Gotta get outta Texas (buying, minimum wage, live)

[Jay100]

Originally Posted by GLS

Thanks alot. You have single-handedly reversed a year of my posts trying to convince Montanans that Californians are not morons.

How so?

[Jay100]

Originally Posted by skipast75

Now I have heard it all!! Most republicans I know won't let a mexican cut there lawn let alone want to bring them here in droves. You are a twit! Republicans are the people fighting to keep this country english speaking. They are the ones trying to enforce the rules of citizenship, the rules that generations had to follow. Its the Dems who want to just give this country away to anyone with a voice. Wake up you liberal loon. It is people like you that keep me from calling myself a democrat. Want to blame someone for the Mexican problem in this country. Blame Clinton. His NAFTA caused millions in mexico to lose there jobs. So they came here, illegally. Even Zach DelaRoacha from the band RageAgainstTheMachine knows that. And he is as liberal as they come. Republicans are not the enemy. Its idiots like you who distort the truth that need to be put down. Shut up, you make us all sick. Pubs and dems.

You obviously haven't heard much. Most republicans you know? How many do you actually know? Maybe 50 to 100? Maybe 1 or 2 in another state? Seriously, you people are out of touch with the day to day realities of Republican policies. Big business uses cheap labor to increase their bottom line. Hello? That means it's to their advantage to bring those people over. If they can't bring people over? Then they will outsource, as they have been doing. But it's all in line with the REPUBLICAN mantra of "big profits and big guns." Now, I agree that Clinton dropped the ball with NAFTA. I also agree that there are some high profile Democrats who are extreme left wing--as there are extreme right wingers--but they are in the minority. No, republicans are not really fighting to keep this country English speaking. They want you to believe that they are--to win your vote--but their actions are to the contrary. They are starting wars and meddling in other countries, other cultures' affairs in which the USA has NO business being in. Your stupidass out of touch republican leaders have no clue that these foreigners do NOT want to be Americans! HELLO anybody home? Can you read these letters that I am typing? Foreigners are not Americans, they could never be "Americans," and they do not want to be Americans! Do you and your republican leaders not understando? So stop your foreign welfare policies. Stay out of other countries' business, curtail your greed, and come to grips with the fact that your policies DON'T WORK!

[skipast75]

Shall I mention the 900,000 people who died in Rowanda on Clintons watch. Thats O.K. I guess by lefty idealism. Clinton was close to invading Iraq as well, but the whole Monica thing happened. And the Rowanda incedent was while he was on top of the polls, so he couldn't jeapordize his popularity. Not to mention 911 was planned during the billy administration. WOW!!! As long as we all hold up one side of the coin as almighty god, we will continue to fail. Pointing fingers has never accomplished anything. Both sides are to blame for many triumphs and many failures. Its time we came together, and worked towards a common cause. Maybe Obama will succeed, maybe he won't. But at least he is talking to the other side of the isle to find solutions that may actually work. Because he is smart enough to recognize his own parties problems. Many ideas that he once believed and has woken up to reality from. So much so, that true liberals are upset with him, and moderates like myself are willing to give him a chance. May the black man rescue us from common stupidity!!!

[skipast75]

Originally Posted by Jay100

You obviously haven't heard much. Most republicans you know? How many do you actually know? Maybe 50 to 100? Maybe 1 or 2 in another state? Seriously, you people are out of touch with the day to day realities of Republican policies. Big business uses cheap labor to increase their bottom line. Hello? That means it's to their advantage to bring those people over. If they can't bring people over? Then they will outsource, as they have been doing. But it's all in line with the REPUBLICAN mantra of "big profits and big guns." Now, I agree that Clinton dropped the ball with NAFTA. I also agree that there are some high profile Democrats who are extreme left wing--as there are extreme right wingers--but they are in the minority. No, republicans are not really fighting to keep this country English speaking. They want you to believe that they are--to win your vote--but their actions are to the contrary. They are starting wars and meddling in other countries, other cultures' affairs in which the USA has NO business being in. Your stupidass out of touch republican leaders have no clue that these foreigners do NOT want to be Americans! HELLO anybody home? Can you read these letters that I am typing? Foreigners are not Americans, they could never be "Americans," and they do not want to be Americans! Do you and your republican leaders not understando? So stop your foreign welfare policies. Stay out of other countries' business, curtail your greed, and come to grips with the fact that your policies DON'T WORK!

I own a small business that makes me a decent wage. A small business that was simple to start because of Republican business policies in the great state of Montana. Comparing my business to that of a friends in Minnesota (same business) made my friend want to vomit with all of the rules and regulations the Democrat state of Minnesota instills upon him. Not to mention the taxes. (gotta pay for all the section 8 housing and food stamps somehow) Ya, you are so correct about how the iraq millitants do not want to be american. Of course, they want women to be treated like animals and only men to be allowed to speak, or be out in public. Do you keep your wife locked up at night? Maybe you don't allow her to speak or read. Thats cool... Do you know why you don't ever hear about the Iraq war anymore smarty? Because we are winning, and there is not to much to talk about. Nope, we are talking about auto bailouts instead. Why? Because of awesome democratic Unions that have destroyed the automakers. And the financial bailouts? Well, looky looky, liberals gave away loans to people who couldn't afford them. Guess money doesn't grow from trees like your pappy told ya.(yes greed played a large role in the crisis too, but the failing housing market started the mess) Sure, them godam republicans like there cheap labor. Ever think that maybe its because we can't compete with places like china without using the cheapest labor found. And maybe its because the only people willing to work for low wages are foreigners. Ya, war sucks, with all the killing and violence. But should we really just stand by and watch genocide happen before our eyes? Guess thats the toughest question. Umerica!! We are the police. And everyone hates the police. That is, untill they need them. I for one was apposed to the war in Iraq. Mainly because we needed to finish Afganistan first. And find BinLaden. But once we were there, the liberals wanted to wave the flag in defeat. Now we are winning, and will exit the country waving the Iraq flag. And since I was raised in a very strict republican family, I think I have a pretty good feel for what they represent. I have made adjustment to my ideals, Mainly environment issues. I can assure you, most business owning republicans would much rather employ americans first. Because they hate it when laws are broken by illegals.
So whats next, are you going to tell me I shouldn't be allowed to own a gun. That hunting is a thing of the past. That I shouldn't be allowed to feed myself with organic meat that runs around in the forest. Sweet, maybe I'll apply for food stamps too.......

[tindo80]

It would seem the political bashing here may have a social undercurrent to it. People in MT hate 'californians' moving to their state with their 'liberal values' and 'diversity', but doesnt that mean what you actually hate is the liberal values and the diverity themselves? Isnt arguing against the 'californians' just a method of dodging that?

As for liberalism, its no more righteous for a conservative to pass judgment on liberals than it is when they do it to conservatives (think about how it feels on both sides, and that becomes apparent).

Some people support and believe in unions, and as much as some people hate to admit it, it works for them and their area. Others disapprove of unions and prefer a more libertarian way of living. And that works for them. This nonesense from both sides (hate to say it, but since the Obama election, most of it seems to be stemming from the right...though in fairness during the 'heyday' of bush it was from the left) that the correct policy is to force one standard on everyone is preposterous. People are different. Places are different. What works in one place wont in another.


All I am saying is its pointless to argue against politics of another region that you dont live in if you are not planning on living there again. The one exception is things involving race, religion, and other immutable background differences (things that cant be hidden, like skin color). To rag on people and judge them for their skin color makes you more ignorant than the most ignorant 'urban welfare collector' or 'rural redneck meth dealer'. Put yourself in their position. Youll understand the flaw of that logic.

[skipast75]

Originally Posted by tindo80

It would seem the political bashing here may have a social undercurrent to it. People in MT hate 'californians' moving to their state with their 'liberal values' and 'diversity', but doesnt that mean what you actually hate is the liberal values and the diverity themselves? Isnt arguing against the 'californians' just a method of dodging that?

As for liberalism, its no more righteous for a conservative to pass judgment on liberals than it is when they do it to conservatives (think about how it feels on both sides, and that becomes apparent).

Some people support and believe in unions, and as much as some people hate to admit it, it works for them and their area. Others disapprove of unions and prefer a more libertarian way of living. And that works for them. This nonesense from both sides (hate to say it, but since the Obama election, most of it seems to be stemming from the right...though in fairness during the 'heyday' of bush it was from the left) that the correct policy is to force one standard on everyone is preposterous. People are different. Places are different. What works in one place wont in another.


All I am saying is its pointless to argue against politics of another region that you dont live in if you are not planning on living there again. The one exception is things involving race, religion, and other immutable background differences (things that cant be hidden, like skin color). To rag on people and judge them for their skin color makes you more ignorant than the most ignorant 'urban welfare collector' or 'rural redneck meth dealer'. Put yourself in their position. Youll understand the flaw of that logic.

Um, was I ragging on someones skin color? I hope you were not referring to me. Because I am not racist. I hate everyone equally who looks to the government to take care of them. This world would be a much much better place if everyone worried about themselves and took the innitiative to better there own lives. I followed my dream to the Montana capital. It took me 180 bucks to start a business that makes me 60 bucks an hour. I could have continued breaking my back for someoneelse for 16 an hour, and would have continued to do so with no problem. Its the ones who wake up around noon to go get drunk off of there free money that we all should be upset with. Unless your too stupid to acknowledge that as a problem. Then you are part of the problem as well, and I hate you just as much......
As for the unions, Unions put a stranglehold on most regions they exist in. A stranglehold that stops natural competition. Competition that stimulates economies. Plain and simple. Its just a way for good ol uncle Tom to make sure he and all his buddies are set for life. Just think how many more people would have good paying jobs if someone wasn't standing in there way saying "sorry, but do you have a way into this union?" No?, well then, sorry bud. Next...." My father was union for 48 years, and I still could not break into the boys club...... Wake up dude....your wrong.....

[elkslayin]

Originally Posted by Jay100

The naivete on here is mind boggling. W Bush told you guys that sodom hussein had been hiding WMD and started a war. Turns out, it wasn't true. You all believed him. WMD were never found, 500,000 people have been killed, and $500,000,000,000.00 have been wasted. Shall I continue about the downward spiral this country has been in, the increased instability in Iraq, and refugees from the middle east who are immigrating here? President Nixon: With his Vietnam Refugee deal, is responsible for turning entire sections of cities in California into the Ho Chi Minh Trail, Little Saigon, and Laos! Eisenhower: Same deal to rescue South Koreans. Now Korea Towns have sprung up everywhere. Now you people are starting to reap the fruits of REPUBLICAN labor.

Nonsensicle liberal talking point diatribe. The MO of the liberal such as Jay, is to argue his case, and for those who don't agree, he quickly labels niave etc. California is a prime example of liberal ideology at work. BTW, isn't California going broke next month? LOL. Carter was the one who brought over the cuban refugees straight out of prison was he not? Also, I remember Bill Clinton standing on national TV talking about the need to address Iraq arsonal of WMD's. Congress used the same intell Bush had nd voted to use force. Liberals need minorities, so they can feed them their social programs and retain their vote, plain and simple. You have a democrat whitehouse and congress now, do you suppose some immigration reform will be passed now? Bet not either. Crawl back under your rock Jay.

[elkslayin]

Originally Posted by tindo80

It would seem the political bashing here may have a social undercurrent to it. People in MT hate 'californians' moving to their state with their 'liberal values' and 'diversity', but doesnt that mean what you actually hate is the liberal values and the diverity themselves? Isnt arguing against the 'californians' just a method of dodging that?

As for liberalism, its no more righteous for a conservative to pass judgment on liberals than it is when they do it to conservatives (think about how it feels on both sides, and that becomes apparent).

Some people support and believe in unions, and as much as some people hate to admit it, it works for them and their area. Others disapprove of unions and prefer a more libertarian way of living. And that works for them. This nonesense from both sides (hate to say it, but since the Obama election, most of it seems to be stemming from the right...though in fairness during the 'heyday' of bush it was from the left) that the correct policy is to force one standard on everyone is preposterous. People are different. Places are different. What works in one place wont in another.


All I am saying is its pointless to argue against politics of another region that you dont live in if you are not planning on living there again. The one exception is things involving race, religion, and other immutable background differences (things that cant be hidden, like skin color). To rag on people and judge them for their skin color makes you more ignorant than the most ignorant 'urban welfare collector' or 'rural redneck meth dealer'. Put yourself in their position. Youll understand the flaw of that logic.

Organized labor does't work in any area. Why should I, here in Montana, have my tax dollars go to bail out the pathetic parasites of the UAW? BTW, why is somebody from Minnesota, getting in between a Montana/California debate on the Montana forum and saying we shouldn't argue if we don't live there?

[tindo80]

Originally Posted by skipast75

Um, was I ragging on someones skin color? I hope you were not referring to me. Because I am not racist. I hate everyone equally who looks to the government to take care of them. This world would be a much much better place if everyone worried about themselves and took the innitiative to better there own lives. I followed my dream to the Montana capital. It took me 180 bucks to start a business that makes me 60 bucks an hour. I could have continued breaking my back for someoneelse for 16 an hour, and would have continued to do so with no problem. Its the ones who wake up around noon to go get drunk off of there free money that we all should be upset with. Unless your too stupid to acknowledge that as a problem. Then you are part of the problem as well, and I hate you just as much......
As for the unions, Unions put a stranglehold on most regions they exist in. A stranglehold that stops natural competition. Competition that stimulates economies. Plain and simple. Its just a way for good ol uncle Tom to make sure he and all his buddies are set for life. Just think how many more people would have good paying jobs if someone wasn't standing in there way saying "sorry, but do you have a way into this union?" No?, well then, sorry bud. Next...." My father was union for 48 years, and I still could not break into the boys club...... Wake up dude....your wrong.....

Oh no I was not calling you racist, or even referring to anyone here other than the thread creator on the race topic.

But I did notice your commentary on Unions, and that part about them was in reference to that. Unions may not work in the area you are from, or from your perspective. That doesnt mean they unilaterally dont work or cant work with anyone.

Lets not forget, unions exist because of the natural temptation of employers to exploit their workers to gain the most profit. Think of all the coal mining deaths back in the early 20th century (even up to the 70s), or child labor camps, or work camp pay discrepancies.

Its my opinion, but unions are a 'check' to help form a balance. To rely solely on the 'good faith' of employers will inevitably lead to exploitation, as history has proven. That being said, I totally agree with you that there does need to be checks to unions, as history has also shown tendency towards unethical and corrupt practices. We all know the terrible things unions at times have involved themselves and their members with. But as each side tugs at each other, it helps the regular folk stay aground in the middle without getting hosed by either side.

On 'taking care of themselves' I think what you are advocating is an anarchy. This wouldnt work, for several reasons. First and foremost protection. If everyone took care of their own, (no taxes, no government structure), there is no one to manage the law, the protect your life, your property or your business interests.

Unfortunately, jobs do not exist for all who seek them. Especially in places like Montana, parts of Texas and (since I noticed youre from there) the iron belt. When jobs go, the people cannot just care for themselves or survive off minimum wage service jobs (as a person who tried to do this for a while right after college, trust me. 10 bucks an hour cant support one person even in a relatively cheap town to live in. Let alone a family).

Originally Posted by elk

Organized labor does't work in any area. Why should I, here in Montana, have my tax dollars go to bail out the pathetic parasites of the UAW? BTW, why is somebody from Minnesota, getting in between a Montana/California debate on the Montana forum and saying we shouldn't argue if we don't live there?

Because your tax dollars ensure millions of americans who work in jobs under those car companies (I assume that is who you mean. The bailout isnt for the UAW, its for the car companies themselves) can remain in work, and not collect more of your tax dollars in unemployment and welfare checks because the main job flow of their region disappeared.

Think Butte after the war, or all of western Montana after logging restrictions settled in. Now magnify that to several hundred times the population.

I am not 'from' minnesota, I merely live there. I am from Texas (same as well as the creator of this thread). I mentioned this in my first post in the thread.

Ive been to Montana countless times and have several friends in the state (all of which I met when living in eastern washington, which I did for college and a few years afterwards). The reason I am even on this thread is because I was having the same thoughts of moving to MT after finishing grad school to live as the thread creator, for its libertarian atmosphere. Then I noticed both his and several others commentary which bordered on outright bigotry, something which obviously I would not wish to deal with or tolerate (I am a minority myself, I would have hoped skin color would not be an issue).

May I ask why you are questioning me? And before you call me a 'liberal', you should know I am a libertarian.

[elkslayin]

Originally Posted by tindo80

Oh no I was not calling you racist, or even referring to anyone here other than the thread creator on the race topic.

But I did notice your commentary on Unions, and that part about them was in reference to that. Unions may not work in the area you are from, or from your perspective. That doesnt mean they unilaterally dont work or cant work with anyone.

Lets not forget, unions exist because of the natural temptation of employers to exploit their workers to gain the most profit. Think of all the coal mining deaths back in the early 20th century (even up to the 70s), or child labor camps, or work camp pay discrepancies.

Its my opinion, but unions are a 'check' to help form a balance. To rely solely on the 'good faith' of employers will inevitably lead to exploitation, as history has proven. That being said, I totally agree with you that there does need to be checks to unions, as history has also shown tendency towards unethical and corrupt practices. We all know the terrible things unions at times have involved themselves and their members with. But as each side tugs at each other, it helps the regular folk stay aground in the middle without getting hosed by either side.

On 'taking care of themselves' I think what you are advocating is an anarchy. This wouldnt work, for several reasons. First and foremost protection. If everyone took care of their own, (no taxes, no government structure), there is no one to manage the law, the protect your life, your property or your business interests.

Unfortunately, jobs do not exist for all who seek them. Especially in places like Montana, parts of Texas and (since I noticed youre from there) the iron belt. When jobs go, the people cannot just care for themselves or survive off minimum wage service jobs (as a person who tried to do this for a while right after college, trust me. 10 bucks an hour cant support one person even in a relatively cheap town to live in. Let alone a family).



Because your tax dollars ensure millions of americans who work in jobs under those car companies (I assume that is who you mean. The bailout isnt for the UAW, its for the car companies themselves) can remain in work, and not collect more of your tax dollars in unemployment and welfare checks because the main job flow of their region disappeared.

Think Butte after the war, or all of western Montana after logging restrictions settled in. Now magnify that to several hundred times the population.

I am not 'from' minnesota, I merely live there. I am from Texas (same as well as the creator of this thread). I mentioned this in my first post in the thread.

Ive been to Montana countless times and have several friends in the state (all of which I met when living in eastern washington, which I did for college and a few years afterwards). The reason I am even on this thread is because I was having the same thoughts of moving to MT after finishing grad school to live as the thread creator, for its libertarian atmosphere. Then I noticed both his and several others commentary which bordered on outright bigotry, something which obviously I would not wish to deal with or tolerate (I am a minority myself, I would have hoped skin color would not be an issue).

May I ask why you are questioning me? And before you call me a 'liberal', you should know I am a libertarian.

Tin, I am not responsible for the bloated salaries and bennys of the UAW. They are losing their jobs b/c the federal goburment and UAW have a strangle hold on the auto industry. The bailout comes with strings attached, in the form of increased federal regulation. The fed won't even release where the last bailout cash went, and you want to support more? I do not subscribe to the theory that increased federal regulation and organized labor is the best recipe for the revitalization of the auto industry. File chap 13, re-organize, slap the UAW in the arse, and tell the fed to get the hell out of private business, that is the correct avenue.
I am not calling you out Tin. Montana is what it is, and if you don't like that, stay in Minnesota. If the guy down the street is a racist, then that is his business, not mine. If the lady in the store is a bigot, that is her constitutional right. Heres a little fact for you, we all discriminate on one basis or another. I am not friends with everybody in Montana, b/c some folks I don't want to be around for whatever reason. Personally, skin color is not a criteria for me, but if it is for other folks so be it. I try to surround myself with decent folks I can trust around my family. If my neighbor needs a hand I will be there for him, and I know he would return the favor.