Support NeoGAF

[SoulPlaya]

I think so too. And call me hopeful, but I think he's doing the only politically viable thing right now by saying he's not for legalized marriage. I know I'm pretending to know what's in his head, or at least reading something that may not be there, but I think he's doing the same thing with the torture memos.

"No, no, we must protect the troops." When he knows the ACLU is a convenient and already-hated villain of the crazy right and they'll do the dirty work for him.

I think this is the same thing. He can say no all along and collect the votes, while (hopefully) installing a pro-rights Supreme Court that will eventually get this thing passed anyway. He wins, gays win, Americans win!

Is this what people are going to do from on? Anytime Obama does something that they disagree with, they're just going to play mindgames so as to convince themselves that Obama did nothing wrong?

 

[ronito]

The easiest way to limit illegal immigration is to cut off the incentive for businesses to hire them. Fine any business that hires an undocumented worker 500 dollars per undocumented worker, heavily enforce it and run the fines through city courts so the local police have an incentive to do the checks. It won't stop illegal immigration but it'll sure as heck put a dent in it.

At the same time we should obviously make it easier to come here legally. Remove the cap on legal immigration and just require a simple criminal background check to come here to live.

the first point I whole heartedly agree with. I've said it many times the problem of immigration is like a pest problem. You can try to take out the pests one at a time, but if you cut off their food source/reason for infestation then you get rid of all of them.

As for your second point, not so much.

 

[Gaborn]

Is this what people are going to do from on? Anytime Obama does something that they disagree with, they're just going to play mindgames so as to convince themselves that Obama did nothing wrong?

It's amusing, it's the same logic the crazy far right used to make Obama a "Secret Muslim" in their mind, in both cases each side wants Obama to be something because it fits their ideological bias, and in both cases there is very little evidence of it, and practically speaking it doesn't matter much in either case if he doesn't appreciably act on it (if in either scenario the ideologue's wish was true)

 

[Mandark]

I've said it many times the problem of immigration is like a pest problem.

Dude.

 

[Karma Kramer]

I am just going to say that Obama is so far a great president, but the Democratic party is just as corrupt if they turn their backs on this torture issue.

Now I know why I am a registered independent, and how easily I forget that both parties are pretty much fucking insane.

Blocking funds to Guantánamo yet running on a political platform that says the opposite is hypocritical and as against the law as Bush implementing it.

 

[PantherLotus]

Is this what people are going to do from on? Anytime Obama does something that they disagree with, they're just going to play mindgames so as to convince themselves that Obama did nothing wrong?

I can see why it could be perceived that way, and if it were switched around I would say the same exact thing that you're saying to me.

I'm just looking at things and whether they're politically viable or not and how things play out in the long term. That means that to get things we want done (equal rights, for example) we have to say/do/agree to things that we don't really mean.

If Obama/Biden saying he doesn't want gays to get married or he doesn't want to harm the troops with released torture memo means he can be in office for another term, or if he has a better chance because he says that, I'll have to take it for now. Everything else about him suggests that he fights for equality and justice in every other instance, so I have to believe he's playing political games.

I don't think that's playing mind games on myself, I think that's trying to read deeper into his motives.

 

[SoulPlaya]

I can see why it could be perceived that way, and if it were switched around I would say the same exact thing that you're saying to me.

I'm just looking at things and whether they're politically viable or not and how things play out in the long term. That means that to get things we want done (equal rights, for example) we have to say/do/agree to things that we don't really mean.

If Obama/Biden saying he doesn't want gays to get married or he doesn't want to harm the troops with released torture memo means he can be in office for another term, or if he has a better chance because he says that, I'll have to take it for now. Everything else about him suggests that he fights for equality and justice in every other instance, so I have to believe he's playing political games.

I don't think that's playing mind games on myself, I think that's trying to read deeper into his motives.

If Obama refuses to disclose his true feelings on gay marriage, then he's a cowardly politician and all this hype around him was BS. Personally, I don't believe he's a cowardly politician, so I'll just take his public stances at face value.

 

[Gaborn]

I can see why it could be perceived that way, and if it were switched around I would say the same exact thing that you're saying to me.

I'm just looking at things and whether they're politically viable or not and how things play out in the long term. That means that to get things we want done (equal rights, for example) we have to say/do/agree to things that we don't really mean.

If Obama/Biden saying he doesn't want gays to get married or he doesn't want to harm the troops with released torture memo means he can be in office for another term, or if he has a better chance because he says that, I'll have to take it for now. Everything else about him suggests that he fights for equality and justice in every other instance, so I have to believe he's playing political games.

I don't think that's playing mind games on myself, I think that's trying to read deeper into his motives.

I think the more sensible answer is exactly what he said. As a Christian he believes marriage is between a man and a woman so the only thing he'll give gay couples is "strong civil unions with all of the rights of marriage except the name"... which of course he'll reserve for people he actually wants to give equality to.

 

[Karma Kramer]

Yeah I am seeing more and more that Obama is more of Clinton then a "change" candidate... he clearly is thinking more politically then what is best for our country.

 

[PantherLotus]

If Obama refuses to disclose his true feelings on gay marriage, then he's a cowardly politician and all this hype around him was BS. Personally, I don't believe he's a cowardly politician, so I'll just take his public stances at face value.

You say cowardly, I say shrewd.

He essentially has a blank check from the American public right now. He's going to cash that with realigned tax cuts, health care initiatives, job creation, and solving the issues in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I think he's smart, even if you call him cowardly, to not push the issue at this point. I can't imagine a quicker way, save abortion issues, for him to lose that mandate from Middle-White-America. Sad? Yes. Shrewd? Absolutely.

Now, what's going on with the torture memos? He's walking the thinnest of tightropes that any President has ever walked, and probably ever will until a woman is elected President. He has to appear tough and as a staunch supporter of the troops first, even before our own bill of rights. That's the cost of being the first black President, especially when he's a Democrat. I'm afraid our first woman president will have to start nuclear war to be taken seriously by some of the Republicans.

Anyway, I think he's walking a fine line here because he can't let the memos out without appearing to have thought about it first. I think they'll still come out, and I think we'll still get our Torture Commission. If, in a year or two from now, that hasn't happened, I'll be the first to say Obama is wrong.

The gay marriage thing isn't something that will happen until straight, white, suburban women get behind it. And that's a ways off. So why burn bridges? Same exact thing happened during the Civil Rights movement. (not suggesting that gay people are going through anywhere close to the same segregation or daily bigotry)

 

[Gaborn]

You say cowardly, I say shrewd.

He essentially has a blank check from the American public right now. He's going to cash that with realigned tax cuts, health care initiatives, job creation, and solving the issues in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I think he's smart, even if you call him cowardly, to not push the issue at this point. I can't imagine a quicker way, save abortion issues, for him to lose that mandate from Middle-White-America. Sad? Yes. Shrewd? Absolutely.

Now, what's going on with the torture memos? He's walking the thinnest of tightropes that any President has ever walked, and probably ever will until a woman is elected President. He has to appear tough and as a staunch supporter of the troops first, even before our own bill of rights. That's the cost of being the first black President, especially when he's a Democrat. I'm afraid our first woman president will have to start nuclear war to be taken seriously by some of the Republicans.

Anyway, I think he's walking a fine line here because he can't let the memos out without appearing to have thought about it first. I think they'll still come out, and I think we'll still get our Torture Commission. If, in a year or two from now, that hasn't happened, I'll be the first to say Obama is wrong.

The gay marriage thing isn't something that will happen until straight, white, suburban women get behind it. And that's a ways off.

That's the mark of a true leader. Only supporting something politically difficult when the majority of the country does. LBJ may have been a scumbag when he escalated Vietnam but at least he led with courage on civil rights.

Either way though, whether you're right or not the only thing publicly on OBAMA'S list is federal civil unions and the repeal of DOMA and DADT, NOT gay marriage.

 

[SoulPlaya]

You say cowardly, I say shrewd.

He essentially has a blank check from the American public right now. He's going to cash that with realigned tax cuts, health care initiatives, job creation, and solving the issues in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I think he's smart, even if you call him cowardly, to not push the issue at this point. I can't imagine a quicker way, save abortion issues, for him to lose that mandate from Middle-White-America. Sad? Yes. Shrewd? Absolutely.

Now, what's going on with the torture memos? He's walking the thinnest of tightropes that any President has ever walked, and probably ever will until a woman is elected President. He has to appear tough and as a staunch supporter of the troops first, even before our own bill of rights. That's the cost of being the first black President, especially when he's a Democrat. I'm afraid our first woman president will have to start nuclear war to be taken seriously by some of the Republicans.

Anyway, I think he's walking a fine line here because he can't let the memos out without appearing to have thought about it first. I think they'll still come out, and I think we'll still get our Torture Commission. If, in a year or two from now, that hasn't happened, I'll be the first to say Obama is wrong.

The gay marriage thing isn't something that will happen until straight, white, suburban women get behind it. And that's a ways off. So why burn bridges? Same exact thing happened during the Civil Rights movement. (not suggesting that gay people are going through anywhere close to the same segregation or daily bigotry)

Man, face it. He is not for gay marriage, he just isn't. I'm going off what he actually says, you're trying to convince yourself through speculation. Reminds me of people who think he's some closet atheist.

And he can be shrewd and a coward at the same time.

 

[PantherLotus]

^ Decent point.

That's the mark of a true leader. Only supporting something politically difficult when the majority of the country does. LBJ may have been a scumbag when he escalated Vietnam but at least he led with courage on civil rights.

Either way though, whether you're right or not the only thing publicly on OBAMA'S list is federal civil unions and the repeal of DOMA and DADT, NOT gay marriage.

Perhaps. But perhaps true leaders know which battles are ready to be fought?



vv (ie, Thomas Jefferson & Slavery, Wilson & Woman's Suffrage, Kennedy & Civil Rights, etc)

 

[Dan]

That's the mark of a true leader. Only supporting something politically difficult when the majority of the country does.

You must fucking despise our founding fathers.

 

[Gaborn]

You must fucking despise our founding fathers.

Not at all. They actually went out and made the case to the American public exactly what was needed for our government, the Federalist Papers were very much an open forum of discussion and engagement with the people about the nature of government. I don't pretend our Founding Fathers were perfect, they supported slavery in many cases for example and I despise THAT. I dislike many things they did and believed, but they didn't really shy away from many difficult issues. Heck, when they signed the Declaration of Independence they were publicly opposing the most powerful government on earth at the time, they knew if they lost the war they were going to be hanged. That's courage whatever other disagreements I might have with them.

 

[i_am_ben]

well Obama has already started backing away from repealing DADT.

 

[GhaleonEB]

well Obama has already started backing away from repealing DADT.

Wrong.

 

[mj1108]

the first point I whole heartedly agree with. I've said it many times the problem of immigration is like a pest problem.

So you're suggesting we arm ourselves with giant cans of Raid?

 

[JayDubya]

if you cut off their food source/reason for infestation then you get rid of all of them.

Excellent. So let's cut down on the welfare state.

There's no need for immigration-related xenophobia (dey tuk urr jerbz). Eliminate the elements that make them any sort of burden, and then it won't matter.

 

[itsinmyveins]

Excellent. So let's cut down on the welfare state.

There's no need for immigration-related xenophobia (dey tuk urr jerbz). Eliminate the elements that make them any sort of burden, and then it won't matter.

Meh, a higher minimum wage would take care of that too.

 

[eznark]

If you're going to pretend Obama has gay marriage on his equal rights check list you might as well throw DADT up there too.

2011 Oscars: "Barack Obama doesn't care about gay people" - Tom Cruise

Meh, a higher minimum wage would take care of that too.

Huh?

 

[JayDubya]

Meh, a higher minimum wage would take care of that too.

Uhhhh. No?

A higher minimum wage and applying it to these workers would DIS-incentivize illegal immigration or make it less of an issue?

The minimum wage existing being too high is what makes these workers a potential asset.

 

[The Librarian]

So is this the new PoliGAF thread? What happened to Ami starting them?

Eh. I'm fine either way.

Oh, and OP forgot Ed Shultz. He needs to be added.

 

[itsinmyveins]

I'm just saying that a higher minimum wage would make more people interested in the jobs, as well as making the group a stronger consumer base (you know, power of market, it goes round and shit). And if a company has the choice between an illegal immigrant and a non-illegal then I'm thinking most would go for the latter, if nothing else but to avoid possible fines.

The minimum wage existing being too high is what makes these workers a potential asset.

Here I thought that people in general like to whine about illegal immigration/workers and yet to some extent accept it as a part of the economy and society as soon as it benefits them (having a company, just getting a dude to fix your lawn etc).

 

[eznark]

I'm just saying that a higher minimum wage would make more people interested in the jobs, as well as making the group a stronger consumer base (you know, power of market, it goes round and shit). And if a company has the choice between an illegal immigrant and a non-illegal then I'm thinking most would go for the latter, if nothing else but to avoid possible fines.

A higher minimum wage would incentivize hiring illegals because you wouldn't have to pay them a higher minimum wage because they are illegals. You can raise the legal minimum wage all you want, it doesn't apply to illegal hires.

 

[itsinmyveins]

A higher minimum wage would incentivize hiring illegals because you wouldn't have to pay them a higher minimum wage because they are illegals. You can raise the legal minimum wage all you want, it doesn't apply to illegal hires.

I thought a lot of illegal immigrants held minimum wage jobs even so?

 

[gkryhewy]

Joe Scarbs going off this morning on how it's unjust that Michael Vick spent 19 months in jail when "child rapists -- old men who rape little girls" spend less time in jail than that. Dude is the king of strawmen... I wonder if he posts on GAF.

 

[mclem]

and yeah it does cost money when illegals go to the hospital. i'm not saying we're footing their viagra prescriptions or anything. it is a problem but to be honest i don't know the factual specifics of it, but over the years it cost billions

"That is scientific fact. There's no real evidence for it, but it's scientific fact"

 

[eznark]

I thought a lot of illegal immigrants held minimum wage jobs even so?

Well, some employers probably pay them minimum wage. Some have fake doc's I guess, so the employer probably pays em minimum wage so that they can be "on the books" to cover their asses. The point is that raising the cost of legal employment entices employers to seek illegal employment.

A better solution is to eliminate the minimum wage and open the border. Make it easier for people to immigrate but reduce the monetary incentive to do so. (Obviously the litany of increased social safety nets would need to be eliminated as well, or else reducing the minumum wage isn't enough to keep people from getting free health care from the best hospitals in the world).

 

[scorcho]

Well, some employers probably pay them minimum wage. Some have fake doc's I guess, so the employer probably pays em minimum wage so that they can be "on the books" to cover their asses. The point is that raising the cost of legal employment entices employers to seek illegal employment.

A better solution is to eliminate the minimum wage and open the border. Make it easier for people to immigrate but reduce the monetary incentive to do so. (Obviously the litany of increased social safety nets would need to be eliminated as well, or else reducing the minumum wage isn't enough to keep people from getting free health care from the best hospitals in the world).

so let me get this straight. To curb illegal immigration we have to both lower the minimum wage AND decrease social welafre benefits. Gee, I wonder which segment of our citizens will get slammed the most...

 

[eznark]

so let me get this straight. To curb illegal immigration we have to both lower the minimum wage AND decrease social welafre benefits. Gee, I wonder which segment of our citizens will get slammed the most...

I said it's a more intelligent solution to solve that particular "problem." Make it unattractive to come to the country without prospects and people are less likely to take illegal measures to get here. People illegally enter the country for a myriad of reasons, removing these reasons clearly shifts the risk/reward equation.

Increasing the minimum wage makes it more expensive to hire low skilled workers. Employers won't pay skilled workers less to make up for this, they will try and replace the suddenly higher paid workers with lower paid workers. Anecdotally this is common in case businesses like bars/restaurants. The cost of hiring someone to bartend is high, so many places will supplement legal staff with cash hires.

 

[methos75]

There are far better ways to curb immigration, like making it so that one MOST prove he is a american citizen to get a Job and severally punishing those who hire Illegals with Fines and Prison time, and cutting all welfare to non-citizens. If they cannot get a job or welfare, they will have no reason to come here.

 

[eznark]

Why should you have to be a citizen to get a job? (If it means Albert Pujols has to stop playing baseball though I am all for it).

 

[methos75]

Why should you have to be a citizen to get a job? (If it means Albert Pujols has to stop playing baseball though I am all for it).

There are many many reasons why, for starters your nations citizens should always take priority when it comes to jobs, you take care of your own before you care for anyone else.

 

[itsinmyveins]

I said it's a more intelligent solution to solve that particular "problem." Make it unattractive to come to the country without prospects and people are less likely to take illegal measures to get here. People illegally enter the country for a myriad of reasons, removing these reasons clearly shifts the risk/reward equation.

Remove as much good things as possible to make people less likely to want to live in the US? That doesn't really strike me as intelligent at all, to be honest.

 

[eznark]

Remove as much good things as possible to make people less likely to want to live in the US? That doesn't really strike me as intelligent at all, to be honest.

Well, I guess it depends on what you think of as good things.

There are many many reasons why, for starters your nations citizens should always take priority when it comes to jobs, you take care of your own before you care for anyone else.

Why should a private company care if they hire an American or a Cuban assuming equal skill? You'll really have to explain the benefits of institutional xenophobia to me, because I don't see it.

 

[JayDubya]

Remove as much good things as possible...?

No, get rid of bad things that have bad consequences.

Also, if illegal immigration is a federal criminal matter, why should the private sector be doing the detective work?

 

[Lateraleye]

Okay, the idol worship is officially out of control.

 

[traynuvthawt]

Okay, the idol worship is officially out of control.

It's gross, isn't it?

 

[polyh3dron]

i'm just saying i'm not going to start citing sources or anything. i mean i could google all this and come up with concrete facts (because i am right) but ...

but seriously bro, look it up. i'm not trying to sass you or anything, see how illegals cost taxpayers.

THEY TOOK OUR JARBZ

 

[polyh3dron]

Joe Scarbs going off this morning on how it's unjust that Michael Vick spent 19 months in jail when "child rapists -- old men who rape little girls" spend less time in jail than that. Dude is the king of strawmen... I wonder if he posts on GAF.

I guess it's a good thing that Vick didn't rape anyone then.

 

[DeathbyVolcano]

Joe Scarbs going off this morning on how it's unjust that Michael Vick spent 19 months in jail when "child rapists -- old men who rape little girls" spend less time in jail than that. Dude is the king of strawmen... I wonder if he posts on GAF.

Why is that odd? I agree with him. Not that it's unjust that Vick got sent to prison for 19 months but unjust in the fact that rapists and pedophiles could possibly get LESS time than animal cruelty charges.

 

[deadbeef]

Not at all. They actually went out and made the case to the American public exactly what was needed for our government, the Federalist Papers were very much an open forum of discussion and engagement with the people about the nature of government. I don't pretend our Founding Fathers were perfect, they supported slavery in many cases for example and I despise THAT. I dislike many things they did and believed, but they didn't really shy away from many difficult issues. Heck, when they signed the Declaration of Independence they were publicly opposing the most powerful government on earth at the time, they knew if they lost the war they were going to be hanged. That's courage whatever other disagreements I might have with them.

To be accurate, The Federalist Papers were written under a pen name - Publius.

 

[scorcho]

cases of child rapists getting less than 1.5 years in the slammer please?

 

[DeathbyVolcano]

cases of child rapists getting less than 1.5 years in the slammer please?

Oh, that's the argument. I honestly hadn't heard and don't really know that a typical sentence is for child rape--I see what you guys mean now, yeah, Scarbs lol

 

[empty vessel]

Excellent. So let's cut down on the welfare state.

There's no need for immigration-related xenophobia (dey tuk urr jerbz). Eliminate the elements that make them any sort of burden, and then it won't matter.

What welfare state? We shamefully don't have one, and undocumented persons cannot take advantage of the meager services that exist anyway.

This is you trying to exploit uninformed and racist anti-immigration hysteria to advance your political agenda.

 

[JayDubya]

What welfare state? We shamefully don't have one

We quite shamefully have too much of one, and are you seriously going to deny that illegal immigrants provide any sort of drain on social services?

 

[scorcho]

We quite shamefully have too much of one, and are you seriously going to deny that illegal immigrants provide any sort of drain on social services?

Who also pay sales taxes on the myriad of goods they purchase with their hardly-disposable income.

 

[dave is ok]

No child rapist would ever get less than 10 years. It's a fat lie

 

[MrHicks]

Excellent. So let's cut down on the welfare state.

There's no need for immigration-related xenophobia (dey tuk urr jerbz). Eliminate the elements that make them any sort of burden, and then it won't matter.

the US is a welfare state?
maybe its cause im european but in my eyes the US is anything but welfare:lol