# The Gaming Den

Welcome to the Gaming Den.

Skip to content

## From Arizona to Pacific Asian American History

Mundane & Pointless Stuff I Must Share: The Off Topic Forum

Moderator: Moderators

Locked

- Print view

382 posts

- Page 15 of 16
  - Jump to page:
- Previous
- 1
- …
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next

Zinegata
  Prince
  Posts: 4071
  Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:33 am

###

Post by Zinegata » Thu May 06, 2010 7:39 am

> Crissa wrote:What the fuck are equal labor benefits, anyhow?
> -Crissa

In the context of this discussion and with reassurances you won't be a bitch about it?
At its most basic, equal pay as legal immigrants and following the minimum wage laws.
Count and I had a back-and-forth on this and he was pretty clear on his position - "If businesses have to pay an illegal immigrant exactly the same amount of money as legal citizen, then the incentive for businesses to hire illegals will no longer exist".
Presumably, it extends to more than that and includes stuff like health care. But we had more or less decided that we're not gonna be agreeing with each other on this issue before it was elabortated.
Top

Crissa
  King
  Posts: 6720
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: Santa Cruz

###

Post by Crissa » Thu May 06, 2010 7:45 am

Zine, time for a dictionary argument, as much as I hate them: Do you know what the word 'or' means?
-Crissa
Top

Crissa
  King
  Posts: 6720
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: Santa Cruz

### Equal Labor Benefits

Post by Crissa » Thu May 06, 2010 7:47 am

> Zinegata wrote:At its most basic, equal pay as legal immigrants and following the minimum wage laws.

But that's the law now.
-Crissa
Last edited by Crissa on Thu May 06, 2010 7:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top

Zinegata
  Prince
  Posts: 4071
  Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:33 am

###

Post by Zinegata » Thu May 06, 2010 7:52 am

> Lago PARANOIA wrote:Here, bask in the healing glow of Frank's wisdom for awhile. I know you just ignored him with a 'lolz only want to wank to illegal immigrants getting theirs'. But his reply is a distilled form of a tl;dr version of what me and Count were saying.

> > FT wrote: This is an example of why Arizona's system won't work. Not why Count's system won't work. If you take a hard-ball approach to minor crime, it makes it harder to investigate major crime. You don't prosecute murder witnesses for jay walking.
> > If you treat labor violations as a big crime and lack of papers as a small crime, you'll get much better prosecution rates of labor violations. If major employers risk large fines and even jail time for paying below-mandated wages, then the big firms simply won't do it. And then the incentives to hire illegals will go away and the number of "slots" for illegals will be reduced.
> > People follow incentives pretty well. The fact is that the incentives for illegal immigration are mostly at the firms level. If clamp down on them, the immigration stream will stop flowing. That you can't see that is proof positive that you have no faith or understanding in the free market. And if you don't understand or acknowledge the capabilities of the free market, you are the last person qualified to prognosticate the effects of any policy of or in the United States.
> > -Username17

Contrary to what Frank says, I'm not the last person qualified to guess the effects of any policy in the US.
He just says that because he's an asshole who's pissed that I'm not afraid to hit him in the head when he starts moving goalposts and when he starts dropping subjects because he was simply flat-out wrong and doesn't want to man up to it.
Still, Frank's point is still subtly different from yours. And unlike you, his point is pretty okay. He's for laws that target big firms. Who presumably don't want the embarassment and cost of an illegal immigrant worker law suit, and hence will stop using them.
And since they do have more stringent accounting in place (in theory anyway. See ENRON) it's presumably easier to catch them.
However, that doesn't really cover monitoring small businesses. So big firms can till continue to use illegal immigrants anyway - by hiring subcontractors who hire illegal immigrants. That way the big firm can say "Hey, we didn't know our Janitorial Services contractor was using illegal immigrants! All we know is that they were the lowest bidder!"
And again, here's the thing: Even under this kind of environment, it's probably still a better deal than what they'd get in Mexico. So what's to stop illegals from crossing on the chance they might get a job?
Top

Lago PARANOIA
  Invincible Overlord
  Posts: 10555
  Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am

###

Post by Lago PARANOIA » Thu May 06, 2010 7:58 am

> You can claim it's the same as much as you want, but the fact is you ranted against Count's own post.

The THRUST of our rants match, Zinegata. As I said in that previous post, I don't really give a fuck about his specific method of implementation (that's why I said AFAIK, but thanks for showing me I was wrong there! But I said then I didn't care anyway), but the thing is that both of us agree that in order to really stop illegal immigration you need to target the employer.
Count's proposal is to pay illegal immigrants the same as legal workers, which is just dumb, because illegal immigration has problems associated with it that need to be taken care of other than 'they took our jobs!' But the idea is that without the price savings from hiring illegal immigrant labor employers would prefer hiring local citizens because they speak the language and culture. His intended net effect: no illegal immigrants get hired because employers stick to local color.
But even if this insane law was implemented, do you know how it would be enforced? Fines and jail time and shit. Either way, the ultimate effect is that employers would be barred from hiring people they could pay substandard wages to. Because if they did, they would be found out via labor law and then the law drops the hammer.
That's all we're saying. The onus for preventing illegal immigration must fall onto that of the employer, whether it's forcing them to pay 'real' wages to whomever they hire (Count) or laying down the law if they try to do that in the first place (Lago).

> Zinegata wrote: Right. Businesses will have a line item for expenses marked "Joe the Illegal Immigrant Gardener" as opposed to say "Contracted Expenses" or "Petty Cash" that you will have to track down using your army of non-existent auditors.

In Zinegata's imaginary world the law is helpless and impotent towards people cooking their books! Also no one ever points law enforcement in the right direction, even from the workers who get screwed from the lack of it. I want to live here. Think of all of the money I can save.
Zinegata, a thought experiment abounds. If businesses can get away with blatantly lying about their staffing and hiring practices, how in the fuck does our tax system work a all?

> And that's the only reason why you're hurling insults at me. Because you're an asshole and a bully who got a bloody nose.

This has nothing to do with the discussion, but needs to be said anyway.
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Danth%27s_Law
"If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly."
Last edited by Lago PARANOIA on Thu May 06, 2010 8:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

> Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
> In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.

Top

Zinegata
  Prince
  Posts: 4071
  Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:33 am

### Re: Equal Labor Benefits

Post by Zinegata » Thu May 06, 2010 8:04 am

> Crissa wrote:

> > Zinegata wrote:At its most basic, equal pay as legal immigrants and following the minimum wage laws.

> But that's the law now.
> -Crissa

Lago seems to disagree. Why don't you play with him?
Also, explain this desire to debate "Or", because I suspect this is another stupid "gotcha" attempt from you.
And I assure you it will blow up on your face.
Top

Lago PARANOIA
  Invincible Overlord
  Posts: 10555
  Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am

###

Post by Lago PARANOIA » Thu May 06, 2010 8:04 am

> Zinegata wrote:And unlike you, his point is pretty okay. He's for laws that target big firms. Who presumably don't want the embarassment and cost of an illegal immigrant worker law suit, and hence will stop using them.

Wait, are you getting hung up on the fact that I said 'employer' instead of 'big firms'?
I didn't think I had to make the separation. I thought that it would be pretty fucking obvious, like the fact that if you want to break up organized crime you need to go after the big cheeses rather than the little fish. But I guess not.
No, I don't support going over to Mary Smith's local hardware store and doing an audit to see if she's hiring illegals. Because there's bigger fish to fry.
There, are you happy?

> Zinegata wrote: However, that doesn't really cover monitoring small businesses. So big firms can till continue to use illegal immigrants anyway - by hiring subcontractors who hire illegal immigrants. That way the big firm can say "Hey, we didn't know our Janitorial Services contractor was using illegal immigrants! All we know is that they were the lowest bidder!"

So the law will catch them and bust their balls once they find out. I mean, someone as mentally challenged as you thought up this scheme, I'm sure law enforcement will discover this, too.

> Zinegata wrote: And again, here's the thing: Even under this kind of environment, it's probably still a better deal than what they'd get in Mexico. So what's to stop illegals from crossing on the chance they might get a job?

Because the fact that their employment prospects in the United States will dwindle a lot after people are afraid to hire them will discourage most of them from coming over?
Yes, even though people are heavily discouraged from doing shit like robbing banks or committing terrorism people still do it anyway. The best you can do is minimize it as much as possible rather than prevent it--and if it gets to the point where the cost of reducing crime is more than the cost of crime it prevents that's when you should stop.
This is like, basic stuff man.

> Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
> In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.

Top

Lago PARANOIA
  Invincible Overlord
  Posts: 10555
  Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am

###

Post by Lago PARANOIA » Thu May 06, 2010 8:06 am

> Zinegata wrote:And I assure you it will blow up on your face.

You've got quite the attitude for someone who gets consistently proven wrong--the most you've been able to do so far was nail me on a minor point about what Count said without disputing the underlying point.
So like, don't get a fat head or anything.

> Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
> In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.

Top

Zinegata
  Prince
  Posts: 4071
  Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:33 am

###

Post by Zinegata » Thu May 06, 2010 8:15 am

> Lago PARANOIA wrote:The THRUST of our rants match, Zinegata.

I. Already. Acknowledged this.
From my FIRST reply to you. Reposted for the SECOND time:

> You merely agree on the "crack down on the source" part.

Stop being a fucking whiner.

> In Zinegata's imaginary world the law is helpless and impotent towards people cooking their books! Also no one ever points law enforcement in the right direction, even from the workers who get screwed from the lack of it. I want to live here. Think of all of the money I can save.
> Zinegata, a thought experiment abounds. If businesses can get away with blatantly lying about their staffing and hiring practices, how in the fuck does our tax system work a all?

Lago is seriously arguing that companies don't cook the books like Enron did?
That this whole "Financial Meltdown" thing never happened because a couple of banks cooked the books?
Companies cook their books all the time. And they don't always get caught.

> "If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly."

... Uh-huh. Right. From the person who proclaimed that he has proven without a shadow of a doubt that I'm a creepy wanker.
You see Lago, I'm not saying I won. I'm saying you're a jackass to me because you got humiliated.
And here's the fun part. I wasn't the one who humiliated you. You did. Because at any time you could have checked Count's posts. And chose not to, and instead went on this self-destructive drive into insisting fines and benefits are the same.
Top

Starmaker
  Duke
  Posts: 2402
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: Redmonton
  Contact:
  Contact Starmaker
  Website

###

Post by Starmaker » Thu May 06, 2010 8:18 am

> Crissa wrote:

> > FrankTrollman wrote:No Crissa, the fact that there are XX females who have testes due to teratogenic effects in no way means that they are biologically male.

> Why not? They act, look, and function as male.
> -Crissa

Because that's what "biologically" means. And because XX people with penises who act, look and function as women totally exist.
Top

Zinegata
  Prince
  Posts: 4071
  Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:33 am

###

Post by Zinegata » Thu May 06, 2010 8:24 am

IMportant Edit: Added a section on small biz audits.

> Lago PARANOIA wrote:Wait, are you getting hung up on the fact that I said 'employer' instead of 'big firms'?

Nope, I'm praising Frank for actually choosing the right segment that has extensive auditing and also employs a very large proportion (I believe the majority) of illegal immigrants.
Which is why my critique of his post focused on mom & pop stores.
When you said "employer", you were replying to me. Therefore it goes to reason that you were also referring to mom & pop stores. You then clarified.

> No, I don't support going over to Mary Smith's local hardware store and doing an audit to see if she's hiring illegals. Because there's bigger fish to fry.

Now, I'm not actually against auditing small stores. I'm just saying it's hard and impractical.
However, if you say you're not for auditing small stores, then therein lies the problem. See, the big firms can just subcontract to small stores. Who can then hire illegal immigrants for the big firm.

> So the law will catch them and bust their balls once they find out. I mean, someone as mentally challenged as you thought up this scheme, I'm sure law enforcement will discover this, too.

Right. And yet nobody really caught Enron too until it was too late, was it?
It's easier to cook the books than to uncover crimes.

> Because the fact that their employment prospects in the United States will dwindle a lot after people are afraid to hire them will discourage most of them from coming over?

"Less jobs" in America is better than "Almost no jobs" in Mexico.
Plus, better pay.
See, here's the thing. Lots of people immigrate to other countries even if they aren't sure they can get a job. They figure it's better than the shit at home.
That's why you see illegal immigrants in other countries who like in ghetto style communities. They immigrated, failed to get jobs, and got royally screwed. Doesn't mean others won't follow though.
Last edited by Zinegata on Thu May 06, 2010 8:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top

Zinegata
  Prince
  Posts: 4071
  Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:33 am

###

Post by Zinegata » Thu May 06, 2010 8:28 am

> Lago PARANOIA wrote:

> > Zinegata wrote:And I assure you it will blow up on your face.

> You've got quite the attitude for someone who gets consistently proven wrong--the most you've been able to do so far was nail me on a minor point about what Count said without disputing the underlying point.
> So like, don't get a fat head or anything.

No Lago, I merely treat people accordingly.
So if you think I have an attitude, it's because you have an attitude.
If you think I treat Crissa with an attitude... well, let's just say she is the type of person who argued that "hysterical" didn't originate from the greek word for uterus.... by giving a link that said hysterical did originate from the greek word for uterus.
Also, I already think you have a fat head. So no need to hide how you really feel. You're an asshole. You've already said a lot of shit much worse than that.
Top

Lago PARANOIA
  Invincible Overlord
  Posts: 10555
  Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am

###

Post by Lago PARANOIA » Thu May 06, 2010 8:32 am

> Zinegata wrote:Lago is seriously arguing that companies don't cook the books like Enron did?
> That this whole "Financial Meltdown" thing never happened because a couple of banks cooked the books?
> Companies cook their books all the time. And they don't always get caught.

White collar crime, even disregarding the whole illegal immigration movement, really does need to be cracked down upon regardless what with it costing us 300 billion dollars a year anyway. But that's a whole separate rant.
But seriously, you realize that this argument pretty much self-undermines itself, right? If business don't get caught cooking their books for illegal immigration, who knows what else they get away with? This isn't an argument against using this method to crack down on illegal immigration, this is an argument about forming a policy to crack down on white-collar crime even harder and update the methods.

> Zinegata wrote:
> ... Uh-huh. Right. From the person who proclaimed that he has proven without a shadow of a doubt that I'm a creepy wanker.

Hey, I'm not saying my opinion is ironclad or a fact or anything. It is an opinion.
But you did say in this very thread 'Blacks and Mexicans need to shut up' over the point of fighting for their rights, because YOUR people didn't do that. Then you got proven hilariously wrong on that.
Then you said that you don't really care if a law is effective as long as illegal immigrants get it stuck to them, despite being shown and told that said law hurts innocent people.
I mean, I can (and should) just stop there and let people draw their own conclusions of my 'creepy wanker' assessment of your personality.

> Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
> In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.

Top

Zinegata
  Prince
  Posts: 4071
  Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:33 am

###

Post by Zinegata » Thu May 06, 2010 8:44 am

> Lago PARANOIA wrote:But seriously, you realize that this argument pretty much self-undermines itself, right? If business don't get caught cooking their books for illegal immigration, who knows what else they get away with? This isn't an argument against using this method to crack down on illegal immigration, this is an argument about forming a policy to crack down on white-collar crime even harder and update the methods.

No, here's the thing: My proposal is to put more guys on the border. That physically stops illegal immigrats from entering the country. It will work to reduce illegal immigration regardless if the business auditing is never fixed.

> But you did say in this very thread 'Blacks and Mexicans need to shut up' over the point of fighting for their rights, because YOUR people didn't do that. Then you got proven hilariously wrong on that.

Uh, no I didn't. Nobody has posted anything showing Filipino-Americans protest a lot in the present day.
What I was willing to concede is that unlike Crissa, you at least acknowledge that the racism card is played to pander to their base. Which is totally true and my other main point all along.

> Then you said that you don't really care if a law is effective as long as illegal immigrants get it stuck to them, despite being shown and told that said law hurts innocent people.

Right. So I'm a villain because I had the temerity to pander to my own community, when you admitted that the racism card was played just to pander to the Hispanic and Blacks?
The worst that you can accuse me of is that I was partisan. Which is the point. We're all being partisan. I am partisan to Filipino-Americans, who have to wait 6 years to get into the country because of illegal immigrants messing up the whole bloody immigration system, and that *any* attempt at reform ultimately gets called racist.
The truth is, illegal immigants hurt a lot of innocent people too. They keep legal immigrant families apart. And I'm honestly not inclined to be sympathetic to them in the slightest.
Top

RandomCasualty2
  Prince
  Posts: 3295
  Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:22 pm

###

Post by RandomCasualty2 » Thu May 06, 2010 8:56 am

> FrankTrollman wrote: That is... exactly wrong. The fact is, almost no one gives a second thought to what chromosomes people have. If someone pretties themselves up, runs around in a dress, uses established female accents and uses characteristically female mannerisms, they are "female." Because their gender is female. They could be XX, XY, XXX, XXY, or whatever. Underneath their dress they could have a vagina, a penis, or both, and since the vast majority of people will never see it, it really makes no difference.

Actually no. That's not true. If you're dating a girl, you want that to be a girl by sex (as in, has a fucking vagina). You may want a girl with a female gender as well, who acts feminine, but the first important part that people care about is the sexual organs. A "girl" without a vagina is basically not a girl at all, and useless.
Otherwise seriously, who gives a shit what sex they are? I mean you may care from a medical standpoint to diagnose various diseases, but from the layman's perspective, the sexual organs are in fact what they care about.

> But yes, people see someone who "looks and acts" like a female is "supposed to" in the context of their own society and they ascribe that person as "female." This is them reacting to gender, not to sex. In a culture that stresses monogamy, a person's sex is almost no one's business anyway.

Honestly, not quite. Sexual attraction and politics is a big deal everywhere. How often have you went out of your way to do something for a girl because you wanted to have sex with her? That is in fact, why sex matters in the first place.
Disguising your sex is a bad thing because it's disingenuous. It's like putting Sprite in a can labeled Coke. People may get angry when they realize it's not a coke, and they have a right to be. Now you can argue that "only the people who actually drink from the can will care, so why should that matter?" but that's a terrible argument. Inevitably someone gets burned and for no good reason.
Last edited by RandomCasualty2 on Thu May 06, 2010 9:10 am, edited 4 times in total.
Top

Kaelik
  ArchDemon of Rage
  Posts: 14491
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

Post by Kaelik » Thu May 06, 2010 9:12 am

> fbmf wrote:[The Great Fence Builder Speaks]
> Crissa is perfectly within her rights to ignore your PM.
> [/TGFBS]

And it is perfectly within my rights to call her out on her inability to answer a simple question.

> DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?

The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.
That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
Top

Kaelik
  ArchDemon of Rage
  Posts: 14491
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

Post by Kaelik » Thu May 06, 2010 9:16 am

> RandomCasualty2 wrote:Disguising your sex is a bad thing because it's disingenuous. It's like putting Sprite in a can labeled Coke. People may get angry when they realize it's not a coke, and they have a right to be. Now you can argue that "only the people who actually drink from the can will care, so why should that matter?" but that's a terrible argument. Inevitably someone gets burned and for no good reason.

Or you know, you can act like whatever you want to act like, and just be open about what kind of sexual organs you have.
Any time sex might occur before a conversation about sexual organs, you are doing it wrong.

> DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?

The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.
That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
Top

RandomCasualty2
  Prince
  Posts: 3295
  Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:22 pm

###

Post by RandomCasualty2 » Thu May 06, 2010 9:29 am

> Kaelik wrote: Or you know, you can act like whatever you want to act like, and just be open about what kind of sexual organs you have.
> Any time sex might occur before a conversation about sexual organs, you are doing it wrong.

You still waste your time even talking to the person.
There are plenty of conversations I have with girls, that I wouldn't have with guys.
Top

Username17
  Serious Badass
  Posts: 29894
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

Post by Username17 » Thu May 06, 2010 12:12 pm

> RandomCasualty2 wrote:

> > Kaelik wrote: Or you know, you can act like whatever you want to act like, and just be open about what kind of sexual organs you have.
> > Any time sex might occur before a conversation about sexual organs, you are doing it wrong.

> You still waste your time even talking to the person.
> There are plenty of conversations I have with girls, that I wouldn't have with guys.

Wow. I thought Zinegata had already won this conversation in the "most fucking awful thing to say" with his completely insane rant about how blacks and hispanics would never amount to anything because they protested bad treatment, unlike Filipinos who... mumble mumble. But no. I genuinely think that you describing any person who doesn't have a vagina that you can stick your penis into as a "waste of time" is the new low.
It's not even isolated, or a simple mis-statement on your part. This is a restatement of your original and identical position:

> RC wrote:A "girl" without a vagina is basically not a girl at all, and useless.

Wow. Just... wow.
You know, there are three and a half billion girls out there, right? Even if you fucked a different one every day for 20 years straight, that's still just 2 ten thousandths of a percent of the pussy in the world. Are you seriously claiming that 99.999998% of the women out there are "worthless" because you will never get to fuck them?
-Username17
Top

Zinegata
  Prince
  Posts: 4071
  Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:33 am

###

Post by Zinegata » Thu May 06, 2010 12:36 pm

> FrankTrollman wrote:how blacks and hispanics would never amount to anything

*smacks Frank's head again. This time with a crowbar*
Read what I actually wrote you fucking moron. The whole post, and not the out-of-context snippets you get off your Fox News-style skimming.
You clearly haven't been doing it in favor of just mindless flaming since you equated the Hukbalahap with Asian Americans. Because you're a lazy hack.
Last edited by Zinegata on Thu May 06, 2010 12:39 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Top

violence in the media
  Duke
  Posts: 1723
  Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:18 pm

###

Post by violence in the media » Thu May 06, 2010 1:21 pm

> Zinegata wrote: The worst that you can accuse me of is that I was partisan. Which is the point. We're all being partisan. I am partisan to Filipino-Americans, who have to wait 6 years to get into the country because of illegal immigrants messing up the whole bloody immigration system, and that *any* attempt at reform ultimately gets called racist.

Why do you insist on framing this as a Filipino vs. Mexican or Latino (or, bizarrely, black) issue? Is the idea that Filipino immigrants will get more slots if only you could do something about all those illegal Latinos? What effect do illegal immigrants have specifically on Filipino immigration quotas?
Is there some conversation in an agency somewhere that goes, "We have too many illegal Mexicans, go ahead and reduce the Filipino quota to compensate."
"Sir, what do Filipinos have to do with Mexicans?"
"Nothing, but fuck those Filipinos."
Look, there will probably always be more Latinos than Filipinos in the U.S., and that's a function of nothing more than having most Latinos be from our hemisphere. In your rants against the self-serving Democrats, do you honestly think that Filipino immigrants wouldn't get support from them if they showed up in L.A. by the sweltering-cargo-container load, just because they'll probably vote Republican? You really think that bleeding-heart liberals wouldn't leap to the defense of people taking desperate, drastic measures to get here? Liberals love people fleeing shitty, dangerous situations in their home countries.
As crazy as it sounds, you know what's really fucking up Filipino immigration? Their willingness to wait in line. Squeaky wheel gets the grease and all. This is the U.S. We don't necessarily do what is right, we do what the majority thinks is right. You have to make people care about your issues, and you'd do better by siding with Latinos rather than against them.
Top

Kaelik
  ArchDemon of Rage
  Posts: 14491
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

Post by Kaelik » Thu May 06, 2010 2:05 pm

I'd just like to point out that I'm the sexist racist one because I said that I disagree with some forms of feminism and consider them counter productive (or because I called someone a bitch. And I have no idea what I said that was racist, nor has anyone pointed to an example.)

> DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?

The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.
That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
Top

Username17
  Serious Badass
  Posts: 29894
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

Post by Username17 » Thu May 06, 2010 2:07 pm

> VitM wrote:In your rants against the self-serving Democrats, do you honestly think that Filipino immigrants wouldn't get support from them if they showed up in L.A. by the sweltering-cargo-container load, just because they'll probably vote Republican?

Especially because Filipinos voted for Bush in 2004 and voted 58% for Obama in 2008. They are swing votes, who are traditionally people wooed by both parties (look at all the crazy that the Cubanos get passed from Florida despite their low total numbers).
People who are easily swayed to vote for one party or the other are not the kind of group that traditionally gets forgotten about by self serving politicians of any stripe. It's just not an argument that makes sense.
-Username17
Top

Zinegata
  Prince
  Posts: 4071
  Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:33 am

###

Post by Zinegata » Thu May 06, 2010 4:01 pm

> violence in the media wrote:As crazy as it sounds, you know what's really fucking up Filipino immigration? Their willingness to wait in line. Squeaky wheel gets the grease and all. This is the U.S. We don't necessarily do what is right, we do what the majority thinks is right. You have to make people care about your issues, and you'd do better by siding with Latinos rather than against them.

This.
I'm being squeaky and that's why people are whining about it .
BTW, Filipinos and Mexicans are the only two nationalities for whom it's almost impossible to get immigration papers unless it's for dependent family members. Because, as Frank said, Filipinos are treated AS Mexicans despite being a totally different group .
So yes, the Mexican illegal immigration issue DOES effect legal immigration. When you've got as many as a million illegal immigrants coming in, it's all but impossible to lobby for the current immigration caps to go up when the said caps are often lower than the level of illegal immigration.
Last edited by Zinegata on Thu May 06, 2010 4:43 pm, edited 5 times in total.
Top

Zinegata
  Prince
  Posts: 4071
  Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:33 am

###

Post by Zinegata » Thu May 06, 2010 4:34 pm

> FrankTrollman wrote:Especially because Filipinos voted for Bush in 2004 and voted 58% for Obama in 2008. They are swing votes, who are traditionally people wooed by both parties (look at all the crazy that the Cubanos get passed from Florida despite their low total numbers).
> People who are easily swayed to vote for one party or the other are not the kind of group that traditionally gets forgotten about by self serving politicians of any stripe. It's just not an argument that makes sense.
> -Username17

They're not a swing vote Frank.
A swing vote is a group of voters easily swayed to one side or another.
Asians are a diffused voting block. Meaning that each Asian voter is likely to look for different things, and would thus most likely vote on specific issues and candidates because the idea of sticking to one particular set of ideologies isn't appealing (as demonstrated by how there are more independent and non-partisan Asian-Americans than ones registered in either party).
For Filipino-Americans alone for instance, the wiki article even goes as far to say that male Filipnos tend to vote Democrat more, while females vote Republican. Plus a divide between first generation people and second generation people.
That's not an easy swing vote. That's a demographic nightmare for any politician wanting to "own" the Filipino-American vote. You have to say one thing to the women, and another to men? You have to say one thing to the Japanese, but another to the Vietnamese?
It thus actually makes them less attractive to entice. Because unlike other voting blocks who can be easily satisfied with a few platitude positions (i.e. You should be pro-Life to make yourself attractive to the extreme right), you actually have to work to answer a lot of different concerns and be a real bipartisan candidate (like Obama).
In fact...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filipino_American

> The degree of assimilation has gained the Filipino American, along with other Asian groups, the label of "Invisible Minority."[48][49]

Some studies have shown that Filipino-Americans (and Asian-Americans) have so successfully assimilated into American culture that it's almost impossible to tell them apart from the mainstream US middle class population.
Now, that's totally fine for national issues that affect the middle class, because how the middle class will vote form some issues is more or less how Asian-Americans will vote for it too.
But for speciality issues, like the veteran's benefits, it gets bogged down very quickly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filipino_V ... irness_Act
This bill for instance had been in the works since 1993 and nobody seems to want to pass it, making the Philippines the only country not to receive military benefits from the US in World War 2. Particularly the guys who survived the Bataan Death March. If we were such a swing vote, why hasn't one party or another staked claim to it and gotten it passed?
It took screwing around with the stimulus bill (by a Democrat and a Republican working together because they also think is an incredibly dumb shit situation) to get Filipino veterans any money at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rescission_Act_of_1946
So no, calling Filipino-Americans a swing vote is ignorant and flat-out wrong. Diffused is not the same as easily swayed, ViTM got it right. We should just keep yelling at you bastards for being a bunch of hypocrites until the immigration laws are revised to something more sane and illegal immigrants (yes, even our own) are treated as they should be.
You're honestly falling into the trap of simplistic, Fox-News style political analysis where everyone is a Democrat, a Republican, or a swing vote to try and push to one side or another.
Last edited by Zinegata on Thu May 06, 2010 4:45 pm, edited 6 times in total.
Top
Locked

- Print view

Display:
Sort by:
Direction:

382 posts

- Page 15 of 16
  - Jump to page:
- Previous
- 1
- …
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next

Return to “MPSIMS”

Jump to

- Main
- ↳ About the Gaming Den
- ↳ In My Humble Opinion...
- ↳ I Gave the Mouse a Cookie...
- ↳ In The Trenches
- ↳ It's My Own Invention...
- ↳ MPSIMS