Saturday, September 19, 2009

Walking the dark, ugly streets

So, for the last week or so, I've been having some nice chats with people.

You see, ever since Joe Wilson (R-Bethlem Royal Hospital)
yes, he just made a Victorian England reference (the benefit of a classical education)
ever since Joe Wilson (R-Batshit Insane - happy now?) decided that interrupting the President of the United States to impugn his honor was the perfect thing for a Southern Gentleman to do, Joe has become the toast of the wingnut blogs.

Now, when I say "Southern Gentleman," I use the term in it's most historical sense, as Joe Wilson is famously remembered for having said how sad it made him to have slave-ownership compared to Nazi Germany. (I mean, please! One group raped, killed and imprisoned Jews! (And gypsies and homosexuals, of course.) The other raped, killed and imprisoned blacks! Don't you see the difference?)

Of course, it's fascinating that our boy Joe is being feted by the right for his strong stand against ensuring that illegal immigrants die in the streets (which is a perfectly reasonable, responsible attitude as the threat of a Swine Flu H1N1 outbreak looms closer). After all, his voting history in this area isn't quite as stellar as they would like to believe.
However, in 2003, Wilson voted to provide federal funds for illegal immigrants’ healthcare. The vote came on the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003, which contained Sec. 1011 authorizing $250,000 annually between 2003 and 2008 for government reimbursements to hospitals who provide treatment for uninsured illegal immigrants. The program has been extended through 2009 and there is currently a bipartisan bill in Congress to make it permanent.
But let's be big about this. Let's ignore the somewhat inherent hypocrisy in his bona fides, and move on. Let's consider the simple matter of "honesty."

The basic argument, as far as anyone can tell, that so enraged the potentially-not-inbred Senator from the chromosomally-challenged state of South Carolina is the President's statement that illegal aliens would not be covered by health insurance. That, after all, is the point where common sense, common decency and simple etiquette all simultaneously failed for our pro-slavery Senator, and he suffered from his momentary spasm of Tourette's.

Well, sadly, it's true. Illegal aliens would, in fact, be covered under any of the healthcare reform plans currently under consideration (well, except for the one that Senator Inhofe proposed where old people are ground up into crackers - but even Newt Gingrich doesn't like to talk about that one...). Just like they are currently.

Because that's one of those little things that our wingnuts don't want to accept: illegal immigrants are already covered when they go into an emergency room. They have to be – it’s a basic fact: emergency rooms cannot turn away anyone. This has already been decided by the courts - it's the law. (

It's a simple fact: the healthcare reform bill doesn’t guarantee care to illegal aliens. But it’s not going to deny anyone emergency care. That’s the way it is now, that’s the way it’s going to be in the future, whether we have healthcare reform or not.

Now, I'm not sure if you've noticed, but the only real strategy that the GOP has for combatting healthcare reform these days is to openly lie about it, from "dealth panels," to "rationing care," and now "them illegals is gonna git a band-aid instead of your child!"

So, armed with nothing more than a few freely-verifiable facts and a little common sense, I have, as I've said, gone foraging for reality on the Dark Side.

As usual, there were people who had no answers and chose to look the other way.

A site calling itself "The Republican Resistance" seemed to feel that forwarding ignorant emails wasn't enough, and some should become blog posts; they also have no answers. That seems like a fairly weak resistance movement to me.

Suprisingly, it was on a site calling itself ExposeObama.com where I encountered a small dash of common sense; a poster called "Rush LimpPaw" agreed that I was correct almost immediately.

I found a blogger calling himself "Philosophy Guy," whose arguments boiled down to "you're wrong because you disagree with me." And since that's my jurisdiction, he needs to just clear the hell out. And apparently, I only got to knock down his arguments twice - after that, he ignores you. An attempt at putting an intellectual spin on wrong-minded right-wing tropes, and then cutting off the argument in mid-sentence - I'm glad he identified himself as Kiel Moreland, or I might have thought I was debating Donald Rumsfeld.

Over on True Health Is True Wealth!! (with two exclamation points, thank you very much), she sniffed dismissively that she'd read the entire bill (HR 3200, in case you're confused here); oddly, she wasn't willing to explain where she'd found the passage giving healthcare to illegal immigrants. Go figure.

I'm not sure why Bill Baar calls his blog Pfarrer Streccius ("Pfarrer" being German for "minister," and wasn't "Streccius" a character on Saved By The Bell?), but his arguments also boil down to "I know better than you." (Again, a lot of people marching on my turf, by God!)

(Actually, I think that character was named Screech... hmmm...)

Easily my longest discussion was with a wild-eyed libertarian named Joel Turtel, who calls his blog "My Kids Deserve Better" (no exclamation points, this time). It's one butt-ugly page, with random font selection and superfluous underlining, but he was apparently just copying a fund-raising letter from AmericPAC, on his (get ready for it) Conservatives are Cool news feed. (Really? Are they "hip," too?)

Joel doesn't support public schools, apparently because they failed him so badly: he doesn't understand political philosophies, history, grammar, spelling - and I'm sure I'm only scratching the surface of his ignorance. I was in full-on snark mode by the time we were done.

You know, I might have more patience for these teabagging idiots if they'd just look around and realize that they were being played for fools. They rant, they rave, they scream about "socialism" and taxes, but they openly ignore the hypocrisy rampant in their own movement. You know, little things, like Dick Armey (who runs FreedomWorks, one of the top two teabagger organizers), who opposes all government-run healthcare, except his own, of course: he's fighting to keep from being taken off his Congressional healthcare plan, despite the fact that he hasn't been in Congress in almost seven years.

That's the type of high-quality leadership running this movement.

__________

Update: And, just to show that he truly believes in free speech, the Turtle has deleted all my responses, but left his answers intact, which makes it look like he's holding a conversation with the voices in his head.

37 comments:

Diogenes said...

Gotta ask: what do you think of Roy "Too" Blunt and his hilarious "monkey" jokes??

Nameless Cynic said...

Well, I hate to be the voice of reason in any room, but sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar. Every monkey joke isn't necessarily racist.

It's not a funny joke. I really don't see why it rocked the house over there (well, to be honest, some of the audience probably connected the monkey and the racism), but overall, I'm willing to give Blunt the benefit of the doubt on this one.

I mean, he's a Republican tool who's openly lied about healthcare, fell in line with the birthers, and he openly fondles the scrotum of the tobacco lobby. But I'm willing to withhold judgement on this one.

(He does look like the Joker in disguise, and amusingly enough, "blunt monkey" is a phrase he wouldn't appreciate. But he hasn't shown any racism that I remember.)

Anonymous said...

I can't tell you how happy I am to have stumbled across your blog. It's high time we put these right-wingers back in place. Your comments about Joe Wilson and his views on colored people are on the mark.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to make sure my sheet...errr, uniform, is pressed for our rally tonight (I get the honor of lighting the cross).

A big fan and fellow liberal,
Sen. Robert Byrd

Nameless Cynic said...

You know, it's fascinating how the small-minded are able to determine that a change from the left to the right side of the aisle is a noble thing, but when Byrd admitted that he was wrong and moved from the right (you know, the racist side) to the left, it must be a fake.

"I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times . . . and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened." Senator Robert Byrd, 2005

joelt said...

Fuzzy socialist Cynic, you certainly love your illegal aliens. Lover of humanity that you are, you of course do not care that millions of illegal Mexican immigrants getting FREE healthcare in emergency rooms across the country are already bankrupting some of the hospitals who have to PAY for your (and Marxist Obama's) illegal alien lovefest.
I'm guessing that you earn a low salary in the real world and pay little or no taxes, or you work for the government yourself, since you don't seem to care about having the government tax collectors take our money to "redistribute" to Mexican illegal aliens.
One of these days, when you or a loved one have to go to your local emergency room, and the emergency room is gone with the Mexican wind, or you or your loved one have to sit and suffer for 10 hours in the emergency room while a roomful of Mexican illegals get treated before you can see a doctor, maybe then you might have second thoughts about your illegal alien lovefest.
Fuzzy socialist Cynic, you are so 'concerned' about the illegal aliens, but why do you have no concern for millions of American families and taxpayers who, already burdened with crushing taxes, must have their hard-earned income further "redistributed" (Obama's Marxist term)to your Mexican amigos?
And to you, it certainly doesn't matter that millions of illegal aliens from south of the border also bring drugs and violence into the country, and are bankrupting the public schools in California, Arizona, New Mexico ,etc., because we're also now giving our south-of-the-border amigos "free" education for their dozen children (of course "Free" means paid for by American taxpayers in our government-run public schools).
You, fuzzy socialist seem to be very selective in your love of humanity. Why do you love Mexican illegals who loot our taxes to get free health care, education, welfare, etc., yet you have no concern, not an ounce of pity for your American friends, family, and neighbors who have to PAY for your socialist (excuse me, LIBERAL) crocodile-tears concern for total strangers who illegally come into our country.
I've always thought that liberals have a peculiar mental disease, and you, fuzzy Socialist (excuse me, LIBERAL) are the poster boy for this socialist mental disorder.
Joel Turtel, author of "The Welfare State: No Mercy For The Middle Class." Website: www.mykidsdeservebetter.com

Nameless Cynic said...

Joel, you ignorant slut,

We aren't talking immigration reform here, so I'm not clear why you're getting all up in arms about it. Other than the fact that you feel the need to change the subject and throw in mindless insults for no other reason than the fact that I made you look like the small-minded twit you are.

But let's consider it for a moment. Why, oh genius author Joel, has NO president, to include Reagan, done a damned thing to "stem the tide" of illegal aliens? Bush went with "border fences" (Operation Gatekeeper, Operation Hold-the-Line, and Operation Safeguard)that did nothing (because 300 miles of fence along 2000 miles of border doesn't help much, does it?). Reagan didn't even do much worth mentioning (he liked the idea of amnesty, he offered micro-sanctions on employers - overall, his '86 act did pretty much bupkis).

Now, if you want to control immigration, hitting the immigrant is useless - there's always another one. You have to take away their motivation, which is making a better life for themselves.

Presently, an employer can get an American worker for around $9 an hour, for just under 40 hours (don't want to have to offer benefits if they're full time, right?), or they can pay an illegal under the table for $20 a day, and get 10-16 hours of work out of them. Which one gets to go pick the lettuce, Joel?

So what you do is you make it economically disastrous to hire an illegal alien - you hit them with 50,000 to 100,000 dollar fines, you increase enforcement by hiring inspectors - you generally make it so that the employer doesn't want to take the chance on hiring undocumented aliens.

(Of course, this goes against your stated "free market is king/get Big Government out of my way" philosophy, but we've established that you're an idiot, so we'll move on.)

Once the jobs dry up, the tide goes away.

Of course, the price of produce goes up. As does the price of fireworks, building contractors, landscaping, housecleaning, and all the rest of the grey-market jobs that our native citizens snub because nobody wants to pay a decent wage on them.

The question you've failed to ask, as you sit on your little stack of books and pass judgement on everybody who doesn't meet your ethical standards, is why hasn't anybody been willing to actually do these things? Bush the Wiser, Bush the Loser, Reagan, Ford, Nixon - none of our modern-day GOP presidents have been willing to do that.

Go ponder the answer to that question. But I'm pretty much done with you at the moment. I'll be happy to go drop a response to that late-blooming response you just posted over there, if you'd like. But here's a hint. You claim not to be religious, but your blog says otherwise. And you bring up South America and Asia, but for some reason you avoid mentioning Europe. Where every single country offers universal health care. Are you seriously going to claim that they're all socialist, without a capitalist bone in their bodies?

Climb back in your shell, Turtle. You're out of your league - two vanity-press books don't make you an intellectual. (Oh, by the way, you might want to go talk with John McKay, the textbook guy - he took your title. Or you took his. Either way.)

Anonymous said...

Dude, you went off on him fierce. WTF? Your usually a lot nicer to even teh wingnuts who come around, and your all 'always happy to have a new voice.'
Why are you all up in his face?

Anonymous said...

Aimless is really off his rocker ever since I've been bitch-slapping the stupid bastard from one side of the internet to the other.

Many have pointed out his dim-witted view of history and economics, made fun of his lame attempt at movie reviews, pointed out that no one cares what wildlife he found in his backyard, and above all, shown him as the progressive hack he really is. Bill, no one cares that you served "21 years in the military" (btw, do you have that printed on your business cards?), when in reality all you did was make E-7 in the Air Force and mop latrines at Warren and Kirkland. Most military men, while proud of their achievements, don't throw the amount of time they spent in the service in the faces of others.

It's amusing to see the fool lash out at people who are attorneys and published authors. His projection in this matter is obviously a sign of his realization that for him, he's never fully developed into what he'd hoped to become: relevant.

Take for instance, Aimless' assessment of other blogs, most notably, the Joel Turtel blog about whith he incessantly rants: He claims it's "butt-ugly" (again, why is Aimless so caught up with appearances? And when will he ever post a pic of himself for critical analysis? What's he hiding?) True, it's not the online aesthetic masterpiece of Aimless' blog *cough*, and Turtel doesn't venture into such deep topics as viking mythology and writing letters to Ted Nugent, merely for the fact of massaging his own ego.

Notice the trend of Brainless, er, Aimless...well, take your pick, they are both applicable...claiming others lack debate prowess, when it's him, in fact, who always resorts to the ad hominem first.

Truly a sad and boorish figure, but somewhat entertaining nonetheless.

Pat Riot

joelt said...

Dear fuzzy socialist (excuse me, I mean LIBERAL) twit: I'm going to assume that your main accomplishment in life so far, besides this twit blog, is being a loser government worker your whole life? You seem to prefer the security of government service.

I think you've missed your calling. You definately belong in the government-run public schools as a teacher/warper of young minds. You would even be a good marxist professor in college. Oh, yes, I remember, the gentleman was too lazy or lacking in ambition to attend college.

By the way, I despised Bush almost as much as you did. He was a Republican big-government, quasi-socialist dumb-head (Republicrat)who got us into the imbecile Iraqi and Afghanistan wars, and had his head in the sand while the financial disaster was brewing. But his worst crime is that his stupidity paved the way for Marxist Obama to win. That will be his most despicable legacy.

I have another way to stem the tide of illegal aliens. End ALL benefits for them. They get NO free health care, education, welfare, etc. Hospitals should be required to ask for citizenship IDs before treating them. The same for public schools, and welfare handout agencies. Once these amigos see they get NO handouts whatsoever, and their children born here do NOT become automatic citizens, that might stem the flow somewhat.
However, those measures would not stem the tide completely. As you said, the average American business owner or farmer will still want to employ these low-wage illegal immigrants.
So to stop the flow completely, we can do either of two options. We either declare war on American business owners and farmers who want to employ these illegals, with $5000 a day fines, jail sentences, etc., as you suggest (you lover of mankind), or we put up a REAL wall with electronic surveillance along our ENTIRE border with Mexico.
Now fuzzy liberal/socialist/marxists like you, lovers of humanity that you are, who don't mind taxing hard-working American families to death to support thousands of welfare-state 'entitlement' handouts, will no doubt bitch and moan, "Oh, a wall like that on the border is TOO expensive. We simply DON'T have the money for it!!"

Meanwhile Marxist Obama is bankrupting us with new multi-trillion dollar budgets and 'stimulus' packages (more welfare handouts to banks, insurance companies, welfare mothers, illegal aliens, ad nauseum -- see, I don't want handouts to banks, anymore than I do to unwed mothers or illegal aliens).

But you fuzzy socialist/marxists (excuse me, LIBERALS)prefer the 'humane' attack on American business owners, to the simple technical task of building that border wall with Mexico.

By the way, Israel just built a similar(but smaller)wall across the West Bank to keep out Palestinian terrorists, and Israel's tax base is about one millionth of ours, and that wall is doing its job superlatively).

If we eliminated 90% of all welfare/entitlement handout programs to banks, farmers, welfare mothers, illegal aliens, and hundreds of other looter groups sucking up our hard-earned tax dollars, we would have all the money in the world we needed to build that big, tall border fence real quick.

But you, fuzzy socialist looter, lover of humanity that you are, you prefer to declare war on American business owners, rather than get rid of most of these 'entitlement' handout programs and stimulus packages, and build that easily-erected, sorely-needed wall.

Gee, we managed to put men on the moon, several times, we built the Panama Canal, etc., so I don't think building a very long, very high wall would be much of challenge to American ingenuity. Even government workers like yourself could build it.

Joel Turtel, author of "The Welfare State: No Mercy For The Middle Class" (under his pseudonym name, John McKay), Website: www.mykidsdeservebetter.com

Nameless Cynic said...

Well, thanks for the kind words, Pat. I notice you don't link to a blog or a picture. So I'll ask you the same question. (Of course, since you seem to be a hive mind or something, perhaps that's more complicated than it would appear.)

Well, let's see, what's my problem with Turtle?

Well, first of all, I just don't have time. Please notice that his response up there is just the first 300-400 words to his latest blog entry. So his next response is going to be the rest of said entry. Now, to give a good response to 3-400 words without being accused of cherry-picking, it takes 4-600 words. And he responds, and I respond to him, and it just gets longer and longer.

Second, I do this for entertainment, and the man is grim. Go check our little exchange. I mean, even the Robinson boys and the Patties at least try to make jokes - this guy's got no life, no humor, no spark. It's arguing with a refrigerator, or singing along with Steven Hawking.

(Was that in bad taste? Yeah, I think it was...)

He's intellectually dishonest (he's back to equating socialism, communism and fascism, which means he just failed Sociology 101, again, after we'd already been through that), and just plain dishonest (I recently had a respondent point out that not all conservatives are Christian, which is true enough. But go back to that late answer he threw in [and please note that every entry is gradually longer and longer - I mentioned that earlier], and skim through until you get to 'Yet you liberal/socialists blabber that a free-market capitalist like me does not have “a single Christian ideal”. I am not a religious person.' Oh, really? Or for that matter, this link off his main page?)

He's elitist ("I'm guessing that you earn a low salary in the real world and pay little or no taxes"), a racist ("we're also now giving our south-of-the-border amigos free education for their dozen children" - stereotype much there, Joel?), and intellectually lazy (fine, be insulting, but at least vary the insults - after it's repeated fifteen or twenty times, "fuzzy socialist" begins to lose any microscopic vestige of meaning that it had).

He makes claim to a false authority (please note his sign-off - Joel Turtel, author of "The Welfare State: No Mercy For The Middle Class." Website: www.mykidsdeservebetter.com - with the proliferation of vanity presses, anybody who's willing to pay the publishing price themselves can claim to be a "published author" - feel free to try to track down "Liberty Press").

Oh, and incidentally, Patty? "...lash out at people who are attorneys and published authors"? Well, we covered the second one, but "lawyer"? Where'd you get that?

Also, "...about which he incessently rants"? This is the first time I've seen the thing, that I recall. Please advise where else I've ranted about it.

Anonymous said...

"Oh, and incidentally, Patty? '...lash out at people who are attorneys and published authors'? Well, we covered the second one, but "lawyer"? Where'd you get that?"

I got it from this blog, Billy:

http://therepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/2009/09/health-care-reform-is-this-what-we-want.html

That part where it says:

"From Michael Connelly - Retired attorney,
Constitutional Law
Instructor
Carrollton, Texas"

Something about that lead me to believe he was an attorney. You have been having your ass handed to you on so many blogs, you've lost focus...well...even moreso than before. Stay here in the minor leagues on your masterfully produced blog before you embarrass yourself further (if that's possible).

Pat Riot

Anonymous said...

Whats the matter, AImless? Not up to the challenge?

Oh, and welcome to the party, Joel. But I'm afraid he isn't in the government any more - we alreaddy covered that. But he's still a twit.

Pat Riot

Anonymous said...

Why should I put up a picture? I am not the one who's hung up on people's appearances (commenting about butt-plugs and congressmen who resemble characters from Batman). You are ready to comment on the photos of others, but not eager to let us see your outer beauty (project much?)

Another bit of your ad hominem approach (and a very wide-scale example) was this well-thought gem: "...the potentially-not-inbred Senator from the chromosomally-challenged state of South Carolina..." Care to explain what you meant by that? It's remarkable, you accuse someone of being elitist and racist, after typing statements like that.

Pointing to your incessant ranting, it's right here. Don't you read your own blog?

As far as blogs go, I just prefer to visit. Thanks for giving some publicity to a few that are out there. I might mention fireandreamitchell.com as a terrific blog too, especially for the humor.

Hey, I just happened to notice, that retired attorney (and constitutional law instructor) to which I refered (and which you were oblivious) is from Carrollton, Texas. That's very close to SMU. Hmmm...I betchya he was one of them...Christians! *gasp*

Pat Riot

Anonymous said...

Joel, I have two questions.

1. How much would it cost to put up this fence? And then to maintain it (you know its pretty easy to drive through chain link?)? And what about the coast? Didn't the germans show the french that you can just go around a wall? Are you going to stop all swimmers and boats? There's a reason the "Immigrant wall" was never completed - it doesn't make any sense.

2. And if immigrants don't get emergency care, don't we have the Swine Flu coming up? What do you do about an illegal immigrant who catches it? Do they just get to walk around the streets and infect everybody else?

(Oh, and Israel? You know they have universal health care too, right?)

A REAL Patriot

Anonymous said...

"(Oh, and Israel? You know they have universal health care too, right?)"

Israel also has mandatory military service for all non-Arabs over the age of 18 (men serve for three years, women for two). What's your point?

A MORE REAL Patriot

Anonymous said...

Hey! You're not a Pat Riot! Get your own name!

Pat Riot

Anonymous said...

"Hey! You're not a Pat Riot! Get your own name!

Pat Riot"

I am the real Pat Riot! As soon as those meddling kids and their dog arrive for the unmasking, you'll be shown as the imposter you are!

Pat Riot

Anonymous said...

"If we eliminated 90% of all welfare/entitlement handout programs to banks, farmers, welfare mothers, illegal aliens, and hundreds of other looter groups sucking up our hard-earned tax dollars, we would have all the money in the world we needed to build that big, tall border fence real quick."

This is where Joel doesn't know what he's talking about. Please don't refer to farmers and welfare mothers as "looter groups", that's an ignorant statement. And just what "welfare/entitlement handout
programs" do bankers and farmers get, Mr. Turtel? In looking more closely at those programs, you might find the biggest benefactor is the American public. (I am going to venture that you don't mind having your funds insured by the feds, or having a safe, relatively cheap and available food supply?)

Pat Riot

(See, I can attack on both sides.)

Philosophy Guy said...

In actuality my attitude is not, "Disagree with me and you're wrong." Fact is that, unfortunately, much of your argumentation was based upon ad hominem's and strawman fallacies, and if you had read my reply you would know why I did not respond to your last argument because essentially there was nothing to respond to.
Furthermore, whenever I showed through logical notation that your arguments did not follow, you dismissed the argument claiming that I was drunk instead of actually addressing the logical issues with your argument. So again, it is not a matter of me thinking I am right, you are wrong, but a matter of any further rational discourse has evaporated. If someone is not going to address objections to a view and resort to ad hominem's and strawman fallacies then any further debate is fruitless.

Nameless Cynic said...

Philo,

You seem to object to me referring to liars by such unpleasant terms, so let's rephrase.

Where, in all of the pages which make up any proposed healthcare reform program, do you find that illegal aliens are authorized any type of treatment other than emergency care?

Not the extremist strawman "because it isn't specifically denied, it must be mandatory," but any language authorizing healthcare for illegal aliens. Where?

And incidentally,

Furthermore, your argument “All mice are brown; all rats are white; therefore, mice are not rats” is completely invalid nor is it sound. The argument under no circumstance follows from any deductively valid rule of inference.

And neither does yours, where you stated "I heard the argument that what will happen is that the health care bills will not allow illegal aliens to receive health care... but what will happen next is that the Congress will push for amnesty for all illegal aliens in the country" -- Where? This is a logical leap off a fallacial cliff. Your conclusion is not only inaccurate, it has neither bearing on the argument at hand, nor any logical connection between them.

You are concluding that, because we will have universal healthcare, it therefore follows that all illegal aliens will recieve amnesty. And on what evidence do you base this line of reasoning?

Nameless Cynic said...

Pat,

Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)
Walt Whitman

Nameless Cynic said...

Joel, you simpering, illogical Randian,

Let's ignore the arguments I've already made. (Nice work, by the way, sneaking one in there while I'm typing out a response regarding you. Almost missed you in there.)

And let's move past your hatred of all things done by the government, as one of my Pats pointed out, and the unsustainability of a border fence, as another of my long line of anonymous posters mentioned.

Let's just ask the following question. You stated:

So to stop the flow completely, we can do either of two options. We either declare war on American business owners and farmers who want to employ these illegals, with $5000 a day fines, jail sentences, etc., as you suggest... you prefer to declare war on American business owners

Interesting. How do you get from me saying "punish the lawbreakers" to "declaring war on business owners"? Are you saying that all American businesses hire illegal aliens?

Or, to boil down your argument, you're saying that we shouldn't fine people for breaking the law? We should allow them to do whatever they want to do in their quest for economic dominance? You don't support the rule of law, if it's applied to business owners? It's a crime to be an illegal alien, but it's OK to hire them?

You have a fascinatingly mutable system of values, my friend.

joelt said...

Yes, fuzzy socialist twit, what you suggest is a mini-war against tens of thousands of business owners who employ illegals, instead of thinking of a much easier solution to sharply curtail the problem. You would rather send the federal marshals against these business owners, rather than solve the problem at its root -- that these illegals get into the country in the first place. You would rather have federal marshals attack business owners and drive them out of business, than find a way to keep out the illegals in the first place.

You're good at blather, but not at real solutions. That's why you were a government-worker in the 'military' for 21 years. You probably don't have the competence to run a lemonade stand in the real world.

Of course no one solution, even a very high wall along the entire Mexican border, electronically monitored, will keep out ALL illegals. But should we reject an imperfect solution that might keep out 90% of the illegals because it isn't a PERFECT solution?

If the Israelis thought that way, they would never have built the highly successful protective wall at the West Bank that has succeeded in sharply reducing terrorist attacks in Israel. According to your logic, because a few Palestinian terrorists still get through, it doesn't matter that 90% of them have now been stopped by the wall, so the Israelis shouldn't have built the wall in the first place?

But your argument against a border wall is just a smokescreen for your real belief, that we SHOULD allow tens of millions of illegal aliens into our country, and the hell with the fact that they can bankrupt our health care and public school systems. That's because you are such a 'lover of humanity.' Except, why, like most sniveling liberal/socialists, do you pretend to love all of humanity, except your American friends, family, and neighbors who have to pay for liberals' 'generosity' with THEIR Money?

You are the typical liberal loser who probably pays little if any taxes, so you have utter contempt for other people's hard-earned money. You have the typical socialist psychosis to think you have the right to spend other people's money (through government conpulsory taxes) to salve your pretended love of humanity at large.

If you're such a lover of illegals, why don't you personally contribute to solving their financial problems by giving them most of YOUR money out of YOUR pocket, so the illegals have no reason to come here. Send the illegals money so they can live the good life in Mexico. Get all your liberal-socialist friends to contribute, also. Gee, I don't think you'll get many volunteers for that program.

Anonymous said...

I have to take issue (yet again) with yet another blanket statement. Your remark containing the phrase, "...hatred of all things done by the government, as one of my Pats pointed out,..." is another one of your illogical leaps off of Mount Strawman. Nowhere did I even remotely insinuate Mr. Turtel had a "hatred of all things done by the government". To quote a newsworthy South Carolinian, "You lie!" By the way, you never responsed to my challenge of explaining exactly what you meant by the "chromosomally challenged State of South Carolina".

That's a clever quip from Whitman (didn't I hear that in a Joe Biden speech somewhere? Nah, it's not like Joe to use someone else's material...but I digress). It's funny that you post that particular quote, and then, 12 minutes later accuse a poster of having "a fascinatingly mutable system of values".

Pat Riot

Nameless Cynic said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

And Joel, please. You've got to do better than THAT.

Aimless is arrogant, often cheesy, sometimes obscene, and usually needlessly insulting. And while he's an idiot, he isn't a COMPLETE idiot.

You're claiming he is declaring war on all businessmen, when what he said was that we should enforce the laws already in place. He did say that you should increase the fines, but how are you getting "federal marshals attack business owners and drive them out of business" out of "enforce some laws?"

You don't even have to bring your A game here, Joel. He isn't that smart. But you've got to stop being an easy target.

Pat Riot

Nameless Cynic said...

Pat,

What did I mean by the "chromosomally challenged State of South Carolina".

I'm sorry. I thought that you were smart enough to read between the lines on that one. I was making the inference that Rep. Joe Wilson might just be the product of incest

See, I was hoping that, if Rep. Wilson had the obvious genetic flaw of being inbred, perhaps that could explain his lack of either manners or common sense.

I'm sorry that you couldn't figure this out. You wouldn't happen to also be from South Carolina, would you?

Anonymous said...

So because Rep. Wilson "might be" the product of incest (do you have anything resembling evidence you could show us, or is this another weird sexual/relationship tangent you are off on?) the entire State of South Carolina is "chromosomally challenged"? Is that what you are struggling to say? Because if you are, it really is no different from calling out Joel for saying he's stereotyping Mexicans for having large numbers of children. Can you not see that? It's like someone saying all residents of New Mexico are lunatics, based on reading a few of your postings.

Hey, wait a minute...I was just googling "famous South Carolinians" (I know, I know...you hate .googling and all the evidence it provides) and see Jesse Jackson is listed as a famous Sandlapper.
Seeing that, maybe there is something to your chromosome approach.

Pat Riot

Nameless Cynic said...

Joel,

Wow. You aren't good at this whole "arguing" thing, are you?

I mean, you know, yeah, you've paid the per-page cost and printed a book, but when people actually confront you and suggest that perhaps you should provide some kind of evidence that your arguments have anything resembling a hold on reality, you just begin to fall apart, don't you?

Was it the voices in your head that suggested that I hate all business? I'm just curious.

I mean, one of my Pat's pointed out that I just wanted the existing laws enforced, and if they can figure it out, what the hell is wrong with you? Are you from South Carolina too?

But really, I'll happily go further into the dark recesses of your tiny little brain, and point out the various other places where you either misrepresent my ideas, or simply have no concept of the realities of the situation.

If you're such a lover of illegals
And you get that idea from where, exactly? I pointed out how the stop the flow of illegal immigrants. And that advice somehow mutated in your little brain to reveal my love of the illegal immigrant how, exactly?

You are the typical liberal loser who probably pays little if any taxes
No, not really. Far too much, in my opinion. But still, since I'm paying for the police, fire department, and various other services, it's probably a bargain. It's definitely less than I'd pay under your fascinating free-market utopia, where I'd dial 911, and then a squad of mercenaries would hunt for the criminal.

your real belief, that we SHOULD allow tens of millions of illegal aliens
Where did I say that again? I stand in awe of your mind-reading skills, after all. But I'd like to know whose ass you pulled that particular idea out of. (Because, to be honest, it wasn't mine.)

the Israelis... would never have built the highly successful protective wall at the West Bank
Wow, yeah, let's talk about that for a while. I mean, after all, since Israel only had around 400 miles of area to cover, and they started their little wall in 2002, they're completely secure, right?

Well, no, they aren't.

I mean, the Israeli government announced that they were going to build the wall in 2001. This led to a spike in attacks through 2002 (you know, "apartheid," "separatism," all that kind of thing that might inflame sentiment in the Middle East). But really, what has been the effect of this wall that you're so proud of? After all, the number of terrorist attacks in Israel is still higher than the average that it's been for the last 2 decades.

Not to mention that, in roughly a decade, they still haven't finished 2/3 of the area of the border. So how does all this boil down to "highly successful" in your mind?

The only real effect that the wall has had is that there have been less suicide bombers. Which, really, isn't what we're worried about with illegal immigrants from Mexico, is it?

See, these things over here are called "apples." And those over there? They're called "oranges."

(cont.)

Nameless Cynic said...

(Wow. See? This is what I was talking about. Every answer takes mroe time to respond to properly...)

Of course no one solution, even a very high wall along the entire Mexican border, electronically monitored, will keep out ALL illegals. But should we reject an imperfect solution that might keep out 90% of the illegals because it isn't a PERFECT solution?

Hmmm... that would be a valid point. If it were true. But, really, you pulled 90% out of your ass, the fence would cost billions to put up and millions to maintain, and still wouldn't be likely to keep out more than half of the flow of illegal immigrants. Because a fence like you describe, aside from costing a ridiculous amount, would be easily defeated, impossible to control over the entire 2000 miles of border, and generally be an ongoing cost that we couldn't afford.

Versus the low, low cost of enforcing and strengthening the existing laws.

You really aren't good at this whole "debate" thing, are you? I mean, let's consider the following:
You're good at blather
OK, true. I'll give you that one.

but not at real solutions
Actually, I hate to disagree, but that's how I spent my 21 years in the military: security and law enforcement.

That's why you were a government-worker in the 'military' for 21 years.
OK, I should probably point out that you shouldn't mention my time in the military. It makes one of the Pat's cranky.

But, since you've brought it up, no. I spent my early life in the military because I loved my country. What have you done for it lately?

I'm just curious.

Anonymous said...

"But, since you've brought it up, no. I spent my early life in the military because I loved my country."

Except for the chromosomally challenged State of South Carolina, right Aimless?

joelt said...

Nameless Cynic -- Where did you pull YOUR notion that only 50% of illegals would be stopped by a wall along the Mexican border? That's a convenient number you took out of your ass.

NASA managed to send a man to the moon. Developers erect skyscraper buildings. Powerful satellite cameras in space can zoom in on individual buildings on Earth. Wal-Mart, supermarkets, and millions of businesses now maintain security in their stores with up-to-date video surveillance. Yet, you claim that we can't erect a high wall with cameras and electronic monitoring that will keep 90 % of illegals from crossing the Mexican border?

It's a good thing you weren't around when they proposed the Panama Canal, or you would have whined that 'it can't be done' or 'it will cost too much'.

We now spend hundreds of BILLIONS (actually, it's now TRILLIONS, courtesy of Barry Obama) of dollars on stimulus packages, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and socialist-welfare handout programs for every conceivable looter special-interest group.

But, for some reason, we 'can't afford' a wall that will cost mere 'millions' to erect and maintain vs. the hundreds of BILLIONS we now throw down the government spending sewer? You weren't very good in math in school, I see.

Moreover, if the wall stopped only 70% of illegals after first being erected, is there any reason why we can't correct the surveillance errors and improve the wall security so that within a short period of time it COULD stop 90%?

Instead, you suggest, let's hire tens of thousands of new federal marshals to harass tens of millions of business owners and farmers across the country with sudden warrant-less raids on their businesses and farms to check if they have any illegals working for them.

But just as 'raids' by tens of thousands of police and DEA officials have been trying to stop the narcotics drug trade for 50 years, and have miserably failed to do so, your new federal 'enforcement' program against tens of millions of business owners to stop them from hiring illegals won't work, either.

Based on past government 'success' stories, like hurricane Katrina, I'm guessing that your harassment of tens of millions of business owners and farmers who hire illegals, similar to the 'war on drugs,' will become yet another government-failed program that drains yet more BILLIONS of dollars from hard-working taxpayers, and from business owners who create jobs for Americans. A border wall seems like a much cheaper alternative to me.

You claim that you allegedly went into the military because you 'love your country.' Exactly what 'country' are you referring to? Our 'country' is a collection of 300-odd million individual American citizens. So who among us 300 million citizens do you 'love' when you say you 'love your country'?

Do you 'love' the tens of millions of American citizens who are now forced to pay extortion-levels of taxes to support the liberal/socialists' welfare-entitlement state?

Do you 'love' your friends, family, or neighbors who might now die because local emergency rooms are going bankrupt and shutting down because they were required to treat tens of thousands of illegal aliens free of charge?

Do you 'love' the 50 million children who are forced to attend incompetent, government-run public schools that can barely teach our kids to read, with drop-out rates averaging 30% to 50% in most major cities?

I cannot read your mind, but I suspect that 'loving your country,' was not the main reason you made a 'career' in the Military. Just out of high school with no prospects, maybe you just took the easy way out, and a military 'career' was only a safe, secure job for you, with a fat pension after only 20 years of 'service'?

Joel Turtel,
Website: www.mykidsdeservebetter.com

Nameless Cynic said...

Thank you, Pat. I'm glad you agree. And yes, I love South Carolina, too. Sometimes you just have to make allowances, just like we have with you and the other Pats. We'll just hold it's hand crossing the street and talk a little slower. We love all our states, even the ones with special needs.

Nameless Cynic said...

Oh, Joel, you really are a close-minded little slot-car, stuck on your tired little track. It must be frightening being you, with all the big scary people running around plotting to do you harm and the threat of the government looming over your shoulder waiting to beat you up and take your lunch money.

And to be honest, you started to get that during the Bush years, so that probably didn't help anything.

Yes, you're right, NASA sent a man to the moon, we erected skyscrapers, and we dug a ditch through Panama. And all of those actions had a purpose behind them that couldn't be achieved any other way. Particularly not a cheaper way.

It's fascinating to watch the depth of your ignorance slowly spreading out before us. You seem to believe that enforcing the current laws would be a "government boondoggle," but erecting a a 2000 mile Maginot Line would be both easy and cost-effective. And that it would be worth the money.

Sure, whatever you say. It might work. Of course, since the Israelis haven't been able to complete theirs in a decade, and ours would be five times the length - dude, you'd be dead way before it finished.

Now, since we aren't talking about terrorists, maybe an extreme solution like the one Israel is using might be unnecessary. What'd'ya think? Maybe we should look at some other industrialized nation bordering a dramatically poor country and consider how they control the flow of immigrants. Like in Europe...

Oh, wait. Right. I'm sorry, you don't like to talk about Europe, because despite having the scourge of universal healthcare, none of them have fallen into socialism. They're just fat and happy capitalists, and this thought eats away at your gut. But all the free-market Zantac in the world doesn't make the pain go away, does it.

(And please, don't go off into some Nazi fantasy about them, either - I realize that "fascist" is the other weapon in your limited mental arsenal. I lived there. They don't have troops patrolling the streets, they don't have black-jumpsuited stormtroopers kicking down doors, or any of that. So rein in your weird leather fantasies and let's move on.)

Exactly what 'country' are you referring to? Our 'country' is a collection of 300-odd million individual American citizens.
Yes, Joel. Very good. And they all share a common federal government, are guarded by the same armed forces, and generally make up a country we call "the United States of America."

You really did sleep through elementary school, didn't you?

So who among us 300 million citizens do you 'love' when you say you 'love your country'?
Well, for the most part, I am firmly of the opinion that most people are small-minded, self-interested morons. And you're really a fine example of that, aren't you?

Do you 'love' the tens of millions of American citizens who are now forced to pay extortion-levels of taxes yadda yadda yadda
Yeah, Joel. I know, every penny in taxes that you pay is being stolen from you by a greedy state.

You know that taxes went down for those "tens of millions" this year under Obama, right? But you can go on for hours and hours and pages and pages about the evils of government taxation. So, I'll tell you what.

Listen up, everybody! Joel wants to tell you how evil the government is for taxing you! He also wants to tell you that public schools are bad! If you want to read about that, go to his website - you've probably seen it following his name - mykidsdeservebetter.com. Yeah, go there if you really want to hear about all that.

Oh, by the way, us enlisted guys don't end up with this mythical "fat pension" you're talking about. That's pretty much poverty level stuff. Which means, again, you don't know what you're talking about.

There. So, are we done now, or do I get to poke you with a stick some more, so we can watch the stupid run out and pool around your Armani loafers?

Anonymous said...

Aimless, it's refreshing to see you'll talk a little slower. Now, if you be able to make sensible arguments and perhaps even cite some sources of evidence while doing so, you'd really have something working in your favor. It's amazing how a dimwit such as yourself projects such an elitist/bigoted attitude.

Now, for the record (and since you made the statement), just what "special needs" does South Carolina have? (I do love pointing out bigoted hipocrites).

Anonymous said...

"...but that's how I spent my 21 years in the military: security and law enforcement."

Aimless, you are stretching things a bit with that statement. Your AFSC wasn't quite that impressive. Please don't equate pulling gaurd duty with "security and law enforcement." And remember, military personel who serve in the combat arms branches carry "rifles" or "weapons", rather than the term "guns", as you have referred.

Aimless is quick to point out people don't know what they're talking about (as he perceives it). As far as the "poverty level stuff" of a military pension, he's lying. Most E-7s, after 20 years of service will pull around $1,000 per month. Not bad when you haven't reached 40 yet (and when compared with Social Security).

Pat Riot

Nameless Cynic said...

Well, Pat, it's good to know that you aren't stalking me (Or if you are, you're astoundingly bad at it).

I was never CATM (Combat Arms Training and Maintenance). And while I should probably appreciate the fact that I type really young for my age, I "reached 40" around 6 years ago.

As for "rifles or weapons," I'll admit that there are pedants who fixate on that kind of thing - most of them were either marines or watched too many war movies too young. Meanwhile, in the real world, that isn't somehthing most people worry about.

"Gun" (from the 1300's, gunne, "an engine of war that throws rocks, arrows or other missiles") began to be applied to pistols and revolvers around 1745. So that's not something that normal people worry about.

But thanks for your input.