Yea, I know, but this arrastrado isn’t worth more than 15 seconds on Google. Maybe not even that.
Who is behind the CIS and why should I believe an organization that quotes an un-named “Minuteman” spokesman as a source for their article?
Well, I didn’t know there was a question pending to me. And I didn’t know that you considered a question something to be answered or a request something to be satisfied, as you have ignored so many. But I guess you meant this question, even though it came before what you quoted from me in your post:
Manners. As you no doubt don’t get, they are important between neighbors. No one here cares what Mexicans do in their own country and how freely they move around. I’d say the more freedom they have the better. But when large numbers of them start moving in one direction and disrespecting the borders and sovereignty of a neighboring country, that creates a problem between the countries. If you have a neighbor with kids, I assume you wish them health and happiness and days filled with fun. But if their idea is fun is coming onto your property uninvited when you’ve asked them not to, and maybe waliking around in your house, then a problem arises between you and therir parents, right? Same deal here. I wish the Mexican people all good things. For those that desire to experience living in the U.S. I welcome them—if they pursue legal means.
Now, we all know that this wold not be much of an issue if a hunderd Mexicans were sneaking into the U.S. every year, or even every month. The sheer numbers tax our system and are a net detriment to our country. Now you may choose to argue that. Or, I should say, your government may choose to argue that to our government. But in the end it is incumbent upon the U.S. government to act in the best interests of the U.S. Fox may request immigration reform. But he has to live with that answer and continue to respect our borders. If he doesn’t, he creates a problem that the U.S. left to deal with on its own. That means (in addition to prosecutiing employers who hire illegals) things like a more militarized border and, perhaps, a wall. Not to metion the frustration and anger of the American people.
Now maybe YOU will answer this question. We both agree that countries will negotiate things and that requests can be made between them. But if a request is denied, do you think that the country making the request is legally or morally excused for not respecting the sovereignity of the country that denied their request?
And I’m still waiting for cites supporting your claim that more Mexicans enter the U.S. legally than illegally. Or do you care to retract that claim?
Truth be told I’m not quite sure how much longer I’m going to remain in this thread and/or totally polite. It seems that the OP is determined to get down and dirty and refuses to respond to hard factual discussions. The refrain of “If you don’t agree you’re a moron/racist/evil gringo” is also somewhat grating. Add in the sidestepping and nonsequitors and I think we may be leaving the realm of honest and honorable debate.
I just figured I’d head 'im off at the pass before he gainsaid the cite, didn’t want to leave such an easy out.
You are still not responding to a single one of my three posts which I linked to in the post you’re now responding to. Why?
Besides, two things:
- Your refusal to consider the evidence because of who “is behind” the CIS is an ad hominem fallacy. Do you have any reason to doubt their reporting? Do you know anything about them, at all?
- Because, you don’t seem to know who’s behind the CIS and didn’tclick the tab labeled “about CIS”
- You will also notice that the very first cite I provided in the very first post of mine that you’re still ignoring, the CIS is cited as a resource and was reviewed by a Princeton professor. Unless you’re suggesting that there’s a vast conspiracy of hateful gringos, I think it’s time to start addressing the data I’ve presented.
Would you now please address the facts laid out in the three posts you’ve neglected to touch on?
Er, that should’ve been “Besides, three things”
Yeeeesh.
For the past hour and a half I have been entertained by the terrible volley launched back and forth by what must be the incredibly lonely side standing next to CBEscapee, and what seems to be the vastly overcrowded side of…well, of everyone else. I can see why.
Calling this thread anything other than a skit-gone-wrong on Saturday Night Live is an insult to discussions/debates/intellectual debates/thoughts/philosophy/news/current events and nearly anything that I can think of that produces some sort of useful, utilitatian end is an insult to anything that lives, breathes, things, or sits on the side of a tree, much like moss. I mean no insult to the people such as Rex, Bus and others who have, to the best of their ability, attempted to calm and pacify CB. But, unfortunately, doing that seems to be far more in vain than attempting to catch a greased pig on crack.
Sure, like a child, it once had a future. It perhaps could have studied, the father (who shall be played by CB) could have nurtured it, provided it with sustainance (decent arguements, the ability to yield a lost point, etc…etc.), and watched it grow into a thread that produced a meaningful contribution to all of those that participated.
But no, like so many other children, this thread has gone the way of the 24-hour raver. The druggie who ends up, once with so much promise, under a bridge, begging and clawing to hold on to something that is by far gone. And while we may yet be able to save him, it is unlikely.
Therefore, as entertaining as this catfight with words has been, I kindly ask those of you who have been fighting tooth-and-nail for a concession to be made to surrender the effort, and to allow yourselves release from such a fight in vain.
I make this plea as a hope that these will be the final words spoken on this thread which has descended into the pits of the pit’s hell, straight down to the gaping jaws of the tenth level. We’ve all been mildly entertained by perhaps the most fortified stubborness of CB, a stubborness which I can’t begin to comprehend, and which I silently wonder to myself comes from something that perhaps should be taken up by a lawyer, so as to prevent a repeat incident in future generations.
I plead with you, I beg you all, in the name of sanity, civility and respect, let this thread die, or at least let it get over its cold turkey and then hope to establish some intelligent conversation. I can say, myself, that the uncanny valley has been crossed from mild humor and amusement from CB’s stiff-necked, unyielding rhetoric, to the horror that this thread was concieved in all seriousness, and has continued as such.
It worked! Instead he jumped on your (better) cite! 
Jumped on, handwaved away… six of one, half dozen of another?
Yes I definitly do have reason to question the validity of an article that uses an un-named source from a group of paramilitary freaks that President Bush hinself has called vigilantes.
Sloppy handwaving, that.
The CIS article that I quoted and you’re trying to ignore does not even mention the minutemen. Heck, I’ll go you one further, the letters “minu…” do not even occur in the entire article. Nope, no unnamed minutemen, but there’s a rather thick bibliography at the end.
Besides, “vigilante” means someone who takes the law into their own hands. Not someone who is, by necessity, an unreliable witness.
Yep my mistake. The Minuteman references are from some screwball politician from Colorado.
In any case, unless you are going to respond to the large ammount of hard data I’ve provided, especially those bits which show you statements to be outright wrong, then I’m not sure that anything else can be accomplished here.
If you’re not going to debate honestly and in good faith I’ll just leave this abortion of a thread alone.
You are going to debate honestly and in good faith, aren’t you?
Do you know anything about him, either? He’s a screwball… why?
And now that you’ve admitted that you were attempting to handwave many CIS cites based on bullshit reasons, do you care to address the facts presented therein?
Yes I’m sure Bush was referring to them in a flattering light.
Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t you mention that you really aren’t sure shooting people crossing the border isn’t a bad idea? If so why don’t you and clothahump join one of those fine examples of America down on the border, the Minutemen, Ranch Rescue, American Border Patrol, Civil Homeland Defense? You would enjoy the company of like minded folk, perhaps rub elbows with David Duke and other members of the KKK and stroke your well-oiled “weapon”. Don’t forget your khakis and camoflauge paint.
You are again dodging the question and ignoring each and every single factual cite I’ve given you.
And simply to clear up this silly semantic nit picking, of course the word vigilante has a negative connotation, but it does not mean that someone is a liar.
Ding ding ding, we have a winnah!
OK here you go.
A proposal was passed unanomously by all Mexican political parties in the Chamber of Deputies and submitted to the head of Foreign Relations (equivalent to the US Stae Dept.) and asked to be tabled at talks on immigration reform.
It proposes a guest worker program where people would be allowed to stay and work a determined amount of time and then be required to return to Mexico for another set period of time. They would be required to post a monetary bond and pay a fee to cover the costs of the paperwork.
The article quotes one of the pols saying that the idea has the backing of several US congressmen.
It also states that they believe it would go far towards putting the coyotes out of business.
No but it most definitely calls into question their credibility. It makes it much harder to believe them. Plus the site uses un-named members. So now I’m expected to take the word of a unanomous paramilitary freak as the truth.
Like I said, you’re deliberately ignoring all of the factual cites I gave you. You haven’t even analyzed the CIS cites afer your absurd refusal to consider them.
You are arguing in bad faith. You fall back on bullshit charges of racism when you can’t debate the issues. You are intelletually dishonest, and your thread is nothing other than Pit Vomit. Bait someone else. Ciao ciao.
Isn’t he the one that mentioned nuking Mecca? Is that screwball enough for you?
When I have a chance to do some research I’ll answer your questions. I haven’t even had the time to answer all of my fan mail.