Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/6/08 07:15 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: report them I have.

If it helps you sleep at night...

Obviously the best idea is to provide a path for the illegal immigrants already in our country to become legal citizens. That way they can start paying taxes, social security, etc. Our economy is way to dependent on the immigrant workforce nowadays, deporting all of them would have severe negative effects on the economy.

At 1/6/08 09:56 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote:

At 1/6/08 09:37 PM, RommelTJ wrote:

At 1/6/08 07:15 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: report them I have.

If it helps you sleep at night...

yeah It does help knowing another leech is sucking on the economy of our great country. hell I would do it again if I found out

Hmm....This remind me of something. Patriotic dude reporting good people because they think they are leeching the economy.... I think it happened in the 1930's.

Hint: It starts with an 'N'.

At 1/6/08 11:37 PM, RommelTJ wrote: Hint: It starts with an 'N'.

Naggers?

At 1/7/08 12:29 AM, fli wrote: Naggers?

Close.

Think blacker.

At 1/6/08 11:37 PM, RommelTJ wrote:

At 1/6/08 09:56 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote:

At 1/6/08 09:37 PM, RommelTJ wrote:

At 1/6/08 07:15 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: report them I have.

If it helps you sleep at night...

yeah It does help knowing another leech is sucking on the economy of our great country. hell I would do it again if I found out

Hmm....This remind me of something. Patriotic dude reporting good people because they think they are leeching the economy.... I think it happened in the 1930's.

Hint: It starts with an 'N'.

That is really idiotic. Hitler and the Nazis hated LEGAL CITIZENS. Not ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. At least until they want into Austria and such and then it was LEGAL immigrants as well. And after it was just hate towards jews being on Earth as a whole.

Anti-illegal immigration people don't care about legal immigrants and citizens, and they don't care about Mexicans anywhere else in the world. This is about the principal that the person broke the law and is now causing damage. They need to be deported and those employing them need to be jailed and fined (this is because the employers are the ones knowingly giving the jobs to them and because they treat them, human beings, like trash)

I agree that they broke the law, but with the resources (including manpower) it would take to deport all of the illegals would be in vain if we don't strengthen the border immediately. I say let the ones that made it past our border flaws stay, and focus on the border itself so no more are allowed in. Hell if it takes a "great wall of america", so be it. It's better use of time and money than the war.

Then provide some "high-brow, well-respected and diverse studies" to back up your argument you feckless coward.

I haven't put forward an argument, there is no position for me to defend or to provide evidence for. I have briefly analysed the sources that you use for your argument and found them wanting. The requirement then, in this argument, is not for me to now provide evidence for your view, but for you to attempt to find some good sources that do actually back up your views.

This is the important point - you are putting forward a view, I am questioning the basis of those views. The burden of proof lies on the affirmative side of the argument - the side that says things are a certain way, not the side that questions that view.

Then provide a source for alternate statistics.

That doesn't follow. Your sources being weak doesn't mean I should provide alternative statistics. Look, either attempt to question the logic of my analysis of your sources (i.e. engage me in honest debate) or find other sources for your original statements. It's quite simple.

Why does a vague topic gets 3 pages of response, yet a precise one like mine goes unnoticed?

*sigh*

At 1/7/08 02:13 PM, fli wrote: Why does a vague topic gets 3 pages of response, yet a precise one like mine goes unnoticed?

*sigh*

Too much work

Your topic doesn't attract 100> post count avatars who say things like;

'i hate illegals'

'i hate people who hate illegals'

plus it's too much research for me, and most people.

Use up resources, take up jobs, don't pay taxes, commit more crimes.

At 1/5/08 11:45 PM, Antimatter500 wrote:

At 1/5/08 10:49 PM, TheMason wrote: My problem is that we cannot guarantee their civil rights.

very very good point

Thank you. I'm not the typical heartless Conservative. I'm worried about their safety...

Well I, personally see nothing wrong with it. People like to act like places (Texas, Cali, Florida, etc.) have been suddenly "flooded" by hispanics, but they've been there for decades. It's only until now that we've started noticing. Our country relies on immigration. You (whom aren't Native Americans) are all illegal immigrants. You came onto the native's land illegally, raid/set fire to their towns, raped their women, enslaved innocents, and kill the rest (babies and all). Then you all forced them to become your "ally", and like a good ally, you throw them into a small spit of land and kill off the ones who try to leave. And every Thanksgiving, you sit there and worship someone who killed well over 3 million people from 1494 to 1508 (Christopher Columbus). If only elementary schools taught the children the truth. If only...

Well, the only thing I see that's really hurting the country is the fact that the supply of jobs is falling extremely. This means that there's a lack of jobs. Also, our economy's not doing too well at the moment. Prices are high, people don't have much extra money to spend, and the people need raises more than ever. Companies are having a tough time, too. They're trying to hire people, paying as little as possible. Immigrants will work for lower wages, so the companies hire them, instead of someone else, because it's saving them money. Now, it's getting tough for people to make a living anymore. It will be even worse if/when China decides to switch from the falling US dollar, to the Euro. Because of a huge sum of companies manufacturing in China, they will have to switch as well, then the US dollar eventually is worth about as much as a Confederate Dollar. Yay for cheap companies, horrible governments, and unstable economies :D

Don't worry. The world won't end. Yet...

At 1/7/08 09:44 PM, ParasiteX wrote: Well I, personally see nothing wrong with it. People like to act like places (Texas, Cali, Florida, etc.) have been suddenly "flooded" by hispanics, but they've been there for decades. It's only until now that we've started noticing. Our country relies on immigration.

You know, I'm NOT anti-immigration. And I know that our boarders have ALWAYS been pourus. However, what is different now is that there is a huge anti-immigration movement that amongst other things is providing a platform for neo-Nazis to recruit (anti-black and anti-semetic just don't cut it in the public's eye these days). Furthermore, I wonder just how many illegal immigrants are being hunted for sport or otherwise being abused in this country because they exist in the dark and underground.

It is not only an economic/public budget issue but a question of how can we protect their civil rights?

At 1/7/08 10:12 PM, TheMason wrote: It is not only an economic/public budget issue but a question of how can we protect their civil rights?

This is true. I've heard many proposals (from peers and from the government both), but none of them are suffice enough to accomplish what needs to be done.
Many Americans usually refer to what's happening on the boarder and on south to us Americans (robberies, rapings, killings, etc.). What people don't realize is that it is not the Mexican civilians doing this. It is the Mexican gangs. People just take the media's word for it, and refuse to see things for what they are.

At 1/7/08 10:27 PM, ParasiteX wrote: This is true. I've heard many proposals (from peers and from the government both), but none of them are suffice enough to accomplish what needs to be done.

Many also think it would be EASY to keep the illegals out and ship them back. But one thing I've heard that I like is Rudy (not that I like any of the candidates...) when he said that the issue of those committing crimes (aside from entering the country illegally) should be addressed first. It would be physically impossible to deport 12 million illegals...

Not saying that this is the correct way, but it does sound like a good starting point in regards to immigration reform...

Honestly, I think deportation is not a very good option for us. That will require many years, a lot of work effort, and millions of dollars. Even if we did decide to deport, I believe our efforts will be for nothing (since we cannot patrol the boarders to keep them in). We've tried adding more gates, but if you've seen what space is still left untouched, you would possibly believe what I do. I agree we need to get rid of the criminals. We cannot keep them in our prisons. They're overflowing with convicts as-is.

At 1/7/08 04:03 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

At 1/7/08 02:13 PM, fli wrote: Why does a vague topic gets 3 pages of response, yet a precise one like mine goes unnoticed? *sigh*

Too much work. Your topic doesn't attract 100> post count avatars who say things like; 'i hate illegals' 'i hate people who hate illegals' plus it's too much research for me, and most people.

That's so fucked up. Srsly--
NOBODY here, really, knows what they're talking about, although EVERYONE has an opinion.

But, shoot--
Write an opinon about the bigger picture, and nobody really pays attention to you. It's all about either "They help our economy" or "They're invading my land!"

Nobody talks about the factors that creates illegal immigration, the policies and stuff-- Maybe it's too much to ask to become intelligent on this issue.

Let's all go with our emotional or gut responses.
*sigh*

At 1/8/08 05:09 AM, fli wrote:

At 1/7/08 04:03 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

At 1/7/08 02:13 PM, fli wrote: Why does a vague topic gets 3 pages of response, yet a precise one like mine goes unnoticed? *sigh*

Nobody talks about the factors that creates illegal immigration, the policies and stuff-- Maybe it's too much to ask to become intelligent on this issue.

Let's all go with our emotional or gut responses.
*sigh*

Alrighty, I'll give your thread a shot as I have about a week before my classes resume, I'll see you in a day or two....

At 1/7/08 01:48 PM, Slizor wrote:

Then provide some "high-brow, well-respected and diverse studies" to back up your argument you feckless coward.

I haven't put forward an argument, there is no position for me to defend or to provide evidence for.

Meaning, you jumped into topic for the sole purpose of scrutinizing someone's facts, and are conveniently trying to weasel your way out of doing any work yourself. You'd rather just spew out garbage about what YOU think is wrong with the sources, without providing any evidence or facts yourself.

I have briefly analysed the sources that you use for your argument and found them wanting.

Just like you always do, you base your entire argument on scrutinizing links based on your own flawed logic.

The requirement then, in this argument, is not for me to now provide evidence for your view, but for you to attempt to find some good sources that do actually back up your views.

I did, like I always do I backed up my views with facts.

You, being determined to disregard any facts, will use your dishonest nonsense to find some way of ignoring the facts no matter how compelling they are.

You provide a standard for what you consider to be fact, you yourself cannot meet that standard so you act like a complete coward and simply talk trash about individual links.

This is the important point - you are putting forward a view, I am questioning the basis of those views. The burden of proof lies on the affirmative side of the argument - the side that says things are a certain way, not the side that questions that view.

Then provide a source for alternate statistics.

That doesn't follow. Your sources being weak doesn't mean I should provide alternative statistics. \

You CLAIMING that sources are weak doesn't mean that you are right.

Prove that they are weak, and that they are incorrect or stfu.

If they are so weak, then you'd be able to find sources that meet YOUR standard, but prove that mine are incorrect.

Of course, you know you can't do that, so you base your entire participation to bashing links just because your purpose is to bash them, eve

Look, either attempt to question the logic of my analysis of your sources

I don't have to, because you cannot VALIDATE the "logic" of your analysis.

This is how pathetic you are, you think that YOUR "logic" is status quo and proof, that IT needs to be repudiated otherwise you're right. Yet, you never provide any proof to back up any of the things you say.

(i.e. engage me in honest debate) or find other sources for your original statements. It's quite simple.

Provide proof for your argument for once in your life, and quit being a disingenuous ghoul. It's quite simple.

Provide proof.

Go.

Then provide some "high-brow, well-respected and diverse studies" to back up your argument you feckless coward.

I haven't put forward an argument, there is no position for me to defend or to provide evidence for.

Meaning, you jumped into topic for the sole purpose of scrutinizing someone's facts, and are conveniently trying to weasel your way out of doing any work yourself.

I "jumped in" for the purpose of scrutinizing the sloppy arguments that were claimed to be rock-solid. I have not put forward my own view for the simple reason that I'm not particularly bothered by the matter.

You'd rather just spew out garbage about what YOU think is wrong with the sources, without providing any evidence or facts yourself.

Politics is not about facts, it's about interpretation. Have you really not figured that out yet?

I have briefly analysed the sources that you use for your argument and found them wanting.

Just like you always do, you base your entire argument on scrutinizing links based on your own flawed logic.

And there I was thinking you'd already accepted the view that I had not, in fact, presented an argument.

The requirement then, in this argument, is not for me to now provide evidence for your view, but for you to attempt to find some good sources that do actually back up your views.

I did, like I always do I backed up my views with facts.

No, you backed up your view with a google search. You provided a limited number of ridiculously biased websites that did not even say what you wished them to.

You, being determined to disregard any facts, will use your dishonest nonsense to find some way of ignoring the facts no matter how compelling they are.

Ah, dishonest nonsense. That's what I say is it?

You provide a standard for what you consider to be fact, you yourself cannot meet that standard so you act like a complete coward and simply talk trash about individual links.

There is no standard for me to meet, for I am not presenting an argument. I have previously pointed you to respectable, high-brow sources for an argument I put forward

This is the important point - you are putting forward a view, I am questioning the basis of those views. The burden of proof lies on the affirmative side of the argument - the side that says things are a certain way, not the side that questions that view.

Then provide a source for alternate statistics.

That doesn't follow. Your sources being weak doesn't mean I should provide alternative statistics. \

You CLAIMING that sources are weak doesn't mean that you are right.

Prove that they are weak, and that they are incorrect or stfu.

It is not a matter of me proving anything - politics is not black and white. THIS IS AN AREA OF DEBATE. You seem to be under the illusion that anything that someone posts on this website is a claim, whereas when posted on a website such as WorldNewsDaily (or whatever that website was called) is fact. This is not the case, both are claims.

If they are so weak, then you'd be able to find sources that meet YOUR standard, but prove that mine are incorrect.

How, exactly? Would they contradict them, or directly address them? If they do contradict them, then by what standards are we to discern which is correct?

Of course, you know you can't do that, so you base your entire participation to bashing links just because your purpose is to bash them, eve

My "entire participation" on this forum is, at the moment, questioning your shite arguments. I do this for the sole reason that you try to rain shit on other people who know more than you by misrepresenting their opinion and using google searches and right-wing websites to back up your "arguments".

Look, either attempt to question the logic of my analysis of your sources

I don't have to, because you cannot VALIDATE the "logic" of your analysis.

Logic is a basic starting point of argument. If you can not accept that then do not try to debate. I do not desire to go into a debate over the philosophy of reasoning.

This is how pathetic you are, you think that YOUR "logic" is status quo and proof, that IT needs to be repudiated otherwise you're right. Yet, you never provide any proof to back up any of the things you say.

No, my "logic" applies to the sources that you have provided. If we accept, following my logic, that those sources are incorrect then the resultant situation is not one of my "view" "winning" but a repudation of your view. Nothing more, nothing less. Also, it is not "proof", politics does not deal with "proof" - that is a thing of science, not politics.

(i.e. engage me in honest debate) or find other sources for your original statements. It's quite simple.

Provide proof for your argument for once in your life, and quit being a disingenuous ghoul. It's quite simple.

Provide proof.

Go.

As I have already stated, I have no argument. I have no position, no agenda, that I am advancing here I am merely questioning your use of sources. You seem to be under the illusion that a good defence is a good offence - requiring me to provide evidence for my views - but you must understand that it is the person with the opinion that must seek to justify it, it is the person who puts forward a source who must defend it.

Let's cut to the chase, are you going to deny that this analysis is incorrect?
""churman-Kauflin concluded that, based on a figure of 12 million illegal immigrants and the fact that more of this population is male than average, sex offenders among illegals make up a higher percentage than offenders in the general population.

She arrives at the figure of 240,000 offenders - a conservative estimate, she says - through public records showing about 2 percent of illegals apprehended are sex offenders."

So there's 12 million illegals, 2% of illegals apprehended are sex offenders....therefore 240,000. Easy......apart from the fact that it assumes that every single illegal immigrant has been arrested and patently ignores the fact that people get arrested because they commit sex crimes."

Holy hell, back up your argument for once in your life.

At 1/8/08 09:42 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Holy hell, back up your argument for once in your life.

I haven't put forward an argument, there is no position for me to defend or to provide evidence for.

Before you try to settle into this stndard "you provide proof" argument, please note that you really will be missing the view that I have put forward in this topic. I have not put forward a position, I have questioned the basis of your position. You have yet be able to defend the basis of your position and so should either retract your view or attempt to defend your position.

At 1/8/08 09:49 PM, Slizor wrote:

At 1/8/08 09:42 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Holy hell, back up your argument for once in your life.

I haven't put forward an argument, there is no position for me to defend or to provide evidence for.

Your ARGUMENT is based on scrutinizing facts and ARGUING against the links I provided.

In order to substantiate your arguments, you're going to have to provide valid sources to back them up. Provide alternate sources that prove the links wrong.

At 1/8/08 09:54 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 1/8/08 09:49 PM, Slizor wrote:

At 1/8/08 09:42 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Holy hell, back up your argument for once in your life.

I haven't put forward an argument, there is no position for me to defend or to provide evidence for.

Your ARGUMENT is based on scrutinizing facts and ARGUING against the links I provided.

Oh please. Are you really going to try to use a word with mutiple definitions to support your view? You're really going into that area you hate the most - "semantics". Do you really think that anyone is going to think that I used the word "argument" meaning "an oral disagreement; verbal opposition; contention; altercation" rather than "a process of reasoning; series of reasons. As in "I couldn't follow his argument."? Stop being so disingenuous and debate the actual facts of the matter - your sources are shite.

In order to substantiate your arguments, you're going to have to provide valid sources to back them up. Provide alternate sources that prove the links wrong.

If I don't, are they, by virtue of being the status quo, correct?

Irregardless, of the points where I have criticised your sources I have generally pointed to the area of text where there is a problem and highlighted the appropriate areas.

At 1/8/08 10:04 PM, Slizor wrote:

At 1/8/08 09:54 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 1/8/08 09:49 PM, Slizor wrote:

At 1/8/08 09:42 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Holy hell, back up your argument for once in your life.

I haven't put forward an argument, there is no position for me to defend or to provide evidence for.

Your ARGUMENT is based on scrutinizing facts and ARGUING against the links I provided.

Oh please. Are you really going to try to use a word with mutiple definitions to support your view?

Are you really trying to cower your way out of backing up your ARGUMENT just because you don't want to call it one?

You're really going into that area you hate the most - "semantics".

Actually that's what you're doing. Even though you're arguing against my links, you're trying to pretend you have no stake at all by saying you're not arguing the actual topic.

This is pathetic a) because you're finding yourself without any responsibility to back up anything you say b) you admit that you're not even arguing the actual topic.

You're arguing, but you're resorting to semantics by not calling it an argument simply because you're scrutinizing (i.e. arguing against) the links I provided, instead of debating the topic.

Do you really think that anyone is going to think that I used the word "argument" meaning "an oral disagreement; verbal opposition; contention; altercation" rather than "a process of reasoning; series of reasons. As in "I couldn't follow his argument."? Stop being so disingenuous and debate the actual facts of the matter - your sources are shite.

LOL and the funny thing is you aren't giving any credibility to these "facts of the matter". You can't prove my links are "shite" you only say they are, and think that your words some how discredit them while you don't provide any facts to the contrary.

Irregardless, of the points where I have criticised your sources I have generally pointed to the area of text where there is a problem and highlighted the appropriate areas.

You use your own faulty logic to claim the sources are wrong or inadmissable, while failing to substantiate that they are. You're only using your own words against links, and claiming that the links don't count simply because YOU don't think they count.

meanwhile, as you always do, you refuse to provide any evidence. You don't back up what you say, you consider what you say to be given fact and expect your sourceless, feckless opinions and whims of imagination to be considered immune from criticism or immune from the very same standards that you apply to other people's arguments.

You do this all the time. You don't accept facts you don't like and scrutinize them, but you use claims of your own to suggest they are wrong without providing a shred of evidence to validate your claims or validate the purpose of your diatribe. Therefore you're not meeting the very criteria that you demand be met for you to consider something to be credible.

You're a complete coward whose only source of argument is semantics.

Slizor, if you don't actually back up something you say, consider yourself ignored.

I'm sick of your games.

Provide proof or shush. Simple as that. Your own words aren't fact, you need to realize that for once.

Those that think cellardoor6 is correct, raise their hands. Those that think Slizor is correct, raise their hands.

I vote Slizor.