Namutree

Ok, let's ignore them.

Very well... Alright, I'll concede this point. +1 for you. Doesn't change the fact that I (and the other taxpayers) would be getting the bill to ensure that those whom illegally abuse their foreign workers don't have an advantage over those who don't. Those foreigners come here of their own choice. THEY and only they are responsible for their well-being. I never asked them to come here, and I don't want to be punished for them being here. Besides this program should just be shut down altogether as the government shouldn't be getting it's nose in the economy. Well, I'm glad you at least realize it's a pipe dream.

So? Sounds win-win to me.

A few notes: a) We have no way of knowing if this story is even true. Wouldn't want to expand regulation making the lives of everyone involved in this issue harder to solve a problem that may not even exist. b) I don't see why I should be punished (in the form of higher taxes or public debt) so that immigrants who come here of their own free will can have a better time while here. If you really find the situation so detestable then just end the program altogether rather then make me partially subsidize the importation of immigrant workers. After all, the inspections, prosecutions, and stuff cost taxpayer money. c) Do you really think a few new laws to make a difference? The government is incompetent at everything it does, and is easy to fool. Considering this is a government immigration program it obviously is outside of the realm of the free market altogether; so I doubt you'll hear anyone suggesting the free market could fix it.

Has that just become your go-to post? It doesn't even seem to be about the article or anything.

Pretty screwed up.

Nailed it. People really need to learn to just leave other people alone and mind their own business. I'm not entirely sure. I mean, it sounds like a really convenient excuse for not giving a **** about the suffering of other human beings while retaining moral high ground. (Not to imply this is what GD's doing, just to illustrate how complex morality really can't be distilled into omni-applicable wisdom in a snappy little soundbite.) Well, it's fine to want to help people as long as you don't impose yourself on people. I mean, I've given homeless people money and even let one homeless guy I knew live in my house for a few weeks. It's not the same as going, "I know what's best for you, so here's a bunch of rules dictating your life that you MUST abide by."

Nailed it. People really need to learn to just leave other people alone and mind their own business. I'd say that it has to go beyond simple belief, there has also to be a desire to inflict the 'benefits' of those ideas on others whether they want it or not. Otherwise holding or expressing any belief about others would be wrong and so would any political party or political discourse; after all, every candidate will say that they know best what their country and everyone in it need even if they'd couch it in slightly different terms, and that's true whether you agree with the candidate or not. So long as you're reasonable about how you express your beliefs and don't seek to impose them on others (as opposed to express or hold them at all) then it's fine. True enough.

Nailed it. People really need to learn to just leave other people alone and mind their own business.

WTF!? That didn't make me want cheetos at all!

Sorry for the new thread/topic but the old one is locked. I'm assuming for length. Why did he even bother running?

I'm the best thing since sliced bread. The Clinton doctrine lead to the Iraq war. How'd that turn out? Ever heard that pride is the worst sin? Well it isn't but it is bad. We don't have the right to impose our views on other nations at the point of a gun. BTW I'm not "fine with genocide". I'm just not willing to trample on other nations' sovereignty just because they don't adhere to my values. You know Bruce, America once had a civil war of it's own, and I'm happy the world let us resolve it on our own. Not really.

So are you suggesting if the West is involved in a military campaign, like Libya, it is now the Wests responsibility to now manage the country? The only issue with that is that the Libyans didn't want the West to be involved in governing Libya after Gaddafi was removed....so what would you suggest? I would have suggested back then to not get involved. I'd suggest now to cut our loses. All can possibly do is make things worse. I don't believe in disrespecting the sovereignty of other nation states. If that means that we cannot forcefully stop a genocide; oh well. We can still: A) Condemn the action. B) Cease all trade with said nation state. C) Offer the people being exterminated refugee status and take them in if they are able to get here, or go collect them if the genocidal nation state is willing to allow it. D) Cease all trade with any nation states that still trade with said nation state. South Africa is a case where it's sovereignty wasn't compromised. Try to use an example of when we did disregard a nation's sovereignty to make your point.

Agreed.

Yes you right about that, I have no issue with the likes of Assad or Gaddafi being removed from power. Its not the West place to chose a successor but I would hope a new leader in Syria practices a bit of Democracy Bruce. If it's the west's place to remove them then it's the west's place to do whatever we want to them. Screwing with another nation isn't something you do in moderation. It's either you respect another nation's sovereignty or you don't.

Nah. They'll just destabilize themselves.

She's been released? Good. She's not fit for her position, but she's not like a menace to society or anything.

I'm sorry, when did you become a frothing mad idiot who projects his wants and needs onto other people so hard he can't spell? When? The day he was born. During delivery he called the doctor a nazi sjw and named himself Volourn. That is when it began.

I didn't know she got friggin' jail time! Wouldn't a simple dismissal have been sufficient? Kinda goin' overboard there government.

Ha!

I have to ask why some one of such religious conviction would work for a secular institution like government. It's like a devout Muslim becoming a bartender and being like, "I can't believe I have to hand out alcoholic drinks!"

The problem Bruce is that what are offensive/rude/derogatory comments vary from individual-to-individual.

Irenicus's dungeon was a terrible dungeon and the worst starting area I've ever had the misfortune of playing. Love BG2; hate that dungeon.

Variety is the spice of life. Why not have more of it?

https://youtu.be/let-4RxEvS8