Tuesday, March 14, 2006

Let's see how many people I can piss off in one post

(Just getting angry)

I come home to my inbox to see that there is a small disagreement between two people whom I respect: Gullyborg and Rick Hickey.

Rick sent out an email to his personal contact list blasting Jason Atkinson and supporting Ron Saxton based mostly on this from an Oregonian article:

"At a debate Monday, candidates were asked if Oregon should stop educating children of illegal immigrants. Only Saxton said it should."

Gullyborg responded that Saxton was making "promises he couldn't keep" since a Supreme Court decision says we have to educate the criminal alien's kids. A lengthy (by that I mean filled with lots of information) blog post ensued.

Several comments have been left regarding this post and various amendments to the constituion and blah blah blah.

My only comment:

I don't give a f**k what the law says, we shouldn't educate the children of illegal aliens. (If I was running for governor I would say that on a TV spot, they would have to bleep me)

I absolutely like Saxtons answer the best. He wasn't asked what the law was, he was asked if Oregon should stop doing something. Should we stop letting sluts kill their babies? Yes, I don't give a f**k what the supreme court says. Should government be able to take my house and give it to a big developer? No, I don't give a f**k what the supreme court says.

And this is from Atkinson's campaign manager last week (3/8/06):

"if bush wants to allow illegals to get guest worker status, jason disagrees."

If?!?!?!? Are you f**king stupid? Are you the only clueless person in this country who doesn't get that Bush's plan is amnesty? Did you not alienate enough voters last time you started talking like this? That's great the "Jason disagrees" but you obviously aren't willing to stand up to Republican "leadership" and tell them their ideas are f**king stupid.

Not at all in the interest of being fair and balance but in the interest of holding anyone accountable who needs it: (in the vein of my friend at RINOWatch)

From an OFF (Oregon Firearms Federation) email:

"Ron Saxton has ties to Goldschmidt and has refused to give us any details on his position on gun rights."

"Of the major Republican candidates, Kevin Mannix was the architect of the 1999 anti gun-show bill.When he ran for Governor last time he actually claimed to have opposed this bill, which he WROTE, LOBBIED FOR, and CARRIED ON THE HOUSE FLOOR."

Clearly no candidate here is perfect. We can choose between:

the abortion loving Saxton who is sounding conservative during the Republican primary but seriously, how do you reconcile with someone who doesn't have a personal problem with someone drilling into a babies skull and sucking his/her brain out...

or the conservative Atkinson who won't stand up to Republican leadership or the farmers on the issue of illegal aliens and apparently thinks that Oregon shouldn't stop educating the children of illegal aliens. (He should think that, I don't give a f**k what the law says)

and the former Democrat who, and I'm beating this dead horse yet again, actually I used a defibrilator on the horse so I could kill it again and then gave it mouth to mouth and then killed it ONE MORE TIME so I could continue to beat it: I can't get over the Steve Duinn colum that Mannix did... or the Mexican flags on the Oregon republican party website. You want to run for a position in Mexico then f**king go there. You can probably hitch a ride with the Oregon public school teachers who go down there to borrow their (obviously highly successful) curriculum.



Who was that other guy running? Ames? Maybe I'll vote for that guy. Or maybe I'll register as a Constituion Party member. Republicans sure don't seem to get it. Maybe I'll just write Lars Larson's name in.

Can someone recommend a good therapist?

32 comments:

Vonski said...

Stop beating around the bush, Daniel. I never know what you're really thinking! Heh.

RINO WATCH said...

My friend Daniel,

Calm down pal. You're too young to have a heart attack over politicians.

You are passionate in your cause and that is GREAT!

You are full of intregrity and that is GREAT!

So don't get so worked up over politicicans who don't give a rats ass about you or me. They don't like me 'cause, like you, I say it like it is.

Get a good nights sleep and know that, unlike politicians, you can come back tomorrow and NOT WORRY ABOUT WHAT YOU SAID TODAY....Good night, RW
...... Ah zzzzzzzz

Anonymous said...

Nine words I never thought I'd hear Daniel say:

"I don't give a fuck what the law says"

Nice.

Daniel, run for governor...Please!

I am Coyote said...

Good therapist?

Well I like taking my son to basketball tournaments and watching my 6 year old girl sing to songs on the radio.

But if ya don't have that kind of therapy immediatly available?

Try a little scotch on the rocks and watch some Survivor on TV.

yip yip

Anonymous said...

OH BOY, where to start:

I'm with Daniel, the Republicans don't get it...nor CARE!

If their not "Harry Truman" Democrats(GOD LOVE THEM), their insane as Savage said.

If AMES keeps talking, he has my vote.

In my quest to call attention to the placement of "dangerous", CRIMINALLY INSANE people next to grade schools in grouphomes, I've come in contact with Kevin Mannix, Kate Brown, Dan Gardner, Tanya Collier, all of the council people currently, Mayor Katz (who I worked to recall) I thought the worst was Kate Brown (O'Reilly will have her Butt one of these days) AND THE WORST, Randy Leonard, for saying one thing,doing another...blaming me for his failed attempt at correcting the problem, and then telling his consituents that he is for "community safety" as 300 more of these "mis-understood" mentally ill people continue to be placed in local communities.

When elected officals like Brown an Leonard continue to be elected,an Vance Day telljust kidding.Year=2006

Anonymous said...

OH BOY, where to start:

I'm with Daniel, the Republicans don't get it...nor CARE!

If their not "Harry Truman" Democrats(GOD LOVE THEM), their insane as Savage said.

If AMES keeps talking, he has my vote.

In my quest to call attention to the placement of "dangerous", CRIMINALLY INSANE people next to grade schools in grouphomes, I've come in contact with Kevin Mannix, Kate Brown, Dan Gardner, Tanya Collier, all of the council people currently, Mayor Katz (who I worked to recall) I thought the worst was Kate Brown (O'Reilly will have her Butt one of these days) AND THE WORST, Randy Leonard, for saying one thing,doing another...blaming me for his failed attempt at correcting the problem, and then telling his consituents that he is for "community safety" as 300 more of these "mis-understood" mentally ill people continue to be placed in local communities.

When elected officals like Brown an Leonard continue to be elected,an Vance Day tell

MAX Redline said...

LOL!

Not laughing at you, per se - just the whole situation. It's enough to tick off the Good Humor Man.

For some reason, I've never been taken for the Good Humor Man. Go figure. So you know how I feel....

Anonymous said...

ABA REPORT FINDS ERODING DUE PROCESS,
TWO-TIERED JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRANTS





WASHINGTON, D.C., Aug. 4, 2004 – Sweeping changes in immigration laws have eroded the due process protection afforded to immigrants, according to a new joint report by the American Bar Association and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund. The report, “American Justice Through Immigrants’ Eyes,” details how seven years of changes in our nation’s immigration laws have created a two-tiered justice system for American immigrants, and recommends ways to restore immigrants’ due process rights.

Unless otherwise noted, the findings and recommendations in the report have not been approved by the House of Delegates or the Board of Governors of the Association and do not represent the policy of the Association.

“This report is a clear call to action,” said ABA President Dennis W. Archer. “The laws as they stand are harming thousands of U.S. families and their immigrant loved ones. We must fulfill our nation's promise as a truly inclusive society by addressing these issues and making changes that provide our nations’ immigrants the fairness and due process protections that are integral to our system of justice.”

“This report is vitally important. The way in which immigrants are treated serves as the yardstick by which we measure our nation's commitment to civil rights,” said Wade Henderson, counselor for the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund and executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. “It shows how the rights of one group of Americans – our newest Americans – have been severely eroded, setting a dangerous precedent that can easily wind up harming the rest of us.”

Among the key findings:

Changes in our nation’s immigration laws have eliminated crucial checks and balances in immigration proceedings.
Low-level immigration officers are making what can be life-and-death decisions with no standards of due process or judicial oversight.
Expanded grounds for deportation have led to far tougher penalties for those born outside the United States than for those born within.
Because many of these new laws were made retroactive, lawful permanent residents have been detained and deported for activities that occurred years ago, before they were deportable offenses.
Business travelers, people fleeing genocide and torture, abandoned children, abused women, and the developmentally disabled are among those who have been deported as a result of the changes in immigration laws. Under prior immigration laws and policies, many would have been allowed to remain.
Widespread detention of immigrants is costing U.S. taxpayers nearly a billion dollars every year and disrupts the lives of American families.
“America is a nation settled and built by immigrants. This unique national character has always been a point of pride, an asset that set us apart,” said Esther Lardent, chair of the ABA Commission on Immigration, which authored the study. “This report shows that part of our American identity is at risk. It’s time for us to come together and restore our reputation as a beacon of freedom and guardian of due process under the law.”

The report makes nearly three dozen recommendations for reform, including the following:

Severe restrictions placed on judicial review must be removed.
Access to qualified interpreters should be provided throughout the removal process, particularly in expedited removal proceedings.
Defendants in criminal proceedings should be informed of the impact on their immigration status before they enter a plea.
The immigration consequences of a conviction should be proportionate to the underlying offense.
Immigration and deportation laws should not apply retroactively.
The federal government ought not ask or require other institutions, including local and state police, to assume enforcement responsibility for federal immigration laws.

Removal hearings should be public, except when required to protect an individual’s safety or welfare, or when a judge determines that disclosure could be harmful to national security.

The report was funded by grants from the Ford Foundation and the Open Society Institute, and by support from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund. ABA staff led the initiative, with additional research contributed by the LCCREF.

The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights is the nation's oldest, largest, and most diverse civil and human rights coalition. The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund is the research, education and communications arm of the civil rights coalition.

The report is posted at http://www.abanet.org/publicserv/immigration/Due_Process.html. Hard copies of the report are available upon request.
With more than 400,000 members, the American Bar Association is the largest voluntary professional membership organization in the world. As the national voice of the legal profession, the ABA works to improve the administration of justice, promotes programs that assist lawyers and judges in their work, accredits law schools, provides continuing legal education, and works to build public understanding around the world of the importance of the rule of law in a democratic society.

Anonymous said...

Remember, in the words of Daniel:

WHO GIVES A FUCK!!!!??


ABA CALLS ON CONGRESS TO REJECT BORDER CONTROL BILL AS WRITTEN

H.R. 4437 Weakens Judicial Review, Imperils Refugees and Asylum Seekers



WASHINGTON, D.C., Dec 15, 2005 -- In a letter to members of the House of Representatives, the American Bar Association is warning that several key provisions in an immigration bill expected to reach a House vote by week’s end "may have serious, even life-threatening consequences."

The ABA expressed special concern that the bill eliminates judicial review in a broad array of situations, including visa revocations; requires individuals entering on nonimmigrant visas to waive a number of rights; and creates new barriers for asylum seekers.

"Access to the courts is an essential feature of our system of government," the ABA said in a letter signed by ABA Government Affairs Director Robert Evans. “The implementation and execution of the immigration law has often been corrected by such judicial oversight. Judicial review also has been important historically in protecting immigrants’ rights and civil liberties.”

The ABA opposes provisions that eliminate judicial review for two broad categories of individuals by expanding expedited removal, empowering low-level immigration officers to decide whether the individual has admitted to any acts that constitute a crime. "Only impartial adjudicators, preferably immigration judges, should have the authority to enter removal orders following a formal hearing that conforms to accepted norms of due process," Evans wrote.

The bill’s failure to protect refugees and asylum seekers is also of special concern to the ABA. One measure would deprive many asylum seekers and others from seeking justice at the federal court level by requiring them to make a “substantial showing” that their appeal is likely to be granted. Another would complicate attempts to seek refuge by forcing asylum seekers to state one “central” reason that they face persecution. A third provision could deny admission to any person from a country that has ever denied or delayed accepting even one of its citizens ordered removed from the United States. "Thus, ironically, individuals who are seeking refuge from countries with whom the U.S. does not have diplomatic ties, perhaps even because of a poor record on human rights, may be turned away at our borders and returned to their persecutors."

A full copy of the letter is available online at: www.abanet.org/poladv/letters/109th/immigration/home.html.

With more than 400,000 members, the American Bar Association is the largest voluntary professional membership organization in the world. As the national voice of the legal profession, the ABA works to improve the administration of justice, promotes programs that assist lawyers and judges in their work, accredits law schools, provides continuing legal education, and works to build public understanding around the world of the importance of the rule of law in a democratic society.

Anonymous said...

Oh where do I start too?


I'm such a fan of Daniel, his passion, his bravery for "walking point!"

In my quest to call attention to an issue of "community safety", that being the placement without notice of dangerous, criminally insane people out of the state mental hospital next to in our case a grade school, I have come in contact with Kevin Mannix, Kate Brown,Peter Courtney, all of the current county and city council people, face to face with Queen Vera...Sam Adams, who made the hair stand up on my neck when he came in to the meeting with his boss,and the worst...Randy Leonard,who promised to fix my problem, blamed me for not doing what he promised, then ignores to this day the fact that 300 or more of these "nice mentally ill folks" will soon be your new neigbors.

If Vance Day tells me to go to hell, when I beg him to be more aggressive fighting issues like Daniels an the one I have..then a "HARRY TRUMAN" democrat,(if there still is one)is where my vote will go. Right now, I'm with Daniel on pissing people off, they sure have me there...GOD BLESS YOU DANIEL! Jack Peek PS. I let it ruin my health....Randy Leonard and those like him aren't worth it.

Anonymous said...

SORRY FOR THE MULTIBLE POSTS...can't figure out why the mis-firings of the enter button. jp

Sue K. said...

Daniel, I don't really see any pissed off people from this post. I'm glad you were able to get some things off your chest.

p.s. Can I say the "F" word on here too sometime?

Sailor Republica said...

You're not gonna see me getting pissed off at you, Daniel, mainly because you have a good perspective on things.

peod in Oregon said...

"We've met the enemy and it is us."
Pogo.
Anonymous-thanks for your quotes from the A.B.A. They make me want to hurl.Shakespear was right. The last line sums up their complete hypocracy-"...works to build public understanding around the world of the importance of the rule of law in a democratic society." Rule of law, "ack, oop."
Bill the Cat.
What's democratic about having almost every facet of life that the majority of Americans hold dear overturned by small number of persistant murdering Communist pricks.

Daniel said...

The morning after: I don't ususally use the language that I did in this post. I'm not going to edit and I stand behind what I said.

We all know some dumb laws and if asked whether the opposite of these laws should be done we would say yes.

Bottom line: I'm not going to criticize a candidate for having the right attituted on illegal aliens.

And I'm actually glad that I didn't piss anyone off here.

Robin said...

I'm in agreement that Daniel should run for governor.

If for no other reason because Daniel stands up for what he believes in and will fight for it.

DANIEL FOR GOVERNOR!

Playin' Possum said...

HMMM...

First of all, "If I was running for governor I would say that on a TV spot, they would have to bleep me" needs a semicolon; if you are going to rant, do it correctly...

Second, "Should we stop letting sluts kill their babies?"... Observation: The "sluts" will ruin them. Question: Are you going to raise them? I'm not, and you're not - at least not with my money...

As for the rest of it...

When you say "I don't give a fuck what the supreme court says" I suspect you are voicing an opinion shared by the vast majority of Americans - about something. I think "we" are all tired of being ran over by an Imperial government. The devil is in those details. I'm with you on property rights, neutral on the education question, and against you on the abortion question.

The point being this Nation is coming apart. Ultimately I wonder if the final legacy of Bush 43 and his cabal won't be destroying what's left of our former unity. At least Slick Willie knew to let rabid dogs lay unmolested...

Some things can't be fixed. they have to be used even though broken because the "fix" is worse. You won't fix immigration with a hard line approach.

It's time to consider unification. One Nation, clear to Guatemala... At least it will "fix" the border...

Anonymous said...

"I don't give a fuck what the law says."

What a hypocrite! I don't want to hear anymore lies that Daniel opposes illegal immigration because THEY'VE broken the law. Everytime I hear you say ... "We're a nation of laws" ... I'll just requote this post.

Scottiebill said...

I believe, too, that the children of the illegal aliens should not be educated in public schools. Vickie Phillips wants to cut expenses in the Portland-area schools; this would be a good place to start. There is a law saying we have to educate them, but because the law is in place doesn't necessarily mean that it is a good law. It should be challenged and stricken from the books.

Anonymous said...

Daniel, we are a nation of laws, if you want to change the law than run for office or lobby your represenatives in government to do so. The court cannot choose to selectively enforce or not enforce the law and given that Oregon law defines education a "fundamental right" we cannot do much about those illegals sending their kids there. Additionally, if they are born in this country, as you well know, the US Constitution makes them citizens no matter what.

RINO WATCH said...

Dear Anon above 10:53,

What IF, say the Illegal parents BROUGHT their children with them and crossed into the USA ILLEGALLY?

Still say they should be (children) allowed to go to school here?

Just wondering.....

Gullyborg said...

Daniel,

The problem is you can't win an election running on a platform of ignoring the law.

Let's compare this to South Dakota and abortion:

The politicos in South Dakota have passed a new abortion ban. They did this knowing it will be rejected by the federal district court under Roe v. Wade.

The difference?

In South Dakota, the politicians MADE IT CLEAR that they know their new law will be overruled by the court, and that their goal is to take the issue to the Supreme Court, in hopes of reversing Roe v. Wade. This is a very real possibility, because by the time it gets there, there will be one more new person on the court (Stevens is OLD).

Thus, the Supreme Court becomes a campaign issue in pro-life (and to be fair, in pro-abortion) circles as we enter the 2006 and look ahead to the 2008 elections.

Will Bush be able to replace Stevens? If not, who will the next President be? Will the Senate have the power to push through a real conservative who will reverse Roe v. Wade?

These are big questions. The people in South Dakota know all this and are moving ahead with the abortion ban because of this.

Now compare to Ron Saxton:

Does the average primary voter know about the Plyer case?

No. Did you, until you read this?

Is Ron making a pledge to break federal law in order to push a test case before the Supreme Court?

No. He is assuming you and all the other voters are ignorant and will respond emotionally to the idea of kicking all the damn illegal aliens out.

If Ron was behaving like the leaders of South Dakota, and coming out fighting to change federal law, upfront with the voters that this is a long term fight (that we might not win), it would be one thing.

But Ron ain't doing that. Ron is making empty promises to do things HE CAN'T DO.

That's bad campaigning. Plain and simple.

So I understand the emotion of what you are saying. And I agree that it would be great if we could achieve it. But it is intellectually dishonest to let Ron off the hook here.

Again, we come back to the question:

Which of the three candidates who are capable of beating Kulongoski is the BEST candidate, not the PERFECT candidate. The only Perfect Man in history got nailed to a cross for it, and in the only election of his era, He came in second to Barabbas.

Jason is 95% of what you want on immigration, and is CONSISTENT about it. He makes no promises he can't keep, and where he lets you down, it's all on federal issues where no Governor can govern anyway.

Don't throw your baby out with the bath water. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face. I'm out of cliches, so I'll just say:

Have a scotch, put on comfy shoes, take a deep breath, and work for realistic and positive change for Oregon.

Rick Hickey said...

Gully, YES everyone knows about that old Supreme court decision and most of us know why if you are born here, you are poof! instant American. This was passed way back when slavery was abolished, so Africans would become Americans. Schools? The Supreme's made that stupid decision understanding that AMNESTY was coming soon, when there were only 2.7 MIL. Illegal's here not 12.2 MIL. as now.
It is time to change BOTH laws!
Jason as does Bill O'Reilly, piss me OFF!
This issue is NOT important to them and they do NOT know what the F#@K they are talking about!
Ron understands this is the #1 issue of the majority of Americans. His research has shown him that people are winnig office seats across America, JUST on this issue. Good for him, bad for Jason and Kevin. Ron understands there is NO Hispanic voting block. Many can't/won't Vote anyhow in that group overall. Ron is not afraid of alienating a group that doesn't exist, per se. Kevin & Jason (especially that website of Kevin in spanish! what a SELLOUT KEVIN!)are afraid and prove they don't know the issue.
Gully, I like Daniel's maturity and your passion. I am with Daniel, I don't trust any of these pinheads (thats why I didn't go to Dorchester and Rallied instead in Portland), but will have some respect for the one that gets the most attention on this important issue.
The Illegal's/papers/radios/blogs, etc. are MOSTly mad at Ron, NOT Jason or Kevin or the Democrats. That says a lot to me.
Daniel, I may vote for "none of the above"

Ken said...

"His research has shown him that people are winnig office seats across America, JUST on this issue."

Really? Name a few, please?

BEAR said...

Daniel, you are more correct than you might think. If the illegals are sent home, they should be given the choice of whether or not to take their anchor-children. Then the issue of educating them will become moot, unless they are abandoned. I would hope that good, Christian illegals would take their kids home with them.

BEAR said...

BTW, Daniel, thanx for the "I told you so." I'm just as disappointed as you are. Still sitting this one out. I prefer not to soil my hands on this one.

Anonymous said...

Children should be allowed to get the same education as others. Education is free and open to everyone in America, so why lock it for illegal immigrants. This is school we are talking about. Immigrant Parents bring their children with them, or have them here, and it should be right to sjust stop educating these students. They should be given a chance to become something in their lifes. Everyone regardless of where you come from and where you are, should have the right to be something and not have that locked for them.

Anonymous said...

Ames is bug f-ing nuts.

Bruce said...

FUCKIN' A right!!!! I FUCKIN' agree wholefuckin heartedly!!
They are trying to FUCK this country without any KY Jelly for lubrication!!! FUCK ON Danny!!
LOL...LOL...LOL...LOL.

Bruce said...

And for a reality check to our "friend?" anonymous.......a big "FUCK YOU, YOU JERK!!!!"

Scottiebill said...

Anonymous said that the ccourts cannot selectively enforce or not enforce the law. Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

Instead of saying, "We will enforce this law but not that law", they take those laws they do not agree with and declare them "unconstitutional" and strike them down. Witness what happened in Judge James court with the Measure 37 law. Thankfully the Oregon Supremes got their collective heads out of their rear ends and overthrew her ruling. That same thing could very possibly happen with any anti-illegal alien laws.

Anonymous said...

I would really like to see you stop children from getting an education. You pussies are talking through your hats. And, if you think you can violate the law for your own zealous reasons, I know a few FBI agents and State Investigators that would like to talk to you.