May 31, 2007

Two More Kiss-Offs For Bush
— Ace

From Dave In Texas and Geoff.

What President* Bush (yep, the liberal asterisk; why not go whole hog?) fails to comprehend is that he has been so incompetent, embarrassingly dimwitted, and fiscally reckless for six years that the few supporters he had had to spend an awful lot of time, energy, and intellectual (and sometimes emotional) effort to support him.

Our thanks?

President Bush attacked opponents of an immigration deal Tuesday, suggesting they “don’t want to do what’s right for America.”

Not to completely crib from the liberal talking points, but, Mr. President, are your estimates of "merely" 12 million amnestied aliens and improved border security brought to us from the same team that announced a "slam-dunk" on WMDs?

Teddy Kennedy, according to Mike Chertoff: "Awesome"

We who supported Bush for six grueling years: "don't want what's best for America"

Frankly, I think what would be best for America is for Bush to take that long-vacation-seguing-into-an-early-retirement he's obviously had his eye on since age 23.


Posted by: Ace at 10:44 AM | Comments (393)
Post contains 175 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Consider this my adios to Bush too. I know I don't have a blog, but I'm done with the guy, and echo Dave in Texas and geoff.

Posted by: Sinistar at May 31, 2007 10:51 AM (1Wvre)

2

well, now that they're in bed together, we can only hope that Andrew Sullivan lets ace use the CPAP machine once in a while.


-


Posted by: BumperStickerist at May 31, 2007 10:55 AM (wieXQ)

3 What with this little tidbit

http://azbiz.com/lionel_waxman/

It's almost as if someone wants open warfare to break out right here in th USA. Is this a "do not examine the folly but the results of the folly" moment?
Why oh why is our government giving us up? I swear they are no longer on our side,so other than their own self-interests,whose side are they on?

Posted by: mbruce at May 31, 2007 10:57 AM (LLCm9)

4

Well what can we expect after all he is once again attempting to appeal to the more 'moderate who likes to pay low taxes' Centrist voter so coveted by both political parties.


Posted by: syn at May 31, 2007 10:59 AM (tUtn0)

5

Very good.


Ann and I welcome the rest of you to the real Conservative Movement.


Posted by: Bart at May 31, 2007 11:00 AM (zHDds)

6 Hmm.  Pot, meet kettle?  Hoist on your own petard?  Sauce for the goose?  Feel free to contribute additional apt cliches.

Posted by: Tom S at May 31, 2007 11:00 AM (1XFm4)

7

My favorite scnario: Bush decides he's sick of all this political crap and steps down, Cheney takes over and appoints Condi VP, then almost immediately dies in office.


w00t! Prez Condi, black, female, articulate, and not a socialist.


Posted by: TallDave at May 31, 2007 11:02 AM (oyQH2)

8 Hell, Bush lost me well over a year ago when he called the Minutemen vigilantes and again when he and his wife said sexism is the only reason conservatives would oppose Harriet Miers.

Posted by: OU_Gryphon at May 31, 2007 11:03 AM (HPU22)

9 Yay, lets use every lame liberal talking point thats been out there for the past 7 years even though we knew Bush was Mexican friendly when we nominated him! If you think this will get you ANY credibility or kudos from the Left, think again. They will just whine that you were faking your previous support for him because he was killing Arabs or oppressing gays or something equally stupid.

Posted by: Mike at May 31, 2007 11:03 AM (NnpEK)

10
Posted by: Mike at May 31, 2007 04:03 PM (NnpEK)


This isn't about developing credibility with the left.  Screw them, to coin a phrase.

This is about letting the president know we're done defending him.

Posted by: Slublog at May 31, 2007 11:05 AM (R8+nJ)

11

Ditto. I've bit my lip for far too long for this bozo. Go back to Kennebunkport with Daddy you sub-moronic, ungrateful, CEO back-slappin piece of shit.


I want someone so goddamn opposite this fuckwad I'd almost vote for a Democrat just so this country could actually taste the Socialist dystopia that will become dominant if conservatives don't pull their heads out of their ass.


Posted by: Gromulin at May 31, 2007 11:06 AM (fXHjS)

12

Also, at the risk of becoming persona non grata here, I have to suggest again that the best course here is to try to identify and campaign against specific problems in the bill that should be fixed, rather than attack the bill as a whole.


Does anyone really think the status quo is acceptable, or that conservatives can get everything theyt want from a Dem-controlled Congress?  Perfect, good, enemy, you know the drill.


Posted by: TallDave at May 31, 2007 11:08 AM (oyQH2)

13 Exactly, Slublog. Mike, with "allies" like Bush, who needs political enemies?

Posted by: Nick Byram at May 31, 2007 11:08 AM (ujg0T)

14 To paraphrase Ronald Reagan....I didn't abandon George Bush, George Bush abandoned me.

Yeah, he was never a true conservative but at least he wasn't openly hostile to many of us either. Now? You really can't say that, can you?

Posted by: Drew at May 31, 2007 11:09 AM (gNyUT)

15

I'm glad that some of you are finally starting to come around. But where were you for the past two years?


Where were you when Tom Tancredo was the only one brave enough to speak up against illegals crossing the southern border?


Where were you when Tom Tancredo was being called a racist and a bigot?


Some of you cowered in silence. Some of you told Tancredo to "shut up." Some of you joined in the chorus of calling Congressman Tancredo a bigot.


 


I said it many times on this very blog -- when they start libeling you, or other conservatives, or the entire conservative movement, you better speak up and defend yourself and defend other conservatives. If you don't, your enemies build momentum and our cowardly (Republican) political leaders take your silence as a sign of concensus with the MSM and DNC smear-machine, and they act accordingly.


 


Posted by: Bart at May 31, 2007 11:13 AM (zHDds)

16

Bush is scum.  I'm through with that SOB.


 


Posted by: Dogstar at May 31, 2007 11:15 AM (iddx7)

17 "real conservative movement"

I never thought Bush was a conservative, I just had hope he would do some things right and not do any really big things wrong.  In this case, I'm not sure if this bill can be salvaged.  It's more likely that the teeth will be pulled out of any border enforcement rather than any teeth being added.

A real conservative may very well be unelectable, but we need a charismatic one to try anyway.  The closest applicable candidate we have is Fred.

Posted by: cranky-d at May 31, 2007 11:17 AM (0cofO)

18 Maybe this was the price Bush had to pay for the Dims to keep the war going?  Maybe Bush and Rove are thinking that if they don't do it, the Hispanic vote will go 90% for the Donkey Party for the next 50 years like the black vote instead of just 60%. I just know that if half the GOP Senate is supporting it, we can't weed them all out of the party.

Posted by: Mike at May 31, 2007 11:17 AM (NnpEK)

19

Dear President Slowpoke Rodriguez Bush,


It's time we parted ways.  It's not you, it's me.  I hope we can still be friends.


Ok, it's you.  Sorry, I lied about that part.


And the friends thing?  Yeah, uhm no.  My friends all think you pretty much  suck so, there's that whole problem.  You should probably just go ahead and find a new crowd to run with.  I heard Teddy "Spongehead Bob" Kennedy is looking for some pals.


Anway, see you around I guess. 


Posted by: Warden at May 31, 2007 11:18 AM (Mo8Oa)

20

TallDave, tired old straw men.


We don't need any legislation to get past the Senate. We have adequate legislation now (though more would be good, what we have is adequate).


What we NEED is for the executive to actually enforce it. Any "compromise" will be a compromise between the status quo, and what Kennedy wants. Until we can get a President who understands the need to enforce the law, there should be no bill passed at all. And this bill will be far, far WORSE then the status quo.


Posted by: Entropy at May 31, 2007 11:19 AM (m6c4H)

21
Posted by: Bart at May 31, 2007 04:13 PM (zHDds)


Sorry, but my rejection of Bush does not include an embrace of Tancredo.

Posted by: Slublog at May 31, 2007 11:20 AM (R8+nJ)

22 Is it:
1) GWoT
2) Immigration
3) Smaller government

or:
1) Immigration
2) GWoT
3) Smaller goverment

'Cause ya'll confuse me.

Posted by: rho at May 31, 2007 11:20 AM (8eBMH)

23

One more thing. To the anal aperatures on the Left such as Tom S and R L Page, and dave, and Gleen's puppets:


We disapprove of Bush because he is Not. Conservative. Enough.


Not because he is too Conservative. Get it, douche bags?


We still disagree with you and hate every single for which you stand.


 


 


Posted by: Bart at May 31, 2007 11:21 AM (zHDds)

24

Bart,


Where were you the night the lights went out in Georgia?


Posted by: Warden at May 31, 2007 11:22 AM (Mo8Oa)

25 Isn't it great that the main reason "people" like Ace and all my superbly uninformed liberal friends can call Bush incompetent is mainly because of his Christian turn the cheek bullshit and desire to "change the tone."  Now, admittedly, in addition to the desire to not be overly partisan, there is an inability to even play the media cycle, but still, Bush is hardly the partisan bomb thrower libs imagine him to be (don't question my patriotism!!!).

But now, he unloads on us!  We are bad people because we disagree with him.  Way to show us you can fight back and spin the media cycle.  If only Bush were this anxious to respond to Abu Gharib, Plame, Wilson, Katrina, Gonzalez. 

I mean, what the fuck, DONT QUESTION MY HUMANITY.

I like America the way it is, not America completely repopulated with people I have no common roots with.

Posted by: joeindc44 at May 31, 2007 11:22 AM (za2Xz)

26

You know, as furious as I am, I think about Kerry in the Oval Office and realize it could be even worse.


You know whose fault it is? Ours. Yours and mine. How do we let ourselves get to the point where we have to choose between Jorge Arbusto and Jean Francois "High Treason in the Pursuit of the Presidency Is No Vice" Kerry? We has met the enemy, and they is us.


I was born in 1961. The best President of my lifetime was Ronald Reagan--and stupid leftist that I was at the time, I couldn't stand him either. The Founders weep in Valhalla for what we have become.


We don't have to stay that way, though. Fred ain't perfect, no one this side of Heaven is, but he's the best of a very bad lot and might actually be fairly good. If we need to hold his feet to the fire on some things, that is what a people should do.


Posted by: Oldsmoblogger at May 31, 2007 11:22 AM (arEOF)

27 rho...

GWoT is on top but after that it doesn't matter what order you put them in Bush is awful on the other 2.  1 out of 3 isn't good enough.

Posted by: Drew at May 31, 2007 11:23 AM (gNyUT)

28

My last great hope is that when he leaves office he will disappear for at least 5 years.  Just go away.


Done with him.


Posted by: kevlarchick at May 31, 2007 11:23 AM (TNuqz)

29

Medved is talking about "comprehensive sexual education" programs.


"Comprehensive" is the new newspeak for "bend over and prepare to be sodomized with a frozen piece of shit"


Posted by: Entropy at May 31, 2007 11:23 AM (m6c4H)

30 Ya'll are the biggest bunch of whiners today.

Good grief. The Congress went Dem, what the hell did you expect.

Posted by: Stormy70 at May 31, 2007 11:26 AM (7WJsV)

31

I want someone so goddamn opposite this fuckwad I'd almost vote for a Democrat just so this country could actually taste the Socialist dystopia that will become dominant if conservatives don't pull their heads out of their ass.


The problem with this is that everytime these idiots pass legislation that slifts the country towards socialism (e.g., social security, the Great Society), the long term prospects for the country's survival become weaker and weaker.


Yes, Bush has been in many ways a remarkable disappointment, but the Democrats will be worse every time.  Count on it!


Posted by: Kensington at May 31, 2007 11:28 AM (kFwRi)

32 Bush can call me a goat f*cker for all I care.  He isn't my wife or my best friend or my daddy.  He's some guy I never met, and will never meet, whose opinion about me means nothing.  We are not engaged in a personal relationship with W.  Politics isn't about having your feelings massaged, it's about outcome.  Mostly, you get bent over; occasionally, you win one.

So I'm not "done" with Bush because despite the retarded calls for impeachment, he's going to be in office until Jan 09.  No matter how infuriated I am about amnesty, tomorrow I may find it convenient to find common cause with Bush.  In which case I'll stop calling and emailing and threatening never to be a Republican again, and fall in line... all peaceful like.

But we turn our backs on him out of principle at our own peril. The 08 election is already not trending in our favor-- imagining an intimate friendship with the President and then sulking because he called us bad names does us no good.  There are no principles in politics, only today's battle.  Brood over yesterday's battle, hold a grudge, and you're out of the game.

Posted by: a4g at May 31, 2007 11:28 AM (G3Urz)

33 The Congress went Dem, what the hell did you expect.

Oh, I don't know...vetoes on sound conservative policy grounds?  It's asking for a lot, I know. Especially from this dip shit President.

Posted by: Drew at May 31, 2007 11:28 AM (gNyUT)

34 oldsmofo,

Yeah, the fucking lefties were batshit crazy about Reagan too.  All that hate didn't seem to hurt him so much.

That is why I say that just because Bush is the left's least popular president they can remember (except for Nixon, Reagan, Eisenhower, Ford, Bush 41, and maybe that guy who was president before FDR, natch), doesn't make him a "bad" president.

Supporting this bill makes him a bad president.



Posted by: joeindc44 at May 31, 2007 11:29 AM (za2Xz)

35 The real conservative movement has been dead since we started letting the single issue church ladies dictate our party needs. I'm not saying anyone who is pro-life fits this characterization. Just the ones who think abortion supercedes everything.

Posted by: Mike at May 31, 2007 11:29 AM (NnpEK)

36

Ace, are you okay? Seriously you're beginning to sound like Sullivan circa 2004. I'm not happy with Bush's stand on immigration or his comments, but let's keep some perspective. President Gore or Kerry would be far worse on almost every issue you care about. I'm frustrated with a lot of the decisions that Bush and his appointees have made as well, but I'm not going to turn into a BDS democrat. Bush is great in some areas and weak in others - immigration seems to be a particular blind spot for him as well as others in the GOP. On the whole he's better than the alternatives, and that's about the best we can do in this imperfect world.


I suspect a lot of the emotion being directed at Bush recently stems from fatigue with the continuous controversy and contention over the six years, and from just being plain burned out on Bush. Eight years is a long time to back a guy in the face of such derision and hatred. Plus any politician in office long enough is bound to make decisions that piss off the base. I'm just old enough to remember Reagan's second term. Today he's revered in the GOP, but back in the late 80's there were a lot of conservatives that were frustrated and angry with him for not doing more about abortion, cutting government spending, the 1986 amnesty bill, etc. That's all forgotten now, and I suspect that a lot of the critcisms of Bush will fade away as well.


 


Posted by: Maetenloch at May 31, 2007 11:30 AM (NczJ/)

37

The Congress went Dem, what the hell did you expect.


What the hell are you talking about? This has NOTHING to do with that.


And they were trying to do the same damn thing when the congress was republican.


Way to obfuscate and distract...


Posted by: Entropy at May 31, 2007 11:31 AM (m6c4H)

38

What we NEED is for the executive to actually enforce it.


And you think that's going to happen under ANY administration?  That would mean deporting 12 million people.  Talk about a straw man.


Posted by: TallDave at May 31, 2007 11:32 AM (oyQH2)

39

Yeah, good strategy. Keep hoping for Fred to be your Messiah.


Don't wait for Fred to lead you.


Take the reins and tell the candidates what you want. You sit back and hope that Rudy isn't too pro-choice. You hope that Romeny won't be too open borders. You hope that the eventual nominee is electable. Don't hope, tell them what you expect of them.


 


Posted by: Bart at May 31, 2007 11:32 AM (V8682)

40 Good grief. The Congress went Dem, what the hell did you expect.

To be listened to by a president and a party I have supported would have been a nice start.

Posted by: Slublog at May 31, 2007 11:32 AM (R8+nJ)

41

OK, one last thought: Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment was "Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican." 


Just because Bush forgot it doesn't mean everyone else should too.


Posted by: TallDave at May 31, 2007 11:34 AM (oyQH2)

42 We're bigots, TallDave. The president said so.

Posted by: Bart at May 31, 2007 11:36 AM (V8682)

43 What President* Bush (yep, the liberal asterisk; why not go whole hog?)
fails to comprehend is that he has been so incompetent, embarrassingly
dimwitted, and fiscally reckless for six years that the few supporters
he had had to spend an awful lot of time, energy, and intellectual (and sometimes emotional) effort to support him.


Uh, okay. Do those of us who jumped overboard for earlier reasons (in my case, when four years after 9/11 it turned out that he'd put a complete moron in charge of FEMA and no one had bothered to come up with a plan for dealing with the second most obvious natural disaster to hit the US) get any sort of apology for all of your "effort"?

I'm not in favor of the immigration bill either, but it seems like an odd place to suddenly draw the line.

Posted by: JSinger at May 31, 2007 11:37 AM (EqFh0)

44

Does anyone really think the status quo is acceptable, or that conservatives can get everything theyt want from a Dem-controlled Congress? 


The problem here is that, too often, bill proponents act as if the only two choices are either (a) status quo, or (b) bankrupt social security once and for all by giving the store away to crowd of illegals so huge as to be without a ceiling.


It doesn't have to be one or the other, and too many people don't seem to understand that or are willfully dishonest about it!  Is it really out of line to suggest that border enforcement should be step one, unencumbered by anything else?  Can't we just focus on that for a year or three (or however long it takes) and then spend some time figuring out the best way to deal with the ones still among us?  Build the fence now and then talk about what to do next?  Why does everything have to be shoved through now, especially when there are so many loopholes that will allow the border security to be ignored?


Posted by: Kensington at May 31, 2007 11:37 AM (kFwRi)

45

That would mean deporting 12 million people.  Talk about a straw man.


Are you trying to be ironic? Because yet another straw man is exactly what you have just created.


Great job not even understanding the argument ...


Posted by: Entropy at May 31, 2007 11:38 AM (m6c4H)

46 I just listened to his mouth piece (one of many), Mel Martinez, lie to Tucker on TV. It seems the more any of them say about their crap bill (Bush, Chertoff, McCain, Martinez, et al)... the more they lie. It's to the point now that we know they are lying because their lips are moving.

Posted by: Renee at May 31, 2007 11:38 AM (Gy/m4)

47 I agree Bart, but again, we need a Kos type enforcer wing to enforce it, and the machinery for that doesn't exist yet.

Posted by: Sinistar at May 31, 2007 11:39 AM (1Wvre)

48

Maybe this was the price Bush had to pay for the Dims to keep the war going?  Maybe Bush and Rove are thinking that if they don't do it, the Hispanic vote will go 90% for the Donkey Party for the next 50 years like the black vote instead of just 60%. I just know that if half the GOP Senate is supporting it, we can't weed them all out of the party.


Sadly, you and half the GOP senate either (1) just don't get it, or (2) are suffering from the political equivalent of Battered Wife Syndrome. This delusion of "winning through Hispandering" suggests (3) both.


Repeat after me: "THEY'RE ONLY GOING TO HATE ME ANYWAY". This needs to be repeated to oneself whenever one thinks "But I can't support or oppose that because they'll call me a (blank)ist or (blank)ophobe...."


 


Posted by: Nick Byram at May 31, 2007 11:40 AM (ujg0T)

49 This is, folks, about much more than immigration.  It's about whether we're citizens or serfs, whether we live in a republic or -- like Europeans -- an oligarchy.

This amnesty crap was trotted out last year, and bombed *because no voters actually want it*.  (In fact, the attempt to pass it might well have cost Republicans the election.)  Business and political elites love it.  So now the parties, with incredible arrogance, are trying to collude, hide the blame, and thereby ensure that no choice is offered at the ballot box against this disaster.

Amnesty delenda est.

Posted by: someone at May 31, 2007 11:40 AM (TXnhk)

50 >>>Take the reins and tell the candidates what you want. You sit back and hope that Rudy isn't too pro-choice. You hope that Romeny won't be too open borders. You hope that the eventual nominee is electable. Don't hope, tell them what you expect of them

Bart, what the hell do you think we're trying to do?  Unless you have some home phone numbers you're willing to share, public criticism is as close as we can come to "telling" them what they want.

When you lecture on anything other than  porn I find you tedious.

Posted by: ace at May 31, 2007 11:43 AM (+u1X0)

51 Come on, guys. Bush had this in his 2004 campaign. Yeah, I paid attention, and Reagan went through the same crap with conservatives, as I, too, remember it.

Immigration is suddenly going to destroy America? Please.

You can attack me all you want but I am a part of the base, too. I can bitch and moan about the bitchers and moaners.

All of this is secondary to the Supreme Court swinging conservative.
Or the War on Terror.




Posted by: Stormy70 at May 31, 2007 11:44 AM (7WJsV)

52 You hope that Romeny won't be too open borders. You hope that the eventual nominee is electable. Don't hope, tell them what you expect of them.

Doesn't work that way, Bart. What little experience I have with political party inside-baseball only reinforces a point I made once before--the voters don't count for shit.

A political party needs contributions; from that flows power and influence, both with politicians and with voters. The Republican Party can nominate whoever it wants, and can throw itself and its weight behind any candidate, but who and why and how and how much is determined by Party officials either directly or indirectly.

We've already seen what happens with your way. You tell your candidates what you want. They don't do it. Then Republicans give them a pass and re-elect the ones who failed because they are so all-fired scared of Democrats. So long as Republicans are more scared of Democrats than they hate Republicans, the Republicans will fail to ever live up to the Party's so-called raison d'etre.

For my obligatory Ron Paul plug: just suppose if the very conservative, hyper-small government and very anti-illegal immigration Ron Paul came in 2nd or 3rd in New Hampshire or Iowa. Talk about a strong message hard to ignore by the leading candidates.

Posted by: rho at May 31, 2007 11:44 AM (8eBMH)

53

The law ALLREADY has provisions for fencing to be built. It is not built.


The law ALLREADY has provisions to deport aliens convicted of crimes - the vast majority of them are not deported and the feds don't give a shit even when towns do report them. 


The law ALLREADY accounts for all the border patrol agents that are now patrolling our border - and the border patrol union has officially voted "no confidence" in it's own bureaucrats and adminstrators because most border patrol agents, the few that we have, say the government is not allowing them to do the jobs they are there to do, on the border.


But yes, "We can't deport 12 million people" so pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Just keep repeating "We can't deport 12 million people" because that totally addresses the fact that we aren't even deporting the criminals. The next time your wife asks you to take out the trash or change a diaper just remind her "We can't deport 12 million people" and she will understand why you need to continue to sit on your fat ass and watch football.


Truthfully, I hope you try it and she shoves the diaper down your throat.


Posted by: Entropy at May 31, 2007 11:45 AM (m6c4H)

54

Take the reins and tell the candidates what you want. You sit back and hope that Rudy isn't too pro-choice. You hope that Romeny won't be too open borders. You hope that the eventual nominee is electable. Don't hope, tell them what you expect of them.


Thank you, Bart! Someone gets it. To his credit, Romney appears to be listening....if he cozies up to Hunter or Tancredo, we'll know for sure.


Posted by: Nick Byram at May 31, 2007 11:46 AM (ujg0T)

55 They are all elites now, and don't even try to hide it anymore. Anyone affraid of a one party system isn't paying attention, that's what we have now, and republicans are too lazy to even pretend. I feel I was duped in the '04 election, as obviously many others do.

Posted by: bmac at May 31, 2007 11:49 AM (iKVT4)

56 For my obligatory Ron Paul plug: just suppose if the very conservative,
hyper-small government and very anti-illegal immigration Ron Paul came
in 2nd or 3rd in New Hampshire or Iowa. Talk about a strong message
hard to ignore by the leading candidates.


This is not criticism of Paul, but I don't think it would mean that much these days unless he came in at that position in a couple of states.  After all, New Hampshire voters seem to care more about how much time a candidate spends in New Hampshire than they do about the positions communicated by a particular candidate.

Plus, it didn't help Bill Bradley.  The only person it's helped was Bill Clinton in 1992, but that was because he pushed it, hard.

Posted by: Slublog at May 31, 2007 11:49 AM (R8+nJ)

57 "That would mean deporting 12 million people.  Talk about a straw man."

Are you fucking retarded, or have you just never actually read through an amnesty thread?  "Deporting 12 million people"!  That's right, you've discovered the ultimate straw man.

If you'd looked into even one of the previous billion iterations of this thread, you'd have discovered that folks don't want to go door to door deporting illegals.  They want to seal the border and crack down on employers so it's economically impractical to come over or stay.  Deportation by attrition.

This bill isn't the best that can happen, it's the worst.  The Z visa status -- put into place in an eyeblink -- will foreclose any enforcement from ever happening.  The next executive, no matter how enforcement-inclined, won't have any tools left.  And Congress, having disposed of the matter "comprehensively", won't take up the matter again for a generation -- when the next Ted Kennedy amnesty bill comes up.  Worst of all, of course, this will destroy any hope of making the next Congress more Republican, as a big chunk of the party (understandably) sits home in 2008.

The Republican party isn't a suicide pact.  Amnesty delenda est.

Posted by: someone at May 31, 2007 11:50 AM (TXnhk)

58

nativism: noun 1. the policy of protecting the interests of native inhabitants against those of immigrants.


To the extent that I want to protect my native interests against those of illegal immigrants, I guess I am a nativist.


I grew up in West Texas, have observed the Bushs for years. I voted for him twice for President, but I was never under the illusion that he (or his father, for that matter) were truly conservative. What disappoints me, truly, is the fact that I have come to realize that the Republican party is no longer conservative as a whole, so W fits right in. For the last six years, I have been lambasted by liberal friends about Bush, mostly because of my continuous beliefs about the war, and the GWOT. Despite No Child Left Behind, Myers, and the profigate spending of Congress (unchecked by a single veto), all of which I disagreed with, I continued to support the President, and generally, the Republican party, because I believe that the GWOT is so important, and so vital to the very survival of our country. 


However, the singular arrongance of the President regarding immigration, and his comments and comments by Cabinet Secretaries and leaders in the Repubican party have caused me to re-examine my allegiance to both the President and the party. I am angered and, truthfully, dismayed by the utter tone-deafness of these people. And I am offended, extremely offended, by accusations from the President that because I find the immigration p.o.s. bill that is being proposed by the Senate to be an affront to me, a disgrace to the rule of law in this country, and dead-wrong, I am somehow a racist and an isolationist, and yes, even a nativist.


I cannot be more succient than this: I do not, under any circumstances, trust the current administration, or Congress, to enforce for one minute any of the provisions of this bill. Why should I? Why should anyone? The laws of this country regarding illegal immigration, and the enforcement of those laws, have been ignored, disregarded, and laughed at since 1986. Further, any law formulated or endorsed by Ted Kennedy is certain to further the aim of the liberal left in this country, which is and always has been, to destroy this nation.


So Ace, Dave in Texas, and you other cats, move over and make room for one more. Color me gone.


Posted by: mikeyslaw at May 31, 2007 11:53 AM (yrptY)

59

We're all blowing off steam by beating the snot out of the lame duck this administration is turning into before our very eyes. 


As others have pointed out, here and elsewhere, conservatives have been standing in the line of fire for Bush for six years now.  And the fire has been withering and self-inflicted at times.  And Bush won't defend himself on the central issue of the day: the war.


And now this.  On top of all the other domestic policy fumbles. 


He could have done nothing on immigration.  This could have even been a wedge issue in the GOP's favor (pushing for a fence and enforcement as a precondition to amnesty or whatever would have driven the dems into opposition and against the great weight of public opinion).


Instead, he's whipped it out and is pissing on our legs.  And telling us its "raining".


Forgive us if its all just a little too much.


Posted by: Fred at May 31, 2007 11:54 AM (ivbbD)

60

Amnesty delenda est.


It's really hawt when you speak French.


Posted by: Paris Hilton at May 31, 2007 11:54 AM (V8682)

61 "All of this is secondary to the Supreme Court swinging conservative.
Or the War on Terror."

Let me put this to you in terms you may get, then:

Due to the gross and deliberate offense aimed at the base of the party -- not only in the re-introduction of amnesty itself, but in the slander of its opponents -- a significant chunk of the Republican electorate will stay home in 2008 (not only from voting, but contributing, volunteering, you name it) if this becomes law.  You think President Obama is going to bomb Iran or appoint Edith Jones?

Amnesty delenda est.

Posted by: someone at May 31, 2007 11:55 AM (TXnhk)

62

nativism: noun 1. the policy of protecting the interests of native inhabitants against those of immigrants.


Are you fucking joking me?!??


I thought nativist meant something.....bad.


It means THAT?!?


And they say it as an insult and a slur??


Posted by: Entropy at May 31, 2007 11:58 AM (m6c4H)

63 Amnesty delenda est.

Someone...thanks for keeping the tradition alive!

Posted by: Cato the Elder at May 31, 2007 11:58 AM (gNyUT)

64 <i>We who supported Bush for six grueling years: "don't want what's best for America"</i>

My hunch is y'all'll get a new shiny ball to chase soon enough.

But, it now appears, wrt immigration, you "base" morons are even too hopelessly stupid to be led by anyone other than a full-on dictatorial fascist. Having lost your good war of terror, it's time to turn inward and find the real enemy, and he is the paperless mexican. But some contradictions in what passes as your "thought":

1. you're supposed to believe in the free market, but you crave a labor monopsony excluding competition--barring such competition hurts capital accumulation.

2. without cheap labor supplied by immigrants, illegal or not, the u.s.'s competitiveness suffers.

You little fuckers aren't very good defenders of capital.

Posted by: milt friedman at May 31, 2007 11:58 AM (adocw)

65 Due to the gross and deliberate offense aimed at the base of the party
-- not only in the re-introduction of amnesty itself, but in the
slander of its opponents -- a significant chunk of the Republican
electorate will stay home in 2008


Depends on the candidate.  If the candidate is anti-amnesty and promises to work to repeal this law, I'm all for it. 

I really like Entropy's idea in the other thread - let's pick one guy who is a squish on amnesty (Lindsay Graham for instance) and get him defeated in the primary.  We'll give money to his opponent and beat the heck out of him until he goes away.

Posted by: Slublog at May 31, 2007 11:59 AM (R8+nJ)

66
Posted by: milt friedman at May 31, 2007 04:58 PM (adocw)


Shut the hell up, erg.

Posted by: Slublog at May 31, 2007 11:59 AM (R8+nJ)

67 Because, Stormy, the thing is, you can't change somebody's mind when you're demonized them.  That's one thing when it's an actual enemy, with whom you'll have no common cause (al Qaeda, duh), but the people Bush and the Republican Party apparat (which, make no mistake, has in its current form been put in place by Bush) are now pissing off and demonizing *are those without which they can never win another election*.

If you aren't agitated by the bill, at least take your fellow conservatives' agitation (and it's vast, and deep) seriously.

Amnesty delenda est.

Posted by: someone at May 31, 2007 12:00 PM (TXnhk)

68 *someone* is on frakking fire today....

Posted by: Oldsmoblogger at May 31, 2007 12:00 PM (arEOF)

69 Ace, are you okay? Seriously you're beginning to sound like Sullivan circa 2004.

Bingo. I'm not coming to this from the same direction Maetenloch is, but whether you think Bush handled Afghanistan well and has been a complete disaster ever since, or you've been sincerely defending him up until now, I don't understand why this is the issue to become completely unhinged over.

Posted by: JSinger at May 31, 2007 12:00 PM (EqFh0)

70

For my obligatory Ron Paul plug: just suppose if the very conservative, hyper-small government and very anti-illegal immigration Ron Paul came in 2nd or 3rd in New Hampshire or Iowa. Talk about a strong message hard to ignore by the leading candidates.


And that strong message would be "Holy shit look out!  Flying pigs!  They're everywhere!"


I'm not sure there are quite enough racist, Truther isolationists in New Hampshire or Iowa for Ron Paul to come in 2nd or 3rd in an election with more than 5 people voting in it.


Posted by: Hollowpoint at May 31, 2007 12:03 PM (plsiE)

71 George Santa Anna Bush:  The new waterboy for Ted Kennedy.  Only Jimmah Carter was worse.  Come to think of it, did Jimmah ever try and legalize 20M crimalien wetbacks?   

Posted by: Geoff at May 31, 2007 12:03 PM (N6ucc)

72 "Depends on the candidate.  If the candidate is anti-amnesty and promises to work to repeal this law, I'm all for it."

Yeah, Slu, I'd love to think this is how it can work, but we both know that prominent outliers like Tancredo aside, this sort of thing is a general tide that'll fuck the party pretty indiscriminately in close races.

We should definitely, definitely primary Graham.  That twit was an impeachment leader!  But now he's been seduced by Sith Lord McCain, and amnesty is one of many betrayals he has and will commit.

Amnesty delenda est.

Posted by: someone at May 31, 2007 12:03 PM (TXnhk)

73

I have come to realize that the Republican party is no longer conservative as a whole, so W fits right in.


The Republicans in Congress and in the White House are bought and paid for by the business lobby. No, they are not Conservatives, just like the WSJ is not Conservative.


But contrary to what rho says, the voters do indeed matter. They need our votes on election day or the party is over. Of course this hinges on rho's other point that we will in fact stay home and not vote for the lesser of two evils.


It's time for a purge.


Posted by: Bart at May 31, 2007 12:03 PM (8nx0b)

74

And I am real fucking tired of it always being pointed out to me that Kerry, or Gore, or Hillary would have been so much worse. So pouring gasoline on myself and setting myself on fire is much more painful a death than slowly poisoning myself with arsenic? Either way, I'm a dead sumbitch.


Entropy


Doesn't sound so bad, does it? 


Posted by: mikeyslaw at May 31, 2007 12:04 PM (yrptY)

75 Hey milt erg....

As was once pointed out to your open borders buddies at the Wall St. Journal we are a country with an economy not just an economy.  There's costs and benefits to doing everything and you guys always understate the costs of unskilled illegals and overstate their benefits.

In short...fuck off.


Posted by: Drew at May 31, 2007 12:04 PM (gNyUT)

76

I really like Entropy's idea in the other thread - let's pick one guy who is a squish on amnesty (Lindsay Graham for instance) and get him defeated in the primary.  We'll give money to his opponent and beat the heck out of him until he goes away.


Call me a cynic, but I actually don't beleive that's possible. You can't defeat incumbants in primaries. That's just a pipe dream and a snipe hunt.


That's not to say I won't participate in it, and donate to it. I will. I'll fight the good futile fight.


But, in the interest of actually having any noticable effect on anything other then just reassuring our nitwits that they're untouchable, I'd suggest if the primary challenge fails, we pick that 1 senator, that 1 seat (just 1 seat, controlled loss, not nationwide) and tank his ass in the general, which is much more realistic, by voting and donating democrat in that 1 specific isolated race.


All the time explaining plainly and clearly that we're nuking this asshole for the sole purpose of making a point.


Posted by: Entropy at May 31, 2007 12:05 PM (m6c4H)

77 You fuckers don't even know what you're complaining about.

You just want to stomp some mexicans. Feels good, I guess.

We need workers to pay for retiring boomers. They may not pay enough taxes, but the companies they work for do (except the ones incorporated offshore, naturally). Illegals are the future. Always have been. Make them citizens, more revenue to pay for whitey's geriatric healthcare.





Posted by: milt friedman at May 31, 2007 12:05 PM (adocw)

78 "I don't understand why this is the issue to become completely unhinged over."

Because it's political suicide.  Every vote for amnesty is a vote for Obama -- and Pelosi, and Murtha.

Amnesty delenda est.

Posted by: someone at May 31, 2007 12:05 PM (TXnhk)

79

 I don't understand why this is the issue to become completely unhinged over.


 


Immigration reform ain't even my hobby horse, per se.  I think its an amalgamation of things.  The straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak.




Posted by: Fred at May 31, 2007 12:07 PM (ivbbD)

80

Bingo. I'm not coming to this from the same direction Maetenloch is, but whether you think Bush handled Afghanistan well and has been a complete disaster ever since, or you've been sincerely defending him up until now, I don't understand why this is the issue to become completely unhinged over.


Uh, sorry, but there ARE some "sine qua non" issues, and, along with the GWOT and Supreme Court nominees, this is one of them. We always knew Bush was a softie on immigration and suffered from the "winning through Hispandering" delusion (sorry, votes in every election since 2000 prove this a failure), but we at LEAST thought he would "do thy patient no harm" and not do something significantly worse. This bill IS significantly worse.


"No Child Left Behind" farce? Prescription drug entitlement boondoggle? Disappointing, but not deal breakers. This issue is.


 


 


Posted by: Nick Byram at May 31, 2007 12:07 PM (ujg0T)

81 You're a bunch of socialists, but you don't even know it.

A third party is needed for the base: National Socialists.

Posted by: milt friedman at May 31, 2007 12:08 PM (adocw)

82 Goodness.  Some of you guys make Acey sound like the soul of reason.  Bart?  A tip: it's easier to type with your eyes open (or with your eyes not streaming tears of rage from Bush's betrayal).  That way, you can subtract poor spelling from the semiliterate screeds that you spew here.  So...count to ten (if you can), and take another shot at it.

Posted by: Tom S at May 31, 2007 12:08 PM (1XFm4)

83 "Yeah, Slu, I'd love to think this is how it can work, but we both know
that prominent outliers like Tancredo aside, this sort of thing is a
general tide that'll fuck the party pretty indiscriminately in close
races."


Also, let's not forget:  a lot of the clowns involved in this -- Kyl for one! -- actually RAN on opposing amnesty.  (So did Webb, not that we expect anything but lies from a Dem.)  So *their* betrayal is likely to make conservative dropouts not trust even good candidates in the future.

Way to go, Jorge.

Amnesty delenda est.

Posted by: someone at May 31, 2007 12:10 PM (TXnhk)

84

milt


make them pay taxes. you mean like they are paying now? oh yeah, that's the answer. some real enforcement. riiiiiiiiiight. dumbass.


Posted by: mikeyslaw at May 31, 2007 12:11 PM (yrptY)

85 >>let's pick one guy who is a squish on amnesty (Lindsay Graham for instance) and get him defeated in the primary. We'll give money to his opponent and beat the heck out of him until he goes away.

Been done. Ned Lamont. Careful what you ask for.

I have to admit that I don't understand Bush on this one. Why he thinks we can bring democracy and secure borders to Iraq while abandoning the concept here is a mystery. Whoever said it up above, I wish he had done nothing on this issue rather than come out with a shit samich and tell us it tastes good.

I could give a crap if erg calls me a bigot. It pisses me off when someone I have taken hits for does it.

Posted by: JackStraw at May 31, 2007 12:11 PM (t+mja)

86

Erg,


Since you don't work, are your hands just as soft and silky as buttered marshmallows? 


Posted by: Warden at May 31, 2007 12:11 PM (Mo8Oa)

87

We need workers to pay for retiring boomers. They may not pay enough taxes, but the companies they work for do (except the ones incorporated offshore, naturally). Illegals are the future. Always have been. Make them citizens, more revenue to pay for whitey's geriatric healthcare.


I never thought Uncle Milty's ghost would be such a dupe. They are net takers of social services, and will cost us far more they they will ever bring in. More corporate profits? Not when they turn around and vote in business bashers. Perhaps Milty's ghost should talk to Lenin's ghost: "When the time comes to hang the capitalists, they will import the underclass with which to do it..."


Then again, the race baiting post implies a Demunist troll, I know....


Posted by: Nick Byram at May 31, 2007 12:11 PM (ujg0T)

88

eggmcmuffin is having a circuitboard meltdown over this paradox. He's confused that we capitalists pigs don't want this cheap labor to wash our cars and their hard-earned tax dollars to fund our retirements.


Does not compute.


Does not compute.


Does not compute.


Posted by: Bart at May 31, 2007 12:12 PM (8nx0b)

89 <i>It doesn't have to be one or the other, and too many people don't seem
to understand that or are willfully dishonest about it!  Is it really
out of line to suggest that border enforcement should be step one,
unencumbered by anything else?  Can't we just focus on that for a year
or three (or however long it takes) and then spend some time
figuring out the best way to deal with the ones still among us?  Build
the fence now and then talk about what to do next?  Why does everything
have to be shoved through now, especially when there are so many
loopholes that will allow the border security to be ignored?</i>

So close the loopholes!!!  Intstead what has happened is weeks of hysterics that truth be told are probably far off the mark.  How many people here have actually read the bill?  I admit I haven't.  I have it downloaded and have started it but at 400 pages it is going to take a while.

Personally I agree with the broadstrokes of the plan although I will admit that some of the deatils are not as fleshed out as I would like but hopefully that will get resolved in conference.  If not I wouldn't support that specific bill.

BTW the deport 12,000,000 is not a straw man argument.  Michelle Malkin among others has called for blanket deportation in the past.  So have John and Ken of KFI (During their political human sacrifice campaign) as have Kirby Wilbur (KVI)and John Carlson (former candidate for Governor of Washington and KVI host) and Tom Tancredo.

Posted by: chad at May 31, 2007 12:13 PM (lNQg8)

90 "So close the loopholes!!!"

Are you high?  They couldn't even pass Coleman's amendment to stop the "sanctuary city" craziness.

This political clusterfuck has only one good ending:

Amnesty delenda est.

Posted by: someone at May 31, 2007 12:21 PM (TXnhk)

91 <i>They are net takers of social services, and will cost us far more they they will ever bring in.</i>

This is why you make them citizens so they pay taxes. Moreover, when citizens, they are more likely to unionize and press for better benefits.

Also, the only reason ss is endangered is due to lack of revenues paid by corporate employers. There's no necessary connection between a broken ss and immigration.

Basically, you don't know what you're talking about.

Posted by: milt friedman at May 31, 2007 12:21 PM (adocw)

92

Damn, I thought if a civil war broke out , It would be easy because the other side had no guns and I had a lot.  Now you guys are the other side so its not going to be easy at all.  Oh well.  


Posted by: polynikes at May 31, 2007 12:25 PM (m2CN7)

93 Slublog:
This is not criticism of Paul, but I don't think it would mean that much these days unless he came in at that position in a couple of states.

It wouldn't help Paul, no, but it might push the Party talking points in a particular direction. I have no illusion that Paul is going to be President. Americans will not have a President that talks in such a direct way. Not yet, anyway.

The last great conservative success was 1994. As I recall, there wasn't a huge push from the Party itself. It was a lot of fresh-faces in an ad-hoc coalition. So something can be done. But not in the current environment.

Posted by: rho at May 31, 2007 12:27 PM (8eBMH)

94 Welcome aboard the go away/f*** off train. Seats are filling up fast, even faster than last year.

Posted by: Francase at May 31, 2007 12:30 PM (slf9T)

95 I am pleased to see so many fellow conservatives are now catching Bush Derangement Syndrome.  I've had it ever since he signed that first muli-trillion dollar budget full of pork.

Posted by: John Galt at May 31, 2007 12:35 PM (A5mvC)

96 Basically, you don't know what you're talking about.

Heh, why do the skels always pick my beat?

Posted by: Officer Paddy O'Irony at May 31, 2007 12:36 PM (ATbKm)

97 Chad,
I wanted to apologize for being an asshole to you the other day. While I disagree with your opinion I was wrong to unload on you the way I did.


Posted by: Uniball at May 31, 2007 12:38 PM (27iEn)

98 @uniball

No problem, it happens I didn't respond in an exemplary manner either.  Sometimes my temper just gets the best of me and I can't shut up.

Posted by: chad at May 31, 2007 12:40 PM (lNQg8)

99 I like "Lindsey Graham" in the primary sites idea...

count me in (how about him and the other gang of 14 sell outs)??

Posted by: Renee at May 31, 2007 12:42 PM (Gy/m4)

100 @uniball again which was a longwinded way of saying sorry for the way i responded.

Posted by: chad at May 31, 2007 12:42 PM (lNQg8)

101
Frank J's IMMIGRATION BILL FAQ

I'm choking with laughter...and tears.  Its funny 'cause its true.

Posted by: can't help crossposting at May 31, 2007 12:43 PM (ATbKm)

102

I want to be mad along with everyone else, but I have a serious question first.


Europe and Japan are dying, and our birthrate is barely replacement level, mostly because of immigrant births. I read somewhere that half the babies born in California are Mexican. Over the last twenty years, we've aborted maybe 20 million babies, now we have 20 million illegals here filling their jobs. Meanwhile, Muslim countries are going to grow by 40% in the next few decades.


I don't see much chance that prosperous Americans are going to start having the babies that others are willing to have. It seems our only choice is between South American immigration, or Muslim immigration. Before I get mad at this immigration bill, I want to know: is there any other choice?


Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at May 31, 2007 12:43 PM (nHcAJ)

103

When you lecture on anything other than  porn I find you tedious.


Good. I was shooting for antagonistic and surly, but tedious will do.


 



 


Posted by: Bart at May 31, 2007 12:43 PM (8nx0b)

104 Chad,

I am one of those people who can be an absolute asshole at times but I try to control it. We would probably enjoy a drink together.

Then we could beat the shit out of a hobo.


Posted by: Uniball at May 31, 2007 12:44 PM (27iEn)

105 adolfo:

I believe white native US fertility is 2.0.  Pretty good.

But you're forgetting (non-Muslim) Asian and African immigration.  Who'd complain if we had more Vietnamese, Indian, etc. immigrants?  What about Chinese folks who want to have more than one baby?  Etc.

I don't at all understand the notion that Mexicans should get first -- and by a huge chunk, the biggest -- crack at coming here just because they're in a crappy state next to us.

Posted by: someone at May 31, 2007 12:48 PM (TXnhk)

106 @90

I didn't say it would be easy but i think it would be a whole lot better to target specifics than just blindly railing.  I admit I was pretty disgusted with the failure to pass Coleman's amendment however that isn't a reason to stop trying.

If we picked the one largest issue (I would suggest no Z visas or provisional visas could be issued until the fence authorized last year is built)  and pound on it until it makes it into the bill, then move on to the next most eggregious item (for me it is the need for more workplace enforcement)  I think we have a better chance.  That allows people who are vested in this bill to save a little face.

I also real think we need to make English the official language and repeal motor voter but those can come later.  As I said before if we make the cost of hiring an illegal so high that employers stop hiring them the problem self corrects.  Legalizing those who are productive and assimilating is not that big a deal to me

That's just my opinion. 

Posted by: chad at May 31, 2007 12:50 PM (lNQg8)

107 I think, incidentally, that what you're missing is that our birthrate is naturally higher than our prosperity would suggest because of the other variable in that equation:  religiousness.  Actually, maybe I already argued with you about that in another thread.

Posted by: someone at May 31, 2007 12:51 PM (TXnhk)

108 I don't understand why Europe doesn't import Latin Americans to fill the Jobs Euros won't do™.  I'd rather have a lot of Christian poor workers steeped in western culture than a lot of north african and middle eastern poor workers with an entirely alien culture.

Posted by: Toby928 at May 31, 2007 12:51 PM (ATbKm)

109 Ace, dude, gotta agree with the comments, but take a breath here.  Your second paragraph (starting with "What President* Bush...")  isn't even a complete sentence.  I know and  accept your  stance regarding typos, but atrocious grammar errors is truly beyond the pale.

But dimwitted?  Perhaps if I were European I would agree.  "Misguided," perhaps, but his actions (or lack thereof) are more accurately described as "nonfeasance," IMHO.

<a href="http://dict.die.net/nonfeasance/">nonfeasance</a>

Still, love ya!  Mean it!

-Brennan

Posted by: Brennan at May 31, 2007 12:53 PM (MzlVy)

110 chad:  It's just the way Congress works.  It's a lot easier to kill something than to make something happen, even an amendment.  So if you want something good, you have to make the guys who want something bad only get what they want when they give you what you want.  If you need to get 20 good things (the amendments) because you're starting from a Kennedy-authored POS...  Hah.

And no, things can't come later.  We'll *never* get official English or a fence or any of that if amnesty passes now without them attached.  First because the Dems will already have gotten the thing want in immigration "reform" (amnesty), and second because the Republican delegation will crater in the next election.

Amnesty delenda est.

Posted by: someone at May 31, 2007 12:55 PM (TXnhk)

111 I couldnt find fertility rates by race for the US but here they are by state.  Interestingly blue states tend to be lower than red states.  maybe we will win by attrition eventually.

Posted by: chad at May 31, 2007 12:57 PM (lNQg8)

112 I believe Spain has a policy of importing Latin Americans. I don't know how many per year or what it takes to qualify.

I could be wrong though.

Posted by: Uniball at May 31, 2007 12:57 PM (27iEn)

113 Immigration reform ain't even my hobby horse, per se.  I think its an
amalgamation of things.  The straw that broke the camel's back, so to
speak.


Uh, sorry, but there ARE some "sine qua non" issues, and, along with the GWOT and Supreme Court nominees, this is one of them.

That's my point -- there are two completely contradictory points being made here and neither of them makes any sense to me. Whether it's "Bush is a complete idiot" or it's "Some Iraqi guy may have met with some al-Qaeda guy in Prague so America's future depended on invading Iraq" I don't understand why this is the point to stop cheerleading.

Posted by: JSinger at May 31, 2007 12:57 PM (EqFh0)

114 "...are beyond the pale."  I'm so embarrassed!

(Alternately, and what my brain was composing, was "...committing atrocious grammar errors is beyond the pale."  Ain't English grand?)

(Re: definition: keep forgetting embedded HTML doesn't work.)

-Brennan

Posted by: Brennan at May 31, 2007 12:59 PM (MzlVy)

115

What the hell is with all the people saying, "I can't believe this is the issue that set you guys off!!" or "But Bush did such and such, how dare you turn on him for this!!"


Think about that. How far up your ass does Bush have to shove his fist before you say, "no thank you?" This may be one issue, but it is one issue at the end of a very long, very expensive, very damaging list of unforced errors. Every few months Bush jams his hand up your ass just 1 more inch, and eventually you have to stop saying, "But it's just 1 inch. That's not so bad. His other fist did pretty good in Afghanistan, after all!"


Posted by: DoDoGuRu at May 31, 2007 01:00 PM (zZy28)

116 I disagree, politicians want to be able to show a success to voters back home.  If you allow them to save face and pass a bill that has most of what you want you are much more likely to succeed.  Especially now when your philosophical opponent is in charge.  If you divorce from the process or are viewed as an obstructionist your voice is much easier to ignore.

I talked to someone about this one time (communications director for a national politician) and she said that if she gets an e-mail that strikes her as exceptionally angry it just hits the recycle bin.  I assume the same is true with letters and phonecalls.

Posted by: chad at May 31, 2007 01:02 PM (lNQg8)

117

If you allow them to save face and pass a bill that has most of what you want you are much more likely to succeed


Pray tell, exactly which parts of this bill have "most of what [conservatives] want?"


Posted by: DoDoGuRu at May 31, 2007 01:03 PM (zZy28)

118

But you're forgetting (non-Muslim) Asian and African immigration.  Who'd complain if we had more Vietnamese, Indian, etc. immigrants?  What about Chinese folks who want to have more than one baby? 


Those areas worry me more than Latin America. Africa could likely be majority Muslim in fifty years (thanks to Arabic colonialism), India has a huge percentage of Muslims, and China is aborting more babies than we are. South America seems like the largest source of non-Muslim immigration, therefore the best candidate. Of course, I'm not arguing that mass illegal immigration is a good thing, I'm just feeling squeezed between a rock (Mexico) and a hard place (Jihad).


If current Americans increase their birthrate, or Islam decreases theirs, the whole picture will change.


Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at May 31, 2007 01:06 PM (nHcAJ)

119

I don't see much chance that prosperous Americans are going to start having the babies that others are willing to have


Looks like we're gonna need to fuck our way to victory.  I'm game.  Do trannies count?


Posted by: Warden at May 31, 2007 01:14 PM (cxMJt)

120

This is why you make them citizens so they pay taxes.


Yeah right. Then they sign up for a host of new programs without fear.


Moreover, when citizens, they are more likely to unionize and press for better benefits.


When they were brought in to bust the union? Time was when the United Farm Workers were the staunchest opponents of illegals. Then someone decided importing a larger "La Raza" mob was more important than "La Causa" of decent wages...



Also, the only reason ss is endangered is due to lack of revenues paid by corporate employers. There's no necessary connection between a broken ss and immigration.

Basically, you don't know what you're talking about.


Anyone who believes in the fraud of "corporations paying taxes" (without passing the costs on or worse, relocating offshore where they don't pay them) doesn't know what he's talking about. If Uncle Miltie were alive, he'd slap you silly. Be gone, troll.


Posted by: Nick Byram at May 31, 2007 01:14 PM (ujg0T)

121

prominent outliers like Tancredo


Quick quick quick! Name people associated with the new amnesty bill. FAST. FASTER.


Stop.


Who'd you get?


Kennedy, Kyle, McCain, Bush? Those are the names on the letterhead.


1 democrat.


3 republicans.


It is the GOP that gets boned on this. People who only pay passing attention to politics (which is most people) blaim this on the GOP and it costs us in elections.


It doesn't matter that it was GOP house reps that killed it last time, and it won't matter if it's GOP house reps that kill it this time. Because of the leadership's visible charge on this issue, we're seen as pro-immigration and that played a part in getting anti-immigration (supposedly) democrats elected in '06.


People like Dianne Feinstein can mutter passive non-support for the bill while not really opposing or pushing it. Where is Harry Reid on TV? Where is Nancy Pelosi on TV? Nancy Pelosi has so far not helped this bill at all and threatened to kill it!


But you turn on the TV and there's Lindsay Graham (R), Saxby Chambliss (R), John Kyl (R), George Bush (R), Michael Chertoff (R), John McCain (R).......


So yes, this will KILL us in any election. We'll lose everyones votes.


Economically speaking, I'm so far to the right I'm out there with Ayn Rand. I read Adam Smith and Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek for recreational purposes. But (though you'd never know it from the WSJ crowd) as was said above we are a country, a culture, a civilization with an economy. Not just an economy. And people - including immigrants - are not goods and services!!! You can't expect people to behave like goods and services and if plan on them doing so, it won't work. There is more to life then just economics - you have to consider the sociological, the political, the criminological, the psychological.


Posted by: Entropy at May 31, 2007 01:14 PM (HgAV0)

122 yeah, immigration was tertiary to judges and GWOT.  Until Bush decided to use immigration to destroy the country.  Until that time, most of us were looking for tougher enforcement, fences, etc.

Its like, how would you say, if W decided to nominate Paul Krugman to the Supreme Court, that would get our attention fast.  If Bush offered complete surrender to AQ and promised to pledge his allegiance to the local Iman, yeah, that would get our attention. 

Heck, monetary policy and taxes are important too. If Bush offered to create an inflationary money printing program or to tax everyone at 90%, that would suddenly jump to the top of our list.

This is about the worst possible direction the immigration debate can take.  Global legal immigration status and amnesty.  Plus, wink wink, nudge nudge, no enforcement is likely.  So everyone jump on in.

We care about immigration, but up until May 2007, we never thought that any politician would go out and deliver such a fucking abdication of our culture, borders, security, and common sense in an affront to our well-known desire to have stronger enforcement and deportation. 

That is why we are going bat shit.

Posted by: joeindc44 at May 31, 2007 01:16 PM (za2Xz)

123 Posted by: JSinger at May 31, 2007 05:57 PM (EqFh0)

Here's the reason, IMHO. Conservatives believe in America. What we're conservative about is the Constitution, etc- in other words we believe, truly believe, in the Rule of Law.

This bill is all about rewarding those who break the law.

Not only that but our President, our Congress, etc are treating the enforcement of current immigration as a total joke. The law regarding building a fence at the border passed- and then, nothing. No enforcement, no fence. Why should this be any different?

Secondly, post-911, we need secure borders. We absolutely have to know who's coming in. The Federal government is failing at a fundamental level if it can't even get this part right.

This bill is profoundly un-American in the deepest sense.

This isn't about race.

Legal immigrants. Non-hostile immigrants. Great. Jump in the water's fine.

Posted by: rinseandspit at May 31, 2007 01:18 PM (q9jq7)

124 I don't even understand how legalized illegal workers will hold down costs for business and consumers.  Once they are lawful, forced to pay taxes on their income, and free of the fear of deportation, why should they continue to work at sub-minimum wages?  Won't the capitalists just have to import a whole new crop of captive workers to keep the payrolls down?

Posted by: Toby928 at May 31, 2007 01:22 PM (ATbKm)

125 The important thing is Bush promised to be a uniter not a divider and I think he has succeeded once again. They way uniball and chad are swapping spit, it brings a tear to my eye. Lions/lambs. we all hate this shit.

Posted by: JackStraw at May 31, 2007 01:23 PM (t+mja)

126 jsinger, I'll explain it.

Even if one believes in running an aggressive capital system, there is only one way to keep it from running away and becoming fascist: The capital must be responsive to the will of the people through the State.

What is happening is that OUR Corporate and Foreign welfare systems have gone to the weaker State apparatus (Mexico), and colluded with Corporate and bureaucratic structures there. The Corporations then use the apparatus of the weaker state to undermine the US, the Representative Republic which keeps them in control.

If they undermine the US, we will have a world war.

Illegal aliens are one way they undermine us. It directly short circuits the democratic oversight over the bureaucratic and corporate structures.

It's EXTRAORDINARILY DANGEROUS.

Get it?

Posted by: LiveFreeOrDie at May 31, 2007 01:24 PM (zxscs)

127 How far up your ass does Bush have to shove his fist before you say,
"no thank you?" This may be one issue, but it is one issue at the end
of a very long, very expensive, very damaging list of unforced errors.

In my case, it was when New Orleans was under water and it turned out that FEMA was being run by somebody's idiot golf buddy. What I just don't understand is why the people who back then just kept giggling about Sean Penn and his plastic cup have decided that illegal immigrants are a fist that's just too darn far up their asses.



Posted by: JSinger at May 31, 2007 01:26 PM (EqFh0)

128

Here's a question:  If the illegal immigrants are just here for work AND they are currenlty able to avoid deportation, what is the incentive to suddenly jump on the path to citizenship by paying a $5,000 fine?  Seems like they would just forego the fine and keep doing what they are doing.  Of course, either way the fine is a moot point once they have an anchor baby (in an American hospital on my dime).


But what the fuck do I know, I'm just a bigot according to the President.


Posted by: OU_Gryphon at May 31, 2007 01:28 PM (HPU22)

129

Won't the capitalists just have to import a whole new crop of captive workers to keep the payrolls down?


Didn't you get the memo?  They're finally going to start enforcing the borders.  This time.  Honest.


Posted by: OU_Gryphon at May 31, 2007 01:30 PM (HPU22)

130

In my case, it was when New Orleans was under water and it turned out that FEMA was being run by somebody's idiot golf buddy. What I just don't understand is why the people who back then just kept giggling about Sean Penn and his plastic cup have decided that illegal immigrants are a fist that's just too darn far up their asses.


Why you give that city's mayor and that state's governor (who SHOULD be ahead of the feds) a pass on this implies you are trolling. But hey, we all have our breakpoints, maybe yours is a lot lower than mine. Whatever. The point is, the breakpoint has been reached, or breached.



 


Posted by: Nick Byram at May 31, 2007 01:34 PM (ujg0T)

131 yeah, Jsinger, because the mayor of new orleans and governor of Lousiana were so much better.  Its amazing how a local issue became ALL BUSH'S FAULT.  Like, shouldn't we give him credit how well florida, mississippi, and Alabama survived Katrina?

Oh yeah, 50 years of army corps of engineer's mistakes became ABF too. 

Right, also ABF is if only FEMA had a new boss, millions of federal magicians would have magically transported themselves across hundreds of miles of downed bridges and flooded roads within hours to use a big straw to suck the French quarter out from under 20 feet of water. 

And I think Al Gore mentioned something in 2000 how he would select a race of dwarves to run FEMA so that they could erect a new levee in New Orleans overnight.  Again, ABF.

Posted by: joeindc44 at May 31, 2007 01:34 PM (za2Xz)

132

In my case, it was when New Orleans was under water and it turned out that FEMA was being run by somebody's idiot golf buddy.


Being from a state with frequent natural disasters, I'm so tired of hearing this. FEMA goes in six months after a disaster and writes checks. That's about it.


New Orleans was under water for one reason: because local Democrats were corrupt and retarded.


Are we also going to have to argue Iraq on this immigration thread?


Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at May 31, 2007 01:35 PM (nHcAJ)

133 LiveFreeOrDie, well said. To paraphrase someone else, FREE MARKETS ARE NOT A SUICIDE PACT. Okay?

Posted by: Nick Byram at May 31, 2007 01:35 PM (ujg0T)

134

In my case, it was when New Orleans was under water and it turned out that FEMA was being run by somebody's idiot golf buddy. What I just don't understand is why the people who back then just kept giggling about Sean Penn and his plastic cup have decided that illegal immigrants are a fist that's just too darn far up their asses.


Mainly because Katrina was a 90% local/state fuck-up but was being spun as 100% Bush's fault.  Katrina isn't even in my top ten things I hate about Bush.  Being sold out over immigration AND being told I'm a bigot for not liking it - that's pretty high up on the list.


Posted by: OU_Gryphon at May 31, 2007 01:36 PM (HPU22)

135

If the illegal immigrants are just here for work AND they are currenlty able to avoid deportation, what is the incentive to suddenly jump on the path to citizenship by paying a $5,000 fine?  Seems like they would just forego the fine and keep doing what they are doing.


That's true. Even better for them, they'll have papers now so no one can call them illegal. Once they are here legally, they'll be able to campaign openly for voting rights, welfare, and driver's licenses without fear of deportation.


Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at May 31, 2007 01:38 PM (nHcAJ)

136


I don't see much chance that prosperous Americans are going to start having the babies that others are willing to have. It seems our only choice is between South American immigration, or Muslim immigration. Before I get mad at this immigration bill, I want to know: is there any other choice?


Fuck yes there's another choice.


We don't NEED to increase our population. We've never, in all our history, had more people in this country then we do now and it was never a problem before, but suddenly it is now?


Oh, because other people are breeding like rabbits. Look - that happens. We've had baby booms and baby busts. It's not a cause for panic. As Tsun Tzu would tell you, in war numbers alone confer no advantage. The tiny British Empire conquered half the world and occupied large swaths of this same middle east. China is often feared for all it's people - but now it's in decline. A decline it has been seeking for years no less because frankly, it had too many damn people.


This idea that we need, what, what do you think we need? 500 million people by 2050 in order to keep up with the muslim world? It's nonsense.


Abortion has not significantly decreased our birth rate - it has not. It has increased our conception rate. Because people can have abortions, they are getting pregnant more because they know they can terminate.


When they could not terminate so easily, they were more careful about getting pregnant.


Europe's population decline is only a threat BEAUSE of muslim immigration.


Posted by: Entropy at May 31, 2007 01:42 PM (HgAV0)

137 in my case its when he refused to sign Kyoto in 1998.  Or when he refused to intervene in Rwanda. 

speaking of which, do you think the libs were this batshit angry when clin-ton signed welfare reform?

Posted by: joeindc44 at May 31, 2007 01:47 PM (za2Xz)

138 We have the weapons - military and political - to overcome numerical inferiority.  All we lack is the will to use them.

Posted by: OU_Gryphon at May 31, 2007 01:48 PM (HPU22)

139

The tiny British Empire conquered half the world and occupied large swaths of this same middle east.


That's a great point Entropy. You may have even won me over with that fact.


All these hours of debate on blogs are not useless after all.


Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at May 31, 2007 01:51 PM (nHcAJ)

140

  Won't the capitalists just have to import a whole new crop of captive workers to keep the payrolls down?


Yes!


Posted by: Entropy at May 31, 2007 01:52 PM (HgAV0)

141 "maybe we will win by attrition eventually."

Exactly why Teddy keeps importing a new electorate every generation.  1965, 1986, now 2007.  And our party still fucking helps him!

"I talked to someone about this one time (communications director for a
national politician) and she said that if she gets an e-mail that
strikes her as exceptionally angry it just hits the recycle bin.  I
assume the same is true with letters and phonecalls."


One angry letter is a blip.  Fifty thousand, that's something.  That's fear in the cowardly politician's heart.

You see anyone re-introducing Hillarycare?

"Africa could likely be majority Muslim in fifty years"

Evangelical Christianity is growing faster than Islam, particularly in Africa.

As for China -- abortion is *government policy*, not individual preference.

"Won't the capitalists just have to import a whole new crop of captive workers to keep the payrolls down?"

Yup.

Amnesty delenda est.

Posted by: someone at May 31, 2007 01:53 PM (TXnhk)

142 OK, one last try before I call it a night.

1) re Katrina: Yes, obviously city and state officials there are utterly incompetent and corrupt and were the main reason so many people were stranded in New Orleans. But I don't vote for them; I did vote for Bush. And my reward for it was finding that four years after 9/11, FEMA had barely thought about how to deal with emergencies. (I had to take the ICS certifications through 400, and, no, FEMA is supposed to do a hell of a lot more than hand out checks.)

2) Back to the point....

What is happening is that OUR Corporate and Foreign welfare systems
have gone to the weaker State apparatus (Mexico), and colluded with
Corporate and bureaucratic structures there. The Corporations then use
the apparatus of the weaker state to undermine the US, the
Representative Republic which keeps them in control.


Isn't there some point where you say "Gee, I'm starting to sound a little too much like Chomsky?"

Posted by: JSinger at May 31, 2007 01:57 PM (EqFh0)

143 China is headed for a serious problem by 2015.  At the rate they are aborting females, they will begin to decline rapidly as a functioning society.

Posted by: mastour at May 31, 2007 02:03 PM (Btieu)

144

BDS is more infectious than TB, evidently.


Posted by: Max Power at May 31, 2007 02:05 PM (q177U)

145 BDS is more infectious than TB, evidently.

Apparently you catch it when he fucks you in the ass.


Posted by: Drew at May 31, 2007 02:11 PM (gNyUT)

146 This is sad.

Posted by: Stankleberry at May 31, 2007 02:14 PM (5x5Ao)

147

Evangelical Christianity is growing faster than Islam, particularly in Africa.


But, I doubt it's growing faster in North and Central Africa where Muslims are raping and killing those who won't convert away from Christianity. Will Christianity still be growing in Africa when the Muslims reach the south?


Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at May 31, 2007 02:16 PM (nHcAJ)

148

OK, one last try before I call it a night.


JSinger, I gave up on Bush around the time he nominated Miers, so I've been on this bus a good long while.


There's been a steady stream of converts ever since, which each new slap in the face bringing a few more over to my side.


Usually not all at once - One day it'll be too much and they'll claim they're fed up with the GOP and Bush, but then they calm down again and go back. Until it happens 2 or 3 times, and then they're usually stay.


Our politicians are giving us slight after slight after slight, and eventually people have too goddamn much. Eventually people realize the "Anybody but the godawful scary dems!" isn't good enough, and will end up just getting us the dems anyway. The only difference between one person and another is what issues push their buttons the most, and how high a tolerance for abuse they have.


What the hell do you want? You don't like anyone's answers...What are you looking for?


OK JSinger, the truth is everyone is willing to abandon Bush now, but not before, is because Bush is beaner-lover and we're all racist xenophobes. We were OK with him when he was drowning the brown people, but now he wants to show leniency on them and that terrifies us.


That make you happy?


Posted by: Entropy at May 31, 2007 02:17 PM (HgAV0)

149

As long as Bush is being hated by people who TRULY blame him for the New Orleans destruction, I can't even superficially be on their side.


Posted by: Mike at May 31, 2007 02:19 PM (NnpEK)

150

As long as Bush is being hated by people who TRULY blame him for the New Orleans destruction, I can't even superficially be on their side.


I'm not on their side.


We have a 2 party system, not a 2 opinion system.


Posted by: Entropy at May 31, 2007 02:21 PM (HgAV0)

151

We have a 2 party system, not a 2 opinion system.


Entropy, you're really good at the whole debating thing.


Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at May 31, 2007 02:27 PM (nHcAJ)

152 According to approval rating polls, we actually do live in a two opinion system. Why else would MSM act like this country is overwhelmingly liberal Democrat just because Bush has a 30% rating?

Posted by: Mike at May 31, 2007 02:38 PM (NnpEK)

153 Not just an economy. And people - including immigrants - are not goods and services!!!

entropy

You don't know what you think you know.

It's delightful to see you tear apart your own brain over immigration.

And, here I thought capitalism was, like, the greatest fucking show on earth.

Better reread your rand. Don't be a loser, virtue is selfishness. Are you gonna be a capitalist, or are you gonna be a worker? You decide. Free to choose, beeotch.

Buck up, lil dude.



Posted by: milt friedman at May 31, 2007 02:44 PM (adocw)

154

According to approval rating polls, we actually do live in a two opinion system. Why else would MSM act like this country is overwhelmingly liberal Democrat just because Bush has a 30% rating?


Mandate, and not the kind that Ace goes on on Friday nights.


Posted by: OU_Gryphon at May 31, 2007 02:44 PM (HPU22)

155 You don't know what you think you know.

Dammit, I thought I told you to move along skel.

Posted by: Officer Paddy O'Irony at May 31, 2007 02:45 PM (ATbKm)

156

I find it remarkable that leftist douchebags consider these matters endorsement of their views.


 


Did I say remarkable?  I meant retarded.


Posted by: Dave in Texas at May 31, 2007 02:48 PM (FXakj)

157 And, here I thought capitalism was, like, the greatest fucking show on earth.

And if Mexico practiced it we wouldn't have to deal with this shit.



Posted by: Drew at May 31, 2007 02:49 PM (gNyUT)

158 JSinger, Chompsky is a commie. He thinks you solve the problem - WHICH IS REAL - by running a larger bureaucracy.

No, you solve it by running a smaller bureaucracy, and trying to limit corporate size, so the market stays fluid. A bigger bureaucracy just gives the machine more to work with.

Actually, the only way to solve the problem is with federalism - ie enumerated powers. That makes the whole structure form a ring, where the snake bites his own tail.

But thats for another time.

Posted by: LiveFreeOrDie at May 31, 2007 02:50 PM (zxscs)

159 Exactly, Drew.

Then the two structures would push against each other and be stable, instead of a dependent relationship.

Posted by: LiveFreeOrDie at May 31, 2007 02:52 PM (zxscs)

160 And now private equity firms, growing to more than $300b in assets this past year alone, can do what they want without any accountability whatsoever. 30% of British drones work for PEFs.

But, you blame the workers.

Are you gonna be an owner of equity, or are you just gonna complain?

Global capitalism is great.

Are you republicans? What, then?

Posted by: milt friedman at May 31, 2007 02:53 PM (adocw)

161 Screw it Dave in Texas. Right now they should be allies in this battle.

Big transnationals importing slave labor while repressing those abroad. WE NEED THEM ON THIS. Besides which, it looks like they may have a point.

Posted by: LiveFreeOrDie at May 31, 2007 02:54 PM (zxscs)

162 dave

You know pantera, and the dickwidth of the members of hell yeah, but you definitely don't know what your "views" are.

Posted by: milt friedman at May 31, 2007 02:55 PM (adocw)

163 Believe it, the democrats have no answers at all, either.

Why do you people believe the republican and democratic parties are different? They're not. They both defend the interets of global capitalists. All politicians are bought and paid for.

Posted by: milt friedman at May 31, 2007 02:59 PM (adocw)

164
Posted by:
rho at May 31, 2007 05:27 PM (8eBMH)

True, but at this point I'm not convinced that anything other than holding back donations will send a message to these guys. They are simply not listening to us.

Posted by: Slublog at May 31, 2007 03:01 PM (cH3iB)

165

Milt,


Stop addressing my points with talking points.


It makes me want to jack off on the cat.


 


 


Again.


Posted by: Dave in Texas at May 31, 2007 03:04 PM (FXakj)

166 slu

You don't know what you want.

Are you gonna own, or be owned?

Free to choose, slu.

Posted by: milt friedman at May 31, 2007 03:04 PM (adocw)

167

Erg,


Where's all that money you inherited invested?


Posted by: Warden at May 31, 2007 03:05 PM (cxMJt)

168 Where's all that money you inherited invested?

...plastics...

Posted by: Toby928 at May 31, 2007 03:07 PM (ATbKm)

169 milt,

Listen, you blithering idiot, not all Conservatives (say it with me know, cuz it doesn't sound much like Libertarian) are pure "free market. 

And even your putative hero said "we can't have unlimited immigration in the WELFARE STATE"

Versteh?

But the thing that's MOST galling, and what should have you and your libertarian buddies in arms is that the political elite in this country---a republic---are wholly ignoring the will of a VAST majority of voters. 

I don't understand why this is the issue to become completely unhinged over

Just wait till it's guns, or pron, or nasty thoughts about Christianity.  Once the elites facially ignore the will of the people once, the concept of a republic DIES.

Stupid git.

I'm conservative (hard core) but not a "free marketeer."  Get used to it.

Americans come first, and our "businesses" can suck eggs if they want to destroy national sovereignty to "compete" in the "global marketplace" of mowing my fucking lawn.



Posted by: malphonse at May 31, 2007 03:08 PM (p1s9n)

170 Sounds to me like we got a bunch of wanna be capitalists who see the dream slipping from sight.

bummer.

Maybe you don't work hard enough. Maybe you don't take enough risks.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Posted by: milt friedman at May 31, 2007 03:09 PM (adocw)

171

You know, erg, all the money that allows you to avoid work in order to attend to a more constructive activity like sitting around all day championing the cause of workers in the comment section of a blog.


Also, another question.  Since you don't work and obviously aren't responsible for taking care of a family, from where do you draw your sense of self worth?


Ok, nevermind on the 2nd one.  I just typed it for a laugh.


Posted by: Warden at May 31, 2007 03:09 PM (cxMJt)

172 Milt you got it goin on.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at May 31, 2007 03:10 PM (FXakj)

173 My fortune?

Made selling cats to Dave.

Posted by: milt friedman at May 31, 2007 03:11 PM (adocw)

174 So where do you invest the money you inherited from daddy, erg?

Posted by: Warden at May 31, 2007 03:11 PM (cxMJt)

175 and to think I used to be a libertarian.

What a bunch of vapid digoneses.  Complete with the shitting of themselves.

World citizen, my ass.  YOu fucking tool.

"are you going to own capital"

What fucking garbage.  Like if we open the border we'll each have our own little mexican that we can trade like pokemon and get rich off of. 

What a douche

Posted by: malphonse at May 31, 2007 03:12 PM (p1s9n)

176

I wouldn't argue against the free market with Milt. I thinking he's a green commie moby, myself.


But he's so damn incoherant, it's hard to tell what flavor of whacko he is.


Posted by: Entropy at May 31, 2007 03:12 PM (HgAV0)

177 President Bush isn't entirely worthless and he's the President so he has my support and respect (at least for the office) for the most part still. This is an annoying area with this president, but it's not new; he's always been like this, has always held these positions, and has always been for open borders. He made no secret of it in the past.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at May 31, 2007 03:12 PM (wmgz8)

178

Na, Entropy, it's ergie - the poor little rich boy who still can't find happiness amongst all his inherited privilege.


Witness what happens when you raise soft children.  And substitute money for love.


Posted by: Warden at May 31, 2007 03:15 PM (cxMJt)

179 warden

Your biography of me is interesting. Keep trying.

Follow, or lead? Are you gonna be rich, or just a sucka.

Anybody can be rich. That's the republican bedtime story.

You mean, it's not true?

Posted by: milt friedman at May 31, 2007 03:15 PM (adocw)

180 "Capitalists" like you erg are literally driving me into black bloc territory. 

If that's what capitalism means---transnational slave drivers who piss on the national sovereignty of AMERICA to eke out an extra 34 cents---then no, I'm not a capitalist.

And I'll have to start using targets that look more like "capitalists" at the range, then, too.

Posted by: malphonse at May 31, 2007 03:15 PM (p1s9n)

181 Free to choose, slu.

I am?  Wow.

I choose to call you a retarded douchenozzle.

Posted by: Slublog at May 31, 2007 03:15 PM (cH3iB)

182

Apparently you catch it when he fucks you in the ass.


Touche! That was a good one, I'll admit.


Posted by: Max Power at May 31, 2007 03:15 PM (q177U)

183 and Ent,

even if he's a moby, Larry Kudlow and his WSJ buddies think the exact same thing.

Posted by: malphonse at May 31, 2007 03:16 PM (p1s9n)

184


Anybody can be rich. That's the republican bedtime story.


It's gonna be true for me, pal.  It'll just take awhile.


And you?  I got you pegged, boy.  You never worked for shit.  You're a soft, angry little pussy.  You make me laugh, though, so I guess there's some use for you.


Posted by: Warden at May 31, 2007 03:17 PM (cxMJt)

185

Erg,


Where's all that money you inherited invested?


With Al Gore's Generation Investment Management company?

Posted by: Drew at May 31, 2007 03:18 PM (gNyUT)

186 I invested in a basket of defenbse stocks on 9/10. 38% return, fucker.

Killin soldiers. Good for business.

Now. What are you, a soldier, or a capitalist?

Make up your fucking mind.

Posted by: milt friedman at May 31, 2007 03:18 PM (adocw)

187 Anyone know what a "defenbse" stock is?

Is it listed on the NASDAQ?

Posted by: Slublog at May 31, 2007 03:19 PM (cH3iB)

188

What fucking garbage.  Like if we open the border we'll each have our own little mexican that we can trade like pokemon and get rich off of. 


That is pretty fuckin funny.


Posted by: Entropy at May 31, 2007 03:20 PM (HgAV0)

189 If that's what capitalism means

I'd say you better figure it out, fast.

Posted by: milt friedman at May 31, 2007 03:20 PM (adocw)

190

I think I'd be all smiles if  I never had to work.  Strange that your life of leisure has left you so unfulfilled, erg.


'Course anything worth having is worth working for, isn't it?


Posted by: Warden at May 31, 2007 03:20 PM (cxMJt)

191 it's ergie - the poor little rich boy who still can't find happiness amongst all his inherited privilege.

Heh.  I imagine he has inherited the privilege of hanging out at the lending library, until closing time anyway.

Posted by: Toby928 at May 31, 2007 03:22 PM (ATbKm)

192 hehe.

You fuckers don't know what you think.

Just blame the mexicans. It's easier that way.

Germans did the same. Only their mexicans were'nt (winkwink).

Posted by: milt friedman at May 31, 2007 03:24 PM (adocw)

193 Hey erg...

Last time you were here you didn't get around to listing all the nations where socialism has been tried and turned out to be a smashing success.  Care to take a stab at it this time?

Posted by: Drew at May 31, 2007 03:24 PM (gNyUT)

194 You fuckers don't know what you think.

Heh.

Posted by: Officer Paddy O'Irony at May 31, 2007 03:25 PM (ATbKm)

195 Follow, or lead? Are you gonna be rich, or just a sucka.

Anybody can be rich.

I just figured it out.  He's the little faggy asian dude from the "Game" video. 

Oh, that makes it even more sweet to mock him.

I'm rollin and pickin up allz yo wimmins.  My gohnorrea is almost in remission, too.

Capital-jizm, baby!




Posted by: malphonse at May 31, 2007 03:25 PM (p1s9n)

196 Erg, when was it that you first sensed your dad's disappointment?  Was it the homo thing or because you never measured up?

Posted by: Warden at May 31, 2007 03:26 PM (cxMJt)

197 warden

You're just fucking stupid, man.

Posted by: milt friedman at May 31, 2007 03:27 PM (adocw)

198 It really was unfair of him to force a patriarchal standard of masculinity upon you, wasn't it?

Posted by: Warden at May 31, 2007 03:27 PM (cxMJt)

199 Ooooh, a nerve has been touched, and it's not the usual prostate one that erg like so much.

Posted by: malphonse at May 31, 2007 03:29 PM (p1s9n)

200 You see anyone re-introducing Hillarycare?

You mean besides Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, John Edwards, Al Gore, California, Massachusetts, etc. etc. 

I don't know what to say, the GOP isn't perfect neither is President Bush but am I going to abandon it and let Hilary and her socialist utopian vision win without thru default?  No.



Posted by: chad at May 31, 2007 03:30 PM (lNQg8)

201 Care to take a stab at it this time?

Continental Western Europe, 1989. The US, 1970.

All down hill once the republican/democrat neolibs got ahold of "deregulation."



Posted by: milt friedman at May 31, 2007 03:31 PM (adocw)

202 Hilary is "a socialist"

Good god you people are stupid.

Posted by: milt friedman at May 31, 2007 03:33 PM (adocw)

203

I don't know what to say, the GOP isn't perfect neither is President Bush but am I going to abandon it and let Hilary and her socialist utopian vision win without thru default? 


If you let them import 60 million impoverished socialists who beget disproportionate numbers of ethnic children growing up in the socialist school system that teaches them white is the color of oppression, yes.


Yes you will let them win through default.


Posted by: Entropy at May 31, 2007 03:33 PM (HgAV0)

204

Milt is right for once.


Hillary is communist.


Posted by: Entropy at May 31, 2007 03:34 PM (HgAV0)

205 hey ken mehlman,

am I going to abandon it and let Hilary and her socialist utopian vision win without thru default?  No.

No one's ascared of that big bad witch no mo'

Hillary will never win with 49% solid negatives.  But even if she does, lets bring the damn thing down faster, since there's not a peso worth of difference between a slow death by republicans or a quick one by dems.  I'd prefer a quick collapse.  We'd win the ensuing civil war faster.

Posted by: malphonse at May 31, 2007 03:34 PM (p1s9n)

206 Just blame the mexicans.

Don't worry, lil brothers, they'll give you some new toys to play with. Soon.

Posted by: milt friedman at May 31, 2007 03:35 PM (adocw)

207

Continental Western Europe, 1989. The US, 1970.


Translation: 5 minutes after they become socialist but 2 minutes before it the buzz kicks in.



All down hill once the republican/democrat neolibs got ahold of "deregulation."


Translation: When reality catches up.


Ahh, more Trotskyite garbage. And you call other people neolibs?


The old "real socialism has never been given a fair chance" ploy.


Some people never learn..


Posted by: Entropy at May 31, 2007 03:36 PM (HgAV0)

208 entropy

Ahhh, white power.

I knew we'd get there.

Posted by: milt friedman at May 31, 2007 03:37 PM (adocw)

209

You're just fucking stupid, man.


I'm stupid?  You haven't gotten one thing figured out. You wander through life in a haze of impotent anger, hoping to infect others with your misery in order to experience one small moment of happiness.


You're a worthless little skid mark.  Your existence here means nothing.  You make no one's day better anywhere.  You contribute nothing. You are a waste of air and you will leave no legacy. 


You're the most stupid, most worthless motherfucker that  I've ever stumbled across.  And i mean that in all seriousness.  Go die somewhere, erg.  You don't matter.  You're a big, fat zero.


Posted by: Warden at May 31, 2007 03:38 PM (cxMJt)

210 Geez warden.

Don't blame me, blame the mexicans. Stay on message, you stupid cunt.

Posted by: milt friedman at May 31, 2007 03:41 PM (adocw)

211

Ahhh, white power.


Nah, white guilt.


Posted by: Entropy at May 31, 2007 03:41 PM (HgAV0)

212 Warden,

erg's legacy, in the words of Dante, will be that which smoke leaves to air or foam to water. 

plus, his auto-erotic asphyxiation will take care of him in short order.

Daddy will be so proud, identifying him in his plastic bag and bondage gear.

Posted by: malphonse at May 31, 2007 03:41 PM (p1s9n)

213

Continental Western Europe, 1989. The US, 1970.


Translation: 5 minutes after they become socialist but 2 minutes before it the buzz kicks in.


Yeah, that was a rather specific set of times he gave.  Socialism really stood the test of time, hey erg?

How about those wage and price controls of in 1971? A- why did anyone think that was needed if things were a socialist utopia? And B- How'd they work out?

How about measuring the UK's economic performance post Thatcher reforms with say, France's?

Posted by: Drew at May 31, 2007 03:41 PM (gNyUT)

214 Let's face it. Real republicans don't bitch about the plight of laborers. For fuck's sake, lead nor be a tool. Don't complain about capitalism.

Or just blame the mexicans. It's easier that way.

Posted by: milt friedman at May 31, 2007 03:44 PM (adocw)

215 Stay on message, you stupid cunt.

Heh.

Posted by: Officer Paddy O'Irony at May 31, 2007 03:44 PM (ATbKm)

216

It amuses me to be called a cunt by someone who I could make cry inside of 5 minutes.


Step it up, erg, you're gonna have to do better than that.  Have a drink.  Let's see some lashing out!


Posted by: Warden at May 31, 2007 03:45 PM (cxMJt)

217 Yes, milt, in the words of Linda Chavez, we're all just mexican hatahs. 

What about those of us who ARE mexican?

THe fucking "riff raff" illegals are making all the rest look bad.  Keeping those out is "white power" too, eh?



Posted by: malphonse at May 31, 2007 03:47 PM (p1s9n)

218 C'mon erg.  Don't believe what daddy told you.  You do too measure up!  Now give me your top 5 favorite books and albums and prove it to the world!

Posted by: Warden at May 31, 2007 03:48 PM (cxMJt)

219 The distribution of the national product was greatest in 1970. Greater inequiuty/loss of opportunity since then. Thatcherite "reform" and Blair's continuation of neoliberal reform has deepened inequality/loss of opportunity.

But, not if you are a capitalist.

Capitalist? Worker?

Your choice.

Posted by: milt friedman at May 31, 2007 03:50 PM (adocw)

220 Erg sure picks the names of famous smart people.

It's like he's compensating for something.

Posted by: Slublog at May 31, 2007 03:51 PM (cH3iB)

221  warden

You have no ideas. Just slogans.

You're stupid.

Posted by: milt friedman at May 31, 2007 03:52 PM (adocw)

222 That's it, erg!  Post until the pain is a distant memory!  Don't forget to be a big boy and use the word "cunt." So empowering!

Posted by: Warden at May 31, 2007 03:52 PM (cxMJt)

223 You have no ideas. Just slogans.

Where's Officer O'Irony when you need him?

Posted by: Slublog at May 31, 2007 03:53 PM (cH3iB)

224

Ten bucks says ergie is breathing rapidly in short, raspy breaths.


Posted by: Warden at May 31, 2007 03:54 PM (cxMJt)

225 And wheezing.

Posted by: Slublog at May 31, 2007 03:55 PM (cH3iB)

226 It's ok to have a drink if you feel like you need one, erg.

Posted by: Warden at May 31, 2007 03:55 PM (cxMJt)

227 warden

Just blame it on the mexicans. And if you think you're getting shafted by immigration, it just means you're another mexican.

Are you gonna be a mexican, or are you gonna use mexicans?

Free to choose.

Posted by: milt friedman at May 31, 2007 03:55 PM (adocw)

228 Awww...slu, we really shouldn't gang up on him.  He's gonna start having high school flashbacks before long.

Posted by: Warden at May 31, 2007 03:57 PM (cxMJt)

229 Are you gonna be a mexican, or are you gonna use mexicans?

I'm a mexican.  Which side am I on?

Oppressor?  Oppressed?

One thing's for sure...I grew up on better food than you did.



Posted by: Slublog at May 31, 2007 03:57 PM (cH3iB)

230

Ergie,


What are you wearing?


Posted by: Warden at May 31, 2007 03:58 PM (cxMJt)

231 Capitalist? Worker?
Your choice.

If I were a worker I'd choose capitalist.  A janitor, construction worker or bus driver never created a job and hired anyone. They all need the capitalist to give them a job.

This lesson in Economics 101 has been brought to you by the letter E.
E is for Erg!

Posted by: Drew at May 31, 2007 03:58 PM (gNyUT)

232 Awww...slu, we really shouldn't gang up on him.  He's gonna start having high school flashbacks before long.

Hey, I was stuffed in lockers in high school.  Time for me to get some payback!

Posted by: Slublog at May 31, 2007 03:58 PM (cH3iB)

233

On July 22, 2006, Mr. Henninger’s colleague at the Wall Street Journal editorial page, Tunku Varadarajan, had the opportunity to interview Milton and Rose Friedman.  And he specifically raised the issue of illegal immigration.  Here’s what Mr. Varadarajan reported:



Is immigration, I asked—especially illegal immigration—good for the economy, or bad? "It's neither one nor the other," Mr. Friedman replied. "But it's good for freedom. In principle, you ought to have completely open immigration. But with the welfare state it's really not possible to do that. . . . She's an immigrant," he added, pointing to his wife. "She came in just before World War I." (Rose—smiling gently: "I was two years old.") "If there were no welfare state," he continued, "you could have open immigration, because everybody would be responsible for himself." Was he suggesting that one can't have immigration reform without welfare reform? "No, you can have immigration reform, but you can't have open immigration without largely the elimination of welfare. "At the moment I oppose unlimited immigration. I think much of the opposition to immigration is of that kind—because it's a fundamental tenet of the American view that immigration is good, that there would be no United States if there had not been immigration. Of course, there are many things that are easier now for immigrants than there used to be. . . ."


Did he mean there was much less pressure to integrate now than there used to be? Milton: "I'm not sure that's true . . ." Rose (speaking simultaneously): "That's the unfortunate thing . . ." Milton: "But I don't think it's true . . ." Rose: "Oh, I think it is! That's one of the problems, when immigrants come across and want to remain Mexican." Milton: "Oh, but they came in the past and wanted to be Italian, and be Jewish . . ." Rose: "No they didn't. The ones that did went back."


Posted by: Entropy at May 31, 2007 03:59 PM (HgAV0)

234 slu

uncle tom

Posted by: milt friedman at May 31, 2007 03:59 PM (adocw)

235

Erg,


Is it a silky robe and slippers?  Or a Che shirt?


Posted by: Warden at May 31, 2007 04:00 PM (cxMJt)

236 uncle tom

Unless you're also a member of the good food fraternity, you have no right using that phrase, pendejo.

Posted by: Slublog at May 31, 2007 04:00 PM (cH3iB)

237

Silky robe and slippers or Che shirt, erg.


Your choice.


Posted by: Warden at May 31, 2007 04:01 PM (cxMJt)

238 entroopy

Don't worry. We're getting rid of the "welfare state."

You can count on the christians to help you in your time of need.

But, listen, if you're a capitalist, you'll be able to hire mexicans to wipe your ass.

Free to choose.




Posted by: milt friedman at May 31, 2007 04:02 PM (adocw)

239

You don't know what you think, erg.


Silky robe and slippers or Che. Choose.


Unless you want to just blame it on the Jew.


Posted by: Warden at May 31, 2007 04:03 PM (cxMJt)

240

Just blame it on the mexicans. And if you think you're getting shafted by immigration, it just means you're another mexican.

Are you gonna be a mexican, or are you gonna use mexicans?

Free to choose.


Erg, you saw that program as a child, didn't you?


Mmhmm. Mmhmm.


It's OK. It's OK. Tell us erg, did Uncie Miltie touch you in your special no-no place?


Posted by: Entropy at May 31, 2007 04:03 PM (HgAV0)

241 But, listen, if you're a capitalist, you'll be able to hire mexicans to wipe your ass.

No way.  I wouldn't do that to one of my own.

I'm going to hire a filthy scandi to do the work.

Posted by: Slublog at May 31, 2007 04:05 PM (cH3iB)

242 Well, I'm sure late to the party.



You guys all turning your backs on Dubya because of one statement do
realize that there are more liberals than conservatives that Bush was
aiming that statement at, don't you?  You know, the libbies who want to
give the illegals more rights than you and I do, the ones that resist him on everydamnthing he ever tries to do because he just has to be evil?  Please, I want to
make sure I have this right.  There's so much sarcasm around here that
sometimes I get lost and I actually believe that you'll take some
vague statement about "opponents of the bill" to mean it refers
specifically to conservatives, and so it's grounds for chanting like a leftist
about throwing the leader of the free world under the bus, all whilst
forgetting that Dubya's a moderate and always has been and that the same
stubbornness he's exhibiting now is the reason the entire government isn't overrun by moonbats.  Because then, as a moderate, I would probably begin to wonder if anybody, myself included, is capable of being civil in political discourse anymore, let alone rational about it.  I certainly wouldn't talk politics anymore, knowing that someone would be death on me for the heinous crime of disagreeing somewhat, and just like that I'm suddenly John Waffles Kerry.



But I'm guessing y'all are being sarcastic, so in that case it's a good laugh.

Posted by: Guy of Gisbourne at May 31, 2007 04:07 PM (i9UgE)

243 Ahh, much better.  Been holding that hot air in for sooo long.

My apologies.  Genuinely.  I just have to blow off steam once in a while.  I'd be mad too if I were you guys.

Posted by: Guy of Gisbourne at May 31, 2007 04:10 PM (i9UgE)

244 Tell me something Milt, if class struggle is the motor of history, what is the likelyhood that radically altering the demography of a caste system would noticably alter the course of an area's future?

Posted by: Entropy at May 31, 2007 04:10 PM (HgAV0)

245

Guy,


Shhhh...it's ok, sweetie.  Nite nite time.


Posted by: Warden at May 31, 2007 04:11 PM (cxMJt)

246

You guys all turning your backs on Dubya because of one statement do realize that there are more liberals than conservatives that Bush was aiming that statement at, don't you? 


Wow. Talk about delusional.


Posted by: Entropy at May 31, 2007 04:12 PM (HgAV0)

247 Don't worry. We're getting rid of the "welfare state."

If by 'getting rid of the welfare state' you mean expanding it by tens of billions of dollars through the Medicare prescription drug program then I guess you are right.

Posted by: Drew at May 31, 2007 04:13 PM (gNyUT)

248 Guy,

This isn't sarcasm....

Are you nuts?

Why do you think he was talking about lefties and not conservatives? 

Posted by: Drew at May 31, 2007 04:16 PM (gNyUT)

249 what is the likelyhood that radically altering the demography of a caste system would noticably alter the course of an area's future?

Behold, global capitalism.

Look it. Figure this out, fuckers. Either you believe unfettered capitalism is good because anybody can strike it rich (allpurpose republican bedtime story), or you believe that the distribution of resources improves overall welfare?

Are you a capitalist or are you a mexican? Make up your minds.

Posted by: milt friedman at May 31, 2007 04:18 PM (adocw)

250
You guys all turning your backs on Dubya because of one statement...


Your premise is incorrect.

some
vague statement about "opponents of the bill" to mean it refers
specifically to conservatives


Read around. Conservative pundits took it that way.

Posted by: geoff at May 31, 2007 04:18 PM (I/w6Z)

251 Awwwww....where's ergie?  I never found out how the story ended.  Did everyone live happily everafter in a worker's utopia?

Posted by: Warden at May 31, 2007 04:18 PM (cxMJt)

252 mean expanding it by tens of billions

Wow. Wrong again. The drug legislation aids drug industry confiscations of revenue.

Fuck. I thought everybody knew that.

Posted by: milt friedman at May 31, 2007 04:21 PM (adocw)

253

Oh, there he is.


Either you believe unfettered capitalism is good because anybody can strike it rich (allpurpose republican bedtime story), or you believe that the distribution of resources improves overall welfare?


False choice, buttfuck.  Take a logic class.  Unfettered capitalism is not what illegal immigrants are walking towards.


Silky robe and slippers or Che shirt.  Choose.


Posted by: Warden at May 31, 2007 04:21 PM (cxMJt)

254 Our welfare state has been a means foir capitalists to externalize costs and internalize profits.

The welfare state is not what you think it is.

Posted by: milt friedman at May 31, 2007 04:23 PM (adocw)

255 Unfettered capitalism is not what illegal immigrants are walking towards.

Wrong again.

Posted by: milt friedman at May 31, 2007 04:24 PM (adocw)

256

Wrong again.


Heh.  Nope.  Sorry, retard.  But maybe if you repeat it 10 more times you can pretend you've won an argument and will be awarded some mythical prize.


 


Posted by: Warden at May 31, 2007 04:27 PM (cxMJt)

257 Conservatives believe in America. What we're conservative about is the Constitution, etc- in other words we believe, truly believe, in the Rule of Law.

That's easily the funniest thing I've ever read at AoS.

C'mon guys, buck up. Bush will make some dumb symbolic gesture to placate you and you'll all be back up his asshole in a week or two, I promise. Y'all are easily duped.

Posted by: Barry Goldwater's Ghost at May 31, 2007 04:28 PM (5qjR5)

258 I think this is the point where you should allude to a Marxist writer that no one gives a shit about and who you barely understand.

Posted by: Warden at May 31, 2007 04:28 PM (cxMJt)

259

At any rate...


You look at what malphonse says about capitalism, and this is why I so utterly despise pseudo-science.


It discredits the good name of science. People will turn away from science because they confuse it with a bunch of snake-oil salesmen posing as scientists with incoherant jargon.


Do not let the idiots of the Wall Street Journal define the meaning of capitalism. Read An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations or The Road to Serfdom, or, indeed, read or watch Free to Choose


Posted by: Entropy at May 31, 2007 04:28 PM (HgAV0)

260

Wow. Wrong again. The drug legislation aids drug industry confiscations of revenue.

Fuck. I thought everybody knew that.


You just can't make this shit up.


Posted by: OU_Gryphon at May 31, 2007 04:28 PM (HPU22)

261

BGG meet erg. His hands are soft, willing, and untarnished by labor.  I think you two will get along just fine.


Posted by: Warden at May 31, 2007 04:30 PM (cxMJt)

262 Explain warden.

Why is a labor monopsony good for capital? How? You want to fetter capital.

You're a shitty republican.

So, explain.

Posted by: milt friedman at May 31, 2007 04:30 PM (adocw)

263

Unfettered capitalism is not what illegal immigrants are walking towards.

Wrong again.


What is this, the argument clinic sketch?


Posted by: OU_Gryphon at May 31, 2007 04:30 PM (HPU22)

264 The drug legislation aids drug industry confiscations of revenue.

Are you a capitalist or are you a mexican? Make up your minds.

I've made up my mind...you are a jackass but worse than that you aren't even amusing.

Posted by: Drew at May 31, 2007 04:31 PM (gNyUT)

265

Look it. Figure this out, fuckers. Either you believe unfettered capitalism is good because anybody can strike it rich (allpurpose republican bedtime story), or you believe that the distribution of resources improves overall welfare?


You sir, are a nitwit. Please read up. This cannot be an either/or choice.


That is like saying "either you beleive you can eat apples, or you beleive that you must eat food"


Capitalism is the name of a specific method of distributing resources. Of course you must distribute resources. Capitalism is the best way to do this.


Immigration has nothing to do with capitalism. Even Milton Friedman says so.


Did y


Posted by: Entropy at May 31, 2007 04:32 PM (HgAV0)

266

Look it. Figure this out, fuckers. Either you believe unfettered capitalism is good because anybody can strike it rich (allpurpose republican bedtime story), or you believe that the distribution of resources improves overall welfare?


You sir, are a nitwit. Please read up. This cannot be an either/or choice.


That is like saying "either you beleive you can eat apples, or you beleive that you must eat food"


Capitalism is the name of a specific method of distributing resources. Of course you must distribute resources. Capitalism is the best way to do this.


Immigration has nothing to do with capitalism. Even Milton Friedman says so.


Did you r


Posted by: Entropy at May 31, 2007 04:32 PM (HgAV0)

267

Damn.


Did you forget Miltie?


Posted by: Entropy at May 31, 2007 04:32 PM (HgAV0)

268 Are you a capitalist or are you a mexican? Make up your minds.

It was made up for me when my parents decided to have a kid.

Didn't have much choice in the matter.

Posted by: Slublog at May 31, 2007 04:32 PM (cH3iB)

269 You people are dumb. Aren't any of you "republicans" economists?

You don't know what you think.

Just blame the mexicans.

Posted by: milt friedman at May 31, 2007 04:33 PM (adocw)

270

C'mon guys, buck up. Bush will make some dumb symbolic gesture to placate you and you'll all be back up his asshole in a week or two, I promise. Y'all are easily duped.


I was wondering when the Rontards™ would show up.


Posted by: OU_Gryphon at May 31, 2007 04:34 PM (HPU22)

271 drew

How am I wrong?

You people don't know anything.

Posted by: milt friedman at May 31, 2007 04:35 PM (adocw)

272

Our welfare state has been a means foir capitalists to externalize costs and internalize profits


No....our welfare state has become a means for capitalists to subsidize internal costs and write off external profits...


Posted by: Entropy at May 31, 2007 04:35 PM (HgAV0)

273

Erg,


Retard.  You haven't even a fundamental grasp of economics.  Or logic.


Posted by: Warden at May 31, 2007 04:36 PM (cxMJt)

274
C'mon guys, buck up. Bush will make some dumb symbolic gesture to
placate you and you'll all be back up his asshole in a week or two, I
promise. Y'all are easily duped.

You're still here?

Shouldn't you be at "Sadly, No!" or "Pandagon" trying to out-sissy the other guys in a vain attempt to impress the women who post there?

Posted by: Slublog at May 31, 2007 04:36 PM (cH3iB)

275 You people don't know anything.

And what are your degrees in, erg?

Let me guess..."Peace Studies?"

Posted by: Slublog at May 31, 2007 04:37 PM (cH3iB)

276 Karl Rove: I think I see some Scary Muslims in the distance. You better hide there (points in direction of Bush's asshole)

AoS readership: We're there! (a mad rush for the sanctuary of Bush's asshole follows)

Posted by: Barry Goldwater's Ghost at May 31, 2007 04:38 PM (5qjR5)

277 warden

prove it



Posted by: milt friedman at May 31, 2007 04:38 PM (adocw)

278 How am I wrong?

In so, so many ways, erg.

Posted by: Drew at May 31, 2007 04:39 PM (gNyUT)

279

You people are dumb.


Hah! Good comeback. I must remember to write that down...Most compelling argument sir!


Posted by: Entropy at May 31, 2007 04:39 PM (HgAV0)

280 Our welfare state has been a means foir capitalists to externalize costs and internalize profits.
The welfare state is not what you think it is.  -- Erg above @ #254

That is easily one of the dumbest statements ever typed on this website. Erg is assuming that economics is a zero-sum game and that capitalists push costs off to the federal government ad infinitum so that they win the game. That is sub-moron.

I can't debate such absurdity but I can point and laugh.

*points* *laughs*

Posted by: Nom de Blog at May 31, 2007 04:41 PM (gxYF3)

281

More then just that, Nom. He seems incapable of distinguishing between "globalism" and "welfarism" (aka socialism).


Globalism allows companies to externalize costs.


Welfare does not allow companies to externalize costs. Nor does it increase internal profits. Welfare allows companies to subsidize domestic cost, and provides motive to externalize profits. The exact reverse of globalism, actually.


And welfare IS a zero sum game.


He also does not understand that capitalism is a means of distributing resources, but rather, apparently (amazingly) some sort of...alternative to the distribution of resources. Boggles the mind.


One can only conclude he does not actually know what these terms mean.


Posted by: Entropy at May 31, 2007 04:47 PM (HgAV0)

282

Milty, you're the funniest fuckin' troll to grace this site in a long time. 


blah blah blah.  you choose.


repeat ad nauseam.


That's good shit, Milty.  Even for a lameass liberal retard, you're pathetically stupid. 


That takes talent.


Posted by: Red Dog at May 31, 2007 04:49 PM (8vZvE)

283 Here's what it is: BOTH parties have been screwing up on immigration for the last 30 years.  Now they both want the problem to just go away and they're pissed because we're calling them on it.  Of course, either way the Dems win: they've already got the illegals voting for them and they get to watch the GOP chewing on its own backbone.

I don't know why Bush is such a surprise on this.  He appointed a member of La Raza (the group) Attorney General.  Who would have expected him to be mainstream on immigration?



Posted by: richard mcenroe at May 31, 2007 04:51 PM (lCheg)

284

Warden: You haven't even a fundamental grasp of economics.  Or logic.


Erg:  prove it


Tell you what, big boy.  Why don't set up your own blog with all that free time you have on your hands?  You could name it DaddyDicksucker in honor of your own personal psychological dysfunction and spell out exactly what your vision of economic justice is complete with graphcs, source material, statistics, and argument.


Come back when you've completed your assignment and have more to offer than "you're dumb."


Silky robe and slippers or Che shirt, erg.  Choose.


*points* *laughs*


 


Posted by: Warden at May 31, 2007 04:52 PM (cZInF)

285 First, they abandoned their Dear Leader.

Now, they repudiate capitalism.

Signs of the Apocalypse. (But funny as it gets)

Posted by: R.L.Page at May 31, 2007 04:52 PM (aoDq0)

286
Posted by: R.L.Page at May 31, 2007 09:52 PM (aoDq0)


You know what I hate about regurgitation?

The aftertaste.

Does that bother you much?

Posted by: Slublog at May 31, 2007 04:54 PM (cH3iB)

287

He appointed a member of La Raza (the group) Attorney General


I have not heard this claim before.  Everyone knew he was pandering when he appointed Gonzales AG, but this is new to me.  Do you have linkage to back it up?


Posted by: OU_Gryphon at May 31, 2007 04:54 PM (HPU22)

288 Now, they repudiate capitalism.

Who repudiated capitalism? Erg's distorted definitions of it, sure but capitalism itself? Where?


Posted by: Drew at May 31, 2007 04:54 PM (gNyUT)

289 Someone must have slipped a load of estrogen into the Kool-Aid. The hysteria ... the fainting spells ... the pearl-clutching ...

The Mexicans will get you, if the Muslims don't get you first.

Posted by: R.L.Page at May 31, 2007 05:02 PM (aoDq0)

290 hoo boy, you don't have to tell me about aftertaste!  why, just last night daddy shot this load into my mouth... i was, like, holy fuck, what have you been eating?  let's just say i make doubly sure to courtesy flush every time.

Posted by: erg at May 31, 2007 05:03 PM (wvvkg)

291 Drew, Entropy, etc.  I'm not nuts, just really, really confused here, conservative pundits (whom I read) notwithstanding.  That little rant there was just that - full of crap and steam.  Shouldn't have even typed the thing to begin with.

Hey warden - can I have a glass of warm milk?  Ooh, ooh, and a bedtime story.  Mary had a little red-riding-hooded pig!





Posted by: Guy of Gisbourne at May 31, 2007 05:05 PM (i9UgE)

292
The Mexicans will get you, if the Muslims don't get you first.


Dang Mexicans already got me, darn her wily ways.

I call her "Mom."

And I feel sorry for anyone who thinks those flat tasteless things you purchase in the store are actually tortillas.

Posted by: Slublog at May 31, 2007 05:05 PM (cH3iB)

293 Say there, ergie, would you like to hook up later?  I know this awesome glory hole.

Posted by: R.L. Puke at May 31, 2007 05:05 PM (wvvkg)

294 Come on, guys, don't take it on me. It's your Dear Leader who's fucking you. Believe me, I feel your pain.

Posted by: R.L.Page at May 31, 2007 05:08 PM (aoDq0)

295 your Dear Leader

Heh.

Posted by: Toby928 at May 31, 2007 05:09 PM (ATbKm)

296
The Mexicans will get you, if the Muslims don't get you first.

Personally I am more worried about those Scandi bastard but that's just me.



Posted by: Drew at May 31, 2007 05:09 PM (gNyUT)

297 Believe me, I feel your pain.

And I feel yours...eating that taco bell crap and thinking you're getting real Mexican food.  Ever had real carne guisada?  One spoonful of that on a warm tortilla and it's like seeing God.

Posted by: Slublog at May 31, 2007 05:11 PM (cH3iB)

298 Are you just going to sit here and keep this bitch-fest going? Or are you going to get out there and "get 'er done" ? Tear that Republican party right down to the ground? (I know you want to.)
Remember: "When the going gets tough, the weird turn pro."

Posted by: R.L.Page at May 31, 2007 05:12 PM (aoDq0)

299 I saw a Scandi bastard dressed up like Elvis in Memphis, last weekend.

Posted by: Nice Deb at May 31, 2007 05:12 PM (B01dP)

300

He appointed a member of La Raza (the group) Attorney General. 


WTF?!?!?!?!?!?!?!


Alberto Gonzales was LA RAZA?


Posted by: Entropy at May 31, 2007 05:13 PM (HgAV0)

301

Dear Leader.


 


what a pedant.


Posted by: Dave in Texas at May 31, 2007 05:14 PM (FXakj)

302 Slublog, their Ranchero Chicken Wrap ain't half bad.

Posted by: Nice Deb at May 31, 2007 05:14 PM (B01dP)

303 It was in all the papers, Entropy. Remember: R I F.

Posted by: R.L.Page at May 31, 2007 05:14 PM (aoDq0)

304

The lefties asserting that capitalism is being "repudiated" by Republicans are the same retards who claimed that deregulation was to blame for high energy prices in California under Gray Davis rather than the state government's mismanagement of the utility companies (delaying new power plant constructions, price controls on retail energy sales) that was at the root of the problem.


In both cases they have to pretend that a market corrupted by onerous government interference is actually a free market so that they can lay the blame at the feet of capitalism.


It's all quite childish and stupid, but then again, these are leftists we're dealing with afterall.


Posted by: Warden at May 31, 2007 05:15 PM (Mo8Oa)

305 So, my pretties, you think you're going to kiss me off just like that? What if I told you that, next week, we're planning to announce the killing of Al-Qaeda's Number Three Man? Hmmm?

Posted by: George W. Bush at May 31, 2007 05:17 PM (5qjR5)

306 Turtle soup in Vallarta ... if you want something really good in Mexico. (The place they serve it is probably a little 'up-scale' for you folks ... but if you save your pennies ... one day ....)

Posted by: R.L.Page at May 31, 2007 05:17 PM (aoDq0)

307 We'd question the timing.

Posted by: Nice Deb at May 31, 2007 05:18 PM (B01dP)

308 Victory in Iraq, bitches!

Posted by: George W. Bush at May 31, 2007 05:19 PM (5qjR5)

309 Turtle soup in Vallarta ... if you want something really good in
Mexico. (The place they serve it is probably a little 'up-scale' for
you folks ... but if you save your pennies ... one day ....)


Turtle soup's okay.  Not my favorite.  It was always something the old folks ate.  Like menudo or cabrito.

Give me some chorizo, some fideo and a real tamale or two and I'm happy. 

Posted by: Slublog at May 31, 2007 05:22 PM (cH3iB)

310

And I feel sorry for anyone who thinks those flat tasteless things you purchase in the store are actually tortillas.


The only thing I get from illegal aliens is mexican food. I'm a master of menu spanish. Cerveza, frijoles, chilli con queso, carne asada torta...


The bastards has fed me cat meat on more then occaision, (verified. I spoke to the health inspector that shut them down) but it was the best damn alleycat steak taco I ever had.


Posted by: Entropy at May 31, 2007 05:22 PM (HgAV0)

311 Would be nice.

Posted by: Nice Deb at May 31, 2007 05:22 PM (B01dP)

312 Slublog, their Ranchero Chicken Wrap ain't half bad.

It's the tortilla that gets me.  I can't eat store-bought flour tortillas - there's just nothing there.

I will admit to having a soft spot for the "Mexican pizza."  It's the closest thing to a chalupa I can find up here in new england.

Posted by: Slublog at May 31, 2007 05:23 PM (cH3iB)

313 I like Mexicans and I like their food. There, I said it.

Posted by: R.L.Page at May 31, 2007 05:24 PM (aoDq0)

314 The bastards has fed me cat meat on more then occaision, (verified. I
spoke to the health inspector that shut them down) but it was the best
damn alleycat steak taco I ever had.


Never had cat.  I had dog once, though.  When I lived in Hawaii, we often stopped at a mandoo stand - meat filled dumplings.

The place was shut down for serving dog.

Gotta say, a dog is fine eatin'.

Posted by: Slublog at May 31, 2007 05:25 PM (cH3iB)

315 RL, stop hitting on slublog.

Posted by: Entropy at May 31, 2007 05:26 PM (HgAV0)

316 I like Mexicans and I like their food. There, I said it.

Admission is the first step to recovery, Page.

You'll get there.

Posted by: Slublog at May 31, 2007 05:28 PM (cH3iB)

317 Would it be fair to say that most of us are Assimilationists.  Like the Borg, we wish to add the immigrant's distinctiveness to our own, while maintaining the collective culture intact?  Too high a rate of immigration, and one too concentrated by class and national origin, interferes with our ability to assimilate the newcomers, leading to ghettos and tribal separatism.  That's a bad thing.

Posted by: Toby928 at May 31, 2007 05:29 PM (ATbKm)

318

Alberto Gonzales was LA RAZA?

Entropy...

Eh, not exactly but too close....

From a National Council of La Raza press release:

“Alberto Gonzales served with distinction on the board of directors of
one of NCLR’s oldest and most respected affiliates, the Association for
the Advancement of Mexican Americans (AAMA) in Houston, Texas.


Posted by: Drew at May 31, 2007 05:30 PM (gNyUT)

319 Entropy.  Yep. In college.  Like that level of stupid wears off.

Posted by: richard mcenroe at May 31, 2007 05:31 PM (lCheg)

320
Hey, have you forgotten? Spreadin' democracy, closin' Saddam's rape rooms, Mission Accomplished, purple fingers? Good times. Remember what we once meant to each other? Why, yer actin' like I don't even exist, like I was never President or somethin', like I never had anythin' to do with conservatives an' the Republican Party.

Oh wait...

(understandin' begins to dawn)

Posted by: George W. Bush at May 31, 2007 05:32 PM (5qjR5)

321 Worse than I thought.  I didn't know about the board thing...

Posted by: richard mcenroe at May 31, 2007 05:34 PM (lCheg)

322 @Entropy

It's funny you mention the Wealth of Nations because I believe Adam Smith would have held that there is no problem with illegal immigration.  I may have to go dig out my copy.

Posted by: chad at May 31, 2007 05:35 PM (WNcvq)

323 Dang, this conversation has got me hungry.

A gift:

Tortillas

2 cups flour
1 tsp. baking powder
1 tsp. salt
1 Tbsp. shortening (or better yet, lard)
1/2 - 3/4 cup warm water

Mix dry ingredients, cut in shortening.  Add water slowly and knead until doughy.  Break into balls (about big enough to be held in a loose fist) and let sit for 10-15 mins.  Roll out and cook (preferably on cast iron) about 2-3 minutes a side.  Don't be afraid of black spots - they make it taste better.

Posted by: Slublog at May 31, 2007 05:36 PM (cH3iB)

324 chad,,



Smith might not have had a problem with illegal immigration but he wouldn't have factored in the modern welfare state. 

Posted by: Drew at May 31, 2007 05:37 PM (gNyUT)

325

It's funny you mention the Wealth of Nations because I believe Adam Smith would have held that there is no problem with illegal immigration. 


I beg to differ, though I do not think you'll find the 18th century Scot opining on the matter.


Posted by: Entropy at May 31, 2007 05:42 PM (HgAV0)

326 If you want to read it, the text is linked above. Also, the wikipedia link leads to streaming videos of Free to Choose.

Posted by: Entropy at May 31, 2007 05:44 PM (HgAV0)

327 chad @ 322,

I believe you're wrong about Adam Smith. I'll dig out my copy and we'll compare notes.

Smith said, for example "A man is of all sorts of luggage the most difficult to be transported." But that was in a day and in a country in which that conclusion was appropriate. It stands to reason that Smith would have felt differently if the whole cost of transportation was crossing an imaginary line in the back of a box truck.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at May 31, 2007 05:50 PM (gxYF3)

328 I know I'm a lurker, but I'd like to ask Ace for a favor. Could you drop the ban hammer on friedman and rl? They contribute nothing to the discussion, and sound like pretentious retards from high school. Like the morons who smoked pipes and carried books they didn't read everywhere. Plv made more sense then these fucking asslicks. I promise I'll hit the tipjar.

Posted by: Carl Hungus at May 31, 2007 05:50 PM (bWkaR)

329

It stands to reason that Smith would have felt differently if the whole cost of transportation was crossing an imaginary line in the back of a box truck.


It stands to reason that I would feel quite differently if the whole cost of transportation was crossing an imaginary line in the back of box truck.


But again - there is a cultural gap, an assimilation issue, and a welfare nanny state involved.


Posted by: Entropy at May 31, 2007 05:52 PM (HgAV0)

330 Mr. Hungus, you really should not be reinforcing the stereotype of Republicans and their penchant for bribery.

Posted by: R.L.Page at May 31, 2007 05:57 PM (aoDq0)

331 Yeah, I'm not going to argue with you on that one. I think politician would be more accurate than republican though.

Posted by: Carl Hungus at May 31, 2007 06:01 PM (bWkaR)

332

At any rate, as I have said : there is more to discuss here then simply the economic debate.


We have more fields of study then just economics for a reason. There is more to life then just markets.


There is an issue of Rule of Law. Read about The Prisoners Dilemna in game theory (although that is indeed, a branch of economics).


We have a social compact and you cannot reward people for violating that. Furthermore, capitalism depends on equal footing. You cannot allow people to have unfair advantages given to them by the state (by selective refusal to enforce standing law).


You also have to consider politics. A fat lot of good all the economic theory in the world will do you if people come here freely and then freely vote in south american socialism.


Posted by: Entropy at May 31, 2007 06:01 PM (HgAV0)

333 Entropy, where you the one who linked the article from EjectEjectEject that discussed the Prisoners Dilemma and The Remnant?  That was a very interesting read.

Posted by: Warden at May 31, 2007 06:05 PM (Mo8Oa)

334 Entropy,

Don't argue with somebody who agrees with you because you misunderstand their point. Smith may have been arguing that the cost is high from the POV of the immigrant. That is my take, anyway. Therefore, it would stand to reason that if the immigrant felt the cost go down (as it has from his time to ours) then we would get a lot more immigration.

So I'm on your side, okay.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at May 31, 2007 06:06 PM (gxYF3)

335

Bush was never a conservative.  He was, however, very much a Reagan without the grandfatherly charm.


 


Like Reagan, he wanted to preach small govt while increasing deficits.


 


Like Reagan, he has been a great friend to Islamic extremists.  Reagan broke the law to provide them weapons; Bush is breaking the US military to provide bin Laden with recruits.


 


Like Reagan, he tries to make claims completely at odds with his actions. But unlike Reagan, he isn’t getting away with it.


 


Reagan wasn’t a conservative, but he played one very well. Bush… doesn’t.


Posted by: tubino at May 31, 2007 06:06 PM (iElOw)

336

say Dear Leader again RL.


it's vogue


Posted by: Dave in Texas at May 31, 2007 06:06 PM (FXakj)

337 Warden,
I'm sure I linked those too.
Where's my thanks.
Entropy gets all the adoration.
Sheesh.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at May 31, 2007 06:08 PM (gxYF3)

338

Holy Moly, Rick is that you?


Say something about the death squads.  And an AX12.


 


I'll know.


Posted by: Dave in Texas at May 31, 2007 06:08 PM (FXakj)

339 tubby's back? Cool.

I love the way liberals think the word deficit will make us quiver.
It's almost the same as homosexual *boo*, vajayjay *boo* or Scandi *boo*.

Where are PLV and Cedarford?

Posted by: Nom de Blog at May 31, 2007 06:10 PM (gxYF3)

340

Entropy, where you the one who linked the article from EjectEjectEject that discussed the Prisoners Dilemma and The Remnant?  That was a very interesting read.


No that was not me. I read it also though, and it was indeed. And he was absolutely right about the Prisoner's Dilemma.


That also explains a few other things you might have heard about lately...like the studies done about the "trust dividend" in societies. It also serves to explain the absolutely essential purpose of retributive justice, which (suprise) most liberals would seem to like to destroy.


Posted by: Entropy at May 31, 2007 06:13 PM (HgAV0)

341 Milt: "Our welfare state has been a means for capitalists to externalize costs and internalize profits.

The welfare state is not what you think it is."

This is true. A few of your points are true.

Now present a solution. There is one thats not totalitarian, you know. I suspect, however, that you can't see it.

Posted by: LiveFreeOrDie at May 31, 2007 06:15 PM (zxscs)

342
Now present a solution.


The library is closed.  Perhaps he's riding the bus to a 24 hour McDonalds with WiFi.

Posted by: Toby928 at May 31, 2007 06:17 PM (ATbKm)

343

Sorry for not crediting you, Nom.


I liked the article because it focused and clarified some of the things I have come to believe from observation than anything else (which, tangentally, is a capability that many liberals seem to lack - the ability to synthesize a lifetime of active observation.)  At any rate, it was definitely a fresh perspective on the matter.


 


Posted by: Warden at May 31, 2007 06:19 PM (Mo8Oa)

344

A gift:

Tortillas


Sweet.  Thanks.  I know what I'm cooking this weekend.  Quesadillas with homemade tortillas.  My mouth is watering already.


Posted by: OU_Gryphon at May 31, 2007 06:21 PM (HPU22)

345

<i> I love the way liberals think the word deficit will make us
quiver.</i>







 Idiotic.  Don’t you know that Reagan proved that
deficits don’t matter???*
 



What
makes you all quiver is when someone points out that your hero, Reagan,
supplied Iranian fundamentalists with weapons. 
Illegally.  While they held
Americans hostage.  Your response?  See above. Just dodges.  See Dave in Texas, for example.  Dave, say something nonsensical that dodges
the point,  just so I’ll know it’s
you.   Oh,  you already did.













Just
heard that now Bush is going to push for talks on global warming.  I’m sure that will win some more rightwing
support.

 ______________



*Sure,  your kids will be paying tens of billions in
interest each year. I mean don’t matter for POPULARITY of Republican
politicians!


Posted by: tubino at May 31, 2007 06:41 PM (iElOw)

346 I wonder if the Eject!Eject!Eject! guy has ever read Farenheit 451.

Posted by: Entropy at May 31, 2007 06:44 PM (HgAV0)

347 "...say something nonsensical that dodges
the point
..." -- tubby above

First of all, there was no point. There were a bunch of meaningless phrases strung together. But as to logic or point... you missed.

Posted by: Irony de Blog at May 31, 2007 06:49 PM (gxYF3)

348 Now present a solution.

Collective bargaining. Greater equity achieved by progressive taxation. End the colonial wars, bring the troops home, reduce military spending. Social libertarianism: mind your own fucking business.

For starters.

Posted by: milt friedman at May 31, 2007 06:56 PM (adocw)

349 You mean something like we were facing an actual fascist existential enemy, tubino?

And while I am no corporatist, just how do you expect to pay for the wonderful social services that you so love without the economy of scale generated by monsterous corporations?

I say lets get rid of the damn things. They are a State Church of secularism and are used for social control.

You up for that, tubino?

Otherwise, STFU.

Posted by: LiveFreeOrDie at May 31, 2007 07:02 PM (zxscs)

350 Shorter milt cum erg,
unions, higher taxes, throw up the white flag, weed

That about covers that.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at May 31, 2007 07:08 PM (gxYF3)

351 Oh, cool, your back.

How do you get the collective bargaining implemented? As in get it to pass.

If the people are too stupid to understand whats actually going on, how will they not be ripped of by corrupt union bosses?

Doesn't a collective bargain create a delocalization of the individual in the same way as a corporate structure?

Aren't a series of independent purchases from a prefered source a form of collective bargaining anyway?

Regarding progressive taxation. Once the money - source of power - is now controlled by the bureaucratic apparatus, what is to prevent those in power from using it for there own purposes. That's what happened with the Soviets. Basically, the Corporation and the State are One.

Posted by: LiveFreeOrDie at May 31, 2007 07:09 PM (zxscs)

352 How do you solve those problems. They are real. They have happened everytime that method is attempted.

There is a way, however.

Posted by: LiveFreeOrDie at May 31, 2007 07:11 PM (zxscs)

353 You achieve successful worker organization with laws protecting worker organization. This is an instrumental problem, only.

As far as the bureaucratic capture is concerned, this is a problem.

Posted by: milt friedman at May 31, 2007 07:15 PM (adocw)

354 Yes, the bureaucratic capture is absolutely a problem.

So is passing the worker protection laws. Barney Frank, in fact the entire Dem party, just tried to sell out secret ballots.

Instruments must be implemented and enforced by power, yet that power can then be used to hijack it.

There is a solution.

Posted by: LiveFreeOrDie at May 31, 2007 07:22 PM (zxscs)

355

This shit bores the hell out of me.


Milt - be less envious.


Fuck equality. Who cares what the other guy has? Your whole problem is your a jealous little bitch. Or a guilty little bitch.


One way or the other, arguing against collectivism bores the hell out of me because I do not share your absurd fetish for outcome equality as an end unto itself.


Life deals inequalities. Get over it.


Posted by: Entropy at May 31, 2007 07:23 PM (HgAV0)

356 It's late milt.

Email me and I'll show you how. If you actually want to know.

And give me the respect of not spamming me and passing out my email just as I'm respecting you now. Don't email me unless you are serious about a dialog.

Good night.

josh dot davenport at verizon dot net

Posted by: LiveFreeOrDie at May 31, 2007 07:30 PM (zxscs)

357 I can't find my copy of Wealth of Nations so I have had to resort to googling.  Unfortunately I have no class notes to refer back to as I just read it out of curiosity. 

here is one guys take on Smith and immigration

here is what I was thinking of although he was actually addressing children here it applies just as well (in my opinion) to immigration:

It is in this manner that the demand for men, like that for any other
commodity, necessarily regulates the production of men, quickens it when it
goes on too slowly, and stops it when it advances too fast. It is this
demand which regulates and determines the state of propagation in all the
different countries of the world ; in North America, in Europe, and in China
; which renders it rapidly progressive in the first, slow and gradual in the
second, and altogether stationary in the last.The liberal reward of labour, therefore, as it is the effect of increasingwealth, so it is the cause of increasing population. To complain of it, isto lament over the necessary cause and effect of the greatest public prosperity.
In other words if there was no demand for immigrant labor there wouldn't be illegal
immigration, but since there is a demand the immigrants should be accepted.

At least thats how I interpret it, but hey I'm not an economist, I'm barely literate.






Posted by: chad at May 31, 2007 08:55 PM (WNcvq)

358 Carl Hungus:  ergboy is amusing to smack around.  Page, OTOH, probably put even itself to sleep.  It seems to be a perv, too.

Posted by: someone at May 31, 2007 09:08 PM (TXnhk)

359 With the troll parade climax of tubby showing up again, I gotta ask:  did ryan OD or get detoxed or something?

Posted by: someone at May 31, 2007 09:09 PM (TXnhk)

360

Yeaaahh. El Bush has pretty much let me down for the last time. I have tried so hard to stick up for him all these years, but he has just let me down time and time again.


Yes, the issue is that he is not conservative -enough-. It's time we bring back actual conservatism to the USA and stop letting these open borders RINO's tell us what they think is good for America when we, the people who vote them in, know better.


Posted by: Nth at June 01, 2007 02:39 AM (MFLt3)

361 I never liked Bush to begin with. I just thought Gore was marginally worse in 2000, and Kerry was abysmally worse in 2004. Apparently, Bush doesn't think much of me either. I'm a sexist because I thought Harriet Miers was a bad pick. I'm a racist because I think the border should be secured before we figure out what to do with the illegals already here. I'm a fringe fanatic because I think he and his party have wasted too much damn taxpayer money on bridges to nowhere and happy pills for rich geezers.

The party elites don't like me either, because I don't really care much for their choice of anointed regent-successors (Rudy or McAmnesty) and would like there to be a real contest for the nomination instead of a coronation.

I think if the editorial board of the WSJ were fired and replaced with Mexican journalists who did their jobs for a quarter the wages and no benefits, they might suddenly realize there's more to life than selling out everything and everyone you know for the sake of cheap labor.

Posted by: V the K at June 01, 2007 03:02 AM (PLvLS)

362

In other words if there was no demand for immigrant labor there wouldn't be illegal immigration, but since there is a demand the immigrants should be accepted.


Umm...that quote basically just said if we need more labor we'll have more children. Since our birthrate is declining as Adolfo pointed out, either we don't need new labor after all, immigration is suppressing the need for procreation and we're being replaced, or Smith is wrong.


Posted by: Entropy at June 01, 2007 03:31 AM (m6c4H)

363

The Reagan boner!  Classic tubino.


It is you.  How's the family?


Isn't it funny how the three convictions against North were tossed because Congress fucked up (they had Reagan boners too and it messed with their heads a bit I'm sure you know what THAT'S like) on the immunity deal?  He walked.


That cracks me up every time.


Posted by: Dave in Texas at June 01, 2007 03:46 AM (pzen5)

364 @entropy, as I said I think that quote can also apply to immigration but your welcome to your own intrepretation and is a more general statement about the supply of labor overall.  [Interestingly how ever when you look at the birth rates by the US birthrate is at a replacement level (the only member of the G8 to be at such a level I believe) but Hispanics are at growth level.]

Can you deny that the US economy has grown since the 1986 amnesty?    I think this argument and the one's regarding free trade are part of Smith's invisible hand at work .  We have probably gone to the point where the economy is going to decline a bit and now we are adjusting.  The question is how do we adjust in the least painful way possible? 

Kind of on this subject Curt at  floppingaces.net  has an article that talks about economic growth and the growth of the upper class which is kind of an interesting read. 

Posted by: chad at June 01, 2007 04:21 AM (WNcvq)

365

Can you deny that the US economy has grown since the 1986 amnesty?


Can you deny that the US economy has grown since the 1924 National Origins Act?


Heh.


Can you deny that the US economy has grown since the New Deal? Socialism FTW! Q.E.D.


The Iran hostage crisis was great for economic growth, as were Jimmah's policies, obviously, because we have grown so much since then.


Posted by: Entropy at June 01, 2007 04:32 AM (m6c4H)

366

Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings turned out to be great for the Japanese economy. Their economy has undeniably grown since.


The destruction of the Roman empire is another incident that comes to mind. No Ferraris and Lamborghinis when the Roman empire was flourishing. Now? The place is full of them.


Posted by: Tushar D at June 01, 2007 05:09 AM (IlgNp)

367

The invisible hand is not all powerful. There is more at play then just ecnomics. There is an invisible sociological hand, and there is an invisible political hand. What you must consider is that while people - being rational self-interested actors - do what is best for them in whatever circumstance they find themselves, you can (and we allready have) write quite a few laws that create a circumstance where self interested actors are compelled to act in a destructive manner.


Furthermore, beyond just economics, there is quite a bit of emotional fear that surrounds economic dynamism and change because of the insecurity it brings. I do beleive this immigration business is an attempt to avoid fluid adjustments to our economy. There are changes happening brough upon us by the digital age and by globalization.


If our economy depended on cheap immigrant unskilled labor, and I don't really beleive that, but let's say it did, with declining populations all over the modernized world where will we get it, especially in a modern society where everyone is skilled and educated?


If this is true, you have two options open to you. 1) Slavery of a sort. You must keep them in the shadows, so they can continue to provide illegal labor that cuts cost by violating a myriad of labor laws, regulations, and taxes, doing things like making them work in unsafe conditions. This is a frequent cost cutting measure that companies employ illegals for - a US citizen WILL do that job for $12 just like an illegal will...but a US citizen values his health more then $12 an hour, and will call OSHA on your ass. And if you can him for it, he's likely to let the city know you're building without a permit.


Illegal aliens cannot do these things and must accept these conditions precisely BECAUSE they are illegal and under threat of deportation if they piss off their business employers.


You make them legal, you lose that cost cut. Furthermore, you give them access to The American Dream and they will ostensibly become more skilled, no? You think they'll work for sub-minimum wage forever after assimilating???? If they do - then they haven't assimilated after all.


So now you've lost that which we supposedly need. Opening up and "reforming" immigration didn't solve the problem. It destroyed the fix out of guilt! And the companies will then fix it - with many, many more new and freshly unassimilated/illegal/unskilled  immigrants who don't know that removing old concrete in an enclosed space with no ventilation is dangerous to your long term health, who don't know what happens when you breath too much asbestos.


Even in the restaraunt industry:


It's great that I can get cheap cheap cheap cheap tacos from Mexican restaruants. But I also get served dead alley cat meat. You get what you pay for..


One day these guys will grow, they'll expand, they'll become more professional and more educated about the industry. What will happen? They become more visible targets for lawsuits and health inspectors over their unsanitary conditions and dishonest business practices. So they straighten out. They get their permits and obey those regulations and serve only prime USDA grade A beef.


Now they've stopped being El Gayo and become Chillies or TGIF. The price is no longer dirt cheap. They have overhead, they aren't cutting costs with cat, they need all these expensive dishwashers and food prep equipment to ensure sanitation in accordance with regulation, ect. ect.


If they assimilate and become just like you and me (which everyone insists they will) they lose all the benefits over Americans with reguard to "jobs Americans won't do". They become Americans. They won't do those jobs either!


So we need more immigrants.


That is the only alternative to oppressing the little guys and turning them into a servant caste. If you allow them to, like any normal person, move through these jobs and out of them, move up the ladder, they will. And you again have a deficit of desperate uneducated rubes to exploit. So you need to get more.


Instead of an economy that revolves around an oppressed caste, you now have an economy that depends on a constant never ending influx of ever more unskilled immigrant labor.


With globalism looming large, there is probably a billion people, literally, a billion, that would come here for a job if given the chance. At some point, you overwhelm the countries ability to assimilate immigrants and the immigrants begin replacing and assimilating the former occupants. This is absolutely a fact. You just can't sit there and make beleive we can assimilate any number of infinite immigrants at once. If that was true, we could just send 150,000 Americans to Iraq and just ....assimilate Iraq. Or Zimbabwe. If our culture is THAT contagious, why are most Iraqi's not learning english and giving out free condoms by now? That is such an incredibly naive and dangerously optimistic view.


Eventually, in Europe, in the US, the system will be overwhelmed. The immigrants will cluster in ghettos and will not assimilate. And these cultures, many of them, are quite fucking atrocious honestly. Just look at one aspect of many foreign cultures - outrageous racism is quite common. Many of our immigrants loathe and despise each other. As they start holing up in rival ghettos we're going to have balkanization. And again, these unassimilated peoples will be voting. Hugo Chavez gets majority support in Venezuela. Street protests culminated in street violence are the modus operandi for Mexican politics, occuring on a weekly basis.


Even if we are facing economic hardship, like Japan faced not so long ago after the collapse of Japan, Inc., it is something we MUST face and adapt to. A consequence of globalism and the digital era. This immigration is not adoption, it's desperately clinging to old economic system and trying to splint it up and drag it with us and make it work, but it will be disasterous. Japan, very homogenious and very hard to immigrate to, is recovering, and there solution seems to be a boggling amount of automation. While we hire people, with all their complexes and issues and habits, they're hiring robots to do the jobs that Japanese won't do. They're inovating, and making tremendous breakthroughs in robotics. We may have to face a similar recession if we have to, to emerge in a similar fashion. I don't beleive so, but who knows. We may need to get used to the fact that we have almost no cheap unskilled uneducated labor and need to outsource whatever we can that requires it.


We cannot simply begin importing the labor. Because a commodity does not require food and clothing and a service does not demand a say in what you have for dinner. Your dishwasher does not play loud music all night and keep you up. If it does, you can chuck it in a trash can. People do. And when they do, you cannot simply chuck them in a trash can. Along with all their benefits, we import all their problems. And this "solution" of immigration is like the democrats solution for social security. The problem is just getting larger the more we delay a viable long term solution instead of throwing haphazard band aids on it to hold us over another 5 years, just another 10 years here, 5 more years there. It requires infinite immigration, and at some point the problems we import will inevitably exceed our capabilities to deal with them.


Posted by: Entropy at June 01, 2007 05:12 AM (m6c4H)

368 Now they've stopped being El Gayo...

...or El Gato Muerto.

Posted by: geoff at June 01, 2007 05:19 AM (I/w6Z)

369 Never heard of the National Origins Act, so yeah until I can look it up I can deny it.  :-)

As to the new deal, no I can't deny that.  And I will admit that my use of the sentence about the 1986 amnesty was poorly written.  My point wasn't that the 1986 amnesty caused economic growth, but that the economic growth since 1986 has fueled the problem with illegal immigration.  That led into my follow-on about the current furor over illegal immigration and free trade.

In total my point was that I think Adam Smith would have felt that illegal immigration argument was overdone.

My position was and remains:

1.  Border enforcement
2.  Workplace enforcement
3.  Deport criminals
4.  Legalization
5.  Assimilation

Posted by: chad at June 01, 2007 05:28 AM (WNcvq)

370 Funny, milt never emailed me.

Was he one of us screwing around or just avoiding learning the "truth"?

Posted by: LiveFreeOrDie at June 01, 2007 05:31 AM (zxscs)

371

Entropy,


you should consider writing a couple of such outstanding columns and sending them to a few newspapers/periodicals. You could be a great columnist.


Posted by: Tushar D at June 01, 2007 05:45 AM (IlgNp)

372

Entropy,


you should consider writing a couple of such outstanding columns and
sending them to a few newspapers/periodicals. You could be a great
columnist.


You could also put them up on my site if you want. My traffic is normally insignificant (though it's been great this week), but at least your thoughts are preserved for posterity.

Posted by: geoff at June 01, 2007 06:10 AM (I/w6Z)

373 Heh. I'm flattered.

Posted by: Entropy at June 01, 2007 06:22 AM (m6c4H)

374

I'm going to have to disagree. The entire diatribe above assumes we don't intend to limit importation of this underclass going forward. Now, you can tell me for the 30th time that you don't trust the government to keep it's promises and that's fine and legitimate. But if you do believe we can limit immigration going forward, pretty much the entire piece goes right out the window.


So let's deal with this distrust. Can you think of a realistic bill with a chance of being passed that would not require you to trust your government to enforce the law? The bill does indeed contain benchmarks and certification attributable to one guy, whose name goes on it and whose boss intends to have a political future.Realistically, how can we expect to do better than that?


And as much as I too enjoy Ent's skills and intellect, I can't help but think the reading he cites like Hayek and Friedman is being sampled a little selectively. For instance, economists accept as given that people respond to incentives. Border jumpers are doing no more than this. A border fence will sure make this more difficult, but to believe there's anything you can do to stop it completely is silly.


To me, it seems like you have to get papers on the guys we have here as we do what we can to make border jumping more difficult. Then when another illegal without a Z visa is discovered we can deport that guy. Once the job is manageable I think we are fair to expect it to be done. Right now, trying to stem a tide driven by economic incentives appears to me to be more than we can expect.


I am also not compelled by the argument that merely enforcing employer fines will dissuade immigrants. Surely you will run illegals out of Perdue and Del Monte--exactly where we do need them--but you will never be able to stop illegals by prosecuting moms, landscaping contractors and others who hire illegals in small quantity. That would require that roundup you all claim not to endorse.


I am interested in other viewpoints, but if your argument hinges on your mistrust of enforcement going forward and you cannot offer a  realistic alternative, then perhaps your time would be better spent just ripping me that new asshole.


What else is new, right?


Posted by: spongeworthy at June 01, 2007 06:52 AM (uSomN)

375 spongeworthy,

the bill that would build trust is one where we see the border enforced, after which we could have some kind of amnesty.

If they won't enforce it now, they won't enforce it later.

My question to you is, what dynamics are changed by this bill?

How does this bill change something, and what is that something, which would lead the feds to enforce the border when they won't do it now?

Posted by: LiveFreeOrDie at June 01, 2007 07:16 AM (h7C/i)

376 A border fence will sure make this more difficult, but to believe there's anything you can do to stop it completely is silly.

Not completely, but note that since the last amnesty, the illegal population has at least doubled. Why? I believe that the 1986 amnesty, combined with a hands-off policy toward employers, has a lot to do with it.

Posted by: geoff at June 01, 2007 07:24 AM (I/w6Z)

377

So, here are the salient points of the bill, as I understand them:


-foreigners already here illegally need not worry. They won't be deported.


-foreigners not here yet can walk in at their own leizure. No one is at the border to hassle them.


-foreigners already here illegally need not pay any tax for income they earned till now. There is no mechanism to make them pay taxes on money they earn from now on.


-there is no mechanism to recover future taxes from future foreigners who will walk in either.


-if unfortunately you come across a DHS agent while you are illegally here, all you have to do is scream "Z Visa!!!", and one will be promptly issued to you. Do not holler "Amnesty!!!" though. That will unduly embarass the DHS agent.


Did I cover everything?


Posted by: Tushar D at June 01, 2007 07:28 AM (IlgNp)

378 Surely you will run illegals out of Perdue and Del Monte--exactly where
we do need them--but you will never be able to stop illegals by
prosecuting moms, landscaping contractors and others who hire illegals
in small quantity.


I don't agree with much of this, either, but it's probably not worth rehashing.

Posted by: geoff at June 01, 2007 07:32 AM (I/w6Z)

379

In the late 90s, a certain company headquartered in Arkansas was fined $50,000 by the DoJ for requiring subcontractors to verify the employment status of their employees.


6 years later they are raided by the DoJ and US Attorney's office, records siezed, they are accused of not verifying the employment status of the employees of subcontractors.


 


Posted by: Dave in Texas at June 01, 2007 07:51 AM (FXakj)

380

But if you do believe we can limit immigration going forward, pretty much the entire piece goes right out the window.


Spongeworthy, the root of my point was that does not make any sense from an economic standpoint.


If cheap labor is required to sustain our economy and grow, the either oppressed labor or infinite immigration are required to sustain the economy.


Because cheap labor itself is not naturally sustainable. If you maintain (as many has posited) that our companies and our markets NEED these immigrants to continue to function properly, you must face the reality of that. If that is true, then you are saying we need infinite immigration, unless we artificially prevent unskilled labor from becoming skilled and uneducated labor from becoming educated by oppressing them.


No finite amount of immigrants is a solution. And open borders is the death of the country.


Posted by: Entropy at June 01, 2007 08:00 AM (m6c4H)

381

So let's deal with this distrust. Can you think of a realistic bill with a chance of being passed that would not require you to trust your government to enforce the law?


Yes. One that's not comprehensive.


Enforcement only bills, they can pass all they like. If they do, then they do and they earn back my trust. If they don't, then it's just the status quo we had before the bill. It doesn't make anything worse.


Posted by: Entropy at June 01, 2007 08:04 AM (m6c4H)

382

OH, oh, I know Spong. Don't say it.


Enforcement only is not "realistic"


That's why it has like 65% popular support and why the enforcement only fence bill was in fact passed not but a year ago. Because it's not realistic and can't happen.


Also, there is no debate about global warming. All scientists have reached a consensus. There is no single credible climate scientist that disagrees.


Posted by: Entropy at June 01, 2007 08:06 AM (m6c4H)

383 Yes, spongeworthy is stuck in a loop. That is a view that economic growth can only come by taking it from someone else.

That is simply factually incorrect. The key to understanding it is that the combinatorial is of higher cardinality than the factorial.

Look up both on wiki to understand.

Basically, you can ABSOLUTELY have economic growth in a closed system, AND you can do it without forever increasing the size of the state or corporate institutions.

Now whether or not that is the BEST method at this point in time is another argument. We could possibly also have increased growth by offshoring some production and by importing some labor.

That's not the problem. The problem is that if we offshore TOO much, and import TOO much, the political appartus that keeps the market and regulatory agencies from becoming dangerous can be hijacked - intentionally - and then the political machine has no control - and the people have no control. We are reduced to Serfs.

Right now I think both are occurring.

Posted by: LiveFreeOrDie at June 01, 2007 08:10 AM (h7C/i)

384

A border fence will sure make this more difficult,


That is the point yes.


 but to believe there's anything you can do to stop it completely is silly.


To beleive we can stop drugs completely is silly. Shall we just legalize them?


To beleive we can stop sexual predators completely is silly, so why stop any at all with mandatory minimums eh? We still can't stop first offenders, so he really cares and even wants to try? Let's just give up. Open season on toddlers asses.


Posted by: Entropy at June 01, 2007 08:11 AM (m6c4H)

385

Ent, I think cheap labor is going to be needed here until the rest of the developing world catches up in wages. It seems to me we can keep these jobs here or watch them go overseas. I also don't see a lot we have to gain from more expensive agricultural products right now. We have been through this and most disagree with me, preferring to see employers who use illegals simply move their operations out of the country.


I think we'll see those wage increases soon, but right now we are in a competition that we cannot afford to lose.


How does this bill change something, and what is that something, which would lead the feds to enforce the border when they won't do it now?


Well, it's been said again and again that there are real triggers in this bill. If you don't believe they'll be enforced I understand your position, but that could be said of any enforcement bill. As I said above, if that's your objection, I have little to say that hasn't been said again and again.


Posted by: spongeworthy at June 01, 2007 08:14 AM (uSomN)

386

 Then when another illegal without a Z visa is discovered we can deport that guy


That's really a lovely story, but here's what will actually happen: open border chaos. No deportations for ANYONE. This bill will destroy ALL enforcement mechanisms that are currently in place. We will have all the amnestied Z visas, plus 10 million Z visas holders that aren't even here yet, plus 20 million illegal non-visa holders that we still won't deport.


Posted by: Entropy at June 01, 2007 08:15 AM (m6c4H)

387 We just need to slow it down so it doesn't destabilize the system. Everything in the universe has input and outputs.

There is still a difference between a light rain and a thunder storm. The latter can create flash floods.

Posted by: LiveFreeOrDie at June 01, 2007 08:15 AM (h7C/i)

388

I think we'll see those wage increases soon, but right now we are in a competition that we cannot afford to lose.


So you wish to import how many millions of people you can't get rid of when the competition is over??


Dude....


Are you familiar with thermodynamics? You put the US system in contact with the South American systems and they will not stop until you have equilibrium.


Poor south americans will not stop coming to the US until the economic prospects in the US are identical to the economic prospects in South America. That is when the market will stop immigration.


Think about that.


Posted by: Entropy at June 01, 2007 08:25 AM (m6c4H)

389

Yes. One that's not comprehensive.


Sorry, but we lost that last election. It's comp or nothing.


Enforcement only bills, they can pass all they like. If they do, then they do and they earn back my trust. If they don't, then it's just the status quo we had before the bill. It doesn't make anything worse.


See, most of the posters here object because the security measures won't be enforced. But you say you want the security measures. Even if they aren't enforced?


And the status quo is the least secure of all, since we don't get to document those living here, can't tell them from yesterday's border jumper or terrorist and we can't collect any money from them when they hit the ER at 3:30 A.M.


Funny you mention drugs. That's what this reminds me of--the failed War on Drugs.


Child molestation is not an economic phenomenon and has no business in this discussion. You lose me on this stuff a lot and you cheat your own intellect by tossing out cheap arguments like that one.


I can't deal with this slow comment loader--we're talking a lag of almost a minute. Next thread.


Posted by: spongeworthy at June 01, 2007 08:26 AM (uSomN)

390

Sorry, but we lost that last election. It's comp or nothing.


And there is no debate on global warming.


Sorry Sponge...you don't see your own error here but that trick won't work on me. You can not make me give up just by declaring your side has allready actually won, even though they haven't. It's a neat trick but I've seen it too many times.


There is another election coming in a year, and another 2 and 4 years after that. We passed enforcement only just last year, and have 65% support for more of the same.


So please, wake up on this point. You're objectively wrong trying to claim that nothing else is possible.


Just because Bush and Co. keep declaring the debate over, doesn't make it over. Any more then Gore doing it does.


Posted by: Entropy at June 01, 2007 08:33 AM (m6c4H)

391

Child molestation is not an economic phenomenon and has no business in this discussion.


It does not matter. It illustrates the flaw in your logic.


We cannot do it completely, therefor, any time trying at all is wasted.


That is what you put foward....


Apply that logic to other phenomina, like child molestation, reductio ad absurdem, it proves false.


Posted by: Entropy at June 01, 2007 08:35 AM (m6c4H)

392 And the status quo is the least secure of all, since we don't get to
document those living here, can't tell them from yesterday's border
jumper or terrorist and we can't collect any money from them when they
hit the ER at 3:30 A.M.


I disagree. (surprise)  Those willing to step forward and be documented are not those we need to fear.  Make guns illegal and only criminals ... blah blah blah.

Posted by: Toby928 at June 01, 2007 08:58 AM (ATbKm)

393

well, now that they're in bed together, we can only hope that Andrew Sullivan lets ace use the CPAP machine once in a while.


-



Posted by: BumperStickerist

Dude, not to be a spelling nazi, but you misspelled CRAP.  And I didn't realize Sully had a CRAP machine, but it does explain a lot...

Posted by: Gekkobear at June 03, 2007 12:13 PM (3O+FT)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
306kb generated in CPU 0.46, elapsed 1.724 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.4258 seconds, 629 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.