Hillary Clinton

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Ramo
Because I currently don't pay income (I do pay sales taxes, for instance) taxes, my opinion on immigration is "suspect?"

Save your bald assertions for Giannie.

Read more carefully, young man.
I said of Polititions, not policy.
You really must pay attention, dear boy.

Sorry, I don't see authoritarianism as a justification for itself. Try again.

A non-sequitor post if ever there was one.
Care to explain what this means, in corelation to the topic under discussion?

How so? Is she preventing US citizens form entering the country?

She was elected to serve the people of the United States, specifically NYS.
How do illegals fit that bill? Are they citizens? Should they recieve preferential treatment over US citizens? Does the rule of law mean nothing to her (and you?)
Try answering this time, without another attempt at doubletalk.

[Ramo]

Read more carefully, young man.
I said of Polititions, not policy.
You really must pay attention, dear boy.

You said "Pols," not "Politicians."

I don't see how that is justified either.

A non-sequitor post if ever there was one.
Care to explain what this means, in corelation to the topic under discussion?

To defend this authoritarian policy, you used the law to back it up ("She would be better served helping people who try to work through the law").

She was elected to serve the people of the United States, specifically NYS. How do illegals fit that bill? Are they citizens?

They're homo sapiens sapiens.

Should they recieve preferential treatment over US citizens?

How are they recieving "preferential treatment?" Did Hillary use public money to fly them over?

Does the rule of law mean nothing to her (and you?)

I can't speak for her, but not when the law violates the rights of the people (such as immigration restrictions).

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Ramo
You said "Pols," not "Politicians."
I don't see how that is justified either.

It means, quite simply, you have a different view of the world when you pay the bills, not mommy and daddy.
Pols aern't quite so abstract, and I can promise you this, you will resent it when you want to buy your children something and you can't afford it because a tax and spend liberal (ala Hillery) has taxed your backsides off and you can barely makes ends meet.

To defend this authoritarian policy, you used the law to back it up ("She would be better served helping people who try to work through the law").

Silly boy.
Politics is ALL about the rule of law, how it is used and applied.
Anything else is secondary.

They're homo sapiens sapiens.

As are we all.
A meaningless answer on your part, try again.

How are they recieving "preferential treatment?" Did Hillary use public money to fly them over?

There are people on the waiting list for years leagally.
And yes, everything she does uses public money, because we, the US tax payer, NOT ILLEAGALS, pay her salary.

In case you haven't noticed, to accomplish anything, you need to prioritize, and a good way to start is with those who obey the law, over those who look for the easy way, like our friends here illeagally. THEY are NOT the first priority, people who follow the law are, and it's not for Hil to break the law to earn browning points with a voter block, that is an ABUSE of the office she is entrusted with.

On a personal note Ramo, wanting to help people is admirable, but you must learn to choose your fights more carefully.
This is a losing battle for you, because your arguing for what is wrong, and trying to dress it in humanitarian cloth. You should be outraged a polition is abusing the public trust in this manner, if you really believed the things you post. Ask yourself this question: Would you be defending Hilary if she was Alfonse D'Amato, or any other conservative Republican, and they had done the same as Hilary, instead of a self proclaimed left wing reformer? An honest answer will show you what I mean.

You must get a grip on right and wrong if you ever hope to really make a difference in this world. That's just an opinion, you can take it or leave it.

I can't speak for her, but not when the law violates the rights of the people (such as immigration restrictions).

People here illeagally have no rights as such, that is the point you seem to miss.
The 'Rights" you speak of are a leagal function, yet you wish to bestow upon the illeagals privalges above people who obey the law. The laws aern't unjust in this case. It's obvious you don't know the scenario, so I will tell you.
Many killed on the plane had relatives in the USA illeagally. They wish to go to Santo Domingo to bury their dead in their home soil. No problem so far.
But here is the problem: They want the US Government to let them back in, no questions asked, and to hell with the thousands who have applied to come here leagally and are on waiting lists.
This is an abomination, a typical Hilary move, ignore the law in hopes of gaining votes in the future (Like the silly Leftest Troll asserts up above). Due what suits her, not what is right.

If you saw this clearly, without the idiological blinders many of the Leftest and Rightest posters here wear, you wouldn't be arguing your ridiculous postion.

[Ramo]

It means, quite simply, you have a different view of tyhe world when you pay the bills, not mommy and daddy.

What the hell do you know about how I'm getting through college? For your information (not that it's any of your goddamn business ), it's through loans I'm taking out, not "mommy and daddy."

Pols aern't quite so abstarct, and I can promise you this, you will resent it when you want to buy your children something and you can't afford it because a tax and spend liberal (ala Hillery) has taxed your backsides off and you can barely makes ends meet.

How does this have anything to do with immigration? And I do resent taxes, but again that has nothign to do with the discussion at hand.

Politics is ALL about the rule of law, how it is used and applied.
Anything else is secondary.

I'm saying that the law is wrong. The legitimacy of a law can't be justified by saying it is the law!

There are people on the waiting list for years leagally.

And all of them deserve to get in now.

And yes, everything she does uses public money, because we, the US tax payer, NOT ILLEAGALS, pay her salary.

Illegals don't pay sales tax? Payroll tax? Gas tax? Any number of taxes? That's a loaded assertion.

In case you haven't noticed, to accomplish anything, you need to prioritize, and a good way to start is with those who obey the law, over those who look for the easy way, like our friends here illeagally. THEY are NOT the first priority, people who follow the law are,

You don't need to "prioritize." If one has the means, one should be able to move freely. It's a basic humanitarian concept.

I'd like open immigration laws, but I'll take whatever I can get.

and it's not for Hil to break the law to earn browning points with a voter block, that is an ABUSE of the office she is entrusted with.

Then vote her out. But I'm not going to criticize someone who moves towards freedom, even if the motives for doing so are suspect.

Ask yourself this question: Would you be defending Hilary if she was Alfonse D'Amato, or any other conservative Republican, and they had done the same as Hilary, instead of a self proclaimed left wing reformer? An honest answer will show you what I mean.

Again, you have no goddamn clue about me and my beliefs. If you want to know, I think Hillery is a statist, and her husband is a murderer. But, it's not at issue.

People here illeagally have no rights as such, that is the point you seem to miss.

I didn't miss anything. I'm criticizing the law as statist, not saying the law justifies open immigration.

Many killed on the plane had relatives in the USA illeagally. They wish to go to Santo Domingo to bury their dead in their home soil. No problem so far.
But here is the problem: They want the US Government to let them back in, no questions asked, and to hell with the thousands who have applied to come here leagally and are on waiting lists.
This is an abomination, a typical Hilary move, ignore the law in hopes of gaining votes in the future (Like the silly Leftest Troll asserts up above). Due what suits her, not what is right.

You criticize her decision after these people have lost familiy members?

If you saw this clearly, without the idiological blinders many of the Leftest and Rightest posters here wear, you wouldn't be arguing your ridiculous postion.

There you go, making assumptions about me again.

[Ramo]

I'd like to add that most illegals, if they were legal, probably wouldn't pay any income tax at all. If anything, they'd likely be elligable for a subsidy due to the earned income tax credit.

[faded glory]

Wow, nice fight

From what I can tell.....one of these posters knows what there talking about and the other is talking from a idiotic political perspective.

Dont stop here

Blood, Kill, fight!!!

Make the creator of this thread proud

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Ramo
What the hell do you know about how I'm getting through college? For your information (not that it's any of your goddamn business ), it's through loans I'm taking out, not "mommy and daddy."

Well goody for you.
Does it piss you off?
Good, cause your reactionary leftist stuff does the same to me adnausium.
Do you think I arrived at my postion on this woman out of thin air?
I tell you she is doing something clearly wrong, and you say fine, but what about this and that, and try to turn the topic into a debate about emigration laws.
Has zero to do with her breaking the law to suit her own purpose.

How does this have anything to do with immigration? And I do resent taxes, but again that has nothign to do with the discussion at hand.

It has to do with people doing what there elected to do, not what helps them politically.

I'm saying that the law is wrong. The legitimacy of a law can't be justified by saying it is the law!

Than it must be brought before the people, and they must decide by referendum, not by a political opprotunist trying to make points at other's expense.
The Law is the foundation of society, the very fabric of our lives, you can't just pick and choose those you wish to obey, whether you think them just or not.
To do otherwise is to invite anachy.

And all of them deserve to get in now.

And why is that?
Has the USA ever had an open door policy, or has it always required due process?

Illegals don't pay sales tax? Payroll tax? Gas tax? Any number of taxes? That's a loaded assertion.

It's a good bet payroll tax is a no go, but every person in this country should help shoulder the burden, not get in on a free ride as many of them have.
And when we speak of taxes, the only taxes which really matter are income taxes, you should know that, instead of grasping at straws this way.

You don't need to "prioritize." If one has the means, one should be able to move freely. It's a basic humanitarian concept.

This nation was founded on the concept of everyman shall reap what he sows, not a giant welfare state. I have no interest in supporting anyone but my family.
I've had enough of politicans having their hand in my pocket for social programs, nothing ever seems to get better, despite Trillions stolen from tax payers over the years.
I would like decide how the money I earn is spent, not a self-serving career beauracrat

I'd like open immigration laws, but I'll take whatever I can get.

Such a policy would cripple the nation, and our own laxness has already cost us dearly by allowing our enemies free access to the USA. Just how big do you think this nation is? How many more people can it support, and still give people hope for a decent job and a decent life?
The well isn't bottomless you know.

Then vote her out. But I'm not going to criticize someone who moves towards freedom, even if the motives for doing so are suspect.

I didn't vote her in.
End justifies the means, eh?
So if I kill a building full of people it's alright, because I just opened up considerable housing?
You best consider that the end NEVER justifies the means, or you might see men like Ashcroft turn the country into a jail.
How we accomplish something is as important as what was accomplished.

Again, you have no goddamn clue about me and my beliefs. If you want to know, I think Hillery is a statist, and her husband is a murderer. But, it's not at issue.

Yes I do, I've been reading your views for a year, unless your now saying you don't believe what you've written here all that time?
Hitler was a conservationist, would you forgive his other crimes if he saved the environment? The world doesn't exsist in a vacum, and as i said before, the end never justifies the means.

I didn't miss anything. I'm criticizing the law as statist, not saying the law justifies open immigration.

In other words, you latched onto one peice of a discussion, and wanted to expand the thread on that concept? You should start a new thread than, if that was your intention.

You criticize her decision after these people have lost familiy members?

I can name a large number of friends who lost family members recently, and none of them tried to break the law or ask for special dispensation based on them being victims.

There you go, making assumptions about me again.

You sound like Reagan addressing Carter in his 1980 debate.
Going to claim your not on the left now?

Wow, nice fight
From what I can tell.....one of these posters knows what there talking about and the other is talking from a idiotic political perspective.
Dont stop here
Blood, Kill, fight!!!
Make the creator of this thread proud

Don't make me start on you, Steverino.
You make this kind of thing twice as hard with your Right wing non-sense, making it extremly difficult to address this kind of topic in a fair-minded and logical fashion.

[Ramo]

Of course she's a political opportunist! Just like the vast majority of our politicians are!

To do otherwise is to invite anachy.

I am an anarchist, you know. But you apparantly don't know what that means (rather surprising for someone with a MA in history).

Than it must be brought before the people, and they must decide by referendum, not by a political opprotunist trying to make points at other's expense.
The Law is the foundation of society, the very fabric of our lives, you can't just pick and choose those you wish to obey, whether you think them just or not.

What would MLK have said?

To roughly quote Thoreau, in an unjust society, the only place for a just man is a prison.

And why is that?

Do you see the justification for free speech as simply a matter of precedence?

It's a good bet payroll tax is a no go

IIRC, payroll taxes from illegal aliens totalled something on the order of $2*10^10 last year.

not get in on a free ride as many of them have.

How are illegals getting a "free ride?"

And when we speak of taxes, the only taxes which really matter are income taxes, you should know that, instead of grasping at straws this way.

Like I wrote earlier, income taxes are practically irrelevent at such a low income bracket.

This nation was founded on the concept of everyman shall reap what he sows, not a giant welfare state. I have no interest in supporting anyone but my family.
I've had enough of politicans having their hand in my pocket for social programs, nothing ever seems to get better, despite Trillions stolen from tax payers over the years.
I would like decide how the money I earn is spent, not a self-serving career beauracrat

Is there some point to this...?

Such a policy would cripple the nation, and our own laxness has already cost us dearly by allowing our enemies free access to the USA.

Yes, furthermore we must block out the speech of our "enemies." Free expression is a "crippling" policy.

How many more people can it support, and still give people hope for a decent job and a decent life?

I don't know, but many people in densely populated areas in Latin American and elsewhere in the world certainly cannot hope for a decent job and a decent life.

End justifies the means, eh?
So if I kill a building full of people it's alright, because I just opened up considerable housing?

And you say I use non-sequiturs! How is the motive to achieve something comparable to the action to achieve something?

Yes I do, I've been reading your views for a year, unless your now saying you don't believe what you've written here all that time?

My political views a year ago were quite different from my political views now.

Hitler was a conservationist, would you forgive his other crimes if he saved the environment? The world doesn't exsist in a vacum, and as i said before, the end never justifies the means.

I'm referring to a particular action for which you criticize her, not everything she does!

I can name a large number of friends who lost family members recently, and none of them tried to break the law or ask for special dispensation based on them being victims.

Good for you.

You sound like Reagan addressing Carter in his 1980 debate.
Going to claim your not on the left now?

That depends upon what you consider the left to be.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Ramo
Of course she's a political opportunist! Just like the vast majority of our politicians are!

I should have added "of the worst kind"

I am an anarchist, you know. But apparantly don't know what that means (rather surprising for someone with a MA in history).

Would you like a disertation on the whole movement starting in the 19th century? Not my favorite topic, but doable.

What would MLK have said?

I'm sure it would have nothing to do with this.

To roughly quote Thoreau, in an unjust society, the only place for a just man is a prison.

Yes, he did say something to that effect.

"When all is said and done, the rule of botherhood remains as the indispensable prerequisite to sucess in the kind of national life for which we strive. Each man must work for himself, and unless he so works no outside help can avail him; but each man must remember also that he is indeed his brother's keeper, and that while no man who refuses to walk can be carried with advantage to himself or any one else, yet that each at times needs to have the helping hand outsretched to him"
Know who said that? He became president due to the actions of an anarchist, and was the greatest president (IMO) in US history.

Do you see the justification for free speech as simply a matter of precedence?

No, I don't.

IIRC, payroll taxes from illegal aliens totalled something on the order of $2*10^10 last year.

I'm increduolous that a tax assesment is made on people committing an illeagal act, you will have to back that assertion with legit documentation.

How are illegals getting a "free ride?"

By not paying income tax.

Like I wrote earlier, income taxes are practically irrelevent at such a low income bracket.

Try telling that to the IRS.

Is there some point to this...?

That's a question I often ask myself when dealing with a lot of you younger folk.

Yes, furthermore we must block out the speech of our "enemies." Free expression is a "crippling" policy.

Another non-sequitor.
How does that follow?

I don't know, but many people in densely populated areas in Latin American and elsewhere in the world certainly cannot hope for a decent job and a decent life.

How is that the USA's problem?
It would seem they need to effect change there, not here.

And you say I use non-sequiturs! How is the motive to achieve something comparable to the action to achieve something?

Motive opens up a whole can of worms, the why is as important as the how.

My political views a year ago were quite different from my political views now.

Anarchy is a dead end, lose that one.

I'm referring to a particular action for which you criticize her, not everything she does!

I was being asked why I dislike her, and gave such reasons.
I still hope she does some good along the line, but I'm sceptical about that.

Good for you.

Yes it was, as it blew a giant hole in the line of reasoning you were attempting to use in that instance.

That depends upon what you consider the left to be.

Anarchy is almost as far left as it goes.

Down with Hilary.

[Ramo]

Would you like a disertation on the whole movement starting in the 19th century? Not my favorite topic, but doable.

Then be a little more careful about what you call anarchism (you seemed to imply anarchism implies no state, which isn't true for a lot of us).

I'm sure it would have nothing to do with this.

He would've said nothing of this in reference to Jim Crow?: "The Law is the foundation of society, the very fabric of our lives, you can't just pick and choose those you wish to obey, whether you think them just or not." I find that hard to believe.

No, I don't.

Then why do you expect me to use precedence to back up freedom of movement?

He became president due to the actions of an anarchist, and was the greatest president (IMO) in US history.

I wouldn't say someone whose administration heralded the mass-murder of Filippinos as a qualification for the best president in US history (if you want to respond to this, please do so in the American War thread - I've got a response ready for ya already). Of course, that's not saying much.

I'm increduolous that a tax assesment is made on people committing an illeagal act, you will have to back that assertion with legit documentation.

Sorry, no time right now.

By not paying income tax.

They don't recieve any public services! How are they possibly getting a free ride?

Try telling that to the IRS.

I think it's your turn to provide me a source.

How does that follow?

To prevent de-stabilizing ideas, ya know. Like the "criminal anarchy" law your favorite president passed.

How is that the USA's problem?
It would seem they need to effect change there, not here.

Our immigration restrictions help prevent optimal allocation of labor.

Motive opens up a whole can of worms, the why is as important as the how.

But motive is not the same thing as how.

Yes it was, as it blew a giant hole in the line of reasoning you were attempting to use in that instance.

What "giant hole," pray tell? You simply rehashed the same ideas you've used above.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Ramo
Then be a little more careful about what you call anarchism (you seemed to imply anarchism implies no state, which isn't true for a lot of us).

Yet is was true of the founders of the movement...

He would've said nothing of this in reference to Jim Crow?: "The Law is the foundation of society, the very fabric of our lives, you can't just pick and choose those you wish to obey, whether you think them just or not." I find that hard to believe.

Yet it is true.
All we do is governed by laws.
It's a strech to try to add MLK to a Hillary thread, BTW.

Then why do you expect me to use precedence to back up freedom of movement?

Why do you think it's relevant as to whether Hil does what she's paid to do?

I wouldn't say someone whose administration heralded the mass-murder of Filippinos as a qualification for the best president in US history (if you want to respond to this, please do so in the American War thread - I've got a response ready for ya already). Of course, that's not saying much.

If your going to repeat that old wives tale about "hundreds of thousands killed or murdered", don't bother. It's already been discredited by all established historians. And remember, if you do go for it, best to have REAL sources, not net ones, to back it up.

Sorry, no time right now.

Hardly matters, bored with this topic at this point anyway.

They don't recieve any public services! How are they possibly getting a free ride?

Not paying taxes.

I think it's your turn to provide me a source.

That the IRS cares about taxes?
You must be joking.

To prevent de-stabilizing ideas, ya know. Like the "criminal anarchy" law your favorite president passed.

Wonder why he passed that one?

Our immigration restrictions help prevent optimal allocation of labor.

Man, is that a vile sounding statement.
The "state" controlling who does what.
Makes me shudder just to think of it.

But motive is not the same thing as how.

No, it's not.

What "giant hole," pray tell? You simply rehashed the same ideas you've used above.

Hardly, go back and look agian, you seemed to have confused that one.

[faded glory]

I agree about the IRS. They have no trouble coming after my ass if I make the slightest mistake on my 1040 and charging me a huge ass fine.

[Simpson II]

Sooo.... not that I know anything about the woman worth talking about, but basing this on the posts of her detractors... the main problem is that the woman behaves like a politician, but isn't hypocritical about it, and doesn't try to score cheap points by shaking the right hands etc.?

Y'all probably love Tony Blair, huh?