When groups of tens of thousands daily cross a country’s border, disregarding any and all laws of that country and circumventing or destroying any barriers in their way, it’s called an invading army.When this invading army stretches across the entire country, hoisting their flag, demanding all government documents be in their language, and that legitimate citizens give them preferential treatment and speak their language, that’s called an occupational army.
Legitimate citizens of a country who support, aid and abet an occupational army are called collaborators or traitors.
What a shocker...if you stick them in jail for a couple of months, they may not come back. so there goes the "we simply can't stop it, because they're going to find a way" argument.
And when a more dramatic situation than reality is allowed to shift from being an analogy of reality to the definition, that's called exaggeration.
I like Tancredo personally. He's articulate, genial and down-to-earth. But I get the sense that he's going for a second try on Bush's strategy of being the common-man candidate. His "common sense agenda" sounds like yet another generation in a long line of philosophies that work better as campaign taglines than they would as actual executive policy.
"We need to protect our culture?" Here's some conservatism for you: a government that thinks it can control the people's culture is naive; a government that tries to do so is despotic. Indeed, on the contrary, Congress has a constitutional duty to protect works of art and science. The opposite - and I don't mean to be alarmist here, but this is the literal definition - is fascism.
Nor do we have to fill any "need to have a single language in which we can all communicate." That has never been true, and if you think otherwise then you're doubting your people's ability. Common sense tells us that we need to speak the same language to talk to each other; history tells us how much nonsense that is. When this country was founded, we had such vast cultural diversity that German almost became the national language. And yet, through one of the most precarious periods in our history, we survived.
"Putting dollars in the pockets of people who are trying to kill us?" It looks like Tancredo's no different from the majority of Republicans who don't bother to differentiate terrorists, Muslims or Arabs - a narrow-minded view that he makes clear when he states on his website that "we are, I believe, in a clash of civilizations." His idea of a "forced equilibrium" between Sunnis and Shi'ites is a solid "common sense" prediction, but falls apart in the face of 1400 years of Islamic history. No working peace has existed since the Ottoman Empire.
Speaking as an American, I don't want a President who's going to govern by "common sense." I don't want the most powerful single office in the world to be a job that anyone can do. I don't want my national leader, my inspiration, to be a guy whose ideas are just "darn right." I want them to be genius. I want the solution that hasn't been tried, the clue that hasn't been seen, the connection that hasn't been made. Common sense is only a beginning.
Kaelri doesn't think our country should have just one common language. Look at Canada. Up there everything, literally, is in both English and French, thereby doubling the cost of lettering all business signs, traffic signs, most newspapers (one edition is in English and another in French), and just about anything else you can think of. This is with the exception of Quebec where everything is in French and no English allowed. Do we really want this here? I wouldn't think so.
And then Kaelri says that we almost became a country speaking German. Maybe. But after we kicked Germany's butt twice in two World Wars, that didn't happen. Do you suppose Kaelkri is happy about that? It sure doesn't sound like it.
All that aside, Kaelri would likely be happy if a Dumocrat wins the White House next year. Then he (or she) would see just how badly this country would get screwed up. If he(or she) thinks it is bad now, if a Dumocrat, such as Hillary Rotten Clinton or Barack Osama Obama makes it the problems here will increase exnentially. The illegals will come in by the hundreds of thousands more than now, the Isalmic radical nutballs will have free reign to do their dirty deeds, Nancy Pelosi and heer family will not be flying around in an Air Force 757, like she wants now, but will probably be doing all here traveling in Air Force 1 instead, accompanied, of course by her lap dog and Chief Apologist and general all-around ass kisser, Murtha.
Maybe then Kaelri will be happy with the status quo while the country goes completely to hell in a very large handbasket.
Kaelri: failure to acknowledge the destructive outcome of unlimited illegal invasion of tens of millions aliens that don't respect our laws, sovereinty, and history, that's denial. The Center for Immigration Studies found, in 2004, that annual costs to treat uninsured illegal aliens run to appr. $2.2 billion. According to a report in the Spring 2005 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, 84 hospitals in California alone are closing as a direct consequence of the rising number of illegal aliens and their non-reimbursed tax on the system. In 2004, an extimated 27% of the federal prison population was comprised of illegal aliens.
You speak of "common sense" as though it were a prejorative. It certainly is not. It is the foundation in which to build your logical conclusions. A few quotes concerning common sense: “Common sense is instinct. Enough of it is genius.” George Bernard Shaw. “Common sense is genius dressed in its working clothes.” Ralph Waldow Emerson. “I can never fear that things will go far wrong where common sense has fair play.” Thomas Jefferson. “In any war, the first casualty is common sense, and the second is free and open discussion” James Reston. “One pound of learning requires ten pounds of common sense to apply it.” Persian proverb. “The best prophet is common sense, our native wit.” Euripides. "It is a thousand times better to have common sense without education than to have education without common sense". Robert Green Ingersoll.
As far as wanting your President to be a "genius" good luck. Look at the choices we are given.
"Kaelri doesn't think our country should have just one common language. Look at Canada. Up there everything, literally, is in both English and French, thereby doubling the cost of lettering all business signs, traffic signs, most newspapers (one edition is in English and another in French), and just about anything else you can think of. This is with the exception of Quebec where everything is in French and no English allowed. Do we really want this here? I wouldn't think so."
Are you sure this is true? Are the costs of lettering really doubled, or does the cost just go up?
"And then Kaelri says that we almost became a country speaking German. Maybe. But after we kicked Germany's butt twice in two World Wars, that didn't happen. Do you suppose Kaelkri is happy about that? It sure doesn't sound like it."
Maybe it's just me, but I don't see what that has to do with us almost speaking German. Those two World Wars were a couple hundred years after the United States made that choice.
Ted Kennedy’s amnesty bill “nearly completed” http://hotair.com/archives/2007/02/22/ted-kennedys-amnesty-bill-nearly-completed/
quote from the page: "One of those e-mails obtained by The Times invited Democratic immigration staffers to a briefing in early January with “key stakeholders” to discuss workplace-enforcement provisions. The invitation listed six such “stakeholders,” including the chamber and EWIC. The other groups attending the meeting, according to the e-mail, were the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Immigration Law Center, the National Council of La Raza and the Service Employees International Union."
The percentage of the population who are immigrants is now about 11%; at the turn of the century, it was over 13%. And our ancestors, mind you, didn't have just one major foreign language to manage; this country has faced surges in immigration from Germany, Ireland, Italy, eastern Europe, and China. Nor did they have the convenience of the Internet, and a whole branch of the software industry that makes working-order text translation a cakewalk. And yet we made it through that period of our history without losing our patience and making a frustrating, futile attempt at thrusting a national system onto an incredibly diverse, yet remarkably harmonious, society.
You don't think we can stomach this one, as well? I say you have too little trust in your people.
- "we almost became a country speaking German. Maybe. But after we kicked Germany's butt twice in two World Wars, that didn't happen."
I don't know what point you're trying to make there... I mean, we kicked England's butt in a revolutionary war, but that has nothing to do with why we speak English, nor how much any of us like England nowadays. But honestly, I don't know what you were trying to say.
And a word of caution to you, Scottiebill: when you use puns like "Dumocrat," "Osama Obama" and "Hillary Rotten Clinton," people like me stop reading.
Bobkatt: all those statistics are valid. Now compare them to the costs of an actual military invasion. The war in Iraq, for example. $379 billion has been appropriated. 20% of the population has fled the country. Half a million are dead. The government has been overthrown once (so far). There is no rule of law; there is no restraint of sectarian radicals; your neighbor is either your ally or your enemy. And after four years, the infrastructure has yet to be rebuilt. No war has been fought on American soil since 1865. We have been attacked, but we have not been invaded. And we are not being invaded now. Immigrants are not soldiers, not even the ones who pretend to be.
- "It is the foundation in which to build your logical conclusions."
Exactly. Read my post again, you'll see that I agree with you completely. My point is that common sense along is worthless - the pen without the ink. Maybe it is better to have common sense without education, but we're electing a President. It's beneath us not to seek someone who has both.
Kaelri- comparing the cost of illegal immigration to the war in Iraq makes about as much sense as comparing it to the cost of putting a man on the moon. Unless you are suggesting the only way to stop the invasion is to invade and occupy Mexico. As far as we are not being invaded, that's just more of your denial, your inability or desire to look at the numbers and the fact that a majority of Americans want controlled borders and the removal of illegals. Just because they are not in uniform and not technically soldiers doesn't mean that it's not an invasion. From dictionary.com: 1.an act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, esp. by an army.
2.the entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease.
3.entrance as if to take possession or overrun: the annual invasion of the resort by tourists.
4.infringement by intrusion.
Seems to fit the bill to me. And on your final point that "common sense is worthless". I emphatically disagree. Common sense allows you to apply your education. Education alone is just mental masterbation, so whack away.
Common sense alone. What I said is that common sense alone is worthless. I even made a second post correcting the error in that exact phrase; I find it impossible that you could have missed it. Common-sense is another word for wisdom, and wisdom is empty if it isn't coupled with knowledge. I don't think we're disagreeing on that, Bobkatt, so don't go out of your way to create an argument where none existed.
You missed my point on the other matter, as well. I was comparing the cost of illegal immigration to the cost of an actual invasion. Immigration is only an invasion in a metaphorical sense. A poetic sense, you could say. But in the context of serious political discussion - in which Bigmikelewis seemed to have little interest - an "invading army" suggests (aside from an army) an organized, disciplined movement with a clear objective and a focused hostility toward the government of the 'invaded nation.' It is a fantasy to think that these illegal immigrants fit that description - if they did, this problem would be much easier to solve.
Kaelri: I use those "puns" to make a point as to how I feel about those particular individuals. If that is offensive to you, then I feel I have gotten my point across. I bet you would even take offense that I will refer to the ACLU as the "American Criminal Liberties Union" or the "American In Name Only Civil Liberties Union". Here again, that is how I feel about those people. In fact, if Shakespeare had lived in our time, he would be referring to the ACLU when he wrote in Henry VI, "The first thing we must do is kill all the lawyers".
This Kaelri hijacked the post(Kaelri will never listen to reason; I've seen his writing before, he is a committed leftist/socialist).
This post is about Tancredo running for President.
I like Tancredo, I watched the video provided and he did a good job on the FOX appearance.
Actually, it was one of the best spots I've seen him on. Tancredo doesn't always come off as the best speaker, but here he was good.
Tancredo has the right message on illegal immigration.
I'm a little more fuzzy on his positions on trade and terrorism and military preparedness.
Question: does Trancredo have enough of a well rounded political message?
Unfortunately, my sense is that he is too easily pigeon-holed as a one-trick pony. In a sense, that is too bad, I wish him well because I am certainly with him on the border and the cultural consequences of unlimited immigration over time.
A candidate that has similar positions on the border is Rep. Duncan Hunter(R-CA). Hunter authored the fence bill that became LAW. Hunter got the job done, at least on the fence issue(now, let's see if Democrats fund it).
Duncan Hunter is the former Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, chairing from 2003-2007 and has served in the House since 1980.
I support Duncan Hunter for President.
I believe Hunter has the best chance to break into the first-tier. So while I don't support Tancredo now, I believe there are similarities between the two. And I hope he does well.
If Tancredo can't get off the ground, take a good look at Duncan Hunter. Similarly, if Hunter can't get off the ground, I will support Tancredo.
But remember: Those that want open-borders/amnesty will try to ignore our candidates, but if that doesn't work, they will engage in divide and conquer. Don't let that happen.
The forces for open borders/amnesty are strong. The Wall Street Journal crowd. They have the usual suspects as cheerleaders, but also others.
Look at Bill O'Reilly for example: Lots of sound and fury, but his solutions are "regularization" with later individual hearings, leading to what, 15 million illegals on a "pathway for citizenship" and upping current legal immigration from 750,000 a year to 2,250,000 a year. Put those two policies together and they add up to amnesty and open borders.
Bill O'Reilly is controlled by the corporate elite, regardless of his protestations to the contrary.
My point being, is that folks who want to control the border must hang together, or most assuredly, will hang seperately.
You know McCain, Giuliani, and Romney all want amnesty and open borders.
So,
Good luck with teamTancredo, but keep an open mind about Duncan Hunter, we're on the same team in regards to the border.
No, Scottie, I don't find it offensive. I find it childish. If the only way you can tell me how you "feel" about those people is to make puns like a five-year-old, then you're not making a point that's worth my time to read.
I mean, "Hillary Rotten Clinton?" All I get from that is that you obviously don't like her. But that doesn't tell me why. "Osama Obama?" I don't even know what that's supposed to mean.
Moreover, any kind of name-calling tells me that the writer isn't actually interested in logical argument. "Dumocrat" is something you say when you're preaching to the choir; it's not something you say when you're actually talking to a Democrat. Even if you have a serious point to make, it's a clear signal that the fight, the mudslinging, is more important to you. But I'm not a politician, Scottie, and I have better things to do than watch you try to pass wisecracks off as useful political opinions.
Kaelri- your feet must be getting tired from all that dancing around the issue. First, your second post about "common sense alone" was to correct your spelling. Second, Roget' suggests that wisdom and knowledge are synonyms. How can you have one without the other? My argument with you is the way you seem to think that "common sense" is somehow common as it is somehow pedestrian, common sense is not the same as common place. Third, what part of 500,000 people marching in our streets shouting"gringo go back to Europe", "it's the white mans duty to die" and waving Mexican flags don't you get? Please go to this website and and watch the intro and see if you see any "hostility". Again your denial is not evidence.
"Second, Roget' suggests that wisdom and knowledge are synonyms. How can you have one without the other? My argument with you is the way you seem to think that "common sense" is somehow common as it is somehow pedestrian, common sense is not the same as common place."
I feel as if this is a giant digression, but I happen to have an opinion concerning this. Knowledge and Wisdom do not go hand-in-hand. When making a decision, it is possible to have every information set at hand and still make an unwise decision. Some argue that wisdom is a subset of knowledge. I argue that knowledge aids wisdom instead of encompassing it.
Knowledge seeks to make wisdom more relevant. Lacking a complete information set, a wise person can make a logical decision. However, a complete information set given to a wise person aides in his ability to make a wise decision.
Both knowledge and wisdom build upon eachother. You can most certainly have one without the other. It is most desirable, however, to have both when making a decision.
"Hate to say this, Kaelri, but obviously you don't if you keep responding to his posts."
Heh. I know what you mean. But I'm not letting him get anywhere with that line of argument. Quite the opposite: I'm trying to teach him how he can.
Bobkatt: I'm not sure why you can't let this out of your teeth, but once more unto the breach, if you like. First, I'm aware of what that second post was for and unaware of what difference it makes.
Second, if it's definitions you want: knowledge and wisdom are two different things. Knowledge is what we think; wisdom is how we think. Knowledge is information; wisdom is understanding. Two sides of the same coin? Yes indeed. Neither exists without the other.
But "common sense" is basic wisdom - simple causality and continuity. It's Occam's Razor - the simplest answer tends to be the right one 99% of the time. It's wisdom on the surface level - from a bottom-up perspective - that we use to meet the challenges of everyday life.
That's not what the United States government is for. Our responsibility is to choose leaders who can rise to answer that 1%, the problems that don't have easy or obvious solutions - the ones we've already tried. Sometimes - very rare moments in our history - the answer is staring us in the face, and we can make a collective choice to seize upon it. But the reality is that our government is a huge controlling factor in the media, the economy, international relations, and our standard of living; from naming parks after people to protecting our most fundamental liberties and rights. And they all overlap. It's bloody complicated.
The challenges a President faces are not simple. They are not obvious. And he's very, very lucky when the answers are any different. That is why I oppose the notion of a "common sense agenda." No doubt, the President should have common sense, if nothing else, but that should only be a starting point - a guiding light. It's not enough to be a policy. No doubt, the President should be decisive and principled, but that should never keep him from looking at the issue from every point of view, considering every cause and effect.
To me, what Tom Tancredo's "darn right" standard implies is that his goal is to appeal to people's existing beliefs, and that he will be very reluctant to try to change anyone's mind. I think he would be content with explaining different opinions as the result of different values, and leave it at that. I think he would be polarizing - very much a representative of his constituents rather than the whole population - and after eight years of Bush, I think the people are going to want someone a bit more forward-thinking. That said, I have a feeling this is going to be another national security election, and how Tancredo handles himself through the conflict with Iran is probably what will make or break him more than any other single position.
As for these immigrant rallies: if that's what you're afraid of, I say, once again, that you ought to sign up for a tour in Iraq. Just one. I'm sure that'll be more than enough to redefine your understanding of what it's like to live in a country occupied by an invading army. If the United States Armed Forces were reduced to marching through Iraqi streets "demanding" that they all lay down arms and accept the elected government, we wouldn't even have ousted the Ba'athists.
"Hate to say this, Kaelri, but obviously you don't if you keep responding to his posts."
Heh. I know what you mean. But I'm not letting him get anywhere with that line of argument. Quite the opposite: I'm trying to teach him how he can.
Bobkatt: I'm not sure why you can't let this out of your teeth, but once more unto the breach, if you like. First, I'm aware of what that second post was for and unaware of what difference it makes.
Second, if it's definitions you want: knowledge and wisdom are two different things. Knowledge is what we think; wisdom is how we think. Knowledge is information; wisdom is understanding. Two sides of the same coin? Yes indeed. Neither exists without the other.
But "common sense" is basic wisdom - simple causality and continuity. It's Occam's Razor - the simplest answer tends to be the right one 99% of the time. It's wisdom on the surface level - from a bottom-up perspective - that we use to meet the challenges of everyday life.
That's not what the United States government is for. Our responsibility is to choose leaders who can rise to answer that 1%, the problems that don't have easy or obvious solutions - the ones we've already tried. Sometimes - very rare moments in our history - the answer is staring us in the face, and we can make a collective choice to seize upon it. But the reality is that our government is a huge controlling factor in the media, the economy, international relations, and our standard of living; from naming parks after people to protecting our most fundamental liberties and rights. And they all overlap. It's bloody complicated.
The challenges a President faces are not simple. They are not obvious. And he's very, very lucky when the answers are any different. That is why I oppose the notion of a "common sense agenda." No doubt, the President should have common sense, if nothing else, but that should only be a starting point - a guiding light. It's not enough to be a policy. No doubt, the President should be decisive and principled, but that should never keep him from looking at the issue from every point of view, considering every cause and effect.
To me, what Tom Tancredo's "darn right" standard implies is that his goal is to appeal to people's existing beliefs, and that he will be very reluctant to try to change anyone's mind. I think he would be content with explaining different opinions as the result of different values, and leave it at that. I think he would be polarizing - very much a representative of his constituents rather than the whole population - and after eight years of Bush, I think the people are going to want someone a bit more forward-thinking. That said, I have a feeling this is going to be another national security election, and how Tancredo handles himself through the conflict with Iran is probably what will make or break him more than any other single position.
As for these immigrant rallies: if that's what you're afraid of, I say, once again, that you ought to sign up for a tour in Iraq. Just one. I'm sure that'll be more than enough to redefine your understanding of what it's like to live in a country occupied by an invading army. If the United States Armed Forces were reduced to marching through Iraqi streets "demanding" that they all lay down arms and accept the elected government, we wouldn't even have ousted the Ba'athists.
DANIEL FYI: SWIFT TRUCKING, A rolling billboard in Spanish was seen in the PDX area today ...it was for drivers, all words were in Spanish ..a rolling recruiting truck offering jobs that "we Americans will not do!" BS!!!!! Do they confirm the legal status of the drivers>>>>?????
I looked through your past postings, and not one mention of the OUTRAGE on the border involving the two border patrol agents. I was surprised.
But then I remembered Daniel boot licks at the feet of Lars Larson.
"How's that boot polish tasting, Daniel?"
Maybe, I'm wrong. Prove me wrong.
I hope you do, but my thinking goes like this:
Lars Larson has his head up his ass. Larson knows Johnny Sutton is pals with George Bush. Going after Sutton would dry up interview opportunities with Bush Administration officials.
Larson is afraid to get personal with Sutton because it would end up being personal with Bush.
Calling a prosecutor a liar and dishonest is as personal as it gets, particularly when he is a personal appointment by Bush.
Also, Larson sucks up to prosecutors because he's a "law and order" guy. Never mind that in this case, the whole STINKING prosecution from beginning to end was deeply flawed.
The Mexican government wants prosecution: Bingo, Sutton snaps into action.
The order to prosecute came from way up in the State Department. You can bet State got it's marching orders from the Oval Office.
The fish rots from the head down.
Daniel, tell me I'm wrong and you support the border guards. Tell me, "F*** YOU."
Or, do you bask in having your blog mentioned on Larson's show from time to time and don't want to upset the little twerp by coming out hard on the story.
Truth be told, Larson has always been careful to boot lick so he can get his interviews. He knows where the line is and doesn't cross it.
Sutton was a close personal adviser to Bush when he was governor of Texas. Then Sutton got this plush appointment.
Now, it appears Sutton is a lying sack of s**t.
Does Larson have the stones to look at the case and realize he was wrong, or does he keep boot licking and does that licking stretch down into your neck of the woods?
I looked through your past postings, and not one mention of the OUTRAGE on the border involving the two border patrol agents. I was surprised.
But then I remembered Daniel boot licks at the feet of Lars Larson.
"How's that boot polish tasting, Daniel?"
Maybe, I'm wrong. Prove me wrong.
I hope you do, but my thinking goes like this:
Lars Larson has his head up his ass. Larson knows Johnny Sutton is pals with George Bush. Going after Sutton would dry up interview opportunities with Bush Administration officials.
Larson is afraid to get personal with Sutton because it would end up being personal with Bush.
Calling a prosecutor a liar and dishonest is as personal as it gets, particularly when he is a personal appointment by Bush.
Also, Larson sucks up to prosecutors because he's a "law and order" guy. Never mind that in this case, the whole STINKING prosecution from beginning to end was deeply flawed.
The Mexican government wants prosecution: Bingo, Sutton snaps into action.
The order to prosecute came from way up in the State Department. You can bet State got it's marching orders from the Oval Office.
The fish rots from the head down.
Daniel, tell me I'm wrong and you support the border guards. Tell me, "F*** YOU."
Or, do you bask in having your blog mentioned on Larson's show from time to time and don't want to upset the little twerp by coming out hard on the story.
Truth be told, Larson has always been careful to boot lick so he can get his interviews. He knows where the line is and doesn't cross it.
Sutton was a close personal adviser to Bush when he was governor of Texas. Then Sutton got this plush appointment.
Now, it appears Sutton is a lying sack of s**t.
Does Larson have the stones to look at the case and realize he was wrong, or does he keep boot licking and does that licking stretch down into your neck of the woods?
anonymous 12:21- you're right, not much has been brought up on this website about the border guards but many of those who post on here are very concerned. As far as Lars is concerned, his attitude is so similar to Bill O'Reilly's that its seems that they both have been given their talking points on this issue. They both seems to cut off any conversation on the topic by stating that the border guards broke the law, end of discussion. As more info comes out on this matter, the more the government looks dirty from the top down with the firing and resignation of the perjuring witnesses and the concealing evidence. More info at my blog
>>Jim reporting for a Houston TV station: >> >>Jim: Juan, I see that you and thousands of other protesters are marching >>in >>the streets to demonstrate for your cause. Exactly what is your cause and >>what do you expect to accomplish by this protest? >> >>Juan: We want our rights. We will show you how powerful we are. We will >>bring Houston to its knees! >> >>Jim: What rights? >> >>Juan: Our right to live here...legally. Our right to get all the benefits >>you get. >> >>Jim: When did you come to the United States? >> >>Juan: Six years ago. I crossed over the border at night with seven other >>friends. >> >>Jim: Why did you come? >> >>Juan: For work. I can earn as much in a month as I could in a year in >>Mexico. Besides, I get free health care, our Mexican children can go to >>school >>free, if I lose my job I will get Welfare, and someday I will have the >>Social >>Security. Nothing like that in Mexico! >> >>Jim: Did you feel badly about breaking our immigration laws when you >>came? >> >>Juan: No! Why should I feel bad? I have a right to be here. I have a >>right >>to amnesty. I paid lots of money for my Social Security and Green Cards. >> >>Jim: How did you acquire those documents? >> >>Juan: From a guy in Dallas. He charged me a lot of money too. >> >>Jim: Did you know that those documents were forged? >> >>Juan: It is of no matter. I have a right to be here and work. >> >>Jim: What is the "right" you speak of? >> >>Juan: The right of all Aliens. It is found in your Constitution. Read it! >> >>Jim: I have read it, but I do not remember it saying anything about >>rights >>for Aliens. >> >>Juan: It is in that part where it says that all men have Alien rights, >>like >>the right to pursue happiness. I wasn't happy in Mexico, so I came here. >> >>Jim: I think you are referring to the declaration of Independence and >>that >>document speaks to unalienable rights ... Not Alien rights. >> >>Juan: Whatever. >> >>Jim: Since you are demanding to become an American citizen, why then are >>you >>carrying a Mexican Flag? >> >>Juan: Because I am Mexican. >> >>Jim: But you said you want to be given amnesty ... To become a US >>citizen. >> >>Juan: No. This is not what we want. This is our country, a part of Mexico >>that you Gringos stole from us. We want it returned to its rightful >>owner. >> >> >>Jim: Juan, you are standing in Texas. After wining the war with Mexico, >>Texas became a Republic, and later Texans voted to join the USA. It was >>not >>stolen from Mexico. >> >>Juan: That is a Gringo lie. Texas was stolen. So was California, New >>Mexico >>and Arizona. It is just like all the other stuff you Gringos steal, like >>oil >>and babies. You are a country of thieves. >> >>Jim: Babies? You think we steal babies? >> >>Juan: Sure. Like from Korea and Vietnam and China. I see them all over >>the >>place. You let all these foreigners in, but try to keep us Mexicans out. >>How >>is this fair? >> >>Jim: So, you really don't want to become an American citizen then. >> >>Juan: I just want my rights! Everyone has a right to live, work, and >>speak >>their native language wherever and whenever they please. That's another >>thing >>we demand. All signs and official documents should be in Spanish. >>Teachers >>must teach in Spanish. Soon, more people here in Houston will speak >>Spanish >>than English. It is our right! >> >>Jim: If I were to cross over the border into Mexico without proper >>documentation, what rights would I have there? >> >>Juan: None. You would probably go to jail, but that's different. >> >>Jim: How is it different? You said everyone has the right to live >>wherever >>they please. >> >>Juan: You Gringos are a bunch of land grabbing thieves. Now you want >>Mexico >>too? Mexico has its rights. You Gringos have no rights in Mexico. Why >>would >>you want to go there anyway? There is no free medical service, schools, >>or >>welfare there for foreigners such as you. You cannot even own land in my >>country. Stay in the country of your birth. >> >>Jim: I can see that there is no way that we can agree on this issue. >>Thank >>you for your comments. >> >>Juan: Viva Mexico!
Tom Tancredo is interesting but I ask that you check out Rep. Ron Paul from Texas before you make up your mind. He formed an exploratory committee on Jan. 11th.
Bobkatt, it's worse than just relying on talking points. Larson is throwing himself under the bus on the two border agents.
Has he ever actually brought a knowledgeable person to argue the case. Most likely not.
Certainly, O'Reilly, just brought on Sutton, but not someone to counter point the debate.
To inject a little fairness to the discussion, the story has developed over time. When I first heard about it, the transcript had not yet been released, also, additional documents have been found and verified which damn the government's case and the whole process.
These documents can not be denied.
Lars should be given a chance to consider the additional evidence of prosecutorial misconduct.
But if he's still in denial, that says something about Lars's overblown ego.
If so,
Lars should be strung up on a political tree. A tight rope around his pencil neck for one end and a good thick branch for the other.
Anonymous-thats my point exactly. Both Lars and O'Reilly refused to allow any defense of the border guards to develope. To me that implies that they have their minds made up or are not allowed to pursue the truth. I have to admit that I haven't listened to them very much lately for that reason. This also extends to the 9/11 investigation. O'Reilly was so rude to Prof. Fetzer the only time he had him on that I was completely turned off. When people claim that they are fair and balanced and looking out for me I want to hear both sides. As soon as they cut off one side I see agenda as the motivating factor and tune out.
Good points BobKatt, and at times, there is a deliberate misinterpretation of the facts or circumstances or both, to support their "agenda" on any particular issue.
Failure to present both sides of an argument is bad, intentionally misleading or distorting the facts and circumstances is worse.
People who trade in opinion beware of the pitfalls and perils of intentionally manipulating your audience.
38 comments:
Me thinks we've finally got a Conservative...
Uphill for sure but at least a man to rally 'round.
I'll march up that hill with you RW!
Hide your guns Daniel!
Your boy flip flopped on protecting the second amendment after the Columbine High School tragedy happened in his district.
When groups of tens of thousands daily cross a country’s border, disregarding any and all laws of that country and circumventing or destroying any barriers in their way, it’s called an invading army.When this invading army stretches across the entire country, hoisting their flag, demanding all government documents be in their language, and that legitimate citizens give them preferential treatment and speak their language, that’s called an occupational army.
Legitimate citizens of a country who support, aid and abet an occupational army are called collaborators or traitors.
C.M. Wittmer, Abilene
Hey JohnnyB just posted on this article.
What a shocker...if you stick them in jail for a couple of months, they may not come back. so there goes the "we simply can't stop it, because they're going to find a way" argument.
And when a more dramatic situation than reality is allowed to shift from being an analogy of reality to the definition, that's called exaggeration.
I like Tancredo personally. He's articulate, genial and down-to-earth. But I get the sense that he's going for a second try on Bush's strategy of being the common-man candidate. His "common sense agenda" sounds like yet another generation in a long line of philosophies that work better as campaign taglines than they would as actual executive policy.
"We need to protect our culture?" Here's some conservatism for you: a government that thinks it can control the people's culture is naive; a government that tries to do so is despotic. Indeed, on the contrary, Congress has a constitutional duty to protect works of art and science. The opposite - and I don't mean to be alarmist here, but this is the literal definition - is fascism.
Nor do we have to fill any "need to have a single language in which we can all communicate." That has never been true, and if you think otherwise then you're doubting your people's ability. Common sense tells us that we need to speak the same language to talk to each other; history tells us how much nonsense that is. When this country was founded, we had such vast cultural diversity that German almost became the national language. And yet, through one of the most precarious periods in our history, we survived.
"Putting dollars in the pockets of people who are trying to kill us?" It looks like Tancredo's no different from the majority of Republicans who don't bother to differentiate terrorists, Muslims or Arabs - a narrow-minded view that he makes clear when he states on his website that "we are, I believe, in a clash of civilizations." His idea of a "forced equilibrium" between Sunnis and Shi'ites is a solid "common sense" prediction, but falls apart in the face of 1400 years of Islamic history. No working peace has existed since the Ottoman Empire.
Speaking as an American, I don't want a President who's going to govern by "common sense." I don't want the most powerful single office in the world to be a job that anyone can do. I don't want my national leader, my inspiration, to be a guy whose ideas are just "darn right." I want them to be genius. I want the solution that hasn't been tried, the clue that hasn't been seen, the connection that hasn't been made. Common sense is only a beginning.
Kaelri doesn't think our country should have just one common language. Look at Canada. Up there everything, literally, is in both English and French, thereby doubling the cost of lettering all business signs, traffic signs, most newspapers (one edition is in English and another in French), and just about anything else you can think of. This is with the exception of Quebec where everything is in French and no English allowed. Do we really want this here? I wouldn't think so.
And then Kaelri says that we almost became a country speaking German. Maybe. But after we kicked Germany's butt twice in two World Wars, that didn't happen. Do you suppose Kaelkri is happy about that? It sure doesn't sound like it.
All that aside, Kaelri would likely be happy if a Dumocrat wins the White House next year. Then he (or she) would see just how badly this country would get screwed up. If he(or she) thinks it is bad now, if a Dumocrat, such as Hillary Rotten Clinton or Barack Osama Obama makes it the problems here will increase exnentially. The illegals will come in by the hundreds of thousands more than now, the Isalmic radical nutballs will have free reign to do their dirty deeds, Nancy Pelosi and heer family will not be flying around in an Air Force 757, like she wants now, but will probably be doing all here traveling in Air Force 1 instead, accompanied, of course by her lap dog and Chief Apologist and general all-around ass kisser, Murtha.
Maybe then Kaelri will be happy with the status quo while the country goes completely to hell in a very large handbasket.
Kaelri: failure to acknowledge the destructive outcome of unlimited illegal invasion of tens of millions aliens that don't respect our laws, sovereinty, and history, that's denial. The Center for Immigration Studies found, in 2004, that annual costs to treat uninsured illegal aliens run to appr. $2.2 billion. According to a report in the Spring 2005 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, 84 hospitals in California alone are closing as a direct consequence of the rising number of illegal aliens and their non-reimbursed tax on the system. In 2004, an extimated 27% of the federal prison population was comprised of illegal aliens.
You speak of "common sense" as though it were a prejorative. It certainly is not. It is the foundation in which to build your logical conclusions.
A few quotes concerning common sense:
“Common sense is instinct. Enough of it is genius.” George Bernard Shaw.
“Common sense is genius dressed in its working clothes.” Ralph Waldow Emerson.
“I can never fear that things will go far wrong where common sense has fair play.” Thomas Jefferson.
“In any war, the first casualty is common sense, and the second is free and open discussion” James Reston.
“One pound of learning requires ten pounds of common sense to apply it.” Persian proverb.
“The best prophet is common sense, our native wit.” Euripides.
"It is a thousand times better to have common sense without education than to have education without common sense". Robert Green Ingersoll.
As far as wanting your President to be a "genius" good luck. Look at the choices we are given.
"Kaelri doesn't think our country should have just one common language. Look at Canada. Up there everything, literally, is in both English and French, thereby doubling the cost of lettering all business signs, traffic signs, most newspapers (one edition is in English and another in French), and just about anything else you can think of. This is with the exception of Quebec where everything is in French and no English allowed. Do we really want this here? I wouldn't think so."
Are you sure this is true? Are the costs of lettering really doubled, or does the cost just go up?
"And then Kaelri says that we almost became a country speaking German. Maybe. But after we kicked Germany's butt twice in two World Wars, that didn't happen. Do you suppose Kaelkri is happy about that? It sure doesn't sound like it."
Maybe it's just me, but I don't see what that has to do with us almost speaking German. Those two World Wars were a couple hundred years after the United States made that choice.
That is all.
Tancredo: Can't win, won't win, and doesn't deserve to win.
Meanwhile...
Ted Kennedy’s amnesty bill “nearly completed”
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/02/22/ted-kennedys-amnesty-bill-nearly-completed/
quote from the page:
"One of those e-mails obtained by The Times invited Democratic immigration staffers to a briefing in early January with “key stakeholders” to discuss workplace-enforcement provisions. The invitation listed six such “stakeholders,” including the chamber and EWIC. The other groups attending the meeting, according to the e-mail, were the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Immigration Law Center, the National Council of La Raza and the Service Employees International Union."
The percentage of the population who are immigrants is now about 11%; at the turn of the century, it was over 13%. And our ancestors, mind you, didn't have just one major foreign language to manage; this country has faced surges in immigration from Germany, Ireland, Italy, eastern Europe, and China. Nor did they have the convenience of the Internet, and a whole branch of the software industry that makes working-order text translation a cakewalk. And yet we made it through that period of our history without losing our patience and making a frustrating, futile attempt at thrusting a national system onto an incredibly diverse, yet remarkably harmonious, society.
You don't think we can stomach this one, as well? I say you have too little trust in your people.
- "we almost became a country speaking German. Maybe. But after we kicked Germany's butt twice in two World Wars, that didn't happen."
I don't know what point you're trying to make there... I mean, we kicked England's butt in a revolutionary war, but that has nothing to do with why we speak English, nor how much any of us like England nowadays. But honestly, I don't know what you were trying to say.
And a word of caution to you, Scottiebill: when you use puns like "Dumocrat," "Osama Obama" and "Hillary Rotten Clinton," people like me stop reading.
Bobkatt: all those statistics are valid. Now compare them to the costs of an actual military invasion. The war in Iraq, for example. $379 billion has been appropriated. 20% of the population has fled the country. Half a million are dead. The government has been overthrown once (so far). There is no rule of law; there is no restraint of sectarian radicals; your neighbor is either your ally or your enemy. And after four years, the infrastructure has yet to be rebuilt. No war has been fought on American soil since 1865. We have been attacked, but we have not been invaded. And we are not being invaded now. Immigrants are not soldiers, not even the ones who pretend to be.
- "It is the foundation in which to build your logical conclusions."
Exactly. Read my post again, you'll see that I agree with you completely. My point is that common sense along is worthless - the pen without the ink. Maybe it is better to have common sense without education, but we're electing a President. It's beneath us not to seek someone who has both.
*common sense alone. 'Pologies.
Kaelri- comparing the cost of illegal immigration to the war in Iraq makes about as much sense as comparing it to the cost of putting a man on the moon. Unless you are suggesting the only way to stop the invasion is to invade and occupy Mexico.
As far as we are not being invaded, that's just more of your denial, your inability or desire to look at the numbers and the fact that a majority of Americans want controlled borders and the removal of illegals. Just because they are not in uniform and not technically soldiers doesn't mean that it's not an invasion. From dictionary.com:
1.an act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, esp. by an army.
2.the entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease.
3.entrance as if to take possession or overrun: the annual invasion of the resort by tourists.
4.infringement by intrusion.
Seems to fit the bill to me.
And on your final point that "common sense is worthless". I emphatically disagree. Common sense allows you to apply your education. Education alone is just mental masterbation, so whack away.
Common sense alone. What I said is that common sense alone is worthless. I even made a second post correcting the error in that exact phrase; I find it impossible that you could have missed it. Common-sense is another word for wisdom, and wisdom is empty if it isn't coupled with knowledge. I don't think we're disagreeing on that, Bobkatt, so don't go out of your way to create an argument where none existed.
You missed my point on the other matter, as well. I was comparing the cost of illegal immigration to the cost of an actual invasion. Immigration is only an invasion in a metaphorical sense. A poetic sense, you could say. But in the context of serious political discussion - in which Bigmikelewis seemed to have little interest - an "invading army" suggests (aside from an army) an organized, disciplined movement with a clear objective and a focused hostility toward the government of the 'invaded nation.' It is a fantasy to think that these illegal immigrants fit that description - if they did, this problem would be much easier to solve.
Kaelri: I use those "puns" to make a point as to how I feel about those particular individuals. If that is offensive to you, then I feel I have gotten my point across. I bet you would even take offense that I will refer to the ACLU as the "American Criminal Liberties Union" or the "American In Name Only Civil Liberties Union". Here again, that is how I feel about those people. In fact, if Shakespeare had lived in our time, he would be referring to the ACLU when he wrote in Henry VI, "The first thing we must do is kill all the lawyers".
Are you properly offended?
Good!
Stop fellas!
This Kaelri hijacked the post(Kaelri will never listen to reason; I've seen his writing before, he is a committed leftist/socialist).
This post is about Tancredo running for President.
I like Tancredo, I watched the video provided and he did a good job on the FOX appearance.
Actually, it was one of the best spots I've seen him on. Tancredo doesn't always come off as the best speaker, but here he was good.
Tancredo has the right message on illegal immigration.
I'm a little more fuzzy on his positions on trade and terrorism and military preparedness.
Question: does Trancredo have enough of a well rounded political message?
Unfortunately, my sense is that he is too easily pigeon-holed as a one-trick pony. In a sense, that is too bad, I wish him well because I am certainly with him on the border and the cultural consequences of unlimited immigration over time.
A candidate that has similar positions on the border is Rep. Duncan Hunter(R-CA). Hunter authored the fence bill that became LAW. Hunter got the job done, at least on the fence issue(now, let's see if Democrats fund it).
Duncan Hunter is the former Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, chairing from 2003-2007 and has served in the House since 1980.
I support Duncan Hunter for President.
I believe Hunter has the best chance to break into the first-tier. So while I don't support Tancredo now, I believe there are similarities between the two. And I hope he does well.
If Tancredo can't get off the ground, take a good look at Duncan Hunter. Similarly, if Hunter can't get off the ground, I will support Tancredo.
But remember: Those that want open-borders/amnesty will try to ignore our candidates, but if that doesn't work, they will engage in divide and conquer. Don't let that happen.
The forces for open borders/amnesty are strong. The Wall Street Journal crowd.
They have the usual suspects as cheerleaders, but also others.
Look at Bill O'Reilly for example:
Lots of sound and fury, but his solutions are "regularization" with later individual hearings, leading to what, 15 million illegals on a "pathway for citizenship" and upping current legal immigration from 750,000 a year to 2,250,000 a year. Put those two policies together and they add up to amnesty and open borders.
Bill O'Reilly is controlled by the corporate elite, regardless of his protestations to the contrary.
My point being, is that folks who want to control the border must hang together, or most assuredly, will hang seperately.
You know McCain, Giuliani, and Romney all want amnesty and open borders.
So,
Good luck with teamTancredo, but keep an open mind about Duncan Hunter, we're on the same team in regards to the border.
Military preparedness
The fight aganst terrorism
Controlling the border and illegal immigration
Fair trade, Not "free" trade
Pro-life, pro-family, pro-gun
Duncan Hunter for President in '08.
No, Scottie, I don't find it offensive. I find it childish. If the only way you can tell me how you "feel" about those people is to make puns like a five-year-old, then you're not making a point that's worth my time to read.
I mean, "Hillary Rotten Clinton?" All I get from that is that you obviously don't like her. But that doesn't tell me why. "Osama Obama?" I don't even know what that's supposed to mean.
Moreover, any kind of name-calling tells me that the writer isn't actually interested in logical argument. "Dumocrat" is something you say when you're preaching to the choir; it's not something you say when you're actually talking to a Democrat. Even if you have a serious point to make, it's a clear signal that the fight, the mudslinging, is more important to you. But I'm not a politician, Scottie, and I have better things to do than watch you try to pass wisecracks off as useful political opinions.
"But I'm not a politician, Scottie, and I have better things to do than watch you try to pass wisecracks off as useful political opinions."
Hate to say this, Kaelri, but obviously you don't if you keep responding to his posts.
Kaelri- your feet must be getting tired from all that dancing around the issue. First, your second post about "common sense alone" was to correct your spelling. Second, Roget' suggests that wisdom and knowledge are synonyms. How can you have one without the other? My argument with you is the way you seem to think that "common sense" is somehow common as it is somehow pedestrian, common sense is not the same as common place. Third, what part of 500,000 people marching in our streets shouting"gringo go back to Europe", "it's the white mans duty to die" and waving Mexican flags don't you get? Please go to this website and and watch the intro and see if you see any "hostility". Again your denial is not evidence.
"Second, Roget' suggests that wisdom and knowledge are synonyms. How can you have one without the other? My argument with you is the way you seem to think that "common sense" is somehow common as it is somehow pedestrian, common sense is not the same as common place."
I feel as if this is a giant digression, but I happen to have an opinion concerning this. Knowledge and Wisdom do not go hand-in-hand. When making a decision, it is possible to have every information set at hand and still make an unwise decision. Some argue that wisdom is a subset of knowledge. I argue that knowledge aids wisdom instead of encompassing it.
Knowledge seeks to make wisdom more relevant. Lacking a complete information set, a wise person can make a logical decision. However, a complete information set given to a wise person aides in his ability to make a wise decision.
Both knowledge and wisdom build upon eachother. You can most certainly have one without the other. It is most desirable, however, to have both when making a decision.
I tought this post was about supporting Tom Tancredo for President. Only the original post and a couple of comments relate to Tom Tancredo.
You guys have a short attention span.
"Hate to say this, Kaelri, but obviously you don't if you keep responding to his posts."
Heh. I know what you mean. But I'm not letting him get anywhere with that line of argument. Quite the opposite: I'm trying to teach him how he can.
Bobkatt: I'm not sure why you can't let this out of your teeth, but once more unto the breach, if you like. First, I'm aware of what that second post was for and unaware of what difference it makes.
Second, if it's definitions you want: knowledge and wisdom are two different things. Knowledge is what we think; wisdom is how we think. Knowledge is information; wisdom is understanding. Two sides of the same coin? Yes indeed. Neither exists without the other.
But "common sense" is basic wisdom - simple causality and continuity. It's Occam's Razor - the simplest answer tends to be the right one 99% of the time. It's wisdom on the surface level - from a bottom-up perspective - that we use to meet the challenges of everyday life.
That's not what the United States government is for. Our responsibility is to choose leaders who can rise to answer that 1%, the problems that don't have easy or obvious solutions - the ones we've already tried. Sometimes - very rare moments in our history - the answer is staring us in the face, and we can make a collective choice to seize upon it. But the reality is that our government is a huge controlling factor in the media, the economy, international relations, and our standard of living; from naming parks after people to protecting our most fundamental liberties and rights. And they all overlap. It's bloody complicated.
The challenges a President faces are not simple. They are not obvious. And he's very, very lucky when the answers are any different. That is why I oppose the notion of a "common sense agenda." No doubt, the President should have common sense, if nothing else, but that should only be a starting point - a guiding light. It's not enough to be a policy. No doubt, the President should be decisive and principled, but that should never keep him from looking at the issue from every point of view, considering every cause and effect.
To me, what Tom Tancredo's "darn right" standard implies is that his goal is to appeal to people's existing beliefs, and that he will be very reluctant to try to change anyone's mind. I think he would be content with explaining different opinions as the result of different values, and leave it at that. I think he would be polarizing - very much a representative of his constituents rather than the whole population - and after eight years of Bush, I think the people are going to want someone a bit more forward-thinking. That said, I have a feeling this is going to be another national security election, and how Tancredo handles himself through the conflict with Iran is probably what will make or break him more than any other single position.
As for these immigrant rallies: if that's what you're afraid of, I say, once again, that you ought to sign up for a tour in Iraq. Just one. I'm sure that'll be more than enough to redefine your understanding of what it's like to live in a country occupied by an invading army. If the United States Armed Forces were reduced to marching through Iraqi streets "demanding" that they all lay down arms and accept the elected government, we wouldn't even have ousted the Ba'athists.
"Hate to say this, Kaelri, but obviously you don't if you keep responding to his posts."
Heh. I know what you mean. But I'm not letting him get anywhere with that line of argument. Quite the opposite: I'm trying to teach him how he can.
Bobkatt: I'm not sure why you can't let this out of your teeth, but once more unto the breach, if you like. First, I'm aware of what that second post was for and unaware of what difference it makes.
Second, if it's definitions you want: knowledge and wisdom are two different things. Knowledge is what we think; wisdom is how we think. Knowledge is information; wisdom is understanding. Two sides of the same coin? Yes indeed. Neither exists without the other.
But "common sense" is basic wisdom - simple causality and continuity. It's Occam's Razor - the simplest answer tends to be the right one 99% of the time. It's wisdom on the surface level - from a bottom-up perspective - that we use to meet the challenges of everyday life.
That's not what the United States government is for. Our responsibility is to choose leaders who can rise to answer that 1%, the problems that don't have easy or obvious solutions - the ones we've already tried. Sometimes - very rare moments in our history - the answer is staring us in the face, and we can make a collective choice to seize upon it. But the reality is that our government is a huge controlling factor in the media, the economy, international relations, and our standard of living; from naming parks after people to protecting our most fundamental liberties and rights. And they all overlap. It's bloody complicated.
The challenges a President faces are not simple. They are not obvious. And he's very, very lucky when the answers are any different. That is why I oppose the notion of a "common sense agenda." No doubt, the President should have common sense, if nothing else, but that should only be a starting point - a guiding light. It's not enough to be a policy. No doubt, the President should be decisive and principled, but that should never keep him from looking at the issue from every point of view, considering every cause and effect.
To me, what Tom Tancredo's "darn right" standard implies is that his goal is to appeal to people's existing beliefs, and that he will be very reluctant to try to change anyone's mind. I think he would be content with explaining different opinions as the result of different values, and leave it at that. I think he would be polarizing - very much a representative of his constituents rather than the whole population - and after eight years of Bush, I think the people are going to want someone a bit more forward-thinking. That said, I have a feeling this is going to be another national security election, and how Tancredo handles himself through the conflict with Iran is probably what will make or break him more than any other single position.
As for these immigrant rallies: if that's what you're afraid of, I say, once again, that you ought to sign up for a tour in Iraq. Just one. I'm sure that'll be more than enough to redefine your understanding of what it's like to live in a country occupied by an invading army. If the United States Armed Forces were reduced to marching through Iraqi streets "demanding" that they all lay down arms and accept the elected government, we wouldn't even have ousted the Ba'athists.
Re Tom Tancredo: Danieliswrong.
And a word of caution to you, Scottiebill: when you use puns like "Dumocrat," "Osama Obama" and "Hillary Rotten Clinton," people like me stop reading.
SO SAYTH MR. "K"
GREAT, ONE LESS LIB TO LISTEN TO.
DANIEL FYI: SWIFT TRUCKING, A rolling billboard in Spanish was seen in the PDX area today ...it was for drivers, all words were in Spanish ..a rolling recruiting truck offering jobs that "we Americans will not do!" BS!!!!! Do they confirm the legal status of the drivers>>>>?????
Will you look at this.
Well this seems to be the illegal alien blog.
I looked through your past postings, and not one mention of the OUTRAGE on the border involving the two border patrol agents. I was surprised.
But then I remembered Daniel boot licks at the feet of Lars Larson.
"How's that boot polish tasting, Daniel?"
Maybe, I'm wrong. Prove me wrong.
I hope you do, but my thinking goes like this:
Lars Larson has his head up his ass. Larson knows Johnny Sutton is pals with George Bush. Going after Sutton would dry up interview opportunities with Bush Administration officials.
Larson is afraid to get personal with Sutton because it would end up being personal with Bush.
Calling a prosecutor a liar and dishonest is as personal as it gets, particularly when he is a personal appointment by Bush.
Also, Larson sucks up to prosecutors because he's a "law and order" guy. Never mind that in this case, the whole STINKING prosecution from beginning to end was deeply flawed.
The Mexican government wants prosecution: Bingo, Sutton snaps into action.
The order to prosecute came from way up in the State Department. You can bet State got it's marching orders from the Oval Office.
The fish rots from the head down.
Daniel, tell me I'm wrong and you support the border guards. Tell me, "F*** YOU."
Or, do you bask in having your blog mentioned on Larson's show from time to time and don't want to upset the little twerp by coming out hard on the story.
Truth be told, Larson has always been careful to boot lick so he can get his interviews. He knows where the line is and doesn't cross it.
Sutton was a close personal adviser to Bush when he was governor of Texas. Then Sutton got this plush appointment.
Now, it appears Sutton is a lying sack of s**t.
Does Larson have the stones to look at the case and realize he was wrong, or does he keep boot licking and does that licking stretch down into your neck of the woods?
Well this seems to be the illegal alien blog.
I looked through your past postings, and not one mention of the OUTRAGE on the border involving the two border patrol agents. I was surprised.
But then I remembered Daniel boot licks at the feet of Lars Larson.
"How's that boot polish tasting, Daniel?"
Maybe, I'm wrong. Prove me wrong.
I hope you do, but my thinking goes like this:
Lars Larson has his head up his ass. Larson knows Johnny Sutton is pals with George Bush. Going after Sutton would dry up interview opportunities with Bush Administration officials.
Larson is afraid to get personal with Sutton because it would end up being personal with Bush.
Calling a prosecutor a liar and dishonest is as personal as it gets, particularly when he is a personal appointment by Bush.
Also, Larson sucks up to prosecutors because he's a "law and order" guy. Never mind that in this case, the whole STINKING prosecution from beginning to end was deeply flawed.
The Mexican government wants prosecution: Bingo, Sutton snaps into action.
The order to prosecute came from way up in the State Department. You can bet State got it's marching orders from the Oval Office.
The fish rots from the head down.
Daniel, tell me I'm wrong and you support the border guards. Tell me, "F*** YOU."
Or, do you bask in having your blog mentioned on Larson's show from time to time and don't want to upset the little twerp by coming out hard on the story.
Truth be told, Larson has always been careful to boot lick so he can get his interviews. He knows where the line is and doesn't cross it.
Sutton was a close personal adviser to Bush when he was governor of Texas. Then Sutton got this plush appointment.
Now, it appears Sutton is a lying sack of s**t.
Does Larson have the stones to look at the case and realize he was wrong, or does he keep boot licking and does that licking stretch down into your neck of the woods?
RE: swift trucking, can't find anything incriminating on their website. They are located in Troutdale.
RE: Duncan Hunter. I like him as well.
anonymous 12:21- you're right, not much has been brought up on this website about the border guards but many of those who post on here are very concerned. As far as Lars is concerned, his attitude is so similar to Bill O'Reilly's that its seems that they both have been given their talking points on this issue. They both seems to cut off any conversation on the topic by stating that the border guards broke the law, end of discussion. As more info comes out on this matter, the more the government looks dirty from the top down with the firing and resignation of the perjuring witnesses and the concealing evidence. More info at my blog
WHAT FING RIGHTS???
>>Jim reporting for a Houston TV station:
>>
>>Jim: Juan, I see that you and thousands of other protesters are marching
>>in
>>the streets to demonstrate for your cause. Exactly what is your cause and
>>what do you expect to accomplish by this protest?
>>
>>Juan: We want our rights. We will show you how powerful we are. We will
>>bring Houston to its knees!
>>
>>Jim: What rights?
>>
>>Juan: Our right to live here...legally. Our right to get all the benefits
>>you get.
>>
>>Jim: When did you come to the United States?
>>
>>Juan: Six years ago. I crossed over the border at night with seven other
>>friends.
>>
>>Jim: Why did you come?
>>
>>Juan: For work. I can earn as much in a month as I could in a year in
>>Mexico. Besides, I get free health care, our Mexican children can go to
>>school
>>free, if I lose my job I will get Welfare, and someday I will have the
>>Social
>>Security. Nothing like that in Mexico!
>>
>>Jim: Did you feel badly about breaking our immigration laws when you
>>came?
>>
>>Juan: No! Why should I feel bad? I have a right to be here. I have a
>>right
>>to amnesty. I paid lots of money for my Social Security and Green Cards.
>>
>>Jim: How did you acquire those documents?
>>
>>Juan: From a guy in Dallas. He charged me a lot of money too.
>>
>>Jim: Did you know that those documents were forged?
>>
>>Juan: It is of no matter. I have a right to be here and work.
>>
>>Jim: What is the "right" you speak of?
>>
>>Juan: The right of all Aliens. It is found in your Constitution. Read it!
>>
>>Jim: I have read it, but I do not remember it saying anything about
>>rights
>>for Aliens.
>>
>>Juan: It is in that part where it says that all men have Alien rights,
>>like
>>the right to pursue happiness. I wasn't happy in Mexico, so I came here.
>>
>>Jim: I think you are referring to the declaration of Independence and
>>that
>>document speaks to unalienable rights ... Not Alien rights.
>>
>>Juan: Whatever.
>>
>>Jim: Since you are demanding to become an American citizen, why then are
>>you
>>carrying a Mexican Flag?
>>
>>Juan: Because I am Mexican.
>>
>>Jim: But you said you want to be given amnesty ... To become a US
>>citizen.
>>
>>Juan: No. This is not what we want. This is our country, a part of Mexico
>>that you Gringos stole from us. We want it returned to its rightful
>>owner.
>>
>>
>>Jim: Juan, you are standing in Texas. After wining the war with Mexico,
>>Texas became a Republic, and later Texans voted to join the USA. It was
>>not
>>stolen from Mexico.
>>
>>Juan: That is a Gringo lie. Texas was stolen. So was California, New
>>Mexico
>>and Arizona. It is just like all the other stuff you Gringos steal, like
>>oil
>>and babies. You are a country of thieves.
>>
>>Jim: Babies? You think we steal babies?
>>
>>Juan: Sure. Like from Korea and Vietnam and China. I see them all over
>>the
>>place. You let all these foreigners in, but try to keep us Mexicans out.
>>How
>>is this fair?
>>
>>Jim: So, you really don't want to become an American citizen then.
>>
>>Juan: I just want my rights! Everyone has a right to live, work, and
>>speak
>>their native language wherever and whenever they please. That's another
>>thing
>>we demand. All signs and official documents should be in Spanish.
>>Teachers
>>must teach in Spanish. Soon, more people here in Houston will speak
>>Spanish
>>than English. It is our right!
>>
>>Jim: If I were to cross over the border into Mexico without proper
>>documentation, what rights would I have there?
>>
>>Juan: None. You would probably go to jail, but that's different.
>>
>>Jim: How is it different? You said everyone has the right to live
>>wherever
>>they please.
>>
>>Juan: You Gringos are a bunch of land grabbing thieves. Now you want
>>Mexico
>>too? Mexico has its rights. You Gringos have no rights in Mexico. Why
>>would
>>you want to go there anyway? There is no free medical service, schools,
>>or
>>welfare there for foreigners such as you. You cannot even own land in my
>>country. Stay in the country of your birth.
>>
>>Jim: I can see that there is no way that we can agree on this issue.
>>Thank
>>you for your comments.
>>
>>Juan: Viva Mexico!
Tom Tancredo is interesting but I ask that you check out Rep. Ron Paul from Texas before you make up your mind. He formed an exploratory committee on Jan. 11th.
Bobkatt, it's worse than just relying on talking points. Larson is throwing himself under the bus on the two border agents.
Has he ever actually brought a knowledgeable person to argue the case. Most likely not.
Certainly, O'Reilly, just brought on Sutton, but not someone to counter point the debate.
To inject a little fairness to the discussion, the story has developed over time. When I first heard about it, the transcript had not yet been released, also, additional documents have been found and verified which damn the government's case and the whole process.
These documents can not be denied.
Lars should be given a chance to consider the additional evidence of prosecutorial misconduct.
But if he's still in denial, that says something about Lars's overblown ego.
If so,
Lars should be strung up on a political tree. A tight rope around his pencil neck for one end and a good thick branch for the other.
Anonymous-thats my point exactly. Both Lars and O'Reilly refused to allow any defense of the border guards to develope. To me that implies that they have their minds made up or are not allowed to pursue the truth. I have to admit that I haven't listened to them very much lately for that reason. This also extends to the 9/11 investigation. O'Reilly was so rude to Prof. Fetzer the only time he had him on that I was completely turned off. When people claim that they are fair and balanced and looking out for me I want to hear both sides. As soon as they cut off one side I see agenda as the motivating factor and tune out.
Good points BobKatt, and at times, there is a deliberate misinterpretation of the facts or circumstances or both, to support their "agenda" on any particular issue.
Failure to present both sides of an argument is bad, intentionally misleading or distorting the facts and circumstances is worse.
People who trade in opinion beware of the pitfalls and perils of intentionally manipulating your audience.
Proof is in the tail of the tape (recording).
Cont.
The audience is listening,
But,
they can just as easily
TUNE YOU OUT.
Ba, Ba, BYE BYE.
Hey, am I late for the bonfire and the tree swinging Party. Pass the cold beer.
One of the few times I've seen Larson get razzed when he deserved it.
Post a Comment