NY Times Blasts Republicans on Immigration

By Jeralyn, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 09:01:38 PM EST
Tags: 2008, immigration reform (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The New York Times says Republicans are embracing an immigration policy known as "attrition." It's a policy of tightening the screws, in hopes the undocumented will just go away.

That amounts to relentlessly tightening the screws in workplaces and homes until illegal immigrants magically, voluntarily disappear.

Making it work would require far more government intrusion into daily lives, with exponential increases in workplace raids and deportations. It would mean constant ID checks for everyone — citizens, too — with immigration police at the federal, state and local levels. It would mean enlisting bureaucrats and snoops to keep an eye on landlords, renters, laborers, loiterers and everyone who uses government services or gets sick.

Worst of all, it’s weak on law and order. It is a free pass to the violent criminals we urgently need to hunt down and deport. Attrition means waiting until we stumble across bad people hiding in the vast illegal immigrant haystack. Comprehensive reform, by bringing the undocumented out of the shadows, shrinks the haystack.

Going through the list of Republican candidates, one is more reactionary than the next. As to the border fence, the Times calls it a "reject of history." [More...]

The border wall is right from Monsieur Maginot’s playbook — fortifying just one of two international borders even though at least 40 percent of illegal immigrants arrive perfectly legally and then overstay their visas.

But the Times doesn't give Democrats a pass.

Now, attrition is threatening to become a bipartisan disaster. The SAVE Act, an enforcement-only bill, was introduced last year by a Democrat, Representative Heath Shuler of North Carolina, and the notoriously restrictionist Republicans Brian Bilbray and Tom Tancredo. It is gaining sponsors.

The Republican stance on immigration leaves an opening that opponents could drive a truck through. The Democratic candidates have the better position but approach the subject with eggshell timidity. They should stand up for a real debate, and a better country, by forcefully challenging the Republicans on this issue.

If you are looking for the Democratic candidates' plans, you can find them here:

< Mr. and Mrs. Obama Go On Offensive Against Hillary | Death Sentence Commuted After Lawyer Receives Permission to Reveal Misconduct >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

NY Times Blasts Republicans on Immigration | 116 comments (116 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

you'd think (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by Judith on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 09:41:46 PM EST

nobody ever came from anywhere else.

In hopes the undocumented will just go away? (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by Edger on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 09:59:07 PM EST

They're republicans. They've gotta have something to be afraid of.

Just like 35-40 years ago; they were wetting themselves over anyone who looked different.

Tie dye scared the hell out of them...

Young and Muslim and not who you think I am
Isra Bhatty, University of Chicago

My parents immigrated to America in 1983, the year of my birth. Although I wasn't born here, this is the only country I've called my home. That is not to say that I've always felt at home here, though, because I haven't. I don't feel at home when I'm told to be more Pakistani, and I certainly don't feel at home when I'm told to be more American. I remember the kids who decided to call my house the day after 9/11 to cuss out my mother and tell us to go back "home." I suppose they were implying that we're not American enough for their nation. Perhaps they thought, as many do, that there is an inherent conflict in being both Muslim and American.

Give him a break, DA... (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by Edger on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 10:21:02 AM EST

He's like a guy trying to give away counterfeit bills.

The market is getting so tight now that he can't even give away fear anymore, much less sell it or convince anyone to buy into it.

He can't understand why... or that the problem is not outside himself.

Reading more of the typical (5.00 / 1) (#65)
by tnthorpe on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 12:52:15 PM EST

PPJ hysteria I'm moved to bouts of laughter. I keep waiting for him to start frothing about the Amero next.

Meanwhile, immigration reform is being held up by more nativist nonsense, immigrant scapegoating, and other forms of crytofascist race panic.

It's as if the same McCarthyite politics of fear and loathing just changed their aim to south of the border, in defiance of common sense, good policy, and basic humanity. I'm for passing legislation that works and brings people to the table, assists in rewarding the hardworking, deporting the criminal, and making equity, not scapegoating, the centerpiece of immigration policy.

As for fear about the collapse of borders and the cultural collision of Catholic/Hispanic culture with the good ole USA, I'm not in the slightest worried. But then, I live in the real world where the big brown menace from the south isn't what nativist nabobs and fortress America types make it out to be.

tnthorpe laughs??? (1.00 / 0) (#70)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 01:12:15 PM EST

Well, yes. The following is laughable.

Meanwhile, immigration reform

Now what does reforming immigration have to do with illegal aliens?? Are you saying that reform means we will no longer have borders??

Yes, that's it.

BTW - Why don't you join me in calling for reform by the Mexican government? That could solve the problem by itself.

Or do you want to solve the problem???


what's so amusing (5.00 / 2) (#80)
by tnthorpe on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 03:13:47 PM EST

about your posts is that you've supported the very treaties that have turned Mexico's ecomony into America's toilet. You've supported the very immiseration now you claim so piously to bemoan, but I'm not impressed by your crocodile tears, dude.

I've frequently called for the renegotiation of such travesties as NAFTA etc, as you well know, I mean, you do at least glance at the posts before you post, don't you?

As for your question about undocumented labor, I'd say a huge part of the so-called debate is about how to integrate them into the economy in a way that respects the dignity of their labor, offers them some equity vis a vis unscrupulous employers, and deals with serious local issues such as health care, education, local taxes, etc. I welcome folk here who work hard, play fair, and I know that America is stronger for their being here. As for those who come here--MS-13 etc--for other reasons, that's of course a different story. But the vast majority are folk whose only crime is having been born across the border and that frankly isn't a big deal.

As for your fear of disappearing borders, you keep me rolling on the floor dude.


NOT TRUE (1.00 / 0) (#99)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 08:23:22 PM EST

about your posts is that you've supported the very treaties that have turned Mexico's ecomony into America's toilet

Nope. Not true and you know it. You can find nothing anywhere that shows me supporting NAFTA. Why do you make up such things?

But the fact remains that NAFTA exists, and you are not going to get it removed.

So your option is to get the US government to pressure Mexico, and other illegal alien suppliers, to reform themselves and provide a stable society and culture that would allow people to remain at home and not be forced to try over run our borders.

And the way to get better working conditions is to make labor scarce. Now repeat after me and try to remember this one simple fact.

Labor is a commodity. All commodities are priced based on supply. Lower the supply and the price will always rise. Keep flooding the market and the price will always fall.


PPJ (5.00 / 1) (#115)
by tnthorpe on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:09:52 PM EST

you have no shame and no credibility.

Your post is yet another colossal waste of pixels.

Have a day.


You make a claim that is incorrect (1.00 / 1) (#120)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 03:01:32 PM EST

and then when you are challenged you can't produce one smidgen of proof you blather about creditability?

That's the height of arrogance.

You are just another Squeaky clone:

Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM
Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.

But the real humorous thing is trying to understand how you could think that someone who is against illegal aliens flooding the country and destroying jobs would be for NAFTA which everyone knows is destroying jobs.

Have you ever tried to think logically?


: PPJ (5.00 / 1) (#130)
by tnthorpe on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 07:19:02 PM EST

I've learned from sad experience that your posts disdain logic and factuality, while being rather full of intellectual bloat and gassy waffle.
As for the proof you bray for, learn to use google dude.
Have a day.

good googly moogly (5.00 / 0) (#90)
by Jen M on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 04:57:56 PM EST

first the idiotic meaningless question (what does immigration reform have to do with illegal immigrants -- uh, its about illegal immigrants)

then the completely unwarranted assumption.

If you don't like the color green on your car then you must hate all plants.


: Huh? (1.00 / 0) (#98)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 08:11:37 PM EST

There are many legal immigration problems that need reform that have zero to do with illegal aliens.
You seem to have problems assuming things. First it was that illegal aliens can't vote. Now it is that immigration reform must be about illegal aliens.
Where do you get these things??

We now have (1.00 / 0) (#3)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 11:24:39 PM EST

about 12 to 15 million illegal aliens in the country.

How many is enough??

OK (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by squeaky on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 12:12:37 AM EST

How about this. Everyone who came here after, let's say 1730, must go home.

I dare say ppj, see ya.


Better yet (1.00 / 1) (#8)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 08:35:54 AM EST

How about all illegal aliens and their supporters go home?

See ya Squeak. Have a nice trip Nowonmai.

BTW - If I go, who will pay the taxes and support the military to take care of and protect you??


Home is where.... (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by kdog on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 09:02:31 AM EST

you rest you head at the end of the day.

Home is where you carve out your niche in this crazy world.

Any space that isn't already occupied is fair game in my book...we're all just renting space anyway.


Not into (1.00 / 1) (#16)
by Wile ECoyote on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 10:31:16 AM EST

private property, eh?


I said any space..... (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by kdog on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 01:38:14 PM EST

that isn't occupied.

I believe in private property but I also believe in squatters rights. I'm silly that way.


: How would you define squatters rights? (none / 0) (#32)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 08:50:34 AM EST

Vacant one week? Three months? Four years?
What if your family owned land in the middle of no place. It paid taxes on it for years, it was then passed on to you. Even though it was not known to have any particular value, you paid taxes on it for years. Then oil is discovered on it.
Would it be OK for a squatter to claim it??
You speak of freedom quite a bit. Without property rights, and the protection of those rights by the state, there can be no freedom. What will remain is fighting and claims and counter claims.
That is the difference between a country and a land populated by tribes.

kdog (1.00 / 0) (#22)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 09:51:20 PM EST

Try and see how that plays in Mexico.


Hey, don't be so bitter (1.00 / 2) (#23)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 09:54:48 PM EST

you can keep on taking the free ride that you are being given by millions of people who work, pay their taxes and..... are you ready??

Join and support the military.

But aren't you just a little bit embarrassed to never pick up the check??


Jim its your allies that refuse to pick up the (5.00 / 2) (#29)
by Molly Bloom on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 11:48:36 PM EST

check. You know the upper 10% who get all the tax cuts. They are the ones who aren't contributing.


As Col Potter is known to have said... (1.00 / 0) (#33)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 09:13:08 AM EST

that is horse hockey.

The upper 10% pay 70% of the taxes. And "10%" is... like wow... an Adjusted Gross Income of... are you ready for this??? $103,912. You think $103,912 dollars is a huge amount of money????

And how much does the bottom 50% pay???? 3.07%!!!!
Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Looks like they are sure getting hosed! (Sarcasm alert!)

Remember! A family of 4 making around $38,000 pays NO FIT. Uh, how do you reduce zero? Why Earned Income Credit, of course. Payment for not making enough money to pay taxes..

You can believe as I do that we have a fair FIT, but don't try and tell me about how the tax cuts were unfair. That was, is and will be, pure nonsense.


Why is the point of a progressive income tax to (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by Molly Bloom on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 09:53:21 AM EST

be progressive? Once you understand that, you will then understand why tax cuts to the upper 10% increases the tax burden on the rest of us. Why should I pay proportionately more of my disposal income to create a society that benefits them? What's in it for me?


Perhaps you can't read. (none / 0) (#48)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 11:48:46 AM EST

You can believe as I do that we have a fair FIT, but don't try and tell me about how the tax cuts were unfair. That was, is and will be, pure nonsense

The tax cuts were to stimulate the economy. You can't stimulate the economy by cutting zero.


When you shift your argument as you do (5.00 / 1) (#77)
by Molly Bloom on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 01:59:20 PM EST

It just signals to everyone that even you know you lost.


: Shifting?? (1.00 / 1) (#93)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 05:16:08 PM EST

You claimed:

Jim its your allies that refuse to pick up the (5.00 / 2) (#29)
by Molly Bloom on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 10:48:36 PM CST
check. You know the upper 10% who get all the tax cuts. They are the ones who aren't contributing.
I responded with the fact that the upper 10% pay 70% of the taxes.
You claim:

Why is the point of a progressive income tax to (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by Molly Bloom on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 08:53:21 AM CST
be progressive? Once you understand that, you will then understand why tax cuts to the upper 10% increases the tax burden on the rest of us.
I responded:

You can believe as I do that we have a fair FIT, but don't try and tell me about how the tax cuts were unfair. That was, is and will be, pure nonsense.....
....And how much does the bottom 50% pay???? 3.07%!!!!
The tax cuts were to stimulate the economy. You can't stimulate the economy by cutting zero.

Molly, you need to keep up. You are embarrassing yourself.

And in Montgomery county maryland (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by Jen M on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 10:05:36 AM EST

families of four making even 35K are homeless.

Yes, the family if four making 38k are living in the lap of luxury and can afford to pay SO much.

They probably get food stamps. Plenty of soldiers with families do.

of course it is easy for someone who has never wanted a day in his life to go on about how good the poor have it.

And if you tell me you HAVE been poor I will know you have no emotional awareness.

You know, like psychopaths, who have no emotions.

So which are you. Rich and spoiled? Or just damaged?


Poor?? (1.00 / 0) (#49)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 11:54:51 AM EST

No, I was never poor.

I mean just because my parents were sharecroppers doesn't mean I was poor.

We just had no money, owned no land, had no real economic opportunities. Yet we managed to escape all of that make our way into the middle class.

We were rich in the belief that we could do what we decided to do, and we took that richness and went forward.


and therefor you believe (5.00 / 1) (#67)
by Jen M on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 01:06:02 PM EST

that the soldiers with kids, who's wives worked two jobs and who moonlighted themselves, who were still homeless just weren't trying hard like you were.


Got some links?? (1.00 / 0) (#95)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 05:22:01 PM EST

Somehow I don't quite see a family of four netting $35K being homeless unless there is something going on that you aren't telling.


you're right (5.00 / 0) (#96)
by Jen M on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 05:42:51 PM EST

Cost of living.


: That dog doesn't hunt (none / 0) (#111)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 09:45:44 AM EST

Your claim was that we have military families who are homeless despite the wife working two jobs, the husband working a second job and netting $35K a year.
I'd like to see some facts.

who is taking a free ride? (5.00 / 2) (#40)
by Jen M on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 09:53:13 AM EST

links

Prove it.


hehe (1.00 / 0) (#53)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 12:20:12 PM EST

So you want me to prove a negative??

lol


I want you to explain (5.00 / 2) (#57)
by Jen M on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 12:25:39 PM EST

why you called my friend a freeloader.


well mam.it's like this... (1.00 / 1) (#89)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 04:56:29 PM EST

Have you heard the expression, want in one hand????


: in the absence of an explanation (none / 0) (#104)
by Jen M on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:17:41 AM EST

as to why you insult my friend and assume she is a freeloader, I will go on the temporary hypothosis
It takes one to know one.

Really?? (1.00 / 0) (#88)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 04:55:26 PM EST

Got a link??


Well, I congratulate you on your service (1.00 / 1) (#34)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 09:15:43 AM EST

although I see it didn't teach you very much.

I mean, the military is about defending the country. That includes the borders.


BTW (1.00 / 0) (#35)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 09:18:03 AM EST

I did 10 years myself in Naval Aviation..

I surely hope that you were in some other branch...

Now... how about FIT???


too subtle? (5.00 / 2) (#42)
by Jen M on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 09:54:50 AM EST

for you?

too bad.


ten years in naval aviation? (5.00 / 2) (#43)
by Jen M on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 09:59:28 AM EST

I see they didn't teach you much.


Well, they did teach me (1.00 / 0) (#50)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 12:05:39 PM EST

what "mission accomplished" meant.

And they did teach me that our mission was to defend the country.

And the last time I checked the country had borders.

The fact that you want to have open borders, which is to say no borders, speaks for your position on defense and national security, not to mention culture and the future of the country.


: You think (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by Jen M on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 12:28:30 PM EST

want open borders because I want sensible reasonable laws... oh right.
You are so binary.

: You think (5.00 / 1) (#60)
by Jen M on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 12:29:55 PM EST

want open borders because I want sensible reasonable laws... oh right.
You are so binary.j
Its a miracle you lasted ten weeks.

10 years? (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by Edger on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 11:13:17 AM EST

Which brig?


I know you are secretly (1.00 / 0) (#52)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 12:18:40 PM EST

embarrassed because you didn't serve.

But really, it is for the best, for you and the service.


: Projecting again. (none / 0) (#83)
by Edger on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 04:23:15 PM EST

Still...

BTW (none / 0) (#37)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 09:23:13 AM EST

Further down you claim to not understand "Mission Accomplished." I find it difficult to believe anyone has spent time in the military and yet can't understand the meaning of that phrase.

Hmmmmm


Gee, sometimes I read too fast... (1.00 / 0) (#51)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 12:15:46 PM EST

I do hope you kept your receipt from the Army Navy Store for those uniforms....

I mean if you don't know why "mission accomplished" means in the military then you are either:

a. Funning us about your military service.

b. Or funning us about not understand what "Mission Accomplished meant.

Which is it??


: hehe (1.00 / 0) (#87)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 04:54:40 PM EST

Well, anyway, keep your receipt in case they don't fit.

I would guess (1.00 / 0) (#5)
by Wile ECoyote on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:48:09 AM EST

the Democratic candidates wish the illegals would go away also. Less to pander to / nuance about / change stance on, just like the evil republicans.

Since undocumented aliens don't vote (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by Molly Bloom on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 08:28:00 AM EST

Democrats can hardly be accused of pandering to them. But don't let this get in the way of your rant.


Wrong (1.00 / 0) (#9)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 08:42:49 AM EST

If an election can turn on a sentence, this could be the one: "You don't need papers for voting."
On Thursday night, Francine Busby, the Democratic candidate for the 50th Congressional District, was speaking before a largely Latino crowd in Escondido when she uttered those words. She said yesterday she simply misspoke.

San Diego Union Tribune 6/3/2006


So all "largely Latino crowds" (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by Molly Bloom on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 09:49:43 AM EST

are mainly undocumented aliens Jim? And any politician speaking to large crowds of Latinos are pandering to undocumented aliens? Fear of Brown?

Have you have imagined yourself in a cheesy WWII film (or even a non-cheesy one) in a dark uniform demanding "Paperien!"?


Well, if not, were did the (1.00 / 1) (#24)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 09:58:56 PM EST

statement come from?? Why bring the subject up? Something was on her mind.....

As for uniforms mine was dress blues in the winter and dress whites in the summer. That means that since I served, something you obviously didn't have the time for. So I don't have to try and attack someone's service.


That one went over your head didn't it. Oh well. (5.00 / 2) (#28)
by Molly Bloom on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 11:46:32 PM EST

No Molly (1.00 / 1) (#36)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 09:20:06 AM EST

I caught it. It's just that I often ignore BS comments from the cheap seats.

Especially from people who use "cheesy" in conjunction with WWII.


There were not cheesy WWII Movies? (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by Molly Bloom on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 09:47:29 AM EST

Your off your game, your spin has been pathetic these last two posts.


Name me one (1.00 / 0) (#54)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 12:21:09 PM EST

After all, it is your claim.


Here, let me help you with your (1.00 / 0) (#62)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 12:35:10 PM EST

search. Here is a definition of "cheesy."

cheesy cheese lame corny gay crappy stupid tacky cheap bad cheesey cliche dumb fag disgusting loser retarded boring classic cheese dork emo hilarious ...
www.urbandictionary.

I await your list.


: Jim this is a silly game (5.00 / 1) (#76)
by Molly Bloom on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 01:57:08 PM EST

you play and now you are just trying to distract. This is way off your original point. I am not going to debate merits of WWII movies like Midway with you. Which is precisely where you would go next. Go to IMD and debate the merits of your favorite WWII films there.
I can only assume you concede you were wrong in your original post and are just too embarrassed to admit it.

You make inane, repetitive comments (5.00 / 2) (#45)
by Jen M on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 10:07:10 AM EST

from courtside?


The thing about facts (none / 0) (#55)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 12:21:41 PM EST

is they don't change.


like (5.00 / 0) (#61)
by Jen M on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 12:33:16 PM EST

so state some for once.

You state a fact then you state one possible interperetation as if it were the only one possible.

Then you make unreasonable generalizations about whoever disagrees with YOUR 1 of 10 possible interpretations.

Sloppy.


And your point is??? (1.00 / 0) (#66)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 01:02:39 PM EST

I remind you that the context was a Military Leader speaking to a group of military men and women returning from completing a lengthy task.

mission
noun
1. an organization of missionaries in a foreign land sent to carry on religious work
2. an operation that is assigned by a higher headquarters; "the planes were on a bombing mission"

Your excuses are legend. My facts are facts.


my point is (5.00 / 1) (#69)
by Jen M on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 01:08:55 PM EST

You state a fact then you state one possible interpretation as if it were the only one possible.

There comes a time (1.00 / 0) (#72)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 01:16:43 PM EST

in which words must mean something. Otherwise there is no basis for any kind of discussion and/or contract.

You use wishy washy excuses to try and attack Bush and the military.

Buy and use a dictionary.


good (5.00 / 1) (#75)
by Jen M on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 01:43:53 PM EST

glad you know it.

Stop misusing words, you only do it to defend injustice, destruction of rights and attack those who would protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.


: sigh...... (1.00 / 0) (#79)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 03:12:10 PM EST

Then it's true.
You can't use a dictionary.

The Earth Is Still Flat? (5.00 / 0) (#73)
by squeaky on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 01:21:10 PM EST

Hahhahahhaha


A silly answer (none / 0) (#81)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 03:15:28 PM EST

which is about your speed.

But I'll treat you nicely and remind you that the earth was never flat.

Now, go find something intelligent to say.


Silly PPJ (5.00 / 0) (#82)
by squeaky on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 03:57:49 PM EST

The thing about facts (none / 0) (#55)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 12:21:41 PM EST
is they don't change.

Your facts are held by a few wingnuts and are generally false facts, no matter how many times you repeat them. Many many more held on to the false fact that the world was flat. Galileo almost died because of it. You most certainly would have been among them screaming Fact Fact off with the heathen Galileo's head.

People like you claim things to be true facts all the time, when you are shown to be wrong you move the goal posts, change the subject, or stop chattering.


Squeak, you wouldn't know a fact (1.00 / 0) (#91)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 05:02:33 PM EST

if it bit you on the butt.

Your facts are held by a few wingnuts and are generally false facts

False facts??

That's truly funny. Especially from a guy who supported the "fake but accurate" memo that the Left tried to use to throw a Presidential Election.

Tell us again:

by squeaky on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 09:58:35 PM EST
I have no problem with alleging that Rove's grandparents were Nazi's. Even if they were not, he uses Goebbels' propaganda techniques as a bible and may as well be a born and bred Nazi

And you wanna talk about facts?

hehehehe


: Ah Yes (5.00 / 0) (#97)
by squeaky on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 05:49:22 PM EST

The false fact that you post when you have lost.
BTW-Try as much as you want, you will always be a midget compared to Rove, even if you have the same grandaddy.

Oh really? Are you sure?? (1.00 / 0) (#25)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 10:11:46 PM EST

Illegal aliens can't vote

That's funny. Of course they can vote. The correct statement is that it is illegal for them to vote.

And she claimed to have misspoke AFTER the proverbial dark brown substance hit the fan.

But someone taped it and a recording began circulating yesterday.

As for "Mission Accomplished"... you again display your astonishing lack of knowledge about anything military so I understand that you don't know that:

mission
noun
1. an organization of missionaries in a foreign land sent to carry on religious work
2. an operation that is assigned by a higher headquarters; "the planes were on a bombing mission"
3. a special assignment that is given to a person or group; "a confidential mission to London"; "his charge was deliver a message"

The ship was returning from a successful mission. In othe words, "Mission Accomplished!"

I would give you a link, but surely you can use a dictionary.....


: Mission Accomplished (5.00 / 1) (#114)
by jondee on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 11:54:09 AM EST

was refering to a single successful ocean voyage; nothing else. You heard it here first folks. LOL!
Tragically, this level of terminally moronic b.s seems to travel right up the line from the obedient pissants like Jim, to Rush and Sean and into the mouths of people like the current Press Secretary.
Like the constituents of a slimemold, their one strength lies in always acting in concert.

Neither do (none / 0) (#13)
by Wile ECoyote on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 10:11:29 AM EST

dead people.

"no woman is illegal" Thats not pandering?


Additionally, (none / 0) (#14)
by Wile ECoyote on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 10:12:54 AM EST

a rather mild mannered rant. Didn't call anyone names or make fun of a someones name or looks. Can't be a progressive rant. Too tame.


: Before you get on your high horse (5.00 / 2) (#17)
by Molly Bloom on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 11:08:39 AM EST

about tone you might check out the Free Republic dot com. I believe that is the conservative website of record.

Well, can you or can't you use (1.00 / 0) (#56)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 12:25:26 PM EST

a dictionary??

Obviously you struggle with the concept, which is why I quoted the definition for you.

As to my rank, I have never stated anything except that I served 10 years in Naval Aviation.

That's all I will ever say.

BTW - They don't have Colonel's in Naval Aviation.

Ah, another army (1.00 / 0) (#68)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 01:06:49 PM EST

veteran. They seem to be popping out of the woodwork around here.

And obviously you need a dictionary.

Those suffering from BDS from day one seized upon this to attack him and the military.

That's Navy talk.

Oddly enough (5.00 / 1) (#74)
by Jen M on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 01:40:49 PM EST

I find the navy guys I work for a lot more straightforward. Enlisted and officers both.

But then I only work with the navy a few months a year.


: Well, good for you, I guess. (1.00 / 0) (#78)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 03:10:14 PM EST

You could have saved yourself some time (none / 0) (#18)
by LonewackoDotCom on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 01:13:25 PM EST

Here's my discussion of the New York Times editorial.

And, here's your quiz:

Isn't it clear that the NYT is trying to mislead?
Who profits from such misleading editorials?

Can you get nothing straight?? (none / 0) (#26)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 10:24:12 PM EST

Since undocumented aliens don't vote (5.00 / 4) (#7)
by Molly Bloom on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:28:00 AM CST
Democrats can hardly be accused of pandering to them.

Leaving aside that illegal aliens can vote, despite what Molly claims, it is she who set the numbers..

I merely provide the statement of one Democrat who certainly appeared to be encouraging them to.

Let's look at what she said:

"You don't need papers for voting."

But someone taped it and a recording began circulating yesterday. After she made that statement at the meeting, Busby immediately said: "You don't need to be a registered voter to help (the campaign)."
She said that subsequent statement was to clarify what she meant.

First she says you don't need papers for voting.

Then she says you don't need to be a registered voter to help...

That sounds like reinforcement to me..

hehe

'Papers' Are Not Needed (5.00 / 2) (#27)
by squeaky on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 11:26:49 PM EST

To vote. Once you are a registered voter, no papers are needed. The implication is that bands of anti mexican white guys will not be able to stop you from voting.

In the context of vicious anti-mexican bigotry these are powerful words. The ugly history of voters getting lynched and harassed by racist bigots is nothing new.

At the polls.

Republican ''ballot integrity'' programs to intimidate black voters have long been familiar in the white south. Republican agents, sometimes aided by local police, warned blacks seeking to vote that even innocent technical errors in their registration information, such as wrong addresses, could subject them to arrest. Blacks seeking to vote were often photographed, with the implication that they might be arrested later.
Thirty-five years after Congress passed the Voting Rights Act, it was reasonable to assume that these relics of America's racist past were now just something for the history books. But electoral racism is alive and well in Florida.

And it is also true that you do not have to be a citizen to help the campaign.


hehe (1.00 / 1) (#38)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 09:28:33 AM EST

Here she is in San Diego, talking to a mostly Latino group and she uses the word "papers."

And you want to claim she wasn't referring to citizenship?? hehehe. Even for you squeak, that's dumb.

And the rest of your rant is pure fantasy. All of that was investigated and investigated nothing was found. Get out of NY and see the rest of the world.


Your Anti-Immigration Rant (5.00 / 0) (#71)
by squeaky on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 01:14:24 PM EST

Is now full force bigotry against all Latinos now?

That was exactly my point. People like you have threatened non-whites around voting for decades. Need a history lesson?

It is clear that she was assuring them that as Americans they do not show there papers at the voting booth. Your tired old saw of taking a quote that can be made ambiguous by recontextualizing it and repeating it ad infinitum, is poor. We get it as that is your most overused trick.

Try it on grade schoolers, they will laugh at you too.


You are so dull and so predictable.. (1.00 / 1) (#106)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 09:00:13 AM EST

You think it is bigotry to note what a politician has said??

hehe and lol and maybe a hahahaha

Your defense is nothing more than excusing her actions.


You are also so uneducated about the (1.00 / 1) (#108)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 09:30:57 AM EST

modern south.

So again. You linked to an article that is almost 8 years old. Show us some proof that your claims are factual.

There have been many articles, if we can call them that, on the web, but none that I have seen show that the various complaints about supposed problems, but no proof that the problems were directed at minorities. A polling place closing early affects everyone. A ineffective action to remove felons from the voter rolls affects every felon. Clogged telephone lines affect everyone. Poorly designed ballots affect everyone. Poll workers uninformed about voting laws affect everyone.


: Bigotry? (none / 0) (#127)
by squeaky on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 05:49:39 PM EST

You think it is bigotry to note what a politician has said??
No but it clearly is bigotry on your part to assume that, because a group of people were mostly Latinos, they were not US citizens.
And to top it off it is absurd and reprehensible to twist Congresswoman Busby's words to mean that she was urging non citizens to commit voter fraud.

Still can't find anyone here (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by Edger on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 01:35:14 AM EST

stupid enough to think you make any sense, ppj? You're not stupid enough to think you ever will, are you?


As Gump (1.00 / 0) (#59)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 12:29:51 PM EST

said, "Stupid is as stupid does."

And you demonstrate that so well.

Did you notice that the link went to an article from 2000??

That's 7 years ago. Surely in that time, if it was factual, Squeaky could have found some credible proof of his claims.

But he couldn't, so he went for the smear. But then that is SOP. (That's Standard Operating Procedure, Jen.)

No one needs to smear you, ppj. (none / 0) (#100)
by Edger on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:05:09 AM EST

There's nothing left of you but a smear...


True (5.00 / 1) (#101)
by squeaky on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:25:04 AM EST

One has to have a good reputation to begin with, in order to be smeared.


Yep... (none / 0) (#102)
by Edger on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:46:19 AM EST

Part of his delusion. Maybe the biggest part...


Both of you guys have defined (1.00 / 1) (#105)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:55:01 AM EST

yourself by what you have written.

You can't run and you can't hide.

Enjoy the reminders.


Hiding? Who's hiding? (none / 0) (#107)
by Edger on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 09:13:37 AM EST

Sticking with your delusion to the bitter end, huh?


hehe (1.00 / 1) (#110)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 09:42:32 AM EST

Your continued attacks show how much you regret your comments.


: Yep. (none / 0) (#112)
by Edger on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 09:46:58 AM EST

Sticking with your delusion to the bitter end.

more baseless babble (none / 0) (#117)
by tnthorpe on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:19:51 PM EST

Hey where's the proof of your baseless accusations? You're just pushing the rightwing fraud about voter fraud, because it's a tried and true voter suppression tactic. A congressional candidate's misstatement isn't proof of anything other than fatigue necessarily.

Shame PPJ, you're just getting too easy.


: hehe (1.00 / 1) (#121)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 03:06:41 PM EST

Hey where's the proof of your baseless accusations?

Unlike you I provide proof. In this case it was to an article published in the San Diego Union Tribune, not some Left Wing blog repeating an Internet rumor.
The article makes a compelling case. The reader can draw their conclusions.
That is your problem with it.

UNDOCUMENTED WILL GO AWAY (none / 0) (#63)
by gtalkpolitics1 on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 12:37:50 PM EST

I can not believe any American Citizen that says it's OK to brake the laws of this land, I will not vote for any Democrate this years, All three Obama, Hillary, and Edwards.Are not in touch with the Base of Americans that's saying it's ok to enter this country illegally and we will support you. The only candidate I will support is the one that truly oppose any form of Amesity.

Jen M wrote... (none / 0) (#109)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 09:37:28 AM EST

Show me where

You've got me. It was your running mates. It is so hard to tell you folks apart. Could I get you to wear numbered jersey's???

As for reform, what you "know" has no relationship to what you "wrote." If you now want to change your claim to say that some reform would affect illegal aliens, be my guest. But don't expect me to read your mind.

you can say (none / 0) (#113)
by Jen M on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 11:33:29 AM EST

a rock will fall if you drop it out the window

dont expect me to read your mind


Look. This is what you wrote. (none / 0) (#119)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 02:50:37 PM EST

You spoke only of illegal aliens. Quit whining.


: was that last word enough for you (5.00 / 1) (#123)
by Jen M on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:45:50 PM EST

do you want one more, whiner?

Outsourcing tens of thousands (none / 0) (#116)
by jondee on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:12:56 PM EST

of jobs dosnt bother them; tens of billions in investment dollars going to 'em commonists dont bother em. Whats important is protecting "our borders", (and our sisters and daughters) from those swarthy interlopers before they choke out the pure, white flowah of our cultcha 'n heritige, i.e., "Balkanize" us.

josdee.... Have you ever figured out (none / 0) (#118)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 02:47:40 PM EST

that you can be against two things at the same time?

Trust me. It is perfectly possible to be against out sourcing and illegal aliens flooding the country.

In fact, since both cost LEGAL US workers jobs, they go hand in globe.


Ya, you're so (5.00 / 1) (#122)
by jondee on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:35:36 PM EST

"against" outsourcing that I've never seen you broach the topic in 5+ years.

Far easier on the ole braincells (such as they are) to just parrot whatever the Fox/Powerline marching orders of the week are.

Funny, after 200 years of Italian, Scandinavian, Irish, Arab, Jewish etc etc immigration, we've somehow managed not to be "Balkanized" and now that some of the dusky ones, who probobly wont put their vote in for Planet Wingnut are becoming too numerous for your taste, you're suddenly oh-so-concerned.


Then there's the issues (5.00 / 1) (#126)
by jondee on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:57:24 PM EST

of port security, security at chemical plants etc all seeming non-issues at the secure our borders front. Let the self correcting invisible hand of the market take care of it; but, "lets secure our borders".

At planet wingnut, if reality cant be condensed to a bumpersticker, it dosnt exist.


: If you want me to list my security concerns re (none / 0) (#129)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 06:01:42 PM EST

your list, then consider this.
To attack an airport, etc., the terrorist must first enter the country.
Write that down and try to remember it.

I also haven't brought up cancer (none / 0) (#128)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 05:59:36 PM EST

but you can be sure that I am against.

Anyway, your attack is just another Leftie stunt demanding that someone prove a negative.

As for all the groups you mentioned..

They weren't illegals
They learned the language

We also didn't have TV, Radio, and the Internet to help keep them tied to the home country.


: A Left stunt (none / 0) (#131)
by jondee on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 02:47:18 PM EST

which proves once again that you're incapable of independent thought.
No wonder you're so concerned about the Fairness Doctrine; it would spell the end of your adult education.