The Rampant, Irresponsible Political Thread

[Dr Maturin]

I gather from the rest of your post that you're only addressing illegal immigration by Mexicans and Central Americans. Here in Florida, there are contract labor/temprorary labor 'companies' whose workers are each a different group. So far I've encountered ones whose employees are almost exclusively Russian, Polish, Jamaican, Puerto Rican and Haitian. Given the amount of construction and the number of hotels in this area, I'm sure that's just the tip of the iceberg. It's generally assumed that the workers are illegals and that the companies themselves aren't exactly getting all proper business licenses and paying all the employment taxes.

Being from California and having seen the idiocy of MEChA firsthand, yeah, I'm leaning a bit more towards illegal Mexicans. But I've seen evidence of some illegal Europeans, mainly Estonians.

I see a story about somebody who'd been living and working here for ten years when he murdered that police officer. How would his having been here legally changed that? It would seem to me that he'd have just as many ties as an illegal here for a long time as any legal worker would have.

I don't know, something about having his real name would have helped. Luckily, Mexico has agreed to extradite the lowlife, at least last I heard. I think they were afraid that we'd execute him.

Without you linking to the particular instance you're referring to, I can't really judge for myself.

It's on the news today.

[Der Mike]

I gather from the rest of your post that you're only addressing illegal immigration by Mexicans and Central Americans. Here in Florida, there are contract labor/temprorary labor 'companies' whose workers are each a different group. So far I've encountered ones whose employees are almost exclusively Russian, Polish, Jamaican, Puerto Rican and Haitian.

For what it's worth, illegal immigration is not considered a major part of the economies of those countries. In Mexico, illegal immigration brings in more foreign currency than tourism.

Also, we haven't heard the leaders of Russia, Poland, et al complain that we view people entering our country illegally as criminals.

Given the amount of construction and the number of hotels in this area, I'm sure that's just the tip of the iceberg. It's generally assumed that the workers are illegals and that the companies themselves aren't exactly getting all proper business licenses and paying all the employment taxes.

Which is why we need to nail companies that hire illegals. We can't discourage them from leaving a crap heap of a country, which Mexico very much is. So, we need to eliminate the American dream from illegals.

I see a story about somebody who'd been living and working here for ten years when he murdered that police officer. How would his having been here legally changed that? It would seem to me that he'd have just as many ties as an illegal here for a long time as any legal worker would have.

According to the head of the union of the Border Patrol agents, it's not exactly uncommon for Mexican soldiers and police to cross our border and open fire on our agents. There is a real problem that really needs to be addressed significantly.

Without you linking to the particular instance you're referring to, I can't really judge for myself.

Jan

I assume he's referring to the Minutemen, who have been called basically racists and thugs for doing the unpleasant job of patrolling our border, as our gov't has failed, miserably, in doing ITS job to maintain it.
-=Mike

[Towelmaster]

Do you have a link to what you quoted, TM?

Thanks,
Jan

Nope, I have the book. But the ISBN is 1-887128-75-1

Perhaps there is something here : http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/pro...=UTF8&n=283155

update : http://www.davidcogswell.com/Essays/DeathHatfield.html

[Dr Maturin]

J.H. Hatfield is a syndicated columnist, free-lance Texas journalist and frequent contributor to several Lone Star State newspapers and magazines. In addition, for over a decade he was an executive officer in a finance and investment Management company that on several occasions conducted business with George W. Bush and his associates.

Nice omission of several important points.

It should perhaps be noted that among Hatfield's previous books is an unauthorized guide to The X-Files.

Appropriate.

I assume he's referring to the Minutemen, who have been called basically racists and thugs for doing the unpleasant job of patrolling our border, as our gov't has failed, miserably, in doing ITS job to maintain it.

No, I don't believe they were the MM. They were just some local citizens.

I found a link to the apparent organizers:

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=125350

[Der Mike]

Nope, I have the book. But the ISBN is 1-887128-75-1

Perhaps there is something here : http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/pro...=UTF8&n=283155

update : http://www.davidcogswell.com/Essays/DeathHatfield.html

A site with such links as evidence of voting machine fraud? Can't you find a source that is even remotely credible? When the essay you link to refer to the Bushes as being "at worst", fascists --- you don't really have a point to make and your argument is drowned by it.

And forgive me if I don't believe that Karl Rove personally met with the felon.
-=Mike

[Dr Maturin]

I think Iran is pulling a big North Korea here. This is nothing more than saber rattling. That being said, I hope Israel calls their bluff and literally bombs the living shit out of Iran, human chain or not.

[Towelmaster]

A site with such links as evidence of voting machine fraud? Can't you find a source that is even remotely credible? When the essay you link to refer to the Bushes as being "at worst", fascists --- you don't really have a point to make and your argument is drowned by it.

And forgive me if I don't believe that Karl Rove personally met with the felon.
-=Mike

This is one of numerous articles, left- or right-wing. I suppose you now want me to show you an article from a far-right source supporting claims AGAINST Bush? Right... That's like finding a right-wing group that supports Michael Moore or an Indymedia-article praising Bush.

Perhaps you could actually READ the book before condemning it. To see that this man actually was not so negative about Bush as people made him out to be? That it is actually a quite neutral and honest biography except for a few pages? That Bush was portrayed as a family-man, a born leader, officer's-material and-so-on?

(--- UPDATE : For those who can't cope with the occasional 'dangling modifier'-thing : the previous sentence should be read as to imply 'on some pages the author is NOT both neutral and honest. It does NOT state that the author is then automatically both 'not neutral and dishonest". As any good English teacher can explain it can mean that the author is 'not neutral but still honest' or vice versa, or both. As any good programmer or other logical thinker can explain, 'If A = true and B = true' does not have only one alternative, it has three'.

Thank you for your time.

--- END OF UPDATE)

I really don't care about your "superior" kind of sarcasm. It runs off me like water off a duck's ass. I can find 1.000+ hits on google about this and so can you, but what is the point? You are not going to even remotely consider the possibility that any of this can possibly be true. Voting-machine fraud? Of course not, it is quite impossible! Spin-doctoring Republicans? Oh NoOh, say it ain't so! And of course Bush actually won the elections by 500.000 voters in Florida, all other stories are just a load of left-wing- commie conspiracy-theories.


But that's all quite allright, I forgive you for everything.

So now please leave me alone. I was not answering you, I was answering a request for more information from Jan. I know exactly what kind of responses I will get from you on this topic and frankly I am not interested in them.

Go in peace.


******

P.S. Jan : just google for "Hatfield" and "Fortunate Son" and you can make up your own mind. Plenty of pro-s and anti-s there.

P.P.S. To the folks here who do want to discuss things : I just found this : http://www.keloland.com/NewsDetail2817.cfm?Id=0,45410. Any idea how much chance there is that this will pass?
I guess you may all soon see the real Judge Alito then. First this courtcase, and then on to the Supreme Court in an attempt to reverse Roe v. Wade. No more moderate Sandra Day O' Connor anymore, so who knows how the vote will go? Stay tuned.

[Der Mike]

This is one of numerous articles, left- or right-wing. I suppose you now want me to show you an article from a far-right source supporting claims AGAINST Bush? Right... That's like finding a right-wing group that supports Michael Moore or an Indymedia-article praising Bush.

How about a sane article to back up your beliefs? If you are unaware of what happened to Fortunate Son or the reality behind Soft Skull publishing, that is your problem. If you could find a moderate left-wing source to back it up --- you know, with evidence and the like --- it'd help your argument markedly.

Perhaps you could actually READ the book before condemning it.

Again, anonymous sources with the only person backing them up is a now deceased person who committed credit card fraud and was convicted of attempted murder isn't going to measure up.

Reading the book isn't going to suddenly remove the problem of Hatfield being an unreliable source, no matter how pretty his prose may be.

Notice that real authors --- many of whom don't like Bush --- haven't attempted to write books showing Bush did this. It's been done only by Kitty Kelley and this Hatfield clown. Hardly impressive sources.

To see that this man actually was not so negative about Bush as people made him out to be?

Again, quite irrelevant. When you don't have PROOF to back up a claim you publish, your book isn't believable.

That it is actually a quite neutral an honest biography except for a few pages?

If it's dishonest for a few pages, it is, be definition, not an honest bio.

That Bush was portrayed as a family-man, a born leader, officer's-material and-so-on?

Again, immaterial. His allegations are not backed up by any evidence. He can write whatever he wishes. He's arguing Bush was arrested in 1972 but his record was "cleaned" up by his father --- but doesn't get around to proving it.

I really don't care about your "superior" kind of sarcasm. It runs off me like water off a duck's ass. I can find 1.000+ hits on google about this and so can you, but what is the point?

If you could find real proof, you would've done so.

You have not and you cannot.

You are not going to even remotely consider the possibility that any of this can possibly be true. Voting-machine fraud? Of course not, it is quite impossible! Spin-doctoring Republicans? Oh NoOh, say it ain't so!

You know, if somebody is going to make allegations that they never prove, it is their problem, not mine.

And of course Bush actually won the elections by 500.000 voters in Florida, all other stories are just a load of left-wing- commie conspiracy-theories.

In 2004? 380,000 is closer to the total.

My source?

http://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/state.php?year=2004&fips=12&f=1

The site you linked to claims Bush had Diebold throw the election for him in OH, providing no proof. They also claimed that Ken Blackwell disenfranchised blacks, ignoring that Ken Blackwell is black.

But that's all quite allright, I forgive you for everything.

The left DEMANDED electronic machines after 2000. Demanded it.

They lose in 2004 and, darn it, electronic machines are why. Without actually showing that it happened, they THEORIZED that it could be done --- a pretty useless exercise when you never prove that it DID happen.

Why? Because they cannot admit they lost an election.

So now please leave me alone. I was not answering you, I was answering a request for more information from Jan. I know exactly what kind of responses I will get from you on this topic and frankly I am not interested in them.

You mean facts?

Yes, ugly things, aren't they?

P.S. Jan : just google for "Hatfield" and "Fortunate Son" and you can make up your own mind. Plenty of pro-s and anti-s there.

P.P.S. To the folks here who do want to discuss things : I just found this : http://www.keloland.com/NewsDetail2817.cfm?Id=0,45410. Any idea how much chance there is that this will pass?
I guess you may all soon see the real Judge Alito then. First this courtcase, and then on to the Supreme Court in an attempt to reverse Roe v. Wade. No more moderate Sandra Day O' Connor anymore, so who knows how the vote will go? Stay tuned.

It should've been in the states' hands from the get-go. The 10th Amendment shows that.

And, Jan, just keep in mind that Hatfield is a convicted credit card fraud and attempted murderer. When somebody uses "anonymous sources", they better have some serious believability behind them --- and that clown does not.
-=Mike

[Jan]

It should've been in the states' hands from the get-go. The 10th Amendment shows that.

A lot of things *should* be but the federal government has made it a practice to interfere with states rights and tie funding to force states to do as it mandates so often that that's pretty much forgotten.

Jan

[Der Mike]

A lot of things *should* be but the federal government has made it a practice to interfere with states rights and tie funding to force states to do as it mandates so often that that's pretty much forgotten.

Jan

In the case of abortion, the states were dealing with it (I know NY and CA had legalized it before Roe). The Courts decided that the 10th Amendment no longer matters --- a belief far too common in the legal profession --- and overrode what the states wanted.

Just because the Congress doesn't respect the concept of federalism does not mean that ignoring it is OK, legal, or justifiable.

And, in Congress' defense, the states can always turn the money down. If you accept money from somebody, you can't complain that they put strings on it.

-=Mike

[David Panzer]

So why is this surprising?

[Towelmaster]

A lot of things *should* be but the federal government has made it a practice to interfere with states rights and tie funding to force states to do as it mandates so often that that's pretty much forgotten.

Jan

But Jan, wouldn't State-control instead of Federal control turn out to be impossible? I mean, suppose you live in Florida and abortion is illegal there. You are still an american with the right to travel freely to any state. So what would keep people from shopping in another state that allows abortion?

[Jan]

But Jan, wouldn't State-control instead of Federal control turn out to be impossible? I mean, suppose you live in Florida and abortion is illegal there. You are still an american with the right to travel freely to any state. So what would keep people from shopping in another state that allows abortion?

Absolutely nothing. And that's exactly what did happen. IF you could, of course. Not everybody could afford to pick up and go out of state on top of being able to afford a procedure not usually covered by any insurance. There were a fair number of 'get-arounds' back then too. As I recall, in Illinois (where I lived at the time) abortion was illegal but another, less scary-sounding procedure was perfectly okay but was essentially the same thing. The main difference was that in the not-illegal procedure, no pregnancy test was done.

It's less obvious than it once was but the various States have all sorts of laws that aren't the same country-wide. Most are fairly small, like whether certain car window tints are legal but others can be pretty major such as gay marriage and assisted suicide.

Jan

[Towelmaster]

Yes, that is what I thought. Same thing happened here in Europe in Ireland and Poland.

btw : oopsssssss : http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...mment-opinions

Do you call that 'coming out' too? It may not be smart but it is gutsy. And the first time I hear/read this in the relative mainstream press(of course I am in Europe, we don't get every American newspaper). Mind you; it IS a California newspaper...

Update : I just read some more of this guy's columns and I do believe he just likes pissing everybody off...

Update : This is very interesting by the way... http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030522.html

[Dr Maturin]

That guy just revealed the collective true feelings of a great majority of the Democrat Party.