PaperClipsYaaaar

Using my psychic powers, I can artrage what all of you look like behind your computers. Here is barihawk in real life. He is a bird who wears a dinner jacket:

He's English, he'll be used to the disappointment by now. Are you mocking the English? Go you! I am the English. Your point? Your food tastes bad!

I may have been too optimistic about the improvements that money can cause, but I do believe that trapping those people within the feudal state, often without electricity and clean water, does not contribute to the solution.

So let's say your plan becomes law and in the next five years 1.5 billion people apply for citizenship and move to the United States. Who they are, what race they are or why they want to come here is irrelevant. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? This site says that "immigration officials estimate that the illegal alien population grows by as many as 500,000 every year." I'm not sure if that's true, since it doesn't say who these "immigration officials" are, but since it's a reasonable number, there would be 2.5 million immigrants maximum in the next five years. Keep in mind that these immigrants are sending money back to mexico, so gradually the quality of life in mexico will improve and immigration will lessen. Also, it's not true that "why they want to come here is irrelevant." The same background checks that Immigration Services currently use to screen applicants will still be used. That way, the people who are crossing the border illegally will be real criminals that deserve to be caught, rather than normal people who want to be our gardeners and janitors.

Yes. Anyone who applies for a US residency and passes the health and personal background check should be allowed to move here, regardless of what country, ethnicity, and, most importantly, social class they belong to. There is no such thing as automatic citizenship. Citizenship comes 15-25 years after you first apply for residency. I find it funny that you are going around calling everyone racist yet you are also the only person drawing racial lines of who is right and who is wrong to feel certain ways based merely by their skin color. Last time I checked saying it is ok for one race to do something or feel a certain way but it is not ok for another race to do or feel the exact things is racism. Where in my post do you see me "drawing racial lines"? Slavery was wrong no matter who committed it, just as preventing mexican immigration is wrong no matter who commits it. Also, please address the rest of my post. You only quoted part of it.

By showing that each of your stated reasons are 1) Contradicted by the rules of the social security system. and/or 2) Solvable by making mexican immigration legal. and/or 3) Existing problems irregardless of immigration laws I demonstrate that your only true reason is racism. If there are reasons to oppose immigration, other than racism, that are not nullified by #1, #2, or #3, please enlighten me. Your blind repetition to my responses only strengthens the fact that you did not truly read them. These two sentences are the only references back to racism you gave. During the 50's some people were racist and some people were not that abided by those laws. Some people that support the fence are racist and some people are not. Neither you nor I know what a person's heart is so until they actually expose being racist it is being a jerk to condemn them of that. I stand corrected. My statement should have read, "people who supported Jim Crow laws." Yes, there were people who followed the law but were not themselves racists; however, those non-racist people would not have vocally supported maintaining the law, especially not the the point of advocating the construction of physical barriers to enforce it, as you and hi9 are doing. Yeah, I guess all slave owners were racist... especially the black slave owners... who owned... black slaves... so they were... racist against themselves? Any free person in the US could own slaves and many ex slaves went on to own slaves themselves. So obviously black slave owners weren't racist yet they followed the slavery laws. This means we come back around to my last point that some people that followed the law did so for racist reasons and other people did it for other reasons so you cannot condemn every person as a racist that believes that the laws should be followed until you know their heart. Otherwise you are just being a jerk going around condemning and insulting people without proof. Here are a lot of references to make sure you believe this point: Tours of the property of a rich a rich Charleston black slaveowner http://www.gullahtours.com/dereef.html Baepler, P. (Ed.). (1999). Introduction to White slaves, African masters: An anthology of American barbary captivity narratives. (pp. 1-5Cool. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Daudert, C. (1999). The temptation of st. Rosalie: Portrait of a black slave owner. New York: Hansa-Hewlett Grooms, R. M. (1997). Dixie's censored subject: Black slaveowners. Retrieved June 3, 2002, from http://www.americancivilwar.com/authors ... owners.htm Halliburton, R. (1976). Free black owners of slaves: A reappraisal of the Woodson thesis. South Carolina Historical Magazine, 76, 129-136. Johnson, M. P. & Roark, J. L. (1984). Black masters: a free family of color in the old south. New York: W. W. Norton and Co. Koger, L. (1995). Black slaveowners: free black slave masters in South Carolina, 1790-1860. North Carolina: Mc Farland. Schwarz, P. J. (1987). Emancipators, protectors, and anomalies: free black slaveowners in Virginia. The Virginia Magazine of history and biography, 95, 317-338. Vogeler, I. (1997, March). Free black slaveowners in South Carolina. Retrieved June 5, 2002 from http://www.uwec.edu Woodson, G. C. (1968). Free Negro owners of slaves in the Unites States in 1830. Connecticut: Negro Universities Press. Again as with the previous quote, I did not approach this subject clearly. I should have clarified that, as with immigrants, I was arguing from the point of view of the slaves themselves: should the slaves not have attempted to gain freedom because that would have been breaking the slavery law? However, to address your argument in its current form: Yes, black slave owners who owned slaves are exempt from being viewed as racist. They are simply greedy individuals who sink to such low depths as to subject others to the same treatment that they themselves were subjected to. That means, unless hi9 was himself an illegal immigrant who now opposes immigration, he is still a racist. All of this has been addressed in the first part of my response. 4 So you felt the need to say this four different times. Is there any reason you felt the need to keep repeating this over and over other than to try to make me look bad or stupid? Yes. It is very "bad and stupid" to write facts and statistics, which is what the majority of your post consisted of, without showing any of your sources. Except for the fact that I did not deserve this treatment, while you did. I have used several real points in this post and my previous post. I hope you read them. This has been addressed in the first part of my post.

Actually I think he has about 12+ million more reasons for supporting a Mexican fence than a Canadian one... And I know 4.8 million reasons why he shouldn't. I'll name off a couple of reasons for ya... of course this won't be every reason because I don't feel like taking the time to add more at the moment. Sure, copying and pasting is very hard work. I understand. So during the 50's, people who followed Jim Crow laws weren't racist? And before that, people who followed slavery laws weren't racist? To obtain social services, you would need a legal social security identity. Illegal immigrants do not have that. Therefore, they cannot possibly obtain social services. From your site: "Remittance contributes to the net costs of illegal immigration as published on the "Costs of Social Services" counter because these funds are diverted from offsetting the increased cost of "free" social services for illegal immigrants" In other words, your supposed "social services" counter is the amount of money that Mexicans are sending back to their families. It does not have anything to do with what social services is costing the government. Why don't we allow immigrants to come here legally so they can have legal identities and pay for these costs? Please link to your sources.

These people provide cheap labor that raise profit margins for businesses and lower prices for consumers. The only reason why you would oppose moving people from an area of extreme poverty to an area of mutually beneficial opportunities is racism. Do you know his reason for supporting a mexican fence but not a canadian one? Name those reasons, and I will show you how each of them refer back to racism. Name those reasons. Name those reasons.

You elect the members of the electoral college. You're just not aware of it. Each 'candidate' for electoral college membership pledges to vote for a particular candidate. When you cast your ballot for Tom Cruise on election day, you are actually casting a ballot for the electoral college members who pledge to vote for Tom Cruise. If Tom Cruise wins the popular vote in the state, then all the electoral college members who pledge to vote for Tom Cruise will meet in the state capital and cast their official votes for Tom Cruise. On rare occasions, electoral college members have deviated from their pledge, but those people are [wagon].

I still don't understand why some people are so proud to be racist.

This may be strange, but I find this to be quite an intillictial enigma... 1. The definition of cool is cold. Cold - Cold hearted. That's what they are. :) 2. Their definition of cool is 'popular', yet, most people hate / dislike them because of their actions and attitude. Thus, they are infact, not what they say they are. Usually they have an attitude against people not in their 'team' and so, they abuse them, calling them idiots, thus (again) being a hypocrit. Who am I talking about? 'Stache people. Cold-hearted, unintillictial 'Stache people. Why are you such a hypocrit, 'Stache person?? Let me be on your team! This 'Stache person is especially lacking in intillict. As I am going to High-School, I'll be critisised over my maturity and intillect. I will indefinately have problems in the future with these complete illiterate people, and hopefully, will write a book, name names, and not feel sorry for their [wagon] when they get arrested for having 'staches that are too big. Or maybe I am just extremely insecure and choose to imagine that the stereotypes I see in movies and paperback dime-store books actually exist as a means to make myself feel superior as opposed to correcting my prejudices and becoming a normal, healthy teenager. Even cats have 'staches! Don't critisise me for my intillict, you hipocryt cat! I will write a book about you after you get arrested!

People die every day. Their skin may not melt, their eyes may not pop out, but death is part of life. So you wouldn't mind dying that way?

Yeah and it was usually very cold in the classroom so I could never get it to full length oh wait you're talking about shoes.

People died man. Their eyeballs popped out and their skin melted into the river like blobs of oil in a soup as they tried to escape the burn. [cabbage] like that is never justifiable.

heh

How come I haven't went through any Oedipus/Electra complex? I'm just curious. I've never been sexually attracted to my mother or father. =\ You are suck a freak.

Lionheart is a future internet celebrity. I love the video where he's lying in bed, whispering. It gives me a strange feeling below my tummy.

The Straight Talk Express ran out of fuel in 2000. :(

...Or you could be a sensible person and follow your own sense of morality, which may or may not involve becoming more relaxed about your belief in any one specific religion. Besides, it's scientifically proven that people naturally crave a peaceful, structured society and receive pleasurable feelings from being altruistic. There again is the difference between free choice and illusionary choice. I maintain that the existence of Predestination causes every instance of choice in the bible to be illusionary.

you mean Jake Brown? the guy who fell 50 feet? His incident was MUCH worse :lol: Atleast Jake nailed that 720! :lol: No he meant James Brown because OW he feels good!

But not as delicious as the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

And I love it! :mrgreen: Is it just me, or are you a little plump or something? :anxious: Hell no. Yes, I just grabbed a camera and posted a picture of my stomach. Sue me. Thought it'd be better than just saying "I'M NOT FAT!", oh well. It's just, who didn't see this becoming another "post your measurements thread" o_O? (though I do not doubt any data posted, it's all the same teenage metabolism thing, me included) You have one nipple higher than the other. Let's keep quoting reb's nude pic.

The entire discussion stemmed from your inability to recognize Predestination. So, yes, once you understand Predestination, the discussion will end. Yes, but since this thread assumes your God exists, you should consider whether He, who is the omnipotent creator, who created everything, including the concepts of lying, scamming, and hypocrisy, can himself be accused of committing those things, and, if he could be accused, whether our accusations really matter in the scheme of things. Predestination was a belief long before Calvin came around. After all, it was first written in the Bible. Calvin formed the second major group, after the Catholics, to view Predestination as a positive affirmation of their elitism.