Thomas Jefferson - still relevant

Lamplighter · 12-30-2010, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Are you saying that all persons who disagree with the idea that we should give illegal aliens the right to vote and or citizenship are white racist extremists? Or just those who want to prevent the children of illegal aliens from becoming US citizens white racist extremists?

I haven't yet said anyone was a "white racist extremist". Those are your words.
My words were "if it walks like a duck..."

There have been 3 groups in this thread, so far:

a) illegal aliens which (I assume) refers to "adults"
who made the decision to enter the US illegally

b) children of (a) who were brought into the US with those adults, and
since they were children they could not make their own decisions.

c) children of (a) who were (or will be) born here in the US, and so are US citizens,

And it would not surprise me if there were other situations or groups.

I believe RichLevy's post, and certainly my mine above, were in reference to (c).

Which group do you wish to talk about ?

TheMercenary · 12-30-2010, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

I haven't yet said anyone was a "white racist extremist". Those are your words.
My words were "if it walks like a duck..."

There have been 3 groups in this thread, so far:

a) illegal aliens which (I assume) refers to "adults"
who made the decision to enter the US illegally

b) children of (a) who were brought into the US with those adults, and
since they were children they could not make their own decisions.

c) children of (a) who were (or will be) born here in the US, and so are US citizens,

And it would not surprise me if there were other situations or groups.

I believe RichLevy's post, and certainly my mine above, were in reference to (c).

Which group do you wish to talk about ?

Rich made the tie between your choice c) and white racist extremists in this statement:

Quote:

I can't even imagine what it was like to be living under Jim Crow and technically be allowed to vote but be cheated out of the opportunity. And now some idiots are proposing two discredited ideas that will take us 50 or a 100 years backward.

I was asking if he viewed those who oppose c) as being the same kind of people. I asked you the same question. And you implied you agreed with your "walks like a duck" statement, and yet you refuse to answer. Which is it?

Lamplighter · 12-30-2010, 11:56 AM

As specifically related to (c), I prefer RichLevy's words to yours.
"If it walks like a duck... " is up to each person's own interpretation.

Let me ask...
Do you agree that all current and future children in group (c) are now and should always be citizens of the US ?
Or, do you advocate changing that ?

TheMercenary · 12-30-2010, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

As specifically related to (c), I prefer RichLevy's words to yours.
"If it walks like a duck... " is up to each person's own interpretation.

Let me ask...
Do you agree that all current and future children in group (c) are now and should always be citizens of the US ?
Or, do you advocate changing that ?

Answer the question first. Why are you guys refusing the obvious. You are beginning to box yourself into the answer you refuse to acknowledge.

Lamplighter · 12-30-2010, 06:01 PM

OK, Merc.
I'm not into calling names

I can easily say that I oppose the idea of changing the 14th Amendment
to disenfranchise the citizenship of anyone born in the territorial USA (i.e., group (c))

I don't know the skin color, the racial motives, or how extremist the person is who wants to change that,
so I won't go down the "white racist extermist" name-calling road with you, if that is your intent.

As to the other issues of US immigration policies, such as groups (a) and (b),
my feelings (right this moment) are that if a person can't deal with group (c),
there's not going to be a whole lot of rational discussion to follow.

Is that enough from me, or what is it you really want to know or show ?

TheMercenary · 12-30-2010, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

OK, Merc.
I'm not into calling names

I can easily say that I oppose the idea of changing the 14th Amendment
to disenfranchise the citizenship of anyone born in the territorial USA (i.e., group (c))

So basically if a Prego woman pays a human smuggler to get her across the border before she has birth you are ok with that, and so you support human smuggling operations South of the Border which exploit people? Wow, I would not have expected that of an avowed liberal.

Quote:

I don't know the skin color, the racial motives, or how extremist the person is who wants to change that,
so I won't go down the "white racist extermist" name-calling road with you, if that is your intent.

I did not bring it up so don't try to displace it on to me, Rich made the connection. You bought into it with your "duck" comment. All of that is on the two of you guys, not me....

Quote:

Is that enough from me, or what is it you really want to know or show ?

I really can't believe that you can continue to not answer the questions put to you....

Why do you avoid the question? Wow.... I really expected more out of a more mature person than what you are currently avoiding...

Lamplighter · 12-30-2010, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

So basically if a Prego woman pays a human smuggler to get her across the border before she has birth you are ok with that, and so you support human smuggling operations South of the Border which exploit people? Wow, I would not have expected that of an avowed liberal.

Awww Merc, that's a sad ploy.

Quote:

I can't even imagine what it was like to be living under Jim Crow and technically be allowed to vote but be cheated out of the opportunity.
And now some idiots are proposing two discredited ideas that will take us 50 or a 100 years backward.

I did not bring it up so don't try to displace it on to me, Rich made the connection. You bought into it with your "duck" comment. All of that is on the two of you guys, not me....

I'm confused. which post comes first, #16 or #18 ?
It might be helpful to re-read RL's post before answering.
I don't think his post contains the words "white racist extremist",
but unfortunately they are in #16

Quote:

I really can't believe that you can continue to not answer the questions put to you....

Why do you avoid the question? Wow.... I really expected more out of a more mature person than what you are currently avoiding...

Sorry I didn't come up to your expectations... twice.
We should both try harder next time because the immigration policies could be a good discussion.

12-30-2010, 11:56 AM	#3
Lamplighter Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods Posts: 6,402	As specifically related to (c), I prefer RichLevy's words to yours. "If it walks like a duck... " is up to each person's own interpretation. Let me ask... Do you agree that all current and future children in group (c) are now and should always be citizens of the US ? Or, do you advocate changing that ?

12-30-2010, 06:01 PM	#5
Lamplighter Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods Posts: 6,402	OK, Merc. I'm not into calling names I can easily say that I oppose the idea of changing the 14th Amendment to disenfranchise the citizenship of anyone born in the territorial USA (i.e., group (c)) I don't know the skin color, the racial motives, or how extremist the person is who wants to change that, so I won't go down the "white racist extermist" name-calling road with you, if that is your intent. As to the other issues of US immigration policies, such as groups (a) and (b), my feelings (right this moment) are that if a person can't deal with group (c), there's not going to be a whole lot of rational discussion to follow. Is that enough from me, or what is it you really want to know or show ?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)