Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

Tom Jones wrote:As to the Helen Thomas case, I stand by everything I said. I called it as I saw it. But I’m also willing to re-consider my views if I saw evidence to the contrary.

Tom Jones wrote:I’ve seen enough people in the US who lost their jobs (either fired, forced to resign or got railroaded out of office) because they criticized you know whom.

Thomas said that European (and American) colonists depriving the natives of Palestine of their land were the problem. I couldn't see where she said she had a problem with natives of the land who were of the Jewish faith - she was quite clear and precise.

I thought that my question about whether Mexicans were stealing American land because their ancestors lived there, was quite relevant. This is because young loon has kept making a comparison with Mexicans.

What is funny is that young fanbois is strongly supporting the decision to fire Thomas and yet denies that it was because she was critical of Israeli colonists!

event horizon wrote:According to many, illegal immigrants are stealing jobs.

Anyways, I can only imagine the number of Americans who would kill for a ten or eleven dollar an hour menial labor or custodial job right now just to pay the bills.

Illegal immigrants are doing jobs Americans won't do: farming, gardening, house cleaning, janitorial work...etc.

event horizon wrote:Not so sure about that, Tom.

Americans did these jobs themselves for decades before Mexicans crossed the border illegally in the numbers they have starting in the 80s - and yes, there have always been migrant workers to pick strawberries in California going back to the 30s, but the sheer number of illegal immigrants has never been so high as it has been recently.

I think that's a nice cop-out employers like to promote because they do not have to pay illegals as much as they would legal citizens.

Anyways, speaking as someone with a lot of people in the trades on one side of my family, I can definitely say that mass illegal immigration has meant that illegals will perform carpentry, painting or other skilled labor jobs for wages that a man in that field would not be able to compete with because he has a family to feed.

Anyways, I can only imagine the number of Americans who would kill for a ten or eleven dollar an hour menial labor or custodial job right now just to pay the bills.

Illegal immigrants are doing jobs Americans won't do: farming, gardening, house cleaning, janitorial work...etc.

That, or it means that employers would have to pay their workers minimum wage. There is no shortage of people who would work as a janitor, gardener, etc, right now if these jobs were available.

event horizon wrote:I don't know Tom.

I hear different things from different sources - the usual talking point is that without illegal (Mexican) immigrants, this nation would fall apart or come to grinding halt.

But in reality, how many unskilled workers can a nation take?

How many people qualified to pick strawberries are really needed?

The demand is probably the same now as it was in the sixties before the massive amounts of illegal immigration we are now experiencing.

But regardless of whether or not unskilled labor drives our economy - I'm not convinced it does - what about money that is sent back to Mexico or Central America?

Or the fact that illegal immigrants are W-2, their pay checks aren't deducted for Uncle Sam, and at the end of the year, their employers fire them when their Social Security numbers turn out to be fakes. (that's even assuming many employers even bother to verify their Social Security numbers).

And since illegal immigrants don't have insurance, when they get sick, they visit the ER rather than the local doctor for treatment.

I don't think you'll find a consensus that illegal immigration necessarily benefits the economy. Sure, employers are happy about hiring cheap labor, but is exploitation a valid reason to justify it?

event horizon wrote:IDK, I think it was only the liberals who attacked The Passion and claimed that Jews were on the verge of being thrown into the ovens if this movie was shown.

shafique wrote:Foxman has been called a lot of things in his time (not least by the acerbic pen of Finkelstein), but a liberal lefty - never.

Support for gay rights

Foxman's support for gay rights in America placed him at odds with many Orthodox Jews. Concerning the former, which involved his protest in 2000–2001 of a case (Boy Scouts of America v. Dale) in which "the Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts of America could exclude a gay scoutmaster because of his sexual orientation"; it was reported that "For many Jewish groups that work with the Boy Scouts – mainly Reform temples and Jewish community centers – the ensuing year has been marked by soul-searching, as they grappled with whether they should end their ties to the organization because of the organization's stance on gays," and that "Within the Jewish community, Orthodox groups supported the ruling, saying civic organizations should be empowered to determine their own message – but most Jewish organizations condemned it as endorsing discrimination." According to that report published a year later, in 2001, "the Anti-Defamation League's national director, Abraham Foxman, and its national chairman, Howard Berkowitz, said in a statement at the time: "We are stunned that in the year 2000 the Supreme Court could issue such a decision.... This decision effectively states that as long as an organization avows an anti-homosexual position, it is free to discriminate against gay and lesbian Americans."[11]

The film was released, but the vilification continued.

"Jewish leaders said Thursday a major film distributor has decided not to release Mel Gibson's "The Passion" and urged others to follow suit, saying it could trigger anti-Semitic crimes by suggesting Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus. But like much of the debate around the film, the claim itself became immersed in controversy and confusion. In Los Angeles late Thursday, Gibson spokesman Alan Neirob said there was never any distribution agreement between Gibson's production company, Icon, and 20th Century Fox. Dov Hikind, a Democratic state assemblyman and Jewish community activist, had raised the issue in a sidewalk news conference outside the midtown headquarters of News Corp., the parent company of Fox. "This film is dangerous for Jews all over the world ... and takes us back to the Dark Ages," Hikind said. "I am concerned that it will lead to violence against Jews." Hikind read an e-mail saying the company's 20th Century Fox subsidiary would not join with Gibson's Icon in putting the film in theaters. "Icon has indicated to us that it has a number of alternative distribution options that it is pursuing. In light of that, Fox and Icon have agreed not to partner on this project," said the e-mail. It was signed by Juda Engelmayer, a vice president of Rubenstein Associates Inc., a New York public relations firm that represents News Corp. Hikind said Miramax, Paramount and other distributors should also reject the picture because of the "potential for violence" generated by its portrayal of Jews. "The Passion," which actor and Academy Award-winning director Gibson spent nearly $30 million to produce, has spawned controversy well ahead of its scheduled spring release. The Catholic church formally rejected Jewish culpability in Christ's death nearly 40 years ago. Many conservative Christians say the film powerfully depicts the last 12 hours of Jesus' life. Gibson has defended it as faithful to the Gospels and said it is intended "to inspire, not offend." The film's dialogue is entirely in Latin and Aramaic. Hikind, joined by City Council members Simcha Felder and David Weprin, noted that Gibson and his father, a "Holocaust denier," belong to an ultraconservative Catholic movement that rejects Vatican authority, including its 1965 edict absolving Jews in Jesus' death. Although Gibson has shown the "The Passion" to selected audiences, Hikind said he had seen only a seven-minute clip, which he called "graphic beyond description ... enough to scare the daylights out of me." He said Gibson had a right to make the film and he was not trying to censor it, but he was asking distributors and others to recognize Jewish "sensitivity" on the subject. "It's not a question of censorship," Hikind said. "I am expressing my feelings, my right of freedom of speech, and others are doing what they think is right. ... Mel Gibson is doing precisely the same. Others will have to make their own choices as to what they do or not do."

event horizon wrote:IDK, I think it was only the liberals who attacked The Passion and claimed that Jews were on the verge of being thrown into the ovens if this movie was shown.

You are Christian, right? Shouldn't you be supporting Gibson for sticking to his Christian views about the Bible? Or does being smeared by the ADL trump believing in the New Testament?

"Apart from the KKK's views on Blacks - aren't they liberal do-good Christians?"

But as I said, you are free to label the ADL as you like

shafique wrote:Let me ask again:

You are Christian, right? Shouldn't you be supporting Gibson for sticking to his Christian views about the Bible? Or does being smeared by the ADL trump believing in the New Testament?

Why the smoke and mirrors? Or perhaps you do support Gibson after all?

You seem to be distancing yourself from the slurs against Gibson made because of the film.