Israel & Iran

precocious said:
As far as stealing from the rich to give to the poor and empathy....why steal? Why not earn (and learn) from the rich? Stealing does not need to be involved.
Click to expand...

On this, I think you missed my point. I'm not condoning stealing. I was just using it as an example to say that it is possible to have empathy with someone that is actually committing a crime.

Either way, we seem to agree. We're just using different words to get there. I was concerned about the way the conversation "sounded" prior to my comment. I now realize that we have no overall difference in the way we are looking at the issue. We both agree that we aren't doing a good enough job to discourage illegal immigration. If we fixed that, our border being secure would be for security purposes and not to prevent people from sneaking in to work. You shouldn't be able to work when you get here anyway.

And on the case of the Cuban, if a person makes it to land, they did get here legally because the law states they can stay, right? Wet foot, dry foot policy. So that is technically legal immigration here, just in a different manner than we are used to.

Anyway, I think we are starting to debate our agreements... LOL.
 
My solution to the illegal problem: jail and fine business owners that hire illegals.
 
spazntwitch said:
My solution to the illegal problem: jail and fine business owners that hire illegals.
Click to expand...

I concur 100%. If we didn't make it so easy for them to work, they wouldn't be so willing to risk their life crossing the border illegally.
 
When you see Cubans struggling to make it to land, don't you root for them? Aren't you angry that we tell them if they make it to the land they can stay, yet we discourage them by shooting them with water guns?
Click to expand...

servantofone said:
And on the case of the Cuban, if a person makes it to land, they did get here legally because the law states they can stay, right? Wet foot, dry foot policy. So that is technically legal immigration here, just in a different manner than we are used to.
Click to expand...
Perhaps that policy needs to be changed..:yesnod:..it actually sounds ike a cruel game.
 
servantofone said:
I concur 100%. If we didn't make it so easy for them to work, they wouldn't be so willing to risk their life crossing the border illegally.
Click to expand...

And if businesses weren't so heavily taxed...they'd hire legals.
 
spazntwitch said:
That's not a valid excuse. Sure it's great justification...
Click to expand...


I don't think it's the only excuse, but it is part of the problem. The business owner is trying to do business as cheaply as possible to compete......outsourcing oversees also plays into the grand sceme.
 
precocious said:
I don't think it's the only excuse, but it is part of the problem. The business owner is trying to do business as cheaply as possible to compete......outsourcing oversees also plays into the grand sceme.
Click to expand...

I think the government ends up with more revenue when they lower taxes. If you tax business less, they will hire and pay another worker. The government then gets to tax that worker's pay. The government then taxes the products that worker buys. The government then taxes the revenue of the business from which that worker bought their product from. The government then taxes the money from the sale of the product that is used to pay an employee that sold that product. And it goes on and on and on. The less the government taxes, the more free enterprise is allowed to take place and the more revenue the government can receive long term. Taxes are necessary, but there is a point of diminishing returns.
 
Sort of the opposite of what's happening now.....:yesnod:
 
My goodness, what an active thread since I last looked (and was warned).

To the "mystery" person who reported my post, FYI my derogatory term was only addressed those who are in violation of United States immigration laws - in this case it is a reference to their way of entering the country. To me it means nothing else. I work and know many fine Mexicans and Latinos who are either US citizens, have green cards or are here with visas = no problem. In my book, illegal "anything" in my country is committing a crime. My apologies for having offended you.

There are legal avenues to immigration and employers in the United States, if they wished to increase their worker base, have our entire political system to work with and can even become pro-active to bring about change to and through our electoral system. If our government were to simply enforce penalties against hiring illegals I think it would stop. It's like arresting the users and not the pushers. Right now I'm a little especially POed at our southern neighbors who's mafia/drug cartel is murdering UN representatives, terrorizing their own countrymen and such. In fact I'm tending toward being pro-marijuana legalization just to remove that source of revenue to the drug cartel. I'm thinking it might also provide a new product line for the tobacco industry so they stop killing our citizens.

BTW, the "P" of JerryP is Pollyanna.
 
JerryP said:
To the "mystery" person who reported my post, FYI my derogatory term was only addressed those who are in violation of United States immigration laws - in this case it is a reference to their way of entering the country. To me it means nothing else. I work and know many fine Mexicans and Latinos who are either US citizens, have green cards or are here with visas = no problem. In my book, illegal "anything" in my country is committing a crime. My apologies for having offended you.
Click to expand...

I didn't feel you were using it a derogatory way... although I suppose I could see how someone would take it that way.

What exactly is the rule on terms like this? Is there an off-limits list? It's rather ambiguous isn't it?
 
Hmm People get warned (and not warned ) for the strangest things around here
 
servantofone said:
I didn't feel you were using it a derogatory way... although I suppose I could see how someone would take it that way.

What exactly is the rule on terms like this? Is there an off-limits list? It's rather ambiguous isn't it?
Click to expand...

Good question! :yesnod: I would like to know the answer to that myself. Mods?
 
So if a criminal is called a 'derogatory term', that is not ok? Although I personally don't use the term (no need to), I always thought a 'wetback' was an illegal alien from Mexico, wait that's too derogatory, we need to sweeten it and call them 'undocumented citizen'. I'm not at all familiar with 'beaner'.

So can I call someone who exposes themselves a pig, or is that too derogatory as well? (to the pig of course)
 
Preco, that would be a 'exibitionist-american'
 
SharonL said:
True, wetback=not OK, Beaner=OK. Go figure.
Click to expand...

Personally I would think Beaner far more offensive because it only refers to anyone of the nationality and this is how I understand the use and derivation. A Beaner is a derogatory term for anyone from Mexico and only because they come from that country. Just as Aussies might refer to Yanks as septics I suppose someone more "sensitive" than I could find it offensive. On the other hand, if I were close to someone Mexican I could use getting away with calling him "Beaner". I used to great one of closest friends as "A-hole" and he use to reply by calling me "D-head". It was all in good fun and neither referred to any ethnicity or traits of the other (although I can surely be a "D" at times). It is not unusual for someone of some ethnicity or nationality to refer to another in a seemingly derogatory way. I'm of Polish ancestry and have no problem with being called a Pollack or even a "dumb Pollack" (in the correct humorous circumstances) but I would be offended if you called me a "Polish-American" as I feel my nationality is American with no connection or allegiance to any other country.

I'm reminded of the time I asked a friend of mine who is black and was eating Brazil nuts, what he and his family called Brazil nuts besides Brazil nuts. Interestingly he replied with the same name that my family refers to them (privately). It is VERY derogatory in almost any circles. If you don't know, I'm sorry I can't say what that is - I've been warned - I guess you could PM me.

The point being that "what it takes to be warned" simply seems to be a complaint from someone who was offended or in the case of a mod if they imagine someone would be offended or they themselves would be offended. Words and language being what they are are not heard, defined and understood the same from one person to the next so one just has to learn from experience, ergo - "warning".
 
precocious said:
So can I call someone who exposes themselves a pig, or is that too derogatory as well? (to the pig of course)
Click to expand...

Pigs have not been used derogatorily to describe entire cultures or races. Then again a police officer might be offended by being called a pig and I'm thinking that for religions that espouse that the pig is a dirty and vile creature not fit for human consumption, that they might be offended if called a pig. I believe that Nazis can broadly be referred to as "Nazi Pigs" without offending anyone (as well as your random flasher).
 
Don't you (general) think there's something wrong when we are 'afraid' of using a possibly derogatory term or using words with negative connotations to refer to criminals? Be careful, we might offend that trespassing thief! They are not "illegal aliens", they are "undocumented citizens". :doh: Sorry, they are illegal aliens......they are not here legally nor are they citizens. They may be very nice people, but they are illegal aliens which are trespassers and thieves. Too bad if those terms offend them, I am offended by having to live among and support those trespassers and thieves...and I'm the one who is a legal citizen here. While you may not find those 'derogatory terms' in the Miss Manners book of etiquette, you will find their crimes in the law books.....when do we start enforcing our laws above enforcing Miss Manner's book of etiquette and not worry about offending criminals? Our current 'thinking', while pleasant, well meaning and very considerate of feelings, is upside down. :lost:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top