Arizona Secretary of State seeking to remove Obama from ballot


Off-Topic Discussions

51 to 100 of 160 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:

On Wiki, it says that remittances from abroad to Mexico accounted for 2.1 percent of their gdp in 2004.

I'd be interested to see the same for many african countries. Financial emigration is not unique to mexico by any means.

We seem to be going a bit off topic...


Tigger_mk4 wrote:


And yes, totally agree about texans ,CB . Yee, and indeed haw, old boy.

*snif* Eurosnobs bein mean to me.......BAAAAAAAAW!


Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:
Tigger_mk4 wrote:


And yes, totally agree about texans ,CB . Yee, and indeed haw, old boy.

*snif* Eurosnobs bein mean to me.......BAAAAAAAAW!

Well, i suppose you could look on the bright side... You may have had to put up with George Dubblya, but we've got to endue Simon Callow...

Incidentally, Ozzy Osbourne tells a funny story about the difference in attitude between the brits and the texans as regards reverence for national monuments...should be on youtube somewhere...(i definitely think the texans have the edge there...)

P.s. Thanks for the link sparky, all very interesting !


Tigger_mk4 wrote:
Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:

On Wiki, it says that remittances from abroad to Mexico accounted for 2.1 percent of their gdp in 2004.

I'd be interested to see the same for many african countries. Financial emigration is not unique to mexico by any means.

We seem to be going a bit off topic...

according to this, it's hard to gauge exactly. informal financial channels wot wot


2 people marked this as a favorite.

We won't mention subsidized US agriculture dumped on Mexico under NAFTA, undercutting the small farmers that were the mainstay of the Mexican economy. The farmers couldn't compete with US agribusiness, went bust and became a cheap labor force for the maquiladoras. Those that couldn't find work there came North. What else could they do?

It's a good deal for the rich in both countries.


Tigger_mk4 wrote:
Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:
Tigger_mk4 wrote:


And yes, totally agree about texans ,CB . Yee, and indeed haw, old boy.

*snif* Eurosnobs bein mean to me.......BAAAAAAAAW!

Well, i suppose you could look on the bright side... You may have had to put up with George Dubblya, but we've got to endue Simon Callow...

Incidentally, Ozzy Osbourne tells a funny story about the difference in attitude between the brits and the texans as regards reverence for national monuments...should be on youtube somewhere...(i definitely think the texans have the edge there...)

I'd look it up, but I don't understand his accent or something.


Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:

On Wiki, it says that remittances from abroad to Mexico accounted for 2.1 percent of their gdp in 2004.

Vincent Fox wrote:
Remittances "are our biggest source of foreign income, bigger than oil, tourism or foreign investment," Fox told reporters after a meeting with Mexican-American businessmen.

http://legacy.utsandiego.com/news/mexico/20030924-2051-us-mexic o.html

It appears that some of that dropped A LITTLE when the US headed into economic crisis (as you mention 2004)

Wiki also says that remittances were the 10th largest source of foreign income for Mexico in 2004 and that, as of 2005, the growth of remittances (mostly from the US) was remarkable.
That rate of growth has continued to be remarkable. Remittances rose 16.4% between March 2010 and April 2011.
The link below says that, as of April 2011, remittances were Mexico's second-largest source of foreign exchange.
http://en.mercopress.com/2012/05/03/remittances-from-mexicans-abroad-climbe d-5.3-in-first-quarter-over-a-year-ago

As the US recovers, it looks like Mexico is right back to its old policy of passing its poor onto the US.


thejeff wrote:


It's a good deal for the rich in both countries.

You are no doubt right.

I must admit when it comes to things like that , i tend to assume its a cockup rather than a conspiracy, but I know many would disagree and I certainly couldnt prove otherwise...

I guess it all depends on how competent you think world leaders are. I tend to suspect they're mostly idjuts (to borrow a phrase from Bobby Singer..)

The Ozzy story...while in Texas, the singer had been out drinking beer, and was in need to relieve hs bladder..so he nipped around the back of some old ruins.

He was promptly arrested for urinating against the Alamo.

When the somewhat offended arresting policeman asked him how Ozzy would feel about an American pissing up against Buckingham Palace, Ozzy said he couldnt care less...

I've no idea if its true, but it sounds about right. The Americans appreciate their history in the way Brits dont (except a few items like WW2 and 1966...)


thejeff wrote:

We won't mention subsidized US agriculture dumped on Mexico under NAFTA, undercutting the small farmers that were the mainstay of the Mexican economy. The farmers couldn't compete with US agribusiness, went bust and became a cheap labor force for the maquiladoras. Those that couldn't find work there came North. What else could they do?

It's a good deal for the rich in both countries.

Mexico, true to its policy of pushing its poor onto the US..

Quote:

="New York Times"]

When Nafta finally became a reality, on Jan. 1, 1994, American investment flooded into Mexico, mostly to finance factories that manufacture automobiles, appliances, TV sets, apparel and the like. The expectation was that the Mexican government would do its part by investing billions of dollars in roads, schooling, sanitation, housing and other needs to accommodate the new factories as they spread through the country.

It was more than an expectation. Many Mexican officials in the government of President Carlos Salinas de Gortari assured the Clinton administration that the investment would take place, and believed it themselves, said Gary Hufbauer, a senior fellow at the Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington who campaigned for Nafta in the early 1990s.

“It just did not happen,” he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/weekinreview/18uchitelle.html?_r=1

Liberty's Edge

Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:


Please, if you're out there, don't come to Texas right now.
Take Ciretose's explanation of the meaning of the statistics.
He doesn't have to actually be here in person, like me, to see these things.
He has......STATISTICS!!!

Trust your gut instead. Facts have a well known liberal bias.

I hear the cost of living is really low throughout the third world.

For the record, I like Texas, I have a lot of friends who are Texan, but your schools and services generally suck. It is a great place to be rich, so long as you know where to avoid driving at night.


Darkwing Duck wrote:

.

“It just did not happen,” he said

Again, conspiracy or cockup ?

My suspicion would be corruption and incompetance rather than policy, but I cant disprove your theory.....


Tigger_mk4 wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:

.

“It just did not happen,” he said

Again, conspiracy or cockup ?

My suspicion would be corruption and incompetance rather than policy, but I cant disprove your theory.....

Its not either/or. Policy was the result of corruption.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
Tigger_mk4 wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:

.

“It just did not happen,” he said

Again, conspiracy or cockup ?

My suspicion would be corruption and incompetance rather than policy, but I cant disprove your theory.....

Its not either/or. Policy was the result of corruption.

So, by policy, you're saying that their actions are driven by the failure of the system? Thats fair enough,

thats a little different from setting out to do something from the beginning ( regardless of the success or failure of the system), which is what i initially assumed you meant...my bad.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:


Please, if you're out there, don't come to Texas right now.
Take Ciretose's explanation of the meaning of the statistics.
He doesn't have to actually be here in person, like me, to see these things.
He has......STATISTICS!!!

Trust your gut instead. Facts have a well known liberal bias.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!! Oh, wait a minute. You were serious?


Tigger_mk4 wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
Tigger_mk4 wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:

.

“It just did not happen,” he said

Again, conspiracy or cockup ?

My suspicion would be corruption and incompetance rather than policy, but I cant disprove your theory.....

Its not either/or. Policy was the result of corruption.

So, by policy, you're saying that their actions are driven by the failure of the system? Thats fair enough,

thats a little different from setting out to do something from the beginning ( regardless of the success or failure of the system), which is what i initially assumed you meant...my bad.

I'm saying that the system failed due to corruption in the government.

If you ever get the time, read up on how the richest person in the world (Carlos Slim) got some of the sweetheart deals he got from the Mexican government. Then, contrast it to the half the population who lives in poverty. It'll make you sick.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Garydee wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:


Please, if you're out there, don't come to Texas right now.
Take Ciretose's explanation of the meaning of the statistics.
He doesn't have to actually be here in person, like me, to see these things.
He has......STATISTICS!!!

Trust your gut instead. Facts have a well known liberal bias.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!! Oh, wait a minute. You were serious?

Now I know how King Arthur felt when he walked away from the armless, legless black knight.

"Liberal bias/facts?" nope. Can't argue with that.

Least he quit trying to prove his point with statistics that OWN, and opted for an empty platitude.


Pretty much everything that happens in politics is the result of conspiracy. Before you write me off as some crazy conspiracy theorist, I don't mean some omnipresent cabal that controls everything, I just mean lots of lobbyists and influential figures all fighting separately for their interests and trying to cast their motives in a good light.

In this case, I'm sure that US agribusiness pushed for it to open up the Mexican market. I'm sure that US manufacturers wanted access to cheap Mexican labor. I'm sure that Mexican business wanted that flood of investment. I'm sure that none of them cared or thought much about the effects on the poor. I'm sure that a flood of immigration didn't figure in their calculations at all. I'm also sure that few of the rich and powerful in either country wanted to spend money on the poor.

None of this was planned. It's just the natural result of powerful people pushing their own self-interest.

As for the US treating its poor better than Mexico does, that's because the American system is still less corrupt and the poor (and moreso the middle class) have more influence. It's not because our rich are nicer than theirs.


Quote:

I'm saying that the system failed due to corruption in the government.

If you ever get the time, read up on how the richest person in the world (Carlos Slim) got some of the sweetheart deals he got from the Mexican government. Then, contrast it to the half the population who lives in poverty. It'll make you sick.

I can well believe it.

It also happened in Russia with the oligarchs ...
And theres been a number of allegation about American companies who donated to GWBs presidential campaigns getting sweetheart deals in Iraqi reconstruction.
Then theres alleged bribes to Saudi Arabians to sell British aircraft...
(and then theres the allegation you cant sell ANYTHING in Saudi Arabia without bribes...which seems a little unfair as I'm sure there are many honest hardworking saudis...but has certainly been my experience)

Sadly, its a corrupt old world, Mr Duck :-(

I agree with thejeff about self interest groups pushing agendas... But the result of these conspiracies is a cockup , so I tend to consider that the stronger element rather than the conspiracy...perhaps we should say Conspiracies Cause Cockups, rather than either/or...

Liberty's Edge

Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:


Now I know how King Arthur felt when he walked away from the armless, legless black knight.

"Liberal bias/facts?" nope. Can't argue with that.

Least he quit trying to prove his point with statistics that OWN, and opted for an empty platitude.

Noticed you cut out the part about the great cost of living in the third world...


I'm.....I'm not even reading it. I'm closing it and walking away like King Arthur and the Black Knight.

There's a mean rabbit somewhere that needs an asswupping.

Liberty's Edge

Best not to read things. I mean I wrote like 16 words, and one of them was 7 letters long.

Witchcraft I tell you!


ciretose wrote:
Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:


Now I know how King Arthur felt when he walked away from the armless, legless black knight.

"Liberal bias/facts?" nope. Can't argue with that.

Least he quit trying to prove his point with statistics that OWN, and opted for an empty platitude.

Noticed you cut out the part about the great cost of living in the third world...

Oh; yeah. I was really obfuscating there. pfft you got me. Specially since everybody can read it anyway's.

So, liberal bias means you should move to Jersey, and not Texas, because living there is so much better.

Because cost of living taken to an extreme past where it doesn't even mean anything any more (ie third world) really proves that it isn't a measure of anything.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:

Best not to read things. I mean I wrote like 16 words, and one of them was 7 letters long.

Witchcraft I tell you!

There's a point where it's just arguing to argue, and it's not really worth the electrons and eyeball juice any more.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Shadowborn wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:
I removed some posts and changed the thread title to be a little less inflammatory.
In the middle of the day on a Sunday? For goodness' sake, man, go enjoy yourself and clean up after the kids tomorrow. Or make the minions do it for you.

chuckle... snort...

It's Ross... He is the minion.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Hey! We don't grief the Ross...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ross Byers wrote:
I removed some posts and changed the thread title to be a little less inflammatory.

Don't see how calling stupidity for what it is can be inflammatory.


I didn't say "conspiracy". I said "corruption". The government system in Mexico does not look after the interests of that country's poor. For all the problems with the US Government, it is better than the Mexican government for all of those who aren't in the top 10%.
The Mexican government leaders benefit the most by making the Mexican poor as bad off as possible (in part, because those poor will then go to the US and send money back which can be taxed).

What's really sad about this is that political leaders in the US (on both sides of the aisle) have tried to make hay out of supporting illegal aliens (which actually doesn't help the people who become illegal aliens, it just encourages the Mexican government to keep making the Mexican poor as bad off as possible).

Liberty's Edge

I can tell the eyeball juice is strained...

I like Texas. It is a good place to live if you don't have kids who will need to go to the public schools and you live in a gated community that won't need to deal with the police force.

And with the low cost of living, you may be able to afford those things with what would be considered only a moderate income in many parts of the country.

But going by the census numbers the average person, per capita in Texas makes $39,493 which is about 1000 less than the national average ($40,580), and 4000 less than the a person in California ($43,104).

Since you love statistics, I'll go on.

Cost of living on average in Texas is low. I can't find the numbers, but they all say it's great. Which is good, since 16.8% of Texans live below the poverty level (National Average is 13.8) and 20% of Texans don't have a high school diploma (National Average is 15%).

It is a nice place to live if you have money, and if you have money the money goes a long way.

But don't act like the big jobs boost was anything other than minimum wage jobs, or that Texas doesn't have a higher poverty and drop out rate than other states.

California by the way has a lower than average number of people below the poverty line, but about the same high school diploma rate.

I would say Texas is one of the top 10 states in the country to live in, if you have money.

It isn't a great state to be born poor in.


Time for bed here in the UK.

Thanks everyone,its been an interesting conversation


"What sets Texas apart is that it is "the only large labor market state in the nation that's shown a positive growth in private-sector jobs," said Tom Pauken, chairman of the Texas Workforce Commission. Perry took office at the end of 2000, and since 2001 the nation as a whole has had a net loss of private-sector jobs, while Texas had a net gain of 825,400 private-sector jobs."

Are those jobs good enough, or are we still Belarus here?

the Atlantic

Sovereign Court

what I have to say about Texas' economy:

I lost my job on Michigan in the summer of 2008, before it all hit the fan ecnomically speaking for the rest of the country in November.

Michigan had been bad off for years, and I finally decided if I had to move to get a job, I would be moving out of state only. I interviewed for one job up in Traverse City, and every other house I drove by in town had a "For Sale" sign up.

I found a job in Houston, and snatched it up. Worst comes to worst, I was still in Texas, in the large city of Houston, and I was an IT professional. I'd find something.

Fast forward to this month: I decided my current position at my current company was unsatisfactory for various and sundry reasons, and I began to search for a new position.

Within 4 business days I had 2 job offers, and another two companies where I was scheduled for additional interviews, and I accepted one of the 2 offers..

Read that again. 4 business days, and I had a new job.

Not everyone's going to have my story. I'm an IT professional with a lot of experience, and IT is evidently in very high demand in Houston right now. But I still have family in Ohio and Michigan, and know the job market isn't nearly as hot there. And famiily and friends around there are suffering and struggling to get by still.

Scarab Sages

What Spanky fails to say is that Texas, during its growth period, also grew in unemployment. He also doesn't mention that Big Bad Evil Government was responsible for a lot of that job growth. Be that as it may, I'd sooner move to Texas than to Jersey. Puts me closer to California. I hate the East Coast...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Texas led the nation in job creation?! That's impossible. The Mexicans are stealing them all. They tell me so every day on the radio.


TWhat a strange thread...

Re: employment - as ever, the field that you are working in counts towards the experience you have. Jobs migrate nowadays, and if you are in anything even remotely related to it, Texas is going to be the place for you in 2012. I am not clairvoyant and cannot say if this will be the case in 2013. We simply cannot ignore the importance of field in this debate. Ny is creating and promptly losing social workers, for example.

Re : cost of living - this simply CANNOT be ignored. Some places are just more expensive to live in than others. Sometimes you are paying for a name, other times you are paying for a school system, sometimes you are paying for a bank's greed. It depends, and sometimes it may really, really not be worth it even in the most noble of cases.


Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:

"What sets Texas apart is that it is "the only large labor market state in the nation that's shown a positive growth in private-sector jobs," said Tom Pauken, chairman of the Texas Workforce Commission. Perry took office at the end of 2000, and since 2001 the nation as a whole has had a net loss of private-sector jobs, while Texas had a net gain of 825,400 private-sector jobs."

Are those jobs good enough, or are we still Belarus here?

the Atlantic

Sorry Spanky, but it well and truly depends on what those jobs are. No one is above padding the numbers a bit.


http://www.cis.org/articles/2011/immigrant-job-growth-texas.pdf

The share of working-age native holding a job in Texas declined significantly, from 71 percent in 2007 to 67 percent in 2011. This decline is very similar to the decline for natives in the United States as a whole

81 percent of jobs created in Texas since 2007 went to newly arrived immigrant workers (legal and illegal)

Of newly arrived immigrants who took a job in Texas, 93 percent were not U.S. citizens

The large share of job growth that went to immigrants is surprising because the native-born accounted for 69 percent of the growth in Texas' working-age population


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I love how a thread starts about how Arizona does something goofy, and within a page it's devolved into passionate oratory about how awesome Texas is. That's one thing that no one can deny Texas does better than any other state: teaching its citizens to loudly change any subject you'd care to name into a discussion on how much better their state is than yours.


So, when we come in defense of Texas from people running it down with inaccurate info, we're the bad guys. Makes sense to me!

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
I love how a thread starts about how Arizona does something goofy, and within a page it's devolved into passionate oratory about how awesome Texas is. That's one thing that no one can deny Texas does better than any other state: teaching its citizens to loudly change any subject you'd care to name into a discussion on how much better their state is than yours.

Kirth perhaps you missed:

meatrace wrote:
Shadowborn wrote:
See, we should have just given Arizona back to Mexico as a gift for Cinco de Mayo and had done with it.
Only if they take Texas as well. Also, give Florida back to Spain.

as well as...

meatrace wrote:
Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:
If you give Texas away, there goes most of the U.S.'s job creation.

ORLY?

You can play funny with numbers to get any outcome you want, I suppose.

not top mention...

ciretose wrote:
Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:

Job creation relative to population growth? Really? I'm playing games with the numbers and Think Progress is all sciency and on the level?

That's a good one dude; you should have a standup act.

Well, uh,......why would.......population grow when job creation numbers are high?

Huh.......I know: WAIT!!! I guess they go hand in hand, and that would explain the "California license plates" phenomenon I see on the road every day.

here's a graph that shows the best jobs creation numbers from the BLS as well as the worst.

And what kind of jobs were gained?.

Hiring a ton of minimum wage people to work at McDonald's isn't exactly economic growth.

I should also mention a bit of...

Ross Byers wrote:
I removed some posts and changed the thread title to be a little less inflammatory.

So when people stand up against inaccuracies and ignorance it is all about screaming loud, and changing a subject which had already been changed by others, now??

Srsly hate the state that much, move.


Thanks for saying it more elegantly than I ever could have, CJ.


When a guy says to give Florida back to Spain, and takes the opportunity to trash-talk Texas in the same breath, I assume he's joking. You guys circle the wagons.

To me, there's a wide range between "hate the state that much" vs. "make everything a Texas is better than you" thing in response to even off-hand comments. If that perception is grounds for y'all kicking me out, then so be it.


I have lived significant periods of time in both California and Texas. State hate is just amusing now and about as useful as the edition wars.

Fight on, warriors. Fight on.


Okay. Say someone cracks a New York City joke, and a bunch of people like me from upstate quickly disabuse them. Then someone points out that racial tensions in the 1990s were worse in Troy, NY than in Norfolk, VA (in terms of statistics) -- which prompts a horde of people from Yonkers and Buffalo and Elmira to pop in and jeer about Southern crackers and slavery restitution and stuff. If I don't back up those guys, I must obviously hate NY? Just wondering if this applies to all states, or just Texas.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Just wondering if this applies to all states, or just Texas.

Perhaps you have simply learned to let go of your attachment to Texas. :)

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Garydee wrote:
So, when we come in defense of Texas from people running it down with inaccurate info, we're the bad guys. Makes sense to me!

Only when you act the ass while you do it. :)


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Garydee wrote:
So, when we come in defense of Texas from people running it down with inaccurate info, we're the bad guys. Makes sense to me!
Only when you act the ass while you do it. :)

If you're being an ass(like these people were doing), I'll be a jackass right back at you.


Garydee wrote:
If you're being an ass, I'll be a jackass right back at you.

Because "everything's bigger in Texas"?


I think there's a Budweiser commercial about this...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Garydee wrote:
If you're being an ass, I'll be a jackass right back at you.
Because "everything's bigger in Texas"?

Yeah, that exactly the reason, Kirth. *facepalm*


California also gives jobs to people from texas namely baseball players like Javy Guerra and James Loney.

Also I view illegal immigration as a good thing it means you are doing better than the rest of the world and people want to live in your country.

51 to 100 of 160 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Arizona Secretary of State seeking to remove Obama from ballot All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.