Page 7 of 16 FirstFirst ... 23456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 319
  1. #121  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    You're misrepresenting me. Rooted in racism was about Chineese Exclusion act. Read it again.
    Also read my reply to this again ( or maybe you took warning to skip litterally, in which case read it for the first time)....as yes, racism was only a FACTOR. There was also strong economic and civil reasons that prompted this act! You cannot keep on calling the race card as the only or even the major factor without addressing the other factors that modivated the gov to pass this act.
  2. #122  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    You're misrepresenting me.
    Blaze.....this is not an attack in any way....just a suggestion that may help with a pattern I have noticed over several threads.

    I have seen you post numerous time along the lines of "You are misrepresenting me" from multi posters responses to your claims, comments, etc....

    If it is happening in multi threads by multi posters, you may be thinking one thing, but we can only go by what you say in your post. It might be worth looking at how you say it vs what you mean or really wanted to say in the first post.

    Only a suggestion and nothing more.
  3. #123  
    When he starts threads like this, with no further explanition:
    http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...d.php?t=113237

    What exactly are we supposed to read into it?

    Thread Crapper
    ~ August 16,2005 Poll-Master ~
    August 17, 2005 Century Club Member ~ August 29, 2005

    I have a fondness for intelligence.
    I often black out when doing something really stupid. I supose that's why I'm such a danger to my self
    .



  4.    #124  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Let's take you argument at face value......you say it is discrimination to divide those who are allowed in.

    First question, do you think there should be a cap on the amount of immigrants (that would mean legal ones) that come in each year? I assume yes.

    With that assumption, do you know how many applicants apply from the "browner" countries than from the whiter countries?

    I mean, for the sake of round numbers. If there were no country by country caps, with a total of 500,000 allowed a year. You say that we allow them in on their own merit (regional health concerns, political environment of original country, terrorist supporting ties of gov, etc... all ignored) and 600,000 apply from the "Browner" countries. And 600,000 apply from the whiter countries.

    You then put in the requirements based on a point system of their achievements and possessions (monetary, knowledge, linguistics, etc...). Where do you think the richer countries are from? EU, Asian, Middle East, Africa? Chances are the EU (which I am including Russia in this cat as well) tops the list. Without specific research I would say that the Middle East is next. Followed then by Africa and Asia as many countries are dirt poor with little opportunities for education or money with a select few other ones that a lot richer.

    If the points are based on the person's ability to

    speak the language (have to have an education or higher education which is often times only available in the richer countries),
    have a savings of your example of $15,000 (again virtually impossible in many "browner" countries, giving the whiter countries a better chance),
    hey have a professional skill (again, unless a labor skill more available to applicants from richer countries),
    Have a sponsor (this would have to a legal citizen and if more "whiter" immigrants have been let in the past or earn their way on your points then this discriminates against the "browner" nations again),

    We might find out that fewer from the "browner" countries are allowed in because more from the whiter countries have higher points, hence the current way with a set amount guaranteed in provides more opportunities than a individually earned point system.

    If you do not have research on these numbers, or the impact of the nationalities that would actually meet these requirements would be for the USA (other country stats very well probably don't apply), then everything is conjecture, second guessing, opinionated, etc...about the numbers that are being entered now, as you may find more "browner" immigrants are allowed in now than with your proposal. Without specific research we will never know
    .
    Again you are attempting misdirect and make my arguments for me. I wont allow it.

    In post #2 You said...
    Quote Originally Posted by hobbes
    Interested, what is your take on this?
    I responded with
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze
    Sure Hobbes, Personally, I feel that America has an immigration policy rooted in racism that needs to be reformed, and that, refugees aside, we should accept all immigrants by the same set of rules without regard to their race or nationality.
    and ...
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze
    I said that Canada has an immigration policy based on the individual qualifications of the immigrant without respect to his race or national origin, and that it was a policy that I think the United States should adopt as well.
    ... and ...
    Quote Originally Posted by hobbes
    ...we currently have a policy that is intended to preserve the racial makeup of our country rather than a policy that judges each person on his or her own merit...
    ... and ...
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze
    Canada takes much more than their fair share of refugees, which is a totally different issue.

    I certainly dont think we should "shun the poor", and I know that Canada does not as well.
    You continue to miscahracterize my words. I have never said that our immigration policy should have any attempt to favor browner persons.

    However I have said that we should take much more than our fair share of refugees.

    With respect to my comment about the four countries singled out for exclusion in our immigration policy being brower than us. I have my opinion as to how or why, and you are welcomed to form your own.
  5.    #125  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Blaze.....this is not an attack in any way....just a suggestion that may help with a pattern I have noticed over several threads.

    I have seen you post numerous time along the lines of "You are misrepresenting me" from multi posters responses to your claims, comments, etc....

    If it is happening in multi threads by multi posters, you may be thinking one thing, but we can only go by what you say in your post. It might be worth looking at how you say it vs what you mean or really wanted to say in the first post.

    Only a suggestion and nothing more.
    Let's not confuse a referrendum on my popularity with my clarity on the facts.
  6. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #126  
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLiveSoundGuy
    When he starts threads like this, with no further explanition:
    http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...d.php?t=113237

    What exactly are we supposed to read into it?
    Maybe he really meant;.......hell, I have no idea what he is trying to say
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  7. #127  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Let's not confuse a referrendum on my popularity with my clarity on the facts.
    Hmmm...Didn't Hitler have a referrendum on popularity as well as extreme clarity in his own facts?

    Thread Crapper
    ~ August 16,2005 Poll-Master ~
    August 17, 2005 Century Club Member ~ August 29, 2005

    I have a fondness for intelligence.
    I often black out when doing something really stupid. I supose that's why I'm such a danger to my self
    .



  8. #128  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Let's not confuse a referrendum on my popularity with my clarity on the facts.
    No confusion there at all - both are the pits.
    Remember, the "P" in PDA stands for personal.
    If it works for you, it is "P"erfect.
  9. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #129  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    You're misrepresenting me. Rooted in racism was about Chineese Exclusion act. Read it again.
    What???? Nothing in this thread at that point had anything to do with the 1880's, or even the 1960's, those were not brought into the conversation until several posts later. I think you are looking for a crutch to deny you brought up the racism. Either say what you mean or mean what you say, the waffle house is closed.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  10.    #130  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Also read my reply to this again ( or maybe you took warning to skip litterally, in which case read it for the first time)....as yes, racism was only a FACTOR. There was also strong economic and civil reasons that prompted this act! You cannot keep on calling the race card as the only or even the major factor without addressing the other factors that modivated the gov to pass this act.
    1.) I didnt say it was the only factor.
    2.) There are no excuses for decades of legislation denying Chineese the right to own land, and even spelling out what types of jobs they are allowed to have. Believe it or not, Chineese americans can do much more than laundry and chineese food.
  11.    #131  
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLiveSoundGuy
    Hmmm...Didn't Hitler have a referrendum on popularity as well as extreme clarity in his own facts?
    Hey our first comparison to Hitler, its a milestone. Hitler was popular by the way.
  12. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #132  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    1.) I didnt say it was the only factor.
    2.) There are no excuses for decades of legislation denying Chineese the right to own land, and even spelling out what types of jobs they are allowed to have. Believe it or not, Chineese americans can do much more than laundry and chineese food.
    Come back to present day please.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  13.    #133  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    What???? Nothing in this thread at that point had anything to do with the 1880's, or even the 1960's, those were not brought into the conversation until several posts later. I think you are looking for a crutch to deny you brought up the racism. Either say what you mean or mean what you say, the waffle house is closed.
    Sorry if you dont think
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze
    I feel that America has an immigration policy rooted in racism that needs to be reformed
    refers to the roots of the immigration policy. Namely Chinese exlusion act of 1882. And it is not just a policy that was in place in 1882, Chineese americans suffered under it for decades.
  14. #134  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Hey our first comparison to Hitler, its a milestone. Hitler was popular by the way.
    Comparison? Where? Again you attempt to twist. I merely asked a question. You read into it whatever suited you..

    Thread Crapper
    ~ August 16,2005 Poll-Master ~
    August 17, 2005 Century Club Member ~ August 29, 2005

    I have a fondness for intelligence.
    I often black out when doing something really stupid. I supose that's why I'm such a danger to my self
    .



  15. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #135  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Sorry if you dont think refers to the roots of the immigration policy. Namely Chinese exlusion act of 1882. And it is not just a policy that was in place in 1882, Chineese americans suffered under it for decades.
    Let's see, we are talking about current immigration policy and the protest on Monday, you state the the policy is rooted in racism and needs to be reformed. The Chinese exclusion act was reformed decades ago yet you try to bridge your statement to that, and say it was because of the 1880's . I agree that the Chinese Exclusion policy was wrong, it was reformed. Now back to present day;
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  16.    #136  
    That's why I said it is rooted in racsim, not racist.
  17. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #137  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    That's why I said it is rooted in racsim, not racist.
    whatever.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  18.    #138  
    Furthermore, it is relevant because the racist 1882 policy was reformed during the civil rights movement, but not completely eradicated with a fresh policy put in place. This resulted in the policy we have now, decades old, rooted in racism, designed to maintain the "racial balance" of America, not to treat every potential immigrant equally.
  19.    #139  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    whatever.
    brilliant point
  20. #140  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    This resulted in the policy we have now, decades old, rooted in racism, designed to maintain the "racial balance" of America, not to treat every potential immigrant equally.
    Again with this blanket equality notion of yours. Potential immigrants are NOT equal to each other, and can/should not be treated equal to each other.
    Don't equate equal with fairness. They are not the same. So which do you prefer? Equal or Fair? And don't you dare say both. Both may not be an option available to you.

    Thread Crapper
    ~ August 16,2005 Poll-Master ~
    August 17, 2005 Century Club Member ~ August 29, 2005

    I have a fondness for intelligence.
    I often black out when doing something really stupid. I supose that's why I'm such a danger to my self
    .



Page 7 of 16 FirstFirst ... 23456789101112 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions