Give me your tired, poor, huddled masses

[Truster]

It is apparently inherent in man that, on the whole, the more a thing or person is like us the more comfortable we are and the more they differ the greater the degree of discomfort. It's a principle observable in the benign, like your circle of friends, or the troublesome, say Nazis.


You might as well say the world is steeped in rebellion through sin. But we have to live together and governments are formed or imposed to produce the structure to do that.


Though to be fair, Patrick Henry's younger brother Doug launched the "do crappy things apart" party and it just went nowhere...or all over the place. It was pretty disorganized. lain:


No, it denies the rule of a few people self appointed to represent Him.


Again, Doug's "They the people" just wasn't selling. Who were they, really? And what did they want?


Spot on. :thumb:


Every doctrine is contrived.


Rather, the founders of our nation saw first hand and beyond what happened when men integrated religious and political authority. Disagreements over exegesis could lay waste to a continent.


No, that's not it at all, really. They just don't trust people like you to tell them how their love of God should be manifest and how it shouldn't.


Stop it, Doug.


I can't speak for everyone (if you can imagine) but I'd be happy to see you humbly suggest anything.

This thread is based on the USA and not other nations. That is as far as I got in your post as I have never entered your threads and have no intention of doing so. My post was directed at CS and not you.

 

[Town Heretic]

This thread is based on the USA and not other nations.

lain: I was speaking directly and almost entirely to that point, to our nation. The first bit was foundational and applies to any nation. You mentioned Babel, which I'm almost certain isn't found inside the contiguous U.S....or in Guam.

Else, you've had your rebuttal and some inquiry. Hide from it or address it. Up to you.

 

[Truster]

lain: I was speaking directly and almost entirely to that point, to our nation. The first bit was foundational and applies to any nation. You mentioned Babel, which I'm almost certain isn't found inside the contiguous U.S....or in Guam.

Else, you've had your rebuttal and some inquiry. Hide from it or address it. Up to you.

There is no rebuttal to the truth.

 

[Town Heretic]

There is no rebuttal to the truth.

Apparently. But I felt obligated to give you a chance to see what you could do.

 

[Truster]

Apparently. But I felt obligated to give you a chance to see what you could do.

Your constant idiotic remarks and twisting of what people say is one of the reasons I never engage with anything you post. The fact your are glaringly reprobate is another.

 

[Town Heretic]

Your constant idiotic remarks

List one. Not saying I haven't made one, just wondering what your list would look like.

and twisting of what people say

Now that, right there, is an out and out lie. A curiously problematic way to claim the moral high ground, but suit yourself.

is one of the reasons I never engage with anything you post.

That's one possibility. The other is that you like to declare things, aren't particularly prepared for argument.

Since I'm not the least worried about debating you by point, am at presently watching you retreat from considered challenges behind a cloud of insult and declarative rhetoric I'm going to go with that and feel reasonably secure that you won't do diddly about it.

The fact your are glaringly reprobate is another.

Who you confuse yourself with isn't in question. The quality or existence of your reason is.

 

[ClimateSanity]

Here's the problem: the year you chose is mostly important because of the thing I noted. So when you choose it and fail, literally fail to mark what's special about it in any other way, you invite the reasonable inference.


Sounds great. What were they again? Or, more to the point, what were they for the first time?


Then this will be simple: why did you choose it? Why is that the line of demarcation? I can't wait to find out what that alternate reason is....let's see it.

Because so far this is it:

I don't care what they invite. If you read based on what invites your preconceived notions , it's not my problem.

I'm talking about Edward Kennedy's immigration bill that totally overhauled our system. The end result is that we no longer invite people in who can help us economically and don't dislocate workers over here and who have the cultural building blocks that makes assimilation easier. We no longer try to bring in people with a track record of wanting to be an American in the traditional sense. Kennedy's 1965 bill did that.

It was called the Hart-Celler act.

 

[ClimateSanity]

There is no rebuttal to the truth.
... Truster

If you claim to speak the truth, the burden is on you to prove it is the truth

 

[gcthomas]

We no longer try to bring in people with a track record of wanting to be an American in the traditional sense. Kennedy's 1965 bill did that.

It was called the Hart-Celler act.

By that you mean it let all sorts of Africans, Asians and South Americans in? Those dastardly Democrats, removing the racial discrimination of immigrants.

 

[ClimateSanity]

Where did you get a made up story line that?

 

[ClimateSanity]

By that you mean it let all sorts of Africans, Asians and South Americans in? Those dastardly Democrats, removing the racial discrimination of immigrants.

Nope. Try again and this time try to refrain from mind reading.

 

[gcthomas]

Nope. Try again and this time try to refrain from mind reading.

No, I just read the actual law (the one you referred to as a bill ).

Just the facts, ma'am.

 

[Lon]

Give me your tired, poor, huddled masses

The other unreported "elephant in the room" is the large number of frightened Americans who are deciding as to when enough is enough and that its time to leave!

Except for they lied or 'bluffed' about it Not a one moved to Canada. This cartoon is surely done 'for' the Republican side and clearly making fun of all those who did not move to Canada, still crying 'in America" about policies they already should have left for Canada for.

 

[Town Heretic]

I don't care what they invite.

Then why post?

If you read based on what invites your preconceived notions , it's not my problem.

I read it with the limited information you presented. A couple of dates and a declaration. What's special about 1965? I've noted it. That makes for a fairly natural read on the rest.

You should understand that going in and if you mean something else by it, qualify the remark.

I'm talking about Edward Kennedy's immigration bill that totally overhauled our system.

See how hard that was?

The end result is that we no longer invite people in who can help us economically and don't dislocate workers over here and who have the cultural building blocks that makes assimilation easier. We no longer try to bring in people with a track record of wanting to be an American in the traditional sense. Kennedy's 1965 bill did that.

It was called the Hart-Celler act.

And what culture were you referring to that "allowed" others again?

Or, I'm familiar with it. Wasn't Kennedy's bill, as is indicated in the naming, though he certainly put in some effort on its behalf. For those of you who don't know, it essentially ended a discriminatory favoring in immigration for Europeans (read: white people). So despite jr.'s best efforts he's still talking about race. He's just doing it from a distance.

 

[ClimateSanity]

You don't recognize a single American culture from 1787 until 1965? I do, and that still allows for various subcultures to exist simultaneously. .....me

You mocked this post and then when I asked you to offer a rebuttal, you went off on rabbit trails as usual and tried reading my mind as usual. You also attacked strawmen.

So, please explain why you do not see a single American culture from 1787 until 1965 town.

 

[ClimateSanity]

No, I just read the actual law (the one you referred to as a bill ).

Just the facts, ma'am.

No. You stated what I meant. Only I knew what I meant and it wasn't what you said. Try again.

 

[ClimateSanity]

No, I just read the actual law (the one you referred to as a bill ).

Just the facts, ma'am.

Why did you also feel the necessity to point out it's a law and not a bill? You really think I'm that stupid? Of course you do because you think your smarter than me just by virtue of you holding all the right opinions. It was a bill when it was being proposed and that was my context mind reader.

 

[Town Heretic]

please explain why you do not see a single American culture from 1787 until 1965 town.

Because nothing ended in 1965 except a wrong headed practice rooted in racist tendency. And at best what began in 1965 was a shift that, coupled with habits among those of European descent, principally a failure to replace themselves, began to be reflected in the composition of the nation's complexion that continues to this day. American culture is the expression of an idea that continues to both evolve from the foundation of a belief in the individual and his right to be heard, to determine, and to define his own limitations.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Except for they lied or 'bluffed' about it Not a one moved to Canada. This cartoon is surely done 'for' the Republican side and clearly making fun of all those who did not move to Canada, still crying 'in America" about policies they already should have left for Canada for.

Wasnt that mostly Hollywood actors who said that but were just "acting"? I wonder why they think people pay them for politics? Is it because you have be a good liar to be a good actor and politicians are filled with lies too? :think:

 

[ClimateSanity]

Because nothing ended in 1965 except a wrong headed practice rooted in racist tendency. And at best what began in 1965 was a shift that, coupled with habits among those of European descent, principally a failure to replace themselves, began to be reflected in the composition of the nation's complexion that continues to this day. American culture is the expression of an idea that continues to both evolve from the foundation of a belief in the individual and his right to be heard, to determine, and to define his own limitations.

What racist practice was in place in our immigration policy prior to 1965?