[mccookgazette.com] Fair ~ 66°F  
High: 78°F ~ Low: 47°F
Thursday, Oct. 23, 2014

Where are the TEA Parties When We Need Them

Posted Wednesday, April 28, 2010, at 1:00 PM

(Photo)
For the last two years we have heard ad nauseum that the TEA Parties were not formed simply to rail on President Obama. The timing of their formation and what they were protesting did not exactly support them but let us for the second take them at their word that their organization is not purely anti-Obama.

We were originally told that the TEA Party was organized to fight against the taxes that Obama was forcing on all of us. The problem with is at the time of their founding Obama had not raised taxes and in fact had been in office long enough for him to raise taxes. By the time of their big anti-tax protest on April 15, 2009 Obama had actually cut taxes. By the time of their next tax protest on April 15, 2010 Americans were paying taxes at the lowest levels in 50 years. So this argument fell flat.

They then moved onto the Health Care debate but more specifically on the fascists, Nazi, communist, soviet country that Obama was trying to force on all of this. Let's forget for a moment that the four main areas that they claimed Obama was taking us down the path of were not even ideologically similar (fascists fit Nazis but neither fit communist or Soviet or let's not forget socialist).

They decried Obama tearing up the Constitution, though they could not specifically point to a single point in the Constitution that Obama was denying them. One of the Amendments that was shouted out the loudest that Obama was violation was the 2nd (the right to bear arms). The only problem Obama had only two gun bills go across his desk both of which he signed both of which strengthened gun rights not weakened them. There typical answer to this was "Well he will eventually". So they are protesting something from the future that may or may not happen.

So here we are the TEA Party Patriots are fighting for our Constitutional rights and civil rights.

They have been charged with being racist and bigoted. They have been charged with being mostly conservative (which they deny and claim that most of the members are Democrats and Independents, which, is true IF you combine to two poll numbers. But funny thing they do not believe in the polls, unless of course the polls favor them). They have been charged with only being an anti-Obama or Democratic crowd which they vehemently deny and say that they are an anti-government group fed up with the over-reaching arms of the government of the people.

So when the new law in Arizona was passed that gave the police the right to detain any person they suspected of being here illegally and further detain them if they did not have the correct paperwork, this should have been their big opportunity.

Arizona politicians and it's supporters claim that this is simply an anti-immigration law that will not affect regular US Citizens in any way. If you believe that I have some prime ocean front property I'd like to see you outside of McCook.

This law at it's very simplest is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution that specifically outlaws illegal searches and seizures. Let me explain this. If a police officer in Arizona sees a person of Latino or Mexican descent they can by law pull them over or stop them on the street on the justification that they may appear to be here illegally. If this person does not have the proper papers to show that they are an American citizen they can be detained. Most people that are American citizens do not make it a point to carry their birth certificates around with them. This at it's worst is racial profiling. But what it truly is, is illegal search and seizure. If the police are detaining people of a certain race just because they look "illegal" then it is an illegal search and seizure.

This is also a civil rights abuse because American will be stopped and asked for their documents simply because of the way they look, not that they have done anything wrong.

So here is my question. In Arizona we have a government that has overstepped it's bounds and not only has put the rights of Arizonians but Americans at risk. They have forsaken the majority to catch the minority. They have become a police state which is the essence of a fascist government. Where are the TEA Partiers? This is the perfect opportunity for them to prove to the rest of America that they are not racist, that they are not just a group of Conservatives, that they are not simply an anti-Obama and Democratic organization.

This is their opportunity to prove to everyone that they are fighting for all American rights under the Constitution.

Yet .... they are silent.

The silence is deafening.


Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

So all their talk about protecting the Constutition and civil rights WAS bogus. Thanks for clarifying that edmund. I had always suspected as much and you just confirmed that once again they have been caught in another lie to prove they aren't what they actually are.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 1:28 PM

I am not really sure why you can not wrap your head around this edmund. I explained it to you on another thread and I explained it in this blog, but I suppose since you just are not getting this I will explain it again. I am a teacher after all, and I have never stopped trying to explain simple things over and over so someone can understand.

For one this is not a federal law, I do not even know where you came up with that one. It is a state law.

The state law as written gives police the authority to stop anyone who looks "illegal". It is at their discretion. So anyone that looks Latino or Mexican falls under this. There are millions of Americans in this country legally that have Lation or Mexican descent, which means if the police think they look illegal they can stop them without any other justification. This is a violation of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution protecting American citizens from illegal search and seizures. They can also be detained if the police believe that the American does not have the correct paperwork. This is a violation of the 5th Amendment which would deprive a person their liberty.

Understand now?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 1:36 PM

Wait a second, when the TEA Party switch to illegal immigration? I was wondering what they were going to target after their complaint about taxes fell on the deaf ears of the 95% of Americans who paid less taxes, or their complaint about the government takeover of health care which never happened but they claim has, or their protecting Wall Street.

Do they really have any real beliefs or do they just protest what Fox News tell them to.

It is interesting that after all their protesting about civil and constitutional rights that they just threw that issue away as soon as a true infraction of rights occurred.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 1:42 PM

Mike

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bi...

After reading page 1 lines 30 31 32 I come away with a completely different interpretation, one that says the cops do not have the freedom to stop anyone on the basis of their race.

-- Posted by Fundin on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 1:59 PM

I must say I find it very disturbing everytime I see you refer to yourself as a teacher.

Either you are intentionally misleading, or well...just not very bright. Either way, the children you are teaching will suffer.

"if the police think they look illegal they can stop them without any other justification" - I'm sorry mike, but there is nothing good to say about this comment...it is a lie. You really should read the bill before writing about it.

Do you really suppose that all the police in Arizona are going to pull over everytime they see an Hispanic? Have you ever been to Arizona mike?Sounds like a good SNL skit to me. Truly hysterical mike...priceless.

This is what liberals do best though. Pander to the minority vote by creating fear and racism where there is none. That ought to soften the blow in November, but it won't be enough to save your democratic leaders.

-- Posted by Husker23 on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 2:27 PM

Husker it's called an example and my point is the law now gives them the authority to do it. Every time you are edmund question my intelligence I feel a little bit better about myself because it just simply means you have no legitimate answer so you fall back on questioning the intelligence of a person in hopes that people will not see you have no response.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 2:44 PM

Good Link loud

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinio...

this is from The great satan's website, that is Rush Limbaugh for all of those in Rio Linda or Lincoln

-- Posted by Fundin on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 2:46 PM

There's only one slight problem with your take Fundin the lines you read 30 31 32 completely contradict lines 23 and 24 which state:

23 THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO

24 IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES,

How else do you prescribe to identify if a person is here illegally if you do not first look at race?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 2:49 PM

mike,

All due respect...my answer, my response, is for you to read the bill. The bill (and more specifically the part which you conveniently omit - line 20) refers to something called "lawful contact". Which means that they cannot simply stop someone because they look Hispanic, African, Caucasion, or any other race.

This also means that your comment: "if the police think they look illegal they can stop them without any other justification" - is a complete and total lie.

Read the flippin bill teacher.

-- Posted by Husker23 on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 3:01 PM

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW

21 ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW

22 ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF

23 THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO

24 IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE

I think the key is "for any lawful contact"

being a hispanic is not a justification to being pulled over, you have to be breaking the law, then the cop can ask to see you identification, one of the legal forms of ID is a legal drivers license

One more time, the cops cannot stop just because they are hispanic. Now if your a liberal, watch out it is open season!HA HA

-- Posted by Fundin on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 3:07 PM

me thinks loud has no intelligent response...beep,buzz, BOOM!

-- Posted by Husker23 on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 3:14 PM

Troll or Moran...which are you loud? Maybe you need a defrag today, or a disk wipe and reformat.

-- Posted by Fundin on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 3:16 PM

Blah Blah Blah loud. I see a good discussion about a law written in light of the failure of the federal goverment to secure our borders. btw, that was a joke you oversensitive doofus. Chill

Yacht, it is entirely possible for a bad cop to over step the limits described in this law and if that happens too bad for him, as he will have earned his own problems.

-- Posted by Fundin on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 4:25 PM

Well carl that situation exsisted before the new law didn't it. I don't believe for a moment that the cops in Arizona are going to start pulling over hispanics, liberals or french looking people just because of the new law. To believe that we have to assume that all the cops corrupt and that is simply not true.

Now for loud i recommend jail time, he is just too sensitive and needs to be put away for a loooong time. ;)

-- Posted by Fundin on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 4:40 PM

"So they are protesting something from the future that may or may not happen."

Much like the Nobel committee awarding future behavior, me thinks.

(Sorry, just couldn't pass this one up, balances the scales nicely, don't you think?)

-- Posted by newdawn on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 5:54 PM

My taxes are not less over the last year. The folks that pay 75% of all taxes are paying more in taxes. If you want to understand why people are mad you need to consider that 47% of all Americans do not pay any federal tax at all.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 8:56 PM

GI whats wrong with corporations making money?

-- Posted by npwinder on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 10:07 PM

You know I love the fact that all you conservatives are getting on here praising how good the bill is because the federal government did nothing to stop it. There is just one slight problem with that. They tried. Several times during Bush's term Republicans tried to pass new laws that would alleviate the problem of illegal migration but conservatives through a collective fit every time mention of a new bill was brought up. So in essence you are blaming yourselves for nothing being done on immigration. You are also guilty of parading around claiming that Obama was taking away your civil rights (thought you still can't point to a single one) and yet when a state takes away the civil rights of an entire race of people you blame ... Obama?

That's fine we all see where you stand civil rights for us, but for the rest it just gets a great big yawn. It must have really bit you in the but when Karl Rove, of all people, came out and called the bill unconstitutional. But not to worry Rush will throw his tantrum tomorrow and Karl will take back his statement and apologize for getting out of line.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 10:31 PM

Okay can we end the suspense here because it is driving me nuts. It is spelled M-O-R-O-N not M-O-R-A-N. If you are seriously going to call someone a moron it does not really look all that well on you if you can't even spell the word right.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 10:34 PM

Now you know full well G.I. that these guys like to make up imaginary things that you have said so that they can look superior to you. It's fun isn't it?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 11:58 PM

I do totally understand the overriding thread going on in here. It's just unfair being a white man in the United States today. Sure we are in the minority and sure we still make more money and have more power than any other race or the other sex combined, but us white guys are just being treated so unfair while all these brown and black guys and brown and black and white ladies just keep getting all the breaks. I understand now, it's the plight of the white male.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 6:53 AM

Again and again, you disappoint, Mike. It's shameful when an educator refuses to "do his homework" before publishing an opinion, and then denies his bias when the facts are printed over and over.

I am very grateful that my children don't go to school in McCook. Educators that refuse to consider facts should not teach.

-- Posted by MrsSmith on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 7:44 AM

Carl,

As I recall, it wasn't just the "cons" who took that bait -- many of our esteemed representatives were "for it" before they were "agin' it."

Furthermore, past bad behaviors on the part of that leader made it an easy sell -- are you assigning past bad behaviors on all of the men and women in blue?

-- Posted by newdawn on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 8:04 AM

As typical liberals, GI and Loud have completely ignored the multiple links posted. We'll try again...possibly at least Mike will be honest enough to actually READ THE LAW...

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bi...

Maybe GI and Loud could be enticed by an article that quotes one of the writers of the law?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinio...

"What fewer people have noticed is the phrase "lawful contact," which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. "That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law," says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. "The most likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop."

>

"Is having to produce a driver's license too burdensome? These days, natural-born U.S. citizens, and everybody else, too, are required to show a driver's license to get on an airplane, to check into a hotel, even to purchase some over-the-counter allergy medicines. If it's a burden, it's a burden on everyone.

Still, critics worry the law would force some people to carry their papers, just like in an old movie. The fact is, since the 1940s, federal law has required non-citizens in this country to carry, on their person, the documentation proving they are here legally -- green card, work visa, etc. That hasn't changed."

I guess we'll see if our pet liberals can stop themselves from parroting complete lies and actually address the facts.

One wonderful thing about Mike's column...those good McCookites that actually read it, and the comments, will quickly learn how "open-minded," "educated," "tolerant," and "loving" American liberals really are...which can only be a good thing for our country.

-- Posted by MrsSmith on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 8:16 AM

Mike,

Are you a racist? I only ask because you seem pretty fixated on race in this discussion and I believe you were the only one who ever brought up race. I think it is racist for you to assume that only hispanic people can be in this country illegally. I happen to have a friend who is Norweigan who spent several months/years I'm not sure which in the United States illegally, if he were pulled over by police in Arizona under this law he would have been flagged by immigration. But I guess since he is white they probably wouldn't ask to see his ID when stopped huh? Those nasty racist police officers would just wave him by.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 9:36 AM

SW, seriously? Are you truly being serious with that question? But I know how you work it is quite obvious. You are doing what the rest are doing but you are doing it while claiming to stay above the fray. If you want to go ahead and believe that this law is going to target illegal Norwegians that is fine.

But what you and edmund and MrsSmith and the gang are doing is really quite simple you are trying to excuse a law based on race by calling those people that are offended by the law the true racists. That's fine, if that's your reality.

Deny, deny, deny. That's what you all are best at. The simple matter of fact is, and MrsSmith thank you for posting the link again and if you had actually read my post referring to the link you would have had your answer but okay you obviously need things explained to you like edmund does.

Lines 23 and 24 are contradictory to lines 30-32. You cannot determine if someone is in this country illegally unless you first establish race. Fortunately one sheriff in Arizona has a mind of his own and has already declared that he will not follow the law.

This law WILL be struck down for a multiple of reasons. The inherent contradictions written into the law and the unconstitutional search and seizure that it allows.

But again you all are so busy blaming liberals for this mess that you have excused the eight years that conservatives ruled Washington. You have excused the close to 30 years that McCain has been Senator of Arizona. Blame, blame, blame.

By the way edmund I looked into your claim about the TEA Partiers now going after illegal immigration. It must be just your local chapter because none of the national organizations even mention it. They are still fighting for the civil rights and the Constitution of "real Americans".

As I said at the start their deafening silence on this bill does nothing more than lend credence to the claim that they only care about rich white Americans rights and the rest just have to deal with it.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 10:31 AM

Mike

Actually I was being sarcastic with that question, I don't think you are a racist, but you do seem to be making a lot of racist sounding statments lately.

Why so you see race as being the way to first establish if someone is in the country legally? This seems like a pretty racist thing to say and you've said it a couple of times now. I used my Norweigan friend as an example to try to teach you that not only people of color can be in the country illegally but you blew that off because I must be a racist.

I haven't blamed anyone for the problem, however, what do you think the solution is?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 11:00 AM

"Lines 23 and 24 are contradictory to lines 30-32"

Question mike...Is it your normal practice to begin reading bills (or any other text for that matter) in the middle of the sentence?

For those of you that believe the lies from this teacher (because at this point you are blatantly and intentionally lying), the sentence actually begins on line 20 with "FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT".

I suspect you don't do well with cooking recipes, do you mike?

-- Posted by Husker23 on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 11:29 AM

"Actually I was being sarcastic with that question, I don't think you are a racist, but you do seem to be making a lot of racist sounding statments lately.

Why so you see race as being the way to first establish if someone is in the country legally? This seems like a pretty racist thing to say and you've said it a couple of times now."

Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 11:00 AM

So you say in the first paragraph that you were being sarcastic about me being a racist then in the next paragraph you follow that up with .... calling me a ... racist. Oh it's all so clear now.

How do you think law enforcement will be able to determine if someone is in this country legally or not without asking first and if they are asking what determination did they use?

As to how to fix the problem I subscribe to the McCain method, you know, before he was against it so he could be re-elected Senator? Also not to mention the way Bush also believed in. Amnesty for those already here. Make them legal citizens, pay taxes, put their legal status in the United States. At that point we can then come up with a proper way of dealing with the new crop of illegal immigrants coming into the country. Arresting them sending them back to Mexico does not work, obviously.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 1:00 PM

Notice reformed they keep telling us that their are other ways to identify if someone is here legally or not but when directly asked what those ways are they call us stupid and tell us to look up but give absolutely no answer.

It's interesting though that for the last year this same group of people have been telling us that racism does not exist. The issue is dead and yet when something does come up that is on it's head about race they claim that WE are the racist because we keep talking about race. You gotta love circle logic.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 1:03 PM

RFW

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bi...

A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS

35 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW

36 ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

37 1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.

38 2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.

39 3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL

this is what the new law intends to require.

-- Posted by Fundin on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 1:35 PM

rrw,

I will answer your question with a question of my own...How is that handled now? How does the Immigration Service know which places to investigate, or which people to question? There are procedures in place for determining who is or isn't here legally. If I get pulled over for doing something illegal, it falls on me to provide documentation of my identity, including address, height and weight. The left appears to be indicating that I should be required to show my drivers license, but immigrants (legal or illegal) should be exempt from those laws that the citizens are told to follow? You like questions rrw, then answer that for me.

Why don't we hear about these "racist" cops pulling illegal immigrants over now?...what keeps them from pulling over those same people now and writing a citation for a "dirty license plate", or a "broken windshield"? Because there are rules and regulations regarding that now. What makes you people think that this law is going to change who they pull over that they aren't already pulling over?

I'll grant you that there are bad cops, just like there are bad teachers (no names mentioned), but to make the presumption that there are all these racist police officers in Arizona waiting to abuse this law is quite a stretch.

To presume that you know how one person is going to react is naive...to presume that you know what a hundred, or a thousand police officers in Arizona are going to do is simply delusional and paranoid.

My opinion is that the left is pandering this situation to stir up trouble where there is none in order to create fear and to maintain or build a voting block. This is nothing more than a tool that the citizens of Arizona have given local law enforcement to enable them to do what the Fed can't or won't.

-- Posted by Husker23 on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 1:38 PM

70% of the people in Arizon endorse the bill also.

1)the police will turn over any illegals to the fed, read the law.

Why do you exist, and what are you moran?

I'm sorry that was for mike. I think moran is the proper spelling for the level of posters on this board.

Loud, this is humor again, just so your chips don't get fried. ;}

-- Posted by Fundin on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 2:00 PM

rrw,

If you were a witness to a crime, how would the police record your name for future reference (in the event of a trial)? If you were a victim of a crime, do they just take your word for it as to who you are? How is it handled now? Why would that change?

Your questioning keeps going in circles...what about this, what about that? Just state what you truly believe and get to the point already.

You seem to believe that Arizonians, or law enforcement, or both...are simply racist and looking for a way to get those Hispanics out of Arizona. That's pretty easy for someone to say if they don't live there.

If what Loud says is true (not a good example, I know) that "they take them to immigration" - then why do you believe that they will "profile" any more or less than they do now? Why would a police officer take a "witness" or "victim" to jail with the new law vs taking them to immigration under the old law (as loud believes)?

Racism is NOT the motivator for this legislation. It IS the motivation for building a voting base for the democratic party.

-- Posted by Husker23 on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 2:36 PM

I love it the fear and hate crowd is now trying to claim that Democrats are the ones stoking fear. Somehow I don't think showing concern for a law that could put honest Americans in jail for the way they look or act is a trifle bit different from claiming that there are death panels in a health care bill that put your grandparents to sleep but that's just me.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 2:37 PM

Do you remember the "true" grassroots that helped elect Obama? They are getting geared up again and the amazing thing is Republicans and conservatives are handing them gifts left and right. First it was the obstructionism on the stimulus bill and then taking credit for it getting passed. Then there was the obstructionism on the health care bill followed by the taking credit for getting it passed. Then came the Republicans standing up for Wall Street despite over 70% of Americans wanting some kind of reform and filibustering debate. They kept saying they wanted to debate the bill and yet they kept filibustering to keep it away from debate.

Then came the Arizona law which will result in racial profiling. Politicians and regular people can claim as much as they want to it won't happen but I will take the word of an Arizona sheriff that has been a cop longer than most of us have been adults who refuses to enforce the law because there is no way it won't result in racial profiling.

The Republicans and conservatives have managed to piss off an entire group of people that typically don't vote in mid-term elections. In the words of edmund but in a much nicer way "Watch and learn, watch and learn."

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 2:45 PM

The reason you are having trouble getting an answer is because your question is (intentionally?) misleading and in contradiction with the bill. The law is written so that an officer cannot simply profile, and engage someone that may "look like/talk/walk/act like an illegal immigrant". It is after they have been contacted for some other offense that the investigation is allowed to determine citizenship. Why are we going in circles?

It is obvious that you are intentionally trying to either mislead with your question, or corner someone into saying something resembling racism.

If you are looking for such a response, quit directing your question to me. Ask one of the liberal twins on this blog...they are certainly capable of giving you the racist answer you are digging for.

-- Posted by Husker23 on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 3:38 PM

Thanks for the drink gi...can always count on you.

-- Posted by Husker23 on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 4:00 PM

Okay Husker and edmund and SW you all say that you can tell who is an illegal immigrant through other ways but using race, yet none of you have yet to provide an answer. Husker thinks that question is intentionally misleading. It's pretty simple Husker you say you don't need race to tell if someone is an illegal immigrant or not and my question is what other way can you tell someone is an illegal immigrant if you throw race out? How is this misleading?

edmund, once again instead of giving an answer to question directed towards him as gotten stuck on the same non-answer on every post.

So I guess it is up to you SW, you have called me a racist without calling me a racist in your twisted logic so how do you tell if someone is in this country illegally if you throw out the question of race?

I think this is a very fair and honest question. Do any of you care to enlighten us?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 5:23 PM

Something just occurred to me that several of you have brought up over the last couple of days about education (put it more simply instead of answering a question you just take a pot shot at me being a teacher). You all subscribe to the idea that our educational system is nothing more than indoctrination centers yet what you want to replace it with is only teaching students one side of a story that you agree with and leaving any other side out -- that my friends is the definition is indoctrination.

What real teachers do which really does not surprise me that none of you even know what a real teacher does (just what you have been fed) is try to give students all sides of every story and give them the tools to decide for themselves what is right. That is education. Not what you subscribe to which is the true indoctrination.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 5:27 PM

By the way Fundin under the definition under the law that you quoted, anyone not carrying a valid Arizona license can be detained. So I guess you won't be going to AZ for awhile.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 5:30 PM

"By the way Fundin under the definition under the law that you quoted, anyone not carrying a valid Arizona license can be detained. So I guess you won't be going to AZ for awhile."

Mike the law enforcement in the metro area of phoenix will have access to verify the validity of my arkansas drivers licence easily, so i have no worries driving the 60 miles from Queen Creek to Surprise, as long as I obey the laws.

No laws hinder the law abiding people.

I think the usa needs to create a better program for temporary workers to come to this contry for jobs. Then this country needs to spend more time finding the criminals and getting them out of the country or in jail

-- Posted by Fundin on Fri, Apr 30, 2010, at 8:00 AM

As the best minds of Democrats and Republicans have not been able to create the methods of securing the border what would you do Loud?

Crank up that old 8088 processor Loud and enlighten us. ( that is humor again loud, to bad i can't show you with big print and lots of pictures so don't get all huffy.)...;)

-- Posted by Fundin on Fri, Apr 30, 2010, at 9:12 AM

GI,

My appologies, I've been reading a lot of things where people have been saying business don't pay enough taxes and make too money and interpretered your post to mean that.

Senior Loud, In my opinion if its legal, its not evading taxes its getting a tax break.

-- Posted by npwinder on Fri, Apr 30, 2010, at 9:21 AM

taling to the wrong guy there GI

-- Posted by Fundin on Fri, Apr 30, 2010, at 9:49 AM

MIke, I said I didn't believe you were a racist, I said you made racist comments, you haven't denied making racist comments instead you attack me for supposedly calling you a racist. One doesn't need to be a racist to say stupid racially insensitive things. The purpose of my statements was to try to get you to stop and think before you spout off, evidentally it didn't work.

I tell if someone is here illegally by verifying proof of residency, I find it sad that you still think race is the determining factor that decides residency.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Apr 30, 2010, at 10:27 AM

Btw Mike,

I think that in this case the Democrats are stoking fear in the same way Republicans stoke fear on issues they worry about. I know you can't see it because you are such an ideologue but that doesn't change the reality. They don't see their fear mongering for what it is anymore than you see yours.

Your point about teaching, so is what you do here teaching or not?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Apr 30, 2010, at 10:37 AM

SW, how do you pinpoint someone to look at their residency? It's all well and good to check papers but my question was how are going to make that determination to check the papers. What you have answered is after contact. I am asking about before contact how do you make that determination?

Okay fine I will play your game since you enjoy backing people into the corners that you paint though claim they painted them themselves. I have no problem answering direct questions with direct answers.

Nothing I have said has been racist. I have called racism into question by posing the question how else are you going to decide whether someone is here illegally if not using race. So far I have either gotten no answers, run-around answers, or in your case an answer that happens after an officer has already made the determination to ask for papers.

This has nothing to do with fear tactics SW this has to do with reality. Perhaps the reason I do not see the fear tactics is because there are none being used. Calling a law into question that could result in racial profiling is a lot different than claiming that there are death panels for grandma when there is in fact none and the people that made the claim in the first place knew so.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Apr 30, 2010, at 11:31 AM

You know SW I forget that you are the king of parsing words. You don't want to call me a racist because you don't think I'm a racist but I continue to say racist things. If you say so.

By the way can you point to a racist comment I have made?

Simply calling out a law that can very well lead to racial profiling is not racist.

Saying that all the brown people need to be round up and sent back to Mexico is racist.

It's a pretty clear distinction. But I guess for the crowd that has determined that racism is dead they are the only ones that can determine what racism is.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Apr 30, 2010, at 11:37 AM

Well that was a lovely tale of myth and lies you just told edmund you should go into book writing for conspiracy theorists. You'd make quite a bit of money. You could write a series of books.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Apr 30, 2010, at 1:33 PM

But it really doesn't surprise me edmund that even though I asked the question specifically of SW that you would respond with nothing more than glittering generalaties, falsehoods, and lies. In the words of, well, you ....

LINK?!

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Apr 30, 2010, at 1:56 PM

Guillermo,

I don't know if Democratic leaders have said it was Nazism, I guess I meant the Democrats on these boards so I guess I was guilty of not speaking clearly and I apologize.

I guess only Republicans can be guilty of bad behavior in some people's view.

Mike,

"How else do you prescribe to identify if a person is here illegally if you do not first look at race?"

I honestly don't see how you can not see this as a racist statement. I don't know if I can be any clearer on this point, I've made it several times and you've continued to shift the discussion away from your statement.

I don't know about your experience with police Mike, but everytime I am pulled over or suspected of illegal activity I am asked for identification, if I can't provide ID I am asked to sit in the police car while they check me out being as you might put it "detained" I don't know, maybe I look like an illegal immigrant or some other type of criminal, but that has been my experience. I assume it generaly works that way.

You say you are worried this law could lead to racial profiling and I agree it could and I am worried about that too. However, I am also worried that federal control of healthcare can lead to rationing and then to the death panels you regularly mock mention of. That said, when people go out trying to spread fear about what COULD happen I think that is fear mongering.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Apr 30, 2010, at 3:26 PM

I have at no time shifted the discussion away from that statement. I have made that statement on several occasions and have not back away from it.

Now, I have asked several times on this board what other ways can a police officer suspect someone of being here illegally without first identifying race and no one has yet to answer the question. If you want to talk about shifting I can start with you. I have asked you on multiple occasions how this can be accomplished and your reply has consistently been to question my assertion without given an answer. So SW, through race out, how would a police officer determine whether they felt someone might be here illegally before contact? I thought it was a simple question. Am I wrong?

The rationing concern is nothing more than a myth. It was invented by the health care insurance companies as a way to steer people away from the idea that health insurance should be cheap and readily available to all. Those "death panels" that the politicians kept yelling about were nothing more than end of life consultations which are done on a daily bais.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Apr 30, 2010, at 4:07 PM

I would almost agree with you edmund except for the fact that the first person to bring up race was Michael Steele who is the head of the Republican Party, not a Democrat, so your assertion is off.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Apr 30, 2010, at 4:08 PM

That governor of Arizona. You have to wonder what is going on in her head. Now she is claiming that her state has been "under terrorists attacks" by illegal immigrants. I guess they will truly stop at nothing to get some form of the word terrorist in any speech.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Apr 30, 2010, at 4:13 PM

"I guess only Republicans can be guilty of bad behavior in some people's view."

Is this the point when you go into the woe is me speech SW?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Apr 30, 2010, at 4:13 PM

It appears as the Arizona legislature has decided that lines 23 and 24 were contradictory as they have dropped "lawful contact" (which many of you said was perfectly fine language)and are amending it to explicitly bar officers from pulling anyone over due to race, ethnicity, or national origin.

Not only have they amended out lawful contact and replaced it with stop, detention, or arrest.

We shall see if the governor signs the amended bill.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Apr 30, 2010, at 4:59 PM

HB 2162 also places new restrictions on the circumstances under which a police officer may ask for a suspect's immigration status. SB 1070 allowed officers to question anyone during "lawful contact" where "reasonable suspicion" exists that the person might be an undocumented immigrant. The new language strikes the word "contact" and inserts the phrase "stop, detention or arrest." It also specifies that the questioning can take place only if the officer first suspected the person to be in violation of some other law.

This revision should have the effect of making immigration status a secondary enforcement issue, something that can come up only after police have already stopped the person for some other kind of suspected violation. The full passage in question now states: "For any lawful STOP, DETENTION OR ARREST made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF ANY OTHER LAW OR ORDINANCE OF A COUNTY, CITY OR TOWN OR THIS STATE where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who AND is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation."

Language in SB 1070 that went to the trouble of specifying that an officer could stop anyone suspected of a traffic violation is missing from HB 2162. However, an officer's ability to do that is obvious from existing law, and implicit in the revised language about stops and detentions

reads like a good clarification. If a hispanic is not breaking a law they will be ok.

-- Posted by boojum666 on Fri, Apr 30, 2010, at 7:08 PM

RUSH: Jeff in Thailand on the EIB Network. Welcome, sir, nice to have you with us.

CALLER: Hello, Rush?

RUSH: Yeah. Right here.

CALLER: Can you hear me? I'm calling on my Magic Jack computer. And I'm calling because I am a teacher here in Thailand. I've been working here for three years, and every year I have to renew my visa, I have to renew my work permit, and I have to provide all sorts of documentation just to meet the criteria to be a teacher here in Thailand. Every time when I have to leave the city -- I'm in Hat Yai. Hat Yai is 12 hours off of Bangkok near the Malaysian border.

RUSH: Hm-hm.

CALLER: Every time when I have to leave the city, I have to bring my passport.

RUSH: Meaning you have to have your papers with you at all times?

CALLER: Yes! I have to have my papers with me at all times. If I overstay my visa, I get fined. I can go to prison, or I could get deported. If I break my work permit, I have to leave the country. So I mean here we have Thailand, a Second World country at best, more likely a Third World country, with what you see in Bangkok with the red shirts and the yellow shirts, has more control on immigration, more policies in regards to immigrant workers than America?

An interesting example from Thailand.

Gi... yes if a person is found to be in the country illegaly they can be deported.

No administration has found a way to secure the Border between the USA and Mexico, what would you do?

I think a physical barrier will never work, too much border, too remote, too expensive. I think we need a better way to deal with the people who want to come to the USA to work. Attempt to deal with the honest worker with a better work program

Renew efforts to catch the criminals that get into the country.

-- Posted by boojum666 on Sat, May 1, 2010, at 7:14 AM

I cannot agree.

This bill does pass the test of "for the good of all".

There are about 460,000 illegals estimated to be in Arizona, so what is wrong about the simple inconvenience of carrying some valid ID, to confirm that one is here legally?

If one interferes with the task of a policeman by refusing to provide ID, is that citizen a part of the solution, or a part of the problem?

Meanwhile, there is another accomplice in this problem in Washington. He or she is directing INS to ignore reports of illegals, so the flood of immigrants continues, adding to the cost of entitlements for Arizona Taxpayers. That person is a traitor who should be prosecuted for not upholding his sworn duty. Find him and expose him. Just what part of illegal does he not get?

-- Posted by shredder09 on Sat, May 1, 2010, at 10:56 AM

Bill

How would you secure the border?

-- Posted by boojum666 on Sat, May 1, 2010, at 5:56 PM

Bll, it is a simple comparison as to how other nations deal with guest workers, I think it bugs you more that i pasted it from Rush limbaugh

Do you need an explanation as to how Mexico deals with immigrants? How about a .233 to the head.

-- Posted by boojum666 on Sat, May 1, 2010, at 6:27 PM

Boo,

Thee is no securing any border, until immigration reform provides a guest worker program with speeding processing.

Poor people recruited to work in Sam's Beloved West Wendover, NV. and Jackpot, NV -- or Wells, Elko, Battle Mountain, Winnemucca, Fort McDermid, Sparks, Reno, Carson City, Fallon, Austin, Ely, Eureka, Mesquite, Tonapah, North Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Henderson, Boulder City or Laughlin ---- Starting in ten days -- cannot wait for some bureaucracy to take three years to issue documents.

Their must be a workable guest worker program.

Reduce the tremendous pressure for undocumented entry into the U.S. and it will be impossible for terrorists to enter, hidden within the mobs.

Absolutely blockade the border, then try to stop thousands of small boats moving people to the beaches on every coast.

Reforming immigration is the only hope if the reform is comined with efficient processing.

-- Posted by HerndonHank on Sun, May 2, 2010, at 3:43 AM

The question does still remain, however, and one that was never answered (well actually two were never answered. No one was ever able to answer how an officer was able to even determine whether they thought someone was in this country illegally without first identifying race. Maybe because they took that portion out of the bill some decided the question did not even need to be answered, though I would still like to know. Naturally when I asked that question I was accused of being a racist, or to better state it "making racist statements". I guess by saying the latter you can call someone a racist without calling them a racist)

"Where were the TEA Parties on this. For over a year they have been claiming that there party was a multi-cultural party and that it wasn't mostly white. All this despite the gay and racist epitaphs that were lobbed at Senators just because of the way they believed. Naturally, when this happening instead of condemning those individuals the organizers of the TEA Party took several different directions; first they denied, then they lied, then they claimed the Senators were lying, then right out of the conspiracy manual they claimed that it was liberal infiltrators.

So they have this huge black eye regarding race (which they also deny racism exists when they are not lobbing the racist claim at President Obama and liberals) and they say they are also against the government infringing on our constitutional rights. The Arizona law as originally passed was the perfect opportunity to show them that they cared about constitutional rights for all not just conservative white people. Instead they stayed quiet. Why?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, May 2, 2010, at 7:08 PM

No edmund it has not been answered. But I understand the unwillingness to answer the TEA Party question. They have now shown that they clearly are not fighting for ALL Americans rights as guaranteed under the Constitution, just theirs. I also understand that you and others now wanting to take a pass on the question as to how a police officer is supposed to be able determine if someone is here illegally now that the language has been stricken. But I and others would still like to know. You all defended the bill's original language and spoke of how easy it was to determine legal status, but none of you could give concrete examples.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, May 3, 2010, at 9:04 AM

Once again edmund misses the mark. Nothing constructive to say huh?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, May 3, 2010, at 10:20 AM

Mike,

I musta really struck a nerve, I haven't posted or a couple days and you are still on the defensive about what I said.

"Is this the point when you go into the woe is me speech SW?"

Nah, I don't go in for the whole victim stance thing that you do.

As far as racism goes, I don't know if it is the TEA Party members claim that racism doesn't exist as you say. I know that racism exists, but I'm not a TEA Party member so you could be correct. However, I also know that not every negative expression or incident that occurs between people of different races is due to racism. I just found your comment to be a racially insensitive statement I feel is designed to stir up race issues where none need exist.

For your continued laments that no-one gave you an example of how to determine if someone is here legally that aren't based on race: If you look back I gave two. First the example of my Norweigan friend which you disregarded, and second my example of when I was pulled over and they checked my ID; neither of which are apparently good enough examples for you. I don't know why those don't count as examples, but I'd imagine because they are not race related and you have already made up your mind that only race is the identifying characteristic of resident status.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, May 3, 2010, at 4:03 PM

You still are not answering the question SW personal attacks aside. My question according to the original bill is that if a police officer suspected that someone was here illegally he could by law ask for their papers and my question was how else would a police officer determine if they felt someone was here illegally if you took race out of the question. I really do not see how this is a hard question or what you are pulling "racially insensitive" quotes from it where there are none. It is a legitimate concern. No race-baiting, no fear mongering. All we heard from this crew was first contact, look it up, first contact, look it up, but when I posed my question I either got silence or accused of making racial insensitive statements.

At what point have I ever claimed to be a victim of anything? Or did you just completely make that one up too? You are starting to sound like edmund, though you will deny making the statement or claim you meant something else, or claim that I took it wrong.

Keep pretending you are something you are not you still have some on here fooled.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, May 3, 2010, at 5:09 PM

Guillermo,

I said it COULD lead to racial profiling, not that it will there is quite a distinction between the two. Just because something can be misused is no reason for it to be outlawed, rather those that misuse the item should be punished. Do you disagree? I believe you have said you are in support of gun ownership rights, even though guns are used illegally does that mean no one should be allowed to own a gun?

If the police officers in Arizona are illegally racially profiling then they will pay the cost of thier errors.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, May 3, 2010, at 5:11 PM

Mike,

What am I?

I called you a victim in regard to the conversation we had a couple of weeks ago you remember right, the one where I said I thought you were a whiny hypocrite. No one ever says "look at me I'm a victim feel sorry for me" outright but I feel you have implied that in other occasions while trying to garner sympathy or point out how unjust and evil the other side is. I don't deny saying you appear to try to assume a victim or aggrieved stance, why would I you have lots of practice at it.

What do you mean the crew said "first contact, look it up"? I don't understand where that comes from or to what is is referring.

I thought I was clear that I was saying when the police have a contact with someone where they are trying to find out who they are, such as getting pulled over for speeding, that is when the police should verify identity. You then responded with your tired line of "No one will answer how a police officer identifies residency". I don't see how you decided that my two examples were silence to your question. I still think your line of question was racially insensitive, I don't understand why you can't see where I'm coming from here.

I don't think anyone has said the police should round up all the non-white people in Arizona to see if they are here illegally the way you and other Liberal posters here seem to imply the law advocates.

Why is it that your first response to anyone who disagrees with you is to claim they are lying? I have never said you were lying, just that I disagree with some of your points and most of your tactics. It just seems to me that whenever you get upset or can't argue a point you resort to calling people liars in the hopes someone will believe you.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, May 3, 2010, at 5:26 PM

Guillermo,

Do you then believe that illegal immigrants should not be deported?

When quoting the 4th maybe you can also look at placing some emphasis on the word UNREASONABLE.

If I spent all of my life worrying about how bad things could/might/will/conceivably/potentially happen to the extent that it forced me to never try anything I would consider that a travesty.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, May 3, 2010, at 6:41 PM

Again SW when have I ever claimed to be a victim of anything? I certainly was not claiming to be a victim when you called me a whiny hypocrite but if you want to stay with that vein of thought go ahead. After all you are the king of parcing words.

I feel like we are just operating in a circle of words here. My response to your original post and now this is that under the original law police were not required to have a reasonable reason to stop anyone and my question was without reasonable suspicion what reason would a cop have to stop someone they suspected of being here illegally. I pulled race into it because there is really no other method without it to reasonably stop someone you suspect of being here illegally.

You have got to remember SW you are not the only one I am talking to on here so to have the assumption that everything I have said on here is directed solely at you is incorrect.

How can I not see that calling a racist law what it is racially insensitive? Maybe because the people that are targeted by the law (anyone of Latino or Mexican descent) are saying the same thing. It's not like I am pulling this out of thin air.

I have yet to have a moment on here where I have not been able to argue my way out of something. The only person I have called a liar is edmund and that is because of his personal attacks on me that he makes up out of thin air, but if you think he is telling the truth than that's a shame and I will continue to call out his lies as long he wants to keep spreading them.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, May 4, 2010, at 6:03 AM

SW, I do enjoy how you deny personal attacks while admitting to making them. It's quite interesting to see in action.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, May 4, 2010, at 6:04 AM

Mike,

I don't know if you are purposefully misunderstanding or if you are incapable of adjusting your filter long enough to actually take in what I'm saying.

I said neither you nor anyone else ever "claims" to be a victim outright, however, many of you posts demonize your opponents making you the victim.

I realize you interpreted the original wording to say that police would have to use race to determine if someone is here illegally, but, when you later acknowledge that the wording has been changed but continue to trumpet the same question that has been answered I can't decide if you are deficient in some way intellectually, not paying attention, or just so set in your ways that it is impossible for you to adjust to new situations. I'm hoping for the last.

I also, know that not everything you say is directed at me, I try to only respond to the posts in which you direct your comments towards me or respond to what I have said. What do you think I was incorrectly assuming was directed at me that wasn't? You seem to make a lot of slightly snide comments but later fail to back them up.

Lying:

"The only person I have called a liar is edmund"

"Or did you just completely make that one up too?" or is this another example of me incorrectly assuming you are speaking to me? Because if it was directed to me, it looks like you are calling me a liar here. Glass houses and whatnot.

Please highlight for me the racist language in the original or current version of the law, I didn't see any. If you can't I wonder why you call it a "racist law"

I suppose you are right Mike, I should try to adjust my language to reflect my distaste for baseless attacks, since you think that any sharing of negative view and possibly anything you disagree with is an "attack"

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, May 4, 2010, at 7:46 AM

Wow radio and television without Rush, Glen, and Sean? A world where no one is shouting about things he knows nothing about or calling racism dead while calling anyone with a different ideology racist, a world where these three men knowingly lie about what is in a bill just so they can scare their listeners and viewers? How quiet and wonderful it would be.

Of course neither net neutrality and the fairness doctrine would do that but you go ahead and keep believing that they will.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, May 4, 2010, at 2:48 PM

reformedrightwinger,

I appreciate your efforts to bring a little education to the masses, but do you really think edmund was referring to the French Revolution? I find it more likely that he just liked the way it sounds and that he can compare the Democratic controlled government to terrorists.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, May 4, 2010, at 3:22 PM

How about getting me a link that isn't from Fox News or especially from Glenn Beck and I might be more willing to believe you.

I mean serious, you do know that the whole Glenn Beck is nothing but a put on right? He's a former shock jock this is what he does best, fool the foolish.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, May 4, 2010, at 5:51 PM

SW, by the way for all your muster in the past about me condemning those on the right on this blog on the left I find it interesting that not only are you condoning what edmund puts forth, but on the surface it appears you agree with him that Democrats are terrorists.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, May 4, 2010, at 5:53 PM

You Neo-Cons are incredible,

You have finally solved the 60-year old murder of super-wealthy Oklahoma rancher E.C. Mullendore in the northern Osage.

You have solved it. The killer was among all those throngs of illegal Latino immigrants swarming up through the Mullendore Ranch to sneak into Kansas.

Explains the whole thing.

Of course, considering the deaths by violence, gunshots, deliberate vehicular collisions, drowning in bath tubs, dropping a running hair dryer/or radio/ or electric shaver into bath water with the target, or even all sharp or blunt instrument fatalities -- It might be difficult to get too many people worked up over a single homicide on a remote Arizona ranch.

Particularly if the rancher has a passel of relatives eager to inherit.

But naturally, it has to be the illegals.

We are more precise now -- since they used to be "wetbacks."

Oh well, it still comes down to no solution short of complete immigration reform.

Strange, those terrible progressive moderate and liberal Democrats, Republicans and Independents have all announced their willingness to move forward with legislation.

Guess who is opposed -- Imagine that -- the Conservative America for Americans" Second and Third Generation residents and citizens -- and even some of the proud Native Americans eager to restrict ancient rights of Native Americans.

Well, what the heck, the Crow, Pawnee, Blackfoot and Utes objected to the Sioux moving west across the Northern Plains when the Europeans pushed them from their ancestral homelands close to the Great Lakes.

The Osage, Cherokee, Creek, Seminole, Chidckasaw and Choctaw even met some irritated Comanche, Arapaho, Cheyenne and Kiowa when they got invited by Federal Troops to move their "red behinds" into the territories.

Navajo and Ute used to have at it,

Hopi and Navajo were somewhat conflicted,

Comanche just naturally whupped up on everyone,

Apache and Pina had their disagreements, even the northern Jicarilla disagreed with the Ute.

You would have thought they was European in breeding.

'

-- Posted by HerndonHank on Tue, May 4, 2010, at 6:04 PM

I like that Herndon, especially the invited part because as everyone on here knows, the United States has never done anything wrong in it's past. There was no forcing of Native Americans off their home lands, they were invited and encouraged and even given treaties to encourage them to move. Who cares that their were language barriers and that most of the treaties either weren't worth the paper they were written on or completely ignored.

No, no, according to the revisionists the Native Americans went of their own free will.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, May 4, 2010, at 6:19 PM

Ahh one-liners about France. I'm sure you are one of the few people in the US that actually thinks that Bill O'Reilly not only got a real boycott of France but won it.

They refuse to go to one war with us and you can't forget it. Such gratitude especially considering if it hadn't been for the French we would have lost the Revolutionary War and remained a colony of England. How quickly we forget.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, May 4, 2010, at 10:59 PM

Oh and GI before edmund gets it in all I have to say to your post since I can't possibly actually debate you on anything is Watch and learn young sucklings oh and link.

Wow it is so much easier to debate when you have nothing constructive to say.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, May 4, 2010, at 11:03 PM

"I win every time you respond to me twit. Strike up We Are the Champions."

Nothing like a Queen reference from the party of closet homosexuals. Who didn't see that coming?

-- Posted by Platinumtoaster on Tue, May 4, 2010, at 11:27 PM

Mike and Guillermo,

How do you claim I was condoning what edmund says? There have been a few times in the past when he actually had something of merit to say and I have acknowledged those times. I think I've realized what some of my problem communicating with you guys here is. You apparently have no sense of subtlety. The only way to get through is to call names and deride people.

I don't give edmund enough credit to think about the French Revolution let alone apply it to his posts. Reformedrightwinger gave him that credit which I refuted, my post was not infact an endorsement of edmunds post but rather an illustration of his stupid tactics.

Because I don't scream at edmund and call him names, such as a closet homosexual, you say I condone his statements and agree that Democrats are terrorists? I just don't get it.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, May 5, 2010, at 2:01 PM

Mike,

"No, no, according to the revisionists the Native Americans went of their own free will."

To whom are you referring? This surely can't be another example of you employing the tactics you you decry those who don't agree with you as doing, can it?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, May 5, 2010, at 2:04 PM

Just a few observations of my time away from the blog: edmund challenged someone to a wager of the outcome in November. Reformedrightwinger not only took the wager but made a prediction. Edmund backed off his wager and said he wouldn't make a prediction until October, though that hasn't stopped the watch and learn young sucklings chant of the past few months (almost as embarrassing as the "Drill, Baby, Drill" chant).

Interesting.

Even more interesting is that not a single candidate either championed by the TEA Party or playing to the TEA Party has won a primary to date. Every single one of them have lost which has edmund backing off his claims even more. He now says that they won't win 100% of the seats and calling other foolish to believe that when no one had made the claim.

The only TEA Party candidate apparently making it out of primary season is Rubio in Florida and that's by default. He more than likely will not win as Crist is still highly popular in Florida, just not with the people that vote in primaries.

My prediction will be two-fold, first I predict that the next Congress will be a lot more moderate than this current one both on the Democratic and Republican side.

Senate 55-42-3 (If Crist doesn't win I can very much see Democrat Meeks winning by default at Crist and Rubio could split the Republican vote)

House 236-199

This could and will change as the months progress. The bill in Arizona is likely to enrage Latinos but will it get them to the voting booth? It's hard to say. 5 of the 8 House seats are held by Democrats but the three Republican House seats at this point look locked in, John McCain right now is not even guaranteed to get of his primary though I believe that he will.

It's going to be an interesting election and one I do not think will favor either liberals or conservatives. I have said that I believe that the country is a center country and there may be times when it swings a little left or little right but for the most part it stays in the center when it comes to elections.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, May 5, 2010, at 2:06 PM

Yes edmund damn the union workers. If we hadn't had a unionized mine workers in West Virginia all those coal miners would still be alive. Oh wait, Massey refused to let the miners unionize thus being able to slap band-aids on huge problems because the workers couldn't protest or they would have been fired. Yep union workers have brought us absolutely nothing to keep us safe

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, May 5, 2010, at 2:10 PM

Guillermo,

Your line of questioning for edmund makes me wonder. When you are complaining about Christians and Republicans and willfully ignore the vast majority of those people who have no specific fault as pertains to your complaints, is this because you are dishonest?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, May 5, 2010, at 2:12 PM

Senior,

I meant in some of his previous incarnations when he only rambled nonsense most of the time, I can't recall any specific examples but I do remember agreeing with him once or twice before.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, May 5, 2010, at 2:13 PM

I will admit SW that I misread your post and I retract my earlier claim and I apologize for making the assumption that you condoned what he said.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, May 5, 2010, at 2:17 PM

SW, you said in a post directed at me "To whom are you referring? This surely can't be another example of you employing the tactics you you decry those who don't agree with you as doing, can it?"

Can you clarify this statement because I honestly do not know what you are driving at.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, May 5, 2010, at 2:19 PM

Just for the record I have never stated that I believed edmund to be a closeted homosexual, a closeted liberal, yes, but never a homosexual.

I just plain think that he is a hater of all he does not or want to understand and he constantly lies and chastises about that which he does not know and when caught in a lie he comes up with a very bad pun in an effort to escape said lie.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, May 5, 2010, at 2:23 PM

Mike,

Leaving aside my commentary, my question is who are the revisionist who say Native Americans vacated of their own free will?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, May 5, 2010, at 2:28 PM

Senior,

I don't know if my question was posed with the same humorous intention. Frankly I don't see much humorous intention in Guillermo's question, I thought he was just asking it to point out edmunds ill-thought possibly hypocritical statements.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, May 5, 2010, at 2:32 PM

What coward liberal crap are you referring to Wyatt? I wait with baited breath and anticipation. This should be fun.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, May 5, 2010, at 3:38 PM

Guillermo,

I didn't think it was unclear if I think Democrats are terrorists, but for the record I don't any of our elected officials are terrorists. I don't know why you thought I got pissy, I just was trying to clarify the situation, anytime you are unclear of what I mean by all means, ask and I'll try to clarify it.

So you don't think it dishonest for you to make faulty generalizations but it is for edmund to? Or is it fine for edmund to do the same thing that you do? I'm confused. Do you agree thne that edmund is not dishonest when he lumps all Socialist European States in with Greece?

There was nothing in your questions that indicated you were relying on bad logic. Actually I found your question to be apt, it is unfair to only tell one side of the story. It would be wrong for edmund to make those assumptions you indicated. However, in this case he only addressed Greece and Spain, which I don't think I need to tell you isn't doing too hot right now. Edmund didn't make the claim you are, or if he did I missed it. You didn't point out anyone's stupidity with your question.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, May 5, 2010, at 3:46 PM

Mike,

What are you baiting your breath with: garlic, tuna, beer, something else?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, May 5, 2010, at 3:51 PM

Well, I do love me some wings!

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, May 5, 2010, at 4:28 PM

What are you baiting your breath with: garlic, tuna, beer, something else?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, May 5, 2010, at 3:51 PM

You have become edmund's deciple. You claim to hate all the name calling insults and yet there you are right along side edmund doing it.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, May 5, 2010, at 6:39 PM

Oh and edmund you have no clue as to what real socialism is do you?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, May 5, 2010, at 6:39 PM

Wait, wait if Spain and Greece are two examples of socialism not working because their economies are struggling then using that logic, capitalism doesn't work because in the past America's economy has struggled, even completely crashed.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, May 5, 2010, at 6:44 PM

Oh goodie the spell police is back in action. Thank god.

Cue Wyatt with the MY country talk. I really don't even know how to approach this one. Of course it's odd that you say we're going to get MY country back. If if is truly just YOUR country then how is anyone but yourself even going to be able to fight to get YOUR country back. Yet another person not knowing what communism is thinking we are still fighting against the Soviets. Wyatt, the Cold War ending 20 years ago.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, May 6, 2010, at 6:45 AM

Mike,

Sorry for trying to enter some light levity into the conversation, apparently the only humor you appreciate is the vicious type that involves ripping people apart. I just used a small joke, in the hopes of you looking up the correct phrase, typos are one thing but I've seen you use it a couple of times on these boards and I was hoping you would look it up to make your posts seem less stupid. I failed.

I do however find it funny that I am edmund's disciple a day after I poke fun at him is fine but when I poke fun at you it isn't. I really get tired of the generalizations on these boards.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, May 6, 2010, at 8:13 AM

Guillermo,

I'm sure you can't see it, but there is no justifiable difference between edmund's generalizations of Socialist States and your's of Christians and Republicans. You both look like fools when you do it.

You are either as dishonest or ignorant as edmund. I would like you to think for a minute or look back at some of the things you say. If you still think it is different, please explain it to me.

If edmund's level of debate is what you aspire to, I guess I'll have to find someone else to talk to.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, May 6, 2010, at 8:19 AM

Mike.

I'm still waiting to know who the revisionists who say the Indians willingly vacated their land.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, May 6, 2010, at 8:20 AM

Guillermo,

If you are going to use the same tactics as edmund, why do you bother to question him about it. I would think you would be supportive of his attempts. I'm sorry that you have decided that you are only here to provoke not discuss. Thank you for finally being honest about it, I guess.

If I address the sides unevely that is because that is what I fell the need is for. I never said I was neutral in all debate, rather that I strive for constructive discussion, which is sadly absent here, and that I would consider myself a moderate. I have criticized either side on different issues, depending on what I feel about them specifically. I toe no party line, nor do I just post in an effort to provoke others.

Any one sided posters:

The fact that any of you try to pin all blame for the financial crises on any one cause, shows how shallow your thinking is.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, May 6, 2010, at 2:42 PM

OH Wyatt still kicking the flat tires on the liberal media myth I see.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, May 6, 2010, at 3:24 PM

Senior,

I know it isn't debate, sadly, because you and those of your ilk would rather engage in juvenile name calling and other bad behavior. I think most of the posters here are great examples of what is wrong with society. Rather than trying to work to improve anything, you would rather yell at each other and point fingers. For a professed liberal you seem to be pretty bigoted. You talk about the hate of the Neo-Con, have you considered the hate you spew?

Wyatt,

I take stands, and don't consider myself wishy-washy. Just because I don't follow the all or nothing political views that dominate blogs, doesn't mean I don't have strong opinions, they may just be different than yours. I realize Rush, the great legend of your mind, thinks independent thinkers have no backbone but just because Rush says it doesn't make it so.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, May 6, 2010, at 3:25 PM

Guillermo,

I can appreciate your point, but when you continue to use those tactics when addressing me, I have no real recourse other than to stop replying, since I choose not to argue in the vein of edmund, sam, senior, etc. If that is what you want of this little gem, so be it.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, May 6, 2010, at 3:29 PM

Senior,

Can you explain why you shouldn't be lumped in with Sam and ed? You are all haters who spout vitriol and hateful nonsense regularly. Just because you are on different political sides doesn't change who you are.

But right you are, I shan't call you a Liberal anymore, I aplogize when the correct term should be hater.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, May 6, 2010, at 4:36 PM

Dadburn Wyatt, it shore is too dang godawful that you had to go shoot yourself in the foot again.

Depending upon iffen you shot off one-two or four of your 13 original toes, it means you will continue having trouble counting.

Seems some folks still can't understand that when three our of four qualified and registered voters who bother to cast ballots, mark those ballots for a single candidate -- that candidate jes natcherly wins.

Except in Florida -- where iffen a candidate has a seriously crooked brother in position to twist things around -- a majority of votes don't count.

Then a mob lead by congressional aides from 1,000 miles away can crash into the recount headquarters with the help of local police and stop the recount as a means of furthering the stolen election.

Of course, by Republican standards, that only counts as a "dirty trick," not as political corruption.

Real corruption by GOP standards can only involve them other folks, and cannot mean close business associates getting sweetheart contracts which they proceed to use to bill fraudulent charges.

Heck fellows, that's the family values GOP way.

Steal it when it is a little bit loose.

Steal it when is is fastened down.

Steal it, if you have to take the nation with it.

Steal it for the Gipper and sweet li'l Nancy, Dick Nixon and Pat, Poppa Bush and Barbara, Dubyah and the twins with fake IDs for drinking in college.

Just steal the heck out of it -- God is on our side.

-- Posted by HerndonHank on Thu, May 6, 2010, at 8:32 PM

Oh please Wyatt illuminate all of us of these supposed liberal lies that are out there.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, May 7, 2010, at 6:53 AM

Ah the myth of Social Security is raring it's ugly head again. At current rates the funds for Social Security will not run dry until 2037 and there is an easy way to fix that; raise the maximum amount that can be paid in. Problem solved.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, May 7, 2010, at 1:58 PM

Ah the myth of Social Security is raring it's ugly head again. At current rates the funds for Social Security will not run dry until 2037 and there is an easy way to fix that; raise the maximum amount that can be paid in. Problem solved.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, May 7, 2010, at 1:58 PM

GI remember the CBO is only trustworthy to this group when it matches what they are saying any other time it's a biased program.

Looks like edmund has been caught in yet another lie. Changing his reality so he can make an argument. Sadly, for him (and maybe us as well) is that we are actually paying attention to what he says. He is like so many other Fox News personalities and Rush Limbaugh, they keep forgetting that what they say is on public record for all to see forever. Are you sure you aren't kin to Steffanie? She liked to change her reality as well to fit her arguments.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, May 7, 2010, at 2:02 PM

Yes, yes JIMTS Yawn. Care to share something you haven't copied from edmund?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, May 7, 2010, at 2:40 PM

Yes apparently when you strike ALL science out of a museum it's a lot easier to create things people can look at. The $22 admission fee seems a bit high though.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, May 7, 2010, at 2:53 PM

You know it's funny edmund but the very thing that Greece is doing right now are the same things that the Republican Party wants to do here, primarily cutting programs. Yet it's biggest detractors are what would be conservatives here. As the world turns I suppose. The government of Greece has voted NOT to protect their government programs. Again don't let those nasty facts get in the way of your rants.

By the way, the government in Greece is not a liberal group but a left-center group which is a far cry from liberal but again with the facts.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, May 7, 2010, at 3:18 PM

Amazing how you can invent irony when you make up the facts. Again though, what is this new liberal Democrat party you keep talking about?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, May 7, 2010, at 3:19 PM

When edmund has nothing to add he either copies and pastes or just hit's us with one of his many headlines: His two newer incarnations are Massachussetts(his spelling not mine since this crowd is a spell check crowd) idiots and Read the news idiots.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, May 7, 2010, at 3:27 PM

edmund, edmund, edmund, poor little edmund still beating that dead horse of a myth of trickle down economics. As with George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan it was colossal failure on both accounts. You have this failed logic that tells you if you give rich people more money they will spend it and it will trickle down into the rest of us, when in fact that isn't how it works. You give rich people more money and they hold onto it and don't spend it.

But as always don't let facts get in the way of your rantings.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, May 7, 2010, at 4:53 PM

Wait I love this. Edmund your proof that you are right is by linking .... to a blog? Oh that's just rich.

By the way edmund you keep telling all of us that fiscal conservatism is the way to fix everything. Can you name a president that has actually done that? Nixon would be considered a liberal spender by your definition. Under Reagan and Bush the government and spending both grew.

So who has run a successful fiscal conservative government?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, May 7, 2010, at 4:56 PM

Nebraska. No national governments, no presidents, Nebraska. You got me on that one, but I admit that's a pretty weak example you gave. Not a single president? Nothing? Nebraska.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, May 7, 2010, at 5:34 PM

Congrats to reformedrightwinger on the 400th post on this particular blog. Though probably 75% had nothing to do with the original blog. Oh well.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, May 7, 2010, at 6:12 PM

GI,

The problem with the Glass-Steagall Act was that it made too much regulation discretionary at the will of the executive.

Leaving any business regulation discretionary in the hands of DubYah and the Draft Dodgers was akin to original complete repeal of the rules in the first place.

Just as DubYah's horse racing promoter as FEMA's chief honcho proved to be a complete disaster, there were many more political incompetents DubYah found in other areas, who were far worse for their avowed desire to "FREE" business -- especially big business.

-- Posted by HerndonHank on Fri, May 7, 2010, at 10:23 PM

Speaking of Brown his years in the Bush White House have turned him into a conspiracy nut. He actually went on Fox News and claimed that the Obama Administration caused the oil spill on purpose in an effort to stop their own stated off-shore drilling policy and that it got out of control. What's worse is that NO ONE on Fox News repudiated this claim. What a buffoon and what a crappy "news" channel that allows crackpipe theorists to come on spew their theories and then not even check them. Yep, fair and balanced all right. They should just change their slogan to "We Report What You Should Think"

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, May 8, 2010, at 6:06 PM

Senior,

"I am a Robo-Utopian Hater" = hater, I really don't see how this was confusing to you.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Sun, May 9, 2010, at 11:51 AM

I don't really see your point edmund. The EU stood behind one of it's members and stocks around the world rebounded with the news. What are we supposed to be watching and learning? That you could be possibly wrong once again?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, May 10, 2010, at 1:25 PM

Well I guess you would know edmund as your heroes George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan were the kings of liberal spending.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, May 10, 2010, at 4:55 PM

So your answer is a non answer. And what is this liberal Democrat party you keep talking about?

It is interesting that provided with the idea that his personal heroes GWB and Reagan, not to mention GWB's daddy spent more than any Democrat president doesn't deny it and instead comes back with a comment that actually when the numbers are used don't back up his claim.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, May 10, 2010, at 5:05 PM

Eduardo,

Poppa Bush left the White House after almost non-stop military adventures around the world == with severe recession, Nebraska/Kansas/Iowa/Ill/Ind/OH/Minn/Wis/Mich/Colo/Texas/etc. farm foreclosures and auctions.

Poppa Bush left a national debt of more than $4-TRILLION, more debt than accumulated by all previous administrations, beginning in the 1780' with George Washington, through Reagan.

That Flaming Liberal William Jefferson Clinton, good ol' "Slick Willy" put a big one over on the public -- eliminated tens of thousands of pages of federal rules and regulations, slashed the federal payroll and paid down Poppa Bush's debt by more than 10%. Dadburn treacherous liberals.

Then DubYah and the Draft Dodgers arrived. Whee!!

Two royally screwed-up wars, proven incompetence dealing with disasters, the entire economy destroyed -- GM and Chrysler bankrupt, and Ford seriously hurting.All but one major bank and most investment banks were "bled out and ready for the rail."

And Golly, Gee Whiz the $4-Trillion national dect had jumped to $11-Trillion the day DubYah returned to Crawford. Trying to bring the country out of near total collapse means the national debt will increase to about $13-Trillion.

Had the U.S. gone totally belly up, paying off DubYah's $11-Trillion could have taken a century.

WQith the economy up and rolling along, payoff may be complete within 20 years -- If Congress and the voters have the intestinal fortitude the job demands.

An oh yes, the for profit Health Care Companies did report $12-BILLION in 2008 net profit, as opposed to $2.5-Billion in 1998.

-- Posted by HerndonHank on Mon, May 10, 2010, at 6:28 PM

copypasterburke obviously has nothing new to say anymore as he is simply copying and pasting his previous posts.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, May 11, 2010, at 7:34 AM

Wow I was right, copypasterburke can't even be bothered to post anything new as this is copy and pasted from another blog or is it the other way around?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, May 11, 2010, at 10:08 AM

Yet another denial though it's painfully obvious that he did, oh and who can forget that with the denial an insult as well and as usual one dealing with drug usage.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, May 11, 2010, at 10:41 AM

1 trillion isn't going to be enough to bail the EU out of the cellar of liberal spending on social entitlements. Liberalism has destroyed liberal entitlement programs. You can't make this stuff up.

-- Posted by edmundburke on Tue, May 11, 2010, at 8:45 AM

From the blog Where are the TEA Parties when we need them

1 trillion isn't going to be enough to bail the EU out of the cellar of liberal spending on social entitlements. Liberalism has destroyed liberal entitlement programs. You can't make this stuff up.

-- Posted by edmundburke on Tue, May 11, 2010, at 8:46 AM

From the blog Where's All the Anger?

Ladies and gentlemen I present Exhibit A of copyandpasterburke's copy and pasting adventure.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, May 11, 2010, at 10:45 AM

And met with proof that he was caught lying he resorts to a spelling error in another blog (corrected) that he will use for several posts over the next couple of days.

I also hate to inofrm you of this copyandpasterburke but how much we owe China has no correlation at all with unions.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, May 11, 2010, at 12:08 PM

Conservatives cut down the money tree years ago to make way for one of their eight mansions they don't use.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, May 11, 2010, at 12:09 PM

Your post made absolutely no sense and frankly I am surprised that you hate something that is so uniquely American as labor unions. If it weren't for labor unions most Americans would still be working for about $2/hr (guess there no facts to back up).

We are not in debt because of labor unions we are in debt to China because we had no way to fun two wars so we borrowed the money.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, May 11, 2010, at 10:09 PM

Yeah it was supposed to be fund, but I'm sure for the warmongers who want all the money they can find to spend on wars but whine and cry when money is spent anywhere else think the wars are fun.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, May 12, 2010, at 8:29 AM

copyandpasterburke strikes again this time lifting an entire piece from an "online news" site without giving and citation to the site. That's called plagiarism. Something Ann Coulter knows a lot about.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, May 12, 2010, at 11:59 AM

You know it's interesting when you look at the facts and numbers (something some of you either can't do or just chose not to do) this country liberally spent money from the 30s and 60s on government programs and helping out Americans. It wasn't until the late 60s when the first conservative revolution came around that spending was shifted to other venues that the economy started falling apart and has continued through three eras of conservatism.

The America of years gone that everyone remembers so well was actually a liberal (not conservative) America, governmental wise.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, May 12, 2010, at 9:05 PM

Poor little copyandpasterburke just can't get away from entitlements. Nevermind that "entitlement" programs make up the smallest percentage of our debt. Nevermind that the last two wars and military spending and paying for the tax cuts make up the largest percentage. Keep it going copyandpasterburke don't let those nasty facts get in the way of your argument.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, May 13, 2010, at 9:24 AM

There you go with this fabled liberal democrat party again.

As far as we haven't helped Greece.

Interesting that you consider a bill that helped America out of a recession is nothing more than entitlements. You really are rooting for America to fail aren't you?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, May 13, 2010, at 9:51 AM

But there you go again copyandpasterburke not letting facts get in the way of your argument. It has already been debunked that socialism was the root cause of the current crunch in Greece.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, May 13, 2010, at 9:53 AM

Yeah I never thought that this blog would hit 200 let alone 500.

Sorry copyandpasterburke that whatever you say is law and proven fact and we all just have to accept it.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, May 13, 2010, at 1:05 PM

Half Fast Eddie,

Your knowledge of modern Greek history is mind blowing -- or in your case -- possibly snorting.

Greece's current mess started with Nazi rule -- not hardly a communist era.

For those who collaborated, the Nazis installed an inflated pay-scale and pension program for government bureaucrats and employees.

Other Greek political candidates for the past six and one half decades went along and promised to keep it up in advance to get as many votes as possible.

To defeat the first promise, the opponent promised not to just maintain, but to increase

wages and pensions by 20%.

The next guy upped the ante to 40%.

Why not, they weren't going to be able to steal anything if they didn't get elected.

The irony, the left wing politicians were warning overpaying government workers and the excessive pensions would break the bank.

Sure enough, the Socialists and liberals were right. Of course, the government workers were among the economic elite by 1955 - so they could help finance those who committed to protecting their position.

The present crowd was no exception -- Except the EC demanded reform or no bailout.

But, blind ignorance allows you to massage your rigid thinking with wild claims -- even when history and facts don't support you.

But then, of what value are facts to non-thinkers?

-- Posted by HerndonHank on Thu, May 13, 2010, at 2:41 PM

If copyandpasterburke gets his dream of all of Europe and the United States falling apart we are in fact all doomed because the only country that will still be standing will be China. But fortunately most of us live in reality and know none of copyandpasterburke's delusions of grandeur will ever come true.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, May 13, 2010, at 2:48 PM

"Liberal democrat party members just don't get spending within your means and never have.

-- Posted by edmundburke"

Half Fast Eddie

You insist upon fighting dirty.

But this is hitting way below the belt -- even for us wearing carpenter overalls.

Trying to blame the Democratic Party for the Bush Family Poppa and Barb, Dubyah and Miz Laurie, the underage drinking twins and the families $25-TRILLION PLUS national debt service -- is just plain undeerhanded.

You helped elect them, now want to blame the other guys for their wild spending.

For shame!!

-- Posted by HerndonHank on Thu, May 13, 2010, at 2:52 PM

European Bailout Protection Act? Why don't they ever name anything for what it is? This is almost as bad as the Marriage Protection Act. But then again with a name like (purposely I believe) some lawmakers may vote for it because it almost sounds like they are proposing protecting the European Bailout.

Here's an idea, instead of proposing useless bills that do nothing but take more time away from fixing America's problem, they could just wait until a bill comes through (IF and that is a HUGE IF) and then just vote against.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, May 13, 2010, at 4:54 PM

copyandpasterburke I'm glad to see you giving credit to your copy and past jobs now. But I do have a question. Do you belong to the Flat Earth Society? How do you ever sleep at night? You are so convinced that the world is going to fall down around you your nerves have got to be shot.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, May 13, 2010, at 4:55 PM

KEEP SEEING ALL THESE REFERENCES TO EUROPE BORROWING MORE $$$ FROM THE U.S.

As long as China has all the money, why would Europe come to Uncle Sam?

After all they do a bunch of business with the Chinese bankers... just like us Yankees.

-------------------------

Reading the other day where China is converting an entire valley to producing Solar and Wind equipment and systems for electrical generation.

Just imagine, the U.S. converting the Shenandoah Valley to that purpose -- or the Arkansas River Valley from Pueblo, CO to Salida.

Or develop the San Luis Valley of Colorado.

Or the upper Yampa from Wolf Creek Pass down to Cortez and Dolores.

China will be producing more Solar and Wind generation equipment in that valley than Europe and the U.S. combined today.

So much for our superiority.

-- Posted by HerndonHank on Tue, May 18, 2010, at 12:37 PM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


And Now for Something Completely Different
Michael Hendricks
Recent posts
Archives
Blog RSS feed [Feed icon]
Comments RSS feed [Feed icon]
Login
Hot topics
The More Things Change The More They Stay The Same
(6 ~ 8:37 PM, Sep 5)

Goodnight Sweet Prince
(3 ~ 11:45 AM, Aug 15)

Elections Matter
(14 ~ 2:15 AM, Aug 9)

Hodgepodgeiness
(262 ~ 6:55 AM, Jan 8)

It Begins ... Again
(24 ~ 11:41 PM, Oct 27)