General Music Chat

Thanx Phil ,for just being the good guy are.

[Even when I think you're wrong once in a while]

"IMHO if you come to my country illegally and you go to school and become a surgical nurse (for instance) in my mind you have more of a right to be here than half the population."

I'm sorry, but that is about the strangest thing I've heard in awhile...& I hear LOTS of strange things!

If you come to this country illegally, you have no right to be here. If you go to school here, illegally, you have stolen an American's place in that school. If you then illegally get a job that you illegally went to an American school for, you have stolen an American job. You, as an illegal, have no right to be here, to attend school here, or to work here, because, from the moment you stepped foot on American soil, you were a criminal stealing that job, that schooling, the very air you breathe & the space you take up, from an American.

I'll give you every point you put up... but consider: over a lifetime which person has contributed more to society, to taxes, to making our country great?
again, let me break down the silly 'illegality' argument: if it wasn't illegal to come here w/o documentation then you would have no point. IOW, if something is only WRONG because it is illegal... then it should be legal.
murder is illegal because it is morally wrong...
stealing is illegal because it is morally wrong...
we all have come to a rolling stop at a stop sign... that is more morally wrong than crossing the border because you CAN kill someone by not coming to a complete stop.
you simply make it legal to come here w/o being documented and there is nothing morally wrong with doing it whatsoever.

You are certainly allowed your opinion, though I think it's a wrong one.

the majority in here should take a lesson from this man. he is a gentleman even when he disagrees with you. I respect the hell out of him for that.

The things we enjoy are, quite frankly, our birthright.

the indians that lived here before us had birthrights too... and we set a precedent when we stripped those birthrights from them them.

IMHO, if your only claim to being deserving of a life of privilege is that you were born into it... then don't complain when the folks born into power in this country take away any ability to rise to their status... after all they were born into it.

especially when we've made it so clear that we will accept you, provided you follow a few simple rules.

you must not be aware of how nearly impossible it is for a poor person to get into this country. do you really believe that they come here illegally because they are just too lazy to go ask to be let in legally? It takes a ton of money, and a minimum 5 year wait. Not saying that excuses coming here illegally, but again, if we made it easier to get here legally maybe we wouldn't have such a big problem with illegals.
my entire point is that the current system is set up specifically to create the dynamic of them being here illegally.

Boycott the co that hires them? Well, gee, mike, I haven't bought a house that was built by them, if that's what you mean. It hasn't helped in my job search, though.

I do buy food. I have no idea how much of that has been sullied by the hands of an illegal, or what brands to avoid. Do you?

well, the problem isn't going to go away over night... but closing the border isn't going to fix it overnight either.
if illegals built substandard product then the market should not demand that product... and the supply will dwindle. But we do demand that product... over and over we want cheaper and cheaper -never even considering the costs. I'm just as guilty of it as anyone else... but I'm aware of it and that's at least a step in the right direction.

I would never smoke foreign pot, either.

smoking pot is illegal. you can't possibly tell me you've checked the usda label on all of your half ounces. If it comes from canada it's just as bad.
you are a criminal just like the illegals that come here. how would you like it if the police enacted a law that would allow them to detain and interrogate folks just because they have long hair and wear tye-died shirts?
now, as I've said before, if something is wrong only because it is illegal then... make it legal. but while it's illegal you've lost any right to complain about anyone else doing illegal things. PERIOD.

"smoking pot is illegal. you can't possibly tell me you've checked the usda label on all of your half ounces. If it comes from canada it's just as bad.
you are a criminal just like the illegals that come here. how would you like it if the police enacted a law that would allow them to detain and interrogate folks just because they have long hair and wear tye-died shirts?
now, as I've said before, if something is wrong only because it is illegal then... make it legal. but while it's illegal you've lost any right to complain about anyone else doing illegal things. PERIOD."

Really good point other than smoking an occasional doobie doesn't cost American jobs and steal about $20,000 per illegal alien household from American taxpayers.

But you had better never have j walked, run a red light, double parked, had more than two beers and have driven home, fudged on your tax deductions, and never have broken in the slightest about a million other laws that are broken by illegals as well as American citizens every year before you start telling anyone that they don't have the right to complain. In other words, Are you Jesus mascaraing as a poster on BandMix?

no surprise this wouldn't sit well with you. but funny how your earlier posts were so outspoken against anything illegal... for instance:

"So what part of the word "illegal" do some illiterates out there have a hard time understanding?"

"A government without morality or justice towards every citizen who upholds the laws of America. "

"My neighborhood is filled with illegals. The 13 gang rules it now. Drug dealers occupy about every 10th house. "

"All the rest are probably honest hard working law breakers."
so should we assume that you break all laws because you break one?

"I don't have sympathy for the lawbreakers"
lemme finish your sentence here for you... "other than yourself".

btw for what it's worth, I'm sure I do all kinds of illegal things. That is exactly why I think it is not a big deal that you smoke pot and they cross the border. If they cross the border and then don't pay taxes... that is wrong, but it is not the border crossing that is wrong, but the not paying the taxes.

Misdirection, obfuscation and faulty logic. The pot laws are enforced. The traffic laws are enforced. The immigration laws are not.


Drawing parallels between smoking pot and crossing the border illegally, accessing free medical care, schooling, welfare and working with falsified papers is as preposterous as saying “if something is wrong only because it is illegal then... make it legal.”


“Wrong” is a subjective term. “Legal” is not. There are many things I think are wrong, yet they are legal. There are other things that are illegal, that I don't think are necessarily “wrong”.


We are a nation of laws. It is the duty of those in office, mainly Obamarama and Holder, to enforce those laws. By choosing to selectively enforce only the ones they agree with, they do the country as great a disservice as those who would acquiesce to the invasion that is taking place from the south.

Misdirection, obfuscation and faulty logic. The pot laws are enforced. The traffic laws are enforced. The immigration laws are not.

um, when they catch you here illegally they deport you... am I misunderstanding your definition of enforcement? That IS enforcement.
for the record just tossing up words like 'misdirection, obfuscation, and faulty logic' does not constitute and any sort of sensible argument. The way debate works is you have to provide some sort of underlying proof of such statements.

If you get caught with less than an ounce they give you a fine... one could make the argument that that is NOT enforcement enough (similar to the argument that you will undoubtedly make about how deporting isn't punishment enough).
But surely now you see the error in your ways... that both laws are in fact enforced to one degree or another?

Drawing parallels between smoking pot and crossing the border illegally, accessing free medical care, schooling, welfare and working with falsified papers is as preposterous as saying “if something is wrong only because it is illegal then... make it legal.”

again, by your own words... it is not the mere crossing over illegally that is 'wrong' but the crossing illegally in conjunction with seeking free medical care, etc. And I agree with you... those things ARE wrong, but lets call a spade a spade. I don't want my tax dollars spent hunting down folks who come here illegally and then pay taxes, work hard, obey the laws (as much as I do).

“Wrong” is a subjective term. “Legal” is not. There are many things I think are wrong, yet they are legal. There are other things that are illegal, that I don't think are necessarily “wrong”.

thanks for that very informative lecture on the subtle differences between wrong and legal. wrong is a subjective term to the society to which it is applied. in this context, morally wrong, to our society, would be murder, stealing, etc... things that are wrong not just because they are illegal, but because they are inherently wrong. crossing the border and smoking pot are things that aren't necessarily considered wrong by the entire population while murder and stealing are.

“um, when they catch you here illegally they deport you... am I misunderstanding your definition of enforcement? That IS enforcement.”


Um, no they don't. They will, from time to time, make a show of a few raids and deportations, but for the most part, they don't. In may cities, it is against the law to enforce immigration laws. They are called “Sanctuary” cities. Look it up.


“for the record just tossing up words like 'misdirection, obfuscation, and faulty logic' does not constitute and any sort of sensible argument. The way debate works is you have to provide some sort of underlying proof of such statements.”


I am not in the habit of 'tossing up' words. Those words accurately describe your inane 'argument'.


“similar to the argument that you will undoubtedly make about how deporting isn't punishment enough...”


'undoubtedly'? So, in addition to being overtly pedantic and condescending, you are omniscient as well. You don't know me from Adam – please don't try to paint me with your own bigoted brush.


“thanks for that very informative lecture on the subtle differences between wrong and legal. wrong is a subjective term to the society to which it is applied. in this context, morally wrong, to our society, would be murder, stealing, etc... things that are wrong not just because they are illegal, but because they are inherently wrong. crossing the border and smoking pot are things that aren't necessarily considered wrong by the entire population while murder and stealing are.”


Thank you for the treatise on the meaning of the word 'wrong'. I can understand why you have such trouble dealing with the terminology. Using pretzel logic is always a handicap.

Oh Oh, 90db is as eloquent as Craig. Some of yooz giies gonna get yoorz butss whipped.
Glad I apologized.

“um, when they catch you here illegally they deport you... am I misunderstanding your definition of enforcement? That IS enforcement.”


Um, no they don't. They will, from time to time, make a show of a few raids and deportations, but for the most part, they don't. In may cities, it is against the law to enforce immigration laws. They are called “Sanctuary” cities. Look it up.

so, in your words... "no they dont.... well they do sometimes... but not enough"?

funny how you still make this argument anyway... that the one is enforced and the other is not... I must be omnipotent. If something is enforced in some cities then it would be inaccurate to say it "isn't enforced" wouldn't it? When you say it 'isn't enforced' wouldn't that imply that it isn't enforced everywhere?

"The pot laws are enforced. The traffic laws are enforced. The immigration laws are not. "
those are your words. so who is obscuring the truth and penning false positives? So what you are saying is that it isn't enforced ENOUGH. Like I said... neither are the drug violation laws.

'undoubtedly'? So, in addition to being overtly pedantic and condescending, you are omniscient as well.

honestly not trying to be condescending... it just slips out sometimes. Of course you wouldn't be condescending right? for instance, explaining to me the difference between two words that are trivial?

“thanks for that very informative lecture on the subtle differences between wrong and legal. wrong is a subjective term to the society to which it is applied. in this context, morally wrong, to our society, would be murder, stealing, etc... things that are wrong not just because they are illegal, but because they are inherently wrong. crossing the border and smoking pot are things that aren't necessarily considered wrong by the entire population while murder and stealing are.”


Thank you for the treatise on the meaning of the word 'wrong'. I can understand why you have such trouble dealing with the terminology. Using pretzel logic is always a handicap.

amusing how you don't even approach the meat of my argument... sidestepping the similarity between the two offenses.
Instead of making any sort of meaningful counter argument you try to demean the entire standpoint by declaring it circular.

If only you could make some sort of coherent argument about how crossing the border IS in fact a crime, in and of itself, more serious than smoking pot.

I get it now.
Crossing the border illegaly isn't legal
Killing someone isn't legal'
But,,
Crossing the border Illegally and killing someone illegally,,,,
THATS JUST PLAIN WRONG.

“um, when they catch you here illegally they deport you... am I misunderstanding your definition of enforcement? That IS enforcement.”


Um, no they don't. They will, from time to time, make a show of a few raids and deportations, but for the most part, they don't. In may cities, it is against the law to enforce immigration laws. They are called “Sanctuary” cities. Look it up.

so, in your words... "no they dont.... well they do sometimes... but not enough"?

funny how you still make this argument anyway... that the one is enforced and the other is not... I must be omnipotent. If something is enforced in some cities then it would be inaccurate to say it "isn't enforced" wouldn't it? When you say it 'isn't enforced' wouldn't that imply that it isn't enforced everywhere?

"The pot laws are enforced. The traffic laws are enforced. The immigration laws are not. "
those are your words. so who is obscuring the truth and penning false positives? So what you are saying is that it isn't enforced ENOUGH. Like I said... neither are the drug violation laws.

'undoubtedly'? So, in addition to being overtly pedantic and condescending, you are omniscient as well.

honestly not trying to be condescending... it just slips out sometimes. Of course you wouldn't be condescending right? for instance, explaining to me the difference between two words that are trivial?

“thanks for that very informative lecture on the subtle differences between wrong and legal. wrong is a subjective term to the society to which it is applied. in this context, morally wrong, to our society, would be murder, stealing, etc... things that are wrong not just because they are illegal, but because they are inherently wrong. crossing the border and smoking pot are things that aren't necessarily considered wrong by the entire population while murder and stealing are.”


Thank you for the treatise on the meaning of the word 'wrong'. I can understand why you have such trouble dealing with the terminology. Using pretzel logic is always a handicap.

amusing how you don't even approach the meat of my argument... sidestepping the similarity between the two offenses.
Instead of making any sort of meaningful counter argument you try to demean the entire standpoint by declaring it circular.

If only you could make some sort of coherent argument about how crossing the border IS in fact a crime, in and of itself, more serious than smoking pot.

“so, in your words... "no they dont.... well they do sometimes... but not enough"?”


Actually, I never wrote that. What I wrote was:

“Um, no they don't. They will, from time to time, make a show of a few raids and deportations, but for the most part, they don't. In may cities, it is against the law to enforce immigration laws. They are called “Sanctuary” cities. Look it up.”

Unable to provide a valid retort to my actual statement, you resort to misquoting me and distorting what I actually said?


“I must be omnipotent.”

Actually, the term I used was 'omniscient'. If you do consider yourself 'omnipotent', I would advise some sort of psychiatric treatment for delusions of grandeur.


“When you say it 'isn't enforced' wouldn't that imply that it isn't enforced everywhere?”


No, it would not. In point of fact, however, it is not enforced universally, as it should be.


“So what you are saying is that it isn't enforced ENOUGH.”


I'll speak s l o w l y, so that you may understand. It is hardly enforced at all. That is not only what I am saying, it is what I said.


“honestly not trying to be condescending... it just slips out sometimes. Of course you wouldn't be condescending right? for instance, explaining to me the difference between two words that are trivial?”


I merely tried to point out that morality and the law are two totally different concepts. It was illegal for M.L. King to march in many of his protests – was it morally wrong? In the case of illegal immigration, it is both illegal and morally wrong, in my opinion.



“If only you could make some sort of coherent argument about how crossing the border IS in fact a crime, in and of itself, more serious than smoking pot.”


You were the one who brought up the pot issue, as a misdirection tactic to ameliorate your weak premise.
If you cannot see the difference in gravity between breaking national immigration laws and smoking a joint, I would submit that you have a novel sense of proportion.

“Um, no they don't. They will, from time to time, make a show of a few raids and deportations, but for the most part, they don't. In may cities, it is against the law to enforce immigration laws. They are called “Sanctuary” cities. Look it up.”

let me put down some context for you...
"The pot laws are enforced. The traffic laws are enforced. The immigration laws are not."
you were saying they DON'T ENFORCE IMMIGRATION LAWS. You were saying that pot laws are clearly, BY CONTRAST, enforced.

then in your statement you say "no they dont" (enforce immigration laws)

then you say "they will from time to time" IOW they do sometimes (enforce immigration or at least make a show of a few raids and DEPORTATIONS - which would be SOME FORM of enforcement)

then you say "but they have cities where they don't enforce it at all"
IOW -they don't enforce it enough

I'm not misquoting or distorting... you were drawing the distinction that they ALWAYS enforce traffic or drug laws but NEVER enforce immigration laws. Not true. They enforce immigration laws all the time in az.

I'm simply pointing out that one could make the argument that drug laws are equally unenforced by saying that they often let folks off... and at worst they slap your wrist for a small quantity. So, in short, the two offenses have no difference in this respect. Neither are enforced enough QED


but lets not argue semantics...

"Actually, the term I used was 'omniscient'. If you do consider yourself 'omnipotent', I would advise some sort of psychiatric treatment for delusions of grandeur."
Again, no sort of logical argument that addresses the facts... just a weak attempt to discount my argument over what? the fact that I'm too lazy to go and review your dilapidated arguments in order to ensure I use the word you actually used?

omnipotent means "all knowing", and could mean that I am able to predict that you will make some argument.
omniscient means "to know everything infinitely". The two are hardly miles apart so lets not waste time by focusing in on a simple oversight on my part...

then you spew three paragraphs about how you ARE IN FACT SAYING THAT IT ISN'T ENFORCED ENOUGH FOR YOU. Seriously, you are little more than an annoyance that you actually think you've made any argument at all.
"It is hardly enforced at all. " yes, I was way off and twisting the truth by suggesting you were at first implying “so, in your words... "no they dont.... well they do sometimes... but not enough"?” (enforcing immigration laws)


"I merely tried to point out that morality and the law are two totally different concepts. It was illegal for M.L. King to march in many of his protests – was it morally wrong? In the case of illegal immigration, it is both illegal and morally wrong, in my opinion. "
now lets dig into this one... see if you can actually make any form of substantial counterpoint other than to just fling words and point out oversights...
how is crossing the border morally wrong? not crossing the border and not paying taxes, not crossing the border and murdering someone... simply the act of crossing the border itself.

If you cross the border, then proceed to pay taxes, not murder anyone, be a productive member of society, work, not take benefits you aren't entitled to... not endanger others' lives by crossing the border and potentially causing a border patrolman to confront you... is it in any way morally wrong?
convince me.


"You were the one who brought up the pot issue, as a misdirection tactic to ameliorate your weak premise.
If you cannot see the difference in gravity between breaking national immigration laws and smoking a joint, I would submit that you have a novel sense of proportion. "
ok, so your response as to why one has more gravity than another is "because one is a federal law and one is a local law"?
hardly a counterpoint but lets follow this logic through...
so if they were both LEGAL how would they differ in gravity (again, just the act of smoking pot vs just the act of crossing the border... we won't consider how acquiring pot could induce the breaking of other laws and we won't consider how crossing the border + not paying taxes etc will effect the gravity)

"why is it wrong?"
"it's wrong because it's illegal"
"why is it illegal"
"it's illegal because it's breaking a federal law"
WHA?

Ya gotta love it when arguments sink into semantics.

Mike, I see your points, & I think you see mine. They aren't as far apart as all that, really.

I think I may have far less sympathy for them than you do, but, perhaps you know more about thier plight than I.

I'll still try to keep them out of the country though.

“Um, no they don't. They will, from time to time, make a show of a few raids and deportations, but for the most part, they don't. In may cities, it is against the law to enforce immigration laws. They are called “Sanctuary” cities. Look it up.”

let me put down some context for you...
"The pot laws are enforced. The traffic laws are enforced. The immigration laws are not."
you were saying they DON'T ENFORCE IMMIGRATION LAWS. You were saying that pot laws are clearly, BY CONTRAST, enforced.

then in your statement you say "no they dont" (enforce immigration laws)

then you say "they will from time to time" IOW they do sometimes (enforce immigration or at least make a show of a few raids and DEPORTATIONS - which would be SOME FORM of enforcement)

then you say "but they have cities where they don't enforce it at all"
IOW -they don't enforce it enough

I'm not misquoting or distorting... you were drawing the distinction that they ALWAYS enforce traffic or drug laws but NEVER enforce immigration laws. Not true. They enforce immigration laws all the time in az.

I'm simply pointing out that one could make the argument that drug laws are equally unenforced by saying that they often let folks off... and at worst they slap your wrist for a small quantity. So, in short, the two offenses have no difference in this respect. Neither are enforced enough QED


but lets not argue semantics...

"Actually, the term I used was 'omniscient'. If you do consider yourself 'omnipotent', I would advise some sort of psychiatric treatment for delusions of grandeur."
Again, no sort of logical argument that addresses the facts... just a weak attempt to discount my argument over what? the fact that I'm too lazy to go and review your dilapidated arguments in order to ensure I use the word you actually used?

omnipotent means "all knowing", and could mean that I am able to predict that you will make some argument.
omniscient means "to know everything infinitely". The two are hardly miles apart so lets not waste time by focusing in on a simple oversight on my part...

then you spew three paragraphs about how you ARE IN FACT SAYING THAT IT ISN'T ENFORCED ENOUGH FOR YOU. Seriously, you are little more than an annoyance that you actually think you've made any argument at all.
"It is hardly enforced at all. " yes, I was way off and twisting the truth by suggesting you were at first implying “so, in your words... "no they dont.... well they do sometimes... but not enough"?” (enforcing immigration laws)


"I merely tried to point out that morality and the law are two totally different concepts. It was illegal for M.L. King to march in many of his protests – was it morally wrong? In the case of illegal immigration, it is both illegal and morally wrong, in my opinion. "
now lets dig into this one... see if you can actually make any form of substantial counterpoint other than to just fling words and point out oversights...
how is crossing the border morally wrong? not crossing the border and not paying taxes, not crossing the border and murdering someone... simply the act of crossing the border itself.

If you cross the border, then proceed to pay taxes, not murder anyone, be a productive member of society, work, not take benefits you aren't entitled to... not endanger others' lives by crossing the border and potentially causing a border patrolman to confront you... is it in any way morally wrong?
convince me.


"You were the one who brought up the pot issue, as a misdirection tactic to ameliorate your weak premise.
If you cannot see the difference in gravity between breaking national immigration laws and smoking a joint, I would submit that you have a novel sense of proportion. "
ok, so your response as to why one has more gravity than another is "because one is a federal law and one is a local law"?
hardly a counterpoint but lets follow this logic through...
so if they were both LEGAL how would they differ in gravity (again, just the act of smoking pot vs just the act of crossing the border... we won't consider how acquiring pot could induce the breaking of other laws and we won't consider how crossing the border + not paying taxes etc will effect the gravity)

"why is it wrong?"
"it's wrong because it's illegal"
"why is it illegal"
"it's illegal because it's breaking a federal law"
WHA?

'WHA?' indeed.







“let me put down some context for you...”


I would avoid that were I you, old son. Not your strong suit, you know.


I do appreciate the lesson on vocabulary, but I would suggest you brush up before taking on any more students.


“omnipotent means "all knowing"”


Actually, 'omnipotent' literally means “all - powerful”, from the Latin “Omni Potens”, but I'm sure that is just another 'oversight' on your part.


I do wish that you would attempt to make at least one cogent point though. This is tedious in the extreme.

philby... wise as usual.

"perhaps you know more about thier plight than I" no, I really don't. I just think... "how would I act in their shoes?"

My point is only that aliens aren't the demons they are cracked up to be. I've said it a hundred times... land mines and automated 50 cal turrets along the border...
afa I can tell the only part where we diverge is the idea that we want/need 'the good ones'. I can live with that.


90db...
ok, you aren't going to hear this often so listen up kidies... I apologize,
I was wrong about the definition of omnipotent.
I also thought it was the word you used and it wasn't.

congratulations, you are now as smart as a dictionary.

now that you have managed to be right about something completely unimportant and irrelevant to the debate... can we move on? would you care to take a shot at being right about something that actually matters and/or relates to the topic at hand?

(I doubt it) I think you specifically don't address the ACTUAL argument because you have zero confidence in your own ability to argue.

It's probably wise that you've backed away from any real debate.