[jtfanclub]

luke warm, on May 24 2007, 12:51 PM, said:

whether or not i want to change it has no bearing on the fact that your argument is faulty... you reached a conclusion based on an erroneous premise, period

First of all, your origninal post recommended changing the 14th admendment, remember?

Second of all, the 14th amendement doesn't prevent the government from making people illegal. In fact, we still do it for bail jumpers, where the bounty hunters are allowed to violate a number of their basic rights in order to bring them in.

And third of all, what the law says is moot. If you start referring to homosexuals as 'flammables' and how horrible they are, they're probably going to still be offended even though actually setting them on fire is against the law.

[luke warm]

jtfanclub, on May 24 2007, 04:17 PM, said:

luke warm, on May 24 2007, 12:51 PM, said:

whether or not i want to change it has no bearing on the fact that your argument is faulty... you reached a conclusion based on an erroneous premise, period

First of all, your origninal post recommended changing the 14th admendment, remember?

i don't think that's what i said... my original post included:

Quote

finally, what's wrong with any of these?
~~~~~
3) only children born to u.s. citizens will obtain citizenship status

to which richard replied, and i answered:

Quote

3.  This requires amending the US Constitution

• well if you mean to use the 14th ammendment, it needs to be used fully... by that i simply mean that the 14th says that all people, citizens or non-, are treated equally under the law.. presently, in many cases, that isn't true... i don't know what happens in your part of the country, but in the south illegal immigrants are often let go when they break, for example, traffic laws...

my point is that the 14th amendment is not being followed now... follow it or repeal it, do you agree?

Quote

Second of all, the 14th amendement doesn't prevent the government from making people illegal.  In fact, we still do it for bail jumpers, where the bounty hunters are allowed to violate a number of their basic rights in order to bring them in.

this is the 2nd time you've made this statement... *people* aren't illegal, per se... i did a dictionary search for 'illegal person' and came up with, "There are no dictionary entries for illegal person" ... you earlier stated:

Quote

An illegal PERSON is one not protected by the law.  That's where we get the word "outlaw" from.  So an illegal alien is an alien who is not protected.  You can rob them, rape them, even kill them, and you won't be breaking the law.  Illegal aliens are, by the literal definition, people you think aren't even human enough to be protected by the most basic laws of our society.

this is simply not true and i don't know where you get it... first of all, there's no such thing as an illegal person... how would you define the term? dictionary.com defines illegal alien as:

1. a foreigner who has entered or resides in a country unlawfully or without the country's authorization.
2. a foreigner who enters the U.S. without an entry or immigrant visa, esp. a person who crosses the border by avoiding inspection or who overstays the period of time allowed as a visitor, tourist, or businessperson.

which jives pretty well with my definition in an earlier post: "words have meanings, and words that modify one another also have meanings... an alien, in this context, is one not native to this country... illegal means against the law... so 'illegal alien' simply means a non-native who lives here against the law..."

as for your other, to me ridiculous, assertions can you site some source that backs up your contentions that an "illegal person" (whatever that may be) is "... one not protected by the law..." and "...You can rob them, rape them, even kill them, and you won't be breaking the law...?" surely you don't believe such a thing is possible, or that there is any legal or otherwise definition that agrees with you.. as for this statement you made:
"Illegal aliens are, by the literal definition, people you think aren't even human enough to be protected by the most basic laws of our society."
what "literal definition" are you speaking of? where is it found? it sounds as if you are just spouting off things with no thought to helping others understand your reasoning

Quote

And third of all, what the law says is moot.  If you start referring to homosexuals as 'flammables' and how horrible they are, they're probably going to still be offended even though actually setting them on fire is against the law.

i'm sorry but this is nonsensical to me... perhaps you can rephrase?

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on May 24 2007, 02:56 AM, said:

Now for a scholarly look at reconquista but a similarly disturbing conclusion, there is Harvard Professor Samuel P, Huntington, Chairman of the Harvard Academy for International and Area Studies , who wrote The Hispanic Challenge in Public Policy Magazine, April, 2004: "[t]he persistence of Hispanic immigrants threatens to divide the United States into two people, two cultures, and two languages... The United States ignores this challenge at its peril... Mexican immigration differs from past immigration due to a combination of six factors: contiguity, scale, illegality, regional concentration, [in the American Southwest], persistence, and historical presence... Demographically, socially, and culturally, the reconquista (re-conquest) of the Southwest United States by Mexican immigrants is well underway."

Since you decided to drag Huntington into the discussion, it might be appropriate to consider some of this other quotes. Here's one that made its way to the Washington Post's Op-Ed page this morning:

"America was created as a Protestant society just as and for some of the same reasons Pakistan and Israel were created as Muslim and Jewish societies in the 20th century."

What a load of crap...

As I've noted before, I have a great deal of sympathy for Huntington's whole Clash of Civilizations model. However, I think that the fracture points fall in very different places. I certainly don't buy into his ridiculous fetishes surrounding different Abrahamic sects...

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on May 25 2007, 08:57 AM, said:

"America was created as a Protestant society just as and for some of the same reasons Pakistan and Israel were created as Muslim and Jewish societies in the 20th century."

What a load of crap...

even if true (the load of crap thing), it has no bearing on his reconquista remarks... and even if both remarks are loads of crap they have nothing to do with the illogical position jtfanclub took

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on May 25 2007, 11:40 PM, said:

hrothgar, on May 25 2007, 08:57 AM, said:

"America was created as a Protestant society just as and for some of the same reasons Pakistan and Israel were created as Muslim and Jewish societies in the 20th century."

What a load of crap...

even if true (the load of crap thing), it has no bearing on his reconquista remarks... and even if both remarks are loads of crap they have nothing to do with the illogical position jtfanclub took

Personally, if I observe an individual making factually suspect biased statements in a given area, I get very suspicious about their pronouncements in other (related) areas.

I don't believe that the United States was founded as a Christian nation, let alone a Protestant one. I had hoped that the country had outgrown this type of anti Catholic hysteria half a century back.

[Winstonm]

Quote

mike777,May 24 2007, 08:01 AM]
Winston if you believe the poor are worse off than in 1991 I can doing nothing but take that other pill in the Matrix. If you want to believe that gaps are more important than simply improving the economy, ok. btw check out the term Utility.

The cost of survival has more effect on the poor than rich - if economic growth and wage growth is less than inflation, where is the benefit?

Quote

A 0.4 percent rise in food prices, coupled with a 2.4 percent jump in energy prices, pushed the CPI up by 0.4 percent in April. This brings the annual rate of increase over the last three months to 5.7 percent, approximately 2 percentage points above the rate of wage growth over this period.

And, of course, the poor never get sick or need a doctor.

Quote

August 29, 2006

THE NUMBER OF UNINSURED AMERICANS IS AT AN ALL-TIME HIGH

Data released today by the Census Bureau show that the number of uninsured Americans stood at a record 46.6 million in 2005, with 15.9 percent of Americans lacking health coverage.  “The number of uninsured Americans reached an all-time high in 2005,” said Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.  “It is sobering that 5.4 million more people lacked health insurance in 2005 than in the recession year of 2001, primarily because of the erosion of employer-based insurance.”

So what is the choice: fill up the car to go to work; put food on the table; buy health insurance. I'm betting the first two take priority when you cannot afford all three. For the first time since the great depression, the U.S. has a negative savings rate - and it is growing. This is a positive?


The argument has been made that a rising tide lifts all boats; but at the same time, if you don't own a boat a rising tide makes it damned difficult to keep your head above water.