Seeing red..
The intersection down the street from me is being closed tommorrow morning for three hours to allow for an "immigration rally".
We can't have Christian reglious displays on public property, but an intersection can be closed down for hours in support of a bunch of illegal aliens?
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!!!??
I'll be down there tommorrow with my American flag and my loud voice. WIsh me luck.
posted by TinyElvis @ 6:39 PM
17 comments
17 Comments:
Luck? If it were possible, someone should wish you tolerance.
Criminals? Technically, yes. But then we'd have to admit that our President is a criminal for authorizing wiretaps in violation of FISA [right acronym?], no? I see your point, but one could argue that the aliens' cause is closer to that of anglo forefathers' against being taxed without representation.
It's a tough issue, and I can't help but think that if they were white English speakers here illegally there would be a wee bit more understanding. Just saying.
BTW, this is a different "anonymous."
"But then we'd have to admit that our President is a criminal for authorizing wiretaps in violation of FISA [right acronym?], no?"
Like Kennedy, Carter and Clinton?
"..aliens' cause is closer to that of anglo forefathers' against being taxed without representation"
Not even the same ballpark. Taxation withour representation is more akin to the current plight of the American worker.
"I can't help but think that if they were white English speakers here illegally there would be a wee bit more understanding."
Understanding from whom? Why is this a race issue to you? Since you cannot seem to see past race, you assumption is that the rest of us cannot either?
This is the quoted "Anonymous" again. Agree on Clinton. He's a perjuror. As to Kennedy and Carter, I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I'm not going to blindly defend them. Violating the law isn't dependent on what party the actor is a member of.
As to the taxation, I'm not sure what you're saying. Admittedly, my comparison is a stretch. Just trying to say that these folks do contribute something, although they arguably get services in excess of their contribution. I don't know the stats here.
On race, I'm thinking of the oft-heard [at least by my ears] "these people are different...they don't learn the language, don't become 'American', don't learn our ways" etc. when a pro-immigrant person reminds an anti that all of us [save Native Americans and blacks, in the aggregate] are only here because our ancestors were able to come from foreign lands and make a better life. When I hear those kind of remarks what I hear is a bit of xenophobia that MAY NOT be expressed were the immigrants from, say, Ireland or Canada. But that's me.
anonymous
Oh, so we should have tolerance. Bet you think that for the terrorists, too.
About President Bush using every means he has to protect America, that is what the polls say most Americans want. :)
Do you know anyone that has come to this country the legal way? I do,,,it is not easy, takes time and money. Do you think it's fair to these law abiding citizens that come and learn the language(most countries learn English in school) and contribute for others to ignore the laws of the land, and cost the taxpayers millions.
No one is against anyone coming to America they should just do it legally.
I don't know why the protest rallies are allowed. Illegals should have no rights here.
anonymous 3
^The original anonymous from this post.
Although uncommon, I tend not to paint with broad brush strokes. Therefore, when I suggested tolerance, terrorists are not included. I am sorry if that disappoints you.
However, I also have an extremely difficult time comparing a Mexican family, sneaking into America for a better life, with terrorists. I know that someone could draw some obtuse analogies, but be realistic.
Yes, I know people that have become naturalized the legal way. Yes, I know people that are here illegally.
Does that allow me to make judgments on their situations, no.
The "illegals" that are here are literally sucking our system dry. They will continue to do that. If they are citizens, at least they would be contributing to our economy. It is a simple case of economics. When Reagan granted amnesty, our economy took an enormous leap, because those that had already been leaching, were now contributing, as well.
Are these people criminals? Yes.
Is it probable that you are too? Have you ever run a stop sign? Driven drunk and not been caught? Done illegal drugs? Sped on the freeway? Padded your deductions on your tax return?
If you can answer no to these and other questions, I'll hand you the first stone. If you answer yes, to even one, I suggest tolerance.
Sorry, leeching vs. leaching.
"About President Bush using every means he has to protect America, that is what the polls say most Americans want. :)"
?? The law is clear on the protocol for conducting a wiretap. If W. honestly thinks the law needs to be changed, he should have issued his initial executive order and gone to the appropriate Congressional committee to ask for greater leeway in the law. But he kept is secret.
And criminal law allows for law enforcement to go ahead where a warrant would normally be required if there is no time to wait for the warrant provided that authorities seek out a magistrate as soon as possible to explain their p. cause that led them to so conclude. Don't the body of law on these wiretaps, but I'd guess it's the same. And given 9-11, authorities probably would be granted more leeway.
This is a power grab plain and simple, an end run around the judiciary. No one on the right will readily admit that in public, but it's clear. There IS a case to be made for warrantless wiretapping, but to go about it the way it has been done is to give the executive branch carte blanche to do what it wants. Ancient Rome elected dictators in times of war, and arguably we should to. But it should be the legislature's choice to grant more executive power, not the executive's.
original anonymous,
I wasn't comparing terrorists to poor Mexican families,I was saying terrorists could easily be coming through the border.
No, I'm not a criminal!I can answer no to all your questions, sir.
Anonymous..why don't you invite them to live at your house?
"Have you ever run a stop sign? Driven drunk and not been caught? Done illegal drugs? Sped on the freeway? Padded your deductions on your tax return?"
If I were to do any of those things and get caught, I will either go to jail, pay a fine or both. I surely won't get rewarded.
Does the same hold true for sneaking into the country illegally? If you happen to be caught in the act, you are simply sent back. If you are already here and you are caught, the official position is to look the other way.
""But then we'd have to admit that our President is a criminal for authorizing wiretaps in violation of FISA [right acronym?], no?"
Like Kennedy, Carter and Clinton?"
Funny that this is your defense.
Pathetic.
It is?
Let's see... Kennedy wire-tapped that trouble-maker Martin Luther King, Jr (Democrats have always loved to keep ties on them colored folks).
Bush authorized wiretapping on known Al Quaeda operatives placing calls to the Middle-East.
Can your pea-brain tell a difference?
"Bush authorized wiretapping on known Al Quaeda operatives placing calls to the Middle-East."
what flavor is that Kool-Aid Bert?
ps. where's ernie?
Golllllllly! You got me.
Whew.
Such wit.
Such wisdom.
I have been defeated.
The point here is that IT'S NOT THAT DIFFICULT TO GET A WARRANT! It's a power grab by the executive. As pointed out by someone else, what President wouldn't want to have such a power? But our system requires that law enforcement get a warrant prior to executing a search.
Hell, there's even exceptions in emergencies where if there's no time to get a warrant prior, law enforcement can go to a magistrate afterwards and explain what led them to execute the search beforehand and it can be signed off on after the fact.
Liberals, at least this one, aren't saying law enforcement shouldn't wiretap. The point is that they should respect the law, or if they really think the existing law is an impediment and a security risk, go to Congress and get it amended. If it went down that way I think everyone would be cool with it.
I thought that conservatives were for less government intervention. I am soooo confused.
Is it only when it comes to their pocketbooks???
Post a Comment
<< Home