100,000 Protestors... Angry mobs of students...
 

I just thought that deserved it's own thread...

This whole thing irks me.

No one is saying that immigration should stop. This is how the protesters are making it sound. The issue is illegal immigration. I would not presume that all of the protesters were illegal, but they are marching in support of it.

I think they are making a big mistake, frankly. While most citizens of this country - born here or naturalized - oppose illegal immigration, with this issue coming to a head recently, the silent majority could get very spooked by this large demonstration and put even more pressure on the government to do something real about it.

So many things about this irk me that I can't begin to list them all. I haven't the time.

100,000? Lowest estimate I saw was 200,000. Seen as high as 500,000 (and that's from LAPD, which usually low-balls crowd estimates). Saturday night, driving through downtown around 7pm, we saw a large crowd on an overpass waiving flags and banners.

I don't like the bill that passed the house. It's simply ridiculous to expect doctors to turn patients away and clergy to turn away the hungry. Fortunately it seems the Senate is already chipping away at the more extreme provisions. It's unlikely it will pass in anything resembling its current form.

As for an overall solution, I like the sound of the bipartisan proposal coming from Ted Kennedy and a Republican who I can't recall at the moment. It involves a guest worker program, streamlined citizenship for new legal immigrants, and an 11 year process for current illegals to become legal.

I haven't really paid any attention to the specifics in the law bouncing around since I know it will change quite a bit before anything passes.

I'm very pro-legal immigration and strongly anti-illegal immigration. I believe that national quotas should be abolished and that the only limits on ability to enter the country and begin the process of citizenship is documentary evidence that the immigrant won't immediately be a burden on social safety nets (that is, they have to have a job waiting for them and a citizen sponsor). I think work visas should be widely available that would allow workers to legally enter, pay less taxes (but still some) and then go home when the visa is up.

I think enforcement has to be strict and unflinching. This creates touching stories of families caught in binds. But so what. Employers should also face severe penalties for hiring undocumented workers and this should be true in all industries (including agricultural and restaurantial). If this means that I pay 400% more for lettuce then so be it. If the government wants to keep lettuce cheap, exempt the industry from minimum wage laws and enforce legal employment rather than creating a black labor market.

I think that in any new structure it is a needed component that illegal residents currently in the country will find it more difficult to get on the legal track than for potential immigrants outside of the country. This will encourage them to either leave and return legally or be penalized for having broken the law in the first place.

I also find the phrase "seeking to criminalize illegal aliens" to be an incredibly stupid one. Also, I hate people who pronounce "illegal" as "e-legal." I'm pretty sure e-legal is a lawyer referral Web site. This linguistic intolerance is unusual for me since I don't care about "nukular" or "febuary" or "libary" but it makes me want to kick a reporter every time I hear "elegal." Even if it wasn't said by a reporter.

Um, that Republican who escapes your mind is John McCain, the likely next president of the U.S.

Reliable estimates of protesters just in L.A. were at over 1 million. There were also huge protests in Phoenix, Detroit, Atlanta, New York and D.C., among other locations.

The protests are not resulting in a backlash, but are resulting in exactly what they are designed to ... influencing the legislators in a direction clearly desired by the populace (whether or not that populace consists of likely voters).

And contrary to any societal backlash, the American public is not yet so cruel that it will condone criminalizing aid by priests, nuns, doctors and social workers to society's most underprivileged class.

In regard to Alex's post, made simultaneously with mine, I would like to add that anything so widespread as illegal immigration and illegal drug use and illegal prostitution should be a wake-up call to society that such things should not be - and cannot in any practical way be - "illegal."

I agree. We have simultaneously made it too difficult to legally enter the country and through minimum wage laws created a market for black market labor (I'm not arguing against minimum wage laws, but price controls always create black markets).

I do think that one of the few undebatable rolls of federal government is control of our borders and we certainly have the right and obligation to stringently enforce conditions on which those borders are crossed. I just think that a) creating pools of quotas based on nation of origin is nonsensical and that b) the obvious justifiable place for drawing the line is a priori evidence that the immigrant will be able to support themselves. If all 50 million people (or however many there are) in Mexico can find jobs in California then I say let them in. If all 5.7 billion people in the world not already U.S. citizens can find jobs, then let them in.

Unlike drugs and prostitution where I support complete decriminalization (and I mean complete decriminalization; not only should I be able to take heroin if I want but I should be able to take vicodin without a prescription) I can't quite go that far with border control.

If there is going to be backlash, you wouldn't see it same day.

And it may not provoke a backlash in California but there are 46 non-border states where people may be a bit more bothered by images of hundreds of thousands of protestors marching through American cities, waving an awful lot of foreign flags (though debates rage on as to an accurate breakdown) saying "we may be here illegally but that's not reason for you to treat us like it."

Well never stop murder so we shouldn't try.....we'll never stop child abuse so we shouldn't try....we'll never stop blah, blah, blah.

I know prostitution and drugs are victimless crimes (for the most part, speaking in terms of a user, or a woman who truly wishes to be a hooker). However, illegal immigration is far from a victimless crime.

One thing that I have found to be so comical is the invocation of the immigrant farmers' hero, Cesar Chavez. Chavez was completely against illegal immigration because he knew anyone working off the books would continue to lower the wages being paid to those who were in the country.

I can certainly agree that humanitarian organizations should be exempted from criminal prosecution. Giving food to the hungry and water to the thirsty is one of - if not the highest - calling of Christianity.

However, the solution lies not with open borders. It lies not with the under economy. I am disgusted when I read about the Mexican government and their demands when they brutalize Guatemalans who would dare to enter their country looking for a better life.

I look at the corruption of the Mexican government and know that the answer is not opening the border. It is reform in Mexico. Mexico is oil rich, has two coastlines ripe for ports and trade, and contains more resort and potential world class resort locations than most anywhere in the world.

The better life for Mexican citizens lies not in the long run with coming to America and working for ridiculously low wages that they can send home. That adversely affects low wage earners in America as well. The answer lies in revolution within their own country. Corrupt officials in Mexico know this, and will therefore do anything they can to put pressure on the US to keep the status quo.

I fully support a guest worker program. All above the table. But it has to be done with respect to the laws of this country.

That was rambling and much longer than I had anticipated it would be.

My god, I actually agree with scaeagles and Alex on this topic and disagree with iSm. Perhaps this would be a good time to take a shower. ;)

Seriously though, there was a report today that I found pretty disturbing.

I think that is good enough evidence that our borders are nowhere near the level of security that they need to be at. Nor do I think that any amount of "taking it to the terrorists before they strike here" negates the fact that just about anyone who wishes to harm us can easily sneak across our border.

Interesting. Are we all certain that all of us have ancestors who came here legally? If not, we shouldn't be telling people they shouldn't come here illegally but hire them cheaply to harvest our crops for us.

There was no such thing as illegal immigration until around 1880. It started with bans on Chinese immigrant labor, primarily to stop exploitation of them as cheap and abused labor. Wow....that sure sounds familar.

Ellis Island was the first real attempt to document incoming aliens from Europe, and that didn't open until 1892, and it was a rubber stamp operation. Everyone got in. It was just an attempt to keep track of who was.

Shortly after that the same thing was done along the southern borders of the US territories.

It was not until a series of laws passed starting in 1917 that there was any such thing a illegal immigration. That's only 90 years.

Based on that, I would suspect that most - certainly not all - of those who oppose illegal immigration are here legally.

Sounds like Wal*Mart to me. Instead of bringing them here, we set up sweatshops over there.
A majority of us here from somewhere else. (Well, I'm Hawaiian and a bit of Cherokee but that's a different story.) Now that we're here, we're telling everyone else how to come over here. How does that work? Does anyone making/voting for these laws think back and say, 'Hmmm, sounds kinda hypocritical doesn't it?'

If I hear someone say "nukular," "febuary," or "libary," I automatically assume they have the IQ of a small red onion and begin to speak more slowly to suit their needs. Elegal is just annoying to me. The others actually make me angry. Jagwire also grates on me.

My dad has his own special accent that includes, pitcher (for picture), ambliance (ambulance), antanna, waint (wait). I could go on. Annoys the living crap out of me if he uses a sentence that combines any two of those words.

Wow - we're just disagreeing about everything this morning, aren't we?

Most certainly we are mostly here from somewhere else. But historically, why did we not even think about restricting immigration until the late 1800s? Because we had a vast amount of land to populate. Of course we are making different rules. Rules change all the time depending on the current situation. It is not hypocritical in the least.

If we wish to talk about hypocrisy, as I mentioned before, let's talk about the root of the problem, being the Mexican government, who demands open borders with the US and full access to social services, yet brutalizes Guatemalans who who cross their border with Mexico.

That's an interesting subject. Hmm. Of course, now that you've brought that up I can't say anything about the hypocrisy of sons of immigrants telling new immigrants not to come in. I'm so distracted now. Oy.

That's why we're tough on immigration? We're running out of land? I just drove across country. We still have lots of land. We're not running out.

This whole thing is a guise by the government to make everyone feel that they are doing something about our country's security. That's all it is. Rumsfeld just announced that gov't investigators smuggled dirty bomb material in at the Texas border and Washington border. Both borders failed the test. If it were real, there would be two dirty bombs in our country right now. Since 2001, Bush has done squat to protect us. It's all for show and all for not.
Source

When my kids say "library" I correct them by loudly saying "libary". A lame little joke that cracks me up.

It's from the Simpsons episode where Homer had a crayon removed from his brain which resulted in him being smarter. Homer sez, "Lisa, want to go to the library tomorrow? You'll notice I didn't say "libary" or tomorrey."

Libary. Libary. LIBARY.

I guess the anger thread is a good place for you today, GC.:)

So, you are critical of Bush for not doing more to secure the borders - and I'm with you 100% on that - but in the same breath you are basically saying it is not right to control the borders to stop the flow of illegals coming across.

I see an inconsistency here, unless I am misreading what you are saying.

You brought up the hypocrisy of those that are here not wanting anyone else to have a piece. I don't know anyone that opposes legal immigration. I know of them, like Pat Buchanen, but none personally. It's illegal immigration. So it isn't that we're trying to keep people out. We're trying to keep track of those getting in. Anyway, bringing up what you consider to be hyposritical made me want to point out the biggest hypocrisy out there.

You are falling for what the organizers of the protests want you to fall for, which is to confuse legal with illegal immigration. You mock my "land to populate" argument, but it is true. The growing US needed to have enough people to spread out across the new territories. Once that had been met and we were populated coast to coast, restrictions went into effect.

I am curious....would you think the same thing of Jesse Jackson when he says "ax" instead of "ask". To suggest something would make you a racist, you know.

I'm not saying I disagree with you, but there are certain words that fall into regional dialect issues.

That's pretty harsh when just one word automatically sinks a person. I regularly say "Febuary" out of habit and laziness. I must be dumb as a post.

There are two separate issues being confused a bit here: immigration and border security. Yes, they are related, but they are different issues.

That the two shipments of material were brought in (as MBC posted) shows a strong lack of border security. That, to me, is a much larger problem than the illegal immigration issue.

Yup.
Securing the borders is his mantra. I'm saying it can't be done, not in the way he wants to. Talk about land... there's a lot of it. And if security is on his mind, shouldn't the fact that the hijackers came in through Canada be on his mind also? Unless I heard it wrong, that's where they came from. So why focus on the southern border?
Yeah, me and 250,000 protesters fell for it. I'm glad to see any kind of protest anywhere in this country of that magnitude. I'm also glad to see it in the mainstream media, usually you don't see protests on Fox 'News'.

There was a student speaking at a protest here in Phoenix. What he said was picked up on the news. He said - and this is an exact quote -

"I am here legally. My family is here legally. And they want to take it all away from us."

The crowd cheered him.

Actually, no one wants to take anything away from anyone who is here legally. Yes, GC, there is a HUGE percentage of protesters who don't even know what they are protesting.

I believe they are inseparable. If you cannot control who is coming into the country, you have no border security.

So let's dismiss all of their concerns. Let's interview each one and put them in credible and not credible stacks. People do not assemble in this country in those numbers for nothing. If they're not getting the message that they will not be impacted by this law, then isn't it possible that the message ain't all that clear?

Yes, I meant it as more of a joke than it came across. Nukular is still inexcusable, though.

OK....cool.

For someone that makes so many off color and off the wall jokes, you get offended pretty easily. As I said in my prevous post (sorry for serial posting), I was joking. I do not automatically write someone off because they pronounce one word wrong. Heck, I'd have no family left if that were the case. My sister told me just the other day that she enjoyed conversating with me. I mocked her, of course, but she is pretty intelligent, as far as I can tell. :p

Your post made me think of something though. Is it supposed to be Feb-roo-ary? Because I've been saying Feb-ew-ary my entire life. When mocking it, I assumed we were talking about people that say Feb-oo-ary. I make no claims to having intelligence higher than a red onion, though. ;)

Back to the real subject at hand, I agree with everyone here. I think Sceagles brings up a good point about fixing Mexico. I think that's where the long term solution lies. I am all for making legal immigration much easier and illegal immigration more difficult. The senate bill is ridiculous as it is.

I'm elated to see such a strong display of peaceful protest. There is something very powerful about what is possibly the weakest social group in America joining in such huge numbers to show that they have a voice and they aren't afraid to use it. If the same thing were to happen in Mexico perhaps something good would come of it.

I hope that you do it loudly inside the actual library. When visiting New York City as a small child, my dad found it hilarious to stick out his hand to passersby when a street wasn't very crowded and say loudly, "Hey! Can you spare some change? I've got SIX kids here!" My mom was, of course, mortified. I think that was his point. We younger kids thought it was the funniest thing ever and did the same thing for several days. My poor mom. :evil:

GC, I think your point about most of us coming as immigrants is a good one, but not so much here. I don't think anyone here wants to stop immigration. I wouldn't be here without illegal immigration. My grandfathers parents snuck across the Canadian border from Germany and paid a Dr. for a birth certificate for him (he was just a baby). So technically, he's not a citizen. He's been here for 86 years though, and collects social security, so I guess it's a moot point.

Actually, one was through Washington, the other through Texas, so it was both borders that failed.

I'm here fully legally. On my fathers side my grandmother has a pretty complete geneology that goes back to the Maine area before the Revolutionary War and on my mother's side all her grandparents entered, legally, from Norway in the 1940s. I also have never hired an illegal cheaply.

Does this earn me the right to tell others how they can enter the country?

Though frankly I'm unclear on how it would be that if I did have an ancestor who entered the country illegally means I have given up the right to disapprove. I may have ancestors who owned slaves (though if they were all in Norway and Maine then probably not) and I reserve the right to disapprove of that.

Since there is so much space left in the country I am assuming you're advocating putting all the illegals in the Badlands of Wyoming where they can garden and bus tables for all the gringos who aren't there. There is a lot of empty space in this country but that is a fallacious point since the immigrants (legal or otherwise) don't go where the people aren't but mostly go to the most crowded areas of the country.

But again, if they can arrange things such that they can support themselves I don't care if they're allowed in, in whatever numbers that is. But we have, I feel, the obligation to know they're here. And if they come on work visas then boot them out when they're done.

I also think that being born on U.S. soil to non-U.S. citizens should not automatically grant citizenship.


As for nukular, considering half of the nuclear physicists I knew at UW (and I knew a lot of them) said nukular I can't really get too upset about it. However, another word that immediately makes me angry is "sammich" for "sandwich."

I believe the time has come to amend the constitution to put a halt to automatic citizenship based on being born here.

My pet peave word is "lookit". I hate it when my kids (or my wife, for that matter) tell me to "lookit". I also dislike when someone has to use the word "like" every third word of a sentence. "It was, like, when I went to, like, the mall and, like, got those, like, hot jeans!"

I come from all legal stock, tymv. My ancentors missed the laws by almost 200 years. But, I don't believe I have more of a right to be here than anyone else.

Border security is a huge problem. Our borders are immense and we rely on a sheer multitude of people to make decisions about individuals crossing the borders. I'm sure the right decisions is not made every time. Can you imagine the time it would take to get into the US if everyone was scrutinized in the same way? IT's a problem and I don't have the answer.

As far as language is concerned, I really hate ax for ask, pacific for specific and, it writing, I hate woot. What does woot mean anyways?

I love the evolvement of language. Woot is a perfect example of time moving on, new words being created. I don't much like lazy mispronunciation, but new words are fine by me ... as are fun, made-up words like "evolvement."


Not Afraid - have you considered how many new words have likely come into the lexicon since your great great great great great freaking great grandad was the pastor aboard the Mayflower? Evolvement, baby!


* * * * *

You can't have border security in a nation with 5,000 miles worth of border. Not till the 28th century when mountain-to-mountain force fields will be cheap enough to implement.



* * * * *

And along the line of impossibility ... and sorry to respond to something so last page...

scaeagles - if child abuse and murder were as widespread as illegal immigration, drug use and prostitution, I would be in favor of those things being legal as well. If tens of millions of people in a particular society are murderers, there is no sense in providing that society with legal protection from murder. And legal protection wouldn't work. You cannot eliminate anything that tens of millions of people do ... and yes, you heard me right, you shouldn't bother trying.

When tens of millions do it, it's no longer immoral. If murder is the order of the day in Freedonia, then Freedonia's morals allow for homocide.

Did you mean that last word the way you wrote it?

Interesting.

I am really not trying to be ridiculous here, but I don't think these are far from thinking murder would be acceptable - meaning that preventing it should not be a focus of society - if the majority of the population was doing it.

Does this mean that should you have lived in the confederate states in the early 1800s you would have wanted to keep slavery legal? Or that no should bother trying to eliminate it?

If you lived in Rwanda, would you think genocide is acceptable because such a huge portion of the populace participates in it? Or that it is pointless to try to stop it?

If you lived in Germany, would the extermination of the Jews have been acceptable?

Oh, I LOVE new language. I just can't seem to get my arms around the "word" woot.

That's just ridiculous though. You might as well say that if the majority of people in society enjoy putting out cigarettes on babies then why bother trying to protect the babies. Might as well make it legal. Some things are worth being illegal, even if lots of people do it, because there are victims involved. The law isn't just to please the majority, but also to protect the minority.

Yeah, you had me with you for a while, iSm. When mass flouting of a law is a sign that the criminalized behavior is victimless (as with doing drugs and non-black market prostitution) then I think it means that criminalization was a mistake.

Now, while I agree that if a behavior is something that millions do then it is unlikely to be illegal in the first place but that doesn't necessarily mean it is wrong to advocate for criminalization. By that argument antebellum abolitionists were on the wrong side of the issue.

Personally, I doubt I could adjust the moral-lacking society I proposed hypothetically. I was simply trying to illustrate a point about morals not being absolute. We as humans decide what is moral. There is no morality in nature.

But now I'm curious. Were tens of millions nazis, slaveholders, machete-wielding genociders?

What about the case of Abdul Rachman? He is (if he hasn't truly escaped) likely going to be executed for converting to Christianity where that's the moral standard in Afghanistan. If the Afghan muslims truly adopt that morality (rather than being complicit with in under threat of death), then who are we to say it should be otherwise in their society?

Were they what?

I thought you "tens of millions" number was just meaning a large number.

Let's say there are 30 million people in the US taking part in prostitution. I'm figuring that's pretty inflated. That's only 10 percent of the population. I would figure that there was a much higher percentage of slave owning households in the south, and pro-nazis in Germany, and machete wielding genociders in Rwanda. Whether there were (or are) tens of millions is doubtful simply due to the sizes of the populations.

I have heard the man in Afghanistan has been freed and he is in the process of trying to gain assylum in a European nation. Understandable, as I would figure he's a dead man in Afghanistan.

As far as the Afghani society, I do NOT think we have the right to tell them to change. However, political and diplomatic pressure is an every day part of international relations, so I think the efforts of our government (and various other governments) are fine.

He's asking if there were that many -

"Were (there) ten of millions (of people who were) nazis, slave owners, etc..."

Considering that the total population of the United States in 1850 (including territories) was 23,191,876 I'm guessing that no, there were not tens of millions of slaveholders.

Heck, even in the south the percentage of actual slaveholders among the white population was small (small farms generally couldn't afford them). But the percentage of people who either owned slaves or approved of the people who owned them (and would have owned them if affordable) was high.

Well, I was really just trying to find a significant number that would, in relation to the general population, make something ... anything ... ipso facto accepted by society. Or rather, something that - by virtue of said numbers - should be accepted by society.

I picked "tens of millions" out of my hat because - in deference to the actual topic of this thread - the estimated number of illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. is between 11 and 14 million. Is that a significant enough proportion of our population such that criminalizing them is distinctly out of whack with reality?

I suspect it is. I have a real hard time with making a felony of something that 12 million people are doing. Fortunately, I think cooler heads are going to prevail in the Senate ... and that's why we have the Senate (and why I almost think the House of Representatives should simply be abolished; it's practically an institutionalization of mob mentality).

Waint while I git my camera out sos I can take a pitcher of the antanna on that there ambliance! :evil:
A few years ago, just out of mock protest, I started pronouncing it FEB-roo-airy. I don't know if it's correct or not, but sometimes I just like to stick-it to my mother tongue. :p
Really!?! Any protest, huh? So you'd be glad to see half a million Westboro Baptists picketing the funeral of a gay man? Or how about 500K KKK members marching through The South protesting miscegenation?
Witness the gullible throngs who blithely sigh petitions banning dihydrogen monoxide. :rolleyes:

Penn & Teller: Bullshït had a great segment on the desire for many to protest just for the sake of protesting, regardless of weather they believed in—or even understood—what was being protested.
Other than an exultation of joy, there doesn't seem to be a consensus.

w00t!

sorry, carry on.

I suppose we'll find you on the front lines of the march to legalize wife beating then?

So, with the illegal immigrants we have 5% of our total population engaging in illegal immigration. I think it safe to say that at least 5% of the U.S. population was in some way involved with slavery. Should society as a whole have supported slavery. Regardless of the should, for the most part it did. But were the minority opposed to slavery wrong to promote its abolition?

Of course there is the question of whether illegal aliens should count towards the total population when considering official government policy. There are 32 million Canadians who presumably prefer a parliamentary system of government to our system. If they all took 8 steps to the south I don't think they're opinion suddenly becomes relevant.

But you're advocating the institution of mob mentality. Namely, that if enough people do something it is moral.

What, then, is the magic number that signifies societal acceptance? Need it be 30% of the population? 70%? What makes something "the norm?"


(besides, ya know, being Todd's bf)

I don't know. You're the one saying that a sufficient level of social acceptance makes something right. So I think you should be the one putting forward the number.

I will agree that generally if enough people do something that society will generally consider it morally acceptable. This magic number is called "a majority of those who get to establish policy." In our society this number is around 45 million people. In North Korea this number is Kim Jong-Il from the waist up.

But I will still argue that there can be differences between what a society allows and what is "right." A majority of the population allowed slavery, that doesn't mean slavery was right.

Fred Phelps doesn't have that many family members.

So...I'm guessing this thread isn't about the student/labor protests about the new youth labor laws in France...

See what happens when you select the BBC as your primary news source.

At least now I know why my commute this morning was twice interupted by street closures, emergency vehicles and mobs of people.

I still love my iPod though

Speaking of the French protests....I find them to be simply ridiculous. Really, I do.

Basically, it is all about making it easier for employers to terminate employees that are under 26. Right now, it is virtually impossible to terminate a worker in France for any reason.

What this does is make unemployment ridiculously high because French businesses will not hire new employees unless they are absolutely certain they will have the money and business necessary to pay this employee...FOREVER.

From an article I read -
"Union and student leaders say the CPE will create a generation of "throwaway workers" by making it easier to dismiss employees under 26 during a two-year trial period. Villepin hopes it will reduce youth unemployment of almost 23 percent.

"We're demanding the complete withdrawal of the CPE. You can't treat people like slaves. Giving all the power to the bosses is going too far," said Gregoire de Oliviera, a 21-year-old student protesting in Paris."

You can't give all the power to the employers? Having an easier time dismissing employees is treating them like slaves?

Simply ridiculous.

Well - if we're talking France now, they probably need to reform their whole emplyment scheem - as this solution, focusing just on under-26 employees could result in far greater problems for anyone out of work and over age 26.

But honestly, I don't know enough details of French Labor laws to really delve into this one.

I don't know enough for a strong opinion either. But I do know two French guys who started a company in France and then moved it out of Europe as soon as they could to get away from what they felt was a stifling business environment.

My former father-in-law also worked for a division of Honeywell that was bought out by nationally-owned Bull (at that time anyway, perhaps it has since been privatized) and he ended up with a very poor opinion of French labor laws based on the people he had to work with and the anability to remove dead weight and unwillingness to risk bringing on new people except under extreme conditions.

I'm guessing though, that since I am generally against government regulation of hiring practices in the United States that I wouldn't be fond of the specific measures they have in France.

I misspoke - the first incident wasn't protests at all, but the fatal shooting of an off-duty LA Sheriff deputy 6 blocks from our home.

Who else's distant granddaddies came over on the Mayflower? Lisa's was the pastor... mine became Governor Bradford... Tom's was supposedly something (we hope not Governor Bradford)... anybody else?

On topic, though... we were metroing into Hollywood to go swimming on Saturday, and the train on its way downtown was packed full. We were very confused until we saw the news.

The real sticking point for me is the measures they're taking to prevent charities from giving aid. That seems beyond ridiculous. And selfish. Come to think of it, it sounds JUST like this country.

Alas, my great-gramps (on the maternal side) came over in 1755, and good thing. He and his brother were the younger sons of impovershed nobility, and had to relocate to make a life. They did good- fought with George at the Forge and made friends with many historical figures. (Such as Daniel Boone, a close family friend). Had they not come over, they would probably have died along with the rest of the family in the French revolution. So, immigration saved our family. However, near as I can tell, it was legal immmigration. Now, on Dad's side, that's another story. Grandpa snuck across the Canadian border and exchanged a canadian accent (actually, french-canuck) for a New York one. While I'm pretty sure he was just seeking more advantageous economic climes and not facing death, the fact remains he was an illegal. (He did become a citizen). So, I have very mixed feelings on this whole subject. I do know one thing- no other country that I know of allows so many illegals and spends so much on them. When you look at the numbers it is frightening, but then I am also kind of proud that we do take care of others, even if they are not citzens.

It's not something we can keep doing, though. We cannot afford it.

I'm the first American in our family, My parents were naturalized later, so I guess I have no rights to comment. Time to look into claiming German citizenship again - at least then as an EU citizen I could get a job in Paris and never be fired...

Hey, you may be on to something..... No fear of losing your job, and with all the vacations and strikes you'd have lots of leisure time.

I think my most illustrious ancestor is probably William Penn. Not quite Mayflower, but still pre-Revolution. That pesky Swiss side came in through Ellis Island, though.

Question: I haven't read all the various proposals - is this proposed biometric social security card supposed to apply to everyone?

Our immigration problems are triffling when compared to those of Eurasia.

Europe is on the fast track to become a muslim continent by the late-21st century, when - thanks to unbelievable rates of muslim immigration - western civilization in the Old World will become a thing of the past.


The U.S. should have a majority latin population by then. But, hey, at least christianity will still be dominant.

That's interesting to know, iSm. It makes me wonder what will happen to separate races and cultures. Centuries from now perhaps races will be so blended from everyone immigrating to everywhere else that perhaps white a black will be a thing of the past and everyone on earth will have medium dark skin.

I once met a Native American activist that was openly against mixed marriages for fear of losing her distinct tribe.

The Islamic culture does not play well with other cultures. I do not see the Islamic culture blending into a potpourri of cultures.

Yeah, that's the thing. Muslims will not blend, will not assimilate. You think we have a "thing" here in L.A. with latinos not bothering to learn English? That's child's play when it comes to how unassimilated muslims insist on being.

They use the freedoms guaranteed them by the western societies they immigate to in order to practice and propogate their religion, which does not grant its adherents any such freedoms to practice any other religion ... much less the western freedoms granted to women.

They are looking to take over the world much the same way christians did in the days of yore ... via speading wherever they can and having babies upon babies upon muslim babies. There will be no intermarriage, there will be no mingling of cultures. There will rather be complete assimilation of the west by Islam. And resistance is futile.

Islamo-borg! Scary.

Perhaps now they don't mingle, but I predict that they will. 100 years ago inter-racial marriages were almost unheard of in most of the world. Now they're quite common in many societies. I think along with migration we'll see a softening of Islam, a breaking into many sects, like with Christianity. I might be naive though, but I think 100 years ago a different Islam will exist.

(cough)Abdul Rachman(cough).


Of course, blacks were commonly lynched if they were involved with white woman in the early days of interracial relationships in the U.S., so who knows.

But I've a feeling the KKK is akin to a gradeschool bully when compared to Islamist mullahs who determine violations of Koranic law.

Islam is already broken in dozens of major sects. Sunnis and Shiites are just the two major ones. It breaks down from there and that is why you can generally find someone of sufficient rank to issue a fatwa against whatever someone wants a fatwa against.

If further sectation does happen I think it will be in the direction of radicalism rather than integration.

But bringing the subject back to current U.S. immigration issues ...

The Kennedy/McCain bill adopted by the Senate Judiciary Committee looks to be the most liberal position that is going to be on the table ... with a final bill likely more conservative. Not only does the Senate bill have to be reconciled with the draconian House bill, but it's rumored that Senator Frist will introduce a conservative immigration bill in the Senate, trying to get ahead of consideration of the Kennedy/McCain bill.

Seeing that Kennedy/McCain already contains some pretty tough stuff, I think the massive protests should continue unabated for the foreseeable future. While the bill purports to provide some means for illegals to eventually become citizens, the devil is in the details. The immigrant must be employed as a "guest worker" for six consecutive years to be eligible for a green card, but any fraud committed in gaining such employment bars citizenship. As I understand it, minor fraud committed by both employee and employer is common when hiring illegals (the boss providing the false social security numbers for the employee to use in his job application, for example).

I'm sure there are other details requiring quite a bit of study to comprehend and take stock of. So I can hardly expect everyone protesting to be 100% clear on the issues. A schoolteacher friend of mine tells me that most of the kids in his classes who participated in yesterday's walk-out had only the most vague idea of the issues at hand.

Nonetheless, if the eventual bill is likely to be even more draconian than Kennedy/McCain, I hope there are more protests and more walk-outs, and even French-style striking society to its knees for a while until our legislators get the message that fair immigration overhaul is the only kind that will be tolerated.

The problem with "French-style striking society to its knees" is that this is federal legislation in a very big country where most of the country would not be seriously hampered by such behavior.

Sure, parts of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Florida, and New York City would be hampered but that would likely only strengthen the resolve of the rest of the country that this is a problem requiring extreme solutions. When you go to Minneapolis there is a surprising sight for this person grown used to California: restaurant bus boys and dish washers are white (or, more likely, black). Gardeners are white (or also likely legal post-Vietnam legal immigrants).

If every illegal immigrant disappeared tomorrow there would be parts of the country hampered but most of the country would go on with little short-term effect. If this were a California bill I could see such protests having a desired effect (but similar experience during the debate over 187 shows otherwise), but I don't see it having anything other than a negative effect at the national level.

There was a film awhile back whose title I cannot recall (alas, I did not see it) - where all the latinos in Los Angeles disappeared overnight, and havoc ensued.

With little offense meant to our brethren in Minnesota, Kansas City, Helena, and Bismark ... bringing L.A. and NY alone to their knees would cripple the economic picture of the entire nation. I'm really glad to hear that there are many places where the home-grown underclass must do the undesireable jobs ... but in most places where substantial financial activity takes place, it's the latino immigrants who handle all the dirty work.

A few days out of the month with Los Angeles, New York, Phoenix, Atlanta, Houston, Miami, and D.C. brought to a standstill will get the message loud and clear to the businesses who hold the strings of the legislators for the entire nation. Minnesota need not participate ... but their solidarity would be appreciated.

I think you're wrong in your assessment (both of the impact protests could have on the overall economy and in what the reaction would be) but there is only one way to find out which one of us is right.

Hopefully it won't come to that.

So what is the penalty for inciting to riot?

But - I have to wonder about just how "white" the midwest remains, my understanding is immigrant communities are just not along the Southern borders anymore.

They're there for sure (particularly populations of non-Mexican illegal immigrants) but not to the same effect as in LA. But worst case is that overall immigrants are about 4% of U.S. population and heavily concentrated in border states and the largest urban areas otherwise (New York City, Chicago, Seattle, etc.).

That may be overall immigrants, but what about the percentage of the sympathetic latino citizen population? If whites are set to become the minority race in the U.S. within 20 years, I suspect latino population is pretty huge right now.







(And increasing at an appropriately alarming catholic rate, I might add. Now, if we could only get the latinos to emmigrate to Europe, we could have a grand battle of the birthrates for world-domination between the catholics and the muslims!)

It was A Day Without a Mexican. I recommend it. It was very good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Netflix A Day Without a Mexican has been added to your Queue at position 5.

:iSm:

After you watch it, post back the number they quote that immigrants pay in taxes every year. I can't remember it, but it's big. Oh yeah, and the special effects are cheesy.

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that Latinos will soon be a majority population in the United States as a whole.

The U.S. Census projection in 2004, by 2020 Hispanics will make up 17.8% of the total U.S. population and by 2050 that number will be up to 24.4%. While whites will fall to just half the total population by 2050 they are still twice as numerous as the next largest ethnic group.

So, currently, even if every Hispanic in the country legally (and I'm not sure if the curren population of about 35 million includes the estimated 10 million illegals or not) support illegal immigration and is willing to "strike" in support of it, then that is still only 12% of the national population in small pockets of a few states.

The number I've seen is that households with illegal immigrant head-of-households pay about $16 billion in taxes and have a cost to the federal government of around $26 billion (mostly for services consumed by the children in these households that end up in schools, but also legal and uninsured emergency expenses).

But money is irrelevant to the greater issue, in my opinion. They should be paid more (and thus pay more taxes) and a system should be created to bring all workers above-board, but when you enter a country illegally they can't really bitch out not getting the full benefits.

pfft, Alex, don't bother me with facts. :cool:

This is exactly why Cesar Chavez was so against the illegal migrant worker. Illegal workers drive the cost of labor down. And as far as paying more taxes, a huge porportion of illegal labor is paid under the table.

We have a rather comical situation in Phoenix. The city council voted to spend money to build several air conditioned labor centers that provided water and restroom facilities to "day laborers" (read "illegal aliens"). I have one a few miles from my home. There were known spots that people who needed day labor could go and hire them, but the businesses they were hanging out in front of were getting mad.

Well, the day laborers decided to organize and accept no less than $8/hour for any job.

Competition for these jobs is at a premium. If a truck pulls up, it is mobbed by the first 40 or 50 that can get to it. So several of the day laborers figured they could get more work by not going to the day labor center and undercutting and working for $6 or $7 an hour.

Eventually, the day labor center near my home became completely abandoned. If you went there, you couldn't get work, because those looking to hire knew they could get cheaper labor elsewhere. So the city of Phoenix lost money building the centers, the businesses were again angry, and the attempt to get a very modest $8/hour was foiled by those new to the day labor scene who were willing to work for less.

The influx of illegals will ensure that that wages remain low because there is a glut of illegal labor, at least here in Phoenix.

This issue just became a ginormous in the Phoenix area.

There is an area on the far east side of the Phoenix metro area called Apache Junction. Yesterday, a few hispanic students at Apache Junction High School took down the US Flag and raised a Mexican flag in its place.

Several students took exception to this and after a shoving match, took the Mexican flag down and replaced it with the US flag again. Then, one of the students burned the Mexican flag.

The student who burned the Mexican flag was expelled. He was the only one. The reason he was expelled was for starting a fire on school grounds. I guess I can understand that, but the kids that took the US Flag down should face no less, IMHO.

It almost became a riot, apparently. I have heard that a security presence on campus acted quickly and decisively and did a good job stopping it.

The Superintendent of Schools for that school district made a statement today. One of the statements made is that students will no longer be permitted to wear clothing carrying image of any flag, because no one should be offended.

This makes no sense to me. What has just been decided is that an American flag worn by a student to a highschool in the US is potentially too offensive to allow. Honestly, that sickens me. I could live with them just making a dress code with uniforms, as many schools do (including where my children go), but to specifically make that statement about the image of the American flag being too offensive to wear at a high school in the US is beyond me.

If you are offended by the image of the US flag in this country, I would suggest you just get over it. I would suggest that about a lot of things that people find to be offensive.

There is a huge protest already being organized for Monday at AJ High where the plan is for everyone to bring an American flag and line the streets surrounding the high school. I may just go.

Banning flag clothing is ridiculous, I'd vocally oppose that.

As for the punishment of burning the Mexican flag vs. taking down the American flag...I'd expect some sort of discipline (suspension?) for tampering with school property for the kids who took the flag down...but to compare that to the rather wreckless behavior of starting a fire on campus (no matter what the fuel was) and expect the same punishment? Hardly.

Honestly, in the current environment of the protests and tensions at present, I would considering that as attempting to incite a riot. What did the students who did this expect to happen?

And I need to make a correction. The news report I heard has been corrected, and the kid was suspended, not expelled.

Starting a fire still seems like a significantly worse offense than taking a flag down.

All the more praise for the kids in L.A. who walked-out en masse with little incident ... and for the half-million or more in our Grande Marcha who protested uber-peacefully.

I think that School Superindent in Phoenix is the one throwing fuel on the fire now. That ban on flag-image clothing is just going to escalate the tensions. Frankly, as bad as flag-burning is, I would have played down the entire incident with little more than a wrist-slap for all participants under these tense circumstances.




.

Hmmm... posted at 7:34 p.m. Friday, edited at 6:14 a.m. Saturday. I wonder what needed to be changed 11 hours after-the-fact?

"Frankly, bad as flag-burning is" vs. Frankly, as bad as flag-burning is"

I just added an "as." I thought it was a typo, but I know see the sentence sort of reads correctly either way.


99% of my edits are to correct grammar or NotAfraid-style typographical errors.


I do not use my vast moderator editing powers to change history.

Party Pooper.

A little more info on the Mexican flag burning incident. For the purposes of clarification, the whole event took place with the flag pole in front of the ROTC building at the high school.

I honestly cannot believe this, but the kid (only 16) who burned the flag is being charged with felony arson as an adult. Misdeamor mischief I could buy. But felony arson? I am flabbergasted. If convicted, he will never vote, and will not be permitted to serve in the US military, his goal after graduation.

I am hoping that this is just a ploy by whomever decided to charge him with this to get him to plead to a much lesser offense, such as a misdemeanor. I hope the judge throws this case out should it go to court this way. I am no lawyer, so I suppose I don't know what makes felony arson.

While I was not able to go to the protest organized on Monday, I have contributed to his legal defense fund.

Lotsa felonies are committed by otherwise decent people caught up in the heat of the moment. Most of them don't benefit from a public outpouring of support. This kid's lucky -- the notoriety of his case will prevent him from getting railroaded into being a convicted felon. A hand-slap misdemeanor is in his future. Which, imo, is all the punishment his actions warrant.

While I don't agree with the severity of the charge, I can hardly be supportive of someone's goal to join the military if they - heat of the moment or not - see fit to burn another nation's flag.


Oh, I have no illusions it's not the miscreant, xenophobic haters who are attracted to military service, but I have no qualms about eliminating their eligibility - one a a time, if necessary.

I think a felony charge is harsh. But I also don't know what kind of arson qualifies for a felony charge. Was there potential for it to get out of hand and cause widespread damgage etc.

I'm thinking that if someone burned an American flag lots of people would want that person charged with a felony.

Scaeagles, would you have contributed to his defense fund if it was the American flag he burned? Just curious.

Still, I agree that it's very unlikely he'll get more than a misdemeanor charge at the end of this.

I suppose if he was in another country and burned that country's flag I could agree with you. Running the flag of another country up the flagpole is very symbolic to that country conquering the other.

Unless they can show there was some substantial risk in when and where the flag was burned then I think it is primarily a free speech issue and should not be charged with theft at most; if he burned it in the bushes next to a wood building it is substantially different than if he did it in a large swath of pavement or concrete.

And that is true regardless of what country's flag is involved (statutory protection of the flag from desecration is one of the stupidest ideas ever thought). Though I suspect that if he had burned an American flag the school administrators would be more willing to view it as a free speech issue and righties would be more willing to view it as a felony (I have no idea about scaeagles specifically).

We stole countries with the cunning use of flags.
~ Eddie Izzard on Britain

It's a good question. The circumstances are such that I would say no.

As I stated earlier, when a country is conquered, the flag of the country that has done the conquering is hoisted in place of the conquered country. If the roles were reversed and and the hispanic student has burned the US flag, I would not support a charge of felony arson, but I would not contribute to the cause if such a charge was levied. I would figure the ACLU would have all the funding they needed to defend the kid. It is an issue of patriotism to me, clear and simple, and what I think is right. I can relate to the kid who burned the Mexican flag, so therefore I contributed (not a large amount, mind you. I did it primarily so the kid would see one more supporter of his cause).

I would suspect that should it have been a US flag that was burned, it would not have been politically correct to charge any crime. It would have been solely a free speech issue, though suspension may be warranted (as the kid who burned the Mexican flag rightfully received for a variety of reasons).

Kind of a side point. But in watching the various talking head shows for the last few sides I've seen a meme developing about the idea of actually building a wall along the entire (or a significant portion) of the U.S. Mexico border.

Now, I don't want to get into whether it is a good or bad idea to build such a wall (I'd oppose it) but over and over for the lasts week I've seen the opposition side say "building such a wall just can't be done; it's impossible." They aren't talking about politically but physically.

I've driven I-90 from Seattle to Chicago. I've driven I-10 from LA to Florida. I've taken a train that used tracks that cross the Rockies. If we can build an 8-lane superhighway that criss-crosses the nation why would building a wall be so damned difficult if that is was we decided we wanted to do?

There are plenty of good reasons to oppose such a thing but picking obviously stupid ones doesn't help the cause.

It's totally possible. China has one of those walls.

:snap: to that. It sounds like all the students involved were acting like idiots. I suspect they are being more severe with him because he was JROTC. They most likely want to send the message that he isn't representative of the group. Though, when I was in high school, JROTC was populated with so many a-holes that none of this surprised me at all.

A word about Apache Junction: I went to school very near there and lived there up until last year (though I'm loathe to admit that!). It's one of the top five? meth producers in the nation. It's a very rough town. If it's anything like where I went to school (15 miles away), racial tensions run pretty high. I'm not at all surprised that they are taking this so seriously.

What exactly is his cause? The support he's getting probably just makes him tell himself, "See! They hate Mexicans too."

Link

Ok, so these people tear down his flag, then come back to take it again? They want this country to welcome immigrants, they came here for some reason and this is how they behave?

Get the fvck out!

And, since China's is falling apart in many places, I think we should build one for the ages to take its place. A nice one, not a big fence. A big, giant wall with a wide, walkable (or even driveable!) pathway along the top. Maybe with water cannons to shoot playfully at any silly Mexicans that try to dig under. It'd be like one of those river-rafting rides, only better!

His "cause", as I was putting it, is simply his legal defense.

I do not believe that burning a Mexican flag means that you hate Mexicans any more than burning an American flag means you hate Americans. It can mean that, but it is certainly not always the case. I don't even think if the kid started beating up the kid that did it would mean he hates Mexicans (I would not support him legally, though, should he have done that). You seem to be assuming he does hate Mexicans.

As for the stupid flag stuff .... it's very unfortunate that in a crowd, a certain percentage of people will act like a mob.

Here in L.A., the Spanish-language media was urging protestors to carry only American flags. That would have been more politic, imo. But plenty of Mexican and other Central American flags were carried in a huge protest that stayed completely peaceful and respectful. For a crowd that size (upwards of half a million), I find that quite an accomplishment in itself.


Also, let's remember that - here in the southwest - we are relative newcomer conquerers in their country, not the other way around. And the demographics are unstoppable ... Latinos will be the majority population in our children's lifetimes. Not the majority minority (which they are today), but the outright majority. They are just beginning to flex their political muscle, and we'd better get used to it.


I bet lots of native americans said "get the fvck out," too. See what good that did.

I'm sure the people burning the flag in the MIddle-East don't hate us, they just dislike our flag's color scheme.

The burning of a flag (like burning effigies) is indicative of an extreme feeling, and that ain't love. Unless, of course, a person is merely demonstrating their right to do so.

Ooh, water cannons on the Great Wall of America! How fun! :D

We could also build a Wall*Mart that is actually in the wall itself. The customer entrance will be on the US side and the employees entrance will be on the Mexico side!
:D

Geez! I guess I am not being specific enough.

I don't think that Americans burning the US Flag in a protest are saying they hate Americans. Of course in the context of the middle east it means somehting completely different. I am not willing to simply say this kid hates Mexicans because he burned the Mexican flag. That is a judgement that no one is qualified to make unless the kid comes out and says "I did it because I hate Mexicans".

The flag was run up the flagpole twice. The first time it was taken down and givcen back to the students who raised it. The second time it was burned. I interpret that as the kid saying if you aren't going to stop then I will prevent it from happening again.

Duly noted- however the USA is not an annex of Mexico. Immigration is one thing, people who think they can come here, reap financial benefit (especially taxpayers funded) pay no taxes themselves, and not have any consequences is another.

It's a passive invasion.

(and for the record I would feel this way about any illegals, I don't care where they come from)

You must spread some Mojo around before giving it to Gemini Cricket again.

Brilliant!

Nehph - where are you getting the "pay no taxes" part? Undocumenteds pay plenty of taxes. Social Secutity taxes for the most part. Which they pay in, but don't take out - btw. They by and large do not earn enough to pay income taxes.

* * * *
Scaeagles - by your logic of where the flag burning takes place, the American boy burning the Mexican flag while on American soil communicates the message "I hate Mexico." You seem to me to be demonstrating quite the double standard there.

Is that like when the woman is on top?

To the contrary. Context is everything.

In the Middle East, protests are organized with the intent of saying "I hate America", and burning the American flag is certainly part of it.

This was not an organized protest where a kid went to a gathering where the purpose was to protest Mexico. He made a rash decision in the heat of the moment when his other attempt at resolving the issue - taking the Mexican flag down the first time and returning it to the students who raised it - was not successful.

That is certainly a far, far cry from a proclamation of hatred of Mexico.

I hate the Mexican government. They are corrupt and are in fact the reason there is a huge illegal immigration problem in this country. Does this mean I hate Mexico? I don't know.

Hell, it is exactly because of the message of burning the flag (be it Mexican or American) that should give the act greater protection. If he was just buring random trash then it wouldn't matter all where or how he was doing it.

The message is what should give it free speech protections assuming that the act itself wasn't entirely reckless (through disregard for where the fire was started). Even if he was saying "I hate Mexicans." And yes, I'd say the same if he were saying through flag burning "I hate Americans" or "I hate ******s" or "I hate whitey" or "I hate Alex." Being a free speech absolutist means hearing an awful lot of things I don't like. As long as he wasn't significantly putting anybody at risk then I don't care what he was burning to make his statement.

I haven't read any of the articles so I don't know if any say where he started the fire and if any real recklessness was involved.

More importantly, does it mean you hate Mexicans? I'm guessing not, but I think that is the real issue behind the school thing. You are right that I'm assuming that the ROTC kid does. But it's an educated guess, definitely.

I agree with Alex, with the exception that it was on school property. Free speech doesn't exist in public schools. He was in violation of school rules, therefor, I believe suspension is in order.

As the Supreme Court said in Tinker v. Des Moines, students don't shed their constitutional rights when they walk in the door. I don't have a problem with administrative punishment from the school (and it is warranted). I have a problem with criminal punishment from the state.

First amendment rights might not extend to setting fire to things on school property.

I'm in complete agreement that flag-burning should have first amendment protection. Being on school grounds and lighting a fire, whether it's to communicate or not, is arguably a different story.

Huh? So when did I lose my 1st amendment rights when on school property? And more importantly why does it sound like ISM is okay with this?

Why? (and I ask purely from the criminal justice point of view; obviously it is different from the school administrators point of view.)

If an act is, or should be, protected (from criminal presecution) speech on the sidewalk in front of the school I see no reason it shouldn't be in front of the flag pole as well.

Though in an ideal world the kid would have taken the Mexican flag down and then burned another Mexican flag that he owned. Though I think the administrators are being dicks if they referred this for criminal prosecution I don't think it warrants anything more than vandalism charges.

So, just to reiterate my original point, I would be just as supportive of this guys defense fund regardless of whose flag was burned (or similarly important symbols such as if he burned a cross, even on school property).

I'm only in support of the no fires policy on school property trumping the free speech rights of students. Let them shout 'Down with Mexico' all during math class for all I care. But I can seriously understand a no-setting-fires rule applying to ALL circumstances.

The same might go for hospitals, post-offices, bus depots. Protest fires cannot just happen anywhere simply because they are protests. Fire poses a danger, and its use must be restricted under certain circumstances ... at school being one of them, imo.


On the other hand, I am fervently against the practice of locking down the schools so that kids cannot participate in protests. This has happened all over Los Angeles this past week, and I believe it is a violation of students' civil rights.


All in all, school administrators seem to be behaving like schmucks all over the southwest.

How about candlelight vigils?

I'm not sure when, that's just how it is. Students can't distribute written materials without school approval, they can't wear what they want, teachers can't teach whatever they want, school libraries can't carry whatever books they want. I'm not saying that's how it should be, I'm just saying that's how it is. I think that makes the free speech issue here moot because free speech doesn't exist on school property.

Well, I might interpret that differently. In many ways the same thing applies to me in the workplace - that is there are restrictions on my exercise of free speech that are conditions of my employment. I could still exercise free speech, but my employer could fire me. I suspect I could do the same in a public schoool - though I might be charged with tresspass, if I actually entered the school grounds.

Yes, I suppose that's true. But if you can do something with consequences attached, then you aren't really free to do that thing.

But everything has consequences, and exercising freedoms should have some responsibilities attached for what some of those consequences might be - fire getting out of control and gutting the school building for example.

First of all, you are assuming that the people that did this are illegal immigrants. This may not be true. Second, a few people did something jerky. They are not representative of the millions of immigrants in this country. I suppose the reason that most of them come is that they want to make the best life that they can for themselves and their families.

Using the "their using our services without paying taxes argument" is true of many very poor people, white, Mexican, or otherwise. If they did file income taxes, it's likely that they would get refunds even if they have no tax responsibility. And they do pay taxes, just by shopping at American businesses.

You can hold a protest and burn whatever flags you want without consequences if you aren't on school property, so I would consider that a freedom. I would not consider breaking and entering a freedom, because you'll be thrown in jail. I think it's more semantics than anything else.

Yes it does, for the most part. The Supreme Court has ruled that public school administrators must show a substantial disruption to school operations prior to making content-based restrictions. They are given broader leeway in creating general policies but they can very rarely prohibit specific speech.

The SC has addressed this specific issue in Papish and ruled exactly that students could distribute written materials without approval so long as the method distribution did not disrupt school operations (for example they could stand in the hallway between classes handing it out but they couldn't barge into classrooms during session to do so).

But again this is a difference I don't necessarily have a problem with (that is the school having administrative punishments for certain speech) vs. the criminal justice system punishing certain speech.

Well, then I would suggest the matter of whose property the flag was is very salient, as Alex previously suggested. Because if the property burned did not belong to the kid lighting the fire, whether in protest or not, it was a case of arson. Lighting fire to someone else's property in protest is not free speech. It matters not if the property has some symbolic meaning that burning conveys.


I think criminal prosecution of this particular matter is absurd. But I can see where it clearly falls into criminal jurisdiction.



edited to add:

Also, it need not be your own ignited property to protect you from criminal intent. I suppose the KKK brings its own crosses. Where does the Supreme Court stand on that?

Is speech protected when it's hate speech? When it's initimidating speech?

Is flag burning merely a political statement? Or can it be hate speech and/or threatening?

In my opinion intimidating speech and hate speech should be protected but I apparently lost that argument a long time ago.

As soon as you create special criminal categories for those two things then it is all just a fight to define which hate is worse than other hate and it is in the best interested of the targeted group to at least pretend to be intimidated.

Is bribery ok then? Jury tampering? Yelling "fire" in a crowded nightclub?

How absolutist is your free-speech desire?

Offering a bribe should be fine, for if it is rejected then there was no negative impact. Giving a bribe and taking a bribe are different.

Yelling fire in a crowded nightclub should be legal. Contributing to 200 people stampeding and thus killing two people should probably open you up to certain criminal consequences and definitely a lot of civil ones. Have you committed a crime if you should "Fire" in a crowded nightclub and nobody reacts? I don't think so.


Attempting to shape the verdict of a juror (purely through speech) outside of the appropriate channels is a situation in which I think content-specific prohibitions on speech are apparopriate. But attempting to engage in such speech should not necessarily be illegal (writing a letter to a juror but accidentally addressing it to the wrong person, for example, should have no penatly).

Pretty absolutist. Essentially, there are situations where speech can reasonably result in actions or behaviors that should be controlled but the speech itself should not, ipso facto, be illegal.

So, I'm not sure if this was brought up here, or if it is the proper thread for it but...

I've seen a few articles putting a slant on this that Mexico is invading the USofA. They cast the illegal aliens as the insurgents and Fox as the leader.

And I'm not so sure I disagree with this view.

Why are we giving people [from any country]* who are here illegally the same rights as those who are here legally? Why should they be allowed to vote? What about the huge drain that they put on our health care and social services system?

I suppose it goes back to making sure every other country is taken care of while we have homeless and hungry families out on the street and thousands of others one paycheck away from being on the street. But why should we help them? Let's help all those who are here illegally first while citizens go hungry and homeless!

Now before I'm painted as a cold hearted bitch who wants to see the economy fail as a result of no-one around to do the hard labor for pittance wages I'll say this... I'm all for work visas. And I'm for getting families and people who have been working hard and are not relying on our social services to support them established here legally. But all those who are draining our social services? Support yourself or get out. We have too many of our own citizens who need help and you're just draining it.

*which brings up another point. If illegal aliens are given the right to vote, will it just be illegal aliens from Mexico? Or those from Cuba, Korea, China, Vietnam and all the other countries people are here from as well. Same with Work Visas. Just those from Mexico or those from other countries.

Would we be reacting this way if a bunch of kids from Korea took down the American flag and raised their flag? Replace anything Mexican with a different country. What would we be doing then? If all the Vietnamese people spoke up maybe we'd have to teach classes in Vietnamese and our bi-lingual labels would be English/Vietnamese and not English/Spanish. (Yes, I realize in areas this is the case, I'm just making a hypothetical situation).

Not a word on this today? I'm surprised.

Pictures worth a 1000 words....or more

The gov't has failed....abysmally. But hey, the democrats see votes!! Who cares if they're illegal!:mad:

Huge demonstration planned for Boston Common today. I'm thinking of leaving work early to miss all the hullabaloo.

Ah, Nephy....I gotta disagree with your partisan spin on that one. The majority of republican politicans see the same thing, and both parties are trying to figure out ways to appease this decent sized voting block while not alienating their base.

There are exceptions to this, of course. JD Hayworth of AZ, Tom Tancredo (sp?) of Colorado, some others that aren't as outspoken.

Let me clarify- I'm at work and posted that last bit quickly. I agree with you- but it WAS a Dem flyer in the post-

I said our GOV'T has failed- BOTH sides see votes, both sides see their actions as either good or bad towards keeping or gaining majority status.

The whole thing ticks me off- because the bottom line is that in order to win votes, they sell out LEGAL citizens by refusing to enforce our laws- and the illegals KNOW IT!:mad:

(On Edit- I am at a point of being really unhappy with Pols in general- though no one would be surprised that I dislike Dems more ;) Though it would not take much for the spineless Repubs to catch up with them :mad: )

I'm not advocating this but I'm wondering what would happen to the various marches if INS (or whatever they're called now) let it be known that they'd have enforcement officers at these events since they had reason to believe that people illegally in the country would be present?

What authorities do they have to ask for ID and restrain? Back in college I had reason to commute every weekend between Bellingham, WA, and Seattle on Greyhound. Every Sunday night before the bus left Bellingham (which is about 30-40 miles south of the Canadian border) and INS agent would board and ask random people for ID. This was a bus that never left the country, just did this shuttle run.

Could INS show up and just start asking random people for some proof of legality?

Show us some evidence that that flyer was produced and endorsed by the Democratic party.

One thing I've heard in the news (and coverage of the rally in Phoenix this morning confirms it) is that the organizers are becoming a bit more politically savvy.

During the rallies held a couple weeks ago, there was an overwhelmingly pro-Mexico flavor. This was not received well in the general public. So this time, so far here in Phoenix, there is not a Mexican flag in sight. Stars and Stripes flying everywhere, pro-America t-shirts abound.

I doubt it. There is no requirement in this country that I have any identification on me while walking down the street. Walking down the street or participating in a rally (assuming you are nonviolent) does not give probable cause for a government agency to stop anyone.

Um, no.

First off, I don't have "proof", secondly I find that request to show a naive view that is unlike you. Are you going to deny that the politicians see votes in all this? Shall we discuss that one of the people speaking at one of the rallies is not a member of the GOP but the King of Dems himself Ted Kennedy?

Are you really going to cast up a defense against this by demanding proof you know I can not provide and pretending that Dems, whether they be local or national are NOT going to be fishing for ways to make this good for them?

Come on- even I know that both sides are going to be seeing future voters here- and want to garner their favor.

Then why were they able to do it on the bus? I don't know what would have happened if you didn't have ID as everybody always did.

Perhaps the INS operates under different rules. I know that local police forces are not permitted to do because of a case in a Phoenix suburb (Chandler) where the police department started making inquiries into the legal status of people gathering at day laborer hangouts. Quite the uproar, and the government of Chandler had to pay out some hefty damages in a lawsuit.

What on that flyer indicates illegal votes? Legal immigrants from Mexico (who form a VERY large and VERY legal voting contingent) play a huge role in this issue. Seems like a logical demographic to woo.

If the point of posting that photo was to say that Democrats will benefit from a turnout of people who support less severe handling of illegal immigrants...well, duh. That's hardly news and I don't need to see a photgraph in the internet to convince me of that. If the point was that "the democrats" support illegal voting practices, then yes, I'd have to see some official party support to believe that, 'cause without that all you have is someone with a few buck and access to a print shop who can, by vague inference, be seen to be encouraging illegal voting. Not exactly the same things as "the democracts".

Or, to paraphrase my own post from another thread...It's on a message board?! It must be true!

I could make that flyer in about 15 minutes, change the word "democrat" to "republican" and post it here. Would the picture I posted be accepted by you as an official endorsment of your party?

LOL- unless I actively denouced it, I can be fairly certain of being painted with that brush. Yes.....

Though someone else had this observation-

and of course I am looking for more info- but frankly people here will choose what to believe. That's not my job.

Yet another link with good info

The partisan defense is also a waste- they ALL screwed up. But to deny the vote pandering by EITHER party is dishonest.

Ah, but the question wasn't "would others accept it and attribute it to your beliefs?", but rather "would you accept it?". My point was simply to suggest that the picture you posted a link to has no way of being authenticated as coming from the democrats and I highly doubt that it did.

And just for the record, I happen to not side with the democrats position on illegal immigration.

Huge protest here in Boston. At 4pm, there were large groups meeting at Boston Common. There was also a long line of protestors parading down the Freedom Trail. Really neat to see all these people coming out and voicing their opinions. I don't know how many people were there. Too many to count.
:)

Yet you arbitrarily decide that the photo is some sort of fake- or nothing more than a ploy. Heaven forbid a democrat made that flyer. It's so much easier for you to think it's a fakery. Funny, from my POV, I find it hard to believe that a Dem would NOT do something just like it.

Oh well- like I said, you'll just decide what to believe. If I find more info, I will provide it. I am actively seeking it out.

The rally here in Phoenix, slated to start at 1:00pm local time, has a crowd of less than half of what was expected. They were planning on 100,000, but the estimates on the radio I've heard are anywhere from 20-40K.

I read that Pittburgh got about 100 (not 100,000 - but an actual 100 people), but that Dallas yesterday got over 500,000.

I left the Downtown Boston area as fast as I could. It's crowded crowded crowded at the Common. Lots of reporters, lots of helicopters, huge police presence... I hope it goes peacefully.

My problem isn't with the flyer. My problem is with the text commentary by the blog.

Nowhere on the flyer does it encourage people in this country to vote illegally (and Democrat). Nowhere on the flyer does it claim to possess the endorsement of the Democratic Party (but GD already said this, I'm just voicing my agreement).

Having been in and around various events in San Francisco I can assure you that there are all kinds of really stupid things printed and distributed that have delusions of wit, relevance, and support that are in no way justified. What is actually amazing, based on my experience with left-leaning gatherings is that someone actually found two things actually on point to ridicule. Usually in any large gathering (in my experience) you'll find 119 different political issues raised at a single-issue rally and no issue will have more than 2 signs in support (including the on point issue).

Jsut as I find it hard to believe that I couldn't find a republican who would happily print a flyer that condones the beating of homosexuals. Would that, therefore, imply that the Republicans condone that?

I am stumbling to trying to word my point, so I will give an example of local politics here in AZ.

Voters in AZ passed a law stating that identification must be given at polling locations to verify who you are prior to voting. I voted for it. It is reasonable.

However, the governor (who is a democrat) and the attorney general (who is a democrat) have fought against this tooth and nail, mounting legal challenge after legal challenge. Their stated reasoning? That this law will intimidate minorities into not voting.

What?

I read that to mean that the democrats are afraid that those who are not US citizens may be afraid to try to vote. Why would being expected to present identification to show that you are who you say you are be intimidating? I would suspect (and perhaps I am naive) that it is because you aren't supposed to be voting in the first place.

This leads me to believe that the democrat governor and attorney general want fraudulent voting. I can see no other reason to oppose it.

Does this mean every democrat wants that? Absolutely not. But it is not secret that the hispanic voting block votes heavily democrat. Enough red flags there for me. I would not presume, however, that every democrat would want to see illegals voting.

I should have been more clear. I'm not trying to say that a democrat couldn't have made the flyer, just that it probably wasn't the democrats. Perhaps you don't see the distinction but I do.

And I think the person who wrote the caption is reading a lot into what the flyer says.

I'm curious, then, what your explanation of the motives of black state-congressmen in Georgia walked out of the building in protest when a similar law was passed would be. Is it because they wanted the vast populations of illegal black immigrants to vote?

And, for the record, I was not arguing as to whether or not the Deomcratic party encourages illegal voting practices. All I was pointing out was that the posted photo of a single flyer spoke far fewer than 1,000 words.

I cannot speak to the politics of GA. However, I would suspect there are illegal aliens in GA as well.

Can you give me a good reason why just showing proof of your identity would cause a problem? Racial intimidation? I would not suspect that would be the issue, as you can't hide your skin color when you get in line at the poll. I fail to see how intimidation would increase simply by showing that you are actually John Smith at 123 Oak St and should therefore be permitted to vote as that person.

Georgia already required providing identification to vote and the attempt is to restrict it to government issued identification rather than also including things that can easily be made at home (such as a utility bill or student ID card).

The grounds for opposition were that poor people were more likely to be unable to afford state issued ID cards. So the bill was revised to include making free government ID cards available. They still oppose it. I don't know what the grounds for doing so now are.

To me, proving who you are to vote doesn't sound so burdensome (and it shocked me when I moved to California and learned that you not only didn't have to do so but that my polling station posted a list of all voters registered for that station outside the venue and then updated it throughout the day to show who voted), even if you are poor. Georgia should be willing to accept a birth certificate though.

What does that have to do with black congress members?

I don't claim to know all of the factors involved. I do know that Georgia law was struck down in federal court on the grounds that it constituted an implicit poll tax. Namely, the cost of getting ID. And questions of economics in this country disproportionately affects minorities.

That may or may not be the thinking of those in Arizona, but the reaction of the black congress members leads me to believe that, whether you can think of it or not, there are other reasons to oppose the requirement.

Yeah, that was the basis on which the Democrats opposed the first bill. I'm just not clear on what the basis of opposition is now that the new bill includes giving a free "voter card" to anybody who can't afford a driver's license or state ID card (rather than persuing a court case to support the existing law which was not struck down but has an injunction during litigation they're just trying to pass a new law that would survive the injunction attempt).

But it is a fun game of fraud hypocrisy. The Republicans don't care if there is no paper trail showing how people voted and the Democrats don't care if there is no paper trail showing that the people who vote are the ones entitled to do so (and do so only once). Both care strongly that the other not be allowed.

Each party should just pick a representative and on the alotted day they gather at a sports stadium where two voting booths have been set up and whichever representive can pull the handle the most in a 12 hour period wins the election.

Ummm.....yeah. I think that's why I said I can't really speak with knowledge as to what is going on in GA. Just what I see here in AZ. I didn't list my suspicion as a de facto answer.

For full disclosure, I said that the Phoenix rally fell far short of expectations. Apparently there was more difficulty than expected with people actually getting there and the rally did not reach full strength until much later than expected, and most reports put it at over 100,000.

Is it possible that it is as simple as- If you make people present ID, and you give them voter cards to make it easier for them- it would then become harder to scream racism and disenfranchisement when the vote doesn't go your way?

That seems like a good reason for black members of congress to walk out- it would make it to hard to try to accuse people of things that weren't happening and try to throw doubt on the vote.

Sorry- Way TOO many of the voter fraud allegations and convictions are against democrats, in democrat controlled districts with democrat's running the show.

Democrats- the party of the dead, the felons and the illegals. No, not EVERY single individual in the party wants it that way- but it is what it is.

Hey, at least their votes are counted.:D

:p *snort*:p

It only hurts when you're on the losing end of the fraud.*


*(I'm lying- I think fraud in any way is wrong, and I hope anyone engaging or profiting by it is nailed to the frikken wall- particularily voter fraud).

Thousands of people at the Boston protest. It's weird, though. The local TV news report last night said only 2,000 people were there. The Metro paper reported 10,000. The Globe said 5,000-7,000.

The same thing always happens. Driving home the other night I had the radio pretty much on scan for several hours and caught a lot of reports of the huge Dallas march from a half dozen different sources and not one of them gave the same number (ranged from 125,000 from ABC News up to 600,000 from some news I didn't catch). My general practice is to take the report from the event sponsors and cut it in half; take the report from the opposition and double it. Then I figure the actual number was somewhere in that range.

Whatever the actual numbers are, I think it's clear that immigration reform is becoming, or has already become, the most protested issue since the Vietnam war.

This saddens me a bit. Although immigration reform is still runnig second to the Iraq war as issues Americans are concerned with (according to pollsters), I find it disheartening that more people will take to the streets on immigration.

I completely agree.

Immigrants are physically here. Iraq is over there, somewhere, and not on the list of vacation hot spots. Plus, immigration is something people can debate without automatically falling into the "imperialist war-monger" v. "un-patriotic terrorist sympathizer" trap.

Well, the current protests seem to replace "imperialist vs. traitor" with "racist vs. traitor."

But yeah, I'd say it is mostly because all the people most directly affected by the issue are here. With the Iraq war the people most directly affected aren't here in numbers and those who are tend to support the war (my sample is small but all the Iranians I know are generally supportive; as you might expect since the previous circumstance was generally the reason they were over here in the first place).

Do you mean Iraqis or are you referring to the lengthy Iran-Iraq war (which I would figure resulted in many Iraqis and Iranians fleeing the area)?

Yes, I meant Iraqis. They all look alike to me.

Please show stats where it shows that the Democratiac party has more allegations and convictions than the Republican party.

There are so many logical fallicies in that statement. Can you argue without attacking?

I don't know that the dead have any political leanings since their membership is pretty broad. I think it is safe to say that as a group illegal aliens and felons will tend to sympathize with the party platform of the Democrats, for three reasons:

1. Democrats tend to support ideas that would make naturalization easier and oppose enforcement of things that would make being here illegally uncomfortable.

2. To the extent that either party wants to decriminalize things that create felons (mostly, by ending the laughable war on drugs) it is the Democrats.

3. Felons and illegal immigrants disproportionately are part of socioeconomic groups that vote Democratic and it seems reasonable to assume that citizenship and going to jail are not likely to change general political views of a group.

So, it could be said that the Democrats are the party for illegal immigrants and felons. Of course they are the party of other groups as well (such as bumpluggers, communists, feminazis, and (environmental) terrorists).

Crap, almost made it through without attacking. Stupid sarcastic tendencies.


As to whether the dead, the felons, and the illegal immigrants are fraudulently voting in massive number? I strongly doubt it.

So I take it Abramoff and DeLay will be voting Democrat next election?:D

No, we're talking tendencies of course. And we all know that white collar shouldn't really count (and I really doubt that Delay will be convicted at all, let alone by November).

Unless you're implying that they're gay in which case they will be voting Democrat as that is just genetic.

Uhm, there's at least one poster here that might beg to differ......

Thank you, Wendy.

I did not attack anyone.

And I will find links....later.

Yes, but does voting Democrat mean that you're gay? My family says yes.

You're also a felon, and apparently you're dead as well. Rough party!

Interesting way to twist those words...whatever

A) I'm being sarcastic.

B) I'm assured by one of my gay friends that no gay person would ever vote Republican that anybody who does is just trying (and failing) to pass as gay. I, of course, don't believe him.

C) In my 3 point post above I when I got around to attacking I was attacking Nephytys's position. (The first part was to show that roughly the same point could be made without being derogatory and create a point around which discussion could proceed, the second part was to highlight the valuelessness of her method, the third part was show focus on the fallacy of her assumption.

Your first statement is a blanket one, which you then soften with a 'not EVERY', but it's a very broad paintbrush being used all the same. Glass houses applies here- both parties have a long history with abusing the voting process.

I knew you were being sarcastic, Alex! Even if you didn't use a smilie.:D

Were these the words that were twisted?

Careful please. Them's were very close to fightin' words.

What is the warning for? What are you going to do to me for being snarky about my view of the democratic party and their illegal voting blocs?

Unless you want to take that somehow personally- they are not fighting words.

Unless you are wanting to pick a fight for the whole democrat party?

If I understand my fallacies correct (Alex feel free to correct me) the statement that you made was a Straw Man.

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

It could also be construed as an Ad Hominem..

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting).

I did not attack anyone- my disdain for a certain political party came out. No one need that it personally.

Before the admittedly snarky derail, we were discussing......immigration reform. Today on CNN there is an interesting article regarding the rising political strength of the Hispanic voters, which no doubt makes Republican lawmakers very nervous. Hispanic political power.

Maybe you missed where Abramoff plead guilty, but Delay has not even had a trial? Or is it guilty until proven innocent as long as you are not in the right political party?

Man, you're really looking for a fight. No go, Neph- not in the mood.

It doesn't have to be an attack on a person, or group of persons. You're making blanket statements without proof to back them up.

What is it called when a person can't prove their side so they resort to attacking the other side? I don't think it's red herring.

WB-I am NOT looking for a fight. Don't talk down to me. Your snarky comment about Delay is off limits for remarks?

Looks like hispanics do not always vote democrat

Yeah, ok, and when I have time come up with the links- which I don't right now- what is it then? You make assumptions that I am just blowing hot air- heaven forbid there actually be something to it.

Not talking down to ya, Neph- trying to talk you down. If you're in a mood, don't stomp on everyone elses day, alright? There's a difference between debate and being incendiary, as you well know.

I'm not in a mood. I'm also not responsible for people's decision to be reactionary.


My day is fine, happy, sunny...gonna go out and enjoy it.

Yes, there is a difference- maybe everyone should remember that?

(besides that- I will find links- this is not flame bait- it's fact, but feel free to ignore it)

Calm down. When you post blanket statements without links or reference to posting links later you leave the post wide open to the thought that you have no intentions of posting links.

Really Neph, you don't seem to be able to have this type of conversation without getting upset and mad. If you're in a bad mood please take it elsewhere. If not, please calm down and post rationally, like our other "righty does. He doesn't attack. He posts his facts from his perspective with the links to back it up.

It is no secret that even though there is a majority of "left wing" posters here almost all of them will respectfully debate the "right wing" view. Respectfully is the key word. You have to give it to get it.

Whatever you do, this is all I am going to say on that matter.

The GLBT group the Log Cabin Republicans vote Republican. As far as I know.

DeLay is a politician, no? Guilty of all charges!


(party affiliation irrelevent)

Let me be clear about what I find to be fightin' words. Alex's remark about not being able to tell the difference between Iranians and Iraqis* because they all look the same to him was not fightin' words because (1) it was obviously meant as humor and (2) neither Iraqis nor Iranians make up a significant portion of our membership, and thus are not here to experience a blanket insult that may nonethess apply to them individually.

Insulting Disney fans would be in poor form here.

Jokes about geeks are fine, but real put-downs about geekdom as a group would be considered fightin' words by me.


Similarly, attacking Democrats is fine - if it's clear that the attack is limited to politicians. But when an attack is made on such a broad group as democrats, applying to large segments of our membership, such can be considered fightin' words.

If the line that I've drawn in the blood-stained, desert sand had been crossed, I would have let it be known. But since the tone was approaching the line, I thought it prudent to say so.




* I'm not sure if Alex's comment was even in this thread, but I can't keep these political threads straight in my head anymore. They have become almost interchangeable. I've half a mind to merge them all.

Yes, and it is them that he is referring to when he says they're just passing and not really gay. I'm sure even he doesn't believe that but if he could revoke their gay membership card for voting Republican he would.


iSm, would a statement that "Republicans are the party of racists, homophobes, and accounting frauds" have prodded the same warning out of you?

iSm can answer for himself, but I felt he outlined fairly clearly that it was the statement "Democrats- the party of the dead, the felons and the illegals." that was nearing the line, in which case yes, your example would also approach the same line.

I wonder if I were to wander into a thread at some message board like this but run by mostly conservatives if I would receive only a very mild cautionary warning? I know too many Republicans to apply such a blanket statement to them, but the body of Republican lawmakers and politicians might not get the same consideration.

No, but only for the same reason that, were your Iraqi/Iranian comparison not a joke, it also would have slid by. And that's because - to my knowledge, there are barely more republicans than middle-easterners posting here.

My guideline is not to be unoffensive to everyone on the planet, but to be unoffensive to the people who post on the LoT. Hence my reference to Disney-geek bashing being bad.


(Actually, mindful of the proportion that 3 or 4 republicans represent on a board of roughly 55 active members, I would likely have posted a caution about a republican-smearing as well).

Except that he laid out that it was a problem since there are a large number of democrats here. Not so true with the Republicans.

Other than having been elected by the people who agree with them, how would you go about making a blanket statement about the beliefs and traits of all elected Republicans that wouldn't also necessarily apply to the non-elected Republicans that support them?

Does "every elected Democrat is a dingleberry who believes in magical fairies" really exclude Democrats in general?

I happen to really like most of the conservatives here, and I don't hold their party affiliation against them in the slightest. I would have gotten cranky either way. It depends on the context around the statement as well- joking is one thing, but flame-baiting is another. If I were to go into a predominantly conservative area and start spouting off negatives, I would deserve what I got. Of course, the only reason I would even do so would be if I were looking to start a fight.

Yeah. That's why I do it. It is through the fights that, if you listen, you learn things. Which is why I end up expressing the "conservative" results of my libertarianism here.

Just wondering what sensibilities Steve felt warranted protection. We could say an awful lot of mean things about black people here (if what I know of the makeup of the board extends to those I haven't met).

Really, what is the fun of iSm and I both saying that drugs should be legal?

Reminds me of a quote I've heard attributed to Mark Twain. "I don't hate all Frenchmen...just the ones I've met."

Well, it's a good thing I haven't actually met any of you democrats.:)

Damn it, you anti-mojo person, you! (Alex)

Okay, in lieu of mojo, I'll post instead. It's true that you can learn a lot having a spirited debate, or fight if you will, but only if the other person brings something to the table that's substantitive. I don't need to learn that the other poster is a jerk- I've got enough of those irl to deal with, tyvm. You may play devil's advocate, but you back up your statements and that makes it informative, which in turn makes it interesting.

Yes, it does. As I said, politicians are fair game. But to equate civilian democrats or republicans with the politicians who are Democrats or Republicans would itself be an insult that I would issue a caution about.







It's not a matter of beliefs, but rather a matter of ethics. I don't think I'm the only one who makes certain assumptions about politicians' ethics that I do not make about ordinary citizens belonging to a political party. Besides, I don't for a minute think any given politician really believes either the liberal or conservative dogma of their stereotypical constituants.

I can't fathom the distinction you're trying to make but ok.

Can we make fun of black people now?

Have a field day.

Crap. Called my bluff. The only racist joke I know involves nacho cheese and I think everybody else knows it as well.

Be sure to back it up with facts, though- otherwise people might think you are just looking for a fight.

Alex, I can't help but think of the 'I'd like to buy an arguement' skit that Monty Python did whenever you post. :D

Since Monty Python is the ultimate in lame, I'm unfamiliar with that skit.

Oh, I'd have Lisa post it verbatim, but she's in Boston.

In her absence (which of course takes some of the enjoyment out of this), let me enlamen Alex:

Title: Argument Sketch
From: Monty Python's Flying Circus
Transcribed By: unknown


A man walks into an office.

Man: Good morning, I'd like to have an argument, please.
Receptionist: Certainly, sir. Have you been here before?
Man: No, this is my first time.
Receptionist: I see, well we'll see who's free at the moment.
Mr. Bakely's free, but he's a little bit concilliatory. No.
Try Mr. Barnhart, room 12.
Man: Thank you.

He enters room 12.

Angry man: WHADDAYOU WANT?
Man: Well, Well, I was told outside that...
Angry man: DON'T GIVE ME THAT, YOU SNOTTY-FACED EVIL PAN OF DROPPINGS!
Man: What?
A: SHUT YOUR FESTERING GOB, YOU TIT! YOUR TYPE MAKES ME PUKE! YOU VACUOUS
STUFFY-NOSED MALODOROUS PERVERT!!!
M: Yes, but I came here for an argument!!
A: OH! Oh! I'm sorry! This is abuse!
M: Oh! Oh I see!
A: Aha! No, you want room 12A, next door.
M: Oh...Sorry...
A: Not at all!
A: (under his breath) stupid git.

The man goes into room 12A. Another man is sitting behind a desk.

Man: Is this the right room for an argument?
Other Man:(pause) I've told you once.
Man: No you haven't!
Other Man: Yes I have.
M: When?
O: Just now.
M: No you didn't!
O: Yes I did!
M: You didn't!
O: I did!
M: You didn't!
O: I'm telling you, I did!
M: You didn't!
O: Oh I'm sorry, is this a five minute argument, or the full half hour?
M: Ah! (taking out his wallet and paying) Just the five minutes.
O: Just the five minutes. Thank you.
O: Anyway, I did.
M: You most certainly did not!
O: Now let's get one thing perfectly clear: I most definitely told you!
M: Oh no you didn't!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh no you didn't!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh no you didn't!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh no you didn't!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh no you didn't!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh no you didn't!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: No you DIDN'T!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: No you DIDN'T!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: No you DIDN'T!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh look, this isn't an argument!

(pause)

O: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!

(pause)

M: It's just contradiction!
O: No it isn't!
M: It IS!
O: It is NOT!
M: You just contradicted me!
O: No I didn't!
M: You DID!
O: No no no!
M: You did just then!
O: Nonsense!
M: (exasperated) Oh, this is futile!!
(pause)
O: No it isn't!
M: Yes it is!
(pause)
M: I came here for a good argument!
O: AH, no you didn't, you came here for an argument!
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
O: Well! it CAN be!
M: No it can't!
M: An argument is a connected series of statement intended to establish a
proposition.
O: No it isn't!
M: Yes it is! 'tisn't just contradiction.
O: Look, if I *argue* with you, I must take up a contrary position!
M: Yes but it isn't just saying "no it isn't".
O: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
O: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
O: Yes it is!
M: No it ISN'T! Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just
the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
O: It is NOT!
M: It is!
O: Not at all!
M: It is!

The Arguer hits a bell on his desk and stops.

O: Thank you, that's it.
M: (stunned) What?
O: That's it. Good morning.
M: But I was just getting interested!
O: I'm sorry, the five minutes is up.
M: That was never five minutes!!
O: I'm afraid it was.
M: (leading on) No it wasn't.....
O: I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to argue any more.
M: WHAT??
O: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five
minutes.
M: But that was never five minutes just now!
Oh Come on!
Oh this is...
This is ridiculous!
O: I told you...
I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you PAY!
M: Oh all right. (takes out his wallet and pays again.) There you are.
O: Thank you.
M: (clears throat) Well...
O: Well WHAT?
M: That was never five minutes just now.
O: I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!
M: Well I just paid!
O: No you didn't!
M: I DID!!!
O: YOU didn't!
M: I DID!!!
O: YOU didn't!
M: I DID!!!
O: YOU didn't!
M: I DID!!!
O: YOU didn't!
M: I-dbct-fd-tq! I don't want to argue about it!
O: Well I'm very sorry but you didn't pay!
M: Ah hah! Well if I didn't pay, why are you arguing??? Ah HAAAAAAHHH!
Gotcha!
O: No you haven't!
M: Yes I have!
If you're arguing, I must have paid.
O: Not necessarily.
I *could* be arguing in my spare time.
M: I've had enough of this!
O: No you haven't.
(door slam)


<-- Return to Web Site

Oh, I have seen that.

(Looking about for Alex, who was here mere moments ago)

He's buggered off!*






*(Another Python reference)

Whoops, sorry- you came back whilst I was posting.....:blush:

Yay! And right now I'm an sitting in my copyright class, where we are discussing Gilliam v. American Broadcasting Cos. - on the topic of moral (har har) rights.

It's synergy!

I was just getting ready to ban Alex then he has to go and say something sensible.

DAMN.

The funny thing is, I was neither upset nor mad. And I know that better than anyone here, so rely on it.

Also- I made it clear in the line ISM called borderline fighting words that it did not apply to all dems- that removes the blanket from blanket statement.

Sac- credit for the wittiest remark regarding my comment on Delay. Bravo.

I had little time today, given more I will post links to the voter issues/immigration issues I referenced- but to assume I am trolling for a fight or flamebaiting for kicks is a negative assumption that is wrong-

Until later-g'night.

That is a very interesting article WB.

I was thinking...

We have the Million Man March...
We have these marches by Latinos...
We have the Million Mom March...

What would happen if a bunch of white men and women started marching? How soon would the screams of racisim and KKK start?

I can't say what would happen, but the screams of racism would come from the fact that you can't create a "club" when you are the dominant members of society. For instance, I could set up a White club table at a diversity event, and get accused of racism. It's not really racist, but more of the fact that it is the dominant society, so what purpose do white people have of banding together considering that it's mostly white people who control everything.

My views on illegal immigration match CNN's Lou Dobbs:
As my political science professor has said multiple times, "Politics makes strange bedfellows." In this case it applies to how so many elites on both the right and the left seem to be ignoring general American opinion on this issue. To boot, these people are trying to paint the vast majority of Americans who want the borders enforced as radical and unreasonable, which I find quite insulting. Our leaders who are making excuses for breaking the law are the radical and unreasonable ones, not those of us who want our laws enforced!

Probably not very long. But then a lot of people already called the Million Man March racist (one example) so the pumps are primed.

Source
New info this morning.

I do not believe that everyone participating in the million man march (or half-million man march, depending on the estimate you want to believe), but Farrakhan is a racist.

However, since it is obvious that he is a racist, going to a march specifically set up by him is problematic. David Duke could organizer a rally in opposition to illegal immigration, but I would not attend, because that would be support (indirect though it may be) for what David Duke has espoused (and still does, though he hasn't been in the news lately).

If Tom Tancredo of Colorado set up such a march, I would go (hypothetically). He is no racist, but is the most outspoken member of the US government ragarding illegal immigration. Would the march still be labelled as racist? Certainly.

I think those that march without considering the motives and viewpoints of the organizers may in fact be showing support for causes they don't really believe in.

Brother, you said a mouthful there. I couldn't agree more.

Wanna know something funny? Saudi Arabia and Iraq share a long border. To stem the flow of Iraqis coming to their country, Saudi Arabia is building....you guessed it....a border fence. High tech. Just like we could do if we wanted to.

One thing about our fence, though. Will we have to outsource its construction? :D

Heard a funny proposal about that.....the first 10,000 illegals who sign up as construction workers to build the fence get automatic citizenship.

In El Paso, TX there is a wall of sorts. It's kind of funny to see. Our side has a huge American (or was it a Texas one? I forget) flag and the Mexico side has a huge Mexican flag the exact same size as ours. I mean, these are enormous flags. I couldn't guess on the size but it's huuuge.
:D

Silly GC... Give the bid to Halliburton and then they'll subcontract it to 100s of other businesses.

Haven't you figured out how this works yet??? ;)

Not yet, but I'm getting there. In fact, did you hear that Cheney was involved with Halliburton in some way in the past?

You can (or at least could once up a time) see something similar with U.S. and Canada flags at the Blaine crossing into Canada (where you'd cross if you were driving from Seattle to Vancouver, B.C.).

When I see stuff like that, I think about how someone had to put up their gigantic flag first. Then the other responded not to be upstaged. I also think about how they must have had meetings on each side to decide how big the flag was going to be, how tall the pole should be, who was going to supply the rope to hoist it, who was going to pour the cement at the base etc. All done with a gigantic cost involved.
:D

I have to laugh at the thought of building a 2,000 mile long wall, in this day and age. Ya know, without slaves and general anachronism.

I'm all for border control, too. And for the sun rising in the damn West for a change.

It's a 2,000 mile-long border to an economically devasted portion of the hemisphere. Harder though it might seem than erecting a King Kong Wall, changes MUST be made to keep those people solvent in their home countries. Nothing else is going to work. You can't stop immigration with force.

Even if you were willing to kill everyone coming across the border, you'd need 846,000 men with rifles to man the Kong Wall 24/7. Pulease.

Tax dollars at work.

iSm said 'erect'.
:D

I agree. I don't really think building a wall would be all that difficult but it isn't going to solve the problem that creates the desire for the wall.

We need to make legal immigration more appealing than illegal immigration. And we need to encourage people to prefer staying where they are. Alternatively, we create a fund so that each mont every resident of Belize is given $2,000. Then all the Meixcans will illegally immigrate to Belize.

Still, a wall is better than nothing. Having nothing there is almost analogous to a welcome mat.

If you're climbing over a wall or somehow getting past it, at least it's a strong reminder that you aren't wanted on the other side of it. And it may serve to deter some people wanting to cross depending on how it is built.

I have to ask why building a wall is a general anachronism? Maybe if you are of the belief that we should all be interconnected; who cares about nations? We're all citizens of the world!

Pshah. I don't buy that for a minute.

We're not talking about an 8 foot cinderblock wall or a chain link fence here, though. We're talking high tech.

From what i've read, the fence would include an underground barrier of rods shoved down into the ground so that attmpts to tunnel under it would be virutally impossible. It would be a duel fence with 100 or so yards between them with motion and tunneling detectors. Should someone successfully surpass the first fence, the amount of time required to get over the second would allow border patrols to easily apprehend those in the zone.

I would think that if you're cramming yourself into the back of a sweltering panel van, or hiking 40 miles through desert terrain with minimal supplies, or crawling through a claustrophobic mud tunnel, and all with a decent chance of death that the awareness you're not supposed to be where you're going is pretty strong.

I don't think a wall is anachronistic, just pointless and excessive.

Meanwhile, this morning's big story on the local news is that some painters left their work early to join the rally earlier this week and were fired for being AWOL. Fired for leaving work mid-day without permission! Shocking! :rolleyes:

A few things to add.....

At the recent rally in Arizona that admittedly did draw around 100,000 people, one major push was the registration of new voters.

Only 121 registrations took place. I am wondering about the significance of this. Does this mean that the vast majority of the marchers were illegals? Does it mean that most of the marchers were already registered? Hmm.....

Also, the national boycott set for the first Monday in March has been cancelled. Politically a good move, as it would have backfired on their cause. I also figure, and I have no proof of this, that it had to do with the potential failure to get people not to go to work. They are here because they want money. In Arizona, about one year ago, there was an attempt at such an event and it failed mightily.

One other thing -

Let's talk about how illegals are treated in Mexico

Vincente Fox, you and your demands can go to hell.

First Monday in May you mean?

Umm...yeah. Oops. But in my defense, they may be planning something for 2007 already.:)

But May Day is the target every year. ;)

Rats, and I was looking foward to ditching work. Bah.

well- that's no surprise.