Originally Posted by Uncle Mxy
When I wrote what I did about productive immigrants, I was thinking of the H-1B program, not so much the raging debate. If someone could come into the U.S. and be immediately productive (has job skills and could pass a TOEFL, isn't a terrorist whackjob or indentured servant), we shouldn't turn their work away. They will just produce elsewhere. If we're lucky, they work for an American firm overseas and maybe we get something back. If we're unlucky, they'll take an American job (or more) in the process. Hell, we used to have migrant workers work here, then go back to Mexico to live, and we built a helluva country on the backs of immigrants.
Agree. Maybe we should feel fortunate there is so much corruption in Mexico keeping their economy down.
As for debt as a function of GDP, I've said this before, but viewing debt as a function of GDP gets problematic. As the GDP grows, is it doing so -because- of the added debt or in spite of it, and to what extent does that GDP growth end up mapping back to real increased revenues coming in? If the GDP doesn't grow as much as the debt incurred "should" make it grow -- not exactly the easiest thing to divine -- what then? What does that GDP mean? It's a messy beast relative to a "income in, expenses out" balance sheet, and can be used to prove anything you want.
In spite of, imo. If GDP isn't going up, spending/borrowing HAS to go down. Will our gov't do that? ??? These are such huge dollars that a slight change can make a huge difference in projections. iirc, we are back in the right direction again, as long as Bush keeps his veto pen out.
Lots of people want to infringe on our rights, in cover of darkness (domestic wiretapping), contorting definitions to the point of absurdity (newsflash -- waterboarding is torture, the Internet is not a telephone as much as some people might think otherwise), coaxing elected officials to vote it away (habeas corpus, the odious War On Drugs laws), etc. They're chipped away little by little, one tiny encroachment after another, and eventually it hits you direct long after you've been indirectly bit. You have to give your fucking driver's license to get Claritin-D now. That's really fucking brilliant.
But its only domestic wiretapping if you are calling someone in another country who is a known or suspected terrorist, right? That doesn't bother me in the least.
Waterboarding to me is not torture. It doesn't 'shock my conscience' for our gov't to scare someone. They aren't going to drown. It scares them, cuz those 2 in Pakistan coughed up plenty of info. Its a great tactic cuz it works and doesn't cause any harm.
To me, the question isn't does waterboarding fit someones definition of torture, its whether we should use the tactic or not? And to that, I answer yes.
Enough ranting for one day...