Excellent response, douchebag. Now if you have a problem with something I posted why don’t you address it? Otherwise, shove a saguaro up your ass.
:smack:
Ok, **That ** shows I’m not awesome… 
All right, you shitmonkey. Prove something, otherwise I’ll just judge you based on your other notable contributions. I’m calling your bluff.
Prove you know more about this shit than I do and I’ll listen to you. Until then, shut the fucking fuck up.
You care about Tancredo and he’s not even in charge of your state. You’re a good guy. The senator, however, is fucking nuts.
It doesn’t help, of course, that there are those who do stuff like wave signs that say “This is our continent!”, and that such signs are the most media-attractive.
I do wonder, though, what illegal immigrants who march want, exactly. Do they want to become legalized? Do they want immigration laws lightened or abandoned entirely? Perhaps protesters need to be clear as to what their vision of immigration to America, and immigration laws, is. I think that would help a lot, especially to reassure folks who think that the protesters believe that the borders should be thrown open to everyone, and that the illegal ones are “flouting the law” or whatever.
Kyle or McCain?
In this subject, McCain is more reasonable.
McCain.
You are an imbecile.
- I posted a rather lengthy question to the OP.
- You spewed some of your shit my way without offering anything of substance.
- I told you to offer something or shove a cactus up your ass.
- You post the above.
- ?
What the fuck do you want me to “prove”. What the fuck are you talking about? I doubt anyone in this discussion can “prove” anything. So far, I am the one who posted something seriously—something that you evidently have a problem with. So fine, WEIGH IN ON THE DISCUSSION. Or again, shut the fuck up and pump the saguaro a few times. Maybe that’ll improve your attitude.
To help you along: it now falls to you to offer substantive commentary on my question to John Mace. Otherwise: cactus, pump.
Well, you seemed to be implying that the two groups were of roughly equal importance and relevance in the pro-immigration movement. I was hoping you had a cite that demonstrated that these people were anything other than fringe lunatics.
Of course, if you weren’t trying to imply that, no cite is necessary. I do wonder why you brought them up in the first place, though, as doing so seems about as underhanded as mentioning the KKK alongside legitimate organizations on the other side of the issue.
Incidentally, does your position in this thread invalidate your earlier position on anti-war protestors, whom you recommended lie about their motivations for opposing the war, so as not to offend the sensibilities of returning veterans?
Their goals are important. Just as your goals are. And mine. We are all coming at this issue from different places, and want it to end differently. So we discuss it. I think it as absolutely pertinent to that discussion for each group to understand where the other group wants to end up.
For instance, if I believed the illegal immigrants in question were more embracing of the American culture and didn’t want to create Mexican communities within the U.S., I personally would be much more open to welcoming more of them. But from the personal experience I’ve had living New York, Texas, and California I do not see that to being the case. I see immigrants from other countries in Africa and Western Europe come here and that can’t become “American” quickly enough.
Granted I do not think all of this is a conscious decision on their part. Due to the large existent Mexican communities here, there is no urgency for someone newly arrived from Mexico to assimilate quickly. Unlike someone from say, Chad or Bosnia. BUt the problem exists all the same. This is one of the reasons I am in favor of the “oh-so-racist idea” of making English the offical language. It’s also why we need to control the rate of immigration, so the people can be absorbed into the culture. And this is more a matter of immigration percentages than sheer numbers. If we agree to let X number of people in, how should X be spread over the countries of the world? It is rarely a good idea—never mind fair to the millions from other countries who want to come her—to allow to a great a number from any one country to immigrate at any one time.
And this leaves aside the whole issue of legality. To me, letting people who snuck into the country stay here while there are so many that have been waiting to get here legally, defies both logic and any sense of fair play.
Unregistered Bull made the point that the group’s size is minor. That’s a perfectly valid point. But what we don’t know, and possibly cannot know, is just how small? Whatever the actual size of the group that is out there, John Mace is advocating that they use stealth and deceit to encourage us to change our laws. Which then brings them one step closer to their goal, which would be counter to the vast majority of Amercans’ wishes. I do not think the percent is very large, but I don’t think it is just a handful either. And isn’t it wise for us to know their true intent before we drastically alter our immigration policy?
I didn’t mean to imply they were near close in size. From the post in question:
Still, I think we both have different perceptions about the actual size of said groups. You seem to think they are a fringe element. I’d say they are a healthy minority, say 20%. Yes it’s a comlpete guess. And I do not know how to figure it out. Do you have any substantiation for claiming them to be fringe? I’m not trying to bust your balls, only to point out that I don’t think those numbers exist in any reliable way. If you know differently, I’d be interested in hearing about it.
No. In the thread you mention, I was suggesting that for those who wanted the war to end, that their ends were better served by witholding criticism of the troops or their Commander in Chief. I think it was SteveG1 who challenged me to show how that could be done, and I wrote a letter to that effect, which I think was satidfactory. The point is that they were claiming that they’re ultimate goal reagarding the war was it ending and American troops being sent home. I was advocating that they simply attack the prosecution of the war from a practical standpoint. I pointed out that all the other stuff was “noise” that actually worked counter to their ultimate goal.
In this thread, I think it is important to note that the group in question is a group whose *ultimate goal is not simply some type of amnesty or a guest worker program or modified immigration policy. Their ultimate goal is the eventual “reconquering” of Aztlan. For them, the changes in U.S. immigration policy being debated are NOT the ultimate goal, they are menas to a different end.
Again, it all comes down to how big the group is in actuality. The marches lead me to believe that it is quite a bit larger than you think. Therefore, I want Americans and our lawmakers to be aware of that camp. You think it is smaller, akin to a bunch of KKK crazies. I don’t know who is closer to the truth.
Of course their goals are important to them! But that is indeed like saying my cat’s breath smells like cat food.
Since I’m in contact with mainstream Latino groups, the conclusion from this discussion remains this: those small groups are drinking peyote. Their goals are not only irrelevant but dismissed even by mainstream Latinos.
Same thing they said about the Irish.
I guess you are dismissing that a big number of Latinos (Much more than the idiotic Aztlan group) could not become American quickly enough also, I was one of them. Only my parents had a hard time doing that, but it will be news to them that they are not Americans even if the USA told them so when they took the oath to become citizens.
Of course, but logic and fair play are not part of the House plan, the best solution then is to make them legal residents by making them pay a fine and then making them learn English and eventually become Americans or else out they go, I do think a far reaching solution involves setting taxes that will increase if the former illegal groups don’t do an effort in controlling immigration. You see, unlike you, I do think making what you consider an enemy a friend is better than the unafordable idea of virtually declaring war on them…
I just ate dinner and the whole time I was thinking about this exchange. I can figure my knowledge of Senator McCain, what with his election run (past and lunatic future) and his important post-war place in the press.
What really puzzles me is your understanding of Mr Tancredo. Are you unusual or is he a big deal in AZ?
In the last big discussion about that, the only evidence was outdated or radical student websites that had links posted to Aztlan, no one could produce even a mainstream latino group linking to them, much less approving their mesage.
When you are guessing their level of support, the possibility increases to mean that you are wrong. After years of looking, the ideas of Aztlan remain a virtual non issue among Latinos now.
[QUOTE=
]
Their goals are important. Just as your goals are. And mine. We are all coming at this issue from different places, and want it to end differently. So we discuss it. I think it as absolutely pertinent to that discussion for each group to understand where the other group wants to end up.
For instance, if I believed the illegal immigrants in question were more embracing of the American culture and didn’t want to create Mexican communities within the U.S., I personally would be much more open to welcoming more of them. But from the personal experience I’ve had living New York, Texas, and California I do not see that to being the case. I see immigrants from other countries in Africa and Western Europe come here and that can’t become “American” quickly enough.
Granted I do not think all of this is a conscious decision on their part. Due to the large existent Mexican communities here, there is no urgency for someone newly arrived from Mexico to assimilate quickly. Unlike someone from say, Chad or Bosnia. BUt the problem exists all the same. This is one of the reasons I am in favor of the “oh-so-racist idea” of making English the offical language. It’s also why we need to control the rate of immigration, so the people can be absorbed into the culture. And this is more a matter of immigration percentages than sheer numbers. If we agree to let X number of people in, how should X be spread over the countries of the world? It is rarely a good idea—never mind fair to the millions from other countries who want to come her—to allow to a great a number from any one country to immigrate at any one time.
And this leaves aside the whole issue of legality. To me, letting people who snuck into the country stay here while there are so many that have been waiting to get here legally, defies both logic and any sense of fair play.
Unregistered Bull made the point that the group’s size is minor. That’s a perfectly valid point. But what we don’t know, and possibly cannot know, is just how small? Whatever the actual size of the group that is out there, John Mace is advocating that they use stealth and deceit to encourage us to change our laws. Which then brings them one step closer to their goal, which would be counter to the vast majority of Amercans’ wishes. I do not think the percent is very large, but I don’t think it is just a handful either. And isn’t it wise for us to know their true intent before we drastically alter our immigration policy?
[/QUOTE]
magellan01, that is a brilliant post in a lot of ways and I mean that in all sincerity. I tend to look at the issue from my own perspective and get angry when I see them doing something so blatantly stupid even if their cause isn’t my own view, I just don’t like poor logic or methodology in general and my career is devoted to fixing poor processes and thinking so I tend to pounce on just those things as well.
In the larger scheme of things you are absolutely correct. It is better is everyone just announces their goals beforehand so that we all know what we are dealing with. This does not bode well for most traditional style protesters whose style and intellect usually don’t shine under these methods especially because they never seem to understand how everyone else views it from their own perspective.
Speaking as a moderate libertarian that tends to align with traditional conservative philosophy for everything but pure social issues (not Bush), radical style protests are the best thing that we have going on. These groups seem to just line right up in public to help you on your mission. You can’t ask for more devotion than that.
He is a big deal because of the issue at hand, his name is mentioned a lot regarding immigrant issues in the local Air America radio and in the Hispanic TV and newspaper, a Spanish newspaper that I decided to read again after a long time of only reading English news (I stopped reading the local Hispanic paper because I did not like their conservative stance, more than the Arizona Republic!).
Based on the reports and editorials in the Hispanic press, I do think the ones who are saying there will be a backlash against the Latinos protesting are ignoring the current more damaging backlash (to the Republicans that is) that business owners, not only Hispanics, are having against congress (I have to repeat here that congress is the reason for all this mess for showing only the stick). Some businesses are set to join the protest and even companies in California (And some locally) are closing Monday to oppose the current immigration laws:
http://www.insidebayarea.com/dailyreview/localnews/ci_3762092
**Shagnasty **, how can I take you seriously if his point hinges on a guess? **magellan01’s ** post would be brilliant if he had some evidence. As it is, I can not see any reason why you think he is correct.
That is what you don’t seem to get. The tactics they use are FUBAR. I would actually go so far as to say that all protests of that type are FUBAR because adults with actual power don’t behave that way and can’t identify with it. I know I don’t. I am trying to get my 3 year old daughter out of that stage now and I find it disturbing in adults.
I ask this of all emotional protests:
- What are you actually asking people to DO?
- How do you plan to get there?
- How will that impact others?
- What are the benefits of your plan to others?
- What are the overall positives and negatives?
That is how adults talk or at least it is what I deal with on a daily basis as a consultant. All I see here is a mix of terrorism threats, ignorance, and tantrum throwing. That isn’t something that I can work with and when I have to work with people that do those things, we have them counselled so that they can function in the world much like a retarded baby chicken that has fallen in with the ducks and then taken on an alternate reality.
This thread isn’t about who is right and who is wrong. I have had this discussion enough to realize that there is a fundamental disconnect somewhere. You can be right and still be completely ignorant or vice-versa, The actual question was about tactics and the OP was absolutely right.
The reason I agreed with magellan01 is that I realized I should be happy that people I disagree with line up for battle, point their weapons, and then turn and shoot themselves in the head. I was looking at the battle level when I should focus on everything above that and it is honest for everyone to make their overall intentions known rather than doing a tactical dance all the time.
Problem is, you assume that intentions like the ones from Aztlan are the honest position of a sizable group among the “enemy”, with no evidence; so much for fixing poor processes…
And seeing the big picture, you ignore that your “emotional protests” "and “The tactics they use are FUBAR” have to be applied first to the Republicans in congress that are finding they made a terrible mistake when they picked this battle. Whatever you assume the “damage” Latinos will get, Republicans will get it harder, maybe not today, but a new generation of Americans will not forget.