OT: Words from a great man

  • Thread starter Kurgan Gringioni
  • Start date



On Nov 17, 4:11 am, Kyle Legate <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > I'm sure there'll be more spin in reply but I don't give a ****
> > anymore, because discussion is hopeless. Turning the US into a third
> > world, communist police state, under the PC fascist party would be a
> > great thing, and I submit. I just want to be one of the security folks
> > and get mine.

>
> You are officially a crackpot.


Yeah Kyle it sounds a lot like the **** that was being screamed about
the vast Neo-Con/fascist/Theocracy that was being rammed down our
throats in the last two elections, along with 9/11 being a US
generated CIA plot.
Haven't heard any of that from your friends on the left have you? How
much of that have you said?
I KNEW I was being WAY over the top. I've said a ton of times before
that I do that purposely, especially when I did a rethink, and re-
evaluation of the discussion here, and really can't remember more than
a very few people allowing that maybe they could have been mistaken,
less informed than possible, or had supported things that turned out
to be flat out wrong.
I'm not perfect, I'm still learning every day. I really don't belong
in this group with these shining, infallible intellects I guess.
Bill C
Occasional **** Stirrer.
 
Kyle Legate wrote:
> You are officially a crackpot.


Can I get a certificate if I get certified as a crackpot ?
 
"Kyle Legate" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bill C wrote:
>
>> I'm sure there'll be more spin in reply but I don't give a ****
>> anymore, because discussion is hopeless. Turning the US into a third
>> world, communist police state, under the PC fascist party would be a
>> great thing, and I submit. I just want to be one of the security folks
>> and get mine.

>
> You are officially a crackpot.


And you have always been blind and stupid.
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:f2922c14-6e59-4569-9064-403caf9b1476@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>
> P.S. Hardly any illegal immigrant would ever try to
> vote - they're scared to talk to cops when crimes happen
> to them, they're hardly going to voluntarily walk up to
> some official who asks for name and address and writes
> you down in a book.


Just out of curiosity - do you EVER actually read the newspaper or
understand that southern California elections and especially LA elections
hing on illegal voters?

> Meanwhile, underpaid immigrants in fields, poultry
> plants, meatpacking and kitchens are subsidizing the
> cheap food and cheap restaurants all true Americans
> enjoy.


Are you aware that machines can do almost ALL of that but illegal aliens
here are willing to work so cheaply that it isn't economically feasible for
companies to put in the equipment?

Illegal aliens are a problem for one reason only - politicians.
 
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Kyle Legate" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Bill C wrote:
>>
>>> I'm sure there'll be more spin in reply but I don't give a ****
>>> anymore, because discussion is hopeless. Turning the US into a third
>>> world, communist police state, under the PC fascist party would be a
>>> great thing, and I submit. I just want to be one of the security folks
>>> and get mine.

>>
>> You are officially a crackpot.

>
> And you have always been blind and stupid.


This is an interesting posting. The header says it's from me but I have Kyle
blocked from this computer and I didn't post that. How many other people are
posting as me?
 
Bill C wrote:
>
> Haven't heard any of that from your friends on the left have you? How
> much of that have you said?
>


None actually, I have a somewhat level head.
 
On Nov 18, 3:01 am, Kyle Legate <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
>
> > Haven't heard any of that from your friends on the left have you? How
> > much of that have you said?

>
> None actually, I have a somewhat level head.


Actually, contrary to Tom's opinion, I agree that you're pretty
rational, and while we disagree on issues I've never found you to be
irrational, unless it was in response to the same. That goes for just
about everyone who posts here regularly.
Bill C
 
Bill C wrote:
> On Nov 18, 3:01 am, Kyle Legate <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Bill C wrote:
>>
>>> Haven't heard any of that from your friends on the left have you? How
>>> much of that have you said?

>> None actually, I have a somewhat level head.

>
> Actually, contrary to Tom's opinion, I agree that you're pretty
> rational, and while we disagree on issues I've never found you to be
> irrational, unless it was in response to the same. That goes for just
> about everyone who posts here regularly.
> Bill C


If I reply irrationally to an irrational statement, I usually do so
sarcastically and with full knowledge of the irrationality behind my
post. Tom just posts irrationally with no knowledge whatsoever.
 
Kyle Legate wrote:
>>> You are officially a crackpot.


Donald Munro wrote:
>> Can I get a certificate if I get certified as a crackpot ?


Kyle Legate wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/34qzd5


Its good to know Bush will now be able to get a well deserved honorary
doctorate when he retires.
 
On Nov 18, 12:36 pm, Donald Munro <[email protected]> wrote:
> Kyle Legate wrote:
> >>> You are officially a crackpot.

> Donald Munro wrote:
> >> Can I get a certificate if I get certified as a crackpot ?

> Kyle Legate wrote:
> >http://tinyurl.com/34qzd5

>
> Its good to know Bush will now be able to get a well deserved honorary
> doctorate when he retires.


He's anything but a crackpot, that's the mistake everyone's made all
along, and he wanted them to make, and encourages.
Look at all the places he's positioned his friends, all the
government controlled land, our land, he's opened up for his friends
to exploit, all the contracts they've gotten, and all the profits
they've made.
I'd say it IS "mission accomplished!". We just had the wrong mission
in mind.
Bill C
 
"Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:b7543498-087d-49e6-90fa-4f0fd855570d@d61g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 18, 3:01 am, Kyle Legate <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Bill C wrote:
>>
>> > Haven't heard any of that from your friends on the left have you? How
>> > much of that have you said?

>>
>> None actually, I have a somewhat level head.

>
> Actually, contrary to Tom's opinion, I agree that you're pretty
> rational, and while we disagree on issues I've never found you to be
> irrational, unless it was in response to the same. That goes for just
> about everyone who posts here regularly.


When Legate says he has a "level" head he means "flat".
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> What Dems do is go soft on immigration to cater to the
> LEGAL Latino vote. This is an important distinction.


If you don't understand what's going on in LA and San Diego I wonder where
you live. Arizona?

> My problem is with citizens who benefit from the
> cheap food, cheap restaurants, inexpensive construction,
> landscaping, services and so on, but don't want to
> admit that they benefit from it. Like Kunich saying
> that all the farmworkers could be replaced by machines.
> (I'm assuming even Kunich doesn't think the restaurant
> workers could be replaced by machines.)


Here's the bottom line. I happen to like Mexicans etc. I grew up with them
and my favorite (now late) sister-in-law was a Mexican citizen as I pointed
out many times.

And I agree with you that taking advantage of illegals is a bad practice.
What you don't seem to rcognize is that the economy would be completely
different if there wasn't that cheap labor available. And I don't mean it
would be "worse", only different. The US doesn't automate a great many
things (automation provides more jobs than it eliminates BTW) simply because
labor is cheap.

> Regarding the export of dollars, I don't think it's so
> simple. Those people are earning the dollars, so they
> are providing services in our economy that somebody wants
> to pay for.


The problem is that these dollars aren't then going back into the US economy
to help it grow. And in the correct direction. That's what is at stake
here - the actual DIRECTION of the US economy. We are turning into a service
economy when we used to be a manufacturing and development economy. And that
bodes very ill for your heirs.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:


> I don't like being told that the money isn't pouring out of local
> economies when the second biggest source of revenue in Mexico is
> illegal US dollars. As usual they think we are all stupid. I object to
> that.


One thing to think about regarding the money that immigrants send back: they
aren't sending all of the money they make back. They have to have enough to live
here, so they are spending money here. I know that some people claim that they don't
pay property taxes, but if they're paying rent, they're paying property tax.
Landlords aren't making that payment out of their own pocket - it comes from the
rent. Many undocumented aliens do work at jobs where taxes are withheld - they aren't
able to file a return on that money. They certainly can't get SocSec benefits after
they've put money in the system.

--
tanx,
Howard

Safe when used as directed...

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
On Nov 18, 6:10 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:b7543498-087d-49e6-90fa-4f0fd855570d@d61g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Nov 18, 3:01 am, Kyle Legate <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Bill C wrote:

>
> >> > Haven't heard any of that from your friends on the left have you? How
> >> > much of that have you said?

>
> >> None actually, I have a somewhat level head.

>
> > Actually, contrary to Tom's opinion, I agree that you're pretty
> > rational, and while we disagree on issues I've never found you to be
> > irrational, unless it was in response to the same. That goes for just
> > about everyone who posts here regularly.

>
> When Legate says he has a "level" head he means "flat".


He may have bumped it a few times too many, but I'm not as cranky as
you yet. Give me a few more years, and pain and I might get there
though. The last week or so I've been about as much fun as a grizzly
with heat rash.
Bill C
 
On Nov 18, 1:24 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
> My problem is with citizens who benefit from the
> cheap food, cheap restaurants, inexpensive construction,
> landscaping, services and so on, but don't want to
> admit that they benefit from it. Like Kunich saying
> that all the farmworkers could be replaced by machines.
> (I'm assuming even Kunich doesn't think the restaurant
> workers could be replaced by machines.)


Hey Ben I wrote a really good, by detail response yesterday and the
computer ate it.
There's no question that we benefit from the illegally cheap labor,
but that also drives down wages, weakens unions, and empowers abuse by
corporations.
That's just another reason we need to go after the problem, along
with providing security, and protection for us, and the immigrants.
It also pisses me off because the farmers here have been doing it
right, and legally forever. They got together and built a "camp" for
migrants with barracks buildings, kitchens, a rec building, etc...they
got the local community health center to come in and provide care, and
checkups for the workers. The local colleges and other groups send
people in to teach language and finance basic finance classes, along
with basic legal classes.
A lot of these migrant families are on the the thrid or fourth
generation here now, and it works really well because the farmers have
built in supervisors, right with the groups and things go incredibly
smoothly.
Even when they were hiring every local kid, they were still having to
bring in migrant help. Now there are even less kids who want the work.

>
> Regarding the export of dollars, I don't think it's so
> simple. Those people are earning the dollars, so they
> are providing services in our economy that somebody wants
> to pay for. I think that means that if they all picked
> up and left right away (which of course is impossible)
> our economy would shrink. Mexico is a LOT poorer than
> the U.S., so an inflow of dollars that is significant
> to the Mexican economy is not necessarily a drain on
> the U.S.
>
> Here's a page from the Fed Reserve with some data:http://www.dallasfed.org/research/swe/2007/swe0704b.cfm
> Remittances to Mexico in 2006 were US $23.1 billion,
> which is the third highest revenue source after oil
> and maquiladora exports. For comparison, the US
> GDP was $13.1 trillion in 2006, so remittances
> exported 0.0018 of GDP. This is probably not making
> a significant difference to our economic health.
> In the end, I suspect remittances get partially
> compensated by changes in the dollar/peso exchange
> rate as people use dollars to buy pesos.
>
> (Mexico GDP was US$1.13 trillion, so remittances are
> about 12 times bigger impact on Mexico than on the
> US by this crude measure.)
>
> Ben- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


My argument with that is that while on a National scale it may not be
really important to the US the local communities DO provide services
for ttthese illegals, they do spend money dealing with them, then a
vast portion of the money the illegals generate leaves the community.
Again we could reduce that by making them legal, and controlling the
situation, it would at least reduce the hit the local communities are
taking.
None of the politicians want to do this. My complaint with the
democratic left is that they don't want to control the flow of people,
in any meaningful way, either. They want to throw the border wide
open, more or less.
http://www.newsocialist.org/magazine/37/article02.html
http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/cal/OpenBorder.htm
Bill C
 
Dans le message de
news:c16ef82a-5253-4030-8ed5-e010e842c9cd@d61g2000hsa.googlegroups.com,
Bill C <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> On Nov 18, 1:24 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> My problem is with citizens who benefit from the
>> cheap food, cheap restaurants, inexpensive construction,
>> landscaping, services and so on, but don't want to
>> admit that they benefit from it. Like Kunich saying
>> that all the farmworkers could be replaced by machines.
>> (I'm assuming even Kunich doesn't think the restaurant
>> workers could be replaced by machines.)

>
> Hey Ben I wrote a really good, by detail response yesterday and the
> computer ate it.
> There's no question that we benefit from the illegally cheap labor,
> but that also drives down wages, weakens unions, and empowers abuse by
> corporations.
> That's just another reason we need to go after the problem, along
> with providing security, and protection for us, and the immigrants.
> It also pisses me off because the farmers here have been doing it
> right, and legally forever. They got together and built a "camp" for
> migrants with barracks buildings, kitchens, a rec building, etc...they
> got the local community health center to come in and provide care, and
> checkups for the workers. The local colleges and other groups send
> people in to teach language and finance basic finance classes, along
> with basic legal classes.
> A lot of these migrant families are on the the thrid or fourth
> generation here now, and it works really well because the farmers have
> built in supervisors, right with the groups and things go incredibly
> smoothly.
> Even when they were hiring every local kid, they were still having to
> bring in migrant help. Now there are even less kids who want the work.
>
>>
>> Regarding the export of dollars, I don't think it's so
>> simple. Those people are earning the dollars, so they
>> are providing services in our economy that somebody wants
>> to pay for. I think that means that if they all picked
>> up and left right away (which of course is impossible)
>> our economy would shrink. Mexico is a LOT poorer than
>> the U.S., so an inflow of dollars that is significant
>> to the Mexican economy is not necessarily a drain on
>> the U.S.
>>
>> Here's a page from the Fed Reserve with some
>> data:http://www.dallasfed.org/research/swe/2007/swe0704b.cfm
>> Remittances to Mexico in 2006 were US $23.1 billion,
>> which is the third highest revenue source after oil
>> and maquiladora exports. For comparison, the US
>> GDP was $13.1 trillion in 2006, so remittances
>> exported 0.0018 of GDP. This is probably not making
>> a significant difference to our economic health.
>> In the end, I suspect remittances get partially
>> compensated by changes in the dollar/peso exchange
>> rate as people use dollars to buy pesos.
>>
>> (Mexico GDP was US$1.13 trillion, so remittances are
>> about 12 times bigger impact on Mexico than on the
>> US by this crude measure.)
>>
>> Ben- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -

>
> My argument with that is that while on a National scale it may not be
> really important to the US the local communities DO provide services
> for ttthese illegals, they do spend money dealing with them, then a
> vast portion of the money the illegals generate leaves the community.
> Again we could reduce that by making them legal, and controlling the
> situation, it would at least reduce the hit the local communities are
> taking.
> None of the politicians want to do this. My complaint with the
> democratic left is that they don't want to control the flow of people,
> in any meaningful way, either. They want to throw the border wide
> open, more or less.
> http://www.newsocialist.org/magazine/37/article02.html
> http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/cal/OpenBorder.htm
> Bill C


OK, I have read and now wish to offer a personal perspective on several
points.

1 - there is an irrational belief that illegal presence is laudable, when
those who take the required, long, uncertain and costly steps to enter
legally and obtain work or citizenship are not considered in the equation.

2 - Immigration is not the only goal, and often is not an actual goal, for
the undocumented. Employment is their objective, for the most part.

3 - Employment at substandard rates indicates the typical consumer interest
of obtaining quality for lowe price. Not from the workers' viewpoint - from
the American consumers'.

4 - The effects of illegal immigration is mostly on unskilled and onerous
work. There are not a lot of illegals working on Wall Street or in the
Silicon Valley unless they are hauling brooms and mops.

5 - The invisible effect of non-immigration is the emigration of jobs in
fabrication, manufacturing, reprocessing; I don't see an America that wants
to continue to work on factory assembly lines. Everyone wants to be a
manager. There are too many colleges selling too many irrational dreams.

6 - America is protectionist, period. No reason to think it embraces world
trade that doesn't heavily favor American interests. Those interests, in
practicality, do not represent the personal economic interests of citizens,
but the financial and meta-financial interests of the largest corporations.
No, this is not a diatribe against corporate interests, just a reminder of
where the influence is in creating both policy and law.

7 - As to any worker, immigrant or not, legal or not, employers seek to
reduce cost and increase profitability by paying the least possible for
labor. That's the system that is applauded, so long as it favors
distributed growth. When it favors corporate profit, the obvious solution
is a wholesale replacement of government, but since all politics is local,
that is as likely as butter being a cure for high cholesterol levels. The
ONLY political agenda or ideology is getting elected and RE-elected.

8 - The expense of inspecting and enforcing illegal labor is enormous. Not
just the issue of illegal immigrants, but the results of typical
black-market labor. Like the local mechanic who charges a little less and
takes cash payments. Like the people on eBay who make a living there, yet
either don't report income, or classify it as hobby income.

9 - Truly trade-union influences are always susceptible to cut-throat,
cut-rate non union competition. Low price is hard to reject.

Illegal immigration is a problem only when the worst labor, industry,
capital and taxation systems direct money away from personal incomes of
individuals on the broad scale. Illegal immigrants allow lots of people to
continue to enjoy the pleasures of daily life at lower cost, and today's
enjoyment is considered more important to realize than the building of a
foundation for a successful futre economy.

End of rant, for today.
--
Sandy
-
Darwinism, born in ideological struggle, has never escaped from an intimate
reciprocal relationship with worldviews exported from and imported into the
science. No one challenges the claim that evolutionary theory has had a wide
effect on social theory. It is a cliché of cultural history that the
explanation of evolution by natural selection served as an ideological
justification for laissez-faire capitalism and the colonial domination of
the lesser breeds without the law

- Richard Lewontin
 
On Nov 18, 3:10 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:b7543498-087d-49e6-90fa-4f0fd855570d@d61g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Nov 18, 3:01 am, Kyle Legate <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Bill C wrote:

>
> >> > Haven't heard any of that from your friends on the left have you? How
> >> > much of that have you said?

>
> >> None actually, I have a somewhat level head.

>
> > Actually, contrary to Tom's opinion, I agree that you're pretty
> > rational, and while we disagree on issues I've never found you to be
> > irrational, unless it was in response to the same. That goes for just
> > about everyone who posts here regularly.

>
> When Legate says he has a "level" head he means "flat".


No wonder he dislikes the US guvmint.

"In 1855 the Flatheads were driven from most of their lands by the
government, except for the Bitterroot Valley, which they were given by
treaty. Within 20 years, the treaty was broken and the Flathead were
forced by the government to move about 100 miles north to the Flathead
Valley... They were now given the whole Flathead River valley as a
reservation, but the government did nothing to stop whites from
settling on Indian lands.
In 1904, the Flatheads again lost large amounts of their land
through government land sales and allotments made to former soldiers,
railroads and other industries. "

http://www3.cesa10.k12.wi.us/ecosystems/prairies/people/fhead/flathed.htm

Ain't guvmint wonderful? Just elect what Kyle refers to as "wise
legislators," pay a **** load of taxes, and good things will happen by
magic!
 
On Nov 19, 7:40 am, "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dans le message denews:c16ef82a-5253-4030-8ed5-e010e842c9cd@d61g2000hsa.googlegroups.com,
> Bill C <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>


> OK, I have read and now wish to offer a personal perspective on several
> points.
>
> 1 - there is an irrational belief that illegal presence is laudable, when
> those who take the required, long, uncertain and costly steps to enter
> legally and obtain work or citizenship are not considered in the equation.


There is no inherent duty to obey The State. If it is in one's best
interests to obey The State, then my advice is to do so. One's duty
is to oneself. That includes accepting jobs where every afternoon is
a training ride on the back of a certain Sonoma County taxpayer.

> 2 - Immigration is not the only goal, and often is not an actual goal, for
> the undocumented. Employment is their objective, for the most part.


Yes.

> 3 - Employment at substandard rates indicates the typical consumer interest
> of obtaining quality for lowe price. Not from the workers' viewpoint - from
> the American consumers'.


What the hell does "substandard" mean? Like you must mean, "lower
than my personal /value judgments/ say it /ought/ to be, and I'm
smarter than others, and I got the votes." Americans are different
than anyone else? Why would any body trade anything if they did not
think they would be better off than before? Just altruism? Well
maybe some people find altruism to be satisfying along with 52" LCD
screens.

> 4 - The effects of illegal immigration is mostly on unskilled and onerous
> work. There are not a lot of illegals working on Wall Street or in the
> Silicon Valley unless they are hauling brooms and mops.


Well that is the biggest story of immigration to the US, legal or
illegal. Sure, there have been many skilled people too.

> 5 - The invisible effect of non-immigration is the emigration of jobs in
> fabrication, manufacturing, reprocessing; I don't see an America that wants
> to continue to work on factory assembly lines. Everyone wants to be a
> manager. There are too many colleges selling too many irrational dreams.


I don't see that "America wants" or "does not want" any such a
things. I think it is rather irrelevent, really. People may or may
not seize the opportunities they actually manage to see. That
opportunities arise is not something people can necessarily control,
or say like: "I will have such and such opportunity!" and it suddenly
comes into being by command.

In my observation, I see that people want to survive, and do it as
comfortably and pleasureably as possible. The upward want is
inevitable, immigrant, subject, or citizen alike. The only question
is what actually happens.

> 6 - America is protectionist, period. No reason to think it embraces world
> trade that doesn't heavily favor American interests. Those interests, in
> practicality, do not represent the personal economic interests of citizens,
> but the financial and meta-financial interests of the largest corporations..
> No, this is not a diatribe against corporate interests, just a reminder of
> where the influence is in creating both policy and law.


Well you know how it goes. Whatever the flaws and capture of
government that exist, the solution is always more government, because
we know, don't we, that the bigger government will always be more
immune to capture than smaller government. Always make government
*more powerful*, that way it has more gifts to give.

But you fail to mention that the basic nature and structure of
government is that it itself grows in power and income. No intention
is necessary for this to happen. Government benefits government
first.

"The solution to bad government, is always more government." --
Statist Playbook

"The solution to big government, is always bigger government." --
Statist Playbook

"The solution to a small government, is always a bigger government."
-- Statist Playbook

"The solution to government failure, is always bigger government
failure." -- Statist Playbook

"The solution to government failure in regulating business and trade,
is bigger and better plans for the government to regulate business and
trade." -- Statist Playbook

> 7 - As to any worker, immigrant or not, legal or not, employers seek to
> reduce cost and increase profitability by paying the least possible for
> labor. That's the system that is applauded, so long as it favors
> distributed growth. When it favors corporate profit, the obvious solution
> is a wholesale replacement of government, ...


Let's just put "abolishment" in there instead of "replacement." There
is no need to replace the old problem with a new one, which is the
same as the old. The experiment of government has been tinkered with
long enough. It is a failed doctrine. Just let it die.

> but since all politics is local,
> that is as likely as butter being a cure for high cholesterol levels.


If more of the politics were actually local, it would probably be a
better state of affairs. If you don't like the local jurisdiction,
the cost of exit is low. If you don't like the nation, the costs of
exit are very high.

> The ONLY political agenda or ideology
> is getting elected and RE-elected.


For politicians, yes. All life is politics, which is to say there is
power balance to deal with in pretty much every relationship. It is a
basic fact of being a social creature.

> 8 - The expense of inspecting and enforcing illegal labor is enormous. Not
> just the issue of illegal immigrants, but the results of typical
> black-market labor. Like the local mechanic who charges a little less and
> takes cash payments. Like the people on eBay who make a living there, yet
> either don't report income, or classify it as hobby income.


Anyone who manages to not hand over their assets to The State is a
Freedom Fighter. Applaude them.

I hope Jeter wins, just on principle.
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-yankees-jeter-taxes&prov=ap&type=lgns

> 9 - Truly trade-union influences are always susceptible to cut-throat,
> cut-rate non union competition. Low price is hard to reject.


There is no problem there, so why did you write it?

> Illegal immigration is a problem only when the worst labor, industry,
> capital and taxation systems direct money away from personal incomes of
> individuals on the broad scale.


"Broad scale" is usually just a code phrase for commie-dom
redistributionist law. Other than that, I think I agree. There is no
problem of immigration if the legitimate owners of property invite
them there. There is no other legitimate criteria.

> Illegal immigrants allow lots of people to
> continue to enjoy the pleasures of daily life at lower cost, and today's
> enjoyment is considered more important to realize than the building of a
> foundation for a successful futre economy.


All people who would "construct an economy" are cranks. The "economy"
needs a construction plan in the same way a robin needs blueprints to
build their nest. The "economy" is generated via spontaneous order.
It does not exist due to the design of Man. Life has its own /
purpose/: itself. That does not mean it was "designed." /Purpose/ is
not inextricably linked to /design/. In this matter it is decidely
not.

"Liberty is the Mother, not the daughter, of order." -- Proudhon

> End of rant, for today.
> --
> Sandy
> -
> Darwinism, born in ideological struggle, has never escaped from an intimate
> reciprocal relationship with worldviews exported from and imported into the
> science. No one challenges the claim that evolutionary theory has had a wide
> effect on social theory. It is a cliché of cultural history that the
> explanation of evolution by natural selection served as an ideological
> justification for laissez-faire capitalism and the colonial domination of
> the lesser breeds without the law
>
> - Richard Lewontin


Lewontin thought there were "lesser breeds?" What a racist asswipe.

Social Darwinism is well dead, except in the minds of cranks. No one
pays any attention to them anyway. Get over it.