The Great Wetback Prevention And Elk Encouragement Debate

I find it amusing that Kim DuToit can notice the fact that the US government can’t wrangle elk properly but naively accepts that the government is competent to secure 5000 miles of borders.

The reason for this is easy enough to explain: DuToit isn’t a philosopher and so has no inherent stake in making a correct analysis of the situation. His credulous faith in the nonexistent abilities of the Federal government to keep Mexicans out of the US doesn’t do him much good, but more importantly it doesn’t do him much harm either: however much or how little thought he puts into this, he’ll get the same amount of Mexicans. Likewise with elk.

A majoritarian democratic government might as well be a cargo cult for all the good that rational thought does you: think this, blog that, vote the other, and out pops a result. If you like the result, do the same thing next year. If you don’t, change a few things and try again. A cargo cult doesn’t operate any better if you think real hard about it.

This is a capsule example of why rational evangelism doesn’t work. There’s no penalty for holding contradictory political ideas, there’s no apparent benefit from adopting a more consistent worldview. The goofiest bumpkin notion is equal to the finest philisophical idea, when they’re committed to ballots.

All of that seems to speak against logical argumentation in general: why bother if it isn’t going to get anyone anywhere? Why think about things if the most likely outcome of the matter at hand is that everyone maintains their state of rational ignorance?

The best possible outcome of the great Wetback Prevention and Elk Encouragement debate isn’t that it’s going to end up producing you any different amounts of elk or wetbacks, the best possible outcome is that you gain something by participating.

61 thoughts on “The Great Wetback Prevention And Elk Encouragement Debate”

  1. It is reasonable to assume that the government will suck at keeping out illegals. They already do, though many would claim they lack sincerity in their efforts. Even with renewed zeal, the government will pursue this with the same incompetence that charactorizes its other endeavors.

    But what about private efforts? Many of the illegals cross onto private land. Right now, the Federal Government forbids these private landowners from doing much of anything to restrict access to their property.

    As for public property, do the people who paid (against their will) for this public property have no say in the matter? I realize it would be near impossible to gain a consensus of taxpayers as to what should be done (though a referendum would hardly be worse than what we have now), but if we could, would not these taxpayers be within their rights to protect such property from tresspassing? Yes, I know, the government doesn’t consider it tresspassing, but to accept such a definition is to admit that there is property that “belongs to all and is owned by no one.”

    No matter. The shift in demographics in this country will amount to a massive political shift in favor of the public sphere (and the welfare/warfare state), and away from anything even smacking of a small-, limited-, or no-government option. Hello freedom (for the illegal); goodby libertarianism.

  2. 1. You are of course morally entitled to protect your private property.

    2. Your actionable grievance is with those who compelled you to pay, not with a peaceful immigrant who is not on your property.

    3. The prospects are indeed grim if you’re expecting collective politics to save you.

  3. Such gigantic shifts in basic, fundemental culture have rarely ever been peaceful. I don’t see how this one will be either.

  4. That’s prima facie, shades of Ellis Island and such. However, the status quo of such an affleunt society as ours cannot change without significant upheaval, probably violent. The “silent majority” has, like all other cultural groups, a boiling point. Once that’s reached the political pendulum will swing back in a hurry.

  5. I await with interest to see how well the private sector manages to prevent Mexicans from flooding into the country.

    Sometimes, ya just have to go with what ya got…

    Oh, and as for this snark: “DuToit isn’t a philosopher and so has no inherent stake in making a correct analysis of the situation.”

    Comparing elk population control in a national park vs. controlling population influx into a sovereign nation — you’re not much of a philosopher yourself. Something about apples and oranges (sorry, we non-philosophers aren’t hip with the snooty academic turns of phrase).

  6. I await with interest to see how well the private sector manages to prevent Mexicans from flooding into the country.

    Why the hell would the private sector want them out? It is only conservative morons who want them out, as conservatives are the enemies of the free markets as much as liberals are.

  7. Mr. Lopez is obviously not a logical or philosophical purist either, with silly assertions such as this:
    “The reason for this is easy enough to explain: DuToit isn’t a philosopher and so has no inherent stake in making a correct analysis of the situation.”
    I take it that businessmen, military leaders, doctors, law enforcement or an auto mechanic have no stake in making correct analysis either?

    How you can claim that Mr. DuToit has no stake in this matter is beyond me. Hell, no matter where they come down on the issue, other than apathy, all U.S. citizens have a “stake” in the border issue. FYI, Mr. DuToit is also a legal immigrant, which means he has every right to feel slighted. He went by the book, why shouldn’t he believe all other immigrants should as well?

    Mr. DuToit also rightly points out your failure to run a proper “indiscernablity of identicals” analysis comparing controlling elk to controlling the border.

    Is the issue competence or lack of resources? It doesn’t matter how competent our above mention mechanic is, without parts and tools they can properly do their job.

  8. [quote]The private sector is what keeps them coming in. People are willing to pay Mexicans (and, well, whoever else) once they get here.[/quote]

    That would be fine and good. But it’s you and I who pay (estimates at $3000/year/per-person … and their offspring) for services and then have to listen to them jump up and down demanding “human rights”.

  9. Joshua,

    Where do you get your figures on the percentage of the population which is foreign born? Last I heard the percentages were very close now to what they were at the peak of the last great wave of immigration. Also, why is this percentage of any interest? Illegal immigration was far lower in the past than it is now. I don’t know of anyone who is complaining about the current rate of legal immigration. The percentage of illegal immigrants in the population is much higher now than in the past.

    Landowners along the border, or anywhere else, should be free to defend their property and their families. That is only a partial solution to the current problem. The reason we institute governments is to address these kinds of problems that are beyond the scope of individual action.

  10. I don’t know of anyone who is complaining about the current rate of legal immigration.

    You’ve got to be kidding me! Conservatives have always been complaining about it. They’ve been fighting the H-1B visa, the standard work visa and a gateway to a green card, since it was first conceived. Buchanan, Tancredo, and the rest of these low lives would like to see the borders shut to everybody. America for Americans, right?

  11. DuToit,

    Comparing elk population control in a national park vs. controlling population influx into a sovereign nation — you’re not much of a philosopher yourself.

    My point is that you judge the Federal government incompetent to manage elk, yet at the same time you judge them fit to manage 5000 miles of national border.

    Are you really saying that it’s harder to deal with a herd of elk than the US border? If so, why? If not, then why do you say that this government is fit to handle a hard task but not an easy one?

  12. Hellbilly,

    I take it that businessmen, military leaders, doctors, law enforcement or an auto mechanic have no stake in making correct analysis either?

    All men have a rational ability but they generally employ this ability in the service of their immediate ends. No doubt DuToit can manage to get a motor vehicle from place to place without incident, for example.

    The problem is that in the arena of public policy there isn’t any inherent incentive for rationality. You don’t get a better President if you think hard about it. Therefore most people don’t think about it. Same thing goes for other areas of public policy. For example:

    How you can claim that Mr. DuToit has no stake in this matter is beyond me.

    DuToit is going to get just about the same amount of Mexicans and elk no matter what his judgement is or his actions are. Therefore he pays no penalty for his misplaced faith in the abilities of the Federal government to keep out Mexicans, because he won’t lose or gain anything measureable from the matter. Likewise with Federal elk policy.

    Does anyone honestly (honestly, now) judge that this government, proven incompetent at managing elk and borders both, is going to suddenly become good at either? It’s absurd on the face of it. But again, nobody faces any penalty for a contrary judgement.

    FYI, Mr. DuToit is also a legal immigrant, which means he has every right to feel slighted.

    I’m not interested in DuToit’s feelings, I’m interested in his judgement. Feelings don’t carry much weight around here.

    Is the issue competence or lack of resources? It doesn’t matter how competent our above mention mechanic is, without parts and tools they can properly do their job.

    Does this government lack the resources to wrangle elk? Seems to me that DuToit’s saying that they could have people lining up to pay for the priviledge of culling elk herds. Apparently a lack of resources isn’t the problem, the problem is that the government can’t make use of the resources available.

    So is the issue with borders the lack of resources or the lack of competence? Do you think, for example, that this government would have better borders if taxes were doubled?

    Or would Congress and the President both manage to waste every dime collected?

  13. Felix,

    That would be fine and good. But it’s you and I who pay (estimates at $3000/year/per-person … and their offspring) for services and then have to listen to them jump up and down demanding “human rights”.

    Your problem is properly with the people who force you to pay that three grand a year.

    And those people aren’t Mexicans.

  14. du Toit,

    I await with interest to see how well the private sector manages to prevent Mexicans from flooding into the country.

    Why would it? If you want your private property secured though it will do a better job.

    Something about apples and oranges…

    And which one of those is government good with?

    If you’d clicked through the link in Lopez’s comment you might have gotten a better idea of what he was talking about. The point is that you’re not grounding your arguments in reality, in this case moral reality: America isn’t your property not is it the collective property of Americans so you don’t have any right to keep immigrants out.

  15. Quick Dick,

    March 2003 report from the Census Bureau

    Foreign-born percentage of the population, 03/2003: 11.7%

    Nativity of the Population from 1850-1990

    Foreign-born percentage of the population, 1860: 13.2%
    Foreign-born percentage of the population, 1870: 14.4%
    Foreign-born percentage of the population, 1880: 13.3%
    Foreign-born percentage of the population, 1890: 14.8%
    Foreign-born percentage of the population, 1900: 13.6%
    Foreign-born percentage of the population, 1910: 14.7%
    Foreign-born percentage of the population, 1920: 13.2%
    Foreign-born percentage of the population, 1930: 11.6%

    So, we’re not only 3.1% under the highest recorded number in 1890, but immigration 1/4-1/3 greater than we currently have proceeded for 60 years.

    That many of the Mexicans are illegal is of no consequence. Legal immigration in the turn of the 20th century meant “Show up, no TB.” Since then, legal immigration has turned into an incredibly arbitrary and capricious meat-grinder. If anything, the immigration restrictions are making it worse by keeping residents from being able to enforce their rights, subjecting them to abuse they cannot stop.

  16. But what about private efforts? Many of the illegals cross onto private land. Right now, the Federal Government forbids these private landowners from doing much of anything to restrict access to their property.

    1. Could you give an example of how the Feds are doing this?

    2. If immigrants are crossing onto private land with the permission of the owner, would you then recognize their right to be left alone by La Migra? Or does your concern about private property rights only extend to those who are trying to keep the mojados off their property?

    As for public property, do the people who paid (against their will) for this public property have no say in the matter?

    You do realize, don’t you, that this argument could be used to make “libertarian” excuses for absolutely any form of tyranny whatsoever that enjoyed majority support, don’t you? Since drug traffickers, women in prostitution, gamblers, “assault weapon” dealers, corporate managers, and anyone else doing business uses government roads and other “public property” on a daily basis, you could use this just as easily to support the War on Drugs, the War on Vice, gun control, the whole federal regulatory apparatus, etc. Thank goodness The People will have their say; I was afraid that being a libertarian might actually require me to hold out for freedom.

    (From the standpoint of justice, the answer is that not everyone has an equal claim to rightful ownership of all the government property within the continental U.S. I have some claim to a share of rightful ownership of the road in front of my house, and maybe the major thoroughfare I take to work every day. I have much less of a claim to a share of rightful ownership of I-94. I have absolutely no just claim to any control over how roads by the border in El Paso or San Diego are disposed of. Those who not only fund them but also habitually use them have a claim. So rightful use can’t be determined by taking national polls: insofar as it can be determined at all — which is not very far, socialist calculation being impossible, but let’s set that aside — it will depend on the varying attitudes amongst road-users in each actual border town. And, not to put too fine a point on it, but since unscreened immigrants pay the same gasoline taxes that everyone else pays, and habitually use those roads, they have as good of a claim to a share in them as the native-born Americans.)

  17. Quite a juxtaposition, reading all the comments over on Kim’s entry…

    http://www.theothersideofkim.com/index.php/tos-shared/comments/9411

    …and then reading all the comments on this entry. I’m biased, of course, but do not Kim’s commenter’s strike you as a bunch of pile-on sycophants?

    I must say that Kim du Toit is among the best conservatives I kinda think I know. I’ve read his blog for years and it’s the ONLY conservative’s blog I have or have ever had blogrolled. Unlike most (and I grew up republican), Kim is a man of culture and he’s not weighted down by silly beliefs in fairy tales.

    But I just gotta say that this whole immigration issue has really been a tough one. Even maintaining respect for close family is becoming increasingly difficult. I cannot think of any position more anathema to America’s founding ideals.

  18. Immigration is one of those issues that seperate the people that mean it from the people that are faking it. And most people are faking it:

    Tell an American that “to be free” means:

    No Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, no welfare, no guaranteed loans…

    No “gun” control laws…

    No drug prohibition…

    No restrictions on marriage or sex among adults…

    No government mandates for occupational or food or drug “safety”…

    Yes. Inform the average American of what “freedom” means and that he will have to live within its parameters forever and he will crawl into a fetal ball and weep in abject panic.

    Russell Madden.

  19. Hmm…

    I got a question. Why is it that I see Ultra-liberals make the dubious claim that:

    1.) The $3,000 coming out of the taxpayers pocket is somehow more the problem of the government (and of course they mean the republicans in power) and not of the invaders from Mexico.

    It is estimated that the invaders from Mexico account for around 60 billoion dollars a year.

    It is estimated that nearly 20-30 percent (state and federal department of Justice statistics) of prisoners account for illegals.

    These invaders cause about 15 deaths / rapes A DAY from DUI, aggrevated assults, etc.

    1 out of ten Mexicans find their way to the US.

    More Mexican women get pregnant when they reach the US than if they stayed in Mexico.

    Why isn’t the president doing something about it? He says we can’t deplace 12 Million people, but it has been done before in or distant past without the benifit of todays technology.

    Quick: When did the US deport 3 million Mexicans back to Mexico? If you history buffs remember that? Or do they not teach you that in school anymore? It can be done.

    I am sick of hearing about “immigrant rights”.

    1.) They are not “immigrants” but invaders from another country, they do not, nor should they have the same rights as citizens.

    2.) Contrary top what some Moron wrote, you do have a right to protect your property, be it state or otherwise if you dwell on it. Not all immigrants come here to work, they come to work the system.

    Keep on thinking the way you internationalist do. Pride comes before fall.

    FOOLS! YOU BLEEP ABOUT MULTI-CULTURALISM AND RIGHTS LIKE A HERD OF SHEEP. HOW SOON ARE YOU SHEEPEL TO FORGET THE LESSONS OF THE NATIONS BEFORE US SUCH AS ROME, WHO FELL WHEN ITS SENATORS DID NOTHING BUT CATER TO THE ILLEGAL VISTOGOTHS AND BARBARIANS, HANDING DOWN WELFARE AND CITIZENSHIP FOR VOTES.

    FOOLS! IN YOUR ARROGANCE LIKE THOSE NATIONS BEFORE YOU, DO YOU THINK YOU ARE SOMEHOW BETTER? DO YOU THINK: SURLEY WE ARE MORE ADVANCED THAN THE ROMANS, WE WILL NOT FALTER. AND DID NOT THE ROMANS THOUGHT THE SAME: SURLEY WE ARE MORE ADVANCED THE THE GREEKS…AND THE GREEKS: SURLEY WE ARE MORE ADVANCED THAN THE PERSIANS…

    KEEP ON THINKING THAT WE SHOULD GIVE EVERONE RIGHTS AND YOU SHALL SEE THE US BECOME LIKE CANADA AND FRANCE.

    Ecclesiastes 1 (New International Version)

    New International Version (NIV)
    Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

    Ecclesiastes 1

    Everything Is Meaningless

    1 The words of the Teacher, [a] son of David, king in Jerusalem:
    2 “Meaningless! Meaningless!”
    says the Teacher.
    “Utterly meaningless!
    Everything is meaningless.”

    3 What does man gain from all his labor
    at which he toils under the sun?

    4 Generations come and generations go,
    but the earth remains forever.

    5 The sun rises and the sun sets,
    and hurries back to where it rises.

    6 The wind blows to the south
    and turns to the north;
    round and round it goes,
    ever returning on its course.

    7 All streams flow into the sea,
    yet the sea is never full.
    To the place the streams come from,
    there they return again.

    8 All things are wearisome,
    more than one can say.
    The eye never has enough of seeing,
    nor the ear its fill of hearing.

    9 What has been will be again,
    what has been done will be done again;
    there is nothing new under the sun.

    10 Is there anything of which one can say,
    “Look! This is something new”?
    It was here already, long ago;
    it was here before our time.

    11 There is no remembrance of men of old,
    and even those who are yet to come
    will not be remembered
    by those who follow.

    Wisdom Is Meaningless

    12 I, the Teacher, was king over Israel in Jerusalem. 13 I devoted myself to study and to explore by wisdom all that is done under heaven. What a heavy burden God has laid on men! 14 I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind.
    15 What is twisted cannot be straightened;
    what is lacking cannot be counted.

    16 I thought to myself, “Look, I have grown and increased in wisdom more than anyone who has ruled over Jerusalem before me; I have experienced much of wisdom and knowledge.” 17 Then I applied myself to the understanding of wisdom, and also of madness and folly, but I learned that this, too, is a chasing after the wind.

    18 For with much wisdom comes much sorrow;
    the more knowledge, the more grief.

  20. 1.) The $3,000 coming out of the taxpayers pocket is somehow more the problem of the government (and of course they mean the republicans in power) and not of the invaders from Mexico.

    J.C., had you been paying attention, your ALL CAPS ANGER would be best directed at the state…not those people who want to, for example, end taxation entirely. You’d also realize that the same people are all for individuals protecting their property from trespass and invasion…moreso than any “liberal” or “conservative” you’re likely to know.

    At some point, you’ll have to set aside the assumption that everyone who disagrees with you is a “liberal” and engage that thing between your ears and understand the people to whom you’re speaking.

  21. You Titanic Moron. I refuse to be manipulated through propaganda, I have a shield over communist-socialist thinking. It is idiotic to think that we could end taxation entirely. It is like a young boy running for school president promising to end homework.

    Of course I was speaking in generalities. Of course I know that not everyone who disagrees with me is an “ultra-liberal”, BUT MOST OF THEM ARE.

    For instance, I might say why do Libs call it pro choice when its really pro death, and do they not know that IN MOST cases the women had the right to chose when she decided to lay flat on her back and engage in pre-marital sex?

    I would say this knowing that there are conservatives who are “pro-choice”, but it take a long time to distinguish the two.

    Hypocrate. there are dozens of examples were people on this site labeled a certain view point as “conservative”. And thus, the fantasy of paying no taxes is a pipe dream, I understand there are some conservatives that would relish this thought. Because it is a wacked out thought I automatically assumed it was a liberal view point because most wacked out theries are indeed concoctions of the left.

    Idiot. The person I was referencing is a liberal. Or do you think that anyone with the psuadeanim “John T. Kennedy” (if it is indeed an alias) would be a conservative?

    The fact of the matter is that the HATE AMERICA FIRST way of thinking is liberal-commie-soscialist way of life. Like the useful idiot that you are, you destroy this nation with your way of thinking.

    And like Stalin said, the sad part (to him it was the good part) is that you idiots don’t even know the damage your causing your own nation. Thus the term “useful idiot”.

  22. Well, my earlier post was removed, pobably because it was too critical. In any event I will give you the PG-13 version:

    1.) I was speaking in generalities. I know that not all liberals share the Idea of “no taxes” and other pipe dreams akin to a young boy running for class president under the promise of “no homework”.

    2.) Just as in the case of “pro-choice” conservatives. And there are so-called conservatives that are for big government. And conversley I know of Liberals that are pro-life and welcome drilling in Alaska. I could go on and on. However, generally speaking, the idea to blame our Government First for the immigration problem is a liberal view point, a typical of the “HATE AMERICA FIRRST” thinking off all useful idiots.

    3.) And thus, in conclusion I was speaking in general as I am well aware of any issue that is deamed Liberal or Consevative, there are dissedents from every view point.

    4.) Finally, my remarks were slightly aimed at on “John T. Kennedy”. I made the assumption that he was democratic or liberal minded. I appoligize if he is indeed a conservative or moderate. However with a psuadeanim like Kennedy (maybe its his real name) I seriously doubt that he is a republican.

    5.) I am not an apoligist for either party, both are to blame, the Dems want votes and the Republicans want cheap labor. However it is the Dems that are blocking (along with A FEW so-called republicans) the mesures we need to stop the flood of illegals, including an incopetant President who twidles his thumbs and fiddles while Rome is burning.

  23. I’ve never removed any comment because it was critical. It’s possible that I have occasionally deleted a comment thinking it was spam for some reason. Did the comment in question ever appear?

    You can email me about it if you like and I’ll try to figure out what happened. Lynette and Lopez may delete comments too, but I think they edit pretty much the same as me. I think I do most of the editing.

  24. I don’t delete anything except

    a) duplicate comments (and I leave a note to that effect)

    b) obvious spam

    c) items that violate NT’s edititorial policies (such as they are) meaning specifically threats against cops and politicos.

    [Edit to add: d) other things that I might want gone. Sporadically-capitalized verbal abuse and silly assumptions don’t make it over that bar though.

    JC: your comment was caught in the spam filter.]

    Search the site for “Lopez, you can” and you can see what sort of nonsense we let stay up. And we don’t care overmuch for PG-13, you can let the fucking gloves come off for all I care.

  25. No, I wasn’t sure it was removed, that’s why I said “probably”.

    Good, glad to hear that you let the fucking gloves come off. I’ve been to sites which can’t handle satire or nehilistic humor. In any advent, I said “probably”, so I am glad that I am dead wrong in both accounts.

    Ya, I can see why it comes up as span, I write a lot (strange because I cannot type or spell (English is very confusing to a languge that uses mascularities, I do get the syntax mixed up among other things).

    It was a shorter version than my last post, I just wanted to get the main points up.

    Ironic, I came to this site via google when I entered the phrase “I hate conservatives”.

  26. You Titanic Moron.

    Never saw the movie.

    I refuse to be manipulated through propaganda, I have a shield over communist-socialist thinking.

    Your mental shield has the unfortunate side effect of blocking your view of a website and most commenters therein that espouse an anarchist point of view, one that is significantly at odds with commie thinking.

    It is idiotic to think that we could end taxation entirely.

    If you’ll go back to my comment, you’ll see that I didn’t say those of us who want to end taxation entirely said it would be easy or even possible in the current political climate. I just said we wanted to end it entirely.

    Of course I was speaking in generalities.

    A tactic that doesn’t necessarily go well in individualist circles, Sir.

    Hypocrate. there are dozens of examples were people on this site labeled a certain view point as “conservative”.

    I’m a hypocrite because I didn’t point out how other people analyze things badly? I just don’t have the time to correct everyone’s mistakes. :)

    And thus, the fantasy of paying no taxes is a pipe dream, I understand there are some conservatives that would relish this thought. Because it is a wacked out thought I automatically assumed it was a liberal view point because most wacked out theries are indeed concoctions of the left.

    So answer me this: do you want taxation to be a feature of society?

    Idiot.

    I prefer idiotes.

    The fact of the matter is that the HATE AMERICA FIRST way of thinking is liberal-commie-soscialist way of life. Like the useful idiot that you are, you destroy this nation with your way of thinking.

    My thoughts have the power to destroy nations? Awesome! I’m going to transmit bad vibes to Pyongyang. I’m totally starting there to test this out.

    I don’t HATE AMERICA FIRST and to the extent I know the regulars on this blog, I don’t think they do either. I know I have irreconcilable differences with this government imposed on me and supposedly acting in my name. However, I am able to differentiate the American state from the millions of useful citizens who apathetically support it as well as the values and ideals of freedom that once held greater sway here.

    And like Stalin said, the sad part (to him it was the good part) is that you idiots don’t even know the damage your causing your own nation.

    I want pictures of the mind-craters and building collapses I’m allegedly producing, dammit. I’m missing out on the visuals.

  27. I don’t recall pulling any comments in Lopez’s category D though it’s fine if an editor chooses to.

    We also remove new comments by banned individuals (I can only think of two bans), and comments by those who make a routine practice of hijacking threads or changing their nyms. That may sound like more than it is; it amounts to very few posts.

  28. I recall someone (not me) deleting a bunch of personal phone numbers some commenter put up in response to one of my Swift Boat Veterans For Truth bashing posts. That’s the kind of thing that category d) is for.

  29. Hey Chuck,

    Anarchist are useful idiots. The communist have used anarchist and illigals (May 1st is a Commie-Holiday, most of the protest were organized by comie party USA, etc.).

    “If you’ll go back to my comment, you’ll see that I didn’t say those of us who want to end taxation entirely said it would be easy or even possible in the current political climate. I just said we wanted to end it entirely.”

    I want a million bucks too pay. Hey, why stop there? Let’s make it a Trillion!

    We all make general statments, stereotypical, etc. every day, dozens of times. We all put lables on things because it is convienant to do so. No mateer how “anti-government” you are. I do not see that it is wrong to label a certain view point as liberal or conservative. I would definatly say that supossed anarchist vote (if they do vote) liberal/democratic, and thus have more liberal stances.

    “So answer me this: do you want taxation to be a feature of society?”

    What, are you dumb or something? Of course not! But taxation is necessary. “There are only a few things certain in life, that is death and taxes”. It will always be a feture of society, unless you live in the Jungle.

    “I want pictures of the mind-craters and building collapses I’m allegedly producing, dammit. I’m missing out on the visuals.”

    No Useful Idiot. Like roman ortators you cause damage through rhetoric and poisoining the minds of people as CICERO STATED:

    “A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.”

    You all say the same thing…”What!? I didn’t know I was a terrorist, I didn’t know I was responsible for overthrowing the government…etc.”

    Well, well, well. Of course I am not talking about you individually. Its “you people” as a collective. And words/ideas are sometimes more dangerous than any bomb. Certainly you anarchist would agree.

  30. J.C.,

    You are a dumbass moron. You’re repeating what you read in one of Michael Savage’s books, pretending that you actually read Cicero. Go to Little Green Footballs or something else that suits your level, you idiot.

  31. I heard of the name, I actually listen to him a few times, but he’s too radical.

    1.) In any event, you are a fucking moron who jumps to conclusions. I read Cicero’s works, Plato’s republic, Satre, Hagel, etc.

    2.) I WAS BORN IN CHICAGO AND RAISED IN CICERO (right next to Chicago it is were Al Capone ran his business in COOK COUNTY) even in school we had to do reports of Cicero, the Senator and the orgin of the town’s name (named after Cicero NY which was named from a town in Italy (or was it Siciliy)?

    In any event, itso facto, you are the Biggest tenth degree moron who shot hi mouth off. Currently I live in Berwyn (check my IP, anyone) which also borders Cicero and Chicago (it was once part of Cicero).

    Have a good day fuck-face :)

  32. You read Sartre, but you can’t spell his name? interesting! And what is itso facto? Did you mean ipso facto? For an educated man, you seem to have serious problem with spelling, grammar, and overall eloquence. Typical of conservatives.

    Interesting also that you repeat Savage’s crap about the 30% immigrants in prisons, fiddling while Rome burns, etc. The problem is, you’ve been around conservative morons for too long. Ths site is not for you – many of the people who write here are many eons ahead of you in evolution. I’m surprised that Kennedy and Lopez bothered to respond to you at all.

  33. RED HERRING ARGUMENT / AD HOMINHEM

    Typical for you usful idiots. Go play with your green football.

    If you red an earlier blog I wrote, I talked about those who attack the person and not the argument, committing the falicy you see above.

    You try to shift the focus from the fact that you were proven wrong, and that you are also mentally ill if not retarded.

    Hmm…Did this savage say anything about Fiddling while Rome was burnning? If he makes the same connections of today’s society with Rome, I guess I will have to buy his books/listen to him again. Any way, it is a common phrase. I got turned off by him with his attacks a few years ago against John Kerry and the Swifties.

    In any event, I repeadly wrote how you elietist (wait, aren’t you sapossed to be nonconformist?) reply with smug comments of grammar:

    1.) English is a second language for one Jose C.

    2.) Evern so, I said earlier that I cannot type, so you will notice words mispelled, or missing all together.

    3.) As I said earlier, how one spells is not an indication of intellect. Many “smart people” were illiterate as well as philosiphers (muhhamed).

    4.) I am sorry that I refuse to run my work through a spell check like most you nit’wits.

    5.) You have no right toi tell me were to go, thats so atypical of you socalled liberals, talking out of two faces like the Janus that you are.

    6.) I have no problems with Mr. Lopez/Kennedy or other people who conduct there discussions in a near peaceful-minded manner.

    7.) Quit licking their ass.

    8.) If you were paying attention from earlier post, they seem to be very generous and truely liberal (unlike you, you’re a fake liberal who thinks that freedom of speech only applies to what you want to say and hear).

    9.) I move from blog to blog, I will post for a few weeks than move on.

    10.) Keep your footballs for yourself.

    Tht’s it, sorry I cannot be as elitiest as you sir. Obviouslly because I cannot spell, and my syntax is off because English is a second language, I must be stupid. The 20-30 percent was on Fox news, and the DOJ stats. Also because I share a common view point with someone else (gee, how can that happen in a nation of 6 billion?) I most be guilty of plagerism.

    Maybe you will come to realize how close you are to becomming what you hate. Maybe you will come to realize that most your opinions, or anyone for that matter, are the product of influance and raely does anyone have a truely original Idea.

    Probably not, because you are not a Useful idiot, but a usless one. :)

  34. Hey, moron, this is not a liberal blog, and neither are Lopez, Kennedy, or myself. I think you accidently stumbled into the wrong blog. Google the difference between liberal and libertarian, dumbass.

    Didn’t you say you were born in Chicago? Then English is at worst your co-first language.

    Mohammad was as much a philosopher as you are.

    Making fun of you is too easy. I quit. Where is Stefan, anyway? At least he was a bit of a challenge…

  35. My father was born in Chicago, then moved to Mexico and di not learn English until 16. Your lack of knowledge and understanding of the world never ceases to amuse me. Truly if you knew Chicago and the dangers of Bilingual education like I do, then you would understand why we most stop the illegals from comming from the border.

    The fact is Mr. Know nothing, there are many people BORN IN CHICAGO BUT SPEAK BROKEN ENGLISH EVEN AFTER 20-40 years.

    Challenge? Don’t make me laugh. Again your shifting the argument by labeling me as “dumber than steadman”.

    Well it is plain to see than I am more intelligiant than you dispite not using spell check. And it is plain to see that you are not in my leauge. Your in the special leuge, the one were they put the baseball on a stick for you.

    Go back to the minors and let the big boys play, little man.

    Liberal-Libertarian-commie, it doesn’t matter, the view points are much the same.

    Conservative-republican-fascist, again the same, only right.

    Hypocrate. You labled me as a consevative then get your panties in a bunch when I say “liberal” or “commie”. Well to bad.

    The world doesnot revolve around you Sammy, now go home back to mama’s tit before I decide to blast you even further.

  36. 1.) In any event, you are a fucking moron who jumps to conclusions. I read Cicero’s works, Plato’s republic, Satre, Hagel, etc.

    plato is spelled “playdough” he invented the fun factory. the fun never stops with the fun factory!

  37. Thanks Sammy, bringing my Mother into this only proves all the above points I made, not diminish it.

    Kudos to you sir, you could of choose to put up more of a fight with rhetoric and demogogory. But no, you choose to end it by folding your arms and telling us that you do indeed poses the politesse of an alligator and the moral fiber of a shark.

    Instead of keeping up the phony ficade of an elietist snob, who choose to cast off your pretentious supremecy and condecend to a level of name-calling and playschool banter such as, “your momma’s a bitch and your a stupid head”.

    Well poopy-pants I do enjoy crushing you with words, I must conclude this little game. You bore me, and I have other engagements to keep.

    Ta-ta for now,

    Mr. Jose Antonio C. Jr.

  38. Titanic Moron…Idiot… the useful idiot that you are…you idiots…are you dumb or something?…you are a fucking moron…you are the Biggest tenth degree moron who shot [his] mouth off…fuck-face…you are also mentally ill if not retarded…you nit’wits…

    If anyone is guilty of ad hominem in this thread it is you, J.C. I’m sure mentioning this makes me some crypto-liberal American traitor, but it had to be said.

    Anarchist are useful idiots.

    When those specific anarchists have been manipulated into supporting decidedly un-anarchist goals and methods, sure. But you’re otherwise over-generalizing, again.

    I want a million bucks too pay. Hey, why stop there? Let’s make it a Trillion!

    Is this J.C.-speak for “screw your point; I’m going to be snide!” or did you just not understand what I meant?

    I do not see that it is wrong to label a certain view point as liberal or conservative.

    Hey, label to your heart’s content. My objection rests upon labels that are factually inaccurate…such as calling someone a liberal (in the modern, screwed-up sense of the term) when that person most certainly does not accept the pseudo-principles that lay beneath most (if not all) Democrat talking points. I would react the same way if you labeled a horse a “cow.” They aren’t the same thing, even though they may share similarities.

    Of course not! But taxation is necessary.

    This thread has been jacked far enough off course, so I’ll just say I disagree with you, especially with your “taxes or jungle life” false dilemma.

    Like roman ortators you cause damage through rhetoric and poisoining the minds of people…

    Oh please. I advocate the abolishment of governments and the rejection of the ideas that support them. In addition, I advocate free markets in everything. My minority status is so acute I am literally treated as some cute sideshow political oddity, saying things overwhelming bipartisan majorities think are totally beneath serious contemplation.

    More importantly, I fail to see why it is “poisonous” to stand uncompromisingly for individual freedom in human affairs, because to that is what my arguments are ultimately reduced. If a man chooses the work in the US over the work in Mexico and does not aggress (kill, assault, trespass, etc.) against another in the process of accomplishing that goal, I say let him and his employer be. It isn’t any of your business and certainly doesn’t rise to the level of sending men with guns to harass, fine, and imprison either person.

    Being a foreigner doesn’t negate your rights.

    And words/ideas are sometimes more dangerous than any bomb. Certainly you anarchist would agree.

    Absolutely. Some ideas are indeed dangerous, such as “From each according to his means, to each according to his needs.” Or “the government owns the country and therefore has the right to exclude whomever it pleases to exclude.”

  39. Well, good to see someone thinking with both hemisphere’s of the brain.

    “If anyone is guilty of ad hominem in this thread it is you, J.C. I’m sure mentioning this makes me some crypto-liberal American traitor, but it had to be said.”

    Hmm…On the face of it you bring a compelling argument, to be sure. However, Ad Hominem is true when IT IS THE ONLY THING ONE USES TO JUSTIFY HIS POSITION.

    Example:

    AD HOMINEM: “For an educated man, you seem to have serious problem with spelling, grammar, and overall eloquence. Typical of conservatives.”

    NON AD HOMINEM: Any time you slander someone, is okay as long as you have compelling evidence to base your conclutions.

    So calling someone a tenth degree moron, then going on why he is a tenth degree moron with evidence is not ad hom.

    By calling someone “trailer trash”, “xenophobe”, “racist”, without any support to back it up is Ad Hom.

    Glad I can help you distinguish the two.

    ———-

    I decided to use the dreaded wikipedia. Here is what wiki has to say about the subject, witch is very close to what I was taught in school:

    An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that someone’s argument is wrong and/or he is wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons cited by him rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself. The implication is that the person’s argument and/or ability to argue correctly lacks authority. Merely insulting another person in the middle of otherwise rational discourse does not necessarily constitute an ad hominem fallacy. It must be clear that the purpose of the characterization is to discredit the person offering the argument, and, specifically, to invite others to discount his arguments. In the past, the term ad hominem was sometimes used more literally, to describe an argument that was based on an individual, or to describe any personal attack. However, this is not how the meaning of the term is typically introduced in modern logic and rhetoric textbooks, and logicians and rhetoricians are in agreement that this use is incorrect.

    Examples:

    “You claim that this man is innocent, but you cannot be trusted since you are a criminal, as well.”

    “You feel that abortion should be illegal, but I disagree, because you are uneducated and poor.”

    “Only right-wing nutjobs believe that homosexuals account for one to two percent of the population.”

    Not all ad hominem attacks are insulting:

    Example:

    “Paula says the umpire made the correct call, but this is false, because Paula is too important to pay attention to the game.”

    This is an ad hominem fallacy, even though it is saying something positive about the person, because it is addressing the person and not the topic in dispute.

    Ironically, accusing an opponent of ad hominem can itself be an example of ad hominem if it is worded as an insult: “I’m not going to stand here and let him insult me!” or “My opponent is resorting to logical fallacy to win,” or “Since he is out of good arguments, he’s attacking me.” (partial Argument from silence).

    If you need any help again, just let me know. I know it can be very confusing but basically remember a few rules of thumb:

    1.) Not all insults are ad hominem, only when you rely soley to insults.

    2.) Ad Hominem doesn’t necessarily have to be the result of negative “insults” but could be “positive” such as this boot lickers statment:

    “I’m surprised that Kennedy and Lopez bothered to respond to you at all.”

    -And why would that be? He gives no supporting evidence to butress this claim. Thus Ad Hominhem.

    We disagree with “labels”, that is fine. Your make the Apples-and Oranges Logical fallacy when you compare horse and cow (witch has phisical differences) with commie, liberal witch has ideas that are shared (generally called the “left way” of thinking).

    You may say that the Jungle anology is a logical fallacy, and I would agree because I am sure that there are civilizations that use some sort of currency/taxation scheme. Well there are many reasons, I will stop there. The point is I do commit fallacies like everyone else. But in the above response I believe that I am correct.

    Your analysis of the immigration problem is disturbing. We cannot have a lazzie-fare (OH WAIT! let me spell check: its lassie-fare) attitude about this issue.

    You “minotiy” view point is fast becomming the majority with the garbage they teach at the universities these days.

    Foreigner’s are never sapossed to have the same rights as citizens. It is wrong to do so.

    You make these statements without consideration of the main point I tried to make:

    1.) Giving citizenship to many non-citizens has never been a good idea and has lead to the decay of civilizations.

    2.) The immigrants that came to America long ago did not have all the welfare programs, free education, medicare, that we have today which cost everyone money (some 60 billion a year). Most people could not go to school, but had to labor. It is wrong for anyone to rely on this argument.

    “More importantly, I fail to see why it is “poisonous” to stand uncompromisingly for individual freedom in human affairs, because to that is what my arguments are ultimately reduced. If a man chooses the work in the US over the work in Mexico and does not aggress (kill, assault, trespass, etc.) against another in the process of accomplishing that goal, I say let him and his employer be. It isn’t any of your business and certainly doesn’t rise to the level of sending men with guns to harass, fine, and imprison either person.”

    I could write ten pages why this is so wrong. Well, maybe a different time. It is my buisness when so many criminals come from the border and use our hospitals and schools.

    I have a liberal employer who said was infavor of bilingual education, not ten minutes after making this statment he told one of the “workers” who didn’t do what he wanted (he cutted slip sheet in the wrong place) he told the guy, “LEARN TO SPEAK FUCKING ENGLISH”. This comming out of the mouth of a person who said he was “radically left” and for “diversity and tolerance”.

    Ya, its easy to scream tolerance when you don’t live in an area WERE EVERY STORE IS IN SPANISH AND A LARGE PERCENTAGE CAN’T SPEAK ENGLISH.

    Incidentlly, the guy the employer told to “learn fucking english” spoke English perfectly well (the best out of the three excluding myself). The empoyer would try to say certain things in Spanish, which was anoying. For instance, he asked me how to say “paper” in spanish so he could tell them to move the slip sheet to the other end of the roof. I said it is “papel” but you cand just tell them paper, because they understand what that means and even if they don’t you are not helping them learn any faster by trying to speak half-ass English. He also would tell them “lunche” instead of lunch and “watch ale” instead of watch (the correct term being “aquas”, watch ale is slang).

    We were on the roof planting plants, a process called “greenroofing”, currently mandated by Chicago for all new buildings. We did this at UNION SCALE CURRENTLY AT $ 31.15.

    There are many from Mexico, not US citizens that use a legals social so they can work. But according to tenth degree morons they all make below minimum wage. Ridiculous. The illegals I worked with Made Union scale, most others make between 10-15 dollars. Some do make minimum/below min., but most do pretty well.

    I guess you don’t see how your opinion to just “mind are own business” is inheritly flawed. It was flawed in word war II while we let Hitler build an army, and it was wrong during the ignorance of the slavery issue which lead to the civil war.

    Procrastination is laziness’s ugly cousin.

    Let me know if you desire more education of the above matters.

  40. Charles and JC,

    Lightn up with the fine points about what constitutes an ad hominem attack. JC is a sub-moron who canot be reasoned with, and so I will not waste arguments on him. The only thing to do when dealing with such creatures as JC is to ridicule them and make them feel unwanted. I used an ad hominem argument? Sure, whatever. It made him go away, didn’t it? I knew it would, because punks like him take insults about their mothers very hard. Unfortunately, Charles, you made him come back. Let me try to get rid of him again, then:

    JC – Your mother, the mother of all whores, should have aborted you, in or ex utero, and save the world the displeasure of knowing you. May she rot in hell for that.

    There, let’s see if that works.

  41. Well, its good to see that your acknowledging the fallacy of your immigrants. Exuse me, your illigals, oops again, your statements.

    You are an oxygen thief and a waste of life. Do us all a favor put the gun in your fat mouth and pull the trigger. Us higher thinking mammals need oxygen to breath, and your hogging it up to sustain those meager brain cells.

    First off Captain Stupid, I did not “go away”, nor did you make me “go away”. I had proir engagements to keep, so I had to take a break. Unlike you pimpled face Dungens and Dragon playing, silver-spoon, mamma payed for College fag boy, I have a life outside the blog sphere.

    You are the ass clown, pillow bitter that cannot be reasoned with. Time and time again you have showned this with your idiotic slander like “your mom’s a whore”. Wow. Way to prove your above me fag. You did a good job, didn’t you fag? Nice going fag.

    I guess your use of vulgarities makes you superior. Your so superior you don’t have to engage me in meaningful discussion. You can just call me names. Wow. You really shut me up fag.

    Let’s see fag, I made the post in question at 11:44 am and after you saposadly made me “go away” and “shut me up” I posted a response at 12:48 pm. A whole 62 minutes.

    You really shut me up, didn’t you fag?

    Guessed you failed, huh fag? Just like you failed in life?

    The fact of the matter is everyone with eyes can plainly see:

    1.) You cannot be reasoned with

    2.) Your an idiot

    3.) You can’t hold any sort of intelligaint discussion above your talking points memo.

    4.) Your a liar

    5.) You make up facts in your head like “your mom’s a whore”

    6.) No one can trust anything that comes out of your mouth

    7.) Your a waste of education

    8.) Only punks hurl insults from the protection of there computer.

    Turbo nerd. I would crush your puny pethetic body much like I have crushed your ego and fallacious arguments and expose your hypocracy.

    Noone likes a Fat, pimpled faced, mamma’s tit sucking, pillow bitting, turd burglar, labodimized idiot-wrapped-in-Moron such as yourself making any type of statments and claiming thinking that:

    1.) Anyone would take you seriously, when you are infact a joke.

    2.) Anyone would listen to you when you couldn’t lead your way out of a paper bag.

    This whole thing started when you claimed I was repeating a radio / author who happened to make the same conclusions that I, along with millions of others have.

    You labeled me as consevative, which was fine, I label you as commie pinko scum. But the fact of the matter I did not vote for Bush these past two elections. I mostly vote democratic (local, anyway) Barrack Obama.

    Besides being both Bi-Polar and scitzophrenic, you suffer from jealousy. Don’t be green with envy. Maybe some day you can carry on a conversation like us higher thinking mammals.

    I promise you little boy, once you can clean up your mouth and graduate the 8th grade, I promise you can talk with the grown-ups. I will also throw in a can of NOXEMA for your face. And, maybe we can do something about your touretts syndrome?

  42. Nope, just did the same pointless name-calling you did to purposley get you to respond since I do not know if you are really a pizza faced mama’s boy.

    Maybe I was just “projecting”. Or maybe I made a general shot in the dark that you put from the rough, boy how could I have come to that conclusion?

    Hasta luego, or is it Leggo my eggo? Or is it hasta lasagnas?

  43. Point taken on ad hominem.

    You “minotiy” view point is fast becomming the majority with the garbage they teach at the universities these days.

    Are you shitting me? Seriously, this is the most stupid thing I’ve read in months.

    Universities are not teaching all government (not just the USG) is immoral because it engages in the initiation of physical force (or the imminent threat of it). Universities are not teaching students objective morality, based upon the primacy of reality and understandable through the power of human reason. Universities are not teaching the superiority of noninterventionist free market capitalist economics. Universities are not teaching the inviolability of private property and self-ownership.

    They aren’t ridiculing the UN as wasteful and unethical. They aren’t condemning the increasing tide of nanny-state taxes. They aren’t advocating egoism. They aren’t keen at all on teaching democracy as the social horror of people voting on what should be done with other people’s property.

    Universities, with a few exceptions, are not teaching my viewpoint, which I’m now convinced you simply cannot grasp.

    Foreigner’s are never sapossed to have the same rights as citizens.

    A piece of paper from a government saying you are a citizen does not grant you more rights than someone else. It may mean you might ultimately get the backing of the cops and courts on your side of an argument, but that doesn’t make it right.

    It is my buisness when so many criminals come from the border and use our hospitals and schools.

    No, those are not “our” hospitals and schools…I don’t own any of them, not even partially. Do you?

    If you’re complaining about the cost borne by the taxpayer for immigrant usage of those services, then my first response is then stop forcing people to pay those damn taxes. Both health care and education can and should be provided without the state; immigrants utilizing them on taxpayer expense is just another reason to privatize them.

    I guess you don’t see how your opinion to just “mind are own business” is inheritly flawed. It was flawed in word war II while we let Hitler build an army, and it was wrong during the ignorance of the slavery issue which lead to the civil war.

    I’m not going to apologize for the people in those situations who didn’t outright eliminate those two threats on the ground while they were still in their infancy. However, the fact that vast numbers of people were persuaded or intimidated into letting those two vile forces grow to the heights they did doesn’t confer a duty upon me to cough up my time and my wealth to combat other threats in their infancy.

    In any event, I’m done talking with you. Your last post was utterly repulsive, even if meant in jest.

  44. Ahh, I’m crestfallen. What about sam? Did you think he was repulsive too? Or is it okay to call a mother of four boys a whore? No no no, it is far repulsive to use the word “fag” although gays call each other “fag”. Disgusting of me, why there is nothing disgusting about a person having sex with the same sex, why thats all good clean fun!

    ———-

    Universities are not teaching all government (not just the USG) is immoral because it engages in the initiation of physical force (or the imminent threat of it). Universities are not teaching students objective morality, based upon the primacy of reality and understandable through the power of human reason. Universities are not teaching the superiority of noninterventionist free market capitalist economics. Universities are not teaching the inviolability of private property and self-ownership.

    ———-

    What university is this? The Air Force Academy? Nothwestern? Except in a few cases the Majority of Universities are liberal. At UIC I see a play called “the god that wasn’t there”. Day before yesterday in class I had a techer that spoke with a thick accent that kept slamming his views into our minds;

    1.) That people who are oppossed to immigration are “afraid” (xenophobes) like a niehbor that has just moved in, you are naturally afraid.

    2.) That “the people who have lived here a long time think they run things” (he actually said this).

    3.) The main reasons why we have immigration is because of US wars with Cuba and latin America (Hate America First). That drove the poor people to the US. SO basically its our fault.

    4.) We need to solve our problems by “talking” and understanding we need to be more “diverse” and “multicultural”.

    5.) The Federal goverment has too much control.

    He also is a lawyer (Graduated from Young) and has his LLM from Venezuela.

    The point is that our universities are mostly liberal, hence the sterotype of the uneducated redneck conservative.

    Did you hear Arthur Sultzberger’s commencement speech at Tufts talking about immigrant and gay rights? Never mentioning the real issues that far outweight gay-immigrant issues?

    Did you see what they did to Condelissa Rice at Boston? Did yu hear the usful idiot: “What sh’e done is totally against what we learned at Boston College”.

    I grasp your view point entirely and have decided that it is simply non plausable. A virtual Utopian pipe dream that will never come into fruition.

    I understand your grievence with emminent domain. However, it is the price we pay for living in this world, and despite what you say about the USG, it is far more fore than most.

    You label democracy as an evil. Maybe you and Plato have it right. However, this government structure is a democracy and unless through social upheavel or invasion it will stay that way.

    ———-

    A piece of paper from a government saying you are a citizen does not grant you more rights than someone else. It may mean you might ultimately get the backing of the cops and courts on your side of an argument, but that doesn’t make it right.

    ———-

    Yes it does. I have the right to vote and other additional rights not afforded to illegals. Can you tell me of a developed country that allows for the rights we give noncitezens? Were you can have a child, an anchor baby in the country and presto, you and the babe are instant citizens? Were you can have free education, bilingual at that, and access to a hospital?

    Can you do that in Mexico?

    Can you do that in Canada?

    FYI – In Mexico illegal immigaration is a crime and you ARE NOT ENTITLED TO GO TO SCHOOL OF FREE HOSPITAL.

    The “backing of the courts”, please, do I really have to name the many cases were the “high court” has given rights to these illegals? How do you think they got the “rights” they have now? Do you know that they stopped random DUI checks in Oakland because they were catching to many illegals? The scumbag lawyers that whined to the ninth and tenth circuts? What about..Forget it, it is usless.

    By the way, in CANADA AND MEXICO, having a child within the borders does not make you or the Babe an automatic citizen (interestingly it was a foriegner who came legally to Canada that proposed the Law because he hated those from his country comming here illegally when he had to wait).

    By the way, do you think handing out visas to illegals is fair for those you wait in line? I mean, it seems to me your all about fairness.

    ———-

    “No, those are not “our” hospitals and schools…I don’t own any of them, not even partially. Do you?”

    ———-

    I swear on it all that I knew one of you would respond with “you don’t own it, do you?”.

    See, we pay for it through taxes, so it is ours for our benifit. I mean common’ technically most of us don’t own our homes or cars, the banks do and…well forget it! I made my point! We pay for it through taxes, so we each own a little of it, that’s the point man!

    ———-

    Well, I don’t know how we as a nation can survive without paying taxes. I will say I am for a NATIONAL SALES TAX like Neil Bortz (a libertarian commetator). That is actually a better Idea, and more palatable than ending taxation entirerly. I see were you are comming from. Believe me I have also thought of the Utopia were we do not pay taxes, or do not rely on currency. However, it is just not possible right now or the near future, not for maybe hundreds of years. However, we must take baby steps, and the national sales tax would be the first step.

    I will not apoligize for Vietnam, which we had no business getting into. However, we would have crushed the Vietcong if it weren’t for the war being run from the white house or the Useful Idiots with there anti-protesting hate America, flag burnning fight the man garbage.

    Today we see the same thing. Either we crack the whip, or we pull chalks and get the hell out of there.

  45. Nikoley,

    I’m biased, of course, but do not Kim’s commenter’s strike you as a bunch of pile-on sycophants?

    DuToit’s interested in an echo chamber to reinforce his prejudices. From his site’s policies:

    If your world view is dramatically different (as a whole) from the site owner(s), please start your own blog or comment elsewhere. The purpose of the comments and forums are to discuss (with reasonable hope of consensus) the issues of the day, among people of like minds.

    Translation: “If you ask hard/inconvenient questions, I will ban your ass so I won’t have to think too hard”. Just like Democratic Underground.

  46. Lopez –

    I think you missed out on an even funnier part of Kim’s policies:

    Also, kindly refrain from posting any statement which may be construed as seditious by the Government.

    Ah, the S-word. What would conservatives do without it?

  47. I started to think about just going elsewhere to digest the problem of illegal immigration. But, after reading some of your posts, I was amused and just filled with philosophical delight!

    As with all ideas most have political agendas filled with thoughts of power and for the most outrageous “equality” or “Equal Rights” for all.

    We have espoused that idea in the United States for the life of the country and still it is not in place. That is because of human indifference and unwilliness to treat someone else as an equal.

    As far as illegal immigrants coming over he border and having rights, that is bogus and you who believe it know it! You don’t have any of the rights you are blessed with outside of the United States. Try and enforce them in Russia or China and you will be a wee bit disappointed.

    While I don’t believe in the abuse of illegal immigrants I do believe in the prosecution of illegal aliens and the private employers that contribute to the undermining of our nation.

    The numbers for illegal immigrants has climbed to the point of being untolerable for a free nation to absorb the population and make good use of them in its economy.

    They refuse to learn English which is necessary for communtication with 90% of the American population, they refuse to abide by the laws of this country, by getting drivers licenses, by having insurance, etc. This is unacceptable and should not be tolerated by our government.

    Right now the two major parties are more interested in getting votes than resolving the immigration problem. So until congress gets serious, we can forget about any resolution of the problem.

    Without border security a nation fails to be sovereign. We have been violated and we are subject to many problems down the road because of it!

  48. Try and enforce them in Russia or China and you will be a wee bit disappointed.

    Might makes right?

    While I don’t believe in the abuse of illegal immigrants I do believe in the prosecution of illegal aliens and the private employers that contribute to the undermining of our nation.

    Does that mean you would stand on the border and pull the trigger?

    They refuse to learn English which is necessary for communtication with 90% of the American population

    So what?

    [T]hey refuse to abide by the laws of this country, by getting drivers licenses, by having insurance, etc. This is unacceptable and should not be tolerated by our government.

    Why should they follow unjust laws? What do you mean by “our government”?

    Without border security a nation fails to be sovereign.

    So what?

    Do you know where you’ve come? Do you have any idea what we’re about? We’re not about “free nations” or “our government” or “national sovereignty”. We’re about individuals. Here’s a taste of who we are: The Constitution is void.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *