Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Bush's Political Suicide, 2004

By AnomymousCoward in Op-Ed
Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 05:54:06 AM EST
Tags: Politics (all tags)
Politics

There have been a number of issues during the past four years that have caused American voters to question the competency of G.W. Bush. From the war in Afghanistan to the war in Iraq, from Halliburton to Harken, the left has cried "foul" and the right has nodded its modest approval. This week, though, Bush has set himself up to alienate more Republican voters than any of his prior acts in the last four years.


The topic is immigration. At face value, a simple concept: just as people occasionally leave America to find new opportunity, a number of people would like to come to America to find new jobs, people willing to give up their existing lives for a chance at a better standard of living. The issue, as nearly all political issues tend to be, is considerably more complex.

It's nearly undisputed that the vast majority of American citizens are the products of immigration. In fact, many citizens take pride in the fact that they have gained wealth and prosperity after arriving in a new land with essentially nothing to their name. It therefore stands to reason that most Americans would welcome immigrants with open arms, bring them in by the boat or truck as fast as possible. The statistics don't necessarily disagree with this belief: American immigration quotas are at their highest levels EVER. Nevertheless, illegal immigration is also at an all-time high, with an estimated 10,000,000 illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States. The case for illegal immigration is simple: the desire for change overcomes the desire for legality - and the delays associated with obtaining the proper legal authorization, and the choice is made to enter the country illegally or to stay longer than is legally allowed. The methods of illegal immigration are immaterial: in a country based on the rule of law, all illegal immigration should be treated on equal grounds. The fact that nearly ten million illegal immigrants are in the country suggests that the practice is not only common, it's ridiculously easy.

Enter the current opportunity for Bush to alienate another large group of past voters: in a desperate bid to gain favor in Florida and California, Bush has proposed1 giving 'temporary' legal status to illegal immigrant workers. The plan itself is rather simple: illegal immigrants in the United States would be able to gain legal status for an initial three-year period if they can prove they have jobs. The plan itself should not shock anyone: the two states where Bush can win or lose the 2004 election are heavily hispanic, and both contain more than a million illegal hispanic immigrants (Florida's illegal immigrant population is estimated between 1 and 3 million, California is estimated between 4 and 5 million). As Bush's original (2001) plan to grant amnesty to illegal aliens died with September 11, a newer, more conservative plan was certainly going to arise sometime before the 2004 election.

The question arises: will this really be the windfall the Bush team obviously expects? The answer, clearly, is that it will not. First and foremost, illegal immigrants can not now, and will not in 2004, be able to vote (legally). Therefore, this plan assumes that the general Hispanic community welcomes such a plan. History suggests otherwise: in the 2003 recall election, Davis' support decreased with the passing of SB 602, a California senate bill that granted a driver license to anyone and everyone who could produce a single form of government identification, regardless of the nation of origin. The passage of the bill saw opposition rise3 not only in the traditional conservative Republican ranks, in the form of groups that sought — and in hindsight, likely would have been able — to defeat the bill by referendum, but also by grassroots Hispanic groups that felt the bill delegitimized their own legal entry into the nation. Indeed, by granting legal status to those who had bypassed the legal system, SB 60 insulted and consequently alienated the legal Hispanic voters that it was designed to court.

Clearly, the fiasco in California was not confined to legal hispanic voters. Other minorities, specifically African Americans, saw the growing acceptance of illegal immigrations as unfair competition for the low skill, low wage jobs: as many illegal immigrants will work for less than minimum wage, it becomes increasingly difficult for unskilled labor to find jobs that actually pay minimum wage. Furthermore, the supply glut caused by the 4,000,000 illegal workers in the state has driven down wages to a point where even moderately skilled jobs can be filled at minimum wage, causing a decrease in the average pay scale, which manifests itself in a rise in the poverty rate and an increase in unemployment and welfare as inner city workers realize that they can make nearly as much money by accessing social programs as they can competing with the illegal labor.

Returning to the national level, it becomes clear that Bush's planned legalization of illegal labor will alienate significant numbers of voters: not only will traditional hispanic voters not be fooled, but traditional conservatives will be insulted, and - again, using California as a bellwether - non-hispanic minorities will likely feel slighted at the pandering to the specific minority group.

In the long run, expect the current pandering to contribute to Bush's resounding defeat in 2004 as traditional conservatives walk away from the struggling campaign in favor of more a candidate that isn't such a political whore.

--

  1. Forbes: Bush proposes temporary work plan for immigrants
  2. Google Search: California SB 60
  3. WorldNetDaily: Illegal immigration may decide California recall

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o Google
o 1
o 2
o 3
o Forbes: Bush proposes temporary work plan for immigrants
o Google Search: California SB 60
o WorldNetDa ily: Illegal immigration may decide California recall
o Also by AnomymousCoward


Display: Sort:
Bush's Political Suicide, 2004 | 168 comments (154 topical, 14 editorial, 0 hidden)
Little to do with immigration (2.76 / 13) (#2)
by Tyler Durden on Wed Jan 07, 2004 at 03:28:12 PM EST

It's all about getting those suckers registered, finger printed, photographed and DNA sampled. I don't really see the motiviation for this. Its not like Bush has much of a chance of winning California regardless of what he does. Neither does he have much chance of losing Texas. And Florida is full of Cubans, not so much Mexicans.

Jesus Christ, EVERYONE is a troll here at k5, even the editors, even rusty! -- LilDebbie

then why did he first propose this before (2.40 / 5) (#9)
by porkchop_d_clown on Wed Jan 07, 2004 at 05:41:14 PM EST

he was elected president?

This was in the works in 2001; there was a big joint press conference with Presidente Fox and everything. It was dropped after 9/11, but now he's reviving it.

--
"the internet is to the techno-capable disaffected what the United Nations is to marginal states: it offers the illusion of empowerment and c
[ Parent ]

This may be inflamatory, but (2.00 / 5) (#53)
by Tyler Durden on Thu Jan 08, 2004 at 01:55:00 PM EST

If Bush loves Mexicans so much, then he just resign and move down there.

Maybe I don't see the big picture.  Why wouldn't illegals just keep streaming over the border and work here under-the-radar?  If you're going to let all those people in, why not make them get citizenship?  

Jesus Christ, EVERYONE is a troll here at k5, even the editors, even rusty! -- LilDebbie
[ Parent ]

Because you want them to go home again. (2.25 / 4) (#54)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Jan 08, 2004 at 02:15:01 PM EST

Part of the guest worker plan is that it has an expiration date: 3 years.

The only real problem I know of is that this was apparently tried in the 40's and 50's and it didn't work - illegal immigration continued to rise even as legal workers came, worked and went home again.

--
"the internet is to the techno-capable disaffected what the United Nations is to marginal states: it offers the illusion of empowerment and c
[ Parent ]

The definition of insanity (none / 3) (#84)
by 87C751 on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 09:48:49 AM EST

this was apparently tried in the 40's and 50's and it didn't work - illegal immigration continued to rise even as legal workers came, worked and went home again.
I recall the quip that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, while expecting different results.

My ranting place.
[ Parent ]

You pinned the tail on the donkey. (none / 3) (#86)
by gte910h on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 10:11:51 AM EST

This is DEFINITLY another security measure. Bush did originally want to do something like this: I honestly  believe that the hispanic constituency is one of th e few he actually relates to and cares for (looking at his TX track record). But I think that his cabinent and the hawks in the legislature are all for this for homeland security reasons.

[ Parent ]
Except that... (2.50 / 10) (#4)
by rhino1302 on Wed Jan 07, 2004 at 03:47:16 PM EST

...this was a central part of his 2000 campaign, and it didn't seem to hurt him with conservative voters then. Implementation was held by 9/11, but this didn't come out of the blue.

Bush made a lot of promises (none / 2) (#136)
by dachshund on Sun Jan 11, 2004 at 04:40:57 PM EST

.this was a central part of his 2000 campaign, and it didn't seem to hurt him with conservative voters then. Implementation was held by 9/11, but this didn't come out of the blue.

Bush also supported the Kyoto protocol during his campaign, something that has been decidedly unpopular in conservative circles. Conservatives supported him anyway; and unsurprisingly, his commitment to that protocol vanished once he got into the White House. It makes me wonder whether conservatives know the man a little better than the rest of us do.

Now he's converted his promise of "amnesty" into a temporary program that has a pretty slim chance of passing Congress. Will we have any sort of "reform" by the time Bush leaves office in '04 or '08? I wouldn't bet on it, and I bet most savvy conservatives wouldn't either.

[ Parent ]

I think you are confused (1.26 / 26) (#5)
by sellison on Wed Jan 07, 2004 at 04:01:24 PM EST

Good honest Republicans know that what is good for business is good for America.

Immigrants (especially ones from Good Christian nations like Mexico) provide hard working labor that is not infected with the socialists ideas of the unions.

It is true that some of these people have unfortunatly broken the law, but punishing them would not be good for business nor for America, while allowing them to work and work towards becoming the kind of honest Christian citizens America needs more of, is good for business.

Thus there is no conflict with core Republican values, we leave racism and union-backed protectionism to the dems, we don't need it nor want it to win!

Which is where you are confused: Davis' support dropped because his core backers are the racist/protectionist unions, which George Bush and Republicans are also against.  


"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush

Political suicide my ass (2.00 / 11) (#6)
by paprika on Wed Jan 07, 2004 at 04:28:45 PM EST

Bush will get re-elected by the same people who voted for him last time.

Kucinich is a bitch -paprika

you mean the Supreme Court? (2.41 / 12) (#15)
by danharan on Wed Jan 07, 2004 at 06:52:28 PM EST

?

[ Parent ]
Yes (2.28 / 7) (#21)
by paprika on Wed Jan 07, 2004 at 07:23:54 PM EST


Kucinich is a bitch -paprika
[ Parent ]

re-elected? (none / 3) (#91)
by micromoog on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 11:50:51 AM EST

Bush will get re-elected by the same people who voted for him last time.

The Supreme Court?

[ Parent ]

Is that so ? (none / 0) (#161)
by kurioszyn on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 04:25:53 PM EST

Alright .... so everytime someone challenges  election results , someone somewhere will have to make a decision ,right ?


[ Parent ]
Suicide? (2.56 / 23) (#8)
by porkchop_d_clown on Wed Jan 07, 2004 at 05:38:52 PM EST

I doubt it. Business types will like it because it provides a legal supply of cheap labor; libertarian types will like it because it's a step towards open borders. Dems will like it because it helps one of their core constituencies and defense hawks will like it because it will let us redirect troops and funds from "defending" the Mexican border. Finally, the states will like that they no longer have to have periodic sweeps for illegal immigrants or headlines about tractor-trailers full of dead immigrants.

The only people who will oppose this are the repeal-NAFTA crowd.

--
"the internet is to the techno-capable disaffected what the United Nations is to marginal states: it offers the illusion of empowerment and c

So wrong (2.40 / 10) (#10)
by jope on Wed Jan 07, 2004 at 05:51:12 PM EST

The US voters, after being bombarded by months of propaganda, frightened by the evils of the world and reassured by strength of their nation and the wisdom of their leaders sheepishly gather behind their grand leader and nothing will keep them from reelecting him again.

We have a fucking genuine oracle here ... (none / 2) (#160)
by kurioszyn on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 04:23:51 PM EST

What else do you know ?
Share it with us, the great one.

[ Parent ]
I liked the ideas in the story... (1.28 / 7) (#11)
by pHatidic on Wed Jan 07, 2004 at 06:00:22 PM EST

and learned something from reading it but I voted it down because it's sensationalism is annoying. Specifically, the title and concluding paragraph are unnecessary.

It *is* op-ed. (none / 1) (#12)
by porkchop_d_clown on Wed Jan 07, 2004 at 06:09:17 PM EST

AC is entitled to his opinions - even if he is a coward - and they should certainly start a discussion.

--
"the internet is to the techno-capable disaffected what the United Nations is to marginal states: it offers the illusion of empowerment and c
[ Parent ]

compassionte conservatism (2.60 / 10) (#13)
by horny smurf on Wed Jan 07, 2004 at 06:09:30 PM EST

I think Bush has confused "compassion" with "I never met an expansion of the federal gov't I didn't like." As a conservative, I like tax cuts (although I would have structured them differently), and I approve of the afghanistan/iraq wars. The UN can go fuck themselves, as far as I'm concerned.

However, his domestic programs, no child left behind, prescription drugs for seniors, etc, and now this amnesty leave a bad taste in my mouth.



I agree completely... (2.80 / 5) (#14)
by AnomymousCoward on Wed Jan 07, 2004 at 06:30:13 PM EST

Which makes it really tough finding a candidate I like in the upcoming election.

I hate social programs, I like lower taxes, and I don't mind bombing the fuck out of a country that does nothing more than kill its people by the thousands and openly sponsor terrorism.

I've voted nearly straight Republican for the past 3 elections (since I was old enough to vote), but this one doesn't look like it will turn out that way....

Vobbo.com: video blogs made easy: point click smile
[ Parent ]

Oh? Dean & Clark are for amnesty, too (none / 2) (#25)
by jongleur on Wed Jan 07, 2004 at 10:26:07 PM EST

But feel free to vote Democrat anyway. (Clark says he's against amnesty but says he's for letting 'good' immigrants off the hook; ie amnesty.)
--
"If you can't imagine a better way let silence bury you" - Midnight Oil
[ Parent ]
yep (none / 0) (#97)
by horny smurf on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 12:42:06 PM EST

The only hope is to have a president and congress of different parties and hope they'll be too busy fighting to pass new laws :(

[ Parent ]
I disagree. (2.73 / 15) (#16)
by Work on Wed Jan 07, 2004 at 07:01:19 PM EST

Immigrants from mexico and south america are a nearly inexhaustible supply of cheap labor, particularly in the south. They're happy to work for minimum wage if it means they can leave poverty. Thats why so many come in the first place, illegally. As pointed out earlier, the main people who would decry this would be the repeal-NAFTA types who hate losing more jobs to cheaper labor, even if its highly unlikely that US citizens would do the work. That and the often racist tiny anti-immigrant crowd who fear the 'browning of america' (pat buchanan, et al) It's good for the economy and it makes the heavily hispanic south happy. Sounds like a sound political move.

cheap labor vs. open jobs (2.76 / 13) (#20)
by AnomymousCoward on Wed Jan 07, 2004 at 07:23:35 PM EST

Thats why so many come in the first place, illegally. As pointed out earlier, the main people who would decry this would be the repeal-NAFTA types who hate losing more jobs to cheaper labor, even if its highly unlikely that US citizens would do the work.

It's been shown (look for the UCLA study about 'brown collar jobs') that there ARE U.S. workers who would do most of the jobs that illegals are doing, but won't do them for minimum wage. That is, jobs that used to get $10/hour, or so, are now being done by illegals for half that. This of course is simple supply/demand economics, dirtied by the glut of supply.

That is, to put it simply, there aren't any jobs that Americans won't do, but there are hundreds that they won't do for minimum wage. Would you clean a toilet for 8 hours a day, every day? Would you clean a toilet for 8 hours a day, every day, for $2,000/hour?

Vobbo.com: video blogs made easy: point click smile
[ Parent ]
jobs jobs jobs (none / 1) (#96)
by horny smurf on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 12:40:13 PM EST

It's not uncommon to see illegals lined up waiting to do any job at almost any price. The last time you saw USAins doing that was the start of the great depression (although you will see all sorts begging and some "will work for food" signs)

One reason is that the government will pay you (as in welfare) to NOT have a job. Bob Newhart (the comedian) used to tell a story about one of his early jobs at working at the unemployment office: (reference)

NEWHART: I got in -- I was working at the unemployment office, and we got $60 a week. This was in the late '50s.

KING: In Chicago?

NEWHART: In Chicago. The claimants -- the claimants got $52.

(LAUGHTER)

NEWHART: That's true.

KING: You made eight bucks a week more than the unemployment.

NEWHART: And they only had to come in one day a week. I was starting to figure out, "Whoa. Wait a minute."

---

That's not to say unemployment or welfare are bad, but they do significantly affect our behavior.

[ Parent ]

hmm (2.55 / 9) (#37)
by karb on Thu Jan 08, 2004 at 07:09:53 AM EST

even if its highly unlikely that US citizens would do the work

This is oft-repeated, but what service sector has died because US citizens wouldn't do the work?

In most parts of the country there are no mexican immigrants, and convenience stores and fast food restaurants are run by americans in buildings built by american construction workers.

I'm a very pro-immigration guy, but I think immigration levels should be decided by US voters, not businesses or mexicans.
--
Who is the geek who would risk his neck for his brother geek?
[ Parent ]

in the south (none / 2) (#90)
by Work on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 11:50:35 AM EST

The vast majority of illegal immigrants is in the south esp around the mexican border. Many of the towns down there have difficulty finding adequate numbers of actual american citizens to work.

[ Parent ]
Migrant Farm Labor (none / 0) (#163)
by rhino1302 on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 05:03:05 PM EST

Picking fruit and vegetable crops especially in California is the sort of work that US Citizens haven't been willing to do since the depression. The wages are far too low, way below what you can make working at McDonalds.

Mechanized agriculture, such as that used for grain crops like wheat and corn is a different matter. It might be that if the pool of cheap, near-slave labor dried up that manufacturers would have enough incentive to come up with equipment to fill the void, though.

[ Parent ]

This applies to ANY job (none / 2) (#133)
by dachshund on Sun Jan 11, 2004 at 03:16:18 PM EST

the main people who would decry this would be the repeal-NAFTA types who hate losing more jobs to cheaper labor, even if its highly unlikely that US citizens would do the work

Note that nothing in this legislation limits it to the "jobs that Americans won't do" (which is basically a fallacy, anyway-- Americans will do those jobs if you pay them a couple bucks more an hour.) The legislation as proposed has no limitations on field of work, salary levels, no controls on wage levels, and could theoretically devastate the entire American labor force if it were to be implemented.

This legislation looks a lot more like the H1B program to me; except that the H1B program requires employers to pay a "comparable" wage (which usually ends up being significantly less than American workers make, anyway.) This program doesn't mandate any wage-- employers can advertise for highly skilled positions at a fraction of the going rate, then import workers from anywhere in the world. Where H1B only involves a few hundred thousand workers, this program could be as large as 8 to 10 million workers, according to White House officials.

We can argue forever about this program, but there's little argument about what would happen if it were implemented as described: a massive reduction in wages and employment for American workers, who are already suffering in this economy.

[ Parent ]

TRASH THIS SHIT (1.18 / 22) (#17)
by polish surprise on Wed Jan 07, 2004 at 07:13:36 PM EST

normally, people that stilted work at circuses.

--
Controversy is my middle name.

no (1.13 / 22) (#18)
by Suppafly on Wed Jan 07, 2004 at 07:14:04 PM EST

The fact that nearly ten million illegal immigrants are in the country suggests that the practice is not only common, it's ridiculously easy. It just proves that dirty foreigners reproduce like bunnies.
---
Playstation Sucks.
Except.... (2.62 / 8) (#19)
by AnomymousCoward on Wed Jan 07, 2004 at 07:20:32 PM EST

Once they reproduce, they're legal.


Vobbo.com: video blogs made easy: point click smile
[ Parent ]
No they're not (2.50 / 4) (#39)
by wiredog on Thu Jan 08, 2004 at 08:04:41 AM EST

Their children, however, are.

Wilford Brimley scares my chickens.
Phil the Canuck

[ Parent ]
which is of course what I meant [nt] (2.00 / 4) (#46)
by AnomymousCoward on Thu Jan 08, 2004 at 10:40:24 AM EST

 

Vobbo.com: video blogs made easy: point click smile
[ Parent ]
You should maybe *say* what you mean (nt) (none / 1) (#101)
by splitpeasoup on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 01:52:26 PM EST


"Be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi
[ Parent ]

+1, FP (2.20 / 15) (#22)
by fae on Wed Jan 07, 2004 at 07:24:53 PM EST

That way I can link to this and laugh at you after he gets re-elected.

-- fae: but an atom in the great mass of humanity
Don't worry, neocons. (2.23 / 17) (#26)
by Kasreyn on Wed Jan 07, 2004 at 11:19:13 PM EST

Your Diebold voting fraud scheme will still ensure victory, no matter how little the people care for your puppet. So get ready to celebrate!

As to the illegal immigrants: I live in Florida, and I happen to work with quite a few poor hispanic, black, haitian etc., immigrants. Quite a few have been fired from my employer for being illegals (one was seeking political asylum from death squads in her homeland, Colombia - but her green card was not in order, so out the door she went). In general, I can describe them as honest, good-hearted, hard-working people without a brain or a political thought in their heads. They are the first people to put in a hard day's work, and the last people in the world I'd EVER expect to see in a voting booth. I honestly don't know what Bush thinks he can get out of this.


-Kasreyn


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
OK racist (1.00 / 17) (#32)
by Typical African American Male on Thu Jan 08, 2004 at 01:52:01 AM EST



[ Parent ]
OMG! You've found me out! I'm gonna kill myself. (3.00 / 8) (#33)
by Kasreyn on Thu Jan 08, 2004 at 01:55:15 AM EST

Your perspicacity was simply too great for me to fool you. Kudos to you, sir. I am no longer worthy to go on living.

Excuse me, there's a cup of beladonna tea with my name on it.


-Kasreyn


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
[ Parent ]
Hrm... I promise to suicide and get rated highly. (none / 0) (#120)
by Kasreyn on Sat Jan 10, 2004 at 01:40:57 AM EST

Are you folks trying to tell me something? :-P


-Kasreyn


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
[ Parent ]
Stop that, the Diebold folks are good (1.09 / 11) (#68)
by sellison on Thu Jan 08, 2004 at 08:20:13 PM EST

honest Christians who would never cheat.

We all know computers are hard to program and people make mistakes.

But they will get it right. And then our votes will be digitally protected from the chad happy hands of democrat vote counters, and once again the silent majority's voice will be heard!

Yes, Diebold's system will be a protection from the widespread democrat vote fraud all of us who live where the paper votes are "counted" by democrats have long suffered from, and it will be a great thing for Republicans, Independents, even Greens to have this power removed from sticky democrat hands.

Of course the dems will be whining fraud as their power to cheat is taken away and we find that when the votes are honestly counted, there are very very few people actually voting for democrats outside of San Francisco and Hollywood.

Boo hoo, dems, your time has passed!


"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush
[ Parent ]

I hope you brought enough to share (none / 1) (#85)
by 87C751 on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 09:55:14 AM EST

Yes, Diebold's system will be a protection from the widespread democrat vote fraud all of us who live where the paper votes are "counted" by democrats have long suffered from, and it will be a great thing for Republicans, Independents, even Greens to have this power removed from sticky democrat hands.
You should share those drugs you're on with the rest of the class!

My ranting place.
[ Parent ]

Give It a Rest (none / 1) (#107)
by SPYvSPY on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 02:50:52 PM EST

Any voting system can be cheated. If someone wants to perpetrate vote fraud, they will do it, and they will probably get away with it. Elections just don't scale to the national level. IMO, digital voting is not one iota more or less susceptible than any other system.
------------------------------------------------

By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
[ Parent ]

Scale, and the Perfect vs the Good (none / 1) (#147)
by error 404 on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 06:40:33 PM EST

First off, there are things you can do in a digital system that just don't work in a paper system due to cost and scale.

Kind of like the difference between junk mail and spam.

It's easier to hide bits in a closed, unaudited software system than it is to hide paper ballots in a box that is likely to be inspected. Everybody knows paper - if there is an irregularity in a paper system, the retired folk (most of the poll workers I've seen are elderly women) who watch the balloting stand a good chance of noticing and being confident that their observations are valid. Throw a computer in the mix and most of them will either not understand or (more often) assume that the reason something looks fishy is that they don't understand computers.

Besides, the fact that no system is perfect does not imply that no system is better than another. No automotive security system will stop a determined professional theif - but I lock my car anyway.


..................................
Electrical banana is bound to be the very next phase
- Donovan

[ Parent ]

I especially like what you said here : (none / 1) (#118)
by xutopia on Sat Jan 10, 2004 at 01:02:07 AM EST

"honest Christians who would never cheat"  Anything else you could tell us that is as funny as that?  ROTFLMAO

[ Parent ]
I wasn't quite sure you were a parody before now (none / 1) (#140)
by magney on Mon Jan 12, 2004 at 04:32:40 AM EST

You went a little too far this time, me friend. :)

Do I look like I speak for my employer?
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't worry, neocons (none / 1) (#122)
by CoolSpot on Sat Jan 10, 2004 at 02:52:00 PM EST

Your Diebold voting fraud scheme will still ensure victory, no matter how little the people care for your puppet. So get ready to celebrate!

I used to worry about fraudelent elections being poison to democracy, and I used to think that they would be a terrible thing regardless of which side they who they benefit.

But then I realized that it's people like you that will get screwed, and promptly stopped caring.

[ Parent ]

Don't worry Repugs. (2.22 / 18) (#27)
by JayGarner on Wed Jan 07, 2004 at 11:55:06 PM EST

Bush could eat a live kitten during one of the debates, and follow it up with defecating on the podium, and he'd still get re-elected.

Mah fellow Mercans... (2.61 / 13) (#30)
by rusty on Thu Jan 08, 2004 at 12:18:58 AM EST

Ah stan here b'for you today to talk about... jobs... helthcare... an' freedom from terra for all the Merican people. But first, ah'm gonna eat this kitten.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Who's his 'Rusty' guy? (none / 3) (#40)
by wiredog on Thu Jan 08, 2004 at 08:05:53 AM EST

And how come I never see him posting around here?

Wilford Brimley scares my chickens.
Phil the Canuck

[ Parent ]
Some guy (none / 2) (#61)
by Dr Caleb on Thu Jan 08, 2004 at 06:26:58 PM EST

who figured on grabbing a username that seemed to be related with the site name "corrosion". Probabally appeared smart to him. Should picked the name "barnacle" to go with his boat.


Vive Le Canada - For Canadians who give a shit about their country.

There is no K5 cabal.
[ Parent ]

And Rush & Hannity would still adore him (nt) (none / 3) (#44)
by Dphitz on Thu Jan 08, 2004 at 08:46:56 AM EST




God, please save me . . . from your followers

[ Parent ]
How might this new policy be abused? (2.20 / 5) (#28)
by lukme on Wed Jan 07, 2004 at 11:57:44 PM EST

I am sure that this policy could just as easily be abused as the H1-b visa is. What are the implications?




-----------------------------------
It's awfully hard to fly with eagles when you're a turkey.
I hate h1b visas [NT] (1.12 / 8) (#35)
by irie bj on Thu Jan 08, 2004 at 06:17:13 AM EST


I need a witty sig.
[ Parent ]

You're looking at it the wrong way (2.30 / 20) (#29)
by godix on Thu Jan 08, 2004 at 12:15:53 AM EST

You obviously are looking at this proposal as something designed to gather votes. No matter what else you can say about Bush, widescale pandering just isn't his style. If he were the type of politician to suck up for votes we would never have been in the second Iraq war and half the anti-terrorism crap would have never been proposed. Like it or not Bush is a man of principles and he's acting on those principles. You may disagree with his priciples but trying to pretend he doesn't have any won't do any good. Bush has a long history of working for and with hispanics and has talked about this particular proposal since before he was elected. Arguing against an action of principle on the basis of 'this vote buying will fail' would be like telling a peace protester that throwing a rock at a cop will get your head busted it. It may be true but that isn't the guys primary concern so your arguement has no influence.

That being said, immigration has long been a joke. I frequently have claimed that America needs to adopt a policy of 'if you haven't violated a law elsewhere that would also be illegal in America then you're allowed in'. This proposal is far from what I want to see our immigration policy to be but at least it's heading in the right direction. Quite a nice change after all the anti-terrorism crap has turned America into a bunch of assholes towards immigrants and visitors.

Well, at least I shall die as I have lived. Completely surrounded by morons.
- Black Mage

huh? (3.00 / 7) (#51)
by waxmop on Thu Jan 08, 2004 at 01:28:21 PM EST

No matter what else you can say about Bush, widescale pandering just isn't his style.
He says he believes in free trade, but he needs Ohio, so he puts up a steel tariff. He eased arsenic limits in water, found out that people didn't like that, so he put them back.

The dude is all about pandering.
--
We are a monoculture of horsecock. Liar
[ Parent ]

Are you sure? (none / 3) (#71)
by godix on Thu Jan 08, 2004 at 09:00:02 PM EST

The dude is all about pandering.

Using your theory of what the dude is all about please explain why we are in Iraq despite massive protests before the invasion.

Well, at least I shall die as I have lived. Completely surrounded by morons.
- Black Mage[ Parent ]
Protests by...? (3.00 / 6) (#75)
by Hatamoto on Thu Jan 08, 2004 at 11:08:22 PM EST

Using your theory of what the dude is all about please explain why we are in Iraq despite massive protests before the invasion.

And how many registered republican voters were in those protests? ... and I don't mean on the 'lets shoot a fat, unarmed civilian lesbian in the back of the head as she runs away' side.

FWIW - I don't think he's smart enough to pander on his own. He's got professional panderers doing his thinking for him. He does what he's told by the real players and does his very best to remember his lines... Sorta like reagan, only looking more like a monkey than a mummy.

--
"Innocence is no defense." - Federal District Judge William H. Yohn (People v. Mumia Abu-Jamal)
[ Parent ]

WTF? (3.00 / 4) (#73)
by mcc on Thu Jan 08, 2004 at 10:04:23 PM EST

If he were the type of politician to suck up for votes we would never have been in the second Iraq war and half the anti-terrorism crap would have never been proposed.

What the fuck are you talking about? Do you have any idea what the second iraq war and the anti-terrorism crap has done to Bush's approval ratings? At least in the short term, they are absolutely through the roof.

[ Parent ]

Correlation vs. Causation (none / 2) (#80)
by shigelojoe on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 07:49:21 AM EST

Just because people like the decisions Bush makes doesn't necessarily mean that Bush makes them because people will like them.

For instance, think of an orchestra. Just because people enjoy an orchestra does not necessarily mean the orchestra plays purely for the benefit of the audience. The members of the orchestra are most likely playing due to their love of playing instruments; the audience's applause is a side benefit.

[ Parent ]

Hispanic population has grown (none / 1) (#78)
by jongleur on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 04:36:30 AM EST

I read that if Bush were to get the same proportion of all the demographic groups that he did in 2000, that he'd lose, because the Hispanic population has grown, and he got only 30% of it. Of course, he's not in any real danger but, this could be seen as a safety move, to appeal to Hispanics.
--
"If you can't imagine a better way let silence bury you" - Midnight Oil
[ Parent ]
heh (none / 1) (#83)
by JoeBayesian on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 09:36:52 AM EST

No matter what else you can say about Bush, widescale pandering just isn't his style.

This is the funniest thing I heard in a while. He doesn't have to pander - he has all the zombies like Karl Rove who do the pandering for him.

[ Parent ]

No, actually (none / 1) (#106)
by SPYvSPY on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 02:45:39 PM EST

The characterization of Karl Rove as a zombie doing Bush's whim is even funnier.
------------------------------------------------

By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
[ Parent ]

Pandering Isn't Bush's Style? Tell The AARP (none / 1) (#105)
by cmholm on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 02:39:31 PM EST

Pandering Isn't Bush's Style? Tell that to the AARP. What else is the massive seniors drug bill but a $500billion bribe for votes? Both Bush in particular and the national GOP in general showed that principles don't mean a thing when you're looking at reelection. Shit, the way those people used to go on about "Slick Willie", they oughta be embarrased.

[ Parent ]
In the Karl Rove policy department? (none / 1) (#135)
by dachshund on Sun Jan 11, 2004 at 04:35:59 PM EST

No matter what else you can say about Bush, widescale pandering just isn't his style.

According to a large number of sources, including the White House itself, many of the major policy decisions in this Administration have come down from Bush's political advisors rather than people who have expertise in a given area. For example, the recent decision over whether to target mars, the moon, or both was ultimately decided by Karl Rove-- Bush's head political advisor. You might think this sort of thing would be determined by someone who actually knows something about science, but apparently it was all about politics.

You're telling me the man puts principles ahead of votes... And at the same time, Bush's political advisors are the most powerful people in the White House. Tends to imply a contradiction.

[ Parent ]

Nnngngngnngn (1.57 / 7) (#31)
by andamac on Thu Jan 08, 2004 at 01:15:51 AM EST

Politics makes me hate everyone. Everyone.

Bush sucks, but the Dems are presenting themselves as utter jackasses on the whole. It's going to be the recall all over again. Hate the guy in office now, but the replacement options are either jokes or lackeys. Take it from me, it's no goddamn fun at all and there's still no hope in sight for climbing out of our hole.

I will move to Fiji. I will sell bottles of sand to tourists for $10 each.

Politician vs. Statesman (none / 1) (#92)
by Zoshnell on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 12:11:53 PM EST

When did the U.S become more a country of politicians then statesmen? Where people only care about the garnering and holding of power and not about what the government was designed to protect and serve: its people. I feel it is an affront to the founding fathers ideals who had the most to lose and stood little to gain from a revolution to a representational representative when they could have easily taken the control of the country and made a new monarchy(IIRC George Washington was so lauded that people clamored for him to stay in office and/or become king, but my memory is fuzzy as my job eats away brain cells). And this isn't just for Democrats or Republicans, it has seemed to infect and plague everyone even slightly associated when the government. This is what depresses me most about my country.
---------------------------------------------------- "I think there I am, I think." - Nordom The Modron
[ Parent ]
Sorry, times change. (none / 1) (#143)
by Tr3534 on Mon Jan 12, 2004 at 08:48:02 PM EST

I have this theory: due to limited resources, all governments eventually switch to some form of hierachical model. It's just a question of how long, and how obfuscated the power structure is.

And when you find thermal depolymerization, one gets wierd ideas.

Sigmentation Fault: Post Dumped.
[ Parent ]
the next republicans? (1.50 / 6) (#38)
by karb on Thu Jan 08, 2004 at 07:13:52 AM EST

I kind of wonder if this issue could birth a new political party the way anti-slavery bore the republicans. Both parties seem to support the status quo, but the majority of americans are opposed to it.

The case has been made, and I think it's very plausible, that the sure fire way to make Bush lose in 2004 is to run a one-issue third party that seeks immigration reform.
--
Who is the geek who would risk his neck for his brother geek?

Are you kidding? (none / 1) (#114)
by Nimey on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 11:00:13 PM EST

You think this hypothetical third party will get appreciable media attention, let alone a chance to debate with representatives of the Big Two?

During the 2000 presidential race, the commission that regulates presidential debates barred any candidate with less than 15% of all voters (from some poll or other IIRC) from being at the debates.  Conveniently enough, that meant the Democrats and Republicans.

I'd like to see the Republicrats sued under the Sherman Anti-Trust act.
--
Never mind, it was just the dog cumming -- jandev
You Sir, are an Ignorant Motherfucker. -- Crawford
I am arguably too manic to do that. -- Crawford
I already fuck my mother -- trane
Nimey is right -- Blastard
i am in complete agreement with Nimey -- i am a pretty big deal

[ Parent ]

Maybe you could call this a wild guess (none / 1) (#117)
by mcc on Sat Jan 10, 2004 at 12:08:24 AM EST

But, just, you know, I've kind of got this funny feeling-- maybe just because I don't think immigration is more than a minor issue to more than a tiny, tiny, minority of the population-- that if someone did just take a third party and field a presidential candidate with that as pretty much their chief distinguishing platform plank, I somehow don't think it would do all that well.

[ Parent ]
This is the perfect opportunity... (2.44 / 9) (#42)
by gilrain on Thu Jan 08, 2004 at 08:16:35 AM EST

...to set up a sting operation! Release an announcement that all illegal immigrants will be granted full citizenship. All they have to do is report to <some place>. They show up, and you ship them all back to <wherever>. Heck, spend a few million and give each one a pamphlet entitled "How to Not Screw Legal Immigrants in Their Assholes" as reading material on the way back <wherever>.

Neo-cons going ballistic (2.81 / 11) (#43)
by wiredog on Thu Jan 08, 2004 at 08:25:51 AM EST

See the cover of the latest National Review, for instance

Wilford Brimley scares my chickens.
Phil the Canuck

You don't _really_ believe Bush acts alone... (none / 1) (#126)
by Baldrson on Sat Jan 10, 2004 at 08:46:07 PM EST

Come on -- GBJr didn't win the West Palm Beach vote with his brother's help anymore than his bother won the governorship with his. The entire House of Bush is a whore house.

The neocons are behind this just as they are behind the National Review's reaction against it. They and everyone else knows the majority of Americans -- who oppose liberalizing immigration -- have no where to turn to. So what is this really about? Who wins when a majority of the US citizenry is passed up not only for jobs and middle class mobility, but for input to the key decisions regarding the future of their country?

In addition to acquiring cannon fodder for the big wars to come -- its about setting up Mexicans and Indians (and to some extend Chinese) as scapegoats for all the damage to society that's been done over the last decades. Then about the time it seems like a good idea to retreat from Israel -- deporting a whole lot of Indians while importing a whole lot, although fewer, Israelis to take up leading tech positions. Draft the Mexicans off to die if they won't go home.

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

+1FP don't even care if it's true. [NT] (1.30 / 10) (#49)
by bakuretsu on Thu Jan 08, 2004 at 12:16:05 PM EST



-- Airborne
    aka Bakuretsu
    The Bailiwick -- DESIGNHUB 2004
compassion just sounds and feels better in Spanish (1.42 / 7) (#50)
by mami on Thu Jan 08, 2004 at 12:57:17 PM EST

and President Bush is certainly better in Spanish than in English - yes.

The right thing to do... (1.80 / 5) (#55)
by Jman1 on Thu Jan 08, 2004 at 02:32:28 PM EST

I'd just like to give kudos to Bush for doing something right. Yes, I do hope that it bites him in the ass by losing him the far-right, but you've gotta give credit where credit is due.

I'm puzzled by something (2.55 / 9) (#56)
by pyramid termite on Thu Jan 08, 2004 at 03:57:34 PM EST

How is it political suicide to do something that a significant portion of both parties have called for? For once, I think Bush is making a good call.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
Distorted policy (none / 1) (#134)
by dachshund on Sun Jan 11, 2004 at 04:28:08 PM EST

How is it political suicide to do something that a significant portion of both parties have called for? For once, I think Bush is making a good call.

Both parties called for immigration reform. Not a temporary worker program that places both foreign and domestic workers in peril.

[ Parent ]

Um... (2.40 / 5) (#58)
by SocratesGhost on Thu Jan 08, 2004 at 05:33:30 PM EST

The biggest drawback of Davis' plan was its effect on the California residents with licenses. Because the provisions for security measures was so weak, the licenses would be easily forged. This prompted Colorado to threaten to not recognize the California Driver license because it was so easily manipulated for illegal purposes.

I'm sure that woke up more than one voter.

While the whole "immigration issue" was also a concern, if you remember Davis' approval ratings at the time (somewhere in the low 20%) and compare that to Bush's approval ratings at any time in his administration, you'll see that immigration isn't a good indicator. For Davis, it was an obviously greasy last ditch effort. For Bush, I'm sure he's not that concerned about California. It never really counts.

-Soc
I drank what?


Borders. (2.00 / 8) (#59)
by readpunk on Thu Jan 08, 2004 at 05:56:10 PM EST

I didn't take the time to read if some anti-authoritarian commie has chimed in yet but if they haven't let me give you that position.

Every human being on this earth should be able to travel freely to where they can eat, find shelter and live safely. If one of the supposed cornerstones of American culture is our ability to be poor and then "rise up" out of our ghettos and slums then why is that only an acceptable option if you are born here... in one of our ghettos? Does that inherently mean that being born in America somehow makes your prosperity and your future more important than someone who is born in Mexico? The inability to understand the position of the illegal immigrant lasts only so long as those who oppose them do not have to live in their shoes and deal with their lives.

./revolution

our civilization was built by Christians (1.05 / 20) (#60)
by sellison on Thu Jan 08, 2004 at 06:07:49 PM EST

for Christians, and our form of democracy doesn't really work with large numbers of people from religions lacking Christian morality.

Thus good Catholic Mexicans are little problem, while cultists like Rastafarians or unreligious refugees from the former soviet union, non-Christian asians, ect. should be carefully limited so as not to destroy our democracy.

In short, your open borders philosophy should apply to Christians, any of whom should be able to find refugee here at will, but will cause grave problems if applied to the general mass of humanity.

Let people who don't want to enter the general Christian melting pot of America go to France, by all means.


"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush
[ Parent ]

Uh-uh, sure... (none / 1) (#65)
by Redemption042 on Thu Jan 08, 2004 at 08:12:18 PM EST

Thus good Catholic Mexicans are little problem

? You mean the people with the religion that tells them that birth control is bad?

Sorry, people with low wages and lots of children do cause problems for whatever state they are in regardless of religion or ethnicity.

[ Parent ]

Only a selfish atheist would be against children! (1.00 / 9) (#70)
by sellison on Thu Jan 08, 2004 at 08:26:34 PM EST

Those little kids will grow up to be good honest Christian taxpayers who will be paying off the deficit caused by years of socialist pandering to lazy atheists drug abusers and mental health fakers!

Birth control is bad, the more Christian kids in America the better!

It will be a great day when the last socialist goes extinct from being too selfish to reproduce, and America is once again composed of an ever growing population of moral Christians.

We have plenty of room for several Billion here after all, so long as they are hard working Christians and not atheist/socialist drug abusers!


"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush
[ Parent ]

Hoo-boy! What a comedian! (none / 1) (#94)
by TheDon on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 12:24:43 PM EST

Still at it? HAHAHA! This stuff is great!

Fill the planet with Christians and get rid of the rest and we're guaranteed an end to violence, war, racism, intollerance, theft, child abuse, and any other Christian perceived evil. HAHAHAHAHAHA! What a riot.

Man, when did this place become the comedy house?

--------------------------

Memory says, "I did that." Pride replies, "I could not have done that." Eventually, memory yields.
--Friedrich Nietzsche
[ Parent ]

You will think it's really funny (none / 1) (#111)
by tonedevil on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 05:22:35 PM EST

if ever you get it.

[ Parent ]
Not really (none / 0) (#121)
by BobCat on Sat Jan 10, 2004 at 03:18:54 AM EST

There is a need for cheap labor. Those 'lots of children' will provide it, until the next crop immigrates.

Top 10 Ways to Amuse a Geek

[ Parent ]
Nice. (none / 1) (#69)
by readpunk on Thu Jan 08, 2004 at 08:23:56 PM EST

Having a serious democracy and discriminating based on religion are incompatible ideas. By doing that you are limiting the scope of dissenting opinions and creating a society that ultimately votes in a block.

./revolution
[ Parent ]
Yes that's right (none / 1) (#79)
by salsaman on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 04:55:03 AM EST

...keep the Samaritans out.

[ Parent ]
hypocrisy (none / 1) (#89)
by micromoog on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 11:48:47 AM EST

...our form of democracy doesn't really work with large numbers of people from religions lacking Christian morality.

It is immoral and anti-Christian for you to be so bigoted about people with backgrounds and beliefs different from yours. So leave.

[ Parent ]

What makes you think he's a Christian [NT] (none / 1) (#115)
by Nimey on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 11:03:33 PM EST


--
Never mind, it was just the dog cumming -- jandev
You Sir, are an Ignorant Motherfucker. -- Crawford
I am arguably too manic to do that. -- Crawford
I already fuck my mother -- trane
Nimey is right -- Blastard
i am in complete agreement with Nimey -- i am a pretty big deal

[ Parent ]
No, its not Christian to lie (none / 2) (#144)
by sellison on Mon Jan 12, 2004 at 08:59:23 PM EST

our nation WAS built by and for Christians, read your history.

And it wasn't until we started tolerating large numbers of non-Christians until we started having all these problems with welfare, teen birth, drugs, and terrorism.

The link is clear: demoncracy requires a certain level of morality and personal responsibility which simply cannot coincide with the belief that there is no hell where evil ones who escape the law of man are punished by the LAW of God.

For people without this belief, you need alot more police and jails to keep them in line, since the only thing that keeps them 'scared straight' is the fear of physical punishment in this life.

This is hardly 'bigoted' it is simply Truth, and it is certainly not "un-Christian" to say that non-Christians are wrong and need to see the light: the modern world was built by Christians bringing the Truth to the heathen nations, after all.


"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush
[ Parent ]

Seriously (none / 1) (#145)
by Cackmobile on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 08:44:46 AM EST

You have to be trolling. I am laughing my arse off. If not you need a smack around the head with a 4 x 2. WHat about god fearing Muslims. They are terrorists because they believe in god so much. drugs etc have been a problem forever, you just have some rose tinted view of the world. The Christians world did not bring light to these places. It brought death, disease and slavery. Just ask the Native Americans and the African slaves. Your a fool.

[ Parent ]
Native America (none / 2) (#148)
by sellison on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 08:44:17 PM EST

was a place where people lived short, disease ridden, lives filled with starvation, war and pesilence. In south and central america, brutal dictators annually sacrificed thousands to pagan gods while in north america tribes routinely tortured and murdered each other over women and scarce game.

Its a standard liberal lie that life in America before the Christians was some sort of paradise, learn your facts and you will learn most native americans lived in abject misery, most of the time.

Meanwhile, even though millions were killed due to resisting the truth and tragic misunderstandings during the coming of the Christians, native americans today live longer, healthier lives and there are more of them than there ever were before.

And no one gets their heart cut out for the glory quetzalcoatl anymore.

Meanwhile, moslems don't believe in God, they believe in allah, who is just a bit less brutal than quetzalcoatl and no more worthy of a single son of Adam's worship.

Just because someone fervently believes in a false god doesn't make it any more false.


"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush
[ Parent ]

iknow your trolling (none / 1) (#150)
by Cackmobile on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 06:04:45 AM EST

but what about the inquisition, witch trials and various other christian atrocities.

[ Parent ]
I call "fucktard" rather than troll (none / 0) (#152)
by fridgemagnet on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 08:00:54 PM EST

Be careful, he may answer you.

---
"bugler of incongruity"


[ Parent ]
Typical liberal (none / 2) (#154)
by sellison on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 02:22:00 AM EST

desperately trying with your pathetic ad hominen attacks to supress what you know you can't argue with.


"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush
[ Parent ]
No, no... (none / 0) (#157)
by fridgemagnet on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 09:39:19 AM EST

...you're supposed to answer him, god-boy. He asked you a question. I know you're a fucktard, so I wouldn't bother doing that.

---
"bugler of incongruity"


[ Parent ]
Liberal atheist lies, for the most part (none / 2) (#153)
by sellison on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 02:20:35 AM EST

even the bits that are true are no where near as bad as the pagan quagmire we Christians replaced.

There was never an idea about the inalienable rights of a Man until the Christians came along, and there is no comparable idea with roots in any non-Christian culture.


"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush
[ Parent ]

Bugger it (none / 0) (#156)
by Cackmobile on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 07:51:55 AM EST

Your a knob. I really hope u are a troll becuase anyone as stupid and narrow minded in real life would have serious mental problems. I am glad I live no where near you. If you are a troll good job it worked.

[ Parent ]
Yup, typical liberal (none / 2) (#159)
by sellison on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 11:03:23 AM EST

hate what you refuse to understand.




"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush
[ Parent ]

Monotheism is good for the simple-minded (none / 1) (#151)
by error 404 on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 10:15:43 AM EST

Sellison should really abandon his sloppy size-comparing polytheism until he learns to tell which god is which before using names.

Mistakes involving the Plumed Serpent can result in events like his avatar, Cortez, sailing in on a cloud ship and destroying your civilization. The Serpent has always been offended by the offering of hearts.

Mother Coatlique, on the other hand, finds them quite tasty. When she's happy, the corn grows well. When she's healthy, she has more control over her monsterous children.

Two things, though:

1) The Mexican Empire was not a tribe in any sense of the term. It was a fairly advanced civilization with infrastructure, rapid mail delivery over long distances, big govornment, and pretty much all the good and bad that goes with that. There was none of the reverence for the land or simple self-reliance that is characteristic of the northern tribes. They were, in short, more like Europeans than they were like the tribes most people think of.

2) They enjoyed the single-continent equivalent of superpower status. Your assertion that they are better off might apply to other groups. But for the Quetzalcoatle worshippers, it was as if the USA suddenly became an utterly dominated sub-state. Very much, in fact, like what the Cold Warriors used to say would happen to us if we didn't commit a sufficient number of atrocities.


..................................
Electrical banana is bound to be the very next phase
- Donovan

[ Parent ]

The Mexicans are far better off (none / 2) (#155)
by sellison on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 02:27:57 AM EST

now than all but a tiny few were under Moctezuma.

No virgins are sacrificed anymore, and the common people have at least a chance at a decent life.

Cortez for all his faults replaced a far worse evil with a much better belief system and government.

The Aztecs maybe were like pre-Christian europe maybe, suffering from the barbarism of the druids before Christians justifiably burned them for their disgusting sins and superstition based oppressions.


"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush
[ Parent ]

In some ways, yes (none / 0) (#158)
by error 404 on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 10:02:15 AM EST

In particular, Cortez was probably the best Conquistador, in both effectiveness - Mexico was the American Rome, conquering Mexico was the ultimate achievement of a Conquistador - and character. He does not seem to have exhibited the characteristic greed and sadism of his colleagues. Which is not to say he was a nice guy - that's an absolute disqualification for the job - but he appears to have been professional and focused on victory rather than on enriching himself and indulging perverse desires.

As to the better belief system, remember that we are talking about Spain at the height of the Inquisition.

But let's go back to the cold war analogy. Let's get hypothetical - we both know that Soviet Communism was a horrible way to live, we both know they lost - and imagine that the Communists had made good on their promise (which they didn't intend to keep even if their inefficient economy had made it possible) of a better life for the masses. Imagine, for a moment, that the USSR had conquered the US and imposed a regime that improved the physical quality of life for most Americans. Would we be happy about it? I doubt it.

Mexico was more like pre-Christian Rome than the tribal druidic barbarians.

Correction on the virgin sacrifices - the Mexican gods weren't, for the most part, hung up on virginity. The vast majority of those sacrificed were POWs.

Trollery regarding the idea that Christian human sacrifice was better than that of other religions noted, bait not taken.


..................................
Electrical banana is bound to be the very next phase
- Donovan

[ Parent ]

Good Christians -- feh! (none / 1) (#93)
by TheDon on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 12:21:26 PM EST

In short, your open borders philosophy should apply to Christians, any of whom should be able to find refugee here at will, but will cause grave problems if applied to the general mass of humanity.

HAHAHAHA! Now this is funny! Good one. I almost believed you were serious. Whew! Let me wipe the tears from my eyes... oh my gut is sore from all that laughing.

Can you imagine the idiot that actually thought like this?! You'd have to wonder what kind of background and education this sort of person would have. It's as if "good Christians" had always been in America and that the world was a better place because of them. Hehehe. Oh golly gee, Christians were NEVER responsible for any evil in the world.

Good comment. You really have a knack of simulating how a Christian zealot might actually comment.

--------------------------

Memory says, "I did that." Pride replies, "I could not have done that." Eventually, memory yields.
--Friedrich Nietzsche
[ Parent ]

You, sir... (none / 1) (#146)
by drakosha on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 10:00:02 AM EST

...have just officially made my "scary people" list.
----------------------------
"Technologists often forget the general user. Technology is only as good as the user experience. That is something that technology groups very often forget."

--Linus Torvalds, keynote address, LinuxExpo 2000.
[ Parent ]

There's a reason why communism failed... (2.25 / 4) (#63)
by AnomymousCoward on Thu Jan 08, 2004 at 06:38:12 PM EST

Every human being on this earth should be able to travel freely to where they can eat, find shelter and live safely.

Fine. But don't expect me to pay for it. Don't expect me to pay taxes to support healthcare, education, and other social programs for the 8 children of a gardener who earns minimum wage and who's wife doesn't work. It's not fair to me, border or not.

The fact that the vast majority of the incoming immigrants put more financial burden on those of us who came here LEGALLY should be reason enough to close the border. Want to come into this country? File your paperwork, show up, and work for legal wages. Pay your taxes, be responsible.

Vobbo.com: video blogs made easy: point click smile
[ Parent ]
Uuuhh... (none / 1) (#67)
by readpunk on Thu Jan 08, 2004 at 08:20:10 PM EST

Why would I want you to pay for it? I don't want any of your money, in fact I don't want any money in the world at all. And yes I do realize the point you are making is that allowing open borders inherently means you will be paying for it....

./revolution
[ Parent ]
Best Advertising ever (none / 1) (#127)
by LCACaptain1390 on Sat Jan 10, 2004 at 09:35:21 PM EST

Nice sig!!  I imagine that's the most effective way to advertise.
-- Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first. -- Mark Twain
[ Parent ]
healthcare and education (none / 1) (#139)
by magney on Mon Jan 12, 2004 at 04:26:28 AM EST

And you think you get no return on healthcare or education of others? Without healthcare, will that gardener be able to continue to make his minimum wage? Without education, how will those eight children become productive members of society?

Do I look like I speak for my employer?
[ Parent ]

Punk is shit-music (1.50 / 8) (#64)
by paprika on Thu Jan 08, 2004 at 08:09:56 PM EST

Anyway

We as humans are selfish

Utopia will never happen

Kucinich is a bitch -paprika
[ Parent ]

Punk music... (none / 2) (#66)
by readpunk on Thu Jan 08, 2004 at 08:18:16 PM EST

Can you explain the how that relates in anyway? And specifically why it was pointed to me? "Punk" in my handle could be relatively meaningless. Also, "punk" as I understand it is such a broad term that to put it down means putting down everything from folk music (woodie guthrie is pretty punk isn't he?) to grindcore (yacopse).

./revolution
[ Parent ]
Remember when (none / 1) (#95)
by uberleet on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 12:25:35 PM EST

a "new wave" was something you surfed on and a "punk" was your little brother?

[ Parent ]
Please enter a subject for your comment. (none / 2) (#82)
by Nikolai on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 08:41:27 AM EST

We as humans are selfish
That's exactly why we shouldn't let a human tell all the other humans how to live their lives. Especially not the most selfish one. The one who is so selfish that he actually wants to tell other people how to live their lives.

--
I like cheese.
[ Parent ]

Huh? (none / 1) (#129)
by Colonol_Panic on Sun Jan 11, 2004 at 12:00:34 AM EST

And the alternative is... ? Are you suggesting we let God run the country instead? But that would just hand control over to the church, that that's an even worse situation.

What you're ignoring is that fact that our government is set up so that those people who are in charge are accountable for their actions. If they behave too stupidly, people vote them out. There are checks and balances. Look at Gray Davis is California, for chrissakes. The people hated him, and did something about it. Democracy in action.

Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's Yours?
[ Parent ]

Fine. Then Get the Fuck Out of My Way. (none / 2) (#108)
by SPYvSPY on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 02:52:39 PM EST

You're standing where I want to stand. MOVE IT OR LOSE IT!
------------------------------------------------

By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
[ Parent ]

uh idiot (none / 2) (#125)
by Battle Troll on Sat Jan 10, 2004 at 06:49:37 PM EST

There's a reason that nations have borders. The border control infrastructure weren't just built in the middle of the night by Republican construction workers.

One of the pillars of civil society is controlling your borders.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

And why is that? (none / 1) (#138)
by magney on Mon Jan 12, 2004 at 04:07:52 AM EST

There are two reasons I can think of to "control your borders" - security, and labor protectionism. readpunk has presented a critique of both of those reasons, so either come up with another reason readpunk or I missed, or defend one of those two reasons. Don't just say "you're an idiot" and expect to be taken seriously.

Do I look like I speak for my employer?
[ Parent ]

a) (none / 1) (#141)
by Battle Troll on Mon Jan 12, 2004 at 10:21:57 AM EST

No critique of security offered.

b) While there may be arguments against tax collection, no responsible theorist denies that tax collection is a pillar of civil society. And so with borders.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

Hrm... I may have been mistaken. (2.66 / 6) (#62)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Jan 08, 2004 at 06:27:31 PM EST

Dunno if it's the "liberal media" or what, but the reaction to Bush's proposal has been a lot more negative than I expected.

Bush's plan pleases few
Bush plan draws criticism

--
"the internet is to the techno-capable disaffected what the United Nations is to marginal states: it offers the illusion of empowerment and c

NY Post editorial page today... (2.75 / 4) (#72)
by leviramsey on Thu Jan 08, 2004 at 09:14:19 PM EST

John Podhoretz hails the GOP for "turning a corner" on immigration issues

Michelle Malkin characterizes the move as one that "couldn't have come at a worse time from either a fiscal or national-security standpoint" [Link from WorldNetDaily, as the Post doesn't have the relevant column on their site]



[ Parent ]
you are so right (1.57 / 7) (#76)
by scatbubba on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 01:15:25 AM EST

I mean, look at these numbers: http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/2004-01-06-poll.htm

60% favorable rating? Look at those other guys. Favorable ratings in the 30s. You are so right. Bush has blown it big time.

I'll alert VDARE.com about this article (1.33 / 9) (#77)
by Typical African American Male on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 01:43:28 AM EST

and see if we can get any new users!

Left doesnt like it, Right doesnt like it... (1.25 / 4) (#81)
by dxh on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 08:04:26 AM EST

So. In this case Bush has made the Left mad, and made the Right mad at the same time. Guess what that is called: leadership. Not being afraid to do what he thinks is right no matter what anyone says.

Ditch all the leaders. (none / 2) (#87)
by guidoreichstadter on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 11:32:31 AM EST

Strip all leaders of political power.

Disestablish the aristocracy and the political machine,

all power to the lawvote of the people.


you are human:
no masters,
no slaves.
[ Parent ]

Bleh (none / 0) (#168)
by kurioszyn on Fri May 28, 2004 at 01:38:13 AM EST

That's so old and tired ...

[ Parent ]
I'm sure (2.25 / 4) (#88)
by JackStraw on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 11:47:55 AM EST

that you know how to butter up the voters much better than Bush, who has a team of god-knows how many behind him, who spend all day thinking about this stuff.

A little more modesty would do you well.
-The bus came by, I got on... that's when it all began.

Bush's Main Constitutency Isn't the Far Right (2.71 / 7) (#98)
by czolgosz on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 01:03:53 PM EST

This is one of those interesting times when two of Bush's core constituencies are in conflict. Big business wants immigrant labor because (a) They work hard in bad conditions, and (b) They'll do so for low wages. This allows them to apply wage pressure on the native-born workforce as well as exploiting the immigrants. It used to be that, if the immigrant workforce showed signs of getting organized, all that was needed to make the problem go away was a call to La Migra. Now, my guess is that the required skill level has gone up to the point where enforcement of immigration laws is a greater inconvenience to the employers than the chances of the workers forming unions. Raids lead to disruptions while a new crop of immigrants gets trained up. Hence the "reform" which looks like an attempt to recreate the post-WW2 Bracero program.

This leaves the racist/xenophobe wing of the Republican Party out in the cold, but they're just election-year cannon fodder anyway, they don't write the big checks. And Rove knows that they have nowhere else to go.

The thing that strikes me as most surprising is the number of anti-immigrant voices on K5. It seems odd that their arguments are so legalistic in tone ("It's against the law, so they oughta be PUNISHED NOT REWARDED!!!") and so lacking in curiosity as to why such a massive violation of the law can have persisted for so many decades. This was because someone very powerful (i.e., not the immigrants) has been doing very nicely from the status quo. Any change coming from Bush is likely to have been prompted by a shift in this group's cheap-labor needs. Both Bush administrations have always been willing to sell out the cultural conservative/xenophobe pleb-Republicans whenever there's a buck in it for the rich; the real difference with Bush II is that he's much more adept at manipulating the rednecks and holy rollers. Daddy Bush was too obviously patrician to pull it off. His attempts to pass as Texan couldn't pass the snicker test.


Why should I let the toad work squat on my life? --Larkin
I agree, and a question... (none / 1) (#110)
by claes on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 04:47:39 PM EST

He's pulling a lot of disgruntled centerist democrats that are fed-up with some of the stuff the Dems are pulling.

And I agree that GW is doing stuff that ought to scare the shit out of the xenophobic far right, like "The Bush Doctrine", internment camps, TIA, and search without warrant.

My question is this: Are there viable far-right 3rd parties that could suck some votes away from GW in november? Like Mr Nader in florida in 00?

-- claes

[ Parent ]

Far Right Third Party (none / 1) (#124)
by czolgosz on Sat Jan 10, 2004 at 06:32:17 PM EST

My question is this: Are there viable far-right 3rd parties that could suck some votes away from GW in november? Like Mr Nader in florida in 00?

I live in an extremely right-wing part of the country, and I've seen no evidence of a right-wing party forming to oppose Bush. If there were one, at least some of my neighbors would be on the bandwagon. My guess is that the Bush strategists' bigger worry is if a large number of the cultural conservatives decide to sit the next one out. But I agree with you that the real fight is for the middle ground. I'd expect the Democratic candidate to shift to the right after the election, and Bush to cherry-pick a few ideas from the more centrist Democrats. I also wouldn't be surprised to see him offer Joe Lieberman a high-profile job after Fun-lovin' Joe drops out of the primaries.

Why should I let the toad work squat on my life? --Larkin
[ Parent ]
Heh. (none / 0) (#137)
by drsmithy on Sun Jan 11, 2004 at 08:33:51 PM EST

I live in an extremely right-wing part of the country [...]

My mind is struggling to comprehend the "extreme" right when called that by an American. :)

[ Parent ]

Cavemen (none / 1) (#149)
by czolgosz on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 09:16:12 PM EST

My mind is struggling to comprehend the "extreme" right when called that by an American. :)
Believe me, I struggle with it too. These are people who think Reagan was way too soft, and that Bush is making far too many concessions to the environmentalists. But they're ordinary, decent people in many ways, despite their rabid views on some subjects such as immigration, guns and capital punishment.


Why should I let the toad work squat on my life? --Larkin
[ Parent ]
Heh... (none / 0) (#164)
by beergut on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 08:07:30 PM EST

Sounds like a bunch of lefties to me.

i don't see any nanorobots or jet engines or laser holography or orbiting death satellites.
i just see some orangutan throwing code-feces at a computer screen.

-- indubitable
[ Parent ]

Reform and Kucinich (none / 0) (#167)
by nomoreh1b on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 11:06:56 PM EST

Buchanan/Reform didn't do well in 2000-but they just may do better now that it is more obvious how badly Bush sold out that Constituency.

The other option is that the Kucinich folks may get serious enough about worker rights to attract some of the Reform constituency

[ Parent ]

My problem with immigration (2.16 / 6) (#99)
by Spoonman on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 01:33:56 PM EST

My problem with the current crop of immigration policies stems from the amount of money the US government gives to people in this country to move their families here.

It works like this: Leave your country with enough money to start up a small business. Doesn't matter really what it is, just something that you might someday need employees for...a small, corner grocer, for example. Now, you need employees, and who better to hire than family members? Your kids will work cheap, your spouse'll take shifts, etc. Problem is, they need visas, too. And, why would they grant a visa when there's plenty of hard-working Americans right here that could do the job? This is where it gets good...

Take out a help wanted ad, but put it in a small, "pennysaver-type" newspaper on the other side of town. Run it for a few weeks. The ad should be for a minimum-wage job with long hours...the kind you'd never take the bus two hours to get to. After a few weeks, you can then contact immigration and tell them, "Look, I've advertised and advertised, and I'm just not getting ANY responses. My family is willing to come work in my store, can you help me out?"

This is where it gets good...the US government will then PAY to ship some family over for you, AND grant them a visa. Nice, huh?

No, I don't have any direct experience with this, this was what a local store owner told me when I asked how he managed to come here with "nothing" and build up his business. I nearly punched him, then ceased shopping at his store.


---
Answering the age-old question: Which is more painful, going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon?
www.workorspoon.com
Paid To Immigrate? Who Makes This Stuff Up? (none / 3) (#103)
by cmholm on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 02:32:57 PM EST

Good God, paying peoples costs to move INTO the country is one of those urban myths from the end of the Vietnam War.

With the sudden flood of refugees from the former Republic of Vietnam, the Federal Government spent money to relocate a considerable number of them from camps in SE Asia to the US. It also expended money getting them settled, rather than just dumping them at the LAX parking lot with a warm handshake.

Since then, the Feds have made it a LOT tougher to be admitted as a refugee, no matter how good the excuse, and except for crisis situations like the Vietnam example, they don't pay anyone's plane fare. Still, the stories of free room and board float around.

As for the work visas, the troll... er, poster is correct. Employers don't have to show much effort that they tried to employ a citizen first. But plane fare? Nope.

[ Parent ]

Welp... (none / 3) (#109)
by Spoonman on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 03:38:43 PM EST

I've got first hand information from a person who claims this is how he moved his family over here. If you can provide proof that it's not true, well, then, who's the troll?
---
Answering the age-old question: Which is more painful, going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon?
www.workorspoon.com
[ Parent ]
Holy cow! (none / 2) (#116)
by Tyler Durden on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 11:54:43 PM EST

That is some really compelling proof you've got there.  Oh hey, I've got first hand information from a person who claims your person is full of shit.

Jesus Christ, EVERYONE is a troll here at k5, even the editors, even rusty! -- LilDebbie
[ Parent ]

What legal immigrants think about this... (2.83 / 6) (#100)
by splitpeasoup on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 01:39:52 PM EST

...is sure as heck not going to be found in WorldNetDaily. In fact citing WND at all as a reference on immigration issues pretty much trashes the credibility of your article.

Conservatives like to think that legal immigrants, once they get in, favor tightening the borders, but I haven't seen any evidence of this. On an anecdotal level, most legal immigrants I know are at best pro immigration or at worst indifferent. Michelle Malkin seems to be the exception, not the rule.

In other words, it seems doubtful to me that Bush's amnesty proposal will alienate legal Latino immigrants or naturalized citizens. If there is any unbiased evidence to the contrary, I would like to hear it.

-SPS

"Be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi

no kidding (none / 1) (#112)
by Work on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 05:34:16 PM EST

the people who this legislation affects are mainly in mexican border towns. Most people there have relatives in mexico or know of illegals who desire to work in the US - usually in those same border towns with the rest of their family, regardless of the family member's legal status. Which is exactly why complaining about this is so dimwitted.

[ Parent ]
From The Right (none / 3) (#102)
by n8f8 on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 02:30:51 PM EST

I'm pretty conservative and my views on immigration aren't anything like the liberal press keeps portraying it. I'd bet I'm not unusual because Bush is so willing to take such a on-the-face risky position.

Citing secutiry isa boondoggle. Illegal immigrants are already here. Making all of them criminals (and pushing them through the justice system) would be expensive and unethical. The only effective way to stop people from crossing the borders is to make their home country economies as healty as our own. So my position boils down to this:

Someone willing to work that hard to live here deserves the chance to stay here. Fostering risk--taking in the gene pool is good for our country. For the most part they help fuel the economy.

Sig: (This will get posted after your comments)

You're as conservative as Jesse Jackson (2.75 / 4) (#142)
by AnomymousCoward on Mon Jan 12, 2004 at 12:41:33 PM EST

1) Illegal immigrants are already here. Making all of them criminals (and pushing them through the justice system) would be expensive and unethical.

No, allowing them to stay would be expensive and unethical. This is a society founded and governed by law. The law states that to come into this country, you must either get a temporary visa or apply for permanent citizenship. Millions do this, correctly, every year. The people in question are those who ignore the law and enter anyway. THAT is unethical. They are selfishly putting themselves in front of those who would enter legally, causing a tax burden on the rest of society. Indeed, if you're living in Utah, you may not notice the tax burden, because your schools, your hospitals, and your jails aren't filled with illegal immigrants. Here in southern california, the story is slightly more clear.

2) "For the most part they help fuel the economy"

Horse shit. In Santa Ana, CA, the ratio of legal:illegal is 1:1.2. The economy isn't booming: it's suffering. There isn't enough tax revenue to pay for schools, or police. You cannot expect the wages earned by someone doing manual labor to cover the costs of education and healthcare for the worker, his wife, and five kids. It simply doesn't work. On a pure economic basis, they're damaging the economy.

This really is a black-and-white issue.

Vobbo.com: video blogs made easy: point click smile
[ Parent ]
Regarding "Horse shit" .. (none / 0) (#162)
by kurioszyn on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 04:42:33 PM EST

"Horse shit."

Well, it depends.

I was reading something called "Immigrants in US ?2002. A snapshot  of America?s Foreign-Born  Population" published by Center for Immigration Studies

According to their data there is an enormous variation in poverty rates as well as welfare use among immigrants from different countries.
For example poverty or welfare use rates for immigrants from countries like Poland, Germany, Canada (generally European or western countries with some exceptions like India etc ) are lower than they are for the natives. In other words, people from these countries are actually assets to the US economy.

Of course , immigrants from Germany , Poland or Canada constitute less than 5 % of all foreigners living in US while  Mexico accounts for 30 percent of all immigrants.


[ Parent ]

You are an Idiot (2.12 / 8) (#104)
by SPYvSPY on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 02:36:01 PM EST

Bush (i.e., Karl Rove) knows this will never get through Congress. Same with Moon bases and Mars colonization, etc. It's just win-win rhetoric for the utterly unchallenged Republican candidate. It's actually brilliant strategically, which is why your analysis is so asinine.
------------------------------------------------

By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.

I'm glad (none / 0) (#119)
by PsychoFurryEwok on Sat Jan 10, 2004 at 01:21:48 AM EST

I'm glad someone said it so I didn't have too. It is in fact quite genius, people need to stop looking at the surface and dig deeper into these political games. He knows it will not pass but the legal Hispanic community in both California and Florida are going to embrace the Republican party because at least they tried. It's not like Bush had much of a challenge to begin with, now he's just trying to see how badly he can beat the Democratic party.

[ Parent ]
uh (none / 2) (#123)
by HanzoSan on Sat Jan 10, 2004 at 05:17:47 PM EST


We have a republican congrsss and republican senate. Tried? There is no trying. In this one party government, Bush gets whatever he wants passed to pass.

If Bush wants this to pass it will pass and if he doesnt well then its another lie.

[ Parent ]

Not necessarily... (none / 1) (#128)
by PsychoFurryEwok on Sat Jan 10, 2004 at 11:26:02 PM EST

They may all be Republican but that doesn't mean all of their views coincide with Bush's. Just as an example, not every Democrat voted against the war in Iraq. Just because one Republican beleives something doesn't mean the rest do.

[ Parent ]
The Trials and Tribulations of HanzoSan (none / 1) (#165)
by Death To HanzoSan on Sat Jan 17, 2004 at 03:12:14 PM EST

Dana Edwards was feeling a little disheartened. It had been nearly a week since he'd contacted Peacecorp and applied for a tour of duty in the Congo. He had hoped all week that his weight problem, chronic acne and asthma would not discount him from the program. Dana had been in some financial strife for a couple years now, with those tuition fees from Massachusets Bay Community College piling up. This was particularly stressful for him because, despite having taught himself to read and posessing an impressive intellect, he could not find a decent slack-off job with internet connection that would support his slashdot posting habit. Dana belched while he tapped his cordless phone and stuffed his hand into a bag of Cheetos. Dana, a Jack of All Trades had also been unsuccessful for several years in his attempts to get a night DJ position at a local AM radio station within walking distance of his mother's house. This distressed him, because being a DJ would be such a natural part-time job for him, being a skilled musician on the side. Alas, he waited still and finished the last fluid ounce of his Mountain Dew.

Peacecorp was going to change that. Where his business sense would have failed him in the Merchant Marines and his poor physical condition were not up to snuff for the military, he felt Peacecorp would welcome him with open arms and take his student loan burden off his hands.

"Education equals genius. Genius is good for society. I'll show them, I'm going to buck the status quo. I'm going to make a difference, I'll show them what a poor kid from the ghetto is capable of." Dana thought to himself.

Dana had not shaven for five days, but his greasy facial hair never became very thick, even after weeks of neglect. It grew in a thin, spotty Fu Manchu pattern. Best described, his whiskers resembled soot smeared on his greasy jowels. He scratched at his armpit and pulled the tightening fabric of his pajama pants out of his groin and sighed with relief.

"Aaaah."

Dana was glad that the weekend had finally come around. His Computer Repair Fundamentals and Sociology classes were starting to really dig in. He blamed the teacher for sucking, and was utterly convinced that his superior intellect would reward him with first in his graduating class of 40. He was certain that the same outcome would happen if he got into MIT, but that would never happen. The rich bastards would never give him a fair chance on a level playing field. The MIT bastards hate nerds, just like everybody else. That was alright though, Dana already knew he was superior to most of them anyway. Their facilities were only useful to the superficial.

Dana loosened up a bit by putting some music on the 'juke. He got a free MP3 jukebox from his mother and slapped an "RIAA SUCKS" bumper sticker on the side of it. Dana was vehemently opposed to the ownership and licensing of intellectual property, especially music. Dana downloaded all his favourite Pink Floyd tracks off the internet and onto the jukebox, and this brought a small amount of joy to his empty life.

"Damn the man!" he exclaimed, raising a fist as his gut flopped out of his oil-stained ThinkGeek t-shirt.

Ice T and Fred Durst alone had practically paved the way to justified downloads of all music ever created and served up on KaZaa. And so, Dana sat in in front of his monitor listening to The Wall, waiting for a reply from Peacecorp.

His mother slipped in to his room briefly to set down a balogna and cheese sandwich in front of him while he fired up a beta version of Transgaming on his Pentium 166 with MMX.

"Mom, why don't you hate the RIAA?"

She shrugged, rolled her eyes and closed the door to his room on the way out.

"She forgot to cut off the crusts." Dana held back the tears and ate the sandwich anyway.


[montemplar] wuzzup hanz0?

A privmsg came up on his IRC client. Dana had adopted the "handle" HanzoSan after his Japanese classmate Ohta nicknamed him something that could be most closely translated to "Orphan Pederast", not exactly vulgar but hardly flattering.

[HanzoSan] not much, just chillin on the North end.
[montemplar] cool man, never give up the fight against the evil RIAA
[HanzoSan] information (music) wants to be free! latez oppa!

Dana played Commander Keen on his Linux machine through the night. He had totally forgotten about Peacecorps for now because he had gotten the powerup, and he was going to win the game. He became bored and jacked off till his pillowcase was covered in a couple pea-sized drops of cum. What a great weekend. HanzoSan passed out on the pillow, with Cheeto stains on his dick.

[ Parent ]
Just like drilling in the Wildlife Refuge (none / 1) (#130)
by bill_mcgonigle on Sun Jan 11, 2004 at 12:33:48 AM EST

"We need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.  To this end we propose build safe new nuclear power plants, which..."

"No Nukes!!! NO NUKES!!!"

"OK, so how about we put up some oil platforms off the Florida shore?  There's a good supply of oil out there."

"Wait, will we be able to see them from shore?  That's going to affect our property values..."

"Well, yeah, that's where the oil is.  Of course, we could just build a nucle..."

"No Nukes!"

"OK, then we're going to have to drill for oil then.  The best spot is in a wildlife refuge in Alaska."

"With all the reindeer and cute furry grizzlies?"

"Yeah, but we'll build a narrow corridor through..."

"A freaking wildlife refuge??!?!"

"Yeah, but the impact will be minimal, we'll use side drilling...."

"Refuge!  Do you have any idea what refuge means?"

"Well, but we have to get the energy from somewhere."

"Not from a frikkin' refuge!"

"Well, we have the off-shore option which..."

"Why do you have to get energy from oil - can't you come up with some other way to make energy cost effectively?"

"Well, now that you mention it, we do have a plan..."


[ Parent ]

Hey Jackass (2.50 / 4) (#113)
by TheBeardedScorpion on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 09:53:27 PM EST

In the long run, expect the current pandering to contribute to Bush's resounding defeat in 2004 as traditional conservatives walk away from the struggling campaign in favor of more a candidate that isn't such a political whore.

Walk away into the warm embrace of... Al Sharpton? Come on, grow a brain. Pretty much all the conservatives vote Republican, and pretty much all the liberals vote Democrat. It's the people in the middle who decide the elections, and you completely ignore them in your analysis.



Yes but... (none / 1) (#131)
by proles on Sun Jan 11, 2004 at 02:41:44 AM EST

...are the voters being alienated likely to vote for the Democrat just to punish Bush?  In most cases, no.  A few conservatives might cross if Dean is nominated and it is made clear that he's actually conservative in many ways (balanced budget, gun rights, death penalty, etc.), but generally speaking Bush can afford to abuse and alienate his core constituency (especially the religious folks) and they're not going to cross party lines.

I'd say the effect this *might* have is it might hurt conservative turnout a little bit.  Those who show up will still vote Bush, but if Bush keeps abusing them then they might be less enthused to actually show up.  Then again, I doubt that'll really happen, as even though Bush is alienating his base in some ways, you can bet that the $200 million dollar campaign they'll run against the Dem will be quite negative and will make conservatives want to turn out and vote just to make sure the Dem doesn't win (e.g. they'll choose the lesser of two evils, from their perspective).  This election will be decided by turnout.
If there is hope, it lies in the proles.

A primary challenge to Bush (none / 1) (#132)
by fenix down on Sun Jan 11, 2004 at 03:43:35 AM EST

I personally don't think it'll happen, but it's way more likely than you probably think.  That's where the danger is.  Primaries make ousting the incumbent impossible, most of the time, but the states are all broke.  A lot of Republican-dominated states, figuring they can stick it to the Dems and save a few mil, have canceled their primaries for this year.  Conservatives are way more dominant in the party hierarchy, and if Bob Dole or somebody really started pushing, there's a decent chance he could be a serious problem for Bush, especially considering the convention is so late.

[ Parent ]
But it was a good move. (none / 0) (#166)
by Morimoto Masaharu on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 09:33:31 PM EST

Whether or not it was good for his publicity, I think that it was a move for the better on Bush's part (one of the few that he has made) and hopefully it means that he holds morals above the publicity and chances to win the next election. Chances are that it's just another kind of publicity stunt, but it would be nice if I could be so naļve as to think that it was the former.
«This is Mr. Yoshida on your favorite vegetables.»
Bush's Political Suicide, 2004 | 168 comments (154 topical, 14 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!