On May 12 2010 12:41 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: If you are against this law then you are against the voice of the people. If you are against this law you are against democracy. If you are against this law you are a right-wing fascist.
that has got to be the most retarded logic i've ever heard... everyone is entitled to their own opinion on a law, being for or against one doesn't make you a facist
On May 12 2010 11:35 ragnasaur wrote: Yes, this law enforces an american citizenship, but i believe at the cost of too much racial profiling, and further separation between 2 majorities for a country founded on immigrants.
america was founded by immigrants but it doesnt give the illegal immigrants to sneak in illegally.
Huh?
As a Hispanic person I'd be offended if I were asked by law enforcement to show proof of citizenship. I'm sure the law was passed with good intentions in mind but singling out a group of people because of the color of their skin is just wrong.
If proof of citizenship is required of hispanic americans then all americans should have to follow same law. Why should hispanic americans have to do this and nobody else does? Are hispanic americans lesser citizens?
People saying that police officers would need probable cause before they can request proof of citizenship seem a tad bit naive. I can't tell you how many times I've been pulled over while having my cruise control set on 70 on the highway (speed limit) and the officer tells me I was going 77 or 78 (most likely because I live in south Texas and illegal immigration a common occurrence here). If a police officer thinks you're an illegal immigrant or or just wants to pull a brown person over for the fuck of it, he's going to find a reason to do so.
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf NBA superstar Charles Barkley and others such as myself are outraged with this new law. Now officers can racially profile anyone who looks Mexican and ask them for their legality papers. I asked my mexican roommate what he would do if a cop asked him, he replied that he would tell the cop, "go fuck yourself."
According to the US Census Bureau, AZ had a 6,595,778 population in 2009. In 2008 30.1% of these people were persons of Hispanic or Latino origin. Furthermore, Arizona used to be in Mexico... "In the Mexican–American War (1847), the U.S. occupied Mexico City and forced the newly founded Mexican Republic to give up its northern territories, including what later became Arizona" (wiki) Then again, countless Native American tribes were deported when we claimed America, so I gather this is standard protocol.
This law has already started protests of the state of Arizona, including one by Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik who refuses to uphold the law, saying it is "unwise", "stupid", and "racist."
Personally, as a non-mexican arizonan i find this law comparable to Nazi Germany's separation and purification techniques, and all together just flat out wack. Thoughts? If anyone is for this law please state your reasoning as it baffles me that a resident of this fine state would support it.
If you are against this law then you are against the voice of the people. If you are against this law you are against democracy. If you are against this law you are a right-wing fascist.
I pray that that's a sarcastic statement. Just because the people will it doesn't mean that it's right. Case in point, slavery.
So you must believe that there is some kind of objective moral truth. And you must also presumably believe that you have a means of gaining knowledge of that truth. I'd appreciate it if you explain what that truth is and how you know it
Socialism is arguably one of the greatest economic ideas ever, but people think socialism means evil. Does that mean being a socialist is evil?
So you must believe that there is some kind of objective moral truth. And you must also presumably believe that you have a means of gaining knowledge of that truth. I'd appreciate it if you explain what that truth is and how you know it
Nope. All I did was kill your argument.
Yeah. You really killed it.
Alright, it wasn't the greatest example >.> Here's another one:
Being against big business means you're liberal. If you're against big business, you're communist.
On May 12 2010 09:58 ragnasaur wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ98z4__H-g http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf NBA superstar Charles Barkley and others such as myself are outraged with this new law. Now officers can racially profile anyone who looks Mexican and ask them for their legality papers. I asked my mexican roommate what he would do if a cop asked him, he replied that he would tell the cop, "go fuck yourself."
According to the US Census Bureau, AZ had a 6,595,778 population in 2009. In 2008 30.1% of these people were persons of Hispanic or Latino origin. Furthermore, Arizona used to be in Mexico... "In the Mexican–American War (1847), the U.S. occupied Mexico City and forced the newly founded Mexican Republic to give up its northern territories, including what later became Arizona" (wiki) Then again, countless Native American tribes were deported when we claimed America, so I gather this is standard protocol.
This law has already started protests of the state of Arizona, including one by Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik who refuses to uphold the law, saying it is "unwise", "stupid", and "racist."
Personally, as a non-mexican arizonan i find this law comparable to Nazi Germany's separation and purification techniques, and all together just flat out wack. Thoughts? If anyone is for this law please state your reasoning as it baffles me that a resident of this fine state would support it.
If you are against this law then you are against the voice of the people. If you are against this law you are against democracy. If you are against this law you are a right-wing fascist.
I pray that that's a sarcastic statement. Just because the people will it doesn't mean that it's right. Case in point, slavery.
So you must believe that there is some kind of objective moral truth. And you must also presumably believe that you have a means of gaining knowledge of that truth. I'd appreciate it if you explain what that truth is and how you know it
Socialism is arguably one of the greatest economic ideas ever, but people think socialism means evil. Does that mean being a socialist is evil?
So you must believe that there is some kind of objective moral truth. And you must also presumably believe that you have a means of gaining knowledge of that truth. I'd appreciate it if you explain what that truth is and how you know it
Nope. All I did was kill your argument.
Yeah. You really killed it.
Alright, it wasn't the greatest example >.> Here's another one:
Being against big business means you're liberal. If you're against big business, you're communist.
I was using a definition of fascist that was something along the lines of: "someone supporting a political view that defends some version of minority rule or anti-democracy"
If AZ citizens dont like this law, vote in representatives who will get rid of it. That is democracy.
On May 12 2010 09:58 ragnasaur wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ98z4__H-g http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf NBA superstar Charles Barkley and others such as myself are outraged with this new law. Now officers can racially profile anyone who looks Mexican and ask them for their legality papers. I asked my mexican roommate what he would do if a cop asked him, he replied that he would tell the cop, "go fuck yourself."
According to the US Census Bureau, AZ had a 6,595,778 population in 2009. In 2008 30.1% of these people were persons of Hispanic or Latino origin. Furthermore, Arizona used to be in Mexico... "In the Mexican–American War (1847), the U.S. occupied Mexico City and forced the newly founded Mexican Republic to give up its northern territories, including what later became Arizona" (wiki) Then again, countless Native American tribes were deported when we claimed America, so I gather this is standard protocol.
This law has already started protests of the state of Arizona, including one by Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik who refuses to uphold the law, saying it is "unwise", "stupid", and "racist."
Personally, as a non-mexican arizonan i find this law comparable to Nazi Germany's separation and purification techniques, and all together just flat out wack. Thoughts? If anyone is for this law please state your reasoning as it baffles me that a resident of this fine state would support it.
If you are against this law then you are against the voice of the people. If you are against this law you are against democracy. If you are against this law you are a right-wing fascist.
I pray that that's a sarcastic statement. Just because the people will it doesn't mean that it's right. Case in point, slavery.
So you must believe that there is some kind of objective moral truth. And you must also presumably believe that you have a means of gaining knowledge of that truth. I'd appreciate it if you explain what that truth is and how you know it
Socialism is arguably one of the greatest economic ideas ever, but people think socialism means evil. Does that mean being a socialist is evil?
So you must believe that there is some kind of objective moral truth. And you must also presumably believe that you have a means of gaining knowledge of that truth. I'd appreciate it if you explain what that truth is and how you know it
Nope. All I did was kill your argument.
Yeah. You really killed it.
Alright, it wasn't the greatest example >.> Here's another one:
Being against big business means you're liberal. If you're against big business, you're communist.
I was using a definition of fascist that was something along the lines of: "someone supporting a political view that defends some version of minority rule or anti-democracy"
If AZ citizens dont like this law, vote in representatives who will get rid of it. That is democracy.
But because the representatives AS OF NOW voted for it, does that mean you are against the voice of the people? After all, the voice of the people can only be referring to 100% of the people.
Also, the representatives' decisions are not the direct result of the people. It's the voice of the representatives, not the people.
I do not support the law...not because I think it is racist or unconstitutional....but because I think it should be far tougher and on a national level. This law isn't even going to stop illegal activity. There is no point in doing anything unless the borders (in particularly the Mexican border) get completely shut down.
The thing that gets me is these people protesting against the law. I don't even understand how you can possibly protest this unless you think amnesty is a good thing (which to me is ludicrious). What is the solution the protestors are looking for? Open border anarchy?
Lastly, the thing that is most hilarious about this? Go look at Mexico's illegal immigrant law and what they do to those people and get back to me. The US is ridiculous in comparison.
If you are against this law then you are against the voice of the people. If you are against this law you are against democracy. If you are against this law you are a right-wing fascist.
I pray that that's a sarcastic statement. Just because the people will it doesn't mean that it's right. Case in point, slavery.
So you must believe that there is some kind of objective moral truth. And you must also presumably believe that you have a means of gaining knowledge of that truth. I'd appreciate it if you explain what that truth is and how you know it
Socialism is arguably one of the greatest economic ideas ever, but people think socialism means evil. Does that mean being a socialist is evil?
So you must believe that there is some kind of objective moral truth. And you must also presumably believe that you have a means of gaining knowledge of that truth. I'd appreciate it if you explain what that truth is and how you know it
Nope. All I did was kill your argument.
Yeah. You really killed it.
Alright, it wasn't the greatest example >.> Here's another one:
Being against big business means you're liberal. If you're against big business, you're communist.
I was using a definition of fascist that was something along the lines of: "someone supporting a political view that defends some version of minority rule or anti-democracy"
If AZ citizens dont like this law, vote in representatives who will get rid of it. That is democracy.
But because the representatives AS OF NOW voted for it, does that mean you are against the voice of the people? After all, the voice of the people can only be referring to 100% of the people.
Also, the representatives' decisions are not the direct result of the people. It's the voice of the representatives, not the people.
You are hilarious! Yes, laws only apply if 100% of all citizens agree! Haha!
So you are arguing against a republic and for direct democracy. That is fine. Ill agree. But Direct democracy can still vote for a law like this. And i assume that you would still be opposed to it. So you are fascist.
On May 12 2010 12:52 Mystlord wrote: [quote] I pray that that's a sarcastic statement. Just because the people will it doesn't mean that it's right. Case in point, slavery.
So you must believe that there is some kind of objective moral truth. And you must also presumably believe that you have a means of gaining knowledge of that truth. I'd appreciate it if you explain what that truth is and how you know it
Socialism is arguably one of the greatest economic ideas ever, but people think socialism means evil. Does that mean being a socialist is evil?
So you must believe that there is some kind of objective moral truth. And you must also presumably believe that you have a means of gaining knowledge of that truth. I'd appreciate it if you explain what that truth is and how you know it
Nope. All I did was kill your argument.
Yeah. You really killed it.
Alright, it wasn't the greatest example >.> Here's another one:
Being against big business means you're liberal. If you're against big business, you're communist.
I was using a definition of fascist that was something along the lines of: "someone supporting a political view that defends some version of minority rule or anti-democracy"
If AZ citizens dont like this law, vote in representatives who will get rid of it. That is democracy.
But because the representatives AS OF NOW voted for it, does that mean you are against the voice of the people? After all, the voice of the people can only be referring to 100% of the people.
Also, the representatives' decisions are not the direct result of the people. It's the voice of the representatives, not the people.
You are hilarious! Yes, laws only apply if 100% of all citizens agree! Haha!
So you are arguing against a republic and for direct democracy. That is fine. Ill agree. But Direct democracy can still vote for a law like this. And i assume that you would still be opposed to it. So you are fascist.
What the heck are you on about? You said that being against the law was being against the voice of the people, which is blatantly untrue. Yes, democracy is the result of a majority vote, but it is NOT the overall belief in a nation.
Check out the election of 2000. Was Bush becoming president representative of the people? Well, it's hard to tell, seeing as how LESS PEOPLE wanted him. Would one be a fascist if they disliked Bush?
I'm not criticizing your idea of democracy - at least, to a certain extent. What I disagree with is the fact that you think a 50.000001% vote is enough to be called the "voice of the people," which can only refer to all of the citizens as a whole.
(1) so you want to get rid of all nations // all forms of decentralized government and have the world population vote on all laws of a new world government?
(2) call it whatever the fuck you want. if 50..........1% is what gets the most votes than that is the law and, thus, that is what is moral. Disagree? Answer the question I asked you 5 posts ago... what is objective moral truth and how do you know it?
On May 12 2010 13:16 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: (1) so you want to get rid of all nations // all forms of decentralized government and have the world population vote on all laws of a new world government?
(2) call it whatever the fuck you want. if 50..........1% is what gets the most votes than that is the law and, thus, that is what is moral. Disagree? Answer the question I asked you 5 posts ago... what is objective moral truth and how do you know it?
1. No.
2. No.
I'm NOT against democracy; I'm against the way you described it.
On May 12 2010 13:09 StarMasterX wrote: I do not support the law...not because I think it is racist or unconstitutional....but because I think it should be far tougher and on a national level. This law isn't even going to stop illegal activity. There is no point in doing anything unless the borders (in particularly the Mexican border) get completely shut down.
That would just result in widespread discrimination. The thought of being forced to provide proof of citizenship or be detained is enraging. I'm a legit American citizen who just so happens to be hispanic; that means I get to be treated differently? Awesome.
The thing that gets me is these people protesting against the law. I don't even understand how you can possibly protest this unless you think amnesty is a good thing (which to me is ludicrious). What is the solution the protestors are looking for? Open border anarchy?
How about creating a law which doesn't discriminate against millions of americans?
On May 12 2010 13:16 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: (1) so you want to get rid of all nations // all forms of decentralized government and have the world population vote on all laws of a new world government?
(2) call it whatever the fuck you want. if 50..........1% is what gets the most votes than that is the law and, thus, that is what is moral. Disagree? Answer the question I asked you 5 posts ago... what is objective moral truth and how do you know it?
1. No.
2. No.
I'm NOT against democracy; I'm against the way you described it.
Oh, and I happen to be pretty liberal.
OK, I agree that the "voice of the people" doesn't exist or exists about a very few things. Hell, not even everyone agrees the earth is round.
Democracy is whatever gets the most votes rules for a given location. If AZ immigration law got the most votes its democratic. If you think thats wrong you think democracy is wrong.
I dont care if you are liberal or a nazi. I'll juts continue calling you a fascist if you are against democracy.
I'd wager that most everyone (if not everyone) who calls this bill racist is actively (or subconsciously) falling back on being politically correct. The fact is that Arizona borders Mexico. This is a statement of fact. It is a fact that thousands, if not millions of Mexicans cross illegally into the state every year. It is a fact that this is illegal.
What follows from this only makes logical sense. Even if the law specifically said "target mexicans' it would only make the law more effective since anyone who doesn't think they don't make up 99% of the illegal immigration into the state is fooling themselves.
Having said that it is hard to maintain that sort of profiling as equitable to the citizens who are of Mexican background. However if anything this law will prompt change from Washington that is long overdue. Weighed against a national issue that has translated into a matter of national security, taking extreme actions are necessary at this point.
TBH tho... It would probably be more effective and cheaper (relative to this virtual wall bullshit) to literally build a stone wall across our border (ala Hadrians Wall).
On the Democracy issue, what is moral is a social construct. Since we have no objective judge for what is right the best possible determinant is what an informed majority thinks. Now you can contend whether or not people are informed but most seem to understand that this is a real issue that is creating real problems in our country.
On May 12 2010 13:16 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: (1) so you want to get rid of all nations // all forms of decentralized government and have the world population vote on all laws of a new world government?
(2) call it whatever the fuck you want. if 50..........1% is what gets the most votes than that is the law and, thus, that is what is moral. Disagree? Answer the question I asked you 5 posts ago... what is objective moral truth and how do you know it?
1. No.
2. No.
I'm NOT against democracy; I'm against the way you described it.
Oh, and I happen to be pretty liberal.
OK, I agree that the "voice of the people" doesn't exist or exists about a very few things. Hell, not even everyone agrees the earth is round.
Democracy is whatever gets the most votes rules for a given location. If AZ immigration law got the most votes its democratic. If you think thats wrong you think democracy is wrong.
I dont care if you are liberal or a nazi. I'll juts continue calling you a fascist if you are against democracy.
Nope. If I think it's wrong, I think the choice made by the legislators is wrong, NOT the principle of democracy.
On May 12 2010 13:16 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: (1) so you want to get rid of all nations // all forms of decentralized government and have the world population vote on all laws of a new world government?
(2) call it whatever the fuck you want. if 50..........1% is what gets the most votes than that is the law and, thus, that is what is moral. Disagree? Answer the question I asked you 5 posts ago... what is objective moral truth and how do you know it?
1. No.
2. No.
I'm NOT against democracy; I'm against the way you described it.
Oh, and I happen to be pretty liberal.
OK, I agree that the "voice of the people" doesn't exist or exists about a very few things. Hell, not even everyone agrees the earth is round.
Democracy is whatever gets the most votes rules for a given location. If AZ immigration law got the most votes its democratic. If you think thats wrong you think democracy is wrong.
I dont care if you are liberal or a nazi. I'll juts continue calling you a fascist if you are against democracy.
Nope. If I think it's wrong, I think the choice made by the legislators is wrong, NOT the principle of democracy.
Right. I already covered this when I said we were both simply arguing for direct democracy. Then I gave the example of a direct democractic vote that imposes the AZ law and asked if you WOULD STILL be opposed. If so, then I said youd be a fascist in my book.
On May 12 2010 13:16 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: (1) so you want to get rid of all nations // all forms of decentralized government and have the world population vote on all laws of a new world government?
(2) call it whatever the fuck you want. if 50..........1% is what gets the most votes than that is the law and, thus, that is what is moral. Disagree? Answer the question I asked you 5 posts ago... what is objective moral truth and how do you know it?
1. No.
2. No.
I'm NOT against democracy; I'm against the way you described it.
Oh, and I happen to be pretty liberal.
OK, I agree that the "voice of the people" doesn't exist or exists about a very few things. Hell, not even everyone agrees the earth is round.
Democracy is whatever gets the most votes rules for a given location. If AZ immigration law got the most votes its democratic. If you think thats wrong you think democracy is wrong.
I dont care if you are liberal or a nazi. I'll juts continue calling you a fascist if you are against democracy.
Nope. If I think it's wrong, I think the choice made by the legislators is wrong, NOT the principle of democracy.
Right. I already covered this when I said we were both simply arguing for direct democracy. Then I gave the example of a direct democractic vote that imposes the AZ law and asked if you WOULD STILL be opposed. If so, then I said youd be a fascist in my book.
But that's not an opposition to the principle of democracy. As I am a person, and people are entitled to have their own opinions, I think the choice made would be wrong. I would, however, agree that because it is a democracy, it would be in the best interest to pass the law - not because I believed the effects were good, but because I believe maintaining the democracy would be best.
Fascism, under your definition (which, by the way, is incorrect), is the opposition to democracy itself, not the results of it.
I am absolutely fine with democracy itself, but the actual issues I might not. You're trying to say that somebody who disagrees with ".999... = 1" even though it's widely accepted by experts on the matter does not agree with math at all, which is a false "equation"
On May 12 2010 10:17 illu wrote: I am really confused as to how illegals in the states get benefits. Someone above mentioned this; when I watched Law and Order this was mentioned countless number of times. Maybe we are talking about different benefits?
In Canada to enroll in schools you need several documents to prove that you are the person you say you are; to get health care you need a health card, which shouldn't be accessible by someone who arrived illegally. To claim employment insurance you need a SIN card.... so unless a person manages to fake all of that (which is pretty hard, I think, because all of them have a number to it, which is probably linked to some databse), I don't see anyone in Canada illegally can get any benefits at all.
We are very well handled, if you try to enforce immigration you end getting the ear full of your grand parents were immigrants as far as schools and stuff. I have a friend in California that say its pretty common for the parent to be illegal and most of the time the child be a born citizen so they can go to school but most do not pay taxes. Also hospitals can not deny life saving services to anyone. Also what is employment insurance? Is it better health insurance or like life insurance.
On May 12 2010 13:24 On_Slaught wrote: Let me play devils advocate here...
I'd wager that most everyone (if not everyone) who calls this bill racist is actively (or subconsciously) falling back on being politically correct.
I don't care about political correctness. I just happen to be educated on immigration. It's a rarity on TL.
What follows from this only makes logical sense. Even if the law specifically said "target mexicans' it would only make the law more effective since anyone who doesn't think they don't make up 99% of the illegal immigration into the state is fooling themselves.
No? First of all, its a state encroaching on federal jurisdiction. It's immediately unconstitutional right there. Second, DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IS? PROBABLY CAUSE IS NOT SKIN COLOR.
On the Democracy issue, what is moral is a social construct. Since we have no objective judge for what is right the best possible determinant is what an informed majority thinks. Now you can contend whether or not people are informed but most seem to understand that this is a real issue that is creating real problems in our country.
They're not. This is an issue that scores easy political points, until local tax rates go up in Arizona, police response rate goes down, and the overall Arizona economy sinks because businesses don't want to operate there. It's shortsighted and stupid.
On May 12 2010 13:16 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: (1) so you want to get rid of all nations // all forms of decentralized government and have the world population vote on all laws of a new world government?
(2) call it whatever the fuck you want. if 50..........1% is what gets the most votes than that is the law and, thus, that is what is moral. Disagree? Answer the question I asked you 5 posts ago... what is objective moral truth and how do you know it?
1. No.
2. No.
I'm NOT against democracy; I'm against the way you described it.
Oh, and I happen to be pretty liberal.
OK, I agree that the "voice of the people" doesn't exist or exists about a very few things. Hell, not even everyone agrees the earth is round.
Democracy is whatever gets the most votes rules for a given location. If AZ immigration law got the most votes its democratic. If you think thats wrong you think democracy is wrong.
I dont care if you are liberal or a nazi. I'll juts continue calling you a fascist if you are against democracy.
Nope. If I think it's wrong, I think the choice made by the legislators is wrong, NOT the principle of democracy.
Right. I already covered this when I said we were both simply arguing for direct democracy. Then I gave the example of a direct democractic vote that imposes the AZ law and asked if you WOULD STILL be opposed. If so, then I said youd be a fascist in my book.
But that's not an opposition to the principle of democracy. As I am a person, and people are entitled to have their own opinions, I think the choice made would be wrong. I would, however, agree that because it is a democracy, it would be in the best interest to pass the law - not because I believed the effects were good, but because I believe maintaining the democracy would be best.
Fascism, under your definition (which, by the way, is incorrect), is the opposition to democracy itself, not the results of it.
I am absolutely fine with democracy itself, but the actual issues I might not. You're trying to say that somebody who disagrees with ".999... = 1" even though it's widely accepted by experts on the matter does not agree with math at all, which is a false "equation"
EPT
