Wormwood

Ok you guys said skin pigment was effected by the climate and amount of sunlight, which makes sense, except for the eskimos...Why do they have dark skin and the Europeans in the cold climate developed lighter skin?

Well if you can come down from your high horse for a bit, I can explain why I said that. I discovered after reading more carefully, that he had an MRI and CAT scan. If I was so way off base, why do you suppose those tests were run? Not only is the onset of childhood schizophrenia pretty rare, but any neurological symptoms such as hallucinations can be signs of a tumor and it's better to be safe than sorry in matters like this. I go into more detail about the symptoms below. Tumors that grow slowly often go unnoticed or misdiagnosed for years. Also what about ependymomas and medulloblastomas, which are two types of brain tumors off the top of my head, no pun intended, that primarily begin in childhood and could account for some of these symptoms. In your list of tumor symptoms you forgot : Abnormal eye movements or changes in vision Drowsiness Changes in personality or memory The last one is especially pertinent because his hallucinations involve memories. For example: Whether he realizes it or not this is from Labyrinth. Finally, schizophrenia occurs when the two hemispheres of the brain do not communicate correctly. The same symptoms could be caused by a tumor inhibiting correct communication. I was sure to mention that I had never looked at his medical history, but I would want to know if I had symptoms for what could be a bigger problem. Obviously his doctor thought the same thing and already ran the appropriate tests. Boy is my face red. You are confusing two different things here. Mania isn't a part of his depression, it is a part of his bi-polar/schizophrenic disorder which he very clearly has. The symptoms of the depression could be caused by the medication, I never said it wasn't. That still doesn't negate the fact that he has depression and also must deal with those symptoms though does it? And? You will find instances like this with practically any medication. People die from aspirin. It isn't really an option to go without medicine, so he should be trying to find one that he can take and still function somewhat normally on. Ultimately his physician will decide, but I was under the impression that he came here for possible answers to his problem. If you are content to tell him what you think he wants to hear and at the same time offer no suggestions go right ahead, but don't preach to me because I offered suggestions. Let his doctor decide if I'm right or not. He already said that haldol and seroquel don't work; what medication would you have him take?

Spiderman: As another poster has said, none of us can examine you in person so a realistic diagnosis might be impossible. Having said that, have the doctors checked your frontal lobe for tumors? While most of your symptoms sound like schizophrenia or paranoid schizophrenia, there were a few things you said which make me think it could be related to an abnormal growth in the brain. The symptoms you describe when off of the meds is text book depression. The lethargy, the heaviness, and all of that is easily accounted for. Regular exercise acts as an anti-depressant which could help level you off, but if you do have an abnormal growth, or schizophrenia, other steps will have to be taken. I suggest you talk to your doctor about lithium, which may be a much more suitable med for your circumstance if no tumors are present. Lithium is perfect for bi-polar disorder, schizophrenia, and it especially helps control the "mania" portion of the illness which in you seems to manifest as self destructive tendancies. Again, I haven't examined you and I don't know your full medical history, but it is an avenue to explore if you have not already done so. I hope this helps.

^^^ Perfect synopsis. BTW I also did some Iron body training; did you happen to use one of the sanchin forms? (Sorry to diverge, but it's rare that I meet people that even know what I'm talking about ) Besides, I think it is relevant when discussing pain from working out, since those were some of the most painful workouts I have ever had. The end result was worth every beating.

I am torn on this one. I am currently in school for medicine, but I have trained in martial arts for 10 years. My medical training wants to tell you the same thing as everyone else; that you should go easy on your body and not work out when sore. However, the martial artist side wants to tell you to push through the pain. When weight lifting you are going to hit a ceiling every time. If you lift 50lbs 20 times and stop at 20 every time when your muscles are tired and hurting, you will never get stronger. If you push for say 25 one day and 30 a few weeks later, you are getting stronger but you will probably be sore if your max is usually 20. Don't get me wrong, there is a fine line between pushing yourself and over doing it, but if your muscles are still physically capable of doing work, let them. It becomes dangerous when you work to the point of mechanical failure (i.e. your arm collapses from under you during push ups). Don't push so hard that you are useless the next day, but stopping every time you are uncomfortable won't help much either. You have to find a balance that you can tolerate; but don't sell yourself short when determining your limits. iNow gave some good advice also. Be sure to drink plenty of water and have lots of protein in your diet so your body can quickly repair the damaged muscle tissue (soreness usually results from minor tears in the muscle tissue). If you have issues with muscle cramping after a work out, just take in more electrolytes.

That is not at all how I.Q. tests work. I.Q. tests don't have factual trivia type questions on them (not any that I've seen anyway). They test for problem solving ability and pattern recognition using shapes and numbers. I have heard people claim that standardized tests were culturally biased, but this is the first instance I have heard of people saying I.Q. tests were culturally biased.

Wasn't Tesla trying to do something slong the same lines? I believe he was trying to harness the static electricity from the atmosphere instead of direct lightning strikes though, but it seems similar.

I am going to take that as you have no idea what I'm talking about. Alright, forget notikarion or gematria; let's just look at the most basic encoded information. I don't know if any of you are Jewish, but as some of you may know, ancient hebrew was much different than hebrew today. The first, and biggest difference is that there were no vowels, and at the time of the Torah, there wasn't even vowel pointing yet. So in a word like YHVH, you have the meaning of the word itself, but you also have the meaning of each character mingled with that, so that each concept builds on or adds to the word. That is know as paronomasia and was fairly common in ancient writing. There are numerous translations of the first line of genesis ranging from what you are familiar with to something like: You might find this helpful: http://www.read-the-bible.org/Beginning.html http://hope-of-israel.org/shekina2.htm I know for a fact that most bibles intentionally mistranslate certain things, or use translations that are "culturally correct". For example, in some parts of genesis the word used for God is Elohim which is plural and means "gods". Who is God talking to when he says "we" should kick adam and eve out of the garden before they eat the fruit of knowledge and become as one of US? The fact that elohim is used is significant, as every single word was carefully selected for the torah. This is because the creation of man is not the topic of genesis. That's why it only gets one line, but the specifics of the temple or the arc of the covenant gets several pages. Genesis is a spiritual beggining. How do you think Adam and eve's children were able to find wives? Why were there kings of Edom before the law was handed down or before people had been created? Some people will say that "we" means the royal we, but it is only used in genesis in specific contexts. This is because all of the pre-torah genesis is based on the religion that preceeded it in ancient Sumeria. The great flood, Adapa (Adam and Eve), Soddom and Gammorah; these are all things that were borrowed from a polytheistic culture, hence the "gods" created man. This is why "god" lies to Adam and Eve, why there is a talking serpent in the garden (ENKI), and why Abraham's father was known as a temple priest from Ur (The father of Judaism was fathered by another religion). Looking at Adam and eve, the story doesn't make a lot of sense. But if you look at the story of Adapa, it makes more sense. Adapa, wasn't the first hominid, but he was the first homo sapien capable of civilization. There wasn't one man and one woman, but 7 of each which allows enough genetic variance to avoid severly inbred children. And the serpent was the god ENKI whose symbol was the snake, but who was the protagonist of man in this first religion (hence god lying and "satan" telling the truth). When looking at the older stories, it is easy to see that there is paraphrasing going on, but with poetic signifigance. Why not look up the name of every person from Adam to Noah, then translate their names and you might notice something interesting, and that the Genesis is not a play by play account, but a paraphrased poetic telling of the time before the law. Also: Talmud Chaggiga 13b-14a states that there were 974 generations before God created Adam. How does that fit a literal interpretation? No; many Christian scholars think it is literal. Most Jews believe in Science from my experience. There may be some who believe the literal reading, but they are not the majority. Even in the middle ages Rabbis were warning about when the Torah conflicts with science. As for the authors of genesis writing other books, I'm not sure where you got that information. Many of the stories in genesis were circulating for 1000 years before there were even Jews. Maybe you meant the person that compiled genesis, also wrote the other four books of the Torah?

I have seen some interesting thoughts here. This may be true in some cirumstances, but the hebrews were actually very good at keeping their oral traditions straight. If you need evidence look at the Talmud which was written by two different groups in two different regions with very little contradiction. This is information that had only existed verbally and was never written before the talmud. Also, everyone is focusing on the word Yom, which does mean day like most people think of a day, but this still misses the beauty of the passage. In the first sentence of the Torah, the heavens and earth are already created. Second sentence: The word you guys might want to scrutinize is the word used for "was" here, because it also means "became". The earth became a dark void. If you really want to get into Gematria or Notikarion or something like that, there are some interpretations that sound pretty accurate compared to what we know today. On top of this, genesis is a paraphrasing of events. It is not, nor is it supposed to be, a play by play account of everything that happened before the Torah was given. It is largely based on the religion of ancient Sumeria (which is why they have over lapping stories such as adapa/adam and eve). There is a clue to this effect in genesis when they tell you that Abraham's father was a temple priest in Ur. My 2 cents anyway.

Well, I'm not sure if this is related, but I have always found it odd that humans are the only creatures I can think of that don't have all of the needed food sources in one place. If you look at a list of daily requirements, I can't think of many places on earth, if any, that have them all. We need elements of tropical fruits, grain that is only grown on inland farms, and and animal protiens and fatty acids among many other things. This could be due to migration early in the development of protohumans.

It is an interesting question no doubt. There are other evolutionary characteristics which suggest a different mechanism than we traditionally observe. HGT is a good example, or the explanation of endosymbiosis. The only answer that is consistent with these anomalies IMO is rapid evolution. Certainly, anyone can see that a given organism will make numerous minor adjustments through the mechanisms we have identified, but what we have identified doesn't even begin to explain something like the Cambrian explosion. Watching bacteria acquire different alleles doesn't explain such rapid diversification/speciation, or something like sexual reproduction; but a rapid evolutionary response to extreme environmental stimuli would be consistent with any of these. There has to be some sort of stimuli that shuts down the natural defenses against genetic mutation (self correction processes) but also moves in the same general direction across different organisms of the same species. Again, think about sexual reproduction. If one organism developed this trait, it would not be very useful. It would require multiple organisms of the same species to develop this "random mutation" at the same time.

True. His death toll still pales in comparrison, which was my initial point. I think that taking out Saddam and his sons personally was just revenge for Saddam putting a hit out on Bush Sr. At any rate it has nothing to do with actual justice. Or he knew that the American people are too apethetic to really do anything about it and we would quickly forget about it and go on about our lives. Maybe he did think that and maybe he didn't...it's irrelevant. India has WMD's why have we not tried to dismantle their government yet? If that is the sole reason needed to go to war, then why have we not attacked Russia, France, England, Pakistan, China, and Isreal which we know for a fact have WMDs? There is more to the story here obviously. He piggy backed this war on 9/11 making us think Saddam was a threat which clearly he was not, which implies an agenda. Which was going to happen anyway if you look at attitudes outside of this country. The oil comapnies have had record profits for the last 5 years while Americans are being robbed at the pump as if there is still some sort of shortage. They are going out with a bang, then they can gut their multi billion dollar companies, or buy out the competition and only release the technologies which will be similarly profitable. Even if my projections are wrong, I hardly see how you can say this is bad for the oil companies in ANY capacity. Well it makes sense when you also own arms companies and companies to rebuild the nation and have no idea how to formulate decent domestic policy. A war answers all of these things; it creates a "war economy" which makes it look like we are making some sort of progress when you manipulate statistics correctly, it creates a need for military hardware and technology, and creates an need for "nation building" which just happens to cater to Bush co and friends. It sure does seem mighty convenient for some people. All they needed was 9/11 to use fear to keep people in a state of hesitant confusion. Then once you're in..."ok I made a mistake, but we can't cut and run now". To this day, they use a mix of patriotism and fear to muster support for this BS cause. Is that our right or place to ensure that the world has been socially engineered to meet our standards or to like us? Besides, they are only "terrorist" because they are against us invading and have had to resort to tactics that we haven't had to. If a foreign government invaded, destroyed our military, killed our leaders and citizens, and just hung around like an occupying force, Americans would be blowing them up and we would be terrorists. It has become a meaningless moniker like "commie" during the red scare. I think the true motives for this war will only surface after most of the parties directly involved have died. I am not supporting some conspiracy theory, but I am not dismissing one either. All I can say is that the american public seems to be the victim of intentional misdirection and subterfuge as to the true events leading to this war (whether a conspiracy or just idiocy), and that there are many things that seem to be too beneficial for the right people to be a coincidence. Maybe Bush didn't realize the full scope of what was happening, but I think the people that put him in power certainly did.

We are losing something as a society, though we may not be losing the "war". We are losing our credibility, our global reputation as a defender of freedom and justice, and billions and billions of tax dollars that would be better spent building infrastructure of our own nation. I don't think we are losing the war, because there is no war. A war is a militray conflict between two armies; this is a glorified crime problem. However, we are certainly not winning this fake war either. We are trapped in a stalemate that will continue to drain our resources and the lives of young people for years to come. I think we should move on to other energy sources so we can let that particular region of the world fade back into obscurity. I agree that many of these nations are not ready to join the civilized world and should be left to their own ends. If they want to kill their own citizens, and the citizens aren't smart enough to rise up against the unfair government as they have risen against us, then they deserve what they get. As I said, freedom can not be given or it isn't truly freedom. That's not how Saddams trial played out. At his trial, the focus was on 148 people killed in the 1980's. We put him to death for that, after killing tens of thousands of Iraqis. I am not saying this to mean anything other than what it is. This war is built on one bullsh*t excuse propping up another in such a long chain that no one can even tell what's really going on. By that I mean, Haliburton, all of the oil companies record proffits, and Bush's lies about motives are just the things we know about... So are you saying that it would be possible to rid the world of an abstract concept like hate or jealousy then? The people in control of either side wants this conflict to escalate for two reasons IMO. First, it gives them the fuel to create more hate (which in adolescent males isn't that tough to begin with) which gives them people to fight and die for their cause. The people controlling this conflict will stay safely tucked away while commanding young men to go fight and die for some bullsh*t cause. Which leads to reason two: the BS cause. Sure there is the oil, the fake WMD's, the fact that all of Bush's buddies are making obscene profits, the American troops in the holy land, and the western abuse of the middle east, but what both sides have in common is that they are both run by religious zealots. In an odd twist that has been building for centuries, these two particular religions have overlapping themes and characters with different culturally relevant traits. Bush, like many fundies, believes that there will be a great conflict between the religious forces of good and evil before his God can return to earth. The same is true of many imams. They want to see this holy war because they think it will lead to a new era of peace and heaven on earth. Most likely all they will get is a desert made of glass.

Ancient people used to call it a "mara" from which we get the word nightmare. The modern terminology is sleep paralysis. It is a fairly common disorder I believe.

This is true. It happens when there is a congressional election, and even in 2004 some of the other republicans did their best to distance themselves from Bush. It seems like they really have the art of subterfuge and diversion down. What's really sad is that it still works. Then what was the point? Taking away a slight risk of harm (Saddam) and replacing it with an almost certain prospect of harm and a diminishing society? Is the world really safer? When was the last time Iraq attacked the U.S.? Much more blood has been spilled in Iraq after we "liberated" them from their ruler and way of life than when Saddam was in charge. Perhaps a coalition of the willing should be trying to knock our ruler out of power. I think the world truly would be safer then. A grim reality of a sensless occupation. In this country we have the right to oppose the injustice our government inflicts on the world in our names. I would like to travel over seas one day. What is the point of crushing their society and then just digging in and holding a position there? Do you really care if Haliburton gets to make another billion or two that much? I don't. True. If we are going to fight, then that's exactly what we should have done; fight to win. But we have some BS hippie agenda of spreading "freedom" which is obscuring our true goals. The sooner most of America admits that they don't really care about the Iraqis, or if they are oppressed or whatever, the sooner we can do what we should have done to begin with: let them solve their own problems. If your freedom is given to you, then you are not truly free. And how many Iraqis did Saddam kill which sparked this whole humanitarian effort? We crushed a nation, ruined a government and put Saddam to death over 148 Iraqis who were killed by Saddam BEFORE the gulf war. The U.S. has killed 446 times more Iraqis in this war alone. If our goal was to avenge 148 people, we sure did a great job, and we left problems for unforeseeable generations to come. Exactly! It is unwinable. Just like a war on drugs, the war on terror is doomed to failure. You can't fight an idea. That's like having a war on jealousy. There will never be a point where we can sit back and say "well that was the last one...terrorism is dead". It is just a giant political toilet to flush your money down. It also gives us liscense to imperialistically invade any nation we wish under the guise of fighting terror, when actually we are creating it.

Hi ParanoiA; I think what you are noticing is the after effect of the civil war. A quick look at history will show you that the two political parties in this country were the federalists and the anti-federalists who kept each other in check. Then post civil war, there was the democrats and republicans which are basically two ineffective sides of the same worthless coin. There was no more question about the power of the federal government because too much state power allowed too much freedom, which was dangerous. Power was consolidated to the feds, and never returned to the states. This is quite clearly NOT what the founding fathers had in mind.

This is really a great point. In fact I get called all sorts of hateful names for that very reason; I don't condone forced acceptance of people or liking people or giving special treatment just because they belong to a group. Tolerance is one thing, but total acceptance is another. People should be allowed to like whomever they wish, but that also means they should be free to dislike who they wish. Telling people what to think is what kings and emperors do, not presidents of a democracy. What you are doing is drawing a bad comparrison to make the question look silly and therefore beneath discussion. Let's use your example of democrats. Is there a natural tendancy toward being a republican that will allow our species to procreate and survive? By that I mean, is republican the obvious standard with the obvious result of continued existence as a species? This isn't like choosing Coke over Pepsi, this is a function defined by biology. Sex is for reproduction. On top of this, this harmless choice of homosexuality has opened the door for the AIDS epidemic in America (don't read into this, I meant only what I said). You can trivialize this if you wish, but it seems like a social issue which is at the very least worth addressing. ------------------------------------------------------------ I thought I detected some hostility. I am just very blunt; I try to address just the facts, with little consideration for emotions, and I don't usually believe in mixing words to spare feelings. I don't think people should be hated or discriminated against unfairly, but I also believe people shouldn't be liked or promoted unfairly. If someone is doing something that is messed up, destructive, weird, whatever; I'm going to call them on it so hopefully we can talk about it and either clear up my misconceptions, or address the problem properly. I was operating under the premise that a "cure" was possible, which means that we have to address what it is that we are curing and what the implications are. I think that's how we got into the hazy peripheral stuff.It is an interesting topic no doubt, but unless we define what it is we are curing, I think we will continue to get lost in side discussions that try to narrow down what we are talking about.

I wrote a long response to an earlier post, but the last few posts have some really good points to consider. I want to do some reading and get back to you guys tomorrow. I will just say that I think Dak is on to something about the environmental cues. I would go a step further and suggest it's probably a social cue mixed with a genetic predisposition. I will do some reading and get back to you guys. I did want to respond to this as well: No one is trying to label anyone's entire being as anything. Terms like "good" or "bad" are largely meaningless and vary from person to person. I am simply saying that if this is a medical condition, then people should seek treatment. There is no need to be ostracized or have higher chances of getting cancer just because someone with this disorder thinks it's what's best. Obviously if they have a condition which effects their judgement, that has to be considered. This isn't about my personal judgment of homosexuals. I think you guys know that, but I can't tell.

So? So is throwing feces (which also sometimes manifests with mental illness). What does this demonstrate? Then how was the trait passed on? Either there is no such thing as homosexuality, or it is a social construct if what you say is true. Or perhaps there was some mass horizontal gene transfer? Logically, it seems it could only be a malfunctioning mechanism, or a social construct. Touche sir. The implications are meaningless. "Good" or "bad" or "warm and fuzzy" are irrelevant. We are a species that reproduces sexually, thus the mechanism is malfunctioning. If homosexuality produced offspring, then you could say it was an equally viable option. As it stands, it is just a deviation from a pretty set standard.

True it doesn't do any harm directly. However, neither does shizophrenia. On "A" I can admit that you are probably right, but on "B" I have to fully disagree, or at least question how you could possibly come to this conclusion. All Cap offered was a possibility based on speculation. If we can just make up anything that we wish to be true, then we won't get very far. Certainly they have an agenda...I challenge you to find a site on the subject that doesn't. If it makes you feel better, I already knew what info I was looking for, that was just the first site that had it together with sources cited. Like ANY internet source, it should be taken with a grain of salt. Fair enough. I will refrain from using that as a source. Since I already did though, can we discuss the info found there? Certainly not the person with the personality disorder . People can refuse if they wish, but there is no reason to. It's like staying depressed because you like it better on principle. ---------------------------------------------------------- We are all operating under the premise that a "cure" can be found. If that were true, then homosexuality is much like a personality disorder. They have a malfunctioning mechanism of attraction. Thus their judgement is not "normal". Just like someone with depression. Does someone with depression have the right to abstain from meds? Sure, but does that mean that he is the best person to make the call? Not always.

What are you talking about? I never said that contributing to procreation is the only thing of value. What I said was that homosexuals don't procreate, and that does the group no good in insuring the survival of the species (since that is what most social constructs revolve around either directly or indirectly). Also, I have not been able to find any of these benefits of homosexuals for society...would you care to list a few or tell me a post number or something? Are you saying that because you don't like the source, the info must be false? I could find the same info on another site if that would make you more comfortable. Almost every site on the subject is biased in one direction or the other. This was one of the few that actually cites their sources. I'm sure Autistic patients don't care that they're autistic. People that are schizo often think they are totally normal and fine. As someone else mentioned, if you have a disorder that effects your judgment, then you might not be the best person to make the call. If we can all accept the harsh reality that certain conditions like colon cancer and STDs etc increase with male homosexuality, then we can see that this is a disorder which can potentially lead to many harmful side effects and should be curbed if there were a safe and effective way to do it. I think people that would opt to stay homosexual would either be people whose judgement was effected or people who enjoy the attention they get for being different. There is no valid reason to oppose treatment if one were available.

I haven't seen any actual numbers to this effect, so it's hard to tell. To me it seems like homosexuality is increasing in the U.S.. It seems to be a social phenomenon. Look at the Greeks for example, homosexuality had nothing to do with genes (unless most of the male population had this gene), and everything to do with society and conditioning. For This to be true, homosexuality would have to be an inherited trait, which I doubt for obvious reasons.

Sure why not? Parents get to decide if you are circumcized, immunized, educated (to some extent), beaten every day, or any number of other choices about your personal development and well being; why should this be different? Why? Why don't you respect their rights to individuality? Why must we as a society have acceptance forced down our throats? Wouldn't the actual support of diversity involve supporting views with which you might not agree? Yes. Ethics and morality are based around what is generally good for the group. They are social constructs with floating definitions. Homosexuals don't procreate and thus aren't good for the group. They also have higher instances of STD's, which is bad for the group. http://www.godhatesfags.com/fags/Homosexual_Lifestyle.pdf Why? Tolerance opened the door for the aids epidemic in America. I am not saying that we should be hateful; I am just stating the facts. Disease rates soar, and we are supposed to be indifferent to avoid hurting someone's feelings? Certainly if there were a safe way to change it, the behavoir should be changed, if for no other reason than to protect medical and insurance rates for the rest of us (the same line of reasoning used to demonize smoking).

Well not all of them can become citizens; that wouldn't help the problems they have already caused. Close off all avenues of work and aid, and let the people who are willing to go through the process apply the correct way and come back in a few years. . Oh really? http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51644 Also this is pretty good: http://ar.gopwing.com/illegalimmigrationposition.html It doesn't matter what you would include though. If you allow all of the people already here to stay, then there is no incentive for them to learn the language. Within a few years spanish speakers will be the majority in California, then there will be absolutely no need to assimilate or pretend they have interest in our culture beyond the money we have. Well, like I said, there is no need to round them up, just make it impossible for them to live here and they will just leave on their own. Also, I understand your sentiment about not earning citizenship, I do, but I think you are over simplifying to make it sound like your opinion is the only obvious choice; it's like when people are debating religion and one person says something to the effect of "well I can't prove there isn't an invisible unicorn standing next to me either". Talking about what they gave up etc, IS an appeal to emotion. There is no rational reason to take that into consideration, only emotional or empathetic ones. I'm sure their life sucks. Is that my fault? Did I tell them to have one of the worst governments on the planet? Did I tell them to run their country into the ground and be 50 years behind most industrialized nations? So why should I have to pay for their misfortune? Why should the laws of my country not apply to them? Why do the people that actually made the self sacrifice to come here legally get screwed SPECIFICALLY because they did things the right way? Most illegals I have encountered do love Mexico much more than the U.S. It blows my mind that no one is willing to step up and just try to fix their obviously broken society. In all fairness, the new President of MExico has asked that the illegals come home so they could build infrastructure, but it could have just been a speech for show. That is what I say too. If we are going to have to take care of most of the country anyway, we might as well take over, force assimilation, and utilize the land so that it is actually profitable. That way all of the working aged men can still come to California if they want to, and I will teach English in Cabo to all of the cuties that were left behind. Certainly, if it's a controlled intake that encourages assimilation. And if they did things the right way, those poor Mexican immigrants along with poor Americans would be making $28 an hour to drywall instead of $11. I'm at work right now and it's hard to find anything one way or the other, but I will try to find this one for you later. Also, crack dealers and theives put money back into the economy. Even if it did somehow balance out, these are still people breaking the law. We don't say, "don't bust that meth lab, they buy food and gas and put money back into the community". You say they aren't the same but they are. They are both people that have no regard for law and order, and who will do what it takes to make more money the easiest way possible, and no matter who they have to hurt to get it. Like I said, maybe you want to live around millions of people like that, but I do not. That's one perspective. Now what about the people that bought houses in that neighborhood before they knew the government wasn't going to enforce it's laws? Should they lose money on their investment, or possibly their ability to retire simply because people in Mexico want to make a quick buck and are willing to live like animals? Can you honestly sit there and pretend that is even remotely fair to the citizens of this country? Our ancestors did what the people in Mexico will not; they stood up and demanded a better standard of living. That's why American's aren't packed into houses like clowns in a little car. Our culture and society is great because of our standard of living. To say that we should be willing to live like people from a 3rd world country, just to appease some poor people who don't want to bother with the formality of respecting this country, is absurd. Is that a reason to invite more? Poor people produce the most crime, regardless of race. Inviting 15+ million poor people is asking for huge doses of crime. Look at any area with a large illegal immigrant population, then I bet you will also see spanish speaking gangs that are over crowding the prisons and on the streets trying to start trouble with non-hispanics. It's a culture clash born from poverty and a non-assimilating population. As for the kids in my neighborhood; it isn't that the police aren't doing their job, it's just that there are too many little groups of thugish kids walking around with no parental supervision. You are confusing. One moment you are in full support of people coming here to take adavntage of our system because they are poor, or had to struggle to get here (even though many simply walk across the boarder with little to no struggle), yet in the next thought you don't support Americans who are poor. I can't stand the thought of someone who has lived here and worked here their whole life starving to death because their job was sent over seas, or because social security isn't enough after their spouse died or whatever. I think it's a good system that needs to be refined so that people that are able to work, do not recieve any benefits, but I don't think we should just let people fall through the cracks in society just because they ended up in a bad situation through no fault of their own. In a sense you are right that much importance is placed on citizenship. I suppose I had never really given it much thought. I believe every American should have a decent standard of living, just because they are Americans. basically, I root for my team, and screw everyone else. Well, most politicians are tied to big business. They are either from families that own big businesses, they have worked for big business and have lots of friends, or the lobbyists from big business pay for campaign spending. Politicians have no need to worry because none of them are in the middle class, and they could care less if it disappeared. Big business makes more profits when they have illegal employees because they can drive the wages down and pay less taxes. The only people that have an interest in protecting America are the citizens like the minute men, but the government shuts them down or limits what they can do, because the government has no legitimate interest in seeing these people leave. The two are inseperable. How do you think these guys are getting by on such diminished wages? We don't have to do either. If we make it impossible to work or recieve aid and tell them any illegal alien will be punished and not granted citizenship at ANY future time, they will leave on their own. Then they can apply legally, granted they were not caught before. It should. Their attitude at home is that illegals are an unwanted an illegal drain (that are sometimes sold into slavery). When they come here they riot in the streets and call all Americans racists for not wanting them here. It's a joke. They know they can milk our weak will and sympathy, but would not dream of letting anyone do the EXACT same thing to them. So does that mean that the child is just immune to punishment then? Sounds like EVERY city in Cali. While that is funny on some level, I hope you see the problems with this statement. Great discussion BTW; you have given me some things to think about.

You have to be pretty desperate to sell crack or rob people too. The level of desperation has nothing to do with the situation. That is an appeal to emotion.Besides, we need LESS desperate people willing to do anything for money, not more. Basically the only problem is what to do with all of the people. The biggest myth is that it would be impossible to get rid of 15 million people. As another poster mentioned, if you simply cut off their ability to work and recieve aid here, they will self deport and end the problem. What perspective is that? That we should fight foreign settlers at all costs? That a peaceful live and let live attitude toward mass migration will cause the destruction of a society? It seems like a bad example to me. I don't want people living here and voting that don't know basic history and have no allegence for this country. Appeal to emotion. What they "had" to go through was a choice, and has no bearing on the quality of life or laws in America. If they spent half of the time and energy fixing their own system instead of figuring our ways to abuse ours, they might not have it so bad. Do you know that Mexico has marched it's armies onto American soil numerous times to aid drug dealers? That alone could be a declaration of war and certainly reason to use force securing the boarder. I admire your empathy, but until we have a one world government your ideas are preposterously impractical. If it weren't for the citizens and boarders of this country, we wouldn't have a better standard of living than most countries. In other words, if what you were saying were true, then we wouldn't be having this problem because all cultures and countries would be on equal footing. That is clearly not the case. Doesn't add up to the costs. They do add to the economy through things like food, but they cause a spike in insurance, public aid, and prison costs, which we all absorb. Also, they make it tough for Americans to make a decent wage because they flood the labor market and drive down wages while making rent more expensive. If they do get a house it is usually with several families which drives down property values of everyone around them. They do much more harm than good. I don't know if you lived in a city that had the "day without an immigrant" thing, where all of the illegals stayed home for a day to show the impact on the economy, but it was great. I wish they would do it every year. For one day, everyone spoke english everywhere I went. The freeway was not congested. No gangs of Latchkey kids walking around vandalizing my neighborhood. I saw a difference and thought it was much better. Many people felt the way I did, which is why I'm guessing they didn't do that again this May. And do what with them? What sets us apart from Mexico is our culture and our history. We had a great depression in this country and instead of exporting our problems North to Canada, we developed a safety-net system to stop poor Americans from falling through the cracks. Just because people in other countries wish to take advantage of our saftey net is no reason to put actual Americans at risk. But how many are we talking about? You want to keep the 15 million we already have don't you? That is costing us billions and it's unfair to spend such large amounts to better people from another country especially at the expense of Americans who the government is supposed to be looking out for. Letting everyone stay is just pandering. No deportation needed. Simply clear up the work and aid for illegals, and let self deportation take care of the rest. Strict penalties for business owners and actually enforcing laws that we already have on the books could clear this whole issue up within 6 months to a year. Imagine how much better society would be if we had those billions to put into social programs like education. Why? That is just taking the burden of paying for these people on ourselves in a different capacity. Our prisons are already over crowded. Let them build up their own society so they don't have to come here like this.That is the only answer that will solve the root problems. If they did do that, they wouldn't be stupid enough to let people take advantage of them...check it out...they have their own illegal immigration problem already (and why not see how they treat their illegals?). They would be better off trying to build something for themselves instead of just squeezing by here and causing problems for those of us who don't have another country to return home to when this one is ruined. Simply placing their value by determining their familial relations is shortsighted, and appeals to sentiment more than logic.If Pot was legalized tomorrow, they wouldn't just release evryone that was busted when it was still illegal, because they still broke the law and must be punished. Even though I disagree with that particular law, it is a law and penalties are to be expected. Well that's because we are citizens. Like I said, why not see how Mexican's treat their illegals then get back to me on this one. These are all related problems but you seem to choose conflicting sides from issue to issue. I want to blame everyone that is doing something wrong, which is ultimately resulting in a deteriorating quality of American life. That means the illegal immigrants, the businesses, and the government should pay for their mistakes and should take steps to reverse this downhill slide or soon there won't be a middle class.