U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-03-2007, 09:23 PM
 
8,973 posts, read 14,612,395 times
Reputation: 2983

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by faith10 View Post
Thank you. Arabs are said to be caucasian. Strange how they determined who's who.
In the University of California admissions system, it's been determined that Argentinians of pure Italian heritage, as well as Bolivian Indians, Black Panamanians, and Mexican mestizos are all "Hispanics", but natives of Spain are not--they're "white Europeans".

New Zealanders are not "Pacific Islanders"...they're "white", unless they're Maori. Immigrants from Egypt or Algeria are not "African Americans", they're Arabs.
Italians are not "latino".
Laotians are Laotians; Vietnamese are Vietnamese; Cambodians are Cambodians. But Italians, Swedes, Germans, Irish, Finns, Hungarians, Belgians, Portuguese, French, Czechs, and myriad others are just plain "whites"---or sometimes "anglos".

Welcome to the wonderful, scientifically-based world of Political Correctness...

 
Old 10-03-2007, 09:27 PM
 
1,156 posts, read 1,874,837 times
Reputation: 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by GH0ST.. View Post
your government is stealing from you more than any immigrant. demonizing them isn't going to change that.
"Your government"....interesting.
 
Old 10-03-2007, 09:36 PM
 
1,510 posts, read 709,122 times
Reputation: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by faith10 View Post
"Your government"....interesting.
yes. the united states government is your government, isn't it? i'm a US citizen. doesn't change the validity of my statement. quit speculating.
 
Old 10-03-2007, 09:54 PM
 
1,156 posts, read 1,874,837 times
Reputation: 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by macmeal View Post
In the University of California admissions system, it's been determined that Argentinians of pure Italian heritage, as well as Bolivian Indians, Black Panamanians, and Mexican mestizos are all "Hispanics", but natives of Spain are not--they're "white Europeans".

New Zealanders are not "Pacific Islanders"...they're "white", unless they're Maori. Immigrants from Egypt or Algeria are not "African Americans", they're Arabs.
Italians are not "latino".
Laotians are Laotians; Vietnamese are Vietnamese; Cambodians are Cambodians. But Italians, Swedes, Germans, Irish, Finns, Hungarians, Belgians, Portuguese, French, Czechs, and myriad others are just plain "whites"---or sometimes "anglos".

Welcome to the wonderful, scientifically-based world of Political Correctness...
Very interesting, as was the Migration of Man on PBS, the story told from DNA on how man went from Africa to Australia first and onwards. Italians are European but sometimes I've heard them refer to themselves as from a latin country, maybe due to latin spoken in the church.
 
Old 10-03-2007, 09:57 PM
 
1,510 posts, read 709,122 times
Reputation: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by faith10 View Post
Very interesting, as was the Migration of Man on PBS, the story told from DNA on how man went from Africa to Australia first and onwards. Italians are European but sometimes I've heard them refer to themselves from a latin country, maybe due to latin spoken in the chruch.
im curious.. are you a practicing christian/catholic?
 
Old 10-03-2007, 11:03 PM
 
2,516 posts, read 7,548,358 times
Reputation: 2394
Quote:
Originally Posted by GH0ST.. View Post
"The United States Flag Code establishes advisory rules for display and care of the flag of the United States. It is title 4 of the United States Code: 4 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. This is a U.S. federal law, but there is no penalty for failure to comply with them and they are not widely enforced — indeed, punitive enforcement would conflict with the First Amendment right to freedom of speech, as the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled when the subject has come up in the past."

the law contradicts the original constitutional amendment, same as the income tax. the original text of the constitution calls for all direct taxes to be apportioned, with the 16th amendment being illegally ratified after the fact.
the intent of my reply was to point out that you were making a false distinction between law and "just code," not to start a discussion of the merits of the internal revenue code or the 16th amendment. if you choose to not pay taxes because you question the validity of either, that's your business.

incidentally, 4 USC was not the subject of supreme court scrutiny, and has never been ruled unconstitutional. attempts by congress or a state to criminalize flag desecration for no reason other than to suppress speech were struck down. if the court finds an independent (nonspeech) justification for a regulation, it can pass constitutional muster even if it has an incidental effect of impeding free speech. the problem here is that unlike a draft card, for example, the flag is by its nature symbolic. thus, it is challenging to draft legislation prohibiting its destruction without implicating its use as an instrument of symbolic speech, because every use of the flag is essentially symbolic speech.

while i can appreciate the poetic irony embodied in the notion that the destruction of the symbol of our liberties is an expression of our liberties, i think desecrating the flag to protest the government completely misses the point. to me, the flag represents an ideal, not an administration nor a particular set of policies, and when the government misses the mark is when we most need to hold it aloft as a reminder of what we're supposed to be as a nation. trampling it or setting it on fire because the idiots in charge have failed to live up to its promises is just misplaced aggression, and doing the same because you are a foreign national/sympathizer who hates this country is appalling.

back to the original topic: anyone who wants to fly another country's flag above our own is free to go there. there's no wall or armed guard keeping them in. that's the beauty of america!

Last edited by katenik; 10-03-2007 at 11:19 PM..
 
Old 10-04-2007, 07:20 AM
 
Location: Mesa, Az
21,148 posts, read 36,615,542 times
Reputation: 3785
Quote:
Originally Posted by macmeal View Post
In the University of California admissions system, it's been determined that Argentinians of pure Italian heritage, as well as Bolivian Indians, Black Panamanians, and Mexican mestizos are all "Hispanics", but natives of Spain are not--they're "white Europeans".

New Zealanders are not "Pacific Islanders"...they're "white", unless they're Maori. Immigrants from Egypt or Algeria are not "African Americans", they're Arabs.
Italians are not "latino".
Laotians are Laotians; Vietnamese are Vietnamese; Cambodians are Cambodians. But Italians, Swedes, Germans, Irish, Finns, Hungarians, Belgians, Portuguese, French, Czechs, and myriad others are just plain "whites"---or sometimes "anglos".

Welcome to the wonderful, scientifically-based world of Political Correctness...
That is ridiculous: if anybody has a claim to being Hispanic------the Spaniards most certainly qualify.

Although, most ethnic Spaniards are almost identical to the stereotypical English, Irish, Scots, as well as the Welsh along with White Mexicans, etc. of true Spanish lineage. In other words: many if not most US/Canadian Anglos/Whites are also 'Hispanic'------genetically speaking.

One group that has been classified both as Anglo and Hispanic are the Portuguese and Brazilians. Some years ago I referred to a friend of mine who is of 100% Lusitanian (Portuguese) heritage as 'Hispanic'------she shot back and flat told me: Bear, I am White-----not Hispanic! Sad part I meant no disrespect.
 
Old 10-04-2007, 08:10 AM
 
16,092 posts, read 35,779,846 times
Reputation: 6264
Quote:
Originally Posted by macmeal View Post
GHOST, I think I'm beginning to see your side---It's not that you're really all that wrong, you're just a little more understanding than most contributors to this forum. It's like saying a "shoplifter" is really just a "shopper", except he's skipped a step....and a "carjacker" is really nothing more than a VERY persuasive hitchhiker. Likewise, a "trespasser" is simply an uninvited houseguest, and a "rapist" is a guy who "just won't take 'NO' for an answer".

Very interesting....illegals are really just immigrants....hmmmm....OK, I'm trying. Please be patient with me.....give me a little more time...
Freeloaders and frauds are just suckling at the milk of our human kindness..

Good post macmeal!
 
Old 10-04-2007, 08:14 AM
 
1,510 posts, read 709,122 times
Reputation: 32
^my reply was "orphaned", but i can assure you that is not a proper comparison.
 
Old 10-04-2007, 08:27 AM
 
1,510 posts, read 709,122 times
Reputation: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by katenik View Post
the intent of my reply was to point out that you were making a false distinction between law and "just code," not to start a discussion of the merits of the internal revenue code or the 16th amendment. if you choose to not pay taxes because you question the validity of either, that's your business.
code is law, but the flag code might as well not be, it's already decriminalized. through the legal process? not officially. but if nobody prosecutes, i consider that a non-existent law. and you are right about saying that what i do is my business. it always is, when it is done on my own property. the dude that flew the flag did so on private property, and that was his business. he didn't ask anybody to make a stink about it. what does freedom actually mean to you?

Quote:
incidentally, 4 USC was not the subject of supreme court scrutiny, and has never been ruled unconstitutional. attempts by congress or a state to criminalize flag desecration for no reason other than to suppress speech were struck down. if the court finds an independent (nonspeech) justification for a regulation, it can pass constitutional muster even if it has an incidental effect of impeding free speech.
that is an outright lie! there is no justification for supercedeing (sp?) the very first amendment of the constitution. especially if it is not infringing on the health or freedoms of any other person. no lower court has that authority!

Quote:
the problem here is that unlike a draft card, for example, the flag is by its nature symbolic. thus, it is challenging to draft legislation prohibiting its destruction without implicating its use as an instrument of symbolic speech, because every use of the flag is essentially symbolic speech.
if it is private property, who are you, or who is anybody for that matter, to tell me how to destroy it? it is my own PRIVATE property.

Quote:
while i can appreciate the poetic irony embodied in the notion that the destruction of the symbol of our liberties is an expression of our liberties, i think desecrating the flag to protest the government completely misses the point. to me, the flag represents an ideal, not an administration nor a particular set of policies, and when the government misses the mark is when we most need to hold it aloft as a reminder of what we're supposed to be as a nation.
but this is just your personal opinion. you can't proclaim it as fact for that very reason. the 1st amendment's purpose is to grant us all the ability to openly think how we want to, but to let other people think how they want, too. if you have your space (private property), they have theirs, and each of you has a completely different opinion on something like the flag, then great! the first amendment has made you proper countrymen and neighbors. suppressing other people's forms of self-expression doesn't make any progress. it just allows one set of ideals to flourish without the encouragement of a more widespread, universal discussion, which makes us an intelligent, well-researched society. a new kind of criminal: the foreign-flag flyer on top of the us flag. great, i feel safer?

Quote:
trampling it or setting it on fire because the idiots in charge have failed to live up to its promises is just misplaced aggression, and doing the same because you are a foreign national/sympathizer who hates this country is appalling.

back to the original topic: anyone who wants to fly another country's flag above our own is free to go there. there's no wall or armed guard keeping them in. that's the beauty of america!
your opinion. we're all allowed to have our own. inside america. whatever color, whatever religion. whatever mindset, if it is practiced appropriately (read: without violence or intimidation), is supposed to be abundant here, in many different forms. that was the first amendment. some people consider the first one to be the foundation, the most important one. it is best we understand it to the letter.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top