The Rampant, Irresponsible Political Thread

[Jan]

*Looks at Jan*

Could I possibly, maybe, ask for source-links to actual reports before I condemn them?

I don't understand the question as it pertains the the post you quoted? In general, requesting sources or links is perfectly acceptable.

Jan
Moderator

[AaronB]

<moderator speak>


Keep trying. Your next assignment is to refrain completely from making personal comments about any poster. In fact, that's *everybody's* assignment*.

</moderator speak>

Homework again?!

[Der Mike]

Taken out of context, raping someone else's post. Only people without ideas do that to distract attention from the real discussion. That, or you really can't read properly. Which would explain a lot.

I posted the entire quote. It wasn't me who referred to the right to vote as "trivial". You can gripe about many things --- me quoting out of context is not one of them.

I cut this here to simply make space. If you find it unfair, so be it.

Yes, and your current adminstration's cup floweth over with Love for the Common Man.

Well, they support giving people the right to vote. The spread of democracy is a major part of Bush's foreign policy.

And again, no source, no law mentioned, no background. Tsk tsk tsk... Oh, you may not realize it but you have just given us a perfect description of the Polit Buro.

Possibly --- except that citizens have actual legal protections.

Again, since this is apparently a novel concept, the US CONSTITUTION DOES NOT APPLY TO NON-AMERICAN CITIZENS.

No "law" to point to? I have the US CONSTITUTION to back up my assertion.

You have...?

About the statement itself : Yes, Congress is powerful. But perhaps except when the President vetoes it?

Yup. Missing the point I noticed, but hardly shocking.

Perhaps unless the Supreme Court decides that it would be unconstitutional, after which Congress would perhaps have to first change the constitution, etcetera.

Funny thing.

It wouldn't be unconstitutional.

You can't point to a SINGLE sentence in the Constitution that would indicate that it could possibly be found to be unconstitutional.

And when all of this would be done, and the illegals(read foreigners) would not go away, they would still be subject to American law as they are during their stay.

No, they are here SOLELY on our discretion. If we decide to deport them, there is not a thing anybody could do.

This unless they are party in a war against the U.S. I do not believe that Mexico has engaged the U.S.A. lately?

No gov't is under any requirement to allow non-citizens to stay in their country. That's the whole sovreignty thing.

By the way: have you ever actually read your own Declaration of Independence? Of course I can expect a remark like "The Declaration of Independence has nothing to do with the law". Nope, just with the pillars on which American society was built.

In a stunning news flash, in the realm of law, the Constitution trumps the Declaration. Dramatically so.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Tell me Mr. Keep-America-American, where does it say that this is only true for americans?

Because, again, in a stunning turn of events THE US CONSTITUTION DOES NOT APPLY TO NON-AMERICANS.

It's like writing to a kid laden with ADD here.

YOUR country's legal traditions and Constitution have ZERO impact on US law. British law has zero impact on US law. US law has zero impact on European law (we have noticed that the continent, irresponsibly enough, has no death penalty).

Or did you make that up? Perhaps because, according to your own instincts, the declaration should have been worded differently?

Stop playing "gotcha" when you have ZERO grasp of factual reality.

So you are - again - not making a point, you are throwing sand in everybody's eyes. If not: get us a link, preferably NOT to Ann Coulter please. Otherwise shut up with your 'self-evident' remarks because you are making yourself utterly unbelievable.

READ THE US CONSTITUTION. If the US Constitution governed others, EVERY COUNTRY ON EARTH WOULD HAVE A DEATH PENALTY, to give you a example.

Fox is right : they do the jobs no american wants to touch anymore. Even your own president agrees with that.

Not quite. Fox is the one who said they do the work "even blacks won't do".

But having blatant racists as leaders is verboten here.y.

That is unless you plan on using the black unemployed population to do hard labour?

Hmm, as usual, you expect blacks will do the job.

Nice racism there.

After all; they are not W.A.S.P.'s, so they must be criminal and corrupt to the core. Just like the Mexicans.

Don't displace YOUR blatant racism on others. Just because YOU feel blacks are an inferior race does not mean that America agrees.

I would appreciate if you'd cease with the blatant racism. It's irksome at bare minimum.

This is of course typical of your style of arguing : ignore that the U.S. is/was involved in making a mess somewhere in the world, and then complain that 'other people don't know how to run their country'.

When the problems get much worse after a country leaves, how in the heck is it anybody but the country in question's fault? If Mexico drops into the toilet after the US stops interfering, then how is it anybody but Mexico's fault? When Cuba watches its economy completely tank after the US ceases dealing with them, how is it the US' fault?

I take it that Americans like Fred Reed - http://www.fredoneverything.net/Poverty.shtml - don't have a clue what they are talking about?

Yes. I have seen you link to him more than once and I find it hilarious that you find that guy either enlightening or bright.

And people in America still wonder why the rest of the world doesn't seem to like them... One "Der Mike" screws everything up for 100 decent hardworking intelligent Americans.

Actually, we stopped giving a damn if the rest of you "like" us. We know that when crap goes down, as usual, you'll come crying to us to bail you out.

In hindsight, I wish we had allowed the USSR to overrun Europe completely. Bailing you out was not, in hindsight, worth the investment to us. The UK would have survived, but most everybody else would have caved in short order.

Yes, and your whole existence is lost on me, by my own frank admission. Is there any way you can be even more abusive towards other countries?

Not unless I'm given the power to nuke for no reason. Or until I'm given the green light to tear down the UN and toss the corrupt plutocrats of that joke of an organization to go elsewhere. My use for the rest of the world is only based on their ability to provide a product I want.

A very compassionate and conservative thing to say.

Who ever said I was compassionate towards people illegally entering our country? If you wish to break the law, you should expect quite a bit of misery in the process.

And I'm sure that Ariel Sharon would have been proud of you.

And the anti-Semitism of the European comes out.

Wow, racist AND anti-Semitic. Man, I wish I could be so enlightened.

BWA HA HA HA!

I take it you will be doing this soon? Now that you have 'confiscated' the parts of Mexico that you wanted? You can start your training on the West Bank and in Gaza, enough training materials there. Please, do wear your bulletproof vest and you helmet will you.

I can then gave subhuman terrorists commit atrocities while "Enlightened" Europeans sit back and applaud because, darn it, Jews just don't matter to them.

That the PA even EXISTS is a testament to the near-infinite patience Israel has towards them. Israel is well within its rights to carpet bomb every single person in that region if they so desired given the never-ending attacks specifically targeting civilians they have suffered during their entire existence.

But, don't let the death of Jews bother you. Europe never has before.

And we may assume that you have all the correct titles for us to read? So as to not be affected by strange, foreign influences?

Going by your knowledge:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0764554638/sr=1-3/qid=1138812233/ref=sr_1_3/002-2751806-1006443?%5Fencoding=UTF8

I do hope that the level of teaching in the United States surpasses yours. The educational system is in bad enough shape as it is already.

Yup, our education system is actually quite bad. Which is why there is a push for competition.

As I said : You Lord Mike Sir, do not 'discuss', you 'argue'. In internetspeak we call that a troll.

If I insulted blacks and Jews, would that make me more tolerable to your special brand of ignorance?

And to Jan - who must by now be reading this stuff with sweaty palms - I would like to say : Look Jan, I didn't even use words like assh*le, c*nt, corr*pt, sh*theap or idi*t! That's because I'm trying...doing my best...

Unlike you, I don't NEED to use words like that to insult you.

After all, nothing I can say can match what God did to you already.

Sad fact is, you want free reign to simply insult the US ad infinitum and never have to answer "Well, what about what YOU do?" The world LOVES to insult the US and then cries like petulant children when America stands for up for itself.

One cannot speak for someone else, so 'We the people of the United States' makes perfect sense. It does not automatically imply that the rest of the declaration is therefor meant for only Americans. Actually, given the history behind it, it would surprise me if the founding fathers did not mean the declaration to be truly universal.

And BASIC INTERNATIONAL LAW dictates that the laws of one country do not apply to ALL countries. They apply ONLY TO THE COUNTRY THAT PASSES THEM.
-=Mike

[Jan]

Homework again?!

Yep. Power corrupts, doesn't it?

Jan

[Towelmaster]

I don't understand the question as it pertains the the post you quoted? In general, requesting sources or links is perfectly acceptable.

Jan
Moderator

I'm talking about the illegal aliens attacking americans in America. So the question was/is indeed primarily for ZhD. If other people have links that's fine too of course...

And yes Jan, I know. To quote the famous Peter Cook : "I know, it was a joke"...

[Towelmaster]

Long response

Yes yes yes, criticize Bush and you are unpatriotic and anti-American, criticize one Israeli and you are an anti-semite. Of course, I understand.

You are obviously right. There is no doubt in my mind anymore about that. Even without links and sources of information. I apologize profusely and ask for forgiveness. I don't understand why I ever doubted you and I will never again do so. I will beat myself tonight severely as penance.

And of course please feel free to deny anything you wish to deny, perhaps you could also edit your previous postings retro-actively first? They might fit the facts better that way. And it saves me the trouble of finding them again. And by all means post some more of your humorous thoughts and insights.

This racist bigot is sitting at you feet in awe. Waiting for more incorrect assumptions about me. I can't wait. Racist, discriminating, wow! Coming from someone who calls Mexicans corrupt no-goods and dutch people cowards, that certainly means something to me.

Please enlighten me some more. I thank you Oh Great One!

<insert-worship-smiley-here>



p.s.

I would appreciate if you'd cease with the blatant racism. It's irksome at bare minimum.

Your assignment for tomorrow is : Find out the meaning of the words 'context', 'irony' and 'sarcasm'. Tomorrow we will talk about cynicism.

[David Panzer]

The Declaration of Independence was the document created by the 13 British colonies in North America who chose to separate themselves from the British Empire in the latter half of the 18th century. Who else would it apply to? India? The British colonies in Africa?

With regard to immigration, any country in the world has the right to limit the number of people who enter the country, or even have no limits. Those who sneak across borders in the back of a U-haul, in the trailers of semis, or behind the dashboard of a Honda Civic aren't acting like the immigrants from the 19th century. The latter did the unthinkable: they followed the law.

[Capt.Montoya]

Utter BS. Global warming is a modern day eugenics movement and when its fraud is fully exposed, people such as you will deny ever supporting a "theory" with so little evidence behind.

Actually, when the effects of global warming become so evident that they can't be denied people such as you will deny ever opposing the theory, and will fustigate the scientists for not having been more convincing in their arguments.

How about we have a single prediction from the movement come true before we take them seriously?

What about the prediction that the average global temperature will rise?
Proven, the warmest years since 1890 have been 1998, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005.

And, seriously, the web page FOR THE BOOK? Is that the best you can do? Heck, at least post the article where that NASA scientist claims that NASA tried to silence him on environmental problems --- which is comical, considering that NASA has been completely supportive of the junk science for decades now.

You mean Jim Hansen? That's the scientist that gave the news that 2005 was the warmest year in a century. The allegations that NASA officials asked him to tone down his comments have merited the attention of the House Science Committee Chairman (emphasis added):

Good science cannot long persist in an atmosphere of intimidation. Political figures ought to be reviewing their public statements to make sure they are consistent with the best available science; scientists should not be reviewing their statements to make sure they are consistent with the current political orthodoxy.

NASA is clearly doing something wrong, given the sense of intimidation felt by Dr. Hansen and others who work with him. Even if this sense is a result of a misinterpretation of NASA policies - and more seems to be at play here - the problem still must be corrected. I will be following this matter closely to ensure that the right staff and policies are in place at NASA to encourage open discussion of critical scientific issues. I assume you share that goal.

Well, at least someone in the government is making sense about the proper relationship between science and politics.

Oh, the right to vote is "trivial"?

The left's love affair with democracy died years ago, so this is hardly stunning.

I'm not a leftist, but you seem so right wing that I'm not surprised you consider someone disagreeing with you a leftist.
And the right to vote is "trivial" in the sense that it's obvious to everyone that only citizens have that right. You said you could list rights that don't apply to immigrants, I asked you to go ahead and list them but not to bother with the obvious ones: political rights. So go ahead, you said you would list them if I asked:

I could mention a list of rights that don't apply to you when you're here illegally, if you so desire.

I'm asking again, I desire that you mention the list: what rights do not apply to immigrants? Please distinguish (if you can) between which do not apply to legal residents, which do not apply to temporary residents (non-immigrant visas, including foreign students, tourists, etc.) and which do not apply to illegal immigrants.

Oh, and here's a quote for you:

stone cold fact is, unless that eagles got a left AND a right wing, in perfect balance and given equal respect, it ain't NEVER gonna fly.

And some more:

I've always said that the American eagle needs both a right AND a left wing or it ain't ever getting off the ground.
[...]
For the last twenty plus years, the Right has hammered away at one consistent theme: that liberals are bad people, that Democrats are just shy of being traitors to America. You've had people like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter out there spewing bile into the American spirit of the most hateful, false, and demonizing sort.

What happens is this: those who would like to believe this, do...and thus view the other side with hatred and distrust and the sense that they are traitors. And you don't compromise or deal with traitors.

On the other side of the political spectrum, you have people who you've just called traitors who know that they're no such thing...and when you call people disloyal traitors, they have a tendency to get real angry about it. And you don't compromise or deal with people who impugn your honor like that.

What is happening in this thread (and gets repeated all around the web and in real life) is a good example of the above, name calling and no backing up extreme opinions nor respect from people aligning with some parties (*cough* gop *cough*) to the differing opinions. But I guess that's fun for you ain't it Mike?

Because a differing view is, as usual, not appreciated. Echo chambers are SO much better and much more fun, right? It's fun to pretend ALL kinds of things when you don't have to actually back up what you believe.

Sorry Mike, if you want to spew your opinions in an echo chamber you came to the wrong place.

And if we cut them off from jobs ENTIRELY and FORCE Mexico to deal with their own problem (and heavily armed border guards would be a good first step on our part), Mexico would collapse into the usual state of near-anarchy.

Near anarchy? Hardly, but then... I know MÚxico better than you having been there on many occasions and some of those have been very long stays.
Oh, I'm sure it would be very disruptive in the short term if MÚxico had to receive some four million emmigrants back, but I'm also sure that it won't happen overnight (not even the combined powers of FedEx, UPS and DHL could overnight such a package!) that would give time to prepare, in the long term people would just integrate back without anarchy. Actually MÚxico might even benefit from having so many field laborers back, given how many fields are currently unproductive because the people have left for the USA.
Oh, sorry, that was information, it's obvious you don't care for information about anywhere else in the world beyond the USA borders. Apologies for trying to nudge you out of your comfortable biased opinion and trying to make you think.

Read even the first book on Mexican history. Read even the most cursory glance of the current Mexican situation.

Then get back to me.

Right back at'cha bub!
I have read about the history of MÚxico, and I keep current with the news about the country. See I have the advantage of being bilingual, so I can read the Mexican newspapers and watch the Mexican news programs (ever heard of Azteca America? The news on that one comes almost straight out of MÚxico, less filtered than what you'd get from Univisi¾n or Telemundo). I also read the (scarce) news about MÚxico in English language newspapers, of course.
So tell me... what book are you talking about that left you with so biased a view? What "cursory glances" you've read that have only reinforced your biases? Some links to back up what you say?
Seriously, tell me, I'm never affraid of learning about the different viewpoint.
Or maybe that would not be fun for you?

It's fun to pretend ALL kinds of things when you don't have to actually back up what you believe.

Vicente Fox: Mexicans do the jobs that "not even blacks will do."

Yep, he can blunder as well as GWB when speaking. Sadly true even if totally politically incorrect (but then, ain't you anything but a fan of political correctnes?). For the record: "black" is not such a loaded term in Mexican Spanish. Given that most everyone in MÚxico is a mestizo, with some native blood and even some african blood (there were African slaves in MÚxico, the integration after independence and abolition of slavery means that they diluted among the rest of the population) the attitude towards race is much different.


Towelmaster:
If you are asking what those three words were... I saw them. Jan is right those words were "suggesting violence which might be construed as an expression of hatred." And recently in the news there was a case of an illegal immigrant that was the victim of what would happen upon KV's suggestion.
And that's all I'm saying on that.

[Dr Maturin]

It took me all of five seconds to run a Google search. You could have done the same.

Border Patrol officials say as many as 20 shots fired at agents near Brownsville, Texas, originated from Mexico in the most recent of a series of incidents involving gunplay and other violence directed at Americans from south of the Rio Grande River.

Meanwhile, a week ago a Border Patrol agent near San Diego shot and killed Guillermo MartÝnez, "a known people smuggler who had been detained 11 times prior," agency spokesman Raul Martinez told The Associated Press.

Now we're starting to do it right.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48218

Now, I am not anti-immigrant. Hell, if I was from another country, I'd LOVE to live in the USA. But do it LEGALLY. And don't come here to leech off of us. If you come to America, come here to be an American.

And no, I am not of the opinion that Vyce's statement was hate-filled, nor was my agreement with BP's action above.

[Towelmaster]

Thank you ZhD, I could have but I would like to know for sure that we are talking about the same thing.

In this case, having read the background article, I can only say that returning fire is the right thing to do. No two ways about it.

It took me all of five seconds to run a Google search. You could have done the same.

Now we're starting to do it right.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48218

Now, I am not anti-immigrant. Hell, if I was from another country, I'd LOVE to live in the USA. But do it LEGALLY. And don't come here to leech off of us. If you come to American, come here to be an American.

That last line there, I can fully agree with. I have the same feeling about certain immigrant-groups here in The Netherlands. I would have to assume that anyone can become an American citizen though, and I don't know if that is the case.

Later.

[David Panzer]

Which part of America? There's a North section, Central section, and South section.

[Towelmaster]

Which part of America? There's a North section, Central section, and South section.

Erm... Willie. If you were asking me that question: in this discussion I refer to The United States as 'America'. Otherwise I will say Central- or South-america.

There is no hidden meaning, it's just the way that I have always heard people speak about the continent.

[David Panzer]

I never pass up cheap jokes

[Capt.Montoya]

Forgot to post the link to one article that shows that the years I mentioned above have been the hottest in more than a century.

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20060123/warmestyear_pla.html

Even though some think it's more fun if you don't back up what you say I like to do it.

And about being "american"....
Have I ever mentioned that in the Latin part of "the Americas" americano usually stands for someone from the northenmost Canadian iceberg to Tierra del Fuego? Mexicans (I know for sure, I think most other latins also do) tend to use "estadounidense" (roughly translated to "united stater") for what USAnians (and most everyone in the rest of the world) call simply "american". Interesting, sometimes amusing, how the distinction is usually very deliberate.
BTW, I first found the term USAnian in a book about the history of Physical Chemistry, a Brittish chemist from the 18th century was fond of the term.

[Der Mike]

Yes yes yes, criticize Bush and you are unpatriotic and anti-American, criticize one Israeli and you are an anti-semite. Of course, I understand.

Siding with the Palestinians over the Israelis is clear-cut anti-Semitism. No other possible descriptive phrase for it.

And, oh yes, criticizing Bush is unpatriotic. Everybody says that.

Of course, I also criticize his obscene domestic spending and utter lack of leadership on the immigration issue...

You are obviously right. There is no doubt in my mind anymore about that. Even without links and sources of information. I apologize profusely and ask for forgiveness. I don't understand why I ever doubted you and I will never again do so. I will beat myself tonight severely as penance.

Well, you should do that. But for other reasons.

And of course please feel free to deny anything you wish to deny, perhaps you could also edit your previous postings retro-actively first? They might fit the facts better that way. And it saves me the trouble of finding them again. And by all means post some more of your humorous thoughts and insights.

Can you name a time I've retro-actively edited my posts?

Hmm?

Just one.

Didn't think so.

This racist bigot is sitting at you feet in awe.

1) Racist bigot is superfluous.
2) Please don't. I don't want much association with bigots.

Waiting for more incorrect assumptions about me. I can't wait.

Your words paint a damning picture.

Racist, discriminating, wow! Coming from someone who calls Mexicans corrupt no-goods and dutch people cowards, that certainly means something to me.

Actually, called the Mexican government corrupt, which is quite accurate. I also said I don't blame the Mexicans for trying to come over here and get the life that Mexico cannot provide. I simply said we should make their illegal trek over here an event they do not survive, to discourage them in the future from trying.

Actually, when the effects of global warming become so evident that they can't be denied people such as you will deny ever opposing the theory, and will fustigate the scientists for not having been more convincing in their arguments.

Considering that not a single prediction from the global warming lobby has even come close (heck, the first Congressional hearings made predictions for this time frame that were off by a startlingly high magnitude).

Not one.

EVERYTHING is based on horribly flawed computer models which cannot begin to emulate the complexity of the environment.

I'm demanding SOME proof before I buy into the "horror" that is global warming.

What about the prediction that the average global temperature will rise?
Proven, the warmest years since 1890 have been 1998, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005.

Based on a timeline of how many years? If 1890 was a cool year, being warmer than that is hardly proof of "warming" being anything more than a cyclical event --- which, mind you, it has always been.

Also, figures are based on measurements of how good an accuracy?

Where were these measurements done? How many cities? How many different locales?

How many measurements are done in cities, where glass and asphault increase readings artificially?

And why would the temps dip between 1999 and 2001?

Why did temps dip in the 20's and 30's?

In fact, I'll make you a prediction: land use (building of cities) will have more impact on global temperatures than anything atmospheric.

You mean Jim Hansen? That's the scientist that gave the news that 2005 was the warmest year in a century. The allegations that NASA officials asked him to tone down his comments have merited the attention of the House Science Committee Chairman (emphasis added):

Which is a laughable assertion, giving how much money NASA gives to climate "scientists" on a yearly basis.

'm asking again, I desire that you mention the list: what rights do not apply to immigrants? Please distinguish (if you can) between which do not apply to legal residents, which do not apply to temporary residents (non-immigrant visas, including foreign students, tourists, etc.) and which do not apply to illegal immigrants.

You have ZERO rights. Everything you do is permitted by us at our discretion.

Again, if we decide to simply toss you out, there is not a thing that can be done about it.

What is happening in this thread (and gets repeated all around the web and in real life) is a good example of the above, name calling and no backing up extreme opinions nor respect from people aligning with some parties (*cough* gop *cough*) to the differing opinions. But I guess that's fun for you ain't it Mike?

Said the one posting a quote bashing Republicans and basically placating Dems.

Yes, JMS is the source I'd go to for impartiality. *snicker*

Funny, no mention of Republicans trying to disenfranchise people, trying to starve the elderly, supporting the murder of gays, etc. I guess THOSE aren't really insults.

Gee, I haven't seen a Republican that said voting for a Democrat will lead to a nuclear war, as an LBJ ad CLEARLY said about Goldwater. I haven't seen a Democrat compared to a Nazi, as House candidate Colleen Rowley did to HER opponent on her website just this week.
-=Mike