Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Nemesis6 on October 05, 2010, 12:40:34 pm
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfuwNU0jsk0
Pure genius!
I bet that any day now, Disney will come along to DMCA it! :lol:
-
:lol:
That's pretty well edited!
I have no idea of the US radio commentators, but is Glenn Beck really like that?
-
Good evening, Washington DC. Allow me first to apologize for this interruption. I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of every day routine — the security of the familiar, the tranquility of repetition. I enjoy them as much as any bloke. But in the spirit of commemoration, whereby those important events of the past, usually associated with someone's death or the end of some awful bloody struggle, are celebrated with a nice holiday, I thought we could mark this October the 5th, a day that is sadly no longer remembered, by taking some time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat.
There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with DMCA takedown orders will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth.
And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror.
I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, Glenn Beck. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent.
-
I've seen a little of glenn beck, and this is my take on him:
He has the power to influence millions, and he must be having fun with it, he's a high earner, and really loves his job.
I bet I'd be a little like his show if I had one and loads of money
...in america!
he's a hoot to hear, and yeah, his ideals may not be right, but he's funny as hell to listen too.
if he's not influencing *your* country.
also, this sketch was quite funny.
-
At first they had him correct, then they went down the path of no-context and cherry-picking soundbites to make him sound like a wacko.
-
I have watched his show and he isn't as bad as people say he is.
-
You don't need to cherrypick to make Glenn Beck sound like a wacko becauseidontknow THE MAN IS A WACKO
Oh also...it's Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, except there's just one degree, AND KEVIN BACON IS HITLER (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1s4fj-5zlk)
-
You don't need to cherrypick to make Glenn Beck sound like a wacko becauseidontknow THE MAN IS A WACKO
Oh also...it's Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, except there's just one degree, AND KEVIN BACON IS HITLER (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1s4fj-5zlk)
Thank you for a good laugh.
-
there is a reason no one parodies glen beck and that is because you can't he is already a parody of himself.
(note: this was not intended as an insult)
-
He hasn't Godwin Singularity'd yet.
Emphasis on the yet.
-
there is a reason no one parodies glen beck and that is because you can't he is already a parody of himself.
(note: this was not intended as an insult)
Himself of course being the religious right? I can't tell the difference between the right and the religious right anymore; they seem to be one and the same at this point.
It would be epic if Glenn Beck was ostracized from the whole movement, and hence the foundation of the Tea Party people would be swept away. Question is,
if they found out Glenn Beck was a parodist, would they actually reconsider all the John Birch Society nonsense he's been shoveling down their throat?
-
himself being glen beck, the way you make a parody of something is by exaggerating it to hysterical proportions, but you can't do that with glen because he's already there.
do you know how he got into the position he is in now? he wasn't originally a political talk-show host. originally he was just a regular rush hour show host in NY, but in the days after 9/11 he suddenly got syndicated across the nation because he was almost constantly screaming for an ocean of blood. his key to success is to not leave any room for someone else to overstate anything, and thus he is effectively a parody of himself, no one can to a better more off the wall version of him cause he's already torn the wall down and had it tried, convicted and executed, for being a communist.
seriously, listen to his show some time and ask yourself the question "is he being serious right now?" you will normaly not be able to tell.
-
:lol:
That's pretty well edited!
I have no idea of the US radio commentators, but is Glenn Beck really like that?
Yes, yes he is. At least, let me say that this video accurately sums up my impression of him. His rhetoric appears to have a habit of being self-contradictory, paranoid (if not downright psychotic--and I've heard psychiatrists diagnose him as such before), and abusive, so much so to the point that I find it terrifying that such rhetoric can be a cornerstone in many Americans' political ideology.
-
seriously, listen to his show some time and ask yourself the question "is he being serious right now?" you will normaly not be able to tell.
Actually, this might be the thing what I was originally supposed to be asking: is he being serious or not?
I suspect that If somebody said something like that on the radio waves here he would be immediately classified as a comedian.
-
The sad thing is that he truly does have such a huge influence on the way people think.
Funny though how he gets mad at the comedians who poke fun of him on nearly a constant basis.
-
Everything he does is funny.
even seen the cover of his book? he dresses up like a soviet general, he's having a ****ton of fun manipulating people beliefs to suit his political ideals.
I may not like it, I have mad respect for him.
-
Actually, this might be the thing what I was originally supposed to be asking: is he being serious or not?
I think that beyond a certain point, why exactly you advocate repealing the 14th Amendment, state's rights, the repression of Muslims, etc., doesn't really matter. Whether you mean it or not, simply being able to say it with a straight face makes you a monster.
Glenn Beck is well beyond that point.
-
Actually, this might be the thing what I was originally supposed to be asking: is he being serious or not?
I think that beyond a certain point, why exactly you advocate repealing the 14th Amendment, state's rights, the repression of Muslims, etc., doesn't really matter. Whether you mean it or not, simply being able to say it with a straight face makes you a monster.
And when, exactly, did he say such things?
-
I think that beyond a certain point, why exactly you advocate
repealing the 14th Amendment
I've been listening to him for a while now and I haven't heard him push this. And, honestly, I think repealing it would fly in the face of everything he's been standing for. I think you may mean the 16th, which deals with the income tax.
state's rights
How can someone who preaches the restoration of liberty taken from the people by an overbearing, almost tyrannical Federal government, not be for States Rights in they're place? Unless of course you want to paint him as an anarchist.
the repression of Muslims
Umm...wut?I will say he's for calling a spade a spade and cease the ridiculousness of certain current policies involving the isolation and apprehension of terrorists. A 75 year old christian/Buddhist/Shinto/ect grandmother has a statistically lower chance of being a terrorist than a 20 something male Muslim of(sadly, decreasing)Saudi, Afghan, Iranian or Iraqi decent. Hell, if the world trade center had been knocked down by christian terrorists, he'd probably be for profiling them as well. You can't solve/prevent crimes without profiling those who are more likely to commit them
etc., doesn't really matter. Whether you mean it or not, simply being able to say it with a straight face makes you a monster.
Glenn Beck is well beyond that point.
-
I think Glenn Beck is a lot like Hitler, and his supporters are likely to wear brown shirts. Also T4, eugenics.
-
Lib, it's not that his ideas are wrong, but his facts...just so boneheadedly WRONG.
That and he can't seem to go five minutes without referring to something the Federal government does as slavery, communism, Naziism, or genocidal, even when, y'know, it's not.
Seriously, anyone who calls
The Peace Corps
Seriously, the ****ing Peace Corps
a bunch of brownshirts, he's lost any and all credibility.
-
And when, exactly, did he say such things?
You mean that whole take back America pissing on MLK Jr's grave thing, you slept through it? I don't even like the guy and I saw both the repeal of the 14th Amendment and state's rights on the agenda for that and in the runup and discussed at it itself.
For Liberator's edification (since I know he's totally lost here, and doesn't realize the tyrannical federal government is a Bush thing that was inherited): State's Rights is a really stupid term to use for it since it basically equates to racial injustice and has since before the Civil War.
As for the repression of Muslims, anyone who advocates fighting the misnamed Ground Zero Mosque is attempting to violate their constitutional rights.
-
I believe he had a rant on the 14th amendment and how it was solely intended to protect the rights of the newly freed slaves and thus had been rendered obsolete in our time. This is part of his and a good portion of the Tea Parties solution for the illegal immigration question with direct concern for the children of illegals being dubbed citizens by simply being born on US soil. I can't remember if it was just him or all the Fox News morons spewing this sort of crap all over the place a couple of months back. Either way Stewert and Colbert had a field day with it.
-
I believe he had a rant on the 14th amendment and how it was solely intended to protect the rights of the newly freed slaves and thus had been rendered obsolete in our time. This is part of his and a good portion of the Tea Parties solution for the illegal immigration question with direct concern for the children of illegals being dubbed citizens by simply being born on US soil. I can't remember if it was just him or all the Fox News morons spewing this sort of crap all over the place a couple of months back. Either way Stewert and Colbert had a field day with it.
This makes more sense, I don't see the connection between Take Back America and the 14th amendment, but I understand that Beck doesn't think children of illegal immigrants should be US citizens.
Frankly, I agree with him. If the child turns 18 and is still in the US, he should be considered a US citizen, but I think that until then, the child should have the same status as his/her parent(s).
-
I believe he had a rant on the 14th amendment and how it was solely intended to protect the rights of the newly freed slaves and thus had been rendered obsolete in our time. This is part of his and a good portion of the Tea Parties solution for the illegal immigration question with direct concern for the children of illegals being dubbed citizens by simply being born on US soil. I can't remember if it was just him or all the Fox News morons spewing this sort of crap all over the place a couple of months back. Either way Stewert and Colbert had a field day with it.
This makes more sense, I don't see the connection between Take Back America and the 14th amendment, but I understand that Beck doesn't think children of illegal immigrants should be US citizens.
Frankly, I agree with him. If the child turns 18 and is still in the US, he should be considered a US citizen, but I think that until then, the child should have the same status as his/her parent(s).
The Army would lose a hell of a lot of recruits that way.
Immigration scares are old news. Before it was Mexicans it was Asians, before that it was the Irish and whatnot. Catholics, man, they're gonna ruin America.
-
I believe he had a rant on the 14th amendment and how it was solely intended to protect the rights of the newly freed slaves and thus had been rendered obsolete in our time. This is part of his and a good portion of the Tea Parties solution for the illegal immigration question with direct concern for the children of illegals being dubbed citizens by simply being born on US soil. I can't remember if it was just him or all the Fox News morons spewing this sort of crap all over the place a couple of months back. Either way Stewert and Colbert had a field day with it.
This makes more sense, I don't see the connection between Take Back America and the 14th amendment, but I understand that Beck doesn't think children of illegal immigrants should be US citizens.
Frankly, I agree with him. If the child turns 18 and is still in the US, he should be considered a US citizen, but I think that until then, the child should have the same status as his/her parent(s).
The Army would lose a hell of a lot of recruits that way.
Immigration scares are old news. Before it was Mexicans it was Asians, before that it was the Irish and whatnot. Catholics, man, they're gonna ruin America.
I believe he had a rant on the 14th amendment and how it was solely intended to protect the rights of the newly freed slaves and thus had been rendered obsolete in our time. This is part of his and a good portion of the Tea Parties solution for the illegal immigration question with direct concern for the children of illegals being dubbed citizens by simply being born on US soil. I can't remember if it was just him or all the Fox News morons spewing this sort of crap all over the place a couple of months back. Either way Stewert and Colbert had a field day with it.
This makes more sense, I don't see the connection between Take Back America and the 14th amendment, but I understand that Beck doesn't think children of illegal immigrants should be US citizens.
Frankly, I agree with him. If the child turns 18 and is still in the US, he should be considered a US citizen, but I think that until then, the child should have the same status as his/her parent(s).
-
I believe he had a rant on the 14th amendment and how it was solely intended to protect the rights of the newly freed slaves and thus had been rendered obsolete in our time. This is part of his and a good portion of the Tea Parties solution for the illegal immigration question with direct concern for the children of illegals being dubbed citizens by simply being born on US soil. I can't remember if it was just him or all the Fox News morons spewing this sort of crap all over the place a couple of months back. Either way Stewert and Colbert had a field day with it.
This makes more sense, I don't see the connection between Take Back America and the 14th amendment, but I understand that Beck doesn't think children of illegal immigrants should be US citizens.
Frankly, I agree with him. If the child turns 18 and is still in the US, he should be considered a US citizen, but I think that until then, the child should have the same status as his/her parent(s).
The Army would lose a hell of a lot of recruits that way.
Immigration scares are old news. Before it was Mexicans it was Asians, before that it was the Irish and whatnot. Catholics, man, they're gonna ruin America.
I believe he had a rant on the 14th amendment and how it was solely intended to protect the rights of the newly freed slaves and thus had been rendered obsolete in our time. This is part of his and a good portion of the Tea Parties solution for the illegal immigration question with direct concern for the children of illegals being dubbed citizens by simply being born on US soil. I can't remember if it was just him or all the Fox News morons spewing this sort of crap all over the place a couple of months back. Either way Stewert and Colbert had a field day with it.
This makes more sense, I don't see the connection between Take Back America and the 14th amendment, but I understand that Beck doesn't think children of illegal immigrants should be US citizens.
Frankly, I agree with him. If the child turns 18 and is still in the US, he should be considered a US citizen, but I think that until then, the child should have the same status as his/her parent(s).
The Army would lose a hell of a lot of recruits that way.
Immigration scares are old news. Before it was Mexicans it was Asians, before that it was the Irish and whatnot. Catholics, man, they're gonna ruin America.
Is this a case of lrn2read or lrn2minimumrecruitmentage=17? Because if they're denied citizenship until they're 18 I don't expect an enormous surge of patriotism.
-
Ok, I see your argument now, but I still stand by what I said. This mostly has to do with my personal experience. What is worse, deporting a whole family or just the parents leaving the children with their legal family members? Personal experience says leaving the children is worse, both for the family and for the rest of society.
-
Ok, I see your argument now, but I still stand by what I said. This mostly has to do with my personal experience. What is worse, deporting a whole family or just the parents leaving the children with their legal family members? Personal experience says leaving the children is worse, both for the family and for the rest of society.
Sure, I see your point there. I don't know. My general sense is that the US should be extremely tolerant and accepting of immigrants out of respect for its history.
-
But, is it too much to ask for them to be respectful back?
-
Sure, I see your point there. I don't know. My general sense is that the US should be extremely tolerant and accepting of immigrants out of respect for its history.
I completely agree. The immigration system needs to be revamped, it shouldn't be so hard for people to come over here legally. In fact, the fact that so many people are coming here illegally shows two things, that its far too easy to come (and stay) here illegally, and that its far to hard for them to come legally.
There are a few very simple solutions. For example the gov't could impose a huge fine against any employer hiring illegal immigrants. It becomes cheaper for employers to hire legal employees than to hire illegal ones, illegal immigrants can't find work and they either return to their country and/or begin the immigration process.
There, one half of the problem solved, but since that would hurt both parties' constituents, it isn't going to happen.
-
But, is it too much to ask for them to be respectful back?
Seems like most immigrants are: work for miniscule wages in an environment of disrespect or outright hatred. Wonder when we forgot about the Statue of Liberty's little attendant poem.
-
But, is it too much to ask for them to be respectful back?
Seems like most immigrants are: work for miniscule wages in an environment of disrespect or outright hatred. Wonder when we forgot about the Statue of Liberty's little attendant poem.
This doesn't mean they are respectful. The reason they work for low wages is because the wages are even lower in their country, that's if they can even find a job there. It has nothing to do with respect and everything to do with survival and ambition. I am not saying they aren't, plenty are, plenty aren't, I am just saying that what you said doesn't follow.
-
But, is it too much to ask for them to be respectful back?
Seems like most immigrants are: work for miniscule wages in an environment of disrespect or outright hatred. Wonder when we forgot about the Statue of Liberty's little attendant poem.
This doesn't mean they are respectful. The reason they work for low wages is because the wages are even lower in their country, that's if they can even find a job there. It has nothing to do with respect and everything to do with survival and ambition. I am not saying they aren't, plenty are, plenty aren't, I am just saying that what you said doesn't follow.
It follows perfectly, because it's exactly the same motivation that drove every previous wave of immigrants, and the reactions we're displaying are exactly the same ones we displayed towards the Chinese, the Irish, the...you name it.
It's so bizarre. Conservative ideology centers on the value of individual enterprise and the free market. Then suddenly you get a bunch of people drawn by individual enterprise and the free market and it's all 'they need to buy into our communal ideas!'
(nb i do not identify strongly with a political orientation)
-
But, is it too much to ask for them to be respectful back?
Seems like most immigrants are: work for miniscule wages in an environment of disrespect or outright hatred. Wonder when we forgot about the Statue of Liberty's little attendant poem.
This doesn't mean they are respectful. The reason they work for low wages is because the wages are even lower in their country, that's if they can even find a job there. It has nothing to do with respect and everything to do with survival and ambition. I am not saying they aren't, plenty are, plenty aren't, I am just saying that what you said doesn't follow.
It follows perfectly, because it's exactly the same motivation that drove every previous wave of immigrants, and the reactions we're displaying are exactly the same ones we displayed towards the Chinese, the Irish, the...you name it.
It's so bizarre. Conservative ideology centers on the value of individual enterprise and the free market. Then suddenly you get a bunch of people drawn by individual enterprise and the free market and it's all 'they need to buy into our communal ideas!'
(nb i do not identify strongly with a political orientation)
So we should be welcoming this? (http://www.aina.org/news/20100114115811.htm)
What's happening with muslims in britain and some other parts of europe such as the case above is a stark warning for the rest of us as to what happens when immigrants are allowed to import their feudal baggage. Something is wrong when you can't criticize the backwardness and absurdity of a religion without getting death threats (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7701168.stm) or on occation being murdered (http://dir.salon.com/news/feature/2004/11/24/vangogh/) outright.
-
But, is it too much to ask for them to be respectful back?
Seems like most immigrants are: work for miniscule wages in an environment of disrespect or outright hatred. Wonder when we forgot about the Statue of Liberty's little attendant poem.
This doesn't mean they are respectful. The reason they work for low wages is because the wages are even lower in their country, that's if they can even find a job there. It has nothing to do with respect and everything to do with survival and ambition. I am not saying they aren't, plenty are, plenty aren't, I am just saying that what you said doesn't follow.
It follows perfectly, because it's exactly the same motivation that drove every previous wave of immigrants, and the reactions we're displaying are exactly the same ones we displayed towards the Chinese, the Irish, the...you name it.
It's so bizarre. Conservative ideology centers on the value of individual enterprise and the free market. Then suddenly you get a bunch of people drawn by individual enterprise and the free market and it's all 'they need to buy into our communal ideas!'
(nb i do not identify strongly with a political orientation)
I fail to see how that proves they are respectful to the US.
-
But, is it too much to ask for them to be respectful back?
Seems like most immigrants are: work for miniscule wages in an environment of disrespect or outright hatred. Wonder when we forgot about the Statue of Liberty's little attendant poem.
This doesn't mean they are respectful. The reason they work for low wages is because the wages are even lower in their country, that's if they can even find a job there. It has nothing to do with respect and everything to do with survival and ambition. I am not saying they aren't, plenty are, plenty aren't, I am just saying that what you said doesn't follow.
It follows perfectly, because it's exactly the same motivation that drove every previous wave of immigrants, and the reactions we're displaying are exactly the same ones we displayed towards the Chinese, the Irish, the...you name it.
It's so bizarre. Conservative ideology centers on the value of individual enterprise and the free market. Then suddenly you get a bunch of people drawn by individual enterprise and the free market and it's all 'they need to buy into our communal ideas!'
(nb i do not identify strongly with a political orientation)
I fail to see how that proves they are respectful to the US.
It means they respect the values of the US by enacting them.
-
The first way to be respectful of a sovereign nation you are wanting to live in is to obey the laws...all of them.
-
The first way to be respectful of a sovereign nation you are wanting to live in is to obey the laws...all of them.
Interesting. If so most of our ancestors should have been ejected and we wouldn't be here.
-
We kinda got around that by forming our own sovreign nation. :p
-
We kinda got around that by forming our own sovreign nation. :p
I doubt all that many of your ancestors were present in the country at that time. Mine weren't.
-
Shockingly, mine were. o.0
-
So we should be welcoming this? (http://www.aina.org/news/20100114115811.htm)
In Britain, the authorities are now reporting the forced marriage of girls as young as nine years old on British soil. We are not talking about one case, but several, which take place under official protection.
Am I reading this correctly? My interpretation is that the author is claiming HMG is protecting pedo marriages. If so, I'm not exactly willing to take that on faith. In other words, citation needed.
-
The first way to be respectful of a sovereign nation you are wanting to live in is to obey the laws...all of them.
Interesting. If so most of our ancestors should have been ejected and we wouldn't be here.
All the way back through the history of this country, folk have been, more or less, welcomed into it. The last great immigration rush was funneled through a little place in New York Harbor called Ellis Island. The people who came through there and in other locations were processed quickly and were legal because that was the way it worked in that day because the government wanted a lot of warm bodies coming in to fuel the westward expansion.
These days the process is slower and more grounded in making sure that when you become a citizen of the United States of America, that you are a citizen of some quality of knowledge and understanding of what being an American is.
-
The first way to be respectful of a sovereign nation you are wanting to live in is to obey the laws...all of them.
Interesting. If so most of our ancestors should have been ejected and we wouldn't be here.
All the way back through the history of this country, folk have been, more or less, welcomed into it. The last great immigration rush was funneled through a little place in New York Harbor called Ellis Island.
Yeah, for sufficiently hostile and exploitative definitions of 'welcome'. Read up on the history of places like Ellis and you're gonna find it got very ugly.
-
These days the process is slower and more grounded in making sure that when you become a citizen of the United States of America, that you are a citizen of some quality of knowledge and understanding of what being an American is.
Unlike most of the morons that are born here.
-
Interesting. If so most of our ancestors should have been ejected and we wouldn't be here.
funny thing is this can be used as an argument either way, for instance: if the natives of what is no known as North America would have established national boundaries (maybe they did and I just unaware of it) and forbade anyone not of their community from living on their land without fully assimilating into their nation and only allowed as many people in that could be absorbed, and ejected anyone who did not conform to their rules then maybe there would still be more than a handful of their decedents left. (or maybe the British/Spanish/French would have just wholesale slaughtered them). the native Americans can be used as an example of what happens to a nation/country if it does not enforce assimilation and has a strong influx of immigration.
so in other-words, yeah they should have.
-
Interesting. If so most of our ancestors should have been ejected and we wouldn't be here.
funny thing is this can be used as an argument either way, for instance: if the natives of what is no known as North America would have established national boundaries (maybe they did and I just unaware of it) and forbade anyone not of their community from living on their land without fully assimilating into their nation and only allowed as many people in that could be absorbed, and ejected anyone who did not conform to their rules then maybe there would still be more than a handful of their decedents left. (or maybe the British/Spanish/French would have just wholesale slaughtered them). the native Americans can be used as an example of what happens to a nation/country if it does not enforce assimilation and has a strong influx of immigration.
so in other-words, yeah they should have.
Fallacy of the excluded middle, reductio ad absurdum. The natives of North America or Turtle Island or what-have-you actively attempted to prevent European immigration, often by violence. They simply didn't have the power to carry out their goals. The Native Americans cannot be used as an example of what happens to a nation/country if it does not enforce assimilation because there was no immigration to Native American lands; there was conquest.
Mexicans are not invading our nation in overwhelming numbers using sophisticated technology and a powerfully honed set of immunological weapons.
-
it wasn't that simple, if the natives would have all worked together to repel the Europeans from the outset, they could have made things much more difficult, instead they often formed alliances with the Europeans to gain an upper-hand against rival tribes. it wasn't until the Europeans had a very firm foothold in the Americas did the conquest truly begin.
-
it wasn't that simple, if the natives would have all worked together to repel the Europeans from the outset, they could have made things much more difficult, instead they often formed alliances with the Europeans to gain an upper-hand against rival tribes. it wasn't until the Europeans had a very firm foothold in the Americas did the conquest truly begin.
Sure. Doesn't change the fact that the natives were on the short end of the power scale here. Not analogous, because Mexicans are not invading our nation in overwhelming numbers using sophisticated technology and a powerfully honed set of immunological weapons.
-
Mexicans. . . are from Mexico. I really don't feel the threat.
-
yeah, and Mexicans aren't coming from Europe either.
I don't think I ever mentioned Mexicans, the Mexico-US immigration issue is not the only one of this nature.
-
Mexico has immigration issues on their southern border too. How else do non-Mexicans get through our southern border but through Mexico? I think the Mexican crossing is even worse than the American crossing due to how forcibly Mexico enforces their far-stricter immigration laws. I wouldn't be surprised if the federales shoot at illegal aliens on sight.
-
Not a reason to take it out on the people of Mexico however.
-
on the other hand the cluster **** that Mexico is becoming is a good reason to try and reduce our border's permeability as much as possible.
-
Permeability, or permittivity?
Do illegal immigrant behave more like a magnetic field or more like an electric field...? :nervous:
-
Not a reason to take it out on the people of Mexico however.
No, but it is something to consider when people bash American immigration policies, especially when Mexico's el presidente does it.
-
So we should be welcoming this? (http://www.aina.org/news/20100114115811.htm)
In Britain, the authorities are now reporting the forced marriage of girls as young as nine years old on British soil. We are not talking about one case, but several, which take place under official protection.
Am I reading this correctly? My interpretation is that the author is claiming HMG is protecting pedo marriages. If so, I'm not exactly willing to take that on faith. In other words, citation needed.
You're reading it correctly, the problem is that they aren't writing it correctly, it's somewhat a selective use of facts. The Government are aware that children as young as 9 are being promised into wedlock by their parents despite laws to the contrary, and the Law is having a hard time dealing with it because it's, quite obviously, not something that is made public knowledge. What that report has done is selectively take the information and word it in such a way as to make it look like a difficulty to act upon is equal to supporting the concept of.
That's always the problem of trying to sensationalise something which has, in its projection through a tabloid paper already been sensationlised once, the story gets blown up into something else entirely. You already noted that article doesn't even link its sources.
Edit: It's kind of like when the UK Government wanted to move the point of taxation from the workplace to a centralised system and people (notably outside the UK) claimed that the Government were going to give people 'what they think you can live on', which was complete bollocks, it was nothing of the sort, but that sounds much more sensational and judgemental.
-
Mexicans. . . are from Mexico. I really don't feel the threat.
you do realize that mexico is in an ACTUAL WAR with drug cartels, making the country almost as dangerous for reporters as IRAQ.
like, **** is real there, henceon the other hand the cluster **** that Mexico is becoming is a good reason to try and reduce our border's permeability as much as possible.
-
that was what I was referencing with that comment. :nod: