[Vision2020] U.S. Approves Mexican Consulate for Boise

Mon May 5 00:02:25 PDT 2008

Chas,

  You wrote:

  "Slander involves words being falsely spoken. It is inarguable that
Mexican illegal laborers are a subset of Latino workers. Please,
before you decide to argue the inarguable, read on."

  You are just being intentionally obtuse. You know the term slanderous can be applied to a written or verbal statement. Slanderous is a synonym for libelous in the American Thesaurus if you want to play technical games. This sort of thing is so fruitless and trivial. Decent of the illegals is irrelevant and pointless in this argument. 

"Rainford was invoked solely to show that only a small percentage of
the Idaho Latino community were illegal laborers; that the majority
should NOT be judged, or punished, due to the minority. You didn't
detect the inference, and hijacked the thread on a wild roller coaster
ride of unsubstantiated irrelevancy, as is your normal tactic. To
explain this simply and slowly, Rainford's Latinos were introduced
only to show the larger context, but you conjured slander instead."

  You didn't "invoke" Rainford. Hansen simply posted an editorial written by him. You are referencing what you want from it, as I am. I happen to believe that Rainford's arguments do not address my primary concerns or issues with illegal labor in the United States. I do not see Rainford's comments suggesting or supporting your claim that he did for the purposes of,

   ". . . to show that only a small percentage of
the Idaho Latino community were illegal laborers; that the majority
should NOT be judged, or punished, due to the minority , , ,"

  I interpreted Rainford's arguments to be that Latinos are hardworking people that contribute to the wealth of Idaho and deserve basic humans rights. And I agree with the idea, but it doesn't validate the placing of a Mexican Consulate when it has practices which harm Idaho workers. 

  I think Keely and Hansen have made points that the Mexican Consulate should be placed in Idaho. But I don't agree they override the damage the Consulate would cause by assisting illegal laborers to stay here, and to attract more illegal laborers to Idaho to compete with Idaho Workers. 

  If you really wanted to demonstrate to me that I should be for a Consulate being placed in Boise, you would demonstrate that it would not cause an increase the number of illegal laborers coming to Idaho, and that it would not assist people illegally here other than to return home, or provide basic human needs. I watched an investigative report on PBS about Mexican Consulates, and I trust their findings, and other readings about them, then over that of Keely or Hansen. 

  The fact that Keely is not always honest, and that Hansen is crude, and offensive to persons his disagrees with, and always making stupid jokes at other's expenses, does cloud my judgment of them and things they have to say. 

  The fact that me and you are Aspies, says more about our miscommunication than a 1000 emails could. 

  One thing about me, I do like to argue about political issues. But I am always as honest as I can be. I don't always read what people intend, as others misread me. But I am passionate about my positions, and am serious about it most of the time. But I do sometimes, take the oppositional view, for a more interesting discussion. 

  Best Regards,

  Donovan

Chasuk <chasuk at gmail.com> wrote:
  On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 7:48 PM, Donovan Arnold
wrote:

> It is slanderous to lump all Latinos in with illegal immigrates.

Slander involves words being falsely spoken. It is inarguable that
Mexican illegal laborers are a subset of Latino workers. Please,
before you decide to argue the inarguable, read on.

The original topic here was Sali's attempt to delay the Mexican
Consulate in Boise. You responded with:

"I am voting to reelect Bill Sali precisely because he is attempting
to keep illegal activities and illegal immigrants out of the state.
Idaho has enough problems getting enough funding for its schools, and
providing other social and medical services. Having to provide for
thousands of others who are not legal residents is to much of a
burden for poor Idahoans. An influx of labor also reduces wages,
something we also can ill afford in Idaho."

Rainford was invoked solely to show that only a small percentage of
the Idaho Latino community were illegal laborers; that the majority
should NOT be judged, or punished, due to the minority. You didn't
detect the inference, and hijacked the thread on a wild roller coaster
ride of unsubstantiated irrelevancy, as is your normal tactic. To
explain this simply and slowly, Rainford's Latinos were introduced
only to show the larger context, but you conjured slander instead.

Hillary would do or say anything to win the Democratic nomination,
despite the destructive consequences. Repeatedly, you have
demonstrated the same tendency on this forum, doggedly sticking to an
argument regardless of its merit, twisting and contorting like a trout
out of water, zealous to "win" at all costs. You aren't stupid, which
is more the shame. You have a good mind. You have on occasion shown
great insight. This forum -- and you, personally -- would benefit
from your intelligence if you were not so pigheaded.

No, there isn't a contradiction between showing "great insight" and
being "pigheaded." I am often pigheaded. That is why it is so easy
to recognize it in you, and so exasperating to observe. That's why I
lose my temper and behave childishly when I shouldn't. That's me,
being a pigheaded idiot. I hereby formally and publicly apologize for
the name-calling. I shouldn't do it. It sabotages everything
reasonable and articulate that I might have said.

You aren't the only one with a behavioral disorder on this forum. I
was diagnosed with Asperger's in 1993. It used to be fairly
debilitating, but I have learned to manage it. My best male friend
(we've been best friends since about 1991) suffers from Asperger's to
an extreme degree, but he is still my best (male) friend. I think we
probably taught each other how to cope.

One of the first, most important steps is always being honest with
yourself, which means understanding your own motivations as explicitly
as you are able. When you contribute to a dialogue, on a forum or
face-to-face, ask yourself: what is my purpose for participation in
this conversation? Is it to demonstrate my verbal or intellectual
prowess, or is it to share, to learn? If the answer isn't the latter,
then postpone engagement until you are ready to be wrong, to lose.
Learning means being wrong as often as you are right.

I have addressed this matter publicly, and I ask for a respectful, but
public reply. I'm not interest in any OFF-LIST dialogues.
Generally, they are the result of cowardice, and cowardice is
anti-educative. As I've said many times, I'm here to learn and to
share.

Reread Keely's and Tom's and everyone else's contributions to this
thread, and it should be plain that they had some valid points. If
you honestly don't discover a single valid point, I'll be suspicious,
but I won't call you a liar, this time. If, after this debate, you
are still repeatedly and reflexively contrary, then I will call you a
liar, but I'll ask you to remember the last preceding paragraphs and
ask what the purpose is of lying to yourself.

Chas

=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet, 
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. 
http://www.fsr.net 
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20080505/efc4d66b/attachment-0001.html 