AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2006 > May > 11 > Entry
Why are people so angry about illegal immigration?
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
Last week, instead of the usual debate, Diane and I both looked at the benefits of illegal immigration. This week, as the immigration reform controversy rages, we examine the greatest concerns.
Although terrorism remains the greatest cross-border threat, most immigration reform isn’t about safety. No proponents of strict Mexican-border measures can say with a straight face that they’re there to prevent terrorism, when so much of the Canadian border remains unguarded.
Most immigration reform advocates are simply angry that millions of poor people are unlawfully taking advantage of our prosperous country. No matter how compassionate we are, many Americans do resent the illegal aliens who strain our already-stretched infrastructure in public education, transportation, and healthcare, knowing full well that American taxpayers will foot the bill.
To be fair, most Americans don’t realize that about half of illegal immigrants pay some federal taxes, using fake Social Security numbers. But even those dollars seem insufficient when we see overcrowded schools and hospital emergency rooms, skyrocketing health care costs, and the strain on our state tax base, knowing that in some areas, those strains are significantly worsened by illegals. While it’s not a major issue everywhere, there are many cities where illegal aliens cost Americans far more than they contribute to GDP.
That dynamic is nowhere more obvious than in California, where 84 hospitals have had to close, unable to survive while providing services for so many uninsured. Uninsured Americans are the biggest problem, but that is significantly exacerbated by the fact that – as UCLA researchers found — 20% of the California uninsured are illegals. The cost of paying for illegal aliens’ babies to be born in California – where they immediately become U.S. citizens – alone accounts for half the annual budget of the Medi-Cal welfare program.
Although I personally appreciate the massive contribution that hard-working immigrants make to our economy, it’s this sense of entitlement and being taken advantage of that seems to most anger Americans. If reform put more immigrants “on the grid,” where they’d be more likely to get legitimate jobs and health insurance, and no longer be scared to seek preventative and less costly health care, I think Americans would be more whole-heartedly welcoming.
Rebuttal
The inevitability of job loss and change. That’s what really ticks us off.
It’s not like we haven’t experienced this problem before. Remember when women entered the workforce? There were some really ticked off people. Whenever jobs shift from one demographic group to another, stereotypes trip from our tongues, fueling discontent as we inevitably hurdle the five stages of grief. When it comes to cultural change, mourning must take place before healing can begin.
Denial. Our denial stage went blissfully unnoticed by those of us enjoying the benefits of illegals mowing our lawns. And our denial was supported by convenient stereotypes. You know, like: “Hispanics are hard-working.” This may be true. But we shouldn’t ignore our former naivety, like when women entered the once prestigious male-only club as secretarial staff. We assumed their smaller hands were more dexterous at the typewriter (by the way, this isn’t true).
Anger. Some of us are angry, like the guy who wrote me last week stating he wouldn’t allow this country to be taken over by “lawless mobs.” Is he talking about illegal immigrants or the Puritans who slaughtered a large portion of the American Indian population? I don’t know but I suspect Mexicans are his scapegoat because those damn East Indian programmers are just too far away to yell at.
Bargaining. We are trying to bargain ourselves out of an inevitable globalization of the American workforce, a high-tech trend largely of our own making. But we’ll fail. It isn’t only those with low-paying manufacturing jobs whose pay has been cut. More than three million white collar jobs ( i.e., those damn East Indian programmers) are expected to move overseas by 2015, according to Forrester Research.
Depression. Some of us may get a little depressed as we wend our way through personal discomfort, bridging the accent barrier of our India-based customer care department and circumnavigating the Hispanic janitorial staff. But a new industry supporting foreign diplomacy may prosper.
Acceptance. At some point we’ll move into the final phase and accept these cultural changes. Some of us may even learn a second language. Then maybe we’ll look back and see what all of this fuss was really about: the inevitable.
Comments
By Chilao
May 15, 2006 07:48 AM | Link to this
Because they are all criminals, de facto, being here illegally and all, AND over-breeding Mexican/Latin Catholics to boot!
My perception of it anyway, does not make it necessarily so. Coudn’t resist, though. LOL
Have to comment on the East Indian concept. Not sure Bangalore, New Delhi, and Mumbai(Bombay) are considered the East Indies, I think that is the island groups/nations Malaysia/Indonesia eastward to New Guinea.(look at a globe). Geography-folk may have changed all that, though, and I MAY have missed it. But reading in the IT journals, seems Indian out-sourcing industry is maturing, and getting rather expensive. China now the new place for western companies to want to outsource things to. ‘Tis cheaper, after all.
Now if the intent was to distinquish between North American Indians, how about Asian Indians?
By Ken
May 15, 2006 08:11 AM | Link to this
People are angry about illegal immigration b/c that is what the government and the media outlets want us to be angry about.
Iraq has been hashed and rehashed. Social security is going nowhere fast. People have begun to accept $3/gal as the norm. The economy has stabilized regardless of your viewpoint.
The illegals aren’t causing any more problems now than they have over the past decode, BUT, it is an election year. Simply put the politicians need an issue to spar over and the media outlets need an issue to draw in their viewers.
By Brian Curtis
May 15, 2006 08:20 AM | Link to this
I’m seeing a disturbing similarity between Shaunti and Diane’s positions both in this week’s and last week’s commentary. They both regard the presence of a huge, invisible workforce as inevitable, and possibly even desirable. The only quibble is over how many of “our” resources this workforce is consuming and whether—gasp!—racism’s involved.
Forest for the trees, folks. The immigrant workers themselves aren’t the problem; the SYSTEM that requires and rewards them is! And Shaunti, Diane, and the rest of us are to blame for insisting that we want low, low prices on our produce, cleaning services, construction, etc. That demand—as Econ 101 tells us—results in a steady suppply of workers who earn below-minimum wage and get no benefits, in addition to having no rights.
Is that hurting American workers? You bet—almost as much as it hurts the immigrants themselves. The ones benefiting from it—the employers of illegals—are getting rich off of this setup. And guess which of those three groups has the government in their back pocket when it comes to challenging or changing this system?
Back in the 1800s, America had a similar workforce. They had no rights and no legal standing; they certainly didn’t earn much by way of wages or benefits; and profiteers accumulated quite a bit of wealth off of their efforts. And as soon as some folks started agitating about these people maybe deserving one or two rights, these plutocrats worked hard to stir up racism and fear among the working-class citizens, hoping to set them against each other so they could keep on raking in the dough.
Are we going to fall for that again?
By Renee
May 15, 2006 08:43 AM | Link to this
I don’t know about anyone else, but I thought we beat this subject up last week.
Chilao - last week you asked about JBM. She’s been going through some personal issues, I’m not sure when she’ll be back. (I’m sure Chuck is upset).
By GOB
May 15, 2006 08:53 AM | Link to this
To answer the question as to why people are angry, Ken hit it perfectly. The masses have been stirred into a frenzy because it is an election year. The politicians are playing off the xenophobic tendencies that most every country has. It isnt like illegal immigration just got started. Last election cycle it was gay marriage. This time it is illegal immigration and gas prices.
By Chilao
May 15, 2006 09:10 AM | Link to this
I stand corrected, from wikipedia:
In a wider sense, the (East)Indies is also used to describe lands of South and Southeast Asia, occupying all of the former British India, the present Indian Union, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, the Maldives, and also Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia, which was last called the Dutch East Indies before independence.
Like I said, I must have missed it. LOL
By Chilao
May 15, 2006 09:12 AM | Link to this
Thanks Renee. And not going to say anything more. LMAO
By Tim
May 15, 2006 09:19 AM | Link to this
Hey there to all my blog buddies out there… I’m baaaack… but not for too long today… have to now get all caught up… not much of an opinion about this weeks topic… I think it’s just a continuation of what has been talked and talked and talked about for weeks on this blog… glad I was on vacation last week… I had an AMAZING time… picked up a lil more espanol while I was there and just didn’t want to leave… what an AMAZING place to visit… the locals treat tourists like they are stars or something… and it is very safe… can walk on the street at 2 or 3 in the morning and no one will bother you… they know the city lives off it’s tourist industry and they don’t want any bad publicity… everyone was SOOOO incredibly nice and helpful… only one cabbie tried to take advantage of us and try and tell us the cab ride was 150 pesos… when I said… no no no es trenta pesos… he said oh ok… and that was that… anyway… have fun arguing… I have to get to work
By Julia
May 15, 2006 09:28 AM | Link to this
Hi Tim! We missed you. Glad you had a great time!!!! :)
By Tim
May 15, 2006 09:34 AM | Link to this
Thanks Julia… I had a great time… I didn’t miss being at work… but I did miss killing time by reading this lil blog… but the beach was a nice alternative
By Monica
May 15, 2006 09:46 AM | Link to this
Hi to all. We are down to the wire (10 days to summer!), so I’ll not have much time to visit. Besides, I think we exahusted this topic last week.
I have a proposal - we should have Joke Monday instead of Joke Friday - and here’s one for you Monday morning bleary-eyed workers:
Q:What did the agnostic, dyslexic, insomniac do?
A: He stayed up all night long wondering if there really was a dog.
By GOB
May 15, 2006 09:47 AM | Link to this
Anyone have any ideas for a decent topic? I am pretty sure this one has been blogged out in the last few weeks…
By Renee
May 15, 2006 09:53 AM | Link to this
any stimulating topic will do. This dead horse has been beaten, stomped etc…
How about Desperate Housewives lol?
By Chilao
May 15, 2006 10:10 AM | Link to this
Anybody see the last episode of The West Wing? I am trying to figure out what was written on that glass-framed present Barlett opened on the plane. I did not get my glasses on in time and they did not show it again. I thought it was great how they showed all the White House mechanics of a turn-over. NINETY people to pack the private residence up in 1-2 hours.
of course I saw DHW. LOL
By The72John
May 15, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this
Seriously, how much more is there to say?
How about “Why Arthur Blank should be allowed to buy the Braves instead of Liberty Media.”
By The72John
May 15, 2006 10:26 AM | Link to this
I did not get my glasses on in time and they did not show it again
No Broadband AND no TiVo?
It’s called the 21st century…join it. ;-)
By Julia
May 15, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this
How about the differences in pay between men and women in the same field? Now there’s a good topic.
By Julia
May 15, 2006 10:38 AM | Link to this
Or how about how to stay stress free when you work for a stress-FULL boss?
By Chilao
May 15, 2006 10:42 AM | Link to this
72John - haven’t we been thru this before? Not everyone lives in urban America. Broadband? in the rural South? You know something I do not?
But if it was THAT IMPORTANT to me, and it obviously is not, I can certainly tape while I watch. DUH. without TIVo even, imagine that.
oh, started an Atwood, not HandMaid’s Tale, though, a book called Surfacing, French-Canadians in northern Ontario, and since I am myself 1/2 French Canadian…..
By The72John
May 15, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this
How about the differences in pay between men and women in the same field? Now there’s a good topic
Obviously women deserve less money as they are operating at less than full capacity for a portion of each month.
By The72John
May 15, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this
72John - haven’t we been thru this before? Not everyone lives in urban America. Broadband? in the rural South? You know something I do not?
Satelite modem. Besides TiVo just requires a phone line :-)
oh, started an Atwood, not HandMaid’s Tale, though, a book called Surfacing, French-Canadians in northern Ontario, and since I am myself 1/2 French Canadian
How is it? I really loved Alias, Grace and The Robber Bride but I found the last one I tried to read really tedious - Can’t remember the title but it was a novel-within-a-novel Sci-Fi/Noirish kind of thing.
By Jack
May 15, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this
“Obviously women deserve less money as they are operating at less than full capacity for a portion of each month”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Good one John. I’m sure all of the ladies on the blog will agree.
By Chilao
May 15, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this
72John - think I did a long discourse of my satellite options, not about to repeat again; like i said, not THAT important enough to have at home. Probably going to get DirectTV eventually, but like I said, I have not missed cable in the nine years I have had none. I was raised in a no-TV household, never had one until I was on my own at 17. TV is off-the-devil you know, people lying and pretending they are someone they are not(it is called acting). being facetious.
Got that Surfacing since it was a closer library than HandMaid’s Tale and to see if I could do her writing style. Apparently it is an ecofeminist book(whatever that means, LOL), per web knowledge, but I am only about 1/4 into it.
By Julia
May 15, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this
72John-I SERIOUSLY hope you’re joking!!!
By The72John
May 15, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this
Good one John. I’m sure all of the ladies on the blog will agree.
/ducks and hopes that the ladies all know he is just kidding
By Chilao
May 15, 2006 11:12 AM | Link to this
in fact my sole motivation to get DirectTV is to have DHW in better picture and perhaps the Jon Stewart show. (and let’s not forget TNT’s Friday Night Bullriding..LOL)
but since ABC now has free DHW downloads, after it airs, not even an issue for me if I miss one(due to say, the power being out..LMAO). I have yet to check it out, downloading an episode. My first season view was on CD/s someone was saving for me after they downloaded(talking DHW). I would watch 3-4 episodes at one time.
By The72John
May 15, 2006 11:13 AM | Link to this
Chilao, I am really just ribbing you.
By Monica
May 15, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this
Obviously women deserve less money as they are operating at less than full capacity for a portion of each month.
In that case, all employees should have to take an I.Q. test to determine who works at less than full capacity all the time.
By Chilao
May 15, 2006 11:24 AM | Link to this
72John - I know. LOL, I thought I was being progressive when I got a cell a year ago, my next-to-last member of family to get one. Cingular, it works in NYC, Boston, Atlanta, etc but not at home. LOL
By Julia
May 15, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this
Good one Monica! I know most of the guys up here seem to have PMS for 30 days each month.
You know what PMS stands for? Putting up with Mens Sh!t. (Sorry-saw that on a bumper sticker one time and couldn’t believe my eyes.)LOl
I’m having a hard time with a boss who treats women like secretaries who deserve minimum wage and the men are treated like kings of the hill who NEED more money because they have a family to feed. He is the ultimate male chaevinist (sp???). His motto is that work comes first and family comes second.
By FatMoose
May 15, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this
On the women at work issue.
I would hope this is not the norm, but CANNOT see a man doing it: I am currently looking across the hall at a female co-workers door and there is a sign that her niece (about 15yo) that she brought to work wrote (with all the girly sqqiggles and such) stating “Beware: Girls Talking about Boys in here. Enter at your own risk, or better yet go bother someone else.”
And the giggling is loud enough to hear with their, and my, doors closed.
In no way does this mean ALL women would perform their job in this fashion, but NO man would.
Comments?
By FatMoose
May 15, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this
You know what PMS stands for? Putting up with Mens Sh!t. (Sorry-saw that on a bumper sticker one time and couldn’t believe my eyes.)
Whats the acronym for Stupid Human Error?
By Jack
May 15, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this
I thought it stood for Punish My Spouse.
By Julia
May 15, 2006 11:43 AM | Link to this
Hi FM! I can honestly say that there are good and bad employees (male and female). I see employees who spend more time outside smoking than working. I see employees waste more time making coffee and eating donuts. I see two women who spend all day engaging in gossip. I see men huddled in the corner talking for 45 minutes about sports or their motorcycles.
Their are good and bad on both sides. I’m sorry for coming across Whileyish this morning. My boss is driving me crazy. (Time for prayer now….):)
By Julia
May 15, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this
(Disclaimer: Lord knows I can’t spell.)LOL
By Jack
May 15, 2006 11:48 AM | Link to this
Julia. You just think they’re talking about sports and motorcycles. hehe
By Billy
May 15, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this
Chilao — It was “Bartlett for America”. It’s what Leo wrote on a cocktail napkin, I believe when he was convincing Bartlett to run.
I miss John Spencer.
By Billy
May 15, 2006 12:11 PM | Link to this
I guess Shaunti and Diane don’t read the board…If they did, I doubt they’d have gone with immigration again.
By Chilao
May 15, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this
Billy - thank you, yes, that napkin had been mentioned once or twice on the show, earlier epidsodes. and his daughter wrapped it up. I was not able to rewind my TiVo and catch it over. LOL I am so last-century. I am going to miss that show and could give a rat’s behind about some Sunset Strip/Hollywood show. (the alledged replacement), I used to live Mid-Wilshire, one block from the WilTern theater. KoreaTown. I’ll pass. LMAO
By The72John
May 15, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this
I guess Shaunti and Diane don’t read the board…If they did, I doubt they’d have gone with immigration again
Makes me think of the scene in Jurrasic Park where the beaten-up SUV falls from the tree and lands on Dr. Grant and the two kids, and the kid says in exasperation “We’re back in the car, again.”
By Chilao
May 15, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this
I guess Shaunti and Diane don’t read the board…If they did, I doubt they’d have gone with immigration again.
they probably had this written before the NSA eaves-dropping news hit, now THERE’s a topic. LOL
By GOB
May 15, 2006 12:34 PM | Link to this
In no way does this mean ALL women would perform their job in this fashion, but NO man would.
Interesting how you go out of your way to avoid a negative stereotype for all women, but then go out of your way to include a positive one for all men.
By kimberly
May 15, 2006 12:35 PM | Link to this
I’m not angry at the immigrants. But I’ve noticed that people I do NOT TRUST really want me to be angry at the immigrants. So I ask: “Why do you want me to be angry at the immigrants?” Or “Why are you trying to direct my anger to a specific location?” Or “What are you hiding that you don’t want me to see?” Then those people I don’t trust are angry with me as well. And I think: If those people are angry with me, then I must be doing something right.
By Jack
May 15, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this
Woof, woof.
Tell them where to put that anger Hon.
By Billy
May 15, 2006 01:00 PM | Link to this
I dunno, I think the Sunset Strip show could be good. I think Aaron Sorkin’s helming the thing, and it’s got some pretty good actors in it. Then again, I enjoyed Sports Night.
By FatMoose
May 15, 2006 01:11 PM | Link to this
GOB,
Interesting how you go out of your way to avoid a negative stereotype for all women, but then go out of your way to include a positive one for all men.
First I would say that the non-existance of an action is not a positive stereotype. Second, guys do have their stereotypes - this just is not one of them.
Julie,
Hi FM! I can honestly say that there are good and bad employees (male and female). I see employees who spend more time outside smoking than working. I see employees waste more time making coffee and eating donuts. I see two women who spend all day engaging in gossip. I see men huddled in the corner talking for 45 minutes about sports or their motorcycles.
I agree that bad employees abound, but am hesitant to say that causing commotion in the workplace is not a biased towards women moreso than men. It could be that I notice them more - but I make a concious effort to be fair.
Another example for you that burns me up: A co-worker was determined that the guys regularly get more kudos than the women (who worries about that stuff is odd to me as it is). So, at the last performance period she ran a query and found that the ladies got more by a ratio of 2-1. The kicker? She was unaware for 2weeks that we were all privy to the report and during that time she still demanded that they get fewer kudos; although she KNEW otherwise.
Now, I also work with a guy who is a total pr!ck and does not want to do crap. I guess that does not bother me since I can simply not visit him - whereas the commotion is frustrating.
As for His motto is that work comes first and family comes second. That is a realy ambiguous statement that could swing both ways. For example, I had to move from sharing an office (same person that has sign on the door) bc she would have multiple arguements each day (still does actually) with her husband on the phone and could see the comment refering to that; but, if you have a sick child or such - his notion is absurd.
By Netbanker
May 15, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this
Well since we’re going to continue last week’s discussion I’ll stay off topic to clarify something for GOB and Billy about Social Security. I’m not against paying extra into the system to help people who really couldn’t afford to save on their own for retirement.
I, personally, just don’t view any household that makes over the median income of $43K as unable to save SOMETHING.. These are the people I was ranting about who make choices that feel good at the time and then later claim they weren’t able to save. Not true…they chose not to save, but to spend. Maybe I’m more sensitive than many people about this because I grew up in a middle-class family that had a large garden because growing fresh vegetables is less expensive than buying them, we put up our own pickles, made our own peach preserves from the tree in the backyard, mowed our own lawn, cleaned our own house, etc. There are many of these same activites that families could do today, but they choose instead to hire services because they’re ‘too busy.’ Well how about dropping some activites (that would save money), do some chores together as a family (saves more $$ AND you spend time together AND kids learn to be responsible as well as a sense of satisfaction from contributing), cook a few more meals together at home, etc. I can afford to hire people to do many things for me that I continue to do for myself because I can do them and save money at the same time. Maybe in the end I’m just a cheap bastard.
By GOB
May 15, 2006 01:23 PM | Link to this
First I would say that the non-existance of an action is not a positive stereotype.
Well, if the non-existant action is a negative one, and you are saying that NO man would commit this negative action, I would call that a positive stereotype. If I said no men steal from their employers, wouldnt that imply some sort of positive stereotype, while at the same time implying a negative one on women?
Do you really believe, as you stated, that NO man would put up a childish sign on an office door and be loud? Or were you being literal and saying that NO man would put a sign that says, “Beware: Girls Talking about Boys in here. Enter at your own risk, or better yet go bother someone else” on their office door?
By GOB
May 15, 2006 01:30 PM | Link to this
NetB - Based on your last post, I think that we are in general agreement. I wasnt talking about the people who make poor finincial decisions, and are wasteful spenders, but those who truly are unable to save anything. Like you, my upbringing plays into those feelings. My mom was a single parent who literally could not save for retirement, as she had 2 boys to raise, while working 2 jobs to make ends meet. Those are the people that we should ensure are taken care of in retirement.
By Netbanker
May 15, 2006 01:31 PM | Link to this
all employees should have to take an I.Q. test to determine who works at less than full capacity all the time Hmmmmm…if an idiot is working at full capacity does that make them less of an idiot or simply mean they’re spreading their idiocy around a lot more?
His motto is that work comes first and family comes second Julia…I’m sure he’ll appreciate his motto when he’s older and lonely because his kids put work first or are simply resentful that their own father was never present in their lives. I think that the next gift you give the man (for the holidays, boss’s day, whatever) you include a muscial gift of a copy of “Cat’s in the Cradle”
By Jack
May 15, 2006 01:36 PM | Link to this
If family comes second to work, that guy needs help.
By FatMoose
May 15, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this
Do you really believe, as you stated, that NO man would put up a childish sign on an office door and be loud?
Does stereotype actually mean 100% of the people being typed must perform the same? It is my understanding that a stereotype generalizes but does not create an absolute.
I agree that some guy, somewhere, has done this.
For instance, I entered a guys office for a meeting to find him crying bc of an error in his web programming that caused 1k people to get spammed by a test message; although I think that we could agree that this is more rare than a female being emotional at work.
Or are we so PC now that we cannot even talk about our differences without people feeling that it is a slam?
By GOB
May 15, 2006 01:47 PM | Link to this
Although I think that we could agree that this is more rare than a female being emotional at work.
Maybe in your office that is true, but in mine, I have found it to be the exact opposite. Most of the women I work with are career-driven to a fault, and tend to be more on the icy side. The men, however, tend to complain and whine, and generally be less productive, and more emotional.
By Netbanker
May 15, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this
GOB, I didn’t think we’d be that far apart in view. I do wonder what happened to Americans that we seem to generally not care for older family members by bringing them into our homes to care for them. I realize this isn’t always possible due to the level of care medical care, etc. that some people will need. My great-grandmother moved in with my grandparents at their insistance after she fell in her apartment at the age of 86. She lived with them for 4 years before insisting on going into a nursing home because she knew that her failing health was becoming harder for my grandparents to deal with. She also had a few long time friends still alive in the home who really enjoyed the daily planned activities that people at home can’t offer. She entered the home my freshman year in college so we’d exchange letters comparing experiences. Frighteningly the main differences between college and home were that she had a private room while I had a room mate and the noisy nights at college were due to parties while in the home it was alzheimers or dementia patients.
By Billy
May 15, 2006 01:50 PM | Link to this
NetB — I get what you’re saying, and I agree with you. People really do live above their means, and it’s hard to feel much sympathy for them when they could have still lived comfortably while saving.
I’m going through something like that with a family member right now. Husband and wife make probably $70-80K between them. At the time their house was foreclosed on they had at least two extra mortgages. Several cars repossessed. And yet they’ve managed to keep buying newer, more expensive cars, cell phones, and even a house. They’ve borrowed money from almost everyone that considers them friends. That includes my wife and me. They haven’t saved anything for retirement — well, they’ve withdrawn what was saved — nor do they have anything put away for their kids’ education. Yet they always have money for cigarettes and beer.
Meanwhile my wife and I have bought a house and had a child on about $30K gross for the past 2 years. Were it not for the outrageous cost of health insurance (which I do not get through my employer) we’d be sitting pretty. As it is we’ve gone into more debt than we’d like, but we’re not living so far above our means. I mean, my car is twelve years old. What sucks is that we’re right on that income line where you can’t afford to spend so much on gas or buy a car that gets better mileage. And we have no public transportation to speak of here…
By GOB
May 15, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this
I am currently looking across the hall at a female co-workers door and there is a sign that her niece (about 15yo) that she brought to work wrote (with all the girly sqqiggles and such) stating “Beware: Girls Talking about Boys in here. Enter at your own risk, or better yet go bother someone else.”
And the giggling is loud enough to hear with their, and my, doors closed.
In no way does this mean ALL women would perform their job in this fashion, but NO man would.
Or are we so PC now that we cannot even talk about our differences without people feeling that it is a slam?
I would argue that your original comment was not a general statement of our differences. Read it again, and it does sound like a slam. It seems to imply that women are much more likely to goof off at work, or act in childish ways.
By Jack
May 15, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this
That’s a sad song indeed Net.
By FatMoose
May 15, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this
Maybe in your office that is true, but in mine, I have found it to be the exact opposite. Most of the women I work with are career-driven to a fault, and tend to be more on the icy side. The men, however, tend to complain and whine, and generally be less productive, and more emotional.
I am sure there are all types - seems that the aura of a workplace will attract more like-minded people; whether it is better or worse bc of it depends.
I can honestly say that I would welcome a workplace that did not fit the negitive stereotypes (on both sides) so well, but this is my third place of employment that enforces them to a large degree.
By Jack
May 15, 2006 02:02 PM | Link to this
I know. We can split hairs today. What fun.
By FatMoose
May 15, 2006 02:03 PM | Link to this
It seems to imply that women are much more likely to goof off at work, or act in childish ways.
No, I stated that they are more prone to exhibit the SAME actions as described. Not similar, king-of-like or childish ones, those are your words.
“Imply” is a dangerous word if you have no ability to get in anothers head - agreed? A better way of stating it would be “Are you saying X?”
For example, when the cowbell episode of SNL was new I had to here guys laughing all day long to it blasting on their pc speakers. I doubt women would do that “in general.”
By RF
May 15, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this
Look at the average credit card debt today. It has skyrocketed, even among seniors who used to know better. It’s too easy to live above your means and have a “buy now pay later” attitude. Respect for money, like respect for people, laws, morals, etc. is taught at home. Our generation apparently wasn’t paying attention as well as it should have been.
Net- I remember all too well being rudely awakened by the incessant rattling of the pressure valve on mom’s pressure cooker on Saturday mornings as she canned green beans or god knows what else. She grew up on a farm where you didn’t have it if you didn’t grow it. They were dirt poor but ate well. I think the average American nowadays couldn’t survive if they had to be self-sufficient like that. We are becoming increasingly selfish and now-oriented. Worry about the payments later—and then the repo man shows up!
By chuck
May 15, 2006 02:07 PM | Link to this
Ken hit the nail on the head. For most of the people out there, this issue was not even on the radar until the media started putting the stories on every night about the “minute men”. I have been harping on this issue with my Reps. and Sens. for about 10-12 years. It was kind of a chain reaction thing.
The Minute Men started patrolling the border because Arizona was being inundated with illegals, and because INS wasn’t. This became a national story.
Congress began discussing immigration reform. Both sides began to use this as a wedge issue.
Mexicans and other illegal aliens decided to preemptively protest a bill that had not yet been passed. They made the mistake of being very disrespectful toward our flag and our country.
Mainstream America saw the pictures on the news of upside down flags and Mexican flags and got ticked off. Congress had to address the issue for real. The politically correct Senate Bill was going to be DOA. H of R decided to dig its heels in for real reform.
Now both sides are MAD.
That’s the simplified version.
By GOB
May 15, 2006 02:09 PM | Link to this
No, I stated that they are more prone to exhibit the SAME actions as described. Not similar, king-of-like or childish ones, those are your words.
So you were being literal then, and simply meant that women are more prone to put childish signs on their office doors and giggle loudly…Gotcha. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
By FatMoose
May 15, 2006 02:11 PM | Link to this
For example, when the cowbell episode of SNL was new I had to here guys laughing all day long to it blasting on their pc speakers. I doubt women would do that “in general.”
Deleted the wrong “hear/here” in my sentence - just so noone thinks I dont know the diff;) It had read “For example, when the cowbell episode of SNL was new I had to hear guys here laughing all day long to it blasting on their pc speakers. I doubt women would do that “in general.”
By FatMoose
May 15, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this
So you were being literal then, and simply meant that women are more prone to put childish signs on their office doors and giggle loudly…Gotcha. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
No problem.
By GOB
May 15, 2006 02:17 PM | Link to this
Wow…
By FatMoose
May 15, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this
Chuck,
Want to answer the question from last week? Especialy since this topic blows?
Here is a refresher:
By FatMoose
May 12, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this
I will go slow.
God created man. A man that from the start (adam/eve) and throughout history (noah/flood) cannot live up to God’s lowest acceptable standards.
How do YOU explain this given your definition of an all knowing all perfect God and the literalism in which you read the bible?
Remember, a god who is all knowing and outside of time means he knew the second he created adam (actually before;) that it would give rise to hitler at some point…etc….down to every last persons actions. He would have to either KNOW he was condemning most (like dominos falling, it would be dictated) or he gives us a piece of his power that makes him blind to our future - but the latter does not fit in your view (but does in mine).
By chuck
May 12, 2006 04:41 PM | Link to this
Man can’t live up to God’s standard in his own strength. When Jesus becomes savior and Lord of your life, you let Him live the life through you.
By FatMoose
May 12, 2006 04:56 PM | Link to this
See, even with simplified english you provide a non-response:
Man can’t live up to God’s standard in his own strength. When Jesus becomes savior and Lord of your life, you let Him live the life through you.
How does this apply to Adam/eve? Or ANY pre-Jesus era person?
By The72John
May 15, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this
LOL, Gob. It’s amazing, isn’t it.
By Renee
May 15, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this
RF - Your 2:06 hits the nail right on the head. It’s like an entitlement attitude. It’s like saying, I’m entitled to have this, even if I don’t have the money to pay for it.
My mom coming up used her pressure cooker frequently. My mom and dad were always pretty well off, but nobody knew but us. I hung clothes on the clothes line (even though we had a dryer it was rarely used). We had one one TV coming up, it was black and white AND we used the pliers to turn it. In 82 my mom finally broke down and bought a new car, a Chevrolet Citation. I could never understand why I couldn’t (or we couldn’t) have what my friends had. Color TV and cable in the bedroom, big stereos etc…Needless to say, my mom being frugal even, even when she had the money to spend has really paid off. To this day, my mom COULD drive a Mercedes, but has a 98 Grand Voyager with over 150000 miles on it.
By GOB
May 15, 2006 02:39 PM | Link to this
72John - It truly is…
By Monica
May 15, 2006 02:39 PM | Link to this
RF, Net, et al, I agree that most of us have become lazy with regard to gardening, cooking, cleaning etc. I remember well the afternoons I spent around the kitchen table, helping my mother snap green beans. We had tomatoes, peaches, corn, even watermelons one year! However (maybe I’m defensive because I’m feeling guilty), with more families being two-income families, that lifestyle is becoming obsolete.
By Renee
May 15, 2006 02:39 PM | Link to this
My apologies for my TERRIBLE writing. I just read my post and I am shaking my head at all my errors.
Can’t do work AND blog obviously. LOL
By GOB
May 15, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this
with more families being two-income families, that lifestyle is becoming obsolete.
Monica - That is true, but isnt the need for a two-income family also mostly overspending, and living above your means? My wife and I were approved for a mortgage amount that was WAY above what we could have actually paid. Many people, however, see that number and take the best house they can get, regardless of their ability to pay. That type of behaivor has increased the need for a two-income household dramatically.
By FatMoose
May 15, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this
That is true, but isnt the need for a two-income family also mostly overspending, and living above your means? My wife and I were approved for a mortgage amount that was WAY above what we could have actually paid. Many people, however, see that number and take the best house they can get, regardless of their ability to pay. That type of behaivor has increased the need for a two-income household dramatically.
And we export this mentality through american TV/movies which intersects with the immigration debate. I see it in Turkey all the time now - the new turks are materialistic as heck whereas the old turks are a very much “your ok, im ok” 60s mentality.
By Zack
May 15, 2006 03:04 PM | Link to this
Ms. Glass,
Why should the most productive country on the planet and also the one that does by far the most for the world slow down its day-to-day work regimen to accommodate illegal aliens who want to jump in and snare a piece of the cake? Why don’t you answer that one, and that’s just ONE of MANY examples. There also are matters of immunization. I could go on and on. You just don’t get it, Ms. Glass. Of course, I’d expect this type of answer from you. You and your type promote casual sex, abortion, the myth that post-abortion guilt doesn’t exist, and THEN you say, to Pro-Life advocates like myself that it’s all my fault because I haven’t adopted any kids in the past. If not for Lozen, Whiley, Norman, and John, you’d make the least sense on here.
By RF
May 15, 2006 03:04 PM | Link to this
GOB-it’s a combination of liberal credit practices, materialism, and the fact that the cost of living has, in many ways, gone beyond what most families can manage on one income. Once many families had two incomes, they realized how much stuff they could have and materialism set in. Before all the “stuff” we have out there today was available, people wanted less. More temptation= more buying. It’s good for business and the economy and lousy for the consumer who is overspending and financing his/her life away.
Monica- you’re right to some extent. Prices seem to have risen faster than income, and we are working more to pay for what we have. We also have more “necessities” today that cost money. Do you remember party lines on phones? We had one until I was in elementary school, cable was unheard of, and remote control meant getting the kids to change the channel!! LOL
Renee- my mom drives an 11 year old Pontiac, which she babies, and refuses to spend the money to buy anything else. She and my dad didn’t always make the best financial decisions when we were growing up, but at least they learned and didn’t keep making the same mistakes.
By The72John
May 15, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this
Why should the most productive country on the planet and also the one that does by far the most for the world slow down its day-to-day work regimen to accommodate illegal aliens who want to jump in and snare a piece of the cake? Why don’t you answer that one, and that’s just ONE of MANY examples. There also are matters of immunization. I could go on and on. You just don’t get it, Ms. Glass. Of course, I’d expect this type of answer from you. You and your type promote casual sex, abortion, the myth that post-abortion guilt doesn’t exist, and THEN you say, to Pro-Life advocates like myself that it’s all my fault because I haven’t adopted any kids in the past. If not for Lozen, Whiley, Norman, and John, you’d make the least sense on here
I’ll give $100 to anyone who can correctly diagram this.
By GOB
May 15, 2006 03:15 PM | Link to this
I’ll give $100 to anyone who can correctly diagram this.
No way. That’s a sucker bet.
I still contend that he is fake. Just a troll trying to get people worked up.
By Archie
May 15, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this
I, personally, just don’t view any household that makes over the median income of $43K as unable to save SOMETHING.. These are the people I was ranting about who make choices that feel good at the time and then later claim they weren’t able to save. Not true…they chose not to save, but to spend. Maybe I’m more sensitive than many people about this because I grew up in a middle-class family that had a large garden because growing fresh vegetables is less expensive than buying them, we put up our own pickles, made our own peach preserves from the tree in the backyard, mowed our own lawn, cleaned our own house, etc. There are many of these same activites that families could do today, but they choose instead to hire services because they’re ‘too busy.’”
Netbanker,I wished you could have talked to me years ago about spending. Lack of confidence is why some of the people that you and Billy speak do certain things. People don’t think things are going to get better so they spend to have something nice but when their hard work finally does start to pay off they have to pay off bills,bills, and bills. I don’t want to bring up the race card but there’s a psychological issue to spending in that some folk don’t thinks will get better but they do and because bad choices people have problems. People are angry at illegal immigrants because they broke the law. People aren’t angry at legal immigrants. Anyway I am making improvements with my spending…
By GOB
May 15, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this
RF - You are totally right on it being a combination of things that lead to need for two-income families. Part of the reason for prices rising faster than income is the huge jump in credit card use.
It used to be that if you didnt have the money to buy something, you waited until you did (or so I hear…I was raised in the credit card generation). That forced the demand down, which in turn kept prices in check. Now, however, with the ability to buy things you cant really afford, demand is up, and prices go along for the ride.
By kimberly
May 15, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this
Regarding the modern tendancy of Americans to live beyond our means, does anyone wonder why the CREDIT INDUSTRY is never held accountable? The bankruptcy “reform” that your Congress passed last year, interestingly, did absolutely nothing to hold the credit industry responsible for its own irrepsonsible lending practices. It DID, however, seriously curtail the average citizen’s access to a way out of insurmountable debt, making NO DISTINCTION WHATSOEVER between those who accrued it through living beyond their means, and those who lost (or will lose) everything due to a catastrophic illness in the family. The hard-working family whose [uninsured] dad has an early heart attack, or whose child has lukemia, is treated just like the Nordstrom addicts or Vegas junkies.
Meanwhile, we all get piles of mail (dead trees) every week from “lenders.” Bad credit? No problem! If there’s such a crisis, WHY aren’t lending practices addressed? Just curious.
By RF
May 15, 2006 03:20 PM | Link to this
john- I’d have to correct the grammar first, and well, it wouldn’t be worth trying to make it intelligible so I could diagram it.
By Billy
May 15, 2006 03:20 PM | Link to this
I’ll give $100 to anyone who can correctly diagram this.
I’ll give it a shot…
“Blah, blah, blah, jingoistic remark, blah, blah, confrontational attitude, blah, blah, blah, blah, ultra-right-wing inflammatory rhetoric straight from Faux News talking points and not at all relevant to the question at hand, blah, blah, lame attempt at insulting poseters with IQ greater than mine.”
How did I do?
By Jack
May 15, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this
The more I read Zack, the more I like Chuck.
By The72John
May 15, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this
I still contend that he is fake. Just a troll trying to get people worked up
I dunno - the little psycho tracked down my MySpace page a couple of weeks ago and posted all kinds of rantings and ravings on there. Here’s a sample:
*You’re full of hatred. I don’t know if I’ve ever known anyone else anywhere who had your level of hatred. All you do is try desperately to establish some sort of credibility and try to hurt others, while failing at both. In the process, you just show your effeminate nature and how you would never work to become someone but instead would try to undercut someone else and try to lower them down to your sorry level. *
Thankfully, it’s not as easy as it sounds. To anyone on here who associates with this, er, guy, I encourage you to leave him alone and just ignore him. This guy is absolutely nothing more than a piece of trash. Also, what’s scary about him is that he looks just like the proverbial next-door neighbor.
So either he’s a troll-stalker or he’s just nuts.
By Renee
May 15, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this
Meanwhile, we all get piles of mail (dead trees) every week from “lenders.” Bad credit? No problem! If there’s such a crisis, WHY aren’t lending practices addressed? Just curious.
Of course these people prey on and take advantage of people. For the person who can’t get a car through a legitimate dealership, a car at 28% interest is a deal and probably know they are being “reamed” to say the least. But, as a consumer, you can make the decision to NOT use one of these places. Save your money and wait until you can afford it, pay the things on your credit that are holding you back, or any number of things.
If I could loan someone $500 and get paid back $750 (legally) I would probably do it too.
All these pay day loan places, buy here pay here car lots, and the high interest (bad credit, no problem) car lots are a rip off. But if nobody frequented them, they would go out of business quickly.
By Chilao
May 15, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this
Billy - I think you missed the generic Rush Limbaugh portion. LMAO
otherwise….LOL
By Jack
May 15, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this
“The percent that your paying is too high priced, while your living beyond all your means. And the man in the suit has just bought a new car from the profit he’s made from your dreams.
Traffic.
By GOB
May 15, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this
72John - Ok, I guess I was wrong, although dont you have to have your own myspace page to post? Based on his comments, he doesnt seem like the type that would be frequenting myspace. But still…Yikes.
By RF
May 15, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this
But Renee, even though you don’t graduate HS because you’re lazy, and can’t keep a decent paying job, doesn’t mean you don’t need a nice car to cruise in on Saturday night, does it?? ;-) So what if it’s at 28% interest if it gets the right attention, huh?
By kimberly
May 15, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this
Good point, Renee. They do it because there’s profit in it. So I had to wonder WHY then, when the credit industry is so profitable (look it up!), did they need our Congress to spend time and energy (and our tax $$) solving their little “problem” instead of the other very REAL problems we have that Congress fails to address?
Maybe it’s just another example of individuals being held to a different standard of behavior and accountability than corporations (and their executives) and governments. When corporations screw up, they can go ask for tax relief by making promises they’ll never keep, or just file bankruptcy like Enron and Harkin Oil. When WE screw up, we’re told to “suck it.” Congress: your tax dollars at work, but not for YOU!
By Zack
May 15, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this
John—Oh, you could say quickly and easily, from what you know of me, that I’m someone who likes to put sick liars in their places.
Of course, you also could ignore the truth and name-call, which is the irresponsible, easy approach you’re known to take.
I’d appreciate it if you’d contribute something to this blog, since you continually insist on visiting it.
By Zack
May 15, 2006 03:47 PM | Link to this
John,
Also, why don’t you tell the whole story and mention what you called me? As I said, I wanted to put someone who makes the comments you make in his place, so I did. For once, why not be honest?
By Dr. Acula
May 15, 2006 03:52 PM | Link to this
Zack - How old are you, by the way?
By chuck
May 15, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this
I thought I did answer your question FM, but you added the “pre-Jesus” Caveat I see. Her goes.
God created mankind for fellowship. He gave man a free will because He didn’t want to fellowship with robots. We have the choice as to whether or not we love Him and obey Him. The perfect analogy is our children. We love them unconditionally, even when they screw up. That doesn’t mean that there are not consequences both NATURAL (touch a hot stove, get burned) and PROSCRIBED (if you violate curfew you lose the car for a week), when they do screw up.
We are God’s children from the moment that we accept God’s free gift of salvation through His Son Jesus. Does God KNOW that some will reject Him? Yes, He is omniscient. Does God care that some will reject Him? Of course He does. He loves EVERY HUMAN BEING and as the Bible says in Matt 18: 12-14
“12How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?
13And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.
14Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.
This is one of the most difficult tenets of the Faith for non-believers to understand. How could God, knowing in advance what many would do, create them and then send them to hell? It is the natural consequence of rejecting Christ. As for those who were born and died before Christ came to earth, you really need to read the book of Hebrews in the New Testament. It does a great job of explaining what happened so far as salvation goes, before Christ. If you don’t have a bible handy, go to www.biblegateway.com and just type hebrews into the search area and it will take you directly to chapter 1.
By The72John
May 15, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this
Zackie, if you think your irrational ranting and raving constitutes “putting me in my place”, then I feel not only for you but for anyone who has, at any time in his or her life, been your teacher.
Seek counseling, Zack.
By FatMoose
May 15, 2006 04:22 PM | Link to this
Chuck,
First: This is one of the most difficult tenets of the Faith for non-believers to understand I am a believer. I just do not believe the same absolutes that you do.
How could God, knowing in advance what many would do, create them and then send them to hell? It is the natural consequence of rejecting Christ.
Are you saying here that God knew certain people would not be saved but chose his design for man as he did anyways? That would mean that all was dictated before creation OR some people are able to change that outcome thereby defying God. It would also mean that there is no “striving” to be christ-like, it is an either/or situation that has been determined.
I think your missing the point by thinking to shallow. All life as we know it has come and gone, by your definition of an all knowing God, BEFORE he ever created adam/eve.
And therefore, where is free will? Either we are free to change or not. And once again, if we ARE free to change our destiny it defies God, meaning we have a power he does not.
By The72John
May 15, 2006 04:24 PM | Link to this
God created mankind for fellowship. He gave man a free will because He didn’t want to fellowship with robots. We have the choice as to whether or not we love Him and obey Him. The perfect analogy is our children. We love them unconditionally, even when they screw up. That doesn’t mean that there are not consequences both NATURAL (touch a hot stove, get burned) and PROSCRIBED (if you violate curfew you lose the car for a week), when they do screw up
Apparently he DOES want “fellowship with robots”, if the only way to properly engage in that fellowship is by blindly adhering to a series of strictly established and utterly inflexible rules and regulations. If it squeaks like a robot and moves like a robot, then, well…it’s a robot.
And the child metaphor is so woefully misplaced…loving parents, as we see day in and day out, do not flat-out reject their children for all eternity because that child fails to live up exactly to the expectations laid out by the parents. Loving parents do not set their children on fire and watch them burn because a rule has been broken.
More - the rules that parents set out for their children are rarely arbitrary - they are meant to prevent harm to those children and to inculcate in them an understanding of the rules of the world in which they live.
GOD’S rules, on the other hand (at least as interpreted by religious reactionaries and extremeists) are arbitrary in the extreme. Don’t do that on this day. Don’t do THIS that way. Don’t go over there! Don’t eat THAT! Whoops - don’t pick THAT up. Oh dear…well, I love you, but now you’re going to hell…
How sad for you, Chuck, that you are so frightened by the amazing world that you live in that you continue to reduce it to the oh-so-simple understanding of it achievable by a thousands-of-years-gone tribe of superstitious primitives.
By Renee
May 15, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this
Excellent post John (4:24)
By FatMoose
May 15, 2006 04:29 PM | Link to this
The perfect analogy is our children. We love them unconditionally, even when they screw up. That doesn’t mean that there are not consequences both NATURAL (touch a hot stove, get burned) and PROSCRIBED (if you violate curfew you lose the car for a week), when they do screw up.
Yes. It is the perfect analogy IF you believe that God is not absolute in perfection/knowledge like human parents. And just like children think parents dont die and are perfect, as well as the maker of the rules, so do we regarding god - until we grow up.
That DOES make sense, but is not what you mean or actually believe. It IS in line with my beliefs though.
By FatMoose
May 15, 2006 04:32 PM | Link to this
The72John,
Please do not muddle this with your sarcasm and anger. I am trying to have a focused conv and would appreciate your non-involvement.
By cc
May 15, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this
Many americans are angry because the illegals feel it’s their right to come here illegally and demand welfare and not speak the english language. Just today I heard a guy drive up to one of those pick up area to hire two guys for the day and they asked how much and told the guy it wasn’t enough. So now they are getting picky regarding the pay. Why is it that they don’t go back to Mexico and protest their own government. Plus employers who hire them should be fined heavily. Tonight George Bush is going to address the nation regarding this problem and if he doesn’t say or do the right thing, which is protecting the borders and stopping the illegal immigrats from getting public assistance off of our tax dollars. I know if I had a chance to say where my tax dollars were going it sure wouldn’t be for some person coming into our country illegally.
By blablabla
May 15, 2006 04:56 PM | Link to this
hello, all. long time, no blog.
By Al Bumen
May 16, 2006 07:54 AM | Link to this
I found this passage in Lamentations and thought it was appropriate:
Lamentations of the Father Of the beasts of the field, and of the fishes of the sea, and of all foods that are acceptable in my sight you may eat, but not in the living room. Of the hoofed animals, broiled or ground into burgers, you may eat, but not in the living room. Of the cloven-hoofed animal, plain or with cheese, you may eat, but not in the living room. Of the cereal grains, of the corn and of the wheat and of the oats, and of all the cereals that are of bright color and unknown provenance you may eat, but not in the living room. Of the quiescently frozen dessert and of all frozen after-meal treats you may eat, but absolutely not in the living room. Of the juices and other beverages, yes, even of those in sippy-cups, you may drink, but not in the living room, neither may you carry such therein. Indeed, when you reach the place where the living room carpet begins, of any food or beverage there you may not eat, neither may you drink. But if you are sick, and are lying down and watching something, then may you eat in the living room. Laws When at Table And if you are seated in your high chair, or in a chair such as a greater person might use, keep your legs and feet below you as they were. Neither raise up your knees, nor place your feet upon the table, for that is an abomination to me. Yes, even when you have an interesting bandage to show, your feet upon the table are an abomination, and worthy of rebuke. Drink your milk as it is given you, neither use on it any utensils, nor fork, nor knife, nor spoon, for that is not what they are for; if you will dip your blocks in the milk, and lick it off, you will be sent away. When you have drunk, let the empty cup then remain upon the table, and do not bite it upon its edge and by your teeth hold it to your face in order to make noises in it sounding like a duck; for you will be sent away. When you chew your food, keep your mouth closed until you have swallowed, and do not open it to show your brother or your sister what is within; I say to you, do not so, even if your brother or your sister has done the same to you. Eat your food only; do not eat that which is not food; neither seize the table between your jaws, nor use the raiment of the table to wipe your lips. I say again to you, do not touch it, but leave it as it is. And though your stick of carrot does indeed resemble a marker, draw not with it upon the table, even in pretend, for we do not do that, that is why. And though the pieces of broccoli are like very small trees, do not stand them upright to make a forest, because we do not do that, that is why. Sit just as I have told you, and do not lean to one side or the other, nor slide down until you are nearly slid away. Heed me; for if you sit like that, your hair will go into the syrup. And now behold, even as I have said, it has come to pass. Laws Pertaining to Dessert For we judge between the plate that is unclean and the plate that is clean, saying first, if the plate is clean, then you shall have dessert. But of the unclean plate, the laws are these: If you have eaten most of your meat, and two bites of your peas with each bite consisting of not less than three peas each, or in total six peas, eaten where I can see, and you have also eaten enough of your potatoes to fill two forks, both forkfuls eaten where I can see, then you shall have dessert. But if you eat a lesser number of peas, and yet you eat the potatoes, still you shall not have dessert; and if you eat the peas, yet leave the potatoes uneaten, you shall not have dessert, no, not even a small portion thereof. And if you try to deceive by moving the potatoes or peas around with a fork, that it may appear you have eaten what you have not, you will fall into iniquity. And I will know, and you shall have no dessert.
On Screaming Do not scream; for it is as if you scream all the time. If you are given a plate on which two foods you do not wish to touch each other are touching each other, your voice rises up even to the ceiling, while you point to the offense with the finger of your right hand; but I say to you, scream not, only remonstrate gently with the server, that the server may correct the fault. Likewise if you receive a portion of fish from which every piece of herbal seasoning has not been scraped off, and the herbal seasoning is loathsome to you, and steeped in vileness, again I say, refrain from screaming. Though the vileness overwhelm you, and cause you a faint unto death, make not that sound from within your throat, neither cover your face, nor press your fingers to your nose. For even now I have made the fish as it should be; behold, I eat of it myself, yet do not die.
Concerning Face and Hands Cast your countenance upward to the light, and lift your eyes to the hills, that I may more easily wash you off. For the stains are upon you; even to the very back of your head, there is rice thereon. And in the breast pocket of your garment, and upon the tie of your shoe, rice and other fragments are distributed in a manner wonderful to see. Only hold yourself still; hold still, I say. Give each finger in its turn for my examination thereof, and also each thumb. Lo, how iniquitous they appear. What I do is as it must be; and you shall not go hence until I have done. Various Other Laws, Statutes, and Ordinances Bite not, lest you be cast into quiet time. Neither drink of your own bath water, nor of bath water of any kind; nor rub your feet on bread, even if it be in the package; nor rub yourself against cars, nor against any building; nor eat sand. Leave the cat alone, for what has the cat done, that you should so afflict it with tape? And hum not that humming in your nose as I read, nor stand between the light and the book. Indeed, you will drive me to madness. Nor forget what I said about the tape. Complaints and Lamentations O my children, you are disobedient. For when I tell you what you must do, you argue and dispute hotly even to the littlest detail; and when I do not accede, you cry out, and hit and kick. Yes, and even sometimes do you spit, and shout “stupid-head” and other blasphemies, and hit and kick the wall and the molding thereof when you are sent to the corner. And though the law teaches that no one shall be sent to the corner for more minutes than he has years of age, yet I would leave you there all day, so mighty am I in anger. But upon being sent to the corner you ask straightaway, “Can I come out?” and I reply, “No, you may not come out.” And again you ask, and again I give the same reply. But when you ask again a third time, then you may come out.
Hear me, O my children, for the bills they kill me. I pay and pay again, even to the twelfth time in a year, and yet again they mount higher than before. For our health, that we may be covered, I give six hundred and twenty talents twelve times in a year; but even this covers not the fifteen hundred deductible for each member of the family within a calendar year. And yet for ordinary visits we still are not covered, nor for many medicines, nor for the teeth within our mouths. Guess not at what rage is in my mind, for surely you cannot know. For I will come to you at the first of the month and at the fifteenth of the month with the bills and a great whining and moan. And when the month of taxes comes, I will decry the wrong and unfairness of it, and mourn with wine and ashtrays, and rend my receipts. And you shall remember that I am that I am: before, after, and until you are twenty-one. Hear me then, and avoid me in my wrath, O children of me.
By Lyrazel
May 16, 2006 08:17 AM | Link to this
Does anyone wonder if the only jobs being created these days is in the Natl. Guard/Military and the reason for high employment rate statistics?
Why is it no one has come up with a program to conscript caught illegals into military/civilian duty? Ship them to Iraq where we really need builders, landscapers, and crews! They could easily be employed by Halburton at seventeen times the wage they get now and after 4 tours of duty get their citizenship. This idea of conscripting immigrants into military duty harkens back to the Founding Fathers. If they want to be Americans well BE AMERICAN! Why cant we have whole platoons of spanish speaking new Americans? By the way my grandfather came illegally to America and was conscripted to serve in WWI for his citizenship.
How about Dianes: Remember when women entered the workplace. That has got to be the biggest condescending slur devaluing women she has ever made considering women have been in the workplace since the dawn of work and continued to work as persona non grata for centuries. What planet is she from?
Shaunti gives us: Most immigration reform advocates are simply angry that millions of poor people are unlawfully taking advantage of our prosperous country. HA! Most Users of illegal immigrants are filthy rich because their businesses covertly relies on illegal labor and take advantage of this dont ask dont tell government policy at the expense of American taxpayers. They do not have to pay tax on illegal workers since wage is paid cash—which is a far larger fraud than the illegals not paying taxes on their 9,000/year salary. PLUS these major corporations are receiving subsidies from the government! WOW! WHAT A DEAL! DONT YOU JUST FEEL THE NEED TO PITY? California has a tremendous population of illegals because it is one of the largest agricultural areas…thus…since they could rely on cheap illegal labor coming across the border they now have to pay for all those illegal babies being born American. Pity. The problem was brought against themselves, just like in the rest of the country. Well intentioned major corporations WANT illegal labor because its cheap! We are a capitalist society…we must penalize Corporate Employers Hiring Illegals! This is where the problem of illegals began!!! Duh!
By Renee
May 16, 2006 08:31 AM | Link to this
heyyyyyyyyyyyy bla!!!!
By chuck
May 16, 2006 08:57 AM | Link to this
FM, knowing is not the same thing as forcing. Man has free will. He can choose what he wants to believe and has the freedom to reject Christ if he so chooses. God is not going to force Himself on anybody. In one respect, the analogy of “God’s children” does break down. Just because you are BORN, you are not necessarily a child of God. You must be BORN AGAIN. If you reject Christ, you are NOT God’s child.
Maybe this will work better for you 72john. If someone ELSE’S adult child murders someone in a heinous way, you aren’t so upset at them being rejected from society and possibly put to death as you would be if it was your own child. People who reject Christ are in a way going home to live with THEIR father SATAN.
By Archie
May 16, 2006 09:08 AM | Link to this
“As for the notion that illegal immigrates take only jobs that Americans do not want: That is complete bs. They take the ONLY jobs available to them and the jobs are ones they would not WANT.”
I saw that last week FatMoose and I thought it was pretty good.
Also I have no problem with the concept of Hell. Some people genuinely need to go there.
By Renee
May 16, 2006 09:26 AM | Link to this
Maybe this will work better for you 72john. If someone ELSE’S adult child murders someone in a heinous way, you aren’t so upset at them being rejected from society and possibly put to death as you would be if it was your own child. People who reject Christ are in a way going home to live with THEIR father SATAN.
That analogy, IMO, makes no sense. I don’t see what one has to do with the other. Additionally, Satan is evil (supposedly) and everyone is a child of Christ (supposedly).
By RF
May 16, 2006 09:26 AM | Link to this
How’s mrs. bla doing?
By E. Lewis
May 16, 2006 09:26 AM | Link to this
People are so angry over illegal immigration because we have to blame someone other than ourselves for our problems.
By GOB
May 16, 2006 09:28 AM | Link to this
The72John,
Please do not muddle this with your sarcasm and anger. I am trying to have a focused conv and would appreciate your non-involvement.
FM - Your faux “taking the high road” approach is pretty lame. If you go back and read your post to Chuck, you will find that you were also sarcastic (“I will go slow”) and your response to one of his could easily be viewed as angry (“See, even with simplified english you provide a non-response”).
Also, did you really not know what Chuck already thought about your question? I think he has answered it about 10,000 times already on here. The way it came across, and this is also based on how you answered, was that you were simply trying bait him into saying something that you reply to with some clever retory. It is like George Costanza flying to Cleveland just to use the Jerk Store line. Sad really.
By Chilao
May 16, 2006 09:33 AM | Link to this
HI BLAH, long time no blah-blog.
72John - Surfacing is actually northern Quebec, not Ontario, FrCan lake people, but hilarious line from an Can-English last night, was the design for a new Canadian flag: 9 beavers p!ssing on a frog. hilarious.(9 English/Canadian provinces). Probably been designed, I need to find that on the web, send it to some Yankee buddies.
By Jack
May 16, 2006 09:46 AM | Link to this
HAHAHA. There is a story in the AJC rag today where Castro says he is not a rich, rich, man. If he’s not, he’s a stupid, stupid, man.
By The72John
May 16, 2006 09:51 AM | Link to this
Maybe this will work better for you 72john. If someone ELSE’S adult child murders someone in a heinous way, you aren’t so upset at them being rejected from society and possibly put to death as you would be if it was your own child. People who reject Christ are in a way going home to live with THEIR father SATAN
Now we come closer to seeing the real philosophy. Only certain people are “special” enough to have God’s love. God’s love is not granted to all his creation, but only to those who follow his strict rules and obey his arbitrary laws.
It’s an interesting take on the concept of free will - if one chooses to take advantage of this gift, one is damned. Only by abjuring free will and behaving as all the other automatons does one receive God’s “love” and salvation.
Does anyone else find this philosophy and the people who espouse it to be just a little bit frightening? A little bit…Talibanish?
By Renee
May 16, 2006 09:52 AM | Link to this
I was just reading that article Jack.
By Renee
May 16, 2006 10:08 AM | Link to this
John, I completely agree. It comes down to what I said before as a conditional love. Love is based upon strict following of said laws (commandments) and adherence to the Bible, which isn’t even written by the person or entity you are suppposed to be following. If in fact, the love is only given, based upon your following, then it isn’t love at all. Love is not conditional. Moreover, the examples are consistently being given of relationships between parents and children. So here is mine.
I can promise my daughter that if she follows my rules, she will be rewarded accordingly. Let’s say good grades equals a reward of a cell phone and chores done appropriately equals a reward of going out to the movies and dinner with her friends on Friday. These rewards would only hold substance, if the reward was tangible. I could not reward her with a walk through OZ, being that I cannot prove to her that OZ exists, however beautiful I make the yellow brick road and its surroundings sound to her. I think she would want a tangible reward.
This is where I’m sure I’ll be told that the reward is God allowing good to happen to followers of him, such as financial prosperity, grasping someone from the jaws of death or just waking them up in the morning. But who has a bad day every single day. Serial killers, molestors etc, wake up every morning, seeing financial prosperity and having what they consider to be “good days”.
So what then is the reward, and why do I have to be dead to receive it??
By Jack
May 16, 2006 10:23 AM | Link to this
In the great scheme of things, this life is only a stepping stone to what awaits us after we leave this state of being. The reward is life of eternal bliss. (We hope)
By chuck
May 16, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this
Renee, NOWHERE in the Bible does it teach that EVERYONE is a child of Christ.
Rather, it teaches:
John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
John 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live
John 1:11-13 (King James Version) King James Version (KJV) Public Domain
11He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
By FatMoose
May 16, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this
Chuck,
FM, knowing is not the same thing as forcing. How not so if he KNEW what would result from his actions? Remember, he knew all that would unfold before he created a single grain of sand.
Man has free will. Lets put it this way, if I setup my aquarium WITH knowledge of everything that will ever happen in it and know exactly what they will do, every step/breath/thought how do they have ANY free will? How am I not dictating their lives? If I change any parameter in the setup, I already know how that will effect everything down the line, so I will have to make a choice on which fish will die/be saved/etc…
He can choose what he wants to believe and has the freedom to reject Christ if he so chooses.
Once again, there is no choice given your definition of god. You keep saying there is but if an all knowing being made everything with the knowledge of how it will happen, he has not given free will.
I will try one more example for you: God makes adam/eve like x and 2k years later bob is not even born. If he makes adam/eve like y then bob will be saved. If he makes adam/eve like z then bob will die in a car accident. If he makes adam/eve like c then bob will be sent to hell. God knows everything that will happen yet must choose one of the parameters effectively dictating bobs future, ability to think…
Where is bobs free will? If bob chooses christ as his savior, god knew that would be the outcome.
So, you are not answering the question. Your reasoning is comparable to stating that 2=2 and 2=5.
By GOB
May 16, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this
The reward is life of eternal bliss. (We hope)
But dont we openly mock the “eternal bliss” of other religions? 72 virgins, reincarnation, etc? What makes christianity any different, other than it happens to be what the majority of this country believes?
By Monica
May 16, 2006 10:37 AM | Link to this
Renee,
I am a Christian. I have accepted Christ as my Savior. I believe that I am saved by God’s grace. I have bad days, I have credit card debt, and people close to me have died. God does not wave a magic wand of prosperity and health over those who accept Him. I don’t expect to have the prosperity you have mentioned. I see that as part of free will. If you make bad decisions financially, you have to pay for it in the long run. As for the reward and not being able to have it when you are alive… think of it as an obstacle course (an appropriate metaphor for my life anyway!). You don’t get the reward until you finish the course. The reward is eternal life.
By chuck
May 16, 2006 10:37 AM | Link to this
Now we come closer to seeing the real philosophy. Only certain people are “special” enough to have God’s love. God’s love is not granted to all his creation, but only to those who follow his strict rules and obey his arbitrary laws.
The only “rule” one has to follow is to accept Jesus as SAVIOR and LORD. When we do that:
2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
The underlying desire to sin is still there, but there is a GREATER desire to do the will of your Father.
By G. Orwell
May 16, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this
No, 2+2=5. Say it: Two plus two equals FIVE. Say it, or we will make you say it.
By FatMoose
May 16, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this
GOB,
FM - Your faux “taking the high road” approach is pretty lame. If you go back and read your post to Chuck, you will find that you were also sarcastic (“I will go slow”) and your response to one of his could easily be viewed as angry (“See, even with simplified english you provide a non-response”).
Right. I should have said devolve into name calling and useless slander.
Also, did you really not know what Chuck already thought about your question? I think he has answered it about 10,000 times already on here. The way it came across, and this is also based on how you answered, was that you were simply trying bait him into saying something that you reply to with some clever retory. It is like George Costanza flying to Cleveland just to use the Jerk Store line. Sad really.
Nope. He has not answered the question. He has answered each part, but he has yet to synthisize those parts and I am curious on how he does. Its not baiting either - he can believe whatever he wants. What I am trying to find out is how he puts it all together seeing as it is kind of vital given his absolute beliefs of heaven/hell.
Whats sad is that you do not have the depth to understand this and choose to wedge this into an arguement.
Simplified for you: If you solve each part of a complex equation and you end up with x=4 for one and x= 25 for the other there is a problem there. Sure, you answer each PART, but they do not fit together and that should be apparent by the simplest of minds.
By blablabla
May 16, 2006 10:45 AM | Link to this
hey, renee. hey, RF. hey, chilao.
mrs bla is getting pretty big and round. it’s painful for her since tendons and ligaments are stretching as she grows. but we found out a few weeks ago that it’s going to be a girl-bla. god definitely has a sense of irony and humor.
as for my two cents on illegal immigration: you have to get control of the borders first and stem the flow of illegals into the country. a country that doesn’t protect its borders won’t be a country for long. then, we can figure out what to do with the illegals that are already here. IMO you have to hammer employers for hiring workers if they know they’re illegal, with lighter penalties if they hire an illegal and don’t know it. we have to get strict about enforcing expired work/school visas bc a lot of people who are here now illegally were at one point legal but have overstayed. many countries tax money that gets moved out of the country; maybe the US should start doing the same with money being sent back to mexico.
the continuous flow of illegals hurts the wages of the low/unskilled workers the most. if there’s always the next newly-arrived illegal willing to do a job cheap, the wage for that job never increases.
is it me, or did diane’s article make very little sense as it relates to this topic?
By The72John
May 16, 2006 10:47 AM | Link to this
The only “rule” one has to follow is to accept Jesus as SAVIOR and LORD
Interesting then, how there is an enormous laundry list of things one is not able to do according to your philosophies. The “only” rule?
More circular, self-fulfilling reasoning. If one has truly accepted Jesus, then one will not “sin”. If one continues to “sin” then one hasn’t truly accepted Jesus.
Yet again, the philosophy exists solely to separate a narrow group of worthy men from the unworthy masses.
By The72John
May 16, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this
Whats sad is that you do not have the depth to understand this and choose to wedge this into an arguement
Welcome to the world of “FM’s Superiority Complex”, Gob.
It must be so difficult to roll out of bed each morning when one is so terribly weighed down by the sheer profundity of his own thoughts. Not to mention his own self-importance.
By chuck
May 16, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this
You aren’t reasoning at all, FM. You decided on the conclusion then formulated the “parameters” to meet your pre-conceived conclusion. Let me give you another analogy so that MAYBE you can finally understand this.
Let’s say that I am a psychic (Mind you, I don’t believe there is any such thing), and in one of my psychic trances, I see that you are going to have an auto accident and die. Did I MAKE you have the accident? NO. Could I have prevented it? YES, but I am not OBLIGATED to do so.
The fact that God KNOWS the affairs of man and does NOT always intervene is HIS decision. He is SOVEREIGN. This is especially true when it comes to salvation. He WANTS us to choose Jesus on our own, but is not going to force it on us.
By GOB
May 16, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this
FM - Keep going on that “high road.” You actually crack me up more than anything else, so by all means continue.
By Jack
May 16, 2006 10:54 AM | Link to this
Hey Bla! Glad you’re having a girl. They are most precious. She’ll be here before you know it.
By Mara
May 16, 2006 10:55 AM | Link to this
Hey y’all.
FM, it’s not even a question of equations and probability. “God” has the full and complete knowlege of every choice, every turn, every door, and every mistake that any given being will make. Not might make, bit will make. This “free will” crap from chuck is immaterial. If God knows, before creating a given person, that the person he just created will not be his sons boot-licker and yet he still creates them…that’s just sadistic.
By Renee
May 16, 2006 10:58 AM | Link to this
Personally, and it’s just my opinion, but religion (faith) is great on a psychological level. It gives a person who is having a bad time or a crisis, a reason to keep going. It gives someone terminally ill, hope of some sort. It gives a prosperous person a reason to be thankful and/or give back up. It gives people motivation and reason to change. And the unexplained doesn’t have to be explained because it just is. On that level, I have no problem with religion, any religion.
The problem comes in with zealots and fundamentalists. People who say their way is the only way and try to force their religion and/or beliefs on you. Trying to base laws on what they believe. Trying to force one to abscond from “normal society”. That’s where the problem is.
If religion and faith has brought positivity into your life, that is a beautiful thing. But don’t try to make your faith my reality.
By GOB
May 16, 2006 10:59 AM | Link to this
The only “rule” one has to follow is to accept Jesus as SAVIOR and LORD.
This is actually correct, as far as christianity is concerned. Once you have done this, none of the other stuff really matters. If you have done this, then you essentially have the freedom to do anything you want, and know you will be forgiven in the end.
It seems hard to counter this logic because it would entail sending someone who had accepted Jesus as their lord and savior to hell, and i havent read anything that would imply that is even a possibility.
By chuck
May 16, 2006 11:00 AM | Link to this
Congrats Blah, those little girls steal your heart from the minute they are born. If you aren’t a conservative now, you’ll become one when you have a little girl. (Not everybody will, but many Dads do). It’s that protection thing.
By RF
May 16, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this
I had a dog once who LOVED to chase his tail just about as much as we love these never-ending debates…
bla- good to hear she’s doing okay. You had any late night runs to the store to satisfy a craving?
The prez had a pretty good plan outlined last night, except for the all too obvious failure to mention fines or whatever for companies hiring illegals. Guess he knows who’s hand is in his pocket, and it ain’t Laura’s!! LOL
By Jack
May 16, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this
My wife is psychic. Many times she knows what I’m about to say before I get a chance to. Scary.
By Renee
May 16, 2006 11:06 AM | Link to this
Congratulations bla!!!!!! She’ll be a joy, I’m sure (at least until the teenage years, lol).
By Mara
May 16, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this
Renee, well said. Well said, indeed.
By The72John
May 16, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this
The prez had a pretty good plan outlined last night, except for the all too obvious failure to mention fines or whatever for companies hiring illegals. Guess he knows who’s hand is in his pocket, and it ain’t Laura’s!! LOL
Any pretense about “National Security” should be immediately abandoned. We might as well put up a big sign on the Northern border saying “No Guards Here! Enter at will!”.
By RF
May 16, 2006 11:12 AM | Link to this
GOB- that’s true, but when do humans ever let things be simple?? People seem to love adding all sorts of maybes, what ifs, and conditions to everything. We’re still living in the shadow of the Puritans who believed that only the select would get into heaven and you had to work to make sure if your name was on the list that it stayed there. Modern folks don’t like to admit it, but many do believe they still have to please an angry god and stay on his good side or he’ll strike them down. There’s a strong line of puritan belief in fundamental christianity in the U.S.
By FatMoose
May 16, 2006 11:12 AM | Link to this
Mara,
FM, it’s not even a question of equations and probability. “God” has the full and complete knowlege of every choice, every turn, every door, and every mistake that any given being will make. Not might make, bit will make. This “free will” crap from chuck is immaterial. If God knows, before creating a given person, that the person he just created will not be his sons boot-licker and yet he still creates them…that’s just sadistic.
Chuck, Let’s say that I am a psychic (Mind you, I don’t believe there is any such thing), and in one of my psychic trances, I see that you are going to have an auto accident and die. Did I MAKE you have the accident? NO. Could I have prevented it? YES, but I am not OBLIGATED to do so.
If you fix your analogy by adding that you, the psychic, are the inventor of the auto that I die in bc of HOW you made it, how does THAT play out?
By Billy
May 16, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this
The difference, Chuck, is that you, as a psychic, did not create the intersection where the accident occurred, or the cars, or the other driver. God’s omnipotence combined with his omniscience means that he created things knowing every single thing that will eventually happen to them. So, he did cause the accident. Either that, or he is not omnipotent.
That’s the point, Chuck. It’s not truly free will. Or, if it is free will, then we are still predestined because God knows what choices we each will make.
By RF
May 16, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this
john- YEP. Any taliban folks planning on sunny Mexico as their port of entry into the U.S. now need to buy parkas so they can stroll on in from Canada. This has very little to do with fear of terrorists; all our borders, ports, etc. would be more secure if it did. This has to do with business and the fact that corporations are not going to give up profits due to delays caused by port security or crossing land borders with shipments of goods.
By Jewish and Proud of It
May 16, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this
Heaven must be an elitist club indeed if we go by Chuck’s er, G-d’s rules. Seeing as how there are 6 to 7 billion people on the Earth, of which, Christians make up about 1 billion of that and of those 1 billion, maybe 400 to 500 million actually practice what Chuck, er, G-d preaches. So I guess the other 5.5 to 6 billion of us might as well just trudge straight on down to hell…
By Mara
May 16, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this
chuck, bla - it’s been documented that even “conservatives” that have girl children tend to be more liberal on issues affecting women.
By Billy
May 16, 2006 11:25 AM | Link to this
Let’s say that I am a psychic (Mind you, I don’t believe there is any such thing), and in one of my psychic trances, I see that you are going to have an auto accident and die. Did I MAKE you have the accident? NO. Could I have prevented it? YES, but I am not OBLIGATED to do so.
So, Chuck, that means that Moussaoui wasn’t OBLIGATED to tell anyone of the impending attacks, huh?
By The72John
May 16, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this
Heaven must be an elitist club indeed if we go by Chuck’s er, G-d’s rules. Seeing as how there are 6 to 7 billion people on the Earth, of which, Christians make up about 1 billion of that and of those 1 billion, maybe 400 to 500 million actually practice what Chuck, er, G-d preaches. So I guess the other 5.5 to 6 billion of us might as well just trudge straight on down to hell
Well, after all, what good is being “special” if you don’t have large groups of people to look down on.
It’s the “Exclusive Beaumont Driving Club!” writ large on the world.
By Renee
May 16, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this
I don’t disagree with you John, but I don’t know what it is. Every single time I go to Canada, I get in with absolutely NO problem, but when I come back, they give me the hardest time. I get asked a million and one questions, had the car searched twice. I have NEVER came back to the states “smoothly”.
On one hand it’s good, on the other hand it’s quite annoying.
By Monica
May 16, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this
Renee, NOWHERE in the Bible does it teach that EVERYONE is a child of Christ.
Chuck, ALL PEOPLE ARE CHILDREN OF GOD. All may not choose to follow Him, but everyone is a child of God - even Bin Laden and Hussein.
By Jack
May 16, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this
I don’t imagine the dope dealers like George’s plan.
By Billy
May 16, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this
If I have a girl, I’m going to stay liberal.
I want her to have access to the morning after pill so she’s not stuck with a child when she’s not ready. I want her to have access to the HPV vaccine so she won’t get cervical cancer. I don’t want her pressuder at school to take a virginity pledge along with a bunch of other kids, half of whom will break said pledge within a year. When she decides to have sex, I want her to make the right choices about protecting herself. I don’t want her to be made to feel like a whore the way the right likes to do with girls who have sex before marriage.
By Billy
May 16, 2006 11:36 AM | Link to this
Pressured, that should read. Spazzed out at the keyboard, I guess…
By FatMoose
May 16, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this
Chuck,
If I have free will that truely gives me choices, that must be a power god granted us in which he does not have.
Therefore, god cannot know all and we actually have some knowledge/power he does not.
So, sin would be throwing that power (or neg effecting anothers/removing anothers) away by NOT making choices and instead choosing to fly on autopilot. JHendrix called those people jellyfish.
So the questions to those that believe must ask themselves are: Are you a jellyfish? Do you blindly follow the yellow line or do you choose your direction?
By FatherOfThree
May 16, 2006 11:41 AM | Link to this
Mara,
FM, it’s not even a question of equations and probability. “God” has the full and complete knowlege of every choice, every turn, every door, and every mistake that any given being will make. Not might make, bit will make. This “free will” crap from chuck is immaterial. If God knows, before creating a given person, that the person he just created will not be his sons boot-licker and yet he still creates them…that’s just sadistic.
Meant to type “Right On Mara!” And the only reason we are talking equations is it took 10-15 iterations to get the point across!
By Scalia
May 16, 2006 11:59 AM | Link to this
Chuck, I actually want to say, when you are not harping on religion and gays, that you make some really good points.
Your comments on Friday, regarding work, was right on the money. I had a student complain about having to write two sentences. I asked him, “How are you going to make it in 6th grade?” He was like, “I’m not going to do their work.”
The real demise of the US is not gays, or the lack of religion, but apathy. Why are we complacent with high gas prices? Why are we complacent that the customer service people are in India or somewhere else and not in the US? Why are we complacent with the shows like “My Super Sweet Sixteen” that revels in opulence and brattiness? It’s just ridiculous.
By kimberly
May 16, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this
Blabla, Congratulations! Girls are the BEST. I arm mine with knowledge, truth, and an understanding of how things really work, not fear, repression, and superstition. (You grow up in the world you have, not the world you want.) So far so good!
By RF
May 16, 2006 12:11 PM | Link to this
Scalia- our wealth has made us this way. We become selfish and lazy and think that somehow the ‘glory days’ will continue. We have the attitude that we’re entitled to be selfish and arrogant and lazy. Even many of my poor kids are lazy and have entitlement attitudes. Most people alive today haven’t really suffered like so many did in the 1930’s and believe they never will.
By chuck
May 16, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this
FM, your statements are incongruous. You said:
If I have free will that truely gives me choices, that must be a power god granted us in which he does not have.
Therefore, god cannot know all and we actually have some knowledge/power he does not.
So, sin would be throwing that power (or neg effecting anothers/removing anothers) away by NOT making choices and instead choosing to fly on autopilot. JHendrix called those people jellyfish.
It makes no sense. Choosing TO NOT USE a power is not the same thing as not HAVING the power. If I takwe my kids to a restaurant, I have the power to decide what will be ordered. If I choose to let them order for themselves, does that mean I don’t have the power? NO. That is poor reasoning on your part.
For the LAST TIME…knowing what WILL happen and MAKING it happen are 2 different things. God does sometimes choose to intervene in the affairs of man. He is not obligated to do so. When God created the world His plan was set into motion. Man, beginning with Adam, left God’s perfect will for a LIE. He is God, He is Sovereign and as the old song goes…”We’ll understand it better by and by.”
By Billy
May 16, 2006 12:22 PM | Link to this
Chuck, I don’t think that analogy fits with what FM was saying. And God does make it happen if you buy into the idea of him creating all and being omniscient.
By Mara
May 16, 2006 12:23 PM | Link to this
Thanks, Fo3. You have no idea on how many times I edited and re-wrote to acheive that level of clarity :^) and still, I forgot to add “knowing they’ll end up burning in hell.” after yet he still creates them.
Billy - about Moussaoui…no, he didn’t have any obligation to reveal plans for 9/11. In fact, in prosecuting him for obstruction, the Justice department is, in effect, punishing him for asserting his right against self-incrimination.
John - as soon as we see hundreds of thousands of illegal Canadians marching through the streets demanding American citizenship, demanding their children be taught in French by the school systems that are already overburdened from their off-spring, using the emergency medical care that should be reserved for…emergencies, demanding that governmental business be conducted bilingually, waiting til they’re in labor before rushing accross the border so their babies will be American citizens, ranting that anyone who wants to secure the Canadian/American border is a racist xenophobe…yeah, as soon as that happens, I’ll be clamoring to close the north border too.
By chuck
May 16, 2006 12:24 PM | Link to this
Monica, I don’t know where you get that from. On what do you base this statement?
Chuck, ALL PEOPLE ARE CHILDREN OF GOD. All may not choose to follow Him, but everyone is a child of God - even Bin Laden and Hussein.
By Jewish and Proud of It
May 16, 2006 12:31 PM | Link to this
Thanks, Fo3. You have no idea on how many times I edited and re-wrote to acheive that level of clarity :^) and still, I forgot to add “knowing they’ll end up burning in hell.” after yet he still creates them.
Thank you Mara, you hit the nail right on the head. G-d created me Jewish knowing that I will not accept Jesus as Lord and savior yet He created me Jewish anyway. Why would G-d create me Jewish when to do so means I’ll burn eternally for HIM CREATING me Jewish, I had no choice in the matter, that’s the way I was created. Why would a loving G-d do such a thing?
By The72John
May 16, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this
John - as soon as we see hundreds of thousands of illegal Canadians marching through the streets demanding American citizenship, demanding their children be taught in French by the school systems that are already overburdened from their off-spring, using the emergency medical care that should be reserved for…emergencies, demanding that governmental business be conducted bilingually, waiting til they’re in labor before rushing accross the border so their babies will be American citizens, ranting that anyone who wants to secure the Canadian/American border is a racist xenophobe…yeah, as soon as that happens, I’ll be clamoring to close the north border too
I was refering to Chuck’s recent comments that securing our border was absolutely necessary because we had to keep out terrorists.
We already know you hate immigrants, it’s OK.
By chuck
May 16, 2006 12:37 PM | Link to this
Romans 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God.
I John 3:10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.
By The72John
May 16, 2006 12:42 PM | Link to this
neither he that loveth not his brother
Hmm…who does THIS describe aptly.
By Chilao
May 16, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this
on that speaking-French thought, an American buddy of mine, he fully French-Canadian, went to Montreal and then to Lyon(France) with a group of French-speaking Quebecois engineers. and they were so proud that they would be able to speak French in France. and were really perturbed when the local waitress asked them to speak English. Seems French in Canada has evolved so separately, it is considered archaic French, when used in France. Kind of like going to the Renaissance Faire and everyone speaking Elizabethen English. Sure, we can understand them, sorta, but we would prefer not to hear it all the time. He laughed, they frowned. (over the waitress’s request) LMAO
But I think the greatest terrorism threat, from a national-border perspective, comes from Canada, not Mexico.
By Mara
May 16, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this
Thanks, Fo3. You have no idea on how many times I edited and re-wrote to acheive that level of clarity :^) and still, I forgot to add “knowing they’ll end up burning in hell.” after yet he still creates them.
Billy - about Moussaoui…no, he didn’t have any obligation to reveal plans for 9/11. In fact, in prosecuting him for obstruction, the Justice department is, in effect, punishing him for asserting his right against self-incrimination.
John - as soon as we see hundreds of thousands of illegal Canadians marching through the streets demanding American citizenship, demanding their children be taught in French by the school systems that are already overburdened from their off-spring, using the emergency medical care that should be reserved for…emergencies, demanding that governmental business be conducted bilingually, waiting til they’re in labor before rushing accross the border so their babies will be American citizens, ranting that anyone who wants to secure the Canadian/American border is a racist xenophobe…yeah, as soon as that happens, I’ll be clamoring to close the north border too.
By Chilao
May 16, 2006 12:51 PM | Link to this
Elizabethan? LOL (not a typo, I must confess)
By Jack
May 16, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this
Woof, woof….
By blablabla
May 16, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this
thanks for the comments, people. i am definitely excited about a girl. we eventually want one of each, so it didn’t make a big different to me which was first. my body did flutter when they pointed to her little girl parts and told me what we were seeing on the ultrasound. hopefully we can have a boy next time and not have to go for three, since we really just want to have one of each and then be done.
but yes, i’m sure i will be a sucker for whatever she wants. she already has almost as many clothes as i do and she’s not even here yet.
and i can see myself being fairly strict with dating, but that’s a long way off (hopefully).
i think getting pics with the ultrasound was the coolest thing ever. we have one where it’s zoomed in on her face/head and she’s got her arm up, next to her face, waving hello to us. mrs bla rented a doppler machine so she can listen to the heartbeat whenever she wants.
By Mara
May 16, 2006 01:05 PM | Link to this
Au contraire John. I do not “hate” immigrants. I, in fact, greatly admire the dedication, courage, and perseverance of *immigrants. How frightening it must be to leave your home to go to a strange country, endure the aggravation of navigating the red tape of immigration law, and the trepidation they must feel upon entering into such a different society. Immigrants I admire and welcome each and every one of them with open arms.
It’s the scofflaw cheaters that thumb their noses at our laws whilst demanding that those laws be changed because it makes it ever so much harder to get away with their illegal behaviour that I find contemptable. It’s their blatent disregard for the good of our society, the disrespect for our laws and the needs of our communities that chaps my a$$. It’s supposed to be difficult to obtain citizenship, that way we know they’re dedicated to becoming Americans and not just interested in looking out for themselves. No, John. I don’t hate immigrants. I don’t hate anyone. Bur I do despise illegal aliens.
By Monica
May 16, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this
Chuck, God is the only creator. He created all of us. We all start out as children of God (Psalm 139). We choose to follow or not to follow, which is when some “fall out of the family,” but we are still children of God (Luke 15:1-7).
To those discussing free will: my mother knows me so well that if I were faced with a certain decision, she would know what I would decide to do. She does not have control over my decision-making, but she knows me that well. That’s free will. God knows us so well that He knows what we will do; He does not determine what we will do.
By Mara
May 16, 2006 01:08 PM | Link to this
I swear I didn’t post that 12:23/12:49 comment twice! I have NO idea why it re-appeared…
By Monica
May 16, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this
Mara, great 12:49!
By Jack
May 16, 2006 01:10 PM | Link to this
Bla. Make sure you see the birth. The most beautiful thing you will ever see. I guarrrrannntteee!
By FatMoose
May 16, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this
If I choose to let them order for themselves, does that mean I don’t have the power?
Yes. If you know billy will order glass shards and jan will not bc of how you made them you are responsible for their fate. You are still acting as if the analogy is the same - but it only would be if the kids were robots that you constructed en todo. They are robots until they can act in a manner that you cannot forsee (they have their own choice) but if you cannot forsee it you are not all-knowing. So, again, you would have to give up your power of absolute knowledge when creating the kids reasoning ability.
For the LAST TIME…knowing what WILL happen and MAKING it happen are 2 different things
And probably not for the last time, God knew and made everything.
What you are saying is the same as me tipping the first domino over and not taking responsibilty for the last one in a sequence falling. I set them up, I KNEW what would happen and I started the process. If a domino could pick itself up and move out of the way then I would NOT be able to say I know how they are going to fall and therefore NOT all knowing.
You cannot have it BOTH ways.
How can I make a random number generator (RNG) if I know what the number will come out to be each and every time? How can that componet actually have the freedom to unfold on its own? If I choose a 128bit RNG, it will roll a 5; if a 256bit RNG its a 77…etc Can I really look at you and state that the number is random? That the RNG is perfoming on its own?
By The72John
May 16, 2006 01:21 PM | Link to this
No, John. I don’t hate immigrants. I don’t hate anyone. Bur I do despise illegal aliens
Hmmm, yes…because all “illegal aliens” are cheats, thieves, criminals, and hoodlums. All “illegal aliens” sponge off of society, drain valuable resources, suck up government benefits like a Hoover vac and…what was it…disrespect the needs of our communities?
It is easier to view people as monolithic groups with identical characteristics than it is to empathize with them, isn’t it? I suppose it makes it easier to despise an entire group of people whose only real crime is being unable to obtain one of the 5000 unskilled worker visas distributed worldwide each year.
But never mind. I guess they are all just horrible scum.
By Al Bumen
May 16, 2006 01:22 PM | Link to this
I’m noticing a trend: Why do some people feel the need to embellish certain words with puffed up adjectives like “blindly adhering” and “a series of strictly established and utterly inflexible rules and regulations”? Also, “strict rules” and “arbitrary laws”. What’s arbitrary about “don’t kill” and “don’t steal”? Exactly which of the 10 commandments do people disagree with? Seems like some bloggers have an issue with authority.
By blablabla
May 16, 2006 01:23 PM | Link to this
thanks for the comments, people. i am definitely excited about a girl. we eventually want one of each, so it didn’t make a big different to me which was first. my body did flutter when they pointed to her little girl parts and told me what we were seeing on the ultrasound. hopefully we can have a boy next time and not have to go for three, since we really just want to have one of each and then be done.
but yes, i’m sure i will be a sucker for whatever she wants. she already has almost as many clothes as i do and she’s not even here yet.
and i can see myself being fairly strict with dating, but that’s a long way off (hopefully).
i think getting pics with the ultrasound was the coolest thing ever. we have one where it’s zoomed in on her face/head and she’s got her arm up, next to her face, waving hello to us. mrs bla rented a doppler machine so she can listen to the heartbeat whenever she wants.
By Jack
May 16, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this
That’s OK Mara. We know you’re getting old. LOL
By chuck
May 16, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this
Monica, Luke 15:1-7 is talking about people WHO BECAME CHILDREN OF GOD THROUGH REPENTANCE. The verses you quoted don’t mean what you purport them to mean. In Psalms 139, certainly David is writing about the fact that God knew HIM before he was born. That however says nothing to your point that EVERYONE is God’s child. We have already established that God KNOWS everything, but the Bible is clear that those who reject Christ are NOT HIS CHILDREN.
How do you reconcile this:
Romans 8:16-18 (King James Version)
16The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
18For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.
This passage is certainly not describing LOST people. It is describing CHILDREN OF GOD who are joint-heirs with Christ.
By Mara
May 16, 2006 01:32 PM | Link to this
Thanks Monica, for the kudos. But I have to disagree with your 1:06 post. Comparing God, who creates with the full and complete knowlege of whether ones ultimate fate will be to burn in hell is far different from a mortal pro-creating, ignorant of whether their stewardship of the child will produce a Pol Pot or a Mother Theresa. If you had certain knowlege that a week after its birth, your child would be systematically tortured for year after unbearable year, would you still choose to pro-create?
By Scalia
May 16, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this
I hear you, RF, my blog crush:). I am/was a hip-hop head, but it is starting to drive me crazy. The kids see what the rappers have, and just assume that rapping will take them where they want to go. Yeah, maybe one or two, but the music will shift in the future and the North or West Coast type of flow/beats will reign in hip-hop.
Not to mention that have zero respect for anything. This one kid, who was in trouble all the time, and also attempted to start a gang, had everything given to him from his mother. He would get in trouble, she would buy him an expensive jacket. He get in more trouble, he had new shoes. It was ridiculous.
By Renee
May 16, 2006 01:36 PM | Link to this
Al Bumen - using adjectives is a way to effectively get your point across. Surely you don’t have a problem with that. Additionally, I don’t think anyone has a problem with authority. Don’t kill, don’t steal, fine. Coveting my neighbor’s wife, while morally wrong should not be illegal. “Thou shalt not put any other God’s before me” is a commandment (or worded somewhat similar). Do Christians want to make that into a law as well?
By The72John
May 16, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this
I’m noticing a trend: Why do some people feel the need to embellish certain words with puffed up adjectives like “blindly adhering” and “a series of strictly established and utterly inflexible rules and regulations”? Also, “strict rules” and “arbitrary laws”. What’s arbitrary about “don’t kill” and “don’t steal”? Exactly which of the 10 commandments do people disagree with? Seems like some bloggers have an issue with authority
It’s called “rhetorical writing”. I had no idea that being descriptive was considered “puffed up”. Tell me, do you have some particular reason for favoring minimalism? I’ve always found it rather dull myself.
As for the other - you understand that this is pure Strawman, yes? YOU attempt to define what is being referenced when I called the laws of the fundamentalist god arbitrary, even though I did not specify anything.
In effect, you’re trying to devalue the argument by saying “Arbitrary? Do not kill is Arbitrary?” when in reality no commandment at all was even mentioned.
It’s equally false to assume that a rejection of a particular set of archaic rules and regulations (Leviticus, for instance) indicates a lack of respect for authority. It merely indicates a lack of respect for the authority of a particular source. In this case, I don’t believe that the Bible is anything more than the recorded history of a specific group of people living in a specific geographical region at a specific period in history. It doesn’t have any more authoritative meaning to me than the Egyptian Book of the Dead.
Thanks for dropping by, though.
By FatMoose
May 16, 2006 01:40 PM | Link to this
Al Bumen,
Exactly which of the 10 commandments do people disagree with? Seems like some bloggers have an issue with authority
I have not seen anyone arguing against the commandments - which predate Christianity BTW. It is the absolutes people put on god that some of us are discussing.
BTW - My opinion is that GOD (Good Orderly Direction) is the system that governs all. Not a conscious being, less he is like god in anne rice’s Memnoch the Devil (sp?) where god was originaly alone and experimented with creation to see if a being would arise with a soul and such similar to him in order to find where he came from. {sorry for the run-on}
By The72John
May 16, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this
The verses you quoted don’t mean what you purport them to mean
Yes, Monica, don’t you know that CHUCK is the final authority on the TRUE meaning of the Bible! You should just stop now before you make a bigger fool of yourself. How dare YOU attempt to interpret anything. You should….you know…study “inductively”. Snort.
By GOB
May 16, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this
Exactly which of the 10 commandments do people disagree with? Seems like some bloggers have an issue with authority.
Well, if you arent christian or jewish, I can think of 4 of them that would not apply at all. Also, the 10 commandments are not the only reason people behave in an ethical way. Murder, stealing, etc were considered wrong long before the 10 commandments were widely known.
By Mara
May 16, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this
John, Is it your opinion that because our immigration system doesn’t accomadate each and every person who wants to come here that these people have a right to ignore the law? Are you trying to say that most “undocumented immigrants” aren’t law-breakers? Are you trying to argue that the fake identities they obtain in no way harms our society? That even by accepting unfair wages they don’t undermine the earning power of the poor? Is that what you’re trying to say?
By Billy
May 16, 2006 01:43 PM | Link to this
AlBum, I’d say that stealing and killing obviously aren’t arbitrary. But eating shellfish? Why is it OK to eat an animal that has a cloven hoof as long as it chews its cud? Why shouldn’t we eat an animal that has a cloven hoof but does not chew its cud? Or that chews its cud but does not have a cloven hoof?
If my daughter gets raped, am I really supposed to pay her rapist?
I think these are the “arbitrary” rules we’re talking about.
I think without the tenth commandment our economy would collapse.
By Scalia
May 16, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this
The72John, as the “boys” say, “You are reading tough, child.”
By Mara
May 16, 2006 01:46 PM | Link to this
John, loved your 1:37, btw.
By Jack
May 16, 2006 01:47 PM | Link to this
Al Bumen. Isn’t albumen the white of an egg?
By RF
May 16, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this
Scalia- mine just have the attitude that it’s alllll good so long as you have a J-o-b, any job, so long as there’s a paycheck and you have the latest Nextel!! Of course, the examples they have outside of school all prove that. Ownership of anything doesn’t matter, just so long as you have a place to stay. They really believe they don’t need to know anything because mom or somebody will be there to pay for it, and if not, well they’ll just figure it out when they get there, wherever there is…. Can you tell I’m ‘bout done with these freshmen? LOL
By The72John
May 16, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this
John, Is it your opinion that because our immigration system doesn’t accomadate each and every person who wants to come here that these people have a right to ignore the law? Are you trying to say that most “undocumented immigrants” aren’t law-breakers? Are you trying to argue that the fake identities they obtain in no way harms our society? That even by accepting unfair wages they don’t undermine the earning power of the poor? Is that what you’re trying to say?
I think that if you go back over last weeks discussions you will find my positions on all of these things.
I don’t have the energy to rehash all of these points with you.
By The72John
May 16, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this
The72John, as the “boys” say, “You are reading tough, child.”
Sorry, you’ll need to translate?
By The72John
May 16, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this
Mara,
Sorry for the harsh treatment - I really did exhaust myself on this topic last week and don’t want to revisit it. I realized that “I don’t have the energy to rehash this with you” was a little harsh and dismissive.
And while there are people I enjoy being both harsh with and dismissive of, you aren’t one. So, my apologies.
By Jack
May 16, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this
“But eating shellfish? Why is it OK to eat an animal that has a cloven hoof as long as it chews its cud? Why shouldn’t we eat an animal that has a cloven hoof but does not chew its cud? Or that chews its cud but does not have a cloven hoof?
If my daughter gets raped, am I really supposed to pay her rapist?
I think these are the “arbitrary” rules we’re talking about.
Billy. Exactly where did Al reference shellfish? or eating animals? You just love to put words in people’s posts that aren’t there to justify your ignorance. Typical.
By Al
May 16, 2006 02:04 PM | Link to this
Good job, Jack. My wife Chalaza commends you on your effort.
By Monica
May 16, 2006 02:05 PM | Link to this
72John, thanks for knocking some sense into me. :)
Mara, I don’t know what else to say. I certainly would choose not to pro-create if I knew the life of misery my children would be subjected to. But I’m not God, nor do I want to be - unlike some people with whom we blog. :)
By Mara
May 16, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this
You probably didn’t notice, but I wasn’t here last week so maybe that’s why I didn’t see your justifications on why illegals aren’t really scofflaws….
If you don’t want to play you shouldn’t be tossing stones like “we know you hate immigrants”.
By Jack
May 16, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this
Thanks Al. (Just joking when I made the egg white comment)
By The72John
May 16, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this
Billy. Exactly where did Al reference shellfish? or eating animals? You just love to put words in people’s posts that aren’t there to justify your ignorance. Typical.
Um…”Al” asked what was arbitrary, and Billy pointed out some examples of arbitrary laws. .
By GOB
May 16, 2006 02:09 PM | Link to this
Billy. Exactly where did Al reference shellfish? or eating animals? You just love to put words in people’s posts that aren’t there to justify your ignorance. Typical.
Jack - I think John explained it best in his 1:37 post, which Billy followed up at 1:43 post. It is pretty obvious what was meant.
By chuck
May 16, 2006 02:12 PM | Link to this
Chalaza: One of two spiral bands of tissue in an egg that connect the yolk to the lining membrane at either end of the shell.
How did ya’ll meet?
By Zack
May 16, 2006 02:13 PM | Link to this
Please consider this question for a minute: “Why are people so angry about illegal immigration?”
The word “illegal” is in that sentence, and usually, that which is illegal is not popular with others in a democracy. If someone parks illegally on a street curb, that’s not going to be popular to others. If someone illegally throws a loud party in the middle of the night, that’s not going to set well with the neighbors. If someone illegally breaks the speed limit, that’s not going to set well with those he’s jeopardizing.
Not everything that’s legal is right, and not everything that’s illegal is wrong, but usually the two pairs match up synonymously.
As for illegal immigration, it’s not right. If someone wants to come to this country, that’s fine, but that individual should respect our culture, our society, our customs, etc. and should not expect us to make special concessions to accommodate him. Ms. Glass wants us to learn a second language to make immigrants feel right at home. We have no obligation to do so. Those entering this country should work overtime to learn English. Ms. Glass’ ideologies unfortunately are shared by many of those in the school system, and therefore our educational system is sorely lacking.
To continue on this point, although I’m a bit off topic here, the following would help the school system dramatically: Return to acknowledging God and the Bible, not atheism, agnosticism, and/or the myth that “God” refers to someone who tolerates anything and everything and that all religions are true. Have prayer in schools as well as the Pledge of Allegiance. If someone has an issue here, politely remind this individual of our country in the days of our founding fathers and that we’re simply upholding our basic, unfortunately-forsaken values. Do not change for those who simply wish our Constitution were what the ACLU lies and claims it is. Rid schools of those who start trouble, and make the environment more conducive to learning. Boot camp is an excellent way to teach punks respect. (Don’t like my using the word “punks”? I actually was being very polite.) Impound cell phones of kids who disrespectfully use them. Tell parents they will have to pay $100 for the phone to be returned. At this point, maybe parents will teach their kids a little lesson in manners. When I was a senior in high school, a guy sat behind me who had no desire to get an education. All he did was come to school and goof off, and he’d put gum wrappers down my shirt collar all the time. He was a skinny kid who listened to heavy metal all the time who just had no aspirations to do anything. Unfortunately, I tolerated this guy for a while. I told him numerous times to stop, but he’d continue. Eventually, I turned and punched him extremely hard after class one day. He was lucky in that I didn’t hit him in the face, but I put a nice little bruise on the little boy. He never again antagonized me. After school, I had to drop by and see my teacher in that class, and I told her what I did to the punk in question. I made no apologies and still don’t; I did nothing wrong. I told her if she wasn’t going to maintain discipline in class, I would have to take the matter into my own hands, er, fists.
By Scalia
May 16, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this
In other words, you are putting somebody in there place.
By Dr. Acula
May 16, 2006 02:23 PM | Link to this
Am I the only one who really cracked up at the thought of someone putting wrappers down the back on Zack’s shirt until he punched him in the arm? The cripple fight on South Park immediately came to mind…TIMMY!
By Renee
May 16, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this
To continue on this point, although I’m a bit off topic here, the following would help the school system dramatically: Return to acknowledging God and the Bible, not atheism, agnosticism, and/or the myth that “God” refers to someone who tolerates anything and everything and that all religions are true. Have prayer in schools as well as the Pledge of Allegiance. If someone has an issue here, politely remind this individual of our country in the days of our founding fathers and that we’re simply upholding our basic, unfortunately-forsaken values.
The Pilgrims who initially came to this country came to get away from the Church of England and be able to enjoy religious freedom. Although the religious freedom they wanted to enjoy was freedom of their particular religion since they no longer agreed with the Church of England and what it failed to accomplish. But, nevertheless, it’s relgious freedom that began this country. That same religious freedom, that they tried to escape, in many ways, was successful in it’s reestablishment.
By FatMoose
May 16, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this
Eventually, I turned and punched him extremely hard after class one day. He was lucky in that I didn’t hit him in the face, but I put a nice little bruise on the little boy. He never again antagonized me.
Sounds exactly like the god you whor-ship. Mean spirited vindictive and all about punishment without remorse/compassion towards the ignorant. Like father, like son, huh?
I bet jesus has his head in his hands wondering what the hell is going on.
By Mara
May 16, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this
John, you are one sweet man, y’know that? Consider yourself hugged. ;^)
Monica, LOL!! Who’d want the “God” job?! After seeing “Bruce Almighty” I decided that the perks wouldn’t be worth the aggravation!
Was it just me or did Zack almost make sense there for a minute before falling down into the crevasse of theocratic daydreaming? LOL!
By Jewish and Proud of It
May 16, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this
Wow Zach, you are such a brute! I don’t know about anyone else on the blog but I’m just about to faint with admiration from Zach telling us about his manliness!
By Billy
May 16, 2006 02:30 PM | Link to this
Billy. Exactly where did Al reference shellfish? or eating animals? You just love to put words in people’s posts that aren’t there to justify your ignorance. Typical.
Jack, what is your effin’ problem? Last week you start in on me calling me an “immature a-s-s” or something. Completely unprovoked.
Now you’re calling me ignorant and claiming it is “typical” for me to “put words in people’s posts”. Bunk.
I have no idea what I did or said to you to warrant your verbal abuse, but if that’s the way you want to play, fine. Ignorant? Well, if you want to believe that, go ahead. I’ll just make an effort to not read your posts. A f*** like yourself has nothing to offer except mindless rants about people who have done nothing to warrant any such statements.
Cram it, assclown.
By Jack
May 16, 2006 02:30 PM | Link to this
He has a funny way of doing it.
By The72John
May 16, 2006 02:34 PM | Link to this
Yeah, I was all for the cell-phone thing. Then we took a side trip to crazy-land…
By Monica
May 16, 2006 02:35 PM | Link to this
Mara, I almost didn’t watch Bruce Almighty because I thought it would be sacrilege. It’s one of my favorite movies!! I especially love the scene with the rival anchor in the studio, and Morgan Freeman was an excellent choice for God! I’m smiling now. Thanks, Mara!
By Jack
May 16, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this
HAHA! Call me what you want. Doesn’t bother me. I let you get under my skin last week. My bad. I feel sorry for you. With your attitude, you will probably join the ranks of the divorced.
By Al
May 16, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this
The last time I checked, the decaffeinated coffee was in the pot with the orange lid.
By The72John
May 16, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this
Mara, I almost didn’t watch Bruce Almighty because I thought it would be sacrilege. It’s one of my favorite movies!! I especially love the scene with the rival anchor in the studio, and Morgan Freeman was an excellent choice for God! I’m smiling now. Thanks, Mara
My priest growing up told some of the most profane jokes I have ever heard…some of them STILL shock me. She always said that if God were the creator of the universe, then God created humor too…why are we so afraid of it when it applies to religion?
By Renee
May 16, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this
Yeah, I was all for the cell-phone thing. Then we took a side trip to crazy-land…
Okay, John, that cracked me up.
I especially love the scene with the rival anchor in the studio
That’s my favorite scene in the movie!!!
I must be in a really silly mood this afternoon (lookout RF) because I’m finding the word “assclown” very humorous. I don’t think I’ve heard that one used before.
By Mara
May 16, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this
Doc, you slay me! Timm-aye! ROTFLMAO!!!
Renee - you mean the pilgrims didn’t come to America solely to evangelize and enlighten the barbaric savages?! I’m shocked! Must be that damn “liberal revisionist history” I’ve heard so much about…LOL!
“crazy-land”, John? Waaaaayyyy to funny, heh, heh,heh…true and funny!
By GOB
May 16, 2006 02:52 PM | Link to this
Jack - Just out of curiosity, where did your obsession with what Billy says come from? I havent seen anything he posted that would cause you to single him out the way you have in the last 2 weeks. Was there something in particular that pushed you over the edge?
By Monica
May 16, 2006 02:56 PM | Link to this
I’m all for humor, 72John. I was just leery about someone portraying God, that’s all. I prefer to operate with humor as much as possible. Of course God has a sense of humor - that’s why we have the duck-billed platypus!
By Billy
May 16, 2006 02:56 PM | Link to this
HAHA! Call me what you want. Doesn’t bother me. I let you get under my skin last week. My bad. I feel sorry for you. With your attitude, you will probably join the ranks of the divorced.
That is what I am asking! Why did you attack me personally? How did I get under your skin last week? I didn’t say anything to or about you prior to your calling me an a-s-s. Why do you have this vendetta against me? I’m perfectly willing to drop these hostilities if you are, but try as I might last week to get to the bottom of it, you never answered me. Why did I get you so mad? What did I do?
By Chilao
May 16, 2006 03:03 PM | Link to this
When we mention the Pilgrims, who supposedly came over here for religious liberty, can we also always point out that as soon as someone disagreed with them, religiously, that person was banished and had to go form his own colony. Speaking of Roger Williams, who founded Rhode Island.
or as I always like to say, very sarcastically, Freedom of religion is a great idea, just as long as you look at everything my way.
modern parallel: Democracy is a great idea, just as long as you vote our way.
By Dr. Acula
May 16, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this
*Doc, you slay me! *
What a pun…
By FatMoose
May 16, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this
Billy,
That is just Jack. Say you are a female and he will be sweet no matter what you post.
We used to refer to his type as c0ck-bl0cks in the bars bc he would alienate guys to get in good with the ladies even if there is nothing to be gained and only to prevent others actions.
It is a power thing that hints at the lack of it in his his reality which is akin to the PF wife: “If you dont eat your meat…”
Lots of insecurities come out on this blog that will make you happy you are you. That os the positive aspect you can ALWAYS take from this blog;)
Smile and be a duck;) We do not need another a$$;)
By The72John
May 16, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this
that person was banished and had to go form his own colony. Speaking of Roger Williams, who founded Rhode Island
OK…so who do we have to blame for New Jersey?
By Renee
May 16, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this
Chilao - I actually tried to make that point in my earlier post about religious freedom, but evidently didn’t do a good job.
By RF
May 16, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this
Renee- John and Mara have me spitting on the monitor today!! I’m giggling like you!!
You know, I think someone should let the doctors know the fog cleared a little in Zack’s cell today. If they keep the meds up, he might be able to post an entire entry with sense. Started out good and he actually got a couple paragraphs in before the voices took over today!!
By Jack
May 16, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this
I have no vendetta. I just don’t like it when people put words into posts that are not there to suit an arguement. Last week you said something to me that you would never say to my face and it made me steamed.
GOB. I don’t care what you think at all.
By The72John
May 16, 2006 03:14 PM | Link to this
Hey Gob, is it just me or does he HONESTLY not realize that he is basically describing himself?
By Chilao
May 16, 2006 03:15 PM | Link to this
OK…so who do we have to blame for New Jersey?
Monica just stated it, God’s *sense of humour.
well, you know, every good living thing (U.S.A.) needs an armpit(and that is being generous, there was one other that came to mind. LOL)
By GOB
May 16, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this
72J - I dont think there is a whole lot of self understanding going on there.
By RF
May 16, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this
John- that was apparently the idiot colony for a while, but then they put in some bridges so they could wander out and migrate all over.
By The72John
May 16, 2006 03:20 PM | Link to this
I just don’t like it when people put words into posts that are not there to suit an arguement
Jack…he…was…answering…the…question.
How does that constitute putting words into a post? If anything, Mr. Meringue put words into MY post when he attempted to make it sound as if I objected to the exhortation not to kill. I don’t see you getting all heated up about THAT post.
Again, Meringue asked “What is arbitrary!” and Billy answered with “eating shellfish”.
Exactly WHAT is wrong with answering a direct question?
And please Jack - if you don’t think you talk s** as much as anyone else on this board, you’re kidding yourself. Most of the time I like you Jack, but you’re way off board on this one.
By Chilao
May 16, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this
Renee - no, you did do a good job, I merely elaborated.
you missed Roger Williams, man, America’s first free-thinker. (well, until someone may have disagreed with him and we got Connecticut. LOL. joking, I have no idea if he had dissenters)
By Mara
May 16, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this
OK…so who do we have to blame for New Jersey?
the Oil and Petrochemical companies? (props to Miss Congeniality…)
speaking of puns, doc…at least I didn’t say “you suck!” HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
By The72John
May 16, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this
I mean, last time I was there it was illegal to pump your own gas…how bad is that!
By FatMoose
May 16, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this
I just don’t like it when people put words into posts that are not there to suit an arguement.
You forgot to add: With those that dont suit my interests or are not in this weeks clique or are female.
By GOB
May 16, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this
Jack - So what was it that he said last week that keeps you from being able to have a rational conversation? What could have been that offensive?
By Chilao
May 16, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this
I pumped gas there last fall, Plainfield area. may have been a local law.
By Renee
May 16, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this
John - when I first went to NJ last year I found out about that ridiculous law (which is still in effect) I might add. But it actually was convenient for me since it was raining cats and dogs the entire time I was there.
By Dr. Acula AKA GOB
May 16, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this
speaking of puns, doc…at least I didn’t say “you suck!” HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
HA…Sorry for posting under another name…I just saw a Scrubs T-Shirt with Dr. Acula and was cracking up in my cube…
By Zack
May 16, 2006 03:41 PM | Link to this
“dr”—I’d expect such a response from you. Like a few others on here, you’re the definition of “trash.”
It’d be nice if liberals would understand reason.
By Jack
May 16, 2006 03:43 PM | Link to this
Read his post directed to me last Friday concerning my children.
By chuck
May 16, 2006 03:48 PM | Link to this
New Jersey? John Berkeley and George Carteret. They were give land from the colony of New York and began a proprietary colony for the dual purpose of religious freedom and expanding trade.
By Billy
May 16, 2006 03:52 PM | Link to this
I have no vendetta. I just don’t like it when people put words into posts that are not there to suit an arguement. Last week you said something to me that you would never say to my face and it made me steamed.
OK, let’s look at this…your first response to one of my posts. You say I’ve lost all credibility for saying something that was one hundred percent true.
By Jack
May 8, 2006 02:10 PM | Link to this
“We are a nation founded by a bunch of wealthy white men, and white men still hold all the wealth.”
Oh you didn’t say that…..your credibility is gone. Next you’ll want reparations.
Then, out of nowhere, this…
By Jack
May 10, 2006 01:13 PM | Link to this
Billy you are an imature a-s-s. Grow up.
Next you busted out with this:
By Jack
May 12, 2006 09:58 AM | Link to this
Hell. Why don’t we take 1/2 of the money the rich make and give it away to the slackers. Then we won’t have any evil rich people to worry about. The smart ones would leave the country then we could be our own third world country.
To which I responded:
By Billy
May 12, 2006 10:05 AM | Link to this
Typical, Jack. Anyone who does not make millions is in that situation because he doesn’t work hard enough.
Evidently I missed the meaning, though I can’t for the life of me figure out what other meaning you possibly could have intended…
By Jack
May 12, 2006 10:24 AM | Link to this
That isn’t what I said or meant. Typical of your kind. Spin what ever to suit your arguement. Poor ignorant boy.
I let it die for the time being. The GOB had this to say:
By GOB
May 12, 2006 01:40 PM | Link to this
…Once they have missed their initial chance, it is VERY difficult to go back and get an education, especially if you are only making $10/hour and have a family…
To which you responded:
By Jack
May 12, 2006 02:01 PM | Link to this
I went back and finished mine at 39. It was hard but worth it.
So I asked:
By Billy
May 12, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this
Were you making $10 an hour?
Your response?
By Jack
May 12, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this
No. I made more than that working 2 jobs. (and had 2 children to feed)
But that wasn’t enough for you. You continued:
By Jack
May 12, 2006 02:30 PM | Link to this
Billy do you make $10.00 per hour? Are you 25 yet? Does that sand in your ears bother you?
And it was then that I responded with this:
By Billy
May 12, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this
Jack, what did I do or say to you? You’re asking about the sand in my ears, but I’m wondering why you have sand in your minge.
To your first questions — “More” and “yes”.
And I bet your children loved never seeing you. I know it’d make my life more enjoyable if you neglected the board the way you must have your kids.
That was, as far as I can tell, the first time I intentionally insulted you. At almost 3pm Friday. After a couple of days of intermittent accusations and personal attacks. And you still never answered the question of why you thought I was an a-s-s. How do you explain your attitude toward me in the posts previously during the week? What did I do to get your panties in a bunch? And you can’t use the “neglecting your kids” comment since that came two full days after you called me an a-s-s.
Was there something else, or can you drop the attitude toward me already?
By The72John
May 16, 2006 03:52 PM | Link to this
“dr”—I’d expect such a response from you. Like a few others on here, you’re the definition of “trash.”
Oh dear! Now you have him angered! Beware, or he will thrash you with his fists and stamp upon you with his feet!
It’d be nice if liberals would understand reason.
And now, he will fall upon the floor kicking and screaming. “WHHHhhhy can’t people just do what I say, waaaaaaaa”
Keep it up, Zack - you are a never-ending source of crazy-person entertainment. Kind of like…I don’t know…Mussolini reduced in size to a wee little tyke, stuck in a cage, and paraded around the town square.
By The72John
May 16, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this
New Jersey? John Berkeley and George Carteret. They were give land from the colony of New York and began a proprietary colony for the dual purpose of religious freedom and expanding trade
Only chuck would take a joke literally, and take the opportunity to lecture.
By GOB
May 16, 2006 03:55 PM | Link to this
Jack, go back and read last Friday’s comments. You started with the digs before Billy did.
By Mara
May 16, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this
Wwwhhhhaaaaaa!? It’d be nice if liberals would understand reason
This coming from Zack?! To toss his brick back in his direction…it’d be equally as nice if theocrats would understand “religious freedom”…
By FatMoose
May 16, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this
Read his post directed to me last Friday concerning my children.
You have been above crap behaviour on here???
Admit it guys, most of you have your personal beef with people that totally blind you to a possible valid arguement. Your ONLY point in those “conversations” is to try to hurt someone and make yourself feel better.
We all know it - its the pink elephant in the blog.
By Mara
May 16, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this
I laugh at you all! mooowwwaaHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
okay. bye-bye til tomorrow :^)
By GOB
May 16, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this
Admit it guys, most of you have your personal beef with people that totally blind you to a possible valid arguement. Your ONLY point in those “conversations” is to try to hurt someone and make yourself feel better.
Out of curiousity, does this include yourself?
By Billy
May 16, 2006 04:04 PM | Link to this
Sorry for the awkward formatting of that post…It’s not the easiest thing to read, but I think it proves my point.
Well, Jack? My comment was two full days after you called me an a-s-s. What warranted the a-s-s comment?
By RF
May 16, 2006 04:13 PM | Link to this
it’d be equally as nice if theocrats would understand “religious freedom”…
But Mara- according to them we’re free to believe or burn in hell—what else could we possibly hope for?? LOL
By FatMoose
May 16, 2006 04:16 PM | Link to this
GOB,
Admit it guys, most of you have your personal beef with people that totally blind you to a possible valid arguement. Your ONLY point in those “conversations” is to try to hurt someone and make yourself feel better.
Out of curiousity, does this include yourself?
Not if you you take the above literally and not change anything. I do not rib anyone purely for ribbing sake and have shown no disreagarding of valid points made by people I dislike on here.
PS - If you find an occurance that I am omitting, I will gladly retract that statement.
By Netbanker
May 16, 2006 04:19 PM | Link to this
Hey kids! Boy have I missed a lot and am still not caught up. That still isn’t likely to happen today with work being all crazy. 2/3 of my team is out for a training session so everyone is coming to me. To call my days rapid fire is an understatement of massive proportion.
BLA! So nice to ‘see’ you back and to hear that Mrs. Bla and Baby Girl Bla are doing well. So how flexible does one need to be to become completely wrapped around a baby girl’s finger? Are you starting to feel more like Gumby, yet? LOL!
FM…some very interesting points in the God debate regarding free will.
72J…things about God that make you go hmmmmm, eh?
Chuck…your description of God and why he created man makes Him seem like a lonely soul with self esteem and power issues…as pointed out by Mara so eloquently.
Renee…this goes back to yesterday, but I soooo miss the clothes line sometimes. Ours was right next to the Japanese Cherry tree in the back yard and I loved the way the sheets and towels would pick up the scent of the blossoms in spring. I swear you can smell sunshine and kids laughter in laundry from the clothes line. I think it’s bizarre that in some neighborhoods the HOA rules don’t allow them. WTH is up with that?
By Neil
May 16, 2006 04:19 PM | Link to this
The illegals may pay SOME Federal and State withholding taxes but they have learned to take the maximum number of exemptions which they know the IRS cannot dispute, and government computer systems are so archaic that they cannot cross-check to quickly verify valid Social Security numbers. I resent the fact that WE are cowtowing to them rather that requiring them to learn English and becoming a part of OUR culture!
By chuck
May 16, 2006 04:22 PM | Link to this
Ithink it must have been this comment Billy. It was a little over the top don’t you think?
By Billy
May 12, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this
Jack, what did I do or say to you? You’re asking about the sand in my ears, but I’m wondering why you have sand in your minge.
To your first questions — “More” and “yes”.
And I bet your children loved never seeing you. I know it’d make my life more enjoyable if you neglected the board the way you must have your kids.
By The72John
May 16, 2006 04:23 PM | Link to this
Admit it, Gob - you are in the presence of a superior being.
By FatMoose
May 16, 2006 04:27 PM | Link to this
it’d be equally as nice if theocrats would understand “religious freedom”…
Or that by definition a democracy is a non-theocracy! So of course “separation bw church/state” would not be found in constitution et. al! The founders gave future generations more credit to worry that one day people will claim red is blue or such inane notions.
By Billy
May 16, 2006 04:30 PM | Link to this
Goddammit chuck, I just addressed that. He called me an a-s-s two full days before I made that comment!!! I know it’s childish as hell, bur he started this, and I’ve been tring to find out why since Wednesday!
By FatMoose
May 16, 2006 04:35 PM | Link to this
Admit it, Gob - you are in the presence of a superior being.
Gosh your like a little kid. You will state that you wont talk to me then send messages through my whispers with GOB.
You have no restraint;) Re-read heart of darkness by Conrad as well as No Exit by Sartre, or maybe The Rebel by Camus.
Like the Brady kids saying “Tell Jan I am not talking to her! Hrmmmph!”
By RF
May 16, 2006 04:39 PM | Link to this
Net- and honeysuckle scent in the late spring early summer. They’ll never make a fabric softener to recreate that smell. Or my granny’s rosebushes. She didn’t have A/C so we slept with the windows open and her house always smelled faintly like roses. Geez I miss that place and her today for some reason.
By Jack
May 16, 2006 04:42 PM | Link to this
I’m busy today. We can just agree to disagree with one another. You, GOB and I. I may have flung the first arrow but I am not any more vitrol than John. Lord knows he got me angry as hell before I got to know and accept him.
Thanks Chuck.
By FatMoose
May 16, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this
I know it’s childish as hell
It actually is not if your expecting adult behavior from these guys and end up frustrated bc no amount of conversation changes their personal issues with others tainting the exchange.
I expect, no matter who the person is to me, adults to look at information as just that: Benign Information. And going over this info to try to determine its validity without the instant name calling and personal attacks SHOULD be expected.
But people have issues with having their info called into question. They would rather be wrong and not confronted, than be corrected and have better info to make decisions.
If there is a problem, is it not normal to look at where/how it began to prevent it in the future?
People are odd;)
By Al Bumen
May 16, 2006 04:47 PM | Link to this
Chalaza and I were considering going to an outdoor concert this weekend. We don’t have tickets, we were just planning on jumping the fence and sitting in the orchestra pit. Then when the ticket holders for those seats came and asked us to leave we were planning on jumping on stage and protesting the fact that we were asked to leave. Would that make anyone angry? Would there be anything positive about that situation?
By The72John
May 16, 2006 04:53 PM | Link to this
Oh, FatMoose, we’re laughing at you “behind your back”. You are absolutely hilarious, and you don’t even realize it.
Look, you are not “above” anything or anyone on this blog. You are Just. Like. Everyone. Else. You have insulted just about everyone who regularly participates, most of us multiple times. You engage in long-winded debates, mostly with yourself, made up of pretentious musings liberaly interspersed with multisyllabic words that you misuse as often as not, mixed metaphors and ill-placed literary references that one can only assume make you feel smart.
When you actually DO have an interesting point, like this morning’s free will -vs- determinism post, you bury it in important-sounding nonsense about formulas so that the point is utterly lost.
At least I know that I come to this blog with the express purpose of engaging in a argument and being a smart-a*. It’s a blog that CATERS to argument. I know from the get-go that I’m going to bash religious fanatics and take humorous pot-shots at opinions with which I disagree.
You, on the other hand, seem to think that you are proving something to everyone when you swoop in, invariably at midweek, and declare that we are all arguing about the wrong things, that you have the solution we need to hear, and that anyone who disagrees with you MUST be a simpleton who lacks the basic ability to comprehend the depths of your thinking.
Get OVER yourself Fat Moose. You are NOT Bhudda, you are NOT Depak Chopra, you are NOT a beautiful, special flower. You are, like most of the rest of us, an argumentative, opinionated, sometimes reasonable, sometimes irrational S.O.B.
Can I PLEASE get an AMEN from the rest of the peanut gallery so that this pompous A$$ ;) will PLEASE get off his self-important high horse and admit that he is dirty in the trenches with the rest of us?
By Netbanker
May 16, 2006 05:01 PM | Link to this
Ownership of anything doesn’t matter, just so long as you have a place to stay. RF and Scalia…do you think that the use of language is reflective of underlying values of which kids may not even be overtly conscious? For example, instead of ‘where do you live’ it’s ‘where do you stay at’.
By Jack
May 16, 2006 05:07 PM | Link to this
Moose. You are a unique individual. I have learned how you are over time. You are somewhat arrogant and I can accept that. You are fine until someone calls you a name and then you turn. Unlike some,at least you have sensible arguements for the most part. reading you and John go at it is almost as much fun as reading John and Chuck going at it. I just need to tell myself this is for fun and not to get riled.
By Rose
May 17, 2006 07:39 AM | Link to this
Several years ago I worked for a major temp agency, it was my experience that the agency placed over 100 illegal immigrants in jobs. We did this knowing that their documentation was fake. They did have to complete forms for state and federal taxes, but when you claim 10 or more dependents there is little or no tax payment to either state of federal. If they paid social security it was minimal. My father’s entire family immigrated to the United States they waited years and when they did arrive their was no one to take care of their expenses or health care needs. My heart goes out to those who have come illegaly but I feel very strongly that they have broken the law and you cannot reward people for doing that regardless of the reason. We will be sending a message saying that if you come you can stay and we will foot the bill!! When we have so many Americans living below the poverty level, childred going hungry everyday, health care not available to many seniors how can we justify the free ride we are giving the illegals??
By Jeff
May 17, 2006 07:50 AM | Link to this
Illigal immigrants raise the cost of healthcare and pay little taxes. evenn if half did pay some taxes, that still leaves an estimated 5-10 million illigal immigrants that are not paying into the system, you figure out the cost.
The recent comments by the Mecican government really got to me, they see it as there right to allow illigal immigrants into our country, this is just crazy. Then they interviewed a mexican coming over illigally, he made it sound like it was his right to come into the country illigally. This is a big problem, mexico needs to be held accountable for not taking any action to help there own citizens.
By Renee
May 17, 2006 08:12 AM | Link to this
Mornin’ everyone.
I don’t know about anyone else, but the judges overturnment on the gay marriage ban is both pivotal and exciting. That put me in a good mood when I found out last night!! I know all do not share in my jubilation, but I don’t care….
By RF
May 17, 2006 08:30 AM | Link to this
do you think that the use of language is reflective of underlying values of which kids may not even be overtly conscious? Absolutely. Many of them have no idea how their lifestyle differs from the middle-class norm we have in this country. That language is also partially the result of generational poverty and the temporary nature of everything in life. You have a place to “stay” so long as the job holds out. All of us live with the knowledge that we are a few paychecks away from losing our lifestyle, and we plan and save to guard against it. For those in poverty, language like that comes from generations of living through losing everything several times over. I watched my sister and the intelligence challenged sperm producer she was with for so long go through that. They rode the monetary waves and stayed in a place as long as the wave was up. It becomes a cycle that is hard to break, and one’s values and even language reflect that. You should read Dr.Ruby Payne. Her book A Framework for Understanding Poverty sheds a lot of light on how values, language, and learning differ for those in or from poverty. They do indeed have a very different focus in life than those of us raised with “middle-class values.”
By Saturn
May 17, 2006 08:48 AM | Link to this
Hello all. The72John, just for a little justification; I know FatMoose, (I come on here sometimes just to check his sanity level after ranting late night phone calls) and you have nailed his personality to a tee!!! It is almost frightening! Funny thing is he won’t listen to what you have said here any more than he will to someone in the ‘real world’, but boy do you have his number! Thanks for the confirmation of sanity!
By Saturn
May 17, 2006 08:51 AM | Link to this
Hello all. The72John, just for a little justification; I know FatMoose, (I come on here sometimes just to check his sanity level after ranting late night phone calls) and you have nailed his personality to a tee!!! It is almost frightening! Funny thing is he won’t listen to what you have said here any more than he will to someone in the ‘real world’, but boy do you have his number! Thanks for the confirmation of sanity!
By Chilao
May 17, 2006 09:19 AM | Link to this
One of the candidates running for President in Mexico right now, think he is the third ranked, including Fox, so second-ranked running against Fox, was quoted recently as stating that the need for their citizens to migrate north was a “national disgrace” upon Mexico. I could not agree more.
I personally had to wonder what those women behind closed doors, with the giddy school girl pronouncement ON the door, were EXACTLY laughing about there. LMAO
NJ - I may have been wrong, seem to remember an attendant at the car briefly, nice East Indian guy I interacted with later when he was stationed in his booth, as I was looking for a cheap motel. But if you are into Filipino women, Plainfield NJ the place to be, I learned that much. LOL WOW. Not that I am or anything, but..oh, never mind.
By Monica
May 17, 2006 09:36 AM | Link to this
RF, I read that book by Ruby Payne. It really made me think about how I discipline kids in the hall! But what do we do about it? How can we overcome that mindset? The generational poverty kids I teach are not inner city kids; they are poor country folks who don’t seem to mind the lifestyle that they have.
Speaking of pumping your own gas, I remember when I just started driving, that most places were still full service stations. I didn’t pump my own gas until I was about 20. Before most gas stations became pay-at-the-pump, if I needed gas, paying for it entailed getting a baby out of a car seat, carrying him inside, balancing him in one arm and trying to sign my name on a gas card slip with the other. I can’t imagine having to do that now with two kids in tow. Thank goodness for pay-at-the-pump!
By FatMoose
May 17, 2006 09:37 AM | Link to this
Moose. You are a unique individual. I have learned how you are over time. You are somewhat arrogant and I can accept that. You are fine until someone calls you a name and then you turn.
I expect adult behavior from adults - shame on me!
Unlike some,at least you have sensible arguements for the most part. reading you and John go at it is almost as much fun as reading John and Chuck going at it. I just need to tell myself this is for fun and not to get riled.
I agree with the statement “this is for fun and not to get riled;” whereas j27 reason to be on here as he admitted is TO get riled and ruin fun/learning.
Superior? I guess so if j27 thinks he was somehow swift in his 5 paragraph essay on me that is totally inaccurate. And lets not forget the whispers that are sooo adult - yeah, I did not realize you were doing that at all. What a joke.
Saturn, Hey there pock mark. I now have 3 animal’s feet in clay thanks to you.
By Jack
May 17, 2006 09:48 AM | Link to this
“I expect adult behavior from adults “
Surely you jest.
By FatMoose
May 17, 2006 09:50 AM | Link to this
When you actually DO have an interesting point, like this morning’s free will -vs- determinism post, you bury it in important-sounding nonsense about formulas so that the point is utterly lost.
Equations came into play AFTER 2-3 iterations of the point that was missed by both you and Chuck and I had to simplify the concept for you two. And I did so without being insulting bc, unlike you I come here to hear peoples opinions - not try to find any nitch I can to be an a$$. You refer to anything, no matter how petty, you can with the sole purpose of being an a$$.
At least I know that I come to this blog with the express purpose of engaging in a argument and being a smart-a. It’s a blog that CATERS to argument. I know from the get-go that I’m going to bash religious fanatics and take humorous pot-shots at opinions with which I disagree.* That is because you are a childish a$$ and it is your only power in this world.
You are, like most of the rest of us, an argumentative, opinionated, sometimes reasonable, sometimes irrational S.O.B. You have to believe this otherwise you would realize that you have a LOT of work to do in order to be a reasonable decent person. As long as you think EVERYONE is screwed up, you are justified in being screwed up yourself.
By GOB
May 17, 2006 09:55 AM | Link to this
FM - Why not just act like a normal person on here and drop the pretentious act? Wouldn’t that make the blog more enjoyable for you too? Almost everyone on here has acted less than mature at times, you included, but so what? That happens in everyday life as well, even to adults.
By FatMoose
May 17, 2006 10:03 AM | Link to this
Jack,
“I expect adult behavior from adults “
Surely you jest.
I agree that it is generally futile, but as we continually discover on the blog the solutions to many of the issues we cover revolve around people wanting their cake and eating it too. Childish notions abound, and although I will not take up that fight en todo (it would drive a person nuts) I also will not accept the behavior as ok.
Not enabling anymore screwy behavior from people.
By Chilao
May 17, 2006 10:03 AM | Link to this
“I expect adult behavior from adults “ Surely you jest.
yeah, who wants to be an Adult? I have spent my whole life being one. (that is probably a quote from someone, once I keyed, it sounded familiar, Groucho Marx maybe? LOL)
By Saturn
May 17, 2006 10:06 AM | Link to this
You have to believe this otherwise you would realize that you have a LOT of work to do in order to be a reasonable decent person. As long as you think EVERYONE is screwed up, you are justified in being screwed up yourself.
Can you even begin to see how amazing it is that you are so blatantly calling the kettle black?
By GOB
May 17, 2006 10:10 AM | Link to this
FM - Do you realize that your 9:50 post was a perfect example of you being exactly what you claim you’re not on this blog, “like most of the rest of us, an argumentative, opinionated, sometimes reasonable, sometimes irrational S.O.B.”
By The72John
May 17, 2006 10:12 AM | Link to this
I rest my case. It’s OK for FaMoo to call names or be insulting, but when anyone else does it, it’s because of a fundamental lack of intelligence, some kind of deeply rooted insecurity, or because in their real lives they are impotent, helpless pawns on the great chessboard of life.
What a silly man.
By FatMoose
May 17, 2006 10:14 AM | Link to this
GOB,
Almost everyone on here has acted less than mature at times, you included, but so what?
“At times” vs their ONLY means of discussing is the difference.
1 week of “whispering” is not an instance, but a personality.
Why not just act like a normal person on here and drop the pretentious act?
Exactly which act would this be? The discussion I was having with chuck? Think about it - I had a 2-3 discourse with him without utilizing the demeaning tactics and name calling many on here find the norm.
I have to wonder WHY someone would want another to act like a child.
You will have to forgive me for not accepting your behavior as healthy, bc it just is not going to happen.
By Netbanker
May 17, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this
RF…oh YEAH! The scent of honeysuckle is soooo amazing. There is a long strench along the lane where I walk with Abby where they grow wild along with blackberry canes. It smells so nice and in a few months I’ll be stopping to pick berries. Can’t get more organic than growing wild, can you?
Roses are great, too. I have 5 different varieties in my yard and the one that smells the absolute best are these tiny, double blossom roses on a bush that I dug up from an abandoned property across the road from my neighborhood. I used to walk my old dogs there and discovered them struggling among the weeds. The old house had been torn the year before so I ‘stole’ 2 different rose bushes and dug a bunch of bulbs out from where you could tell there used to be a garden. I’m sure my neighbors thought I was crazy seeing me crashing out of the brush and then walking down the road with a spade over my shoulder and bags filled with plants in my hands.
Monica…your description doesn’t sound very full service. I fondly recall a filling station a few blocks from my college campus in rural PA that I used because they were a family owned business and full service. Their prices were maybe $.01 a gallon higher, but it was worth it when it was raining or especially in the winter. You didn’t even have to get out of your car when paying by credit and they always checked your oil level as well cleaned the windshield. whew…not yet 40 and starting to sound like my grandparents talking about the good ol’ days. Thank goodness my Great Granny taught me that old is a state of mind and hasn’t a thing to do with age.
By RF
May 17, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this
Monica- the age old question, dear. I think if anyone ever figures that one out, that person will make a fortune! Complacency and acceptance are exactly what keep people in poverty. They honestly don’t see their lifestyle as settling for less than they could have if they wanted to. They also see WAY too many examples of frustration and lack of progress around them. It becomes easier to go with the flow than to try to change it. That book definitely made me more sensitive to how these kids think and react and how they view the world. That alone has helped me reach a few more of them and make them think. That’s all we can do I guess. Some of them get it and try for more in life—some.
GOB- we’ve tried to tell Moose that his complex speech patterns go right past many here, but that is how he thinks, so that’s how it comes out here. I don’t think it’s a chosen act- that’s just how his thoughts come out. I honestly have to just give up sometimes trying to understand all he posts. The complex, convoluted wording becomes inherently challenging to the simplistic universal views of my internal capacity to struggle for meaning in the globally chaotic iterations of the thought-provoking intonations on this venue… ;-)
By FatMoose
May 17, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this
I am sure believing that makes you two feel better, and is the purpose.
By GOB
May 17, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this
FM - The only person on this entire blog that has used name-calling, insulting, etc as their primary means of discussion is Zack. Others might move into those areas, but to say that is their only way of discussing a topic is completly dishonest.
The prententous act (and more and more, it is becoming clear that it isnt an act, but rather a personality thing) was not targeted at one particular instance, but your overall history on the blog.
Also, I wasnt advocating that you, or anyone else should* act like a child on here, but rather to simply realize that you are not any different that any of the other people on here. We all act immature at times in our lives, especially when a topic that one feels passionate about is being discussed.
The only issue I have with you is your attitude that you are somehow above everyone else on here.
By Netbanker
May 17, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this
YOOHOO!! Children? We could dish on each other’s personality flaws ALL day and it would matter….uh…how much to any of us? Or even be remotely productive in what fashion? Being an adult (one that is adult; especially : a human being after an age (as 21) specified by law) and maturity (or being grown up) are mutually exclusive concepts.
On that ‘have your cake and eat it too’ saying that’s been around forever…I know what it means, but honestly what good is cake if you don’t eat it? (grin) Especially with a nice scoop of ice cream. Can you tell I’m hungry for lunch already?
By RF
May 17, 2006 10:37 AM | Link to this
Net- When I was a youngun’ we had full-service stations and ironically people knew how to fix things themselves, like the lawn mower, the toaster, the radio. You didn’t just throw it away and waste money buying something new. Whew- I think I just channelled granny there. That or I am getting old enough to sound like her!! LOLOL
My mother and I dig up stuff from old home sites all the time. We’ve been known to go out of our way to find them too. She even had a BellSouth guy on a backhoe dig up a bush across the street from her where a house used to be. The guy just couldn’t tell this sweet old southern lady no, and he dug it up and even drove the backhoe over and gently planted it in her yard for her. Now that was hilarious watching that complete stranger at the mercy of my sweet mother- flowered house dress and all!! Of course, she fixed him a glass of sweet tea and offered to feed him afterwards!! LOL
By chuck
May 17, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this
No offense FM, but I doubt there is ANYTHING that you could ever understand that you would have to SIMPLIFY for me. MAYBE what you should do is actually THINK before you write so that what you write ACTUALLY MAKES SENSE. Dude when you learn how to use a spell checker and construct an intelligible sentence we can talk. It is true that you occasionally have good ideas and points but most of the time you obfuscate them by using words and sentence structures that you don’t understand. You would do well to quit TRYING to sound SMART, use PLAIN ENGLISH, and make your points.
I do have to give you an amen 72john.
By GOB
May 17, 2006 10:40 AM | Link to this
GOB- we’ve tried to tell Moose that his complex speech patterns go right past many here, but that is how he thinks, so that’s how it comes out here. I don’t think it’s a chosen act- that’s just how his thoughts come out. I honestly have to just give up sometimes trying to understand all he posts. The complex, convoluted wording becomes inherently challenging to the simplistic universal views of my internal capacity to struggle for meaning in the globally chaotic iterations of the thought-provoking intonations on this venue…
I guess I will just have to accept that my simply mind isnt on par with the philosphical musings that seem to permiate the blog from said contributor.
By GOB
May 17, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this
woo hoo…office fire drill
By The72John
May 17, 2006 10:42 AM | Link to this
GOB- we’ve tried to tell Moose that his complex speech patterns go right past many here, but that is how he thinks, so that’s how it comes out here. I don’t think it’s a chosen act- that’s just how his thoughts come out
His thought patterns come out in garbled, often-meaningless English? That sounds about right.
By FatMoose
May 17, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this
The only issue I have with you is your attitude that you are somehow above everyone else on here.
This notion that everyone is exactly the same is rediculous. It is no different than the practice of telling bad spellers in gradeschool that they are actually good at it - smooth it over like butter so that no one gets their feelings hurt bc they are not up to speed.
And not everyone else, just a few;) And, NetB is superior to me, for example.
By Renee
May 17, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this
RF - Hilarious…thanks for making me laugh (10:25).
By blablabla
May 17, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this
hey net. good to hear from you too. hope all is well.
By ART
May 17, 2006 10:50 AM | Link to this
Most of the really “angry” anti-immigrant crowd are the same racist bigots that don’t like blacks or anyone else that isn’t just like them. Some of them just resent the fact that there are people who will literally risk their lives for nothing more than opportunity and a job, when the hater himself wouldn’t walk 100 yards for a job. The D.A. Kings of the world can be cleaned up, given a suit, and tie but when the ranting starts they become poster children for the Skinhead, Neo-Nazi, and white supremacist movement. And then you have the politicians like Chip Rogers. Playing to the haters pandering for votes like the political prostitutes that they are. Remember the last governor’s race. This election year is a replay. We have a governor sitting on fat butt in the statehouse basically because he pandered to the trailer trash of this state with the “rebel” flag issue. This year it is the poor immigrants that are the targets of another shameless election year of racebaiting.
By Mara
May 17, 2006 10:54 AM | Link to this
Anybody seen the AP article about the coming civil war in Mexico? You’ll find a link on Drudge but here’s a cut-n-paste excerpt -
“Mexico Voters Fear Nation on Edge of Chaos:”
“Police enraged by the kidnapping of six [police] officers club unarmed detainees. A bloody battle between steelworkers and police leaves two miners dead. Drug lords post the heads of decapitated police on a fence to show who’s in charge.”
“Last week, Zapatista rebel leader Subcomandante Marcos said Mexico was in a “state of rage,” and warned that tensions were similar to those that preceded the Zapatistas’ brief armed uprising in January 1994 in the southern state of Chiapas.”
“The masked leader said a May 3 clash that left a teenager dead and scores injured in San Salvador Atenco, 15 miles northeast of Mexico City, is an example of the growing tensions.”
“Marcos has been leading nearly daily demonstrations in the town following the incident, which began when a radical group of townspeople kidnapped and beat six policemen in a dispute over unlicensed flower vendors. Police responded with rage the next day. Television crews captured officers repeatedly beating unarmed protesters, and several detained women alleged officers raped them.”
Take what you want from the article but if neither the Mexican citizens nor the Mexican police respect or obey the laws enacted by their government, why should we believe that they’d give a crap about laws enacted by our government? Once they sneak in, why would they think that they have to obey our laws if they didn’t have to obey the ones at home?
By RF
May 17, 2006 10:54 AM | Link to this
Renee- you work for the guvment long enough, you learn how to say absolutely nothing while sounding like you’re saying everything. Kinda like the White House Press Secretary. I love to watch just to see the doublespeak in action!!
By Netbanker
May 17, 2006 10:55 AM | Link to this
GOB…I kind of agree with RF’s thoughts about FM. I don’t get the impression that FM views himself as above others. When conveying a complex and abstract concept the nature of the communication style also tends to be complex. He seems to more frequently than others bring those types of concepts to the discussion and forces us to do some advanced mental gymnastics…and that means you don’t always stick the landing! Dismount!!
By Jack
May 17, 2006 10:55 AM | Link to this
Superior is in the eye of the beholder.
By Renee
May 17, 2006 11:00 AM | Link to this
LOL RF, you are so right! The most direct questions will get a bunch of jibberish as an answer.
By RF
May 17, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this
This year it is the poor immigrants that are the targets of another shameless election year of racebaiting.
Does seem like a very conveniently timed “crisis” doesn’t it? Politicians have learned how to use issues of race to subtly create debate and tension among voters. Play on their fear of other cultural groups and you can persuade them to do just about anything.
By Mara
May 17, 2006 11:05 AM | Link to this
Art, please refer to my 1:05 post from yesterday. Trying to equate “immigrant” with “illegal alien” is both dishonest and ignorant.
And speaking of bigots, a whole lot of people are too poor to afford a home anywhere except a trailer park and you calling them “trash” shows just how familiar you truly are with poor folk. D.A.
By GOB
May 17, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this
When conveying a complex and abstract concept the nature of the communication style also tends to be complex. He seems to more frequently than others bring those types of concepts to the discussion and forces us to do some advanced mental gymnastics
Net - If they were actually complex issues, I might agree with you. At the same time, though, have we ever discussed any topic that cant be broken down into normal english? It isnt like we are trying to create cold fusion.
By james
May 17, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this
i want to propose a change to some laws. how would i go about getting that accomplished?
By james
May 17, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this
i want to propose a change to some laws. how would i go about getting that accomplished?
By GOB
May 17, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this
This notion that everyone is exactly the same is rediculous. It is no different than the practice of telling bad spellers in gradeschool that they are actually good at it
The irony is killing me…
By RF
May 17, 2006 11:11 AM | Link to this
Renee- and when you call back, you get a different person and different gibberish!!—LOL
I remember making THREE trips to the Social Security office to get cards for the boys after I took custody. Every doggone time I had a stack of stuff with me and someone always found something I was “missing” that they never told me I needed in the first place. I finally had to get the boys’ social worker to get them. She had the inside guvment connections to get things done.
By james
May 17, 2006 11:12 AM | Link to this
i want to propose a change to some laws. how would i go about getting that accomplished?
By Netbanker
May 17, 2006 11:13 AM | Link to this
Morning Bla! Outside of spending the evening of Mother’s Day at the emergency vet after Abigale found and ate rat poison all is fine. She’s fine too, but the vet visit cost $155 to gain peace of mind in retrosect since I induced vomiting at home when we found her merrily chomping away on the remnants of the poison cube. All the vet did was take notes, have me call animal poison control (they would have done it for an additional fee), and then send us home after poison control said that the amount she ate wouldn’t have been toxic even if I hadn’t discovered her eating it and that since I’d already induced vomiting there wasn’t anything else to do. That’s just a dog!! Can you imagine if I had human children?! Boy are you in for fun time! And big benefits too.
Renee…I was happy to hear about that court ruling, then p** off at Sonny P for his comments about ‘the will of the people.’ Sweet Jesus it’s not a wonder our country is screwed up when our political leaders believe that it should be up to the people to determine which groups of people should have rights and which shouldn’t. Do they just not get that tyranny of the majority concept?! Do they not grasp the dangerous precedent that sets? Oh yeah….that doesn’t matter to the religious conservatives and their politician puppets. Boy will they be in trouble when they reap what they’ve sown!
By james
May 17, 2006 11:14 AM | Link to this
i want to propose a change to some laws. how would i go about getting that accomplished?
By james
May 17, 2006 11:14 AM | Link to this
i want to propose a change to some laws. how would i go about getting that accomplished?
By Billy
May 17, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this
The irony is killing me…
hehehehehe
By Monica
May 17, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this
I saw George Stephanopoulos (had to Google that to make sure it was spelled right!)last night on World News Tonight, and he discussed the disparity in opinion polls. For example, 89% of people polled think that the US is headed in the wrong direction, yet 68% of those same people think that their own community is headed in the right direction. I guess most people are missing the big picture. Also, how come no one from a poll ever asks me what I think? :)
By Chilao
May 17, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this
Mara - I am sure we will be able to spare some of our own troops to go down and help the Mexican government out, make sure those underdog Kommunistas do not overthrow the government. (dripping sarcasm)
James - you write/call/stalk your legislators. ok, the stalk part was a joke, just campout outside their office.
By Renee
May 17, 2006 11:22 AM | Link to this
Well said, Net, as usual.
As much as Sonny’s comments p* me off, I wasn’t surprised.
By james
May 17, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this
didn’t know my post went through so many times. major server problems at the job.
By Chilao
May 17, 2006 11:24 AM | Link to this
James - don’t forget to bring a HUGE suitcase filled with $100 bills, you do have one, don’t you? Priciest wh!res in town.
By Jack
May 17, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this
Mara. Yeah, Art should try living under a bridge.
By RF
May 17, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this
Monica- I think they have a small group of people who they actually “poll”. I doubt anyone here has ever been called or contacted for a political “poll”.
By Renee
May 17, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this
Thurbert Baker has just released that an appeal to the Gay Marriage Ban has been filed.
No surprise there.
By GOB
May 17, 2006 11:41 AM | Link to this
I saw George Stephanopoulos (had to Google that to make sure it was spelled right!)last night on World News Tonight, and he discussed the disparity in opinion polls.
On that topic, I saw a chart that showed the results of various polls regarding the upcoming elections. I believe there were 8-10 news orginzations listed, and they all had the democrats up by 10-14 points…All except Fox News that is. They had the dems up by 2 points. Interesting to note the disparity.
By Mara
May 17, 2006 11:42 AM | Link to this
Chilao - no doubt. We’ve obviously been underutilizing our armed forces for several years now…so…who knows? Crazy George just might get a wild hair to annex Mexico as the 51st state, that’d sure take care of the illegal immigration problem wouldn’t it :^)
James - I’ve no doubt that both of Chilao’s suggestions would probably work (LOL!) but I believe the proper way would be by initiative, referendum, and/or amendment. But be careful. Your suggestion must not conflict with other existing laws, which would lead to it being struck down, as the GA homophobes found out to their chagrin yesterday.
By ART
May 17, 2006 11:43 AM | Link to this
Mara, I don’t care if the immigrant is legal or illegal. That is as honest as I can get. They are human beings who came here for nothing more than an opportunity. And some of the draconian and inhumane measures that have been proposed to raise the ire of the rabble is out and out disgusting. You want to hear dishonesty? Than just listen to the fire breathing anti-immigrant crowd who somewhere during their tirades will throw in the obligatory “but I ain’t prejudice against no race” remark when the truth of the matter is that they just don’t like Mexicans. They are the dishonest ones. When they grow a big enough set of cojones to admit that then the debate begins to be truthful.
By Mara
May 17, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this
RF - I was polled a few months before last election. I’ve never met anyone else who’s ever been though, so your point is well taken. :^)
Jack - wouldn’t that be kinda like screwing up the neighborhood for the other under-the-bridge dwellers?!
By GOB
May 17, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this
Crazy George just might get a wild hair to annex Mexico as the 51st state, that’d sure take care of the illegal immigration problem wouldn’t it
We already took half of it…Why stop there?
By The72John
May 17, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this
No surprise there.
True, true. We’re gonna be the secondary target for the elections, it looks like.
You know, I can honestly understand how some people object to assigning the term “marriage” to gay couples. I really can. There are a lot of old-fashioned people out there.
What I CAN’T understand is why people are so mean-spirited as to want to COMPLETELY deny ANY kind of legal partner rights.
By Jack
May 17, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this
Art. So we should let all in and have them become automatic citizens? Is that your view?
By Chilao
May 17, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this
per the Drudge article, Fox is prohibited from running for President in Mexico again, my bad.
By Mara
May 17, 2006 12:02 PM | Link to this
Once again, Art…most are adamently NOT anti-immigrant. Just because you can’t see the difference between a legal immigrant who desperately wants to be an American and an illegal one who only wants a better job…that doensn’t mean the rest of the country is blind to the nuance. And just because you couldn’t care less about the law doesn’t mean the rest of us want to pi$$ on it.
If you want to have an honest, “truthful” discussion it’s just as incumbant on you to appreciate the difference between those of us who’re tired of being taken advantage of and those who truly do “hate Mexicans” as it is for me to see your view that people are people and all deserve to be treated with dignity (which, by the way, I agree with but that doesn’t negate the argument that rewarding people for breaking the law is counter-productive)
That you either can’t, or won’t, admit that the difference exists kind of negates the opportunity for dialog, don’t you think?
By Jack
May 17, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this
John. There was a time that I did not condone gay marriage. Then I heard stories of gay couples that have been together for many years and one ends up in intensive care and the partner is not allowed in to see their loved one. Ignorant me never thought about that and it changed my view. I consider marriage a religious thing and if a gay couple can find someone to perform the marriage, fine. Absent that civil union would be the way to go.
By RF
May 17, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this
It’s unbelievable to me that you could spend your life with someone and be completely, legally, out in the cold when something happens to him/her. Legal unions are not a threat to anyone’s moral code or life. I truly don’t get the uproar. Like Jack, I doubt any of the detractors would be so vehemently opposed if they thought about it.
By ART
May 17, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this
Mara, I’m married to a legal immigrant so yes, I do know the difference. I am also aware of the expense that being legal incurs. And yet neither she nor I resent those that came here for opportunity. In fact she is in Washington, D.C. today meeting with the Senate delegation from Georgia to discuss this issue. To us the human aspect far outweighs any of the arguments for criminalizing these people.
And please,if you would, tell us how you are being taken advantage of. That should be interesting. And then try to think of the ways that these people benefit you. And if you are being honest, you will find that the pros far outweigh the cons.
Do you get a tax refund? Do you get the EIC?
By RF
May 17, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this
ART- I vehemently argued the human aspect of all this last week, and I honestly have to admit that when I thought about it, there were a lot of reasons not to support illegal immigration. We MUST find a solution that will allow the honest, hard-working number a chance to be here and do that, and keep the dishonest out as much as possible. The dishonest are giving all the immigrants a bad reputation and a negative stereotype. Even the president said in his address Monday that we have to remember the reason many are here. It’s the fact that they don’t have permission to be here that we can’t avoid dealing with anymore.
By ART
May 17, 2006 12:32 PM | Link to this
And by the way Jack, you need not worry that I will ruin it for the under the bridge crowd. My home in E. Cobb suits me just fine. However, if some of those under the bridge had the same work ethic and motivation as our “illegals” maybe they wouldn’t be living under the bridge.
By Jack
May 17, 2006 12:43 PM | Link to this
I can buy that Art. Answer my question please. Should we just open the borders and let all in, then let them automatically become U.S. citizens?
By The72John
May 17, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this
ART- I vehemently argued the human aspect of all this last week, and I honestly have to admit that when I thought about it, there were a lot of reasons not to support illegal immigration. We MUST find a solution that will allow the honest, hard-working number a chance to be here and do that, and keep the dishonest out as much as possible
Saying you don’t support continued illegal immigration and saying you don’t like illegal immigrants are two entirely different things.
I think we all agreed last week that something needs to be done to control the flow of illegal immigrants because there are a variety of negatives associated with it.
That does not equate to saying “I hate illegal immigrants”. It SHOULD equate to saying “I hate the conditions that cause illegal immigration. Let’s do what we can to remove the incentives that cause illegal immigration”.
There are crooks and thieves and social security theives among the illegal immigrant population, but as I pointed out last week reducing all illegals to “criminals” is a deep over-simplification. It ignores the fact that among that group there ARE hard-working decent people who just want to prove they can be good citizens. Calling them criminals because they crossed a border without permission is like calling everyone who speeds a criminal.
The culprits in this matter are the companies who recruit across the border and create jobs for them. It is THEY who contribute to diminished lower wages, and THEY who have the economic understanding to appreciate the impact that those jobs will have.
By ART
May 17, 2006 12:55 PM | Link to this
RF, I can agree with that. Sometime I think people just don’t stop to think about the issue as a whole. Under the more harsh proposals parents would be forced to choose between taking a legal child back to Mexico to face the very life the parents fled or leaving the child here. Mara seems to like the old faithful fall back position of “legality” and under existing LAW these children are LEGAL citizens of this country entitled to every right any of us have. The exception being that the hard hearted among us would deprive them of their parents by sending the parents back to Mexico or to jail. And then there is the crowd that would deprive a child of an education. What has happened in this country that has caused many of our citizens to lose their humanity? I’m waiting for Mara to give us all of the reasons why. I’m sure when she does she will use all of the popular buzzwords and phrases to justify such cruel and inhumane measures.
By Mara
May 17, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this
Art, as far as I can tell, the only benefit to me from illegal immigration is that it does keep payroll costs down which does keep some prices (artificially) low. On the other hand, that means that the exploitive employer raises his sales margin without reflecting what it should cost to produce a product. I would be willing pay a higher price for certain items and services were I certain that they were produced with legal labor. I mow my own lawn, would care for my own child (if I went crazy enough to have one! ;^P), and have cleaned my own home for as long as I’ve lived on my own.
Now, as for how I’m being taken advantage of…emergency room care (which is pretty much basic medical care for illegals) for the uninsured is underwritten by the American tax-payer, of which I’m one. This also affects the fiscal well-being of community hospitals, some of which have already folded up and gone out of business. Tax-payers fund the educational system which now must cater to tens of thousands of non-english speaking children of illegals. This affects the educational opportunities of the future leaders of our country, which will eventually affect me. I have to carry a drivers liscense and auto insurance, illegals ignore those laws too. The growth of identity theft and forged documents affects us all. The predominence of illegal immigrants in gang activity is well documented, which means more cops to ensure my safety, which, in turn means more taxes. 15 people in a two bedroom house next door affects my standard of living, not to mention the safety and sanitation issues. I could go on, just ask John about that, but the bottom line is that the “benefits” of illegals, in my view, do not outweigh the costs accrued through tax-payer funded “free” education, “free” medical, and revenues being lost from local economies through “remittances”.
Oh, and I too have legal immigrants in my family. They both agree with me that cheaters shouldn’t win.
(sorry everyone. looong post, I know)
By Netbanker
May 17, 2006 01:02 PM | Link to this
Some interesting things about the gay marriage issue are what John hit upon. In many cases it’s the word itself that is the issue. There have been polls by various groups that show people are against gay ‘marriage’ yet when you ask these same people about the individual rights obtained as a package through marriage(hospital visitation, property rights, etc.) they tend to say gay people should be able to have them.
What is odd to me is that those who oppose gay marriage on a religious basis do seem most focus, as John pointed out, on denying gay people ANY equal rights under the law. Yet as a gay person I CAN have a religious ceremony. How whacked is that? They don’t work to deny me a religious ceremony, which is the basis for their position, but do work to deny me equal access to civil law. And as we’ve all pretty much agreed civil marriage laws are ultimately about property rights. Why is it that those opposed to gay marriage do not discrimate against people who were married in a civil ceremony with no religion involved?
I feel for the judge who threw out the amendment. The ruling was merely on the basis that the amendment covered 2 topics (marriage being defined as one man, one woman AND absolutely no recognition of any legal relationship between gay people formed in another state) when the state constitution says 1 topic per amendment. I’m wondering how much of it is/was a political game in that those who authored the amendment KNEW it violated the state constitution, but allowed them to pander to their constituents. How do these ‘Republicans’ look themselves in the mirror and still claim to be republicans when their very own amendment and laws are in complete violation of the founding priniciples of their own party?
By The72John
May 17, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this
Well, we can rest happily knowing that it’s no longer just gays that the so-called “Family Friendly” religious right is going after.
There is an article on CNN’s website today about an unmarried couple with children in a town in Missouri. The couple was denied an occupancy permit in the town because they were not married. The mayor is quoted saying that “anyone who does not fit our definition of a family” [had better be prepared to leave].
As for my “Why” question, it applies more to the general populace. As Net mentioned, when polled individually on various rights, most people agree that gay couples should not be denied them. I KNOW “Why” the politicians and fundamentalist religious organizations like “Focus on the Family” and other hate-groups push this legislation.
By Renee
May 17, 2006 01:21 PM | Link to this
Net, your post was so on point. (1:02). I think they definitely KNEW it was unconstitutional and did it SOLELY for political gain!
I think at the very least it should be a civil union, and I think a lot of people if given that as a choice, would have chosen that. Here in Vermont, the Civil Union is our “marriage” and I’m fine with it. Even though I think ultimately, it shouldn’t be separated into two categories (marriage and civil union)it has the basic jist of what is needed.
And as you pointed out Net, so many straight couples do NOT have religious ceremonies, they only have the civil ceremony, so then what is the difference.
By Jack
May 17, 2006 01:25 PM | Link to this
Am waitng Art. Do you have the cajones to answer my question?
By kimberly
May 17, 2006 01:26 PM | Link to this
How do these ‘Republicans’ look themselves in the mirror and still claim to be republicans when their very own amendment and laws are in complete violation of the founding priniciples of their own party?
They tell themselves that it’s all Clinton’s fault for having a girlfriend and a working member. Then they blame the Democrats for the wrinkles and bags under their eyes. Then they remind themselves that Jesus love them, but shares their hatred for homosexuals and Hillary. Then they say, “Amen!”
By james
May 17, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this
back again…….for all of the illegals out there (immigrants and citizens) the drive while under the influence, why can’t the county/city/state confiscate their vehicles instead of just impounding them? there is always going to be a market for low cost car parts and accesories. the metal can be recycled and county/city/state coffers my see an influx of money.
By GOB
May 17, 2006 01:33 PM | Link to this
I consider marriage a religious thing and if a gay couple can find someone to perform the marriage, fine.
Yeah, but the government is in the business of issuing marriage licenses, so it has to go beyond that. The most sensible thing, in my opinion, would be for the government to get out of the marriage business, and issue civil union licenses (or whatever term could be agreed upon). Then, if a couple, gay or straight, wanted the religious marriage ceremony, they would be able to do that on their own. That solution seems like it would treat everyone equally.
By 3rd Party Indie
May 17, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this
The biggest winners at the polls this year (in Georgia) will be the Republicans, when they get to put the gay marriage vote on the ballott for a SECOND time! Whether it was done on purpose or by accident, they get to rile their base up with this issue during another big election. They sure do know how to get the vote out!
By Mara
May 17, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this
John - Saying you don’t support continued illegal immigration and saying you don’t like illegal immigrants are two entirely different things.
you have a point, and one that I often overlook. Sometimes the rhetoric gets a bit heated and the difference between the two gets muddied. Thanks for the figurative elbow in the ribs.
By RF
May 17, 2006 01:36 PM | Link to this
Renee- the difference is the sexual aspect of it. People are grossed out by homosexuality and will categorically deny any and all rights they can, solely because of the notion that it’s just plain gross to them. Love, legality, and human rights have nothing to do with it. In the Missouri town, the conservatives have decided to deny rights to anyone who doesn’t fit the Ward and June defintion. It infuriates me how anitquated notions control so many today.
By Jack
May 17, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this
I agree GOB.
If the politicians have half the cajones as Kimberly and half the passion as Whiley, we would have a gov’t that would get something done!
By ART
May 17, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this
Way to go Mara. You fell right into it and used the old lame taken advantage of tax payer issue. That illegal immigrants do not pay taxes is the biggest lie in this whole issue. Undocumenteds DO pay taxes in a number of ways, including income tax and sales tax. An overwhelming majority of them pay income taxes using tax ID numbers or fake social security numbers. All immigrants regardless of status will pay on an average $80,000 per capita more in taxes than they use in government services over their lifetimes. And this figure comes straight from the Social Security Administrations Office of the Inspector General in a report to the House Ways and Means Committee. The Social Security system reaps the biggest windfall from taxes paid by undocumenteds. The Social Security Administration reports that it is holding approximately $420 billion from the earnings of undocumenteds who are not in a position to claim benefits. Maybe if you dug a little deeper than D.A. King/Chip Rogers propaganda you would know these facts. Of course people tend to gravitate toward what they WANT to believe. In your case it is obvious. So before you feel taken advantage of by these immigrants take issue with the government and the 420 billion dollars that they could be using to alleviate these imaginary stresses that you imagine immigrants create. And by the way. Enjoy spending your tax refund. Thanks in part to these people that take such advantage of you your dollars will go much farther. And remember when you are so sanctimoniously spending that refund that the poor undocumenteds that are taking such “advantage” of you don’t get theirs back.
By Renee
May 17, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this
I saw the Missouri case on CNN a week or so ago. It’s a mixed race family who if I remember correctly have been together maybe 13 years but choose not to marry.
By RF
May 17, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this
Renee- there’s another issue people are uncomfortable with—mixed race relationships. I’ve heard the comments people can make. There are a lot of people who could easily become very like Hitler if they ever got started “cleaning up America”.
Mara- it’s easy to look at the few taking advantage of the system and see many more of them that way. I have to watch myself on that one. And actually, the kids of the illegals usually learn English very quickly if they don’t know it already. They’re also much better behaved and more eager to learn than many of our citizen-students.
By chuck
May 17, 2006 01:55 PM | Link to this
OH MAN, I really didn’t want to get into this today, but I have to respond to NetB’s 1:02 where you said:
What is odd to me is that those who oppose gay marriage on a religious basis do seem most focus, as John pointed out, on denying gay people ANY equal rights under the law. Yet as a gay person I CAN have a religious ceremony. How whacked is that? They don’t work to deny me a religious ceremony, which is the basis for their position, but do work to deny me equal access to civil law.
Most of us who oppose gay “marriage” on a religious basis ALSO oppose it on a societal basis as well. We would argue that any church that sanctions such a union, would not be following the Christian Faith and therefore any union so ordained would be pointless both legally AND from a stand point of Christianity.
By The72John
May 17, 2006 01:58 PM | Link to this
I saw that, Renee, and I thought it was quite ironic that one of their last names was Loving. Historical deja vu…
By Brian Curtis
May 17, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this
Mara’s correct about the costs of supporting illegal immigrants arguably outweighing the benefits of having them here…
BUT! The important distinction is this:
@The COSTS of housing, feeding, educating, and healing illegals goes directly to We the People through our taxes,
@Whereas the BENEFITS of having a cheap labor force go directly into the pockets of CEOs and stockholders. The lower prices we pay for goods & services are an incidental; the majority of the “plus” side is going to the plutocracy.
And guess who’s in charge of Washington “doing something” about it? Here’s a hint: When’s the last time YOU had a meeting with Jack Abramoff?
By james
May 17, 2006 02:03 PM | Link to this
RF- the kids of immigrants learn english primarily so they can socialize and translate for their parents. I don’t know if they are more eager to learn and better behaved, i think you’re reaching with that one.
if non-married couples move in together and decide to split, how is the equity in the house divided? would the father automatically receive his rights as a father even though he isn’t married to the mother? whose stuff is whose and what criteria is used to determine that?
By Billy
May 17, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this
Most of us who oppose gay “marriage” on a religious basis ALSO oppose it on a societal basis as well. We would argue that any church that sanctions such a union, would not be following the Christian Faith and therefore any union so ordained would be pointless both legally AND from a stand point of Christianity.
But then are you not violating the establishment clause of the 1st amendment?
By Jack
May 17, 2006 02:09 PM | Link to this
Come on Art, yes or no. No answer means no cajones. Sad that you crucify Mara yet are afraid to answer my yes or no question. Sad indeed.
By RF
May 17, 2006 02:10 PM | Link to this
Brian- as a single parent living on a tight budget, the “incidental” benefit of lower costs makes a BIG difference to me. I am willing to pay more if it means having a legally documented workforce, but how much more could I end up paying? The problem is going to become that corporations are going to strive to keep their profit margins by raising prices higher and higher, and will end up choking many of us tight-budgeted folks from buying and spending, which will slow the economy.
By Monica
May 17, 2006 02:10 PM | Link to this
I wonder if that town in Missouri ever watches movies with Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell - they never got married, right? Or how about Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins? I’m sure that the mixed race was also a factor in that “decision.”
By ART
May 17, 2006 02:12 PM | Link to this
Brian Curtis puhleeze! Your own social security administration says that undocumenteds will per capita pay an average of $80,000.00 dollars more in taxes than in services that they use. Give it up. You are believing all the propaganda because you WANT to. Look it up BC. It’s in a report by the Social Security Inspector Generals Office to the Ways and Means Committee. Look up the facts. Forget the pandering propagandizing political prostitutes that feed you what you WANT to hear, facts be damned.
By ART
May 17, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this
What is the question Jack?
By ART
May 17, 2006 02:22 PM | Link to this
OK Jack I see your question now. And no, we should not just open the borders. But yes, the ones that are here now and contributing to this society should be given an avenue to stay and become legal. To think that you can just criminalize them and tomorrow they will be gone is just ignorant.
By Scalia
May 17, 2006 02:23 PM | Link to this
Answering for RF, yes, the kids are more behaved. They also work hard in school. In most Hispanic countries, the teacher is still respected. This is one of the only countries in the world where teachers are treated so poorly by the parents, the kids, the government, and so forth.
97 percent of Cuba’s population is literate. Some 49 percent of the US “adult population” is illiterate.
By james
May 17, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this
ART-u label the illegal immigrants (of all nationalities) as undocumenteds. if they are undocumented, how would the SSA have any information on them. seems to me they are just incorrectly documented but documented nontheless. since this seems to be the case, your label is totally incorrect and u should just call them illegal immigrants.
By Billy
May 17, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this
Come on Art, yes or no. No answer means no cajones. Sad that you crucify Mara yet are afraid to answer my yes or no question. Sad indeed.
Jack, what about you not answering my “a-s-s” question? What did I do to deserve you calling me that? No answer means no cojones.
By RF
May 17, 2006 02:30 PM | Link to this
james- I base my opinion of these children on the fact that I have taught a number of them over the years. 90% of them were eager learners because their family values stressed good behavior and education. What they did with that education was their choice. Yes, I bet they did translate for their parents, but they were very, very proud of their diplomas when they earned them, and several I’ve bumped into since have gone on to be very productive citizens. One I saw last year was in college after a few years of work, trying for an engineering degree if I recall correctly. No, I don’t support illegal immigration, but I do support children trying to learn and become better.
By Jack
May 17, 2006 02:30 PM | Link to this
“To think that you can just criminalize them and tomorrow they will be gone is just ignorant.”
I agree with that. But they should not get a free pass. They should at least get fingerprinted and a background check done.
By ART
May 17, 2006 02:31 PM | Link to this
By the way Mara. According to the American Journal of Public Health, health care spending for all categories of immigrants is 75% less than the money spent on native born citizens.
By james
May 17, 2006 02:36 PM | Link to this
Scalia-we’re discussing here not in most hispanic countries. does cuba have the same population as the united states? i really don’t know. but it would seem to me if they don’t then your 97 percent is just another useless number.
By The72John
May 17, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this
I’ve always wondered why the religious fanatics don’t attack, say, Hindu marriage. After all, if the argument is that gay marriage has no significane because it does not accord with Christian beliefs, how does a marriage by heathens have any more validity?
By chuck
May 17, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this
Billy, I CANNOT violate the establishment clause, only CONGRESS can.
CONGRESS shall make no law concerning the establishment of a religion.
In other words, Congress cannot by law, establish a national or state religion. This clause has been bastardized by the courts and is the number one reason for reelecting conservative republicans…to put strict constructionists back on the court.
By ART
May 17, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this
WOW James! How long did it take you to come up with that bit of genious? Undocumented by definition means without a VISA. Sorry James. Drink another beer and belch real good one time. Maybe a better argument than that one will be the result.
By RF
May 17, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this
john- hindu’s okay because it’s a man and a woman. The real issue for the fanatics is the same sex issue. They’ll admit it if you push them long enough.
By Mara
May 17, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this
Art - you, sir, are nothing but an a$$ and a troll. If you can point to any post of mine where I say illegals don’t pay taxes, then I’ll certainly bow to your “gotcha”. But you won’t because I have never said they don’t pay any taxes. Nor do I know who either of the fellows you mentioned are.
You quote numbers from SSI regarding un-claimable deposits to the social security fund, (I like how you hide behind the phrase “all immigrants regardless of status” to inflate the amount you attribute to illegals…) but allow me to reposte with numbers from a report by the Center for Immigration Studies for the Treasury Department.
“Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household.
Among the largest costs are Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).”
And despite your snide comments about my tax-refund going farther…yeah, the power bill and phone bill I paid with it sure did reflect all that money I saved on cheap labor. Ya’ putz.
It’s so funny to me to hear people like you whining on about how illegals get cheated out of their ill-gotten gains…”Just because I’m using a fraudulent Social Security number they won’t give me my share, it’s just not fair! wahhhh!”
They know that what they do is against our laws, but they don’t care. They are no less culpable than a burgler caught in someones home, yet I don’t hear a lot of “we shouldn’t punish burglers because they’re just trying to get some money together…” Sheesh. Next you’ll be complaining because the government punishes forgers and identity theives…”Your making it too hard for illegals to live here…Waaaaaaa!”
RF - I never said they were stupid children, just that we pay to educate them.
By Jack
May 17, 2006 02:48 PM | Link to this
Billy. I think you are an a-s-s because of the stupid responses you give as arguements. When the convoys going from Iraq to Syria were mentioned, you came back with.”We have convoys of trucks going to Mexico’ How stupid a response was that? I probably shouldn’t have called you an a-s-s. Idiot would have fit better. You can call me anything you want but talking about my family is pretty low even by my standards. I get angriest when someone posts something directed at me that they would never have the balls to say to my face.
By CHC
May 17, 2006 02:48 PM | Link to this
There is a small group that has been overlooked in the immigration issue, the people who marched, some lived, some died for equal pay/unions. If it weren’t for a group of people who took the first steps to make sure we were paid a fair wage we would still be working for $2.00 an hour with no benefits. Now because of illegal immigration it’s ok to work for less pay, because the USA dollar is worth more than the Peso. So all of those people, men and especially women who fought for equal rights and equal pay have been pushed to the side. Why hire someone for $9.00 an hour, workmen’s comp, etc, when you can get one for $6.00 an hour who won’t complain about they way they are treated. People keep saying that immigrants made this country years ago, but they didn’t come over looking for a handout, just a handup. They supported their families as best they could, without government help and without being a burden on taxpayers. I’m sorry, but it’s time to take of people at home before we start taking care of people from other countries. They are sending their money back to Mexico to the families, it is not being spent here. Yes, I know they do spend a small amount here but not enough to support an economy. Just one opinion.
By ART
May 17, 2006 02:48 PM | Link to this
Jack I think that is part of the senates plan to include back taxes if warranted and the paying of a fine. That is fair and I can go along with that and so can 99% of the illegals. They want to live in the mainstream contrary to what the D.A. King crowd would have you believe.
By RF
May 17, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this
billy- the strict constitutionists take a very narrow interp. of the establishment clause. Congress can’t establish state religion, but it can write all the church-backed laws it wants that will, in all but outright naming it, establish a christian legal control of the country. I don’t think it will happen any time soon, but the foundation is there for it. It’s political subterfuge, but that’s what eventually will happen if the conservatives get real control of the Supreme Court.
By kimberly
May 17, 2006 02:52 PM | Link to this
Chuckie, what will life in ‘murica be like when we’re under the strict fat thumb of a one-party THEOCRACY? Please teeeecher, describe this Utopia for us dumb lil’ libbies? Daily life, communities, careers, families, how big will the prison system be, and how much will that cost us in taxes. Will you tell us, Teeeecher? Pleeeeeeeaaaase? bounce bounce bounce
By GOB
May 17, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this
Billy. I think you are an a-s-s because of the stupid responses you give as arguements. When the convoys going from Iraq to Syria were mentioned, you came back with.”We have convoys of trucks going to Mexico’
Jack - That was me, not Billy. You only called me a “dummy” in your response.
By RF
May 17, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this
Mara- never said you did, so that point is moot. I was responding to James and pointing out that while we may be paying to educate them (their sales taxes go to support local school districts too, by the way), their attitude towards education and respect for it make me very willing to teach them. I honestly wasn’t trying to stir up anything with you- only James. I actually like what you have to say, most of the time.
By Chilao
May 17, 2006 02:57 PM | Link to this
Scalia-we’re discussing here not in most hispanic countries. does cuba have the same population as the united states? i really don’t know. but it would seem to me if they don’t then your 97 percent is just another useless number.
now that has to be the squirreliest logic I have seen on this blog since the baby animals and eggs all fitting on the ark post. LOL
By FatMoose
May 17, 2006 03:02 PM | Link to this
Jack,
Art wrote: But yes, the ones that are here now and contributing to this society should be given an avenue to stay and become legal.
Would this not be a important point to make: If the above happend, wouldnt these people now HAVE to get minimum wage at least? And more than likely would want MORE than that? Kind of removes the same cheap labor many are saying we need them for…
By ART
May 17, 2006 03:03 PM | Link to this
Well Mara now that you are adding and subtracting, how about finding where illegals suck up the rest of that 420 billion that the Social Security Administration says that they pay in taxes. Account for that Mara. And now that you have sunk to name calling because you are nailed on the facts, how about this. Ya bigot! you just don’t like Mexicans do you?
By RF
May 17, 2006 03:04 PM | Link to this
Tax-payers fund the educational system which now must cater to tens of thousands of non-english speaking children of illegals
Actually, I did address you Mara- sorry, I lost track. What I disagree with is the use of cater to. I don’t think, as a teacher, that is accurate. And if they’re earning money, the parents are spending it, thus contributing to economic growth and sales tax revenues, which pay for most local school system expenses, especially facilities construction and maintenance.
By james
May 17, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this
art-how do u figure back taxes on one of your undocumented workers?? anyway, undocumented/illegal, i really don’t care. they should all be detained and deported. cries go up about their children…..they’re fruit of the poisoned tree. send them along with their parents. as a nation, we’ve gotten soft over damn near every issue that requires a stand.
By Zack
May 17, 2006 03:11 PM | Link to this
Some say that illegal immigration is good because it leads to cheap labor and therefore lower prices to consumers.
How is it good when many of our citizens are forced out of work as a result?
Also, the fact that our students are told not to wear American colors to school is just plain inexcusible. Unfortunately, probably half the people on this blog think otherwise.
By Monica
May 17, 2006 03:11 PM | Link to this
ART, how long have you been reading this blog? Mara is hardly a bigot. She and I don’t always see eye to eye on every issue, but we can discuss both points without name calling. And I think she has made herself clear that she has no problem with Mexicans, but with people who are here illegally. And I agree with her. Does that make me a bigot, too?
By Mara
May 17, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this
CHC - my grandparents were residents of Massachusetts during the labor unrest there. Ended up joining the AFL around 1916 or so. You are absolutely correct. Without labor unions, we’d still be working for pennies on the dollar.
By GOB
May 17, 2006 03:14 PM | Link to this
they should all be detained and deported. cries go up about their children…..they’re fruit of the poisoned tree. send them along with their parents.
So we should now be deporting citizens?
By The72John
May 17, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this
john- hindu’s okay because it’s a man and a woman. The real issue for the fanatics is the same sex issue. They’ll admit it if you push them long enough
Oh, I know it is. But when chuck says things like: We would argue that any church that sanctions such a union, would not be following the Christian Faith and therefore any union so ordained would be pointless both legally AND from a stand point of Christianity
“Any union so ordained would be pointless…from a stand point of Christianity”. Aren’t Hindu vows equally invalid from a standpoint of Christianity? After all, Hindus actually violate several commandments just by dint of being Hindus. So…where is the public outcry against them? Surely multiple Commandment violators are more henious in the eyes of Chuck’s God-fuhrer than a mere Levitical law violator?
“Any union so ordained would be pointless…legally”.
When did the confering of legality become the responsibility of religion?
Scary, scary people. The Taliban-in-a-t-shirt.
By RF
May 17, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this
i really don’t care. they should all be detained and deported. cries go up about their children…..they’re fruit of the poisoned tree.
see John- you let ‘em talk long enough, the real truth will come out. The forked tongue can only be hidden for so long…
Brace yourselved, james, et.al will now present their plans for cleansing the United States of all but Aryan…err, I mean, patriotic hetero citizens.
By GOB
May 17, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this
Also, the fact that our students are told not to wear American colors to school is just plain inexcusible.
Can you back this up with a single actual occurance?
By The72John
May 17, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this
Also, the fact that our students are told not to wear American colors to school is just plain inexcusible. Unfortunately, probably half the people on this blog think otherwise
Lol, does anyone believe that this actually happened? Or that if it DID actually happen it was probably the ill-advised idiocy of ONE teacher that has been blown up in Zack’s feeble mind to be a national conspiracy to prevent the wearing of American colors to school?
By james
May 17, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this
*By Chilao
May 17, 2006 02:57 PM | Link to this
Scalia-we’re discussing here not in most hispanic countries. does cuba have the same population as the united states? i really don’t know. but it would seem to me if they don’t then your 97 percent is just another useless number.
now that has to be the squirreliest logic I have seen on this blog since the baby animals and eggs all fitting on the ark post. LOL*
What’s so squirrly? If 97 percent of the cuban population is literate and the entire cuban population is 1,272 people, what kind of comparison would that be? i wouldn’t care of that 1,233 people could read. that would be like me saying that more americans can read than the entire population of cube, therfore we take education more seriously.
this had to do with the comment that they (immigrants) worked harder in school. but, it’s okay, i don’t care who answers my queries and in what way they answer them. the funny part is the one’s that take themselves and their arguements so seriously.
By RF
May 17, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this
Scary, scary people. The Taliban-in-a-t-shirt. ROFLMBO
By Mara
May 17, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this
That’s okay RF. I get turned around on who said what to whom all the time :^) But aren’t most schools funded through property taxes?
Thanks, Monica. One of the best things about this forum is that even when we disagree we are, for the most part, reasonably civil. But I should have known better than to engage someone whose very first post began with “Most of the really “angry” anti-immigrant crowd are the same racist bigots that don’t like blacks or anyone else that isn’t just like them” Ah, well. Live and learn.
By Billy
May 17, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this
“By GOB”
Billy. I think you are an a-s-s because of the stupid responses you give as arguements. When the convoys going from Iraq to Syria were mentioned, you came back with.”We have convoys of trucks going to Mexico’
“Jack - That was me, not Billy. You only called me a “dummy” in your response.”
Jack, I’m waiting on an apology.
By Jack
May 17, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this
GOB. Oh well, I AM getting old and the snapes aren’t working as good as they used to. I’m to busy/lazy to look up last weeks posts. I know both of you were getting me fired up and when he made the comment about my children, I lost control. BTW Billy, what I lack in brains, I make up for in cajones.
What is that I see bouncing?
By ART
May 17, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this
Yep. James is a hell of an ambassador for the anti crowd. Typical. At least he finally came clean.
By GOB
May 17, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this
Is it just me, or is “squirrly” one of the better descriptors out there right now?
By Ann
May 17, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this
Those (damn East Asian Programmers) mentioned are ones that went to school, worked hard to get an education and were recruited by American companies overseas. Don’t you follow the news! CEO’s of all big technology companies repeated say that there are not enough Americans graduating with a degree in Technology. So, quit whining and Grow up!
By Ann
May 17, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this
Those (damn East Asian Programmers) mentioned are ones that went to school, worked hard to get an education and were recruited by American companies overseas. Don’t you follow the news! CEO’s of all big technology companies repeated say that there are not enough Americans graduating with a degree in Technology. So, quit whining and Grow up!
By GOB
May 17, 2006 03:33 PM | Link to this
Sorry for getting you in trouble Billy…
By Brian Curtis
May 17, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this
Art: I said the costs are “arguably” greater than the proceeds, depending on how much weight you put on various elements of the situation: higher taxes, lower prices of consumer goods, healthcare and education opportunities, etc.
Believe it or not, I’m on your side. I don’t want the illegals thrown out. In fact, I don’t want the focus on them at all. I want it where it belongs: on the corporations who exploit them and the lobbyists who control the government “response” to the issue.
Yes, the American worker is getting screwed in this situation—but it’s not by the illlegal-immigrant workforce. It’s by the same corrupt slimeballs who’ve ALWAYS been exploiting both us and them.
RF: I know how important low prices are to a struggling working class. That’s why Wal-Mart exists, after all, despite their proven damage to the communities and economies they operate in.
But corporations can’t simply “keep raising prices” forever; basic supply-and-demand eventually takes over. If no one can afford their products, they’ll lose money unless they narrow the profit margins and cut back on shareholder returns. Once we bite the bullet and face the temporary turbulence that will come with price adjustments, you’ll see those outrageous CEO salaries start to come down.
Of course, they might be tempted to pack up and move across the border or overseas… but that’s why we have a regulated economy with governmental instruments (tariffs, embargoes, etc.) to keep them in line.
By Chilao
May 17, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this
James - anyway you look at it, 100 percent is greater than 97 percent is greater than 49 percent. (Maybe I just enjoyed math way too much in high school and those < and > signs) LOL
see, they made sense, to me.
By james
May 17, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this
GOB—grasp the fruit of the poison tree reference.
RF—What forked tongue. I haven’t double talked during any of this. what gives you the idea that i am a member of or support the arryan way? what gives you the idea that i’m white? to deport people that are here illegally had nothing to do with race and i don’t believe i mentioned race.
if anyone was stopped for speeding and didn’t have a license the would get arrested. during the process it is found out that they are here without documentation (illegally). detain them, confiscate all of their property and assets (RICO comes to mind) and deport them. their criminal enterprise was actively maintaining under the radar for an extended period of time (RICO reference).
By Chilao
May 17, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this
James - anyway you look at it, 100 percent is greater than 97 percent is greater than 49 percent. (Maybe I just enjoyed math way too much in high school and those < and > signs) LOL
see, they made sense, to me.
By Chilao
May 17, 2006 03:39 PM | Link to this
or was that grade school?
By Jack
May 17, 2006 03:41 PM | Link to this
Billy. When I have time to go back and look at the posts I will. If I do owe you an apology, I’ll give you one.
By Marbles
May 17, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this
I’ve always wondered why the religious fanatics don’t attack, say, Hindu marriage. After all, if the argument is that gay marriage has no significane because it does not accord with Christian beliefs, how does a marriage by heathens have any more validity?
Probably because Hindus marry in hindu churches. It’s when people marry within the walls of Christian churches that you would expect them to abide by the Christian doctrine. If they are saying the “What God has put together…” vows and they don’t profess Jesus as Lord that would be pretty hypocritical. If they are getting married in a church just because it’s the thing to do, then that’s pretty shallow also.
Now is the part where certain bloggers reply with scathing remarks and harsh attacks……………..go ahead, I’ve got money riding on it…………
By RF
May 17, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this
Mara- actually they use both. Property taxes seem to be used for the regular budget, and they do the SPLOST to pay for new buildings, etc. that the regular budget doesn’t cover. Most systems have had a 1% SPLOST for years now to help ease budget problems.
James- just because 149 million Americans can read doesn’t make us better. It’s ridiculous to think that one-half is better than two-thirds, or three-quarters. The half that read are having to keep the standards up for the half who don’t. In cuba, there are very few who can’t read, thus creating less of a burden for those who can.
Anyway, since it’s like talking to a fence post, I’ll head on to my meeting now and you guys have fun.
John- I’m still ROFL over the taliban-in-a-t-shirt remark. Tooooo funny!
By Logic
May 17, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this
Do you realize that 49.7% of all statistics are made up?
By GOB
May 17, 2006 03:46 PM | Link to this
GOB—grasp the fruit of the poison tree reference.
James - Under current law, children of illegals born in the US are citizens. Therefore, to deport them would be to deport a citizen. That is the law. If you want to get it changed so that those children are not citizens, fine, but at that point I could argue that the law should be changed to let all illegals become legal citizens with just as much validity.
Also, if you did get the law changed, how is it fair for a child to be a criminal simply for being born?
By The72John
May 17, 2006 03:47 PM | Link to this
confiscate all of their property and assets (RICO comes to mind) and deport them. their criminal enterprise was actively maintaining under the radar for an extended period of time (RICO reference
So…you advocate using something created to stop organized crime to take away every posession that an already poverty-stricken human being has, and then throw them back into the poverty from whence they came.
Is…that about it?
Yup, you’re a nice one. The milk of human compassion flows FAST in this man, friends. Why, a Humanitarian award can only be months away.
By RF
May 17, 2006 03:48 PM | Link to this
Brian- good point. I forgot about the outsourcing angle. Well, they’re doing that fast enough anyway, so there won’t be much market for any illegal immigrants soon enough- the rest of us will be hauling lumber and laying bricks for a living! LOL I still love how now, because CNN and the rest call it a “crisis”, it’s becoming an issue.
By RF
May 17, 2006 03:50 PM | Link to this
nothing personal james, I was just bothered by the tone of this comment and the way it reminds me of the many freakishly religious cases that post here most days.
they should all be detained and deported. cries go up about their children…..they’re fruit of the poisoned tree. send them along with their parents.
By Billy
May 17, 2006 03:51 PM | Link to this
What is that I see bouncing?
Jack, that’s your daughter’s arse on the stripper pole. You weren’t there for her when you were working two jobs while going to school, and now she’s taking her clothes off for strange men in order to get the male attention you never gave her.
Now apologize for starting all this because you were too lazy to look and see who said what. How did I get you fired up before the comment about your kids?
And, yes, I’ll apologize as soon as I see one from you.
By Homer Simpson
May 17, 2006 03:51 PM | Link to this
Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. 14% of people know that.
By Cindy
May 17, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this
Illegal immigration is an insult to every immigrant who did the lawful thing and came into this country the right way. Yes, it took longer than a jaunt across the border, but it was honorable.
Why should we respect foreign criminals and imprison our own criminals? (I believe the term is “illegal” immigrants.)
Could this illegal practice have had an impact on our language?
By Chilao
May 17, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this
Do you realize that 49.7% of all statistics are made up?
that low of a percentage? who could have guessed?
By The72John
May 17, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this
It’s when people marry within the walls of Christian churches that you would expect them to abide by the Christian doctrine
Except that this qualification was not included. “These marriages have no validity religiously or legally because the churches performing them aren’t real Christians” was the gist. By extension, that means that EVERY marriage that is performed or entered by “those who aren’t real Christians” has no religious or legal validity.
Fundamentalists aren’t suggesting that civil, non-religious weddings entered into by barren atheists not be granted legitimacy either. That’s why their arguments are simply obfuscations of their actual concern - not allowing “them damn queers” to get married.
By GOB
May 17, 2006 04:00 PM | Link to this
Illegal immigration is an insult to every immigrant who did the lawful thing and came into this country the right way. Yes, it took longer than a jaunt across the border, but it was honorable.
Like the original settlers who murdered much of the native population? Or the Americans in the 1850s that invaded and annexed a huge portion of Mexico? Or were you talking about some other people?
By Chilao
May 17, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this
Billy, Billy, Billy, Billy.
By Billy
May 17, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this
Here, Jack, i’ll make it easy for you.
“By Jack
May 12, 2006 09:25 AM | Link to this
He shipped them to Syria. Convoys of trucks were seen going to Syria before we invaded. Bush did NOT lie. Rather than do the right thing andinvade immediately, he wanted to have the blessing of the corrupt a-s-s-h-o-l-e-s from the UN. This gave Sadamn time to get rid of his WMDs. The media’s blind hatred for Bush superceeds accuate reporting of the facts.”
“By Jack
May 10, 2006 01:13 PM | Link to this
Billy you are an imature a-s-s. Grow up.”
“By Billy
May 12, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this
Jack, what did I do or say to you? You’re asking about the sand in my ears, but I’m wondering why you have sand in your minge.
To your first questions — “More” and “yes”.
And I bet your children loved never seeing you. I know it’d make my life more enjoyable if you neglected the board the way you must have your kids.”
This should show that not only did I insult you a two full days after you called me an a-s-s, but also that the reason you supposedly called me that is invalid, since your remark about truck into Syria was also two days after you called me an a-s-s.
So, I ask again — Why call me that?
By Jack
May 17, 2006 04:25 PM | Link to this
Billy. You really are an A-S-S-H-O-L-E. Guess what d*******, I don’t have a daughter. Hopefully, someday we can meet in person. I would like that.
By Billy
May 17, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this
Yeah, Chilao, that crossed the line. But I’ve been trying for a week now to find out why he called me an a-s-s, and he’s now saying that it was for something said by someone other than myself two days after he called me that.
I’ll desist when he admits he was wrong. I’m a little tired of the way so many people aren’t open to ideas. Jack’s seem set in stone. It took a week for him to even consider the possibility that the a-s-s comment was unwarranted. Most of us are open to some things; last week Frank convinced me we had the technological infrastructure in place to relatively cheaply conduct fairly quick background checks on immigrants…meanwhile, Jack kept refusing to answer me about calling me an a-s-s. I know it’s a bit immature, but I’ll make him my forum b!tch until I get a response with an apology.
By RF
May 17, 2006 04:30 PM | Link to this
Like the original settlers who murdered much of the native population? Or the Americans in the 1850s that invaded and annexed a huge portion of Mexico? Or were you talking about some other people?
GOB- As I was told so many times last week, there was nothing illegal about those things back then since the US didn’t exist and no official laws were broken.
By Sound
May 17, 2006 04:30 PM | Link to this
Not only that, but a recent USA Today poll showed 3 out of every 4 Americans makes up 75% of the population. With alarming statistics like that how can we sit idly by?
By Billy
May 17, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this
I’m sorry Jack.
Jack, that’s your son’s arse on the stripper pole. You weren’t there for him when you were working two jobs while going to school, and now he’s taking his clothes off for strange men and giving them rusty trombones in order to get the male attention you never gave him.
Is that better? Ready with that apology yet?
By Cindy
May 17, 2006 04:42 PM | Link to this
Oooh. Somebody pulled the native American card….again. No, I am not talking about tragic ancient history that we cannot change. I am talking about current tragic history we can change. I am talking about the millions who enter this country legally each and every year and work hard to fit into this country, not try make it fit into their lifestyle.
By ACC12 Booster
May 17, 2006 04:44 PM | Link to this
If we want to make sure that all of these “undocumented” workers pay their fair share of taxes into the system then we should get rid of the income tax system, a system of taxation that is at times easily evaded by tax scofflaws. Instead, we should just institute a 15-20% national sales tax, a tax system in which everybody, even ALL drug dealers and ALL undocumented workers, would pay into when they buy everyday goods making sure that taxes are collected from EVERYBODY not just those who decide to pay them when they feel like it.
Wouldn’t it be better to collect sales taxes from 100% of illegal immigrants than to collect income taxes from only the current 50% of illegals and undocumenteds?
It is going to be darned near impossible to cut the flow of illegals aliens through the southern border because:
1.) Way too much of the population of Mexico is way too motivated to come here because of the extreme corruption, extreme poverty and near-universal lack of opportunity in that country. For example, one study showed that over 50% of the population of Mexico would rather live in the U.S. than in Mexico. Another study showed that one in six people born in Mexico lives in the U.S.
2.) Over 50% of Mexico’s population lives in extreme poverty in a country that “borders” another country, the United States, that is arguably the richest and most successful country in the world. If your living in total crap under a totally corrupt and inept government in a country (Mexico) where there are no jobs and massive unemployment and a big, wealthy country (the U.S.) with hundreds of millions of jobs and almost full employment is virtually next door with no fence around it, where do you think that you would head to? Mexico City? or would take your pick between Los Angeles, Houston, Dallas or Atlanta, etc.?
3.) Mexico’s second biggest source of income is money sent home to its residents from their relatives in the U.S. The Mexican government, rather than working to build up the Mexican economy by creating jobs and cracking-down on well-documented rampant and widespread corruption in all levels of government (national, provincial, local, military, etc.) hands out maps to migrants that tell where the best points on the border are to enter the U.S. without getting caught by the U.S. Border Patrol. The Mexican government is actually making an all-out concerted effort to export its poverty (and crime) to the U.S.
4.) There is not much political will in the United States government to do what has to be done to stop illegal immigration through our borders. When politicians look at illegal immigrants they literally see not tens-of-millions, but hundreds-of-millions of future voters. Many national Republican leaders are afraid to confront this issue because they worry that the GOP may almost disappear from American politics if all of those future voters get mad at them and all vote for Democrats. Democrats are highly motivated to bring in even more illegals because they see they party as being a more attractive party able to more ably pander to illegals by offering more cheap, if not free taxpayer services (schools, health care, etc.).
Why do you think that President Bush speaks Spanish more fluently than he does English? It’s because 40% of all voting Hispanics in the U.S. voted for him in the 2004 Election and he also grew up in West Texas in a “Tex-Mex Culture” where using cheap illegal Mexican labor to run a business is very routine and even apart of the culture. It’s probably not much of a stretch of the imagination to assume that Bush himself personally sees nothing wrong with what’s going on with illegal immigration across the Mexican border, but by no means is he the only one in our government and our society responsible for what’s going on today.
It’s a very powerful and intimidating (to national politicians) coalition of big-business owners, small-business owners, Latino activists and spineless, pandering politicians afraid to take a stand and desperate to keep their high positions in power that has contributed to an estimated 11-20 million illegal or “undocumented” immigrants living in the U.S. with no fear of deportation or even minor punishment at this present time. One can even assume that the estimate of 11-20 million illegals nationally is a fairly kind of very low-ball number since a state like California which has an official population of well over 35 million residents (more than all of Canada, which has about 27 million residents) may have 11 million “illegals” alone. How else can you explain California’s population shooting up from 26 million in 1990 to 35-36 million (10 million more people, a gain in population equal to the state of Ohio) in just 15 years?
Why is it that the U.S. government has hundreds-of-billions of dollars on hand for porkbarrel spending and taxbreaks for historically profitable big oil companies, but suddenly finds itself hard-pressed to come up with a very measily-by-comparison two-billion dollars to build an effective wall to guard the Southern border? Ever wonder why the U.S. Congress just can’t seem to come up with a solution to the problems of security on the Southern border no matter how hard they try? Ever wonder why the U.S. Senate wants to solve the illegal immigration problem by granting amnesty to all “illegals” that are in the country now and all of their relatives not in the country yet? It’s because illegal immigration is seen as a political and economic boon to the political and economic leadership in this country.
By The72John
May 17, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this
Billy, please stop - I just snarfed coffee.
By Billy
May 17, 2006 04:55 PM | Link to this
Why is it that some people come on here, post once about how a national sales tax will create a perfect world, and then leave, never to be heard from again?
By Billy
May 17, 2006 05:00 PM | Link to this
Snarfed? Thundercats, ho!
By Billy
May 17, 2006 05:10 PM | Link to this
Well, Jack, I’ll check back in tomorrow for my apology. Meanwhile, I’ll be at home spending quality time with my wife and child. You know, like you didn’t do?
mwahahahaha!
By Netbanker
May 17, 2006 05:54 PM | Link to this
People are grossed out by homosexuality and will categorically deny any and all rights they can, solely because of the notion that it’s just plain gross to them. I think they’re also grossed out by some of the sex practices of heterosexuals, but they just don’t focus on their sex lives. Would religious conservatives also think that hetero couples who engage in sodomy (Chuck mentioned this should still be illegal last week), are swingers, into S&M, cross-dressing, leather, role play, or kink also be denied marriages due to their sexual practices? I highly doubt it because The Bible doesn’t say kinky sex is a sin. John’s right…it’s about ‘them damn queers’ and more specifically about them there Brokeback Mountain types…cause 2 girls together is really hot like in them porn tapes, but shhhh! don’t tell nobody we was watching porn! And don’t tell nobody about that time when Bubba and me was drunk and…well never mind, I feel guilty about that cause it felt good and the good book says it’s bad so if we fill Hell with enough fa gs then there won’t be no room for us straight folks.
So ART does that mean that illegals are bailing out the Social Security system? Do you really believe that the Federal Government will take that money and give it to the states to pay for the Emergency Room health care and education?
By Mara
May 18, 2006 08:35 AM | Link to this
Hello? Anybody at the forum today? (tink, tink, tink…) Helloooooo?
By GOB
May 18, 2006 08:39 AM | Link to this
Oooh. Somebody pulled the native American card….again. No, I am not talking about tragic ancient history that we cannot change. I am talking about current tragic history we can change. I am talking about the millions who enter this country legally each and every year and work hard to fit into this country, not try make it fit into their lifestyle.
So 1838 is now considered ancient history? It might be a good thing to remember that it has only been about 150 years since we essentially invaded Mexico and took over half of their country because god wanted us to have more land. Just something to think about when you complain about people coming into “our” country…
By RF
May 18, 2006 08:48 AM | Link to this
Yo, Mara— wassup?? How’s the world today?
Net- ROFLMBO I have to remember to read this blog without coffee in my hands. That was just about the dang funniest thing I’ve read this week!
By Renee
May 18, 2006 09:04 AM | Link to this
Net - that was hilarious, and on point as usual.
By Chilao
May 18, 2006 09:13 AM | Link to this
Now we outright know that if anyone engages in oral sodomy with their hetero-spouse, they obviously engage in all that other kinky stuff as well. Dang pervs. LMAO Slippery slope, once the missionary position is no longer the only way, can handcuffs be far behind?
Not a word I use, btw, ‘kinky’, just use it sometimes to make the point. LOL And would take beyond two consenting adults to use the word ‘perv’ as well.
By The72John
May 18, 2006 09:46 AM | Link to this
LMAO Slippery slope, once the missionary position is no longer the only way, can handcuffs be far behind
Well…these ARE the same people who suggest that gay marriage will inevatibly lead to someone marrying his goat. Logic is not their forte.
By Mara
May 18, 2006 09:54 AM | Link to this
Hey RF - just another day in Paradise, dontcha know…
GOB - I believe the “ancient history” was refering to the Pilgrims/Jamestown/Roanoke era of the early 1600’s.
And if I remember my American History correctly, we didn’t annex any of Mexico’s territory. The Republic of Texas revolted against Mexican rule when they tried to take away their “states rights” (remember the Alamo?). A few years later they asked to become a state, Congress said sure. Mexico didn’t like it much and rattled the sabers a bit so we sent soldiers down to guard the Rio Grande. Mexican soldiers crossed over and attacked, killing some troops. Congress didn’t like that, we declared war, whupped the Mexican army and occupied Mexico City. Then came the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which the Mexican government signed, conceding that the Rio Grande was the border between the countries. They also ceded the California and New Mexico territories to us for a cost of $15 million. Now, to me it seems like we got that territory through legal and acceptable (for those times…) means.
I could be wrong, but that’s how I remember learning it…
Net, Chilao - you guys crack me up! LOL!! Especially regarding the clandestine peccadillos of the closeted wingnuts :^)
By Netbanker
May 18, 2006 10:07 AM | Link to this
Hey kids! Meeting marathon today so this is probably it until 5pm or so.
these ARE the same people who suggest that gay marriage will inevatibly lead to someone marrying his goat Darn it 72J! I was hoping no one would figure out that the Billy I want to marry is a really a billy goat. Now what am I gonna do?!
By Jack
May 18, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this
Hey Needle-Dick (Billy) you can have your apology when pigs fly.
By The72John
May 18, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this
Darn it 72J! I was hoping no one would figure out that the Billy I want to marry is a really a billy goat. Now what am I gonna do?
I guess that makes you a…bleating heart…
By GOB
May 18, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this
Mexican soldiers crossed over and attacked, killing some troops. Congress didn’t like that, we declared war, whupped the Mexican army and occupied Mexico City. Then came the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which the Mexican government signed, conceding that the Rio Grande was the border between the countries. They also ceded the California and New Mexico territories to us for a cost of $15 million. Now, to me it seems like we got that territory through legal and acceptable (for those times…) means.
History is written by the victors. At the time, there were many people who thought the Mexican War was illegal, including Lincoln. The reason for the Mexican war was not the protection of the state’s rights of Texas. It was Manifest Destiny.
If we pay the Iraqi government, can we call them the 51st state and say we did it legally and through acceptable means? Once you have invaded a country and defeated them in a war, it is a stretch to say that the treaty which was signed makes things fair and acceptable. Often times, those treaties do much more harm in the long run (i.e Verasaille).
By GOB
May 18, 2006 10:20 AM | Link to this
I believe the “ancient history” was refering to the Pilgrims/Jamestown/Roanoke era of the early 1600’s.
I forgot that we started to treat Native Americans so well after that. 1700-1900 was the golden age of Native and Settler relations.
By Chilao
May 18, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this
I had a picture of two Saanen does(a goat dairy breed), they are white, I sent it to some buds, stating I was now in the South and was fixin’ to get me two blonde buxom bisexual sisters.
pic is at http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/goats/ under “saanen”.
it was funny at the time, and in fact, still is. LOL
By kimberly
May 18, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this
I think we should give Texas, and everything in it, back to Mexico. As a bonus, they can have the giggling murderer and confine him to his Crawford “ranch” where he can do no more harm, except to the bushes he clears and the land he ruts with his gas-guzzling pick ‘em up truck. We’ll be well rid of stuff we don’t need, and Mexico will have the means to boost their own economy. We don’t have to worry about the Mexicans crossing over into Oklahoma, ‘cause who the heck wants to go to Oklahoma? We’ll have to re-draw some maps, but so what? Europe does it all the time, and it suits them just fine.
By Chilao
May 18, 2006 10:38 AM | Link to this
Jack - I think Billy misses the concept that guys our age are not turned into anyone’s b!tch. LMAO. And not because we are older and undesirable, but because we have experienced/survived too much.
Now I only sent that goat pic off in reply to THEIR(friends) insinuations about being down South. Not a direction my own mind could have wandered, actually.
By kimberly
May 18, 2006 10:42 AM | Link to this
Then lets give BOTH Dakotas back to the native tribes. With it, they can have permission to scalp the religio-FASCISTS who think women have no rights to their own bodies or medical decisions, and we can enter the casinos to lose all our money, provided we ask politely each time.
By The72John
May 18, 2006 10:55 AM | Link to this
Now, Kimmie…you know they get sulky when you compare them with Nazis or fascists. After all, they are just participants in the democratic process. Granted, they are participants in the democratic process seeking dominion over all other participants and desirous of a government in which they elevate a select few over the rest of the populace, but that doesn’t mean you should call them fascists. ;-)
By Billy
May 18, 2006 10:59 AM | Link to this
Hey Needle-Dick (Billy) you can have your apology when pigs fly.
Jack, how do you think Bush got onto that aircraft carrier? He sure as Hell didn’t swim!
By Monica
May 18, 2006 11:14 AM | Link to this
72John, A “bleating heart?” You shouldn’t be kidding around about such an issue. LOL
By The72John
May 18, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this
You shouldn’t be kidding around about such an issue. LOL
You are right- I’ve really made a butt of myself.
By Jack
May 18, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this
Hi Kim. :)
By lozen
May 18, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this
You all are some more funny people. Esp. Billy and Jack right now… To all our fundie friends on the blog, do not read Harry Potter. Do not see the DaVinci Code! We must stamp out anything that might make people think for themselves.All of that stuff (along with liberal professors and education) just helps satan win everybody over to his side!
By Chilao
May 18, 2006 11:24 AM | Link to this
Well, Y’all got my goat.
By The72John
May 18, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this
Hey lozen, I’ve been inspired by you. This weekend, I am going to sit and read Harry Potter while watching The DaVinci Code with my liberal professor father.
I think that the three together may actually grant me the power to summon the devil right there in the theatre. Add in the gay thing and…well…I don’t think “Second-in-Command of Hell” is too far-fetched a goal.
Fingers crossed!
By kimberly
May 18, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this
Lozen, here’s the thing about the DaVinci Code: The religi-fascists cannot abide the idea that Christ MIGHT have sullied his pure self with a woman. As these pillars of virtue will attest, women are the source of all evil, plus we’re icky, dirty, and have cooties. (Never trust something that bleeds for five days and doesn’t die, right?) EVEN THOUGH the keepers of “God’s Word” clearly chose which writings to include, and which to bury in their vaults, and EVEN THOUGH there is a conspicuous 28-year gap in the life of Christ in that book they worship, they are still certain, without a doubt, that in those 28 years, Christ would not have sullied himself by letting a woman touch him anywhere but on his feet to wash them.
And they wonder why I don’t “just trust” them. Hahaha!
By Mara
May 18, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this
Okay GOB. Whatever. History teachers are a bunch of liars, you can’t trust the history books, and peace treaties aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. Texas was never it’s own Republic, and we never accepted them as a state. Mexico didn’t attack and kill American soldiers on the Texas side of the Rio Grande and Congress didn’t declare war on Mexico. Golly, you must be right! We stole their land and then,for some reason,…paid for it.
Nice that you ignored my “for that time” qualification regarding the legality of historical agreements and try to conflate it into some rediculous argument about ending the Iraq war. Of course it wouldn’t be ‘legal and acceptable’ today. But it was then…
Shall we go back and re-divide the land by their historical occupants? Peru could go back to the Incas, Mexico could revert to the Aztecs and the Mayan decendants could repopulate Central America. The Inuits could get Alaska back. The Chinese dynasties took and held territories for hundreds of years…how should we divide their lands? Shall we move on to returning Europe to it’s historic roots? Sheesh…
By Chilao
May 18, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this
One of the actors/writers/producers in DaVinci Code, in Cannes now, just stated something along the lines of (paraphrasing, I think I linked from Drudge to read it) “You would think the fundamentalists would be delighted to speculate Jesus MAY have been married, it would prove at least he wasn’t gay”.
By Jack
May 18, 2006 11:48 AM | Link to this
“plus we’re icky, dirty, and have cooties.”
Trust me, I wouldn’t have it any other way. LOL
By The72John
May 18, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this
You would think the fundamentalists would be delighted to speculate Jesus MAY have been married, it would prove at least he wasn’t gay
Please, Jesus was so obviously on the down-low.
By Chilao
May 18, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this
You would think the fundamentalists would be delighted to speculate Jesus MAY have been married, it would prove at least he wasn’t gay Please, Jesus was so obviously on the down-low.
but they did not do that stuff then. That is only a recent Liberal/Hollywood concoction. LMAO
By GOB
May 18, 2006 11:58 AM | Link to this
Mara - That is an awfully vitriolic response. You seem to be inferring a lot of things that weren’t there. If that is because of poor writing or explanation on my part, I apologize. The point I was making was this: looking back at the way in which we obtained the land we now have will give us a little bit of perspective when thinking about the immigration debate. I think it is short-sighted to say that the land is ours and that is that, and if those damn immigrants don’t like it, they can go back where they came from.
At some point in almost every family’s past, there are people who have done the exact same thing that many are so opposed to today. Just because a law wasn’t in place making it illegal is irrelevant, especially if the act entailed actually kicking someone off land they had lived in for hundreds, if not thousands of years. I just think a little historical perspective might make this debate a little fairer.
To a few of the points you inferred…There is no evidence at all that Mexicans crossed the border and killed Americans first. Even at the time, many argued that the US started the war. As for being acceptable and legal at the time, we are only talking about 150 years ago, not the middle ages. The US had a functioning Federal Government, and perhaps I am mistaken, but a pre-emptive war wasn’t any more legal or acceptable then than it is now.
Also, many treaties actually aren’t worth the paper they are written on. Not all, but an awful lot.
Again, I apologize if my first post wasn’t clear enough, but hopefully this will explain it a little better.
By Renee
May 18, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this
excellent post GOB
By Native
May 18, 2006 12:39 PM | Link to this
When the missionaries came, we had the land and they had the Bible. They said, “Let us close our eyes and pray.” When we opened our eyes, we had the Bible and they had the land.
By RF
May 18, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this
When the missionaries came, we had the land and they had the Bible. They said, “Let us close our eyes and pray.” When we opened our eyes, we had the Bible and they had the land. ROFL
But see, that was legal!
By Jack
May 18, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this
The Native Americans had it made before the “white” man got here.
By The72John
May 18, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this
but they did not do that stuff then. That is only a recent Liberal/Hollywood concoction. LMAO
How true! Why, back in the day “those” people got married, did their reproductive duties and then went back to banging their same-sex lovers while their wives either pinned away or had affairs of their own.
Now isn’t that a much better arrangement?
By Chilao
May 18, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this
When the missionaries came, we had the land and they had the Bible. They said, “Let us close our eyes and pray.” When we opened our eyes, we had the Bible and they had the land. ROFL But see, that was legal!
not to mention Divine Destiny
By Jack
May 18, 2006 01:10 PM | Link to this
Why do they call it the “missionary” position?
By Renee
May 18, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this
Hilarious!!!!!
By RF
May 18, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this
Chilao- and so many times I bet God’s up there saying “don’t you dare blame that on ME!!”
By Justin
May 18, 2006 01:32 PM | Link to this
I support D. A. King and his organization pushing for illegal immigration reform!
They are ruining many nice middle class neighborhoods.
By Mara
May 18, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this
I dunno, GOB. When you say “history is written by the victors”, well, that’s true. But it doesn’t mean that the facts are wrong. Because I did concede that perhaps my memory of history class was a bit faded after so long out of school, I went ahead and did a bit of googling. I found referance to the April 25th, 1846 skirmish (try Rancho de Carricitos)on several websites including the History Channel, PBS, the National Park Service Historical Sites, and The Southwestern Historical Journal. This excerpt is the most succinct (history channel) -
“The drift toward war with Mexico had begun a year earlier when the U.S. annexed the Republic of Texas as a new state. Ten years before, the Mexicans had fought an unsuccessful war with Texans to keep them from breaking away to become an independent nation. Since then, they had refused to recognize the independence of Texas or the Rio Grande River as an international boundary. In January 1946, fearing the Mexicans would respond to U.S. annexation by asserting control over disputed territory in southwestern Texas, President James K. Polk ordered General Zachary Taylor to move a force into Texas to defend the Rio Grande border.”
“After a last-minute effort to settle the dispute diplomatically failed, Taylor was ordered to take his forces up to the disputed borderline at the Rio Grande. The Mexican General Mariano Arista viewed this as a hostile invasion of Mexican territory, and on April 25, 1846, he took his soldiers across the river and attacked. Congress declared war on May 13 and authorized a draft to build up the U.S. Army.”
IMO it doesn’t sound like it was a “pre-emptive war”. Texas had won its independance 10 years previous and had been annexed (with their permission) into the United States. The Mexican army breached the border and it was Taylors job to secure it. Wars have been faught since the beginning of time, concessions made for peace, reparations and tribute paid all thoughout history. Accepted practices of the era, whether they would be legal today, were seen as legitimate. Thus, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was binding.
And you should know by now that it’s the “legality” of the issue that is the base my outrage. Regardless of whether Mexicans believe that they lost the southwest fairly or were cheated of it, it is ours. We do have the right to regulate immigration. Now, we can discuss the exact amount and the processes of immigration, but by no measure do Mexican nationals have any right to be here without permission.
Actually, I too should apologize. I am, perhaps, too filled with anger to judge the issue properly. It outrages me that the illegals seem to think that we have some kind of obligation to them that their own government doesn’t. It makes me livid. Like Zack with gays, or chuck with abortion, or Whiley with men…
By kimberly
May 18, 2006 01:36 PM | Link to this
Hee hee…. missionary position… heeheehee
By The72John
May 18, 2006 01:47 PM | Link to this
They are ruining many nice middle class neighborhoods
Justin…I’m just curious…you mentione in the past that you’re black, right?
You DO realize that this is pretty much verbatim what white folks said when blacks started moving in to all-white neighborhoods, right?
You DO see the irony here, along with a very sad failure to learn from your own history, right?
By kimberly
May 18, 2006 01:47 PM | Link to this
EFF Texas! Let’s broker a treaty! Give it to Mexico! DFW Airport? They can have it! Lubbock? They can have it! Waco? It’s for whackos! Houston and the smog? It’s THEIRS! Galvaston, waiting to be washed away again…. FEMA doesn’t want that headache; let ‘em have it! Hey! A trip to Austin to listen to live music and stroll by the river is a trip abroad. People will LOVE it! They’ll get our money, and well get relief. C’mon! Who’s with me?
By RF
May 18, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this
kim- can we wait until after Wubya gets back to the ranch?? LOL
By GOB
May 18, 2006 01:58 PM | Link to this
I dunno, GOB. When you say “history is written by the victors”, well, that’s true. But it doesn’t mean that the facts are wrong.
But it does mean that they are written from the viewpoint of the victor, who will tend to paint themselves in the best light possible. Just ask someone from the south about the civil war and you will see how varied the views of one event can be.
Again, I am not saying that America did start the Mexican war, but there are people who believe that America did in fact shoot first. Again, historical perspective is important. That is what I am saying.
The uber-legalistic argument doesnt really hold much water for me. I know the speeding analogy has been made before, but to put it a little differently, it seems like your logic would dictate that you do not, and would not speed. You know it is against the law, and being that the law is sacred, you wouldnt violate it. If you disagree with it, you could certainly work to have it changed, but in the mean time, you would comply with it.
You have argued that we cant pick and choose what laws we follow, but we all do it every single day. How does the legalistic argument reconcile that?
By FatMoose
May 18, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this
The point I was making was this: looking back at the way in which we obtained the land we now have will give us a little bit of perspective when thinking about the immigration debate. I think it is short-sighted to say that the land is ours and that is that, and if those damn immigrants don’t like it, they can go back where they came from.
I always adhered to judging (that is what we are doing here) inside the same time period - otherwise it is a rabbit hole that could lead to cannibalism or tribal ways.
The simple example is that you do not compare a Zeppelin’s 1st Album to Pink Floyd’s 5th. You maintain a parallel or you have NO reference point that is valid and it all becomes relative. Ref for this Notion: Art of Motocycle Maintenance.
Therefore, I find no positive use in going back in time to provide a basis now.
My 2cents.
By GOB
May 18, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this
They are ruining many nice middle class neighborhoods.
Damn immigrants, not living how I think they should. Dont they understand I know what is best for them??
By Zack
May 18, 2006 02:07 PM | Link to this
John—You try to portray gay marriage opponents as being, well, the way you portray them, but thankfully, that false stereotype isn’t working as well now as it did years ago. If you’re broad-minded to the point of thinking anything and everything’s okay, that’s not my fault, but don’t fault the ones around you who don’t share your views. You have to remember also that this country was founded upon the Bible, and the Bible clearly does not endorse homosexuality.
I just wish you’d put aside all your hatred and listen instead of always attacking those who don’t believe the way you want them to.
By kimberly
May 18, 2006 02:07 PM | Link to this
RF, Dumbya will be eager to make this deal and go with Texas, since he might actually be subject to the laws of this country (that he now claims to be above) once real Americans (not the current bunch of whores in congress) start investigating his high crimes and treasonous acts. Looks like a real win/win sitch!
By RF
May 18, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this
Moose- we use history to teach us what man has done right and wrong so we can keep from repeating mistakes. We look for parllels to help us learn. Comparing the past to the present is a very good way to judge how much, or if, we have progressed.
In this issue, people don’t want to discuss the parallels with the past because they know we were often wrong then and we just may be wrong about a few things now. I’ve heard more than once that the past is irrelevant, but I think we put ourselves in great danger of repeating past mistakes if we dismiss history from the current discussion. Yes, it’s over and done, but we can’t ignore it just because it doesn’t support our current actions.
By Monica
May 18, 2006 02:11 PM | Link to this
Kimberly, if we’re going to give Texas back to Mexico, can I at least have time to go get my Gramma from Dallas?
By GOB
May 18, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this
I always adhered to judging (that is what we are doing here) inside the same time period - otherwise it is a rabbit hole that could lead to cannibalism or tribal ways.
Well, I think the original single-celled organism is really the culprit. The ferns were enjoying the land, but that damn amoeba had start working its way out of the water ruin it for them.
Seriously though, where is the cutoff line? Last week? Last year? 10 years? Also, by that logic, wouldnt the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are not able to provide a framework for how we live today, or are there some things that you allow to transcend time?
By Chilao
May 18, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this
Those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it.
famous saying from someone famous.
By Renee
May 18, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this
Good point John.
Illegal immigration does obviously make many angry. Not to single you out Mara, but you did mention that this subject makes you “livid”. I actually share some of your sentiments to the degree that our borders need to be safer, immigrants need to go through the proper process to gain citizenship/residency etc. Additionally, I find it amazing to say the least that some illegal immigrants are coming here and demanding rights.
What it seems is that the anger at this situation is being channeled into Mexico and Mexicans as a whole. This situation occurred because we (America) ultimately allowed it to happen. Just in watching debates on this for the last two weeks or so, reading comments on here, and reading related articles, Mexicans do feel as if it is a right. And on one hand, why shouldn’t they. It has occured for years and years, with nothing happening, people looking the other way. And in a way, it does come across (at least to them) like we suddenly don’t like Mexicans anymore. (Unfortunately, this is the case and the motivation behind some people).
I think this has to be more a “behavior modification”, if you will, more than anything. We have too many illegals here now, to track and ship out. We can’t very well drive through the streets snatching up every Mexican we see and ship them back. Do we need to change the process. Yes, definitely. I’m even for closing the borders temporarily, until we can get a handle on this. But I hate to see the hatred directed towards the people. They are here to make a better life for themselves ultimately, but they are going about it the wrong way. Some may not even know it’s the wrong way, although I don’t feel it’s the case all the time. It’s human nature to try to go the easiest way possible.
In retrospect thinking about it, if all I had to do is climb a wall or sneak through a fence to get to a better life, I would probably do it.
By Zack
May 18, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this
No, Ms. Glass, this illegal immigration controversy isn’t about people who “fear change.” As you fail to realize, change can be good or bad.
No one is complaining about immigrants coming to America—legally—and getting jobs. People are complaining about immigrants coming here—illegally—and without immunization and proper citizenship procedures and therefore making for highly disorganized repercussions.
It’d be nice if you’d write a specific, unified essay instead of throwing around your typical accusations.
Are you in favor of schools telling students not to wear American colors to school? Probably. You’re the one who supports abortion being legal, although it’s nothing more than murder. Ms. Glass, you can make all the excuses you want, but the truth is that this was a free country, and the reason why the majority of people in this country don’t think as you do is because we don’t like tyranny.
By RF
May 18, 2006 02:16 PM | Link to this
I still say this whole issue is suddenly becoming a crisis because some politicians who want to make sure they get re-elected have made it one. They have no intention of addressing gas prices or social security, or anything else that directly affects the quality of our lives. So what do they need? An issue to polarize voters and get ‘em stirred up. Well, they found it, they’re using it, and we’re falling right into the abyss of it, just like they want us to. This should have been a crisis ten, twenty years ago, it should have been a crisis after 9/11/2001. Why now?? Election year manipulation of voters so we’ll vote them back in and overlook the important issues, so they can keep getting their kickbacks from BP, Exxon, etc.
By The72John
May 18, 2006 02:19 PM | Link to this
You have to remember also that this country was founded upon the Bible, and the Bible clearly does not endorse homosexuality
No, it wasn’t founded upon the Bible, and since I don’t believe the Bible, I don’t really care what it does or doesn’t endorse.
I just wish you’d put aside all your hatred and listen instead of always attacking those who don’t believe the way you want them to.
The only person full of hate on this board is you, Zack.
By Scalia
May 18, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this
James, do you think that the United States is 97 percent literate? And if we were, can you imagine how strong a country this would be? It’s strong now, but it would be to umpteenth degree then.
By GOB
May 18, 2006 02:23 PM | Link to this
RF - Thanks for summing up in one post what I have been trying to get at all day.
Also, I apologize for the horrible writing in my last few posts. I swear I am not totally illiterate.
By RF
May 18, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this
GOB- we get to keep the Bible, because well, it’s THE truth. And the Constitution because it’s based on the Bible, right? The rest, we should just skip- well, except maybe WWII because we won that one.
By RF
May 18, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this
Renee- excellent 2:15. Now, you do have your shoes to go with the tiara right?
By GOB
May 18, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this
Zack’s last 2 posts are why I am still not convinced he is anything but a troll.
By Terry
May 18, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this
Why don’t we just buy Mexico and divide it up into a few more states? Gets rid of the whole problem!!!
Maybe we can even find a way to justify it under some kind of imminent domain clause with the Vatican’s blessing!
By The72John
May 18, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this
Are you in favor of schools telling students not to wear American colors to school
Is he still trotting out this reactionary garbage without a shred of evidence that it ever happened anywhere?
By RF
May 18, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this
Renee- I also worry that many have gotten so enraged about this issue, that anyone of hispanic heritage is now “one of them”, and even in here legally, will be judged negatively. It’s not like we see any profiling or stereotyping of any other groups in this country, right?? Now we can add “those dang Mexicans” to the list of folks to hate because a few break the law.
By FatMoose
May 18, 2006 02:35 PM | Link to this
Moose- we use history to teach us what man has done right and wrong so we can keep from repeating mistakes. We look for parallels to help us learn. Comparing the past to the present is a very good way to judge how much, or if, we have progressed.
I actually omitted a paragraph that made room for this concept. But, if you look at that concept, laws HAVE been made to see that it doesn’t happen again. For example, we could not, by our own rules, take over part of Mexico. Now, we could look at the Middle east and current practices that could be tweaked bc of past actions; but this topic of IA is quite different, no?
The point I am making is if you are going back to American settlers expanding and conquering, why not go back further and see the same expanding and conquering that took place in S.America and by them? The cultures that settled there had some pretty gruesome ways to treat tribes/cultures they conquered as well. It is a rabbit hole that persist until you reach Adam/eve era.
We are not talking about doing WHAT we did back then, otherwise, for example, we would not practice sending an illegal alien home, but would instead string him up - if not worse.
So, looking back as you are proposing could really only create a type of forced karma, and a way justify their actions of being illegal.
By Chilao
May 18, 2006 02:35 PM | Link to this
Scalia - now we went through this yesterday, 97 percent of 100 is only 97, but 49 percent of 300 million is a real big number.
sorry, and yes I am LMAO
By GOB
May 18, 2006 02:36 PM | Link to this
Are you in favor of schools telling students not to wear American colors to school
Is he still trotting out this reactionary garbage without a shred of evidence that it ever happened anywhere?
There have probably been some schools that were having gang problems that asked students not to wear specific gang colors. Since red and blue are pretty common, my god, they cant wear American colors to school. Those commie pinkos.
By Scalia
May 18, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this
RF—Right on, brother. Your 2:16 post is so accurate.
Politicians know that xenophobia and phobia of change are something that most Americans adhere to. If you want to get them riled up, find an issue that will play into their fears.
I’ve been thinking about the traffic situation a lot lately. At first, I bought into the racist idea about the wealthy not wanting others in their neighborhoods, but then I started thinking. If there was an effect transit system, wouldn’t that hurt the pockets of insurance companies, car dealerships, gas companies, and car repair shops? At least, there is one accident a day in Atlanta. Roughly, that is 365 accidents a year. That would be cut drastically if there were a more efficient transit system. Repair shops would lose tremendously, not to mention the places that sell tires, give oil changes, etc.
By Jack
May 18, 2006 02:39 PM | Link to this
Wouldn’t work Terry. What would happen to the welfare rolls?
By Renee
May 18, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this
RF - you know I absolutely have shoes to go with the tiara!! LOL
By Renee
May 18, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this
I just wish you’d put aside all your hatred and listen instead of always attacking those who don’t believe the way you want them to.
Now isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black.
RF - I absolutely agree with your 2:32. It’s attacking the people instead of the problem.
By RF
May 18, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this
Scalia- I’ve said for years that “white flight” is what keeps us from having a decent transit system. For a long time, suburbanites in ATL have associated public transportation with crime. Like the “criminals” who are too poor to have a car are going to ride the bus to break into your house- DUH!! We’ll never have one as long as we’re as racially polarized as we are now.
By Mara
May 18, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this
GOB - exactly what part of your “historical perspective” makes it relevant? Because Mexicans believe that they have a right to come here without permission because 150 years we beat ‘em out of the southeast? So? They know it isn’t theirs now so what difference does it make who owned it 150 years ago?
As for the “obey the law” thing…yes, I have sped before and probably will again. But when I’m I’m caught you won’t hear me screaming at the cop about how I have a right to speed, that the state has no right to regulate the speed limit, and “how dare they want to punish me for speeding!”. If I get stopped often enough, they’ll take away my driving priveleges…but you won’t hear me screaming about how I have some kind of right to drive, or that the state owes me a ride to work, or how “everybody does it, why punish me?”. You will see me at traffic court paying what I owe to the state, respectfully and honestly. You break the law, you take your punishment. You don’t whine about having some kind of right to break the law. Oh, and I can honestly say that I have never, ever, violated the laws of any of the 3 foreign countries I’ve visited, up to and including their speed limit!
Renee - you said it well. And calmly. Thanks.
By Terry
May 18, 2006 02:52 PM | Link to this
Actually Jack, I think we could make Mexico a viable country that actually creates jobs and has a positive GNP.
By FatMoose
May 18, 2006 02:53 PM | Link to this
Seriously though, where is the cutoff line? Last week? Last year? 10 years? Also, by that logic, wouldnt the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are not able to provide a framework for how we live today, or are there some things that you allow to transcend time?
I agree it is a slippery slope. If it(the past) fits the current situation then it should apply, but you are talking about illegal immigration (something that violates documents based on learned past) and an action that was in a time of no documentation or rules.
I am saying that those expand/conquere days do not apply to two documented nations that have rules/laws. Where did it split? Somewhere when things settled, but I doubt you could put an absolute finger on it.
Please explain the connection that I am missing bc all I am hearing is they were here first and we bullied so we should not be so harsh as to not allow IAs.
Your two are smart people, so I figure I must be missing something here.
By Terry
May 18, 2006 03:02 PM | Link to this
BTW: According to the UN, there is no such thing as an Illegal Immigrant - they are “Irregular Migrants”. Seems that they believe the label “illegal” has some kind of negative connotation. Go figure.
By RF
May 18, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this
Moose- the absence of rules or documents hardly justifies the inhumanity of past actions. I agree there were no laws against many things “back then”. But is it okay to say bad actions are humane or right because there’s no law against them? I think all anyone is trying to do here is keep the humanity of these people in mind. I certainly don’t want them streaming in here unheeded. But, on the flip side, I also don’t want us to start judging every hispanic immigrant as “one of them dang illegals”.
What I don’t understand is why looking at our past inhumanities bothers so many poeple. Face up to it, learn from it, and don’t repeat it. I don’t see why history should have any less application here.
By Terry
May 18, 2006 03:22 PM | Link to this
To get back to the subject of this BLOG. Diane & Shaunti both miss the bottom line problem. ILLEGAL Maybe for some people this is this month’s “issue d’jour” but, for me, it’s been a problem for decades.
Illegal immigrants began their “model citizenship” in the U.S. by breaking U.S. Federal law. Well at least it’s just one little Federal law, big deal.
I’m sure that, if you ask them, these illegal immigrants would promise to not break any more of our laws. And why shouldn’t we believe them? Their actions have already proven their high moral and ethical standards. After all, they were willing to conform with our immigration laws to come here in the first place, weren’t they? No, wait, their actions have proven their willingness to break the law for personal gain.
And I’m sure none of these model citizens are using forged documents to burden our entitlement systems or education systems. And, even if some of them are lying and enrolling their children in our public schools and using our Medicare/Medicaid services, it’s just a couple of more laws, big deal.
But these illegal immigrants are filling an important gap in our job market by taking jobs our unemployed legal U.S. citizens don’t want. Of course, if the illegal immigrants weren’t taking these jobs, our legal U.S. citizens might could actually find work. Oh, but that would mean that these businesses that hire illegal immigrants would actually have to pay minimum wage salaries to their workers and that would increase the costs of these goods to us, the consumers. (Personally I’d rather spend a little extra to have these companies pay a decent wage than spend any extra in taxes growing our welfare roles, but, hey, that’s just me.)
But maybe, if I can save a little money on things I buy, ignoring these sweat shops is no big deal. I say we should continue to allow these businesses to break the minimum wage law. After all, It’s just one little Federal law, big deal.
So what do we do? I know, let’s reward them for their creative method of immigration - let’s make them U.S. citizens!
By The72John
May 18, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this
Forgive me if I misinterpret, Gob, but it seems to me that your point boils down to this - that is is disingenuous at best and deepest hypocrisy at worst for a nation that acheived its current stature and power through the systematic dismantling of entire nations of indigenous peoples to now scream so shrilly that others have no right to be here.
And further, that just because the written law of the land did not necessarily preclude our actions (though I feel certain the Amerind tribes would suggest, had they the opportunity, that laws against seizure-by-force were in tacit force) that moral law should have done.
Finally, that this is not to suggest that we should throw open our borders wide to any Juan, Xiang, Francoise or Boris who happens to come a-knocking, but instead should always remember our past so that perhaps we treat future generations of citizens, non-citizens, aliens and illegals with a little more dignity and humanity than our founders would have done.
Or maybe I’m completely misinterpreting.
By Zack
May 18, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this
John—This country was founded upon the Bible, and whether your not being a Christian doesn’t override the Founding Fathers.
You honestly need to look up “hatred.”
By GOB
May 18, 2006 03:39 PM | Link to this
Historical perspective is important because it lets us understand how alike we all are, throughout the generations. At some point, most families have had some sort of “illegal” immigration. And yes, I am including the original Europeans in North America because they took land that was already occupied. Rationalizing that it was OK simply because the natives didnt have an immigration policy is pretty lame.
What historical perspective allows us to do is take it from an us vs. them situation. I think we need to come up with some sort of fair solution to the problem that accounts for the human factor. Creating an us vs. them scenerio is not going to produce anything worthwhile.
Besides, if it werent an election year, this would hardly be an issue, as RF said earlier.
By GOB
May 18, 2006 03:43 PM | Link to this
John has perfectly summed up what I have been trying to say all day. Thank you kind sir.
By Justin
May 18, 2006 03:43 PM | Link to this
The72John, Yes, I am Black and I know my history. They tend to live 20 deep in a house. Blacks had generations living together but I don’t remember any Black families living 20 deep in a house.
They don’t follow zoning and code enforcement because they aren’t used to those in their countries. They really don’t care for Blacks and I don’t understand why Black leaders are trying to jump on their bandwagon and band with them.
I notice Congress isn’t giving the same consideration to Haitians and other people of African descent the same consideration.
By FatMoose
May 18, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this
What I don’t understand is why looking at our past inhumanities bothers so many poeple. Face up to it, learn from it, and don’t repeat it. I don’t see why history should have any less application here.
I agree and have no problem with being honest about the messiness of our past. We, as a culture, were and are a very (heres that word again) childish people. We used up Mamas (England) $ to set up house and then did not want to have to pay her back in taxes. All of a sudden it was OUR place and all they wanted was the returns for an investment. We cried foul.
Then we enslaved blacks right after claiming Mama had no right to take our rights.
Moose- the absence of rules or documents hardly justifies the inhumanity of past actions. I agree there were no laws against many things “back then”. But is it okay to say bad actions are humane or right because there’s no law against them? I think all anyone is trying to do here is keep the humanity of these people in mind. I certainly don’t want them streaming in here unheeded. But, on the flip side, I also don’t want us to start judging every hispanic immigrant as “one of them dang illegals”.
I am not proposing that it should be “justified,” nor is anyone else. You are justifying CURRENT actions by IAs bc of how bad we were.
Would not the similar case be giving all black people 25% less sentence time (example only!) than whites bc whites were so off base in their actions during slavery?
We are not trying to minimize what happened in the past. It seems you are trying to minimize what is happening now based on our past ill actions.
So , I ask again. Are you not looking back and creating a type of forced karma, and a way to justify illegal actions?
That is ALL i am disputing, and was under the impression that you were stating that we should be easy on illegal behavior if we hurt those IAs in the past?
{Again, Should the reality of the cultures behavior be looked at honestly? Yes. Should those gruesome actions justify criminal acts? No.}
By GOB
May 18, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this
I notice Congress isn’t giving the same consideration to Haitians and other people of African descent the same consideration.
Is the proposed immigration bill specific to those people from Central America? My understanding was that it would apply to all people here illegally, be it Mexico or Britian.
By Renee
May 18, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this
Justin - I am very disappointed in you. People say really bad things about blacks….how could you say those things???? Never mind….
By The72John
May 18, 2006 04:00 PM | Link to this
John—This country was founded upon the Bible, and whether your not being a Christian doesn’t override the Founding Fathers.
Sigh.
Zack. This country was founded by men who were products of the Age of Enlightenment, and its structure was informed by sources such as Classical Greece democracy and the laws and systems established by Magna Carta. The Founding Fathers, while nominally Christian, were not “Christian” in the manner that you or Chuck is Christian. Your particularly nasty brand of evangelical fanaticism did not exist during the 18th century. There is not a solitary reference to religion or God anywhere in the text of the document that DEFINES the formation of our country, the Constitution.
No matter what silly revisionist history you have been exposed to, your continuing to claim that the US was founded on Biblical principals will always, always, always be false.
By Terry
May 18, 2006 04:03 PM | Link to this
All nations are “nations of immigrants” — as Peter Brimelow pointed out brilliantly in his 1992 article in National Review on immigration Time to Rethink Immigration?
Of the “nation of immigrants” locution, Brimelow says: “No discussion of U.S. immigration policy gets far without someone making this helpful remark. As an immigrant myself, I always pause respectfully. You never know. Maybe this is what they’re taught to chant in schools nowadays, a sort of multicultural Pledge of Allegiance. … Do they really think other nations sprouted up out of the ground?” Brimelow then ran through the Roman, Saxon, Viking, Norman-French, Welsh and Celtic immigrant influences in Britain alone.
But, in this century EVERY country has a right to decide who gets to immigrate into their country and who does not.
Either we are a country of laws and law abiding citizens or we are not. It is a constant striving to ensure that our laws are respected and OBEYED!
Build the fence, enforce the laws we already have, and the jobs will dry up. The illegal immigrants will repatriate themselves!
By Billy
May 18, 2006 04:03 PM | Link to this
Justin, I think John’s point is that comments like that aren’t very open-minded. Instead of “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you” you are saying “Do unto others as others have done unto me.”
By GOB
May 18, 2006 04:04 PM | Link to this
maybe Justin’s ex is hispanic…That would explain it.
By GOB
May 18, 2006 04:08 PM | Link to this
So , I ask again. Are you not looking back and creating a type of forced karma, and a way to justify illegal actions?
I dont think so because it isnt an attempt to justify their actions. It is an attempt to understand them from a human standpoint, rather than a legalistic one.
The bottom line is that we should learn from our past. We can look back and realize how horribly we treated the people that were here before us, and make an effort to treat others with more dignity and respect so as to avoid a repeat of our earlier bad acts.
By Justin
May 18, 2006 04:11 PM | Link to this
Twenty-five percent of American workers make less than $8.70 hour, or $18,096 a year, before taxes. This is more than minimum wage of $5.15, it still isn’t enough to raise a family. Illegal immigrants make it hard for people to earn a living.
Renee, I am sorry that you are disappointed in me but that is the way I feel about the issue. The majority of illegal immigrants from Latin America could care less about Blacks. H*ll, I see it now!
By Renee
May 18, 2006 04:12 PM | Link to this
LOL Gob - that would explain it
By Thebacteria
May 18, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this
I’m glad I’ve evolved and am here at the apex of evolution. I mean, we as a species have traveled to the edges and all the way down to the bottom and the top; we’ve seen it all. There may be other life forms out there, but we may never know it. And how could anything concievably evolve more than us with our simplified digestion system and the capability to reproduce all by myself, a thousand times over. I couldn’t imagine depending on another member of the species for reproduction, and then being able to reproduce just one offspring per year. How unsophisticated that would be. It’s a beautiful world!
By GOB
May 18, 2006 04:20 PM | Link to this
*The majority of illegal immigrants from Latin America could care less about Blacks. *
Do you think that might be because they are more concerned with trying to provide for their own families?
By Justin
May 18, 2006 04:21 PM | Link to this
I forgot…there are some people from Latin and Central America who like Blacks…from Brazil, Panama, and Guyana
I don’t treat them bad. I just know most of them don’t give a darn about Blacks. Look at the problems California has with fighting among the groups.
By Justin
May 18, 2006 04:21 PM | Link to this
I forgot…there are some people from Latin and Central America who like Blacks…from Brazil, Panama, and Guyana
I don’t treat them bad. I just know most of them don’t give a darn about Blacks. Look at the problems California has with fighting among the groups.
By Chilao
May 18, 2006 04:24 PM | Link to this
Didn’t I mention once that the Founding Fathers had serious debating discussions about whether or not their Constitutional Convention meetings should be permitted to open with prayer? Since they wanted to keep their religious beliefs out of the secular nation they were creating.
and if people are going to be saying “We are a Christian nation” they really should be saying “We are a Protestant nation”. Now I realize many who want to say that would have no problem with narrowing it down abit. Conceptually.
By Justin
May 18, 2006 04:26 PM | Link to this
Nope, she isn’t hispanic. In fact, if she was a hispanic from Puerto Rico or Brazil, we would probably still be together. Let’s not lump them all together. Those from Mexico, Columbia and those countries, tend not to assimilate. Those from Brazil and other countries tend to enhance our diverse community. IMHO
By Justin
May 18, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this
We need to amend the constitution to state if one is an illegal immigrant and has a child, then the child is a citizen of the country of the illegal immigrant. This change, along with the others enacted, will stop the influx also.
If you have noticed, the housing market is slowing. Illegals make up a high percentage of construction workers. Where will alternate jobs come from? I feel sorry for them but the answer is their native countries governments must work to fix their countries. Oh, and I just heard, Mexico is planning to sue the U.S. for guarding their own border. They have a lot of nerve! See, if we had played hard ball aft er 9/11, no other country would dare oppose us!
By The72John
May 18, 2006 04:35 PM | Link to this
Nope, she isn’t hispanic. In fact, if she was a hispanic from Puerto Rico or Brazil, we would probably still be together. Let’s not lump them all together. Those from Mexico, Columbia and those countries, tend not to assimilate. Those from Brazil and other countries tend to enhance our diverse community. IMHO
You really didn’t learn anything at all from being part of a stereotyped minority, did you.
By Justin
May 18, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this
By the way, let’s see how many American women support them when they start working with the men from that culture. The Latin Machismo in action is far worst than some of the so-called male chauvinism of American men.
By FatMoose
May 18, 2006 04:39 PM | Link to this
The bottom line is that we should learn from our past. We can look back and realize how horribly we treated the people that were here before us, and make an effort to treat others with more dignity and respect so as to avoid a repeat of our earlier bad acts.
I totally agree. I just do not think it has the viable relationship to the topic of IAs that you do and it comes off as sounding like justification.
It is an attempt to understand them from a human standpoint, rather than a legalistic one.
For example, I do not see where this fits anywhere. It IS a legalistic situation, whether we like it or not.
Some of the humanistic standpoints I see would be: If undoc’d, they cannot move up in the ranks. If we Doc them all, we sidestep a current process that many people (including half my family) wait for and are honest throughout.
An aspect that troubles me in the humanistic standpoint is that in order to slow the coming of IAs, the consequences of being an IA would have to be harsher than what they are currently enduring in their homeland; and I am not OK with those measures.
If there were two neighborhoods next to each other, one very rich and the other very poor, and your house in the rich section was broken into weekly bc they needed $ s