Monday, December 08, 2008

How about just "go"

Translated from Spanish
The Multnomah County Health Department is committed to providing accessible health information for all the communities we serve. Below you will find links to information developed by the Ministry of Health of Mexico. Titled, “Go Healthy, Return Healthy,” these pamphlets are intended especially for people who migrate back and forth from Mexico to the United States.

Why on earth do our government agencies continue to "partner" with Mexico for things like school curriculum and health care? It's like the Japanese asking Detroit how to remain profitable.

Multnomah County is a huge health care provider. They can make completely irrational decisions since they are not market based. Subscribing to Mexican medicinal advice which is clearly intended for the illegal alien population is a decision that I don't think private health care providers would make.


Anonymous said...

you ,,the taxpayer pay for the spanish translators up at the OHSU university . Yes, the illegal mexicans get a free translator and the waiting room has lots of mexicans.

Anonymous said...


Again, why do you assume that all Mexican immigrants are illegal. I'm sure that some are, but I'm also sure this information is beneficial to a substantial number of legal migrants who come here seasonally to do farm and other work that U.S. natives are unwilling to perform.

I don't really see the problem with Multnomah County making information developed by the Mexican government, with their dollars, accessible to their citizens working in the United States.

It doesn't take much to get you bent out of shape does it? You and the rest of your wing-nut friends better go let of some steam by peppering the side of that hill with more bullets. Rumor has it al Qaeda is camped out just on the other side.

Anonymous said...

Ever been to the health department? None of the people in there, with the possible exception of a very few spanish speaking only latinos with HIV, have ever accessed the internets. Multnomah County thinks it is more important to march around beating it's drum of diversity than actually serving people. Once these people show up, the county could give a shit. In fact, the county wouldn't care if these people never showed up for services. Multnomah County sucks, but then again, so does most of Oregon. Face it, you live in a shitty fucking state, man. If you haven't already thought about leaving, you will. If you don't, you will spend your whole life pissed at these fucking losers and everything they do.

11:04, you are a fucking moron. #1, seasonal migrant workers don't access the internet. #2, seasonal migrant farm labor is rarely done inside Multnomah County, meaning they don't have jurisdiction over what is happening with that group of people in Washington, Marion, Yamhill, Clackamas, Polk, and Linn counties, for example.

Regarding your comment about peppering the hillside with bullets and al-qaeda...too bad your phaggot ass isn't on the other side of that hill. I'd rather shoot fucks like you right now rather than raghead bitches overseas. And if they showed up here, I'd shoot them first and then turn my gun onto you. Or maybe I should shoot you first, since assholes like you want to aid and abet the fucking enemy. This makes you the fucking enemy as well. Fuck you, phaeg. lol

Anonymous said...

"Regarding your comment about peppering the hillside with bullets and al-qaeda...too bad your phaggot ass isn't on the other side of that hill. I'd rather shoot fucks like you right now rather than raghead bitches overseas. And if they showed up here, I'd shoot them first and then turn my gun onto you. Or maybe I should shoot you first, since assholes like you want to aid and abet the fucking enemy. This makes you the fucking enemy as well. Fuck you, phaeg. lol"

Welcome to Miglavia!

Where REAL Americans take the law into their own hands and "patriotism" is defined as murdering fellow citizens who might disagree with your politics. Nice.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know whether it is illegal to anonymously threaten someone with murder over the internet? If anyone has knowledge of such laws, could you please post a link here?


Anonymous said...

They can make completely irrational decisions since they are not market based ...

In contrast, I suppose, to the wholly rational decisions that represent the very foundation of the private sector ... which, at the moment, is going down the shitter because of the decisions of those on Wall Street. Daniel, you must be the only human being on the PLANET who believes that the system by which health care is delivered in the United States is "rational."

Bobkatt said...

Let's see-anonymous mocks gun owners then worries about threats from anonymous no.2. Mas Macho.

Anonymous said...

Bobkatt, let's see here.

Making fun of some group: Protected free speech under the constitution.

Threating to do physical violence to another person: Not so much.

18 U.S.C. § 875(c) states: "Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both." From the wording of § 875(c) it is clear that the legislator did not require the element of 'intent.' Thus, it is irrelevant if the accused claims he/she did not have the intent to produce any injury on the victim; the mere act of sending the e-mail with threatening messages typifies the criminal conduct.

The holding in United States v. DeAndino, 958 F.2d 146 (US Ct. App. 6th Cir. 1992) confirms this statement. In DeAndino, the court held: "A criminal statute such as 18 U.S.C.S. § 875(c) does not contain a specific mens rea element. However, such a statute is not presumed to create a strict liability offense, because mere omission from the statute of any mention of intent will not be construed as eliminating that element from the crime denounced." In other words, 'federal stalking,' as this crime is also known, is not a strict liability crime but it does require prosecutors to prove that the accused committed the offense. Thus, the 'wording' of the e-mails and the e-mails themselves are critical evidence in these cases. Threats of injury must be found in the e-mails sent by the accused. As the Court held in DeAndino, the words in the [e-mail] message must fully, directly, and expressly set the elements of the statutory offense. For instance, in Tuason, the wording of one of his e-mails said: "Mulatto kids are ugly freaks that should be destroyed. . . The blackie should be castrated. I want people in public malls, photo shoots, TV studios, radio, concerts, arenas, restaurants, NBC TV, Bravo TV, parties, sidewalks, etc. to stare and stab dead any blackie with a white girl like "SS". . . If not, I "HK" WILL BOMB THE PLACE." These words are a clear example of threatening words of injury under the federal statute.

Many other US circuit courts have followed this interpretation in DeAndino. For instance, the First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth circuit courts have followed this interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) as not requiring specific mens rea (mental state of intent).

DeAndino held that this crime requires three specific elements: (i) there must be a transmission in interstate commerce; (ii) there must be a communication containing the threat; (iii) and the threat must be a threat to injure the person of another.

Therefore, according to 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) sending e-mails with words threatening injury is a federal crime and can be easily proven by showing that it was sent to a person in other state, showing the e-mail, and the wording the e-mail contains. Thus, individuals prompt to explosive reactions should be cautions when wording their e-mail messages. A simple 'mistake' in wording e-mails threatening its recipient with an injury, even if not intended, may typify a federal crime with a harsh imprisonment sentence.

Anonymous said...

I would venture to guess that law enforcement would take note of (a) blog of ex-con neo-nazi looking dude with video footage of said dude shooting high-powered firearms and (b) subsequent post at dude's blog threatening to shoot dissenting posters rife with racist and homophobic vitriol.

Anonymous said...

Making fun of some group = internet troll. Too bad you can't be arrested for that.

Doesn't look like there is a direct threat to me, "I'd rather..." is a whole lot different than saying, "I will..."

Obviously, you are here to bait and troll.

Anonymous said...

Maybe Obama's comment about bitter gun-clingers was accurate after all. It appears to at least ring true in Miglavia.

Anonymous said...

Not only that, but there are no "emails" here, which would convey a threat to a specific person. You are not a specific person. You are just another dumbass troll on the net. Also, there is no specific threat towards you. You can't meet the central elements of that which you accuse. That said, you'd rather that person be imprisoned than OJ, I am sure.

Best thing to do on anonymous internet forums, as usual, is to ignore the troll. In this case, that would be you

Anonymous said...

Welcome to Miglavia, where America comes first! (unless you're an American who disagrees with the Miglavian Doctrine, in which case, you're probably Muslim and gay, or even worse, liberal, Muslim, and gay, or even worse, of Mexican ancestry, liberal, Muslim, and gay, and will therefore be shot)

Anonymous said...

Daniel: What is your opinion of these vague and not so vague threats of violence against political opponents that are coming from your supporters? Do you think this is appropriate? Do you agree with them? Do you think this is justified? And if you do, how do you reconcile this position with your professed allegience to the rule of law? Would you tolerate this sort of rhetoric if it involved your children, if you have any, and their classmates at school? Since this is your blog, with your name on it, do you think you have any responsibility at all in establishing the tone of the discussion, setting a few basic ground rules? Like, for example, not threatening to shoot someone?

Anonymous said...

You guys are going off the cliff. Some libtard "makes fun of" Daniel and his crew shooting guns and references terrorists on the other side of the hill. Then someone responds with "too bad it couldn't be you on the other side of that hill," and that constitutes a direct threat to perpetrate violence upon the orginal troll who "made fun" of Daniel?

It's beyond obvious to me that this whole thing is a ruse. An attempted to set-up to discredit the blog creator.

This is just another tactic by the left to shut down the voice of opposition and get the blog author to censor people or put him in a bind. It's not going to work because the underlying premise is faulty.

Apparently, you guys don't believe in free speech, but we have known that for a very long time now. Go find something else to do.

Anonymous said...

Anon 451 - Any speech that advocates for and condones malicious violence against a person or group of people bacause of their beliefs (real or perceived) crosses the line, and is no longer protected as free speech under the constitution. If you can't see the difference between poking fun at gun enthusiasts and expressing a desire to shoot somebody because of their political leanings, then you've got serious problems.

Asking Daniel whether he condones or aligns himself with such heinous rhetoric is an entirely valid question.

Anonymous said...

No it's not because you guys come in here and harass the hell out of his blog. The guy tries to allow for free speech but you guys try to hang him by his nuts every chance you get. The fact of the matter is that you want to shut him down. He has been cool about it and let you all spout off. That's more than I would have done. I agree. Remove the "offending" post, but also remove the troll posts that lead to all this crap as well.

Looks to me like you guys started it and someone wanted to finish it. You guys are acting like retards. Enough of this crap already. Grow up and leave the man (Daniel) to his opinion. If you are going to disagree with it, do so respectfully. Stop coming on here with the intent of "making fun of him." You guys are ridiculous. All of these posts should be removed.

Anonymous said...

BTW, I am pretty certain he doesn't "align" himself with any group you want to paint him into that he doesn't proclaim membership in. He has stated who he supports, so there is no reason for him to come on here and say who he aligns himself with or doesn't. I can't speak for him, but I'd be amused by all the folks who come on here with their panties all in a wad.

Anonymous said...

Does he align himself with the idiot left wing comments that are left here? I didn't think so. Ridiculous.

Anonymous said...

In nearly every post Daniel generates, he pokes fun at, belittles, etc, etc. You expect posts to not come back at him in the same tenor? Give me a break.

The question is not whether Daniel should allow for one political side to belittle or demean the viewpoints of those on the opposing side. That's par for the course in Miglavia.

What's at issue is how Daniel responds when things cross the line, such as anon 11:21's brilliant post containing hardly veiled threats of gun violence and open hostility to people from the Middle East and homosexuals.

It's Daniel's blog. He's responsible for the content of his blog. If he's okay with this kind of heinous shit getting spewed out on its pages, then so be it. To ask what his reaction to such a post is is neither a ruse nor an effort to get him "shut down". It's simply a question.

That he so often stands mute when this visciousness is unleashed seems evidence enough to me that he's okay with it. Not surprising.

My view is this: make fun of each other all you want. Belittle each other's political views. Fine. It's often humorous. Start expressing a desire to inflict physical violence on someone, and you risk opening an entirely different can of worms and contributing to a truly intolerable social and political climate.

Anonymous said...

Simply put, you are wrong. You guys get personal with him. That is the difference. People saying that they know where he lives, sees what kind of signs he has in his yard. Etc. He has given you guys a ton of leeway, much more than you ever deserve. Personally, I'd pull all of that, but he doesn't do it. I'd say he has been pretty "tolerant" of your idiotic rantings. When someone shoots back at you, pardon the pun of course, you now cry for help. You want him to censor that poster and disassociate from the post. That is very typical of what the left wing does around here. You expect someone else to solve your problems. Here's a solution for you that might work: if you don't like what you see here, move on. Stop sniping the guy and stop going after him personally. He's NEVER done that to any of you unless you happen to have been on the news and found yourself in his commentary.

Spin this all you want, you can't spin your way out of the fact that many of you post mean, hateful comments. In your world, there is nothing wrong with that. No personal responsibility, no accountability, and no consequences when you are going after your political enemies. The end justifies the means. What's more is that you are used to those in the Center and Right just staying quiet about it. Then along comes a couple of posters from time to time who give it back to you as bad, or worse, than you give it and you cry like babies. Disgusting. Pathetic. Ridiculous. Your solution is to go away rather than cry about it here because no one wants to hear your whining. If he wants to do something about it, he will. If he doesn't, he won't. One thing is certain, no one here owes YOU or any of your leftwing friends an explanation (or those on the right, for that matter). Frankly I am tired of reading the left wing comments on this site as they are almost always idiotic or worse, but I don't command the blog author to do something about it. It's his blog and I respect that he will do with it what he wants.

Thanks for showing us the "intolerant" left once again, even if in the guise of some sort of intelligent attempt at conversation. Doesn't work, man, unless and until you respect opinions that are unlike yours.

Anonymous said...

As a member of the so-called "intolerant" left," and speaking only for myself, I have spoken out in defense of both Daniel and Lars Larson when each made it known that threats had been made against their families, a tactic I find reprehensible, cowardly and completely unjustified, and one for which the perpetrators ought to be held accountable, and I made it absolutely clear to both, in writing, what my position was.

To date, I have not seen Mr. Miglavs condemn those who posture with threats of violence against political opponents, and by his silence here in this thread and the post that follows this one, signed "The Management," Miglavs makes it absolutely clear what his position is.

Anonymous said...

Another ridiculous post. First of all, you are posting anonymously so no one knows what YOU posted or did not post. Secondly, when people made threatening or menacing posts against Daniel, he made no statements against those either, so are you saying that he condoned these posts made against him and his family?

You really are starting to look idiotic here. Were you the poster who made the comment about shooting at a hill? If you were, no specific threat was made against your person. Stop whining. Apparently you are boring EVERYONE as no one else is talking about this issue.

Bobkatt said...

yes Daniel, don't you fell the obligation to censor and control the posts? What kind of American are you? Now you've gone and hurt poor anon's sensitive feelings. Where's the love?