Under Obama, deportations at all-time high

[DarrinS]

Oops


http://americasvoiceonline.org/page/-/americasvoice/reports/Deportations%20by%20Fiscal%20Year.pdf

[Drachen]

Oops


http://americasvoiceonline.org/page/-/americasvoice/reports/Deportations%20by%20Fiscal%20Year.pdf

Soooooo good president then?

[Winehole23]

Obama pooh-poohed the emphasis on enforcement only during the campaign, only to ramp it up once he got elected, and postpone the more comprehensive reform he seemed to endorse.

[Winehole23]

His base should be PO'ed, his kneejerk detractors, pleasantly surprised.

[Wild Cobra]

Soooooo good president then?
How do you extrapolate that?

There is already a clear ramp-up during the Bush years. Looking at non-criminal deportations, they went down in 2010.

[Winehole23]

Looking at non-criminal deportations, they went down in 2010.Is catching and deporting more criminals a bad thing, in your view?

[ChumpDumper]

Oops


http://americasvoiceonline.org/page/-/americasvoice/reports/Deportations%20by%20Fiscal%20Year.pdfWhy is that a bad thing, Darrin?

Please explain.

[Wild Cobra]

Is catching and deporting more criminals a bad thing, in your view?
Not at all. However, the choice is pay for them in our jails, or deport them. Not very telling numbers for deportation. The telling numbers are those that are not deportations because of a 2nd or more crime committed.

[Drachen]

I think that Darrin is trying to rub it in the faces of far left wingers that the guy they voted for is deporting illegals.

Unfortunately there are few very far left wingers here. There are those on the left who are active on this board, as well as those on the right. On certain issues some could even be considered far left wingers, but when taken as a whole, each person is likely just regular on the left. (BTW, I think that this is accurate for the right too, I feel that there are more far right wingers, but that could be because I am more sensitive to it.

It seems, thought, that he chose the wrong issue to rabble rouse about because no one here seems to be all that angry about it.

[Drachen]

Not at all. However, the choice is pay for them in our jails, or deport them. Not very telling numbers for deportation. The telling numbers are those that are not deportations because of a 2nd or more crime committed.

I have a question about this, an honest one, actually. If AZs law is modeled after federal law stating that you can't check immigration status without having a prior reason (commited a different crime, etc.) then how would they deport those who HAVEN'T commited a crime on top of their illegal immigration??

[Oh, Gee!!]

I heard on the radio that Obama wants to open the borders and let anybody in, and that he gives amnesty to child molestors and drug dealers

[Oh, Gee!!]

I have a question about this, an honest one, actually. If AZs law is modeled after federal law stating that you can't check immigration status without having a prior reason (commited a different crime, etc.) then how would they deport those who HAVEN'T commited a crime on top of their illegal immigration??

moot question--being illegal is the crime in AZ.

[boutons_deux]

deporting doesn't work because

1. you can't deport 11M people, unless you go Nazi and use cattle cars.

2. with the borders remaining porous, they come right back (if they want to), having tasted a probably better life in US vs home country.

Apparently, it Rahm E. who's blocking immigration reform in the WH.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-immigration-20100521,0,1430441.story

[Duff McCartney]

Unfortunately there are few very far left wingers here. There are those on the left who are active on this board, as well as those on the right. On certain issues some could even be considered far left wingers, but when taken as a whole, each person is likely just regular on the left. (BTW, I think that this is accurate for the right too, I feel that there are more far right wingers, but that could be because I am more sensitive to it.

I consider myself a far left winger..but I'm also a pragmatist/empiricist. I know that there will NEVER be a candidate that supports all my views, unless I ran myself.

But at the same time, I also know that some politicians need to compromise and that's part of our system. I can understand and respect that alot.

[Drachen]

moot question--being illegal is the crime in AZ.

Yes crossing illegally is a crime, not just in AZ, but everywhere in the US. They cant, however, ask for your papers unless investigating for a different infraction, so back to my initial question. WC said that non-second crime (crossing illegally being the first) deportations have dropped in 2010, given how I understand the law, how is it possible to even check for immigration status Federally (or in AZ which mirrors that), if they aren't involved in a crime?

[Drachen]

I consider myself a far left winger..but I'm also a pragmatist/empiricist. I know that there will NEVER be a candidate that supports all my views, unless I ran myself.

But at the same time, I also know that some politicians need to compromise and that's part of our system. I can understand and respect that alot.


So you are saying that although you will fight for your far left ideals, you still can see the color gray, even if its just a little bit. I wouldn't (by my definition) consider you a left winger then. When I add winger to the end of a political description I see foaming at the mouth and completely unreasonable black and white extremists (though you couldnt have known my definition before now).

Also, before anyone jumps too hard on me here, I usually read spurstalk in a small window in the corner of my screen, and don't usually have usernames in view. So I will read and respond, but not have a clear idea of what poster is aligned where (except for the really really "infamous" and active ones).

[Oh, Gee!!]

Yes crossing illegally is a crime, not just in AZ, but everywhere in the US.

But the AZ law makes mere presence in that State a crime, not neccessarily the illegal entry.


how is it possible to even check for immigration status .....in AZ...., if they aren't involved in a crime?

if an indivual is present in AZ "illegally," an officer can arrest and charge criminally that individual under the new law. in order for the law to be meaningful it has to be a crime that can be enforced independent of other criminal laws. IOW, if an officer has reasonable suspiscion or probable cause to believe that an individual is present in AZ "illegally," that officer has the legal right to detain and arrest that individual. The officer shouldn't have to wait for the individual to commit a seperate crime in order to approach and detain if he believes he is already witnessing a complete crime--illegal presence. Once that individual is detained, his legal status is pretty easy to ascertain.

[Stringer_Bell]

How do you extrapolate that?

There is already a clear ramp-up during the Bush years. Looking at non-criminal deportations, they went down in 2010.

So, when good things happen it's leftover good juju from Bush and when bad things happen it's totally Obama's fault? :hat

PS: I heard on Fox News that the Supreme Court already ruled years ago that law enforcement didn't even need "reasonable suspicion" to ask for papers, yet the AZ law does and is somehow seen as stricter. Can someone confirm this?

[George Gervin's Afro]

So is darrins praising him? he ran away from this thread so i guess we'll never know.

[Oh, Gee!!]

How do you extrapolate that?

There is already a clear ramp-up during the Bush years. Looking at non-criminal deportations, they went down in 2010.

I think most people (myself included) put a premium on deporting criminals at a higher rate than non-criminals. Just saying.

[rjv]

Obama pooh-poohed the emphasis on enforcement only during the campaign, only to ramp it up once he got elected, and postpone the more comprehensive reform he seemed to endorse.


...and has actually enhanced the trade policies that continue to perpetuate the illegal immigration impetus. and then he and calderon continue on with the empty rhetoric about "reform".

[LnGrrrR]

PS: I heard on Fox News that the Supreme Court already ruled years ago that law enforcement didn't even need "reasonable suspicion" to ask for papers, yet the AZ law does and is somehow seen as stricter. Can someone confirm this?

It's Fox News, so I'm guessing they've interpreted the case law incorrectly. :lol

The general consensus certainly seems to be that reasonable suspicion is needed. You know, since the SCOTUS ruled that technically you don't even have to show your ID to a police officer, I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't rule that you police officers had the right to "request papers" without reasonable suspicion.

[ChumpDumper]

If they are referring to the Hiibel case in Nevada, I believe that it allows law enforcement to ask for ID in an actual "stop" of a person who is suspected of criminal activity. I would leave it to a lawyer to discern if that includes the kind of contact described in the AZ law.

[EVAY]

I am assuming that the OP here is just a troll, because if you read the fine print, the numbers are merely estimates of what will happen for the full year 2010 based on the numbers through FEBRUARY!!

So, there is nothing any of us can really know about criminal vs. non-criminal deportations until the data comes in.

Really, doesn't this just appear to be Darrin trying to get something going?...and succeeding?

[Winehole23]

Darrin probably thought he was yanking somebody's pigtails but he was just yanking off. We can have a conversation in spite of that.

[Winehole23]

Lord knows we have enough practice, those of us who even bother.

[EVAY]

Darrin probably thought he was yanking somebody's pigtails but he was just yanking off. We can have a conversation in spite of that.

Fair enough.

In that case though, it truly does look like the policies and practices that are in place today are essentially the same as those under Bush, with perhaps a bit more emphasis on the criminal, as opposed to the non-criminal, illegal alien deportations.


The more realistic thing to me is that none of these deportation numbers, under either Bush or Obama, whether criminal or non-criminal, are going to make any kind of dent in illegal immigration levels. I don't really think that Bush was any more eager to try to get rid of illegal aliens than is Obama.

Because Bush understood how critical they are to the economies of the Southwest U.S.

[EVAY]

And before someone jumps down my throat...I do realize that any undocumented alien is, per se, a criminal at some level. What I meant by criminal vs. non-criminal refers to criminality beyond one's status as an illegal or legal alien.

[EVAY]

Does anyone here suppose that folks remember that the last President to sign an amnesty law for illegal aliens was Ronald Reagan, in 1983?

[EVAY]

Of course, Reagan was another Republican President from a a border state who understood the importance of the low-wage illegal alien workforce to the economies of the southwest.

[EVAY]

Does anyone wonder why nothing about this issue was done during the 12 years of Republican dominance of Congress during the last 6 years of Clinton and the first 6 years of Bush?

Maybe that is because Republican lawmakers understood the business implications of the low wage workforce represented by the illegal alien population.

[EVAY]

Did anyone notice in today's Express News that the Irish are now trying to get support for some kind of work-for-citizenship or amnesty plan? I think that they mentioned that about 50,000 of the illegal aliens in the U.S. are Irish.

Who knew?

[Wild Cobra]

Does anyone here suppose that folks remember that the last President to sign an amnesty law for illegal aliens was Ronald Reagan, in 1983?
Yes, and that is why we are all so resistant to amnesty today. Part of that deal to get amnesty granted included enforcements, increased border control, etc. that was never done. I think it included building more fencing also not done. All it did was open the floodgate.

Fool us one...

Fool us twice...

[Wild Cobra]

Does anyone wonder why nothing about this issue was done during the 12 years of Republican dominance of Congress during the last 6 years of Clinton and the first 6 years of Bush?

Maybe that is because Republican lawmakers understood the business implications of the low wage workforce represented by the illegal alien population.
Haven't you ever notice when republicans do try to do something, they are called racists?

If they did get something done, would Clinton have signed it or vetoed it?

Assume all you want. Just remember, there are other possibilities. Your Jedi mind tricks don't work on me. Just the weak-minded libtards here.

[Wild Cobra]

Did anyone notice in today's Express News that the Irish are now trying to get support for some kind of work-for-citizenship or amnesty plan? I think that they mentioned that about 50,000 of the illegal aliens in the U.S. are Irish.

Who knew?
Anyone who stays informed know that there are other large groups of illegal people here who do not have brown skin.

I knew. Why didn't you? We also have very large groups of Russians. I am aware of quite a few Ukrainians in my area.

[ChumpDumper]

If they did get something done, would Clinton have signed it or vetoed it?Ok, how about 2001-2007?

Republicans had full control of the federal government. What did they do about illegal immigration then?

[Wild Cobra]

Ok, how about 2001-2007?

Republicans had full control of the federal government. What did they do about illegal immigration then?
Haven't you ever notice when republicans do try to do something [about immigration reform], they are called racists?

[ChumpDumper]

So what did they do from the years 2001-2007?

[LnGrrrR]

I guess being called names absolves you from actually doing anything.

[SnakeBoy]

deporting doesn't work because

1. you can't deport 11M people, unless you go Nazi and use cattle cars.

2. with the borders remaining porous, they come right back (if they want to), having tasted a probably better life in US vs home country.


Every now and then you manage to make sense boutons. Fix #2 by securing the borders (an effective guest worker program is essential for that) and then provide a path to citizenship for the 11M.

[Wild Cobra]

So what did they do from the years 2001-2007?
Sorry if you don't remember the discussions. I'm not wasting my time there. I'll say this. It went no where because too many wanted Amnesty included. Amnesty killed the reform that was being debated.

[Wild Cobra]

I guess being called names absolves you from actually doing anything.
You know there was more than that. I'm not going to try to recall everything from a few years back.

I want to know why the fence isn't being finished.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Of course, Reagan was another Republican President from a a border state who understood the importance of the low-wage illegal alien workforce to the economies of the southwest.

I thought Reagan's amnesty was limited to Cubans (fleeing Castro) who landed on American soil.

[ChumpDumper]

Sorry if you don't remember the discussions. I'm not wasting my time there. I'll say this. It went no where because too many wanted Amnesty included. Amnesty killed the reform that was being debated.So why would anyone be against an illegal paying fines and back taxes in order to apply for citizenship?

Isn't money pretty much the biggest bitch folks have about the immigrants?

[Winehole23]

Fair enough.

In that case though, it truly does look like the policies and practices that are in place today are essentially the same as those under Bush, with perhaps a bit more emphasis on the criminal, as opposed to the non-criminal, illegal alien deportations. Agreed. Continuity, not change, is the motif.


The more realistic thing to me is that none of these deportation numbers, under either Bush or Obama, whether criminal or non-criminal, are going to make any kind of dent in illegal immigration levels. I don't really think that Bush was any more eager to try to get rid of illegal aliens than is Obama.Damn skippy. That was the last comprehensive immigration reform proposed in the USA. GWB's own party deep sixed it.


Because Bush understood how critical they are to the economies of the Southwest U.S.Yeah. People without direct contact don't really understand how hard a Mexican works in this country, the great variety of necessary work performed, and what a boon it is to capitalism that so many people are willing to work so hard, for so little.

[Winehole23]

But for *them* it's a lot.

[Winehole23]

If only *we* were so grateful for remunerative opportunity.

[Winehole23]

When this thing in Arizona happened Rick Perry didn't denounce it, but he did say in a loud clear voice that it isn't for Texas.

[Winehole23]

That's one of the very, very few things Rick Perry has ever said that makes me proud to be a Texan. It might even be the only one.

[Winehole23]

I knew. Why didn't you? We also have very large groups of Russians. I am aware of quite a few Ukrainians in my area.Chicago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Village,_Chicago) can sympathize with that, I reckon.

[Winehole23]

Did anyone notice in today's Express News that the Irish are now trying to get support for some kind of work-for-citizenship or amnesty plan? I think that they mentioned that about 50,000 of the illegal aliens in the U.S. are Irish.

Who knew?God bless the Irish and all my Irish ancestors. There's more than a few, and their country is kindly in the crapper again. Low tax haven got fucked.

[Wild Cobra]

So why would anyone be against an illegal paying fines and back taxes in order to apply for citizenship?

Isn't money pretty much the biggest bitch folks have about the immigrants?
Fuck that. They break into our country. They have no respect for the law, and you want to give them a bye?

We have immigration quotas and an immigration system for a reason. We have plenty of our own low skilled labor that we need to put to work. We don't need law-breakers.

Most countries only allow immigration if you contribute to society and have the means to take care of yourself. There are plenty of them who want to come here, and should be first in line.

Were you the first grade bully who always cut in line? You must have been since you advocate such unethical behavior.

I guess you like Mexico and other countries with high poverty rates exporting their poverty. If so, I suggest you sponsor some yourself. Put your money where your mouth is.

[Wild Cobra]

Damn skippy. That was the last comprehensive immigration reform proposed in the USA. GWB's own party deep sixed it.

Deep sixed because their base complained and soundly said "No Amnesty!"


Yeah. People without direct contact don't really understand how hard a Mexican works in this country, the great variety of necessary work performed, and what a boon it is to capitalism that so many people are willing to work so hard, for so little.

Most of us do know how hard they work, and there are several aspects about them to be admired. Shows just how good we treat our lazy people. If we didn't have such good social benefits, we would have people here willing to work hard too. Allowing illegal immigration is a net loss of national wealth. It does do well for the companies paying for their wages, but it does nothing to raise our standard of living as a whole. We subsidize their medical, housing, food, etc. We are already subsidizing our own poor that we need to put to work instead.

Supply and demand again. You remove the ability to higher a illegal work force, and the wages will have to rise to the point you find willing employees. If this price is too high, then it is a definite indicator that welfare pays too much.

[Winehole23]

Allowing illegal immigration is a net loss of national wealth.Link?

[ChumpDumper]

Fuck that. They break into our country. They have no respect for the law, and you want to give them a bye?No, I want them to pay for what they have done. The amnesty program would allow for that. Does merely deporting them cover any fines or back taxes?


We have immigration quotas and an immigration system for a reason.Yeah, feel-good window dressing.
We have plenty of our own low skilled labor that we need to put to work. We don't need law-breakers.We want cheap food and lawn care and housing.


Most countries only allow immigration if you contribute to society and have the means to take care of yourself. There are plenty of them who want to come here, and should be first in line.That's exactly who would be allowed to stay under the amnesty rules of that bill. Thanks for agreeing with me.


Were you the first grade bully who always cut in line? You must have been since you advocate such unethical behavior.No. I wasn't. I'm simply realistic.


I guess you like Mexico and other countries with high poverty rates exporting their poverty.No, I recognize that most immigrants come here to work. It makes more sense to make them legal and taxpayers.
If so, I suggest you sponsor some yourself. Put your money where your mouth is.If they were in an amnesty program, they would be paying the money.

[Winehole23]

The Comptroller’s office estimates the absence of the estimated 1.4 million undocumented immigrants in Texas in fiscal 2005 would have been a loss to our Gross State Product of $17.7 billion. Also, the Comptroller’s office estimates that state revenues collected from undocumented immigrants exceed what the state spent on services, with the difference being $424.7 million (Exhibit 18).

http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/undocumented/

[Winehole23]

While not the focus of this report, some local costs and revenues were estimated. State-paid health care costs are a small percentage of total health care spending for undocumented immigrants. The Comptroller estimates cost to hospitals not reimbursed by state funds totaled $1.3 billion in 2004. Similarly, 2005 local costs for incarceration are estimated to be $141.9 million. The Comptroller estimates that undocumented immigrants paid more than $513 million in fiscal 2005 in local taxes, including city, county and special district sales and property taxes. While state revenues exceed state expenditures for undocumented immigrants, local governments and hospitals experience the opposite, with the estimated difference being $928.9 million for 2005.

[Winehole23]

By 2025, a good portion of the work force and population changes would lessen, but in all regions the employment and gross regional product declines would remain sizable, indicating that the economic impact of undocumented immigrants is unlikely to be replaced by other economic changes (Exhibit 16).

[Winehole23]

This tightening would induce increases in wages, as indicated by a rise in average annual compensation rate. Wage rates would rise by 0.6 percent in the first year and stay above the forecast rate throughout the entire 20-year period.



While pay increases can be viewed as a positive social and economic development, when they rise due to labor shortages they affect economic competitiveness. In this case, it would be expressed as a modest decline in the value of Texas’ exports.
The remaining broad economic measures all point to an initial impact of undocumented immigrants of about 2.5 percent in terms of the value of production and wages in the Texas economy. Eliminating 1.4 million immigrants would have resulted in a 2.3 percent decline in employment, a 2.6 percent decline in personal income and a 2.8 percent decline in disposable personal income in 2005. This change also would generate a 2.1 percent decline in the gross state product (GSP), the broadest measure of the value of all goods and services produced in Texas.



While none of these changes are surprising, the one finding that may appear unusual is the persistence of the decline. If no in-migration were possible other than from natives or authorized immigrants, employment would remain 2 percent below the baseline forecast 20 years later. The impact lessens over time, but remains sizable throughout the 20-year forecast period.



The primary adjustment the model makes to compensate for the loss of these undocumented migrants is initially a rise in the wage rate, which would induce some new in-migration into Texas and some additional participation in the labor force from current residents. Moreover, with wages rising relative to capital, there would be some substitution of capital for employees so the need for additional workers is lessened through productivity increases. But the fact that the Texas economy cannot adjust completely to the loss of this labor through these changes and retain its competitiveness ultimately means that relative to the rest of the world the cost of production in Texas is higher, making our goods less competitive in the international marketplace and decreasing the size of the Texas economy.

[Duff McCartney]

So you are saying that although you will fight for your far left ideals, you still can see the color gray, even if its just a little bit. I wouldn't (by my definition) consider you a left winger then. When I add winger to the end of a political description I see foaming at the mouth and completely unreasonable black and white extremists (though you couldnt have known my definition before now).

Well I consider my views to be far left, I'm a communist in some ways, but I also know that communism will NEVER EVER work.

Michael Savage states that Reagan saved the world from Communism...I don't think Reagan saved the world from Communism, I think humanity saved the world from communism. You know..the underlying greed that is within everybody and the apathy towards other people that we have...that's what saved the world from communism.

[RandomGuy]

His base should be PO'ed, his kneejerk detractors, pleasantly surprised.

I would definitely put myself in the former category, alright.

[RandomGuy]

Allowing illegal immigration is a net loss of national wealth.

I call "bullshit".

Put up some data, or withdraw it as bullshit.

The one comprehensive attempt I saw at estimating the totality of effect put it at a positive number, actually.

[Wild Cobra]

I call "bullshit".

Put up some data, or withdraw it as bullshit.
It's obvious. Sorry you cant see it.

I'm not going to bother looking. Like most topics, there will be evidence of both pro and con.

I will not withdraw my statements as bullshit. I have seen too many jobs lowered in wages to compete with the illegals. Construction in my area is one that has taken a dramatic hit. My ex-wife was making $15/hr 5 years ago working for a cleaning service, and less today. I think $13/hr. Her boss had to lower wages to compete. It was that, or lose his business, and for her to lose a job.

The one comprehensive attempt I saw at estimating the totality of effect put it at a positive number, actually.
By who's spin?

Only one?

[ChumpDumper]

It's obvious. Sorry you cant see it.

I'm not going to bother looking. Like most topics, there will be evidence of both pro and con.But you have no evidence beyond anecdote.

[Wild Cobra]

But you have no evidence beyond anecdote.
Well, I don't live by links and I think it's pathetic that you do.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, I don't live by links and I think it's pathetic that you do.Well, I don't live by getting drunk at home alone on a weekday morning and I think it's pathetic that you do.

[spursncowboys]

Well I consider my views to be far left, I'm a communist in some ways, but I also know that communism will NEVER EVER work.

Michael Savage states that Reagan saved the world from Communism...I don't think Reagan saved the world from Communism, I think humanity saved the world from communism. You know..the underlying greed that is within everybody and the apathy towards other people that we have...that's what saved the world from communism.
so the russians going broke trying to keep up with our defense spending had nothing to do with the collapse of ussr? it was hopes and dreams that took down communist iraq?

[rjv]

so the russians going broke trying to keep up with our defense spending had nothing to do with the collapse of ussr? it was hopes and dreams that took down communist iraq?

what are you talking about here ?

[EVAY]

so the russians going broke trying to keep up with our defense spending had nothing to do with the collapse of ussr? it was hopes and dreams that took down communist iraq?

SnC, I agree with you on this one. It WAS the arms race that eventually bankrupted the USSR.

It is equally true, however, that the same arms race doubled the U.S. debt under Ronald Reagan's administration. I was upset about that at the time.
I don't remember any Republicans fussing about their grandchildren's debt load at the time, however.

Wars are expensive...even cold ones.

[admiralsnackbar]

so the russians going broke trying to keep up with our defense spending had nothing to do with the collapse of ussr? it was hopes and dreams that took down communist iraq?

The USSR had been going broke for decades anyway. Perestroika happened as a result of ideological change within the party despite the story we've been told as gospel here in the US. Read "Russia and the Idea of the West," by Robert English or "Lenin's Tomb" by David Remnick, which won the Pulitzer.

[ChumpDumper]

Communist Iraq?

[EVAY]

The USSR had been going broke for decades anyway. Perestroika happened as a result of ideological change within the party despite the story we've been told as gospel here in the US. Read "Russia and the Idea of the West," by Robert English or "Lenin's Tomb" by David Remnick, which won the Pulitzer.

Admittedly, the other side of the 'broke' factor was that they were terrible at MAKING anything that brings in money, so there was that.

Moreover, social change theory shows repeatedly that approximately 70 years after a major social upheaval, particularly a government change like a revolution, there is a weakening of the fervor that brought about the change, and it is the time period of the greatest likelihood that said change will be reversed. Not only was the USSR right on schedule for that to happen, so was the U.S. at the period of the Civil War.

It is a remarkably consistent finding. Not perfect. But remarkably consistent.

[ChumpDumper]

Yes, yes -- communism was working until the 1980s, right?

[admiralsnackbar]

Admittedly, the other side of the 'broke' factor was that they were terrible at MAKING anything that brings in money, so there was that.

Moreover, social change theory shows repeatedly that approximately 70 years after a major social upheaval, particularly a government change like a revolution, there is a weakening of the fervor that brought about the change, and it is the time period of the greatest likelihood that said change will be reversed. Not only was the USSR right on schedule for that to happen, so was the U.S. at the period of the Civil War.

It is a remarkably consistent finding. Not perfect. But remarkably consistent.

Interesting. It makes sense, but I don't believe I'd ever heard of this theoretical pattern.

What discipline does it come from? Sociology?

[EVAY]

Interesting. It makes sense, but I don't believe I'd ever heard of this theoretical pattern.

What discipline does it come from? Sociology?

yes. not much that is useful ever came from sociology, but this is proof, I suppose that a blind hog occasionally finds the acorn, as well.

[boutons_deux]

"so the russians going broke trying to keep up with our defense spending had nothing to do with the collapse of ussr"

The USSR was always a fake empire, like the Wizard of Oz. Nothing behind the curtain, unsustainable.

What collapsed the USSR was not St Ronnie the Diseased saying "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall",

nor William Gates' "sexed up" CIA documents lying about USSR strenghts to comply with Repug/neo-c*nt political objectives,

nor St Ronnie's Stars Wars Missile Defense (which doesn't fucking work after $5B/year wasted for 25 years)

nor John Rambo.

The USSR collapsed:

1. It invaded Afghanistan in 1980, HUGELY expensive, and HUGELY unpopular with the unpaid troops and their families.

2. At the same time, the Iranian Revolution caused an oil price spike that caused a world-wide recession + inflation, causing a collapse of oil demand and oil prices. Oil was Russia's only source of hard US dollars (the sold oil to international market and were paid in US$, not non-exchangeable rubles).

The Repugs and neo-c*nts have been lying for 20 years, as is there wont about all of history. Those motherfuckers wouldn't tell the truth if their lives depended on it.

[admiralsnackbar]

"so the russians going broke trying to keep up with our defense spending had nothing to do with the collapse of ussr"

The USSR was always a fake empire, like the Wizard of Oz. Nothing behind the curtain, unsustainable.

What collapsed the USSR was not St Ronnie the Diseased saying "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall",

nor William Gates' "sexed up" CIA documents lying about USSR strenghts to comply with Repug/neo-c*nt political objectives,

nor St Ronnie's Stars Wars Missile Defense (which doesn't fucking work after $5B/year wasted for 25 years)

nor John Rambo.

The USSR collapsed:

1. It invaded Afghanistan in 1980, HUGELY expensive, and HUGELY unpopular with the unpaid troops and their families.

2. At the same time, the Iranian Revolution caused an oil price spike that caused a world-wide recession + inflation, causing a collapse of oil demand and oil prices. Oil was Russia's only source of hard US dollars (the sold oil to international market and were paid in US$, not non-exchangeable rubles).

The Repugs and neo-c*nts have been lying for 20 years, as is there wont about all of history. Those motherfuckers wouldn't tell the truth if their lives depended on it.

Wow... despite your usual partisan wrathfulness, I actually agree with your post completely. :lol

[rjv]

"so the russians going broke trying to keep up with our defense spending had nothing to do with the collapse of ussr"

The USSR was always a fake empire, like the Wizard of Oz. Nothing behind the curtain, unsustainable.

What collapsed the USSR was not St Ronnie the Diseased saying "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall",

nor William Gates' "sexed up" CIA documents lying about USSR strenghts to comply with Repug/neo-c*nt political objectives,

nor St Ronnie's Stars Wars Missile Defense (which doesn't fucking work after $5B/year wasted for 25 years)

nor John Rambo.

The USSR collapsed:

1. It invaded Afghanistan in 1980, HUGELY expensive, and HUGELY unpopular with the unpaid troops and their families.

2. At the same time, the Iranian Revolution caused an oil price spike that caused a world-wide recession + inflation, causing a collapse of oil demand and oil prices. Oil was Russia's only source of hard US dollars (the sold oil to international market and were paid in US$, not non-exchangeable rubles).

The Repugs and neo-c*nts have been lying for 20 years, as is there wont about all of history. Those motherfuckers wouldn't tell the truth if their lives depended on it.

so it wasn't reagan's magical incantation at the berlin wall that caused the collapse ?

[boutons_deux]

The Repugs and neo-c*nts wanted to transfer taxpayer wealth to the MIC, so William Gates faked the strength of the USSR as a basis for the US military build-up.

Gates' lie was exposed when the al-fucking-mighty USSR collapsed into the ashbin of history.

Gates has always been a suckup, starting the CIA's faking of intelligence, rather than real intelligence, to match the political objectives of his bosses.