What is so bad about Gov. Spitzer's plan? Hillary is Right!

what a friggin jerk woiyo; you posted about business licenses and I respond "Interesting, is that true?" pretty friggin outrageous you seem to think. so you respond "you are kidding, right?"
So you think my saying "interesting, is that true?" goes over the line of reasoned debate. I say that makes you quite a friggin bigot.

Having a license to transact business is not a right, it is a privilage.

dyslexia wrote:

what a friggin jerk woiyo; you posted about business licenses and I respond "Interesting, is that true?" pretty friggin outrageous you seem to think. so you respond "you are kidding, right?"
So you think my saying "interesting, is that true?" goes over the line of reasoned debate. I say that makes you quite a friggin bigot.

No, it just makes you either stupid or ignorant. I provided you some facts to cure your ignorance and you respond to me as a bigot.

When ignorance can not be cured, stupidity seems the logical next classification.

woiyo wrote:

Having a license to transact business is not a right, it is a privilage.

You'll have to read up on the relevant law. Owning and running a business is most definitely a right.

Wrong again. Virtually every State and Local Government, not to mention the Feds, require a license.

woiyo wrote:

Wrong again. Virtually every State and Local Government, not to mention the Feds, require a license.

I'll take your word for that, but what are the circumstances under which the city may deny a license? I would be very surprised if they had full discretion over it.

Similar to driving is a privilege, not a right. Anything that requires a permit or a license of some kind is more like a privilege, I agree with you, woiyo.

okie wrote:

Similar to driving is a privilege, not a right. Anything that requires a permit or a license of some kind is more like a privilege, I agree with you, woiyo.

What someone needs to explain is WHY is it necessary to extend any rights (outside of basic human rights of course) or priviliges to illegal immigrants.

What political benefit is there to Spitzer for "championing" this cause?

ALBANY - Gov. Eliot Spitzer said yesterday that his new plan to make it easier for illegal immigrants to get driver's licenses while creating one of the most secure licenses in the nation is the result of conversations with an old friend, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.

Spitzer said he has known Chertoff for more than 10 years, going back to Spitzer's life as a prosecutor and before, when Chertoff's wife went to Harvard Law School with Spitzer. He said long, collegial conversations with Chertoff over several weeks led to the change.

okie wrote:

Similar to driving is a privilege, not a right. Anything that requires a permit or a license of some kind is more like a privilege, I agree with you, woiyo.

What someone needs to explain is WHY is it necessary to extend any rights (outside of basic human rights of course) or priviliges to illegal immigrants.

What political benefit is there to Spitzer for "championing" this cause?

What purpose could there be for a method of reducing everything to one simple solution.......obey the law? Lazinessness, insecurity, paranoia, selfishness, limited mental capacity, limited tolerance of ambiguity, denial of ambivilence, insensitivity to the needs others, stubborness........meanness?

This discussion is heading toward the booooooooring point.

I have little time for talking to those who can't think past, "obey the law blah blah blah" and "why should tax payers have to pay?"

There are many benefits to taxpayers paying for good solutions to difficult problems. Obviously.

What purpose could there be for a method of reducing everything to one simple solution.......obey the law? Lazinessness, insecurity, paranoia, selfishness, limited mental capacity, limited tolerance of ambiguity, denial of ambivilence, insensitivity to the needs others, stubborness........meanness?

Yes, the law should be obeyed. But it's often possible to do wrong by doing "right." Especially if doing right is defined as blindly obeying the rule. Rules can be and often are wrong or are not comprehensive enough. Those rules should be changed to better address the problem. As Bernie pointed out earlier, Bush has had little trouble with disobeying the law and the Consititution when it suits his purposes. And his disobedience has devastating consequences. Do any of you rule bound people think that was a good idea and if so, why?

And yes, oakie I do admire those who keep pushing to get what they and their families need. I realize it's difficult for you to put yourself in their place, you've lived in this country and your opportunitites are huge compared to citizens of many nations. But do try to think with a little bit of an open mind. What would you do if you had no job and no way to get one and you and your family were starving or your children couldn't get an education when the country next door to yours has plenty of jobs? Would you really just starve? I doubt that.

It's not easy to get into this country legally. Or at least it's not easy if you're one of those who desparately needs to get in.

Oh well, I know I'm wasting my time.

What would you do if you had no job and no way to get one and you and your family were starving or your children couldn't get an education when the country next door to yours has plenty of jobs?

Lola wrote-

Quote:

What purpose could there be for a method of reducing everything to one simple solution.......obey the law? Lazinessness, insecurity, paranoia, selfishness, limited mental capacity, limited tolerance of ambiguity, denial of ambivilence, insensitivity to the needs others, stubborness........meanness?

You missed out "not having a care in the world" my dear.

Lola wrote:

This discussion is heading toward the booooooooring point.

I have little time for talking to those who can't think past, "obey the law blah blah blah" and "why should tax payers have to pay?"

There are many benefits to taxpayers paying for good solutions to difficult problems. Obviously.

What purpose could there be for a method of reducing everything to one simple solution.......obey the law? Lazinessness, insecurity, paranoia, selfishness, limited mental capacity, limited tolerance of ambiguity, denial of ambivilence, insensitivity to the needs others, stubborness........meanness?

Yes, the law should be obeyed. But it's often possible to do wrong by doing "right." Especially if doing right is defined as blindly obeying the rule. Rules can be and often are wrong or are not comprehensive enough. Those rules should be changed to better address the problem. As Bernie pointed out earlier, Bush has had little trouble with disobeying the law and the Consititution when it suits his purposes. And his disobedience has devastating consequences. Do any of you rule bound people think that was a good idea and if so, why?

And yes, oakie I do admire those who keep pushing to get what they and their families need. I realize it's difficult for you to put yourself in their place, you've lived in this country and your opportunitites are huge compared to citizens of many nations. But do try to think with a little bit of an open mind. What would you do if you had no job and no way to get one and you and your family were starving or your children couldn't get an education when the country next door to yours has plenty of jobs? Would you really just starve? I doubt that.

It's not easy to get into this country legally. Or at least it's not easy if you're one of those who desparately needs to get in.

Oh well, I know I'm wasting my time.

You're Canadian aren't you? Are you here legally? Was it a challenge?

Lola wrote-

Quote:

What would you do if you had no job and no way to get one and you and your family were starving or your children couldn't get an education when the country next door to yours has plenty of jobs?

That's cheating. Suppose you are not starving. What people do when they are starving has nothing to do with jobs and education.

What's the big deal with jobs? A sloth would get a job and an education if he was starving. But not otherwise.

I fear you are connecting things up for propaganda purposes.

This discussion is heading toward the booooooooring point.

I have little time for talking to those who can't think past, "obey the law blah blah blah" and "why should tax payers have to pay?"

There are many benefits to taxpayers paying for good solutions to difficult problems. Obviously.

What purpose could there be for a method of reducing everything to one simple solution.......obey the law? Lazinessness, insecurity, paranoia, selfishness, limited mental capacity, limited tolerance of ambiguity, denial of ambivilence, insensitivity to the needs others, stubborness........meanness?

Yes, the law should be obeyed. But it's often possible to do wrong by doing "right." Especially if doing right is defined as blindly obeying the rule. Rules can be and often are wrong or are not comprehensive enough. Those rules should be changed to better address the problem. As Bernie pointed out earlier, Bush has had little trouble with disobeying the law and the Consititution when it suits his purposes. And his disobedience has devastating consequences. Do any of you rule bound people think that was a good idea and if so, why?

And yes, oakie I do admire those who keep pushing to get what they and their families need.

I realize it's difficult for you to put yourself in their place, you've lived in this country and your opportunitites are huge compared to citizens of many nations. But do try to think with a little bit of an open mind. What would you do if you had no job and no way to get one and you and your family were starving or your children couldn't get an education when the country next door to yours has plenty of jobs? Would you really just starve? I doubt that.

It's not easy to get into this country legally. Or at least it's not easy if you're one of those who desparately needs to get in.

Oh well, I know I'm wasting my time.

Quote:

Quote:
It's not easy to get into this country legally. Or at least it's not easy if you're one of those who desparately needs to get in.

Oh well, I know I'm wasting my time.

Everything is relative, and I doubt the people coming here are as well off as they can become here, but I doubt seriously they are starving where they are at, or they would be dead before they crossed the border. I would suggest making the best of where they are if the choice is to break the law to do otherwise. Is it the U.S. responsibility to take every last soul from every corner of the world in any number? Unless you think so, your arguments all ring pretty hollow.