Americans

[unriggable]

I know there is some favorable editing in there probably, but today there are no straight shooters in the media, everyones view is skewed, I believe this is close though because they are videos of Kerry himself. Funny thing is I can't find it anywhere on the web and it's late so I'm not looking too hard. Here is a good article from the Boston Globe on Kerry's flipping history though.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editor ... ng_stands/

GWBush says Saddam was afiliated with the terrorists in al quadea (spelling?). So we go in, kick his ass out, then SURPRISE "we never had evidence that Saddam was involved in 9-11 or with the people who planned it."

[Backglass]

That isn't the point, there is a double standard going on right now. Businesses are encouraging Latinos to cross over illegally so that they can benefit from their labor as well as the nonsense going on right across the border.

What businesses are encouraging Latinos to cross the border illegally?

Then they want to spread a message that it's the immigrants breaking the law?

Well, if one enters our country illegally, they have broken the law, yes. Agree or disagree with immigration, thats a fact and true of any country on the planet.

Putting all the blame on the immigrants is wrong.

Well then, who should we blame for a person entering another country illegally? Are you saying they don't know what they are doing is illegal?

The process to become an American citizen is in poor shape. Some are waiting a decade or more

Agree 100%. I have two co-workers in my office that have been on wait lists for green cards for years. These are software techs that specialize in my industry, have SS numbers, pay taxes just like you and me, and yet they continue to wait. The system is seriously flawed, but the answer isn't to just to let anyone who wants to come strolling in.

while they are in limbo they are subject to being abused under the law.

Please explain what abuse this is.

Then you get the xenophobics wanting to penalize these people for what? Deporting those working in harsh conditions, for low pay, and not benefiting from the taxes their employers dock from their pay is justified?

No...but deporting those who break the law is justified. Thats all...no matter if they make $100,000 a year or $10. I don't believe that makes one xenophobic. Does arresting a Russian diplomat driving without a license make one xenophobic? Why is there a difference?

Wake up, illegals do contribute a tax revenue.

How exactly do illegals contribute income tax?

And don't say that there is any serious terrorist threat coming from them.

I wont...that would be silly.

The situation that Europeans immigrated to the US was completely different. That wasn't controlled, today it is but not by the government.

It wasn't controlled? How do you figure?

[Blueoctober]

actually the immigrnats do benefit since most of them have children in school and wic checks and food stamps and medicare adn other programs made for and paid for by american citzens

[foolish_yeti]

actually the immigrnats do benefit since most of them have children in school and wic checks and food stamps and medicare adn other programs made for and paid for by american citzens

Muh- and those Americans are rich off the third world countries the immigrants are coming from....it all comes around in the end. hee hee

[Blueoctober]

actually the immigrnats do benefit since most of them have children in school and wic checks and food stamps and medicare adn other programs made for and paid for by american citzens

Muh- and those Americans are rich off the third world countries the immigrants are coming from....it all comes around in the end. hee hee

not many americans get rich off illegal immigrants they are mostly migrant workers

[Blueoctober]

oh and by the way they techinically dont have any rights at all since they arent citizens and they dotn have a visa

[SolidLuigi]

Arctic Monkeys kick a**. We agree on something!!!

[foolish_yeti]

not many americans get rich off illegal immigrants they are mostly migrant workers

totally not what I said...

[areon]

Please explain what abuse this is.

oh and by the way they techinically dont have any rights at all since they arent citizens and they dotn have a visa

That sentiment is a dangerous one. Everyone in the US has the right to a trial and protection, why do you think their was such an uproar on how we treated people in Guantonamo? Most illegal aliens do not commit crimes other than entering the US but their punishment can not be to an unfair degree, say splitting up families.

What businesses are encouraging Latinos to cross the border illegally?

The agriculture business is horrible with this. They are not only advertising to them out of the borders, they are facilitating the movement of migrant workers in the country depending on the growing season. Some workers will move across the country in the span of a year working in farmland. So many undocumented horrors are placed on the migrants; pesticide exposure and other accidents are high among those that can't speak English or understand all Spanish. A lot of indigenous people are leaving Mexico and other areas, so it isn't just Spanish speakers.

Well then, who should we blame for a person entering another country illegally? Are you saying they don't know what they are doing is illegal?

A lot of the flow could be stopped if Mexico's government was pressured to control their border. I don't absolve the immigrants of their responsibility, but it is important to understand that desperate people are easily manipulated. Smugglers make a killing transporting people, families want their young to bring in money so why not go to America, and then there are the American companies accepting the labor even if it is "illegal." There are many more reasons to explain how easy it is for these people to want to move in.

How exactly do illegals contribute income tax?

actually the immigrnats do benefit since most of them have children in school and wic checks and food stamps and medicare adn other programs made for and paid for by american citzens

It might not be easy to grasp but illegals are supporting such programs as social security. Their employers are still required to collect revenue for all workers, irregardless of their citizenship. Management can't just magically do the same work and wave the government away without paying for its workers. Illegals can send their children to school, know why? EVERYONE born in the US is an American citizen, period. Latinos are also very active in the market, yes they send some of their earnings back home but not all of it.

Living in poverty off of food stamps isn't cozy, would you suggest we let all poor people starve?

It wasn't controlled? How do you figure?

The majority of immigrants coming in pre-20th century were encouraged greatly by the US. There was no bureaucracy in place to keep tabs on them. It was the 20's when serious measures were finally put in place to control immigration. To my knowledge it was from that point that we have the current template.

[Guiscard]

Arctic Monkeys kick a**. We agree on something!!!

I'm surprised you (as an American) know what they're bagnin' on about, them being from yarksha an' all...

[SolidLuigi]

yeah, I don't know what every single little slang word means but I'm 24 so I understand the language of goin out to the bars and gettin wasted and all that goes with it, heh. Plus I've always liked alot of British stuff since I was in highschool. I'm also a huge fan of Oasis, The Prodigy, The Streets, The Libertines, Gorillaz, Bloc Party, and alot of my favorite American bands are actually ones that are appreciated more in the UK like DJ Shadow, The Strokes, and Kings of Leon. So I've had some experience with the slang, plus my older bro wishes he was English, hes been obsessed with anything English for the past 10 years, I thought he was gonna kill someone when England was knocked out this past world cup, haha

[Blueoctober]

Please explain what abuse this is.

oh and by the way they techinically dont have any rights at all since they arent citizens and they dotn have a visa

That sentiment is a dangerous one. Everyone in the US has the right to a trial and protection, why do you think their was such an uproar on how we treated people in Guantonamo? Most illegal aliens do not commit crimes other than entering the US but their punishment can not be to an unfair degree, say splitting up families.

What businesses are encouraging Latinos to cross the border illegally?

The agriculture business is horrible with this. They are not only advertising to them out of the borders, they are facilitating the movement of migrant workers in the country depending on the growing season. Some workers will move across the country in the span of a year working in farmland. So many undocumented horrors are placed on the migrants; pesticide exposure and other accidents are high among those that can't speak English or understand all Spanish. A lot of indigenous people are leaving Mexico and other areas, so it isn't just Spanish speakers.

Well then, who should we blame for a person entering another country illegally? Are you saying they don't know what they are doing is illegal?

A lot of the flow could be stopped if Mexico's government was pressured to control their border. I don't absolve the immigrants of their responsibility, but it is important to understand that desperate people are easily manipulated. Smugglers make a killing transporting people, families want their young to bring in money so why not go to America, and then there are the American companies accepting the labor even if it is "illegal." There are many more reasons to explain how easy it is for these people to want to move in.

How exactly do illegals contribute income tax?

actually the immigrnats do benefit since most of them have children in school and wic checks and food stamps and medicare adn other programs made for and paid for by american citzens

It might not be easy to grasp but illegals are supporting such programs as social security. Their employers are still required to collect revenue for all workers, irregardless of their citizenship. Management can't just magically do the same work and wave the government away without paying for its workers. Illegals can send their children to school, know why? EVERYONE born in the US is an American citizen, period. Latinos are also very active in the market, yes they send some of their earnings back home but not all of it.

Living in poverty off of food stamps isn't cozy, would you suggest we let all poor people starve?

It wasn't controlled? How do you figure?

The majority of immigrants coming in pre-20th century were encouraged greatly by the US. There was no bureaucracy in place to keep tabs on them. It was the 20's when serious measures were finally put in place to control immigration. To my knowledge it was from that point that we have the current template.

whyc ant we punish them? they come ILLEGALY whatever then reason they come its still illegal. when you do illegal things you get punished. thats a fact. and i know people born in the US are citizens but the kids dont pay into the school do they? and illegal immigrants are called undocumented because they dont exist in this country untilt hey become citizens. so to the government it looks like grape and orange co. spent made alot since the workers are paid in untraceable cash.

[howie]

An amature historian from the US as writen a book called The Evil Empire: 101 ways England ruined the World

The book blames us for thing sinlcuding both world wars, drugs, global warming and even Vietnam

His twisted logic works like this, Britain started the industrial revolution which led to the pollution we have today causing global warming. Ironic that it was only till recently that many Americans didn't belive in Global Warming and refused to accept it. On top of that it is America that refused to sign the Kyoto agreement unlike Britain.

The even more absurbed alligation is that because Britain started obtaining colonies everyone else had to (:? god knows why everyone else has to) that caused France to have Vietnam as one of its colonies, which is what caused the Vietnam war. This as got to be one of the most laughable theories ever when trying to blame a nation for a war it was never involved in.

heres a quote on the two wars

Look at WW1- you started that! it was an unnecessary war, started by Britain because germany wanted an Empire which Britain, France and Russia had. You than dragged America into it. The whole bloody history of of the 20th centuary, including the nazi genocide starts from that point.

I know Britain was not innocent in WW1, more could of been done but there is no god damn way we should take full blame, the war started in Austria-Hungary this guy is clueless. The major reason Britain chose to get involved in the damn war was not because Germany was willing to fight Russia or France it was because they invaded Belgium a ountry that Britain held an agreement with to defend that nation if it was indeed attacked.

As for dragging you into WW2 am preety sure that was down to the Japs. WW2 may of had a different outcome if handled differently, what is known is that Britain wanted nothing more than peace in Europe (we were the only nation to disarm voluntarily).

This dick weed named Steven Grasse is one of the number of reasons that there is so much anger towards Americans.

[Guiscard]

An amature historian from the US as writen a book called The Evil Empire: 101 ways England ruined the World

The book blames us for thing sinlcuding both world wars, drugs, global warming and even Vietnam

His twisted logic works like this, Britain started the industrial revolution which led to the pollution we have today causing global warming. Ironic that it was only till recently that many Americans didn't belive in Global Warming and refused to accept it. On top of that it is America that refused to sign the Kyoto agreement unlike Britain.

The even more absurbed alligation is that because Britain started obtaining colonies everyone else had to (:? god knows why everyone else has to) that caused France to have Vietnam as one of its colonies, which is what caused the Vietnam war. This as got to be one of the most laughable theories ever when trying to blame a nation for a war it was never involved in.

heres a quote on the two wars

Look at WW1- you started that! it was an unnecessary war, started by Britain because germany wanted an Empire which Britain, France and Russia had. You than dragged America into it. The whole bloody history of of the 20th centuary, including the nazi genocide starts from that point.

I know Britain was not innocent in WW1, more could of been done but there is no god damn way we should take full blame, the war started in Austria-Hungary this guy is clueless. The major reason Britain chose to get involved in the damn war was not because Germany was willing to fight Russia or France it was because they invaded Belgium a ountry that Britain held an agreement with to defend that nation if it was indeed attacked.

As for dragging you into WW2 am preety sure that was down to the Japs. WW2 may of had a different outcome if handled differently, what is known is that Britain wanted nothing more than peace in Europe (we were the only nation to disarm voluntarily).

This dick weed named Steven Grasse is one of the number of reasons that there is so much anger towards Americans.

Oh deary me... suddenly the whole Nazi book burning things becomes slightly more attractive...

[Koba]

The even more absurbed alligation is that because Britain started obtaining colonies everyone else had to (:? god knows why everyone else has to) that caused France to have Vietnam as one of its colonies, which is what caused the Vietnam war. This as got to be one of the most laughable theories ever when trying to blame a nation for a war it was never involved in.

This is even more of a joke considering that Spain and Portugal were the 1st major nations to really expand the idea of colonisation. England and France were more interested in smash and grab raids on Spanish fleets full of gold at first, as they saw this being more lucrative and easier. It is also what led to a decline in the power of Spain, as they spent the gold before it arrived.
...So really, the Hapsburgs are to blame for the Vietnam war...

[Guiscard]

Nah... I blame the Assyrians. The first empire ever. They started the whole idea, so if it wasn't for those near-eastern fuckers...

[flashleg8]

heres a quote on the two wars

Look at WW1- you started that! it was an unnecessary war, started by Britain because germany wanted an Empire which Britain, France and Russia had. You than dragged America into it. The whole bloody history of of the 20th centuary, including the nazi genocide starts from that point.

I know Britain was not innocent in WW1, more could of been done but there is no god damn way we should take full blame, the war started in Austria-Hungary this guy is clueless. The major reason Britain chose to get involved in the damn war was not because Germany was willing to fight Russia or France it was because they invaded Belgium a ountry that Britain held an agreement with to defend that nation if it was indeed attacked.

I actually agree with that "historian's" point about WW1. The fact that the war technically started due to the assassination in the Balkans is pretty much irrelevant, it was merely the straw that broke the camels back. European tension was extremely high due to Germany's rapid growth as a world power after unification. Britain France and Russia all had large empires and Germany felt they had a right "to get in on the action" this sparked "the scramble for Africa" in which every European country and their dog wanted some territory there - even if it was a desert or a mosquito ridden swamp. As Germany was late to the game they were effectively blocked out of all the prime spots. As Germany tried to increase their navy Britain saw this as a threat to their status as the largest naval power - they were forced into an dreadnaught building race to keep their policy of a larger navy than the next two countries combined. France was smarting after the previous battle with Germany loosing some prime coal fields in Alsace-Loraine to the newly formed Germany. France was also scared of a united Germanys army which threatened their continental dominance of Western Europe. Russia had failed to keep up with the rapid pace of industrialisation in the rest of Europe and feared the economic effects of a strong Germany. These three powers tried to keep Germany weak and failed to share some of the lucrative overseas markets they had developed in their colonies, this deprived Germany of a market for their manufactured goods created in their modern industry. Germany felt it had no option but to try and rapidly arm to show that it could not be "bullied" from the top table. The fact that Britain only declared war after Belgium was invaded is again merely an excuse - Germany was their natural rival and war was pretty much inevitable, this just gave Britain the opportunity to thaw relations with France and join the Entant.

[Kayla]

GOD BLESS THE USA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[flashleg8]

GOD BLESS THE USA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why would God bless "The Great Satan"?

[Kayla]

cuz we are THE BEST! lol

minus our president

[summerisway2hot]

the usa may be the great satan, but do remember that a majority of our people dont agree with Bush, we do not want to do what he is doing.

[Guiscard]

Yet you still voted him in a second time...

[RenegadePaddy]

heres a quote on the two wars

Look at WW1- you started that! it was an unnecessary war, started by Britain because germany wanted an Empire which Britain, France and Russia had. You than dragged America into it. The whole bloody history of of the 20th centuary, including the nazi genocide starts from that point.

I know Britain was not innocent in WW1, more could of been done but there is no god damn way we should take full blame, the war started in Austria-Hungary this guy is clueless. The major reason Britain chose to get involved in the damn war was not because Germany was willing to fight Russia or France it was because they invaded Belgium a ountry that Britain held an agreement with to defend that nation if it was indeed attacked.

I actually agree with that "historian's" point about WW1. The fact that the war technically started due to the assassination in the Balkans is pretty much irrelevant, it was merely the straw that broke the camels back. European tension was extremely high due to Germany's rapid growth as a world power after unification. Britain France and Russia all had large empires and Germany felt they had a right "to get in on the action" this sparked "the scramble for Africa" in which every European country and their dog wanted some territory there - even if it was a desert or a mosquito ridden swamp. As Germany was late to the game they were effectively blocked out of all the prime spots. As Germany tried to increase their navy Britain saw this as a threat to their status as the largest naval power - they were forced into an dreadnaught building race to keep their policy of a larger navy than the next two countries combined. France was smarting after the previous battle with Germany loosing some prime coal fields in Alsace-Loraine to the newly formed Germany. France was also scared of a united Germanys army which threatened their continental dominance of Western Europe. Russia had failed to keep up with the rapid pace of industrialisation in the rest of Europe and feared the economic effects of a strong Germany. These three powers tried to keep Germany weak and failed to share some of the lucrative overseas markets they had developed in their colonies, this deprived Germany of a market for their manufactured goods created in their modern industry. Germany felt it had no option but to try and rapidly arm to show that it could not be "bullied" from the top table. The fact that Britain only declared war after Belgium was invaded is again merely an excuse - Germany was their natural rival and war was pretty much inevitable, this just gave Britain the opportunity to thaw relations with France and join the Entant.

Actually, Germany was Britains largest trading partner, more than any other two nations combined if memory serves - the British government wanted to avoid a major war, it was a stability threat to the Empire, and its economy, and ther ewas even some fast-paced diplomacy to try and persuade the Germans not to invade Belgium, which if successful wouldve seen britain out of the war. The blood-ties between the Royal families gave the Kaiser reluctance to fight the British Empire too - he wanted to make Germany great in the image of the British Empire, not to replace it - hence his naval ambitions. Britain had a general distrust of these intentions, whilst the Kaiser refused to believe that the two powers would ever go to war over "a scrap of paper" (The joint treaty guaranteeing Belgiums sovereignty). So whilst Britains paranoia and Germanys naivety were factors in the coming carnage, neither power actually wanted to be at war with the other.

[Guiscard]

Actually, Germany was Britains largest trading partner, more than any other two nations combined if memory serves - the British government wanted to avoid a major war, it was a stability threat to the Empire, and its economy, and ther ewas even some fast-paced diplomacy to try and persuade the Germans not to invade Belgium, which if successful wouldve seen britain out of the war. The blood-ties between the Royal families gave the Kaiser reluctance to fight the British Empire too - he wanted to make Germany great in the image of the British Empire, not to replace it - hence his naval ambitions. Britain had a general distrust of these intentions, whilst the Kaiser refused to believe that the two powers would ever go to war over "a scrap of paper" (The joint treaty guaranteeing Belgiums sovereignty). So whilst Britains paranoia and Germanys naivety were factors in the coming carnage, neither power actually wanted to be at war with the other.

Bu jove he's got it!

[unriggable]

Yet you still voted him in a second time...

I didn't...