For Michelle Malkin fans, Liberal tolerance in action

is to lace some Marijuana with something to make them all infertile and then drop it off in large quatities on campus... would work just like some pesticides, and have the same effect.

... coming from one who once described Michelle Malkin as (paraphrasing) "a brown female Clarence Thomas".

But there's a big difference between a politically motivated criticism of her stance on immigration, when she's the daughter of immigrants. Like thomas, she wants to deny others following behind her the advantages she herself enjoys, and I find that behavior ungrateful and despicable (my favorite analogy is one climbing the ladder out of the hold of a sinking ship while innetionally stomping on the fingers of the person following behind...) But it's a far cry from saying that to using the sort of language used in those e-mails, or in those to the folks on the other side of the political spectrum whom I mentioned.

What advantages did Malkin have that you are aware of that she wishes to deny others?

''brown people'' the opportunity to make a better life for themselves here as her parents did -- and if they weren't immigrants, she wouldn't be here either. Let's face it, the only folks here wh aren't descended from immigrants are the Native Americans.

BTW, Evie, if you're ever in DC, don't miss the new National Museum of the American Indian -- they say that term is as good as any, since everyone born here is a ''native American.'' In their various languages, they're always "the people''. We visited the museum Saturday before last, and it's spectacular!

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

You seem to conveniently forget that word and that we have laws here. What people are objecting to is immigrants who come here ILLEGALLY.

The problem is that the Emma Lazarus poem on the Statue of Liberty no longer applies according to our immigration laws -- and there's no reason for it, as we NEED those folks... Most of the population realizes this, accroding to the polls. But the modern know-nothings don't...

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

... then come here and demand "rights". No, Dave, you change the laws and quotas, you don't break the law.

It never did apply nor was intended to. If the law needs to change, so be it. But ILLEGAL is still not legal. You seem to want to ignore tha laws at your convenience.

you don't know, at Daves law school a poem may be law

Too bad the law no longer recognizes that reality.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

As the discussion has taken up that poem, let's look at the poem itself:
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame,
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
That done, Dave, what is the part that the law "no longer recognizes? "No longer" implies that the law once recognized something. O.K., what part, "Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me"? Are you implying that the law once said that anybody who fit that loose definition was legally entitled to entry into the U.S., or did the existance of that poem somehow "trump" any attempt by the Government to in any way limit entry?

by Emma Lazarus, New York City, 1883

The ones I have seen indicate that over 80% are opposed to ILLEGAL immigration.

... between ILLEGAL and LEGAL that you don't get?

Those people who came through Ellis Island did so legally.

That poem is NOT part of our Constitution or any law that I know of. Is it on some monument on the Mexican border or something? LOL

all the illegals are the ones that have changed the quotas??

we "need" according to your view?

I'm no expert, but I really don't think American can continue to infinitely absorb the number of immigrants we have traditionally.

Especially as we continue to export jobs to other countries to do our manufacturing for us. BTW, with expanding internet online classes, education jobs are no longer safe from outsourcing overseas either. It's already happening. My sister (teacher) and I were talking about it a few weeks ago.

But as I've said before, there is no point discussing those in this country illegally until we actually control the border.

How's Houston, and the rest of Texas, preparing to handle the massive no work day of all Hispanics that the various groups are calling for May 1. I've been told that many businesses are saying they may not be able to open that day. Fast food restrauants are considering drive through only that day.

Oddly, though we have a large and increasing Hispanic population in NC, I haven't heard much about it here. Little in the news, and very little speechmaking here it seems. But news from Texas seems to pop up here and there about it may close a lot of things down.

The predicted numbers for marches and protests are large. I hope I'm wrong, but if it does turn into such a huge rally, there will be fighing, police scuffles, and I'm afraid someone may even get killed. No matter how well intended the start, something like this gets large enough and a few fringe nuts, both support and opposing, will start trouble.


Roger

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

Show me where she has EVER opposed LEGAL immigration.

But you don't succeed.

As to well mannered, compare Freerepublic.com's membership's response to Elizabeth Edwards cancer scare to Democraticunderground.com's response to Laura Ingraham. There is a very distinct difference! Even Elizabeth Edwards personal plea didn't influence them.

...who coined the term "Michael Mooreons?"

but I'm sure someone else got it first

Boo Hooo!

... the c-word isn't. Neither side is innocent in name calling -- harmless or harmful. But even on some of the more strident right wing websites I've come across are more tame than DU, which, given the participation of the wife of a former Veep candidate and US Senator, one would presume to be more "mainstream". Seems not. And I saw some of those deleted threads before they were deleted.