Pacific Life pulls ads from Tucker Carlson's show.....

[jimmymccready]

The "it does make us poorer as a county It brings down unskilled wages" is quite accurate in describing the majority of Trump voters.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

you won't shame us out of reasonable immigration policy.

[floridafan]

You people are frauds, the policies you advocate, do nothing but harm the very people you pretend to care about. STFU already.

Higher minimum wages, a living wage, health care availability sure does hurt a lot of people.

[Fentoine Lum]

If your kind cared about them you would do something about illegal immigration, there is no group more taken advantage of in this country than the illegals.

Originally Posted by floridafan

As if your kind gives a flying fuck about unskilled wages.

Originally Posted by Gunny2009

just as much as your kind does.

Here we observe once again the madness of american society.

Although we all know this is all very, very wrong and we all recognize the societal and environmental trajectory facing us on some level, we will do nothing but blame everyone else so as to escape any and all personal responsibility for anything, while the Wall Street/donor/"job creator" class rides upon a cushion of scapegoating, distraction, deflection and rapidly evolving scandal political theater.

Voting and blaming will only ensure the societal trajectory remains constant as the empire undergoes further decline.

My guys are less evil than your guys so there.

[Fentoine Lum]

The "it does make us poorer as a county It brings down unskilled wages" is quite accurate in describing the majority of Trump voters.

Ask your average MAGAer what time frame they wish to take us back to sometime, quite informative; the tax rates of the time, all the affirmative action for whites programs like the GI Bill (no, most blacks were shut out, you're lying otherwise), FHA home loan programs so white working class folk could own homes, social security, medicare/medicaid. The problem for these folks was the civil rights era wherein blacks also became eligible for these programs - that was/is the rub. THAT'S when these programs became "entitlements" and whites were programed to engage in division and self-destructing politics against their own interests.

Wtf wants a united nation in which we all thrive? That is simply unamerican.

[Gunny2009]

Originally Posted by floridafan



Originally Posted by Gunny2009


Here we observe once again the madness of american society.

Although we all know this is all very, very wrong and we all recognize the societal and environmental trajectory facing us on some level, we will do nothing but blame everyone else so as to escape any and all personal responsibility for anything, while the Wall Street/donor/"job creator" class rides upon a cushion of scapegoating, distraction, deflection and rapidly evolving scandal political theater.

Voting and blaming will only ensure the societal trajectory remains constant as the empire undergoes further decline.

My guys are less evil than your guys so there.

Sorry, that my point flew over your head. Ironically enough my point was the same as yours.

There is no "side" that has done the right thing on the topic of illegal immigration.

Both sides are have been more than happy to use them for cheap labor and for votes, and neither side has a vested interest in fixing the problem.

[Gunny2009]

Ask your average MAGAer what time frame they wish to take us back to sometime, quite informative; the tax rates of the time, all the affirmative action for whites programs like the GI Bill (no, most blacks were shut out, you're lying otherwise), FHA home loan programs so white working class folk could own homes, social security, medicare/medicaid. The problem for these folks was the civil rights era wherein blacks also became eligible for these programs - that was/is the rub. THAT'S when these programs became "entitlements" and whites were programed to engage in division and self-destructing politics against their own interests.

Wtf wants a united nation in which we all thrive? That is simply unamerican.

How could a black person be shut out of the GI Bill? All one had to do was have 100 bucks a month held out of your check for the your first year in the military and you were in.

[anatta]

It was the bigoted, disrespectful manner in which he said it.

Especially the "dirtier" part.

It's no stretch of the imagination to interpret his comments as "dirty brown Mexicans and Hispanics".

No company wants to be associated with that kind of mean-spiritedness and bigotry, whether real or imagined.

I actually agree with that. "dirtier" was gratuitous and not called for.
"wracked with respiratory disease" in case of the caravan was correct according to reports from Tijuana-

[Fentoine Lum]

Sorry, that my point flew over your head. Ironically enough my point was the same as yours.

There is no "side" that has done the right thing on the topic of illegal immigration.

Both sides are have been more than happy to use them for cheap labor and for votes, and neither side has a vested interest in fixing the problem.

Sorry, that my point flew over your head. Ironically enough my point was the same as yours.

Got it, "your" point flew over my head but we agree.

[Fentoine Lum]

How could a black person be shut out of the GI Bill? All one had to do was have 100 bucks a month held out of your check for the your first year in the military and you were in.

Let me do some searching for you, you don't seem interested enough to do your own:

'When Affirmative Action Was White': Uncivil Rights

This history has been told before, but Katznelson offers a penetrating new analysis, supported by vivid examples and statistics. He examines closely how the federal government discriminated against black citizens as it created and administered the sweeping social programs that provided the vital framework for a vibrant and secure American middle class. Considered revolutionary at the time, the new legislation included the Social Security system, unemployment compensation, the minimum wage, protection of the right of workers to join labor unions and the G.I. Bill of Rights.

Even though blacks benefited to a degree from many of these programs, Katznelson shows how and why they received far less assistance than whites did. He documents the political process by which powerful Southern Congressional barons shaped the programs in discriminatory ways -- as their price for supporting them. (A black newspaper editorial criticized Roosevelt for excluding from the minimum wage law the black women who worked long hours for $4.50 a week at the resort the president frequented in Warm Springs, Ga.)

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/b...il-rights.html

The G.I. Bill, World War II, and the Education of Black Americans

"...For those black veterans more likely to be limited to the South in their collegiate choices, the G.I. Bill exacerbated rather than narrowed the economic and educational differences between blacks and whites."

The unprecedented support for the education of returning World War II veterans provided by the G.I. Bill was notably race-neutral in its statutory terms. More than 1 million black men had served in the military during World War II and these men shared in eligibility for educational benefits, which included tuition payments and a stipend for up to four years of college or other training. Yet, the effects of military service and the availability of educational benefits may have differed by race and geography as black men from the South returned to segregated systems of higher education, with relatively limited opportunities at historically black institutions.

In Closing the Gap or Widening the Divide: The Effects of the G.I. Bill and World War II on the Educational Outcomes of Black Americans (NBER Working Paper No. 9044), authors Sarah Turner and John Bound conclude that the G.I. Bill had a markedly different effect on educational attainment for black and white veterans after the war. While the introduction of generous student aid through the G.I. Bill held the promise of significantly reducing black-white gaps in educational opportunity and long-run economic outcomes, the G.I. Bill exacerbated rather than narrowed the economic and educational differences between blacks and whites among men from the South.

For white men, the combination of World War II service and G. I. benefits had substantial positive effects on collegiate attainment, with a gain of about 0.3 years of college and an increase in college completion of about 5 percentage points. For black men, however, the results were decidedly different for those born in the southern states versus those born elsewhere. The combination of World War II service and the availability of G.I. benefits led to an increase in educational attainment of about 0.4 years of college for black men born outside the South, while there were few gains in collegiate attainment among black men from the South.

Limited collegiate opportunities for blacks from the South decreased the effect of the G.I. Bill for this group and help to explain why this group did not share the same gains in collegiate attainment as whites and blacks in the North. At the conclusion of World War II, blacks wanting to attend college in the South were restricted in their choices to about 100 public and private institutions. Few of the post-secondary institutions for blacks offered education beyond the baccalaureate and more than a quarter of these institutions were junior colleges, with the highest degree below the B.A. Small in scale and lagging in resources per student, the historically black colleges in the South were ill-prepared to accommodate the rise in demand from returning veterans. What is more, access to information about veterans' benefits and advising services may have differed with racial groups, and the lack of black counselors was particularly marked in the deep South, with only about a dozen black counselors for all of Georgia and Alabama and none in Mississippi. While the G.I. Bill also covered non-collegiate vocational and technical training, the authors find that among black veterans born in the South vocational and technical training was not a substitute for collegiate participation.

https://www.nber.org/digest/dec02/w9044.html

But not all Americans benefited equally

By offering college tuition and low-interest home loans to millions of veterans, the GI Bill significantly expanded the middle class in the decades after World War II. At the same time, the then-Veterans Administration’s clinical psychology training program helped to transform psychology. But whether held back by segregation or cultural expectations, not everyone profited equally from the programs.

For African-American service members, of whom almost one million served during World War II, one huge barrier to fully using the GI Bill’s college benefits was a lack of access to higher education.

“Access issues for blacks were significant and really made a difference in terms of their ability to utilize the benefits, as compared to white males,” says Hilary Herbold, PhD, who wrote a paper for the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education (Winter, 1994–95) examining the experiences of African-Americans with the GI Bill.

Some 19 states maintained separate colleges and universities for black students, and outside of the publicly funded system, many private colleges and universities outside the South either did not admit blacks or maintained informal quotas, letting in very few, says Gary Orfield, PhD, who co-directs the Civil Rights Project at the University of California, Los Angeles.

States that had segregated primary education systems didn’t devote equal resources to black schools. In fact, at the time of the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, fewer than one-quarter of African-American students finished high school, Orfield says. Equal access to higher education didn’t start to open up for African-Americans until the 1960s, and it wasn’t until the 1970s that more than a trickle of African-American students entered formerly closed-off institutions, he says.

Despite the barriers, historically black colleges and universities saw their enrollment almost double, from 43,000 in 1940 to 76,600 in 1950, says Keith Olson, PhD, a professor emeritus of history at the University of Maryland.

Women also didn’t benefit much from the GI Bill in the inaugural years of the VA’s training programs. More than 400,000 women served in the U.S. military during World War II, yet the number of women psychology doctoral students trained in the VA’s clinical psychology program was very low in the early years. According to one informal estimate, only about 5 percent of the students in the first training year of 1946 were women, says Dana L. Moore, PhD, a clinical psychologist who oversaw the program from 1977 to 1985.

https://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/11/gi-bill.aspx

That should get you started, as always, links should be taken only as starting points for further triangulation and due diligence.

[Cypress]

awesome. speak the truth. although where he gets "dirtier" from...it does make us poorer as a county
It brings down unskilled wages.

You know nothing about immigration, other than what you have gleaned from Fox News, Orange Tweet, and rightwing blogs.

My aunt immigrated, I doubt she had more than 500 dollars to her name, and her only viable skill was sewing.

You and Trump undoubtedly would have considered her dirty and poor, a pathetic excuse of a person to be allowed to immigrate.

It might have taken her many years, but she acquired new skills, received additional education, got herself ensconced in an honorable career, and most importantly lived a life as a contributing member of the community and raised two outstanding daughters who are model citizens.

The people this country could actually really do without are the barely educated, buck toothed hillbilly racists that support Trump.

[Fentoine Lum]

Haven't several high-profile DEMOCRATS been caught exploiting illegal immigrants?

I would expect them to behave as americans do, sure. So let's attempt to make it partisanshithead turf so that we never address the issue at all.

[jimmymccready]

The silly far righties want to go back to pre-1913.

[Sailor]

You know nothing about immigration, other than what you have gleaned from Fox News, Orange Tweet, and rightwing blogs.

My aunt immigrated, I doubt she had more than 500 dollars to her name, and her only viable skill was sewing.

You and Trump undoubtedly would have considered her dirty and poor, a pathetic excuse of a person to be allowed to immigrate.

It might have taken her many years, but she acquired new skills, received additional education, got herself ensconced in an honorable career, and most importantly lived a life as a contributing member of the community and raised two outstanding daughters who are model citizens.

The people this country could actually really do without are the barely educated, buck toothed hillbilly racists that support Trump.

Honorable woman. I am sure she came into this country legally. I am also willing to bet there were no social benefits provided to her when she did.

[hvilleherb]

just as much as your kind does.

If Democrat politicians cared about their base, they would vote in favor of a border wall. It would be a jobs project for Democrats since they tend to be unskilled labor.