baby boomlet occuring in US

Southern Man said:
Islam took over Jerusalem on its way to Europe. When you have the enemy on the run then run him as far as you can.
Click to expand...

Except that A) Jerusalem was not the property of the Christians, B) the Byzantine Empire, which was undermined by the Crusades, was keeping the Muslims at bay, C) the real threat of Muslim invasion was in Spain, and D) the Europeans never fought any of the Crusades actually in Europe, i.e. to defend Europe.
 
gonzojournals said:
The test for people too stupid or lazy to get a high school diploma.
Click to expand...
Or too busy to sit around for 6 or 7 hours to obtain 30 minutes of learning. I don't see how "GED" and "stupid or lazy" coincide at all. In any case, the ad hominem doesn't stick, as I've recieved a regular HS diploma, as well as as BS Cum Laude.
:)
 
gonzojournals said:
Except that A) Jerusalem was not the property of the Christians, B) the Byzantine Empire, which was undermined by the Crusades, was keeping the Muslims at bay, C) the real threat of Muslim invasion was in Spain, and D) the Europeans never fought any of the Crusades actually in Europe, i.e. to defend Europe.
Click to expand...
1. Jerusalem was the property of the Jews, who were overrun by Islam. Christians helped the Jews regain control. That doesn't equate to "take over by force".
2.The best way to fight a war is to do so in your enemy's land.
 
Southern Man said:
1. Jerusalem was the property of the Jews, who were overrun by Islam. Christians helped the Jews regain control. That doesn't equate to "take over by force".
2.The best way to fight a war is to do so in your enemy's land.
Click to expand...

Jerusalem hasn't been the property of the Jews in recorded history...that is the flaw in the whole "Israel" argument...first of all, assuming that the Jews have a claim to that land even though they lost it long before Christ was even born, and secondly to equate Israel with the Jewish people.

It is true, when that war is necessary. The Crusades were the Middle Ages' version of Vietnam...nothing accomplished, lots of bodies.
 
gonzojournals said:
Jerusalem hasn't been the property of the Jews in recorded history...that is the flaw in the whole "Israel" argument...first of all, assuming that the Jews have a claim to that land even though they lost it long before Christ was even born, and secondly to equate Israel with the Jewish people.

It is true, when that war is necessary. The Crusades were the Middle Ages' version of Vietnam...nothing accomplished, lots of bodies.
Click to expand...

As long as you are willing to go far enough into Old Testament history then you would be correct. But to do so you have to agree that modern day "Palestinians" are indeed decendents of the Hittites, the Jebusites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, or the Canaanites.
 
Southern Man said:
1. Argumentum ad hominem has been your tactic from the star, and as I see, is continuing.
Click to expand...

Where? Like many, I doubt you know what it means. You attacked me as an open border advocate, which is unrelated and irrelevant to whether the reverse of what bac stated is as racist as you claimed bac's comments were. And still you evade the demolition of your argument there.

2. The Constitution defines our nation and directs the government to defend the people from invasion.
3. Illegal immigration is an invasion.
Click to expand...

This is nonsense and clearly neither our Consitution nor our founders ever believed immigration was an invasion. If they did then that would mean they were listing a grievance against the King for not allowing it. That is absurd.

Further, there was no illegal immigration then.

The courts and the founders have rejected your argument here.

Madison Federalist 43.

"A protection against invasion is due from every society to the parts composing it. The latitude of the expression here used seems to secure each State, not only against foreign hostility, but against ambitious or vindictive enterprises of its more powerful neighbors. The history, both of ancient and modern confederacies, proves that the weaker members of the union ought not to be insensible to the policy of this article."

Padavan v. United States, 82 F.3d 23 [2d Cir. 1996] (rejecting claim by New York for federal reimbursement for costs of illegal immigration: "In order for a state to be afforded the protections of the Invasion Clause, it must be exposed to armed hostility from another political entity, such as another state or foreign country that is intending to overthrow the state's government.");

New Jersey v. United States, 91 F.3d 463, (3d Cir. 1996)(rejecting same claim by New Jersey: Invasion Clause "offers no support whatsoever for application of the Invasion Clause to this case or for its reading of the term invasion' to mean anything other than a military invasion.");

California v. United States, 104 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 1997)(rejecting same claim by California: "there are no manageable standards to ascertain whether or when an influx of illegal immigrants should be said to constitute an invasion.").


4. Correction: Legal immigrants.
Click to expand...

Again, there was no legal vs illegal immigrant in the early years of our nation, only immigrants.

5. Red herring.
Click to expand...

How is it a red herring? You argued that the people that have fought and died for our nation are betrayed by allowing immigration or more open immigration. I pointed that our first two wars, the ones that truly formed our nation, were largely in support of immigration and ask you to give us an example of war in opposition to immigration. No red herring... you are evading.
 
Southern Man said:
As long as you are willing to go far enough into Old Testament history then you would be correct. But to do so you have to agree that modern day "Palestinians" are indeed decendents of the Hittites, the Jebusites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, or the Canaanites.
Click to expand...

And so what if they are? Even then, they were in "Israel" before the original Jews were (thousands of years ago) and had claim to the region much more recently, as well.
 
RStringfield said:
[1]Where? Like many, I doubt you know what it means. You attacked me as an open border advocate, which is unrelated and irrelevant to whether the reverse of what bac stated is as racist as you claimed bac's comments were. And still you evade the demolition of your argument there.

[2]This is nonsense and clearly neither our Consitution nor our founders ever believed immigration was an invasion. If they did then that would mean they were listing a grievance against the King for not allowing it. That is absurd.

Further, there was no illegal immigration then.

[3]The courts and the founders have rejected your argument here.

Madison Federalist 43.

"A protection against invasion is due from every society to the parts composing it. The latitude of the expression here used seems to secure each State, not only against foreign hostility, but against ambitious or vindictive enterprises of its more powerful neighbors. The history, both of ancient and modern confederacies, proves that the weaker members of the union ought not to be insensible to the policy of this article."

Padavan v. United States, 82 F.3d 23 [2d Cir. 1996] (rejecting claim by New York for federal reimbursement for costs of illegal immigration: "In order for a state to be afforded the protections of the Invasion Clause, it must be exposed to armed hostility from another political entity, such as another state or foreign country that is intending to overthrow the state's government.");

New Jersey v. United States, 91 F.3d 463, (3d Cir. 1996)(rejecting same claim by New Jersey: Invasion Clause "offers no support whatsoever for application of the Invasion Clause to this case or for its reading of the term invasion' to mean anything other than a military invasion.");

California v. United States, 104 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 1997)(rejecting same claim by California: "there are no manageable standards to ascertain whether or when an influx of illegal immigrants should be said to constitute an invasion.").

[4]Again, there was no legal vs illegal immigrant in the early years of our nation, only immigrants.

[5]How is it a red herring? You argued that the people that have fought and died for our nation are betrayed by allowing immigration or more open immigration. I pointed that our first two wars, the ones that truly formed our nation, were largely in support of immigration and ask you to give us an example of war in opposition to immigration. No red herring... you are evading.
Click to expand...

1. "Not knowing what it means" and “Kicking my ass” are your latest examples. How juvenile as well.
2. Yes there was no illegal immigration then. That’s because we didn’t have immigration laws. Now we have these laws and people who break them are illegal immigrants.
3. Excellent analysis and rebuttal of my argument. However I still maintain that if the Federal Government makes immigration laws then it should enforce them. I also maintain that if an unwelcome guest is in my home that would constitute an invasion.
4. See my item 2.
5. It is irrelevant because I am arguing against illegal immigration. Key word: illegal.
 
gonzojournals said:
I'm not getting into some theological "where did the Jews go?" debate with you...suffice to say that you have lost this argument.
Click to expand...
Your argument (Jews were not the original occupiers of Israel) assumes that the "Palestinians" are indeed decendents of the Hittites, the Jebusites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, or the Canaanites. Since those tribes are decendents of Ham, and Ham was a son of Noah, you'll have to assume that Noah was not a Jew. Or, that Islam began with the listed tribes, 4500 some odd years BC, instead of 700 AD as modern Muslims assert.

But if you want to claim victory with that logic then by all means knock yourself out.
 
Southern Man said:
Your argument (Jews were not the original occupiers of Israel) assumes that the "Palestinians" are indeed decendents of the Hittites, the Jebusites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, or the Canaanites. Since those tribes are decendents of Ham, and Ham was a son of Noah, you'll have to assume that Noah was not a Jew. Or, that Islam began with the listed tribes, 4500 some odd years BC, instead of 700 AD as modern Muslims assert.

But if you want to claim victory with that logic then by all means knock yourself out.
Click to expand...

My argument is that the Jews haven't had a claim to Israel for thousands of years, regardless of whomever was there originally.
 
Southern Man said:
1. "Not knowing what it means" and “Kicking my ass” are your latest examples. How juvenile as well.
Click to expand...

Nope. Neither of those are ad homs. You obviously do not know what it means.

The first is a simple statement that you apparently do not know what the phrase means. It was not offered to invalidate any of your other arguments, rather to challenge your assertion that I had employed an ad hom.

The second, again, is not offered in response to your argument, but instead in an attempt to goad you into returning to the point. That seems pointlees though. You are not going to return.

An ad hom is not an insult and an insult is not an ad hom. For instance, your claim that I am an open border advocate I do not find insulting in the least. It is still an ad hom because you asserted that as pretty much the only repsonse to my argument. You attacked me on a position irrelevant to the discussion.

2. Yes there was no illegal immigration then. That’s because we didn’t have immigration laws. Now we have these laws and people who break them are illegal immigrants.
Click to expand...

Great, then you ackowledge that your claim that immigration is covered under the invasion clause is invalid?

3. Excellent analysis and rebuttal of my argument. However I still maintain that if the Federal Government makes immigration laws then it should enforce them. I also maintain that if an unwelcome guest is in my home that would constitute an invasion.
Click to expand...

So now you are arguin the feds should enforce laws against b&e or trespass? What has this to do with immigration.

4. See my item 2.
Click to expand...

So then you acknowledge your distinstion is of no relevance.

5. It is irrelevant because I am arguing against illegal immigration. Key word: illegal.
Click to expand...

No, the initial argument here between you and I was about your claim that bac's statement was racist and how then your counter to it is not. You have run away from that now.

Besides that, even following your tangents and attempts to change the subject no one has argued for illegal immigration. This is a silly argument. It is like saying I am for illegal drug use. No, I am in favor of legalizing drugs.

Using that silly argument one could say the grievances in the first two wars were in favor of illegal immigration, because we rejected the legal authority of the King to deny immigrants the right of entry and naturalization.
 
gonzojournals said:
My argument is that the Jews haven't had a claim to Israel for thousands of years, regardless of whomever was there originally.
Click to expand...
The Allies who were victorious in WW2 would disagree with you. "To the victor goes the spoils" has long been recognized internationally.
 
gonzojournals said:
That isn't a claim, nor is the modern State of Israel equivalent to the Jews or the Biblical Israel.

The modern Israel is a terrorist state.
Click to expand...
Actual control is a claim. Whether you think it is "terrorist" or not. That coupled with the fact that most of the Jews in Isreal, at that time, lived there when it was created out of thin air in '47 gives them a current claim.

This would be like saying the US doesn't have a claim to this place because it didn't exist historically until we took it from Native Americans. We must live in reality, not in bumper-stickers.
 
RStringfield said:
[1]Nope. Neither of those are ad homs. You obviously do not know what it means.

The first is a simple statement that you apparently do not know what the phrase means. It was not offered to invalidate any of your other arguments, rather to challenge your assertion that I had employed an ad hom.

The second, again, is not offered in response to your argument, but instead in an attempt to goad you into returning to the point. That seems pointlees though. You are not going to return.

An ad hom is not an insult and an insult is not an ad hom. For instance, your claim that I am an open border advocate I do not find insulting in the least. It is still an ad hom because you asserted that as pretty much the only repsonse to my argument. You attacked me on a position irrelevant to the discussion.

[2]Great, then you ackowledge that your claim that immigration is covered under the invasion clause is invalid?

[3]So now you are arguin the feds should enforce laws against b&e or trespass? What has this to do with immigration.

[4] So then you acknowledge your distinstion is of no relevance.

[5] No, the initial argument here between you and I was about your claim that bac's statement was racist and how then your counter to it is not. You have run away from that now.

Besides that, even following your tangents and attempts to change the subject no one has argued for illegal immigration. This is a silly argument. It is like saying I am for illegal drug use. No, I am in favor of legalizing drugs.

[6]Using that silly argument one could say the grievances in the first two wars were in favor of illegal immigration, because we rejected the legal authority of the King to deny immigrants the right of entry and naturalization.
Click to expand...
1. It is commonly referred to as a personal attack in order to divert attention from the argument.
2. According to the court, yes, as stated previously.
3. Red Herring.
4. What?
5. Who is arguing tangentially now? I suggest that you refer directly to my post in order to clarify.
6. Straw Man.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top