> Rod Speed
gmail.com> wrote>>> On Jun 2, 5:04 pm, Fred wrote
>>> Why should it be illegal for people to come here and work?
>> Essentially because most of the voters dont want the dregs of the world to do that.
> You characterize people who subsidize essential jobs with cheap labor as dregs?
Nope.
> Then our corporations must be in collusion with them
> because we are out sourcing American jobs to them.
Like it or lump it.
> So it is OK to send a job to India or Malaysia for cheap
> work but it isn't OK for cheap labor to come here?
Never ever said a word about what is or is not OK, fuckwit.
> Explain that to me please.
More profitable to try to explain it to a stone.
> (For the sake of arguement we will over look that people from
> what is now called Mexico have migrated back and forth for
> centuries between the region that was half of Mexico before 1848.)
Irrelevant to what the bulk of the voters want.
>>> Should it not be illegal for citizens here, who don't want to work,
>>> have government force working people to pay the bills for them?
>> The govt doesnt force anyone to work.
> No, you are right, if you "have" money, you don't need to work.
You dont need to if you havent either.
> If you make your money with your money, you only have to pay 15%% in income taxes,
Wrong, as always.
> while those of us who work for a living
You dont.
> have to pay 32%% in order to subsidize you.
Wrong, as always.
>>>> Mexico's problems are corrupt government, lack of contraception,
>>>> crime, and a backwards, entrenched peasantry.
> Ah, sounds like home.
Then you need to get those ears tested, child.
>>>> These conditions predated the existence of the USA. Clueless
>>>> rubes like you are part of the problem, not the solution.
> Here we leave lofty intellectual arguments for foul and base ad homenim attacks.
Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh ?
>>> Subsidized agriculture in the developed world is one of the
>>> greatest obstacles to economic growth in the developing world.
>> Nope, the way they keep pumping out hordes more brats than their economy
>> can possibly support cripples their economic growth much more than that does.
> It is called subsistence agriculture
Its actually called pumping out hordes more brats than their economy can possibly support.
> which requires much labor and many children,
Wrong, as always.
> especially when many of them die in childhood from
> something trivial like unclean water that if they didn't have to
> compete with subsidized crops they could afford to avoid.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasysland.
Have fun explaining how china can avoid stupid numbers of kids now.
> This is a situation that a third of humanity finds itself in
Nope, thats a situation that one third of humanity is stupid enough to get itself into.
> while you rejoice in your unearned entitlement of being born white and American.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasysland.
Have fun explaining how even china can manage to avoid that.
>>> In 2002, industrialized countries in the Organization for Economic
>>> Cooperation and Development (OECD) spent a total of $300 billion
>>> on crop price supports, production payments and other farm programs.
>> And that has dropped considerably since then.
> Easy to say but, do you have a citation to back up your big mouth?
Yep. And my mouth leaves your arse for dead thanks, child.
> For 2005 and 2006, corn subsidies ran about $9 billion/year,
Pity they aint price support subsidys.
> which completely overwhelms all of Mexico's agricultural programs.
Their problem.
>>> These subsidies encourage overproduction.
>> Sometimes they do, sometimes they dont.
> Can you gve a citation to back up your big mouth?
Yep. And my mouth leaves your arse for dead thanks, child.
>>> Markets are flooded with surplus crops that are sold
>>> below the cost of production, depressing world prices.
>> The current reality with world food prices is the exact opposite.
> God, you are so freaking dense.
Corse that wouldnt be you engaging in any ad hominem eh ?
> Local farmers, who could have fed local populations,
> have been driven out of business by subsidized crops.
Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder actually substantiating that claim.
>>> Countries with unsubsidized goods are essentially shut out of world markets,
>> No they arent.
> Citation asshole.
Your sig is supposed to be at the bottom with a line with just -- by itself in front of it, child.
>>> devastating their local economies.
>> Wrong again. Look at Australia for example which doesnt
>> have any crop price supports and whose economy
>> leaves that of much of the rest of the first world for dead.
> Australia isn't shipping wheat this year because of a drought.
Wrong, as always.
> They are cannibalizing their forests for foreign currency
Wrong, as always.
And only a tree can cannabalise a forest, fuckwit.
> and they are overpopulated for the amount of food that they can produce.
Wrong, as always. Australia exports quite a bit of the food it produces, fuckwit.
> The Australians are a wonderful people but they aren't an example of earth stewardship.
Irrelevant to whether the local economy is devastated by crop price supports.
>> Just another mindlessly superficial rant.
> Well, who better than you to know about that.
You're the one ranting, fuckwit.
> Piss-off until you have citations.
Go and fuck yourself, again.
