[Uncle Skeleton]

Among others. Are you going to get to the point soon? I did my best to cut to the chase for you, but I feel like you're stringing me along. Not mad, just asking.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Among others. Are you going to get to the point soon? I did my best to cut to the chase for you, but I feel like you're stringing me along. Not mad, just asking.

You asked "does she do that?"

I've said, more than once, she does.

Since you asked the question, even though it's been answered, I felt it wise to make sure we agreed on how her targets would fit into the checkpoint analogy. You very well could have asked that question because you didn't agree.

The point is, yes, she does. She's gone on the record slamming people who come over here on visas, have a baby, and then become citizens.

I can dig up the quote if you want.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Please do that

[subego]

Originally Posted by Michelle Malkin

During my book tour across the country for Invasion, this issue came up time and again. In the Southwest, everyone has a story of heavily pregnant women crossing the Mexican border to deliver their "anchor babies." At East Coast hospitals, tales of South Korean "obstetric tourists" abound. (An estimated 5,000 South Korean anchor babies are born in the US every year). And, of course, there's a terrorism angle.

Text

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Meanwhile, at the very heart of this issue in the "Jobs Americans Won't Do" category:

Pro's Ranch Markets fires 300 illegal workers after ICE audit

About 300 employees at Pro's Ranch Markets' six Valley supermarkets were let go Tuesday and Wednesday after an initial Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency audit found them to be working illegally in the United States.

The fired employees can appeal the decision, but they are prohibited from working during the process.

Julie Pace, an attorney for Pro's Ranch Markets, said most of the affected workers gave the company forged documents when asked to demonstrate their eligibility to work in the United States.

Only citizens and non-citizens with work-authorization documentation are permitted to hold jobs in the United States. [No way, REALLY? How fascist!]

The above immediately followed by:

Hundreds seek to fill vacant positions at Pro's Ranch Market

PHOENIX -- Job hunters turned out in the hundreds to fill recently-vacant positions at Pro's Ranch Market stores, where a federal audit led to the firing of some 300 workers.

Roxanne Nieves, one of the many that came out in search of a job, said she came to apply after she heard about the layoffs.

"We heard they are firing a lot of illegal people, so we're here to apply," she said.

So can we now add supermarket positions to the LONG and ever-growing list of "Jobs Americans Won't Do"?

Gee, imagine it, in the middle of a recession and the liberals are still spewing the old bullshite that we need thousands and thousands and thousands more poor illegals flooded into the nation's already poorest communities because of all those "Jobs Americans Won't Do." Well sure, Americans "won't do" any of those jobs once the useful idiot illegal-supporters manage to gut them all down to illegal immigrant level wages.

Yup, such a great position to be on if you're on the pro-illegal side of this. Yes, such a good idea to flood the poorest neighborhoods with even more poor- so you can whine about how poor everybody is. So great that you either support the gutting of wages so that companies can pay barely livable illegal wages (and then pretend this slave-labor practice can't possibly have an ill effect on the economy as a whole), OR- the rampant use of forged documents so that illegal immigrants can steal jobs directly from US citizens at full wages. "Jobs Americans Won't Do." Brilliant. Go pat yourselves on the back pro-illegals- you've been sold a bill of good that it's a 'civil rights' issue, even as you help gut living conditions and wages for minorities more than anyone else.


And by the way, hat's off to ICE for actually doing it's job. Wait, you mean it's actually possible to tell who's really working here illegally or via using forged and stolen identities by merely... checking? Gee whiz, another lie of the left exposed, that this isn't possible because everyone is just forced to "live in the shadows" booo hooo. Gee, turns out, it IS possible to enforce our labor laws by actually- ENFORCING THEM, not just looking the other way due to P.C. insanity. 'magine that.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

The question is what federal law requires US citizens to carry identification and proof of legal residence?

I'm a US citizen.

Tell me what right does the government have to arrest and detain me, a US citizen, for looking like an illegal immigrant and not carrying enough identification such as a birth certificate?

From your link: The first victim fell before the bill was signed. The victim, Abdon, a Latino trucker, was pulled over and asked for his “papers.”

There is no law to stop you, arrest you, and detain you for looking Hispanic. In fact, language in SB1070 specifically forbids the use of race as a determinant factor. Since this truck driver incident happened well before SB1070 even goes into effect, perhaps the law would've helped ensure the officer followed proper protocol. What you're citing here is the horrible act of police misconduct (false arrest) if anything else; having nothing to do with the Arizona law. He should take this to court. As I've been saying all along, people don't have a problem with a Federal Immigration policy, they just get up in arms whenever it's actually enforced. Your problem is not with this law, it is with human nature. For all you know, specified law around this act would've helped the victim.

30% of Arizona's residents are Hispanic let alone "look" Hispanic, Arizona does not have the resources to, nor is it planning on rounding up all Hispanic "looking" residents and asking them for ID. This is a myth perpetuated by fear-mongering to forward a political agenda using an anecdote that has nothing to do with SB1070. Fail.

The Arizona law basically requires anyone including US citizens, such as the truck driver who was arrested, to carry identification including a birth certificate, if they so happen to look like an illegal immigrant.

So why was this man required to carry a birth certificate prior to the enactment of SB1070? In other words, what does your anecdote have anything to do with SB1070?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

During my book tour across the country for Invasion, this issue came up time and again. In the Southwest, everyone has a story of heavily pregnant women crossing the Mexican border to deliver their "anchor babies." At East Coast hospitals, tales of South Korean "obstetric tourists" abound. (An estimated 5,000 South Korean anchor babies are born in the US every year). And, of course, there's a terrorism angle.

Text

That is still consistent with "Doors should not be left open" (because look what happens). Likewise, libs go on and on about rising sea levels and dying polar bears, but that doesn't mean it's because they blame the seawater or the polar bears. It's perfectly normal to talk about the effects of the bad policy in addition to the specifics of the bad policy. Do you have anything that actually assigns blame?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That is still consistent with "Doors should not be left open" (because look what happens). Likewise, libs go on and on about rising sea levels and dying polar bears, but that doesn't mean it's because they blame the seawater or the polar bears. It's perfectly normal to talk about the effects of the bad policy in addition to the specifics of the bad policy. Do you have anything that actually assigns blame?

The term "anchor baby" isn't something you use in polite company, and even if it was, she neglects to apply the term to herself.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

So can we now add supermarket positions to the LONG and ever-growing list of "Jobs Americans Won't Do"?

When was the supermarket ever a position Americans won't do? The jobs Americans won't do is manual labor, usually in agriculture, for minimum wage and no benefits.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

The term "anchor baby" isn't something you use in polite company

So what does that mean? Anyone who uses the term hates the babies? You and hyteckit both used it, does that mean you hate them too? How do you know it's not just provocative language to draw attention (like good old fashioned cursing, which is another thing she did in the few video clips I watched of her)? I'm still waiting for some evidence for the premise "she hates anchor babies."

I'm not invested in this issue, at all, I'm just trying to coax a well-founded logical argument out of you (collectively), and frankly I'm quite surprised it's so difficult to do.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

From your link: The first victim fell before the bill was signed. The victim, Abdon, a Latino trucker, was pulled over and asked for his “papers.”

There is no law to stop you, arrest you, and detain you for looking Hispanic. In fact, language in SB1070 specifically forbids the use of race as a determinant factor. Since this truck driver incident happened well before SB1070 even goes into effect, perhaps the law would've helped ensure the officer followed proper protocol. What you're citing here is the horrible act of police misconduct (false arrest) if anything else; having nothing to do with the Arizona law. He should take this to court. As I've been saying all along, people don't have a problem with a Federal Immigration policy, they just get up in arms whenever it's actually enforced. Your problem is not with this law, it is with human nature. For all you know, specified law around this act would've helped the victim.

30% of Arizona's residents are Hispanic let alone "look" Hispanic, Arizona does not have the resources to, nor is it planning on rounding up all Hispanic "looking" residents and asking them for ID. This is a myth perpetuated by fear-mongering to forward a political agenda using an anecdote that has nothing to do with SB1070. Fail.


So why was this man required to carry a birth certificate prior to the enactment of SB1070? In other words, what does your anecdote have anything to do with SB1070?

Did this happen before the new law goes into effect? Yes.

It has nothing to do with the new law? I say it has everything to do with SB1070.


The very concern about the passage of the SB1070 is that it'll give law enforcement the idea that's it's okay to demand papers from anyone looking like a illegal immigration including US citizens.



Again, ebuddy.

Do you carry your birth certificate with you at all times?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

So what does that mean? Anyone who uses the term hates the babies? You and hyteckit both used it, does that mean you hate them too?

I can't speak for hyteckit, but I note that English isn't his first language, and even a glancing familiarity with his posting style would tell you he makes liberal use of sarcasm.

For myself, I'm going to assume you just weren't paying attention, and know the difference between using a term, and quoting it.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

How do you know it's not just provocative language to draw attention (like good old fashioned cursing, which is another thing she did in the few video clips I watched of her)? I'm still waiting for some evidence for the premise "she hates anchor babies."

The premise is she hates their parents.

In the quote I gave you, she clearly has a problem with the parents of these babies.

That, among other things, is what makes the term scuzzy. The issue with the behavior of the parents is expressed by referring to their children as slang.


So, to refresh here:

In the quote, she takes issue with the parents of people who have children here (whether illegally or on a visa) and then become citizens.

Her parents came here on a visa, had a baby, and then became citizens.

She has not focused any ire on her parents for this.

[Shaddim]

This may have been discussed earlier, but this is something I was kicking around.

Why not just open the border with Mexico (to an extent)? The feds are pathetic at keeping them out anyway. We could setup stations along the border and most Mexicans who want to enter the country to find work would be issued a visa and a SS number. No long waits, they simply sign up, move in, and go to work. Of course, we would need for them to provide ID and we would need access to background info, but I'm sure that could somehow be worked out with the Mexican gov't. The law would require that they remain gainfully employed or they would face deportation. Aliens who enter illegally would be deported, no exceptions, you're out.

The chief benefit for the US is being able to track them all via their visa number and we would be able to receive federal and state income taxes. No, they wouldn't be able to vote unless they become citizens, and they wouldn't qualify for unemployment insurance. However, they would be given protections regarding their employment such as: minimum wage laws, health benefits (when applicable), worker's compensation insurance, and they wouldn't constantly be looking over their shoulders worrying about INS. Furthermore, their children, if born on US soil, wouldn't automatically become citizens. They would be classified as legal aliens, but would be extended the same rights as their parents and given an education.

Of course, if they want to go through the process of naturalization, it would be offered to them. This would work according to current laws for such matters.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

The premise is she hates their parents.

You can't be a hypocrite because of what your parents do!

In the quote I gave you, she clearly has a problem with the parents of these babies.

No, that's not clear at all in the quote you gave me. All it says is how many people are using it, it doesn't say those people are bad people because of it. If she believes that terrorists are using this policy to enter the country, then it's perfectly reasonable to try to support this theory in part by showing how big the open door is. You can fault someone for thinking that having a baby is the easiest way for terrorists to get into the US, but you can hardly fault her for thinking that terrorists are bad people.

In the quote, she takes issue with the parents of people who have children here (whether illegally or on a visa) and then become citizens.

I know you can find a quote that actually does say that, if you're right about her, but the one you found does not.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

So what does that mean? Anyone who uses the term hates the babies? You and hyteckit both used it, does that mean you hate them too? How do you know it's not just provocative language to draw attention (like good old fashioned cursing, which is another thing she did in the few video clips I watched of her)? I'm still waiting for some evidence for the premise "she hates anchor babies."

I'm not invested in this issue, at all, I'm just trying to coax a well-founded logical argument out of you (collectively), and frankly I'm quite surprised it's so difficult to do.

What evidence are you looking for?

You do not believe Michelle Malkin has a dislike or disdain for illegal immigrants and anchor babies?

Why don't you read her site?

Michelle Malkin � Immigration


You do not believe Michelle Malkin is using the word 'anchor baby' in a dehumanizing and mean spirited way?

Well, I'm trying to dehumanize Michelle Malkin by calling her an 'anchor baby', a term she loves to use.

I guess it's better than calling her a leech, a whore, or prostitute.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

When was the supermarket ever a position Americans won't do?

Wow. Some one ALMOST stumbled into the point. Almost.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You can't be a hypocrite because of what your parents do!

Repeating now:

She derides people who engage in the behavior, with the exception of her parents, who fall into that category as she defines it.

That's what makes her a hypocrite.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No, that's not clear at all in the quote you gave me. All it says is how many people are using it, it doesn't say those people are bad people because of it.

You keep sailing right past the fact "anchor baby" is a pejorative.

Is "welfare baby" a neutral descriptor too?

[hyteckit]

Michelle Malkin - In Defense of Internment

In Defense of Internment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Amazon.com: In Defense of Internment: The Case for Racial Profiling in World War II and the War on Terror (9780895260512): Michelle Malkin: Books


Why Michelle Malkin thinks it's okay to racial profile and put Japanese Americans in internment camps.

Because we can't trust them and don't know where there loyalty lies.

Look like a Japanese American? You go to jail!



Michelle Malkin is a leech and a whore. She whores out her Asian identity to make a buck.

[hyteckit]

Big Government Conservatives
--------------------------

THEY CAME FIRST for the Japanese Americans,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't Japanese.
(WWII)

THEN THEY CAME for the Communist,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
(Cold War, McCarthyism)

THEN THEY CAME for the Muslims,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Muslim.
(post 9/11)

THEN THEY CAME for the Hispanics
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't Hispanic.
(Arizona immigration law)

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

You keep sailing right past the fact "anchor baby" is a pejorative.

Is "welfare baby" a neutral descriptor too?

Yes, they are both neutral descriptors. They are used in place of much longer ways of describing the subject.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

What evidence are you looking for?

You do not believe Michelle Malkin has a dislike or disdain for illegal immigrants and anchor babies?

Why don't you read her site?

Because it's your accusation, not mine! I'm not going to make your case for you. You're the one who should be interested in your gobbledegook making sense to semi-interested onlookers like myself.

See, readers always have to wonder if your rants are anything more than childish name-calling, like this:
I guess it's better than calling her a leech, a whore, or prostitute.
It's becoming evident that "hypocrite" is just another one of these non-specific epithets.

Originally Posted by subego 

Repeating now:

She derides people who engage in the behavior, with the exception of her parents, who fall into that category as she defines it.

That's what makes her a hypocrite.

Lots of people disagree or even dislike their own parents. That's not what hypocrisy means. If this sort of oblique, impersonal personal attack is the best you can do, I don't think Malkin has anything to worry about.

You keep sailing right past the fact "anchor baby" is a pejorative.

Is "welfare baby" a neutral descriptor too?

Aside from what ebuddy said (what word are you supposed to use?), simply using crass language is not enough to convince me. That's like saying Richard Pryor was a racist hypocrite for using the N word

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Yes, they are both neutral descriptors.

Show me an example of either term being used where the intent isn't to show disapproval, whether it be of individuals, the acts of individuals, or the government.

Does the person you're using as a label get any say on whether it's neutral or not?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

They are used in place of much longer ways of describing the subject.

So is "wetback". I'm not sure how accomplishing this makes something neutral.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Lots of people disagree or even dislike their own parents. That's not what hypocrisy means. If this sort of oblique, impersonal personal attack is the best you can do, I don't think Malkin has anything to worry about.

I say: she derides people with the exception of her parents.

You say: lots of people disagree with their parents.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Because it's your accusation, not mine! I'm not going to make your case for you. You're the one who should be interested in your gobbledegook making sense to semi-interested onlookers like myself.

See, readers always have to wonder if your rants are anything more than childish name-calling, like this:
I guess it's better than calling her a leech, a whore, or prostitute.
It's becoming evident that "hypocrite" is just another one of these non-specific epithets.

I believe I made my point and provided enough evidence.

You don't believe so.

I'm asking what is enough evidence to you? What point was I trying to make?

She is an anchor baby. That has been established.

The point I wanted to make was "papers please, guilty until proven innocent" is idiotic, which you agree.

So you already agree with my point.

What other proof or evidence are you looking for? Evidence of what?

That she is an anchor baby? That "papers please, guilty until proven innocent" is idiotic?

There is no further evidence I needed to provide since I've already proven my case.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

I say: she derides people with the exception of her parents.

You say: lots of people disagree with their parents.

You assume she approves of her parents and their actions. Maybe she actually disagrees/dislikes them, but she doesn't single them out for some unrelated reason (maybe she fears them, maybe her audience would sour if she "threw them under the bus," etc etc).

Just imagine for one second that you don't already disagree with her position. Instead of immigration the issue is child molesters. Instead of immigrants, her parents are child molesters. She actively opposes child molesters, yet she doesn't single out her own parents, because they are already included in the group she opposes. Does that make her a hypocrite? Be honest.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You assume she approves of her parents and their actions. Maybe she actually disagrees/dislikes them, but she doesn't single them out for some unrelated reason (maybe she fears them, maybe her audience would sour if she "threw them under the bus," etc etc).

Just imagine for one second that you don't already disagree with her position. Instead of immigration the issue is child molesters. Instead of immigrants, her parents are child molesters. She actively opposes child molesters, yet she doesn't single out her own parents, because they are already included in the group she opposes. Does that make her a hypocrite? Be honest.

If that is the situation, of course not. If that were shown to be the case, I would withdraw my assertion immediately.

But what she did, is write a book about the perils of immigrants (the book she was stumping for when she made the "anchor baby" comment), in which she does single out her parents as (I'm very closely paraphrasing here) "two of the greatest Americans I've ever known".

I think if she makes that claim in her book, and also includes them in the group she opposes in that book, there's an onus on her to make that explicit.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You assume she approves of her parents and their actions. Maybe she actually disagrees/dislikes them, but she doesn't single them out for some unrelated reason (maybe she fears them, maybe her audience would sour if she "threw them under the bus," etc etc).

Just imagine for one second that you don't already disagree with her position. Instead of immigration the issue is child molesters. Instead of immigrants, her parents are child molesters. She actively opposes child molesters, yet she doesn't single out her own parents, because they are already included in the group she opposes. Does that make her a hypocrite? Be honest.

Bad analogy. Michelle Malkin benefited from the law which she wants to repeal.

Michelle Malkin benefited from the 14th amendment. It granted her US citizenship because she was born in the US even if her parents weren't US citizens.

She wants to repeal the 14th amendment and deny citizenship to others who have benefited from the 14th amendment.


Is like saying she benefited from gay marriage law which allow to marry her lesbian lover. But she wants to repeal the gay marriage law and banned all gay marriages.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

If that is the situation, of course not. If that were shown to be the case, I would withdraw my assertion immediately.

But what she did, is write a book about the perils of immigrants (the book she was stumping for when she made the "anchor baby" comment), in which she does single out her parents as (I'm very closely paraphrasing here) "two of the greatest Americans I've ever known".

I think if she makes that claim in her book, and also includes them in the group she opposes in that book, there's an onus on her to make that explicit.

There, you finally make a half-way decent point. I can't imagine why it was so hard for me to drag it out of you. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but it really shouldn't be this frustrating for someone (who's not already convinced going in) to listen to your argument.

The problem is, that's is still merely contradictory, not hypocritical. It's "do as I say and not as I DO" not "do as I say and not as I also sometimes say." The former is hypocrisy, the latter is contradiction or inconsistency.

Also I still gave you a pass on "open doors should not be walked through." You never managed to demonstrate that that is the standard. For example, if the real issue is letting terrorists into the country (don't ask me why terrorists need a baby to get in, that's not the point), then those who enter who don't turn out to be terrorists are a moot point, but only after it's demonstrated that they didn't turn out to be terrorists.

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Bad analogy. Michelle Malkin benefited from the law which she wants to repeal.

Michelle Malkin benefited from the 14th amendment. It granted her US citizenship because she was born in the US even if her parents weren't US citizens.

She wants to repeal the 14th amendment and deny citizenship to others who have benefited from the 14th amendment.

But it's not the only path to citizenship. Maybe she thinks there should be safeguards, hurdles, which she would have gone through if they existed. Hurdles that would catch terrorists but let through honest people like her and her parents.

It was a good analogy, but here is a better one: environmentalist wants gas usage reduced, so he pushes for $10/gal gas. He currently benefits from $3/gal gas, by virtue of saving money compared to $10/gal, but he would be willing to pay $10/gal because it would reduce everyone's usage. He conserves gas even at $3/gal, not because of money but for conservation's own sake. He doesn't volunteer to pay the gas station $10/gal now. He currently benefits from the law he wants changed, closing the door behind him for others who want to benefit as he does. Is he a hypocrite, for not paying the gas station $7 extra on each gallon?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It was a good analogy, but here is a better one: environmentalist wants gas usage reduced, so he pushes for $10/gal gas. He currently benefits from $3/gal gas, by virtue of saving money compared to $10/gal, but he would be willing to pay $10/gal because it would reduce everyone's usage. He conserves gas even at $3/gal, not because of money but for conservation's own sake. He doesn't volunteer to pay the gas station $10/gal now. He currently benefits from the law he wants changed, closing the door behind him for others who want to benefit as he does. Is he a hypocrite, for not paying the gas station $7 extra on each gallon?

This is a bad analogy. The previous analogy was an awful analogy.

My gay marriage analogy is much better.

1. Michelle Malkin is an anchor baby.
2. She benefited from the 14th amendment which granted her citizenship.
3. She beliefs the 14th amendment is bad for the US and wants it gone, denying others from benefiting from it.
4. She is not willing to revoke her citizenship.

1. Michelle Malkin is a Lesbian.
2. She benefited from the Gay marriage law which granted her gay marriage.
3. She beliefs allowing gays to marry is bad for the US and wants it gone, denying other gay couples from benefiting from it.
4. She is not willing to revoke her marriage.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

This is a bad analogy. The previous analogy was an awful analogy.

My gay marriage analogy is much better.

1. Michelle Malkin is an anchor baby.
2. She benefited from the 14th amendment which granted her citizenship.
3. She beliefs the 14th amendment is bad for the US and wants it gone, denying others from benefiting from it.
4. She is not willing to revoke her citizenship.

1. Michelle Malkin is a Lesbian.
2. She benefited from the Gay marriage law which granted her gay marriage.
3. She beliefs allowing gays to marry is bad for the US and wants it gone, denying other gay couples from benefiting from it.
4. She is not willing to revoke her marriage.

The point of an analogy is to illuminate the issue by drawing on related circumstances that are not in dispute. Michelle Malkin is not a lesbian, so I don't understand why you think this analogy is better.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

The point of an analogy is to illuminate the issue by drawing on related circumstances that are not in dispute. Michelle Malkin is not a lesbian, so I don't understand why you think this analogy is better.

It's an analogy. Not making a claim Michelle Malkin is a Lesbian. You can substitute Michelle Malkin with SpaceMonkey if you want.

1. SpaceMonkey is an anchor baby.
2. She benefited from the 14th amendment which granted her citizenship.
3. She beliefs the 14th amendment is bad for the US and wants it gone, denying others from benefiting from it.
4. She is not willing to revoke her citizenship.

1. SpaceMonkey is a Lesbian.
2. She benefited from the Gay marriage law which granted her gay marriage.
3. She beliefs allowing gays to marry is bad for the US and wants it gone, denying other gay couples from benefiting from it.
4. She is not willing to revoke her marriage.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

It's an analogy. Not making a claim Michelle Malkin is a Lesbian. You can substitute Michelle Malkin with SpaceMonkey if you want.

I know. But an analogy to circumstances that are completely false is not very effective. Because no one agrees that Malkin is a lesbian, it doesn't impart any sense of cognitive dissonance when the line of argument is similarly applied to her position on anchor babies.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I know. But an analogy to circumstances that are completely false is not very effective. Because no one agrees that Malkin is a lesbian, it doesn't impart any sense of cognitive dissonance when the line of argument is similarly applied to her position on anchor babies.

Huh?

Really?

Care to provide a good example of an analogy?

Seriously. The subject doesn't even matter.

Anchor baby:Lesbian as to 14th amendment:gay marriage law

1. Person is an anchor baby.
2. She benefited from the 14th amendment which granted her citizenship.
3. She believes the 14th amendment is bad for the US and wants it gone, denying others from benefiting from it.
4. She is not willing to revoke her citizenship.

1. Person is a Lesbian.
2. She benefited from the Gay marriage law which granted her gay marriage.
3. She believes allowing gays to marry is bad for the US and wants it gone, denying other gay couples from benefiting from it.
4. She is not willing to revoke her marriage.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

This is a bad analogy. The previous analogy was an awful analogy.

My gay marriage analogy is much better.

1. Michelle Malkin is an anchor baby.
2. She benefited from the 14th amendment which granted her citizenship.
3. She beliefs the 14th amendment is bad for the US and wants it gone, denying others from benefiting from it.
4. She is not willing to revoke her citizenship.

1. Michelle Malkin is a Lesbian.
2. She benefited from the Gay marriage law which granted her gay marriage.
3. She beliefs allowing gays to marry is bad for the US and wants it gone, denying other gay couples from benefiting from it.
4. She is not willing to revoke her marriage.

I knew you wouldn't be able to understand it.

1. Michelle Malkin gets cheap gas
2. She benefited from the low price of gas
3. She believes cheap gas is bad for the environment and wants it gone, denying others from benefiting from it
4. She is not willing to pay more for her own gas until the price is raised for everyone

4. She is not willing to revoke her citizenship.

Prove it. That's all I'm asking. I want your argument to be a sound argument, so to achieve that end I am asking you to simply demonstrate this claim is true. If it is indeed true, it shouldn't be hard for you to do. The fact that two pages and six days later you have still failed to do so supports my initial skepticism.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I knew you wouldn't be able to understand it.

1. Michelle Malkin gets cheap gas
2. She benefited from the low price of gas
3. She believes cheap gas is bad for the environment and wants it gone, denying others from benefiting from it
4. She is not willing to pay more for her own gas until the price is raised for everyone


Prove it. That's all I'm asking. I want your argument to be a sound argument, so to achieve that end I am asking you to simply demonstrate this claim is true. If it is indeed true, it shouldn't be hard for you to do. The fact that two pages and six days later you have still failed to do so supports my initial skepticism.

Anchor Baby:wanted cheap gas

as to

14th amendment:low price of gas?


You really believe your analogy is better than mine?



Prove what? That she is a hypocrite? I wouldn't bother, because that wasn't an important point I wanted to make.


My main point was proving the 'paper please, guilty until innocent' was idiotic, which you have already admitted to was idiotic.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Anchor Baby:wanted cheap gas

as to

14th amendment:low price of gas?


You really believe your analogy is better than mine?

Yes, because your analogy closes ALL doors to the outcome (gay marriage) while reality and my analogy both close only SOME doors to the outcome (citizenship, or gas usage). Do you grasp this difference?

Prove what?

Are you some sort of idiot? Read the frickin quote, it's there for a reason:
"She is not willing to revoke her citizenship."
Prove that "she is not willing to revoke her citizenship." I can't make it any clearer than that.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Yes, because your analogy closes ALL doors to the outcome (gay marriage) while reality and my analogy both close only SOME doors to the outcome (citizenship, or gas usage). Do you grasp this difference?

No, you whole gas prices analogy is idiotic, although less idiotic than Michelle Malkin's parents being child molesters analogy.

Banning gay marriages, doesn't ban all marriages. Banning citizenship for anchor babies, doesn't ban all US citizenship.

Gas prices? WTF?

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Are you some sort of idiot? Read the frickin quote, it's there for a reason:
"She is not willing to revoke her citizenship."
Prove that "she is not willing to revoke her citizenship." I can't make it any clearer than that.

Actually, I think you are the idiot.

This is a illegal immigration thread. Not a Michelle Malkin is a hypocrite thread.

Why do you keep asking me to prove that Michelle Malkin is a hypocrite when that wasn't the point I was trying to make?

Why do you keep insisting on me to prove a point that I wasn't trying to make in the first place?

Beside, how do I prove the future?


If I want to prove Michelle Malkin is a hypocrite, there are much easier ways to prove it than talk about something she might or might not do in the future.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

how do I prove the future?

Exactly. Your rants have no foundation. All your conclusions rest on conjecture and wishful thinking.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Exactly. Your rants have no foundation. All your conclusions rest on conjecture and wishful thinking.

Haha... I've proven my case long ago.

1. Michelle Malkin is an anchor baby.
2. Guilty until proven innocent is idiotic.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton;

So she's guilty until proven innocent? That's the same attitude that made the "birthers" such a smashing success.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Haha... I've proven my case long ago.

1. Michelle Malkin is an anchor baby.

Which is only relevant if (a) she should eat her own dogfood, or (b) you are prejudiced against them (the anchor babies).
Since you already stated (a) I assumed the answer was (a), which means that you have to show that she wouldn't eat her own dogfood. But how can you prove that case if it's in the future? Like I said, it's all conjecture on your part.

2. Guilty until proven innocent is idiotic.

And yet you're doing it to her. Who's the hypocrite now?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Which is only relevant if (a) she should eat her own dogfood, or (b) you are prejudiced against them (the anchor babies).
Since you already stated (a) I assumed the answer was (a), which means that you have to show that she wouldn't eat her own dogfood. But how can you prove that case if it's in the future? Like I said, it's all conjecture on your part.

I think there's a problem with your analogy and reasoning.

My analogy was about what someone is currently willing or is not willing to do, based on their beliefs.

You're analogy/argument was about what someone would or would not based on another event in the future. Since you can't prove what someone would or would not do in the future, you can't prove the person is a hypocrite?


Uncle Skeleton logic:

Michelle Malkin is a fat baby and believes all fat babies should be deported to boot camp to lose weight.

However, Michelle Malkin will continue to stuff her face with food and refuse to go to boot camp to lose weight.

You can't say Michelle Malkin is a hypocrite because you can't prove that she won't stop stuffing her face with food or refuse to go to boot camp to lose weight if a fat baby law is passed that will deport all fat babies to boot camp.

or

Michelle Malkin is anti-gay and think gay sex is a sin and would like to ban gay sex.

However, Michelle Malkin will continue to have gay sex until it is banned in the US.

You can't say Michelle Malkin is a hypocrite because you can't prove that she won't stop having gay sex if there is a ban on gay sex in the US.


or

Michelle Malkin is anti-SUV and thinks driving an SUV is evil and bad for the environment.

However, Michelle Malkin will continue to drive a SUV until it is banned in the US.

You can't say Michelle Malkin is a hypocrite because you can't prove that she won't stop driving a SUV once there is a ban on SUV's.

or

Al Gore believes in Global Warming and thinking everyone should cut down in electricity use.

However, Al Gore will continue to waste large amounts of electricity until the cap and trade bill is passed.

You can't say Al Gore is a hypocrite because you can't prove Al Gore won't cut his electricity usage if the cap and trade bill does pass.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

And yet you're doing it to her. Who's the hypocrite now?

According to Uncle Skeleton:

You can't accuse me of being a hypocrite unless you can prove that I won't stop making "Guilty until proven innocent" claims after the Arizona 'Guilty until proven innocent' immigration law gets repeal. Either that, or I'm just waiting for gas prices to be $10/gal.

[Uncle Skeleton]

hyteckit: do you understand the difference between "Doors should not be left open" and "Open doors should not be walked through?"

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

hyteckit: do you understand the difference between "Doors should not be left open" and "Open doors should not be walked through?"

Does it have anything to do with $10/gal gas prices?

Or is this about gay sex? Back door?

[ort888]

A special Cinco de Mayo message for Arizona...

Hey Arizona, Don't Fuck With This Mexican... MACHETE has some Cinco De Mayo words for you!!! Now in 720p! -- Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

According to Uncle Skeleton:

You can't accuse me of being a hypocrite unless you can prove that I won't stop making "Guilty until proven innocent" claims after the Arizona 'Guilty until proven innocent' immigration law gets repeal. Either that, or I'm just waiting for gas prices to be $10/gal.

Let's get this straight because I think it's important for you to understand; you're wrong. You're just dead-wrong. As if it weren't bad enough, you smear your wrongness all over this forum like it was aloe.

You've not read the law, you cite abuses of this law before it has been enacted, and you have no clue what you're talking about in general. Worse, since you've been posting in this thread the number of people supporting this law has almost doubled those who don't. Happy seis de mayo.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Let's get this straight because I think it's important for you to understand; you're wrong. You're just dead-wrong. As if it weren't bad enough, you smear your wrongness all over this forum like it was aloe.

You've not read the law, you cite abuses of this law before it has been enacted, and you have no clue what you're talking about in general. Worse, since you've been posting in this thread the number of people supporting this law has almost doubled those who don't. Happy seis de mayo.

I've read the law.

I've read the Constitution too.

The Arizona law violates the Constitution.

All US citizens are required to know that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

I'm no constitution hating conservative who wants to tear up the constitution leaving nothing but the right to bear arms.

You big government conservatives are working on removing citizenship to those suspected of terrorism without a trial, getting rid of miranda rights, getting rid of the 14th amendment, and whatever constitution rights you guys don't like.


Only in Arizona:

- Terrorists can buy guns without papers.
- US citizens are required to show papers for looking like an illegal immigrant.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I've read the law.

Originally Posted by hyteckit

US citizens are required to show papers for looking like an illegal immigrant.

You've not read the law.

Originally Posted by hyteckit

I've read the Constitution too.

Originally Posted by hyteckit

The Arizona law violates the Constitution.

You've not read the Constitution and you've not read the Arizona law. Why no expressed problem with San Francisco's unconstitutional boycott on Arizona imposing undue burdens on interstate commerce?

All US citizens are required to know that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

They get it. The majority who support this law for example, support gun rights, and opposed the Federal government's attempt to force you to buy health insurance. Your feigned outrage at a law you've not read is unimpressive.

You big government conservatives are working on removing citizenship to those suspected of terrorism without a trial, getting rid of miranda rights, getting rid of the 14th amendment, and whatever constitution rights you guys don't like.

No... we're about upholding the Constitutional rights of ALL US citizens, not just the criminals and terrorists who do the dirty work for the pinko-commie libs trying to bring this country down from the inside-out. Why should I care about your slave trade?

Only in Arizona:
- Suspected Terrorists can buy guns without papers.

Fixed. With kneejerk leftist zealots quick to define terrorists as people with Ron Paul bumper stickers, I'm willing to risk it in the interest of our civil liberties.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You've not read the law.

I've read the bill.

It says to qualify for any subsidies for health insurance, "individuals must be lawfully present in a state in the United States."

See, the bill says no illegals will get subsidized health insurance.

Oops, my bad. That was the healthcare bill which you spend time arguing that illegals with still get subsidies regardless of what the bill says.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You've not read the Constitution and you've not read the Arizona law. Why no expressed problem with San Francisco's unconstitutional boycott on Arizona imposing undue burdens on interstate commerce?

Boycotting services and products is unconstitutional now?

What about boycotting gay marriages? Or boycotting sex toys?
Alabama bans the sale of sex toys.

US citizens have the constitutional right to boycott whatever product or services they want, as long as it's not required by law.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

There, you finally make a half-way decent point. I can't imagine why it was so hard for me to drag it out of you. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but it really shouldn't be this frustrating for someone (who's not already convinced going in) to listen to your argument.

It wasn't clear to me you wanted more citations. My apologies.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The problem is, that's is still merely contradictory, not hypocritical. It's "do as I say and not as I DO" not "do as I say and not as I also sometimes say." The former is hypocrisy, the latter is contradiction or inconsistency.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Also I still gave you a pass on "open doors should not be walked through." You never managed to demonstrate that that is the standard. For example, if the real issue is letting terrorists into the country (don't ask me why terrorists need a baby to get in, that's not the point), then those who enter who don't turn out to be terrorists are a moot point, but only after it's demonstrated that they didn't turn out to be terrorists.

Still working on these.

[hyteckit]

Michelle Malkin now wants to prevent legal immigrants and those who are here legally on a visa, from marrying US citizens and obtaining citizenship through marriage.

Malkin says we've "got to stop" immigrants gaining citizenship through marriage because of terror threats | Media Matters for America


What's next? Ban all immigration from Asia?