Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Hillarys' 180 On Illegal Immigration


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

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Hillarys' 180 On Illegal Immigration Page: <<   < prev  7 8 9 [10] 11   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Hillarys' 180 On Illegal Immigration - 5/10/2015 7:17:16 PM   
HunterCA


Posts: 2343
Joined: 6/21/2007
Status: offline
Okay, 55.6M. I'll accept your research. My point is the same with a new number.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 181
RE: Hillarys' 180 On Illegal Immigration - 5/10/2015 8:18:23 PM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
I figured out that your personal ignorance is what allows you to say the really stupid things you do.


You can make your points without the insults, you are aware of that, right? I thought you were a mature ADULT whom has a education? You would have learned that in the first year of college.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/news/investigations/122630554.html?mobile=y

Here's one that mentions 13% of the prison population in California is illigal from Mexico.


From your source....

"...inmates on hold for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
"

Now what do you suppose 'on hold' means in legal terms? It means they are not part of the population that will be staying long term in the prison system, or even a two week period of time (unless processing is slow). Once they get transferred to the Feds, it is THEIR PROBLEM.

Further more each of those picked up is afford a lawyer. Its in the Bill of Rights. So if a prisoner can not afford one, the court will afford one for them. This lawyer helps the person at all stages. The 'going rate' for legal bills in California is$325/hour or a set fee. I'm not sure how California pays its lawyers under this specific set of circumstances.

The 13% you MISQUOTED? Yeah they didnt come from Mexico (or at least the author doesn't state it clearly). Maybe you should try REREADING your material? 'Assuming' things and 'factual' things are two different concepts. While some have hopped the border from Mexico into California; a decent portion also come by ocean. The busiest port in America is in California. In which only 5-10% of shipping is checked. That leaves 90-95% of shipping that is a smuggler's haven for transporting people illegally into the nation from all ports around the world.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2010/01/corrections-sta.html


You are aware we are in 2015, right? Your best record is from 2011. And that information isn't covering 2011, but 2009-2010-ish. Your information is old, outdated, and most likely taken from some conservative site because you couldn't do any effort on your own.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
Here's an interestin one Joe. One I'm sure you won't read because it really shows just how ignit you are.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/taxes.asp


This article is your oldest at 2006. About another article from 2002. Again.....2015

Not sure why finding material close to the current date for you is tough. Is it because someone has to do your thinking for you and they are just backed up on other stuff? Poor you....

Yes at the very bottom it states '19 September 2014'; That's when it was updated with the LAPD most wanted (which has since been updated several times). The grand majority of the information is 2002 or older (some going back to the 1980s). Alot has changed in America in all that time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
Here Joe, another little nugget for you. Read inside, it mentions the average illigal in jail has been arrested seven times.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/316959.pdf


You took the first page of a report that is seventy-one pages long. Did you bother to READ the rest of it? I dont think so.

Here is where your quote comes from (page 7):

Based on our random sample, GAO estimates that the criminal aliens had an
average of 7 arrests
"

'Criminal alien' is different from 'illegal immigrant'. Yes, I know that may look confusing for you. If you had read the actual document, you would have understand the difference more clearly. There are lawful and unlawful immigrants in the USA. The 'criminal alien' could be from one of those two groups. Which means some of the people that were here legally did something that resulted in their arrest. And that they have been arrested a few times. Guess what? Happens to the US Citizens as well! Which means the concept is not unique to illegal immigrants; but that humans get caught doing stupid shit many times over.

And of the 251,000 arresting charges, what was the sampling number? Just a thousand. This report from the GAO is not representing a total and complete understanding of...EVERYTHING....that happened in the time from, just 1/251 of them. But because of technicalities they had to remove five from the list; so the sample size is just 995. The sample size date is between 2003-2009. That means the 995 cases were pulled over a size year period and not just for 2009.

In other words, your REALLY not studying the document from an objective point of view. You have an agenda and pushing it without thought to what your posting. You really have no idea what your babbling about here. In your effort to cast me as the ignorant one; you have instead DONE IT TO YOURSELF.

An I didnt have to insult you once.


(in reply to HunterCA)
Profile   Post #: 182
RE: Hillarys' 180 On Illegal Immigration - 5/10/2015 8:27:35 PM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Plus, birthright citizenship was not intended to include babies born in the US of non-US Citizen parents.


There is a great many things the founding fathers did not think on clearly back in the 18th century. However, they did believe that future generations of Americans would know how best to handle future problems. That the Constitution was not to be set in stone, but serve as a living document. One that is updated and changed as future generations wanted/needed. An that has happened (i.e. the seventeen amendments added).

In this case, its for the nation of the current year, to decide on how we deal with this issue going forward. This nation can not decide on a half decent immigration law. Its basically caught up between two large groups of ideas with several minor ones close/attached to one of the bigger groups. Unless this nation compromises, it'll never get fixed. The problems we have now will simply get replicated each year going forward.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 183
RE: Hillarys' 180 On Illegal Immigration - 5/10/2015 8:45:36 PM   
HunterCA


Posts: 2343
Joined: 6/21/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether



You can make your points without the insults, you are aware of that, right? I thought you were a mature ADULT whom has a education? You would have learned that in the first year of college.

An I didnt have to insult you once.




Let's see....first paragraph and last sentence. I'm not sure you're aware of you.

So, what this boils down to is that you said something in ignorance. I collected information that disputes it and your claim is the information is old. Your claim is not that the information isn't factually correct. Just old. Well Joe, you can research any new information you want and perhaps that little effort will correct your ignorance. I'm really unaware if you've really made a rebuttal, accept your ignorance or are just wishing to argue from a position of ignorance. Each possibility, or all may be correct. Perhaps you'll define and then provide your own links. I know you've never linked anything before. But, surely you've learned how...somewhere.

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 184
RE: Hillarys' 180 On Illegal Immigration - 5/10/2015 8:48:43 PM   
HunterCA


Posts: 2343
Joined: 6/21/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Plus, birthright citizenship was not intended to include babies born in the US of non-US Citizen parents.


There is a great many things the founding fathers did not think on clearly back in the 18th century. However, they did believe that future generations of Americans would know how best to handle future problems. That the Constitution was not to be set in stone, but serve as a living document. One that is updated and changed as future generations wanted/needed. An that has happened (i.e. the seventeen amendments added).

In this case, its for the nation of the current year, to decide on how we deal with this issue going forward. This nation can not decide on a half decent immigration law. Its basically caught up between two large groups of ideas with several minor ones close/attached to one of the bigger groups. Unless this nation compromises, it'll never get fixed. The problems we have now will simply get replicated each year going forward.


No Joe. The concept of a living document constitution was an idea postulated by "Progressives" in the late 19th century. The founding fathers established methods to alter or amend the constitution. Joe. Not sounding good here.

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 185
RE: Hillarys' 180 On Illegal Immigration - 5/10/2015 8:51:52 PM   
HunterCA


Posts: 2343
Joined: 6/21/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Plus, birthright citizenship was not intended to include babies born in the US of non-US Citizen parents.


There is a great many things the founding fathers did not think on clearly back in the 18th century. However, they did believe that future generations of Americans would know how best to handle future problems. That the Constitution was not to be set in stone, but serve as a living document. One that is updated and changed as future generations wanted/needed. An that has happened (i.e. the seventeen amendments added).

In this case, its for the nation of the current year, to decide on how we deal with this issue going forward. This nation can not decide on a half decent immigration law. Its basically caught up between two large groups of ideas with several minor ones close/attached to one of the bigger groups. Unless this nation compromises, it'll never get fixed. The problems we have now will simply get replicated each year going forward.



And Joe, I know, as you've stated, you believe you think much better than anyone else. But, please provide me links to,all these many things the founding fathers didn't think clearly about. I'm a little skeptical of your claim.

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 186
RE: Hillarys' 180 On Illegal Immigration - 5/11/2015 11:31:55 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Plus, birthright citizenship was not intended to include babies born in the US of non-US Citizen parents.

There is a great many things the founding fathers did not think on clearly back in the 18th century. However, they did believe that future generations of Americans would know how best to handle future problems. That the Constitution was not to be set in stone, but serve as a living document. One that is updated and changed as future generations wanted/needed. An that has happened (i.e. the seventeen amendments added).
In this case, its for the nation of the current year, to decide on how we deal with this issue going forward. This nation can not decide on a half decent immigration law. Its basically caught up between two large groups of ideas with several minor ones close/attached to one of the bigger groups. Unless this nation compromises, it'll never get fixed. The problems we have now will simply get replicated each year going forward.


So, intent has nothing to do with what the Constitution says?

Oddly enough, there is only one way to change the Constitution, and it doesn't include changing interpretations.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 187
RE: Hillarys' 180 On Illegal Immigration - 5/11/2015 12:53:57 PM   
Aylee


Posts: 24103
Joined: 10/14/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether



You can make your points without the insults, you are aware of that, right? I thought you were a mature ADULT whom has a education? You would have learned that in the first year of college.

An I didnt have to insult you once.




Let's see....first paragraph and last sentence. I'm not sure you're aware of you.

So, what this boils down to is that you said something in ignorance. I collected information that disputes it and your claim is the information is old. Your claim is not that the information isn't factually correct. Just old. Well Joe, you can research any new information you want and perhaps that little effort will correct your ignorance. I'm really unaware if you've really made a rebuttal, accept your ignorance or are just wishing to argue from a position of ignorance. Each possibility, or all may be correct. Perhaps you'll define and then provide your own links. I know you've never linked anything before. But, surely you've learned how...somewhere.



Nah. It is obvious that the Mi-Go visited Joether.

_____________________________

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

I don’t always wgah’nagl fhtagn. But when I do, I ph’nglui mglw’nafh R’lyeh.

(in reply to HunterCA)
Profile   Post #: 188
RE: Hillarys' 180 On Illegal Immigration - 5/12/2015 12:42:59 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
You can make your points without the insults, you are aware of that, right? I thought you were a mature ADULT whom has a education? You would have learned that in the first year of college.

An I didnt have to insult you once.

Let's see....first paragraph and last sentence. I'm not sure you're aware of you.

So, what this boils down to is that you said something in ignorance. I collected information that disputes it and your claim is the information is old. Your claim is not that the information isn't factually correct. Just old. Well Joe, you can research any new information you want and perhaps that little effort will correct your ignorance. I'm really unaware if you've really made a rebuttal, accept your ignorance or are just wishing to argue from a position of ignorance. Each possibility, or all may be correct. Perhaps you'll define and then provide your own links. I know you've never linked anything before. But, surely you've learned how...somewhere.


I understand your background as a 'enviromental engineer' for 30 years. When asked if you have branched out from it, you said 'no'. So I can understand your not 'understanding of the material'. Immigration, like business is tied heavily to time. Both are tied heavily to politics. As such 'time' and 'politics' can change give circumstances. So where does this all led to? That over time, the politics on issues have changed with regards to immigration.

Why was immigration not a national priority according to conservatives prior to 1992? That's due to a Univ. of New Mexico study that found that if illegal immigrants were were allowed a path to citizenship, five in six would vote Democrat. Could you imagine the 'higher ups' in the GOP apon learning this? Most of the illegal population lives ironically in the areas with heavy Republican influence. But not enough influence to do anything negative towards them. Further many of those areas are only Republican by a slim majority. The adding of just a few hundred thousand Democratically voting people would swing many districts to the Democrats. An stay that way for a ...long....long.....LONG....time!

So the 'Higher Ups' in the GOP sent out a 'memo' to their 'mouthpieces' in the media (i.e. Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and others on FOX 'news') to undermine the process of immigratation. Unless it included very tight border security, and only allowing those that agree with the GOP viewpoint on reality. Which is to say 'stop immigration at all costs'. This would include demonizing one of their own in 2007.

Yes, Senator John McCain teamed up with the late Kennedy from Massachusetts on a well constructed immigration reform bill. Like the Affordable Care Act years later, the grand majority of GOP/TP'ers would never read the actual law, but would be fed by the mouthpieces what to believe and understand. The bill was actually pretty good. Had its problems like the ACA, but overall, would have been a vast improvement. Might even have won Mr. McCain the Presidential spot. Thanks to conservative morons like you, his chances were heavily downgraded. You helped Obama get into the White Houses. Thank you very much!

You use the word 'ignorance' so often without realizing how easily it applies to you.....

(in reply to HunterCA)
Profile   Post #: 189
RE: Hillarys' 180 On Illegal Immigration - 5/12/2015 12:56:19 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Plus, birthright citizenship was not intended to include babies born in the US of non-US Citizen parents.

There is a great many things the founding fathers did not think on clearly back in the 18th century. However, they did believe that future generations of Americans would know how best to handle future problems. That the Constitution was not to be set in stone, but serve as a living document. One that is updated and changed as future generations wanted/needed. An that has happened (i.e. the seventeen amendments added).
In this case, its for the nation of the current year, to decide on how we deal with this issue going forward. This nation can not decide on a half decent immigration law. Its basically caught up between two large groups of ideas with several minor ones close/attached to one of the bigger groups. Unless this nation compromises, it'll never get fixed. The problems we have now will simply get replicated each year going forward.


So, intent has nothing to do with what the Constitution says?



Here is an exercise for you, DS. An I say this in total fairness and honesty here. Look at the bill of rights and pick one amendment. Try the 3rd or 7th if your looking for a challenge. If you take the 2nd, I'll laugh at you trying 'easy mode' and failing at it.

Now, with this amendment, study the information of the amendment from the 18th perspective. Obliviously many things between then and now are very changed. While your doing this, consider that information that way written about it by the author(s). Them, exampled the 'spirit' of the law. This is actually different from the author's whom wrote letters to various folks. The 'spirit' of the law is a formal declaration of intent for future generations to understand how the author(s) intended the law to handle aspects known at the time.

Then, look at the last few amendments (25th, 26th, and 27th) and do the same.

You will find the last three amendments have more material than the first ten amendments.

That we hear much in the media and debate much on this forum of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 8th, and maybe even the 10th. How many can rattle off the intent or know the meaning of the 3rd or 7th? Its not like $20 goes a whole lot of distance in 2015....

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Oddly enough, there is only one way to change the Constitution, and it doesn't include changing interpretations.


There are four methods to change the US Constitution. Only two of them have ever been used since its creation.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 190
RE: Hillarys' 180 On Illegal Immigration - 5/12/2015 1:14:42 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Plus, birthright citizenship was not intended to include babies born in the US of non-US Citizen parents.

There is a great many things the founding fathers did not think on clearly back in the 18th century. However, they did believe that future generations of Americans would know how best to handle future problems. That the Constitution was not to be set in stone, but serve as a living document. One that is updated and changed as future generations wanted/needed. An that has happened (i.e. the seventeen amendments added).

In this case, its for the nation of the current year, to decide on how we deal with this issue going forward. This nation can not decide on a half decent immigration law. Its basically caught up between two large groups of ideas with several minor ones close/attached to one of the bigger groups. Unless this nation compromises, it'll never get fixed. The problems we have now will simply get replicated each year going forward.


And Joe, I know, as you've stated, you believe you think much better than anyone else. But, please provide me links to,all these many things the founding fathers didn't think clearly about. I'm a little skeptical of your claim.


The purpose of quoting something with a link is when it would be knowledge coming from a specific place. When the information is freely available and written about in hundreds if not thousands of publications, it becomes irrelevant.

But for the sake of the argument, allow an example:

The AK-47, (notice the link?) is what some would call 'the most common rifle' in the United States of America by private ownership. We could argue this all day; but for the sake of the example, let's assume its 'the most common rifle in the United States' by private ownership.

Imagine if we both were to travel back in time and show this beauty off to the founding fathers. Dropping magazine after magazine worth of ammunition at targets (notice the plural of the word 'target' here) 200-300 yards away. With single shot, semi-auto and full auto fire. Hell, we might get the barrel to catch on fire! An tell them without looking over our shoulder this is the most common rifle in the country they would be creating.

Imagine turning around after that and looking at them. I think 'shock' would be the best word to discribe their reaction. This is during a time when the best military rifle fired one round of ammunition every thirty seconds (twenty if really trained). That it was accurate to about 100-150 feet. An its penetration power was somewhat limited.

Imagine if the Minute Men of Lexington through Concord were armed with these rifles? The entire British Army that day would have been annihilated to the last man! An it would have only taken about twenty individuals to do just that.

What do you think these founding fathers would say, that we allow 'just about anyone to have them' (except for the criminals if we handle it). 'Shock' would be their state of mind. A metaphor here would be showing artillery of their day to the awesome and destructive firepower of a 100 megaton nuclear warhead!

Would they have been as free with firearms under the 2nd? After both of those demonstrations of arms?

In all honesty....hard to say. We could make arguments 'for' and 'against' if we wanted (on perhaps another thread).

Which is why the founding fathers believed (there are writtens of it in many places) that future generations of Americans would know better than them, how to handle a wide and vast array of questions. They knew the Constitution should not be held in stone. Which is why there are seventeen amendments the come after the original ten (i.e. the Bill of Rights).

Can we get back to DS's original thought, now?

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
And Joe, I know, as you've stated, you believe you think much better than anyone else.


I've never really stated it in serious means on here. Personally I would view that as very arrogant and selfish. Two 'virtues' that are all to common with conservatives. I do not have to state it; It comes by way of example. That most on here have told me as much each time one of you try to 'attack' me on something. One day I took all your asses on at once, and beat down everyone! As one person stated it rather interestingly (and I quote): "They are like a quadriplegic dancer to your Micheal Jackson".



< Message edited by joether -- 5/12/2015 1:20:43 AM >

(in reply to HunterCA)
Profile   Post #: 191
RE: Hillarys' 180 On Illegal Immigration - 5/12/2015 7:12:11 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Before:

Video - Hillary Clinton: I’m “adamantly against illegal immigrants.”

After:

quote:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama says his executive actions blocking the deportation of millions living illegally in the U.S. go as far as the law allows. But Hillary Rodham Clinton says that if she becomes president, she would go even further.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DEM_2016_CLINTON_IMMIGRATION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-05-07-03-15-54


Pander much, Hillary?

Whatever happened to politicians who had values and who stood up for their values.

Bernie Sanders 2016

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 192
RE: Hillarys' 180 On Illegal Immigration - 5/12/2015 7:18:57 AM   
CreativeDominant


Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether One day I took all your asses on at once, and beat down everyone!


Delusional.

quote:

As one person stated it rather interestingly (and I quote): "They are like a quadriplegic dancer to your Micheal Jackson".

Anybody who would state that others have told them the above is conceited beyond measure.

Delusional and conceited. Two virtues common to too many progressives.


< Message edited by CreativeDominant -- 5/12/2015 8:05:49 AM >

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 193
RE: Hillarys' 180 On Illegal Immigration - 5/12/2015 7:43:29 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
There are many people who have taken a 180 on stances they previously held in opposite.

Thomas Jefferson turned against free trade.
John Maynard Keynes turned against free trade.
Republicans and conservatives turned against education, protectionism, unions and a host of other issues.

The list is endless.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to CreativeDominant)
Profile   Post #: 194
RE: Hillarys' 180 On Illegal Immigration - 5/12/2015 8:28:22 AM   
Aylee


Posts: 24103
Joined: 10/14/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether One day I took all your asses on at once, and beat down everyone!


Delusional.

quote:

As one person stated it rather interestingly (and I quote): "They are like a quadriplegic dancer to your Micheal Jackson".

Anybody who would state that others have told them the above is conceited beyond measure.

Delusional and conceited. Two virtues common to too many progressives.



No, delusional was his review of Revolutionary War era long guns. 100-150 feet? Umm. . . not according to primary sources at the time.

I won't even go into his attitude towards the founding father's on technology advances. Too much conceit there.

_____________________________

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

I don’t always wgah’nagl fhtagn. But when I do, I ph’nglui mglw’nafh R’lyeh.

(in reply to CreativeDominant)
Profile   Post #: 195
RE: Hillarys' 180 On Illegal Immigration - 5/12/2015 9:52:54 AM   
HunterCA


Posts: 2343
Joined: 6/21/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
You can make your points without the insults, you are aware of that, right? I thought you were a mature ADULT whom has a education? You would have learned that in the first year of college.

An I didnt have to insult you once.

Let's see....first paragraph and last sentence. I'm not sure you're aware of you.

So, what this boils down to is that you said something in ignorance. I collected information that disputes it and your claim is the information is old. Your claim is not that the information isn't factually correct. Just old. Well Joe, you can research any new information you want and perhaps that little effort will correct your ignorance. I'm really unaware if you've really made a rebuttal, accept your ignorance or are just wishing to argue from a position of ignorance. Each possibility, or all may be correct. Perhaps you'll define and then provide your own links. I know you've never linked anything before. But, surely you've learned how...somewhere.


I understand your background as a 'enviromental engineer' for 30 years. When asked if you have branched out from it, you said 'no'. So I can understand your not 'understanding of the material'. Immigration, like business is tied heavily to time. Both are tied heavily to politics. As such 'time' and 'politics' can change give circumstances. So where does this all led to? That over time, the politics on issues have changed with regards to immigration.

Why was immigration not a national priority according to conservatives prior to 1992? That's due to a Univ. of New Mexico study that found that if illegal immigrants were were allowed a path to citizenship, five in six would vote Democrat. Could you imagine the 'higher ups' in the GOP apon learning this? Most of the illegal population lives ironically in the areas with heavy Republican influence. But not enough influence to do anything negative towards them. Further many of those areas are only Republican by a slim majority. The adding of just a few hundred thousand Democratically voting people would swing many districts to the Democrats. An stay that way for a ...long....long.....LONG....time!

So the 'Higher Ups' in the GOP sent out a 'memo' to their 'mouthpieces' in the media (i.e. Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and others on FOX 'news') to undermine the process of immigratation. Unless it included very tight border security, and only allowing those that agree with the GOP viewpoint on reality. Which is to say 'stop immigration at all costs'. This would include demonizing one of their own in 2007.

Yes, Senator John McCain teamed up with the late Kennedy from Massachusetts on a well constructed immigration reform bill. Like the Affordable Care Act years later, the grand majority of GOP/TP'ers would never read the actual law, but would be fed by the mouthpieces what to believe and understand. The bill was actually pretty good. Had its problems like the ACA, but overall, would have been a vast improvement. Might even have won Mr. McCain the Presidential spot. Thanks to conservative morons like you, his chances were heavily downgraded. You helped Obama get into the White Houses. Thank you very much!

You use the word 'ignorance' so often without realizing how easily it applies to you.....


Hum???? Not one link. Not even old information links. Just insults and bloviating.

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 196
RE: Hillarys' 180 On Illegal Immigration - 5/12/2015 9:54:05 AM   
HunterCA


Posts: 2343
Joined: 6/21/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Plus, birthright citizenship was not intended to include babies born in the US of non-US Citizen parents.

There is a great many things the founding fathers did not think on clearly back in the 18th century. However, they did believe that future generations of Americans would know how best to handle future problems. That the Constitution was not to be set in stone, but serve as a living document. One that is updated and changed as future generations wanted/needed. An that has happened (i.e. the seventeen amendments added).
In this case, its for the nation of the current year, to decide on how we deal with this issue going forward. This nation can not decide on a half decent immigration law. Its basically caught up between two large groups of ideas with several minor ones close/attached to one of the bigger groups. Unless this nation compromises, it'll never get fixed. The problems we have now will simply get replicated each year going forward.


So, intent has nothing to do with what the Constitution says?



Here is an exercise for you, DS. An I say this in total fairness and honesty here. Look at the bill of rights and pick one amendment. Try the 3rd or 7th if your looking for a challenge. If you take the 2nd, I'll laugh at you trying 'easy mode' and failing at it.

Now, with this amendment, study the information of the amendment from the 18th perspective. Obliviously many things between then and now are very changed. While your doing this, consider that information that way written about it by the author(s). Them, exampled the 'spirit' of the law. This is actually different from the author's whom wrote letters to various folks. The 'spirit' of the law is a formal declaration of intent for future generations to understand how the author(s) intended the law to handle aspects known at the time.

Then, look at the last few amendments (25th, 26th, and 27th) and do the same.

You will find the last three amendments have more material than the first ten amendments.

That we hear much in the media and debate much on this forum of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 8th, and maybe even the 10th. How many can rattle off the intent or know the meaning of the 3rd or 7th? Its not like $20 goes a whole lot of distance in 2015....

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Oddly enough, there is only one way to change the Constitution, and it doesn't include changing interpretations.


There are four methods to change the US Constitution. Only two of them have ever been used since its creation.



Bloviating bloviate. That's pretty much what I'm hearing. Anybody else hear anything else?

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 197
RE: Hillarys' 180 On Illegal Immigration - 5/12/2015 9:55:11 AM   
HunterCA


Posts: 2343
Joined: 6/21/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Plus, birthright citizenship was not intended to include babies born in the US of non-US Citizen parents.

There is a great many things the founding fathers did not think on clearly back in the 18th century. However, they did believe that future generations of Americans would know how best to handle future problems. That the Constitution was not to be set in stone, but serve as a living document. One that is updated and changed as future generations wanted/needed. An that has happened (i.e. the seventeen amendments added).

In this case, its for the nation of the current year, to decide on how we deal with this issue going forward. This nation can not decide on a half decent immigration law. Its basically caught up between two large groups of ideas with several minor ones close/attached to one of the bigger groups. Unless this nation compromises, it'll never get fixed. The problems we have now will simply get replicated each year going forward.


And Joe, I know, as you've stated, you believe you think much better than anyone else. But, please provide me links to,all these many things the founding fathers didn't think clearly about. I'm a little skeptical of your claim.


The purpose of quoting something with a link is when it would be knowledge coming from a specific place. When the information is freely available and written about in hundreds if not thousands of publications, it becomes irrelevant.

But for the sake of the argument, allow an example:

The AK-47, (notice the link?) is what some would call 'the most common rifle' in the United States of America by private ownership. We could argue this all day; but for the sake of the example, let's assume its 'the most common rifle in the United States' by private ownership.

Imagine if we both were to travel back in time and show this beauty off to the founding fathers. Dropping magazine after magazine worth of ammunition at targets (notice the plural of the word 'target' here) 200-300 yards away. With single shot, semi-auto and full auto fire. Hell, we might get the barrel to catch on fire! An tell them without looking over our shoulder this is the most common rifle in the country they would be creating.

Imagine turning around after that and looking at them. I think 'shock' would be the best word to discribe their reaction. This is during a time when the best military rifle fired one round of ammunition every thirty seconds (twenty if really trained). That it was accurate to about 100-150 feet. An its penetration power was somewhat limited.

Imagine if the Minute Men of Lexington through Concord were armed with these rifles? The entire British Army that day would have been annihilated to the last man! An it would have only taken about twenty individuals to do just that.

What do you think these founding fathers would say, that we allow 'just about anyone to have them' (except for the criminals if we handle it). 'Shock' would be their state of mind. A metaphor here would be showing artillery of their day to the awesome and destructive firepower of a 100 megaton nuclear warhead!

Would they have been as free with firearms under the 2nd? After both of those demonstrations of arms?

In all honesty....hard to say. We could make arguments 'for' and 'against' if we wanted (on perhaps another thread).

Which is why the founding fathers believed (there are writtens of it in many places) that future generations of Americans would know better than them, how to handle a wide and vast array of questions. They knew the Constitution should not be held in stone. Which is why there are seventeen amendments the come after the original ten (i.e. the Bill of Rights).

Can we get back to DS's original thought, now?

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
And Joe, I know, as you've stated, you believe you think much better than anyone else.


I've never really stated it in serious means on here. Personally I would view that as very arrogant and selfish. Two 'virtues' that are all to common with conservatives. I do not have to state it; It comes by way of example. That most on here have told me as much each time one of you try to 'attack' me on something. One day I took all your asses on at once, and beat down everyone! As one person stated it rather interestingly (and I quote): "They are like a quadriplegic dancer to your Micheal Jackson".




More bloviating.

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 198
RE: Hillarys' 180 On Illegal Immigration - 5/12/2015 9:58:19 AM   
HunterCA


Posts: 2343
Joined: 6/21/2007
Status: offline
Here Joe, just so you can enjoy the joke too.

ˈblōvēˌāt/
verbUSinformal
talk at length, especially in an inflated or empty way.

(in reply to HunterCA)
Profile   Post #: 199
RE: Hillarys' 180 On Illegal Immigration - 5/12/2015 12:49:22 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Here is an exercise for you, DS. An I say this in total fairness and honesty here. Look at the bill of rights and pick one amendment. Try the 3rd or 7th if your looking for a challenge. If you take the 2nd, I'll laugh at you trying 'easy mode' and failing at it.
Now, with this amendment, study the information of the amendment from the 18th perspective. Obliviously many things between then and now are very changed. While your doing this, consider that information that way written about it by the author(s). Them, exampled the 'spirit' of the law. This is actually different from the author's whom wrote letters to various folks. The 'spirit' of the law is a formal declaration of intent for future generations to understand how the author(s) intended the law to handle aspects known at the time.
Then, look at the last few amendments (25th, 26th, and 27th) and do the same.
You will find the last three amendments have more material than the first ten amendments.
That we hear much in the media and debate much on this forum of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 8th, and maybe even the 10th. How many can rattle off the intent or know the meaning of the 3rd or 7th? Its not like $20 goes a whole lot of distance in 2015....


Does that mean that, in your opinion, the original intent means nothing?

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Oddly enough, there is only one way to change the Constitution, and it doesn't include changing interpretations.

There are four methods to change the US Constitution. Only two of them have ever been used since its creation.


Please list the 4 methods, and examples of the two that "have ever been used since [the US Constitution's] creation."



_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 200
Page:   <<   < prev  7 8 9 [10] 11   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Hillarys' 180 On Illegal Immigration Page: <<   < prev  7 8 9 [10] 11   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