| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#31
October 27th 03, 02:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
"JJ" wrote in message ... Kim W5TIT wrote: I am in support of any person born here being a US Citizen. There are too many legal, ethical and social issues attached to having it otherwise. How about the Mexican women about to give birth that cross the border into the US just long enough for her child will be born here, thus reaping the benefits of citizenship? Now this child, who's parents have never lived in the US and have never contributed a single thing to the US society, is now eligible for medical care, schooling, and any other welfare out country has to offer. Your hard earned dollars, part of which you pay in taxes, will now help to finance this child who himself will probably never contribute to US society, only take from it. The Texas Twit is a world class liberal. She ran around supporting the hippies, after that was all over. In otherwords, she doesn't think things thru very well. FWIW...I agree with your comments JJ. Dan/W4NTI |
|
#32
October 27th 03, 02:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Whoever Leland is, tell him he is right.
And your point is? Dan/W4NTI "N8WWM" wrote in message ... Leland was right, you are an asshole. In article . net, Dan/W4NTI says... You ask wh ?? At least I can complete a sentence.....here is another name for you.....goofball. Dan/W4NTI "N8WWM" wrote in message ... In article . net, Dan/W4NTI says... "N8WWM" wrote in message ... In article . net, Dan/W4NTI says... You know how it is...ya just cain't fix stupid. "Cain't" ? You can't even spell, dumbass. You ask wh Your not very bright are you WWM? In fact your downright stupid. I googled Dan/W4NTI and it's apparent that I'm not as good at calling people names as you are. Dan/W4NTI You ask wh You ask wh |
|
#33
October 27th 03, 03:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:
I believe requirements for immigration and naturalization should be extremely rigid, involving extensive background checks and a requirement that the person immigrating have the means in place to make his/her own living. Eligibility for state or federal "welfare" benefits should also be severely limited. I'd also do away with the law that states that any person born in the U.S. is automatically a U.S. citizen, if the parents, at the time, are *not* U.S. citizens themselves. The children born to non-citizens would be considered to be citizens of the parents' own country of origin. Also, no person who is not a U.S. citizen, by birth or legal naturalization, should be allowed to vote in any local, state, or federal election. Liberal immigration and naturalization policies amount to political corruption in it's most dangerous form -- and the danger is to U.S. sovereignty. In the end, the ONLY way to stop illegal immigration is to force employers to exercise restraint over who they hire, with truly serious consequences for those who knowingly hire, or should have known they were hiring, illegal immigrants. As long as jobs better than what is available elsewhere are available and we have a weak enforcement process, illegal immigrants are going to come. Cut off the jobs and you clearly cut off the problem. Employers claim it is not their responsibility to check out potential employees. Nonsense. Employers routinely run checks on everybody else they hire and it is every citizen's responsibility not to contribute to obvious crime. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
|
#34
October 27th 03, 04:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Kim W5TIT" wrote:
And, I believe the immigration laws are appropriate, (snip) We allow more immigrants into this country each year than any other country on Earth, including those countries where most of our immigrants come from. This mass influx is driving wages down and prices up. Our schools are overcrowded. Education costs are going up. Medical costs are going up. Home prices are going up. Land prices are going up. Food prices are going up. Crime continues to go up. Our overall standard of living is going down. At the same time, I don't see a single benefit for the average American. Can you describe one benefit for me or my family, Kim? State and Federal welfare programs need to be abolished. (snip) Why would you want to cut off the parachute put in place to help Americans? If you want to fix welfare, cut off the many thousands of illegal immigrants who are taking benefits from others. Next, get rid of the obvious bums abusing the welfare system. This two steps alone would cut the cost of welfare programs dramatically, yet still provide help for those Americans why really need it. There is no danger to US sovereignty. It may not be a US you like; but it is no danger of losing its sovereignty. (snip) Kim, we've allowed millions of immigrants into this country from areas of the world openly hostile to the United States, with no method to establish their views of this country and its people. After 9-11, this is clearly not safe for Americans. Can you be so sure it is not a threat to our sovereignty? This reminds me of an old joke that is perhaps not that far from the truth; an enemy doesn't have to invade today - they can just fill out immigration papers for their entire army. Blacks have almost the entire continent of Africa and Hispanics have almost the entire continent of South America. Perhaps you can explain why either group needs to expand to this continent, or why it is so wrong to resist that expansion. Unless we're prepared to spend lots of tourist dollars, they're certainly not rushing to open their doors to us. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
|
#36
October 27th 03, 04:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:
(snip) If the Civil War wasn't about racism and slavery, then (snip) If the Civil War was about slavery, then why was there a war at all? Prior to the war, the slave states were the majority in both the House and Senate, insuring no legislation could be passed to end slavery. Slavery was only abolished after the war by not allowing the former Confederate States (which included several, but not all, of the slave states) to participate in that vote. (snip) why, in it's aftermath, did one of the most famous Confederate Generals, Nathan Bedford Forrest, organize the Ku Klux Klan? (snip) When you answer that, perhaps you can also answer why so many Northerners join the KKK. The South has a lot to answer for, IMHO. (snip) Why would they have any more to answer for than the Northern states that profited from the sale of slaves? Or more to answer for than those who used indentured or bound black workers in the North, even into the early 1900's? Or more to answer for than the many countries around the world which practiced slavery in this last century (the 1900's), the previous century, or in the many centuries before that? (snip) Modern-day Rebels with the Confederate flags on their pickup trucks don't do much to heal the wounds of the past. (snip) Perhaps because they have absolutely no responsibility for what happened in a past long before they were born. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
|
#37
October 27th 03, 05:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
W5NET wrote:
Blacks have almost the entire continent of Africa and Hispanics have almost the entire continent of South America. Perhaps you can explain why either group needs to expand to this continent, or why it is so wrong to resist that expansion. What a sorry-assed load of blatant racist crap! Carried a little farther, yellow people have the entire continent of Asia, white people have almost the entire continent of Europe..... what Indian, Eskimo, or Inuit tribe does Dwight Stewart belong to that gives him a right to be in North America? With kindest warm personal regards, de Hans, K0HB |
|
#38
October 27th 03, 12:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
om... W5NET wrote: Blacks have almost the entire continent of Africa and Hispanics have almost the entire continent of South America. Perhaps you can explain why either group needs to expand to this continent, or why it is so wrong to resist that expansion. What a sorry-assed load of blatant racist crap! Carried a little farther, yellow people have the entire continent of Asia, white people have almost the entire continent of Europe..... what Indian, Eskimo, or Inuit tribe does Dwight Stewart belong to that gives him a right to be in North America? With kindest warm personal regards, de Hans, K0HB Firmly seconded! Well said Hans. 73 de Bert WA2SI |
|
#39
October 27th 03, 06:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message link.net...
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote: (snip) If the Civil War wasn't about racism and slavery, then (snip) If the Civil War was about slavery, then why was there a war at all? Because the states with the most slaves could see that eventually they would either have to face the complete abolition of slavery *or* leave the Union. Prior to the war, the slave states were the majority in both the House and Senate, insuring no legislation could be passed to end slavery. When? Check a map of 1860. There were 19 slave states, of which 4 stayed in the Union. Delaware was a slave state but it did not secede. Slavery was only abolished after the war by not allowing the former Confederate States (which included several, but not all, of the slave states) to participate in that vote. The Emancipation Proclamation was written in 1863. It legally freed most (but not all) of the slaves. The South has a lot to answer for, IMHO. (snip) Why would they have any more to answer for than the Northern states that profited from the sale of slaves? Which states were they? Slavery was abolished in the North by 1804. In many northern states it was abolished before the Constitution was written. Or more to answer for than those who used indentured or bound black workers in the North, even into the early 1900's? Where was that done? Indentured servitude is in no way comparable to slavery, btw. Indentured servants *voluntarily* agree to work for a specified period of time, usually as payment for training or a debt. Or more to answer for than the many countries around the world which practiced slavery in this last century (the 1900's), the previous century, or in the many centuries before that? (snip) Modern-day Rebels with the Confederate flags on their pickup trucks don't do much to heal the wounds of the past. (snip) Perhaps because they have absolutely no responsibility for what happened in a past long before they were born. All depends on what that flag is meant to symbolize. -- Here's what I learned about the War Between the States: First off, it didn't start as a war to end slavery, but rather as a war to keep the Union together. Lincoln's early (1861-1862) writings make it clear his focus *at that time* was on preserving the Union at almost any cost. The Constitution, for all its wisdom, did not have any clear provision for what should be done if one or more state(s) decided that they simply wanted out of the Union at one point or another. When the Constitution was written, there was a fairly even balance between slave and free states. Compromises were reached in order to get the new Union formed as a country rather than a confederation. These were compromises with evil, and they could not last forever. But over time the two parts of the US developed in such radically different ways that the compromises and balance could no longer be maintained. It was clear by 1855 or so that slavery's days were numbered because eventually the abolitionists would reach enough of a political majority to simply outlaw it everywhere. The trend was clear - it was only a matter of time. Revolts like John Brown's and the strengthening abolitionist movement made the moral issue unavoidable, and the Supremes were starting to come around, too. So, given the choice between leaving the Union or abolishing slavery, 15 states tried to leave. Some outside the 15 states said "Let them go", but it was clear to Lincoln and others that if even one state was allowed to secede, the Union would eventually fragment - and those fragments would be ripe for takeover from other countries, many of whom were patiently waiting for the "American experiment" to fail. Once the war began, however, it slowly became clear to Lincoln and many others that what had caused the split in the first place was the idea that a country could proclaim itself "free" and yet allow slavery. It became clear to him that the only way to preserve the Union was to abolish slavery completely. Thus the Emancipation Proclamation and the constitutional amendment. Is any of the above incorrect? What's interesting is that Great Britain, from whom the colonies split on the issue of "all men [sic] are created equal", abolished slavery years before the USA did. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#40
October 27th 03, 06:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"N2EY" wrote in message om... "Dwight Stewart" wrote in message link.net... "Larry Roll K3LT" wrote: (snip) If the Civil War wasn't about racism and slavery, then (snip) If the Civil War was about slavery, then why was there a war at all? Because the states with the most slaves could see that eventually they would either have to face the complete abolition of slavery *or* leave the Union. Prior to the war, the slave states were the majority in both the House and Senate, insuring no legislation could be passed to end slavery. When? Check a map of 1860. There were 19 slave states, of which 4 stayed in the Union. Delaware was a slave state but it did not secede. Slavery was only abolished after the war by not allowing the former Confederate States (which included several, but not all, of the slave states) to participate in that vote. The Emancipation Proclamation was written in 1863. It legally freed most (but not all) of the slaves. The South has a lot to answer for, IMHO. (snip) Why would they have any more to answer for than the Northern states that profited from the sale of slaves? Which states were they? Slavery was abolished in the North by 1804. In many northern states it was abolished before the Constitution was written. Or more to answer for than those who used indentured or bound black workers in the North, even into the early 1900's? Where was that done? Indentured servitude is in no way comparable to slavery, btw. Indentured servants *voluntarily* agree to work for a specified period of time, usually as payment for training or a debt. Or more to answer for than the many countries around the world which practiced slavery in this last century (the 1900's), the previous century, or in the many centuries before that? (snip) Modern-day Rebels with the Confederate flags on their pickup trucks don't do much to heal the wounds of the past. (snip) Perhaps because they have absolutely no responsibility for what happened in a past long before they were born. All depends on what that flag is meant to symbolize. -- Here's what I learned about the War Between the States: First off, it didn't start as a war to end slavery, but rather as a war to keep the Union together. Lincoln's early (1861-1862) writings make it clear his focus *at that time* was on preserving the Union at almost any cost. The Constitution, for all its wisdom, did not have any clear provision for what should be done if one or more state(s) decided that they simply wanted out of the Union at one point or another. When the Constitution was written, there was a fairly even balance between slave and free states. Compromises were reached in order to get the new Union formed as a country rather than a confederation. These were compromises with evil, and they could not last forever. But over time the two parts of the US developed in such radically different ways that the compromises and balance could no longer be maintained. It was clear by 1855 or so that slavery's days were numbered because eventually the abolitionists would reach enough of a political majority to simply outlaw it everywhere. The trend was clear - it was only a matter of time. Revolts like John Brown's and the strengthening abolitionist movement made the moral issue unavoidable, and the Supremes were starting to come around, too. So, given the choice between leaving the Union or abolishing slavery, 15 states tried to leave. Some outside the 15 states said "Let them go", but it was clear to Lincoln and others that if even one state was allowed to secede, the Union would eventually fragment - and those fragments would be ripe for takeover from other countries, many of whom were patiently waiting for the "American experiment" to fail. Once the war began, however, it slowly became clear to Lincoln and many others that what had caused the split in the first place was the idea that a country could proclaim itself "free" and yet allow slavery. It became clear to him that the only way to preserve the Union was to abolish slavery completely. Thus the Emancipation Proclamation and the constitutional amendment. Is any of the above incorrect? What's interesting is that Great Britain, from whom the colonies split on the issue of "all men [sic] are created equal", abolished slavery years before the USA did. 73 de Jim, N2EY Jim, Much of what you seem to believe is based on the falsehood that the Emancipation Proclamation actually freed slaves. The proclamation ONLY APPLIED to those states in rebellion against the Union. Unfortunately those same states were not a part of the union at the time the proclamation was issued. Thus the proclamation applied to no one under the authority and/or control of the then fragemented Union. The slavery issue was indeed a major part of the root cause of the war between the states. BUT a major other cause was that of states rights. And whether we would be a republic or a federalist government. The struggle continues to this day. We are called a constitutional government, or a republic, or a democracy. The reality is we are none of , and all of that. The founding fathers NEVER intended for the federal government to have so much authority and control over the states. That was a major reason the Southern states left. Lincoln had NO RIGHT, or authorization to FORCE the South to rejoin the union. The whole war was a major mistake, and to the victors go the spoils, and the ones that write the history. You may ask how, or why, do I say these things? Because I was raised in the North, a world class Yankee state of Ohio. I was educated by the Northerners on this subject. And before I came to Alabama I too believed it hook line and sinker. No longer. The South was right. We all lost that war, look at the mess we have in DC now. Think about it. Dan/W4NTI |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| FS Large Lot of NEW NOS Tubes | Homebrew | |||
| FS Large LOT Of NEW Tubes | Boatanchors | |||
| FS Large Lot of NEW NOS Tubes | Homebrew | |||
| FS Large Lot of NEW NOS Tubes | Homebrew | |||
| FS Large Lot of NEW NOS Tubes | Homebrew | |||
Linear Mode
