Who loves ya, Rush?
bear...@cruller.invalid
dependable, everyday amurrican guy you want for a neighbor. The story
doesn't say, but how much you want to bet he has a flag sticker and a
support-our-troops magnet on his car? Representing those who spew hate
for immigrants, other poor people, liberals, Democrats and feminazis:
<http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Aug09/0,4670,ODDLivinginCar,00.html>
Robert
Not many people hate immigrants. Most people are anti-illegal
immigrant for good reasons.
Robert
bear...@cruller.invalid
Robert <write...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not many people hate immigrants.
Right.
Most just hate the brown and black ones who don't submit.
ChairMan
bear...@cruller.invalid <bear...@cruller.invalid>spewed forth:
NO...just the ones that are ILLEGAL regardless of color
A simple concept you obviously don't understand.
Anthony Matonak
> bear...@cruller.invalid <bear...@cruller.invalid>spewed forth:
>> In article <1187246044.8...@q4g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
>> Robert <write...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Not many people hate immigrants.
>> Right.
>> Most just hate the brown and black ones who don't submit.
>
> NO...just the ones that are ILLEGAL regardless of color
> A simple concept you obviously don't understand.
To be fair, the people aren't illegal. They are just law breakers
(criminals) and are in the country illegally.
These days some laws are more socially acceptable to break than
others. Working in another country illegally is commonly about as
acceptable as driving drunk or selling drugs. Everyone seems to
do it and no one seems to care very much.
Anthony
krw
bear...@cruller.invalid says...
> In article <1187246044.8...@q4g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
> Robert <write...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Not many people hate immigrants.
>
> Right.
Exactly..
> Most just hate the brown and black ones who don't submit.
Spoken like the flaming idiot you are. Color doesn't matter. If
they don't submit to the law (any law), throw their ass out,
unceremoniously.
--
Keith
ChairMan
Anthony Matonak <antho...@nothing.like.socal.rr.com>spewed forth:
> ChairMan wrote:
>> bear...@cruller.invalid <bear...@cruller.invalid>spewed forth:
>>> In article <1187246044.8...@q4g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Robert <write...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not many people hate immigrants.
>>> Right.
>>> Most just hate the brown and black ones who don't submit.
>>
>> NO...just the ones that are ILLEGAL regardless of color
>> A simple concept you obviously don't understand.
>
> To be fair, the people aren't illegal. They are just law breakers
> (criminals) and are in the country illegally.
Which makes them ILLEGAL aliens/immigrants
>
> These days some laws are more socially acceptable to break than
> others. Working in another country illegally is commonly about as
> acceptable as driving drunk or selling drugs. Everyone seems to
> do it and no one seems to care very much.
>
And those attitudes are changing quickly when people realize
how much it's costing them in TAX dollars.
For instance, my grandson can't go to the districts pre K classes unless
English is his second language.
My tax dollars are paying for it, though and if I want my grandson to go to
pre K classes, I have to pay additional tuition fees.
We won't even get into the cost at the county hospital, which amounts to
millions upon millions of dollars.
Based on your reasoning, why have any immigration laws at all, lets just
open the borders cuz nobody really cares anyway.
Anthony Matonak
>> To be fair, the people aren't illegal. They are just law breakers
>> (criminals) and are in the country illegally.
>
> Which makes them ILLEGAL aliens/immigrants
I prefer criminals to illegal but that's just me.
>> These days some laws are more socially acceptable to break than
>> others. Working in another country illegally is commonly about as
>> acceptable as driving drunk or selling drugs. Everyone seems to
>> do it and no one seems to care very much.
>
> And those attitudes are changing quickly when people realize
> how much it's costing them in TAX dollars.
...
> We won't even get into the cost at the county hospital, which amounts to
> millions upon millions of dollars.
I have heard that some hospitals have had to close because they
are required to treat everyone but do not get enough money from
the government to cover their costs.
> Based on your reasoning, why have any immigration laws at all, lets just
> open the borders cuz nobody really cares anyway.
You may not know this but there was recently a bill put forward
in the United States Congress to pretty much do just that. I don't
think it passed but there are clearly lots of powerful people that
don't want borders or immigration laws.
Anthony
bear...@cruller.invalid
krw <k...@att.bizzzz> wrote:
> Color doesn't matter.
Sure it doesn't. Especially if you are white.
bear...@cruller.invalid
"ChairMan" <wh...@fu.com> wrote:
> NO...just the ones that are ILLEGAL regardless of color
> A simple concept you obviously don't understand.
Please explain the simple, simple, simple concept of an illegal human
being. Oh, how simple it will be.
bear...@cruller.invalid
Anthony Matonak <antho...@nothing.like.socal.rr.com> wrote:
> Working in another country illegally is commonly about as
> acceptable as driving drunk or selling drugs. Everyone seems to
> do it and no one seems to care very much.
You must live in some other country besides America. Here in America,
"illegal" immigration is a hot button issue purposefully designed to
distract the morons from what is really going on. And it works like a
charm.
bear...@cruller.invalid
"ChairMan" <wh...@fu.com> wrote:
> And those attitudes are changing quickly when people realize
> how much it's costing them in TAX dollars.
What crap. Every competent, unbiased study shows "illegal" immigration
is a wash economically. At least, on a national level. Now, if you live
in California or Arizona, then yes, you pay a lot more than someone
living in Montana, Michigan or New Hampshire.
But as people like you so enjoy intoning, love it or leave it. There are
plenty of countries in the world that don't let anyone in or out.
bear...@cruller.invalid
> Which makes them ILLEGAL aliens/immigrants
No, you dope. It *might* make their behavior actionable. It does NOT
make *them* "illegal".
krw
bear...@cruller.invalid says...
--
Keith
ChairMan
bear...@cruller.invalid <bear...@cruller.invalid>spewed forth:
> In article <46c4d4f6$0$28531$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> "ChairMan" <wh...@fu.com> wrote:
>
>> And those attitudes are changing quickly when people realize
>> how much it's costing them in TAX dollars.
>
> What crap. Every competent, unbiased study shows "illegal" immigration
> is a wash economically. At least, on a national level. Now, if you
> live in California or Arizona, then yes, you pay a lot more than
> someone living in Montana, Michigan or New Hampshire.
Pure bullshit. Now if you live in the real world, it costs everyone.
From the Center for Immigration Studies which is an independent,
non-partisan, non-profit research organization founded in 1985.
l The Mexican immigrant population is highly concentrated, with 78 percent
living in just four states, and nearly half living in California alone.
l Almost two-thirds of adult Mexican immigrants have not completed high
school, compared to less than 10 percent of natives. As a result, the
primary effect of Mexican immigration on the U.S. labor force is to increase
the supply of unskilled workers — 22 percent of all the high school dropouts
in the U.S. labor force were born in Mexico.
l By increasing the supply of unskilled labor, Mexican immigration during
the 1990s likely has lowered the wages of workers who lack a high school
education by roughly 5 percent. The native-born workers adversely affected
by Mexican immigration are already among the poorest in the United States.
More than one-fourth of the native-born working poor lack a high school
education. Natives without a high school education also comprise a large
share of Americans trying to move from welfare to work.
l There is no evidence to indicate that the United States has a shortage of
unskilled workers that needs to be satisfied by immigration from Mexico. The
real wages (adjusted for inflation) of high school dropouts who work
full-time actually declined 7.2 percent in the 1990s, while the real wages
for other workers increased. Also, the number of jobs available for
unskilled workers declined by 400,000.
l Although Mexican immigration is likely to have a significant impact on the
wages of unskilled natives, its overall impact on prices in the United
States is very modest because unskilled labor accounts for a very small
share of economic output. By lowering the wages of unskilled workers,
Mexican immigration in the 1990s reduced prices by between 0.08 and 0.2
percent. As a result, immigration from Mexico is almost certainly not an
effective tool for holding inflation in check during periods of economic
expansion.
l Even after welfare reform, welfare use among Mexican immigrant households
remains much higher than that of natives. An estimated 33.9 percent of
households headed by legal Mexican immigrants and 24.9 percent of those
headed by illegal Mexican immigrants used at least one major welfare
program. In contrast, 14.8 percent of native households used welfare.
Moreover, Mexican immigrant welfare use remains much higher than that of
natives, even among Mexican immigrants who have lived in the United States
for many years (see Figure 1).
l More than one-half (52.6 percent) of Mexican immigrants do not have health
insurance, compared to 13.5 percent of natives, and Mexican immigration by
itself accounts for 3.3 million or 29 percent of the growth in the size of
the nation’s total uninsured population since 1987. Even among legal Mexican
immigrants who have lived in the country for more than 20 years, more than
one-third are still uninsured (see Figure 1).
l By itself, Mexican immigration accounts for 2.9 million or one-third of
the national increase in the school-age population since 1982. The impact on
public schools in some states has been even larger.
l Because of their much lower average incomes and resulting lower tax
payments, coupled with their heavy use of means-tested programs, Mexican
immigrants have a significant negative effect on public coffers. Based on
estimates developed by the National Academy of Sciences for immigrants by
age and education level at arrival, the estimated life-time net fiscal drain
(taxes paid minus services used) for the average adult Mexican immigrant is
negative $55,200.
l The lower educational attainment of Mexican immigrants appears to persist
across generations. The high school dropout rates of native-born
Mexican-Americans (both second and third generation) are two and a half
times that of other natives. As a result, native-born Mexican Americans lag
far behind other natives in income, welfare use, and other measures of
socio-economic well being.
lMexican immigration reduces wages for the poorest American workers and
imposes significant fiscal costs without generating significant economic
benefits, the United States should consider policies designed to reduce
unskilled legal and illegal immigration from Mexico and elsewhere.
Reducing Future Illegal Mexican Immigration. Reducing illegal immigration
should also be made a much higher national priority. The analysis done here
indicates that there are at least three million and perhaps closer to four
million illegal aliens from Mexico living in the United States. There are
also three to four million illegal aliens from other countries living in the
United States. Illegal immigrants from Mexico have added significantly to
the size of the poor and uninsured population in the United States and,
because they receive benefits on behalf of their native-born children, they
have also added to the welfare case load.
Conclusion
This report has found that Mexican immigration has added significantly to
the size of the poor and uninsured populations, as well as to the welfare
case load in the United States. For example, while Mexican immigrants and
their children comprise 4.2 percent of the nation’s total population, they
comprise 10.2 percent of all persons in poverty and 12.5 percent of those
without health insurance. Perhaps most troubling, the findings of this
report show that the welfare use, income, and other measures of
socio-economic status of legal Mexican immigrants do not converge with
natives over time. Their low incomes coupled with heavy use of means-tested
programs create very significant fiscal costs as well. While employers may
want increased access to unskilled labor from Mexico or elsewhere, this
cheap labor comes with a very high cost.
>
> But as people like you so enjoy intoning, love it or leave it. There
> are plenty of countries in the world that don't let anyone in or out.
And this has exactly *what* to do with US immigration?
Who gives a damn what other countries do.
And just so we're clear, I am a LEGAL immigrant and I know first hand the
hoops I had to jump through to do it legally.
And yes, it pisses me off to no end for the ones that come here ILLEGALLY
and receive more benefits and services than I did and do, or for that matter
than MOST American born citizens.
ChairMan
bear...@cruller.invalid <bear...@cruller.invalid>spewed forth:
Where did it say human being?
I said illegal immigrant.
Play word games all you want, it doesn't change the fact that they are here
in this country illegally, which makes them ILLEGAL immigrants.
ChairMan
bear...@cruller.invalid <bear...@cruller.invalid>spewed forth:
Maybe not in your world, but their action does make them illegal
visitors/aliens/immigrants/workers.
Just like a rapists actions make him a rapist
bear...@cruller.invalid
"ChairMan" <wh...@fu.com> wrote:
> And just so we're clear, I am a LEGAL immigrant
Let's see if we can change that, eh? Go back where you came from. Get
out of my country now, or I'll write a new law that makes YOUR ass
illegal, and bars your mewling inbred grandchildren from attending ANY
school. How's that sound, you illegal jackass?
bear...@cruller.invalid
"ChairMan" <wh...@fu.com> wrote:
> And this has exactly *what* to do with US immigration?
Nothing in this entire thread has had anything "to do with US
immigration". It has been solely about YOU venting YOUR particular brand
of hate, and people like me responding in kind. Don't like it? Then
change the conversation. Start by acknowledging that a Mexican's
presence in this country doesn't make him an "illegal immigrant" any
more than going 5 miles over the speed limit makes you an "illegal
driver". Start by elevating your nomenclature to several degrees above
your current horizon of sub-moron.
Then, maybe. Just maybe we can have a real conversation. Otherwise,
AFAIAC you are nothing more than a swastika-swinging, mean-spirited
racist asshole who deserves every insult, every deprivation, every theft
of dignity his grandchild suffers. Have a nice day.
bear...@cruller.invalid
krw <k...@att.bizzzz> wrote:
More proof of my judgement of your character. Have a nice day.
Chloe
news:bearclaw-4D467E...@news.supernews.com...
Civility usually works best for me if I'm having a discussion with someone I
disagree with. How does it work for you?
krw
> In article <MPG.2130c652c...@news.individual.net>,
> krw <k...@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>
> > In article <bearclaw-86EE45...@news.supernews.com>,
> > bear...@cruller.invalid says...
> > > In article <MPG.212e654de...@news.individual.net>,
> > > krw <k...@att.bizzzz> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Color doesn't matter.
> > >
> > > Sure it doesn't. Especially if you are white.
> > >
> > More absolute tripe from the leftist loser.
> >
> > --
> > Keith
>
> More proof of my judgement of your character. Have a nice day.
You're looking in a mirror, loser.
--
Keith
krw
just...@spam.com says...
--
Keith
krw
bear...@cruller.invalid says...
Too late komrad Bear. He's here, with an invitation.
--
Keith
ChairMan
Chloe <just...@spam.com>spewed forth:
It doesn't.
It's obvious that unless you agree with him/her, it can't have a discussion,
just personal attacks with nothing to support its claim.
Very typical
ChairMan
bear...@cruller.invalid <bear...@cruller.invalid>spewed forth:
> In article <46c7e269$0$16445$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> "ChairMan" <wh...@fu.com> wrote:
>
>> And this has exactly *what* to do with US immigration?
>
> Nothing in this entire thread has had anything "to do with US
> immigration". It has been solely about YOU venting YOUR particular
> brand of hate, and people like me responding in kind. Don't like it?
> Then change the conversation. Start by acknowledging that a Mexican's
> presence in this country doesn't make him an "illegal immigrant" any
> more than going 5 miles over the speed limit makes you an "illegal
> driver". >
> AFAIAC you are nothing more than a swastika-swinging, mean-spirited
> racist asshole who deserves every insult, every deprivation, every
> theft of dignity his grandchild suffers. Have a nice day.
Hey dumbass, you started this thread and I quote
"Representing those who spew hate for immigrants, other poor people,
liberals, Democrats and feminazis"
And I showed you a study that illustrates that their ILLEGAL actions create
even more POOR people along with many other facts that you can't seem to
dispute.
I find it amusing that self righteous assholes like yourself, spew the most
hate of all. And when you have nothing to defend your opinion you go
directly to the racist card. Gee, I guess I hate myself based on your stupid
opinion. I'll turn myself into INS tommorrow
*You* might not want to acknowledge the the FACT that they are illegal
immigrants, but you are the minority.
Given the fact that any gvmt office including the INS refers to them as
ILLEGAL as well as the majority of Americans, I think it's clear who's
wrong.
You want to dance around the fact and make it PC and make the illegals feel
good, then go ahead. I'll send them all to your house.
The rest of us will continue to respect the laws of this great country and
protect them from people like you that want to destroy them.
Unlike your self righteous undeserving self, I *chose* to become a legal
American and abide by the immigration laws of this country.
To bad we can't revoke citizenship from those who don't respect or
understand what a great country this is.
ChairMan
bear...@cruller.invalid <bear...@cruller.invalid>spewed forth:
Can't dispute the facts can ya, so you snip them and your bigoted ass goes
for personal attacks.
Quite typical of someone that has no clue what ILLEGAL immigration can and
will do to a country.
I think it's real clear who the racist fuckwit is here. Would you like a
mirror?
SpammersDie
"Chloe" <just...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:46c82a84$0$24097$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
"Discussion?"
More like an ongoing public tantrum.
Jon v Leipzig
> The unique Rush Limbaugh audience. Salt o' the earth. The kind of
> dependable, everyday amurrican guy you want for a neighbor. The story
> doesn't say, but how much you want to bet he has a flag sticker and a
> support-our-troops magnet on his car? Representing those who spew hate
> for immigrants, other poor people, liberals, Democrats and feminazis:
>
> <http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Aug09/0,4670,ODDLivinginCar,00.html>
i think Hate should be outlawed....unless, of course, one hates the
Right people.
How About These For New US Immigration Laws?
* THERE WILL BE NO SPECIAL BILINGUAL PROGRAMS IN THE SCHOOLS.
* THERE WILL BE NO SPECIAL BALLOTS FOR ELECTIONS.
* ALL GOVERNMENT BUSINESS WILL BE CONDUCTED IN OUR LANGUAGE.
* FOREIGNERS WILL NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE NO MATTER HOW LONG THEY
ARE HERE.
* FOREIGNERS WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO HOLD POLITICAL OFFICE.
* FOREIGNERS WILL NOT BE A BURDEN TO THE TAXPAYERS.
* NO WELFARE, NO FOOD STAMPS, NO HEALTH CARE OR OTHER GOVERNMENT
ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.
* IF FOREIGNERS DO COME AND WANT TO BUY LAND, OPTIONS WILL BE RESTRICTED...
YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED WATERFRONT PROPERTY. THAT IS RESERVED FOR CITIZENS
NATURALLY BORN INTO THIS COUNTRY.
* FOREIGNERS MAY NOT PROTEST; NO DEMONSTRATIONS; NO WAVING A FOREIGN
FLAG; NO POLITICAL ORGANIZING; NO BAD-MOUTHING OUR PRESIDENT OR HIS
POLICIES. IF YOU DO, YOU WILL BE SENT HOME.
* IF YOU DO COME TO THIS COUNTRY ILLEGALLY, YOU WILL BE HUNTED DOWN AND
SENT STRAIGHT TO JAIL.
Jon v Leipzig
> The unique Rush Limbaugh audience. Salt o' the earth. The kind of
> dependable, everyday amurrican guy you want for a neighbor. The story
> doesn't say, but how much you want to bet he has a flag sticker and a
> support-our-troops magnet on his car? Representing those who spew hate
> for immigrants, other poor people, liberals, Democrats and feminazis:
>
> <http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Aug09/0,4670,ODDLivinginCar,00.html>
I think all forms of Hate should be criminalized....unless. of course
one hates the Right people.....
bear...@cruller.invalid
"ChairMan" <wh...@fu.com> wrote:
> And I showed you a study that illustrates that their ILLEGAL actions
> create even more POOR people along with many other facts that you
> can't seem to dispute.
No, you copied and pasted from and then linked to a website filled with
justification (much of it contrived from whole cloth). BFD. There are
lots of organizations (on both sides of the issue) exactly like your
"Center for Immigration Studies" whose sole purpose is to construct
palatable contrivances to support its original xenophobic agenda.
For anyone interested in where "ChairMan" sits on the issue, the
"think tank" he steals his material from was born of the unification of
funding of several racist and white supremacist organizations after
they realized their lunatic agenda was much too extreme for the
mainstream American public.
Naturally, "ChairMan" is not above lying:
> From the Center for Immigration Studies which is an independent,
> non-partisan, non-profit research organization founded in 1985.
In truth, the CIS is much more about the following:
Founded in 1985 as a think tank to support the more activist work of
the anti-immigrant Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR),
CIS describes itself as łindependent˛ and łnonpartisan,˛ but its
studies, reports, and media releases consistently support its
restrictionist agenda and it works closely on Capitol Hill with
Republican Party immigration restrictionists. However, CIS has achieved
credibility with the media and in think tank circles because of its
lack of the kind of strident anti-immigrant rhetoric associated with
many restrictionist groups, its willingness to invite pro-immigrant
voices to its forums, and the scholarly format of its reports.
CIS publishes books, reports, papers, and monthly backgrounders. Its
analysis on such issues as immigrant voting and electoral
redistricting, impacts on low-wage and high-skilled workers, and tax
impacts are closely followed by immigration experts of all persuasions.
In the mid-1990s, immigration restrictionists, boosted by findings of
congressional commissions, seemed to be on the verge of passing
legislation to turn the legislative tide that had favored immigration
flows since the 1986 amnesty. But largely because of lobbying by a
right-left, corporate-pro-immigrant coalition in which high-tech
industries played a leading role, immigration restrictionist groups
like CIS and FAIR saw their restrictionist agenda die in Congress.
Lately, as concerns about the plight of low-wage labor, outsourcing,
and national security merge, CIS and restrictionism in general are once
again gaining a new hearing in Congress.
CIS has also been critiqued as being part of a network of
anti-immigrant groups that cater to a white supremacist constituency by
right-wing economic libertarians who believe in the benefits of mass
and unfettered immigration. A Wall Street Journal op-ed (June 15,
2004), that was widely praised and circulated by pro-immigrant groups,
reported that despite the fact that CIS łmay strike right-wing poses in
the press,˛ it and other like-minded groups łsupport big government,
mock federalism, deride free markets, and push a cultural agenda
abhorrent to any self-respecting social conservative.˛ A follow-up
article in the Wall Street Journal titled łBorderline Republicans˛
described the anti-immigration network this way: łCIS, FAIR,
NumbersUSA, ProjectUSA‹and more than a half-dozen similar groups that
Republicans have become disturbingly comfortable with‹were founded or
funded (or both) by John Tanton. In addition to trying to stop
immigration to the U.S., appropriate population control measures for
Dr. Tanton and his network include promoting Chinaąs one-child policy,
sterilizing Third World women, and wider use of RU-486.˛ Replying to
this charge, Krikorian wrote in National Review Online that CIS does
not take a łposition on anything that does not involve U.S. immigration
policy.˛
Personally, I have to wonder if the school that rejected your
grandchild did so not so much because of immigration concerns, but
because you made your despicable hatred so repugnantly apparent.
Perhaps the thought of having anyone from your genetic line involved in
their school made them ill.
For those inclined to support "ChairMan" and his dross, I would remind
you that building fences to keep others out also precisely fits the
agenda of those who would build the same fences to keep YOU in.
bear...@cruller.invalid
> *You* might not want to acknowledge the the FACT that they are illegal
> immigrants, but you are the minority.
Personally, I LOVE the challenge of being in the minority, especially
when it comes to politics:
"The test of courage comes when we are in the minority. The test of
tolerance comes when we are in the majority."
I say quite confidently that you have peremptorily acceded your loss in
the test of tolerance, if you are correct about the majority opinion (of
which BTW, I have seen no evidence).
bear...@cruller.invalid
> To bad we can't revoke citizenship from those who don't respect or
> understand what a great country this is.
What, you want to give over the country to ungrammatical hicks without a
clue? Of course you do. Then your inbred genetic line can get into
Harvard without knowing how spel.
bear...@cruller.invalid
"Chloe" <just...@spam.com> wrote:
> Civility usually works best for me if I'm having a discussion with someone I
> disagree with. How does it work for you?
Not well for Usenet. See me IRL. You would never know.
bear...@cruller.invalid
"ChairMan" <wh...@fu.com> wrote:
> Can't dispute the facts can ya, so you snip them and your bigoted ass goes
> for personal attacks.
> I think it's real clear who the racist fuckwit is here. Would you like a
> mirror?
Okay, I concede: I am definitely prejudiced against racist hicks and
mealy-mouthed pretenders to knowledge, so populous in this thread.
BeaF...@msn.com
> In article <46c86bb5$0$30674$9a6e1...@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
>
> "ChairMan" <w...@fu.com> wrote:
> > Can't dispute the facts can ya, so you snip them and your bigoted ass goes
> > for personal attacks.
> > I think it's real clear who the racist fuckwit is here. Would you like a
> > mirror?
>
> Okay, I concede: I am definitely prejudiced against racist hicks and
> mealy-mouthed pretenders to knowledge, so populous in this thread.
Thought I would respond to the biggest mouth on this subject.
I married a Mexican national. He was here in this country illegally.
Through the marriage he was able to get a green card and "get a good
job", (his words).
I think allowing people to immagrate to this country unimpeded is
wrong on so many levels. Mostly because it lowers the standard of
living for everyone except the highest class of society.
The problem is NOT racial. If there were not so many undocumented
immagrants we would be able to absorb more people from places in
Africa and Asia.
Also, it is not fair to the people of Mexico and Cental America. If
these people were forced to stay home then their leaders would be
forced to address the problems of poverty and unemployement.
I am very left wing in my thinking. I have been accussed of being
Marxist, but this problem of opening our borders to third world
countries is not good for America.
Chloe
news:bearclaw-9023FF...@news.supernews.com...
In other words, you'd be afraid to talk to someone IRL the way you talk to
people who disagree with you online. Makes sense. I would be, too.
Where I live, it takes a lot less than phrases like "your mewling inbred
grandchildren" or " you are nothing more than a swastika-swinging,
mean-spirited racist asshole who deserves every insult, every deprivation,
every theft of dignity his grandchild suffers" or "perhaps the thought of
having anyone from your genetic line involved in their school made them ill"
to actually get a person beaten up or shot.
Nonetheless, I'd submit that the above doesn't actually do a lot in terms of
swaying the opinion of the target over to your side of the argument, nor
even really impresses or convinces anyone else who's reading, either. But
it's nice *you* think it's working. That's what really matters.
Rod Speed
> On Aug 21, 10:52 am, bearc...@cruller.invalid wrote:
>> In article <46c86bb5$0$30674$9a6e1...@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
>>
>> "ChairMan" <w...@fu.com> wrote:
>>> Can't dispute the facts can ya, so you snip them and your bigoted
>>> ass goes for personal attacks.
>>> I think it's real clear who the racist fuckwit is here. Would you
>>> like a mirror?
>>
>> Okay, I concede: I am definitely prejudiced against racist hicks and
>> mealy-mouthed pretenders to knowledge, so populous in this thread.
>
> Thought I would respond to the biggest mouth on this subject.
>
> I married a Mexican national. He was here in this country illegally.
> Through the marriage he was able to get a green card and "get a good
> job", (his words).
>
> I think allowing people to immagrate to this country unimpeded is
> wrong on so many levels. Mostly because it lowers the standard of
> living for everyone except the highest class of society.
>
> The problem is NOT racial. If there were not so many undocumented
> immagrants we would be able to absorb more people from places in
> Africa and Asia.
>
> Also, it is not fair to the people of Mexico and Cental America. If
> these people were forced to stay home then their leaders would be
> forced to address the problems of poverty and unemployement.
Not even possible when the roman catholic church is encouraging them
to keep pumping out FAR more kids than their economy can ever support.
> I am very left wing in my thinking. I have been accussed
> of being Marxist, but this problem of opening our borders
> to third world countries is not good for America.
Then why did you get involved in it ? You one of those hypocrites ?
bear...@cruller.invalid
BeaF...@msn.com wrote:
> I think allowing people to immagrate to this country unimpeded is
> wrong on so many levels. Mostly because it lowers the standard of
> living for everyone except the highest class of society.
Nowhere in this thread has anyone said anything about immigration
policy. I agree that it is a subject worthy of discussion.
That is NOT what is happening in this thread, nor largely in this
country. What is happening in this country with regards to immigration--
legal or otherwise-- is something else, something far more dreadful and
dangerous. Like most appeals to the ill-equipped-but-highly-opinionated,
it starts with the dehumanization of the least: "illegal immigrants".
This approach appeals most to those who would tell brain-cancer patients
to take two aspirin. And they are the ones I have been arguing with.
It is the artificial construction of an illusory enemy at our southern
border where none existed before. Shots have already been fired,
property destroyed and victims murdered for the simple purpose of
inflaming and shepherding popular opinion in this country around a
complex issue. It is yet another conflict, like Iraq, scatologically
designed to the absolute detriment of every American below a certain
level of wealth and social standing.
Those who insist on resolving the issue through imprisonment, armed
conflict and extravagantly impotent border walls are working toward the
ruination of America, whether they realize it or not. It would be a
major step in the right direction to turn them out first.
Chloe
news:bearclaw-603D7C...@news.supernews.com...
> In article <1187722712.9...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> BeaF...@msn.com wrote:
>
>> I think allowing people to immagrate to this country unimpeded is
>> wrong on so many levels. Mostly because it lowers the standard of
>> living for everyone except the highest class of society.
>
> Nowhere in this thread has anyone said anything about immigration
> policy. I agree that it is a subject worthy of discussion.
Would you be willing to tell us what, if any, changes you think should be
made in the U.S.'s immigration policy? I think that might be more
enlightening than the "your grandchild deserves to eat worms" commentary
we've been getting from you.
simon
> In article <1187722712.9...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> BeaF...@msn.com wrote:
>
>> I think allowing people to immagrate to this country unimpeded is
>> wrong on so many levels. Mostly because it lowers the standard of
>> living for everyone except the highest class of society.
>
> Nowhere in this thread has anyone said anything about immigration
> policy. I agree that it is a subject worthy of discussion.
>
> That is NOT what is happening in this thread, nor largely in this
> country. What is happening in this country with regards to
> immigration-- legal or otherwise-- is something else, something far
> more dreadful and dangerous. Like most appeals to the
> ill-equipped-but-highly-opinionated, it starts with the
> dehumanization of the least: "illegal immigrants". This approach
> appeals most to those who would tell brain-cancer patients to take
> two aspirin. And they are the ones I have been arguing with.
> It is the artificial construction of an illusory enemy
> at our southern border where none existed before.
Nope.
> Shots have already been fired, property destroyed and victims
> murdered for the simple purpose of inflaming and shepherding
> popular opinion in this country around a complex issue.
There has been plenty of that sort of thing done by the illegals too.
> It is yet another conflict, like Iraq, scatologically designed
> to the absolute detriment of every American below a certain
> level of wealth and social standing.
Just another utterly mindless conspiracy theory.
> Those who insist on resolving the issue through imprisonment, armed
> conflict and extravagantly impotent border walls are working toward
> the ruination of America, whether they realize it or not.
Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
> It would be a major step in the right direction to turn them out first.
Not even possible.
bear...@cruller.invalid
"Chloe" <just...@spam.com> wrote:
> In other words, you'd be afraid to talk to someone IRL the way you talk to
> people who disagree with you online.
Not in other words. In your words. Which reduces the impact of the rest
of your article, to say the least. You know, it is simple to oppose
someone when you can stick your own words in their mouth, isn't it? Not
very brave or thoughtful, though. You know what else? I might just say
that to your face. In front of your family. Risking beating and
shooting, even.
I love hurling insults that go right over the heads of the intended
recipients IRL. To wit: "What a lovely child! Is he yours?"
> Where I live, it takes a lot less than phrases like "your mewling inbred
> grandchildren" or " you are nothing more than a swastika-swinging,
> mean-spirited racist asshole who deserves every insult, every deprivation,
> every theft of dignity his grandchild suffers" or "perhaps the thought of
> having anyone from your genetic line involved in their school made them ill"
> to actually get a person beaten up or shot.
Yeah, bars here also overflow with trailer trash drunks, effete
intellectuals and armchair quarterbacks who would beat and shoot people
for saying what they think. It's a national disgrace. We should beat and
shoot people for what they DON'T say. Oh, wait, the beaters and shooters
do that too. Of course, most high-minded people like that would beat and
shoot people for nothing at all even if no offense were issued. Many
might be propelled into martial action for no reason other than the
frustration resulting from the self-imposed strictures confining their
intellects. No doubt there are parades celebrating such lack of respect
for the physical well-being of others where you live... IRL
> Nonetheless, I'd submit that the above doesn't actually do a lot in terms of
> swaying the opinion of the target over to your side of the argument, nor
> even really impresses or convinces anyone else who's reading, either. But
> it's nice *you* think it's working. That's what really matters.
Submit away. There are plenty of other non-motives for "beating and
shooting" solutions for which you seem to have such regard as it may
suit you. Pardon me for not inserting myself in the bloody squalid
middle of it. You know, IRL. Of course, most people espousing the lines
I oppose here don't go where it would get them "beat or shot" either.
Please, don't chastise them, whatever you do. I wouldn't ever suggest
that "ChairMan" ever go into a bar in South L.A. and talk about how
those Mezzicans ruined his grandkid's chance at an advance preschool
edumacation. Although I do agree that it might be fun to watch the
result.
bear...@cruller.invalid
"Chloe" <just...@spam.com> wrote:
> Would you be willing to tell us what, if any, changes you think should be
> made in the U.S.'s immigration policy?
First and easiest step: Stop the intentional inflammatory dehumanization
and simplistic compartmentalization of undocumented people. Stop it now.
Eliminate it from the language and from all legitimate policy
considerations so that _real_ criminals from either nation can be
recognized, stopped and prosecuted. Become adept at separating the
problems arising from the presence of undocumented foreign nationals
from the people themselves. Recognize that with just a few signatures,
_any_ group in this nation could lose its rightful citizen status and
join the ranks of the undesirable, the ejectable, or the foreign.
Problems can be addressed without creating DMZs, without armed vigilante
groups, and without threats of violence.
Step 2: Talk. Negotiation. Diplomacy. Cooperation. They are our
neighbors. Any attempt to resolve the issues (note the plurality) should
include them and be mutually beneficial. Expect breakdowns and
roadblocks. "Illegal" immigration is not a single issue, and any effort
to treat it as such will serve only to further divide us as a nation.
Step 3: Instill the idea that real solutions will take time, patience
and likely sacrifice on both sides of the border. The problem is not
static and neither is its fix. The current situation didn't happen in a
day or a week or a year or even a decade, and it will take longer than
that to fix it. Without first implementing step 1, however, lasting
resolution grows increasingly distant, takes longer, and will be more
involved and infinitely more costly.
simon
> In article <46cb3fdb$0$18788$4c36...@roadrunner.com>,
> "Chloe" <just...@spam.com> wrote:
>
>> Would you be willing to tell us what, if any, changes you think
>> should be made in the U.S.'s immigration policy?
> First and easiest step: Stop the intentional inflammatory dehumanization
> and simplistic compartmentalization of undocumented people. Stop it now.
No thanks, they are criminals.
> Eliminate it from the language and from all legitimate policy considerations
No thanks, that's giving in to criminal activity.
The last thing any country needs is those who choose to flout its laws for their own purposes.
> so that _real_ criminals from either nation can be recognized, stopped and prosecuted.
Those are _real_ criminals and they should be recognized, stopped and prosecuted.
And the law should be changed to stop the use of anchor babies
etc, even if that requires a constititional referrendum to do that.
> Become adept at separating the problems arising from the presence
> of undocumented foreign nationals from the people themselves.
Not even possible.
> Recognize that with just a few signatures, _any_ group
> in this nation could lose its rightful citizen status and join
> the ranks of the undesirable, the ejectable, or the foreign.
Nothing to 'recognize', that is a bare faced lie.
> Problems can be addressed without creating DMZs, without
> armed vigilante groups, and without threats of violence.
Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
> Step 2: Talk. Negotiation. Diplomacy. Cooperation.
Doesnt work with illegals, they have chosen to flout the law.
> They are our neighbors. Any attempt to resolve the issues
> (note the plurality) should include them and be mutually beneficial.
Easy to waffle like that.
> Expect breakdowns and roadblocks. "Illegal" immigration is not a single issue,
> and any effort to treat it as such will serve only to further divide us as a nation.
That is inevitable and your silly ideas about what to do about illegals do that in spades.
> Step 3: Instill the idea that real solutions
No such animal. If that was available, it would have been found by now.
> will take time, patience and likely sacrifice on both sides of the border.
> The problem is not static and neither is its fix.
There is no 'fix'
> The current situation didn't happen in a day or a week or a year
> or even a decade, and it will take longer than that to fix it.
Its unfixable.
> Without first implementing step 1, however, lasting resolution grows increasingly
> distant, takes longer, and will be more involved and infinitely more costly.
There is no 'lasting resolution' even possible.
Chloe
news:bearclaw-ED93AA...@news.supernews.com...
> In article <46cb39d0$0$16471$4c36...@roadrunner.com>,
><snip>
> I love hurling insults that go right over the heads of the intended
> recipients IRL. To wit: "What a lovely child! Is he yours?"
I guess this is what I'm having a bit of trouble grasping. What, exactly, is
it that you love about hurling insults, regardless of whether they go over
the recipients' heads or not? What's the payoff to you?
Rod Speed
Usual juvenile result, just what most juveniles get out of that sort of stunt.
Its why they use language that adults dont understand.
bear...@cruller.invalid
"Chloe" <just...@spam.com> wrote:
> I guess this is what I'm having a bit of trouble grasping
Just as well. As long as you grasp that they are insults, you are
rolling along just fine. Don't worry, be happy.
> What, exactly, is it that you love about hurling insults, regardless
> of whether they go over the recipients' heads or not? What's the
> payoff to you?
I'll make it easy on you: it not only feels great to insult those who
like to kick people when they are down, I personally view it as a moral
imperative. Chalk it up to weariness at the rapidly-increasing volume of
distracting, patently absurd injustice. Silence is assent, blah, blah,
blah. HTH, but don't really care if it does or not.
Chloe
news:bearclaw-8A8B74...@news.supernews.com...
Okay. I was wondering how you'd come to your emphasis on attacking the
person, as opposed to their ideas (and, incidentally, your example made it
sound like you were doing the insult-hurling at strangers). I see it's
because it's more important to attempt to kick the person you don't agree
with than to try to persuade them over to your POV, which as I'm sure you
realize is usually only accomplished with kindness and respect.
Incidentally, it's highly likely that a lot of the people whose views you
disagree with think silence is assent, too. But it's not necessarily true.
Sometimes it's more effective to quietly just turn away and go take some
action. I see your typical posting style as simply turning up that
rapidly-increasing volume you are so weary at. Creating the very thing you
don't want.
Vic Smith
>
>Yeah, bars here also overflow with trailer trash drunks, effete
>intellectuals and armchair quarterbacks who would beat and shoot people
>for saying what they think.
Nobody forced you to become a cheesehead.
--Vic
Don
> And yes, it pisses me off to no end for the ones that come here ILLEGALLY
> and receive more benefits and services than I did and do, or for that
> matter than MOST American born citizens.
You'd rather *natives* receive more benefits and services than YOU do?
Your complaint shouldn't be toward the people that receive the benefits and
services but rather the people that *steal* the money from you and give the
benefits and services (regardless to whom they give the benefits and
services to) after slicing off a nice fat chunk for themselves.
Simply, your view of the problem is myopic and thus unsolvable as you've
described it.
bear...@cruller.invalid
"Don" <one-if-...@concord.com> wrote:
That's because it's a bogus complaint. If he really believed anything he
said, he could easily revoke his citizenship, leave the country and
sneak back in to collect all those great "benefits" he goes on and on
about. Maybe that preschool would accept his grandchild if his presence
inside the cloistered U.S. border was illegal, but he isn't even man
enough to find out.
Just like most politically "active" Usenetters who are driven by greed
and politically ulterior motives, he would rather piss and moan at his
keyboard, wailing about how others are to blame for all his bullshit
problems (well, as long as the others are weaker, less influential and
more powerless than him). His complaints reveal much more about him and
his baseless opinions than anything else.