Tigron-X

That is an absolute fallacy! I don't know where you get your expertise on Christianity, but I'm willing to guess it's all based on some sort of hearsay or elementary conjecture as opposed to any actual study of the Bible and it's history. After all, you've already falsely claimed that the Church founders wrote the scriptures. In the end, one's understanding of Bible scripture will change, but the message remains the same and always has. It's you that changes, not scripture. You're still assuming that every individual who has ever come up to you and claimed to be a Christian actually had knowledge of what that means, let alone a belief structure based on actual scripture. All in all, anything a Christian says regarding the message in the Bible has to be unequivocally based on scripture. If it's not, then I'm sure we both can agree that his/her statements or expressed beliefs are nothing more than a fallacy, and maybe even fantasy. Furthermore, any expressed understanding has to be in harmony on a whole of the Bible and not just in part to be truly Christian. If you want the Christian definition of God, then you open up the Bible just as you would open up a law dictionary to find the meaning of a legal term. You don't just walk up to anyone and ask them to define a term for you. You would open up the respective book just like any educated man would. Bottom line is that there is an exact meaning that was written just as there should be an exact meaning that is to be read, unless you want to throw reading comprehension out the window -- which it already looks like you have. Unless you haven't studied the Bible maturely. Because if you actually have, then you would find that there isn't much left up to mere interpretation. On another note, you got this idea stuck in your head that God or the belief in God is to be blamed for the hinderance of science. The Church opposed Galileo's idea of heliocentrism because it would show that the Church's teachings were NOT based on true knowledge, let alone true knowledge of scriptural texts, thus creating a social atmosphere where the people under rule of the Church would question the authority of its leaders. And, the way Galileo wrote didn't do him any benefit either because his writing didn't honor the authority of the Church, thus instigating resentment of the Church and its leaders. Your claim that societies have had different interpretations of the Bible is unsubstantiated. The truth of the matter is that the Church suppressed scriptural knowledge and scientific discoveries in order to remain in power over their subjects. There is an exact and specific message/philosophies that the Bible teaches.

more or less... But I'm saying more than that too. Most who claim to be Christian are actually false prophets. You arbitrarily claiming these people to be Christian as well. Consider how many know the name of the Christian God. Consider how many will name Jesus as Almighty God. Consider how many claim to believe Jesus died for their sins, yet excercise no faith whatsoever. Consider how many believe sinners will go to hell, and good-doers will go to heaven; or consider how many believe that non-believers will go to hell, and believers will go to heaven. Consider how many believe in the "Holy Trinity" concept. Consider how many believe the soul is some metaphysical thing that is immortal instead of the body you have. Consider how many believe that when you die you go to some after life, or that you will go to purgatory. And the list goes on. All in all , it's the same as one buying pillsbury cake mixes and then claiming he/she is a baker. And you're buying into it.

What's wrong with the limit equation I had for infinity? If x =1 then 1/1 = 1; thus no infinity. By "negating all other possibilities" he is proving it's not a squirrel. What do you mean when you say prove a negative? I really don't know how to answer that question. I've sat here for a good 10 mins trying to find a way to answer that question. And all I keep thinking of is the scene from Pinnapple Express, "What do yo mean the battery is dead?" All in all, why isn't it a squirrel? It's not a squirrel because such and such. By no means am I stating that negative statements can't hold true. The truth of a statement is found by proving a positive. What makes you think the Bible is true and not made up? Because I haven't seen any evidence showing that the principals expressed in the Bible are false. And if I take the metaphors or symbolism expressed in the Bible literally, then I'm being a fool.

I very implicitly posted the absolute mathematical proof of infinity. Ok, if you challenge my response, similar to those who have challenged yours, I give you the condition to prove that my mathematical definition is not absolute. Its basic logic, all you have to do is show me one case where my definition has a false conclusion. Actually in order for that to be true, he would have to state with/after each characteristic that those characteristic are that of a lamp, narrowing further you have to list characteristics that are singularly associated with a lamp (i.e. "All lamps have light bulbs). To do that honestly is illogical. It is much easier to simply present one case invalidating than dozens, or hundreds trying to validate. In a logic proof if you were to simply state, the quotes being my statements: This device is not a squirrel. This device has a light bulb. "My generator has a light bulb" This device plugs into a wall. "My generator plugs into a wall" This device emits light. "My generator emits light" Therefore: This device is my generator It doesn't prove that you have a lamp. In fact it was quite simply to invalidate. I mean you can keep going with your "ect." part and listing dozens of quantifiers until you can pretty much narrow it down, assuming nothing is that singularly similar to a lamp as we know it, but that is painful. To disprove it being a squirrel simply state: This device has a light bulb. No squirrels have light bulbs. Therefore: This device is not a squirrel. That is impossible to invalidate and much more simplistic. And logically it is not impossible to prove a negative. Actually, you've proven it to be a device. Thus proving a positive, and not a negative. In other words, it's not a squirrel because!!! it is a device. We can go at this all day. You'll constantly prove a positive.

A paradox? I'm blaming the Christian belief in God, not my belief. As an agnostic, if the Christian God exists then he is to blame for hindering scientific progress because he is defined by Christians. *slaps forehead* Someone running around claiming to be Christian, i.e. Christ-like, is most likely a false prophet. Luke 21:8 (New International Version) He replied: "Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and, 'The time is near.' Do not follow them. And out of the book that is recognized as the best translation: Luke 21:8 (New World Translation) He said: "Look out that you are not mislead; for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, 'I am he,' and, 'The due time has approached.' Do not go after them. And who wrote the scripture? Church founders perhaps? :roll: Roll your eyes all you like, but try getting your facts straight before you go running your fingers across the keyboard. Because, neither the Hebrew-Aramaic scriptures weren't written by "Church" founders, nor were the Christian Greek scriptures. The Church does this in the name of God. The Christian God in his absence is defined by the Church, and either he is to blame for the actions of his followers, or he isn't the Christian God at all. The so called "Church" has removed God's name from their texts. So, how could they possibly be doing anything in the name of God? Whatever "God" they worship, it most certainly is not the Christian God; whose name is Jehova in English dialect. The Vatican and all its followers are Babylon the Great. OK, so we are talking about different Gods here. I am talking about the Christian God and you are talking about some entity that doesn't represent Christians. You're definitely talking about something. And it most definitely isn't the Christian God as you have no idea who that is. The Bible is interpreted by every society differently. You sound like a Christian when you talk about true followers. No it isn't. It's clear in what it says. That's not to say that you don't need to understand the past cultures to understand certain metaphors, but it's very clear in its message. Furthermore, Martin Luther inadvertently started the Protest-ant movement when the Church was manipulating the masses for its own gain. This is just one count of how all these different sects that you falsely claim to be Christian came about. A better label would be Christendom as it seems most are still subject to the Church, or its members follow blindly. However, the Church isn't the authority on anything, unless you give it consent. The Church kept the Bible in Latin for decades to keep the truth from people. Thanks to Martin Luther the Bible was translated into the German vernacular. All in all, the truth is there for those who seek it. And, for the record, I'm not Christian. I am just a simple man that has given the Bible a close look, and continue to do so. And, of all the various churches and religious folk I've encountered, whom I've discussed the Bible with, of those people, Jehova's Witnesses are the only one's I've found who have given the Bible it's due diligence, and continue to do so.

You were supposed to prove God, not 1! No sir, you were suppose to show me infinity. Then I am to show you God. have you never done any formal proofs? You're leaning on the edge of trolling at the level of ignorance you're displaying. Or, I've come to the realization that I can only prove what something is, not what something is not. Simple example: Imagine a stage, and someone walks out with a lamp. He says, "This is not a squirrel." And then he goes on to point out the light bulb and how it plugs into the wall and how it emits light, etc, etc, Did he prove that it's not a squirrel? NO! He proved it to be a lamp by pointing out charcteristics that are indicative of a lamp, thus negating all other possibilities such as a squirrel. It's basic logic, not trolling. I'm not required to prove a negative; I'm required to prove a positive. I believe in the first three, although I question where you get the almighty all knowing, and eternal from? The Bible.

Singularities can be found throughout nature. Examples: Snowflakes Finger prints DNA I don't need to prove three; I just need to prove one. As one cannot actually "define" God, I can only give my understanding: Life, love, justice, truth... Almighty, all knowing, and eternal I believe the proper name is Jehova.

It's not murder, so I don't see anything wrong with it. I think each case, however, needs to be very well documented before such a procedure is carried out.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/southflori...ory/923138.html We'll find out soon enough. Again, I was speaking in general; refering to you, me, whoever. So, let me rephrase it for you: One can gain jurisdiction over another by acquiescence.

I thought you might enjoy this: 1895 TEST This is the eighth-grade final exam from 1895 from Salina, Kansas. It was taken from the original document on file at the Smoky Valley Genealogical Society and Library in Salina, Kansas and reprinted by the Salina Journal. I doubt anyone today could pass this test, even if you modernized the outdated questions.

If you find that I'm repeating myself, then you're not grasping what I'm saying. Assuming that a given treaty has been dishonored: the injured party has the right to seek remedy for any and all damages incurred. Obviously the parties involved are the ones who would seek to "enforce" a treaty that has been dishonored. Whether or not the given treaty is "enforced" successfully may be contingent on which party has the better military prowess should diplomacy fail. I understand that concept very well. No one here is arguing that but you! You assume, for whatever reason, that because a group of people got together and created a governing body, that this so-called governing body automatically has jurisdiction over everyone. When in fact, this so-called governing body only has jurisdiction over members of the governing body, who are typically classified as citizens, unless consent is gained from the "foreign" individual (or alien). If consent is not gained, then the so-called governing body does not have jurisdiction over the individual. The individual is a sovereign; a freeman on the land; a sui juris. Should the so-called governing body decide to move against such an individual, it would be an act of aggression. The individual would be under duress. According to Title 4 USC the proper way to display a flag indoors is to hang it on the wall. However, when you walk into any court room in this country, neither is the flag displayed on the wall nor is it the flag of the united States. It is a military flag of the corporate United States. This is evident by the gold brim. A flag signifies jurisdiction. As it is a military flag, then what you have is a military tribunal; not to be confused with court-martial. Savvy? Let me put it to you this way: In order for one to become a corporate US citizen, which is what you're talking about, then one has to go through such governmental channels. By doing so, one becomes a 14th Amendment citizen. Such citizens are 2nd class citizen. They're not a freeman-on-the-land; a sovereign; a sui juris. He/She is a lower being which is tagged (i.e. numbered), classified, and tracked for the benefit of 1st class citizens. Savvy? You've bought into the lies very well. Now, let's check what the law says: Spoiler! --Click here to view--"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." [emphasis added] II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135. "The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived." [emphasis added] Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163. So we can see that a Citizen has a Right to travel upon the public highways by automobile and the Citizen cannot be rightfully deprived of his Liberty. So where does the misconception that the use of the public road is always and only a privilege come from? Spoiler! --Click here to view--"...For while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or a license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion." State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Hadfield, supra; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; and other cases too numerous to mention. The distinction must be drawn between... (1) Travelling upon and transporting one's property upon the public roads, which is our Right; and... (2) Using the public roads as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business, which is a privilege. First off, who said a license restricts someone? I certainly did not. I stated a license grants one permission to act in a certain capacity. Scroll up for youself. Secondly, you're confusing a certifacte with a license. Two different legal documents. Maybe this conversation would be a lot less difficult for you if you actually took the time to read what I was saying. Maybe you have a reading disability? Instead of being so quick to judge, why don't you try thinking for a change? Let me spell it out for you here as well. You grasp that government cannot be perfect because man if fallible. I share this understanding as well. But the step you haven't taken yet (i.e. what you haven't yet realized) is that there is remedy. That's what the due process of law provides. And for the record, you **think** I'm jaded. Don't presume to know my state of mind Furthermore, I have stated there are 2 governments; the de jure and the de facto. I have the knowledge to distinguish the two. You don't. And what exactly am I projecting on 303 million people? Please stop talking in circles, you are simply trying to bury your lack of an argument in a theoretical mess. If this information is too much for you, I'll understand if you don't want to continue. This information is hard to grasp because it forces you to take everything you've been taught and question it. For example, go read the preamble to the United States Constitution. There are various capitonyms. What do all those words actually mean? How about "Attorney at Law?" How is an attorney "at" Law? What does that mean? Let me put it this way: When your expenses exceed your assets, then I don't think you're prosperous. Now, you might be working towards prosperity. However, until you're the creditor and not the debtor, then I don't believe you're prosperous. Now, I'm not going to go into detail on those examples you brought up because if you take a closer look at the transactions you'll realize that there typically is a lack of equal consideration when one assummes such loans or lines of credit. Your question is too ambiguous for me to give a proper response. I would say tyranny is the abuse of power. The question though is who is the governing force? i.e. Who is master; who is servent? That's right. It's not law. It's statute. A statute is a rule of society that has the force of law. However, it is not law. Act of 1871 http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collI...&recNum=454 Enjoy

Courts have ruled it to be lethal. And just because you brought it up: an electric shock to the body by a weapon causing cardiac arrest isn't in the same catagory as drugs causing allergic reactions. There must be some confusion because I've never dictated to you your own state of being. I was pointing out that you cannot possibly know what others know or think; i.e. mental state. So you couldn't possiblly substantiate the claim, "Most men will never know truly who they are but will instead decide who they are not." Unless you're telepathic. How can someone rebel against me when I am not in any position of authority over others. I didn't actually call people sheep or cattle; I used sarcasm to make a point. Granted, people are being classified, tagged, and taser'd like cattle. But, I don't consider people cattle or sheep or any animal. "Again simply having power over another does not make you their god, lord or master." Of course not. Never claimed it did. Power can be gained by force. "I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' "Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'" "But `glory' doesn't mean `a nice knock-down argument,'" Alice objected. "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, " it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less. "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all." (Underline and bold emphasis added) I'm currently in litigation because I've been charged when refusal to sign/accept a citation, and resisting arrest with non-violence. The deputy never presented a citation, so how could I possibly refuse to sign or accept it? It was never offered. I was asking him questions instead of surrendering my license as he demanded. He didn't like that so he arrested me, even pulled a taser gun on me. And because I didn't jump out of my car fast enough, he charged me resisting arrest. Which, when you think about it, it makes civil disobedience a crime. That's scary. If he was in the right, why did he go so far to lie or omit facts in his Charging Affidavit? If our system is so just, why am I having to disqualify the judge for not following the courts own Rules of Criminal Procedure? I have it all on court record. Satisfied? It can work that way too.

Fin smurfed? And your prejudice and fears should be labeled as what? As that is all you're essentially presenting here, there is nothing for me to weigh in on, other than the economy. And to say the least, the stability of the US economy is more at danger because of it's fiat currency based monetary system than some immigrants coming in and becoming part of the workforce. When there no longer is equal consideration, then these presumed benefits are no longer benefits. The agreement becomes or always has been an unconscious bargain. The government is a legal fiction. As all legal fictions cannot move themselves, someone has to move it. This is why 'motions' are filed or made in a court. In common law, you or another are required to file charges against a violator, unless there is some contract that takes precedence. "If the government isn't willing to stop me from shooting an illegal immigrant, then he has no "real" right not to be shot." What you fail to realize is that the given individual is a lawful immigrant. Issues of legality are contractual. By what authority do you have the right to execute or murder or kill another? "You fail to see that you only ever have an illusion of rights." Spoken like a true tyrant! You have no basis in law to boast such a claim. If you have a problem with these immigrants gaining the "benefits" you pay for, then incorporate them into your government. However, do not think for one second that such action won't come at a cost of your liberties. As for treaties: From Article 6 of the United States Constitution: (underline emphasis added) This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. That's all elementary conjecture. "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, then to open your mouth and remove all doubt!" If you don't know why I say that, then I'll give you a hint. "Your papers, sir." If that's not helpful, then try looking up Nuremberg Laws. To say the least, Germany was no longer a republic by the time Hitler took over. What you speak of is tyrany. Nice rant. But last I checked the minerals needed to make steel come out of the land. So I think you missed the point. To give you a better perspective, Mohandas Gandhi, in protest to British rule in India, walked roughly 250 miles to the Dandi Salt March to make salt. So what, he made salt; big deal, right? Well, the British had a monopoly on salt. The making of it was outlawed so that the British could control the trade of the commodity. Of course, in India, salt is very much needed otherwise you would die from dehydration. When the people of India realized that it was their right to make salt, and trade it at will, it threatened the monopoly. In response, the British tried to shut down any and all opperations. However, their own injustice was eventually revealed as the rule of law prevailed, thanks to Gandhi. Yes, every man wants an avenue to prosperity. Same thing I said. The difference, however, is that I realize a "job" will not get you there. A career in a particular field may get you there if you're lucky enough. However, men rarely prosper in jobs. They survive, and even their family might survive. But rarely do they prosper. The lack of prosperity that comes from having a job is due to over-taxation and the fiat currency based monetary system, not immigrants coming into the country. Is all oppression limited to force? And by what authority does man claim the right to rule over another man? Very rarely is the law ever vague. Broad, yes. But rarely ever vague. I give you insight into the law, or the republic, not the democracy that you're so accustomed to, and now I'm a conspiracist? Now, that's putting the wagon before the horse. Have you tried looking into Lincoln and the Civil War and Reconstruction? As silly as this may sound, Wizard of Oz even. All those characters were inspired by political cartoons. All the information is out there. It's not hidden by any means. It's just a matter of awareness. This information isn't main stream; that's all. And a lot of that is due to the public school system. The public school system has been designed to prepare citizens for the workforce. "..has that really effected us as a country?" I think you mean affected. Of course it has, and in good ways and bad ways depending on your status. That's why knowing who you are is so important. In most cases, i.e. most people, you're a slave. Don't confuse slavery with involuntery servitude. Involuntery servitude is what a lot of people from Africa experienced when they were brought over to North America. Slavery is entered into by consent. Of course, the term 'slave' is no longer in use just as the term 'serf' isn't. The politically correct term is human resource. And then once you start getting into licensing, it becomes more complicated. Now, I know I haven't seriously committed to your request. But, give it time. By what authority is what it comes down to.

Anarachy can never truly exist because there will always be law, just not the ones you're accustomed to obeying or enforcing. Civil disobedience against unjust laws doesn't make a man an anarchist. It's pretty arrogant to think so. As you cannot possibly know the mental state of others, you don't have the authority to speak on behalf of others. You can only speak for yourself. And your silence is all I need to gain jurisdiction should I be in a position of leverage or influence. What I say can be found in history and even seen today so it is not false. Those who cannot claim their status in law will have it assigned to them by the higher power, thus becoming your god, your lord, your master. Let's make something clear here: I'm not the one running around using taser guns, a lethal weapon, to gain compliance of subjects.

No, because it's not beyond governmental entities to use relgion to gain jurisidiciton over others. Simply said, if you don't know who you are, I can become your God.

No, things aren't so simple, and it would be pretty presumptuous of me to think so. But do you truly know how complicated things really are? And reserving the right of self-preservation and self-determination aren't of a hippie love mentality. So you naively assume, but I'm sure at no fault of your own, especially if you've been educated in these government run public school systems. What benefit does one truly gain by surrendering his/her sovereignty for the status of a subject? And if you claim to be a US citizen, do you really think that means you're a citizen of a country? Because I tell you, with such a claim you are claiming the citizenship of a corporation. Go to the UNITED STATES CODE (note the capitalization, indicating the corporation, not the Republic) Title 28 3002 (15) ( A ) ( B ) ( C ). It is stated unequivocally that the United States is a corporation. But they have common law. And if they have a treaty, well that may even be better. As they have no representation, why should they be expected to pay any taxes? The U.S. Constitution doesn't grant anyone any rights. It legislates the power of government. In other words, it dictates the rights of government. However, if you claim US citizenship, then you fall under the 14th Amendment, thus granting the government jurisdiction over you as you have become a ward of the State, which transliterates into 'commercial property.' As such, Civil Rights are assigned to you. As a freeman, however, you have God-given rights or birth rights which, however, is subject to you having the wit to claim them against an oppressive force. There is a legal maxim, and I paraphrase: That which is created can never be greater than the creator. Just as we can never be greater than God, these legal fictions which are created by men, these corporate entities, which exist only in the minds of men, can never be greater than the man, unless you consent to it which, mind you, can be gained by tacit assent. And who in their right mind would want such things? The land provides everything I need. But if you take the land from under me, and in turn dictate how I am to survive and live, then you have taken away from me self-determination and self-preservation and in turn made me dependent upon you for my life and liberties. No man wants a job. Every man wants life and prosperity for themselves and their loved ones, and most are willing to work for it. And, in the case of these "illegal immigrants," that you would spit on before help, are forced to turn to these life threatening avenues for survival. They cross rough terrain and put their lives at risk in order to sustain the life of their families. There is a reason they are forced to take on such risks. There is a reason their land back home cannot sustain their lives. And I'm sure it has a lot to do with the US's control over trade within the region. Knowing who you are, i.e. your status, allows you to govern yourself. It allows you to defend against oppression because it prevents another body from claiming jurisdiction over you as if you were a wild animal or of a lesser being. If jurisdiction is gained over you, then that body can and will claim the right to adjudicate against you in its favor with prejudice if need be and without recourse or remedy, unless you can claim your status as a soveriegn lord. A sui juris. Yeah... and I bet when you read UNITED STATES CODE Title 28 3002 (15) ( A ) ( B ) ( C ) your perception of reality changed. If not, then that's just willful blindness. The reality of the matter is that there is a de facto government and a de jure government. I'm not outraged or offended by another's ignorance. Using such terms as 'black' or 'white' to identify one's race is a misnomer and a reflection of one's ignorance, just as is the use of such terms as Caucasian, Asian-American, African-American. The color of one's skin has nothing to do with race. Are you a hue-man? Or a man? A human has basic human rights just as an animal has basic animal rights, except a human is an extraordinary animal, thus has "human" rights. Are you acting under the color of a man, e.g. white man, black man? Because in law, "color" is synonymous with appearance. In other words are you acting under the appearance of a man, but are truly an animal of white or black origin that is found in the Americas? Who are you? By the way, in matters of law, rarely is it 'just' semantics, or semantics at all.

Dear Government, I am but a simple man beast. I need you to herd me like sheep and whip me like cattle. While you're at it, would you hold my hand too? Sincerely, US Citizen

Actually not true. Caucasians have the lowest crime rate in all of America except for Asian-Americans. Also the majority of illegal immigrants send money to their families in other countries, thus cutting out on taxes and deporting money with no return. It makes no sense to deport illegal immigrants? Why, do we as America need to be the charity of the world? We have enough problems maintaining our own citizens and now we have to worry about supporting another 5 million illegal citizens, who really don't contribute anything besides cheap labor for ethnically compromised businessmen? If Mexico/Central America is struggling that much, work with them to make it easier for immigrants to LEGALLY come to America. Just ignoring the illegal immigrants doesn't help anyone, well except for the illegals. The only reason why illegal immigrants are part of the economy is because they are illegal. A rancher can pay an illegal $3 a day to work his ranch, with no benefits or any paperwork and get a full days work. That immigrant becomes legal and now he has to pay him the federal minimum wage per hour and have him on his books. How many people are actually "Caucasians." Because, I know I'm not white; I am kind of pinkish, tan brown. And I most certainly dont come from the Caucus Mountains near Georgia. What about these people you classify as "Asian-Americans." Do they not come from a tribe or a people like Manchuria for example? It's scary how this government herds people like wild beast. The US corporate government has destroyed so many livlihoods around the world that it's pretty pompus to consider rectifying these abuses as charity. Funny that word "legal." Funnier still is the concept of "legalization." Think about it. Why would something need to be "legalized?" Sort of like the word "license," maybe? And if you don't know, a license grants someone permission to act in a certain capacity. It's a form of control. That which is unlawful can never be made legal; that which is considered illegal may however be lawful. It's all a matter of knowing who you are. As long as these people come in peace, they should be honored and respected.

I'm assuming you're drawing such a hypothesis from the events commonly associated with the advent of World War II. However, it's a myth that the advent of World War II ended the Great Depression. Roosevelt commandeered the entire population and put it to work making bombs, tanks, and battleships. As a result there was full employment and everyone of course got paid. However, there weren't any consumer products to buy: no candy bars, no women's stockings, no new houses, no new cars, and so on. The standard of living was actually lower than it had been during the 1930s. Be careful what you wish for.

With all due respect Fin, I'm sure it's safe for me to assume that the reasons I made my comment are far different than the reasons behind the comments of that quiz. Whatever you're saying in your personal opinion is so broad from where I stand that I can only guess as to what you just said. And I assume you're saying that the members of the society you are an associate of claim left or right, for example, to jump right into political debate. Something along those lines. My problem, however, is the assumption that everyone is automatically a member if this society, thus automatically falls into one of those catagories.

lol... well, they're not going to put the man who re-gained monetary control over Iraq on trial.

I say honor the common law right to travel and let them come.