RE: An American dialogue

Join Our Community

Collarchat.com

Home Login Search

RE: An American dialogue

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: An American dialogue

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: An American dialogue - 12/3/2017 8:57:23 PM

Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
I've found it far easier to let people prove themselves to be liars than to try to do it myself. So if you don't believe my intentions here, then sit back and give me room. Making a personal comment in an issue-driven thread was exactly what I had hoped to avoid. So it would be appreciated if you stop antagonizing, at least within the confines of this thread.

We don't like each other. I get it. I'm ok with that.

Well, I had hoped to actually handle this privately, but ...

My point was: in case you hadn't noticed, over the last couple of weeks, I've been trying to do just that with you. Those efforts have been met with the typical derision that I've come to expect.

As someone once said to me (leaving out the derision): You started the thread.

You did so, from what I could tell, with an attempt to "claim the moral high ground" as you were asking others to not do the same. It's an interesting tactic, but it belies your stated initial intent. It's a lofty goal to be sure, but it was exposed as flawed, almost from the start and definitely by the time we got to that last quote I gave.

You're correct (almost) in the assertion that I don't like you. I don't like the way you gravitate toward the ad hominem and name-calling once you've been unable to defend your positions.

What I am trying to say is: I have (over the last couple of weeks) tried to engage and debate with you without being the one to "draw first blood". You've "stayed the course". Certainly, in this thread, I've only objected to the substantive things you've typed (even the example you just quoted). So? Good for the goose, but not the gander?

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to JVoV)

RE: An American dialogue - 12/3/2017 9:21:54 PM

BamaD

Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
I did say I was uncertain on the matter. Apparently, the court have ruled that undocumented/illegal immigrants do have some Constitutional rights, ...

I have always believed being here illegally trumps any other crime. They're illegal, kick 'em out. Why should we pay to jail and feed them?

That said, I've also always believed if we're going to prosecute them under our laws, they should enjoy constitutional protections.

I do believe that when we catch them the 2nd and 3rd time
we have to take sterner measures that just throwing them back.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to DaddySatyr)

RE: An American dialogue - 12/3/2017 9:23:43 PM

JVoV

Posts: 3226
Joined: 3/9/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
So this is about choosing country over party, making an attempt to ignore my own knee-jerk reactions, and having an honest conversation about wtf is going on. Mostly because I don't have the energy to hate or disapprove of so many people all at once.

to me this line alone is worth talking about.

I don't tend to think "party" so much as I do principles and for good or bad, those principles are often tied to particular parties.

to me your statement about choosing "country over party" sounds too much like a compromising of principles. when I look at the principles I have, I also hold them as being the best for the country.

someone else comes along, with competing principles, and believes likewise.

how then shall we live?

Perhaps read the full text of my post again, along with what I was replying to. Context may help. Because I feel like you're picking at the commentary of my posts and missing the actual point.

I never said that I would back down from my principles, or my interpretation of the Constitution. I don't think many of us here are that weak of will. That doesn't mean we can't open each other's eyes with a rational explanation of our take on a given matter, and maybe find common ground.

Pick a subject. If we can agree that something needs to be done about it, then the next step is to discuss what that something is. We'll likely have different ideas, but maybe we can agree on where to start and work from there. At heart, Americans have more similarities than differences. So don't put me in Romney's '47%' and I won't put you in the 'basket of deplorables'.

Even if we never agree on anything, hearing opposing views is healthier than a constant feedback loop.

(in reply to bounty44)

RE: An American dialogue - 12/3/2017 9:25:12 PM

JVoV

Posts: 3226
Joined: 3/9/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
So this is about choosing country over party, making an attempt to ignore my own knee-jerk reactions, and having an honest conversation about wtf is going on. Mostly because I don't have the energy to hate or disapprove of so many people all at once.

to me this line alone is worth talking about.

I don't tend to think "party" so much as I do principles and for good or bad, those principles are often tied to particular parties.

to me your statement about choosing "country over party" sounds too much like a compromising of principles. when I look at the principles I have, I also hold them as being the best for the country.

someone else comes along, with competing principles, and believes likewise.

how then shall we live?

Then we talk and see if there are ways to find common ground, understand other points of view, etc.

But that is hard to do when people are so partisan that they regard anyone not of their party as the enemy.

See. You get me.

(in reply to Wayward5oul)

RE: An American dialogue - 12/3/2017 9:46:31 PM

Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
I do believe that when we catch them the 2nd and 3rd time
we have to take sterner measures that just throwing them back.

Yeah, I agree, but I don't think many would like my solution.

I see illegal immigration as an invasion. In one instance, years ago, it was actually two jeep loads of federales who discharged at least one round in the direction of our Border Patrol agents.

That was "covered up", but now, technically, we had an armed invasion.

That to the side, the illegal immigration and sending of a bunch of our money down to Mexico is (to me) a financial war. We're being bled dry.

Peace,

Michael

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to BamaD)

RE: An American dialogue - 12/3/2017 9:46:41 PM

tj444

Posts: 7574
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Most of the talking heads pushing for the rights of those that have been marginalized aren't pushing for equal rights, it seems. It seems more like they want to be "more equal" and to have those that haven't been marginalized (primarily white males) to pay for it. Can you even imagine how decimated straight white males would be if we had to pay it back for all the marginalization that happened to every group with some combination of being not straight, not white, and/or not male? Back in the early '90's, there was preferential entry qualifications for Physical Therapy schools against from white males. Non-whites, females, and especially non-white females were preferred over white males, as long as they were reasonably close in academic qualifications.

I just love how some people like to pick times in the past when their kind was "marginalized".. so you want to pick a time, 27 or so years in the past when women were given a chance at a few jobs.. how about we go back a few years before that when women could not even vote! talk about marginalized...
Personally, I dont think white men have anything to bitch about, women still get shafted, and blacks and hispanics get shafted even more than white women do.. its just the shafting is generally more subtle now.. so go boohoo all you want, the reality is that white men still have it better than anyone else.. the majority of the politicians, CEOs/Directors of large corporations and 1% are white males, they still have a tight grip (& make the rules) on the US & world economies, politics, banking, stock market, etc..

Why is it okay for someone who isn't as qualified to get a job or acceptance into a college program over someone who is more qualified?

Do you realize you are arguing that it's okay to discriminate based on gender and/or skin color?

How the hell do you get that??? I am not arguing that its okay to discriminate at all, but going back a quarter of a century to some snub you or a few white men may have gotten is ridiculous.. Women get snubbed every fucking day, we cant get access to the same money that men get access to with the same credit score etc, we are still discriminated, hell, even yer Prez has said he likes to hire women cuz he can pay them half what he would pay a man and they do twice the work as a man (plus he can grab their pussies)... That is discrimination today.. hearing white guys whine about how tough they have it is laughable.. especially when its white men that control the lending institutions, politics, laws & court system, major corporations, etc.. There will never be equality until white men stop discriminating against women, blacks, hispanics, the poor, etc.. and that starts with white men not turning a blind eye & letting other white men get away with pulling that shite..

_____________________________

As Anderson Cooper said “If he (Trump) took a dump on his desk, you would defend it”

(in reply to DesideriScuri)

RE: An American dialogue - 12/3/2017 9:53:28 PM

JVoV

Posts: 3226
Joined: 3/9/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
to me your statement about choosing "country over party" sounds too much like a compromising of principles. when I look at the principles I have, I also hold them as being the best for the country.
someone else comes along, with competing principles, and believes likewise.
how then shall we live?

Unfortunately, we (general usage) don't treat those who disagree with that kind of viewpoint. Typically each 'side' blasts the other 'side' as trying to destroy the country.

I think theres a twofold reason for that desi--one is just human weakness and animosity towards other sides in general, but more importantly, its because our views of what the country is or should be are so different from each other.

That's a bit too "my way or the highway" to be productive. The point of this thread wasn't to serve as a commentary about the constant negative back and forth, it's simply to have a conversation without it.

My life, needs, experiences, and political priorities as a gay man living in Florida are no doubt different than yours as a straight guy in New York. Our age difference may also effect our views. But there has to be common ground on at least some issues. I am willing to read your side of any given argument so feel free to post one. And maybe explain why you believe that way, because I'll probably ask.

(in reply to bounty44)

RE: An American dialogue - 12/3/2017 10:15:17 PM

JVoV

Posts: 3226
Joined: 3/9/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
I think theres a twofold reason for that desi--one is just human weakness and animosity towards other sides in general, but more importantly, its because our views of what the country is or should be are so different from each other.

I agree, the views about what's best for the country are very different. Even giving that, we don't have to treat the "other side" as if they are purposefully trying to destroy America. We might not agree with them, and they might not agree with us, but the accusations of trying to destroy America, or that the policies favored would destroy America are far, far, far from valid.

As pompous as it is for any of us to try to decide what's best for the entire country, let's do it anyway. Why else are we here?

I'm not so rigid that I think there's nothing else I need to know anymore. And maybe I will shoot holes in a person's ideas, or try to point out actual flaws in their thinking, but I'm capable of doing so as part of a debate without needing to tear somebody down on the interwebz. Or maybe there's a part that I can salvage, and improve upon it because of something you've missed.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)

RE: An American dialogue - 12/3/2017 10:44:19 PM

JVoV

Posts: 3226
Joined: 3/9/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
I did say I was uncertain on the matter. Apparently, the court have ruled that undocumented/illegal immigrants do have some Constitutional rights, ...

I have always believed being here illegally trumps any other crime. They're illegal, kick 'em out. Why should we pay to jail and feed them?

That said, I've also always believed if we're going to prosecute them under our laws, they should enjoy constitutional protections.

Being in the country unauthorized/illegally/undocumented is not a crime, in and of itself though.

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2017/mar/15/florida-conference-catholic-bishops/being-united-states-unlawfully-crime/

quote:

Unlawful presence is neither a felony nor a misdemeanor, said Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. It is a civil infraction that results in removal and a bar on re-entry for a certain period of time.

"Not everything that’s illegal — meaning against the law or violating the law — is a crime," Shapiro said. "There are civil violations, like when you get a parking ticket. ‘Unlawful presence’ is one of these. You don't go to jail or receive any other criminal punishment for being in the country illegally — you get deported."

On a side note, this thread made me realize that the illegal that got off for murder was guaranteed a court appointed attorney for his criminal trial, which I wasn't sure about. There is no such right for deportation hearings.

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2017/mar/29/florida-immigrant-coalition/do-undocumented-immigrants-have-constitutional-rig/

(in reply to DaddySatyr)

RE: An American dialogue - 12/3/2017 10:49:03 PM

Posts: 9968
Joined: 2/6/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
I see illegal immigration as an invasion.

Most Asian countries do too! Like it's culture shock to even see the whole Trump Presidency and how the left promotes illegal immigration and calls people evil who wants to prosecute illegals.

But over here, illegal immigration is a crime. And like smuggling drugs into our country. Same type of crime. It's unanimously bad people who is breaking the law and disrespecting our country.

(in reply to DaddySatyr)

RE: An American dialogue - 12/3/2017 10:54:00 PM

Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

quote:

Unlawful presence is neither a felony nor a misdemeanor, said Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. It is a civil infraction that results in removal and a bar on re-entry for a certain period of time.

"Not everything that’s illegal — meaning against the law or violating the law — is a crime," Shapiro said. "There are civil violations, like when you get a parking ticket. ‘Unlawful presence’ is one of these. You don't go to jail or receive any other criminal punishment for being in the country illegally — you get deported."

Forgetting the fact that I don't agree with this opinion, if it's not a crime (and I doubt that), it should be. Simple, really.

This is our country and for every illegal here, whether they're eating up government assistance or not, they're taking jobs that Americans could work.

I know the tried-and-true argument of "Americans don't want those jobs", but that argument leaves out the "No one should have to work for a 'slave wage' " argument that seems to be driving the $15 per hour movement. That, of course, kind of exposes another idea: It's okay for illegal aliens - supposedly the poorest of the poor - to settle for less than any other human being?

Also, it is insulting to the natural-born Americans who DO want any job they can get their hands on. People who are so proud that instead of going on the dole, when they can't find a job, will wind up on the street, instead.

The whole situation is a mess. Unfortunately, we have to decide who has authority over the issue and then, demand they do something about it.

Of course, there's also my (very popular) argument that representatives should represent our interests.

Lastly, I am well aware that I "won the lottery", regards to where I was born. I get it. But, just because I "won the lottery", should I be forced to distribute my windfall, against my will?

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to JVoV)

RE: An American dialogue - 12/3/2017 10:55:02 PM

JVoV

Posts: 3226
Joined: 3/9/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

The president does not have the power to write law.
I have great respect for McCain as a person, but not as a leader.

I don't see it so much as writing law as it is directing foreign policy, which is one of the responsibilities the President does have. A crackdown on illegal immigrants and a sudden mass deportation may cause problems for their home countries, which may interfere with relations between our countries, trade agreements, etc.

I like McCain as Senator for Arizona, but yeah, not as President. I don't remember what other Republicans ran in '08. I do actually like his daughter on The View. Not as much as I liked Nicole Wallace though.

(in reply to BamaD)

RE: An American dialogue - 12/3/2017 10:57:07 PM

Posts: 9968
Joined: 2/6/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
Now think about this for a moment: if HIV/AIDS were first discovered in heterosexual people in the US, how different would our government's immediate reaction have been? How soon would the CDC have been brought in? Impossible to know, but certainly a prime example of how dangerous 'otherism' can be.

Actually the real question why is aids more easily spread through anal sex than normal sex?
And why are gay men always having unprotected sex.
The fact that is was first found in gays, it is also like, it's a sign!
If it was first found in heterosexual, sex education on protection will be alot stronger than today. Just like when any infectious disease happen. Like Sars, like Zika, wide spread of full educational information about how to prevent it non-stop. But because it begin in gay people, they didn't aggressively educate the whole population about it.

quote:

And yes, in some States, you can be legally terminated from your job for being gay. In some States, you can be denied service at some businesses if you're gay too. I'm sure you remember the cake thing.

The cake thing, I felt was legitimate. If gay people bought off the shelves cake from that bakery, he would have sold it to them. The baker just does not want to design a cake that celebrates gay marriage which his religion is against. That to me is not discrimination. It's like telling a Muslim to sell me pork. Or make me a pork pie. I mean we got halal pie shops, and if I went in and ask the Muslim to custom-make me a pork pie for my birthday, they would refuse me 100% and I would understand. As it's against their religion.

But for it to be legitimate to refuse to sell things to gay people, I mean, normal things like you just browse the shop and buy whatever is on display there? That is unacceptable and I will be surprise if that is legal over there, because it's not legal over here, even though sodomy is against the law.

But custom-made things. A Buddhist can refuse to bake a Jesus Cake. That's okay. As the Jesus cake is customised design. No crime commited. As it's against their religion.

As for bestiality and marriage to my cat. I love my cat to death and I love sleeping with them and hugging them and kissing them. That's the extent of my "physical interaction with them". I also only have female cats. So my cats already love me and cuddle up with me, and lick me. My cats even love to lick my breasts, and my lips and my cheeks, I didn't train them to do that. I am always naked in my home, so when I sleep, they climb on me and lick me.

It's genuine mutual love for each other. I don't harm them. They don't harm me.

I mean there are ALOT of "Others" harmless type of love that are banned from marriage. That's what I am saying. So when only gay and lesbian couples get legalise, to me it's seen as special treatment. And not a win for marriage equality. There is no logic to this special treatment except this special group fought the loudest for their special rights and in the end, this is life.

If you really want something, you gotta fight for it. They got it. But is it fair? Is there truly equality? No. Because alot of out of normal heterosexual relationships are banned from marriage. Especially incest. Which I feel like animals themselves, cats and dogs, hamsters, rabbits, lots of incest happen if you leave them all un-neutered and naturally together. It's just made abnormal by humans.

But seldom do you see a gay cat or dog or hamster.

When it comes to incest, not all couples are heterosexual too. So not every couple can have kids naturally. And gay and lesbian incest couples can definitely have kids, without incest defect, since they need a sperm or egg donor anyway.

I am always like, treat ALL equally with a fair logic encompassing the "whys".

Like being terminated at a job for being gay. I would fiercely fight against that bullshit. Being gay does not hinder their ability to do a fantastic job. If any shops or restaurant put out a poster which says, "No gays allowed in here", I would also fiercely object to that! As gay people can be good customers too.

But refusing to customise a cake to celebrate a gay marriage which is against your religion. That is fair. If we want to respect a person's religion, we shouldn't force them to bake customise cakes to celebrate something against their religion.

It's like forcing a jew to bake a hitler cake. Forcing a Muslim to bake a pork pie. It's just not right. That specific cake case really does not sit right with me. I do not think it's fair to the baker to condemn him for his religious beliefs.

< Message edited by Greta75 -- 12/3/2017 11:06:20 PM >

(in reply to JVoV)

RE: An American dialogue - 12/3/2017 11:03:35 PM

JVoV

Posts: 3226
Joined: 3/9/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Danemora

For me, I lean liberal. But I honestly appreciate a differing viewpoint...even if I dont 100% agree one way or the other. It gives me another angle of thought to look at an issue through. I think considering an opposing viewpoint as a good thing.

I'm to the left of Ghandi on some issues, and slightly to the right of Attila the Hun on others.

Not sure if that makes me moderate or bipolar lol

(in reply to Danemora)

RE: An American dialogue - 12/3/2017 11:07:17 PM

JVoV

Posts: 3226
Joined: 3/9/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

I don't disagree some are far from valid...but id put forth that some indeed are.

and even then, given our rough agreement on the matter, there are people who would draw those distinctions in so many different ways and places.

I was recently at the local hardware store and found myself surprisingly talking politics with a guy from Australia, which then left me talking politics with the guy behind the counter. I mentioned how difficult it was to have a country that had millions of people with probably 20 different social-political worldviews, but in so much as they exist, I think we live in the best place in the world for them to.

I think we have the privilege of living in one of the only countries that so many socio-political views can flourish, and be tried in any given State, within Constitutionally boundaries, of course.

(in reply to bounty44)

RE: An American dialogue - 12/4/2017 12:06:33 AM

JVoV

Posts: 3226
Joined: 3/9/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
I've found it far easier to let people prove themselves to be liars than to try to do it myself. So if you don't believe my intentions here, then sit back and give me room. Making a personal comment in an issue-driven thread was exactly what I had hoped to avoid. So it would be appreciated if you stop antagonizing, at least within the confines of this thread.

We don't like each other. I get it. I'm ok with that.

Well, I had hoped to actually handle this privately, but ...

I think that had you really hoped to handle this privately, you would have. Yet I have no messages from you.

quote:

My point was: in case you hadn't noticed, over the last couple of weeks, I've been trying to do just that with you. Those efforts have been met with the typical derision that I've come to expect.

I hadn't noticed actually. In fact, it's just been more of the same as it has been.

quote:

As someone once said to me (leaving out the derision): You started the thread.

You did so, from what I could tell, with an attempt to "claim the moral high ground" as you were asking others to not do the same. It's an interesting tactic, but it belies your stated initial intent. It's a lofty goal to be sure, but it was exposed as flawed, almost from the start and definitely by the time we got to that last quote I gave.

No. It isn't about a moral high ground. It's about consciously trying to take a step away from the toxicity. I really do need a break from so much negativity. It's all a bit redundant isn't it?

But I think even these petty attacks on my wrongly perceived character are refreshing, compared to the normal song and dance in most threads.

quote:

You're correct (almost) in the assertion that I don't like you. I don't like the way you gravitate toward the ad hominem and name-calling once you've been unable to defend your positions.

I don't care for your posting style either. I think I've explained why previously, so no need to rehash that.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but ad hominem is a personal attack, instead of dealing with subject matter, yeah? Completely different than what you're doing here, right?

As for name calling. I do recall you starting it by calling me Alfred. In fact, I had multiple messages on the other side asking me what that was supposed to mean, which I could only guess. Then you took my use of a movie quote as a personal attack, somehow thinking I had renamed you Blanche. I tried to explain the pop culture reference to no avail. So let it be. It is absolutely your choice to continue to be offended.

If there were prior instances, they weren't noteworthy to me. But I'm sure you have screenshots or thread links.

quote:

What I am trying to say is: I have (over the last couple of weeks) tried to engage and debate with you without being the one to "draw first blood". You've "stayed the course". Certainly, in this thread, I've only objected to the substantive things you've typed (even the example you just quoted). So? Good for the goose, but not the gander?

And again, either I have been completely oblivious to any attempt of even civility on your part, or it just wasn't there. I've been told that I have Resting Bitch Face, which along with a bit of a furled brow depending on pain levels make me look extremely pissed off a lot of the time, regardless of my actual mood. Maybe you have a similar disorder with your posting style. It may be helpful if you warned me when you're trying to be nice, so that there are no mixed signals.

I do hope you feel better, now that you've gotten all of that off your chest.

(in reply to DaddySatyr)

RE: An American dialogue - 12/4/2017 12:30:13 AM

Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
Correct me if I'm wrong, but ad hominem is a personal attack, instead of dealing with subject matter, yeah? Completely different than what you're doing here, right?

Actually, I was not attacking you. I was "attacking" your initial premise. As I said earlier, the tone of your post was "Look at me! I'm reaching out!"

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
Accusations like this don't really help matters, and we're seeing them on every front from both sides. This is exactly why I say that it seems that there are far too many that seek to cause even more strife among us.

Bosco, you're perhaps one of the most ironwilled right wing posters around. When you can avoid making the knee-jerk hateful response, and present a clear headed post free of talking points, you're also one of the most well-spoken. I hope that you can do that in this thread, so that an open, respectful dialogue can happen.

There's what I was talking about with your "moral high ground" attempt. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone on this forum can claim the moral high ground.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
As for name calling. I do recall you starting it by calling me Alfred. In fact, I had multiple messages on the other side asking me what that was supposed to mean, which I could only guess. Then you took my use of a movie quote as a personal attack, somehow thinking I had renamed you Blanche. I tried to explain the pop culture reference to no avail. So let it be. It is absolutely your choice to continue to be offended.

Well, that's interesting, indeed, that you remember it that way. I have a much different perspective, but that's almost to be expected.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
If there were prior instances, they weren't noteworthy to me. But I'm sure you have screenshots or thread links.

I do. I do, but do we wish to re-hash or do you wish to keep on with this newly turned-over leaf? I mean, I can provide them, if you wish, but why?

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
And again, either I have been completely oblivious to any attempt of even civility on your part, or it just wasn't there. I've been told that I have Resting Bitch Face, which along with a bit of a furled brow depending on pain levels make me look extremely pissed off a lot of the time, regardless of my actual mood. Maybe you have a similar disorder with your posting style. It may be helpful if you warned me when you're trying to be nice, so that there are no mixed signals.

Part of that would be based upon your own bias, but more importantly, I didn't feel the need to make a public announcement about it. I did it. It didn't work. Fin.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
I do hope you feel better, now that you've gotten all of that off your chest.

There was nothing "on my chest". I saw some inconsistencies in your initial premise and your subsequent thoughts and I pointed them out.

I thought I did so, fairly civilly. You might disagree, of course, but you'll notice that there was no name calling or personal attacks. It was all about the flaw in your initial premise. Attacking that, in the way I did it is called (in fairness): "contradiction"; not "ad hominem" or "name-calling".

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to JVoV)

RE: An American dialogue - 12/4/2017 12:43:33 AM

JVoV

Posts: 3226
Joined: 3/9/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

quote:

Unlawful presence is neither a felony nor a misdemeanor, said Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. It is a civil infraction that results in removal and a bar on re-entry for a certain period of time.

"Not everything that’s illegal — meaning against the law or violating the law — is a crime," Shapiro said. "There are civil violations, like when you get a parking ticket. ‘Unlawful presence’ is one of these. You don't go to jail or receive any other criminal punishment for being in the country illegally — you get deported."

Forgetting the fact that I don't agree with this opinion, if it's not a crime (and I doubt that), it should be. Simple, really.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and free to email your Congressmen about it. To my knowledge, that particular point has never been argued to the Supreme Court for a real decision, but I posted a link I found educational on the matter. You can read it or not.

quote:

This is our country and for every illegal here, whether they're eating up government assistance or not, they're taking jobs that Americans could work.

quote:

And anyone that hires an illegal immigrant is breaking the law. If those crimes are punished, then there will be fewer Americans breaking that law and denying American citizens the chance to work.

I know the tried-and-true argument of "Americans don't want those jobs", but that argument leaves out the "No one should have to work for a 'slave wage' " argument that seems to be driving the $15 per hour movement. That, of course, kind of exposes another idea: It's okay for illegal aliens - supposedly the poorest of the poor - to settle for less than any other human being?

I don't think a national $15 minimum wage is really necessary. Current federal minimum wage is $7.25 and hasn't had an increase since July 2009. I think a $10 minimum wage seems appropriate. From there, States and cities can adjust upwards as appropriate. Of course, given the Republican tax cuts that will likely soon be signed into law, maybe $15 is just right as a starting point.

quote:

Also, it is insulting to the natural-born Americans who DO want any job they can get their hands on. People who are so proud that instead of going on the dole, when they can't find a job, will wind up on the street, instead.

If an American citizen has any information about employers hiring illegal immigrants, they really should report it to the proper authorities. If you notice, I have more angst against the people abusing the system for profits than I do those that are simply trying to survive. Might be one of those left howler things, maybe.

quote:

The whole situation is a mess. Unfortunately, we have to decide who has authority over the issue and then, demand they do something about it.

Punish the employers. End illegal labor practices. Then the illegals will likely move on, or at least stop coming over. (Worth a shot?)

quote:

Of course, there's also my (very popular) argument that representatives should represent our interests.

Representatives represent the interests of those that financed their elections. That can be changed easily via a strict campaign finance reform law.

quote:

Lastly, I am well aware that I "won the lottery", regards to where I was born. I get it. But, just because I "won the lottery", should I be forced to distribute my windfall, against my will?

You lost me. What windfall? Who's trying to take what from you exactly?

(in reply to DaddySatyr)

RE: An American dialogue - 12/4/2017 4:55:54 AM

Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
So this is about choosing country over party, making an attempt to ignore my own knee-jerk reactions, and having an honest conversation about wtf is going on. Mostly because I don't have the energy to hate or disapprove of so many people all at once.

to me this line alone is worth talking about.

I don't tend to think "party" so much as I do principles and for good or bad, those principles are often tied to particular parties.

to me your statement about choosing "country over party" sounds too much like a compromising of principles. when I look at the principles I have, I also hold them as being the best for the country.

someone else comes along, with competing principles, and believes likewise.

how then shall we live?

Then we talk and see if there are ways to find common ground, understand other points of view, etc.

But that is hard to do when people are so partisan that they regard anyone not of their party as the enemy.

See. You get me.

um no---waywards response to you is totally in keeping with my response to you, after which you told me I am missing your point. we're pretty close to saying the same essential things. im going to suggest you're not understanding me as opposed to the other way around. ive taken your point and ran with it.

im not necessarily interested in "picking a topic" and discussing it. when that goes on, we're all ultimately talking at the surface level and never get to the heart of the matter, which is that we think differently and value different things and believe about life in contrary ways. im more interested in what undergirds us. what truck does an individualist have with a collectivist? for another layer of difficulty, now add in Christian and atheist.

and for the most part, I reject the notion of "common" ground. as ive said before, some, maybe even most principles are not reducible to compromise. there is a reason I suppose that politics is called "the art of the possible"

I don't wholly buy the notion of that we are more similar than different in this regard. yes we're similar in that we all live, breathe and die. we have families we love, jobs we toil at, hobbies we engage in, dreams we pursue, but when it comes to how we practice political/societal life, those commonalities ultimately wash away and disparity reigns.

if you want to have a challenge, pick some meaningful topic with the goal of exploring exactly what a "common ground" would look like. abortions a good one. school choice is a good one.

(in reply to JVoV)

RE: An American dialogue - 12/4/2017 6:54:17 AM

Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Danemora

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
I think theres a twofold reason for that desi--one is just human weakness and animosity towards other sides in general, but more importantly, its because our views of what the country is or should be are so different from each other.

I agree, the views about what's best for the country are very different. Even giving that, we don't have to treat the "other side" as if they are purposefully trying to destroy America. We might not agree with them, and they might not agree with us, but the accusations of trying to destroy America, or that the policies favored would destroy America are far, far, far from valid.

For me, I lean liberal. But I honestly appreciate a differing viewpoint...even if I dont 100% agree one way or the other. It gives me another angle of thought to look at an issue through. I think considering an opposing viewpoint as a good thing.

The sentence in bold is exactly why I'm still here. There are a lot of people here who put in time and effort to post knowledgeably. There are plenty of "others" who are here to antagonize and little else. I try to ignore those posters as best I can.

_____________________________

What I support:

A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
Personal Responsibility
Help for the truly needy
Limited Government
Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Danemora)

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: An American dialogue

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.074