Well NOW they have my support!
-
Shog9 wrote:
Probably because it's a labour/workers holiday, and the demonstration is about how (unlike communists) the immigrants are coming here to work.
Yes, but America chose a different labor day specifically because May 1st is the communist labor holiday. They should know better than that.
espeir wrote:
Yes, but America chose a different labor day specifically because May 1st is the communist labor holiday.
May Day as a labor holiday started in the US. We changed it later, because some pussies thought ideas like democracy and capitalism needed more than the will of the people to survive, but that doesn't change the past.
----
-
espeir wrote:
Yes, but America chose a different labor day specifically because May 1st is the communist labor holiday.
May Day as a labor holiday started in the US. We changed it later, because some pussies thought ideas like democracy and capitalism needed more than the will of the people to survive, but that doesn't change the past.
----
Really? According to this labor unions opted to have it changed after their communist leadership was outed and expunged. They no longer wanted to be associated with communists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Day[^] Regardless, that's not the point. The point is that they chose a foreign communist labor day to hold these protests. That says almost as much as the inverted flags.
-
espeir wrote:
Inverting the American flag is certainly the best way to show how American you are.
No. Inverting the flag is used to signal distress.
espeir wrote:
I also find it interesting that they chose a communist holiday to stage their lame protests.
Could there be a clearer sign that the communists are behind this? I mean, communists love America and want to work here as legal citizens, right? :rolleyes:
The bible was written when people were even more stupid than they are today. Can you imagine that? - David Cross
-
espeir wrote:
Inverting the American flag is certainly the best way to show how American you are.
Possibly done by accident. But if not, it's definitely weird. BTW, in India, some of the country's leading cricketers were forbidden from having the Indian flag on their helmets. But I've found many Americans wear the flag on their bermudas, swimsuits, even underwear. Different countries - different flag attitudes I guess. Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
The Ultimate Grid - The #1 MFC grid out there!-- modified at 15:53 Monday 1st May, 2006
Pertinent Federal Law from : United States Code Title 36 Chapeter 10 setion 176: No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of America; the flag should not be dipped to any person or thing. Regimental colors, State flags, and organization or institutional flags are to be dipped as a mark of honor. (a) The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property. Flying the flag upside down has a specific meaning. In this case it can only be interpreted as disrespect. :mad: We need to graduate from the ridiculous notion that greed is some kind of elixir for capitalism - it's the downfall of capitalism. Self-interest, maybe, but self-interest run amok does not serve anyone. The core value of conscious capitalism is enlightened self-interest. Patricia Aburdene
-
-
espeir wrote:
Inverting the American flag is certainly the best way to show how American you are.
No. Inverting the flag is used to signal distress.
espeir wrote:
I also find it interesting that they chose a communist holiday to stage their lame protests.
Could there be a clearer sign that the communists are behind this? I mean, communists love America and want to work here as legal citizens, right? :rolleyes:
The bible was written when people were even more stupid than they are today. Can you imagine that? - David Cross
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
No. Inverting the flag is used to signal distress.
True, and the law regarding that specifically states: (a) The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property. In the context of a protest, it can only signify disrespect, since there is no danger to life or property involved (unless they are signalling intent to trash a few businesses along the way). That is stupid, and does not help their cause. It has certainly cost them my sympathy. We need to graduate from the ridiculous notion that greed is some kind of elixir for capitalism - it's the downfall of capitalism. Self-interest, maybe, but self-interest run amok does not serve anyone. The core value of conscious capitalism is enlightened self-interest. Patricia Aburdene
-
Really? According to this labor unions opted to have it changed after their communist leadership was outed and expunged. They no longer wanted to be associated with communists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Day[^] Regardless, that's not the point. The point is that they chose a foreign communist labor day to hold these protests. That says almost as much as the inverted flags.
espeir wrote:
According to this labor unions opted to have it changed after their communist leadership was outed and expunged.
Can you tell i'm not a huge fan of the labor unions? :rolleyes:
espeir wrote:
That says almost as much as the inverted flags.
I'm rather interested to see what the fall-out from these protests ends up being. On the one hand, this country is far too addicted to illegally-employed workers, and perhaps this will be a wake-up call to those who claim otherwise. On the other hand, some of the "solutions" being discussed (such as blanket amnesty and tighter border controls) are mostly unworkable, and it'd be a shame if the protests resulted in them being implemented. Things like flying Mexican flags / inverted US flags / bastardized anthem translations are only going to polarize this debate. That said, May Day seems as fine a day as any for a polarized debate... :rolleyes:
----
-
-
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
No. Inverting the flag is used to signal distress.
True, and the law regarding that specifically states: (a) The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property. In the context of a protest, it can only signify disrespect, since there is no danger to life or property involved (unless they are signalling intent to trash a few businesses along the way). That is stupid, and does not help their cause. It has certainly cost them my sympathy. We need to graduate from the ridiculous notion that greed is some kind of elixir for capitalism - it's the downfall of capitalism. Self-interest, maybe, but self-interest run amok does not serve anyone. The core value of conscious capitalism is enlightened self-interest. Patricia Aburdene
Rob Graham wrote:
the law regarding that specifically states: (a) The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.
There's a law? :wtf:
Rob Graham wrote:
In the context of a protest, it can only signify disrespect, since there is no danger to life or property involved.
There's no "danger to life", but there certainly is a "danger to way of life". And inverting the flag is a way to bring that to attention. Whatever works, I don't care.
Rob Graham wrote:
That is stupid, and does not help their cause. It has certainly cost them my sympathy.
What would have helped their cause in your eyes? Alvaro
The bible was written when people were even more stupid than they are today. Can you imagine that? - David Cross
-
Rob Graham wrote:
the law regarding that specifically states: (a) The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.
There's a law? :wtf:
Rob Graham wrote:
In the context of a protest, it can only signify disrespect, since there is no danger to life or property involved.
There's no "danger to life", but there certainly is a "danger to way of life". And inverting the flag is a way to bring that to attention. Whatever works, I don't care.
Rob Graham wrote:
That is stupid, and does not help their cause. It has certainly cost them my sympathy.
What would have helped their cause in your eyes? Alvaro
The bible was written when people were even more stupid than they are today. Can you imagine that? - David Cross
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
What would have helped their cause in your eyes?
Applying for green cards and work permits would be a start. A protest absent flags of other nations and improperly displayed U.S Flags.
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
There's a law?
Title 36 Chapter 10 US Code[^]
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
There's no "danger to life", but there certainly is a "danger to way of life". And inverting the flag is a way to bring that to attention. Whatever works, I don't care.
Whose / what way of life are we talking about here? Illegal immigrants have no inate right to be here. Are you arguing that we should just look the other way and continue this farce? Continue tolerating a broken immigration system which provides neither border security for citizens nor fair treatment to immigrants, legal or illegal? A system that gaurantees the exploitation of those who cross illegally by insuring they remain a subclass fearing deportation? Or that we simply grant amnesty to all who succeed in crossing, which will gaurantee that the flood will simply grow beyond any hope of control (and beyond the ability of the economy to sustain)? We need to graduate from the ridiculous notion that greed is some kind of elixir for capitalism - it's the downfall of capitalism. Self-interest, maybe, but self-interest run amok does not serve anyone. The core value of conscious capitalism is enlightened self-interest. Patricia Aburdene
-
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
What would have helped their cause in your eyes?
Applying for green cards and work permits would be a start. A protest absent flags of other nations and improperly displayed U.S Flags.
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
There's a law?
Title 36 Chapter 10 US Code[^]
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
There's no "danger to life", but there certainly is a "danger to way of life". And inverting the flag is a way to bring that to attention. Whatever works, I don't care.
Whose / what way of life are we talking about here? Illegal immigrants have no inate right to be here. Are you arguing that we should just look the other way and continue this farce? Continue tolerating a broken immigration system which provides neither border security for citizens nor fair treatment to immigrants, legal or illegal? A system that gaurantees the exploitation of those who cross illegally by insuring they remain a subclass fearing deportation? Or that we simply grant amnesty to all who succeed in crossing, which will gaurantee that the flood will simply grow beyond any hope of control (and beyond the ability of the economy to sustain)? We need to graduate from the ridiculous notion that greed is some kind of elixir for capitalism - it's the downfall of capitalism. Self-interest, maybe, but self-interest run amok does not serve anyone. The core value of conscious capitalism is enlightened self-interest. Patricia Aburdene
Rob Graham wrote:
Applying for green cards and work permits would be a start.
How feasible is it for a poor family from a third world country to apply and obtain a green card from this country when they have no close relatives living here?
Rob Graham wrote:
Whose / what way of life are we talking about here? Illegal immigrants have no inate right to be here. Are you arguing that we should just look the other way and continue this farce? Continue tolerating a broken immigration system which provides neither border security for citizens nor fair treatment to immigrants, legal or illegal? A system that gaurantees the exploitation of those who cross illegally by insuring they remain a subclass fearing deportation? Or that we simply grant amnesty to all who succeed in crossing, which will gaurantee that the flood will simply grow beyond any hope of control (and beyond the ability of the economy to sustain)?
I'm not arguing any of that. But if we were to suddenly remove all the illegal immigrants working out on the fields for a few bucks a day, or caring for our children while we work, our lives (and theirs) would be impacted negatively. I think that's the basic message they're trying to send to gain sympathy for their cause. Unfortunately there's no easy solution, and I haven't analyzed the issue enough to think of one. Do you have one?
The bible was written when people were even more stupid than they are today. Can you imagine that? - David Cross
-
Rob Graham wrote:
Applying for green cards and work permits would be a start.
How feasible is it for a poor family from a third world country to apply and obtain a green card from this country when they have no close relatives living here?
Rob Graham wrote:
Whose / what way of life are we talking about here? Illegal immigrants have no inate right to be here. Are you arguing that we should just look the other way and continue this farce? Continue tolerating a broken immigration system which provides neither border security for citizens nor fair treatment to immigrants, legal or illegal? A system that gaurantees the exploitation of those who cross illegally by insuring they remain a subclass fearing deportation? Or that we simply grant amnesty to all who succeed in crossing, which will gaurantee that the flood will simply grow beyond any hope of control (and beyond the ability of the economy to sustain)?
I'm not arguing any of that. But if we were to suddenly remove all the illegal immigrants working out on the fields for a few bucks a day, or caring for our children while we work, our lives (and theirs) would be impacted negatively. I think that's the basic message they're trying to send to gain sympathy for their cause. Unfortunately there's no easy solution, and I haven't analyzed the issue enough to think of one. Do you have one?
The bible was written when people were even more stupid than they are today. Can you imagine that? - David Cross
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
How feasible is it for a poor family from a third world country to apply and obtain a green card from this country when they have no close relatives living here?
That does not justify their breaking the law and entering without permission. On the other hand, there are many who do just that, and succeed. I have never heard anyone complain that the quotas have gone unfilled. At the same time, I agree that the system needs reform, and the quotas are absurdly small, as are the temporary work permit programs.
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
But if we were to suddenly remove all the illegal immigrants working out on the fields for a few bucks a day
I know of absolutely no one who has suggested that would even be possible. The House suggestion of increasing the seriousness of the offense from misdemeanor to felony was intended to discourage additional violations, and is impractical and not likely to stand in any event.
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
Unfortunately there's no easy solution, and I haven't analyzed the issue enough to think of one. Do you have one?
I agree that there is no simple solution. A starting point would be a significantly larger temporary work permit program (with sufficient resources to make actually using it practical for anyone interested). Application should be open to those already present, with a reasonable gaurantee of immunity from deportation for all but those who have been convicted of a felony in this country. To succeed, however, this must be accompanied by border security that actually encourages use of the legal route by making the illegal one impractical. If that requires the construction of security fences (physical or technological) in high traffic areas, then they should be built. And I would not oppose an accellerated path to citizenship for those already here and serious enough to met some reasonable standards for admission, including some payment of back taxes and demonstration of reasonable competence in English (the same citizenship tests required of legal applicants woiuld seem fair). This must be accompanied by streamlining the existing process for those already in line - it would not be fair to grant speedy citizenship to someone who entered illegally at the expense of, or prior to consideration of those already waiting in the legal process. Any such program must include a
-
Every demonstration attracts loud assholes. It's easy to pick them out and slap their label on all demonstrants. On the images you linked, I found many more "correct" US flags than inverted ones.
Some of us walk the memory lane, others plummet into a rabbit hole
Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighist -
Every demonstration attracts loud assholes. It's easy to pick them out and slap their label on all demonstrants. On the images you linked, I found many more "correct" US flags than inverted ones.
Some of us walk the memory lane, others plummet into a rabbit hole
Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighistYeah right. These were the same people holding all Mexican flags a couple weeks ago. The inverted flag was obviously not isolated and they're protests resembled the types of protests held by disenfranchised citizens of a banana republic.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
Applying for green cards and work permits would be a start.
How feasible is it for a poor family from a third world country to apply and obtain a green card from this country when they have no close relatives living here?
Rob Graham wrote:
Whose / what way of life are we talking about here? Illegal immigrants have no inate right to be here. Are you arguing that we should just look the other way and continue this farce? Continue tolerating a broken immigration system which provides neither border security for citizens nor fair treatment to immigrants, legal or illegal? A system that gaurantees the exploitation of those who cross illegally by insuring they remain a subclass fearing deportation? Or that we simply grant amnesty to all who succeed in crossing, which will gaurantee that the flood will simply grow beyond any hope of control (and beyond the ability of the economy to sustain)?
I'm not arguing any of that. But if we were to suddenly remove all the illegal immigrants working out on the fields for a few bucks a day, or caring for our children while we work, our lives (and theirs) would be impacted negatively. I think that's the basic message they're trying to send to gain sympathy for their cause. Unfortunately there's no easy solution, and I haven't analyzed the issue enough to think of one. Do you have one?
The bible was written when people were even more stupid than they are today. Can you imagine that? - David Cross
Considering your location another step might be to stop granting a certain set of foreigners a guaranteed right to stay in the US simply because they manage to set foot here. At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
Applying for green cards and work permits would be a start.
How feasible is it for a poor family from a third world country to apply and obtain a green card from this country when they have no close relatives living here?
Rob Graham wrote:
Whose / what way of life are we talking about here? Illegal immigrants have no inate right to be here. Are you arguing that we should just look the other way and continue this farce? Continue tolerating a broken immigration system which provides neither border security for citizens nor fair treatment to immigrants, legal or illegal? A system that gaurantees the exploitation of those who cross illegally by insuring they remain a subclass fearing deportation? Or that we simply grant amnesty to all who succeed in crossing, which will gaurantee that the flood will simply grow beyond any hope of control (and beyond the ability of the economy to sustain)?
I'm not arguing any of that. But if we were to suddenly remove all the illegal immigrants working out on the fields for a few bucks a day, or caring for our children while we work, our lives (and theirs) would be impacted negatively. I think that's the basic message they're trying to send to gain sympathy for their cause. Unfortunately there's no easy solution, and I haven't analyzed the issue enough to think of one. Do you have one?
The bible was written when people were even more stupid than they are today. Can you imagine that? - David Cross
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
How feasible is it for a poor family from a third world country to apply and obtain a green card from this country when they have no close relatives living here?
How feasible is it that Bill Gates gives me a billion dollars simply because I want it? Should I take it illegally? Should I organize a march to demand it? Maybe if enough of the poor 3rd world families worked at helping themselves at home, they'd become poor 1st world families like the rest of us. "If the world should blow itself up, the last audible voice would be that of an expert saying it can't be done." - Peter Ustinov
-
espeir wrote:
I also find it interesting that they chose a communist holiday to stage their lame protests.
You're the second person to say May Day is a communist holiday. Well, it's the first time I've ever heard of it being that! I'm more used to what they describe here[^] under "Other Traditions". Marc Pensieve Some people believe what the bible says. Literally. At least [with Wikipedia] you have the chance to correct the wiki -- Jörgen Sigvardsson
-
Yeah right. These were the same people holding all Mexican flags a couple weeks ago. The inverted flag was obviously not isolated and they're protests resembled the types of protests held by disenfranchised citizens of a banana republic.
(1) Putting thousands of people under one label. That's not the american spirit I used to know (2) I am not trying to defend the assholes. If you spend tiome in another country, respect it - and they clearly didn't. But you brush the hundreds of "correct" flags aside. Like a fundamentalist who is afraid of thinking. (3) What's so bad about a mexican flag? (4) banana republic? It was you cheap labour camp for many years, until China became it.
Some of us walk the memory lane, others plummet into a rabbit hole
Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighist -
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
What would have helped their cause in your eyes?
Applying for green cards and work permits would be a start. A protest absent flags of other nations and improperly displayed U.S Flags.
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
There's a law?
Title 36 Chapter 10 US Code[^]
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
There's no "danger to life", but there certainly is a "danger to way of life". And inverting the flag is a way to bring that to attention. Whatever works, I don't care.
Whose / what way of life are we talking about here? Illegal immigrants have no inate right to be here. Are you arguing that we should just look the other way and continue this farce? Continue tolerating a broken immigration system which provides neither border security for citizens nor fair treatment to immigrants, legal or illegal? A system that gaurantees the exploitation of those who cross illegally by insuring they remain a subclass fearing deportation? Or that we simply grant amnesty to all who succeed in crossing, which will gaurantee that the flood will simply grow beyond any hope of control (and beyond the ability of the economy to sustain)? We need to graduate from the ridiculous notion that greed is some kind of elixir for capitalism - it's the downfall of capitalism. Self-interest, maybe, but self-interest run amok does not serve anyone. The core value of conscious capitalism is enlightened self-interest. Patricia Aburdene
Rob Graham wrote:
Applying for green cards and work permits would be a start.
I am under the impression that this is exactly what the majority of the protesters want. Only they assume they won't get it when they ask nicely. US: Stop freaking out, take a deep breath, punch the vandals and flag desecreaters in the face (hard), than start to deal with the actual question: You've accepted a certain amount of illegals into your country, and in places your current economy relies on this. Now they wan't to be treated as equals. Sucker.
Some of us walk the memory lane, others plummet into a rabbit hole
Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighist -
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
How feasible is it for a poor family from a third world country to apply and obtain a green card from this country when they have no close relatives living here?
How feasible is it that Bill Gates gives me a billion dollars simply because I want it? Should I take it illegally? Should I organize a march to demand it? Maybe if enough of the poor 3rd world families worked at helping themselves at home, they'd become poor 1st world families like the rest of us. "If the world should blow itself up, the last audible voice would be that of an expert saying it can't be done." - Peter Ustinov
What would you DO wiht a billion of dollars you didn't earn with your own hands work? It's dirty money! :rolleyes:
Some of us walk the memory lane, others plummet into a rabbit hole
Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighist