Immigration reform - Amnesty bill

[Joshex]

let this be a polite discussion of individuals views on this.

My view? my girlfriend is from china, and the long distance relationship is getting to her.

getting her citizenship is nigh impossible through the normal methods and her parents wont let us marry just yet, so...

I'm kinda out of options, she has threatenned that our relationship will be effectively over if she has to go back to china again. which is coming up soon sometime in august to november.

I have a personal stake in this bill and beg people of all walks to consider what I'm going through.


and for republicans

Spoiler for Hidden:

consider that the bible does not say anything bad about the freedom of immigration, heck if it did can you immagine all the crimes jesus would have offended?

even in the old testament it says for the jews to be kind towards strangers from other lands who visit.

[dwturducken]

I'll be upfront and admit that I haven't really been paying as much attention to this one as I have others, but have there been people trying to make this one a biblical issue, too? I mean, it's not hard to make a biblical connection to any issue, maybe even our game. I'm just confused, is all.

[Joshex]

I'll be upfront and admit that I haven't really been paying as much attention to this one as I have others, but have there been people trying to make this one a biblical issue, too? I mean, it's not hard to make a biblical connection to any issue, maybe even our game. I'm just confused, is all.

not quite, I'm just generalizing that a a good portion of republicans may believe in the bible so I'm bringing up that angle.

[dwturducken]

OK, good. Like I said, I haven't really been paying as much attention, but I would put nothing past some extremists. Watching Westboro is like a spectator sport, some days.

[TimtheEnchanter]

Heh, I don't think you even needed to go there on one particular topic. Your common run-of-the-mill Republican, if he/she is religious, in MANY examples is the type of thing Jesus condemned. Pharisees more or less is what they are.

I presume she isn't cool with the idea of eloping?

[Rust]

Heh, I don't think you even needed to go there on one particular topic. Your common run-of-the-mill Republican, if he/she is religious, in MANY examples is the type of thing Jesus condemned. Pharisees more or less is what they are.

Pretty much this. It amazes me how many Pundits get on their pulpits and TV Shows and completely forget about Matthew 6.

As for Immigration Reform...I'm for reform, but I'm not comfortable with amnesty because I feel it sends the wrong message and rewards rule breakers while leaving those that were trying to do things "right" get left in the cold.

At the same time, I fully acknowledge there are too many in the country illegally to make it practical to do anything but give them a pass on their actions.

The best thing about this measure - and something its opponents fail to grasp - is that it offers fundamental protection under the law. A lot of opponents (I work early enough in the day on my drive home I can tune into the Pundits and Talking Heads ranting when I opt out of listening to faith based radio) see this bill as designed by employers of illegals to get a new influx of workers.

But that makes zero sense, since under this reform, said workers can now report abuse at workplaces and generally makes it that much more difficult for employers to mistreat their employees.

Overall, despite my own personal reservations, I feel reform is a good thing. This is a nation of immigrants (I myself am only third generation on my mother's side) and I feel that is a tradition worth keeping.

[Tenzhi]

I feel that there are too many people here as-is...  and while I suppose that's an encroaching global issue, I don't think we should make it easier for folks to just hop across our border and put down roots (particularly not for folks who already hopped across our border in a less-than-legal fashion).

Of course, I'd also be in favour of some population control laws.  Mandatory sterilization after 2+ kids, for instance. 

[silvers1]

I'm against amnesty for a number of reasons:

1.  You must have an immigration process to allow filtering of "undesirables".   ( i.e., those with criminal backgrounds, terrorists,
 mental issues, drug dealers,  etc. )

2.  The number of immigrants must be kept to a reasonable level to allow integration into existing society.   Most areas of the country
have existing cultures that have every right to exist and to continue.   If you bring in 10s of millions of people, those cultures will be
eradicated.   The incoming will feel they have sufficient numbers to enforce their culture on others.  I dont want the USA to become
"North Mexico Province".  What would happen would be very similar to what China is doing to Tibet.

3.  Cost - healthcare for these people is already bankrupting us.  If all of them come out of the shadows, in combination with Obamacare, the
cost will be staggering.  The economy cant take it.

4.  Respect for law - we have existing laws governing immigration, which this administration refuses to enforce. If you come into this country illegally, you show you have zero respect for law.  Why would you have respect for any other law?

5.   Balance of Political Parties - as of now, we have a stalemate between the two political parties.  I'd like to keep it that way.
If you give voting rights  to all of these "immigrants",  lets face it, they're voting Democrat.  That stalemate will be broken forever,
and the Dems will have complete control - forever.   While I'm sure Dems would love that, I dont think it's healthy for the country to give one
party that amount of power.   Just look at  the level of corruption in the NSA and IRS, and that's just from 5 years of control.

6.  Slavery - a lof of these people are taking menial and/or back breaking jobs and being paid sub minimum wage.  I consider this to be the "new slavery."  You give these people amnesty - then their employers will need a new set of "slaves" who are not protected by labor laws.  You've just
created a scenario where another 10-20 million replacements will come in.  Then another round of amnesty, it never ends.


From a biblical point of view,  I'm sure Jesus would say to not break the law, if the law is just.  Immigrations laws, which are meant to protect
existing citizens, are just.

[Segev]

The so-called "Immigration Reform" bill won't help your girlfriend. It will only help those who come here illegally gain a pseudo-legal status which keeps them from being entitled to the same legal protections and benefits (at the least in the work place) as those who came here according to the rules. If your girlfriend is here legally, she will, in fact, have nothing change for her with this atrocity's passage. If she becomes illegal, she will lose certain protections, but in the process, she might become more hire-able as employers will legally be able to employ her second-class immigrant-status person without having to provide Obamacare coverage, without having to obey minimum wage laws, without having to even really concern themselves with most other regulations governing benefits, pay, and possibly (it's not yet clear) workplace safety.

This isn't a "pro-immigration" nor even "pro-immigrant" bill. This is a bill designed to import a poor underclass to serve initially as a group that can be paid less than their legal (and citizen) counterparts, and then to provide a campaign issue for those who support big government to point out how inhumane that status is. They'll champion passing new laws overturning all the supposedly-tough provisions, granting all in this nation exactly what they already have: full access to our government benefits.

Its supposedly-tough border enforcement measures are really just proposals; the language of the bill expressly allows the Secretary in charge of INS to decide whether or not to use the funds as outlined in the bill, and only requires her to have a plan saying how she'd do it if she chose to before the amnesty provisions kick in. Given that this Secretary has - with her boss, Obama's, full backing - stated that she thinks the border is plenty secure, we know nothing will be enforced. In fact, we know she will act to prevent anybody from working towards it being more secure, as the Fed. has actively hamstringed any State-level efforts to protect their borders. (Whether you think the States' methods were right or wrong, you cannot deny that this administration has put them in a Catch-22: if the administration doesn't want to protect the border, they have no recourse at the State level.)

This bill is a hideously racist piece of cynical abuse, designed to transform illegal hispanic immigrants (and any others they can rope in; I suppose it's not "racist" so much as "classist") into a permanent, dependent underclass. There is an aspect of our political spectrum that cannot survive without poor, dependent people living on an effective plantation, and this bill is designed to feed that machine by creating new victims to be exploited on one side and then exploited by self-proclaimed champions on the other, the one to evade economy-killing policies and the other to use that evasion to justify still more such policies combined with a grab to get votes (legal or not!) from the new permanent underclass.

And in the process, it will only do as the 1986 law did, and encourage more illegal immigration, making a mockery of those immigrants who, like your girlfriend, followed the rules.


What we NEED is a Legal Immigrants' Rights Defense Act. This act would enforce border security and deny all benefits and support to anybody who is here illegally. It would give those who are caught but who have legal citizen children (due to the "born in the USA" part of our Constitution) the right to put their child up for adoption (thus not denying the child his rights as a US citizen) or take him with them (and foresake his citizenship, thus not breaking up the family), but it would still deport them. Why do this? To protect the rights of the LEGAL immigrants from being abused and trampled by law-breakers. It would and should also look at our approval process. It's old and creaky in this modern era, and needs a revamping. We need to have more high-tech research done on applicants to accelerate the process, and we need better tracking mechanisms so we can be more welcoming to more people without diminishing our security. Protections already extend to legal immigrants that make them, on a social and legal-protections level, pretty much as secure as US citizens. What we need are new provisions with hard-set requirements to protect our legal immigrants from unlawful and unfair competition for jobs, benefits, or what-have-you from illegals.

This bill now in the Senate won't do this. This bill now in the Senate will at best mock and at worst paint with a brush of resentment your girlfriend. She is, by the way this bill is written, an idiot for obeying our laws rather than coming here illegally. She will, too, be viewed with unfair suspicion because of this law, which paints all immigrants with the same brush and treats illegals as a protected underclass that nevertheless has no protection. Cultural resentment is inevitable, and will (by the design of the very campaigns used to promote the amnesty act: that is, the accusation that those who oppose amnesty are anti-immigrant, implying that illegals are no different than legals) harm legal immigrants' standing in society's eyes by making them look no different than the criminals who broke our laws to get here.


So, if you love and respect your girlfriend, and you want something that will help her, don't support this bill. It will, at best, do nothing to help her. It can, at worst, put her behind illegals in many unofficial waiting lines and harm her ability to be treated with respect by American society. This bill is destructive to the interests of all save the ruling class in this country, and seeks to improve the ruling class's lot by importing a still lower-class (and potentially lowering, by its inducements, currently legal immigrants to that lower class) for them to exploit.

[Ironwolf]

It is a very simple thing:

1. Countries have the right to secure their borders so they can apply laws and rights to those citizens who choose to live there.

2. The borders should be secure. You cannot allow free access to your country due to criminal and terrorist reasons.

3. Those currently living here because of the failure to do the first 2 - in spite of BILLIONS of dollars spent to do so - should be put through the regular immigration path. This mean no felony crimes or violent crimes - or you are deported.

4. Do it now, right now - stop the posturing and political games and make a simple law not a mess of free money giveaways and sweet deals to senators and their home states. It should be a free and clear bill with one purpose and no earmarks piled on.

5. Stop the politics of race and begin the politics of lawfulness. Under this current bill an illegal immigrant gets a lower charge or no charge at all than what a current citizen does and this is a CLEAR violation of the Constitution. Bill of righs Amendment 14 states: Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Equal protection under the law means all CITIZENS should get equal treatment and if these peoples want to join us - they should fall under our laws.


This is from a Tea Party conservative Democrat. I feel some issues are beyond politics and this is one of them. Make the country safe the same way you would put up a fence in some areas to secure your home.

[dwturducken]

Back up. What's a Tea Party conservative Democrat? My head about esploded when I read that.

[Ironwolf]

As for what the Run-of-the-mill Republican is like or what they believe may absolutely surprise you.

I am a Tea Party conservative DEMOCRAT - my father was the head of the CWA union in Michigan, my mother was a Teamster union steward. I was brought up to believe you vote for any social program you can PAY for. You don't pass the costs on to another gemeration and spend blindly.

I have studied the issues and John F. Kennedy was RIGHT of John McCain the last Republican to run for President.

Our country has turned HARD to the left and this is a normal thing. The Victorian period was followed by the roaring 20's. Then the Woodrow Wilson era where he founded many of the socialist programs and plans. It swung back as the country was threatened during WWII. The Veitnam era and soon as the waste fraud and abuses of a big government are seen to be damaging the country - it will be corrected.

I believe in a free society - where you can sink or swim based on your own talent and skill and you have your family, neighbors and faith to aid you when you falter. I do not believe most of the entitlement programs are doing anything to build a stronger country - in fact it weakens us socially and morally. Look at the witness in the Trayvon Martin trial. The poor girl is uneducated, clueless and sadly unable to stand on her own. We are meant to be independant and proud of it - that is how we were founded. When surrounded during a battle Chesty Puller a marine legend once said:

"Our Country won't go on forever, if we stay soft as we are now. There won't
be any AMERICA because some foreign soldiery will invade us and take our
women and breed a hardier race!"

"All right, they're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of
us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time"
- Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller, USMC

This as well as this by James Braddock a one time Heavy Weight champ who beat Max Schmeling and lost to Joe Louis:

Reporter: Bob Johnson, Boston Globe. Two days ago, we ran a story about you giving your relief money back. Can you tell our readers why?
Jim Braddock: I believe we live in a great country... a country that's great enough to help a man financially when he's in trouble. But lately, I've had some good fortune, and I'm back in the black. I just thought I should return it.

This work ethic is mostly gone or going and so will we soon.

[Ironwolf]

Back up. What's a Tea Party conservative Democrat? My head about esploded when I read that.

I believe we are Taxed Enough Already. I believe our government has stepped WAY past the limits the Constitution had in place for it and I believe they are seeking even more power and intrusion into our lives. I believe they waste most of the money given to them and that much of it goes to enrich themselves and their friends. Croney capitalism used to be illegal and you used to get impeached for it. Now we have set up a commitee of Foxes to guard the hen house and expect them to vote for more security and safety for chickens.

[Rust]

"The more laws, the less justice."

"Nothing is more unreliable than the populace, nothing more obscure than human intentions, nothing more deceptive than the whole electoral system."

"Laws are silent in time of war."

"When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff."

"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."

~ Marcus Tullius Cicero, circa 55 BC

Nothing changes.

And by that I mean the arguments for and against society - any society - are the same regardless of the era and age. I recall on my trip to the East Coast visiting several old cemeteries and one headstone bemoaned the arrogance of the Democrat party, and how America would be "as dead as I" in 50 years. This gentleman passed well before even our Civil War.

We see the worst, rather then the best. To use Rome as an example, the reason the Gauls sacked Rome was because they had been promised land, food, and security in Rome and received none of those things. The lands never materialized, the food was denied (Though in fairness to Rome, that was due more to a drought then malicious intent), and virtually all of the Gaul's children were seized into slavery or pressed into the Legions. The dam simply burst in that respect. You can only kick a dog so many times before it bites.

If we keep the illegal population of our own country in a legal grey area, we risk much the same things. I understand and agree with the concerns on crime, but ultimately I think in the long run this will defuse a lot of tension in areas that have substantial immigrant populations. To say nothing of suddenly generating a lot more tax revenue.

I work retail in a area with a large Hispanic population in a community that is pretty renowned for its isolation and racism. I've grown up here, but involuntarily "indoctrinated" to that way of thinking. And you know what?

There are more good people here then bad people. They aren't any different from you or I. They just want a better life. Sure there are some bad apples, but there are some bad apples in any ethnic group.

I say let them stay. Let them gain legal status and protections, and that way we ourselves do not find ourselves being overrun by the modern day Gauls - an oppressed secondary class with no rights and nothing endearing them to the society they live in.

[Segev]

As a Tea Party Conservative (republican, because I don't see anything even pretending to be in line with my beliefs on the democrat side), I can fully appreciate how one can be a Tea Party Conservative Democrat.

There is a lot in the professed beliefs and goals of the Democrat party to admire. I do not support even their purported means to get there, so I don't support their politicians, but I can see why their stated goals are attractive. (Again, I just don't think the policies they support will achieve them.)

I can easily see how a Democrat, supportive of stated aims of the party in broad terms, would still think that taxes are too high for too little return, how the government as its constituted - more and more clearly by both parties' leadership, especially in this Amnesty bill - is not actually interested in what it claims and is more corrupt than it is helpful, and possibly just plain too big even to achieve liberal big-government aims.

And Ironwolf, I don't mean to put words in your mouth. I am simply saying that I can fully appreciate how you and I, despite differing views of which party may once have had the right policies to achieve the best for this nation, could both be Tea Party supporters in the face of a government-of-and-for-the-ruling-class, which just wants us peons to sit down, shut up, and do as we're told.

[Ironwolf]

Yes, I currently tend to side with the Republican party due to their SLIGHTLY less intrusive stance. It is truly only a stance as they almost all appear to be hellbent on accuring power for themselves.

Look at this small comparison:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScMvZinMb6E

A JFK Democrat is absolutely nothing like a Clinton or Obama Democrat.

A great JFK speach:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ILqHSH4X_w

When the topmost members of the Republican side are left of JFK it shows you how far we have fallen as a country. We have given up freedoms to supposed economic and physical freedoms that are false. Look at all of the tragic disasters with Katrina, Sandy and even many of the mass killings. You look to the government for help and they fail repeatedly. A man with a weapon can in most cases only be stopped by another man with a gun. I am a veteran and a CCW licensed weapon carrier as such I am trained to be that man with a gun when it is needed.

Next door to me (I live way in the country) a tree fell down and I walked next door and asked if he needed help cutting it up, since he is 82. He said sure and by the way keep the wood - I know you burn it in the winter. I said something about this to a co-worker who lives in town and they were amazed. What a good neighbor you are they said - I was puzzled - it is what you do in rural areas - there is no government to help you when the nearest ambulance is 30 minutes away.

[Segev]

Yeah, I get a little tired of hearing about the Tea Party somehow "holding hostage" the leadership of the Republican party. The truth is about exactly the reverse, from my perspective. I'm not a "third party" proponent, but I do wonder if perhaps this country wouldn't be better represented by its leaders if the current Republican party leadership/establishment/RINOs/whatever-you-call-them shuffled over to officially join the Democrats and the Tea Party conservatives actually and actively took over the leadership of the Republican party.

Hey, if the "conventional wisdom" is right, and we're a bunch of nuts who cost the Republicans elections with our dangerous rhetoric, wouldn't that be good for the country, to finally sever our influence from the "moderate" Republicans and let them work with the "reasonable" Democrats?

(Conversely, if we're not as insane and dangerous as our political foes wish to paint us, it would be good for the nation because it would rebalance things so that the Democrats moderate by inclusion of the so-called "moderate" Republicans and the swath of the country class that is feeling disenfranchised suddenly has a clear voice to pit policy against policy on its merits.)

I mean, the immigration reform bill is demonstrating that the party lines are not representative of where actual philosophy and policy dividing lines lie: it's "Tea Party" vs. "Establishment" up there right now, not "Republican" vs. "Democrat." Perhaps we should re-align our party affiliations to reflect this reality.

[dwturducken]

The thing about political discussions, here, and, to a lesser degree, religious discussions, is that they eventually degenerate into each side's bigger whackadoos getting into it, starting a fight, Tony getting pissed and telling us all to calm down, and then someone shutting the thread down. So, here's a picture that my wife found appropriate:

[Segev]

I can't see the picture, but I will just go back to re-iterate my point to the OP: This bill won't help your girlfriend, and likely will hurt her. You do not want it to pass. Tell your Senator what you think of him for his vote on this bill, and pressure your congressman to oppose it if it comes to the floor of the House. And don't just take my word for it. Actually look for substantive reporting on what's in it. I'd suggest you try to read it, but that would put you head and shoulders above the Senators who voted on it.

[Ironwolf]

I actually believe in the idea that I may not believe in a single thing you say - but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Do you know in Iraq our soldiers were happy when after a short while people would gather and yell and tell them to go home? Why? Because after over 30 years of a brutal dictator within 6-12 months they realized the Americans would not harm them for speaking their mind. That was when the locals started turning in the Al Qauda operatives near them as they saw the soldiers cared and were fair.

If you can't freely talk to me and ignore political correctness we can learn from each other. I told a good friend who didn't often agree with me - I would rather you call me chief (I am cherokee) or some other insult if you feel that way so then we can go past the hate and learn to live with each other. In tribal lands we have had gay weddings for a very long time. It is considered that you are of 2 spirits both man and woman. It is also considered when one gets a bit loopy with old age that you live within 2 lands - both this world and the next and so you are still worthy of respect as you can't help but be confused in both worlds.

Having conversation and speaking freely really breaks down the hate that divides us.

[Rust]

Having conversation and speaking freely really breaks down the hate that divides us.

Agreed there. Also, speaking in politeness. Far, far too often in political discussions you get a degeneration from discussion to declaration and then people start getting huffy. As long as all sides can step back, breathe deep, and realize that ultimately no one is trying to be a "bad guy" and we're all on the same side - just having different ways of getting there - then political discourse can be a satisfying experience.

Coincidentally, I refuse to label myself via a political ideology. Mostly because none of them fit me personally. I think my last political alignment test put me somewhere in the range of socially progressive, fiscally conservative, with a leaning towards conservative communism/libertarianism. The reason I don't just call myself a Marxist is because like Marx himself I realize his political ideals are impractical in real world application. Human ego gets in the way, thus making it not applicable as a good system of government.

I'm just looking for the next Theodore Roosevelt, who is probably the last US President I really supported wholeheartedly. He was by no means a complete altruist (I mean, look what he and his Administration did in Panama to secure rights to build the canal), but I feel he was the last truly effective President this country has had - made the biggest strides in breaking the oligarchy and practiced rational conservation.

Needless to say, modern politicians leave me wanting.

So maybe I'm best at saying I'm a Bull Moose.

[Segev]

I think the only proper response here is...

*blows audience a kiss* Good night, everyone!

[Joshex]

Heh, I don't think you even needed to go there on one particular topic. Your common run-of-the-mill Republican, if he/she is religious, in MANY examples is the type of thing Jesus condemned. Pharisees more or less is what they are.

I presume she isn't cool with the idea of eloping?

she's ok with that but her parents wont allow it yet. and she respects her parents alot as comes with chinese culture..

her family said it's ok for her to get citizenship but not through marriage. not yet.

long distance relationship and red tape .. what do?

is there anyone here who owns a company that can help my girlfriend get a work visa and work permit for say... 3 years?

please any help will be heavily appreciated. my girlfriend is getting her masters in illustration at edinburgh colelge of art. she's almost got it. her course ends in late august and she gets the certificate in november.

[Surelle]

she's ok with that but her parents wont allow it yet. and she respects her parents alot as comes with chinese culture..

her family said it's ok for her to get citizenship but not through marriage. not yet.

long distance relationship and red tape .. what do?

is there anyone here who owns a company that can help my girlfriend get a work visa and work permit for say... 3 years?

please any help will be heavily appreciated. my girlfriend is getting her masters in illustration at edinburgh colelge of art. she's almost got it. her course ends in late august and she gets the certificate in november.

I think there's a lot of proof needed for a work visa that no citizen already in the US who's willing and able can already do that work instead.  We have unemployment here too and that is meant to protect US citizens.  I'm just sayin'.

But your girlfriend should do what everyone else does and apply for jobs.  Or have you ever considered dual citizenship with China if that's possible?  Or some sort of visa so you could go back with her for a while?

And by the way, eloping has nothing to do with what her parents are cool with or not.  Eloping means you don't ask them, you just run off and do it.     I'm not saying either of you should, but that's what it means.  I understand she doesn't want to marry you under those circumstances out of respect for them, and that's fine, but she's got to deal with the consequences of going back to China and so does her family.

[Joshex]

I think there's a lot of proof needed for a work visa that no citizen already in the US who's willing and able can already do that work instead.  We have unemployment here too and that is meant to protect US citizens.  I'm just sayin'.

But your girlfriend should do what everyone else does and apply for jobs.  Or have you ever considered dual citizenship with China if that's possible?  Or some sort of visa so you could go back with her for a while?

And by the way, eloping has nothing to do with what her parents are cool with or not.  Eloping means you don't ask them, you just run off and do it.     I'm not saying either of you should, but that's what it means.  I understand she doesn't want to marry you under those circumstances out of respect for them, and that's fine, but she's got to deal with the consequences of going back to China and so does her family.

1: china doesn't recognise dual citizenship. and she stronly doesn't want me to get chinese citizenship.

2: she has me applying for jobs for her but so far non of the art jobs in NY state are willing to fillout the forms necessary to help her get the Work visa.

3: I want to go back but her parents demand I get a bachelors degree, and she only gave me 3 years to meet those requirements. then she dumps me. So I am forced to stay here for school. (I also ahve limited money and can;t afford other schools that supply online programs and Idon't have enough money to buy a plane ticket to china lol. I'm currently out of work, ahve been for several months, but now I'm more concerned about fidning her work here in the USA)

4: she said she will respect her parents and not get married to me yet.

5: Really, any help would be great, I really don;t mind sharing personal info if it means one of the business owners of titan will help us get her Work visa in order. all you'd have to claim is you need her in the country on call to perform art when necessary.

heh she loves CoH I'm sure she'll gladly draw advertisements we really just need some way for her to be here with me.

[Taceus Jiwede]

Joshex, that is a tough call.  Too be honest, if the stipulation is marriage or being dumped.  I say take the latter.  I know that isn't what you want but love has no stipulations.  If you have to get a bachelors in 3 years, she doesn't want you in china unless you have the following, her parents won't let her marry and get citizenship that way.  And you constantly are fearing getting dumped if you don't complete this marriage check list that doesn't seem right for anyone man.  That is just my 2 cents, I am not saying leave her.  Just do whats best for you.  Marriage is a long time(or its suppose to be at least)is this the woman you want to spend the rest of your life with?  To be honest the solution is just get married and give her citizenship but if she truly wont do this then you have done all you can do then there is nothing more you can do.  It takes two people to get married and if she isn't going as far out of her to way to do it as your are then that isn't your fault.  The bill really isn't your concern here, it sounds like even if she could just walk into a coffee shop and get her visa there would still be a bunch of other stipulations to this marriage.  Just saying, not trying to harsh your buzz or ruin a relation ship here, but both sides need to be looked at before making a big decision like marriage.

[Captain Electric]

Well, my political leanings are wacky theory-crafting things which are tempered by the belief that our civilization is primitive; I vote for candidates, but I vote based on how many of my own interests they're likely to further during a term. It's complicated, and it sometimes leads to me voting for candidates whose politics are foundationally opposed to my own. But in 500 years, no one will care about today's health care. I just want people to still be around in 500 years. And if I had my way, everyone would vote their interests. I personally know people who will vote their parties interests before their own, for such mundane reasons as the fear of familial disapproval, or the general IQ-reducing spectre of groupthink. I do not believe these people fully understand what's at stake, incrementally, in the long term. Rust's history lesson about the Gauls is wonderful.

The real reason I came in here is to say that I'm extremely impressed by the maturity, respectfulness, and (some) open-mindedness of this discussion (which is all you can ever hope for). It has been a pleasure to read, and one more reason this community is a step above the rest.

[ukaserex]

I think that the parents are being...well, they are thinking, I would say.
 For me, if it were my daughter, her love for her man isn't quite enough. He must love her as well - and for me, part of that love is the ability to provide, particularly if my daughter were going to be half way around the world where I couldn't help her in a timely manner if she needed it. From a parental perspective, the bachelors degree provides some measure of character: Resourcefulness, persistence and determination. Good tools to have in any job market. I'm not saying that they are right, realistic or evil and unromantic or any combination thereof. They just....well, they just are the way they are and feel the way they feel, much like any of us.

My first reaction about the parents as I read through the thread, they don't want their daughter to get married because she loves America, they want their daughter to get married because she loves her fiance. I'm not at all up on the cultural differences a Chinese couple might have about this situation, so of course, I could be as clueless about this as I was about hold magnification difference between blasters and controllers before @Pickle gave me an education about it.

As for the immigration bill, like any governmental measure, it won't solve all our immigration issues. No single bill/law can. Is it a step in the right direction? That's tough for me to say. I think that's tough for anyone to know, one way or another.

As for helping her get a job, honestly, I tell this to everyone I know - as it's the way I got the job I have now. Have every friend and family member you know ask every friend they have if there is anyone they know who actually does the hiring that will give her a chance. That is how most jobs are gotten today - by networking. Dropping an application in today is like waging war on greenpeace. It's just a waste of paper. Managers today are doing more work for less pay just like everyone else. Filtering through applications is almost a lost art, so managers (in general) rely heavily upon references from people they know, friends or co-workers.
I wish you both well. Just remember that love is an action, and not an emotion and you'll do fine.

[sawlight88]

im against it for the reason that as a natural born United States citizen, if i break the law in any regard even a speeding ticket. i get no amnesty. that also means if i get caught smoking a joint im going in for it. people commit a felony by entering the county illegally and were supposed to just let them off the hook?

further, this is a symptom of a greater problem in the United States. anyone from around the world should be allowed to come here and roam freely. but that is complicated by the fact that American's are now defined by their Social Security Number. the identification process, or if one is even legal needs to be addressed. the greater problem here being identity theft. the federal government is required to protect its citizens. so if it wants to identify people the fed MUST protect those identities BEFORE acquiring new ones.

but at the end of the day, nothing will be made of this immigration/amnesty debated. it will go no where in any branch of the federal government because no one really favors the issue. just the other night i was watching the O'reilly Factor and a member of the Black Caucus was on his show saying their not voting for amnesty because it hurts the black community.

case closed.

[Rust]

FOX News manufactures its own narrative to suit the ideals of its owner. Murdoch has admitted as much time and again.

The problem with FOX News, and indeed all 24 Hour News Networks, is that they mislabel themselves as "News" when in fact, they are actually "Opinionated Editorial" Networks. Bill O'Reilly and whomever he has on his show are speaking for no one beyond Bill O'Reilly and whomever he has on his show, in the boundaries set out by Murdoch in order to shape public opinion.

Bill O'Reilly was the host of Inside Edition. Glenn Beck's origin lay as a morning drive Shock Jock who hired a playboy bunny to do the weather. These aren't individuals with extensive careers in journalism, but entertainers paid to spin a good yarn and make their mandated position look viable.

After all, Bill O'Reilly was the man who argued that Christianity was not a religion, but a philosophy in order to counter an Atheist's point.

[sawlight88]

setting aside a debate over the merits of Fox News, the fact is they do get interviews with elected officials. even if only to show us how dumb they are.

i was just using the interview with Bill O as an example of how immigration is dead on arrival. it could be pushed through but the government has been illegitimate for years

[Rust]

A comedy show gets interviews with elected officials. It doesn't mean much. A elected official's involvement is more dependent on the size of the check then any sort of legitimacy.

As for Immigration, I don't think it's Dead on Arrival - but neither do I feel it's altruistic. Corporations have just gotten tired of jumping through legal hoops to hire on migrant workers, and thus are "legitimizing" their worker base. Nothing at all about society will change (As immigrants do the jobs no one else wants to begin with), the only difference is Corporations will no longer get the slap on the wrist for hiring illegals.

[Mantic]

I am a Republican and an Atheist. Lately I don't much like my party's leaders, but theirs remains the closest political platform to my own positions in this country.

Rust pretty much nailed what is behind all this legal maneuvering on the issue: corporate self-interest, and nothing more.

Your underage girlfriend has other options. If she were old enough to be making a decision on her citizenship, she would be free to pursue it normally (or at least to maintain her student visa long enough to become a legal adult and begin the process, if that's her intent). It seems to me that if she were serious about that intent, she would not be telling you that it ends with her next return to China. People don't just abandon things they care about (though teenagers leave summer flings in a foreign land behind them all the time).

[Kyriani]

[Rust]

Sweden also have a two year mandatory military service, with prison time for "Draft Dodgers". I remember back in college we had a Swedish Transfer student who didn't want to do military service and so stalled up his return with Visa negotiations (He may have even tried asking for asylum, I can't recall - it's been about ten years ago). When he was finally forced to return, he was looking at possible prison time because he'd missed his mandatory sign up date.

I mention this because no system is "perfect". But I do agree that our elected officials should wear jumpsuits like NASCAR has, so we can see at a glance who is funding them.

[Kyriani]

Sweden also have a two year mandatory military service, with prison time for "Draft Dodgers". I remember back in college we had a Swedish Transfer student who didn't want to do military service and so stalled up his return with Visa negotiations (He may have even tried asking for asylum, I can't recall - it's been about ten years ago). When he was finally forced to return, he was looking at possible prison time because he'd missed his mandatory sign up date.

I mention this because no system is "perfect". But I do agree that our elected officials should wear jumpsuits like NASCAR has, so we can see at a glance who is funding them.

I agree no system is perfect but that shouldnt stop us from trying to make something better. With that said your info is a bit out of date.

Since 1901, Military Service was mandatory in Sweden until July 1st 2010 when conscription was officially suspended during peace time. Until 2010, all Swedish men aged between 18 and 47 years old were eligible to serve with the armed forces over a period ranging from 80 to 450 days. The right to Conscientious Objection was legally recognised in 1920. An alternative community service for Conscientious Objectors was easily available instead of military service. The number of those seeking conscientious objector status declined as actual conscript recruitment continued to decline. In the years running up to 2010 roughly 6000 - 8000 people out of an annual cohort of 100,000 - 120,000 potential recruits actually completed military service.

[Ironwolf]

What I see so very many missing in debates about our government is the original purpose of the government:

To provide a framework for freedom and individual responsibility. This link http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/ will give you the documents our countries founders used to write our Constitution and other documents. I see people keep turning to the government time and again when throughout the history of the nation it is the people not the government who help each other.

Our current government has zero respect for the law. They lie to congress during testamony, they spy on us without limit, they refuse to slow down and actually have debates about issues that affect us in very personal ways.

Look at the IRS scandal - a party in power used the IRS to intimidate members of the public who disagreed with the government. This wasn't made up they actually did it - the IRS publically apologized for it. Now understand the FBI has not contacted a single Tea Party group - they were asked to investigate and instead they are stalling and the entire Justice department is in collusion with the President and his administration. Let's turn the clock forward 4 years - let us say a Republican wins and is President - the IRS now handles your healthcare. What happens if these same corrupt federal employees now target Liberals and refuse to give them proper healthcare? They never say no, they just stonewall and delay.

This is the potential we face - the fact we let ANY politician or federal employee have power beyond the scope granted in the Constitution. The Constitution was written to protect the people from our government. We have let the government use loopholes and greed to grasp more and more power. Normally I don't agreed with term limitations but our government is so far out of control they need to have a total limit for governmental service of 20 years - period. Idiots like Sander Levin whose Brother is in charge of the IRS investigation and who sent repeated letters to the IRS asking them to harass the Tea Party groups!

http://fox40.com/2013/05/10/following-tea-party-complaints-irs-admits-mistakes/

http://blogs.detroitnews.com/politics/2013/05/16/michigan-tea-party-head-obamas-irs-narrative-defies-credibility/

What we have now in Washington is the foxes in charge of the henhouse and they just ask us who is for dinner today? They carve out money for their friends who then give them jobs for friends and families for the money. Look at all the green nonsense money thrown away by the billions. I obviously don't want dirty water, air or land. How about instead spend money on proven technology.

[Kyriani]

[Ironwolf]

I will agree it is ALL of the politicians who are causing this regardless of party.

Now your list of givers and takers - Those blue states are hugely in debt - California is over $16 billion in debt. Those red states are very poor on the whole and yet they are tasked with giving out all the same entitlements the richer states do. Compare texas to California. Take a look at Indiana - they actually setup health saving accounts for all state employees and invited all living in the state to join the group if they wish.

Look lets face it the true measure today is how much money do I bring back to my state. There is a serious problem with our current government and believe it or not it was started by our first Socialist President Woodrow Wilson. He foisted the 17th amendment on us that elected Senators by popular vote not as selected by the state. Before this most Senators were appointed by the Governor or State Senators. This alters the entire scope of government. Now the Senate becomes overlords like the Parliment in England and the Congress the House of Commons.

This was in no means what was intended. They were all to hold each other in balance. That is how the Senate completely changed a bill the House passed to become Obamacare. It is no longer a government of laws. They do what they will and to hell with us.

[Kyriani]

I will agree it is ALL of the politicians who are causing this regardless of party.

Now your list of givers and takers - Those blue states are hugely in debt - California is over $16 billion in debt. Those red states are very poor on the whole and yet they are tasked with giving out all the same entitlements the richer states do. Compare texas to California. Take a look at Indiana - they actually setup health saving accounts for all state employees and invited all living in the state to join the group if they wish.

Look lets face it the true measure today is how much money do I bring back to my state. There is a serious problem with our current government and believe it or not it was started by our first Socialist President Woodrow Wilson. He foisted the 17th amendment on us that elected Senators by popular vote not as selected by the state. Before this most Senators were appointed by the Governor or State Senators. This alters the entire scope of government. Now the Senate becomes overlords like the Parliment in England and the Congress the House of Commons.

This was in no means what was intended. They were all to hold each other in balance. That is how the Senate completely changed a bill the House passed to become Obamacare. It is no longer a government of laws. They do what they will and to hell with us.

I can't really disagree with alot of what you say. I just wanted it to be clear that it isnt one party or the other doing bad things. Both of them are and it sucks. I wish we could have a real third party that finally knocks the socks off of both reps and the dems and brings about a golden age in the United States.

[Ironwolf]

Isn't it odd that many on both sides feel the same way and yet they are powerless to chnage it?

I know Sarah Palin is seriously considering forming the Freedom party that returns to an originalist view - ignoring personal feelings on her love/hate it is a very good idea. It would cause ripples that would pull things back to the center of our opinions and not pass bills that have on 30% of the publics backing.

Some will jump now and say the original folks allowed slavery - they also allowed for a stable way for our country to learn and grow and abolish such issues. Voting rights for women, solved. Amendments allow us to fix a country gone down the wrong path and also repealing those that have gone to far. When the Victorian era over shot and passed Prohibition - it was corrected. Now we need more actual laws to enforce the checks and balances. Remember it says the President can be impeached for High Crimes - and Misdemeanors. So he was to uphold the laws.

[Kyriani]

[Ironwolf]

You may know I am not a christian, however having said that the American way was founded on a Judao-christian ethic. There is religion mentioned when it openly states all of our rights are god given. Our rights do not originate from the power of government but in the eyes of the founders - by virtue of us being alive and a citizen of this country that god saw fit to help establish.

There is much to honor in the true christian/jewish mindset. They do not judge you for not believing if they are real believers - they are sorry you don't know god's love. Some modern view points have gone to excess to battle what many see as the rapid decay of moral fibre in our country. The mindset of allowing no religion to reflect in peoples lives was also not the standing of the original documents. You could not work to establish a government ran central church like the Church of England they escaped from.

I don't feel put upon or threatened when folks want to pray. i quietly listen to they words and where we agree I add my positive thoughts. It really has been proven that the tidal forces of prayer have at times caused miracles. I can join the forces without directing mine the same way

[Kyriani]

[FatherXmas]

Well for the most part the founders were "enlightened" Christians, Deists who basically believed in one God, who created everything, who gave us reason and free will, and then sat back and watch what unfolds.  Sort of the basis of "The Sims" without the bricking people into rooms or removing ladders from the pool and watch them die.

They believed that any religious text was imperfect, that organized religion is corrupt and imperfect due to them, like any organization, being run by men (as in mankind).  And men are imperfect beings with agendas that may not be necessarily looking out for the good of all.

But there is still a chicken and the egg thing going on with the most basic rules of society.  Did they come down from upon high first as some say or were they later attributed to a greater power as a means to encourage following them.  You can't really have a stable community if murder, stealing and coveting each other's SOs isn't highly discouraged and what better discouragement than saying an all powerful entity says it's wrong, you will be punished if you do those things and you can't avoid punishment by simply dying.  Fear of God(s) works most of the time.

There is also some truth about Judeo-Christian ethics since the vast majority of the existing population at the time of the founding, at least the ones that count (yes that is a reference to slavery), were from England or Europe which was Judeo-Christian for hundreds and hundreds of years.  Certain "rules" of society had been collectively drilled into the societal psyche for countless generations until they were held as truths.  And a lot of those "rules" were codified into laws and it's not like we started laws from scratch here when the country was founded, the founders brought them with them from the old world. 

What the founders did try to do is to separate the governance of the people from future organized religious influence.  The ye olde separation of Church and State.  State can't interfere in organized religion while organized religion can't interfere with the State.  But men are involved running the State and men bring their religious beliefs with them.  Men are imperfect beings after all.  Which is why the Supreme Court is suppose to be the final arbiter of laws by going back to the Constitution, which was suppose to be limiter of what the State is allowed to do.

[Ironwolf]

[Segev]

I can't really disagree with alot of what you say. I just wanted it to be clear that it isnt one party or the other doing bad things. Both of them are and it sucks. I wish we could have a real third party that finally knocks the socks off of both reps and the dems and brings about a golden age in the United States.

Er, no. There were maybe 6 left-wing groups "targeted," and even that seems spurious on further investigation (as they all got their approvals, while the Tea Party groups did not). There were hundreds of Tea Party groups treated in this way, most of whom still haven't gotten approvals (and neither have they been rejected for being invalid; they're being held up with endless bureaucratic delays).

Don't get me wrong; I don't care for the so-called "leadership" of the Republican party in the current government. But to say "both sides do it" is not maturity; it is either willful blindness or out-right apologia for the Left. "Well, um, you did it, too!" is a school-yard attempt to justify bad behavior, not an actual statement of fact nor justification.

I don't trust the Republicans who run the party machine or who are in supposed positions of leadership; I don't doubt that more than a few of them are corrupt, but comparatively, that's not why I distrust them. I don't think they would, on their own, completely ignore the law with the only pretense to following it being saying "nuh uh! We're totally following it!" as they ignore it. I think, rather, they cannot lead, because they WANT the power of an unfettered government...they just lack the guts and audacity to act on it without the Democrats to give them cover by actually taking the lead on it.

I do think the Republican party is the best hope we have, but only if the leadership is more or less gutted and stronger souls are put in place to run the thing. Say what you like about "Tea Party Republican" members of the House and Senate; they do what they said they would (or they lose the support that put them there...and I suspect Rubio is going to no longer be quite so warmly received for just that reason). Regardless of who is right about where the country is and how to get us out of this mess, surely it is to everybody's best interest that the Republican party give up on trying to be Democrat-lite and get leadership that represents its base.

If the Left is right, and that spells the doom of the Republican party by "showing its true colors," then won't that be to the benefit of the nation as the Democrats absorb whatever moderates there are and are pulled towards fiscal responsibility while staying the course on the policies that - under the hypothesis that the Left is right about how things should be run - will save the country and make it greater than it ever has been?

If the Right is right, and a staunchly conservative and boldly unapologetic Republican party properly represents its base and the majority of American views on personal responsibility and hunger for equal and unfettered opportunity, would that not be best for the nation as that party swept into power and instituted policies that - under the hypothesis that the Right is right about how things should be run - will save the country and turn it loose to find the path that leads it towards further greatness?

I think the only people served by a Republican party led by weak-willed, mealy-mouthed, "moderate" RINO Republicans are the disingenuous who are only out for their own personal power. On the Left because they know it will create a weak opposition party that is perpetually defeatable and secure their power no matter what they do to the country in pursuit of their own philosophical goals and personal wealth and power. On the RINO side because they are clinging to power and a place in the ruling class that they couldn't hold if they were replaced by people who better represent their supposed constituents. Republican consultants make a lot of money selling the idea that moderates are where it's at, and it doesn't seem to matter whether the campaigns they run win or lose; they still get paid a ton of money. Republican "leaders" get invited to the right kind of parties when they kow-tow to the Left and compromise (which, I must say, I've yet to see the Left actually do: "compromise" always means "move towards the Left's position, which is declared to be already the moderate one," and no matter how far the Republicans go, if they don't just give in completely, they are "refusing to compromise").

So again, I think it is best for all honest seekers of America's best interests for the Republican party to truly represent the Right-wing base. The Democrats - if they're being honest about what they believe - should applaud such a self-destructive move, as it will destroy their opposition so they can get on with the business of running the country. The Right - if they're right about the true state of things - will finally have representation in the leadership of the nation that they haven't truly had in a quarter-century.

We'll see which is truly representative of the nation, and we'll get honest and open debate. Win-win for all honest men and women on both sides.

[Ironwolf]

Segev - you beat me to it - the IRS targetted at a ratio of roughly 100 to 1 - Tea party versus Liberal groups. The IRS openly apologized and the White House admitted it was done and said it was not right.

So far only 6 Liberal groups were kown to have been asked extra questions. This when about 600 tea Party groups were targetted. Also the FBI under Holder's direction has not asked a single Tea Party group what happened. They were told to investigate. They are not because it leads back to the White House.

[FatherXmas]

Can we steer this back to Immigration reform.

I would like to point out that Europe and Asia strictly enforce their immigration laws and illegal immigration is treated harshly including imprisonment followed by deportation.

The problem we have is at our core we are a country of immigrants.  And while our nation was growing we really didn't mind taking to many in of those fleeing Europe.  Back then we needed lots of strong bodies to help develop this country.  Problem now is we aren't growing anymore where it counts, and that's financially.  As long as the GDP was growing faster than inflation, sure more the merrier, but now that our economy has stalled out, more people means everyone's slice is smaller.

And that's the fear about amnesty.  If we offer amnesty and an alternate way to get your green card or citizenship then why would anyone want to follow the proper procedure?  We'll end up with a situation like AE in CoH.  AE was an alternate means to achieve the same goals as if you played the regular game content.  So a lot of people simply choose that as the easiest way to level up their character.   We have this tendency to grant amnesty every 30 years or so and every time was the very last time we will bend the rules so why not assume we'll be doing this again in another 30 years?  If we have amnesty we need enforcement with teeth and the manpower and willpower to do it.  It's just we aren't willing to really do enforcement because that's where most of the costs are involved.

[Nos482]

Cost - healthcare for these people is already bankrupting us.  If all of them come out of the shadows, in combination with Obamacare, the
cost will be staggering.  The economy cant take it.

LOLWUT?
Wars and Wallstreet banksters have bankrupted you.

5.   Balance of Political Parties - as of now, we have a stalemate between the two political parties.  I'd like to keep it that way.
If you give voting rights  to all of these "immigrants",  lets face it, they're voting Democrat.  That stalemate will be broken forever,
and the Dems will have complete control - forever.   While I'm sure Dems would love that, I dont think it's healthy for the country to give one
party that amount of power.   Just look at  the level of corruption in the NSA and IRS, and that's just from 5 years of control.

Actually you live in a one party system. What's the biggest difference between Bush's and Obama's administration?
Umm....healthcare maybe. But besides that it's the same stuff, and I highly doubt it will change when the Republicans get back to power...but maybe it will get worse.
NSA, IRS and the other three letter groups have always been bastards...it's their fricking job. They just become more corrupt the more power they get; and with all those Stasi laws you have right now that's a lot of power for them.


@Joshex
Just marry her.
Her parents will either accept it or they already hate you. In which case they'll never give their OK.

[dwturducken]

Declaration of Independance:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Declaration_of_Independence

I am really at a loss when someone can ignore that those who wrote this document were almost to a man well known as christians and the words of the Declaration of Independance follow those in the Bill of rights very closely.

I'm really getting tired of seeing this misconception tossed around as "proof," and it's not an aspersion on you, Wolfie. I see it frequently on both sides of the argument, at all levels of education.

The Declaration of Independence is not a document of governance. It is a list of grievances, an open letter to the editor, so to speak. Yes, there is a lot in the Bill of Rights that parallels those same grievances, but the English Magna Carta had more actual influence on the drafting of the Constitution than the Declaration of Independence did. True, as you say, the Constitution was drafted and passed by a bunch of white, Christian men. However, like the Bible, there are some things that have not carried forward with the times as well as some would have hoped, like anything in either document dealing with the regulation (not the abolition) of slavery.

I'm not taking sides in this, and I'm not even sure why I'm reading it, let alone commenting on it. Carry on.

[Rust]

like anything in either document dealing with the regulation (not the abolition) of slavery.

Ironically for the very reason Immigration Reform is often dodged around - Economic. Immigrant workers are the backbone of the economy, especially agriculture.

Ever buy meat under the Tyson Brand? The Processing Centers for Tyson operate at speeds in excess to what mechanization could achieve, and they slow for No Man.

Like Spinach? Savor the flavor while reminding yourself that what you spend 30 seconds consuming was hand picked in the field by a man who spends nine hours a day on his knees.

It's not that mechanization and more efficient methods don't exist - it's that there's no reason to implement mechanization when you have  cheap, ultimately disposable labor at your beck and call. A lot of people who come in to my place of business are hispanics about my age, but are using canes, walkers, and wheelchairs. They've literally destroyed their bodies working.

[Joshex]

As always I try to solve my own problems, so I wrote a short bill of reforms.

as with alot of my works it is a rough draft.

you may be able to tell why I would suggest these reforms.

Spoiler for Hidden:

Immigration Reform (Short Bill)

For the consideration of the house of representatives, the president and the senate.

I: First and foremost we must address border security, Desire to live here, Respect for USA culture and Loyalty.

Ia: Border security; Currently we have insufficient units in place to moderate our borders against potentially harmful persons. This will be addressed in the following articles.

II: Desire to live here; there is a distinct desire of persons in other countries to come and reside in the USA. This aspect of 'Hopes of Freedom' could very well influx our country with too many people to the point of over population bringing disease and other things with it. This is a serious concern as it could lead to citizen deaths from multiple sources including being pushed out of work.


IIa: Desire and border security; to be able to combine these two would be preferential.
   IIb: Open the borders on a conditional basis; Foreigners can come here with pseudo-citizen status under the following conditions;
1: They are not listed as a Terrorist or violent member of a gang or violent cult or potentially violent religion.
2: There is no known record of them breaking US laws in their previous country of residence or in the United States prior to their official admission.
3: They contain no infectious diseases, STD or otherwise.
4: this admission does not constitute full citizenship, admission in this state disables the person(s) from receiving disability, welfare, public assistance and social security. In addition any and all gambling, sweepstakes, game-show and lottery winnings will be forfeited unless the persons obtain legal permission to accept such prizes.
5: They will be legally allowed and given identification documents to Work or gain employment in the United States as long as all other provisions of this document continue to be met., they must still agree to pay taxes.
6: While in the United States these persons can apply for citizenship; this citizenship will be admitted on the basis of their country's yearly allowance and all normal legal citizenship considerations by the United States Government.
7: while under the provisions of this document persons may be selected for mandatory Border Control Duty for which they will be compensated at a adequate rate. At any time individuals in these conditions may make provisions to stay employed in this position indefinitely.
8: persons under this provision may not join the armed forces or military other than the coast guard and border patrol.
9: persons under this provision are required to send their kids to school for which they are legally forced to pay a fee of $200 per child per year unless they are married to a USA citizen.
10: these persons children who are born in the united states will not be considered USA citizens from birth, but rather citizens of their parent's country.

III: loyalty
1: loyalty must be proven through a legal signing of documents and an oath by the person(s) immigrating indicating that they will refrain from taking back or sending more that 10% of their earnings to their country of origin each year. The documents must be explained to them in their own language and the oath must be given in English by them or a person legally authorized to translate for them.

2: persons immigrating in this manner must sever ties with any foreign government positions or organizations they formerly were in proceedings with unless they were a violator of that government's laws at which point their will be handed back over to their country of origin.

IV: Respect
1: Person(s) immigrating through any immigration program must willfully acknowledge through oath and signing of documents in a manner they can understand, that they are no longer in their old country and it is forbidden for them to vote or cast their ideologies, religion or culture onto the persons of this country, in addition they must respect that the official language of this country is English, as such there is no legal method for them to file lawsuit based on lack of compensation for their own language.

2: The moment they are caught offending a USA law or the articles of this document they will be treated as a foreign criminal and their immigration rights may be revoked and they may be deported.

3: Persons caught crossing the border at illegitimate points of entry will be considered and treated as terrorists until proven otherwise by official immigration or USA identification documents.

4: Immigrated Violators of our laws will be prosecuted and jailed in their country of origin.

bassically; let them in, let them protect our borders, they can't vote or claim benefits until they are Full citizens However they must still pay taxes and social security (help recharge the declining social security funds the government had illegally dipped into.) by allowing everyone in only the undesireables will be crossing at illigitimate points of entry hence treating them as terrorists unless they can provide documents of residence (for emergencies), jail them in thier own country if they are found guilty of crimes (to encourage them to be crime free and to unburden american jails from having to deal with them.

Border Control Duty INSTEAD of Jury Duty

Kids of these must be paid for to discourage large foriegn families trying to unload kids into our public education system. and especially to discourage overpopulation from foriegners.

they can't be criminals or have ties to a foriegn government or cult or violent organization.

they can't be carrying diseases.

[Segev]

Er, isn't putting "open" immigrants on the border to guard it kind of like having the foxes guard the hen-house?

No, the proper procedure is to secure our border, ourselves, have a strict deportation policy for any illegals caught committing crimes (and yes, being here illegally is a crime, but we can prioritize with those we catch because they're committing other crimes that actually draw attention through their criminal activity), crack down on employers who employ them (but give them a fair chance to prove they did all they could to verify and were fooled; we're after justice and encouragement of good behavior, not punitive measures for the sake of being "tough").

We then, in separate legislation, after this is enacted and being executed, work on reforming our legal immigration laws to use modern technology and techniques geared for modern needs.

Honestly, we would be better off with legislation designed to protect the rights of LEGAL immigrants ALREADY HERE against the exploitation and harm caused by their illegal counterparts; it devalues the legal immigrants' efforts to be here legally, and it actively foments distrust of immigrants to have this horrid conflation of legal and illegal immigration in the language of the discussion.

We should be lauding our legal immigrants, and working with them to identify the illegals and prevent them from taking the legals' opportunities.

[Rust]

Er, isn't putting "open" immigrants on the border to guard it kind of like having the foxes guard the hen-house?

No different then hiring illegal immigrants to build a border fence. No, seriously.

[FatherXmas]

As always I try to solve my own problems, so I wrote a short bill of reforms.

as with alot of my works it is a rough draft.

you may be able to tell why I would suggest these reforms.

Spoiler for Hidden:

Immigration Reform (Short Bill)

For the consideration of the house of representatives, the president and the senate.

I: First and foremost we must address border security, Desire to live here, Respect for USA culture and Loyalty.

Ia: Border security; Currently we have insufficient units in place to moderate our borders against potentially harmful persons. This will be addressed in the following articles.

II: Desire to live here; there is a distinct desire of persons in other countries to come and reside in the USA. This aspect of 'Hopes of Freedom' could very well influx our country with too many people to the point of over population bringing disease and other things with it. This is a serious concern as it could lead to citizen deaths from multiple sources including being pushed out of work.


IIa: Desire and border security; to be able to combine these two would be preferential.
   IIb: Open the borders on a conditional basis; Foreigners can come here with pseudo-citizen status under the following conditions;
1: They are not listed as a Terrorist or violent member of a gang or violent cult or potentially violent religion.
2: There is no known record of them breaking US laws in their previous country of residence or in the United States prior to their official admission.
3: They contain no infectious diseases, STD or otherwise.
4: this admission does not constitute full citizenship, admission in this state disables the person(s) from receiving disability, welfare, public assistance and social security. In addition any and all gambling, sweepstakes, game-show and lottery winnings will be forfeited unless the persons obtain legal permission to accept such prizes.
5: They will be legally allowed and given identification documents to Work or gain employment in the United States as long as all other provisions of this document continue to be met., they must still agree to pay taxes.
6: While in the United States these persons can apply for citizenship; this citizenship will be admitted on the basis of their country's yearly allowance and all normal legal citizenship considerations by the United States Government.
7: while under the provisions of this document persons may be selected for mandatory Border Control Duty for which they will be compensated at a adequate rate. At any time individuals in these conditions may make provisions to stay employed in this position indefinitely.
8: persons under this provision may not join the armed forces or military other than the coast guard and border patrol.
9: persons under this provision are required to send their kids to school for which they are legally forced to pay a fee of $200 per child per year unless they are married to a USA citizen.
10: these persons children who are born in the united states will not be considered USA citizens from birth, but rather citizens of their parent's country.

III: loyalty
1: loyalty must be proven through a legal signing of documents and an oath by the person(s) immigrating indicating that they will refrain from taking back or sending more that 10% of their earnings to their country of origin each year. The documents must be explained to them in their own language and the oath must be given in English by them or a person legally authorized to translate for them.

2: persons immigrating in this manner must sever ties with any foreign government positions or organizations they formerly were in proceedings with unless they were a violator of that government's laws at which point their will be handed back over to their country of origin.

IV: Respect
1: Person(s) immigrating through any immigration program must willfully acknowledge through oath and signing of documents in a manner they can understand, that they are no longer in their old country and it is forbidden for them to vote or cast their ideologies, religion or culture onto the persons of this country, in addition they must respect that the official language of this country is English, as such there is no legal method for them to file lawsuit based on lack of compensation for their own language.

2: The moment they are caught offending a USA law or the articles of this document they will be treated as a foreign criminal and their immigration rights may be revoked and they may be deported.

3: Persons caught crossing the border at illegitimate points of entry will be considered and treated as terrorists until proven otherwise by official immigration or USA identification documents.

4: Immigrated Violators of our laws will be prosecuted and jailed in their country of origin.

bassically; let them in, let them protect our borders, they can't vote or claim benefits until they are Full citizens However they must still pay taxes and social security (help recharge the declining social security funds the government had illegally dipped into.) by allowing everyone in only the undesireables will be crossing at illigitimate points of entry hence treating them as terrorists unless they can provide documents of residence (for emergencies), jail them in thier own country if they are found guilty of crimes (to encourage them to be crime free and to unburden american jails from having to deal with them.

Border Control Duty INSTEAD of Jury Duty

Kids of these must be paid for to discourage large foriegn families trying to unload kids into our public education system. and especially to discourage overpopulation from foriegners.

they can't be criminals or have ties to a foriegn government or cult or violent organization.

they can't be carrying diseases.

Ah no.  Border control is just another example of security theater, like the TSA.  You can't defend the US border it's too darn big.  What you can do is enforce existing laws dealing with work permits/green cards and harshly punish companies who are repeat offenders in terms of hiring the undocumented.  This goes with individuals as well who hire undocumented as household staff.  Besides helping to eliminate one of the main reasons to cross the border it also helps to eliminate the kind of exploitation that happens with undocumented workers.

Actually point those who have exceeded their visa stay by more than, say 6 months, and tag them in the various criminal databases like they do bail jumpers and court skippers.  Find these people and force them to either reapply, seek citizenship or leave.

[Joshex]

Er, isn't putting "open" immigrants on the border to guard it kind of like having the foxes guard the hen-house?

No, the proper procedure is to secure our border, ourselves, have a strict deportation policy for any illegals caught committing crimes (and yes, being here illegally is a crime, but we can prioritize with those we catch because they're committing other crimes that actually draw attention through their criminal activity), crack down on employers who employ them (but give them a fair chance to prove they did all they could to verify and were fooled; we're after justice and encouragement of good behavior, not punitive measures for the sake of being "tough").

We then, in separate legislation, after this is enacted and being executed, work on reforming our legal immigration laws to use modern technology and techniques geared for modern needs.

Honestly, we would be better off with legislation designed to protect the rights of LEGAL immigrants ALREADY HERE against the exploitation and harm caused by their illegal counterparts; it devalues the legal immigrants' efforts to be here legally, and it actively foments distrust of immigrants to have this horrid conflation of legal and illegal immigration in the language of the discussion.

We should be lauding our legal immigrants, and working with them to identify the illegals and prevent them from taking the legals' opportunities.

it's one of those instances of "do you like this country? then prove your loyalty. " by the way the immigrants wont be the only ones there they will be watched by a government overseer. so if they don't do the job right they'll be reported and they will breach the loyalty article of the immigration reform.

[Tahliah]

[FatherXmas]

So say we all.

[Segev]

So say we all.

Sadly, perhaps not "we all," but the freedom to disagree openly is a freedom. It doesn't make disagreement correct, but it's a right we must protect by our own standards.

However, for me, personally, I can at least say, "Hear here."

[Ironwolf]

Tahliah, you have the exact balance - we have a country founded by people who sought to use freedom as a backbone. The freedom also is highly dependant on having a populace that is on the whole a lawful and moral group.

Look to Chicago, it is a known corrupt and tainted city. While the media flagellates George Zimmerman for shotting someone that in all reality was simply a tragic event that both people could have avoided and didn't, Chicago had 70 shot and 11 dead over 1 weekend.

In Detroit - where I work - it is a daily occurance to have murders daily. Look to the cities where the moral decay has infested the populace and single parent families are the rule. They are failing and badly. Detroit is bankrupt. Chicago is worse than the wild west - while having the strictest gun laws in the country.

In the country - where many conservative live. They/we seek to maintain the lifestyle that led to this countries success for 200 years.

A telling map is this one:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2012/

Scroll down and look to election results by COUNTY. The vast majority of the country is conservative - except in the cities. The cities and their values or lack thereof is what we have running the show for everyone else. I live in one of those rural areas and the city I work in - Detroit - in no way reflects my way of thinking or my values.

I am a non-christian that many would call a pagan. But I share many of the same values as they are common sense. I have read and studied the bible and it is a very good guide to making a moral people. Can leaders use religion for abuse? Absolutely! From the crusades to the Nazi reign and the bombings in Boston - evil men can justify what they want to do by saying god wants it.

America has ignored the government and has taken for granted freedom. Now we see the government handouts have exceeeded the number of people working and it can't last long that way.

[Kyriani]

[Segev]

So what you're saying is that despite evidence to contrary the Tea Party actually does believe that women should have the right to handle their own personal medical decisions without government interference

We do, but we also oppose infanticide.

and that gay people should be able to get married like anyone else.

Technically, your little inflamatory attempt is bait that I am foolishly taking, but: they have the same right to marry as anybody else. Just because I don't like vegetables doesn't mean that I'm denied service at a vegan establishment; I just don't want to partake of what they offer. It doesn't give me a right to demand they redefine "beef" as a vegetable. (And if you want to discuss the legal access rights associated with marriage, you'll find many of us don't oppose the idea of "civil unions" or the like. I do warn that there's a lot of sticky ground to cover very carefully, though, as we wouldn't want, say, the mafia to decide that all of the "Family" are one big happy Civil Union, would we? Slippery slope, you say? Some said the same about "gay marriage" in the 90s.)

That corporate welfare should end and the taxes that are being collected should be used for the people?

You conflate two things that are unrelated here, and in so doing bastardize definitions and make your question meaningless except as a tool of false propaganda. Let me try to untangle it for you:

• Corporate welfare, AKA crony capitalism, which was once called Mercantilism, is alive and well, and the Tea Party opposes it. It take the form of government subsidies for chosen kinds of business and businesses that engage in favored kinds of research that could not hold water in a fair market, and is a huge waste of taxpayer money. Worse, it seems that the biggest recipients are the biggest donors to the ruling class's campaigns and are so far in bed with the government that the politicians' spouses should be jealous. It has nothing to do with business and everything to do with government reaching so far into the private sector that it becomes hard to tell the difference.
• Lower taxes are not "welfare" by any definition, no matter who gets them lowered. To claim they are is to claim that all money is properly the government's, and that that which we do not pay in taxes is "given" to us by the government. This perverse mindset is poisonous to a free people, and must be utterly rejected.
• As a follow-up point, if you actually attended a Tea Party rally, you'd find that the two most commonly-advocated tax systems are entirely devoid of special treatment for anybody: one is the so-called "Fair Tax," which seeks to make everything a flat sales tax paid by all; the other is the traditional "Flat Tax," wherein everybody pays a flat percentage of their income, no matter how much they earn.

Whether you like these two plans or not, whether there are potential flaws and sticky ground that needs covering or not, you cannot claim - without straining logic to the point that I have to wonder if you agree that global warming is due to the lack of modern-day pirates - that there is any special treatment for "corporations" under it.[/list]

Is that about the gist of it? If so, then why on earth is the Tea Party in bed with the Republicans?

The "gist" of it is that you are grossly distorting many things, and revealing a bit of hysteria in your venom. However, if you pay attention, the Tea Party is only "in bed" with the Republicans because that party at least pretends to hold towards something akin to what the people in the Tea Party believe. You'll also note that we're really quite fed up with the so-called Republican "leadership" and are pushing to make them change or get lost so we can put real conservatives who do hold our values in. We'd like to be represented by those who lead us, rather than expected to bow and scrape to the (lack of) wisdom of our ruling class masters. And too many in the so-called Republican "leadership" think of themselves that way, as evidenced by how embarrassed they are to have conservatives supporting them.

Your link supports the exact opposite of what you intended. It shows that the MAJORITY of the POPULATION are NOT conservatives.

Read it again and actually understand what it is saying.

In that case, you should be all for the Tea Party taking over the Republican Party. It will cause the moderates in the Republican party to move to the Democrat party, and allow the new Democrat Majority to crush us right-wing extremists once and for all. Whether you're right or wrong about the views of the "majority of the country," it is in the best interests of the country for this to happen because of the results when it does.

[FatherXmas]

The problem with any political movement is while everybody is drawn to it believes in Issue A (limited government, lower taxes, responsible government spending) it does draw in people who believe in other issues and when those people outnumber or at least out voice the original organizers, that's when the message gets hijacked and muddled. 

What also hurts a movement is when the mass media decides to put the more fringe elements on camera or in front of a microphone and portray them as the "mainstream" members of the movement.  It makes good TV, people enjoy seeing those with beliefs far outside of societal norms being made fun of by newscasters. 

But as someone involved with a local Tea Party group in my area since the beginning we are equally annoyed on how the original message has been hijacked by non-Tea Party groups who show up at rallies at the capital.  All we wanted fiscally responsible, limited government, but the hard core militia groups and conservative religious groups crashed our party, took our name and the media never took notice that today's Tea Party bares little resemblance to the original 2009 ones.  Sure the "new" Tea Party still supports the original core issues but tacked on so many socially conservative issues that those now obscure the original cause.

[FatherXmas]

Sadly, perhaps not "we all," but the freedom to disagree openly is a freedom. It doesn't make disagreement correct, but it's a right we must protect by our own standards.

However, for me, personally, I can at least say, "Hear here."

I was going to say Hear hear but I was in a SciFi grove so I went with the BSG line.

[Kyriani]

[Kyriani]

I think I need to step away from this topic from here on in because I WANT to support the TPP but the political stances of its developers now make me question that support. The idea of giving money to a company whose members support denying citizens basic civil rights and denying women the right to handle their own medical choices does not sit well with me. Especially when they will use my own dollars to harm me. I wish the TPP all the best. I won't be replying further to this topic however.

[Tahliah]

So what you're saying is that despite evidence to contrary the Tea Party actually does believe that women should have the right to handle their own personal medical decisions without government interference and that gay people should be able to get married like anyone else. That corporate welfare should end and the taxes that are being collected should be used for the people? Is that about the gist of it? If so, then why on earth is the Tea Party in bed with the Republicans?

Actually, yes, that's exactly what I am saying.  The TEA Party, as I've explained, is not a group of lock-step zombies who can't think a thought without first checking that's it's "ok" or in line with anyone or any group; instead, it is composed of people who share the fundamental principles of lower taxes, limited and Constitutional government, and individual liberty.  That last one is important to many in the TEA Party who are socially-liberal and/or libertarian. 

One thing that I find perplexing about the whole "women's health" argument is that, as a woman, I have organs, limbs, and other physical, emotional, and psychological areas that could potentially need the attention of a health care professional; I'm not just a walking vagina/womb.  My health isn't restricted to my reproductive organs.  And no woman's "health" is dependent on on-demand abortions.  This is abortion-as-birth control, not "healthcare."  As to late-term abortions on-demand: that's infanticide.  And while I can't speak for the entire TEA Party on this--or any issue--I would venture out on a limb and say that we pretty much all reject infanticide as a means of birth control. 

As to the question of gay marriage, again, there are many views within the TEA Party on this subject.  Yes, some are completely opposed to it, but there are others, such as myself, who would prefer to see government get out of the business of marriage altogether.  Marriage is a religious sacrament, and gay marriage--mandated by the government--has the horrible and real potential to impinge on religious liberty and religious conscience.  That is totally unacceptable and antithetical to our nation's founding principles.  This is why I think that all civil rights should be based on civil contracts, not on religious sacrament.  I find it interesting that the far left--who scream loudest about the nonexistent, in the Constitution, "separation of church and state"--are the ones demanding loudest that government be involved in mandating religious sacrament.  It does make me wonder what the actual principles are on the left.  Is it that gay unions are really a civil rights issue or is it that government should dictate to religious institutions? 

Why are we "in bed" with Republicans?  Well, first of all, as you can see from just this thread, not everyone in the TEA Party is in bed with Republicans.  There are a lot of Democrat TEA Party members (I'm a former democrat, actually--a JFK and Reagan democrat who is horrified by the collectivist, antiAmerican lunge left the party has taken), and a lot of Indie ones.  The TEA Party has largely gone with Republicans in recent elections because the GOP is supposed to be the party of limited government, lower taxes, and individual liberty.  The Democrats have moved so far away from these basic American principles that it speaks loudly and proudly of expansive, intrusive government, oppressive taxes, and the suppression of the individual in favor of the collective.  Their candidates simply don't match basic TEA Party ideals. 

Indeed, it must be said that many in the GOP do not, either.  That is one thing that the TEA Party has been working on in both red and blue states: electing people who match, or most closely, match our own principles (is that really so awful?  Don't you vote for people who best match your own principles?).  This may include, and has included, democrats, independents, and republicans.  Mostly, though, republicans.  But there are two distinct "types" of republicans, the establishment type (big spending, big government, big interventionists) and the "type" that the TEA Party supports (limited and Constitutional government, etc.).  I'd be more than happy to vote for a Democrat who shares my values.  We are not, as a rule (and again, we are not some monolith with one brain), tied to party.  That's why we are mostly amused by leftists who tell us that "Bush did it!" (arguably, the origins of the TEA Party started under Bush with his big spending, big government ways) or that there's a "circular firing squad" in the GOP.  We don't care about the GOP.  We care about our country. 

[Tahliah]

"Infanticide" can only occur AFTER a child is born if it happens against the mother's will. And in any case its her body and its her right what to do with it. Having an abortion is LEGAL and is not something any woman does lightly. It is traumatic and carries a hefty emotional toll on any woman who goes through with it. The fact that the party that wants to strip the rights of a woman to determine her own medical choices in regards to abortion are the same party that is also against sex education and contraception which would PREVENT abortions from occurring in the first place is BAFFLING.

First of all, refusing medical care to a fetus who survives abortion is, by your own definition, infanticide.  And that is exactly what is supported by the fringe left.  Second, a viable fetus--one who could live outside the womb--is a child.  And that is what is being discussed at present, the late term-abortion-on-demand of viable babies (20+ weeks).  The majority of people in the TEA Party do support exceptions for the health of the mother and incest, though why in the latter case one would wait 20+ weeks is beyond me. 

I am hoping the Tea Party keeps doing exactly what its doing. You guys scare the bejeesus out of the average folks and it hurts the Republicans tremendously. Not that the Democrats are much better. They've got their own sleazy issues but they are the lesser of two evils. Don't get me wrong I am not totally against some TP stated ideals. But I honestly believe the entire movement was originally a Republican ploy to create a "grassroots" group that got out of their control. I don't think the Tea Party will be able to take over the Republican party. The old guard Republicans are not so different from Democrats in many ways and they will try to use you when they can and try to crush you if you get in the way.You already see it happening with the infighting amongst the various conservative groups and law makers. I'd have been happier if the Tea Party was independent of Republicans and actually formed their OWN party that didn't just tag along with the Republicans. You could have done more good that way IMO. You would have drawn members from both R's and D's weakening both (which I honestly feel is needed) so that more diverse voices can be heard.

We don't scare anyone . . . capable of separating what the media and democrat pols say to demonize us and their own common sense and ability to think for themselves.  We're not particularly scary at all, except to progressives and establishment GOP.  And that's as it should be.  We're pretty scared by those folks, ourselves.  What scares the "bejeesus" out of self-described "average folks" is the false image that you have of us.  You are demonstrating in each of your posts an almost perverse deliberate obtuseness and intolerance that would be shocking if we weren't so used to it.  No matter what we say, how we explain our actual views, you cling to your own idea of what our views are.  Don't you find it strange that you think you know who we are and what believe better than we do ourselves? 

The you're not "grassroots" claim is just silly.  Of course we are.  Why do you think the IRS was sent to stifle only average Americans who were trying to establish TEA Party groups and not the "big" so-called conservative groups (like Rove's) who were lawyered-up and had the cash to fight back?  Why do you think we were the ones who were intimidated and silenced simply for our beliefs?  Because we don't have the money or the backing to fight back, that's why.  We are just average Americans who stood up in '09 and are still standing despite this administration's, the Democrats', and the establishment GOP's best efforts to silence, intimidate, bully, and discriminate against us.

We did not form our "own" party because third parties do not work.  We watched leftists try it with "green" parties, etc., and we watched them realize--after a few decades--that this was not working, and we watched them instead take over the Democrat party.  It worked, so why wouldn't we do the same with the GOP?  Seems like common sense to me.   It took progressives quite a while to accomplish their task, and the old school Dems didn't go down without a fight.  We anticipate--and are experiencing--the same thing.  A third party is not a viable option in my opinion, but as you can see in this thread, there are TEA Party members who disagree and want to form one.  That's as it should be.  One of the worst things that any of us could do is sell out our principles and values as the left has done.  Leftists have lost all credibility on all issues because they spent eight years bashing Bush for everything from "illegal" wars (his were not) to warrantless wiretaps and now suddenly think all this is fantastic and wonderful under Obama.  No one can respect that or take leftists seriously in future (when a conservative in either party takes the WH, leftists will attempt to go back into attack mode, but it will be a laughable joke in light of the past four plus years supporting policies they claimed at one time to oppose vehemently.). 

I ramble off-point.  You are clearly sure of who we are and what we stand for, and it's equally clear that nothing we tell you will change your own incorrect viewpoint.  That's okay.  You're entitled to be wrong about us, and you're even entitled to ignore the evidence in this thread that you have the TEA Party all wrong.  The bottom line here, really, is that we are all City of Heroes/Villains players who miss our beloved game. 

[Tahliah]

And just as an apology/explanation: I have no idea how to quote without putting my own reply in quotes, too.  Ugh.

[Segev]

*cough* Multi-posting because I got too long-winded. Sorry.

if anyone is "grossly distorting things" here its you Segev.

I don't see how. I stated what I, as a conservative, believe. I have not stated what you believe. There's no distortion unless you think I'm lying about what I believe.

As much as I admire your efforts with TPP

Thanks. We do all have some areas of common ground, or we wouldn't be having civil discussions on this forum. ^_^

I am sorely disappointed that you support such discrimination against fellow citizens. And yes I know you didn't outright say that but you ARE supporting it whether you admit it or not.

Let's not get personal, here. You accuse me of supporting discrimination, when I say I am standing up for human rights.

"Infanticide" can only occur AFTER a child is born if it happens against the mother's will.

I trust you don't mean that a mother has the right to "abort" a child post-birth. I doubt that you mean this; I hope you don't mean this. That is the denotation of the words you used, here, though, so I suspect you mis-spoke.

And in any case its her body and its her right what to do with it.

It is. She has a legal right to, among other things, not have sex without contraception. (Rape is a horrible, horrible crime I wish on nobody, and while I tend to ask, "Why is it the baby who gets the death penalty?" it is a red herring to bring it up at all, as the debate is not about corner cases. And heavens, I hope rape is a "corner case.")

Men and women both have the right to choose their sexual partners or lack thereof. However, actions have consequences. A father does have the right to drink and then go for a hike on a cliff side. He does not have the right to leave his 1-year-old child unsupervised in a cabin on its own while he does so. Like it or not, a woman and the man responsible both have obligations to a baby when their actions create him (or her). Laws should be in place to enforce a man's obligations, since natural law makes it a lot harder to do so. In fact, if a woman chooses to have a baby rather than abort it, she can bring those laws to bear against the man who donated the genetic material. This is no different: the baby has a right to live. I'm all for helping support a woman through this hard time and helping her put the child up for adoption if she doesn't want to raise him. But murdering babies because their inconvenient is not a solution.

I support preserving the life of both mother and child, and where that is not possible, leaving the choice to the mother.

It is infanticide to kill a baby. Period. Sometimes, it's a choice of who to save, but even then I view such a choice as tragic (but necessary). It's not about denying women rights any more than child support laws are about denying men rights. Yes, it's intensely more inescapable for those 9 months, but outside of rape, the woman made a choice that resulted in a baby, as did the man.

Having an abortion is LEGAL and is not something any woman does lightly. It is traumatic and carries a hefty emotional toll on any woman who goes through with it.

I'm disputing neither of these facts. I would like to change the former to be something done only with the same legal gravity that, say, conjoined twins pick one to cut off. Parents can't just say "Cut the left one off and kill it" if he could survive without his connection to his twin.

The fact that the party that wants to strip the rights of a woman to determine her own medical choices in regards to abortion

This is a disingenuous debate technique, designed to villify your opponent rather than engage his points. We don't want to "strip a woman of her rights." We want to protect women from murder. (Or do you think that all aborted babies are male?)

If it is a woman's right to decide what she does with her body when it comes to killing the baby that is dependent upon her support, why is it not the man's right to decide what he does with his livelihood if she chooses to have the baby and raise it? Why is he forced to pay child support if he can be proven to be the father? Easy and legal abortion means that there is hefty incentive for a man who wants not to be committed to the relationship for the next 19 years (until the child turns 18) to pressure the woman to make this "traumatic" choice which "carries a hefty emotional" (and, I will add, physical) "toll on [the] woman [if she] goes through with it."

I find such pressure, which is legal to put, to be a fairly anti-woman thing to do, myself.

But again: if a woman has a right to choose what to do "with her body" at the expense of the child, why does the man lack the right to choose what to do "with his livelihood" at the expense of the woman and child? (I'm not saying he should; quite the contrary. But are you? If not, then how do you jive the unequal treatment under the law?)

are the same party that is also against sex education and contraception which would PREVENT abortions from occurring in the first place is BAFFLING.

Actually, it's not sex education we oppose. It's mandatory sex education, against the will of parents, or behind the parents' backs, which we oppose. And we tend to promote teaching abstinence because, of all the "birth control" methods, it is the only one guaranteed to work 100% of the time. ...okay, technically, it failed all of once, but Divine Intervention is a bit outside the scope of this debate. ^^;

The destruction of the family and moral teaching has done far more to promote irresponsible sex than any supposed "lack" of sex ed.

Gay people cannot marry the person they love in most states but that's changing.

Nor can polygamists, and that's not changing. Your point?

It WILL come to every state eventually.

Perhaps, but forcing it through the courts is the wrong way to do it. If it's so inevitable, it should be debated and passed through legislative processes, not imposed through court mandates.

Your argument is a BS pure and simple. They don't have the same right you do.

Yes, they do. There is nothing in the law about "the person you love." While marriage should BE about love, the law isn't about that; it's about promoting the institution that has evolved over millenia of human history.

The only actual restrictions we place on who can marry who in the United States are: they cannot be an immediate blood relative, they must be of the legal age of consent, and you can only be married to one person at a time.

Er, that's patently false by your own admission. Right now, in most states, we also state that you can only marry people of the opposite gender. We also have a fair number of very close scrutiny laws applied to marrying foreign nationals, because it's abused as a quick end-run around immigration law.

You may want those to be the only "restrictions we place on who can marry who," and it's a valid debate to have. (I happen to think it's as valid as the debate over whether the dead should be allowed to vote, with mediums appointed by their descendents telling us how they want their votes cast, but if people honestly thought that was good policy, it would be a valid debate to have. Marriage has a definition, for crying out loud, that has been recognized across every culture in human history. But hey. Valid debate.) But those are not the only restrictions, as evidenced by the fact that we have to CHANGE the laws to allow men to marry other men and women to marry other women.

[Segev]

There is no logical justification to deny couples the right to marry because they happen to be of the same gender. It is discrimination plain and simple and there is no logical argument to the contrary.

Why? You declare there is no logical justification; does that mean that any justification raised, no matter why it is brought up, is inherently discrimination? That's circular logic.

But let's play this game: "There is no logical justification to deny groups the right to marry because they happen to include more than two people. It's discrimination plain and simple and there is no logical argument to the contrary."

You've stated that "you can only be married to one person" is a restriction. Why? Why is that one okay, but "you can only marry somebody of the opposite sex" discrimination? There are cultures where polygamy (or even polyandry, though that's rarer) were well-accepted as a practice in the definition of marriage. Unlike so-called "gay marriage," it requires no new definitions; it just is a bit weird by our modern Western Christian standards. Is that not discriminatory? Heck, the laws were originally passed specifically to target the Mormon Church; prior to that, they didn't forbid (but didn't expressly support) it.

If a man happens to love twin sisters, and they both love him, why must you be a bigot and forbid them to have all the rights of a loving romance that happens to include only two women?

Heck, you list "can't be a blood relative" as a condition, but that only makes sense when children are a possibility. Why can't those twin sisters marry each other? Are you a bigot against gay autophiles? (People who love not only the same gender, but the same phenotype.)

I ask these questions seriously. You can cry "slippery slope" all you want, but unless you can explain to me why the line must be drawn to prevent these kinds of "marriage," and are not bigotry, then you are being arbitrary when you say that homosexuals are being discriminated against.

Again: under the current law, any gay man can marry any woman, and any lesbian can marry any man, they choose. This is no different than a straight man's right to marry any woman (gay or straight), and a straight woman's right to marry any man (straight or gay), they choose. (All, obviously, provided the other participant is willing and legally able to consent.) What you're calling "bigotry" is the refusal to change the rules to allow gay people NEW rights that do not exist for anybody, gay or straight. I point back to my vegan restaurant example: I don't like what they serve there, but they're not refusing to serve me. I don't get to demand that they serve steak in order to cater to me.

All that said? Conservatives mostly only oppose same-sex unions being called - and given the same rights wrt children - "marriage." There's plenty of room and sympathy for debate on how to structure a "civil union" legal construct that gives any two people of any gender the "access" privileges that are commonly cited as being denied gay partners. (Though, again, I have to ask: why must such be restricted to just two people? What, other than bigotry, makes it not okay for a man and three women, or a woman and two men, or three men and three women, to decide they all want that level of access to each other's information because they love each other that much?)

Separate but equal is never equal.

This isn't "separate but equal." They literally have exactly the same rights as straight people. They just don't LIKE what is offered there, because they don't have a member of the opposite sex with whom they want to marry.

Civil Unions are unnecessary and fall far short of marriage in protections and rights.

How so? What rights do civil unions deny people that gays need? Why do you define civil unions to deny these rights? No, I'm serious; "civil union" is as-yet undefined, legally. Why are you arguing for them to deny rights you feel are essential? This is a place for fair and honest debate! Let's debate what Civil Unions should do! Why are you dismissing them as inherently denying rights Marriage grants?

My only place of difference would be wrt children. Let Civil Unions grant every other legal right marriage grants, for all I care. But marriage as a social institution of a father and a mother raising and being jointly responsible for children is something that you can't just hand-wave and say "it's the same" when it's two mommies or two daddies. We can debate and discuss how to handle this difference, legally. That's a fitting thing for legislators and the public to debate and for legislation to define.

But to reject it out of hand is to construct a straw man

Marriage exists. Gay people need it and are just as deserving of it as you are.

Technically, again, they have just as much access to it as I do. More, for some; a lot of gays are more attractive and socially adept than I am, and thus could likely woo a partner despite not being interested in so doing. But that's another matter. ^^;

What is it about "marriage" that gays "need?" The right to share property, to have access to each other's personal information and private records when they're sick or injured, the tax benefits (and penalties) associated with marriage? Why can't "civil unions" grant all of that?

[Segev]

There is nothing you can say to argue that point. Not a single thing.

Well, seeing as I've spent a lot of words arguing, either you're constructing a straw man (and thus are right, because I'm not arguing for your straw man), or you're patently wrong. I think it's actually the former, because gay people have all the rights I do under the law, right now. And if we legalized so-called "gay marriage," I would have all the rights they do. I could marry another man, if I so chose, and get whatever benefits I saw in so doing. I don't think it likely I'd want to, but I could. Just as, right now, without changing a bit of law or cultural definition, a gay man can marry a woman, and a lesbian can marry a man. They just don't really want to.

Moreover, I'm not arguing that they shouldn't have civil unions. What rights, again, do those NOT grant that marriage does? How are you defining them such that they are somehow discriminating against gays? You're the one doing it, at that point, and not me.

Gay people are not "less than" they are not "second class" to straight people and they deserve to be treated like everyone else.

Have I said they are "less than" or "second class?" Not once. I have, in fact, been arguing that they are, in fact, already treated like everybody else. You're the one who's insisting that, somehow, "civil unions" designed to grant them additional rights are not okay. Why can we not add every right they will need, but not the ones that would violate the rights of those least able to speak for themselves: children?

Trying to slander - or, as this is print, libel - anybody who tries to debate you is not honorable, nor intellectually honest. I am certain you feel strongly. Feeling and wanting to treat people with kindness - even fairness - is laudable. But doing so without examining it carefully and fully understanding the topic - by appealing to emotion and demonizing all opposition as hateful - is an invitation to far greater hate disguised as self-righteousness. It smacks of witch-hunting.

"All who oppose these laws against communist behavior are communists!" "But those violate basic tenets of personal liberty and free sp--" "ARE YOU A COMMUNIST?! THAT IS THE ONLY WAY YOU WOULD OPPOSE THIS!"

[Segev]

Marriage is not inherently religious and it existed before Christianity did.

Arguable, as earliest man conflated religion and law. But not really a point in need of debate, as the arguments for preserving traditional definitions of marriage only touch upon religion. They are not based on them.

Marriage between the same gender also existed before Christianity came to prominence.

This is actually quite false. Cultures that tolerated (rather than ridiculed or vilified) homosexuality had terms other than "marriage" (or their translation of the same) to reflect them. They also were very commonly polyamorous. Sometimes, this polyamory allowed multiple-marriage, and others, it allowed one "wife" and a number of "concubines" or "catamites." I think even those that allowed polyandry were vanishingly rare, and typically were cultures that died off due to lack of replacement-population. (Human mating biology being what it is, polygamy makes a certain amount of genetic and temporal-efficiency sense, while polyandry actually retards the ability to replace population. Note that I am not speaking in favor of anything here, just commenting on biological reality.)

The only cultures I've heard attributed with "same sex marriage" being okay are Amerindian ones, and those accounts are spurious at best. We lack much documentation of that era, due to the indians not really having much writing and being very sparsely populated, so much of what we go by is speculation based on anecdotal verbal history and traces of largely impermanent archaeological finds. Even here, then, we cannot be sure it was "the same" as traditional marriage in those cultures, if it in fact happened at all.

So, no. History and human culture throughout it pretty much stands against this claim. If you want to claim human history has been culturally flawed, we can have that debate, but appealing to it is not making your case hold much water.

Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that creates kinship.

True, but it has pretty much always been that a marriage is between spouses of opposite sexes. There are no actual "marriage for kinship" instances of two men or two women joining into it. Those, traditionally, involved "adoption," whether as a brother, sister, or son or daughter.

Mainly this was done to facilitate the transfer of property and combine resources between two different families.

And was invariably between children of opposite sex, because THEIR children were seen as sealing the pact.

Marriage is nothing more and nothing less than that regardless of what this or that religion has to say on the matter.

Non-sequitor; marriages were generally anciently sealed by religion because it was seen as transcending laws of men and was meant to provide supernatural sealing of the bond.

Another person's marriage is no business of anyone else and does not impact their lives in any meaningful way.

Except the children of the couple.

And, um, again, by all those arguments you made: why do you say it can only be between two people? Why couldn't "marriage" between one man and multiple women, for instance, secure the union of several families' property? (Genghis Kahn was infamous for this.)

Loving v. Virginia, Chief Justice Earl Warren's opinion for the unanimous court held that:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

The same standard applies to homosexuality as it does to racial discrimination.

Nonsense. Let me spell it out for you in both terms:

"A gay man has the same right to marry any woman, straight or gay, that he wishes (provided she is consenting), as a straight man. The same is true of gay women and men, straight or gay."

"A black man has the same right to marry any woman, white or black, that he wishes (provided she is consenting), as a white man. The same is true of black women and men, white or black."

Both of these statements are 100% true under current law. The latter was not true under racially-restricted marriage law.

Therefore, no, the same logic doesn't apply. The same emotion might, but emotion is not law, and is not the basis of good law. We must discuss this rationally. Trying to make this a "civil right no different than race" is an attempt to dodge debate and proclaim victory, to impose your will and bully those who do not agree into not even having a right to examine the case logically.

They are denied the right to marry the partner of their choice without any logical justification.

And a married man is denied the right to marry a partner of his choice without any logical justification. Why do you oppose polygamy?

Besides, there are logical reasons, mostly revolving around children. Outside of children, I would define civil unions identically with marriage in terms of rights and privileges granted. I don't see why you wouldn't, except in an effort to deny any ability to discuss the issue.

And YOU support that. YOU help that to keep happening. YOU spend man hours and dollars fighting to deny your fellow tax paying citizens the same rights you enjoy because they are different.

Well, no. I spend man hours and dollars fighting to protect traditional marriage and the family from being further destroyed in a culture war that has already torn apart much of our lower-income parts of society through the disgusting promotion of single motherhood and irresponsible sexual behavior amongst poor men.

As stated, there is no right that I have that a gay man does not, any more than I am denied rights at a vegan restaurant that a vegan man is not. If you want to discuss the opening of a burger joint across the walkway from the vegan restaurant, that's fine. But don't demand that the vegan restaurant reclassify "hamburgers" as "vegan food."

[Segev]

[Kyriani]

I'll make this my last post and keep it brief so as not to leave you with too much more to cherry pick and spin your yarns.

Your party is toxic to me. Your party outright works to harm me every day and with every advance they make. Members of your party have openly stated people like me should be put in concentration camps. People in your mindset have killed people like me... children even... simply for existing.

No matter your party's stance on any issue I can never support any group that would treat another human being the way most of your party treat people like me. You specifically may not be like most but I want to make it clear I am a human being. I am not so different from you. And what you represent is reprehensible to me. You may think I am being overly dramatic but until you've walked in my shoes, seen what I've seen, been through what I've been through, you will never understand what it's like to be hounded for the bulk of your childhood and early adult life by people who find your very existence unacceptable. People who actively try to encourage the rest of society to treat you as a pariah in some vain hope of getting you to hide yourself to change yourself and be more like them when there is nothing wrong with you.

You're no hero. I am very sorry now to know you are involved in any game involving heroes.

Don't pick apart my post trying to debunk me. Just read it and ask yourself... "why does someone... or maybe more than one person... feel this way about people in my party?". Thinking about how your actions affect others is a worthy pursuit.

[Golden Girl]

You're no hero. I am very sorry now to know you are involved in any game involving heroes.

So are increasing numbers of other people.

But if it makes you feel any better, in the greater scheme of things, conservatism (small "c"), always loses in the end, because human society, and especially Western society, is progressively liberal (small "l") - society is always changing and evolving, and it's impossible to prevent those changes for any great length of time.
The further back in time you go, the worse society has been -  but throughout  that time, there have always been conservatives who thought that things were just fine the way they were - for example, back in the Civil Rights era, the Southern Democrats - the "left" - were very happy with segregation - they were conservatives who liked things just the way they were - and currently, during the Gay Rights era, most Republicans - the "right" - are just fine with the current state of marriage equality - and will have as much success with keeping that as the Southern Democrats.
If you look at other injustices in history, like slavery, no voting rights for women, no voting rights for non-whites, illegal abortions, absolute monarchs, legally enforced religion, witch hunting and so on, no matter how awful all these things have been, there have always been people who've supported them, and fought to keep them - they were the conservatives of their day, and they've all been swept away by the relentless drive of humanity's naturally progressive nature.

It doesn't matter if you're left, right, center, white, black, Asian, female or male - society will always change and improve, because that's what we do.

[Segev]

I'll make this my last post and keep it brief so as not to leave you with too much more to cherry pick and spin your yarns.

Your party is toxic to me. Your party outright works to harm me every day and with every advance they make. Members of your party have openly stated people like me should be put in concentration camps. People in your mindset have killed people like me... children even... simply for existing.

No matter your party's stance on any issue I can never support any group that would treat another human being the way most of your party treat people like me. You specifically may not be like most but I want to make it clear I am a human being. I am not so different from you. And what you represent is reprehensible to me. You may think I am being overly dramatic but until you've walked in my shoes, seen what I've seen, been through what I've been through, you will never understand what it's like to be hounded for the bulk of your childhood and early adult life by people who find your very existence unacceptable. People who actively try to encourage the rest of society to treat you as a pariah in some vain hope of getting you to hide yourself to change yourself and be more like them when there is nothing wrong with you.

You're no hero. I am very sorry now to know you are involved in any game involving heroes.

Don't pick apart my post trying to debunk me. Just read it and ask yourself... "why does someone... or maybe more than one person... feel this way about people in my party?". Thinking about how your actions affect others is a worthy pursuit.

I have no interest in picking apart your post to debunk you. I ahve interest in discussing issues.

It's easy to understand why somebody feels this way about people in any party. There are people who feel the same way about yours. Politics brings out a lot of passion in many and a lot of corruption in prominent places, because politics is tied to power, and power attracts corruptible people.

I'm sorry you feel attacked. I know there are people who say hateful things about all sorts of people. I've been accused by "people like you" of being a hate-monger, of being a nazi, of deserving to be raped and killed for daring to believe as I do, just as much as you've been said to belong in a "concentration camp." I'm not claiming to be more or equally persecuted to you. I don't know and frankly do not care what specific group you belong to. Not because I don't care about you as a person, but because I hate identity politics. I do not view people as skin colors, sexual orientations, genders, or even cultural groups (except when their cultural identity shapes the most effective way to interpret their actions and to interact positively with them). I see people as individuals, each wonderfully unique and uniquely skilled, with abilities and traits that allow them to do great things.

As a conservative, I believe everybody can and should achieve wonderful things if allowed to do so. I believe that treating people as interchangeable parts important only for their group identity is dehumanizing and destructive to their capability to be great.

I am no hero. I am simply human. I strive to live up to my religion, which believes in loving my neighbor as myself. I do not always succeed. I am fallible. But I can honestly say that I wish you nor anybody else any ill. And I have not supported anybody who does, no matter what you wish to say about "my party." Why do people feel that way? Because of liars in the other party who have chosen to distort, conflate, and project their own hatreds onto others in order to denounce while deflecting their own self-guilt. Are there people on both sides of any line who hate others for being different? Yes. But it no more makes me a hate-filled nazi than it makes you a gulag-abusing communist.

Anyway, I am sorry you have such a poisoned an distorted view of at least a third of your fellow Americans. I am sorry you have bad experiences. But disagreeing with you does not make me evil, and you might ask yourself if dehumanizing those who disagree with you in that way is really the kind of person you want to be.

[Segev]

If you look at other injustices in history, like slavery, no voting rights for women, no voting rights for non-whites, illegal abortions, absolute monarchs, legally enforced religion, witch hunting and so on, no matter how awful all these things have been, there have always been people who've supported them, and fought to keep them - they were the conservatives of their day, and they've all been swept away by the relentless drive of humanity's naturally progressive nature.

It doesn't matter if you're left, right, center, white, black, Asian, female or male - society will always change and improve, because that's what we do.

Indeed. Heroes are about personal responsibility, helping people out of misery, and protecting the weak from those who would steal from and otherwise harm them. I think we can all agree these things are laudable. And that rational, well-meaning people can disagree about how best to do that. What sets them apart from the tyrants and the bullies is that they will discuss it rather than silence their opposition and force their will through threat of violence and intimidation.

And no, the Tea Party has engaged in neither of those activities.

[Segev]

Anyway, it's clear this is going sour fast. I am sorry for debating and stirring up ill feeling. I just hate seeing things I believe in attacked without defense, and maligned with straw men. Still, it is irresponsible of me to respond in so much length, and I apologize for that. We have other, more positive things on which to focus.

[Golden Girl]

disagreeing with you does not make me evil

It's not the disagreement that makes you evil - it's the denial of full equality to your fellow human beings.

[Segev]

It's not the disagreement that makes you evil - it's the denial of full equality to your fellow human beings.

I've responded to that. I'm not going to again. To do so would be simply to repeat myself. Please do re-read my points; I think long and hard about them. I do not deny anybody full equality. In fact, my argument is that anybody who supports dismembering babies in the womb denies full equality to the most helpless and innocent of our fellow human beings. I think most do not consider the ramifications of their position; I refuse to believe so many are truly evil. I would appreciate a similar consideration of humanity from those who disagree with me.

I know some have commented that they're "concerned" about the Phoenix Project because of my political beliefs. It may interest you to know that many others in the leadership are polar opposites to me in them. We are not united in a political way. Our politics are our own, as they should be. I won't say who has what beliefs; that's their business. Reasonable people can disagree, even fervently, and still work towards a common noble goal. The Phoenix Project, when it raises funds, will use them to support creating and running the MMO. We are not a political organization, and at this stage it's highly unlikely we could agree on a political cause to which to donate funds even if we wanted to. That CoH could bring together such diverse views and cause them to dedicate themselves to making a spiritual successor shows how strongly the concept of heroism resonates with the soul of man.

[Golden Girl]

I've responded to that. I'm not going to again. To do so would be simply to repeat myself. Please do re-read my points; I think long and hard about them. I do not deny anybody full equality. In fact, my argument is that anybody who supports dismembering babies in the womb denies full equality to the most helpless and innocent of our fellow human beings. I think most do not consider the ramifications of their position; I refuse to believe so many are truly evil. I would appreciate a similar consideration of humanity from those who disagree with me.

Men can't control our bodies - their ours to control 100%
And I'm not sure if the knuckle-draggers who try to control our bodies realize it or not, but passing laws against abortion doesn't stop abortion - they're just done more discreetly instead.
Almost every woman knows someone who knows someone who knows someone who can help out with "special problems" - and midwives and most female doctors have always been available for "extra services" - women have been doing this kind of discreet networking for centuries - so while being "tough" on abortion is good political grandstanding to impress the cavemen, on a practical level, the number of abortions doesn't actually change very much.

I know some have commented that they're "concerned" about the Phoenix Project because of my political beliefs. It may interest you to know that many others in the leadership are polar opposites to me in them. We are not united in a political way. Our politics are our own, as they should be. I won't say who has what beliefs; that's their business. Reasonable people can disagree, even fervently, and still work towards a common noble goal. The Phoenix Project, when it raises funds, will use them to support creating and running the MMO. We are not a political organization, and at this stage it's highly unlikely we could agree on a political cause to which to donate funds even if we wanted to. That CoH could bring together such diverse views and cause them to dedicate themselves to making a spiritual successor shows how strongly the concept of heroism resonates with the soul of man.

CoH was one of the most inclusive and gay-friendly games around - having a project that claims to be wanting to make spiritual successor to it being headed up by an anti-gay and anti-female activist doesn't make it sound too good.

[Aggelakis]

Yep. That's what I was waiting for. Thanks, guys, for taking so long to get there. Most of you have been pretty civil. I was actually enjoying the discussion, rather than reading with my finger on the lock button. However, once we start calling each other names, there's only one way the thread can go: down.

Closing up shop.

[Joshex]

how quickly this thread has steered away from immigration. (was intended for the immigration thread but was locked as I was typing.)

People, I'm not going to sit on some high chair and tell people what to do. All I'll do is state the raw facts of life weather you wish to accept them or not.

There are many things wrong with this world, and just like a worn-out car; the more people mess with it to try and add new features and make it more acclimadated for everyone the worse the world will get. And that is whether you actually spend time trying to repair the worn out car or not, adding extra luxuries will create excess strain on the vehicle causing no repairs to ever be enough and the car is eventually unfixable unless you happen to own a multi-million dollar mold making factory. The same is true for Society, only for society it becomes a multi-trillion dollar problem.

when do people bitch? generally people bring up extra stuff under 2 conditions;

1: when they are too comfortable. - everything is working right and fine, it is human's nature to try and add extra things to that equilibrium, like a sandwich thats stacked too high eventually it all falls appart when you try to eat it, it's rather disappointing.

2: when those who idolize power itself and thirst after the sound of every last crumpled bill and every last sound of a coin dropping into thier hands, when these people need to gain public approval they play on the Human Nature to want extra luxuries. -it's a better strategy than saying "hey I'll fix it and make it all work" to instead say "hey how would you all like $5000 and a peice of candy?"

seriously if the above two messages were used at a presidential debate the $5000 and candy would win every time.

so, we need to ask ourselves, are we too content with general life? is our government really pushing us to get riled up on certain topics on thier whim?

the answer is Yes.

When you are too content with general life you become uncontent about the small meaningless stuff, it breeds insanity, carelessness, idiocy and perversion.

And it's never enough "TREAT ME SPECIAL I WANT SPECIAL RIGHTS BECAUSE I'M SPECIAL AND THIS IS HOW I FEEL" and they get it, then what? it's never enough so they always push for more. like spoiled children we can never have enough toys, candy, games and entertainment.

finally I must end with this; and it is the most solid scientific fact that can ever relate to human beings with 100% accuracy:

What are feelings? feelings occur when the body releases chemicals and hormones to the various organs and muscles and of course most specifically; emotional feelings occur when these chemicals are introduced into the brain.

thats it, that aspect that hollywood plays on in every superhero movie "our feelings and heart is what makes us superior and human"

that thing that makes us special is no more than a chemical imballence, and it's different for everyone. Further more as a very profound psychiatrist once said "everyone is crazy, because there is no normal, because everyone is different." but does that mean we should just accept peoples differences? No, we must without a shadow of a doubt and no bias come to the conclusion that a certain person's difference (chemical imballence) is not in anyway harmful to others in society and does not create a problem for the human race in general. We must also accept our humanity, we were born as human beings we were born with the sole goal of surviving, yes we can die, and yes the world may be overpopulated now, but in a sudden catastrophy that can all change. We were born as what we are and we should use it with-in reason, those born with untraditional chemical imballences are considdered "handicapped" mentally or otherwise they are people who should seek medical or psychiatric help.

so next time you decide to go with your inner feelings which have spawned your decision making process and go against the way humans physically are, remember, it's just chemicals, yeah you made some life decisions because of the chemical influence, but it doesn't mean you should be treated special or given accomodation. - should stoners be given free munchies and paid time off work because of thier weed induced chemical imballence? should a mentally ill person with a severe anger problem be given special treatment and acceptance in our society because thier particular chemical imballence makes them 'special' ? what if they are a compulsive murderer because of a chemical imballence? I suppose in that respect when we acclimadate and accept and accomodate all chemical imballences and the life decisions they spawn our society will unravel into chaos.

and it is in that chaos that people ARE currently slowly coming to the realization that they are not content with general life any more, and some day they are gonna wake up and thier subconscious is gonna release the chemical and hormone combinations that make them realize that all this other extra stuff wasn't really that important and doesn't matter anywhere nearly as much as personal well-being and survival.

And then, we will get a revolution. and millions of people will die unecessarily for the sake of progress. for a time there will be no special treatment or special groups. but as the world goes in a cycle it will all happen again due to human's inability to learn from history. We always have to figure out whats wrong with a particular thing through our own perspective, we can never just take the wise words of our ancestors and accept them without question for the fear of bringing chaos back to the world. No, man is destined to die needlessly. And when man dies needlessly, Evil man will always find some way to springboard off the dead to gain higher standing.

that is life.

now how meaningless does it all seem?

will you be part of the domino effect that kills millions of people? or will you finally wake up and gain sentience above your own base desires? will you fight the chemicals with your sentience and be part of the solution?

[Aggelakis]

Merged Joshex's reply into this thread so name-calling doesn't continue where we've already locked it.