Ronorama - All Comments

re: Inflation Around The World

John David — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 03:51:26 GMT

the whole world will all carry the effects of inflation

re: Isn't MORE Recycling the Whole Point?

Ronorama — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 22:47:16 GMT

You're right, Gene. Point taken.

re: Isn't MORE Recycling the Whole Point?

Gene Callahan — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 18:30:41 GMT

"However, the fact that they're being stolen specifically for recycling would seem to indicate that they're more valuable as recycled material than as actual newspapers, which should probably inspire the advertisers to rethink that particular marketing choice."

No, it means they are more valuable TO THAT PERSON as recycled material than as actual newspapers! If someone draws graffiti on the side of your house, do you decide "it's more valuable as an art canvas than as a domicile"?

re: Isn't MORE Recycling the Whole Point?

Yancey Ward — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:49:48 GMT

Ronorama,

Yes, it would seem to matter what the terms are of the present contracts waste pickup and disposal.

If the last part you wrote of comes to pass, that the trash isn't even yours in your home, then the motivations for the new laws will be completely clear.

re: Stupid Arguments - RE: Immigration

Ronorama — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 19:59:58 GMT

Bill: "I don't think this country's tradition of individual liberty and separation of church and state would be assisted much if we allowed in twenty million Saudi Arabians, for example."

Unfortunately, those traditions are long dead, regardless of how much lip service they are paid by pols these days.

Still, I fail to see how letting anyone in will serve to destroy individual liberty. Unless, of course, they are able to gain control of government, or they merely take advantage of our inability to defend our liberty due to our individual disarmament at the hands of the existing government.

Sorry, Bill, an irrational fear of what "might" happen is no excuse for restricting liberty by denying freedom of association and free movement.

re: Isn't MORE Recycling the Whole Point?

Ronorama — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 19:54:27 GMT

Yancey: "It is arguable that once the material is in the bins, even if it is at the curbside, it belongs to the government or it's contractors."

According to whom? If the homeowner had a contract with a refuse collector stating such, that would be valid. In this case, though, it's just because the government says so.

"If recycling becomes profitable enough, you will see multiple companies paying individuals directly to collect their recyclables..."

True, but I wouldn't be surprised of local governments still considered it theft if the homeowner sold his/her recyclables to a third party. The law requiring proof of ID and payment by check will serve to prevent that from happening.

re: Isn't MORE Recycling the Whole Point?

Yancey Ward — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 17:02:19 GMT

It is arguable that once the material is in the bins, even if it is at the curbside, it belongs to the government or it's contractors.

If recycling becomes profitable enough, you will see multiple companies paying individuals directly to collect their recyclables, and only the recyclables and leaving the lanfill refuse for the governments and their chosen few.

re: "Legal" Immigration

Ronorama — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:22:41 GMT

Bill,

You said: "The two documents serve different purposes, and to equate them is a fallacy."

I agree completely. That's my point...that proof of citizenship reveals nothing useful about the person involved. It's a fallacy to assume that a non-citizen will behave any differently than a citizen, or that he/she has any more or less "right" to be in one country or another than anyone else.

I believe government (and a great many of the governed) DO equate the two. They believe a birth certificate (or other proof of citizenship) is necessary to prove that the individual is trustworthy, capable, responsible, etc. My argument is that one's citizenship says nothing about any of these things, so it's wrong to require it in order to allow entry into a country.

re: "Legal" Immigration

Bill — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 21:51:04 GMT

Your analogy of the doctor's birth certificate is faulty. The doctor presents a degree is his office because it vouches that he can indeed perform the service he provides. On the other hand, the border patrol asks for a birth certificate because it confirms a different aspect about the holder - that he is indeed a citizen of the country and is allowed to enter. The two documents serve different purposes, and to equate them is a fallacy.

A more accurate analogy would be that if you don't have money, the doctor denies you the service. If you don't have citizenship, the border patrol denies you entry.

re: Stupid Arguments - RE: Immigration

Bill — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 21:23:48 GMT

I don't think this country's tradition of individual liberty and separation of church and state would be assisted much if we allowed in twenty million Saudi Arabians, for example.

re: Inflation Around The World

scottyokim — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 03:47:50 GMT

If you're interested in more, here is a pretty book that I bought second-hand in Mountain View:

www.amazon.com/.../0811828050

re: "Legal" Immigration

Steve1776 — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 19:30:52 GMT

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” - James Madison 1751-1836, Father of the Constitution for the United States, 4th United States President. Source: 1792 in disapproval of Congress appropriating $15,000 to assist some French refugees.

"Legal" Immigration

Ronorama — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 19:58:03 GMT

This is the continuation, or expansion, of this small item , that I posted earlier on this 'blog

re: Stupid Arguments - RE: Immigration

Ronorama — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 21:04:36 GMT

IrishOutlaw,

> This post helped me decide to write one on immigration that I will post today I suppose.

Are you speaking of the "Immigration Smokescreen" article over on No Name Group? I just read it...very nicely done! You bring up some great points that I've attempted to make in the past, though in less eloquent fashion.

The group itself seems interesting as well. I think I shall have to sign up and contribute.

re: Stupid Arguments - RE: Immigration

IrishOutlaw — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 21:38:03 GMT

It seems that wovoka may only be a troll. Unfortunate.

There have been and continue to be thousands of illegitimate laws. I wonder if wovoka follows all of them? Some are laws that served a purpose at a time but that are now out of date, others serve only the states interest.

There are laws on the book that say a husband has to walk in front of a motorized vehicle that his wife is driving, waving a red flag to warn the other motorists. This is a stupid law and only a fool would follow it. A good example of a law that (I guess) served a purpose at one time, but isn't worth the paper it is written on now.

I am willing to buy some arguments on immigration, but not many. I thought about UK Visa's comment on Castro emptying the prisons. Good move on Castro's part really. So what did the US do? Tightened up the laws. But, the thing to remember is that those laws effected everyone trying to come here (equal protection I guess) but they didn't stop Cuban criminals from coming to the US. If a Cuban criminal can still hit the shores here, they get to stay. So who are we really stopping?

This post helped me decide to write one on immigration that I will post today I suppose.