Obama Sets record for Deportation of Illegals

Not Many know about "Operation Streamline" Started by Bush JR and increased by Obama. This is one of the right wing talking points that Obama is letting Illegals in. I reality Obama is arresting them and deporting them in record numbers:

"http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/us/split-second-justice-as-us-cracks-down-on-border-crossers.html?hp&_r=0

Nonetheless, the mass deportations have led to accusations of assembly-line justice. The program began under President George W. Bush, but it has grown under President Obama, underscoring the aggressive way with which his administration has pursued deportations, which reached 1.9 million in December, a record for an American president."

hmmm. so much more could be done. the reason that's its not mainstream media is because with the 1.9 million deported. there were probably twice as many coming in.

I've said it before and I'll say it again... I have worked in 48/50 states and along side all races and cultures. I have no problem migrating to the states as long as they register, work, pay taxes and live by the same laws as I do. I was born stateside but as with everyone pretty much residing here we are all immigrants.

I come to this site to view sexy women after a hard day of work .not talking about the prez of the usa policy

Quote:

Originally posted by jaama2shy

I come to this site to view sexy women after a hard day of work .not talking about the prez of the usa policy

Probably shouldn't click on a thread titled, "Obama Sets record for Deportation of Illegal Aliens" then.

Quote:

Originally posted by jaama2shy

I come to this site to view sexy women after a hard day of work .not talking about the prez of the usa policy

Click on 99% of the rest of the content on the site, then.

I came to this site to debate US policy, and I'm getting a little sick of having to wade through all manner of sexy women to do it!

I notice that all the Obama-isn't-doing-anything-to-get-rid-of-the-illegals preachers haven't posted in this thread.

Illegal immigrants are just a talking point for conservative talk shows. It's an easy scapegoat to blame them for everything from school lunches to stealing jobs. If I had a dollar for every time some idiot mentions "Illegals getting welfare", I'd be a billionaire. Then I'd hire a bunch of illegal immigrants to mow my grass and not pay any taxes. 1% FTW!

^That was obviously a joke but as a first generation American I believe that immigrants should be required to become citizens. I don't think we should stop letting people in but I do believe that immigrants should work and pay taxes and learn to speak English. My father and his family moved to the United States from Cuba in 1960. They had very little and spoke only Spanish. They learned English, went to school, got jobs, and became citizens.

Quote:

Originally posted by Davey45

^That was obviously a joke but as a first generation American I believe that immigrants should be required to become citizens. I don't think we should stop letting people in but I do believe that immigrants should work and pay taxes and learn to speak English. My father and his family moved to the United States from Cuba in 1960. They had very little and spoke only Spanish. They learned English, went to school, got jobs, and became citizens.

That's all fair. But what I think most people don't know is that illegal aliens and undocumented workers do pay taxes: http://www.businessinsider.com/how-illegal-immigrants-pay-taxes-2012-3

It's tough to estimate, but the IRS thinks that around $11 billion per year was collected in federal taxes from undocumented individuals in the US between 1996 and 2003. Plus another $11 billion for state and local taxes in 2010. Plus, if you don't have a SSN, you won't collect the benefits of Medicare or social security, even though they would pay those taxes too, unless self employed. I don't think it's in the article cited above, but I've seen estimates by the government put it at 2/3 for the number of undocumented workers that still pay income tax.

I also have to wonder of more taxes wouldn't be collected when the undocumented worker is getting paid under the table, rather than having that tracked through the use of an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN). The undocumented worker might not pay taxes, but then the business owner will have this extra $30,000 (or whatever amount) still on their books. Unless that business owner is fudging the numbers, which is still entirely possible, that money would look like earned money, likely at a higher tax rate than what would have been paid by the undocumented worker.

You would think that most just wouldn't pay any income taxes out of a fear of deportation. But the IRS doesn't share information related to the ITINs with other governmental agencies.

The politicization of this issue continues to amaze me. When you look at the immigration policies of most countries around the world they are much more aggressive and exclusive than the policy of the U.S. (assuming its being enforced fully). For example, consider the recent changes to immigration policy by many of the nations of Europe. That having been said, there is more to this than simply the humanitarian and rule of law aspects.

First, it is a fact that illegal immigrants are a real drain on the resources of the communities where they live. They consume all manner of public money from public education of their children to ER visits which are covered through extra charges to the people who actually have insurance. How much of that is offset by taxes is a debatable question. Many illegals do pay some taxes, but it is an open question as to how much because we don't know how many there actually are and how much money they actually contribute.

Second, there are other adverse economic effects of the illegal immigrant population. In general they are unskilled workers (or unable to work in skilled positions because they lack the ability to become certified). In our current economy with a high unemployment rate among the citizenry, particularly in low skill jobs, a dramatic increase in low skill workers is likely to increase unemployment further. This is a drain in two ways: first, it limits the productivity of the existing population, and second, it results in even more public welfare spending.

Third, there is a real concern about controlling who comes and goes in the country. The citizens of a country have a right to control who they invite to join them as citizens or even just resident aliens. This is because having the right sort of immigrants can boost economic growth as well as provide cultural benefits. There is nothing wrong with recognizing that no matter how much we might like to we cannot accommodate everyone who would like to come to the United States. Having a debate about how many immigrants we can accommodate and who they should be is all well and good but we must recognize that limits will have to be set somewhere.

Fourth, the illegal immigration problem has given an unfair preference to people from Latin America, and particularly Mexico for no other reason than proximity. The resulting demographic shifts may be desirable or not but again this is a debate that should be had in the context of the best interests of the United States rather than the immigrant. After all, is the refugee from Sierra Leone any less worthy of living in America than the poor Mexican? Yet the one will be allowed to live here simply because he was born closer to the United States and was able to cross a border.

Finally, it is important to recognize the political motivations behind much of the debate. The democrats are clearly motivated by a desire to increase their own voting base. Study after study has demonstrated that illegal immigrants are generally supportive of democrat policy ideas. In addition, Republicans are motivated by the chamber of commerce who sees illegal immigrants as a source of cheap labor. Last, most labor unions view illegal immigrants as a large influx of new members to support their flagging numbers.

With all that in mind it is time that people had a rational discussion of what immigration policy should be, and they should do so with both eyes open to what is really going on. It is possible to oppose illegal immigration without being racist or anti-immigrant. It is also possible to favor the proposed changes to immigration policy for reasons completely unrelated to maintaining "fairness," whatever that is, to the illegal immigrants. Each position can and should be defended on non-emotional grounds. Hopefully if people finally realize this we can reach a decision and move forward to more important things.

Quote:

Originally posted by Davey45

^That was obviously a joke...

There's a little bit of truth in every piece of humor; or else it just ain't funny.

While I disagree with much of what spaced monduke here says, as you'll see in my response, I will start off by saying that his argument was much better stated than the average one made by those on his side of the debate here, and is the kind of thing people should shoot for. Reasonably well thought out points, made in coherent sentences mostly devoid of ad hominem attacks, lies, and useless generalizations. It's really not that hard.

Quote:

Originally posted by spacedmonduke

The politicization of this issue continues to amaze me. When you look at the immigration policies of most countries around the world they are much more aggressive and exclusive than the policy of the U.S. (assuming its being enforced fully).

So? Yes, Iran and North Korea (among many others) have much more restrictive immigration policies. Why does this matter? Immigration and human rights policy isn't an arena in which one should strive to be the lowest denominator. The US Declaration of Independence declares "all men are created equal." ALL men. Regardless of national origin, culture, etc. If that edict--a foundational ethos upon which the United States' claim to legitimacy was based--is to mean anything, it must be universally applied.

Quote:

Originally posted by spacedmonduke

First, it is a fact that illegal immigrants are a real drain on the resources of the communities where they live. They consume all manner of public money from public education of their children to ER visits which are covered through extra charges to the people who actually have insurance.

First, if they have children who are in school they pay for their children to go to school. Public education in this country is funded predominantly by property taxes. You know who pays property taxes? People who live in properties. So, unless these school-going immigrants are living on the streets, they're paying property taxes, and thus paying for their schooling.

Second, what you describe about hospitals charging more for uninsured ER visits is called "cost shifting." The truth is that there is very little cost shifting that occurs in healthcare due to the uninsured.

From the WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703560404576189012255187694.html

Quote:

A study conducted by George Mason University Prof. Jack Hadley and John Holahan, Teresa Coughlin and Dawn Miller of the Urban Institute, and published in the journal Health Affairs in 2008, found that so-called cost shifting raises private health insurance premiums by a negligible amount. The study’s authors conclude: “Private insurance premiums are at most 1.7 percent higher because of the shifting of the costs of the uninsured to private insurance.” For the typical insurance plan, this amounts to approximately $80 per year.

There have been similar results from other studies. I can dig them up and link them if you like.

Quote:

Originally posted by spacedmonduke

How much of that is offset by taxes is a debatable question. Many illegals do pay some taxes, but it is an open question as to how much because we don't know how many there actually are and how much money they actually contribute.

Well, I guess it's debatable, but economists and statisticians make estimates of these things, which are usually pretty close to accurate:
Wiki:

Quote:

IRS estimates that about 6 million unauthorized immigrants file individual income tax returns each year.[21] Research reviewed by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office indicates that between 30 percent and 50 percent of unauthorized immigrants pay federal, state, and local taxes.[21] illegal immigrants are estimated to pay in about $7 billion per year into Social Security.[26] In addition, they spend millions of dollars per year, which supports the US economy and helps to create new jobs. The Texas State Comptroller reported in 2006 that the 1.4 million illegal immigrants in Texas alone added almost $18 billion to the state's budget, and paid $1.2 billion in state services they used.[27]

And all legally-residing Americans benefit from this:

Quote:

Illegal immigrants pay social security payroll taxes but are not eligible for benefits. During 2006, Standard & Poor's analysts wrote: "Each year, for example, the U.S. Social Security Administration maintains roughly $6 billion to $7 billion of Social Security contributions in an "earnings suspense file"—an account for W-2 tax forms that cannot be matched to the correct Social Security number. The vast majority of these numbers are attributable to illegal workers who will never claim their benefits."[30]

So when grandpa collects his Social Security check, he can thank the local undocumented immigrants for a portion of it.

Quote:

Originally posted by spacedmonduke

Second, there are other adverse economic effects of the illegal immigrant population. In general they are unskilled workers (or unable to work in skilled positions because they lack the ability to become certified). In our current economy with a high unemployment rate among the citizenry, particularly in low skill jobs, a dramatic increase in low skill workers is likely to increase unemployment further. This is a drain in two ways: first, it limits the productivity of the existing population, and second, it results in even more public welfare spending.

A few problems here. First, there hasn't been a "dramatic increase" in low-skilled workers. When economic times are good people come to the US for jobs, but when they are not good people don't so much come here. Generally, there's a fairly steady stream of immigrant workers when there are jobs available.

Second, high levels of unemployment are a boon for business, regardless of the cause. High unemployment allows them to keep labor costs depressed and increases the skill level of the available talent on the market. Now, this is not an ideal situation for individual workers, because they've essentially lost all of their bargaining power, but it is great for businesses and shareholders of those businesses. Corporate profits are at an all time high.

But read that above link. It's no coincidence that corporate profits are at an all time high while wages as a percent of the economy are at an all time low. Businesses are hugely economically successful right now, but they're not putting any of that success back into the wages of the people who work for them. That's not the fault of illegal immigrants, that's the result of business shifting their collective goals toward profit maximization over employee retention and loyalty. Some of that is the result of globalization. And some the 2007 recession that put a ton of people into the job market. And poor monetary policy. And poor fiscal policy (much of which is the fault of those businesses that are recording record profits, as they wield undue influence on policymakers). The causes for this shift are myriad, ideological, and systemic. In other words, it's a LOT more than just "illegals taking our jerbs."

Quote:

Originally posted by spacedmonduke

Third, there is a real concern about controlling who comes and goes in the country. The citizens of a country have a right to control who they invite to join them as citizens or even just resident aliens.

I admit that this is where I'm going to get a bit radical, but, why?

Why do the citizens of one country have the right to control who can come there? Do I have a right to control who my neighbor is? Should I?

Why should one set of people have the ability to live in work in one place solely because they emerged from their mother's womb in that place, while others, who emerged from their mother's womb on the other side of some arbitrarily drawn line on a map have no such rights? Does that seem fair? What if any of us were born in Mexico City, or Calcutta, or Tehran? Would that make us unworthy of living in the United States, England, or any other place on Earth?

Quote:

Originally posted by sm

This is because having the right sort of immigrants can boost economic growth as well as provide cultural benefits.

Should economic growth trump humanity? If people are trying to escape the violence of Ciudad Juarez, for example, how does it make you feel to say, "No, you cannot flee to the United States because your presence doesn't boost the economy enough?" That seems...inhumane.

Quote:

Originally posted by sm

There is nothing wrong with recognizing that no matter how much we might like to we cannot accommodate everyone who would like to come to the United States. Having a debate about how many immigrants we can accommodate and who they should be is all well and good but we must recognize that limits will have to be set somewhere.

I recognize this. It's also not a problem. The United States has plenty of space available. Montana's basically empty, and it's really big. It's just that billions of people do not want to come to the United States, so it's no big deal, really. The US has the capacity to accommodate basically everyone who would want to live there, and it would be better for it were it to do just that.

And jobs are scalable. New York City hasn't become a bastion of unemployed layabouts because there are too many people there. What happens is that as your population increases there becomes a larger demand for goods and services. Those firms that provide said services then have to employ more people. Those employed people then require more goods and services, and the next thing you know you've got a stew cookin'.

I think a nation should probably try to prohibit other nations from sending their miscreants and people with violent tendencies to other places, so there is a legitimate defense of prohibiting some immigration, but, in my formulation at least, it would be quite limited.

Quote:

Originally posted by sm

Fourth, the illegal immigration problem has given an unfair preference to people from Latin America, and particularly Mexico for no other reason than proximity.

Huh? Isn't Canada just as close to the US as Mexico is? The US-Canada border is actually much bigger than the US-Mexico border is, mileage wise. This goes back to your previous assertion in which you pointed out that the US can't accommodate everyone that might wish to immigrate. Well, as it turns out, when people live in a fairly free, affluent society, they don't have much incentive to move out of it. People don't immigrate from Mexico to the US because it's close, they immigrate because the US affords them the opportunity for a better standard of living. That's also why aside from a few hockey players and bad singers, people don't tend to migrate from Canada to the US--they already have most of the benefits which the US can bestow.

It's also why Mexicans aren't streaming into Guatemala, which also shares a border with Mexico.

Quote:

Originally posted by sm

The resulting demographic shifts may be desirable or not but again this is a debate that should be had in the context of the best interests of the United States rather than the immigrant.

Who cares about the ethno-demographic shifts? Does it matter if more of your neighbors are brown or white or yellow?

Quote:

Originally posted by sm

After all, is the refugee from Sierra Leone any less worthy of living in America than the poor Mexican? Yet the one will be allowed to live here simply because he was born closer to the United States and was able to cross a border.

Again, this isn't a mutually exclusive proposition. I'm all for letting both refugees in!

Quote:

Originally posted by sm

Finally, it is important to recognize the political motivations behind much of the debate.

I think it's important to recognize the subconscious xenophobic tribalism that motivates many of these debates.

Quote:

Originally posted by sm

The democrats are clearly motivated by a desire to increase their own voting base.

I'm neither a democrat, nor someone who cares about who votes for whom. I'm a humanist. I think people should be treated equally, regardless of where on this big ball of dirt they happened to be when they were born. That's why I believe what I believe.

Quote:

Originally posted by sn

Study after study has demonstrated that illegal immigrants are generally supportive of democrat policy ideas.

Correlation != causation.

Immigrants support people who support policies that favor immigrants. But that does not necessarily mean that those politicians support those policies in order to gain the support of that demographic. They may support those policies because--and I know this might be hard to believe--they think those policies are the right/moral/just thing to do.

For example, Martin Luther King didn't preach for Civil Rights because he wanted lots of black peoples' support, he did so because that was the moral imperative he felt, and as a result he gained the support of lots of black people (and then many more people of all races).

Quote:

Originally posted by sm

In addition, Republicans are motivated by the chamber of commerce who sees illegal immigrants as a source of cheap labor. Last, most labor unions view illegal immigrants as a large influx of new members to support their flagging numbers.

I'm tired of writing, so I'm not going to give those two sentences a detailed deconstruction, but I'll just say that's a HUGE oversimplification. The history of labor unions and their treatment of minorities is...complicated..to say the least.

Quote:

Originally posted by sm

With all that in mind it is time that people had a rational discussion of what immigration policy should be, and they should do so with both eyes open to what is really going on.

Okay, but let's also remember that it's really important to get the facts straight when we do so.

Quote:

Originally posted by sm

It is possible to oppose illegal immigration without being racist or anti-immigrant.

Sure, it's possible, I guess. But, unfortunately for the crowd that opposes illegal immigration, many of their most strident supporters are either racists or anti-immigrant.

I mean, here you tried to make an argument that illegal immigration should be viewed as a serious offense because they might harm local economies. That's not racist. But it is fairly cold and inhumane.

Then you pointed out something about demographics and about how Mexico was close to the US, and then it becomes more of a race-based argument, because, you know, Canada exists up there.

I guess what I'm saying is that it's a thin line to walk, and you have to be careful because it's easy to be unknowingly or subconsciously racist a little bit.

Quote:

Originally posted by sm

It is also possible to favor the proposed changes to immigration policy for reasons completely unrelated to maintaining "fairness," whatever that is, to the illegal immigrants.

You really don't know what "fairness" to other human beings is? You had to use scare quotes around the word?

Providing everyone who so desires it an equality of opportunity. How's that for a definition of fairness?

Quote:

Originally posted by sm

Each position can and should be defended on non-emotional grounds. Hopefully if people finally realize this we can reach a decision and move forward to more important things.

It's kind of hard to be non-emotional about the lives of human beings and such, because, well, humans are emotional creatures and, quite frankly, it's offensive to many when large segments of the supporters of one set of policies are racists and xenophobes.

But I get what you're saying. I disagree with most of your above premises, but, again, thanks for articulating them well.

Congratulations on having one of the most intelligent conversations I've seen on a message board in some time. This is especially true considering it's this message board, and considering my last experience trying to do exactly this in a different thread here.

Thank you for restoring my faith in the power of smut to bring thinking peoples together.

I'd like to add to the conversation that the birth rates of folks in the US are actually declining, even among immigrant and recently immigrated families. Even right now and with all the talk of "rampant illegal immigration" our birth rate is below the sustainable rate for a population. The "replenishment rate" of a group of people needs to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 2.1% annually, meaning that you need roughly 2 kids to squirt out of every 100 people each year for your population to survive.

The US currently has a replenishment rate of 1.9%, and that's during what many would have us believe is "the height of an unprotected and unenforced immigration policy."

In other words, "It just ain't so."

This is actually quite a problem in modern nations, and in nations that are especially well developed (read, "Not the United States" such as Norway, Sweden and Denmark where they have substantial encouragements for families to breed like bunnies, their population simply ain't doin' it.

Here are some examples. Remember that the rate of replenishment so as not to cause social collapse for a nation is 2.1% - all stats bellow are percentiles:

Germany: 1.4
Holland: 1.8
Belgium: 1.8
Spain: 1.4
Sweden: 1.9
Ireland: 2.1
UK: 1.9

While these numbers don't seem far off the mark of 2.1%, they are. .2% difference is a 10% decline in their newly born population by year.

Also bear in mind that these nations are being artificially propped up. The nations that come close to having the right balance are doing it not by their natives actually squirting out some rug rats more often, but rather by importing families (immigration) and those families from other nations that are less developed have children at a higher pace. Even with incentives, capitalism is such that it just doesn't pay to have a baby - and those that have attuned themselves to a capitalist culture know this subconsciously, even if they don't realize it consciously. It's not profitable in modern capitalism to have a baby. You can't consolidate wealth that way. So these nations rely heavily on importing their families from other nations that think they're supposed to have a lot of babies. This works, because the new immigrants don't fully understand capitalism and are probably used to an agricultural society - or barely industrialized society at best. So they have a lot of babies to help do the work and make money for the family. So immigrants have a lot of babies.

At first.

Until they too, become modernized in their new country and figure out that the math just ain't addin' up.

Then they stop having babies too.

We have this problem in the US. While we once had a fairly sizable immigrating population from Asia, the population of Asian ethnicities in the United States is expected to be cut in half within one generation - because any poor Asian families we import seem to figure out in about one generation that diapers and braces cost a lot of money, and they'd rather spend that cash on hookers and blow - so they usually abandon their traditional family culture (having lots of kids because half will die before they're three and the other half need to help work the farm/ranch/minefield like they did back in Laos) and start breeding like Americans, which is to say "they don't."

It's very much counter to capitalism and basic economic math to have babies. We also enjoy enough personal liberties in the United States that it impacts people's willingness to tie themselves down, marry for opportunity rather than love, stay in marriages we don't like, and to trade our careers for having kids - because kids just aren't profitable unless you have a primarily agricultural society that is coupled with cottage industry and local economies rather than one giant global one.

In essence, the United States is dying. So are the other countries on this list. While some numbers for the above countries are staying almost even in therms of birth rate, they're importing that birth rate. It's not organic - it's being flown in like lobster to the Rocky Mountains.

Even as it sits now, the United States is not replenishing its population. If we actually did lock down the gates, we'd find ourselves in a real pickle in a relatively short amount of time. Within one or two generations, we'd fall apart as a modern nation. We would no longer be able to sustain the infrastructure and economic capacity that allows us to govern or live peacefully in a nation as large in land area as the United States.

Singapore shines as an example of what can happen as a nation industrializes. In the last 100 years Singapore's population doubled as they entered, and then came out of, their own industrial revolution. Now they have a fully modernized nation, or what's sometimes called a "fully developed country."

The problem? They have an enormous population.

The other problem? No one is having any babies.

The result is that Singapore is about to die. I don't mean they're going to be conquered or they're going to be hit by some weird disease. I mean that their population isn't replenishing and they're desperate to stem the tide of "negative population growth."

They're so desperate to get people to have babies there that the government has had to create a fund where they match an employee dollar for dollar invested in an account specifically so they can have a child and not pay taxes on expenses for that child. If it's the second or third kid, the benefit increases - thus encouraging their population to have more babies.

They have time off for both parents to be with a newborn. They have wonderful health care, prenatal care, and pediatricians. The government heavily subsidizes these fields specifically so that they can encourage families to have more babies.

And you know what? It's still not working.

They're in crisis mode, as many other nations are about to be - and the United States is one of them.



We should be thoughtful about the immigration policies we advocate. Not only is there a humanitarian component, but there's also the cold, stark reality that one day we're going to be too old and feeble to change our own adult diaper - and if we don't find some good, honest, hardworking kids somewhere that are willing to help us out in those moments, we're going to die buried in a cold, lumpy soup of self-made defecation.

We need young people because they're the only ones willing to take shitty (no pun intended) jobs, as long as they pay a reasonable amount. Most adults do not in fact, want to change our soggy diaper when we're too old to do it ourselves. If we don't start having children - or finding them somewhere else and bringing them here, we are most certainly going to have a rather miserable retirement.

If we don't start addressing immigration more intelligently, reasonably, and factually, we may very well end up dying a miserable death in our old age as a result of drowning in our own corn-speckled shit.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin

Congratulations on having one of the most intelligent conversations I've seen on a message board in some time. This is especially true considering it's this message board, and considering my last experience trying to do exactly this in a different thread here.

Thank you for restoring my faith in the power of smut to bring thinking peoples together.

I'd like to second this! The debate is may be far from an immediate issue for me but I love a constructive argument. This site is much more than would be apparent at first glance.

I still like scantily clad women though.

I don't understand when someone says "Democrats support illegal immigration because it grows their voter base". Where are non citizens allowed to vote? Also, many people don't realize that a majority of the Cuban voting block in Florida was staunchly Republican for years. When you come from a "socialist" country, you tend to swing more to the right. However, the previous Republican regime in the White House (not the slightest bit fiscally conservative) and an increasingly vocal racist minority have severely hampered the GOP's chances of securing the Cuban vote here.

Wordy posts are wordy. I read the first few. Then just figured it's mostly EL and Tarquin vs Moss and Spacemonduke?

Quote:

Originally posted by jenngurl23

Wordy posts are wordy. I read the first few. Then just figured it's mostly EL and Tarquin vs Moss and Spacemonduke?

Eh... Not so much.

I think EL and I are closer to agreement on the basic premiss, but I certainly understand and empathize with Spacemonkey's perspective as well. I simply felt I had some information to offer that might help inform the conversation and perhaps offer thoughts that some hadn't considered before.

I think it's a constructive conversation where we're all trying to arrive at a better understanding of the issue, as well as talk about some of the possible solutions. I don't feel it's a hostile conversation at all, so I'd be reluctant to paint any of the conversation with an "X versus Y" brush.

I think I am certainly in more agreement with EL's position, but I don't think that Spacemonkey's ideas are completely without merit or that they're completely wrong either.

::shrug::

I'm pretty sure we all have our own nuanced points of view. It's more of a round-table than a "side versus side" type of argument so far. That's how it seems to me at least.

The last few posts have been more EL responding to spacemonduke, Tarquin adding a different side to the argument, and moss cheerleading spacemonduke for saying things he agrees with but is unable to articulate himself.

Which, you know, is not needed. Either add to the conversation or zip it. Saying, "Yeah, right on!" or whatever isn't adding anything, and so those posts, along with the responses to those posts, have been removed.