CBS Poll: Giuliani, Clinton Pad Leads

“....I know. I get tons of e-mails from them encouraging me to keep up the good work. Most of them are too afraid to post......”

lol, can’t say I blame them. It’s lion feeding time at the Coliseum if you on on the “wrong” side. They will become mere pussy cats after Rudy wins.

"Rootie, on the other hand, when his last deferment ran out, brown nosed a federal judge to get a RARE occupational deferment because he was such a great law clerk. BARF Hey you Rootie boosters. How does it feel to support a candidate that is less of a man that JOHN KERRY? "

LOL, here we are over 24 hours later and no response?

( Maybe they're thinking of a snappy comeback?)

“Just because someone wants to pay someone less doesn’t mean we should immigrate them here. “

Just how many oranges, apples, grapes, etc are you ready to pick or harvest? And how much will you charge? Will working class Americans be able to afford apples and oranges after paying you to pick them?

“Just how many oranges, apples, grapes, etc are you ready to pick or harvest? And how much will you charge? Will working class Americans be able to afford apples and oranges after paying you to pick them?”

The same was said about slavery, and that it couldn’t be done without them. They were wrong. Mechanization produced far more on farms than slaves could ever do. Slavery in many ways hindered advancements.

Part of my family still works on farms, and uses machines to get tons of products. It’s amazing, actually.

Even that last intensive farm labor are reaching there point toward automation. Automation is one the biggest replacer of jobs in the world (according to the UN atleast)...within 20 years retail stores will be automated, and millions of low wage jobs will no-longer be available. I’m sure you’re see a handful of places with self-checkout...that’s just the start.

Back to the automation in your concern...

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-03/uow-rai030706.php

* A robotic mushroom picker: the robot uses a charged coupled camera to spot and select only mushrooms of the exact size required for picking achieving levels of accuracy far in excess of human labour. The mushroom(s) are then picked by a suction cup on the end of a robotic arm. Whilst the speed of picking is currently just over half that of a human - the mushrooms and the robot can be set to pick 24 hours a day right through the night without the need for any sort of break. The researchers also hope to increase the speed of picking to much closer to that of a human worker.

* Inflatable Conveyor Belt: The Warwick Manufacturing Group and Warwick HRI researchers have helped an agricultural machinery company “Aeropick” to develop a revolutionary group of inflatable aids to harvesting which provide huge savings on labour costs. The inflatable conveyor system can be driven into an open field or covered growing area. Within minutes up to 100 metres of powered conveyor belt can be deployed allowing crops to be processed at high speed straight to cool storage, or washing, or simply sorted and graded while still in the field.

Last but not least, the people that are immigrating illegal, do not stay in these jobs very long. There’s been a huge shift from jobs that don’t pay much, to jobs that are in construction. It’s suggest up to 20% of construction jobs are inhabited by illegal aliens. Farms in your suggested industries are more challenged than ever....because it’s just a fact you can’t live off those wages.

Remember, all crops have season...ususally only 3 months. So we’re not talking about a demand that’s too heavy. If anything, immigration systems should be more organized and accountable. I don’t mind people coming here temporary, but in the end there can’t be chaos and there must be accountability.

There are too many negative that can come out of it.

Not really. When did the dramatic shift toward socialism start...physically?

The stock market crash of 29.

Prompted by federal reserve policy, and overexpanded credit.

The result. Tons of poor white people. Tons...

And for the first time in history women could vote.

So whom naturally took power of the congress, and the presidency?...FDR and the democrats. Now FDR was not a bad man as far as war goes and even social policy in general. He actually cut social funds durning war, because he had a goal to suceed. Plus he didn’t intend on it to be a permanent thing...except ss...and even then it was more or less intended for the worker not for any other recipent.

Although he had a presidency for 12 years, and he did lean to the left economically (because that’s what the poor people of America wanted). He appointed judges and nearly reconstructed the face of american judicial perspective. He had to, so he could pass his form of legislation. Now till the 50’s did we see a change in the poverty level.

And then crucial occurences happened in the black community. Mostly prompted by black newspapers (which they don’t really have today...as did then). Most extremely left, and all support a leftist points of view. After all, the black people in America to that point were treated like second class citzens—if that. This had an incredible influence on them.

And so parts of that leftist platform called for equal treatment under law, and that seemed reasonable. Of coarse given that the democrats never lost their power in congress since 29...and actually had 3/4’s of congress in their hands. They could virtually do anything. Black poverty was at 60% in the 50’s, while white was at 20%. Even though things were changing for the better there was still quite a bit of demand for government, and thus it was reflected in the left-leanings of our congress.

It only took a handful of legislation for lefists in congress to solidy their position. Some by reasonable means (e.g affording a black american the right to vote), and others by a general shift in immigration. Overall, the democrats lost the south in the short term but gained much of the minority vote and immigrated from poor and often leftist countries.

But again I included many other factors. There are plenty of people that benefit out of big government...particular industries that wish to be favored, and unions love it. But our history is full of occurence where I small thing becomes big...it’s the natural order of things. Either you have the Constitution interpetted by people that look at it as is or you have one that’s incredibly influenced by the follies of man’s culpability. Our democratic republic is weak in that sense...

If enough people believe in it long-enough, it’s Constitutional.

I could go on with this forever. The shift to the right has been steadily inclined with democrats failures in leadership , and incredible shifts in poverty levels. We wanted less government by the 80’s, but we were too invested by then...and we had a democrat in congress since forever, so nothing was going to change for a long time.

The idealogical shift started in 1830...when many people started to complain about labor hardships in America, and to some extent it was true. The breaking of the south in the civil war slowly but surely degraded the power of the small governement democrats...and they switched to a left-leaning policy.

" Where do you think the vast majority of federal spending is going? To the poor?"

The south....as far as social spending goes. Highest obesity levels, and highest poverty levels. Mostly due to black females, whom other than latin females have a very high rate of single motherhood...and obesity, actually.

Around 60% of those that get cancer are due to lifestyle and diet. Obesity in many ways increases medical costs around the nation...accounting for 9.1% of medical costs.

And seeing that many bankruptcy are due to medical costs, the poverty map is very simliar. Although again black females have a very broken down culture in the South. Their family structure is usually very weak, and their kids often grow-up to live rather uneventful lives...often committing heinous crimes against each other.

If there's any weakness in conservatism, it's that these people are not confronted with compassion. I'm not talking about tax money...any fool can do that. And I'm not even talking about donating....

This is partially a reason why I respect RFK, because he felt it was his duty to organize communities so that they may focus on the right direction. He had a true compassion towards the black community, and he thought throwing money at the problem was not enlightened liberalism. If only conservatives took this route en masse.

Conservatives often look at it too mechanically. Like it just goes away with jobs. Yes, but sometimes it requires a cultural push towards the right way.

The image “http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/images/obesity_map_2005.gif” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

The image “http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/images/obesity_map_2005.gif” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

Then of coarse a great deal of it goes to legal immigrants whom are often not educated. Mexico average education level is to the 7th grade, so nearly 50% of those that come here don't have a high school diploma; and will often take more from the system then they put into it. New immigrants from latin america prodominately vote liberal...around 80%.

Overall. Poverty among whites is around 9%. Generally whites vote to the right...atleast now-a-days.

Most minorities vote to left, because of the rights general treatment of minorities in the past. That and there are higher poverty level and influences in the black and latin communities.

The only minorities that are around 50/50 in politics...is the asian community...especially the eastern asians. The make the most money in the country. Eastern asians are the future economic/cultural power of the world....atleast that's how I see it.

I don't know what that chart is measuring. I can tell you that 60 percent or so of the federal budget is directed toward senior citizens via Medicare and Social Security. The mean net worth of persons over age 65 in the USA is around $600 thousand dollars. There is nothing equitable about it.

Now you can cry about illegals getting benefits, or welfare or whatever. All of that is a drop in the bucket in comparison to how much is going to rich seniors in places like Palm Beach, Palm Springs, Sun City, etc. That is at the heart of our current state of socialism, both in the USA and in Europe. It means the government is helping the rich get richer, which is ALWAYS what happens under socialism.

Why do you suppose the Kennedys, Rockerfellers, Warren Buffet, George Soros and the like embrace socialism so readily? They inherently understand that the system locks in their wealth and prevents others from getting wealthy. The helping the poor part is just keeping the slaves on the plantation happy.

BTW, the Republicans will never do anything about this because a large portion of these folks getting the benefits are "conservatives".

“I don’t know what that chart is measuring. I can tell you that 60 percent or so of the federal budget is directed toward senior citizens via Medicare and Social Security. The mean net worth of persons over age 65 in the USA is around $600 thousand dollars. There is nothing equitable about it.”

The chart is for obesity, and just by chance mirrors the poverty level of the country. Well, the justification or rationalizations for these programs are based upon taking care of those whom are poor....how it extends further than that, is a matter of time.

The inequities are essentially just a long-term sequence of events ie lower birth rates through abortions and expansions in the program. But we were debating the CAUSE, and I was spot on.

Your view is theory.

“Now you can cry about illegals getting benefits, or welfare or whatever. All of that is a drop in the bucket in comparison to how much is going to rich seniors in places like Palm Beach, Palm Springs, Sun City, etc.”

A very mechanical view on your part. Limited in perspective. What is the case by the democrats on expanding the country to Universal Health Care? People whom don’t have insurance are one of their main reasons. These people are often legal or illegal immigrants.

Then another part of their case is cost. Which in sense is wrong, because they debate on money spend per capita...which is just a rough averaging of the whole. And since we have a higher GDP and much faster/open system, it’s obvious we’ll spend more. Although on the other hand, we do have an extremely high obesity level, and that does effect our medical problems/cost. These costs are almost always collective in nature, even though they are in the private sector. Mostly due to politics.

South Korea is probably a shining example of what good genetics and eating habits will do to medical cost ie they’ll go really low...research that and you’ll see they’ll do good under any system. But most countries don’t have as low an obesity level as do they.

The medical sector of the economy is the fastest growing. Yes, greatly due to the growth in older people in this country, but mostly due to the way we immigrate people here. We’re immigrating poor people rather than replacing the old people with young educated people. So in the long-run tax revenues will not be equal.

SS is nothing in comparison to Medicare, and will be nothing for sometime. High medical costs will exacerbate the budget around 2015 (long before SS), and I wager we’ll either go to universal or we’ll liberalize the medical field. You’re guess is as good as mine. I guess it depends on the next president and congress.

Short-term goals maybe to cut programs to those whom don’t need it. That may address part of the problem, as you seem to be focusing on. Believe me, I think that would be an important step, but it seems Bush and Republican leaders want to expand on medicare rather than cut parts of the program. It seems the only right wing economy-minded people are the economists.

Lastly, SS is limited in how it disperses wealth...it’s more or less not going to give everything a rich person puts into it. Chances are they’ll put far more into than they’ll get back. Although I say there is class war.

The poor have very little worries in getting government help. Since 65 legislation, there’s been a lobbying war to decrease the burden on the rich. That’s just envitable, because the extentions and expansions of programs would be too excessive for them to take-on. Previous to the 65, most taxes were paid by corporation, and usually only for real Constitutional needs. LBJ changed things quite a bit.

Or, look at it this way. People such as yourself who voted for Perot because Bush 41 wasn’t “pure” enough for you gave the country 8 years of Clinton. Maybe you found that to be GOOD for the country, but clearly most conservatives would disagree with you on that one. But you sure got what you wanted, a much stronger conservative movement, gee, just look at what a fantastic conservative W has been.

Obviously we disagree strongly on what goes into the decision making when you choose who to vote for. You chose irrelevance in 92, and evidently plan to again.

Bookmark for cross-referencing purposes (so I know all the FReepers who are active anti-individualist liberals).

Interesting reply. If people were self-sufficient in this country, we’d all be better off, on that I am certain we agree.