Tea Party Know-Nothings
[Guest post by DRJ]
Time’s Joe Klein says there are a lot of Tea Party nuts and they’re Know-Nothings, too:
“The Know-Nothing Party Redux
The Tea Party movement, as we know, is mostly comprised of patriotic Americans who are concerned about the drift of the country away from prosperity and, they believe, freedom. It is also has more nuts than a forest of almond trees.”
That’s Klein’s entire report on the Tea Party Nation convention, so far. I guess Time isn’t paying him by the word.
– DRJ
if they are paying him at all it proves the intellectual bankruptcy of both parties once and for all, displays the moral bankruptcy of both beyond refutation and explains the incipient financial bankruptcy of the NYT organization in a nutshell.
QED.
Comment by redc1c4 — 2/6/2010 @ 10:19 pm
They’re certainly not paying him for grammar.
Comment by Stashiu3 — 2/6/2010 @ 10:23 pm
his first sentence isn’t so bad really. A bit understated about the drift maybe.
Comment by happyfeet — 2/6/2010 @ 10:27 pm
Hmmm… feets opining on grammar is kind of like President Obama opining on humility and fiscal restraint.
Comment by Stashiu3 — 2/6/2010 @ 10:32 pm
Since most Obama voters actually like Socialism and between 1 and 2 thirds question the 9/11 reality, let’s not go counting eachother’s nuts.
The birthers were laughed out of the room. Yeah, they showed their faces, but they were laughed out of the room.
And fuck you very much anyone who thinks we can’t complain about freedom. My governor mentioned the 10th amendment and they practically send the Army down there to quell a pretend secession movement. The Court notices the 1st Amendment and Obama has them heckled by hundreds of congressmen… to their faces.
The freedom whiners are what makes this country… this country. ACLU or NRA. And I am sick and tired of leftist mags acting like we don’t have to keep up the fight anymore. Freedom isn’t a partisan issue.
Comment by Dustin — 2/6/2010 @ 10:33 pm
“Hah!” exclaimed happyfeet goodnaturedly, pausing to reflect that he had mostly just meant that the sentence in question conveyed an apt description of our Tea Party friends, and wondering for a moment whether or not to correct the goodly Mr. Stashiu’s misapprehension.
But the moment slipped away, intruded upon by the needful fixing of a Something what would make good use of what remained of the chilled bottle of pomegranate vodka beckoning from the kitchen.
Comment by happyfeet — 2/6/2010 @ 10:59 pm
The almond is actually the seed of a fruit.
Comment by Hazy — 2/6/2010 @ 11:01 pm
pomegranate vodka is for wimps….
Comment by redc1c4 — 2/6/2010 @ 11:05 pm
The man is paid by the word, but were he to write any more he’d end up in a higher tax bracket.
Comment by Alan Kellogg — 2/6/2010 @ 11:05 pm
no doubt, red… my sister she gave me a dozen or so different flavored vodkas for Christmas and I’m not saving them for anything… my favorite so far is the Orange Stoli. The next one was “watermelon twist” by Smirnoff… it grew on me but you couldn’t make a martini out of it exactly.
The pomegranate is Van Gogh and it’s just ok. I drink it straight but you could probably mix it to greater effect.
Comment by happyfeet — 2/6/2010 @ 11:11 pm
Now I know why happyfeet is so happy
Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. — 2/6/2010 @ 11:40 pm
They know how to vote.
That’s what scares Klein.
Comment by shipwreckedcrew — 2/6/2010 @ 11:55 pm
Racists, one and all.
By the way, has Obuma ever spoken 3 sentences without lying?
Comment by Krusher — 2/7/2010 @ 12:09 am
i’ll go for “has Obuma ever spoken two sentences without lying?”
Comment by redc1c4 — 2/7/2010 @ 12:32 am
Happy:
i have a spread sheet with just over 400 martini recipes on it. i’m willing to share if anyone wants it. there might be a use for all those other flavors.
/my favorite vodka flavor is *cold*.
Comment by redc1c4 — 2/7/2010 @ 12:34 am
wow – happyfeet47 at yahoo.com if you have time – that would be neat – my next thing is going to be to make skittle vodka for a friend’s wedding… to match her colors is the idea… but I haven’t given much thought what to do with it.
Comment by happyfeet — 2/7/2010 @ 12:45 am
shot, over.
should be “splash” already….
Comment by redc1c4 — 2/7/2010 @ 1:32 am
skittle vodka? from the description, my idea would be to serve it to the ring bearer and flower girl…
why do that to perfectly good vodka?
Comment by redc1c4 — 2/7/2010 @ 1:36 am
IMHO, Joe Klein — the first national writer to pump Obama as being Presidential while every other MSMer was prepping their pieces on Hillary’s inevitable nomination — thinks of himself as the godfather of the Obama Revolution, and is taking it personally that everything is falling freaking apart.
He did precisely the same thing while the GOP convention was going on in 2008. Within minutes after Sarah Palin’s blockbuster VP nomination speech had ended, NBC’s Brian Williams was reading Klein’s Time blog in which he made demonstrably false accusations about Palin. See video here.
Comment by L.N. Smithee — 2/7/2010 @ 3:59 am
The Chrissie Mathews sycophant reveals his liberal bias . . . and this is news?
Comment by Icy Texan — 2/7/2010 @ 6:14 am
Does Klein actually understand the history of the (anti-Catholic) “Know Nothing” movement?
Or is he just using it as a handy slur and assuming his Time readers are equally ignorant?
Comment by MM — 2/7/2010 @ 6:48 am
Klein has been way down round the lefty bend in the river for a long time. One might think of him as the guy who didn’t get on the horse with Paul Revere to spread the word “The Tea Party is Coming”. Well, Joe is in for summat of a surprise, oh yes he is.
Comment by Mike Myers — 2/7/2010 @ 7:37 am
Klein and the other Dem MSMers have a real wakeup coming…a Republican House in a few months and a Senate that will have enough GOPers to shut down this Marxist takeover of America.
We ain’t quite dead yet…but this time, it was a close thing.
Comment by Herman Husband — 2/7/2010 @ 7:54 am
Klein is an embarrassment to the media. Hmmmm….the media are an embarrassment to themselves, seems to me…
Comment by chai — 2/7/2010 @ 8:06 am
“But the moment slipped away, intruded upon by the needful fixing of a Something what would make good use of what remained of the chilled bottle of pomegranate vodka beckoning from the kitchen.”
Why not go all the way and guzzle some cosmopolitans? Feets… you’ve failed me now.
Joe Klein with his usual brand of insight.
Comment by GeneralMalaise — 2/7/2010 @ 8:06 am
It is also has more nuts than a forest of almond trees.”
That’s not a very good measure.
Unless, of course, he’s ignorant/uneducated enough not to know … almonds aren’t nuts.
Comment by Unix-Jedi — 2/7/2010 @ 8:37 am
Unix-Jedi,
Great catch! Of course, Joe Klein has an excuse for knowing nothing of botany or any science. He’s just focused on politics, of which he knows … nothing.
Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. — 2/7/2010 @ 8:58 am
Even with their declining fortunes, liberals like Klein maintain that they have almost nothing to learn from conservatives or the Tea Party movement. They think of their misfortune simply as a test of their public relations, a combination of far-right spin and their fellow citizens’ inability to recognize the towering achievements of liberalism.
It is this arrogance and condescension that cripples them and leaves them unable and unwilling to recognize the hunger for positive transformation.
Comment by GeneralMalaise — 2/7/2010 @ 9:26 am
I read some of the tea party speeches – Palin was OK, but Tancredo was too Pat Buchanan – ish for my tastes. Nothing wrong with being against illegal immigration, but he’s skirting way too close to demagoguerey with that kind of speech. He intimated that illegals voted for Obama, and played a major role in his election. No, don’t think so, Tom. Best keep him far away from the microphone in future meetings, please.
I just watched Palin on Fox today, and thought she handled herself well, until Wallace asked her to clarify her statements that intimated that Obama may start a war in order to enhance his security creds (aka Lyndon Johnson, I would imagine). She danced away from it, but that’s not the way to win the next election, Sarah. They have to stop treading in this waters, because the LSM is just aching to latch on to anything in order to contiue the smear campaign against them.
Comment by Dmac — 2/7/2010 @ 9:27 am
I watched Meet the Press long enough to hear Hank Paulson hint that he voted for Obama. No wonder the financial world collapsed on his watch. Goldman Sachs did OK, though.
Comment by Mike K — 2/7/2010 @ 9:37 am
Klein should have instead reported on how Palin was had her buzz words written on her hand:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/2/7/834684/-HandPrompter-Hilarity:-Read-The-Words-on-Palins-Hand
[Mikey, pick a name and stick with it. One of Patterico's rules is no dishonest sockpuppeting. --Stashiu]
Comment by Go Palin! — 2/7/2010 @ 9:46 am
Did any of you, you know, actually go over to the Klein story and click his link? You know, to a conversation between Pat’s hero, Breitbart, and Joe Farah? Farah and his band of merry minstrels is, well, you know, a nut. A birther moron, etc.
So, maybe, just maybe, instead of attacking Klein for his vile liberalness (ooooh, icky), you could go see what he was talking about?
Or, maybe shooting the messenger is easier for the kind of folks who want to allege the President has never said three sentences without lying?
Notbale exceptions to my contempt on this thread: Happy, who is beginning to make sense sometimes; Stash, Dmac (for once), and Mike. you guys are cool, but the other wackadoodles on this thread? I wouldn’t want to be part of country where they formed a majority….and good news for all of us, I’m not
Comment by timb — 2/7/2010 @ 9:46 am
Um. Timb, you yourself have never, well, popped off about someone on this blog? Because I have seen you do so, many times. Surely you don’t think that is the act of “a wackadoodle”?
Comment by Eric Blair — 2/7/2010 @ 9:58 am
Actually the way I read it, was that a military confrontation with Iran, much like the surge in Afghanistan would be the right thing to do. A funny thing about those pics, not all of them have the writing;
http://gallery.me.com/donnaa#100024&view=null&bgcolor=black&sel=0
Comment by ian cormac — 2/7/2010 @ 10:11 am
timb – How’s that Blumenthal story working out for you?
Comment by daleyrocks — 2/7/2010 @ 10:12 am
“and good news for all of us, I’m not”
That WOULD be good news, indeed.
Comment by GeneralMalaise — 2/7/2010 @ 10:30 am
“Nothing wrong with being against illegal immigration, but he’s skirting way too close to demagoguerey with that kind of speech.”
How long have you been following Tancredo?
Comment by imdw — 2/7/2010 @ 10:34 am
Comment by redc1c4 — 2/6/2010 @ 10:19 pm
BTW, Joe Klein writes for Time Magazine (Time-Warner Communications), and not for the NYT.
Comment by Dmac — 2/7/2010 @ 9:27 am
Tom has been far into the fore-front of the anti-ILLEGAL Alien movement for quite some time, and could be considered (politically) a One-Trick Pony because of it.
Comment by AD - RtR/OS! — 2/7/2010 @ 11:05 am
…and on Sarah Palin’s interview…
“…She danced away from it…”
or, she could have been attempting to be somewhat responsible, and not the strident spear-thrower that her enemies attempt to portray her as?
Comment by AD - RtR/OS! — 2/7/2010 @ 11:08 am
Klein being short-winded has only one real explanation. He doesn’t want to explore the various viewpoints found within the diverse Tea Party movement bec ause it would give them positive press (especially in comparison to his beloved progressivism) so he limps them into a nut-pile and dismisses them.
Amusingly, that places him in the company of a lot of partisan and doctrinaire conservatives who are upset that they have yet to manage to co-opt the TPM to their own agendas.
Comment by Tully — 2/7/2010 @ 11:15 am
daleyrocks @ #35: Well played.
Comment by Old Coot — 2/7/2010 @ 11:15 am
Wasn’t Joe Klein the guy who recently said that the voters are ignorant dolts who don’t understand what’s good for them and need to sit down, shut up, and obey the Democratic party?
Maybe, maybe not. That describes the views of 90% of the nations press corpse. I mean, corps. No, wait, I mean corpse.
Comment by Subotai — 2/7/2010 @ 2:00 pm
He intimated that illegals voted for Obama, and played a major role in his election.
I’m sure that illegals did vote for Obama. Not a major role though.
Comment by Subotai — 2/7/2010 @ 2:04 pm
Klein’s commentary gets in the way. Televising Tea Party activities, as unfiltered as possible, speaks volumes on every level- from the selection of speakers to the content of speeches, musical selections and even their attire. Independent-minded viewers will evaluate, accept or dismiss them, for the most part, on that input.
Comment by DCSCA — 2/7/2010 @ 2:06 pm
Farah and his band of merry minstrels is, well, you know, a nut. A birther moron, etc.
Yeah, it’s not like they believe something respectable, like that Bush faked the intell prior to the invasion of Iraq!
Comment by Subotai — 2/7/2010 @ 2:13 pm
#27- [Klein] He’s just focused on politics, of which he knows … nothing.
Hmmm. In commenting on the revelation that Klein was the author of the runaway political bestseller, “Primary Colors,” a novel (and motion picture) based on the Clinton run for office, William F. Buckley opined: “Klein is a terrific political commentator and critic, and there are zero reasons to suppose that because he would dissimulate on the matter of the novel, he would fabricate material in order to buttress an interpretation or a characterization.” – source, William F. Buckley, National Review, 9/2/96
Comment by DCSCA — 2/7/2010 @ 2:36 pm
How long have you been following Tancredo?
Around three years or so, and I’ve heard him speak intelligently about the problems of massive illegal immigration and the relevant strains on our infrastructure (without their paying any taxes for them). I’ve also heard him talk about businesses turning a blind eye to this problem, in order to get labor costs at dirt – cheap rates. All relevant points – but he shouldn’t go speculating about their alleged voting patterns, because that could deligitimize his main points. I don’t believe we have any determinative information that would suggest that kind of activity, at least in significant numbers.
or, she could have been attempting to be somewhat responsible, and not the strident spear-thrower that her enemies attempt to portray her as?
Perhaps, but you’d have to see the vid to understand the context of her statement. She was fairly close to the edge on that one, and I don’t think she should even entertain that suggestion in the future.
Comment by Dmac — 2/7/2010 @ 2:58 pm
“Around three years or so, and I’ve heard him speak intelligently about the problems of massive illegal immigration and the relevant strains on our infrastructure (without their paying any taxes for them)”
There are taxes that undocumented people pay. But I don’t mean how long have you been following Tancredo on the just undocumented. Because this guy’s been a nativist for a while.
Comment by imdw — 2/7/2010 @ 3:43 pm
I was right, here’s Joe Klein explaining his opinion of the typical American who does not appreciate the “stimulus”.
1. The Obama Administration has done a terrible job explaining the stimulus package to the American people…especially since there have been very few documented cases of waste so far.
2. This is yet further evidence that Americans are flagrantly ill-informed…and, for those watching Fox News, misinformed.
It is very difficult to have a democracy without citizens. It is impossible to be a citizen if you don’t make an effort to understand the most basic activities of your government. It is very difficult to thrive in an increasingly competitive world if you’re a nation of dodos.
Comment by Subotai — 2/7/2010 @ 3:49 pm
Joe Klein wrote:
Wow. I recommend he go say that in Detroit.
Freakish little dwarf.
Comment by Eric Blair — 2/7/2010 @ 3:54 pm
Hey!
“..It is impossible to be a citizen if you don’t make an effort to understand the most basic activities of your government….”
So good old Joe Klein now is promoting poll tests?
Fabulous!
Of course, he will be called a racist. Unless his version of “understanding the most basic activities” of government includes having the DNC pre-fill in your ballot.
Heck, I would settle for no letting people vote unless they answered all of these questions:
1. What are the three branches of government?
2. What is the name of your governor?
3. What is the name of your state’s two Senators?
4. What is the name of your US Representative?
5. How does a bill become law?
6. How many states are there in the USA?
7. In what decade was the Civil War fought?
8. Name two amendments to the US Constitution.
That would keep a large portion of the electorate from voting.
Maybe even Joe Klein.
But it will never happen. It would be racist!
Comment by Eric Blair — 2/7/2010 @ 3:59 pm
Comment by Dmac — 2/7/2010 @ 2:58 pm
I watched yesterday’s speech, and today’s interview, and though I think that she can do with some more polish (who couldn’t) on a few points, she did well.
BTW, since she’s not running for any office, and neither is Tom Tancredo (last time I looked), or is Pat Buchanan, what we have is a bunch of independent opinions, two from people that are actually paid to opine.
The beauty of Sarah is that she pushes buttons by just showing up, buttons that make many people behave in a rather strange manner, saying rather bizaar things that reveal more about the speaker, than whom they are speaking about.
One thing about Tancredo that the Left takes great liberty with, is that he’s always accussed of being anti-immigrant, when that is not the case.
As with many others in the “immigration debate” he is more accurately described as being Anti-Illegal Immigrant, since he has always IIRC defended Legal Immigration, but does decry those that enter the country illegally (Mara Liasson, please take note).
Comment by AD - RtR/OS! — 2/7/2010 @ 4:05 pm
“…There are taxes that undocumented people pay…”
Please illucidate.
Comment by AD - RtR/OS! — 2/7/2010 @ 4:07 pm
Heck, I would settle for no letting people vote unless they answered all of these questions…
Better yet, they should pass the same test that immigrants take to become citizens!
Comment by AD - RtR/OS! — 2/7/2010 @ 4:10 pm
Oh, I agree, no matter how I mangled my grammar (typing quickly is not always a good thing!). But strangely, that kind of thing is promoted as racist. In part, because that used to happen in the South during Reconstruction: a white guy would be given a simple literacy test before being allowed to vote; a black guy would be given a passage in Latin from Ovid.
Of course…those were Democrats doing that….
Regardless, the practice of poll tests is now seen as racist.
Comment by Eric Blair — 2/7/2010 @ 4:12 pm
I don’t mean how long have you been following Tancredo on the just undocumented. Because this guy’s been a nativist for a while.
You act like that’s a bad thing. I’d like it if our elected representatives behaved like they represent the interests of the “natives” (i.e. us, i.e. the American people) a little more often.
But if you didn’t have your snappy little slogans you’d have nothing to say.
Comment by Subotai — 2/7/2010 @ 4:14 pm
Ovid? They gave them Ovid? Bloody hell, at least it could have been Tacitus. Ovid? Or did those old southern Democrats like their porn in latin?
Comment by Vivian Louise — 2/7/2010 @ 4:17 pm
IIRC, the “Intelligence Test” that was used when I first registered to vote in CA was that they required you to fill out the application in person, before the Registrar.
Comment by AD - RtR/OS! — 2/7/2010 @ 4:18 pm
“..It is impossible to be a citizen if you don’t make an effort to understand the most basic activities of your government….”
They were talking about literacy tests Saturday or Friday at the Tea Party Convention, but I’m guessing when push comes to shove, Klein prolly does not really want to implement one because it would mean too few Democrat voters.
Comment by daleyrocks — 2/7/2010 @ 4:41 pm
I wasn’t there, Vivian Louise. The old unfunny joke from the period was having the Registrar hand the white guy a short passage, and have him read it aloud:
“See Spot run. Run, Spot, run,” intoned the white guy, and was allowed to vote.
The Registrar handed the black guy a passage in Latin.
The black guy says “Oh, yes, I know what this means.”
The Registrar asks him to go ahead.
“This says,” states the black guy, “that no black man will vote in this county.”
Comment by Eric Blair — 2/7/2010 @ 4:42 pm
“Please illucidate.”
I’ll elucidate. Several taxes come at transaction time — like sales taxes, gasoline taxes. Others are factored into prices — rents are higher because of taxes on the underlying property, for example.
Lastly there’s also the undocumented who work with fake papers. They have withholding and all.
“You act like that’s a bad thing.”
Nativism? Yeah I don’t like it.
“natives”
Should one roll any r’s in “tancredo”?
Comment by imdw — 2/7/2010 @ 4:43 pm
Nativism? Yeah I don’t like it.
Why not? Because your idiot professors taught you that it’s a “bad word”?
Comment by Subotai — 2/7/2010 @ 5:03 pm
Several taxes come at transaction time — like sales taxes, gasoline taxes. Others are factored into prices — rents are higher because of taxes on the underlying property, for example.
Wonderful. I’ll skip paying my income tax and explain to the IRS that I do too pay taxes regardless. imdw explained it to me.
Comment by Subotai — 2/7/2010 @ 5:07 pm
Of course, tourists pay all of those transaction taxes too.
Should we let them vote?
And, please explain how they cover the costs of education for the children of illegals;
how they cover the costs of medical care at emergency rooms for illegals; and,
how they cover the costs of welfare that sympathetic state workers sign them up for even though FTMP they are not eligible for welfare benefits.
Please “illucidate” me.
Comment by AD - RtR/OS! — 2/7/2010 @ 5:19 pm
“Why not? Because your idiot professors taught you that it’s a “bad word”?”
Because I come from an immigrant family and I think immigration is good. Go round calling wingnuts nativists and see if they take umbrage. They didn’t all have my professors.
“Wonderful. I’ll skip paying my income tax and explain to the IRS that I do too pay taxes regardless. imdw explained it to me.”
I don’t think you quite got what i’m saying. Like when we were talking about congress sitting for 2 years.
“And, please explain how they cover the costs of education for the children of illegals;
how they cover the costs of medical care at emergency rooms for illegals; and,
how they cover the costs of welfare that sympathetic state workers sign them up for even though FTMP they are not eligible for welfare benefits.”
Oh I don’t say what they cover. I just say that it’s not true that they pay no taxes. I do think they need to pay more. Legitimately.
Comment by imdw — 2/7/2010 @ 5:45 pm
Because I come from an immigrant family and I think immigration is good.
Yeah, but that does not answer the question. Why do you think it is a bad thing for the US government to represent the American people (the “natives”) and not the rest of the world?
Comment by Subotai — 2/7/2010 @ 5:49 pm
“Why do you think it is a bad thing for the US government to represent the American people (the “natives”) and not the rest of the world?”
Are you talking about nativism or isolationism? I’m not sure you know what “nativism” means. We’ve been through something like this before.
Comment by imdw — 2/7/2010 @ 5:58 pm
Why do you respond to every question by attempting to change the subject? I asked you a very simple and straightfoward question.
Why do you think it is a bad thing for the US government to represent the American people (the “natives”) and not the rest of the world?
What you are whining about is not actually “nativism” at all. You’re objecting to attitudes about prospective immigrants, not actual immigrants. So spare me the lessons you learned from watching “Gangs of New York” and try to answer the question without any further attempts at deflection.
Comment by Subotai — 2/7/2010 @ 6:04 pm
I’m not sure you know what “nativism” means.
Yeah, I’m familar with your fantasy that you’re a heavyweight intellectual. Strange how many liberals suffer from this same affliction.
Comment by Subotai — 2/7/2010 @ 6:06 pm
“Yeah, I’m familar with your fantasy that you’re a heavyweight intellectual”
Oh no. This makes it much more difficult. It’s actually a pretty basic term you can learn from a few internet searches. Like finding out how long a congress sits for. I hope this is not too heavy.
Comment by imdw — 2/7/2010 @ 6:08 pm
“Why do you respond to every question by attempting to change the subject?”
Change the subject? I’m talking about nativism. You want to talk about that or a different subject?
“Why do you think it is a bad thing for the US government to represent the American people (the “natives”) and not the rest of the world?”
I think it is a very reasonable thing for hte US government to represent US citizens. Not just US natives.
Comment by imdw — 2/7/2010 @ 6:10 pm
What a pathetic clown you are.
It’s actually a pretty basic term you can learn from a few internet searches.
Then why do you continue you misuse the term? And why do you contine to frantically try to evade and change the subject?
Comment by Subotai — 2/7/2010 @ 6:11 pm
“Then why do you continue you misuse the term?”
Did you go and look up what nativism means? You appear to be confusing US citizens with “natives.” I’m not sure you even know what “natives” means.
Comment by imdw — 2/7/2010 @ 6:13 pm
Since imahalfwit won’t do it, I suppose I’ll have to.
Nativism favors the interests of certain established inhabitants of an area or nation as compared to claims of newcomers or immigrants
Tancredo is not proposing any policy which “favors the interests of certain established inhabitants of an area or nation as compared to claims of newcomers or immigrants”, is he? He’s not actually proposing treating immigrants any differently from “established inhabitants”, is he? He simply wants to reduce immigration, doesn’t he?
Try to answer the question, half wit.
Comment by Subotai — 2/7/2010 @ 6:15 pm
Different thread. Same imdw.
But now he is the children of immigrants.
And no doubt a “Concerned Christian Conservative.”
All troll. All the time. And you actually ask why this character evades and changes the subject?
Comment by Eric Blair — 2/7/2010 @ 6:16 pm
Did you go and look up what nativism means?
Did you, half wit?
You appear to be confusing US citizens with “natives.”
No, you did not.
Comment by Subotai — 2/7/2010 @ 6:17 pm
Try to answer the question, half wit.
Comment by Subotai — 2/7/2010
Talk about an exercise in futility. imdw can’t even answer what industry is going to pull us out of the current depression. He’s hung up on magical events like “the cycle” and thinks the national debt is paid off with GDP.
That he would offer more confused interpretations is hardly a surprise, but expecting clarity is likely hopeless.
Comment by Another Chris — 2/7/2010 @ 6:19 pm
“I suppose I’ll have to.”
Yes indeed I asked you to. Now, does your conception of “native” include Arnold Schwarzenegger as a “native” of the US?
“Nativism favors the interests of certain established inhabitants of an area or nation as compared to claims of newcomers or immigrants”
Did you get that from wikipedia? Did you read along to the first sentence in the next paragraph?
“But now he is the children of immigrants.”
Aren’t most of us?
Comment by imdw — 2/7/2010 @ 6:25 pm
“He’s hung up on magical events like “the cycle” and thinks the national debt is paid off with GDP”
You know, an economic cycle may be complicated in how and where it comes from, but it is not really “magic.”
Comment by imdw — 2/7/2010 @ 6:26 pm
“Should one roll any r’s in “tancredo”?”
In your case, yes, if only to help cover that lisp.
Comment by GeneralMalaise — 2/7/2010 @ 6:27 pm
I think it is a very reasonable thing for hte US government to represent US citizens. Not just US natives.
For the benefit of all the poor confused people here, please explain what you think the terms “US citizen” and “US native” mean. Because as I’ve already pointed out, Tancredo has not proposed creating some group of “US citizens” who would enjoy lesser rights than the “US natives”.
Comment by Subotai — 2/7/2010 @ 6:28 pm
“For the benefit of all the poor confused people here, please explain what you think the terms “US citizen” and “US native” mean.”
Usually, a native is someone FROM a place. Like Arnie is from Austria, but a US citizen. Thus terms like “native american” describe those descended from first peoples, not those born or naturalized here.
“Because as I’ve already pointed out, Tancredo has not proposed creating some group of “US citizens” who would enjoy lesser rights than the “US natives”.”
yes like with multilingual ballots and literacy tests.
Comment by imdw — 2/7/2010 @ 6:33 pm
Yes indeed I asked you to
I’ve asked you to to things, like answer simple questions, yet you seem strangely unable to do them. Why is that?
Did you read along to the first sentence in the next paragraph?
The one which contradicts the first sentence in the article. That’s wikipedia for you. Let’s consult the Merriam-Webster dictionary instead.
nativism – a policy of favoring native inhabitants as opposed to mmigrants.
-the revival or perpetuation of an indigenous culture especially in opposition to acculturation
What about Dictionary.com?
nativism – the policy of protecting the interests of native inhabitants against those of immigrants.
- the policy or practice of preserving or reviving an indigenous culture.
What about the Free Online Dictionary?
A sociopolitical policy, especially in the United States in the 19th century, favoring the interests of established inhabitants over those of immigrants.
Your definition of nativism is one which you and your dim witted friends on the left made up to suit yourself. The things you like to call “nativism” aren’t.
Comment by Subotai — 2/7/2010 @ 6:39 pm
“yes like with multilingual ballots and literacy tests.”
To vote, one must be a U.S. citizen. To apply for U.S. citizenship, applicants must:
* Be at least 18 years old at the time of filing the Application for Naturalization, Form N-400
* Have been lawfully admitted to the United States
* Have resided as a permanent resident in the United States for at least 5 years or 3 years if you meet all eligibility requirements to file as a spouse of a U.S. citizen
* Have demonstrated continuous permanent residence
* Have demonstrated physical presence
* Have lived for 3 months in the USCIS district or state where the Application for Naturalization, Form N-400 is filed
* Demonstrate good moral character
* Show an attachment to the U.S. Constitution
* Be able to read, write, speak, and understand basic English
* Demonstrate a knowledge of U.S. civics (history and government)
* Take the oath of allegiance to the United States
Comment by GeneralMalaise — 2/7/2010 @ 6:42 pm
Usually, a native is someone FROM a place. Like Arnie is from Austria, but a US citizen. Thus terms like “native american” describe those descended from first peoples, not those born or naturalized here.
So is it your contention that Tancredo wants to enact laws which discriminate against people like Arnie? A simple yes or no will do.
Comment by Subotai — 2/7/2010 @ 6:43 pm
Be able to read, write, speak, and understand basic English
Let’s not confuse imadimwit with difficult facts.
Comment by Subotai — 2/7/2010 @ 6:44 pm
So Arnie. Native? Or Citizen?
“That’s wikipedia for you.”
For me? I mean, you’re the one quoting it.
“Your definition of nativism is one which you and your dim witted friends on the left made up to suit yourself. ”
Indeed the dim witted left in charge of history and dictionaries.
Comment by imdw — 2/7/2010 @ 6:45 pm
“To apply for U.S. citizenship, applicants must:”
To apply. Not to be.
“So is it your contention that Tancredo wants to enact laws which discriminate against people like Arnie?”
My contention is that Tancredo is a nativist that wants to restrict people like arnie from coming here. Do you consider Arnie a “native”? I’m just trying to figure out your definitions.
Comment by imdw — 2/7/2010 @ 6:51 pm
For me? I mean, you’re the one quoting it.
And have you responded yet to what I quoted?
Indeed the dim witted left in charge of history and dictionaries.
Does that mean that you disagree with the dictionary definition of the word? Just add that to the long list of questions you refuse to answer, I don’t seriously expect a real response.
Comment by Subotai — 2/7/2010 @ 6:56 pm
You know, an economic cycle may be complicated in how and where it comes from, but it is not really “magic.”
Your economic theories obviously rely on that interpretation, though.
Comment by Another Chris — 2/7/2010 @ 6:57 pm
First we have this:
Because I come from an immigrant family and I think immigration is good.
Then this about two minutes later:
“But now he is the children of immigrants.”
Aren’t most of us?
Do you even read what you just wrote previously, cupcake? Next time you attempt to lecture someone about looking up sources for definitions of English words, I’d suggest you take care of your own posts beforehand.
Comment by Dmac — 2/7/2010 @ 6:59 pm
My contention is that Tancredo is a nativist that wants to restrict people like arnie from coming here.
A person who wants to prevent “people like arnie from coming here” is not a nativist. A nativist is a person who favors native inhabitants as opposed to immigrants, as the dictionaries explain to those who bother to read them.
You’re entitled to your own opinons, as silly and obnoxious as they might be, but you’re not entitled to your own private English language where words mean what you want them to mean.
Comment by Subotai — 2/7/2010 @ 7:06 pm
I’m just trying to figure out your definitions.
I’m stated my definitions and my sources for them. I’ve been trying to figure out your defnitions for a while now but as usual all I get is your usual shucking and jiving.
Trying to get a straight answer out of a lefty troll is like trying to get a straight answer out of WH press secretary.
Comment by Subotai — 2/7/2010 @ 7:18 pm
“Does that mean that you disagree with the dictionary definition of the word? ”
Definitions? Not at all. Nor do I disagree with the history of american nativists. I mean, I disagree with what they wanted to do, but not that they had those goals.
“Do you even read what you just wrote previously, cupcake? ”
Yeah aren’t most of us from immigrant families? I mean, how many native americans are here? Tom Tancredo? From an immigrant family.
“A nativist is a person who favors native inhabitants as opposed to immigrants, as the dictionaries explain to those who bother to read them.”
Indeed and they do this favoring by…. reducing or eliminating immigration and the ability of immigrants to bring their families over. How hard is this? I mean, you quoted one that talked about the US in the 19th century. What kind of policies do you think those nativists were after? and got?
Comment by imdw — 2/7/2010 @ 7:20 pm
“I’m stated my definitions and my sources for them”
You understand though, that I find it odd that you would include someone from Austria as a “US Native.”
Comment by imdw — 2/7/2010 @ 7:23 pm
“Does that mean that you disagree with the dictionary definition of the word? ”
Definitions? Not at all.
What does that even mean?
Do you agree or disagree with the dictionary definition of the word “nativist”? It’s a simple one word answer. “Definitions?” is not a valid response.
Comment by Subotai — 2/7/2010 @ 7:25 pm
“What does that even mean?”
I made it plural because the dictionaries have several definitions. I don’t disagree with them at all.
Comment by imdw — 2/7/2010 @ 7:27 pm
you quoted one that talked about the US in the 19th century. What kind of policies do you think those nativists were after?
Policies which discriminated aganst immigrants. I mean real old-fashined discrimination, not the modern “you hurt my feelings” nonsense. You-can’t-live-here-and-you-can’t-work-here-and-you-can’t-vote-here sort of discrimination.
they do this favoring by…. reducing or eliminating immigration
Well, no. Reducing immigraton does not discriminate against immigrants. As you so wisely pointed out, we’re a nation of immigrants. So its like saying that we’re discriminating against ourselves.
You understand though, that I find it odd that you would include someone from Austria as a “US Native.”
That’s your usual dishonesty. I simply said that the “natives” whose interests the US government should look out for where made up of US citizens. The part about those people being born in this country was your own addition.
Comment by Subotai — 2/7/2010 @ 7:41 pm
I made it plural because the dictionaries have several definitions. I don’t disagree with them at all.
Then list all of them including the ones you do agree with.
Comment by Subotai — 2/7/2010 @ 7:43 pm
This is your initial claim.
I think it is a very reasonable thing for hte US government to represent US citizens. Not just US natives.
The clear implication being that there are some people (me? Tancrado? the “nativists”?) who do not believe that mere “US citizens” should have the same representation as the “US natives”.
I’m still trying to get to the bottom of this. Can you point me to these people who make the distiction between “citizen” and “native” which has you so worried? Or have you dropped this argument and are hoping that nobody brings it up?
Comment by Subotai — 2/7/2010 @ 7:55 pm
I guess somebody is having a hard time finding a dictionary which agrees with his definitions of words.
Comment by Subotai — 2/7/2010 @ 8:29 pm
I’ve reconsidered. Imadickwad is not a maroon, or a liberal, or a Leftist.
It is a full fledged Marxist-Leninist Loonie-Tunes.
Only such a person throws the Discipline of Semantics out the window and constantly redefines known concepts.
Comment by AD - RtR/OS! — 2/7/2010 @ 8:52 pm
“Reducing immigraton does not discriminate against immigrants. As you so wisely pointed out, we’re a nation of immigrants. So its like saying that we’re discriminating against ourselves.”
Your logical skills are fascinating.
“The clear implication being that there are some people (me? Tancrado? the “nativists”?) who do not believe that mere “US citizens” should have the same representation as the “US natives”.”
You’re the one using “US natives.” Indeed that has a “clear implication.” That’s why I wanted to clarify and say “us citizens.”
“Can you point me to these people who make the distiction between “citizen” and “native” which has you so worried?”
You don’t? You use “US Native” to mean “US Citizen.” Then all is ok, if only a bit odd that you would use “US native” in a way that included someone from Austria.
“I guess somebody is having a hard time finding a dictionary which agrees with his definitions of words.”
The ones you posted are fine.
Comment by imdw — 2/8/2010 @ 5:46 am
This is classic imdw.
Comment by JD — 2/8/2010 @ 6:27 am
Your logical skills are fascinating.
Yours are non-existent.
You’re the one using “US natives.” Indeed that has a “clear implication.”
I actually spelled out what I meant by “natives” all the way back in comment #56. I mean “the American people”. I assumed that people of normal intelligence would get what I was saying, forgetting that you read this site as well.
You don’t? You use “US Native” to mean “US Citizen.”
As I somewhat jokingly said at the start – “I’d like it if our elected representatives behaved like they represent the interests of the “natives” (i.e. us, i.e. the American people) a little more often.”
The ones you posted are fine.
According to the ones I posted, Tancredo is not a “nativist” and favoring a reduction in immigration is not “nativist” either.
Comment by Subotai — 2/8/2010 @ 2:43 pm
“As I somewhat jokingly said at the start – “I’d like it if our elected representatives behaved like they represent the interests of the “natives” (i.e. us, i.e. the American people) a little more often.” ”
Sure I just had some trouble with a definition that considered someone not from here as native to here. Now I figured you out.
“According to the ones I posted, Tancredo is not a “nativist” and favoring a reduction in immigration is not “nativist” either.”
Sure it is. It disfavors immigrants to keep them out. And that’s what the 19th century nativists wanted and got — immigration reductions. Didn’t you find that in your wikipedia reading?
Comment by imdw — 2/8/2010 @ 2:54 pm
Why do leftists intentionally lump illegal and legal immigration together?
Comment by JD — 2/8/2010 @ 3:41 pm
“Why do leftists intentionally lump illegal and legal immigration together?”
With Tancredo it is easy, since he sponsors bills that limit legal immigration too.
Comment by imdw — 2/8/2010 @ 3:45 pm
C’mon, JD, you know the answer. They do it because it helps to confuse some folks and better positions the leftists to pull the “racism” card.
Tancredo’s 2003 proposed limit of 300K legal immigrants seems very reasonable to me, but, hey… I just work hard, follow our laws and pay my taxes.
Comment by GeneralMalaise — 2/8/2010 @ 4:05 pm
So, iamadimwit, when not discussing Tancredo, why do you do that?
Comment by JD — 2/8/2010 @ 4:09 pm
“So, iamadimwit, when not discussing Tancredo, why do you do that?”
If you want to find out if people are bothered by the “immigrant” part or the “illegal” part of “illegal immigrant” just ask them whether they’d prefer those people came here legitimately instead of being undocumented.
Comment by imdw — 2/8/2010 @ 6:15 pm
Again, vintage imdw. I asked a rather simple question, and you answered a question that I’d did not ask.
Comment by JD — 2/8/2010 @ 6:30 pm
“Again, vintage imdw. I asked a rather simple question, and you answered a question that I’d did not ask.”
Oh.
“So, iamadimwit, when not discussing Tancredo, why do you do that?”
I don’t. But I did get you with that Tancredo bit, didn’t I?
Comment by imdw — 2/8/2010 @ 6:34 pm
And the troll reveals its goals:
It’s all about scoring points—or trying to do so—with these people.
Comment by Eric Blair — 2/8/2010 @ 6:37 pm
“It’s all about scoring points—or trying to do so—with these people.”
If JD just hadn’t jumped on his assumption, he wouldn’t have made an ass out of himself in a Tancredo discussion.
Comment by imdw — 2/8/2010 @ 8:00 pm
I made an ass out of myself by pointing out that you seem to conflate illegal and legal immigration?
Comment by JD — 2/8/2010 @ 8:08 pm
What’s to conflate? Tancredo doesn’t. He knows the difference. I most certainly know the difference between legal and illegal immigration. Most def prefer the former.
Comment by imdw — 2/8/2010 @ 8:15 pm
“Most def prefer the former.”
Thanks for sharing, phat young hipster.
Comment by GeneralMalaise — 2/8/2010 @ 8:31 pm
I asked you why you do something, not Tancredo. General correctly noted why your ilk does so.
Comment by JD — 2/8/2010 @ 8:35 pm
“I asked you why you do something, not Tancredo”
Yeah you waded into a discussion of Tancredo assuming something about me. But you were wrong, and you learned something about Tancredo to boot. And you got yourself a nice question to ask folks No worries. All is better now.
Comment by imdw — 2/8/2010 @ 8:40 pm