OT: May First

Nope, sorry.

The OP's follow-up answer did *NOT* state "outright that he was going to "start" by targeting Hispanics with his protest"

I didn't miss it. It wasn't there.

It is simply insulting to turn a concern over border security into a racial issue. You tried to play that card and you played it badly.

Yes, I did that. Right after the original poster said he was protesting the activities of illegal Hispanics. Strangely, you deny he said that, (See below) when clearly he did and my guess (only an opinion, mind you) is that he is proud of the position he has taken. Is the OP a bigot? Who knows? Let's ask him if he hates Hispanics because they're Hispanic, hates blacks because they're black, hates Jews because their Jewish, etc etc etc. Maybe he does; maybe he doesn't. I've asked; maybe he'll tell.

Yes, I realize there are immigrants in this country who are here illegally who arent Hispanic and my statement above applies to them all. If we're going to go after illegal immigrants, we should go after one of the reasons they are here, for the jobs that American employers offer them.

Geez.... An outright lie on your part, as can be clearly seen in the messages you reproduced below. He clearly says, in response to my question about why he's only protesting illegal Hispanic activity, "Have to start somewhere." He clearly and proudly states his case that he wants to protest the activities of illegal Hispanics. I asked "is there something about Hispanics that bothers you?" and he answered "Only the illegal ones." How you can spin that any other way is way beyond me. The Quicken group is a pretty savvy group of people. I wonder if you think any of them is stupid enough to believe you when you say something isn't there when it's clearly there. Who in the world do you expect to fool with these tactics? The OP says he's targeting Hispanics, though only the illegal ones. You're denying something I don't think the OP would deny. A strange argument you're making there.

I didn't turn it into a racial issue. I wasn't the one who went wild last week when a Spanish version of the national anthem was released. I don't give a crap what language people sing it in. I hope they sing "America the Beautiful" in a multitude of languages as well. The border issue was turned into a racial issue by a whole host of people a long time ago. I hope you will take them to task for that if that is your concern.

Are you trying to say I'm anti-Hispanic? If so, then why in the world would I even have gotten involved in this thread? I was the first person to attack the original post, and so far, the only person who has done so. If I was anti-Hispanic, why would I even get involved? Drumstick hinted that there was some question about my "national pride." He said I had a "holier than thou" attitude, although it was the original poster who knowingly brought up an inflammatory topic that was clearly off-topic and prattled on about "respect for law." Drumstick even wondered if I had something to hide. I've asked him what he meant by that, but he seems to have fallen silent. (Drumstick, if you can't back up that claim, you ought to at least have the intellectual integrity to withdraw it publicly in this group.) Why would I open myself to those kinds of arguments if I were anti-Hispanic, L?

And what about you, L? You've been attacking my comments with strange quibbles over words. But strangely you really haven't said much about the original topic. Where do you stand on this whole immigration issue? What do you think about the national anthem being sung in Spanish? What about the protests? What about the idea that Americans should have done some extra shopping on May 1 to counteract the protests? Did you take part in the activities suggested by the OP?

Did you attack me as anti-Hispanic simply to muddy the waters? It's a well-used tactic. I hear talk-radio hosts and cable-TV talking heads do it all the time: Misrepresent what the person said and then attack the misrepresentation of it. Was that your whole purpose here, L?

Where do you really stand?

I hate illegals because they're, um, well, *illegal!

*

Wrong. You go after them because they violated the law. You don't go after bank robbers by punishing banks - you go after them because they violated the law.

Having to start somewhere is not the same as targeting Hispanics. Clearly illegal Hispanics represent the largest portion of the illegal immigrant community. It would be foolish therefore to start with a smaller group. That's not targeting Hispanics per se, it's targeting the largest violators of the law. To do otherwise is foolish. More men than women rob banks. By your logic we should go after the women because that often why the men are robbing banks! How bass ackwards!

Another perfectly logical and thus perfectly acceptable statement. If Hispanics are the largest group of illegal immigrants and he has even limited his disapproval to that correct set of people who have violated the law (by definition!) then please tell me why you have a problem with that?

Your "logic" is beyond me!

Sorry, but you haven't shown that there is anything there.

Oh, I don't know. People that read and think.

He wishes to target the largest group of violators (presumably to have the greatest effect on the problem) which happen to be Hispanics that have purposely violated our laws, are uninvited guests and have effectively invaded our country, and I , for one, applaud him!

Great. Forget race. Let's just go after whatever group is the one that violates the laws the most! ;-)

You're right. The issue is not about race - it's about the law. If the biggest group violating the law were say Norwegians then I'd say let's go after them! This is not to say if you catch some other illegal alien, not from the largest group, that you through them back in the sea. But clearly it makes sense to organize your efforts on the biggest violators first.

Just as soon as the Mexican National Anthem is song in English.

They were stupid. Unfortunately most Americans are ignorant about immigration issues because, guess what? They're American citizens and thus have no need for immigration services! And the USCIS is horribly inefficient. You think FEMA should be abolished? The USCIS is 10 times worse! Just remember than many of the hijackers got their visas reissued

*6 months after 9/11!* Enuff said.

I actually went to an Albertsons for lunch. Didn't see any effect - zero, zip, nada. Whatever effect it had that day will be absorbed the next few days anyway.

I largely ignored the issue but listened to the obvious media bias in the news reports at night. I watched (and listened to a podcast) of Nightline and I distinctly recall the newscaster saying "Well that's one side of the issue. When we come back we'll look at the effect of the protest in middle America". I listened carefully to see if the *other* side of the issue ever got discussed. It never did. Check the podcast later - they only ever talked about one side of the story.

Your point is moot. Don't enforce one segment of the law because others aren't being enforced? Circular reasoning. Validity of your claims regarding businesses that hire them notwithstanding, both businesses AND illegals should be addressed. Illegal aliens should be immediately deported, and those found to have illegals in their employ should be fined enough or jailed so as to make it not worthwile to employ them. This mess CAN be fixed by our govenment, as it is a monster of their own making, if only they will. After all, they are *illegal* aliens.

Moot.

Irrelevant, even if true.

Hark

See? You first, NOT him.

No. Didn't miss it BECAUSE IT WASN'T THERE. *YOU* asked if he were bothered by Hispanics, the reply was "Only the illegal ones". You asked if he had a protest planned for "illegal Americans? Tax cheats, polluters, corrupt politicians...etc." and his reply was "Have to start somewhere"

I don't have to deny. I simply read. For you, I can quote too.

The OP stated "Illegal immigrants are planning a nationwide boycott of all goods and services on Monday, May 1, 2006."

The OP suggested "ALL Americans who support LEGAL immigration but demand that all immigrants RESPECT our laws are asked to act on MAY

1st. Wear RED or BLUE that day (they will be wearing white) and go SHOPPING!"

Well, so far guessing has gotten you onto a completly different topic. Perhaps it is best if you do not assume. You know the old adage, right?

Huh? The OP NEVER MENTIONED HISPANICS. NOT ONCE. I would take offense at you calling me a liar, but it is so obvious that you are blinded by your own thoughts on the matter.

You tried to turn the OP's post into a racial issue. The OP denied your allegation and brought it back to what he had posted... ILLEGAL aliens.

Gonna have to ask you the same question, especially since you keep trying to make us believe the OP brought up race.

The whole host of people you claim turned the border issue into a racial one are not posting in this thread. If they do, I will be sure to point out the inconsistencies in their argument(s) as well.

No, I'm not. I was pointing out what I thought was obvious.

I'm not gonna play dime-store psychologist. Like you said, you were the first person to attack the OP. Whatever you get out of that is your issue.

Words are powerful things.

No, but I think it is pretty obvious that you fell prey to that strategy yourself. That is why I replied. You misrepresented what the OP said, and then attacked him based on what you posted.

I don't get involved in politics. I don't take part in protests for or against specific issues. I have a pretty cut-and-dried view of the law. Even if I don't like a specific law, I believe the law must be obeyed.

Each country has laws for folks who want to live and work there. You either follow the law, or you are behaving criminally. It is a pretty black and white issue. It goes the same for businesses. If a business knowingly hires an illegal alien, it is a crime.

What is not black and white is what to do with folks whose crime is to enter a country illegally.

I am going to put myself out there a bit and state that it seems inefficient to focus on the illegal aliens already in a country while additional criminals are streaming in.

And yet, in your first response to me, you said: "What about the phrase 'illegal aliens' suggests that to you? Are you perhaps suggesting all illegal aliens are Hispanic? If so, you are dead wrong, and such bigoted thoughts are offensive. "

So, am I bigoted (your word) or not? And if I am, what kind of bigotry is it -- anti-Hispanic bigotry? You made the charge. Please explain it or give me the courtesy of withdrawing it in this group.

Simple explanation: I gave what you gave. You decided to attack the OP and declare he had a thing against Hispanics, when the OP had used the phrase 'illegal aliens'. I found it an insulting ploy. I turned your race card back on you. Evidentally, you didn't like it. You certainly put up a big fight denying your role in attempting to turn an off topic post on illegal aliens into a diatribe against the OP for your assumption that he targeted a specific group.

Thing is, the OP dropped it. It was a classy move.

You seem to want me to apologize for using your own words against you. It's time to drop the thread.

Lies once again. I ASKED him if he had a thing against Hispanics. I did not declare he did. The exact wording: "Are you really concerned about respect for law in the United States? Or is there something about Hispanics that bothers you?"

Or maybe he found his position indefensible. Or maybe (repeat, MAYBE) he would have to admit certain things about how he feels about other ethnic groups that he'd rather not admit here. We don't know. I don't know how you can attribute his silence to class unless he has told you privately why he isn't responding. (Same is true of Drumstick. I'm STILL waiting for him to say why he thinks I have something to hide. I don't find his silence on this issue "classy" at all.)

No. I want you to explain YOUR words. First you say I'm bigoted and later you concede I'm not. So I guess that means you withdraw the original charge of bigotry? I made a separate post in this group saying that I would only reply to this thread when I felt the need to answer gross mischaracterizations because I'd like to see an end to this thread as well. You may notice that I did not reply to DeFaria and Kosoubek, though I think they are both wrong.

Bigotry is a strong charge. You levelled it against me and then backed away from it without withdrawing it. That's intellectually dishonest.

If this is indeed the end of this thread, then let me take this opportunity to belatedly wish you a Happy Cinco de Mayo.

Please exscuse me for not showing up sooner. I didn't realize my opinion was so important to you. Ok, you asked so here it is:

1. I didn't and don't like your attitude and didn't agree with your original post and so I simply replied with the same logic toward you that you offered toward others. You got defensive; not comfortable huh?
2. I have been silent because now I'm convinced you are a troll and I don't play with trolls.
3. Since you asked, I don't know what you have to hide but most people have something and so I didn't push it. I still won't. You are no better than anyone else here. This ng will respond to you by your actions here and of course if you are a troll that's what you're counting on. If not, who cares what people think about you. You can't change their minds here any more than they can change yours. It's a waste of time and energy for me and for you. You and I just disagree on this one topic, that's it.
4. I guess I should be clear then and say that I am now trhough with this useless and OT thread. If you want to reply feel free but I won't. Your actions have and will speak for themselves.

Drum--

Obviously my original opinion was so important to you that you felt the need to jump in here and question my national pride and claim I had something to hide. But now I find out below that you think "most people have something" to hide.

Would a troll apologize to the newsgroup for his part in having an OT thread continue so long and promise to leave the news group once he was convinced he had answered any serious mischaracterizations of his opinion? (A separate thread started last week, called "apologies.) Wouldn't be more likely that the person who filed the original post, knowing it was controversial and off-topic, was the troll?

I never claimed I was. And if offering an opinion that differs from someone else's opinion is somehow laying claim to being better than that person, then we might as well abolish all newsgroups, debates, political campaigns, etc. I think the holier-than-thou attitude was the one expressed by the OP, who hinted that he had more respect for the law than others.

I'm not sure what that means. I always assumed my opinion spoke for itself. Other than stating my opinion, I don't know what other "actions" you might be talking about. But thanks for clearing up that something-to-hide thing. You seem to think we all have that. That's fine.

I wish you would explain my deficit in the national pride area, but I guess you won't be responding to that.