Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Also, there are far too many people illegally in this country that we know nothing about, to start granting amnesty. >>> That's an interesting comment, and I think you might have a misunderstanding about what some are calling "amnesty." All the President's plan is saying as far as I can tell is that people currently in the US illegally would be able to apply for the new Guest Worker program. This aspect of the plan is designed specifically to address your concern of there being too many people here that we don't know much if anything about. By requiring them to go through the vetting process of the Guest Worker program, they would be processed into the immigration system. Someone might say "That's all well and good, but about the people with criminal backgrounds that are already here?" Well, most of these people are going to remain outside of the system regardless of whether or not you allow current illegals to apply to be a Guest Worker. So, considering the above, do you still oppose preventing current illegals from applying to be Guest Workers?
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>So calling someone on the carpet for horrible name calling and labelling people on this sight some of the worst things you could say about anyone, is an attack? I couldnt realy get past the horrible things you said about people in order to even consider the discussion. Your refusal to even consider that some of the things you said were terrible says volumes.<< Actually, I'm very careful to specify who I'm talking about. I never said that "all conservatives" want to shoot immigrants. I said it's the right wing solution...in an obviously hyperbolic post. Note this caveat from post #11: >>The goal of *many on the rabid-right* is to rid the country of as many brown-skinned people who talk funny words as possible (NOTE THE PART THAT'S EMPHASIZED!).<< That's not all conservatives. That's many on the rabid-right. Specificity is something I learned posting here...broad strokes make you look bad so try to be...er...specific? The Christian remark was made in this context...which you say that you agree with: >>Well, see, Tom. I think I get how the Right thinks. It's not that there are people who genuinely love each other and have a child. No, ALL children of ALL illegal immigrants are "anchor babies." They're not human, just anchors. And you call yourselfs God fearing Christians?<<
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>It is only human to feel for the immigrants who come to this country to make a better life, even if they are illegal. Also, as someone who knows, and has employed illegal immigrants, i dont know a single one who had a baby just so that they would have a foothold in the U.S. I cant speak to all situations, but it is not true in the more than 20 imigrant families I have known.<< Very well put and agreed. >>But,while my heart tells me to feel sorry for and help these people, my head, and commom sense, tells me that we have to put a stop to illegal immigration.<< I dont think anyone here disagrees with that. >>Also, there are far too many people illegally in this country that we know nothing about, to start granting amnesty.<< And no one is talking about granting amnesty. In order for there to be an "amnesty," a full pardon from all sanctions and a permanent residency "green card" would be issued to all illegal immigrants would be granted to those who are in the group in question. This is most certainly not going to happen under any plan currently being proposed. >>This is one of those classic issues that make liberals look like caring, loving individuals and Conservatives look like Scrooge.<< Well, true Conservatives like Patrick Buchanan don't help that image much. ;-) >>But, sometimes the head must win out over the heart.<< Yep. Sometimes anger and bile come from the heart just as much as compassion. The two extremes, "deport 'em all!" vs. "let 'em all stay and give them welfare" aren't going to work without doing serious damage to the country. There must be a road that takes this little thing called The Real World â„¢ into account. >>I am afraid that far too often, liberals wont make the correct, hard choice as in this issue.<< And neither will those on the Right. >>Sometimes you have to be tough, even if you will be labeled a rascist or worse. What is good for this country should always be the number 1 goal.<< Tough can be many things. There are ways to deal with the immigration issue that won't put yet another black mark on the image of the United States. The Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act of 2005 is of the better bills being proposed on this issue. I highly recommend reading it.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Lets see here, I just read basically this entire thread, and so far, cmpaley and TomSawyer have called conservatives on here, Rascists, they want to kill all people with brown skin and are terrible christians.<< Plano, would you please show me where I said any of those things?
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Sure. That's why the infrastructure in Eastern Europe under the communists was better than that of Western Europe. When the government controls who builds what, rather than the free market, there's a lot more corruption, and waste. >>> As someone else pointed out, there's a striking correlation between many of the large contracts the US has awarded in Iraq to big contractors, their secret "no bit" nature, and the appearance of corruption. There are several organizations that track such thing. One is Transparency International, and here's a link to their 2004 report: <a href="http://www.transparency.org/cpi/2004/cpi2004.en.html" target="_blank">http://www.transparency.org/cp i/2004/cpi2004.en.html</a> The table at the bottom is most interesting. You'll notice that if you look at the ranking of the chart, you could think of several factors that influence the way the various countries were ranked. One thing that stands out is that the US is tied for 17th. Looking at the countries that are ranked higher, although they are mostly democracies, quite a few of them are a lot more socialist than the US. Some, like Hong Kong, even don't have full democracy, but a dedication to root out corruption more than the US does, and the results show it. There's a reason this outfit is called Transparency International. "Transparancy in government" is perhaps the single most important aspect in keeping corrpution to a minimum, even more so than democracy and capitalism.
Originally Posted By planodisney Tom, how about post 7. Look, i know you guys dont realy believe that we want to kill all brown skinned people, but why must liberals always resort to this kind of inflamatory slander? You guys may be humorously exagerating, but liberals everyday constantly label people who disagree with them with things like this. It is soooo tiresom. Just argue without insisting the other side is evil. I have no problem with you guys ripping someone for an opinion you feel is stupid or not well thought out, but calling someone a rascist murderer or a terrible Christian is a different story.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>I have no problem with you guys ripping someone for an opinion you feel is stupid or not well thought out, but calling someone a rascist murderer or a terrible Christian is a different story.<< When taken out of the CONTEXT in which it was written, it sounds like you make it out to sound...but in the CONTEXT it means what was meant. I honestly believe that there ARE anti-immigrant groups out there that are extremely racist in nature. There's no denying it. All you have to do is go to forums where immigration is the main topic. Some of the racist things that are said are simply appalling. But not all people who want to control illegal immigration are racists and I have never said such a thing. And to dehumanize a person by calling them an "anchor" is unchristian and I vehemently condemn it.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Look, i know you guys dont realy believe that we want to kill all brown skinned people, but why must liberals always resort to this kind of inflamatory slander?<< First, it was a joke. Second, isn't saying that liberals always resort to inflamatory slander inflammtory slander in itself?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer I still didn't see where I said someone was advocating murder or that they were terrible Christians, btw.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>I still didn't see where I said someone was advocating murder or that they were terrible Christians, btw.<< Hyperbole by anyone opposite a "conservative" point of view is always taken seriously but hyperboly by a "conservative" is always known to be hyperbole. And it was I who questioned the Christianity of people who refer to the children of illegal immigrants as "anchors." Language such as that makes a mockery of our Constitution (they are citizens of the US, like it or not) and reduces them to the status of a "thing" and not a human person created in the image and likeness of God. Both things are, in my opinion, unchristian in the extreme.
