1
   

Whiners of the year

 
 
Fedral
 
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2004 11:26 am
Whiners of the year[/u]
By:Michelle Malkin

They made us groan. They made us grumble. They made us a global laughingstock. The whiners of 2003 embarrassed themselves -- and the nation -- with their unrivaled sense of entitlement, arrogance and shamelessness. Let's send them off with a 21-hankie salute and a collective kick in the pants:

-- Human shields. Among the hundreds of Saddam Hussein's stooges around the world who volunteered to protect "strategic sites" in Iraq were 20 American antiwar activists. They knowingly violated U.S. sanctions against travel and commerce with Hussein's regime. They let themselves be used by a merciless dictator.

Upon arrival, they complained about being placed too close to smoky oil refineries and being roughhoused by scary Iraqi National Guardsmen (with -- gasp -- guns!). Upon return to the United States, they whimpered when the Treasury Department fined them up to $10,000 for breaking the rules.

But what about our free speech? they blubbered. What about it? It's one thing to trot around naked in Berkeley with "I Hate America" tattooed on your chest. It is quite another to travel to Baghdad to impede a potential American military operation and endanger our soldiers' lives. One American human shield, Faith Fippinger, bawled to the BBC that she might lose her house if forced to pay the fine. Poor baby. "Civil disobedience" has consequences. What would Henry David Thoreau think of your caviling? Pipe down and pay up.

-- Illegal alien litigants. How do you say "chutzpah" in Spanish? After being caught working illegally at Wal-Mart, a group of nine illegal aliens is suing the company for alleged discrimination in failing to pay overtime and withhold taxes. Meanwhile, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund has filed suit against seven public colleges in Virginia. MALDEF is challenging an advisory opinion issued by Virginia's attorney general, Jerry W. Kilgore, who urged college officials to deny admission to illegal alien students. MALDEF's creative legal team claims that Virginia is violating the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution and "impermissibly occupying a field that Congress has the exclusive authority to occupy."

Finally, the open-borders lobby has discovered an American law it wants to see enforced.

-- Michael Jackson. The baby-dangling, slumber-partying, lipstick-wearing entertainer ran into trouble with the law again this year. Facing seven charges of child molestation and two charges of "administering an intoxicating liquor to a child for the purpose of committing a felony," the pallid pop star and his defenders have resorted to playing the race card of all things. Brother Jermaine likened the prosecution to a "modern-day lynching." Jesse Jackson complained about racial double standards in the justice system.

Crying racial wolf might have worked for Michael Jackson in 1979, perhaps the last year anyone actually thought of him as a black celebrity. But now? This bogus ploy is as transparent as, um, Michael's fading face.

-- Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. He votes for the Iraq war resolution. He carps about President Bush proceeding to use it. He espouses a "bold, new vision" of leadership. He says "f--k" on the record. He agrees to appear on Jay Leno's show. He complains about having to follow Triumph the Insult Comic Dog puppet. You're a war hero, Senator. Wipe your nose and act like one.

-- Rep. Bill Janklow. The Republican congressman from South Dakota is still refusing to accept the consequences of his actions like a man. On Aug. 16, in his hometown of Flandreau, Janklow plowed his speeding Cadillac through a traffic sign and into Randy Scott's Harley-Davidson. Scott died instantly. A notorious scofflaw who brazenly joked about his longtime penchant for serial speeding, Janklow refused to admit guilt in the incident. Instead, his lawyers mounted a "Diabetes made him do it" defense. The congressman hadn't eaten for 20 hours before the accident and his blood sugar was low, they beseeched. A hometown jury rejected Janklow's weasel defense and swiftly convicted him on charges of second-degree manslaughter. A shocked Janklow is now appealing the unanimous verdict, claiming that prosecutors failed to present enough evidence to prove him guilty.

Some people just don't know when to stop.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,271 • Replies: 20
No top replies

 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2004 11:32 am
I didn't see Kerry complain about Triumph but I did see Triumph comment on it.

Triumph said that Jay had his nose up Arnold's butt and asked Jay why Kerry has to follow a dog saying "is it because he has no charisma?", when the audience booded Triumph defended it saying Kerry had no chance to win.

Was Kerry riffing off Triumph's jokes? Or was he really whining?

Either way, he can't have been too happy that he followed an act that called him a loser with no chances.

As to the illegal aliens they worked for their money and they deserve to be paid. Their issues with "Imigra" are no excuse for their employers to short them, after all the employers knew they were illegals and agreed to pay them for their services.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2004 11:47 am
Craven
That money should be paid but it should go to the American workers they replaced by working for slave wages. They should not benifit for an illegal act and it was illegal since you can not separate their status from their actions.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2004 11:51 am
Fedral
Let's not forget those who are still whining about the 2000 election. Sad
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2004 11:52 am
That's silly, no the money should not go to those who did not do the work, despite your copious xenophobia.

The day you let me have the money you work to earn is the day I'll give that some consideration.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2004 11:56 am
Craven
The day I steal your wages Is the day I will pay them back to you.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2004 11:59 am
And again, they "stole" from nobody. They won the wages through their work and price competition.

Any Americans could agree to work for those wages if they wanted to, they chose not to.

You have as absurd a concept of stealing as you do of who deserves wages. Laughing
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2004 12:00 pm
Workers do have to be paid, and paid overtime, even if they are illegal.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2004 12:01 pm
Craven
What I find, to use your word silly, is the belief that some here believe that laws are made to be broken if we do not agree with them.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2004 12:01 pm
Au,

Save your anger for the employers, the workers are only guilty of wanting a job and being willing to work for it. The employers agreed to pay them for they work knowing that they are illegals.

The workers stole nothing. The employers offered a deal that only they would accept.

Edit: again, there is no law against collecting wages for your work. There is a law against being an illegal alien. The law dictates that they can be deported. The law DOES NOT stipulate that they do not deserve their pay.

Your position is an illegal one, it is to deny their pay and give it to someone else.

Save the sermon for yourself. You are advocating an illegal position and if you don't like the law it's no excuse for you to disregard it.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2004 12:04 pm
Generation after generation, people move from one country to another to work.

Generation after generation, other people complain about it.

<shrugs>

Whoever does the work should get paid for it. Immigrant, illegal immigrant, native-born. It doesn't matter. You do the work - you get paid. Isn't that what capitalism is all about?
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2004 12:09 pm
Craven
And the fact that they were illegal did not enter into the equation? Sure the employers should pay both the wages and a hefty fine. I just disagree as to the disposition of the funds. Calling me xenophobic will in no way alter my opinion.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2004 12:13 pm
Neither does anything you say alter the fact that you advocate something illegal.

To quote yourself:

"What I find, to use your word silly, is the belief that some here believe that laws are made to be broken if we do not agree with them."
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2004 12:19 pm
Has the legal action been adjudicated as yet? If not it is still up to the courts to make that decision legal or not.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2004 12:32 pm
It's been done before Au. It's illegal to agree to pay someone something and then not pay it after the worker's obligations have been fulfilled.

There is no clause about one's residency.

It's nice rhetoric to talk of "stealing jobs" but jobs do not have a pre-determined "owner" and can't be "stolen".

I work for a slave wage but if someone is willing to do the same job for a lower price my company would ditch me.

And it would not be theft, it's called capitalism.

I disagree with you on the very issue of illegal aliens but in that you have the law on your side.

In wishing to take away earned money you do not, and you advocate an illegal position.

Again, if you don't like the law it's still the law.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2004 12:41 pm
Craven
Quote:

Again, if you don't like the law it's still the law.
And never if it is the law did I advocate breaking it. Just offered my opinion.


Quote:
It's nice rhetoric to talk of "stealing jobs" but jobs do not have a pre-determined "owner" and can't be "stolen".


That is exactly what these people did the stole jobs from American citizens
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2004 12:45 pm
Fair enough, but the same applied to me. You implied that I advocated breaking the law. What law did you have in mind?
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2004 12:55 pm
Craven
When I spoke of breaking the immigration laws I was speaking of past discussions on the subject where more than a few have advocated exactly that. I did not mean to imply that you did. Sorry I guess it came over as such.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2004 01:15 pm
You pay them in full. This slows down the old practice of calling La Migra the day before payday.
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2004 01:36 pm
I agree with Roger. Nothing will get Wal-Mart's attention faster then having to actually pay it's employee's a decent wage.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Whiners of the year
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/17/2024 at 04:52:38