Skip to main content

Compassionate Conservatism the Sequel?

Cal Thomas's picture

During the presidential campaign of 2000, George W. Bush was criticized by some conservatives for calling himself a "compassionate conservative." Some believed the term to be redundant.

Now we're in the middle of the 2012 presidential campaign and candidate Newt Gingrich has called for a "humane" policy on illegal immigrants. Gingrich wants illegal residents who have been in America for 25 years to stay, so as not to "separate families."


Seeking to clarify comments he made during the Republican debate on national security last week, Gingrich told Fox News, "I am for deporting all recent unattached illegals. I am for a local citizen panel to consider certification of those who have been here 25 years and have family and community (ties) and have been law abiding and taxpaying."

While I salute Gingrich's validation of "family values," there are several problems with his suggestion.

First, why 25 years? Why not 24, or 23? How about 15? What if the children are adults? If a single parent remained because of divorce or death, would that parent be deported?

Second, what is to keep the local citizen panel from being co-opted by liberal interest groups working for the Democratic Party? Gingrich's call to "...be humane in enforcing the law without giving them citizenship..." may sound good to some, but once those here illegally have been "certified," interest groups will surely lobby on their behalf for full citizenship.

Republicans should not have to prove their "compassion" by supporting a statute of limitations on lawbreakers. Instead, Republicans should present examples of immigrants who have come to America legally and built a life while obeying the law.

Gingrich is correct when he says we are not about to round up 11 million illegal immigrants, as America rounded up more than 100,000 Japanese at the start of World War II, many of them U.S. citizens. But doing nothing or granting Gingrich's proposed "path to legality" (through certification) will only draw more illegals.

In my ideal world (and some U.S. laws might have to change to accomplish it), this is what I think should be done: Illegal immigrants who have jobs, pay taxes and are law abiding can stay as temporary residents provided they are doing jobs no American citizen wants to do. An employer can prove that by advertising for a position and if no citizen applies, the illegal immigrant may be hired for a fixed period of time, after which the position must be advertised again.

The illegal immigrant should be forbidden any unemployment or welfare benefits. Medical insurance, or the cost of any care, should be provided by the employer. Immigrant children can be educated in public schools (and taught English) provided their parents pay property taxes. If an illegal immigrant is renting or living with others, he or she should pay a certain amount to defray the cost of education. If a child is born in America to illegal immigrants, that child should not automatically receive U.S. citizenship (a court ruling reinterpreting the Constitution would be required to change the automatic granting of citizenship to children of illegal immigrants born in the U.S.)

After two or three renewals of the illegal's special visa, the person must return to his or her native land for a specified period of time and then apply for re-entry.

Should the illegal immigrant desire citizenship, that person should first learn English and American history. The path ought to be rigorous so that we know the person is coming to America for more than just the goodies the U.S. government provides.

Most importantly, we must protect and secure our country's borders. Gingrich's hero, Ronald Reagan is credited with saying, "A nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation."

Something else troubles me about this debate. Why is it compassionate to suggest ways for people who have broken our laws to escape the consequences but cruel to require that they obey our laws in not entering the country illegally in the first place?

Everyone wants a better life for themselves and their children. American citizens mostly seek that better life by conforming to the law. Illegal immigrants should do the same.

Comments

#1 Round them all up and send

Round them all up and send them home with their families.

Nuke em til they glow; then shoot em in the dark

#2 And their freinds

And supporters!

Then well invite them all back through the Gate on our shinny new picket fence!

Seek Truth, Defend Liberty

#3 No change ups, Newt

Now the 25 year winners are the good side of 1/2 illegal.
All the additional laws that will need to be crafted to go along with this, crazy sub category of criminal.
What a waste of time and space.
Just how many 25 year prize winners are being arrested by the ICE gang, anyways.
I didn't know it was a big problem, oh well now it is...
Be a "compassionate conservative" but don't bill me for it.

#4 After two or three renewals

After two or three renewals of the illegal's special visa, the person must return to his or her native land for a specified period of time and then apply for re-entry.

How are you going to enforce this? After all, you said it yourself, Cal....we can't round them up and deport them.


 


#5 we can't round them up and

we can't round them up and deport them.

Actually I did some checking and seems Greyhound moves 20 million people a year.  So I imagine we could get the grey dog to move some of those illegals across the border.

Nuke em til they glow; then shoot em in the dark

#6 it is a problem

While rounding them up seems like a simple solution it is in fact no solution because it's not going to be done.  I have been around many where I had serious questions about their legal status.  They were hard working, good family people and excellent citizens.  So here's my plan.... the illegals who have been here for (period of time to be determined) and are good additions to the community can stay if they come up with the name of a deadbeat American who we will then ship out of the country thereby allowing the illegal to stay.

#7 Newt has found

the perfect way to lose votes...

'Gingrich wants illegal [aliens] who have been in America for 25 years to stay, so as not to "separate families."' Sorry, Newt the Grinch, that dog won't hunt.

First, round 'em up and send 'em home.
That will save us enough money to:
build the fence and electrify it;
build another fence 50 yards inside the first and fill the gap with lots of dobermans, german shepherds, rottweilers, and other 'sensors';
increase the number of BP agents and give them the tools to do the job with a 'liberal' Rules of Engagement policy;
fill the air along the border with armed drones, any person within the 'gap' is fair game;
distribute flyers all along the mexican side (in spanish, via drones), post signs and use any means of warning potential invaders that BP Agents/LEOs/farmers/ranchers/and any other US citizen has the right to shoot suspected border jumpers on sight.

Yeah, maybe harsh, but I'm fed up with the huge amount of $$$$$ the Criminal Invaders are costing us taxpayers by abusing the medical system, dragging down education, driving their dangerous uninspected cars that have no insurance and various other criminal activities... murder, rape, robberies, etc.

#8 First, round 'em up and send

First, round 'em up and send 'em home.

Well golly, how hard can that be?  Fill up some Greyhounds, create a few new American bus-driving jobs.  Win win!

That will save us enough money to: [create a lot of depressing border fortifications that are straight out of Kafka/Orwell/pre-1989 East Germany].

I don't care who's running it.  Finding, rounding up, interning, and deporting 4.3 million people is an expensive, multi-year (if not decade), logistically-intensive project that would irreparably tarnish our international image (yes, this does matter).  I would be shocked if the trade-off of saving all that money that, according to Sean Hannity, is used to shower illegal immigrants with special benefits would even allow us to break even. 

BP Agents/LEOs/farmers/ranchers/and any other US citizen has the right to shoot suspected border jumpers on sight.

Wow.  That is simply horrifying.  ANY U.S. citizen has the right to shoot any SUSPECTED "border jumper" on sight?  Do you really not see the implications of this dream policy of yours?  I'm sure quasi-fascist Gilchrist and his band of shamefully-named "minutemen" would jump for joy, but there'd be a whole lot of racist murders in the border towns.

 

#9 Heck, my fiance is from El

Heck, my fiance is from El Paso and her father is the son of a (legal) Mexican immigrant. Guess we'd better not visit there if your legislation gets passed. Here in the northeast, one generally doesn't have to worry about being shot for looking non-Caucasian.

 

#10 "Here in the northeast" says all that needs to be said.

.

To re-elect Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and hitting the iceberg again.

#11 Yup, nothing but a bunch of

Yup, nothing but a bunch of immigrant-hugging, Prius-driving, arugula-eating, public education-fawning, environment-kissing, church-desecrating commies up here.

Also the cradle of American liberty, but who cares about that BS?

 

#12 Glad you can admit the failures, Rupie.

As for the "Cradle of American Liberty"?  I would think that even you can admit that times, and people, change. 

To re-elect Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and hitting the iceberg again.

#13 It's only in the cities that

It's only in the cities that you find the commies. You go out to the country and it's all rednecks, and yes, there is farmland in the Northeast. If you ever drive across Upstate New York, it's almost all country, and full of conservatives.

And the Northeast may be "the cradle of American liberty", and despite all the conservatives out in the country, the city-dwelling commies and OWS types are turning the Northeast into the grave of American liberty

I heartily accept the motto "That government is best which governs least" . . . Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe -- "That government is best which governs not at all" -Henry David Thoreau

#14 There already are a whole lot of racist murders in border towns

Too bad for your crew it's illegal Mexicans who are doing the killing.

#15 Yes, I am aware that illegal

Yes, I am aware that illegal Mexican immigrants are responsible for a great deal of violence in border towns. Did you really expect that I would deny this.

However, surely you can see the absurdity in advocating that citizens be given carte blanche to shoot suspected illegals. I mean, unless they all promise to wear their "I just jumped the border and am now off to take American jobs for pennies on the dollar and make waiting times at the local E.R." t-shirts, then we're just inviting a whole lot of trigger-happy folks to shrug their shoulders in court and dance around the obvious truth that they shot a Mexican person who, according to whatever prejudiced criteria the shooter was operating on, was "acting illegal."

 

#16 What the hell are you talking about?

Get a grip.

NOBODY is advocating that US citizens go around plugging suspected illegals.

EDIT: or known illegals, for that matter.

#17 Actually, that is precisely

Actually, that is precisely and unambiguously what a certain granny from Texas is advocating. Scroll up a few posts. It's the one I first replied to. At least she acknowledges that it might seem "harsh."

 

#18 Take a hike bigot troll.

You don't speak to people here. You speak to your caricature of people here. You are a hater, a bigot, and a troll.

Rupert Cadell - Leftist Bigot, Hater & Groupie Groper.

Take your caricatures of everyone you hate and get lost.

#19 Umm, what caricatures?

Umm, what caricatures? Gilchrist? Because that's really the only one. You're acting as though I made up this claim that TX Granny advocates making "suspected border-jumpers" fair game for every red-blooded citizen with a scoped deer rifle. I'm not saying Granny is a bad person, but I think that suggesting such a course of action deems a response.

 

#20 OK, Rupert.

Then, what would your solution be?

For the MSM: In your pomp and all your glory, you're a poorer man than me.  As you lick the boots of death born out of fear.

Ian Anderson "Wind up"

#21 Stupid as well as a hater, bigot, and troll.

Yes. Caricatures. Stupid. Troll. And right there it is, your fourth word. After I said you use a caricature to paint us all just like the bigot you are. There it is - Gilchrist. Gilchrist and the Minuteman Project do not represent Republicans, conservatives, or this community. No one of any import is saying he is. But you, the bigot, the one that hates those on the right, automatically pop that name in when I say you paint with a broad brush.

As for texasborngranny, you take the personal overly emotional post of one user and use it to accuse everyone here of holding the same opinion. And you keep pushing that button over and over. No one here is seriously saying illegal aliens should be shot and I doubt texasborngranny is even serious. You yourself have made over the top posts and then apologized for them. But it does not stop you from painting us all over and over ---

Who cares what they do or don't call themselves? They're 98.5% Beck-worshipping crybabies with apparent short-term memory impairment regarding recent history who think the election of a half-black man is the root of all our current ills, can't wrap their heads around the fact that most mainstream economists agree that the stimulus actually prevented a full-blown depression, and believe that "Drill Baby Drill" is a brilliant policy statement.

Over the top? You admit it ----

Heh, yeah, I was in a bad mood when I posted that one, clearly. Definitely out of line. This is why I don't use my real name, I suppose.

So knock it off with the constant hate and caricatures.

#22 "But it does not stop you

"But it does not stop you from painting us all over and over --"

OK, you have nothing to contribute. Got it.

You're citing a 2+ y/o comment, for which I freely and sincerely apologized, as an example of "bigotry"? And claiming that I do this "over and over," in spite of having precisely one, rather outdated example? So obviously you can't find anything of the sort from my posts in the last several months. You have to go back to the expunged NB archives and pull something that you only even have access to because of your pointless penchant for creating anti-troll forums.

The very idea of you accusing anyone else of "bigotry" is laughable. You are far and away the most unhinged, closed-minded poster on the site. You and matthew dean seem convinced that if you throw enough variations of "you're a troll" at me, then you'll get me to react in some over-the-top way that will get me kicked off. Not gonna happen.

Was TXGranny being over the top and/or emotional? I don't know. Only she can say. What I do know is that the element of her post with which I took issue was just the capper on a pretty thoroughly-articulated policy plan, on a discussion board about policy plans. I have only reacted to her exact words, and will not pretend to know how serious or exaggerated she intended her comment to be. You'd do well to take the same approach.

 

#23 Good morning Rupert

By looking down your nose at the rest of us you betray your northeast bigotry. The northeast was once the cradle of liberty but now it's the cradle of socialism. You think I'm laughable but I think you would be great alligator bait.

 

Jesus Loves You so much He died for you

#24 I'm sorry if my disagreement

I'm sorry if my disagreement with conservative policy ideas comes off as snobbery.

Time for me to retire for the day; my beloved Pats will commence their annihilation of the Colts (not that that's difficult this season) in just over an hour, and I have food to prepare for the occasion.

 

#25 What kind of food? You need

What kind of food? You need to submit a form in duplicate and I will forward it to MO and the liberal food Nazis. Please refrain from eating until your menu has been approved concerning content and quantity.

#26 Too late. It was worth it.

Too late. It was worth it.

 

#27 Is Rupert Cadell a liar or he just stupid?

Rupert Cadell: You're citing a 2+ y/o comment, for which I freely and sincerely apologized, as an example of "bigotry"?

So are you lying or are you just stupid. I never said any such thing. I cited your old post as an example of something over the top that you had to apologize for being over the top.

The Vet repeating himself: You yourself have made over the top posts and then apologized for them. But it does not stop you from painting us all over and over ---

So are you going to claim ignorance or is this just another example of you taking something someone said and lying about it?

#28 Wow, thanks for making this

Wow, thanks for making this so easy. That excerpt of mine come from a forum that YOU created, the title of which labels me a bigot. So, clearly, you believe that indulging in the occasional caricature of an opposing ideology (something that you, in your many thousands of posts over the past few years, NEVER do) equals bigotry. That equation is from the horse's mouth, my friend (the horse being you).

 

#29 Hey Stupid. Still can't get it right.

Kinda hard to claim I was wrong in mischaracterizing you when YOU HAVE APOLOGIZED FOR YOUR MISBEHAVIOR.

YOU.

APOLOGIZED.

FOR.

YOUR.

ACTIONS.

Stupert Cadell: Heh, yeah, I was in a bad mood when I posted that one, clearly. Definitely out of line...

You said you were DEFINITELY out of line.

Yeah, too late to claim I was wrong in calling you a bigot. Bigot.

#30 You have thoroughly

You have thoroughly contradicted yourself. A few posts ago, the issue (according to you) was that I wrongly said that you called me a bigot with respect to the old post:

"Rupert Cadell: You're citing a 2+ y/o comment, for which I freely and sincerely apologized, as an example of "bigotry"? So are you lying or are you just stupid. I never said any such thing."

But now, since it's been clearly demonstrated that you did precisely that, the issue is that by apologizing for being over-the-top, I've admitted to "bigotry."

So okay, I understand the argument now.  By apologizing for painting a "caricature" of Tea Partiers as "crybabies" (admittedly an inappropriate and out of line remark, which I regret) who are "Glen Beck-worshipping" (also perhaps uncalled for, at least the verb, but Glen Beck was extremely popular and a key figure of the Tea Party at the time, so...), and saying that their message seemed to misunderstand the economics of Obama's policies at the time (my opinion, unchanged), I was apologizing for being a bigot.

So let me set things right here.  I was admitting that I was a prick in that post.  I by no means regard my remarks as "bigotry."  

This, I imagine, will be the point at which you break out a dictionary.com definition of "bigotry" and claim that indeed they were bigoted.  Which would be fine, except that if we're going to use such a loaded term to describe that one post, honesty would compel us to apply it to a whole lot more than my remarks.  How about the conservative commentators who branded the OWS people as "flea-infested" and as "leeches," using every worn-out 60s counterculture and they-all-live-in-their-parents'-basement stereotype possible?  How about this very thread, where Ant tells me that if I vote for the sitting president a second time, I would be a traitor.  I found that to be quite "over the top," but even after being called a potential traitor, I wouldn't suggest that Ant is a "bigot."

You want to foolishly use a term - one that's generally reserved for people who actively seek to deny rights to groups of people whom they deem inherently inferior - to describe my rant about the Tea Party.  Be my guest.  But that easily makes 99% of NB posters bigots as well.  But at the heart of the matter, YOU are the one who is lying by suggesting that I "admitted" to bigotry.

I'm going to go ahead and proffer a guess that Vet's next post will be something along the lines of "we having a conversation, troll?"  Even though he initiated the conversation.  

 

#31 Pathetic,

I dont take kindly to being called a bigot

Seek Truth, Defend Liberty

#32 I don't think you are.

I don't think you are. According to Vet's working definition, though....

 

#33 Whatever.

Rupert Cadell: I was admitting that I was a prick in that post.

I called you a bigot two years ago. I stand by that. Now I agree you are a prick.

Take a hike troll. You are starting to be a boor as well. A bigot, a prick, and a boor.

#34 What are we even arguing

What are we even arguing about?

You don't speak to people here. You speak to your caricature of people here. You are a hater, a bigot, and a troll.

We'll just ignore the fact that you (incorrectly, or at least according to ludicrously biased standards) repeatedly HAVE called me a bigot, both years ago and this weekend.  What about the whole "over and over" bit, in regard to my speaking to caricatures of people.  Do tell, Troll.

Oh, and MrShy used the "retard card."  Forgiveness please.  Even though you do it too, you did not tonight.  You are now a sterling example of good manners.

 

#35 Shut up boor.

Now I have to play jump through the hoops after the troll gets caught lying about what I said, admitting to being a prick, and mischaracterizing what I posted over and over.

Yes, troll, I am just your little intertube monkey willing to find all the evidence of your Lies and Stupid after you once again put continued Lies and Stupid right here on this page.

Seriously, you are not very bright are you?

#36 Rupert Cadell LIES. LIES through his green teeth.

Rupert Cadell LYING: A few posts ago, the issue (according to you) was that I wrongly said that you called me a bigot with respect to the old post:

Here is exactly what was posted --

Rupert Cadell: You're citing a 2+ y/o comment, for which I freely and sincerely apologized, as an example of "bigotry"?

The Vet: I never said any such thing. I cited your old post as an example of something over the top that you had to apologize for being over the top.

This is what the fourth time that I am repeating this? How stupid are you that you keep walking the same ground and getting pounded over and over. I don't think someone can be that stupid. I think you are lazy, a bigot, a boor, and an admitted prick.

#37 Here's a thought: Why don't

Here's a thought: Why don't you try just try saying what you mean.  Seriously.  In one sentence, without weird namecalling or intentional bad grammar, tell me what it is you're accusing me of.

Is it that I've misrepresented you by saying you called my 2+ year old remarks bigoted?  No.

Is it that I've "caricaturized" NBers "over and over"?  If so, where?

Is it that my rant 2 years ago somehow meets the definition of "bigotry" but the small sampling of others' even more vicious remarks do not?  If so, explain.

Really.  I want to know.

 

#38 Here is a post where I mean what I say.

You, Rupert Cadell, are a bigot, a boor, a liar, not very bright though you fasion yourself so, and an admitted prick.

Really, I don't care. Pack sand troll. Pack it tight. Pound it smooth. Pound until those knuckles bleed.

#39 Look for Rupert Caddell's next account by the username---

bigotprickboor.

No charge.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

#40 Rupert Cadell LIES. LIES through his green teeth.

Rupert Cadell LYING again: But at the heart of the matter, YOU are the one who is lying by suggesting that I "admitted" to bigotry.

Let's quote me because once again, the troll can't understand the whole scrolling function of web browsers.

The Vet: You yourself have made over the top posts and then apologized for them. But it does not stop you from painting us all over and over ---

The Vet: I never said any such thing. I cited your old post as an example of something over the top that you had to apologize for being over the top.

How many times do I have to say you admitted to an over the top post and apologized for it and admitted you were being a prick, NOT admitting to bigotry. We already know that you, the hater that hates based on political ideology, will NEVER admit to being the bigot you are.

 

#41 Oh look, evidence of your

Oh look, evidence of your wrongness.

Monsieur Vet: "You don't speak to people here. You speak to your caricature of people here. You are a hater, a bigot, and a troll."

Followed by a link to Vet's lovingly-created, zero-comment-having, sole evidence of my deviant behavior forum, which also contains the word "bigot."

You, sir, have just been thoroughly discredited.

You seem to think you have some sort of moral or ethical authority just because you post here like it's your job.  But your own bias is glaring.  Say what you will about my "caricaturizing" 27 months ago, I certainly never called another poster a "stupid troll."  It's so painfully obvious that if I posted using the exact same rhetorical tactics in the service of a conservative viewpoint, you would have no problem whatsoever.  

 

#42 Hey Stupid. Still can't get it right.

You were not responding to that post nor were you referring to it here ---

This post of yours, for the 3rd time now ---

Stupert Cadell at Sun, 12/04/2011 - 10:49am: You're citing a 2+ y/o comment, for which I freely and sincerely apologized, as an example of "bigotry"?

--- was a DIRECT response to this ---

The Vet Sun, 12/04/2011 - 8:37am: You yourself have made over the top posts and then apologized for them. But it does not stop you from painting us all over and over ---

That post included the old post of yours, DIRECTLY FOLLOWING THAT QUOTE. And it was the post I was referring when I said you made over the top post YOU HAD TO APOLOGIZE for.

Again, how stupid are you?

This post of mine at Fri 12/02/2011 - 9:30pm---

The Vet Fri, 12/02/2011 - 9:30: You don't speak to people here. You speak to your caricature of people here. You are a hater, a bigot, and a troll.

Already had a response of yours,

Stupert Cadell at Sat, 12/03/2011 - 6:01pm: Umm, what caricatures? Gilchrist?

To which I replied, including this ---

The Vet at Sun, 12/04/2011 - 8:37am:  Yes. Caricatures. Stupid. Troll. And right there it is, your fourth word. After I said you use a caricature to paint us all just like the bigot you are. There it is - Gilchrist. Gilchrist and the Minuteman Project do not represent Republicans, conservatives, or this community. No one of any import is saying he is.

And this ---

The Vet at Sun, 12/04/2011 - 8:37am: You yourself have made over the top posts and then apologized for them. But it does not stop you from painting us all over and over ---

Yes. I now have to explain the order of posts and what was said A THIRD time. But you is not a troll. You are not being deliberately dense. No. You is a good poster.

So again, are you deliberately LYING now or are you truly as dense as you seem? Because the order and all responses are on display for the ENTIRE PLANET TO SEE.

Only to stupid stupid stupid or worse LYING trolls to I actually have to put timestamps like I am talking to a child that cannot understand the order of posts here.

#43 New profession

I look at your post and I am astounded. How does one man have the time or resources to track every timestamp on every post that occurs on NB? I'm guessing this is some kind of new profession..but where does the money come from? Vet has to pay the rent ..right?

#44 Dead Zipper's profession --- predatory troll.

Yeah troll, not like I can simply use the mouse wheel to scroll up on this page. Yes, I have a sophisticated supercomputer in my basement dedicated to tracking everyone's posts.

Oh wait, was that the purpose of your post? Pointing out how stupid you are as well as the idiot whose defense you came running?

#45 Just idle curiosity

I just wonder how a single individual can devote so much time and energy to a single website. I have my hands full just preparing for Christmas..I barely have time to read posts here let alone track them. So why are you the uber 'troll hunter'? Just curious.

#46 idiotcup

"I just wonder how a single individual can devote so much time and energy to a single website."

Maybe because it's.... a single website.

It's not a single individual devoting time/energy to, say, multiple websites. That would be a lot harder -- and even more impressive.

Btw, this "individual" in question is right. You are incredibly stupid.

- shy on vinyl

#47 No, I'm really impressed by the Vet

He seems to be able to provide dates, quotes, links from long past posts from weeks even months ago. I am truely interested to know how he does that?

#48 It's magic. Is that what you were looking for, troll?

Not like every post I mentioned here was ALREADY posted on this page. No. Not like I have a forum I CREATED in my tracking page. Nope. That is too difficult to comprehend for a tiny troll brain. Not like the old forum is right there on page 45 of my tracking pages along with all the other forums I created years ago. Not like everyone has their old forums they created on their tracking pages. Not like I have the exact post from 2009 I listed here right down in that forum.

No. It is magic. Really, it is troll. My Cray supercomputer and the magic pixie fairies I have trapped in my basement. That is how it happens.

Oh wait, showing how stupid you are, maybe that was your intent again. In that case, it is magic, troll. Stop bothering me or the magic spells will start to get grave for you.

#49 slowcup

"He seems to be able to provide dates, quotes, links from long past posts from weeks even months ago"

Yeah, he's good at that, but then, anyone can do it. NB is a very good site with the effective tools (including advanced search features) for weeding out liars and propagandists.

"I am truely interested to know how he does that?"

Like I just pointed out, above, slowzippercup -- he does it by utilizing the nice NB features.

Truly amazing, huh?

Now my question: Do you want to keep posting retarded posts, or is this the last one?

Should we look forward to more "stating the obvious" from slowcup?

- shy on vinyl

#50 Day-um, Shy---

I was really liking that pixie dust business.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

#51 Hands full shoving a live tree into your Prius

Looks like you got sap on the headliner.

Aww B-cup not enough time so you post before reading.

#52 There ya go again

Making all kinds of assumptions. Actually, tomorrow I will be shoving a dead tree into a Ford Taurus wagon.
Wish I could afford a Prius.

#53 I wonder how one troll can commit to so many troll cliches.

Yes troll, your troll cliche that the trolljegeren is half insane because he spends all his time, day and night, on one website, knocking troll heads into the dirt, is not really a cliche at all. You are the first one to bring up that cliche. Wait, it is not really a cliche to harp on what time or how many posts a trolljegeren has. No. It is not. Trolls don't bring that up. Never mind what I said. I did not post this. You did not read it. This is not the droid you are looking for.

So continuing to point out your stupidity was the point then?

Pack sand Dead Zippers. Pack it like you have done 32 times now.

#54 Pretty clear that Trollhunter

Pretty clear that Trollhunter became just plain Troll long ago.

Watch: Now this will be evidence of my bigotry. Calling Vet a troll. There would certainly be no hypocrisy there. In the last few minutes, he's also played the "retard" card. Yessir, nothing like expressing your distaste for someone like using an outdated epithet for people with legitimate mental disorders. Not at all bigoted.

 

#55 Someone cracked into my account again?

I don't recall playing the "retard" card in the last few minutes.

Wait, did I forget to crack open the window when I lighted the kerosene heater?

Oh, Stupert Cadell can't understand this whole internet thing. I get it. Hey stupid, that was MrShy playing the SCARE QUOTE retard card CLOSE SCARE QUOTE. Although I am not above playing the SCARE QUOTE retard card CLOSE SCARE QUOTE when it comes to Paultards, I have not used it on this page.

You are either lying again or quite stupid in addition to being an admitted prick. I go with a combo of both.

PS:

Rupert Cadell: Pretty clear that Trollhunter became just plain Troll long ago...Calling Vet a troll....

Day 4 on the internet, Stupid?

Must have missed the orginal Martialist forum, ah others have saved it.

Troll Bashers. The worst enemy of trolls, Troll Bashers appear to possess an almost pathological hatred for trolls. Fully aware of the tools and tactics of trolling, Troll Bashers expose trolls whenever they see them. Often the first to identify Contrarians, and unforgiving in the pursuit of Deceptives, Troll Bashers are experienced and venomous. Often accused of being trolls themselves, Troll Bashers understand the difference between the initiation of trolling and the retaliation against it – and believe any amount of retaliatory abuse is justified when a troll rears its ugly head.

Say, where did your sock puppet idiotcup go?


 

#56 Hello Rupert

Want to play with me?

I'm in the mood to whack a troll.

#57 I'll take your silence as a "no"

Oh well.

Vet obviously pounded you into pulp.

NightO Rupe.

#58 J

Email.

#59 Not tonight, Blonde. Work

Not tonight, Blonde. Work tomorrow. Next weekend perhaps. Still trying to untie Vet's rhetorical knots. Do you at least want to talk about immigration, the nominal topic of this forum? If someone would explain to me how, in TXGranny's apparently widely-supported plan, citizens are supposed to be able to distinguish legal immigrants from illegal before shooting them for being the latter I'd be happy to let the matter rest.

Interesting, Vet, that the discussion, contentious though it was, was actually ABOUT immigration solutions and the ethics of one NBer's suggestion until you came along and made it about - well, totally unrelated things. If there's one reason I think you're a troll, it's that you have yet to argue with me about an actual issue. You seem far more interested in making it about the poster and some past sin he or she has committed against your sensibilities than discussing the issue. Signature troll behavior. And yes, I rose to your bait. Hard not to when you're called a bigot.

For kicks, since your so fond of the term troll, let's run down the standard definitions. Please let me know if I've forgotten about times in which I've behaved in these ways (perhaps we could exclude the 2 y/o incident for which I apologized):

-Provoking an emotional response? Nope.
-Disrupting normal on-topic conversation? I've been as on-topic as possible.
-Name-calling? Don't believe so.
-Posting messages and ignoring replies (i.e. "drive-by trolling")? Definitely not.

Anything else?

You, however, have managed to do all but the last. The last item is something you definitely do not do. Kudos.

 

#60 Come on Rupert*

An illegal is easy to spot. They are the ones climbing the fence instead of going through a check point.  

#61 You can't be serious.

You can't be serious.

 

#62 You can't be serious.

You can't be serious.

 

#63 You can't figure out how to work a mouse.

You also can't figure out what the Subject line is for.

Monkeypeople click just once on that save button troll. Monkeypeople are paitent like that.

#64 Poor troll. Word bully got you down?

Poor bigoted, admitted prick, lying, stupid, troll now whines because the big bad word bully did not stay on topic and did not do his homework digging up the bigot's bigoted troll posts.

Iz mad and itchy now.

U stay on topix word bulliz or iz troll will stomp feetz.

#65 Missed this amongst the truckload of Stupid that is R. Cadell

Stupert Cadell: You have to go back to the expunged NB archives and pull something that you only even have access to...

More magic from The Vet. Woogie Boogitee Woogeetooteez.

Yep. Only I have access to this web page ---

Rupert Cadell - Leftist Bigot, Hater & Groupie Groper.

Suck it monkeypeople. Only troll bashers can see that. Don't even click on it. Waste of your time. matthewdean and Blonde and boudin, of course, I have given access to you my fellow trolljegeren. All you other monkeypeople, yeah, just go back to sleep.

#66 Awesome Vet*

I think I found The Vet.   This is you, right Vet of a 1000 psychic wars?

#67 You keep this up...

... I am going to change my name. Jack Wagner. Wait, no, that ain't right....

#68 This would be true if I had

This would be true if I had said "something that only you even have access to..."

But I did not.  As you quote me yourself, I said "something that you only even have access to" and then went on to explain why you have it despite the fact that its creation predated the Great NB Purge.  Which is that you cut and pasted my comments into a forum to showcase my "bigotry."

That is all.  It is a matter of 5th grade grammar.  "Only" modified "have access to."  Your comment incorrectly hinges on it modifying "you."

English language fail, Vet.

And let me guess, are you one of those who gripes about having to press 1 at the ATM and that the immigrants better learn impeccable English if they want a piece of the American pie?

Ooh, now that might have been bigoted. 

 

#69 Where would that be troll? Lying again? Or just more stupid?

Stupert Cadell: ...then went on to explain why you have it despite the fact that its creation predated the Great NB Purge.

I really have to crack that window when I light up the kerosenes. When did you talk about the NB purge in that post, troll? Is it heavy having that long of a nose? Let's look at the full sentence there.

Stupert Cadell: You have to go back to the expunged NB archives and pull something that you only even have access to because of your pointless penchant for creating anti-troll forums.

That orange clicky stuff there means you can go back an see exactly what was posted and there was nothing there about explaining why I and only I the English disabled have access and nothing at all about the Great NB Purge.

Liar.

Still can't work that mouse and scroll up to see what was said, huh?

#70 Thank you for making my point

Thank you for making my point for me. As the full text clearly indicates, I said that the ONLY REASON you are able to show my prickish rant from 2009, despite its being purged from the place that I actually posted it, was that, at the time, you created a forum to paste it into, and that that forum was NOT purged.

No amount of linguistic wrangling will allow you to credibly suggest that I said you are the ONLY ONE with access to it. On this point, you are simply wrong.

 

#71 See, that is why you are so stupid. You think we are all stupid.

Stupert Cadell: I said that the ONLY REASON you...

But bigots are like that. Right?

The word reason was not in that sentence.

Stupert Cadell: You have to go back to the expunged NB archives and pull something that you only even have access to because of your pointless penchant for creating anti-troll forums.

You LIE again. 

You are not even pretending now.

#72 Are there quotation marks

Are there quotation marks around only reason?  No?  Then your accusation of lying is baseless, because unlike your blatant misreading, substituting "because of" with "only reason" in a paraphrase does not change the meaning of what I said.  Not even a little.  You lose again.  

And by the way, it's quite obvious that you're trying to get me to rise to your inflammatory posts and go off on some sort of profanity-laced tirade that will get me removed from the site, or at least give you ammunition against me that doesn't pre-date this decade.  It simply won't happen.  I understand that that's the typical method of troll expulsion, but I am quite capable of maintaining my cool.

 

#73 As I said. Stupid quit trying.

Stupert Cadell: ...your blatant misreading, substituting "because of" with "only reason" in a paraphrase... 

I directly quoted you LIAR. Still can't understand the whole red clicky letters thing, huh? Since when is a direct quote now a paraphrase?

But whatever.

Stupert Cadell: I said that the ONLY REASON...

I said...

I said...

I said...

Stupert Cadell: You have to go back to the expunged NB archives and pull something that you only even have access to because of your pointless penchant for creating anti-troll forums.

Stupert Cadell: I said that the ONLY REASON you are able to show my prickish rant from 2009...

Supert Cadell: ...your blatant misreading, substituting "because of" with "only reason" in a paraphrase... 

 

Wear that ass for a hat proudly troll. You earned it. Satchmo the King Beclowner is dead. Long live Stupert  Cadell the King Beclowner.

#74 You quoted me directly. I

You quoted me directly. I paraphrased myself. Simple as that, champ. You are wrong. And again, you manipulate cut-n-paste to make it look like I said something I didn't. This one is very clever:

"your blatant misreading, substituting "because of" with "only reason" in a paraphrase..."

Buuut, of course, if someone were to, you know, actually read what I wrote they'd see that I did not say that this substitution was your doing, but my own. All you had to do was remove "unlike." You are shameless.

Go take a nap or something; one more obviously incorrect accusation and you might lose that construction paper Troll Hunter badge you're so proud of.

Also, come on, you messed up your own nickname for me. "Supert"? It's Stupert, man!

 

#75 Keep on tryin', Rupe---

you're flailing, stumbling, and if you keep it up are going to look even more foolish if you continue to try to parse your way to victory.

Slink away now, man, have you no pride?

Oops.

Sorry.

I forgot who I was addressing.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

#76 Tired of your attempted butt covering troll.

Stupert Cadell: I did not say that this substitution was your doing, but my own.

Stupert Cadell: ...your blatant misreading, substituting "because of" with "only reason"

...yoiur blatant misreading..

...YOUR blatant misreading...

...YOUR...

Enough with the LIES troll.

#77 You do realize that you can't

You do realize that you can't just remove words from other people's sentences in a way that changes the meaning, and then claim that the person said the changed thing, right? Especially when what the person actually said is a matter of record just above your distortion. No offense, but that's the sort of thing the Lamestream Media would do.

It's been real, gents. I'll see you next time. I'm going to try not to think about the things I could have done tonight instead of staying up 2 hours later than usual arguing semantics with two people who have no interest in logic, fairness, or reality.

 

#78 Yes Stupid. That is how it works.

I removed words and changed the meaning. And everyone on the planet is not free to scroll up and down this page as see exactly what was written and how I changed the meaning. Click Click Click Zippy Zoo Zoo ZaSAM. Look at my magic and be amazed.

Oh and also troll --- We don't care what you do or when you do it. No need to announce your every bowel movement on the internet. You want to go. Go. We are not your babysitters.

Hey everybody, I am going to fart now. 2 hours overdue you know.

#79 → Note to self

Don't P!ss off Da Vet!

#80 No point in trying to deal with a troll, Rupe ---

with logic, fairness or reality.

Most trolls come across as too dumb to have had any experience whatsoever with either of the three concepts. 

Staunchly liberal trolls like you, though, seem to consider that socialist talking points are interchangeable with, and equal to, either of the three.

It just ain't so, fool.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

#81 Rupe, when I caught your first posts---

as Rupert, I thought you were just the typical misguided liberal.

You have managed to work your way up, through subsequent posts, to typical misguided liberal loony bullshit artist troll who is a race card flickin' bastard.

Though you aim your racist taunts at conservatives here, your use of the theory that the best defense is an offense points the racist finger right back at you.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

#82 D'ya think he's pals with

D'ya think he's pals with Cleventine, MD???

#83 Could be, killa---

could be.  :o)

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

#84 Get off your high horse

Get off your high horse already. Your selective determinations of who is trollish or who plays what card are embarassingly transparent. Look at the tenor of Vet's posts (and yours, for that matter); I think a little flippancy is warranted. Especially when he tries to embarrass me by characterizing my post as saying something that it DEFINITIVELY does not say.

Also, I did not call Vet racist. Your remark suggests that YOU believe people who complain about having to press 1 or believe immigrants must be perfect ESL speakers - and there are a LOT of people who believe those things, it's barely even a caricature - are racists.

Also, as to your claim that you benevolently albeit patronizingly thought I was just a "misguided liberal": Actually, your first post to me here included the phrase "Liberal Pussy," so pardon me for not appreciating it.

 

#85 Rupe, you misguided troll, you;---

I have no horse; I am not Don Quixote.

I verbally slap foolish trolls from ground level while sitting at my keyboard.

The racist cognomen fits you reference your simple-minded shots at texasborngranny over the 'shooting suspects' comment made by her.

Er, did you miss the point that my 'selective determinations' about who is trollish or who 'plays' the race card are in posts for all to see?

Of course they are transparent - I have nothing to hide.

You are an idiot.

Did my last comment seem somehow "transparent" to you, as though I "meant" something else?

If so, you are dumber than your posts would indicate - which is a whole new level of dumb.

Even though you are wrong regarding what my first post to you stated, which was kudos for being up front about admitting being in error reference the OWS crowd - and contained nothing derogatory - make no mistake, you are a liberal pussy.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

#86 "I verbally slap foolish

"I verbally slap foolish trolls from ground level while sitting at my keyboard."

You're very bad at it.

"The racist cognomen fits you reference your simple-minded shots at texasborngranny over the 'shooting suspects' comment made by her."

What shots? I took issue with what I understood to be a very misguided idea, and suggested that it would lead to racial problems based on a very simple flaw in its logic that has just entered Day 5 of not being addressed. Distinguish legals from illegals how?

"Er, did you miss the point that my 'selective determinations' about who is trollish or who 'plays' the race card are in posts for all to see? Of course they are transparent - I have nothing to hide."

Oh okay, cool, see I was under the impression that you wanted to at least SEEM as though you were objective and not just being blatantly biased in accusing anyone whose ideas differ from yours of playing various cards for the simple fact of their being in disagreement with you.

"You are an idiot."

And your insults are very original and well-thought-out. See you next weekend, maybe.

 

#87 Actually, Rupe---

your opinion, as a foolish troll, is to be expected.

Not respected, e-x-p-e-c-t-e-d.

Same old blather -'nanner, nanner, nanner, sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me'

True dat; your insipid liberal BS hurts you far more than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick would.

Or haven't you figured that out yet, based on your stellar reputation on this site?

I learned long ago that calling an idiot an idiot is just being forthright, direct, and truthful.

So is calling a putz a putz.

Putz.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

#88 Rupe

"Distinguish legals from illegals how?"

Are you being knuckleheaded and obtuse just for some kind of liberal-on-a-conservative site kicks? I mean, really.

Seems I have to copy-paste for you again. TXGranny:

- build the fence and electrify it;

- build another fence 50 yards inside the first and fill the gap with lots of dobermans, german shepherds, rottweilers, and other 'sensors';

- increase the number of BP agents and give them the tools to do the job with a 'liberal' Rules of Engagement policy;

- fill the air along the border with armed drones, any person within the 'gap' is fair game;

Now, as to TXG's closing sentence mentioning people beyond BP agents doing the shooting, there is indeed a conflict there, but TXG CLEARLY states that it is ONLY within this fenced-off GAP/ZONE that we would spot these people and they would be fair game. This gap is in between TWO FENCES.

Add to that, on the Mexican side we would POST WARNINGS to anyone who would try to enter the zone that they will be clearly identified as attempting illegally entry into the United States, as they are, well, caught between TWO ELECTRIFIED BORDER FENCES.

Now........ Do you still want to ask us all how we would distinguish the legals from the illegals?

Please answer with any one, or more, of the following:

"No, I'm sorry, I'll stop and let this go." or "Yes, MD, Vet, you, Mr. Shy, Blonde, all have a point -- I am kind of stupid." or "I've had a hard day and, granted, I didn't really read TXG's post carefully enough." or "I admit that I've kicked up a sh*tstorm from basically nothing." (the last one being a common occurrence of libs...)

- shy on vinyl

#89 Stupid pulls a Stupid again.

Stupert Cadell the bigot:...as to your claim that you benevolently albeit patronizingly thought I was just a "misguided liberal": Actually, your first post to me here...

Stupid pulls another troll cliche. Acting as though this forum was the start of year 1 for all trolls.

matthewdean was referring to your collective posts in all forums, Stupid. But I must apologize for calling you Stupid as I actually have no evidence of your stupid as really I have no knowledge of your previous posts being the stupid monkeyman I am. I can only be aware of your post here on this forum and even then, only today. What is your name again? Us monkeymen forget to crack a window when we fire up the kerosenes heaters.

#90 matthewdean was referring to

matthewdean was referring to your collective posts in all forums, Stupid.

Um, I don' think so.  If you read his comments on the Coulter-authored thread from October where I posted for the first time in years, you will see that his response was even harsher than his comments to me here.  Indeed, the only time MD has given me a shred of credit was when I came back last week to retract the remarks made on that very forum and say that I had lost all faith in OWS.

So yeah, you are once again totally wrong.  You two are really bad at this.

 

#91 Yep. Stupid quit trying.

Stupert Cadell: Actually, your first post to me here...

Stupert Cadell: ...you read his comments on the Coulter-authored thread from October where I posted for the first time ...

I don't even need to comment anymore. Just quote stupid lying from one post to another.

#92 I don't even know what you're

I don't even know what you're trying to prove with this one. You have serious reading comp issues.

MD said he first wanted to give me the benefit of the doubt as a "misguided liberal."

Assuming he meant on this thread, I pointed out that he called me a liberal pussy, which is hardly consistent with giving one the benefit of the doubt.

You, for some reason, butted in to say MD was referring to my entire oeuvre.

I said I doubted that because he certainly didn't give me the benefit of the doubt when I began posting 2 months ago either.

So what's your incorrect point now?

 

#93 That you lie like a dog.

Was that the answer you were looking for King Beclowner Cadell?

#94 Hang in there, Rupe---

and as soon as the language restrictions are eased around here, I'll tell you what I really think of your worthless lyin' ass.  :o)

Change your asinine liberal tune, and earn some plaudits; or continue with your usual BS and carping and see if you can improve your image.

Neither is likely to happen, I'd say.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

#95 and as soon as the language

and as soon as the language restrictions are eased around here, I'll tell you what I really think of your worthless lyin' ass. :o)

Well actually, I haven't lied once, Vet's pathetic attempts to demonstrate otherwise notwithstanding.

Wow, you mean you'll call me something worse than "putz"?  On an anonymous online forum?  Big man.  Doing that would take some serious cojones.  In terms of bravery, you'd be right up there with the kind of people who are totally cool with other citizens shooting at suspected immigrants.  Only a pussy would be opposed to that.

 

#96 Name calling. Yeah. Stupert Cadell never does that.

Who cares what they do or
December 5, 2009 - 18:48 ET by Rupert Cadell
Who cares what they do or don't call themselves?  They're 98.5% Beck-worshipping crybabies with apparent short-term memory impairment regarding recent history who think the election of a half-black man is the root of all our current ills, can't wrap their heads around the fact that most mainstream economists agree that the stimulus actually prevented a full-blown depression, and believe that "Drill Baby Drill" is a brilliant policy statement.

Two years later and he still ain't figured out that whole Subject line as well.
 

#97 Dang, Rupe---

Ya caught me out.

As an anonymous electronic entity, my name calling is pretty much just show and bravado ---

as if the stupid shit you say ain't subjected to the very same judgment. 

Moron.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

#98 Ding.

A bell. I clearly hear it. Anyone else hear it? The ding that comes with someone getting in a superstacular shot. That ding from hitting the tin bullseye in a carnival. I clearly heard it. Anyone else hear that?

Ah, must be that kerosene fumes. I should win that crackdow.

#99 Rupe Pulling a Jer

"In terms of bravery, you'd be right up there with the kind of people who are totally cool with other citizens shooting at suspected immigrants."

And the insufferable, dishonest lib bangs the same drum again, leaving out that minor detail that the shooting would take place in a gap (or zone) physically delineated BETWEEN TWO ELECTRIFIED FENCES and with CLEAR WARNINGS on the Mexican side.

- shy on vinyl

#100 Actually, Rupert---

texasborngranny would be an ideal neighbor to have along the border compared to a wimped out liberal pussy such as yourself.

It is all well and good to espouse sensitivity, but when you mix it with the stupid elements proposed by brain dead, feel good libs, it not only becomes worthless; it becomes dangerous.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

#101 Let me get this right. You

Let me get this right. You ACTUALLY THINK that one becomes a "liberal pussy" by saying that it might cause a bit of a problem to allow any and all citizens to take shots at "suspected border jumpers"? I don't know which I find more distressing, by the way; the call for vigilantism against a non-violent crime or that TBG actually included the word "suspected" without reservation. Am I the only one who sees that what this suggests is "by all means, take your best shot at the brown-skinned people"?

 

#102 You got it right, Rupe, about like you did OWS---

your first time through the threads.

Shooting 'suspects' is of course too harsh an action; but to seize on that as having a racist connotation rather than as an hyperbolic extension of voicing discontent with the lack of federal protection from or action against the flood of illegal aliens, is a typical action by a liberal.

For liberal pussies, it is far better to talk about being sensitive TO a situation rather than actually dealing with it.

As a race card flicker, you are the usual liberal norm.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

#103 Excellent, md, you have

Excellent, md, you have nailed the liberal 'fade and pass' so to speak.

#104 Oh please. The liberal

Oh please. The liberal trolls that you're used to beating up on here must be a pretty pathetic bunch if you think I'm going to rise to two-bit provocations like this and go off the rails.

"You're liberal, so you always do X." That is literally the only rhetorical tool you seem to have at your disposal.

As those who actually read the words I typed could attest, I did not call texasgranny a racist. In fact, just a few hours ago, I explicitly said that did not think she was racist for posing this option. What I said was that her plan, put into action, would undoubtedly result in racist violence. Inevitably so. And I imagine that this is simply something that didn't occur to her in voicing a plane that, as you rightly point out, may have been a hyperbolic result of frustration. But how, after all, does one identify a "border jumper"? Someone who looks Mexican, right? Do I really have to explain how this spells racially-motivated violence? You may be reactionary and harbor some deep-seated hatred of liberals, but you're not stupid.

 

#105 Oh, please

Haven't we already been over most of these points just in this thread alone? Spare me the 'fear of red-neck racists going on shooting sprees' scenario. I'd like to see the actual numbers of illegals murdered by roaming gangs of white racists. This Country has been extremely tolerant of what amounts to a mass invasion, too damn tolerant actually. Perhaps we should discuss the over 2200 American citizens MURDERED every year by illegal aliens, and that doesn't count rape and DUI deaths. If you don't think those don't include 'kill/rape whitey' incidents you are hopelessly naive. I can give you an example of a friend's son being put in the hospitable by these 'good' people for being white. Gee, I wonder how they determined the kid wasn't one of them? Racial stereotyping on the part of those innocent brown folks, maybe? I'm sure herds of illegals carrying Mexican flags and shouting, "Down with the gringo system" make you scratch your head as to their origins, but I'm pretty sure most of us got it figured out. And despite all the animosity aimed at the average American, white, working citizen from every bitter, leftist, grievance encampment and the 'tolerance', patience and attempt at solutions we have exhibited, WE are branded as 'haters'. Gimme a freakin' break.

#106 "Spare me the 'fear of

"Spare me the 'fear of red-neck racists going on shooting sprees' scenario. I'd like to see the actual numbers of illegals murdered by roaming gangs of white racists."

Where on earth are you getting this nonsense and why are you imputing it to me?

I never said that things like this are happening now. I'm saying that if TXGranny's advocated plan - about which by all indications she was serious - were to be implemented, then THAT would lead to racist murders. And I'm not talking about roving bands of white vigilantes wiping out any Mexican they can find. I'm talking about people honestly thinking they're doing their part to eradicate illegal immigration and shooting a person who winds up not to be an illegal at all. I'm still waiting for someone to explain how one is supposed to identify a "suspected border-jumper" if not through the "he/she looks Mexican" rubric. TXGranny's idea is just a huge invitation to regular citizens to engage in (uh-oh, squishy liberal buzzword coming) racial profiling, consciously or otherwise.

Seriously. If you disagree, fine, but I'll thank you to stop putting words in my mouth.

 

#107 Because, Rupert, if Americans

Because, Rupert, if Americans were inclined to go about shooting illegal aliens in order to protect our sovereignty, we'd already be doing it. It's a ridiculous assumption that we're just waiting for the go ahead from a Bill introduced by Texasgranny or someone in Washington. We already know our immigration laws are being ignored, our living standards depressed and our flag trampled, if we were to resort to the same level of barbarism as the illegal aliens street gangs, we would've already done so. To suggest that Americans would put aside their humanity and morals and hop in a pick-up to go 'shoot us some taco-eaters' because DC said 'cool' is ridiculous. If you think Americans are that hot for blood, many in Washington would already be hanging from trees. We are not occupiers here, we believe in reform in a real democratic, ground-up fashion. When peaceful revolution is made impossible....then we'll have to revisit this conversation.

#108 Rupert (or Ruprecht), Monkey Boy

"Am I the only one who sees that what this suggests is "by all means, take your best shot at the brown-skinned people"?"

Yes, you are the only one -- certainly at NB and among it's conservative members.

Many of us, like you, don't live and work along the porous and very dangerous southern border of our country (and we live in or near the comfy, northern urban areas, like you, Rupe) .... BUT, get this: We, unlike you, are not politically correct ignoramuses, and fully understand that it's a whole different world down there along the border for so many whose very livelihoods (i.e., their farming jobs, families, businesses) are seriously threatened on a daily basis by illegal immigrants.

- shy on vinyl

#109 Shy gets it*

And it isn't just the border states. If Rupert would read more than just the NY Times, he would know the rise in crime along the "corridor" from the border to the east coast.  The crime rates have dramatically risen in the last few years in La, Miss, and Ala. Why do you think Ala is taking action against illegals?

They smuggle guns and drugs, they steal along the "corridor". They camp out in our forests, along the levees, in fishing camps, boats...They set fires, steal cattle, leave their human filth everywhere they go.

The La State Police have records that would surprise everyone.  These people do not know how to drive, they drive stolen vehicles, without a license, without insurance.  Cause accidents throughout the south and victims are left with no avenue to recoup their loses.

What is surprising to me is that there has not been ANY deadly shootings of illegals by those "ignorant southern rednecks who dont like brown skinned people".

Just a few months ago, we learned of an illegal arrested for smuggling AK-47's in the trunk of a car.  This was his 3rd arrest because ICE keeps releasing him.  Where does Rupert think those AK-47's were going?  To your local TEA Party?

As a result of the actions by the illegals, it has increased costs in many areas, not just our car insurance.  Give that some thought Rupert.

#110 cajun

Great post.

And remember, Rupert, like all liberals, is against self-preservation. He feigns outrage at people being fed up by crime, drugs, senseless deaths and worsening living conditions -- and that they dare to say "enough" after taking so much of a beating without any reprisals so far.

"They smuggle guns and drugs, they steal along the "corridor". They camp out in our forests, along the levees, in fishing camps, boats...They set fires, steal cattle, leave their human filth everywhere they go."

Hmm, lots of that rings a bell.... Just a reminder that OEE (Occupy Everything & Everyone) truly takes it's cues from the dregs of the world (illegals and islam, as they are also terrorizing our citizens.)

- shy on vinyl

#111 As I've said many times

As I've said many times already, I don't deny that these problems exist. I've spent time in El Paso and it's very obviously an issue. No argument.

However...

While I of course have no qualms about a person defending him or herself with deadly force if he or she is threatened, my very first post took explicit issue with TXGranny's suggestion that "suspected border-jumpers" be fair game for any/everyone. I can't believe I have to defend that position. And for at least the 4th time, the reason for that is: How does one identify a "border-jumper" as opposed to the thousands of Mexicans who reside legally in these communities? My experience is limited, but they tend not to advertise it.

 

#112 Sure Rup, Been an increase of legal Mexican ultra-marathoners.

Doing all their training right on the border.

#113 Rupe the Word Twister

"TXGranny's suggestion that "suspected border-jumpers" be fair game for any/everyone."

Really? That's what TXGranny wrote / suggested / expressed? You are Exhibit A of why engaging liberals/leftists makes me want to tear my hair out. You are dishonest. To our faces.

With the miracle of copy-and-paste, below is what TXGranny actually wrote (and he/she went and painstakingly outlined a plan, something you and most passive, lazy, dimwitted libs seem to never bother doing):

First, round 'em up and send 'em home.

And right out of the gate, you mocked TXG for that alone, saying it's impossible so don't even try... Then this:

That will save us enough money to:
build the fence and electrify it;
build another fence 50 yards inside the first and fill the gap with lots of dobermans, german shepherds, rottweilers, and other 'sensors';

Then, the most important words which you mangled, to suit your lying narrative of what TXG proposed:

increase the number of ***BP agents*** and give them the tools to do the job with a 'liberal' Rules of Engagement policy;
fill the air along the border with armed drones, ***any person within the 'gap' is fair game;***

Fair game for "any/everyone", Rupe? FAIL. For "BP agents". And how nice that you left out the little detail that it's only in "the gap" between the two fences.

And wait, TXG is still bending backwards, trying to be as compassionate and careful as possible while laying out a very aggressive, effective plan:

distribute flyers all along the mexican side (in spanish, via drones), post signs ***and use any means of warning potential invaders*** that BP Agents/LEOs/farmers/ranchers/and any other US citizen has the right to shoot suspected border jumpers on sight.

Arg.

- shy on vinyl

#114 Shy---

Like, like, like, like, like.

Full disclosure:

Even if I liked liberals, which I do NOT, that was an example par excellence of:

  • A Lib's failure to read and comprehend

        - or-

  • A Lib's habit of interpreting so as to shine a bad light on a conservative

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

#115 and any other US citizen has

and any other US citizen has the right to shoot suspected border jumpers on sight.

Black and white.  Very straightforward.

What am I missing in your criticism here?  The only possible way that granny was NOT saying what I suggested would be if the idea is that the signs would SAY that citizens can shoot "suspected border-jumpers" and that the sign would thus be a deterrent; but in fact citizens canNOT do that?  If so, fine.  But did it really take 3 days and almost 100 posts for someone to offer that interpretation?  And furthermore, only TX Granny can definitely say if this was her intention.  

As for "mocking" the deportation line, I wasn't mocking that this is what she wants, I was mocking the implication that it would be a super-simple project that could be accomplished just like that.

 

#116 This, you see, was to be

This, you see, was to be written in Spanish on flyers. It doesn't mean it has to actually be done. As we have already seen amongst the invaders or as 'upcountry" pointed out what liberals like to believe are just 'Mexican ultra-marathon runners that happen to be training along the border', is that word gets out. We've seen that they self-deport from States that even mention enforcement of immigration laws and flock to States that merely talk about sanctuary or amnesty. All the US would have to do is let it be known that law-breaking will no longer be tolerated and not a single shot will have to be fired. Just as illegals profit us nothing, we owe them nothing, including the truth.

#117 And, of course, if only---

texasborngranny can state what her actual intent was (per Rupert), leave it to a liberal fool like Rupe to jump right on the initial statement with the proclamation that it was really advocating shooting brown-skinned people.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

#118 Is Rupe still with us? Not

Is Rupe still with us? Not another plaything taken away...shucks. I've been over at Kevin Jackson's blog sparing with some libtards over there, but now the site is down. It wouldn't be the first time a 'progressive' has hacked and shut down that site. Ya know how 'tolerant' they are of dissenting opinions and all.

#119 Yeah---

Rupe is hanging around somewhere close; I can detect a slight odor of troll.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

#120 MD, ant, MrShy...

It's heartening to know that while I was down for the count this week (Mac truck of a flu bug), there were those that had my back. Thank you.

I thought I had written an easily understood post regarding my thoughts. I did not take into account the liberal practice of taking a very few words out of context in order to create an argument against what wasn't even said. ;-/

Have a great weekend!

TBG

#121 You have a good one too,

You have a good one too, texasborn!

I'm struck how prescient George Orwell really was. He said this, in regards to Lib trolls, "I'm surprised to find the depths to which we have sunk, when restating the obvious must become the first duty of intelligent men." (and grannies)

#122 And reference liberal trolls, ---

someone else said, "It is often exceedingly difficult to undo the good that do-gooders do".

Likely a quote from a Texan, I'm sure.   :o)

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

#123 Thank you for admitting illegals have committed crimes.

albeit "non-violent crime".  Now, what is the usual punishment for crime?  Loss of income in  the form of fines, and incarceration.  In the case of illegals, the government is fully justified in returning the law breakers to their country of origin.  Every one of them. 

But, I guess those who hail from the "cradle of liberty" don't mind citizens in the border states and those a bit to the north of the border states taking the brunt of the illegal activities of the illegals?

To re-elect Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and hitting the iceberg again.

#124 Thank you upnorth*

We are generous in "the cradle of liberty".  Here are a few examples.

The issue of public health

Costs to Arizona

Costs to California

This is a "compassionate service" to all those illegals in just 2 states for "non violent crimes".  Some states can no longer carry this financial burden and risks.  American citizens must be included in this discussion.  

Rupie was right on only one point. This is a very complex issue.  You cannot simply ignore this massive problem that affects many aspects of our society by implying we need to be less bigoted and more compassionate.  

Notice, I have not presented any information regarding the number of illegal criminals incarcerated,  felony crimes and murders committed by illegals.  Nor did I present information about housing, identity theft, false SS numbers. There are thousands of Americans fighting with the IRS over "taxes" owed because illegals stole their SS numbers. They rip off credit card companies, banks, loan companies and to recoup the loses, we pay the price.  Rising hospital costs, car insurance, all going up because of the estimated 18 million illegals.  

And Rupert, I dont care what they look like, where they come from, but we do need to address this issue before raising my da** taxes AGAIN. 

#125 We don't need Americans

We don't need Americans firing slugs into Mexicans on this side, we got Obama and Holder killing them inside their own country.

#126 Rupert, I'd bet you got an "F" in Current Events

and, probably American Government, too. Did not one of your teachers explain to you that the "border fortifications", land mines and machine gun towers erected on on the IGB(that would be the Inner German Border, for those that never saw it) were, in fact, erected to keep all the good Volk of the DDR(Deutsche Demokratishce Republik) inside their own country?

I was there, the machine gun towers faced East, not West, and the anti-personnel mines were on the Eastern side of the fence, camoflaged from the Volk of the DDR.

And then this gem,"logistically-intensive project that would irreparably tarnish our international image (yes, this does matter)".  Got news for ya, Rupie, no it doesn't.  If you're one of the limp-wristed believers who thought Obama's election would make us untarnished, got news for ya, it didn't work.  SO, lets go back to actually, you know, enforcing the laws on the books.  No Dream Act, no amnesty, if you aren't here legally, get ready to head on home, because we will find  you, and send  you there.

To re-elect Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and hitting the iceberg again.

#127 You get an "F" for dodging the issue, UpNorth...

TXgranny says says every US citizen should have the right to shoot suspected border jumpers on sight in the area between the fences. ant is the only one so far to even implicitly disagree with her. What say you?

Jer

#128 First of all, Jer, let me add

First of all, Jer, let me add that I seriously disagree as well.

Second, I don' think her proposal is limited to the area between the fences. After all, what would "regular American citizens" be doing there in the first place. It's hard to tell what she meant, exactly, but logic would dictate that only people operating in an official capacity would have the opportunity to shoot "border jumpers" in that particular zone.

Third, UpNorth, give it a rest. Your pedantic history lesson is beside the point and certainly doesn't warrant such detail. I'm quite aware that, contrary to the TX/Mexico perimeter, East Germany's wall was for keeping people in, not out. I was making a point about the Draconian nature of such fortifications, not whether they were for keeping people in or out.

 

#129 So, again I ask, rupie:

What would your solution be?

Strange that you would use the moniker from a James Stewart film. Mr. Stewart was a conservative and a classy gentleman.

For the MSM: In your pomp and all your glory, you're a poorer man than me.  As you lick the boots of death born out of fear.

Ian Anderson "Wind up"

#130 True, although the Stewart

True, although the Stewart character whose name I've appropriated was a Nietzschean elitist, moral relativist, and most likely closeted homosexual.

Unlike other posters on this thread, I don't pretend to be an expert on how to deal with such a massive and complex problem. I would probably advocate amnesty to people who are working at an appropriate wage, have families, and a clean legal record. I would certainly want to restrict financial and medical benefits (though I believe certain political commentators have grossly exaggerated the extent to which illegal immigrants are living in the lap of luxury).

So look at that, moderate starting points from which to address an enormous issue. What I'm not doing is suggesting that we could bus them all back to Juarez in no time or advocating open vigilantism. I'd rather just let the problem continue unchecked than live in a society that attempted the latter.

 

#131 On a much less complex note,

On a much less complex note, Roooooooooop..............you DO realize that the Mexicans enforce THEIR own borders a helluva lot more tightly and stringently than we do, right?? And the things that we allow to happen with regards to 'illegal aliens' are not tolerated in Mexico.

But somehow we're 'bad guys' for wanting to enforce our laws...............

#132 Considering your pedantic lecturing on these threads---

reference OWS, Rupe, you come off as laughable when lecturing anyone else about being pedantic.

Especially since you had to eat YOUR pedantic BS.

Speaking of pedantic:  draconian - harsh or extreme measures.

You no doubt believe that the label 'illegal aliens' is a draconian one; I'm sure you prefer 'undocumented immigrants'.

Wouldn't want the lawbreakers to think they were considered criminals for breaking the law, now would we?

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

#133 Well then Rupie, lets get rid of another fence.

If a fence along the Texas-Mexico border is "draconian" in nature, and, by extension from  your earlier remark, makes us look bad, why not also get rid of the fences around the people's house, AKA the White House.  After all, that fence is pretty "draconian" too. If open borders are good enough for the folks who live in the border states, it should be good enough for those in public housing in D.C.

To re-elect Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and hitting the iceberg again.

#134 Dear Rupert,

I apologize if my final sentence was not clear as to my intent, 'distribute flyers all along the mexican side (in spanish, via drones), post signs and use any means of warning potential invaders that BP Agents/LEOs/farmers/ranchers/and any other US citizen has the right to shoot suspected border jumpers on sight."

to clarify my intent: ...'farmers/ranchers/and any other US citizen whose property abuts the border has the right to shoot suspected border jumpers who are not only entering the US illegally, but in doing so, are also trespassing on the US citizen's personal property.'

My preference is that those aliens considering illegally crossing into the US would heed the warnings of dire consequences described in the flyers/signs on the Mexican side of the border and/or the sights/sounds of the hundreds of trained 'watch' dogs within the 'gap', and be dissuaded of their plan to enter the US illegally.

Currently, the is nothing to discourage criminal invaders from entering the US.

#135 So, that is "The" issue?

Who appointed you the arbiter of all things debated? You bought out the owners of NB last night, and now you get to determine who responds and posts what? I don' thin so, amigo.
Maybe you can get Rupie to follow this dance while you lead, but not me.
Rupie seems to think that we should just throw open the borders because it'll make us look better to the world, what say you?

To re-elect Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and hitting the iceberg again.

#136 Let's say

that you came home tomorrow and found a stranger living in your home. Would you pay $148 to have him removed, or would you instead just legally adopt him, giving him the run of the place and supporting him for the rest of his life to save the $148?

In a study, dutifully reported by the Washington Post and others, it would cost the Federal Government $41 billion per year over the next five years to actually enforce our immigration laws by deporting them home in, yes, an air-conditioned bus. The Federal Government has an annual budget of $2.34 trillion per year. Our Gross Domestic Product is a staggering $12 trillion per year. $41 billion would be just 1.7% of the Federal budget, and a miniscule 0.34% of our GDP.

Additionally, with every million Illegal Aliens that are sent home, we would save millions of $$$$ by not having to provide them with medical and educational services and we save even more money on law enforcement and fewer jail/prison occupants.

As far as, 'BP Agents/LEOs/farmers/ranchers/and any other US citizen has the right to shoot suspected border jumpers on sight."

Let's not forget that the BP Agents/LEOs/farmers/ranchers/and any other US citizen are out-gunned by members of the Mexican Cartels... with guns provided by Obama's DoJ, et.al.

#137 Hi TX Granny, thanks for

Hi TX Granny, thanks for coming back to clarify your position. I appreciate it. First, I don't really see someone breaking into and squatting in my home as comparable to Mexicans coming illegally into "my" country. That said, your economic breakdown is interesting and demonstrates that perhaps the deportation plan is more viable (on that level) than I thought. It would still be a very drawn-out process, but you appear to be correct that we would more than break even.

"BP Agents/LEOs/farmers/ranchers/and any other US citizen are out-gunned by members of the Mexican Cartels... with guns provided by Obama's DoJ, et.al."

You lose me here.  First of all, some evidence please.  Second, it's not like Mexican cartel violence became an issue on the day of Obama's inauguration.  This has been a fundamental, widely-discussed issue of the Drug War since Reagan's administration, and its existence even predates that.  I'm not even a big Obama supporter - I'll very much be a nose-holding voter next year - but this incessant need to bring every single point back to some fault of Obama's is really not helpful to the conservative cause.  Lest we forget that the Democrats tried to milk the "everything is Bush's fault" meme for all it was worth in 2004*, and that attitude toward an incumbent did not fly.

 

*Okay, 2008 too, perhaps, but I don't think that had a whole lot to do with Obama's victory.  It did, however, have quite a bit to do with Kerry's defeat.

 

#138 If you're going to vote for

If you're going to vote for Obama next year, you need to do more than hold your nose, you're gonna need a hand to cover your ears and your eyes as well. But since you require proof of the violence and crime inflicted on America by illegals and the drug cartels, you obviously have your eyes and ears pretty well shut already. As far as I'm concerned, if you're willing to punish America with another 4 years of Obama, you are a treasonous bastard, yes, I'm serious, because Obama is some serious BS.

#139 "But since you require proof

"But since you require proof of the violence and crime inflicted on America by illegals and the drug cartels, you obviously have your eyes and ears pretty well shut already."

I'm well aware that drug cartels inflict violence/murder on Americans within the borders of the U.S. That's not what I asked her to provide some evidence of.

"if you're willing to punish America with another 4 years of Obama, you are a treasonous bastard"

Hello, hyperbole. That's pretty messed up. Show me a superior alternative, I'll vote for him or her. The current GOP pool is a disaster.

 

#140 Please enlighten us to the benefits of another 4 years

Of Obama?

Seek Truth, Defend Liberty

#141 I'm a liberal, so I don't

I'm a liberal, so I don't think you'd find my reasons very enlightening. I like him on social issues (getting rid of DADT, for instance), much less on economic. I think I'd dislike a GOP candidate on both. Thus: The nose-holding.

 

#142 Social issues, really?

Like job killings and making sure more Americans then ever are on Food Stamps. Have to admit though, for you Gays it's all about you, never mind how much the Family, morality, and the civil society goes to crap.

You do realize, that when the fed goes belly up due to the leftist policies, all that social engineering goes up in smoke.

BTW, I knew you would not be able to articulate a coherent reason. Leftist never can!

Seek Truth, Defend Liberty

#143 "Like job killings and making

"Like job killings and making sure more Americans then ever are on Food Stamps."

Pretty sure those would be economic issues.

"for you Gays..."

I'm not gay.

"it's all about you, never mind how much the Family, morality, and the civil society goes to crap."

Hysterical claptrap. Please give me one example of how gay people serving openly in the military or marrying each other has affected the way you can live your life and raise your family. Don't like what's depicted on TV because it "encourages kids to be gay"? A) That argument is ridiculous. I've worked with kids who are realizing they are gay, and most of them would kill not to be. If a TV show can help a little bit by depicting openly gay characters as "normal," that's fantastic; and B) Fine, make your own family values TV show, or get the complete Leave it to Beaver box set from Netflix. But please don't get indignant about how those of us who would like to live in a progressive society - and I use that term in its purest sense - are sending civilization to hell in a handbasket. Finally, please explain to me why "traditional values" are de facto the right ones in the conservative mind? That a thing has always been a certain way does not necessarily validate it.

 

#144 Your not Gay?

BS, and you work with kids? Scary

Seek Truth, Defend Liberty

#145 Wow. Now THAT is bigoted. I

Wow. Now THAT is bigoted.

I think I mentioned early on in this very forum that I'm engaged to a woman.

And if I was gay, why would I raise the issue of gay rights and invite the very assumption that you've made? Furthermore, why would I feel the need to be closeted on an anonymous forum? I assure you, if I was gay, I'd say so.

 

#146 You are engaged to a ---

lesbian?

No wonder you are in favor of Gay marriage.

Congrats !

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

#147 Wow, I assume I'm supposed to

Wow, I assume I'm supposed to be offended but I honestly don't even get this one. Are you suggesting I'm actually a gay woman? If not, why would a lesbian want to marry a man, gay OR straight? What's the joke here?

 

#148 Rupe---

who you trying to kid?

As a liberal, you are impossible to offend.

As far as 'what's the joke here?' - I'm not too proud to pick low hanging fruit - you are !

The joke, I mean.

Could be a fruit though, with all that talk about lesbians and gays and straights.

Ya just never know these days.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

#149 How is that bigoted?

I just think you should not be ashamed of who you are : ]

Do you agree with me that in light of the recent developments at Penn St and Syracuse that letting Gay's work with kids is pretty scary? Or are you going to call me a bigot again?

Seek Truth, Defend Liberty

#150 Is that supposed to be funny?

Is that supposed to be funny? Sandusky was married to a woman. No one knew he was "homosexual." All that banning homosexuals from working with kids would accomplish would be to make more of them - those with evil intentions and otherwise - go deeper into the closet.

If you still maintain that (openly) homosexual individuals should be barred from working with kids, shall I assume you're also against young boys having contact with older female teachers, guidance counselors, etc? And young girls from being in contact with male teachers and such? If so, then fine, I guess you're not a bigot. But if not, then it would seem you're simply suggesting that being attracted to the opposite sex makes one automatically less inclined to exercise libidinal self-control. That would be bigoted indeed.

And all of this is sort of moot, since, as I pointed out, Sandusky had the appearance of heterosexual life. A man being attracted to other MEN is not clinically classified as sharing the pathologies of a same-sex pedophile. Which is to say that saying Sandusky was "gay" is a bit oversimplified.

 

#151 Good grief,

So you think drop out rate of 50% in our cities is fine, you think underage pregnancies are fine, you must also be ok with std's and high suicide rates. All of these could be curbed, if not for the rabid refusals by the leftist. Fact is, the leftist need these social problems to fix, so they can justify stealing more liberty.

Seek Truth, Defend Liberty

#152 Yeah,

Yeah, Roooooooop........getting rid of DADT is REALLY going to have a monumental impact on the future of this country........I don't know what we would've done without that decision. I guess all of those vacations are well-earned.

#153 Well, Killa, getting rid of DADT has made the K-9s fearful.

Seems the Senate, along with getting rid of the Sodomy article in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, has also done away with the prohibition against bestiality. 

Guess those folks who posted the idea that the repeal of DADT might have unintended consequences were just engaging in hyperbole.

To re-elect Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and hitting the iceberg again.

#154 Nice to know that our

Nice to know that our 'highly-respected' Senators are doing the REAL important work for our country, huh??? And as for the 'fine print' there - I'm sure it's a non-issue in mooooooooooooooooooslem countries, just like not having any homosexuals.

#155 So Rupert is a liberal*

You don't have a problem with Obama on social issues but more so on economics?

How about being more specific.. ie

Is it ok to give special treatment to homosexuals and other minorities  but deny those same rights of Christians?

You want special treatment for illegals for compassionate reasons  but its ok to murder 50 million unborn?

Its ok to allow 44 million people to draw welfare and food stamps for years with no work requirements? Yet, Obama is mandating that every American buy insurance except those already receiving entitlements. Is it acceptable to make small businesses incur these added costs? For medical professionals and hospitals to go broke?

To pay for all these programs you approve of 5% of the population to incur all the costs of these programs while 43% of Americans pay no taxes?

Do you support a POTUS that is anti American and incites class warfare?

Do you support a POTUS that ignores the constitution and the legislative process?  If that is acceptable to you for Obama, would that be acceptable to you for President Perry?

#156 I'm going to do this in a

I'm going to do this in a cursory fashion, I've had about all the online bickering I can take for one evening:

"Is it ok to give special treatment to homosexuals and other minorities but deny those same rights of Christians?"

What on earth is this even in reference to? What "special treatment" do gay people get as a matter of legal policy? Are gay marriages in fact "Super Marriages"?

"You want special treatment for illegals for compassionate reasons but its ok to murder 50 million unborn"

A fallacious premise along the lines of liberals who question how conservatives can be pro-life and also pro-death penalty. I don't want special treatment for illegals, I want them not to be considered fair game (along with "suspected" illegals who may in fact not be illegal) for citizens to shoot unless it's done in the service of preventing a violent crime. As to the conditions under which I would grant amnesty, I see that as a practical solution, not an ideological one. Yes, I am pro-choice, and also not about to get into that can of worms here.

"Its ok to allow 44 million people to draw welfare and food stamps for years with no work requirements? Yet, Obama is mandating that every American buy insurance except those already receiving entitlements. Is it acceptable to make small businesses incur these added costs? For medical professionals and hospitals to go broke?"

Economic issue, and brutally oversimplified at that; regardless, I am more sympathetic to your position on this than on others.

"To pay for all these programs you approve of 5% of the population to incur all the costs of these programs while 43% of Americans pay no taxes?"

Ibid.

Do you support a POTUS that is anti American and incites class warfare?

I disagree with both premises, in particular the former, which I assume is in reference to the "we've been lazy" remark. This notion that a POTUS has to be constantly reassuring Americans that they're awesome and never point out a shortcoming is silly.

"Do you support a POTUS that ignores the constitution and the legislative process? If that is acceptable to you for Obama, would that be acceptable to you for President Perry?"

You've got to be kidding. The whole reason Obama couldn't get anything accomplished for the last two years is BECAUSE of an adherence to the legislative process.

 

#157 Cursory fashion? ---

Yeah - if you use cursory as a synonym for superficial.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

#158 'We've been lazy' is about 1%

'We've been lazy' is about 1% of the statements that Boy Blunder has uttered through his lying purple lips that are - in my not-s0-humble opinion - anti-American and derogitory towards the people who make this country WORK - and the emphasis here is on 'WORK" - not expecting the government to take care of you!!!

And.........yes..........now Boy BlahBlah is 're-calibrating' that attitude, as the election draws near, because his handlers have told him (i'm damn sure he would never change his mind on his own - especially his anti-Americanism) that it's not going to do him any good, going into the election, to have his previous attitude thrown at him by the opposition. And, of course, the MSM is dutifully picking up on it and reporting that , alas, Boy Barry IS a true patriot in the mold of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

And..........lemme think about this for a minute,OK?? Oh,yeah!!! Boy Blunder OWNED the 3 branches of our government for the first two years of his REGIME - and the Dems OWNED 2/3 of it for 2 years prior to that................and they HAVE done a lot of - in my own estimation - irrepairable damage to the future of this country. So - with less than a year into 2011 - after the 'teabaggers' 'shellacked' the Democrats - which was a direct slap in the face of Boy Barry, whether he recognized it or not - he has to do whatever he can to circumvent the legislative process, since they won't go along with anything that he suggests - and that includes the Demoncrat controlled Senate, under the iron fist of that high-pitched little wimp-ass weasel, Harry Reid - who is as much of a lying, conniving, spiteful commie punk as Barack the Destroyer.

And also, given Boy Barry's own stated views of the Constitution ( yeah, and I really believe that he was a 'Constitutional scholar'!!! Show me ONE person who he 'taught'!!!), it doesn't surprise me at all that he DOES try to sidestep our legislative process - he's got no use for it, unless it's giving him what he wants.

#159 "Lying, purple lips"?

"Lying, purple lips"? Really?

Well this was all very enlightening. And since Obama is clearly an anti-American food who has alienated every Real American out there, Newt Gingrich (or whomever) will surely beat him handily in the fall. So you have nothing to worry about.

 

#160 Can you refute the 'lying

Can you refute the 'lying purple lips' statement?? I'm not sure if you're qualified to use the word 'enlighten'...............and what does this reply have to do with what I wrote??? Or Newt Gingrich, for that matter?? Maybe you could address the subjects that I was talking about??

Unfortunatly, Rooooooooop, there's a lot of so-called 'Americans' like you who NEED the government to get through your pathetic lives..........and it's dangerously close to 50-50 between the producers and the takers...............so don't feed me any crap about not having anything to worry about. I KNOW what the Government's role should be - it's spelled out quite simply and coherently..............and that's all I, and millions like me, ask for.

#161 Remember, killa, Old Rupe is

Remember, killa, Old Rupe is just like Obama, he can't be bothered with those economic issues and Constitutional restraints....Constitution shmonstituion....things need doin' and if Obama needs to act like a tin-pot dictator so be it. Stop being such an enemy..a bitter clingin, racist Nazi. Don't you know, gay marriage will solve every problem, it is THEE number 1 issue.

#162 'Things need doin', huh???

'Things need doin', huh??? You mean, like 'doin' bin Laden, and 'doin' the Greek crisis, and 'doin' Ghaddaffi, oh, yeah..................
and 'doin' the US and the USA???? Yeah - I know what you're talking about.

'Ya'know, Mooooooooooochelle, the folks out there are havin' a hard time..............I guess I haven't been doin' them enough!! Now, let's go have another vacation - you take AF 2, and I'll roll in later on AF 1. We'll be doin' the people'!!!!!

#163 Oh, right?

BECAUSE of an adherence to the legislative process.

I guess that's why he gave up on his capntax bill eh? Oh wait, he didnt, and he didnt bother with any legislation either.

So give us an example of some of the economic policies you dont agree with and what you would do?

Seek Truth, Defend Liberty

#164 Right again Boudin*

Notice, no budget proposal in three years but he keeps spending.  He does it by just writing checks to all his friends and allies.  

Let us count the ways

In three years, he has already written half the number of EO's that Bush signed in 8 years.  But the tone of the EO's are very different.  They are designed to supersede Congress on spending issues and regulations. Though we are in an economic crisis, and no budget, he has already given, without congressional approval, over $500 Billion to foreign countries above the treaty agreements in 2011 alone. This does not count the $2 B to Brazil, $2 B to Mexico, $500 B to GM, $1.5 B to Solyndra.   

#165 No liberal says anything enlightening, meathead;---

though it appears you fancy yourself as something quite special in that regard.

You aren't; of a surety.

You are merely a liberal troll -  one of many on this site.

 You offer up your opinions, and they are just as lame as are those of any of the other trolls.

Treating with you is more of a sport like target shooting than it is engaging in an intellectual past-time, as you provide nothing whatsoever in the way of mental stimuli; just stale and banal lib talking points.

"Progressive society - in it's purest sense" -?

You mean like talking a lot about Gays, as you do?

You sound, between your rants about Gays and tv shows, exactly like ol' Dead Ted.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

#166 Yes, it's quite clear that

Yes, it's quite clear that you have no interest in intellect, MD. Though you certainly spend a lot of time engaging with me anyway. Oh, and you too meet Vet's silly criteria for bigotry, seeing how you claim that "NO liberal is enlightened."

Also, you do realize that likening a liberal to Ted Kennedy is like likening a conservative to Reagan, right? It's not going to be taken as an insult. Compare me to Michael Moore, and maybe I'll get indignant.

 

#167 You mean, aside from a few

You mean, aside from a few pounds and a few gallons of whiskey, there IS any difference between Teddy the Swimmer and Michael Moron??? Name me ONE thing that either one of them has done to make this country a better place.

#168 Dealing with a lib troll, Rupe---

is not an exercise in intellectual gymnastics - I "engage" you because I enjoy trifling with foolish liberals.

Speaking truth about liberals is bigotry only to a liberal.

I've never compared anybody to Ted Kennedy, as he was a slug first, a liberal second, and a Democrat third; though there are those who maintain that Edward Kennedy was first and foremost a motorist guilty of, but not charged with, manslaughter.  How nice that a lib like you doesn't see being compared to young woman's killer as an insult.

Speaking of slugs, likening any lib to fat slug-slob Michael Moore would NOT be the cause for being indignant, as the only time libs get indignant is when a conservative tells the truth about them.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

#169 E-Verify! The 'Rule of Law' that must succeed

California—the Sanctuary state, that is suffering terribly from the millions of foreign nationals that have illegally settled there. As if they don’t have enough problems with a senile old Democrat (Liberal) Governor Jerry Brown and a wilting state treasury deficit of $22 billion dollars, the good legal population must now suffer under Democrat Assemblyman Felipe Fuentes, is helping to lead a measure, called the ‘California Opportunity and Prosperity Act.’ It would allow if passed 1 million illegal aliens or more to reside and work openly in the state with little fear of deportation under an initiative unveiled Friday by a state legislator and others.

Fuentes explained this measure as a "moderate, common-sense approach" necessitated by the federal government's inability to pass comprehensive immigration reform.

America has already seen the devastation of what cheap labor has done to the working class, the blue collar jobs, the low income US workers, since the outcome of the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli bill. Millions more of American workers are without jobs, because of no enforcement at the business level before President Obama—whose great enforcement work has dropped off, mainly because of the ‘usual suspects’ in the corporate world, special interests and penetrated by radical ethic majorities. As the Liberal press holds back the truth, the illegal alien workforce is still stealing jobs, committing heinous crimes and perhaps the abhorrent bloody mayhem on the highways of this country.

Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, a Republican, exploded against the proposal as a s a way to undermine the central governments immigration policies. He envisaged it wouldn't have a "snowball's chance in hell" of winning voter endorsement. Donnelly added, "There's a proper process for coming to this country," saying of illegal nationals "Why you don’t respect that?"

Supposedly the proposal would outline the following criteria that the person had settled in California for four years, have no criminal convictions; not being a terrorist, and as most pro-illegal migrant and immigrant politicians who have sided with the Liberal progressive and extremist philosophy of ever increasing government, more taxes to pay for welfare support for the 20 million plus, who arrived by plane and stayed, jumped ship or slipped past the U.S. Border Patrol; and at least another half-million enter this country each year.

Arizona, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Utah, Indiana are all weighted down with the foreign nationals that have arrived there, but have facilitated their own laws in reduce the numbers and the unfunded mandates of education, health care and a crowded prison system.

This is why we must succeed in passing the ‘Legal Workforce Act’ or known to Americans as Mandatory E-Verify law. Obama’s presidential orders have been creeping in, which are not following the law and even allowing illegal aliens to remain here. E-Verify will produce the opposite effect, which unlawful aliens will begin to leave as jobs will become less available. Right now E-Verify is just voluntary program, but with a growing number of sponsoring policy makers joining Lamar Smith’s H.R.2885, the chances are ‘The Legal Workforce Act’ could reach the house floor for that bill to pass. E-Verify and its passage to Congress is well documented on NumbersUSA internet site and information about the negative side if it doesn’t reach the house floor. Already out of the required 100 needed co-sponsors, only 33 are needed to compliment the law. It’s the Public assistance and taxpayer voters, who are contacting their Representatives in the House and Senate, determined not to be ushered to the side and demanding the E-Verify law. Thousands are calling 202-224-3121 to be directed to their federal and state political members and having a nationwide impact.

Michelle Bachmann, a strong advocate for the ‘Rule of Law’ and a TEA PARTY Republican will not be tempted, with the accustomed corruption exhibited within the Halls of Congress. The Tea Party and businessman Herman Cain will remain adamant in opposition to any job or economy killing immigration reform; if Cain lasts the dirty tricks of the other side? Bachmann, Perry have launched their own attacks against former speaker Newt Gingrich who as proposed a similar law to Assemblyman Fuentes in California, with the tirade of paying fines, prior taxes and having no criminal history.

Last September debate Perry got pounded for his support for a Texas version of the Dream Act that the TEA PARTY is a strong opponent. Mitt Romney is now echoing Former Congressman Tom Tancredo's who has a huge following and where “amnesty” is a watchword for taxpayers. Tancredo criticizes his rivals, particularly New York Gov. Giuliani for his low key support of a Sanctuary City policy and Huckabee, for both being soft on immigration. Anyone who is to reside in the ‘Oval Office’ must strengthen our immigration laws for American taxpayer first; not pandering to foreign nationals, undocumented immigrants, unauthorized aliens—but none-sanitized, or complicated by the ‘Politically Correctness’ term as they really are—illegal aliens. But most Prez candidates support constructing the fence, and Rick Santorum astonished me when he mentioned Prior President Bush’s ‘Secure Fence Act’ of 2006. Last September Santorum has stated he opposes benefits for illegal aliens, comprehensive immigration reform, and supports a border fence and making English the national language.

Although Santotum has hinted in providing some method for "dealing with" individuals who are already squatting in this country? Senator Santorum also expressed his resistance to any plans to grant social security (a Bush proposal never ratified as yet?) and other discretionary expenditures to illegal aliens who are living in the United States. Every one of the candidates have their ‘Point of view’ which is a powder-keg issue’ that is going to be a strong ticket arising in the presidential elections and stand its ground with both jobs and the economy—as all are major troubles that co-exist together. The bottom line without enforcing immigration laws is the unparalleled encouragement of more illegal aliens coming here without any substantial benefits to an American public other than stealing jobs in all low classes of occupations.

If there is to be a ‘Guest Workers’ program it must be strictly adhered to, with a tracking system of locating absconders’ and able to trace and deport. Whatever the Liberal media says, the TEA PARTY is expanding and growing in extensive numbers and see illegal immigration as a financial liability, but not so with new legal immigrants. The Tea Party would accept I believe a ‘Points System’ like European countries, with the advantage of bringing in the brains from other countries. These would be acclaimed professionals in engineering, science and other future industries that would be perceived as being not relying on the welfare or public assistance from taxpayers.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.