Griffin Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 BTW, let's be clear in the distinction between granting amnesty to refugees from countries with murderous regimes or other forms of brutal persecution, versus ECONOMIC refugees, people who illegally enter a country because they want to improve their standard of living. The U.S. is the most generous country in the world towards the former and that generosity has been fully ratified by legislative action. In this case, we are talking about economic refugees. It would be interesting to see how many of the latter Mexico has accepted, indeed it would be interesting to see if any country has granted amnesty to nearly a million economic refugees without benefit of ratification by their legislature. Any example of Mexico granting amnesty in modern times to very large numbers of people for economic reasons? The people must be under 30, brought to the U.S. as children not by their own choice, and it is a 2 year visa, not permanent status. It is for these people to be able to work, go to school or join the military. People brought to the U.S. as children did not enter because of economic status. They entered because their parents brought them. Dropping them in the country they were born in would be like dropping one of us in the country our ancestors came from. Many do not know the country they came from or speak the language. It is not a blanket amnesty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alacran26 Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 So just don't watch Fox News or associate with anyone that does. End of problem for you, simple. You can get all of your facts from MSNBC and BBC. Associate only with like-minded folks and you will not have to put up with contrary opinions. Why are so called "liberals" so clueless when it comes to solving a simple problem such as how to avoid hearing an opinion that goes against what they believe? As a so called "liberal" I get my news from many sources, I also enjoy seeing and debating different opinions. My problem with Fox is that they present opinion as news facts. The only program on Fox "News" that comes close to having actual news is Shepard Smith. All other Fox programs are Republican, Murdock based opinion, not facts. They should simply state that and they would be more credible. News is: "Mass killing at a McDonalds." Fox news is: "Obama policy causes mass killing at a McDonalds." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
innkeeperajijic Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 As a so called "liberal" I get my news from many sources, I also enjoy seeing and debating different opinions. My problem with Fox is that they present opinion as news facts. The only program on Fox "News" that comes close to having actual news is Shepard Smith. All other Fox programs are Republican, Murdock based opinion, not facts. They should simply state that and they would be more credible. News is: "Mass killing at a McDonalds." Fox news is: "Obama policy causes mass killing at a McDonalds." Sounds like you watch a lot of Fox News Channel, but why would you do that when you stated you like "news" and not opinions? If you have figured out that Fox is all Republican, Murdock based opinion are you saying that somehow most liberals are too stupid to also have figured that out for themselves? I just do not understand why some people get so exercised by what other people choose to watch. I don't usually watch MSNBC, BBC, NPR (listen) or read the New York Times all of whom mix news with opinion but I surely don't care if other folks do. I don't feel threatened when the other side reports that Obama has signed an executive order(that is news) and then states that it's about time and that it will result in a fairer way of life for all (that is opinion). Good for them, they are in the business of selling ads to advertisers that freely choose to try and reach potential customers. What is wrong with that? Our system is not perfect but can you imagine if we had a government "news czar" who decided what is news and what is opinion? I like the idea that you and I can freely choose how and what we see, read and hear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffin Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 Absolutely correct sinaloa702. People who watch FOX rarely watch other news sources except to listen to Limbaugh. I agree about Shep, and I'm always surprised he hasn't been canned by FOX. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
innkeeperajijic Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 Your advise to me is exactly what the term "being prejudiced" is. This may work for you but is against my integrity as a citizen of a free democracy. OK, if that's what "being prejudiced" really is I plead guilty and throw myself to the mercy of the court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alacran26 Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 Sounds like you watch a lot of Fox News Channel, but why would you do that when you stated you like "news" and not opinions? If you have figured out that Fox is all Republican, Murdock based opinion are you saying that somehow most liberals are too stupid to also have figured that out for themselves? I just do not understand why some people get so exercised by what other people choose to watch. I don't usually watch MSNBC, BBC, NPR (listen) or read the New York Times all of whom mix news with opinion but I surely don't care if other folks do. I don't feel threatened when the other side reports that Obama has signed an executive order(that is news) and then states that it's about time and that it will result in a fairer way of life for all (that is opinion). Good for them, they are in the business of selling ads to advertisers that freely choose to try and reach potential customers. What is wrong with that? Our system is not perfect but can you imagine if we had a government "news czar" who decided what is news and what is opinion? I like the idea that you and I can freely choose how and what we see, read and hear. Like a true conservative, misrepresents what I say. I didn't say I didn't like opinions, I said Fox should clearly state that what they say is new is really opinion. Other opinions are good, that's what makes the world a better place, not the Stepford Wives type view. I actually watch Fox in the morning to read the ticker tape, sometimes that has actual news, and Fox is always good for a laugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
innkeeperajijic Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 Absolutely correct sinaloa702. People who watch FOX rarely watch other news sources except to listen to Limbaugh. I agree about Shep, and I'm always surprised he hasn't been canned by FOX. Wow, I'm amazed at what some people believe as fact when they themselves decry other people's "opinions". I ask sincerely if this statement, People who watch FOX rarely watch other news sources except to listen to Limbaugh is a fact or an opinion? How could you possibly know that as a fact rather than it just being your opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RVGRINGO Posted June 16, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts." Facts are undeniable, while opinions live in the same realm as religions; belief without evidence. One should know the difference. My OP was simply to refer to a news article which reported a fresh fact; one that, in my opinion, might interest residents of Mexico. Evidently, it has caused an irrational, knee-jerk reaction in those who wish to obfuscate or 'spin' facts. Let's leave it at that, unless you prefer to shoot the messenger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
innkeeperajijic Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 Would never shoot you RV, keep on posting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffin Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 Wow, I'm amazed at what some people believe as fact when they themselves decry other people's "opinions". I ask sincerely if this statement, People who watch FOX rarely watch other news sources except to listen to Limbaugh is a fact or an opinion? How could you possibly know that as a fact rather than it just being your opinion? Who cares if it's just an opinion? Read what most Fox watchers write and it's obvious their only source of information is Fox. Why waste so much time on worrying about the scientific methods of rendering an opinion? I also bet that most Fox viewers are creationist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giltner68 Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 Sorry, not this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
innkeeperajijic Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 If you don't watch Fox News (I think you are watching when nobody else is around, now aren't you) why on earth would you care about it or anybody that does watch it? I don't believe in man-caused global warming but I don't go around trying to convince others that my opinion is the correct one. Why are so many people worried about what other people are reading, listening to, watching or believing? This is not meant as anything toward you in particular, just a question in general. I'm sure you're a fine fellow that I would enjoy having a beer with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanMexicali Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 If you don't watch Fox News (I think you are watching when nobody else is around, now aren't you) why on earth would you care about it or anybody that does watch it? I don't believe in man-caused global warming but I don't go around trying to convince others that my opinion is the correct one. Why are so many people worried about what other people are reading, listening to, watching or believing? This is not meant as anything toward you in particular, just a question in general. I'm sure you're a fine fellow that I would enjoy having a beer with. The number one reason is all the misinformation, quotes taken out of context, biased viewpoints and rhetoric they use presented as some kind of real news and real consequences of events that are nothing but personal biased opinions supporting the conclusions they draw from their biased reporting they constantly misrepresent as facts and their plausible conclusions when in fact it is almost all simply propaganda and opinions that do not line up with the facts that are common knowledge. Staying with this type of misinformation keeps people from any type of rational evaluation of events that are out there to ponder over and come to a conclusion from all sides of the issue without giving into the pressure to keep up with the one side is right, so the other side "has" to be wrong rhetoric so prevalent in many truly uninformed peoples' comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
innkeeperajijic Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 What is a "uniformed peoples' comment"? If you meant "uninformed" I rest my case. Where am I going wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manny Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 mainecoones: wasnt it carter who passed amnesty law? also i thought the dream act was only for college students? (guess not). i agree w/80% of what you posted. for some reason the u.s. wont deport the 40,000 el salvadorian gang members, many who are not legal. they are also not deporting the prisoners either. fox news: remember they had the libertarian constitutional judge. he lost his job as he was too anti establishment. that was an amazing show, they kept him on air for a long time. fox is not so bad. all the liberals in the house here, should know: fox has 20% arab ownership. feel better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
innkeeperajijic Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 Unless Fox News has failed to change their website, Judge Napolitano is still there. When was he canned, Manny? This is as of today: Andrew P. Napolitano joined FOX News Channel (FNC) in January 1998 and currently serves as the senior judicial analyst. He provides legal analysis on both FNC and FOX Business Network (FBN). Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/personalities/andrew-p-napolitano/bio/#s=m-q#ixzz1y0BwjV8J And yes, he is definitely a libertarian and a real smart one at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainecoons Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 Here's a discussion of the legal/Constitutional issue that I found interesting. The current POTUS is by no means the only one to try and legislate from the White House, just the latest. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77486.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffin Posted June 17, 2012 Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 POTUS is the Executive Branch and all agencies are under the Executive Branch. POTUS has the authority to direct agencies and to refuse to defend certain court cases. GWB violated the law with his signing statements when he signed new laws. POTUS does not have that authority. The Obama Administration has deported more people than any previous administration, primarily criminals. remember they had the libertarian constitutional judge. he lost his job as he was too anti establishment. A judge is a lawyer who couldn't make a decent living as a lawyer, so he/she got a judge job so he could have a steady paycheck. Judges are not the most knowledgeable about the law. That's why panels of judges are overruled by other panels of judges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffin Posted June 17, 2012 Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 Pew Research: The Pew Research Center has just released a very interesting study, “Beyond Red vs. Blue: The Political Typology.” It segments the public into nine groups: eight politically active groups and one inactive group (bystanders) composed entirely of nonvoters. Of the eight active groups, two are described as “mostly Republican” (staunch conservatives and Main Street Republicans), three as “mostly Democratic” (new coalition Democrats, hard-pressed Democrats, and solid liberals), and three as “mostly independent” (libertarians, disaffecteds, and postmoderns). In reality, however, postmoderns lean strongly Democratic, while libertarians and disaffecteds lean strongly Republican. So there are really four active Democratic and four active Republican groups. Similarly, the public as a whole supports a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants currently in the United States by 72-24. And again, seven of eight active typology groups endorse this position, including Main Street Republicans by 19 points, libertarians by 34 points, and disaffecteds by 36 points. Only the staunch conservatives dissent, and even here there are as many supporting as opposing the position (49-49). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanMexicali Posted June 17, 2012 Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 Griffin. I feel you are wasting your time. I have yet to see them [Fox viewers, that is] respond to their posting misinformation and owning up to it. It is probably belonging to the club thing with loyalty before truth and facts. All the talk about opinions is simply a typical smoke screen/straw-man rhetoric. IMO Of course there is always the chance of a first time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carib Posted June 17, 2012 Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 PV Kids got out of the wrong side of bed today. Chill out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
innkeeperajijic Posted June 17, 2012 Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 Good morning carib, I just checked and made sure I got out of the right side of the bed. Thanks for your concern. As I politely asked yesterday, where am I going wrong? I just read an interesting story (in the Washington Post of all places, not Fox News) that says some, not all, democrats are angry at Mr. Obama for his amnesty plan. Seems they perceive that blacks in particular will have a harder time finding jobs now that they have to compete with these hispanics who are going to receive working papers. This was also the case with our local news last night here in Houston. Our esteemed representative to Congress, Sheila Jackson Lee, was filmed tying herself into knots trying not to sound racist and praise the president, but in the end she came down on the side of "her people" now facing a tougher job of finding that job. Seems that the Rainbow Coalition is showing some cracks and not everyone sees this decision as good news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainecoons Posted June 17, 2012 Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 I dunno but y'all should know by now that personal sniping and political commentary will get threads closed on this board. Might want to keep that in mind going forward. What I wonder about is that if this is being done for noble purposes, why it wasn't done two years ago. Are these young people being used for political purposes? Sure feels that way to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffin Posted June 17, 2012 Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 Good morning carib, I just checked and made sure I got out of the right side of the bed. Thanks for your concern. As I politely asked yesterday, where am I going wrong? I just read an interesting story (in the Washington Post of all places, not Fox News) that says some, not all, democrats are angry at Mr. Obama for his amnesty plan. Seems they perceive that blacks in particular will have a harder time finding jobs now that they have to compete with these hispanics who are going to receive working papers. This was also the case with our local news last night here in Houston. Our esteemed representative to Congress, Sheila Jackson Lee, was filmed tying herself into knots trying not to sound racist and praise the president, but in the end she came down on the side of "her people" now facing a tougher job of finding that job. Seems that the Rainbow Coalition is showing some cracks and not everyone sees this decision as good news. I missed it. I searched the Washington Post and couldn't find a comment by Sheila Jackson Lee about the two year amnesty. Not all Blacks, Browns, Reds, Whites and other colors all agree with every policy. Many Blacks are against same sex marriage even though marriage is a government contract regulated by laws, yet they would throw a fit if their rights were not protected by laws. The people who are given a two year reprieve are not taking jobs away from unemployed Backs or Whites. http://www.washingto...html?tid=pm_pop The most significant and contentious aspect of the new policy is that it automatically grants hundreds of thousands of people in their teens and 20s — most of them from Mexico and Central America — the right to work in the United States. Many may have already been working, but as undocumented laborers they often had to accept low wages and poor conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carib Posted June 17, 2012 Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 PV Kids I defend your right to express publicly your opinion. But I also had learn, either in politics or religion, that no opinion or reasoning changes the other side point of view. I had been happily marrieds for 46 years to and atheist and my religion background is catholic. One thing I learned a long time ago is to live peacefully and harmoniously with our differences. I respect and validate the right to his opinion as long as he does mine. For 46 year I had hear and paid attention to his view as so he does to mine. I had asked him to summons a priest on my deathbed and although he does not believe, he will do. This is what I call love, respect and tolerance and that why we lasted this long together. On the political side we are liberals, thank God, but on that we have small differences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.