OpinionObama is a very thoughtful fellow for being a USA President
      – BorgClown, 2009-11-14 at 07:59:51   (32 comments)

On 2009-11-14 at 08:06:02, BorgClown wrote...
He hasn't done a significant blunder, and the media has been trying hard to catch him in one, or make it look like. Compare him with his Vicepresident, Hilary Clinton, who in the Berlin Wall Fall anniversary said that all the walls of the world should fall... Did she forgot that G. W. Bush built a wall along the south border before he left? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/opinion/20sun4.html
On 2009-11-14 at 08:09:30, BorgClown wrote...
More complete description here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico_%E2%80%93_United_States_barrier
On 2009-11-14 at 10:49:54, Lee J Haywood wrote...
I'd never really thought about how countries in Europe handle border control. Pretty much all of the states are linked - e.g. Spain and France, Austria and Switzerland, etc. Presumably illegal immigration isn't a big deal for them. Don't America's immigrants do all the hard and dirty work that no-one else wants to do? http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-BarackObama/idUSTRE5A903Q20091110
On 2009-11-14 at 23:04:24, DigitalBoss wrote...
Ok, Hillary Clinton is not, or has never been, the Vice-President of the USA. She is currently the Secretary of State. Joe Biden is the Vice-President. Obama, and all the above are Democrats. Democrats that think that America is great because of it's big government. They love big government, not liberty and freedom. They think all citizens should depend on the government to help run their lives. They love high taxes. They want to have your tax money so they can buy more votes and get re-elected. I don't care if Obama is thoughtful or not. I care about the policies he implements as President. So far, I have agreed with very few of them. Yes, I am keeping a count, so far, 2. Americans do not have a problem with immigrants. Americans have a problem with illegal immigration.
On 2009-11-15 at 04:24:48, BorgClown wrote...
@DigitalBoss: Right, Secretary of State, I gave her the wrong title. She's a moron anyway, people that stupid isn't fit for international charges. Bush was an international buffoon too, he wouldn't hesitate to screw USA image in exchange for demagogic support. Bill Clinton and Obama have been more tactful and intelligent by comparison.
On 2009-11-15 at 04:31:22, BorgClown wrote...
@DigitalBoss: On a side note, aren't your immigration policies against free market? There is clearly a demand and a supply, yet your immigration policies purposefully turn free market into black market. Our previous president, Vicente Fox, tried to negotiate a temporary workers deal, basically a legal permit to work on USA for a few months and come back to Mexico. That was perfect for the harvest season, as machines still can't pick vegetables as well as humans. It was delayed and ultimately buried by USA negotiators. Would you please entertain me and guess why?
On 2009-11-15 at 16:05:36, DigitalBoss wrote...
Constantly apologizing for your country, and blaming everything on George Bush is not tactful, nor is it intelligent. Let us not forget that our congress has been run by Democrats since 2006. The minimum wage law that they pushed is one of the big reasons we have such a high unemployment rate now. Obama is all about Obama, he would sell his country down the river if he thought it made him look better. Listen to any one of his speeches, it is all about him. The current immigration law needs to be upheld and enforced, not ignored. Does the law need to be changed? Maybe so. I believe that our immigration system is woefully inadequate on many levels. This topic is a legitimate constitutional power of our government and should be decided, one way, or another. But until changes are made to the law, current law should be enforced. This is one reason I say that we don't need any new laws, we need to fix the fucked-up ones that we have already first, or repeal them altogether. Does Mexico have a temp worker program?
On 2009-11-15 at 16:10:21, DigitalBoss wrote...
George Bush made decisions based on what was good for Americans, not what improved his image to world assholes. On the return, Obama is making decisions based on improving his image on the world front in total disregard for US citizens. Which one would you prefer? I would rather the president lookout for what is best for me, not what makes him look better to fucking Europeans.
On 2009-11-15 at 16:20:10, DigitalBoss wrote...
The decision to close Guantanamo is one example. George Bush knew that Gitmo was not favorable to Euroweanies, but he also knew that he did not want those people on mainland American soil. I think he may have wanted to close it because of the political pressure, but he was a realist and knew it was necessary even though politically unpopular. That is a sign of a leader. Someone that is willing to avoid what is obviously the politically correct thing to do and just do the right thing for the US citizens, damn the torpedoes. It cost him politically, but he did it because he thought it was the right thing to do. Obama, on the other hand, would sell his soul, and fuck the American citizen, to be politically correct. I sign of a true Marxist. A title to which he aspires. I will bet that on January 23rd 2010, one year from the date that Obama promised to close Gitmo in one year, it will still be there, and there will still be terrorists there. Why? Because it is the best place for them.
On 2009-11-15 at 21:34:35, BorgClown wrote...
@DigitalBoss: Anyone can work here as long as his salary doesn't come from a Mexican source. That means you can come here and work for a branch of your company without any paperwork or notification. The alternative is a Mexican employer wanting to hire you because no Mexican worker can fulfill the position, as Canada and many other countries do.
On 2009-11-15 at 21:37:41, BorgClown wrote...
@DigitalBoss: So keeping in good terms with your neighbors is bad? What kind of neighborhood do you live in? Bush was an asshole, Obama so far isn't. I'd rather be a neighbor of Obama than Bush. That said, Obama might screw me as bad as Bush, just gentler. Kinda of an improvement, I guess.
On 2009-11-15 at 21:40:50, BorgClown wrote...
@DigitalBoss: Guantanamo is about secrecy and unquestioned abuse, I'm sure USA has plenty of places suitable for prisoner camps. The problem is the long-held tradition of Land of the Freedom's double moral. Do as I say...
On 2009-11-15 at 23:49:32, DigitalBoss wrote...
Sounds to me like Mexico has a protectionist immigration policy. You straighten out your shit before coming to us wanting us to change our shit. The President of the United States has one job: he is sworn by oath to protect and defend the United States Constitution. The document that gives me rights as an individual to live free and prosper. That aside, I really don't give a shit what anyone else thinks, Europeans, Mexicans, or Martians. The people held at Gitmo are battlefield combatants, not citizens. They are now being treated far better than they should.
On 2009-11-16 at 04:56:01, BorgClown wrote...
@DigitalBoss: Ah, don't make me laugh, now USA has become a battlefield... without battles. Call it what you like, it has no bearing with keeping prisoner camps offshore, you have lots of military prisons, why would you need them near Cuba? Or far from USA?
On 2009-11-16 at 04:58:27, BorgClown wrote...
@DigitalBoss: About immigration, how many generations do you have to go back before finding immigrants in your family? 3 or 4? Didn't the constitution welcome the immigration of the weary masses? Has it changed that far?
On 2009-11-16 at 05:45:41, DigitalBoss wrote...
My 8th great-grandfather was George Washington's grandfather. George's mother, Mary Ball Washington's father, was my 8th great-grandfather. My family goes back about 300 years here, mostly in The State of Virginia. You just can't get it through your head can you? There is nothing wrong with immigration. I am all for immigration. It just needs to be done legally.
On 2009-11-16 at 05:47:18, DigitalBoss wrote...
What do you think the attack in New York and Washington was? It was an attack. Yes, The US is currently a battlefield. There are you happy?
On 2009-11-16 at 05:48:39, DigitalBoss wrote...
What about Mexico's immigration policy? I have heard that it is WAY tougher than ours.
On 2009-11-16 at 07:21:17, BorgClown wrote...
@DigitalBoss: "It just needs to be done legally" As in the government making laws for it? Weren't you in favor of letting the individuals and the market decide freely? What is your posture about jobs migrating offshore, to India, Korea and China, for example?
On 2009-11-16 at 07:22:30, BorgClown wrote...
@DigitalBoss: I'm sorry for not noticing that USA is a battlefield, it must be tough living among bombs and dead people. My bad.
On 2009-11-16 at 07:29:45, BorgClown wrote...
@DigitalBoss: If you're speaking about the south frontier, I have to give it to you that illegal immigrants are a problem here, mostly because they don't want to stay here and contribute to our economy, they want to cross all the way up to USA. Those poor dummies finance the southern criminal groups, so there are supposedly stricter controls on our southern frontier. Those are a joke anyway, the border is too porous for lack of vigilance. Migration is actually easier if you live in a developed country, thanks to several treaties. The logic in that is that you are unlikely to use us as a bridge to USA.
On 2009-11-16 at 10:48:10, Lee J Haywood wrote...
@BorgClown: They're having a war against individuals (and giving them no right to a fair trial).
On 2009-11-16 at 10:54:06, BorgClown wrote...
@Lee J Haywood: At least the give them the freedom to be tortured.
On 2009-11-16 at 16:54:24, DigitalBoss wrote...
A war against BAD individuals.
On 2009-11-17 at 03:40:54, BorgClown wrote...
People on the other side are always the "bad" ones.
On 2009-11-18 at 16:51:45, DigitalBoss wrote...
I will ask again, does Mexico have a temp worker program?
On 2009-11-18 at 21:03:39, BorgClown wrote...
No, it doesn't seem to have such program. I went to the official sites trying to find information, there isn't. But if we had it, who would use it? USA and Canada barely send temporary workers, and other countries just want to reach our northern frontier. There would be no social reason behind such program, the market isn't here, but in USA. P.S. Love the preview thingamajig ☺ ★★★★★
On 2009-11-19 at 15:16:32, DigitalBoss wrote...
I think that we should have a temp worker program. I think that we should have many common-sense reforms of our immigration system. Unfortunately, politics gets involved, and one party of our congress insists on starting out by making everyone here illegally now automatically a citizen by amnesty. They want their votes. Pure and simple. They are refusing to do what is right and what makes sense because they want to be re-elected so bad that they can't see straight. So the reforms go nowhere. Until the reform does happen, I think we need to enforce the laws as they are.
On 2009-11-19 at 15:20:07, DigitalBoss wrote...
What I am trying to say about Mexico, I guess, is, if I wanted to move to Mexico, maybe semi-retired, could I get a job there? I have been thinking about retiring to Mexico one day. Maybe further south. Costa Rica?
On 2009-11-19 at 20:59:06, BorgClown wrote...
@DigitalBoss: Ah, the amnesty. It seems to come back each decade, and it all about votes, yeah. I'd say it's a good deed for the wrong reasons, because you legalize workers who were contribute to the economy anyway, but not paying taxes.
On 2009-11-19 at 20:59:34, BorgClown wrote...
were contributing, dammit!
On 2009-11-19 at 21:08:55, BorgClown wrote...
@DigitalBoss: Working here is like working in to Canada, you can get employed if your employer proves that you have qualities that a native worker can't provide. It's not that hard, one strong selling point is knowledge of foreign languages, methods, education systems, culture, etc. Touristic places are a must if you want to have english speaking fellows. There are a few things to be aware of, for example, you cannot own land here. You can build or buy a house, but the land isn't legally yours, just the building. Quirks of a semi-socialist state.