Karaoke Forums

A Thought:

Are some seeing "immigrants" as a problem that is actually our systems inconsistencies, and an actual reflection of our countries problems ? When I think of the problems I want to be damn certain I don't blame others for what's broken here.  I don't want to blame "them" because it's too difficult to see they are just a reflection of what's wrong with me.

Assume the doors are shut today and hypothetically a huge "Filled to Capacity"  sign was posted around our nations perimeter.

Welfare and other supplemental systems would be exploited by our own meaning certain AMERICAN mothers would still have additional children to increase their bene's. AMERICAN people would still work under the table keeping their disability and welfare income as supplemental income in order to buy a home (with others tax money).  Some AMERICAN individuals would still rob beaurocratic entitlement programs or cheat them because honesty sometimes given imperfections within these beaurocratic systems just often isn't advantageous.

AMERICAN kids would still bring guns to school (Columbine) and others, participate in gang activity. Hate crimes would still exist among American citizens of different skin-types, religions, Socio-econ levels.

Businesses would still wish to maximize profit margin via cutting corners and giving the employee less, hence even more Americans would exploit entitlement programs, stay on unemployment and stay on Disability even when no longer disabled (rather than take jobs that "The Immigrants are willing to take".) Businesses would still "Pay under the table"

If all is for sale for the right price,  and our country is willing to sell certain educational systems, and land to foreign businesses,  isn't it ludicrous to blame the "Japanese for taking our colleges and beaches" ?  I don't care if Honda, or Toyota don't say made in America on them,  I know a decent product when I see it, and will buy it regardless of where it's made UNLESS of course it's supporting an enemy.  If assembling my guitar in Mexico gives me a good guitar with hard working labor, and I pay less because labor works for less, I WILL buy a Made in Mexico Stratocaster assuming it's a decent guitar for a great price.  While some can blame the Mexicans for that, that's ludicrous viewed from my perspective.  I'll assume the blame, because I'm frugal, and have a degree of common sense.   My point being, NOT everything about the USA, and not everything Made in the USA deserves support either IMHO, because there's also dishonesty right here at home ! Stuff that SHOULD be fixed ! But greed exists right here.  And,  the result of many years of man screwing man over "business" is taking it's toll.

In my opinion, it is because our system is so flawed and exploited internally today, and things are so inefficient and spread thin,  because we have in fact allowed ourselves to get to a crises situation where the foundation just isn't holding the house up well anymore that it becomes easier to resort to anti-immigrant rhetoric rather than put hard efforts into fixing what may really be the problem. Our own system.

Of course this DOES NOT (IMHO) mean we can risk wanton behaviour and not remain hypervigiliante when our nation is under attack by some (it's only who those some are, and where they are going to come from,  that remains the mystery). Assuming for a time being we must be careful and put MANY things on hold during a state of emergency, it's still important to NEVER believe that the common denominator of America's problems are "immigrants".  The same type immigrants who are our grandparents and parents.  Hard working because in this system at that time,  that's what they needed to do.


This is my feeling on this issue in summary,  this is why this is such a complex issue.
To say the fundamental problem has anything to do with "immigrants" (either currently here, or not yet here) is to put the cart before the horse !

Unfortuneately when a nation falls into times of trouble,  many things are affected. We must be careful, but not place any blame where it doesn't belong. I don't see immigrants (legal or illegal) exploiting anything Americans don't exploit, and although it stands to reason many don't wish to see illegal immigration into the United States, as stated in a different conversation, I don't ALWAYS consider "illegal" to be criminal.  Assuming that to be the case, look at what happens with our own government (clearing throat....Separation of powers ?), and within big business ? or behind guise of "religious belief", etc.  Additionally,  I'm a US citizen today because my great-grandparents, and one set of grandparents entered the US ILLEGALLY.  So,  I need to be careful where I throw stones, or point fingers,  right ?

So while many can say,  "Kappy feel free to take the next boat elsewhere",  I can't find one that'll hold my Piano.  

DISCLAIMER:  Oh yeah,  This is my opinion 'n stuff.

.

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

Now you are talking "turkey". That's a central question to this whole issue isn't it? If we all get more out of the illegals for being here than if they weren't then I suppose no debate right? Problem is that is probably a very difficult thing to calculate. There are numerous factors. You have to determine if products you purchase are cheaper than if there were no illegals. You have to determine if illegals are truly displacing legal workers, because if they are likely there is more than just monetary cost involved. What would be the cost of Charmin's kids not being able to work in those fields and learning the value of money? Those types of costs are opportunity costs. What is cost to other Americans where having cheap, plentiful, illegal workers artificially alters the prices paid for jobs, and possibly minimum wage? What is the cost of having gangs of illegal, untraceable criminals where there were none before? What is the cost of even one person murdered, or raped by an illegal that really should never have been here in the first place? What is the cost of your social services disrupted, welfare, and social security, and education bankrupted? What is the cost of no longer making English the primary language? What is the cost of the political landscape changing so that in a number of years if not now, important political elections and choices will be made by a growing body of people that suddenly have a large voice when actually they should never have been here in the first place, and should have never had a voice. What is the cost of that? What is the cost when other Americans finally tired of the crap, and loss of jobs, and culture shock finally take up arms and there is rampant death, destruction, and class warfare?

Ask not for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee.

_________________
The Truth Is Out There

Stephen you have some good thoughts here, but I for one don't consider illegal immigrants the primary panacea for all things gone wrong. As you say this is all just my opinion. You are right, and there are lots of things wrong with the country, and lots of things are broken. Personally I think a lot of us would agree more if we truly knew what was really causing what. Problem is the more complex, and convoluted an issue gets it's harder to know which way to go. Some folks are libs and some are conservatives but I really wonder if it's not just confusion and label that we often get to debating on this. At the simplest level many / most have the same idea values regarding certain things and policy choices, issues, and differences, are really based on how people see is the better way to implement something. On the other hand, some people do fundamentally disagree about certain things. While we all may agree it is wrong to murder, we might not agree on interpretations of murder - for example abortion.

I don't have a problem with you being illegal, or various illegals. It is a systematic illegal system I have a problem with. Currently our system is designed to not secure and make us sovereign. It is projected by many smart people with all sorts of fancy calculations such as that web site I posted earlier that there are / will be lots of reasons to be concerned about the system in place.

Yep, I agree, we need to fix it. Problem is where do we all start? Corruption is everywhere like you say. I guess as far as the illegal border crossing goes some people just opted for a simple solution - build a fence, thinking maybe it would stop some of them.

I think you are right about the corruption, and the problems. As far as I can tell from my observations, the US is far more divided now in so many ways than it was 50 or so years ago. There are lots of different reasons for this. However I think that is one reason the future does not look bright. There was a time (I believe) when we were diverse, but of one mind more or less; however more and more I think we are just more diverse with more contention and division. I could be wrong and hope I am about the US, but I'm afraid I am not.

One reason I listed questions at the beginning of this discussion was because sometimes it may be easier to come to a solution by working backwards. Rather than bringing up trivial points and observations that can be debated there are certain things that are facts. Logical facts usually have general conclusions which can be drawn. My thought was we should answer these large questions and determine if they are true or what the answers are, and then extrapolate a trend into the future and determine overall effect down the road. This may tell us our future down a path. Based on that result some may still come to different conclusions but at least then you know where you are going and if you got to that conclusion from a process or just randomly. For instance we could all determine that illegals may comprise 30% of the US population in 50 years. Then people could decide if that is ok.  For some people that will be ok. Some people won't mind Socialism or Communism either. But that is also a point, because if the political landscape of our country changes then the future could be different - like Socialism.

Anyway, I'm getting carried away here and probably brought up too many things, but I don't think this can be solved just by opinion such as 'the fence won't work' or 'Bush is stupid'. And we should all be on each others side as American citizens because if we are wrong then we will have to possibly live in the world we create.

_________________
The Truth Is Out There

Which is why productive debate must be grounded in certain established foundation principles rather than emotion.  Even when it's about "Karaoke legalities".  There are MANY facts that surround this current debate but opinion that disregards fact (although PERSONAL fact or subjective truth) ends up a cyclical argument if not an all out brawl). You mentioned the Abortion issue for instance. Well, I do know something about this area.  I know to STAY OUT of it, and to stay FAR away from it !!!!  I have little right being in such a debate.  EVEN though I've personally been involved with it. 

Now how do you debate "God" ??  This one I never understood.  What is the point even attempting to debate in essence a persons "faith" ?  People have every right to their personal beliefs. Many personal beliefs should be kept as just that. I've seen some pretty upset devout catholic teenagers VERY upset by what they hear in first year philosophy courses, because they weren't prepared for the fact that given the subject matter, what they have accepted is going to be challenged by philosophers.  Discussion/ Debate accomplishes little if people don't at least understand, and agree on something, and quite often what is nebulous, needn't be.  Such as "Critique", meaning terminology must be understood  :shock:
There must be some platform, some established criteria, and a willingness to understand what these are.  Otherwise you might as well inflate a mattress that's full of holes.  It's as productive.

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

WHAT A GREAT THREAD AND A GREAT DEBATE.  I have been reading for a couple of days and I'll tell you that I am not sure what I think now. I can see a lot of new perspectives. So I am kinda out on the subject for now.

But I do remember a president here in the good ole USA saying to another President in good ole Russia "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall!!!"  

Didn't the great wall of China get opened up too??  Why in the world would the USA think putting up a wall would work??  

Madness, absolute madness.... You would think that we would learn something from our neighbors...

_________________
Will sing or fish for food!!I'm not quite right!!

Yep, I pretty much absolutely agree with what you just said in your previous post. As far as the abortion / murder issue I was not taking a stand or offering my opinion on abortion as murder. That was merely a convenient example of a fundamental difference in definition that people have - and well as you state you know how explosive that issue is.

And I agree you shouldn't just debate someone's view of God. I assume to some degree that if you seek, and are honest with yourself many truths will be made clear. I suppose if someone wants to discuss in a friendly dialogue their view of God that is ok if the other is searching and wants some answers. Usually I am not happy just hearing one side of an issue. I want to see what the balance is. As you state, how does it help us if we emotionally convince ourselves of something when in reality it is wrong? The problem as you also brought up, is that sometimes it is hard to leave our biases and preconceived notions on the table and debate fairly. Sometimes it may be even difficult to determine when we are no longer objective.

_________________
The Truth Is Out There

While this may be a complex issue, I think there are ways to simplify it and come to a conclusion. On the second page of this thread I brought up a number of issues and mega trends. Perhaps people could come to a conclusion based on a concept or trend rather than debating small issues down in the trenches. Based on the idea of  what I'd call absolutism. In other words perhaps there are individual criteria that polarize and trump other smaller details. For example, a debate regarding how good a glass of lemonade is may be ended quickly if that lemonade somehow got feces in it for obvious reasons. Are there any such facts in the illegals issue such as that? I believe there are. Take for example murders, rapes, crimes committed by illegals. How many legal citizens being murdered in the US by illegals is too many? There are those that are all over such issues if they involve whales, or fur bearing animals, or somebody's rights. What if all of someone's rights are taken away and they are murdered? Is 1 too many? Does it take 10,000 or 10,000,000 before it is too much?

Here is my opinion here. Yes, 1 is TOO many. If it is because of a corrupt system in place, then those people with honor should find a way to make a just system. And, yes, many crimes and deaths have reportedly been committed by illegals. See my link to 'The Dark Side of Immigration' - that site has tons of stats on such things.

One person has died. Perhaps the debate should stop there? No? If not why not?

PS: We are talking about a wall, and this may seem off topic a bit, but I bring it up because I'm not sure everyone even agrees that illegals are bad - much less whether we should have a wall or other mechanism to stop them. For that reason I am trying to establish that issue first.

Before we can ask do we think the wall is a stupid way of controlling immigration we first need to establish whether immigration needs controlling in the first place. Does everyone agree there is a problem?

_________________
The Truth Is Out There

This is completely off topic, and easily an entire thread can be devoted to this subject. Sometimes things are not as obvious as they seem and with economics that can be the case as well. Coincidence does not establish a relationship without further study. In the case of prosperity cycles in the US it may well be (and in my opinion is) mostly because of a lag effect in the time it takes for policies and changes to take effect. The economy of the US is very large and could be likened to a large ocean liner - for instance the Titanic. Large ships have a lot of inertia and even after changes have been made it takes a while for them to react. In the case of the Titanic the ice burg was sited and the controls turned but it struck the burg before it could clear it enough.

I am fairly familiar with the economy in the time of Carter / Reagan and afterward. You may recall that during the time of Carter (a Liberal?) things were in chaos,  American morale was low, and our economy was in a big recession - and very shaky ground with the auto industry collapsing, steel mills closing, intense Japanese competition. Reagan introduced supply side economics which (often called Reaganomics) which stimulated incentive and demand through tax cuts and other mechanisms. This is by the way the same thing George Bush did back in 2000. This increased spending led to enormous budget deficits as it did with Bush. However, what is usually ignored is that the economic trend was turned around. Jobs came back, demand came back, prosperity came back, and grew and grew. These incentives were in place for a time. Eventually there were so many new businesses profits generated that large amounts of tax revenue was derived. The budget deficits began to shrink and shrink while the economy continued to grow. This trend continued until Democrats came into office and inherited the trend. They inherited the prosperity trend where the deficits were finally paid and mostly balanced. On the surface it looks like they did this but in reality (in my opinion) they did not. And yes, I have taken lots of Economics courses in college both micro / macro, money and banking, etc. Clinton also had the benefit of being around during the dot com boom. IMO this boom was started from Reagan years and continued. It was the freedom given in the private sector to allow free markets and trade as well as incentive for new business that helped get a lot of dot coms started. Unfortunately there was much speculation in the dot com market from investors trying to get rich quick. Everyone wanted to be in on the new Ebay, or Dell, or Amazon. Unfortunately during the end of the Clinton years problems began to arise. Taxes had been raised during Clinton I believe and the Economy and the Dot Com businesses approached the top of their cycle and began dropping. From sources I have studied most agree that the Recession near 2000 actually had it's roots earlier when Clinton was still President. From what I can tell, Bush inherited the policies of Clinton including their inadequate responses to terrorism. The Twin Towers were attacked and the volatile stock markets took a hit and intensified the downward trend. Bush then instituted Reagan type policies and the same thing is happening again. The economy rebounded and has been fairly healthy and growing. Lately we see signs of possible problems as there is continued unrest in the world related to terrorism, intense competition overseas, and lack of adequate oil exploration, and lack of new refineries. Because of this and other reasons such as China competition the price of oil continues up causing an artificial inflation and moderating our current economic boom. The Fed in fear of inflation has recently, continually been raising interest rates in order to help control inflation - which is also causing the economy to cool somewhat.

That's the "short" of may take and opinion on it. Like I said a whole thread could be on this alone with lots of statistics / research and the typical emotional response such as parts of this thread making it difficult for people to draw conclusions.

EDIT: I might add the last recession was from the early years of the 2000's but many believe it had roots in pre-Bush policies / times. Also the 1974 recession was caused primarily by the Arab Oil Embargo and price fixing at home. Not sure you can blame Nixon for that. In fact we should probably mostly be blaming a lot more things on Congress, and often the rest of the world (in this case the Arabs) also have a lot to do with stuff. So, in other words I'm not saying it's all good with Repubs and all bad with Democrats. Some good things were done during the Clinton years such as balancing the budget primarily by Congress - but I forget..wasn't that mostly a Republican Congress?

_________________
The Truth Is Out There

Not without knowing and understanding the facts that are involved in this issue, and they are numerous.  This requires understanding federal laws surrounding this area, state laws surrounding this area, and ethical constructs (IMHO).  Even little things..  Here's an example of something I DON'T RECALL.  So I'm posing this as a question, although it may sound stupid,  this is ONE example of why I currently don't feel qualified to even participate in THIS particular subject matter.

Question:

Did Amerigo Vespucci discover this continent, or was he one of the first "illegal" aliens assuming there were native americans here already for perhaps thousands of years, (or at least hundreds) ?  Was he a "discoverer", or one of the first to conquer or according to some "invade" ?  

While there are current day facts surrounding this issue, that are numerous and complex, this is also layered with ethical issues.  Preservation of this country is important OF COURSE,  but given much of our ancestral lineage,  how many of US really have a right to say "Close the doors, THEY shouldn't come here",  considering if you turned the clocks back 100 years many of THEM would be your great great grandparents" While Americans today can make such a decision, it need not be an all or none decision, or should it be,  must it be to hone in on key internal issues ?

This is not a simple issue, but knowing facts can simplify certain things.  Ethically IMHO this is extremely complex too ESPECIALLY since I don't really know the facts surrounding the evolution of laws pertaining to "Immigration into the United States" , and I'm not a scholar on constitutional law, by any means, etc.

Those of you that have a decent background in History, and Government and recall much of your schooling and reading, have a right to debate an issue I don't recall anything about, or know much about.  I think looking up facts as we go along is fine, refuting facts with other facts is also fine, but not if people are going to "loose their cool".

Not everything that is linked to so many other aspects is "simple".



I believe what Ben was responding to was Ollies tendency to point fingers and label inpinging on an area such as (in a nutshell)

"You liberals don't really know about old time family values, and those of you in the city should get your head out've the smog and come on down and meet some folks"

Which of course was way off topic.  As Matt stated earlier nothing is solved when labeling and finger pointing ensues.

Yet I had to laugh at Ollie because I can visualize his expression behind much of this, still, some took offense to what was typed as demeoning, and the ongoing :You liberals: diatribe. In reality,  liberal and conservative labels serve as a great means of straying from facts, especially when few have a clue what those terms really mean anymore, considering so much of the time liberal and conservative thought overlap.  I don't use those terms ALTHOUGH,  I believe I'm basically a conservative, I recognise the world and nation changes despite my views, and if I'm not able to adapt and evolve the problem isn't the majority of the current nation that's left me behind in the 70's.  BUt it does suck when your lava lamp burns the side of your bean-bag chair  and the smoke messes up the Peter Max black light posters.  Who can disagree?  :(

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

Finally, someone who is looking at this with a right perspective. Yes, I believe that the issue here is economical. So far, I haven't seen any study that claims that the financial drains taken by the illegal aliens are far outweighing the benefits they provide. More and more I research, from our past and also from other countries, the benefits of these migrant workers benefit the country more than the cost to try to get rid of them or their drain of social services.

If someone can show me a legitimate studies that shows otherwise, I am a firm believer in my belief.

_________________

Seize the day and SING!!!

Stephen, my opinion - and it is just that, is at some point we have to delineate and have boundaries concerning what we are talking about. People have brought up the rights of the native Americans and thus what rights do we have, but I suppose the way I look at that is it is already a moot point. We are not part of the native American nation or government. Our current government is the current government of this land and is established with laws. It is a philosophical argument to consider whether we really have any rights. Those choice were not ours at the time it was made. As is the case in all of history the strong subdued the weak. Does the lion have the right to kill and eat the gazelle? Search me? ! However for practical purposes and without getting to existential I think we should remain in the framework and context of our government and laws otherwise obviously there is no real answer because all of that would be based upon ultimate truth, and that is somewhat difficult to know in this world. I assure you I can get all existential and relative about things and agree every step of the way with you, but I don't think that is a practical or really constructive context in the debate. If we all decide everything is relative then there will be no answers, and like Murphy's corollary if we fail to make a decision it is a decision. We will then be overrun by those who are polarized and motivated.

I think generally we should agree our country is an entity, and just, and the mechanism through which we are trying to affect change and prosperity for those in this country currently. It is based on that assumption that I bring up the concept of 1 death of a current legal US citizen. We can't change the past, and we don't have a lot of control over what goes on in Mexico, but we can help ensure the prosperity of our own people. Perhaps the Mexican government can do the same for theirs. Actually I have heard (don't know if it is true) that Mexico is actually a very wealthy country, but it is corrupt and those in power do not share it in ways with the general population.

Note: I'll probably be out for awhile so the rest of you can continue the discussion.

_________________
The Truth Is Out There

It's going quite well.  It's a very complex issue.  I'm trying to find sources of past debates on this issue as presented by others with a strong grasp of our nations history, and US Government.  While of course times were different,  I can't imagine this was ever "simple" when viewed from necessary perspectives.

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

First of all, I think the cost to erect the wall is too much. I mean, why spend the money when it may be obsolete in 50 years or less? Mark my word, right now the debate is going on because US has been and is the leading economical power in the world, as well as military power. However, today's war is fought in economical sense, not military sense.

In next 30 to 50 years, the economical power will shift to else where. Then, people will less likely to come to US for jobs, they will go somewhere else. It's already happening. Look at EU. Once Turkey joins EU, the total population of EU will exceed 400 million, 33% larger than the US. Look at the dollar versus Euro. One time, 1 Euro was about 70 cents. Now it's more like $1.30. Europe will continue to gain economical power and soon it may pass the US in that area.

Let's not even talk about China and India. Chinese economy has been growing at double digit for the last several years and it's expected to continue. Same with India. US economy has been at single digit growth forever. Between China and India, there are over 4 billion people. Once their economy picks up, they will be the largest consumer of the goods and most of the world will focus their efforts there. I predict that in next 30 years, both the Europe and Asian region will pass the US in economic power.

Then this debate will have less meaning. We will be talking about illegal aliens in those areas, coming from the US. I know it's a bold statement but some of that is happening already. The so called reverse brain drain is happening, those Chinese scholars who came here to study is going back, rather than staying, reversing the trend of last 10 years. More and more business people are moving to China to take advantage of this (read this week's Businessweek about an article about this).

It's all about dollars, or Euro or Yuan or Rupee.....

_________________

Seize the day and SING!!!

I agree, in some ways we should be able to deduce this objectively with stats, although I suppose there will always be the subjective assumptions made such as what Stephen just brought up like - 'well what right do any of us have'.

I listed some issues Eben that you quote. Are you then agreeing with the costs of all this things as ok? The possible change of infrastructure, politics, and even the lives of people killed by illegals? If so, then I guess we only need to establish if they are true. I know there are stats on those killed which are easily obtainable. The rest I believe can be found as well, but it will take perhaps a bit more effort.

It may come down to personal desires here. Charmin says paying $5 is too much, but you don't seem concerned about 90,000 extra people in Oregon.  I don't know that there are any 'right' answers, just personal preferences. I just think you need to really think about some of the items I listed. If all of those things are true, or came true then what would your world be like? Would it be a better place?

Other than that, yes, I think we all need to dig a bit deeper into the stats objectively and determine just what this issue / problem costs us and what we and our descendents may end up paying.

_________________
The Truth Is Out There

Since this is an off topic I will keep it brief. I never was a fan of supply side economics, or so called Reagonomics. While there is a lot of debate on this but consensus is that supply side economics does not work. Just look at the prime rate increase just trying to control it.

I disgree about the 2000 recession being rooted in pre-Bush. There are many indications of this, which I won't go in to. Clinton had it right. Let's just leave it that.

As for the blaming Oil for the recession, I would also have to disagree. Look at today. Our gas price is much higher, even inflation adjusted, then it was then but we don't have a run away prime rate or slowed down economy like we did then. I don't believe that the oil price alone was the reason for the economical downfall.

_________________

Seize the day and SING!!!

Here is way I look at it. There has to be a reason why you would disapprove of illegal aliens. It has to be either economical, which I believe is the reason, at least I hope, or it has to be personal hate, i.e. prejudice.

I would hate to think that people oppose the illegal aliens because they are racist, I mean everyone here is claiming they are not racist so it has to be economical, right? If it's economical then show me the numbers. That's all I am saying.

_________________

Seize the day and SING!!!

So are you disagreeing, or agreeing that the solution should consider compromise considering the aforementioned "Animal Kingdom" example could be used to justify and vindicate a super-power nation invading all smaller nations justifying this as "Man is territorial", and subjecting this to Darwinian concept, Given such a system, MANY are doomed, and have few rights.  Civil man is not barbaric.  

We are a system that STILL weighs heavily on the older judeo/Christian values, why ?  Because religious or not, the Golden Rule, and the Ten Commandments make a LOT of sense ! and since people have the capacity for reason, don't we pride ourselves as a "nation with values ?"  As a result, hopefully our nation, and our nations people can live in an element of "freedom and safety" and are protected from barbaric behaviour, anacharachal situations, and tyrants.  To use "animal behaviour" in it's basal sense here isn't appropriate, because it serves as a means to vindicate polarized thought.  All or None is usually quite easy, but it shows little regard for terms such as system of jurisprudence,  Constitutional law, ethical constructs etc, and essentially the foundation of what our current system is based on.

The answer is NOT all or none,  there must be balance.  This is the crux of the difficulty.   IOW,  You say "At some point we must forget the past",  my question to you than is "At what point" ?   "According to WHO'S subjective values" ?  This is a VERY touchy issue that can't be tossed aside.

While some take a more pragmatic perspective one can't preclude ethical aspects.



According to you perhaps.  Should this be "moot" ?  Or given consideration ?
I believe it MUST be given consideration or else can we pride ourselves in being a moral people. Is what Hitler did years ago "moot" ?  Should it ever be forgotten ? After-all, the past IS indicative of future behaviour much of the time.   The key here is BALANCE, and that's why this gets so difficult.

I'd not like seeing such an example used if I establish a business, and in 20 years from now the Mob makes me an offer I can't refuse (sure this happens) and the unanimous thought becomes ~



Is there an element of fact that this actually happens in our throw-away society ?  OF course there is. Are all actually created equal,  I certainly don't think so, we live in a country where so much of what we dislike is "lack of certain values"  Do you like that ?   Should it be this way ?  Of course there will always be an element of "cracks in the floorboards" so-to-speak. We are a culture that goes to church to "Love they neighbor", and than a day later families are torn apart because "Business is business". Again, most values are subjective, but ALL people bleed when cut.

We can't overlook certain values, we shouldn't IMHO not consider "right" from "wrong"  because whether or not such behaviour at the time had a practical purpose or not IMHO might be what's "moot". Do you wish to live in a nation ruled by example, or hypocracy ?  We can prioritize, and assess and weigh various factors considering ALL angles, if this complicates the issue sobeit because fair is fair !, and personally, I opt to see fair whenever possible.  The decision pending outcome still will upset many, but we should strive to be FAIR to all that deserve fair treatment !  JMHO  We are a civil people (whether viewing current events makes us appear this way or not is another topic).

(damn,  you guys should see the @$$ on that girl that just walked by...brb)

.

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

Through some of the posts I see where "during this presidents time" this happened or that happened.  I think the farther back in history studies you go, you will find that "current" conditions; be they good or bad are not always a direct result of the present president.  Many times what a president does or happens during his administration does not take effect or affect things until much later down the road.

Kelly

As the saying goes Kelly.   When viewing historically the best presdents,  was it the presidents, or often "the times" they served during ?

(this is an area I know so little about it's embarassing,  but the saying does seem logical)  LOL

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

The real question is how long does one President have to be in office to accept responsibility for things that have gone wrong?  2 months? 6 months? a year? 2?  It is a valid question, I for one thing that the moment he enters office and makes an act of Presidential powers that he has accepted responsibility for the good and the bad thereafter.

However I can understand people disagreeing with that, so how about we put it at the half year mark? Six months after inauguration the current President is directly responsible for what happens after that.

Just a note, Dubya was inaugurated on Jan. 20th 2001.... Almost a full 8 months later Sept. 11th took place.  It's a personal question for everyone, was 8 months long enough for him to be responsible, should 8 months have been long enough to prevent it?  All very good questions and I'm sure you guys know my stance on it.

_________________
[scroll][glow=darkorchid]~I'm the girl your mother warned you about~[/scroll][/glow]