dr_mabeuse
seduce the mind
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2002
- Posts
- 11,528
Pure said:
I'm going to listen to a guy who calls himself "Birdman". Right.
---dr.M.
Deport (from US) all Arab non-Citizens?
- Thread starter Pure
- Start date
I'm going to listen to a guy who calls himself "Birdman". Right.
---dr.M.
oggbashan
Dying Truth seeker
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2002
- Posts
- 56,017
Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act. This legislation was signed into law on October 26, 2002 as Public Law No: 107-56. The USA Patriot Act is composed of 342 pages.
Minsue beat me to it but I wouldn't want Patriot or French Fries.
Og
Minsue beat me to it but I wouldn't want Patriot or French Fries.
Og
Svenskaflicka
Fountain
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2002
- Posts
- 16,142
I haven't eaten any nationality of Fries since that night when I was sick and filled the white china with enough fries to feed a whole kids' party.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
SF: "BUT, I would do my best to rescue them from drowning, if that situation would arise. Why? Because they're human beings.
I'd save them, and then go back to hating them."
That's what I call an 'excess of virtue'.
I'm more of the 'strangle little Adolph in the cradle' school of thought (assuming accurate knowledge to go on).
I'd save them, and then go back to hating them."
That's what I call an 'excess of virtue'.
I'm more of the 'strangle little Adolph in the cradle' school of thought (assuming accurate knowledge to go on).
Svenskaflicka
Fountain
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2002
- Posts
- 16,142
Pure said:
Huh?
jfinn
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2002
- Posts
- 593
I haven't posted in a while, haven't even read here much to tell the truth, but in the last few weeks I started to lurk again. So when I saw this one and had a couple of hours to kill this afternoon, I thought why not spend my time reading.
It started like a lot of the threads lately. A question was posed and a few people gave their opinion, then The Earl and Svenska (Hi guys) jumped in with a few splashy comments, which triggered an ultra right wing backlash from Colly (never talked to you before, I like your passion) that was immediately countered by another newbie, to me at any rate, Shereads (hello, I like your passion too), who provided the radical left's pov. Dirtman, Pure and dr M got their points in too, and Og, as usual, took on the unsung role as the voice of moderation.
In between there were others who stuck their heads in for a comment or two, some just to cast their vote with one side or another, some to lighten up the atmosphere, even a couple that didn't seem to have a clue what the thread was about. It seemed like old times, but when I was finished, I realized that I hadn't really read anything that I felt addressed the question asked, at least not the way I understood it.
The question was whether the US should deport all Arab non-citizens. There's even a poll which goes from yeah, dump 'em all to not without just cause and on the surface it's a pretty straight forward question. That is until you start to wonder why we have to ask it in the first place.
See, the US has had deportation laws for a long time now. They may not be the best and they certainly aren't foolproof, but they're there and I'm sure that somewhere buried in all the legalese it covers when an alien living in the US can and should be denied that privilage. So my question is why should we have to adjust that law now, especially if those adjustments are going to be only directed at group of people with a particular religion and a certain depth of color to the tone of their skin? This bothers me.
Because the US has other enemies, other terrorists who are out for blood. A fair number of them are in SE Asia. Does that mean if a group from Malaysia should manage to blow up the Sears Tower that all Malaysian immigrants would be deported. Or wait, all those Orientals look the same, so maybe it would be just be easier to get rid of everyone with slanty eyes. I mean, where would it end?
The question stated that it should only be non-citizens, but would that be enough once it started? If you're a citizen, but you've only been in the US for ten years, then maybe you need to go too since it hasn't really been that long and you've still got that accent and damn, your clothes are kind of weird. And then if the IRA forgot where most of there money comes from and blew up BART in San Francisco, would we amend the law again, this time to include redheads and everyone who's last name began with an O'?
Yeah, silly stuff, but here comes me being serious. A democracy only happens when you are prepared to pay a high cost for the privilage. The only true safety is in a dictatorship and then only for those on the right side of the guns. Freedom is a dangerous way to live. It means that you have to willingly commit to a society that sometimes risks fostering evil rather than take the chance of eradicating liberty. For me that's a risk I'm prepared to take.
Because what if that's what the terrorists want? What if what they really mean to do is to chip away at our liberties, our rights of free speech and petition, to divide us with fear and distrust? And if that's so, than I'm afraid they're already winning. Everytime a holiday comes up and the alerts jump to orange, everytime a plane is turned away from US shores or refugees are denied santuary because maybe they aren't really what they seem, it diminishes what and who we are-- and more importantly, what we would like to become.
So what happens now. Maybe instead of worrying about the costs of freedom, we should start instead to recognize its value.
Jayne
edited for spelling and omitted word
It started like a lot of the threads lately. A question was posed and a few people gave their opinion, then The Earl and Svenska (Hi guys) jumped in with a few splashy comments, which triggered an ultra right wing backlash from Colly (never talked to you before, I like your passion) that was immediately countered by another newbie, to me at any rate, Shereads (hello, I like your passion too), who provided the radical left's pov. Dirtman, Pure and dr M got their points in too, and Og, as usual, took on the unsung role as the voice of moderation.
In between there were others who stuck their heads in for a comment or two, some just to cast their vote with one side or another, some to lighten up the atmosphere, even a couple that didn't seem to have a clue what the thread was about. It seemed like old times, but when I was finished, I realized that I hadn't really read anything that I felt addressed the question asked, at least not the way I understood it.
The question was whether the US should deport all Arab non-citizens. There's even a poll which goes from yeah, dump 'em all to not without just cause and on the surface it's a pretty straight forward question. That is until you start to wonder why we have to ask it in the first place.
See, the US has had deportation laws for a long time now. They may not be the best and they certainly aren't foolproof, but they're there and I'm sure that somewhere buried in all the legalese it covers when an alien living in the US can and should be denied that privilage. So my question is why should we have to adjust that law now, especially if those adjustments are going to be only directed at group of people with a particular religion and a certain depth of color to the tone of their skin? This bothers me.
Because the US has other enemies, other terrorists who are out for blood. A fair number of them are in SE Asia. Does that mean if a group from Malaysia should manage to blow up the Sears Tower that all Malaysian immigrants would be deported. Or wait, all those Orientals look the same, so maybe it would be just be easier to get rid of everyone with slanty eyes. I mean, where would it end?
The question stated that it should only be non-citizens, but would that be enough once it started? If you're a citizen, but you've only been in the US for ten years, then maybe you need to go too since it hasn't really been that long and you've still got that accent and damn, your clothes are kind of weird. And then if the IRA forgot where most of there money comes from and blew up BART in San Francisco, would we amend the law again, this time to include redheads and everyone who's last name began with an O'?
Yeah, silly stuff, but here comes me being serious. A democracy only happens when you are prepared to pay a high cost for the privilage. The only true safety is in a dictatorship and then only for those on the right side of the guns. Freedom is a dangerous way to live. It means that you have to willingly commit to a society that sometimes risks fostering evil rather than take the chance of eradicating liberty. For me that's a risk I'm prepared to take.
Because what if that's what the terrorists want? What if what they really mean to do is to chip away at our liberties, our rights of free speech and petition, to divide us with fear and distrust? And if that's so, than I'm afraid they're already winning. Everytime a holiday comes up and the alerts jump to orange, everytime a plane is turned away from US shores or refugees are denied santuary because maybe they aren't really what they seem, it diminishes what and who we are-- and more importantly, what we would like to become.
So what happens now. Maybe instead of worrying about the costs of freedom, we should start instead to recognize its value.
Jayne
edited for spelling and omitted word
Last edited:
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Nice posting, Jayne. Certainly exposes the problem of "sweep them all up the net" as a concept. To which I might add, that obviously unjust acts by a government come back to haunt one, and create new recruits to avenge the wrong.
Further, the last attempt at this--Tutsis in Ruanda--was genocidal; as was the most famous attempt of this century, Hitler's roundup and killing of Jews, according to ancestry(blood).
Here's a nice statement by a conservative columnist I rather like; no, not Ann:
http://www.sobran.com/columns/1999-2001/010925.shtml
We are told that our freedom is under attack. And it is. But Osama bin Laden can’t abridge our freedoms; only our own government can do that — by giving the FBI and CIA new powers, for example, and by imposing new restrictions on airlines and travelers, banks and financial institutions, and on private communications. It may yet force us all to carry identity cards.
by Joseph Sobran.
J.
PS. Note, Jayne, that I did include keeping existing laws on deportation, due process, etc., as one option. It's being endorsed by a little over 1/2 of respondents.
Further, the last attempt at this--Tutsis in Ruanda--was genocidal; as was the most famous attempt of this century, Hitler's roundup and killing of Jews, according to ancestry(blood).
Here's a nice statement by a conservative columnist I rather like; no, not Ann:
http://www.sobran.com/columns/1999-2001/010925.shtml
We are told that our freedom is under attack. And it is. But Osama bin Laden can’t abridge our freedoms; only our own government can do that — by giving the FBI and CIA new powers, for example, and by imposing new restrictions on airlines and travelers, banks and financial institutions, and on private communications. It may yet force us all to carry identity cards.
by Joseph Sobran.
J.
PS. Note, Jayne, that I did include keeping existing laws on deportation, due process, etc., as one option. It's being endorsed by a little over 1/2 of respondents.
Last edited:
jfinn
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2002
- Posts
- 593
Pure said:
Oops,
my bad. Actually I knew that you'd offered it and should have stated so. My real intention was not to question your choices, but rather why we find ourselves in the position of even thinking about them. Should have s'plained myself better.Jayne
PS. As for Joe Sobran, I'm very aware of who he is; I've been reading him for years and though I've often disagreed with his conclusions I've always felt it's clear that his articles mirror his true beliefs and aren't just a ploy to win the hearts and minds of the conservative electorate. You have to admire that about him.
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
jfinn said:Oops,
Jayne
Welcome back, Jayne. Pleased to meet you.
SR
Svenskaflicka
Fountain
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2002
- Posts
- 16,142
There are dirty stories in here? Where? Where?
*starts sniffing around like a terrier on LSD*
*starts sniffing around like a terrier on LSD*
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
DEPORT EVERYONE. FROM EVERYWHERE.
You put that tongue back where it belongs right now, young man!
Here's an idea: We take the entire population of the planet and reshuffle. Everybody ends up with their immediate family and no other guarantees, living wherever the luck of the draw happens to land them.
Svenska and hubby end up as neighbors to the Dirt Man family on a couple of sheep farms in the Hebrides. Shereads' random assignment lands her in Lichtenstein, in one of those miserable swan-infested palaces with too much gilt on the ceilings. (We all take our chances here; assignments are entirely random.) Pure ends up as Ahmad Chalabi's landlord at an apartment complex in Beijing. So far, we're all lucky enough to have landed positions in countries with food. Beyond that, it's up to us to determine how we are governed, because keep in mind that everyone who lived in the Hebrides and Beijing and Lichtenstein has also been resuffled. Our neighbors are from Kinshasha, the Lesser Antilles, Turkey, Beirut, Israel, and god help us, even Canada - and they are as clueless about how they got here and what to do next as we are.
Now what?
PS. I call first dibs on holding a pancake breakfast to demonstrate my leadership skills. I hope there's somebody in Lichtenstein who knows where to find one of those big griddles.
Dirt Man said:
You put that tongue back where it belongs right now, young man!
Here's an idea: We take the entire population of the planet and reshuffle. Everybody ends up with their immediate family and no other guarantees, living wherever the luck of the draw happens to land them.
Svenska and hubby end up as neighbors to the Dirt Man family on a couple of sheep farms in the Hebrides. Shereads' random assignment lands her in Lichtenstein, in one of those miserable swan-infested palaces with too much gilt on the ceilings. (We all take our chances here; assignments are entirely random.) Pure ends up as Ahmad Chalabi's landlord at an apartment complex in Beijing. So far, we're all lucky enough to have landed positions in countries with food. Beyond that, it's up to us to determine how we are governed, because keep in mind that everyone who lived in the Hebrides and Beijing and Lichtenstein has also been resuffled. Our neighbors are from Kinshasha, the Lesser Antilles, Turkey, Beirut, Israel, and god help us, even Canada - and they are as clueless about how they got here and what to do next as we are.
Now what?
PS. I call first dibs on holding a pancake breakfast to demonstrate my leadership skills. I hope there's somebody in Lichtenstein who knows where to find one of those big griddles.
Last edited:
Svenskaflicka
Fountain
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2002
- Posts
- 16,142
*goes into nostalgic mood*
I grew up on a sheep farm!
I grew up on a sheep farm!
Svenskaflicka
Fountain
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2002
- Posts
- 16,142
Big, hairy cows... cool! Can I have sheepdog? Can I? Can I?
*pulls sher's sleeve*
*pulls sher's sleeve*
