February 7, 2008
4:41 A.M.
Don’t ever quit smoking.
Right Hand Girl’s new video is dead-on.
8:35 A.M.
McCain speaks at CPAC at 3 P.M. Eastern.
11:47
Well, the shuttle didn’t blow up, that’s good to see.
12:08 P.M.
Anybody actually happy that Mitt quit? Here’s the place to confess.
12:13 P.M.
McCain’s about to start speaking, you can catch it on Fox. We’ll have video highlights up.
12:35 P.M.
McCain just started a sentence, “On the position of illegal immigration…” and he was loudly booed by many, many.
That being said, the guy looks as happy as a kid about to get laid for the first time…he’s nothing short of giddy….even beyond that…literally bouncing…beaming, all that. He looks like it’s the happiest day of his life.
12:39
McCain just said, “This election is going to be about big things, not small things”. Has he looked in a full-length mirror lately? Or was he implying that he’s dropping out?
12:51
Michael Steele: “He began to take control of the Republican Party with this speech”.
1:26 P.M.
Tom Delay: “McCain did not speak to the issues on the minds of Conservatives”.
8:31 P.M.
They eye appointment got pushed back, long story, so there’s no word on that till next week.
9:31 P.M.
G. Gordon Liddy: “Suicide bomber Republicans will come around and vote for McCain”
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
“Dont ever quit smoking” now thats some sound advice lol i hope i do some day. tried before and it sucks!
Is that going to be on the news? McCain speaking?
February 7th, 2008 at 9:01 amRomneyCare left a pretty bad taste in my mouth. On top of that, not much of what he said made any sense to me. Struck me as a big government guy making the usual claims he’s a conservative.
February 7th, 2008 at 12:38 pmCan’t be devastated that Romney’s out — wasn’t thrilled he was in in the first place, but …
I feel myself careening dangerously towards apathy for the whole thing. Not thrilled that it’s just McCain, but I know people that are happy Romney’s out.
February 7th, 2008 at 12:59 pmHe gave a great speech, but simply saying he will secure the border first isnt enough. He didnt explain how and the only way that works is a fence. I assume all he would rely on is technology and more border guards… not enough =\
February 7th, 2008 at 1:25 pmWHY IS IMMIGRATION THIS GIGANTIC “CONSERVATIVE” ISSUE SUDDENLY??????????????? Why does everyone think that this is a “BIG” issue and not a “SMALL” issue? This is a political Buzzword guys…
Look at the economics of trying to enforce it…
let’s say you do pay to ship them out… how many times do you have to pay to ship out after they come back in?
“build a wall”— are you kidding me guys? have you seen the size of that border?? not to mention that these are people and not animals… if you and your family were starving, would a wall outsmart you? (please reference that wall that got f’in cut down with acetylene torches recently)
“well… station troops at the border” I gotcha so we would basically have a DMZ kinda like in Korea only 1,800 miles longer… guards manning the walls like some castle from the middle ages… think about that price tag as well please… not to mention the guards are going to now have to shoot on sight…
I think we have to face it… these people are desperate/smart/tenacious… anything short of war on that area is not going to deter them… think about it… what do they have to lose?
“Damn Carlos we got caught again, well now that we’re back what are we going to do?”
“We could starve or try again tomorrow”
It is a giant money drain to try to enforce…
February 7th, 2008 at 2:00 pmHey, I’ve always said it’d be cheaper and easier to invade Mexico and make it the 51st state …
February 7th, 2008 at 2:09 pmjgee, the cost of the wall and maintaining it will be cheaper than the drain on our social services that were put in place for US citizens, not those that just arrive and feel entitled. The Mexicans are Mexico’s problem. It will be safer for US citizens that have a right to feel secure in their homes and on their property. A properly built wall, not like the easily broken down wall your were referring to. If someone was breaking into my home I would have the right to shoot ob sight.
February 7th, 2008 at 2:14 pmJohn Cunningham,
Would it be cheaper to maintain a wall with troops than sustain their current drain? I’m not trying to be a dick here but I am curious, do you have figures to support that claim?
The wall would have to be like the damn Berlin Wall to keep people out… oh wait… people got around that one too… PEOPLE ARE SMART… people will always be able to outsmart a wall…
and about shooting them on sight… we could be doing that now but…………. let’s be honest how would images of troops with machine guns mowing down families look on television… what political party is going to bite the bullet on that one???
February 7th, 2008 at 3:35 pmWe spend at least 40 billion a year on them. thats the figures I have seen. we have been putting up with this shit for too long. I would much rather the government use my tax dollars to build a wall than to have my money go to Juan Gonzalez or someone just because they chose to sneak over a sovereign countries border.
February 7th, 2008 at 3:41 pmAnd furthermore knowing the Mexican government aids them pisses me off even more
February 7th, 2008 at 3:41 pma wall with people… let’s say that to man a wall like this (repair/maintain/look for mexicans/shoot at mexicans/etc.) would take one person posted every 10 ft…
(1p/10ft)*(5280ft/1mile)= (528p/1mile)*(2000miles)= 1,056,000 people, aka the city of San Jose, California (3rd largest CA city, 10th largest city in the UNITED STATES)
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/budget/FY0708/documents/Summary.pdf I might be reading this wrong but just for some type of a reference… apparently it costs 71 million a year to run that city (I know everything isn’t exactly transferable but you can imagine something else taking the place of “libraries”)
I don’t know how much it would cost to build the utilities/roads/etc. to maintain San Jose from scratch (bet it is expensive) not to mention it will be spread over 2,000 miles (even more expensive)…
I have no idea what it costs to build or maintain this gigantic/high tech wall we’re talking about…
AND ALL OF THIS IS COST… ZERO ECONOMIC RETURN?
the only way to solve this problem is to remove the incentive for them to come here… we need to start talking about hospitals that treat illegals, companies that hire them, schools that accept them… that would be the only way… BUT why hasn’t this been done yet? NO politician will run on a platform of denying injured people from being treated, not teaching children, not allowing families to feed themselves… blah blah blah… bad business for a politician…
February 7th, 2008 at 4:25 pmhttp://www.globalsecurity.org/security/systems/mexico-wall.htm
“Hunter called for building a reinforced, two-layer 15′ fence, separated by a 100-yard gap, along the entire length of the US border with Mexico. It would include additional physical barriers, powerful lighting and sensors to detect illegal border crossers. Some envision a wall or a fence. Others foresee a “virtual” fence of cameras, lighting, and sensors along the US-Mexican border.
But Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has said a wall running the length of a border would cost too much. A 2,000 mile state-of-the-art border fence has been estimated to cost between four and eight billion dollars. Costs for a wall that would run the entire length of the border might be as low as $851 million for a standard 10-foot prison chain link fence topped by razor wire. For another $362 million, the fence could be electrified. A larger 12-foot tall, two-foot-thick concrete wall painted on both sides would run about $2 billion. Initially it was estimated that the San Diego fence would cost $14 million — about $1 million a mile. The first 11 miles of the fence eventually cost $42 million — $3.8 million per mile, and the last 3.5 miles may cost even more since they cover more difficult terrain. An additional $35 million to complete the final 3.5 miles was approved in 2005 by the Department of Homeland Security — $10 million per mile. “
February 7th, 2008 at 5:36 pmOh good grief . . . penalize the employers and cut off the hand-outs . . . use the money saved to build the fence in key areas and hire border patrol.
Whatever - None of it is going to happen now.
“WHY IS IMMIGRATION THIS GIGANTIC “CONSERVATIVE” ISSUE SUDDENLY???????????????”
It has been a huge issue in Texas for years, but our politicians are on “payroll” of the Mexican government and illegal immigrants are allowed to vote in Texas.
February 7th, 2008 at 5:58 pmImmigration IS a big issue. I’m fucking sick and tired of pressing one for English. It wouldn’t cost shit to make employers accountable by enforcing the laws. Fine employers who hire illegals, let the cops stop them and ask for proper ID’s. Lock them up if they’re here illegally and transport them back to their home countries if caught.
I don’t give a damn what building a fence and adding troops or more Border Agents costs. I’m sick and tired of watching my country and culture being usurped by people who want to reconquista my land.
Assimilate motherfuckers, and do it legally. If employers hire illegals then they’re avoiding paying taxes and should be fined/and or jailed for avoiding paying their taxes.
Congress already approved a ton of money for a border fence. Where the fuck is that fence? And what happened to the monies allocated?
The threat from AQ and co is too great to allow our borders to remain open anymore. Shut them down. I could care less about the cost even if it means I have to pay an extra tax to get er done. That’s fine with me.
“… There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all. This is just as true of the man who puts “native” before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen. Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance. But if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as any one else.
The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic. The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country. The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic. He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good American. There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else.
For an American citizen to vote as a German-American, an Irish-American, or an English-American, is to be a traitor to American institutions; and those hyphenated Americans who terrorize American politicians by threats of the foreign vote are engaged in treason to the American Republic.
Americanization
The foreign-born population of this country must be an Americanized population - no other kind can fight the battles of America either in war or peace. It must talk the language of its native-born fellow-citizens, it must possess American citizenship and American ideals. It must stand firm by its oath of allegiance in word and deed and must show that in very fact it has renounced allegiance to every prince, potentate, or foreign government. It must be maintained on an American standard of living so as to prevent labor disturbances in important plants and at critical times. None of these objects can be secured as long as we have immigrant colonies, ghettos, and immigrant sections, and above all they cannot be assured so long as we consider the immigrant only as an industrial asset. The immigrant must not be allowed to drift or to be put at the mercy of the exploiter. Our object is to not to imitate one of the older racial types, but to maintain a new American type and then to secure loyalty to this type. We cannot secure such loyalty unless we make this a country where men shall feel that they have justice and also where they shall feel that they are required to perform the duties imposed upon them. The policy of “Let alone” which we have hitherto pursued is thoroughly vicious from two stand-points. By this policy we have permitted the immigrants, and too often the native-born laborers as well, to suffer injustice. Moreover, by this policy we have failed to impress upon the immigrant and upon the native-born as well that they are expected to do justice as well as to receive justice, that they are expected to be heartily and actively and single-mindedly loyal to the flag no less than to benefit by living under it.
We cannot afford to continue to use hundreds of thousands of immigrants merely as industrial assets while they remain social outcasts and menaces any more than fifty years ago we could afford to keep the black man merely as an industrial asset and not as a human being. We cannot afford to build a big industrial plant and herd men and women about it without care for their welfare. We cannot afford to permit squalid overcrowding or the kind of living system which makes impossible the decencies and necessities of life. We cannot afford the low wage rates and the merely seasonal industries which mean the sacrifice of both individual and family life and morals to the industrial machinery. We cannot afford to leave American mines, munitions plants, and general resources in the hands of alien workmen, alien to America and even likely to be made hostile to America by machinations such as have recently been provided in the case of the two foreign embassies in Washington. We cannot afford to run the risk of having in time of war men working on our railways or working in our munition plants who would in the name of duty to their own foreign countries bring destruction to us. Recent events have shown us that incitements to sabotage and strikes are in the view of at least two of the great foreign powers of Europe within their definition of neutral practices. What would be done to us in the name of war if these things are done to us in the name of neutrality? …”
- President Theodore Roosevelt
February 7th, 2008 at 7:37 pmTotally off topic, but how’s the eye doing Pat? Didn’t you have another followup visit yesterday?
February 7th, 2008 at 7:46 pmGreat Post, Dan!
Where is the fence? My senator, Kay Bailey Hutchuson slipped in a amendment a couple of months ago that changed the mandated double fence to a single fence if the Department of Homeland Security thinks it is necessary. It is now up to Chertoff-Jerkoff as to whether he wants to build a fence or not - I guess we have the answer . . . thanks Kay. I bet she got a promise from the corrupt South Texas politicians to load the ballot box for her upcoming governorship. Mark my word - she will win by massive votes in the southern Texas counties. Did I mention that illegal aliens are allowed to vote in Texas? All you have to do has have an electric bill.
February 7th, 2008 at 8:07 pm@ people talking about border ish.
I think the point about putting a fence, of some kind, is about protecting our national sovereignty. Every illegal, by virtue of being here, is a criminal. They are trespassing in land they have no right being in. Their first act by coming into this country is breaking the law. Not a good way to start.
Now, I know that people get all mushy about them being just people who want to make their lives better, but the sad truth is that if we let any and anybody come in, our country will become just as crappy as the counties they left. Simple as that.
February 7th, 2008 at 10:15 pm“AND ALL OF THIS IS COST… ZERO ECONOMIC RETURN?”
You tell that to the nearly 5,000 families who lost someone to illegal aliens committing crime in our country THIS YEAR.
You tell that to the parents of ~2,900 children molested by illegal aliens THIS YEAR.
As of 4 years ago, we housed 250,000 illegal aliens in our prisons. Most of these numbnuts have multiple arrests.
It goes on….and on. Google will data-fuck your computer should you care to research this topic.
ALL illegal aliens are criminals, that’s what that ‘illegal’ thing means but some of them are serious bad guys.
My question is, how can you possibly justify NOT doing whatever it takes to stop this crap?
February 8th, 2008 at 3:33 amGoogle will data-fuck your computer should you care to research this topic.
———————————————————-
DAMN! That’s. Hot.
I’m stealing it!
February 8th, 2008 at 6:17 am