home

Wednesday Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 01:27:03 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

It's a travel day for me which means another open thread for you. Here's what I read in the past hour or two. I'll be back to regular blogging tonight.

More from around the blogosphere:

  • Sentencing Law and Policy covers the case of a juvenile sentenced to 30 years for killing his grandparents when he was 12.
  • White Collar Crime Prof Blog on the new Government Accountability Office Report. Shorter version: Looks Like the Government Needs Some Corporate Accountability
  • Crooks and Liars has the Chris Dodd video from Countdown discussing the FISA victory.
  • Kevin Drum says its time for a Justice Department official named Brian Roehrkasse, who heads the DOJ's Office of Public Affairs to leave the building.
< GOP Stands With Bush On Iraq: Pelosi Surprised | Triangulation Redux: Would Obama Be The 1992 Bill Clinton? And Is That What We Need Now? >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Wednesday Open Thread | 117 comments (117 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Siegelman: election stolen (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Lora on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 08:49:56 AM EST
    Check out this link.  Ex-Alabama governor Siegelman thinks his election was stolen by the GOP: Siegelman Speaks!

    From your link (1.00 / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 12:24:26 PM EST
    As he himself makes clear, Siegelman's ordeal began back in 2000, when he came out early on, and publicly, against the presidential bid of his fellow governor, George W. Bush, and backed Al Gore instead. It was a move that Karl Rove never did forget, and never would forgive, says Siegelman.

    Now your link doesn't say, but Siegleman's a Democrat.

    Can you tell me why any Demo Governor would expect a Repub governor to expect support from him?

    Or vice versa??

    That's just plain dumb. If you can't come up with some better than that it doesn't pass the laugh test.

    [ Parent ]

    Harvest of Shame... (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by desertswine on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 03:32:51 PM EST
    Slave labor that shames America.

    Florida, 2007.

    I find it remarkable that (1.50 / 2) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 04:38:33 PM EST
    you actually provided this information that shows you why illegal aliens should be stopped at the border.

    Thank you for showing what the human cost of the Open Borders people really is.

    [ Parent ]

    Get a dictionary (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Nowonmai on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 07:01:00 PM EST
    Migrant doesn't equate to illegal immigrants.

    Migrants move from harvest site to harvest site. True, there are probably some illegals in there, but you are unfairly lumping them all as such. Just because many are from Mexico, again, doesn't make them all illegals.

    Now I know that 'migrant' and 'illegal immigrant' seem alike to you, they aren't.

    [ Parent ]

    How insulting (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by Jgarza on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 11:35:12 AM EST
    to refer to someone as an illegal.  if someone is caught speeding they are driving illegally, you don't call them an illegal.

    This is just a ridiculous propaganda war to dehumanize people. I find it sick and pathetic.

    [ Parent ]

    Nonsense and you know it (1.00 / 1) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 11:42:33 AM EST
    Illegal is a description of a person. Just as professional baseball player is.

    Now go peddle your nonsense to those dumb enough to buy it.

    [ Parent ]

    Projecting again.... (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 11:47:28 AM EST
    Now go peddle your nonsense to those dumb enough to buy it. If you can find one.

    [ Parent ]
    Mack shows up (1.00 / 1) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 11:52:49 AM EST
    where's Muff??

    Or is it Curl and Moe?

    Now. Can you refute my point that illegal alien is an accurate description?

    Why of course not. Why do I even ask??

    sigh...

    [ Parent ]

    That's the problem (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by glanton on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 01:21:13 PM EST
    Illegal is a description of a person

    It attaches to the person instead of the illegal action.  Obviously it dehumanizes people when you say that they are illegal.  As does 90% of the discourses you hear about illegal immigration these days.  

    Your baseball example is really, really stupid.

    [ Parent ]

    And your claim is really stupid. (1.00 / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 01:38:48 PM EST
    Now. See? We can both do middle school insults.

    Illegal alien describes a person who is an alien and is in the country illegally.

    Same as professional baseball player attaches to the person.

    If the person doesn't want to be so described, they can go to ICE and get a free ride home.

    [ Parent ]

    Praytell (5.00 / 0) (#35)
    by glanton on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 01:59:32 PM EST
    In your esteemed estimation, why don't we call an American citizen who has broken a law an "illegal"?

    And then of course there's the perfectly innocent term "alien."  Ask any fifth grader (or Dennis Kucinich) what is an alien, and they will in their own way show they understand it operates in contrast to "human."  

    I would guess it surprises nobody around here that you, who so loves canned Talking Points, fail to understand how language can dehumanize.  

    Especially lost on you is the concept that when we dehumanize Others, through words or actions, we abuse our own humanity in the process.

    No.  You wouldn't understand that.  Seeing as how you salute torture and all.

    [ Parent ]

    oh (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by Jen M on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 02:59:22 PM EST
    he understood it well enough when I did it to him.

    Just not when its done to anyone but him.

    [ Parent ]

    Ahhh (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by glanton on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 03:05:27 PM EST
    I forgot about your instructive pronoun usage.

    But the question is, did it truly understand?    

    Seems more likely, it merely sensed it was being insulted and so went into "insulted" mode.

    [ Parent ]

    Why?? (1.00 / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 11:10:35 AM EST
    Maybe because he is called a criminal??

    Dehumanize others?? Nonsense. Illegal alien is a simple declarative description.

    And while I am not surprised at your claim about what Kucinich would say, I am disappointed if you are correct about the fifth graders... but seeing what the state of US public schools is I have to agree.

    Of course if you think 2 + 2 is 5, the answer remains 4, no matter how loudly you claim to be right.

    From the dictionary:

    Alien

    a resident born in or belonging to another country who has not acquired citizenship by naturalization (distinguished from citizen).  

    1. a foreigner.  
    2. a person who has been estranged or excluded.  
    3. a creature from outer space; extraterrestrial.  
    -adjective 5. residing under a government or in a country other than that of one's birth without having or obtaining the status of citizenship there.  

    BTW - Your torture claim is despicable and something you cannot prove. But then that doesn't bother you. I place you in the same category I do squeaky who wrote that he needed no facts.

    [ Parent ]

    You continue to lower expectations (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by glanton on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 12:04:16 PM EST
    "Maybe because he is called a criminal??"

    Indeed, oh master of the banal, they are "called" criminals.  And there is an important difference in referring to a person as a "criminal" and referring to them as "illegal."

    Crimes, not people, are "illegal."   Sorry you don't see it.

    As for your dictionary reference, you don't need it.  We all know it is conventional to refer to these human beings as "aliens."  No surprise that you cannot grasp there is a problem with a usage that collapses "a creature from outer space" within the same rubric as a "foreigner" or a "noncitizen."  

    BTW:  If you don't want to be known as a saluter of torture, then all you have to do is recant your salutation of torture.  That would involve giving up the euphemisms, dropping the whole "but what they do is worse" yammering, and especially letting go of your little ticking time bomb posture.

    [ Parent ]

    No (1.00 / 1) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 01:51:25 PM EST
    It is usual to call them illegal aliens if they entered illegally.

    If they are here legally then they are "aliens."

    Are you really so slow??

    And if you don't want to be known as a smearer of squeaky's stature then all you have to do is quit making up despicable things. Here. Let me again point out what I have said time and again.

    I am against torture. I do not believe waterboarding is torture. You are welcome to disagree, but do not make things up by saying that I am for torture. And people who do that are liars. Note. I am not calling you a liar because I am hopeful you have merely failed to read.

    I ALSO KNOW that there may be cases in which it is moral and proper to do whatever is necessary to obtain information that will save American lives.
    You may make whatever you want with that, but I caution you make sure you don't take it out of context.

    [ Parent ]

    We know what "they are called" (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by glanton on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 02:29:35 PM EST
    You're being obtuse, here: I dont really see what you think you're proving.  Nobody ius disupting that people who are here illegally are called "illegals" and/or "illegal aliens."   At stake is the terminology itself, what it does.

    Personally, since we're talking about human beings and all, I think we can do better than using a word that also means "creatures from Outer Space."

    But hey, then again, unlike you I don't salute torture.  Speaking of:

    I am against torture. I do not believe waterboarding is torture. You are welcome to disagree

    Your salutation of torture continues.  But thanks for inviting me to "disagree" on what to call it.  

    As for your canard at the end, thanks, but really, there's no need to invite us to "make whatever [we] want of it."  We know it very well.  

    That's why them call 'em Talking Points, ya know.  

    Your salutation of torture continues.  


    [ Parent ]

    Your continual false charges (1.00 / 0) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 03:52:44 PM EST
    displays your inability to make a logical argument.

    You can do nothing but try to insult.

    That doesn't work because I understand who you are. And I don't care what you think about me.

    But please continue. Your fabrications are plain to see  and only serve to make my point.

    The pity is this. You probably think of yourself as some superior intellectual sent here to instruct us.

    hehe

    [ Parent ]

    "I don't care what you think about me" (5.00 / 0) (#74)
    by glanton on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 04:04:59 PM EST
    Really?  And here I was thinking you cared.

    Spin away, baby.  In response all one has to do is point to your posts.

    Look, who doesn't say "I'm against torture"?  

    Of course you want to say that, to think that.  Of course you want to use euphemisms.  And of course you want to keep muttering the ticking time bomb rosary.

    None of which removes the core truth that you salute torture.  

    [ Parent ]

    I aint your "baby" (1.00 / 0) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 09:15:56 AM EST
    and if you want to start tossing those around I can share a few with you. Your choice.

    ... and I don't have to spin. Over the past two weeks I have had several detailed comments re the subject, mostly with syinco who can make reasoned arguments... I don't think we agreed except on a few points, but it was fun to discuss something with an intelligent person. In your case, here is one your comments in which you show your feelings towards your fellow citizens.

    A thinking man's cartoon (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 15, 2007 at 10:22:19 PM EST

    No doubt.
    From now on, all they have to do is say "9/11", and anything's a go with the frightened little lemmings.  

    Just remember.  You are one who salutes torture.  

    Say goodnight Glanton (1.00 / 2) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 09:12:47 AM EST

    Yeah, who would want to protect all those little Eichmans???
    They deserve it, right??

    And if they have to die to make you feel good about your "ethics," so what. Right??

    Tell me, Glanton. What is ethical about not scaring some terrorist for 35 seconds and obtaining information to prevent an attack?

    I have asked that torture be defined. I have seen references to "laws" that say torture is illegal, but no definition. Finally, Repack Rider came to the front and wrote:

    Define torture. (1.00 / 2) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 09:31:16 PM EST

    No problem (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 11:33:31 PM EST
    Anything you would not want me to do to you is torture.

    I think you accept that as your own definition. Am I wrong??

    [ Parent ]

    "Am I wrong"? (5.00 / 0) (#96)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 11:01:37 AM EST
    What a delightful question coming from you, every bit as entertaining as when O'Reilly asks it.

    Jen condenses it very well on this very thread: you and others want a ",aundry list" of things that constitute torture, so that you can get something that's not on the list and use that to torture.

    Your salutation of torture continues.

    But still and again, it's always entertaining to watch you contort in efforts to salute and deny at the same time. More amusing still is your own pretension that you are trying to have rational disucssion even as you keep spewing the same exact Talking Points time and time again.

    [ Parent ]

    Do you have any idea (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by Nowonmai on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 04:35:13 PM EST
    Now go peddle your nonsense to those dumb enough to buy it.

    How many times I have wanted to say that to you.

    Once again, "The Highly Polished Mirror Award" goes to.... (hands it to Jim)

    [ Parent ]

    The problem you have (1.00 / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 11:11:37 AM EST
    is that I speak facts.

    [ Parent ]
    True (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by squeaky on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 12:21:03 PM EST
    But they are mostly false facts.

    [ Parent ]
    Falese facts? (1.00 / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 01:57:08 PM EST
    You mean like you??


    Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM
    Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.


    [ Parent ]
    And this? (1.00 / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 02:02:05 PM EST
    ppj does as ppj does (none / 0) (#30)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 09:58:35 PM EST

    (I had writtem)So because Rove is doing wrong, it is okay for you to do wrong?

    You replied) I have no problem with alleging that Rove's grandparents were Nazi's. Even if they were not, he uses Goebbels' propaganda techniques as a bible and may as well be a born and bred Nazi.



    [ Parent ]
    More False Facts From PPJ (5.00 / 0) (#65)
    by squeaky on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 02:35:05 PM EST
    THe master of bs. Self proclaimed acolyte of Rove although got failing grades.

    Another recent out of context false fact by ppj regarding immigration:

    Because there are 13,000,000 of them in the US.

    Because they are costing US taxpayers hard earned dollars.

    Because they have demonstrated no loyalty to thus country

    N

    ope, I prefer to use the Udall Report, thoughtfully provided to us by a sometimes blogger and open border dude, tnthorpe
    .
    .

    Typically you leave out the key point of the Udall report:

    Immigrants Add Nearly $1 Billion Annually to Arizona's Economy
    A report by the Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy at The University of Arizona estimates that immigrants in Arizona generate more than three dollars in taxes for every two dollars they incur for government services, such as education, health care and law enforcement, for a net economic gain approaching one billion dollars.

    link

    You regularly smear yourself. Pointing out your mendacity is hardly a smear.

    [ Parent ]

    I know you can't but (1.00 / 0) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 03:44:31 PM EST
    try to hold two thoughts in your mind at the same time.

    1. Jobs exist separately from the nationality of the work force.

    2. Therefore the illegal aliens bring nothing to the table because the jobs would be taken by legal workers.

    They add nothing to the "state" that would not be there if they had not shown up.

    That the proponents of illegal aliens misstate things is not news.

    [ Parent ]

    More BS (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by squeaky on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 04:15:53 PM EST
    If the undocumented workers are stealing jobs and hurting the economy why is Arizona's unemployment rate lower than the national average?

    You are spreading false facts. It is clear that immigrants, both documented and undocumented are adding big time to the US economy.

    Immigrants Add Nearly $1 Billion Annually to Arizona's Economy


    [ Parent ]

    You still can't grasp the concept (1.00 / 0) (#89)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 08:41:20 PM EST
    can you?? Or is it that you do but won't admit it.

    Let's try this again.

    The jobs exist totally and separately from the worker.

    If the illegal alien didn't exist they would be filled by legal workers and whatever "boost" that gives the economy would exist.

    For the illegal workers to contribute to the economy they must add NEW jobs that wouldn't exist if they weren't here.

    Otherwise they are just slicing the same pie as the legal employees

    [ Parent ]

    I wonder how much they would add if they (none / 0) (#85)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 08:10:17 PM EST
    were here legally.

    [ Parent ]
    Read The Link (5.00 / 0) (#88)
    by squeaky on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 08:39:15 PM EST
    Blindboy

    [ Parent ]
    The answer, of course, (none / 0) (#91)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 09:15:34 PM EST
    is that if they were here legally, they'd add more to the economy. Head in the sand boy.

    [ Parent ]
    Next question, diffferent side of the same coin. (none / 0) (#92)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 09:23:36 PM EST
    If the illegal immigrants weren't here would we lose their "contribution" to our economy?

    Answer: No. In fact, since the work they do would then be done by citizens/legal immigrants, who would be paid more, and would therefor spend more, they would contribute more to our economy.

    Useless boy. Or girl, whatever the case may be.

    [ Parent ]

    heh (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 11:30:54 AM EST
    We have 13,000,000 million plus illegal aliens.

    That, plus the articles studied use of the word "migrant" tells me they were illegal aliens.

    And I find it discouraging that you don't have the common courtesy to help prevent this type of thing from happening by supporting closing the borders and ensuring that the workers are legal and have no fear of reporting such actions.

    Speaking of dictionaries:

    enable

    to make possible or easy

    Let's see if you are smart enough to make the connection.

    [ Parent ]

    closing the border and reality (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by Jgarza on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 11:40:47 AM EST
    And I find it discouraging that you don't have the common courtesy to help prevent this type of thing from happening by supporting closing the borders and ensuring that the workers are legal and have no fear of reporting such actions.

    Tightening border control does two things.  it means that migrant workers have incentive to stay here, because crossing the border becomes risky.

    The second thing it does, is force those who are trying to cross to attempt ever more dangerous methods, with ever more criminal smugglers.  

    The more illegal you make what people are doing, the more likely they are to be involved with criminals when doing it, and the more unsafe their activitiy becomes.


    [ Parent ]

    You wouldn't know reality. (1.00 / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 11:47:19 AM EST
    The more illegal you make what people are doing

    hehe.... really??? Well I guess we shouldn't have any laws.  Border? We don't need no stinking border..

    You close the border. Stop the flow.

    And then you see what you can do to fix the problems caused by the illegal aliens who are here.

    [ Parent ]

    The govt. claimed they.... (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 02:24:54 PM EST
    could close the border to the drug trade...that's working real well:)

    No amount of laws or enforcement can ever keep up the will of the people.  People want to move around to where the getting is good, and people want to get high.  These forces simply cannot be stopped...tis better to accept this truth and deal with it in a reality-based setting.

    [ Parent ]

    uh kdog.... (1.00 / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 12:47:57 PM EST
    His premise is that making things illegal is bad because it endangers the people doing the illegal things...

    An open border obviously endangers the country.

    Bank robbery obviously endangers people.

    So does kidnapping and dozens of other examples.

    I understand you are a libertarian, but everything doesn't relate to your belief that drugs should be legal and people should be able to live where they please.


    [ Parent ]

    s/b.... (none / 0) (#37)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 02:30:49 PM EST
    keep up with the will of the people.

    [ Parent ]
    Quoted with permission of the author (5.00 / 0) (#83)
    by Nowonmai on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 05:23:30 PM EST
    A Cunning Plan that Cannot Fail!
    I've been thinking about the whole illegal immigration thing. Now, as anyone with an ounce of gray matter realizes, the root cause of the problem is not desperate third-world peasants who want to come here to work, but the shiftless corporate criminals who hire them. So, my proposed solution is twofold: First, anyone found to have knowingly hired an illegal immigrant automatically loses their citizenship (after a fair trial of course) and gets shipped to Mexico themselves, and gets fined, well, every piece of property they own. The second part is the fun one, though: The first illegal immigrant to narc on a given employer, will automatically get citizenship, and a goodly portion of said corporate criminal's stuff. I predict that within a week, the demand for illegal workers will dry up, at which point, lacking any other employment options, the illegals will all go away of their own accord. Sure, this may seem harsh and arbitrary, but is it really any more draconian that the plans the right-wingers rant about all the time?

    My Thanks to Michael Crichton (no, not the novelist) for allowing me to quote him.

    [ Parent ]

    This says it all (1.00 / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 11:40:22 AM EST
    Always fearful of the arrival of La Migra (as the immigration officers are known) and instant deportation, they are compliant and hardworking. There are also hundreds of thousands of migrant children working as hired hands in dangerous conditions on America's farms. They put in 12-hour days for little pay.

    And from the same source you got your march orders from.

    [ Parent ]

    You are kidding, right? (none / 0) (#41)
    by Nowonmai on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 04:32:51 PM EST
    How so very 1800s and early 1900s of you.

    Instead of your insular approach, how about paying the migrant workers a real wage and stop supporting NAFTA? Gee, that would work and the cost to the US would be a helluva lot less than propping up a failing economy of another country.

    It's too late to close the borders, as far as I am concerned. You of European heritage already invaded.

    As for your 'dictionary'... what, no links?

    [ Parent ]

    Why do you think I support(ed) (1.00 / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 12:58:07 PM EST
    NAFTA?? I can still hear that giant sucking sound..of course Al Gore, who is so wrong on man made GW was totally wrong about that.

    Now, as I have patiently explained time and again.

    Labor is a commodity. All commodities are priced based on availability. Fewer pickers, higher wages.

    Close the border and wages will go up and working conditions will improve.

    Tell Mexico, and other countries, that we will no longer be the safety valve for their dismal societal failures and unacceptable cultural norms. They will change only when forced.

    As for us white faces invading. Yes. And the Indians did nothing and look what happened to them. ;-)

    BTW - Does your elderly still go off and die by themselves when they can no longer help the tribe??

    As for links to dictionaries.... If you will specify that you are too dumb to use one, or too poor to own one I'll give you directions on how to use one, and where you can find one.


    [ Parent ]

    Rude git (5.00 / 0) (#78)
    by Nowonmai on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 04:45:23 PM EST
    You are always spewing to all of us here to post links, and then you suddenly get lazy and call me stupid, after I was the one who did post links?

    Wow, you are definitely diagonally parked in a parallel universe.

    [ Parent ]

    Hmmmmm (1.00 / 0) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 08:32:34 PM EST
    Does that mean you actually know how to use a dictionary??

    Okay, being mellow and full of Christmas Cheer (aka two Stoly's...)

    Dictionary  Link

    Now click on the link....

    But really, do you think it necessary to post a link to a dictionary??


    [ Parent ]

    You know what Jim? (none / 0) (#103)
    by Nowonmai on Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 05:40:59 PM EST
    You remind me of certain characters on old BBS' or on newsgroups. The kind who would pounce on the slightly irregularity, typo, juxtaposition of words to highly insult someone without actually answering the subject. These are the actions of a person with no substance, just like many of your nonsensical, and non-topical comments.

    You are full of p*ss and wind, but other than that, you are nothing but a self deluded old man (old mentally, maybe chronologically too) who is champing his gums trying to pick a fight.

    I feel sorry for you, that your life is so empty, and your world so narrow, that just staying on a topic and actually answering a question without rancor or insult is beyond your capabilities.

    Don't mistake this as a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card. Scooter Libby you ain't. As many posters here, I don't suffer fools. And before you go "Oh NOES, I disagree so you HATE me"... all of us here like a topical debate, one with reason and intelligence. Should you ever decide to join with that as guidelines, you comments will be welcomed.

    Ok, now reply with how many stars there are in the Orion constellation.

    [ Parent ]

    Nope (none / 0) (#106)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 11:41:16 AM EST
    You remind me of certain characters on old BBS' or on newsgroups. The kind who would pounce on the slightly irregularity, typo, juxtaposition of words to highly insult someone without actually answering the subject.

    You seem to forget that you are the one who complained about me not providing a link. Obviously by not providing a link I assumed that the reader had access and could use a dictionary.

    That is a position of assuming intelligence. And I challenge you to find a comment from me about someone's spelling/typing/writing ability in which they didn't start it first. Mine is shaky at best and has been the target of several of our intrepid commentators.

    As for the rest of your snark. I am a ROF and I will be as nice to you as you are to me.

    Again. Remember you brought the subject up.

    Get a dictionary (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Nowonmai on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 06:01:00 PM CST
    Migrant doesn't equate to illegal immigrants.

    I responded to Jgarza who argued that closing the border made doing illegal acts more dangerous.

    You responded:

     

    You are kidding, right? (none / 0) (#41)
    by Nowonmai on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 03:32:51 PM CST
    How so very 1800s and early 1900s of you.
    ...
    It's too late to close the borders, as far as I am concerned. You of European heritage already invaded.

    As for your 'dictionary'... what, no links?

    I responded:

    Why do you think I support(ed) (1.00 / 1) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 11:58:07 AM CST
     

    After explaining I did not support NAFTA, I did
    respond to your three snarks. i.e. "1800s...invaded...what no dictionary link"

    Do you think you get free shots with no defense from me? Guess again.

    And I didn't say you were too dumb to use one, I said:

    As for links to dictionaries.... If you will specify that you are too dumb to use one, or too poor to own one I'll give you directions on how to use one, and where you can find one.

    You then went into a hissy fit:

    Rude git (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Nowonmai on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 03:45:23 PM CST

    And when I provided you a link, which you had requested, your hissy fit continued.

    If you are snarky, you will get snark back. I reference my comments to kdog and synico as examples of no snark.

    So if you want politeness and reasoned debate, try not telling me I represent attitudes from the 1800s and 1900 hundreds and complain about the europeans invading. You can also leave out the "suffer fools" and "get out of jail" blather unless you are ready for a snarky reply.

    Your turn.

    [ Parent ]

    History lessons (5.00 / 0) (#80)
    by Nowonmai on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 05:03:42 PM EST
    As for us white faces invading. Yes. And the Indians did nothing and look what happened to them. ;-)

    Did nothing? What revisionist history book are you reading?

    Custer's Last Stand, for one. The Battle of Little Big Horn, Bear Butte-Black Hills, Sioux Uprising (or Santee War), Red Cloud's War, Roman Nose's Fight, The Fetterman Massacre. Not to mention raids, taking captives, etc etc.

    As for your rather rude comment about the elderly, we do the same thing you do. Shove them in low cost nursing homes, until the gov't tosses them out because they haven't died in accordance to their Medicare schedule.

    [ Parent ]

    hehe (1.00 / 1) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 08:26:49 PM EST
    Uh.... The name is not the United States of America??

    Gee, and here I thought the Noble Savages lost.

    Who knew??

    ;-)

    And I was, of course, referring to how it was handled in the past. That you do as badly now as us is no plus for you, or us.

    Read "The Contested Plains." And consider the "Flowery Death" used in human sacrifice by the Aztec.

    There wasn't a great deal of difference between the NA's and white man as far as cruelty is concerned. The main difference was in technology... the gun and the horse...and religion.. plus a little thing called "germs" that  the locals had no immunity to...

    The religion was a big plus. It promised a life after death. That was a new concept and kind of removed the motivation the common man had for fighting for the Kings.

    So if you expect me to defend the actions of my so-called ancestors you are again for another surprise. I don't. But no alive today owes anybody anything because of their actions.

    Oh yeah. We can keep the country and our freedom as long was we have enough hard men and women to do the hard things necessary to let the soft Left sleep peacefully at night.

    [ Parent ]

    Nonsequitur King strikes again! (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Jen M on Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 09:03:34 AM EST
       As for us white faces invading. Yes. And the Indians did nothing and look what happened to them. ;-)

    Did nothing? What revisionist history book are you reading?

    Custer's Last Stand, for one. The Battle of Little Big Horn, Bear Butte-Black Hills, Sioux Uprising (or Santee War), Red Cloud's War, Roman Nose's Fight, The Fetterman Massacre. Not to mention raids, taking captives, etc etc.

    and your response was....

    Uh.... The name is not the United States of America??

    lets review:

    You: they did nothing
    Her: list of things they did

    You: price of tea on alpha centauri

    [ Parent ]

    Of course he does this (none / 0) (#102)
    by Nowonmai on Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 05:02:48 PM EST
    Obfuscation, and clouding the issue with non seqs is the only way he can react when confronted with something factual that directly conflicts with his illusions of being infallible.

    The last bastion of the deluded self-righteous.

    [ Parent ]

    too subtle for you Nowonami?? (none / 0) (#108)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 11:45:44 AM EST
    Who won the war? Established the country....

    etc....

    Gosh I grow tired of explaining the obvious.

    Winning battles does not equal winning wars.

    Look at Vietnam for an example.

    [ Parent ]

    Heyseed (another term for ignorant farmhand) (none / 0) (#116)
    by Nowonmai on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 05:00:19 PM EST
    I didn't say they won.  

    Must be reading that invisible type that only you can see.

    [ Parent ]

    I know that you are not use to to winning... (none / 0) (#118)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 07:16:09 PM EST
    but that is the objective of all wars.

    At least it is to us non-Leftie people.

    And please, oh Noble Savagette, I have known farmhands. Been one myself. And our ancestors were the ones who won the war.

    [ Parent ]

    To subtle for you Jen? (none / 0) (#107)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 11:42:56 AM EST
    Who won the war? Who established the US?

    etc., etc...

    Gosh

    [ Parent ]

    ok (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Jen M on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 12:07:19 PM EST
    lets review:

    You: they did nothing
    Her: list of things they did

    You: price of tea on alpha centauri

    you say "is that too subtle"

    I say: why do turkeys love to gobble blue dots?

    [ Parent ]

    Let's read (none / 0) (#112)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 12:23:41 PM EST
    She wrote:

    It's too late to close the borders, as far as I am concerned. You of European heritage already invaded
    .

    I responded.

    As for us white faces invading. Yes. And the Indians did nothing and look what happened to them. ;-)

    She responded.

    Did nothing? What revisionist history book are you reading?

    Custer's Last Stand, for one. The Battle of Little Big Horn, Bear Butte-Black Hills, Sioux Uprising (or Santee War), Red Cloud's War, Roman Nose's Fight, The Fetterman Massacre. Not to mention raids, taking captives, etc etc.

    I responded:


    Uh.... The name is not the United States of America??

    Gee, and here I thought the Noble Savages lost.

    Who knew??

    And you wanna make something about that?

    Take a look. They fought some battles, argued among themselves, some fought with/for the white man, signed worthless treaties...and LOST THE WAR.

    They did NOTHING.

    Hmmm reminds of our current position re illegal aliens.

    [ Parent ]

    I get it (none / 0) (#115)
    by Jen M on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 03:29:13 PM EST
    You didn't mean what you typed. Ok.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually it was a steal of an old joke (1.00 / 0) (#119)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 07:19:06 PM EST
    I had forgotten that the Left has no sense of humor.

    No knowledge of history beyond what they want to believe.

    And the inability to logically go from A to D without B and C.

    Thanks for the refesher course.

    [ Parent ]

    Say what? (none / 0) (#101)
    by Nowonmai on Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 04:59:39 PM EST
    Nobel Savages

    This coming from a guy who called ME a racist when I alluded he was an ignorant farmhand with the word "buckwheat"? You two-faced, self-righteous hypocrite.

    Also, nice quick two-step on not answering what I said, yet again. You said the Indian nations did nothing, and I just listed a few things they did.

    And just what do the Aztecs have to do with the US??

    (cue Twilight Zone music)

    [ Parent ]

    Oh, really?? (none / 0) (#109)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 12:04:04 PM EST
    Let's look. This is what you wrote:

    Wait as long as you want buckwheat (none / 0) (#39)
    by Nowonmai on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 05:29:33 PM EST

    I am under no obligation to do your homework for you. If you own a TV, read a newspaper, it's all there.

    And you complain because I didn't link to a dictionary??? ;-) lol

    And I replied.

    BTW - Calling a black person "Buckwheat" is generally considered to be an insult. I am not black, so it doesn't bother me.

    But you didn't know that. So it is evident that you would have no problem insulting a black person who disagrees with you, based on their race.

    Think about it.

    And confession must be good for the soul..

    when I alluded he was an ignorant farmhand

    And you complain about the term "Noble Savage?"

    hehe.

    Actually if you do a bit of research you will discover that "Noble Savage" was not meant to be insulting. It was, by earlier standards, paternalistic.

    I await for your explanation of how "ignorant farmhand" ever had a non-insult meaning.

    As for "Aztecs," they were at the forefront of the invasion by the europeans...aka Spaniards. Trust me on this.

    [ Parent ]

    Again, (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Nowonmai on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 05:05:45 PM EST
    What do the AZTECS have to do with the US? The US gov't didn't fight (lie to, betray, slaughter) Azetcs, or the Toltecs, Or the Incas. Do we need to call the crossover police for you?

    By calling you an 'ignornant farmhand', it at least afford you an opportunity to become NOT ignorant, and opportunity you don't want to take. Calling people 'colored' used to be considered 'polite' too, and guess what? And FYI, paternalistic is generally insulting.

    Jim, I wouldn't trust you if you said the sun came up in the east.

    [ Parent ]

    Do you often forget what you write?? (1.00 / 0) (#120)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 07:32:29 PM EST
    It's too late to close the borders, as far as I am concerned. You of European heritage already invaded.

    You didn't say the US. Heck. You didn't say the English or the French...The invasion started in 1492. That's when the borders should have been closed. Instead you guys let us in. Heck. All we wanted was to improve our lives, send some treasure home....

    So insulting someone gives them an opportunity....? To do what??? Ignore the insult?

    tehehe

    And I didn't say it wasn't. I merely described what it had been at one time.

    Really. It is obvious you justt want to be disagreeable. Be my guest.

    [ Parent ]

    You're welcome... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by desertswine on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 11:25:10 PM EST
    and to return the compliment; the role of house jackass, which you seem to have carved out for yourself, suits you very well.

    [ Parent ]
    hehe (1.00 / 1) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 11:35:08 AM EST
    I doubt you would qualify as a jackass. An animal that is known for its hard work and stubborn actions when pushed too far.

    No, I think you are more of a pack animal. One that has to hunt with the pack and have the approval of the pack. Unable to think or take actions by itself it is always dependent on following the others.

    [ Parent ]

    Projecting again.... Again. (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 11:48:43 AM EST
    Now go peddle your nonsense to those dumb enough to buy it. If you can find one.

    [ Parent ]
    uhm (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Jen M on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 03:00:26 PM EST
    humans are pack animals.

    Always have been.

    [ Parent ]

    Don't cloud the issue with facts (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Nowonmai on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 04:36:30 PM EST
    Jim's brain might implode.

    [ Parent ]
    hehe (1.00 / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 11:23:38 AM EST
    To be more serious, civilization has been a long climb from "hunter gathers" to individuals that think for themselves and are not very concerned about what others think.

    If that makes me a Jackass in desertswine's opinion, he is welcome to it. At least I don't have to read MoveOn or Kos to find what I can say without fear of being attacked.

    Why don't you ask yourself if you have an obligation to do what is necessary, within your power, to protect your fellow citizens?

    I'd be interested in your answer.

    [ Parent ]

    I asked (5.00 / 0) (#62)
    by Jen M on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 02:26:38 PM EST
    and followed up.

    [ Parent ]
    What does this (5.00 / 0) (#77)
    by Nowonmai on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 04:40:46 PM EST
    have to do with the subject or the previous posting?

    Hello, come back to earth, and tune in to the TalkLeft channel!

    [ Parent ]

    In case you haven't read (1.00 / 0) (#90)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 08:43:22 PM EST
    it is called an "open thread."

    Hello?? Are you there? Care to make a stab at answering the question??

    [ Parent ]

    Wow... (none / 0) (#81)
    by desertswine on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 05:12:48 PM EST
    you are really polite. :)

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks (5.00 / 0) (#82)
    by Nowonmai on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 05:17:19 PM EST
    I figured one of us should be and it comes by naturally for me, and as the other has a propensity for calling people stupid, dumb, or other egregious terms.

    [ Parent ]
    War on Christmas..... (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 10:11:07 AM EST
    The latest front in the War on Christmas is in St. Pete, FLA....Courtesy of Fark....Link

    How dare the local govt. tell you what you can give your friends for Christmas.  If this proposed law was around in Jesus' day, he would have been locked up for sharing wine with his disciples.

    kdog (1.00 / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 11:15:36 AM EST
    Since my belief is that I would give away all the drugs addicts want, sort of a gene pool improvement program.... I can see the point..

    But on a realistic level his actions are hurting society.

    [ Parent ]

    A truly free society..... (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 12:02:08 PM EST
    has it's share of problems, no doubt.  

    I just happen to think those problems are minor compared the gravest of all problems...tyranny.  It's the principle Jim...no government has the right to infringe upon our inalienable rights.  I consider the right to give out Christmas presents as the individual sees fit as an inalienable right.  The state has no place in the private affair of gift giving...zip, zilch, zero.  

    Just because, in this case, the recipients of the gifts don't have a home, and alcoholism is a societal problem...it's still no excuse for tyranny.  

    [ Parent ]

    You make a good (1.00 / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 11:54:39 AM EST
    point... in theory.

    But, governments do have a duty to try and protect people from doing things that harm them.

    [ Parent ]

    I disagree.... (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by kdog on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 12:22:41 PM EST
    the only duty the govt. has, or should have, is to protect our freedom from threats foreign and domestic, and preserve the rule of law.  

    Keeping Joe Blow from drinking too much booze, or even drinking Drain-O, is not amongst their responsibilities...or shouldn't be.

    ..Can you tell I've been reading lots of libertarian literature and listening to Ron Paul speeches?:)  It's really starting to turn me on and make me wonder about the possibilities of a truly free society, as opposed to our current quasi-freedom.

    [ Parent ]

    Is the gvt role here (none / 0) (#56)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 12:53:28 PM EST
    to keep people from drinking and/or giving the gift of drink, or to keep drinking from the city parks?

    If the law is about keeping drinking from the city parks, I'm sure it was passed with the support and consent of the citizens.

    That you might feel in this case that the citizens' desires, as voiced through their gvt, amounts to tyranny, is valid. That others might not feel the same way is also valid.

    [ Parent ]

    From the link: (none / 0) (#57)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 12:57:54 PM EST
    Preston is violating a city ordinance by dispensing alcohol in a park.


    [ Parent ]
    That's the law.... (none / 0) (#64)
    by kdog on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 02:32:23 PM EST
    the city is using to stop the guy...what their intentions are I really don't know....maybe just to be grinches.

    It just seems wrong to me that I can go to your home...home meaning the place you rest your head ...and give you a bottle to celebrate the holidays, but Mr. Preston can't go to the home of his friends and do the same.

    [ Parent ]

    Yep, it's against the law. (none / 0) (#66)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 02:53:20 PM EST
    He can't dispense alc at city parks, nor can anyone.

    Maybe he wants to give them the present of the thrill of a 150mph ride in his car across the park, ie., in their "home." Oops. Against the law.

    Maybe they are grinches, who knows? If they don't stop others from dispensing alc at the park, and only stop this guy, then I think this guy has a valid issue.

    Otherwise he can petition to get the law changed.

    [ Parent ]

    I think..... (none / 0) (#95)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 10:16:56 AM EST
    it's about keeping the citizens from feeding the animals, so to speak. Remember in Vegas when they baned handing out food to the homeless in the park?  If kind-hearted souls show kindness to homeless folks, they won't disappear like some would like.

    I'll never understand how such laws and ordinances are not unconstitutional...must be my very liberal reading of our blessed document.

    [ Parent ]

    Actually (none / 0) (#97)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 12:52:01 PM EST
    I believe that it is about controlling drunken behavior in the park, which I agree is out of line. The overkill though is typically puritanical here and idiotic.

    The law should be to cite/arrest those who are over the limit drunk and causing a public nuisance.

    [ Parent ]

    Torturer's Lyric (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by glanton on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 02:59:13 PM EST
    I am against torture.
    I do not believe [insert torture in question] is torture.
    You are welcome to disagree

    IOW (none / 0) (#68)
    by squeaky on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 03:08:52 PM EST
    `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

    link

    [ Parent ]

    Neither of you two (1.00 / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 03:47:01 PM EST
    can define torture.

    And you worry about Alice?

    tehehe.

    [ Parent ]

    you have been given a definition (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Jen M on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 04:29:06 PM EST
    you want a laudry list

    Pretty common among people who want to torture.

    Ask for the list so you can find something not on it and torture people with that.

    Aside from all the various american and international definitions you have ignored:

    Every HUMAN BEING knows what torture is.

    You keep asking.

    It makes me wonder.

    [ Parent ]

    You keep saying that (1.00 / 0) (#99)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 04:11:57 PM EST
    but I haven't seen it.

    [ Parent ]
    What you don't want to see (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 04:17:38 PM EST
    Is that you salute torture.  

    Why don't you just do what so many others have done, and just admit to yourself that you think this government has the right to torture human beings.

    It'll feel better to admit it.


    [ Parent ]

    Your speak nonsense (1.00 / 0) (#111)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 12:09:03 PM EST
    and you do well at it.

    This is the Left's definition.

    D

    efine torture. (1.00 / 2) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 09:31:16 PM EST

    No problem (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 11:33:31 PM EST
    Anything you would not want me to do to you is torture.

    Care to modify it????

    [ Parent ]

    "Care to Modify It"? (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by glanton on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 12:26:50 PM EST
    Look, torture cannot be specifically codified.  The human imagination, capable of great cruelties and perversities indeed, and will always find a way to get around "laundry lists."  

    Is it possible that you really don't understand this?

    I urge you to actually (gasp!) think about what Jen has pointed out, an activity that will require letting loose the Talking Points and the euphemisms.  

    Try understanding that decent human beings recognize torture, and that this recognition transcends lawyer-speak and banal lists alike.

    [ Parent ]

    Ah, so you can not describe it. (1.00 / 2) (#121)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 07:49:53 PM EST
    Ah, so you can not describe it. It becomes then whatever you want it to be. That, as has been shown so often in the past, is a formula for dictatorship.

    With apologies to Lewis Carrol:

    'When I use a word,' Glanton said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

    'The question is,' said ppjakajim, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

    'The question is,' said Glanton 'which is to be master - that's all.'

    Link here because Nowonami has probably never heard of "Alice in Wonderland.


    [ Parent ]

    You understood (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by glanton on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 09:56:23 PM EST
    The point.

    And pretend not to.

    That is intellectual dishonesty.

    Nice compliment to your salutation of torture.

    [ Parent ]

    Intellectual dishonesty (1.00 / 0) (#125)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 11:00:27 PM EST
    is defined as your trick of continually misstating the position of your opponents.

    And to claim that it can't be defined is an insult to the many lawyers we have in the US who could define it down to the "t." But you don't want that because:

    'The question is,' said Glanton 'which is to be master - that's all.'


    [ Parent ]
    Insult the Lawyers? (5.00 / 0) (#126)
    by glanton on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 09:17:33 AM EST
    Heaven Forbid.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes. I think it does. (1.00 / 0) (#127)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 09:00:12 PM EST
    Yes. I think it does. Lawyers are masters at words, and what they mean. I think they could construct a law that would actually allow people to know and understand rather than:

    No problem (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 11:33:31 PM EST
    Anything you would not want me to do to you is torture.

    You see Glanton, what I would not want to have done to me is to be held captive. So according to RePack, and you since you haven't disagreed, I would have to be let go or the "government agency/organization" would be guilty of torture.

    'When I use a word,' Glanton said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less

    Again, apologies to Lewis Carrol

    [ Parent ]

    It ends how it began (5.00 / 0) (#128)
    by glanton on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 09:19:17 PM EST
    With you saluting torture.

    [ Parent ]