Page 2 of 3
Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 1:13 pm
by Leisher
A few tidbits from a friend who works the border for our government:
-Seattle passed a resolution like LA condemning the Arizona law and the same day there were 2 rapes and a murder committed in Seattle. All three were unrelated crimes, and all three were committed by illegal aliens.
-Two Arizona police officers went public to challenge the law. They expressed that it was racist, and all the other leftist talking points. As it turns out, both have family here in the U.S. illegally and this law would require them to turn those family members in or be accomplices, face jail time, and lose their jobs.
Also, according to this sheriff, Mexican drug cartels control parts of Arizona.
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 8:38 am
by Leisher
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 10:19 am
by Leisher
Here's an interesting dilemma for "morally superior" LA:
What wins? Revenue or Boycott?
This is their chance to put their money where their mouth is and really prove to their constituents how serious they are about opposing the Arizona law.
Is there anyone on the planet who thinks LA won't renew these contracts to get that revenue?
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 10:31 am
by GORDON
I think politicians have always talked out both sides of their faces, and always will.
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 10:49 am
by Malcolm
Same thing in Nebraska. Talk of passing the "boot illegals" law.
Oddly enough, there's a few quotes that struck me in there, two pro, one con.
Clint Walraven, who has lived in Fremont all his 51 years, said the jobs should go to legal residents who are unemployed — something he believes the ordinance would help fix. Discussions on the issue can get heated, he said, particularly if racism is mentioned.
"It has nothing to do with being racist," he said. "We all have to play by the same rules. ... If you want to stay here, get legal."
Emphasis mine. So there's the ideological argument.
Walraven said the measure is necessary because workers send their salaries to family in Mexico instead of spending it in the city.
"I understand supporting your family," he said, "But it's very much at our expense. We're footing the bill."
Slam dunk. You can't take cash out of a place without putting some back in & expect things to be ok. There's the practical argument.
Sandra Leffler, 69, who owns a downtown antique store with her husband, Marv, said she knows not all Hispanics are illegal immigrants, but that it's hard not to think that way.
Really? It's hard? Why? Every time I see a dude with a turban, I don't think to myself, "Gee, I wonder if he has a bomb under there."
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 10:55 am
by Malcolm
Were I in a position of power in that Arizona company, I'd actually considering refusing to sell shit to them. Fuck L.A. Needs to fall into the damn ocean.
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 11:04 am
by GORDON
Malcolm wrote:Sandra Leffler, 69, who owns a downtown antique store with her husband, Marv, said she knows not all Hispanics are illegal immigrants, but that it's hard not to think that way.
Really? It's hard? Why? Every time I see a dude with a turban, I don't think to myself, "Gee, I wonder if he has a bomb under there."
I think, "I wonder if he is one of the 10%."
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 11:49 am
by unkbill
GORDON wrote:Malcolm wrote:Sandra Leffler, 69, who owns a downtown antique store with her husband, Marv, said she knows not all Hispanics are illegal immigrants, but that it's hard not to think that way.
Really? It's hard? Why? Every time I see a dude with a turban, I don't think to myself, "Gee, I wonder if he has a bomb under there."
I think, "I wonder if he is one of the 10%."
When we were in California I thought something like that all the time when working. Wonder if that gentleman of Spanish decent is paying for that with my tax money?
Guess that makes me an asshole. Not giving everyone the benefit of the doubt.
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 1:25 pm
by TPRJones
I bet that within the next couple of years, there will be stories about Mexican terrorists, and something will blow up, and then the Homeland Security guys will have plenty of money to secure our southern border. Expect the rights of US citizens to be further degraded in the process.
If that goes really well, the next problem will be Canadian terrorists in about 2020.
Edited By TPRJones on 1277227549
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 2:27 pm
by Troy
TPRJones wrote:I bet that within the next couple of years, there will be stories about Mexican terrorists, and something will blow up, and then the Homeland Security guys will have plenty of money to secure our southern border. Expect the rights of US citizens to be further degraded in the process.
If that goes really well, the next problem will be Canadian terrorists in about 2020.
There is already a shit load of things blowing up.
It's all just blamed on drug violence.
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 2:39 pm
by Malcolm
Troy wrote:TPRJones wrote:I bet that within the next couple of years, there will be stories about Mexican terrorists, and something will blow up, and then the Homeland Security guys will have plenty of money to secure our southern border. Expect the rights of US citizens to be further degraded in the process.
If that goes really well, the next problem will be Canadian terrorists in about 2020.
There is already a shit load of things blowing up.
It's all just blamed on drug violence.
Troy's got a point. If the U.S. felt like really clamping down on that, they've got an excuse already. Hell, the law enforcement folk down there have damn near replaced their badges with price tags. & given how D.C. wants everyone to believe that drugs are polluting or raping our children's futures or whatever, you'd think they'd care more. They already dump billions into that worthless endeavour. Why not just step up the force to overt seek-and-destroy ops in Mexico?
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 3:02 pm
by GORDON
Neither party wants to be the one that alienates the hispanic vote.
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 3:20 pm
by TPRJones
Malcolm wrote:Troy wrote:TPRJones wrote:I bet that within the next couple of years, there will be stories about Mexican terrorists, and something will blow up, and then the Homeland Security guys will have plenty of money to secure our southern border. Expect the rights of US citizens to be further degraded in the process.
If that goes really well, the next problem will be Canadian terrorists in about 2020.
There is already a shit load of things blowing up.
It's all just blamed on drug violence.
Troy's got a point. If the U.S. felt like
really clamping down on that, they've got an excuse already. Hell, the law enforcement folk down there have damn near replaced their badges with price tags. & given how D.C. wants everyone to believe that drugs are polluting or raping our children's futures or whatever, you'd think they'd care more. They already dump billions into that worthless endeavour. Why not just step up the force to overt seek-and-destroy ops in Mexico?
Perhaps. The difference is that everyone knows the war on drugs is bullshit. Not everyone knows the war on terror is bullshit. PR-wise the later would be a better seller in the current media market.
But you're probably right that they won't do it since they could have already and haven't.
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 3:51 pm
by Malcolm
The difference is that everyone knows the war on drugs is bullshit. Not everyone knows the war on terror is bullshit.
From here
Based upon state and federal data for fiscal year 2009, every second that the page is open the Drug War Cost Clock registers another $1,673.45 that is spent by our government each and every second of every day
1s = $1673.45
365 days * 24 hrs/day * 60 min/hr * 60 s/min = $52,773,919,200 per year
From wikipedia for the 2008 budget for the U.S. "war on terror"...
$145.2 billion
Hmm. You appear to be right. Then again, we're just one cartel-sponsored hijacked plane away from seeing that $52 billion get jacked up. & the drug lords have no interest in seeing that.
Edited By Malcolm on 1277236305
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:44 pm
by unkbill
I really just don't get it. Entering a country without permission in most of the world will get you shot as a spy. To me it is just a matter of law. It is against the law to walk over the boarder without papers. It is against the law to bring in drugs. When did it became o.k. to break the law?
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 8:46 pm
by GORDON
unkbill wrote:I really just don't get it. Entering a country without permission in most of the world will get you shot as a spy. To me it is just a matter of law. It is against the law to walk over the boarder without papers. It is against the law to bring in drugs. When did it became o.k. to break the law?
When the people doing it vote democrat.
Posted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 7:13 am
by TPRJones
unkbill wrote:I really just don't get it. Entering a country without permission in most of the world will get you shot as a spy. To me it is just a matter of law. It is against the law to walk over the boarder without papers. It is against the law to bring in drugs. When did it became o.k. to break the law?
When we started getting more and more stupid laws on the books so that literally every citizen is a criminal to one degree or another. When that happens respect for the law plummets, as it should.
when the government demonstrates that the primary purpose of laws is to shake down the people for revenue, this is the sort of response you can expect.
Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 8:52 am
by thibodeaux
Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 8:56 am
by GORDON
what a stupid asshole.
Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 10:13 am
by Leisher