we have Savannah, too...

Georgia is in Africa?

Find your State. Share how accurate it is.



Pretty much

rc

Pros:

- seriously
- I got nothing

Cons:

- gay floridian
- seriously, each of those could be their own con

Quote from: Meta Cognition on January 09, 2015, 10:03:10 PM

Quote from: Kinder Graham on January 09, 2015, 09:58:20 PM

That's why you take away all the incentives to come across illegally in the first place.

You do realise the incentive to come illegally comes from the fact that's it's complicated as shit to do it legally?

It's fuck all to do with welfare; it's the desperation to have a better life regardless. Why would you even want to remove the incentives immigrants have for coming to your country? You'd wreck the fucking economy in a heartbeat.

There's a difference between removing incentives from illegals and legals

I don't think you understand....

The incentive that people have to come here illegally is that they don't have to deal with the extremely complicated process it takes to become a legal citizen.

Fuck religion and fuck extremists.

Good lord I just want to pick the third one up, slam him on a table, and go to fucking town.



But uh... on topic... I'm mostly envious of those with decent social capabilities.

At first, I thought it was Casper

IcyWind change your name to FrigidFarts already

thanks

I already have a list of phases

- Sun God
- Donald Duck
- Robin Fucking Wright
- More Donald Fucking Duck

I could maybe slip FrigidFarts in between Donald and Robin

I always said I would never be outgayed.

This might just do it.

Not only are we going to work against Obama's EO, but also against those who came here as children (Illegally, but without a choice), and not prioritize violence illegals

WASHINGTON -- House Republicans are set to vote next week on a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security that will be coupled with a number of hard-line conservative measures going after President Barack Obama's central immigration policies. The bill is likely to set up a weekslong fight between Republicans and the president that could risk shutting down DHS at the end of next month.

The $39.7 billion DHS funding package was introduced on Friday, and will be coupled next week with amendments limiting the president's immigration authorities. One amendment is expected to block Obama's recently announced executive actions on immigration, which could give work authorization to up to 5 million people who are in the country illegally. Members said the legislation would also halt the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy, which protects undocumented young people who came to the U.S. as children.

Along with those measures, members said the amendments would reinstate the controversial Secure Communities immigration enforcement program, which DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson announced would be ended late last year due to pushback from state and local officials. The package is also expected to do away with most of the "Morton Memos," guidance from Immigration and Customs Enforcement that instructs agents to focus deportation efforts on immigrants who are perceived as more dangerous or who have recently crossed the border illegally.

GOP members huddled on Friday morning to discuss the plan before it was introduced. The package pleased conservatives in the House, but is likely doomed in the Senate. Even if it passed in the upper chamber, though, the bill would almost certainly get a veto from the president.

Republicans said they were aware that their bill will face opposition from Obama and Democrats, but wanted to stake out their position early in the DHS funding process.

"We're starting from a conservative standpoint as opposed to negotiating with the Senate before we even pass a bill," Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.), whose immigration bill will be partially integrated into the funding measures, told reporters after the House GOP conference meeting. "So we're starting from a very conservative aspect on this."

The bill could lose some GOP members, though likely not many. Rep. Jeff Denham (R-Calif.) said he was "not happy with the current status of the bill," pointing specifically to the DACA provision.

"We've got to deal with immigration -- immigration as a whole, reforming our system across the nation," said Denham, who has opposed previous bills to end DACA. "Just picking on the children that came here through no fault of their own, I think, is the wrong way to start."

Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.), who supports the plan, said only a small group of House Republicans had expressed concern about the bill. He noted that all of the issues raised had been about the DACA provisions, not the strength of the bill overall. Almost everyone else is on board, he said.

"This is as close to 100 percent as we've ever gotten on a tough issue like this," Salmon said.

Moving forward with a DHS funding bill so early in the new Congress will allow ample time for negotiations, which could prevent a department shutdown. Some Republicans said that after Wednesday's terrorist attack in France, it would be the wrong move to threaten shutting down the Homeland Security department over the immigration issue.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said during a Thursday press conference that he does not expect that to happen, and that his conference would move forward with efforts to block Obama's executive actions on immigration.

"I don't believe that the funding of the department is, in fact, at risk," he said. "What is at risk is the rule of law and the sanctity of America's constitution. The president has taken actions that are beyond the scope of his ability and Congress cannot just sit here and look the other way."

Boehner, when asked whether House Republicans would ever pass a DHS funding bill that did not stop Obama's immigration actions, didn't give a yes or no answer.

There are "a lot of options available to us," he said. "When we pass our bill, we'll see what the Senate can do with it and then we'll act."

Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) said Friday that he had told fellow GOP members during the conference meeting that they needed to begin thinking about what the next step would be, once the Senate likely rejects the House bill. He said they will discuss the matter at a GOP retreat next week, which will take place after the vote on DHS funding.

Republicans, Labrador said, needed to "draw a line in the sand so the president understands he's putting the nation's national security at risk and he's putting illegal immigration ahead of people that are here legally."

Labrador said the most vital aspect for a final funding bill will be to go after the executive actions that the president announced late last year.

"It doesn't have to have all of these measures, but I think we need to roll back what [Obama] did in November," Labrador said.

Let me emphasize my point:

The Federal Government DOES NOT have the resources to arrest, put on trial, and deport (at a minimum) the 11 million estimated illegal immigrants in our country.

So, lets prioritize those who are violent, non-beneficial to society, or here solely to cause problems, and make it easier for those who had no choice in their coming here, or have been beneficial to American society, to become legal!

Emphasized enough?

Well, as long as nobody in this thread starts calling for wage and price controls, government works programmes and fiscal stimulus. . .

I think we'll be all right >.>

We should have all of that, and then socialism.

Quote from: Ἀπόλλων on January 09, 2015, 09:21:00 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on January 09, 2015, 09:20:34 PM

Quote from: Ἀπόλλων on January 09, 2015, 09:19:30 PM

Department of Education

Last time anything happened there was under Bush. . .

I think we all want to avoid anything like that happening again >.>

You mean NCLB?

Well, that and the fact that the Dept. of Education's funding increased by 165pc.

Whether it fucking even did anything to the education system, I don't even know.

It did not, because it was still considered an underfunded mandate.

Quote from: Ἀπόλλων on January 09, 2015, 09:19:30 PM

Department of Education

Last time anything happened there was under Bush. . .

I think we all want to avoid anything like that happening again >.>

You mean NCLB?

Quote from: Kinder Graham on January 09, 2015, 09:09:34 PM

Quote from: Ἀπόλλων on January 09, 2015, 09:03:53 PM

Quote from: Kinder Graham on January 09, 2015, 09:00:03 PM

Quote from: Ἀπόλλων on January 09, 2015, 08:40:00 PM

Quote from: Kinder Graham on January 09, 2015, 08:34:09 PM

Quote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on January 09, 2015, 08:32:12 PM

Quote from: Kinder Graham on January 09, 2015, 08:29:26 PM

I would love it so damn much if we can go back a couple of decades where anybody could be middle-class, have a simple high school diploma, and be a manager at a department store or wherever

People back then also weren't nearly as educated. But sure, go ahead and travel back in time. I'm sure you'd fit in perfectly.

Yep, just 20 years ago people were running around in nothing but a loin cloth and throwing rocks at animals to see what would be a better tool for hunting. Seriously, would it be any harm for you to think for once? If anybody would fit perfectly with cavemen it would be you

Twenty years ago, there was no internet for the general consumer. Phones were still tethered to a wall with a 20ft cable. Hell, have you seen their fashion?

It may only have been 20 years ago, but the world was quite different.

And that matters exactly how?

Because Kinder - you say shit like "Oh, I wish we could go back twenty years to where things were so much better!" - and then say "Oh, what does that matter" when some of the biggest innovations weren't even around.

Guess what - prices of products have gone up, wages for entry level jobs, along with positions like managers, has not significantly changed. Great, in 1995, you could live modestly as a manager. Shit was cheaper then.

I'm saying we should go back to when you don't need a degree in order to become the manager of McDonalds

hey this is kinda relevant to a story i have

first semester of college, i only had class on tuesdays and thursdays. i figured i could do some substitute teaching at the local elementary/middle schools on my offdays to make some extra cash and keep myself busy. guess what? in my state, substitute teachers need four year degrees!

 

Well....yes. I'd prefer my children's substitute teacher to be certified in teaching and be aware, nominally, of what they are teaching.

Quote from: Ἀπόλλων on January 09, 2015, 09:03:53 PM

Quote from: Kinder Graham on January 09, 2015, 09:00:03 PM

Quote from: Ἀπόλλων on January 09, 2015, 08:40:00 PM

Quote from: Kinder Graham on January 09, 2015, 08:34:09 PM

Quote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on January 09, 2015, 08:32:12 PM

Quote from: Kinder Graham on January 09, 2015, 08:29:26 PM

I would love it so damn much if we can go back a couple of decades where anybody could be middle-class, have a simple high school diploma, and be a manager at a department store or wherever

People back then also weren't nearly as educated. But sure, go ahead and travel back in time. I'm sure you'd fit in perfectly.

Yep, just 20 years ago people were running around in nothing but a loin cloth and throwing rocks at animals to see what would be a better tool for hunting. Seriously, would it be any harm for you to think for once? If anybody would fit perfectly with cavemen it would be you

Twenty years ago, there was no internet for the general consumer. Phones were still tethered to a wall with a 20ft cable. Hell, have you seen their fashion?

It may only have been 20 years ago, but the world was quite different.

And that matters exactly how?

Because Kinder - you say shit like "Oh, I wish we could go back twenty years to where things were so much better!" - and then say "Oh, what does that matter" when some of the biggest innovations weren't even around.

Guess what - prices of products have gone up, wages for entry level jobs, along with positions like managers, has not significantly changed. Great, in 1995, you could live modestly as a manager. Shit was cheaper then.

I'm saying we should go back to when you don't need a degree in order to become the manager of McDonalds

And you really don't. If I got a job at (insert store name here), I can work my way up to Manager.

That option is still there. Doesn't mean it's feasible.

Quote from: Ἀπόλλων on January 09, 2015, 08:40:00 PM

Quote from: Kinder Graham on January 09, 2015, 08:34:09 PM

Quote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on January 09, 2015, 08:32:12 PM

Quote from: Kinder Graham on January 09, 2015, 08:29:26 PM

I would love it so damn much if we can go back a couple of decades where anybody could be middle-class, have a simple high school diploma, and be a manager at a department store or wherever

People back then also weren't nearly as educated. But sure, go ahead and travel back in time. I'm sure you'd fit in perfectly.

Yep, just 20 years ago people were running around in nothing but a loin cloth and throwing rocks at animals to see what would be a better tool for hunting. Seriously, would it be any harm for you to think for once? If anybody would fit perfectly with cavemen it would be you

Twenty years ago, there was no internet for the general consumer. Phones were still tethered to a wall with a 20ft cable. Hell, have you seen their fashion?

It may only have been 20 years ago, but the world was quite different.

And that matters exactly how?

Because Kinder - you say shit like "Oh, I wish we could go back twenty years to where things were so much better!" - and then say "Oh, what does that matter" when some of the biggest innovations weren't even around.

Guess what - prices of products have gone up, wages for entry level jobs, along with positions like managers, has not significantly changed. Great, in 1995, you could live modestly as a manager. Shit was cheaper then.