Thread: MATT........

Thats pretty devious, Michael. But then I wouldn't put anything pass Dee and her coharts now.

What is even more devious is how Dee/Dee1/Mychica/MATT , is now arguing with ultima and trying to turn this into a prejudice or racial thing, when it is simply a law thing. She is saying everyone is against hispanics now, and if that is true, it is their own undoing. Alot of the hispanic community is defending the breaking of our laws, and instead of doing that they should have denounced illegal immigration and turned in the law breakers or convinced them to go back home and do it right.
Prejudice is world wide. It is not just limited the the United States, and prejudice comes in all forms........ two rival football teams playing bring out a form of prejudice. Fans from one team will harrass the other team and it sometimes turns into fights and death. Same thing. It's just like when people say it's racial profiling......... well if the offenders were purple and had yellow eyes and we were looking for them, it would still be profiling....... You can't go after grandma if your looking for a teenager....... Racial profiling laws have been taken to the extreme's and we have become more vulnerable because of it.
How come it's never racial profiling when they say a white guy, in his 20's robbed a bank, and they stop all white men in their 20's looking for the bank robber? Let them broadcast a minority's crime and start stopping them and all I hear is racial profiling....... geezzzzzz how PC have we become when we cannot stop people baised on their discription looking for a criminal?
They cry they are becoming the biggest sector of the population, and that 60 percent of the illegals are from mexico, they cry foul if we capture them and deport them......... It's not only them we are looking for but the asian, the arabics, the northern european, and others.
The hispanic radicals have tried to turn this into a racial thing when in fact it is an illegal alien thing from all parts of the world. There is no special preference that we are activily picking on them. We are rounding up all the illegals.

Originally Posted by tbird

Thats pretty devious, Michael. But then I wouldn't put anything pass Dee and her coharts now.

I agree with all you have stated, Michael. Hispanic-Americans are now trying to turn this illegal immigration thing into a prejudicial thing against them rather than just the illegals themselves. It is just more nonsense they use to throw the race card around at those who are for the rule of law. They have no viable arguments for advocating the invasion of their own country by those ethnically like them so they use reverse racism on us.

They made their bed when they marched with these illegals last May and now they whine about prejudice. You get what you ask for.

This whine about racial profiling is ridiculous too. The cops have to question those that fit the description of who they are looking for. Sometimes I feel like I am dealing with a bunch of two year olds trying to reason with them.

Kate wrote:
Quote:
They only have their interests at heart. They care nothing of what will happen to the American citizen.


I completely agree. And never has this been more clear than in the case of our 2 border patrol agents. Has LaRaza or LULAC or Mecha lifted a finger, made a single statement to try to secure a pardon? NO. They apparently will eat their own as a means to an end.



so when a person of mexican heritage follows the law they are no longer mexican?

Sorry Legal, I don't really understand what trying to say.

It is clearly a race thing for them. I have yet to hear that they are advocating for everyone that is illegal reguardless of race, creed, religon, or sexual orinentation.
I don't see them asking for amnisty for asians, muslems, hatians, or others.
There is a 60/40 split......... 60 percent hispanic illegals, and 40 percent visa overstays......... Where is the fair and equal justice for everyone when it comes to amnisty? I only hear the cry for the hispanic illegal.
Prejudice comes in all forms......... there was even prejudice against me being from California and moving to texas......... I remember a poster saying I should go back to California since Texas didn't want my views here.........
They also want it to be an anglo thing...... they try to make it look like anglos want them gone....... when in fact that is untrue. All races including their own want the illegals gone.
These advocates prey on the poor and the uneducated to get their agenda passed. Even our own learning institutions are teaching them the border crossed them, when in reality, Mexico's territory was from the tropic of cancer to guatamla....... it wasn't till the 1500's that spain conquored them and declaired it spanish land did the spanish conquistadors march north and west into the united states and declair the land for spain......... Mexico revolted in the early 1800's and could not afford to keep the land so they either sold it to us or we took some of it away.
They would have you believe they were here first and that is not true. The native American Indian as we know him (native to north america) was here first long before spain took their land. So, No, they are native to North American as they would have everyone believe.
This is another false statement by people trying to further their agenda.
There are alot of good American citizens that are of hispanic descent, but there are others that have been brain washed into thinking they are entitled to something.

Originally Posted by tbird

I agree with all you have stated, Michael. Hispanic-Americans are now trying to turn this illegal immigration thing into a prejudicial thing against them rather than just the illegals themselves. It is just more nonsense they use to throw the race card around at those who are for the rule of law. They have no viable arguments for advocating the invasion of their own country by those ethnically like them so they use reverse racism on us.

They made their bed when they marched with these illegals last May and now they whine about prejudice. You get what you ask for.

This whine about racial profiling is ridiculous too. The cops have to question those that fit the description of who they are looking for. Sometimes I feel like I am dealing with a bunch of two year olds trying to reason with them.

Here is another myth they try to use on you. They say the terrorists came in through the Canadian border and we should step up our efforst there instead of the southern border......
This is a myth.
Here is the article telling you what really happened

Canada Fights Myth It Was 9/11 Conduit
Charge Often Repeated by U.S. Officials

By Doug Struck
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, April 9, 2005; Page A20

TORONTO -- True or false? Shortly before Sept. 11, 2001, several of the terrorists who would carry out the attacks that day slipped into the United States from Canada.

Canadian officials are vexed that 3 1/2 years later, they have not dispelled the groundless claim that Canada was a route for the Sept. 11 hijackers. Frank McKenna, the new ambassador to the United States, calls it an "urban myth" and has been trying to beat it down in television interviews and letters to the editor.

"It took on a life of its own, like a viral infection," McKenna said in a telephone interview from Washington.

This lingering headache for Canada underlines the enduring life of inaccuracies in the media and the sensitivity of Canadians to suggestions that their country's long and lightly guarded border is a threat to the United States.

"It's something that won't go away," Bill Graham, Canada's defense minister, said of the apocryphal claim in an interview Monday. "We're very resentful . . . because not one suspect had been in Canada. All had been in the U.S., training in the U.S., with valid U.S. visas."

The account was born in the first days after the attacks, when reporters and government investigators were scrambling to figure out how the conspirators had carried out the plot. Bernard Etzinger, a Canadian Embassy spokesman, says the "big bang" that started the legend can be traced to two Boston newspapers.

A Boston Globe story on Sept. 13 said investigators were "seeking evidence" that the hijackers came through Canada. The Boston Herald reported the same day that federal investigators believed "the terrorist suspects may have traveled . . . by boat" from Canada.

On Sept. 14, The Washington Post reported that an unnamed U.S. official had said two suspects "crossed the border from Canada with no known difficulty at a small border entry in Coburn Gore, Maine," and that others may have come through other Maine ports. On Sept. 16, that report was repeated by the New York Post, which also declared that "terrorists bent on wreaking havoc in the United States" had found Canada "the path of least resistance." On Sept. 19, the Christian Science Monitor referred to Canada as "a haven for terrorists."

"It was just one of those things where everybody says, 'We all knew that,' and it becomes irrefutable," Etzinger said.

In the weeks after the attacks, investigators established that all of the hijackers entered the United States from countries other than Canada, a finding that got the official stamp last summer with the release of the Sept. 11 commission report. But that has not stopped the story from spreading.

The Canadian Embassy in Washington keeps a chart of new reports of the rumor. The chart shows that at least three U.S. representatives and one senator have recently repeated the claim.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) was quoted in October as saying the terrorists had crossed into New York from Canada. Her office disputes the quotes, but they prompted a flurry of outrage and demands in Canada for an apology.

"It hurt Canadian feelings, particularly because we thought the Clintons were our pals," said Norman Hillmer, a professor at Carlton University in Ottawa and the author of a book on U.S.-Canadian relations.

In August, Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (D-Tex.) declared to a congressional committee -- and repeated in a press release -- that "as we all know, terrorists entered the U.S. from Canada on Sept. 11, 2001, using passports that the Canadians accepted as valid despite the fact that the documents were doctored."

The Canadian Embassy filed its now standard protest, and the congressman asked that the remarks be stricken from the committee record. He believed they were true from "some inferences," said his spokeswoman, Ciaran Clayton. "Those inferences were wrong."

"Once a story is out there, it gets picked up and repeated," Graham, the defense minister, said with a sigh. "People don't check to see if it's been contradicted."

Canadian officials concede that they are sensitive about the matter. "It vexes Canadians, because it's not just an untruth, but it's an untruth about one of the most . . . traumatic events of our lifetimes," McKenna said.

The sensitivity, they say, is heightened by fear that terrorists could infiltrate the United States from Canada. There is at least one known example of an attempt. In December 1999, border agents arrested an Algerian man, Ahmed Ressam, as he was trying to enter at Port Angeles, Wash., with homemade explosives in his rental car. He was later convicted of plotting to bomb the Los Angeles International Airport or some other airport in Southern California.

The 5,000-mile border stretches through unpoliced wilderness, and Canada's diverse population includes many people from countries racked by political turmoil. Officials worry that a terrorist attack traced to Canada would result in damaging restrictions on a border that more than 80 percent of Canada's exports cross.

Many Canadians reacted with irritation Tuesday to reports that they may have to show passports to enter the United States starting in 2007.

LMAO hahahahaha she finally forgot which name she was posting under lmao hahahaha

These are the two back to back posts to Ultima lmao



Dee





Posts:5209


01/25/2007 6:09 PM Report Abuse
Here are my answers to your questions ULTIMA -- IN CAPS:

Are you suggesting that since we have learned through our own direct observation or through various media channels and publications that the problem is bad and getting worse, we should do or feel nothing?

YOU TOOK A LEAP HERE ULTIMA.
I SAID SINCE ANGLOS CANNOT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN HISPANICS THAT ARE LEGAL VS ILLEGAL, THEIR ANIMOSITY IS BEING CASTE ON ALL HISPANICS AND THE HISPANIC CITIZENS ARE FEELING THEIR ANGER. THEN YOU JUMPED TO THE CONCLUSION THAT ALL HISPANICS ARE FEELING SYMPATHY TOWARDS THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. SOME ARE. SOME AREN´T, BUT AGAIN YOU ARE MAKING ASSUMPTIONS.

NO ONE SAYS YOU SHOULD FEEL NOTHING. YOU ARE TAKING ANOTHER LEAP HERE. BUT THE QUESTION IS, WHOM ARE YOU DIRECTING YOUR ANGER TO WHEN YOU CANNOT TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LEGAL VS ILLEGAL? THIS IS A QUESTION ONLY YOU CAN ANSWER.

Is our reluctance to turn our country over to illegal aliens a problem for you?
NO ONE IS ADVOCATING TURNING A COUNTRY OVER TO ANYONE. AGAIN, YOUR ASSUMPTION.

The Hispanic American community, some of whom show open support of illegals, apparently do not share our reluctance and concern. This activity and expression in support of illegals, whatever you want to call it, does seriously undermine our mutual trust.
ANOTHER LEAP. EACH HISPANIC CITIZEN HAS THEIR OWN OPINION. FOR ME, I AM FOR SECURE BORDERS AND PORTS, SANCTIONING EMPLOYERS. MY OPINION RE THE 11M HERE IS, WE SHOULD CONSIDER WHO INVITED THEM HERE, HOW LAWS WERE NOT ENFORCED, WHAT MOTIVATING FACTOR FROM THEIR ORIGINATING COUNTRY DROVE THEM TO COME, AND WHETHER THEY HAVE STAYED FELONY FREE AND CONTRIBUTING-WORKING SINCE THEY CAME HERE.

Your alluding to throwing illegal immigrants under the train is pure hyperbole. No one is advocating anything remotely fits that description or that could or should be described in that way. You have chosen a very unfortunate metaphor to express your view of all of this.
MANY ON THIS SITE HAVE ADVOCATING MASS DEPORTATION. CONSIDERING WHAT THEY HAVE TO RETURN TO, THE TRAIN METAPHOR IS VERY FITTING.

How would you suggest we treat those among us who show open support for illegal aliens?
THE PRESIDENT IS PROPOSING AN EXPANDED GUEST WORKER PROGRAM. AFTER SEEING GE´S RIVERA BROTHER´S VIDEO, PERHAPS AN EXPANDED GUEST WORKER PROGRAM WOULD MEET MANY PEOPLE´S NEEDS, INCLUDING OUR COUNTRY.

What should be our attitude toward them if our country is at stake?
ANOTHER LEAP HERE. OUR COUNTRY IS NOT AT STAKE. I DON´T BUY IN 100% TO THE GUMBALL THEORY. ALSO GREGORIO PRESENTED AN INTRIGUING FACTOR IN THE OVERALL EQUATION. THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS GO TO WHERE THE WORK IS. MAYBE WE COULD ESTABLISH A GUEST WORKER PROGRAM TO HELP ROUTE OUR NEW GUEST WORKERS TO AREAS NOT SO CONDENSED. WE COULD BE VERY INTELLIGENT WITH THIS PROGRAM IF WE WANTED TO. WE HAVE GREAT MINDS IN THIS COUNTRY. WE SHOULD PUT THEM TO WORK ON THIS PLAN.


(And by the way, even the President used that term, illegal alien, in his speech last night.)TO APPEASE THE MASSES I GUESS.

You have suggested severe penalties for employers who hire illegal aliens.
ONCE THE EXPANDED GUEST WORKER PROGRAM IS IN PLACE, YES. THE SEVEREST PENALTIES. WITHOUT THEIR COMMITMENT, THE NEW PLAN WILL NOT WORK.

What penalty do you suggest
HIT THEM IN THE POCKETBOOK.

What term can we use that will be both fitting as a proper expression of our disapproval of our fellow Americans who do not see the danger in all of this?
MANY OF THOSE WHO DO NOT HOLD YOUR OPINIONS ARE CALLED PRO´S.

What degree of disapprobation is appropriate for such people -- and they aren't all Hispanic Americans. (As we will see if the immigration bill raises its ugly head in congress again in 2007. The democrats seem to be manuevering to get the Republicans to share the blame for any immigration bill that might be passed.
NO BLAME. THEY ARE LOOKING TO PASS A BI PARTISAN, COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM BILL. WHEN IT IS PASSED AND WE ALL ACHEIVE SUCCESS THAN WE ARE ALL WINNERS!!


They are saying to the President, if you deliver half of your party vote, we will give you the immigration bill you want. That would be the biggest mistake the Republicans could make.
YOUR OPINION.

If the Dems think this is a good issue for them, let them have it. It may be a problem for them in 2008.)
I DON´T THINK SO.
I THINK YOU HAVE LESS SUPPORT THAN YOU THINK YOU DO.
I THINK THE COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION BILL WILL PASS IN 2007.
I THINK THE DEMS ARE GOING TO OVERWHELMINGLY WIN IN 2008.
I THINK WE WILL HAVE A BALANCED BUDGET AND BE OUT OF IRAQ IN 2009.




MATT.org Moderator





Posts:480


01/25/2007 6:20 PM Report Abuse
Let me re answer this question

How would you suggest we treat those among us who show open support for illegal aliens?
YOUR QUESTION IS VERY BROAD.
FOR THOSE WAITING ON CONGRESS TO PASS A COMPREHENSIVE BIPARTISAN IMMIGRATION REFORM BILL, I SAY WE SHOULD SAY THANK YOU FOR BEING PATIENT.
FOR THOSE THAT ARE HUMAN TRAFFICKERS, THEN THEY SHOULD BE PROSECUTED.
FOR THOSE THAT HIRE THEM, THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD STIFFLY FINE THEM.

How would you propose we support illegal aliens? (question I answered)
THE PRESIDENT IS PROPOSING AN EXPANDED GUEST WORKER PROGRAM. AFTER SEEING GE´S RIVERA BROTHER´S VIDEO, PERHAPS AN EXPANDED GUEST WORKER PROGRAM WOULD MEET MANY PEOPLE´S NEEDS, INCLUDING OUR COUNTRY.




You are not authorized to post a reply.

MATT.org Moderator

Well well well......................




Neils
6:39 pm
01/25/2007

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA LMAO dang Neils lol I'm laughing so hard i have tears in my eyes lmao

What a stroke of luck lmao........... wait till I send this to the news lmao

Originally Posted by neilsthepoet

MATT.org Moderator

Well well well......................




Neils
6:39 pm
01/25/2007

Send it to the news.....??!!

The TRUTH

Out in the open for all to see?
Is this any way to have a real debate??




************************
************************


Rock and Roll, Michael.

Go get'm



Neils
6:58 pm
01/25/2007