Log in  
Sign up

Play online chess!

Pages:  1 2 Next »
From	Message
astinkyfart 23-Sep-12, 17:16	Ann Coulter: ‘Civil rights are for blacks ..Ann Coulter: ‘Civil rights are for blacks–what have we done to the immigrants?’ . .By Dylan Stableford, Yahoo! News Senior Media Reporter On ABC's "This Week With George Stephanopoulos" on Sunday, Ann Coulter said the Democratic party has shifted its strategic campaign focus to the Latino vote ahead of the November elections. Of course, the conservative firebrand phrased it a little differently. "Democrats are dropping the blacks and moving on to the Hispanics," Coulter said during a roundtable discussion that featured Coulter, Univision anchor Jorge Ramos, former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich and former Obama domestic policy adviser Melody Barnes. Coulter's comments came in response to Ramos, who accused the GOP platform of ignoring immigration. "If Republicans don't do something with immigration," Ramos said, "they're going to lose not only this election, they might lose the White House for a generation." Romney, Reich said, "is basically taking a position that is anti a large and the fastest growing segment of the electorate." Earlier, Coulter was asked by about her criticism that Democrats have largely abandoned African-Americans when it comes to civil rights. "I think the way liberals have treated blacks like children and many of their policies have been harmful to blacks, at least they got the beneficiary group right," Coulter said. "There is the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow laws. We don't owe the homeless. We don't owe feminists. We don't owe women who are desirous of having abortions or gays who want to get married to one another. That's what civil rights has become for much of the left." "Immigrant rights are not civil rights?" Stephanopoulos asked. "No," Coulter responded, "No. I think civil rights are for blacks. What have we done to the immigrants? We owe black people something. We have a legacy of slavery. Immigrants haven't even been in this country." ...
chaz5 23-Sep-12, 19:18	... I don't really understand why Coulter would say that civil rights are just for blacks (i.e., because of slavery). Civil rights are for everybody IMO. Why would we be isolating a particular group? Or, am I missing the point?
softaire 23-Sep-12, 21:24	Yes, of course, you are missing the point once again. Blacks have been here since the inception. They have "paid-their dues" so to speak. If anything, they have earned their rights. New comers to the country do not have the right to strep up to the front of the line. I think that is what she is saying.
chaz5 23-Sep-12, 22:38	Softy ... ... thanks for that clarification; but, I still think civil rights for everyone, not just any particular identifiable group. Admittedly, some groups prob'ly are more vulnerable than others hence the use of the term. Coulter said civil rights ARE for blacks (not were or have been) ... are civil rights not also for Latinos? Both are being or have been discriminated against.
softaire 24-Sep-12, 07:43	Certain civil rights are guaranteed and protected by the Constitution. I believe that anybody legally "covered" by the U.S. Constitution gets those protections. (at least that is how it is intended to work). It seems to me that the U.S. Constitution has jurisdiction over U.S. citizens in the U.S. and it's territories and people in the country legally via proper paperwork (documentation). I do not believe the U.S. Constitution has jurisdiction over (or covers) foreigners who live/reside in other countries, nor do I think it covers foreigners who are in this country illegally. Do you?
chaz5 24-Sep-12, 08:27	Softy ... ... we have debated the undocumented alien (illegal immigrant) issue lots of times. As we've discussed, we have several millions here illegally (12? 20? who knows?). Most of these are older, and the parents or grandparents of legal citizens born here. No remedy under current law is going to consider exporting millions of UDAs for all the chaos it would cause; besides, these folks often do labor that no citizen wants to do. We must come up with compromise legislation. So far, conservatives and progressives have not been able to agree on how to manage ... and Congress is deadlocked.
softaire 24-Sep-12, 09:42	chaz Even IF all that were true (which is debatable), you did NOT answer my question. We were discussing civil rights. You said they are for EVERYONE. And, I said that I don't believe our Constitution has jurisdiction over everyone. I then asked if you think we do have jurisdiction over everyone. Do you think we can impose our Constitution on foreigners who are not citizens of the U.S. or are not "covered" by legal authorizations issued by the government?
chaz5 24-Sep-12, 12:33	Softy ... ... that's a hard one to pinpoint because we get caught up in definitions. But virtually everyone physically inside the boundaries of the US has some forms of constitutional protection (e.g., criminal behaviors by citizens against undocumented aliens, protection of foreign visitors from crime, labor w/green cards, driving on highways, etc.) ... just not every one that a citizen has (e.g., voting, running for office, Medicare, etc.). You could argue what is precisely worded in the Constitution, but then we get into debates about application of law, police and medical procedures, military, courts, etc.). Now, let's get back on topic.
softaire 24-Sep-12, 12:55	Chaz I think that everyone who is "in the country" MUST obey all the laws of the United Sates and also all the laws of the particular state they are in. This is exactly what you are saying, I believe. NOBODY is above the law. The question then seems to be "Are there any laws that mandate we give civil liberties to non-citizens, or foreigners not here legally"? Are there any laws that say we must? Are there any laws that say we must give them welfare or food stamps? Are there any laws that say we must give them medical care? (I think there are) So, it seems that if there is no law mandating we give these people something, then we are not mandated to give them that something. In other words, they MUST obey all our laws and they are "entitled" to ONLY what we have specifically authorized. If you know where we have authorized civil liberties to non citizens, please point it out.
chaz5 24-Sep-12, 13:13	Softy ... ... we've discussed this before ad infinatum. Inconsistencies abound. Finding fault is easy; finding solutions or discussing varying remedies is tough. We need to come up with a workable remedy to manage this situation. Let's discuss such remedies one at a time if necessary ... or are you going to take the "ship them all back" stance?
softaire 24-Sep-12, 14:31	Well, I am still at the stage of trying to see who you think should be granted our civil liberties. We have already decided that everybody in the country must abide by the laws of our other country, just like in every country. But, we are still undetermined who should receive benefits while in our country. In every other country, you must be a citizen, or there legally, to receive any benefits (including civil liberties), so I ask you once again, who in this country should be allowed to receive benefits? I did give you my answer already... I wait for yours. Then we can continue with the rest.
chaz5 24-Sep-12, 14:50	Softy ... ... you're getting caught up with some specific point. If you cannot put that one on the shelf (at least for the time being), we cannot get into remedies. Of course, as I mentioned two posts up, only citizens are availed certain rights ... just what question is being unanswered? Let's get off of the in-an-ideal-world stuff and get into a discussion about remedies to the challenges we have.
astinkyfart 24-Sep-12, 15:27	No problem will ever be solved by discussing vague issues. The only way to solve a problem is pin point it. Chaz you just talked softy right out of addressing anything specific and right back into left field where nothing will be addressed or solved.
dmaestro 24-Sep-12, 17:36	It is self evident despite the right wing agenda that all are born with inalienable rights because they are human. Nuff said. I suggest we sell the Statue of Liberty for scrap to help cover the deficit since it is a monument to hypocrisy.
softaire 24-Sep-12, 17:37	chaz The ONLY "remedy" you are willing to discuss is making illegal aliens into legal aliens. The topic we are on here is about civil liberties for Blacks... it's not about making illegal aliens into legal aliens. I'll discuss that if you want to start another thread. But, just for the record, you have NOT addressed any of my questions or discussions. The question is: does the Constitution have jurisdiction over every person in the country, whether legal or illegally? Does the Constitution provide protections for U.S. citizens when in foreign countries? (meaning does it trump laws from that country?) Does the Constitution say that we must provide any or all benefits that are given to U.S. citizens and people here legally TO foreigners here illegally who are not U.S. citizens? I am interested to your thoughts on these questions.
chaz5 24-Sep-12, 17:58	Softy ... ... I have answered those questions re aliens in this country (see earlier posts) ... you keep saying I haven't. We're bound by the laws of other countries when traveling abroad. Now what?
astinkyfart 24-Sep-12, 17:59	DM Doesnt nuff said mean nuff said?
softaire 24-Sep-12, 19:51	Does anyone else in this club want to discuss these issues? Can anybody tell what they think chaz would answer to those questions? Does anybody have any ideas why he refuses to answer any of those questions?
chaz5 24-Sep-12, 20:24	Softy ... ... why do you say I'm refusing. I answered your question. If I did not answer your question the way you wanted me to, then rephrase the question. It sounds like you're just playing a game here. Are you?
thumper 25-Sep-12, 07:23	Softie If someone is here illegally, they have no rights to any benefits afforded to US citizens. It's simple really. Not hard to answer clearly and concisely. Not only that but they're committing a crime and should be punished. Public caning and setting adrift off the coast outside US territorial waters should do. We would be generous and make sure they had a couple of days worth of water of course. Chaz likes the soft-shoe dance and even has his own pair of tap dance shoes. I can think of a couple reasons why he would attempt obfuscation or non-answer answers.
chaz5 25-Sep-12, 08:55	Thumper ... ... I understand your point ... I just disagree that trying to convict or to send away that many million people would devastate the country and you and I hold so dear. This is a time for compromise to resolve this issue ... it is not a black and white issue. Are you able to discuss compromises? Or, would you just rather deport them all?
chaz5 25-Sep-12, 09:07	Softy ... ... to repeat (again!), yes, persons of foreign birth have rights in this country whether they are legal citizens or not.
thumper 25-Sep-12, 09:40	Chaz "This is a time for compromise to resolve this issue ..." What would you have us compromise? "Are you able to discuss compromises?" What would you have us compromise?
softaire 25-Sep-12, 10:27	chaz Well, now you're talking. Let's say I break into the front door of your house while you are in the backyard at the BBQ. I help myself to your kitchen and then go take a shower and end up in your bed for a nap. The bed hadn't been made yet, so I made it up. You obviously won't do that kind of work. So, I find your petty cash drawer and help myself to some of MY money. (I get paid for doing things you won't do) Then I fall down and hurt myself so I call 911 and order an ambulance to take me to the ER. What rights do I have and what are you responsible for? Please answer Thumper first, then me.
chaz5 25-Sep-12, 10:49	Thumper ... ... if you have one undocumented alien (illegal immigrant), and if the law decides they should be deported; and, then the person is in fact deported ... then it ends the matter. If you have 12 million or 20 million UDAs, it is not the same issue. We have a country that depends upon the labor of part of those 12-20 million ... work that most who already live here do not want to do (look at Alabama in today's papers ... they've driven away most UDAs, just to be forced to sanction the importation of refugees from Africa and Haiti to do the work! Amazing!). Another part of those 12-20 million are the parents of legal citizens and/or the grandparents ... are you going to separate families to achieve the goal. Etc. Etc. So ... we have to come up with a solution that creates an environment where those who have demonstrated some tenure/family/contribution here can become legal.
chaz5 25-Sep-12, 10:53	Softy ... ... your question is loaded with a lot of what if's and legal questions that courtrooms deal with in today's world. I'm no lawyer or judge or jury, and neither are you. Just ask a straight question. You haven't answered my question yet, BTW. Or, are you now choosing not to answer questions?
softaire 25-Sep-12, 13:13	chaz Ok... more direct question (a "straight" question): In my scenario, are you required to pay for my ambulance trip to the ER, my hospital care, and the lawsuit I file because I got hurt in your house?
chaz5 25-Sep-12, 15:32	Softy ... ... that's a definite "perhaps" ... I've heard of general criminals collecting from lawsuits from injuries sustained during their crimes ... ambulance service should never be denied because you cannot afford it or have no insurance ... emergency care must be provided to whomever needs it. You haven't answered my earlier question yet. Second question: how do you answer your own question?
dmaestro 25-Sep-12, 17:18	Who does softaire want to let get seriously ill or die because of poverty or lack of insurance? What about unalienable human rights?
astinkyfart 25-Sep-12, 17:49	DM I think maybe that's where liberals get confused. Studies show that on the most simplistic and straight forward issues that the liberal cognitive flux capacitor cant process this in the same way as most people. No one would pick anyone to be ill or die. I would go so far as to say Softy would drive an illegal to the hospital and help out if he could. Its not about an individual case. Its about the big picture. Liberals wont address illegal immigration because they know somebody who knew somebody who knew somebody who got sick. I wonder what robin hood would have done if the King got robbed so many times there was nothing left to give to the poor?
Pages:  1 2 Next »

GameKnot: play chess online, chess clubs, Internet chess league, monthly chess tournaments, chess teams, online chess puzzles, free online chess games database and more.