I apologize to anyone who bothered to wade through that idiotic exchange. In respectful patience I respond to mundane and ignorant posts, but obviously it has a way of spamming threads very quickly. With this forum's software prohibiting deleting the spamming child's posts, I responded to avoid the "you ignored my post! I must have been right and you're a poor debater!" conclusion on the child's part and maimed the thread. I blame Stephen.

Phoenix didn't reach 2nd place for kidnapping capital in the world because of any other factor than illegal immigration from Mexico. America is a nation of laws, and without an influx of illegal immigrants  who come from a more lawless land not respecting these laws and corrupt politicians refusing to deport them, Phoenix would be like the rest of America--Nowhere on any kidnapping rank list.

Why would Obama seem like a good statesman for standing there and bowing his head to insults, but Calderon not seem like a bad statesman for making ignorant and hypocritical remarks? Has being weak and accepting ignorant insults ever been the sign of a good leader in history? Why would Obama, who is the representative for the United States of America--the most prosperous nation on earth and champion of individual rights--seem unreasonable to not stand there and be insulted like an ignorant jackass by the leader of an economic midget who cannot even defeat drug lords within its own borders?

I'm not going to waste more time embarrassing myself in response to a child. Provide statistics that prove that, percentage-wise, immigrants (I presume you meant illegal? It's an important distinction. Perhaps you should make it.) are responsible for more crime than Americans? (Your statement, I just used the right words and grammar) I didn't make such a claim, or any claim that depends on such a claim being true. Even if illegal immigrants had less than 50% the crime rate of citizens, that wouldn't necessarily be an argument for amnesty--which it seems you're arguing for in every weird statement you make and question you ask.

You're repeating generic arguments that the USA have no immigration policy and let everyone on earth who wants in immigrate. But no other country on earth does this, as it would create all sorts of problems, as it does in the USA. Claims that it's somehow ignorant or unproductive or immoral for the USA to enforce its immigration policy are ignorant and ridiculous. Would you make these arguments for every nation on earth? Of course not. Only to the USA, out of some sort of misdirected jealousy, because the USA has things you want, so you must deserve them and the USA must owe them to you.

>>in response to me saying "don't drive" you tiraded about how hybrid cars are bad for the environment as if I had suggested them, which I hadn't.<<

Wasn't in response to you. Just a general point. I do support conservation. My arguments are against idiots seeking to classify the air you breathe out as polluted. I didn't respond to your basic conservation suggestions because I do not take issue with them. There are other harmful chemicals in auto emissions that it wouldn't hurt to reduce. (which CO2 concerns do nothing to reduce)

>>You are right that the conscientious consumer will make ill informed mistakes but they will always cause less damage than the thoughtless consumer.<<

Not when the conscientious consumer chooses "green" products in an attempt to be responsible when "green" products, in fact, hurt the planet more than their non-green counterparts, but this fact is not exposed because of the interests of powerful entities/entities in power. Ie, ethanol fuel, hybrid cars. Always? Explain these two top-of-my-head examples. I think your claim oversteps the facts.

>>If you don't like the Green party because you think they are socialists, why don't you make your own non-socialist environmentalist party? This is how democracy works.<<

I don't like them because they are socialists. Ralph Nader doesn't care about the environment. And he's not particularly energetic in hiding it. Neither are any of the rest. Democracy works by people like me speaking freely and not repeating mindless lies. Democracy works by people like me not creating their own parties and cluttering up the landscape until it is incomprehensible. I'm not a member of any party nor am I interested in creating one. I just call them like I see them.

>>If government intervention would be ruinous due to foreign competition, then how's about this for an idea; multilateralism and international co-operation.<<

Talk is cheap. I already addressed your question repeatedly. Saying "multilateralism and international co-operation" doesn't get anything done. You can't force nations to cripple their economies in the name of CO2 paranoia. And they're not volunteering to. You can take corporate volunteers to trim their profit margins to be "greener," but progress here is limited by their profit margins and how much they can/are willing to spare to invest in this cause. There are green initiatives that actually do save money. They're mostly limited by available technology. Well-run businesses invest in them on their own. They'd invest in them more if their development wasn't hampered by an overtaxed society leading to everything being dramatically overpriced.

Like the ones in Greece and Spain?

Nobody with a functioning brain is.

>>The US constitution seems very limiting of the american government<<

Ahhhh, I see you've found its most beautiful point!

It's not a coincidence that America's constitution is the governing document of the most prosperous nation the Earth has ever been home to. Though politicians of both 'sides' will continually tell you how much more government we need to make Eden here on earth, the Founders of the USA who wrote its Constitution were both more honest and wise than these dishonest, power-hungry idiots today and all the idiots who buy into their idiotic rhetoric.

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky."   -Slick Willy

That may be true, but that is not one such quote. Your hatred of capitalism clouds your judgement.

>>it doesn't matter if a product is imported from elsewhere or produced in your own country, it'll have to pay the same taxes.<<

That's wrong. Tariffs, taxes levied on imports or exports, are not necessarily "the same" no matter where a product is produced. Nor are they frequently in practice. No wonder I'm not buying your misunderstanding of basic economics.

You've completely neglected to address the fact that nobody in the world is willing to buy products that are twice as expensive in order to be "green." The vast majority of them couldn't, even if they were willing. Instituting policies to make the cost of materials, energy, production, and transportation skyrocket won't save the planet: it would just result in areas with those policies ceasing to produce those products, hurting those areas economically. And the same product continues to get made--somewhere else, where no such ridiculous policies are in place. Net gain to the environment: 0.

He's made it clear he doesn't care if his suggestions don't help reduce emissions or hurt economies of the people who listen to them. 'nough said.

He'll want to clean up, then, before they get to "business." ha ha ha ha

It sounds like IC US Pacific is 1 player.

>>This is why you enforce these laws on anyone wanting to sell the products in your country, union, whatever.<<

You're suggesting that responsible nations impoverish their people by skyrocketing the cost of energy and every good they consume, while most other nations continue to increase their emissions?  China and India aren't volunteering to pillage their economies.  Maybe you've got Greece and Spain on board and many more headed in the same direction; but, call me crazy, that's not the direction I'm looking to go in.