Wednesday, May 02, 2007

Keep walking guys

Video from the Portland May Day parade.

Keep on walking south folks. And I realize that the organizers, after getting the memo, passed out American flags but you geniuses still carry the Mexican chicken-and-worm as well as pictures of your beloved Che. Go ahead and take those down south with you.

American flag + chanting is Spanish = you're not fooling anyone.

52 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wow, that's quite a group. What's the biggest turnout you've ever had at one of your rallies, Daniel?

Daniel said...

The difference between the rallies that I have been invovled in is that we have actually accomplished what we set out to do. (anyone remember those pesky "carousels of information"?)

Criminals marching in the street chanting in Spanish have accomplished what?

When we set out with the stated goal of shutting down the carousels (or decreasing the number of pick-ups at illegal alien day labor sites) we have forced the politicians (and contractors) to react. If we can do that with small groups then that just shows how powerful and much more accepted our message is.

Anonymous said...

Daniel,

So, what's the difference between allegedly criminal marchers chanting in Spanish and a convicted criminal harrassing people in English?

just wondering said...

Daniel, since you're a seasoned, experienced activist who has been successful at getting lawbreakers to stop breaking the law, I'd like to ask your advice. We've got a guy in the White House who has launched a virtual Blitzkrieg against all sorts of laws. You name it, he's broken it: The Geneva Conventions, the Nuremberg Principles, Habeas Corpus, the Constitutional right of freedom of speech, etc. He's really quite out of control. Any suggestions on how to deal with this? What would you do? Actually, maybe I should ask: What are you doing about this? Have you had any successes on that front?

Big Mike Lewis said...

I loved this article by Lou Dobbs

A Peculiar Day For Immigration Rallies
May 2, 2007

NEW YORK (CNN) -- What a spectacle, what a mess. What a day for thousands and thousands of illegal aliens and their supporters to march through the streets of many of our biggest cities demanding amnesty for illegally entering the country.

Tuesday was given over to illegal aliens and their supporters to demand forgiveness for using fraudulent documents and assisting others in entering this country illegally. What a day for illegal aliens and their supporters to demand not only amnesty but also the end to immigration raids and an end to deportations.

May Day was a peculiar choice for those demonstrations, a day in many countries in which international socialism is celebrated and a reminder of those old Soviet Union military parades.

It was also an unfortunate and ironic choice on the part of the organizers of the demonstrations. May 1 in the United States is actually Law Day, a day first established by President Eisenhower in 1958 and ultimately codified into law in 1961 at the beginning of John F. Kennedy's administration. The purpose of Law Day is to give all Americans an opportunity to reflect on our legal heritage, and by statute, encourages "the cultivation of the respect for law that is so vital to the democratic way of life."

I'll bet you know about the illegal alien amnesty marches, but I don't know of a single news organization, electronic or print that pointed out that May 1 is America's Law Day. The cable news networks gave almost wall-to-wall coverage to the illegal alien demonstrations, but they apparently couldn't find any American celebrating Law Day.

And no one seems to want to take note that we are first a nation of laws, and that without those laws and their enforcement, the foundation of our great republic turns to sand. What a spectacle on Law Day for demonstrators to demand amnesty for those who broke the law to enter our country, many of whom also broke the law with fraudulent documents.

And what a mess when the president of the United States and the U.S. Congress are pandering to a group of people who are not citizens and refuse to demand enforcement of our immigration laws, our criminal laws, and fails to secure our borders and ports.

I couldn't help but wonder as I watched monitors bringing images of the marches and demonstrations from all across the country, who should really be protesting on May Day. What about the millions of legal residents who followed the long, drawn-out process to secure a visa to enter the United States lawfully? Maybe they should be protesting. What about the seven-figure backlog at the Citizenship and Immigration Services agency of people who are following the rules. Should they demonstrate?

What about all of our fellow Americans who are being marginalized by the massive importation of illegal, low-cost and mostly uneducated labor into this country? Perhaps those citizens should take to the streets. And what about the more than 250 million Americans who make up our middle class and those who aspire to it whose wages have stagnated and who are paying for the social, medical and economic costs of illegal immigration? That's a big march.

If yesterday's demonstrators and their supporters in Congress and corporate America are serious about their deep desire for American citizenship, why don't we hear any of them clearly say they're willing to give up dual citizenship? Or that they're willing to learn English and surrender demands of bilingual education? Or declare they embrace English as our official national language? Or demand that illegal employers of illegal aliens pay for the social, educational and medical costs now borne by the taxpayers?

Yesterday was Law Day. I hope that we celebrate Law Day with a great national enthusiasm next May 1. I guarantee you I'll march in that demonstration.

Bear's admirer said...

Lou Dobbs has written some pretty nasty-ass shit about Bush and the Republican Party, so he must be an anti-American.

Anonymous said...

Immigration rally, where is Brazil? Where is England? Where is Italy? Where is Japan? Where is Korea? Where is Canada?

This march is hell-bent on Mexico. It ain't about immigration rights. It's about Mexicans turning the United States into a shithole.

To paraphrase the tram sign guy: "Fuck the Mexicans."

Robin said...

isn't it interesting on how many of them were dressed like gangsters?

Anonymous said...

To paraphrase the tram sign guy: "Fuck the Mexicans."

Thank you for making it clear that it's about racism, not principle.

Anonymous said...

To anon 431am:

Sorry, but your empty chanting of racist rings hollow,

Why?

Simple, Mexico is where the huge numbers of illegal aliens are coming from.

Poverty is widespread in Mexico. What responsibility do the Mexican economic elite and government elite have for their own citizens and country?

Where are the Mexican elite's concern for their fellow citizens?

Mexico is directly on our border; a country where half the people have a family member in the U.S. and 40% want to enter the U.S. if they could.

That's where the numbers are.

It's reasonable to look at Mexico and point out it has many problems:
corruption of government and economic leaders; inequality of incomes, racism, sexism, illegal drug trafficing, human trafficing,
substandard building codes, overpopulation, the list goes on.

The last thing I would ever want to have happen is for the United States to look like or act like Mexico.

Anonymous said...

... corruption of government and economic leaders; inequality of incomes, racism, sexism, illegal drug trafficking, human trafficking ...

Yeah, thank God we don't have those things here. Why? Because we're Americans!

Only one problem though ... some people, like 6:41, have this weird condition that combines BLINDNESS and monumental STUPIDITY. But at least you're not racist.

please use facts (i.e., data) said...

"To anon 431am:

Sorry, but your empty chanting of racist rings hollow,

Why?

Simple, Mexico is where the huge numbers of illegal aliens are coming from."

Actually, an estimated 56% of the unauthorized migrant population is from Mexico

http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=61

leaving 44% to be accounted for by other sending nations.

Given that 100% of the nativist caustic rhetoric spewed by Daniel's "cause" is targeted at Mexicans suggest that something else is at work here besides mere concern over illegal immigration...

Anonymous said...

You would think that if these people were trying to endear themselves to americans that they would at least do their chants in English. And another poster was right......these people look like a bunch of gang bangers and low-lifes.

And the few guilty white liberals that were there look fairly uncomfortable being there. As if they were re-thinkining their position. There should have been one giant INS bus there to scoop all of these people up and deposit them back South of the border.

anon 641 am said...

To anon 722 am:

Your approach is foolish, or intentionally stupid.

Of course, all the issues I raise about Mexico are present in the U.S. as well.

But are you saying that the degree of severity is greater here in the U.S.?

Families live on garbage dumps in Mexico...I know because my civic group helped build a school for the children of these unfortunate familes.

Shanty towns ring Mexico City.

Corruption and economic concentration leave a country rich in natural resources with huge levels of poverty, much higher than the U.S.

Blindness? I see the problems in both countries, but my first concern and priority is with America and it's citizens and legal residents.

Stupidity? My comments reflect the understanding that America has no interest in immulating Mexico or matching the conditions that cause Mexicans to flee their own county in the first place.

Go back under your rock 722, or don't be so stupid.

anon 641am said...

To please use facts(i.e.,data):
56% from one country, that's huge.

Obviously, when you look at the protesters on display, what flags do they display?

What country do most espouse loyalty too?

Mexico is the answer.

Why? Because the numbers are so large that Mexicans feel safe to express their true feelings.

Others don't have the numbers to have that group mentality.

The others are a problem, but Mexicans directly promote a foreign nationalism inside this country.

Hey, please use facts, do you think it is a good thing for a group to promote a foreign nationalism inside this country?

Wake up.

Anonymous said...

Why don't the cons complain about people waving the Irish flag on St. Patrick's Day?

Why don't the cons complain about good ol' boys waving the flag of treason?

Rick Hickey said...

Dear Jarrett White:

With all the hoopla surrounding the illegal alien marches yesterday I wanted to take this opportunity to let Senator Smith and you colleagues know that among the many polls, three I am aware of yesterday, two of which ran locally, consistently ran in opposition to the demonstrations. The local ones include the following:

5/1/07- Polls:

Katu 2, Ptld. (www.katu.com):

Do you support immigration reform tht includes a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants?

yes 23%
no 77%

KGW 8, Ptld. (www.kgw.com):
Don't have the exact question, but it gave asked what you would do with the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States, giving four options: percentages within a tenth or two

Amnesty 4.40%
Path to Citizenship 18.50%
Deport 74.50%
Arrest 2.60%

CNN Lou Dobbs (www.cnn.com/cnn/programs/lou.dobbs.tonight):

Do you believe that the Bush administration and the Democratic-led Congress should first secure our ports and border before discussing "comprehensive immigration reform"? as of 5/2/07, 10am PST.

yes 95% 10,041
no 5% 487
Total.............. 10,528



I understand there are other polls with possibly different results. What I find most interesting is, two are in a state you are suppose to represent, they come from an area that isn't a bastion of conservatism by know means and if you've been keeping track, they are consistent one with each other and others with similar emphasis taken over the last few years since this topic as gained the attention it has.

If the Senator is entertaining any thoughts on siding again (S.2611) with the President, Kennedy, Martinez, Hagel, Flake, McCain and the Democratic Party, these local polls over the last year should provide greater insight into how voters feel and may react come election time

Anonymous said...

SI SE PUEDE!

Chris said...

Just Wondering,

Better you slink back to DailyKos where your moonbat rhetoric is welcome.

But before you go, why are you able to post such venom about the president if Bush is eroding your rights?

Anonymous said...

mmmm.... my own experience with illegal aliens..


I live in Klamath Falls. For you that live in Portland...yes that is in Oregon.

1992 an illegal murdered a state trooper. You see the trooper stopped a car with 3 illegal Mexicans in it. The driver was intoxicated, thus was arrested. It was a very cold night, so the trooper being a nice guy offered to give the 2 not under arrest a ride. For this act of kindness one of the illegal Mexicans shot him in the back of the head as a reward. One year later that troopers wife…. killed herself as well.


2002 an illegal Mexican raped 2 nuns (yes…NUNS) and murdered one of them by strangling her to death with her own rosary beads.

As taxpayers, not only did we pay for their defense of these disgusting acts, but we also are currently giving them 3 hots and a cot.

Why cant these people get in line and apply to enter this country legally, so they can be vetted? Who in the hell do they think they are? As an American…I cannot just walk across the border and buy land…demand welfare… demand citizenship…demand…demand…demand.

Mexico has their army stationed on their southern border…But we cant build a simple fence?


Frankly, we should just take Mexico. They have oil and we already have their poor. One barrel a day for every one of their citizens here…just might pay for their up keep.

Anonymous said...

rick,

Interestingly, a search on the KATU website of immigration poll returns no stories about such a poll.

Are you sure it's not an internet "poll" that you are referencing? Those are not at all scientific, and are notoriously inaccurate.

The "poll" on the KGW site is just such an internet poll. If the best you can do to show that peop0le agree with your position is a couple of internet polls, then you don't have a leg to stand on.

Anonymous said...

It's sad, and mildly amusing, to see a convicted criminal who tried to get his conviction overturned on a technicality complain about the presumed criminal conduct of others.

Perhaps Daniel needs to take the log out of his own eye.

anon 641 am said...

To anon 1002am:

You use "con" to describe folks that want enforcement, but in reality support for enforcement of the law crosses political divides.

Large numbers of blue collar workers want enforcement. There are Democrats that want enforcement. There are Liberals that want enforcement because they know poor Americans and legal residents are hurt by illegal aliens driving down wages.

The polls on this subject indicate your open border position is an isolated island.

The Irish flags of citizens on St. Patrick's Day are not meant to influence policy on a point of national law.

Irish flags don't connotate a sense of grievance by foreign nationals and a real sense of being Mexican in a foreign land(America)and retaining that nationality, yet wanting amnesty for breaking the laws of that foreign country(America).

The confederate flag is divisive in some quarters, but many understand it as a historical emblem of regional pride in this country, not a rallying symbol for foreign nationals to force America to change its law to a foreign will.

The above explains why Americans are so offended by these marches:
Americans resent foreigners trying to intimidate Americans to change our laws.

It is like an intruder banging on your house's front door demanding to be let in because it is the intruders right.

Or worse,

Already having broken in through the back window and pilfered the pantry and upon being caught and confronted by the home owner, demands he be seated at the dinner table as an invited guest.

These are simple metaphors that the average American "gets".

And the polls reflect that understanding.

Anonymous said...

Daniel, as you watch these guys walk by the camera, I gather that you're able to instantly determine that they are criminals -- or at least, which ones are. How do you do this? What telltale signs of criminality should we watch for in an event like this? Surely not EVERYONE who marched is a criminal. Please elaborate.

bear's anti said...

“The confederate flag is divisive in some quarters, but many understand it as a historical emblem of regional pride in this country, not a rallying symbol for foreign nationals to force America to change its law to a foreign will.”

Many understand the confederate flag as a historical emblem of regional pride? If a historical (political) state that embraces the truest form of racial superiority is an area of regional pride, then I am glad that my geographical upbringing is completely emancipated from such a socially barbaric state. For those that were brought up in the south, I am surprised there is not an automatic rejection of anon 641’s claim. You can distort the meaning behind that flag (which involves a rejection of United States nationalism and the adoption of foreign nationalism, both of which ironically you are arguing against), but we who are pragmatists automatically filter out any sort of false positive connotations you try to associate with that flag. Perhaps some will be surprised, but it is rarely shocking to see a radical so blatantly contradicting himself.

And where are your sources that so adamantly claim the wants of the average American? Do they stem from Rick’s indecipherable and incomprehensible ramblings that he occasionally posts?

“I see the problems in both countries, but my first concern and priority is with America and it's citizens and legal residents.”

Unlikely. Even if it were true, you contradict yourself again in, to cite the infamous cliché, wanting your cake and eating it too. If your want is truly the eradication of illegal aliens in the United States, you would, as you so poignantly said, recognize this as the average American does. The development of the Mexican state is essential in stemming the flow of illegal aliens. Of course, this would contradict some of your nationalistic tendencies, I’m sure (which is every bit as horrible as racism; in fact, nationalism is just a supra-racist mantra). The abolition of NAFTA, for one, is an essential step in the eradication of the “problem” of illegal aliens. I’m just going to assume that you will automatically reject such a measure in the name of ‘capitalism.’

And by the way, you should have wrote “its, not it’s.

Elizabeth said...

May 1 illegal alien protests filled with arrests, mayhem, and radicalism!
http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=345573#345573

anon 641 am said...

To bear's anti 215pm:

You are desperate aren't you?

"historical" is the operative word in regards to the confederate flag.
Sorry guy, but NASCAR fans know what I mean, even if you don't.

But distract as much as you can; it seems to be the only game you got.

I'm the "radical"? I just want the law enforced. What's radical about that? Particularly, when I support enforcement through attrition over time by employer verification.

You, on the other hand, spend many words disparaging nationalism equating it with racism, like a good socialist should.

There are so many polls indicating a clear majority of Americans want control of the border, it shows you just can't accept truth that goes against what you want.

When you address my supposed position on Mexican economics and made false assumptions about where I stand, that is where you betray your ignorance about economics and reveal your socialist bent.

Yes, positive economic development in Mexico is good and would reduce illegal immigration into this country. Economics is not a zero-sum game, but many socialists like you mistakenly think it is.

NAFTA has been a disapointment to me and I am open to adjusting it or scrapping it entirely.

It must be hard for you with your socialist leanings to be in bed with corporate America.

I mean how do you rationalize in your own mind licking corporate America's boot. Since they are for open borders big time.

Can you see the contradiction there? Or does it just go over your head?

Anonymous said...

Portland will kiss ass until the ‘Hawthorn crowd’ begins competing directly with the illegal and amnestied-illegal’s those in Gresham – Hood River - Woodburn - Hillsboro & Cornelius have for years. The new Portlanders are enabling Illegals for a PC / PR feel-good moment, and an opportunity to grab (what they consider) some good press between flag-pissing.

With their cost of living, the asphalt island that’s Portland maintains the luxury of ignoring the dire effects of Illegals and their spawn. The rest of us don't. And as a two decade supporter of Portland’s KBOO radio (W/ non-stop all-day illegal alien march support), when they begin loosing members like me, they’d better listen... Which begs the question: how much loss will the enablers suffer in their effort to “punish” the US? …guess that depends on whether they have anything to lose..?

Portland's my hometown - but I'd bet heavy it’s not the hometown one-in-50 of those marching bastards looking to take / give it away!

Anonymous said...

Myself, I'm going to the beach this weekend and will Not stop at the Factory Stores as they Hire Illegal Aliens that will shoot another store employee in the face for some unknown trivial reason.

If the shooter had not worked there he may not have had the opportunity to commit his crime as easily.

So who are you handing your credit to?

Anonymous said...

The most revealing insight into Mr. Miglavs' warped and reactionary politics is not what he writes in his posts. It's his choice of which questions he refuses to answer. Silence speaks volumes.

Rick Hickey said...

Another recent Poll;
Illegal Immigration is Key Concern to Voters
Posted 05/03/2007 ET




Citizens United commissioned McLaughlin & Associates to conduct a national survey of likely voters, including an oversample of Latinos, to gauge public opinion on the issue of illegal immigration. Among the findings:

-- 93% of voters say that illegal immigration is a problem facing the United States today, with 63% regarding illegal immigration as a major problem.

-- A 51% majority of voters says the measures passed last year by the President and Congress did not decrease illegal immigration at all.

-- A 35% plurality of voters cite "securing our borders so terrorists can't enter our country" as the illegal-immigration issue about which they are most concerned. A 36% plurality say the best way to secure the U.S.-Mexico border is "preventing illegal immigrants from being hired for jobs in the United States."

-- There is strong support for proposals that would help immigrants to learn and use the English language. 80% of total voters and 62% of Latino voters favor making English the official language of the United States. 88% of both total voters and of Latino voters favor requiring that all public school students who cannot read English be enrolled in English-immersion classes.

-- There is strong support for several proposals to track and identify illegal immigrants. Requiring valid photo ID from voters on Election Day before they vote is supported by 82% of both total voters and of Latino voters. Creating a tamper-proof ID system to determine instantly if a job applicant may work in the U.S., and holding employers who hire illegal workers accountable, drew support from 78% of total voters and 73% of Latino voters. Prohibiting states from issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants drew support from 75% of total voters and 59% of Latino voters.

-- Voters favor tougher laws on deportation of illegal immigrants. Requiring police to detain and hold for deportation any illegal immigrants arrested or stopped for other crimes, thereby effectively repealing local "sanctuary" laws, is supported by 77% of total voters and 67% of Latino voters. A "zero tolerance" policy that would call for deportation of any illegal immigrant in the U.S. to his or her country of citizenship is supported by 68% of total voters and 56% of Latino voters.

-- Voters worry about the burden of illegal immigrants on social services. 71% of voters support passing a new law stopping taxpayer funding of Medicaid, welfare, and other government services for illegal immigrants. 77% of total voters and 72% of Latino voters oppose giving Social Security benefits or extending credit to illegal immigrants.

-- 61% of voters do not support any blanket conditions for giving legal, green-card status to illegal immigrants.

-- 73% of total voters support changing U.S. "birthright citizenship" law so that a child born in the U.S. may only be a citizen at birth if one parent is already a citizen. Only 53% of Latino voters support this proposal.

-- Less than half (48%) of voters support the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act introduced by Senators Ted Kennedy and John McCain, which provides a "path to citizenship" for illegal immigrants already in this country.

-- Less than one-third (31%) of voters support, and 61% oppose, providing a path to citizenship for those illegal immigrants who entered the U.S illegally, and who fraudulently obtained green cards and Social Security numbers, when millions are playing by the rules and waiting in their countries to enter the United States legally. The numbers are similar among Latino voters (37% support, 57% oppose).

-- Only 50% of total voters and 47% of Latino voters support a comprehensive immigration reform bill that would provide legal status for illegal immigrants, but not provide a "path to citizenship" unless the individual returns to their home country to apply at the U.S. embassy or consulate to re-enter the U.S. legally as a permanent resident with a green card, pays a $10,000 fine, and gets in line behind those in their country who have already applied to enter the U.S. legally.

Rick Hickey said...

Another one-But I am a Liar;
Poll: Americans Still See Controlling the Borders as Top Immigration Concern rasmussenreports.com
Wed May 2, 11:27 AM ET



A year ago, many Beltway pundits were stunned when May Day protests for illegal immigrants failed to move public policy in the expected manner. In fact, following the rallies, it was the Beltway debate that shifted as politicians realized the public saw the issue in fundamentally different terms than Congress.

A year has gone by and a smaller set of rallies were held yesterday, but public opinion has not changed.

When given a choice, 48% of Americans would opt for a Congressional candidate who "favors building a barrier along the Mexican border and forcing illegal aliens to leave the United States." A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 36% prefer a candidate promising to "expand legal opportunities for foreign workers to find jobs."

Sixty percent (60%) of Americans believe that immigration reform should include laws requiring that all government documents be printed in English. Just 29% disagree.

Republicans favor the candidate focused on controlling the border by a two-to-one margin. Democrats are more evenly divided. Among those not affiliated with either major party (a growing number), 47% prefer the candidate focused on controlling the border while 35% take the opposite view.

The overall results are essentially unchanged from attitudes measured a year ago. They are consistent with the general public view that it doesn't make sense to debate new immigration laws until we can first control our borders and enforce existing laws.

The latest survey also found that most Americans (56%%) oppose granting citizenship to the child of an illegal alien born in the United States. Just 35% believe citizenship should be granted.

By a similar margin, 55% to 29%, American adults oppose granting citizenship to parents of children born in the United States.

Last year, the immigration debate caught America's political class completely off guard and most national politicians made an incorrect assessment concerning the nature of the debate. The initial discussions in Washington implied a debate that was either pro-immigration or anti-immigration. Those who favored some form of legalization or earned citizenship were pictured in official Washington as pro-immigrant while those who favored border control were thought to be anti-immigrant (or perhaps racist). However, Rasmussen Reports data showed an entirely different picture.

Most Americans who favored enforcement first policies also favored a welcoming policy for legal immigration. In other words, most Americans recognized that our nation is both a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws. They wanted to uphold both aspects of our national heritage. Just as important, they want political leaders to remember the second part of that heritage--that we're a nation of laws.

During 2006, state-by-state polling found support for an enforcement-first policy topping 60% in all but one of thirty-three states.

This national telephone survey of 1,000 Adults was conducted by Rasmussen Reports April 30-May 1, 2007. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.

summing up said...

Conclusion: Rick Hickey is obsessed with reading polls.

Rick Hickey said...

I provide the truth you asked for and I am wrong anyhow?
Daniel, you are right, attempting to reason with blinded idiots is pointless.

summing up said...

I didn't ask you for anything. I just dropped in and made an observation.

summing up said...

... but since you bring it up. Dueling polls are about as useful and enlightening as dueling Bible verses ... everyone's got one that serves their purpose for the occasion. Complicating the issue with polls, is the fact that if the polls support your position, "the people" are behind you. If the polls are against you -- and have no illusions, Mr. Hickey, sometimes they ARE against you -- then you can always stand there and say, "I don't let polls dictate my principles, blah, blah, blah," or "Just because the majority believes it doesn't make it right." Both sides do it. It's a shell game, and you know it.

Daniel said...

The polls that will count will be the ballot measures that Oregonians (and possibly some illegal aliens) will get to vote on.

I guess then we'll see how popular the lawbreaking, Mexican flag waving, Spanish speaking, job taking, wage lowering, drug dealing, child raping, illegal aliens really are.

Anonymous said...

Daniel,

How's that log feeling?

R Huse said...

Bears Anti - Half my family is from the South. I spent a good part of my life in the South. If you are going to try and tell me that the confederate flag, as a symbol now, means the wearer wants to reinstate slavery and secede, good luck. It is a symbol of regional pride plain and simple. If you don't understand that and therefore think every NASCAR fan or Skynyrd fan is pro slavery, then you really are out of touch. Either that or you have a compulsive need to feel moral superiority over everyone around you and thus ascribe things to them that are manifestly untrue.

So how is this different from waving the Mexican flag? Well, depends where you wave it. No one seems particularly upset at a Mexican flag in a families home, or restaurant etc. Its when you wave it at a rally, often populated by racist groups (LaMecha, La Raza) waving racist banners worthy of a Klan rally (as at demonstrations last year) that people have a problem with it. Sort of like how if you see a flag at a NASCAR rally, its way different than if you saw it at a Klan rally.

Got it? Good - Now that the obvious has been pointed out, perhaps you can get your moral superiority fix somewhere else and not at the expense of my people.

Anonymous said...

Here's a little history lesson.

The Confederate Battle Flag was incorporated into southern states' flags in the 1950s in response to Civil Rights movement, and was seen as opposition to civil rights for African Americans.

Remember, at the time the south had a form of Apartheid, and African American citizens were denied basic rights. For an African American to simply register to vote was to risk their life.

The Confederate Battle Flag was (and is) a symbol used by the Ku Klux Klan in their fight against full rights for all U.S. citizens.

anon 641 am said...

To anon 857 am:
Just to emphasize what has already been said:

The Mexican flag is used by LaMecha, La Raza, ect., blatently racist organizations, at these protest marches, to promote their racist agenda and Mexican national solidarity. But anon857 you say nothing about that. Does that mean you are O.K. with that? Rather, you want to distract.

Let's stick with what was actually present at the marches.

Even if what you say has merit(for the sake of argument), two wrongs don't make a right. I want you to explain how you justify the Mexican flag at these protest rallies.

Talk about tortured reasoning. But that's nothing new for you, I'm sure.

Anonymous said...

The Mexican flag does not bother me--it's a symbol of their heritage. I know quite a few immigrants from various countries, some who have become U.S. citizens, and they all still like things that remind them of where they grew up.

I've noticed that with people that have moved to different parts of the country. When I lived on the East Coast I loved anything that reminded me of Oregon.

The English-only fetish also puzzles me. If you travel to non-English speaking countries, you will discover that in many of them you can get by quite nicely without knowing the "home" language.

I thought conservatives hate government regulation, but it seems that many want to forbid businesses from serving their customers in the best manner they see fit, by offering services in other languages (and Spanish is far from the only language spoken in Oregon.)

R Huse said...

So following Anons Confederate Flag logic:

Since the Democrats are the ones who reinstated the confederate flag in the south ( Fritz Hollings in SC for one ), that means they are all racist since they did so specifically to make a segregationist statement and due to their have historical opposition to civil rights.

Since the Klan uses the symbol of a cross far more than the confederate flag then that means the cross is even more of a symbol of racism than the flag.

Lynyrd Skynyrd as well as a hell of a lot of NASCAR fans all want to bring back segregation because they use the confederate flag.

Talk about ridiculous.

anon 641 am said...

To anon 248pm:
Well, I assume this is the same writer who made a big deal about the confederate flag.

First, I don't have an issue with the Mexican flag as you discribe its usage as a symbol of heritage or comfort.

But you simply didn't answer my question. You avoided the obvious import of the question.

This can only be described as intellectually dishonesty and hypocricy.

Why?

Because the obvious import was about using Mexican flags as a political symbol to rally foreign nationals in a protest march designed to bend American law to Mexican illegal alien will.

It is also intellectually dishonest because you made such a big deal about the confederate flag and how it was used, then fail to adress how the Mexican flag is used as a rallying symbol for racist organizations with a foreign nationalist agenda for ignoring American law.

The language issue is different. Fine, but we should have English immersion to get all Americans able to function as well as possible in the transactional language of America and the language of prosperity in America.

bear's anti said...

“To bear's anti 215pm:

You are desperate aren't you?


"historical" is the operative word in regards to the confederate flag.
Sorry guy, but NASCAR fans know what I mean, even if you don't.

”

What blatant hypocrisy! Do you not see your own contradiction? The only “argument” you’ve provided is that you assume you are the arbiter of what the waving of a flag signifies. We can make the very same argument with the Mexican flag, but it is an argument you reject despite your inability to provide any logical grounds confirming your hypothesis.

“But distract as much as you can; it seems to be the only game you got.



I'm the "radical"? I just want the law enforced. What's radical about that? Particularly, when I support enforcement through attrition over time by employer verification.



You, on the other hand, spend many words disparaging nationalism equating it with racism, like a good socialist should.

”

Ah, I expected no less from you :). If you want an unoriginal, dry post, please, keep your eyes on your own writing!

The amount of sheer stupidity manifested in this statement is, unfortunately, not surprising. But let’s get the obvious out of the way.

In your response, you automatically dichotomize your dissenter as “on the side of evil,” that is, as an amoral person. Yet you do not use the word “evil” or “bad.”

Again, your reasoning behind this is blatantly obvious. Your preconceptions of good and evil are completely indefinable, arbitrary, and thus are easy to assign to those you choose. The second part should be obvious. If it isn’t, I’m sure that your subconscious picked up on it, for your statement completely embodies such a string of “logic.” Part of your brain, if not the whole thing, recognized your arbitrary notions of good and evil and realized that nobody, not even your advocates, would accept such an indefinable label as “evil” or “bad” placed upon your dissenters.

Therefore, your maladroit definition of “good” and “evil” needed verbal embodiments; clear, easy to understand embodiments for the purposes of this blog. Thus, the canard in reference to the negative connotation that socialism gets on this blog is attributed to any dissenter, any person you label your bastardized idea of “evil” or “bad” on.

But if you want to equate socialism with “evil,” then you are going to first have to construct a universal definition of evil, then argue as to why socialism (I lean closer to Marxism than Trotskyism despite being a nihilist; hopefully this will save you a post) deserves your notion of “evil.”

This, unfortunately, let you to write off my argument categorizing nationalism, which by definition recognizes national superiority (the very premise of racism!) as nothing but the ramblings of a socialist, even though you provided no argument against me. I desperately want to say this is a result of your laziness to give you some sort of benefit of the doubt, but given the lack of intelligent thought in the whole of your post, it seems to me that it is actually an inability to argue against me. Do me a favor and prove me wrong.

If you next time take ten minutes to deconstruct your warped logic, I’m sure you can post something more challenging to argue against.

“There are so many polls indicating a clear majority of Americans want control of the border, it shows you just can't accept truth that goes against what you want.
”

Yet you couldn’t link me to a single one! But let’s play on the assumption that you are right about the polls. So what? I’ve seen some of you quote Mill, so it surprises me that you don’t see the obvious argument that negates the results of any poll, imagined or otherwise. Think tyranny of the majority.

“
When you address my supposed position on Mexican economics and made false assumptions about where I stand, that is where you betray your ignorance about economics and reveal your socialist bent.
”

Instead of taking the easy route and pointing out both the hypocrisy you make in your assumption (but the word assumption should be a clue) and your inability to correlate me being a socialist and my alleged economic views, I think I will let the rest of your post speak for itself, interrupting it at every inaccuracy.

“Yes, positive economic development in Mexico is good and would reduce illegal immigration into this country. “

Thank you for agreeing with me.

“Economics is not a zero-sum game, “

yes

“but many socialists like you mistakenly think it is.

”

Ah! Weren’t you the one berating me for making assumptions? Once again, hypocrisy at its finest!

“NAFTA has been a disapointment to me and I am open to adjusting it or scrapping it entirely.

”

With exception to your spelling of the word disappointment, agreed!

“It must be hard for you with your socialist leanings to be in bed with corporate America.

I mean how do you rationalize in your own mind licking corporate America's boot.”

My God! You didn’t even bother to attempt to make any sort of logical correlation. Your reliance on such an obvious argumentative fallacy has stricken all hope I had that any sort of intelligible thought existed in your brain.


“Since they are for open borders big time.
Can you see the contradiction there? Or does it just go over your head?”

The incoherent thoughts of the insane often go over the heads of the sane.

anon 641am said...

To Bear's anti 934pm:

Let's take the first last.

But an overall comment is needed before I get started.

I can see you aren't used to dealing with someone who will deconsruct your arguments. The feverish quality of your responding comments standout when readers reflect on the overall tone and civility they display.

Name calling is a poor substitute for argument. Anybody who reads your comments can sense your flustered and angry emotion.

I'm flattered that you quote me so liberally, yet most of the time you dont't answer the thrust of the assertion and drop into unresponsive name calling or psychobabble about good and evil.

Being creative is good, but tortured reasoning about my ideas of good and evil when I never use the words is creating your own reality. Only people who already agree with you will say amen. But as a persuasive method...for people who are on the sidelines...it falls flat on its face.

Back to the last of your comments:

You never answer the charge of being a socialist, yet being in agreement with corpoate America.

Do you deny corporate America wants open borders? Do you deny being some form of socialist? No, since you state,"I lean closer to Marxism than Trotskyism despite being a nihiist..." So, O.K.

How do you explain socialists and corporate elites being in agreement on illegal immigration?

Simple question, but apparently not for you. These are partial quotes from your response below.

no "...intelligible thought existed in your brain."

"The incoherent thought of the insane often go over the heads of the sane."

Bear's anti, do you really think this kind of debating style will win or persuade people in the real world?

Would you respond this way in front of a Portland City Club audience?

I think not.

You may be licking your wounded ego, and it makes you feel better to vent your spleen this way, but I'll give you some advice: it is not persuasive.

Enough of a blow by blow analysis and response to your rejoinder.

Frame your reasoning for a polite and reasonable audience.

bear's anti said...

Is your hypocrisy an inherent disease? You seem to be unable to post without contradicting yourself on numerous fronts, doing so in just the first four paragraphs of your post!

You start by claiming that “overall comment is needed” in order to get your point across. Fair enough. But let’s look at the necessary assertion you claim is in the “overall comment:”

“I can see you aren't used to dealing with someone who will deconsruct your arguments. The feverish quality of your responding comments standout when readers reflect on the overall tone and civility they display.”

Was this “overall comment” necessary? On what front was it necessary? Aside from displaying a sense of pretentiousness (this notion that you were able to “deconstruct [sic]” my argument and your assumption that my arguments are rarely dissected), your “need of an overall comment” is of no other use than to vent your own frustration at being completely unable to refute much of my previous post.

And there we have it! Let’s take a look at the next paragraph.

“Name calling is a poor substitute for argument. Anybody who reads your comments can sense your flustered and angry emotion.”

Amazing. In an attempt to categorize my emotions, you looked to your own feelings of “flustered and angry emotion.” Nobody can describe how you were feeling better than you. As if to exemplify my point, you spell “don’t” with two t’s.

You have now established yourself as a hypocrite. But lets look past that for the purposes of this post and see what other contradictory insight you have to offer.

Your reference to my “psychobabble” on good and evil was perhaps my favorite part of your whole post, for it was one of the rare moments in your post where you actually asserted anything. It was a weak assertion, but nonetheless, it was an assertion. It is therefore unfortunate that you felt necessary to write it off as “psychobabble” without so much as addressing it. When you automatically make dichotomizations concerning right and wrong without substantiating them, you should expect no less than a revelation as to your thought process. I did ask that you prove it wrong immediately thereafter. Unfortunately, it seems as if you were unable to do so.

Ironically, you then accuse me of being unpersuasive, then immediately fall victim to the very same “tortured logic” by recognizing your inability to establish any sort of relevant claim pertaining to any socialist tendencies I may have. (The phrase “you never answer the charge” clearly indicates this. Ironically, I do later on in my post. In fact, you quote me doing so!)

Following this (and many misspellings of “corporate”), you correlate my presupposed socialist tendencies (perhaps you are need of a vocabulary check since you don’t seem to know what “Marxism,” “Trotskyism,” or “Nihilism,” are, otherwise you wouldn’t have made such claims) to being in agreement with corporate America, absent any of your bastardized labels of right and wrong, minus the socialism charge. Normally this would be fine, but you demand that I explain their being in league with each other.

In order to give you some sort of satisfaction, I’ll answer this as best as possible. I am arguing against your alienation of Mexicans, against your contradictory arguments regarding flag waving, against your otherwise generally crappy logic. I am not opposed to open borders, even though I am not the strongest advocate of it either. I think this notion of nationality is absurd and is only a means to what Nietzsche called “the will to power,” the only truth that can has a hope of being completely universal. I am opposed to the notion of the privileged (those of us born in the United States; what did we do to deserve being born here?) excluding their undeserved rights from others. I don’t care to explain their “being in league with one another” except that their intentions are much crueler than mine, despite wanting (one of) the same goals. I no more need to describe my correlation than you need to describe the correlation between the United States wanting no foreign interference with their government and the Iraqi people, or any other middle eastern “terrorist” country wanting any sort of foreign interference with their government. It was a simple question, true, but it was also a stupid question. I know you hate getting picked on, but that was a stupid assertion. Put some thought into the next one.

Your closing paragraphs did nothing but induce laughter. Consider the following:

“Bear's anti, do you really think this kind of debating style will win or persuade people in the real world?”

I don’t know. Ask any of the great philosophers who did this in their writing. Was Marx, Mill, or Nietzsche persuasive?

“Would you respond this way in front of a Portland City Club audience?

I think not.”

Then you’re wrong. Assuming I would want to argue in front of your club for pompous elitists, I wouldn’t hold back. I would attack your logical inconstancies with even more fervor.

“You may be licking your wounded ego, and it makes you feel better to vent your spleen this way, but I'll give you some advice: it is not persuasive.”

It just seems as if you couldn’t help but get one last bit of pretentious verbiage in. Again, the likes of Habermas and Foucault would disagree with you.

Undoubtedly, you will post again in response. I look forward to it, only asking that you actually think before responding.

bear's anti said...

Building on your mantra of “Frame your reasoning for a polite and reasonable audience”:

Do you recognize the following statements?

“Your approach is foolish, or intentionally stupid.”

“Go back under your rock 722, or don't be so stupid.”

“Wake up.”

Can we call you Aeschines?

anon 641am said...

To bear,s anti 840pm:

Socialists have no "truth" but their own. They want to recreate society in their own ideas' image.

"The end, justifies the means."

To achieve this "New Society" of the socialist's dreams, tactics will be employed only to the extent they are useful.
but no tactic is beyound use, if it is shown to be effective.

The Double Standard is one of your favorite "tactics" and you display its use perfectly in your 840pm post.

First, I would be able to use these comments in polite discourse.
But secondly, you needed to search for my putdowns("wakeup" is so over the line!), while your putdowns add up to quite a number.

Considering the extent of my writings, that is a small number on this blog with its free flowing style.

My worst putdowns,"go back under your rock", "stupid", and "intentionally stupid" were in response to this quote:

"Only one problem though...some people, like 641, have this weird condition that combines BLINDNESS and monumental STUPIDITY. But at least your not a racist."

I make my putdowns only after thoroughly debunking the poster's comment and respond in kind.

Socialists have no problem with double standards. You fit the bill to a tee.

anon 641pm said...

To bear's anti 546pm:
Congratulations, you really seize the moral high ground right off the bat with your opening statement,"Is your hyocrisy an inherent disease?"

Your ego is huge and to compare your persuasive ability to "Marx, Mill, or Nietzshe" only makes clear your delusions of grandeur.

(I'm glad one of your heroes is Marx, and you share his disdain for Nationalism.)

Look, I've already spent too much time and effort discussing or debating with you. Your socialist or maybe more accurately Communist writings speak for themselves.

Fair and reasonable readers can compare your writings and mine and decide for themselves who makes more sense about the issue of illegal immigration and the various solutions available to this vexing problem.

bear's anti said...

Ah, that was exactly the sort of reactionary statement I was looking for, Anon. You should understand I cared nothing for "moral high ground." My only interest in such a concept was that you claimed it as yours, yet contradicted yourself numerous times. Normally, I would encourage you to berate me in the strongest manner possible, but I would hate to make you any more of a hypocrite.

As far as the "socialist" charge goes, I'm a bigger fan of Nietzsche than Marx. If you understood anything, you would know that Nietzsche is contradictory to Marx on both a political and metaphysical level. Marx is a hero in the same respect that Mill is a hero.

In conclusion, I think the only "fair and reasonable" readers who will see your sole perspective as correct are those who attribute fairness to Fox news programs such as Hannidy and Colmes.

Anonymous said...

Wow, what a slug fest between those two. I don't know, but I think Bear's Anti needs a reservation in the rubber room at the local mental hospital.