[meadandale]

[quote=briansd1]
In my view, America needs to keep-up by allowing nearly free immigration so we can grow our population and our economy. Sure, our existing citizens will have more competition, but we will bring wealth and liberty to millions while strengthening our financial (and military) wherewithal to spread our ideals.[/quote]

The majority of immigrants over the last 20 years are working service sector jobs, not in capital producing industries. They will weaken not strengthen the nation through increased demands for government services; services that their contributions to the economy fall short of paying for.

This is a recipe for disaster.

[meadandale]

[quote=briansd1]
In my view, America needs to keep-up by allowing nearly free immigration so we can grow our population and our economy. Sure, our existing citizens will have more competition, but we will bring wealth and liberty to millions while strengthening our financial (and military) wherewithal to spread our ideals.[/quote]

The majority of immigrants over the last 20 years are working service sector jobs, not in capital producing industries. They will weaken not strengthen the nation through increased demands for government services; services that their contributions to the economy fall short of paying for.

This is a recipe for disaster.

[meadandale]

[quote=briansd1]
In my view, America needs to keep-up by allowing nearly free immigration so we can grow our population and our economy. Sure, our existing citizens will have more competition, but we will bring wealth and liberty to millions while strengthening our financial (and military) wherewithal to spread our ideals.[/quote]

The majority of immigrants over the last 20 years are working service sector jobs, not in capital producing industries. They will weaken not strengthen the nation through increased demands for government services; services that their contributions to the economy fall short of paying for.

This is a recipe for disaster.

[meadandale]

[quote=briansd1]
In my view, America needs to keep-up by allowing nearly free immigration so we can grow our population and our economy. Sure, our existing citizens will have more competition, but we will bring wealth and liberty to millions while strengthening our financial (and military) wherewithal to spread our ideals.[/quote]

The majority of immigrants over the last 20 years are working service sector jobs, not in capital producing industries. They will weaken not strengthen the nation through increased demands for government services; services that their contributions to the economy fall short of paying for.

This is a recipe for disaster.

[meadandale]

[quote=dbapig][quote=meadandale]Funny, the first amendment says nothing about the first amendment right to free speech applying to ‘humans’ as opposed to corporations.
[/quote]

By that very same reasoning, since the Constitution didn’t specify equal right is only for straights, gays/lesbians are equal to those straight and should be able to get married.

The judges just gave a ton of ammo to gay rights people.[/quote]

It’s quite as simple as you portray it…

http://www.shmoop.com/equal-protection/same-sex-marriage-the-14th-amendment.html

[meadandale]

[quote=dbapig][quote=meadandale]Funny, the first amendment says nothing about the first amendment right to free speech applying to ‘humans’ as opposed to corporations.
[/quote]

By that very same reasoning, since the Constitution didn’t specify equal right is only for straights, gays/lesbians are equal to those straight and should be able to get married.

The judges just gave a ton of ammo to gay rights people.[/quote]

It’s quite as simple as you portray it…

http://www.shmoop.com/equal-protection/same-sex-marriage-the-14th-amendment.html

[meadandale]

[quote=dbapig][quote=meadandale]Funny, the first amendment says nothing about the first amendment right to free speech applying to ‘humans’ as opposed to corporations.
[/quote]

By that very same reasoning, since the Constitution didn’t specify equal right is only for straights, gays/lesbians are equal to those straight and should be able to get married.

The judges just gave a ton of ammo to gay rights people.[/quote]

It’s quite as simple as you portray it…

http://www.shmoop.com/equal-protection/same-sex-marriage-the-14th-amendment.html

[meadandale]

[quote=dbapig][quote=meadandale]Funny, the first amendment says nothing about the first amendment right to free speech applying to ‘humans’ as opposed to corporations.
[/quote]

By that very same reasoning, since the Constitution didn’t specify equal right is only for straights, gays/lesbians are equal to those straight and should be able to get married.

The judges just gave a ton of ammo to gay rights people.[/quote]

It’s quite as simple as you portray it…

http://www.shmoop.com/equal-protection/same-sex-marriage-the-14th-amendment.html

[meadandale]

[quote=dbapig][quote=meadandale]Funny, the first amendment says nothing about the first amendment right to free speech applying to ‘humans’ as opposed to corporations.
[/quote]

By that very same reasoning, since the Constitution didn’t specify equal right is only for straights, gays/lesbians are equal to those straight and should be able to get married.

The judges just gave a ton of ammo to gay rights people.[/quote]

It’s quite as simple as you portray it…

http://www.shmoop.com/equal-protection/same-sex-marriage-the-14th-amendment.html

[meadandale]

[quote=XBoxBoy]You can’t stop special interests buying influence until you take away campaign contributions. But you can’t take away campaign contributions until you’ve take away special interests buying influence.[/quote]

Note that Obama’s new crackdown on large banks (too big to fail) didn’t include Goldman Sachs or other large investment banks that were as culpable in the economic collapse (and in some cases moreso) than BofA and JPMorgan.

Yeah, no special interest payback there.

[meadandale]

[quote=XBoxBoy]You can’t stop special interests buying influence until you take away campaign contributions. But you can’t take away campaign contributions until you’ve take away special interests buying influence.[/quote]

Note that Obama’s new crackdown on large banks (too big to fail) didn’t include Goldman Sachs or other large investment banks that were as culpable in the economic collapse (and in some cases moreso) than BofA and JPMorgan.

Yeah, no special interest payback there.

[meadandale]

[quote=XBoxBoy]You can’t stop special interests buying influence until you take away campaign contributions. But you can’t take away campaign contributions until you’ve take away special interests buying influence.[/quote]

Note that Obama’s new crackdown on large banks (too big to fail) didn’t include Goldman Sachs or other large investment banks that were as culpable in the economic collapse (and in some cases moreso) than BofA and JPMorgan.

Yeah, no special interest payback there.

[meadandale]

[quote=XBoxBoy]You can’t stop special interests buying influence until you take away campaign contributions. But you can’t take away campaign contributions until you’ve take away special interests buying influence.[/quote]

Note that Obama’s new crackdown on large banks (too big to fail) didn’t include Goldman Sachs or other large investment banks that were as culpable in the economic collapse (and in some cases moreso) than BofA and JPMorgan.

Yeah, no special interest payback there.

[meadandale]

[quote=XBoxBoy]You can’t stop special interests buying influence until you take away campaign contributions. But you can’t take away campaign contributions until you’ve take away special interests buying influence.[/quote]

Note that Obama’s new crackdown on large banks (too big to fail) didn’t include Goldman Sachs or other large investment banks that were as culpable in the economic collapse (and in some cases moreso) than BofA and JPMorgan.

Yeah, no special interest payback there.

[meadandale]

Funny, the first amendment says nothing about the first amendment right to free speech applying to ‘humans’ as opposed to corporations.

It says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…”

And I find it funny that so many of you are insinuating that foreigners are not covered by our constitution when that is exactly what people have been saying in support of the civil trials of the Guantanamo prisoners…who are clearly foreigners.

Finally, let’s not forget…is it right that Fox or MSNBC gets free reign as a corporation to spout whatever viewpoint on their ‘news’ programs they want while non news corporations are essentially neutered with respect to the political process?

Admit it, you have no problem with corporate involvement in elections if it helps YOUR guy. You’re just worried that it is going to help the OTHER guy.

Frankly, we need to hold ALL of our representatives accountable to make sure that they aren’t favoring corporate constituents at the expense of the populace. This influence already exists. Maybe this will be a wakeup call for people to get off their asses.

[Author]

Posts