Free Republic Browse · Search News/Activism Topics · Post Article

The Transcript of the GOP's Univision Debate
Townhall ^ | 12/09/2007 | Hugh Hewitt

Posted on 12/09/2007 8:37:28 PM PST by Ultra Sonic 007

first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-125 last
To: tyke; kabar; SuziQ
There are 40 million Hispanic American citizens in this country

Uh...sorta innumerate, arentcha?

By Pew's own estimate, the "hispanic" population of the U.S. is now 14.7%, up from 12% in 2000 (the invasion continues).

I know that big numbers and fractions probably confuse you, so I'll make this easy for you...

To compute the actual number of hispanics this percentage (14.7) represents, we have to multiply the TOTAL POPULATION by 14.7 divided by 100...I know, that's hard and confusing, but if you pull out that 3rd grade arithmetic book that was so confusing for you, you'll see why....

Anyway we'll move on, just take my word for it. So now we have our little formula..

Actual Number of "hispanics" (whatever that is) = TOTAL POPULATION OF THE U.S. NOW OR THEREABOUTS * 14.7 / 100

I know there's confusing symbols in there. Unfortunately, for the sake of efficiency and to prevent confusion, the symbols " * " and " / " are used for multiplication and division, respectively. Try to understand. It's really for the best.

Actual Number of hispanics in the United States = 300, 000, 000 * 14.7 / 100 = 44, 100, 000

So there we go, assuming three hundred million for a total population...including the precious illegals.

Hmmm....so wait. You said, 40 million hispanic citizens, capitalizing hispanic, of course, whatever that is...but it's sacred, because they are Victims of the Evil white Race, right? Even though no one has any idea what the term means, since people from Spain are utterly white (I was in Barcelona a coupla weeks ago and that place was almost as caucasian as Moscow! Jeez, they really need to improve their diversity...). But I digress...

You said citizens in bold. Now wait...didn't...didn't the Pew Center say "percentage of hispanics" in the U.S.? Oooooooohhhhh.....that means the hispanic illegals are in this estimate....Nooooo! We have to do more arithmetic! We may even have to subtract!!! The horror....

Gee, umm, a year or so ago, tykey, El Presidente Boosh was running around saying we had 3 million or so illegales en Los Estados Unidos. Then somebody was mean and pointed out to him that that was actually just the number of illegals out on the streets of L.A. the other day. So they had to come off that line and use a new one. So now they say "12 million", which they've been saying for about the last year, even though as Kabar pointed out, we stop about a million and a half every year, and most people think that's only about 1 in 3. So in real life, that 12 has already become...oh no, more arithmetic....about 14 million. As we speak, er, tap.

Now some other people - like the Center for Immigration Studies, who Kabar has used as a resource - and they are a good one -- have estimated that the number could be as high as gasp Twenty million (as in, "20,000,000").

So the truth is somewhere in between 14 and 20 million. Just for grins, let's use an average ( Oh No! More arithmetic!! The Horror! ).

Bear with me now. THE AVERAGE WILL BE = ( 14 + 20 )/2 * 1, 000, 000.

I know. This one's really complicated, especially for people educated in American "schools" after about 1979. My condolences, and I hope your SexEd class was entertaining. Back in the dark ages we actually had to do the arithmetic, without the aid of doped silicon. It was awful. Just terrible. We even had calculators without batteries! They were called, "slide rules". They made your eyes hurt, and did not glow at night. But I digress again...

So we had to use the order of operations to compute our little AVERAGE equation above, which is really out there, believe me. Someday you may learn about such things, but only after you're in graduate school...for sociology. Or whatever it is you do.

And so doing that, we get

THE AVERAGE WILL BE = 17, 000, 000. In English (wait! shouldn't it be OK to use E-spanish?! ): Seventeen Million.

So that's a nice compromise on the number of illegales currently in the country.

Well! Now we're ready to come up with the real number of citizens Who Are hispanic (kinda like, "the man formerly known as Prince").

More arithmetic! But here it is....

REAL NUMBER OF HISPANIC CITIZENS = 44, 100, 000 - 17, 000, 000 which is 27, 100, 000.

Now wait. This is seriously small. Only Twenty Seven Million citizens? That's less than 10% of the population.

But it just might explain why only 5.4% of the electorate is 'hispanic', tykey. Just maybe.

So your BS about this Big Mass of Hispanic (always capitalized, of course) Heroes is...BS. A rather large chunk of them are in the country illegally.

And a rather large chunk of the "citizens" are in fact the children of illegals, who I don't consider citizens. And neither does the Constitution, no matter how many people bleat that it does.

So what can we call a mass occupation of the country by foreigners who broke in illegally, huh T-boy?

Invaders does the trick fairly well.

And that's what it is. An invasion. Funny how you don't get that. Maybe you just aren't all that bright.

And they can speak the "language of their birth" all they want, sport. In Mexico, where the vast majority of them came from.

PS: the audience the other evening was largely Cuban. Now what's interesting is that most of them have been here going on a few decades....yet SuziQ claims that they just have a problem with English because they haven't been here long enough. Gee, maybe that's er, not true? Maybe...Just Maybe...they have an issue with speaking English. Maybe...Just Maybe...they want to re-create their old country on U.S. soil...Just Maybe.

And you say it's idiotic to call that colonization, treason and invasion? I'd say that any of the three would be common sense descriptions. But you apparently lack such...

There is a rational debate to be had over the merits of having all American citizens speaking a common language, English

Wow! That's big of ya there, Tykey! Why, we can have a rational debate about using the language of the Constitution in this country. Woo-Wee, that's heavy! You're an amazing guy -- willing to sign up to the concept that we might all speak English in the United States!. Man, that's Radical, Dude! You're a Real Rebel! You and Abbie Hoffman....

Hysteria over some mythological Latino invasion and takeover does nothing to inform that debate

Don't worry 'bout it, kid. By the time you get done debating it, you'll have to talk to the cops in Spanish.

And one thing about Spanish speaking cops, tykey....they don't like people who speak English.

At all.

Be seein' ya, Genius.

121 posted on 12/11/2007 12:04:46 PM PST by Regulator

To: Kevmo
Today, there are several HLA amendments being introduced for voter approval through initiative processes in several states. And yet this is just “pandering”.

Even if they are passed, every single one of those HLA amendments in the States will be shot down by the Supremes, using Roe v Wade as precedent. That's why it is SO vital that this decision by overturned by the Supremes. The ONLY way that's going to be done is to get a strict constructionist majority on the Court. The only way that's going to happen is to elect someone who has pledged to do just that.

122 posted on 12/11/2007 12:56:19 PM PST by SuziQ

To: SuziQ

using Roe v Wade as precedent.
***Wrong. This extends the protection of the right to life to the unborn under the 14th amendment. The supremes would have to shoot down the 14th amendment or the definition of person. Not that easy to do. And Hunter is in favor of this approach (+ others) while Fred is against it, showing that Hunter is a better pro-life candidate.

123 posted on 12/11/2007 1:13:12 PM PST by Kevmo (We should withdraw from Iraq — via Tehran. And Duncan Hunter is just the man to get that job done.)

To: Kevmo
Do you honestly think that any state HLA will get any further than any other state laws that have been trying to restrict abortions since 1973? It sounds great, but it ain't gonna happen.

I've been working in the pro-life movement since 1973, and demanding purity on the issue hasn't done one blessed thing to save ONE baby since 1973. I'm tired of 'pie in the sky', and I want something actually DONE to help save the lives of unborn children. If we have to go about it incrementally, that's fine with me, because we'll at least be saving SOME babies while we're changing hearts and minds on the issue with the ultimate goal of folks accepting the unborn as a citizen with rights.

124 posted on 12/11/2007 3:01:10 PM PST by SuziQ

To: SuziQ

Do you honestly think that any state HLA will get any further than any other state laws that have been trying to restrict abortions since 1973?
***Yes.

It sounds great, but it ain’t gonna happen.
***Thanks for the crystal ball.

I’ve been working in the pro-life movement since 1973, and demanding purity on the issue hasn’t done one blessed thing to save ONE baby since 1973.
***I’m not a purist.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1927653/posts?page=23#23

I’m tired of ‘pie in the sky’, and I want something actually DONE to help save the lives of unborn children.
***Then support the candidate who has a plan that DOESN’T DEPEND UPON overturning Roe V Wade — Hunter.

If we have to go about it incrementally, that’s fine with me, because we’ll at least be saving SOME babies while we’re changing hearts and minds on the issue with the ultimate goal of folks accepting the unborn as a citizen with rights.
***I don’t mind an incremental approach, but a federalist approach is a copout.

.

.

.

Why the smart money is on Duncan Hunter
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926032/posts

125 posted on 12/11/2007 4:59:00 PM PST by Kevmo (We should withdraw from Iraq — via Tehran. And Duncan Hunter is just the man to get that job done.)