Ann Coulter on Immigration

[doogie]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

If the man was attacking totalitarianism, why did he say that math was ‘on its side’, so to speak? Could he have possibly thought that totalitarianism was the logical outcome of a mathematical, rational society? Everyone has a number, their imaginations are surgically removed (ah, that evil science again!), and the ship is called the Integral. How much more proof do you need?

[/quote]

Just to let you know, ANIMAL FARM isn’t a book about a bunch of talking animals on a farm.

[doogie]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

I have read We at least twice. Okay? I know there’s no way to prove that, but if you can say I didn’t (sans proof) then I can say I did (sans proof).[/quote]

You know what? I believe you. At first I thought you were just reading other people’s interpretations and pretending you’d read it. Now I figure you have actually read it, because no one else is dumb enough to have read the book and had such a stupid, base interpretation of it.

A quote from the book for you:

“But dear readers, you must think, at least a little. It helps.”

[quote]
If the man was attacking totalitarianism, why did he say that math was ‘on its side’, so to speak? Could he have possibly thought that totalitarianism was the logical outcome of a mathematical, rational society? Everyone has a number, their imaginations are surgically removed (ah, that evil science again!), and the ship is called the Integral. How much more proof do you need?[/quote]

What the fuck are you saying? He thought totalitarianism was the logical outcome of a mathematical society because he said, “math was on its side”? Dipshit, he was an engineer. He used what he knew best to represent totalitarianism. Do you not get the beauty of using the square root of negative one in the book? How far would mathematics have advanced without that concept? If I hadn’t read so many of your other dumbass posts, I’d assume you were fucking with me when you say the book isn’t about totalitarianism. From a critique of the book:

“the family has been abolished; imagination and individuality are repressed (names being replaced by numbers with a letter prefix, vowels for women, consonants for men); the apparently humane goals of happiness and health have been used to justify the complete extinction of personal liberty; sex has been transformed into a social duty; and human life is utterly urban, because of the possibilities of control which exist in cities but not the countryside (from which the dwellers in OneState are separated by the “Green Wall”).”

Holy shit! You’re right, that doesn’t sound anything like totalitarianism.

Almost all of his writings were Menippean satires. Do you even understand the concept of satire? I know Rand wasn’t creative enough to write one herself, but surely her douchebag disciples can read and understand one.

If you accept Z’s premises, then ,yes, Rand would be on the side of evil. I don’t accept his premises. Since man is ‘The Rational Animal’ (Aristotle and Rand), to be non-rational is a suicidal death wish. You cannot be irrational, not for long anyway.

To be continued?

His premise that totalitarianism sucks? That it squashes the soul out of people? That it destroys creativity? That it is evil? Show me where Rand disagrees with any of that. WE is a warning that as technology grows, governments will use it to enslave people while justifying it with “science”.

Individuals can be rational, governments cannot. Show me anywhere that Rand advocates letting some “rational” government run every aspect of peoples’ lives.

Another quote from the book:

“We must subjugate them to the grateful yoke of reason. It is our duty to force them to be happy.”

You really think Rand would get behind that statement?

[Headhunter]

[quote]doogie wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

I have read We at least twice. Okay? I know there’s no way to prove that, but if you can say I didn’t (sans proof) then I can say I did (sans proof).

You know what? I believe you. At first I thought you were just reading other people’s interpretations and pretending you’d read it. Now I figure you have actually read it, because no one else is dumb enough to have read the book and had such a stupid, base interpretation of it.

A quote from the book for you:

“But dear readers, you must think, at least a little. It helps.”

If the man was attacking totalitarianism, why did he say that math was ‘on its side’, so to speak? Could he have possibly thought that totalitarianism was the logical outcome of a mathematical, rational society? Everyone has a number, their imaginations are surgically removed (ah, that evil science again!), and the ship is called the Integral. How much more proof do you need?

What the fuck are you saying? He thought totalitarianism was the logical outcome of a mathematical society because he said, “math was on its side”? Dipshit, he was an engineer. He used what he knew best to represent totalitarianism. Do you not get the beauty of using the square root of negative one in the book? How far would mathematics have advanced without that concept? If I hadn’t read so many of your other dumbass posts, I’d assume you were fucking with me when you say the book isn’t about totalitarianism. From a critique of the book:

“the family has been abolished; imagination and individuality are repressed (names being replaced by numbers with a letter prefix, vowels for women, consonants for men); the apparently humane goals of happiness and health have been used to justify the complete extinction of personal liberty; sex has been transformed into a social duty; and human life is utterly urban, because of the possibilities of control which exist in cities but not the countryside (from which the dwellers in OneState are separated by the “Green Wall”).”

Holy shit! You’re right, that doesn’t sound anything like totalitarianism.

Almost all of his writings were Menippean satires. Do you even understand the concept of satire? I know Rand wasn’t creative enough to write one herself, but surely her douchebag disciples can read and understand one.

If you accept Z’s premises, then ,yes, Rand would be on the side of evil. I don’t accept his premises. Since man is ‘The Rational Animal’ (Aristotle and Rand), to be non-rational is a suicidal death wish. You cannot be irrational, not for long anyway.

To be continued?

His premise that totalitarianism sucks? That it squashes the soul out of people? That it destroys creativity? That it is evil? Show me where Rand disagrees with any of that. WE is a warning that as technology grows, governments will use it to enslave people while justifying it with “science”.

Individuals can be rational, governments cannot. Show me anywhere that Rand advocates letting some “rational” government run every aspect of peoples’ lives.

Another quote from the book:

“We must subjugate them to the grateful yoke of reason. It is our duty to force them to be happy.”

You really think Rand would get behind that statement?

[/quote]

Sigh…tried to have an intelligent discussion and look what showed up. Not who, what.

I think you had the surgery, and they went a little further.

“Senior D’Anconia, what do you think is going to happen to the world?”

“Just exactly what it deserves.”

     ---- from Shrugged

[ALDurr]

[quote]doogie wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
Doogie,

He never mentioned Nixon and Reagan. The post specifically mentioned Clinton and Carter and thus, I was pointing out that the statement didn’t really apply to them. It also didn’t apply to Nixon as he was dirt poor as well. Reagan was a little more unique because he was a movie star before he got into politics, so he already had fame to help him. However, he also came from nothing and had an understanding of working hard for a living, so I can include him.

I apologize. I should have been more clear. I was just wondering if you gave those two any form of respect for coming from nothing.
[/quote]

No problem. My issue with the government has always been that we have a government that only the rich, the well-to-do and career politicians occupy positions to make decisions that affect regular, hard-working people. My issue is that most of these people never worked for a living like 99% of Americans do. So if they never had these experiences, how can they truly represent us? Most of the time they don’t.

[doogie]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

Sigh…tried to have an intelligent discussion and look what showed up. Not who, what.

I think you had the surgery, and they went a little further.

“Senior D’Anconia, what do you think is going to happen to the world?”

“Just exactly what it deserves.”

     ---- from Shrugged

[/quote]

Is that really all you have?

At least have the nads to admit you were wrong about WE not being a reaction to totalitarianism.

[Headhunter]

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
doogie wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
Doogie,

He never mentioned Nixon and Reagan. The post specifically mentioned Clinton and Carter and thus, I was pointing out that the statement didn’t really apply to them. It also didn’t apply to Nixon as he was dirt poor as well. Reagan was a little more unique because he was a movie star before he got into politics, so he already had fame to help him. However, he also came from nothing and had an understanding of working hard for a living, so I can include him.

I apologize. I should have been more clear. I was just wondering if you gave those two any form of respect for coming from nothing.

No problem. My issue with the government has always been that we have a government that only the rich, the well-to-do and career politicians occupy positions to make decisions that affect regular, hard-working people. My issue is that most of these people never worked for a living like 99% of Americans do. So if they never had these experiences, how can they truly represent us? Most of the time they don’t.[/quote]

And most are just a bunch of GD criminals. We only see the tip of the iceberg.

[Headhunter]

[quote]doogie wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

Sigh…tried to have an intelligent discussion and look what showed up. Not who, what.

I think you had the surgery, and they went a little further.

“Senior D’Anconia, what do you think is going to happen to the world?”

“Just exactly what it deserves.”

     ---- from Shrugged

Is that really all you have?

At least have the nads to admit you were wrong about WE not being a reaction to totalitarianism.
[/quote]

Who said it wasn’t? What the fuck planet are you inhabiting? I said WE is attacking Reason, saying that Reason itself leads to a totalitarian society. BTW: Since Z came to this conclusion using his REASON…

The whole book is a crock. Reason is what makes us who we are. Mathematics is Reason (it is, in fact, humanity at its best). By attacking Reason, using Reason, he condemns his argument. You don’t see that?

You know, if you didn’t insult me all the gd time, this might have been a civil discussion. You are acting like a 7th grader, with all this ‘doofus’ and ‘dumbass’ stuff. If that’s how you interact, please kindly ignore my posts and I will ignore yours.

[doogie]

[quote]
doogie wrote:

At least have the nads to admit you were wrong about WE not being a reaction to totalitarianism.

Headhunter wrote:
Who said it wasn’t? [/quote]

You.

“We” is quite a bit different and is a rip on mathematics.

If the man was attacking totalitarianism, why did he say that math was ‘on its side’, so to speak?

I said WE is attacking Reason, saying that Reason itself leads to a totalitarian society. BTW: Since Z came to this conclusion using his REASON…

The whole book is a crock. Reason is what makes us who we are. Mathematics is Reason (it is, in fact, humanity at its best). By attacking Reason, using Reason, he condemns his argument. You don’t see that?

God lord, the man was an engineer. Do you really think he thought math and reason were bad?

Again, he is not attacking reason. He never says it is bad for INDIVIDUALS to be reasonable, but he does imply that it is bad to turn off our imaginations and creativity. He never says that reason leads to totalitarianism. He is warning that GOVERNMENTS will try to justify controlling every aspect of peoples’ lives by using science and reason. That is exactly what happened. Totalitarianism.

If the themes of WE and ANTHEM are opposed, then Rand would support this stance on government:

“We must subjugate them to the grateful yoke of reason. It is our duty to force them to be happy.”

Again I’ll ask you to show me anywhere that Rand advocates letting some “rational” government run every aspect of peoples’ lives.

As far as being civi, you’re the dumbass who wrote this tripe:

“You are dismissing an author who challenges our conventional concepts of morality by calling her work ‘toilet paper’. Do you dismiss other ideas so cavalierly?”

[Headhunter]

[quote]doogie wrote:

doogie wrote:

At least have the nads to admit you were wrong about WE not being a reaction to totalitarianism.

Headhunter wrote:
Who said it wasn’t?

You.

“We” is quite a bit different and is a rip on mathematics.

If the man was attacking totalitarianism, why did he say that math was ‘on its side’, so to speak?

I said WE is attacking Reason, saying that Reason itself leads to a totalitarian society. BTW: Since Z came to this conclusion using his REASON…

The whole book is a crock. Reason is what makes us who we are. Mathematics is Reason (it is, in fact, humanity at its best). By attacking Reason, using Reason, he condemns his argument. You don’t see that?

God lord, the man was an engineer. Do you really think he thought math and reason were bad?

Again, he is not attacking reason. He never says it is bad for INDIVIDUALS to be reasonable, but he does imply that it is bad to turn off our imaginations and creativity. He never says that reason leads to totalitarianism. He is warning that GOVERNMENTS will try to justify controlling every aspect of peoples’ lives by using science and reason. That is exactly what happened. Totalitarianism.

If the themes of WE and ANTHEM are opposed, then Rand would support this stance on government:

“We must subjugate them to the grateful yoke of reason. It is our duty to force them to be happy.”

Again I’ll ask you to show me anywhere that Rand advocates letting some “rational” government run every aspect of peoples’ lives.

As far as being civi, you’re the dumbass who wrote this tripe:

“You are dismissing an author who challenges our conventional concepts of morality by calling her work ‘toilet paper’. Do you dismiss other ideas so cavalierly?”

[/quote]

Yep, we’re on different planets. Adios, D!!

Before I go, I DO want to compliment you your analysis of the oil/ExxonMobil situation. That was an excellent post!

[TQB]

The best part of this whole thread is Ann Coulter’s statement that she worked as an immigration lawyer. It explains a lot, as that is where the most useless lawyers go.

For those of you who are interested in how the INS (or DHS) handle legal immigration issues, may I suggest a study trip to the nearest office. You should try to get there before 4 a.m. in order to speak to the people who are on the second or subsequent visit. (It takes one trip to realise that, unless you’re there before 4 a.m., you will not get in at all.) Don’t worry about the people there. It is a well-behaved crowd and there is no jostling, or anything like that.

From here on you will have to take my word for what is happening as you will not be allowed into the building itself. The applicant is quite reasonably expected to bring a complete dossier fitting the application. Unfortunately, there is no authoritative way of finding out what constitutes a “complete dossier”, apart from reading the legal text. Luckily, I could do that, having two separate academic degrees and being an former authorised interpreter to/from English. (This explains the function of the immigration lawyer. It not to argue your case, but rather to put together your file, so that it cannot be rejected due to formal errors.)

Arriving with your file and being so far in front of the queue that you actually make it inside before they close access to the building at 9.30 a.m. you then hand it in at a window and are told to wait in an adjacent room.

This is already a major success. Unfortunately there is no reason to believe that anything will happen to you that day, and there will be no information available about subsequent steps. The one smart provision says that, if they have not ruled on your case after 90 days, you may receive a temporary work permit. To make a long story short, after 10 months and after they had lost my file twice,(necessitating three chest X-rays, BTW), I got an job offer in Belgium, rather better paid than I would get in the US, secure pension rights and moderate taxes. So my American wife and I decided to settle here. Immigration? Most of it is handled through your municipality. The local police came around once at the beginning of our stay, to check on the actual composition of the family.

The point of this is neither to suggest that illegal immigration is OK, nor to make comparisons between countries (Quite clearly the US receives more interest than many other developed countries), but rather to point out that you are badly served by the system for legal immigration you have. There is a culture of intimidation and arrogance in the old INS that even I, a middle-aged well-dressed professional with an American wife and children, could note. How do you think others were treated?

I would not put it down to individuals. Anyone working under those conditions would become what I have described.The problem is clearly systemic and linked to bad leadership and failed command and control.

Sorry about the rant. (BTW, submerging FEMA in DHS will not work.)

Great country anyhow
TQB

[Headhunter]

My daughter, adopted from China in 2002, got in easily. I know that your situation is quite different. You sound like a good person – shame you couldn’t get in. We need more good people.

My great-grandfather got in the hard way: joined the Union Army. You got to be a citizen that way.