people from Mexico are always going to try and flock from there to the US to work

Yes, and I don't blame them...

keeping them all out is an effort doomed to failure

Not at all. It is perfectly possible to a) block (most of) them from entering on the border; b) discourage all of them from entering by swiftly deporting those, who get through.

Catching them is easy — they don't exactly hide. We have done such deportations before — and they worked.

because Intel workers lose something like $35,000 worth of tools every year.

That sounds a lot cheaper than even a single one full-time engineer busy developing and maintaining this cool product. There must be some other motive...

Open source? You bet!

Yeah, because all of Intel's other software has been open source.

What's not to love about the company — and its careful PR campaign preparing the market for the demise of AMD? What a lovable corporation — I think, I have a thrill up my leg again.

I agree that for the time being, large-scale centralized communism is doomed to failure

Whether it will some day be "successful" or not, I would not accept an idea, that Collective ought to trump the Individual.

Because that's the inevitable endpoint of capitalism, even without regulatory capture: wealth catalyzes the accumulation of wealth.

Gibberish and nonsense. Bill Gates was from a lower end middle-class family. Soros was a poor immigrant. Joe Biden's grandfather was an uber-rich magnate, but Joe owes more than he owns.

institutionalized theft - in the wild you own only what you can keep

Are you saying, that whatever does not occur in the wild is automatically "theft"? I think, we are done here...

wealth redistribution happens as a matter of course as the strong and sneaky reappropriate it from the transiently wealthy.

That the weak can have rights was — for centuries — considered a major advancement of humanity. I guess, your school of thought would — given a chance — do away with such advancements, the way others would — given a chance — abolish flush toilets and air-conditioning. To not give your kind such a chance is worth a lot — including some public hangings.

no, I don't imagine theocrats have the slightest interest in a viable democracy

But Communists do, right? Hillarious...

can illegals still get food stamps with no proof of residency?

Yes — in many cases they can. For example, a child born in the US is automatically a citizen, unlike some European countries. Not only does that entitle his parents to stay here, if they happen to be poor, they'll be helped by the taxpayers.

illegal immigrants will work for less than legal immigrants as they are more desperate

The United States does not have a labor shortage. Bringing in cheap foreign labor means, the less desperate poor Americans will have fewer jobs — requiring more taxes to support them. So the immigration tends to increase "safety net" expenditures, even when the immigrants themselves aren't the immediate recipients.

parties like the republicans that represent the richest

Not true. Though exceptions abound, Republicans tend to represent the middle-class to upper middle class bourgeois. Democrats represent the uber-reach and the proletariat.

Please, explain the success of the Whigs in the 19th century — according to your theory, it simply could not have happened.

Nay, according to your theory, even the 2nd party should not exist...

Uh, have you read the 12th Amendment?

The Amendment applies to elections of the Executive — President and Vice President. We were talking — it seemed to me — about legislatures — where in the US two parties dominate, but in other countries there is a wonderful tapestry of multi-partyism.

So, if 3 candidates are in the running, one gets 10%, one gets 45% and the other gets 45%, no one wins.

I don't believe, this ever happened. Somebody would usually get at list slightly more votes than the other. Ross Perot — the most recent remotely-viable 3rd-party candidate lost not because Congress didn't like him, but simply because he came a distant 3rd.

I have not voted for a party, ever, in my life

I meant legally. Though many people (not you, Ok) vote on straight party-tickets, legally they all vote for people, not parties. Yes, it may be, that all a voter knows about a particular candidate is his (likely) party-affiliation, but the vote — in the US — is still for the candidate, not his party.

In many other countries it is the opposite — people might know, who the party is likely to appoint upon winning, but they vote for the parties, not individuals. The parties then allocate seats (in the legislature) according to their own whims and preferences.

Just because there is no codified system, doesn't mean one doesn't exist.

Just because there is no X, doesn't mean X does not exist. Marvelous.

The system exists, because of conditions set up by our election system.

The Y exists, because of Y.

Darling, depending on your age, there may still be hope for you. But I'm not going to cast any more pearls before you — I've done my duty to society.

You wish to murder people simply because they do not agree with you

No, you idiot. I wish to kill — not "murder" — them, because they plan to confiscate my property and enslave me. That's what Communists do — the selfish Individual is sacrificed to the needs of the glorious Collective.

Yes, an economic system in which the workers own the means of production

Whatever it sounds like in theory.

an evil concept that promotes mass-murder

Yes. Wherever attempted in earnest, Communism resulted in exactly that: mass-murder. And to what end? The survivors were left in dire economic misery and without most basic rights.

Compare the North and South Koreas. Eastern and Western Germany (before reunification). Soviet Estonia and Finland. The three examples compare identical countries with identical peoples...

I'll grant you that every large-scale attempt at communism so far has had horrible fascist overtones

That's because Fascism is not so very different. It is slightly better in that the economy runs more efficiently — thanks to the (relatively) free markets. But the whole idea, that the (Glorious) Collective ought to trump the silly and cantankerous Individual — shared by Communism, Socialism (a.k.a. Communism-lite), and Fascism — is what leads to the above mentioned mass-murders and deprivations.

so let's all of us, communists, capitalists, socialists, anarchists, etc. work together

Theocrats curiously omitted, he-heh... You seem to suggest, that all ideas have merit and are equally valid — the "wonderful tapestry of diversity" concept. That is demonstrably not true. Communists in particular belong on lamp-posts — allowing them to "try again" is simply suicidal.

Plenty of marches are yearly events

Marches — yes. But protests? Protests are (supposed to be) spontaneous one-offs, triggered by an acute problem or a flare-up of a chronic one — not something happening every year on schedule...

You're a bit of a shithead yourself

Ah, an ad-hominem... How do I know, you have a Che Guevara T-shirt? This is how.

Please, don't hate.

Commie bastards — anybody with a Che Guevara T-shirt or a red flag — deserves to be hung from a lamp post until their feet stop kicking.

Followers of the single most murderous school of thought known to humanity — even Hitler's peculiar branch of Fascism being but a distant second — have their minds infected and their demonstrations and protests help spread and perpetuate the infection.

They should be quarantined and culled — to let the healing begin. Please, don't hate.

taking part in a large peaceful protest that occurs annually there

What sort of "large protest" occurs annually on schedule? Do they sacrifice a minority teenager once a year over there — to properly inspire the participants?

The previous year, some shitheads had started rioting

Something is telling me, all participants have excrement in their cranial cavities — even if not all of them riot...

just shoot the asshats, par for that course

That's the part I would support. People, who would riot and loot really are better off dead. To make the world a better place...

Please, don't hate.

except we do.

My claim was not, that the government was not engaged in surveillance, but that no innocent American has been harmed by it. Your examples enumerate the cases of such surveillance, but do not list anybody being harmed by it.

This is the war on drugs .. Reagan declares war

Drugs are illegal — criminals are prosecuted. That's not evidence of innocent Americans being harmed.

This is parellel construction

Yes, I know about the parallel construction and did mention it my post. It has not, however, been used against an innocent party. Some day it may be abused that way, but it has not happened yet — whereas Obama's use of IRS and DoJ power to silence critics has happened and continues to happen.

This is civil foreiture

Yes, such forfeitures are a travesty, but they have nothing to do with NSA or DEA surveillance.

So, to counter my statement, that NSA's surveillance has not harmed innocent Americans (unlike the IRS abuse), you gave examples of criminals prosecuted or of confiscations, that had nothing to do with the NSA... I think, we are done here.

hey mr pot, the kettle called, your fucking black

More empty words.