March 19, 2013

"Immigration reform will not occur until conservative Republicans, like myself, become part of the solution."

"I am here today to begin that conversation... Let's start that conversation by acknowledging we aren't going to deport... My plan will not grant amnesty or move anyone to the front of the line... But what we have now is de facto amnesty."

Rand Paul.

146 comments:

The Drill SGT said...

First, build a big F'ing Fence

Colonel Angus said...

If they want the Hispanic vote they need to one up the Democrats and that means granting amnesty.

The Easter Bunny made you work to get your eggs. Santa Claus just had your presents waiting for you while you slept all night. Hard to compete against that.

Achilles said...

The first quoted line in the article, "if you are willing to work" is the key. Democrats are luring people over with food stamps and welfare. It is clear they want more serfs.

If we have a system where people who come here have to work and support themselves we won't need a fence. A "secure" border will discourage people coming across but it will never stop them. We need to focus on the incentives that draw people to this country. I would personally rather have the solid majority of illegals here that work hard and deport the OWS crowd. Screw the fence. Stop taking my money and giving it to people to buy votes.

YoungHegelian said...

The illegal (or "undocumented") immigrant population we are dealing with here is primarily Mexican. Mexicans have a history of looking for (and never getting) state support for their lives in Mexico. In the US, Mexicans tend to vote Democrat.

Is there some good reason why the Republicans should legalized about 10 million new Democratic voters? And if you think this is just a problem for the Republicans, after "amnesty" adds 10 million Mexicans to the rolls, do you think there will even be a shred of black political power left in the Southwest, including Texas & California?

Icepick said...

And what he's proposing will be de jure amnesty.

The leaders have decided to elect a new populace. These tea party favorites are the same as the bastards they're supposed to replace.

Icepick said...

The first quoted line in the article, "if you are willing to work" is the key.

So the Republicans want more aliens to keep wages suppressed, and to insure that we keep a nice large number of unemployed natives. How is that supposed to be better?

Icepick said...

We have high unemployment.

We have had stagnant wages for several decades, and decreasing median wages for the last five or six years.

We have an increasingly large gap between the haves and have-nots.

We have wealth being increasingly concentrated into the hands of the few.

We have an increasing number of poor people and dependent people.

We have a low growth economy.

We have a problem financing all the government we've got.

We (according to some) have a problem with carbon emissions being too high.

We need a highly educated workforce to fuel the high-wage high-growth jobs of the future (according to most of our rulers).

So naturally, the solution is to import tens of millions of Third World peasants to correct all these problems by working on everyone's lawn.

Icepick said...

Is there some good reason why the Republicans should legalized about 10 million new Democratic voters?

To make certain that wages are suppressed.

And if you think this is just a problem for the Republicans, after "amnesty" adds 10 million Mexicans to the rolls, do you think there will even be a shred of black political power left in the Southwest, including Texas & California?

That does not matter. The goal is to elect a new people, one that will accept ever increasing amounts of concentrated power with the government and the most wealthy.

Ignore what they say, and observe what they do.

gregq said...

No, we don't have defacto amnesty. What we have is millions of people doing jobs they can only get because they're outside the labor laws of the US. Make them legal, make it so they have to be paid minimum wage, and they're no longer worth hiring.

That is, after all, what the argument "the restaurant (or pick your other favorite II dependent business) business would be destroyed w/o illegal immigrants" actually means.

It's not that they work hard. It's that they aren't "protected" by the laws.

And if you really want to get "conservative Republicans" involved, here's my minimums:

1: Border Security first.
2: No adult who came here illegally can ever become a US Citizen, other than by leaving and entering through the normal process.
3: Any sort of "DREAM Act" ONLY applies to those who get honorably discharged from the military. None of this "graduate high school" or "go to college" BS. You do that for yourself, not for us. You want us to give you a benefit, you do something for us: join the military, and risk dying for America.

AprilApple said...

The democrat's grand big-plan goal:
Grant all people who did not enter our nation legally "free" obamacare. You know - paid for with our tax dollars.

AllenS said...

There will always be black political power. It was part of the 1964 civil rights act, that created minority districts to ensure those districts which were comprised of blacks had representation. Newly arrived Latino's will be placed in areas where whites reside.

Icepick said...

gregq, I'd put border security last, and for the first I'd enforce labor laws in this country. Enforce labor laws and Mexican and Guatemalan workers have no reason to stay.

BDNYC said...

I wonder if this might be a good time to revisit welfare reform. Perhaps a strengthening of the safeguards with respect to citizenship/legal residency. A grand bargain on the normalization of illegal immigrants presents as good a time as any, and reversing Obama's recent weakening of welfare reform would be nice.

The truth is, we want hard workers who pay taxes and contribute to the system. We need their fecundity, too. But we don't want their lazy or criminal cousins coming along for the ride and cashing government checks.

Colonel Angus said...

And if you really want to get "conservative Republicans" involved, here's my minimums:

That's a solid list but it won't get Hispanics on board. They want a free pass and as long as the Democrats are willing to hand it out, the GOP has no chance at winning them over. Period.

The time to break out the popcorn is watching the African American community compete with the rising numbr of Hispanics for the affections of the Democrat party. Wait till the kids start fighting over who is getting more presents.

Paul Zrimsek said...

If we have de-facto amnesty, all those poor souls who supposedly have been living in the shadows have really been getting de-facto sunlight. So what's the problem we're trying to solve, again?

SJ said...

@gregq,

No, we don't have defacto amnesty. What we have is millions of people doing jobs they can only get because they're outside the labor laws of the US. Make them legal, make it so they have to be paid minimum wage, and they're no longer worth hiring.

That is, after all, what the argument "the restaurant (or pick your other favorite II dependent business) business would be destroyed w/o illegal immigrants" actually means.


I've been told that semi-skilled construction labor, no-questions-asked, paid-under-the-table, is often above minimum wage.

The problem appears to be that the costs of hiring, the supply of such workers who are willing to go through the legal hiring process, and the supply of questionable-or-illegal Mexican labor all contribute to make the paid-under-the-table labor more attractive.

Even at above-minimum wage prices.

machine said...

....more proof of the Obama stomping....dig it.

Achilles said...

Icepick,

How did your family get here?

Do you think all Mexicans just want welfare? Is this a racial tendency? Are there maybe some that want to work and support their family? Your list looks an awful lot like you are blaming immigrants for our problems. Do you idiots even know how ridiculous your posts look?

I grew up working on our families orchard before literally being taxed out of existence. We employed a lot of Hispanic people. I would be happy to have those people as fellows Americans if they want to learn English and integrate. We need to have a system that integrates good hard working people.

Being an American shouldn't be a out where you were born or how you look. That is an entitlement mentality. While I was deployed and got to watch OWS and anti war protests. I would much rather deport those people than any immigrant that comes here to work.

Icepick said...

It was part of the 1964 civil rights act, that created minority districts to ensure those districts which were comprised of blacks had representation.

Things change. Google stories about how blacks are getting forced out of Compton, for example.

Tank said...

Icepick said...

Is there some good reason why the Republicans should legalized about 10 million new Democratic voters?

To make certain that wages are suppressed

If you were talking about Rove and company, yes, but not Paul. I think he's just stupid on this issue.

We actually could use about 10-15 million less people now. That would be good for low income people, women and minorities who are legally here.

AReasonableMan said...

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

Capt. Schmoe said...

So Rand is a pussy just like the rest of them.

What the republicans fail to realize is that they have been getting gamed on this issue for decades.

In the quest for cheap labor, the mainly republican business interests opted to ignore illegal immigration in the '50s and '60s. The democrats realized that the future voting bloc would be huge and pandered to the hispanic rights movement.

When the repubs finally figured out that the state of California was permanently lost it was way too late.

It really is kind of funny for us to watch the rest of the country fall into the same trap, though at a slightly slower pace.

The funny thing is that no matter what the republicans do now when it comes to immigration, it is not going to change the preference of the hispanic voting bloc. Ese buque navegó desde hace mucho tiempo.

Pendejo.

AllenS said...

Icepick, they will simply move the boundary lines. Ever wonder why it's so important for the census takers to have you tell them your race? That is where they get the information to form these black districts.

MnMark said...

Yeah let's start by conceding the opposition's main point (can't deport all illegals). What a load.

It's simple to get the illegals to self-deport. Eliminate all possibility of them finding work here. Do that by putting high fines on those who employee them. Make it likely the employers will be caught by offering a large reward for reporting an employer of illegals, paid for out of the fine levied on the employers. Incentivize the enforcement agencies and agents by giving them bonuses for every employer caught in the act of employing an illegal, and pay the bonuses out of the fine levied on the employer.

Cost to taxpayer: zero.

Likelihood of employer taking the risk of employing an illegal: extremely low, since it is almost certain they would be reported for a reward.

Incentive for illegal to stay: hugely less than it is now.

Result: illegals self-deport.


I suspect Rand Paul is about to reverse his recent meteoric rise to popularity. Just another open-border libertarian.

If you don't deport the 30 million who snuck in since the last amnesty, you simply encourage another 100 million to sneak in. There is no other real answer but deportation, and as I pointed out, financial penalties on employers (combined with rewards for information on employer lawbreakers) will do the job.

Achilles said...

Once again machine demonstrates the left doesn't care about the country or the people.

To the left it is all about power. They have nothing to add. All they can do is take. If we are looking for people to deport lets start with the OWS crowd.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Achilles said...

We need to have a system that integrates good hard working people.

The way that our culture is going, I'm not sure that good, hard-working people would fit in...

Icepick said...

This will be fun.

How did your family get here?

They were born here, going back for a few hundred years.

Before that? They came here and stole the land from the Indians. One of my great-to-the-fifth-grandfathers was famous for killing the last Indian in his little part of Virginia. (Indians had previously shot him and tried to murder his family, which was imminently sensible on the part of the Indians.) And then they fought the British Crown for their independence.

Looked at from the perspective of the Indians this doesn't look like a good example of the benefits of unfettered immigration, does it?

Do you think all Mexicans just want welfare?

Of course I believe they all want to live off welfare, which is why I would enforce hiring laws. That first clause is sarcasm, by the way. You're obviously too fucking stupid to pass basic reading comprehension tests.

Are there maybe some that want to work and support their family?

An irrelevant question, given your inability to comprehend what I wrote. As was the question I deleted. You bastards just can't make one single argument without calling someone a racist.

But here's a larger point (that will no doubt go over your head). To the extent we allow immigrants, we should allow immigrants that will be a long-term benefit to those of us that are already citizens, and that will help make for a stronger and more prosperous polity. Doing it because some rich assholes want cheap labor around the house doesn't necessarily qualify.

Your list looks an awful lot like you are blaming immigrants for our problems.

No, it looks like a list of the problems we have, and wondering how importing Third World peasants in large quantities can do anything but exacerbate those problems.

Do you idiots even know how ridiculous your posts look?

Do you understand that your repeated inability to do anything but call those you oppose racists makes you a giant piece of shit? It's little wonder that the nation has gone to Hell with such dishonest and stupid fools as you comprising a majority of the voters.

Icepick said...

If you were talking about Rove and company, yes, but not Paul. I think he's just stupid on this issue.

That's better how?

Achilles said...

Seriously you people need to read your posts. This anti immigration at all costs position is really stupid, absolutely unrealistic, and easily construed to be and in some cases actually racist. The US has never had a closed border and most of your great grand parents didn't have visas either.

You all need to step back and open your minds a bit. You are being trolled on this just like SSM. If you don't wake up and use some critical thinking skills we are all going to lose our country.

machine said...

...and the right cares so much it started a very costly war on false premises using only borrowed dollars (a first) and resulting in way too many American casualties (Happy Anniversary BTW)...

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction."
Dick Cheney....

Such a caring folk...

Tank said...

Obviously not better.

That's why I always say watch what people do, not what the say, or waht their "good" intentions are. Stupid has the same bad result as evil here.

AllenS said...

machine, check these out --

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

I have more if you'd like to see them, but I doubt if you would.

Colonel Angus said...

The truth is, we want hard workers who pay taxes and contribute to the system.

The truth is there is a large pool of educated and skilled people who are trying desperately to immigrate to this country but alas don't have the luxury of walking across the border thereby bypassing the legal process.

Telling illegals they have to get in the back of the line isn't going to fly. They'll continue to cone in illegally, produce more anchor babies and cry foul over the breakup of their families. Democrat will makes excuses and concessions and call you a racist for insisting people follow the law.

Icepick said...

You are being trolled on this just like SSM. If you don't wake up and use some critical thinking skills we are all going to lose our country.

You need to go back and read up a little. Immigration laws were tightened considerably in the early 1920s.

But please tell me, how will importing tens of millions of peasants help

(1) Lower unemployment?

(2) Increase wages?

(3) Reduce poverty?

(4) Reduce the wealth gap?

(5) Lower carbon emissions? (Whether or not I think that's a problem is irrelevant, as our Dear Leader thinks it is AND wants to import another twenty or thirty million peasants into the country.)

(6) Increase economic growth in an era when growth is driven by a high skilled workforce (in the First World, anyway.)

(7) Decrease the number of poor and dependent people?

Tank said...

Achilles said...
Seriously you people need to read your posts. This anti immigration at all costs position is really stupid, absolutely unrealistic, and easily construed to be and in some cases actually racist. The US has never had a closed border and most of your great grand parents didn't have visas either.

You all need to step back and open your minds a bit. You are being trolled on this just like SSM. If you don't wake up and use some critical thinking skills we are all going to lose our country.


OK, so you've got the requisite "racists" name calling out of the way. Now explain why it is beneficial to the country, and Repub's in general, to have more low income, low education, high unwed mothers, big gov't dependent, Democrat voting people in this country. Why is it better for black folks who want to work to have scores of millions of low education, low income, no asset workers from South America competing against them.

Achilles said...

Ice pick,

Please explain what problems any of your "solutions" solve.

We have always had "illegal" immigration. After a generation or two of being poor and uneducated these people managed to integrate. The only difference now is our government has a faction that buys votes with welfare money. Apparently your solution is to start throwing out immigrants and keep the welfare. That sure takes care of the problems we have!

Maguro said...

Seriously you people need to read your posts. This anti immigration at all costs position is really stupid, absolutely unrealistic, and easily construed to be and in some cases actually racist. The US has never had a closed border and most of your great grand parents didn't have visas either.

Not true. The US had very little immigration from 1924 to 1965. Which contributed in no small measure to a very culturally unified America during that time.

AReasonableMan said...

AllenS said...

I have more if you'd like to see them, but I doubt if you would.


You are completely missing the point.

It is one thing to rattle a saber now and then. It is a completely different thing altogether to commit billions of dollars and thousands of lives to a stupid and futile war, this generation's Vietnam. The Republicans have lost all credibility on national security thanks to this blunder.

Tank said...

Ach

You did not answer my, or Icepick's, questions. Explain why it's beneficial to Americans to have millions of unskilled immigrants. Our policies are supposed to be for American interests. How does your prefered policy help Americans here today?

AllenS said...

We had strict immigration policies starting in 1925 IIRC. There were very strict quotas of how many people were allowed to immigrate from each country. That all changed with the Immigration Reform Act of 1965.

Maguro said...

We have always had "illegal" immigration. After a generation or two of being poor and uneducated these people managed to integrate. The only difference now is our government has a faction that buys votes with welfare money. Apparently your solution is to start throwing out immigrants and keep the welfare. That sure takes care of the problems we have!

Yeah, open borders and the welfare state are not compatible. But it is a lot more realistic to not have open borders than it is to not have a welfare state.

And maybe if we didn't have all these foreign unsklilled laborers, employers would have to pay US unskilled laborers a better wage. Law of supply and demand.

AllenS said...

I'm not missing any point. I was referring to machine's comment of false premises from Cheney. Where you do think Cheney got his information from? I'd bet it was from the previous administration. You don't think that if Clinton was still president on 9/11 he wouldn't have done the same thing?

Lem said...

If you don't need ID to even vote why would you need it for anything else?

Illegals are getting food stamps, drivers license, college tuition.

As long as we maintain the porous Mexican border... this path to whatever Paul is talking about... is just a big to do about somebody changing a ledger column from red to black... Until the next time the red column fills up again and they will want to change it to a neat black again.

Icepick said...

Please explain what problems any of your "solutions" solve.

I haven't given solutions to those problems on these threads. Further, I don't have to. You are argue for allowing tens of millions of peasants into the country. Please explain how that helps anything.

My proposal is that when in a hole, stop digging. We're not going to get anywhere by making things worse.

Icepick said...

Ach

You did not answer my, or Icepick's, questions.


He won't, because he can't. He will keep calling us racists instead, and will intentionally mangle any points we make.

YoungHegelian said...

@Achilles,

We have always had "illegal" immigration.

No, not like we do now, because the immigrants, legal & illegal, didn't come from country that shared a 1000+ mile border with the US. Other immigrants in the past came by ship, and it was just physically impossible to move as many bodies in as short of a period of time.

We don't have an "immigration" problem in the US. We have a "Mexico" problem, and the ultimate resolution involves helping Mexico to get its shit together, which is no minor task.

Colonel Angus said...

It is a completely different thing altogether to commit billions of dollars and thousands of lives to a stupid and futile war, this generation's Vietnam. The Republicans have lost all credibility on national security thanks to this blunder.

So a bi-partisan resolution authorizing war wasnt really bi-partisan.

Achilles said...

Tank, read the posts. "Mexicans" and "Guatemalans" pops up several times in the fist dozen or so posts. The only immigrants that spoke good English when they got here from Europe were from The UK. The rest were "uneducated" too. Rubio is a good example of what an immigrant family can look like.

If you read your own post we have references to both Black people and poor South Americans being in a permanent underclass. It takes no effort to find racism around here

Instead of trying to kick a bunch of people out instead focus on the policies that cause government dependence, poverty, and poor education. We should be privatizing education. We should be eliminating welfare and other dependency programs. We should be cutting regulations and taxes to promote growth. We should be balancing our budgets.

Serfs moving here from poor countries to get government handouts is a symptom of the real problems. Deal with the real problems so we attract the right people like we used to.

n.n said...

It's simple, the rule of law cannot be selective. It cannot create and discriminate among classes of citizens or legal residents.

In order for a nation to preserve its character and remain stable, legal immigration cannot exceed the rate of assimilation. It cannot serve to displace citizens at work, school, and throughout society.

There is no reasonable place for illegal (i.e. unmeasured) immigration. It corrupts both the immigrants and governments, both through obfuscating the causes of their emigration, and creation of false democratic leverage at their destination.

So, the problem is two-fold. First, corruption in America. Second, corruption in Mexico, principally, but also in other nations, where the causes of emigration remained unresolved.

For example, in Mexico, the issues are criminal cartels that murder, corrupt governments that redistribute earned wealth, and fanatical environmental policies which displace individuals and families.

A simple amnesty would serve to harm both Americans and Mexicans, et al. It would serve the fortunes of the political class in America, Mexico, etc.

Colonel Angus said...

Apparently your solution is to start throwing out immigrants and keep the welfare. That sure takes care of the problems we have!

If its too much to ask people to follow our immigration laws then just scrap them and give everybody who wants US citizenship their papers and be done with it.

There is a demand for 'reform' because a bunch of Mexicans broke the law and came here illegally facilitated by the ease of a common unsecured border and are now demanding citizenship.

If there were 20 million Poles, Serbs or Brits demanding easy access and reform to our immigration laws the left would ignore them.

EMD said...

Someone tell Machine the squirrels are outside, not here.

YoungHegelian said...

@achilles,

If you read your own post we have references to both Black people and poor South Americans being in a permanent underclass.

Uhhhm, they are, right?

So, your "Politically feasible non-racist answer" is instead of holding the line on immigration by non-legalization or fence building is to reverse the New Deal?

Would you like us to disband the Democratic Party while we're at it?

Lem said...

If we are going to be taken for saps... lets us have the dignity of not repeating the sapestry on us again and again and again...

You know... you rob a house once, beat your wife once and you move on to another one... you don't hit the same house and the same wife over and over and over.

We are being amnesty abused.

AReasonableMan said...

AllenS said...
You don't think that if Clinton was still president on 9/11 he wouldn't have done the same thing?


Definitely not. In his political life, Clinton was shrewd and cautious. His private life was apparently his equivalent of the picture of Dorian Grey.

Colonel Angus said...

Instead of trying to kick a bunch of people out instead focus on the policies that cause government dependence, poverty, and poor education.

Well for starters, how about importing 10-15 million poor, ill educated and unskilled people?

How about importing educated and skilled immigrants? Believe it or not, many countries adhere to that criteria.

Achilles said...

Ice Pick and Tank,

It is not beneficial to have poor uneducated people move here to get government benefits. I never said it was. But putting up fences and deportation is unrealistic if you don't solve the underlying problems. We need to get rid of welfare and food stamp programs.

And enforcing employment restrictions so they self deport? So they come here and you don't let them work, but they can get food stamps and welfare? THINK. Stop being a drone.

It used to be that Americans were all about competition and growth. Now it seems we want to protect what is ours and keep the rest out. You are being trolled. We are doomed if conservatives don't start using their brains.

AllenS said...

He had no trouble bombing the fuck out of Kosovo. A country that didn't go jack shit to us. Again, we had 9/11. Clinton would have done his tough guy bullshit. I have no doubt.

Icepick said...

Tank, read the posts. "Mexicans" and "Guatemalans" pops up several times in the fist dozen or so posts.

No shit. It's because mexicans, and to a lesser extent Guatemalans, comprise the bulk of the illegal aliens that are here. I'm sure there are a few illegal Canadians and perhaps even a illegal Nauruan or two, but that's not really the problem, is it?

The only immigrants that spoke good English when they got here from Europe were from The UK. The rest were "uneducated" too.

Riiiight. Because the circumstances of the Ninteenth Centruy, when we had lots of empty land to fill up with people that could farm the land through personal labor and lots of factories that needed barely skilled workers are exactly the same circumstances as today.

Rubio is a good example of what an immigrant family can look like.

Yes, they can have children that grow up to be scoundrel politicians. That's not a great advertizement for immigrants.

If you read your own post we have references to both Black people and poor South Americans being in a permanent underclass.

Are you stating that there isn't a permanent black underclass?

It takes no effort to find racism around here

Name calling again.

Tell me again how tens of millions of Third World peasants being given the right to vote solves any of the nation's problems? Actually, try telling me for the first time instead of calling me a racist again.

YoungHegelian said...

@Achilles,

We need to get rid of welfare and food stamp programs.

You say things like that, yet you think we're the hard-hearted racists? Have you ever run that line by a liberal friend to see his reaction?

All we are saying is that American benefits, whatever they are, are first & foremost for American citizens. Every sovereign nation must have control over its borders. We're in a pickle because we didn't keep control over our southern border. But the issue isn't welfare for our citizens. I don't see any reason to deny food stamps to poor American kids so that Oaxaca will stay home.

Icepick said...

So they come here and you don't let them work, but they can get food stamps and welfare? THINK.

Right, because those of us that want to enforce employment laws clearly just want the illegals to sit around and take welfare. Do we have to state every little thing for you or are you capable of drawing one (correct, for a change) conclusion on your own?

AllenS said...

Here's a couple from BJ's right hand man who eventually ran for POTUS --

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

Then, this character eventually tried to run for POTUS --

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I b elieve that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his contin ued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

How about one from the next POTUS --

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.

Hawks! Every one of them!

Tank said...

Achilles said...
Ice Pick and Tank,

It is not beneficial to have poor uneducated people move here to get government benefits


You have conceded our point. Now you want to argue about the best way to achieve it.

Here's what you said before:

Seriously you people need to read your posts. This anti immigration at all costs position is really stupid, absolutely unrealistic, and easily construed to be and in some cases actually racist. The US has never had a closed border and most of your great grand parents didn't have visas either.

You all need to step back and open your minds a bit.


You were busy calling us racists for saying what you now agree to, it's not beneficial to us.

In addition, as South American (Latinos) immigrants, legal or otherwise, tend to vote Democrat, it's not good for Republicans (which is what Paul was talking about) to encourage or allow that.

AReasonableMan said...

AllenS said...
He had no trouble bombing the fuck out of Kosovo. A country that didn't go jack shit to us.


You are getting lost in the argument. Iraq didn't do anything to us either. It was an effective regional rival to Iran, effectively constraining its military ambitions.

Icepick said...

Well for starters, how about importing 10-15 million poor, ill educated and unskilled people?

How about importing educated and skilled immigrants? Believe it or not, many countries adhere to that criteria.


An excellent point. If we really need another twenty million workers, why not skim the cream off the top of the entire planet? There are over 2.5 BILLION people in Indian and China alone. The top ten percent of those populations (however you want to define it) would amount to a quarter of a billion people. Surely we could skim a few million off here and there, people with skills and degrees other than gardening and the ability to work off the books.

Achilles said...

Colonel Angus,

I agree. We need to fix the underlying issues that draw poor uneducated here instead of skilled.

I would prefer requirements for citizenship I am positive most of the anti-immigrant people here would support. English proficiency, employment, net taxes payed are all a good start. If welfare and food stamp programs exist you should lose citizenship/voting rights to take them.

And YoungHegelian,

Please disband the democrat party. It is a party based on vote buying and dependence. It is trying to pass gun laws that will cement our place as serfs subservient to the government. The modern democrat party is a disgusting collection of robber barons who are looting this country and its future.

AReasonableMan said...

AllenS said...

Hawks! Every one of them!


Completely failing to understand the difference between talk and going to war. Talk is cheap.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

A stupid boy said:

"Talk is cheap"

So we shouldn't take anything that elected officials say (or do by voting) if they are democrats?

Fuck yourself.

Rusty said...

EMD said...
Someone tell Machine the squirrels are outside, not here.


Fergit it. His grey matter is oatmeal.

AllenS said...

AReasonableMan said...
Talk is cheap.

No shit.


Icepick said...

Colonel Angus, a little over 20 years ago I had a friend from Malaysia. He had come here to earn a degree in Mechanical engineering. He did quite well at his studies, earned his degree, and was then told to get the fuck out of the country. He wanted to stay, to take full advantage of his newly acquired skills. They wouldn't let him. So out he went.

Meanwhile, uneducated Mexicans were streaming across the borders with no one interested in stopping the flow. (Remember the amnesty of 1986? How'd that work to stem the tide?)

So now we want to reward all the people that have come here in violation of our laws, after decades of punishing those that wanted to come here legally. What a sick, sad joke.

EMD said...

Talk is cheap.

Duly noted. So, please never show up in the comments in here complaining about anything a conservative says ever again.

AReasonableMan said...

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Fuck yourself.


Quite the little intellectual, aren't we?

AReasonableMan said...

The Iraq war was Bush's war. All his, nobody else's, unless you count Cheney and Romney. His reputation as a leader lived and died with that war. It was a fucking stupid decision to go to war against Iraq, and Bush was a fucking stupid president.

Anglelyne said...

Achilles: We need to focus on the incentives that draw people to this country. I would personally rather have the solid majority of illegals here that work hard and deport the OWS crowd. Screw the fence. Stop taking my money and giving it to people to buy votes.

/Face palm.

If you let in endless numbers of low-skilled people it doesn't matter how hard they work. Supply and demand = falling wages. It doesn't matter what the theoretical consequences of axing welfare incentives would be. We have a welfare state. Every move to put an end to public subsidy of illegals and there children has been defeated by the courts. And lower and lower wages require public assistance to live at anything near decent first world standards.

Your money is going to be taken and used to buy their votes even if you contrive to have all the smelly OWS types in the country herded into rocket ships and blasted to the moon.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Much more so than you, twat.

You got your advanced degree from where exactly? The Bitchtits Mahal school of GEDs?

The true sign of intelligence is recognizing situations where the subject you are addressing is worthy of only profane insults, rather than any wasted time or effort in stringing together words that will go right over their empty little heads.

"Go fuck yourself" is the proper intellectual response for your assertion above.

I will repeat it again for your benefit.

Go. Fuck. Your. Self.

Achilles said...

Ice Pick said,


Well for starters, how about importing 10-15 million poor, ill educated and unskilled people?

How about importing educated and skilled immigrants? Believe it or not, many countries adhere to that criteria.

An excellent point. If we really need another twenty million workers, why not skim the cream off the top of the entire planet? There are over 2.5 BILLION people in Indian and China alone. The top ten percent of those populations (however you want to define it) would amount to a quarter of a billion people. Surely we could skim a few million off here and there, people with skills and degrees other than gardening and the ability to work off the books."


While we agree on the goal how do you get there?

Our shitty economy is reducing illegal immigration to the extent that the people who want a job are staying in Mexico. People who still want government benies are still coming over and a fence won't stop that. The first order is to take care of the dependency state.

In order to fix our economy and return to free markets we need to build a coalition of people who support free markets and growth. We will never do that with statements like:

"Surely we could skim a few million off here and there, people with skills and degrees other than gardening and the ability to work off the books."

Surely, your name calling aside, you can see how that makes it difficult to attract voters who might otherwise support free economic principles and are generally catholic and somewhat conservative socially? If people like you continue to be the face of immigration policy on the right and you don't fix this we will never be able to win a majority of votes given current and trending demographics.

garage mahal said...

@AReasonableMan

Keep in mind, that was President Moms Jeans "A Game". And, allegedly, he/she is a lawyer.

How would you like to pick this demented retard from the yellow pages for representation? Of all people!

AJ Lynch said...

I had dinner with three buddies who are union construction workers. Two of the three have had really lousy years workwise for the last three years. I asked them why the unions don't lobby against lax immigration policies and lax enfrcement. I said the labor surplus depresses wage rates. They blamed it on big employers - wtf are you gonna do? It seems we are suicidal as a nation- no other country would just hand over citizenship and voting rights to illegals.

Anglelyne said...

Achilles: But putting up fences and deportation is unrealistic if you don't solve the underlying problems. We need to get rid of welfare and food stamp programs.

And your sooper-dooper realistic plan for doing that is? 'Cause like nobody's thought of that before, right?

And enforcing employment restrictions so they self deport? So they come here and you don't let them work, but they can get food stamps and welfare? THINK. Stop being a drone.

Really, guys, THINK! Enough of your silly unrealistic employer sanction fantasies! Here's my hard-headed, reality-based fail-proof plan for No More Tears Open Borders! Are you ready? WE CUT OFF ALL PUBLIC BENEFITS TO ILLEGALS! Ta da!

Where have you been for the last 30 years, Achilles?

Surely, your name calling aside, you can see how that makes it difficult to attract voters who might otherwise support free economic principles and are generally catholic and somewhat conservative socially?

Ah, I see. Busily cogitating with your head up your butt.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
edutcher said...

Here I disagree with the Senator.

The only way we show we're serious is deport.

Apprehension of an illegal results in deportation. And if he's the bread-winner, the rest of the illegals can't go on welfare, food stamps, etc.

Real simple.

machine said...

....more proof of the Obama stomping....dig it.

How does 1.2%., stolen through vote fraud constitute a "stomping?"

Dig that.

bpm4532 said...

It would seem almost our entire set of immigration laws would be practically null and void. We're offering the Cuban solution (dry foot). If you can make it in, you're golden. If we stop you at the line (water's edge) we're sending you back.

edutcher said...

Inga said...

Garage and A Reasonable Man,

President Mom Jeans is not a lawyer, this I know as fact from very reliable sources.


The She Devil of the SS also wants us to believe she's a nurse with 4 exemplary kids and a dead super-stud husband.

How much of this do we believe?

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Ah, theres Bitchtits the Uneducated!

Why so upset about what I write? It's just words, which are extremely cheap according to a stupid boy.

It's not like I started a war with you, don't you know the difference?

Your ex wife's lawyers really stuck it to ya huh fatty? It makes your dislike for members of the legal profession very understandable.

Perhaps you would have fared better if you didn't find your own attorney out of the yellow pages.
Even most people who only have high school educations know better than to use that archaic book to choose representation.

Alternately, you could not have been a fat loser who was a failure as a husband.




ed said...

*shrug*

The reality is that unless something happens robotics will own manufacturing in the future. So having masses of uneducated, or undereducated, illegals will not accomplish anything.

Additionally the idea that we can somehow limit amnesty to some subgroup is a fallacy. With chain immigration any group that is awarded amnesty will bring in their families and that will vastly expand the number of people awarded amnesty.

The last "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" bit of tripe authored by McCain et al could have, probably would have, resulted in the addition of over 110,000,000 new citizens in the span of less than a decade with the only limitation the inevitable bureaucratic red tape that slows everything down. In such a circumstance we would be praying that Washington bureaucrats were even less inclined to work than they normally are. Which is not much.

A rough guide could easily be +spouse, +parents, +spousal parents, +children (assume 4). So for every illegal given amnesty we could have an additional +9 new citizens. And since the opportunity is for permanent citizenship there would not be any incentive to -NOT- adopt the children of siblings in their native country in order to bring them into the USA as citizens. In which case the number would be vastly higher.

So 11+ million illegals could easily translate into 110+ million new citizens. Which is comparable to the total number of Americans who voted for President in the last election.

Joy.

Icepick said...

Achilles, you start off by calling me a racist, and then repeatedly doing so, and then complain about me calling you a dishonest little shit for doping so. You don't want to be called dishonest, then don't misstate my positions. Don't want to be called a shit, then don't call em a racist. Otherwise, quit your bitchin', asshole. You don't get a free pass to lie about people and call them names.

And exactly what evidence do you have that Mexican immigrants are going to vote for Republicans under any circumstances? Is it because the prior Mexican immigrants have decided to go with the free-market party? Please.

virgil xenophon said...

Icepick, Tank, YH, Maguro, gregg, et al have already made most of the points I would have save for one: Upthread someone stated that we need immigrants because of their "fecundity." Presumably for bodies to contribute funding for SS retirees. WRONGO! SS is a pyramid scheme. One CANNOT mathematically work one's way out of that. Importing immigrants for this reason is a formula--the logic of which if followed to its mathematical conclusion--for the importation of the entire population of the world. This is so because today's "new" immigrant workers will eventually become tomorrows retirees, requiring an EVEN LARGER immigrant cohort to take care of THEM. And when that even larger cohort itself retires, it will require a YET LARGER immigrant cohort to take care of THAT retired cohort--and so on until the entire population of the world sits here. Seen in this light, reform of SS is therefore ABSOLUTELY VITAL to the immigration problem because so many mathematically challenged idiots think importing fresh bodies is the solution to funding SS. If we don't change it in its current form we are doomed..

Inga said...

And edbutcher wants us to believe he isn't a nursing home patient and that, "The Blond", is his wife, not actually his nurse that changes his Depends when he shits himself.

edutcher said...

As I can make a witty riposte without vulgarity, it would suggest that the She Devil's rant is more of her fantasizing.

AReasonableMan said...

edutcher said...
As I can make a witty riposte without vulgarity


Still waiting for that witty riposte.

Icepick said...

While we agree on the goal how do you get there?

Note that I had a conditional, "IF", at the start of paragraph you quoted. I don't actually think we need another 15 or 20 million workers in this country, given the current employment environment. The point was that IF you think that's a problem why is it necessary to take Mexican peasants when other more qualified applicants might be available?

Jane said...

Lately, I've read several times that the future of the US is a more uneducated future, because our immigrants (not distinguishing between legal and illegal) are on averge, much less uneducated than native-born Americans, and their children are much less likely to achieve academically. Throwing extra wads of cash at schools isn't going to fix this, if our pool of immigrants are coming from cultures where education isn't valued and prioritized.

And can we *please* have some enforcement of under-the-table labor?

Oh, and large numbers of legal unskilled immigrants wouldn't really be any better than illegal. Sure, it'll ensure that they're paid the minimum wage (unless, for the sake of getting a job, they work under the table), but it'll still continue the ongoing supression of wages for low-skilled jobs that, absent a large pool of unskilled workers, might have paid above minimum wage. So you'd be stuck at increasing the minimum wage -- and employers might still prefer immigrants who will take working condiitons that Americans would find unacceptable.

machine said...

Stomping? How about the leader of the teabaggers pushing immigration reform (without deportation, no less), the surge of approval for SSM, and the millions the GOP intends to spend on minority reach out....and this is just fo starters...

Seems one party is trying to become like the other...this is what happens after a stompin....

Ya burnt...

ALP said...

No - can we start the conversation with the fact that it is MEXICO and countries south that need reforming? Or the fact that we don't have Canadians pouring over the much more porous northern border?

ALL of our laws and regs, not just immigration, are in a constant state of flux and need to change with the times. Why is this body of law constantly the one being pointed out as "broken?"

Don't answer - I do know why: its much easier to poke at white middle class guilt, easier to wallow in self loathing - much, much more difficult to get a county like Mexico to change.

Colonel Angus said...

The Iraq war was Bush's war. All his, nobody else's,

You are aware that Congress authorized the Iraq war? I know many think Bush was this all powerful dictator but the reality was he could not have committed the country to war without Congressional authorization.

So while he pushed it, Congress authorized it and paid for it. Plenty of blame to go around.

AReasonableMan said...

Colonel Angus said...
So while he pushed it, Congress authorized it and paid for it. Plenty of blame to go around.


Perhaps the best evidence for what an unqualified disaster the Iraq war was is the enthusiasm of the right wing trolls to give credit to Democrats for starting the war.

There is no argument here. No Bush, no Iraq war. Ask Colin Powell what he thinks. I doubt he's going to say it was all the Democrat's idea.

ALP said...

No - can we start the conversation with the fact that it is MEXICO and countries south that need reforming? Or the fact that we don't have Canadians pouring over the much more porous northern border?

ALL of our laws and regs, not just immigration, are in a constant state of flux and need to change with the times. Why is this body of law constantly the one being pointed out as "broken?"

Don't answer - I do know why: its much easier to poke at white middle class guilt, easier to wallow in self loathing - much, much more difficult to get a county like Mexico to change.

virgil xenophon said...

I see ARM is around today with his usual idiocy of single-track, tunnel-vision political analysis...Bush, Bush, Bush..

edutcher said...

AnUnreasonableTroll said...

As I can make a witty riposte without vulgarity

Still waiting for that witty riposte.


Pearls before swine, as they say.

machine said...

Stomping? How about the leader of the teabaggers pushing immigration reform (without deportation, no less), the surge of approval for SSM, and the millions the GOP intends to spend on minority reach out....and this is just fo starters...

Rand Paul is the leader of the Tea Party? News to me.

Rand Paul's a Libertarian and that's about it.

When you hear Ted Cruz say it, call me.

I wasn't aware the Hildabeat and a RINO Senator constituted a "surge" and the millions are going to be spent by the RINOs, not Conservatives

Seems one party is trying to become like the other...this is what happens after a stompin....

No, this is what happens when the RINOs, who have been Democrat lite for 65 years, are panicked because all their friends in the Lefty media tell them nobody loves them anymore.

And again, a 1.2% difference in the popular consitsting of stolen ballots hardly constitutes a "stompin'"..

It does, however, constitute brainwashing of some pretty weak minds.

Ya burnt...

No idea what that means, but I'm sure we all smell that burning rubber odor coming from the mindless automaton's ears every time he tries to think.

Dante said...

Achilles Sez:

If we have a system where people who come here have to work and support themselves we won't need a fence. A "secure" border will discourage people coming across but it will never stop them. We need to focus on the incentives that draw people to this country. I would personally rather have the solid majority of illegals here that work hard and deport the OWS crowd. Screw the fence. Stop taking my money and giving it to people to buy votes.

Sure, sounds good. Great. What could possibly go wrong.

Illegals and their progeny consume electricity (which causes C02 and is evil, and the powers that be look at aggregate output of C02 by the US), and clog up roads, which are almost never improved except with commuter lanes, and their progeny goes to school.

The fertility rate of Hispanics is 3. And here in CA it costs about $400,000 to educate 3 children. Yet, the Hispanic household income is around $44,000. Education is paid for in CA largely with property taxes, a regressive tax. Everyone has to have a place to live, right? And roads with gas taxes. Another regressive tax. And social security proceeds are another regressive tax.

This is the problem with the libertarian ideology. It doesn't work with the current system.

Illegals are subsidized by current and future taxpayers. Until that problem is fixed, I say "NO" to illegal immigration, or normalizing illegals.

Colonel Angus said...

Perhaps the best evidence for what an unqualified disaster the Iraq war was is the enthusiasm of the right wing trolls to give credit to Democrats for starting the war.

Never said they started it. Simply pointed out a significant number enthusiasticly embraced the drive.

There is no argument here. No Bush, no Iraq war.

Actually I will take it further, no 9/11, no Afghan or Iraq war.

grackle said...

I would be happy to have those people as fellows Americans if they want to learn English and integrate.

They have been integrating and learning English for hundreds of years. Why would there be a problem now?

Any sort of "DREAM Act" ONLY applies to those who get honorably discharged from the military. None of this "graduate high school" or "go to college" BS.

Excellent viewpoint. Mirrors mine exactly.

In the quest for cheap labor, the mainly republican business interests opted to ignore illegal immigration in the '50s and '60s.

Actually, workers have been crossing the border since there WAS a border. It has nothing to do with any particular era("'50s and '60s") or any particular political party.

It's simple to get the illegals to self-deport. Eliminate all possibility of them finding work here. Do that by putting high fines on those who employee them.

Not so "simple," I think. Employers must first be provided a fool-proof method of identifying legal applicants. That would mean a national ID, which a lot of folks would be against.

To the extent we allow immigrants, we should allow immigrants that will be a long-term benefit to those of us that are already citizens, and that will help make for a stronger and more prosperous polity.

The above implies that there should be occupational, professional and educational quotas on immigrants. I'm against that and here's why:

Most governments south of the border are rife with corruption. Those governments are usually controlled by the elite, specifically the professional and educated classes. The elite ARE the problem down south and always have been. I say let them stay in their corruption.

On the other hand the peasant classes have been coming here for many generations. The descendants of those that chose to stay, replete with a work ethic second to none, became and continue to become our trades people, teachers, professionals and politicians, contributing needed revenues and in my opinion a certain beneficial vigor to American society. Why change a well-working formula by imposing new, well-meaning but ultimately counterproductive requirements?

The US had very little immigration from 1924 to 1965. Which contributed in no small measure to a very culturally unified America during that time.

Lacking a link I'm assuming the above applies only to LEGAL immigration, which means it's kind of beside the point. Figures on ILLEGAL immigration, if they exist, would be more helpful.

… the immigrants, legal & illegal, didn't come from country that shared a 1000+ mile border with the US.

Sorry, but yes, "illegal" immigrants have indeed been coming from Mexico and other parts south since the border itself existed. There has never been a time when this was not true. The fact the LEGAL immigrants coming in through LEGAL avenues were primarily from nations that did not share a border with the US is irrelevant.

AReasonableMan said...

virgil xenophon said...
I see ARM is around today with his single-track, tunnel-vision political analysis...Bush, Bush, Bush..


Amnesia is a beautiful thing, when it is to your political advantage. Think of me as a little anti-amnesia pill. Lest we forget.

I opposed the Iraq war from the start, as did a lot of other principled people, not all on the left. We were treated like traitors. I will bring up this fucking war and who was responsible whenever I feel like it. I paid my dues.

Colonel Angus said...

And actually an unqualified disaster in a war is usually defined in defeat. Think Berlin 1945.

machine said...

Question:

Who wrote "The Tea Party Goes to Washington"?

Answer:

Ya burnt!

Colonel Angus said...

If you feel like you were treated like traitors it may be because some of the biggest cheerleaders opposed to the war as well as most of the protestors openly cheered the other side.

Seeing Red said...

--Most governments south of the border are rife with corruption. Those governments are usually controlled by the elite, specifically the professional and educated classes. The elite ARE the problem down south and always have been. I say let them stay in their corruption. --


Not just down south.

It's gonna be very interesting here in about 30 years.

edutcher said...

Still no idea what he's babbling about, but, if there was such a "stompin'" (just like Little Zero, the black white guy saying, "folks", all the time), why is it, less than 2 months into his "flexibility" term, Choomie is back in the popularity ratings right where he was before the Miracle of Sandy:

47% approval according to CNN

44% approval according to the WaPo

43% approval according to Al Reuters

47% approval according to Gallup (and that's after multiple visits from Solly an' da boys)?

Hard to tell who got stomped, idn't it?

AReasonableMan said...

Colonel Angus said...
If you feel like you were treated like traitors it may be because some of the biggest cheerleaders opposed to the war as well as most of the protestors openly cheered the other side.


Complete bullshit, although you inadvertently prove my point.

As it turns out we were the true patriots, if patriotism means having the best interests of your country at heart.

YoungHegelian said...

@grackle,

Sorry, but yes, "illegal" immigrants have indeed been coming from Mexico and other parts south since the border itself existed. There has never been a time when this was not true.

But in no where near the numbers that they started coming in the past 50 years, grackle, and that's what's important.

I'm married to a woman who grew up in Brownsville, TX, so I know something of the border culture. There were few border controls between the US & Mexico before 1968. But most of the Mexican immigrants moving to & fro over the border stayed in the historically Chicano parts of the SW (CA, TX,NM, AZ), where they could blend in. Some moved further afield, e.g. a now several generations old community in Chicago that came to work the railroads & stockyards.

But, now, they are everywhere. Every US metropolis has a large immigrant latino community. Hell, even my small home town in northern Alabama has a latino community.

It was never like that before in American history. We Americans were too poor & bluntly, too racist, for that to happen.

virgil xenophon said...

@ARM

I'm not aware of any on the left that were treated as traitors by those of us "on the right" (although I'm sure there were exceptions I don't remember or didn't know about) as much as wrong on the facts and misguided. Most on the right quarreled with your conclusions and analysis and thought you profoundly wrong in the conclusions you drew. But traitorous? The only thing I can think of is that you may believe that many who criticized the knee-jerk "Blame America First" crowd on your side of the political ledger as implying all such were "traitors." There indeed may have been some of that, but it was hardly wide-spread and pales in comparison when compared to the pejoratives & aspersions your side has cast at the right.

At any rate, I'm not here today to argue all the ins & outs of that particular past except to say that events were FAR more complicated and the motivations of the major players far more complex than your simplistic single-track analysis makes them out to be. You do your pov no good in advancing your arguments with such narrow-gage thinking/analysis..

edutcher said...

AnUnreasonableTroll said...

If you feel like you were treated like traitors it may be because some of the biggest cheerleaders opposed to the war as well as most of the protestors openly cheered the other side.

Complete bullshit, although you inadvertently prove my point.


Lessee, what did ANSWER say?

Oh, yeah, "we support our troops only when they shoot their officers".

As it turns out we were the true patriots, if patriotism means having the best interests of your country at heart.

Just like John "Winter Soldier" Kerry, who still has the hat along with all the Purple Owies.

(they're seared, seared, in his memory)

Freder Frederson said...

I have more if you'd like to see them, but I doubt if you would.

All your quotes were made before unfettered U.N. inspections, which found no WMDs (because there were none to find) resumed. Cheney and company simply ignored the facts on the ground and came to the conclusion that they wanted to justify the war.

Freder Frederson said...

I'm not aware of any on the left that were treated as traitors by those of us "on the right"

When then you weren't reading this blog then. I was frequently called a traitor by numerous people on this blog.

Lessee, what did ANSWER say?

Oh, yeah, "we support our troops only when they shoot their officers".


Who or what is ANSWER?

YoungHegelian said...

Yeah, freder, like the yellowcake that Saddam never got from Niger.

Just like Virgil says, Freder, it was complicated.

machine said...

"Hard to tell who got stomped, idn't it?"


Nope...332---206


Pretty clear....

Freder Frederson said...

I'm not aware of any on the left that were treated as traitors by those of us "on the right"

Don't you remember what happened to the Dixie Chicks?

I bet that with all this kerfluffle over Michelle Shocked, she won't be receiving any death threats like Natalie Maines did.

YoungHegelian said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Freder Frederson said...

Yeah, freder, like the yellowcake that Saddam never got from Niger.

That yellow cake was not the Niger yellow cake. It was yellow cake from well before the first Gulf war and was inventoried by the UN and was still under UN seal when the U.S. invaded.

YoungHegelian said...

@Freder,

I bet that with all this kerfluffle over Michelle Shocked, she won't be receiving any death threats like Natalie Maines did.

Yeah, because no gay activist would ever do any shit like that!

I'll bet Ms Shocked has already had some death threats.

grackle said...

But in no where near the numbers that they started coming in the past 50 years, grackle, and that's what's important … most of the Mexican immigrants moving to & fro over the border stayed in the historically Chicano parts of the SW (CA, TX,NM, AZ), where they could blend in … But, now, they are everywhere. Every US metropolis has a large immigrant latino community.

I'll agree that in the past illegal immigrants stayed mainly in the border states and that now they are more dispersed. I'm less sure of the commentor's claim about higher illegals in the "past 50 years." But my basic problem is figuring out how either of these assertions, even if true, are relevant to immigration solutions.

YoungHegelian said...

@Freder,

That yellow cake was not the Niger yellow cake

Like they had any fucking idea where it came from! Who did they ask --- Saddam?

I guess 550 metric tonnes of yellowcake isn't a weapon of mass destruction. It's simply the prelude to a weapon of mass destruction. And it was there. In Iraq. And not under UN control.

Funny, how, if it was so harmless, both the Coalition & the Iraqis wanted it out of the country while Iraq was still under Coaliton control.

YoungHegelian said...

@grackle,

But my basic problem is figuring out how either of these assertions, even if true, are relevant to immigration solutions.

Because, back then, the "poorer Mexican relatives" were considered the Chicano community's problem, and they handled it as best they could internally.

The idea that the rest of the US population owed something to the "Mexican relatives" would have been considered risible by everyone involved. Unlike now.

grackle said...

That yellow cake was not the Niger yellow cake. It was yellow cake from well before the first Gulf war and was inventoried by the UN and was still under UN seal when the U.S. invaded.

The fact that Saddam probably obtained most of the yellow cake before the war does not eliminate Niger as the source of the yellow cake. Where else could Saddam have bought that much yellow cake, if not from Niger? True, the UN "inventoried" the yellow cake in the sense that the UN knew that Saddam possessed a bunch of yellow cake. But the problem was that in the 13 years between the first and second Gulf Wars neither the UN nor anyone else but Saddam himself was in control of the yellow cake.

Yellow cake doesn't deteriorate with age so the question of WHEN(or from where) Saddam obtained the yellow cake is irrelevant. What is relevant is Saddam's nuclear intentions. The fact that Saddam kept the yellow cake and kept the centrifuges necessary for enrichment hidden away for future use tells me all I need to know about Saddam's intentions.

Baron Zemo said...

My local salumeria and Italian grocer/butcher is having problems. You can tell when they have fewer items on the shelves. Instead of the ceral boxes three boxes deep they are lined up one across. The big pile of macaroni that they used to have is down to a few pieces. The big refridgerator where they kept the cheese and fresh macaroni and mascaponi and what not broke and they couldn't fix it.

They have four Mexicans working for them. They cook up the rice balls and the fresh roast beef. They stock the shelves and make deliveries. One of them is an assistant butcher. They are all hardworking great guys. I doubt that any of them are legal. They are standing around looking really glum. It would be the right move to fire at least one of them. Maybe three of them. But the owners won't do that. They are loyal to them. But some of them are talking about going back to Mexico. That is how bad the economy is in Barack Obama's America.

Baron Zemo said...

Most of the stores I go into have Mexicans working there. Even in the Korean grocer there is a Mexican setting out the flowers and cutting up the cantalopes into those plastic containers. They are hard workers who don't complain. They save their money and stay off the radar.

They would make great citizens. Better Americans than traitors and anti-american scum like Freder and A Reasonable Man.

I think amnesty for these guys would be a good thing. Let them get on the books and pay taxes.

If anyone is going to have a job after four more years of Barack Satan Obama.

Baron Zemo said...

Now the Chinese immigrants are a different story. They work in sweatshops sewing or ride around on bikes delivering take out while dodging cars and forget to bring me duck sauce. We have way too many of them. We need to cut down.

Or maybe we can find a use for them. I know garage mahal wants a bunch of new choo choo trains. We can put them back to work on the railroad.

It worked before ....it can work again.

Baron Zemo said...

We should only allow Dominicans to immigrate if they can play shortstop.

Baron Zemo said...

We also have way too many Russians nowadays. Before they were restricted to Brighton Beach and certain strip clubs on the West Side Highway. But now they are all over the place.

Do you notice how all the organized criminals on TV are Russians now? Law and Order has one every week. Jesus is always fighting with them on "Person of Interest." They even have their own show called "Red Widow" where this hot chick has to sell dope to get that wimpy Yugo Spartacus guy from ER off of her butt.

Organized crime was supposed to be for the guineas. WTF?

Baron Zemo said...

The last four car serice guys I got were from Bangladesh. I knew that concert was a big mistake. Badfinger? Seriously.

The only thing that was good about that was that Ravi Shanker got drunk and banged this groupie and nine months later we got Norah Jones.

But they saved all those people an now we are infested with Bangladesh cab drivers.

Unintended consequences dude. Unintended onsequences.

edutcher said...

One more thing about the so-called "stompin'" and its effects.

If all the Rs are running so scared, why are 6 of their Senators trying to slow down amnesty?

Freder Frederson said...

I have more if you'd like to see them, but I doubt if you would.

All your quotes were made before unfettered U.N. inspections, which found no WMDs (because there were none to find)


Ah, yes, that's why that big bombshell out of the Wikileaks scandal was that they were there.

Not to mention the admission by the 2-in-C of the Iraqi AF that many were shipped to Syria.

Not to mention all that Saddamite yellowcake sold to Canada.

The Big Lie doesn't hold up over time, do it?

AReasonableMan said...

Baron Zemo said...
They would make great citizens. Better Americans than traitors and anti-american scum like Freder and A Reasonable Man.


You can be very loosely moored to reality like edutcher and get a pass or a self righteous moron like the Baron here and still be OK, but have if you had the misfortune to right on the advisability of the Iraq war then you are a traitorous anti-American scum. Who doesn't love the Althouse gang?

Michael K said...

"2: No adult who came here illegally can ever become a US Citizen, other than by leaving and entering through the normal process."

This will guarantee that Democrats will not support it. That is why they are willing to add all those workers to compete with their union and black allies.

edutcher said...

AnUnreasonableTroll said...

They would make great citizens. Better Americans than traitors and anti-american scum like Freder and A Reasonable Man.

You can be very loosely moored to reality like edutcher and get a pass or a self righteous moron like the Baron here and still be OK, but have if you had the misfortune to right on the advisability of the Iraq war then you are a traitorous anti-American scum.


Ah, but you traitors were wrong.

About everything.

We won and the WMDs were there and all the "La la la la la, I can't hear you" in the world doesn't change that.

You people never think critically about anything, do you?

What ever MSLSD or the DNC or Kos or the shop steward or your Lefty poli sci prof or I-am-not-a-Dictator Zero says just gets swallowed whole without an instant's reflection.

Infreakingcredible.

PS I agree with the Baron that Jose and Jos B and Jos C and many of their friends would eventually make good Americans.

garage mahal said...

Who doesn't love the Althouse gang?

The very same people that don't say a peep about the 2 trillion dollar Iraq debacle cost call liberals the big spenders who can't manage money.

Michael K said...

"AReasonableMan said...

The Iraq war was Bush's war. All his, nobody else's, unless you count Cheney and Romney. His reputation as a leader lived and died with that war. It was a fucking stupid decision to go to war against Iraq, and Bush was a fucking stupid president. "

So, what does that make all the Democrats that voted for it ? Second degree stupid ?

You want the good but pretend the bad doesn't happen. After Clinton finished bombing Kosovo and Serbia and the Chinese embassy, the Serbs took all their fake tanks back to Serbia uninjured. How about the unarmed US soldiers captured by the Serbs ? No doubt you enjoyed that.

Rusty said...

Freder Frederson said...
Yeah, freder, like the yellowcake that Saddam never got from Niger.

That yellow cake was not the Niger yellow cake. It was yellow cake from well before the first Gulf war and was inventoried by the UN and was still under UN seal when the U.S. invaded.

Nope
Toward the end of the second gulf war another 500 metric tons of yellowcake were discovered that hadn't been inventoried.
I know, right.
Ooops.

Dante said...

Achilles:

Do you think all Mexicans just want welfare?

Of course. The jobs they take are not self-supporting, but require massive government subsidies.

And, I heard Ann Coulter state something like 60% of immigrants get on welfare anyway. Seriously, look up Hispanic Demographics before you bring down your libertarian/PC righteousness on the taxpayer.

AReasonableMan said...

On this anniversary it is probably worthwhile reading a few takes on the reality of the war as opposed to the fevered imaginings of Bush and Cheney.
Here and here.

In retrospect the problem was that the whole administration were bunch of chicken hawks, with very few exceptions. They had ducked the Vietnam war but thought they were 'tough' guys because they despised the anti-war protesters of that era. I doubt there has ever been a lower ebb in the political leadership of this nation in terms of physical and moral bravery.

bardseyeview said...

The first republican candidate that says build an entire physical fence and make e-verify mandatory for all employment, and then I'll revisit the issue in my second term, will win the nomination.

Will Walker take that line? Jindal?

Unknown said...

Achilles said, "The first quoted line in the article, 'if you are willing to work; is the key. Democrats are luring people over with food stamps and welfare. It is clear they want more serfs."

Serfs have to work, the folks the Democrats are luring won't have to work. The rest of us are the serfs.

grackle said...

That yellow cake was not the Niger yellow cake.

Respectfully, I don't see how the truth can be known one way or another. However, it is absolutely true that Niger yellowcake was sold to anyone who wanted it so if there were any way to know the reality I would have to give odds that Saddam got the yellowcake from Niger. Yellowcake was and is Niger's main export.

And in respect to the issue(Saddam's nuclear intention and capability), just where Saddam obtained the 550 metric tons of yellowcake is simply not relevant and comes under the heading of the smokescreen of insignificant trivia, like, say, Osama bin Laden's porn preferences – somewhat titillating but ultimately unimportant.

jr565 said...

Ouch. Mark Krikorian over at National Review absolutely eviscerates Rand Pauls bogus immigration statements.
(he, rand paul, is almost as full of hot air and false statements and arguing straw men as Obama)

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/343384/dontstandwithrand-mark-krikorian#comments

jr565 said...

Yeah, freder, like the yellowcake that Saddam never got from Niger.

In addition to the argument above, the assertion wasn't just that Iraq sought yellow cake from niger.He also sought it from the Sudan. And Bush said that Iraq sought yellow cake from Africa not from Niger.

Did Joe Wilson even go to the Sudan to look at that charges that Iraq had sought yellow cake there? No? So then how did he disprove that?And Iraq did seek to buy yellow cake from NIger. There was one forged document that was indeed a forgery that suggested the same, but the statement made by Bush was not based on that document.

Rusty said...

AReasonableMan said...
On this anniversary it is probably worthwhile reading a few takes on the reality of the war as opposed to the fevered imaginings of Bush and Cheney.
Here and here.

In retrospect the problem was that the whole administration were bunch of chicken hawks,

So that would make almost everyone in congress and former president Clinton and much of his staff chickenhawks also?
I wonder what happened to all the polished aluminum tubing they found?

Baron Zemo said...

It is pretty interesting that a discussion about immigration turned into an attack on Bush and the Iraq war.

The liberal answer to every problem that faces us:

BBBBUUUSSSSHHHHHH!!!!!!