Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Time: "Anchor babies" isn't a very endearing term, but in Arizona those are the words being used to tag children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants. While not new, the term is increasingly part of the local vernacular because the primary authors of the nation's toughest and most controversial immigration law are targeting these tots -- the legal weights that anchor many undocumented aliens in the U.S. -- for their next move. Buoyed by recent public opinion polls suggesting they're on the right track with illegal immigration, Arizona Republicans will likely introduce legislation this fall that would deny birth certificates to children born in Arizona -- and thus American citizens according to the U.S. Constitution -- to parents who are not legal U.S. citizens.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

Doc_Sarvis

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

There is an easy way to avoid all this difficulty. If you are here illegally, don't have children here, don't have to worry about being sent back without your children, or all of you being sent back together, go back home, come in the right way, and the problem will be solved.

Of course that cannot be done because it puts an "unfair burden" on the people who are trying to come into the country.

Here is another solution for you... all the democrats that are hooting and hollering because someone is trying to enforce the illegal immigration law, should sponsor one or two of these illegal immigrants and take them through the legal method of legalization, help them with the process.

Of course that won't happen, because most don't want these individuals in their homes, or part of their lives, and of course that would take too much work and responsibility on the part of the democrats who are complaining.

They would rather other people pay for it, people who don't want it, just like the health care.

"Here is another solution for you... all the democrats that are hooting and hollering because someone is trying to enforce the illegal immigration law,"

They are only coming here to do jobs Americans won't do.

George W. Bush

#2 | Posted by danni at 2010-06-14 09:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

Danni, that would be all fine and dandy if I supported King Geo for one second. It is too bad for your little meme oriented mind that I did not ever do such.

Just because someone else does something wrong, does not make it right for the next person to do it. You continue to fail to see this. It is a law of our country. Enforce it, or erase it, but until it is erased, it should be enforced.

And again, stop complaining and giving the "he did it first" excuse and get out there and sponsor some illegals.

The parents are illegal, so should the children be.

Either danni is unemployeed ot she is blogging from work. If she worked for me and was doing this i would fire her. Do you wonder why jobs are going overseas Danni? Idiots like you are blogging instead of working.

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws...

Want to junk it? Give it a go. Gonna be hard explaining, though, expecially since so many of the Twenty-Six Percenters seem set on abolishing the 17th Amendment as well (election of the members of the United States Senate by popular vote). Unless, of course, they'd like to see a Constitutional Convention. Lay in an extra supply of popcorn for that one.

"1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

But according to the democrats, illegals are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, and therefore, their children are not really born or naturalized in the United States of America. They are still immigrants.

Even if they are, their parents are not, and therefore, their parents need to go back. It is an unfortunate situation, but it would be avoided if we would start enforcing the law and stop encouraging people to have children just to cement their illegal stay in the states.

What part of "illegal" don't people understand?
Illegals have no rights guaranteed to US citizens. None.

If illegals CHOOSE to have children in the US, that is the risk they CHOOSE to incur.

As the husband of a LEGAL immigrant, I have no sympathy for them.

It is a little ridiculous to call on the laws to protect you and your all the while you are intentionally and knowingly braking them. Obviously you don't take them to be that important or meaningful... until it fits your personal needs.

That my friend is a bunch of b.s.

Either danni is unemployeed ot she is blogging from work. If she worked for me and was doing this i would fire her. Do you wonder why jobs are going overseas Danni? Idiots like you are blogging instead of working.

#5 | Posted by em385guy at 2010-06-14 10:20 AM | Reply: NOTE THE TIME STAMP

#10 | Posted by SamBarber

Hey Einstein, I am in Calif, stamp is Easten time zone. Danni lives in Fla.

Thanks for playing.

I love the arguement that "they are only trying to take care of their family, why would you want to punish someone for trying to feed the family?"

But whats the difference between that and someone breaking into a bank at night when no one is there--taking just enough money to keep the car & house from being taken and to buy food for their family? I mean they are only trying to feed their family and no one got hurt--the peoples money is insured so its a victimless crime, right? And you cant send them to jail bc you are being cruel by taking them away from their family who really need them.

American citizens need to start looking at this country like they would their own home. You are welcome to come over & maybe stay (if you have room) but its our rules-- if you dont like what we eat, what we say, what we watch, and who we do or dont worship then go back to your home where. Bc if a guest in your home started telling you what to do in your own home everyone on this board & in this country would lose their minds and kick that persons ass out of their house in a second.

#12 | Posted by FedorWand

Well said

#13 | Posted by em385guy at 2010-06-14 10:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

This is true, when in the home of someone else, you play by their rules, and if you don't like them, you leave.

Those are the options.

American citizens need to start looking at this country like they would their own home.

Excellent correlation. Now you have identified the real issue. So many capable American's have developed such a dependency on someone else to take care of them, they have little sense of ownership in their own future, let alone the future of the country.

"American citizens need to start looking at this country like they would their own home. "

There are a lot of pig-people, POS, American citizens who trash their own "home" (country) I would gladly trade off for some illegrants in a heartbeat.

"if you dont like what we eat, what we say, what we watch, and who we do or dont worship then go back to your home where."

Bullshit.

So you allow people come into your home and dictate the way things are going to be? No you dont Doc.

But a nice response none-the-less. You must be a defense attorney, right?

I agree 100% ZOT---there are many people from other countries who want to come here and contribute "to" the country. I wish we could trade all the leeches who do nothing but take "from" the country for the those.

"So you allow people come into your home and dictate the way things are going to be? No you dont Doc."

I think the my-country-as-a-home analogy is childish and inaccurate. It is the place we live, but in this country at least the population is considerably more diverse: Methodists, Orthodox Jews, Catholics, Atheists, Pantheists, Buddhists, Mennonites, Reform Jews, Santeria, Native American Church, etc., etc., etc. And that's just in the Big Guy in the Sky department.

Sorry, I ain't buying. It's about as sophisticated as the line of thinking that runs, "Well, I have to live by a budget every month and what I can't afford I can't buy so the gubmint should do it the same way."

I like all the differences. Makes life interesting. If you don't like it, move to a really, really, really small town.

It should be pretty clear by now that for all their yammering on about the sanctity of the Constitution, as though it was a divinely inspired text inscribed by the Finger of the Well Knowing One on rock from the lip of the Sacred Well, there are some key elements of our Constitution that more than a few self-professed "conservatives" just don't like very much. That appears to include the 14th Amendment and election of United States Senators by the people.

That appears to include the 14th Amendment and election of United States Senators by the people.

#21 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

The 14th has been abused and its intent distorted. The creators should have included a sunset clause. The US is the only country that allows this to happen.

"The creators should have included a sunset clause."

Well, they did, in a way. It's called "amending the Constitution."

""Arizona Republicans will likely introduce legislation this fall that would deny birth certificates to children born in Arizona -- and thus American citizens according to the U.S. Constitution -- to parents who are not legal U.S. citizens.""

This is unconstitutional on it's face!

This law would have to be passed through an amendment to the Constitution.

Now Canada did the same thing as they were having chinese/SE asian women flying over and birthing babies to be citizens. Canada was able to change their law by a statute versus a constitutional amendment?? They passed a law stating one parent has to be a Canadian citizen for the baby to be a citizen.

Breaking the Piggy Bank: How Illegal Immigration is Sending Schools Into the Red

While these massive budget deficits cannot be attributed to any single source, the enormous impact of large-scale illegal immigration cannot be ignored. The total K-12 school expenditure for illegal immigrants costs the states nearly $12 billion annually, and when the children born here to illegal aliens are added, the costs more than double to $28.6 billion.1

This enormous expenditure of the taxpayers' hard-earned contributions does not, however, represent the total costs. Special programs for non-English speakers are an additional fiscal burden as well as a hindrance to the overall learning environment. A recent study found that dual language programs represent an additional expense of $290 to $879 per pupil depending on the size of the class.2 In addition, because these children of illegal aliens come from families that are most often living in poverty, there is also a major expenditure for them on supplemental feeding programs in the schools. Those ancillary expenditures have not been included in the calculations in this report.

www.fairus.org

"Breaking the Piggy Bank: How Illegal Immigration is Sending Schools Into the Red"

Want to really break the piggy bank?

How much would it cost (if it can even be calculated) to "round up," "store," and transport every illegal back to his/her country of origin? Note that they all cannot be dumped into Mexico because not all illegals come from Mexico.

"While these massive budget deficits cannot be attributed to any single source, the enormous impact of large-scale illegal immigration cannot be ignored. The total K-12 school expenditure for illegal immigrants costs the states nearly $12 billion annually, and when the children born here to illegal aliens are added, the costs more than double to $28.6 billion.

"This enormous expenditure of the taxpayers' hard-earned contributions does not, however, represent the total costs."

The implication of these statements is that illegals pay no taxes, which is not entirely true. For example, almost every product they purchase is taxed at the various levels. On the flip side, quite a few US citizens end up paying no income or property taxes, but still avail themselves of the System far more proportionally than those who do pay income and/or property taxes.

#27 | Posted by ZOT at 2010-06-14 03:54 PM | Reply |

Keywords:

Illegal
and
Citizens.

One is criminal, one is protected by clauses made by the IRS to behave "criminally"

"One is criminal, one is protected by clauses made by the IRS"

Congress makes the "clauses", Einstein.

#24 | Posted by MURPHY

I agree. However, I would give the birth certificate to the child when they come of age (set by the State). I wouldn't give it to a parent unless the parent is legally in the U.S.

This way, you don't deny the citizen their birth certificate. This protects the State from violating the 14th. But, they can deny giving a birth certificate to an illegal in the country. The illegal doesn't have the right.

#29 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-06-14 04:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

The point was still clear. I think it is funny when simpletons think that "Einstein" can be invoked as an insult when in fact, Einstein found it pointless to try to remember information that he could readily look up and thus made many such mistakes in his life.

Either way. I am sure you simply enjoyed your insult.

"The point was still clear."

Great.

I'll blame you the next time someone else fucks up. Fair enough?

"Einstein found it pointless to try to remember information that he could readily look up"

You could have looked it up as well.

Anchor babies should be as illegals as the ILLEGALS who spawned them in order to continue to stay in this country illegally.

Real Americans do not favor ILLEGAL immigrants.

it will be interesting to see how California reacts...

Would love to have a no-nonsense governor like this at the helm here in Massachusetts. Bravo Governor Brewer!!

JM

Democratic diaper-pissers. The Time article has NO basis in fact. No text from a bill... NOTHING. All hype, NO substance.

Republicans have bad intentions to violate "rights"... THAT is the message. It's a lie.

This is true, when in the home of someone else, you play by their rules, and if you don't like them, you leave.

The rule says if you pop out of a uterous in America, you are a citizen. If you pop out of an American uterous anywhere in the world, you are an American citizen. Ask John McCain.

Plain and simple.

Even covers Caesarians.

The Founding Fathers understood this, but righties want to interpret the Constitution to suit their current philosphy.

The really funny part to this fight is that most of those Mexicans and their Legal Family members here are against Abortion, have strong conservative family values, go to Church every week and hate gay people and it's the right that wants to keep them from becoming citizens and voting.

The really funny part to this fight is that most of those Mexicans and their Legal Family members here are against Abortion, have strong conservative family values, go to Church every week and hate gay people and it's the right that wants to keep them from becoming citizens and voting.

#38 | Posted by THomewood at 2010-06-15 08:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

That is probably because they are illegal and it is a little more important to the right to enforce our laws than it is for the left, as the left tries to get as many votes as possible, legal or not.

Excuse my ignorance bout this but im of the frame of mind that if you are here illegaly you are a criminal and you have no rights period. goes for your spawn also. two wrongs dont make it right. If you are a citizen of the US and you go overseas and spawn on foreign soil with the execption of US holdings, you are subject to the laws of the land in which you were born, you can apply for citizenship for your spawn upon your return. they only do the jobs we wont do----theirs the problem quite giving the lazy fucks welfare and make them go to work. thank you FDR you socialst pig. I have worked side by side with illegals from both sides of the US, Canada and Mex some are great people, others should be batted in the head like a seal pup before they spawn. And yes we need to think of this land as a home of ours and to them that dont think this way well do you own any land of quanity? Other than a home and a lot or two? I pay taxes on land ive worked hard for, we call them that come on to it illegaly trespassers and they are subject to the laws of the courts. If in some unforseen date things get to bad and we have to many of these tresspassers on MY land then the laws of the land prevail. quite simple really. why does it not apply to the US as a whole? Nothing in politics is an accident.

Either danni is unemployeed ot she is blogging from work. If she worked for me and was doing this i would fire her. Do you wonder why jobs are going overseas Danni? Idiots like you are blogging instead of working.

#5 | POSTED BY EM385GUY

Why the fuck are you here dumb shit? You must be either an old fuck sucking on the SS(welfare) teat or unemployed.. Me? I work for myself.

Anyone in this country who supports the current laissez faire situation on the border...

...has never been to prison.

Even for a visit. Yes; they came to work. It's just not the type of work most Americans are into.

Why do you think the President of Mexico is so upset? He doesn't want those fools "working" in his country either.

As far as the U.S. Constitution is concerned, there is far more legal jurisprudence to the "it takes more than simply being born here to become a citizen" argument...

...than there is for opinion that abortion is a "privacy issue".

In your heart, once again, you know I'm right as rain.

I've heard a rumor out of Arizona that if the FEDS continue to obfuscate their legal duties in regard to illegal immigrants...

...they are considering deporting them unilaterally; back to Mexico and/or "busing" them to States who don't give a shit that over 40% of our most violent prison members are here...

...illegally to begin with.

Finally, a State government with the balls to take on our corrupt, inept, and batshit crazy FEDS.

By the way, we don't need to amendment or change our Constitution in regard to citizenship...

...we simply need a Supreme Court decision on the meaning and intent of the 14th Amendment as written.

Then, we need some of those illegal immigrants to rob, rape, or murder a few family members of our federal elected officials...

...only when it's personal to them, will they act to protect themselves and the rest of the country along with their sorry, inept, criminal asses.

Sorry. But that is exactly what it is going to take the wake those fools up.

The Founding Fathers understood this, but righties want to interpret the Constitution to suit their current philosphy.

#37 | Posted by northguy3

Link please. What is the legal jurisprudence behind the 14th Amendment?

Specifically...

...what does the phrase, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean?

There in lies your problem.

Because when the Supremes' get this case, they will be asking the same question. And where will they go to seek their answer?

The writings of the folks who amended the U.S. Constitution in the first place. There was NEVER any intention to make the children of folks here on holiday or here illegally...

...citizens. They would have laughed at the notion.

And, once again, you know I'm right as rain.

"...they are considering deporting them unilaterally; back to Mexico and/or "busing" them to States who don't give a shit that over 40% of our most violent prison members are here..."

May be many more on the way too...see both of these:

www.gunslot.com

www.gunslot.com

Yeah, that constitution thing... more like guidelines. Just ask a conservative.

I think the solution to all our problems would be solved by simply turning the reigns of government over to the Righties on the DR. After all, they know everything. They know more about biology and medicine (evolution, abortion) than biologists and doctors, more about economics than Nobel Prize winning economists, more about foreign policy than the State Department. They know more about climate science than all the PhD's in climate science, more about the Constitution than the Supreme Court, more about stopping oil volcanos than BP.

On the other hand, since they know so much and are always right, why aren't they already in charge?

Probably settling up their bill at the Holiday Inn Express where they seem to spend most of their time.

Ahhhh...

On the other hand, since they know so much and are always right, why aren't they already in charge?

#47 | Posted by WhoDaMan

Because before we can ever get another Ronald Reagan...

...we must first suffer another Jimmy Carter.

Here's a suggestion for the coming winter. Pick up some extra warm clothing now for your family while it's still summer.

Because you're going to need several economic malaise sweaters when the snow starts falling again and energy is unavailable (like it was with Carter).

www.pbs.org

How much would it cost (if it can even be calculated) to "round up," "store," and transport every illegal back to his/her country of origin? Note that they all cannot be dumped into Mexico because not all illegals come from Mexico.

#26 | Posted by ZOT at 2010-06-14 03:45 PM | Reply |

This has to be the most stupid argument on illegal's.
1.) we dont have to round them up we just need to stop giving them free shit like reduced housing, free education, food stamps, jobs, drive licenses, healthcare, and many other incentives that encourages them to stay.

Arrest them and deport when we find them driving, registering for school, food stamps, or using healthcare, prenatal services.

It also costs a lot to hunt down and prosecute identity theft, or fraud. When your identity is stolen should the cops tell you that it cost too much to catch anyone so just deal with it?

While I agree we must end the practice of throwing babies off ships to keep them in place at sea, I must wonder how often it comes up in a landlocked state like Arizona.

How much would it cost (if it can even be calculated) to "round up," "store," and transport every illegal back to his/her country of origin? Note that they all cannot be dumped into Mexico because not all illegals come from Mexico.

#26 | Posted by ZOT

Your elected officials in PC won't care how much it costs...

...once their daughters start getting raped and murdered. Or held for ransom and tortured.

Just wait and watch. Or..

...if you dont' want to wait and watch, simply ask any elected official south of the border why all of their family members are no longer even living in Mexico.

It's because elected officials (and family members) are already being raped and murdered there. Here? It's not a question of if, but when.

As for me, I can't wait to see the indignation and outrage from the first DEM this happens to. It will be fun to watch.

once their daughters start getting raped and murdered. Or held for ransom and tortured.

Fear! When reason and logic fails, resort to fear.

While I agree we must end the practice of throwing babies off ships to keep them in place at sea, I must wonder how often it comes up in a landlocked state like Arizona.

#52 | Posted by kanrei

Let me guess.

Blue Dot? Grand Dad Purp? White Widow? I have strange musings when I smoke that heavy shit too.

I prefer the milder, outdoor stuff myself.

"once their daughters start getting raped and murdered. Or held for ransom and tortured."

The darkies are coming for your white daughters! Same old shit from the racist right.

Fear! When reason and logic fails, resort to fear.

#54 | Posted by kanrei

I'm not the one who fears rising sea levels. I love the Earth and respect her natural cycles.

You fear her.

www.kpho.com

I present you with truth, not fear. The Mexican drug cartels will kill anyone who gets in their way.

Including your elected officials in PC. And I can't wait for it to happen either. For this is the only way things will finally change.

Because before we can ever get another Ronald Reagan...
...we must first suffer another Jimmy Carter.

Reagan solved the immigration problem by giving them immunity... and quite honestly his action opened the floodgate... and Bush-hole the elder addressed the immigration issue with NAFTA...
NAFTA on the other hand sucked 1,00,000 jobs out of the US and degraded Mexico's environment... inspiring a lot of Mexicans to flee here not for free services.. they work hard at the jobs yanquis are unwilling to do... but for a decent place to live... because big business (the only real winner in NAFTA) took their homes....so erm oh yeah ... the republicans are fucking brilliant at relations with Mexico.

Face it you concervative assholes... tea scrotum dickwads... rightwingminutemennutsacks...t
he current immigration problems are sourced directly to your policies... past and present... and the reason you see shit everywhere you turn is because your heads are up your asses.

About damn time. My only disagreement is that anchor babies should be outlawed at the Federal level, not the state.

Want to junk it? Give it a go. Gonna be hard explaining, though, expecially since so many of the Twenty-Six Percenters seem set on abolishing the 17th Amendment as well (election of the members of the United States Senate by popular vote). Unless, of course, they'd like to see a Constitutional Convention. Lay in an extra supply of popcorn for that one.

#6 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2010-

arizona authorities say thier bill will not violate this amendment which was written for one reason and anchor babies is NOT THE Reason..

LIBERAL judges have taken the purpose of making slaves american citizens and aborted it to fit thier agenda needs...you could argue that its unnessary these days anyway

AND please take a moment of your valuable time standing on the corner with your little sign and read some federalist papers or madison and find out why the 17th amendment doesnt subscribe to the founders intent.

Anyone seen the movie Aliens 2---you know those unmanned guns that shoot from motion detectors, I say we put those on the border. Shoot enough of those economic drains in the knee the rest will think twice before coming across.

And as far as the point of "they're only doing the jobs Americans wont do"--well reform the welfare system and you cure that problem real quick like. You have 2 yrs max on the gov' dole and after that--best of luck to ya.

They're only doing jobs Americans won't do...

True.

Most Americans aren't into rape, murder, kidnapping, bank robbery, home invasion, and money laundering as a primary source of income.

So what? I have one question for our elected officials in PC...

...do you know where your kids are?

NAFTA on the other hand sucked 1,00,000 jobs out of the US and degraded Mexico's environment... inspiring a lot of Mexicans to flee here not for free services.. they work hard at the jobs yanquis are unwilling to do... but for a decent place to live... because big business (the only real winner in NAFTA) took their homes....so erm oh yeah ... the republicans are fucking brilliant at relations with Mexico.

Face it you concervative assholes... tea scrotum dickwads... rightwingminutemennutsacks...t
he current immigration problems are sourced directly to your policies... past and present... and the reason you see shit everywhere you turn is because your heads are up your asses.

#58 | Posted by RightisTrite

NAFTA? Wasn't that a Clinton thingy? I know he loves young girls, but teabagging?

So what? I have one question for our elected officials in PC...

...do you know where your kids are?

You have a good point Bendor... now I dont wish harm on anyone unless they harm my family but the next time one of these economic drains rapes, kidnaps, or murders someone I hope its someone like Nancy or Harry or the L.A mayor. That way they know how the people feel in Az or Texas

arizona authorities say thier bill will not violate this amendment...
#60 | Posted by afkabl2

Oh, well, in that case...

Bush Sr. pushed for NAFTA it was his idea... along with a prime minister of Canada...

From Wiki:
Bush's administration, along with the Progressive Conservative Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, spearheaded the negotiations of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which would eliminate the majority of tariffs on products traded among the United States, Canada, and Mexico, to encourage trade amongst the countries. The treaty also restricts patents, copyrights, and trademarks, and outlines the removal of investment restrictions among the three countries.

most Democrats thought it a bad idea... Clinton went against the party and got it signed into law... I am merely pointing out that Republicans are just as responsible for the immigration situation as anyone.
Mine is more a commentary of the 12 years GHW Bush-hole in office including the 8 years addle brained Reagan served as his sock puppet. Republitrons luuuuuv dem som Reagan... assholes... now the pollos have come home to roost... and they are all in a snit.

NAFTA has been great for big business...and has increased out GDP 3X... but at the cost of the average worker... on both sides of the Mexican border. The problem with the righty tighties is they are afraid to challenge the monsters they create... they are afraid to stand up to big business... because they fear being called a commie... or socialist... what pussies... as if... I mean really... stick and stones folks... grow a pair.

Personally I don't have a problem with Mexicans coming back to their homeland... they are descendants of people that have roamed all the Americas for 10-15 thousand years.

You have a good point Bendor...

#65 | Posted by FedorWand

I normally do (and why I'm RCADES favorite poster).

Thanks for noticing!

I make web traffic happen.

... Clinton went against the party and got it [NAFTA] signed into law... I am merely pointing out that Republicans are just as responsible for the immigration situation as anyone.

#67 | Posted by RightisTrite

We agree then.

Which is why I don't care if the first elected official raped, murdered, or kidnapped...

...by illegal "immigrants"...

...is Red or Blue.

I just can't wait for it to happen - that's all.

arizona authorities say thier bill will not violate this amendment...
#60 | Posted by afkabl2

Oh, well, in that case...

#66 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

its about time you 'saw the light".....

I make web traffic happen.

#69 | Posted by BENDOR at

oh PUUULEAASE>.....

me and celisary make you look like a rank hacker...:)

oh PUUULEAASE>.....

me and celisary make you look like a rank hacker...:)

#72 | Posted by afkabl2

Touche!

lets make a bet

see who can incite and create more profanity and personal insults from the left on a given subject..... :)

I'll start

obama is a lying piece of shit statists crook from chicago and kanrie wears his momas bras on sat nite....while doc was arrested the other night in austin...something about drunk and disorderly.

ZAT is a batshit crazy, grant-seeking academic, who can't see the obvious truths without first getting permission from Al Gore to do so... DANNI is a good enough girl but got stuck on the whole corporation thingy during her studies at business school (what can I say, it fucked her up)...MODER8 tries hard to be funny but normally ends up misusing analogies instead...RCADES sits back and laughs because he is the only one making money here (what can I say, he's now a psuedo-Republican)...

Your turn!

Which is why I don't care if the first elected official raped, murdered, or kidnapped...
...by illegal "immigrants"...
...is Red or Blue.
I just can't wait for it to happen - that's all.

that is just fucking ignorant... yeah lets hope a woman gets raped so you can feel justified and smug you stupid shit.

or perhaps everyone should celebrate when one of your family member is raped by an American... which is far more likely... and if he is white he is more likely to walk... your ignorant comment reminds me of when people used to say that about freed slaves in the US... when in reality African American women were more likely to be raped by white men... most serial killers are white men... but go ahead pound your chest at strawman logic.

well maybe later..just remember...
LAY OFF rcade...the godfather wont like it and you could end up with a horse head in bed with you.........

and when you get to the 'big leagues'....take on axe and nullifan...
but you can practice on 'celisary',....he's go fucked up that anyone can take him.........or is it "it".......

(damn I hope celisary reads this)///////

Which is why I don't care if the first elected official raped, murdered, or kidnapped...
...by illegal "immigrants"...
...is Red or Blue.
I just can't wait for it to happen - that's all.

that is just fucking ignorant... yeah lets hope a woman gets raped so you can feel justified and smug you stupid shit.

#76 | Posted by RightisTrite

They wouldn't care if it were your daughter it happened to.

It's happening now in Phoenix. And your elected politicians simply do not care. In fact, they encourage more of it by their position of non-action.

Proof?

www.azcentral.com

Which is why I can't wait for the rapes, murders, and kidnappings to start happening to our elected officials. Or their families.

Some lessons just have to be learned the hard way. This is one of them.

that is just fucking ignorant... yeah lets hope a woman gets raped so you can feel justified and smug you stupid shit.

#76 | Posted by RightisTrite

Hope?

The next rape, murder, and/or kidnapping is already a given. Probably happening now as I write.

I just want the crimes to start happening to very folks who have the power to stop them. But refuse to.

Like them, you seem to want the rapes, murders, and kidnappings to continue. True?

My view may be harsh but it is also pragmatic. My view is the very first kidnapping of one of Nancy Pelosi's grandchildren [insert your own favorite politician] will result in a very quick end to the illegal invasion of our southern border.

So, I really, really wonder. Do your elected politicians know where their children are?...

...because the Mexican drug cartels certainly do know.

r perhaps everyone should celebrate when one of your family member is raped by an American... which is far more likely... and if he is white he is more likely to walk... your ignorant comment reminds me of when people used to say that about freed slaves in the US... when in reality African American women were more likely to be raped by white men... most serial killers are white men... but go ahead pound your chest at strawman logic.

#76 | Posted by RightisTrite

Over 40% of our most violent criminals are brown skinned folks from south of the border...

...and as illegal invaders whose intent was purely criminal, should not have been here in the first place.

That is a simple fact. You can deal with that reality anyway you want to.

Looks like Arizona finally chose to do the same.

This law is facially invalid. It conflicts with the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution ON ITS FACE. Meaning that there is no set of circumstances in which the statute could be applied without violating the constitution. A facial challenge is the toughest challenge to bring for precisely this reason but there is not a chance in hell of any court holding the statute to be constitutional.

On a side note, I think it is funny that the same people who are advocating this law are also the the people most likely to bash "activist" judges who "interpret" the constitution as a living document (e.g., Brown v. Board of Education). These are the people who want judges to engage solely in a textualist interpretation of the Constitution (i.e., the jurisprudence of Scalia and Thomas). If you engage in only textual arguments in support of the constitutionality of this law, can anyone please tell me how denying citizenship to people born in this country does not conflict directly with the following language from Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Please allow me to preemptively address your retort that because their parents are illegal immigrants and have no rights, the children have no rights. If this law is passed and by operation of the law, birth certificates to the children of illegal immigrants are denied to those children, then those same children are unavoidably "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" (do you recognize that line from somewhere? check Section 1, Clause 1 of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Now if you might think for some asinine reason that Arizona can create it's own laws in contravention of the United States Constitution, in essence that the Federal Government can't tell Arizona who it must grant citizenship status to within Arizona, you are wrong. There is some pesky thing in the Constitution called the Supremacy Clause, contained in Article VI, Clause 2. It states: This Constitution...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. The meaning of this clause is that in a conflict between federal law (the 14th Amendment in this case) and state law (the proposed Arizona law), federal law is SUPREME. (See, e.g., Martin v. Hunter's Lessee).

The result of this is that the jingoists' only hope to deny citizenship to any person born in these United States (regardless of the citizenship status of their parents) is to repeal the 14th Amendment. There are some other antiquated clauses in that Amendment they might want to get rid of as well while they're at it, like the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause.

OK, rant over.

can anyone please tell me how denying citizenship to people born in this country does not conflict directly with the following language from Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Please allow me to preemptively address your retort that because their parents are illegal immigrants and have no rights, the children have no rights. If this law is passed and by operation of the law, birth certificates to the children of illegal immigrants are denied to those children, then those same children are unavoidably "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" (do you recognize that line from somewhere? check Section 1, Clause 1 of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Now if you might think for some asinine reason that Arizona can create it's own laws in contravention of the United States Constitution, in essence that the Federal Government can't tell Arizona who it must grant citizenship status to within Arizona, you are wrong. There is some pesky thing in the Constitution called the Supremacy Clause, contained in Article VI, Clause 2. It states: This Constitution...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. The meaning of this clause is that in a conflict between federal law (the 14th Amendment in this case) and state law (the proposed Arizona law), federal law is SUPREME. (See, e.g., Martin v. Hunter's Lessee).

The result of this is that the jingoists' only hope to deny citizenship to any person born in these United States (regardless of the citizenship status of their parents) is to repeal the 14th Amendment. There are some other antiquated clauses in that Amendment they might want to get rid of as well while they're at it, like the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause.

OK, rant over.

#81 | Posted by LearnedHand

Because the word "subject"...

...means citizen of or having a sworn allegiance to.

Words have meanings. And how do you think the Supremes will go about conducting their legal jurisprudence?

By reading the writings of the folks who penned and passed the 14th Admendment. And it is in those documents where you will learn that I...

...once again..

...am right as rain.

On a side note, I think it is funny that the same people who are advocating this law are also the the people most likely to bash "activist" judges who "interpret" the constitution as a living document (e.g., Brown v. Board of Education). These are the people who want judges to engage solely in a textualist interpretation of the Constitution (i.e., the jurisprudence of Scalia and Thomas).

Well since you are against strict interpretation, you would agree that the language can be interpreted to read the parents are in the country illegally and do not have the same rights as granted to those in the country legally. Just because that is what we want it to say.

Thanks for playing.

#82 | Posted by BENDOR at 2010-06-15 02:34 PM | Reply | Flag
well let's just go after all of the illegals that go into the hospital for income tax evasion. That should help push them out the door that they were not invited into.

"Because the word "subject"...

...means citizen of or having a sworn allegiance to."

Wrong, idiot. "Subject to the jurisdiction therof" is the phrase, not the word "subject". Fail.

Wow Bendor, you are right as rain. Subject is in fact a word and words DO have meanings. I am in awe of your intellectual prowess.

Subject can be used as a noun, as well as a verb. If, however, you actually chose to read the text of the 14th Amendment, you would see (assuming you understand the basics of grammar) that subject is being used as a verb in this context. Let's see how Merriam Webster defines subject as a verb....

Main Entry: 3sub·ject
Pronunciation: səb-ˈjekt, ˈsəb-ˌjekt
Function: transitive verb
Date: 14th century

1 a : to bring under control or dominion : subjugate b : to make (as oneself) amenable to the discipline and control of a superior
2 : to make liable : predispose
3 : to cause or force to undergo or endure (something unpleasant, inconvenient, or trying)

Assuming arguendo that your interpretation of the 14th Amendment is accurate, let's plug your reading into the text, replacing "subject" with citizen and see if it makes any sense, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Yeah, you're right, that makes perfect sense, the 14th Amendment is clearly guaranteeing citizenship only to those people who already have citizenship.

What "writings of the folks who penned and passed the 14th Amendment" would you be referring to by the way? Because I am pretty sure Clause 1 was included precisely to prevent this sort of action by the states, namely denying citizenship to slaves and the children of slaves born in the United States.

I don't recall saying anywhere in my rant that I am against strict interpretation of the Constitution's text. I am never against strict interpretation where the language of the Constitution is clear, like it is with the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment gives no indication at all that the citizenship status of their parents should have any effect on citizenship being granted to those "born...in the United States."

Your interpretation would however lead to the 14th Amendment being without effect from the outset, as it was meant to grant citizenship to all slaves born in the United States, despite the fact that their parents were not citizens. I will concede that there is a difference between illegal immigrants and slaves, but the Supreme Court has addressed the issue several times since the end of the 19th century and each time it has held that the children of illegal immigrants who are born in the United States are United States citizens.

Thanks for playing.

Over 40% of our most violent criminals are brown skinned folks from south of the border...

erm.... that is 40% of our "convicted" violent criminals.... but you go ahead and dream your dream... paranoid fuck.

Here ya go a summary from the American Conservative: I recommend reading the article... if you can read something past "My Pet Goat" or "Mis Cabrito Favorito"

www.amconmag.com

Meanwhile, the national debate over immigration remains contentious. Restrictionists can provide numerous completely legitimate arguments in favor of their position, ranging from economic competition and cultural conflict to national overpopulation and environmental degradation. But they will discredit these by including unsubstantiated claims about crime. Conservatives have traditionally prided themselves on being realists, dealing with the world as it is rather than attempting to force it to conform to a pre-existing ideological framework. But just as many on the Right succumbed to a fantastical foreign policy that makes the world much more dangerous than it needs to be, some have also accepted the myth that Hispanic immigrants and their children have high crime rates. Such an argument may have considerable emotional appeal, but there is very little hard evidence behind it.

Wrong, idiot. "Subject to the jurisdiction therof" is the phrase, not the word "subject". Fail.

#85 | Posted by LetUsPrey

HAHAHAHA

You just got to love the feeble minded.

Correct or not. That single word will be what this whole thing boils down to.

They could have used the other words like, "bound to or held to account by".

They didn't. Why purposely chose to use the word subject. A word with such clear definition and meaning?

And what is the meaning?

"...a person who owes allegiance to a government and lives under its protection."

As in the term, loyal subjects. Very common terminology in 1868.

Illegal invaders on U.S. soil are not what the framer intended. Read their writings, as the Supremes surely will, and your eyes will open.

dictionary.reference.com

Bendor, why do you keep insisting that subject was being used as a noun in that sentence? It is clearly being used as a verb. While you are at dictionary.reference.com why don't you check out the definition of subject as a verb.

Bendor, why do you keep insisting that subject was being used as a noun in that sentence?

#91 | Posted by LearnedHand

Because enough of the Supremes will.

I'm pretty sure a majority of the Supreme Court Justices have at least a 5th grade reading comprehension level.

the myth that Hispanic immigrants and their children have high crime rates. Such an argument may have considerable emotional appeal, but there is very little hard evidence behind it.

#89 | Posted by RightisTrite

There is no myth. Legal Hispanic immigrants, on average, are far and away better folks than myself.

I know that and admit it freely.

It's the MS-13 gangsters and drug cartel enforcers who are perpetrating all of these crimes.

I'm happy with just getting rid of them first. You?

Especially since the Supreme Court has ruled on the issue before and held that children of illegals born in the United States are citizens....

I'm pretty sure a majority of the Supreme Court Justices have at least a 5th grade reading comprehension level.

#93 | Posted by LearnedHand

I agree.

That's what I've been telling you. The Supremes are indeed going to read.

But what will they read?

Therein lies the fault in your legal analysis. The writers of the 14th amendment make it very, very clear in their writings...

...that illegal invaders on U.S. soil are not righted, by the simple act of spawning, into becoming the proud parents of U.S. citizens.

You just won't find a legal basis for that view - anywhere.

Especially since the Supreme Court has ruled on the issue before and held that children of illegals born in the United States are citizens....

#95 | Posted by LearnedHand

awww...but you're forgetting something very important here.

Nancy Pelosi's [insert your favorite politician] grandchild has not be kidnapped, raped, tortured, and/or murdered...

...yet.

After it does happen, the Supremes may suddenly reach a very different conclusion.

I don't know, if I look hard enough, I imagine I'll be able to find support for my view that the children born in the United States of illegal immigrant parents are citizens.

Let's see....

From United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 469 (1898):

"The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke, in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;" and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle." It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides -- seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when Secretary of State, in his Report to the President on Thrasher's Case in 1851, and since repeated by this court, "independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance or of renouncing any former allegiance, it is well known that, by the public law, an alien, or a stranger 694*694 born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason, or other crimes, as a native-born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulations." Ex. Doc. H.R. No. 10, 1st sess. 32d Congress, p. 4; 6 Webster's Works, 526; United States v. Carlisle, 16 Wall. 147, 155; Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a; Ellesmere on Postnati, 63; 1 Hale P.C. 62; 4 Bl. Com. 74, 92.

To hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution excludes from citizenship the children, born in the United States, of citizens or subjects of other countries, would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States."

I would say this qualifies as a legal basis for my view.

www.law.cornell.edu

Complete text of Ark. Interesting read. Looks like precedent set in 1804 and 1833 is on the side of natural born residents being citizens.

Period.

Before the 14th Amendment.

I suppose you could seize the children and ship the parents back, but I can't imagine anyone supporting that in anything but theory.

For all the arguements about the idea of "throwing out 'anchor babies'" and the Supremes agreeing to this - slight fly in the ointment:

www.law.cornell.edu

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

No. 18 Argued: March 5, 8, 1897 --- Decided: March 28, 1898

Long Story Short - Wong was born in the U.S., while his parents were deported under the "Chinese Exclusion Act", Wong was not denined U.S. citizenship because of their status.

My Two Cents? "Sins of the Father" is not a cornerstone for any law - the folks in Arizona are trying to double down on questionable hand as it is, and will probably cost them the entire pot. Let that first set of laws fly for a few years, it has a good set of wings.

Many of the same people who reject any government role in health care are now advocating an intrusive government role in health care.

Get a brain, Morans!

Completely unconstitutional.

You'd think with all these new TeaBigots claiming to know so much about the constitution that they'd know going after the anchor babies is completely unconstitutional.

#102 | Posted by snoofy at 2010-06-15 05:01 PM | Reply | Flag: We're arguing citizenship here, not healthcare. That's over on the thread where the UK is handing out black lungs.

You'd think with all these new TeaBigots claiming to know so much about the constitution that they'd know going after the anchor babies is completely unconstitutional.

#103 | Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2010-06-15 05:02 PM | Reply | Flag: They'll finger it out eventually. Then they will realize going after the parents is fair game.

There is no myth. Legal Hispanic immigrants, on average, are far and away better folks than myself.
I know that and admit it freely.
It's the MS-13 gangsters and drug cartel enforcers who are perpetrating all of these crimes.
I'm happy with just getting rid of them first. You?

Well for one thing... I don't like organized crime regardless of the flavor... its expensive and destructive... I hate the violence that ensues...that is the reason I objected to the US attacking Iraq because Saddam tried to kill Bush-holes daddy... and he instigated the largest drive by shooting the world has ever seen.

But if you use the racist hysteria... that it is all Mexicans... M13's or what ever... we should also consider getting rid of African Americans because they have twice the conviction rate as hispanics... wanna try?

Drug cartels interestingly enough... almost always seem run by "minorities"... go figure... my guess is they have their hands in someones pockets... who is not of that class... white collar crime statistically costs the nation twice what drug crime costs... but looks prettier... so doesn't draw attention... except now and then you get a Maddoff... who is now a prison hero

"The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens...

#81 | Posted by LearnedHand

You could have stopped right there...

For here's the legal IRS definition of "resident alien"...

To be classified as a resident alien, the individual must meet one of two tests:

1. Green Card Test

A non-resident alien is a lawful permanent resident of the U.S. at any time if they have been given the privilege, according to the immigration laws, of residing permanently as an immigrant. This status usually exists if the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services has issued a green card.

2. Substantial Presence Test

3. A non-resident alien is classified as a resident alien for tax purposes if they were physically present in the U.S. for 31 days during the current year and 183 days during a three-year period that includes the current year and the two years immediately before that.

www.finsvc.duke.edu

Illegal invaders on U.S. soil just don't make the grade. Sorry. You lose.

Bent,

When are you and your hate-filled butt-buddies going to demand the deportation of all those damned Native-Americans?

Surely you feel they should be sent back to Siberia since they clearly did not apply for US Citizenship legally and they got their ass kicked fair and square, just like the Mexicans. Besides, they are even less white than the Mexicans!!!

I am sure you are already hard at work getting all them niggers sent back to Africa, too.

Good luck, teabaggers.

Good luck, teabaggers.

#108 | Posted by axe

Perhaps your daughter is next?

#102 | Posted by snoofy at 2010-06-15 05:01 PM | Reply | Flag: We're arguing citizenship here, not healthcare. That's over on the thread where the UK is handing out black lungs.

Hospitals hand out birth certificates.
You want the government to take charge of that process.
QED.

Now if you might think for some asinine reason that Arizona can create it's own laws in contravention of the United States Constitution, in essence that the Federal Government can't tell Arizona who it must grant citizenship status to within Arizona, you are wrong.

#81 | Posted by LearnedHand

They can't? Really?

Then try explaining this...

news.yahoo.com

Ok, so your legal argument source is an IRS regulation, not even dealing with citizenship and mine is a SCOTUS decision that is still good law. Yet you still insist that you are right. Ok, you can bring a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

Ok, so your legal argument source is an IRS regulation, not even dealing with citizenship and mine is a SCOTUS decision that is still good law. Yet you still insist that you are right. Ok, you can bring a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

#112 | Posted by LearnedHand

I'm right as rain...

...no other country on Earth tolerates foreign invaders.

Not even Mexico. Perhaps we should just adopt their immigration laws?

Do you have any idea what they do to foreign invaders?

This is not over. And the SCOTUS simply had it wrong; so many years ago.

That's okay though. Because they're getting another chance to get it right.

The catalyst that brings it about will be fascinating to watch.

I'm right as rain...
...no other country on Earth tolerates foreign invaders.
Not even Mexico. Perhaps we should just adopt their immigration laws?

If you're lucky, Pinche will stop by to explain to you that our unique policies are "American Exceptionalism" in action.

The key phrase in the 14th amendment is "under the jurisdiction". Illegal parents of children born in this country are NOT under the jurisdiction of the government and therefore should not be given citizenship, any more than a tourist to America from another country should be allowed to give birth to a U.S. Citizen just because they happened to land here on vacation.

Our Supremes really f-----d up on this one. And it has dearly cost our country in many ways.

Their birth certificates should simply state the facts...

...Non-Resident Alien born to illegal immigrant parents from [fill in country name].

Then deport them to same.

It's the babies fault. Kill them all at birth because they have no country to call home.

I think it was in 1996 when some Republicans proposed changing the Constitution to prevent anchor babies. I was squeamish about doing that back them, but I am certainly warming up to the idea. Let's change the Constitution. At least one parent should either a citizen (natural born or naturalized) or a permanet legal resident (no tourists or student visas).

That was interesting - when real life examples were brought up, i.e. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, it seems that they were ignored for the usual bout of flaming.

Sorry folks, but as much as everyone would like to frame this as a brand new issue - it has been wrestled with many times before - from the Chinese Exclusion Act to Civil Rights Movement.

Bottom line - some folks in Arizona are trying to overreach - and it is going to cost the rest of the folks a lot of work they already have done to address an issue that has long been needed to be addressed.

Babies don't make very good anchors.
They do make pretty good shark bait.

There go those mean old gun toting Arizonians "targeting" those babies again??? man-o-man

This is insane.

Create an immigration policy and enforce it.

Create a guest-Visa policy and enforce it.

If said policies are too harsh, ammend them.

But DON'T create a policy that is NEVER intended to be enforced.

The state of Arizona is exposing what a pathetic-joke our federal government is on this issue REGARDLESS of which party is in power.

Law is law.

Either enforce it or change it if it is flawed. But DON'T castigate those who seek to enforce law - Arizona's law is more forgiving than federal law when it comes to this.

Sorry folks, but as much as everyone would like to frame this as a brand new issue - it has been wrestled with many times before - from the Chinese Exclusion Act to Civil Rights Movement.

Bottom line - some folks in Arizona are trying to overreach - and it is going to cost the rest of the folks a lot of work they already have done to address an issue that has long been needed to be addressed.

#119 | Posted by MattSawtell

It's astonishing to realize how quickly perspectives will change once the bad shit starts happening...

...to the very folks with the power to stop it - our elected officials who refuse to protect us now.

Rapes, kidnappings, and murders of American citizens are occurring all along our southern border. The U.S. Border Patrol is routinely shot at by Mexican paramilitary personnel. Drugs, automatic weapons, explosives, rockets and launchers, and under-age girls (I guess hairless vagina sells great up here) are smuggled across the border every day.

Mexican officials who try standing in the way or interfering have a very nasty habit of showing up to work without their arms, legs, and heads attached.

So, it's only a matter of time before our elected leaders start getting axed too. Just like their now getting axed south of the border. Families members are particularily fond targets of these animals.

Yep, then we'll just see how long this armed illegal invasion of our southern borders continues.

And, once again, you know...

...I'm right as rain.

And, once again, you know...

...I'm right as rain.

#126 | Posted by BENDOR

And just as refreshing:) Solid post!

Sorry folks, but as much as everyone would like to frame this as a brand new issue - it has been wrestled with many times before - from the Chinese Exclusion Act to Civil Rights Movement.

Bottom line - some folks in Arizona are trying to overreach - and it is going to cost the rest of the folks a lot of work they already have done to address an issue that has long been needed to be addressed.

#119 | Posted by MattSawtell

Even in the case law provided by learnedhand yesterday (nice work btw), their are exceptions to the application of the 14th Admendment...

..."The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes."...

As true in the case of cockroaches, were you see one case, you can be sure there are many more.

Time for a fresh look. And this time, the Supremes should get it right.

Completely unconstitutional.

You'd think with all these new TeaBigots claiming to know so much about the constitution that they'd know going after the anchor babies is completely unconstitutional.

#103 | Posted by COMMONSENSE at

you'd think that one time you and others would understand that the republic is at risk and one reason is the influx of miliions of people putting drains on our financial resources at the state level and beyond. but dont let a little thing like that bother you.
also your post does nothing to further the debate...guess the left has abandoned any semblence of people of contrary views being able to have a debate on any issue without this pure bullshit.

I dont think just because you are on the other side that you are a bigot or the like but when I read just this sort of nonsense I do believe you are too ill equiped to carry on a debate without resorting to this dogshit defense of your position.

DAMN look at that high faluting stuff...much better than a good old 'go fuck yourself"

so...would it be time to support a repeal of this amendment...used to make sure slaves were citizens...isnt that right? and then aborted by liberal judges to include anchor babies??/ correct??? and if so...hasnt the situation changed OR are you anti constitutionalist not REALLY what you say????????

and now ringmaster weighs in with his version of 'commonsense'..

ah well.....

again........when do we cross the line...when do we get to the point where there is finnaly some realization that we cant continue with the illegals taking so much without putting some in...and amnesty is not the answer that I am looking for since that will become just one more plank in the democrat platform of 'perpetual democrat votes' and will ensure that we lose even more tax money in the long run.

when will ANY party president be FORCED to do what his MAIN job is and thats to defend the borders?

I would like to know what it is about the constitution that you tea baggers all hate so much. Did it not guarantee you the right equal protection under the law? Did it ever occur to you bigoted bastards that every person has a soul and is entitled to at least common respect as a human being and acceptance as a citizen at least in the country they were born? You want to toss these kids into a foreign orphanage in a country that will deny them citizenship too because they have no birth certificate? What if their their mother died at birth and their father got dragged from his workplace butchering your fried chicken and was sent back to Mexico? You are the pigs at the trough that would best serve this country by being euthanize and or removed.

and now ringmaster weighs in with his version of 'commonsense'..

#132 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2010-06-16 12:31 PM | Reply | Flag: Too stupid to recognize sarcasm after reading my posts for two years. Also too stupid to learn first grade punctuation.

#134...So it is your daddy. It figures. Does he know he raised a pathological liar?

Fuck off goatman. How many time to you have to be told not to troll me. You are a lying sack of shit. Leave me the fuck alone. Idiot.

I have never seen anyone as consumed with anger as you are.

You ain't seen nothing yet. I hate liars and back stabbers as much as I hate trolls without a conscience. You are the one who needs to do a whole lot of soul searching, you lying prick.

yeah thats it ringading....keep up the bullshit and ignore one real fact in american life today

obama is just what we on the right said he was and the democrat reign of terror is self destroying itslef and no better example was last nights speech and stance on issues like the arizona issue

OVER 70 per cent of americans agree with it...and still JUST Like other issues..obama stands against it

I can see november from my house

You must be .. an old fuck sucking on the SS(welfare) teat...

#41 | Posted by Legio

Are you saying that when I get to Old Fuck stage, I get to suck on a tit and get money from it?

YES!!!

America truly is a Great Country.!

Completely unconstitutional.

You'd think with all these new TeaBigots claiming to know so much about the constitution that they'd know going after the anchor babies is completely unconstitutional.

#103 | Posted by COMMONSENSE

What? You mean the part about babies born in the U.S. to foreign dignitaries aren't given U.S. citizenship?

They're born here (the only requirement according to your view), so why not them?

hhhmmmmmmmm?

This has to be the most stupid argument on illegal's.
1.) we dont have to round them up we just need to stop giving them free shit like reduced housing, free education, food stamps, jobs, drive licenses, healthcare, and many other incentives that encourages them to stay.

Arrest them and deport when we find them driving, registering for school, food stamps, or using healthcare, prenatal services.

It also costs a lot to hunt down and prosecute identity theft, or fraud. When your identity is stolen should the cops tell you that it cost too much to catch anyone so just deal with it?

#51 | Posted by WI_Hunter

Hardly stupid simply because you label it as stupid. I was pointing out yet another, huge, expensive aspect of the problem with the illegals already in the country.

The prime motivators that truly encourages them to stay, "Einstein," is jobs. And what goes with that job: being able to eat and clothe themselves and have a better future for their kids than in whatever 3rd world shithole they escaped from. All that extra stuff you list is gravy for them. and for all this, I cannot blame them for coming here.

And as for this statement of yours:

"Arrest them and deport when we find them driving, registering for school, food stamps, or using healthcare, prenatal services."

It goes right back to what I said about costs. And where are you going to deport them to? Where are you going to hold them until you deport them? What of their families, if any? Where will you hold them? By what method will you deport them to their country of origin? By bus, aircraft, cattle car, UPS box with holes?

So go right ahead and call it a stupid argument. I don't give a flying. You need to think through from A to Z, not stop at B.

The Mexican drug cartels will kill anyone who gets in their way.

#57 | Posted by BENDOR

And so will the American drug "cartels."

And who are the customers for the Mexican drug cartels, eh?

But you do use the Fear tactic, regardless of the fact that probably 95%% of those who are here (I speculate), their only crime against America is being here illegally. I have no doubt that I deal with illegals in my city and in my travels all the time, not just Mexicanos, but others. My fave Chinese restaurant seems to turn over a series of female servers every few months whose English skills are suspiciously incomplete. I live still.

But I do want them all to be somehow legitimized and slapped with their "fair" share of the ever increasing US national debt. That'll teach real good how to be 'Murican.

Most Americans aren't into rape, murder, kidnapping, bank robbery, home invasion, and money laundering as a primary source of income.

#63 | Posted by BENDOR

Okay. Statements like that only make me think that you are a white trash bigot. Is it so?

Should we just tie babies to the anchor before deploying it in deep ocean, or can we stretch the definition of babies to include pre school age?

Please allow me to preemptively address your retort that because their parents are illegal immigrants and have no rights, the children have no rights.

#81 | Posted by LearnedHand

Technically, we are all descendants of illegal immigrants.

Okay. Statements like that only make me think that you are a white trash bigot. Is it so?

#145 | Posted by ZOT

Yes. Indeed I am.

Towards the 40% of our prison population doing those things when...

...they should not have been here in the first place.

You?

Not yet? There's still time for you. It's amazing how a raped and murdered daughter can turn you into a bigot against the 40% that shouldn't even be here too.

It's amazing how a raped and murdered daughter

If your daughter was in fact raped and murdered by an illegal immigrant, then your rage is understood, but it also clouds your ability to think logically about the issue as emotion will cloud your vision everytime. I am sorry, more than sorry, for your loss if I read your comment correctly.

Should we just tie babies to the anchor before deploying it in deep ocean, or can we stretch the definition of babies to include pre school age?

#146 | Posted by briwo

No.

Simply give them the same citizenship status that babies born of U.S. soil to foreign dignitaries enjoy.

Explain how that would be unconstitutional?

t's amazing how a raped and murdered daughter

If your daughter was in fact raped and murdered by an illegal immigrant, then your rage is understood, but it also clouds your ability to think logically about the issue as emotion will cloud your vision everytime. I am sorry, more than sorry, for your loss if I read your comment correctly.

#149 | Posted by kanrei

Absolutely true. But I have lost no one to these animals.

Sorry for my lame attempt to express the angst of those directly affected by this situation.

An angst, that once shared by the wider public, will finally result in the protection of our borders.

Time: "Anchor babies" isn't a very endearing term,

Says who? If it looks like a cat & meows like a cat, it's a cat.

Best news ever! I'm all for leaving the Consititution alone in most every instance but this isn't one of them. It just makes sense for the times we live in. Now it we can just have a serious discussion about Congressional term limits.

I am relieved nothing like that happened to your family. Nobody should have to suffer that.

Thanks Kanrei.

Again, sorry for the misunderstanding. Upon re-reading my scribbling I now see you're point.

...oops, that's your, not you're (hah, beat the spelling checkers, you'll need to be a little quicker next time!)

#143 | Posted by ZOT at 2010-06-16 01:40 PM | Reply |

Again with the stupid argument, my point is that they come for all the incentives. Almost all come here without a job waiting for them. They live first in subsided housing with relatives and send the kids to school and get a driver's license and apply for jobs with fake or stolen SS#. If we took away ALL the incentives and made a national ID the problem would solve itself.(little or no deportation required.) This is why your argument is stupid. Deportation is not the answer and never was. Removing the incentives ALL incentives is.

However they would leave faster if they were some sort of risk in staying...ie if they were caught applying for a drivers license or filling out a welfare form or enrolling their kids in school. But we dont even try to check and control the illegal activity there. If they came here and got a job but couldnt enroll their kids in school or get a drivers license or get medical help. Would they stay? NO In order to win the battle we must fight it on all fronts The local, state and feds need to work together to relieve us of the burden that occurred when the federal government failed to secure our borders.

Fuck this news story. What are they anyway? Racists?

www.kfyi.com

One of the reasons for our immigration problem is this carrot that having a baby over here makes said baby a U.S. citizen. I'm for removing it, though it should be done via congress since it's part of the constitution and Arizona doesn't have the right to toss that out the window.

There is no need to change the Constitution. There are already exceptions to be born-here-instant-citizen interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

For example, children born on U.S. soil to foreign dignitaries are NOT granted U.S. citizenship.

Why, do you suppose, was this exception made? Anyone?

Anchor babies is analogous to a bank robber who gets to will his illegal stolen wealth to his children.

Illegal means illegal from start to finish. There should be no reward. No citizenship.

Ringmaster: IF you are so damned self-righteous, so high and mighty compassionate, then how about putting up YOUR OWN MONEY and adopt a few illegal alien families? At least then we could see that you actually have some skin in the game for your bullshit compassion and then maybe you would see the folly of your thinking.

Think of it in terms of feeding a stray cat; pretty soon all the stray cats are at your door looking to be fed. Then, either you go broke feeding these always hungry cats, or you take all the food away, then they go somewhere else looking for their handout or they go back to their own families, if they have one.

Every dollar that goes to an illegal is taken from our legal immigrant and U.S. Citizen's in the schools (there are only so many seats in our public universities; how dare our politicians give these seats to illegals rather than U.S. Citizens!), in the hospitals, in terms of welfare payments, social security payments, any other entitlements.

More people taking funds means less for those truly in need and truly entitled to short-term (hopefully) assistance from their fellow citizens. The government provides nothing; ALL ARE PARASITICAL ON THE PRIVATE SECTOR ECONOMY (No government employee pays enough taxes to even cover the cost of their own job!). It is private sector taxpaying citizens and residents who pick up the tab for EVERYONE.

Ringmaster: You are NOT more compassionate than the rest of us; just naive, inexperienced in the ways of the world. Too bad you think you actually have something valid to say on this subject. The poor and downtrodden are NOT more noble than the rest of us, and neither are you, despite your high opinion of yourself.

Wow, ringmasterbater was on a rip... to bad he / she / it is fucking stuipid.

So, you think it is OK to whittle away our rights and freedoms as long as it make the republicans happy?

You probably creamed yourself when Obama does it... or the courts .... but that is besides the point. What "right" exactly, does the rest of the fucking world have to YOUR tax dollars (if you actually pay any) or to MY tax dollars?

Are you willing to accept the decision if they don't vote for the amendment too? I got news for you, they already did. It was called the 14th amendment.

Again, you are a FUCKING moron. No on who voted for the 14th amendment envisioned a welfare system we have, the crime caused by illegals, or any of the other idiocy you are trying to push. They voted to all BLACKS who were slaves, and the children of slaves, to be citizens.

Either you get behind the concepts of majority rule or you are a traitor about all things America is about.

Your moron abilities are getting a good workout today. Mob rule is NOT what we have in this country. We have laws that often (usually) restrain the majority from violating the rights of the minority. Unfortunately sometime the laws are used in ways they were never intended (i.e. the Anchor Baby bullshit). So, if the courts do not address the misinterpretation, then we would need to modify the 14th to explicitly state that you are not a citizen unless you have at least 1 parent who is a citizen.

... blah blah blah... more of your rantings.... Either he man's up and comes clean or he lives with my indictment.

Unless you are a DA somewhere (GOD forbid), then your indictment is worth even less than your normal rantings.

You want equal protection under the law, but you want to dictate what the law is even if it means someone else looses that protection you aspire to.

Wow, the stupid is strong in you today. Equal? Sure, I can't invade their country, they can't invade mine. I don't get welfare benefits in a country that I am not entitled to, and neither should they. I go to jail if I use a fake ID, so should they. If I were born in Mexico, I would be a US citizen, and if they are born here, they are a Mexican citizen. See, EQUAL. They don't want equal. They don't want laws. They want the protection of the system, without having to obey the laws they don't like. THEY ARE CRIMINALS. By definition, criminals have a reduced set of rights.

The 14th amendment was, in my estimation, the single most important bill every ratified by we the people in the history of the country. It is what defines Americans, not what is wrong with America. At least get that straight.

by RingMaster

Ah, you probably shouldn't talk about "straight"... just no reason to open that can of worms. LOL. But the 14th was important, it was an official end to slavery. However, it is being misused by illegals. Its like leaving a window open in your house. It is great to allow fresh air in, but it also allows a criminal to sneak in and rape your family. We need to put some bars on the windows... i.e. some reasonable restrictions on the overreaching 14th amendment.

"By definition, criminals have a reduced set of rights."

Which definition is that?

It's funny how the truth riles up the tea baggers up so much. All you assholes are demonstrating is how hateful you people really are. Do you really think you are going to change my mind? The more to the point I get, the louder you scream foul. Oh well, I knew that when I pushed the submit button. You can't change ignorance with logic or facts. Their problem is emotional. In a sense it is human nature. Their guilt has to be rationalized in their minds, so long as they don't have to accept that we are all in this together, even the children.

For example, children born on U.S. soil to foreign dignitaries are NOT granted U.S. citizenship.

Why, do you suppose, was this exception made? Anyone?

Stupid question. Diplomatic compounds are not considered US property and diplomats are exempt from local law. It's a privilege to be here, not right. They don't need regular visas either.

but in this country at least the population is considerably more diverse: Methodists, Orthodox Jews, Catholics, Atheists, Pantheists, Buddhists, Mennonites, Reform Jews, Santeria, Native American Church, etc., etc., etc.

Well,

At what point do they become american? Do we just let them keep their old culture? Why dont they assimilate? It's thinking like this that keeps us apart.

"They don't need regular visas either."

A lot of them don't need toilet paper, either.

"By definition, criminals have a reduced set of rights."

Which definition is that? by Danforth

Well, Danny, the pursuit of happiness gets a little restricted when you are in a 6 x 9 box. So does the freedom of association, the right to vote (in most places), the right to keep and bear arms, etc.

Oh, you meant only some criminals. And only after a serious conviction. Got it.

I don't get welfare benefits in a country that I am not entitled to, and neither should they.

Name one state where illegal aliens can collect welfare? You can't, can you. It's just another typical RW lie. Just try and go sign up for welfare without ID. What a stupid thing to say. Now if they have fraudulent ID they might get away with it, but many thousands of legitimate Americans commit welfare fraud too with phony ID, so what makes those crooks any different then the illegal aliens? It's true they do get treated at emergency rooms, but what do you propose, placing guards with truncheons at the entrances to lance the undocumented people who are sick or injured (including American citizens not carrying ID)? Let's get real now. Putting the babies in a basket and floating them down the Rio Grand isn't going to benefit anyone but the fish and the buzzards.

Why do you neo-cons hate these innocent children? Why don't you go after the Bush administration that did nothing? At least Obama is increasing the border guards where they do some good. Your god Bush did nothing but reinforce the fence around his own rich man's compound.

"many thousands of legitimate Americans commit welfare fraud too with phony ID"

Deport 'em!

Back to the country they came from!!!

It's funny how the truth riles up the tea baggers up so much.

Its funny how the lefties spew shit and thinks it is the truth... guess that's why so many of them still worship and the knees of Obama. For that matter, it explains why so many of them have a fascination with 'tea bagging'.

All you assholes are demonstrating is how hateful you people really are.

I am sure if you come home and someone had broken into your house, you would be all wine and roses... fix them a meal, offer to let them have the master bedroom and such, right?

Do you really think you are going to change my mind?

Nope, don't believe you have one.

You can't change ignorance with logic or facts.

True, we try and you continue to be ignorant.

Their problem is emotional.

Ah... its the lefties that 'feel' about everything, and think about nothing.

In a sense it is human nature. Their guilt has to be rationalized in their minds, so long as they don't have to accept that we are all in this together, even the children.

by RingMaster

Idiot. If you think we are all in this together, open your house to the homeless, the crazy, the criminal. For that matter, just leave the door open and a big sign on the lawn saying "I won't call the cops, I don't care about laws, do whatever you want to me and my family". You rail at the cops for defending the US Laws when an illegal breaks in, but you would probably whimper like a little bitch to 911 when one of those bastard breaks into your house.

A lot of them don't need toilet paper, either.

How would you know? Coming from a lying fucking bigot like you is proof that you have no God or conscience, much less divine knowledge.

"Name one state where illegal aliens can collect welfare? "

In all states an illegal alien cannot be refused treatment in a hospital. In all states their childrean go to public schools. In all states, they are afforded police protection. My taxes pay for these.

"Why do you neo-cons hate these innocent children?"

I don't speak for neocons, but on a personal level, I don't hate them. That is why I want to send their parents back with them.

"How would you know?"

I have been to their countries and am familiar with their customs.

x

Oh, you meant only some criminals. And only after a serious conviction. Got it.

by Danforth

So, you think breaking into our country is less serious than breaking into your house? Stealing the benefits that are intended for our citizens is less serious than stealing the money out of your pocket?

How?

#167...Idiot? Who are you calling an idiot? You don't even know the law and you think I am stupid. Screw your self. I don't care. I get along fine with everyone here. Why do you think I don't care for Texas, ya bigot?

If there is one thing that never changes it is the ignorance of the right.

I have been to their countries and am familiar with their customs.

Nobody believes anything you say anymore, so stuff a rag in it asshole.

"Nobody believes anything you say anymore, so stuff a rag in it asshole."

When did you begin speaking for everyone, ringmaster? Peace, brother.

x

Eks: "Name one state where illegal aliens can collect welfare? "

Me: Well, unless it has changed since I worked for the welfare system, if you asked the immigration status of a 'client' you were fired. Add to that the 'free' lunch programs, the 'free' medical system, etc.

Eks: In all states an illegal alien cannot be refused treatment in a hospital.

Me: I agree, anyone needing treatment should be treated. However, if they are illegal, they should be turned over to ICE and sent home.

Eks: In all states their childrean go to public schools. In all states, they are afforded police protection. My taxes pay for these.

Me: My taxes also. The increased cost of these non-citizens are putting a burden on the system that it cannot long endure.

Eks: "Why do you neo-cons hate these innocent children?"

Me: Why do libs refuse to think? No, that approach doesn't work with libs, some (most) are proud of their non-thinking approach to life. So, approach this differently. There is a finite amount of support available. Why do libs 'hate' the citizens who are not getting a good education, because the money spent is being divided among a much larger population? Why do they 'hate' the old, who get less benefits because illegals clog the hospitals and emergency rooms? Why do they 'hate' the women that are going to be raped by these criminals (like the one in OR or WA)? Why are libs incapable of loving the innocent and prosecuting the guilty?

Eks: I don't speak for neocons,

Me: Obviously. All anyone can speak for is their own position... which is one of my biggest beefs with the Al Shark-tounge and Jessey Jackass types.

Eks: but on a personal level, I don't hate them. That is why I want to send their parents back with them.

Me: I don't hate them; not the parents or the children. I don't hate criminals [or politicians or liberals, for that matter]. It isn't a matter of hate. Its a matter of law. If we want to have a country with no borders, propose an amendment to remove all restrictions on immigration. Let people vote. If it passes, I will either learn to live with the consequences, or leave.

You are right, 1libertarian. But the first sentence was me quoting ringmaster. I would not ask such a silly question.

x

#167...Idiot? Who are you calling an idiot? You don't even know the law and you think I am stupid.

Ring-job, if you are an attorney, I have SYMPATHY for anyone dumb enough to hire you. If you aren't an attorney, then you have no more knowledge of the law than I do. Possibly less.

Screw your self. I don't care. I get along fine with everyone here.

Wow... from the few posts where you were spewing hatred for others, I could sure feel that get'n along vibe. I'm sure Oberman would have had another tingle.

Why do you think I don't care for Texas, ya bigot?

by RingMaster

I don't think you care for this country at all, Texas any more than any other part. But, and hear is a little secret for ya... there are people who care enough to risk their life defending you from those criminals that you appear to love so much. And they will continue to do that, even if you attack them.

" I get along fine with everyone here. "

How can you possibly say thatm and not expect to be called out on it, ringmaster? You have made your disdain of me no secret. Your disdain of goatman is even better known. You trash eberly. You say you get along with everyone fine, then you have the nerve to call other people liars? you are an angry person, ringmaster, but you are funny. I have to hand you that.

x

Wow... from the few posts where you were spewing hatred for others, I could sure feel that get'n along vibe. I'm sure Oberman would have had another tingle.

Douche bags like you keep their mouths shut in this state or end up in a lava pit. It makes it a lot easier to get along with the bigots here.

I don't think you care for this country at all,...

What makes you think I care what you think in the first place? Save you breath. Spout your stupid bigoted philosophy and move on. I really don't give a shit what you think. I never did. Sound familiar?

I get along fine with everyone here.

you're on crack.

and for your #179 you need a timeout.

Hi Ringmaster,

I don't know you, but a friendly word of advice: You might want to check out this site's

iComment Moderation Policy

This site respects the right of users to express themselves and does not remove comments on the basis of the political viewpoints they contain.

Users who post comments should follow common rules of netiquette, like not posting in ALL CAPS.

User comments will be deleted if they contain commercial spam, viruses, illegal pornography, threats against public officials, threats of violence, excessive obscenity, prejudice based on race, religion, sexuality or gender, or personal harassment directed at another user (in particular, any attempt to identify a user's real name, address or workplace).

www.drudge.com


EKS,

My bad, I didn't realize your first part was a 'quote' from a previous post.

re-reading, I now realize that parts were in quotes and was followed by your answers.

Problem with watching a movie and blogging....

"I have lurked this site for about a year. I have finally decided to jump in. The dramatis personae is interesting

afkabl2 - incoherent.
eks - thinks signing his name "X" is cute, but it actually makes him look like a teenage girl

This is a paragraph.

"eks - thinks signing his name "X" is cute, but it actually makes him look like a teenage girl"

How do you know I am not a teenage girl? I have signed my name like that my whole life. I have to admit, this is the first time anyone has told me it makes me look like a teenage girl. Most people tell me it makes me look like an illiterate fool who can't sign his own name. I think your version is funnier, nullifidian.

x

Fine bendor, write him a love letter and tell the asshole to leave me the fuck alone. I have already tried too many times. Get it?

How do you know I am not a teenage girl?

Bait and switch. That is goatman.

Ringmaster,

You can get upset like this after RCADE starts paying you and me for showing up here so much. (And for being the type of posters that make his server crash due to the traffic we generate).

Until then (psssst..don't wait up), chill out a little!

" This pretense that he is a nice concerned Christian is total crap"

I have never claimed to be a Christian, ringmaster.

x

This is also a paragraph.

I have never claimed to be a Christian, ringmaster.

Well, that sounds like Goatman.

BTW, a teenage girl wouldn't sign her post with an x but with an xo.

you're on crack.

and for your #179 you need a timeout.

Typical know nothing response. Apparently he doesn't know that 'here' means Hawaii. Nobody get's along here on the DR who have opposing beliefs, but we don't have to troll like you just did. Why don't you try posting something relevant to the topic for a change. That's all I did before the usual trolls began the attack. I guess you are far too shallow to understand that or post a coherent thought.

If people don't like my post they don't have to read it. That includes you too ebby, you one liner insult.

BTW...bendor, you come off like an egotistical prat brat. Why don't you get a life too.

I have noticed one thing since I joined here. All someone has to do is post a topic on human rights and every ultra right bigot on the site shows up in unison to attack anyone who believes those rights belong to anyone but white Christian Republicans. That goes back to the days of the Conquistadors and the bastards like Amherst that believed social justice was killing the native Americans with trickery, disease and starvation, at least, the ones he couldn't shoot in a day.

These people are the ones who need to take a time out and smell the flowers.

BTW...bendor, you come off like an egotistical prat brat. Why don't you get a life too.

#195 | Posted by RingMaster

Indeed.

I am often a victim of my own great wit.

Thanks for reminding me.

Fine bendor, write him a love letter and tell the asshole to leave me the fuck alone. I have already tried too many times. Get it?

#189 | Posted by RingMaster

Okay then.

GOAT! I love you man!

So please lay off ring a little bit. We can't afford to lose him to Pravda...er, Daily Kos.

Please? I have a cherry for you!

" All someone has to do is post a topic on human rights and every ultra right bigot on the site shows up in unison to attack anyone who believes those rights belong to anyone but white Christian Republicans"

Likewise, the ultra left all show up and think we should give free stuff to people who didn't earn it. The left thinks we should give free stuff to lawbreakers, the people in this country illegally.

Different people think different things, ringmaster. That's just human nature, I guess.

x

Apparently he doesn't know that 'here' means Hawaii.

Have you by any chance seen Obama's birth certificate? Inquiring minds want to know.

"So, you think breaking into our country is less serious than breaking into your house?"

No, I didn't say anything like that; why do you feel you have to alter the concept? My point was the statement "By definition, criminals have a reduced set of rights" was too broad and incomplete. There is no such "definition". And some criminals' rights aren't reduced at all.

Fine bendor, write him a love letter and tell the asshole to leave me the fuck alone. I have already tried too many times. Get it?

On a more serious note, Ringmaster, if you want Goat to leave you alone, you should try leaving him alone. Why? Because if he doesn't get a response, he'll most likely get bored and move on to more promising responders. Yeah, I know: easier said than done.

Dearest Goat,

Please leave Ringmaster alone. He says that's what he wants. Let's see if he is telling the truth, or if he doth protest too much.

xxoo,
Gal

Please leave Ringmaster alone. He says that's what he wants. Let's see if he is telling the truth, or if he doth protest too much.

I think we all know the answer to that, gal. I haven't said a single word to him in over two weeks. Yet he brings me up almost daily. In fact, he missed me so much he has assigned me to another blogger. LOL He is consumed with hatred for me and that hatred has turned into an obsession he can't shake. It's one of the weirdest episodes in blogging I've ever witnessed. LOL And I've been doing it in one form or another for over 25 years.

I am curious Goatman,You weren't to be back until the 22nd,same as BetelG.Yet here you are .Did you buy a crate of "My Back Hurts" books?

Goat probably begged RCADE to come back. Since he is laid of he has nothing better to do.

Goat,

Ring could be right that you are EKS. Dunno, but even if you are, now what?

Since he is laid of he has nothing better to do.

He could go in search of the real Mao for starters.

Betel is gonna be pissed about goatman coming back earlier. LOL. Great...that's another three or four dozen threads ruined by these two fighting like a married couple when betel returns. Meanwhile, goat will get his rocks off chasing ringmaster around.

Might be time for a self imposed vacation from the goat retort.

Gal- Mao does this every now and then. Mocking liberals by pretending to be one. It was cute 5 years ago, now it's just redundant, childish, and stupid...like his real views.

Ring could be right that you are EKS

C'mon gal, has he ever been right about anything else? LOL

Alex,

Everything political has been dumbed down to a 50/50 template.

So says Mao. I guess he should know.

I have to admit, post #179 is one of the creepier things I've read here lately.

But rather tame compared to the animal house this place was BEFORE name registration. People just seem to be angrier now when they do this stuff. Flagging it anyways. (which I hate doing)

Flagging it anyways. (which I hate doing)

#213 | Posted by Alexandrite

What a load of crap. You have probably flagged Rex and myself hundreds of times.

If you are going to speculate and create a mythology, why not go all out and say thousands of times?

You have probably flagged Rex and myself hundreds of times.

#214 | Posted by jackass at 2010-06-17 01:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

Pffft. How often do you, jackass, get exiled? Hardly ever. It isn't my doing, either. (Try tosser)

As far as rex goes, his very presence here gets MY, and others, posts deleted when anyone mentions his NAME, so screw you! Go bitch at rex for screwing up the retort.

Got that, jackass? Speaking to rex gets MY posts banned, yet you accuse me of getting HIS banned?

Nice to see you two girls still go down on each other, even after all these years/slap fights.

I'm joining ALEX and flagging Ringmaster's #179.

This whole obsession thing is ridiculous but attempting to reveal another poster's real name is nothing short of malicious.

I hope Ringmaster get's his IP pulled permanently for this. It's one of the worst infractions of the rules that anybody can commit.

RCADE . . . please take note of this.

I agree that ringmaster needs to get a grip on this obsession he has with me. He has proven how ugly raw unbridled hatred can be.

Hey, Goatee.... you're out early!

Hello hi...

Hola!

GOATMAN

Welcome back.

I'm sorry I wasn't here earlier to flag that malicious post.

Steam would have been pouring out of my computer.

But I did flag it (twice) once for abusive and once for offensive.

Ringmaster has proved to us on the left that not all liberals are sane. I hope Rcade lowers the gavel on him.

I always thought Ringmaster had a man crush on GOATMAN. The line between love and hate is often blurred.

Glad to have you back GOATMAN!

PANEOCAN

You could always be right.

However, judging from what I've seen lately, I suspect Ringmaster uses way too much "Creme de Coconut" milk on his breakfast cereal.

Posting someone's real name is inexcusable.

IP address should be permanently banned.

It isn't my doing, either. (Try tosser)

Hey! Don't drag me into your who-dun-it, thanks.

Oay! Goatee back went back down from Penthouse to doghouse?

What is this? Revolving door?

Did he escape and was caught?

I must learn this new technique......

It saddens me that Ringmaster got in trouble for using a brilliant debate tactic.

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable