#boycottbudwiser
Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 9:44 am
Best answer so far.GORDON wrote:That isn't the correct reason to not drink Budweiser. Not even the second best reason.
There was never a fence, people just showed up. My wife's ancestors on her mom's side just walked across the border, and the end - were Americans.Vince wrote:Eh... I don't see much reason to compare the guy that came here legally to the guy that jumps the fence.
Nothing says beer like rice and wood.Leisher wrote:Best answer so far.GORDON wrote:That isn't the correct reason to not drink Budweiser. Not even the second best reason.
Yeah. Because Ellis Island was never a thing.TheCatt wrote:There was never a fence, people just showed up. My wife's ancestors on her mom's side just walked across the border, and the end - were Americans.Vince wrote:Eh... I don't see much reason to compare the guy that came here legally to the guy that jumps the fence.
And regardless, wife bias not withstanding, when her people crossed over it was probably legal to own a fully automatic machine gun. Isn't today. Let's not mix our fruits here.TheCatt wrote:There was never a fence, people just showed up. My wife's ancestors on her mom's side just walked across the border, and the end - were Americans.Vince wrote:Eh... I don't see much reason to compare the guy that came here legally to the guy that jumps the fence.
98% of the people passing through Ellis Island were allowed in. They just showed up. Not that different from "jumping the fence" back then.Vince wrote:Yeah. Because Ellis Island was never a thing.TheCatt wrote:There was never a fence, people just showed up. My wife's ancestors on her mom's side just walked across the border, and the end - were Americans.Vince wrote:Eh... I don't see much reason to compare the guy that came here legally to the guy that jumps the fence.
Yeah, but it's been almost 100 years since we were doing that. I think it was 1933 that the Department of Labor, Immigration and naturalization was created. Come to think of it, it wasn't too long (within 20 years) after Italian communist/anarchists were committing acts of terrorism here that we started to regulate immigration. Don't know that there was any sort of cause and effect there, but an interesting note.TheCatt wrote:98% of the people passing through Ellis Island were allowed in. They just showed up. Not that different from "jumping the fence" back then.Vince wrote:Yeah. Because Ellis Island was never a thing.TheCatt wrote: There was never a fence, people just showed up. My wife's ancestors on her mom's side just walked across the border, and the end - were Americans.
You said there was no reason to compare the guy who came here legally, I'm saying that coming here legally, back then, was basically jumping the fence.Vince wrote:Yeah, but it's been almost 100 years since we were doing that. I think it was 1933 that the Department of Labor, Immigration and naturalization was created. Come to think of it, it wasn't too long (within 20 years) after Italian communist/anarchists were committing acts of terrorism here that we started to regulate immigration. Don't know that there was any sort of cause and effect there, but an interesting note.TheCatt wrote:98% of the people passing through Ellis Island were allowed in. They just showed up. Not that different from "jumping the fence" back then.Vince wrote: Yeah. Because Ellis Island was never a thing.
No. Simply, no. The guy in the commercial is similar to the fence jumper today in all ways except the only one that matters. The guy in the commercial DIDN'T BREAK THE FUCKING LAW!TheCatt wrote:You said there was no reason to compare the guy who came here legally, I'm saying that coming here legally, back then, was basically jumping the fence.Vince wrote:Yeah, but it's been almost 100 years since we were doing that. I think it was 1933 that the Department of Labor, Immigration and naturalization was created. Come to think of it, it wasn't too long (within 20 years) after Italian communist/anarchists were committing acts of terrorism here that we started to regulate immigration. Don't know that there was any sort of cause and effect there, but an interesting note.TheCatt wrote: 98% of the people passing through Ellis Island were allowed in. They just showed up. Not that different from "jumping the fence" back then.
If you wanted to say there's no reason to compare someone who comes legally TODAY versus fence jumpers, I get it.
Got it. By being born at the wrong time, the fence jumper is evil and should be killed, but anyone else who just wanted to come to the States for a chance at a better life is wonderful and good.Vince wrote: No. Simply, no. The guy in the commercial is similar to the fence jumper today in all ways except the only one that matters. The guy in the commercial DIDN'T BREAK THE FUCKING LAW!
I figured out what it is and can put it in a way that you should be able to understand if you can get past you bias.TheCatt wrote:Got it. By being born at the wrong time, the fence jumper is evil and should be killed, but anyone else who just wanted to come to the States for a chance at a better life is wonderful and good.Vince wrote: No. Simply, no. The guy in the commercial is similar to the fence jumper today in all ways except the only one that matters. The guy in the commercial DIDN'T BREAK THE FUCKING LAW!
Good analogy, but it presumes that there's a limited number of lanes. If we're talking about letting illegals wait in line with everyone else it would apply. But I think most of the propositions for amnesty don't work like that do they? I was under the impression that they wouldn't count against the usual annual numbers of immigrants allowed. That would be more like "you've been waiting in traffic and they open up six more lanes to get everyone moving again and some other people that didn't have to wait as long as you did got to drive away, too, the jerks."Vince wrote:I figured out what it is and can put it in a way that you should be able to understand if you can get past you bias.