Just In
for Musings

8/15/2003 c3 shannon
Another urban legend is that at a party ur given ghb & put in a bath tub of cold water. When u wake up the water is bloody and ur body is cut open. the myth is that ppl steal ur organs.
8/13/2003 c3 33Tiefling
Y'know, I was expecting anonymous flames that just said 'Oh yes it does', and already I've got one. Yay!

I have done my research, in that I have first hand experience in covering entire human bodies in paint. Nobody has died of this.

To give you a little credit, maybe you didn't buy the skin suffocation thing, but were thinking of other harmful effects that might result from the paint itself. If you used toxic paint, then yeah, it might kill you. Toxins can be absorbed through the skin. Proper body paint is non toxic. It can however, clog the pores, so it isn't recommended that you wear it for more than a few hours at a time. It won't kill you, but it might give you pimples.

Do YOUR research miladdo! Masters in science my butt.
8/13/2003 c3 WRONG
Maybe you should do a little more research. As someone with their master's degree in science, I have to tell you that you are WRONG! I'm not saying that anyone died in the filming of Goldfinger, but covering your body in paint (or anything else that blocks off your pores) can most certainly lead to your death.
8/13/2003 c3 Raekwon the Kid
You know, this is deep. I had never looked at the issue of urban myths as being used to promote racial propaganda, so this piece definitely opened my eyes in that sense. I agree with everything you said here, so I hope you keep writing!

Shameless, and I do mean SHAMELESS Plug: Check out my next few chapters of my Venting Sessions.
8/11/2003 c1 Tiefling
No Trust: So you're a libertarian, eh? Robert Nozick is the devil.

Seriously, I disagree with you entirely, but I am very interested to hear your viewpoint, and at least you refrain from using childish insults.

Taxation pays for services *everyone* uses. If you want to drive on roads, you've got to help pay for them. The same argument applies to healthcare (Everyone needs a doctor at some point in their lives). Welfare is there to support those who can't support themselves, like the disabled. But I'm sure you know that, you just disagree. So be it.

BTW- is there anything wrong with calling it the United States (the 'of America' being implied by the context)?

Raekwon and Hnmn- chill! There's no need to get personal.
8/8/2003 c1 hnmn

I don't know if you'll check this, but here goes. You need to read a little more carefully. I said I didn't care if I SOUNDED selfish. I see nothing selfish about looking out for ones family first. If everyone looked after themselves and their families first, then worried about other people, the world would be better off. And it is a fact that some hospitals have been forced to shut down (going bankrupt is different) because they are forced to treat anyone who walks in the ER. When the illegal immigrants come in, even if it is just for something as simple as the flu, the doctors are forced to treat them and they do not get paid for what they did. That piles up, and soon the hospitals have to shut down.


PS: Servasiad is an idiot and if you want to resort to doing things she does, go for it. Then I won't have to bother to take you seroulsly and respond to your reviews, because it would be a waste of my time.
8/7/2003 c1 2RoseRed
Bravo, wonderful essay. It has always pissed me off when people complain and yet not do a thing about it. I think you did a good job and you didn't sink to a low level to do it. By the way, I like the quote by Gandhi.
8/6/2003 c1 33Tiefling
Admiral: I wasn't suggesting my government detained asylum seekers 'for laughs'. I understand the need to 'check them at the gate' as you put it. However, this does not justify *illegally* detaining people indefinately. By the time someone got to stage three of the process they'd be thoroughly checked out. If you're going to detain all asylum seekers using that reasoning, you would also need to lock up everyone who came in on tourist or working visas. We don't do that, however. Our government is only picking on the desperate and powerless.
8/5/2003 c2 15No Trust
Actually I have a completely different way of looking at the matter: The United States (sic) is not the collective property of people who are born within certain political boundaries. I believe that private property owners have every right to exlude whoever they want from their own property, and for whatever reason. But no-one has a right to exclude people from the property of others. For example, if I take a Mexican family into my home so that the father can seek employment, that is none of anyone else's business, and if the feds have a problem with it, that's just too bad.

Where the question changes is with so-called "free-services". I have nothing against immigrants, be they "legal" or "illegal", but I do have a problem with immigrants or anyone else benefitting from the welfare state, which is payed for by extorting money from people who work to make their own living. In short I believe welfare is immoral, whereas immigration is morally neutral, or ammoral.

In the case of refugees, no-one owes them anything. However, no-one has a collective right to bar them from "the country" either, just as no-one has an obligation to pay for their food or hospital visits. If they come here, and someone takes them in long enough for them to find a place to work, so they can stand on their own two feet, I don't have a problem.
8/4/2003 c2 14Admiral
Okay, let me try this: I will concede that asylum seekers have a right to expect to be welcomed to a country that promises freedom for all. I will concede that not all asylum seekers, especially the children, are greedy or criminal. But let's be realistic. Just because not every one of them is a problem does not mean that NONE of them are. That's why you stop them at the "gates" and check.

I won't pretend to speak for hnmn, but I have a reason for being so admantly against unrestricted or lightly restricted access for asylum seekers or immigrants in general. In case you've forgotten, a couple of years ago 19 foreign nationals emigrated to the United States, learned the principal language, assimilated into the culture, contributed to the economy and did all that so that they would have the opportunity to fly very large aircraft into three buildings and kill thousands of people from all over the country and the world without anybody saying along the way "Wait a second! Maybe these guys taking flying lessons don't really want to be part of American society! Shouldn't we check to make sure?"

Now, they got in by adhering to American immigration laws and lying about their true intentions. They'd have had an even greater opportunity to do the same thing by declaring themselves "asylum seekers" because, as you stated, a country has to welcome them, leaving the local government no barrier to anyone lying about his reasons for seeking asylum. If the liar gets to "Stage Three" of your system and gets into the population and gets his plans rolling before you've found out he's up to no good, how have you helped anything?

You may not like blanket internment of asylum seekers, but your government isn't just doing it for laughs.
8/4/2003 c2 33Tiefling
Thanks for reviewing people!

Hnmn: Apologies if you didn't mean that everyone who moves to the U.S. was coming to harm you, but that's the way you came across. It sounded paranoid, especially following your rant about the U.S. supposedly being the only country with a decent standard of living.

For clarity: An asylum seeker is not the same as an illegal immigrant. Being an asylum seeker is not illegal. The suggested alternative to mandatory detention WOULD be as safe, as it is a three stage process. Asylum seekers would only be released into the community once their claims had been assessed and had been found to be genuine.

I am very well aware that article 14 does not state that everyone must be *granted* asylum. My point was that is not illegal to seek it, so asylum seekers should not be treated as criminals.

Foreign refugees do help our economy (bear in mind I am talking about a different country here). When I get time I'll do a chapter with some stats on it.

'You cannot simply spin the globe, point to a country and say "I'm gonna live there when I grow up" This is not what asylum seekers are doing. They do not have a choice about leaving their homes. They are fleeing persecution.

The hospitals in Texas are going out of business because they are not funded properly. That is the fault of the United States government, not a few penniless migrants.

'There is no logical reason why a country should have to take refuges (sic)' Countries don't HAVE to take refugees. But they should if they can afford it because it's the decent thing to do.

Qualia just came in and pointed out that there is a logical reason why a country should let refugees in. That is, that in time the situation could be reversed. In 200 years time you might see refugees streaming south from the U.S. and Canada in the wake of devastating crop failures. If in times to come you are forced to leave your home, I bet you'll wish your own country had decent relations with its neighbours.
8/4/2003 c1 Mbwun
Totally agree with the first essay (haven't read the second yet, so I can't say). If one doesn't like the country one lives in ... well, try to change it. Get off one's complaining ass and go do something.

~He Who Walks On All Fours And Occasionally Speaks With Proper Grammar:)
8/3/2003 c1 Raekwon the Kid

Do I have to start doing like serasivad does you and insult you after every one of your quotes? Not yet, but I'm getting close to that point, now that you've opened the door for such a thing. But I won't do it yet.

I'm willing to ignore the off-hand insult of yours and respond in the civil manner that I always do, so here goes:

Where else do you think immigrants are supposed to be treated at? Don't you think that if they had adequate hospitals in their own country they wouldn't have to cross the border? And don't throw out that "immigrants make hosptials go bankrupt" line, either; hospitals see millions of people every year compared to the thousands of immigrants that cross the border for help, so that particular line of reasoning doesn't fly with me. But because you are selfish (and you said it yourself; infact, you said you didn't care. What kind of person are you?), you'd rather see these immigrants die over seeing them possibly be able to live. I'll just leave it at that, because I refues to stoop to your level and insult you, at least not at this moment.
8/3/2003 c2 hnmn

I don't really care if I sound selfish. I worry about my family and myself before I worry about anyone else.

And, for a change, I chose my words very carefully in the part of the review you quoted. I intentionally interchanged those two phrases. Notice the word before immigrants. You typed it so you must have known it was there. The word is ILLEGAL. Now since you clearly can't figure things out for yourself, let me explain to you why illegal immigrant and criminal ARE interchangeable.

The word ILLEGAL means not approved or authorized by law. The word CRIMINAL means one who has committed a crime. The word CRIME means any violation of a law.

Now do you see why the words ILLEGAL immigrant can be exchanged for the word criminal? What I wrote shows exactly how I feel about illegal immigrants. They are criminals, and should be treated as such. I have no problem with people who enter the US (or any country for that matter) legally. It is the ILLEGAL immigrants, or criminals, that I have a problem with.

8/3/2003 c1 11Imaginary Player
I'm flattered that people are taking a page from my book, and this was well-written, even if it is a rant.

I disagree with the "If you don't like it, leave" sentiment that seems to be so popular on this site. It shows narrow-mindedness and ignorance. I liked this essay.

To hnmn:

You sentiment IS selfish. And one thing:

"It doesn't matter what kind of drive to achieve you have. You can not simply spin the globe, point your finger at a country and say, "I'm gonna live there when I grow up." There is no logical reason why a country should have to take refuges. It is a security risk, it’s a drain on our economy, and it is bad for the citizens of the area. (Point: hospitals in Texas having to go out of business because illegal immigrants come over the border, go to emergency rooms where they have to be treated, and then leave without paying. They have no insurance so the hospital has no way of getting the money back, but they still have to treat the criminals. Soon the hospitals go out of


Do you realize that you've used "illegal immigrants" and "criminals" interchangably? Shows what you truly think of immigrants.
108 « Prev Page 1 .. 4 5 6 7 8 Next »

Twitter . Help . Sign Up . Cookies . Privacy . Terms of Service