Wacco Poll - Arizona's Tough New Immigration Law [Archive] - Page 2

buzz d

05-31-2010, 08:47 AM

I'm sure you've all heard of this new immigration law that Arizona will be enforcing this summer, being that it is all over the news lately. Some senators and government leaders are calling for a boycott of the state. Even some police officers in Arizona are claiming they won't enforce this law, while others are praising it in the hopes that it will stop some of the violence attributed to illegal immigrants. The part of the bill that is causing such division reads as follows:

For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released. The person’s immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c). A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution. A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:

1. A valid Arizona driver license.
2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.
3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.

Many opponents of the new bill say the above language promotes and even legalizes racial profiling rendering it unconstitutional. While proponents vehemently deny these charges and claim this bill does not give authority to police officers to racially profile in any way.

My question to you all is: Do you believe that Arizona's new immigration law allows police to stop people solely based on the color of their skin?
No

theindependenteye

05-31-2010, 02:27 PM

>>>My question to you all is: Do you believe that Arizona's new immigration law allows police to stop people solely based on the color of their skin?

No, it doesn't. But given (a) the prominence of the Phoenix sheriff's harassment of Latinos and (b) the widespread proclivity of police to pull motorists over for the offence of "Driving while Black" or "Driving while Brown," the uproar is understandable. Apart from many police chiefs' concerns that this will divert local police from their regular functions, it's not unreasonable to think that many local cops, or whole departments, will see this as a mandate for harassment. It doesn't take much imagination to come up with an excuse: cracked tail-light, driving "unpredictably," etc.

A while ago on Wacco, there was a thread from a number of people infuriated that local cops were pulling over people driving away from bars, and a sense from many that their sovereign rights were being violated, that they were being "targeted" merely for having a drink or even emerging from a particular doorway. In my humble opinion, there'll be far worse in Arizona, and for much less tangible gain.

Peace & joy--
Conrad

Hotspring 44

05-31-2010, 02:39 PM

That is why I added to the survey: "solely based on skin color": No, But in large part Yes."

I don't see any votes other than mine on the survey results. Considering your post; I am perplexed as to why not.

>>>My question to you all is: Do you believe that Arizona's new immigration law allows police to stop people solely based on the color of their skin?

No, it doesn't. But given (a) the prominence of the Phoenix sheriff's harassment of Latinos and (b) the widespread proclivity of police to pull motorists over for the offence of "Driving while Black" or "Driving while Brown," the uproar is understandable. Apart from many police chiefs' concerns that this will divert local police from their regular functions, it's not unreasonable to think that many local cops, or whole departments, will see this as a mandate for harassment. It doesn't take much imagination to come up with an excuse: cracked tail-light, driving "unpredictably," etc.

A while ago on Wacco, there was a thread from a number of people infuriated that local cops were pulling over people driving away from bars, and a sense from many that their sovereign rights were being violated, that they were being "targeted" merely for having a drink or even emerging from a particular doorway. In my humble opinion, there'll be far worse in Arizona, and for much less tangible gain.

Peace & joy--
Conrad

buzz d

05-31-2010, 07:22 PM

No
Whoa cowboys. I just agreed to what that fellow was saying, I did not author it. But for what its worth:
In most states it's legal for a cop to question a person and ask for I.D. I have no qualms with that. If the officer thinks something more is going on they have the right to question further. The person who is being stopped has the right to shut up , if they please, and not say a thing. All of this is touchy because of innuendo; and how we are perceiving it. What is is in the terms; legal alien or illegal alien that is so confusing? I would recon that if you are a legal citizen or alien and are an adult you would have a drivers license or i.d. card. I would think that , in order to get either of those, you would have to prove somehow that you were "legal". So if that scenario was in place, and you were stopped for a traffic violation, or something similar, your I.D./ license, would show you were "legal " to be here. What's the problem?

mamawolf

05-31-2010, 09:25 PM

This thing has been blown so out out of scope. The police arent going to just go around stopping hispanics to check if theyre legal, but if they are stopped for a crime or gang activity or any type of criminal act and found to be illegally here then they get to go back home. if they are here kickin out babies so thy can stay, it aint happening and we wont tear families apart, send the kids back with them. If you aint here legally then you deserve what you get. Its a crime like any crime you pay the price. They come here and wont even attempt to learn the language so our corn flakes gotta have spanish so they know they gettin corn flakes. Time to takeAmerica back. The police gotta do what they gotta do.:football:Stop them at the border!

>>>My question to you all is: Do you believe that Arizona's new immigration law allows police to stop people solely based on the color of their skin?

No, it doesn't. But given (a) the prominence of the Phoenix sheriff's harassment of Latinos and (b) the widespread proclivity of police to pull motorists over for the offence of "Driving while Black" or "Driving while Brown," the uproar is understandable. Apart from many police chiefs' concerns that this will divert local police from their regular functions, it's not unreasonable to think that many local cops, or whole departments, will see this as a mandate for harassment. It doesn't take much imagination to come up with an excuse: cracked tail-light, driving "unpredictably," etc.

A while ago on Wacco, there was a thread from a number of people infuriated that local cops were pulling over people driving away from bars, and a sense from many that their sovereign rights were being violated, that they were being "targeted" merely for having a drink or even emerging from a particular doorway. In my humble opinion, there'll be far worse in Arizona, and for much less tangible gain.

Peace & joy--
Conrad

Dark Shadows

05-31-2010, 10:28 PM

If you lived on the wrong (south) side of the border and your children were starving because of a corrupt government that made the rich richer and poor poorer, what would you do? Would you go north to find work and hopefully a better life? Or would you stick around and let your kids go hungry and possibly die from inadequate medical care? If you knew that you could give your family a better life by paying a coyote and risking death in the desert would you risk it and try to beat a powerful system and people that hated you for the language you spoke and the color of your skin? If you knew that your ancesters had inhabited this place you were going long before the people that hated you knew that the world was round and not flat as a pancake, would you go there? Would you bring your wife and children to this God-forsaken place risking humiliation and imprisonment for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time? Would you go to a place where they treated you as if you were half human, more like a dog or an insect, referring to the joyful occasion of the birth of your children as "kicking out babies"? The answer is probably yes, you would do anything to give your children a better life and improve their chances of surviving a childhood illness.

You would also know that America is not really America, which is a name derived from an Italian explorer's first name (Amerigo Vespucci). It is a land inhabited by many peoples who arrived by walking over an ice bridge before history was recorded in writing and later in ships that crossed the sea from Europe.

This thing has been blown so out out of scope. The police arent going to just go around stopping hispanics to check if theyre legal, but if they are stopped for a crime or gang activity or any type of criminal act and found to be illegally here then they get to go back home. if they are here kickin out babies so thy can stay, it aint happening and we wont tear families apart, send the kids back with them. If you aint here legally then you deserve what you get. Its a crime like any crime you pay the price. They come here and wont even attempt to learn the language so our corn flakes gotta have spanish so they know they gettin corn flakes. Time to takeAmerica back. The police gotta do what they gotta do.:football:Stop them at the border!

Karen the KAT

06-01-2010, 01:24 AM

If you lived on the wrong (south) side of the border and your children were starving because of a corrupt government that made the rich richer and poor poorer, what would you do? Would you go north to find work and hopefully a better life? Or would you stick around and let your kids go hungry and possibly die from inadequate medical care? If you knew that you could give your family a better life by paying a coyote and risking death in the desert would you risk it and try to beat a powerful system and people that hated you for the language you spoke and the color of your skin? That really doesn't have anything to do with it, the Asians and a variety of other peoples don't have these issues, but then they don't abuse the system like the Mexicans do, they don't commit 70% of the crimes, they don't leave their neighborhoods a filthy mess, they don't treat women like shit, and that's just the beginning of why people don't much like the ILLEGAL MexicansIf you knew that your ancesters had inhabited this place you were going long before the people that hated you knew that the world was round and not flat as a pancake, would you go there? The peoples that make up Mexico never owned the lands you speak of, had they come North of the Sonora, they would have run into the Apache, whom would have been delighted to find a new type of Indian to slaughter. Ask the Yaqui, they have a phrase: "There is blood on the moon, and the Apache put it there", this was in reference to the fact that the Apache (Navajo too) liked to get bored and go down into the Sonoran desert and kill Yaqui for sport. Luckily for the Aztec and Maya,m the Apache were convinced that the desert went on forever. If they had ever discovered the Aztec, they would have quickly killed them all and Cortez would have found Mexico City a much harder place to conquer. You're completely off base in this ascertation, have you been listening to La Raza, they live in a fantasy World too. The "Glorious" Aztec, were actually charlatans and manipulators, much like our current President. They conquered by implementing a new religion that required sacrafices, especially the existing leaders. Rain doesn't come, sacrafice a prince... Just like the Polynesians played politics...Would you bring your wife and children to this God-forsaken place risking humiliation and imprisonment for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time? Why in the hell did you get married and have children knowing you couldn't support them? "I'm so poor I can't eat, but I can fornicate, let's bring my misery some company and have some children I can't feed, because I'm such a macho male.Would you go to a place where they treated you as if you were half human, more like a dog or an insect, referring to the joyful occasion of the birth of your children as "kicking out babies"? They call it the same thing for white people too, so what? When you have children just as anchors and sources of welfare, and because you're too macho (Insecure). Want to be treated like a dog or insect, go to Mexico and announce that you are out of money...The answer is probably yes, you would do anything to give your children a better life and improve their chances of surviving a childhood illness.

So by your rational, it's perfectly OK for me to go sell meth because I need to feed my children. What's the difference, they're both felonies, they both tear apart society", Let's just lower it to stealing to support your family, is that OK?, How about I steal your things to pay for my family, you don't mind do you?

You would also know that America is not really America, which is a name derived from an Italian explorer's first name (Amerigo Vespucci). It is a land inhabited by many peoples who arrived by walking over an ice bridge before history was recorded in writing and later in ships that crossed the sea from Europe.
And anyone gives a flying Eff about this why? What would you rather call it? Who cares?...Your point is what???

Try the opposite, try doing all these things in Mexico, after all, it's cheaper to live down there. Go to Mexico with no money, and try to take from them ROFL!!! Hope you like Mexican prisons...

You deserved to get blasted for such inane comments, especially as you are trying to insult people who just want the laws observed. If being poor is a good reason to break the laws and steal from other people, then I'd better get busy. Now where did you say you live???

Dark Shadows

06-01-2010, 01:50 AM

Barry,
This is racism and she has threatened me on a public website. Apparently she has not read my posts to know that I am 1/4 Yacqui. I am clicking out of this site of biggotry and hatred once and for all.

In the face of economic disparity, poor Germans thought that Hitler was their Savior. This was the beginning of the Holocaust. While US citizens are faced with the real threat of another Depression, they have become suspicious of a race of people that they perceive as a threat to their economic security. As middle and lower-class whites they lose their jobs, homes and nest eggs, they defend their “turf” with dominance and aggression, like dogs chained to fences and artificial borders.
So long racists.

LenInSebastopol

06-01-2010, 09:44 AM

Oh, don't get your stuff in a wad. No one is threatening you directly, just your position.

Talk about racism, if you are not "registered" with the gov't, as in being in the BIA books, born on a reservation, then you are not "Indian" or Native American, no matter who your grandma was. Now THAT is RACISM, the same as Hitler's: gov't approved!
Even she knows the only sensible & reasonable ones in this exchange are those coming across the border! Everyone's progenitors did the same thing (come here for economic relief), so, please, no drama as everyone else is running around screaming this or that. Take a deep one, hold it, let it out slowly, repeat.

Barry,
This is racism and she has threatened me on a public website. Apparently she has not read my posts to know that I am 1/4 Yacqui. I am clicking out of this site of biggotry and hatred once and for all.

In the face of economic disparity, poor Germans thought that Hitler was their Savior. This was the beginning of the Holocaust. While US citizens are faced with the real threat of another Depression, they have become suspicious of a race of people that they perceive as a threat to their economic security. As middle and lower-class whites they lose their jobs, homes and nest eggs, they defend their “turf” with dominance and aggression, like dogs chained to fences and artificial borders.
So long racists.

LenInSebastopol

06-01-2010, 09:52 AM

Cops outside a bar in Petaluma stopped a guy because his rear license plate "wasn't bright enough"! Town needs revenue, but in a place where "probable cause" is probably anything, then we can have "issues".
I don't think in any state, in my country, that a cop can stop and as for ID of any person. When stopped by a cop they can ask, "Do you know why I stopped you"? or you can ask, "Why am I being stopped"? and in every instance the cop must answer with a "reasonable" response, usually starting with "Because....." and fill in the rest. It's not Europe or anywhere else.
At the airport recently, TSA cop frisked a guy. I witnessed the exchange and the cop simply told the guy to assume the position, with the guy complying. Smart to comply to a cops order, but not smart to verbally question the cop as to their motive or reason. We, the people, are the cutting edge of gov't in daily issues.

Whoa cowboys. I just agreed to what that fellow was saying, I did not author it. But for what its worth:
In most states it's legal for a cop to question a person and ask for I.D. I have no qualms with that. If the officer thinks something more is going on they have the right to question further. The person who is being stopped has the right to shut up , if they please, and not say a thing. All of this is touchy because of innuendo; and how we are perceiving it. What is is in the terms; legal alien or illegal alien that is so confusing? I would recon that if you are a legal citizen or alien and are an adult you would have a drivers license or i.d. card. I would think that , in order to get either of those, you would have to prove somehow that you were "legal". So if that scenario was in place, and you were stopped for a traffic violation, or something similar, your I.D./ license, would show you were "legal " to be here. What's the problem?

Karen the KAT

06-01-2010, 11:11 AM

Barry,
This is racism and she has threatened me on a public website. Apparently she has not read my posts to know that I am 1/4 Yacqui. I am clicking out of this site of biggotry and hatred once and for all.

In the face of economic disparity, poor Germans thought that Hitler was their Savior. This was the beginning of the Holocaust. While US citizens are faced with the real threat of another Depression, they have become suspicious of a race of people that they perceive as a threat to their economic security. As middle and lower-class whites they lose their jobs, homes and nest eggs, they defend their “turf” with dominance and aggression, like dogs chained to fences and artificial borders.
So long racists.

Where did you get racism or threatening out of it, you're just playing the race card and you got called on it. I can't help it if the Apache and the Yaqui don't get along, (Still), I'm just stating the facts. The Yaqui never came north of the Sonoran desert for a darn good reason: The North American Indians had been playing a vicious game of intertribal warfare for a long, long time (sort of like Japan did for a couple thousand years). There's a reason why the Army named their most potent attack helicopter the Apache.

FYI: I also have Chippewa blood, enough to get my (Canadian) Indian card. I don't remember the Chippewa and the Yaqui being at war.

It's not the race, it's the society we are against. A society that takes, but doesn't produce. Go figure...

Oh, BTW: The majority of Mexicans are of Aztec or Mayan descent

CowGal

06-01-2010, 09:03 PM

I don't know what you mean about Yacquis not coming north of the Sonoran desert. I've known Yacquis who live as far north as Arcata and Crescent City. The reservation, Pascua Yacqui is just south of Tucson, on the US side of the border. Why are you, a Canadian Chipewwa concerned about US laws?

I was brought up by Guatamalans because my dad was widowed when I was about 4 months of age. I call my caregivers Mama and Papa. They never showed my dad any papers when he took then on to work on our ranch before I was born. Since my dad's death, I run the ranch. Mama is still here, but Papa died five years ago. I work with my brother Manuel and Jose (my adopted brothers) and Jose's family live on the ranch. They are just as much a part of American heritage as my family and we've been ranchers here for a long time. I hire immigrants because they do a good job and the others that come to me for work are usually into drugs and alcohol and really don't work as hard. They're just down and out looking for something temporary to get them through the hard times. I prefer the Mexican workers, they're honest and they do a good job, they know ranching and how to take care of a sick animal or an injured horse. I take care of them by getting them to a doctor if they are sick, or if their families need medicine, we make sure they get it.

It stands to reason that the police should look into a person's background if they have committed a crime. But they should do the same checks for everyone, regardless of their race. That's how the bill should be re-written. But that's up to the people of Arizona. They have a right to decide what they want for their own state. Not us in California.

Where did you get racism or threatening out of it, you're just playing the race card and you got called on it. I can't help it if the Apache and the Yaqui don't get along, (Still), I'm just stating the facts. The Yaqui never came north of the Sonoran desert for a darn good reason: The North American Indians had been playing a vicious game of intertribal warfare for a long, long time (sort of like Japan did for a couple thousand years). There's a reason why the Army named their most potent attack helicopter the Apache.

FYI: I also have Chippewa blood, enough to get my (Canadian) Indian card. I don't remember the Chippewa and the Yaqui being at war.

It's not the race, it's the society we are against. A society that takes, but doesn't produce. Go figure...

Oh, BTW: The majority of Mexicans are of Aztec or Mayan descent

LenInSebastopol

06-01-2010, 09:36 PM

The North American Indians had been playing a vicious game of intertribal warfare for a long, long time (sort of like Japan did for a couple thousand years). There's a reason why the Army named their most potent attack helicopter the Apache.
It's not the race, it's the society we are against. A society that takes, but doesn't produce. Go figure...
Oh, BTW: The majority of Mexicans are of Aztec or Mayan descent

I was going to answer the last part only but I reread the above and find it questionable. The tribes of this land were at each other for longer than history has been written on paper. Humans do that world wide, so it's not the North American this-or-that, as the Aztecs had only been around for about 100 years when Christopher "discovered" this place and Cortez came and wiped out the Aztec. There weren't that many to wipe out actually, but they were the newest kids on the block inheriting an empire that was far older than they; they just pumped new blood into it and were as terrible as any one else running around, anywhere. Hated by the other tribes it wasn't too hard for Cortez to fire them up against their cruel rulers and into oblivion. Probably 40 different tribes speaking probably 8 different dialects of fewer mother tongues. IOW, there are no "Aztecs" left and while there are several tens of thousands that speak a dialect of the Mayan language, there remain none of those that held the Southern area for over a thousand years. Those are pipe dreams manufactured to get kids to get worked up over nonsense that leads them down a path to oblivion and anger, thus removing potential competitors to what this country can give and produce. Go ahead, hate it, but don't teach your people that, as that is a loser/victim position and we've been held down long enough.

Karen the KAT

06-01-2010, 09:48 PM

I don't know what you mean about Yacquis not coming north of the Sonoran desert. I've known Yacquis who live as far north as Arcata and Crescent City. The reservation, Pascua Yacqui is just south of Tucson, on the US side of the border. Why are you, a Canadian Chipewwa concerned about US laws?

I was brought up by Guatamalans because my dad was widowed when I was about 4 months of age. I call my caregivers Mama and Papa. They never showed my dad any papers when he took then on to work on our ranch before I was born. Since my dad's death, I run the ranch. Mama is still here, but Papa died five years ago. I work with my brother Manuel and Jose (my adopted brothers) and Jose's family live on the ranch. They are just as much a part of American heritage as my family and we've been ranchers here for a long time. I hire immigrants because they do a good job and the others that come to me for work are usually into drugs and alcohol and really don't work as hard. They're just down and out looking for something temporary to get them through the hard times. I prefer the Mexican workers, they're honest and they do a good job, they know ranching and how to take care of a sick animal or an injured horse. I take care of them by getting them to a doctor if they are sick, or if their families need medicine, we make sure they get it.

It stands to reason that the police should look into a person's background if they have committed a crime. But they should do the same checks for everyone, regardless of their race. That's how the bill should be re-written. But that's up to the people of Arizona. They have a right to decide what they want for their own state. Not us in California.

Darkshadows sent me a personal F.U. email and thus I can't post here, but I can post my response.

I'll also note that "South of Tucson", there's not much until you hit the border, or in other words, you're playing with technicalities. The Yaqui got their toe-hold in the U.S. because the Apache about got wiped out by the army, and were thus not in much of a condition to push the Yaqui back south. Therefore the Yaqui ran North in time to get granted an American Reservation. This however, was not Yaqui land before that time.

This happened many times, with the stronger tribe fighting the cavalry, getting massacred , and their enemies taking advantage of it to make a land grab.

As I note below, I am not Canadian, nor did I say that. Please try reading what I actually write, and not what you assume I wrote.

,

It would help if you actually read what I wrote, instead of reading just bits of each sentence, taking it totally of context, assuming things I didn't say, and reading into it all kinds of things I neither said nor intended.

Had you done this, you would have noticed that I said I COULD qualify for an Indian card in Canada, BUT I didn't say I had one, or was a Canadian citizen.

Nor did I in any way threaten you, nor did I insult you personally, or even insult your tribe, I simply stated facts. There was no racism in what I said, I simply said I don't like the culture of take-take-take, "you owe me, you owe me, I'm special, I'm above the law, I'm so macho that I have children I know I can't support, blah blah, blah". This has zero to do with race. There are hundreds of millions of other Latinos/Hispanics in Central/South America that I have no issue with.

It's the Mexican mind set that I don't like, because it's so selfish and abusive. It's the mindset that says: "I need, I want, so I steal it". Well I need and I want too, and I DON'T steal.

Blame the Aztec for making it the Mexican National motto...

My only "attack" on you was to say that you deserved to be blasted for playing the race card, making things up and insulting other people.

Most people wouldn't care IF the Mexicans came up here, worked, payed taxes, obeyed the laws, attempted to learn English, didn't have anchor babies, didn't completely abuse the social system to the point where the State is broke, didn't tell us what bad people we are, and then went home to their families for half the year. In fact this system worked just fine, Until they all wanted a free ride and special privileges too.

You are not only wrong in your take on history (Which is contrary to all of the acknowledged reference works and the individual verbal and written tribal histories of the North American tribes), but you are wrong on your views of how the majority of Mexicans are both treated by and viewed by the other (legal) residents of the Southwest.

I work in the vineyards with them (yes, alongside them, doing the exact same manual labor) and not only do we pay them quite well ($15 an hour to start), but we treat them the same as any other employee, which is to say, quite nicely, this though we know they are using somebody else's stolen and/or altered SS card. Where we draw the line is that we rightfully insist that whomever drives onto the site have a driver's license, registration and insurance. We do this in order to comply with the laws, and you would be surprised at how irritated many of them get for having to follow the same laws that the rest of us do.

Your argument might gain more traction, IF, once they got here; they obeyed the laws, didn't abuse the system, and acted grateful, but they don't. They make plenty of money to send home to keep their family from starving. I know this because I live on the same amount. The difference is I pay taxes, I obey the laws, I don't abuse the social system, and I don't require everything to be translated into Espanol for me.

Stop playing the victim, and playing the race card, there's plenty of people who have it much worse, and they don't act like the Mexicans do. About 4 billion in Asia alone...

CowGal

06-01-2010, 11:37 PM

Don't you have enough Chippewa blood for an American roll number? What percentage is required and how much do you have? There are many people that would give their eye teeth for 50% Native blood like Dark Shadows has. I don't know why you are attacking this person, she seems to be alright to me. You said "where did you say you lived?" like you were going to hunt her down and hurt her in some way. Your words sound threatening to me and it doesn't seem like you understand different cultures, and you're just spouting off facts that aren't true. I really don't blame Dark Shadows for calling you what she did.

Darkshadows sent me a personal F.U. email and thus I can't post here, but I can post my response.

I'll also note that "South of Tucson", there's not much until you hit the border, or in other words, you're playing with technicalities. The Yaqui got their toe-hold in the U.S. because the Apache about got wiped out by the army, and were thus not in much of a condition to push the Yaqui back south. Therefore the Yaqui ran North in time to get granted an American Reservation. This however, was not Yaqui land before that time.

This happened many times, with the stronger tribe fighting the cavalry, getting massacred , and their enemies taking advantage of it to make a land grab.

As I note below, I am not Canadian, nor did I say that. Please try reading what I actually write, and not what you assume I wrote.

,

It would help if you actually read what I wrote, instead of reading just bits of each sentence, taking it totally of context, assuming things I didn't say, and reading into it all kinds of things I neither said nor intended.

Had you done this, you would have noticed that I said I COULD qualify for an Indian card in Canada, BUT I didn't say I had one, or was a Canadian citizen.

Nor did I in any way threaten you, nor did I insult you personally, or even insult your tribe, I simply stated facts. There was no racism in what I said, I simply said I don't like the culture of take-take-take, "you owe me, you owe me, I'm special, I'm above the law, I'm so macho that I have children I know I can't support, blah blah, blah". This has zero to do with race. There are hundreds of millions of other Latinos/Hispanics in Central/South America that I have no issue with.

It's the Mexican mind set that I don't like, because it's so selfish and abusive. It's the mindset that says: "I need, I want, so I steal it". Well I need and I want too, and I DON'T steal.

Blame the Aztec for making it the Mexican National motto...

My only "attack" on you was to say that you deserved to be blasted for playing the race card, making things up and insulting other people.

Most people wouldn't care IF the Mexicans came up here, worked, payed taxes, obeyed the laws, attempted to learn English, didn't have anchor babies, didn't completely abuse the social system to the point where the State is broke, didn't tell us what bad people we are, and then went home to their families for half the year. In fact this system worked just fine, Until they all wanted a free ride and special privileges too.

You are not only wrong in your take on history (Which is contrary to all of the acknowledged reference works and the individual verbal and written tribal histories of the North American tribes), but you are wrong on your views of how the majority of Mexicans are both treated by and viewed by the other (legal) residents of the Southwest.

I work in the vineyards with them (yes, alongside them, doing the exact same manual labor) and not only do we pay them quite well ($15 an hour to start), but we treat them the same as any other employee, which is to say, quite nicely, this though we know they are using somebody else's stolen and/or altered SS card. Where we draw the line is that we rightfully insist that whomever drives onto the site have a driver's license, registration and insurance. We do this in order to comply with the laws, and you would be surprised at how irritated many of them get for having to follow the same laws that the rest of us do.

Your argument might gain more traction, IF, once they got here; they obeyed the laws, didn't abuse the system, and acted grateful, but they don't. They make plenty of money to send home to keep their family from starving. I know this because I live on the same amount. The difference is I pay taxes, I obey the laws, I don't abuse the social system, and I don't require everything to be translated into Espanol for me.

Stop playing the victim, and playing the race card, there's plenty of people who have it much worse, and they don't act like the Mexicans do. About 4 billion in Asia alone...

CowGal

06-02-2010, 02:04 AM

." Mary answered and said, "What is hidden from you I will proclaim to you." And she began to speak to them these words: "I," she said, "I saw the Lord in a vision and I said to him, 'Lord, I saw you today in a vision.' He answered and said to me, 'Blessed are you that you did not waver at the sight of me. For where the mind is, there is the treasure.' I said to him, 'Lord, how does he who sees the vision see it through the soul or through the spirit?' The Saviour answered and said, 'He does not see through the soul nor through the spirit, but the mind which between the two - that is [what] sees the vision...'

(the mid-section of the original text is missing)

"[S] it. And desire that, 'I did not see you descending, but now I see you ascending. Why do you lie, since you belong to me?' The soul answered and said, 'I saw you. You did not see me nor recognise me. I served you as a garment, and you did not know me.' When it had said this, it went away rejoicing greatly.

"Again it came to the third power, which is called ignorance. It (the power) questioned the soul saying, 'Where are you going? In wickedness are you bound. But you are bound; do not judge!' And the soul said, 'Why do you judge me although I have not judged? I was bound though I have not bound. I was not recognised. But I have recognised that the All is being dissolved, both the earthly (things) and the heavenly'.

When the soul had overcome the third power, it went upwards and saw the fourth power, (which) took seven forms. The first form is darkness, the second desire, the third ignorance, the fourth is the excitement of death, the fifth is the kingdom of the flesh, the sixth is the foolish wisdom of flesh, the seventh is the wrathful wisdom. These are the seven [powers] of wrath. They ask the soul, "Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?" The soul answered and said, "What binds me has been slain, and what surrounds me has been overcome, and my desire has been ended and ignorance has died. In a [world] I was released from a world, [and] in a type from a heavenly type, and (from) the fetter of oblivion which is transient. From this time on will I attain to the rest of the time, of the season, of the aeon, in silence."
Mary Magdalene

[I]Hey Tonto I want to let you know I pulled the kids out of bed while they were sleeping scared the shit out of them and told them they needed to feel horrible for what they were responsible for YOU KNOW killing your food supply and anscestors off and stealing your land....they didnt get it so I scalped them ....would that make you feel better fucking cry baby GET OVER IT!!!!! and have some PRIDE...your embarsing to your own kind .

podfish

06-02-2010, 08:32 AM

.. like the Mexicans do, they don't commit 70% of the crimes, they don't leave their neighborhoods a filthy mess, they don't treat women like shit, and that's just the beginning of why people don't much like the ILLEGAL Mexicans....You deserved to get blasted for such inane comments, especially as you are trying to insult people who just want the laws observed. If being poor is a good reason to break the laws and steal from other people, then I'd better get busy. Now where did you say you live???
really?? that's a pretty vicious tone to take in response to someone expressing care and idealism. What "the eff" is the point of that? If you think it's silly and idealistic, I imagine you can find a more subtle way to point that out. Throwing out these racial generalizations does nothing to improve your arguments. 'Blasting' someone who's asking for empathy just sounds like bullying. Where this tendency comes from, of people in power or people taking a majority opinion, acting as if they're the ones being threatened and victimized is beyond me. It's ugly and stupid.
- from mamawolf: "Time to takeAmerica back" indeed. From who? those who have finally begun to see some benefits themselves? it sounds like a whine from those losing privileges they've enjoyed in the past but are unwilling to share.
It's true that pointing out the pressures that lead people to leave Mexico isn't really an argument for allowing illegal immigration. Neither is slurring the immigrants an argument against it.

kpage9

06-02-2010, 08:40 AM

Sound to me like Karen hasn't actually come to know any Mexican immigrants. I live in a neighborhood of big trees, little old houses, and many Mexican families, and (except for the odd gang sign) it is a sweet, sweet environment. Families out for walks with little ones on the shoulders, great gardens (mostly), people going out to work hard every day. They lend a hand when a neighbor needs it, gladly. I think we have a lot to learn from this way of being.
kathy

really?? that's a pretty vicious tone to take in response to someone expressing care and idealism. What "the eff" is the point of that? If you think it's silly and idealistic, I imagine you can find a more subtle way to point that out. Throwing out these racial generalizations does nothing to improve your arguments. 'Blasting' someone who's asking for empathy just sounds like bullying. Where this tendency comes from, of people in power or people taking a majority opinion, acting as if they're the ones being threatened and victimized is beyond me. It's ugly and stupid. indeed. From who? those who have finally begun to see some benefits themselves? it sounds like a whine from those losing privileges they've enjoyed in the past but are unwilling to share.
It's true that pointing out the pressures that lead people to leave Mexico isn't really an argument for allowing illegal immigration. Neither is slurring the immigrants an argument against it.

Karen the KAT

06-02-2010, 08:52 AM

Don't you have enough Chippewa blood for an American roll number? What percentage is required and how much do you have? There are many people that would give their eye teeth for 50% Native blood like Dark Shadows has. I don't know why you are attacking this person, she seems to be alright to me. You said "where did you say you lived?" like you were going to hunt her down and hurt her in some way. Your words sound threatening to me and it doesn't seem like you understand different cultures, and you're just spouting off facts that aren't true. I really don't blame Dark Shadows for calling you what she did.

I'm not American Chippewa, we are from Halifax, Nova Scotia. The Chippewa split into three different groups, and innumerable sub-groups starting with the arrival of the first Europeans, and for the next 300 years.because of the effects the New England settlers were having on other tribes, namely the Iroquois/Mohawk/British/French wars. The majority are surrounding the Great Lakes, while many separate enclaves wound up scattered throughout Eastern Canada.

My great-grandmother was half Chippewa, which makes me 16th. That doesn't sound like much, except for the fact that finding a Chippewa of more than a quarter blood from the group in Nova Scotia is quite rare as they intermarried extensively with the Arcadians and Scottish in order to survive as a people. This was due to the fact that they were on the wrong side of the fence with the French Quebecois of Quebec and Montreal, and then with the British against the Americans.

I've never applied because although I qualify, I didn't consider it fair to get my card just so I could get land and citizenship, if I wasn't going to live up there. It's beautiful, but also nasty wet/icy cold about 8 months of the year. Additionally, there's not much in the way of industry outside of fishing. However, the Canadian government pays the tribe a considerable amount of money for their gas, oil, mineral and land leases for the many little fragments of Eastern Canada that the Canadian Chippewa collectively own.

As the economy has gotten worse, with no possibility of even a partial recovery within the next few years, I have been entertaining a change of address, as I can always get my card based on my grandmother's number.

A big FYI: I was an economic major for 2 years (Looking back, it seems that I majored in about everything at one point or another before I ran out of funding and had to get a lit degree). I've been watching and waiting for the big crash since the late 70's/early 80's, since I knew that it was inevitable once the false prosperity of WWII and the Cold War came to an end. We are not even near the bottom yet, but watch what happens this summer as most of the smaller players in Europe fold. IE: Portugal, Spain, and most of the Eastern countries.

The top economists that have the most accurate track records, people like Noriel Roubini (Nouriel Roubini - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roubini) & here for a list of the top performers: List of economists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_economists)), are saying that the Spring of 2011 is going to be the beginning of the end, as first France goes belly up, likely followed by the UK, and Italy going insolvent after Germany divorces itself from the EU before they get dragged down with it, and instead joins forces with it's old cousins: Austria, Switzerland, Leichenstein and the Netherlands, and thus sparking realistic fears of resurgent German Nationalism, and a realization that when Germany reunited, the East brought with them not only a considerable stockpile of pilfered fissionable materials, but also control of the dozens of Russian built "Fast Breeder" reactors (a "dirty" reactor, designed with the dual role of producing not just electricity, but lots of exotic man-made radioactive elements. IE: Named after famous physicists, with "IUM" added to the end).

This will add further fuel to the uncontrollable wildfire, AKA: the EU, which will thus further frighten the already much over invested China into not only halting any more purchase of American or European debt, but also cause them to begin to cash in all existing debt as it matures, and thus set the stage for a bank run on America that it is unable to stop, and which will thus result in an overnight double digit increase in the prime, corresponding stratospheric inflation, and a massive devaluation of the dollar.

Anyway, given that reality, I may consider a move, because there are 2 things people will always need: Food and energy, and thus the Canadian government will have to continue to extract gas and oil from the lands covered by those leases.

CowGal

06-02-2010, 09:58 AM

Okay, get this everyone KAT isn't really an Indian, everyone claims they have a great grandmother who was Indian. Her claim is bogus. Also, if she is from Nova Scotia, she's not even a US citizen.

Also, she's been on the dole for a long time:

majored in about everything at one point or another before I ran out of funding

Where did this "funding" come from? Your fake claim to Indian heritage? What scholarship did you apply for based on your 1/16th Indian blood? Why don't you go back to Canada? We didn't ask you to come here.

What kind of job does a Lit major have? Do you even work for a living? Or are you still on the dole?

I'm not American Chippewa, we are from Halifax, Nova Scotia. The Chippewa split into three different groups, and innumerable sub-groups starting with the arrival of the first Europeans, and for the next 300 years.because of the effects the New England settlers were having on other tribes, namely the Iroquois/Mohawk/British/French wars. The majority are surrounding the Great Lakes, while many separate enclaves wound up scattered throughout Eastern Canada.

My great-grandmother was half Chippewa, which makes me 16th. That doesn't sound like much, except for the fact that finding a Chippewa of more than a quarter blood from the group in Nova Scotia is quite rare as they intermarried extensively with the Arcadians and Scottish in order to survive as a people. This was due to the fact that they were on the wrong side of the fence with the French Quebecois of Quebec and Montreal, and then with the British against the Americans.

I've never applied because although I qualify, I didn't consider it fair to get my card just so I could get land and citizenship, if I wasn't going to live up there. It's beautiful, but also nasty wet/icy cold about 8 months of the year. Additionally, there's not much in the way of industry outside of fishing. However, the Canadian government pays the tribe a considerable amount of money for their gas, oil, mineral and land leases for the many little fragments of Eastern Canada that the Canadian Chippewa collectively own.

As the economy has gotten worse, with no possibility of even a partial recovery within the next few years, I have been entertaining a change of address, as I can always get my card based on my grandmother's number.

A big FYI: I was an economic major for 2 years (Looking back, it seems that I majored in about everything at one point or another before I ran out of funding and had to get a lit degree). I've been watching and waiting for the big crash since the late 70's/early 80's, since I knew that it was inevitable once the false prosperity of WWII and the Cold War came to an end. We are not even near the bottom yet, but watch what happens this summer as most of the smaller players in Europe fold. IE: Portugal, Spain, and most of the Eastern countries.

The top economists that have the most accurate track records, people like Noriel Roubini (Nouriel Roubini - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roubini) & here for a list of the top performers: List of economists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_economists)), are saying that the Spring of 2011 is going to be the beginning of the end, as first France goes belly up, likely followed by the UK, and Italy going insolvent after Germany divorces itself from the EU before they get dragged down with it, and instead joins forces with it's old cousins: Austria, Switzerland, Leichenstein and the Netherlands, and thus sparking realistic fears of resurgent German Nationalism, and a realization that when Germany reunited, the East brought with them not only a considerable stockpile of pilfered fissionable materials, but also control of the dozens of Russian built "Fast Breeder" reactors (a "dirty" reactor, designed with the dual role of producing not just electricity, but lots of exotic man-made radioactive elements. IE: Named after famous physicists, with "IUM" added to the end).

This will add further fuel to the uncontrollable wildfire, AKA: the EU, which will thus further frighten the already much over invested China into not only halting any more purchase of American or European debt, but also cause them to begin to cash in all existing debt as it matures, and thus set the stage for a bank run on America that it is unable to stop, and which will thus result in an overnight double digit increase in the prime, corresponding stratospheric inflation, and a massive devaluation of the dollar.
Anyway, given that reality, I may consider a move, because there are 2 things people will always need: Food and energy, and thus the Canadian government will have to continue to extract gas and oil from the lands covered by those leases.

CowGal

06-02-2010, 10:04 AM

yeah, go get your Canadian Indian card based on your fake claim to Chippewa blood from your great grandmother 1/16th. Take money and resources from another government so we don't have to support you any more.

Okay, get this everyone KAT isn't really an Indian, everyone claims they have a great grandmother who was Indian. Her claim is bogus. Also, if she is from Nova Scotia, she's not even a US citizen.

Also, she's been on the dole for a long time:

majored in about everything at one point or another before I ran out of funding

Where did this "funding" come from? Your fake claim to Indian heritage? What scholarship did you apply for based on your 1/16th Indian blood? Why don't you go back to Canada? We didn't ask you to come here.

What kind of job does a Lit major have? Do you even work for a living? Or are you still on the dole?

someguy

06-02-2010, 10:11 AM

yeah, go get your Canadian Indian card based on your fake claim to Chippewa blood from your great grandmother 1/16th. Take money and resources from another government so we don't have to support you any more.

STOP BEING SO HATEFUL.

CowGal

06-02-2010, 10:15 AM

She deserves it because she has expressed hatred towards Mexicans.

Are you KAT's friend? I don't think a lot of people like her.

STOP BEING SO HATEFUL.

CowGal

06-02-2010, 10:18 AM

Talk to me after 4:20 when you can chill out and stop using capital letters. I hate that.

STOP BEING SO HATEFUL.

Valley Oak

06-02-2010, 11:07 AM

Blub-blub, blub-blub.

Talk to me after 4:20 when you can chill out and stop using capital letters. I hate that.

LenInSebastopol

06-02-2010, 11:35 AM

I forgot the name of this thread!
Forget the ad hominem arguments.

Okay, get this everyone KAT isn't really an Indian, everyone claims they have a great grandmother who was Indian. Her claim is bogus. Also, if she is from Nova Scotia, she's not even a US citizen.

Also, she's been on the dole for a long time:

majored in about everything at one point or another before I ran out of funding

Where did this "funding" come from? Your fake claim to Indian heritage? What scholarship did you apply for based on your 1/16th Indian blood? Why don't you go back to Canada? We didn't ask you to come here.

What kind of job does a Lit major have? Do you even work for a living? Or are you still on the dole?

CowGal

06-02-2010, 12:11 PM

Get back to work Edward, you're wasting our tax dollars and our kid's tuition money!

Blub-blub, blub-blub.

Hotspring 44

06-02-2010, 04:44 PM

This thread has become: :kidfight::hitfan::hitfan::boxers::xpoke:

CowGal

06-02-2010, 05:33 PM

The problem with this is that there is a person who is not who they say they are. This person is posting maliciously and sent me a virus to my personal email account. I'm not going to name names because the person knows who they are. But you should be very careful on this site.
The problem that I see with people claiming Indian heritage when they are not actually Native Americans is that they are taking funding away from people who truly deserve it. There are kids on the reservation who cannot go to college because there is not enough scholarship money to go around. We have people who claim that their great grandmothers were Indians. Now tell me, does that make you eligible for a scholarship for Native Americans? The tribes have roll numbers because the BIA (US Government) requires it, not because the tribes are being racist. It is the only way to certify that you are actually eligible for benefits from your own nation. Native Americans that live on the reservation are part of a nation that is separate from the United States. If you are associated with a tribe and have the required percentage of Indian blood then you become eligible for that tribe's specific benefits, just like your employer. Canadian laws are more lax than US laws. You apparently only need to have a small fraction of Indian blood. But why on earth would a college-educated white woman need the benefits from an Indian tribe that is already struggling to take care of their own people, in Canada? This and the comments about hispanic people that are part of your own community is just too much to take. Hispanics are no longer a minority in Sonomna County. Face it, they are bolstering the economy by buying goods from US companies. There are probably more hispanics working at true 40 hour a week jobs in Sonoma County than there are white people, and they get these jobs because they are hard working people. They are not whining about not making the same amount as they were five years ago when the economy was good, they are thankful to get what people give them. I would hire a Mexican immigrant for a ranch hand before I'd hire a white man who is in between jobs because of the economy. Those men usually have a chip on their shoulder and related drinking problems.

Do you know KAT, have you spoken to her (him)? We really don't know who anyone is out here. I have a feeling that she (he) is someone I know very well.

This thread has become: :kidfight::hitfan::hitfan::boxers::xpoke:

Hotspring 44

06-02-2010, 07:31 PM

CowGal

06-02-2010, 08:15 PM

I have never used smiley faces or animated gifs in my posts, I think they are annoying too, as it is when people use capital letters. Using all caps is like shouting and that is not how one debates. You use a calm and level tone of voice and emphasize with words, not the volume of your voice.

I am white, I know that there are bad and good in all races. I am just stating what I have seen in ranch hands that we have tried to hire in my family's dairy business. The cowboys of the past are few and far between. It is the caballeros that dominate ranching. We have had been white men set fire to our barn by smoking where they have been asked not to smoke near the hay. One man came to work so drunk that he left gates open and our livestock got out onto the open road. We had one horse that broke it's leg and had to be put down, my children used to ride that horse two at a time-and we really miss him. The men who came out to get the stock back behind our fences were immigrants from places like Guatamala, Columbia and Michoacan & Guanajuato, Mexico. We even had one white family living on our ranch that set up a meth lab while my dad was in Phoenix helping my grandparents with a medical emergency. The only problem I ever had with an hispanic worker was having to bail out one of our ranch hands because there was some kind of misunderstanding about a car he bought from someone on the Internet. It had stolen plates and he didn't know when he bought it, because he couldn't read English to figure out how to contact the DMV.

I learned Spanish before I learned English because I was raised by an hispanic family and grew up with my "brothers" who were a year younger and a year older than me. The people who work on our ranch are indispensible and I could never do it all myself.

<LINK rel=File-List href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CSH%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><STYLE>  </STYLE>

I'm quite careful on all sites, and I'm always suspicious of personal e-mails, particularly any with attachments from somebody whom I'm not expecting an e-mail from in the first place or that I have had a disagreement with whom I suspect may have some emotional ties to the disagreement itself.
Also, I am suspicious of fighting parties because I don't want to be used as an instrument or an object in their game, whatever it may be.

It really sucks when people have disagreements and then they (or one of them) do something malicious or try to use other people for their own personal gain in some way to cause harm or embarrassment or whatever discomfort to the other parties they are having an argument with.

I agree, as with other fraud.

FYI, I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt I am not eligible for scholarship because of my great grandmother’s heritage; I do not claim to be a Native American whatsoever other than the fact I was born here, both of my parents were born in the United States, but that's about as far as it goes.

I am totally aware about that, I do not think that is (being) racist either.

I quite well understand that, and have respected that with the utmost high regards.

It sounds to me like somebody that does that is either the fucking with the system or they have serious personal problems, or possibly both.

The in between jobs aspect about what you're saying is totally understandable. But otherwise you are generalizing based on race.

I've seen everything (bad) about what you have said about (bad) white people in all races,sexes, religions, beliefs etc..

I do not know KAT; I think there is only one person that I do know on this website from somewhere else before I knew this website even existed. So to the best of my knowledge, I have not talked to anybody else other than that one person that I know of; and that person is not KAT.

I have a feeling that you're (stated) feeling about that person whom you are referring (KAT) being somebody that you know makes sense to me.... ...if not in actual body; in spiritual realm.

BTW, why don't you just start a thread about Native Americans, ancestral and legal rights, etc.?

It seems to me that a thread based on that specifically would be more focused on that subject than this thread. It may also have better responses and outcome.

As far as my use of the smiley figures as a part of comment is concerned; {"This thread has become:"} (smiley) = kids fight, shit hitting the fan, someone punching someone else, and poke with a stick; I still stand by that statement based on its premise.<?xml:namespace prefix = o /><o:p></o:p>

Karen the KAT

06-04-2010, 12:21 AM

I have never used smiley faces or animated gifs in my posts, I think they are annoying too, as it is when people use capital letters. Using all caps is like shouting and that is not how one debates. You use a calm and level tone of voice and emphasize with words, not the volume of your voice.

I am white, I know that there are bad and good in all races. I am just stating what I have seen in ranch hands that we have tried to hire in my family's dairy business. The cowboys of the past are few and far between. It is the caballeros that dominate ranching. We have had been white men set fire to our barn by smoking where they have been asked not to smoke near the hay. One man came to work so drunk that he left gates open and our livestock got out onto the open road. We had one horse that broke it's leg and had to be put down, my children used to ride that horse two at a time-and we really miss him. The men who came out to get the stock back behind our fences were immigrants from places like Guatamala, Columbia and Michoacan & Guanajuato, Mexico. We even had one white family living on our ranch that set up a meth lab while my dad was in Phoenix helping my grandparents with a medical emergency. The only problem I ever had with an hispanic worker was having to bail out one of our ranch hands because there was some kind of misunderstanding about a car he bought from someone on the Internet. It had stolen plates and he didn't know when he bought it, because he couldn't read English to figure out how to contact the DMV.

I learned Spanish before I learned English because I was raised by an hispanic family and grew up with my "brothers" who were a year younger and a year older than me. The people who work on our ranch are indispensible and I could never do it all myself.

Please don't even go there with me on that kind of crap, you can easily look at my member profile and see my real name: Karen Audrey Todd. However, you'll probably not look at it so that you don't lose your reason to assume and speculate upon imaginary nefarious behavior, so I'm going to resolve any possibility of that right here and now, by a complete disclosure of my identity (quite a rare thing for Waccos and their beloved shield of anonymity from which to hide behind, and sling random mud).

Until I started transition a couple of years ago, I was known as Todd William Quigley. Until 2 months ago, I lived at 1438 Furlong Rd. Apparently my former landlord was bothered by the fact that I am a female transsexual, because the day after I came out to him, he gave me notice. This person being a very Liberal type of Liberal, I found the hypocrisy rather amusing). I now live off of Chanate Rd. in NW Santa Rosa. I am the tall, long brown haired, and green eyed woman in the (unfortunately) still, ever so slightly male body. I drive the only Silver Dinan BMW M3 in Sebastopol, and I work as a freelance winemaker in the facility at the corner of 116 and Occidental Rd.

So now please tell me: "Who the fuck are you?"...

CowGal

06-05-2010, 12:21 AM

How is this in any way responding to my post?

I don't care to hear your personal details. So, you have my permission to keep them to yourself. BTW you can include any name you want in your personal details on this site and just because someone types in a name doesn't mean that is their real name. And just because a person claims they are whoever they are doesn't prove squat.

Please don't even go there with me on that kind of crap, you can easily look at my member profile and see my real name: Karen Audrey Todd. However, you'll probably not look at it so that you don't lose your reason to assume and speculate upon imaginary nefarious behavior, so I'm going to resolve any possibility of that right here and now, by a complete disclosure of my identity (quite a rare thing for Waccos and their beloved shield of anonymity from which to hide behind, and sling random mud).

Until I started transition a couple of years ago, I was known as Todd William Quigley. Until 2 months ago, I lived at 1438 Furlong Rd. Apparently my former landlord was bothered by the fact that I am a female transsexual, because the day after I came out to him, he gave me notice. This person being a very Liberal type of Liberal, I found the hypocrisy rather amusing). I now live off of Chanate Rd. in NW Santa Rosa. I am the tall, long brown haired, and green eyed woman in the (unfortunately) still, ever so slightly male body. I drive the only Silver Dinan BMW M3 in Sebastopol, and I work as a freelance winemaker in the facility at the corner of 116 and Occidental Rd.

So now please tell me: "Who the fuck are you?"...

CowGal

06-05-2010, 01:24 AM

People have started to figure out that telling a poorly-thought-out lie gets them caught, so they begin to weave wild tales when they are lying. For example, when asked why she was out so late last night, your girlfriend might tell you that she was driving down the street when she saw an old friend in a passing car. She waved her down, and they pulled into a parking lot and got to talking. They decided to get a cup of coffee at Starbucks, where they discussed religion, politics and pop culture. Then she decided to stop at the grocery store where she purchased a loaf of bread, a six-pack of soda and a carton of milk. She then went to the Chevron to get gas, and finally headed home.

When most people are telling the truth, they don't feel it necessary to expound upon every detail of their day, but they also don't get nervous when they are asked questions. It's a fine line.

Please don't even go there with me on that kind of crap, you can easily look at my member profile and see my real name: Karen Audrey Todd. However, you'll probably not look at it so that you don't lose your reason to assume and speculate upon imaginary nefarious behavior, so I'm going to resolve any possibility of that right here and now, by a complete disclosure of my identity (quite a rare thing for Waccos and their beloved shield of anonymity from which to hide behind, and sling random mud).

Until I started transition a couple of years ago, I was known as Todd William Quigley. Until 2 months ago, I lived at 1438 Furlong Rd. Apparently my former landlord was bothered by the fact that I am a female transsexual, because the day after I came out to him, he gave me notice. This person being a very Liberal type of Liberal, I found the hypocrisy rather amusing). I now live off of Chanate Rd. in NW Santa Rosa. I am the tall, long brown haired, and green eyed woman in the (unfortunately) still, ever so slightly male body. I drive the only Silver Dinan BMW M3 in Sebastopol, and I work as a freelance winemaker in the facility at the corner of 116 and Occidental Rd.

So now please tell me: "Who the fuck are you?"...

Barry

06-05-2010, 01:49 AM

So now please tell me: "Who the fuck are you?"...
I don't believe I've seen an answer to this question, yet. I think a similar level of detail would be appropriate...

CowGal

06-05-2010, 03:19 AM

It is absolutely ridiculous that you would allow this person to say something like this and get away with it, then you validate his/her profanity.

I don't believe I've seen an answer to this question, yet. I think a similar level of detail would be appropriate...

LenInSebastopol

06-05-2010, 06:37 AM

No it wouldn't. Appreciated, maybe, but there's no equity for appropriateness in giving that much level of detail.
I really didn't want that much from Kat either. But I did notice more than a bit of anger in her tone, so exposing one's personal information would not be a judicious move. There are all kinds of folks in the world, as witnessed by other posts and the like.

I don't believe I've seen an answer to this question, yet. I think a similar level of detail would be appropriate...

Karen the KAT

06-05-2010, 07:14 AM

I don't believe I've seen an answer to this question, yet. I think a similar level of detail would be appropriate...

Well at least you got it. LOL!
I guess the rest are too young, too stoned, or not quite awake yet.

\ One would think thatl

Dark Shadows

06-11-2010, 07:36 AM

Whoops, better check, your ignorance is showing!

I have an answer, why not make everyone legal so they have to pay taxes. At $20 an hour in Sonoma County, they make more than most legal people do. They will soon decide that they don't want to play our inflated taxes and go home. Would that make you happy? Then California will lose their business and the taxes they would pay. You think our economy could survive that? The cost of schooling and medical care is a small price to pay to keep the people here that are keeping our economy going. Who do you think's buying those products that underpaid or unemployed people can't afford to buy now that the tax rate is higher than the minimum wage? (minimum wage is $8.00, Sonoma County sales & use tax is 9%)

You dopey dundleberry!

Dark Shadows..."The ancestors of the people targeted by this law were here long before the borders or the United States of America was established. What right does the White Man have to keep people out of their homeland by constructing borders that were defined by bloodshed?"...

Ah brother...with disgusting prejudiced/racist attitudes like that...Almost everybody in the world should just pack up and cram themselves back into Africa...

I am a citizen...And I certainly wish my federal gov't would enforce our laws to make sure our borders are as secure as possible, as much as possible...

Too bad even that is somehow not okay for some...Hey, just keep letting all those wonderful rapists, murderers and other criminals across our borders - who cares...As long as they are 'Brown People' they are a-okay!!...

lynn

06-11-2010, 05:44 PM

Dark Shadows...

Well, miss/mr. high-n' mighty-arrogant...You feel a need to feel superior by throwing out silly name calling words...

Yes, you certainly do show your true disgusting colors...

I'm well aware of just about all of the different facets of illegal immigration...Not ignorant on the subject at all...But, you don't know that...

I've found that those who think so darn highly of themselves, and little of others who disagree with them...No matter, if they are on the 'left' or 'right' politically speaking...Always seem to need to throw out those nifty little personal put downs...Keeps them in the illusion of bein' in the 'know-it-all' category...

Dark Shadows

06-11-2010, 07:42 PM

Oh, shut your pie hole and read between the lines. There is some very pertinent information about taxes and the minimum wage in my post. But your feathers are so ruffled you can't think of anything else but to defend your moronic assumptions.
Dark Shadows...

Well, miss/mr. high-n' mighty-arrogant...You feel a need to feel superior by throwing out silly name calling words...

Yes, you certainly do show your true disgusting colors...

I'm well aware of just about all of the different facets of illegal immigration...Not ignorant on the subject at all...But, you don't know that...

I've found that those who think so darn highly of themselves, and little of others who disagree with them...No matter, if they are on the 'left' or 'right' politically speaking...Always seem to need to throw out those nifty little personal put downs...Keeps them in the illusion of bein' in the 'know-it-all' category...

Speak2Truth

07-16-2010, 12:46 PM

Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution mandates that the Federal Government "repel invasion". That means, it is absolutely required to remove from US soil all persons illegally invading US soil.

Every public servant swears an oath to uphold and defend the US Constitution.

In this nation, The People delegated power to the States that in turn delegated it to the Federal Government. If the Fed fails in its delegated duty, then it is the duty of the HIGHER AUTHORITY, the States, to do the job their servants at the Federal level are failing to do.

And if the States failed to do the job, it would fall upon the highest authority, the sovereign Citizens, to uphold the law until such time as they can put in public service persons who will do the job mandated by the law.

Arizona is merely enforcing the US Constitution, as its public servants swear to do, because the Federal Government is willfully violating the Constitution.

The Law requires all invaders be "repelled" from US soil. NO OTHER OPTION IS ALLOWED.

A vote for amnesty should automatically trigger immediate removal from office and termination of all the benefits that such office would have bestowed, due to violation of the sacred oath that was given as a condition of public service.

"Mad" Miles

07-16-2010, 02:39 PM

Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution mandates that the Federal Government "repel invasion". That means, it is absolutely required to remove from US soil all persons illegally invading US soil...Every public servant swears an oath to uphold and defend the US Constitution....The Law requires all invaders be "repelled" from US soil. NO OTHER OPTION IS ALLOWED ... A vote for amnesty should automatically trigger immediate removal from office and termination of all the benefits that such office would have bestowed, due to violation of the sacred oath that was given as a condition of public service.

Nice tight, valid argument. If only your second premise was true. It isn't.

By your logic, the vast majority of American (U.S.) citizens are here illegally, since their first immigrant ancestors came illegally. Good luck with that campaign.

You're not a lawyer, are you? Neither am I, but I'm informed enough to know that "repelling invasion" applies to foreign armies and agents of foreign powers (note the recent Russian spy hoorah), not individuals seeking a better life for themselves and their families.

Your argument was the same used against the: Bog Irish, Yellow Peril, Slavic Hordes, Mediterranean Masses, Latin Lawless, etc. In times of economic crisis it has force. When hands are needed, it tends to disappear.

I suppose you would have called for the impeachment of Reagan, since he signed off on an amnesty. I wanted him impeached also, but for totally different reasons. Didn't get far with that, even though he lied, broke the law, treated with the enemy, used illegal drug profits to pursue an illegal war in Central America, in defiance of Congress, etc.

How to argue like an ideologue:
<LI class=list_spacer>Start with a factually true statement.<LI class=list_spacer>Extrapolate that statement to apply to things it does not apply to.<LI class=list_spacer>Follow with seemingly logical premises linked to that extrapolation.
Conclude with an outrageous assertion that only the fearful and simple minded would accept.Voila! You've joined the Beck's, Limbaugh's, Palin's, Jones', et al!!

Now you're ready for "conservative" talk radio...or internet video blogging...write a book! Sell it! Make into wikipedia!!

Be sure to monitor your wiki info, someone may sneak in and enter some truths that aren't as flattering as you would like.

Speak2Truth

07-16-2010, 03:12 PM

Apologies for the screwed-up bolding in this post...

By your logic, the vast majority of American (U.S.) citizens are here illegally, since their first immigrant ancestors came illegally.You're saying that after the creation of US immigration laws, most Americans' ancestors came here in violation of them? Please, do provide information supporting the assertion.

You also seem to assert that prior illegal activities justify current illegal activities by sneering at those who insist the law actually be upheld. Are you an anarchist? Anarchy does not end well.

You're not a lawyer, are you? Neither am I, but I'm informed enough to know that "repelling invasion" applies to foreign armies and agents of foreign powersinvasion
1. an act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, esp. by an army.

2. the entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease.

3. entrance as if to take possession or overrun: the annual invasion of the resort by tourists.

4. infringement by intrusion.

You assert the invasion could only legally be repelled if it was by " foreign armies and agents of foreign powers". Please demonstrate where the Founders made that distinction, but allowed that millions of foreign invaders could not be touched by the Constitutional mandate as long as they are not armed.

And let's consider how many of the foreign invaders are armed. Phoenix, Arizona, has become the kidnap capitol because of enemy drug cartels invading.

Furthermore, this invasion has a clearly hostile political intent, as it is orchestrated by agents of hostile foreign powers:

Illegal Immigration Socialist/Communist Agenda
YouTube - Illegal Immigration's Socialist/Communist Agenda (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcwaQBOU_xI)

Reconquista - the illegal invasion has a purpose
YouTube - Reconquista Extremism (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOqzURrGe6Y)

Individuals seeking a better life for themselves and their families have a legal method of entry, by which they demonstrate that they will also respect the laws of the United States that protect the Rights of the American People.

Immigration laws define what is legal entry with careful background screening, to contrast legal entry against "invasion" of the sort that we now see. Enemy ideologues devote to the destruction of the United States, drug cartels, persons from Islamist countries sponsoring terrorism... all those are freely invading.

I suppose you would have called for the impeachment of Reagan, since he signed off on an amnesty

Yep. And the impeachment of every following President who failed to obey the Constitutional mandate.

President Eisenhower, however, did obey the Constitution.

Operation Wetb@ck <- their label, not mine!
How Eisenhower solved illegal border crossings from Mexico
How Eisenhower solved illegal border crossings from Mexico / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com (https://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0706/p09s01-coop.html)

And that's the Truth.

"Mad" Miles

07-16-2010, 04:14 PM

You're saying that after the creation of US immigration laws, most Americans' ancestors came here in violation of them? Please, do provide information supporting the assertion.
...
You also seem to assert that prior illegal activities justify current illegal activities by sneering at those who insist the law actually be upheld. Are you an anarchist? Anarchy does not end well.
...

My absurd assertion that the actions of our ancestors three or more generations back should apply to current citizens was made to point out your absurd assertion that "Invasion" = "Illegal Immigration".

You sourced your argument in our founding document and a fallacious redefinition of a word. One that has no legal standing by the way.

If that makes sense to anyone, then basing an argument about the "Law" on events prior to "laws" having been written, seems just as plausible. It's called irony, since you're so into dictionary definitions, feel free to look it up.

As for Anarchism. While I think that the idea of, "a society based on cooperation and love, without any formal authority," is a nice utopian dream, unlike many of my allies in demonstration culture street politics, I haven't been able to make the leap from, "good idea", to "feasible idea."

So I don't call myself an Anarchist. But I appreciate their sense of humor!

You, of course for a conservative, use the negative definition of Anarchism, which is merely a pejorative trotted out whenever condemning, "those dangerous radicals," and someone needs to deploy it to make that trite point. People defending the status quo have been doing that since at least the mid-eighteen hundreds.

I never sneer at just laws being upheld in a just manner. But I also never forget who writes the laws, and for whom the laws are designed to benefit.

I will not strain at gnats with you. I've made my points, you've made yours. I have better things to do than tilt at the windmills in your mind.

In conclusion, since the antics of previous posters to this thread got it moved to "Censored & UnCensored", I feel justified in offering the following. Guess who I identify with in this sendup?

YouTube: "Jack: There ain't no freakin' ...!" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hm0aXynhK0)

That pretty much covers the tenor of these debates between Left and Right here in waccobb-landia. Guess who I assign the role of customer to, in the animation?

Speak2Truth

07-16-2010, 04:30 PM

My absurd assertion that the actions of our ancestors three or more generations back should apply to current citizens was made to point out your absurd assertion that "Invasion" = "Illegal Immigration".

You sourced your argument in our founding document and a fallacious redefinition of a word. One that has no legal standing by the way.

Legally, "invasion" need not be armed. "Invasion" does indeed have a legal definition. For example:

(4) A person is guilty of home invasion in the third degree if the person does either of the following:
(a) Breaks and enters a dwelling with intent to commit a misdemeanor in the dwelling, enters a dwelling without permission with intent to commit a misdemeanor in the dwelling, or breaks and enters a dwelling or enters a dwelling without permission and, at any time while he or she is entering, present in, or exiting the dwelling, commits a misdemeanor.

Invasion is the act of entering without permission and with criminal intent. So, is intentional violation of our immigration laws "criminal intent" - when the invader is fully aware that they are violating the laws and therefore takes extraordinary steps to circumvent their enforcement?

Yes.

Each year the Border Patrol makes more than a million apprehensions of aliens who flagrantly violate our nation's laws by unlawfully crossing U.S. borders. Such entry is a misdemeanor, but, if repeated, becomes punishable as a felony.

And, for your information, words do not have "standing". Victims do.

If that makes sense to anyone, then basing an argument about the "Law" on events prior to "laws" having been written, seems just as plausible. It's called irony, since you're so into dictionary definitions, feel free to look it up.You're the one who insisted the majority of our ancestors were illegal immigrants. Now you're calling your own assertion... irony? Just admit you were wrong and had no factual basis for the assertion. That would be more honest.

You, of course for a conservative, use the negative definition of Anarchism, which is merely a pejorative trotted out whenever condemning, "those dangerous radicals," needs to be deployed to make a trite point.Actually I, the Free Thinker, mention anarchism because you implied with your statement that the majority of Americans' ancestors were "illegal immigrants" (without ability to support the assertion) as if that somehow excuses the lawlessness we see today. Anarchists uphold a system without law enforcement, a veritable free for all.

We're just trying to get clear on terms here.

I never sneer at just laws being upheld in a just manner. But I also never forget who writes the laws, and for whom the laws are designed to benefit.Clearly, laws designed to stop foreign persons from simply marching right in are designed to protect the people of a society who have agreed to live together in mutual cooperation, mutual defense and in mutual obedience to the laws of the society. Just as the society punishes its own Citizens for violation of the law, even to the point of making them forfeit basic Rights for extreme offenses, that society MUST be able to act against entry by foreign persons who have no regard for the laws of the society - thereby demonstrating their unlawful intent from the outset.

This is true at all levels, from the family home to the community to the town to the State to the Nation.

Such laws are in defense of the lawful residents.

Karen the KAT

07-16-2010, 05:33 PM

Good luck with Miles, arguing with a professor is like fighting air. Those who can't, teach, and they teach their theories with impunity as truth to young impressionable and impressed minds, and when they come up against facts, logic and a reality that doesn't suit their imperious view of the World, they resort to talking in circles, hoping to bore you to the point where they trip you up.

Miles was sure he had me on the Palestinian issue: I said that the majority of Palestinians did not have origins in Israel.

He was so sure he had me, "Prove it with references he said"...

Yet on Wikipedia there is a map of former Palestine, the lands from which the Palestinians sprang forth to invade and terrorize Israel, and gosh and b'golly, Israel made up a grand total of 16% of Palestine. Further, it said that the majority of Palestinians have genetic roots in Jordan (Maybe this is why most of them live still there. LOL!)

After that, arguing with Miles seemed a giant waste of time. Sort of like Braggi and his opinions and emotions he thinks are facts, because he believes in them...

It's not that Miles and Jeff aren't nice guys at heart, they are, but there's a certain lack of logic there that will drive you batty trying to keep up with their emotions...

There's an old saying that warns of the results one can expect, when one wrestles in the mud with a certain farm animal.

By a funny coincidence, "Snowball" was also a Liberal...

Speak2Truth

07-16-2010, 06:26 PM

Good luck with Miles, arguing with a professor is like fighting air.

I do appreciate the good wishes. I do agree that most professed "professors" have a very limited understanding of real-world, relevant information. That's why I make it my goal to present them with as much information as may help them to better understand what is going on - or even the basic meanings of words.

Some, the truly "liberal" open-minded ones, will embrace new information, absorb it, contemplate it and adjust their worldview accordingly. I know a few. Then there are Liberals (aka Leftists) who intentionally argue in circles, trying to avoid any adherence to fact or reason, for the sheer purpose of propagating dogma that they know is false.

Anyway, I'm having fun! :):

"Mad" Miles

07-16-2010, 06:58 PM

... I do agree that most professed "professors" have a very limited understanding of real-world, relevant information. ... Anyway, I'm having fun! :):

Ahh, Rampant Anti-Intellectualism...

Good to see you both are upholding that fine old American (U.S.) tradition.

Just for the record. I do not have a Ph.D. I did attend graduate school in Intellectual History, at the UofC, '84-'85, a noted conservative institution. But my "paralysis of perfectionism" got in the way of completing a Master's, let alone a doctorate. I merely have a B.A. in History & Philosophy, UCI '82.
And also a Professional Clear California State Single Subject Teaching Credential, English & Social Sciences Emphasis, SSU '04 (cleared in '08).

I spent at least five to ten years, off and on, arguing with shithead Marxist-Leninists in Southern California and Chicago. We vehemently disagreed about some of the most basic questions; What is Truth, Is the "Social" Objective or Subjective? Can a military, authoritarian movement create democracy and social justice? etc.

They were as confused, smugly convinced and intellectually benighted as you lot!

Good practice though. Never did convince them of the errors of their ways. That's the problem with True Believers. Everything, literally everything, serves merely to confirm what they already know is right, true, good and just. No dents in their ideological armor!

Glad you're enjoying yourself. At least you're accomplishing that much.

Speak2Truth

07-16-2010, 07:12 PM

If you demonstrated some factual basis for your assertions, I might be persuaded. That is all I really seek - convincing argument rather than mere assertions that cannot be demonstrated to have factual underpinnings.

And, really, "standing"?

You say these things about arguing with Marxists - but I don't see how you could possibly show them to be "wrong" unless you provide at least some supporting information for your assertions. Marxists love to "argue". They will spew opinions and assertions with little regard for fact, all day.

It's when you begin to provide substantiating information that they melt down or resort to various dodges.

That's what I am doing here - providing you not only with assertions but with factual information to back them.

Do you concede now that "invasion" has a legal definition and that we can apply it to the Constitutional use of the term?

I provided plenty of legal information to back my use of the term. You did not provide anything to show where I was wrong. Is that an admission that you recognize and accept new information, so that we can move along in the discussion?

Will you now use the term "standing" correctly?

"Mad" Miles

07-16-2010, 07:59 PM

If you demonstrated some factual basis for your assertions, I might be persuaded. That is all I really seek - convincing argument rather than mere assertions that cannot be demonstrated to have factual underpinnings.

And, really, "standing"?

It's when you begin to provide substantiating information that they melt down or resort to various dodges.

You'll have to remind me of how you think I'm misusing "standing". I've been writing a lot this afternoon and nothing leaps to mind.

That's what I am doing here - providing you not only with assertions but with factual information to back them.

No you're not, you're making biased, unfounded assertions straight out of the Libertarian/Conservative talking points brief. I don't take your claims seriously, because to effectively refute them would require a review course in American History, The History of Capitalism, and Intro to Political Philosophy. That would take more time than I'm willing to expend. Plus nobody's paying me to do it. (Hooray for Capitalism!)

Do you concede now that "invasion" has a legal definition and that we can apply it to the Constitutional use of the term?

I provided plenty of legal information to back my use of the term. You did not provide anything to show where I was wrong.

No, I don't. Asked and answered, see my previous reply. The one with the "How to argue like an ideologue" numbered list.

If some constitutional legal scholar has read this, I'd be interested in what their views are, regarding your conflation of "Illegal Immigration" and "Invasion".

I'm sure there's plenty of precedent addressing this very issue. It's just outside of my range of technical expertise. But my memory is that no one has successfully made such an argument and has won in a court of law in this country. It would be pretty big news if they had.

So I stand on my assertion that you are projecting your political project, to squash illegal immigrants coming, mostly from Mexico, by making a fake legal argument.

Maybe in the future, if the Nativist, anti-illegal immigration movement that you're repping for here gets enough steam going, it might happen. But I suspect that constitutional guarantees of due process and the right against self-incrimination (Taking the 5th) will prevent that from happening. At least for an interpretive and not a strict constructionist court.

On the other hand the current court ruled that corporations have all the rights of individual persons. So who knows?

After Dred Scott and Plessy vs. Ferguson, it isn't outside the bounds of possibility for this country. Of course, we have made some improvements since then, so it would surprise me.

Will you now use the term "standing" correctly?

Again, you'll have to remind me of what you're on about.

I haven't seriously debated you here, today. Because your claims are on the face of them absurd, fallacious and biased. I've been slamming you for that. I haven't really attempted to parse your "facts" and refute them with my own. For reasons already stated and because:

Any student of ontology and epistomology knows that what one posits as fact, has as much to do with subjective viewpoint, and the assumptions behind it, (i.e. world view) as any provable nugget of objective information based on empirical evidence confirmed by social consensus.

This is especially true for the Social Sciences and Humanities, where subjects of study, which are interpreted through subjective interest, stance, experience and world view, are not provable, one way or the other, by empirical evidence.

We may agree, for instance, on what date George Washington was sworn into the office of the Presidency. But we could differ as to what that meant for the future of our country. Social Scientists attempt to describe objective reality with statistics, but then get endowments depending on how they interpret the numbers, and who they hold off in the academic turf wars.

On the specific issue of immigration, I wrote my "Lies About Undocumented Workers and the Immigration Debate" a few days ago. It is linked on this thread in a previous post of mine.

You've dug up a lot of old threads to ventilate on today. I'm sure you can find it yourself. That post is pretty much what I have to say on the matter. Feel free to argue my "facts" there.

Out,

Speak2Truth

07-16-2010, 08:39 PM

Are you aware of the authority on which President Eisenhower sent Federal Agents to simply round up and "repel" illegal invaders? He did, you know. Aside from the many "undocumented workers" (invaders) he rounded up, many times more simply went home when they realized the law would actually be enforced.

Immigration law IS THE LAW.

It was perfectly within his Constitutional Mandate, Article IV, Section 4.

Your assertion that invaders may be repelled only if they are armed soldiers or Foreign Agents has been presented with no supporting evidence.

Please, support your arguments.

You are making all sorts of assertions then dodging any effort at obtaining some factual backing.

Karen the KAT

07-17-2010, 12:05 AM

Miles, few people can talk in circles and make unsubstantiated allegations like you can. I find it quite funny that you always insist that the other person support their thesis with facts, and yet when they ask the same of you, we just get pages of carefully composed garbage consisting of opinions, emotions, and just plain bullshit.

It may work in the classroom with teenagers, but elsewhere with thinking adults, it just makes you look petty, childish, inane and illrelevent.

May I again suggest using actual facts, obtained from objective, and verifiable sources.

Just my two cents worth of reality...

Karen the KAT

07-17-2010, 12:15 AM

Liberal debate tool: make up shit as you go, and then when you get called on it, project the accusation onto the other person, and accuse them of exactly what you got busted for.

God, it's so pathetic....

Karen the KAT

07-17-2010, 12:22 AM

Very good self description Miles: "

Ahh, Rampant Anti-Intellectualism...

Good to see you both are upholding that fine old American (U.S.) tradition.

Just for the record. I do not have a Ph.D. I did attend graduate school in Intellectual History, at the UofC, '84-'85, a noted conservative institution. But my "paralysis of perfectionism" got in the way of completing a Master's, let alone a doctorate. I merely have a B.A. in History & Philosophy, UCI '82.
And also a Professional Clear California State Single Subject Teaching Credential, English & Social Sciences Emphasis, SSU '04 (cleared in '08).

I spent at least five to ten years, off and on, arguing with shithead Marxist-Leninists in Southern California and Chicago. We vehemently disagreed about some of the most basic questions; What is Truth, Is the "Social" Objective or Subjective? Can a military, authoritarian movement create democracy and social justice? etc.

They were as confused, smugly convinced and intellectually benighted as you lot!

Good practice though. Never did convince them of the errors of their ways. That's the problem with True Believers. Everything, literally everything, serves merely to confirm what they already know is right, true, good and just. No dents in their ideological armor!

Glad you're enjoying yourself. At least you're accomplishing that much.
"

That is EXACTLY WHAT YOU DO!!!!

Bloody hilarious...

"Mad" Miles

07-17-2010, 12:58 AM

KtK,

I don't debate with fools and liars. You are a liar when you assert that significant numbers of Arabs who live in the occupied territories are not Palestinians and only arrived after 1969.

I, and others, have produced facts, historical ones, which prove you wrong. You have never produced any documented, sourced evidence to support your lie.

I don't have to prove you wrong, although I have. You have to justify your absurd and marginal claim, which you have never done.

Of course you can't, because it is demonstrably not true. But you cling to it anyway. Which makes you either a liar, or a deluded fool. I choose to believe you are the former. Hey, I'm giving you credit for having a form of intelligence! The other option is much less flattering...

As a result, I hope others understand when I don't take anything you say seriously.

And I am not working as a teacher here. My method in the classroom is based on open inquiry, tolerant discussion, and encouraging students to support their claims with evidence from reputable sources.

Hint: Right Wing Conservative Conspiracist websites are not considered reputable.

Here, I am declaiming against delusion, falsehood, bias, and political tendentiousness. Not as a teacher, but as a student of politics and history, and an activist who has fought, and will fight, for social justice and human freedom (as well as justice and freedom for non-human life.)

Two different projects. You seem to have them confused. I do not.

As for me not producing "facts" to refute S2T, sigh, I'll repeat myself:

*************
I haven't seriously debated you here, today. Because your claims are on the face of them absurd, fallacious and biased. I've been slamming you for that. I haven't really attempted to parse your "facts" and refute them with my own. For reasons already stated and because:

Any student of ontology and epistomology knows that what one posits as fact, has as much to do with subjective viewpoint, and the assumptions behind it, (i.e. world view) as any provable nugget of objective information based on empirical evidence confirmed by social consensus.

This is especially true for the Social Sciences and Humanities, where subjects of study, which are interpreted through subjective interest, stance, experience and world view, are not provable, one way or the other, by empirical evidence.

*****************

Rightist ideologues suffer from the same delusion as authoritarian Leftist ideologues (i.e. certain dominant strains of Marxist/Leninism). They think that the social world is an objective reality, made up of facts. That may apply to the hard sciences, it is a futile approach to the Social Sciences.

Every fact is an interpretation, every interpretation can be claimed as fact, but "in fact" is not. It's much more complex than I have the time and inclination to go into here.

But those who are convinced that their views about topics like; race, immigration, economic justice, "The Constitution", among many, are justifiable based on black/white, binary oppositional logic, have not really studied the nuances and complications of what it means to think about complex social phenomenon.

And for those of you who haven't done that work, there is nothing I can say to convince you that you have a very limited and simplistic view of the social world around you. Once you've done the work, you'll see it for yourself, and you'll quite reducing every controversial issue to evaluation by using "true or false" logic.

Some people never get there. Perhaps most don't. But among those who have, what I've been saying is elementary. Not really subject to debate.

What is subject to debate are the nuances of interpretation, various explanatory theories, and seeking the more interesting questions that bring out new ways of thinking about things that were seen as simpler before the question was asked.

If you haven't been there, I can't describe it to you. If you have, I don't really need to.

Those are "facts" that you won't find in a pre-nineteen hundred reference book. Except for the German Romantics, the Gnostics, the Transcendentalists and many other schools of thought that questioned standard Western Rationality.

Hie thee to a Library!

But watch out for the Islamo-Fascist, Mayan-Aztec, Goddamn Socialist, Illuminati/Masonic/Reptilian Overlord Cabal agents lurking there, seeking to lead you astray from THE FACTS!!

someguy

07-17-2010, 08:41 AM

Very good self description Miles: "

"

That is EXACTLY WHAT YOU DO!!!!

Bloody hilarious...

Good job pointing that out! It drives me mad too.

kpage9

07-17-2010, 10:05 AM

I'm probably not alone in holding back from this exchange because Miles has really spoken for me, and the three of you (out of 10,000!) on the other side use arguments--premises, logic and supporting details, along with "wingnut" videos and articles--that come from another world...so far from the one I live in that I don't know where to start, what to say.

But I wanted to say something anyway, although it can't possibly be a full response. I have two concerns. One is about you and your position; the other is about the divide between us.

You (plural) and your position certainly have some isolated pieces of fact right. But the overall attitude toward society seems to ignore consequences to individual humans and to the fabric of our society as a whole, cleaving instead to our "rights", to "original intention of the Founders", and so on...

If your neighbor's child was hurt and asked you for help to stop the bleeding, I bet you'd be kind. You wouldn't stand back and scold about the puddle he slipped in. And then your neighborhood would be that much stronger, with bonds in place that would provide help, mutual protection, cameraderie and--who knows--cookies.

That's the attitude that strengthens our safety, quality of life. An attitude of connectedness, of mutual support. Not one of suspicion and self-righteousness.

(And so no, i won't be debating "facts". I'm interested in the values that underlie the argument.)

About the divide, I have no wisdom or solutions or even much hope. But I think we (the other 9,999 of us) would do well to put some of our so-valued brains, heart and conversation toward somehow attuning to the humanity behind the right-wing positions. If we don't, we just continue to stand back--way back-- slackjawed, baffled to the core, about HOW THE HELL COULD THIS BE HAPPENING, this juggernaut of the right. Or we argue. And I think it's pretty clear that arguing logically with it DOES NOT MAKE A DENT.(Not that I can resist either.)

Well, thanks for listening.

kathy

Miles, few people can talk in circles and make unsubstantiated allegations like you can. I find it quite funny that you always insist that the other person support their thesis with facts, and yet when they ask the same of you, we just get pages of carefully composed garbage consisting of opinions, emotions, and just plain bullshit.

It may work in the classroom with teenagers, but elsewhere with thinking adults, it just makes you look petty, childish, inane and illrelevent.

May I again suggest using actual facts, obtained from objective, and verifiable sources.

Just my two cents worth of reality...

Hotspring 44

07-17-2010, 12:16 PM

Karen the KAT

07-17-2010, 12:36 PM

Oh, you're correct, the Right uses the same tactics. Being neither left nor right, I see the left and right to be equally full of bullshit. Your a liberal so that includes your factless, long winded, unsubstantiated and emtional personal opinion pieces that you parade as being factual.

Hotspring 44

07-17-2010, 01:08 PM

Being neither left nor right,...
:nosegrowlie:I don't believe that for one second! :hello::negative:You are in the (":itwasntme:") denial and the "spin" :Yinyangv: sector for sure!

Karen the KAT

07-17-2010, 01:33 PM

You are so clueless...

I'm a transsexual lesbian.

I also think Obama, Reid and Pelosi are the most selfish people to ever hold their offices.

Go figure...

"Mad" Miles

07-17-2010, 02:40 PM

I once met a gay, alcoholic, neo-nazi who had fought in Angola on the South African (Apartheid Regime) side. He and another "White Pride" buddy had come into the Nader headquarters in Santa Rosa when I was there alone one evening. To discuss the fact that Buchanan and Nader were the only presidential candidates willing to discuss the plight of the white working class.

I spotted them right off for what they were, because of the boots and braces on the one guy, their haircuts, and the circle cross badge on the dude in "Oi" gear. When I asked him what his badge meant, he said it was a Celtic Cross. I replied, that's funny, because in Europe the circle cross hairs is the sign of the neo-fascists. He demurred as to that being true.

About a year later I ran into the gay fascist at The Old Vic, I was having my late lunch / early dinner, and, after he struck up another conversation, I invited him to sit down. He was fascinated by my post-New Left, theoretical ideas about revolution. Because he sincerely wanted to pick my brain about how to make a revolution to benefit the white working class of Amerikkka. It was an odd experience, casually, politely conversing about politics with someone, who in a not too different time and place, would be trying to kill me, and me him.

My point being that people are complex. We all have our idiosyncratic quirks. But if one is fairly consistently representing the views of an identifiable political tendency, denying adherence to that tendency will be met with amused skepticism.

Karen the KAT

07-17-2010, 05:34 PM

So because I'm against big government, that makes me a conservative. But I'm for LGBT rights, and that makes me liberal. Without wasting any more time, let's just say that I can go back and forth for quite a while, and once again your point is pointless...

kpage9

07-17-2010, 05:37 PM

That's a startling assertion, Karen--is it really the case that you don't see your positions as those of the right wing. Can you name one that isn't?
kp

Oh, you're correct, the Right uses the same tactics. Being neither left nor right, I see the left and right to be equally full of bullshit. Your a liberal so that includes your factless, long winded, unsubstantiated and emtional personal opinion pieces that you parade as being factual.

kpage9

07-17-2010, 05:48 PM

In my opinion, being for LGBT rights doesn't make you a liberal, but it certainly is one big exception to you general right-wing stance.

Do you have some issue with being considered on the extreme right? If everyone else here says that's how they see your position, in what way is
it not true? Left or right isn't really open to discussion any more than whether something is a table or a chair. That is, for the most part, we would normally all agree.

And: whom are you calling clueless, and why?

kp

So because I'm against big government, that makes me a conservative. But I'm for LGBT rights, and that makes me liberal. Without wasting any more time, let's just say that I can go back and forth for quite a while, and once again your point is pointless...

Karen the KAT

07-17-2010, 06:14 PM

If miles speaks for you, then you're as delusional as he is, and any sort of debate is pointless.

Hotspring 44

07-17-2010, 06:17 PM

You are so clueless...

I'm a transsexual lesbian.

I did not know nor do I think that has anything to do with being either right or left, liberal or conservative. Is that what you mean when you say "You are so clueless..."?

I also think Obama, Reid and Pelosi are the most selfish people to ever hold their offices. Go figure...

I disagree with that assessment, and I am not going to get into a point to point debate with you on that either. I am going to leave that one for itself.

Barry

07-17-2010, 06:54 PM

I'm a transsexual lesbian.

Just so we can follow along here at home, that means you were a guy, and now you're a girl who likes girls. Right?

Karen the KAT

07-18-2010, 05:40 PM

Just so we can follow along here at home, that means you were a guy, and now you're a girl who likes girls. Right?

it's not quite as simple as that: I was never a "guy" except in body, I've had a female brain since 5 months after conception. Originally I was attracted to guys, but by the time I reached puberty I no longer had any desire to be with one for the simple reason of how badly they had treated me. The switch to women was a conscious effort, but after a lifetime of it, it now seems right and normal.

To help you better understand this, here's a short primer in fetal sexualization and transsexuality:

At around the second month of pregnancy, the chromosomes signal the body to make either male or female genitals. If that signal isn't loud enough, you get a female by default as of course, all people start as female. Then around the 4th month, those genitals produce either estrogen, or testosterone, which then tells the brainto either stay female, or to change to male. There are significant physiological differences between female and male brains which can easily be seen by MRI (which was confirmed in my case by an accidental cranial MRI, they were supposed to MRI my back and did my head by mistake).

What commonly happens is that the chromosomes cause the body to produce male genitals, but they don't produce enough, or strong enough testosterone and then the brain stays female, and you get the classic "woman in a man's body" such as I (The reverse is not as common, and im not going to go into that right now). These changes happen quickly, and by the 6th month, the brain is set for life as one sex or the other. There are an infinite number of possible scenarios, but again for now, I'm sticking with the classic MTF.

In my case, even my body didn't properly masculinize, and I have always had a very feminine figure except for my genitals and height. This is because my mother was taking DES estrogen, a very strong, early form of synthetic estrogen for the first 6 months of pregnancy. DES has long since been banned because it caused birth defects in females. Recent itcame to light that it caused transsexualization in 70%+ of males. Lucky me...

Transsexualism isn't a mental disease, it's not a fetish or lifestyle choice, and it really has nothing to do with being gay or lesbian. That forme, was a lifestyle choice, and I've known for many, many years that I was actually a lesbian, as I haven't thought of myself as anything but female since I was approx 3 or 4 when I first figured out I was a woman.

What caused me so much confusion was that LGBT, and the media, has always painted transsexuals as some sort of freak.

Once I realized I had a simple birth defect that I shared with millions of of otherwise normal women around the World, the choice to transition was automatic.

The clearest anology I can give is that you look in the mirror in the morning, and you see the opposite sex, and since that's what everyone else sees, you are compelled to try to be that person, so that your life has some semblenc of normalcy.

That 2/3 of transexxuals have committed suicide out of frustration by the time they turn 40, gives you some idea of the kind of immense Inner strength and open mIndedness that I posess. Thus I have never been one with the herd mentality that it takes to be on the extremes politically

I now look at my transsexuality as a wonderful blessing that God has given me, for truly I am the open minded one who has survived a trial by fire that kills more than not. That I stand in the middle of two extremes is a natural reflection of who I am, what I have been through, and the lessons I have learned along the way, of the dangers of the closed mindedness that it takes to stand so blindly firm on one side or the other.

Considering that if you completely removed the issue of my transsexuality, I would still have survived a life that would be considered an extremely hard one, you might want to ask yourself why one so intelligent, educated, and very experienced in life, looks at the extreme left and extreme right as being the most deluded...

Or you can all continue to live in your ever dissappointing, Fantasy Land...
You mIght want to take that to heart

Barry

07-18-2010, 05:49 PM

Thanks for the explanation, Karen, but what warranted this:

Or you can all continue to live in your ever dissappointing, Fantasy Land...

??

kpage9

07-18-2010, 08:04 PM

Exactly what I was going to comment on, or half of it anyway.

Karen, you do seem brainy, but your sweeping contempt for the rest of us kind of dilutes the impression of intelligence, for me anyway.

The other half has to do with this: "Recent itcame to light that it caused transsexualization in 70%+ of males." Can you sort that out a little further?

kathy

Thanks for the explanation, Karen, but what warranted this:

??

Karen the KAT

07-18-2010, 08:15 PM

Oh, just the fact that I find so much bitterness with waccos as a whole, and most of you have had pretty good lives. There is no other condition that has anywhere near the suicide rate as transsexuality. That I survived it,
on top of a life that would horrifying most people, and I'm still a very happy person, might give one pause to think: " Gosh, that bitch just might be on to something"...

I find so much discontent, hate and anger from your members, and yet I who have lived through what I can safely say is considerably more than your average person, can still laugh at herself and find the type of inner peace that others evidently dont have, just might be a reason to listen to me.

My point is simple: you will never find peace in the extremes, (a very old quote, that one) and yet virtually all of your members are political extremists.

As I have said before: I have always found the most closed of minds at the two political extremes, and certainly Wacco's are fir the vast majority, political extremists. It takes a very open mind to give up the things you hold dear and meet in the middle, but you'll find to be much easier once you compromise, because surprise, surprise, the middle is where reality runs the strongest, and it's where you will find the most diversity.

Just my thoughts as a happy survivor of something thatost people can't even understand, let alone live through...

Sorry if I'm a pushy bitch, but the longer you stand on the extreme, the longer you waste the time, money and efforts of those in the middle, who compromise the majority. The 40 something percent of you who make up the two extremes are fucking it up for the rest of us. Now that's what I call selfish...

Go figure, I'm sure you've an excuse that makes you feel justified, but the truth is that you're all a bunch of selfish people and your actions are proof of it.

Go figure...

I'm sure I'll get lots of lame excuses in
reply...

Hotspring 44

07-18-2010, 09:20 PM

Karen the KAT, you said: <link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CSH%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><style>  </style> <table class="MsoTableGrid" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: medium none;" border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style=""> <td style="border: 1pt solid windowtext; padding: 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top"> [Karen the KAT]> “Oh, you're correct, the Right uses the same tactics. Being neither left nor right, I see the left and right to be equally full of bullshit. Your a liberal so that includes your factless, long winded, unsubstantiated and emtional personal opinion pieces that you parade as being factual.”<o:p>
</o:p>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
Then you said: <link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CSH%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><style>  </style> <table class="MsoTableGrid" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: medium none;" border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style=""> <td style="border: 1pt solid windowtext; padding: 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top"> [Karen the KAT]> “You are so clueless...
I'm a transsexual lesbian.
I also think Obama, Reid and Pelosi are the most selfish people to ever hold their offices.
Go figure...”<o:p></o:p>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
Then: <link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CSH%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><style>  </style> <o:p> </o:p>
<table class="MsoTableGrid" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: medium none;" border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style=""> <td style="border: 1pt solid windowtext; padding: 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top"> Karen the KAT]> “So because I'm against big government, that makes me a conservative. But I'm for LGBT rights, and that makes me liberal. Without wasting any more time, let's just say that I can go back and forth for quite a while, and once again your point is pointless...”<o:p></o:p>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CSH%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><style>  </style> <o:p>
</o:p>
Then:

Considering that if you completely removed the issue of my transsexuality, I would still have survived a life that would be considered an extremely hard one, you might want to ask yourself why one so intelligent, educated, and very experienced in life, looks at the extreme left and extreme right as being the most deluded...

Or you can all continue to live in your ever dissappointing, Fantasy Land...
You mIght want to take that to heart

...which is the first time you mentioned "extreme left and extreme right" instead of just left (wing) or right (wing) or conservative or liberal.

It is at this point in time apparent to me that you have a personal issue that does not coincide with the traditional right-wing. But other than your own personal issue, it appears to me that your political leaning is definitely rightward. I'm wondering if you're really the one here that is living in "your ever dissappointing, Fantasy Land...".
it appears to me that you conveniently seem to put other people in a (left wing, right wing, liberal, conservative) box so to speak in your opinions, but you insist on not being put in one yourself. But there you are in one anyway.

BTW, making a statement that ends in: ..."your point is pointless".; negates itself.
This part of this conversation reminds me of the story about "Oblio":
[I]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Point!#Story (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Point%21#Story)
[I]Watch The Point Oblio movie online | reviews | images | plot | quotes | subtitles (https://www.cornel1801.com/video/MH64VB72.html)
For somebody that claims to be "so intelligent, educated, and very experienced in life", I am slightly surprised you ended a statement like that.
So I guess the rest of us reading this thread are left to guess that what you said was either meaningless or you may have meant something else.
I personally think there is a level of denial there.
As far as I'm concerned, anybody can say they disagree all they want, that's perfectly okay with me, but to make a statement ending like that seems to me to be a bit misguided.

kpage9

07-18-2010, 09:31 PM

Karen, I'll say it again: you make some really good points at times, but the utter contempt you hold us all in just wipes out any pretense of wisdom.

"Go figure, I'm sure you've an excuse that makes you feel justified, but the truth is that you're all a bunch of selfish people and your actions are proof of it.

Go figure...

I'm sure I'll get lots of lame excuses in
reply.."

Barry

07-18-2010, 09:34 PM

Oh, just the fact that I find so much bitterness with waccos as a whole...

I find so much discontent, hate and anger from your members...

...but the truth is that you're all a bunch of selfish people and your actions are proof of it.

I notice that a large part of the bitterness on WaccoBB involves you.

Hotspring 44

07-18-2010, 09:37 PM

"Mad" Miles

07-18-2010, 09:41 PM

Just did a fast skim of the last three or four posts I'll read it thoroughly tomorrow. (Restaurant recent post wouldn't load, had to check it. And like a moth to the flame... I can't help myself. Missing the Mystery, although I can hear it from the other room.)

I just wanted to thank KtK.

An "Extremist Moderate"

Love It!

An entirely new concept in my political lexicon.

Who knew?

I didn't.

Sara S

07-20-2010, 06:54 AM

OK, I'm elderly now, and was raised to be sort of Miss Mannersly, but I really liked things better when people's sexual orientation was more private, and was not a cause for public spouting or for personal justification. ( I had a chance when I was in the hospital recently to be exposed to TV for the first time in a long while, and I really liked TV better in the old days, too, when I didn't have to listen to comments about how long one's erection might last, or the consistency of one's stool.)

While I do support complete disclosure in matters of debate, and I'm sure that openness about one's sexual orientation is a good thing (I had a gay friend 40 years ago who killed himself largely because of the non-acceptance prevalent then), I've surely seen as much extremism from gays pushing their agendas as from right-wingers pushing theirs.

I can safely say that I probably have lived through a (certainly longer) life that was at least as challenging as yours, but I don't hate anyone, I'm only angry at slow drivers in front of me (until I remember that patience s a Buddhist virtue and practice that) and I don't use my trials and tribulations as a platform for anything but helping people who are suffering from the same things that I survived. Without getting into comparisons of our relative sufferings, I'll just say that my only child was killed in a traffic accident when he was 17, and that was neither the first nor the last tragedy in my life.

Sara

Oh, just the fact that I find so much bitterness with waccos as a whole, and most of you have had pretty good lives. There is no other condition that has anywhere near the suicide rate as transsexuality. That I survived it,
on top of a life that would horrifying most people, and I'm still a very happy person, might give one pause to think: " Gosh, that bitch just might be on to something"...

I find so much discontent, hate and anger from your members, and yet I who have lived through what I can safely say is considerably more than your average person, can still laugh at herself and find the type of inner peace that others evidently dont have, just might be a reason to listen to me.

My point is simple: you will never find peace in the extremes, (a very old quote, that one) and yet virtually all of your members are political extremists.

As I have said before: I have always found the most closed of minds at the two political extremes, and certainly Wacco's are fir the vast majority, political extremists. It takes a very open mind to give up the things you hold dear and meet in the middle, but you'll find to be much easier once you compromise, because surprise, surprise, the middle is where reality runs the strongest, and it's where you will find the most diversity.

Just my thoughts as a happy survivor of something thatost people can't even understand, let alone live through...

Sorry if I'm a pushy bitch, but the longer you stand on the extreme, the longer you waste the time, money and efforts of those in the middle, who compromise the majority. The 40 something percent of you who make up the two extremes are fucking it up for the rest of us. Now that's what I call selfish...

Go figure, I'm sure you've an excuse that makes you feel justified, but the truth is that you're all a bunch of selfish people and your actions are proof of it.

Go figure...

I'm sure I'll get lots of lame excuses in
reply...

Speak2Truth

07-21-2010, 05:55 PM

You (plural) and your position certainly have some isolated pieces of fact right. But the overall attitude toward society seems to ignore consequences to individual humans and to the fabric of our society as a whole, cleaving instead to our "rights", to "original intention of the Founders", and so on...

Actually, it is because of attention to consequences to individual humans that I (and we) provide details and facts. Sound decisions must not be made out of emotion. Wisdom is not about acting on your feelings but rather acting on what (often demonstrably) is likely to actually achieve a desired outcome.

Marxists have stated their goals. They are the opposite of American principles. We have seen what Marxists do to nations where they attain control and it never ends well. People die trying to escape from Marxists.

The "Founding Principles" and "Founders" of this nation created a system that is so truly good that people die trying to get here (while escaping from Marxist masters). Well, putting Marxists in control of this nation is NOT going to improve the global or local situation at all. It is merely going to destroy the refuge so many people have sought.

This is not by accident. When other nations saw what the Founders created here, a nation with sound financial policy, a government prohibited from wanton spending, a free market economy - when they saw Abraham Lincoln take steps to ensure sound financial policy would free this nation of debt imposed by international bankers and other meddlers... well, they had something to say about that:

From the London Times: "If that mischievous financial policy, which had its origin in the North American Republic, should become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without a debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of the civilized governments of the world. The brains and the wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed, or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe."

We are watching the Marxists do just that. Right now. In control of our government, they are imposing debt that may never be recoverable (after years of pretending to be against GW Bush creating debt).

Their agenda is right in front of our noses.

Enforce immigration law - it is a key step towards saving our nation's sovereignty and economy.

No wonder Leftists fight so hard to prevent its enforcement.

"Mad" Miles

07-21-2010, 06:47 PM

... That government must be destroyed, or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe."

We are watching the Marxists do just that ...

The Marxist Monarchist Threat Has Finally Been Revealed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

God Damn Socialists! They're sooooo devious!!!!

Karen the KAT

07-21-2010, 06:52 PM

You are 100% correct but you are preaching mostly to closed minds that for some unfathomable reason, actually believe that "their" politicians care about them for the simple ignorance of party identity.

Pelosi, Obama and Reid are downright marxists in actuality, but they preach "Green", "Medical care for all", and "Equal rights for all" (LGBT), and that sounds good to the sheep, so they vote for people who want nothing more than to see them enslaved to credit and National debt, and then have the vacuity to say: "Well they couldn't get the bills passed the way they wanted because the Republicans interfered".

Considering that the Democrats have a lock-hold on all three branches of government, have passed every bill the have written and passed a medical plan that less than 40% of the people support by ramrodding it through, these words seem to me, to be at best, the baahing of sheep, and more likely the blathering of idiots.

It's all about the redistribution of taxes to those people and entities who control them through their PACs and other financial leashes.

Pelosi, Obama and Reid have done EXACTLY what they wanted to do, which was take your money away from you and give it to their friends.

"Mad" Miles

07-21-2010, 07:00 PM

Yo KtK,

How's that, "everyone who disagrees with me and has voted for a democrat is a stupid sheeple" trope working for you?

Winning any hearts and minds?

Hotspring 44

07-21-2010, 08:28 PM

Pelosi, Obama and Reid have done EXACTLY what they wanted to do, which was take your money away from you and give it to their friends.

It is so easy to play the blame game isn't it?
What solutions or proposals do you have to offer to solve the problems we face right now?...

..."Free Market"?...

...Eliminate Social Security.... ...I.E. allow the elderly starve if they can not find a church or other PRIVATE charity.

Do away with all anti-trust banking laws.

Allow the bullies to dominate the whole economy.

How about this; coerced labor on the otherwise unemployed to do work for food stamps, doing the hard labor that the repatriated (https://www.thefreedictionary.com/repatriated), undocumented labor force would otherwise be doing...

...Eliminate H.U.D.

Privatize parks and recreation lands.

Eliminate ALL Class Action litigation.

Institute "State Rights" to bifurcate (https://www.thefreedictionary.com/bifurcate) responsibility; Constitutionally, giving States the power to decide the Civil Rights for themselves and leaving the federal government out of it altogether when it comes to any civil rights of people regarding anything monetary that does not directly involve the Federal Government.

Ban all labor Unions.

Leave it up to States to decide who and how voting; I.E. Florida in 2000 hanging chads and the hackable (De-Bold E.T.all) voting machines, residency requirements, and also allow states or local governments to directly charge the voters money at the poling place for the ballots etc.

Allow multinational corporations U.S. branches unlimited funding of campaigning in any elections they want regardless of where the money comes from.

No maternity leave.

No Federal food labeling requirements what so ever for the largest food processors.

Etc, etc, etc...

Other than the military, "trade and commerce" (enforcement of "free trade") and border; No federal government involvement period!

...That's right, give the aggressive, testosterone charged bankster's and their bully enforcer's (the top 2%) what (ransom) they want and all will be hunky-dory... ...NOT!!!
<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CSH%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><style>  </style> Let’s hear it for free market capitalism!! :usflag:<o:p></o:p>
HIP, HIP Hur:barfonu:!!!... ...HIP, HIP Hur:barfonu:!!!... ...HIP, HIP Hur:barfonu:!!!

kpage9

07-22-2010, 08:22 AM

Karen,

How do you square this statement:

"It's all about the redistribution of taxes to those people and entities who control them through their PACs and other financial leashes.

Pelosi, Obama and Reid have done EXACTLY what they wanted to do, which was take your money away from you and give it to their friends."

with the fact that the Right wants to keep Bush's tax cuts for the rich?

kathy

Speak2Truth

07-23-2010, 12:40 PM

Tax Cuts are exactly the opposite of seizing money to redistribute to people who don't work for it.

Tax Cuts encourage business owners to grow their businesses, to hire more employees, to become more productive. This has been proven repeatedly throughout our nation's history.

What Obama has done instead is force the honest, productive businesses to hand over cash so he could stuff it in the pockets of corporations run by his friends, a bunch of crooks who ran their companies into the ground. Franklin Raines of Fannie Mae is the worst among them.

When crooked businesses are allowed to fail, the economy and the nation are improved by it.

When honest businesses are punished to prop up the crooked businesses, that is Fascism. It brings down the economy because the honest business person is put in fear of success, lest they be punished for it, so they are unable to plan for the future with any certainty.

Lots of profitable car dealerships were shut down by the Obama Administration after it (illegally, per the Constitution) nationalized certain car companies. Is that the proper exercise of government power that was only created to defend our Rights?

I hope this makes sense to you.

kpage9

07-23-2010, 12:52 PM

Ohhhhhhh, S2T, now I have to yell at you.

THE TAX CUTS ARE FOR THE VERY RICH. OBAMA IS PUTTING TAX INCENTIVES IN FOR SMALL BUSINESSES, MIDDLE CLASS PEOPLE!!!!!!!!! I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THIS SICK IDENTIFICATION WITH THE VERY RICH, TO THE HORRIBLE DETRIMENT OF YOU (I presume) THE MIDDLE CLASS.

with ire,

Kathy

Karen the KAT

07-23-2010, 02:42 PM

Are you completely clueless? Surprise, surprise, but the majority of those considered "rich" are now DEMOCRATS, (Newsweek and Time both reported on this back when Bush proposed the tax cuts) and have been for several years. Wall Street is now almost completely Democrats because the Democrat politicians steer all the tax money into their companies. It's all smoke and mirrors and you're the scarecrow. Who cares about tax cuts when your friends are steering billions into your failing company where you can launder them into TAX FREE INCOME.

Who gives a shit about tax cuts when the majority of your income is tax free? It makes you look good to support it, a nice distraction for the gullible...

The tax cuts were intended to help small to mid sized business owners so that they could reinvest their profits back into the economy. Not surprisingly most people who own small to mid sized businesses, are those who pay the most in taxes.

Every time in our history that we have cut taxes, it has helped our economy, and every time we have increased taxes, it has hindered it. The whole Obama tax cuts is just a big shell game to buy votes from those who can't keep track of which shell the money is under. Taxes have skyrocketed everywhere but in a very visible sector of the income tax. Obama says you are paying less in income tax, so what, you're still paying more taxes overall, you just don't notice them, because Gibbs works real hard to keep you distracted, and you fall for it.

Obama: "I cut taxes for the poor and lower middle class, and increased taxes for the rich"...

What it really means: "But I increased every other form of tax and doubled your ACTUAL tax burden. Then I gave your taxes to my billionaire friends so they can launder that money and turn it into billions of tax free dollars".

That is the reality of taxes, Obama style...
Tax cuts, ROFL!!! whatever....

Again, go wiki the Joyce Foundation and check out their connection to Goldman Sachs, Bear Stearns, Fannie, Freddie, and our current administration.

Speak2Truth

07-23-2010, 05:49 PM

Shoveling the money into the pockets of their buddies...

Chicago bank has questionable ties to Obama administration
Bank set up to launder "carbon" money expected to be very profitable for closely tied backers
https://www.examiner.com/x-15898-Cincinnati-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m5d21-Obama-ties-to-shore-bank-worth-examining

Obama Grant of $400,000 Is To Be Split Between Charities Run By Gadhafi Family Members to Promote Libya's Image
Kirk To Obama: Withdraw Grants To Libyan Charities Run By Gadhafi Family - cbs2chicago.com (https://cbs2chicago.com/local/kirk.gadhafi.charities.2.1205623.html)

Obama: Boys from Brazil better than U.S.
President blocks drilling at home, funds exploration abroad (PetroBras), enriching Soros investment
Obama: Boys from Brazil better than U.S. (https://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=107810)

Climate-Gate Scientist Michael Mann Awarded Half A Million In Stimulus Money
Author of "hockey stick" graph rewarded for his part in climate-gate scheme
Climate-Gate Scientist Michael Mann Award Half A Million In Stimulus Money FRISK A LIBERAL (https://friskaliberal.wordpress.com/2010/01/14/climate-gate-scientist-michael-mann-award-half-a-million-in-stimulus-money/)

Al Gore joins Kleiner Perkins as a partner — to push green investments
Gore's investment portfolio value multiplying as government forces tax funds into 'green' jobs and companies
( Gore joins Silicon Valley's Kleiner Perkins to push green business (https://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/11/13/MNUCTB215.DTL) )
( Al Gore joins Kleiner Perkins as a partner — to push green investments | VentureBeat (https://venturebeat.com/2007/11/12/al-gore-joins-kleiner-perkins-as-a-partner-to-push-green-investments/) )

Former Vice President Al Gore is co-founder and Chairman of Generation Investment Management
Team | Generation Investment Management LLP (https://www.generationim.com/about/team.html)

As for "tax incentives" for middle class businesses - no. I've attended local business owners' meetings and heard one tale after another of businesses shutting down or moving overseas because of the increasing cost of business taxes and regulatory costs (making them pay for bureaucrats to tell them what they can and can't do).

Obama offered to extend a temporary tax credit to businesses, to put them further into debt in the long term because it is a one-shot deal rather than an ongoing relief of taxation. It is a temporary trick to temporarily boost employment for the upcoming election cycle.

Obama Announces $33 Billion Hiring Tax Credit for Jobs - ABC News (https://abcnews.go.com/Business/Obama/obama-tax-credit-33-billion-hiring-jobs/story?id=9697334)

Under the president's proposed tax credit, businesses would receive a $5,000 tax credit for every net new employee that they employ in 2010. The total amount of credit will be capped at $500,000 per firm to ensure that the majority of the benefit goes to small businesses.

John Schmitt, an economist at the progressive Center for Economic and Policy Research, said there's no reason not to extend the credit to large businesses too. According to the SBA (https://web.sba.gov/faqs/faqIndexAll.cfm?areaid=24), firms with fewer than 500 workers employ just over half the U.S. private sector labor force, leaving the rest, Schmitt said, to large businesses.
"Small businesses create a lot of jobs, but large businesses create a lot of jobs too," he said.

Ultimately, this is a cheap political manipulation of the sort Leftists often employ to adjust your perceptions. They'll tweak things here, tweak things there, help this company out, punish another company for doing too well...

All of it completely AGAINST the American principle of equal treatment under the law!

America became prosperous in large part because people had confidence in the stability of our economic system so they could plan for the long term.

Now, with tyranny at the helm, with increasing nationalization of businesses and power over businesses, even a prospering car dealership might be forcefully shut down by the arbitrary caprices of the leftist manipulator. And many were.