|
|
Post by subdjoe on Aug 24, 2008 9:16:29 GMT -5
The funny thing is, run that up into the mid-60s and it pretty well describes the GOP. Then in the 70s it swung back to the Dems and has stayed that way since. It did apply to both at the same time in the 80s, both parties seemed to be very rigidly doctrineaire. The Dems have gotten more so, especially here in CA, while the GOP even though it doesn't proclaim itself to be the party of tolerance, diversity, and inclusiveness seems to have opened itself up considerably. What we really need is to get a few politicians in the mould of Truman, Humphrey, or Goldwater. Humphery said: ""The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." Can you imagine a Pelosi, Obama, Clinton, Schumer, or any others of the Dem "leadership" make such a statement now? None of them are willing to admit that the all powerful state that they are working towards is that tyranny about which Humphrey was giving warning. And the argument about how can a bunch of guys with hunting rifles stand up against an army with tanks, planes, etc. held then just as much as now. And notice his nuanced words - "just one more guarantee" "one more safeguard" "tyranny which now appears remote...but which historically has proved to be always possible." Not 'the only' guanantee or safeguard, but 'one more'. And not 'tyranny which is right around the corner' but which history has shown to be possible. (climbing down from his soap box - yet one more guarantee against tyranny - seeing that he may have strayed from the subject) |
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Aug 24, 2008 16:35:19 GMT -5
So, by your reasoning since we eat, we also are reliant on migrants (note, there is a HUGE difference in migrant workers and illegal immigrants - I;ve known a double handful of white migrant workers who follow the crops) we must therefore support open boarders. That is a hell of a stretch even for you, Mink. I have to ask, seriously, not trying to be nasty about it, if you are feeling all right. The past few weeks your posts have been really weak, grasping at any straw that drifts by, making wild swings of resaon that have no foundation in anything that was said, and in general not being the Mink we know and love. Regarding migrants as opposed to illegal immigrants, you are correct. Migrants, who can be illegal immigrants, but not necessarily, move up/down the state tending the crops. Back to what I was saying is that although Parras didn't follow suit with her party, may not necessarily have answer by just supporting the farmers and theri water needs because of the illegal immigrants. As for your noticing that I'm not "with it", well, funny, but I noticed the same about you too subdjoe. While you are normally very sensible, have been irratic (sp). in the past few days. hHmmmm......maybe it was the moon. BTW, thank you for caring  |
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Aug 24, 2008 19:08:01 GMT -5
Yeah, I have always had a problem with spelling. My typoing (sic) isn't all that great either.
You are part of the family.
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Aug 25, 2008 11:41:44 GMT -5
One exalt for making me laugh with a great man named Bob Hope. |
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Aug 26, 2008 22:59:07 GMT -5
Loved Bob Hope......but you do realize he was being paid to say that, right? |
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Aug 27, 2008 0:11:51 GMT -5
And someone got paid to write it, too. Which doesn't change that it was both funny and true then, and is funny and true now. Especailly in this neck of the woods.
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Aug 27, 2008 11:54:00 GMT -5
Loved Bob Hope......but you do realize he was being paid to say that, right?  |
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Aug 27, 2008 21:50:34 GMT -5
Big Dog, although our agriculture needs water, it is also extremely reliant on migrants. What is the surprise here?The surprise here is what one, the migrant worker, has to do with the other, agricultural water use, in the context of Assemblymember Parra's record in office. The real answer is that they have nothing to do with the other in the context of this discussion. I can only presume that your introduction of the migrant issue was either an attempt to misdirect or was a mistake.  |
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Aug 27, 2008 23:12:24 GMT -5
It was no mistake Big Dog. Agriculture and migrants/ immigrants/illegal immigrants are very relative to how we get our food. The fact that Parra decided to stay out of whatever issue her colleagues required, is a good one in a sense, however, it is also detrimental to our illegal immigration problem. While some may point the finger at what they think is an issue , they overlooked an issue that is plaguing the US as a whole.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Aug 28, 2008 19:27:16 GMT -5
So then it was an intentional attempt to mis-direct the discussion? Again... in the context of this story and this story alone it has absolutely nothing to do with immigration, illegal or otherwise, and migrant workers. Introducing that line of logic into the discussion is completely pointless unless, like the late, great Alfred Hitchcock, you simply take some pleasure in throwing out a macguffin now and then. |
|
