Bush "minutemen vigilantes". Offended? Poll

Status
Not open for further replies.
shootinstudent
Explain to me why all border-alarmists die in national elections. Is every single vote rigged? You're saying most people agree that the problem is as urgent and deserves as many resources as you do, correct? If that's the case, then explain why not a single such candidate has survived a presidential election.
Click to expand...
For the same reason that third party candidates - even those who qualify for the ballot and matching Federal campaign funds - are not allowed to take part in the nationally televised and broadcast debates.

You have no chance of winning the WBA title if the ringmasters do not allow you into the ring to fight the two sanctioned and starring contenders. ;)

What should be "in your face, stupid", is that your political issue here is a loser.
Click to expand...
It's only a "loser" because there is an element of control.

If this is not so, no doubt you can explain why CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc and all major newspapers have never had a major rift in "reporting" or editorial and columnist stories on events and issues of private firearms ownership and second amendment issues - and their relationship with crime.
 
Fred,

The US population is declining, and at the same time, the proportion of retirees to workers is increasing. I do not think there are enough workers to satisfy the demand as things stand.

LAK,

Ross Perot made the debates. Did he have a snowball's chance in hell of winning? Nope.

Pat Buchanan: Plenty of media access. Any realistic support? Nope.

Try again.

As for the "media control", first you're assuming that media reporting requires that people vote a certain way. It doesn't. Second, yes, there are editorial rifts. You apparently do not read the Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, or other conservative papers. Online, you can find National Review and Reason magazines. Claiming that there are no differences in editorial opinions amongst the media doesn't demonstrate "an element of control." It demonstrates that you don't read the papers.
 
Last edited:
The US population is declining, and at the same time, the proportion of retirees to workers is increasing. I do not think there are enough workers to satisfy the demand as things stand.
Click to expand...
Even if I stipulate that for the sake of argument, that still doesn't preclude filling the stipulated void with legal immigrants who demonstrably indicate that they want to be American citizens.

The rest of the mutts can get sent packing back to wherever they crawled out of.
 
Fred,

The current process does not allow enough workers to make it. That's why I support the Bush plan. I listed the reasons for Charley: it allows us to use information we already have about the workers who are here. If you toss everyone who has ever immigrated illegally, then you have only the ones who remained in Mexico to choose from...and in that case, you have no clue what kind of person you'll be importing. At least if we allow workers who have already illegally immigrated to apply guest worker status, we can select people who have demonstrated a steady work habit, no violent crime, and self-sufficiency, and deny permits to the rest.
 
At least if we allow workers who have already illegally immigrated to apply guest worker status, we can select people who have demonstrated a steady work habit, no violent crime, and self-sufficiency, and deny permits to the rest.
Click to expand...
How are people that won't even bother to learn English self-sufficient in this country? The clowns that I know make 5-8 dollars an hour and have an average of 3-4 kids. Their wages don't even cover their own upkeep, much less that of their dependents. They fraudulently apply for welfare, healthcare, and all sorts of other crap. How is that self-sufficient? Not to mention that records are only available for a handful of them or less. I guess that if scamming suckers out of their tax money is a "work habit" then yes, you could say they are steady as a rock. Sheesh! :barf:
 
SIS,
Since you quoted right underneath the part where I said that, I have to believe that you either did not carefully read my post, or that you are deliberately misconstruing it to try and make your point more credible.
Click to expand...
This could be a quote from me to you. This is exactly my point. It works both ways. You jump to conclusions. You went so far as to call a fellow poster a white supremist, although if you bother to read back through his post, this is not in fact sustantiated. One is allowed to make a projection (i.e. that if illegal immigration is allowed to continue, KKK-type activity will increase) without ADVOCATING it. You can, in the same breath, show disgust over the issue, even use harsh words, and even stick in a silly cartoon. At the end of the day, despite proper PC, it does not a hate-monger make.
While you have said that you do not think MMP is racist, you have also said:
You're exactly the guy the Minuteman project (at least in public) does not want associated with its movement.
Click to expand...
If you are allowing yourself to read between other's lines, then you must allow us to infer from the phrase "at least in public" the assumption on your part that the MMP is hiding violent or racist tendencies. So you see, even though you have said repeatedly that you believe MMP is not hate-oriented, there is an undercurrent that implies otherwise.
You seemed to have no problem assuming that Wallew's cartoon indicated his belief that the answer to Illegal Immigration was literally to start mowing people down. Yet you made a direct comparison between Illegal Immigration and Shoplifting (not in cartoon form, but as part of your argument). To me, this was a very clear indication that you see illegal immigration on par with shoplifting, that it should be dealt with in a similar manner. You chose the example of shoplifting, and yet, when I mentioned it, you denied that the example was in fact implying that one thing was equated with the other. Why use the example, then, if not to demonstrate a comparison?
See how each side, even yours, can jump to conclusions and draw out phrases that may or may not represent the poster's real objectives? That is all I am trying to get at.
I realized I am getting bogged down in the "language" of things, so I will let you have the last word, and will get back to the business of discussing the tide of illegal mass migration. Have a good night.
 
Charley,

You need to reread Wallew's original post. He speaks disparagingly of the "minority rights" that were allowed during the 60's, then compares that to the illegal immigrant situation today. He's posted the same comic before, saying in effect "this is what border protection should be."

My comment on shoplifting was not a comparison. Reread that post. It was an example to illustrate a point on resources versus harms.

When I said 'at least in private', my point was to avoid speaking for you, since you are in the minuteman project. Also, the way you have refused to distance yourself from the "minorities are the source of these problems" and the "dark side of minorities, the filth" that Wallew has seen, made me wonder if you did in fact reject what the comic portrays as a solution. You are free to speak out on both of those points now.

Is what you're telling me, that you deliberately misrepresented what I was saying to make a point? If that's the case, why didn't you just post what you said this last time the first time around?

I think you need to go back and see where this thread started. I chimed in on why the Minutemen might not want people with rifles running around, the theory being that one bad apple would crush the image of the entire movement, fair or not, in the image of the public. Then, Wallew follows up talking about how the hippies messed everything up by granting minority rights, and about the "dark side" of the minority problem in the US.

So, I'm going to add another observation: Now that you've admitted you were deliberately misconstruing my posts, I think you're doing the same with Wallew's posts. You're stretching the limits of what he said to try and cast my own posts as a comment on minutemen and all those on the "closed border" side of the debate. Why you would do this when I've tried several times to engage you in a rational talk about the facts is not clear to me. (Remember, I pointed out several times that I respected your opinion and level headed approach to the discussion?).

I'll await your next response to find out.
 
i am going to laugh my butt off when hillary clinton gets elected president in 2008 because of her tuff stance on illegal immigration.

then i am going to cry ...
 
Fred, Paratrooper,

I'm sorry, but the entire United States is not your house. It is our shared property, we all vote on it, etc, but it's not personal property. Never has been. The argument "I would kick someone out of my house, therefore, all illegal immigrants ought to be kicked out", does not follow. They are two totally different things. Who may and may not occupy public space is up the law, not to individuals. And currently, the law allows for some people who have immigrated illegally to become legal. I made a policy argument for why we should expand that. I'd like it if you could both tell me what you think of the merits of the Bush plan that I mentioned above, namely, that we can choose based on better information which people to give guest worker status to.

Fred-How do you know who is applying for welfare and healthcare? Do you go home with the 5-8 dollar an hour work crews, or do you speak enough spanish to listen in on their conversations?

The idea that illegals are running around making contact with every Federal and state agency they can is ridiculous. They are mostly uneducated and scared of being deported (which is a MAJOR economic loss to them), and where they do receive anything beyond basic emergency room care, they receive it by the authority of the State legislature.

And none of this gets down to the real problem, which is that, whether we like it or not, the US needs immigrants. The baby boomers did not have enough kids to support the retiree population. So you can opt for blind admissions through an expensive process, or you can go with the Bush plan which avoids the expense of screening millions of new candidates in other countries, and which would allow us to rely on better information about the people we do consider for guest worker status.
 
It is our shared property, we all vote on it, etc, but it's not personal property
Click to expand...
cool, i vote for shootinstudent's bedroom to house illegal immigrants while they are looking for work.

all in favor say AYE!
 
Redhawk41,

That was the whole point. Think of it this way: If you believe that people have the right to have a parade in public, does that mean that you're obligated to let people have parades in your bedroom hallway? And conversely, since I'm presuming you wouldn't allow a parade in your hallway, does that mean you don't believe parades should happen anywhere else?
 
Fred-How do you know who is applying for welfare and healthcare?
Click to expand...
How do I know? Well for one I'm not an idiot, and I know what things like housing and health care cost. Unless they are robbing banks, someone is paying for their kids health costs and schooling. But then I also have a sister that works in a hospital, and an aunt that is a dialysis tech. They see folks day in and day out who don't speak english and who have state "medicaid" cards on their person.

Then there was the time that my neighbor made the mistake of hiring two dirtbags from Central America to paint her house. She asked me if I would show them how to glaze her old windows, and since she is a good neighbor I agreed. Long story short the two nitwits didn't have a clue, but taking pity on them and her I made the mistake of giving them my phone number so they could call me in the event of more problems.

Then one of them injured himself. The supposed "brother" of the one who barely spoke english. The injured guy spoke virtually none. They go to the hospital and the social worker helps them to fraudulently make out the billing information to me, complete with a name entirely different from the names they gave my neighbor.

Then I get a call from Labor and Industries asking for my employer number. I explain that I hired no one. The L&I people ask the nitwit for his checkstub. He tells them through an interpreter that "the lady" paid his "brother". Game over.

So please, if you want to ask questions, please have them make some sense. When I see people who make less money than I do, driving trucks that are nicer than mine, with a fleet of kids in tow, all of whom need food, clothing, shelter, insurance, etc... I can do the math. Just as any person who is honest can.

These jerks are breaking our country. They need to assimilate or get the hell out.
 
Fred,

They live multiple families to a house, that's how they afford it. And, you just gave an example of someone getting caught trying to get healthcare illegitimately. How does providing an example of someone failing to get services prove your point?

Also, there are indeed legal, permanent residents who speak no real english. There are event lots of them. So how does your sister know which with the medicare cards are not permanent residents?

Here's how I see your comment on assimilation: If illegals would all learn english and speak without accents, then there wouldn't be a problem. We must have a fragile country indeed if being unable to speak english or believe what everyone else believes breaks it.

Myself, I'm much more concerned with the effect on the economy and crime. Cultural assimilation doesn't have anything to do with that, as Mexicans culturally are hard workers and expect little in the way of pay. They also tend to be more socially and religiously conservative than your average joe American. Sure, there are some criminals who are immigrants, just like there are some Americans. Both deserve punishment, but neither should be used to blame the entire groups from which they come for crime. I believe that "collective responsibility" is anathema to American values.

And we still have the issue of how we will supply the labor America needs for its future. Did you have a response to my point on the ease of using people who are already in place?

Edited to add:

I'm confused by this comment:

When I see people who make less money than I do, driving trucks that are nicer than mine, with a fleet of kids in tow, all of whom need food, clothing, shelter, insurance, etc... I can do the math.
Click to expand...

You can tell how much money people make from the clothes they put their kids in? Or are these your workers? Do you know that your workers only work for you, or that they are the only source of income paying for the truck?

Strange. I've never been able to eyeball someone and do the math as to how much he makes and how much he spends.
 
How does providing an example of someone failing to get services prove your point?
Click to expand...
The guy got his leg fixed. What service did he not recieve? Full body massage? Hot oil treatment?

The state paid his bill. The only thing he didn't get was to perpetrate his fraud on me directly. He still stole the money out of my outrageous taxes.
You can tell how much money people make from the clothes they put their kids in? Or are these your workers? Do you know that your workers only work for you, or that they are the only source of income paying for the truck?
Click to expand...
I know the people they work for. I know how much they are paid. Now that you mention it though they probably only do the 5-8 dollar an hour stuff in the daytime when they are on the construction site. I'm sure that Microsoft or Boeing is paying them the big salary when they work in management at night. Yeah, that's believable. Must be all those language skills that makes them so valuable. :rolleyes:
 
Fred,

Right, just clearing that up. You don't really know, you're just assuming that all the mexicans in nice trucks you see make what you figure they make. That's fine, it's just not a basis for advocating one policy over another. Fred Hansen's mystical income audit isn't going to sway too many people over to your side, IMO.

And I'd still like to see a response to my point on using workers in place versus importing entirely new workers, as a rejection of the Bush plan would require.
 
I didn't say all Mexicans. I said the ones that I know.


And I'd still like to see a response to my point on using workers in place versus importing entirely new workers, as a rejection of the Bush plan would require.
Click to expand...
Look directly above your last post. Funny how you see things that aren't there, while ignoring things that are.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top