An Upside of Immigration Inforcement

[Peikko 1,575]

This is a message board and as such to blather on with the "I do this, I contribute that, I'm so much better than you because blah blah blah" is totally meaningless.

Everyone has an equal right to an opinion on any given topic regardless. Everyone has a right to weigh up the merits of that opinion and agree or disagree. To keep on saying that in order to be able to have an opinion one has to have some kind of merit quota system is really quite bizarre, particularly when there is no way of verifying what anyone may claim to do.

I think it is particularly distaststeful to try to bully anyone into revelaing their charitable donations. To my mind these are things one does privately, not something to boast about or measure against what other people do.

It is a particularly disingenuous way of discounting an opinion you don't happen to agree with. Either make counter arguments or ignore it, but leave off with the 'put your money where your mouth is' bull #######.

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

It is a particularly disingenuous way of discounting an opinion you don't happen to agree with. Either make counter arguments or ignore it, but leave off with the 'put your money where your mouth is' bull #######.

yet when people run off at the mouth about a particular topic, it is rather amusing that they don't put their money where their mouth is. it's just a bunch of blathering and they don't have any real convictions about what they are saying

[Artegal 1]

Maybe if Steveninky would buy some of those Silver Laced Socks and clothing that he posted in another thread then he could solve Mexico's problems as Mexico is the world's largest producer of silver and one of the five major producers of oil. And buy more gas too.

Anyway here is another thread hijacked by Steveninky as if he don't start enough of his own threads.

Anyway Global Warming, Free Trade Aggreements have little to do with Illegal Immigration. But Steveninky likes to bring those up in any forum, anyway as some of you have said it is Mexico policy to dump their population on the USA, considering:

Remittances, or contributions made by Mexicans living abroad both legally and illegally, mostly in the United States, to their families at home in Mexico, are a substantial and growing part of the Mexican economy; they comprised $18 billion in 2005. [4] In 2003, President Vicente Fox said remittances were Mexico's "biggest source of foreign income, bigger than oil, tourism or foreign investment." [5]

It has been suggested that Mexico's reliance on remittances from emigrants is responsible for its pro-U.S.-immigration policies, including attacking a proposed U.S. plan to put up a fence along the United States–Mexico border.

Edited November 28, 2006 by Artegal

[Peikko 1,575]

The point is you don't know. You have no way of knowing and I refuse to indulge your curiosity. You make the negative assumption because that's what suits your argument, but that's all it is, an assumption.

None of this is making any contribution to the discussion, the only sense I can make out of it is that it's some form of points scoring mentality. I find that odd.

[Fandango 1,439]

So what were we talking about? Oh that's right! Putting yer money where your mouth is.

Because I bring up the effects of NAFTA on illegal immigration and I have an opinion about it, I'm a hypocrite?

Just look back over the times you posted on a thread and see how often you'll take it as an opportunity to attack me personally by responding to my post rather than actually adding anything to the discussion. And I know I'm not the only one you target. You've got a mighty big chip on your shoulder to say the least. I like to post here in OT and I've enjoyed the comraderie with many people here, and even you and I have had lighter moments.

I don't like to ignore anyone but I don't respond to some of your direct posts to me because they are mean spirited and baiting, most often having nothing to do with the discussion. Again, you want to jab in jest, that's fine, but let's keep the personal attacks out of this.

I don't happen to think asking you to back up your 'convictions' with actions is considered an attack. It was a valid question, and the fact that you're turning this into summat else is really telling imo.

Maybe we're wired differently, but when I feel strongly about summat, I actually do something to contribute to the cause...even if it's futile. You sit here and say 'oh but we have a representative government to take care of it' yet you turn around and bash the same govt. It's nonsensical to me....

Calling you to task is not mean...and while I may be sarcastic and to the point, perhaps even condescending...I'm not mean Some ppl prolly will take me as being quite abrasive because I don't feel the need to blow sunshine up anyone's azz, but that's a different thing altogether I challenge you to find any specific instance where I was & I will either explain why I said what I said, or I will apologise. But you'll fire back with summat like 'I am far too busy to indulge your challenges.... Do I poke holes in your logic? Absolutely. Do you look like a fool sometimes (that lil 'representational gov't' nugget is a great example) prolly so. But mean spirited? No, sir...you have that all wrong. And I dare you to prove otherwise.

Oh, one more thing....defensiveness will really get you nowhere imo. You can try to turn this into summat it isn't, but it doesn't change the initial premise of mine....putting money where your mouth is. You don't wanna answer it, that's perfectly fine too. But don't discount that they make your opinions look nothing more than sactimonious platitudes.

Alex, you and I may not see eye to eye politically, but I appreciate you answering my question. Thank you!

The point is you don't know. You have no way of knowing and I refuse to indulge your curiosity. You make the negative assumption because that's what suits your argument, but that's all it is, an assumption.

Hence me asking a question, go figure!

None of this is making any contribution to the discussion, the only sense I can make out of it is that it's some form of points scoring mentality. I find that odd.

Well by your logic this post of yours doesn't add anything to the original discussion either....so why did you post it if you find this odd?

Wow, a post-merit police! How neat!

[Peikko 1,575]

The question "what do you do personally?" is not pertinant to whether my opinion is valid or not. You have no right to that information, I can choose to divulge it, or I can choose not to. If I choose not to, it should have no bearing on the argument. Here is my reasoning. Take it or leave it.

Scenario:

I decide I think it's a great idea to save a park from being turned into a housing development. For me, the park is more important than the housing, that's my opinion.

Ok, so one step further, in order to save the park, money is required to purchase the park to prevent it being sold to developers. I ask people to contribute to the campaign to save the park. The issue they have to consider is, do they want the park to remain, or would they prefer housing?

Those who want the park contribute to the campaign, those that prefer housing don't. The arguments are fairly clear.

However, according to your line of reasoning, I have no right to the opinion that I prefer the park unless I can convince you that I am contributing sufficiently to saving the park. You don't have to bother to argue why housing is better, all you have to do is try to undermine me by badgering me to reveal my personal contribution to saving the park.

What kind of argument is that? How does my agreeing to tell you how much I intend to contribute to saving the park pertain to the merits of saving the park or not?

That being said, no, the original argument has not been forwarded one iota by this post or my last one.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Maybe if Steveninky would buy some of those Silver Laced Socks and clothing that he posted in another thread then he could solve Mexico's problems as Mexico is the world's largest producer of silver and one of the five major producers of oil. And buy more gas too.

Anyway here is another thread hijacked by Steveninky as if he don't start enough of his own threads.

Anyway Global Warming, Free Trade Aggreements have little to do with Illegal Immigration. But Steveninky likes to bring those up in any forum, anyway as some of you have said it is Mexico policy to dump their population on the USA, considering:

Remittances, or contributions made by Mexicans living abroad both legally and illegally, mostly in the United States, to their families at home in Mexico, are a substantial and growing part of the Mexican economy; they comprised $18 billion in 2005. [4] In 2003, President Vicente Fox said remittances were Mexico's "biggest source of foreign income, bigger than oil, tourism or foreign investment." [5]

It has been suggested that Mexico's reliance on remittances from emigrants is responsible for its pro-U.S.-immigration policies, including attacking a proposed U.S. plan to put up a fence along the United States–Mexico border.

Steven (Artegal), what's the issue with me posting new topics now? Do you think the same about Charles and his topics? or how about Gupt? Kaydee? Gary? Peejay? Am I the only one who hijacked or steered this thread into something beyond illegal immigration enforcement? Just look within this very thread that you started here and tell me when it started derailment or how many times it went off topic.

Count how many bloody threads bring up illegal immigration here on VJ which inevitably brings out the same canned responses over and over and over ad nauseum. I make a relevent point about one of the causes of our illegal immigration problem (NAFTA) and I'm labelled a hypocrite?

Honestly, if you want to complain about people dumping on your thread, just be consistent about it. Perhaps you can complain to Capt. Ewok about the amount of new threads some of us post here as well. As I've said earlier, I enjoy posting in OT and having lively discussions/arguments about many things as well as the comraderie that exists here. I'm sorry if that doesn't jive with you.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So what were we talking about? Oh that's right! Putting yer money where your mouth is.

Because I bring up the effects of NAFTA on illegal immigration and I have an opinion about it, I'm a hypocrite?

Just look back over the times you posted on a thread and see how often you'll take it as an opportunity to attack me personally by responding to my post rather than actually adding anything to the discussion. And I know I'm not the only one you target. You've got a mighty big chip on your shoulder to say the least. I like to post here in OT and I've enjoyed the comraderie with many people here, and even you and I have had lighter moments.

I don't like to ignore anyone but I don't respond to some of your direct posts to me because they are mean spirited and baiting, most often having nothing to do with the discussion. Again, you want to jab in jest, that's fine, but let's keep the personal attacks out of this.

I don't happen to think asking you to back up your 'convictions' with actions is considered an attack. It was a valid question, and the fact that you're turning this into summat else is really telling imo.

Maybe we're wired differently, but when I feel strongly about summat, I actually do something to contribute to the cause...even if it's futile. You sit here and say 'oh but we have a representative government to take care of it' yet you turn around and bash the same govt. It's nonsensical to me....

Calling you to task is not mean...and while I may be sarcastic and to the point, perhaps even condescending...I'm not mean Some ppl prolly will take me as being quite abrasive because I don't feel the need to blow sunshine up anyone's azz, but that's a different thing altogether I challenge you to find any specific instance where I was & I will either explain why I said what I said, or I will apologise. But you'll fire back with summat like 'I am far too busy to indulge your challenges.... Do I poke holes in your logic? Absolutely. Do you look like a fool sometimes (that lil 'representational gov't' nugget is a great example) prolly so. But mean spirited? No, sir...you have that all wrong. And I dare you to prove otherwise.

Labelling me a raging hypocrite (a blanket term applied to your collected view of my opinions over various topics here in OT) is a personal attack. It's a diversion from actually adding to the current discussion.

My explanation about a representational government was my answer to your claim of 'put up or shut up'. You missed the point. As an American citizen who votes, I am involved with the issue of NAFTA and illegal immigration - my Congressman represents me as his constituent. You imply that unless I'm directly involved with an issue (like your example of your past political activism), to have an opinion about it (particularly government policy), I'm hypocritical, yet curiously you don't apply that to everyone else here who expresses their opinions about such a topic as illegal immigration. As I pointed out - have you asked any of those who propose we tighten border security if they've joined the Minutemen? - which you conveniently ignored.

Lisa, you can post what you want here and I've never told you to shut up, but one more time, please, if you want me to respond to your direct posts then keep the personal attacks out of it. Any argument should stand on it's own merit. That's why we have these discussions here in this forum.

[mrc 0]

So what were we talking about? Oh that's right! Putting yer money where your mouth is.

Because I bring up the effects of NAFTA on illegal immigration and I have an opinion about it, I'm a hypocrite?

Just look back over the times you posted on a thread and see how often you'll take it as an opportunity to attack me personally by responding to my post rather than actually adding anything to the discussion. And I know I'm not the only one you target. You've got a mighty big chip on your shoulder to say the least. I like to post here in OT and I've enjoyed the comraderie with many people here, and even you and I have had lighter moments.

I don't like to ignore anyone but I don't respond to some of your direct posts to me because they are mean spirited and baiting, most often having nothing to do with the discussion. Again, you want to jab in jest, that's fine, but let's keep the personal attacks out of this.

You're in trouble now, Steven. The "internet posse" is going to be on you like flies on stink. I'm sure the "WHY R U BEING DEFENSIVE LOL!!!" card is going to come out next. Condescending isn't even the right word...it's plain insecurity and the joy of deflecting personality traits on others is what they most enjoy. Heaven forbid you have a differing opinion...certainly don't voice it or you'll be the next target! I thought minding my own business was they key, but I was wrong...they'll pick out something you do as a target. Whether it's your avatar, your opinion or your username. No one is safe from this clan of cyber vigilantes.

Don't worry, you're not alone. Good luck...I'm sure the word is out on the streets to pummel you.

[Fandango 1,439]

So what were we talking about? Oh that's right! Putting yer money where your mouth is.

Because I bring up the effects of NAFTA on illegal immigration and I have an opinion about it, I'm a hypocrite?

Just look back over the times you posted on a thread and see how often you'll take it as an opportunity to attack me personally by responding to my post rather than actually adding anything to the discussion. And I know I'm not the only one you target. You've got a mighty big chip on your shoulder to say the least. I like to post here in OT and I've enjoyed the comraderie with many people here, and even you and I have had lighter moments.

I don't like to ignore anyone but I don't respond to some of your direct posts to me because they are mean spirited and baiting, most often having nothing to do with the discussion. Again, you want to jab in jest, that's fine, but let's keep the personal attacks out of this.

I don't happen to think asking you to back up your 'convictions' with actions is considered an attack. It was a valid question, and the fact that you're turning this into summat else is really telling imo.

Maybe we're wired differently, but when I feel strongly about summat, I actually do something to contribute to the cause...even if it's futile. You sit here and say 'oh but we have a representative government to take care of it' yet you turn around and bash the same govt. It's nonsensical to me....

Calling you to task is not mean...and while I may be sarcastic and to the point, perhaps even condescending...I'm not mean Some ppl prolly will take me as being quite abrasive because I don't feel the need to blow sunshine up anyone's azz, but that's a different thing altogether I challenge you to find any specific instance where I was & I will either explain why I said what I said, or I will apologise. But you'll fire back with summat like 'I am far too busy to indulge your challenges.... Do I poke holes in your logic? Absolutely. Do you look like a fool sometimes (that lil 'representational gov't' nugget is a great example) prolly so. But mean spirited? No, sir...you have that all wrong. And I dare you to prove otherwise.

Labelling me a raging hypocrite (a blanket term applied to your collected view of my opinions over various topics here in OT) is a personal attack. It's a diversion from actually adding to the current discussion.

My explanation about a representational government was my answer to your claim of 'put up or shut up'. You missed the point. As an American citizen who votes, I am involved with the issue of NAFTA and illegal immigration - my Congressman represents me as his constituent. You imply that unless I'm directly involved with an issue (like your example of your past political activism), to have an opinion about it (particularly government policy), I'm hypocritical, yet curiously you don't apply that to everyone else here who expresses their opinions about such a topic as illegal immigration. As I pointed out - have you asked any of those who propose we tighten border security if they've joined the Minutemen? - which you conveniently ignored.

Lisa, you can post what you want here and I've never told you to shut up, but one more time, please, if you want me to respond to your direct posts then keep the personal attacks out of it. Any argument should stand on it's own merit. That's why we have these discussions here in this forum.

No, it's a statement of my opinion. Shall I lie to you? I think you're a hypocrite. Perhaps I'll tone down the 'raging' bit, so there...a compromise....Me telling you my opinion of you may be negative, but it's not mean-spirited. There's a difference. It's funny tho...you say you believe in the process of representational govt...yet look at all the twaddle you post daily b!tching about said 'representational govt'. I say you're a hypocrite also because you bash the very system which affords you your lifestyle....allows you to be able to bring over your fiancee and raise your children comfortably, yet you begrudge the success of others because it's on a grander scale than you. There's an old saying...talk is cheap. I very much live by that, ironically as verbose as I am, but whatever....Clearly you and I have different ideas of being involved....you just like to complain day in and day out, yet I like to get in the thick of things. Thank God that those who really brought about change in this world believed as I do and not like you

Maybe I'm wrong and you just don't want to divulge what your actions are....if that's the case, well then I can't help being in the dark if you have repeatedly and defensively refused to answer the question. So I can't help but think you're one of those 'do as I say not as I do' kinda people, which is the very definition of a hypocrite

Funnily enough, you call me calling you a hypocrite being meansprited, yet look as what you've said to me. Is saying I have a chip on my shoulder meanspirited then? Oh no? Hrmmm.....more 'do as I say', eh?

The reason why I've 'singled' you out for this term is you're the one who's the most vocal here about so much. You have displayed (what seems to me) a very passionate view on how things ought to be....which I could respect so much had it not just been a bunch of hot air. I would hold anyone to the same measure....if ..I would be curious all the same what actions are made to be involved. Why have I not? Well I dunno...it's never come up, tbh. But that doesn't diminish the legitimacy of the question being posed to you.

You're in trouble now, Steven. The "internet posse" is going to be on you like flies on stink. I'm sure the "WHY R U BEING DEFENSIVE LOL!!!" card is going to come out next. Condescending isn't even the right word...it's plain insecurity and the joy of deflecting personality traits on others is what they most enjoy. Heaven forbid you have a differing opinion...certainly don't voice it or you'll be the next target! I thought minding my own business was they key, but I was wrong...they'll pick out something you do as a target. Whether it's your avatar, your opinion or your username. No one is safe from this clan of cyber vigilantes.

Don't worry, you're not alone. Good luck...I'm sure the word is out on the streets to pummel you.

Jeez.....can you get over that whole pic fiasco or are you going to allude to it in every single post of yours?

Edited November 28, 2006 by LisaD

[almaty 19]

So what were we talking about? Oh that's right! Putting yer money where your mouth is.

Because I bring up the effects of NAFTA on illegal immigration and I have an opinion about it, I'm a hypocrite?

Just look back over the times you posted on a thread and see how often you'll take it as an opportunity to attack me personally by responding to my post rather than actually adding anything to the discussion. And I know I'm not the only one you target. You've got a mighty big chip on your shoulder to say the least. I like to post here in OT and I've enjoyed the comraderie with many people here, and even you and I have had lighter moments.

I don't like to ignore anyone but I don't respond to some of your direct posts to me because they are mean spirited and baiting, most often having nothing to do with the discussion. Again, you want to jab in jest, that's fine, but let's keep the personal attacks out of this.

You're in trouble now, Steven. The "internet posse" is going to be on you like flies on stink. I'm sure the "WHY R U BEING DEFENSIVE LOL!!!" card is going to come out next. Condescending isn't even the right word...it's plain insecurity and the joy of deflecting personality traits on others is what they most enjoy. Heaven forbid you have a differing opinion...certainly don't voice it or you'll be the next target! I thought minding my own business was they key, but I was wrong...they'll pick out something you do as a target. Whether it's your avatar, your opinion or your username. No one is safe from this clan of cyber vigilantes.

Don't worry, you're not alone. Good luck...I'm sure the word is out on the streets to pummel you.

...next the troll label be applied

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So what were we talking about? Oh that's right! Putting yer money where your mouth is.

Because I bring up the effects of NAFTA on illegal immigration and I have an opinion about it, I'm a hypocrite?

Just look back over the times you posted on a thread and see how often you'll take it as an opportunity to attack me personally by responding to my post rather than actually adding anything to the discussion. And I know I'm not the only one you target. You've got a mighty big chip on your shoulder to say the least. I like to post here in OT and I've enjoyed the comraderie with many people here, and even you and I have had lighter moments.

I don't like to ignore anyone but I don't respond to some of your direct posts to me because they are mean spirited and baiting, most often having nothing to do with the discussion. Again, you want to jab in jest, that's fine, but let's keep the personal attacks out of this.

I don't happen to think asking you to back up your 'convictions' with actions is considered an attack. It was a valid question, and the fact that you're turning this into summat else is really telling imo.

Maybe we're wired differently, but when I feel strongly about summat, I actually do something to contribute to the cause...even if it's futile. You sit here and say 'oh but we have a representative government to take care of it' yet you turn around and bash the same govt. It's nonsensical to me....

Calling you to task is not mean...and while I may be sarcastic and to the point, perhaps even condescending...I'm not mean Some ppl prolly will take me as being quite abrasive because I don't feel the need to blow sunshine up anyone's azz, but that's a different thing altogether I challenge you to find any specific instance where I was & I will either explain why I said what I said, or I will apologise. But you'll fire back with summat like 'I am far too busy to indulge your challenges.... Do I poke holes in your logic? Absolutely. Do you look like a fool sometimes (that lil 'representational gov't' nugget is a great example) prolly so. But mean spirited? No, sir...you have that all wrong. And I dare you to prove otherwise.

Labelling me a raging hypocrite (a blanket term applied to your collected view of my opinions over various topics here in OT) is a personal attack. It's a diversion from actually adding to the current discussion.

My explanation about a representational government was my answer to your claim of 'put up or shut up'. You missed the point. As an American citizen who votes, I am involved with the issue of NAFTA and illegal immigration - my Congressman represents me as his constituent. You imply that unless I'm directly involved with an issue (like your example of your past political activism), to have an opinion about it (particularly government policy), I'm hypocritical, yet curiously you don't apply that to everyone else here who expresses their opinions about such a topic as illegal immigration. As I pointed out - have you asked any of those who propose we tighten border security if they've joined the Minutemen? - which you conveniently ignored.

Lisa, you can post what you want here and I've never told you to shut up, but one more time, please, if you want me to respond to your direct posts then keep the personal attacks out of it. Any argument should stand on it's own merit. That's why we have these discussions here in this forum.

No, it's a statement of my opinion. Shall I lie to you? I think you're a hypocrite. Perhaps I'll tone down the 'raging' bit, so there...a compromise....Me telling you my opinion of you may be negative, but it's not mean-spirited. There's a difference. It's funny tho...you say you believe in the process of representational govt...yet look at all the twaddle you post daily b!tching about said 'representational govt'. I say you're a hypocrite also because you bash the very system which affords you your lifestyle....allows you to be able to bring over your fiancee and raise your children comfortably, yet you begrudge the success of others because it's on a grander scale than you. There's an old saying...talk is cheap. I very much live by that, ironically as verbose as I am, but whatever....Clearly you and I have different ideas of being involved....you just like to complain day in and day out, yet I like to get in the thick of things. Thank God that those who really brought about change in this world believed as I do and not like you

Maybe I'm wrong and you just don't want to divulge what your actions are....if that's the case, well then I can't help being in the dark if you have repeatedly and defensively refused to answer the question. So I can't help but think you're one of those 'do as I say not as I do' kinda people, which is the very definition of a hypocrite

Funnily enough, you call me calling you a hypocrite being meansprited, yet look as what you've said to me. Is saying I have a chip on my shoulder meanspirited then? Oh no? Hrmmm.....more 'do as I say', eh?

The reason why I've 'singled' you out for this term is you're the one who's the most vocal here about so much. You have displayed (what seems to me) a very passionate view on how things ought to be....which I could respect so much had it not just been a bunch of hot air. I would hold anyone to the same measure....if ..I would be curious all the same what actions are made to be involved. Why have I not? Well I dunno...it's never come up, tbh. But that doesn't diminish the legitimacy of the question being posed to you.

Lisa, I don't know any other way to make my point to you. Having an opinion and stating that opinion here in OT about our government policies is not being hypocritical - it's called political discourse. Americans voters do it all time - complaining about our illegal immigration comes to mind. You are being selective to say that complaining about some issues is undermining or devaluing America while other complaints (see illegal immigration) aren't. I'm not surprised by this rhetoric - it's the common response by the Right when they can't come up with a real argument. This is nothing but a diversion. So if you REALLY believe that because I have an opinion about a trade agreement that I believe has greatly contributed to the influx of illegal immigration, but I'm not politically active beyond voting for my Congressman, then ya better dish that out to every Tom, ####### and Harry that has complained about illegal immigration. But see you don't. Nor have you even attempted adding to the discussion in this thread beyond taking this as an opportunity, which you have done on several other threads to ask me a baiting and general question about my character. If you think I'm being hypocritical about a particular argument then discuss/debate it, but don't label me as a 'hypocrite' as if I'm incapable of having a valid opinion or argument.

Please, if you want to take this further, do so in a PM.

[peezey 0]

I would consider in normal argumentation and discourse, attacking someone completely dillutes anything you have to say. Perhaps you might think some of the things a poster says are hypocritical, but does that mean the person is hypocritcal, thus implying an **always** preceding the characterization?

I don't think so.

Edited November 29, 2006 by peezey

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I would consider in normal argumentation and discourse, attacking someone completely dillutes anything you have to say. Perhaps you might think some of the things a poster says are hypocritical, but does that mean the person is hypocritcal, thus implying an **always** preceding the characterization?

I don't think so.

Thank you.