« He Was Into S&M and Bible Studies, Not Everyone's Cup of Tea | Main | If Everyone Gives One Thread, the Poor Person Will Have a Shirt »

September 19, 2008

Comments

and really, McCain's past the point where you simply can't believe anything he says. the positions of McCain2000 and McCain2004 are so different from the positions of McCain2008 that it's anybody's guess as to what the positions of McCain2010 will be.

and really, McCain's past the point where you simply can't believe anything he says

wow. while logically that's exactly what i meant to say, it's supa-clumsy.

imagine a line of trustworthiness; somewhere on that line is the point, P, between being able to trust what a person says and not being able to trust what that person says - trust on one side of P, not trust on the other. IMO, McCain is accelerating away from P, on the untrustworthy side.

I agree that the immigration ad is a mess and a liability -- Obama doesn't need to go there -- and that the Social Security ad is fair even if it doesn't cut McCain a lot of slack. He can hit hard without being unfair, so he should shelve the immigration and move on.

But have you seen this latest ad from YouTube? (Be warned: this ad was posted by a member of the Born Alive campaign. The comments are less than appreciative.)

"Sleazy ads. Anti-choice. That's John McCain."

I have no idea if this ad is national, local or just for the web. Anyone seen it anywhere?

hilzoy, I believe the Obama ad is in response to this one. I'm not sure if that context makes the Obama ad less deceptive, but given that it is part of the conversation about immigration (one that McCain does not want to have) I'm not seeing the deceptive part. I also don't see Tapper's argument that because McCain and Rush have not been on the same side, it is somehow deceptive to tie them together. This thinking is why McCain gets a pass on his moves to the right, but I think it is flawed. We really don't know McCain's position on immigration, except that he is holding Obama responsible for the failure of the immigration bill and trying to tie Obama to the nativist lobby of Lou Dobbs et al.

Tapper alleges that the Limbaugh quotes are taken out of context. If true, that makes that part of it deceptive. Admittedly, Limbaugh has no real standing to complain if people call him out on immigrant-bashing, but all the more reason to use quotes that are accurate.

I think it would be fine to say: McCain probably doesn't have anything against immigrants, but he has capitulated to his base and adopted a policy that, in practice, means no immigration reform. I do not think it's fine to try to tie him to the nativist lobby of Lou Dobbs et al.

I see your point, but given that this is a battle for Hispanic voters, McCain has to either reject those aspects of the party or grin and bear it. This seems to be the approach that the Republicans take whenever they go against Dems, so I'm inclined to think that turnabout is fair play.

I'm also having a hard time imagining that anything that Limbaugh says could be taken out of context.

This seems to be the approach that the Republicans take whenever they go against Dems, so I'm inclined to think that turnabout is fair play.

I tend to agree with this. McCain's ad was a howler, and sometimes you need to fight howlers with howlers.

To my mind, the context of Limbaugh since the 1980s and the context of the campaign McCain has chosen to run require Obama to lie, cheat, and to steal this election.

By all means. Like the character said at the end of Coppola's "The Conversation", "They'd kill US if they could."

The Republican Party has declared war on 50% of America (the real America) once again. Good, let the war begin. Take the low road and then blow it up as right-wing refugees use it to scurry back to their sewers.

It's a limbo contest and McCain keeps asking for the bar to be set lower and sure enough, he gets his chin underneath, with relish.

First order of business in an Obama administration: A Truth Commission to prosecute as many Republican politicians and operatives as possible.

The Republican Party is not American. They are the true foreigners. McCain learned how to campaign from gooks.

Let's take that into consideration when crafting immigration reform. Limbaugh is an ideological wetback and should be shot in the butt as he's catapulted back over the wall.

as someone elsewhere commented (sorry, can't remember): if this is indeed an unfair linking of Limbaugh and McCain, LET MCCAIN MAKE THAT CASE. If he disavows the implied connection to Limbaugh's views, he loses the nativist xenophobes. If he lets it stand, he loses everyone else (that he hasn't already).

Wins all around.

"A Truth Commission to prosecute as many Republican politicians and operatives as possible" is a contradiction in terms. The whole point of a Truth Commission is that you do it to avoid engaging in prosecutions, and instead get people to come forward to give the truth so as to get immunity from prosecution.

Moreover, a government that gains office by lying, cheating, and stealing, has no mandate and no legitimacy. I don't think completing the Republicans' work in destroying our country and government is the way to go. I don't think completing the Republicans work in destroying people's faith in the honesty of politicians and government is the way to go.

YMMV, but if enough people agree with you, and not me, I'm leaving for some island. I wouldn't have anything left to fight for. For "we destroyed the village country in order to save it"?

Guess it was only a matter of time before the slime team got around to accusing Obama of being a baby killer.

But have they reached the bottom of the slime pit?

Don't count on it.

Considering that the context for the first Rush quote was posted to the web by a Rush opponent in 1998 at the latest (peekURL.com/zl91uod) and considering that the context for the second quote is available on Youtube, there really isn't much of an excuse.

In fact, it took me all of fifteen minutes to write the first part of this post, including the time spent searching. See that link for a list of many others who helped BHO with his latest lies.

On Tapper's two points, I'll grant him one but not the other.

The two quotes look like they were taken out of context. They look like the kind of inflammatory stuff that Limbaugh and others like him put out there with the thinnest veneer of plausible deniability, then say "that's not what I was saying at all!" But based on Tapper's analysis, I think they were out of context. Limbaugh has probably said nasty stuff in context--the Obama campaign should have found some of those quotes, or one of Lou Dobbs' nightly anti-immigrant quotes. For this reason alone, Obama should modify the ad or pull it.

Tying Limbaugh to McCain is not beyond the pale. McCain had to win over enough of those ditto-heads earlier this year to secure the nomination, and he did it in large part by tacking hard right on immigration. So he was either lying to his base or he was lying to [email protected] beforehand. It's quite simply one or the other.

Now nobody really knows what he plans to do about immigration if elected. Really--it's a complete mystery. Reading restrictionists and pro-migrant bloggers speculate on wildly different outcomes would be funny if the consequences weren't deadly serious.

My view is that he'd find himself in much the same position as supposedly pro-immigrant Bush has. "Everybody knows" that Bush loves immigrants and supports comprehensive reform, but here we have the largest, most punitive immigration raids the country has seen since 1954's Operation Wetback. I don't see how the political pressures on McCain would be significantly different.

I do not think it's fine to try to tie [McCain] to the nativist lobby of Lou Dobbs et al.

I respectfully disagree with you here, Hilzoy. McCain has tied himself to the right wing of his right wing party as tightly as he has been able to do (and then some!). That most definitely includes the nativists, who are a power to be reckoned with in the party, as well as the other racists, the christianists, etc. etc. The ad is about the GOP as much as it's about immigration per se. Plenty of immigrants know that Bush actually supported a *relatively* decent immigration bill, but he's still in the ad (great goofy faces, BTW!). Indeed, desptie that support, Bush is not very popular among Latinos. I see nothing deceptive about driving home the fact that the GOP is the party of hate, torture, racism - things which all go together, and that McCain is more of the same. McCain chose his path - let him pay for it. Even if the ad is deceptive in some literalistic way, it's not at all deceptive in a basic sense. McCain did say that he would not vote for his own immigration bill, after all.

You know, in American politics, no good deed goes unpunished. One big reason Obama is the victim of the double standard in terms of political reporting is that he is trying to be serious, honorable, respectful, dignified. Since he's explicitly trying to do that - and has made this project the MO of his campaign - he is held to a higher standard, just as so many other liberals have been in the last few decades. Intelligent idiots like Tapper (et. al.) are not impartial - they're amoral. They have no real problem with McCain running ads saying Obama is a baby killer because...that's what Republicans do, and it's all a game, and there's no story. If Obama, on the other hand, runs a serious campaign but is percieved to have fudged, no matter how minutely, THAT'S a story. If you think pols and other big shots are vain, think about the conceit of a reporter like Tapper: he not only thinks he's Objective, in the eye-of-god sense, but also thinks he's entierly apart and removed from the all human context - what he thinks his job is. HA.

"McCain has tied himself to the right wing of his right wing party as tightly as he has been able to do (and then some!). That most definitely includes the nativists,"

Assuming by "nativists", you mean the people who want our immigration laws enforced, McCain is so far from effectively tying himself to them that they can barely tolerate him. This is NOT a good year for the majority of the public who want something done about illegal immigration, they lose whichever way the election comes out.

"Admittedly, Limbaugh has no real standing to complain if people call him out on immigrant-bashing, but all the more reason to use quotes that are accurate."

He's got all the standing in the world to complain if people lie about his position, and take his words out of context to shore up their lies. When people use those sorts of tactics to attack somebody, it's generally not because digging up good quotes was too inconvenient. It's because the quotes to actually support their position didn't exist.

"Which is to say: I support what everyone has always referred to as "privatizing Social Security", but I either don't like that term or don't know what it means."


Given McCain's other statements on issues this amounts to policy incoherence (favor's cap and trade, but it should not be mandatory; favors free markets, but blames the financial crisis on the lack of regulation).

McCain is incoherent on policy. Either he is deliberately obfuscating, or he just does not understand the issues. I suspect the latter, most of the time. Either way, incoherence DESERVES to be a major campaign issue.

So McCain doesn't take a position on immigration, but uses a slimy ad to lie about what Obama's position is. When McCain is tied to precisely the people that McCain is trying to tie Obama to (who wouldn't be caught dead in the Democratic camp), then people who support McCain squeal (but not McCain, mind you, because that would require that he clarify his position) at the outrageousness of it all. This is the same pattern at work with Palin.

Perhaps Brett, since he proclaims membership with the nativist wing, could give us chapter and verse about McCain's positions. I'd love to see what he finds.

He's got all the standing in the world to complain if people lie about his position, and take his words out of context to shore up their lies.

boo fncking hoo. tell it St Peter.

somehow, the tears just don't seem to come, when i think of the decades of lies and smears that worthless shred of human debris has fed his idiotic listeners.

"Assuming by 'nativists', you mean the people who want our immigration laws enforced,"

How about we change the laws, then, if the bothered folks aren't "nativists," so that we admit lots more folks, including from south of us?

"McCain is so far from effectively tying himself to them that they can barely tolerate him."

They can barely tolerate him, but he completely dropped his previous positions to surrender to what they want, which is no change in immigration law until "our borders are secure," which is close to impossible.

"This is NOT a good year for the majority of the public who want something done about illegal immigration,"

I'd like something done: I'd like to see most of it made legal, save for convicted felons: are you with me, oh non-nativist?

1. Yet more disinfo from Yave Begnet. Even KarlRove admits that Bush is responsible for allowing millions of IllegalAliens to come here. Sure, he's doing some raids. But, the goal of those is to make "reform" easier. The idea that someone who'd make a pledge to the MexicanGovernment over this issue (24ahead.com/blog/archives/006439.html) doesn't support the same thing as BHO and the MexicanGovernment is ludicrous.

2. Here's another person McCain is linked to. I eagerly await condemnation from BHO and his followers. Oh, wait:
24ahead.com/blog/archives/006660.html
24ahead.com/blog/archives/006250.html
24ahead.com/blog/archives/007649.html
24ahead.com/blog/archives/007433.html
24ahead.com/blog/archives/007821.html
...and many, many more.

1. Yet more disinfo from Yave Begnet. Even KarlRove admits that Bush is responsible for allowing millions of IllegalAliens to come here. Sure, he's doing some raids. But, the goal of those is to make "reform" easier. The idea that someone who'd make a pledge to the MexicanGovernment over this issue (24ahead.com/blog/archives/006439.html) doesn't support the same thing as BHO and the MexicanGovernment is ludicrous.

2. Here's another person McCain is linked to. I eagerly await condemnation from BHO and his followers. Oh, wait:
24ahead.com/blog/archives/006660.html
(I had four more links but they tripped the filter).

3. Gary Farber forgot about the five billion people on Earth who are even worse off than Mexicans. It's also not a good idea to change the laws to meet the demands of corrupt businesses, corrupt politicians, corrupt countries, and others who are basically crooks.

I suppose that Tapper will also conclude that tying McCain to Bush is a "real factual problem" because they've also disagreed on some things in the past. Or course, many of those things (eg the Bush tax cuts) are things that McCain now supports, so it may actually be a "factual problem" to tie McCain to McCain...

Does Tapper fail to understand what a fact is? Or does he just feel that staking out a strongly-held opinion just doesn't have the journalistic punch of claiming that opinions are facts?

Assuming by "nativists", you mean the people who want our immigration laws enforced,...[the majority of the American People who want something done] lose whichever way the election comes out.

OK Brett, I gutted your context a little, because I want to distinguish between 'enforce immigration laws' (your position) and 'want something done' (the majority of the American People's). The reason is that it's *never* going to be a good year for people of your immigration policy persuasion, because the only solution you have is simplistic and unworkable. So you can rest assured that you will never have to change your position, since what it entails will never be tried. So, as with so many other things you favor, you'll never be proved wrong. Congratulations. OTOH, ye of little faith, maybe McCain could just go visit the president of Mexico and say 'Just stop all the Bull----', and the problem would be solved!

boo fncking hoo [for El Rushbo's being taken out of context].

Oh yeah, I'm feeling terribly guilty about that, particularly since a large part of Rush's 'entertainment' quotient is made up of inuendo, JUST KIDDING! wink-wink, type stuff. Explicitly, he says what Brett says: just enforce the laws! But as a 'joke' he says....

"Gary Farber forgot about the five billion people on Earth who are even worse off than Mexicans."

I'm pretty sure I didn't. I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything about Mexicans, even.

"It's also not a good idea to change the laws to meet the demands of corrupt businesses, corrupt politicians, corrupt countries, and others who are basically crooks."

It's fascinating that you equate people who aren't U.S. citizens with "corrupt" people and "others who are basically crooks."

Me, everyone I know in the country either was an immigrant, or their family were immigrants, or their ancestors were immigrants, including even the Native Americans, who merely pushed back their immigration a few thousand years (nothing on the scale of human existence). Seems to me it would be pretty hypocritical to slam the door on others, as well as counter-productive, especially if said would-be immigrants show they want to work hard.

I eagerly await condemnation from BHO and his followers

You just keep doing that. If fact, I would wholeheartedly support your *only* doing that for a while, instead of wingnut-threadjacking attempts.

And if you want to pick fights with Gary- well, I pity you. Soon, I will be pitying what's left of you.

From the very scary link: "I'd be delighted if all of us could come and go between these two marvelous countries,"

Me, too, and not just these two countries, but all countries. I'd pretty much like to see most people, other than convicted felons, or the like, free to travel everywhere on earth, with a smattering of temporary exceptions, and similarly relatively free to immigrate everywhere, with a smattering of temporary exceptions, with as few limitations as are practically possible, at least as an idealistic goal.

I'm sure glad my grandparents were able to immigrate to America. And there are other countries I'd love to be free to consider moving to with little governmental hassle.

Freedom: I'm for it.

"I had four more links but they tripped the filter"

You should be able to get four links at a time into most comments, so long as what you quote doesn't also trip a sometime length limit. But five links is too many. Sucks, but it's not my software, or preferred software. Four should work, though, with luck.

So the gloves have come off, and now the GOP and their long time enablers in the media (of whom Tapper is one) are crying Boo Hoo?

Well what a fine kettle of fish that is.

Pour me a glass of what John Thullen is drinking at 3:26pm, and make it a double.

Also, re the filter, there seems to be a wordlist, I referred to Josh Marshall's titling of the McCain goof on foreign prime ministers, which refers to spain and a small flying insect, and that tripped the filter. I thought the term was quaintly old-fashioned, but it still must have some juice...

"Also, re the filter, there seems to be a wordlist"

Yes. Once one has triggered the filter, for some hours, one can't use, among possible other words, "s p a m."

Let me annotate what I wrote above in a way so that even Gary Farber can understand it:

"It's also not a good idea to change the laws to meet the demands of corrupt businesses (24ahead.com/blog/archives/007265.html), corrupt politicians (24ahead.com/blog/archives/007762.html), corrupt countries (gob dot mx), and others who are basically crooks."

Also, Farber fails to understand just how many people would come here if we didn't try to prevent people from coming here at will; for instance, about 40% of MX's (remaining) population indicates they'd come here if they could. That, of course, would be on top of the 14% of their working-age population who've already come here.

And, of course, his childlike open borders scheme is about as intelligent as unilateral disarmament, and would lead to the situation described here.

Out of curiosity I followed the last link up to the point where it referred to "stronger, more cohesive countries such as China."

Then I stopped following.

"Out of curiosity I followed the last link up to the point where it referred to 'stronger, more cohesive countries such as China.'"

It's interesting that folks in moral panics about How We Will Be Invaded By Insidious Others never seem to be worried about, say, Swedes and Norwegians wanting to flood the country and Take Our Stuff.

But they're always so frightened.

Others never seem to be worried about, say, Swedes and Norwegians wanting to flood the country and Take Our Stuff.

What about all those warnings about the "Yellow Peril"? They were warning us about being overrun by a plague of 6-foot tall blondes with tastefully minimalist knockdown furniture, weren't they?

Not enough Norwegians in the world to make a real immigration impact on the US, even if all came over ;-).

folks in moral panics about How We Will Be Invaded By Insidious Others never seem to be worried about, say, Swedes and Norwegians wanting to flood the country and Take Our Stuff.

There has been significant immigration from Sweden in the past, though, hasn't there? Admittedly this may not be the most authoritative source available, but it says that "An investigation carried out in 1978 revealled [sic] that since 1820 over 1,272,000 people emigrated to the United States from Sweden. This amounted to 2.6 per cent of the total foreign immigration during this period."

One word. Lutefisk. Be very afraid.

Lutefisk isn't dangerous so long as you aren't conned into eating it!

Anyway: Gjetost. Yum.

I've never quite understood the rationale behind putting "s p a m" in the filter; It's not as though the genre involves correctly identifying itself.

Jonnybutter, do you know what my prefered immigration policy is? I'd actually like quite a lot of immigration. I just happen to think we should be bringing in people who compete with me, (College educated, literate professionals.) rather than people who compete with the unskilled.

Why would anybody think this nation needs more illiterate unskilled workers? Are the existing ones being paid too much, and they need some competition to bring their pay into line?

We have the immigration policy we do, not to benefit the country, but to benefit the political class, who like to have a source of cheap labor who can't complain about working conditions.

Why would anybody think this nation needs more illiterate unskilled workers?

Assuming that the people of whom you speak actually are 'illiterate' and cannot read or write in any language, which seems like a stretch, might it be because their children might become more than that? Because things like running a restaurant or a grocery, or opening a gas station like the sister of the Republican VP (a candidate who was able to get a college degree by bouncing in and out of 6 different universities) doesn't necessarily require a college education?

How about weighing in on Republican Gordon Smith's illegal immigrant problem? Or do you save your outrage for Dems only?

Why would anybody think this nation needs more illiterate unskilled workers

Oh, none of your fellow Republicans have explained this to you, Brett?

There are many jobs which aren't attractive/interesting in themselves (which may be dangerous as well as dull) so, if you want people to choose to do these jobs, you have to pay them reasonably well and treat them reasonably well.

Or you have to, unless you can get a ready supply of workers who won't have the ability to protest dangerous working conditions, won't be in a position to choose and refuse work, and can be paid less and treated badly with the security that if they complain... they'll be deported. Large profit margins result.

The Republican Party, while finding it useful to raise the racist base by complaining about illegal immigrants ("coming here, taking our jobs") will never seriously try to prevent illegal immigration so long as having a pool of illegal immigrants at the bottom of the employment mine is so useful to the corporate interests which the Republican Party exists to serve.

You seem to have a bit of a muddled idea about this:
We have the immigration policy we do, not to benefit the country, but to benefit the [business interests who need] to have a source of cheap labor who can't complain about working conditions.
Fixed for you.

I believe you occasionally claim to be a libertarian: a real libertarian would consider "illegal immigrant" to be a contradiction in terms. A muddled conservative may want to blame "the political class", but surely you're bright enough to see who actually benefits from having so many illegal immigrants working in fear. Not "the political class", but the conservatives/right-wingers who believe primarily in running the country for the benefit of the very rich.

Brett, your last paragraph gives the answer to that before: Politicians and those who lease them (economically wiser than buying). Lower levels of education also make it easier to dupe people into voting for you (or keeping them from voting otherwise). That's not limited to the US. Over here some (state not federal) elections have been won on anti-immigration platforms with slogans like "Kinder statt Inder" (children, not [East] Indians = up with the German* birth rate, down with immigration**).

*defined by blood not citizenship
**of highly qualified immigrants. There was a federal attempt to ease immigration for that group.

"It's interesting that folks in moral panics about How We Will Be Invaded By Insidious Others never seem to be worried about, say, Swedes and Norwegians wanting to flood the country and Take Our Stuff."

This, naturally, is a central part of my plan for world domination -- speaking as the offspring of one of those immigrant Swedes...

This, naturally, is a central part of my plan for world domination

Now, Hūsker Dū makes sense...

How anyone would give an inch of quarter to Gush Pimpwhore is beyond me. As for JohnnyPOW, anyone who argues to benefit his case by one iota is deluded.

How anyone would give an inch of quarter to Gush Pimpwhore is beyond me. As for JohnnyPOW, anyone who argues to benefit his case by one iota is deluded.

Sorry for the double post.

Yeah, it was somewhat of a rhetorical question. The point is, they're not being permitted in for the benefit of the nation, but for the benefit of the politically connected.

Republican politicians do this for the benefit of their friends in business, and rationalize it as being good for the economy. Democratic politicians do this for the benefit of their friends in business, and rationalize it as being for the good of the immigrants themselves.

But it's not, net, good for the economy, and our government does not exist to benefit citizens of other countries.

And, Jes? You've got a rather cartoonish image of Libertarians.

Brett; And, Jes? You've got a rather cartoonish image of Libertarians.

No doubt. I've met so many cartoon libertarians on the Internet.

Jonnybutter, do you know what my prefered immigration policy is? I'd actually like quite a lot of immigration. ....Why would anybody think this nation needs more illiterate unskilled workers?

Yes, I had read that you wanted more skilled immigrants rather than 'illiterate, unskilled' (wanting more highly skilled immigrants is a point of agreement between us, BTW). My point was that simply 'enforcing immigration laws' is no more of a practical solution to a migration problem than is McCain's telling the president of Mexico to 'stop the bull---'. I also wouldn't assume that every undocumented immigrant from Mexico and elsewhere in Central America is either illiterate or entirely unskilled. They just can't make a living in their own countries.

Yeah, it was somewhat of a rhetorical question.

Brett, do you know any other kind? You haven't shown that you do...

"I also wouldn't assume that every undocumented immigrant from Mexico and elsewhere in Central America is either illiterate or entirely unskilled."

Neither would I. But they sure as hell haven't established that they're literate in our national language, in order to enter, now have they?

And we can only accommodate so many immigrants, shouldn't we be going for the best we can find, rather than the most indifferent to our laws we can find?

Jes, I'm going to try explaining this, though I suspect I'll regret it:

The Libertarian party supports free immigration across national borders, subject only to national defense and police protection. (Yes, they'd check to see if you have a criminal record before you entered, which, yes, means you have to stop at the border to identify yourself and be checked.) The Libertarian party also opposes income transfers of all sorts. There's a critical connection.

I'm presently living in a gated rental community in SC, having to follow the work. We have a number of really nice amenities, paid from our rent, such as a pool, fitness center, laundromat, car wash... Suppose my 'platform' was that the gate should be taken down, AND that we should charge for use of the amenities, rather than just charging all the residents?

Does this imply that I'm unaware that taking the gate down without preventing people living outside our community from using the pool for free would be a rather bad idea?

Why would anybody think this nation needs more illiterate unskilled workers? Are the existing ones being paid too much, and they need some competition to bring their pay into line?

Let's see . . . I'll bet all takers $10 that Brett's answer to the latter question is "No," unless and until the precise second that someone speaks up for labor unions helping to raise workers' pay.

But they sure as hell haven't established that they're literate in our national language, in order to enter, now have they?

We have a national language? What is it?

And we can only accommodate so many immigrants, shouldn't we be going for the best we can find, rather than the most indifferent to our laws we can find?

Do you ever speed, Brett?

Illiterate does not mean 'not literate in English', it means 'unable to read and write'.

Could you also give me a figure of how many immigrants the US can accomodate? Since you seem have a ballpark figure in your head, why don't you give it to further discussion?

How do you feel about medical marijuana use, Brett? Or jury nullification?

I think juries clearly have the right to nulify, (It's the very purpose for which juries exist!) and I think marijuana should be legal to use for medical AND recreational purposes.

"Illiterate does not mean 'not literate in English', it means 'unable to read and write'."

For purposes of living in a country, being illiterate in that country's language is effectively as bad as being illiterate. I don't expect Mexico to admit immigrants who don't speak Spanish, (That one out of context Rush quote was his recounting Mexican immigration laws, to illustrate the hypocrisy of Mexicans complaining about our much more lenient laws.) and I think with an excess of people wanting to come here, it's self-destructive in the extreme for us to admit people who aren't literate in our language.

"unless and until the precise second that someone speaks up for labor unions helping to raise workers' pay."

Why, I'm all in favor of labor unions helping to raise workers' pay. What, you think otherwise, just because I think membership in unions should be voluntary? Plenty of voluntary organizations do good work.

What, again, is our language again? There are, after all, millions -- literally, millions -- of native-born US citizens who do not speak English. Millions.

I think juries clearly have the right to nulify, (It's the very purpose for which juries exist!) and I think marijuana should be legal to use for medical AND recreational purposes.

So would it be fair to say that, since you feel juries should be permitted to acquit people whom the prosecution has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt have broken our laws, that in many cases you are -- gasp!! -- indifferent to our laws?

Do you ever speed, Brett? Not, like, 26 in a 25, or 38 in a 35, but like 40 in a 25, or 80 on the freeway? If so, would it be fair to say you are -- gasp!! -- indifferent to our laws?

Brett, when you file your South Carolina state income tax at the end of the year, what do you put down for out-of-state and internet purchases on which you probably didn't pay SC sales tax, but for which the state requires a use tax?

I'd like to note that Brett is not a stand-in for Rush Limbaugh, Republicans in general, conservatives in general, libertarians in general, "enforce our immigration laws" folks in general, or anyone other than his own individuals self, and that it would be most useful for everyone to keep that in mind in framing their questions and comments here, and that it's most useful for people to respond to what he says, not what someone else ever said, or what you imagine Brett might say -- he's available right here to be asked, after all, and is under no obligation to respond to rude questions -- while most of the rest of the ObWi polity stands up for legal immigration, and enlarging it, and in the at least momentary absence of more insane anti-immigration arguers, or someone like "NoMoreBlatherDotCom."

Thanks!

And just to get an almost certainly truly stupid conversation going, I'll ask Waldo who the heck "Gush Pimpwhore" is. (Since I'm guessing "JohnnyPOW" is a standin name for John McCain: please do correct me if I have that wrong, waldo.)

For purposes of living in a country, being illiterate in that country's language is effectively as bad as being illiterate.

Then say 'people who are not literate in English', don't say 'illiterate people'.

You still haven't mentioned
1)how many immigrants the US can accomodate and
2)why you don't take into account what their children will do?

You may also wish to digest this before going on about being illiterate.

If you consider any of these questions to be rude, pace Gary, I hope you'll explain why you think so and why you think that answering them does not bear on your opinions on the characteristics and nature of illegal immigrants.

Tapper alleges that the Limbaugh quotes are taken out of context. If true, that makes that part of it deceptive. Admittedly, Limbaugh has no real standing to complain if people call him out on immigrant-bashing, but all the more reason to use quotes that are accurate.

Then, since Tapper's the one making the charge and has the $ to put into accessing Limbaugh's archives, he's the one who should make public the passages he claims are being taken out of context. It's fair use; Limbaugh would have no grounds to complain, particularly if it bears out Tapper's claim.

For purposes of living in a country, being illiterate in that country's language is effectively as bad as being illiterate.

This is, of course, not a static state. People can become literate.

Also, there are degrees of literacy. Face to face literacy is considerably easier than becoming legal literate.

"Then, since Tapper's the one making the charge and has the $ to put into accessing Limbaugh's archives, he's the one who should make public the passages he claims are being taken out of context. It's fair use; Limbaugh would have no grounds to complain, particularly if it bears out Tapper's claim."

As it happens, I was out driving the afternoon Limbaugh was responding to this, (I had to hand over my signing bonus with my new employer to the new Ob/gyn. Sob!) and got to hear his reply. Which consisted of playing back the quotes from his audio archive, in context. The transcript is available free, the actual audio is pay.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_091708/content/01125112.guest.html>For your convenience.

Yes, he was taken out of context, no question about it.

"People can become literate."

"What, again, is our language again? There are, after all, millions -- literally, millions -- of native-born US citizens who do not speak English. Millions."

So, they can become literate. But, do they? Often not, it seems.

We are in the enviable position of having an excess of people wanting to immigrate here, and so we can be selective. The question before us is not, can we make do with unskilled immigrants who don't speak English, and who are willing to cross our borders illegally. It's, of the millions who want to immigrate here, who would be best.

So, they can become literate. But, do they? Often not, it seems.

That s contrafactual.

You still haven't answered my questions about your overall indifference to our laws, Brett. I'm going to bet all takers $20 that your answer regarding voluntarily paying SC use tax for items you bought out-of-state or via the Internet is "No." Care to make me lose some money?

We are in the enviable position of having an excess of people wanting to immigrate here, and so we can be selective.

We are in that enviable position because we proclaim ourselves to not be selective.

How many immigrants can the US absorb? Rather than do the two-step about claiming people are illiterate when they aren't (which is basically the foreigners are stoopid argument with a new cloak of paint), why not do a few minutes of research and give us some figures to talk about?

folks in moral panics about How We Will Be Invaded By Insidious Others never seem to be worried about, say, Swedes and Norwegians wanting to flood the country

As a recent emigre to Seattle, I gather that the ethnic-Danish population here is both large and economically productive. But based on looks, they do seem to comprise a large portion of the street bums, whereas I have seen hardly any Hispanic or black homeless. So maybe we DO need to stem the Scandinavian tide. Remember what Those People did to England, Ireland, Ukraine, Normandy, Greenland...

Oh, re the post, based on the links, it looks like there were factual errors, but I'm not yet ready to call it a pattern of dishonesty. The Spanish ad is deceptive and should be fixed at once. But my guess is that somebody on staff googled for racist Limbaugh quotes too quickly, not that the campaign deliberately blew the moral high ground. The quotes look exactly like things Limbaugh says all the time; if these particular ones were a little off-target, it was probably an accident, and not one that creates any serious misimpression as to his views.

The SocSec ad looks basically accurate, except that apparently it should say "a fourth" not "half." According to factcheck.org, the Obama campaign claimed they based "half" on a study they appear to have misread. Again, probably haste rather than venality. Things are moving very fast these days.

"As a recent emigre to Seattle, I gather that the ethnic-Danish population here is both large and economically productive."

I used to find lutefisk in Ballard, but that was thirty years ago.

It's still there. Quite possibly the same batch.

The comments to this entry are closed.