American Politics

Really? You let homeless bums come and live in your house? Methinks you are talking rubbish, not for the first time.

Most people in the third world are perfectly content there. They have jobs and an adequate standard of living. Many people in third world countries are wealthier than the underclass in the US.

But the underclass in the third world (the left end of the bell curve: low IQ, flaky doofuses who would fail anywhere) don't have a welfare teat to suck on in the third world. So they have nothing to lose by making the trek north to get gibs from Uncle Sam, drop an anchor baby, maybe do a couple days a week of casual untaxed labor off the books.

[URL]https://stormer-daily.rw/watch-laughing-black-teens-kill-elderly-black-man-with-traffic-cone/[/URL]

Criminals are on the ballot in Nov.

[QUOTE=ScatManDoo;2718169]I wrote this post nearly nine months ago, way back on 10/16/21.

Steve Bannon faces trial later this month (in July) And I think his last-ditch efforts to avoid jail show his cowardice.[/QUOTE]I assume you will support Eric Holder being arrested and imprisoned for defying a congressional subpoena ten years ago?

Oops, no, sorry, he was a high level democrat. And as we all know, from Nancy's insider trading to Bill's rapes to Hunter and Joe's kickbacks to Hillary's emails, and many more besides, the law doesn't apply to them. For now.

[QUOTE=ChrisP;2718138]Really? You let homeless bums come and live in your house? Methinks you are talking rubbish, not for the first time.
[/QUOTE]Simply bcos you don't like the answer, doesn't mean you can discard it as incorrect. It is correct.

[QUOTE=ChrisP;2718138]But the underclass in the third world (the left end of the bell curve: low IQ, flaky doofuses who would fail anywhere) don't have a welfare teat to suck on in the third world. So they have nothing to lose by making the trek north to get gibs from Uncle Sam, drop an anchor baby, maybe do a couple days a week of casual untaxed labor off the books.[/QUOTE]I don't grant you that for one minute. I am sure many people in UK (or wherever) said the same thing about your ancestors when they fled to the USA to seek a better life. But regardless, I want to ask you this. What moral system do you have that requires you to think that only people with a high IQ should seek a decent quality of life?:

- Intelligence can be heredity. Some people are born unlucky in that regard. Why should they suffer a life of poverty?

- Intelligence can be learned. Some people are born in to poor socieities where this skill is not promoted. Why should they suffer a life of poverty?

- Education is learned. Some people are born in countries with very poor education systems. Why should they suffer a life of poverty?

- Educational success is environment. Some people are born in to dysffunctional families, and most are not born with a silver spoon in their mouth where they can go to private school. Why should they suffer a life of poverty?

**When people are born in to privilege, equality often feels like oppression*.

[URL]https://www.newsmax.com/jeffcrouere/midterms-2022-elections-democrats/2022/07/05/id/1077352/[/URL]

[QUOTE=ChrisP;2718122]Nobody is saying the flaky losers and criminals who break into the US are going to become lawyers, engineers and doctors. They aren't. The vast majority simply lack the IQ, never mind the industriousness, English language skills, or whatever else.

What they do is first get welfare gibsmedats, which adds into the national debt. Not only direct cash handouts to them, but the cost of housing them, flying them around, giving them healthcare (and many of them have various diseases), giving them legal aid, the infrastructure and logistics of setting up the legal processes which they all just ignore anyway, and much more. It all adds up. You're a democrat so you probably have a makework govt job or on welfare yourself so you don't understand the reality of how costs build up, but trust me, they do.

Then they have anchor babies. As the old song goes: "We have a hobby, it's called breeding. Welfare payments for baby feeding". More healthcare, free gibs, free education, free child services, etc, etc (when I say "free", of course, I mean "added to the $30 trillion national debt)..[/QUOTE]First off, you and every other RethugliKKKan on this board have posted many times in the past that people are crossing the border to take American jobs. I will happily relay those post numbers if you want. And every RethugliKKKan politician says the same thing. So what you just admitted was that you lied. The only "jobs" these folks "take" are the ones you and your "real American" brothers refuse to do. Like mucking out stalls or picking fruit or somesuch.

And yet somehow you failed to mention (surprise, surprise, surprise) the taxes these folks pay. Every time these workers buy something, they pay taxes. In states without an income tax, they pay even more taxes. Or that, since these folks often purchase "fake" SS cards, that they pay into FICA without ever getting a dime in return. Or that these undocumented workers are often paid less than minimum wage. Or that the businesses that hire these undocumented workers are mostly owned by (yep, you guessed it) RETHUGLIKKKANS. [URL]https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/undocumented-immigrants-and-taxes/499604/[/URL] and [URL]https://www.texastribune.org/2016/12/16/undocumented-workers-finding-jobs-underground-econ/[/URL].

And your "welfare" tripe is just that. Tripe. The standard RethugliKKKan hogwash littany of complaints that, of course, leaves out the 1996 Welfare Reform act. [URL]https://www.brookings.edu/research/welfare-benefits-for-non-citizens/[/URL] and [URL]https://aspe.hhs.gov/reports/summary-immigrant-eligibility-restrictions-under-current-law[/URL] Of course, you'll say "But they can still get 'state welfare benefits'. " What is interesting is that you RethugliKKKans say "states rights" only when it suits you. If course, there hasn't been a RethugliKKKan, [B]ever[/B], who actually understood that.

By the way, unless you are a "Native American" (you would call them Indians but you'd be wrong), you are an immigrant.

You need to get a source of information that isn't so biased, but the bottom line is that your Klan robe is showing.

[QUOTE=ChrisP;2718138]Really? You let homeless bums come and live in your house? Methinks you are talking rubbish, not for the first time.

Most people in the third world are perfectly content there. They have jobs and an adequate standard of living. Many people in third world countries are wealthier than the underclass in the US.

But the underclass in the third world (the left end of the bell curve: low IQ, flaky doofuses who would fail anywhere) don't have a welfare teat to suck on in the third world. So they have nothing to lose by making the trek north to get gibs from Uncle Sam, drop an anchor baby, maybe do a couple days a week of casual untaxed labor off the books.[/QUOTE]From the tone of this post, you are clueless about third world countries and their populations. You are clueless about the attitude of the citizenry. Mexico, for example, has a "minimum daily wage" floor of about $120 pesos [B]per day[/B]. That's about $6 US dollars per day for a 10 hour day. "Minimum daily wage" is, of course, for extremely low skill jobs, like ditch diggers. But even folks with a higher skill level rarely make more than $300 pesos [B]per day[/B] which is about $15 USD.

Now, do these folks making $15 USD per day have jobs? Sure, Do they have an adequate standard of living? That depends upon how one defines adequate, doesn't it? If by adequate, do you mean do they have a roof over their head? If so, then the answer is yes. But if by adequate do you mean do they have hot water in their dwelling? If not, then the answer is no.

Are some in third world countries wealthier than the poor in the US? Sure, but not by much. Many physicians in Mexico earn about $35,000 USD per year. Poverty level in the US for a family of 4 is about $26,000 per year.

You white robe is showing.

[QUOTE=JustTK;2718367]Simply bcos you don't like the answer, doesn't mean you can discard it as incorrect. It is correct.

I don't grant you that for one minute. I am sure many people in UK (or wherever) said the same thing about your ancestors when they fled to the USA to seek a better life. But regardless, I want to ask you this. What moral system do you have that requires you to think that only people with a high IQ should seek a decent quality of life?:

- Intelligence can be heredity. Some people are born unlucky in that regard. Why should they suffer a life of poverty?

- Intelligence can be learned. Some people are born in to poor socieities where this skill is not promoted. Why should they suffer a life of poverty?

- Education is learned. Some people are born in countries with very poor education systems. Why should they suffer a life of poverty?

- Educational success is environment. Some people are born in to dysffunctional families, and most are not born with a silver spoon in their mouth where they can go to private school. Why should they suffer a life of poverty?

**When people are born in to privilege, equality often feels like oppression*.[/QUOTE]Or is that where you're from? Do they not have any use for you?

[QUOTE=ChrisP;2718236]I assume you will support Eric Holder being arrested and imprisoned for defying a congressional subpoena ten years ago?

Oops, no, sorry, he was a high level democrat. And as we all know, from Nancy's insider trading to Bill's rapes to Hunter and Joe's kickbacks to Hillary's emails, and many more besides, the law doesn't apply to them. For now.[/QUOTE]Take your claims to 60 courts to be laughed at by more than just ISG.

[QUOTE=JustTK;2718193]Katie Halper on the lies and broken promises of the Dems, how the Dems are the same as the Reps, and how USAns need to vote for a 3rd party.

[URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zu3lyakulFI[/URL][/QUOTE][URL]https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2022/07/10/washington-post-coyotes-schedule-migrant-crossings-to-help-catch-and-release-policy/[/URL]

[QUOTE=MarquisdeSade1;2718203]Anymore of your verbal diarrhoea.

[URL]https://reason.com/2015/07/28/on-immigration-bernie-sanders-sounds-lik/[/URL][/QUOTE]When it comes to 'verbal diarrhea' nobody needs a abundant supply of Kaopectate more than you.

[QUOTE=PVMonger;2718023]Let's first start with It requires more energy to exhale than inhale. Hogwash. Inhalation is an "active" process whereas "exhalation" is passive. Of course "some" exhalation requires work, like using a spirometer. Here are two articles that don't have too many bigly words in them. Where are your sources, by the way?[/QUOTE]Wrong.

Oxygen levels did not go down in people who worked out: [URL]http://ajbasweb.com/old/ajbas/2013/August/446-449.pdf[/URL].

Generally, for somebody in a rested state, their blood oxygen is going to be 99 percent saturated. Even in an individual who's performing some type of aerobic exercise, their oxygen saturation is not going to go down that much," says Dr. John Smith, Associate Professor at Texas A&M University San Antonio.

As for oxygen "helping", there was this:

Some studies have shown that supplemental oxygen could improve recovery time during interval training, while others have found no significant improvement in those who used got a boost of oxygen. Other studies have shown that there is no effect of supplemental oxygen on recovery.

Excess CO2 was significantly correlated with the increase in lactic acid from resting to 10 min post-exercise.

So while oxygen saturation levels do not go down with exercise, CO2 and lactate levels certainly go higher, and the indication to use a ventilator is going to be determine more often that not by carbon dioxide levels and not oxygen. In fact, 100% oxygen is a toxin.

[URL]https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/why-does-breathing-pure-oxygen-kill-you/[/URL]

Our blood has evolved to capture the oxygen we breathe in and bind it safely to the transport molecule called haemoglobin. If you breathe air with a much higher than normal O2 concentration, the oxygen in the lungs overwhelms the blood's ability to carry it away.

Given your moronic "oxygen is good" binary view of the world, now we have found a second way for you to kill yourself. "Hey, I am short of breath, give me 100% oxygen because oxygen is good."

So let us go back now to Cuomo, the governor showing "real leadership", and what he said that made so much sense to you. Hey, people are short of breath with low oxygen levels, let us put them on ventilators.

So what did I just show you? In a properly functioning lung, low oxygen is never a problem. So when you have low oxygen levels, you have to identify the cause of low oxygen. Was that done?

Furthermore, fatigue is not shown to be due to low oxygen levels but correlated with high CO2 and lactate levels. Were those levels being checked prior to someone being put on a ventilator?

So someone who comes in with low oxygen, pin point pupils, breathing twice a minute, and has track marks on their arms, do you put that person on a ventilator or do you identify the cause of the low oxygen and correct it? What do you do in the above case?

IMO the call for ventilators was based on hysteria. We have all these people with Covid with low oxygen. Gee, duh, ventilators give people more oxygen. Gee, duh, we need more ventilators.

This is dumb Dem moronic hysteria. The first rule of medicine is do no harm. The first rule of politics is "do something". The second dumb Dem rule is no matter what you are doing when you are "doing something" is you defend what you did politically and never admit you are wrong. So lockdowns, hand sanitizers, social distancing, masks, vaccines, travel bans, closing schools, and ventilators were all good.

Then there is always the same over reach. Hell, can you imagine if we did not implement those things?

The problem with that standard line of BS with Covid is you can contrast and compare, and all the measures you dumb Dems were so passionate about studies showed they did either nothing or had very marginal effects.

And that is dumb Dem "science", politics masquerading as science.

[QUOTE=JustTK;2718115]Yes, my country has open borders to nearby countries. Anyone can come and live here. Whereas USA has NAFTA. USA only wants the goods, not the people. Typical pig-headed and selfish approach.[/QUOTE]JustTK, when I asked an economist about Turkey being admitted to the EU, I was told they absolutely would not be, and the reason is Turkey is mostly Islamic. And there has been criticism of Muslims not assimilating into European society, and I do not think all Europeans would have fondness with regards to the number of Muslims who have entered Europe.

With regards to immigration, I wholeheartedly want as many legal immigrants as possible. When it comes to economic strength of a nation's economy, it is beneficial to admit people age 18 to 65 as they are a net benefit to a society versus a cost. Instead of assessing the value of an immigrant to our society, the Democrats have put a value not on the benefit or risk that individual has to society but how that person is going to vote. Anybody in their 50's who does not want social security and Medicare to die knows we need young, hard working immigrants.

The issue is what we want then. Do we want criminals or hard working law abiding citizens? I do not want a citizen whose first action when entering the USA is breaking the law. Do we want people who are going to reject our culture and create conflict or assimilate within to it?

So the issue I have is not disallowing people to enter. It is treating the illegal and legal people the same and a failure to screen for the criminal element. There are doctors and engineers who do want to come to the USA but they are not the ones crawling under fences.

The real issue with immigration is that the pols are not looking at which immigrants enter society but projecting how they will vote. I think all the issues could be solved if society's needs were put first over the interests of the pols.

You can get a credit report to see if someone is a good or bad credit risk in 2 seconds. You should be able to do a citizenship test just as fast.

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2718437]Wrong.

Oxygen levels did not go down in people who worked out: [URL]http://ajbasweb.com/old/ajbas/2013/August/446-449.pdf[/URL].

Generally, for somebody in a rested state, their blood oxygen is going to be 99 percent saturated. Even in an individual who's performing some type of aerobic exercise, their oxygen saturation is not going to go down that much," says Dr. John Smith, Associate Professor at Texas A&M University San Antonio.

As for oxygen "helping", there was this:

Some studies have shown that supplemental oxygen could improve recovery time during interval training, while others have found no significant improvement in those who used got a boost of oxygen. Other studies have shown that there is no effect of supplemental oxygen on recovery.

Excess CO2 was significantly correlated with the increase in lactic acid from resting to 10 min post-exercise.

So while oxygen saturation levels do not go down with exercise, CO2 and lactate levels certainly go higher, and the indication to use a ventilator is going to be determine more often that not by carbon dioxide levels and not oxygen. In fact, 100% oxygen is a toxin.

[URL]https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/why-does-breathing-pure-oxygen-kill-you/[/URL]

Our blood has evolved to capture the oxygen we breathe in and bind it safely to the transport molecule called haemoglobin. If you breathe air with a much higher than normal O2 concentration, the oxygen in the lungs overwhelms the blood's ability to carry it away.

Given your moronic "oxygen is good" binary view of the world, now we have found a second way for you to kill yourself. "Hey, I am short of breath, give me 100% oxygen because oxygen is good."

So let us go back now to Cuomo, the governor showing "real leadership", and what he said that made so much sense to you. Hey, people are short of breath with low oxygen levels, let us put them on ventilators.

So what did I just show you? In a properly functioning lung, low oxygen is never a problem. So when you have low oxygen levels, you have to identify the cause of low oxygen. Was that done?

Furthermore, fatigue is not shown to be due to low oxygen levels but correlated with high CO2 and lactate levels. Were those levels being checked prior to someone being put on a ventilator?

So someone who comes in with low oxygen, pin point pupils, breathing twice a minute, and has track marks on their arms, do you put that person on a ventilator or do you identify the cause of the low oxygen and correct it? What do you do in the above case?

IMO the call for ventilators was based on hysteria. We have all these people with Covid with low oxygen. Gee, duh, ventilators give people more oxygen. Gee, duh, we need more ventilators.

This is dumb Dem moronic hysteria. The first rule of medicine is do no harm. The first rule of politics is "do something". The second dumb Dem rule is no matter what you are doing when you are "doing something" is you defend what you did politically and never admit you are wrong. So lockdowns, hand sanitizers, social distancing, masks, vaccines, travel bans, closing schools, and ventilators were all good.

Then there is always the same over reach. Hell, can you imagine if we did not implement those things?

The problem with that standard line of BS with Covid is you can contrast and compare, and all the measures you dumb Dems were so passionate about studies showed they did either nothing or had very marginal effects.

And that is dumb Dem "science", politics masquerading as science.[/QUOTE]Thank you so much for [B]not answering[/B] my complaint. I was responding to some RethugliKKKan moron who claimed that it took more energy to exhale than to inhale. I proved him wrong. What you did was, well, I don't know. More stupidity?

When will you idiots learn that altering one's approach to solving a problem comes from the experience gained by trying to solve the problem. That is how science works, believe it or not. But not for you guys, though. You would rather just sit back and let the problem persist and blame everybody and anybody.

There was not a single doctor, during the early stages of the pandemic, that advocated for an approach other than ventilation. But it is very easy to look backwards with 20/20 hindsight and say, gee, we should've done this. But 20/20 hindsight is what you're about, isn't it?

You dumb RethugliKKKans love to spout stuff but you never have any sources to back up your claims. Why is that? You claim that lockdowns, hand sanitizers, social distancing, masks, vaccines, travel bans, closing schools, and ventilators didn't do much or did nothing. But proof? Nope, you don't have that. Well, you do have stuff that shows up on rightwingnut sources and, since you believe that everything else is "fake newZ", that's what you're left with. Just like Rudy "We have lots of theories but no proof" Giuliani.

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2718444]JustTK, when I asked an economist about Turkey being admitted to the EU, I was told they absolutely would not be, and the reason is Turkey is mostly Islamic. And there has been criticism of Muslims not assimilating into European society, and I do not think all Europeans would have fondness with regards to the number of Muslims who have entered Europe.

With regards to immigration, I wholeheartedly want as many legal immigrants as possible. When it comes to economic strength of a nation's economy, it is beneficial to admit people age 18 to 65 as they are a net benefit to a society versus a cost. Instead of assessing the value of an immigrant to our society, the Democrats have put a value not on the benefit or risk that individual has to society but how that person is going to vote. Anybody in their 50's who does not want social security and Medicare to die knows we need young, hard working immigrants.

The issue is what we want then. Do we want criminals or hard working law abiding citizens? I do not want a citizen whose first action when entering the USA is breaking the law. Do we want people who are going to reject our culture and create conflict or assimilate within to it?

So the issue I have is not disallowing people to enter. It is treating the illegal and legal people the same and a failure to screen for the criminal element. There are doctors and engineers who do want to come to the USA but they are not the ones crawling under fences.

The real issue with immigration is that the pols are not looking at which immigrants enter society but projecting how they will vote. I think all the issues could be solved if society's needs were put first over the interests of the pols..

You can get a credit report to see if someone is a good or bad credit risk in 2 seconds. You should be able to do a citizenship test just as fast.[/QUOTE]You seem to be following that standard RethugliKKKan mantra of "illegal immigrants are criminals". Nothing is further from the truth. Texas is the state that has the longest border with Mexico, right? So it should follow that Texas would have more "illegal immigrants" that almost every other state. It should also follow that if Texas did a crime rate study, it would show that "illegal immigrants" commit more crimes. And yet, it doesn't. [URL]https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2014704117[/URL].

In fact, what the above study shows is that US-born citizens commit crimes at a higher rate than "illegal immigrants". Oh, and by the way, the study was peer reviewed.

Now, you might ask why the study only involved Texas. It turns out that Texas, thanks in part to their nearly brain-dead RethugliKKKan governor and completely brain-dead RethugliKKKan-run legislature, is the only state that captures the immigration status of arrestees. So, according to you, the Texas "illegal immigrant" population must be more law-abiding than the rest of the country.

As to the rest of your nonsense, the "Democrats want illegal immigrants to vote blue" ignores the [B]fact[/B] that illegal immigrants can not vote in Federal elections. The remainder is simply "replacement theory" spun a little differently. All RethugliKKKan bullshit.

And, by the way, if a citizenship test had been required of Cheeto Tweeto prior to his running for President, he'd have failed.

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2718437]Wrong.

Oxygen levels did not go down in people who worked out: [URL]http://ajbasweb.com/old/ajbas/2013/August/446-449.pdf[/URL].

Generally, for somebody in a rested state, their blood oxygen is going to be [/QUOTE]BLAH BLAH BLAH. Live it to Elvis to hide his mind-boggling ignorance behind the facade of big words.

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2718437]So what did I just show you? [/QUOTE]You have showed me (and everyone else who hasn't been lazy to click on the links you provided) that you don't even understand what you're quoting.

[QUOTE]Abstract: The aim of this study was to investigate changes in oxygen saturation of soccer players with short-term exercise. For this purpose, two groups were generated from soccer players (n=10) and sedentaries (n=8). Wingate protocol was applied to the groups as a model for short-term exercise. Oxygen saturation (SpO2) were measured before and immediately after the test. Also, age, weight with height data and bioelectrical impedance analysis, body mass index (BMI), basal metabolic rate (BMR), resting heart rate (HRrest), systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), body fat percentage (%BF), fat mass (FM) and fat free mass (FFM) data were taken before the test. Paired Samples T for intra-group comparison and Independent Samples T tests to compare groups were used. According to analysis of pre-and post-test SpO2 data of the groups, it was detected that there was a significant fall between the two tests in soccer players group (p<0.05) and a fall in sedentary group but not significant (p>0.05). [b]When the groups were compared, any significance was not found in SpO2 data between two groups (p>0.05). As a result, it can be said that short-term exercise reduces the oxygen saturation but regular exercise doesnt affect the change in oxygen saturation in short-term exercise.[/b][/QUOTE]Even if you're too lazy to read the abstract, the last two sentences tell you everything you need to know. Granted, the wording here could've been more eloquent, but if you pay attention it becomes clear that:

1. Short-term exercise [B]does reduce the oxygen saturation[/B]. Which, by the way, is totally non-surprising.

2. But whether or not you work out [B]on a regular basis does not make any difference[/B] in terms of oxygen saturation in [B]short-term exercise[/B].

In other words, no, the study doesn't conclude that "oxygen levels did not go down in people who worked out" as you put it. That's a pure lunacy. If anything, the study you linked to DID show that exercising DOES immediately reduce oxygen saturations after working out, which is exactly the opposite of your 'thesis'.

Learn how to read or stop quoting things you don't understand.

Sheesh.