It's not enough. Give him hard time. The same you would give to an accessory to any other crime.

Instead of stoping this guy, why the hell don't we send ICE agents to where this idiot puts the bottles and capture the illegals as they try to get into the country? They'll learn not to come near a bottle, even if they a dying of thirst.

But if he is going to be stopped, why no jail term? At least 90 days or something.

only 300 hrs? 1 year probation? how are we to keep the illegals from entering if we find jerks like him who make it easier for them to pass safely into the U.S.?

And they'll know we are Christians by our love.

I am sure there is something in the Bible about not breaking into someone's elses home univited.

nanc, you tell'em!

Try Matthew 25: 34-40

Our former president said they only come here to do jobs "Americans don't want to do." Why isn't he in jail??? We let employers hire these people and do virtually nothing and then punish a guy like this. This country is truely misguided.

Danni,

The illegal immigration bullshit is a bi-partisan scam.

BOTH parties are whoring for Latino-votes.

Go ahead and castigate the GOP - they deserve it on this issue. However, in the process, at least be honest enough to recognize that the DNC is, at best, equally complicit in all of this.

While in college, my friend lived in an apartment building and in the hallway lived a homeless man. I went to visit him one winter and I was annoyed by his attitude towards the guy, who just seemed to sleep all the time and not bother anybody. My buddy was pissed at the neighbor who kept leaving the guy gallons of bottled water.

My attitude changed when we came home later that night. Mr. Homeless Guy would use the stairway that everyone has to walk through as his toilet. After walking through his piss, I asked said "You'd think this asshole would be appreciative of you guys letting him live here. Does he always piss right where you have to walk?". The answer: "Yep."

I wanted to bust down the door and kick the shit out of the idiot who was giving this guy water.

WWJD? The same thing as this guy. What would happen to him? The same thing as this guy. You right wing Romans ought to either understand the Gospels or just abandon them, because they evidently have nothing to do with you.

The United States cannot sustain itself as the world's charity. Sorry if that makes people who like giving Americans' jobs to away to other people angry (MrBGoode, etc...)

Sorry if that makes people who like giving Americans' jobs to away to other people angry (MrBGoode, etc...)

#11 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

I don't think anyone particularly likes that, LoD, but either way, it has nothing to do with having compassion for people, and being prosecuted for it.

"The illegal immigration bullshit is a bi-partisan scam."

No argument from me on that but I think the illegal immigration problem is less of a threat to our economy than the outsourcing to Asia problem is.

His conviction is political.

If they immigrants piss in the dessert I don't care.
If they do it in the hallway of my building it would piss me off too. I'd call the cops and have them removed.

the outsourcing to Asia problem

#13 | Posted by danni at 2009-08-14 10:07 AM

Sorry if that makes people who like giving Americans' jobs to away to other people angry (MrBGoode, etc...)

Are you as equally as pissed when a "Free" trade agreement is passed that benefits corporations by allowing them to give away American's jobs to slave labor nations?

I don't think anyone particularly likes that, LoD, but either way, it has nothing to do with having compassion for people, and being prosecuted for it.

#12 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2009-08-14 10:05 AM

I don't agree with the guy being punished. It's not like he's trucking people over.

Are you as equally as pissed when a "Free" trade agreement is passed that benefits corporations by allowing them to give away American's jobs to slave labor nations?

#17 | Posted by 726 at 2009-08-14 10:09 AM

"If they immigrants piss in the dessert I don't care."

Why do you hate the environment? What if they happen to piss on an endangered species and end up killing it? If they piss on the desert arrest them.

Why don't we just build a resort in the desert. Try and get the immigrants to spend a few pesos on their way to the U.S.

"If they immigrants piss in the dessert I don't care.
If they do it in the hallway of my building it would piss me off too. I'd call the cops and have them removed."

People who live on or near the border have all kinds of problems with illegals damaging their property.

That's why this story reminded me of the situation with my friend and the guy who pissed down the stairs every day.

"People who live on or near the border have all kinds of problems with illegals damaging their property."

That is the problem. Liberals don't believe in private property, it's a foreign concept to them.

And they'll know we are Christians by our love.

#4 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue

So why did a Federal Judge do this.

Aren't the Libs as compassionate as Christians?

you guys need to do some soul searching.

It should not be a crime to leave water at places where illegal immigrants have died trying to get into this country. If the locations are so well-known that leaving water there makes a difference, border agents could scout those locations to catch them. And if the locations aren't being used, the water won't make a difference.

Going further, perhaps there should be well-marked water stations policed by the border patrol where illegal immigrants can turn themselves in and save themselves from dying in the desert.

So why did a Federal Judge do this.

Aren't the Libs as compassionate as Christians?

you guys need to do some soul searching.

#24 | Posted by Eddie

A little confused this morning?

they are not immigrants - they are illegal border crossers - not that even i would deny them water, but get a grip.

People who live on or near the border have all kinds of problems with illegals damaging their property.

If you buy property near the Mexico border in places where illegal immigrants often cross, dealing with the effects of those crossings is the price you pay for living there.

Many people who live down here on the beach have to deal with vagrants. Them's the breaks.

No one can wave a magic wand and make the immigrants stop coming here to improve their lives.

So why did a Federal Judge do this.

Aren't the Libs as compassionate as Christians?

You know this judge is a liberal how?

they are not immigrants - they are illegal border crossers ...

Anyone who moves from one country to another is an immigrant. The story's lead makes clear they are coming here illegally. You don't get to redefine a word because you dislike them.

Thanks for being arrogant enough to think I had to pass your little hypocrisy test.

#19 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2009-08-14 10:12 AM

Thanks for being one among many.

I agree with nanc, people who invade the country do not get the title immigrant.

I don't think it can be called an "invasion," but that is perspective. They are seeking a better life, not the overthrow of the country. Invasion has a connotation.

we are Christians

#4 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue

Not according to your hero BHO.

I agree with nanc, people who invade the country do not get the title immigrant.

#33 | Posted by member2586

Is that the point of the thread?

"not that even i would deny them water"

Oh NANC, don't sell yourself short I am quite sure you would.

Not according to your hero BHO.

#35 | Posted by Sniper

You appear to be as confused as Eddie this morning. And that isn't a good thing.

Is that the point of the thread?

#36 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue

It is a central theme of this thread. The guy is helping invaders more easily get into the country.

Oh.

Ph.

It should not be a crime to leave water at places where illegal immigrants have died trying to get into this country. If the locations are so well-known that leaving water there makes a difference, border agents could scout those locations to catch them. And if the locations aren't being used, the water won't make a difference.

#25 | Posted by rcade

I agree and I think everyone else agrees, but unfortunately for this guy, the lawyers got involved.

If we had and enforced a realistic Immigration Policy this would not have happened.

Illegal immigrants should be kicked out of the country. They should not die.

This guy did good. I commend him for his compassion.

I agree and I think everyone else agrees, but unfortunately for this guy, the lawyers got involved.

#42 | Posted by Eddie

Read again.

"Anyone who moves from one country to another is an immigrant" - RCADE

Unless, of course they break the law by not moving into a country using a legally defined process.

They are illegal, plain and simple. True, they are still immigrants, but the adjective ILLEGAL must be applied.

Even Danni understands this. RCADE - are you the product of illegal immigration? This issue seems to have touched a nerve.

they are not immigrants - they are illegal border crossers ...

Anyone who moves from one country to another is an immigrant. The story's lead makes clear they are coming here illegally. You don't get to redefine a word because you dislike them.

#31 | Posted by rcade

I don't dislike them, I dislike their enablers.

If I had my way, I would let them all in, but they would have to obey the law just like everyone else.

Here in Colorado, mostly in Denver, we had a huge problem of the police picking up criminals and because they were illegals (no identification), they were charged with Argricultural Trespassing and set free. Some have been picked up several times. These "criminals" give their countrymen a bad name. I would say it's a very small percentage, but the actions of Denver law enforcement gave them all a bad name.

#45 | Posted by Libs_R_Below_Me

This is an arrogant name :)

This is an arrogant name :)

And your point is........????

I agree with nanc, people who invade the country do not get the title immigrant.

Fine. Are you a Native American or an invader?

"If you buy property near the Mexico border in places where illegal immigrants often cross, dealing with the effects of those crossings is the price you pay for living there."

That's nonsense. If the laws were being enforced properly it wouldn't be nearly the problem it is.

To say that we should expect people to violate our immigration policy isn't logical. If we bother to have the laws then they should be enforced.

I am a Native to America. I was born here, so were my parents, and their parents.

Even Danni understands this. RCADE - are you the product of illegal immigration? This issue seems to have touched a nerve.

Yeah, I just swam over last week. My belief that illegal immigrants ought to be given water to avoid dying in the desert couldn't possibly be motivated by simple compassion.

I don't think people should live here illegally. There should be a path to citizenship for as many people as we need, and it's clear we need Mexican immigrants in our workforce and supporting our tax rolls.

Until that happens, I don't have a problem with catching illegal immigrants and sending them home. I just think leaving water is the humane thing to do.

That's nonsense. If the laws were being enforced properly it wouldn't be nearly the problem it is.

The border with Mexico is 1,969 miles long. Life is better here and these immigrants are finding work.

How exactly could proper law enforcement stop people from getting over on a border that long?

Michael Vick get a 5 MILLION DOLLARS contract after KILLING maybe Hundreds of Dogs over the years an this man is convicted of a crime for leaving Water to people in the Desert who are dying of thirst....WHAT A FUCKING COUNTRY!!!!!! Today GOD must not be very happy with us!!!!

To say that we should expect people to violate our immigration policy isn't logical.

Are you serious? Since when does making something against the law mean people stop doing it?

"I don't think people should live here illegally. There should be a path to citizenship for as many people as we need, and it's clear we need Mexican immigrants in our workforce and supporting our tax rolls."

If so many people weren't breaking our laws and coming here illegally, we could allow more legal immigration. And the process wouldn't be as stringent for legal immigrants.

"only 300 hrs? 1 year probation? how are we to keep the illegals from entering if we find jerks like him who make it easier for them to pass safely into the U.S.?"

He was being sentenced for littering. When you know that fact, 300 hours of cleaning up trash seems more than adequate.

Fine. Are you a Native American or an invader?

Are you kidding, you know whats coming, this applies to everybody else, not them.

"Since when does making something against the law mean people stop doing it?"

It doesn't. But that doesn't mean that people who live on the border don't have a right to have their property protected by our governemtn as you hinted. Border security is one of the basic obligations of our federal governement.

"He was being sentenced for littering. "

And creating a nuisance.

"And creating a nuisance."

I didn't see that anywhere.

#61 | Posted by JOE at 2009-08-14 11:54 AM | Reply | Flag: needs to watch Alice's Restaurant

Fine. Are you a Native American or an invader?

#49 | Posted by rcade

Mu grandparents were imigrants. I am native. I was born here.

I don't see the point, of this mans actions, there are water stations in/near the Buenos Aires reserve that have a permit to do so.

I have been on an outing with the group HumanBorders delivering water, to water stations, and monitoring the beacons. We are given strict rules with how to interact with the illegal immigrants, should we come across them. BAR is a virtual war zone, border patrol is ever vigilant in this area.

But that doesn't mean that people who live on the border don't have a right to have their property protected by our governemtn as you hinted.

I didn't hint anything like that. I just don't think damage to the property of people living on the U.S./Mexico border is important. They live on the border. They know immigrants are coming over and the border patrol is limited in how many can be stopped. If they don't like living there, they should move.

No argument from me on that but I think the illegal immigration problem is less of a threat to our economy than the outsourcing to Asia problem is.

#13 | Posted by danni
Yea, outsourcing to Asia is costing us billions in medical bills at the ER, and thousands of billions in tax dollars for other services and education. Get some common sense. On the dude, he did something illegal and should pay the price. He made a choice (one that was based on chairty I hope) but that is still a choice that carries a penalty. Maybe we put up water stations, that are manned with ICE agents (and maybe some ice) and if they are about to die, they can get water, means they have to go back, but that way our laws are protected, and no one dies.

"I just don't think damage to the property of people living on the U.S./Mexico border is important. "

Well, how big of you.

"If they don't like living there, they should move."

So they all move. The complete border region is vacated. Let the Mexicans have it.

And then property on the "new" border region sees the same problems.

People who live on or near the border have all kinds of problems with illegals damaging their property.

If you buy property near the Mexico border in places where illegal immigrants often cross, dealing with the effects of those crossings is the price you pay for living there.

Many people who live down here on the beach have to deal with vagrants. Them's the breaks.

No one can wave a magic wand and make the immigrants stop coming here to improve their lives.

#29 | Posted by rcade at 2009-08-14 10:58 AM | Reply

We have a winner for the most stupid statment of the day! Thank you RCADE for playing and being the most clueless here on the site.

Living where illegal activity is causing problems is not someting that someone should just deal with you clueless idiot. WOuld you say the same to people who purchase a house next to a crack dealer or house of prostitution or a pedophile?

A magic wand to stop illegals from coming here is as simple as taking away the incentives and busting them and proscecuting them to the full extent of the laws on the books. It's not only the jobs but free healthcare, education, welfare, free housing and everything else the government uses to encourage them to come. Of course and national ID would go along way to help but the libs fight that every step of the way also. Its the libs who want to give them more incentives and then wonder why we have such a huge problem. WIth your next check you may want to buy a clue before you answer with your liberal bais metal retard answer.

I always find it funny that people attack the pope or other Catholic symbols as a way of offending "Christians".

Most Christians would probably laugh at a cartoon making fun of the Pope and the Catholic Church's abuse problems. Most Christians aren't Catholic and look down on Catholicism as a primitive form of Christianity.

And Catholics aren't the agressive, holier than thou, clinic bombing, rapture anticipating Christians that inspire so much anger.

So they all move. The complete border region is vacated. Let the Mexicans have it.

I never said that. I said that if they choose to own property on the border, the damage done by illegal immigration is the price they pay for living there.

I get tired of people kvetching about problems in their area that were obvious when they moved in. I'd compare it to all the people in Florida who get a home on the beach and then bitch about erosion, hurricanes and people on the beach.

WIth your next check you may want to buy a clue before you answer with your liberal bais metal retard answer.

"Metal retard" gets a FF.

Here's how it works. We produce a good or service. We need labor to produce it. Our US labor is too expensive to produce the good or service but a person from Mexico is willing to do the work for less. We hire that person. If we don't have that person then we need to ship the manufacturing of that product to Mexico. If we don't have that option then we close the plant because our product is too expensive.

Better to have them here, paying taxes and producing stuff than doing it in their own country.

"I never said that. I said that if they choose to own property on the border, the damage done by illegal immigration is the price they pay for living there."

So if our government were to say to people living on our border "Deal with it, you are on your own and it serves you right for living there", who would choose to live in an area where tresspassers come onto your property and wreck shit and potentially assault you or your family?

Do you really think that hurricanes and erosion are the same as criminal trespassers?

#70 was posted on the wrong thread entirely, BTW

I drove to El Centro not long ago and all along the highway are bottles of water with those 10' flags attached.

You can see them all the way to the mountains of Mexico and on both sides of the I-8.

The folks that do this are working on donations--but certainly legal here in CA.

Do you really think that hurricanes and erosion are the same as criminal trespassers?

Do I think that people who live right on the U.S./Mexico border will be dealing with illegal immigration for as long as they live there, and it's silly to think otherwise? Yes.

"Do I think that people who live right on the U.S./Mexico border will be dealing with illegal immigration for as long as they live there, and it's silly to think otherwise? Yes."

OK, so we have people like the jackass from this story trying to make it easier for the illegals by putting water in the desert - which would otherwise be a natural barrier that cuts down on this activity.

Now, if there were a way that some jackass could take it upon himself to do something that would attract more hurricanes to Florida, would you say that the people who live in Florida would have no right to complain about his actions because they should expect hurricanes anyway?

I get tired of people kvetching about problems in their area that were obvious when they moved in. I'd compare it to all the people in Florida who get a home on the beach and then bitch about erosion, hurricanes and people on the beach.

#71 | Posted by rcade

Ain't the same ace. Beach erosion and illegals trashing your property are entierly different.

Most of the property in question has been in the family for many generations. Its not like someone who builds their new home next to an old airport and bitches about the noise.

I'm not too sure why they just don't shoot the problem in many out-of-the-way areas.

Most of the property in question has been in the family for many generations.

Source?

Don't be a dope rca. Most of the ranches in the west have been passed down form generation to generation.

What is your source that they arn't?

Have you ever been any farther than 100 miles from the atlantic ocean?

"Most of the ranches in the west have been passed down form generation to generation. "

After being stolen from meskins and injuns.

I agree with nanc, people who invade the country do not get the title immigrant.

Fine. Are you a Native American or an invader?

#49 | Posted by rcade

LOL!!

Wow. So using your logic, even the ones we call Native Americans are not really native because they immigrated too.

The popular theory is that they came from Russia to North America through the Bering Strait.

Do you want to stick with your logic RCade?

Help me out here. Not long ago, there was a group of right-wingers on here bragging all about how to pick the best day laborers out of the group down in front of home depot. Even going so far as to say not to feed them so they'll work faster and to encourage them with cigarettes.

So, let me get this straight.....let them die of thirst in the desert (and jail anyone who helps them).....but if they don't, it's now ok to use them?

How 'christian' of you.

After being stolen from meskins and injuns.

#82 | Posted by nullifidian

Don't look now but the Mexicans are Indians.

I guess you don't know any history. Tribes took land from each other. The Sioux didn't move into SD and claim the Black Hills until after they left MN right before the Civil War. They were in MN and then moved to ND, SD, MT, and WY. Their claim to the All that land in thoes states isn't very old. Who did they push out? I guess you'll never know because you don't know any US history.

Our history is filled with people taking land. We bought the LA purchase from France. What did France do to get the land? How bout all the land claimed by Spain in the SW? How did the Mexican government get claim to the land? This could go on forever. Get a grip man.

This is the Thread where the WingDings Express another Common Trait with Al-Qaeda ------- the Cheapening and open persecution of "Life" they Don't Like!

Have you ever been any farther than 100 miles from the atlantic ocean?

I've lived in Florida, Texas, Colorado and Illinois.

Get a grip man.

Nullifidian's not the one throwing around terms like "invaders." Judging a bunch of desperate and destitute jobseekers as invaders is silly given the history of actual military conquest that settled the United States.

I said that if they choose to own property on the border, the damage done by illegal immigration is the price they pay for living there.

What a crock of shit.

That's their fucking property and their fucking home---and in many cases has been for well over a century. You try expensing cut fences, damaged gates, garbage, damage to houses due to forced entry, and dead livestock because some fucking wet drained and overturned a water trough in some remote part of the pasture.

You undoubtedly choose to live in some urbanized blue state shithole with a higher than normal crime rate. Don't even think of calling the cops with some expectation of justice the next time somebody smashes through the window of your Prius and jacks your laptop. After all, that's the price you pay for living there, right?

You people fucking amaze me.

"That's their fucking property and their fucking home---and in many cases has been for well over a century. "

After stealing it from meskins and injuns, that is.

I live in Florida, which until this fall was a red state with a higher than normal crime rate. Do you ever get tired of creating elaborate straw men so you have somebody to hate, Jak?

Any one of them can show you a sale deed, dipsht.

"Any one of them can show you a sale deed, dipsht."

Yeah, with a gun to your head, anyone can provide a "sale deed", moron.

Do you ever get tired of creating elaborate straw men so you have somebody to hate, Jak?

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position, Rogers.

That has very little to do with this ridiculous thing you wrote:

I said that if they choose to own property on the border, the damage done by illegal immigration is the price they pay for living there.

or the point made in my response to it.

Yeah, with a gun to your head, anyone can provide a "sale deed", moron.

No, I'm talking about a legal document that conveys ownership of property.

Stupid ass.

"I'm talking about a legal document that conveys ownership of property."

Oh. A "legal document". Well that settles that. Just one question: Was is your grandaddy or great granddaddy that drove injuns off "your" land.

You people fucking amaze me.

#89 | Posted by Jak_Se_Mao at 2009-08-14 03:45 PM

You amaze us, Jak Me So.

Oh. A "legal document".

Exactly.

Well that settles that.

Good.

Glad I could help.

I'd compare it to all the people in Florida who get a home on the beach and then bitch about erosion, hurricanes and people on the beach.

#71 | Posted by rcade at 2009-08-14 12

Exactly.

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position, Rogers.

You said I live in a blue state with a higher crime rate, drive a Prius, yadda yadda. You're so invested in hating people that you don't even make an attempt to get to know anything about them. You just turn them into what you want to hate. If that's all you get out of politics, you might as well knit some puppets and have arguments with them.

I'd compare it to all the people in Florida who get a home on the beach and then bitch about erosion, hurricanes and people on the beach.

#71 | Posted by rcade at 2009-08-14 12

Except for the fact that people can't control nature, and can do things to stop man from stealing and wrecking their possessions, you may have had a point.

You said I live in a blue state with a higher crime rate, drive a Prius, yadda yadda.

#100 | Posted by rcade at 2009-08-14 04:11 PM | Reply

You do live in a blue state.
You do live in an area with a high crime rate.
You wish you drove a prius.

So where exactly was he wrong?

If that's all you get out of politics, you might as well knit some puppets and have arguments with them.

#100 | Posted by rcade

Jacque is knitting voodoo dolls as we speak.

So where exactly was he wrong?

Florida isn't a high-crime urban blue state. It's a newly blue state that has suffered high crime for many years under Republican rule. I drive a Chevy Suburban.

He was trying to paint me as an urban latte liberal, and it just doesn't fit the real picture. I've lived in Texas and Florida most of my life.

"Staton, whom No More Deaths says is to begin seminary school at the Claremont School of Theology in Claremont, California, had initially refused to pay a $175 fine for littering, said Staton's lawyer, Bill Walker. After his refusal, the government enhanced the charges against him, arguing that he "knowingly littered,"

"Hawkes said refuge officials and members of No More Deaths had met and were trying to come up with methods that don't involve plastic bottles."

The issue is not that he is leaving water but that in doing so he is littering.

I've heard it being thrown around since the cars unveiling and now I have to ask this question;

How/Why is 'you drive a Prius' supposed to be some sort of insult?

Rode in a friends a few weeks back and the thing is amazing. What a great car.

There is no crime in The Great State of Florida!

It's all Margaritaville and pretty sunsets.

Sincerely...and I like you,

Charlie Crist, Soon to be Senator.

I'd compare it to all the people in Florida who get a home on the beach and then bitch about erosion, hurricanes and people on the beach.

Except people who "get a home" on the beach in Florida aren't economically tied to the land and facilities upon it. And if those same people were subjected to regular break-ins and property destruction, you bet your ass they'd bitch.

In short, you're incapable of making your point without evoking some ridiculous equivocation between the inevitable, weather-related consequences of living in an area and the criminal destruction of property.

Pointing that out isn't creating a "straw man".

Rode in a friends a few weeks back and the thing is amazing. What a great car.

#106 | Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2009-08-14 04:21 PM | Reply | Flag: PT Cruiser Lessee

It's gonna be interesting who "Suntan Charlie" picks as sock puppet Mel Martinez' replacement.

Getting back to the original point I was trying to make -- damage to property owners is important to them, just as problems here for beachfront homeowners are important to the people involved.

But in the larger scheme of things, when we're talking about the issues involved in illegal immigration, I think the problems for property owners on the border are not terribly important in comparison. There are so many bigger things at play here -- amnesty, expulsion, the police and medical costs of illegal immigration, crimes and traffic offenses created by these people, deaths in the desert, separating families with children born here who are citizens, vigilantes, corruption, drugs, and on and on.

Hey Jak Me So? What state do you live in?

Except people who "get a home" on the beach in Florida aren't economically tied to the land and facilities upon it.

If it's so terrible, are they moving? I can't recall reading any stories about a mass exodus from the border.

Hey Jak Me So? What state do you live in?

I think he lives in Texas, a state that has been enriched considerably by the cultural and economic impact of Mexicans immigrating there. I just got back from two weeks in Dallas, and I'd kill to have a Mexican market here like La Michoacana, which sells the best marinated fajita meat I've ever had in my life.

He was trying to paint me as an urban latte liberal, and it just doesn't fit the real picture.

The imagery I'm using to "paint" you is irrelevant.

I'm simply taking the principle inherent to this little gem:

I said that if they choose to own property on the border, the damage done by illegal immigration is the price they pay for living there.

...and applying it to a circumstance you can more closely identify with in order to show you how atrociously stupid your reasoning is.

Florida used to kick ass until the idiots from the north moved in and fucked it up because "that's the way we did it back home".

"I'd compare it to all the people in Florida who get a home on the beach and then bitch about erosion, hurricanes and people on the beach."

The obvious difference being that you cannot control hurricanes (they are a force of nature), but you can control illegal immigration (at least more than we do now). So, saying we should live with both of theses things because they are "going to happen" appears to be a cop-out, since we technically don't have to live with one of them.

Not surprising that Ferry agreed with such a dumb statement.

....and that's the reason we have so many fucking condos here on the west coast that look like Chicago public housing that are half filled.

Not surprising that Ferry agreed with such a dumb statement.

#118 | Posted by JOE at 2009-08-14 04:30 PM |

How's the clerk job at 1-800-shyster going Fey Joey?

"I'd kill to have a Mexican market here like La Michoacana, which sells the best marinated fajita meat I've ever had in my life."

You can't find that in Florida? I can find great Mexican markets all over California.

You can't find that in Florida?

Nope.

think the problems for property owners on the border are not terribly important in comparison.

Yes, they are terribly important.

When you're having tens of thousand of dollars in property damage done to your property and facilities each year, its terribly important.

When you have to make a choice whether or not to:

a.) lock your house--knowing that a fucking wet is going to do hundreds of dollars worth of damage breaking in, or

b.) leave it unlocked knowing people are rifling through your home and stealing your food, etc.

...its terribly important.

You wouldn't put up with that shit---not for a goddamn minute you wouldn't.

It would have been much funnier if he had left bottles of water mixed with a super laxative.

You can however find some great pressed cubans.

Sorry Lil' Joe, it's a sandwich, not the actual Cuban.

The principle inherent in my "little gem" is the fact that the landowners we're talking about here are not trapped. There's free choice inherent in where they've chosen to live. They have the means to live elsewhere. So if they continue to live on the border, decades after illegal immigration across it became a problem, who's fault is it they live there? Theirs.

It's not like we're ever going to stop the flood of desperate people across the border. Didn't happen under get-tough Republican El Presidente Bush. Won't happen under Democrats who would love to pass amnesty if they can get away with it. Won't happen under the next get-tough Republican either, because the Hispanic vote is too important.

It would have been much funnier if he had left bottles of water mixed with a super laxative.

Bad idea.

Those fuckers have enough kids as it is.

I'd have water bottles outside of a fake house to lure them. It would have a fake floor, with bear traps beneath it.

Every month or so I'd stop out and clean the illegal out of there and re-set the trap.

"lock your house--knowing that a fucking wet is going to do hundreds of dollars worth of damage breaking in, or"

Maybe they're just trying to reclaim stolen property.

You wouldn't put up with that shit -- not for a goddamn minute you wouldn't.

I wouldn't live on the border for the same reason I wouldn't live in some beachfront neighborhoods here. I have a friend who had a great house on the beach but they kept having homeless people around, and the public access to the beaches gave them a right to be there. They eventually moved.

You can't find that in Florida? I can find great Mexican markets all over California.

I've lived in Jacksonville for 11 years and have yet to find a single good Tex-Mex restaurant. Non-Cuban Hispanics haven't come here yet in great enough numbers to bring it to me.

There is a great Cuban restaurant in St. Augustine.

fact that the landowners we're talking about here are not trapped. There's free choice inherent in where they've chosen to live.

Jesus Christ.

That's their fucking home, dude.

Its where they make a living--and in many cases after having spent generations improving it.

I always find it funny that people attack the pope or other Catholic symbols as a way of offending "Christians".

Most Christians would probably laugh at a cartoon making fun of the Pope and the Catholic Church's abuse problems. Most Christians aren't Catholic and look down on Catholicism as a primitive form of Christianity.

And Catholics aren't the agressive, holier than thou, clinic bombing, rapture anticipating Christians that inspire so much anger.

#70 | Posted by Sully at 2009-08-14 12:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

Primitive? Catholics embrace evolution, a jesuit first posited the big bang theory. And they are the primitive christians? I'd say Catholics are by far the more sophisticated of the bunch

I always find it funny that people attack the pope or other Catholic symbols as a way of offending "Christians".

Most Christians would probably laugh at a cartoon making fun of the Pope and the Catholic Church's abuse problems. Most Christians aren't Catholic and look down on Catholicism as a primitive form of Christianity.

And Catholics aren't the agressive, holier than thou, clinic bombing, rapture anticipating Christians that inspire so much anger.

#70 | Posted by Sully at 2009-08-14 12:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

Primitive? Catholics embrace evolution, a jesuit first posited the big bang theory. And they are the primitive christians? I'd say Catholics are by far the more sophisticated of the bunch

#132 | Posted by boojiboy at 2009-08-14 04:41 PM

Wrong channel.

#128, of course the floors would be cement and sloped for easy drainage, big drain center of floor.

Just hose it out, reset, and be on your way.

Maybe a motion activated cam would be good too. Catch the action as they step into the traps. And then slowly die of thirst. Shit! We could set up an offshore betting site where people could bet on which illegal in the traps will die first and so on. We sell those fuckers on e-bay and make a mint!

This is a freakin' gold mine!

Why do you fucking morons think Bush was hard on immigration?

June 28, 2007

WASHINGTON - The Senate drove a stake Thursday through President Bush's plan to legalize millions of unlawful immigrants, likely postponing major action on immigration until after the 2008 elections.

Responding to a stinging political setback, President Bush sounded resigned to defeat.

"Legal immigration is one of the top concerns of the American people, and Congress' failure to act on it is a disappointment," Bush said after an appearance in Newport, R.I. "The American people understand the status quo is unacceptable when it comes to our immigration laws. A lot of us worked hard to see if we couldn't find common ground. It didn't work."

"I'd have water bottles outside of a fake house to lure them. It would have a fake floor, with bear traps beneath it."

Be easier to just poison the water. Just need to make sure animals can't get into it....

I wouldn't live on the border for the same reason I wouldn't live in some beachfront neighborhoods here.

That's because you're not economically or culturally tied to whatever patch of land you choose to lay your pretty little head on every night.

But that's not even the point.

Criminal trespass and destruction of property are illegal no matter where you "choose" to live.

"I'd say Catholics are by far the more sophisticated of the bunch"

I was talking about how other Christians, especially those of certain Protestant denominations, view Catholics. I have no problems with them. I used to be one.

But the post you responded to is on the wrong thread....

That's because you're not economically or culturally tied to whatever patch of land you choose to lay your pretty little head on every night.

They have economic and cultural ties that compel them to live right on the border? Do you accept the same argument when it comes to saving family farmers by subsidizing the purchase of their crops?

I wonder how many people in Dallas-Fort Worth have lost their homes to highways and other eminent domain projects in the decades I lived there. People move all the time because of circumstances beyond their control. The ones who don't move accept the consequences. I choose to live on the Florida coast even though insurers bailed on us and all I can get is a state-run insurance. If something happens and that insurance sucks, it's my problem.

Criminal trespass and destruction of property are illegal no matter where you "choose" to live.

#137 | Posted by Jak_Se_Mao

That's what the Native Americans said when you assholes were "clearing" them from the land.

"They have economic and cultural ties that compel them to live right on the border?"

You're really asking for someone to explain to you that you can't just move anywhere and build a large ranch for the purpose of raising lifestock?

C'mon, you have to know that.

"Its where they make a living--and in many cases after having spent generations improving it."

That's funny Jak, many Palestinians could say the exact same thing. Some families had lived on the same land for up to 900 years yet were moved off of it. Somehow I doubt you'd be sticking up for them.

That's what the Native Americans said when you assholes were "clearing" them from the land.

Yes, as opposed to babbling dumbfucks like yourself who live on special plots of land historically proven to have never been claimed by gut-eaters.

#143 | Posted by Jak_Se_Mao

So was it injuns or meskins that your family ripped off, trustfund cowboy?

They have economic and cultural ties that compel them to live right on the border?

Umm, yes.

Do you accept the same argument when it comes to saving family farmers by subsidizing the purchase of their crops?

That doesn't make any sense, Rogers. I'm not aware of any other specific place where family farmers are having high incidences of property destruction and home invasion via hordes of trespassers.

I wonder how many people in Dallas-Fort Worth have lost their homes to highways and other eminent domain projects in the decades I lived there.

Probably quite a few, but that's because we have an eminent domain law that allows for the taking of property for public projects so long as the owner is compensated full market value.

I'm not aware of a similar law that deems it OK to trespass on people's land and destroy their shit.

Are you?

So was it injuns or meskins that your family ripped off

Remember when we had the little talk about those "deed" thingies, mouth-breather?

You're really asking for someone to explain to you that you can't just move anywhere and build a large ranch for the purpose of raising lifestock?

Illegal immigration has been a problem across that border for how many years -- 20, 30?

People who own giant ranches have choices. They may not like some of the choices, but if they choose to stay on the border and run ranches, the problems we're talking about are the cost of doing business.

We spend too much time in this country helping protect people from the consequences of their own decisions.

"Remember when we had the little talk about those "deed" thingies, mouth-breather?"

Just answer the question. Meskins or injuns?

"We spend too much time in this country helping protect people from the consequences of their own decisions."

Wouldn't crossing the desert knowing full well its against the law and without any water be a decision that has definite negative consequences associated with it?

Because earlier you said that we should build water stations for the purpose of saving these people.

Living on the border is not a crime. People who live there have a reasonable expectation to be protected by our government.

consequences of their own decisions.

I see we've reached the zenith of absurdity.

The "decision" is to live in one's fucking house one one's property.

A civilized society is premised upon a reasonable expectation of not having one's shit constantly destroyed by criminal activity.

On the other hand, I've noticed you lapsed into facetiousness with that last post.

You're quite the bleeding heart when it comes to giant cattle ranchers, Jak.

Wouldn't crossing the desert knowing full well its against the law and without any water be a decision that has definite negative consequences associated with it?

True. I think they should get one small and humane break -- water to keep them from dying. I've never said they shouldn't be caught and sent back.

"You're quite the bleeding heart when it comes to giant cattle ranchers, Jak."

Well you would be too if you were a trustfund rancher living on property stolen from injuns, who thought he hit a triple.

Rcade - This is really off topic at this point but just curious... Since you seem to think that living on our southern border is an "at your own risk" situation on par with living in an area that experiences extreme weather, do you think that people living there should be allowed to mitigate this threat on their own? Would shotgunning a trespasser before he can wreck your stuff be the same as boarding up your windows when you know a storm is approaching? Is turning part of your spread into a minefield similar to putting up a levee?

I'm just blown away by the idea that these people should be left more less on their own by the rest of the country. If the rest of us decide they are on their own as far as protecting their property, then shouldn't we leave them alone when they decide to protect it as they see fit?

I see we've reached the zenith of absurdity.

#150 | Posted by Jak_Se_Mao

We reached the point of absurdity way back at post #65 when Rogers said, "I just don't think damage to the property of people living on the U.S./Mexico border is important."

Rogers made the absurd point that people's property rights just aren't that important. He knows it was an indefensible argument but now he can't turn his back on it so he tries do defend it but just continues to look more and more crazy by doing so.

Now Nulli should be along anytime now to call me a "propertarian" because for some reason he thinks that's an insult.

Also Rogers if you like pointing out straw men arguments. Why didn't you comment on the biggest straw man of this thread?

Why do you fucking morons think Bush was hard on immigration?

#135 | Posted by boojiboy

Well you would be too if you were a trustfund rancher living on property stolen from injuns, who thought he hit a triple.

#152 | Posted by nullifidian at

Who did the injuns buy it from? How did they get title to the land? Like I pointed out to you before, the Sioux got the Black Hills by force from some other injuns and then they say after living there for 30 years they claim it is key to their religon. It is hallowed ground. SHIT!!!!

I'm just blown away by the idea that these people should be left more less on their own by the rest of the country.

Maybe you wouldn't be so blown away if you focused on what I actually wrote. You and others have read an enormous amount of stuff into the simple statement that "if you buy property near the Mexico border in places where illegal immigrants often cross, dealing with the effects of those crossings is the price you pay for living there."

"Now Nulli should be along anytime now to call me a "propertarian" because for some reason he thinks that's an insult."

Libertarian Lies:

Rogers made the absurd point that people's property rights just aren't that important. He knows it was an indefensible argument but now he can't turn his back on it so he tries do defend it but just continues to look more and more crazy by doing so.

Calling someone's argument crazy or "indefensible" is not as effective as making an actual argument about why they are wrong.

"Who did the injuns buy it from? How did they get title to the land? Like I pointed out to you before, the Sioux got the Black Hills by force from some other injuns and then they say after living there for 30 years they claim it is key to their religon. It is hallowed ground. SHIT!!!!"

In other words you admit that existing land ownership patterns are based on nothing more than force. Thanks, Snippy!

Rode in a friends a few weeks back and the thing is amazing. What a great car.

#106 | Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2009-08-14 04:21 PM | Reply | Flag: PT Cruiser Lessee

#109 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2009-08-14 04:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

I actually gave my Mom a new PT Cruiser for Christmas back in 2001. She really wanted one, needed a new car and I was happy to help.

She loves the thing. I keep trying to talk her into letting me get her something newer but she wants the PT. I've driven it and would never own one but it serves her purposes just fine.

"Maybe you wouldn't be so blown away if you focused on what I actually wrote. You and others have read an enormous amount of stuff into the simple statement that "if you buy property near the Mexico border in places where illegal immigrants often cross, dealing with the effects of those crossings is the price you pay for living there.""

Actually, I was responding to this:

"We spend too much time in this country helping protect people from the consequences of their own decisions."

That seemed to me to be a statement against protecting these people given that you've stated many times that you consider living in that region to be a decision that has clear negative consequences.

Maybe that isn't what you meant. But far rather than reading too much into it, I would say I took what you said at face-value.

Running a business anywhere has consequences, Sully. If you operate a cattle ranch on the U.S./Mexico border -- and that's largely what we're talking about here, giant cattle ranchers -- one of the costs of doing business is the damage done by border crossers.

That's not a statement in favor of border crossers or against them. It's not a statement that the ranchers are completely on their own. It's just a simple fact.

80 percent of the people on one Native American reservation are unemployed:

Running a business anywhere has consequences

That's a rather and meaningless statement, and does nothing to justify the fact that people are being trespassed upon, having their property destroyed, and in some cases their lives threatened by hordes of people participating in illegal activity.

If you operate a cattle ranch on the U.S./Mexico border -- and that's largely what we're talking about here, giant cattle ranchers -- one of the costs of doing business is the damage done by border crossers.

I doesn't fucking matter where or what kind of business---or how "big" it is (the ranches are "big" because they have to be due to the smaller amount of forage production in the desert SW relative to other areas).

There are no sets of circumstances whereby America citizens should be expected to tolerate trespassing and the rampant destruction of their property by people engaged in illegal activity.

You're being ridiculous.

Calling someone's argument crazy or "indefensible" is not as effective as making an actual argument about why they are wrong.

#158 | Posted by rcade

Could it be that your statement "I just don't think damage to the property of people living on the U.S./Mexico border is important." and other statements about people's property rights are so asinine that they doesn't deserve to be debated on the merits?

"That's not a statement in favor of border crossers or against them. It's not a statement that the ranchers are completely on their own. It's just a simple fact."

But you talk about the issue as if its the same as an unfortunate climate. Problems caused by bad human behavior tend to spread when you tolerate (aka encourage) them.

Isn't one of the duties and responsibilities of the gov't to protect our friggin borders?

80 percent of the people on one Native American reservation are unemployed:

They have economic and cultural ties to the reservation.

You're equivocating a lack of economic opportunity with being a victim of criminal activity.

Ranchers aren't bitching about a lack of economic opportunity where they live. They're bitching about the fact that hordes of mojados are fucking up their facilties, trashing their land, and endangering their livestock. They have every right to do so. Especially when any action they take to defend themselves or their property might get them into legal trouble---like that guy south of here that had some fucking little spic he detained come back and sue him.

I won't even get into the shit that goes on when when we start dealing with mulas packing drugs across. Back home, you don't go to the river pastures---either in a vehicle or horseback---unarmed.

Could it be that your statement "I just don't think damage to the property of people living on the U.S./Mexico border is important." and other statements about people's property rights are so asinine that they doesn't deserve to be debated on the merits?

Still waiting on you to make an actual argument, TxLibertarian.

They have every right to do so.

I never said they didn't. I said that their complaints, when weighed against all the other issues involved in immigration, aren't important. I should have said "aren't that important" instead, but the point's largely the same.

Isn't one of the duties and responsibilities of the gov't to protect our friggin borders?

It sure is.

But realistically, you can't reasonably expect to protect the border----at least the part of it where I came from. The Border Patrol set up dozens of motion sensors in the Donax by the river and in the little canyons and passes between the river and highway 90. They have trackers, helicopters, etc.--but they still get through.

The country is big, rough, and covered in mesquite and creosote brush. It can take 10 good men horseback several days to find a set of 2,000lb bulls confined in a single, 5,000 acre pasture. Now imagine some little yankee Border Patroller in a Dodge Durango trying to find a 150lb. Meskin that doesn't want to be found.

We've never denied water, food, or directions to the highway to a wet Meskin because we weren't raised that way. Everybody that wandered up to the house was treated like a human being, and sent on their way. Back in the day, the only time dad ever called the Border Patrol was if a group of them looked to be in really bad shape. But that was when there was a mutual understanding about the degree of respect that was to be afforded a man's property.

Over the last 10 to 15 years, its a different kind of cat making his way across, and its gotten horrible. You simply don't know who you're running into, and what their intentions are. That said, nobody on the frontera will think twice about killing somebody to protect their lives and the lives of their families---that's the new reality. If you don't like it, tell your government to stop them at the fucking river. Otherwise, we can't guarantee their safety once they crawl out of that canyon and onto people's ranches.

aren't that important

No, Rogers.

The protect of individual life and property, when weighed against all the other issues involved in immigration, is of the utmost importance.

Don't be silly.

Since you "can't reasonably expect to protect the border," as you have said, how would you have the government protect individual property on the border? You're saying that something is of utmost importance while acknowledging it can't be done.

Since you "can't reasonably expect to protect the border," as you have said, how would you have the government protect individual property on the border?

By partially outsourcing the task of protecting individual life and property to the individuals whose lives and properties are at stake. And by allowing them to do so without a threat of a lawsuit from some little California spic lawyer at La Raza.

Terms like "wet" and "spic" don't do your argument any favors, Jak.

Are you suggesting that ranchers should be allowed to shoot all the people who cross over?

"80 percent of the people on one Native American reservation are unemployed"

Those were probably descendants of the injuns that Pinochet Mao's granddaddy drove off with a bullwhip.

Terms like "wet" and "spic" don't do your argument any favors, Jak

They certainly don't hinder it, either.

I don't give two pinches of monkey shit what anyone thinks of the language I use.

Are you suggesting that ranchers should be allowed to shoot all the people who cross over?

No.

I'm suggesting that ranchers be allowed to take whatever steps necessary to protect their lives and property without fear of absurd legal repercussions---especially when the government is either unwilling or unable to fulfill its most basic obligation to its citizens.

We don't all have the "privilege" of living in the civic equivalent of downtown Ann Arbor.

By the way, "wet" is a perfectly acceptable term used by pretty much everybody on the frontera---whites and meskins. They're also referred to as mojados.

The only people who take offense to that are people who sit at desks hundreds of miles away and make a living looking for reasons to be offended.

They certainly don't hinder it, either.

The terms make you sound like a bigot who hates Hispanics.

I'm suggesting that ranchers be allowed to take whatever steps necessary to protect their lives and property without fear of absurd legal repercussions ...

Texans are allowed to shoot people on their property in self defense. Joe Horn shot a guy for stealing someone else's property and got away with it.

Has the ability to do that slowed down illegal immigration through Texas at all?

Rcade, do you seriously expect any concessions to reason on this issue by Mao? For angry rightwingers like Mao, this issue is as ideological as they come. No matter how sensible and logical you are, he will not back down.

Just answer the question. Meskins or injuns?

#148 | Posted by nullifidian

I bought mine from a nice Vietnamese couple.

#169 | Posted by rcade

Even though I think your position on this is off the wall I will address some of your statements directly.

"I'd compare it to all the people in Florida who get a home on the beach and then bitch about erosion, hurricanes and people on the beach."

#71 | Posted by rcade

Well that argument holds no water. We can't control the weather, and you all expect FEMA to be there within hours when a hurricane hits. I didn't hear this argument when you all were caterwauling about the government not being there when people chose to live in a literal whole in the ground in N.O.

"The principle inherent in my "little gem" is the fact that the landowners we're talking about here are not trapped. There's free choice inherent in where they've chosen to live. They have the means to live elsewhere."

#126 | Posted by rcade

This sounds like a familiar argument I know I heard it several times during the criminal Bush Admin. The right would say if you don't like the way the country is headed then move and The left would shout we're not leaving we're going to stay and change things as well they should have. Now you say these people should just leave if they don't like people destroying their property instead of staying and doing something about it.
It must feel a bit strange to be promoting rightie thoughts.

The government has a responsibility to protect citizens and their property from roving hoards of criminals. If they can't they should allow the people affected by this to reasonably protect their rights with out fear of being sued.

"Terms like "wet" and "spic" don't do your argument any favors, Jak.

#175 | Posted by rcade"

Yet you apparently have no problem with Nulli calling them "Meskins or injuns"

The terms make you sound like a bigot who hates Hispanics.

In the context of this sub-thread, it makes him sound like he's bigoted against illegal Hispanics. And I agree. I am very bigoted and have extreme prejudices against anyone in my country illegally. I have no problems at all with the Hispanics that are here legally. In fact my neighborhood is easily half Hispanic (and American citizens), most of whom own their homes and all of whom are very decent people. I like the culture, the food, the lovely senoritas, and the siesta. The wetbacks can die of thirst in the desert and go to hell as far as I am concerned.

Has the ability to do that slowed down illegal immigration through Texas at all?

No.

But that's not the point of contention, is it?

Yet you apparently have no problem with Nulli calling them "Meskins or injuns"

Dude, I'm just talking Texan tard so you all can understand me.

In fact my neighborhood is easily half Hispanic (and American citizens), most of whom own their homes and all of whom are very decent people.

Would you use the terms spic or wetback in their presence? Saying they only apply to certain Hispanics is like the argument that separates blacks into good people and n-----s. That dog won't hunt.

Would you use the terms spic or wetback in their presence?

Not spic, because they aren't any more a spic than every black man is a nigger.

Wetback, yes. In fact I've heard them use it. You are an ex-pat Texan, rcade. I don't have to explain to you what that word means and to whom it applies.

Rcade, do you seriously expect any concessions to reason on this issue by Mao?

No. Just having some fun when I should be editing a book. The argument has been useful in bringing to light the fact that I am completely sick and tired of capable people and businesses who expect the government to cushion them from all bad decisions. The attitude goes all the way up to our wealthiest corporations. Private profits, socialized risk.

Goatman is using wink-and-a-nod racist code. He thinks that Rcade, being an ex-Texan, should be hip to it.

You are an ex-pat Texan, rcade. I don't have to explain to you what that word means and to whom it applies.

The problem is that it isn't always applied to people crossing the border. Growing up, I heard "wetback" used against all Hispanics.

.. who expect the government to cushion them from all bad decisions.

And what bad decision did Jak make? To continue to stay on the land that has been in his family?

Get real, rcade. And as was pointed out by TXL upthread: It is a bad decision to buy a house on the beach or under a volcano. These things can't be controlled. A country should be able to control its own borders and people should not have to make property owning decisions based on the inability of their government being unable to do so.

RCADE-
But, as GOATMAN helpfully explained, "...they aren't any more a spic than every black man is a nigger." So, RCADE, some blacks are "niggers", and some aren't. Some latinos are "spics", and some aren't.
I guess at this point it would be edifying for GOATMAN to give us the definition of a "spic" and a "nigger", as opposed to the other brown people GOATMAN finds to have risen above the "nigger/spic" category.

The problem is that it isn't always applied to people crossing the border. Growing up, I heard "wetback" used against all Hispanics.

As did I at times, especially in N Texas. I don't hear it misused in SA, however. You can't blame me or Jak or anyone else for others' misuse of this word. That should not mandate the expulsion of it from the vocabulary of those who use it properly.

As I said upthread, I've heard a couple of neighbors of mine refer to the wetbacks in the proper context. We both knew what he meant.

Though never spoken outloud, I get the impression that most of the legal hispanics of SA despise the wetbacks because they give the honest Hispanics a bad name.

Goatman is using wink-and-a-nod racist code.

I'm not sure what this means, but it sure sounds stupid.

He thinks that Rcade, being an ex-Texan, should be hip to it.

Of course I do. As rcade pointed out, this word is misused. I'll bet that 90% of the people who live > 200 miles from the border don't know that word refers only to illegal Mexicans. You appear to be one of them, counselor.

Goatman-
re: That should not mandate the expulsion of it from the vocabulary of those who use it properly.

What's the proper use in referring to someone as a "nigger"?

Dude, I'm just talking Texan tard so you all can understand me.

Oh, well, like uh, cool and gnarly, dude.

I'm just talking california tard so you could understand me, null.

RCADE-
But, as GOATMAN helpfully explained, "...they aren't any more a spic than every black man is a nigger." So, RCADE, some blacks are "niggers", and some aren't. Some latinos are "spics", and some aren't.

I'm sure rcade appreciates you explaining the obvious to him, boyd. Believe it or not, I'm pretty sure he is smart enough to understand the gist of my post without out paraphrasing it for him. GIve the guy some credit.

What's the proper use in referring to someone as a "nigger"?

I'm not taking the bait and playing your "give me your definition" game tonight boyd. We all know it ends up with you telling me, anyway, so let's just skip 20 posts and you go ahead and assign a position to me as you always do.

Thanks.

Hey, Goatman, you are the one who made the comparison:

"Not spic, because they aren't any more a spic than every black man is a nigger."

So, what percentage of latinos are "spics", and what percentage of black men are "niggers", in your opinion?

(And yes, I'm sure Rcade knew precisely what you were saying, even if you didn't)

Translation: Goatman was caught revealing his underlying racism and is trying to back out by nobly stating that he is not going to play Boyd's "game tonight. LOL>

Moder8-
That's the way it generally happens. Goatman's words have meaning, and he gets pissed off when that is pointed out.

Hey, Goatman, you are the one who made the comparison

Yes I am. And you are always the one who assigns a postion to me in the end no matter what I say.

So why do you resent me wanting to skip the middle man and just letting you do what you always do?

"Not spic, because they aren't any more a spic than every black man is a nigger."

The clear meaning of this statement is that some latinos are "spics" and some black men are "niggers". Goatman doesn't have the courage of his verbal diarrhea to follow through with a definition of "nigger" and "spic", however, though I'm sure he knows them when he sees them...

Translation: Goatman was caught revealing his underlying racism and is trying to back out by nobly stating that he is not going to play Boyd's "game tonight.

These "translations" may explain why you are only a public defender and not a real lawyer. This kind of shoddy interpretation gets you laughed out of court a lot, I'll bet.

Goat says, "GIve the guy [RCADE] some credit."

Exactly right! Rogers is honest enough to announce that he is the Chief Propaganda Supplier on his blog, dedicated to Yellow Dog Democrats.

However, I don't think he minds the ilk hiding behind his figurative skirt, when the boys come out to play.

So, what percentage of latinos are "spics", and what percentage of black men are "niggers", in your opinion?

Having met probably < 1% of them, I can't really say. Why don't you just assign an aritrary number and I'll agree with it. Cool with you?

"Goatman was caught revealing his underlying racism and is trying to back out by nobly stating that he is not going to play Boyd's "game tonight. "

Well that's odd because playing games is all he does.

Goatman's words have meaning...

...but I don't respect them and I'll end up telling him what he thinks anyway.

boyd

I'm off to look for intelligent life. M8, boyd, null -- enjoy the goat bashing.

Later

"Not spic, because they aren't any more a spic than every black man is a nigger."

Conservatives don't see race, unless we are talking about "niggers" and "spics"....

"Isn't one of the duties and responsibilities of the gov't to protect our friggin borders?"

I always thought so, perhaps you could ask the US Chamber of Commerce why they don't think it sould be. Why they lobbied the Bush administration (probably the Obama adminstration too) to not enforce the immigration laws.

Goatman ran away? Typical. What a pussy. Texas oilrig bigot.

This man is aiding others to break federal law. The judge should have sentenced his sorry ass to a few years in prison for not only his actions but to serve as a deterent to other like-minded criminals.

Deuteronomy 27:19
Cursed is the one who distorts the justice due to a widow, an orphan or an alien.

Somebody WILL fill in the vacuum left by our abortion practices that have left 24-26 million Americans aged 16-36 "missing" from our workforce.

Look at your house, your neighbor's house, where you eat, what you eat, etc. Spoiled white suburban high school kids didn't put your roof on, pick your lettuce, wash your dishes.

A guy who hikes through that area said that there are no wells/water for 120 miles of some of the roughest desert in the world; many coyotes drop of these immigrants 70 miles from anywhere. 500,000/year cross in the Tucson sector alone.

This is a ridiculous situation.

This guy's 300 hrs of community service should be to teach some of the losers here on the DR simple, basic human compassion.

Rogers is honest enough to announce that he is the Chief Propaganda Supplier on his blog, dedicated to Yellow Dog Democrats. However, I don't think he minds the ilk hiding behind his figurative skirt, when the boys come out to play.

I could read that comment a hundred times, Tadowe, and still not have any clue whatsoever what it's supposed to mean.

"Rogers is honest enough to announce that he is the Chief Propaganda Supplier on his blog, dedicated to Yellow Dog Democrats. However, I don't think he minds the ilk hiding behind his figurative skirt, when the boys come out to play."

Translation:

Only people speaking the language of known conflict have now become the entire housing military.

#171 | Posted by Jak_Se_Mao at 2009-08-14 07:57 PM

I really don't like to agree with you on this subject Jak, but I have to say you make a lot of sense. Someone threatens your life, family or property you act on it. Same is true anywhere. And, nomenclature aside, If the Government won't enforce the laws to eliminate the temptation of these people, nor provide adequate interdiction, you are (in all actuality) left to fend for yourself. And given the recent explosion of violence in Mexico, I'm sure that the ratio of violent illegals is on the increase as well. You're in a real pickle. And the proscecution and civil liability of people defending themselves can't help...

And, given your level of frustration due to your situation, I can understand the harshness of your verbiage. I probably wouldn't "give two pinches of monkey shit" what others that didn't share in your situation thought of it either. I always say "I don't give two shits in a rusty bucket" myself, but I may use your phrasing from time to time, and your free to use mine if you wish...

Good luck, and I'll keep hammering my reps to enforce the laws regarding immigration, all the while wishing there was more that I could do...

Rogers wonders, "I could read that comment a hundred times, Tadowe, and still not have any clue whatsoever what it's supposed to mean."

I am certainly devasted by that, Rogers.

I gave you credit for being an honest supplier of propaganda, as Goat asked in this comment, in the first instance:

I'm sure rcade appreciates you explaining the obvious to him, boyd. Believe it or not, I'm pretty sure he is smart enough to understand the gist of my post without out paraphrasing it for him. GIve the guy some credit.

Then, in the second part, I noticed that Boyd was using you as some sort of strawman, erected to defend his position; in effect hiding behind your authority, or whatever.

You don't mind that, do you? Perhaps I was wrong? You dislike having the ilk run and hide in your 'house' when the boys come out to play?

As for the water drops? How can the Obama border guards bait 'water traps' when being interfered with by the misquided public?

The deaths are from being abandoned in the desert by their coyote guides without food or water, not US Border Patrol denial of water to them!

The Democrat controlled Border Patrol is trying to save these people from dying of thirst, while the public encourages them to remain in the desert by their very presence, much less giving them water to assist them in remaining hidden from help.

Oxymoronic, but there you have it with 'liberals' ... but it is your ball and court, now, Mr. Honesty.

#220 | Posted by tadowe at 2009-08-15 08:33 PM

Ugh... I agree with you... You know that's got to hurt...

;~}

This should be serving hard time in a maximum federal prison with the illegal immigrant criminals he has helped!

"The U.S. Justice Department estimated that 270,000 illegal immigrants served jail time nationally in 2003. Of those, 108,000 were in California. Some estimates show illegals now make up half of California's prison population, creating a massive criminal subculture that strains state budgets and creates a nightmare for local police forces."

Tadowe, question: Do you know what the word "ilk" means? Because you sure misuse it a lot. Is that intentional?

Moder8 wonders, "Do you know what the word "ilk" means?"

Sure, do! I know it is like the "Pledge of Allegiance" is to your ilk ... something you hate with a passion beyond all reason!

It inevitably evokes some assinine effort to insult my use of it, like your pissant try ...

I can also coin it into being a noun, since the ilk are like reflexive jackasses, they go ballistic ...

See?

You don't mind that, do you? Perhaps I was wrong? You dislike having the ilk run and hide in your 'house' when the boys come out to play?

I don't care one way or the other. This is a web site, not some commie sleeper cell. I don't have any more control over what Democrats do here than I do Republicans, Libertarians, Humanitarians, Rotarians or Presbyterians.

Liar! Admit the truth Rcade! Tadowe and his ilk have figured us out. The time has come for us come out in the open! Yes! We are a leftwing sleeper cell! Some years back we were surreptitiously organized by the International Communist League. Every night Rcade secretly emails our ultra hush-hush marching orders from Leftist Central Command. Our goal is no less than the complete destruction of all thing good, honest and American. Yes! Hail Lenin! Hail Castro! Hail the Workers of the world!
It feels so good to now be able to carry out our anti-christian, anti-goodness jihad in open!!!

Admit the truth Rcade! Tadowe and his ilk have figured us out.

I'll bet rcade threw up a little hearing you refer to the two of you as 'us'.

I would.

So, moder8 is a mouse in Rogers pocket?

who knew?

Now that I have irresponsibly blurted out the secret truth, this thread must be immediately destroyed!

Better go tickle Rogers trigger finger, Fifel.

"Our goal is no less than the complete destruction of all thing good, honest and American. Yes! Hail Lenin! Hail Castro! Hail the Workers of the world!
It feels so good to now be able to carry out our anti-christian, anti-goodness jihad in open!!!"

The sad thing is that it is a toss up whether or not he is being facetious.

Rogers avers, "I don't have any more control over what Democrats do here than I do Republicans, Libertarians, Humanitarians, Rotarians or Presbyterians."

Well, sure except perhaps editorial control of subject matter ... oh, and moderation control ...

I guess those 'controls' have some influence on your list, in one way or another.

As a counterintelligence special agent during the Vietnam era, I know the extent that communist organizations had infiltrated organizations which were also being supported by the Democratic party; even before Nixon ...

Some reading on available sources might give some of you purposefully ignorant leftists the clue. However, not a one of you will ever do so ...

... and that's a fact, including Rogers ...

Yeah. Rogers is a Commie stooge. Tadowe learned it in 'Nam.

Got it.

Thanks Tad.

Betel says, "Thanks Tad."

You're welcome, Betel, but I didn't say that Rogers was a 'commie stooge.' Get with Dan, though, and I'm sure you can agree that I'm agreeing with you all, somehow ...

What I said was that Rogers would not educate himself into believing that the anti-war movement was infiltrated by the communists, and that Democrats were working with them knowingly, in order to assist in losing the war for party votes/power; e.g., John Kerry, among others.

However, I might be incorrect about that level of Rogers' honesty, and he might educate himself concerning those facts. But, I don't think he would take the effort to confirm that to the Yellow-Dogs. After all, that would be 'tainted' meat ...

I am not interested in fighting battles about the left and communism that are older than I am. Most of the time when people dredge that stuff up, it makes my eyes glaze over. It's 2009. Maybe it's time to stop fighting the cultural battles of the Vietnam War.

Rogers engages, "I am not interested in fighting battles about the left and communism that are older than I am."

The 'battle' isn't old, Rogers. In fact, the effort towards the perfection of socialism has been revived by the Obama administration. I'll offer 1,000 to 1 that you voted for this neo-socialistic regime. The nationalization of oil in Venezuela is no different than the effort being made to socialize medicine, here, except in what the target of takeover happens to be.

The ilk can mock the Silent Majority/Middle America, and perhaps you sneer at them, too, but they are the ones who are now using their free speech to disagree about *socialism*, politically. You are one of those who lead the inference(s) that they are the 'enemy.' Your disclaimer is a self-serving excuse, if not a bit dense.

"Most of the time when people dredge that stuff up, it makes my eyes glaze over. It's 2009. Maybe it's time to stop fighting the cultural battles of the Vietnam War."

You'd like that, right? Voluntary limitation on free speech. No more association with those who actively worked with communists to win the war for them, as the USA lost it for Democrat votes. No more reminders that the Democrat party, itself, is managed by socialists yearning for perfection of that ideology, here in the USA, and openly led by one of them who worked hand-in-glove with the North Vietnamese communists: John Kerry (American traitor - Democrat).

Your eyes have been glazed shut since you became a Yellow-Dog-Democrat ...

The Democratic Party is managed by Democrats. Democrats favor many social welfare programs, including some that are enormously popular with generations of Americans.

If universal health care is enacted, it will be enormously popular too.