Thread: "Concerned Citizens of the United States" Looking Out for Our Interests!

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Ah. I take it you also think anyone who disagrees with you on illegal immigration must themselves be an illegal alien, then?

:smack: I misread the exchange. My apologies. You made a good point and I agree. On this one, I was the one who was really not all that bright.

That's the third time somebody has apologized to me in the Pit in seven years. Do I get a free Frosty or something?

(Understood and accepted ).

Originally Posted by Bridget Burke

Lose that "anchor baby" crap. Being the mother of a citizen will not keep you from being deported unless said citizen is over 18 and able to sponsor you.

We are not fooled.

So tell me, who's being deported these days......who's naive

Originally Posted by DianaG

Actually, your point would be fine, if anyone else was making it.

My point is that you would never go into a thread praising the listmakers, and asking why people uncritically assume that the list is accurate. You only show up when conservatives call the cavalry. And that's not exactly the spirit of unfettered skepticism.

And if I showed examples to the contrary?

Look, I showed up to correct error. That's the (supposed) mission of this place.

You're right that it's much rarer for me to defend the liberal side here, although I can show examples of having done so. But seldom do I need to, because there's an army of folks here all ready to leap on and dissect error in attacks on the liberal side, or errors in defense of the conservative side.

In a thread called "Have We Been Sold Out By Ms. Pelosi?"

Originally Posted by Bricker

No fan I of Nancy Pelosi.

But c'mon. This is hardly a fair critique. Rushing headlong into any major change like this, a week into the Democrats' control of Congress, would be utterly foolish. And Ms. Pelosi, while (in my view) wrong-headed about many basic policy issues, is not foolish.

Congress' control of the purse-strings can be an effective tool to move the President, but it's not a precision instrument. It doesn't replace the President as C-in-C.

Originally Posted by Bricker

And you know what's hilarious?

Back when Patrick Kennedy was accused of driving drunk and getting preferential treatment from Capitol Police, I said this:

I don't see one scintilla of evidence that Rep. Kennedy did anything improper with regard to using his influence to change how he was treated. The Capitol Police did not act properly, and they may well have been motivated by the Kennedy name... but that's not Patrick's fault, and that doesn't imply any guilty knowledge or conscience on his part.

There is virtually no evidence that he was drinking. It's well documented that Ambien can have such effects as amnesia. We're talking about a crime here -- this means that the people bringing the accusation must have SOMETHING in the way of proof that rises higher than mere speculation.

If it should develop that he had been drinking somewhere, and there are actual witnesses to that drinking, THAT is evidence. Right now, there is none. The man took some sleeping pills, got disoriented, and crashed his car. Now he's seeking expert advice about the use of sleeping pills; very reasonable for a recovering addict.

Sorry - unless and until more damning evidence comes along, I'm willing to skewer the Capitol Police for not following procedure, but not Patrick Kennedy for being the recipient of that largess. Show me he asked for it, or show me he needed it, and I'm a convert to the "hang 'im high" corner. But if the only reasoning you have is "Isn't it obvious?" then my answer is no. It's not.

And I seem to remember getting praise for my fair-minded approach.

Gee.

Defending Ted Kennedy:

Originally Posted by Bricker

This is absurd.

If there is any evidence of Ted Kennedy's drunkeness when the accident occurred, let's have it. Otherwise, he's not remotely a murderer.

Defending Pelosi against the "diva" charge for wanting a bigger plane:

Originally Posted by Bricker

The Speaker is the second person in line for the Presidency. It seems utterly obvious to me that she should have a government plane that is capable of taking her back home without refueling. Hastert did, but of course his home is Illinois, much closer, so this didn't come up.

Thirty years ago, I'd have said that the Speaker should suck it up and fly commercial. Today, that would be madness. Ms. Pelosi should fly on whatever military plane is equipped to move her and her staff non-stop.

Now, I don't know details of plane models, but that's my view of what the policy should be, and it's a no-brainer.

Pitting the GOP for its defense of Foley:

Originally Posted by Bricker

My reaction to the ACTUAL ill remains as it was yesterday: Foley's resignation was correct; he should be criminally investigated; and the GOP leadership should be vigorously investigated as well. If it develops that Hastert, or anyone in the GOP leadership, knew about these criminal acts and did nothing, he should resign or be forced out, and subject to criminal process as well. It's a very simple equation.

My reaction to the tactics that are appearing from the Right on this is utter disgust. "The Dems set him up!" Yeah, suuuure they did. And even if they did -- what of it? He DID the acts in question.

Defending Keith Olbermann against sneers that he panicked after getting fake powder in the mail:

Originally Posted by Bricker

Now, seriously -- the reaction was not ridiculous. We had actual people get anthrax powder in the mail. Why they chose to be so dismissive and contempteous of Olbermann is beyond me. This was just crumby, crappy, jerkish behavior.

Pitting Ann Coulter:

Originally Posted by Bricker

Mine is right here.

"Post-9/11 our philosophy should be: Raghead talks tough? Raghead faces consequences."

This from Ms. Coulter. A stunningly awful and racist comment.

There is absolutely legitimate room for scorn and derision for radical Islamists who threaten our existence with terrorist tactics and violence. What they wear on their heads is irrelevant. The phrase "ragheads" is ugly and devoid of meaning. Literally, it encompasses peaceful people who choose to cover their heads for traditional or religious reasons. No reasonable person could take issue with that; no reasonable person would use a derogatory term that lumps such people in with murderous bastards.

My ire is saved for those who use terror and violence as tools. Also, for those who spew ignorant hatred. Today, that's Ms. Coulter.

Praising Senator Kerry:

Originally Posted by Bricker

But I certainly agree it would be proper and fitting to acknowledge that Kerry's service to the country took a far more personally dangerous form than Bush's own did, and that Kerry faced that challenge with honor and dignity, and was a true American hero.

Originally Posted by xanthfreek

There were no citizens until a bunch of people from the other side of the Atlantic proclaimed themselves so. I vote humanity over citizenship.

I am excited to hear your proposal for how you're going to provide housing, jobs, medical care, education, and food for every person who'd want to come to the U.S. if we completely opened our borders.

ETA: I'm reining myself in because you're new, but you will want to take note of the location of this thread: the Pit. That means that normally, I'd probably be spewing a slightly ridiculous amount of invective your way. (The Pit is the one forum where personal attacks on fellow posters are allowed. If you're looking for polite and/or reasoned debate, try General Questions (GQ) for factual issues and General Debate (GD) for less concrete issues.)

The entire argument is a red herring; the way to end

Oy vey.

Bricker has a freaking point. A verbal declaration of legality is no guarantee, not when the person has motive to lie. A legal immigrant would say they're legal, and an illegal immigrant would also say they're legal. The women are not necessarily liars, but neither is their testimony conclusive.

In either case, the means by which the list was obtained is still mighty damn suspicious if not outright illegal in itself, and it's probable that same of the name on the list are legal. This is still a pretty ugly act with ugly repercussions, but in the case of the two women we simply can't accept their assurances in and of themselves.

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Originally Posted by Lust4Life

I've said this before, but I'm always sceptical of the people ardently defending immigration at will to the U.S. when they portray themselves as liberal, defenders of human rights.

How many of these people are actually either illegal immigrants themselves, would be I.M.s, related or friends with I.M.s ?

Or for that matter are unscrupulous employers who exploit them as semi slave labour.

I always wonder if people who post things like this have been lobotomized, but I know better than to wonder out loud.

Well at least you feel better now .

Did the operation hurt ?

Originally Posted by dmatsch

2a. (snip) It doesn't take a rocket genius to figure out that non documented (read: non-tax-paying) ...

This again? Undocumented workers pay state, local, and federal taxes via witholdings from their check. Just like you. They pay sales tax on goods and services, just like you. They pay property tax via their rents just like you. If they own a home they pay property tax just like you. They pay wheel tax if they drive a car just like you. They pay cigarette taxes if they smoke just like you. Most people on this board who participate in these threads already know this. You're not telling anyone here anything shocking that we've never considered before. You're behind. Way behind.

Originally Posted by Shot From Guns

Why the hell are you even on this board, if you have interest in learning?

God dammit. That should read, "if you have no interest in learning."