1

I'm not sure Amercian voters would tolerate a politician like André Boisclair who used cocaine while in office.

Seems Marion Barry did far less damage ultimately to the Washington landscape than George W. Bush, who, with cronyism, corruption, the countenance of torture, lying about WMDs, using fake Niger evidence, aides who committed treason, ... what were you saying again? Canada's on the road to destruction????

Maybe you missed the news, but your "moral" administration - heh heh Hugh Hewitt and Hariett Miers- he's sure leaving Hugh and Dobson to twist in the wind- could see more price hikes thanks to the Canadians, and thanks to the utter inability of America - and the Bush regime in particular- to have a meaningful plan to get us off oil.

America's got a huge plank in its eye, and it ain't softwood lumber.

2

Back under the bridge, Mumon.

3

Jim Gilbert:

Sorry, but if somebody's going to tout how the Canadians are going to h-e-double-hockey-sticks in a handbasket, and ignore the swill of the "moralist" Republican regime in Washington, well, it may be a penetrating glance into the obvious, but the emperor here is buck nekkid.

Give me gay and lesbian politicians, all of Clinton's personal sins, give me all of that any day over the rampant greed and corruption that the alternative has given us. Give me folks who favor abortion on demand any day over those who would deny women an abortion even if her life is in danger or those who equate zygotes to people, or those who equate brain-dead people to people.

Give me the Canadian's path to "moral destruction" that provides health care for all (and thus a comparative advantage in labor markets), has a lower murder rate, and doesn't get involved in wars falsely sold to the citizens.

Really, this is pot calling the kettle black in a huge way.

If you can't stand the prophetic heat get out of the kitchen.

4

Mumon: Of the millions of abortions since Roe V. Wade, what percentage do you think really involved a known in advance danger to the life of the mother?

5

Mike O:

Of the millions (yes, millions) of people killed as a result of US military actions from Vietnam onward, how many do you think really involved a threat to the United States of America?

6

Of the millions (yes, millions) of people killed as a result of US military actions from Vietnam onward,

Mumon--Your lack of ambition is troubling. If you are going to pull numbers out of your a**, why not use billions or trillions? Or why since Vietnam, why not say millions (billions? trillions?) since Chimpy McHitlerBurton stole the election?

7

Mumon. Give it up. When everyone tells you you suck, maybe it's because you really do suck. I hate you.

8

Mumon. Give it up. When everyone tells you you suck, maybe it's because you really do suck. I hate you.

Ah, a conservative(?) Larry Lord. These kind of personal attacks are just not that appealing, no matter what side they come from, and at least LL is occasionally (very occasionally) humorous.

9

ucfengr :

I wasn't pulling numbers out of a**; I was in fact using the offical estimate by the Socialist Republic of Vietnam alone.

I didn't add in the numbers of Cambodians or Laotians killed directly by the US, or indirectly as a result of destabilizing the Sihanouk government, which paved the way for the Khmer Rouge.

I didn't add in the Iraq wars.

I didn't add in Grenada or Panama.

I didn't add in El Salvador.

Or Guatemala.

Or Nicaragua.

Or Chile.

I didn't add in Kosovo.

But now that you bring it up - and getting back on topic, the other interesting issue with Canada is their stance on war crimes- they're against them, and there is a movement afoot to bring charges against certain folks in the US for certain crimes that were alleged to have been committed.

10

The peanut gallery:

I hate you.

I tell my 4 year old son, when he doesn't like an element of discipline being instilled and he responds with a line like that, "That's how I know I'm being a good Daddy," and proceed to tell him that there's things in life that he doesn't like hearing or doing from me, but my job is not to please him, but to make sure he grows up to be a good boy.

Consider my remarks in a similar spirit, even though I'm not your Daddy. I'm not here to please you or anybody, but to try to make sure we all grow up to be good boys and girls, myself included.

11

I was in fact using the offical estimate by the Socialist Republic of Vietnam alone.

Does the SRV have an official estimate for the number of South Vietnamese they killed after the fall of Saigon?

I didn't add in the Iraq wars.

Maybe Saddam could give you his "official estimate".

I didn't add in Grenada or Panama.

Noriega isn't doing anything right now. He might be available for an "official estimate".

And so on, and so on.

But the real question is how can we blame it all on Chimpy and Haliburton?

12

Mumon spewed forthe the following:
I didn't add in the numbers of Cambodians or Laotians killed directly by the US, or indirectly as a result of destabilizing the Sihanouk government, which paved the way for the Khmer Rouge.

I used to think you were a reasonably intelligent person who was obtuse and misrepresented the truth out of partisanship. But your statement about Vietnam belies your ignorance. Ignorance of history is not the mark of an intelligent person.

Khmer Rouge was a direct result of the United States abandoning Vietnam. I know every sin of America is worth gloating over in your worldview, but Khmer Rouge can only be laid at the feet of athiest communists.

Who's your daddy now loser?

13

The peanut gallery :

No, you're quite incorrect; the Khmer Rouge was the direct result of the US putting in the butcher Lon Nol in power.

And, I'm afraid that during most of the Reagan years at least- until basically the Khmer Rouge was confined to a few jungles in Cambodia on its borders with Laos and Thailand- the US actually supported the Khmer Rouge over the Vietnamese installed government.

I know every sin of America is worth gloating over in your worldview...

In your "worldview" every other imagined sin (remember the original thread? some guy got his panties in a wad over the fact that some guy in Quebec used coke back in the 90s!) is to be salivated so that the real sins of America can be ignored, doing, on a national level the exact opposite of what Jesus would do about grains of sand and planks.

14

ucfengr :

No, and obviously neither do you; however, even granting that there were people killed, less would have been killed if overall if we'd never been involved.

And, I might add, do you have an estimate of the number of people killed by the various puppet dictatorships of "South Vietnam?"

15

The typical "conservative" stance on immigration is intellectually bankrupt, and contradicts just about every other aspect of conservative ideology which we've fought for decades to vindicate and implement.

The fallacious arguments for border control usually take the following forms:

(1) Economic--In every other context, conservatives believe in an unregulated economy and free trade. Yet they demand police action for people who come into the country merely to work, even if only the simpliest jobs for the smallest wages. We throw around arguments like "They're siphoning off welfare programs!", "They not paying taxes!", or "They're taking our jobs!". In every other context, the conservative answer would be "Get rid of the welfare state!" "Get rid of the taxes!" and "Get rid of you if someone is able to do your job quicker and cheaper!". Applying the norms to immigrants which we seek to overturn for ourselves is at best a lack of confidence in our policies to succeed, and at worse, blantant hypocrisy.

(2) Crime--Conservatives complain that illegal immigrants clog prisons and cost us money. This begs the question "Why should prisons and prisoners cost us anything?". If we were really tough on crime, we would make punishment quick and efficient, or turn prisons into profit-making work camps. Many conservatives demand these policy in any other context, but refuse to put two and two together when thinking in terms of undocumented aliens.

(3) Homeland Security--Hermetically sealing off the border, even if it weren't logistically impossible, would be prohibitively expensive. So far, we've enjoyed much more cost-effective success in the war on terrorism through internal investigation coupled with foreign regime change: inflitrate them here while taking the fight over there. It would be much more responsible to continue these actions than putting false faith in some multi-billion dollar Great Wall of America.

(4) Culture--Again and again the United States has let large influxes of different peoples into America, and again and agin, it was a net gain for both native and immigrant populations in the long run. Yet some conservative still seek border control to "preserve American culture". First, American language and culture is spreading like wildfire throughout the entire world. To enjoy the best entertainment, to learn from the best media, and to utilize the best technology, you must speak English and embrace modern values. Second, why should any higher authority control the "culture" of the country. When there is no crime against a citizen, what right, or even rational incentive, does that citizen have to control the "culture" of his neighbor. Such an attitude is that mindset of a second-hander who's personal identity depends on what others do and say.

We could almost call anti-immigration a neurosis. It's a form of displacement, where we focus onto outside peoples a ire which we should be putting on our polity and culture.

I have a Christian friend of (East) Indian descent who just married a man another Christian in India. The problem is that, due to red tape, he still can't legally come into the country, despite being lawfully married to an American woman he loves. The Indian groom speaks great English and works a white collar job in an investment company; he'd would greatly succeed in America. Yet he cannot enter the country because of invisible lines drawn on the globe and words printed on statute and regulation books, both of which serve mental constructs in the heads of Americans who don't even know this couple.

The essence of freedom is to leave other people alone. Why don't we leave alone people who want simply want to lead productive lives in the country.

16

Protagonist,

Well said.

There are at least two sides to every issue, and there are reasons people don't like massive immigration. But since I agree with you, I won't get into all that.

Thanks writing such a great comment, sir.

17

Protagonist,

You did a great job of exposing hypocrisy amongst so-called conservatives, especially as opposed to resident troll, Mumon, whose talking points seem to arise more from moveon.org than from reason and insight. The fact is, today's conservatives are pragmatic, not principled. As I once heard Howard Phillips say, they do not wish to win the culture war; they merely don't want to lose it on their watch.

To my fellow evangelicals: Are not many of today's "conservatives" a shining example of wanting to enjoy a form of godliness while denying the power thereof?

18

however, even granting that there were people killed, less would have been killed if overall if we'd never been involved.

Assumes facts not in evidence. Going by the death toll of the various "peoples revolts" in Russia, China, Cuba, and Cambodia there is no basis for this assumption.

do you have an estimate of the number of people killed by the various puppet dictatorships of "South Vietnam?"

That depends. If we can blame it on Chimpy the "estimate" could rise into the billions.

19

The typical "conservative" stance on immigration is intellectually bankrupt

This assumes their is a consistent "conservative stance" on immigration, an assumption that is not supported by facts. The Wall Street Journal's position on immigration is significantly different from National Review's (though even NR has internal differences on immigration).

In every other context, conservatives believe in an unregulated economy and free trade.

This is just not true. You are stating a position much closer to the libertarian position than the conservative. Conservatives, in general want less regulation than liberals and prefer it to be handled locally as opposed to nationally, where applicable, but that is a long way from an "unregulated economy" and "free trade".

Yet they demand police action for people who come into the country merely to work, even if only the simpliest jobs for the smallest wages.

Illegal immigrants don't just take jobs from citizens, they also take jobs from legal immigrants.

In every other context, the conservative answer would be "Get rid of the welfare state!" "Get rid of the taxes!" and "Get rid of you if someone is able to do your job quicker and cheaper!".

Have you ever read any books by "conservatives"? If you have maybe you need a class in reading comprehension. At best, this is a leftist caricature of conservative arguments with very little basis in reality. Wanting lower taxes does not equal "getting rid of taxes", wanting to change welfare so as not to subsidize destructive behavior does not equal "get rid of welfare", and looking for more efficient ways to perform a specific task is not equivalent to "getting rid of you". Illegal immirgrants (and their employers) are, to a large extent getting a free ride on the backs of people who actually do pay taxes and follow the rules. I have a problem with that.

Conservatives complain that illegal immigrants clog prisons and cost us money. This begs the question "Why should prisons and prisoners cost us anything?". If we were really tough on crime, we would make punishment quick and efficient, or turn prisons into profit-making work camps.

Again, you are taking caricatures of libertarian arguments and trying to apply them to connservatives. Conservatives and libertarians have different opinions on what government should and shouldn't do. Conservatives, in general believe that protecting the public from and punishing criminals are essential government functions and for the most part do not oppose paying taxes to fund the function. But this begs the question, why should the US feel compelled to take in and deal with Mexico's or El Salvador's criminals? Shouldn't this be the responsibility of Mexican and El Salvadoran taxpayers?

Hermetically sealing off the border, even if it weren't logistically impossible, would be prohibitively expensive.

A bit of a strawman, no? Who's arguing that we are capable of or should "hermetically" seal the border? This doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to more effectively police our borders to try to control illegal immigration. Even a 25-50% reduction would be an improvement over the current situation.

Again and again the United States has let large influxes of different peoples into America, and again and agin, it was a net gain for both native and immigrant populations in the long run.

This is a selective reading of history. While the US did have periods of high immigration, they also had periods of low immigration. The low periods allowed immigrants to assimulate into US culture and it allowed US culture to acclimate to the foreign cultures. Under the current regime, you have a large number of illegal immigrants that are not assimulating, nor are they being asked to. This is not good for the US culture. As an extreme example, imagine if over the next 5 years 100 million Chinese or Indians immigrated to the US. Does anybody want to argue that this would be a net positive for the US.

Another conservative argument against illegal immigration (especially from Mexico) is that Mexico is an economic basketcase largely due to internal government policies. Accepting large numbers of immigrants allows Mexico to export the consequences of their own bad policies and avoid making needed changes. It's a little like giving money to a wino or junkie, by doing do you allow them to avoid the real consequences of their destructive behavior and thus the need for change.

20

good posts.

One thought always occurs to me when I visit Joe's site: Am I the only one here that has a job?

Forgive me. I'm just jealous I can't update my blog as often as I want to.

:)

21

Conservatives, in general want less regulation than liberals and prefer it to be handled locally as opposed to nationally, where applicable, but that is a long way from an "unregulated economy" and "free trade".

This strikes me as overly nit-picky, and I say that because the minor correction doesn't rebut Protagonist's point: conservatives generally support free trade, and let the chips fall where they may. If an american company, or even an entire industry (see, eg: steel) fails, so be it. They couldn't keep up. And, if another country is able to best us because of their lack of regulation, then that's reason to ditch our regulations rather than to gripe and moan about other countries not competing fairly.

With immigration, on the other hand, conservatives start sounding like liberals: all of a sudden they start talking about fundamental fairness.

Under the current regime, you have a large number of illegal immigrants that are not assimulating, nor are they being asked to. This is not good for the US culture.

Why?

22

I'd suggest law-abiding conservatives find a new name for themselves, as what is called "conservatism" is being equated with "criminality" by self-described conservatives such as Tom DeLay and Rush Limbaugh, both of whom have been implicated in criminal wrongdoing.

23

.357 writes

One thought always occurs to me when I visit Joe's site: Am I the only one here that has a job?

I doubt it. But you may be the only here who has a job that he/she wants to keep. ;)

24

conservatives generally support free trade, and let the chips fall where they may. If an american company, or even an entire industry (see, eg: steel) fails, so be it. They couldn't keep up. And, if another country is able to best us because of their lack of regulation, then that's reason to ditch our regulations rather than to gripe and moan about other countries not competing fairly.

This is one school of conservative thought, not the only one. It does probably make sense to let some companies fail or even whole industries if they no longer make sense. Should the government have acted to protect the horse & buggy industry in the face of furious competition from Henry Ford? I am sure, however that the steel industry would be surprised to find out that it failed, especially since the US produces nearly 100 million tons of steel every year. Maybe not as much as some countries, but a long way from total failure. But I'm just curious, do you think we should only trade with countries that adopt every single one of our labor, environmental, etc. regulations, even the ones that no longer or never did make sense. What about countries, like France for example, who are even more strictly regulated? Should we adopt their policies in a race to the bottom to see who can support the most least efficient industries?

Under the current regime, you have a large number of illegal immigrants that are not assimulating, nor are they being asked to. This is not good for the US culture.

Why?

Let's reverse the question, why would adding 10 million illegal immigrants from Mexico to the population of Texas or California be a good thing? It would seem to me those in favor of radical change should be the ones to justify it.

25

This is in response to post number 15 by protagonist. He wrote:

The fallacious arguments for border control usually take the following forms:(1) Economic--In every other context, conservatives believe in an unregulated economy and free trade. Yet they demand police action for people who come into the country merely to work, even if only the simpliest jobs for the smallest wages. We throw around arguments like "They're siphoning off welfare programs!", "They not paying taxes!", or "They're taking our jobs!". In every other context, the conservative answer would be "Get rid of the welfare state!" "Get rid of the taxes!" and "Get rid of you if someone is able to do your job quicker and cheaper!". Applying the norms to immigrants which we seek to overturn for ourselves is at best a lack of confidence in our policies to succeed, and at worse, blantant hypocrisy.

Horrible argument there. The illegal immigrants don't come here to work,they come here to work the system. They are criminals by definiton if they come here illegally. 80% of Californias prison population is...youguessed it: illegal immigrants. The crime rate, welfare mooching, disease bringing illegals are ruinig our country. Schools and hospitals are being shut down, due to the free healthcare and education being offerred to criminals. Do your homework next time.

(2) Crime--Conservatives complain that illegal immigrants clog prisons and cost us money. This begs the question "Why should prisons and prisoners cost us anything?". If we were really tough on crime, we would make punishment quick and efficient, or turn prisons into profit-making work camps. Many conservatives demand these policy in any other context, but refuse to put two and two together when thinking in terms of undocumented aliens.

I agree.

(3) Homeland Security--Hermetically sealing off the border, even if it weren't logistically impossible, would be prohibitively expensive. So far, we've enjoyed much more cost-effective success in the war on terrorism through internal investigation coupled with foreign regime change: inflitrate them here while taking the fight over there. It would be much more responsible to continue these actions than putting false faith in some multi-billion dollar Great Wall of America.

Disagree. It worked for Israel. And did you get that paragraph from a Bush campaign speech?

(4) Culture--Again and again the United States has let large influxes of different peoples into America, and again and agin, it was a net gain for both native and immigrant populations in the long run. Yet some conservative still seek border control to "preserve American culture". First, American language and culture is spreading like wildfire throughout the entire world. To enjoy the best entertainment, to learn from the best media, and to utilize the best technology, you must speak English and embrace modern values. Second, why should any higher authority control the "culture" of the country. When there is no crime against a citizen, what right, or even rational incentive, does that citizen have to control the "culture" of his neighbor. Such an attitude is that mindset of a second-hander who's personal identity depends on what others do and say.

When we have no culture, we have no national identity and thus no nation. We need to preserve our culture to survive. Should we adopt Sharia' than? A nations culture is its identity, we need it.

We could almost call anti-immigration a neurosis. It's a form of displacement, where we focus onto outside peoples a ire which we should be putting on our polity and culture.

Anti immigration? Not me, how about anti-illegal immigartion? There. Thats better.

I have a Christian friend of (East) Indian descent who just married a man another Christian in India. The problem is that, due to red tape, he still can't legally come into the country, despite being lawfully married to an American woman he loves. The Indian groom speaks great English and works a white collar job in an investment company; he'd would greatly succeed in America. Yet he cannot enter the country because of invisible lines drawn on the globe and words printed on statute and regulation books, both of which serve mental constructs in the heads of Americans who don't even know this couple.

That sucks, but he knew going in it would be that way, so the appeal to pity doesn't work for me.

The essence of freedom is to leave other people alone. Why don't we leave alone people who want simply want to lead productive lives in the country.

Than illegal immigrants should leave America alone. Lead productive lives? Some yeah, but they are still criminals! Should we just leave all criminals alone than or?

26

The move left investors both optimistic and over-extended -- as became apparent at the end of last week,caladorproperties.co.uk when the rally hit a roadblock -- and the stock market could be due for a bit more selling in the short term before attempting another run up,catalinacollectibles.com analysts say Studs http://www.cfo123.com/Link%20Exchange.htm