WWII Vet an illegal citizen...

[CoeburnCane]

It's not so much that anybody thinks you are wrong. My beef is that you come across as if you're always right and that everyone else here is stupid for disagreeing.

This. And well put.

Rarely does anyone dispute facts that you grabbed off of links. If they disagree--they disagree. They don't have to reason their disagreement to you in-depth with great detail everytime. Now, should they say "you're wrong" and run off w/o giving a good reason? No--but some will. However--is everyone who disagrees with you going to have as substantial of a reason and/or facts behind their stance as you? Also no. That's just reality.

If you can't handle that, then you're going to have a long, frustrating life.

And, if you wanted people to look at your facts and be more willing to discuss things with an open mind--what trumpet said above rings true--the more condescending and disrespectful you are, the less people want to listen to what you have to say.

[Gotch]

It's not something to be proud of but I feel confident that I have more experience with internet "debate" than anyone here. My history with it goes back to 1998 and I've debated at length with some very knowledgeable people. Here is my take on the subject of internet debate, taken from experience.

It's not actually possible to "win" an internet debate. All that is possible is to silence your detractors. There are really only two ways to do this. First by having a complete and thorough knowledge of the subject at hand or else by the strength of sheer volume and tonnage.

The second method is far and away the most common one used. This is the approach which invariably includes ridicule and ad hominem attacks, extremely long posts pointing out minute details of an argument, and yes links, plenty of links. I was first exposed to this method in the late 90's by a young Canadian atheist I use to debate with at length. If you do have a truly complete and thorough knowledge of the subject at hand this method is actually easy to deal with, but the fact is very few people possess that degree of knowledge on any subject, including the person posting the massive avalanche of information.

Very few people have the desire or inclination to read long, drawn out posts that detail the most minute of arguments nor to click on a half a dozen links to view the information contained within them. So instead they tend to disappear from the argument (the thread) thus giving a perception that they admit defeat, instead they usually simply have better things to do with their limited time.

The first method I mentioned, having a truly thorough knowledge of a subject is almost unseen on internet forums. I am capable of this type of "debate" on one subject, the history of catch-as-catch-can wrestling and it's influence on modern grappling and mma. I am capable of shutting down nearly any internet debate on this subject without referencing a single link and without running off to consult any source before posting.


This degree of knowledge on a subject is the nearest thing to impossible to deal with in an internet debate that you will ever encounter and it is very, very rare. I own one of the largest collections of period printed material on the subject of catch wrestling in private hands in the world (no joke) and I've read every word of it, more than once. I am the original source for some of the information on catch wrestling available on the internet. What I'm doing by all of this self promoting is trying to point out just how deep ones knowledge of a subject needs to be in order to effectively use this method.

I can give examples not available through any internet source, I can point out mistakes in internet sources, and at times I've had the pleasure of pointing out that (I) was the original source for information in a link that some "clown" posted as evidence against my position! That's always a hoot!!!!

Anyway, the point is, this degree of knowledge on any subject is rare on any internet forum. When this method is encountered the posts are shorter, to the point, seldom get personal, and NEVER contain links. That's because there is a true depth of knowledge concerning the subject, and the complete confidence that comes with that.

This type of poster can come closer to actually winning an internet debate, but still few minds are ever actually changed even in this type of case, the detractors just disappear a lot faster and usually not because they are "bored" but because they realize the other person ACTUALLY knows what they are "talking" about.

I suppose there have been cases of people having their beliefs on a subject changed due to an internet debate but then again there have been people born with two heads also. I'm not sure which one would be the more rare.

In the end, chasing away those who disagree with your opinion is not winning the debate, it's simply shutting down the discussion.

[CoeburnCane]

In the end, chasing away those who disagree with your opinion is not winning the debate, it's simply shutting down the discussion.

If I still had the ability to change other people's signature lines like on the old forum, I would have made this R13's sig, just so he'd be reminded constantly that he's not "winning" anything with the voluminous nature of his posts.

Gotch--you're probably one of the most respected posters we've got on here. Even when I disagree w/you, I know you know what you're talking about. I hope you don't ever decide to leave for good. Thanks for the insight.

[collegetrumpet2010]

As far as his political views go, I may disagree with them but that doesn't mean I think he's wrong. I just don't see it how he sees it. Really, there's no good or bad guy here. But calling people stupid because you don't agree with them is not exactly the most mature way to have a disagreement. I've seen him get on here and call a lot of right wing ideas stupid. Of course you're going to have people bitch and moan at you if you say that on a forum where most of the members are conservatives. You cut them down and instead of giving them a chance to "prove you wrong," you are asking for them to dislike you, find you to be extremely immature, and to think that you're extremely close minded. If I went to a forum where the posters were mostly liberal and called them stupid and said that I was right and that they were wrong, they would give me the same responses that R13's given and I wouldn't blame them for it.

This is just something you don't do if you want people to take you seriously.

I give R13 credit, he does research issues.

[simple man]

"I know I seem to get fired up in these threads, but really everything is left at the computer and I know it's a forum on the damn internet. Still, when you have worked with campaigns and hear so many people who are so clueless about everything and think that these people have so much control with their vote.."

So you are saying the folks you supported were clueless?

[R13]

and FWIW R13 the only time i ever thought you were really WRONG on something was with the dream act discussion we had. you said there were no funds set aside for them (pell grant or other) and you were wrong on that, they actually had MORE money allocated to them than what pell grants were offering to students with less funds.

No I wasn't wrong on that and I really still don't have a clue where you are getting that it does...

Does not repeal the ban on in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. The DREAM Act does not force states to charge in-state tuition rates for illegal immigrants. The DREAM Act does not allow illegal immigrants to gain access to Federal Pell Grants and other financial aid.

There you go, from the provisions in the bill that we talked about and unfortunately was voted down in the Senate. That myth was passed around with the right-wingers like Michelle Malkin and debunked many times...

One of the most baseless excuses for opposing the bill is fiscal. Opponents of the bill have tried to throw a series of sensational and utterly unsupported cost figures into the debate, hoping something will stick. But the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, did the analysis and concluded that the DREAM Act would reduce the deficit by $2.2 billion over the next 10 years.

DREAM-eligible youths would not be eligible for health care subsidies, including Medicaid, or other federal means-tested benefits like food stamps or Pell grants. More importantly, the alternative of removing the 700,000 eligible kids would cost taxpayers $16.2 billion over five years.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...eam_myths.html



The DREAM Act states that undocumented youth adjusting to lawful permanent resident status are only eligible for federal student loans (which must be paid back), and federal work-study programs, where they must work for any benefit they receive. They are not eligible for federal grants, such as Pell Grants.

http://immigrationpolicy.org/just-fa...ream-act-myths



Under the DREAM Act, undocumented youth adjusting to lawful permanent resident status are only eligible for federal student loans (which must be paid back), and federal work-study programs in which they must work for any benefit they receive. They are not eligible for federal grants, such as Pell Grants. DREAM Act students also receive no special public benefits and are subject to the same eligibility requirements for those benefits as other legal immigrants. DREAM Act students and their families are not immediately eligible for Supplemental Security Income, food stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Medicaid (other than emergency care), and numerous other federal benefit programs. In general, a person must be here as a lawful permanent resident for five years before they receive non-emergency federal assistance.

http://www.connectingourworld.org/?page_id=1504

Need to go on? I was right, you were way off, they aren't eligible for federal assistance and sure don't get it and extra funds.

So you are saying the folks you supported were clueless?

Huhhhh? I was talking about voters, not candidates?

[Rocky]

ok.......... i said they werent getting pell grants. BUT if you are undocumented. understand that, undocumented. meaning nobody knows where you are from or how you got here. understand that please. UNDOCUMENTED, yet you are allowed to have "in state tuition" IN STATE TUITION AND NOBODY KNOWS WHERE YOU COME FROM. IM sure you are going to link up that "they may only recieve in state tuition if they would have been elligible for it" how can they prove residency of an UNREGISTERED 30 year old? yes, 30 years old was the cut off if i recall. or even a 22 year old or whatever. SO, if they were to attend a public small CC like MECC and were pretty much PAID to go to school. (yes legal registered PEOPLE DO THIS ALL THE TIME JUST TO MAKE MONEY, BUT WHY ADD MORE FUEL TO FIRE?) <----- read that, im not racisti know there are people doing it all the time.

http://cis.org/dream-act-costs i can post a biased link too. the cost per student to taxpayers KEEP IN MIND UNDOCUMENTED would be around 6000 dollars, yes taxpayer money is government money we would be paying for them to go to school. would I care if the dream act had been revised, NO BUT
The DREAM Act did not provide funding to states and counties to cover the costs it imposed. therefore, they were going on our dollar. Could it have been done differently, i dont see why not, and what happens when a student dropped out and recieved there student loans and had some left over and jumped ship never to pay it back? IM not saying that would have happened but it happens all the time today with legal students, so if an UNDOCUMENTED person were to do it nothing could be done to fix it.

OK YOU POSTED LINKS, I GAVE OPINIONS, LETS TRY THIS AGAIN, DISCUSS WITH ME, TALK WITH ME, DONT POST STUPID ASS LINKS, PROVIDE YOUR OWN SPECULATION. PLEASE, and thank you.

[Rocky]

giving in state tuition to someone who may or may not really be in state will be MORE than a pell grant FWIW. thats what im getting at. (OR OTHER, means other benefits) lets say someone graduated from a high school and MOVES, then goes back to the state they graduated from just to get a cheaper tuition. <----- do you see what im saying, im not being rude or stupid there were just SO many ways that this could have gone bad.

BTW didnt the houses revision of the bill kind of have a gray area to where they could have recieved pell grants? I know the senate version was absolutely not but didnt the house version somehow have it to where there was a possibility of it? which im not even adding that in my argument, i just remember seeing that on a pro-amnesty page at one point in time. once again thanks and please dont post me a bunch of links.

but listen I know these children did nothing wrong, and its not their fault that their parents did something illegal to get them here and God Bless their parents for wanting a better life, i have no problems with what the bill itself promotes (except what i stated above) BUT with allowing something like this there will be bad coming from it and you know as well as i do that more illegals would have come in waiting for revisions of the Dream Act to pass, once again i cant blame them but it would have to end somewhere before it turned into an all out amnesty.

[CoeburnCane]

No links here, just allow me to point out something, Rocky.

You're talking about some bad things coming from the DREAM Act. It's not the legislation's fault, it's not the people who wrote it's fault...it's really just a function of people finding loopholes that give them advantages in any piece of law. You thumbing your nose at the DREAM Act shouldn't be your first order of business if we're talking legislation with loopholes that's constantly abused. If nothing else--your first order of business should be the corporate tax code, and sealing up some of the silly tax shelters that are allowed to multi-billion dollar corporations each year that allow them to not pay in taxes as one would assume, but instead--get enough tax lawyers/accountants to find them enough credits/breaks/loopholes to where the government ends up paying them a hefty refund.

But--I digress. I know R13's frustrating, but your angst and worry is misguided in this particular circumstance. It's a law--it's going to have flaws, and no matter how close to perfect it looks as it goes through Congress, when it passes...someone WILL find a way to circumvent parts of it, no question about it.

[R13]

Wrong again, the bill does not provide for in-state tuition, another myth passed around. It leaves it completely up to the states to decide whether to charge them in or out of state tuition and of course they have to reside there to begin with - they only debate is that since they aren't legal and officially have a place of residence, which would they be charged? Again, the bill did not allow it, they couldn't even in the first place since it's up to the states to decide that. I understand you don't like the links because they throw out your whole argument, but I'm going to post them when it's a matter of facts and figures...



...the legislation that passed the House on Dec. 7 does not mention in-state tuition, and no version ever considered would mandate or force states to offer DREAM Act participants in-state rates. That's an opinion shared by Michelle Mittelstadt, a spokeswoman for the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute, and by Steve Camarota, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that opposes the DREAM Act.


The version of the DREAM Act that passed in the House -- as well as prior versions that were debated -- did not include language requiring states to offer DREAM Act participants in-state tuition. The closest a version of the DREAM Act came was to propose repealing a federal rule that some have interpreted as preventing states from offering in-state tuition to illegal immigrants. But that version never came to a vote.

Moreover, 11 states already offer in-state tuition, so rates in those places -- including California and Texas -- couldn't go lower.

As for the other states, the only real argument is that passing the DREAM Act could have the consequence of forcing them to offer in-state tuition to illegal immigrants as well. And we guess it could. But there's no definitive evidence that it would, just conjecture and speculation. And it certainly isn't expressed in the bill language.

http://politifact.com/florida/statem...ans-lower-tui/

That's from an independent site I visit frequently, so can't write that off as biased. You said "you said there were no funds set aside for them (pell grant or other) and you were wrong on that" - that's what you said I was wrong at, I took that as implying that you claimed there was funds set aside for them(pell grants or such). Even though your argument now claims there was no money set aside for them, just that it lowered tuition rates...though that is wrong too.



I'm pretty sure from what you said, you don't know what the bill does or how it works. Do you think that there isn't some process and you just qualify for it? Uh no, there's strict rules and guidelines and a long process to even be considered for the program. So I don't know where you're getting that they wouldn't have any knowledge about these kids, the exact opposite actually, which is a lot of information and the bill states and all that information is to be provided to all local, state and federal law enforcement - you don't qualify if you have broke the law and will be removed if you do. You seem to think this is some loosely controlled program, couldn't be further from the truth. They even have to pay application fees up to 2200+ bucks, it's actually TOO strict in my opinion and makes it harder for the lower income immigrants.

Your example of them moving, then moving back doesn't even make sense...if you live in the state, you can qualify for in-state tuition, you moving and coming back doesn't make a difference. If you live in VA and want to go to a state that's in Texas, you'd have to pay out of state tuition. So as long as they live in VA, why wouldn't they pay in-state tuition for a school in VA? I don't think it works as what you're saying, that you only qualify if it's your homestate...I believe most have rules such as you have to prove residency for at least 12 months prior or will set up permanent status in that state in the future. But it varies from state to state though those are the typical ones, but there are many ways to prove either. So if these kids have lived in the state, why shouldn't they be eligible for in state tuition? Even though the bill doesn't provide for it, I myself believe they should.

And paying them to go to school? Again, where are you getting this? What would we be paying? Here's another fun link for you...

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12015/hr6497.pdf

That's the CBO report on this bill, know what it says? That it would reduce the deficit by 2.2 billion dollars over the next ten years. There's no fee the taxpayers would be paying for each student of anything, all it does is add more people to the workforce later on who will be paying taxes and into SS. Not passing the bill is costing us money, not the other way around.


The question isn't "do you think the dream act is good or bad?", which is a loose question that opinion comes into play, you're talking about something that is either there or isn't, so I'll post the facts/language of the bill if you're going to argue something that isn't in the bill. A lot of things are a matter of opinion, but people think that EVERYTHING is just a matter of opinion, but there are issues that influence that opinion that deal with facts that aren't debatable - which is the case of many issues in politics. This particular part happens to be one of them when talking about your claims.