Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

14 things
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Mar 30 00:17:52 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Think the war in Iraq is expensive?

List of 14 things that cost more than the war in Iraq...

I hope the following 14 reasons are forwarded over and over again
until they are read so many times that the reader gets sick of reading them. I
have included the URL's for verification of the following facts:



> 1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens
each year.

http://tinyurl.com/zob77



> > 2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs
such as Food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.

Http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/f iscalexec.HTML


> > 3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal
aliens.

http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.HTML


> > 4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school
Education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word
of English! http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.0.html


> > 5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the
American-born Children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.

Http://transcripts.CNN.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML


> > 6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.

Http://transcripts.CNN.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML



> > 7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.

Http://transcripts.CNN.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML



> > 8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare
and Social Services by the American taxpayers.

Http://premium.CNN.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.HTML



> > 9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused
by The illegal aliens.

Http://transcripts.CNN.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML



> > 10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's
two-and-a-half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In
particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional
crime problem in the US .

Http://transcripts.CNN.com/T RANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.HTML



> > 11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens
that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal
aliens from terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth,
heroin and Marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern
border. Homeland Security Report.

http://tinyurl.com/t9sht



> > 12. The National Policy Institute, "estimated that the total cost of
mass Deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average
cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period."

Http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/PDF/deportation.PDF



> > 13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back
to their countries of origin.

http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm



> > 14. "The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex
Crimes committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States ".

Http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml


Total cost is a whooping... $338.3 BILLION A YEAR!!!




 
Posted: Sun Mar 30 01:13:17 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  15 wrongs don't make a right.


 
Silentmind Posted: Sun Mar 30 01:19:38 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Not that they didn't skew the facts on that at all. They're telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth, aren't they hif?


 
beetlebum Posted: Sun Mar 30 01:29:18 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  And the only thing wrong with the war in Iraq is the money spent.


 
Mesh Posted: Sun Mar 30 04:12:59 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Yes, and? Illegal immigration to any country is bad. The fact that illegal immigration costs a nation money doesn't make a war waged by that nation that also costs a lot of money any more right or wrong. One has nothing to do with the other.


 
Mesh Posted: Sun Mar 30 04:46:45 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I mean but seriously, that is such a silly argument. "X is costing this nation more than Y is, so therefore Y is wholly and completely justified", I mean, you can't even argue against something like that, because the entire premise of the argument is so completely and utterly ridiculous. It's like when I used to try and argue with my great uncle when he would try to tell me that 5+5=11 or that black was the same colour as white or that left was really right. It's one of those arguments that is so illogical that trying to argue against it is the same as the waves pounding the sheer cliffs of Suğuroy. It could just go on and on, one resisting and one persisting, yet no man will ever see the end of it.


PS I am not sober and I will probably not have internet for a few days, so hell all, I love you, and be merry.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Mar 30 07:31:30 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  The point is not whether or not the war in Iraq is justified, though you all know my thoughts on that one.
The point is that too many liberals are using the cost of the war to justify cutting and running while approving entitlements to illegal aliens, and too many Americans have no idea how much it costs us to do this.



 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Mar 30 07:37:08 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Silentmind said:
>Not that they didn't skew the facts on that at all. They're telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth, aren't they hif?
>
For the most part, these are all hard numbers readily available to anyone with an internet connection.
Most of the sourcing comes from CNN. If anything spinning was done by them, you can be sure it was to the left.


 
FN Posted: Sun Mar 30 12:04:35 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>liberals

They're not liberals, they're socialists.


 
Ahriman Posted: Sun Mar 30 14:31:05 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>The point is not whether or not the war in Iraq is justified, though you all know my thoughts on that one.
>The point is that too many liberals are using the cost of the war to justify cutting and running while approving entitlements to illegal aliens, and too many Americans have no idea how much it costs us to do this.


http://www.ladyofthecake.com/mel/saddles/sounds/gibbersh.wav


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Mar 30 20:00:03 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>liberals
>
>They're not liberals, they're socialists.
>
tomato. . . tom-ah-toe
:-)


 
addi Posted: Sun Mar 30 22:08:36 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  what price should we attach to the 4,000 plus soldiers that gave their lives so far? Or the thousands that are permanently physically and/or mentally disabled from this war?

This blunder of an invasion (an understatement) has cost us a trillion dollars, and it's not over by far. What domestic programs could that money have been used for to a much more benficial end? What resources could have been applied to the real war on terrorism that we were waging in Afghanistan had it not been wasted on Iraq?
It's disturbing to even think about it.




 
libra Posted: Sun Mar 30 23:55:22 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Christophe said:
>>ifihadahif said:
>>>liberals
>>
>>They're not liberals, they're socialists.
>>
>tomato. . . tom-ah-toe
>:-)

yeah, hif?
They're not conservatives, they're fascists.


 
Silentmind Posted: Mon Mar 31 02:00:25 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Silentmind said:
>>Not that they didn't skew the facts on that at all. They're telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth, aren't they hif?
>>
>For the most part, these are all hard numbers readily available to anyone with an internet connection.
>Most of the sourcing comes from CNN. If anything spinning was done by them, you can be sure it was to the left.


Most of the "facts" sourced to CNN came from Lou Dobbs, whose been known to, shall we say, be a bit loose with what he considers a fact. Just cause good 'ol Lou "Americans will come and pick our fruit for less than minimum wage, if only we'll get rid of those damn illegals" Dobbs says it, doesn't make it fact.

I'll start with one of the so called facts that you posted. The little "30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens" is dead wrong. 21% of prison inmates are non-citizens, which include detained foreign nationals, people here on work visas, student visas, those that carry a green card, in other words, those people let into your country legally. Part of the 21% does include illegal aliens, but far from that 30% stated as "fact."


 
mat_j Posted: Mon Mar 31 06:34:28 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  At least this money is keeping people alive.

Fuck, if you can afford that war you can afford all that.


 
FN Posted: Mon Mar 31 06:56:47 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Christophe said:
>>ifihadahif said:
>>>liberals
>>
>>They're not liberals, they're socialists.
>>
>tomato. . . tom-ah-toe
>:-)

Not really, a liberal is the opposite of a socialist, it's not just because they use the name "liberals" that they are, just like when socialists preach about freedom that's not really what they're talking about

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School

knock yourself out ;)


 
addi Posted: Mon Mar 31 07:50:05 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>ifihadahif said:

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

Entirely different meanings in the U.S. than in Europe today.
"Classical liberalism is not to be confused with the ideology that is commonly called "liberalism" today in the United States, as "classical liberalism" is actually closer to "conservatism" in the U.S"
"Classical liberalism is critical of social liberalism and takes offense at group rights being pursued at the expense of individual rights."
"In some European countries the term "liberalism" refers mostly to what is called "libertarianism" in the United States."




 
FN Posted: Mon Mar 31 08:11:42 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  If you know what liberalism is really about, you know that the american version of it is nothing more than a perversion of the ideas.

Liberalism and what I see the US "liberals" call for simply isn't compatible, at all.




That's not an attack from my part on US liberals or that party or whatever, it's just a logical observation.


 
FN Posted: Mon Mar 31 08:15:06 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  From that same wiki page which basicly sums it up:

"Classical liberalism is liberalism, but the current collectivists have captured that designation in the United States. Happily they did not capture it in Europe, and were glad enough to call themselves socialists. But no one in America wants to be called socialist and admit what they are."


According to Friedman,

"Beginning in the late nineteenth century, and especially after 1930 in the United States, the term liberalism came to be associated with a very different emphasis, particularly in economic policy. It came to be associated with a readiness to rely primarily on the state rather than on private voluntary arrangements to achieve objectives regarded as desirable. The catchwords became welfare and equality rather than freedom. The nineteenth century liberal regarded an extension of freedom as the most effective way to promote welfare and equality; the twentieth century liberal regards welfare and equality as either prerequisites of or alternatives to freedom. In the name of welfare and equality, the twentieth-century liberal has come to favor a revival of the very policies of state intervention and paternalism against which classical liberalism fought. In the very act of turning the clock back to seventeenth-century mercantilism, he is fond of castigating true liberals as reactionary!"


Now, just to be clear, I'll poke anybody who tries and badmouth Friedman/Hayek in the eye.


 
libra Posted: Mon Mar 31 11:10:17 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Chris, like addi said, they're totally different words. The term "liberal" in the united states has nothing to do with the Liberalism that refers to absolute free markets, laissez faire government, etc.

the spectrum in the states would be:

socialist, liberal, moderate, conservative, (and then this goes in a circle through libertarianism, and communism back to socialist).

The conservatives are "Liberal" in the sense you're talking about. (But most people in the states have no idea of what it means).


 
DanSRose Posted: Mon Mar 31 14:36:00 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Total cost is a whooping... $338.3 BILLION A YEAR!!!

The current amount spent in Iraq is projected being $510 billion. If there was no Iraq War, $171.7 billion would be left after 'fixing' your evil dirty immigrant problem. I'll hold the NY state estimate of $7 billion for state education reform for the each of the other fifty states and round up to $60 billion, and then we'll $111.7 billion and help fix immigration and education.
I'm not going to go on, but really beetlebum said it already:
>And the only thing wrong with the war in Iraq is the money spent.


 
FN Posted: Mon Mar 31 18:24:25 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>Chris, like addi said, they're totally different words. The term "liberal" in the united states has nothing to do with the Liberalism that refers to absolute free markets, laissez faire government, etc.

And it doesn't seem odd to you that they call themselves liberals even though they don't base their stuff on liberal ideologies but socialist ones?

Newspeak anyone?

Also, free market isn't the reason of liberalism, liberalism is the reason of a free market.

Same thing with laissez-faire government. Also, I notice that a lot of people don't have a clue as to what laissez-faire actually entails; it is not the absence of government nor is it a totally impotent form of government. It is a strong government but (almost) exclusively when it comes to upholding the law, not for telling people what to do in their personal lives or with their property or other kinds of paternalistic catering to herd mentality.

That's a huge distinction that the opponents never seem to make, I wonder why.

>the spectrum in the states would be:
>
>socialist, liberal, moderate, conservative, (and then this goes in a circle through libertarianism, and communism back to socialist).

You place libertarianism and communism next to eachother in a circle?


 
libra Posted: Mon Mar 31 22:04:22 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>libra said:
>
>And it doesn't seem odd to you that they call themselves liberals even though they don't base their stuff on liberal ideologies but socialist ones?
>
>Newspeak anyone?
>

No, they base their 'stuff' on democratic ideology, not socialism. Its just a word that means the opposite of conservative, in a way. "Progressive" would be a better term for this group of people, I suppose.

>
>Same thing with laissez-faire government. Also, I notice that a lot of people don't have a clue as to what laissez-faire actually entails; it is not the absence of government nor is it a totally impotent form of government. It is a strong government but (almost) exclusively when it comes to upholding the law, not for telling people what to do in their personal lives or with their property or other kinds of paternalistic catering to herd mentality.
>

We were taught that a laissez faire govt. is 'hands-off' when it comes to economics.

>
>You place libertarianism and communism next to eachother in a circle?

Well, they shouldn't really be next to each other, but there's a part of libertarianism that fits on the left, and a level that fits on the right...so its kind of in between.


 
FN Posted: Tue Apr 1 06:36:02 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>We were taught that a laissez faire govt. is 'hands-off' when it comes to economics.

Then you were indoctrinated.

That's the thing with socialists, they bring everything back to money (not you per se but your teachers it seems).

My grandfather always used to say that if you need to get a dirty job done you should hire a communist, they'll do anything for money.


 
FN Posted: Tue Apr 1 07:56:29 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>>You place libertarianism and communism next to eachother in a circle?
>
>Well, they shouldn't really be next to each other, but there's a part of libertarianism that fits on the left, and a level that fits on the right...so its kind of in between.

How?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Apr 1 08:25:09 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>libra said:
>>We were taught that a laissez faire govt. is 'hands-off' when it comes to economics.
>
>Then you were indoctrinated.
>
>That's the thing with socialists, they bring everything back to money (not you per se but your teachers it seems).
>
>My grandfather always used to say that if you need to get a dirty job done you should hire a communist, they'll do anything for money.
>
Chris, over the years here on GT you have quoted your grandfather a great many times. Based on these quotes, he seems like he was a very intelligent man.
I think I would have liked to have known him.


 
libra Posted: Tue Apr 1 10:57:16 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>libra said:
>>We were taught that a laissez faire govt. is 'hands-off' when it comes to economics.
>
>Then you were indoctrinated.
>
>That's the thing with socialists, they bring everything back to money (not you per se but your teachers it seems).
>
>My grandfather always used to say that if you need to get a dirty job done you should hire a communist, they'll do anything for money.


My teachers were not socialist!
Maybe its just because a govt that doesn't meddle with economics comes up more in our history? There's these huge struggles back in the turn of the century about how to handle big business. The idea of laissez faire was used when we discussed that era.




 
libra Posted: Tue Apr 1 10:58:47 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>libra said:
>>>You place libertarianism and communism next to eachother in a circle?
>>
>>Well, they shouldn't really be next to each other, but there's a part of libertarianism that fits on the left, and a level that fits on the right...so its kind of in between.
>
>How?

Cause Libertarians believe in certain freedoms that conservatives would like to take away (the ones that conflict with their religious beliefs.)


 
FN Posted: Tue Apr 1 11:11:30 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>Christophe said:
>>libra said:
>>>>You place libertarianism and communism next to eachother in a circle?
>>>
>>>Well, they shouldn't really be next to each other, but there's a part of libertarianism that fits on the left, and a level that fits on the right...so its kind of in between.
>>
>>How?
>
>Cause Libertarians believe in certain freedoms that conservatives would like to take away (the ones that conflict with their religious beliefs.)

I repeat the question, how does that in any way put libertarianism next to or even in the vicinity of communists and other collectivists?

Also, I'm not the one who placed them next to conservatives on the other side, you did :) I don't see why you put them there either since again in the spirit of liberalism people should be free to be euthanised/get abortions/etc.


 
FN Posted: Tue Apr 1 11:17:08 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>My teachers were not socialist!

I forgot, "liberals".

>Maybe its just because a govt that doesn't meddle with economics comes up more in our history? There's these huge struggles back in the turn of the century about how to handle big business. The idea of laissez faire was used when we discussed that era.

Well, again, either your teachers knowingly made a caricature out of the idea of laissez-faire out of their own bias or they simply never actually got to the bottom of it because they didn't want to or simply didn't care so they just decided to throw around the big lines, that's the only explanation for that I can come up with.

Laissez-faire does not mean that all forms of economic activity goes completely unregulated and beyond anything the state has a hand in. Even with a free market a state that is strong is needed, the difference between collectivists and liberals (actual liberals) is that with the former they're supposed to meddle with everything, with the latter, the easiest example is in making sure that contracts get honoured and can be enforced or damages repaid when they aren't.


 
addi Posted: Tue Apr 1 11:30:54 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  (ls´´ fâr´) (KEY) [Fr.,=leave alone], in economics and politics, doctrine that an economic system functions best when there is no interference by government. It is based on the belief that the natural economic order tends, when undisturbed by artificial stimulus or regulation, to secure the maximum well-being for the individual and therefore for the community as a whole.

That's the strict definition of the term, and applied in its purest form means exactly that...no government interferance.
However, over the past centuries it has been practiced with modifications, where some degree of government regulation has been seen as beneficial, depending on the place and period in history.

It's interesting to note that a result of laissez-faire "hands off" policies during the Industrial Revolution in the late 1800's actually lead to exactly what it was supposed to prevent....a lack of competition and the growth of monopolies.


 
FN Posted: Tue Apr 1 15:46:21 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  You can't have a free market without the guarantee that contracts agreed upon are enforced by a third party (well, unless you want war, but let's say that we don't). Furthermore you need a state for some things like infrastructure and military defence.

In that sense even in a free market the state does play its role in economics as an overviewer of contracts and to guarantee that individual liberties are ensured (like that nobody can take your property without payment and your agreement).

What's interesting to note is that even though monopolies would some day ensue, nothing last forever, it's the same thing with monopolies. They'd be bound to collapse and have others take their place.

That's the beauty of capitalism and liberalism really, in the long run it's so engrained in humanity as the driving force is egoism that the principles of it always come to the surface, even if it has to span decades.


Also, as a side note, I never said, and neither has liberalism, that liberalism is perfect, it's just better than the other options, especially the collectivist ones, like democracy is better than tyranny even though tyranny has its upsides sometimes.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Apr 1 18:19:39 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I like Monopoly, I always get to be the car.


 
DanSRose Posted: Tue Apr 1 22:14:07 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Screw you!
The battleship kicks ass!


 
Mesh Posted: Wed Apr 2 01:55:33 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Alright, I've got one thing to say.


Who in the hell let me near a computer while I was drunk. Cheese and rice, people. Chees and rice.


Long story short, I made an ass out of myself! I love when that happens.


 
Mesh Posted: Sat Apr 5 04:02:28 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I have one word to liven things up.


Nigger.


 
choke Posted: Sat Apr 5 04:11:46 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Oh my!


 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]