Re: Bush To Let Illegal Aliens Get $40 Digital TV Coupons
greg3347
> Just another example of how the Bush Administration is not serious about
> enforcing immigration laws.
> Hopefully this will change when he is finally flushed from office and
> replaced by someone who will
> listen to the American people for a change instead of the corporations and
> the unions.
>
> http://www.tvpredictions.com/aliens100307.htm
>
> Illegal Aliens Can Get $40 Digital TV Coupons
>
> The federal government will issue the coupons next year for digital
> converters.
> By Swanni
>
> Washington, D.C. (October 3, 2007) -- The federal government in January will
> begin issuing $40 coupons to help Americans purchase Digital TV converter
> boxes so they can keep watching TV when the nation switches to all-digital
> signals in 2009.
>
> And a Bush administration official said yesterday that illegal aliens will
> be allowed to get the $40 coupons just like everyone else.
>
> "We don't have any restrictions on the program with regard to any
> classification, whether it's immigration status or economic status ..." said
> NTIA chief John Kneuer, according to Multichannel News.
>
> Kneuer is a Commerce Department official who runs the National
> Telecommunications & Information Administration, which oversees the coupon
> program.
>
> Kneuer's comments are likely to generate controversy with many lawmakers
> saying the coupon program is already underfinanced. The federal government
> allocated $1.5 billion in coupon subsidies so consumers can get the
> converter boxes, which are expected to cost around $60-70.
>
> On February 17, 2009, all local broadcasters must switch their analog
> signals to digital which means viewers will need a Digital TV, a pay TV
> subscription or a digital converter box to keep watching television. The
> converter box will allow old analog TVs to display the new digital signals.
>
> The federal coupon program will allow anyone to apply for two $40 coupons
> for the converter boxes from January 1, 2008 to March 31, 2009.
>
> Kneuer's remark, which was made yesterday at a panel discussion sponsored by
> the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, apparently means that 'anyone' includes
> the estimated 12 million illegal aliens.
>
> According to Multichannel News, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin supports his view.
>
> "I think we should be trying to focus on how we can make sure that everyone's
> able to participate in the program to the maximum extent," Martin said,
> according to Multichannel News.
>
> Rep. Joe Baca, a California Republican and chairman of the Hispanic Caucus,
> also joined in with his support.
> "I believe that everybody that is here who has purchased a TV should receive
> (a coupon) They are paying taxes, they are purchasing and it's going back to
> the consumer and it's going back to the state. So that's revenue that's
> generated back into our country, too, as well," Baca said.
"Sucking for Success", a handbook for understanding the American
political system.
greg
FDR
Well how else will Mexicans be able to watch the Republican political
ads if they can't get reception?
cloud dreamer
Funny how guys like Bill will whine over illegal immigrants but is happy
to buy cheap strawberries made possible only by their labour. I doubt
he'd be willing to bend over and pick in the hot sun for their wages.
..
--
We must change the way we live,
or the climate will do it for us.
casca
cardboard with citric acid sprayed on it and a scent of strawberry.
They seem to have an infinite shelf life because there is nothing
nutritionally in them that even bugs want. The berries are becoming more
machine harvester friendly.
We are becoming overcrowded and our real wages, which includes benefits
are being depressed and taxes rising.
Imagine the impact, on the price, of fuel, if the estimated 30,000,000
Illegal Aliens were sent home.
I am amazed how many of you jerks are prepared to surrender our Country
for your benefit. The dollar is taking a dive partially because of these
Illegals too.
It won't be long before the dollar is cheaper than toilet paper. When it
takes 100.00 a week to feed four and 200,00 a week for fuel thank
Illegal Aliens and their Trans nationalist champion George Bush. Don't
forget their buddies in Congress bribed by the National Restaurant
Association and the like.
Don
> Three dollars a a container, not a quart isn't cheap. They taste like
> cardboard with citric acid sprayed on it and a scent of strawberry.
> They seem to have an infinite shelf life because there is nothing
> nutritionally in them that even bugs want. The berries are becoming more
> machine harvester friendly.
Don't know where you're getting yours, but the ones I buy are(2) boxes for
about $2.99, last 3 days on the counter and 5 days in the fridge and thats
if I pick em over in the store to make sure none have mold already.
They taste pretty good to me, I rinse them off under the faucet, and I eat
10 or so every morning for breakfast.
I really don't care WHO picks em, its none of my business.
bear...@cruller.invalid
> It won't be long before the dollar is cheaper than toilet paper. When it
> takes 100.00 a week to feed four and 200,00 a week for fuel thank
> Illegal Aliens and their Trans nationalist champion George Bush. Don't
> forget their buddies in Congress bribed by the National Restaurant
> Association and the like.
Anyone else who can't think of any reason other than illegal immigration
for rising prices and falling standards of living, here's your sign.
casca
No one said it is the only reason. The Illegal Aliens are being invited
in to help facilitate lowering Americans' wealth to the lowest common
denominator for Globalism. They want to bring about their beloved global
level playing field. That's the new world order and America will be no
more. Global Big Business in partnership with our? government is
bringing about the demise of the Republic and our Constitution.
America will be just a name and our freedoms and rights eliminated to
what produces an efficient market. Trickle down, Free Trade etc are
jokes on American and our Republic that many still have not gotten.
Ted
>
> - Show quoted text -
Remove the stinking illegals and you will find persons willing to pick
the crops. Just as we
did in WW2 with millions in uniforms. Eliminating the social costs of
these invaders would
more than compensate for any brief inconvenience.
ted
Audie Murphy's Ghost
<tedo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Remove the stinking illegals and you will find persons willing to pick
> the crops.
Fine! When are you volunteering? Or are we going to get one of those
"I spent half my life picking crops" lies?
cloud dreamer
Teehee. Yeah. I saw something a few months ago in which the reporter
spoke to a strawberry farmer who had been in the business for more than
25 years. When he was asked if he felt bad "stealing" jobs from
Americans by using illegal immigrants, he said that he had never ever
had an American come to him looking for a job.
The crew then went to a local town and asked some of the locals why they
wouldn't pick strawberries and they all agreed that it doesn't pay
enough...saying they'd have to be paid $1000 a week to pick them!!!
Now, imagine what strawberries would cost with Americans picking them.
(And of course, it doesn't just apply to strawberries).
So, they have a choice. Tolerate the illegals or pay the price.
Simple.
Jerry Okamura
if there is someone who you think is serious about "solving" the problem,
what is their solution?
"greg3347" <theod...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1191499766....@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Don
"casca" <@gabriels.ser> wrote in message news:jl8Ni.37$F5...@newsfe12.lga...
Keep all that in mind next Nov when you stand in line to choose the next
whip handler.
Second, its not *your* republic.
When people stop acting like herd members they will demand to be treated as
individuals.
Don
"Ted" <tedo...@hotmail.com> wrote
> Remove the stinking illegals and you will find persons willing to pick
> the crops. Just as we
> did in WW2 with millions in uniforms. Eliminating the social costs of
> these invaders would
> more than compensate for any brief inconvenience.
Couldn't help but notice you didn't mention anything at all about the people
that steal the money in the first place and give it to the so called
*illegals*.
Don
> Teehee. Yeah. I saw something a few months ago in which the reporter spoke
> to a strawberry farmer who had been in the business for more than 25
> years. When he was asked if he felt bad "stealing" jobs from Americans by
> using illegal immigrants, he said that he had never ever had an American
> come to him looking for a job.
>
> The crew then went to a local town and asked some of the locals why they
> wouldn't pick strawberries and they all agreed that it doesn't pay
> enough...saying they'd have to be paid $1000 a week to pick them!!!
>
> Now, imagine what strawberries would cost with Americans picking them.
> (And of course, it doesn't just apply to strawberries).
No one would buy them of course and the business would fail and thats a
lesson contained in basic Economics 101.
Survivors of the public schools fiasco are naturally ignorant of such
things.
Don
> Tell me "who" is serious about solving the illegal immigration problem.
Can you accurately describe the problem?
You see, in order to solve a problem you must first define it precisely.
Its not possible to solve an undefined problem.
cloud dreamer
Insults. The sure sign of a lost argument. So typical.
Rod Speed
> Jerry Okamura wrote
>> Tell me "who" is serious about solving the illegal immigration problem.
> Can you accurately describe the problem?
Yep, that there are illegals in the country who arent allowed to be there.
> You see, in order to solve a problem you must first define it precisely.
Depends on the problem, that isnt necessary with most problems.
> Its not possible to solve an undefined problem.
Wrong again, some problems fix themselves. One obvious example of that
is people having too many kids. Thats fixes itself in all modern first world
countrys without any public policy, let alone actually defining the problem.
Thanatos
"Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> Tell me "who" is serious about solving the illegal
> immigration problem.
Tom Tancredo. He's the only one.
> And if there is someone who you think is serious about
> "solving" the problem, what is their solution?
He wrote a book called "Mortal Danger" which outlined his approach.
Thanatos
"Don" <one-if-...@concord.com> wrote:
> Couldn't help but notice you didn't mention anything at all
> about the people that steal the money in the first place and
> give it to the so called *illegals*.
There's nothing "so-called" about them. They broke the law to come here.
Their continued presence is a violation of law. That makes them illegal.
Thanatos
"Don" <one-if-...@concord.com> wrote:
It's amazing that with attitudes like this it's the folks who favor
secure borders that are routinely branded as racist.
You're apparently arguing that the status quo must be maintained: that
there needs to be a permanent underclass populated by some group--
whether it's illegals or American citizens-- that is perpetually
exploited and paid less than the law requires, otherwise our economy
cannot survive. And since American citizens will always have the option
of reporting any attempts to undercut the minimum wage laws to the
authorities, it necessarily falls on the shoulders of the illegal "brown
people" to fill this essential niche in our society. After all if
illegals are working jobs for less than minimum wage, it's *because*
they are illegal and the employers know they have no recourse-- if they
complain to the authorities, they'll get deported so they have to just
shut up and take whatever is handed to them.
Who's the racist again?
bear...@cruller.invalid
cloud dreamer <St...@Global.Warming> wrote:
> the reporter spoke to a strawberry farmer who had been in the
> business for more than 25 years. When he was asked if he felt bad
> "stealing" jobs from Americans by using illegal immigrants, he said
> that he had never ever had an American come to him looking for a job.
Sheesh why does everyone on all sides of this issue speak in code?
"American" in this context means white people (now watch the dummies
argue that the farmer probably never had any black Americans or asian
Americans asking for work, either).
"Illegal immigrant" means brown Mexican.
That's why I have no faith in _anyone_ pushing the issue-- it is
covertly racist at its heart. Racism is always a populist issue; it
always appeals most to the lynch mob mentalities, to the lowest, foulest
of gutter motivations. If it wasn't the wetbacks, it would be blacks or
asians, and when they run out of colored people they would go after the
micks or the kikes or the goombas or the polacks. Eventually they would
get to the various non-conforming religious groups and the cripples.
You might say, "no it's about the LAW!" And you might really mean it,
once again proving that denial is not just a river in Egypt. Because the
only substantive thing setting "illegal immigrants" apart from anyone
else is their color.
Documents? As easy to erase as they are to forge. Any citizen would
probably be amazed at how fast the government can make their presence in
this country illegitimate.
Personally, I would trust the speech of a venom-spitting white
supremacist before I would trust a smirking, middle-class Tancredo
mouthpiece. Tancredo's whole pitch is little more than the old, "we are
the government (or we want to be), and we are here to help you."
Anyone who believes that, here's your sign.
Thanatos
bear...@cruller.invalid wrote:
> "Illegal immigrant" means brown Mexican.
No, it means anyone who enters the country contrary to law.
I know that it's currently in vogue among leftists to shut down any
discussion of this issue by screaming "racism!" the moment anyone brings
it up (because everyone in this country has been conditioned to be
hysterically afraid of being labeled a racist, whether it's true or not)
but we're not falling for it any more.
Every single country on the planet controls its borders. Why is the US
the only country on earth that's expected to just throw open the gates
and hope for the best?
Hell, Mexico itself has the toughest and strictest immigration laws in
the Western Hemisphere. It's amazing how every time anyone in America
tries to either enforce our current law or pass tougher new laws,
everyone from guys like you to the elites in Mexico City starts
screeching "Racism!" like a whipped harridan. Why is it racist for the
USA to control its border but its not racist for Mexico to control
theirs?
> You might say, "no it's about the LAW!" And you might
> really mean it, once again proving that denial is not
> just a river in Egypt. Because the only substantive thing
> setting "illegal immigrants" apart from anyone else is
> their color.
Well, that and the fact that they BROKE THE LAW.
Jeezus bleeding christ...
You seem to be a subscriber to a peculiar mindset I've seen elsewhere,
regarding other issues of crime and law enforcement, which says that if
enough minorities choose to break a given law, society is no longer
morally allowed to enforce that law because it becomes de facto "unfair"
to those minorities and anyone who does try and enforce it becomes a
racist per se.
Al E. Gator
"greg3347" <theod...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1191499766....@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
"Sucking for Success", a handbook for understanding the American
republicon party
Audie Murphy's Ghost
<atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> In article <bearclaw-5DE6A6...@news.supernews.com>,
> bear...@cruller.invalid wrote:
>
> > "Illegal immigrant" means brown Mexican.
>
> No, it means anyone who enters the country contrary to law.
>
> I know that it's currently in vogue among leftists to shut down any
> discussion of this issue by screaming "racism!" the moment anyone brings
> it up (because everyone in this country has been conditioned to be
> hysterically afraid of being labeled a racist, whether it's true or not)
> but we're not falling for it any more.
I have never, not once, heard any of you Mexican-bashers say anything
about illegal immigration by Canadians, Irish (or any other Western
Europeans), or pretty much anybody that's white and has some money.
There are plenty of them here -- so when, pray tell, were the
hysterical roundups of barmaids working the night shift in Queens?
Rob Jensen
<Global_...@is.real> wrote:
>Funny how guys like Bill will whine over illegal immigrants but is happy
>to buy cheap strawberries made possible only by their labour. I doubt
>he'd be willing to bend over and pick in the hot sun for their wages.
Well, my thing as a flaming liberal wouldn't be to slam the illegal
immigrants with any more penalties. The only thing to do is to go
after the real lawbreakers -- those people that exploit their
willingness to do labor for cheap, the people who *really* steal the
jobs -- you know, the corporations. Make all of the managing
officers from the CEO on down, and all of the board of directors,
personally liable for a miniumum of 5 years in prison and a $1,000,000
fine *both* per illegal used, with prison sentences to never be served
concurrently with any other criminal penalty. Oh yeah, and the
corporatiosn themselves fined sums not less than ten time the minimum
prevailing hourly wage per worker times 40 hours a week times 50 weeks
per year (2 off for vacation) into comprehensive health care plans for
the indigent, the poor, the working poor and anyone and everyone with
catastrophic illnesses whose treatment costs would otherwise cost the
person and/or his family their homes, illnesses such as cancer or
massive multiple bone breaks, head wounds, etc. No sliding scales,
none of the voodoo math where HMOs are more concerned with increasing
profits by denying legitimate claims over and over again.
The real criminals, the real thiefs, are the corporations. Until they
have no incentive to use illegals, illegals will continue to be abused
and exploited and US standards of living will continue to go down. So
the appropriate punishment is to hold the corporations accountable for
their crimes against both sets of victims -- not just the illegals
(whose exploitation is IMO bad enough), but more importantly, but also
the American people and the damage those psychopathic MBAs have
inflicted on the country with what really is *their* ongoing crime.
-- Rob
--
LORELAI: I am so done with plans. I am never, ever making one again.
It never works. I spend the day obsessing over why it didn't work
and what I could've done differently. I'm analyzing all my shortcomings
when all I really need to be doing is vowing to never, ever make a plan
ever again, which I'm doing now, having once again been the innocent
victim of my own stupid plans. God, I need some coffee.
cop...@yahoo.com
> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 10:36:09 -0230, cloud dreamer
>
> >Funny how guys like Bill will whine over illegal immigrants but is happy
> >to buy cheap strawberries made possible only by their labour. I doubt
> >he'd be willing to bend over and pick in the hot sun for their wages.
>
> Well, my thing as a flaming liberal wouldn't be to slam the illegal
> immigrants with any more penalties.
I'd be happy to see existing penalties imposed.
/, The only thing to do is to go
> after the real lawbreakers
Illeglly entering the country isn't "real:" lawbreaking?
> jobs -- you know, the corporations. Make all of the managing
> officers from the CEO on down, and all of the board of directors,
> personally liable for a miniumum of 5 years in prison and a $1,000,000
> fine *both* per illegal used, with prison sentences to never be served
> concurrently with any other criminal penalty.
This is only slightly more just than hauling them out into the street
and shooting them in the head without a trial.
Brandon
Thanatos
Audie Murphy's Ghost <takebac...@2008.com> wrote:
> In article <atropos-B64857...@news.giganews.com>, Thanatos
> <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <bearclaw-5DE6A6...@news.supernews.com>,
> > bear...@cruller.invalid wrote:
> >
> > > "Illegal immigrant" means brown Mexican.
> >
> > No, it means anyone who enters the country contrary to law.
> >
> > I know that it's currently in vogue among leftists to shut down any
> > discussion of this issue by screaming "racism!" the moment anyone brings
> > it up (because everyone in this country has been conditioned to be
> > hysterically afraid of being labeled a racist, whether it's true or not)
> > but we're not falling for it any more.
>
>
> I have never, not once, heard any of you Mexican-bashers say anything
> about illegal immigration by Canadians, Irish (or any other Western
> Europeans), or pretty much anybody that's white and has some money.
Well, now you have. An illegal Irish or Canadian or Australian alien
should be scooped up and kicked out of the country just like any other
illegal alien.
> There are plenty of them here -- so when, pray tell, were the
> hysterical roundups of barmaids working the night shift in Queens?
If they're illegal, they should be rounded up today.
Don
"Thanatos" <atr...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:atropos-2F505D...@news.giganews.com...
The OP's complaint was that the so called *illegals* are given stolen money.
Don
"cloud dreamer" <St...@Global.Warming> wrote in message
news:13gaieu...@news.supernews.com...
You appear to be in need of intervention.
Don
YOU don't get to dictate how people work.
Don
> Why is the US
> the only country on earth that's expected to just throw open the gates
> and hope for the best?
Why?
Ever heard of the word *freedom*?
There's a whole bunch of people like you running around that have been
trained to believe the self placed noose around your neck is freedom.
YOU don't get to tell other people where they can go.
So just get over yourself already.
Now come on back with some of your goofy leftist tripe.
Don
> In article <051020070215029051%takebac...@2008.com>,
> Audie Murphy's Ghost <takebac...@2008.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <atropos-B64857...@news.giganews.com>, Thanatos
>> <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <bearclaw-5DE6A6...@news.supernews.com>,
>> > bear...@cruller.invalid wrote:
>> >
>> > > "Illegal immigrant" means brown Mexican.
>> >
>> > No, it means anyone who enters the country contrary to law.
>> >
>> > I know that it's currently in vogue among leftists to shut down any
>> > discussion of this issue by screaming "racism!" the moment anyone
>> > brings
>> > it up (because everyone in this country has been conditioned to be
>> > hysterically afraid of being labeled a racist, whether it's true or
>> > not)
>> > but we're not falling for it any more.
>>
>>
>> I have never, not once, heard any of you Mexican-bashers say anything
>> about illegal immigration by Canadians, Irish (or any other Western
>> Europeans), or pretty much anybody that's white and has some money.
>
> Well, now you have. An illegal Irish or Canadian or Australian alien
> should be scooped up and kicked out of the country just like any other
> illegal alien.
Man, he led you by the noose and you went willingly. LOL
The saddest thing the US gov't has ever done was to take control of the so
called *education* of the populace for the result of inability to think was
just demonstrated by you.
Don
> The only thing to do is to go
> after the real lawbreakers -- those people that exploit their
> willingness to do labor for cheap,
If the so called *illegals* are willing to work for what you seem to believe
are cheap wages, how is that any of anyone elses business?
Don
<cop...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191577694....@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 5, 2:09 am, Rob Jensen <ShutUp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 10:36:09 -0230, cloud dreamer
>>
>> <Global_Warm...@is.real> wrote:
>> >Funny how guys like Bill will whine over illegal immigrants but is happy
>> >to buy cheap strawberries made possible only by their labour. I doubt
>> >he'd be willing to bend over and pick in the hot sun for their wages.
>>
>> Well, my thing as a flaming liberal wouldn't be to slam the illegal
>> immigrants with any more penalties.
>
> I'd be happy to see existing penalties imposed.
Seing people penalized for crossing imaginary lines on a globe would make
you *happy*?
If it wasn't stylish to jump on the popular *illegals* bandwagon of late
you'd never even know they exist.
FDR
> Don <one-if-...@concord.com> wrote
>> Jerry Okamura wrote
>
>>> Tell me "who" is serious about solving the illegal immigration problem.
>
>> Can you accurately describe the problem?
>
> Yep, that there are illegals in the country who arent allowed to be there.
Why?
>
>> You see, in order to solve a problem you must first define it precisely.
>
> Depends on the problem, that isnt necessary with most problems.
>
>> Its not possible to solve an undefined problem.
>
> Wrong again, some problems fix themselves. One obvious example of that
> is people having too many kids. Thats fixes itself in all modern first world
> countrys without any public policy, let alone actually defining the problem.
>
Can you tell that to the Chinese?
cloud dreamer
> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 10:36:09 -0230, cloud dreamer
> <Global_...@is.real> wrote:
>
>> Funny how guys like Bill will whine over illegal immigrants but is happy
>> to buy cheap strawberries made possible only by their labour. I doubt
>> he'd be willing to bend over and pick in the hot sun for their wages.
>
> Well, my thing as a flaming liberal wouldn't be to slam the illegal
> immigrants with any more penalties. The only thing to do is to go
> after the real lawbreakers
Then you need to start at the top and export George to The Hague.
bear...@cruller.invalid
> In article <bearclaw-5DE6A6...@news.supernews.com>,
> bear...@cruller.invalid wrote:
>
> > "Illegal immigrant" means brown Mexican.
>
> No, it means anyone who enters the country contrary to law.
Naturally, the fact that the "illegal" immigrants you speak of are all
brown Mexicans somehow doesn't bear scrutiny. Like the elephant in the
living room.
> I know that it's currently in vogue among leftists to shut down any
> discussion of this issue by screaming "racism!" the moment anyone
> brings it up (because everyone in this country has been conditioned
> to be hysterically afraid of being labeled a racist, whether it's
> true or not)
Thus far, the only screamers I ever hear are those pushing the issue on
TV, radio and Usenet.
> but we're not falling for it any more.
You and the mouse in your pocket? Or do you have some kind of
organization?
> Every single country on the planet controls its borders.
Including the United States. Just because your impulses aren't being
fulfilled doesn't mean there is no control.
> Why is the US the only country on earth that's expected to just throw
> open the gates and hope for the best?
What hope? Look closely at the EU and see how well they control *their*
borders. Look at Pakistan, Iraq; Iraq and Turkey, Iraq and Iran.
What countries are you talking about who control their borders so well?
In fact, the *only* nations in the world who control their borders the
way you want are the ones with the iron-fisted despots in charge, who
control their borders as much to imprison their own as to keep others
out. If that's the kind of nation you want the US to become, expect a
little resistance.
> Hell, Mexico itself has the toughest and strictest immigration laws
> in the Western Hemisphere.
I wouldn't know about that, I don't live there. If it is true (and as I
said previously, I don't trust any of the information given on this
issue), then it seems highly ironic given Mexico's puny desirability as
an immigration destination and their corrupt infrastructure.
> It's amazing how every time anyone in America
> tries to either enforce our current law or pass tougher new laws,
> everyone from guys like you to the elites in Mexico City starts
> screeching "Racism!" like a whipped harridan. Why is it racist for
> the USA to control its border but its not racist for Mexico to
> control theirs?
I don't know anyone who is amazed by it except for those who can't see
past their noses, but then they are the ones who are amazed when they
walk into lamp posts, too. If you admitted you don't like brown people,
I would be much more inclined to hear you out before dismissing you out
of hand.
> Well, that and the fact that they BROKE THE LAW.
So did the numerous people driving 90 on my local freeway yesterday.
Does that make them illegal drivers? Each of those individual speeders
presented a greater and more immediate risk than practically any
undocumented foreigner. The economic result of their behavior is clearly
recorded by numerous sources. Where is the outcry for enforcement? Where
is the outrage over the needless costs to society? Oh, right. Most of
them are middle class, if not white, and bad driving is not likely to
ever become a populist issue sufficient to win elections.
> You seem to be a subscriber to a peculiar mindset I've seen elsewhere,
> regarding other issues of crime and law enforcement, which says that if
> enough minorities choose to break a given law, society is no longer
> morally allowed to enforce that law because it becomes de facto "unfair"
> to those minorities and anyone who does try and enforce it becomes a
> racist per se.
Wow, you sure nailed me. You are as perceptive in your personal
apprehension as in your political view.
Audie Murphy's Ghost
<atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> In article <051020070215029051%takebac...@2008.com>,
> Audie Murphy's Ghost <takebac...@2008.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <atropos-B64857...@news.giganews.com>, Thanatos
> > <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <bearclaw-5DE6A6...@news.supernews.com>,
> > > bear...@cruller.invalid wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Illegal immigrant" means brown Mexican.
> > >
> > > No, it means anyone who enters the country contrary to law.
> > >
> > > I know that it's currently in vogue among leftists to shut down any
> > > discussion of this issue by screaming "racism!" the moment anyone brings
> > > it up (because everyone in this country has been conditioned to be
> > > hysterically afraid of being labeled a racist, whether it's true or not)
> > > but we're not falling for it any more.
> >
> >
> > I have never, not once, heard any of you Mexican-bashers say anything
> > about illegal immigration by Canadians, Irish (or any other Western
> > Europeans), or pretty much anybody that's white and has some money.
>
> Well, now you have. An illegal Irish or Canadian or Australian alien
> should be scooped up and kicked out of the country just like any other
> illegal alien.
Too damn late, Thanny. Anyway, in five minutes this'll be all about
Mexicans again.
> > There are plenty of them here -- so when, pray tell, were the
> > hysterical roundups of barmaids working the night shift in Queens?
>
> If they're illegal, they should be rounded up today.
They're not. That's the damn point.
Vic Smith
>In article <051020070215029051%takebac...@2008.com>,
> Audie Murphy's Ghost <takebac...@2008.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <atropos-B64857...@news.giganews.com>, Thanatos
>> <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <bearclaw-5DE6A6...@news.supernews.com>,
>> > bear...@cruller.invalid wrote:
>> >
>> > > "Illegal immigrant" means brown Mexican.
>> >
>> > No, it means anyone who enters the country contrary to law.
>> >
>> > I know that it's currently in vogue among leftists to shut down any
>> > discussion of this issue by screaming "racism!" the moment anyone brings
>> > it up (because everyone in this country has been conditioned to be
>> > hysterically afraid of being labeled a racist, whether it's true or not)
>> > but we're not falling for it any more.
>>
>>
>> I have never, not once, heard any of you Mexican-bashers say anything
>> about illegal immigration by Canadians, Irish (or any other Western
>> Europeans), or pretty much anybody that's white and has some money.
>
>Well, now you have. An illegal Irish or Canadian or Australian alien
>should be scooped up and kicked out of the country just like any other
>illegal alien.
>
That will probably be perceived as a racist lie.
Don't expect people who can't see past complexion to believe you.
>> There are plenty of them here -- so when, pray tell, were the
>> hysterical roundups of barmaids working the night shift in Queens?
>
>If they're illegal, they should be rounded up today.
My wife just told me a neighbor's house is for sale. He was an
illegal from Poland, his wife left him and went back there, and
reported him to the ICE. He was deported to Poland.
Good for ICE. None in this thread will complain about me saying that,
of course.
After all, he has the right complexion to qualify for deportation.
Having grown up and worked with people of many ethnicities, including
Mexican-Americans, I've got a good nose for racism and prejudice.
Those looking at this as a "racial" issue instead of a
border/economics issue, and accusing others of racism pretty well
reveal their hearts; only blatant racists. latent racists, or those
guilt-ridden about race and who can not see beyond race constantly
dwell on race, or invoke race when it suits their paranoia.
Those throwing down the race card in this thread are mostly sadly
reminiscent of those well-off socialites Tom Wolfe wrote about in
Radical Chic, who when entertaining the Black Panthers
dismissed the black help for the night and hired white looking Latinos
to serve the canapes.
Of course the penurious sods here just want Mexicans to cheaply mow
their damn lawns. They're too fucking white to do that themselves.
And these cheap asses call others racists just to justify continued
neat lawns and low strawberry prices! Pure dittybags.
And then there are those race-to-the-bottom free market capitalist
scum who are too busy thinking of how to score an extra buck to even
bother with race. GWB and Chambers of Commerce fit in well here.
BTW, I've seen figures that about half of Mexican-Americans oppose
illegal immigration. God damn racists.
--Vic
cop...@yahoo.com
> In article <atropos-B64857.23154704102...@news.giganews.com>,
>
> Thanatos <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
> > In article <bearclaw-5DE6A6.20571204102...@news.supernews.com>,
> > bearc...@cruller.invalid wrote:
>
> > > "Illegal immigrant" means brown Mexican.
>
> > No, it means anyone who enters the country contrary to law.
>
> Naturally, the fact that the "illegal" immigrants you speak of are all
> brown Mexicans somehow doesn't bear scrutiny. Like the elephant in the
> living room.
Given tha they vastly outnumber illegal white Canadians, why shouldn't
the talk about them be greater?
> > Hell, Mexico itself has the toughest and strictest immigration laws
> > in the Western Hemisphere.
>
> I wouldn't know about that, I don't live there. If it is true (and as I
> said previously, I don't trust any of the information given on this
> issue), then it seems highly ironic given Mexico's puny desirability as
> an immigration destination and their corrupt infrastructure.
Given the conditions in several Central and South American countries,
Mexico is practially a paradise.
> > You seem to be a subscriber to a peculiar mindset I've seen elsewhere,
> > regarding other issues of crime and law enforcement, which says that if
> > enough minorities choose to break a given law, society is no longer
> > morally allowed to enforce that law because it becomes de facto "unfair"
> > to those minorities and anyone who does try and enforce it becomes a
> > racist per se.
>
> Wow, you sure nailed me. You are as perceptive in your personal
> apprehension as in your political view.
Brandon
cop...@yahoo.com
> <cop...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1191577694....@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Oct 5, 2:09 am, Rob Jensen <ShutUp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 10:36:09 -0230, cloud dreamer
>
> >> <Global_Warm...@is.real> wrote:
> >> >Funny how guys like Bill will whine over illegal immigrants but is happy
> >> >to buy cheap strawberries made possible only by their labour. I doubt
> >> >he'd be willing to bend over and pick in the hot sun for their wages.
>
> >> Well, my thing as a flaming liberal wouldn't be to slam the illegal
> >> immigrants with any more penalties.
>
> > I'd be happy to see existing penalties imposed.
>
> Seing people penalized for crossing imaginary lines on a globe would make
> you *happy*?
Yes.
I guess you wouldn't mind people wandering into you backyard, since
your property lines are only imaginary.
Brandon
Rob Jensen
<Global_...@is.real> wrote:
>Rob Jensen wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 10:36:09 -0230, cloud dreamer
>> <Global_...@is.real> wrote:
>>
>>> Funny how guys like Bill will whine over illegal immigrants but is happy
>>> to buy cheap strawberries made possible only by their labour. I doubt
>>> he'd be willing to bend over and pick in the hot sun for their wages.
>>
>> Well, my thing as a flaming liberal wouldn't be to slam the illegal
>> immigrants with any more penalties. The only thing to do is to go
>> after the real lawbreakers
>
>
>Then you need to start at the top and export George to The Hague.
OK! Let's do it! Well, the ICC will drag him, Cheney, Rumsfeld and
Gonzales off to trials for their War Crimes sooner or later. So in a
sense, I'm just waiting to break out the beer and popcorn and get
ready for the inevitable drinking game.
Rob Jensen
wrote:
Because it's the corporations that are exploiting them and thereby the
*real* thiefs of our jobs -- and THAT ^^^ is ^^^ our business.
Rod Speed
>>>> Tell me "who" is serious about solving the illegal immigration problem.
>>> Can you accurately describe the problem?
>> Yep, that there are illegals in the country who arent allowed to be there.
> Why?
Because they have decided that its better than the country they came from.
>>> You see, in order to solve a problem you must first define it precisely.
>> Depends on the problem, that isnt necessary with most problems.
>>> Its not possible to solve an undefined problem.
>> Wrong again, some problems fix themselves. One obvious example of that is people having too many kids. Thats fixes
>> itself in all modern first world countrys without any public policy, let alone actually defining the problem.
> Can you tell that to the Chinese?
No need, they worked that out for themselves and realised that china isnt a
first world country and that that problem wouldnt fix itself there any time soon.
It did work fine in Singapore tho.
bear...@cruller.invalid
Vic Smith <thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote:
> My wife just told me a neighbor's house is for sale. He was an
> illegal from Poland, his wife left him and went back there, and
> reported him to the ICE. He was deported to Poland.
> Good for ICE. None in this thread will complain about me saying that,
> of course.
Let's have a little backstory on this, eh? With more than just a
self-serving anecdote, maybe there will be protests over his treatment.
You know, OTOH, if he was a guard at Buchenwald, Stuthoff or Auschwitz,
then no, you will not likely hear anyone defend him.
Glad something cheered you up, anyway.
Here's something else to cheer you up: when Mexican immigrants are
reported to ICE, they are usually sent back too. The mexicans even have
a name for it: la migra.
There now. Isn't that just great to know how egalitarian are our laws
regarding immigration? And here you thought immigration was only good
for ad hominem arguments, insulting, cursing and wishing ill on your
fellow citizens with opinions different and perhaps more informed than
you. Wouldn't it be great if you could deport them, too? Maybe someone
will write a law. Maybe Tancredo.
FDR
> FDR <nos...@asdfkdskkl.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Don <one-if-...@concord.com> wrote
>>>> Jerry Okamura wrote
>
>>>>> Tell me "who" is serious about solving the illegal immigration problem.
>
>>>> Can you accurately describe the problem?
>
>>> Yep, that there are illegals in the country who arent allowed to be there.
>
>> Why?
>
> Because they have decided that its better than the country they came from.
I mean, why is it illegal? Other than paying taxes and alleging some
oath which means diddly anyway, what's the difference?
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> FDR <nos...@asdfkdskkl.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Don <one-if-...@concord.com> wrote
>>>>> Jerry Okamura wrote
>>>>>> Tell me "who" is serious about solving the illegal immigration problem.
>>>>> Can you accurately describe the problem?
>>>> Yep, that there are illegals in the country who arent allowed to be there.
>>> Why?
>> Because they have decided that its better than the country they came from.
> I mean, why is it illegal?
Because that country decided that they dont want to
allow anyone who wants to migrate there to do that.
> Other than paying taxes and alleging some oath which means diddly anyway, what's the difference?
See above.
bear...@cruller.invalid
Audie Murphy's Ghost <takebac...@2008.com> wrote:
> In article <1191521103.5...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
> Ted <tedo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Remove the stinking illegals and you will find persons willing to
> > pick the crops.
>
> Fine! When are you volunteering? Or are we going to get one of
> those "I spent half my life picking crops" lies?
Heh. I spent some time picking apples in Washington. I hope I never
have to do it again. That's where I met the kids of some "illegal"
immigrants. Lived with one for a while. Watched her go from Cesar
Chavez demonstrations to college and-- last I heard-- she is an
engineer for IBM. Her sister-- an unmarried mother who was on welfare
for a time-- is now a doctor of vocational rehab, owns several rental
properties and has paid back California for every dime she ever got
from her welfare benefits. Both of them now have families with kids of
their own attending college.
Yeah, boy. Those immigrants are just killing us. Deport 'em all, *and*
their ancestors, retroactive back to the 1830's or so.
clams casino
>
>Yeah, boy. Those immigrants are just killing us. Deport 'em all, *and*
>their ancestors, retroactive back to the 1830's or so.
>
>
Only the ones who arrived illegally.
What part of illegal is not illegal?
bear...@cruller.invalid
> Of course the penurious sods here just want Mexicans to cheaply mow
> their damn lawns. They're too fucking white to do that themselves.
LOL. I had to laugh because I once made a pretty good living at lawn and
yard care. Bearclaw's LawN Order. I'm really glad I don't have to do
that anymore, too.
> And then there are those race-to-the-bottom free market capitalist
> scum who are too busy thinking of how to score an extra buck to even
> bother with race. GWB and Chambers of Commerce fit in well here.
Bush wouldn't fit well anywhere but in a straitjacket.
But I take your point, and I admit freely that I am concerned about the
aging of America, including me. There are not enough workers coming up
to maintain production in an economy expected to support the cornucopia
of ailments of old age and dotage. The government is doing nothing to
prepare for this. It's like they are paralyzed. Or stupid. Or
incompetent. And hey, they are all practically to a man, strenuously
opposed to "illegal" immigration.
And so emotional, heavily-race-charged calls for the expulsion of those
who can fill the labor gap strike me as more than a little shortsighted.
It strikes me as "doing something because we can", rather than "doing
something because it's right and good and effective". Very much like the
Iraq invasion. And look where that's got us.
bear...@cruller.invalid
clams casino <PeterG...@drunkin-clam.com> wrote:
Well, their parents were "illegal", at least as you think of it. And
there are plenty on the "deport 'em all" side who would have no problem
at all kicking them and their kids out. In this case, that would mean
one fewer IBM engineers and one fewer doctors of vocational rehab
working here in the great US.
I could draw out this analogy until the anti-immigrant crowd starts
looking like the Khmer Rouge (although Tom Tancredo *does* bear a
certain resemblance to Pol Pot), but hey! At least Cambodia had pretty
secure borders when they were in charge... oh, wait a minute... never
mind.
clams casino
>In article <tQwNi.296159$BX3.1...@newsfe13.lga>,
> clams casino <PeterG...@drunkin-clam.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>bear...@cruller.invalid wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Yeah, boy. Those immigrants are just killing us. Deport 'em all, *and*
>>>their ancestors, retroactive back to the 1830's or so.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Only the ones who arrived illegally.
>>
>>What part of illegal is not illegal?
>>
>>
>
>Well, their parents were "illegal", at least as you think of it. And
>there are plenty on the "deport 'em all" side who would have no problem
>at all kicking them and their kids out. In this case, that would mean
>one fewer IBM engineers and one fewer doctors of vocational rehab
>working here in the great US.
>
>
>
I won't profess to be an expert on immigration / speak for all, but my
ancestors all arrived via the legal route (Ellis Island).
Furthermore all my coworkers & friends from other countries arrived here
through legal channels with most eventually taking on US citizenship.
Somehow, I can't imagine wanting to seek out a doctor who climbed over
the fence, nor can I imagine my employer hiring scientists & engineers
who arrived via the trunk of a car.
Hint - there are legal ways to inter the country and illegal ways.
What part of illegal is difficult for you to understand?
FDR
> FDR <nos...@asdfkdskkl.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> FDR <nos...@asdfkdskkl.com> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Don <one-if-...@concord.com> wrote
>>>>>> Jerry Okamura wrote
>
>>>>>>> Tell me "who" is serious about solving the illegal immigration problem.
>
>>>>>> Can you accurately describe the problem?
>
>>>>> Yep, that there are illegals in the country who arent allowed to be there.
>
>>>> Why?
>
>>> Because they have decided that its better than the country they came from.
>
>> I mean, why is it illegal?
>
> Because that country decided that they dont want to
> allow anyone who wants to migrate there to do that.
But they do. Millions didn't come here magically. The government may
have written the law but they really didn't mean it.
bear...@cruller.invalid
clams casino <PeterG...@drunkin-clam.com> wrote:
> I won't profess to be an expert on immigration / speak for all, but my
> ancestors all arrived via the legal route (Ellis Island).
As did mine. But so what? Our ancestors didn't have a 2,000-mile
frontier to walk across, either. If they had, things might have looked a
lot different to you.
> Furthermore all my coworkers & friends from other countries arrived here
> through legal channels with most eventually taking on US citizenship.
I'm not sure if that speaks to the size of your circle or who you choose
as friends, but either way, anecdotes are a very unreliable way of
making public policy.
> Somehow, I can't imagine wanting to seek out a doctor who climbed over
> the fence, nor can I imagine my employer hiring scientists & engineers
> who arrived via the trunk of a car.
Again, *your* employer. Your imagination. Do you think national policies
should be made on such a narrow basis? There are plenty of employers who
seek out and retain foreigners. IIRC, a majority of those who
perpetrated the 9/11 events were initially here on work or student
visas. How much good did documentation do there?
As far as your characterization of immigrant doctors, scientists and
engineers, it is unworthy of response. I bet if you or your family
needed urgent medical care, you wouldn't spend a lot of time worrying
about how the doctor came to be where you needed him or her. I bet you
don't ask about the origins of the researcher who created the drugs that
keep you alive or relieve your pain. I bet the citizenship status of the
scientist who invented the flame-retardant that kept your kitchen from
going up in flames never crossed your mind.
No, it's only the farmworker, the janitor, the grass cutters, the least
able among us that get the once-over with the jaundiced immigration eye.
Why? Because they are the weak ones, the ones least likely to return a
punch. So the mob can feel like heroes, when in fact they are just a mob.
Yeah, I get concerned when mob action starts to appear legitimate.
I think focusing on "illegal" immigrants is a waste of time and money,
but I probably wouldn't mind as much if it wasn't couched in such a
militant, vigilante milieu. That's where my suspicions of something much
darker than mere enforcement of law comes into play. When I hear the
rants and threats of violence and the stupid appeals to nationalism,
that's when I know I'm dealing with people who aren't thinking and who
don't want anyone else to think, either.
bear...@cruller.invalid
clams casino <PeterG...@drunkin-clam.com> wrote:
> What part of illegal is difficult for you to understand?
The part where the focus is on a specific group and not applied to all
equally. The part where the motive of the law is vague and clouded and
subject to sudden change. The part that encourages the attitude of guilt
before innocence. The part that necessitates the burden of proof of
citizenship, even for those born here. That's already happening, thanks
to anti-immigration nuts. You can't get a job anymore unless you can
produce two forms of citizenship. What is *that*?
All that proves is that those who would easily question their neighbor's
patriotism now want an easy way to cast doubt on their neighbor's
citizenship. Yet another divisive tactic by those who would tear this
country apart.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> FDR <nos...@asdfkdskkl.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> FDR <nos...@asdfkdskkl.com> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Don <one-if-...@concord.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Jerry Okamura wrote
>>>>>>>> Tell me "who" is serious about solving the illegal immigration problem.
>>>>>>> Can you accurately describe the problem?
>>>>>> Yep, that there are illegals in the country who arent allowed to be there.
>>>>> Why?
>>>> Because they have decided that its better than the country they came from.
>>> I mean, why is it illegal?
>> Because that country decided that they dont want to
>> allow anyone who wants to migrate there to do that.
> But they do.
Not voluntarily, just because of the cost of keeping all the illegals out.
> Millions didn't come here magically. The government may have written the law but they really didn't mean it.
Corse they do. Get a foreigner to try showing up at the border and telling
the goon that you want to migrate into the country. They will be told they cant.
clams casino
>In article <NMxNi.9721$Bq3....@newsfe18.lga>,
> clams casino <PeterG...@drunkin-clam.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>What part of illegal is difficult for you to understand?
>>
>>
>
>The part where the focus is on a specific group and not applied to all
>equally.
>
Any examples of which (illegal) groups are being over looked?
>The part where the motive of the law is vague and clouded and
>subject to sudden change.
>
In 99.999999999999999999% of the cases, one is either here legally or
illegally. What's so clouded?
>The part that encourages the attitude of guilt
>before innocence. The part that necessitates the burden of proof of
>citizenship, even for those born here. That's already happening, thanks
>to anti-immigration nuts. You can't get a job anymore unless you can
>produce two forms of citizenship. What is *that*?
>
>
Progress. It's about time.
Our son recently applied for a passport. Not only did they require his
birth certificate, but they needed know my and my wife's date of birth /
place of birth.
Excellent. It's about time.
nob...@junk.min.net
at 02:09 AM, Rob Jensen <Shut...@aol.com> said:
>The real criminals, the real thiefs, are the corporations. Until they
>have no incentive to use illegals, illegals will continue to be abused
>and exploited and US standards of living will continue to go down. So
>the appropriate punishment is to hold the corporations accountable for
>their crimes against both sets of victims -- not just the illegals (whose
>exploitation is IMO bad enough), but more importantly, but also the
>American people and the damage those psychopathic MBAs have inflicted on
>the country with what really is *their* ongoing crime.
And it's the corporations that control the politicians - of both parties -
which is why the illegal immigration issue is all talk. Neither party
wants to bite the corporate hands that feed them.
Alan
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
** Please use address alanh77[at]comcast.net to reply via e-mail. **
Posted using registered MR/2 ICE Newsreader #564 and eComStation 1.21
BBS - The Nerve Center Telnet FidoNet 261/1000 tncbbs.no-ip.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
cloud dreamer
>
> Our son recently applied for a passport. Not only did they require his
> birth certificate, but they needed know my and my wife's date of birth /
> place of birth.
>
> Excellent. It's about time.
That's more likely due to new requirements re terrorism, not immigration
fraud.
Audie Murphy's Ghost
<PeterG...@drunkin-clam.com> wrote:
Did you even think to question why they might want to know where you
and your wife were born? I guess not; you drank the Kool-Aid long ago.
What's next? Are you going to have to prove paternity?
Here's a hint: Your origins were none of their business and are, in
fact, irrelevant to your son's status, as long as he can prove he was
born in the U.S.
bear...@cruller.invalid
clams casino <PeterG...@drunkin-clam.com> wrote:
> Any examples of which (illegal) groups are being over looked?
How about the guys that piloted the planes into the WTC?
> In 99.999999999999999999% of the cases, one is either here legally or
> illegally. What's so clouded?
Hmm. The same as the percentage of made-up statistics on Usenet. What a
coincidence.
Clouded? Why do you ask?
> Progress.
Especially if you spend your day looking in the rear-view mirror.
> Our son recently applied for a passport. Not only did they require his
> birth certificate, but they needed know my and my wife's date of birth /
> place of birth.
Wow, it's a good thing he wasn't trying to enter/leave illegally huh?
Then he would have been an idiot AND in jail.
> Excellent. It's about time.
Your son was applying for a document often used as identification.
That's a lot different than applying for a job. But, if it makes you
happy to have your blood treated as though he were guilty of something,
I guess that's all there is to say between you and me. I still think
that neither I nor any other U.S. citizen should have to involuntarily
present citizenship credentials to anyone in a position to demand them.
FDR
> FDR <nos...@asdfkdskkl.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> FDR <nos...@asdfkdskkl.com> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> FDR <nos...@asdfkdskkl.com> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>> Don <one-if-...@concord.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> Jerry Okamura wrote
>
>>>>>>>>> Tell me "who" is serious about solving the illegal immigration problem.
>
>>>>>>>> Can you accurately describe the problem?
>
>>>>>>> Yep, that there are illegals in the country who arent allowed to be there.
>
>>>>>> Why?
>
>>>>> Because they have decided that its better than the country they came from.
>
>>>> I mean, why is it illegal?
>
>>> Because that country decided that they dont want to
>>> allow anyone who wants to migrate there to do that.
>
>> But they do.
>
> Not voluntarily, just because of the cost of keeping all the illegals out.
>
>> Millions didn't come here magically. The government may have written the law but they really didn't mean it.
>
> Corse they do. Get a foreigner to try showing up at the border and telling
> the goon that you want to migrate into the country. They will be told they cant.
Yeah, well then where are all the goons? Exactly, not enough of them.
The government isn't serious about the law. By intentionally
underfunding the border guard program they are saying it's ok to come on
on and be our guest worker for a buck an hour picking lettuce.
clams casino
> I still think
>that neither I nor any other U.S. citizen should have to involuntarily
>present citizenship credentials to anyone in a position to demand them.
>
>
You've obviously lead a very sheltered life. Obviously you've never
left the US.
Jerry Okamura
"Thanatos" <atr...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:atropos-0C1F55...@news.giganews.com...
> In article <470540d8$0$4988$4c36...@roadrunner.com>,
> "Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Tell me "who" is serious about solving the illegal
>> immigration problem.
>
>
>> And if there is someone who you think is serious about
>> "solving" the problem, what is their solution?
>
> He wrote a book called "Mortal Danger" which outlined his approach.
Okay, what do you think were the key points of his solution?
bear...@cruller.invalid
clams casino <PeterG...@drunkin-clam.com> wrote:
Wow, how DO you Usenet denizens do it? It's like you have a secret
window into my life! Amazing!
clams casino
It's obvious through your naive comments.
cop...@yahoo.com
Because we don't want to hear "Let me see your travel papers, comrade."
Thanatos
bear...@cruller.invalid wrote:
> In article <atropos-B64857...@news.giganews.com>,
> Thanatos <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <bearclaw-5DE6A6...@news.supernews.com>,
> > bear...@cruller.invalid wrote:
> >
> > > "Illegal immigrant" means brown Mexican.
> >
> > No, it means anyone who enters the country contrary to law.
>
> Naturally, the fact that the "illegal" immigrants you speak
> of are all brown Mexicans somehow doesn't bear scrutiny.
I again refer you to that peculiar mindset I've seen elsewhere,
regarding other issues of crime and law enforcement, which says that if
enough minorities choose to break a given law, society is no longer
morally allowed to enforce that law because it becomes de facto "unfair"
to those minorities and anyone who does try and enforce it becomes a
racist per se.
The fact that a large number of Latinos choose to break this law hardly
makes those who enforce it racist.
This reminds me of the "community activists" in Dallas several years ago
that were calling the police department racist because 70% of the people
arrested for murder that year were black. Never mind the fact that the
people arrested actually *committed* the murders. Never mind the fact
that there weren't a whole lot of white murderers running around loose
that the police were purposely ignoring just so they could arrest black
people. Apparently in the minds of these "community activists", the mere
fact that blacks were choosing to commit murder in much higher numbers
than anyone else meant the the cops in Dallas should just stop enforcing
the homicide laws.
It's a bizarre argument to make. I can't imagine how you guys can do it
with a straight face.
Just for clarity, what exactly is the racial percentage of offenders
such that once the threshold is crossed, we're no longer allowed enforce
a given law without being racists?
> > I know that it's currently in vogue among leftists to shut
> > down any discussion of this issue by screaming "racism!"
> > the moment anyone brings it up (because everyone in this
> > country has been conditioned to be hysterically afraid of
> > being labeled a racist, whether it's true or not)
> Thus far, the only screamers I ever hear are those pushing
> the issue on TV, radio and Usenet.
Then you haven't been paying attention.
> > but we're not falling for it any more.
>
> You and the mouse in your pocket?
Nope. Me and the overwhelming number of American citizens (of all races)
who, in poll after poll after poll, want the borders secured and illegal
immigration prosecuted.
> > Every single country on the planet controls its borders.
>
> Including the United States.
If you think the status quo in the USA amounts to control of our
borders, I have some land on the dark side of the moon to sell you.
> Just because your impulses aren't being
> fulfilled doesn't mean there is no control.
So in your fevered brain, the thousands of people who steal across the
border in the dark of night and hide in the backs of trucks to avoid the
police amounts to control of the border?
Orwell would have loved you:
Peace is war
Love is hate
Control is chaos
> > Why is the US the only country on earth that's expected
> > to just throw open the gates and hope for the best?
> What hope? Look closely at the EU and see how well they
> control *their* borders. Look at Pakistan, Iraq; Iraq
> and Turkey, Iraq and Iran.
> What countries are you talking about who control their
> borders so well?
> In fact, the *only* nations in the world who control their
> borders the way you want are the ones with the iron-fisted
> despots in charge, who control their borders as much to
> imprison their own as to keep others out.
Bullshit. Try getting into Japan sometime without legal permission.
Or Australia.
Or even Mexico. Get caught there without legal status and you go to
prison. Not catch-and-release, not deportation. Prison.
> If that's the kind of nation you want the US to become,
> expect a little resistance.
What a ridiculous strawman. The USA doesn't have to become a
dictatorship in order to set up an effective border control system.
> > Hell, Mexico itself has the toughest and strictest immigration laws
> > in the Western Hemisphere.
>
> I wouldn't know about that, I don't live there.
Quelle surprise.
> If it is true (and as I said previously, I don't trust
> any of the information given on this issue), then it seems
> highly ironic given Mexico's puny desirability as an
> immigration destination and their corrupt infrastructure.
When you're in Guatemala and El Salvador, even Mexico looks good.
> > It's amazing how every time anyone in America tries to
> > either enforce our current law or pass tougher new laws,
> > everyone from guys like you to the elites in Mexico City
> > starts screeching "Racism!" like a whipped harridan. Why
> > is it racist for the USA to control its border but its not
> > racist for Mexico to control theirs?
> I don't know anyone who is amazed by it except for those who
> can't see past their noses, but then they are the ones who
> are amazed when they walk into lamp posts, too. If you admitted
> you don't like brown people, I would be much more inclined to
> hear you out before dismissing you out of hand.
You elitist asshole. You know nothing about me. I'm married to a "brown
person". My kids are "brown people".
And there are plenty of "brown people" who stood in line, took the
classes, filled out the forms and waited their turn to become citizens
who feel exactly as I do. I suppose they hate themselves, too? That's
the typical response from morons like you who think everyone must be a
racist if they don't love the idea of millions of people flooding into
this country and using the taxpayers to subsidize everything from their
health care to their kids' education.
I couldn't give two shits what color they are. I'm sure you won't
believe this because you see bogeyman racists hiding in every shadow but
I would feel *exactly* the same way if we had millions of Canadians
coming at us from the other direction.
> > Well, that and the fact that they BROKE THE LAW.
>
> So did the numerous people driving 90 on my local freeway
> yesterday. Does that make them illegal drivers?
Yes.
> Each of those individual speeders presented a greater and
> more immediate risk than practically any undocumented foreigner.
> The economic result of their behavior is clearly recorded by
> numerous sources. Where is the outcry for enforcement?
Just about everywhere. The local news constantly does stories on
dangerous intersections, speeders, red-light runners and how the cops
are stepping up enforcement, yada, yada, yada.
Of course this is nothing but another irrelevant strawman that assumes
that we can only enforce one law at a time. Anyone with a brain knows
that's not true. That's why we have a Highway Patrol (for speeders) and
a Border Patrol (for illegals).
> > You seem to be a subscriber to a peculiar mindset I've
> > seen elsewhere, regarding other issues of crime and law
> > enforcement, which says that if enough minorities choose
> > to break a given law, society is no longer morally allowed
> > to enforce that law because it becomes de facto "unfair"
> > to those minorities and anyone who does try and enforce
> > it becomes a racist per se.
>
> Wow, you sure nailed me. You are as perceptive in your personal
> apprehension as in your political view.
Apparently more perceptive than you are about me, chief.
Thanatos
"Don" <one-if-...@concord.com> wrote:
> "Thanatos"> wrote
> > Why is the US the only country on earth that's expected
> > to just throw open the gates and hope for the best?
>
> Why?
> Ever heard of the word *freedom*?
Nice platitude but meaningless in this context. All of the "enlightened"
freedom-loving European countries have strict entry requirements. We
should, too.
> YOU don't get to tell other people where they can go.
Yes, I do. I get to vote and the people who get elected get to make laws
and set up enforcement that does just that. Every country gets to do
that in regard to its own borders.
> Now come on back with some of your goofy leftist tripe.
Me? Leftist?
LOL! Now *that* is hilarious. Either you haven't been paying attention
or the term "leftist" doesn't mean what you apparently think it does.
Thanatos
> On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 06:42:44 -0400, Thanatos <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <051020070215029051%takebac...@2008.com>,
> > Audie Murphy's Ghost <takebac...@2008.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <atropos-B64857...@news.giganews.com>, Thanatos
> >> <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > In article <bearclaw-5DE6A6...@news.supernews.com>,
> >> > bear...@cruller.invalid wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > "Illegal immigrant" means brown Mexican.
> >> >
> >> > No, it means anyone who enters the country contrary to law.
> >> >
> >> > I know that it's currently in vogue among leftists to
> >> > shut down any discussion of this issue by screaming
> >> > "racism!" the moment anyone brings it up (because everyone
> >> > in this country has been conditioned to be hysterically
> >> > afraid of being labeled a racist, whether it's true or not)
> >> > but we're not falling for it any more.
> >> I have never, not once, heard any of you Mexican-bashers
> >> say anything about illegal immigration by Canadians, Irish
> >> (or any other Western Europeans), or pretty much anybody
> >> that's white and has some money.
> >Well, now you have. An illegal Irish or Canadian or
> >Australian alien should be scooped up and kicked out of
> >the country just like any other illegal alien.
> That will probably be perceived as a racist lie.
> Don't expect people who can't see past complexion to
> believe you.
I'm sure it will and I don't. I learned a long time ago there's no way
to actually talk to a race baiter.
> >> There are plenty of them here -- so when, pray tell,
> >> were the hysterical roundups of barmaids working the
> >> night shift in Queens?
> >
> >If they're illegal, they should be rounded up today.
>
> My wife just told me a neighbor's house is for sale. He was an
> illegal from Poland, his wife left him and went back there, and
> reported him to the ICE. He was deported to Poland.
> Good for ICE. None in this thread will complain about me saying that,
> of course.
> After all, he has the right complexion to qualify for deportation.
> Having grown up and worked with people of many ethnicities, including
> Mexican-Americans, I've got a good nose for racism and prejudice.
> Those looking at this as a "racial" issue instead of a
> border/economics issue, and accusing others of racism pretty well
> reveal their hearts; only blatant racists. latent racists, or those
> guilt-ridden about race and who can not see beyond race constantly
> dwell on race, or invoke race when it suits their paranoia.
> Those throwing down the race card in this thread are mostly sadly
> reminiscent of those well-off socialites Tom Wolfe wrote about in
> Radical Chic, who when entertaining the Black Panthers
> dismissed the black help for the night and hired white looking Latinos
> to serve the canapes.
> Of course the penurious sods here just want Mexicans to cheaply mow
> their damn lawns. They're too fucking white to do that themselves.
> And these cheap asses call others racists just to justify continued
> neat lawns and low strawberry prices! Pure dittybags.
> And then there are those race-to-the-bottom free market capitalist
> scum who are too busy thinking of how to score an extra buck to even
> bother with race. GWB and Chambers of Commerce fit in well here.
> BTW, I've seen figures that about half of Mexican-Americans oppose
> illegal immigration. God damn racists.
Well said. I posted this earlier but I don't see it so I'll say it again:
It's amazing that with attitudes like this it's the folks who favor
secure borders that are routinely branded as racist.
They're apparently arguing that the status quo must be maintained: that
there needs to be a permanent underclass populated by some group--
whether it's illegals or American citizens-- that is perpetually
exploited and paid less than the law requires, otherwise our economy
cannot survive. And since American citizens will always have the option
of reporting any attempts to undercut the minimum wage laws to the
authorities, it necessarily falls on the shoulders of the illegal "brown
people" to fill this essential niche in our society. After all if
illegals are working jobs for less than minimum wage, it's *because*
they are illegal and the employers know they have no recourse-- if they
complain to the authorities, they'll get deported so they have to just
shut up and take whatever is handed to them.
Who's the racist again?
Thanatos
bear...@cruller.invalid wrote:
> In article <b7qcg316rrqfhdmgu...@4ax.com>,
> Vic Smith <thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Of course the penurious sods here just want Mexicans to cheaply mow
> > their damn lawns. They're too fucking white to do that themselves.
>
> LOL. I had to laugh because I once made a pretty good living at lawn and
> yard care. Bearclaw's LawN Order. I'm really glad I don't have to do
> that anymore, too.
>
> > And then there are those race-to-the-bottom free market capitalist
> > scum who are too busy thinking of how to score an extra buck to even
> > bother with race. GWB and Chambers of Commerce fit in well here.
>
> Bush wouldn't fit well anywhere but in a straitjacket.
>
> But I take your point, and I admit freely that I am concerned about the
> aging of America, including me. There are not enough workers coming up
> to maintain production in an economy expected to support the cornucopia
> of ailments of old age and dotage. The government is doing nothing to
> prepare for this. It's like they are paralyzed. Or stupid. Or
> incompetent. And hey, they are all practically to a man, strenuously
> opposed to "illegal" immigration.
No, they're not. No one in the government is opposed to illegal
immigration. They just say they are to placate their constituents, then
turn around and do nothing to solve the problem or, even worse, actively
oppose anyone who does.
Thanatos
Audie Murphy's Ghost <takebac...@2008.com> wrote:
> In article <atropos-219FF0...@news.giganews.com>, Thanatos
> <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <051020070215029051%takebac...@2008.com>,
> > Audie Murphy's Ghost <takebac...@2008.com> wrote:
> > > I have never, not once, heard any of you Mexican-bashers
> > > say anything about illegal immigration by Canadians,
> > > Irish (or any other Western Europeans), or pretty much
> > > anybody that's white and has some money.
> > Well, now you have. An illegal Irish or Canadian or
> > Australian alien should be scooped up and kicked out
> > of the country just like any other illegal alien.
>
> Too damn late, Thanny.
Too late for what?
> Anyway, in five minutes this'll be all about
> Mexicans again.
They are the vast majority of the offenders of the law. Why wouldn't
most of the discussion be about them?
In Washington, DC, the vast majority of murders are committed by blacks.
Should we just stop enforcing the homicide laws until the white people
catch up on the killing?
Thanatos
"Don" <one-if-...@concord.com> wrote:
> "Thanatos" <atr...@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:atropos-A78CB6...@news.giganews.com...
> > In article <fe3h2...@news5.newsguy.com>,
> > "Don" <one-if-...@concord.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "cloud dreamer"> wrote
> >> > Teehee. Yeah. I saw something a few months ago in which the reporter
> >> > spoke
> >> > to a strawberry farmer who had been in the business for more than 25
> >> > years. When he was asked if he felt bad "stealing" jobs from Americans
> >> > by
> >> > using illegal immigrants, he said that he had never ever had an
> >> > American
> >> > come to him looking for a job.
> >> >
> >> > The crew then went to a local town and asked some of the locals why
> >> > they
> >> > wouldn't pick strawberries and they all agreed that it doesn't pay
> >> > enough...saying they'd have to be paid $1000 a week to pick them!!!
> >> >
> >> > Now, imagine what strawberries would cost with Americans picking them.
> >> > (And of course, it doesn't just apply to strawberries).
> >>
> >> No one would buy them of course and the business would fail
> >> and thats a lesson contained in basic Economics 101. Survivors
> >> of the public schools fiasco are naturally ignorant of such
> >> things.
> >
> > It's amazing that with attitudes like this it's the folks who favor
> > secure borders that are routinely branded as racist.
> >
> > You're apparently arguing that the status quo must be maintained: that
> > there needs to be a permanent underclass populated by some group--
> > whether it's illegals or American citizens-- that is perpetually
> > exploited and paid less than the law requires, otherwise our economy
> > cannot survive. And since American citizens will always have the option
> > of reporting any attempts to undercut the minimum wage laws to the
> > authorities, it necessarily falls on the shoulders of the illegal "brown
> > people" to fill this essential niche in our society. After all if
> > illegals are working jobs for less than minimum wage, it's *because*
> > they are illegal and the employers know they have no recourse-- if they
> > complain to the authorities, they'll get deported so they have to just
> > shut up and take whatever is handed to them.
> >
> > Who's the racist again?
>
> YOU don't get to dictate how people work.
YOU don't even make sense. Get back to me when you have a lucid thought.
Thanatos
nob...@junk.min.net wrote:
> In <hinbg3ldbon17eg50...@4ax.com>, on 10/05/07
> at 02:09 AM, Rob Jensen <Shut...@aol.com> said:
>
> >The real criminals, the real thiefs, are the corporations. Until they
> >have no incentive to use illegals, illegals will continue to be abused
> >and exploited and US standards of living will continue to go down. So
> >the appropriate punishment is to hold the corporations accountable for
> >their crimes against both sets of victims -- not just the illegals (whose
> >exploitation is IMO bad enough), but more importantly, but also the
> >American people and the damage those psychopathic MBAs have inflicted on
> >the country with what really is *their* ongoing crime.
>
> And it's the corporations that control the politicians - of both parties -
> which is why the illegal immigration issue is all talk. Neither party
> wants to bite the corporate hands that feed them.
Amen.
Thanatos
bear...@cruller.invalid wrote:
> In article <041020071414487804%takebac...@2008.com>,
> Audie Murphy's Ghost <takebac...@2008.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1191521103.5...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
> > Ted <tedo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Remove the stinking illegals and you will find persons willing to
> > > pick the crops.
> >
> > Fine! When are you volunteering? Or are we going to get one of
> > those "I spent half my life picking crops" lies?
>
> Heh. I spent some time picking apples in Washington. I hope I never
> have to do it again. That's where I met the kids of some "illegal"
> immigrants. Lived with one for a while. Watched her go from Cesar
> Chavez demonstrations to college and-- last I heard-- she is an
> engineer for IBM. Her sister-- an unmarried mother who was on welfare
> for a time-- is now a doctor of vocational rehab, owns several rental
> properties and has paid back California for every dime she ever got
> from her welfare benefits. Both of them now have families with kids of
> their own attending college.
>
> Yeah, boy. Those immigrants are just killing us.
Why is it when someone gives a personal anecdote that refutes something
you say, you're dismissive of it (as you were elsewhere in this thread)
but you expect your own personal anecdotes to be taken as illustrative
proof?
Thanatos
bear...@cruller.invalid wrote:
> In article <RPyNi.107992$GO6....@newsfe21.lga>,
> clams casino <PeterG...@drunkin-clam.com> wrote:
>
> > Any examples of which (illegal) groups are being over looked?
>
> How about the guys that piloted the planes into the WTC?
They weren't here illegally. They were actually documented foreign
nationals. Unfortunately.
Thanatos
Rob Jensen <Shut...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 10:24:08 -0230, cloud dreamer
> <Global_...@is.real> wrote:
>
> >Rob Jensen wrote:
> >> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 10:36:09 -0230, cloud dreamer
> >> <Global_...@is.real> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Funny how guys like Bill will whine over illegal immigrants but is happy
> >>> to buy cheap strawberries made possible only by their labour. I doubt
> >>> he'd be willing to bend over and pick in the hot sun for their wages.
> >>
> >> Well, my thing as a flaming liberal wouldn't be to slam the illegal
> >> immigrants with any more penalties. The only thing to do is to go
> >> after the real lawbreakers
> >
> >
> >Then you need to start at the top and export George to The Hague.
>
> OK! Let's do it! Well, the ICC will drag him, Cheney, Rumsfeld and
> Gonzales off to trials for their War Crimes sooner or later.
No, it won't.
The ICC has no jurisdiction in the U.S.
[And to head off the inevitable ad hominems: please don't construe this
response as support for the Bush Administration.]
Thanatos
bear...@cruller.invalid wrote:
> In article <fzzNi.107997$GO6....@newsfe21.lga>,
> clams casino <PeterG...@drunkin-clam.com> wrote:
> > You've obviously lead a very sheltered life. Obviously you've never
> > left the US.
>
> Wow, how DO you Usenet denizens do it?
He says as if he's somehow different from everyone else here.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> FDR <nos...@asdfkdskkl.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> FDR <nos...@asdfkdskkl.com> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> FDR <nos...@asdfkdskkl.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>> Don <one-if-...@concord.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Jerry Okamura wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Tell me "who" is serious about solving the illegal immigration problem.
>>>>>>>>> Can you accurately describe the problem?
>>>>>>>> Yep, that there are illegals in the country who arent allowed to be there.
>>>>>>> Why?
>>>>>> Because they have decided that its better than the country they came from.
>>>>> I mean, why is it illegal?
>>>> Because that country decided that they dont want to
>>>> allow anyone who wants to migrate there to do that.
>>> But they do.
>> Not voluntarily, just because of the cost of keeping all the illegals out.
>>> Millions didn't come here magically. The government may have written the law but they really didn't mean it.
>> Corse they do. Get a foreigner to try showing up at the border and telling the goon that you want to migrate into the
>> country. They will be told they cant.
> Yeah, well then where are all the goons?
At the borders, stupid.
> Exactly, not enough of them.
It isnt practical to have them on every street corner demanding ID of
everyone who passes, and fools like you would be howling if they did that.
> The government isn't serious about the law.
Have fun explaining the goons at the border.
> By intentionally underfunding the border guard program
Just another of your pathetic excuse for a mindless troll.
> they are saying it's ok to come on on and be our guest worker for a buck an hour picking lettuce.
There's an entirely different system for those.
And fools like you would be howling if there was none of that sort of
thing buyable anymore and it was all imported because there was
noone who would do that sort of work at a reasonable price anymore.
FDR
Bullshit. Millions don't get in if there's an effective border patrol.
The patrol is like swiss cheese. And the government doesn't care all
that much that it is. So the US has put in a BS law that they
selectively enforce. And it's ok with them because they don't care to
really crack down on the businesses that employ them either because it
helps the agricultural and food industries.
But go ahead, tell me about the illegality of it again.
Audie Murphy's Ghost
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It isnt practical to have them on every street corner demanding ID of
> everyone who passes, and fools like you would be howling if they did that.
So those who object to having ID demanded of passersby for no reason at
all are "fools"?
Do you think about this stuff before you spew it out, or does it just
gush?
William December Starr
clams casino <PeterG...@drunkin-clam.com> said:
> Hint - there are legal ways to inter the country and illegal ways.
>
> What part of illegal is difficult for you to understand?
The obvious counter-question being "Okay, it's illegal... now, what
part of 'Some illegal acts are worse than others and not everybody
is as obsessed with this particular one as you are?' don't _you_ get?"
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
Rob Jensen
>In article <08rcg3ddol60pii4r...@4ax.com>,
> Rob Jensen <Shut...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 10:24:08 -0230, cloud dreamer
>> <Global_...@is.real> wrote:
>>
>> >Rob Jensen wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 10:36:09 -0230, cloud dreamer
>> >> <Global_...@is.real> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Funny how guys like Bill will whine over illegal immigrants but is happy
>> >>> to buy cheap strawberries made possible only by their labour. I doubt
>> >>> he'd be willing to bend over and pick in the hot sun for their wages.
>> >>
>> >> Well, my thing as a flaming liberal wouldn't be to slam the illegal
>> >> immigrants with any more penalties. The only thing to do is to go
>> >> after the real lawbreakers
>> >
>> >
>> >Then you need to start at the top and export George to The Hague.
>>
>> OK! Let's do it! Well, the ICC will drag him, Cheney, Rumsfeld and
>> Gonzales off to trials for their War Crimes sooner or later.
>
>No, it won't.
>
>The ICC has no jurisdiction in the U.S.
That won't hold up in the eyes of the US people, much less the ICC or
the UN, when it happens -- the Cheney Hegemony has clearly committed
war crimes. And frankly, when they come for the Shrub, Cheney,
Rumsfeld and Gonzales, nobody but the Faux Noisehounds will even
attempt to stick up for them.
>[And to head off the inevitable ad hominems: please don't construe this
>response as support for the Bush Administration.]
No worries. I didn't take it that way. Okay, *because* of the
qualifier. [vbeg!] If we're ever in the same bar during the War
Crimes trials, I'll buy ya a glass.
-- Rob
--
LORELAI: I am so done with plans. I am never, ever making one again.
It never works. I spend the day obsessing over why it didn't work
and what I could've done differently. I'm analyzing all my shortcomings
when all I really need to be doing is vowing to never, ever make a plan
ever again, which I'm doing now, having once again been the innocent
victim of my own stupid plans. God, I need some coffee.
cop...@yahoo.com
> On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:51:37 -0400, Thanatos <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
> >In article <08rcg3ddol60pii4r0e88b9t2vmqnrd...@4ax.com>,
> > Rob Jensen <ShutUp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 10:24:08 -0230, cloud dreamer
> >> <Global_Warm...@is.real> wrote:
>
> >> >Rob Jensen wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 10:36:09 -0230, cloud dreamer
> >> >> <Global_Warm...@is.real> wrote:
>
> >> >>> Funny how guys like Bill will whine over illegal immigrants but is happy
> >> >>> to buy cheap strawberries made possible only by their labour. I doubt
> >> >>> he'd be willing to bend over and pick in the hot sun for their wages.
>
> >> >> Well, my thing as a flaming liberal wouldn't be to slam the illegal
> >> >> immigrants with any more penalties. The only thing to do is to go
> >> >> after the real lawbreakers
>
> >> >Then you need to start at the top and export George to The Hague.
>
> >> OK! Let's do it! Well, the ICC will drag him, Cheney, Rumsfeld and
> >> Gonzales off to trials for their War Crimes sooner or later.
>
> >No, it won't.
>
> >The ICC has no jurisdiction in the U.S.
>
> That won't hold up in the eyes of the US people, much less the ICC or
> the UN, when it happens -- the Cheney Hegemony has clearly committed
> war crimes. And frankly, when they come for the Shrub, Cheney,
> Rumsfeld and Gonzales, nobody but the Faux Noisehounds will even
> attempt to stick up for them.
And what clear crimes are these?
Brandon
Rod Speed
>> It isnt practical to have them on every street corner demanding ID of everyone
>> who passes, and fools like you would be howling if they did that.
> So those who object to having ID demanded
> of passersby for no reason at all are "fools"?
Nope, fools like that particular fools are fools. Thats why the words 'like you' were included, fool.
<reams of your puerile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
Audie Murphy's Ghost
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
In other words, you're babbling nonsense again. Big surprise there.
BTW, I posted one line, and it was a decent question, even if you were
too damn dumb to answer it.
clams casino
Actually - I don't.
Explain how being an illegal immigrant is better (for the US) than being
a legal one.
Other than perhaps (for the illegal) bypassing the line for all those
who are attempting to get here legally.
Rod Speed
> In article <5mom7pF...@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed
> <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Audie Murphy's Ghost <takebac...@2008.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>>>> It isnt practical to have them on every street corner demanding ID
>>>> of everyone who passes, and fools like you would be howling if
>>>> they did that.
>>
>>> So those who object to having ID demanded of passersby for no
>>> reason at all are "fools"?
>>
>> Nope, fools like that particular fools are fools. Thats why the words
>> 'like you' were included, fool.
<reams of your puerile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
Nothing left, wota surprise.
Thanatos
Rob Jensen <Shut...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:51:37 -0400, Thanatos <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <08rcg3ddol60pii4r...@4ax.com>,
> > Rob Jensen <Shut...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 10:24:08 -0230, cloud dreamer
> >> <Global_...@is.real> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Rob Jensen wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 10:36:09 -0230, cloud dreamer
> >> >> <Global_...@is.real> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> Funny how guys like Bill will whine over illegal immigrants but is
> >> >>> happy
> >> >>> to buy cheap strawberries made possible only by their labour. I doubt
> >> >>> he'd be willing to bend over and pick in the hot sun for their wages.
> >> >>
> >> >> Well, my thing as a flaming liberal wouldn't be to slam the illegal
> >> >> immigrants with any more penalties. The only thing to do is to go
> >> >> after the real lawbreakers
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Then you need to start at the top and export George to The Hague.
> >>
> >> OK! Let's do it! Well, the ICC will drag him, Cheney, Rumsfeld and
> >> Gonzales off to trials for their War Crimes sooner or later.
> >
> >No, it won't.
> >
> >The ICC has no jurisdiction in the U.S.
>
> That won't hold up in the eyes of the US people,
Actually, every time the U.S. populace is polled, the majority supports
the US staying out of the ICC.
> much less the ICC or the UN, when it happens
Who cares what the ICC or the UN think? An organization that puts Syria
on its Human Rights committee has no credibility.
> -- the Cheney Hegemony has clearly committed war crimes. And
> frankly, when they come for the Shrub, Cheney, Rumsfeld and
> Gonzales, nobody but the Faux Noisehounds will even attempt
> to stick up for them.
There will be a helluva lot more than a news network standing against
them if foreign military or law enforcement personnel attempt to operate
on US soil.
> >[And to head off the inevitable ad hominems: please don't construe this
> >response as support for the Bush Administration.]
>
> No worries. I didn't take it that way. Okay, *because* of the
> qualifier. [vbeg!] If we're ever in the same bar during the War
> Crimes trials, I'll buy ya a glass.
Well, they'll have to be trials in absentia but you're on.
Thanatos
FDR <nos...@asdfkdskkl.com> wrote:
> Rod Speed wrote:
> > FDR <nos...@asdfkdskkl.com> wrote
> >> Yeah, well then where are all the goons?
> >
> > At the borders, stupid.
>
> Bullshit. Millions don't get in if there's an effective
> border patrol. The patrol is like swiss cheese. And the
> government doesn't care all that much that it is.
But the people do-- in overwhelming numbers. Slowly but surely the
politicians are starting to get that message, some of them only after
they've been tossed out on their asses.
bear...@cruller.invalid
Thanatos <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> I again refer you to that peculiar mindset I've seen elsewhere,
> regarding other issues of crime and law enforcement, which says that
> if enough minorities choose to break a given law, society is no
> longer morally allowed to enforce that law because it becomes de
> facto "unfair" to those minorities and anyone who does try and
> enforce it becomes a racist per se.
Refer away, I have no clue what you are talking about. I'm talking
about an issue-- "illegal immigrants-- being pushed by those with a
cut-and-dried racist agenda. What are you talking about? And why do you
need to reach outside the topic to justify your opinion?
> The fact that a large number of Latinos choose to break this law
> hardly makes those who enforce it racist.
It does when they are not sworn officers of the law (as in
"Minuteman"). Just like homosexuals, being a flaming racist doesn't
make you not a racist.
> This reminds me of the "community activists" in Dallas several years
> ago that were calling the police department racist because 70% of the
> people arrested for murder that year were black.
Because *you* consider this fact to be irrelevant? To have no impact on
the crime or the enforcement of the laws against it? You think it
doesn't bear examination, so it should be ignored? You also seem to
think that crossing the border without documentation is equivalent to
murder, since you continue to push the comparison.
I think your judgement leaves a lot to be desired.
> Apparently in the minds of these "community activists", the mere fact
> that blacks were choosing to commit murder in much higher numbers
> than anyone else meant the the cops in Dallas should just stop
> enforcing the homicide laws.
Again, I really doubt anyone was saying anything like that, although
you might have heard that because it is an easy position to stand
against.
> It's a bizarre argument to make.
It should be, you made it up.
> Just for clarity, what exactly is the racial percentage of offenders
> such that once the threshold is crossed, we're no longer allowed
> enforce a given law without being racists?
You are racist until you are not. You decide.
> you haven't been paying attention.
I have been trying desperately not to pay any attention to what I
consider a distraction to real issues; trying to ignore what I consider
a waste of time and effort, but those like you who demand like infants
they be heard make it practically impossible to ignore.
> Try getting into Japan sometime without legal permission
I wondered when you would bring up island nations without frontiers to
other nations. And you accuse me of bullshit.
> Or even Mexico. Get caught there without legal status and you go to
> prison. Not catch-and-release, not deportation. Prison.
Mexican borders are crossed every single day in both directions without
any official documentation whatsoever.
> You elitist asshole.
You racist, dung-eating worm.
> You know nothing about me.
Much more than I ever wanted to know. I would have been just as happy
if you stayed under your rock.
> I'm married to a "brown person". My kids are "brown people".
What, you mean their avatars? Well, I'm Bill Gates. I'm married to
Melinda.
> there are plenty of "brown people" who stood in line, took the
> classes, filled out the forms and waited their turn to become
> citizens who feel exactly as I do.
Yeah, how about some more numbers? You can just pull 'em right out of
the same hat!
> I suppose they hate themselves, too? That's the typical response from
> morons like you who think everyone must be a racist if they don't
> love the idea of millions of people flooding into this country and
> using the taxpayers to subsidize everything from their health care to
> their kids' education.
Tsk. Typical overwrought handwringing of a soulless pansy who can't
understand that his issue is as worthless as the rest of his life.
> I couldn't give two shits what color they are
As long as you can hate 'em and hurt 'em right? That's all that gives
your worthless life meaning, after all.
> I'm sure you won't believe this because you see bogeyman racists
> hiding in every shadow but I would feel *exactly* the same way if we
> had millions of Canadians coming at us from the other direction.
Dude, I wouldn't believe your story if the title was "Water is Wet". How
many times do you need to hear it?
Go take care of your imaginary family and leave the real world to the
rest of us. Don't worry, the grownups won't let the Mexicans get you.
bear...@cruller.invalid
Thanatos <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
Really? So then, how about illegals who have plotted or carried out
similar actions?
What? There aren't any?
Rob Jensen
>> much less the ICC or the UN, when it happens
>
>Who cares what the ICC or the UN think? An organization that puts Syria
>on its Human Rights committee has no credibility.
Actually, that (and the simultaneous removal of the US from the HRC)
were deliberate and entirely justified snubs of the US in which the UN
says, "Despite Syria's obvious shortcomings, it's more moral on the
subject of Human Rights than the US is."
It's an entirely accurate (and IMO entirely justifiable reflection of
the regards of the rest of the world, even our allies, has for the US
on the subject of human rights.
>> -- the Cheney Hegemony has clearly committed war crimes. And
>> frankly, when they come for the Shrub, Cheney, Rumsfeld and
>> Gonzales, nobody but the Faux Noisehounds will even attempt
>> to stick up for them.
>
>There will be a helluva lot more than a news network standing against
>them if foreign military or law enforcement personnel attempt to operate
>on US soil.
Which won't happen. I think they'll be handed over to the ICC on a
silver platter. Not necessarily by whoever the eventual new president
is, either.
>> >[And to head off the inevitable ad hominems: please don't construe this
>> >response as support for the Bush Administration.]
>>
>> No worries. I didn't take it that way. Okay, *because* of the
>> qualifier. [vbeg!] If we're ever in the same bar during the War
>> Crimes trials, I'll buy ya a glass.
>
>Well, they'll have to be trials in absentia but you're on.
Cool!
(Won't be trials in absentia, either, but, hey, that's a great subject
for a bet! ;) )
Audie Murphy's Ghost
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
And so here you are, endlessly copying and pasting a half-assed "reply"
again, like a two-year-old monkey playing with his own turds.
Everybody's noticed, Ook Ook. You're not worth anyone's time, least of
all mine.
William December Starr
clams casino <PeterG...@drunkin-clam.com> said:
I don't say it's better. I just say that it doesn't seem like that
big a deal to me, especially in comparison to all the heat that's
being generated over it these days.
||| |||||| || | ||||
"Don" <one-if-...@concord.com> wrote in message
news:fe3g...@news5.newsguy.com...
>
> "Ted" <tedo...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> Remove the stinking illegals and you will find persons willing to pick
>> did in WW2 with millions in uniforms. Eliminating the social costs of
>> these invaders would
>> more than compensate for any brief inconvenience.
>
> Couldn't help but notice you didn't mention anything at all about the
> people that steal the money in the first place and give it to the so
> called *illegals*.
>
Don's a smart nice guy.
>
Thanatos
Rob Jensen <Shut...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 07:04:28 -0400, Thanatos <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >> much less the ICC or the UN, when it happens
> >
> > Who cares what the ICC or the UN think? An organization that
> > puts Syria on its Human Rights committee has no credibility.
>
> Actually, that (and the simultaneous removal of the US from the HRC)
> were deliberate and entirely justified snubs of the US in which the UN
> says, "Despite Syria's obvious shortcomings, it's more moral on the
> subject of Human Rights than the US is."
Like I said, they have no credibility.
Do we execute people for not following a state religion?
No.
Do we systematically and throughout all levels of society impose social,
political and sexual oppression on women merely because they are women?
No.
And that's just two examples. The U.S. may have its shortcomings
(there's not a country on the planet that doesn't) but to say that Syria
is actually *better* is outright idiocy.
The United Nations is so corrupt, it makes our Congress look like a
choirboy convention. Nothing they say or do has any credibility
whatsoever.
> >> -- the Cheney Hegemony has clearly committed war crimes. And
> >> frankly, when they come for the Shrub, Cheney, Rumsfeld and
> >> Gonzales, nobody but the Faux Noisehounds will even attempt
> >> to stick up for them.
> > There will be a helluva lot more than a news network
> > standing against them if foreign military or law enforcement
> > personnel attempt to operate on US soil.
> Which won't happen. I think they'll be handed over to the
> ICC on a silver platter.
Please elaborate on how you see this occurring.
And note that if the USA doesn't participate in the ICC, the ICC has no
legal jurisdiction over its citizens.
Thanatos
bear...@cruller.invalid wrote:
> As long as you can hate 'em and hurt 'em right? That's all that gives
> your worthless life meaning, after all.
"Aaaahhhhh! Look! There's racists everywhere. Everyone's a racist but
me!"
You're a cartoon.