1
   

How to destroy America

 
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2005 09:52 pm
JTT wrote:
fredjones wrote:
Excellent post, Merry.


I couldn't agree more, with either of you.

I'll jump on the bandwagon here and agree as well.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2005 09:54 pm
cjhsa wrote:
The cops catch us. Who are they going to bust? Me. The illegals will walk, because the cops don't want to bother with them.


If this is true, [and I'm really sceptical] then there's a much bigger problem there in CA/the US that goes way higher than the cop level, CJ. But you still find it convenient to blame the illegal immigrants. Confused

Are you sure you're not confusing these gangs with members of your national/state and local governments?
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2005 10:58 pm
cjhsa wrote:
It appears to me that any latino girl over the age of 12 in California is either pregnant or recovering from delivery. Call me what you will, I'm just reporting what I see. Every streetcorner looks like a stroller sale.


not according to 2004 Center for Disease Control report on births to 10-14 year girls. in 2002, there were 3.6 births per 1000 hispanic females aged 13-14, and 0.1 per 1000 for hispanic females aged 10-12. the 3.6 births is down almost 100% from 6.3 per 1000 in 1995.

click here for details

maybe chjsa sees girls taking their baby brother or sister for a stroll.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2005 12:21 am
yitwail wrote:

maybe chjsa sees girls taking their baby brother or sister for a stroll.


So why aren't they in school?


Perhaps because they are illegal aliens?


Arguing reason around here these days is like throwing turds at an outhouse.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2005 12:39 am
cjhsa wrote:
Arguing reason around here these days is like throwing turds at an outhouse.

cjhsa, your arguments don't even bear a resemblance to reason.

As for your turds, I offer no opinion.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2005 12:48 am
joefromchicago wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
Arguing reason around here these days is like throwing turds at an outhouse.

cjhsa, your arguments don't even bear a resemblance to reason.

As for your turds, I offer no opinion.


It never surprises me when an arrogant liberal thinks their **** don't stink (as well as their arguments).
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2005 01:22 am
i thought that this might be interesting for those on both sides of the illegal immigration issue.

i chose this country only because it has been said here that it's being singled out in the debate;

Quote:
ENTRY REQUIREMENTS: The Government of Mexico requires that all U.S. citizens present proof of citizenship and photo identification for entry into Mexico. U.S. citizenship documents such as a certified copy (not a simple photocopy) of a U.S. birth certificate, a Naturalization Certificate, a Consular Report of Birth Abroad, or a Certificate of Citizenship are acceptable. However, the U.S. Embassy recommends traveling with a valid U.S. passport to avoid delays or misunderstandings. U.S. citizens have encountered difficulty in boarding flights in Mexico without a passport. U.S. citizens boarding flights to Mexico should be prepared to present one of these documents as proof of U.S. citizenship, along with photo identification. Driver's permits, voter registration cards, affidavits and similar documents are not sufficient to prove citizenship for readmission into the United States.

U.S. citizens do not require a visa or a tourist card for tourist stays of 72 hours or less within "the border zone," defined as an area between 20 to 30 kilometers of the border with the U.S., depending on the location. U.S. citizens traveling as tourists beyond the border zone or entering Mexico by air must pay a fee to obtain a tourist card, also known as an FM-T, available from Mexican consulates, Mexican border crossing points, Mexican tourism offices, airports within the border zone and most airlines serving Mexico. The fee for the tourist card is generally included in the price of a plane ticket for travelers arriving by air.

Tourists wishing to travel beyond the border zone with their car must obtain a temporary import permit or risk having their car confiscated by Mexican customs officials. To acquire a permit, one must submit evidence of citizenship, title for the car, a car registration certificate, a driver's license, and a processing fee to either a Banjercito branch located at a Mexican Customs office at the port of entry, or at one of the Mexican Consulates located in Austin, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Bernardino, or San Francisco. Mexican law also requires the posting of a bond at a Banjercito office to guarantee the departure of the car from Mexico within a time period determined at the time of the application. For this purpose, American Express, Visa or MasterCard credit card holders will be asked to provide credit card information; others will need to make a cash deposit of between $200 and $400, depending on the age of the car. In order to recover this bond or avoid credit card charges, travelers must go to any Mexican Customs office immediately prior to departing Mexico. Disregard any advice, official or unofficial, that vehicle permits can be obtained at checkpoints in the interior of Mexico. Avoid individuals outside vehicle permit offices offering to obtain the permits without waiting in line. If the proper permit cannot be obtained at the Banjercito branch at the port of entry, do not proceed to the interior where travelers may be incarcerated, fined and/or have their vehicle seized at immigration/customs checkpoints. For further information, contact Mexican Customs about appropriate vehicle permits.

Upon arrival in Mexico, business travelers must complete and submit a form (Form FM-N 30 days) authorizing the conduct of business, but not employment, for a 30-day period. Travelers entering Mexico for purposes other than tourism or business, or for stays of longer than 180 days require a visa and must carry a valid U.S. passport. U.S. citizens planning to work or live in Mexico should apply for the appropriate Mexican visa at the Mexican Embassy in Washington, DC or nearest Mexican consulate in the United States.

Mexican law requires that any child under the age of 18, of any nationality, traveling into or out of Mexico must carry notarized written permission from any parent not traveling with the child. There have been cases where children, even American children, not carrying this document have been denied entry into Mexico, or have not been allowed to board a plane in the U.S. bound for Mexico. This permission must include the name of the parent, the name of the child, the name of anyone traveling with the child, and the notarized signature(s) of the absent parent(s). The child must be carrying the original letter - not a faxed or scanned copy - as well as proof of the parent/child relationship (usually a birth certificate) - and an original custody decree, if applicable.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2005 05:27 am
cjhsa wrote:
Merry, it would seem to me that illegal aliens are getting unequal treatment under the law. They have an advantage. Let's say I join a latino gang (if they'd actually let me), and I'm out banging with them. The cops catch us. Who are they going to bust? Me. The illegals will walk, because the cops don't want to bother with them.

Unequal treatment is 100% the same as unequal protection.


Perhaps you've been brainwashed by the likes of Sean Banality, CJ.

Hannity and N.H. sheriff suggested illegal immigrants can't be prosecuted for murder

http://mediamatters.org/items/200505060006
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2005 05:57 am
A belated 'thank you', folks, for your support of my posts. We shall overcome.
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2005 08:15 am
cjhsa wrote:
yitwail wrote:

maybe chjsa sees girls taking their baby brother or sister for a stroll.


So why aren't they in school?


Perhaps because they are illegal aliens?


Arguing reason around here these days is like throwing turds at an outhouse.


so why aren't you at work?

to begin with, if they're born here--which is likely, because illegal aliens are usually adults--then they're automatically citizens.

also, i guess you must disagree with points made in an article you quoted:

Quote:
These are the same groups that shrilly oppose the mandatory teaching of English to foreign- language-speaking students, even though failure to speak good English is a life sentence to menial labor or other low-paying jobs.

Never mind, though. It's "racist" and a violation of one's culture to require that kids be at least conversant in English before they graduate from high school.

There's a term for this, too: killing with kindness.

Illegal immigrants cost Californians millions in tax dollars that can never be reclaimed. Hospitals are closing their emergency rooms because they have become the equivalent of a doctor's office to undocumented residents who know they can't be turned away. Schools and prisons are bursting at the seams, and Los Angeles County jails have been forced to relieve overcrowding by releasing more than 200,000 inmates early just in the past three years.


you can't claim they're not in school, but cost taxpayers money to pay for bilingual schools that are bursting at the seams.

finally, a question for you: are you running out of ammo or something? why are you resorting to crude expressions? you won't catch me doing something like that. we may disagree, but i don't throw excrement.
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2005 08:16 am
you're welcome, MA. Smile
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 02:28 am
Thoughts (hmmm, we'll see about that.) from the middle of the night.

It's three twenty am here in NYC. Right in the middle of a short pee it struck me that the Lamm speech quoted at the beginning of this thread sounded more like one of those emails my earnest friends send me about women getting knocked in the head in parking lots by perfume bearing strangers or why I should be careful when sitting down in the movie theatre so I don't sit on an AIDs infected needle cleverly hidden in the seat by some unnamed sicko.

It sounded like a hoax.

Don't get me wrong. I know Dick Lamm is a wacko. Pro-euthanasia and anti-immigration, for higher taxes to wipe out the deficit and against over-doing it when it comes to healthcare for the elderly, all in one weird sickbag, but the Points speech doesn't ring true somehow. It sounds too well-written and badly written at the same time, naming names without naming names (and it one case - getting one of the named names wrong), with all the righteous solemnity of say a Joe( Hey, what do you mean by that?) Nation screed and the rich drama of a Chuck Norris movie. I think it's a hoax.

And I did a full five minute Google on it. I found several (oh mi gawd really sick ) websites which quote it. One which purports to be quoting someone who was at the convention but here's the thing: no date. Just a "Last week there was an immigration-overpopulation conference in Washington, DC, filled to capacity by many of American's finest minds and leaders." Yeah. And last week Bill Gates offered Starbucks Coffee to anyone replying to his email mentioning the words "The Gap", oh and yeah, and like free clothes too.

So I think it's more likely that it, the speech, is a promo for the book by Victor Hanson Davis, except that that's not his name. It's Victor Davis Hanson. Governor, cut down on those uppers.

Night night.

Joe(It's still a hate-filled piece of fascist crap, but it's a hoax.)Nation

PS: I would go through the speech line by line but it is so pathetically the product of an ill mind I feel I might get contact stupidity. You do it. I'll help.
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 05:33 am
Good thinking, Joe. Maybe that's why initially I thought the thing was all said tongue-in-cheek and more of a satire than an expression of true belief. Even for Lamm, it's just too far over the top. See my very first post.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 05:59 am
Merry Andrew wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
People are allowed to get off of murder charges because it was ok to kill their wives in their old country and that is accepted even though the US is not their old country.


Huh? You have any links or references to back that up, Baldy? Anyone resident (or even just visiting) this country is subject to the same laws as are the citizens here. And it doesn't matter whether they entered legally or illegally; the law is the same for everybody, viz. the 14th Amendment.


If the law were the same for everybody, both Clintons would be in prison.

Other than that, I'd recommend enjoying what's left of the American legal system while you can. Muslims, Latinos, Leftist judges and supreme court justices who feel our law ought to be based on what transpires in other countries are working REAL hard to change our legal system to something more to their (separate) likings. What we end up with 50 years down the road is basically guesswork at this point.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 06:03 am
Teddy Roosevelt's Speech on the Same Subject
http://users.metro2000.net/~stabbott/trhyphenated.htm

"Hyphenated Americanism" Speech - Excerpts
Former President Theodore Roosevelt, October 12, 1915, in a speech before the Knights of Columbus

"There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all. This is just as true of the man who puts "native" before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen. Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance. But if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as any one else.

The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic. The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country. The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic. He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good American. There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else.

For an American citizen to vote as a German-American, an Irish-American, or an English-American, is to be a traitor to American institutions; and those hyphenated Americans who terrorize American politicians by threats of the foreign vote are engaged in treason to the American Republic.

Americanization

The foreign-born population of this country must be an Americanized population - no other kind can fight the battles of America either in war or peace. It must talk the language of its native-born fellow-citizens, it must possess American citizenship and American ideals. It must stand firm by its oath of allegiance in word and deed and must show that in very fact it has renounced allegiance to every prince, potentate, or foreign government. It must be maintained on an American standard of living so as to prevent labor disturbances in important plants and at critical times. None of these objects can be secured as long as we have immigrant colonies, ghettos, and immigrant sections, and above all they cannot be assured so long as we consider the immigrant only as an industrial asset. The immigrant must not be allowed to drift or to be put at the mercy of the exploiter. Our object is to not to imitate one of the older racial types, but to maintain a new American type and then to secure loyalty to this type. We cannot secure such loyalty unless we make this a country where men shall feel that they have justice and also where they shall feel that they are required to perform the duties imposed upon them. The policy of "Let alone" which we have hitherto pursued is thoroughly vicious from two stand-points. By this policy we have permitted the immigrants, and too often the native-born laborers as well, to suffer injustice. Moreover, by this policy we have failed to impress upon the immigrant and upon the native-born as well that they are expected to do justice as well as to receive justice, that they are expected to be heartily and actively and single-mindedly loyal to the flag no less than to benefit by living under it.

We cannot afford to continue to use hundreds of thousands of immigrants merely as industrial assets while they remain social outcasts and menaces any more than fifty years ago we could afford to keep the black man merely as an industrial asset and not as a human being. We cannot afford to build a big industrial plant and herd men and women about it without care for their welfare. We cannot afford to permit squalid overcrowding or the kind of living system which makes impossible the decencies and necessities of life. We cannot afford the low wage rates and the merely seasonal industries which mean the sacrifice of both individual and family life and morals to the industrial machinery. We cannot afford to leave American mines, munitions plants, and general resources in the hands of alien workmen, alien to America and even likely to be made hostile to America by machinations such as have recently been provided in the case of the two foreign embassies in Washington. We cannot afford to run the risk of having in time of war men working on our railways or working in our munition plants who would in the name of duty to their own foreign countries bring destruction to us. Recent events have shown us that incitements to sabotage and strikes are in the view of at least two of the great foreign powers of Europe within their definition of neutral practices. What would be done to us in the name of war if these things are done to us in the name of neutrality?

One America

All of us, no matter from what land our parents came, no matter in what way we may severally worship our Creator, must stand shoulder to shoulder in a united America for the elimination of race and religious prejudice. We must stand for a reign of equal justice to both big and small. We must insist on the maintenance of the American standard of living. We must stand for an adequate national control which shall secure a better training of our young men in time of peace, both for the work of peace and for the work of war. We must direct every national resource, material and spiritual, to the task not of shirking difficulties, but of training our people to overcome difficulties. Our aim must be, not to make life easy and soft, not to soften soul and body, but to fit us in virile fashion to do a great work for all mankind. This great work can only be done by a mighty democracy, with these qualities of soul, guided by those qualities of mind, which will both make it refuse to do injustice to any other nation, and also enable it to hold its own against aggression by any other nation. In our relations with the outside world, we must abhor wrongdoing, and disdain to commit it, and we must no less disdain the baseness of spirit which lamely submits to wrongdoing. Finally and most important of all, we must strive for the establishment within our own borders of that stern and lofty standard of personal and public neutrality which shall guarantee to each man his rights, and which shall insist in return upon the full performance by each man of his duties both to his neighbor and to the great nation whose flag must symbolize in the future as it has symbolized in the past the highest hopes of all mankind."
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 06:05 am
gungasnake wrote:
Merry Andrew wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
People are allowed to get off of murder charges because it was ok to kill their wives in their old country and that is accepted even though the US is not their old country.


Huh? You have any links or references to back that up, Baldy? Anyone resident (or even just visiting) this country is subject to the same laws as are the citizens here. And it doesn't matter whether they entered legally or illegally; the law is the same for everybody, viz. the 14th Amendment.


If the law were the same for everybody, both Clintons would be in prison.

Other than that, I'd recommend enjoying what's left of the American legal system while you can. Muslims, Latinos, Leftist judges and supreme court justices who feel our law ought to be based on what transpires in other countries are working REAL hard to change our legal system to something more to their (separate) likings. What we end up with 50 years down the road is basically guesswork at this point.


I fully agree with your admonition to enjoy "what's left of the American legal system while you can," Gunga. The Bush cabal is in the process of dismantling it right now. It won't be long now before judges are told to toe the party line or be out of a job. And when the neo-scum get through loading the bench with sympathetic ventriloquist dummies, we'll probably get a Chief Justice who declares that all amendments to the Constitution are unconstitutional.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 06:10 am
TR

Quote:

The foreign-born population of this country must be an Americanized population - no other kind can fight the battles of America either in war or peace. It must talk the language of its native-born fellow-citizens, it must possess American citizenship and American ideals. It must stand firm by its oath of allegiance in word and deed and must show that in very fact it has renounced allegiance to every prince, potentate, or foreign government. It must be maintained on an American standard of living so as to prevent labor disturbances in important plants and at critical times. None of these objects can be secured as long as we have immigrant colonies, ghettos, and immigrant sections, and above all they cannot be assured so long as we consider the immigrant only as an industrial asset. The immigrant must not be allowed to drift or to be put at the mercy of the exploiter.


Kind of shoots down the whole concept of "guest workers" and using illegal aliens the way we currently do....
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 06:13 am
Merry Andrew wrote:


I fully agree with your admonition to enjoy "what's left of the American legal system while you can," Gunga. The Bush cabal is in the process of dismantling it right now. It won't be long now before judges are told to toe the party line or be out of a job. And when the neo-scum get through loading the bench with sympathetic ventriloquist dummies, we'll probably get a Chief Justice who declares that all amendments to the Constitution are unconstitutional.


It's basically the republicans who are trying to bring strict constructionists into the system and demokkkrats who are using anti-constitutional methods to try to thwart the effort. The basic idea seems to be that the dems have no faith in their ability to win elections anymore and count on governing from the bench.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 06:40 am
Name one strict constructionist who has been offered, blocked or both and show why you believe this person is a strict constructionist.

Be careful what you wish for:
wouldn't a strict constructionist in a case like the recent Schiavo matter have upheld the current law rather than, activist-like, found a way around it? Didn't the present courts do the conservative strict constructionist thing in their rulings.

DeLay and his ilk are complaining that they are not getting their way, but when they say that the Courts are not following the law, they are just flat wrong.

====

Thanks for the TR speech: What a leftie.
Quote:
We cannot afford to continue to use hundreds of thousands of immigrants merely as industrial assets while they remain social outcasts and menaces any more than fifty years ago we could afford to keep the black man merely as an industrial asset and not as a human being. We cannot afford to build a big industrial plant and herd men and women about it without care for their welfare. We cannot afford to permit squalid overcrowding or the kind of living system which makes impossible the decencies and necessities of life. We cannot afford the low wage rates and the merely seasonal industries which mean the sacrifice of both individual and family life and morals to the industrial machinery.


Sounds like a socialist to me.... the guy was a real uniter, not a tweedledivider.

Joe(I still think Lamm's speech is a hoax. Anyone?)Nation
Not you, MerryAndrew, it was your post that must have floated up in my head early this morning.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 08:57 am
Joe Nation wrote:


Thanks for the TR speech: What a leftie.


More like a Christian philosophy of government if you ask me. I don't think anybody talking about "La Reconquista" or anything like that would have gotten along with TR terribly well...

My own theory about "seasonal industries" like picking crops is basically that that's what God made teenagers for and we should not be importing "guest workers" to do that sort of thing. A couple of weeks a year out on farms earning money picking fruits, learning about farms and tipping cows and what not would probably strike a lot of inner city kids as collosal fun.
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
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/17/2024 at 10:10:29