché says: “every rule has an exception” or “rules are meant to be broken”. Either that or your premise is a false one, because some men are “more equal than others”.
It could be an improvement, as you say. But I’d like to read the fine print. You know, “the devil is in the details”. What would you suggest doing with the migrant workers already in US soil?
Not voting for Bush tells a lot! We’ll have to see if his proposal takes off or if it’s just political rhetoric to distract public opinion from the mess in Iraq. I guess having a plan is better than having none.
Your perception of things sounds like an objective assessment of the situation, but I think your opinion isn’t shared by most of the Americans. Or is it that most Americans don’t really have an opinion?
IMO, this long term approach that you suggest here is a step in right direction. Problem is that the NAFTA treaty, as I understand it, deals only with the trading of “goods” and deliberately left out the “services”, i.e., the migrant labor. The “deliberate” part is what worries me. This very extremely asymmetrical treaties like NAFTA are inherently unfair to the weakest party (México) but former president Salinas de Gortari was just too eager to make it to the history books as a great hero at any cost. Hence, here we are discussing about this mess!
From your Old neighbor to the South.
|
|
|
Post by LibLabDog on Dec 26, 2004 5:32:55 GMT -5
Bad for your health and your conscience! Not recommended. Bad also because some Americans aren't cut out to be management. The current situation GUARENTEES that all Mexican workers can only join the economy as labor. The result is lots of people competing for labor, and a disproportionally small number of people legally allowed to run companies competing for that labor. (Descriminates against Mexican/Latin American Entrepreneurs, or those more inclined to be so.) Well... Remember, that the best we can guarentee is equal opportunity. Let them apply to be in the Work Visa program. Give them a longer work term as a stronger incentive. Realistically, a work visa program would probably allow businesses to renew the visas. (Businesses would want this.) Or clauses could be put in with path's to citizenship. ...Like an English requirement, and some basic history. The work visa, (at least my concept of it), isn't to obstruct Mexicans/Latin Americans from becoming U.S. citizens, but to expand immediate work opportunities while allowing a more gradual, probably slower path to citizenship, for some of these work visa participants. It's better then what we have now, which is NO path to citizenship. ...Again, it's not a perfect sollution, but an improvement upon an existing situation. It's a vote getting measure. And it worked. He garned roughly half of the Hispanic vote. Bush may sincerely believe in the work visa, or he may not. It's very difficult to tell. ...He is a classically gifted politician. ...If nothing else, his call for the program raised awareness, and he did so, even though opposition to it mainly comes from his party. A president CAN easily cause a bill to get killed in the Senate/House before it ever reaches his desk to sign. ...But regardless, Bush at least raised awareness, and that is a good thing. You're talking about a culture that espouses that seflishness is good. ...Actually, it's more complex then that. I think most Americans either think that Mexicans earn enough on the currency exchange that they're not really that concerned with it. ...If it wasn't worth it for Mexicans to cross the border, they wouldn't do it. And then there's the Americans who oppose it, because it's tought to compete with labor who earns more then you do, because of that currency exchange. ...And there are the Americans who realize, that Mexicans don't hire Americans, they only take American jobs. ...Or that they don't exactly follow the rules in the first place, and that they don't spend their money here, but ship it home. There's a LOT of passions with this issue. At the same time, I know many Americans who assist these families any way that they can. There are strong ties in the religious communities and beyond. Many Americans strongly approve of many of these families, or hard working individuals. America is fairly split, and is likely to contemplate the issue for a while. ...Another reason a work visa program is a small step, but in the right direction. (As we both agree on.) Well NAFTA deals with Capital. And Capital should do a lot. ...It's definitely NOT inherently fair for Mexico. It's Unfair to both American workers, and the Mexican upperclass. It makes American Capital dominant, while making Mexican labor dominant. ...It doesn't implicitly favor one country but different classes in each country. I take it you mean the only one still in the Northern Hemisphere. Mexico stands to gain the most, the quickest. ...But other Central American countries may reap similar rewards. ...With the suspicion of terror, I think it's likely that the United States is glad to get labor and new blood from places that don't have a history of radical violence or resentment. And for the most part Latin American doesn't feel this way. Because instead of Jimmy Carter intervening in communist leaning countries, he left them well enough alone.
|
|
|
Post by vela on Dec 26, 2004 15:00:22 GMT -5
This is a perspective that I’ve never heard or read anywhere. Obviously you have put a lot of thought into this subject or you posses a gifted intellect. I suspect most politicians, diplomats and conservative news media would rather not have ordinary people digging too deep into all these considerations.
Realistically that’s all we can and should expect anywhere, which is good enough.
The irony is that in many or most cases migrant workers don’t have equal opportunity even in their own countries. Yet, this is the kind of “dream” that the poor people of the world would like to believe in, even if it means migrating to a foreign land.
I am positively surprised again, LLD. With the current situation as it is now I would be inclined to think that nobody is really serious about fixing this problem or maybe there are so many contradictory opinions that you just can’t agree on a definitive solution. The starting point should be the recognition that the US needs certain (to be determined) number of migrant workers. If you allow the migration flows to freely fluctuate under the supply/demand model as a commodity, that is an open invitation for trouble: on one hand a lot of abuse against (an over supply of disposable) illegal workers from unscrupulous businessmen and the real possibility of a lot of American workers being laid off and replaced by cheaper illegal labor. This is not in the best interest of the United States or any of the Latin American countries that provide the most migrant workers.
You’re right on this too. Although, I’m more inclined to believe that this half-hearted effort by the Bush administration is a response to certain pressure groups and that if the Senate/House blocks his initiative he has the perfect alibi as he can ultimately blame the Congress. I don’t know, but maybe some politicians feel like illegal immigration is one of those necessary evils, kind of a love/hate relationship, (remember former nominee for the HLS department Bernard Kerik and his illegal nanny?).
Only up to certain degree. We should not kill the goose that laid the golden eggs!
Yes, I understand there are a lot of misconceptions regarding migrant workers. And passion (and/or bigotry) only helps to cloud factual reality even more.
Whatever the motivation of these Americans, either religious or moral, this solidarity with a fellow human being is the kind of good will that goes a long way in cementing a firm and lasting relationship. It is much better, particularly in these turbulent times, to have a neighbor who is also a friend than just an indifferent neighbor.
Just imagine for a moment that México and other Latin American countries became prosperous all of a sudden, to the point that its people didn’t need to migrate in search of jobs elsewhere, and even enough to make the illegal workers in the US go back to their country land. Wouldn’t that be an ideal world? But, what kind of cost would that have on the economy of the United States?
Of course this is just a hypothetical scenario not likely to happen any time soon, but not impossible either. I wonder if today somebody in those all too powerful think-tanks has ever questioned the wisdom of one of the most favored, time-tested, foreign policy practices of the US of “throwing a monkey wrench into the political/social machinery” of other nations, particularly in the light of the current immigration quagmire that all strategists seem to have failed to anticipate. Or maybe I’m being too ingenuous myself?
I don’t want to take a manicheistic position and condemn the NAFTA treaty in whole. I can’t really say that without it current conditions would be better. On the contrary, some good has come out of it, but like you say, Capital comes first; common people should be happy to scrounge the crumbs that fall from the fat cats’ table.
Radical violence? No, not really. Resentment? Well, it is better not to open old wounds. I would like to remain hopeful that the family ties and friendship that unites both our countries AND countrymen could be strengthened and be able to withstand the blunders of foolish politicians in high places. The Jimmy Carter days seem so distant now!
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Dec 26, 2004 17:17:07 GMT -5
I voted no since the question is, "Have the Jews of the USA tricked all Americans to believe they are the 'Chosen People'?" I'm from the US and I sure as hell don't think they are. However, it seems that many people here, especially religious fundies like Jerry Falwell, do think that they are the chosen people, which I think is quite stupid.
|
|
|
Post by shango on Dec 26, 2004 20:37:06 GMT -5
Shalom Y'all,
The Hebrews through Moshe(Moses) and the prophets gave the world the Bible and the foundation for the Western Religious tradition. Yeshu'a(Jesus) and the disciples were Jews. In this sense, the Jews are the chosen people. The West has benefitted from the Jews in banking and science and the arts. Christopher Columbus (Cristobal Colon) was a Sephardic Jew who "discovered" America for Iberia and Europe in the year 1492 when they were kicked out of Spain
|
|
|
Post by Solomon on Dec 27, 2004 0:21:40 GMT -5
Cool info, Shango. From what I've read it is possible that Columbus was Jewish, though his origins are widely disputed.
Anyway, I think Satyros was actually asking if Americans believe they have been chosen to somehow police the globe.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Dec 27, 2004 0:40:54 GMT -5
Anyway, I think Satyros was actually asking if Americans believe they have been chosen to somehow police the globe. Ok then. I think that many Americans unfortunately do think that the US should be the world police.
|
|
|
Post by vela on Dec 27, 2004 9:23:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Dec 27, 2004 16:58:17 GMT -5
The question wasn't about policing the world but rather about believing in being the choosen people of God. In that case, I think the idea that any people would be "the chosen people" is absurd, be they American, Jewish, British, Chinese, Lithuanian, Japanese, Icelandic, Guatemalan, Kazakh, or anyone (I could continue, but my point is clear .
|
|