Good Morning Fred, (And Bruce!!) I haven't got down to the end of this thread, to even read what all Bruce's response was, but I wanted to respond to Fred's post regarding my post last night, and being in defense of Bruce and Zeb, as opposed to Holly.
I am a Libertarian, in the same vain and ideologies that the Cato Institute, Neal Boortz, Ronald Reagan, and most conservatives are Libertarian. To some degree, I believe in most of the same tenets that M.A. Johnson, (Michael Johnson, a member of our group who I also give a lot of grief too!! LOL!) holds dear, and subscribes to. Based on many of the posts that Bruce has posted, and my several conversations with Bruce, I believe Bruce to hold more of a "Libertarian Party" ideology. At one point in time, when I became so disgusted with the Republican Party, (and they with me! I was literally kicked out of the Republican Party in Charlotte North Carolina some 18 years ago!!) I joined the Libertarian Party, wherein I learned the true definition of "clusterfuck". I have a number of issues that I disagree with the Libertarian Party's platform, (as I do with the Republicans and the Democrats, each to varying degrees) one of which, is the Libertarian Party's belief in open borders. I fundamentally disagree with this issue, especially after what transpired on September 11, 2001. In that sense, yes, Bruce and I do not see eye to eye, and I find it hard to believe that Bruce was advocating that plank of the Libertarian Party. Bruce did go on to say, that he believed those that had entered this Nation illegally should be arrested and prosecuted, (my words not his) which brings me to Holly. With all due respect, (and I sincerely, genuinely like Holly) there are times when Holly writes stuff here, that has absolutely nothing to do with the main premise of the conversation. Holly rarely stands for anything, and usually attempts to sling bullets at any conservative ideal, issue, or proposition, yet never criticizes or berates far left liberal, socialist causes or "cause celebre').....Many times, Holly is off on some little side show, that has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Last night, after perusing the thread, it was my opinion that this was where Holly was attempting to go, especially with Zeb. Condescending?? I like "biting" as an adjective much better!!! Have a great Sunday Fred!! Keith In Tamp On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 12:39 AM, Frederick The Moderate < [email protected]> wrote: > > Keith, I'm reading through this and it seems obvious you have a strong > bias toward anything Bruce and Zeb says (which surprisingly, for much > of the thread seemed to defend the illegal aliens) and against > anything Holly says - not to mention the condescending crap about > thinking carefully before responding to a Conservative. I mean, I was > blown away for a couple replies there because it was pretty obvious > Bruce was defending the illegals, just to be contentious. What exactly > do you think ANYONE (who wasn't totally in Bruce's camp, of course) > would interpret thse sentences to mean? > 1. In reply to Holly's suggestion that both the illegals and the > companies should be punished for breaking our immigration laws, Bruce > wrote: > "People should be free to work and live where they like " abd then > "States don't have a right to tell non-violent people where they can > travel. > If someone invites them to visit they should be able to" > > Now if you somehow interpret that to mean "People should NOT be free > to work and live where they like - if it's here and illegal; and > states DO have a right to tell ANYONE not to come to our country > illegally", then what you say has absolutely no credibility at all. > > As far as it even being "legal" for us to have immigration laws at > all, Bruce wrote: > "You believe that what governments say is important and has something > to do > with what is wrong or right . You believe they are the source of > rights. You are wrong." > > So do you believe our government has no right to enforce immigration > laws? Or for that matter, any laws or rights? That they are or are not > "the source of" immigration rights? Bruce seems to have some pretty > strong opinions about whether something Obama is doing, is in > accordance with what our government says is right or wrong - and > defines as a right (therefore, being the "source") and whether or not > he has the "rights" to do them. But I guess in his opinion, the rights > of governments are valid only when convenient to him and never when a > "liberal" condones them. > > I guess you could go with a cop out like, this was some deep, esoteric > bullshit but really, Bruce was just being Bruce: babbling crap that > even he doesn't believe applies in this case, just so he could > disagree with someone further left than himself (i.e. not actually > wearing a swastika on his arm). > Whereas, I thought you to be a bit more insightful and objective. > Perhaps I overestimated... > > > > > > On Jul 11, 6:00 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > Holly, Holly, Holly....... > > > > As I have pointed out to you on numerous occasions, you should always > read > > the posts by thinking, well read, conservative Americans several times > > before responding. > > > > Zeb and Bruce both are not advocating that laws be broken, or that > illegal > > immigrants should not be prosecuted. Just the opposite is true. Bruce, > > and I imagine Zeb also concurs, would like to see much less laws in this > > Nation, but that is getting off of the point of illegal immigration, and > a > > federal government who asked all Americans to forego their civil > liberties > > in the name of National Security, when at the same time, our federal > > government refused to secure our national borders, allowing for anyone, > to > > include folks who frequently sport dirty laundry on their heads, to enter > > our Nation, without any accountability. > > > > Further, Bruce, like most thinking Americans and all conservatives, finds > it > > repulsive that we, as taxpayers, are footing the bill for these illegal > > aliens, predominately from Mexico, to include their health care, the > > schooling of their children, their food subsidies, and their criminal > > mischief and what that causes to our society both fiscally and socially. > > > > These are not racist sentiments, nor is there any of the conservatives > that > > I know of, who are Anti-Mexican. No one wants to curtail any individual > or > > their family from wanting to better themselves, their families, or to > > prohibit anyone from prospering. Of course, it is hard for me to > understand > > why these folks are not in their own Nation demanding that a corrupt > > government start addressing the poverty; the lack of services; the > neglect > > of an infrastructure, especially with a land that is ripe with natural > > resources and a vibrant labor pool, but as most socialists and > > liberals believe, these folks think that America owes them something, and > I, > > like many thinking, conservative Americans resent that. I tend to > believe > > that Bruce and Zeb do also. > > > > On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Hollywood <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > bruce, > > > > > First thing I learned about the law was that in many cases it has > > > nothing whatsoever to do with justice. You sound like a little kid > > > crying to mama that "it's just not FAIR!!!". Check into Hotel Reality > > > lad. > > > I hate to be the one to have to break this to you, it saddens me > > > somewhat to burst your little bubble. Oh yeah, and Santa Claus is also > > > not real. > > > > > Tell me lad, who's version of "justice" would you like to measure > > > everything against? > > > > > On Jul 11, 4:10 pm, bruce majors <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Yes and as we all know law and justice are identical aren't they > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Hollywood < > [email protected] > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > bruce, > > > > > > > Yeah, they are called LAWS. Duuuuuuh..... > > > > > Ya' think the FBI would give the slightest fuck if I were to decide > I > > > > > have the RIGHT to rob a bank? OR the INS if I think it's RIGHT to > > > > > ignore our immigration laws? Feel free to do what you think is > right > > > > > lad, just be prepared to take the consequences if the law in this > > > > > country runs counter to what you think is right. > > > > > Guess what? Some radical Islamics think it is right and moral to > > > > > strangle their daughter for wearing a mini-skirt. Here in St. Louis > we > > > > > called that murder and arrest your sorry ass. > > > > > My, my, bruce defending Islamic nut-jobs because they are only > doing > > > > > what they think is right and moral. > > > > > > > On Jul 11, 9:49 am, bruce majors <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > It's a more abstract discussion than that Holly > > > > > > You believe that what governments say is important and has > something > > > to > > > > > do > > > > > > with what is wrong or right > > > > > > > > You believe they are the source of rights > > > > > > > > You are wrong > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Hollywood < > > > [email protected] > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > bruce, > > > > > > > > > When I visit Mexico I do it legally. It's not called a "visit" > when > > > > > > > you cross a border illegally. My, my look at all the > conservatives > > > > > > > defending illegal aliens and encouraging the violation of > American > > > law > > > > > > > and sovereignty. What has suddenly happened to you lads? > > > > > > > > > On Jul 11, 9:33 am, bruce majors <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > States don't have a right to tell non-violent people where > they > > > can > > > > > > > travel. > > > > > > > > If someone invites them to visit they should be able to > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Hollywood < > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > bruce, > > > > > > > > > > > Sure, just so long as they do it LEGALLY. > > > > > > > > > So, you really do NOT want to solve the illegal alien > problem? > > > You > > > > > > > > > WANT to allow CERTAIN people to break American immigration > laws > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > no significant punishment or consequences? Gee, I thought > you > > > lads > > > > > > > > > were all about law & order, personal responsibility and > doing > > > > > > > > > something about unemployment. Guess not. > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 11, 8:45 am, bruce majors <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > People should be free to work and live where they like > > > > > > > > > > Just not to live off taxpayers > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Hollywood < > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > bruce, > > > > > > > > > > > > > I got an idea. Why don't we simply dry up the reason > they > > > are > > > > > > > coming > > > > > > > > > > > here illegally? They come here for jobs, to work here > > > > > illegally. > > > > > > > Send > > > > > > > > > > > govt. agents, INS or whomever to raid plants and look > for > > > > > illegal > > > > > > > > > > > workers. And, of course, deport those illegals but more > > > > > importantly > > > > > > > > > > > provide punsihment to the people that hire them that > would > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > significant enough to stop them from ever even THINKING > of > > > > > doing > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > again. Throw a few plant managers and HR managers in > jail, > > > fine > > > > > > > them > > > > > > > > > > > significantly enough to put a stop to the illegal > activity > > > of > > > > > > > hiring > > > > > > > > > > > illegals. What good does it do to fime a company a few > > > bucks if > > > > > > > they > > > > > > > > > > > are saving 10 times that amount by hiring the illegals? > If > > > i > > > > > commit > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > crime that nets me a profit of $1 million dollars and > I'm > > > > > caught > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > the fine is $100,000.00 with no jail time why on earth > > > would I > > > > > NOT > > > > > > > > > > > commit that crime again, first chance I got? > > > > > > > > > > > Oh yeah, and forbid any company caught hiring illegals > from > > > > > even > > > > > > > > > > > bidding on any city, county, state or federal govt. > > > contracts > > > > > for > > > > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > > least on year or so. No, maybe it would be tough to do > that > > > to > > > > > > > every > > > > > > > > > > > homeowner that hires and illegal to cut his grass or > clean > > > his > > > > > pool > > > > > > > > > > > but it would have an impact on large agricultural, > > > > > manufacturers, > > > > > > > meat > > > > > > > > > > > & poultry processors, etc. etc. Enough out of work > American > > > > > > > citizens > > > > > > > > > > > to fill those jobs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 11, 7:53 am, bruce majors < > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > *From:* Jeff Schwilk <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > *Date:* 7/10/2009 10:39:51 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > *Subject:* LA Times: The Cost of Illegal Aliens > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *FORWARD FAR AND WIDE!* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The solution to California's budget mess is simple: > Stop > > > > > anchor > > > > > > > > > babies, > > > > > > > > > > > > stop taxpayer benefits to ILLEGAL aliens, and stop > > > illegal > > > > > > > > > immigration in > > > > > > > > > > > > California! We can no longer afford open borders! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sign the Petition now to Save California! > > > > > > > > > > > > *www.TaxpayerRevolution.org<http://www.taxpayerrevolution.org/> > <http://www.taxpayerrevolution.org/> > > > *< > > > > >http://www.TaxpayerRevolution.org<http://www.taxpayerrevolution.org/> > <http://www.taxpayerrevolution.org/>> > > > > > > > > http://www.latimes.com/news/la-me-illegal10-2009jul10,0,4951833.story. > > > > > > > .. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > < > > > > > > > > http://www.latimes.com/news/la-me-illegal10-2009jul10,0,4951833.story.. > > > > > > > > > > > .> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Illegal immigrants again in the budget spotlight > > > > > > > > > > > > The economic downturn has activists pushing for a > measure > > > > > that > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > > > limit > > > > > > > > > > > > the services Californians provide. > > > > > > > > > > > > By Anna Gorman and Teresa Watanabe > > > > > > > > > > > > July 10, 2009 > > > > > > > > > > > > As California lawmakers struggle with a budget gap > that > > > has > > > > > now > > > > > > > > > grown to > > > > > > > > > > > > $26.3 billion, one of the hottest topics for many > > > taxpayers > > > > > is > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > cost > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > the state of illegal immigrants. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The question of whether taxpayers should provide > services > > > to > > > > > > > illegal > > > > > > > > > > > > residents< > > > > >http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/is-illegal-immigration-.. > > > > > > > > > .> > > > > > > > > > > > > became > > > > > > > > > > > > a major political issue in California's last deep > > > recession, > > > > > > > > > culminating > > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > the ballot fight over Proposition 187 in 1994. That > > > history > > > > > could > > > > > > > > > repeat > > > > > > > > > > > > itself in the current downturn, as activists opposed > to > > > > > illegal > > > > > > > > > > > immigration > > > > > > > > > > > > have launched a campaign for an initiative that > > > > ... > > > > read more ยป- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
