An important cover story this week in Time on the national security aspect of illegal immigration in post-9/11 America.
Admittedly, there may very well be a cynical aspect of Time running this story at this time. They could be bringing it up just to make Bush look bad. Would they run the same story if Kerry or a Democrat was in the White House? Who knows? But it is fair to at least suspect that they might not.
Sometimes though, a topic is so important and has enough elements of objective truth to it, that it becomes necessary to sidestep any speculation of the editors’ motivations for printing it.
This is one such occasion.
The fact of the matter is that the Bush administration has been horrible on the issue of national security when it comes to our Southern border.
In this case, the notion that “the Democrats would be worse” is not an adequate answer, even if it were true. (Besides, there are reasons to doubt that such a claim would be true anyway. I have no illusions that the Democrats would be substantially better when it comes to illegal immigration, but I think it is hardly possible for them to be worse on this issue in any substantial fashion.)
I suspect that most people understand that another terrorist attack on U.S. soil is inevitable sometime in the near future. Consequently, I doubt that Bush would be hurt politically by another terrorist attack here, as long as people were convinced that he did everything reasonable to try and foresee and prevent such an attack. As cynical as it might sound, Bush might even benefit from an attack in certain circumstances since it could potentially underline Bush’s tough stances on national security while reminding people of Kerry’s weakness.
But if an attack occurs and the news comes out that the terrorists got into this country by slipping through Mexico undetected – that is a different story. In that case,
the Bush administration will have already shown that it did not do everything reasonable to prevent such an attack since it has already been put on notice to such an effect from several sources across the nation.
Would such a hypothetical necessarily mean a direct political consequence to the Bush administration? That is unclear. Certainly John Kerry, Tom Daschle and the rest of the usual suspects from the Democratic party would criticize Bush for “failing to protect our borders from terrorism”. But everyone in the country would understand deep down that the Democrats would have no intention of doing what it takes to fix the problem either. They know that any such criticism from Democratic circles would constitute the lowest level of political cynicism.
So therefore, it is unclear what the consequence to the Bush administration would be since most people would not perceive themselves as having a choice in obtaining leaders who are truly interested in our security. Even if there were no direct consequence at the voting booth however, Bush would certainly lose many of his public defenders in the media reminding people how “strong” a leader he is in the war on terror. Public cynicism would likely reach all-time lows with voters feeling like they have nowhere to turn to. Moderate Republicans would not necessarily be inclined to vote for a Democrat, but they would be muttering to themselves, “Richard Clarke may have been an opportunist, but maybe he was on to something after all when he suggested that Bush was weak on terror after all….”
That is the scenario we could face if the Bush administration continues to ignore this problem and a successful terror attack is pulled off because our nation’s enemies were able to slip into this country undetected.
Even if the Time cover story was reported solely to make the Bush administration look bad, it points out an important recent phenomenon in the immigration debates.
Before 9/11, criticism over illegal immigration could be categorized into two areas: economic and cultural.
The economic arguments highlighted the fact that the illegal immigration phenomenon was overburdening our hospitals, schools, and law enforcement resources causing already overtaxed local and state citizens to foot the bill while simultaneously having wages in the community be driven down due to the influx of labor.
The cultural arguments dealt with a broader, more diffuse since of unease by people who feel a loss of national identity by walking into large parts of their own city and not meeting anyone who speaks English. They chafe at seeing the majority of the crowd boo the U.S. soccer team and cheer the Mexican soccer team – even though the game is being played in Los Angeles. They dislike the preponderance of Spanish at our government institutions. They are concerned about the lowering of literacy standards in heir community and the rise of bilingual education. They wonder what the meaning of citizenship really is when they hear politicians debate measures to give illegal aliens state drivers’ licenses and allow them to vote in local school board elections.
If truth be told, most people consider the cultural arguments to be even more important than the economic arguments since they observe the cultural problems in a more direct visceral way in their everyday lives. Everyone knows about the economic arguments and they are certainly not naïve about them - but even when a local hospital has to close its doors, one has to connect the dots through various information sources, accounting documents, and state tax returns to prove to themselves the real underlying cause of the closure - especially since newspaper accounts are rarely upfront in mentioning how illegal immigration contributes to the problem.
Out of sense of political correctness and general unease however, people dislike having to directly admit their cultural discomfort of the illegal alien phenomenon. After all, nobody wants to be painted as a racist xenophobe. Also, as individuals, many people find most illegal aliens to actually be kind and hard working people who just wish to improve their lot in life. It is the mass macro-societal level that is the problem with illegal aliens, not the individual illegal alien who is washing the dishes and the restaurant down the street.
As a result, people in the past have concentrated on the economic arguments regarding illegal immigration and have often minimized the cultural arguments, even though the cultural debate may have actually been predominant in their own private thoughts.
Surely there has been a great overlap in economic and cultural camps in discussing the illegal immigration phenomenon. After all, giving an illegal alien social security benefits has ramifications in both the economic and cultural realms in terms of how people perceive the benefits of citizenship and national sovereignty. But with regards to any public media and news debates on the issue, the arguments in the past have focused primarily on the economic costs. The serious political debates on this issue have also been largely confined to the border states that have had to bear the brunt of the illegal immigration waves.
The Time magazine article represents the most significant shift in the illegal immigration debate in many years. Now, it is no longer just the economic and cultural debates at play. Now it is also a question of national security. This represents a third sphere of argument to supplement the economic and cultural aspects of the discussion.
The national security equation to the illegal immigration debate has the potential to bring a whole new constituency to the issue that hadn’t considered it a priority before. Citizens of the many states that haven’t been hammered as badly as Southern California with illegal immigration may be convinced that they have a personal stake in the issue rather than simply thinking of it as “California’s problem”. Voters who before would have put immigration policy low on their political priority list may now place it much higher since they might now think of it as connected to the larger issue of terrorism which polls show is still a top concern among many throughout the nation.
There is of course overlap between the "security" angle the other areas of the illegal immigration debate as well. The issue of drivers' licenses for illegals surely touches upon both the "cultural" and "security" realms of the argument. But the security arguments can also stand as forceful independent reasoning apart from the other arguments that have already been debated time and again.
This could give the grass-root movement a fighting chance to convince someone in Washington to do something about the issue. It’s still a long shot and an uphill battle to be sure. But a long shot is better than no shot – and that is the opportunity that the citizens of America have if they are diligent and play their cards right.
But of course the Time Magazine article alone won’t do the job. Voters need to send a message of their own that if the current politicians won’t do everything in their power to protect this country, then they will keep throwing them out of office until someone steps up to the plate on this issue.
That is ultimately what Congressman David Dreier’s Political Human Sacrifice is all about.
Why sacrifice a Republican? Simple. Because the Republican party is currently the only realm that is still debating the issue within its ranks. The pro-illegal immigration wing is still ascendant within the GOP (despite the rhetoric of any given politician), but there is still a faction within its walls that is willing to take on the issue if they are given a push. The Democrats as a whole are completely hopeless on this issue. And since they have been hopeless on national security to begin with, the issues that Time brings up certainly won’t change things for them.
So while it may be counterintuitive on its face, the best hope for both the security of this country and the soul of the Republican party is to vote one of its Representatives out of office. Dreier is one of the most important members of Congress (Chairman of the House Rules Committee) in a solidly “safe” Republican district. If he kicked out of office, it could have national repercussions. Everyone in the country would instantly know that he lost his job solely over his recent stances on immigration policy since there would be no other rational explanation for such a loss.
This in turn could put true fear into the hearts of the entire party establishment and actually get them to move on this issue. If voters are so upset over this one issue that they are willing to kick out one of the top 5 most powerful people in the House who hails from a solidly Republican voting district, then the other politicians will know that nobody is safe.
Losing one single Republican seat will not turn the House over to the control of the Democrats. The GOP will still have the majority in that chamber by a comfortable margin. But at the same time, the sacrifice of one politician who refuses to address the concern of his constituents may in turn make the rest of the Republicans better and more responsive public servants. That would be a good thing for American’s in general and a net plus for California Republicans in particular.
Predicting just exactly how other politicians might react to Dreier’s ouster is all speculative of course. But once again, a fighting chance is better than no chance. And when the national security of our country is at stake – I’ll take that fighting chance….
Post Script: Some may have sympathies with the issue of Dreier’s Political Human Sacrifice, but just don’t think that it is realistically possible to pull off such a feat. Others have shown themselves to be Kool-Aid drinking GOP apparatchiks who think that nothing can justify voting a Republican out of office no matter what their sins, and dismiss this entire effort as nothing more than silly shtick from a couple of “DJ’s”.
Let’s now take a look at the hard figures of this political contest and you can make up your own minds.
As one commenter pointed out, here are the results of the 2000 election:
David Dreier, Republican 116,557Janice M. Nelson, Democrat 81,804
Assuming there are similar voting patterns for 2004, let’s say that Dreier would normally win by a margin of 35,000 votes.
This would mean that some political force would need to convince just 17,500 voters to switch their choice and vote Democrat when they would otherwise normally vote Republican.
KFI’s John and Ken have one of the highest rated afternoon radio shows on the single most listened to talk radio station in the nation. Arbitron figures show that they have over 100,000 listeners in Dreier’s congressional district alone. Given the nature of John & Ken’s show (and talk radio in general), it is fair to assume that solid (if not huge) majority of those 100,000 listeners tend to skew Republican.
Radio marketing studies have shown that talk radio listeners are much more likely to vote than your average citizen. Approximately 75% of them vote regularly.
So it is also fair to assume that John & Ken have the attention of approximately 75,000 voters in Dreier’s district who vote regularly, and most of whom would likely vote for Dreier under normal circumstances.
So if their goal is to change the minds of 17,500 of Dreier’s regular voters and get them to vote Democrat, they would simply need convince less than 1 out of every 4 of their listeners. And even that is assuming that they don’t inspire people who usually don’t vote to begin with to get out on election day and add to Democratic candidate Cynthia Matthews’ base.
Virtually every weekday from now until election time, John & Ken will be relentlessly hammering away at Dreier’s immigration record on the air and reminding voters in his district just how bad the quality of life is deteriorating in the region over this issue.
They are going to tap into the anger of the voters and channel that anger to convince them to cross party lines.
They will keep banging every day about how Dreier’s stance on the issue is sinking Southern California. They will (justifiably) accuse Dreier of being an apologist for illegal aliens who sneak across our border and kill our cops, and then ask the conservative law-and-order-loving voters of the district just what they intend to do about it.
Again, they will be doing this each and every weekday from now until election day while the voters of Dreier’s district are trapped on the log jammed freeways of Southern California with nothing to do but listen to the John and Ken Show.
Still don’t think they have a shot at pulling this off?
It’s impossible to predict the exact chances of course, but anyone who simply dismisses John & Ken as a couple of “DJ’s” probably doesn’t pay close attention to Southern California politics. John & Ken have shown a remarkable track record in leveraging their listening base into direct political action. Even their political detractors will admit to this.
A few samples of analysis from third-party observers:
http://www.american-reporter.com/2,453/524.html
“The power and influence pf these two hosts is suggested by the fact that ranking Democrats such as U.S. Rep. Brad Sherman and California Treasurer Phil Angelides have consented to be questioned by them over the air even though much of the show involves attacks on liberals in general and elected Democrats in particular.
Those politicians who refuse their invitations to be interviewed are publicly mocked and taunted. It is easier in some ways to go on the air and face the abuse.
… [T]hey attacked the evasions of Democratic state legislators on the issue of a proposed ‘three strikes’ criminal sentencing bill and arguably were strongly instrumental in its passage.”
http://www.bonesawmcgee.org/schitzoid/legacy/legacy2.htm
“When Assemblywoman Barbara Lee was first elected to the Assembly on the Public Safety Committee, she began to review the 3-Strikes law prior to the Polly Klaas tragedy but she and other members were completely against it and continued to vote "no", so the bill never got out of the committee.
The John & Ken show on KFI Radio got word of this and were outraged that the Public Safety Committee wouldn't vote on 3-Strikes. So they got hold of the names and phone numbers of 3-Strikes opposers and broadcast them every hour urging people to call. They generated so many calls that the Assembly's switchboard in Sacramento shut down. People called and accused the Assembly members of being responsible for Polly Klaas' death.
…
Suddenly, 3-Strikes had become the fastest qualifying initiative in the history of California. They now not only had enough signatures to quality the 400,000 that they needed, but they'd gathered over 800,000 signatures. All in the name of Polly Klaas and Richard Allen Davis. Shorty thereafter, the politicians jumped into the pool. Polly Klaas had become the 3-Strikes posterchild.”
Still think it’s “laughable that two DJs can hold better sway over conservatives than Dreier can”?
Then let’s keep going with a few other testimonials….
http://breakers.typepad.com/leftbeach/2003/10/
“I especially thank John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou over at 640AM KFI for their non-stop Recall all the time talk show. They were unabashed pro-Recall and pro-Schwarzenegger. They were pro-Recall before the Recall petition movement ever got rolling. They were a significant part of the effort to get sufficient Recall petitions to qualify for the election. These guys are the song of the average Californian. They energized voters to go out and bash extremes, special interests and the LA Times with votes. And the voters in their audience responded. Keep singing boys.”
http://www.webworks66.com/A55597/Dittos.nsf/0/ccd9ff0c7118f1b688256d1f0018cffe?OpenDocument
“Kobylt and his partner, Ken Chiampou, heard weekdays from 3 to 7 p.m. on KFI-AM (640), say they search for topics that may not make the front page or the top of the broadcast news hour but will nevertheless resonate with listeners: an injustice that listeners recognize is also happening at their kid's school or at their job, or an obscure bill that could affect their lives. Or Kobylt and Chiampou spotlight some reprobate for public ridicule. And a groundswell of listener interest begins.
‘They're able to mobilize their fans in a way that's quite remarkable,’ said Al Peterson, news-talk-sports editor at the trade magazine Radio & Records. ‘They want to rouse you to the cause.’
Early last year, they organized a write-in campaign to defeat the reelection bid of Orange County Superior Court Judge Ronald C. Kline, indicted on child pornography and molestation charges. More than 233,000 voters wrote in names of Kline's 11 challengers.”
Anyone who remembers the Kline campaign will tell you that those 233,000 voters who kicked the judge out of office were entirely due to John & Ken’s efforts. They accomplished something that had never been done before in the history of modern politics – they got the electorate to vote out an incumbent judge based solely on write-in candidates. When was the last time you actually heard of a publicly elected official winning based on a write-in campaign?
Anyone who follows Southern California politics knows that John & Ken are currently the most influential members of the media in the region. They even have more direct influence than Limbaugh in terms of their ability to directly mobilize voters.
Still don’t think John & Ken can pull this off? Getting a mere 17,500 Republican voters to see the bigger picture on this issue? Then dismiss them at your own risk...
David Dreier certainly seems to be doing that. But underneath it, Dreier is nervous – as he should be.
And let’s face it, Dreier’s Republican apologists are nervous as well. Why else would they spend so much time writing about how Political Human Sacrifice is such a bad idea from just a couple of “DJ’s” with no influence?
Whenever people try to dismiss John & Ken as either “shock jocks” or “DJ’s”…it's nervous time for them too.
Posted by Justin Levine at September 13, 2004 03:05 AM | TrackBackIt would be ten times more dramatic and effective to break a prominent Democrat like Maxine Waters over this issue. It would show a swing towards conservative thought in a supposed "safe" district while providing another vote in Congress to what you acknowledge is the only party that gives a damn about immigration, instead of weakening it.
This is the stupidest idea J & K have had since they openly tried to taint the jury pool in the Peterson case.
Posted by: Chris B at September 13, 2004 06:55 AM (Permalink)They're going after Rep. Joe Baca (D-CA) as well as Dreier. Baca was the one who complained to our "border czar", Asa Hutchinson, about the recent minor immigration sweeps. As a result of his complaints, and also apparently as a result of Mexico complaining, Hutchinson caved in. See Immigration Sweeps Become an Election Issue for Rep. Baca.
Baca's opponent is Ed Laning.
Posted by: The Lonewacko Blog at September 13, 2004 12:06 PM (Permalink)Bravo, Justene!
As you know, we've been hammering away for months -- in our tiny way -- at precisely these issues.
I have only one criticism. You write:
"Out of sense of political correctness and general unease however, people dislike having to directly admit their cultural discomfort of the illegal alien phenomenon."
This is certainly true. What you neglect to mention, and an issue that your post entirely sidesteps, is the question of LEGAL immigration. Time Magazine predicts 3million illegals this year, in part due to Bush's promised amnesty. That would make 2004 truly exceptional. Most years, as you know, the US receives between 500,000 and 800,000 illegals/year (of course, and for obvious reasons, it's hard to say with any precision). Over the past fifteen years, however, the US has annually received at or above 1 million LEGAL immigrants, a figure that even the Clinton commission appointed to review immigration found excessive.
While the two issues are indeed distinct, there is considerable overlap between them, particularly in what concerns the consumption of public resources and cultural discomfort.
The Bush administration's sit-and-spin stance on illegal immigration, like that of the Clinton administration before it, is nothing short of national betrayal. It's position on legal immigration, however, is also desperately wrong-headed. Immigration is a part of American social life and should remain that way. But immigration policy should be intelligent, measured to the needs of our economy, and sensitive to assimilative trends. What it should not be -- but has been for over a generation -- is an indiscriminate flood unchecked by any concern for the likely outcomes.
Posted by: do at September 13, 2004 01:03 PM (Permalink)MY BOOK REVIEW OF LEVINE'S CALBLOG POST: NOW I KNOW WHY MOTION PAPERS HAVE A 25 PAGE LIMIT:
I. (Personal Attacks)
- Levine has a habit of making attacks on one person, or speaking about one person, and referring to that one person as "others" or "some people" etc. He does not seem to grasp the difference between SINGULAR and PLURAL in the english language. On several occasions in his needlessly verbose post he made attacks on me, and only me, purporting to be attacking some ambiguous group of people. He needs to grow up and write properly. If he wants to attack me: don't hide behind obfuscation.
- Here is the most direct attack he made: "OTHERS HAVE SHOWN THEMSELVES TO BE KOOL-AID DRINKING GOP APPARATCHIKS"
-- (A) He links my post to the word 'others'. He is referring to me directly. He tries to hide his juvenile attack by writing 'others' when he MEANS 'Kaltes'. He should grow up, be a man, and show Calblog's readers that he has sunken to the level of using his posts to Calblog to make repeated attacks on one poster. Maybe he is ashamed of it, which explains the deception.
-- (B) He is what he accuses me of being. Just as he accuses me of drinking GOP kool-aid, he drinks J&K kool-aid. What is worse, he is trying to get everyone he can to join him in drinking their kool-aid. I am a conservative, but I am not a Republican. I believe the political parties are too powerful, and that they hurt America by pulling candidates away from the center and toward the extremes. I support open primaries and moderate candidates. I have done more than just rant on a blog about this as well. I did work for a nonpartisan nonprofit which works to make government more representative of the people.
-- (C) Speaking of which, when Levine takes research from commenter's posts, he should grow up and credit them by name. Going out of his way to not give such credit just makes him look all the more juvenile.
II. (TIME's ulterior motives)
- Levine is correct that TIME probably has ulterior motives. The liberals at TIME want to turn conservatives on themselves. Immigration is one of 2 issues the media is trying to use to do this. The other issue is fiscal responsibility. Levine fell right into TIME's trap. He is living proof that the liberals at TIME accomplished their goal. They now have a conservative using their article as a weapon to attack other conservatives, TIME has Levine advocating for the liberal party. How does it feel to be a liberal pawn, Levine?
III. (democrats are no worse than republicans on immigration?)
- In response to charges that democrats are worse on immigration, levine responds "there are reasons to doubt that such a claim would be true". Really? Allow me to educate Levine on the subject:
source information was taken from the link found at KFI's website. here is a direct link:
http://grades.betterimmigration.com/delegation.php3?District=CA
HOW CALIFORNIA'S CONGRESSMEN ARE GRADED ON IMMIGRATION BY A WEB SITE THAT ADVOCATES LIMITS ON IMMIGRATION:
DEMOCRATS(33): GPA = 0.45
A's: 0
B's: 0
C's: 1
D's: 13
F's: 19
REPUBLICANS(20): GPA = 3.05
A's: 10
B's: 4
C's: 3
D's: 3
F's: 0
- As anyone can see, immigration is not a bi-partisan failure. The democrats are MUCH WORSE. The best way to improve immigration policy is to get MORE REPUBLICANS in office, and not MORE DEMOCRATS, which is exactly what Levine is advocating. For Levine to have made the comments in his post that democrats aren't so bad on immigration, Levine must be ignorant of the facts. Ignorant of the voting records. Ignorant of the positions of the immigration reform advocates. Levine needs an education on the subject, and the only way he is going to get that is by going out and learning more about this issue, then coming back and arguing the facts. Until then, Levine is an agent of misinformation, tossing inaccuracies, half-truths, and outright lies around like confetti.
IV. ("Assuming there are similar voting patterns for 2004")
- Levine's assumption is wrong, and he would know it if he either read and understood my previous posts or he knew the first thing about gerrymandering. Dreier survived the brutal democrat gerrymander in california following the 2000 census. A fairer judicially-drawn map was scrapped and replaced with gerrymandered garbage designed to maximize democrat seats. Those republicans who could not have their seats gerrymandered out of existence were force-fed republican constituents from other districts so the republicans would be bunched into as few districts as possible. All this history means that Dreier's seat, already safe, became ludicrously out of reach. Of course, Levine knows nothing of all this, because if he did he would not rely on ignorant assumptions about Dreier's district.
V. (John & Ken, masters of the universe)
- Levine provides as evidence of J&K's power the following: (1) 100,000 listeners in Dreier's district that are mostly conservative and more likely to vote (2) four web sites which Levine uses to support his argument that J&K are powerful.
(1) There are several problem's with Levine's first group of 'evidence'. (a) First, it is very difficult to come up with a reliable figure for listeners, and even moreso for a gerrymandered geographic area. Radio ratings, which is all KFI could have to prove a 100,000 claim, are no more reliable than political polls. There is no way such ratings could be overlayed with a convoluted gerrymandered district (link: http://nationalatlas.gov/congdist/Ca26_108.gif )because the ratings are collected for broader 'markets', not congressional districts. Put simply, there is no way to prove that J&K have 100,000 listeners in Dreier's district. At BEST the 100,000 is a crude estimate, at worst it is a self-serving deception. If KFI is taking listeners during peak periods and not averages, this number is not representative of steady listeners. I am not an expert on radio ratings. I think it is fair for a layperson with rudimentary knowledge of how ratings work to be skeptical of this statistic. (b) Second, only a die-hard fan would actually change their vote based on J&K's OPINION of a politician. We aren't talking about J&K simply breaking a news story about Dreier. They are asking Republicans to vote for a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT, which is absolutely against everything those listeners believe in. (c) I am skeptical of the 75% voter statistic, but since Levine does not reveal his sources so they can be subject to scrutiny, there is little that can be said about it.
(2). QUOTE TIME:
"Anyone who follows Southern California politics knows that John & Ken are currently the most influential members of the media in the region"
- Levine is quite the fanboi. I wonder if he was wearing a J&K T-shirt when he wrote that.
"Dreier is nervous"
- Is Levine psychic now? Can he read minds? He must be able to, because he is telling us all what is going on in Dreier's mind.
"Dreier’s Republican apologists are nervous as well"
- So now I am Dreier's republican apologist? hahah. I guess Levine can read my mind to, or maybe he just says these things to make himself feel better. If he could read my mind, he would know that I am not a Republican.
"Why else would they spend so much time writing about how Political Human Sacrifice is such a bad idea"
- This from the guy who just posted a fucking novel to Calblog. Seriously.
"Whenever people try to dismiss John & Ken as either “shock jocks” or “DJ’s”…it's nervous time for them too."
- Oh no! John and Ken are going to organize a campaign against me to.... uhh.... get me evicted or something... hahah!
CONCLUSION:
- I am not happy with Dreier's more recent votes on immigration matters. I think J&K should find a more conservative alternative to Dreier (someone like McClintock, hahah), and lobby for that person IN THE PRIMARY. That would be a good way to show you can threaten someone's seat. Lobbying for the liberal is a stupid ploy. It sets a precedent that conservatives should vote for the greater of two evils. I am not against J&K's idea because I like Dreier, I am against it because Matthews would be far worse on many issues, INCLUDING IMMIGRATION. The whole "we will send a message" argument is nothing but specious speculation. When it comes down to it, Levine and I are both conservatives. His problem is best summed up by something I heard in the USMC when people took the lead but made stupid choices: "Good initiative, bad judgment!" I respect his desire to do something about the immigration crisis facing America, and agree that it must be urgently addressed. The solution he advocates, however, is stupid, short-sighted, counter-productive, and reckless. That is why I am forced to disagree with it.
Posted by: Kaltes at September 13, 2004 09:39 PM (Permalink)Over on FreeRepublic, there are several posters, including myself, who post stories about illegal immigration. On each thread, there's usually one or two "BushBots" who chime in with the Bush line. I don't see a problem with JL referring to Kaltes by reference. People have done that to me before, and it doesn't bother me as much as other things. Nevertheless, feel free to reference the BushBots at FR instead.
(Unfortunately, JimRob of FR seems to be a bit of a KoolAid drinker himself. I posted a story in which I discussed what J&K had discussed on their show, about being threatened by the DHS over giving out Asa Hutchinson's phone number. My post got a few replies, before it was moved off the front page and relegated to the 'bloggers & personal' section, aka the cheap seats. Thankfully, it still got 50+ replies. Another J&K-inspired post got 150+ replies, but a moderator added "BARF! MARXIST PROPAGANDA" to its title. The story was about the GOP platform being cleansed of anti-illegal immigration planks and how the delegates were hand-picked. In other words, it might have been marxist propaganda, but it turned out to be the truth.)
The liberals at TIME want to turn conservatives on themselves. Immigration is one of 2 issues the media is trying to use to do this.
Don't let TIME and the rest of the liberal media do that! Vote GOP no matter what. Even if 3 MILLION ILLEGAL ALIENS times FOUR YEARS could mean up to 12 million more illegal aliens coming to the U.S. that's OK! Don't allow the liberal media to make you do the right thing.
As for the Republicans vs. Democrats thing, individual Republicans are generally better than most Dems. However, the GOP's problem is in the upper levels. You know, the levels where they are able to prevent any discussion of illegal immigration at the convention.
There are all these small things few people notice that Republicans do that lead to more illegal immigration. For instance, consider the Matricula Consular ID cards handed out by the Mexican government. An FBI assistant director called them a security risk. That didn't stop the Bush administration's treasury secretary from supporting their use.
And, the plan to give Social Security to illegal aliens. And, George P. Bush dissing the Border Patrol. And, Jeb Bush supporting driver's licenses for illegal aliens.
It's going to take something like a powerful Republican losing a race to send a message, and we should all be grateful to J&K for speaking out on this and doing something about it.
Where do I pick up my t-shirt?
Posted by: The Lonewacko Blog at September 13, 2004 10:07 PM (Permalink)Lonewhacko:
#1. Unlike those 'BushBots' I strongly disagree with Bush's few statements on immigration. His approach is a spineless, half-assed approach which splits the baby, pisses off both sides, and solves nothing. In practical effect Bush's plan would only make the problem worse by letting a large number of people slip by the only real defense we have: the Border Patrol.
#2. Illegal immigration is an important issue. It has already done massive economic and social damage to our nation and this is just the tip of the iceberg if it continues unchecked. If there was a 3rd party that was at least a little conservative or moderate that was willing to take a stand on immigration, they'd have my vote in a heart-beat. If liberals were going to take a stand on immigration, I'd consider giving them my vote temporarily so they could do what needs to be done, but NEITHER OF THOSE SITUATIONS ARE BEFORE US.
#3. The choice before us is a conservative with a disappointing record on immigration versus a liberal with a far worse position on immigration. Couldn't get worse, you say? How about MORE RIGHTS FOR ILLEGALS? Right now illegals are in limbo, just like pot smokers. They are technically criminals, but the law is unenforced. It could go either way. Either illegals could get deported, or they get amnesty. Dreier supports the status quo, which is bad, but Matthews does not: she would gladly vote for full amnesty if given the chance.
#4. "It's going to take something like a powerful Republican losing a race to send a message"
- The problem is not with the message you want to send, but how you want to send it.
- The problem with how you want to send it is not that it is a mortal sin to vote for a democrat, instead it is because voting out someone who is bad for someone who is worse is STUPID and will NOT send the right message. It is like punishing Sharon for not being tough enough with the Palestinians by shipping guns to Arafat.
#5. J&K don't have a chance in hell of unseating Dreier in any event, and when election day comes and Dreier wins despite J&K's best efforts, what will you say then, Levine and Lonewhacko? Will you admit you were wrong, or will you pull a Dan Rather and ignore the truth, proclaim victory, and pretend you weren't wrong after all? My guess is the latter.
As for where I stand on immigration, I stand with them: http://www.cis.org/
Posted by: Kaltes at September 13, 2004 11:54 PM (Permalink)Somehow the last two comments strike me as a wee bit hysterical. The "political human sacrifice" proposed by Jon & Ken is not the Republican Party per se, it is ONE Republican representative who has lately been behaving badly.
Does the fact that his opponent is worse on this issue mean that we are forced to put up with him?
Of course not.
By giving Dreier the boot, Jon and Ken's idea is to send a message to the national party establishment: support immigration enforcement or lose your job. Given the ongoing political stalemate over immigration, sending this message seems worth at least one seat in the House of Representatives.
Posted by: do at September 14, 2004 10:39 AM (Permalink)Building an Israeli-style wall is the obvious solution, and it pays for Dubya to wait until after November to do this. NOTHING to risk losing the possibility of a filibuster-proof Senate.
This is a time to hold cards, not play them.
What's hard is that until November, Dubya can't go after Iran, Syria and N. Korea for fear he'll spook the moms of military-age kids. Once he gets an overwhelming mandate, that's like he's just upgraded his full house to four-of-a-kind and he can do what he's been waiting for.
Posted by: Aaron's Rantblog at September 14, 2004 03:45 PM (Permalink)sorry, I forgot to end the link tag. He's about to be outed.
Posted by: boomcrashbaby at September 14, 2004 06:01 PM (Permalink)boomcrashbaby:
There is nothing anti-gay about Dreier's voting record. The only truly anti-gay laws out there are sodomy laws, and I don't see Dreier opposing those.
The votes cited in the link you provided are votes that don't make anything worse for gays, instead the laws were simply objectives for gay interest groups.
It does not make you anti-gay to oppose legislative handouts to gays any more than it makes you anti-Kaltes to oppose legislative handouts to ME.
It is obvious that the person running that site is a left-wing nutjob. With outbursts like "These right wingers who have taken over our country MUST MUST MUST be exposed."
Gotta love the tactic of using harassing phone calls to provoke the guy's office into getting sick of you and hanging up on you. Then you post the clip of getting hung up on.
I doubt anything from that website is trustworthy. These 'dreier is gay' rumors have been around a while.
Posted by: Kaltes at September 14, 2004 08:32 PM (Permalink)Aaron writes:
"Building an Israeli-style wall is the obvious solution, and it pays for Dubya to wait until after November to do this."
Do you have any reason at all (apart from wishful thinking) to believe that Bush is considering or ever will consider such a measure?
The fact of the matter is that, in what concerns immigration, Bush is as bad or only slightly less as the Democrats. Nothing short of voter revolt will change his administration's attitude, which is precisely why the Jon and Ken stunt is a useful, indeed necessary, step.
Posted by: do at September 14, 2004 09:37 PM (Permalink)There is nothing anti-gay about Dreier's voting record.
You miss my point. I don't really care if Dreier is gay, although the HRC gives him a 17% score (out of 100%) on gay related issues, so I wouldn't really say he's as innocent as you make him out to be.
Your reference to housing for disabled people with AIDS, the right for gays/lesbians to adopt children and their right to be married, etc. as 'handouts for gays', actually kind of invalidates anything else you might have to say to me. Nothing personal, I feel the same about Robert Mugabe, so you're in good company.
My point was that this thread talks about making him the scapegoat for immigration stuff, and I was just saying he's about to be in a bigger mess that will probably sidetrack the immigration issue.
It is obvious that the person running that site is a left-wing nutjob.
Probably. I actually had heard about Hustler outing Dreier from the television media and so just quickly 'googled' a link for reference here. It probably wasn't the best link, but apparently his forthcoming outing is very much a fact. Google Dreier, outing and hustler or similiar combos and see what you come up with, it's not just one site. But it's still not the point. The point is, I don't think sacrificing him for immigration will have the impact people here think it will, very soon.
Posted by: boomcrashbaby at September 15, 2004 01:05 AM (Permalink)boomcrashbaby:
Subsidized housing is a handout. period.
Giving homosexuals new and unprecedented rights, simultaneously destroying the traditional social institutions of 'marriage' and 'family': that is a handout.
Your post, accusing me of being like a racist dictator who encourages the murder of whites, is exactly why it is pointless to attempt to reason or debate any issue with the homosexual lobby.
Your mind is so divorced from reality, you must believe that gays suffer as much as blacks living under segregation. You probably think that when a Congressman does not support drastically and fundementally altering the definition of marriage in an unprecedented way, he is just like those racists decades ago in the South fighting for laws banning interracial marriage.
Gay lobbyists have no clue how good they have it in America. The only legitimate complaint gays had disappeared when the Supreme Court gutted the anti-sodomy laws.
Now they are just being greedy.
Posted by: Kaltes at September 15, 2004 04:21 AM (Permalink)Sorry Justene, I came over here to tell you this site was on CNN last night, and made one comment about Dreier soon having bigger problems than being an immigration policy related, yet another right-wing, sacrifical lamb and next thing I know somebody's all over me as being part of a homosexual lobby, completely missing the entire gist of the post. I didn't mean to do this to your blog, Justene, sorry.
Giving homosexuals new and unprecedented rights, simultaneously destroying the traditional social institutions of 'marriage' and 'family': that is a handout.
The government gives you and your family over 1,700 federal/state benefits to help sustain your family. That is a given, but in my case it is a handout. Unconvincing argument.
Your post, accusing me of being like a racist dictator who encourages the murder of whites, is exactly why it is pointless to attempt to reason or debate any issue with the homosexual lobby.
This will be my last comment here, as I just popped over here to really tell Justene that she and this blog were shown on Paula Zahn last night. I don't want to turn this into a gay related debate. My only purpose on this thread was to talk about Dreier's sacrifice. I'm not a homosexual lobbyist. I am a gay man trying to raise a daughter. But I believe that the reason why it is so difficult for the left and the right to debate equality, is that the right feels that we should sit down at the table with all our research and historical data and discuss rationally why we should be treated as human beings. Perhaps the homosexual lobby feels no need to debate our worth as human beings to you.
Your mind is so divorced from reality, you must believe that gays suffer as much as blacks living under segregation.
I am not an activist, nor am I 'obvious' in my orientation. Nevertheless, there have been two attempts on my life twice, I have suffered a broken nose, a concussion, shock trauma, assaults, attempted heterosexual gang rape, and have laid on the emergency room table, and watched the doctors call the police because the assault was so severe, to only see the cops laugh at me cuz a 'queer got beat'. I have been forced to perform fellatio on a loaded gun by a plainclothes policeman. We have had to open our home to gay youth several different times as these straight-A, decent, kids have had their own parents turn on them and throw them out of the house for being 'different'. And no, I'm not a lobbyist, so I'm not even in the thick of it.
You probably think that when a Congressman does not support drastically and fundementally altering the definition of marriage in an unprecedented way, he is just like those racists decades ago in the South fighting for laws banning interracial marriage.
Well yes, of course he is, if not worse! Same-sex unions have been recognized even by the Church in medieval times. Marriage has changed throughout the years to accomodate societies needs. First it was a transfer of property (the woman), then it was harems, concubines, polygamy, etc. In ancient times when man had to marry his brother's widow, it wasn't for creating traditional families, marriage isn't always about giving kids a mom and a dad.
Gay lobbyists have no clue how good they have it in America.
Gay youth having a suicide rate 5 times the national average because of societal religious condemnation is sure 'having it good in America'. Yeah, right. I think people can't sit down and discuss civil rights or equality with you because your blatant ignorance on the subject is maddening. "We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the vast conservative blogosphere, we know this is not true."
Posted by: boomcrashbaby at September 15, 2004 08:38 AM (Permalink)boomcrashbaby: Don't worry about kaltes.
He's just another argumentative nut-job whose mind was closed by going to law school. His whole purpose is to try and win arguments simply for the sake of winning arguments along with berating people.
I think your comments on this thread have definitely been worth reading.
Posted by: Justin Levine at September 15, 2004 11:02 AM (Permalink)(1) Boomcrashbaby shouldn't even use the words debate or discuss when it is so clear that he feels all homosexual policy goals are entitlements instead of new rights, and anyone who would dare disagree with him is a bigot.
(2) Levine, as usual, has nothing to offer but juvenile insults.
(3) Boomcrashbaby could have simply ignored my post, but he wanted to play the victim. He wanted to tell us all how being gay in America is just like being a jew in Auschwitz.
(4) As far as the personal atrocities he claims to have suffered, I think he just made it up. When anything remotely like that happens, it is so rare that you see it on the news. People in West Hollywood go on protest marches. The gay community turns every hate crime into a campaign ad for gay rights. For a person as vocal about these supposed atrocities as boomcrashbaby to have never had any public attention generated by these stories is not believable. I call bullshit.
"The government gives you and your family over 1,700 federal/state benefits to help sustain your family. That is a given, but in my case it is a handout."
(5) Every single right I have, you have. You don't want equality, you want new and different rights. You want special rights that are for homosexuals-only.
"I'm not a homosexual lobbyist."
(6) I never claimed you were a person that literally goes to Sacremento and DC talking to politicians. You, like the rest of the homosexual lobby, try to lobby the PUBLIC. You don't miss a chance to try to tell your detractors that they are bigots and make a sympathy play to try to win people over.
"the right feels that we should sit down at the table with all our research and historical data and discuss rationally why we should be treated as human beings."
(7) In other words, the real reason that the 'right' can't debate equality with you is because they refuse to simply give in to all your legislative goals without any arguments. The problem is, the facts are not on your side. The credible scientific evidence has never established that homosexuality is genetic, and in fact what evidence there is establishes that homosexuality is not genetically predetermined. Once you accept that homosexuality is a choice, it unravels a lot of your arguments, which have all been built on a massive lie.
"Same-sex unions have been recognized even by the Church in medieval times."
(8) What a load of bullshit. I actually had to read a book on what the Catholic Church did when it found out some nuns turned lesbian. It EXECUTED them.
"Gay youth having a suicide rate 5 times the national average"
(9) Homosexuals are far more likely to have psychological problems, not because society inflicts these problems on them, but because homosexuality itself is often a manifestation of these psychological problems. While not all homosexuals have significant psychological problems, they are far more likely to than heterosexuals, so a higher suicide rate is to be expected. Pinning all the blame on Christians is typically ignorant of you.
"your blatant ignorance on the subject is maddening"
(10) You are the uneducated, uninformed, biased one here. You don't care about the truth, you only care about pushing the gay agenda. That is why you will always be wrong.
Posted by: Kaltes at September 15, 2004 05:32 PM (Permalink)Just when I think, "Surely this person has reached and encapsulates the limits of Internet tedium" you go and push the boundary even further.
As far as the personal atrocities he claims to have suffered, I think he just made it up. When anything remotely like that happens, it is so rare that you see it on the news.
I was talking about what my life was like being gay because I was responding to your comment about comparing it to segregation. I didn't bring it up, you did. All that stuff happened over my lifetime, not in the last week. I remember for example the night the officers laughed at me, it was when Cher won the oscar for Moonstruck. I remember the paramedic telling me that was what I was babbling about, but I don't recall the actual incident. I have no memory of the assault. All that stuff happened over my lifetime. As for your bold claim about hate crimes not happening to people, look at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hatecm.htm
Table 2. - Number of Incidents, Offenses, Victims, and Offenders by Bias Motivation, 1995
For that single year alone, and based on sexual orientation there were 1,019 incidents of hate crimes, 1,266 offenses, 1,347 victims and 1,273 KNOWN offenders. That's for ONE SINGLE YEAR, Mr. Gee Everything Is Peachy For You Cuz I Said So. I am surprised that a lawyer is so clueless as to how things work in this society. Victims of hate crimes only make the news when they're pretty young white boys from conservative families. What about young girls who are killed? Remember Polly Klass? That wasn't even a hate crime but do you know how many girls are killed every year? Do you think they all get that kind of coverage? Do you think the police that laughed at me back then really bothered to fill out a report? Do you think that back in the 80's in rural America I was really going to pursue it? I didn't even want the doctors to call them in the first place! God, I didn't even get into half of what I've been through on the streets.
The gay community turns every hate crime into a campaign ad for gay rights..
Review the FBI file of how many hate crimes occur IN ONE YEAR, before you go spouting your mouth off like a jackass.
"Same-sex unions have been recognized even by the Church in medieval times."
What a load of bullshit. I actually had to read a book on what the Catholic Church did when it found out some nuns turned lesbian. It EXECUTED them.
You actually had to read a book?
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0679751645/102-6594647-7452937?v=glance
(Book title in case link doesn't work - Same sex unions in premodern Europe) - Details that gay marriage was sanctioned by the Church! And before you bother to trash it without at least reading the reviews, know that it was written by a Yale professor. Still think it's bullshit? So Yalies are learning a bunch of bullshit? Tell that to George Bush.
Pinning all the blame on Christians is typically ignorant of you.
I didn't lay the blame on Christians. I lay it on religious belief.
You are the uneducated, uninformed, biased one here.
I have FBI statistics on my side. What do you have to prove your opinion?
It's truly amazing the way you never let a rational idea, or the lack of fact, interrupt the flow of your typing. Have you considered suing your brain for non-support?
Posted by: boomcrashbaby at September 15, 2004 09:30 PM (Permalink)Boomcrashbaby, the liar:
"This will be my last comment here"
Boomcrashbaby made it very clear that his previous comment was his 'last word'. He made it very clear it was his last comment. We now know that his comment was just a ploy, part of his 'playing the victim' routine. Here he is, posting yet another comment despite saying he would not do so.
"I didn't bring it up, you did."
(1) I did not ask you if you ever deep throated a firearm. You volunteered that information.
"As for your bold claim about hate crimes not happening to people"
(2) I didn't claim such crimes never happened, I claimed that in the LA area such crimes are rare and usually well-publicized, thanks to a powerful, well-organized gay community. Lets look at those statistics a little clsoer, since you want to misrepresent and exaggerate them:
(1995) Anti-Male Homosexual: 735 incidents
735 incidents in a population of over 260,000,000 people. To put this in perspective: more people are struck by lightning each year.
"Victims of hate crimes only make the news when they're pretty young white boys from conservative families."
(3) Oh really? I guess you should call this 55 year old man from West Hollywood and tell him he is a pretty young white boy from a conservative family: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2002/09/26/national0348EDT0462.DTL
...better tell the San Francisco Chronicle and several other local news organizations they misreported the story. Maybe you should read the news "before you go spouting your mouth off like a jackass".
"Details that gay marriage was sanctioned by the Church!"
(4) I figured that this book was what you were based your ludicrous argument on. The book has been thoroughly debunked by real scholars who have exposed Boswell's sloppy, bias-ridden work. I've already read many reviews, and the only reviewers who praise the book are biased. The reviewers who are not biased accurately point out that Boswell's book has been torn apart by historians. You choose to believe the book not because you care about the truth, but because the book tells you what you want to hear.
"I didn't lay the blame on Christians. I lay it on religious belief."
(5) What a hilarious quote.
"It's truly amazing the way you never let a rational idea, or the lack of fact, interrupt the flow of your typing."
(6) Unlike you, I let reason and logic be my guide. You, on the other hand, are bound by your irrational allegiance to a homosexual identity, which means more to you than the truth. That is why you will never win with reason, and why you try to play on emotion.
Posted by: Kaltes at September 15, 2004 11:39 PM (Permalink)That is why you will never win with reason
Reason is what we always win on. It's what struck down the sodomy law. It's what gave gay people in Mass. the right to marry. It's the reason of the judges that gives us our victories, it's the hysteria from the masses that give us our state amendments of discrimination.
You volunteered that information.
I was responding to your accusation that gay people don't have it bad. (I don't now, I did. Many other gay people do now).
I didn't claim such crimes never happened, I claimed that in the LA area......
No, you didn't . Scroll down and look at your own words. Liar, liar.
735 incidents in a population of over 260,000,000 people. To put this in perspective: more people are struck by lightning each year.
Apparently you've never heard of the closet. Most people who get beat don't want to call the newspaper and have pictures of their black eyes all over the news. Whatever the number is, it's higher than that reported, by a lot. Even one is too many though. There are thousands of runaways and homeless kids who have been thrown out just for being gay.
I lay it on religious belief.
I came to this site to tell Justene something, I made a mention of a forthcoming Hustler article about Dreier, and you started up and have kept on with gay rights issues nonstop. All my responses have been exactly that, responses. I don't know about anybody else on this site, but I can clearly see that you cannot separate your biased emotion from your presentation. You should not be in a court of law defending anybody.
I happen to believe in God and Jesus, but if you cannot see that religion (not God himself) is the cause of everything from the turmoil in the Middle East to hateful discrimination and condemnation then it's pretty clear your practice is going to be specializing in the Right to remain woefully ignorant.
To put it in perspective, somebody hit by a lightening bolt or a baseball bat is a human life. One is at the hands of nature, one is at the hands of another human being. To REALLY put it in perspective for you, most judges you will encounter see a very clear distinction there, even if you cannot.
Posted by: boomcrashbaby at September 16, 2004 12:42 AM (Permalink)"It's the reason of the judges that gives us our victories, it's the hysteria from the masses that give us our state amendments of discrimination"
(1) You have clarified several things here: (a) you are now no longer speaking as an individual, (b) you think you are reasonable and most Americans are not (c) you think the American people are 'hysterical' because they do not cave in to all your gay demands.
"Scroll down and look at your own words. Liar, liar."
(2) I did. Unlike you, my words are consistent. If they weren't, you'd have a quote to throw in my face, and you don't.
"Whatever the number is, it's higher than that reported, by a lot."
(3) I thought you were so gung-ho on the statistics? Now that your precious statistics don't support the point you wanted to make, you attack them and say they are not accurate. Your support for the attack? NOTHING. Guess we just have to take your word for it, right? Laff.
"Even one is too many though."
(4) That is true of ALL CRIMES. Instead you single out only one very rare type of crime because you don't care about heterosexual Americans, you only care about fellow homosexuals and what happens to them. You don't want a better America, you want a better America FOR GAYS, which is why you harp on gay issues to the exclusion of all else.
"I came to this site to tell Justene something"
(5) Why did you feel the need to attack Dreier as a "leader of anti-gay legislation"? You didn't just report facts, you inserted your own bias into it and made a political attack. I responded to that attack.
"you started up and have kept on with gay rights issues nonstop"
(6) I only mentioned that opposing gay handouts does not make a legislator anti-gay. In response you started harping on gay rights, and you compared me to Robert Mugabe, so you can drop the whole victim routine. You can drop the juvenile "he started it" bullshit. No one is putting a gun to your head forcing you to come to calblog.com and continue replying to my comments.
"You should not be in a court of law defending anybody."
(7) Nice cheap shot. Way to throw away whatever 'victim' credibility you might have had. Keep them coming.
"I happen to believe in God and Jesus"
(8) Then you are part of the problem by your own words. If you have religious belief, and you blame religious belief, you should blame yourself. What you should have said is that you blame "some misguided religious beliefs", but you seem to be too emotionally worked up to write with clarity, or think rationally, for that matter.
"somebody hit by a lightening bolt or a baseball bat is a human life. One is at the hands of nature, one is at the hands of another human being."
(9) And a heterosexual human being is every bit as much a victim when hit by a baseball bat, which is why your obsession with homosexual victims to the exclusion of all others is all the more sickening. You are a homosexual first, and an American second. Your split loyalty disgusts me.
Posted by: Kaltes at September 16, 2004 01:40 AM (Permalink)I thought you were so gung-ho on the statistics?
If you thought I was quoting a statistic as an exact number and not one more or not one less, then it shows how naive you are. Women don't report all the rapes they encounter, everybody knows that. The same is true for hate crimes. Not everybody runs to the government. Whatever statistics there are on ANY crime, the actual numbers are going to be higher. Perhaps you shouldn't have dozed so much in your law school.
Now that your precious statistics don't support the point you wanted to make
But they do, they counter your outrageous claim that it only occurred immediately before a gay conglomeration took to the streets.
Why did you feel the need to attack Dreier as a "leader of anti-gay legislation"?
Based on his voting record.
I only mentioned that opposing gay handouts does not make a legislator anti-gay.
Now who's playing the victim? You continually threw 'handouts for gays' out there when I didn't ask you for squat.
Then you are part of the problem by your own words. If you have religious belief, and you blame religious belief, you should blame yourself. What you should have said is that you blame "some misguided religious beliefs", but you seem to be too emotionally worked up to write with clarity, or think rationally, for that matter.
No, I don't even think it is necessarily misguided religious belief. You assume so much about my motivation when you are wrong every time. I don't want or need your acceptance or the acceptance of John and Mary down the street. It is religious belief practiced by the government that is the problem. Same with the Middle East. Same all over.
And a heterosexual human being is every bit as much a victim when hit by a baseball bat, which is why your obsession with homosexual victims to the exclusion of all others is all the more sickening. You are a homosexual first, and an American second. Your split loyalty disgusts me
How clueless. Do you even know why there is hate crime legislation in the first place. It happens to also cover religion, so get a clue. If a member of a community, whether it is a religious community, a community based on orientation, race or whatever, suffers a crime based solely on the fact that he's a member of that group, then then entire group (locally, whatever) gets terrorized. If a heterosexual person gets beaten up, that's a crime. If a heterosexual person gets beaten up BECAUSE he is straight, that is a hate crime as the heterosexuals around him feel more targeted than if it was just because he was flashing cash around. Get it? A hate crime has MORE THAN ONE VICTIM. It has people terrorized.
I'd tell you to go fuck yourself and the horse you rode in on, but seeing the 'smugness' in your words, I'd say you already have.
Posted by: boomcrashbaby at September 16, 2004 02:36 AM (Permalink)Boomcrashbaby, you have been beaten. Your last post was your little attempt to 'fight back', but all managed to accomplish was demonstrating that you have no rational arguments left.
"the actual numbers are going to be higher."
(1) Not every person struck by lightning is going to report it either, so my point (that more people get struck by lightning) stands.
"Perhaps you shouldn't have dozed so much in your law school."
(2) How mature. What a good example you are setting for the child you are raising.
"they counter your outrageous claim that it only occurred immediately before a gay conglomeration took to the streets."
(3) Hmm I said 'gay conglomeration'? Maybe you should stick to what I said with quotes instead of making shit up.
"Based on his voting record."
(4) You missed the point entirely. You argued that I started all this, then I replied that you are the one who started it by attacking Dreier. In reponse, you say the attack was justified. Thank you for destroying your own point and proving mine.
"Now who's playing the victim?"
(5) You are (what's new?).
"You continually threw 'handouts for gays' out there when I didn't ask you for squat."
(6) Go look up the word 'continually' in the dictionary. You don't seem to understand what it means. Also, I could care less what you ask for.
"It is religious belief practiced by the government that is the problem."
(7) GOVERNMENT practices religious belief? Who knew? How interesting. What does government wear to church? How does government take communion? I didn't know that intangible legal entities practiced religious beliefs. Wow.
"Do you even know why there is hate crime legislation in the first place."
(8) To satisfy identity-group minorities who want higher punishments when people victimize the group identity.
"A hate crime has MORE THAN ONE VICTIM. It has people terrorized."
(9) The motive for a crime is irrelevant. If someone beats you to steal from you, or beats you because you look like a fag, the end result is the same: you get beat. If there is a rash of beatings in West Hollywood, gays are going to be afraid to walk the streets at night regardless of the motivation of the attackers. The risk is the same, regardless of the motive. That is why motive doesn't come into play with other crimes, and why hate crime laws are nothing more than taxpayer-funded special protection for minorities.
(10) The pitiful argument you rely on to justify hate crime laws would extend to all crimes except for completely random ones. Criminals make choices when they select victims. If criminals target elderly people because they think the elderly are easy to beat up and carry more money, that would be a hate crime by your reasoning: all the elderly in the area would be terrorized because they are being targeted. The same would be true if people who wear designer clothes and expensive watches are targeted. Attacks on those people would terrorize others who wear designer clothes and expensive watches. Get it?
In your mind terrorizing homosexuals is bad, but you could care less if other people get terrorized.
"I'd tell you to go fuck yourself and the horse you rode in on"
(11) I will leave the self-fucking and horse-fucking to you. You have already turned your back on sex with the correct gender, so switching over to another species shouldn't be too much of a stretch for you.
Posted by: Kaltes at September 16, 2004 07:12 AM (Permalink)Boomcrashbaby, you have been beaten. Your last post was your little attempt to 'fight back', but all managed to accomplish was demonstrating that you have no rational arguments left.
I can carry on a rational debate with conservatives, just ask Justene. However, I know there are certain individuals out there who have the mentality where there is only one response that can be given, because no matter what is discussed they will only hear that response anyway. You are such an individual.
What a good example you are setting for the child you are raising.
Yes, well my 2 year old often spends time online.
You are certainly within your right to be against hate crime laws. I happen to be against helmet laws. Nevertheless, whatever your opinion of a hate crime law is, it already exists in many places including on the federal level, so no matter what you think if it, it's here to stay.
Attacks on those people would terrorize others who wear designer clothes and expensive watches. Get it?
No, you moron, there is no community of designer clothes wearers. If someone were targeted for their shirt they wear, then other people don't have to wear that shirt for protection. You can't change your skin color, your religion or your orientation so easily. It's clearly not the same thing. I'd love for you to use your arguments in a court of law. Have you just gotten out of law school? Have you ever stood before a judge yet? I would love to be the fly on that wall when it happens.
You have already turned your back on sex with the correct gender, so switching over to another species shouldn't be too much of a stretch for you.
If you think preference for gender equates with the ability to switch species, it shows how little you know about what you are talking about.
You aren't worth the effort of continuing discussion. You weren't even worth the effort of an original insult. Those were all compliments of the Insult Generator. http://www.insultmonger.com/generators/index.htm
Posted by: boomcrashbaby at September 16, 2004 08:28 AM (Permalink)"I can carry on a rational debate with conservatives, just ask Justene."
(1) Maybe on some issues you can, but not on this issue.
"so no matter what you think if it, it's here to stay"
(2) Like affirmative action, hate crime laws will ultimately be done away with.
"there is no community of designer clothes wearers"
(3) There are many communities of them, they just aren't politically mobilized as such. Is that your criteria for who counts? The power of their PACs and lobbying organizations?
"You can't change your skin color, your religion or your orientation so easily."
(4) Homosexuality is not inherently detectable visually. Skin color is. If homosexuals choose to dress and act in ways that identify them to be homosexual, then they can stop dressing and acting that way to avoid being targets, just like you claim that shirt-wearers can simply wear different shirts. It is funny that you can be so callous to non-homosexuals who want to wear particular clothing. That is hypocrisy.
"I'd love for you to use your arguments in a court of law. Have you just gotten out of law school? Have you ever stood before a judge yet? I would love to be the fly on that wall when it happens."
(5) No post from you would be complete without some laughably inapplicable cheap shots. Fortunately, judges are not stupid, unlike you.
"You weren't even worth the effort of an original insult."
(6) What a coincidence, because you aren't capable of coming up with one.
Posted by: Kaltes at September 19, 2004 01:00 PM (Permalink)