2008 Presidential Elections

[Cometgreen]

Re: 2008 Presidential Elections

I can't help but admire someone who's willing to give everything so that their family can have good food on the table, working crappy hours doing jobs that no one wants to do at wages no typical American would consider.

It's easy to chant lines like this when you live a comfortable life with running hot water and a PlayStation 3 in your living room. Border laws cease to be important to you when all you want is some decent food on the table. You aren't poor and probably have never experienced what it's like, so you aren't in any position to dictate how simple things are.

I don't want to compare illegal immigration like such (as I agree with you that it shouldn't be some heinous crime to cross an artificial line in the sand), but would you say the same thing for thieves? Murderers? "Yeah, robbing a bank is illegal, but that guy really needed the money." It's a slippery slope when you justify breaking one law.

[Caspian]

Re: 2008 Presidential Elections

The government in Mexico needs to help us out, too. They basically promote people crossing the border illegally. If they really want to help, then they and our government should put their heads together and find a way to expedite the legal naturalization process.
Don't know that it will ever happen, as Feba said our government is a bureaucracy and its basically a bureaucracy for the sake of being one.
Does anyone read Clancy? Mainly Executive Orders and the Bear and the Dragon? Wouldn't that be so nice, A real person in the white house to slash the red tape and make it a real honest to God working government?

[jwalton]

Re: 2008 Presidential Elections

I don't want to compare illegal immigration like such (as I agree with you that it shouldn't be some heinous crime to cross an artificial line in the sand), but would you say the same thing for thieves? Murderers? "Yeah, robbing a bank is illegal, but that guy really needed the money." It's a slippery slope when you justify breaking one law.

I was waiting for someone to throw this old curveball. No, it's not a slippery slope at all. The one-size-fits-all argument is flawed by default. We all break the law almost daily, big and small. Driving over the speed limit, downloading videos or music comprised of copyrighted content, circumventing registration keys for software, wearing masks in public in Alabama, etc.

There's a lot of kids who should be thrown in juvenile detention each year on October 31st, considering that last law there.

[LilithAngel]

Re: 2008 Presidential Elections

Unfortunately "charity and humanity" have been taken advantage of far too much to make them viable ways to regulate and govern a people/country. As stupid as many laws are or seem, they exist because at one point, someone or some group did something that warranted the creation of that law/rule (and if you really are a member of the Air Force as I am, then you know that principle by heart). Is "spirit of the law" important? Yes, I fully agree it is, as is the case behind a lot of the weird and obscure laws that every state in America has. However, following the letter of the law prevents a large number of cases where the "spirit of the law" could be perverted to one's own ends and end up violating another person's rights or civil freedoms. Can the letter be perverted too? Yes, but not on a broad a scale as whatever "spirit" of whatever law can be (and easily, as well).

Disregarding the whole "slippery slope" argument as akin to denying that laws exist in the first place. Saying that crossing the border isn't the same as robbing a bank or committing a murder is one thing, that's why different penalties for different severity of crimes exist. However, dismissing it outright is rather backward in my view, as you're saying that this should be ignored over something you feel is more important.

"He's going to do whatever it takes to feed his family." So, you feel like justifying that to the people he just stole from, or to the parents whose kid he just killed for his money, just because "he needed to feed his family"? Extreme cases, to be sure, but everything is related on some level, and thus the "slippery slope" argument can't be avoided, because every violation of a law can (and often does) have multiple effects on other parts, sooner or later.

[jwalton]

Re: 2008 Presidential Elections

Good retort, I really can't think of anything to counter that. I'll let you have that one.

[Feba]

Re: 2008 Presidential Elections

Because it's a right that your forefathers faught and died for,

Actually, they didn't. Nothing about any of my mother's family history mentioned anyone serving in a war; only family member I have in the military is an Air Force mechanic. My father's side immigrated (legally) about 40 years ago. And just because someone died for it doesn't make it worth anything-- with that logic, I should go to church because of the crusades.

not voting should be a federal offense in this part of the wolrd.

I'd agree, but the disconnect between voting and law making in this country should also be considered a human rights violation.

in 2000 elections I was only 13 Feba. I could have cared less back then.

Then perhaps you missed the part where Gore got half a million more votes than Bush, but Bush still won.

Go with the one that hits home most. For one, it's your civic duty as a US citizen. For another, no one is perfect.

So it's my civic duty to vote AGAINST THINGS I BELIEVE IN, with a vote that DOESN'T ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING ANYWAY, so that an almanac can print a slightly higher number? The fact is, of course no one is perfect. You don't want someone who's perfect for politics, you want someone who fits your political ideals perfectly. In this case, THAT IS YOU. Voting to put anyone but yourself in power is voting against your own ideals.

It's hard, if not impossible to find two or more people who share all the same views. Heck, the founding fathers even prohibited the president from appointing "like-minded judges" in the constitution. Fact is you need different view points.

Yep. Which is exactly why power should be given to the people, and not to a bunch of talking heads that only half represent them.

There's nothing wrong with the two-party system in and of itself. It was genius on the part of the Founding Fathers.

Learn you a book. Now. I can barely forgive that because you're Canadian- if you're going to talk US politics, fine, but don't insult the founding fathers with your lack of knowledge. Most of them did not want parties in the US at all. If the US was founded in modern times, it would probably be much closer to a direct democracy than the system that was set up.

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. The system doesn't work because you, along with all the other people who think like you, would rather bitch and moan but will do nothing to take action.

Once again, though, you haven't explained how my voting would actually impact the election. This is especially silly when you consider the fact that your statement basically says that everyone that sees the gaping flaws in this government has the same political views I do, and is meaningless if they differ.

Illegal Immigrants are just that, ILLEGAL.

I have to agree

So then, you would agree that we should grant amnesty and provide a path so that they'd become legal citizens, and then be able to pay taxes like every legal citizen?

Also have to agree, although it should treat them like the criminals they are. Say, a good amount of community service needed, not to mention being put under higher watch than legal immigrants.

The other problem is that there already exists a perfectly legal way for people to come into this country.

And the last bit. I have to agree, but immigration to the US is insane. Make it quicker and less restrictive and you'll see a huge fall in the amount of illegals. The US is a land made by immigrants. There's no reason we should be so cautious about letting more in. Last I checked, every terrorist in US history has either been born and raised, or got in on a legal visa. There's little reason that immigration should be so bureaucratic. Maybe we can't just let people sign a manifest on the way in and call them citizens, but there's no reason it should such a struggle that hundreds of thousands of people are possessed to break the law to get here.

Borders are seriously not a big deal. They shouldn't be treated as such. Honestly, I don't think people should be required to be a citizen of any nation. But the amount of paranoia over letting people immigrate easier is silly. So they take some jobs. Would you rather have a legal immigrant doing work, paying taxes, and at least contributing, or an illegal immigrant working for below minimum wage, not paying taxes despite their use of public goods? Or would you rather we keep both of them out and outsource the job to somewhere in Asia? And security concerns are laughable-- the chance of a criminal bothering to gain citizenship, no matter how easy, is low, and really completely irrelevant. Hell, even airport security has recently been found to be a waste-- a recent study has shown that all the extra security measures in the past few years haven't actually made flying at all safer.

Edwards is pretty freaking psycho. He wants to ban SUV's? Seriously?

If this is what I'm thinking of, he was speaking as a hypothetical, and it was quoted way out of context.

[Feba]

Re: 2008 Presidential Elections

“I think Americans are actually willing to sacrifice,” Edwards said during a forum held by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. “One of the things they should be asked to do is drive more fuel efficient vehicles.”

The former North Carolina senator was asked specifically if he would tell them to give up their SUVS, he said, “Yes.”

Here we go. He actually drives a hybrid SUV himself, though. I imagine his response was actuall in the spirit of 'Give up the inefficient SUV' and not "Give up SUVs, period". I don't see any sign that he wants to do anything to SUVs from a legal standpoint.

[Caspian]

Re: 2008 Presidential Elections

K, all I saw was the "give up SUV's?" "yes" quote. Gogo accurate media.

[Feba]

Re: 2008 Presidential Elections

It's accurate. Just not precise.

[Malacite]

Re: 2008 Presidential Elections

Then perhaps you missed the part where Gore got half a million more votes than Bush, but Bush still won.

Because Bush had more Delegates. It's a stupid flaw in the system that my dad and I both agree should be changed, but there ya go...

And when I said forefathers, I meant that in a general sense for all Americans.

[Feba]

Re: 2008 Presidential Elections

And when I said forefathers, I meant that in a general sense for all Americans.

That's nice, but they haven't really done shit for me.

[Malacite]

Re: 2008 Presidential Elections

I'm not going to dignify the sheer ignorance of that with a response.

[Murphie]

Re: 2008 Presidential Elections

That's nice, but they haven't really done shit for me.

That really tells me everything I need to know, Feba. And also should explain why I've stopped responding to your points. You are incapable of even considering the idea that you might be wrong (much less admitting), and if you combine that with the fact that your points are so wildly off base it's easy to see that responding is a waste of time.

Nice trolling tho.

[Feba]

Re: 2008 Presidential Elections

You are incapable of even considering the idea that you might be wrong (much less admitting),

What makes you think that? I consider if I could be wrong all the time. I just am not, most of the time. When you think through your opinions before you make them, you don't have that problem.

Nice trolling tho.

Coming from the person who has managed to in one thread say that people below some arbitrary age are unable to hold proper opinions, defended a broken system without explaining why the problems that people can easily point out with it don't matter, and downright insulting people who disagree with you, I'll take that as a complement. It would be hard to top you.

[711rocks]

Re: 2008 Presidential Elections

Dennis
but he won't win