• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Arizona sheriff launches immigration sweep

jamesrage said:
Illegals are only half the problems. The other half is the scum who hire illegals.Because it is those scum who attract illegals here like shit attracts flies. These people in my opinion are worse than the illegals and therefore should suffer a harsher punishment than the illegals. Its like saying we should punish enemy spies but not do anything to Americans who deliberately give them the classified info.
Click to expand...

agreed!!! great point!
 
Tucker Case said:
What I find extremely humorous, and what proves that I'm not the one in this conversation that has a "RACIAL problem", is that a large proportion of the Illegal aliens I know personally are not Mexican. They are WHITE!!! :shock::shock: :lol:

The reason why your assumption that my comments must refer to Mexicans so absurdly hilarious is because Chicago is home to more non-Mexican illegal than most other places in the US.

My theory is that if someone is from "Northern Illinois" and they aren't aware of the fact that we have a very large white illegal immigrant population, they must either be from some far suburb instead of the city or they are a flat-out racist who doesn't count our Irish, Italian, and Polish illegal immigrants and former illegal immigrants.
Click to expand...

What planet are you from???? Its like you make things up just to try to skirt the topic of ILLEGAL mexicans in this country. The comments on WHITE illegals is sooooooooooooooooo stupid and baseless........ look man. Just stop defending your side because you are making it look more foolish than it is already.

You:
Dont care about the law
Have comments that turn the LAW into a RACIAL war

Congrats :doh :roll:
 
Boomyal said:
Your arguments in this case go from the rediculous to the absurd. When you openly call a stand for enforcement of the law, 'mindless rhetoric', you once again show your true colors.
Click to expand...

Actually, I openly called the thought-terminating clishe "Illegal means illegal" mindless rhetoric. I'm not sure how you confused the two things.

Presenting an actual argument of some sort, regardless if I agree with it or not =/= mindless rhetoric.

Presenting mindless rhetoric = mindless rhetoric

Thought-terminating-cliches such as "Illegal means illegal" are worthless ways to justify invalid logic.

The drawback of using thought-terminating-cliches (which is essentially all that mindless rhetoric is) is that it makes it seem s as though the position being espoused is not fully thought out and that the person utilizing such a tactic cannot adequately present a rebuttal to the positions espoused by their opponent.

The benefit is that it can give the opposite appearance to those who have not filly thought out their positions and are themselves incapable of adequately presenting a rebuttal to the positions espoused by the opponent.

Whether or not to use this tack really depends on the people that one is trying to gain support from. If they are going for people who are content with invalid logical positions, these cliches are a great tool. If they are going for people who prefer to have valid logical positions, then the cliches are a terrible detriment to their goal.


All of your seeming eruditeness belongs in the same file as those espousing the financial soundness of National Healthcare.
Click to expand...

You do realize that you just said that I seem to have "extensive knowledge and or education" on the subject, right?

Is that a negative trait in your view?
 
The Giant Noodle said:
What planet are you from????
Click to expand...

Earth. It's nice to meet you! How was your flight?

Its like you make things up just to try to skirt the topic of ILLEGAL mexicans in this country. The comments on WHITE illegals is sooooooooooooooooo stupid and baseless........ look man. Just stop defending your side because you are making it look more foolish than it is already.

You:
Dont care about the law
Have comments that turn the LAW into a RACIAL war

Congrats :doh :roll:
Click to expand...

Let me be sure I have this straight before I respond.

It appears that your position is that there are no white illegal immigrants? Is that correct?
:confused:
 
Last edited:
Partisan said:
Cry me a river, the 'sons & daughters of Arizona' don't have to go anywhere......
Click to expand...

Since they didn't go over this in your GED course, I guess it's up to me to educate you, boy. Indians of the Southwest, along with Mexican-Americans and descendants of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans, typically have some among their numbers deported as a result of seeming "too Mexican" (particularly during deportation craze periods, such as that of the Depression), despite the fact that they're entirely unconnected with Mexico and have been ever since the Mexican-American war. See, Indian appearance doesn't die, comrade! Since most Mexicans are Indians (though the upper class is white), and have Spanish names because of the colonization, it can be a bit hard to distinguish these things if you're going by profiling. ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
 
Tucker Case said:
......Is that a negative trait in your view?...
Click to expand...

Often times, yes. And in your case, most definitely yes! I liken it to a high powered automotive engine that someone forgot to hook the driveshaft to.:2wave:
 
Boomyal said:
Often times, yes. And in your case, most definitely yes! I liken it to a high powered automotive engine that someone forgot to hook the driveshaft to.:2wave:
Click to expand...

So essentially, you are telling me that in my case, seeming to be educated and knowledgeable about the subject of which I speak is a negative quality for me to have.

I would be better served if I didn't seem erudite.

I have this correct?
 
Cochise said:
Since they didn't go over this in your GED course, I guess it's up to me to educate you, boy. Indians of the Southwest, along with Mexican-Americans and descendants of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans, typically have some among their numbers deported as a result of seeming "too Mexican" (particularly during deportation craze periods, such as that of the Depression), despite the fact that they're entirely unconnected with Mexico and have been ever since the Mexican-American war. See, Indian appearance doesn't die, comrade! Since most Mexicans are Indians (though the upper class is white), and have Spanish names because of the colonization, it can be a bit hard to distinguish these things if you're going by profiling.
Click to expand...

So you are sayiing they all look alike...Gotcha....;)
If they would have had proper ID, they wouldn't have been deported 80 years ago..........:violin
I could not care less if the name on the ID sounds Spanish, as long as they have one.......:usflag2:
 
Tucker Case said:
Actually, I openly called the thought-terminating clishe "Illegal means illegal" mindless rhetoric. I'm not sure how you confused the two things.

Presenting an actual argument of some sort, regardless if I agree with it or not =/= mindless rhetoric.

Presenting mindless rhetoric = mindless rhetoric

Thought-terminating-cliches such as "Illegal means illegal" are worthless ways to justify invalid logic.

The drawback of using thought-terminating-cliches (which is essentially all that mindless rhetoric is) is that it makes it seem s as though the position being espoused is not fully thought out and that the person utilizing such a tactic cannot adequately present a rebuttal to the positions espoused by their opponent.

The benefit is that it can give the opposite appearance to those who have not filly thought out their positions and are themselves incapable of adequately presenting a rebuttal to the positions espoused by the opponent.

Whether or not to use this tack really depends on the people that one is trying to gain support from. If they are going for people who are content with invalid logical positions, these cliches are a great tool. If they are going for people who prefer to have valid logical positions, then the cliches are a terrible detriment to their goal.




You do realize that you just said that I seem to have "extensive knowledge and or education" on the subject, right?

Is that a negative trait in your view?
Click to expand...

He said, 'seeming eruditeness'...............
Things are not always as they seem.......;)
Nice dissertation though, it rivals Clinton's 'if' testimony.....:lol:
 
Partisan said:
Things are not always as they seem.......;)
Click to expand...

And yet another thought-terminating cliche. :lol:


...it rivals Clinton's 'if' testimony.....
Click to expand...

Is. He said it depended on what the definition of "is" is in his testimony.

Just like knowing that Bush served in the National Guard would have been helpful for you prior to asking me if I thought the last three presidents hadn't earned the right to be proud.

It's these little details (that are often called "facts" by those in the know) that are the foundation of having a valid point.

Without them, one must rely on pure drivel, such as thought-terminating cliches, ellipses, and winking smileys.

With them, however, one can be seemingly erudite.
 
launch em out of the country. BUT.... only the ugly ones.

INFACT ladies and gentlemen...
Set up a panel of 2000 men and women from all different ages and ethnic origins and sexual preference.

Perform raids all over the nation arresting every single one of the Illegals.

NEXT......
Each and every illegal is rated on a scale of attractiveness.
20% of the highest rated men can stay.

For the women, anyone of them getting higher than a 65 percentile may stay in the United States. They also MUST be single with no kids.

Those that get approved to stay here get AMNESTY!!!!!

Now Im going to hide under my desk in fear of reading responses from people that dont have a sense of humor :afraid:
 
Tucker Case said:
And yet another thought-terminating cliche. :lol:
It is what it is......:lol:
However in this case, I would consider 'seemingly' a qualifier.......

Is. He said it depended on what the definition of "is" is in his testimony.

Yes, 'is' is what it is......Typo.....

Just like knowing that Bush served in the National Guard would have been helpful for you prior to asking me if I thought the last three presidents hadn't earned the right to be proud.
Click to expand...

Amend that to two of the last three......:3oops:

It's these little details (that are often called "facts" by those in the know) that are the foundation of having a valid point.

Without them, one must rely on pure drivel, such as thought-terminating cliches, ellipses, and winking smileys.
Click to expand...

One incorrect 'fact' does not dismiss a position, especially if other verifiable proof can be introduced to bolster that position......

With them, however, one can be seemingly erudite.
Click to expand...

I disagree with that.......

Hmmmm, guilty of a typo, however not significant enough for you to mistake exactly to what I was referring to, kind of nullifies your point beyond the the fact that you are a superior spellchecker.....
The attempt to deflect the gist of your statement by pointing out an error in one of my presented 'facts', does not prove your position & you didn't answer the question....
In lieu of Dubya, I submit John Adams & all of the others with 'none' next to their names on the list provided below...
That said, hopefully you can clarify some things for me......

there are only two types of people in this world who have earned the right to be "proud" of being American: Those who served in the military, and those who immigrated here (regardless of whether it was legally or illegally).
Click to expand...

According to your earlier statement, is it your position that both presidents Obama & Clinton can not be 'proud' Americans due to the fact they they were never in the armed forces?..........
Here is a link to the military service record of the rest of the U.s. presidents:
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_military_service]List of Presidents of the United States by military service - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
Is it your position that any individual on this list with 'none' next to their name does not have the right to be a 'proud' American?.......:confused:
Does this position extend to those who are incapable of service through physical disability?.......
Can I assume this also includes those who were barred from serving because of gender or sexual orientation?.....:confused:
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Partisan said:
In lieu of Dubya, I submit John Adams & all of the others with 'none' next to their names on the list provided below...
That said, hopefully you can clarify some things for me......
Click to expand...

Excellent. Discussing the concepts I've presented. I'm all for that.

I will gladly clarify my points to the best of my abilities. Hopefully it will help illuminate the differences between my actual stance, and what it has been perceived as by others in this thread.



According to your earlier statement, is it your position that both presidents Obama & Clinton can not be 'proud' Americans due to the fact they they were never in the armed forces?..........
Click to expand...

Actually, this is not accurate. I did NOT say "can not be 'proud' Americans". I said that they did not earn the right to be proud of being an American.

I can see why this would be confusing, because our culture has become one that does not place a high degree of worth on personal responsibility and accomplishment, while my stance is entirely based on personal responsibility and accomplishment.

First, being proud of being an American is totally different from being a "proud American". Being a proud American is very general, and can include many things, such as being an American who is proud of their job/family/countrymen, etc.

Whereas being proud of being an American means being proud of the fact that you are an American, and nothing else. So I'm talking about a very specific type of pride here. Not a type of person who is proud.

Next, there is a clear difference between not having earned a "right" and actually having a right. Anyone has a right to be proud of being an American, but only two types of people have actually earned that right.

Those are people for whom their status as an American is either 1. a personal accomplishment that they achieved or 2. Something they put effort into defending in someway, which is in and of itself an achievement.

While people have a right to be proud about things they did nothing to get, it is an utterly retarded position to have. Pride is only appropriate in situations of achievement.

For example, if I said I'm proud of the fact that my shoe size in 10 1/2, you'd probably agree that this is a very silly thing to be proud of. This is because I haven't done anything to be proud of in this case.

The same is true for being an American in most cases. Nothing was actually done by these people in order to warrant being proud of their status as Americans. It was purely passive. They were simply born into it

Clinton and Obama have earned the right to be proud of the fact that they became Presidents, because this is a tremendous accomplishment. But the fact that they did not actually do anything to become Americans means that they did not earn the right to be proud of being Americans.

That doesn't mean that they can't be proud of being Americans, it merely means that doing so is retarded.

Personally, I feel lucky to be an American. I am proud of the people who have accomplished things that made it possible for me to be lucky. But I am humbled by their accomplishments and sacrifices.

I am humbled to be an American, because I am fully aware that I did not do a goddamn thing to deserve it.


There is only one way to earn the right to be proud of yourself for something, and that is by taking an active role in accomplishing that thing. Being born is a passive thing. And that's how most people become Americans. Some of those people then feel the need to earn that status, so they make the choice to earn it through military service. Those people, who are willing to fight for their status, earn their status after they have received it.

I have tremendous respect for those who have earned that which I only received through luck.



Here is a link to the military service record of the rest of the U.s. presidents:
List of Presidents of the United States by military service - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Is it your position that any individual on this list with 'none' next to their name does not have the right to be a 'proud' American?.......:confused:
Click to expand...

It is my position that they have not earned that right.

They are still free to take what they have not earned if they so choose, but my personal stance is that taking that which one has not earned is immoral, so it is not something I myself would do.



Does this position extend to those who are incapable of service through physical disability?.......
Click to expand...

Of course, unless they are immigrants who took an active role in becoming Americans.


Can I assume this also includes those who were barred from serving because of gender or sexual orientation?.....:confused:
Click to expand...

Of course, unless they are immigrants who took an active role in becoming Americans.



My stance regarding being proud of being an American is simply based on logic.

I look at my being an American as a gift. It was not something I achieved or earned in any way. Most Americans are like me. They did not achieve or earn being an American.

Those who joined the military have earned their status through their actions, and those who came here from elsewhere achieved that status. I am grateful to those people, for they are the people who have given me this gift.

Taking personal pride in their accomplishments and sacrifices that have granted me this wonderful gift is a disservice to their accomplishments. I can be proud of them, but to take that pride and apply it to myself, simply because I got lucky to be the benefactor of their accomplishments, would be a form of theft.

That is what I meant by earning the right to be proud.


Let me use different natural traits to explain this further. Let's look at innate intelligence versus being erudite (since I loved that whole exchange, and my point here will relate to the "seemingly" qualifier you referenced).

Intelligence is very heavily associated with genetics (but does have an environmental factor). It is not really something an individual has an ability to affect directly. Knowledge, however is something that is always acquired by an individual in some way.

In my way of viewing things, being intelligent is nothing to be proud of since ti is not an accomplishment. Someone who is intelligent is merely lucky.

While being erudite is something one can be proud of because it is always an accomplishment. It takes some degree of effort to become erudite.

Taking this further, though, if someone isn't intelligent, yet they can manage to appear or seem intelligent, the fact that they seem intelligent despite the fact that they are not, is definitely an accomplishment. It would absolutely require effort on their part to give this appearance.

The same is true of someone who seems erudite even though they are not actually erudite. In order to give this appearance, they must put forth some effort. Their ignorance of the subject provides a nearly insurmountable obstacle to giving the appearance that they are indeed erudite. In order to overcome this obstacle, a tremendous amount of effort would absolutely be required.

Perhaps even more effort than actually becoming erudite would.

Thus, even being seemingly erudite is an accomplishment in and of itself, and is therefore it is something a person can take pride it. It does not matter if the person who is seemingly erudite is actually erudite or actually ignorant. Either possibility means that effort and accomplishment is always required in order to give off the appearance.

Being an idiot who comes across as intelligent is also something to be proud of. But being naturally intelligent is not something to be proud of.

This is why I loved that phasing from Boomyal. It doesn't matter if the "seemingly" was put there as a qualifier to imply I am actually ignorant. I have earned the right to be proud of that label regardless of whether or not I am ignorant. In fact, I might have done more to earn that right to be proud if I am actually ignorant.

Here's the ironic part. If he had said I was "seemingly intelligent" instead of erudite, in an effort to imply I was actually an idiot and that "things are not always what they seem" (as you so eloquently put it), I could only be proud of that if I actually was an idiot. :lol:

If I really was intelligent, and I give the appearance of that, I haven't accomplished anything since that should be easy for an intelligent person to do, so I would have nothing to be proud of.

But if I was an idiot, and I somehow managed to give the appearance that I was intelligent, well that would be one hell of an accomplishment, and something I could take pride in. :lol:

I hope this helps clarify my stance on being proud to be an American to some degree.
 
The illegal immigrants are nothing but red herring or pawns of the american greedy capitalists who exploit them. I have never seen one of them jailed and thrown in a horrible hot tent for breaking laws forbidding the hiring of illegal aliens.:(
 
LiberalAvenger said:
The illegal immigrants are nothing but red herring or pawns of the american greedy capitalists who exploit them. I have never seen one of them jailed and thrown in a horrible hot tent for breaking laws forbidding the hiring of illegal aliens.:(
Click to expand...

And that is the problem. People are focused soo much on the illegal immigrants that come to this country, they don't even bat an eye to the illegal hiring done by American companies. Heaven forbid we actually crack down on the companies that do the illegal hiring.
 
TheNextEra said:
And that is the problem. People are focused soo much on the illegal immigrants that come to this country, they don't even bat an eye to the illegal hiring done by companies.
Click to expand...

I will speak for myself on this, NOT TRUE......:naughty
 
Partisan said:
I will speak for myself on this, NOT TRUE......:naughty
Click to expand...

Maybe for you that is true, but the majority, no way. In all the illegal immigration posts on this forum, how many are in condemnation of the companies hiring the illegals versus blaming the illegals?

How many companies are severely fined for hiring illegals?

The truth speaks for itself.
 
TheNextEra said:
Maybe for you that is true, but the majority, no way. In all the illegal immigration posts on this forum, how many are in condemnation of the companies hiring the illegals versus blaming the illegals?
Click to expand...

I believe it takes two to tango and believe that those who hire illegals should be treated the same way we do drug dealers. Which is throw their asses in jail and make them subject to the assets seizure and forfeiture laws.


How many companies are severely fined for hiring illegals?
Click to expand...


I do not know, it would be nice to know.Are there any articles on how much some of these companies involved in these raids are fined?
 
Last edited:
The Giant Noodle said:
launch em out of the country. BUT.... only the ugly ones.

INFACT ladies and gentlemen...
Set up a panel of 2000 men and women from all different ages and ethnic origins and sexual preference.

Perform raids all over the nation arresting every single one of the Illegals.

NEXT......
Each and every illegal is rated on a scale of attractiveness.
20% of the highest rated men can stay.

For the women, anyone of them getting higher than a 65 percentile may stay in the United States. They also MUST be single with no kids.

Those that get approved to stay here get AMNESTY!!!!!

Now Im going to hide under my desk in fear of reading responses from people that dont have a sense of humor :afraid:
Click to expand...

No Rep points for solving the Amnesty crisis huh? :roll:
 
Partisan said:
So you are sayiing they all look alike...Gotcha....
Click to expand...

Of course not. That would be like saying that all whites look alike. ;) ;) ;)

Partisan said:
If they would have had proper ID, they wouldn't have been deported 80 years ago..........
I could not care less if the name on the ID sounds Spanish, as long as they have one.......
Click to expand...

No one will detain an actual Spaniard, as Spaniards are white. They will detain plenty of migrant laborers, as a substantial number are Mexican and the majority of the Mexicans are some type of Mesoamerican Indian or mestizo related to various Nahua groups. A few are our brethren of the Southwestern Indian cultural category, but the white presence increases in northern Mexico, so they're not as prevalent.

It's objectionable for the oldest residents of the Southwest to be detained and harassed by law enforcement because they resemble their brethren and cousins in Mexico or Central America. And even appeasing your nationalism, it's objectionable for mestizo U.S. citizens to be detained and harassed by law enforcement because of that physical resemblance. AP IMPACT: Citizens held as illegal immigrants

Pedro Guzman has been an American citizen all his life. Yet in 2007, the 31-year-old Los Angeles native — in jail for a misdemeanor, mentally ill and never able to read or write — signed a waiver agreeing to leave the country without a hearing and was deported to Mexico as an illegal immigrant.

For almost three months, Guzman slept in the streets, bathed in filthy rivers and ate out of trash cans while his mother scoured the city of Tijuana, its hospitals and morgues, clutching his photo in her hand. He was finally found trying to cross the border at Calexico, 100 miles away.
Click to expand...

Now, you want the United States to be a white nationalist haven. There's no precedent for that, since the territory and resources of the Americas were unjustly acquired from the indigenous inhabitants if we want to play that game. Personally, I don't. I'm color-blind.
 
Cochise said:
Of course not. That would be like saying that all whites look alike. ;) ;) ;)



No one will detain an actual Spaniard, as Spaniards are white. They will detain plenty of migrant laborers, as a substantial number are Mexican and the majority of the Mexicans are some type of Mesoamerican Indian or mestizo related to various Nahua groups. A few are our brethren of the Southwestern Indian cultural category, but the white presence increases in northern Mexico, so they're not as prevalent.

It's objectionable for the oldest residents of the Southwest to be detained and harassed by law enforcement because they resemble their brethren and cousins in Mexico or Central America. And even appeasing your nationalism, it's objectionable for mestizo U.S. citizens to be detained and harassed by law enforcement because of that physical resemblance. AP IMPACT: Citizens held as illegal immigrants



Now, you want the United States to be a white nationalist haven. There's no precedent for that, since the territory and resources of the Americas were unjustly acquired from the indigenous inhabitants if we want to play that game. Personally, I don't. I'm color-blind.
Click to expand...

I've been to Spain and you are correct. The citizens of Spain and the citizens of Mexico are different ethnic groups.

Just because someone speaks Spanish does not make them Spanish.

It's funny but when I was in Yurp people would ask me what I was and I would say American. They all accepted that answer.
 
TheNextEra said:
Maybe for you that is true, but the majority, no way. In all the illegal immigration posts on this forum, how many are in condemnation of the companies hiring the illegals versus blaming the illegals?

How many companies are severely fined for hiring illegals?

The truth speaks for itself.
Click to expand...

Sheriff Joe has raided business and arrested owners the last few years that hired illegals. He got flack for that also.
 
Councilman said:
...
Click to expand...
Actually Joe Arpaio is a moron because he's housed illegals in jail on Arizona tax dollars in order to "teach them a lesson". He should send them back across the border, not waste money trying to "rehabilitate them".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom