Election Thread 2008 MAKE SURE YOU VOTE

its tnl...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kidicarus

Illegals are a complete burdon on taxpayers. All 12-20 million of them.

---

And placing the kids of deported parents into foster care would probably equal or exceed that burden. I'm sure that MVS wouldn't like his tax dollars to pay for the foster care of the children of deported aliens.

Quote:

---

The kids had no choice coming voer, as their parents ILLEGALY brought them here one way or another. Deporting the ones who refuse to do things legally is one idea, one way to start cleaning up this mess.

---

You're referring entirely to the parents here. The kid didn't ask to be born here, and it has no voice or vote in whether it stays or leaves. Why should it be forced to pay for its parents irresponsibility? I agree with Frog. Deport the whole family, but allow the kid to come back if it wants to when its of age.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kidicarus

You're such an internet hero.

I enjoy when you call me names. It's funny to me that you have to resort to childish behaviors because you don't agree with my posts.

Illegals are a complete burdon on taxpayers. All 12-20 million of them. The kids had no choice coming voer, as their parents ILLEGALY brought them here one way or another. Deporting the ones who refuse to do things legally is one idea, one way to start cleaning up this mess.

But keep posting BS personal attacks. GG internet hero. Call me a noob. Feel better about yourself yet?

---

:noob:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MVS

You are the one who's up in arms about sending someone to a country that they've never been to.

Make up your mind. Do they stay, or do they go?

---

If they're of age, free to make their own decisions, and native-born Americans, they stay. Kids get sent lots of places they don't want to go. I'm not worried about that. It's the idea of "deporting" an adult who is, for all intents and purposes, as American as you or I that I'm uncomfortable with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Destin

It seems so arbitrary to give citizenship because of birth in an area. Now this child has no relation to this country or the people in it, other than at the time of birth, he happened to be nearby.

---

:lol: You can't be serious. Someone who lived here their whole life, could have gone to school with you, been a co-worker... they don't have any "connection" to this country, because their parents didn't fill out the paperwork.

I've been avoiding playing the race card in this issue, but I really can't figure out what the fuck you're even talking about.

And you did see when MVS wanted to start this idea right? Anyone born after January 1st 2009.

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/...7notecnirp.gif

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/im...0330192816.gif

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1206..._us_whats_news

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Advocate

And you did see when MVS wanted to start this idea right? Anyone born after January 1st 2009.

---

Oh, I didn't understand. The universe will be completely different by then and none of my arguments valid. Curses.

Oh and you don't have to talk like a Know it all and be an asshole when you said ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frogacuda

:lol: You can't be serious. Someone who lived here their whole life, could have gone to school with you, been a co-worker... they don't have any "connection" to this country, because their parents didn't fill out the paperwork.

---

Cause I said this in response.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Advocate

And you did see when MVS wanted to start this idea right? Anyone born after January 1st 2009.

---

Cause a few of us agreed with MVS when he said the date. So, stop debating just to debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Meach

What would Spo do to stop the plague (nay, scourge!) of illegal immigration?

---

Secure the borders (we can do it, we just don't really want to). Give those already here illegally a heavy fine and make them pay back taxes before allowing them to take a citizenship test (it's not practical to deport tens of millions of people). Once the border is secure we deport illegals as they cross over. We also stop recognizing children born on American soil to illegal immigrants as American citizens.

Hitch just wrote a scathing piece on Hillary:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Christopher Hitchens

The Tall Tale of Tuzla
Hillary Clinton's Bosnian misadventure should disqualify her from the presidency, but the airport landing is the least of it.


The punishment visited on Sen. Hillary Clinton for her flagrant, hysterical, repetitive, pathological lying about her visit to Bosnia should be much heavier than it has yet been and should be exacted for much more than just the lying itself. There are two kinds of deliberate and premeditated deceit, commonly known as suggestio falsi and suppressio veri. (Neither of them is covered by the additionally lying claim of having "misspoken.") The first involves what seems to be most obvious in the present case: the putting forward of a bogus or misleading account of events. But the second, and often the more serious, means that the liar in question has also attempted to bury or to obscure something that actually is true. Let us examine how Sen. Clinton has managed to commit both of these offenses to veracity and decency and how in doing so she has rivaled, if not indeed surpassed, the disbarred and perjured hack who is her husband and tutor.

I remember disembarking at the Sarajevo airport in the summer of 1992 after an agonizing flight on a U.N. relief plane that had had to "corkscrew" its downward approach in order to avoid Serbian flak and ground fire. As I hunched over to scuttle the distance to the terminal, a mortar shell fell as close to me as I ever want any mortar shell to fall. The vicious noise it made is with me still. And so is the shock I felt at seeing a civilized and multicultural European city bombarded round the clock by an ethno-religious militia under the command of fascistic barbarians. I didn't like the Clinton candidacy even then, but I have to report that many Bosnians were enthused by Bill Clinton's pledge, during that ghastly summer, to abandon the hypocritical and sordid neutrality of the George H.W. Bush/James Baker regime and to come to the defense of the victims of ethnic cleansing.

I am recalling these two things for a reason. First, and even though I admit that I did once later misidentify a building in Sarajevo from a set of photographs, I can tell you for an absolute certainty that it would be quite impossible to imagine that one had undergone that experience at the airport if one actually had not. Yet Sen. Clinton, given repeated chances to modify her absurd claim to have operated under fire while in the company of her then-16-year-old daughter and a USO entertainment troupe, kept up a stone-faced and self-loving insistence that, yes, she had exposed herself to sniper fire in the cause of gaining moral credit and, perhaps to be banked for the future, national-security "experience." This must mean either a) that she lies without conscience or reflection; or b) that she is subject to fantasies of an illusory past; or c) both of the above. Any of the foregoing would constitute a disqualification for the presidency of the United States.

Yet this is only to underline the YouTube version of events and the farcical or stupid or Howard Wolfson (take your pick) aspects of the story. But here is the historical rather than personal aspect, which is what you should keep your eye on. Note the date of Sen. Clinton's visit to Tuzla. She went there in March 1996. By that time, the critical and tragic phase of the Bosnia war was effectively over, as was the greater part of her husband's first term. What had happened in the interim? In particular, what had happened to the 1992 promise, four years earlier, that genocide in Bosnia would be opposed by a Clinton administration?

In the event, President Bill Clinton had not found it convenient to keep this promise. Let me quote from Sally Bedell Smith's admirable book on the happy couple, For Love of Politics:

Taking the advice of Al Gore and National Security Advisor Tony Lake, Bill agreed to a proposal to bomb Serbian military positions while helping the Muslims acquire weapons to defend themselves—the fulfillment of a pledge he had made during the 1992 campaign. But instead of pushing European leaders, he directed Secretary of State Warren Christopher merely to consult with them. When they balked at the plan, Bill quickly retreated, creating a "perception of drift." The key factor in Bill's policy reversal was Hillary, who was said to have "deep misgivings" and viewed the situation as "a Vietnam that would compromise health-care reform." The United States took no further action in Bosnia, and the "ethnic cleansing" by the Serbs was to continue for four more years, resulting in the deaths of more than 250,000 people.

I can personally witness to the truth of this, too. I can remember, first, one of the Clintons' closest personal advisers—Sidney Blumenthal—referring with acid contempt to Warren Christopher as "a blend of Pontius Pilate with Ichabod Crane." I can remember, second, a meeting with Clinton's then-Secretary of Defense Les Aspin at the British Embassy. When I challenged him on the sellout of the Bosnians, he drew me aside and told me that he had asked the White House for permission to land his own plane at Sarajevo airport, if only as a gesture of reassurance that the United States had not forgotten its commitments. The response from the happy couple was unambiguous: He was to do no such thing, lest it distract attention from the first lady's health care "initiative."

It's hardly necessary for me to point out that the United States did not receive national health care in return for its acquiescence in the murder of tens of thousands of European civilians. But perhaps that is the least of it. Were I to be asked if Sen. Clinton has ever lost any sleep over those heaps of casualties, I have the distinct feeling that I could guess the answer. She has no tears for anyone but herself. In the end, and over her strenuous objections, the United States and its allies did rescue our honor and did put an end to Slobodan Milosevic and his state-supported terrorism. Yet instead of preserving a polite reticence about this, or at least an appropriate reserve, Sen. Clinton now has the obscene urge to claim the raped and slaughtered people of Bosnia as if their misery and death were somehow to be credited to her account! Words begin to fail one at this point. Is there no such thing as shame? Is there no decency at last? Let the memory of the truth, and the exposure of the lie, at least make us resolve that no Clinton ever sees the inside of the White House again.

---

For balance, here's his slam on Obama from last week:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Christopher Hitchens

Blind Faith
The statements of clergymen like Jeremiah Wright aren't controversial and incendiary; they're wicked and stupid.

It's been more than a month since I began warning Sen. Barack Obama that he would become answerable for his revolting choice of a family priest. But never mind that; the astonishing thing is that it's at least 11 months since he himself has known precisely the same thing. "If Barack gets past the primary," said the Rev. Jeremiah Wright to the New York Times in April of last year, "he might have to publicly distance himself from me. I said it to Barack personally, and he said yeah, that might have to happen." Pause just for a moment, if only to admire the sheer calculating self-confidence of this. Sen. Obama has long known perfectly well, in other words, that he'd one day have to put some daylight between himself and a bigmouth Farrakhan fan. But he felt he needed his South Side Chicago "base" in the meantime. So he coldly decided to double-cross that bridge when he came to it. And now we are all supposed to marvel at the silky success of the maneuver.

You often hear it said, of some political or other opportunist, that he would sell his own grandmother if it would suit his interests. But you seldom, if ever, see this notorious transaction actually being performed, which is why I am slightly surprised that Obama got away with it so easily. (Yet why do I say I am surprised? He still gets away with absolutely everything.)

Looking for a moral equivalent to a professional demagogue who thinks that AIDS and drugs are the result of a conspiracy by the white man, Obama settled on an 85-year-old lady named Madelyn Dunham, who spent a good deal of her youth helping to raise him and who now lives alone and unwell in a condo in Honolulu. It would be interesting to know whether her charismatic grandson made her aware that he was about to touch her with his grace and make her famous in this way. By sheer good fortune, she, too, could be a part of it all and serve her turn in the great enhancement.

This flabbergasting process, made up of glibness and ruthlessness in equal proportions, rolls on unstoppably with a phalanx of reporters and men of the cloth as its accomplices. Look at the accepted choice of words for the ravings of Jeremiah Wright: controversial, incendiary, inflammatory. These are adjectives that might have been—and were—applied to many eloquent speakers of the early civil rights movement. (In the Washington Post, for Good Friday last, the liberal Catholic apologist E.J. Dionne lamely attempted to stretch this very comparison.) But is it "inflammatory" to say that AIDS and drugs are wrecking the black community because the white power structure wishes it? No. Nor is it "controversial." It is wicked and stupid and false to say such a thing. And it not unimportantly negates everything that Obama says he stands for by way of advocating dignity and responsibility over the sick cults of paranoia and victimhood.

That same supposed message of his is also contradicted in a different way by trying to put Geraldine Ferraro on all fours with a thug like Obama's family "pastor." Ferraro may have sounded sour when she asserted that there can be political advantages to being black in the United States—and she said the selfsame thing about Jesse Jackson in 1984—but it's perfectly arguable that what she said is, in fact, true, and even if it isn't true, it's absurd to try and classify it as a racist remark. No doubt Obama's slick people were looking for a revenge for Samantha Power (who, incidentally, ought never to have been let go for the useful and indeed audacious truths that she uttered in Britain), but their news-cycle solution was to cover their own queasy cowardice in that case by feigning outrage in the Ferraro matter. The consequence, which you can already feel, is an inchoate resentment among many white voters who are damned if they will be called bigots by a man who associates with Jeremiah Wright. So here we go with all that again. And this is the fresh, clean, new post-racial politics?

Now, by way of which vent or orifice is this venom creeping back into our national bloodstream? Where is hatred and tribalism and ignorance most commonly incubated, and from which platform is it most commonly yelled? If you answered "the churches" and "the pulpits," you got both answers right. The Ku Klux Klan (originally a Protestant identity movement, as many people prefer to forget) and the Nation of Islam (a black sectarian mutation of Quranic teaching) may be weak these days, but bigotry of all sorts is freely available, and openly inculcated into children, by any otherwise unemployable dirtbag who can perform the easy feat of putting Reverend in front of his name. And this clerical vileness has now reached the point of disfiguring the campaigns of both leading candidates for our presidency. If you think Jeremiah Wright is gruesome, wait until you get a load of the next Chicago "Reverend," one James Meeks, another South Side horror show with a special sideline in the baiting of homosexuals. He, too, has been an Obama supporter, and his church has been an occasional recipient of Obama's patronage. And perhaps he, too, can hope to be called "controversial" for his use of the term house nigger to describe those he doesn't like and for his view that it was "the Hollywood Jews" who brought us Brokeback Mountain. Meanwhile, the Republican nominee adorns himself with two further reverends: one named John Hagee, who thinks that the pope is the Antichrist, and another named Rod Parsley, who has declared that the United States has a mission to obliterate Islam. Is it conceivable that such repellent dolts would be allowed into public life if they were not in tax-free clerical garb? How true it is that religion poisons everything.

And what a shame. I assume you all have your copies of The Audacity of Hope in paperback breviary form. If you turn to the chapter entitled "Faith," beginning on Page 195, and read as far as Page 208, I think that even if you don't concur with my reading, you may suspect that I am onto something. In these pages, Sen. Obama is telling us that he doesn't really have any profound religious belief, but that in his early Chicago days he felt he needed to acquire some spiritual "street cred." The most excruciatingly embarrassing endorsement of this same viewpoint came last week from Abigail Thernstrom at National Review Online. Overcome by "the speech" that the divine one had given in Philadelphia, she urged us to be understanding. "Obama's description of the parishioners in his church gave white listeners a glimpse of a world of faith (with 'raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor … dancing, clapping, screaming, and shouting') that has been the primary means of black survival and uplift." A glimpse, huh? What the hell next? A tribute to the African-American sense of rhythm?

To have accepted Obama's smooth apologetics is to have lowered one's own pre-existing standards for what might constitute a post-racial or a post-racist future. It is to have put that quite sober and realistic hope, meanwhile, into untrustworthy and unscrupulous hands. And it is to have done this, furthermore, in the service of blind faith. Mark my words: This disappointment is only the first of many that are still to come.

---

Fuck Christopher Hitchens.

http://kylesmithonline.com/wp-conten...5/hitchens.jpg

Hero to secular republicans everywhere, ladies and gentlemen. The RANKING intellectual douchebag of our time.

Hitchens is a socialist that happens to support the Iraq war. He once called Reagan a "stupid lizard". He's not a Republican hero.

IDBTN. Look who's posting his articles.

I guess I'm an atheist and a socialist. You nailed me Yeller.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Advocate

Cause I said this in response.

---

Destin and MVS are different people. My response applied to what he said. My responses to MVS applied to what MVS said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frogacuda

wow really?

---

Thanks for clearing that up.
I is too stoopid 2 fig-yur it out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpoDaddy

I guess I'm an atheist and a socialist. You nailed me Yeller.

---

Everybody needs a hero, SpoDiddy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpoDaddy

http://kylesmithonline.com/wp-conten...5/hitchens.jpg

---

Frog, circa 2028, IMO.

You're a bit off, here is frog in 2028

http://www.facade.com/celebrity/photo/Karl_Marx.jpg

I'd still take him over Hillary.

Who, Marx?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpoDaddy

Hitchens is a socialist that happens to support the Iraq war. He once called Reagan a "stupid lizard". He's not a Republican hero.

---

Oh, he said a whole lot more than that;

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Christopher Hitchens

Not Even a Hedgehog
The stupidity of Ronald Reagan.

Not long ago, I was invited to be the specter at the feast during "Ronald Reagan Appreciation Week" at Wabash College in Indiana. One of my opponents was Dinesh D'Souza: He wasn't the only one who maintained that Reagan had been historically vindicated by the wreckage of the Soviet Union. Some of us on the left had also been very glad indeed to see the end of the Russian empire and the Cold War. But nothing could make me forget what the Reagan years had actually been like.

Ronald Reagan claimed that the Russian language had no word for "freedom." (The word is "svoboda"; it's quite well attested in Russian literature.) Ronald Reagan said that intercontinental ballistic missiles (not that there are any non-ballistic missiles—a corruption of language that isn't his fault) could be recalled once launched. Ronald Reagan said that he sought a "Star Wars" defense only in order to share the technology with the tyrants of the U.S.S.R. Ronald Reagan professed to be annoyed when people called it "Star Wars," even though he had ended his speech on the subject with the lame quip, "May the force be with you." Ronald Reagan used to alarm his Soviet counterparts by saying that surely they'd both unite against an invasion from Mars. Ronald Reagan used to alarm other constituencies by speaking freely about the "End Times" foreshadowed in the Bible. In the Oval Office, Ronald Reagan told Yitzhak Shamir and Simon Wiesenthal, on two separate occasions, that he himself had assisted personally at the liberation of the Nazi death camps.

There was more to Ronald Reagan than that. Reagan announced that apartheid South Africa had "stood beside us in every war we've ever fought," when the South African leadership had been on the other side in the most recent world war. Reagan allowed Alexander Haig to greenlight the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, fired him when that went too far and led to mayhem in Beirut, then ran away from Lebanon altogether when the Marine barracks were bombed, and then unbelievably accused Tip O'Neill and the Democrats of "scuttling." Reagan sold heavy weapons to the Iranian mullahs and lied about it, saying that all the weapons he hadn't sold them (and hadn't traded for hostages in any case) would, all the same, have fit on a small truck. Reagan then diverted the profits of this criminal trade to an illegal war in Nicaragua and lied unceasingly about that, too. Reagan then modestly let his underlings maintain that he was too dense to understand the connection between the two impeachable crimes. He then switched without any apparent strain to a policy of backing Saddam Hussein against Iran. (If Margaret Thatcher's intelligence services had not bugged Oliver North in London and become infuriated because all European nations were boycotting Iran at Reagan's request, we might still not know about this.)

One could go on. I only saw him once up close, which happened to be when he got a question he didn't like. Was it true that his staff in the 1980 debates had stolen President Carter's briefing book? (They had.) The famously genial grin turned into a rictus of senile fury: I was looking at a cruel and stupid lizard. His reply was that maybe his staff had, and maybe they hadn't, but what about the leak of the Pentagon Papers? Thus, a secret theft of presidential documents was equated with the public disclosure of needful information. This was a man never short of a cheap jibe or the sort of falsehood that would, however laughable, buy him some time.

The fox, as has been pointed out by more than one philosopher, knows many small things, whereas the hedgehog knows one big thing. Ronald Reagan was neither a fox nor a hedgehog. He was as dumb as a stump. He could have had anyone in the world to dinner, any night of the week, but took most of his meals on a White House TV tray. He had no friends, only cronies. His children didn't like him all that much. He met his second wife—the one that you remember—because she needed to get off a Hollywood blacklist and he was the man to see. Year in and year out in Washington, I could not believe that such a man had even been a poor governor of California in a bad year, let alone that such a smart country would put up with such an obvious phony and loon.

However, there came a day when Mikhail Gorbachev visited Washington and when the Marriott Hotel—host of the summit press conferences—turned its restaurant into the "Glasnost Cafe." On the sidewalk, LaRouche supporters wearing Reagan masks paraded with umbrellas, in mimicry of Neville Chamberlain. I huddled from dawn to dusk with friends, wondering if it could be real. Many of those friends had twice my IQ, or let's say six times that of the then-chief executive. These friends had all deeply wanted either Jimmy Carter or Walter Mondale to be, presumably successively, the president instead of Reagan. They would go on to put Michael Dukakis and Lloyd Bentsen bumper stickers on their vehicles. No doubt they wish that Mondale had been in the White House when the U.S.S.R. threw in the towel, just as they presumably yearn to have had Dukakis on watch when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. I have been wondering ever since not just about the stupidity of American politics, but about the need of so many American intellectuals to prove themselves clever by showing that they are smarter than the latest idiot in power, or the latest Republican at any rate.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YellerDog

Who, Marx?

---

At least I know where he stood on things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by squall_vb

At least I know where he stood on things.

---

Bingo.

Frog changes stances on things like a chameleon.

Debates just to debate.

That has nothing to do with Sonic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Advocate

Bingo.

Frog changes stances on things like a chameleon.

Debates just to debate.

---

I like it, though. If the Succubus becomes suddenly busy, at least I have something engaging to do. Of course, that also means I will probably end the evening with a furious masturbation session, but I see that as a double-win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by squall_vb

I like it, though. If the Succubus becomes suddenly busy, at least I have something engaging to do. Of course, that also means I will probably end the evening with a furious masturbation session, but I see that as a double-win.

---

LOL. I mean honestly, I disagree with Gozen a lot. Yet, I appreciate his debates, cause he has the passion and he never changes the subject. He keeps the debate moving in the same direction. In that sense. I can read a Gozen debate thread for hours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Advocate

LOL. I mean honestly, I disagree with Gozen a lot. Yet, I appreciate his debates, cause he has the passion and he never changes the subject. He keeps the debate moving in the same direction. In that sense. I can read a Gozen debate thread for hours.

---

Barf You're right though, consistancy is the key

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kidicarus

#1, you have been posting rude remarks after many of my posts. Some of which were deleted by admins. Or have you forgotten?

---

WTF? This is TNL not gamefaqs. Admins here don't delete posts.

Yeah, the new guy is a total pussy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Advocate

Bingo.

Frog changes stances on things like a chameleon.

Debates just to debate.

---

Find me one instance, ever. Your reading comprehension is just lacking. There may be times when I'll attack an argument because the argument was bad, even if I agree with the conclusion, but as far as taking a stand on an issue, I've always been completely consistent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpoDaddy

Secure the borders (we can do it, we just don't really want to). Give those already here illegally a heavy fine and make them pay back taxes before allowing them to take a citizenship test (it's not practical to deport tens of millions of people). Once the border is secure we deport illegals as they cross over. We also stop recognizing children born on American soil to illegal immigrants as American citizens.

Hitch just wrote a scathing piece on Hillary:

---

Eh, I don't think that's a realistic response to illegal immigration. How many of the immigrants could actually afford to pay that "heavy fine"? It's not practical to levy that fine, either. If those illegal immigrants have been paid under the table, there's no way to figure out how much to make them pay in taxes, either.

We need to secure the borders. We need to revamp our immigration quotas (they're way too low, both for educated and uneducated workers). Once we've seriously increased the number of people we intend on giving citizenship to, I'd develop some sort of expedited citizenship process for people in the country. Once we've revamped our immigration process, we should start to penalize employers who hire people without a legitimate right to work (penalties slowly scaling upwards over time).

I like and have always liked Hitchens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frogacuda

:lol: You can't be serious. Someone who lived here their whole life, could have gone to school with you, been a co-worker... they don't have any "connection" to this country, because their parents didn't fill out the paperwork.

---

Well, my next sentence was "The argument is much stronger for children who grew up here, but giving a child citizenship immediately doesn't have much of a logical backing."

Meaning that if a child was here, for any significant amount of time, there would be a much stronger argument for their citizenship than if they were here for under a year.

If you are saying that their parents are now Unofficial Americans, and therefore their children are also citizens, well, then perhaps that is a different debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Destin

Well, my next sentence was "The argument is much stronger for children who grew up here, but giving a child citizenship immediately doesn't have much of a logical backing." Meaning that if a child was here, for any significant amount of time, there would be a much stronger argument for their citizenship than if they were here for under a year.

---

Yes, but by that logic any child born here doesn't have an attachment to this land because they haven't been here long. It's just a losing argument you're making here. It all stems from this uniquely American way of thinking where we have hyphenated dual nationalities, but no one else really does that.

Let's put it this way. If you came to me like "Hey, I'm a Philadelphian, too. I've never been there, but my dad grew up there" I'd look at you like you were retarded. The way we in this country look at nationality, despite being the most heterogenous country in the world confuses people like yourself into making stupid arguments about nationality.

If you're born here, raised here, from here, you're American. There's no reason you shouldn't be. And just because we label you "Mexican-American", "African-American," or "Italian-American," doesn't actually mean you're from those place. It's a made up thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frogacuda

Find me one instance, ever. Your reading comprehension is just lacking. There may be times when I'll attack an argument because the argument was bad, even if I agree with the conclusion, but as far as taking a stand on an issue, I've always been completely consistent.

---

I can't quote GN forums here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Advocate

I can't quote GN forums here.

---

Just tell me. You don't need an exact quote.

The IGN banned me thread. Where you had an argument for 4 pages with Mantis. You both were saying the same thing. But you kept knitpicking each thing she said and never saw the overlying issue and what she was saying.

That wasn't me changing anything, that was me saying the same thing for four pages before she understood.

You said that I change stances like a chameleon. This is patently untrue. In this thread you can see that I'm consistently socially liberal on most issues, moderate on economic issues, and argue the same points for the entirety of the thread.

That's true. Frog is a stern believer against change. Shit, I bet he has on the same underwear from the last TNL meet-up.

In that thread you did. Her issue was calling people who are mentally challenged retards. You insisted to call them retarded. Or Mentally retarded. Then she shows you an example of when not to say it. You say thats no different than you calling someone fat to their face. You then ended the argument by saying that you don't PERSONALLY do that to someone.

Thus, basically saying you argue just to argue. And in the end you changed your stance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Advocate

In that thread you did. Her issue was calling people who are mentally challenged retards. You insisted to call them retarded. Or Mentally retarded. Then she shows you an example of when not to say it. You say thats no different than you calling someone fat to their face. You then ended the argument by saying that you don't PERSONALLY do that to someone.

Thus, basically saying you argue just to argue. And in the end you changed your stance.

---

That is a fantasy that only happened in your head. What I said was that the reason that the term "retarded" has a negative stigma is because the condition of being retarded has a stigma. It's considered bad to be retarded, and people don't like being associated with the condition. Thus any word we associate with that condition will have a stigma attached to it.

Like how "special" is now a bad thing. And if we call them "geniuses" then "genius" will be a bad thing. The problem is how people view the condition not their choice of word.

That was and is my stance.

So, if you have a mentally chanllenged son .. and I walked up to him and said oh I retard you'd be okay with it?

That was mine and mantis's stance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Advocate

So, if you have a mentally chanllenged son .. and I walked up to him and said oh I retard you'd be okay with it?

That was mine and mantis's stance.

---

If you said to me "Is it difficult raising a retarded son?" I would have zero problem with it. It's the attitude behind the words. That's what I said then, and it's what I say now. Enough of this, though, it's way off topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frogacuda

Philadelphian argument.

---

Nationality has many rights that a comparative term for cities does not.

I'm just talking about the way we think about identity. Rights are artificially imposed, and you're the one trying to make the case that they should change, not me, so you can't make those your starting point, or you've already lost.

An Italian-American is really just an American who identifies as Italian. In Italy they would not be Italian. We create this concept that someone can have two nationalities, and then people like yourself try to twist that to deny the American part of the nationality in favor of the imaginary nationality that has somehow been "inherited" from an earlier generation.

You don't inherit a country. You're from there or your not. Your heritage, ancestry, etc are not a "nationality" in that same sense. Philadelphia has a culture all its own, and everything that goes with it, but we don't think of that kind of "identity" as something that you inherit from you parents. Nationality should be no different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frogacuda

You don't inherit a country. You're from there or your not. Your heritage, ancestry, etc are not a "nationality" in that same sense.

---

You might want to retract that statement.

What about all the adopted Korean children from 1968-1975? We identify ourselves as Americans, but we are Korean.

You're only Korean in America. If you were anywhere else in the world (and especially in Korea) you'd be regarded as an American.

I like Hitchens. What's not to like?

Man boobs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frogacuda

You don't inherit a country. You're from there or your not. Your heritage, ancestry, etc are not a "nationality" in that same sense. .

---

Well, I have a French and an American passport because France claims I inherited the citizenship and rights from my mother. And because of my second-generational upbringing, I do feel as much European as American at times.

Quote:

---

I'm just talking about the way we think about identity. Rights are artificially imposed, and you're the one trying to make the case that they should change, not me, so you can't make those your starting point, or you've already lost.

---

Nationality by birth place is also artificially imposed, people are just people before we label them.

If you are born on Japanese soil and spend 2 years there on a military base, then come back, are you Japanese? I'm not so sure the average American or Japanese would consider that the case, whether or not the law said so. But for some reason in the American case, they are American.

Until you spend some significant time in the country, I don't see a good reason for labeling someone as a member of that country. Granting someone those rights before they have will guarentee that they will become American. But granting similar rights to the child of any parents who want their child to be raised in America will have the same effect. Therefore, the citizen at birth thing seems slightly arbitrary.

IF there is no reason to give Nationality at birth, then we look secondarily at it being a transfer of wealth, in the form of currently existing capital in the system. Then, it appears most logical to have it transferred from the people who paid into the system to their children.

After a few years spent in the country, I would agree that any child is American. Before you have spent a few years somewhere though, you are just a dependant on your parents for where you will be raised.

You keep creating these alternate scenarios about people that were born somewhere and left immediately after, and that isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about people who have not yet ever left this country.

Can we at least agree that to say you're from somewhere, you must have set foot there at some point? If we agree to that, then you can't call anyone who was born here and never left that they are from Mexico.

A baby obviously doesn't have any national identity. Hell, they probably don't know their own name for about 9 months. But it would still be incorrect to say "This baby is from Mexico" if the baby isn't from Mexico.

When two illegals drop a child on US soil, it is not some unbelievable leap to say "This child BELONGS in Mexico." It simply isn't. I don't think anyone has said that a kid born of illegals in his senior year of high school needs to gtfo, so you can quit harping on that idea. The point trying to be made, and frustratingly being dodged by some willful ignorance on your part, is that dropping a kid should not be the fast track to having a place in America.

There isn't one reason you could possibly give that mom, dad and little junior's first stop after the hospital can't be Mexico accept a tired idea that only the US sticks to.

Actually Curtis, the kid is fine to stay in America, but the parents have to leave. That is the current rule.

It's pretty rare that we'll actually deport the parents of a newborn American citizen and keep the baby.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpoDaddy

It's pretty rare that we'll actually deport the parents of a newborn American citizen and keep the baby.

---

Yes, we usually send the baby home as well with dual citizenship, but that is the "law" as written.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Destin

Well, I have a French and an American passport because France claims I inherited the citizenship and rights from my mother. And because of my second-generational upbringing, I do feel as much European as American at times.

---

This explains a lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

This explains a lot.

---

Yeah, I was expecting you or Biff to jump on this when I wrote it, but its not the first time I have said it on these boards, and I really didn't care anymore like I did when I was younger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpoDaddy

It's pretty rare that we'll actually deport the parents of a newborn American citizen and keep the baby.

---

Is there some kind of law that says that parents leaving the country can't take their child because it has a different country of national origin than them?

I think what they are trying to say, Travis, is the parents use the child's citizenship in this country as a means of being able to stay illegal or not. Not to say they should just drop the child and get the fuck out.

Soo....how bout that Clinton quote comparing herself to Rocky and that Obama retort reminding the world that Rocky is as fictional as Hilary?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Error

Soo....how bout that Clinton quote comparing herself to Rocky and that Obama retort reminding the world that Rocky is as fictional as Hilary?

---

Rocky lost to a black guy in the first movie, so I say the Rocky comparison is apt for Hillary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Error

Soo....how bout that Clinton quote comparing herself to Rocky and that Obama retort reminding the world that Rocky is as fictional as Hilary?

---

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...45_60putin.jpg

"I must break you."

If he dies, he dies.

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/3...9b2a226lv0.jpg

Oh my Jesus I was expanding on the opposition point in this thread, not our actual, current law. The views in support of our law have been "You can't deport a child that has known no other country," the views opposing have been a straight and to the point "That is fucking stupid." The retort then goes on about children who have been here for many years, to which the opposition replies "That's not what I meant and you know it. I meant the newest of new arrivals."

Supporters of the law then make a rousing speech using a poem on a statue as its platform and I feel like I'm watching Hardball because that actually seems to fly.

Is everyone participating in this on downers or something? I sincerely just want it to be about the election rather than our fucked up immigration policies that reward illegals and by comparison punish those trying to enter the country the right way.

Edit: Oh, good. It is back on track.

Hillary is in the same boat as Nader at this point. She has to know she's a detriment but she keeps plugging away out of stubborn pride. The whole rabid defense of the Mrs. thing has made Bill look batshit as well. It's kind of sad seeing him up there incensed in the least righteous way possible. I'm not one of those who think he was great or anything, but on a scale of Bush to TR, I'll rank him at a solid "mostly harmless."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cowdisease

Rocky lost to a black guy in the first movie, so I say the Rocky comparison is apt for Hillary.

---

He didn't lose, they tied. Mr. T eventually kicked his ass though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Razor Ramon

I think what they are trying to say, Travis, is the parents use the child's citizenship in this country as a means of being able to stay illegal or not. Not to say they should just drop the child and get the fuck out.

---

I know, but there isn't actually a legal basis for this. A judge decides this on a case by case basis, and legally someone can be deported regardless of the kid. So it's not a loophole in the law or a free pass at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpoDaddy

He didn't lose, they tied. Mr. T eventually kicked his ass though.

---

He lost in a decision, just as Hillary will lose at the convention.

Also fuck this bitch for talking to us like we're 9 and acting like Philadelphians can only apprehend things as they relate to Rocky.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frogacuda

He lost in a decision, just as Hillary will lose at the convention.

Also fuck this bitch for talking to us like we're 9 and acting like Philadelphians can only apprehend things as they relate to Rocky.

---

They DO steal a lot of Rocky posters. omg definition #2 OIC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frogacuda

He lost in a decision, just as Hillary will lose at the convention.

---

Rocky did not lose. Hillary will but Rocky did not.

I hope the next time Hillary speaks in Philadelphia they treat her like Jimmy Shubert


Philly is my home town, and we may be obese, unsophisticated, angry pieces of garbage, but if there's one thing we don't tolerate, it's being a hokey, sentimental cornball.

Who's Jimmy Shubert?

I'm guessing some stand-up comic who bombed in Failadelphia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

Failadelphia

---

:lol: +1

Fuck! I've got to spread my rep around (spicy!) b/4 repping g0zen again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpoDaddy

Who's Jimmy Shubert?

---

He got booed viciously for 10 minutes straight in front of a 12,000 person crowd. It was the most epic bombing of all time. I guess the clip doesn't do it justice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpoDaddy

Rocky did not lose. Hillary will but Rocky did not.

---

It's been a while, but as best as I can remember...

I do believe that Rocky lost in Rocky and Rocky Balboa, both times by split decision; however, he won the rest. And his record in the last film seems to indicate that he lost a few in the intermediate time, as well.

He lost to Clubber Lang.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Advocate

He lost to Clubber Lang.

---

...but came back to beat him before it was all said and done.

He also lost a few matches in Rocky, while heading up the ranks.

Rocky Balboa was an exhibition match and he tied Creed in Rocky.

So Bill's coming to PR tomorrow to hit people up for cash. Funny how he never once looked here when he was president, but his wife's campaign deserves a three day visit. Obama's sending his wife this month too, and he's coming in May.

The reason? PR's democratic primaries are in June, and we have more delegates than some states. It might just cement the election too. I'm going to vote, as it's the only chance anyone here gets to vote in anything presidential, though there's already talk of mounting a boycott of the primary exactly because this.

What's the feeling like there? Do you think people are skewing for Obama or Clinton?

Half of the statehood party is backing McCain, with the other half backing Hillary. The whole commonwealth party is Democratic, but they're split between her and Obama.

As far as the people go, no one really gives a shit either way, since candidates only look this way when they need campaign funds. A lot of people aren't happy about Bill's visit, and I doubt Obama will fare any better.

What's really got people's attention status-wise is the corruption case against the governor, which people from all parties agreed has been orchestrated by the FBI to take him down. He sent a letter to Condaleeza Rice last year stating that if the government doesn't do something to resolve the issue, he might not take the U.S.'s side when it goes before the U.N.'s decolonization committee this year. That, and his open criticism of how the FBI handled the shooting of terrorist Filiberto Ojeda, have made him a target.

They pulled this shit against former governor Pedro Rossello, because he got the Navy to leave its Vieques island target range and for his efforts to resolve the status issue. Rock the boat, and they end your political career.

Is there any evidence that the governor is innocent?

One of the charges being brought against him is that he failed to report some expensive suits he was given during his campaign. The state electoral comission already found nothing wrong with it, and the PR supreme court ruled that they were perfectly legal. Still, the FBI filed charges against him for it. Some of the other charges have been brought before against other U.S. governors and congressmen, but all were handled administratively. The only one who's been charged criminally has been Acevedo Vila.

Moreover, the federal prosecutor here spent three years investigating, without the consent of the main office, and she was severely reprimanded for it this week. All federal judges here have also recused themselves from the case so that an outside judge from NH could be brought in.

The whole way this case has been handled from day one hasn't just been unorthodox, it's been borderline illegal.

Hey guys check it out, Barack Obama's the Anti-Christ!

Makes sense to me.

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/...h1llssddpp.gif

Who fucking cares? My boy McCain is already setting up his furniture plans for his 8 years. LOL @ Democrats, really.

Yeah, McCain is setting up furniture plans alright:

http://www.the-nextlevel.com/board/a...1&d=1207610953

A dead Mccain is worth 2x Hilary and Obama, face it gozen, you lose again.

No, I knew the Dems would lose in '04 because Kerry was such a wet blanket. But this time? Not a chance. It's Goldwater vs. LBJ if Hillary gets it, so complete landslide. If, and this my hope, Obama gets it then it'd be like Goldwater vs. Kennedy and you might as well just pack up the GOP tent and go back home. Because the party is sunk for another two or three decades.

LOL, yeah I'm sure them southern boys will have NO problems pulling the lever for a black or a woman.

Now, understand I consider ALL three complete wastes of time. And I hope the GOP loses because we need a change, but it's not going to happen right now. In fact. Mr. Gozen, I will be willing to put up 250 dollars that McCain wins, you in for the bet?

I have said it before and I'll say it again; I'm not interested in making bets about Presidential elections.

Good plan, you'll make a fine mayor some day.

As much as we bicker and argue about "who killed who" I like your stance Gozen, and you are the only liberal I will say that to.

Plus one if you get what I mentioned.

Well, I for one have been rooting for Obama since 2004. But, now with this Antichrist news coming out, there no chance in Hell anyone's going to associate with him. Even if it's not likely to be true, the chance alone is enough to scare the mainstream politician.

That said, I still like to take my chances and say I'm in on that bet.

Obama bowled a 37 campaining in PA and I don't know if I can vote for anyone that bowled a 37. A retarded monkey with MS could bowl higher than a 37. I'm not saying you have to be a great bowler to be president, but you should be at least capable at most things, and 37 is just epic fail.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080330/...ing_for_voters

LOL