David Horowitz: Democrats are the party of hate

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Nation of laws doesn't mean that conservatives always win.

Obviously. What it should mean is that law breakers never do.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Nothing personal Finn. But that isn't very convincing Wink

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

What it should mean is that law breakers never do.

This is incorrect. Law breakers (of any stripe) have their day in court, and they have constitutional rights. They have the right to strike evidence, and to appeal. Even convicted criminals win in court when the law is on their side.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I disagree with you that the economic impact is immaterial. The law exists to support American citizens. Anti-immigrant state laws ended up costing millions of dollars in lost agriculture.

1. What, pray-tell, are you calling "anti-immigration" laws? Laws designed to uphold and implement the legislation regulating immigration passed by our elected representatives in Washington after extensive public input, debate, etc? What else could you mean?

2. Got even a shred of evidence for your glib claim about "lost agriculture," whatever that is supposed to mean?

3. The "economic arguments" you try to make are of the same nature as those advanced by slave states who insisted that slavery must be upheld and maintained for economic benefit.

4. But, since you want to bring in economics, consider this: "In 2013, the estimated costs of illegal immigration nationally totaled over $113 billion, with $84 billion being absorbed by state and local taxpayers. Some states bear more of the weight than others, often due to sanctuary policies. For instance, California taxpayers spent more than $25 billion in 2014 to subsidize illegal immigration, and Texas taxpayers spent just over $12 billion.

Additionally, job displacement and wage depression caused by large populations of unauthorized workers inevitably add to taxpayer expenses as more citizens and legal residents require assistance from public services."

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Nothing personal Finn. But that isn't very convincing

Then give him the courtesy of presenting your very "persuasive" arguments, rather than just belittle his efforts, eh, Max?

Wait, I forgot, you don't play that. You don't debate, and there is no need to, because everyone viewing your magnificence is awed by your assertions, and even the most casual observer intuitively knows that they are indubitably correct, eh?

Finn summarized all the "arguments" I've ever heard in favor of illegal immigrants---and these seem to be the very (and only) ones I've seen you try to advance, Max.

Get over yourself, eh?

0 Replies

Max's main "arguments" as to why people should piss all over duly enacted federal law seem to boil down to the following:

1. I am in favor of multi-culturalism

2. I like diversity.

3. I like the illegal aliens that I know.

4. My wife is Mexican.

5. My ancestors had trouble immigrating to America.

6. I am a moral, caring person, who has legitimate "feelings."

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

maxdancona wrote:

What do you think of Layman's comparison of "illegal immigration" with bank robbery and with invasion? Neither of these arguments make very much sense to me.

As usual you miss the entire point, eh, Max? You want to quibble over details, while ignoring the point.

I am sure there is more later, but this is an all too common event.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Yes, Layman. Like the Mexican immigrants who you want to mow down in cold blood with machine guns.

America First Baby!

I'm pretty sure you are smart enough to recognize hyperbole when it is presented so knock of the dramatic effort. You are not holding up your side of the discussion with this kind of response.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

..but this is an all too common event.

I'll confess that I probably contribute to it by assuming that people have the logical ability to grasp the point and the meaning of a an argument, and don't just mechanically read the words and then run off to find a red herring to drag or otherwise respond with some non sequitur.

Of course many don't have this problem, but some do, and you have to take things very slowly with slow people sometimes.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

The other side of this argument seems to be:

Our economy has come to rely on the exploitation of cheap labor and if we get rid of it now, we will have an economic catastrophe.

The great majority of these people are decent and hardworking and we should be nicer to them.

The world would be a better place without borders.

The US has so much riches it certainly can share some with poor people from other nations.

Immigrants are groovy and we shouldn't care whether they come here legally or illegally.

Now I don't think I've really impugned anyone with my representation of the argument of the "other side." It's, for the most part, based on emotion and, obviously, not convincing to me, but then I'm a racist, gringo conservative. You may not subscribe to this last bit (frankly I'm not sure), but the majority of your confreres do.

Well, I can't state it any clearer than that.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

Well, I can't state it any clearer than that.

Exactly. That's the problem. At least you are my point.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Well, I can't state it any clearer than that.

Exactly. That's the problem. At least you are my point.

Is there a point missed by Finn that you'd like to add?

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

This isn't a thread about immigration. This is a thread about partisan bubbles. Anybody can create these simplistic caricatures of the other side to throw mud at. I am asking you and Finn (specifically) if it is possible for us to have more than that.

You can argue about how successful I have been-- but I make the effort to step outside of my partisan bubble. I push back at what I see as hyper-partisan arguments on my own side. I can identify several areas where the other side has valid arguments (and I have done so here). I actually have taken the time to understand the arguments of the other side... and not just here. I understand that the other point of view is not as simplistic as partisan blogs and political lobbyists make it out to be. And I work to understand the legal judgments from courts whether they fall on my side or on the other side.

Part of this is being able to look at your own political views from outside your bubble, and to work to understand how respectable people on the other side view things differently.

This is a democracy. Both your side and mine has equal access to politicians, and courts and the press. Your side has won some battles. My side has too. And I am working hard to win more. Life goes on.

I would like to find a conservative or two who is willing to try to step outside of the partisan bubbles we live in to have an intelligent discussion rather than this mud-slinging. Mud-slinging is fun for a little while (it has its place), but if we can't step behind these simplistic partisan straw men, things get awfully repetitive.

Yes, I have made several points beyond the straw man you have set up. You can read my posts.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

What you don't seem to be able to accept is that the comments I've made represent my positions and are not blind agreement with conservative bogeymen.

Before you referenced laymen's comments as "slurs" now you are writing about "mud slinging" the same thing or something else.

What do you find to be irrational or unreasonable in the points I've made?

EDIT: I think you want to find a conservative who will change his or her mind based on what you post.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Yes, I have made several points beyond the straw man you have set up. You can read my posts.

Since no one seems to have discerned what your claimed"points" are, Max, why don't you briefly summarize them?

No one is going to go running on a wild goose chase through many pages looking for "something" (God only knows what) that you think you have said that supports your position.

Are you capable of that? A brief summary?

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

You have made two points now that I told you I think are reasonable; the unfairness to legal immigrants (which I think is one of the stronger arguments against my position) and the rule of law (which I think has emotional currency, but is problematic when you understand that the "rule of law" also give rights to illegal immigrants and the communities who want to protect them).

It is not a matter of budging. I can respect an argument without agreeing with it. And I have no problem acknowledging a good argument from the other side. Furthermore, I am proud of the fact that I have changed my mind on issues when I felt the facts didn't support my opinion. And, I am proud of the fact that I am certainly a liberal, yet I often differ with the standard dogma of my political side.

It is a matter of wanting to talk to people outside of our respective political bubbles, and seeking an intelligent discussion that is more than superficial mud slinging.

2 Replies

Max: You just proved my point

Other: Which is?

Max: The point you just proved for me

Other: What is that?

Max: No need for me to say. Everyone knows.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

What are my "bad points?"

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

There is something wrong when law breakers "win"

They should not...ever

Just because some do doesn't mean all should, or that this is a hole through which illegal immigrants can rightfully climb.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

The Constitution specifically grants rights to what you are calling "law breakers". This is embedded in our Bill of Rights... the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments grant specific rights to law breakers.

I don't know what you mean by "they should not ever". The law grants rights to law breakers. Law breakers get to assert and defend their rights in court, and some times they win... as the law says they "should".

1 Reply

David Horowitz: Democrats are the party of hate

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know