technology has only bought us time as we are using up non-renewable fossil fuels.Jesda wrote:Labor is an economic resource, like trees, technology, infrastructure. Labor comes from people (and robots).
Illegal immigrants, unfortunately, form an essential component of the US economy.
I sometimes wonder if Thomas Malthus was a marijuana addict. His paranoid beliefs and ideas have been debunked so many times (by technology) its silly.
I didnt know there was a difference. I have some googling to do!SeVa-S13 wrote:You mean Pot head, they don't get addicted to the "chron," they just become stupid and lazy(er).
Main Entry: 1na·tivePronunciation: 'nA-tivFunction: adjectiveEtymology: Middle English natif, from Middle French, from Latin nativus, from natus, past participle of nasci to be born -- more at NATIONDate: 14th century1 : INBORN, INNATE <native talents>2 : belonging to a particular place by birth <native to Wisconsin>3 archaic : closely related4 : belonging to or associated with one by birth5 : NATURAL, NORMAL6 a : grown, produced, or originating in a particular place or in the vicinity : LOCAL b : living or growing naturally in a particular region : INDIGENOUS7 : SIMPLE, UNAFFECTED8 a : constituting the original substance or source b : found in nature especially in an unadulterated form <mining native silver>9 chiefly Australian : having a usually superficial resemblance to a specified English plant or animal- na·tive·ly adverb- na·tive·ness nounsynonyms NATIVE, INDIGENOUS, ENDEMIC, ABORIGINAL mean belonging to a locality. NATIVE implies birth or origin in a place or region and may suggest compatibility with it <native tribal customs>. INDIGENOUS applies to species or races and adds to NATIVE the implication of not having been introduced from elsewhere <maize is indigenous to America>. ENDEMIC implies being peculiar to a region <edelweiss is endemic in the Alps>. ABORIGINAL implies having no known race preceding in occupancy of the region <the aboriginal peoples of Australia>.nismodave wrote:If you live in America....learn the Native language.
Im in my 2nd yr or Native American (Indian) at College.
I'm sorry. I'm going to have to raise the BULLS**T Flag on that one. My parents came here when they were 16 and by 18 had learned the English language well enough to go to college and hold jobs that involved working with people. By 22 my dad owned a printing press.skydragoness5 wrote:People need to stop breeding dammit. I think what China did to control their population was very necessary and had the best interest of the people. They recognized that they had more people than their natural resources could support and they did something about it. They obviously realized it very late but hey, we could get started early to avert the issue. I'm getting damn sick and tired of seeing every 5 acres of untainted land get bulldozed for more houses. It makes me sick.
As far as english goes, it is VERY difficult to learn once a person passes puberty. There's something called the 'critical age period' that a language is more easily learned up till 11 yrs old or so.
The very least that guy could've done would be to write an email inquiring about his order.
Another reason why you should run for '08Mr1der wrote:I gotta say, I'm flattered others wanna live in my country so bad.
really, the only logical answer is colonization.
the reason it was so easy for you to learn is because you were 10, you spoke, read, and wrote english at school, heard it on tv, had friends who spoke english so you were around the language a lot more than say your parents so you easily picked it up. Now say like adult imigrants, when they come over they aren't exposed to english as much so its a lot harder for them to learn the language.f1seb wrote:
I would disagree with you on that. I think that the english language is alot easier to pick up then any other foreign language that I had come to contact with. I picked up the language quite fast and I was fluent within 2 years. Ofcourse I was only 10 and realize that kids pick up languages like crack addicts blaze the pipes. I have retained my native language and opted to learn a 3rd one. It's alot harder then I thought once you get older but still not possible. And one more fact about the engish language is that the english language is backwards of almost every other language.
Sorry... I was all fired up today! (long story)IWannaS15 wrote:Quiet, dont say the L word. The thread might get locked
That's where I disagree. We are privileged because our ancestors worked HARD and had the forsight to build one of the greatest nations to ever exist on this planet. Now, a lot of our success has come at the expense of others... and that may not be fair... but again... it's reality. Is it cool? Not totally... but it worked and we are ALL better off for it... including those who are coming here illegally. The only other alternative would be to boil us all down the the lowest common denominator and we'd probably all be poor and starving.IWannaS15 wrote:I understand whats happening. But illegal immigrants arent taking these jobs, we're giving them these jobs. As you said, our education system is too superior for us to do them. I agree we are born into privilege. But ask yourself why. We are only privileged because someone else is disadvantaged.
Agreed... and I agree that is sucks to be in their spot. But I applaud them for doing SOMETHING to make their KIDS life better than theirs. It's hard to find that kind of selfless devotion in our society because too many of us take our freedom and privilege for granted. I think they do WANT to work for crap wages but they'd obvioulsy PREFER something better. They want it because they know that's what they have to do to better their future.IWannaS15 wrote:We NEED people to work these jobs. Nobody wants to scrub toilets or pick cabbage for $5/day. Illegal immigrants dont want to either. They do it so their children can be born into the same 'privileged' atmosphere we were born in. And because they cant walk into a corporate job and find employment.
LOL.... good stuff... and point well made. This is all proof of my point though. There has ALWAYS got to be "haves" and "have nots"... it's just the way it is. It's not "fair" but it's NATURE. If we were all toilet scrubbers... there'd be nobody to scrub toilets FOR. It's a balance.IWannaS15 wrote:And your education doesnt make you above anything. You simply have the means to earn more money to support your family and ensure they have more privileges than you had. If we all got our MBA from Harvard, there would be too many dirty toilets.
It already is. Now owned by Ford..... and the new Discovery is based very much on the Explorer. They are not identical, but share a lot of the same parts and technology. The unbeatable off-road performance of the Rover line is something of the past now. With Ford at the helm the Rover Suv's will be nothing more than the big useless 4X4 wagons like Ford and all the others put out now. It sucks... even Jeep has "wuss-ified" their off-road capabilities with the introduction of the Liberty.Jesda wrote:I'm not sure I want Rover to become a 'domestic' brand.
The '66 to '77 Bronco was one of the best off-roaders ever. But... they dumped it after 77 and had a couple future lousy attempts at taking advantage of the name. The fullsize Bronco was worthless, and the pathetic Bronco II was a worse rollover disaster than the CJ-7 and CJ-5. And... at least the CJ's had some capabilities off pavement. Ever since Ford ditched the original Bronco it has not made a good off-highway use vehicle. The Ford built Disco is only slated for one year of production as far as I know. It isn't terrible, but it has absolutely NO potential to get better. The original Disco is a solid-axle rig with limitless room to improve with very little expense.Mr1der wrote:the Discovery is actually in it's last year if I remember right...and going on an ep of Extreme Trucking, they still look very capable.
Ford does know how to build a fierce 4x4 for the record though. Check out the EX concept. And don't forget about the first Bronco....now, if they can manage to just not screw something up...(I don't think they will though, it looks like they're making an attempt and making good stuff, well, not the 500 though...it's been reviewed as "meh")
Of course there's a exception to every rule. But you tell me that they would've had an easier time learning when they were teenagers than if they were children. I guess linguists don't know ****.Sircnay wrote:
I'm sorry. I'm going to have to raise the BULLS**T Flag on that one. My parents came here when they were 16 and by 18 had learned the English language well enough to go to college and hold jobs that involved working with people. By 22 my dad owned a printing press.
Yeah... you only need one example to prove theories wrong.