Memo intended for Karl Rove!

[kurtsprincess]

You're using hitler psychology!! "accuse your enemies of everything you are doing so when they accuse YOU of it, its sounds like whining"...

Oh an atleast the 'war on poverty'(i wish) would go somewhere, war drugs didnt do sheeeit, same with the new, war on terra.

Hey xen.......I googled "hitler psychology" and couldn't find that quote anywhere!!!

How about a war on "ignorance"............perhaps we could stop poverty, drugs, terrorism and eradicate politics and MSM!!! :2guns:

 

[xen]

Perhaps you should go get a copy of Websters, as Communists don't beleive there should be industry, and thus "selling out" to capitalists would be pretty anti-commie.

YES, they do, they just believe it should be owned collectively.
I believe when the corporate power reaches its highest point in OUR goverment, this administration, its closer to communism than anything else in this country's history.

 

[kurtsprincess]

YES, they do, they just believe it should be owned collectively.

Why do you believe this xen?

 

[xen]

I don't.

 

[Avatar4321]

You're using hitler psychology!! "accuse your enemies of everything you are doing so when they accuse YOU of it, its sounds like whining"...

Oh an atleast the 'war on poverty'(i wish) would go somewhere, war drugs didnt do sheeeit, same with the new, war on terra.

Yeah you are deffinately accusing your "enemies" of everything you are doing before they accuse you. What that has anything to do with anything we are discussing, I don't know. In fact, i still have no flipping clue what your point to all of this is yet.

Your second sentence didn't make any sense whatsoever. You act as though the war on poverty can go somewhere yet it hasn't yet. The war on poverty has utterly failed. Why? Because the Democrat plan to eliminate poverty tries to attack the symptom rather than the root issue. They would rather hand out money without people working for it than teach people how to work and get the skills they need to pull out of it.

The war on drugs is doing rather party. Of course that is mostly because one party in America and a major constituent group glamarize that garbage rather than teach people the destructive power it can have.

As for the war on terra, when did we declare war on the earth? How do we measure when we win? when the earth is destroyed? It just doesn't make any sense!

 

[theim]

You're using hitler psychology!! "accuse your enemies of everything you are doing so when they accuse YOU of it, its sounds like whining"...

Oh an atleast the 'war on poverty'(i wish) would go somewhere, war drugs didnt do sheeeit, same with the new, war on terra.

I don't know why I even bother....

 

[theim]

I do believe in the right for labor to organize, we gave that right to germany and japan after WWII. Iraq is the conservative vision, no labor unions or anything of the sort:illegal.

I hardly beleive that the absence of labor unions is #1 on Iraq's list of problems. At least it's not like that UN-managed boondoggle Bosnia. Bosnia, in case you haven't been paying attention, is pretty much one big slum, with an official unemployment rate of around 40%, and its only the drug and child sex rings keeping it down that low.

But hey, at least the UN has "moral authority".

 

[xen]

I don't remember a war on poverty existing(new deal?)... but if its anything like the war on drugs. Dont support it.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

I don't remember a war on poverty existing(new deal?)... but if its anything like the war on drugs. Dont support it.

After reading through this thread, I don't know why I bother, but...

The original intent of the "War on Poverty" was actually a good one. It began with Lyndon Johnson, and originally the idea was to get people off of welfare through job training programs and attracting businesses to the center cities.

Actually, for awhile, there was some minor success. The poverty rate reached it's lowest point in 1973, about 11%. However, four years later we get (hold your nose) Jimmy Carter. After that, the "War on Poverty" changed from job training to get people off of welfare, to welfare itself. It became "Here, have some money", which, soon enough, became, "Stay where you are, here is some more money".

This is basically the current liberal idea of helping the poor to "rise up", as you put it earlier. Rise where? Out of the recliner?

 

[no1tovote4]

KURT,
Actually, he didnt point out that liberals oppose enforcement. He said PAINTED!

He said accurately painted, which means that it would be an accurate and therefore easily made argument that the liberals are against such enforcement. Shoot when the President first put forward his "guest worker plan" the Dems all stood up to say it was not enough....

So the word accurate here clearly denotes that he is pointing out that they can use the actual liberal opposition to this against them. If they actually started working on this problem they would gain much of the support back that they have lost over the last year.

I don't know one single person who supports illegal immigration.

Oh please! This is like saying I don't know one person starving, it is a non-sequitor. Just because I don't personally know a starving person doesn't mean that they don't exist. All you have to look at is most major cities with a Democrat Government have passed "Sanctuary" laws that actually make it so the Police of those cities cannot ask people about their legal status and most even accept Mexican IDs as legal Identification...

Whats missing is anything logical!! Its all super biased with no regard for the safety of our country and the well being of its citizens.

Safety of the citizens? By enforcing the border we will increase our safety manifold. Biased? In what way? Are you saying that there is a majority of people of one race that cross the border illegally? Why are you focusing on race when the issue has nothing to do with race and everything to do with security?

BTW, you should never be loyal to your party..only your country.

I agree, one should not be loyal to their party over the nation. However attempting to say that this Memo shows that is simply writing words that are not there.

 

[no1tovote4]

It's not the word I have a problem with xen.......it's the way you jump from one premise (a) to another premise (b) without substantiating your conclusions in a rational manner (and I'm a female who is supposed to be able to understand spaghetti thinking, but you continually lose me with your conclusions).

Perhaps when you've taken some critical thinking classes you'll understand why some of us can't follow your line of reasoning.

A logic class would help. Taking a bit of forensics would also help. Logical flow doesn't seem to be the problem she (is xen a she?) has, she has a problem with the fact that a politician might "accurately paint" somebody from her side with what she thinks is slander because of their Party affiliation rather than their policy. What she disregards is the current policy of her Party with "Sanctuary-cities" etc and how they were unsatisfied with Bush's "guest-worker" plan and said that instead there should just be 100% amnesty and other reasons why it would be an accurate picture, one so easily painted it could be done in my daughter's pre-school class without even hiring an artist.

Methinks somebody, her initials are xen, is expressing such disregard of party loyalty but actually is simply a policy apologist for her own party and their loyalty to that party not only supercedes the Nation, but also simple logic and reasoning. It becomes unnecessary for such people to use such simple things as logic and reasoning while braving the elements to protect their Party against their own policy.

 

[Abbey Normal]

I think I can apply a formula to help understand Xen:

ESL + DU = Xen​

-

 

[xen]

Jimmyeatworld , the poor don't have recliners, and i dont like carter.

no1tovote4, I don't know one single person who wants people to migrate illegally. Find a solution, and we'll all vote for it.

I dont have a party, but thats not as bad as having a party thats only purpose is to protect monied interests. hahaha, its so lame.
All of you are acting against your own ideals and you dont even know it!
Maybe you deserve the hell you're making for yourself.

 

[no1tovote4]

"no1tovote4, I don't know one single person who wants people to migrate illegally. Find a solution, and we'll all vote for it."

First of all, we do not vote on National Laws, we vote for representatives that would enact laws for us. Many plans have been suggested and none implemented because the populace does not elect those with suggested plans and those with them are invariably labelled as "racist" by the left.

And once again the non-sequitor, "I don't know anybody who is starving, therefore there is nobody starving..." it is ridiculous as well as a logical fallacy. It is called Aurgument by Generalization, here a site you can go to and learn about fallacious arguments and avoid them in the future.

First the direct definition of Argument By Generalization:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#generalize

drawing a broad conclusion from a small number of perhaps unrepresentative cases. (The cases may be unrepresentative because of Selective Observation.) For example, "They say 1 out of every 5 people is Chinese. How is this possible? I know hundreds of people, and none of them is Chinese." So, by generalization, there aren't any Chinese anywhere. This is connected to the Fallacy Of The General Rule

Now the index of the site so you can see the list of Fallacious Arguments:

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

You can best judge a person by their actions, the actions of the Democratic Party elected officials shows that they are more than willing to accept illegal immigration. It is not only clear in the laws passed in Democrat Controlled areas such as Sanctuary Laws but other actions which show that the Democratic Party supports such illegal activity. When even Bush's "guest-worker" plan was rejected by the Democratic Party members in Congress and the Senate because it wasn't simply amnesty and citizenship it became clear that they had no objection in reality to illegal immigration, and in fact their "racist" argument every time somebody speaks of closing the porous border is also another sign of their approval of such illegal activity.

Attempting to ignore their actions in an attempt to use a Fallacious argument that you know of noone that wants illegal immigration is simply disingenuous, dishonest to yourself and your argument, and illogical at its face.

We can put our Military Reserves on the border to police it, temporarily until a new force could be created better equipped to protect us than ISE (or a better equipped ISE), and keep illegal entry to a minimum while requiring cities and states to support the law and turn in each illegal immigrant found so that they can be deported.

We can then open up legal entry to those who wish to come, or implement a "guest-worker" program rather than rewarding the illegal activity at the same time as spitting in the face of those who came legally.

This would have the added value that we will know who comes and be able to stop entry by those who would do us harm. Currently no such security exists.

 

[no1tovote4]

"I dont have a party, but thats not as bad as having a party thats only purpose is to protect monied interests. hahaha, its so lame.
All of you are acting against your own ideals and you dont even know it!
Maybe you deserve the hell you're making for yourself."

I am a member of a Party that is not in Power, you are making a fool of yourself with assumptions that are incorrect and not in direct evidence.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Jimmyeatworld , the poor don't have recliners, and i dont like carter.

Uh, yes, actually some poor people do have recliners. They might be "hand me down" recliners, but recliners all the same. Back when I was in a position of living hand to mouth, my only pieces of furniture were a recliner and a TV tray. In any event, it is beside the point. Carter: few people that remember his presidency do like him.

no1tovote4, I don't know one single person who wants people to migrate illegally. Find a solution, and we'll all vote for it.

So, we go back to the original post. The "memo to Rove" talking about accurately painting people to oppose enforcement. When Liberals oppose anything and everything that would make it easier to arrest and deport illegals, how much paint do you think they need on that brush? Nobody hascome out and said, "I encourage people to enter the country illegally", but they sure don't do anything to discourage it either. An example: a couple of years ago, police went on a big raid of Wal Marts, leading to the arrest of hundreds of illegal aliens. Nancy Pelosi, the House Minority Leader, called it "terrorizing innocent employees". No, Nancy, I call it arresting people that broke the law.

I dont have a party, but thats not as bad as having a party thats only purpose is to protect monied interests. hahaha, its so lame.
All of you are acting against your own ideals and you dont even know it!
Maybe you deserve the hell you're making for yourself.

I think the point that has been made, repeatedly, is that you are not drawing a clear line between what you started all of this with and you conclusion. I can't say I have posted anything going against my ideals, and haven't seen where anyone else has either. Saying liberals can be "accurately painted" as opposing something to curb illegal immigration, or do something about the illegals that are already here, is like saying you could paint Charles Manson as a nut.

 

[no1tovote4]

"is like saying you could paint Charles Manson as a nut."

One might even say he could be accurately painted as a nut...

 

[xen]

I am a member of a Party that is not in Power, you are making a fool of yourself with assumptions that are incorrect and not in direct evidence.

Umm, again, nobody wants illegals to migrate into this country. Just like I believe NOBODY hates the troops.
Just because your party thinks that there are large groups of individuals that do not agree w/ you and me, does not make it true.

I will never vote for a person who is republican, because i believe big business's solution to problems are un-american, and down right destructive.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

"is like saying you could paint Charles Manson as a nut."

One might even say he could be accurately painted as a nut...

Unless, of course, it goes against your ideals.

 

[no1tovote4]

Umm, again, nobody wants illegals to migrate into this country. Just like I believe NOBODY hates the troops.
Just because your party thinks that there are large groups of individuals that do not agree w/ you and me, does not make it true.

You are wrong. There are groups that do support illegal immigration and they are invariably supported by those in the Democrat Party. Groups such as Confia en ti, provide them support once they cross the border and they are invariably supported by members of the Democrat Party. It takes more than just saying you are against it while your actions are directly in support of it to show that you are not actually in support of something. This is what I mean by the fact that actions are what you should judge by, not words.

I will never vote for a person who is republican, because i believe big business's solution to problems are un-american, and down right destructive.

Once again, since you can't seem to understand English, I am not a Republican. However I would trust a business to solve a problem more quickly and with less spending than anybody in the government and even more especially the Federal Government. I would never vote for somebody who is a Democrat because they are even further from my views than Republicans.

I personally believe that the Government at any level exists only to protect an Individual's right to exist without being victimized by another. That all laws should only be enacted to protect an Individual's right.

(This would include such things and the FDA as environmental impacts can poison individuals who would need protection from a larger organizations of individuals). We can talk more on such things, but I want it clear to you that I am not a Republican.