A less charitable person might say that a country which doesn't mind when this happens to others kind of deserves this.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The title of this thread is not even remotely true.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Or conversely, a less charitable person might say that a country which has stolen land from another ought to be applauded, not criticised, if they give it back freely. Especially if that person upholds such claims after 2000 years of occupation.
Would anyone like to summarise the video? Can't view them at work, and hate videos anyway. They take forever.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
they're closing off public access for now to a section of national park near the border because it's gotten dangerous there due to drug smuggling/human smuggling activities.
video is fox news outrage-mining it for all it is worth.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
Then we would have to ask what entitles a country or nation to a piece of land. I would love to set of rules on this that weren't generally arbitrary. Of course that is why things tend to come down to the fact that people simply own what they can control.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Lisa, why do you think it is acceptable to lie in order to promote your political agenda, but do not think it is acceptable for people to tell lies about Jews or Israel?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Fox: Then we would have to ask what entitles a country or nation to a piece of land. I would love to set of rules on this that weren't generally arbitrary. Of course that is why things tend to come down to the fact that people simply own what they can control.
Well, if Lisa likes the nation, they should have lots of land; and if she dislikes the nation, they are not entitled to any land. Simple!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Like seriously, the title of this thread represents yet more of an unerring commitment to bias and mistruth.
AMOUNT OF ARIZONA CEDED TO MEXICO BY OBAMA, IN ACRES: 0
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
More of the usual blatant distortions by liberals! Mere trickery with figures! Come now, tell the truth: What happens if you add more significant digits? Wouldn't we find that the real number was something closer to 0.4? Maybe 0.49? You can't fool us with your "rounding-off"!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
That was funny.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Black Fox: Then we would have to ask what entitles a country or nation to a piece of land. I would love to set of rules on this that weren't generally arbitrary. Of course that is why things tend to come down to the fact that people simply own what they can control.
Well, if Lisa likes the nation, they should have lots of land; and if she dislikes the nation, they are not entitled to any land. Simple!
I will admit that I laughed a lot when I read that.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Waaaaait .5 of an acre is my backyard swamp!!!! RABBLE RABBLE!! RABBLE RABBLE!! RABBLE RABBLE!! RABBLE RABBLE!!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Wait, this is what qualifies as the "news" portion of Fox News?
Am I totally off-base in thinking that Bush was never treated with such off-handed disrespect on any of the other stations during their News programs, by reporters? I mean, she sarcastically makes airqoutes and mocks the Obama's words.
I know it's been said a million times, but Fox is doing something quite dishonest representing some of their shows as they do. If it's a political show, if it's aimed at a particular viewpoint, it ought not to masquerade as the news. Be Jon Stewart or Bill O'Reilly and be "newsy," but don't actually try and "be" the news.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
We are giving our precious sand to Mexico!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
No!!!! NOOOOOO!!!!!!! :smashes glass: They invade Arizona, and we fall back, they attempt to assimilate into entire states without appropriate paperword, and we fall back. Not again. The line must be formed HERE! This far, no further! And *I* will make them APPLY, for what they've doing!
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
Am I totally off-base in thinking that Bush was never treated with such off-handed disrespect on any of the other stations during their News programs, by reporters? I mean, she sarcastically makes airqoutes and mocks the Obama's words.
I know it's been said a million times, but Fox is doing something quite dishonest representing some of their shows as they do. If it's a political show, if it's aimed at a particular viewpoint, it ought not to masquerade as the news. Be Jon Stewart or Bill O'Reilly and be "newsy," but don't actually try and "be" the news.
Yeah, you kind of are, but it's okay. It's hard to see the flaws in your own side, and easy to see them in others. This isn't meant as a jab at you, either. Just a general observation. I think everyone does it.
A quick example to illustrate "unbiased" reporters slamming Bush: Susan Roesgen, a CNN reporter, once made a giggly comment about how an anti-war protester wearing a Bush-as-Hitler mask was a presidential "lookalike."
Reporters everywhere have their own biases, and it absolutely shows. Fox News reporters are just the only ones who generally fall on the other side from you, and so it's more obvious to you.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
You broke your little state.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It's a start. Can we give back Texas, too?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
in general fox news is guilty of more observable disinformation and more consistent and purposeful skew than the other news stations, but that's because it is their purposeful intent. The business strategy is to use partisanship to increase saleability. It works.
No other station will give you Fox Nation, for instance.
fox also consistently ranks the lowest in terms of providing non-misleading news. Like, if you watch fox news, your accurate portrayal of objectively truthful news facts goes down.
But this has been talked to death soooo
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Reporters everywhere have their own biases, and it absolutely shows. Fox News reporters are just the only ones who generally fall on the other side from you, and so it's more obvious to you.
Again with the equivocation. I don't believe it's possible that they're all different and yet must be "equally different," or however it's put. Fox may be worse about this- it's an honest supposition. Since I don't live in the states, I don't have much perspective to draw on, but every clip I see, and I mean every clip, from Fox on politics is dripping with bias. I don't honestly remember that being the case on any network, including Fox, 6 years ago.
So, as to your assumption about me, I don't see how my "side" acts because I don't see a lot of American television. I *remember* how my "side" acted before, and I remember it being better. Clips I see from other news sources are not so jarringly overt- and trust me, I am a liberal but I know what I'm looking at. I do see some bias in all of them, just *more* with Fox.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: No other station will give you Fox Nation, for instance.
Woooowww. Have some fun and use the find feature in firefox, and click on "highlight all" and then type "Obama."
30 stories, no exaggeration, *all* negative.
Eta: You know this site is fairly disgusting. I got lured into reading an "article" titled: "Perez Hilton Could face 36 years in Prison for Child Porn"
Right, so, naturally you assume the FBI raided a bunker full of beta tapes depicting underage sex acts? No, he re-posted to a website a photo of a 17 year old girl with exposed genitals. Scummy- but child porn? The man hasn't been charged with a crime, and probably won't be. So Fox is ok with re-posting this libel to their site? What kind of message is that from the freedom police? What the hell kind of message is this whole site? It screams "my father hit me and I think I deserved it."
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Ha! It's just a clever ruse to draw more Mexicans into AZ so the state troopers can pull them over for driving brown.
We should see if we can get Vancouver from Canada. Maybe we can bump the whole country up a few miles.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: No!!!! NOOOOOO!!!!!!! :smashes glass: They invade Arizona, and we fall back, they attempt to assimilate into entire states without appropriate paperword, and we fall back. Not again. The line must be formed HERE! This far, no further! And *I* will make them APPLY, for what they've doing!
And Orincoro wins the thread.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: It's a start. Can we give back Texas, too?
Texas has oil. If we give it back, we'll just have to send a peacekeeping mission to Mexico next year.
Oh, that might let us figt the war on terror in their country, and will have the added benefit that they would then have to deport American illegals who move to Texico to work in the oil business.
Delicious!
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
What a bizarre thread. We should turn this into a thread of overly dramaticized, Fox-like headlines.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
We have been forced to invade Mexico in an attempt to curb rampant Christian Fundamentalism in their state of Texas. Jesus hates freedom!
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
TESHI HIJACKS YOUR THREAD: Should this out-of-control poster be banned from everything forever?
WE REPORT, YOU DECIDE.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Juxtapose: Some people say he's dangerous: too much, too fast, too far. Can he be trusted with your thread's future? We hear from both sides -- tonight. Posted by Misha McBride (Member # 6578) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: It's a start. Can we give back Texas, too?
Texas has oil. If we give it back, we'll just have to send a peacekeeping mission to Mexico next year.
Oh, that might let us figt the war on terror in their country, and will have the added benefit that they would then have to deport American illegals who move to Texico to work in the oil business.
Delicious!
BRB LOL'ing Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Juxtapose: Some people say he's dangerous: too much, too fast, too far. Can he be trusted with your thread's future? We hear from both sides -- tonight.
Is TomDavidson using Juxtapose's neutral reporting in an attempt to fear monger and sow dissent?
Tune in later to see how Tom might be subverting democracy.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I've been spending some time with the Founding Fathers. And they bought Lyrhawn . They bought Lyrhawn while the Nazis didn't because they knew that Lyrhawn has intrinsic value. Pray on it and then decide. To buy Lyrhawn.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
*sniff* I remember back in the 50s, when people were too decent to hijack threads on the Internet... It all comes down to the socialist agenda that's taking over the board and, I'll be honest, I'm afraid... Afraid for the board, afraid for my country...
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You know what I remember about the fifties? COMMUNISM. You see what Sterling is doing here don't you? Playing on your emotions with thoughts of longing for a simpler time...but what he really wants to do is open the door for the Communist menace to reenter our daily lives.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Is this thread Lyrhawn's Katrina?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
No, it's clearly Black Fox's Scooter Libby, or it might be Mucus's shooting a guy in the face.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: What a bizarre thread. We should turn this into a thread of overly dramaticized, Fox-like headlines.
In Soviet Russia, thread hijacks you
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
We're here on the scene with a 'news report' with someone who has been enlisted ahead of time to provide an entirely partisan 'report' of the scene. We're going straight to this guy right now for some outraged agitprop. He's on the phone. Hi! This is a family forum, so I'm just gonna ask you: what the heck is going on here?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Hi sam. I'm here on site in the thread, and let me tell you, what's going on here is completely terrible. What has the world come to when threads come to this. I know certain people are supposed to be in charge of it but it is so obvious that they are acting on an agenda and don't care. It's like we've all forgotten the Constitution. I swear the same sort of thing happened in Hitler's day.
Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
Has Sam even registered on this board? Where is the proof? Where are the documents?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
New Hatrack moderator announced amid flurry of accusations.
Are YOUR children and organs safe? Details ahead.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't know. Sam spent a lot of time on other boards when he was younger.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
News anti-tease: "Later, we'll explain that your kids might be chatting with strangers on the Internet, and that this has a small chance of turning out badly. You can fix this by paying more attention to what they are doing. Stay tuned for a less concise delivery of the same information!"
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
The controversy on Hatrack continues. Will the forum dissolve into a meaningless exchange of memes?
Also, stay tuned to find out whether YOU should be afraid of the dark.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Godric: Has Sam even registered on this board? Where is the proof? Where are the documents?
He has a "date of registration" in 2005, but what we're looking for is a "registration date," which is not in evidence anywhere.
Also I believe that Sam is a Muslim.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
In 6000+ posts Sam has failed to mention "Hatrack exceptionalism" even once. Why does he hate Hatrack?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Because he's a hater. Sam hates Hatrack, and Israel, and Freedom.
I'm putting him in my axis of terror.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
And come on. Really?
Samprimary
Sam Primary
When I think of Sam, I picture Uncle Sam i.e. America.
I think of Primary, I think of exceptional i.e. elitist i.e. Aryan Super Race i.e. Hitler.
So, clearly, Samprimary is a front for a not-so well hidden, socialist, elitist, fascist campaign to covert our great America into the Fourth Reich.
Come on. How can you not see it?
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
We've assembled a team of experts, some of whom have actually seen a working computer, to discuss whether Hatrack is a time-suck or, as some speculate, an actual rift in the space-time continuum. News you cannot afford to miss. Coming up after this commercial for inflated gold.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Boy, I obviously don't watch enough Fox News.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
At the risk of making this a Serious Thread™ again, has anybody actually bothered to check the facts on this "news" "story"? Apparently this strip of the wildlife refuge was closed four years ago, and violence is down since then (though it's still closed).
quote:Recently there were reports in the news stating that the Buenos Aries National Wildlife Refuge was closed. This information is not correct. In early 2006, a small section of land (about 3% of the refuge) along the border was closed to visitation. However, no new restrictions are in place and the majority of the refuge remains open. Today, we are seeing a decline in violent activity in the southern most area thanks to ongoing cooperation between the US Fish and Wildlife Service and US Customs and Border Protection. The Refuge will reopen the lands along the border at such time that it is determined to be safe for visitors.
Like I showed this to someone else who was riding the outrage train on Obama over this one and I swear there was an audible gear-grinding TCHUNK as his brain halted and went full astern from talking about how this makes obama terrible, to spontaneously deciding that it is okay that this happened, and here are several reasons why this is a reasonable move, as, you see, it happened under Bush.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
It's very strange to live somewhere where people just don't care about these sorts of things. Maybe it's just that I can't listen to conservative radio over here.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: Like I showed this to someone else who was riding the outrage train on Obama over this one and I swear there was an audible gear-grinding TCHUNK as his brain halted and went full astern from talking about how this makes obama terrible, to spontaneously deciding that it is okay that this happened, and here are several reasons why this is a reasonable move, as, you see, it happened under Bush.
I watched this happen. And it continued on Facebook. It was hilarious.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
What I'd really like to see here is for Lisa to come back and admit that this was BS.
When it comes to Obama, she's as bad as any troll about throwing crap and then walking away.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
To be fair, she was just quoting something out of the clip...which is WHY we're making fun of Fox News.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
A less charitable person might say that a country which doesn't mind when this happens to others kind of deserves this.
As far as I'm concerned, all you people without Native American blood are renting the land from me and my Native brothers and sisters. Pay up, or GTFO.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Armoth: Do you think she doesn't believe (or is joking) in either the title or the comment?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Even if she believes it, the fact that it is a Fox News quote takes it out of the trolling category. Also, the fact that everyone knows her probably does that too.
You can be mad at her for sensationalism though. Sensationalism is good for rallying people who are already convinced. Not so much for discussion. I hate the sensationalism too, but it doesn't make her a troll.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:To be fair, she was just quoting something out of the clip.
Fine, so she should come back and admit that Fox News was full of crap. Perhaps even apologize for the misinformation?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
::Shrug:: depends what your goal is.
If you're looking for vindication, and justice - then sure. Have her come back and admit that sensationalism is a bad way to converse with people who aren't like minded.
If you haven't noticed, Lisa is only sensational and rude when she feels she's in hostile territory. She's a smart woman, she is fully confident in her views, and she thinks that the best way to deal with hostility is to show you that she's tougher than you - no matter what you throw at her, she'll be more sarcastic, more smug and confident than you could ever be.
If you ignore all that, treat her kindly and speak to her ideas - she drops all that hostility.
So if you were a strategist, you'd likely NOT make her come back and apologize.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:If you ignore all that, treat her kindly and speak to her ideas - she drops all that hostility.
This is not true. If you avoid speaking to certain ideas she refuses to speak to in even tones, she drops hostility, but if you try to say things on certain topics, no matter how reasonably phrased, she often becomes insulting and abrasive.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Even if she believes it, the fact that it is a Fox News quote takes it out of the trolling category.
I'm not seeing this as an either/or. Why does the source being a Fox News quote take it out of the trolling category?
quote:Also, the fact that everyone knows her probably does that too.
I don't understand this. What is "that" here?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I am with fugu on this one. I don't mind Lisa most of the time, but that is because I don't even consider what she says about certain topics any more.
I gave up bashing my head against brick walls for Lent a few years back. Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Mucus - "that" = take her out of the trolling category.
The fact that it is a quote means she didn't MAKE UP sensational and false material to lure us into a thread. The fact that it was on Fox News, and that she provided the clip, shows that she was using a major news outlet, albeit, sensationally, to make a certain point.
fugu - I don't know how to respond. I don't think that's true, especially if Lisa can tell you are being sincere. She's not insane - she has a rationale to her feelings.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: I am with fugu on this one. I don't mind Lisa most of the time, but that is because I don't even consider what she says about certain topics any more.
I gave up bashing my head against brick walls for Lent a few years back.
If at first you don't succeed, and you've tried multiple times, maybe it's time to try something new.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Who said she was insane? I only said she reacts rudely. Sane people do that all the time.
Short list of topics she frequently erupts on even when discussion is civil:
Evidence for evolution. That palestinians might have a right to stay in homes in areas she feels Israel should control. That some rights might take precedence over the right to private property.
edit: and most people have given up trying to discuss those with her, following your advice about stopping from bashing their heads against a wall.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
fugu - my point, about her insanity, was this:
I don't understand, how on a forum about Orson Scott Card, author of Ender's Game, Speaker for the Dead, Xenocide, and Children of the Mind, people could be so not willing to be smart when talking to their opponent in a discussion.
::shrug:: Lisa reminds me of Novinha a little. I mean, Novinha and her family - there is a way to talk to people who are different than you, even if they come off abrasive.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yep, not to talk about things that get them riled up. Notice how no one could talk to Novinha about certain topics without setting her off (until she mellowed later, of course). The right solution wasn't to talk to her differently, it was to not talk to her about certain issues. I generally follow that route.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Mucus - "that" = take her out of the trolling category.
The fact that it is a quote means she didn't MAKE UP sensational and false material to lure us into a thread. The fact that it was on Fox News, and that she provided the clip, shows that she was using a major news outlet, albeit, sensationally, to make a certain point.
I will point out beforehand that I didn't necessarily say she was in the trolling category. You seem to independently making the case that she isn't, which is fine and I'll roll with that. But just to make that clear.
There's nothing in there that conflicts with the basic definition of a troll. Especially in the context of Hatrack, its "subject trolls" are people we already know very well.
The fact that the quote is from FoxNews doesn't really affect it either since FoxNews makes a business of putting out inflammatory and exaggerated material, or as Samprimary puts it outrage-mining.
For example, there's no particular reason that I would refrain from saying Blayne is trolling if he decided one day to post inflammatory articles from Pravda to get a rise out of people.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Okay. I'm glad you have a classification system worked out.
What I'm trying to do is point out that discussions should have specific aims. I'm not sure what your aim is when you classify someone as a troll, other than to give up on developing meaningful conversation with them.
I'm trying to say meaningful conversation with Lisa is still possible.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Again, while I personally have a classification scheme, I don't often use the word "troll." That was something you picked up from Xavier in this conversation.
My initial question was simply about your statement that says that it means something of import that the quote was from FoxNews. I'm just questioning why that should make any difference at all (unless it's a joke).
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Pravda nowadays has quite a bit of villain decay about it focusing on the paranormal and other tabloidy crap.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
To me, it's less sensational that she was quoting from a mainstream new source than providing her own spin on a new source. I thought that counted for something.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I will say that my initial post was based on a perception of Lisa's posting history on this subject that does not appear to have been accurate upon review. I confused a couple other threads with ridiculous Obama claims as having come from her.
I'd still love to have someone actually come back and admit they were wrong in one of these threads, but I was mistaken in thinking Lisa was a repeat offender in this regard.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Cool.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I simply refuse to take anything Lisa posts seriously. If you treat it all as a horrible, sometimes tasteless black comedy, you don't have to agree or disagree. You don't have to try to find truth value in propaganda. You can decide if you find it interesting or not as an art piece, and you don't have to confront what would be, if you treated the posts seriously, the amorality of her often sociopathic attacks.
That's the only way I can participate and remain within the TOS.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: To me, it's less sensational that she was quoting from a mainstream new source than providing her own spin on a new source. I thought that counted for something.
Reflexive objection to FoxNews as mainstream, but since you're posting from the US I guess thats reasonable.
Yes, I suppose it counts for something that she posted something misleading from FoxNews rather than something misleading from, say, bizarro Israeli youtube. But it doesn't mean much when it comes to the discussion of troll. I bet I could troll *hard* using purely quotes from FoxNews.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I simply refuse to take anything Lisa posts seriously. If you treat it all as a horrible, sometimes tasteless black comedy, you don't have to agree or disagree. You don't have to try to find truth value in propaganda. You can decide if you find it interesting or not as an art piece, and you don't have to confront what would be, if you treated the posts seriously, the amorality of her often sociopathic attacks.
That's the only way I can participate and remain within the TOS.
That's pretty sensational of you to say.
I don't buy it. I think that you can find the value in coming to see the other side, even if it takes more effort on your part than the other person puts in, and even if you're on solid moral ground and they are amoral. Besides, you might even be wrong to judge her, not having truly walked in her shoes.
That's why we like bad guys in movies whom you can identify with. They aren't evil and crazy - they went through some stuff, that you can imagine that if you went through, you might end up where they are now.
Mutual understand is the first step to conflict resolution.
What's interesting about most social communities is that we surround ourselves with people we agree with, we spout our ideas, rail against the morons, the atheists who are selfish, the theists who are delusional, the democrats who are naive, the bible-toting republicans, the land grabbing Israelis, the terrorist Palestinians, that we condemn ourselves to perpetual conflict.
Fox News is a social community that is sensationalist and gathers only like-minded individuals under its banner to fortify themselves in conflict.
Hatrack is an open forum where there are many individuals of different minds and different backgrounds. Instead of using this forum as a rally point to find people who are like-minded, why not try, in a safe environment, online, free of any real risk, to engage in mutual understanding and conflict resolution?
We're online often enough that we'd better get along.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:That's why we like bad guys in movies whom you can identify with. They aren't evil and crazy - they went through some stuff, that you can imagine that if you went through, you might end up where they are now.
So what you're saying is that Lisa really needs a Start of Darkness sequence to make other Hatrackers sympathise with her?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:That's why we like bad guys in movies whom you can identify with. They aren't evil and crazy - they went through some stuff, that you can imagine that if you went through, you might end up where they are now.
So what you're saying is that Lisa really needs a Start of Darkness sequence to make other Hatrackers sympathise with her?
Wouldn't you read/watch it?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I've had my share of fights with Lisa, though it's been quite awhile since we've really gotten into it. I think the reason why is that we've both chosen not to engage as heavily as we used to.
Here's the problem with what you're saying Armoth: The underlying basis of your philosophy there is mutual understanding respect, yes? I get along just fine with Lisa in a lot of different threads on a lot of different topics, but there are two or three hot-button issues that mutual understanding and respect are impossible to achieve with her. Israel is one of them, though her and I have come to recent bouts of agreement on that too, which while somewhat spooky, is also something of a relief after years of fighting. Obama is another. Often she'll engage you in point for point discussions, but just as often, she'll simply respond by calling you disgusting, or sick, or denouncing you in emphatic terms for even considering the opposing view point. You can't reach understanding, let alone respect, with her tendency to try and take you out at the knees with character attacks.
I think that's where MightyCow is coming from. I don't apply it to everything she says, but on the topics that really get her riled up, laughing her off is preferable to taking her seriously, because taking her seriously takes the conversation to dark places often times that are seldom, if ever, productive. And productivity should be the goal of any enlightened discussion.
I've stated here many times before my belief in confronting and understanding opposing points of view. I like debating. I like testing my own ideas against opposing views. Sometimes I even like to be proven wrong. I change my mind about things, maybe not frequently, but not often enough to where I know that I always leave room in an argument for strong evidence and a well-reasoned argument from the other side to change my mind. But this isn't about any of those things.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:To me, it's less sensational that she was quoting from a mainstream new source than providing her own spin on a new source. I thought that counted for something.
Did anyone in the interview or the interview headline actually say
quote:Obama Gives Back Major Strip of AZ to Mexico
I don't remember them saying that specifically. Wouldn't that count as her putting her own spin on a news source?
Posted by Totally Anonymous (Member # 2346) on :
Current page Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Armoth: Lisa once told me that she hoped my loved ones would be the victims of a suicide bombing, so that I could watch them die slowly from shrapnel coated with rat poison.
I will never reach a mutual understanding with someone who could say that. The only way I can deal with that is to pretend that she's just a literary character pretending to be pure evil.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:That's why we like bad guys in movies whom you can identify with. They aren't evil and crazy - they went through some stuff, that you can imagine that if you went through, you might end up where they are now.
So what you're saying is that Lisa really needs a Start of Darkness sequence to make other Hatrackers sympathise with her?
Wouldn't you read/watch it?
Maybe so, but only in order to make the eventual comeuppance and utter defeat all the sweeter. Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
::Frustrated sigh::
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Armoth, I think there might be a fundamental disconnect from how you view Lisa, and how most of the rest of us view her.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Lyrhawn: I'm not so sure, I tend to gravitate towards many of the things he is saying about Lisa.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Which ones?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I agree with her as well on broadly defined issues but tend to hold my own disagreements private over specific details.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
The thread title is inaccurate. Obama insists immigration law is a federal issue while attacking Arizona for it's laws. The title of this thread should be, "Obama gives Arizona to Mexico".
The federal government attacks a state for infringing on enforcement of federal law....the feds don't enforce. Kinda like the Coast Guard turning away oil collecting barges sent out by Louisiana. How dare Jindal give up waiting for federal approval or action. How dare Louisiana do something about oil spilling onto it's shores,....that's a federal responsibility.
When the feds ignore their responsibilities, they attack the states for picking up the slack. I'm surprised the border patrol isn't interfering with Arizona State Patrol for stepping on federal turf. Unmowed turf.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
mal: Do you really think Obama via the coast guard told the tankers to cease and desist for 24 hours before permitting the tankers to go back?
And the issue was safety for those on the tankers, you know, the sorts of workers who were on the oil rig when it blew up because safety was neglected.
I'm just as frustrated as you are about the border situation in Arizona, California, New Mexico, etc. I wager we have very different views on what should be done regarding those who are already here and want to come here. But we've already got a thread about the oil spill, could we perhaps try to maintain the semblance of organization by trying to keep like news stories with their most appropriate thread? TIA.
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
I don't fall in line with Fox News's coverage of Obama. I think blaming the president for every negative thing that happens, questioning all his motives, and fabricating scandals out of thin air is a waste of precious time and emotion.
When this happened during Bush's presidency, with as much vigor, it was just as infuriating.
Can't wait for this country to mature enough to realize that the president is not omnipotent, not our daddy, and not responsible for micro-managing the entire country/world.
Getting back on track, as for the Arizona immigration problems, I feel like this issue is a bit like the Gulf oil spill. Plug the leak first, then deal with the problem of illegal immigrants.
In my opinion, give them amnesty, provided they don't have a criminal record. Would love for the drug-traffickers and gang members to be sent back into Mexico for good. (Hence, why this leak needs to be fixed.) Would also be happy for those hard workers getting paid under the table to become full-fledged citizens with decent pay wages.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: I am with fugu on this one. I don't mind Lisa most of the time, but that is because I don't even consider what she says about certain topics any more.
I gave up bashing my head against brick walls for Lent a few years back.
If at first you don't succeed, and you've tried multiple times, maybe it's time to try something new.
Yep...like filtering out opinions from people who aren't rational when discussing specific topics.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The thread title is inaccurate. Obama insists immigration law is a federal issue while attacking Arizona for it's laws. The title of this thread should be, "Obama gives Arizona to Mexico".
Now THAT made me laugh. Thank God for comic relief! Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: ::Frustrated sigh::
Frustration at Lisa's antics, or at your inability to defend them to some extent? She really does do these things.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Lisa has always frustrated me. But I guess I'm frustrated at the community's willingness to try something new. Or maybe frustrated because at a certain point, I don't expect the community to try something new.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
As I've said, been there, done that. You're not asking for something new, but something old, that was tried and discarded.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Lisa has always frustrated me. But I guess I'm frustrated at the community's willingness to try something new.
I've been around. This community, in its various iterations, has been infinitely more willing to engage. I'm not kidding. Lisa had it better here than she would have in most places, and many, many, many parts of the community have extended respectful argument towards her, and tried plenty of these new things. This is not 'something new' you're asking the community to try. You're essentially sad people had the sense to give up on avenues of discussion which are completely and perpetually unfruitful and only evoke unnecessary hostility, arrogance, and dishonest dialogue from Lisa.
idk. take it from fugu. he's watched and participated in the process far longer and saner than I have.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I hear you guys.
::shrug::
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: mal: Do you really think Obama via the coast guard told the tankers to cease and desist for 24 hours before permitting the tankers to go back?
And the issue was safety for those on the tankers, you know, the sorts of workers who were on the oil rig when it blew up because safety was neglected.
I'm just as frustrated as you are about the border situation in Arizona, California, New Mexico, etc. I wager we have very different views on what should be done regarding those who are already here and want to come here. But we've already got a thread about the oil spill, could we perhaps try to maintain the semblance of organization by trying to keep like news stories with their most appropriate thread? TIA.
I do remember reading that several local sources were not being allowed to report/take pictures/ go near any remotely effected area. They had mentioned that the coast guard seemed to be working for BP. In fact i think that the article in the oil slick thread mentions this several times.
Either way it is well documented that Arizona has petitioned the Fed to help with the border situation and that the immigration laws are what they consider their last available move.
I think in both cases the lack of Federal response is what leads to these sort of problems.
Also
quote:As far as I'm concerned, all you people without Native American blood are renting the land from me and my Native brothers and sisters. Pay up, or GTFO.
Technically there is no people that is "native" to the Americas. Everyone is an immigrant, some just immigrated before others.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: As I've said, been there, done that. You're not asking for something new, but something old, that was tried and discarded.
This thread is as I recall an example of the older way of engaging with Lisa.
Also a good source of flashbacks... anyone remember Pelegius?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ecthalion:
quote:As far as I'm concerned, all you people without Native American blood are renting the land from me and my Native brothers and sisters. Pay up, or GTFO.
Technically there is no people that is "native" to the Americas. Everyone is an immigrant, some just immigrated before others.
Love this canard. By that standard humans are not native to Eurasia or Australia either. So "technically" whatever that means, doesn't amount to very much. The point is not compelling in the least- I'm always embarrassed for the people who try and make it.
It's frustrating, really, that with just a little bit of knowledge you can construct for yourself, for the sake of whatever facile argument, a grand equivocation of the meaning of "native" cultures and "immigrant" ones.
A, number one, the native Americans did not "immigrate." They "migrated." In order to immigrate, you must have a country to go to. America was not a country 10,000 plus years ago, it was a land uninhabited by human beings (or not densely populated, the theories are numerous). Europeans also did not immigrate to America, for the same reasons, though what they did is not usually seen as "migration."
Two, the generations of people who descend from immigrants are not themselves immigrants. That would require them to seek new homes, not to stay in the ones they already have.
But all that technical stuff aside, which you nevertheless managed to get all wrong in your little canard, the nature of a native culture that has inhabited a land for millenia, and one that colonizes that land, or immigrates to that land after it has already been settled, is *not* the same. It is not necessary to make of them a false binary, and I think it is not necessary, at this juncture, to make a value judgment about them. But you do not honor them or improve your understanding of them by convincing yourself that they are all the same. Cultures are different. They develop differently. I don't believe what you've been taught is PC nonsense, I just think it's nonsense, which is an unfortunate side effect of PC culture. "We are all equal" does not mean "we are all the same," just as "there is no race," does not mean "we are all the same."
[ June 21, 2010, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The Silurions are the original inhabitants!
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote:Getting back on track, as for the Arizona immigration problems, I feel like this issue is a bit like the Gulf oil spill. Plug the leak first, then deal with the problem of illegal immigrants.
In my opinion, give them amnesty, provided they don't have a criminal record.
If you want to "plug the leak," giving illegal immigrants amnesty is not the way to do it. It will simply motivate more people to immigrate illegally, hoping they too could receive amnesty. Unless you mean only give amnesty to those who came before a certain date...? But that would be very difficult and costly to enforce. All in all, amnesty is counter-productive and pretty much the opposite of what we should be doing, if reducing illegal immigration is the goal.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Counter productive only towards the goal of reducing illegal immigration, perhaps. Not if we have other goals, as well.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Ålso a gõõd sourcê of fläshbacks... anyone rêmêmber Pelegius?
Fixed that for you
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote:[Amensty would be] Counter productive only towards the goal of reducing illegal immigration, perhaps. Not if we have other goals, as well.
It's counter-productive if reducing illegal immigration is the main goal, or even one of the major goals. Giving amnesty would be such a huge blow to the goal of reducing illegal immigration that it can be said to be directly facilitative of the opposite goal of increasing illegal immigration:
There are some illuminating statistics here, among which
•A clear majority of people in Mexico, 56 percent, thought giving legal status to illegal immigrants in the United States would make it more likely that people they know would go to the United States illegally. Just 17 percent thought it would make Mexicans less likely to go illegally. The rest were unsure or thought it would make no difference. •Of Mexicans with a member of their immediate household in the United States, 65 percent said a legalization program would make people they know more likely to go to America illegally. •Interest in going to the United States remains strong even in the current recession, with 36 percent of Mexicans (39 million people) saying they would move to the United States if they could. At present, 12 to 13 million Mexico-born people live in the United States.
these stand out to me most as relevant to the present discussion.
I can't see how amnesty would be productive unless reducing illegal immigration wasn't one of the major goals at all. That is, if you had another goal that was significantly more important to you than reducing illegal immigration, such that you wouldn't mind sacrificing the reduction of illegal immigration entirely for the sake of this other goal, and that you think there aren't less destructive methods to achieve it besides amnesty. In that case, I would like to know what this other goal is.
In any case, though, I was replying to Lyrhawn, who stated that we should "plug the leak first, then deal with the problem [through amnesty]." In other words, "stop ongoing illegal immigration, then give amnesty to the illegal immigrants we already have." This specific set of actions is not possible, because dealing with the problem through amnesty would have the effect of removing the plug from the leak.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"I can't see how amnesty would be productive unless reducing illegal immigration wasn't one of the major goals at all."
A more important goal to me than anything else is "doing right," by as many people as possible. Which means that, from where I'm coming from, whatever else we do about illegal immigration, a pathway amnesty is going to have to be a piece of the package. If we don't, we're saying "Yeah, we're pretty shitty people."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I would like a more or less realistic and non-neglectful approach to Mexico that incorporates both the complex issues of realistically impossible-to-completely-seal borders and the compounding issues of Mexico being unable to govern many of its provinces.
Like seriously we need an immigration policy designed to incorporate the reality that we can't stop the immigration, we can't close the borders, and due to the compounding issues with drug warfare, Mexico is more like a failed, lawless state than it has ever been.
What makes this issue especially funny in relation to American political spectrums is that one of the only really effective methods for controlling the border means effectively militarizing the border and utilizing a lot of eminent domain, but the Minutemen types who are the most rah-rah over Them Illegals are also extremely correlated with being fanatically averse to eminent domain. soooooo
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote:A more important goal to me than anything else is "doing right," by as many people as possible. Which means that, from where I'm coming from, whatever else we do about illegal immigration, a pathway amnesty is going to have to be a piece of the package. If we don't, we're saying "Yeah, we're pretty shitty people."
This is an interesting but vague statement. What do you mean by "doing right" by illegal immigrants, and why do you think amnesty is strictly necessary for this?
Also, isn't it possible that a path to amnesty, if it led to the illegal immigration problem escalating significantly and becoming uncontrollable, would be "doing wrong" by current American citizens? You don't need to address this though--it's simply speculation on my part, and rather meaningless until you give a definition of what you mean by doing right.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
quote:
quote:Technically there is no people that is "native" to the Americas. Everyone is an immigrant, some just immigrated before others.
Love this canard. By that standard humans are not native to Eurasia or Australia either.
a canard is something that is untrue, what i said was not untrue, it is well documented that there is no naturally evolved human species in the Americas. i also made no claims about Australia or Eurasia.
quote:So "technically" whatever that means, doesn't amount to very much. The point is not compelling in the least- I'm always embarrassed for the people who try and make it.
you're right it isn't technically a point, its a factual point.
quote:It's frustrating, really, that with just a little bit of knowledge you can construct for yourself, for the sake of whatever facile argument, a grand equivocation of the meaning of "native" cultures and "immigrant" ones.
Please show me this equivocation, or for that matter the facile arguement. As is i don't believe i'm making any arguement as far as i can see i just made a remark that was in jest to another remark that was in jest.
quote:A, number one, the native Americans did not "immigrate." They "migrated." In order to immigrate, you must have a country to go to. America was not a country 10,000 plus years ago, it was a land uninhabited by human beings (or not densely populated, the theories are numerous). Europeans also did not immigrate to America, for the same reasons, though what they did is not usually seen as "migration."
Spare me useless semantics. Migration and Imigration mean the same thing, the establishment of a country is irrelevant. I'm not sure that just saying that if one group can "migrate" to a region and then several hundred years later another, different group can migrate for what you admit are the same reasons makes the second group less migrant than the others.
quote:Two, the generations of people who descend from immigrants are not themselves immigrants. That would require them to seek new homes, not to stay in the ones they already have.
Indeed, the next generations of any migrant people are become by definition natives. But you seem to not want to accept such a wide definition referring simply to those who arrived first as teh only natives. No human belongs to the region of the US. I am not making any claims about who got here first. I am also not making any moral claims about whetehr or not the newcomers had any rights to the original people's lands.
quote:But all that technical stuff aside, which you nevertheless managed to get all wrong in your little canard, the nature of a native culture that has inhabited a land for millenia, and one that colonizes that land, or immigrates to that land after it has already been settled, is *not* the same.
There was nothing wrong nor inaccurate with what i said unless you want to maintain that the difference between moving to a country is significantly different from moving to a georaphical reagion. Even if this were so, using a synonym of a word that has almost the same meaning does not make what i said false or wrong.
Arguements over what constitutes a native is valid when a new ethnic group is introduced into an area. It is moot after a few generations though seeing as those offspring become native as they are born in that region. It is even less effective after hundreds of years of mixing and expansion.
quote:It is not necessary to make of them a false binary, and I think it is not necessary, at this juncture, to make a value judgment about them. But you do not honor them or improve your understanding of them by convincing yourself that they are all the same.
At this point i am assuming you are now talking about native cultures rather than native people. You can certainly make an arguement that a culture can be more native than a people because the culture's history doesnt change as the people do. I don't see where you get that i am equivocating multiple cultures though, as i have said nothing of the sort.
quote:Cultures are different. They develop differently. I don't believe what you've been taught is PC nonsense, I just think it's nonsense, which is an unfortunate side effect of PC culture. "We are all equal" does not mean "we are all the same," just as "there is no race," does not mean "we are all the same."
I don't see where i've suggested that cultures are the same or where people are the same. I dont see where what i have said is politically correct. It is actually quite the opposite. What i have said is also not "nonsense" it is a well defended historical and archeological fact that no people are native to this country in their origin.
Now all that being said: My comment was not ment to cause harm or to offend. It was a humorous remark on your comment about "people without native blood paying you rent or leaving"
i made the assumption your comment was a joke. If this is not the case then you might want to review your statement because not only would the vast majority of people in America have "Native American" blood in them, but they would be "native" via having thier family live here for several hundred years.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
A less charitable person might say that a country which doesn't mind when this happens to others kind of deserves this.
As far as I'm concerned, all you people without Native American blood are renting the land from me and my Native brothers and sisters. Pay up, or GTFO.
like ecthalion, i too felt this was said in jest but ive heard it before and its never been said in a joking manner. i find such a statement almost amusing.
i have no "native" blood in me that i know of so, assuming id gladly "GTFO", where do you suggest i go? scandinavia, england, ireland or france? im sure any one of these countries would welcome with open arms the prodigal children that jumped the pond centuries ago and are now returning dirt poor and without education. do you think there is still that vacant plot of land my ancestors left all those years ago?
the debate isnt about immigration from europe, over a century ago, to an america with open borders. its about illegal immigration from and by way of mexico. in a modern world such as this, such actions constitute trespassing and fraud. clearly the mexican people dont want "their" land back as it was when they were driven from it more than a hundred years ago. they want the opportunities of a thriving economy and, at the least, basic human rights as we, meaning humans, have defined them.
the individuals who have crossed illegally and those who desire to enter by any means possible need an understanding and accepting america. some argue this can be achieved through immigration reform. but no american citizen should feel it necessary to sit at the table of reform discussion and compromise until the border is secure. if such security is impossible, the US government is truly inept.
at the political level, talk of amnesty destroys any hope of a bipartisan solution to the problem of illegal immigration. amnesty flies in the face of the entire system of justice which we have in the US. nowhere does amnesty fit within our definitions of rights, law or justice, three concepts which are essential to society and civilization as it is found in the US and other modern, developed nations. sadly, mexico is deeply lacking when it comes to ensuring any of the three.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:in a modern world such as this, such actions constitute trespassing and fraud.
Why must they?
quote:nowhere does amnesty fit within our definitions of rights, law or justice
Obviously you don't mean this literally. Why, metaphorically, do you think the concept of amnesty is incompatible with the Bill of Rights?
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:in a modern world such as this, such actions constitute trespassing and fraud.
1 a : deceit, trickery; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : trick
2 a : a person who is not what he or she pretends to be : impostor; also : one who defrauds : cheat b : one that is not what it seems or is represented to be.
1 a : err, sin b : to make an unwarranted or uninvited incursion 2 : to commit a trespass; especially : to enter unlawfully upon the land of another synonyms trespass, encroach, infringe, invade mean to make inroads upon the property, territory, or rights of another
"Trespassing is a legal term that can refer to a wide variety of offenses against a person or against property. Trespassing as it relates to real estate law means entering onto land without consent of the landowner. There are both criminal and civil TRESPASS laws. Criminal trespass law is enforced by police, sheriffs, or park rangers. Civil trespass requires that the landowner initiate a private enforcement action in court to collect any damages for which the trespasser may be responsible, regardless of whether a crime has been committed. Traditionally, for either type of trespass, some level of intent is required. Thus, the trespasser must not simply unwittingly traverse another's land but must knowingly go onto the property without permission. Knowledge may be inferred when the owner tells the trespasser not to go on the land, when the land is fenced, or when a "no trespassing" sign in posted. A trespasser would probably not be prosecuted if the land was open, the trespasser's conduct did not substantially interfere with the owner's use of the property, and the trespasser left immediately on request."
(enotes is, according my understanding, a wiki of sorts which always leaves its accuracy and reliability questionable to a degree. but i find that in this instance, it very accurately and in lay terms, defines this term in a way specific to legal matters. anyone with knowledge of more accurate definitions for fraud or trespassing or any other word in question is welcome to provide a link to it.)
the border between the united states and mexico is clearly delineated. its ridiculous to assume that hopping the fence, getting smuggled through border checkpoints stuffed in a vehicle or otherwise subverting the security measures in place to counter illegal entry is the standard and lawful process for entering the US. illegal immigrants knowingly violate the laws of the US when they cross the border. they rarely seek out 'papers' from men in back rooms while under the impression that they are going through the proper legal channels. illegals enter through "intentional deception made for personal gain" and this act, by it nature, results in direct and indirect damage to the individual citizens of the united states; its an affront to the rights of property and to benefit directly from the labors of another, without their consent is nothing less than fraud.
illegals dont leave when they are asked to. they repeatedly violate immigration laws until they have successfully subverted the security measures. under false pretenses, they gain entry into and remain within the country. the same or similar actions in another situation could be prosecuted as fraud and the offender labeled, even in stronger terms, an impostor.
if its required, i can further pick apart the definition of each word and show how, by their very definitions, the actions of an illegal immigrant constitute trespassing and fraud.
id like to know where, among the laws of the united states of america, and including anywhere within the bill of rights, do you find wording wherein someone is granted the right or ability to illegally enter into my home, eat the food and use the resources ive attained through honest labor for the benefit for me, my family and those with whom i desire to share, all the while breaking the laws ive established to govern my house as i see fit?
where, among the laws of this great land, and it is great, is someone granted the right or ability to illegally enter into the united states and profit from the established economic prosperity, educational institutions and health/medical establishments?
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:nowhere does amnesty fit within our definitions of rights, law or justice
Obviously you don't mean this literally. Why, metaphorically, do you think the concept of amnesty is incompatible with the Bill of Rights?
i dont believe ive spoken metaphorically or used any words or ideas figuratively. to intentionally misrepresent what ive said as such isnt very honest.
the idea of a criminal being pardoned of past infractions of and non-compliance to the laws established by the citizens of a country, while the offender was within that country, and without submitting to the established consequences and/or punishment or without making proper restitutions for his/her crime, is an affront to rights and justice the world over and the consequences of such a pardon are suffered by all free people. if one wants to live in a society with anything resembling rights and freedoms, one must accept law and consequence and integrate it into all forms of government and society. amnesty is an affront to the processes and institutions which the free world uses to ensure order, which is requisite to peace and prosperity. amnesty is a step in the other direction towards chaos. personally, I wont accept that.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote: id like to know where, among the laws of the united states of america, and including anywhere within the bill of rights, do you find wording wherein someone is granted the right or ability to illegally enter into my home, eat the food and use the resources ive attained through honest labor for the benefit for me, my family and those with whom i desire to share, all the while breaking the laws ive established to govern my house as i see fit?
Insufferable pride and naivete are apparently rights you *do* guard jealously.
quote: the idea of a criminal being pardoned of past infractions of and non-compliance to the laws established by the citizens of a country, while the offender was within that country, and without submitting to the established consequences and/or punishment or without making proper restitutions for his/her crime, is an affront to rights and justice the world over and the consequences of such a pardon are suffered by all free people.
As long as we're in the business of reductio ad absurdium completus (nominative case Latin geeks?), it is illegal for women to own property or conduct business in some countries today. The free practice of religion is illegal in some countries today. Free speech is illegal in some countries today. Should we have sent Alexandr Solzhenitsyn back to Russia because he had perpetrated crimes there, and not paid full restitution for those crimes? Was his freedom an affront to free people? And was not the American Revolution an act of Treason? Was that an affront to rights and justice?
For all your bombastic rhetoric, I don't think you've given due consideration to what justice and freedom mean. It's a typical neo-con viewpoint these days, unfortunately, that one's rights and freedom and destiny are threatened by the uneven application and enforcement of laws which have no effect on him at all. That punishment of all offenses is to the good, while the pardoning of any offense is to the ill. How sad and small that view is.
A word you forgot to google, from the OED:
quote: amnesty |ˈamnistē| noun ( pl. -ties) an official pardon for people who have been convicted of political offenses : an amnesty for political prisoners | the new law granted amnesty to those who illegally left the country.
verb ( -ties, -tied) [ trans. ] grant an official pardon to : the guerrillas would be amnestied and allowed to return to civilian life.
ORIGIN late 16th cent.: via Latin from Greek amnēstia ‘forgetfulness.’
That is, this Great Nation has the solemnity and the wisdom to forgive and to forget the offenses of those who have broken its laws, when it is seen that these are a class of people who have been unjustly marginalized.
Perhaps a few words you can look up next time: "clemency," "mercy," "humanity (adj)," "compassion."
Or to the contrary: "ruthlessness," "vindictiveness," "venom," "spite," "rancor," "envy," "covetousness."
Amnesty is an act of a government, and a people, that is enlightened enough to recognize the shortcomings of its system of laws, and dismiss a wrong that has been done. It is a blessed thing that we are able to do this. You don't really believe in America, in my estimation, if you find such an act intolerable.
[ June 22, 2010, 05:14 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: id like to know where, among the laws of the united states of america, and including anywhere within the bill of rights, do you find wording wherein someone is granted the right or ability to illegally enter into my home, eat the food and use the resources ive attained through honest labor for the benefit for me, my family and those with whom i desire to share, all the while breaking the laws ive established to govern my house as i see fit?
Why do you believe that illegal immigration is best compared to home invasion?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
"Hey, what're you doing in my house?! Hey! HEY! Put down that dusting rag! You stop vaccuuming that floor right now!"
Likening illegal immigration in this country to home invasion has always, always been a very stupid stance to take. That's a pretty aggressive, blunt way of putting it, but I just get so tired of hearing it. Illegal immigrants cannot be said to have come uninvited. The most that can be said is that they have been sent a very mixed message: don't get caught, and work a low-paying job, and while you're doing it stay off the radar and you can keep the job.
That's not home invasion. It's not home invasion if the 'invader' has been invited.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
The fear we face is not that undocumented workers will cross our border and do jobs for cash. The fear is that once enough of them cross our borders they will take over.
The fear is not that the drug dealers will sneak into our neighborhood and sell us drugs. The fear is that once they get here they will take over.
The solution to both is in our hands. Stop hiring the workers and they will cease to come looking for jobs. Stop taking the drugs and the dealers will find other neighborhoods. The enforcement that works is not aimed at those we call criminals. The enforcement that works is aimed at the American citizen who gives them money to become that criminal.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: ... The fear is that once enough of them cross our borders they will take over.
We don't have to immigrate, legally or illegally *just* to take over. But perhaps I've said too much already Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
capaxinfiniti's take on the issue, juxtaposed with his response to the native american angle, kind of indicates that there's a pretty appropriate solution for the mexicans: just keep doing what they're doing, supplant the population, and make it their land. Then they can say something like "the debate isn't about something that happened centuries ago."
quote:amnesty flies in the face of the entire system of justice which we have in the US. nowhere does amnesty fit within our definitions of rights, law or justice
um, ok. So you DO mean this literally? This is not metaphorical on your part?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Samp, I think it's at least internally consistent that capax views possession by superior force (cultural, economic, military, etc) as valid, and also fears immigration. Cultural supremacists live and die by the knife after all- if your culture is not supreme, that means someone else's *has* to be. The repackaging of white supremacy in recent years takes the same sort of shape with a finer edge: "we don't hate other races, we love our own greater race." That demands that you view yourself as great, and the power of others as an affront to your greatness.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
This is true, a true cultural supremacist should welcome immigration as a chance to interact with, influence, and ultimately assimilate other cultures.
Only an insecure cultural supremacist should fear immigration.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: This is true, a true cultural supremacist should welcome immigration as a chance to interact with, influence, and ultimately assimilate other cultures.
Only an insecure cultural supremacist should fear immigration.
Yeah, more or less. Count most of us as insecure of course, and with reason. We should fear totally uncontrolled massive immigration because it can be destructive, but what we're talking about here is not that. I would love for someone to give me an actual valid historical example of migrant worker immigration that actually *was* ultimately destructive.
There are have plenty of examples of slavery and peonage being highly regressive and destructive to societies, but those are the importation and or exploitation of labor by a society. I think largely the only similar dangers we face with mass migration are the aspects of that migration that we have made to resemble slavery and peonage. It's a great historical lesson that slavery, inasmuch as it creates wealth, destroys economies and cultures- when has honest labor ever done that?
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
Insufferable pride and naivete are apparently rights you *do* guard jealously.
perhaps. it is my opinion that we should strive to avoid even the slightest reduction of rights. the value you place on each individual right is arbitrary; you can do as you wish and according to your worldview. but when possible, i prefer to view rights as a composite and therefore all rights should be guarded jealously. you believe me to be proud and naïve; I believe otherwise. regardless, such behavior is well within my rights. what you have stated represents nothing more than your inability or lack of desire to express your disagreement. you havent shown how ive acted in a proud or naïve way and until you do so your accusation is baseless.
…The free practice of religion is illegal in some countries today. Free speech is illegal in some countries today… And was not the American Revolution an act of Treason? Was that an affront to rights and justice?
first, i live in america. im not accountable for the actions of people in other countries or their lack of rights. in addition, im not actively denying them rights while they reside in their own country. when possible, america should aid those less fortunate in securing their rights but, ironically, some of the efforts already undertaken to do so are condemned and the US is portrayed negatively as the villainous ‘police’ of the world. there are many perceived injustices in this world and i lack the means and desire to crusade about making the wrong, right and the crooked, straight. i prefer to be specific in direction and goal, resulting in my actions being more effective.
second, you’ve brought up an interesting example, mentioning the american revolution, as I don’t see how it pertains to the discussion in any way. that event, 300 years ago, isnt analogous to illegal immigration or amnesty for illegal immigrants. those who immigrated from europe and those who ultimate organized the colonies to revolution and founded a nation, i mention specifically the english, weren’t being granted basic rights as they pertain to government, justice under the laws of the land from which they came, nor the sovereignty which they felt they were due. those ‘native’ to what would later be labeled the north american continent had no visually established borders and the laws regarding entry, if they existed, werent known to those immigrating from europe.
do you believe it to be against rights and justice to demand rights and justice? do you think it treasonous to persue rights within ones own country? i say no on both accounts. in fact, in america, thought not totally guaranteed, it’s a legally protected right to demand rights.
you should take your case to the mexican government. in such a crusade, you analogy about the american revolution may be more appropriate.
For all your bombastic rhetoric, I don't think you've given due consideration to what justice and freedom mean. It's a typical neo-con viewpoint these days, unfortunately, that one's rights and freedom and destiny are threatened by the uneven application and enforcement of laws which have no effect on him at all. That punishment of all offenses is to the good, while the pardoning of any offense is to the ill. How sad and small that view is.
ive given adequate consideration to the meanings of justice and freedom but it was made clear to me after my earlier posts that we have a different view of justice; a difference which cant be reconciled by merriam-webester or the OED.
its absurd how youve reduced, defined and summarized my ‘view’ given the limited knowledge you have regarding me and views. perhaps you’ve mistakenly deem all that ive stated to be all that I believe; my view is small because you say its small.
my view, regarding the issue a hand, is that the non-application and enforcement of laws threatens ones rights and freedoms (i don’t believe in destiny but that’s a different discussion). the punishment of an offense is to strive towards an ideal, a nation of order where its citizens can have confidence that their rights will be acknowledge and upheld and that justice will not fall to irrational emotions and dreams. unfortunately, youre guilty of holding the absurd view that ones actions can have zero effect on others. but such a fallacy isnt a product of your morals or political ideology; its found among all humans. the wise don’t entertain such fantasies.
quote: amnesty |ˈamnistē| noun ( pl. -ties) an official pardon for people who have been convicted of political offenses : an amnesty for political prisoners | the new law granted amnesty to those who illegally left the country.
verb ( -ties, -tied) [ trans. ] grant an official pardon to : the guerrillas would be amnestied and allowed to return to civilian life.
ORIGIN late 16th cent.: via Latin from Greek amnēstia ‘forgetfulness.’
That is, this Great Nation has the solemnity and the wisdom to forgive and to forget the offenses of those who have broken its laws, when it is seen that these are a class of people who have been unjustly marginalized.
i agree. unjust marginalization is unjustified. but don’t fail to realize that even legal immigrants don’t have the same status as citizens within the country. living illegally in any country lends to marginalization because its a criminal act. in america we tend to not favor criminals. monitoring how and when an immigrant enters the country is essential to ensuring the immigrant isnt exploited or marginalized. if an immigrant came into the country legally, with the welcome sign above their head, and they still feel marginalized, thats a different issue and should be addressed accordingly.
your definition of amnesty is comprised within my definition of amnesty. youre either arguing semantics or youve intentionally misrepresented the definition to further your argument. its funny that you’ve used definitions from ‘your’ dictionary as opposed to the definitions which i provided, especially considering they are both from credible sources. were not referencing translations of the bible..
Perhaps a few words you can look up next time: "clemency," "mercy," "humanity (adj)," "compassion."
Or to the contrary: "ruthlessness," "vindictiveness," "venom," "spite," "rancor," "envy," "covetousness."
Amnesty is an act of a government, and a people, that is enlightened enough to recognize the shortcomings of its system of laws, and dismiss a wrong that has been done. It is a blessed thing that we are able to do this. You don't really believe in America, in my estimation, if you find such an act intolerable.
thanks for the homework but I know what those words mean. you’ve presented a very rich appeal to emotion in your arguments but your efforts wont distort the meaning of justice and order. nor have they convinced me that its not possible to have compassion for others and still strive for law and order. the america i believe in is one where a man is allowed to suffer the consequences of his own actions, whether they be desirable or undesirable.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Samp, I think it's at least internally consistent that capax views possession by superior force (cultural, economic, military, etc) as valid, and also fears immigration. Cultural supremacists live and die by the knife after all- if your culture is not supreme, that means someone else's *has* to be. The repackaging of white supremacy in recent years takes the same sort of shape with a finer edge: "we don't hate other races, we love our own greater race." That demands that you view yourself as great, and the power of others as an affront to your greatness.
are you insinuating that im a cultural supremacist? if so, what exactly do you believe my culture to be and how have i portrayed it as being superior?
and what you hold as great, even if shared by others, is subjective. to be great in your eyes isnt a highly desirous status in my opinion.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:first, i live in america. im not accountable for the actions of people in other countries or their lack of rights.
Well, this is a load of crap.
I can't stand that sort of attitude, especially when the 'over there, not my problem' attitude is stated so baldly and falsely. You cannot possibly be unaware that the United States has taken, is taking, very real and potent action as we speak in the world at large that has a direct, serious impact on the actions of other people in other countries, and their rights whether having or lacking.
You vote for the officials who make these decisions. You are absolutely accountable, at least to some extent. We all are. Burden of living in a democracy that is not completely isolationist.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
Accountable to such an extent that it is laughable. Perhaps if America had an election system based on plural representation instead of single member district plurality, sure. However, it is not.
That and immigration is an issue, like it or not, as if "anyone" can become a citizen then what is the point of being a citizen in the first place. I have to chuckle a little as I was reading the federalist papers and in letter 2 by John Jay he described the fortunate situation that America has since we all had a common religious and ethnic background. Not that I'm anti-immigration or anything, simply find it interesting how thought has changed from then ( most of it for the better if you ask me ).
That and if we are accountable for the actions of people in other countries or their lack of rights then what are we supposed to do to amend the situation. Now I have no moral qualms with taking action in other countries, and violating their sovereignty ( which is what taking any proactive measure really is). However, many people do and almost no one can agree on a single method for handling it all.
That and just to throw my two cents in on something that has irritated me for a long time. Due to the USA's odd position on citizenship I am a sort of quasi full citizen. I was born in the Netherlands and my father was stationed there with the military. So, I have a certificate of birth abroad, which is not the same as being a full born in the USA citizen. Trust me on this as everything that I have to fill out that has to pertain to my citizenship is different. However, anyone ( legally or illegally) born in the USA is a citizen. Now I am actually for that being law, however it irritates me that people born abroad to Americans have in some ways a second-class citizenship.
That and as I am marrying a German woman in July and I think that our immigration system is a total piece of junk and completely backwards. After our wedding I will probably have to wait half a year until she can join me in Minnesota. Complete rubbish if you ask me.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
"you’ve presented a very rich appeal to emotion in your arguments but your efforts wont distort the meaning of justice and order. nor have they convinced me that its not possible to have compassion for others and still strive for law and order."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
"Emotion will not alter my sense of justice and order!"
"I believe that I have access to my emotions and they are compatible with justice and order!"
You have your head so far up it you can't see how many times you've contradicted yourself. Many, in case you were wondering. And yes, it is pride and naivete that allow you to do this and not to notice yourself doing it.
Tell me, why did you edit out my mention of Alexandr Solzhenitsyn? Because you couldn't figure out how it was ok for a convicted criminal defector who had broken society's laws to be free in America? Because you don't know who he is? Believe it or not, the point was important to my argument, and you don't win by pretending it isn't there- actually that's how you get nowhere.
"you havent shown how ive acted in a proud or naïve way and until you do so your accusation is baseless."
Typical of you to this point. Legalistic when it suits you, cavalier when it does not. My characterization of you is not baseless. I do not have to prove it, because it is not a matter of fact. The basis for me calling you prideful and naive is in what you wrote- and you, being prideful and naive, are not required to see it that way in order to make it so.
"are you insinuating that im a cultural supremacist? if so, what exactly do you believe my culture to be and how have i portrayed it as being superior?"
Yes you are a cultural supremacist. It doesn't particularly matter what your culture is- you don't have to be where you see the top of the pile in order to believe in cultural supremacy. You just have to believe in the pile, and you do.
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
The title of this thread is not even sort of true. It's a flat out lie.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Accountable to such an extent that it is laughable. Perhaps if America had an election system based on plural representation instead of single member district plurality, sure. However, it is not.
When I said 'absolutely accountable' I meant that it is certain we as Americans have some accountability, not the first definition of the word, 'without exception; completely; wholly; entirely'.
Now, I confess my own bias in that claim, which is a bias that isn't surprising in an American, I think. After all, I think any serious person who looks at history and current events with an effort to be objective will realize, to say the least, that our government has done some bad things. If we as Americans were wholly accountable for those bad things, well, that would be a pretty heavy burden to bear, so in that sense it's not surprising I should mean absolutely as 'positively' not 'wholly and completely'.
Having clarified myself, Black Fox, do you still think the idea of individual voting-age American accountability for American government actions abroad is laughable? It seems like a given to me that we would have some accountability. We are the ones who give the power to and literally choose who will direct these international actions, after all. And we're happy enough, as Americans, to take some credit for the good things we have done, and justly so, such as helping defeat the Soviet Union and helping to win WWII.
quote: That and if we are accountable for the actions of people in other countries or their lack of rights then what are we supposed to do to amend the situation. Now I have no moral qualms with taking action in other countries, and violating their sovereignty ( which is what taking any proactive measure really is). However, many people do and almost no one can agree on a single method for handling it all.
I don't think I said or suggested we are accountable for the actions of foreign people in foreign countries, beyond what our own government has done to influence those actions.
quote: Now I am actually for that being law, however it irritates me that people born abroad to Americans have in some ways a second-class citizenship.
I've always thought that shades of citizenship that don't come attached to specific actions, such as violent felony crimes, are a distinctly unAmerican kind of thing. Even if it amounts to an increase in paperwork. It's just a tricky, slippery notion that can even lead to being quite harmful in the long run.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
We ought to revisit the born here citizen here policy. If the constitution itself can be considered a living and breathing document, why can't this one law be reconsidered. The government stopped giving away free land to attract populations a long time ago.
I honestly don't know the answer to the following question, if anyone else does, enlighten me. What other nations grant citizenship to people just for being born there?
That anyone born here is a citizen is a vital part of our strength. Numerous other countries are dealing with extensive, systemic problems integrating immigrant populations that entered the country generations ago, while US immigrant populations integrate in a very short number of generations, in large part because of that simple rule.
And no, I don't think that fewer than 10,000 people a year coming here to assure their child has US citizenship is a problem. Heck, since people who can afford that sort of thing will tend to be wealthy, it isn't even subject to the typical criticisms surrounding children of immigrants.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: ... I honestly don't know the answer to the following question, if anyone else does, enlighten me. What other nations grant citizenship to people just for being born there?
quote:States that observe jus soli include:
* Antigua and Barbuda[3] * Argentina[3] * Barbados[3] * Belize[3] * Bolivia[3] * Brazil[3] * Canada[3] * Chile[4] (children of transient foreigners or of foreign diplomats on assignment in Chile only upon request) * Colombia[3] * Dominica[3] * Dominican Republic[3] * Ecuador[3] * El Salvador[3] * Fiji[5] * Grenada[3] * Guatemala[3] * Guyana[3] * Honduras[3] * Jamaica[3] * Lesotho[6] * Malaysia[3] * Mexico[3] * Nicaragua[3] * Pakistan[3] * Panama[3] * Paraguay[3] * Peru[3] * Saint Christopher and Nevis[3] * Saint Lucia[3] * Saint Vincent and the Grenadines[3] * Trinidad and Tobago[3] * United States[3] * Uruguay[3] * Venezuela[3]
quote:We ought to revisit the born here citizen here policy. If the constitution itself can be considered a living and breathing document, why can't this one law be reconsidered. The government stopped giving away free land to attract populations a long time ago.
Well, let's be clear, malanthrop. You don't want the Constitution to be considered a living, breathing document, or at least your politics as expressed here indicate almost the exact opposite position. So that's a sleazy, BS statement for you to make.
Second, by all means, let's reconsider it. With every passing year, support for the positions you hold erodes further and further. Which is actually why you don't want it to be considered a living, breathing document. Second, it's not a problem for the reasons fugu describes. That you think it's a problem highlights just how hollow and deceptive your claims about opposition to immigration on the basis of poverty and social problems really is.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
Rakeesh: I will agree with you that I think citizens, even American citizens, should feel a sense of accountability for what the nation does as far as foreign policy. However, I think that for Americans to be truly accountable for what our country does overseas would both require an altered form of represenation or at the very least a transparent foreign policy. Since most see a completely transparent foreign policy as being a national security risk it probably will never happen.
If Americans are accountable for the government's actions that influence other countries then in the end we end up being accountable for most everything. Being a rather large nation our choices have impacts that ripple across the globe. I certainly think that as citizens we are accountable for keeping certain bag governments in power, but I don't know if you can drop the blame on Americans for many actions they aren't even aware of, due to it being classified etc.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Black Fox,
quote:Rakeesh: I will agree with you that I think citizens, even American citizens, should feel a sense of accountability for what the nation does as far as foreign policy. However, I think that for Americans to be truly accountable for what our country does overseas would both require an altered form of represenation or at the very least a transparent foreign policy. Since most see a completely transparent foreign policy as being a national security risk it probably will never happen.
I think in many cases, it would be a very small degree of accountability, maybe even infinitesimal. It's just, for me, the starting point is that we have some accountability, even if it's tiny. We choose who makes these decisions, after all. If they lie and do something outrageously reprehensible, something we would never have agreed to, even then, I think, there is some tiny sliver of accountability. We should have picked better. It's a grave, serious business, after all, voting.
quote: If Americans are accountable for the government's actions that influence other countries then in the end we end up being accountable for most everything. Being a rather large nation our choices have impacts that ripple across the globe. I certainly think that as citizens we are accountable for keeping certain bag governments in power, but I don't know if you can drop the blame on Americans for many actions they aren't even aware of, due to it being classified etc.
Here's where language gets tricky. I am not talking about 'dropping the blame' on Americans for things we didn't know about, or even for things we could have known about. What I am saying, though, is that we have some varying, uncertain amount of accountability, that's all. Particularly because we're happy to claim that accountability when things go right, aren't we? How can we have things both ways?
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
I certainly agree with you that if we want to claim the good then we need to claim the bad as well. History is a double edged sword that way.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Emotion will not alter my sense of justice and order!
I believe that I have access to my emotions and they are compatible with justice and order!
this is your interpretation of what i said based on you opinions. i never said this.
You have your head so far up it you can't see how many times you've contradicted yourself. Many, in case you were wondering. And yes, it is pride and naivete that allow you to do this and not to notice yourself doing it.
Tell me, why did you edit out my mention of Alexandr Solzhenitsyn? Because you couldn't figure out how it was ok for a convicted criminal defector who had broken society's laws to be free in America? Because you don't know who he is? Believe it or not, the point was important to my argument, and you don't win by pretending it isn't there- actually that's how you get nowhere.
the reason i didnt address the case of solzhenitsyn is that it doesnt pertain to the points i was discussing; it doesnt pertain to amnesty. he was found guilt of crimes in his country, imprisoned, exonerated, further harassed by the KGB and ultimately deported from his own country. he didnt jump over a fence to get to america and we didnt forgive him of the crimes he allegedly committed in his home country. he was eventually able return to russia and had his soviet citizenship returned.
personally, if we were to analyze his history, i think solzhenitsyns experiences would better support my arguments. but i dont wish to further discuss this with you.
"you havent shown how ive acted in a proud or naïve way and until you do so your accusation is baseless."
Typical of you to this point. Legalistic when it suits you, cavalier when it does not. My characterization of you is not baseless. I do not have to prove it, because it is not a matter of fact. The basis for me calling you prideful and naive is in what you wrote- and you, being prideful and naive, are not required to see it that way in order to make it so.
are facts not the easiest to prove? indeed we call them facts because they are proven. your accusations are only a matter of opinion.
"are you insinuating that im a cultural supremacist? if so, what exactly do you believe my culture to be and how have i portrayed it as being superior?"
Yes you are a cultural supremacist. It doesn't particularly matter what your culture is- you don't have to be where you see the top of the pile in order to believe in cultural supremacy. You just have to believe in the pile, and you do.
what this paragraph amounts to is: 'i havent seen your car but green cars are ugly and your car is ugly. therefore it must be green'
its clear you dont know my culture and, therefore, you cant define it. you dont know what my culture is but you dont like it and you cant show me how, allegedly, i believe it to be superior to all others. still, you assure me that i surely do believe it to be so. i cant argue with your imagination.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
now, I know that hatrack's quote tag system is archaic and terrible and annoying to use but this is just ridiculous
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by aeolusdallas: The title of this thread is not even sort of true. It's a flat out lie.
Now, I know lisa's flat out wrong and will retreat from rather than retract these things, but when does it become a lie? Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
Oh boy, my heart just skipped a beat Sam. Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by aeolusdallas: The title of this thread is not even sort of true. It's a flat out lie.
Now, I know lisa's flat out wrong and will retreat from rather than retract these things, but when does it become a lie?
When the statement she made was completely an unambiguously untrue and Lisa's statement was. She can't claim that it was a simple mistake. Even the link she posted didn't say Obama ceded US territory to a foreign nation. I don't know how much more clear this can be. She flat out lied.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The title of this thread was the original title of the article she linked. While it was definitely an example of bombastic and ill-thought lack of consideration, it wasn't a lie. She just copy/pasted a headline from a blog post and assumed it was true because it confirmed her biases.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:first, i live in america. im not accountable for the actions of people in other countries or their lack of rights.
I can't stand that sort of attitude, especially when the 'over there, not my problem' attitude is stated so baldly and falsely. You cannot possibly be unaware that the United States has taken, is taking, very real and potent action as we speak in the world at large that has a direct, serious impact on the actions of other people in other countries, and their rights whether having or lacking.
You vote for the officials who make these decisions. You are absolutely accountable, at least to some extent. We all are. Burden of living in a democracy that is not completely isolationist.
the points youve made are valid but some clarification on my part is, perhaps, in order:
we are accountable first for our own actions and to the people who are most directly affected by them. a large portion of our days, by necessity, are consumed by actions essential to living. but there is an amount of time in everyday, due to the luxuries of the society in which we live, which a free society declares us accountable for. i dont think there is disagreement upon these points specifically, but this so-called 'free time' and accountability for it is a separate discussion.
i never meant to imply that im not accountable for the actions of my country in another nation. every citizen of voting age is accountable for those actions to a degree, however minute, for one can use the processes of government to enact change, to varying degrees, in ones country as well as other countries (black fox, I believe, spoke more to this point) and i don’t dispute that. the point i was making is that americans arent accountable for the actions of the citizens of another country as we dont elect their officials or write their laws. thats why i said that im not 'accountable for the actions of people in other countries or their lack of rights'. if i had the ability to protect their rights i would, regardless of duty or obligation.
i dont ascribe to the view of 'over there, not my problem'. to hold such a view, especially in light of the current discussion, would be absurd; problems in mexico create problems in the US. thats the nature of the world we live in. i think the majority of americans lost all illusion of isolationism after pearl harbor and during the cold war as well as during american economic recessions, which clearly affect the rest of the world.
now with regard, once again, to illegal immigration:
its clear that once the problem is acknowledge we must strive to agree upon a solution. in the case of illegal immigration, i think the country is struggling to agree as to what the real problem is.
one of the issues, i feel, is that the american people are unsure as to the exact number of illegals coming into the country. this makes them less inclined to allow even legal migration and can be the cause of stronger legal and illegal immigration laws. another issue is that americans are worried that their taxes will unjustly go toward paying the health care and educational burden of those whove entered illegally into the country. yet another issue in the minds of americans is the increase and percieved increase in crime due to illegal immigration. these concerns are realistic and justified; whether and to what degree such worries actually exist is debatable, but they play a role in the choices of americans nonetheless. another issue is that employers can exploit illegal workers because the employer knows the illegal has no legal course of action which would preserve his self-interests; if he went to the authorities, claiming his rights had been violated, the employer might be punished but he would surely be deported.
faced with these issues, its best for both parties involved, the US and those immigrating to it, if immigrants come in through the proper legal channels. when america knows the true burden of immigration, as opposed to best guesses and assumptions, and, in relation to the benefit, perceives it as a smaller burden than it appears, it will be more likely to accept a larger burden. when the option of hiring illegal workers is no longer available, employers we be obligated to hire those of legal status and treat them according to the rights granted them by the government. when we know how and when an immigrant comes across the border, as a country we can ensure that the immigrant has the opportunity to attain the life he desires and we will have the ability govern the country according to the concepts of law and order already established as well as to know if an immigrant is abusing his privilege of living in the country.
its my opinion that once a better system is in the works, the american people will accept more immigrants and those immigrating will have a better quality of life. this doesnt have to be a bipartisan issue and the arizona law can be seen as a direct result of an insecure border. if a secure border was accomplished, i believe partisan reform discussion would begin immediately. of course the problem of illegal immigrants already in the country would be a formidable hurdle that must soon be addressed but there is much need of any progress in the right direction. federal shoulder-shruggin and foot-dragging due to mid-term elections wont solve the problem. neither will labeling fellow citizens ‘fearmongers’, ‘supremacists’ or ‘racists’. and the latter surely doesn’t foster compassion, the alleged motivation behind letting others into our country to enjoy its liberties and wealth.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: now, I know that hatrack's quote tag system is archaic and terrible and annoying to use but this is just ridiculous
i think it facilitates reading and is a much easier way of responding to multiple points in a response. the bold, regular pattern is established initially, upon quoting what is being addressed and a simple [QB] tag is suffient to differentiate the quote or argument from the writers response.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: the point i was making is that americans arent accountable for the actions of the citizens of another country as we dont elect their officials or write their laws.
Here's where I think, again, that language is tricky: accountability is not a binary state. There are shades.
quote:its clear that once the problem is acknowledge we must strive to agree upon a solution. in the case of illegal immigration, i think the country is struggling to agree as to what the real problem is.
We're struggling to agree what the real problem is, but almost exactly like the 'war on drugs', the real problem is really quite simple: there are lots and lots of American citizens and businesses who are willing and able to employ cheap illegal immigrant labor. The causes of that problem are many, and the solutions are difficult, but that's the real problem. One cannot responsibly look at situation like this and gear their efforts towards the responding side of the problem.
quote:another issue is that americans are worried that their taxes will unjustly go toward paying the health care and educational burden of those whove entered illegally into the country.
Such Americans ought to realize, then, that illegal immigration presents enormous, undeniable economic benefits - to some more than others - as well. You cite health care concerns, and I'll reply small businesses with much lower labor costs.
quote:yet another issue in the minds of americans is the increase and percieved increase in crime due to illegal immigration.
quote:another issue is that employers can exploit illegal workers because the employer knows the illegal has no legal course of action which would preserve his self-interests; if he went to the authorities, claiming his rights had been violated, the employer might be punished but he would surely be deported.
Are you seriously suggesting that the current uproar over illegal immigration is founded partially over concern for the welfare of the immigrants themselves, capax?
quote:if a secure border was accomplished, i believe partisan reform discussion would begin immediately.
That's one heckuva belief. But anyone, who pays for the secure border to be accomplished? Republicans would love to pay for that, I'm sure. Maybe we can cut money to education to defend us against the dangerously violent illegal...wait, no, crime rates are down in border states.
quote:neither will labeling fellow citizens ‘fearmongers’, ‘supremacists’ or ‘racists’. and the latter surely doesn’t foster compassion, the alleged motivation behind letting others into our country to enjoy its liberties and wealth.
Again, you speak as though illegal immigration were somehow a burden on our nation and its economy. They aren't skulking across the border and onto a construction site, then putting a gun to the foreman's head saying, "Gimme a job, gringo!"
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:i think it facilitates reading and is a much easier way of responding to multiple points in a response.
Yeah, no. You are using the QB tag as a bold tag where just using quote tags is both easier and more comprehensible.
Not gonna lie, your post is a mess dude!
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:i think it facilitates reading and is a much easier way of responding to multiple points in a response.
Yeah, no. You are using the QB tag as a bold tag where just using quote tags is both easier and more comprehensible.
Not gonna lie, your post is a mess dude!
i could but the difference wouldnt be significant.
quote:i dont see how this arrangment:
person 1
person 2
person 1
person 2
quote:makes my post less comprehensible or more difficult to read.
quote: more or less messy aside, using a new instance of [QUOTE] is redundant.
my style requires fewer mouse clicks, takes less keystrokes and takes up less space on the computer screen which means less scrolling.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
If you put it to a vote here, people would absolutely prefer the 'redundant' process of using a new quote tag, not just because it does not put text a person did not say into a text region understood to be 'the text that this person posted'
Go ahead!
Get people to weigh in about what they think!
Hey guys what do y'all think about capaxinfiniti's quote response style.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Call me old-fashioned, but I like to see quote tags used for, you know, quotes.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: ... I honestly don't know the answer to the following question, if anyone else does, enlighten me. What other nations grant citizenship to people just for being born there?
quote:States that observe jus soli include:
* Antigua and Barbuda[3] * Argentina[3] * Barbados[3] * Belize[3] * Bolivia[3] * Brazil[3] * Canada[3] * Chile[4] (children of transient foreigners or of foreign diplomats on assignment in Chile only upon request) * Colombia[3] * Dominica[3] * Dominican Republic[3] * Ecuador[3] * El Salvador[3] * Fiji[5] * Grenada[3] * Guatemala[3] * Guyana[3] * Honduras[3] * Jamaica[3] * Lesotho[6] * Malaysia[3] * Mexico[3] * Nicaragua[3] * Pakistan[3] * Panama[3] * Paraguay[3] * Peru[3] * Saint Christopher and Nevis[3] * Saint Lucia[3] * Saint Vincent and the Grenadines[3] * Trinidad and Tobago[3] * United States[3] * Uruguay[3] * Venezuela[3]
Thanks. How many first world nations are on that list?
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
Canada, Chile, United States are all advanced nations. Brazil is no slouch either. Funny how you preach about the Constitution not being a "living" document but you want to change it. Ironic too since Hispanic immigrants tend to be socially conservative.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mal: I'll let George Washington answer your last,
"The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for giving to Mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support." (emphasis mine)
So those who wish to come and avail themselves of the security of citizenship in this great country, let them come, Washington seems more than willing to stamp their papers.
[ June 26, 2010, 09:22 AM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Thanks. How many first world nations are on that list?
Hey, Mal...how many 'first world' nations are on a list of nations that permit capital punishment, at-will private gun ownership, abortion, tax rates on the wealthy, etc. etc...
Yeah, that's about what I thought. This is another transparent BS statement of yours. You don't really care what other 'first world' nations are doing, because if you did, your politics would be a helluva lot different. Just to be clear, though, I'm not saying you should, I'm saying that your argument on this point as in many others is totally, fundamentally flawed.
Can we skip ahead now to the part where you behave as though this part of the discussion never happened, please?
quote:So those who wish to come and avail themselves of the security of citizenship in this great country, let them come, Washington seems more than willing to stamp their papers.
Don't be silly, BlackBlade. What the Founding Fathers would have wanted doesn't matter in cases like this! It only matters when it leans towards a conservative agenda. I mean, duh!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rakeesh: Generally speaking when people quote the founding fathers I often have a reaction of, "OK so?" I care far more for the salience of their ideas rather than accepting their will as something akin to what God wants.
In this case, I think Washington is expressing a sentiment I couldn't agree with more. But if he'd said something like, "I think it best that this country be comprised of as homogeneous a populace as we can possibly employ efforts to accomplish." I'd respond with something like, "I admire the guy, but he's wrong."
Mal on the other hand I imagine has more respect for Washington's words than for most posters here.
edit: I think it completely sucks that none of our current politicians are worthy to shine many of our founding father's shoes. There's absolutely no good reason for our leaders today to not be as talented, hard working, and responsible as that.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Thanks. How many first world nations are on that list?
Canada, Chile, and the US are OECD.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... This is another transparent BS statement of yours. You don't really care what other 'first world' nations are doing, because if you did, your politics would be a helluva lot different.
*swish*
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Heh, thanks Mucus. Though with malanthrop, the net is at about waist level, so swishes are much easier.
quote:Rakeesh: Generally speaking when people quote the founding fathers I often have a reaction of, "OK so?" I care far more for the salience of their ideas rather than accepting their will as something akin to what God wants.
Likewise. If the Founding Fathers could make such gigantic mistakes as permitting slavery and not permitting women to vote - just to name two big ones - that throws them right out the window as an infallible resource in my opinion. We have to pick and choose. That's what they wanted. They gave us a mutable Constitution.
Plus, y'know, they're human beings.
That doesn't mean I don't respect them. Their vices were the vices of their time, after all, as they were men of their time. Ahead of their time in many respects.
quote: edit: I think it completely sucks that none of our current politicians are worthy to shine many of our founding father's shoes. There's absolutely no good reason for our leaders today to not be as talented, hard working, and responsible as that.
I do too, but personally I believe many of the politicians back then were pretty venal and sleazy and self-serving too. The Founding Fathers were a pretty extraordinary bunch among their contemporaries, after all.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rakeesh: Or for sure, which is why I said "many of." Were we to talk about politicians from the last 50 years, I struggle to think of one who holds a candle to some of the greats. But maybe I'm just thinking of big name politicians when there may be quite a few who worked very hard, but did not feel the need to toot their own horn.
[ June 26, 2010, 10:42 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Pegasus (Member # 10464) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: The title of this thread was the original title of the article she linked. While it was definitely an example of bombastic and ill-thought lack of consideration, it wasn't a lie. She just copy/pasted a headline from a blog post and assumed it was true because it confirmed her biases.
This begs the question if a lie can exist on its own, or does it require the malicious intent of the one purveying it?
Yes, the traditional quote tag system is better.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: Call me old-fashioned, but I like to see quote tags used for, you know, quotes.
Prescriptivist!
Also, I agree.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pegasus:
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: The title of this thread was the original title of the article she linked. While it was definitely an example of bombastic and ill-thought lack of consideration, it wasn't a lie. She just copy/pasted a headline from a blog post and assumed it was true because it confirmed her biases.
This begs the question if a lie can exist on its own, or does it require the malicious intent of the one purveying it?
I do believe that a lie does have to have malicious intent, or at least must be deliberately trying to mislead someone. In Lisa's case what she said was simply not true. She even had something that she considered "evidence" to go along with it. So i wouldn't think that the title falls under the lie category as much as being false.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I think there's an important distinction between personal and intellectual integrity.
Someone telling a lie is saying something they know isn't true with the intent to deceive. This is usually a case of a problem with personal integrity.
Some saying something that is not true, but they don't know is not true often has not put in a reasonable effort to determine if something is true or not or is using unreliable sources. This is usually a case of a problem with intellectual integrity.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
or, more to the point, a commitment in whole or in part to address things one has said that are false after they are shown to be false, rather than just letting them stand without comment.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That sort of thing straddles the line between personal and intellectual integrity, I think, with the more strident and certain the initial statement was, the more certain it turns out not to have been true, and how important it was to the speaker pushing it further and further into a personal integrity issue.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Prescriptivist!
I don't think I've ever claimed not to be one. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Well, that's no fun. Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I didn't realize it was my job to provide you with entertainment.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)