Somebody explain this so even I can understand it...

[Peikko 1,575]

OK - but is "legitimate" their word or yours?

I can only presume that if you feel strongly enough to protest about an opinion you are at least going to be doing so on the basis that you believe it to be true. You are responding to this though as if somehow by saying they believe something is legitimate I must be endorsing that legitimacy. That comes under 'comprehension' on your part. What I wrote does not endorse their belief, or any part thereof. What it says is, they believe it to be true - perhaps they don't believe its true, it doesn't really matter in terms of what I was asking about, which is what the government is supposed to do about the opinions of a radical, extremist group?

Edited May 5, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[ScratchIt 12]

I can only presume that if you feel strongly enough to protest about an opinion you are at least going to be doing so on the basis that you believe it to be true. You are responding to this though as if somehow by saying they believe something is legitimate I must be endorsing that legitimacy. That comes under 'comprehension' on your part. What I wrote does not endorse their belief, or any part thereof. What it says is, they believe it to be true - perhaps they don't believe its true, it doesn't really matter in terms of what I was asking about, which is what the government is supposed to do about the opinions of a radical, extremist group?

Who is having the problem of understanding? All I asked was who was the first to use the word "legitimate" in regards to this issue? It makes a difference whether they believe it or you are trying to lend credence to it by calling it legitimate. The difference is that when they use it shows me how stupid they are, when you use it shows me how stupid you think we are. Many of us here know the difference between Shine-ola and what falls from the south end of a north bound immigrant. Either way, the idea that they inherently "own" part of the US is ridiculous. As for what the government is supposed to do about it I would only ask you to direct your attention to Afghanistan or Iraq or even Waco to see how our government deals with radical, extremist groups.

[Susita 175]

I spent an overnight in Namballe (northern Peru) and was told that gasoline prices are so high that people don't drive (unless they can bootleg fuel from Ecuador). This must explain the turkey that was unmolestedly sauntering up the middle of Namballe's main street, si man. My fondest memory was buying a nice leather belt from a shopkeeper (who spoke English) & seeing him beam when I said that I would wear his belt in the Estados Unidos. My unfondest memory (of several disasters) was finally finding a restaurant that was open, being assured that "carne de res" (standard edible meat) would be served, & instead being served BURRO, gag man. "GAW-lee, Wil-burrrrr!"

It was also fun to watch a chicken wander into the money-changing store at the border, si man. It was also not fun to spend over an hour in the morning trying to roust the Peruvian Customs dude out of bed (at his house, a quarter-mile from the border through mud, mosquitos, construction trenches, & cowpies) to get my "gringo exit stamp" from his completely dried-up inkpad, no man. Viva Peru! Viva Ecuador! Viva Mexico! Viva paper towels! Si, man.

I've never been to the Ecuador/Peru border but you seem to have had an interesting time

I still haven't been to Cuzco .... and that's a big deal for me, I really REALLY want to go. I also want to check out Iquitos, the city in the Amazon.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Who is having the problem of understanding? All I asked was who was the first to use the word "legitimate" in regards to this issue? It makes a difference whether they believe it or you are trying to lend credence to it by calling it legitimate. The difference is that when they use it shows me how stupid they are, when you use it shows me how stupid you think we are. Many of us here know the difference between Shine-ola and what falls from the south end of a north bound immigrant. Either way, the idea that they inherently "own" part of the US is ridiculous. As for what the government is supposed to do about it I would only ask you to direct your attention to Afghanistan or Iraq or even Waco to see how our government deals with radical, extremist groups.

If it helps, there is no ambiguity in this sentence that I can see - the emphasis is very clearly on the "extremist group" and their belief that their cause is legitimate.

What exactly can the US government do about the opinions of an extremist group who believe they have a legitimate claim over a portion of the US?

If the sentence was:

What exactly can the US government do about the opinions of an extremist group who have a legitimate claim over a portion of the US?

...then that would change the emphasis and indicate that the author believes the claim is legitimate.

Edited May 5, 2010 by Its a MADHOUSE

[ScratchIt 12]

I was looking for some piece of evidence for the claim rather than an English lesson, but thanks for looking into it so thoroughly.

[Peikko 1,575]

Who is having the problem of understanding? All I asked was who was the first to use the word "legitimate" in regards to this issue? It makes a difference whether they believe it or you are trying to lend credence to it by calling it legitimate. The difference is that when they use it shows me how stupid they are, when you use it shows me how stupid you think we are. Many of us here know the difference between Shine-ola and what falls from the south end of a north bound immigrant. Either way, the idea that they inherently "own" part of the US is ridiculous. As for what the government is supposed to do about it I would only ask you to direct your attention to Afghanistan or Iraq or even Waco to see how our government deals with radical, extremist groups.

I'll direct your attention to the fact that 'your' government (rightly) does not respond to any radical extremist group for holding a radical extremist opinion. What it does is react to a group that threatens to, and then does move that radical extremist opinion into some form of action that actually threatens the welfare of US citizens - a couple of planes launched into a skyscaper would do it. Until then, the radical extremist group can foam at the mouth all it wishes and the government will and can do no more than monitor its activities - they have no power to silence.

As to the other bullshit - my statement was not ambiguous only someone who lacks the ability to understand plain English would jump to the fanciful conclusions you seem so drawn to - but you can think whatever you like.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I was looking for some piece of evidence for the claim rather than an English lesson, but thanks for looking into it so thoroughly.

Why would you need evidence for it?

If an extremist group doesn't believe in it's own ideological cause, what would it believe in?

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't give a ###### what they believe in, they can believe America is a nation of pussies for all I care, the point I was making is that no matter what bizarre, dodgy or crazy idea a group believes in, the US government can't do anything about it until and unless the adherents to that group cause some kind of violent threat towards society. Simply foaming at the mouth doesn't wash.

[ScratchIt 12]

I don't give a ###### what they believe in, they can believe America is a nation of pussies for all I care, the point I was making is that no matter what bizarre, dodgy or crazy idea a group believes in, the US government can't do anything about it until and unless the adherents to that group cause some kind of violent threat towards society. Simply foaming at the mouth doesn't wash.

The point I was making with my OP was that it seems ridiculous to show up at a rally for immigration rights in America toting a foreign flag, but that was lost on you as well. Here, see if this helps.

What a whiner!

[Peikko 1,575]

The point I was making with my OP was that it seems ridiculous to show up at a rally for immigration rights in America toting a foreign flag, but that was lost on you as well. Here, see if this helps.

What a whiner!

I have already responded to that point earlier in the thread. Perhaps you missed it during your vitriolic tirade over your perceived belief that I have some allegiance with an organization that may, or may not believe that it has a legitimate claim over parts of the USA

[Ban Hammer 12,839]

The point I was making with my OP was that it seems ridiculous to show up at a rally for immigration rights in America toting a foreign flag, but that was lost on you as well. Here, see if this helps.

What a whiner!

[Heracles 417]

Edited May 6, 2010 by Booyah!

[ScratchIt 12]

Bingo! Now that's what I'm talking about

[ScratchIt 12]

I have already responded to that point earlier in the thread. Perhaps you missed it during your vitriolic tirade over your perceived belief that I have some allegiance with an organization that may, or may not believe that it has a legitimate claim over parts of the USA

"vitriolic tirade"? Oooo... such big words! Kiddo - you ain't seen nothing yet...