The Speech that won the election

[Leoreth]

What I am (and maybe was? Not sure what you mean) referring to is the "well I have my opinion and you can't force me to change it!" line, which is always uttered with some defiance to end a discussion. Often accompanied by "this is a free country", references to the first amendment and similar nonsense.

I understand this forum as a location to discuss. Just announcing your opinion is not discussion. You are expected to give reasons and arguments for your position. In this case, after I criticized his argument, he decided not to give a counterargument, and instead went full "it's just my opinion!" mode, which is completely worthless in a discussion. Then he accused me of trying to force my opinion on him, which didn't happen. That's where, in my opinion, the persecution complex comes in, because everything I did was attacking his arguments, which is the whole point of a discussion.

I don't know what useless has to do with this. I don't disagree with him in substance most of the time, even though I don't always like his style, so I mainly ignore him. Are you suggesting that only vocally disagreeing with people I disagree with amounts to persecution?

 

[sophie]

OK, and part of that is his policies have failed to fix it... get it?

His policies haven't done as much as they could have, but on the whole they were the correct move. To expect that anybody or any policy could have rectified the economic situation by 2012 (to the extent of returning it to pre-2007 levels) just reflects on how out of touch with how macroeconomics work in the real world that person is.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

OK, and part of that is his policies have failed to fix it... get it?

What policy would have fixed the recession? It would have had to be one that fixed the European situation as well.

One president of one country can't, including Romney. And neither was Bush the cause.

 

[Oruc]

He's not a xenophobe.

He's a racist.

He's only a racist if he believes one race is superior to the others

 

[Cutlass]

So you support open borders because in 1750 lots of people turned up illegally too?

This isn't about whether or not I want open borders. Just a recognition that for most of American history we have had either fully, or partially, open borders. And in fact over the past 26 years or so, since the amnesty and immigration reform program under Reagan, the US has in fact had tacitly open borders. The government knew these people were here, they chose to look the other way. The government knew these people were working here, they chose to look the other way. The government knew these people were setting down roots and raising families here, they chose to look the other way.

When people are doing something with your full knowledge and tacit permission for 26 years, and you really don't lift a finger to do anything about it, it's a pretty seriously scumbag move to tell them now, oh we've changed our mind.

 

[Oruc]

When people are doing something with your full knowledge and tacit permission for 26 years, and you really don't lift a finger to do anything about it, it's a pretty seriously scumbag move to tell them now, oh we've changed our mind.

So if Chiteng and others had tried to forcibly remove these people before they had a chance to set down roots that wouldn't be a scumbag move?

 

[Cutlass]

So if Chiteng and others had tried to forcibly remove these people before they had a chance to set down roots that wouldn't be a scumbag move?

If the government makes a policy and sticks to the official policy, well then there's little to complain about other than legal efforts to change the policy. When the government makes an unofficial policy, and people live with it for a generation, then it's pretty scumbagish to turn around and change your mind.

 

[Oruc]

If the government makes a policy and sticks to the official policy, well then there's little to complain about other than legal efforts to change the policy. When the government makes an unofficial policy, and people live with it for a generation, then it's pretty scumbagish to turn around and change your mind.

You didn't answer the question

 

[Cutlass]

Chinteg is not the government. He has no part in removing them.

 

[Quackers]

This isn't about whether or not I want open borders. Just a recognition that for most of American history we have had either fully, or partially, open borders. And in fact over the past 26 years or so, since the amnesty and immigration reform program under Reagan, the US has in fact had tacitly open borders. The government knew these people were here, they chose to look the other way. The government knew these people were working here, they chose to look the other way. The government knew these people were setting down roots and raising families here, they chose to look the other way.

When people are doing something with your full knowledge and tacit permission for 26 years, and you really don't lift a finger to do anything about it, it's a pretty seriously scumbag move to tell them now, oh we've changed our mind.

Well I think you should do an amnesty like Reagan did and then stopping "looking the other way" and go in hard.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

So you support open borders because in 1750 lots of people turned up illegally too?

No one turned up illegally before there were laws regulating immigration. Nothing is illegal in the absence of laws. In the early days there were only extralegal immigrants.


If I recall correctly, none of my ancestors ever had to deal with any sort of legal bureaucracy in order to immigrate without breaking any laws. To the best of my knowledge the most recent immigrant among them arrived around 1840 (and his grandfather was born here too, but was a Loyalists who fled to England during the Revolutionary War).



It seem like it would be the height of hypocrisy for me to support imposing tougher legal barriers on other would be immigrants without a very, very good reason.

 

[Oruc]

Chinteg is not the government. He has no part in removing them.

But if the government does nothing, then surely the people should take matters into their own hands? They don't want people claiming they tacitly approve of something because of their inaction.

 

[Chiteng]

This isn't about whether or not I want open borders. Just a recognition that for most of American history we have had either fully, or partially, open borders. And in fact over the past 26 years or so, since the amnesty and immigration reform program under Reagan, the US has in fact had tacitly open borders. The government knew these people were here, they chose to look the other way. The government knew these people were working here, they chose to look the other way. The government knew these people were setting down roots and raising families here, they chose to look the other way.

When people are doing something with your full knowledge and tacit permission for 26 years, and you really don't lift a finger to do anything about it, it's a pretty seriously scumbag move to tell them now, oh we've changed our mind.

That is too damn bad. I live here also, and I AM a citizen. The Gov didnt consult me
on its actions. I have NOT been silent on this issue, ever since Reagan gave them amnesty. It took years of building anger and resentment against illegals to finally
have enough clout that actions could be taken to stop them.
I apologize to NO ONE.

 

[DinoDoc]

If the government makes a policy and sticks to the official policy, well then there's little to complain about other than legal efforts to change the policy. When the government makes an unofficial policy, and people live with it for a generation, then it's pretty scumbagish to turn around and change your mind.

So what. Seriously, control of a country's borders is one of the prime functions of a national government and it seems petulant on the part of certain people to complain when the national government finally might get around to taking that responsibility seriously.

 

[kochman]

So what. Seriously, control of a country's borders is one of the prime functions of a national government and it seems petulant on the part of certain people to complain when the national government finally might get around to taking that responsibility seriously.

No Dinodoc, you have to continue flawed policy... there is no change allowed... no progress... it wouldn't be fair to change the rules. Why we don't just have our initial set of rules and then completely back off beats me...

 

[Cutlass]

But if the government does nothing, then surely the people should take matters into their own hands? They don't want people claiming they tacitly approve of something because of their inaction.

Of course not. People do not ever have the right to take violence to other people except in direct self defense against violence.

Well I think you should do an amnesty like Reagan did and then stopping "looking the other way" and go in hard.

Some people agree with you. More want to do both toss them all out and crack down on all new ones.

That is too damn bad. I live here also, and I AM a citizen. The Gov didnt consult me
on its actions. I have NOT been silent on this issue, ever since Reagan gave them amnesty. It took years of building anger and resentment against illegals to finally
have enough clout that actions could be taken to stop them.
I apologize to NO ONE.

You can be as mad as you want. But you still have a dead wrong position that's directly harmful to the US.

So what. Seriously, control of a country's borders is one of the prime functions of a national government and it seems petulant on the part of certain people to complain when the national government finally might get around to taking that responsibility seriously.

The border has never been the issue. The border is a strawman. The border can't really be closed, it's too big. And the boondoggle of trying would costs 10s of 1000s of dollars more than any possible benefit that could conceivably be gained from doing so.

All "closing the border" does is rape away tax dollar and give it to corporate cronies for the purpose of pandering to people with no clue whatsoever of what is going on, and usually people ruled by bigotry instead of intelligence.

 

[JollyRoger]

I apologize to NO ONE.

Gracias, senorita.

 

[Chiteng]

Of course not. People do not ever have the right to take violence to other people except in direct self defense against violence.






Some people agree with you. More want to do both toss them all out and crack down on all new ones.






You can be as mad as you want. But you still have a dead wrong position that's directly harmful to the US.






The border has never been the issue. The border is a strawman. The border can't really be closed, it's too big. And the boondoggle of trying would costs 10s of 1000s of dollars more than any possible benefit that could conceivably be gained from doing so.

All "closing the border" does is rape away tax dollar and give it to corporate cronies for the purpose of pandering to people with no clue whatsoever of what is going on, and usually people ruled by bigotry instead of intelligence.

The benefit would be that the illegals could not enter, and abuse the 14th amendment.
A very valuable thing indeed

 

[Cutlass]

The benefit would be that the illegals could not enter, and abuse the 14th amendment.
A very valuable thing indeed

And why is that valuable?

 

[Chiteng]

And why is that valuable?

I find it amusing that you openly support:

Sedition
Anarchy
and Law Breaking
Extortion
Blackmail

Dont ask me to respect your opinion.