"How do we treat It, AMERICA??

[rigney]

In this video, Professor Terry Lovell gives a descent spin on what is happening in Arizona regarding the issue of llegal aliens. Is the majority of America right or wrong on their stand?

 

Edited September 12, 2010 by rigney

[CaptainPanic]

The guy makes invalid comparisons. He makes personal attacks on the listeners. He makes a personal attack on the president. He repeats the same empty arguments several times using different words. He ends with a Godwin. As far as I am concerned, he is not worthy of the title of "prof.".

 

Suggestive speech:

 

- Obama sides with Mexico against a US state

- Arizona is a great state, because it has great citizens such as Paul Babeu (one example does not make a rule)

- the president of the US sides with the other government (Mexico) (suggesting the opposite from the truth, where Mexico just provides information for an internal matter in the USA, with the amicus curiae)

- The claims by the US government and Mexico against Arizona are summarized as calling the new statute racist, unconstitutional and "yadiyadayada" (suggesting that racism and the constitution are not very important, and that the government has it all wrong).

- It's more important to side with the American people than to uphold human rights (no comment)

- Mexicans are called "foreign criminal invaders" (suggesting that they're all criminals)

- Instead of protexting the Americans, the government sues the state of Arizona (suggesting that these are two opposite things - that one cannot protect citizens while suing a state)

- Obama doesn't just side with Mexicans. He sides with the drug cartels, human trafficers, kidnappers and drug criminals from Mexico, Central and South America, and against the good law abiding citizens of the state of Arizona. (no need to explain why this is subjective)

- One particular sheriff has been threatened. (Suggests that all sheriffs are threatened - one incident still doesn't make a rule)

- The US federal government sues, personally, the speaker. (suggesting that it's personal - country against innocent citizen)

- If you're not mad about this, you're not paying attention" (suggesting that you're not understanding the issue (but the speaker is) if you disagree with him)

- It's an attack on all Americans, and not on Arizona alone. (no comment)

- The lawsuit is wrong, because a large part of the Arizona statute is already part of the federal law (suggesting that it's a waste of time to check a new law against federal law - although this is (hopefully for Americans) a standard procedure)

- When they came for the Jews and the Poles, I didn't say anything because I wasn't a Jew of a Pole... (It's a genuine Godwin! Whoopee! )

Edited September 13, 2010 by CaptainPanic

[rigney]

The guy makes invalid comparisons. He makes personal attacks on the listeners. He makes a personal attack on the president. He repeats the same empty arguments several times using different words. He ends with a Godwin. As far as I am concerned, he is not worthy of the title of "prof.".

 

Suggestive speech:

 

- Obama sides with Mexico against a US state

- Arizona is a great state, because it has great citizens such as Paul Babeu (one example does not make a rule)

- the president of the US sides with the other government (Mexico) (suggesting the opposite from the truth, where Mexico just provides information for an internal matter in the USA, with the amicus curiae)

- The claims by the US government and Mexico against Arizona are summarized as calling the new statute racist, unconstitutional and "yadiyadayada" (suggesting that racism and the constitution are not very important, and that the government has it all wrong).

- It's more important to side with the American people than to uphold human rights (no comment)

- Mexicans are called "foreign criminal invaders" (suggesting that they're all criminals)

- Instead of protexting the Americans, the government sues the state of Arizona (suggesting that these are two opposite things - that one cannot protect citizens while suing a state)

- Obama doesn't just side with Mexicans. He sides with the drug cartels, human trafficers, kidnappers and drug criminals from Mexico, Central and South America, and against the good law abiding citizens of the state of Arizona. (no need to explain why this is subjective)

- One particular sheriff has been threatened. (Suggests that all sheriffs are threatened - one incident still doesn't make a rule)

- The US federal government sues, personally, the speaker. (suggesting that it's personal - country against innocent citizen)

- If you're not mad about this, you're not paying attention" (suggesting that you're not understanding the issue (but the speaker is) if you disagree with him)

- It's an attack on all Americans, and not on Arizona alone. (no comment)

- The lawsuit is wrong, because a large part of the Arizona statute is already part of the federal law (suggesting that it's a waste of time to check a new law against federal law - although this is (hopefully for Americans) a standard procedure)

- When they came for the Jews and the Poles, I didn't say anything because I wasn't a Jew of a Pole... (It's a genuine Godwin! Whoopee! )

 

Seems to me you read a bit too much in Lovell's ramblings, but that ok. Are you familiar with SB 1070? Or 8-US code 1304? If so, I really don't understand you feelings on the issue. This guy Lowell, however crass; was just trying to make a point that most Americans will simply have to assimilate. I'm no politician or attorney, but as a citizen, the threat of illegals that keep pouring across our southern border makes me wonder if our government is doing anything at all to protect us? And I live in Ohio!. The fact that Arizona has finally stepped up to do something, has put our government's feet to the fire. Bush didn't do anything either, nor had his predecessors for the past fifty or sixty years. So, it's time something was done. I'm not trying to make an argument for or against the situation existing in Arizona, Arizonians will take care of it themselves. But our government, making as the "Big Brother" and knowing all of the rules, scares the heck out of me. And American's? They don't hate all Mexicans or believe the majority of them to be criminals? but when a third of all criminals in a state are illegals, what is one to think? What I believe is, with so many people wanting and waiting to get into this country legitimately, why should Americans of all races, allow millions of illegals first choice? And the Godwin thing? you're right. I wish we would refer more on the Genghis Khan era.

Edited September 13, 2010 by rigney

[CaptainPanic]

Seems to me you read a bit too much in Lovell's ramblings, but that ok. Are you familiar with SB 1070? Or US Code 8-1304? If so, I really don't understand you feelings on the issue. I'm no politician or attorney, but as a citizen, the threat of illegals that keep pouring across our southern border makes me wonder if our government is doing anything at all to protect us? And I live in Ohio. The fact that Arizona has finally stepped up to do something about the issue has put our governments feet to the fire. Bush didn't do anything either, nor had his predecessors for the past fifty or sixty years. It's time something was done. I'm not trying to make an argument for or against the situation existing in Arizona. But, Americans don't hate all Mexicans or believe they are all criminals?

What I believe is, with so many people wanting and waiting to get into this country legitimately, why should Americans of all races, allow millions of illegals first choice?

Regarding the movie

Please note that in my previous post I neither agreed nor disagreed with the statute. I did not give an opinion about immigration. I just wrote down phrase after phrase what the guy in the movie said, and what type of argument that was. I merely commented on the narrative techniques used by the speaker.

 

His techniques seem to be aimed to convince a listener without having to use any facts or coherent reasoning. In short: it's all very emotional, and not founded on facts.

 

If the speaker had chosen a more objective way to communicate the issue, then I may have been able to form an opinion. Instead, all I was able to form an opinion on is the guy himself. And I think he's a nut. And the movie wasn't worth the 5 minutes of my life that I gave it.

 

Regarding "races"

Now, in reply to your post: I always get a little angry when I see people talk about races. First of all, because it's the reason racism exists, and history has proven that racism isn't a good idea. Second of all because races aren't well-defined, and therefore are a subjective thing. Thirdly, many people are half-bloods, or are just genetic mixes. The world is one giant mix of genes. It makes sense to talk about apples and oranges... as long you can be sure about every apple and every orange in which category they fit. It says enough that Obama is considered "black"... while his skin color indeed suggests that, I believe that genetically he's not all that black... is he?

 

Americans, as far as I am concerned are not a race anyway. Americans, at most, are a culture. Genetically, Americans differ way too among themselves much to be called a race, and that might be because America in its current form was formed by immigration. Almost no native genes survived if I am not mistaken.

 

You see, there were people living in North-America before Columbus arrived. The first discoverers and settlers mistakenly called them "Indians" first, now they're called native Americans. That already gives a clue that anyone who is not a decendant of the native Americans is logically a decendant from immigrants.

Other countries, such as places in Europe also have lots of immigrants. This was something that was established a few days ago in another thread here (link to relevant post). Wealth simply attracts immigrants. It always has, already since the days of the old Roman empire, or even before that... so I don't know why you complain that only America has to allow millions of immigrants, when it's not just America.

 

Regarding immigration

Now, on the topic of immigration: it's acceptable to set a limit to the amount of people, or to have other selections at the gate, so to say. Or, at least, other countries do that too. But, the issue here is that we're not talking about the existing immigration law. We're talking about whether it's acceptable for the federal government to test the validity or legality of a new law of one of the states of the USA in court when it is suspected that the new state law breaks a federal law. At least, that's what the movie was about.

 

The movie said something like: "Hey, we're stopping drug cartels, so why is the federal government trying to stop us??".

 

... I expect that a new law may be tested against federal laws in court. In fact, a court is probably the best place for a law to be tested, because lawyers, judges, etc., are the experts regarding laws. So, I don't see the problem to be honest.

 

Regarding the statute itself

I tried to google for the statute... and I found that it was a lot of legal gibberish. I'd gladly leave it to the experts. Too long to read anyway.

And I have no opinion at all regarding the Arizona statute itself. I don't care. I don't live in the USA anyway.

Edited September 13, 2010 by CaptainPanic

[rigney]

Regarding the movie

Please note that in my previous post I neither agreed nor disagreed with the statute. I did not give an opinion about immigration. I just wrote down phrase after phrase what the guy in the movie said, and what type of argument that was. I merely commented on the narrative techniques used by the speaker.

 

His techniques seem to be aimed to convince a listener without having to use any facts or coherent reasoning. In short: it's all very emotional, and not founded on facts.

 

If the speaker had chosen a more objective way to communicate the issue, then I may have been able to form an opinion. Instead, all I was able to form an opinion on is the guy himself. And I think he's a nut. And the movie wasn't worth the 5 minutes of my life that I gave it.

 

Regarding "races"

Now, in reply to your post: I always get a little angry when I see people talk about races. First of all, because it's the reason racism exists, and history has proven that racism isn't a good idea. Second of all because races aren't well-defined, and therefore are a subjective thing. Thirdly, many people are half-bloods, or are just genetic mixes. The world is one giant mix of genes. It makes sense to talk about apples and oranges... as long you can be sure about every apple and every orange in which category they fit. It says enough that Obama is considered "black"... while his skin color indeed suggests that, I believe that genetically he's not all that black... is he?

 

Americans, as far as I am concerned are not a race anyway. Americans, at most, are a culture. Genetically, Americans differ way too among themselves much to be called a race, and that might be because America in its current form was formed by immigration. Almost no native genes survived if I am not mistaken.

 

You see, there were people living in North-America before Columbus arrived. The first discoverers and settlers mistakenly called them "Indians" first, now they're called native Americans. That already gives a clue that anyone who is not a decendant of the native Americans is logically a decendant from immigrants.

Other countries, such as places in Europe also have lots of immigrants. This was something that was established a few days ago in another thread here (link to relevant post). Wealth simply attracts immigrants. It always has, already since the days of the old Roman empire, or even before that... so I don't know why you complain that only America has to allow millions of immigrants, when it's not just America.

 

Regarding immigration

Now, on the topic of immigration: it's acceptable to set a limit to the amount of people, or to have other selections at the gate, so to say. Or, at least, other countries do that too. But, the issue here is that we're not talking about the existing immigration law. We're talking about whether it's acceptable for the federal government to test the validity or legality of a new law of one of the states of the USA in court when it is suspected that the new state law breaks a federal law. At least, that's what the movie was about.

 

The movie said something like: "Hey, we're stopping drug cartels, so why is the federal government trying to stop us??".

 

... I expect that a new law may be tested against federal laws in court. In fact, a court is probably the best place for a law to be tested, because lawyers, judges, etc., are the experts regarding laws. So, I don't see the problem to be honest.

 

Regarding the statute itself

I tried to google for the statute... and I found that it was a lot of legal gibberish. I'd gladly leave it to the experts. Too long to read anyway.

And I have no opinion at all regarding the Arizona statute itself. I don't care. I don't live in the USA anyway.

 

Since you're not an American, it's difficult asking you to read into laws, of what most Americans are ignorant. But, if you have read Mein Kampf, you realized that it was something that happened from within. Today, such a struggle is from both the inside and the out? And the Rhine?, I loved ever mile of it that I saw! That goes doubly for the Neckar that runs through Heidelberg. And the racial thing? The United States is the melting pot of the world. So; don't you forget it!

Edited September 13, 2010 by rigney

[CaptainPanic]

Since you're not an American, it's difficult asking you to read into laws, of what most Americans are ignorant. But, if you have read Mein Kampf, you realized that it was something that happened from within. Today, such a struggle is from both the inside and the out? And the Rhine?, I loved ever mile of it that I saw! That goes doubly for the Neckar that runs through Heidelberg. And the racial thing? The United States is the melting pot of the world. So; don't you forget it!

It's against the law to own a copy of Mein Kampf in many countries in Europe. I am not sure what you are suggesting here, and I am not sure I wish to know.

I don't need a book to confirm that racism is an outdated and dangerous way of thinking, and I only need to look around in the world to find that places with the most hate are often also the places with the most racism. The two go hand in hand.

 

I live in the Netherlands, which is at the end of the river Rhine (and not in Germany, as you seem to suggest?). It's also a melting pot. Just like many other European countries. In fact, the amount of foreigners in the Netherlands is pretty close to that of Arizona, except that the Netherlands seems more diverse.

[rigney]

It's against the law to own a copy of Mein Kampf in many countries in Europe. I am not sure what you are suggesting here, and I am not sure I wish to know.

I don't need a book to confirm that racism is an outdated and dangerous way of thinking, and I only need to look around in the world to find that places with the most hate are often also the places with the most racism. The two go hand in hand.

 

I live in the Netherlands, which is at the end of the river Rhine (and not in Germany, as you seem to suggest?). It's also a melting pot. Just like many other European countries. In fact, the amount of foreigners in the Netherlands is pretty close to that of Arizona, except that the Netherlands seems more diverse.

 

You're the one who brought up the "Godwin" thing. Me mentioning Mein Kampf was just being more straight forward. Are you telling me that you're not allowed to read the ravings of a madman like Hitler? C'mon, I find that hard to believe. Other than the Salem Witch Hunts back in the eighteenth century, I don't believe we've had a book burning in America since. Thank God for that. But the laws you didn't want to read because they seemed to be gibberish, are the very reasons this kind of thing is happening in Arizona today. And this race, hate thing, does it exist? yes!, and there is no inoculation against it. "Fear breeds hate" and hate breeds fear. They are the reciprocal of each other. Nothing more, nothing less. Perhaps one day the world will isolate itself from such a cancer. It's rather doubtful, but hopefully it will happen. Mentioning the Rhine and Neckar rivers were just ties to long ago memories. You seem a bit guarded in what you reply to and how you reply to it. Don't be that way with me! I have no reason to snipe at you. And any question you ask, I will do my best to give you an honest answer. Life is too short to be deceitful and I'm too rough cut around the edges to give a damn. Have a good one!

 

PPS: I was a little dissapointed with your response about reading the laws thing. Quote: Regarding the statute itself I tried to google for the statute... and I found that it was a lot of legal gibberish. I'd gladly leave it to the experts. Too long to read anyway. And I have no opinion at all regarding the Arizona statute itself. I don't care. I don't live in the USA anyway. UnQuote

 

Myself, I was pretty young at the time, but I'm thankful that hundreds of thousands of young American guys and gals back in the early nineteen-forties didn't take that attitude about Europe.

Edited September 14, 2010 by rigney

[CaptainPanic]

You are the one who brought up the "Godwin" thing. Me mentioning Mein Kampf was just being more straight forward. Are you telling me that you are not allowed to read the ravings of a madman like Hitler? C'mon, I find that hard to believe. Other than the Salem Witch Hunts back in the eighteenth century, I don't believe we've had a book burningon since. Thank God there are no books banned in America today. And the laws you didn't want to read because it seemed to be gibberish, are the very reason this thing is happening in Arizona.

No, it was the guy in the movie who brought up the Jews and Polish. I commented on the movie, nothing else.

 

And yes, Mein Kampf is really illegal in the Netherlands... There are more countries where it's illegal, btw. As far as I know, nobody has ever been arrested for just owning a copy anyway. It's the only book that is illegal over here... Historical reasons, I'm sure I don't need to explain.

 

I still fail to see how the whole racist discussion, to which you keep steering back, is related to the topic of the movie...

 

The issue discussed in the movie is whether the US federal government is allowed to discuss a state-law, and whether the federal laws and state laws may contradict (because apparently someone in the federal government thinks there's a problem with the Arizona law). - Shall we discuss this bit, rather than the legality of racist books?

[ParanoiA]

No, it was the guy in the movie who brought up the Jews and Polish. I commented on the movie, nothing else.

 

And yes, Mein Kampf is really illegal in the Netherlands... There are more countries where it's illegal, btw. As far as I know, nobody has ever been arrested for just owning a copy anyway. It's the only book that is illegal over here... Historical reasons, I'm sure I don't need to explain.

 

I still fail to see how the whole racist discussion, to which you keep steering back, is related to the topic of the movie...

 

The issue discussed in the movie is whether the US federal government is allowed to discuss a state-law, and whether the federal laws and state laws may contradict (because apparently someone in the federal government thinks there's a problem with the Arizona law). - Shall we discuss this bit, rather than the legality of racist books?

 

Didn't he say that the public sentiment that could be said to have driven the work of Hitler's Mein Kampf is also found in this illegal immigration issue in America? And that similar to the Mein Kampf, it's a stirring "within"? Not that I agree, but that seems like what he's saying, to me.

 

Although, I'm not sure how racist Mein Kampf is, as I've never read it. I know other people say it is, but then other people also say that state approved racism, or affirmative action, is not actually racism - in fact, some have even invented new redundant phrases, like 'reverse racism'.

 

And it looks like it's illegal for you to know, for yourself. By law, you're required to attain that information by other peoples' interpretations, or do without the knowledge altogether.

 

I'll bet that's unusual for the Netherlands though, am I right? I've always admired the Netherlands I've been exposed to. Not sure how you all negotiate property and liberty, but I've been impressed with your social liberties. Would love to visit someday.

[rigney]

No, it was the guy in the movie who brought up the Jews and Polish. I commented on the movie, nothing else.

 

And yes, Mein Kampf is really illegal in the Netherlands... There are more countries where it's illegal, btw. As far as I know, nobody has ever been arrested for just owning a copy anyway. It's the only book that is illegal over here... Historical reasons, I'm sure I don't need to explain.

 

I still fail to see how the whole racist discussion, to which you keep steering back, is related to the topic of the movie...

 

The issue discussed in the movie is whether the US federal government is allowed to discuss a state-law, and whether the federal laws and state laws may contradict (because apparently someone in the federal government thinks there's a problem with the Arizona law). - Shall we discuss this bit, rather than the legality of racist books?

 

Yes, let's do that. First, have you seen any videos or still pictures of the illegals coming out of Mexico and crossing the Rio Grande into Arizona? It isn't a very pretty sight and I do feel sorry for most of them since they are just people looking for something better than what they have at home. Perhaps from a different angle, let's say that your neighbor, Belgium was not as astute in handling their finances, crop choices or industry, and things got a bit poor there. Suppose these folks saw a better way of life in your state, the Netherlands and started coming across the border "legally". Your economy is booming, things are good and you welcome the Belgiums coming into your country to take up the slack. After a time, things become a little a bit crowded as far as jobs go. You have a farm, and have been hiring these people to work for you. "Be back in a bit". My youngest son just dropped in. Well, it almost 1PM now. We played some "Texas Hold'em, and he beat me out of five bucks. Can't trust you kids.

 

I'm sort of glad you want to stop this thing. Your beliefs are your own, and there'is nothing I might do to explain, that will make a difference to you. Actually, I'm a little mind set in some things myself. But if you are really looking for discrimination, go to Africa; the continent is rampant with it. Europe is no choir boy in any respect. And neither is China, Korea, South America, Russia and yes, North America. Without feet of clay, none of the above would have a leg to stand on. No disrespect to any other nation, but America's worst problem is, it seems to be the only country on earth where people want to break into, instead of out of. Why?

Edited September 14, 2010 by rigney

[CaptainPanic]

PPS: I was a little dissapointed with your response about reading the laws thing. Quote: Regarding the statute itself I tried to google for the statute... and I found that it was a lot of legal gibberish. I'd gladly leave it to the experts. Too long to read anyway. And I have no opinion at all regarding the Arizona statute itself. I don't care. I don't live in the USA anyway. UnQuote

 

Myself, I was pretty young at the time, but I'm thankful that hundreds of thousands of young American guys and gals back in the early nineteen-forties didn't take that attitude about Europe.

I fail to see the comparison... Do you honestly think that hundreds of thousands of guys and gals back in those days investigated the laws of nazi Germany in detail? Hell no. They just got a gun, did their training... but they were essentially in the blind what was going on. It was just a matter of "Germany is bad, m'kay?".

 

The fact that I don't read a lot of text (after actually looking it up too, and taking a glance) does not mean that I wouldn't fight if there would be injustice in America. In fact, I am online on this politics subforum of SFN exactly because I think there is some injustice in the world (including the USA).

 

I think I will stop the discussion right here. We've godwined this thing to death by now. And you haven't answered any of my questions regarding the differences between federal laws and Arizona state laws - which I maintain is the actual issue we are discussing here, or at least is the actual topic of the movie.

 

Didn't he say that the public sentiment that could be said to have driven the work of Hitler's Mein Kampf is also found in this illegal immigration issue in America? And that similar to the Mein Kampf, it's a stirring "within"? Not that I agree, but that seems like what he's saying, to me.

 

Although, I'm not sure how racist Mein Kampf is, as I've never read it. I know other people say it is, but then other people also say that state approved racism, or affirmative action, is not actually racism - in fact, some have even invented new redundant phrases, like 'reverse racism'.

Yes, it's within. Yes, there is a " us" and "them" (inside the borders, outside the borders) kind of thinking.

 

But I still fail to see how that relates to the other racist remarks. "American" is not a race. It's a culture, and a nation. You can feel culturally dominant, or you can be nationalist about the place... but to be a racist, and proud of America as a country at the same time doesn't seem to make much sense to me. It's like being proud of a country, but hating some of your countrymen... but it's the people that make a country, nothing else. You can't even see most borders in real life. They exist only on maps, made by man.

 

And it looks like it's illegal for you to know, for yourself. By law, you're required to attain that information by other peoples' interpretations, or do without the knowledge altogether.

 

I'll bet that's unusual for the Netherlands though, am I right? I've always admired the Netherlands I've been exposed to. Not sure how you all negotiate property and liberty, but I've been impressed with your social liberties. Would love to visit someday.

It's the only illegal book in the country. For the rest, we're pretty free here.

I think if you look up the book online, nobody cares. Essentially, it's just illegal to sell the book. I've never heard of a police officer with a warrant to search for the book in someone's house.

[Sisyphus]

Other than the Salem Witch Hunts back in the eighteenth century, I don't believe we've had a book burning in America since. Thank God for that.

 

Sadly, that's not true. I know this is OT, but the United States also has a considerable history of banning books, mostly under the pretense of "obscenity" laws. For example, James Joyce's Ulysses, now generally considered as one of the greatest works in the English language, was classified as obscene and banned in the United States from 1921-1933. At various times "sedition" has also been criminalized and interpreted broadly, wherein for example advocating communism could get you arrested. Laws in individual states have been stricter, and some remain in effect today. It is, for example, illegal in many states for convicted criminals to publish books about their crimes.

[rigney]

Sadly, that's not true. I know this is OT, but the United States also has a considerable history of banning books, mostly under the pretense of "obscenity" laws. For example, James Joyce's Ulysses, now generally considered as one of the greatest works in the English language, was classified as obscene and banned in the United States from 1921-1933. At various times "sedition" has also been criminalized and interpreted broadly, wherein for example advocating communism could get you arrested. Laws in individual states have been stricter, and some remain in effect today. It is, for example, illegal in many states for convicted criminals to publish books about their crimes.

 

Wow! I had to look at what I wrote, a second time to realize that I used "book burning", not banning. But even so, I would have been wrong at that. We still have "crazies" here in America who would continue to ban and burn some of the finest literature ever written, if allowed to do so. I can't imagine, Huck Finn, Tom Sawyer, The Grapes of Wrath, Of Mice and Men, Slaughter House Five, Lord of the Flies, Lady Chtterlys Lover and many others, going into the fire. I could go on, but these are just a few of the many great works that have been written, yet banned and burned by some of the worlds biggest-bigots and idiots. Some of these witch hunts have covered entire states and even countries at times. I believe CaptainPanic just misread my intent. While I'm not overly keen on Porn, banning it as such would put us back into the dark ages. And my favorites? "Tobacco Road", and "Gods little Acre", wrtten by Erskine Caldwell back in the thirties. Neither of which were banned as I know of. Goes to show you. Pssst..... I thought both were pretty risqcue! Gotta have an imagination though.

Edited September 14, 2010 by rigney

[CharonY]

Despite being off-topic I like to add another finer point on the ban on Hitler's book in Germany, as it is often misunderstood (both within, as well as outside Germany). In short: it is not banned. Possession is legal,and you can legal sell original prints. However, the copyright belong to the state of Bavaria. I.e. no one else is allowed to reprint it and Bavaria doesn't grant anyone those rights nor does it print them. However, according to German laws these copyrights are only valid 70 years after the death of the author (IIRC) after which reprints become legal.

[rigney]

Despite being off-topic I like to add another finer point on the ban on Hitler's book in Germany, as it is often misunderstood (both within, as well as outside Germany). In short: it is not banned. Possession is legal,and you can legal sell original prints. However, the copyright belong to the state of Bavaria. I.e. no one else is allowed to reprint it and Bavaria doesn't grant anyone those rights nor does it print them. However, according to German laws these copyrights are only valid 70 years after the death of the author (IIRC) after which reprints become legal.

 

As much as I hate to think of it happening, the presses are about to start rolling again!!

Edited September 14, 2010 by rigney

[CaptainPanic]

Yes, let's do that. First, have you seen any videos or still pictures of the illegals coming out of Mexico and crossing the Rio Grande into Arizona? It isn't a very pretty sight and I do feel sorry for most of them since they are just people looking for something better than what they have at home. Perhaps from a different angle, let's say that your neighbor, Belgium was not as astute in handling their finances, crop choices or industry, and things got a bit poor there. Suppose these folks saw a better way of life in your state, the Netherlands and started coming across the border "legally". Your economy is booming, things are good and you welcome the Belgiums coming into your country to take up the slack. After a time, things become a little a bit crowded as far as jobs go. You have a farm, and have been hiring these people to work for you. "Be back in a bit". My youngest son just dropped in. Well, it almost 1PM now. We played some "Texas Hold'em, and he beat me out of five bucks. Can't trust you kids.

 

I'm sort of glad you want to stop this thing. Your beliefs are your own, and there'is nothing I might do to explain, that will make a difference to you. Actually, I'm a little mind set in some things myself. But if you are really looking for discrimination, go to Africa; the continent is rampant with it. Europe is no choir boy in any respect. And neither is China, Korea, South America, Russia and yes, North America. Without feet of clay, none of the above would have a leg to stand on. No disrespect to any other nation, but America's worst problem is, it seems to be the only country on earth where people want to break into, instead of out of. Why?

Replace Belgium with Poland, Czech Republic, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, and you're pretty much on the money. Those are all European Union countries, and therefore the people have the right to work in any other country in the EU. Completely open borders. In addition, there are millions of people from outside the EU who want to enter.

 

I have no idea where you got the idea that the USA is the only country in the world that attracts immigrants. You're very wrong about it. It's not the USA. It's money and wealth that attracts immigrants...

 

In a way, the rich countries have created the immigration problem themselves, because they've used other countries for so long to acquire a lot of wealth (we all know that people in poor countries produce products for the rich countries, and don't get paid nearly as much as us). And now that mass transportation has become global, it's logical that people try to come to the wealth, if the wealth doesn't come to them.

[rigney]

Replace Belgium with Poland, Czech Republic, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, and you're pretty much on the money. Those are all European Union countries, and therefore the people have the right to work in any other country in the EU. Completely open borders. In addition, there are millions of people from outside the EU who want to enter.

 

I have no idea where you got the idea that the USA is the only country in the world that attracts immigrants. You're very wrong about it. It's not the USA. It's money and wealth that attracts immigrants...

 

In a way, the rich countries have created the immigration problem themselves, because they've used other countries for so long to acquire a lot of wealth (we all know that people in poor countries produce products for the rich countries, and don't get paid nearly as much as us). And now that mass transportation has become global, it's logical that people try to come to the wealth, if the wealth doesn't come to them.

 

Try reading the content instead of what you want to hear and see, Lad. Your visceral needs are such as to surmount any knowledge I might possess that will make sense to you. Your perceptions are not unfounding, only insulting. I'd like having a conversation with you, but find it rather difficult. Good luck.

Edited September 15, 2010 by rigney

[John Cuthber]

Shouldn't the excessive immigrant problem in Texas be discussed in Navajo or Apache or some such?

[rigney]

Shouldn't the excessive immigrant problem in Texas be discussed in Navajo or Apache or some such?

 

My family's heritage in America began in the Yadkin River country of North Carolina. Diverce? More than you would care to know! Semantics? Let's not go there. History tells both you and me what life is all about. How we use that information is strictly up to us as individuals.

Edited September 15, 2010 by rigney