Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Judge voids city's illegal immigration law


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Judge voids city's illegal immigration law Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Judge voids city's illegal immigration law - 7/29/2007 5:39:00 PM   
EPGAH


Posts: 500
Joined: 12/25/2006
Status: offline 		To thompsonx:
As to my comments about illegals suing companies, it's been reported by companies as "legit" as FORBES...Naturally, the story was ripped off their site, but they didn't count on other sites linking to it and commenting about it:
http://digg.com/business_finance/Immigrants_Sue_Employer_for_Back_Wages
http://blog.globaltoad.com/?p=153
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-11-14-guest-workers_x.htm
As to our conquest from Mexico, we spent $15 MILLION dollars to buy the land AFTER we conquered it...and an extra $7 MILLION to buy a disputed strip of land that now forms the south part of Arizona and the "panhandle" of New Mexico, to complete a railroad, rather than put more American boots to Mexican asses. This was AFTER Santa Anna decided that they should surrender or risk TOTAL annexation of Mexico by America. (There IS a legend that Sam Houston "asked" Santa Anna to sell us the land at the end of a shotgun, but that is probably just Texas's self-aggrandizement, don't you think?)
Nowadays, that might be a better solution. Sure, we'd need to spend a few BILLION to "bring them up to code", so to speak, but isn't that better than letting them slowly bleed us dry?
The main outcome of the treaty was the huge loss of Mexico's northern territories to the United States. In addition, the recognition of the Rio Grande as the boundary between the State of  Texas and Mexico, and the legitimacy of the state of Texas itself, came about as a result of the treaty. Whereas before the Americans (who were known as "anglos") were considered an unwelcome nuisance in the Mexican provinces of Nuevo Mexico and Alta California, who refused to obey Mexican law, the opposite now became true of the Mexicans in the eyes of American settlers, who now found themselves in newly created US Territories.
HOWEVER, now the Mexicans have sued the US over the shifting of a steel-and-concrete fence--TWO FEET into their territory! I sincerely doubt, however, that the fence makes any demands on the people or infrastructure of Mexico! And besides, since when exactly, has Mexico cared about the American border? Heck, Vincente Fox said he'd keep pushing America to make MORE concessions to his beloved "migrants"! Felipe Calderon is possibly the first Mexican president to recognize that the illegals are a problem! (And, more significantly TO HIM, that their drain on our economy might affect future foreign aid payments!)
That said, however, Mexico has asked--with a straight face--for help enforcing THEIR borders! This would be ironic, if Mexicans could understand the concept of irony--or much of English at all, for that matter! (Of course, "migrants" who have had to sneak from South America INTO the America through Mexico tell tales of "brutality" by the Mexican perversion of Border Patrol--Mexico does NOT throw their agents in jail for DOING THEIR JOBS! The $100,000 settlement AGAINST a Border Patrol Agent in favor of a drug-smuggler who tried to run him over with an SUV is also something Mexico wouldn't do to their own!)
Also, look up your history about the occupation and subsequent annexation of Hawaii, the answers are in the history books--written by the WINNERS--Basically, American troops were called in to save European "business interests", which led somehow to the American annexation of the area. That couldn't be done in modern times--Can you REALLY think of America annexing Vietnam, Korea, Bosnia, and/or Iraq? Naturally, Clinton felt it necessary to apologize for it...Clinton has been sometimes called the "Apology President"
That, and he passed an Executive Order that MANDATED official documents be provided in foreign languages AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE!
This may or may not have been in an attempt to leave a bigger mess for his successor...
All of these fact(oid)s are available from the library, or centralized in Wikipedia...Look it up!

< Message edited by EPGAH -- 7/29/2007 5:55:01 PM >

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 61
RE: Judge voids city's illegal immigration law - 7/29/2007 5:45:38 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline 		Epgah, and I don't think that we'll be seeing Hawii or Guam or Puerto Rico trying to seceed from the U.S. anytime soon.
Some choice anyway.
"Ok, you can have your own THIRD WORLD hellhole, or,.....you can have a lot of MONEY comming in with the U.S."

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to EPGAH)
Profile   Post #: 62
RE: Judge voids city's illegal immigration law - 7/29/2007 6:00:21 PM   
EPGAH


Posts: 500
Joined: 12/25/2006
Status: offline 		Why would Puerto Rico want to secede? They get all the benefits AND they don't have to pay taxes, AND they're considered a state (Make any joke you like about "welfare state"), so strictures about travel to and from the REAL US are greatly relaxed...
That said, go to Mexico sometime--or any other third-world country whose rejects have been invading America--and try making DEMANDS for free stuff to THEIR governments, and you could get shot, beaten, or "just" jailed...Regardless, you wouldn't be able to admit to the Press that I'm right for a good long time!
Heck, even good ol' Canada got mad when Americans took "vacations" there just to buy cheaper pharmaceuticals--Not even illegally entering or demanding any hospital time, legitimate tourism spending AMERICAN money at CANADIAN shops--and they still got upset about that. Of course, "they" might mean the representatives of Big Pharma, who claimed that Canada didn't have an equivalent FDA, so their pharmaceuticals must be POISONOUS! If that had been true, Canadians would be dying left, right, and center, and would mount some kind of lawsuit against the pharmaceutical companies and/or America itself! (Demanding things from America is an international favorite pastime!)
Americans don't get the perks in our own country that illegals are now DEMANDING! I asked on my last doctor visit what would happen if I refused to pay. My wages would be garinshed, my house and other major possessions would have a lien put on them, etc. But the illegals don't really exist, so they can't be tracked down...So they have no real obligation to pay...So the costs are passed on to REAL American people!
And some have asked why Americans don't take to the streets...Oh, that's right, we have JOBS that Americans WILL do--if we get paid for it! In fact, now, illegals are even demanding REAL wages and on-the-job benefits! Wasn't part of the whole "illegal labor deal" the ideal of getting the rest of America to pay for those annoying benefit packages?
As to "just invading to get a better job", that isn't true either. I buy, sell, and repair computers for a living, and on about ¾ of them, there's a big fat sticker "MADE IN MEXICO." (Others have "MADE IN CHINA", "MADE IN MALAYSIA", "MADE IN HONG KONG", etc....oddly all in English!) Assuming that I'm NOT the only one who trades in computers, how many computers must be "MADE IN MEXICO" before there's enough jobs that they stay put? What's forcing them here isn't survival, but greed! If they couldn't survive, they couldn't breed. If they didn't breed, they'd all die off except for those who attracted American mates...and the problem would solve itself! (Of course, the ACLU would call it "non-violent ethnic-cleansing", but the Americans would have the courage to tell them they're no longer necessary, and as such, to simply shut up!)
Again, Americans, including myself, are not against IMMIGRATION, simply ILLEGAL entry to America, and the attendant costs which Mexico has never offered to pay for!
A return to the old-fashioned "quota system" of immigration would be preferred, or have some way to hold the home countries of the invaders responsible for the costs they cause. That would be AMAZINGLY profitable. Alternately, the invaders could riot in THEIR streets instead of OURS, and demand whatever changes they wanted...or not!
Another alternative is mutual self-imposed ignorance: If the other countries didn't make it our problem, MOST Americans would not really care if they were illiterate or if they bred HUGE LEGIONS of subhuman intellect, or whatever. Just keep those legions in THEIR countries and if they found some way to subsist without demanding more welfare from America (Isn't that what foreign-aid boils down to?), Americans would be happier! (And even their abridged self-preservation instinct, if denied the easy way out of exporting their trash to America, would force whatever reforms were necessary to survive...Some African nations are asking for foreign aid to stop, for more or less that exact reason!)

< Message edited by EPGAH -- 7/29/2007 6:20:07 PM >

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 63
RE: Judge voids city's illegal immigration law - 7/29/2007 6:32:50 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline 		EPGAH, (what does that mean, anyway?) I read that in 2005 we took in 3.8 million people *legally* to the U.S.
That's WAY too many!
I'd be in favor of 50-100k per year but I think we need to take a break on it for a good long time.

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to EPGAH)
Profile   Post #: 64
RE: Judge voids city's illegal immigration law - 7/29/2007 8:39:46 PM   
EPGAH


Posts: 500
Joined: 12/25/2006
Status: offline 		Apparently, too much still isn't enough! We allow more people in LEGALLY than any other country, First- or Third-World, but they want to FORCE more in...usually the rejects of their societies...
And yes, a temporary stoppage of all immigration might be a good thing, to give the ones we got time to assimilate, OR make a trade: Allow 1 legal in in exchange for say, 10 illegals? See if they are still critical of America's "mis(?)treatment" of illegals when the illegals are leeching off THEIR societies!
*Cue evil laughtrack*

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 65
RE: Judge voids city's illegal immigration law - 7/29/2007 8:58:39 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline 		EPGAH:
Are you saying it is a good thing for us to just start a war with someone and take their land when they do not want to sell it?
In the article that you read about the fifteen million did it also tell how we had offered thirty million just for California?  Did it tell you how most of the fifteen million went to Americans who had "claims" against Mexico.
Did it tell you of Gold being discovered in California in 1842?  What a coincidence that the U.S. decided to send an ambassador to Mexico to seek to purchase California shortly there after.
thompson

< Message edited by thompsonx -- 7/29/2007 9:42:23 PM >

(in reply to EPGAH)
Profile   Post #: 66
RE: Judge voids city's illegal immigration law - 7/29/2007 9:57:47 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

EGPAH:
Also, look up your history about the occupation and subsequent annexation of Hawaii, the answers are in the history books--written by the WINNERS--Basically, American troops were called in to save European "business interests", which led somehow to the American annexation of the area. That couldn't be done in modern times






Hawaii's annexation a story of betrayal
The islands were a proud and independent nation when Capt. James Cook waded ashore in 1778.The Orange County Register
November 9, 1996
BY TERI SFORZA
Poka Laenui pledges his allegiance to the sovereign nation of Hawaii, not to the United States government.
"To understand how and why, you will need to know the history of Hawaii, particularly that part dealing with the `annexation' of Hawaii to the United States," wrote Laenui, a director of the Institute for the Advancement of Hawaiian Affairs. "You will also have to understand something about growing up in Hawaii and the sense of betrayal and anger one feels at learning the history.
"For me, the movement began with the awakening of my spirit when I read Queen Liliuokalani's `Hawaii's Story.' I read first with curiosity, followed by confusion, then much anger and finally resolve of what needed to be done."
It's a story of money, power and betrayal.
Hawaii was a proud and independent nation when Capt. James Cook waded ashore in 1778. Hawaiians had run their own affairs for some 2,000 years. The kingdom signed trade and peace treaties with the United States, England and other foreign nations, each recognizing Hawaii's independence.
Flocks of American missionaries began arriving from Boston in 1820 and were welcomed warmly; many decided to stay on the islands rather than return to the frigid Northeast. Their new roots in paradise went deep: The missionaries became powerful sugar planters and politicians, often serving as advisers to the king.
The monarchy was weakened. The planters' powers were strengthened.
The United States was the biggest market for Hawaii's sugar. The transplanted planters longed for Hawaii to become part of the United States so they wouldn't have to worry about tariffs. The U.S. minister to Hawaii, John L. Stevens, was anxious to annex the islands as well.
Sensing this, Queen Liliuokalani was on the verge of imposing a new Constitution shifting power back to the monarchy - but she never got the chance.
On Jan. 16, 1893, U.S. Marines landed in Honolulu armed with Howitzer cannons and carbines. A group of 18 men - mostly American sugar farmers - staged a coup, proclaiming themselves the "provisional government" of Hawaii. Stevens gave immediate recognition to them as Hawaii's true government.
Imprisoned in Iolani Palace, Queen Liliuokalani issued a statement: "I yield to the superior force of the United States of America, whose minister, his excellency John L. Stevens, has caused United States troops to be landed at Honolulu. ... Now, to avoid any collision of armed forces and perhaps the loss of life, I do, under this protest, and impelled by said force, yield my authority until such time as the government of the United States shall undo the action of its representative and reinstate me."
President Grover Cleveland investigated the coup and fired Stevens. He apologized to the queen. And on Dec. 18, 1893, he briefed Congress on his findings:
"By an act of war, committed with the participation of a diplomatic representative of the United States and without authority of Congress, the government of a feeble but friendly and confiding people has been overthrown," Cleveland said. "A substantial wrong has thus been done, which a due regard for our national character, as well as the rights of the injured people, requires we should endeavor to repair."
Cleveland refused to approve the annexation of Hawaii. Soon, however, he was out of office, and President William McKinley gave it his blessing.
Said Sam Monet, a staunch independence proponent: "The Kingdom of Hawaii has never ceased to exist. No peace treaty between the U.S. and the kingdom of Hawaii has been signed. A state of war between the U.S. and the kingdom of Hawaii exists today."


(in reply to EPGAH)
Profile   Post #: 67
RE: Judge voids city's illegal immigration law - 7/29/2007 10:44:05 PM   
EPGAH


Posts: 500
Joined: 12/25/2006
Status: offline 		It was basically the equivalent of eminent domain...If America had been settled by the Spanish, the whole nation would be Mexico...If by the Dutch, we'd be Brazil...If by France, we'd be Canada...But none of the above scenarios happened. We are America, and America is better than Mexico, by a number of metrics, primary among those, counting the number of people trying to sneak into Mexico from America, vs. the reverse!
Mexico gave Americans land, IF they converted to Catholicism and changed their names to Mexican equivalents...HOWEVER, the "guards" Mexico posted in the newly settled territory were actually criminals (WOW, Mexican "police" acting as criminals, and Mexican criminals causing suffering to Americans! How surprising!) The Texans--INDEPENDENT of the USA--held their own little revolution and kicked Mexico out of all but the southmost parts...They wanted to finish the job, but they wanted to have the FULL America backing them, so they applied for statehood. America offered money instead of fighting. Mexico rejected. We fought, they lost, America gave them money anyways, although approximately half what they would've gotten had they not been so arrogant!
Had we pressed the advantage, we could've conquered or simply exterminated Mexico...Once again, an unfinished war returns to bite America in the ass. Not necessarily figurative either, as Mexico is shaped like an overfed leech on the south side of America...Coincidence, or divine humor?

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 68
RE: Judge voids city's illegal immigration law - 7/29/2007 10:48:31 PM   
EPGAH


Posts: 500
Joined: 12/25/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

EGPAH:
Also, look up your history about the occupation and subsequent annexation of Hawaii, the answers are in the history books--written by the WINNERS--Basically, American troops were called in to save European "business interests", which led somehow to the American annexation of the area. That couldn't be done in modern times






Hawaii's annexation a story of betrayal
The islands were a proud and independent nation when Capt. James Cook waded ashore in 1778.The Orange County Register
November 9, 1996
BY TERI SFORZA
Poka Laenui pledges his allegiance to the sovereign nation of Hawaii, not to the United States government.
"To understand how and why, you will need to know the history of Hawaii, particularly that part dealing with the `annexation' of Hawaii to the United States," wrote Laenui, a director of the Institute for the Advancement of Hawaiian Affairs. "You will also have to understand something about growing up in Hawaii and the sense of betrayal and anger one feels at learning the history.
"For me, the movement began with the awakening of my spirit when I read Queen Liliuokalani's `Hawaii's Story.' I read first with curiosity, followed by confusion, then much anger and finally resolve of what needed to be done."
It's a story of money, power and betrayal.
Hawaii was a proud and independent nation when Capt. James Cook waded ashore in 1778. Hawaiians had run their own affairs for some 2,000 years. The kingdom signed trade and peace treaties with the United States, England and other foreign nations, each recognizing Hawaii's independence.
Flocks of American missionaries began arriving from Boston in 1820 and were welcomed warmly; many decided to stay on the islands rather than return to the frigid Northeast. Their new roots in paradise went deep: The missionaries became powerful sugar planters and politicians, often serving as advisers to the king.
The monarchy was weakened. The planters' powers were strengthened.
The United States was the biggest market for Hawaii's sugar. The transplanted planters longed for Hawaii to become part of the United States so they wouldn't have to worry about tariffs. The U.S. minister to Hawaii, John L. Stevens, was anxious to annex the islands as well.
Sensing this, Queen Liliuokalani was on the verge of imposing a new Constitution shifting power back to the monarchy - but she never got the chance.
On Jan. 16, 1893, U.S. Marines landed in Honolulu armed with Howitzer cannons and carbines. A group of 18 men - mostly American sugar farmers - staged a coup, proclaiming themselves the "provisional government" of Hawaii. Stevens gave immediate recognition to them as Hawaii's true government.
Imprisoned in Iolani Palace, Queen Liliuokalani issued a statement: "I yield to the superior force of the United States of America, whose minister, his excellency John L. Stevens, has caused United States troops to be landed at Honolulu. ... Now, to avoid any collision of armed forces and perhaps the loss of life, I do, under this protest, and impelled by said force, yield my authority until such time as the government of the United States shall undo the action of its representative and reinstate me."
President Grover Cleveland investigated the coup and fired Stevens. He apologized to the queen. And on Dec. 18, 1893, he briefed Congress on his findings:
"By an act of war, committed with the participation of a diplomatic representative of the United States and without authority of Congress, the government of a feeble but friendly and confiding people has been overthrown," Cleveland said. "A substantial wrong has thus been done, which a due regard for our national character, as well as the rights of the injured people, requires we should endeavor to repair."
Cleveland refused to approve the annexation of Hawaii. Soon, however, he was out of office, and President William McKinley gave it his blessing.
Said Sam Monet, a staunch independence proponent: "The Kingdom of Hawaii has never ceased to exist. No peace treaty between the U.S. and the kingdom of Hawaii has been signed. A state of war between the U.S. and the kingdom of Hawaii exists today."







Wow, a state of war exists still between America and Hawaii? After all the infrastructural improvements, and all the tourist money? That is just SO ungrateful!
...And if they choose to ACT on this war, it'll be SO MUCH faster than the first Civil War was! Civil War is, after all, the only way a STATE can fight OUR NATION!

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 69
RE: Judge voids city's illegal immigration law - 7/29/2007 11:25:58 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline 		EPGAH:
You failed to answer my question and at the same time express your absolute ignorance of history.
You seem to be saying that if I ask you to buy your home and you refuse then it is OK for me to take it by force and give you what ever I wish in compensation.
thompson

(in reply to EPGAH)
Profile   Post #: 70
RE: Judge voids city's illegal immigration law - 7/29/2007 11:33:00 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EPGAH

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

EGPAH:
Also, look up your history about the occupation and subsequent annexation of Hawaii, the answers are in the history books--written by the WINNERS--Basically, American troops were called in to save European "business interests", which led somehow to the American annexation of the area. That couldn't be done in modern times






Hawaii's annexation a story of betrayal
The islands were a proud and independent nation when Capt. James Cook waded ashore in 1778.The Orange County Register
November 9, 1996
BY TERI SFORZA
Poka Laenui pledges his allegiance to the sovereign nation of Hawaii, not to the United States government.
"To understand how and why, you will need to know the history of Hawaii, particularly that part dealing with the `annexation' of Hawaii to the United States," wrote Laenui, a director of the Institute for the Advancement of Hawaiian Affairs. "You will also have to understand something about growing up in Hawaii and the sense of betrayal and anger one feels at learning the history.
"For me, the movement began with the awakening of my spirit when I read Queen Liliuokalani's `Hawaii's Story.' I read first with curiosity, followed by confusion, then much anger and finally resolve of what needed to be done."
It's a story of money, power and betrayal.
Hawaii was a proud and independent nation when Capt. James Cook waded ashore in 1778. Hawaiians had run their own affairs for some 2,000 years. The kingdom signed trade and peace treaties with the United States, England and other foreign nations, each recognizing Hawaii's independence.
Flocks of American missionaries began arriving from Boston in 1820 and were welcomed warmly; many decided to stay on the islands rather than return to the frigid Northeast. Their new roots in paradise went deep: The missionaries became powerful sugar planters and politicians, often serving as advisers to the king.
The monarchy was weakened. The planters' powers were strengthened.
The United States was the biggest market for Hawaii's sugar. The transplanted planters longed for Hawaii to become part of the United States so they wouldn't have to worry about tariffs. The U.S. minister to Hawaii, John L. Stevens, was anxious to annex the islands as well.
Sensing this, Queen Liliuokalani was on the verge of imposing a new Constitution shifting power back to the monarchy - but she never got the chance.
On Jan. 16, 1893, U.S. Marines landed in Honolulu armed with Howitzer cannons and carbines. A group of 18 men - mostly American sugar farmers - staged a coup, proclaiming themselves the "provisional government" of Hawaii. Stevens gave immediate recognition to them as Hawaii's true government.
Imprisoned in Iolani Palace, Queen Liliuokalani issued a statement: "I yield to the superior force of the United States of America, whose minister, his excellency John L. Stevens, has caused United States troops to be landed at Honolulu. ... Now, to avoid any collision of armed forces and perhaps the loss of life, I do, under this protest, and impelled by said force, yield my authority until such time as the government of the United States shall undo the action of its representative and reinstate me."
President Grover Cleveland investigated the coup and fired Stevens. He apologized to the queen. And on Dec. 18, 1893, he briefed Congress on his findings:
"By an act of war, committed with the participation of a diplomatic representative of the United States and without authority of Congress, the government of a feeble but friendly and confiding people has been overthrown," Cleveland said. "A substantial wrong has thus been done, which a due regard for our national character, as well as the rights of the injured people, requires we should endeavor to repair."
Cleveland refused to approve the annexation of Hawaii. Soon, however, he was out of office, and President William McKinley gave it his blessing.
Said Sam Monet, a staunch independence proponent: "The Kingdom of Hawaii has never ceased to exist. No peace treaty between the U.S. and the kingdom of Hawaii has been signed. A state of war between the U.S. and the kingdom of Hawaii exists today."









Wow, a state of war exists still between America and Hawaii? After all the infrastructural improvements, and all the tourist money? That is just SO ungrateful!
...And if they choose to ACT on this war, it'll be SO MUCH faster than the first Civil War was! Civil War is, after all, the only way a STATE can fight OUR NATION!


EPGAH:
You seem to have a comprehension problem.  The document I posted states that the U.S. declared war on Hawaii and not the other way round.  That no treaty has been offered or signed and thus the war that the U.S. initiated was never officially ended.
If all you plan on bringing to the discussion is ignorance and invective then why enter into discussion at all?
thompson

(in reply to EPGAH)
Profile   Post #: 71
RE: Judge voids city's illegal immigration law - 7/30/2007 4:29:27 PM   
EPGAH


Posts: 500
Joined: 12/25/2006
Status: offline 		What did America do to you to make you think we have done anything wrong?
As to Hawaii: We were called in to establish or maintain order for some sugar-growers...They feared a new monarchy, so they asked AMERICA to step in--Not Britain, not France, not Spain, not Mexico--AMERICA. The Queen fled, predicting she'd lose a battle.
"I am sensible that there are defects in our federal government, yet they are so much lighter than those of monarchies, that I view them with much indulgence. I rely, too, on the good sense of the people for remedy, whereas the evils of monarchical government are beyond remedy." --Thomas Jefferson to David Ramsay, 1787. ME 6:226
Americans are innately anti-Monarchy, although that COULD stem from the Monarchy that tried to exert authority--TWICE--over an area it knew nothing about, without giving those afflicted some benefit in return. America, at least, has the decency to bring money, food, medicines, etc. to areas we "occupy", and areas we take over completely (I.e., become a State of the allegedly United States), America also provides civilization and the rule of law. Streets, sanitation, even organized police force, and military defense of the areas as best we can (Due to budget reallocations, the latter is in doubt, but the rest still stands!)
"A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:209, Papers 1:134
America does not have to beg the "right" to exist from any other country. Those countries which seek to destroy us no longer do so by force of arms, they do so by bleeding us dry economically and socially, even to the point of setting Americans against each other, rather than against the enemies outside.
Because of such infighting, America cannot support a prolonged war anymore, nor will the media ALLOW us to use our most powerful weapons, or even "unsightly" interrogation techniques.
If allowed to fight at full strength, Iraq AND Saudi Arabia AND Afghanistan would be parking-lots by now, the sand underneath fused to a sheet of low-grade glass. Foreigns would be shot on sight if they tried to enter America at anything EXCEPT sanctioned checkpoints, and their assets would be confiscated. But the bad guys whine to the media that these tactics are "inhumane"...As such, a hobbled military must struggle along as best it can, and if Americans die, we're not doing enough, but if Americans kill the enemies, then we're EVIL!
Someone else in these Forums had a tagline that read, "Continued playing on the tracks forfeits the right to bitch when the train runs you over"...If foreigns attack and invade America AGAINST OUR WILL, and then proceed to flaunt their "other"-ness, they must expect Americans will fight back. This process can be accelerated, of course, by simply attacking Americans directly, such as stealing their women, land, jobs, money, food, water, electricity, etc--NOT in that order, of course, but you understand that at least, right?
To put it bluntly, if America says, "Leave", and the foreign power says, "Make us!", aren't we obligated to "make them"? If they can't understand English, they can at least understand English at gunpoint...The gun-barrel acts as an EXQUISITE translator!

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 72
RE: Judge voids city's illegal immigration law - 7/30/2007 9:24:56 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline 		EPGAH:
It is clear that you have a bit of a comprehension problem. 
I am sorry to have wasted your time with irrelevant things like facts.
TYFSASAKM
thompson 

< Message edited by thompsonx -- 7/30/2007 9:26:32 PM >

(in reply to EPGAH)
Profile   Post #: 73
RE: Judge voids city's illegal immigration law - 7/31/2007 3:26:30 PM   
EPGAH


Posts: 500
Joined: 12/25/2006
Status: offline 		What makes you think I am the one with the comprehension problem? We have access to the same facts, but we are drawing wildly different conclusions from it.
Furthermore, since America is held to a higher set of (double) standards than the rest of the world--ESPECIALLY by the savages invading our country then claiming it's their "right" to do so--then America should have broader powers to go along with taking responsibility for Mexico's birth-control-failures.
Put simply, who decided America was the retard-asylum for Mexico?

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 74
RE: Judge voids city's illegal immigration law - 8/1/2007 3:48:07 AM   
NavyDDG54


Posts: 203
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline 		EPGAH,
I agree with you, America has NO obligation to the illegal immigrants from other countries. We have no duty, no responsibility except to kick their asses out. If they want in so bad they should get a green card like millions do every year. My grandparetns immigrated LEGALLY. They went through the paperwork, the effort, and the time that it took.

Yet now there are people forcing their way in, IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF OUR LAWS. demanding rights, benifts, jobs, money...and there are people defending them? 

(in reply to EPGAH)
Profile   Post #: 75
RE: Judge voids city's illegal immigration law - 8/1/2007 5:49:09 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EPGAH

What makes you think I am the one with the comprehension problem? We have access to the same facts, but we are drawing wildly different conclusions from it.
Furthermore, since America is held to a higher set of (double) standards than the rest of the world--ESPECIALLY by the savages invading our country then claiming it's their "right" to do so--then America should have broader powers to go along with taking responsibility for Mexico's birth-control-failures.
Put simply, who decided America was the retard-asylum for Mexico?


EPGAH:
You are absolutely correct.  We do have access to the same facts and you do draw a somewhat different conclusion than the rest of us who breath air.
Brazil was settled by the Dutch?  This should come as a surprise to Portugal.
The soldiers in Iraq only get three bullets? ROFLMAO
A war of conquest is nothing more than "imminent domain"
That was what Hitler said about Poland.
Referring to Mexicans as "savages and retards" speaks directly to your bigotry.
Waiting until your dad is on the phone to ask for an increase in your allowance...now that is really intellectually sound.
When you justify the overthrow of the sovereign government of Hawaii because U.S. citizens in that country do not want to pay legal taxes.
That again sounds a lot like Hitler's justification for taking Austria and Poland.
I could go on with the rest of your self serving statements but the above should serve as an example of your somewhat faulty understanding of history.
It is for these reasons that it would be unproductive to continue a discussion with you.
TYFSASAKM
thompson

(in reply to EPGAH)
Profile   Post #: 76
RE: Judge voids city's illegal immigration law - 8/1/2007 8:20:56 AM   
MsBearlee


Posts: 1032
Joined: 2/15/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EPGAH
...
Furthermore, since America is held to a higher set of (double) standards than the rest of the world--ESPECIALLY by the savages invading our country then claiming it's their "right" to do so--then America should have broader powers to go along with taking responsibility for Mexico's birth-control-failures.
Put simply, who decided America was the retard-asylum for Mexico? 


Gawd, what a nasty little git you are!  ..savages?  ..retards?  Good lord!  You know, it IS possible to talk/discuss/debate without acting like a kid and name-calling to show your displeasure or exposing your bigotry in public like that.
 
Speaking of your daddy, does he know you talk like that? 
 
B

_____________________________

A must read for submissives! (click here)

This one, as well!

(in reply to EPGAH)
Profile   Post #: 77
RE: Judge voids city's illegal immigration law - 8/1/2007 9:52:22 AM   
kittinSol


Posts: 16926
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MsBearlee

quote:

ORIGINAL: EPGAH
...
Furthermore...


Gawd, what a nasty little git you are! 
B


Thank you MsB. 'Nasty little git' just about hits the nail on the head.

_____________________________



(in reply to MsBearlee)
Profile   Post #: 78
RE: Judge voids city's illegal immigration law - 8/1/2007 12:54:01 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MsBearlee

quote:

ORIGINAL: EPGAH
...
Furthermore, since America is held to a higher set of (double) standards than the rest of the world--ESPECIALLY by the savages invading our country then claiming it's their "right" to do so--then America should have broader powers to go along with taking responsibility for Mexico's birth-control-failures.
Put simply, who decided America was the retard-asylum for Mexico? 


Gawd, what a nasty little git you are!  ..savages?  ..retards?  Good lord!  You know, it IS possible to talk/discuss/debate without acting like a kid and name-calling to show your displeasure or exposing your bigotry in public like that.
 
Speaking of your daddy, does he know you talk like that? 
 
B


Bearlee, oh?
What, we have to be "polite" to criminals now?

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to MsBearlee)
Profile   Post #: 79
RE: Judge voids city's illegal immigration law - 8/1/2007 9:30:46 PM   
MsBearlee


Posts: 1032
Joined: 2/15/2006
Status: offline 		popeye,
 
#1...the comments were not made to 'criminals'...but to those of us here on cm.  He was speaking to those of us here…in this thread; not to someone he perceives to be criminal.  We are having an adult conversation here...what is the point of being so nasty?  Such language is just running nice people off the boards...
 
#2...my son is retarded and has lived in an ‘asylum' (of sorts).  Why would being retarded be something to be disparaged…or living in an asylum, for that matter?
 
Beverly,
 
PS... and the "savages invading our country" comment; Mexicans are savages?  Good lord, their society is older than ours; in spite of the poverty in their country...they had running water, sewers, paved streets, Opera Houses and Repertoire Companies... all long before New York was much more than a collection of shacks and outhouses!  Should we really be refering to our neighbors as savages, then? 
 
At the very least, even when discussing criminals, I see no reason for rules of civility are suspended.  Aren't civil people always polite?
 
B

_____________________________

A must read for submissives! (click here)

This one, as well!

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 80
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Judge voids city's illegal immigration law Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109