Arizona Talk Show Callers

51 posts / 0 new

Hey Thom,

I'm a long-time fan! Don't let yourself get played by the Arizona callers today. :-) They try to act sensible (for the moment) to move you and your show to the right, bit by bit. The truth is that the AZ bill is steeped in a nativist impulse for ethnic cleansing. Who can you trust? Start with the unions, the peace-and-justice-minded clergy, and people you've always trusted on other human and civil rights issues.

Thanks so much, DBrown

dcafe
Joined:
Apr. 23, 2010 10:31 am

Comments

Quote dcafe:

Hey Thom,

I'm a long-time fan! Don't let yourself get played by the Arizona callers today. :-) They try to act sensible (for the moment) to move you and your show to the right, bit by bit. The truth is that the AZ bill is steeped in a nativist impulse for ethnic cleansing. Who can you trust? Start with the unions, the peace-and-justice-minded clergy, and people you've always trusted on other human and civil rights issues.

Thanks so much, DBrown

This issue has brought on a torrent of hysterical presumption that the Arizona bill will cause the police to eagerly begin harrassing everyone who looks Mexican, which simply isn't true. So far I haven't heard a single cop interviewed on this topic.

The fact is this measure is the consequence of the federal government's failure to enforce existing immigration laws. A much better alternative to this expedient bill would be the biometric ID card requirement and accompanying penalties for hiring someone who does not possess such proof of citizenship.

Before criticizing the citizens of Arizona and their representatives for taking steps to protect them, consider the effect that a half-million illegals has had on the health care situation in that state. Consider the rate of violent and larcenous crime committed against citizens of Arizona (and all border states) by criminal Mexican aliens.

What this bill will do (if passed) is drive the illegals out of Arizona and into neighboring states, which will have the choice of accepting the burden or passing similar legislation, which will have the eventual effect of forcing the federal government to start enforcing the immigration laws. The Arizona legislation is the long way around but in the end it will get the job done by forcing the fed to act.

MikeK's picture
MikeK
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

mike K said

"

This issue has brought on a torrent of hysterical presumption that the Arizona bill will cause the police to eagerly begin harassing everyone who looks Mexican, which simply isn't true. So far I haven't heard a single cop interviewed on this topic."

No.

The issue is that a great number of people will give up their own basic right to travel freely in their own country in order to persecute a racially motivated agenda.

Inocent untill proven guilty?

spankycrissy's picture
spankycrissy
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

The Constitution does not limit itself to one definition of “invasion” in the three times it mentions INVASION, otherwise the Constitution would say armed or military invasion. No my progressive seditionist foes, the Constitution encompasses all the definitions of invasion to protect the American People against the different types of invasion and not limit itself to just one definition, you all have failed to recognize this because of your seditious ways.

Article 1 Section 8 - Powers of Congress
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Section 9 - Limits on Congress
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Section 4 - Republican government
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

The Mexican Government encourages its people to encroach and violate our national sovereignty by giving out maps to our hospitals for their people to come here to get FREE medical attention.

The Mexican Army has encroached on our border over 500 times in the last two years, protecting various drug cartel shipments.

Over 7,000 Americans have died at the hand of illegal aliens since 9/11; hundreds have been kidnapped for ransom.

Americans living on the border with Mexico have been terrorized by illegal aliens on a daily biases.

This is just not criminal activities conducted by a rogue regime in Mexico City; no this is “Invasion” of our National Sovereignty as defined by our Constitution which our Government should be enforcing if it wasn’t a “rogue regime” itself.

The Socialist Government of Obama cares more about protecting illegal aliens (future democrat voters) than the good citizens of the United States of America.

DugFmJamul's picture
DugFmJamul
Joined:
Apr. 25, 2010 11:27 pm

For those that like a Big Brother like government you should all applaud this bill.

To think...all of those people at the Tea Party rallies were right. Government is getting more intrusive and powerful.

I am sure they are against this bill.

danieladamsmith's picture
danieladamsmith
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Over 7000 Americans have died at the hands of illegal immigrants since 9/11? (Interesting date choice there. I don't see the connection between that particular terrorism attack and illegal immigration from Mexico.)

Can you please provide sources for you statistics. I found data on crime rates from 1960-2008, and according to that there were 3427 homicides from 2001 to 2008. You're saying there has been over 3500 additional murders just in the past two years and every single one of them was committed by an illegal immigrant? Or are you perhaps saying that you have no idea what the actual facts are and you're just parroting numbers you probably got from Fox News?

And you know what would reduce drug violence? Stopping our war on drugs. Just like Prohibition fueled the growth and power of gangs in the U.S., the War on Drugs is fueling the drug cartels in Mexico. Not to mention, the U.S. is supplying the Mexican drug cartels with their weaponry.

Obama cares more about supporting illegals that the good citizens of the United States, because the illegals are future democratic voters? Illegal aliens can't vote...so you're suggesting these immigrants will become citizens...but then, they would be the good citizens that aren't being protected. My head is running in circles. That makes no sense at all. Sounds like you think a person born in Mexico just can't be a good U.S. citizen, is that it?

reed9's picture
reed9
Joined:
Apr. 8, 2010 11:26 am
Quote reed9:llegal aliens can't vote...so you're suggesting these immigrants will become citizens...but then, they would be the good citizens that aren't being protected. My head is running in circles. That makes no sense at all. Sounds like you think a person born in Mexico just can't be a good U.S. citizen, is that it?

Of course illegals can vote, all they need is a copy of their utility bill to register to vote and vote by absentee ballot without the State every validating their citizenship status, it's done all the time. How do you think Al Franken won the election, by the citizen vote only...NOT!

In no way, shape or form I'm I suggesting illegal aliens should ever be granted citizenship status or given any kind of amnesty..ever!

One can't be a "good citizen" by breaking our immigration laws and performing identity thief and then ask for "amnesty".

Progressives need to give the illegal voting rights to secure their artificial advantage at the voting booth and to maintain the socialist state of Obama.

DugFmJamul's picture
DugFmJamul
Joined:
Apr. 25, 2010 11:27 pm

My sister-in-law was/is Canadian (she now has duel citizenship). Before that she had a very hard time getting back into the US. She came here on a work visa (nurse). Everytime she went back to Canada it took nearly an act of congress to get back in. Back from a trip to Cancun , My wife and I and my brother ,her husband had no troulble going through customs at DFW. They took her into an office and grilled her gave her a hard time and when she finally got irrated, they told her if she didn't like what they were doing , why didn't she just go back to Canada. She was here legally and married to my brother!!! Why should every Tomas, Ricardo and Jeraldo get a free pass? They should follow the rules and we need to get some common sense when it commes to our borders but then when has anything our government was responsible for ever contained an ounce of commonsense?

bufffalo1's picture
bufffalo1
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:49 am
Quote DugFmJamul: Progressives need to give the illegal voting rights to secure their artificial advantage at the voting booth and to maintain the socialist state of Obama.

Artificial advantage at the voting booth? Really? I'm still waiting for you to rebut the fact that the Right goes out of there way to disenfranchise eligible voters. Why doesn't that concern you as much as illegal immigrants possibly voting?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/20/uselections2008.civilliberties

reed9's picture
reed9
Joined:
Apr. 8, 2010 11:26 am

What about the Black Panthers blocking votinf places in2009? Oh maybe they were helping old folks with their clubs.

bufffalo1's picture
bufffalo1
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:49 am
Quote bufffalo1:

My sister-in-law was/is Canadian (she now has duel citizenship). Before that she had a very hard time getting back into the US. She came here on a work visa (nurse). Everytime she went back to Canada it took nearly an act of congress to get back in. Back from a trip to Cancun , My wife and I and my brother ,her husband had no troulble going through customs at DFW. They took her into an office and grilled her gave her a hard time and when she finally got irrated, they told her if she didn't like what they were doing , why didn't she just go back to Canada. She was here legally and married to my brother!!! Why should every Tomas, Ricardo and Jeraldo get a free pass? They should follow the rules and we need to get some common sense when it commes to our borders but then when has anything our government was responsible for ever contained an ounce of commonsense?

Your post contains too much "Common Sense" for the progressive seditionist mind to comprehend, any more "Common Sense" from the likes of you and their heads might explode...so...please be my guest and continue.

I'm waiting for the fireworks to begin!

DugFmJamul's picture
DugFmJamul
Joined:
Apr. 25, 2010 11:27 pm
Quote reed9:

Quote DugFmJamul: Progressives need to give the illegal voting rights to secure their artificial advantage at the voting booth and to maintain the socialist state of Obama.

Artificial advantage at the voting booth? Really? I'm still waiting for you to rebut the fact that the Right goes out of there way to disenfranchise eligible voters. Why doesn't that concern you as much as illegal immigrants possibly voting?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/20/uselections2008.civilliberties

Now you're showing your true "Progressive Colors", I'm against all types of voter fraud regardless of political party.

Citizenship is nonpartisan and my legitimate vote should not be cancel out by an illegal illegitimate vote, this shouldn't be too hard to understand unless you are a partisan hack who wants an advantage at the voting booth for your party!

DugFmJamul's picture
DugFmJamul
Joined:
Apr. 25, 2010 11:27 pm
Quote bufffalo1:What about the Black Panthers blocking votinf places in2009? Oh maybe they were helping old folks with their clubs.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/26/panthers-deem-flap-over-voting-error/comments/

Does this mean the KKK can select a few voting places to intimidate colored voters. Obama's justice dept showed tremendous predjudice.

bufffalo1's picture
bufffalo1
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:49 am

If you are really against the ethnic cleansing of the voters lists and not just harping on the myth of voter as opposed to election fraud, we could focus on where the problem really exists instead of where it is in your mind, Dug.

People whose votes were stolen by machines or who were bumped off lists by corrupt processes also resent the loss of their votes. There are thousands of them compared to the instances of voter fraud, and many of the latter are honest mistakes cause by the confusion in the registration because of the purges.

We are wasting a lot of time and money harassing innocent legal aliens and citizens in a futile "acting out" reaction to frustration. If the illegal employers are too big to fight politically, I can understand being frustrated, but I cannot accept the morality of beating up on the slaves for slavery or punishing those who are caught in the consequences of our stupid public policies, the Drug War and NAFTA. Beat up on the Brown People. No Way. Where is the personal responsibility for the people with actual voting power to do something effective and moral?

Just because White People are feeling the pain does not mean that they get to transfer it to those down the ladder of power. Blaming the "illegals" for the crimes of the powerful is cowardly and cruel. Take on the power if you want respect.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote reed9:

[...]Can you please provide sources for you statistics. I found data on crime rates from 1960-2008, and according to that there were 3427 homicides from 2001 to 2008. You're saying there has been over 3500 additional murders just in the past two years and every single one of them was committed by an illegal immigrant? Or are you perhaps saying that you have no idea what the actual facts are and you're just parroting numbers you probably got from Fox News?

[...]

Presuming that the 7,000 homicides figure is wrong and that it is in fact propaganda derived from the likes of Fox News, and presuming there was only one homicide perpetrated by an illegal Mexican immigrant, that is one too many and there is absolutely no sensible reason why the U.S. should tolerate any illegal incursion across its border.

Like most Americans, I have no problem with Mexican people. I like them. Those whom I have had personal contact with are friendly, likeable, honest, moral and hard-working. But if our government had performed its obligation to properly control the entry and presence of migrant workers and citizenship applicants this controversy would not exist. And for reasons which are traceable to corporate influence the situation with illegals has gotten out of hand, particularly in the border states, which is why this expedient law needs to be enacted and enforced. Is the only way to induce the federal government to turn its back on its corporate sponsors and start enforcing the existing immigration laws.

MikeK's picture
MikeK
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote DugFmJamul: Now you're showing your true "Progressive Colors", I'm against all types of voter fraud regardless of political party. Citizenship is nonpartisan and my legitimate vote should not be cancel out by an illegal illegitimate vote, this shouldn't be too hard to understand unless you are a partisan hack who wants an advantage at the voting booth for your party!

*sigh* I'm not advocating for voter fraud. I'm saying that the histrionic attack on illegal voters to the exclusion of all the other more substantial problems out there is bizarre and seems to have little to do with stopping voter fraud or enfranchising legitimate voters, and everything to do with being afraid of some vague "other".

Given the severity (or lack thereof) of illegal immigrants voting, it seems to me like we're spending countless hours and dollars pursuing a guy stealing a candy bar, while there's a couple other fellows driving away in a stolen Ferrari, which we're completely ignoring. It's not that stealing a candy bar is ok, but that it pales in comparison with the far greater crimes happening all around us. If you're concerned with other acts of voter disenfranchisement happening, why don't you or any of your conservative friends ever bring it up? Why do you focus exclusively on one small area?

And of course I'm showing my "Progressive Colors". I'm a progressive. I'm also an atheist and secular humanist, if you want to call me names regarding that too. I am not, however, a member of the Democratic Party, nor am I a big fan of President Obama. Despite your claims that he's some radical socialist, the fact of the matter is he's a disappointing moderate and appears to be a bit of a corporatist. I opposed the health care bill not because I think it's socialism, but because it's essentially a Republican bill - very similar to the one Mitt Romney passed in Massachusetts, and as such doesn't go nearly far enough in helping people and goes to far in helping corporations.

I also hold some libertarian ideas. I oppose a "nanny" state, I think we go too far sometimes in trying to protect people from themselves. I support legalizing marijuana and prostitution. I very much want to get the government out of my daily life in many many areas, primarily in areas of my personal life.

But I do want the government in my life when it comes to things like public transportation, libraries, parks and open spaces, protecting consumers against corporate greed and lies, equally providing education and opportunity for success to all citizens, and so on.

reed9's picture
reed9
Joined:
Apr. 8, 2010 11:26 am

It appears Dug is the latest victim of the Great Purge.

rbs's picture
rbs
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Now that I think about it, I think I may be one of the last few remaining con-jobs here in Thomland. Of course, I'm not anticipating that I'll be purged, but it got me thinking. If I were to be banned, where else could I go? I've gotten hooked on observing progressives in their native habitat.

Do any of you Thomlanders participate in other forums or BBSes that you could recommend? I'm thinking at this point it might be prudent and interesting to branch out. Also, I still am having difficulties adjusting to the new software here, so I've got my eyes out for a board with features like viewing all unread, tracking threads I participate in, tracking posts from other users, etc.

How about it guys, any other progressive worlds out there for me to explore?

rbs's picture
rbs
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
It appears Dug is the latest victim of the Great Purge.
Really? That kinda pisses me off. I don't want anybody banned. I couldn't care less about ad hominum attacks. I want it all up front and out in the open so long as it doesn't cause the message board to become dysfunctional. Dug did not do that. I found him very entertaining.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

No purge needed - challenge their facts and the con-jobs change the subject, spout fear-based rhetoric or just plain disappear. It is patently obvious hypocrisy that the con-jobs cry blog purge in their ad hominem attacks to defend pass laws that require arrest of anyone who doesn't carry their birth certificate!

LeMoyne's picture
LeMoyne
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote spankycrissy:[...]

The issue is that a great number of people will give up their own basic right to travel freely in their own country in order to persecute a racially motivated agenda.

[...]

"Racially motivated agenda?"

What race do Mexicans belong to?

MikeK's picture
MikeK
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote rbs:

Now that I think about it, I think I may be one of the last few remaining con-jobs here in Thomland. Of course, I'm not anticipating that I'll be purged, but it got me thinking. If I were to be banned, where else could I go? I've gotten hooked on observing progressives in their native habitat.

Do any of you Thomlanders participate in other forums or BBSes that you could recommend? I'm thinking at this point it might be prudent and interesting to branch out. Also, I still am having difficulties adjusting to the new software here, so I've got my eyes out for a board with features like viewing all unread, tracking threads I participate in, tracking posts from other users, etc.

How about it guys, any other progressive worlds out there for me to explore?

I'm all for having conservatives on the boards, so stick around. Otherwise we're in danger of becoming too insular. I don't get the opportunity to hear the opposing side often enough and I, at least, feel a need to hear what others think. Get more conservatives on the boards. That said, it's only interesting if it isn't pure hyperbole or personal attacks. I wouldn't say Dug crossed that line, personally, though he was less than thought provoking in some of his more irrational moments.

reed9's picture
reed9
Joined:
Apr. 8, 2010 11:26 am

DugFmJamul on the third post in this thread:

The Constitution does not limit itself to one definition of “invasion” in the three times it mentions INVASION...

DugFmJamul goes on to list three areas in the Constitution (Article 1 Section 8, Section 9, and Section 4) where it is Congress' or 'The United States' role to play in 'foreign invasions'. Well, for those 'Constitutional fundamentalists', it appears to be quite clear who is to take charge when it comes to 'foreign invasions' in that Constitution--the Federal government. Not the state governments. What do you 'Constitutional fundamentalists' say in this instance where a state such as Arizona is taking over that role? Is that 'un-Constitutional'?....smiley face here.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote reed9:[...]

I'm all for having conservatives on the boards, so stick around. Otherwise we're in danger of becoming too insular. I don't get the opportunity to hear the opposing side often enough and I, at least, feel a need to hear what others think.

[...]

Thank you, Reed9!

I'm not a Conservative, nor am I a Liberal. I was a registered Republican dating back to Barry Goldwater but I re-registered as a Democrat five years ago -- only because there is no Independent Party in New Jersey and I wish to vote in primaries.

I am pro-Choice, pro-gun, I voted for Obama and I support Arizona's new law because I believe it's a positive step toward forcing the federal government to enforce the existing immigration laws and start penalizing those who hire undocumented workers.

Regards.

MikeK's picture
MikeK
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Art:
It appears Dug is the latest victim of the Great Purge.
Really? That kinda pisses me off. I don't want anybody banned. I couldn't care less about ad hominum attacks. I want it all up front and out in the open so long as it doesn't cause the message board to become dysfunctional. Dug did not do that. I found him very entertaining.

Evidently you haven't been around here very long. Dug did exactly that. That is why he has been banned from this board at least four times that I know of, and probably at least once as a sock puppet. Every time for the same reason: Pure, unabashed trolling. We could live without that.

[/quote]

drew013's picture
drew013
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote drew013:Evidently you haven't been around here very long. Dug did exactly that. That is why he has been banned from this board at least four times that I know of, and probably at least once as a sock puppet. Every time for the same reason: Pure, unabashed trolling. We could live without that.

Liar, I have always been 'DugFmJamul' no matter how I may have spelled my user name and I have never been a 'sock puppet' ye with three digits after their name....and you were the one that always directed personal attacks my way, I mostly ignored you just like I'm going to do after this post!

I was BANNED for the personal attacks upon DanielAdamSmith and Mel, both deserved it after the cute attitudes concerning the deaths of American Soliders after the Fort Hood Attacks by the Islamic Terrorist. I lost my head with them, but that's after the frustration over the years of the injustice done by Admin when it came to progressive vs. conservative posters. The Socialist Thug known as Bullaway02 taunted my for months with a racial slur "Beaner" and Admin did not even give him a warning much less a ban, I report...you decide but either way I don't give a rat's ass what you think, it's the new users that must make up their minds and not some sock puppet with three digits after their name!

CHEERS

GOOD NIGHT NOW!

DugFmJamul's picture
DugFmJamul
Joined:
Apr. 25, 2010 11:27 pm
Quote Kerry:What do you 'Constitutional fundamentalists' say in this instance where a state such as Arizona is taking over that role? Is that 'un-Constitutional'?....smiley face here.....

The Federal Government is responsible for uniform laws in regard to the 'Naturalization' of immigrants but States can still decide how many immigrants it wants if any! It's unconstitutional for the federal government to force immigrants on a State if that State does not want any...GET IT? Our current immigration system is unconstitutional, just like many government programs and benefits currently in place.

The Federal Government is responsible for securing the borders and protecting the States against 'Invasion', it has failed to so!

The Constitution is not a suicide pact and each State must do what it must to survive if the Federal Government fails in its duties.

Arizona is just trying to survive, which State is next?

DugFmJamul's picture
DugFmJamul
Joined:
Apr. 25, 2010 11:27 pm

Dug, I think you are a sincerely confused person. I think you have a desire to moral integrity, and I think you have been in some compromised moral situations. I think your ideas are pretty stupid, but also the result of experience and ideology. I do not dislike you, but I find a lot of what you have posted to be immoral and ugly. I think you do not appreciate why that is so. It does not make you a villain, but it does make you part of the problem.

You get very preachy and judgmental with little or no provocation. If you had the authority of truth behind your words, we might forgive you. When you advocate idiocy, it gets tougher. Drop the martyrdom. It comes off as whining.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
The Federal Government is responsible for uniform laws in regard to the 'Naturalization' of immigrants but States can still decide how many immigrants it wants if any!--DugFmJamul

Just who or what in the 'States' can decide 'how many immigrants it wants'? Are the modern immigrants to be treated in this battle between 'federal' and 'state' authority like the slaves were treated before the Civil War (ie. each 'state' gets to determine the extent of what 'individual rights' each is to offer--right up to no 'rights')? Come on, DugFmJamul, is that how you want this to work?

Our current immigration system is unconstitutional, just like many government programs and benefits currently in place.

The Federal Government is responsible for securing the borders and protecting the States against 'Invasion', it has failed to so!

Well, I really don't see the present immigration problem as a 'system'--and I certainly don't see it as a 'government program'. I might agree with you that government doesn't know exactly what to do with the illegal immigrants very clearly--but, I don't believe government 'caused' it...as much as employers wanting cheap labor 'caused' it...

The Constitution is not a suicide pact and each State must do what it must to survive if the Federal Government fails in its duties.

Yes, a hint of drawing the lines between 'state authority' and 'federal authority' on how to deal with a set of people and whatever 'rights' they may or may not have--just like what we had before the Civil War.....is that really how you want this to work, DugFmJamul?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

The Federal Government is responsible for uniform laws in regard to the 'Naturalization' of immigrants but States can still decide how many immigrants it wants if any!--DugFmJamul

Just who or what in the 'States' can decide 'how many immigrants it wants'? Are the modern immigrants to be treated in this battle between 'federal' and 'state' authority like the slaves were treated before the Civil War (ie. each 'state' gets to determine the extent of what 'individual rights' each is to offer--right up to no 'rights')? Come on, DugFmJamul, is that how you want this to work?

Our current immigration system is unconstitutional, just like many government programs and benefits currently in place.

The Federal Government is responsible for securing the borders and protecting the States against 'Invasion', it has failed to so!

Well, I really don't see the present immigration problem as a 'system'--and I certainly don't see it as a 'government program'. I might agree with you that government doesn't know exactly what to do with the illegal immigrants very clearly--but, I don't believe government 'caused' it...as much as employers wanting cheap labor 'caused' it...

The Constitution is not a suicide pact and each State must do what it must to survive if the Federal Government fails in its duties.

Yes, a hint of drawing the lines between 'state authority' and 'federal authority' on how to deal with a set of people and whatever 'rights' they may or may not have--just like what we had before the Civil War.....is that really how you want this to work, DugFmJamul?

I would like to stay and chat but that that Progressive Seditionist Dirt Bag DRC JUST BANNED ME AGAIN (6) TIMES NOW!

Sorry Kerry,
DugFmJamul has been banned again.....sad...sad...comment about the FREE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS!

CHEERS

GOOD NIGHT NOW!

DugFrmJamul's picture
DugFrmJamul
Joined:
Apr. 27, 2010 7:20 pm

Why are people being banned here? What happened to free speech that all are supposed to held dear on these boards? Or is it just free for those that hold similar veiws with the good ol boy crowd here?

I have quoted this before. The French philosopher Voltaire said "I may not like what you say, but to the death I will defend your right to say it."

bufffalo1's picture
bufffalo1
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:49 am

Nobody is infringing on anybody's right to speak. Nothing compels anybody to provide a forum for that speech.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote spankycrissy:The issue is that a great number of people will give up their own basic right to travel freely in their own country in order to persecute a racially motivated agenda.

This is hysterical nonsense. It does absolutely nothing of the kind.

What is your solution to the problem of illegal immigration? Let me guess, you don't have one, just accusations of racism. Typical.

CanisLatrans's picture
CanisLatrans
Joined:
Apr. 27, 2010 11:07 am
What is your solution to the problem of illegal immigration?
I don't know how many times this question has to be answered. Go after the illegal employers. It's simple. It's pretty cheap. It's foolproof. It's instant.

There is really nothing else that has to be said or done about illegal immigration.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote bufffalo1:

Why are people being banned here? What happened to free speech that all are supposed to held dear on these boards? Or is it just free for those that hold similar veiws with the good ol boy crowd here?

I have quoted this before. The French philosopher Voltaire said "I may not like what you say, but to the death I will defend your right to say it."

First of all have you ever read the terms and conditions of this message board? Free Speech. Jesus. Can a news anchor swear on live Tv? He has free speech right? Can I tell someone I want to kill them on here. That's free speech right?

This has nothing to do with free speech. It has everything to do with being respectful of the other people on the board and not threatening them or attacking them personally. That's trolling. Willfully harassing people to enflame an argument. Enough with the free speech broken record. There are rules to this board so every tom, dick or harry doesn't come on and troll or post links to sex sites or whatever. This isn't a free society here. It's a respectful one. Nobody has ever been kicked off for just discussing their beliefs in an open and respectful manner.

I ask you how long would a liberal last on a conservative website? huh? I was banned for life from Sean Hannity's site simply for saying that he wouldn't be a good politician because it's easier for him to lob insults at politicians than actually come up with policies and legislation. I didn't use any bad language, I didn't threaten anyone, that was it. BANNED FOR LIFE.

danieladamsmith's picture
danieladamsmith
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I haven't read anything that was offensive, just some pretty strong disageements and arguements here. Heck I disagree with a lot of folks here, sometimes adamently. I have even been called a conservative, which I am not. I am not a bircher either but that does not mean I disagee with everything they espouse. I totally agree with them that most of what the idiots in DC do is unconstitutional. I believe that Wall St. owns the politicians including Obama. I am against corporate personage and globalism. I do nor believe in man made global warming. I think it is a scam perpetuated by big f...ing hypocrits like Gore. I do not belive persons should be imprisoned for non-violent crimes. People like Madoff and those associated with them should not be housed at taxpayer expense but striped of everything and put out on the streets, including his wife. I could go on and on but you know where I come from. Kerry is my brother and we don't agree on everything.

Oh, and I think Hannity is an idiot!!!

bufffalo1's picture
bufffalo1
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:49 am
Quote Art:
What is your solution to the problem of illegal immigration?
I don't know how many times this question has to be answered. Go after the illegal employers. It's simple. It's pretty cheap. It's foolproof. It's instant.

There is really nothing else that has to be said or done about illegal immigration.

Yes, and AZ is also doing that, they passed an employer sanction law more than 2 years ago, and the pro-illegal liberals railed against it as "racist" just like they're railing against this most recent law. Here's an example of an illegal employer being prosecuted in AZ. We should have a story like this every day as far as I'm concerned---the managers and executives of this company belong in prison: http://azstarnet.com/news/state-and-regional/article_46e62360-b573-50c7-...

This law could certainly be implemented far more aggressively, but going after employers is not a silver bullet. We have to go after both illegal employers AND illegal employees. Or do you think only white people should be subject to our laws? I say that somewhat tongue-in-cheek since I don't know you from Adam, but that's how a lot of liberals come off, they think that Hispanic illegal aliens should be given a free pass simply because they're "brown," and any attempt to apply our laws to them is "racist."

I should also say that even though I consider myself an independent, most of my politics fall into the liberal camp. But so-called "progressives" are WRONG WRONG WRONG about immigration. They need to pull their heads out and stop supporting Big Business's attempt to destroy labor standards in this country.

CanisLatrans's picture
CanisLatrans
Joined:
Apr. 27, 2010 11:07 am
going after employers is not a silver bullet.
I think it is. Why wouldn't it be?

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Just have the police go into every business in Arizona and have the business owners prove their employees are legal citizens or resident aliens. Then break off 10 of the defense budget that we use to fight the USSR in 1978 and build a wall along our southern and northern borders which would also provide jobs to construction workers and with the rest hire and train a lot of border agents which would also provide more jobs....but do you know what? Republicans would never vote for that. That solves a problem and doesn't get people to the polls...

danieladamsmith's picture
danieladamsmith
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

While I'm a huge fan of Thom's show, I just had to sit down and write this after listening to the topic of AZ's new controversial law.

Illegal Immigration: Why I Applaud the State of Arizona and Why I’m Not A Member of the Democratic Party

Some important things to state about myself:

I marched in two marches in protest to the war in Iraq, and feel that no outcome there will ever justify our horrible intrusion into that nation.

I feel the two most disgraceful occupants of the office of President and Vice-President were George Bush and Dick Cheney.

I feel the Republican Party should change their initials from the GOP to the FAA – the Fear And Anger Party, and I think the TEA Party Movement is a collection of baffling nonsense.

I enthusiastically voted for President Obama .

It is on the subject of illegal immigration that I feel the Democrats reveal themselves as capable of being as manipulative, deceitful and full of crap as the Republicans are on their various issues.

Don’t offer me the feather-headed notion that human beings are as free as the birds and bunnies to roam God’s Earth wherever they choose. If you think our border has no significance but your property lines do, then you’re a despicable and irrelevant hypocrite.

Don’t bother trying to incite some sense of guilt in me for having ‘stolen’ this land from some people who stole it from some other people who stole it from whomever.

Don’t ask me to overlook the situation because they are leaving lives of hardship - no different than billions of others across the world would do except for the fact that they don’t have the advantage of being able to walk here.

Don’t try characterizing Arizona’s new law as giving rise to Nazism or Fascism. Who else is always making that comparison on one subject or another in the most tiresome way? Hmm, let me think……..

Don’t try changing the subject by trying to force me to defend myself as not some ignorant redneck pathetically shackled by my prejudice and cowering in my [shudder] fear of brown-skinned people.

What I am, pure and simple, is an American infuriated by the impact on my nation and state by an invasion of millions and millions of people who are citizens of another country. That they’re generally attractive brown-skinned people is circumstance, but I wouldn’t care if they were blond and blue-eyed, or a lovely shade of green. I’m indignant at the measure to which the nation’s sovereignty has been handed away. I’m outraged when I see that these people disregard the integrity of our border, flaunt our laws and are abetted and protected in these acts by our elected officials. I’m furious about the de facto taxation imposed on me and the other citizens of my State of California for having to remedy jammed freeways, overflowing classrooms, closed emergency rooms, stressed infrastructure, and providing relief for the impoverishment they bring with them, with no say in the matter whatsoever. I’m angry about the changes I see going on around me in this society, all taking place unfettered with no plan, no moderation, no levers of control, and no choice.

I just laugh when Democrats intone all the good that ‘meaningful immigration reform’ will accomplish. Really? Like Jose and Maria, who don’t give a damn what our laws are now, will magically start following the rules and seek permission to enter our country in an orderly manner when a new bunch of words end up on some paper in Washington? Seriously? If the first words out of your mouth on the subject aren’t ‘first we need to seriously impose control over our border’, then shut up. Nothing else you have to say on the subject is of any use. Or worse, your real motive is to encourage the next wave of illegal immigrants to come on down.

That’s why I applaud the State of Arizona on the passage of the their anti-illegal immigrant law. Not that I don’t think it’s as ridiculous as ‘meaningful immigration reform’. In the end, they will both be equally unworkable and useless.

Unless you go back to the matter of imposing control over the border.

When you do that, meaningful reform might actually be possible, and Arizona’s new law becomes immaterial. But if the Federal government wants to deal with Arizona’s new law with the most integrity, then they must defend the integrity of our nation’s border. I believe that’s the message Arizona wants Washington to hear. For that purpose I raise my voice to join them. I wish so many Democrats would stop being so disingenuous and would join their voices, too.

Kris Williamson

Colton, CA

sirklw's picture
sirklw
Joined:
Apr. 28, 2010 2:15 pm

welcome to the board, Kris.

I must say, you post a compelling argument. I don't know why we don't ever do something like that, the excuse I usually hear is that it would cost too much. I think that in each of us there is a certain level of difficulty beyond which, depending on the situation, people give up on a particular endeavor. Stronger border defense represents a certain factor of added difficulty. Reducing or (as if you actually could ) completely drying up the job market for illegals represents a different but equally important factor of added difficulty. Most likely the optimal outcome would result from a combination of the two. I believe that the new Arizona law will prove less than cost effective in terms of increasing the difficulty level for the actual illegals, I rather think that they will simply improve their adaptive skills and develop tactics for dealing with law enforcement. Where there is a will, there is a way. And these guys aren't dummies either.

drew013's picture
drew013
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Very well said sirklw, and the majority of independents, liberals, and conservatives agree. There is a very shrill minority of liberals that cry racism every time someone casts illegal immigration in a negative light or suggests that we should enforce our own laws or control our own borders, but poll after poll after poll shows that most Americans, including liberals, are PISSED OFF about illegal immigration. And the closer to the border they are, the more pissed off they are about it.

So we have to question why is it that Wash DC refuses to do anything about an issue that the majority of Americans support regardless of their political affiliation. Dems, Repubs, doesn't matter, all the politicians give lip service to border control while working for amnesty in the back rooms.

The only reason I can see for the total lack of action on this issue is that Big Business wants illegals. And both the GOP and the Dems fall all over themselves every time Big Business wants something. It just pains me to see people like Thom Hartmann---who I like and respect---working so vociferously on behalf of globalist corporations who use cheap illegal labor to do the work they can't outsource.

CanisLatrans's picture
CanisLatrans
Joined:
Apr. 27, 2010 11:07 am

I will ask again since no one has in a while.

When are we going to arrest some employers for hiring illegals.

Why doesn't Arizona enforce the current law requiring employers to use the E- Verify system that has been proven to be 98 plus % effective and accurate and is also FREE.

No jobs no illegals.

We arrest people for buying drugs don't we?

Why not hiring Illegal workers?

I still have not heard even a half ass-ed reason why law breaking employers should get a free ride.

spankycrissy's picture
spankycrissy
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Dear Mr. Williamson…Like “Jose and Maria”...?

By your post I can tell that you, as I, are frustrated, beyond the point of sanity, with many things in our country, which is most likely why in a post, that as I see it, was intended to decry the recent Arizona law as everything but racist, you would choose to refer to Mexicans or Latin Americans as “Jose and Maria”.

I would not like to imply, in the least, that you are a racist(I’m not sure exactly what that would mean)…I would only suggest that when your aim is to prove how intellectual your argument is for supporting such a law, as anti-American as the one in Arizona, you would consider calling illegal aliens, “illegal aliens”.

Perhaps even I might, in the right fit of anger, use the name “Guido”,” Dago”, “Mick” or “Habib”, as an admittedly racial slur, but would assuredly consider my self a person of weak forensic skill, to use “Jose and Maria” in such an obvious way, when I am trying to show that I am not “shackled by my prejudice”. For example, if I were to say, “I believe the Jim Crow Laws to be for the benefit of our country and not racist in any way…no matter what the Ni**ers think.” I don’t believe it could be construed, regardless of what had proceeded or followed, as driven by the mind and reason. Such usage in an argument only debases what might have been a compelling treatise, to anger.

Anger, I believe, is a great gift from the creator, but please, be aware of line that exists between anger and hate. It is the line we cross when we allow ourselves to commit illegal acts against ourselves. It is the line we cross when the focus is on bailing buckets instead of fixing the hole. It is the line that we cross when the focus is on pawns jumping over fences, instead of on the jobs going in the opposite direction.

Please remember that feeling of the immigrant taking your work as you stare at him angrily, lunch box in hand, because once they are gone and you can no longer see them, they will still take your jobs. This no longer is a country with boarders and if we think that the Chinese worker making a hammer for cents on the dollar across some imaginary line is not our concern…we can keep bailing buckets, because the race is to the bottom.

Thank you,

Mr. Castaneda

gdbrando's picture
gdbrando
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote spankycrissy:

I will ask again since no one has in a while.

When are we going to arrest some employers for hiring illegals.

Why doesn't Arizona enforce the current law requiring employers to use the E- Verify system that has been proven to be 98 plus % effective and accurate and is also FREE.

No jobs no illegals.

We arrest people for buying drugs don't we?

Why not hiring Illegal workers?

I still have not heard even a half ass-ed reason why law breaking employers should get a free ride.

This question has been asked, not only with reference to Arizona but to the entire Country, for years now, and there is a very simple answer. In a word -- I.D.

We don't hear much about it, mainly because the government doesn't wish to allow the issue to surface, but fake I.D. documents are plentiful and not very costly. They are sold mainly in Juarez and Tijuana but are also available in every border town. The most common items are birth certificates, green cards and Social Security cards.

I learned about this more than two years ago from a Border Patrol agent I bought a bow from and corresponded with from time to time on an archery website. He told me the quality of these fake documents range from excellent to very poor, but it doesn't matter to the employers of illegals. As long as the "wetbacks" have some documentation on them when ICE shows up the employer is off the hook. In fact, some of the more consistent employers of illegals actually steer them to a source of fake documents. And some of the "coyotes" who transport illegals across the border provide them with fake documents as part of their service.

The only solution to this problem is a biometric ID card for all legitimate U.S. citizens which is addressable by portable computer, much in the manner of swiping a credit card. The biometric card will have a photograph and fingerprint, so even if a card is fake it will be immediately detectable. But the government chooses to defer to the protest against such a requirement issued by a significant percentage of Americans. But I don't know why!

I am very much in favor of the requirement that every legitimate U.S. citizen be required to have a biometric I.D. card as proof of his/her citizenship. What is wrong with that? Why are so many Americans so paranoid about it? It is the way to eliminate the problem of illegal immigration.

MikeK's picture
MikeK
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

North Korea...a country whose population has actually shrunk in height has managed to build a wall on its border. Why not us?

Stop all this silliness with having police officers deciding who is "suspicious" and who is "ok"....

Build a wall and force all businesses to account for the legality of their employees.

Yet...That would actually mean allowing the government to spend money, something that is totally at odds with the belief systems of most of the folks carping about illegal immigration. It would make a great works project. Hire more border agents. Once again going against the voting record of conservatives who have always managed to mysteriously reduce the amount of law enforcement funding.

Which is it? Really confronting the problem or standing on the sidelines and bitching.

danieladamsmith's picture
danieladamsmith
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote MikeK:

This question has been asked, not only with reference to Arizona but to the entire Country, for years now, and there is a very simple answer. In a word -- I.D.

For someone who, as I read it, who is completely skeptical of the Fed, as is evident in your post on Waco, this comment seems either completely schizophrenic or ingenuine.

gdbrando's picture
gdbrando
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote gdbrando:For someone who, as I read it, who is completely skeptical of the Fed, as is evident in your post on Waco, this comment seems either completely schizophrenic or ingenuine.

Why?

What is it about having a document that proves you are an American citizen that worries you so? Since we're assigning Freudian connotations to the reasoning in this issue, don't you think your concern is a bit paranoid? After all, what information would a citizen ID card contain that already is not available? It's not like I'm recommending an imbedded RF chip.

MikeK's picture
MikeK
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote MikeK:
Quote gdbrando:For someone who, as I read it, who is completely skeptical of the Fed, as is evident in your post on Waco, this comment seems either completely schizophrenic or ingenuine.

Why?

What is it about having a document that proves you are an American citizen that worries you so? Since we're assigning Freudian connotations to the reasoning in this issue, don't you think your concern is a bit paranoid? After all, what information would a citizen ID card contain that already is not available? It's not like I'm recommending an imbedded RF chip.

And because I am opposed to the excessive actions of the BATF and FBI/HRT (and the DEA), don't assume I am 100% opposed to the entire federal government.

MikeK's picture
MikeK
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote MikeK:

It's not like I'm recommending an imbedded RF chip.

Why not?

Frued

gdbrando's picture
gdbrando
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

i mean...

Why not?

Freud.

It's a new name...

gdbrando's picture
gdbrando
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Currently Chatting

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system