Michelle Malkin argues on Bill O’Reilly that we should deport the criminals first. Good for her.
Then Geraldo suggests that her argument is reminiscent of what the Nazis did. To call him a clown, or a boob, is being far too kind.
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |
Powered by WordPress.
“Michelle Malkin argues on Bill O’Reilly that we should deport the criminals first.”
Or at the same time. Both are good.
Kevin (1c20c1) — 6/9/2007 @ 7:20 amYou seem to be ignoring the fact that they’re all criminals. Sure, some are worse than others, but not one is innocent.
Kevin (1c20c1) — 6/9/2007 @ 7:21 am“…her argument is reminiscent of what the Nazis did.”
NAW,
Hitler rounded up domestic Jews, today most of those we are after would be Catholics! 🙂
TC (b48fdd) — 6/9/2007 @ 7:55 amNot to rain on the parade of those who think rounding up all 12 million is the only option but consider the impact on public opinion after the ninth or tenth video clip of an Ilian Gonzalez type episode. Support would collapse very quickly.
The lawbreaker = evil argument is a bit disingenuous too. Should we cut off the foot of everyone who speeds – I mean after all they are a lawbreaker. This is the problem with Malkin’s analysises — they are always framed in all or nothing contrasts.
voiceofreason63 (bdf42e) — 6/9/2007 @ 8:15 amYou sure, Voice? I’m not for rounding them up, but I’m fully for slamming people who hire them. Are you truly confident that when they realize they can’t make money here and decide to go home, the public outcry will be great?
Kevin (1c20c1) — 6/9/2007 @ 8:35 amGeraldo is an idiot in search of a village to live in….
fmfnavydoc (affdec) — 6/9/2007 @ 9:29 amTC (#3):
Are you sure they are Catholics? Remember: “Poor Mexico, so far from God; so close to the United States.”
VOR63 (#4):
Another Drew (8018ee) — 6/9/2007 @ 9:36 amUnder Shariah, that is exactly what will probably happen to speeders. How prescient of you.
Malkin’s analysis is so problamatic with you only because she reaches different conclusions. Her’s are rational, in most cases.
#5
The outcry I think of is how the public will watch an episdode like Gonzalez every night on the nightly news and not decide it is too harsh.
I agree with you about the employers.
#7
voiceofreason63 (d79986) — 6/9/2007 @ 10:32 amMalkin’s are simplistic. Great for high school debate and the blogosphere one upsmanship but not very practical in the adult world. Solving the problems of our times are complex, not a string of talking points.
It really needs to be pointed out here that “deporting the criminals first” wasn’t the only thing she was suggesting, and the context needs to be made clear.
She was replying to Geraldo offering the stock FalseChoice between MassDeportations and a MassiveAmnesty; she informed both Geraldo and O’Reilly of the rarely-allowed-to-be-mentioned alternative of simply enforcing the laws and thereby encouraging IllegalAliens to leave.
That will certainly involved raids, and many on the left will once again show that they have no interest in enforcement but simply want a LooseBorders system. And, MichaelChertoff even recently implied that he was going to try to inflame the left by staging emotional raids. Both dynamics – and one more – in action at the link.
If the left won’t allow us to enforce our laws, then work to discredit the left, don’t capitulate as our “leaders” would have us do.
The underlying dynamics (9163ab) — 6/9/2007 @ 11:22 amTancredo = KKK-666-Nazi
Amestia para todos!!!!
No one is illegal!!!
The border crossed us!!!
Che2007&4ever (f6ecc4) — 6/9/2007 @ 11:49 amWhile miss spellings are common on the internet, one would think a true amnistĂa supporter would know how to spell it, including the accent.
Say, did you know that the NYT says the WhiteHouse has been “posting defenses” on both conservative and liberal sites? Has anyone seen an overt example on a liberal site?
WhiteHouse leaving comments on blogs? (cc42f6) — 6/9/2007 @ 1:16 pm#9
It really should be pointed out that at her site and throughout her proxy site Hotair, the word “shamnesty” is used to describe the bill.
Take a look at the thread describing the “battle” between Michelle and Geraldo and tell me that is responsible discourse.
The rarely allowed option you mentioned has been an utter failure and is naive. It is irresponsible to “kick the can” down the road. Let’s be honest – the Republican base is more concerned with the potential of voters going to the Democrats in 13 years when the amnesty conditions are met. The Democratic base is beholden to the unions and don’t want to upset them by bringing in competition.
Neither party has been given an oracle that says “we are the truth and light, the rest are traitors or neocons”. When a bill generates as much furor in BOTH of the party bases such as this one has, I tend to think the bill may be just about right.
voiceofreason63 (d79986) — 6/9/2007 @ 1:37 pm#12 – I’m not sure I can call myself the Republican base, but I’m surely the conservative/libertarian base (i.e. the old Republican base).
And we don’t care a flip about how non-Americans will vote. We just want them gone. If, when they’ve gone, we find that we need more people for our labor force, let’s let an increased amount of immigrants in, who are willing to learn english.
English. That’s key.
Kevin (1c20c1) — 6/9/2007 @ 2:43 pmvoiceofreason63, you use the same exact argument the creators of the amnesty bill did. Funny how that works out eh?
The conservatives seem to want people to follow the law FIRST, then we can talk about the ones here.
The liberals want the amnesty without the pesky enforcement parts.
Hence both sides hated it. As 2 wrongs do not make a right, 2 sides hating a bill will not make it good.
Lord Nazh (c4715e) — 6/9/2007 @ 6:00 pmVia Instapundit, Alberto Gonzalez wants to help Mexico seal the border in reverse:
Bush I and II really like the idea of a New World Order. How inconvenient for America to have Wilsonian Presidents at a time when we need a Jacksonian.
DRJ (2d5e62) — 6/9/2007 @ 6:06 pmYou mean Hillary?
Christoph (bad4f9) — 6/9/2007 @ 6:07 pm#14
So the two bases can go on scaring their robots, nothing gets fixed, enforced or changed to hurt business — yeah it’s a great day for America.
#15
voiceofreason63 (d79986) — 6/9/2007 @ 6:35 pmNew World Order? Come on that’s right up there with the Truther rantings.
I would call him a scum bag piece of sh*t! or As*hole!
Rodney A Stanton (8327fe) — 6/9/2007 @ 6:41 pman old exJarhead
Scorecard from the video: Malkin was the calm voice of reason, O’Blowhard was just being himself, and Mr. Al Capone’s Vaults was shameless, even by his low standards.
Bradley J. Fikes (6b5d0a) — 6/10/2007 @ 6:15 am#17, now you’re just being silly.
Kevin (1c20c1) — 6/10/2007 @ 11:30 am#20,
Kevin,
No not at all. Like abortion this is the perfect gift that keeps on giving to the bases. Nothing will ever be solved or done, but betcha by golly wow here is a reason to give us your money and vote because we “shor will clean up the mess”.
voiceofreason63 (2d87af) — 6/10/2007 @ 11:40 amFive years from now there will be another 3 million illegals and maybe a few miles of fence.
VoiceOfReason63 #17:
How so? I can’t help but notice the similarity between our President’s support for Mexico (via the continuation of porous American borders) and his father’s advocacy of a New World Order that linked America’s vital interests to international concerns.
DRJ (2d5e62) — 6/10/2007 @ 12:09 pmFIRST you deport the felons, DUI’s. Druggies and the Child Molesters. That’ll take a year or so. IF we were to stick to that plan and announce that sooner or later those illegally here and on welfare/Social Security are next, I am sure they will take care of themselves. But every other country in the world holds this as a right to themselves, not to tolerate illegal crossing of their borders, WHY SHOULDN’T WE?!?!
paul from fl (ae01cb) — 6/10/2007 @ 6:51 pmWe no longer can absorb the “huddled masses yearning to be free.” (which by the way was one hell of deal for the new industrial America wasn’t it?)We need to come up with a sustainable, human immigration policy and STICK TO IT.
Speaking of sticking it…Stick it Geraldo you hack.