I thought the Left was for FAIRNESS. Guess not. by AURaptor

Immigration laws for people who are coming into the country aren't racist, but detainment and deportation under certain conditions might be.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 28, 2010 12:10 PM

WHOZIT

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Immigration laws for people who are coming into the country aren't racist, but detainment and deportation under certain conditions might be.

When would be a good time to detain & deport?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 28, 2010 12:10 PM

Another Rappy rant without facts of cites - but a lot of unfounded ideological crap. Just more BS floating in the wind....

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 28, 2010 12:14 PM

I kinda like what we already have, where you do a background check and deport if someone is picked up on suspicion of theft, rape, drug-dealing, smuggling, murder, etc.

There are flaws with that, of course, like the possibility of trumping up charges.

Generally, it makes me uneasy on principle to support anything that could give the government any power to remove or detain anyone, whether an actual citizen or an immigrant, but I can see how it might be necessary. I mostly just want to be careful that anything that does get passed doesn't bite us all in the ass.

That tends to mean I'm wary or against most legislation.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 28, 2010 12:15 PM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 28, 2010 12:36 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Another Rappy rant without facts of cites - but a lot of unfounded ideological crap. Just more BS floating in the wind....

Another childish dismissal of anything I say, out of hand, w/ out any reasoned, intelligent or honest response to the issue.

Same old B.S., from the 'mark.

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 28, 2010 12:43 PM

America loves a winner!

Wulf -

Amazing video. Looks like that driveway might have a gate at the entrance. If so, I wonder why it was open at the time of the attack. Did the home owner just arrive, and the thugs bum rush in, trying to catch him off guard ( and gain access, before the gate closed ? )

Might explain why the pin head crook fired off a shot , as soon as they got there.

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 28, 2010 12:46 PM

CHRISISALL

Hey Wulf, score one for the good guys!

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 28, 2010 12:46 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

So you're saying you fully support not allowing Cubans into the country any more, correct?

I mean, if we're going by "fairness"...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 28, 2010 12:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Another Rappy rant without facts of cites - but a lot of unfounded ideological crap. Just more BS floating in the wind....

Another childish dismissal of anything I say, out of hand, w/ out any reasoned, intelligent or honest response to the issue.

Same old B.S., from the 'mark.

Well, it is a dismissal of what you have to say, this is true. But at least I'm up front about it, rather than pretending complete fabrications and distortions are factual, as you do on a daily basis.

And the dismissal is based on your well documented track record of being utterly full of shit, so it is justified.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 28, 2010 12:53 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:

Well, it is a dismissal of what you have to say, this is true. But at least I'm up front about it, rather than pretending complete fabrications and distortions are factual, as you do on a daily basis.

You just made that up. Cite one example of how I DAILY fabricate, distort anything, or apologize.

Quote:
And the dismissal is based on your well documented track record of being utterly full of shit, so it is justified.

There is no such track record, so again, cite your proof, or shut the fuck up.

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 28, 2010 12:54 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So you're saying you fully support not allowing Cubans into the country any more, correct?

I mean, if we're going by "fairness"...

Prime example of a straw man argument.

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 28, 2010 1:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So you're saying you fully support not allowing Cubans into the country any more, correct?

I mean, if we're going by "fairness"...

Prime example of a straw man argument.

Well, if by "straw man" you mean directly addressing your original post and point...

Quote:

Why should one immigrant be more special than another ?

If you're from Africa, India or Poland, you're treated 1 way as an immigrant. But if you're from Mexico or further south, you're treated COMPLETELY different.

So why DO we have a COMPLETELY different immigration policy and process for anyone coming from a communist nation like Cuba?

I'm simply asking why you seem to support having such double standards, and why you won't address the question, since you seem to hold such outrage and be involved in so much hand-wringing over this issue.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 28, 2010 1:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:

Well, it is a dismissal of what you have to say, this is true. But at least I'm up front about it, rather than pretending complete fabrications and distortions are factual, as you do on a daily basis.

You just made that up. Cite one example of how I DAILY fabricate, distort anything, or apologize.

Well, you just claimed that there was NO law broken in the RNC's latest "census" mailer, despite clear evidence that there absolutely IS a violation of federal law in that matter. Now you're trying to equivocate and back off that claim because you've been proven to be full of shit, fabricating "facts" that you've simply pulled out of your ass - apparently with your teeth.

Quote:

Quote:
And the dismissal is based on your well documented track record of being utterly full of shit, so it is justified.
There is no such track record, so again, cite your proof, or shut the fuck up.

"The economy is on fire!" - You were still claiming this as late as 2008, despite being told explicitly what was happening, and what was GOING to happen because of the Bush policies.

"95% of Americans pay no taxes!" - despite being shown time and again that you were completely making up bogus numbers, you kept trying to stick by them, and then lamely came back saying that you were "tired" when you made those claims. You never apologized, you never admitted you were dead wrong, you never admitted any fault at all, even though you were quite demonstrably full of shit.

"There's nothing in the law that REQUIRES anything!" - despite having the actual text of the law quoted to you, more than once, you STILL maintain that what it plainly says is simply not there, doesn't exist. Again, you're utterly full of shit.

Story, what else would you like to add? I didn't mean to steal all your thunder.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 28, 2010 1:53 PM

America loves a winner!

When the children stop changing the subject title, maybe they'll be ready for a grown up discussion.

But not until then.

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 28, 2010 2:52 PM

Nah, Kwick - that was a solid "greatest hits" right there.

The response it got from our lad here is just icing - he asks for examples, gets them, then changes the subject (by complaining about the change in subject - how meta).

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 28, 2010 2:56 PM

Next I expect he'll wheel out the haughty and hoary old "you're not worthy of my eminent response" line.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 3:32 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
When the children stop changing the subject title, maybe they'll be ready for a grown up discussion.

As if YOU are???

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!

I guess you think that gives you good enough cover to slip out of the thread?

Here's an idea: Why don't you salvage your reputation a bit, and actually address the countering facts and questions on the topic of the thread? Have a real conversation, in which people respond on point with thoughtful, verifiable replies. Might be worth a try.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 6:30 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Lordy, Crappy, you just keep GIVING us the amunition. Let's see:

Quote:
They must go through the system. Filing, paying, studying for that citizens exam.... taking YEARS of committed effort and dedication to achieve a well deserved goal of becoming a full fledged citizen of the United States of America.

Lie. People who come from ANYWHERE must go through those things to become citizens, be born here, or marry an American. Anyone else, from anywhere else, is illegal. So:

Quote:
Quit making up shit. Either show some evidence or admit you can't.

and

Quote:
And that's the sum total of your argument. You can't offer up any substantive, reasonable reply, other than dole out insults and dismissive, personal comments.

and

Quote:
I just would rather you do less projecting onto others and try comprehending more.

You made NO effort to comprehend the true facts of attaining citizenship, you just assumed and ran with it.

Also:

Quote:
You just made that up. Cite one example of how I DAILY fabricate, distort anything, or apologize....There is no such track record, so again, cite your proof, or shut the fuck up.

Proof of the track record was shown, with quotes of the more egregious examples (nobody is going to take the time to remember ALL your various fabrications, etc.), so to ask for "daily" examples is disingenuous. Also:

Quote:
You can't offer up any substantive, reasonable reply, other than dole out insults and dismissive, personal comments.

Quote:
When the children stop changing the subject title, maybe they'll be ready for a grown up discussion. But not until then.

and

Quote:
Another childish dismissal of anything I say, out of hand, w/ out any reasoned, intelligent or honest response to the issue.

Well, then by your own words:

Quote:
I'm always amused when the petulant little children pretend they're on the moral high ground and call others petulant children.

You really should pay attention to your own words; you condemn yourself by them more often than anyone else. You might also think about dropping your recent tactic of calling others "children". First off, it's become boring; second, you just remind us that the only one pretending to take the "moral high ground" by calling others petulant children is YOURSELF.

You could consider dropping the "straw man" thing, too, again because you've used it so much it's boring, and the most frequent straw-man arguments are provided by you, as well.

So SHOW us where your initial statement is true, with FACTS, or give it up. You failed once again to make any pertinent points, and merely resorted to calling people names and telling them to shut the fuck up. You also need some new material.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 6:40 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Oh, and since you know so little about the path to citizenship in this country, here are some FACTS and CITES:

Quote:
There are various naturalization provisions that allow permanent residents (green card holders) to become U.S. citizens. The most common of these provisions is section 316(a) of the INA which allows a person who has been a permanent resident for at least 5 years to apply for naturalization.

To be eligible for naturalization under section 316(a) of the INA, an applicant must:

Be 18 or older

Be a permanent resident (green card holder) for at least 5 years immediately preceding the date of filing the Form N-400, Application for Naturalization

Have lived within the state, or USCIS district with jurisdiction over the applicant’s place of residence, for at least 3 months prior to the date of filing the application

Have continuous residence in the United States as a permanent resident for at least 5 years immediately preceding the date of the filing the application

Be physically present in the United States for at least 30 months out of the 5 years immediately preceding the date of filing the application

Reside continuously within the United States from the date of application for naturalization up to the time of naturalization

Be able to read, write, and speak English and have knowledge and an understanding of U.S. history and government (civics).

Be a person of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States during all relevant periods under the law

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6
a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=86bd6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=86bd6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD

Anyone from any country has to go through the procedures to become first a green-card holder, then a naturalized citizen, THEN a citizen. I know, my mother was a naturalized citizen who immigrated from France. Don't bullshit me about the path to citizenship, I know more than you do. And don't pretend it's different for immigrants from South, to become citizens (if proper immigration reform is ever created), they go to the END OF THE LINE to start that process.

Quote:
people who want into this country to abide by the very laws which CITIZENS are expected to follow

is also false. Illegal or not, you have to abide by the same laws as citizens. I know THAT, too; Jo came here and stayed illegally and if she'd broken the law, would have been deported the same as any other illegal.

You can find details on applying for naturalization, becoming a permanent resident or petitioning for family members, citizenship via marriage or birth, at the same site.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 6:44 AM

MINCINGBEAST

it occurs to me that the only people who are for fairness are liars and losers. everyone is for victory--fairness only enters into our minds, or leaves our mouths, when we are losing and envious that the other guy has the advantage. so no, the left isn't for fairness.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 6:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

I guess you think that gives you good enough cover to slip out of the thread?

Since when does he need a cover to tuck tail and run?

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 7:11 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Yeah, Mincing, you're right again. Only the Right does it too...does that make the Left equally awful, or do we get points 'cuz their whining is so much louder? Do we get points for not tucking tail and running? Surely we get points for SOMETHING! Otherwise it's not fair, is it?

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 7:39 AM

Say, um, Rapster - Are you saying you have NEVER changed any thread titles? Or are you saying that you're as childish as all those "petulant children" you accuse of being so very childish.

By the way, did someone change the thread title? I'm not seeing it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 7:42 AM

They changed it to "I thought the RIGHT was for FAIRNESS. Guess not."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 7:44 AM

Quote:

You could consider dropping the "straw man" thing, too, again because you've used it so much it's boring, and the most frequent straw-man arguments are provided by you, as well.

You mean like when he said that if you opposed Arizona's new immigration law, that meant that you supported open borders, drug runners, rapists, murderers, and thugs?

Nawwww... THAT doesn't sound like a straw man, does it? Hell, it sounds like such a huge straw man, they should call it a BURNING MAN!

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 7:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
They changed it to "I thought the RIGHT was for FAIRNESS. Guess not."

Well, that's just preposterous! NOBODY ever thought the Right was for "fairness". That's a ludicrous idea at its very core!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:21 AM

We are the hollow men, we are the stuffed men, leaning together, headpiece filled with straw.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 9:29 AM

Quote:
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 2:28 PM

:)

So just remember, not necessarily a bad thing to be the straw man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 3:14 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
When the children stop changing the subject title, maybe they'll be ready for a grown up discussion.
As if YOU are???

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!

I guess you think that gives you good enough cover to slip out of the thread?

Here's an idea: Why don't you salvage your reputation a bit, and actually address the countering facts and questions on the topic of the thread? Have a real conversation, in which people respond on point with thoughtful, verifiable replies. Might be worth a try.

Why not just answer the question, and stop trying to change the subject or hurl mindless, petty insults ?

Too much to ask ?

For a change, I'd appreciate it if ANYONE would reply to the original point, instead of blindly blurting out " yeah, but ...!!! ".

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 3:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
When the children stop changing the subject title, maybe they'll be ready for a grown up discussion.
As if YOU are???

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!

I guess you think that gives you good enough cover to slip out of the thread?

Here's an idea: Why don't you salvage your reputation a bit, and actually address the countering facts and questions on the topic of the thread? Have a real conversation, in which people respond on point with thoughtful, verifiable replies. Might be worth a try.

Why not just answer the question, and stop trying to change the subject or hurl mindless, petty insults ?

Too much to ask ?

For a change, I'd appreciate it if ANYONE would reply to the original point, instead of blindly blurting out " yeah, but ...!!! ".

Hell, if by "ANYONE" you include yourself, I'd love it if you'd answer the question, too.

Quote:
Why should one immigrant be more special than another ?

If you're from Africa, India or Poland, you're treated 1 way as an immigrant. But if you're from Mexico or further south, you're treated COMPLETELY different.

That DOES include Cuba, doesn't it?

Why SHOULD one immigrant be more special than another?

You posed the question. Why won't you answer it?

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 3:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So you're saying you fully support not allowing Cubans into the country any more, correct?

I mean, if we're going by "fairness"...

Prime example of a straw man argument.

Why not just answer the question, and stop trying to change the subject or hurl mindless, petty insults ?

Too much to ask ?

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 30, 2010 3:12 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Okay, Rappy, here's your answer: I think ALL immigrants should be treated alike.

Now, will you answer the question about Cubans?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 30, 2010 3:32 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

That DOES include Cuba, doesn't it?

Why SHOULD one immigrant be more special than another?

You posed the question. Why won't you answer it?

You're intentionally interjecting Cuba to avoid my question. Cuba is a separate issue, and has been, for 50 years. I'll not bother w/ your straw man.

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 30, 2010 3:34 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Okay, Rappy, here's your answer: I think ALL immigrants should be treated alike.

Now, will you answer the question about Cubans?

Cuba's situation is complicated by the embargo. You're essentially saying you want the embargo dropped, correct ?

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 30, 2010 3:36 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
You're essentially saying you want the embargo dropped, correct ?

No, I want you to ANSWER THE QUESTION instead of changing the subject.

That was YOUR mantra, wasn't it? I showed you mine, now you show me yours.

Goose sauce = gander sauce.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 30, 2010 3:40 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
You're essentially saying you want the embargo dropped, correct ?
No, I want you to ANSWER THE QUESTION instead of changing the subject.

That was YOUR mantra, wasn't it? I showed you mine, now you show me yours.

Goose sauce = gander sauce.

Now you're being obstinate. You know damn well that nothing per immigration can be done w/ regards to Cuba w/ out the embargo status being changed.

I'll not play this game.

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 30, 2010 3:46 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
No, I want you to ANSWER THE QUESTION instead of changing the subject. That was YOUR mantra, wasn't it? I showed you mine, now you show me yours. Goose sauce = gander sauce.- Signy

Now you're being obstinate. You know damn well that nothing per immigration can be done w/ regards to Cuba w/ out the embargo status being changed. I'll not play this game.- Rappy

No, I'm not being "obstinate".

We've enforced PLENTY of embargoes/ sanctions around the world without making "exceptions" for their immigrants. For example, we sanctioned Iraq. Did we change our policy on Iraqi immigration? We embargoed Nicaragua. Did we change our policy on Nicaraguan immigrants? We embargoed Chile under Allende. Same question.

One (embargo) does not follow the other (lax immigration), either historically or logically. You're simply refusing to answer a perfectly reasonable question.

And the only reason for you to back out is because you know that you're not REALLY for "fair" immigration, because you want our immigration polices to be subject to our political goals. That MAY even be a reasonable thing to do (After all, how many Vietnamese "boat people" did we allow in after the fall of Saigon?) but that's not the argument you were making. You were making the argument that all immigrants should be treated alike. Apparently, you really don't think so. So I changed the title to reflect your REAL viewpoint.

So feel free to w/draw from the discussion, but you're only doing a disservice to yourself and your credibility.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 30, 2010 4:50 AM

I'm not changing the subject; I'm asking a question in direct response to YOUR original question:

Quote:
Why should one immigrant be more special than another ?

YOU are the one who hoisted the straw man about embargoes. I simply asked if (and why) you would support a completely different set of immigration laws for one group of people over another. You've run away, backed off, and refused to address the issue YOU raised.

You've been utterly childish about it, and you've called everyone else childish for not letting you have your little temper tantrum. You'd like to throw out false statements and claim them as fact, and you don't want anyone else to be allowed to refute your falsehoods. How childish is that? You're like a spoiled three-year-old being told that two plus two equals four, and responding with an insistent, "Nyuh-UHHH! Does NOT!"

You want to keep asking questions, but you refuse to answer questions - even YOUR OWN questions.

Do you support a national ID card? Yes or no, and why?

Do you think we should have one set of immigration rules for one group, and a completely different set of immigration rules for another group? Yes or no, and why?

I don't really expect that you'll answer; you're far too cowardly for that. You'll hem, you'll haw, you'll disappear, you'll change the subject, you'll insult and evade, you'll namecall, but what you WON'T do is answer the questions.

Go ahead; prove me wrong. I won't hold my breath.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 30, 2010 4:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Okay, Rappy, here's your answer: I think ALL immigrants should be treated alike.

Now, will you answer the question about Cubans?

Cuba's situation is complicated by the embargo. You're essentially saying you want the embargo dropped, correct ?

Now, see, I *WILL* answer that question. Yes. Absolutely. The fastest way to end communism in Cuba is to open up relations with them completely. It doesn't mean we "support" their government or their leaders, any more than we "support" the government and leaders in places like Liberia, Indonesia, China, or Saudi Arabia; it means we can sit down and actually TALK. To the leaders, to the people, to each other. Nothing has proven better at breaking down barriers than conversation.

As I've said before, you want Castro and Communism gone from power in Cuba, don't threaten them with bombs and embargoes; bombard them with McNuggets, Levi's jeans, and Coca-Cola, and let them know in no uncertain terms that these are the kinds of things we view as "garbage" culture, not even worthy of a second thought, they're so common and unremarkable. Show 'em that, and they'll come clamoring to be rampant little consumers!

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 30, 2010 6:36 AM

RAHLMACLAREN

"Damn yokels, can't even tell a transport ship ain't got no guns on it." - Jayne Cobb

Wow, Rappy will string ANY words together, as long as he dosen't actually create an answer.

And just to prove how timid Rappy is, I (a lurks-alot) will answer the question.

Umm.... What was it again? Oh, I remember now...

Quote:
Why should one immigrant be more special than another ?

They shouldn't. Why we still talkin' about this?

And...

Quote:
Cuba's situation is complicated by the embargo. You're essentially saying you want the embargo dropped, correct ?

Sure, why not? It's a stupid embargo anyway.
*(Yes)

And to answer Kwicko's questions:

Quote:
Do you support a national ID card? Yes or no, and why?

[Chanels (sic) Cordelia] I don't think you should have to do anything in America if you don't want to. You don't *have* to pay taxes. Just become a bow-wielding ultra survivalist living in the deep woodsy-woods of a national forest. *(No)

Quote:
Do you think we should have one set of immigration rules for one group, and a completely different set of immigration rules for another group? Yes or no, and why?

Nope, 'Cause that would be against equal rights.
*(No)

Hey, that wasn't so hard.

It's like a loopy rollercoaster.

They look scarer from afar
than they actually are.

(Hey, that rhymed. And it IS Poet's Day!)

*Added simple answers so Rappy could understand :)

--------------------------------------------------
Find here the Serenity you seek. -Tara Maclay

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 30, 2010 7:08 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Your entire diatribe has been for naught, Crappy. You posted a position which was fallacious in its face; I refuted it with facts and cites; you've gone right on bellowing the same points, hurling ugliness and deflecting the obvious: Your statement was wrong. End of story.

You truly ARE a foul wind. You blow one way, then when a barrier is put up to the direction you're going, you blow around it, change direction and deflect the discussion off to the side, etc. You blow every which way, and the wind is foul, in that you never come up against the walls of fact and stop.

Once again you've triggered people into responding to your ugliness without directly addressing your initial statements and how they are false. Are you at all catching on, folks? He keeps you going with deflections and obviously false statements, and it works.

Rahlm is right: Why are we still taking the bait?

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 30, 2010 7:34 AM

Well, Niki, that's WHY I keep bringing the discussion back to Rappy's original query.

Of course, it's rather ironic that he is the one who REFUSES to address his own questions and issues.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 30, 2010 2:24 PM

I see Rappy's still ducking and weaving on this one.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 30, 2010 4:29 PM

America loves a winner!

I guess some of you would rather write a book of excuses and evade the point, just to avoid facing the fact that treating one group of illegals one way and others completely different is perfectly fine to promote your social / political agenda.

I, however, don't have that much time to waste.

And Nikki, I see you elevated me back to coporeal form, but if you want a real reply , and a real discussion, drop the childish 'tude.

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 30, 2010 4:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I guess some of you would rather write a book of excuses and evade the point, just to avoid facing the fact that treating one group of illegals one way and others completely different is perfectly fine to promote your social / political agenda.

I, however, don't have that much time to waste.

THAT is laughable, in the extreme. You "don't have that much time to waste", huh? Then why have you spent literally HOURS of wasted time on this very issue this week?

Now, it seems to me that YOU are the one saying it's perfectly fine to treat one group of aliens completely differently from others, solely in order to promote your social / political agenda.

Is that indeed what you're saying? That it's perfectly fine by you if we treat one group of aliens (Hispanics) completely differently than we treat other groups of aliens (whites)? 'Cause that's kinda been the whole point of all these threads this week: the idea that it's NOT okay to single out one particular group or race for special harrassment solely in order to promote your social or political agenda.

What part of that don't you get?

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 30, 2010 5:54 PM