The Rampant, Irresponsible Political Thread

[Der Mike]

WHICH Christian faith???? There are too many to count!

No, there are sects of Christianity. Baptism and Methodism are sects of Christianity with some different interpretations of the Bible.

The very languages have changed. There are gazillions of 'versions' of the Bible including the 'Feel Good' Bible and the 'Picture' Bible. And you mean to tell me that nothing's changed? Ever?

If you mean did they change "Assisted" to "helped", yes, they probably did.

If you mean significant changes, then no.

No, there are people who believe that it's the literal word of God. And plenty who don't.

Again, because a few people are ignorant as to their faith is not the faith's problem. It is either their willful ignorance or, more likely, the incompetence and ignorance of their pastors/priests/etc.

Which particular segment of Christianity are you referring to? I don't think anybody can point to 'Christianity' as a single religion anymore. Probably not for a couple of thousand years.

Jan

Again, Baptists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Methodists, et al are Christians. They are different sects of the same faith. They are dramatically different than Catholicism, which has a tendency to worship the church itself far moreso than Jesus, but the basic beliefs are identical.

Using your logic, there is no US government because we are 50 different states.
-=Mike

[Jan]

No, there are sects of Christianity. Baptism and Methodism are sects of Christianity with some different interpretations of the Bible.

True. So with all of the various splintering, you still think that "...the interpretation as been cleaned up A LOT ..."? How so?

If you mean did they change "Assisted" to "helped", yes, they probably did.
If you mean significant changes, then no.

They've changed the meanings of entire metaphors (eye of the needle). They've chopped entire chunks out as the climate has changed. No translation can ever be exact, for that matter. Shall we even mention little things like 'heresy trials'? If you can't admit that the Bible today is a whole different book than it started out, we have a serious disconnect.

Again, Baptists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Methodists, et al are Christians. They are different sects of the same faith. They are dramatically different than Catholicism, which has a tendency to worship the church itself far moreso than Jesus, but the basic beliefs are identical.

So what have the Irish been fighting over all this time? THEY seem to think there's a difference between Protestant and Catholic.

As Mr. Eilerson said, "Christ came to tell us to love one another...and we've spent the last two thousand years killing each other over how he said it."

What exactly are those basic beliefs? You've got sects that think that the Bible is literal truth. Others that have different sacraments. What about sects that believe they've gotten additional information, such as the Mormons?

Using your logic, there is no US government because we are 50 different states.

Obviously both ruling documents are subject to widely varied interpretaton, aren't they? But at least for the Constitution we've got the original to refer back to.

Jan

[phazedout]

So what have the Irish been fighting over all this time? THEY seem to think there's a difference between Protestant and Catholic.


Jan

Just a brief clarification here (open to correction obviously) but dragging the thread back towards politics, IMHO, the conflict was never really about religion, more about class and what some people saw as an occupation. The protestents in the north (initially anyway) were generally representative of a "privliged" class, they had more money, and most of the power, land and support of the british governemnt. The catholics were marginalised (initially) in the minority and (brinigning in some resonence with JMS) much like the citizens of downbelow, trapped and doing the dirty jobs, cheap labour with exploitation of their civil rights. This is what I've seen as the heart of the conflict, a fight between have's and have-nots. Religion, although the cited reason for it (along with an unhealthy dose of the "get out of my country" syndrome) was simply an excuse.

At this stage though, some members of the respective communities have lost so much, few families are untouched by what we euphamisticly refer to as "the troubles" that there are now extremeists on both sides who use religion as an excuse to carry out sociopathic behaviour. There are some poeple who want to go on killing, maiming and torturing in the name of a cuase that has broadly ceased to have relevance.

Phaze
Disclaimer before somone leaps down my throat on this and complains about accurate historical refernces I'm aware of several things here
1) Broad sweeping generalisations - yes, well to go into the socio political details of this would require about 400 pages and a good two years studying it.
2) opinion - this is my opinion, I don't presume to speak for the country, or any side in the unfortunate events which have unfolded <100 miles from my home.
3) relevance this may all be not relevant to the discussion at hand, I just picked up on something Jan said, not a criticism of you Jan, and please don't take it that way.

[Jan]

Just a brief clarification here (open to correction obviously) but dragging the thread back towards politics, IMHO, the conflict was never really about religion, more about class and what some people saw as an occupation. The protestents in the north (initially anyway) were generally representative of a "privliged" class, they had more money, and most of the power, land and support of the british governemnt. The catholics were marginalised (initially) in the minority and (brinigning in some resonence with JMS) much like the citizens of downbelow, trapped and doing the dirty jobs, cheap labour with exploitation of their civil rights. This is what I've seen as the heart of the conflict, a fight between have's and have-nots. Religion, although the cited reason for it (along with an unhealthy dose of the "get out of my country" syndrome) was simply an excuse.

Thanks for that. I don't think I'd realized that it was a somewhat economic/social thing before-I'd thought that those aspects came later.

I guess I just really don't 'get' prejudices of most kinds. Oh, I'm sure I've got plenty of my own that I just haven't had my nose rubbed in lately but things like hating people for their bank balance or religion or pigmentation just doesn't make much sense to me. Are that many people so insecure in themselves that they have to cast about to find somebody to feel superior over?

And when it comes to arguing religion, I agree with Heinlein that it's like little kids arging over who's got the better imaginary friend.

Jan

[Karachi Vyce]

I guess I just really don't 'get' prejudices of most kinds. Oh, I'm sure I've got plenty of my own that I just haven't had my nose rubbed in lately

And when it comes to arguing religion, I agree with Heinlein that it's like little kids arging over who's got the better imaginary friend.

Found one.

[Jan]

Found one.

Good point. I refuse to believe that my beliefs, or lack thereof, are any better or worse, truer or falser than anybody elses.

Jan

[Capt.Montoya]

Incorrect, actually. I could mention a list of rights that don't apply to you when you're here illegally, if you so desire.

I am not illegally in the USA nor have I ever been illegally in any country. But go ahead and list what civil rights are restricted for non-nationals if you want, be sure to disntinguish what rights do not apply to legal immigrants if any, and please also make a distinction about any rights that don't apply to tourists if any. BTW, poltical rights (voting, etc.) are trivial, don't bother listing those.

We'd do fine without your people swarming in here.

Mexico would not.

Whoever said that illegal immigrants to the USA are "my people"? (I consider them my people the same way I'd consider you "my people", they're human, and anyone human is one of my people).
And really, if the USA lost 5 million workers, those that do the harder labor of agricultural fields, and those that do the menial and poorly paid jobs that no citizen usually wants, everything would be fine?

And let's not forget that for MÚxico emmigrants are the second source of foreign currency, yes, but the first remains oil, and the third is tourism. Oil may be the main export but is not the only one. Many automobile parts for the USA are made in MÚxico, the assembly of many electronic products is made in MÚxico, there are exports of food too. MÚxico wouldn't crumble without the money being sent by emmigrants.
Tourism is a great source of foreign currency, and one that has had a steady growth in recent years. That tourism includes many USA citizens, so I do know that someone like you, so biased against MÚxico, is not representative of every American.

Mexico is a shitheap. We here in the US are sick of YOUR people swarming here and putting strains on our society.

But, I can't blame the Mexicans because, lord, I'd leave there as soon as I could as well. I am all for punishing any company who hires anybody who is not legally here.

If I said out of my loudmouth that you are just a loudmouth that wouldn't make you one.
If you speak out of your... ignorance that MÚxico is something that doesn't make it so.
People leave not because they want to, but because they usually get a better paid job in the USA. As I said before, if they had job opportunities in MÚxico they wouldn't need to leave.
I also favor punishing companies that hire illegal immigrants. If they were forced to hire only legal workers it would go a long way to prevent people from illegally entering the USA. And I also support the idea of a reinforced border, not that I think it would do much good to have that wall built, but some people like a false sense of security and politicians love to posture that they are doing something.

Mexico needs somebody to govern themselves because Fox cannot do it, the prior governments could not do it, and this is not going to change.

You keep talking out of your ignorance.

I neither know, nor care, where Montoya resides.

Nor do I know or care for where you reside (though the country is obvious). But just so you know, during all my time living in Houston (since 1996) I spent my vacations in various places in MÚxico. I know the country much better than you will ever do. I know the people and the politics beyond the biased picture you have. I have been to major cities and small towns, I have seen a decrease in corruption, I have seen political reforms. A lot of MÚxico might have been in terrible conditions (but never as bad as a shitheap) in the past century but it has improve a lot and keeps improving. Not that I think you will ever want to see it, but it has to be said.

I have presented you with some facts about the Mexican economy, and about the reforms being done. You have only written the same sweeping and misinformed generalizations. You haven't even tried to refute some of the facts I showed or comment on why they don't matter.
You are only expressing a biased opinion, one that seems so entrenched that it ain't worth discussing more with you.

You have just repeated the same misinformed opinions, so let me repeat myself:

Because a differing view is, as usual, not appreciated. Echo chambers are SO much better and much more fun, right? It's fun to pretend ALL kinds of things when you don't have to actually back up what you believe.

Let's see if you can appreciate my differing view, and let's see if you can back up what you believe and I dispute above, or you can go on pretending it's true, maybe that's your fun?

So what about it Mike? Will you now back up what you believe about MÚxico or will you keep pretending your beliefs are true just on your say-so?.

[Der Mike]

I am not illegally in the USA nor have I ever been illegally in any country. But go ahead and list what civil rights are restricted for non-nationals if you want, be sure to disntinguish what rights do not apply to legal immigrants if any, and please also make a distinction about any rights that don't apply to tourists if any. BTW, poltical rights (voting, etc.) are trivial, don't bother listing those.

Oh, the right to vote is "trivial"?

The left's love affair with democracy died years ago, so this is hardly stunning.

Hmm, how about this?

If the Congress decides tomorrow that EVERY non-citizen must leave the country IMMEDIATELY, there is approximately ZERO legal challenge to the decision. Illegals and legal aliens are here SOLELY at our discretion.

Whoever said that illegal immigrants to the USA are "my people"? (I consider them my people the same way I'd consider you "my people", they're human, and anyone human is one of my people).

Aren't you just the noble one? That is so adorable.

And really, if the USA lost 5 million workers, those that do the harder labor of agricultural fields, and those that do the menial and poorly paid jobs that no citizen usually wants, everything would be fine?

It'd be a shock, but we'd deal with it.

And let's not forget that for MÚxico emmigrants are the second source of foreign currency, yes, but the first remains oil, and the third is tourism. Oil may be the main export but is not the only one. Many automobile parts for the USA are made in MÚxico, the assembly of many electronic products is made in MÚxico, there are exports of food too. MÚxico wouldn't crumble without the money being sent by emmigrants.

Yes, it clearly will crumble. Quickly. There will also be FAR more civil unrest in Mexico as Mexico, CLEARLY, is unable to actually support its citizenry. They are horribly incapable of providing enough jobs to actually keep the citizenry satisfied.

Tourism is a great source of foreign currency, and one that has had a steady growth in recent years. That tourism includes many USA citizens, so I do know that someone like you, so biased against MÚxico, is not representative of every American.

True. But, I'm not a big drinker, so the appeal of shitholes like Tijuana is lost on me, by my own frank admission.

And, again, feel free to name a country as reliant on illegal emigrants sending money back home.

Just one.

If I said out of my loudmouth that you are just a loudmouth that wouldn't make you one.
If you speak out of your... ignorance that MÚxico is something that doesn't make it so.
People leave not because they want to, but because they usually get a better paid job in the USA. As I said before, if they had job opportunities in MÚxico they wouldn't need to leave.

And if we cut them off from jobs ENTIRELY and FORCE Mexico to deal with their own problem (and heavily armed border guards would be a good first step on our part), Mexico would collapse into the usual state of near-anarchy.

I also favor punishing companies that hire illegal immigrants. If they were forced to hire only legal workers it would go a long way to prevent people from illegally entering the USA. And I also support the idea of a reinforced border, not that I think it would do much good to have that wall built, but some people like a false sense of security and politicians love to posture that they are doing something.

Well, when some people bitch that we don't provide water fountains in the desert so Mr. Illegal Alien doesn't die in the desert, it's hard to reinforce squat.

Make the desert an ally. Make it a miserable hellhole. And once somebody is caught, place the alien in a prison that is IDENTICAL to a Mexican prison --- which isn't exactly a pleasant place to be.

You keep talking out of your ignorance.

The curse of being able to notice a pattern.

Nor do I know or care for where you reside (though the country is obvious). But just so you know, during all my time living in Houston (since 1996) I spent my vacations in various places in MÚxico. I know the country much better than you will ever do. I know the people and the politics beyond the biased picture you have. I have been to major cities and small towns, I have seen a decrease in corruption, I have seen political reforms. A lot of MÚxico might have been in terrible conditions (but never as bad as a shitheap) in the past century but it has improve a lot and keeps improving.

It is a corrupt shitheap that has utilized us to alleviate the internal pressures that the corrupt gov't is thoroughly incapable of handling.

I have presented you with some facts about the Mexican economy, and about the reforms being done. You have only written the same sweeping and misinformed generalizations. You haven't even tried to refute some of the facts I showed or comment on why they don't matter.
You are only expressing a biased opinion, one that seems so entrenched that it ain't worth discussing more with you.

You have just repeated the same misinformed opinions, so let me repeat myself:
So what about it Mike? Will you now back up what you believe about MÚxico or will you keep pretending your beliefs are true just on your say-so?.

Read even the first book on Mexican history. Read even the most cursory glance of the current Mexican situation.

Then get back to me.

Until then, you are simply boring me and I am no longer in the business of educating people.
-=Mike

[Dr Maturin]

And really, if the USA lost 5 million workers, those that do the harder labor of agricultural fields, and those that do the menial and poorly paid jobs that no citizen usually wants, everything would be fine?

It'd be a shock, but we'd deal with it.

Vicente Fox: Mexicans do the jobs that "not even blacks will do."

And I also support the idea of a reinforced border, not that I think it would do much good to have that wall built, but some people like a false sense of security and politicians love to posture that they are doing something.

Doing exactly as we're doing now is posturing. Border Patrol members are being attacked by prospective illegals. There IS a wall that would very much slow down -- if not stop -- border hopping.

Check out my latest column for more info:

http://geocities.com/realsithsquadron/rtc.html

[Towelmaster]

FlameWars : &quot;The Attack of the Clown&quot;

Ah, a real flame developing. And here I was, thinking that Der Kaiser just didn't like Europeans. BTW : did I tell anyone yet that I am a black lesbian muslim who just had her second abortion this year? Oh, and a RUDE and ABUSIVE black lesbian muslim at that.

So please forgive me for being rude, it must be because I am from one of the retarded countries and not from the U.S.A. I guess we subhumans don't know any better. Perhaps Der Mike should visit us and educate us ignorant peasants.

Oh, the right to vote is "trivial"?

Taken out of context, raping someone else's post. Only people without ideas do that to distract attention from the real discussion. That, or you really can't read properly. Which would explain a lot.

The left's love affair with democracy died years ago, so this is hardly stunning.

Yes, and your current adminstration's cup floweth over with Love for the Common Man.

Webmasters : Can we PLEASE have a puke-smiley?

Hmm, how about this?

If the Congress decides tomorrow that EVERY non-citizen must leave the country IMMEDIATELY, there is approximately ZERO legal challenge to the decision. Illegals and legal aliens are here SOLELY at our discretion.

And again, no source, no law mentioned, no background. Tsk tsk tsk... Oh, you may not realize it but you have just given us a perfect description of the Polit Buro.

About the statement itself : Yes, Congress is powerful. But perhaps except when the President vetoes it? Perhaps unless the Supreme Court decides that it would be unconstitutional, after which Congress would perhaps have to first change the constitution, etcetera. And when all of this would be done, and the illegals(read foreigners) would not go away, they would still be subject to American law as they are during their stay. This unless they are party in a war against the U.S. I do not believe that Mexico has engaged the U.S.A. lately?

By the way: have you ever actually read your own Declaration of Independence? Of course I can expect a remark like "The Declaration of Independence has nothing to do with the law". Nope, just with the pillars on which American society was built.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Tell me Mr. Keep-America-American, where does it say that this is only true for americans? Or did you make that up? Perhaps because, according to your own instincts, the declaration should have been worded differently?

So you are - again - not making a point, you are throwing sand in everybody's eyes. If not: get us a link, preferably NOT to Ann Coulter please. Otherwise shut up with your 'self-evident' remarks because you are making yourself utterly unbelievable.

Aren't you just the noble one? That is so adorable.

Nope, they call that common decency. Buy a dictionary please, or take some classes about the workings of the international community. Cultural Anthropology would be a good start, if perhaps a bit too much for a beginner.

It'd be a shock, but we'd deal with it.

Fox is right : they do the jobs no american wants to touch anymore. Even your own president agrees with that.

You wouldn't even know where to get five million americans still prepared to do those dirty jobs. That is unless you plan on using the black unemployed population to do hard labour? After all; they are not W.A.S.P.'s, so they must be criminal and corrupt to the core. Just like the Mexicans.

Yes, it clearly will crumble. Quickly. There will also be FAR more civil unrest in Mexico as Mexico, CLEARLY, is unable to actually support its citizenry. They are horribly incapable of providing enough jobs to actually keep the citizenry satisfied.

Your hypocritical statement does not take into account that the United States was actively involved in Mexico, from Roosevelt's roughneck riders up to keeping them out of any trade-agreement that might be not in the best interest of America's economy. And that 'corrupt shitheap'? Well nobody cared about it, it was Somebody Else's Problem. Until The Evil Clinton - who did see the long-term benefits - signed the trade-agreement.

This is of course typical of your style of arguing : ignore that the U.S. is/was involved in making a mess somewhere in the world, and then complain that 'other people don't know how to run their country'. Such a lack of commitment from on your part is despicable. And fortunately getting harder and harder to find.

I take it that Americans like Fred Reed - http://www.fredoneverything.net/Poverty.shtml - don't have a clue what they are talking about?

And people in America still wonder why the rest of the world doesn't seem to like them... One "Der Mike" screws everything up for 100 decent hardworking intelligent Americans.

True. But, I'm not a big drinker, so the appeal of shitholes like Tijuana is lost on me, by my own frank admission.

Yes, and your whole existence is lost on me, by my own frank admission. Is there any way you can be even more abusive towards other countries? If so, please try. I am flabbergasted and at the same time delighted by the display of inane, factually incorrect and offensive material that you manage to tripe. I'm sorry : type.

And, again, feel free to name a country as reliant on illegal emigrants sending money back home. Just one.

Surinam. Morocco. That's two already. Do your homework, the world doesn't end at the American border. Never mind how much you might want it to.

And if we cut them off from jobs ENTIRELY and FORCE Mexico to deal with their own problem (and heavily armed border guards would be a good first step on our part), Mexico would collapse into the usual state of near-anarchy.

*Bwahahaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaa!!!!! Cough cough cough* Aah, priceless!

Well, when some people bitch that we don't provide water fountains in the desert so Mr. Illegal Alien doesn't die in the desert, it's hard to reinforce squat.

Make the desert an ally. Make it a miserable hellhole. And once somebody is caught, place the alien in a prison that is IDENTICAL to a Mexican prison --- which isn't exactly a pleasant place to be.

A very compassionate and conservative thing to say. And I'm sure that Ariel Sharon would have been proud of you. I take it you will be doing this soon? Now that you have 'confiscated' the parts of Mexico that you wanted? You can start your training on the West Bank and in Gaza, enough training materials there. Please, do wear your bulletproof vest and you helmet will you.

The curse of being able to notice a pattern.

The curse of being an intolerant and ignorant little man you mean?

It is a corrupt shitheap that has utilized us to alleviate the internal pressures that the corrupt gov't is thoroughly incapable of handling.

*hmprhh.... I am really trying not to laugh* You have absolutely no concept of foreign relations do you? "Me go-o-ood, you b-a-a-a-a-a-d". It even sound s like a donkey.

Read even the first book on Mexican history. Read even the most cursory glance of the current Mexican situation.

And we may assume that you have all the correct titles for us to read? So as to not be affected by strange, foreign influences?

Then get back to me.

Until then, you are simply boring me and I am no longer in the business of educating people.
-=Mike

And you are taking a hell of a lot of words not to educate people...

I do hope that the level of teaching in the United States surpasses yours. The educational system is in bad enough shape as it is already.

I salute you, oh mighty troll. Because I have to admit : you are damned - DamNed! - good at it.


P.S. Every heard of putting your money were your mouth is? Like providing backup for your words? As in links, articles, research-results, etcetera? You keep asking everybody else to supply links for their arguments. But when the good Captain asks you for one you come up with the pathetic - pathetic" :

"Read even the first book on Mexican history. Read even the most cursory glance of the current Mexican situation."

This makes you an absolute loser in your argument with Capt. Montoya.

As I said : You Lord Mike Sir, do not 'discuss', you 'argue'. In internetspeak we call that a troll.

But hey! I enjoy a nice flame with a troll every now and then. So please do not hesitate to abuse others again now. It only justifies ruder and ruder answers in return. As it should be in Troll-country.

And to Jan - who must by now be reading this stuff with sweaty palms - I would like to say : Look Jan, I didn't even use words like assh*le, c*nt, corr*pt, sh*theap or idi*t! That's because I'm trying...doing my best...

[Jan]

:
If the Congress decides tomorrow that EVERY non-citizen must leave the country IMMEDIATELY, there is approximately ZERO legal challenge to the decision. Illegals and legal aliens are here SOLELY at our discretion.

And again, no source, no law mentioned, no background. Tsk tsk tsk... Oh, you may not realize it but you have just given us a perfect description of the Polit Buro.

About the statement itself : Yes, Congress is powerful. But perhaps except when the President vetoes it? Perhaps unless the Supreme Court decides that it would be unconstitutional, after which Congress would perhaps have to first change the constitution, etcetera. And when all of this would be done, and the illegals(read foreigners) would not go away, they would still be subject to American law as they are during their stay. This unless they are party in a war against the U.S. I do not believe that Mexico has engaged the U.S.A. lately?

Well, I think Mike's scenario is pretty silly because it would affect people here perfectly legally. But IF it was decided that every illegal resident be deported tomorrow, there's no reason why it shouldn't be done. It probably wouldn't even take Congress, just a mandate from the President. No need for Congress, it would have nothing to do with the Constitution, it would simply be enforcing existing laws.

But it'll never happen. For all their bitching, Americans want low prices and the illegal workforce helps provide that.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with TM about the Declaration of Independence has much bearing, too. While a fine document, it only had one purpose and that was stated in the title of the document. More to the point is "We, the people of the United States...". I understand that you are looking for the US to live up to lofty ideals, TM but the unfortunate truth is that ideals and the law and reality generally dine at three different tables.

Jan

[Jan]

<moderator speak>

And to Jan - who must by now be reading this stuff with sweaty palms - I would like to say : Look Jan, I didn't even use words like assh*le, c*nt, corr*pt, sh*theap or idi*t! That's because I'm trying...doing my best...

Keep trying. Your next assignment is to refrain completely from making personal comments about any poster. In fact, that's *everybody's* assignment*.

Just as a warning to people...I allow a *lot* of leeway in the 'Rampant, Irresponsible' threads but there are limits and those limits may just depend on my annoyance threshold at any given time. If I'm feeling tolerant, I may just edit posts. Less tolerant and I'll delete entire posts. And if I get annoyed enough, I'll simply lock the threads.

Are we very clear on this?</moderator speak>

Jan
Moderator

*unless of course such personal comments are about how wise, witty and delightful the poster is, of course.

[Towelmaster]

I'm afraid I have to disagree with TM about the Declaration of Independence has much bearing, too. While a fine document, it only had one purpose and that was stated in the title of the document. More to the point is "We, the people of the United States...". I understand that you are looking for the US to live up to lofty ideals, TM but the unfortunate truth is that ideals and the law and reality generally dine at three different tables.

Jan

One cannot speak for someone else, so 'We the people of the United States' makes perfect sense. It does not automatically imply that the rest of the declaration is therefor meant for only Americans. Actually, given the history behind it, it would surprise me if the founding fathers did not mean the declaration to be truly universal.

About 'not living up to ideals' : hardly anybody can. Ideals are a goal, a destination. More important is what you do to get there. Even if it means never reaching the end. It is only when people start attacking the morals of someone else's country's people that they get this criticism thrown in their face. Any discussion-partner should be able to accept criticism at the government-level. Washington is not the United States so how can one generalize and remain fair? It's impossible.

But I can go along with your comments. What I see as the problem in this thread is, that I try to say "Should the United States be doing things this way?", As opposed to some people who simply state "How it is done and live with it for we are America!". That is not a discussion. That is not even an argument anymore.

And that was not my input in the discussion. I have the distinct feeling that a discussion about the alternatives is much less inflammatory than a discussion about the question whether everything that is done now is done properly.

So make the discussion hypothetical. It is much less annoying and much more stimulating and it gives you more options for a discussion. This does however require, that little things, such as comments like "shithole Mexico" etcetera are left at home in the closet. It also requires an open mind.

And I think that a lot of initially open minds in this thread, have been shut firmly because of the ridiculously insulting and personal comments of some people. Do not forget that I got personal when this happened to me, not the other way 'round. Action = reaction.
And I cannot escape the terrible feeling that said people have come here to troll. Otherwise, why have I yet to see the first post in another thread, something about the work of jms?

And now back to work.

BTW : For what it's worth : if you check the news, also check the new about Denmark and cartoons of Mohammed. Big row, blown out of proportions by the Saoudis and the Libyans(like I care!). Bombthreats, apologies, the works.
And now the French have published the same cartoon as a protest against the bloody meddling in Europeans affairs by some deranged fanatical muslims.

Well I'll be shootin' fish in a barrel, the French show they have a backbone!

[Karachi Vyce]

Border Patrol members are being attacked by prospective illegals.

Those illegals should be [edited].

[Edited three words suggesting violence which might be construed as an expression of hatred. --Jan]

[Towelmaster]

Those illegals should be [edited].

[Edited three words suggesting violence which might be construed as an expression of hatred. --Jan]

*Looks at Jan*

Could I possibly, maybe, ask for source-links to actual reports before I condemn them?