Omar M. Campbell: Follow Arizona

Advertisement

Bravo, people of Arizona. I hope your state-level lead in dealing with illegal aliens will turn out to be a national trend. Public support in Arizona was 70 percent, and the Legislature passed the act with a substantial majority. It is too late for Colorado to get a similar measure on the ballot this fall, but if the feds do not act soon, we the people must.

Idaho, Utah and Texas have already declared similar intentions. Scott McInnis, candidate for governor of Colorado, has said he will initiate a similar measure if elected. Good for him. I hope it will turn out to be a kind of state-by-state, grass-roots tea party-type of movement nationwide. Our dysfunctional administration and politicians will just continue to dither otherwise.

Liberal talking heads and advocates for blanket amnesty all over the country are blathering frenetically on TV and other media about racism and profiling, particularly on the ultraliberal MSNBC network.

Not all illegals are from south of the border, of course. Other ethnic groups also break our laws by sneaking into the country from many directions. It is inconceivable that illegals of any stripe should be rewarded with amnesty for breaking our laws.

I wrote a letter titled “A message to Vincente” in 2006 on this very subject. A copy went to the Mexican consul in Denver, for forwarding to Mr. Fox. Neither answered. Local responders accused me of being a bigot. One suggested that I go south of the border to “smell the coffee,” whatever that means.

I have suggested to several city councils and county commissions in the past that they fund GRAMNET, now ACET (All Crimes Enforcement Team), to hire an officer, certified by ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), to check local employers for adherence to the federal law against hiring “undocumented immigrants” — a euphemism for illegal aliens used by those who sympathize with them. I did not receive a single reply. If there had been, no doubt it would have quoted the common platitude that the matter was for the feds to enforce. Fat chance, considering the Democrats look forward to votes and the Republicans and all unscrupulous employers to cheap labor.

Omar M. Campbell

Steamboat Springs

Comments

seeuski 4 years, 2 months ago

As our great beloved POTUS said this weekend, "a father taking his kid for ice cream can be detained for being brown". What a great leader we have elected, does he know that it is his Constitutional mandate to protect the sovereignty/borders of the USA from invasion by non citizens? And now we have all the Unions led by the SEIU organizing AstroTurf violent protests Nationwide. May Day, which is a communist movement, was exploited as some kind of all American march. I found it interesting how many American flags were being carried by so many that in recent years did the opposite, carry Mexican or Communist/Socialist flags and banners with the face of Che Guevara dominantly displayed by many. We should take head by what is occurring in Greece and realize that we are seeing the Unions working in unison with those Greek Unions in this Workers World Party globalization movement. There is more to it than just an immigration bill, it is about power and our Country as we new it. http://www.workers.org/

0

seeuski 4 years, 2 months ago

Spend some time perusing their website and then tell me I'm wrong. We are at war for our freedom again and it isn't the British invading from the seas this time, it is the Communists that have woven their web through our very communities while we were asleep at the wheel. Just like the Palestinians have been used by the Arabs as a pawn so too are the Latino Immigrants being used in this fight, Al Sharpton, Obama's new street laison, and Jesse Jackson should be arrested.

0

NamVet 4 years, 2 months ago

Seeuski I hate to tell you that we have sent our troops all over the world just like the British did centuries ago. We have troops in more countries than I can count and it seems to increase every day. What would you do invade every country that does not do what we tell them to do? I notice in your many hundreds of posts(you must have the record) you always criticize but you never have any solutions to the problems this country faces today. Remember it was the beloved Reagan(who I voted for twice) that gave the illegals amnesty in the 1980's, busted the unions and opened the doors for the flood of illegals we have today. The illegals are here for one reason and that is JOBS that Americans refuse to do. Employers love them because they can pay them dirt wages with no benefits and this helps them make more money in true Capitalistic fashion. It is the employers that need to be fined that hire them in the first place. If they have no jobs they will not come here. Just to round them all up and send them back is impossible. George is right you sound more like Tim McVeigh more and more each day.

0

seeuski 4 years, 2 months ago

Very good you two. I see where your alliance is and it is not with the Constitution. As far as referring to me as a MASS MURDERER, pound salt. That SOB was a neo nazi and most of my family was murdered by Nazi's so I hate Nazi's, Communists, Socialists and traitors. Why not spend some time at the website I linked above or do some investigation of your own instead of insulting those of us who love our Country and see the truth. That we are losing it.

0

seeuski 4 years, 2 months ago

I am not imagining at all, I am witnessing the events and the attitudes that prove it, your using Che Guevara's image was a good example. You and Clinton using the comparison of a White Supremacist murderer against Tea Partiers and those of Conservative beliefs like myself is the act of losers. You are devoid of any reasonable argument so that is your only alternative.

0

Jeff_Kibler 4 years, 2 months ago

George's hero, Ernesto Guevara, murdered people with whom he disagreed. This kind of thinking will get us another Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot.

0

Duke_bets 4 years, 2 months ago

Jeff - Are you referencing George W Bush or George Krawzoff? Your statements make more sense in reference to Bush.

0

fartpark 4 years, 2 months ago

Great article. I couldn't agree more. Round all the illegals up, and ship them the hell out of here!!!

0

John Fielding 4 years, 2 months ago

A lot of the cause of the problems with illegals is some well meaning but poorly conceived laws over-regulating the process hence making it slow and difficult to enter the country legally. Almost all the illegals would have gone through the process if it was reasonable.

And that is just our governments part in the mess. The Mexican side of the deal is rife with corruption, (business as usual you might say), so they have to pay large bribes to get permission to cross. It is much faster and cheaper (and sometimes the only possible way) to aviod these repressive conditions and cross illegally.

This is not to say I support illegal immigration, far from it. It places the entire relationship on a skewed basis, and tends to encourage other, more serious crime. We just need laws that reflect reality, and that will assure it is more reasonable to comply than to circumvent. If if was just a simple registration process, not deniable except to true undesirables, these people would mostly be tax paying law abiding resident alien workers, filling an obvious demand.

It is yet another example of creating criminals where there is no crime, only disregard of unreasonable regulations. Our governments on all levels do this to an extent that is one of the most serious problems of modern society. I support the Rule of Law, but when a particular law is not based on reason and justice it is our duty to oppose it.

Therein lies the appeal of the mythological Che Guevara. While the historical man might have become a Stalin or Hitler given a larger venue, the romantic figure is of the freedom fighter, champion of the oppressed. Personally the revolutionary figure I prefer is George Washington, the man who would not be King.

.

0

seeuski 4 years, 2 months ago

Cuba's free healthcare that Michael Moore loves so much, coming to a clinic near you soon? Only the future will tell.

http://www.therealcuba.com/Page10.htm

Maybe clearsky will be back again touting the great healthcare in Cuba and how bad the USA is.

0

seeuski 4 years, 2 months ago

Eerie similarities? A leader who attacks the media, who controls the message, who fundamentally changes his Country, who shoves Socialist programs down the throats of the majority, who designs a personal civilian army, who takes private property and nationalizes it. etc. etc. Of course there is no way that would ever happen to us, that is exactly what the Venezuelans believed too in 1998.

0

MrTaiChi 4 years, 2 months ago

If memory serves, both Che and Castro were physicians, apropos of nothing except it is an interesting factoid. I read recently that Che's hatred of the United States was so pathological that he encouraged the use of nuclear weapons against our great cities. He was like Mao that way, apparently. Mao actually scared Stalin when he suggested that a world wide nuclear exchange would be a good thing, as the 50% or so of those who survived would be ripe for socialist conquest.

It must be conceded that Che has become an icon of anti-establishment adolescent rebellion. From the above comments it is easy to see that it is a blurry line for some when a hip icon as nothing more, becomes a political statement. Even trying to be objective and broad minded about the iconography, it would be an unusual employer who would give a job to a person with a Che T-shirt on or a Che tatoo. Maybe a labor union.

All immigrants from south of the border don't come here to do the jobs that Americans won't. The evidence of our jails and prisons is pretty overwhelming that a lot of them come here for criminal opportunities. It is as stupid to say that they are all doe eyed innocents just looking for work as it is to assert that they are all criminals or seeking to suck social benefits because of our generous laws. There are germs of truth in both arguments.

Tim McVeigh never disclosed what motivated him. We infer that Waco was the incident that caused him to do what he did because, I believe, he committed his act of terrorism on the anniversary of that event. President Clinton, paragon of virtue that he was, and some above, and Jeanine Garaffolo, for instance, quickly connect those who espouse tea party values as nascent Tim McVeighs. Curious how when Bush was president Mrs. Clinton said that dissent was patriotic. No danger that excessive rhetoric from the left would produce another Angela Davis or Squeaky Fromm.

Mr. Fielding, you are a voice of reason. I join with you in asking that we have faith in Americans to ultimately do the right thing about immigration and to let the peaceful process of the law play out.

0

Matthew Stoddard 4 years, 2 months ago

Why is Cuba being brought up when it comes to immigration. Cuba has a "Wet Feet, Dry Feet" caveat that grants refuge to any Cuban making it to dry land & in some cases, even before hitting shore. That isn't offered to Mexicans crossing the border.

As for Mrs Clinton saying dissent is patriotic, why bring that up? Cons called Lib Iraq protesters unpatriotic for their protests & now must put up with the same being said about them in other instances. Each side likes to take offense when subjected to the exact same treatment they subjected the other side to.

All peaceful dissent is patriotic & both sides have their lunatic fringe. (Joe the Plumber is now quoted as saying "Build a fence & start shooting.) They tend to be the loudest & proudest of themselves. They will never agree with something that doesn't coincide with their own indoctrination. Of course, it's only indoctrination when you disagree with that side even if you've suffered the same thing with different opinions.

And just to show how correct I am...

Hey seeuski- Glenn Beck said that the NYC bomber being Mirandized was the correct thing to do!! And Tea Party darling Marco Rubio wasn't exactly thrilled with AZ's Immigration Law especially since his parents were Cuban exiles that came to the US. Evidently, he's a little more okay with it this week after an interview. I guess flip-flops are the fashion instead of walking in someone's shoes in Florida. How Kerryesque.

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 2 months ago

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local-beat/Students-Wearing-American-Flag-Shirts-Sent-Home-92945969.html Students Kicked Off Campus for Wearing American Flag Tees on Cinco De Mayo

"Galli says he and his [3] friends were sitting at a table during brunch break when the vice principal asked two of the boys to remove American flag bandannas that they wearing on their heads and for the others to turn their American flag T-shirts inside out. When they refused, the boys were ordered to go to the principal's office...

..."They said if we tried to go back to class with our shirts not taken off, they said it was defiance and we would get suspended," Dominic Maciel, Galli's friend, said."

I wonder if Hispanic students attending summer school would be kicked off campus for wearing Mexican flag tshirts on the 4th of July.

0

seeuski 4 years, 2 months ago

We like quotes too: Especially when they are from your POTUS: "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." "I found solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother’s race." "To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists." "I learned to slip back and forth between my black and white worlds. One of those tricks I had learned: People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves. They were more than satisfied; they were relieved -- such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn't seem angry all the time." "I had learned not to care. I blew a few smoke rings, remembering those years. Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though. ..."

"The point I was making was not that Grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person..." "That’s just how white folks will do you." Call to Islamic prayer is “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”

How about a quote from William Ayers, one of Obama's friends? "Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at."

http://obamaism.blogspot.com/

"The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism." Karl Marx

Yes I think this quote says it all. But I will be vilified by the weak minded George. And George my son, the quotes above from your post that are mine are quite obvious from the one that threatens violence. Thanks for pointing that out to everyone.

0

seeuski 4 years, 2 months ago

So back to Omar's letter. The solution to this issue is to close the borders and go back to the program that George W. Bush tried to get passed which would have given illegals a fair path to citizenship then the individual states would not be forced to do the Feds job. States cannot afford the expense of health care and schooling and incarceration that the 20 million or so illegals add. California and Arizona are in budgetary crisis and Phoenix has a crime rate by illegals that is crushing the state. A Sheriff was recently shot by illegal drug mules and a long time resident Rancher was murdered by an illegal. 70% of the AZ residents support the law, which is a watered down version of the Fed law, and many of that support is among Latino Americans. Obama, through his street czar's Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, is using this issue for political purposes and it is disgusting. That truly is a Marxist trait.

"Almost two-thirds of Arizona voters and a majority of voters nationwide agree with her and support the law, polls show." http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64518920100506?type=domesticNews&feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews

Glen Beck will have on his show today a studio audience with all "legal immigrants". For those that are using his quotes via the MSNBC media maybe try getting it directly so you will understand what he means. Beck is a Constitutionalist and he expressed his belief in the laws as they are written and if they are changed, as Sen. Lieberman wants to do, then that would be the law of the land if passed. Isn't that what we want in this country? People who respect the laws of the land?

0

seeuski 4 years, 2 months ago

And I suppose, my son, that you prescribe to the doctrine of Marx. Maybe you should read his quote that I posted above because that explains much about the mindset of the Progressives, and they do express it themselves openly. Hence the difference between the Tea Party movement being so peaceful and the left wing protests that always are violent. We are Constitution loving law abiding Citizens and the left are trying to "fundamentally change" this Country through any means necessary. So go on hit me with some more of your Saul Alinsky tactics here and call me some more names and then claim that it is me who reverts to that.

0

brian ferguson 4 years, 2 months ago

Go Arizona !!!!! Spent a lot of time in glenwood last year at the whitewater park....amazing !!! It was also amazing to see the people living under the bridge, coming and going in the middle of the day Walking up the river after getting pushed downstream, I would pass numerous "campsites" with litter and worse things left around

We respect thier border They should respect ours

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 2 months ago

The administrators who kicked those kids off campus justified the action by calling the display of American flags "incendiary", and that fistfights could ensue. In other words, American kids wearing red, white, & blue in an American school could provoke violent behavior. From whom? Would the perpetrators of that violence be better or worse than those of us on the right you’ve accused of being McVeigh wannabes?

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 2 months ago

The principal of that school should be locked up. How dare they infringe upon the rights of those citizens!

0

grundy 4 years, 2 months ago

Seeuski, I feel a little stupider for reading your posts. This will be the last time, rest assured, so feel free to launch another diatribe; I'm going back to the printed pilot. You clearly have a lot of time on your hands, to post comments, but not to break out of your parochial, hate-filled, thought patterns. The issue of immigration is extremely complex. Others have pointed out, intelligently, that US employers play an integral role in the problem. (So does Mexico's economy.) Have you ever been to Mexico? Have you seen Tyson chicken's billboard advertisements for jobs in America? Did you know they arrange coyotes to smuggle immigrants across the boarder to work in their factories? Did you know they have been busted numerous times but are always able to replenish their supply of illegal laborers and continue operations as before? Your political attitudes reflect a weak mind devoid of compassion, full of animosity, fear, and propaganda cultivated "education". You will never understand the epistomological barriers on your comprehension, you are too arrogant to try.

The AZ immigration law was concieved by politicians without any committment to actually solving our country's immigration problems. It's a ruse, designed to manipulate republican constituents into believing something is being done. There are 2 main reasons other states are considering similar measures: (1) illegal immigrants are expected to migrate from AZ to neighboring states in order to avoid the nazi-esque environment which has been created around them; and (2) idiots like seeuski who actually support this solution designed to fail. It's the best of both worlds - make the fools who hold an irrational hatred for immigrants think you're championing their beliefs, punish people without the means to fight back, and satisfy your political donors for whom nothing changes. F'ing brilliant!

0

trump_suit 4 years, 2 months ago

I can agree with only one thing that Seeuski has said above. He has indeed lost his country. He is lost and cannot find his way back to American.

0

Matthew Stoddard 4 years, 2 months ago

70% back AZ's law? That's funny. When I Google arizona immigration law poll we find polls in the last 2-3 days stating anywhere from 51% to about 60%. In fact, it goes on to say it's split along racial & party lines, for the most part. Why didn't you mention that part? When those same polls are broken down further, about 75% say that it will/most likely will promote racial profiling.

Again- to prove you don't even read the stuff you spew, your Reuters link that you quoted ""Almost two-thirds of Arizona voters and a majority of voters nationwide agree with her and support the law, polls show," shows you didn't even change your 70% is just wrong. Nowhere in that Reuters link does it point to 70%.

I know- it's that fuzzy math thing with all the % signs and numbers that confuses you.

Remember folks- this is the person who identifies with the Tea Party.

Personally, I understand the law in AZ and it's motivations. What I have a problem with is the people who say it's not race based. It is just for the simple facts:

1- Who is this law directed toward? People crossing the border illegally from Mexico into Arizona (or the US in general.) 2- Who most often crosses the Mex/AZ border illegally? Mexican Citizens. 3- What race are the majority of Mexicans? Latinos.

AZ's demographics show that as of a 2005-2007 Census Community Survey, 29% of Arizona's population is Latino. There is also a large Native American population in Arizona. For some people, Native Americans can be mistaken for Latinos when purely based on physical characteristics such as skin color. What's the very first things upon contact that any one person notices about another- physical characteristics. Not much chance that a Norwegian crossed the Mex/US border or a Swede being mistaken physically for a Latino. It's possible, but not probable.

Do I believe the law was specifically designed to racially profile? No. Do I believe there is a chance this law will have instances of racial profiling? Yes.

Just like any law being enforced, it's up to the enforcer what happens.

0

Fred Duckels 4 years, 2 months ago

seeuski, George is good at getting under your skin and it would give him great satisfaction if he could goad you into losing it. Decrying race and violence are the glue that helps the left keep the base under the tent. That is why the tea party is constantly under attack from the left. Retirees are budding McVeigh's? Give me a break. Maybe we should give in and follow Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy and California to the promised land and think of the free health care. I'll take Arizona!

0

Matthew Stoddard 4 years, 2 months ago

Fred- The Tea Party is under attack usually due to people exactly like seeuski, because they are the loudest, most poorly informed people. Be honest, Fred- do you read the links that seeuski posts? If so, how can you not see that it doesn't always say what seeuski says it says? How can you not admonish someone who claims to be a Conservative like yourself when they purposefully give out misinformation and then attack the people who prove that information is false? That's a pretty big skirt to hide behind.

Seeuski proudly holds up the Tea Party (which one, who can say since none of the factions completely agree with one another) as a guiding light and then calls people Commie & Socialist when called on giving completely inaccurate information.

Can you, Fred, actually read seeuski's post...then read the link...then agree with the statement seeuski puts forth that completely contradicts that said link?

If so, you just helped further the misinformation just to simply walk the party line with no independent thought process whatsoever.

If so, show me where in that link it said 70% of Arizona residents agree with the law.

Show us all so we can finally agree on it. Don't give me the BS about "I don't have prove anything to anyone." That just shows that you are willing to blindly follow instead of question. Wasn't Reagan's mantra "Trust, but verify"?

0

seeuski 4 years, 2 months ago

To my great friend Stoddard, "64% of Arizona voters favor the new immigration law signed last week by Governor Jan Brewer. Thirty percent (30%) are opposed".Fifty five percent (55%) say they favor “authorizing local police to stop and check the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally.” That’s down from 70% two weeks ago. " "The decline could be the result of vocal opposition to the measure and massive media coverage surrounding the issue. It also could be due to the fact that, on the new survey, it was asked immediately after another question about the law signed last week by the governor. Some may have perceived that the question was asking about an additional law. Future polling will indicate whether support for the law is changing over time. " http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_state_surveys/arizona/arizona_voters_favor_welcoming_immigration_policy_64_support_new_immigration_law

It is always fun slapping you back down from your pedestal. If we wait another two weeks and the riotous crowds get a little more threatening down there maybe you will get it down to 40%.

The rest of the whining against me is not worth the keystrokes. Someone is making it up as they go along. Like the description of what the AZ law says by a flamethrower above. The chance that the numskull read the law before telling us that it is "nazi-esque" is zero. I listed above who I hate in an earlier post and nowhere did I mention Illegal immigrants. I feel they are being used by the left wingers in this Country just like the Palestinians have been used by the Arabs in the Middle East over the last 62 years, for political reasons. And my son George, while your story is compelling I can assure you I have one too. And the fact that, as I have described before, many of my relatives were murdered by the same Nazi's that you numskulls accuse me of being is just proof of your gutter tactics that your Saul Alinsky handbook taught you. I know that shining a light on Obama would bring hate my way, so what? What he is planning to do to us is unconscionable. Cap and trade, Healthcare, GM + Chrysler, AIG and the new financial takeover, student loans, Fannie/Freddie, the IMF which we are into for 17% in the Greece bailout, and on and on. Who can define what this is we are encountering? It is not Capitalism or a free market.

0

seeuski 4 years, 2 months ago

Fred, I can take it, no biggie as the truth always prevails and thanks for the support.

0

Nick List 4 years, 2 months ago

I say we deport all.... brown, black, yellow, red, gay, lesbian, socialist, fascist, democrats, tree huger, feminist, liberal, people. oh wait that would just leave seeuski and Glen Beck.

0

blue_spruce 4 years, 2 months ago

"... Communists that have woven their web through our very communities while we were asleep at the wheel...."

do you mean mexican communists? strange how they seem to love the capitalist system, huh?

0

Nick List 4 years, 2 months ago

I wonder why the President hasn't painted the White House red yet? Or mowed the faces of Mao and Stalin into the South Lawn, I bet the minarets will be going up soon. Seems like the first thing a pinko African born Muslim would do.

0

bandmama 4 years, 2 months ago

steamboatshredder- you forgot "Native Americans"

0

Sara Gleason 4 years, 2 months ago

Great letter Mr. Campbell. I have lately been thinking about the human cost to immigrants, illegal or not, that our porous border has caused. I think I'll be writing a letter to the editor myself. Thanks again for the discussion Mr. Campbell!

0

charliecigar 4 years, 2 months ago

What don't people understand about the word illegal? Your President is the most devisive in history. "The police acted stupidly" without taking the time to read the police report, and "Now, suddenly, if you don’t have your papers, and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to get harassed — that’s something that could potentially happen… That’s not the right way to go." FEDERAL LAW requires that LEGAL immigrants must carry their green card or documentation with them at all times..

0

John Fielding 4 years, 2 months ago

.

Someone correct me if I'm misinformed but I heard that the AZ law prohibits profiling and still requires probable cause to ask for identification.

.

0

Kevin Nerney 4 years, 2 months ago

Here's a question-- How come so many immigrants came through Ellis Island on their way to the American Dream? Why didn't they just take a left and stop in Jersey or Delaware and enter as "illegals"? Times were different back then. So now how about we build a new "Ellis Island" somewhere in Texas or Arizona where ever. Lets install huge pearly gates on the long waste of money called a Fence and put up a tremendous building housing all the administrative offices required for screening would be citizens, give them doctors for vaccinations etc., etc. and when the new citizens come out on the other side and step into the sunlight they would be welcomed with open arms.. Everyone from south of the border would be funneled into this new holding area. (Jobs would be had by tons of Americans to build and staff this new facility) All others attempting to enter from any other area along the "fence" will be shot on sight.

0

kathy foos 4 years, 2 months ago

Finally we get to discuss what the rest of the nation has been doing for weeks,we are a little behind the times here,You have your work cut out now seesuki,Im with you bud.The Chicanos in this country are our brothers(Mexican americans,and those here legally)Chicanos get lumped into the same mold as illegals and expected to carry the whole weight of that race invasion.?I tell you no,ask any Chican if they want the border crashesrs (illegals).They want them to go home as much if not more than the asians,blacks and whiteys do,(I just dont know the politicaly correct thing to call whites) .Ask a real Chicano what he thinks of the Mexicans taking over.You may have a hard time because alot of the Chicanos are not here, there on the front range,We have the mexican visitors that want our jobs up here ,they think,we dont want them.(Nam Vet)there are no jobs that Americans dont want.I appreciate that you fought for our country in Vietnam,why would you have us give the keys to Mexico now?Please get similar Arizona Law in Colorado.Dont accuse people of being a predjudiced because they want their jobs and country back.Im scottish,if a bunch of scotts scrambled in our northern border,should we let them stay?If you let the illegals stay,why not let my scottish gate crashing realitives in.At least there would be equal gatecrashing.Im serious,if we have to let in south America lets go Europe too.Dont forget to ask a real Mexican American (Chicano)about the border crashers ,(I dont think they like the scotts either.)Just kidding.An dont even think of calling me a bigot,you are a bigot your self if you think Im am.Peace out Americans,the rest of you,you know where the door is that you snuck in,please dont let it hit you on the way out,and that had better be soon,americans are ready to have their country andf jobs back.

0

kathy foos 4 years, 2 months ago

Mathew Stoddard please check out the Denver Post polls and comments,People were busy down there last week on this issue,they had the poll question,and Seesuki is right it totally won(70 percent I believe, to deport the crashers,even in Denver..If you dont participate for two weeks on the debate and the rest of the country does,it leaves you a little ignorant on the issue,but we dont want controversy in our valley do we.Just ignore the whole issue like the pilot does,Ignorant bliss.

0

Fred Duckels 4 years, 2 months ago

George, I hear your concerns about human rights and I am sure that they are valid, but I have noticed that when cornered, those on the left invariable trot out the guilt trip card to level the playing field.

0

seeuski 4 years, 2 months ago

The tactic by the left that anyone opposing Obamas agenda are labeled racists are the same tactics being used against those who support AZ. Understanding that the problems of the situation with illegals and the resulting actions by the AZ legislature, and what exactly the new laws are, to do what the Federal Government has failed to do for decades is not important to the flamethrowers. The personal attacks against me and others are designed to have us make silly defensive statements like, many of my friends are Mexican or I have nothing against Latinos etc. Being prepared for the Alinsky style tactics of the left is part of this debate. We want people to have a fair pathway to citizenship that is both safe for the immigrants and the Citizens who live in the border regions. Our economy will benefit by handling those already here properly, and that does not mean deportation, and by closing the border. Reasonable immigration policy can be agreed upon with bipartisan support BUT, there are too many in the Congress who do NOT want to close the border because that would be taking a stand against powerful groups like Laraza and the SEIU who are strengthened by the sheer numbers of illegals who are here and still coming. Any new policy that ignores strict border enforcement is a failure and will leave this problem for future generations. Thanks sun.

0

Matthew Stoddard 4 years, 2 months ago

Seeuski- Wait a minute! You posted a Reuters poll...not Rasmussen. And you also posted, and I cut & paste your own posts-

"70% of the AZ residents support the law, which is a watered down version of the Fed law, and many of that support is among Latino Americans." That was yesterday's post at 141pm from you. There is nothing there saying "2 weeks ago." In fact, your words are quite specific in saying "support," not "supported 2 weeks ago." So, it took you 4 hours to figure out that your statistics are no longer supported or to figure out a way to spin it? Sorry- my pedestal still has my butt glued to it.

So which is it: did you not take into account that 2 weeks went by or did you purposefully mislead with that information? Yeah- I think we absolutely know who is making up what as they go along.

You also say that Rasmussen says that AZ's law dropped in popularity due to vocal opposition and massive media coverage. So what? Are you saying AZ'ers aren't smart enough to sift through that stuff to see the truth? If that's the case, then wouldn't their initial polls be suspect for the exact same reason? Which is it? My goodness, seeuski- in sticking up for the Arizonans, you denigrate their intelligence at the same time.

Sun- Thanks for the update, but I've been reading this the whole time, except when I was in Las Vegas last week. It still means that seeuski was quoting the 70% because it was more favorable to seeuski's opinion regardless of how old it was. That post was yesterday & seeuski was still quoting that figure as if it just came up this week & then not even 5 sentences later put the Reuters quote of "almost 2/3" stuff. I guess "almost 2/3" is the same as 70%, but I think most people understand that when someone says "almost 2/3" that it means that isn't quite as high as 66.66666%.

Also read the Denver Post when I posted what I found when I Googled what I did. I found a 5MAY article saying 55% of Coloradoans support a law like Arizona's. Forgive me if I skipped polling numbers from 2 weeks ago in something I posted yesterday. I just have this little thing about not wanting to used outdated information. My bliss has nothing to do with ignorance, thank you. (Chicano? Cripes, I haven't heard that used by anyone in over 20 years.)

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 2 months ago

JohnFielding:

Quite correct. The law requires the state to follow the relevant federal statutes, including the civil rights provisions; and expressly forbids the “show me your papers” straw man the left has fabricated. Specifically, it stipulates that documentation inquiries shall be subsequent to “lawful contact.” As a practical exercise, we’re talking traffic stops, shoplifting arrests, drug busts and the like. Cops aren’t going to be rousting random Hispanics going out for ice cream (as ludicrously suggested by the President, who is either too arrogant to have read the law, or is being deliberately disingenuous, or both). Any questioning will arise from contacts normally made through the conduct of their duties.

0

MrTaiChi 4 years, 2 months ago

George,

Which of the quotes is attributable to McVeigh?

Seems like folks are doin' a lot of supposin' and mind-readin' about what really motivates the Tea Partiers, with absolutely no inhibitions about assoicating them with McVeigh or Nazis in general. It seems like bad manners to me to be calling any American a nazi or communist, unless they are self described or their statements lend themselves to no other conclusion.

0

seeuski 4 years, 2 months ago

Stoddard, My post about 70% support is as valid now as it was when I first posted it. You brought polls into it, I based my statement off of the news reports. And I quoted Rasmussen about the declining poll numbers or can you not read? But this is typical of you, when the chips are down and the majority are against you attack the data and the source. Whether you like the 60% support or the 70% support either way Arizonans are fed up and are living with the problems not enjoying a trip to Vegas and a comfy home in Steamboat. They are the ones watching their economy go down the tubes. Having just been in AZ near the border the daily news is about big budget cuts and dealing with their growing deficits. But go ahead with your silly spilt milk arguments from your pedestal and if it makes you feel better you win, the poll numbers are not exact so you get the award again for gotcha arguing 101. Either way Arizonans and the rest of the US are holding a majority support for the law in all polling. Do you have any solutions here or again is all you do find fault in the opinions of others but never take a stance. That has always been your MO.

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 2 months ago

Support for the enforcement of immigration law = a call to violence and the promotion of mass murder. To call that a straw man is to insult the hay bales on my property. Those who make that assertion would normally be ashamed; except that the ability to feel shame requires class as a prerequisite.

I note, George, that you’ve often attached Che Guevara’s portrait to your contributions here. Therefore, you must advocate the repressions of religion, speech, assembly, & protest; not to mention the incarceration and torture of suspected homosexuals.

Just as asinine a corollary as the one you frantically ascribe to those on my side of the aisle.

0

Matthew Stoddard 4 years, 2 months ago

Way to spin it: "It's my opinion that 70% still support the law regardless of any polling saying that support is dropping." (And what news reports were you talking about? Where did they get their info? Polls, maybe?) So, yes- "the poll numbers weren't exact." I'm guessing someone like you was the one behind the Dow Crash yesterday. Million, billion...the number is "not exact" but who cares? And that's the thing with polls- each one won't say the same thing about the same question. And what's funny is that people will always pick the single poll that they agree with over others. When you look at Real Clear Politics polls, it's always Rasmussen's poll that skews the average. Heck- FOX News will quote Rasmussen when their own website's polls show a different numbers that aren't in sync.

I "attack the data and the source"...no, I'm attacking the messenger for providing "data" that isn't supported by the source the messenger claims.

And guess what? I was helping the economy by going on vacation & spending money in Las Vegas. That's my solution to that problem. Know how I did it? By being fiscally conservative & socially liberal; by being a moderate. Maybe if more people did that, slumping economies might start a recovery mode.

I also already said I understand the motivations for the law. No, I didn't espouse support nor disdain for the law. Isn't that a Conservative Lexicon- why add more laws when the ones on the books just need enforcing? Personally, I don't see a need for the law since the Federal Law trumps it and just needs to be followed. So now, AZ officers will be acting as ICE agents or incarcerating illegals (violent or non-violent) for solely that purpose. Where will they be incarcerated? Why, in a taxpayer-funded, most likely overflowing prison, still draining taxpayer money & local/state law enforcement resources with a dwindling revenue. (Yeah- every state has a dwindling revenue right now.)

Honestly, Kevin Nearney's Ellis Island Southwest is about the only thing I've seen mentioned by pretty much anyone on this thread as a sane solution...and I agree with it! I just think there should be one every 10 miles along the border.

In fact, we should do it along the northern border with Canada.

0

seeuski 4 years, 2 months ago

Even in the face of a mountain of evidence that Obama was and is involved with Socialist organizations we get the head in the sand crowd.

http://web.archive.org/web/20010306031216/www.newparty.org/up9610.html "Illinois: Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last Spring and face off against Republican opponents on election day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary)."

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26913

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/10/08/will-msm-report-obama-membership-socialist-new-party

CONNECTIONS THAT COUNT AND THE ANSWER TO WHO WROTE THE AGENDA: "Rogers is also one of the founding members of the Apollo Alliance. [1]. This group was credited with writing the controversial $787 billion dollar stimulus package for the US Congress in 2009. The Director of the NY chapter of the Apollo Alliance is Jeff Jones, co-founder of the Weather underground that conducted acts of domestice terrorism in the 1960's." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Rogers

http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html

And something to backup my assertion that the Dems don't want to close the border. "Pelosi: It’s Cheaper to Treat Teens for Drug Use Than Interdict Drugs at Border" http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=65419

0

seeuski 4 years, 2 months ago

You see Stoddard, once you get away from the personal attacks it is possible to have a reasonable conversation because I also agree with Kevin and have made comments to that effect in previous posts. Close the border and document. Yes the AZ law is a mirror of the Fed law and I mentioned that before too, the problem is that our Federal Government is using the millions of illegals for political benefit and enforcing the existing Federal immigration laws would put millions of votes in play so we get stupid stuff from people like Pelosi as I posted above. And as to rounding up illegals and incarcerating them, who called for that? The law requires the police to ask for legal documents when they are in lawful contact with someone in violation of some other law, it can't be for the sole purpose of documenting legal status. Illegals who are violent offenders should be deported though. As far as your mincing of words with regards to the polls, after all is said and done the polls show support for AZ so I don't see your point or any benefit to you in this argument except for semantics. You are a much better linguist than I for sure and I give you that. But the truth is not on your side on the issue of AZ.

0

seeuski 4 years, 2 months ago

(Re-post from May 5th.) http://www.workers.org/ Spend some time perusing their website and then tell me I'm wrong. We are at war for our freedom again and it isn't the British invading from the seas this time, it is the Communists that have woven their web through our very communities while we were asleep at the wheel.

So I reiterate we have Communists in our communities. Is that a threat? Who is threatened other than my poor son Georgie boy? Or is Georgie boy saying there are no communists threatening our freedoms? Greece here we come, and enjoy the 5 $billion$ of our money in your bailout which is needed because Socialism is a failure there as it is here and everywhere.

And I'll add to the loss of our freedoms with this: "Sen. Shelby: Financial Reform Violates Privacy" http://cnsnews.com/news/article/65427

0

seeuski 4 years, 2 months ago

So don't forget to join us in this war on November 3rd and vote em out.

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 2 months ago

George:

I am unconcerned about the immigration law because I am not breaking it. I am equally unconcerned about laws against larceny, drug possession, assault, rape, kidnapping, and armed robbery for the same reason; but nonetheless expect authorities to deal with violators as the law provides. My skin color is relevant only to liberals like you.

It's interesting how those on your side of the aisle get your knickers in a twist over rhetoric like seeuski's (I'm probably more sympathetic on that score than you imagine, & have crossed swords [swordplay! Violence! Bloodshed! Run for your lives!] with seeuski on more than one occasion), but seem ambivalent to instances of actual violence, and to its perpetrators.

Do you know why there have been no reports of tea party activists (like me) throwing rocks and bottles at cops assigned to keep the peace? Because there haven't been any.

On the other hand, there has been no shortage of pro-immigration violence:

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local-beat/Santa-Cruz-Immigration-Protest-Caught-on-Tape-92637494.html http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=7417829 http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/metro/20100427-protestors-block-buses

The violence associated with this issue isn't coming from those of us opposed to illegal immigration - it's being committed by those who disagree with us.

0

John Fielding 4 years, 2 months ago

.

Lats not take this quite so literally. When we say War in referring to domestic issues it is generally not a call to violence, but to vigorous opposition by lawful or non-violent civil disobedience..

.

0

Matthew Stoddard 4 years, 2 months ago

Amazingly enough, thank you. I'll return the favor by pointin out that posts replies per section:

1) And as to rounding up illegals and incarcerating them, who called for that?

From Wiki: "Police may arrest a person if there is probable cause that the person is an alien not in possession of required registration documents;[20] a person arrested cannot be released without confirmation of the person's legal immigration status by the federal government pursuant to § 1373(c) of Title 8 of the United States Code. A first offense carries a fine of up to $100, plus court costs, and up to 20 days in jail; subsequent offenses can result in up to 30 days in jail."

2) Illegals who are violent offenders should be deported though.

This I don't agree with. The violent ones are the ones who should be tried & incarcerated to make sure they don't recross the border. Peaceful illegals just looking for work, if caught over and over and sent back each time, might eventually get the hint or have their face/name plastered in Precincts enough that they are immediately recognizable, lessening the chance for getting a job here.

3) As far as your mincing of words with regards to the polls, after all is said and done the polls show support for AZ so I don't see your point or any benefit to you in this argument except for semantics.

I never said the majority didn't agree, though. The point was about you saying a higher percentage, whether known now or 2 weeks old, was just it. The point was the 70% support in Arizona has lessened. If it's about semantics, I could say there is a 70% favorable rating for Obama...just because Rasmussen reported a 62% rating his first week in office. It's not a lie, but it's extremely outdated. For those people who don't do their own research but lie in the same political affiliations, they might just accept it and take it as truth. This also goes to my point about bring the blurb up about how the lower % could be because of media coverage, etc. Those same types of people might just be hearing another uninformed side to this, causing the % to drop.

The whole point was to uncover the real facts without any bias. This is why I didn't say I was for or against this or any other things in the past. I'm biased against misinformation. That's why I didn't post any links before. I just told people exactly how I Googled the info. For me to point to one link/one side of the story doesn't do the other side of the story any justice. That's also why I posted the reasons saying that I understood the law but human nature tells me it will be perverted by someone eventually.

cont'd

0

Matthew Stoddard 4 years, 2 months ago

cont'd

4) You are a much better linguist than I for sure and I give you that. But the truth is not on your side on the issue of AZ.

My truth was in the numbers. My data was in the population statistics. My suppositions were just that- suppositions, but they were based on experience with human nature.

So there you go. I'm not here to usually espouse 1 thing or another most times. I just don't like it when either side of party lines gives misinformation. Considering I'm a registered Republican though, I'm going after people who identify with them in general because those people making misinformed statements & defending them with more misinformation makes all of us look bad. That's how things go completely partisan on both sides and major reforms of anything never happen. I'll let Moderate Democrats take care of their own misinformants.

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 2 months ago

A knuckle-dragging right winger embarrassing everyone at a Tuscon city council meeting last week:

Clearly a redneck racist dim bulb.

Sarcasm aside, I couldn't be happier that she's an American.

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 2 months ago

Hispanic Students (in the Bay area) March Against Displays Of The American Flag http://cbs5.com/education/rally.american.flag.2.1680060.html

I think it's clear what needs to happen: have the stars & stripes classified as hate speech.

0

exduffer 4 years, 2 months ago

Just got back from California and have an interesting perspective on this. My wife's Grandfather has had 3 cars totalled in the last 3 months. Two times he was broadsided (on the passenger side thank god) by people running red lights the other by a person that changed lanes without looking. In two of the instances the individuals at fault were of two different skin colors with two different types of accents. In both of these cases the people were cited for their offence and of not having proof of insurance. Both were released and were never to be heard from again. The cars were registered in CA but the DL's were from other states. The third case involved a man of hispanic decent who provided all legitimate documents and appeared in court to pay his fine and to apologize for his mistake. Now think about this, if the Arizona law had been applied here what would have happened.

0

exduffer 4 years, 2 months ago

He is a very spry 76. He is out $2000 on his deductible, not to mention the time involved. And by the way this type of thing has happened to many of his friends also. Think about the rest GK and how may it have helped him.

0

exduffer 4 years, 2 months ago

In regards to the other two who disappeared one was white one was oriental. Both spoke broken english, both had out of state drivers licenses not easily checked by CA law enforcement at scene, both failed to provided proof of insurance and both were driving cars that were registered in CA but not in their names. Would this be considered reasonable suspicion? If so would they have been detained if they did not have proper documentation? If so would that have given granpa (or his insurance company) a clue that they should act quickly? What is so tough about carrying proper ID?

0

exduffer 4 years, 2 months ago

As far as ID goes, I guess I will just start carrying a copy of my utility bill in my car and tell the cops that it is OK for me to drive. Check this out to see what no documentation can lead to. From my and Tom Ross' hometown paper. http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/crime_and_courts/article_922f4542-5a2b-11df-990c-001cc4c002e0.html

0

seeuski 4 years, 2 months ago

Crimes by illegals are nothing new to some of us. This crime occurred against my families Doctor and his 3 daughters along with the man who hired the illegal from an area known as Langley Park which is an area that has been for decades inhabited with the Latino population. The 30 year old painter who picked up the day worker from a department store lot where hundreds of illegals would wait for day work was trying to help these people by giving them work. It was one of the most horrific crimes the DC suburbs ever experienced. The motive was rape and the perp was raping the 14 year old daughter when his boss entered the room where he was attacked with a hammer and killed. Then the Sisters came home and were attacked and then the Father. Not that crimes are only committed by illegals but why do we do what no other Countries do? Fail to enforce or Federal laws when it comes to illegal immigration. http://articles.latimes.com/1995-07-22/news/mn-26701_1_goff-home

0

seeuski 4 years, 2 months ago

Sep, I just watched the youtube of the Tucson Counsel meeting and that lady said it all. No one can defend the opposite position to what she had to say and make any sense of their position other than politics.

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 2 months ago

I doubt I could pick Gov. Brewer out of a lineup, but I think I'm ready to propose.

0

sledneck 4 years, 2 months ago

When an American flag is considered hateful we have lost this country. Hate speech is BS anyway. "Hate crimes" are thought crimes. The whole idea starts us down a road to no free speech. It is already a crime to harm, kill, rob. Why should the victims race, religion or gender have any bearing on the legality of it or the punishment??

0

seeuski 4 years, 2 months ago

Don't mess with Jan Brewer. If she were in the White House this Country would have true hope.

0

oldskoolstmbt 4 years, 2 months ago

seeu~have you ever hired an illegal knowingly or "unknowingly"?....ironic how some of your 'supporters' have...

0

Matthew Stoddard 4 years, 2 months ago

oldskool- Which supporters of seeuski do you mean? Fair is fair, so to make an accusation like that, some proof would be needed.

0

Matthew Stoddard 4 years, 2 months ago

And seeuski- before espousing Brewer for Pres, you do know that in January she wanted to increase State Sales Tax by 1% as part of the Budget Fix and wanted the State Congress to act quickly on it instead of sending it to voters. Voters now have Prop 100 to vote on in one week. Google it for those not believing me.

Now- this is a temporary tax set to expire in 2013, but a tax increase is a tax increase in certain people's minds.

0

seeuski 4 years, 2 months ago

Two separate issues that are inter-connected, 500,000 illegals and the financial affairs of a state. There doesn't seem to be any other options in this case for AZ to bring the budget deficit under control without either this 1 billion dollar a year revenue source for 3 years or huge budget cuts. I personally think that in this case they may have no better options and may be heading towards a California melt down without it. "Arizona Governor Campaigning for Herself, Tax Increase" http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/politics/state_politics/apx_brewer_campaign_tax_increase_032910

With this option creating such angst against her only shows that she has the courage to do the hard things. Just my opinion Stoddard. Whats yours? And I would rather have a President who does things that will actually balance a budget rather than the POTUS's stated goal of wealth redistribution. If the Administration was working on the budget issues in the honest attempt at lowering the national budget deficit and debt without adding all of these new entitlement programs then I would support this POTUS's effort. And speaking of it, has anybody seen the newly updated CBO estimates for the recently passed Health Care bill? It was all a lie. Add another 115 $billion to the cost which wipes out the triads(Obama, Pelosi and Reid) promise to the American people that this legislation would "lower costs and reduce the deficit".

0

jimmmmmm 4 years, 2 months ago

Seeuski-so now you believe what the CBO says? I could've sworn you posted many times about the unreliability of the CBO.

0

NamVet 4 years, 2 months ago

I have to laugh when I read some of the many hundred comments Seeuski makes. Based on what I read all our problems started 15 months ago. Immigration has been a problem for decades and neither party wants to address it because the Dems do not want to offend Latinos and Rep want cheap no benefit labor so they can make more money. As for entitlements Seeuski forgets who gave us Medicare Part D which was to cost 300 billions and instead will cost 1 trillion over 10 years. Who gave us 2 wars that were supposed to be paid for by the Iraqi oil revenues which now has cost the taxpayer over 1 trillions just in dollars and don't forget the 35,000 dead and disabled who paid the supreme price. In 2000 when the Rep took total control of our gov't the national debt was 5 trillion with and annual budget of 1.8 trillion running a 350 billion surplus.. When they left 8 years later the national debt was over 11 trillion and an annual budget of 3.2 trillion running a 800 billion deficit. Who bailed the banks(TARP) in 2008 to the tune of 780 billion. It was Bush and Paulson(ex-CEO of Goldman Sachs) not Obama. Has Obama done much better than Bush? The answer is no but look what Bush inherited and what Obama inherited and there is no comparison. When the Rep take back control which they will you can count on 2 things and that is tax cuts for the top 1% and massive defense spending. Neither party has the will to do what needs to be done and that is cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Defense coupled with doing away with our present tax system in favor of a semi graduated flat tax with absolutely NO exemptions or deductions.

0

seeuski 4 years, 2 months ago

jimmmmmmmm, Come on, the details of my positions on the CBO's assessments a year ago are validated by these new CBO updates. I posted here that the CBO changed their estimates after Obama brought Doug Elmendorf into the Oval Office. The estimates went from 1.4 $trillion down to what the POTUS claimed to us all constantly. And now the estimates are showing that my position that the Health Care legislation was being under estimated for political need was closer to the truth. The CBO has shown in it's history to forecast costs at a conservative level and that is born out with Medicare part D and the original Medicare estimates.

As far as NamVet, do we have to continually argue the same positions over and over? We won't agree on much but I never said that the problems started with this POTUS. I have voiced different conclusions than what you are attaching to me here and I'll leave it at that. In closing, go back and reread some of my above posts on the immigration issue and you will see that I have indicated my thoughts on solutions to the problem. I am finished here so enjoy the weather.

0

Matthew Stoddard 4 years, 2 months ago

seeuski- Remember that you, not me, holds the Tea Party and their issues in such high regard and no tax increases in the main mantra. If you go back to that Tea Party thread, you'll find my exact thoughts on the tax issue. I'm surprised that all of a sudden a tax increase is "OK" with you considering, oh- every other post you've ever written.

Unfortunately, Obama had to go and talk about no tax increases for whomever when getting elected. I didn't believe it then & I certainly think taxes need to be increased for a while in order to get our National Debt under better control. Cutting spending alone isn't going to do squat.

So, in reference to my post on that thread and your own willingness to accept that it's okay for Gov. Brewer to espouse a tax increase, are you willing to do you part & accept an overall temporary income tax increase for the next decade to accept responsibility as I am for voting for past and present big-spenders in Washington, as long as all other spending goes PAYGO? This is so our children, who we all worry about leaving our National Debt to, do not have to suck it all up. They shouldn't have to pay for the "sins of the father" right? And we can be honest and say that overspending isn't just because of Liberals. 8yrs under a Republican Pres with 6yrs of that under Republican Congressional control showed us that. We had our cake and ate it last decade. Now we have to pay the bill & leave a tip. Somehow, I think that you'll say a tax increase is out of the question this time.

Just my opinion seeuski. Whats yours?

0

seeuski 4 years, 2 months ago

Answered above: "And I would rather have a President who does things that will actually balance a budget rather than the POTUS's stated goal of wealth redistribution. If the Administration was working on the budget issues in the honest attempt at lowering the national budget deficit and debt without adding all of these new entitlement programs then I would support this POTUS's effort". Did you read my post before your critique? Adding more taxes and more spending at the same time is insane so no I can't support taxing the US into 3rd world status. Heck, we are bailing out Europe now, why? Because Socialism fails. I for one am ticked off that we Americans are ponying up for the failures of European Governments and their failed Socialist policies. Why are we going down that road? So your kids are on the hook Stoddard, like it or not. It is they who will have to live in this "fundamentally changed" Country. If some honesty would enter into this debate about what Obama is creating we may have much to agree about because there are some things from the Bush era that upon further reflection I am against, but defending this Country was not one of them.

0

trump_suit 4 years, 2 months ago

kielbasa,

Your last post on the the debt/taxation issue is right on. DId anyone see the USAToday article:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-05-10-taxes_N.htm

Clearly America needs to be paying more taxes if we want the kind of Government that we have had for the last 12 years. Clinton/Bush/Obama makes little difference in this case. We have known for years that Social Securuty/Medicare/Medicade were headed for bankrupty and only minor tweaks have been made to date.

On the one hand, the Conservatives cry for smaller government/lower taxes and on the next day call for increases in military/homeland security/police spending and the Democrats want to hand out tax breaks to anyone and everyone while increasing the level of spending.

Is it even possible to have this conversation without talking about raising taxes? When 1/2 of our population manages to avoid them completely how is that fair? Each and every citizen of this country shoudl have an obligation to pay a baseline set amount regardless of income that cannot be subsidized or tax breaks to $0 or less with some people getting more back than they ever paid in. Using the tax code for social engineering and economic targeting is part of the problem.

How are larger corporations allowed to show billions of profit on stock valuations and dividend reports but somehow file tax returns that show $0 due. Something is wrong with that.

Social Security/Medicare/Military make up almost 80% of the federal budget. What gets cut?

0

Matthew Stoddard 4 years, 2 months ago

seeuski- That's why I posed the question that if spending was limited to PAYGO, would you support increased taxes to pay down the existing debt. You aren't answering the specific question.

Remember- Reagan raised taxes what, 3 times in his 8yrs after lowering them once? (And what taxes did he increase? Social Security & Medicare!!! LOL!) I guess even Reagan wasn't a Reagan-Conservative when it came down to it. Heck- I'd bet that if the 80's Reagan were running in 2012, he wouldn't make it past the Primaries. Even Benjamin Franklin, who Akin quoted a few months ago, understood that Death & Taxes were the only sure thing. Doesn't matter that he didn't agree with the taxation...he just knew that there was no way to fight it properly, I'd say.

This question technically has nothing to do with Obama. If in 2012 someone (regardless of their party) runs for Pres & says they want to do what I propose with PAYGO & raising taxes temporarily to pay down the debt, would you then support that? You are supporting Jan Brewer for trying to accomplish fixing AZ's budget woes this way by your own statements. Why not for the country? Is it because AZ state tax increases won't affect you? (I have no children, so it doesn't even matter to me.)

(We're also bailing out Europe so their collapse doesn't further our own. You know- when our market tanked last year, everyone else's did too.)

trump- It matters not what party says what: they've both been going back and forth. Democrats are derided by people here for wanting to give more tax break incentives to small businesses & Immigration Reform (Conservative Tags) and Republicans are derided for suddenly saying that the Health Care bill will take $500 billion from Medicare when they've always wanted to get rid of Medicare & spending like drunken sailors for the past decade (Liberal Tags). Each party is just wearing the other party's hand-me-downs.

0

NamVet 4 years, 2 months ago

Trump is 100% right and I've been saying the same thing for almost 30 years. Americans pay less income tax today(around 9%) than they did 30 years ago and the same goes for the big corporations. In 2006 85% of US corporations paid zero income tax. I'd be surprised if it wasn't 95% last year. There are so many tax credits and exemptions today fewer and fewer people and corporations pay anything. Non-profits and religious groups are everywhere for one reason, to avoid paying taxes. Call yourself a church and get a free ride. I personally know of one group that pulls in 60 million a year tax free. All the officers of the church live in multimillion dollar homes all free from property tax. That is why we have had an explosion of mega-churches across the country over the past 30 years. We need to dump the present tax system and go to a graduated flat tax with zero exemptions and deductions so everyone supports this country not just half. By the way the Presidents name is Obama not POTUS. Show some respect for the office. As much damage as the previous President did he still is Pres. Bush not some ridiculous name from hate radio.

0

Matthew Stoddard 4 years, 2 months ago

NamVet- Well said. I agree we need a Flat Tax, but I think we need to bring the National Debt down to a manageable level first. Screwing with the tax code to that degree, I'm betting, will really screw up tax revenue processing for a while.

0

Duke_bets 4 years, 2 months ago

NamVet - Nice Post! I stated the same thing about corporate taxes in another post. They virtually pay nothing with all of the tax credits and deductions that are allowed.

There are those that are so scared of the health bill because of the cost to corporations and small businesses. That is total BS..........Whatever the cost may be, there will be enough credits for being in the program to deduct further from the profits, thus eliminating more taxes. Duke bets the cost of that program will come out in the wash when all is said and done.

0

seeuski 4 years, 2 months ago

Even if I concede my position to all of you and we agree on Stoddard's plan, what Stoddard hopes for as an outcome is not in the plans of our Leaders. We are coming at this from such different spheres of understanding that we are just wasting each others time. I hope that this Country wakes up to what is happening in time to make a difference but with these types of man on the street discussions/arguments it may be hopeless. I just suggest that you keep your eyes on the prize, the Chicago Climate Exchange and what is now the new name for the old Cap and Trade bill, the American Power Act, which was just announced today. Check out Joel Rogers, Maurice Strong and the rest of the players like Al Gore and George Soros. I am not going to continue this back and forth because the argument is flawed. It's like using false data to prove a point, the point is mute. It is my contention that the desires of this White House and the players is not what the desires of us bloggers are. We want to bring the USA back to health, they want to create something else with our wealth. So take care guys.

0

Matthew Stoddard 4 years, 2 months ago

"Even if I concede my position to all of you and we agree on Stoddard's plan, what Stoddard hopes for as an outcome is not in the plans of our Leaders."

And that is why things will never change. If you don't vote for people like that who will tell you the truth about what truly needs to happen to fix our Debt, bringing more than just "the ONE" solution that continues to never work, those people will never get elected and the cycle will continue ad nauseum. The plans of our leaders are only subject to who we vote in as leaders and those only willing to vote the same type of leader in over and over will get what they deserve. I don't believe that just increasing taxes and entitlements will work, nor do I believe that just tax cuts and cutting spending will work.

0

canyonwind 4 years, 2 months ago

Wow! Who would have thought that a state law that is word for word the same as the Federal law is somehow racist but the Federal law is ok. Obama says he was a lawyer or was it a Legal aid in Chicago ??? He called the AZ law racist, but seems to think the Federal law is OK... How does that work?? Then you have all these white people on MSNBC making victims out of ALL of us Hispanics for political gain but they are on the wrong side of this issue in Arizona,Utah, Idaho, Colorado and Wyoming. And even in California outside of Los Angeles and a area 400 miles to the north known as the Bay Area (San Francisco) the AZ law has strong surport among US born Hispanics that are proud Americans not VICTIMS that the simpletons on MSNBC portray us to be and that REALLY offends me. My father told me that his Grandfather lived in Mexico and his Great Grandmother lived in Spain but the only flag he ever flew was the Red White and Blue and he would never buy a car or truck that was a import. He viewed groups like LA Raza( the race) the way a Black man viewed the KKK or a Jew views Hamas or the PLO. Other groupes that claimed that his home state of California somehow was taken from Mexico and belongs to them was talk of very simple people that care more about Mexico than the USA. The word Treson comes to mind. Looking back I thought his patriotism was over the top but Im am so glad he taught me not to be a victim like all those fools at the AZ state Capitol and to be proud American. He always said this was the best country on Earth and that the Immigrates that learned English and became citizens lived well and those that did not were just waisting time.
Another thing that bugs me is that some of the people here that hate the AZ law seems to be from the Northeast or East and those that like the law are either Colorado natives or from other Rocky Mountain or Western States. With the exception of the narrow minded Californians the West seems to be better informed on most issues in this Country. We also should Legalize POT and other drugs and drive the cost down but make Human and Drug trafficking a death penalty crime, seal that border then begin a process to make the English Speaking, Employed and those with no Police Record a chance to become Americans and those that were born to illegals with Police records become US Citizens when they become 21 or 18 if the join the Military, that is how it is done in Europe. Deport or arrest the few that have records And most important of all is to DO AWAY WITH DUEL CITIZENSHIP. All new imigrants must denounce their old Country while burning their former flag. We would solve alot of problems by that alone. Then get rid of the racist crap that is taught in LA schools, They teach hate and that the Southwest was taken from Mexico and that the US must be taken over. AZ just did that and good for them.

0

seeuski 4 years, 2 months ago

Stoddard, we are getting closer. I just went full circle with your last post as that describes the momentum behind the Tea Party movement. Notice how old schoolers like Bennet in UT are going down? Lindsey Graham is soon to follow. We are doing our part by being involved.

canyonwind, Fantastic post, thanks for the honesty.

0

Matthew Stoddard 4 years, 2 months ago

Okay- 20ish questions although I doubt it will take that long. See if u can keep up and keep it to the questions asked. No diverting to other things. Just answer the question honestly. These questions will have a small narrative after, possibly, but just stick to each question.

1) Why target Bob Bennett or Lindsey Graham? They are Republicans with an ACU rating of 84% and 86% record of voting in accordance with the ACU mantra.

0

Matthew Stoddard 4 years, 2 months ago

Thanks, exduffer, for the generic answer, but I'm waiting on seeuski to come play this very easy game. If you would rather play, please give a slight reasoning as to what what your answer entails.

0

Duke_bets 4 years, 2 months ago

canyonwind - Take grandpa's advice and learn the English language. That was a painful read. Your English skills greatly diminish the entire post. But, you expect 'groupes' to 'surport' your ideas on 'treson' and not to 'waist' time in that process. Instead of blaming schools, you should attend one.

0

max huppert 4 years, 2 months ago

wonder what the class size would be if we didnt have to pay for illegal education?

0

exduffer 4 years, 2 months ago

Duke is why Paul Hughes wrote his letter. Canyon just remember 'sticks and stones...'

0

seeuski 4 years, 2 months ago

Bob Bennett= http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=674 "His gravest sins, according to critics, were his longtime support for a health insurance mandate and his vote for the TARP bailout of the banks." "Over the last year, there's been a lot of talk about how the "tea parties" are really "Astroturf" activists in the employ of the GOP. If that were the case, they certainly wouldn't have taken down Bennett." http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/05/12/the_robert_bennett_message_105543.html

Lindsey Graham=http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/10/14/why-it-s-no-surprise-lindsey-graham-supports-climate-change-legislation.aspx

If one were paying attention, unlike Stoddard, one would see which RINOS are on the hook.

This is not a little game Stoddard, this is the reawakening of the Conservative movement and the cleansing of the infected GOP along with a take back of the House and hopefully the Senate this Fall. So what is your beef with me on this one?

0

cindy constantine 4 years, 2 months ago

Hey,

Where can I go to "see-u-ski"? You are too busy posting to be skiing. You have told us how you feel over and over and over . . . It is not even that I disagree with you, its the repetition that causes me and many others to just skip right over your postings. How about something new from your fingertips to my screen. My yard is a mess after the winter. Any high altitude gardening tips?

0

seeuski 4 years, 2 months ago

Uh Cindy, I was responding to Stoddard if you don't mind. Love you too.

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 2 months ago

Have we become so "politically-correct-tarded" in this nation that our own flag, respectfully or disrespectfully flown/worn in any manner, on any day of the year, is met with punishment and/or retaliation? I don't give a flying rat's hind quarters if it's the 5th of May, Christmas day, 4th of July or even the 29th of February...MY nation's banner should permitted to be freely displayed. Not that I'm particularly fond of it, but I even support the right of individuals to light my country's flag on fire. I've served my country and I'm a firm believer in allowing people to exercise their rights as citizens of this imperfect nation. This nation was built upon freedom and freedom we shall have! Were it not for the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence(from everyone), this nation would have never stood a chance. Our freedom(s) is/are our power, as well as being our responsibility to defend and protect. That being said, I humbly opine that these school administrators have the ever-loving $#!+ fired right out of them. I see absolutely no reason for them to be teaching, or administering the education of, American school children. http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_15041196?nclick_check=1 But I sure would love to hear the opinions of those that think other-wise, so let's hear it.

0

sledneck 4 years, 2 months ago

And if they do the kids should carry flags on poles till the administrators call them "weapons". Then kids should take them off the poles and carry them as rags.

The point is they were not chastised for the disrespectful WEARING of flags. They were chastised for displaying of AMERICAN flags. The school administrators were not "looking out for" flag etiquett rather they were using the opportunity to show favoritism toward Mexico and bias against the USA. It was the teachers who were disrespecting the flag. For George to flip that upside- down is a real s t r e t c h.

MJ is right. Theese fools should be teaching in Mexico.

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 2 months ago

George-

Wow! So not only do you believe it was a good decision, but a PATRIOTIC one? Have you ever burned an American flag? I only ask because there are two different ways of going about it. One, is the respectful end to a long life of flying our colors in the wind. When I was a Boyscout, we incinerated an American flag that was long past its prime, as far as filling the role of a waving flag. It was no longer a respectful example of our nations colors. So, as prescribed(http://www.usa-flag-site.org/faq/disposal.shtml), we lit our flag on fire and, being the pyromaniacs that most Boyscouts are, we stood around and watched it burn. Quite the sight in person, let me tell you. The other way to burn an American flag usually has very little to do with honor, respect and somberness. Unfortunately, and more often than not, this is the kind of fire that meets out flag(s). The lighting is usually done by people that have less than amiable feelings towards our country as a whole. For me, the school administrators that raised all hell about flag apparel fall into the latter of the two categories. No, they didn't burn any flags or even the kids' shirts. But they definitely overstepped their bounds. Who the hell cares if a few Mexicans are upset about the appearance of the American flag(in America, or on an American) on Cinco de Mayo? Has this ceased to be America? Is/was any part of that school NOT on American soil, at any point during it's existence?

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 2 months ago

And besides, how on earth could Mexicans be upset about OUR flag being proudly worn or displayed on Cinco de Mayo? The events that led up to "Cinco de Mayo" revolved primarily around the French! Those administrators turned it into a race thing.

And I quote from wiki: "Cinco de Mayo has its roots in the French Occupation of Mexico. The French occupation took place in the aftermath of the Mexican-American War of 1846-48, the Mexican Civil War of 1858, and the 1860 Reform Wars. These wars left the Mexican Treasury in ruin and nearly bankrupt. On July 17, 1861, Mexican President Benito Juárez issued a moratorium in which all foreign debt payments would be suspended for two years, with the promise that after this period, payments would resume.[11][12] In response, France, Britain, and Spain sent naval forces to Veracruz to demand reimbursement. Britain and Spain negotiated with Mexico and withdrew, but France, at the time ruled by Napoleon III, decided to use the opportunity to establish an empire on Mexican territory."

It's the ignorance in this nation that will prove to be our largest detriment.

0

Matthew Stoddard 4 years, 2 months ago

seeuski- And all it took was 1 question.

Bob Bennett, with an 84% voting-in-accordance with the ACU is being pushed out for not being conservative enough, even though he voted against the Health Care Law. Actually, Bennett worked with a Democrat Sen. Ron Wylden, to craft an alternative to the Health Care Law. He tried to work with people instead of against them in order to achieve progress.

And that will cement my belief in a few things:

1) The Tea Party isn't pushing independent thinkers in political races, it's pushing politicians who will vote only 1 certain way- The Tea Party's way. Vote lock-step with us, or else!

2) This is why it isn't people like me that will perpetuate the stalemate in Congress; it's the extreme edges of both major parties. When both parties go to their furthest extremes and only vote lock-step with each other, that's shown as obstruction. Bennett actually tried to make something happen, instead. When each side's furthest fringe only says "No" to the other party, nothing gets done...for either side. In the Health Care Law, Dems even offered a couple of the Republican concessions, albeit however small they were...but they put them in the law. And Republicans still said "No" en masse. "My way or the highway" doesn't accomplish anything.

3) With the rise of the various Tea Parties will only come the resurgence of things like MoveOn.org. The difference is that there is only one MoveOn.org and it doesn't have a an exact namesake to contradict it's picks. I wonder how all the Pro-Choice people in the Tea Party will feel if one of the people they are told to vote for is Pro-Life, instead, and heavily so? What trumps what?

4) I just can't feel I can attach myself to an organization that uses "Obama-Nazis" right on the 2nd page of it's manifesto...I mean, "Voters Guide." Pretty free use of the word there, isn't it, for someone who had the experiences in your family as you claim? Nobody is above calling someone a Nazi for whatever reason. So I guess you shouldn't feel so bad when someone casually tosses that your way, next time. Or is this a different Tea Party than the one you belong to?

What I have against you, seeuski, is your perpetual clinging to non-proven conspiracies, your lack of an individual thought, your over-eagerness to hop on bandwagons, your inability to properly translate into your own text the sources of what you espouse, your complete disregard of how you don't mind outright lying about statistics to inflate your argument & ego, and your overall generally whiney attitude. It doesn't surprise me that you had to link an answer to my question instead of actually putting your own thoughts down. That's the difference between us- I actually put down what's in my head and then back it up with a link if needed, whereas you find the link that tells you what to put in your head.

0

Matthew Stoddard 4 years, 2 months ago

George- The way I understood that statute is that you shall not make apparrel from an actual flag (even wearing a flag as a cape), not wearing the image of a flag on apparrel.

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 2 months ago

Nice to see others getting involved in the discussion. As best I can determine, between this and the Marie Matta thread, George is the only party to this back-and-forth who opposes what Arizona is doing. Hardly scientific, but it seems reflective the broad national support Arizona appears to have engendered.

It's also interesting how George and his ilk get so worked up over some of the rhetoric coming from our side of the aisle - "keep the powder dry", for example - and are simultaneously mute when it comes to the actual violence being committed, and who is responsible for it:

http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/metro/20100427-protestors-block-buses http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=7417829 http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local-beat/Santa-Cruz-Immigration-Protest-Caught-on-Tape-92637494.html

The arrests and "clashes with police" are not the result of Americans who support what Arizona is doing. It's being perpetrated by those who are opposed to it. But the rest of us had better watch our language!

0

canyonwind 4 years, 2 months ago

DUKE_BET

Wow you are something else, You have no idea how stupid is is to dis someone online. Five misspeeled werds. Let me guess you are one of those peace loving guys that somehow justifies wearing a tee shirt with Che or Hitlers picture on it. or is it Charles Manson or Jeffrey Dahmer these days.

0

canyonwind 4 years, 2 months ago

Hey SEP it is 70 for it in Arizona and it is likley at least that here in Steamboat it may be closer to 80% for it since the law is starting to make travel to AZ cheaper our snowy May makes a weekend at Parker Dam look good. Frontier and Southwest have deals right now

0

Matthew Stoddard 4 years, 2 months ago

And see? canyonwind just blindly & willfully perpetuated the 70(%, I guess??) "for it in Arizona" when that's a complete lie.

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 2 months ago

George:

"You & your ilk" was not intended as an insult. Sorry if you took it that way (hopefully, even you're not so sensitive to have regarded it as an incitement to violence).

And you're quite right about the letter of the law re: flag apparel. As a practical exercise, however, it's meaningless; and even less relevant as it applies to those kids in California.

When I googled "legality of American flag apparel", this retailer popped right up up (3rd link on the 1st page): http://www.flagclothes.com/catalog/catalog_listall.aspx?id=14&sid=8f3aa1b4-3278-4b99-a02f-384a7b1c718d American flag shirts, jackets, hats, handbags, pants, shorts, pillows, ties, vests...

Section 3 of the U.S. Flag code could be interpreted to outlaw all of it. Not to mention the American flag lapel pins that American Presidents are wont to wear. It's clearly obsolete; much like municipal statutes you can find criminalizing spitting into watering troughs, for example (it'd be interesting to know when the U.S. Flag Code language was written; I haven't been able to track that down). And given that flag-burning has been upheld as constitutionally protected free speech, it's a safe bet that I would prevail in any legal challenge after having been busted for wearing my favorite winter cap, which has the flag embroidered on the front.

And despite your claim that the pencil-pushers at the Cali school could use the U.S. Flag Code as the platform for a "good and patriotic argument to ban the American flag clothing", it's pretty clear why they didn't - they may be stupid, but they're not THAT stupid. Especially in light of one of your side's favorite talking points against Arizona's effort: that state & local officials have no business enforcing federal law.

0

seeuski 4 years, 2 months ago

For those that need proof of the overwhelming support for the AZ immigration law. http://www.abc15.com/content/news/phoenixmetro/central/story/Poll-64-of-Arizona-voters-support-states/vzDvgEZ7gkiKXU6P-gYReA.cspx?rss=704

And to the one who likes calling Americans in the majority liars, here is the initial polling results that started this theater. http://www.numbersusa.com/content/news/april-22-2010/rasmussen-poll-says-70-arizona-residents-support-immigration-enforcement-bill.htm

And now we have PA. http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_476252.html

Call me names if you like my friend but you are again peean in the wind. I'll hang out at the Tea Party rallies and you hang out, well, no one knows for sure. But one thing is for sure, the only people getting all riled up by the Tea Party movement are the Liberals and the RINO's so I can see where the steam is coming from.

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 2 months ago

George:

I'm more than happy to "take responsibility"; and you're the 1st person to characterize "you & your ilk" (to me, at least) as a pejorative. So yeah - seems overly sensitive to me.

You write: "laws are obsolete if most people ignore them." Couldn't agree with you more. I would amend it with: and law enforcement has the common sense to recognize legislated silliness.

In Illinois, for example, there's a state law requiring that a man's female companion shall call him "master" while out on a date. The law does not apply to married couples.

In Iowa, it is illegal for a man to wink at any female with whom he is "unacquainted."

In New York, you are required to be licensed to hang your clothes on a clothesline.

Granted, those are extreme examples, but they're on the books nonetheless. They also measure up to your definition: "...obsolete if most people ignore them." Are state authorities delinquent for not enforcing those statutes? If not, why not?

If you're so offended about the "desecration" of the flag, put your money where your mouth is. The next time you see me in my American flag stocking cap (or anyone wearing American flag apparel), file a report with the appropriate authorities, and let the chips fall where they may. I'm willing to wager a year's pay that you won't be able to find anyone to drop the hammer. Here's the President wearing an American flag lapel pin: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://monterrey.usconsulate.gov/uploads/images/M9bzXFbOzKh7QaMYXiY2-g/Barack_Obama.jpg&imgrefurl=http://monterrey.usconsulate.gov/pd_cul_obama.html&usg=__E2H4qGDgVI2nns8LRYgk5Lx96nM=&h=441&w=358&sz=23&hl=en&start=70&sig2=zXACffqXeDwBVtco8gnWWQ&itbs=1&tbnid=KgDpQEV86NNv7M:&tbnh=127&tbnw=103&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbarack%2Bobama%26start%3D60%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D20%26tbs%3Disch:1&ei=EVbwS632FcT7lweBoLm0CA , clearly in violation of the U.S. Flag code. Should he be cited/sanctioned/penalized/arrested? If not, why not?

And if you are genuinely upset that the U.S. Flag code is not being enforced, how does your side evade the "moral relativism" you ascribe to me, in light of its opposition to the enforcement of immigration law?

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 2 months ago

And I remain curious: are those opposed to immigration enforcement guilty of the "moral relativism" you've accused me of? If not, why?

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 2 months ago

This is rich: Some in Arizona canceling trips to S.D. http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/may/14/some-in-arizona-canceling-trips-to-sd/

"San Diego tourism leaders and hoteliers fear they could lose a sizable chunk of business this summer from valued “Zonies” who are so angered by elected leaders’ recent censure of Arizona for its illegal-immigration law that they’re mounting an informal boycott of their own.

The San Diego Convention & Visitors Bureau and several hotels report receiving e-mails and letters from Arizona visitors saying they intend to change their plans to travel here in light of local outcry over their home state’s anti-illegal-immigration stance...

...San Diego Councilwoman Donna Frye said she believes some Arizona residents are acting out of a misunderstanding.

“The City Council did not pass a resolution boycotting Arizona, and I would hope that the good citizens of Arizona understand that and will continue to visit San Diego,” Frye said."

In other words: We're really sorry we called you a bunch of slack-jawed bigoted racists, but there's no reason you shouldn't come to town and give us your money, morons!

What preening hypocrites.

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 2 months ago

Which doesn't answer the question, George. You've labeled me a "moral relativist" for failing to support enforcement of existing federal law.

Are those who advocate looking the other way re: federal immigration statutes guilty of the same infraction? If not, why?

0

seeuski 4 years, 2 months ago

I believe it is Arizonans who will decide whether or not to do the work that the Feds won't, not those in the minority and living comfortably outside of the state.

http://securetheborder.org/

I was at the border recently crossing back from a trip to Puerto Penasco, legally, and learned from the US border guards that a drug smuggling gang was captured after a brief battle with border Agents near that crossing that morning. Over a dozen illegals were caught and they had automatic assault weapons according to the agent's account.Drugs were also recovered. National media coverage of these constant occurrences is non existent, so we get people saying things like, "We have to be smarter, not crueler, harsher, or more rigid. Stop fighting both political and drug wars. Don't engage in a new war on illegal immigration. Address the social and economic factors that underly these wars and we'll do better." We have been addressing those social problems, we send our money over there and they send there cheap labor and drugs over here. We need to enforce the border and our immigration laws either Federally or Locally if the Feds continue the political ping pong.

0

canyonwind 4 years, 2 months ago

And see? canyonwind just blindly & willfully perpetuated the 70(%, I guess??) "for it in Arizona" when that's a complete lie

That 70% came from one of the polls the said Obama would win in 2008. Galup maybe ? and was on both CNN and FOX.

Also it is too Bad that Arizona is punishing San Diego, CA . that is one major city that is on the right side of most issues

0

Matthew Stoddard 4 years, 2 months ago

2nd page, 3rd paragraph. "Obama-Nazis."

http://www.teaparty.org/images/2010Elections.pdf

So this is not the same Tea Party you belong to? Does that mean one Tea Party isn't the same as the next?

Okay- 3 questions, total. My bad.

0

seeuski 4 years, 2 months ago

Full quote............"The Obama-Nazi’s are hoping the Tea Party doesn’t have what it takes to fight in the trenches. They are saying: “Sure they can yell at empty buildings, hold cardboard signs on street corners, but they can’t deliver at the polls.”

I do believe that type of terminology is different than what you were claiming in your earlier posts, but that is so like you isn't it Stoddard? To completely abuse the truth and then build a theme around it. For all of your hate of this American Grassroots movement that is all you can come up with? Shall I spend my day posting all the hate from the pro Obama blogs and groups like for instance the Huffington Post or the Daily KOS? When I was younger and a weekend warrior at Dewey Beach,DE we referred to the local cops as Beach Nazi's and the Coast Guard as Water Nazi's, and that was way back in the 80's and 90's before the Tea Party movement, little did we know that their would be a Stoddard to worry about.

And earlier you stated "With the rise of the various Tea Parties will only come the resurgence of things like MoveOn,org. The difference is that there is only one MoveOn,org and it doesn't have a an exact namesake to contradict it's picks."

Are you so out of touch? Aren't you aware of the Tides Foundation, the Apollo Group, Community Organizations International and Emerald Cities just to name a few? There's plenty more in the Socialist action web. Wake up, smell the coffee.

0

seeuski 4 years, 2 months ago

And now legal immigrants have started a new website where they can speak out against the propaganda of the MSM. The testimonial of Carmen Morales where she describes the squatter house has been going on for decades. The Silver Spring area of MD along with other DC area suburbs constantly had homes that were converted to house dozens of people. I think a lot of the problem is that a majority of Americans have had no awareness of stories like Carmen's and the depth of the illegal immigrant issue having grown up in areas like Steamboat Springs. http://www.dontspeakforme.org/testimonials.html

These Immigrants represent what makes this Country so great and the melting pot that the World envies.

0

Matthew Stoddard 4 years, 2 months ago

So you'll be okay when someone calls you a Nazi again, right? Or is it only okay when someone you agree with uses the term against anyone else but you? Every other instance you used it in are completely non-political references.

Boy seeuski- it must be nice to the only one that can use the term Nazi & not worry about offending someone's gentle sensibilities.

And no, my "hate" isn't all that I come up with. I come up with, over and over again, the separations between Tea Parties calling themselves Tea Parties.

1) One freely uses Nazi (a word that seeuski only hates when applied toward him/herself and boy, does Glenn Beck use the word "Nazi" a lot, right?) right in their Voters Guide.

2) One Tea Party organization endorsed a "Blue Dog" Democrat in Idaho...who has an ACU (American Conservative Union) Rating of 44%!!! Heck- The Tea Party is getting rid of Bob Bennett in Utah whose rating is 100%!! (Forgive- it's 84%, but what's 16 points, right?) The local Idaho Tea Party didn't understand why TP Express did that.

3) Scott Brown, initial darling of the Tea Party Express, later says he's not familiar with the Tea Party...11 days after a fund raiser sponsored by Tea Party organizations. (So, no- I haven't heard of all the other leftist orgs you named.) Scott Brown proceded to vote with Democrats on the Jobs Bill that almost every other conservative voted against.

4) Sarah Palin, who speaks at TP events & gets rousing applause, is suddenly endorsing candidates who the TP'ers are targeting to vote out.

All of these things are facts & you can look them up at your leisure. (You won't, though. We all know about you and actually reading things.) Which brings us to the fact that the Tea Party is not a coherent group of people in a voting bloc, but a bunch of organizations all just using the same name but not all espousing the same ideals. Maybe you should research your own affiliations a bit better. Sucks that someone outside of them can actually show better & more telling information about them than you.

0

exduffer 4 years, 2 months ago

I think I will wear my Norwegian colors today in honor of Syttende Mai. Better call out the riot police.

0

seeuski 4 years, 2 months ago

I have been involved from the start of the movement and certainly don't need a Liberal to define it for me, thanks though.The only statement you made that I can somewhat agree with is the last one. The Tea Party movement is a Grassroots phenomenon and does not act as one National unit. That is the beauty of it and why so many different types of voters are getting involved. The movement follows similar core principles and certainly the Tea Party movement isn't worried about what Matthew Stoddard thinks or represents. Your use of the Nazi term in an attempt to discredit the movement is representative of how the opposition plays hard and fast with reality and facts. I have yet to use the term you refer to but it may happen if this Obama agenda continues. I'll bet you like the new White House media program which eliminates the private networks from independently reporting on things like the Supreme Court nominee or Cap and Trade or Healthcare reform. Yea I could use that term.

And you want me to believe you never heard of the Huffington Post? Oh, that's credible.

0

Matthew Stoddard 4 years, 2 months ago

I didn't use the term Nazi...this time. Your party used it. Say what you want: We'll see which wagon the band plays for in a few more years. And do you want me to go thru all your posts and post exactly how many times you've used Nazi to describe something/someone you didn't agree with? It'll take time, but I'm betting I can find the word in your posts at least 100 times in the past year alone. Care to bet me?

You still addressed (and you won't because a blind eye to your own party is okay!!) none of the discrepancies I mentioned within your "grassroots" movement. What kind of grass is being moved? The Tea Party is just another PAC and will end up with more far-extremist candidates just like the ones MoveOn.org espouses.

And you didn't mention Huffington Post. Yep. Heard of it, but that wasn't in your first set if stuff. Still haven't heard of any of the others.

And they must care about what Matthew Stoddard says since you, the Grand Poobah of TP Misinformation, is willing to keep putting out more wrong information on a daily basis. Someone must care since you try so hard to gloss over those inconsistencies & you try so hard to condone the use of the word Nazi by trying to generalize the term.

And calling me a liberal...I thought you didn't know what I stood for? You're awfully quick to label someone who you don't know their position as a liberal. That's part of the problem- you don't even understand that I'm probably more Conservative than you in many aspects that you don't realize it because you're too busy putting out misinformation that I have to correct it more than I can espouse my own beliefs.

0

seeuski 4 years, 2 months ago

Stoddard, if you find any post where I called someone on this site a Nazi I will make a $50 donation to the non political fund of your choice. I would prefer something like the Red Cross for example. And as for your political status, you have made many bravado claims of your conservatism but the proof is in the pudding so to speak. When you make a silly defensive statement about Bennett of UT having an 84 ACU rating but ignoring the fact that the guy advocated for a single payer Healthcare system and voted for TARP you are showing your false flag. The voters in Utah are more Conservative than the mainstream at large and they new the facts, not you. And you may have been more conservative than I in the past, but like many in these politically charged times, we seem to have crossed paths somewhere over the last 9 years. Bye Bye Baby.

YVB, I wholeheartedly agree, I begged Libertarians to vote for McCain. I hoped they would hold their noses when casting their ballots but it seems too many went for Ron Paul and we got the Socialist. I believe the movement will instinctively vote together for the most part and I am with you in replacing the leftists.

0

Matthew Stoddard 4 years, 2 months ago

WOW! I guess a few people don't know the first thing about their own political affilliations. Any registered Libertarians care to comment on not being a Political Party?

yvb said, " We do not need a third party in this country, at this point in time. I say that, as a proud Libertarian. We Libertarians are part of a well organized "discussion group"."

Hate to tell you, but unlike the Tea Party, the Libertarian Party is a true Political Party as of 1971 & can register to run on the Libertarian Party platform in over half the states in the USA.

Just...WOW!

Yes, folks: these are the people in your parties...that don't even know what their party is about. Give'em a hand!

0

Matthew Stoddard 4 years, 2 months ago

In fact, Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian...in only 1988.

0

cindy constantine 4 years, 2 months ago

A wasted vote is one where you DO NOT vote your conscience!!! The time has NEVER been better for a third party candidate---whether it is the tea-party, the libertarian party, the constitutionalist party, the party of the balanced budget, the flat tax party, the party animals or another "party" name of your choosing. There is 2 and 1/2 years to organize this sentiment and your time is much better spent organizing for a 3 party candidate than continually bloviating on this site!! Geez---didn't your mothers teach you "everything in moderation". That includes good food, good wine and "rants". Witness what just happened with the republican incumbent in Utah!! The folks have had it with BOTH parties. I expect incumbents in BOTH parties to be replaced and the outcome may not be to your liking. So GET OFF YOUR COMPUTERS and make something positive happen with your frustration. I am afraid one of you old guys is going to get so riled up that you will have a heart attack and fall dead onto your keyboard and then you are NO USE TO ANYONE!!!!

0

seeuski 4 years, 2 months ago

Isn't there some bookkeeping chores to do?LOL!!! Back at ya.

0

cindy constantine 4 years, 2 months ago

yep---books require attention everyday . . . . BUT sus(bg) you KNOW I am right on this on!!!

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 2 months ago

Cindy:

3rd-party candidacies are nothing more than exercises in vanity. From Washington-Obama, we have never elected a 3rd party president. Ever.

Ours is not a parliamentary system, where voting for outliers isn’t wasted or counterproductive. A parliamentary party winning 5% can leverage that result into 5% (and in Europe & Israel, often a lot more than 5%) worth of power & influence over the government and policy making. As opposed to American fringe players like Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, John Anderson, or Pat Buchanan, who sucker supporters into squandering their votes on hopeless campaigns. You'll have a hard time convincing me that the votes cast for any of those guys could be characterized as anything OTHER than "wasted".

Our system includes no mechanism which entitles a party winning 20% to an equivalent percentage of Congressional seats, or some fraction of the available cabinet posts. The American framework is winner-takes-all, and structurally designed to support two contenders: win 51%, or hit the road, Ross.

The most an American 3rd-party insurgency can accomplish is to siphon support from one of the two major parties, and increase the likelihood of defeat for the party it depletes – while winning nothing for itself. That is arguably what Nader did to Gore in 2000; and Perot to Bush 41 in ’92.

The tea party as 3rd party (or 3rd party surrogate), if it became a national phenomenon in time for 2012, would guarantee a second term for President Obama.

0

cindy constantine 4 years, 2 months ago

I would be willing to wager that the Deomocrats will not "put up" Obama again. I do not believe even his most ardent supporters think he can win if he does not change his path immediately and we KNOW that is not going to happen. These are unprecedented times, Sep which means we must do ALL in our power to change the status quo. I believe that means supporting a 3rd party candidacy. IMO

0

cindy constantine 4 years, 2 months ago

Plus, I want to be able to look myself in the mirror and be proud of my vote, NOT have to vote the better of 2 evils or not vote for any candidate like many people I know in this last presidential election. Naive, perhaps, but voting the conscience is important.

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 2 months ago

Cindy:

  1. Of course the Dems will run their incumbent liberal hero. On that, I'll wager you a year's pay.

  2. Voting your conscience is meaningless. Perot was basically preaching a tea party message, and his supporters arguably gave us Bill Clinton. How many Reform Party policies did the Clinton Administration implement? Nader split the left in 2000 and arguably gave us W. How many Green Party proposals did the Bush Administration translate into policy?

In each case, the citizens who voted their 3rd-party "conscience" helped install a President who couldn't have been further away from the positions and policies they voted for. Their votes couldn't have been more counterproductive and damaging to their own cause, but they were proud, by golly! Evidently, achieving real results with your vote takes a back seat to feeling good about it.

You sound very much like a stereotypical liberal, with all due respect, who allows emotion to overrule reality & common sense.

0

cindy constantine 4 years, 2 months ago

You couldn't be farther from the truth . . . Hate to rain on your parade, but a lot of your pessimism is what got us into this mess in the first place. And I do think you are dead wrong about the O-man. Read Glenn Beck's Common Sense and then let's talk again.
: )

0

Matthew Stoddard 4 years, 2 months ago

And that, my friends, is why the system will never change. Too many people saying it can't, which parlays into "I won't."

Again, maybe if all people voted their conscience instead of who's electable, we'd be better off.

Cindy, your vote is NOT meaningless. There is a "party" called The Coffee Party and it wants to put in politicians that will work together & vote out obstructionists.

http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/

Pushing thru a candidate that will only work in opposition to the other party is a meaningless vote, IMO.

0

Matthew Stoddard 4 years, 2 months ago

Ohsss noes! Someone disparaging the Coffee Party? Frickin' Nazi!

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 2 months ago

Cindy:

My assertion that a 3rd party vote is wasted may sufficiently irritate you so as to label the notion "far from the truth"; but there is nothing untruthful about the practical reality I've highlighted.

If you can point me to an instance where voting for a 3rd party presidential candidacy has resulted in any of that party's policies/proposals/initiatives being implemented, I'm all ears.

0

cindy constantine 4 years, 2 months ago

Lets remember back 230+ years ago when another tea-party fought the status quo. While I am not advocating bloodshed, I am advocating for a change in thought. There has to a first time for every change---and timing is probably better now than in the last few decades of examples you cited. Why not now while we have time(2 1/2 years) and the national sentiment on our side??? Don't be stuck in historical examples, Sep, try a change of philosophy or as a country we will be stuck with "same old, same old". . . . . . .

0

cindy constantine 4 years, 2 months ago

BTW--"far from the truth" was referring to the fact of being a "stereotypical liberal" nothing more.

0

cindy constantine 4 years, 2 months ago

And just one more thought--What are you "die-hard" republicans going to do if the party put up Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh to run against Obama?? Heaven help us then!!!

0

trump_suit 4 years, 2 months ago

Coffee Party Pledge:

"As a member or supporter of the Coffee Party, I pledge to conduct myself in a way that is civil, honest, and respectful toward people with whom I disagree. I value people from different cultures, I value people with different ideas, and I value and cherish the democratic process."

Sounds pretty Marxist to me.......

Coffee party Mission Statement:

The Coffee Party Movement gives voice to Americans who want to see cooperation in government. We recognize that the federal government is not the enemy of the people, but the expression of our collective will, and that we must participate in the democratic process in order to address the challenges that we face as Americans. As voters and grassroots volunteers, we will support leaders who work toward positive solutions, and hold accountable those who obstruct them.

Not sure about the rest of you, but these don''t sound like the marxist statements and leftist agenda that seeuski portrays..

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 2 months ago

"Don't be stuck in historical examples..."

Wow. I scarcely know where to begin.

While we are wedded to a two-party system, there have always been multiple American political parties. The reason that not one of them (beyond the two major parties) has ever achieved anything is not because of historical inertia; rather, it is the electoral system provided us (for better or worse) by the Constitution. And that system has given the "historical examples" that you don't seem to understand.

Broadly speaking, there are two main electoral systems used by representative republics: single-member district pluralities, and proportional representation. Ours is a fairly extreme version of the former, which mandates that victors win the most votes in the jurisdiction. As opposed to the proportional representation system employed by the Brits & the Israelis, in which, as the name suggests, seats are awarded proportionally (with regards to Captain Obvious).

It is the difference between night and day, and is why 3rd party insurgencies are futile in this country. For 3rd parties to have a chance here, the very structure of the system would have to be altered to include elements of proportional representation. To do that, all you need to do is amend the Constitution. Good luck with that.

I suspect that none of this will so much as dent your faith in 3rd party salvation. So go ahead and vote for whichever 3rd party excites you. You will win nothing, and exert no impact on the direction of the country.

In other words, you'll be voiceless. But you'll be proud.

I appreciate your idealism. But it will never find voice and influence through the American 3rd party fringe.

0

cindy constantine 4 years, 2 months ago

Sep,

Could you really stomach the thought of voting for Sarah or Rush if they were the party's choice? I mean honestly?????

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 2 months ago

Incidentally - I am not a "die-hard" Republican. I'm a die hard conservative. I tend to vote with the GOP not because it's my knight in shining armor, but because it's the only game in town.

The tea party singlehandedly ended Senator Bennet's career in Utah, and had a great deal to do with electing Chris Christie in NJ - just 2 of the more prominent examples of how idealists can use the system to effect change.

Speaking of Christie, watch him in action: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_dDtn... I almost feel badly for the liberal reporter, who didn't know what hit him.

If Christie is successful, he'll be the GOP's biggest star.

0

cindy constantine 4 years, 2 months ago

I do agree with you on Christie. I saw that interview. We can only hope the "conservative" party is smart enough to nominate a "main stream conservative" who keeps their religious sentiments to themselves. It would really be nice if either party would nominate a candidate the majority of Americans could truly get behind, but after the choices in 2008 I am discouraged as are most Americans. BTY I am fully aware of the electoral college and how it works, but you have to admit it has long outlived its usefulness and it is time for a change to the Constitution regarding how we choose our Presidents!! Nice debating with you! : )

0

cindy constantine 4 years, 2 months ago

YVB-

2012 - Ballot Box - Presidential Candidate choices:

B. Obama / S. Palin / R. Paul

How do you vote? BE HONEST

and that is all I have to say on this topic so you in readerland can breath a collective sigh of relief . . . . . . . .

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 2 months ago

An open letter to Ron Paul published in 2007, to which the congressman has never responded:

Dear Congressman Paul:

Your Presidential campaign has drawn the enthusiastic support of an imposing collection of Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, Holocaust Deniers, 9/11 “Truthers” and other paranoid and discredited conspiracists.

Do you welcome- or repudiate – the support of such factions?

More specifically, your columns have been featured for several years in the American Free Press –a publication of the nation’s leading Holocaust Denier and anti-Semitic agitator, Willis Carto. His book club even recommends works that glorify the Nazi SS, and glowingly describe the “comforts and amenities” provided for inmates of Auschwitz.

Have your columns appeared in the American Free Press with your knowledge and approval?

As a Presidential candidate, will you now disassociate yourself, clearly and publicly, from the poisonous propaganda promoted in such publications?

As a guest on my syndicated radio show, you answered my questions directly and fearlessly.

Will you now answer these pressing questions, and eliminate all associations between your campaign and some of the most loathsome fringe groups in American society?

Along with my listeners (and many of your own supporters), I eagerly await your response.

Respectfully,

Michael Medved

0

canyonwind 4 years, 2 months ago

Cindy

2012 - Ballot Box - Presidential Candidate choices:

B. Obama / S. Palin / R. Paul

How do you vote? BE HONEST

and that is all I have to say on this topic so you in readerland can breath a collective sigh of relief

I would like to see former New Mexico gov Gary Johnson a former libertarian that is for lower taxes and less goverment spending, he is on the side of Arizona when it come to SB1070 and he is all for legallizing weed and a member of Normal. Choice or Life I don't remember not a big issue with me. He was on the Cari and Rob show last week from 10am to noon 550 AM last week. the interview would be on line @ Cariandrob.com since he is running for President.

0

exduffer 4 years, 2 months ago

Just to update you on my flying my Norwegian colors yesterday in honor of Syttende Mai. They locked me out and would not let me through, (the gates of the Botanic Park that is) darn profiling racists. Uff Da.

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 2 months ago

The President to Gov. Brewer: Don't call me, I'll call you http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/29/obama-arizona-governor-dont-ill/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fpolitics+%28Text+-+Politics%29

"President Obama has turned down Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer's request to meet while she's in Washington next week as tensions mount between his administration and Arizona over the state's new law cracking down on illegal immigrants."

He doesn't have time. Got really important stuff to get to after his vacation, like meeting with Paul McCartney. This from the guy who brandishes as a virtue his eagerness to talk to anybody - including thugs like Chavez & the Iranian whackjob. Not to mention that "stupid" cop from Massachusetts.

But the Gov can just cool her heels while the Administration dumps all over Arizona; and apologizes to one of the most repressive regimes on earth for SB 1070, as an indicator of America's "troubling" human rights record. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/05/arizona-immigration-law-human-rights-china-conservatives-apology.html

0

seeuski 4 years, 2 months ago

Pray for Impeachment hearings soon in the Sestak and Romanoff incidents. One Impeached POTUS now aiding and abetting a soon to be? This POTUS is not performing as a President for Americans and the laws of THIS land. Plug the dang hole, great leadership.

0

seeuski 4 years, 2 months ago

To those who say the Tea Party people use the Nazi language, maybe a look at reality in AZ will be sobering. Where is the News Media? Following Sarah Palins every move no doubt.

http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/immigrants-and-socialists-march-against.html

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/06/01/yet-another-reconquista-photo-album-the-msm-wont-print/

Secure the boarders now and plug the dang leak, or just at least allow the local Governments to take out all the stops at stopping and cleaning the oil from the sensitive areas Obama, and we don't need a takeover of BP as Mr. Reich is now opining for, just enforce the laws on the books and this would not have happened in the first place. See what Paul McCartney suggests maybe.

0

Brita Horn 4 years, 2 months ago

Keep up the good work seeuski and yampavalleyboy! TRUTH WILL PREVAIL!

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.