Klan growing, fed by anti-immigrant feelings, report says

[Osborn F Enready]

granpa said: Ignorant of what exactly? What haven't I learned?

The importance of the sanctity of property to human nature, and all living things. The values of individual rights, we all share, as natural beings.

The way our system in the U.S. has been perverted from its original intentions, which I surmise from where your finger points, and the legthy digressions of attempting to reconcile human nature with inherant rights using "your" logic.

granpa said: The lessons I've seen advanced here are so nonsensical I'd be a fool to believe them.

I am not asking you to believe, as a fool would. I am asking you to investigate before you put forth ideas that have no reasonable logical extension, or extrapolation of value.

granpa said: Here's just a moderate example: I read that it's less specific to refer to someone as a person than as a title. This contention makes zero sense, as status titles are actually intended to generalize, to abstract, to make vague. Which is more specific: "Illegal" or "Mr. Juan Hernando?"

They are both specific in their own right.

Mr Juan Hernando is the persons SPECIFIC name.
"illegal" is Mr. Juan Hernando SPECIFIC national disposition, to the law.

granpa said: And here I'll say it again: If we want people to be on equal footing we let them be. We don't give them an inferior status. An "illegals" major crime is existing without government permission. The punishments leveled against them are worse than their crime of merely existing.

Great, good for you. Thats the Jeffersonian stance, minus the clear distinctions Jefferson made about loyalty to his nation, which is the only protector of his rights, intrests and protection.

It is even LESS than a one-sided argument. It is a 3/4 sided argument, not even realizing its own faults, or the logical extension of the logic which would clearly show the dangers of such a ridiculous notion.

Granpa said: Those aren't "ignorant" observations, they are plainly accurate.

Yes, to those who hold your opinion, 100%, in all aspects......... in other words, yes, its accurate to YOU, in YOUR opinion.

Your argument is not new, it is actually quite old. That is my point.

This argument has been made for years, since our founding of this nation. The counter arguments have also been made, and a clear logical "path" of reasonable limitation was met, and ratified between the two.

I suggest you read a bit about Jefferson, on Democracy, and then do a little reading about Madison, and his counter arguments.

Your argument still holds flaws that have long ago been recognized, and dealt with. You simply deny that, since you either don't know it, or refuse to learn it.

I have yet to see any compilation from you that has a breadth of scope, outside basic here and now observation, with a large dose of "socialist" flavored democracy.

Improve your arguments, solidify your logic and the logical results of where your arguments take you. Once you get past your own logical failures in your argument, I would love to have a debate.