Reader R.S. sends us this photo, which he says was taken at Monday's "no controls on immigration" rally in downtown Seattle:
He adds:
There were people running around registering illegals to vote. And it was obviously illegals they were focused on ... this pic was taken at the very moment the Seattle Mayor [Greg Nickels] was yelling "WE SHALL OVERCOME"!Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 12, 2006 12:48 PM | Email This
No.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on April 12, 2006 01:33 PMI just sent you another pic of some typical liberals selling a newspaper called THE MILITANT.
In the background is both Mayor Nickels and KC Exec Simms Posted by: R. S. on April 12, 2006 01:47 PM
I just sent you another pic of some typical liberals selling a newspaper called THE MILITANT.
In the background is both Mayor Nickels and KC Exec Simms Posted by: R. S. on April 12, 2006 01:47 PM
http://www.themilitant.com/ Posted by: R S on April 12, 2006 02:00 PM
It wouldn't surprise me if they are getting severe headaches and will not be well enough to register to vote. They will definately need some heavy duty counciling! Taxpayers need to pick up the tab, as they feel so bad that people make them feel unwanted and illegal just because they are here illegally!
Posted by: Fred on April 12, 2006 02:12 PMremember, its your republican party that rules the house, senate and executive branch. they spend your money and grow govt worse than any democrats ever did!
a rally for legal immigration wouldn't work, b/c the republicans on the hill don't pay attention to what people want! if they did, we wouldn't have an out of control deficit (which is disproportionately financed by the communists in china) and intrusion into individual rights (a la the terry schiavo law).
and the president wouldn't see them b/c he doesn't read the newspapers (so he says). laura might tell him, though.
Posted by: dinesh on April 12, 2006 02:22 PMOne of the impediments to mass march was mentioned above. The illegals were allowed to take a day off work to march. My company would not do that. We have to be more strategic. Something like the candlelight vigil at Senator Frist's office several months ago. The vigil was held to protest amnesty.
P.S. I was at your meeting last Saturday and I support what you are doing.
Posted by: M&M on April 12, 2006 02:23 PMWould this initiative also imprison people who used false documents to register or to vote? Would it imprison people who encouraged people to register and vote illegally? Would it also cause elections tainted by illegal votes greater than the margin of victory to go into an automatic revote?
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on April 12, 2006 02:24 PMOvercome what, you say? The US Constitution. Nasty piece of work, that.
I can get the websites of all the WA state organization that are trying to change this situation. Maybe we can get Stefan or Jim Miller to post them on Sound Politics. I'll get them together tonight and post them here. Posted by: R. S. on April 12, 2006 02:34 PM
"Be able to speak, understand, read and write simple English during the citizenship interview..." (with suitable exceptions for physical or mental impairment or age).
Posted by: Hoplophile on April 12, 2006 02:35 PMThe Democrat-dominated legislature had the chance to adopt real election reform this year and failed (refused) to do so.
Then again, this IS an election year, and a vote is a vote, no matter who casts it.
Posted by: Hoplophile on April 12, 2006 02:40 PMOf course you don't, not any more than you have proof that far-left wackos are organizing these marches. Maybe looney-tunes Deborah believes it's all a Communist plot. That's about it.
I have registered plenty of Latino voters. I ask them all if they are citizens. I tell them all: "No esta ciudadano, no puede registrar. Esta contra la ley."
If people are knowingly registering noncitizens, clearly that needs to stop. But even if it is true, the Secretary of State's database should weed those out.
It won't stop us from registering unregistered Latino citizens, and do not dream that it will.
Posted by: ivan on April 12, 2006 02:41 PMhttp://www.protectwashingtonnow.blogspot.com/
wfir.org
http://www.cairco.org/events/illegal_alien_rally_la_2006apr10_1.html
http://grassfire.org/
and a petition at: http://www.minutemanhq.com/pet_hr1986/ Posted by: R. S. on April 12, 2006 02:45 PM
Use the Google translator.
Ivan
ANSWER and SEIU were both big organizers. Both are commie organizations.
Posted by: JCM on April 12, 2006 02:47 PM- Ronald Reagan - Posted by: R. S. on April 12, 2006 02:47 PM
I took that picture and was told by one of those when asked the question HOW DO YOU KNOW THEY ARE LEGAL. The answer: WE ALL HAVE RIGHTS.
What do you think? Posted by: R. S. on April 12, 2006 02:50 PM
No just a moonbat troll who believes the liberal cause is so righteous that anything to push the agenda is perfectly fine.
Posted by: JCM on April 12, 2006 02:57 PMI can't speak for those people and I have no basis to dispute what you say. If they were registering people without asking them if they were citizens, then that is stupid and wrong, and that's not anything I would do or stand for.
But based on what you report, that's not what they said. "We all have rights" says nothing. You ASSUME it means they are registering noncitizens, because that's what you want to believe. They might be, and they might not be.
And as for "nospam," it is not a march organized by and for "illegal aliens." It is a rally against proposed punitive legislation. It is also not organized for the purpose if registering people illegally, although I am sure some lackwits will try to do just that.
But you guys just believe what you want to. Your votes are counted already.
Posted by: ivan on April 12, 2006 03:07 PMMaybe we should just give the country back to the Native Americans then because they were here first. Or maybe the Native Americans should give their land back to the people here before them (see Kennewick man).
Hard to classify those people as "illegal aliens" when there was no country, with no legal constitution defining what a citizen is.
Posted by: Palouse on April 12, 2006 03:09 PMwhat, differing opinions in at soundpolitics?!
somebody, get out the talking points! call rossi, call mehlman, call rove, call somebody! we have dissent! somebody must be called!
that makes at least 2 of us!
Posted by: dinesh on April 12, 2006 03:12 PMWhen are we going to take this country back and tell 'em all from Dave Riechert to Bush that we want some leaders with balls and not leaders that are deballed. Want leaders that could give a rip about a bunch of lawbreakers telling US how we are going to take it!!! Can you believe this insanity??? Where was Bush telling ICE and the Marines to round ‘em up???….they have no rights they are ALIENS…but you have less rights than the Aliens!!! Me Mexican, you American, You racist, you owe me, I hate You, I want your house, I sue, here’s my lawyers card!!!!
We have just seen the most unprecedented veiled threat ever made and we cower....we should have had the water cannons turned on these law breakers hearded them into barbed wire fields at Ft. Lewis and processing them all for transshipment out of here instead we let 5'4" wimps register them and their hearts are back home in Mexico and kill us like a cancer....so what about posting pictures anymore...Wow Deanron is really going to run the elections fairly…Hell No they are not, hell look at JC (no not Jesus) he gets caught red handed and tells the Shark to quit Ratfin’ him???? Hey all you libs quit Ratfin’ us!!!
Nothing Rlimblow, SeanInsanity, MikeDeadhead, MikeSavage, LauraIng et. al.. nothing they have said have changed a thing. GWB blew it blew blew it-He liberated Iraqi’s and ignored your street!!! Mit Romney today enslaved all the people of Massachusetts and we are going to elect him in ‘08 HAAHHAHAHAHA……
The first candidate that actually says hey hey ho ho the illegals gotta go in a debate has the vote 75/25 over all the screams of what 5% of the population...sure they will burn down half of LA but better that than you being unamericanized and turned into a slave…who would buy us…Chinese, Mexicans, Saudis? Who would sell us…wait WE ARE Being Sold out by all the D’s and R’s!!!!
Obviously, you don't believe those who break the law should have to pay the price! Maybe I should come and steal your car. Would you just forgive me, and maybe register me to vote? What would your reaction be? After all, you're telling us we should just ignore the laws if we don't agree with them. Posted by: katomar on April 12, 2006 03:40 PM
I understand what you are saying. I can tell you though that the people registering others were asking for people to register, not are you legal to. Posted by: R. S. on April 12, 2006 03:42 PM
And remember the House of Representatives passed a bill to crackdown on illegal immigration. The House as you said is controlled by Republicans. And remember there were three party line votes in the Senate for amnesty. I will leave it to you to figure out which party voted for amnesty.
Posted by: M&M on April 12, 2006 03:43 PM
Maybe they are legal, maybe they are not. But Ivan feels it's not his place to make any call as to what's right, he just wants a few more voters, and he assumes that those at the march are the kind of voters that he agrees with politically. Afterall, why do any real objective analysis of whether or not a voter should be registered, when you can just gloss over that with a platitude like "we all have rights."
Anyone want to bet whether Ivan stands outside of churches and gun shows and registers voters there as well? This is the kind of moral relativism that defines those on the left today, and it's why conservativism is growing. And when someone like Stefan works at a polling place and calls a voter out who is not properly registered, those on the left are all aghast. Why? Because the norm they expect is a person like Ivan who will look the other way and avoid taking a moral stand if it serves the end goal of keeping or gaining power for the left.
But we really must thank Ivan. All of the gains in conservativism over the past 20 years come from the average, moderate Joe and Jane who play by the rules being fed up with the games of those on the left. Keep it up Ivan.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 12, 2006 03:45 PMAnd Ivan, no matter how many times you put your stubby, little fingers to the keyboard denying union involvement in organizing and facilitating these demonstrations, it doesn't make it any less so.
SEIU. AFSCME. For starters.
And A.N.S.W.E.R. has been running the trapline under all of the demonstrations. You can believe what you want. I'll believe the pictures, placards and signs - proudly held up by those people - as better proof. Why do you keep denying it?
Did you know that the Tlingets from this area invaded SE Alaska just before the year 1700 and the Apaches wired out a number of native agricultural groups and took their land? Also as far as I know Americans only took approx half of the Apaches land. Mexico took the rest! I'm Apache, Norwegian and Irish decent. Should I be force into allowing Mexicans in? And should the drug resistant TB that is growing in California schools be ignored as to the source. I know a foreign born citizen that was tested for TB. Do we have the right to protect our children? Do you? What price are you willing to let your children, or any child born in this nation pay? It’s typical to let others pay but are you willing to let those you love pay the same price?
Posted by: R. S. on April 12, 2006 03:54 PM
Class Struggle, gee I wonder where he came up with that choice of words?
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 12, 2006 04:09 PM"If people are knowingly registering noncitizens, clearly that needs to stop. But even if it is true, the Secretary of State's database should weed those out."
Please explain how the database will weed them out. No one else has been able to come up with a method, including the Secretary of State.
Posted by: Bob Edelman on April 12, 2006 04:10 PM"And as for "nospam," it is not a march organized by and for "illegal aliens.""
If all of the marchers were LEGAL, how would any of the legislation be punative to them? As far as I know it would only be punative to ILLEGALs and those looking to come over ILLEGALLY.
"But based on what you report, that's not what they said. "We all have rights" says nothing. You ASSUME it means they are registering noncitizens, because that's what you want to believe. They might be, and they might not be."
Perhaps, just perhaps, after close to six years of watching the left's opposition Bush and conservatives some of us have seen many instances where the phrase, "We all have rights" is used to be all inclusive regardless of citizenship status, so you might cut us slack for jumping to a particular conclusion. I'm sure you know all about jumping to conclusions and thinking not so well about people or organizations that you disagree with...
Posted by: SouthernRoots on April 12, 2006 04:10 PMBut more important, given the existing political situation, we will never get real border security or sanctions against employers that are actually enforced without some kind of compromise on long term illegals. So make the best of the current situation and extort real security and sanctions. If we hold out for nothing for illegals, we will get nothing in return, and the flood will continue.
We can do some things here and now: we can lean on our state legislators to deny what social services we can to illegals, and we can demand proof of citizenship to get a driver's license or any other local service.
Longer term, and unfortunately a real pipe dream, we could change the Constitution to confer citizenship in the future only to the children of citizens or those who have followed the legal path. That would remove a major incentive to illegal immigration.
But for now: call your representatives; speak up.
Posted by: MJ on April 12, 2006 04:55 PMas for being banned, you once again miss the point.
sometimes, and i emphasize sometimes these comments resort to mindless namecalling (how many different, immature names do you have for the left and liberals). interesting, rarely do the soundpolitics bloggers resort to such juvenille, debate-stalling tactics. that's for the folks in the peanut gallery.
i like reading these comments. it reminds me of why america is getting displaced in the global economy. all empires come to an end, and usually the seeds of their destruction come from within. it won't just be "liberals" that contribute to this displacement--you will play your part.
Posted by: dinesh on April 12, 2006 04:57 PMBy who, France?
Posted by: swassociates on April 12, 2006 05:22 PMBy any measure, the US is still the most prosperous, successful, productive and happy country on the planet. We've got our share of problems, but Americans are a resourceful lot, we usually figure out how to solve our problems and differences when it matters most.
Also look around the world. To the extent that any country has embraced a more democratic or even better yet, representative or constitutional republic, is to the extent that they too are growing, experiencing more freedom and less strife. One only need to look to the many backwards authoritarian regimes in Africa to see the effect of such tyrannical rule.
And even large, almost super power countries like China have got their share of problems. For all of their embrace of pseudocapitalism, they still don't even let their people search Google freely. And a large segment of their population still lives in single room dwellings with animals.
It's a never ceases to impress conservatives that you can equate Bush and the American military with torture in light of the tremedous human rights violations perpetrated daily under Saddam and in almost all MIddle Eastern countries today. If a woman cheats on her husband in some middle eastern countries there's a good chance she will be stoned to death. Yet Bush is a torturer in your eyes.
If the US is coming to an end as you say, it won't be because conservatives want to defend this country, it's borders and come to reasonable levels of taxation and prevent the bankruptcy of social security. It's far more likely that it will be the hedonism of the relativistic left, spreading mass disease as it was for the Romans. Or it might be the degeneration, also from the left, of our rule of law to the chaos of pure democracy, as it was for the Greeks.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 12, 2006 05:28 PMHe asked my if I had a voter registration card. "You
have to be a citizen to vote" he said.
Nuff said about that.
Chuck Posted by: chucks on April 12, 2006 06:40 PM
When the poverty numbers are discussed, do these studies include illegal aliens as well?
I don't think I've ever heard, but it does make me wonder. Why are we importing more poverty? Why are we importing more uninsured?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on April 12, 2006 07:51 PM"If people are knowingly registering noncitizens, clearly that needs to stop. But even if it is true, the Secretary of State's database should weed those out."
Ivan, what about if people are unknowingly (or uncaringly) registering noncitizens? Does that need to stop?
Also, the SoS's database is a good start, but what if it doesn't weed them out? How would you know?
Wouldn't it be better to keep noncitizens from registering to vote in the first place, by changing the law to require proof of citizenship when registering?
Said change to include, of course, a provision for indigent citizens to receive said proof without cost, lest anyone be concerned that this is an attempt to institute a poll tax.
Posted by: ewaggin on April 12, 2006 08:22 PMAs to you comments on an earlier, subject today...
I hate to be the one that break your bubble but...
Gen. Moses Cleaveland, b. 1/24/1754 d. 11/1/1806 in Canterbury County, Connecticut.
Graduated Yale in 1777
Commissioned as Captain in 1779-1781
Went into legal practice in Conn.1782
In 1796 commissioned Brig. Gen. in Conn. Militia
Gen. Cleaveland a shareholder in the Connecticut Land Company is appointed Land Agent for the company and purchases land in N.E. Ohio for $1,200,000.
Heads party of 50 to (6 surveyors, a doctor, a Chaplin, a boatman, 37 employees, and 4 “Legal” Immigrants) the Ohio Area.
July 22, 1796 surveyed and plotted the area along the Cuyahoga River and named it Cleaveland.
In 1830, the name of the city was changed to Cleveland by the first newspaper the Cleveland Advertiser because the name did not fit on the letterhead.
Pres. Grover Cleveland is in NO WAY related to Moses Cleaveland!!!
The Sunshine Bus will be by to get you in the morning, keep the windows dry!!!
Posted by: Pacific Grove Phlash on April 12, 2006 08:33 PMJimmie-how-ya-doin,I like that Salted Well thing yous said. Dats why I left Philly!
Forgetaboutit
Posted by: Joey bag of doughnuts on April 12, 2006 09:05 PM.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Nothing.
Posted by: Boonie on April 12, 2006 10:28 PMThursday, April 13, 2006
Sims pushes sexual safety
P-I STAFF
“King County Executive Ron Sims will announce a new public education effort, “Secure Your Load,” today at 10 a.m. at the north parking lot of Qwest Field in Seattle.”
I’m sure Sims is hoping David KLOWNstein and all his fanny-slppin' buddies will show up!!!!!! I wonder if he is going to use Bill Clinton as a guest speaker!!
Illegal votes were most assuredly cast in the recent elections in Washington State. And probably impacted the outcome of the Senate Race (Slade's contest) and Governor's race. The "vote" and resulting power is what the Democrats bargain for when they register illegals.
Arizonans overwhelmingly passed an initiative requiring proof of citizenship prior to registering. The initiative was supported by legal immigrants.
Anyone for starting an initiative in Washington?
Posted by: Snuffy on April 13, 2006 08:24 AMPeople are hunting around for what to do to get D.C.'s attention that we are a people of law and not of men. Here is an idea. Do with it what you will.
The preface:
Tyson foods is one of the worst violators of employment laws. They are about the only major corporation ever prosecuted for employing illegals. They snubbed their noses at the prosecutors and the American people and got off with a slap on the wrist. Since the latest 'immigrant' rallies Tyson has been encouraging their employees to take a day off from work and join the protests. (Most of you are internet savy so you may do the net searches yourself) One of Tyson's corporate pages even promoted the effort.
The idea:
Our forefathers dropped tea into the Boston Harbor to get across the idea to the British that we don't want taxation without represenation. Now over two hundred years later we have 'achieved' election without representation. Disraeli oft warned of this.
So to get D.C.'s attention destroy Tyson chicken - by the pallet full and by the truck full. Effectively Tyson is taxing us via their fascist allies in D.C., the State Caps, and the local Socialist by employing illegals for whom we provide. Yes, it is illegal. So was boarding a ship and dumping tea in the harbor. And do not think that there won't be consequences - Recall that the Tea Party led to the occupation of Boston which in turn set off the war the following year.
So watch Braveheart again and keep taking it in the shorts.
Or get more uncivil just as our elites are doing (they of course couch their incivility under the banner of order) while you work harder to pay their tax free bennies and salaries (recall that anyone who works for the government pays no taxes as their income comes from taxes)
And one last thing - the reason our revolution did not dissolve into chaos unlike the French revolution was because of the righteousness of the American leadership and the righteousness of the American people. An immoral people cannot remain free. Whether you are enslaved by the slow creep of unlimited government, or enslaved by a 'Bonaparte' coming to restore order you are still enslaved.
National repentance must proceed and envelope any challenge to the government. See the effect of the preaching of the Wesley Brothers and George Whitfield prior to the American Revolution to understand the proceeding point. Again I will let you do your own research.
(And yes I know that 'good' people work at Tyson as they also worked for the those who owned and shipped the tea that was destroyed.)
Posted by: Jericho on April 13, 2006 08:25 AMMr. Science spoke alone:
"We only see 10% of the ice in an iceberg. The other 90% is underwater.
The underwater portion is necessary to hold that upper 10% above water.
As one chips away at the underwater ice more of the surface ice will sink."
Then OBEWON SPOKE
" I know of a country that has built many things on such an iceberg. Entire cities and factories and hospitals and farms. For many years they have built. Many 10's of years.
MMMM careful they must be"
One snapshot of someone registering illegals is powerful stuff, but it takes very little imagination to envision a very small tip of a very large iceberg.
Posted by: Dan on April 13, 2006 08:32 AMSince liberals like ivan and Dinesh both believe that conservatives are base, mean spirited, inflexible, and bigoted, and where everything including illegal trespassing on America's turf by Mexican nationals is not only acceptable but desirable despite the laws against it, and where these liberals obviously favor the idea of openly flouting the law, what do you suppose they believe mean spirited conservatives will do to them once the laws are all moot? What laws will be LEFT to protect liberals from war-mongering, torturing conservatives?
Liberals are like spoiled children whose bodies grew up (and in ivan's case -- far outward)-- but nothing else. They are like petty criminals who cannot imagine what it will be like when they experience the application of their own petty careless criminality.
If as Dinesh (and his ilk) says, conservatives "don't pay attention to what people [liberals] want," and he believes that the Bush administration tortures people, what makes him think that his approval of law breaking won't result in us torturing him?
The insanity involved in such foolish drub makes it clear that modern liberalism is doomed. Still, it is amusing to watch it's ludicrous practitioners pervert themselves in a vain attempt to make sense out of utter nonsense.
Hey liberals . . . don't worry . . this isn't a serious problem . . . just more empty conservative rhetoric
It couldn't happen to you because you are the good people.
On the other hand, libs really do believe in torture as well - Ever sit through a Kerry, Kennedy, Dean, Gore, Clinton (H), Rangle, McKinney, Biden, Schumer, Reid, Daschle, Boxer, Pelosi, or Feinstein rant? These people should be sued for emotional abuse.
Seriuosly, maybe Dinesh and Co. should read history of the 20th century to get even a clue of what torture really is. They like to usurp traditional word meanings to serve their polotical cause and when they can't sufficiently hijack a word, they create new phrases, thus ILLEGAL ALIENS become "undocumented worker".
Which documents would these be? Green Card? Drivers License? Passport? Visa? Birth Certificate? Social Security number?
The ILLEGAL immigrants seem to have many of these documents, some forged and some legitimate (thanks SayWA DOL). They might even be more "documented" than I am, but it does sound nicer and it totally overlooks the fact that LAWs were broken and ILLEGAL action happened.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on April 13, 2006 10:02 AMhigher deficits;
growth in the size of federal govt;
empowerment of a fundamentalist christian religion;
blurring of the separation of church and state;
relinquishing of a long-held support of the geneva convention on p.o.w.s
to mention a few.
wave your flag and bury your head in the sand. you'll make excuses for your party leadership, but you've already sworn fealty to him.
complain about the left/liberalism, as it allows you to focus on something other than the rot that is within your own party.
Posted by: dinesh on April 13, 2006 10:06 AMWhat causes higher deficits? Politics: politicians promising to spend money on you and me from the public treasury. Why? To buy votes. Sometimes the expenditure is necessary, but there is still a lot of waste and there are a lot of hidden “welfare” programs that keep increasing in size because more people are promised funding from those sources. Government and spending would decrease if the amount of “entitlements” went down, but entitlements are the Politicians best friend in buying votes. Liberals seem to be made up of a very large amount of entitlement minded people. I am not happy with all the spending congress is doing, but I do not believe that a (more) liberal congress would spend less. Just look at SayWA – The liberals in control of our government use the formula of tax more + spend more, or maybe it’s spend more, raise taxes. Whatever, same difference.
Growth in the size of Federal Government? Republicans caused that? All by themselves? Politicians needed more bureaucracy to manage all their new programs.
Do tell, what was the empowerment of the fundamental Christian religion? Does their voice count for less than yours? Are you applying a religious test on elected officials? Doesn’t the First Amendment guarantee us, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”? Where in the Constitution do the words, “Separation of Church and State” exist? How many court cases have trampled on the plain, precise words in the Constitution by substituting them with words that do not exist in the Constitution, nor were ever uttered by someone that actually wrote the Bill of Rights (Thomas Jefferson was in France and not a participant)? How many local, state, and federal governments go out of their way to “prohibiting the free exercise thereof” any religious believers in anything that can be even remotely linked to the government?
I don’t bury my head in the sand because too many liberals beat me to it. Conservatives do work on the “rot” in their party. Delay stepped down because the Republicans had a rule that said someone indicted would temporarily give up a leadership position. The Democrats don’t have a similar rule – why not? Trent Lott made an innocent misstatement and he was forced to step down. How many Democrats that have made similar innocent misstatements have been forced to step down? Randy Cunningham did wrong and went to jail and no Republicans excused his actions.
JDB - I’m sure you’ll find that a lot of “less enlightened than you” people are equal opportunity voter registration deniers – if the person is not a U.S. citizen, then they shouldn’t be registered, let alone allowed to vote. It has nothing to do with skin color, but apparently all decisions you make about someone need to be based on skin color.
i believe the left is in disarray for a variety of reasons, a couple of which are fundamental absence of leadership and outdated ideas. the right, too, is beginning the fragment along lines intrinsic to its own makeup.
as for the separation of church and state, the principal is well founded throughout the formation of the federal govt. i won't go into it here, but i believe your summary oversimplifies the issue.
with regard to jefferson, he was a leading "anti-federalist," and as author of the declaration of independence insisted to madison that the absence of provisions in the constitution reflecting the inalienable rights language present in the decl. of indep. was a mistake. i believe george mason drafted a similar bill for the state of virginia, i can't recall if that ever passed, but that draft ultimately gave rise to the bill of rights.
i believe the increased polarity between left and right has contributed to the current political climate and its related problems. as for the deficit, yes the republican controlled house and congress passed legislation that the republican president signed. dodge and weave, but those reagan era excuses (dems controlled congress, reagan had no line item veto) will simply not fly here. sure both parties have their hand in the pot, its just that the controlling party (the republicans) have bigger hands.
i believe that washington state will continue to have issues getting political diversity in the form of increased republican representation so long as the national party continues on its current course. gwb is not a leader. he bankrupted companies before he became a poltician, now he's bankrupting the country.
finally, i believe your facts are incorrect regarding delay. in 1993, the republicans changed the house rules to require a house leader to step down in the event of indictment (as a response to rostenkowski's legal issues). when it appeared that delay was to be indicted, the house began an effort to change the rule to allow delay to remain in his leadership position and did so, only to reverse course after public and democratic party uproar.
i think both parties are corrupt and political discourse often devolves into a 'metaphoric' shouting match akin to 2 people screaming about who is going to win the superbowl.
Posted by: dinesh on April 13, 2006 02:47 PMSorry for intruding on your blog with a bit of logic, when paranoia is so much more entertaining...
Posted by: Bruce on April 13, 2006 03:03 PMrepublicanism has brought us :
"higher deficits;
growth in the size of federal govt;
empowerment of a fundamentalist christian religion;
blurring of the separation of church and state;
relinquishing of a long-held support of the geneva convention on p.o.w.s
Deficits don't much matter so long as a strong economy exists. Dinesh presumes (as do all liberals) that economies are rooted in government and deficits are anathema to a command economy producing the equivalent of economic repression by depriving liberal government of the citizen's money. Economies exist because of markets -- not governments -- and our economic growth is easily strong enough to grow us out of the admittedly high deficits just as it did during the 1990's.
Governments grow whenever there is a war. Read history, not the recent reinventionst liberal crap you love so much. You don't like the war, no big surprise. Read "FDR The War Years" and then talk about government growth and over-reaching Presidential power. Bush is a piker compared to FDR when it comes to growing government.
"empowerment of a fundamentalist christian religion" Where? How? Just saying it doesn't make it so. How foolish.
"blurring of the separation of church and state Where? How?
Your reflections about Thomas Jefferson and his role in the so-called "separationist" doctrine shows how little you have read of American history. There was no "separation" of Church and State discussed by Jefferson or any of the founding fathers.
The only refernce used is the word separation taken out of context in a letter about the Virginia Bill of Rights that never passed. You'll almost never find slimmer evidence than that, but liberals like you speak as if it is dispositive. The only issue regarding Religion in the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights was the clear dictate that there would be no establishment of a state religion as there had been under British Colonial rule. The "separation of church and state" is a liberal invention to pretend that religion is an enemy, and their radical secular humanism is the cure.
"relinquishing of a long-held support of the geneva convention on p.o.w.s"
Dinesh, which of the many Geneva Conventions do you refer to genius? Don't bother, because none of them apply anyway. Geneva conventions regarding prisoners of war only apply to signators in wars and only to combatants in conventional wars between sovereign nations. Geneva conventions were made to keep combatants from descending into barbarism and terrorism. America has engaged in neither where the prisoners at Aby Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay that you refer to engaged in nothing else.
Since you are too dim-witted to make distinctions about the difference between illegal trespassers and immigrants, it is not surprising that you miss all of the other easily drawn distinctions.
Thanks for the further illustrations of what a liberal Berkeley education proffers for our discourse. You and Ward Churchill were made for each other.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on April 13, 2006 04:13 PMIn answer to your paragraphs:
I think that for both parties, the altruism of “what is good for the nation” has been replaced with “what’s good for the interest groups that can get me reelected”.
For separation of church and state: We’ll have to disagree. I think that something fairly simple and well understood has been made more complex and less understood today. After the ratification of the Constitution, there were several states that had official state churches and they were not immediately held as unconstitutional nor banned, but later the practice was dropped due to popular demand.
Jefferson: Still, in his exchanges with Madison, he only insisted on a Bill of Rights. He expressed some thought on what should be included. When he mentioned religion during this time he never used the phrase "separation of church and state". Apparently, over 200 amendments were submitted and conference committees weeded it down to 12, of which 10 were ratified to form the Bill of Rights.
Jefferson: "and trials by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of the land and not by the law of nations." Too bad some on the SCOTUS don't read this into the Constitution like Separation of Chruch and State.
On the freedom of the press: "The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or otherwise to publish anything but false facts affecting injuriously the life, liberty, property or reputation of others, or affecting the peace of the confederacy with foreign nations." This would have been a nice inclusion too.
Deficits: No dodge and weave. How many presidential budgets passed without being significantly increased by congress? I fault the group with Constitutional responsibility for the purse strings – Congress. Any president can only accept or reject a whole bill, and Congress has nasty habits of putting stupid, costly amendments into vital legislation. With a line item veto, I would have less sympathy for a president that didn’t reject what they considered improper. Of course, a president can push for whatever he wants, but the ultimate responsibility is congress.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: from b0ndage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back again to b0ndage. "
--Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1742-1813)
Washington State: Here we agree to disagree. GWB is a very good leader. He says what he means and means what he says. He has the courage of his convictions (yeah, I know what convictions you’d like him to have) and he stands behind his decisions. I don’t agree with all of his decisions, but I do like the fact that I don’t wake up every morning wondering which way the wind is blowing. The Democrats racing towards the positions of Deniacs and MoveOn.org are just as culpable in souring the political discourse as anything the Republicans are doing – even more so. Personally, I am always wary of people that have only and always been politicians, with little or no private sector experience. I get the feeling that they feel ordained to rule and to me, this creates a permanent “ruling class”.
Delay: Well, I’ve run out of time to research, but I was pretty sure the rule was a Republican caucus rule, to which there was not a Democratic caucus equivilent.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on April 13, 2006 04:47 PMAs usual it is particularly amusing that you call what you just said "logic."
When you scratch an itch what do you call it . . . reasoning?
Go back to "reasoning your a$$."
Thanks for the entertainment.
Excellent.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on April 13, 2006 05:08 PMSurely it's only coincidental that May 1 is the Communist and Socialist day of celebration, right?
Posted by: MES on April 13, 2006 06:48 PMThe fired workers have filed a greivence with their union.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on April 13, 2006 06:50 PMYou are right on about of friend Dinesh...every time Dinesh writes something it is HISTORICALLY WRONG!!! As you correctly pointed out today and as I did yesterday.
Thank You, Southern Roots for keeping it honest not REVISIONIST!!!
Posted by: Pacific Grove Phlash on April 13, 2006 08:21 PMYou are right about Roots.
Liberals like Bruce, ivan, and Dinesh discuss Christianity as if having faith in God could ever possibly be as idiotic as believing in the completely illogical and baseless bull$hit they rely on for their every living breath.
Liberalism is the ultimate in blind faith, but there is no grace or benevolence to it, just empty arrogant self rightousness. They pretend to be intellectuals, but they refuse to do any intellectual work. It's part of what they consider their charm, and what the rest of us are forced to tolerate and support in order to stay free.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on April 13, 2006 10:45 PMSee my previous post re: Bob Doran.
Illegals have voted and will continue to vote.
You suggest that someone in law enforcement cares. Given the lack of concern and the lack of prosecution, it is probably safer for an illegal to vote, then jaywalk as he/she may be ticketed for jaywalking. Also illegals currently take advantage of many government benefits: medical, welfare, schools (in-state tution is charged to illegals). Given that they register an address for the above benefits and are known to be illegal, why would voter registration be any more dangerous. And remember it is illegal to ask an illegal if they are a citizen. Sanctuary is in the shadow of Lenin's statue.
Posted by: Snuffy on April 14, 2006 08:09 AMAs we have seen with the Lori Sotelo nonsense (nonsense because so little accurate research was done with her challenges), any voter can challenge any other voter.
If you believe non-citizens are voting, your next step should be to get a challenge started -- just like one would do if they believed an illegal immigrant is working in your company or living near you.
As for May Day, Wikipedia has a description of it that's less biased than those mentioned by a few people on this blog, but I'm not the least bit surprised.
"May Day is a name for various holidays celebrated on May 1 (or in the beginning of May). The most famous of these is International Workers' Day, which is the commemoration of the social and economic achievements of the labor movement. The 1 May date is used because in 1884 the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions, inspired by Labor's 1872 success in Canada, demanded an eight-hour workday in the United States, to come in effect as of May 1, 1886. This resulted in the general strike and the U.S. Haymarket Riot of 1886, but eventually also in the official sanction of the eight-hour workday."
Thanks to this Federation, I don't have to work 16-hour days unless I want to.
As for the illegal-immigrant issue, it's just about as easy -- or difficult -- to register to vote as it is to find a job no one else wants to do. If you all want to sound like xenophobic Chicken Littles, you're certainly entitled (thanks to the endangered First Amendment), but the text on the base of the Statue of Liberty obviously refers to an idea and an ideal that's apparently been forgotten.
Besides, I figure another four years of Bush (hypothetically speaking because, thankfully, there's still a rule against being president more than 8 years in a row) oughta screw up this country to the point that no one will want to move here.
Posted by: MisterB46 on April 14, 2006 08:39 AMyou reflect your myopia re geneva conventions and your willingness to parrot the half-baked arguments of an administration lawyer regarding the torture issue. perhaps you should find out what military people say, instead of listening to the president who dodged the draft and his flunky lawyer.
Posted by: dinesh on April 14, 2006 09:27 AMDo you know what the saddest day in the life of a LIBERAL is?...
That is any day when everything goes right for them and they have no one to thank!!!
Still no answer from you on your MIS-INFORMATION!!!
As to you comments on an earlier, subject today...
I hate to be the one that break your bubble but...
Gen. Moses Cleaveland, b. 1/24/1754 d. 11/1/1806 in Canterbury County, Connecticut.
Graduated Yale in 1777
Commissioned as Captain in 1779-1781
Went into legal practice in Conn.1782
In 1796 commissioned Brig. Gen. in Conn. Militia
Gen. Cleaveland a shareholder in the Connecticut Land Company is appointed Land Agent for the company and purchases land in N.E. Ohio for $1,200,000.
Heads party of 50 to (6 surveyors, a doctor, a Chaplin, a boatman, 37 employees, and 4 “Legal” Immigrants) the Ohio Area.
July 22, 1796 surveyed and plotted the area along the Cuyahoga River and named it Cleaveland.
In 1830, the name of the city was changed to Cleveland by the first newspaper the Cleveland Advertiser because the name did not fit on the letterhead.
Pres. Grover Cleveland is in NO WAY related to Moses Cleaveland!!!
Get your facts right…The Sunshine Bus will be by to get you in the morning, keep the windows dry!!! Do not forget your helmet!!!
WERE WAITING!!!
Posted by: Pacific Grove Phlash on April 14, 2006 09:52 AMFrom the same Wikkipedia article you used is how I more traditionally remember May 1:
"May Day has long been a focal point for demonstrations by various socialist, communist, and anarchist groups. In the 20th century, the holiday received the official endorsement of the Soviet Union; celebrations in communist countries during the Cold War era often consisted of large military parades and shows of common people in support of the government.
In UK .. Small-scale rallies are held by political parties (generally including, but not limited to, the Labour Party, the Socialist Workers' Party, the Scottish Socialist Party, the Communist Party of Britain and other left-wing groups). These occasions are typified by the selling of propaganda materials, and beer tents in parks.
The actual date of 1 May in the U.K., meanwhile, generally features rallies and demonstrations organised by anarchist groups, although in recent years these have also involved communist groups, particularly those of the Trotskyist branch."
I'm sure that if you were to poll people on this site, this is how they also traditionally remember May Day. Also, when combined with groups like ANSWER joining in, it reenforces those impressions.
In trying to find more information on traditional May Day observances, I ran across this from 2002:
http://www.vdare.com/awall/expulsion.htm
"On May 2nd, the Instituto Nacional de Migración (Mexican INS) expelled 18 Americans from Mexico. These expelled Americans had violated the terms of their Mexican visas by getting involved, albeit in a minor fashion, in Mexican politics – a definite no-no for foreigners in Mexico.
The Americans’ offense was to participate in May Day marches in Mexico City and Guadalajara. The ones in Mexico City were college students, visiting with their professor from Washington State. They had joined a group protesting the expropriation of land near Mexico City for a new airport and were waving machetes with the other protestors. They might have gotten away with it, except that some of them were heard on the TV news shouting protest slogans in broken Spanish, which in turn caused Mexican journalists to express outrage.
The INM wasted no time. The offenses were committed on May 1st, and by the evening of May 2nd, the offending gringos were on their way back to the U.S.A., their Mexican visas revoked.
According to Javier Moctezuma, Mexican subsecretary of Population, Migration and Religious Affairs (part of the Interior Department), the Americans were kicked out because “they violated article 43 of the General Population Law......article 43 has been violated and the standard must be applied.”
Article 43 of the General Law of Population (Ley General de Población) states that:
“The admission to the country of a foreigner obliges him to strictly comply with the conditions established for him in the immigration permit and the dispositions established by the respective laws.”
As an El Universal article puts it, “as any foreigner, they should not meddle in national affairs.”"
As I ave asked before, if we won't protect our national borders, why would any lesser borders be any more important?
People register their cars in a different place to avoid extra taxes or emission testing.
People register to vote claiming a mailbox as their "abode" (an official law term).
People claim their residence in a different place to avoid income taxes.
These are but a few of the examples of people disregarding borders or boundries - in disregard for the law. What's next? Anarchy?
As I was looking into May Day celebrations, I ran across an anarchist web site in Kansas City working on organizing (sorry, no pun intended) to participate in this May 1 "boycott" as well.
Maybe.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on April 14, 2006 09:53 AMhttp://www.1stcavmedic.com/bill-clinton-draft.htm
FACT: Bush served two years ACTIVE duty training in and flying high performance jet fighters. This is more ACTIVE duty time than Kerry and Clinton combined. My uncle was drafted and spent 4 times as much time in Vietnam, in combat, than Kerry. Get off it.
Read more 20th century history to gain a better understanding of what torture really is. Coercion is not torture, but torture can be used to coerce.
Read about the Japanese and their Chinese prisoners.
Read about The North Vietnamese and what they did to P.O.W.s
Read about Pol-Pot.
Read about methods used by the Soviets.
What did the Taliban do?
What does al-Qaeda do today?
Are you saying that most of our soldiers - your neighboors or their kids - are just as bad as these historical examples? Are you saying that the current president positively orders our soldiers - your neighboors or their kids - to abuse prisoners?
Of course you're not saying that. You're saying that a conservative president is ordering conservative racist soldiers in the US armed forces to commit acts of torture - the liberal, peaceful, compassionate, non-racist soldiers are excluded from this order.
Everytime you make this claim, you are spitting on every single one of our soldiers - your neighboors or their kids - and you are spitting on the service that my Dad, uncle, brother and brother-in-law performed for this country.
Yes, abuses happened and they will happen again. Whenever you get large groups of humans together, there are always bad apples, but those bad apples are not representative of the whole.
Though I support Bush, who is president is immaterial. My support for the troops transcends whoever is the president. They earned it. They deserve it.
Isn't that what you are telling us about illegal immigrants?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on April 14, 2006 11:07 AMSince you are entirely convinced that what you said was logical and you (at least tacitly) accepted my characterization of your reasoning abilities, I am even more amused.
Hint: If illegal tresspassers are so concerned with not getting caught, why are they openly running around waiving Mexican flags and decrying America?
Nice job, invent another farce for us to chuckle at.
Posted by: Amused by Bruce on April 14, 2006 12:24 PMIt must really suck to be so old, so bigoted, and so foolish. If your little pebble-sized, reptilian brainstem had evolved you might have developed a sense of sarcasm. Then I might have attributed that to your statement (because nobody can be bone-jarringly stupid to say that straight-faced).
Since it isn't, one must conclude that you are either too stupid for life or very, very evil.
Which one are you jdb/biteme/racist?
Just when I thought you were done showing how much of a moron you are, you rise right back and prove it beyond any doubt.
You say, "strong economies, i'm sure the chinese govt thinks that as they buy our debt and send us more plastic crap for consumption. a negative savings rate for the american population. sure corporate profits are strong in some sectors and some sectors of the american economy are strong, just not the fed's balance sheet. ask greenspan, now that he's out he's spoken more candidly. oh, right, you probably know more than the former fed chair b/c you know so much.
First you spew this rambling mixture of disconnected nonsense, and confused muddled stream of semi-consciousness, and then you ascribe Alan Greenspan as its supporting authority, and supposedly it proves . . . what??. You are beyond irrational. Young pre-pubescent school girls make more cogent statements than this in the hasty assumption that they might be remotely considered serious let alone sane.
My comments about the Geneva Accords associated with treatment of Prisoners of war are factual, not whimsical imaginary delusions, and they can be easily established as such. I understand that making them to you is unpersuasive -- like trying to feed steak to a baby.
Finally, you burble droolingly that, I "should find out what military people say, instead of listening to the President who dodged the draft and his flunky lawyer."
I know a number of military people who have been to both Iraq, and Afghanistan, almost certainly more than you do. Nevertheless, President Bush didn't dodge the draft although Bill Clinton did, and what flunky lawyer are you talking about? Do you realize how lame and silly you are?
Never mind . . . don't strain yourself moron . . . your answer will be just as nakedly stupid as all of them always are.
On the other hand . . . surprise us. Who knows, maybe you can out-absurd yourself.
Very amusing indeed.
Posted by: Amused by dimwits like Dinesh on April 14, 2006 12:56 PMI don't agree with an earlier comment I read elsewhere that we don't have the room -- if for no other reason than they're already here and I'm fairly sure our population density ranks fairly low when compared to other countries/municipalities. In fact, this webpage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density
...has us ranked 143rd most-crowded as of July 2005.
I do find it interesting that no article on the immigration issue (that I've come across anyway) quotes anyone from the Native American tribes on their opinions. I can't imagine their experience with immigrants up to now has been too positive.
If the difference between legal and illegal immigrants is proper paperwork, wasn't this country founded by illegal immigrants?
Also, I do hope that none of the state or US congreespeople who are in favor of the more strict of the two bills going through the process right now currently hold any Cayman Islands tax-shelter accounts because it would be somewhat hypocritical to rant about the illegals not paying any taxes if these Congresspeople don't pay them, either.
Also, this comment on the original post struck me as odd:
"There were people running around registering illegals to vote."
Can anyone really tell someone is an illegal immigrant just by looking at them? If so, the government might just have a job for you.
Lastly, regarding Bush's "draft dodging", while he didn't dodge like Clinton or Cheney did (I believe Clinton went to Oxford and Cheney used five college deferments), he didn't serve out his term completely, he didn't have to wait his turn to gain flying status like everyone without his level of name recognition or connections did, and he checked the box on his form requesting that he not be sent to Vietnam.
McCain went. Kerry went. Bush and Quayle didn't. Clinton and Cheney stayed in school to avoid getting involved to the level of Bush and Quayle.
If you're going to call Clinton a draft-dodger, don't you need to include Cheney in your comments?
Posted by: MisterB46 on April 14, 2006 04:05 PMI'm suddenly reminded of the anti-Japanese sentiment that swept the country during the elder Bush's administration.
What wasn't covered by the so-called liberal mainstream media was that foreign-model cars had more parts made in this country than American-model cars (so all of those people taking sledge hammers to Toyotas looked fairly silly) and for every foreign business that bought an American company or plot of land, there was an American company that was doing the selling and very little, if any, mention was made about the reasons for that company wanting to sell.
Besides, Bush II was once quoted as saying that outsourcing was good for the economy so maybe if enough American jobs are outsourced, the illegals will give up looking for work and go home.
Posted by: MisterB46 on April 14, 2006 04:19 PMToday. Right now. The United States has internationally agreed upon, and recognized, borders. It is all I know and all I have ever known. It is my reference point.
From history, most of what we see with "illegal" immigration is that it leads to some form of conflict escalating towards war. In the modern era it seems as if things get to stew a lot longer with smaller violent conflicts. It seems to me that the conflicts escalate much higher when refusal to assimilate is a key component.
Some Native Americans greeted immigrants with open arms, some did not. When the immigration violated agreements or was perceived to be too much, the Native Americans went to war. They did not stage rallies, they burned, pillaged, and killed their illegal immigrants. The immigrants fought back, both sides performing atrocities. By the way, before (and after) Europeans showed up, Native Americans warred with each other for food, territory, possessions, or just because one thought they were more superior than the other.
It's human history and it is what it is.
Did you know, "hardline" Republicans in Congress wanted a "harsh" bill but more moderate Republicans didn't? When the vote came, it was Democrats that joined the "hardliners" to push through the harsher bill. Did they do it because they were "hardliners"? Perhaps they did it to create turmoil and angst so that they could gain a POLITICAL advantage for this fall. Politics suck.
"There were people running around registering illegals to vote."
Probably not the most appropriate phrase. A better phrase would have been "..registering non-citizens". Per HAVA, a few forms of ID are required to register, but there are also some exceptions that make this ID potentially moot. Though the law states that you must be a citizen, all laws that would require specific proof of citizenship have been shot down, so who really knows? I suppose if the applicant speaks zero English, then maybe that would be a clue, but I'm sure some registrars speak other languages to assist legal registrations and it is possible for some to slip through. It will be interesting to see how many of the registrations that are turned in turn up with invalid driver's license or (last four digits of) social security number. In Ohio, ACORN sent in registrations for Mickey Mouse, so some registrars don't seem to vet the registrations much.
Draft dodgers, to me, were the people that specifically refused to register or report. Others that had legal deferments or managed to go into other government service, get a pass from me. Besides, Carter pardoned them all.
President Bush and his National Guard service. Someone else called Bush a draft dodger and I pointed out the Bush served on Active duty for two years and compared it to Clinton's actions. I have read letters from people that served with him, or served in the same organization and I am satisfied with their explanations. I don't believe there is anything sinister in his Alabama (or was it Arkansas?) days. The released records show that he had his "points". He never ran on his National Guard service - others with an axe to grind kept raising it. He volunteered for Vietnam, but was turned down because of his lack of flying hours.
Kerry - he served and when he got home, while still on active duty, started making the most vile accusations against our troops. To convince us that he would be a better wartime president, HE specifically raised his military service. This opened him up to more scrutiny in that area of his past. He has promised to release ALL of his military records and to date has failed to do so.
McCain - he served and sacrificed more than many others. I read his book. What brought him up?
Cheney - he had deferments. Since he is not president, I didn't look into it much. As far as I know, he applied for the deferments legally and received them legally. Since it is ok to criticize Cheney for all of his deferments, should every other American that also had deferments be tarred with the same brush? I don't think so. He was Secretary of Defense. That's good enough for me.
Clinton - He had deferments. With 43% of the popular vote, he beat a World War Two combat veteran. In the link I posted it shows that Clinton actually did a little more than just file for deferments. At one point, to avoid reclassification, he promised to join the ROTC, but never showed up. To me, this shows more "draft dodging" activity than Cheney showed.
Quayle - How'd he get in this discussion. Don't know, don't care.
The point is, if Bill Clinton is to be given a pass for his efforts to avoid the draft, then that's an automatic "get out of jail free" card for anyone else who may have done it similarily.
Current law contains requirements for entry into the US. There are people that come here by violating those laws. These are ILLEGAL immigrants. Follow the law.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on April 14, 2006 06:20 PMSorry, the puritans and those who came here from Europe (most especially Britain) were not illegal immigrants for the simple reason that there was no law to break. Contrary to all of the modern livberal revisionist bull$hit about native confederations, the natives were savages whose warring factional demi-cultures possessed the relative maturity of pre-historic middle eastern societies. They practiced killing each other rather than civilizing themselves, and the written word didn't exist for them let alone an idea of law.
Refer to your American founders as illegals only as the rhetorical fantasies of liberal whack jobs who ignore basic standards of social evolution in favor of revisionist moral relativism. Someone like Dinesh would love this idiotic crap.
Otherwise every person (including you and I) who lives here becomes the hapless userper of their own terra firma subject to dissembling liberal moral relativism.
ULTIMATELY American settlers owe no one anything except fealty to the rule of law OR the ability to stand their ground against savage behaivor and neither did the natives. The problem is . . . the natives didn't stand their ground. No apologies are necessary because it is water under the bridge. Fu*k them, guns beat arrows.
Reality is a fun thing and something liberals hate. Otherwise they wouldn't continuously try to make up their own.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on April 14, 2006 09:10 PMHowever, in later years, we did violate treaties in our westward expansion. In many cases, it was the settlers that violated the treaties and the government moved in afterwards to make it legal.
As history points out, you successfully defend your borders and you may survive. If we fail to protect our borders, one day we may see the terrorist turmoil of Beirut, Israel, and Baghdad within our own borders. The volume of illegal immigrants from Mexico is just one symptom of our border illness. When we drastically cut the flow, we will begin to be healthier.
Which of our brave legislators that currently oppose increased border security will be the first one to yell when the terrorist attacks come here? Politics suck.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on April 14, 2006 09:56 PMPosted by: Peggy U on April 14, 2006 10:14 PM
Your mastery of history leaves me in awe (and a bit chagrinned about my publik skul edukatshun ;'}. The Internet provides a great resource for quick research, but there ain't nothin like a good book!
I stopped and reread this thread right from the top. As with any unmoderated thread, it can drift off-point (or be hi-jacked by trolls). The topic of this thread isn't deficit spending, or outsourcing, or draft-dodging. It is signing up illegal aliens to vote. If in fact it is occurring (as is apparent in this case) the people involved should be investigated and prosecuted. There! See how simple that was!
The hard part comes from the unenviable position that dinesh and iban are forced to take - defending the indefensible. You'll notice that they never actually do that (offer a defense) but rather, parse things and try to deflect the focus to something that they feeeeeeeel to be a conservative Achilles' heel. Silly, stupid liberals!
The fact is the left doesn't care if they adhere to the law or not - only winning is important. In the pursuit of their religion - the religion of Liberalism - they have divined (or more likely invented) their own form of "leftist manifest destiny". They feeeeeeeel that the righteousness of their agenda supercedes any other consideration, and that anything that must be done to accomplish their goals is warranted and appropriate. The funny thing is that the ultimate expression of their religion is Communism - a proposition that their rank & file still find as repugnant as the rest of us. So the satisfaction of their desires involves the deliberate deceit of their own adherents!
Back to registering illegals to vote......
Third party registration of potential voters should be made illegal - because it is wrong and leads to the sort of mischief we see here.
Online or self-service registration should be outlawed as well. Signing an "I promise not to lie or misbehave" testimonial is as worthless as a fraudoire campaign promise.
Requiring documentation that proves that you are a US citizen is common sense - no wonder it befuddles and outrages democraps!
Purging the voter roles of those ineligible to legally vote - but that would cut into their exclusive territory!
Even leftists recognize that voting is a right. With rights come responsibilities. What leftists aren't willing to accede to is the elemental fact that without rules, rights are meaningless. Without restrictions on who can vote, the potential is that anyone can vote, and as often as they please.
Republicans have said "One (legitimate) voter, one vote". Democraps have responded by parsing, dividing, or ignoring that precept outright. It isn't a coincidence that the illegal aliens marching were holding signs that read, "Today we march; tomorrow we vote!" The only thing that will stop them (because they have proved unwilling to stop themselves) is to hold their feet to the fire.
So, once again, thanks guys for so utterly destroying the "arguments" (ha!) of the lefties!
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 15, 2006 09:59 AMRight on.
Soup,
Thanks.
It is amusing the pathetic low-brow character of Dinesh and Bruce's contributions. While some of us attended class, read the books, asked probing questions and used our own reasoning ability instead of the professors opinions, liberals were smoking dope, screwing anything they could find, and busily bolstering their self-esteem. Don't get me wrong, I like recreation, I just don't do it during work time. They think screwing and dope smoking is work.
Their shallowness is undoubtedly an off shoot of the phony self esteem building where repeating over and over to themselves how smart they are, overshadows the fact that it is obvious to everyone except them that they don’t have a clue.
Nevertheless, you will rarely find anyone who is so consistently incorrect about history as Dinesh. They let him vote too.
Very amusing indeed.
I know I got pulled off topic a bit, and I am guilty of chiding someone for bing off topic, but reading about the Constitution and American history is fun!
Protect the borders.
Stop the flow of ILLEGAL immigrants.
Improve the process for LEGAL immigrants.
Dis-incent businesses to hire ILLEGAL immigrants.
Deal with those still here ILLEGALLY - just don't give them priority preference over LEGAL immigrants.
Require proof of citizenship to register to vote.
Pax.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on April 15, 2006 02:42 PMYou say, "reading about the Constitution and American history is fun!"
I admire anyone who cares to know the truth even though the truth is not so easy to find. I am insecure enough about my knowledge base that I find myself driven to read and research. It is a perpetual ongoing and passionate pursuit. The books are piled high as I write. The truth won't be found by beleiving what others say or write alone, but by reading, cross reading, comparing, discussing and reasoning things out (critical thinking). There is always a lot more to learn.
Liberals would be humorous if they were not so dangerous. They are like handing grenades to school boys. I find it amusing to discuss politics, history and social issues with liberals because they are so arrogantly certain that they are correct, yet they are almost universally completely clueless and ill-founded in their claims. It is really too bad because I appreciate worthy adversaries who might provide food for though and reflection.
Alas, there are NO worthy adversaries amongst the liberal ranks. ivan, Dinesh, Bruce, don't make me laugh. None of them are capable of formulating independant lines of reasoning based on honest research. All they know is partisanship, and parroting the party line, based on the drub of other mindless partisan followers. Serious scholarship is completely foreign to them, and that is why their ideology is failing.
It is always great to find people of common interest and scholarship, especially in times where so much ignorance and insanity seems to rule the day.
Salute.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on April 16, 2006 12:00 PMIf by "toting the party line" means reading and commenting on the original words, meaning and intent behind the Constitution, thank you , I'll love doing that for you. If it means going back and reading history about our nation and reporting back - I'll do that to.
There is a lot of propogandist and revisionist history out there, published by people with a particular axe to grind and it is challenging to determine what to believe and what is a crock. That's what makes it fun - I get to read more.
History is what it is - Specific facts presented from thousands of different viewpoints. There are gray areas because of the confusion and collision of these viewpoints.
I believe in right and wrong, so yes, there is a component of binary terms involved.
A historical perspective also depends on a persons starting point. I happen to think that the formation of United States was a good thing. I believe that Americans are the most generous and compassionate people in the world. I believe that Americans always try to do good - to live up to high standards - but sometimes fall short. I dont' think these failures make us any less generous or compassionate. I believe that Americans working together have created many benifits for the rest of the world and that we continue to do so every day. I do NOT believe that you can love America by yelling and bad mouthing it every day. I criticize my kids on the occaision when they goof up, but most of the time I work with them and encourage them to be better - the country deserves the same care IMHO.
In binary terms, you can live your life as an optimist for the future, or you can be a pessimist. I prefer to live my life as an optimist, because it gives me more opportunities to see the good in things and people, althoug some of the crazies on your side of the spectrum do make me wonder if I should take up distrusting people more....
"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on.
I don't do these things to other people and I require the same from them."
John Wayne - "The Shootist"
your willingness to stereotype liberals (dope smoking, etc.) reflects on your approach to history. your assumptions about people you don't really know, and about facts you don't have, also reflect poorly on what you term "honest research".
as for serious scholarship, i know my credentials (both academic and otherwise) and i am comfortable with them.
Posted by: dinesh on April 17, 2006 11:18 AMI don't need to stereotype you. You are kind enough to demonstrate deliberately how dimwitted and ill-educated you are every time you comment here. You couldn't independently muster a grounded rational argument if your life depended on it, and you have thoroughly proven it.
Your own words speak for themselves . . . and my attributions.
Yes indeed . . . ignorance (and your comfort) are indeed . . . bliss.
If there is ever any doubt about the tawdry superficiality of credentials, simply consider; Ted Kennedy graduated from Harvard University. Since you probably like and admire his abilities, it wouldn't surprise me if this means very little to you. Either way, I rest my case.
For now that is . . . until you come back with another idiotic comment.
Thanks for the amusing riposte.
Posted by: Amused by hapless arrogance on April 17, 2006 01:05 PMjustify your stereotyping. pat yourself on the back, buy yourself a drink, because you are really soooo smart.
Posted by: dinesh on April 17, 2006 01:15 PMBTW, if it isn't "dope smoking" . . . what is your excuse?
Posted by: Amused by Dinesh on April 17, 2006 01:34 PMre-reading this thread, i realized i overlooked one of your name-calling outbursts related to the economy.
apparently, you believe that the federal deficit doesn't matter as long as the economy is strong. well, my point is the federal deficit does matter b/c:
1) we rely on foreign countries to purchase our treasury notes (the one's bush, in a stulifying display of financial ignorance suggested may not need to be repaid, see bush's comments re social security and treasury notes, 4/5/05) and the chinese are the largest foreign purchasers of such debt. any concerns with having the chinese be such a large creditor of the u.s. federal govt?
our trade imbalance with the chinese continues to grow (i.e. we send them more money) and they continue to purchase more of the u.s. treasury notes (i.e. they become a larger creditor), at what point does this become a problem for you (besides when a democrat does it?)
2)while the economy may be strong in certain sectors, the negative savings rate for the american population would indicate that the average household may not be participating in the 'strong u.s. economy'. certainly, if interest rates continue to rise in an effort to stem inflation, the pressure on american's saving rates will only continue. this is in no measure a signal of economic strength.
3) re greenspan's comments, see the economist (january 12, 2006, subscription required). here is an excerpt:
"The economy's greater flexibility may indeed provide a shock-absorber. A spurt in productivity has also boosted growth. But the main reason why America's growth has remained strong in recent years has been a massive monetary stimulus. The Fed held real interest rates negative for several years, and even today real rates remain low. Thanks to globalisation, new technology and that vaunted flexibility, which have all helped to reduce the prices of many goods, cheap money has not spilled into traditional inflation, but into rising asset prices instead—first equities and now housing. The Economist has long criticised Mr Greenspan for not trying to restrain the stockmarket bubble in the late 1990s, and then, after it burst, for inflating a housing bubble by holding interest rates low for so long (see article). The problem is not the rising asset prices themselves but rather their effect on the economy. By borrowing against capital gains on their homes, households have been able to consume more than they earn. Robust consumer spending has boosted GDP growth, but at the cost of a negative personal saving rate, a growing burden of household debt and a huge current-account deficit.
Burning the furniture
Ben Bernanke, Mr Greenspan's successor, likes to explain America's current-account deficit as the inevitable consequence of a saving glut in the rest of the world. Yet a large part of the blame lies with the Fed's own policies, which have allowed growth in domestic demand to outstrip supply for no less than ten years on the trot. Part of America's current prosperity is based not on genuine gains in income, nor on high productivity growth, but on borrowing from the future. The words of Ludwig von Mises, an Austrian economist of the early 20th century, nicely sum up the illusion: “It may sometimes be expedient for a man to heat the stove with his furniture. But he should not delude himself by believing that he has discovered a wonderful new method of heating his premises.”
As a result of weaker job creation than usual and sluggish real wage growth, American incomes have increased much more slowly than in previous recoveries. According to Morgan Stanley, over the past four years total private-sector labour compensation has risen by only 12% in real terms, compared with an average gain of 20% over the comparable period of the previous five expansions. Without strong gains in incomes, the growth in consumer spending has to a large extent been based on increases in house prices and credit. In recent months Mr Greenspan himself has given warnings that house prices may fall, and that this in turn could cause consumer spending to slow. In addition, he suggests that foreigners will eventually become less eager to finance the current-account deficit. Central banks in Asia and oil-producing countries have so far been happy to buy dollar assets in order to hold down their own currencies. However, there is a limit to their willingness to keep accumulating dollar reserves. Chinese officials last week offered hints that they are looking eventually to diversify China's foreign-exchange reserves. Over the next couple of years the dollar is likely to fall and bond yields rise as investors demand higher compensation for risk.
When house-price rises flatten off, and therefore the room for further equity withdrawal dries up, consumer spending will stumble. Given that consumer spending and residential construction have accounted for 90% of GDP growth in recent years, it is hard to see how this can occur without a sharp slowdown in the economy.
Handovers to a new Fed chairman are always tricky moments. They have often been followed by some sort of financial turmoil, such as the 1987 stockmarket crash, only two months after Mr Greenspan took over. This handover takes place with the economy in an unusually vulnerable state, thanks to its imbalances. The interest rates that Mr Bernanke will inherit will be close to neutral, neither restraining nor stimulating the economy. But America's domestic demand needs to grow more slowly in order to bring the saving rate and the current-account deficit back to sustainable levels. If demand fails to slow, he will need to push rates higher. This will be risky, given households' heavy debts. After 13 increases in interest rates, the tide of easy money is now flowing out, and many American households are going to be shockingly exposed. In the words of Warren Buffett, “It's only when the tide goes out that you can see who's swimming naked.”
The more you dig, the deeper you get.
The more you protest your stupidity, the more you reveal just how bone-jarringly, clear~to~the~bone, shave my dogs a$$ and teach it to walk backwards stupid you are!
But, please don't let that stop you......entertain us with another "economics" lesson!
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 17, 2006 08:24 PMcan you do anything but name-calling? you are pathetic.
you call the economist "crap"? what shall we call the bile you write?
go to wal-mart, buy a gun and some chinese crap on your credit card tied to your home equity and pray to god.
Posted by: dinesh on April 18, 2006 10:39 AMYour silly attempt to re-establish credibility and pretense of sophistication is comical.
This thread is about illegal immigrants and people running around registering illegals to vote.
I'm sure your alma mater would be proud.
I have to hand it to you though, you are stubborn.
Your last bewildered fabrication amounts to little more than a mixture of out-of-context quotes and misquotes of various authorities in a vain effort to establish credibility, gratuitous baseless statements lacking any warranting facts to support them, and a rootless drifting charade in service to a non-existent thesis.
Your consistent use of this style of aimless and unfocused garbage-reasoning proves my point that you are ”kind enough to demonstrate deliberately how dimwitted and ill-educated you are.
Earlier you spewed a similar “rambling mixture of disconnected nonsense, and confused muddled stream of semi-consciousness, and then . . . ascribed Alan Greenspan as its supporting authority,” Supposedly it proved . . . what??
Once again, there little feller . . . just when I thought you were done showing how much of a moron you are, you rise right back and prove it beyond any doubt.
Thanks for the liberal style entertainment.
Very amusing indeed.
alpha:
you won't answer the questions b/c you can't.
you also have a tendency to make wild assumptions, in this case about my desire to re-establish credibility, etc. i don't give a whit what you consider credible.
quit with the ad hominem attacks and address the issues. or just resort to your mindless name-calling.
Posted by: dinesh on April 18, 2006 11:07 AMUnless you mean your credibility at being a self-righteous, sanctimonious hypocritical ego-freak. Every time you post onto one of these threads it is like a Fisher-Price rubber stamp - "You guys are all wrong about whatever it is because you're all mean to your mama's".
Who GAS about what you think dipshiite?
If, just for once, you were to offer an opinion about what you think instead of trying in your half-a$$ed way to critique someone else's opinion, that might change.
But I doubt it. I doubt it because you're a toilet-drinking, mouth-breather who hasn't considered a different idea in twenty years (and would most likely pee your pants if you ever did ;'}
I am glad that you don't "give a whit what (I) consider credible". At least on this we a consensus of opinion.
As to wally-world, I hear they stopped selling guns. Wouldn't know - although I have purchased lots of ammo from them, they never sold any guns that were big enough for me.......
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 18, 2006 01:53 PMThere was some question open (however small) about whether you are a completely clueless
liberal ding-dong about economics just as you are about politics and history.
Your reply removes all doubt.
Now you are additionally proving that you won’t give up no matter how badly you are beaten.
Thanks for the shameless exhibition of humorous liberal-style (in your parlance Chinese plastic) silliness.
Very amusing indeed.
Did you hear that faint end of an echo
like someone flushed?
Very amusing indeed.
Listen pal, I'm going to be nicer to you than you deserve and give you a little hint.
This is a website. A person who brags about their educational credentials on a website is a silly arrogant fool for the simple obvious reason that it doesn't matter at all. However, it is especially silly to observe a braggart prove with their own words that they are incapable of fundamental cogent reasoning, let alone scholarly writing. The only thing that matters here is your ability to present an argument. If you decide to try, I will treat the effort with respect. So far all you have done is show that you are a liberal fool with no clue.
I have not said anything about my level of education because it is utterly irrelevant. Every time you comment here you prove that you are too dumb to realize this fundamental fact.
Thanks for continuing to prove that you are simply too narcissistic and self-absorbed to look squarely at your own comments in the light they are seen by others.
By the way, I don't really think that you are a moron (that you know of) . . . I just say it to get you going.
And . . . it works!
Thanks for the fun.
Posted by: Amused by Dinesh on April 18, 2006 04:26 PMyou've made my credentials the issue...it has allowed you to stereotype me and the like.
as i recall, i only mentioned my alma matter as part of reconnecting with a classmate who now lives in washington and posted on this website.
i'm simply amazed that, for a group of people trying to generate more political diversity in washington (a goal which i commend), the approach is often more acidic like vinegar than sweet like honey.
your dismissive attitude towards "liberals", your paranoia about the MSM, and your seeming inability to see the connection between the local and national, the national and global make you appear sometimes like a fringe personality.
if more right-leaning people are like you, i can see why the left-leaning people in washington are not necessarily persuaded to reconsider their often bad ideas.
get your yucks at other people's expense. it's no skin off my behind. you have zero effect on matters of importance to me. if i knew more about you, i might be able to conclude you have zero effect period, limited, thankfully, to one vote (although as stefan has more than adequately demonstrated, washington state may let you get away with more).
Classic imbecilic liberalism! "No matter how foolish, no matter how destructive our habits are, we won't change our tune unless you act nicer to me!
I can't imagine why anyone would want to "generate more political diversity in washington" - I would prefer more political unity, but seeing as how fools like you are insane, I'll just enjoy the chaos you and your kind are bringing. It's liberalism (AKA progressivism for you lefties too cowardly to admit your own stripes) that has brought nihilism, moral relativism, secular humanism, communism and Marilyn Manson.
You enthusiastically embrace every self-destructive anti-ethical endeavor that your disgusting, degenerate little brains can dream up. And the best part is that you want somebody else to pay for it, and then somebody else to be responsible when you "F" it up.
"get your yucks at other people's expense."
Thank you!
I think I will.
Starting with you, bozo!
Several times you have bragged arguendo about the fact that you graduated from Berkeley.
On this thread you said, "as for serious scholarship, i know my credentials (both academic and otherwise) and i am comfortable with them.
You claim that I've made your credentials the issue?
Then you insist that you "only mentioned [your] alma matter as part of reconnecting with a classmate who now lives in washington and posted on this website.
Which is it moron?
This is your idea of serious scholarship?
Good job (snerk)!
But then the DMV counter-person asked about registering to vote (motor voter). SURE... and so a quick form fill out and voilla, another voter applicant.
Since I speak a tad of Thai, I said 'sawadee krop', and asked the new driver his name (I'm not going to try to phonetically spell it here, why expose myself to redicule), and told him mine. I then welcomed him to Washington (in english now - my recollection of Thai exhausted). His friend (who translated, and actually took the written test earlier for him), told him what I said, and we quickly head-bobbed. A thoroughly delightful experience for us all.
Then when my turn at the counter came, I asked the clerk why she registered an obvious non-citizen. She told me he checked the citizen box and it's not her place to screen, just offer and take the registration application and send it in. "It will be screened by the King County Dept. of Elections". (Oh Christ.. yea right..)
Since I had access to the next elections roles (my wife was a campaign manager for one of the candidates), I checked, and sure enough, there his name (newly) appeared on the registered voters list in Bellevue for the Sept. primary. Absentee.
I wonder if someone translated his ballot for him. I wonder if he even knew what it was? I wonder if he even lived at the address given, since it appeared about 30 people were registered there (really big apartment, I guess).
A 45 minute call to King County Elections got me into a tail chase and legalities bombardment essentially culminating in a "go away and don't bother us" message unless you have a death certificate or proof of residency outside the state to send them (fraudulant registration seemed foreign to their procedures - if they're registered they can't possibly be fradulent now, can they?).
The upshot is that (at least at the time) the DoE relies on the screening of the registration taker and the registration taker relies on the DoE to screen, and ultimately you're considered a legal citizen resident unless your application form that you fill out otherwise says you're not.
-Steeley
Posted by: Steeley on April 22, 2006 09:03 AM