- comment
Mike - body
- If you'd like to email michael savage and innundate him with reasons why he is wrong ...
here's his e-mail address!
paulreveresocity@yahoo.com
- comment ....
- body
- My history teacher sophomore year listened to this guy every day. Consequently he was the only teacher in the department not to ask his kids to write letters about hr4437.
- comment Megan
- body
- Shaun, I would be interested if you find any statements, made by Micheal, that aren't factual?
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- Are you impling there are any statements here that are factual?
- comment D.J. McGuire
- body
- Savage's ridiculous theory aside, Shaun, would you not agree that Cardinal Mahoney is greatly mistaken on the immigration issue?
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- HR 4437 as written prohibits any charitable organization from providing relief to illegal immigrants, i.e. if a person comes to Catholic Charities asking for food and clothing, if the recipient is an illegal immigrant you get fined and people go to jail...
Example #2: You come out of a McDonalds and someone asks you for change. You fumble for what you have and give it to him/her. Surprise! That person was an illegal, you just broke the law! What's worse, it could be a sting... you get fined and you're on your way. The worst form of social engineering possible, and if the person was ethnic, what impression has the State left on you by force?
Here's the #1 problem I have with all of this illegal immigration mumbo jumbo. This has nothing to do with illegal immigration at all. We don't picture in the public eye (or the press) images of angry Britons running amok in New York, or Canadians, or Ukrainians, or Asians, or South Africans, or Nigerians, etc.
We picture Latin Americans.
That's racism. I won't tolerate it, and no rational person should.
Once again, rather than sealing the border, we treat the symptoms rather than find a cure. If there is a devil in these details, it the federal government for not having the courage to do what is necessary.
Going after the workhouses, the charities, the entire charitable superstructure we're supposed to be in favor of over the socialist system of government-mandated "charity" is diabolical (and I choose that word carefully).
Cardinal Mahoney, for all his faults, is right on this one. We all know what needs to be done -- why won't the Feds do it and leave charities (and charitable people) alone?
- comment Megan
- body
- Why won't you allow anonymous comments?
- comment Mike
- body
- Shaun,
You are absolutly correct! This is social engineering to the core and it's specific aim is socialism. I think that this is the first time I have ever agreed with Cardinal Mahoney on ANYTHING (but then again, even a broken clock is right twice a day, and the devil sometimes tells the truth).
I wish the Constitution had a "reset" button.
- comment D.J. McGuire
- body
- Shaun,
It's not the fault of the immigration restrictionists that the race card is played by the other side, or milked by the press. MSM will never listen to the national security argument (the "Hannity" argument for lack of a better term).
E.g., I don't picture "Latin Americans." I don't picture anyone. I picture Washington, DC being vaporized by a nuclear weapon smuggled in by someone on an expired visa (or a counterfeit national ID card should we ever be cursed with those).
I further fail to grasp how you think we can only protect our borders at the borders. The charity provision may be draconian (and the greater problem is eaily with employers), but we have to make some effort to ensure we can uproot and deport those who slip past. No border enforcement will be perfect.
As for Cardinal Mahoney, my impression (and I may be wrong) is that he is an open-borders guy. That was the point of my earlier question.
- comment D.J. McGuire
- body
- One other thing that is being bandied about: apparently, neither the Senate nor the House thought to include efforts at what we used to call Americanization.
Can we all agree that was boneheaded?
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- Exactly! Americanization is absolutely key. Not to contradict my earlier rant on "social engineering", but Americans unlike any other nation in the world is based not off of where you are from, but an idea.
It's unfortunate that American-centric history and philosophy has since been banned or attacked by the PC crowd.
As for Cardinal Mahoney being an "open-borders" guy, he may be, he may not be. I really don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me if he was... like Mike says, a broken clock is right at least twice a day...
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- Republitarian,
I don't allow anonymous commentary because they are all cowards.
If I had it in my power, I'd ban pseudonyms too.
Basically, if you can't sign your name to what you write, you've violated all pretenses of civil conversation. Most anonymous and pseudonymous commenters say the most ridiculous and offensive things; a "road rage" effect so to speak -- things normal people would never say in public, but because they are afforded some degree of anonymity they forget themselves entirely.
Pseudonymns have an additional problem of a "personality" attached to the name. It's like sliding into a role-playing character of sorts, one that may or may not be genuinely reflecting that person's values.
Scourge of the internet. I'd ban them all.
There is only one exception to that rule: to offer information that otherwise you would not be able to share publically (i.e. whistleblowers or under the threat of death).
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- ...threat of death or personal loss) Jaded JD is a good example of the personal loss exemption.
- comment Megan
- body
- "Carrie" is that your "real" name?
I get amusement from anonymous comments. I don't take them seriously but they do add entertainment.
"Carrie", I don't need a lecture from anyone in the blogoshpere about putting your name behind your comments.
I've given and taken my shots....many of them anonymous.
- comment Mike
- body
- Jerry! Jerry! Jerry! Jerry! Jerry! Jerry! Jerry ...
- comment Megan
- body
- Carrie, take a deep breath sweetie.
My wife is very understanding when 25 year old females call our house.
I don't wish to argue with any one. Usually, a nice conversation will ease all tensions....
Love and Peace,
Myron
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- Although i'm not sure that "Hi, may i speak with republitarian, please?" would get a very positive response.
Heh heh! Myron, please meet my sister-in-law, Carrie.
:)
Y'all play nice. LOL!
- comment ....
- body
- Thanks guys you have saved me, i am now coming out of my past pseudonym (though i am not sure that anyone didnt know who is was, i sign all of my emails to people with my real name...) Anyway, from now on i will be known as NoVA Democrat/James Martin, so i dont loose my previous name recognition.
- comment ....
- body
- Just checking, this poll for blatently racist Tom Tancredo is on your site, correct?
What should Congressman Tom Tancredo run for in 2008?
-President
-Senate
-Re-election
-These answers are not right-wing enough
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- KJD,
Immigration is not invasion, though the natives at any point in time of our history have always considered it so.
This conversation is not a new one: during the 1840's it was Americanizing the Irish. During the 1870's we were Americanizing the Germans. In the 1880's we were Americanizing the Slavs. In the 1890's we were Americanizing Poles, etc.
America is an idea and a set of values. We're not an ethnicity, nor are we a specific culture -- that is an old nativist sentiment that was used against Catholics (for one example) for years up until the 1950's, and even then Blanchard et al. were successful in branding those values as "other".
America has never been nor should it ever be about branding a people as "other". What makes an American? Their values and committment to a free society, not their background.
These are my thoughts anyhow... they aren't perfectly formed on the matter, but there they are nonetheless. :)
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- Tancredo is certainly going to make the race interesting. He has an excellent record against Communist China.
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- A paleocon with neocon tendencies? Heh!
- comment NotNotJayHughes
- body
- Shaun:
Regarding your post of 9:57 AM and charitable activities to illegal immigrants. If I'm volunteering at one of my church's (St. George's Episcopal in Fredericksburg)homeless/needy ministries serving food to less fortunate folks and some of them happen to be illegal immigrants...guess what. This big, shaved head, goatee guy is gonna give a little latina girl or latino boy a plate of hot food and a glass of kool aid...and I defy any government stooge with a big mustache and a little dick to try and stop me.
Here endth the lesson.
P.S. Sorry for the potty mouth.
- comment Tante Waileka
- body
- This comment has been removed by the author.
- comment Tante Waileka
- body
- It's too bad you people are too stupid for your own good. Quit picking on the most intelligent man I've ever met (granted, there are really too few intelligent men to rank 'em). You'd be better off learning how to spell, since obviously any word over 8 characters you CANNOT spell.
25 Comments:
here's his e-mail address!
paulreveresocity@yahoo.com
Example #2: You come out of a McDonalds and someone asks you for change. You fumble for what you have and give it to him/her. Surprise! That person was an illegal, you just broke the law! What's worse, it could be a sting... you get fined and you're on your way. The worst form of social engineering possible, and if the person was ethnic, what impression has the State left on you by force?
Here's the #1 problem I have with all of this illegal immigration mumbo jumbo. This has nothing to do with illegal immigration at all. We don't picture in the public eye (or the press) images of angry Britons running amok in New York, or Canadians, or Ukrainians, or Asians, or South Africans, or Nigerians, etc.
We picture Latin Americans.
That's racism. I won't tolerate it, and no rational person should.
Once again, rather than sealing the border, we treat the symptoms rather than find a cure. If there is a devil in these details, it the federal government for not having the courage to do what is necessary.
Going after the workhouses, the charities, the entire charitable superstructure we're supposed to be in favor of over the socialist system of government-mandated "charity" is diabolical (and I choose that word carefully).
Cardinal Mahoney, for all his faults, is right on this one. We all know what needs to be done -- why won't the Feds do it and leave charities (and charitable people) alone?
You are absolutly correct! This is social engineering to the core and it's specific aim is socialism. I think that this is the first time I have ever agreed with Cardinal Mahoney on ANYTHING (but then again, even a broken clock is right twice a day, and the devil sometimes tells the truth).
I wish the Constitution had a "reset" button.
It's not the fault of the immigration restrictionists that the race card is played by the other side, or milked by the press. MSM will never listen to the national security argument (the "Hannity" argument for lack of a better term).
E.g., I don't picture "Latin Americans." I don't picture anyone. I picture Washington, DC being vaporized by a nuclear weapon smuggled in by someone on an expired visa (or a counterfeit national ID card should we ever be cursed with those).
I further fail to grasp how you think we can only protect our borders at the borders. The charity provision may be draconian (and the greater problem is eaily with employers), but we have to make some effort to ensure we can uproot and deport those who slip past. No border enforcement will be perfect.
As for Cardinal Mahoney, my impression (and I may be wrong) is that he is an open-borders guy. That was the point of my earlier question.
Can we all agree that was boneheaded?
It's unfortunate that American-centric history and philosophy has since been banned or attacked by the PC crowd.
As for Cardinal Mahoney being an "open-borders" guy, he may be, he may not be. I really don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me if he was... like Mike says, a broken clock is right at least twice a day...
I don't allow anonymous commentary because they are all cowards.
If I had it in my power, I'd ban pseudonyms too.
Basically, if you can't sign your name to what you write, you've violated all pretenses of civil conversation. Most anonymous and pseudonymous commenters say the most ridiculous and offensive things; a "road rage" effect so to speak -- things normal people would never say in public, but because they are afforded some degree of anonymity they forget themselves entirely.
Pseudonymns have an additional problem of a "personality" attached to the name. It's like sliding into a role-playing character of sorts, one that may or may not be genuinely reflecting that person's values.
Scourge of the internet. I'd ban them all.
There is only one exception to that rule: to offer information that otherwise you would not be able to share publically (i.e. whistleblowers or under the threat of death).
I get amusement from anonymous comments. I don't take them seriously but they do add entertainment.
"Carrie", I don't need a lecture from anyone in the blogoshpere about putting your name behind your comments.
I've given and taken my shots....many of them anonymous.
My wife is very understanding when 25 year old females call our house.
I don't wish to argue with any one. Usually, a nice conversation will ease all tensions....
Love and Peace,
Myron
Heh heh! Myron, please meet my sister-in-law, Carrie.
:)
Y'all play nice. LOL!
What should Congressman Tom Tancredo run for in 2008?
-President
-Senate
-Re-election
-These answers are not right-wing enough
Immigration is not invasion, though the natives at any point in time of our history have always considered it so.
This conversation is not a new one: during the 1840's it was Americanizing the Irish. During the 1870's we were Americanizing the Germans. In the 1880's we were Americanizing the Slavs. In the 1890's we were Americanizing Poles, etc.
America is an idea and a set of values. We're not an ethnicity, nor are we a specific culture -- that is an old nativist sentiment that was used against Catholics (for one example) for years up until the 1950's, and even then Blanchard et al. were successful in branding those values as "other".
America has never been nor should it ever be about branding a people as "other". What makes an American? Their values and committment to a free society, not their background.
These are my thoughts anyhow... they aren't perfectly formed on the matter, but there they are nonetheless. :)
Regarding your post of 9:57 AM and charitable activities to illegal immigrants. If I'm volunteering at one of my church's (St. George's Episcopal in Fredericksburg)homeless/needy ministries serving food to less fortunate folks and some of them happen to be illegal immigrants...guess what. This big, shaved head, goatee guy is gonna give a little latina girl or latino boy a plate of hot food and a glass of kool aid...and I defy any government stooge with a big mustache and a little dick to try and stop me.
Here endth the lesson.
P.S. Sorry for the potty mouth.
Post a Comment
Home