At least your man enough to correct yourself, hope I have the same
opportunity

I wonder if you travel frequently to France from Germany, do you get
called an immigrant? (I really don't know what the sitch is for Europe,
but the policy they have with each other seems to be fairly open without
the problems that our border-conscience policies fail to correct.)

Anyhoo, our immigration problem could easily be solved by implementation
of a fair tax. Only citizens are allowed that pre-bate which covers the
inflated costs of necessities, it gives access to more of the money that
we earn, and raises the cost of living for those without citizenship. So
if someone wants to jump a border and make a life without getting
citizenship, that's fine. They just have to pay much higher cost, so
working below minimum wage and off the books will have almost zero
appeal.

*Added bonus, the prebate would actually be more effective than our
current food-stamp solution.

I like to point out to those people that they are using a logical
fallacy to "prove" their point

Ummm..... Do I get something for providing "proof"?

Current legislation is a problem, mainly because of the sheer number of
people that immigration control has to deal with. It would be nice to
see a system that ignored the country's origin, and instead based it off
of the individual's merits.

Wow, some truly excellent points being made all over the place.

I don't have a religion, or religious stance; however I don't agree with
everything Abra has to say either. Just to point out a slight
contradiction, you state emphatically that religion promotes ignorance
and a deterioration in logical thought, yet your second(?) entry said
that you can't "blame religion any more than you can blame any other
belief."

Personally, I take the former statement to heart. You can't blame an
institution for the works of organized INDIVIDUALS. No matter the power
of "group think", every person is always responsible for themselves. The
Crusades are no more quintessential to Christianity than the U.S.S.R.
was the "ultimate example" of communism.

That being said, it is the individual that is responsible for a way of
thinking, not the religion. As a whole, religions promote love, reward
for good behavior, and hope for the hopeless. If their beliefs are
"dogmatic", well I've met a few fanatical atheists as well. Intolerance
is the same the world over, regardless of belief.

Sorry if my generalized ...frustration (for lack of a better word)
happened to find a mark in you. Not that I'm retracting, but my
apologies for not being more *precise*.

You may not see the racist ideas, but racism is more than planting a
burning cross on someone's lawn or spouting racial diatribes. Racism can
be found in phrases as innocuous as "You speak so well." and "You don't
seem hispanic."

Racism is ignorance, and ignorance can often be found in assumption.
However, don't assume that my barbs were flung specifically at you, 4
pages leave a lot of room to express the content of a person's
character.

Wow.


Just....Wow.

Where to begin...ok. First of all, science simply explains how, and
religion explains why. Two different answers to two different questions,
so comparisons of validity tend towards the pointless.

What is not pointless is how scientific theory answers those questions.
Science, contrary to the popular belief expressed in this forum, is not
a cataloging of what we know, but rather of what we don't know. By
carefully describing the limits of our ignorance, we can understand and
pursue the threads of what we "know"/understand. Someone mentioned a
philosopher earlier, and philosophy/logic quite adequately describes
this idea. You can never PROVE anything, you can only support it.
However, it only takes one thing to DISPROVE anything.

So as far as the validity of Darwinism, it is a long-standing theory
that adequately describes how we exist physiologically, socially, and
geographically on this ball of dirt and H20 called Earth. Could there be
aspects which are incorrect? Sure. Is it more logical to believe that we
instantly *appeared*, rather than evolved over billions of years...I
don't think so. There IS a significant amount of supporting evidence,
from a number of scientific disciplines. Current genetic science
invalidates the idea of us having a common incestuous pair of
ancestors...and the odds of appearing are far worse than the odds of us
being a statistical anomaly.

Quoting famous people, especially out of context, does not give your
arguments actual credibility. Scientists are CONSTANTLY reevaluating
current theories, refining them, making the definitions more exact. To
use a few isolated arguments to support your disbelief of a generally
accepted scientific theory is to give credence to the likes of the
Flat-Earth Society and DDT opposers.

*tips hat*

Glad I could be of service!

Oh my stars and garters.

When you say you aren't racist in a forum, you should try really hard to
be believable. If it wasn't about race, then we would base our
immigration rules on a case by case basis-regardless of their country of
origin. If YOU were color-blind, as a few of you said you were, then you
wouldn't use phrases like "those" people and follow it up with
generalized hog-wash. "They know." HA

You have got to be kidding. I consider myself of at least average
intelligence, I'm fairly involved and informed about current events, and
I have never heard about this immigration program you were talking
about. Tell me, it was on the 6 oclock news? I guess you were watching
the Hispanic six oclock news, right? Yes, the equivalent of an honorable
mention serves as sufficient evidence for the effective distribution of
CRITICAL information for people striving for citizenship. Especially a
people who culturally have strong family-values and a work-ethic that
puts a "hard-working" American to shame.

As far as raising Tarriff rates goes, consider the global economy, and
the loss of the "foreign money injection" we have been getting on a
semi-regular basis, and what that will do to our economy.

Here's a question, what type of government is the United States?

Do you happen to know the exact name or where it is referenced of their
"benefit plan"? Love to play Devil's Advocate, and sometimes people
read something and get the wrong impression.

Actually, Lincoln was called "Honest Abe" the same way you would call a
tall friend "shorty" The term just stuck around over time, good 'ol
honest Abe was actually like a smooth talking car-salesman.

But your original question, you wanted "substantial" proof. In other
words, in what has historically been a partisan system that has always
used propaganda as a nomination tool, you want someone to conclusively
disprove the efforts of the most successful rumor mills to ever grace
our nation?



However, if I were to attempt to do this, I would choose reliable F.D.R.

The only controversies that peppered his stellar career as our President
were grumblings over not pushing some anti-lynching legislation
(political maneuvering to make truly great strides in civil-rights for
many minority groups), and an unaggressive stance towards involvement in
World War II.

However, you can't please everybody, and the frame makers of our
government wisely cautioned us to avoid ALL involvement with foreign
powers. Their advice to "keeping our own house in order first" may be
ignored today; but that doesn't mean it is advice that SHOULD be
ignored.

So, FDR- no scandals, how can you call following the advice of our first
leaders scandalous?

Dr. Zoidberg from Futurama

Either that or the Professor he's the shizzle

I tried to look for a supporting source, but basically, a jello-head is
a person who is stupid or acts in a relatively wreckless manner.

I kind of agree with unsure, just one step further. It's more important
what you think, so imagine the roles reversed. How would you feel if you
found out he was talking to other girls on JSH? Why?

Wait, it doesn't matter why, because the bottom line is, if it is wrong
for him, then its wrong for you.

Alright, I'll bite.

I find it interesting when anyone identifies politicians by their
political parties. That may be the label that they choose to operate
under, however, nowadays Republicans hold Democratic beliefs and vice
versa. Not to mention the very breakdown of the system that was designed
to survive in spite of partisanship, not because of it. In fact, we as a
society actually let people govern us who don't understand the
principles on which our (american) nation is founded.

Yeah, that is a conundrum.

And I don't think its too far off topic, because large companies are the
ones supplying the jobs, but at the cost of killing off small
businesses.

The IDEA (not the practice) of free trade is based around improving the
world-economy, sort of a nod at post WWI efforts to stabalize the
different European economies. Still, in a way it goes against the
fundamental principles of our (American) government to leave the economy
in the hands of the people.

What I find interesting is that large corporations HAVE to move offshore
to sustain themselves, either by bringing in resources, or exporting
work. Their gargantuan size is actually less efficient than smaller
privately owned businesses. Perhaps there should be a modification of
policy so that businesses have to stay local, creating a greater number
of revenue streams by splitting up ownership profits.

Of course I could be completely wrong

Thanks and Thanks!

Yeah, I thought the dress brought out my eyes

Ummmm, bestiality aside...

First of all, whew, I thougt someone was actually asking if it would be
ok to cheat in x situation...

Second, something that always seems to come up mid crisis is what to do
if you suspect that your significant other is cheating. Its a conundrum,
because you can't be in a relationship with someone you can't trust, but
if you suspect incorrectly then you are the one who is in the wrong-for
not trusting your partner the way that they trust you. Its a sort of
catch-22, and the only thing that makes sense to me is to keep trusting
your partner in spite of the suspicions. After all, no secret stays
buried forever, and while it is hard to recover from the betrayal, it
would be worse to ruin a great relationship because of a lack of
communication...

Hehe, pardon my lack of manners, I saw the political section of
the forum and jumped right in without introducing myself.

I enjoy the globe-sized round table atmosphere of these forums, so I'll
probably be fairly active, at least for a while. For the record, I do
respect everyone's views, but like anyone else, I have my own. I'm not
afraid to express mine, so don't think you'll offend me if you express
yours. Especially don't be afraid to correct any logical fallacies I
make, I don't think I'm perfect and I like to be reminded of
that fact as often as possible!

Till we meet on the forum ciao folks!