Coffee Party turns bitter...

I could careless about Coffee Party.

I do care about liberties, such as gay rights, abortion, gun rights, freedom, etc.
 
Grummer said:
lol Flip, i wuv you,

oh how about a Lemonade Party?, as there would be less subjectivity in how Lemonade should be consumed, so hence more harmony in this hypothetical group hmmm?
Click to expand...

Lemonade also taste much better than coffee, so not a bad idea.

Say no to apples and oranges!!!
 
kokonut said:
Coffee or tea?

Tea, please.

Secondly, I don't know whether they are "full of leftwing racist nutbags" but I'm sure there are some. You get some in every group. And some who are well meaning, maybe even misguided.
Click to expand...

I guess throwing rocks and bottles at the police is "ok" if your an angry liberal. :roll:
 
souggy said:
Wirelessly posted



Yet the very ideas you support borders on fascism, not American democracy.
Click to expand...

70% voted in favor of Arizona's immigration law. That is democracy.

Fascism is when you cram legislation down the throats of every American when the majority clearly said no.
 
Wirelessly posted

Most Germans agreed with Hitler and his policies. Does it make it any less right? They voted for him. They supported his rallies.

No, fascism is when people voluntarily exchanged their freedom for security.
 
souggy said:
Wirelessly posted

Most Germans agreed with Hitler and his policies. Does it make it any less right? They voted for him. They supported his rallies.

No, fascism is when people voluntarily exchanged their freedom for security.
Click to expand...

You keep quoting Ben Franklin even though he is against illegal immigration.

You really got things warped.

Is Arizona sending illegals off to gas chambers? You do realize whoever brings up "Godwin's Law" automatically loses don't you?

You also realize Arizona's law targets illegals and NOT legals right? In other words, its protecting law abiding citizens of the U.S.

So - your version of security or freedom means let the criminals go free - is that it?
 
Wirelessly posted

Steinhauer said:
souggy said:
Wirelessly posted

Most Germans agreed with Hitler and his policies. Does it make it any less right? They voted for him. They supported his rallies.

No, fascism is when people voluntarily exchanged their freedom for security.
Click to expand...

You keep quoting Ben Franklin even though he is against illegal immigration.

You really got things warped.

Is Arizona sending illegals off to gas chambers? You do realize whoever brings up "Godwin's Law" automatically loses don't you?

You also realize Arizona's law targets illegals and NOT legals right? In other words, its protecting law abiding citizens of the U.S.

So - your version of security or freedom means let the criminals go free - is that it?
Click to expand...

He wasn't against illegal immigratioms. He was against ROYALISTS. If you have throughly read his documents, it's obvious that he has strong distate for people that hail from nation-states with absolute monarchy. He did not harbour this bitterness toward countries with the concept of "free man" in their constitutions.
 
Wirelessly posted

If the borders are secured, there would be no foreign criminals to begin with-- thus no reason to ask people within the borders for documentation.
 
Steinhauer said:
You keep quoting Ben Franklin even though he is against illegal immigration.

You really got things warped.

Is Arizona sending illegals off to gas chambers? You do realize whoever brings up "Godwin's Law" automatically loses don't you?

You also realize Arizona's law targets illegals and NOT legals right? In other words, its protecting law abiding citizens of the U.S.

So - your version of security or freedom means let the criminals go free - is that it?
Click to expand...

you're still on that? well since you are - you haven't answered my questions so here it is again -

1. How can the foreigners be declared as illegal immigrants if there were no immigration laws in 1700's and no immigration agency and no border patrol agents?
2. What were the legal parameters to declare one as "illegal immigrant" in 1700's?
 
Steinhauer said:
70% voted in favor of Arizona's immigration law. That is democracy.

Fascism is when you cram legislation down the throats of every American when the majority clearly said no.
Click to expand...

Democracy? How is it democracy if they voted in favor of unconstitutional law?

example - California Governor Schwarzenegger passed the law in 2005 that make selling violent games to minors a crime because majority of people supported it. Later - the Supreme Court struck it down in 2007 because that law was a violation of First Amendment. This is parents' job to determine what games their kids can have.... not government.

another example - in 1996, California passed the "3-Strikes Law" with a wide support from voters - a knee-jerk reaction to abduction-murder of 12-years old girl by a killer with history of violent crimes. Third Strike Law means mandatory 25-years prison to life. This was especially unfortunate for those who committed petty/non-felony crimes. In Ewing v. California, the Supreme Court ruled that it is a violation of Eighth Amendment (Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted) however 3-Strikes Law is allowed for violent crimes. This resulted in voter referendum (another wide support) to add amendment to limit it to violent crimes only.

Democracy? It's democracy to vote in favor of unconstitutional law? Well - it's fascism when you infringe on people's Civil Rights for the sake of security.
 
Jiro said:
Democracy? How is it democracy if they voted in favor of unconstitutional law?

example - California Governor Schwarzenegger passed the law in 2005 that make selling violent games to minors a crime because majority of people supported it. Later - the Supreme Court struck it down in 2007 because that law was a violation of First Amendment. This is parents' job to determine what games their kids can have.... not government.

another example - in 1996, California passed the "3-Strikes Law" with a wide support from voters - a knee-jerk reaction to abduction-murder of 12-years old girl by a killer with history of violent crimes. Third Strike Law means mandatory 25-years prison to life. This was especially unfortunate for those who committed petty/non-felony crimes. In Ewing v. California, the Supreme Court ruled that it is a violation of Eighth Amendment (Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted) however 3-Strikes Law is allowed for violent crimes. This resulted in voter referendum (another wide support) to add amendment to limit it to violent crimes only.

Democracy? It's democracy to vote in favor of unconstitutional law? Well - it's fascism when you infringe on people's Civil Rights for the sake of security.
Click to expand...

It is not unconstitutional. That is the latest LIE by the Obama administration. In fact, what the Obama administration has done by forcing every American to pay for healthcare or face a fine and/or imprisonment, is unconstitutional. It mandates what a private citizen must purchase.

Read Article 4 section 4 of the United States Constitution. Read the actual Arizona Bill. When you have done both, then come back to the debate.
 
Jiro said:
Democracy? How is it democracy if they voted in favor of unconstitutional law?

example - California Governor Schwarzenegger passed the law in 2005 that make selling violent games to minors a crime because majority of people supported it. Later - the Supreme Court struck it down in 2007 because that law was a violation of First Amendment. This is parents' job to determine what games their kids can have.... not government.

another example - in 1996, California passed the "3-Strikes Law" with a wide support from voters - a knee-jerk reaction to abduction-murder of 12-years old girl by a killer with history of violent crimes. Third Strike Law means mandatory 25-years prison to life. This was especially unfortunate for those who committed petty/non-felony crimes. In Ewing v. California, the Supreme Court ruled that it is a violation of Eighth Amendment (Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted) however 3-Strikes Law is allowed for violent crimes. This resulted in voter referendum (another wide support) to add amendment to limit it to violent crimes only.

Democracy? It's democracy to vote in favor of unconstitutional law? Well - it's fascism when you infringe on people's Civil Rights for the sake of security.
Click to expand...

You still think its a civil right to enter the U.S. illegally?
 
Steinhauer said:
Read Article 4 section 4 of the United States Constitution. Read the actual Arizona Bill. When you have done both, then come back to the debate.
Click to expand...
and read the Supreme Court's ruling and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling (link). Come back when you have something intellectual to contribute instead of some lines from Conspiracy Theory forum.
 
souggy said:
No, the civil rights he's referring to is the freedom to walk around town without fear.
Click to expand...
For legal immigrants, yes. For illegal aliens, no.

If someone breaks a law, he should walk around town constantly looking over his shoulder.
 
Reba said:
For legal immigrants, yes. For illegal aliens, no.
Click to expand...
actually the illegals do have civil rights - Fourteenth Amendment ("Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law"). It was defined by Founding Fathers especially James Madison and Thomas Jefferson as well. At that time - it was called "Natural Rights".

in modern time - the Supreme Court has ruled that both legal and illegal have constitutional rights such as equal protection, the right to due process, Fourth Amendment, and emergency care from public hospital.

Most importantly - the Founding Fathers had made it clear that the CITIZEN has more rights than non-citizen so the illegals has only basic form of Civil Rights (formerly called as Natural Rights or can also be called as human rights).

If someone breaks a law, he should walk around town constantly looking over his shoulder.[/QUOTE]
that applies to American criminals as well. Point is - the law-abiding citizen shouldn't be required to provide proof of documentation when police is looking for suspect. Freedom or Security - pick one.

let's not forget that Department of Justice is currently investigating Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio for violating illegal aliens' civil rights, abuse of power, and few other serious matters. and also because of Sherif Arpaio's misguided agenda and political vendetta... his office focused too much on cracking down illegal immigrations while improperly handled the local crimes such as rape cases - a 15-years old girl raped by her father... and a 15 years old girl raped by 2 strangers... and 14 years old girl raped by her classmate. His department prison failed the jail accreditation multiple of times which is hygienically harmful to inmates. His misguided policy has cost Maricopa County over $40 million in lawsuits.

So do we want more Sheriff Joe Arpaio?
 
Jiro said:
actually the illegals do have civil rights - Fourteenth Amendment ("Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law"). It was defined by Founding Fathers especially James Madison and Thomas Jefferson as well. At that time - it was called "Natural Rights".

in modern time - the Supreme Court has ruled that both legal and illegal have constitutional rights such as equal protection, the right to due process, Fourth Amendment, and emergency care from public hospital.

Most importantly - the Founding Fathers had made it clear that the CITIZEN has more rights than non-citizen so the illegals has only basic form of Civil Rights (formerly called as Natural Rights or can also be called as human rights).
Click to expand...
I didn't say they weren't entitled to due process. One can be entitled to due process but still have to watch over the shoulder.

So do we want more Sheriff Joe Arpaio?
Click to expand...
Maybe. Depends on how the investigations pan out.
 
Reba said:
For legal immigrants, yes. For illegal aliens, no.

If someone breaks a law, he should walk around town constantly looking over his shoulder.
Click to expand...

Right. How come that very idea is lost on many people? The word "illegal" should mean something.
 
Back
Top