What If Mexico Was “White”?

[natty bumppo 297]

so because someone prefers to live their life then to be worried about illegal immigration , they are selfish and self-serving??

Indeed - a person isn't obligated to care passionately about every issue in the public conciousness.

when publically presented ... and the stake is driven into the sand ... live it or not.

See references above .... sorry ... maxed out on RE:'s

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Regarding your posting preferences, they are just that, preferences. There is nothing sinister or wrong in copying and pasting in a different way than the way you do it so long as in so doing one keeps the original text free from editing distortions. Of course, if I have misunderstood posting regulations and I am not allowed to do it the way I have been, I am sure that the moderators will step in and let me know.

There aren't any such requirements. If someone is bothered by a quoting technique they can always ask for more information. Its hardly a cardinal sin.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

when publically presented ... and the stake is driven into the sand ... live it or not.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that.

One or two comments on an internet forum thread don't speak to a person's entire lifestyle or indeed their outlook on life.

[jundp 191]

It seems that we, as a country, have many problems that could use this kind of attention. I know that illegal immigrants are breaking the law, but I suppose I don't see that as awful as, say murder.

I guess I just don't understand why everyone gets so up in arms about this. I mean we seem to disintegrate into name calling and not-very-thinly-veiled barbs.

[Marilyn. 340]

i am getting really confused

[Peikko 1,575]

As well you might be, it's a very murky pond you have stepped into Marilyn.

[Marilyn. 340]

nm

Edited November 15, 2007 by MarilynP

[natty bumppo 297]

Regarding your posting preferences, they are just that, preferences. There is nothing sinister or wrong in copying and pasting in a different way than the way you do it so long as in so doing one keeps the original text free from editing distortions. Of course, if I have misunderstood posting regulations and I am not allowed to do it the way I have been, I am sure that the moderators will step in and let me know.

There aren't any such requirements. If someone is bothered by a quoting technique they can always ask for more information. Its hardly a cardinal sin.

Not a sin ... it's obfuscation:

Obfuscate

1. to cloud over; obscure; make dark or unclear

2. to muddle; confuse; bewilder

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It seems that we, as a country, have many problems that could use this kind of attention. I know that illegal immigrants are breaking the law, but I suppose I don't see that as awful as, say murder.

Neither do I. But VJTroll's poll in the other section of the forum was interesting. He got a lot of heat for it - but its food for thought that a number of people responded to a poll answer that clearly suggested that deporting a female illegal alien was more important than prosecuting a USC for beating that illegal alien. Obviously there's more to those views than what's indicated by the poll response - but still...

Regarding your posting preferences, they are just that, preferences. There is nothing sinister or wrong in copying and pasting in a different way than the way you do it so long as in so doing one keeps the original text free from editing distortions. Of course, if I have misunderstood posting regulations and I am not allowed to do it the way I have been, I am sure that the moderators will step in and let me know.

There aren't any such requirements. If someone is bothered by a quoting technique they can always ask for more information. Its hardly a cardinal sin.

Not a sin ... it's obfuscation:

Obfuscate

1. to cloud over; obscure; make dark or unclear

2. to muddle; confuse; bewilder

Can we drop the condescending dictionary definitions? Is that really asking much?

I don't know what your problem is with how people quote posts - its really their business, but if you object to it so much you are perfectly free to ask for clarification. It doesn't mean someone's hiding things from you.

[Peikko 1,575]

Personally, I find those extremely long quote within quote within quote posts muddled, so am I allowed to ask people to stop doing it that way and do it the way I do?

Really, this is too silly. As I said, if I have in any way distorted the original post then fair do's, but I haven't so subject closed as far as I am concerned.

[Peikko 1,575]

Neither do I. But VJTroll's poll in the other section of the forum was interesting. He got a lot of heat for it - but its food for thought that a number of people responded to a poll answer that clearly suggested that deporting a female illegal alien was more important than prosecuting a USC for beating that illegal alien. Obviously there's more to those views than what's indicated by the poll response - but still...

Number 6 post Today, 07:11 PM

Wow, really? People actually think that? Two steps forward, one step back and all in the name of progress.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It is silly, and more so when it appear to be being used for petty point-scoring. I don't see the need to change the way I choose to post especially when its wrapped around a condescending attitude and silly dictionary definitions of "big" words (a polite request for clarification would be another matter).

Obfuscation? What's wrong with "confusing".

Totally O/T I had one lecturer at uni who insisted on filling her lectures with archaic words that weren't in common circulation. She confused an entire class in a seminar by repeatedly using the word "Parsimonious". Her words might have made her sound more credible, but they sure got in the way of learning the material. We all had a good laugh in the student bar when someone actually looked up what it mean't...

Neither do I. But VJTroll's poll in the other section of the forum was interesting. He got a lot of heat for it - but its food for thought that a number of people responded to a poll answer that clearly suggested that deporting a female illegal alien was more important than prosecuting a USC for beating that illegal alien. Obviously there's more to those views than what's indicated by the poll response - but still...

Number 6 post Today, 07:11 PM

Wow, really? People actually think that? Two steps forward, one step back and all in the name of progress.

It was a minority of the people who responded but its there in b&w.

See here.

Edited November 15, 2007 by Number 6

[natty bumppo 297]

It seems that we, as a country, have many problems that could use this kind of attention. I know that illegal immigrants are breaking the law, but I suppose I don't see that as awful as, say murder.

Neither do I. But VJTroll's poll in the other section of the forum was interesting. He got a lot of heat for it - but its food for thought that a number of people responded to a poll answer that clearly suggested that deporting a female illegal alien was more important than prosecuting a USC for beating that illegal alien. Obviously there's more to those views than what's indicated by the poll response - but still...

Regarding your posting preferences, they are just that, preferences. There is nothing sinister or wrong in copying and pasting in a different way than the way you do it so long as in so doing one keeps the original text free from editing distortions. Of course, if I have misunderstood posting regulations and I am not allowed to do it the way I have been, I am sure that the moderators will step in and let me know.

There aren't any such requirements. If someone is bothered by a quoting technique they can always ask for more information. Its hardly a cardinal sin.

Not a sin ... it's obfuscation:

Obfuscate

1. to cloud over; obscure; make dark or unclear

2. to muddle; confuse; bewilder

Can we drop the condescending dictionary definitions? Is that really asking much?

I don't know what your problem is with how people quote posts - its really their business, but if you object to it so much you are perfectly free to ask for clarification. It doesn't mean someone's hiding things from you.

Condescending ... why? Please explain ?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It seems that we, as a country, have many problems that could use this kind of attention. I know that illegal immigrants are breaking the law, but I suppose I don't see that as awful as, say murder.

Neither do I. But VJTroll's poll in the other section of the forum was interesting. He got a lot of heat for it - but its food for thought that a number of people responded to a poll answer that clearly suggested that deporting a female illegal alien was more important than prosecuting a USC for beating that illegal alien. Obviously there's more to those views than what's indicated by the poll response - but still...

Regarding your posting preferences, they are just that, preferences. There is nothing sinister or wrong in copying and pasting in a different way than the way you do it so long as in so doing one keeps the original text free from editing distortions. Of course, if I have misunderstood posting regulations and I am not allowed to do it the way I have been, I am sure that the moderators will step in and let me know.

There aren't any such requirements. If someone is bothered by a quoting technique they can always ask for more information. Its hardly a cardinal sin.

Not a sin ... it's obfuscation:

Obfuscate

1. to cloud over; obscure; make dark or unclear

2. to muddle; confuse; bewilder

Can we drop the condescending dictionary definitions? Is that really asking much?

I don't know what your problem is with how people quote posts - its really their business, but if you object to it so much you are perfectly free to ask for clarification. It doesn't mean someone's hiding things from you.

Condescending ... why? Please explain ?

For one thing - I 'know' what the word means, I don't need it spelled out for me. I also know that there's no reason to use it when there are equally good everyday synonyms that serve the same purpose.

[camifree 2]

Today, U.S. hostility is directed against popular Latin American leaders like Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez

If this "personaje" comes out, things are a little more complicated than that. I can't talk about Morales here because I've got no clear/accurate information about what living under his regime must be like, so I'll just hold my comments about him... but Chavez isn't that popular anymore... at least not for the right reasons... IMO. God bless and protect my country, my people and my family right now...

Pd: I'm sorry I got out of the Mexicans topic.