EvilMonkey

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 28, 2009 -> 12:30 PM) I'd just like people to have some perspective, instead of just throwing s*** from their side of the aisle. The dems had 8 years to do that, not sure it happened even once. Why so suprised that it isn't happening now?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 28, 2009 -> 12:30 PM) I just think it is interesting that the same people who said the Bush-bashers were over the top, are now going way, way over the top about Obama. Payback is a b****.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Feb 27, 2009 -> 04:16 PM) I was expecting this to have turned into an Obamathon of bashing. Let's be careful in painting too broad a path. It only takes a couple guards to make this seem like an epidemic. It also only takes 1 overzealous lawyer to make s*** up in order to try and foster the exact kind of outrage you see here in order to help his client's prospects. All you have is allegations, no proof.

So are they gonna smack down every arab in the assembly that denounces the evil joooooos? I bet not.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Feb 26, 2009 -> 11:41 AM) Wow, why didn't AHB post this? Wrong party, wrong direction. But make sure to be aware when it goes up 2 points.

Thank god we dodged having Palin as our VP, we have Joe 'The brain' Biden, God love'em. "Do you know the webiste number?" It's a webiste, Joe, not a phone bank.

I thought that Pelosi and Reid wrote most, if not all, of the Generational Theft Act?

Burris would do anything for a conviction when he was attorney general (trying to get the death penalty for an innocent man, just because he was running for govenor), why is anyone suprised that he would do anything to get that open Senate seat? http://www.propublica.org/article/in-90s-b...nocent-man-1231

For all the people having Obamagasm at the fact that Obama is now our President, a little present. http://kabukishojo.com/2009/02/13/no-japan...ly-loves-obama/

QUOTE (Texsox @ Feb 14, 2009 -> 10:51 AM) After some trial and tribulation brought on by my daughter's High School, she was finally accepted at U of Illinois. It was such a relief. She was in the top ten in her class at the International Baccalaureate School here, but when she moved back to Illinois, her new high school screwed over her transcript. Oh boy, both kids in college . . . /anything in the stimulus package for me? or am I the stimulus package. Congrats! And yes, you are stimulating the economy! Doing your part as a great American! Thanks, Tex!

The War Against the Chtorr by David Gerrold. Rereading it since I have been slacking off in going to the used bookstore lately. It is sci-fi that when I first read, I had a hard time predicting what was going to happen. Usually I can figure out just where they are going with the story, but this one is different. I had just finished The Green Trap by Ben Bova, which I think several of you in here would like.

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 09:02 PM) At the end of the article it did state that the FBI had been searching their offices, ftr. But, you know, so many American's are justifying this, so nothing will come of it.

Nice example of the Democrats version of bi-partisianship. Let's just not let the Republicans in the room! http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30667

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 04:58 PM) There has to be a way to hold this man criminally and financially liable. Make him eat his own product.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 12:53 PM) Bottom line, those jobs that the lowest skilled immigrants (legal and illegal) take are not in high demand by people that were born and raised in the US. And what the government likes are illegals who do not have social security cards who accept no benefits, but pay sales taxes, property taxes, fuel taxes, etc. etc. If all of a sudden we unleashed 10,000,000 workers receiving benefits on the system, we'd be in a world of hurt. So that is a big fat reason why we've done nothing besides flap our gums and rattle swords. Remember Reagan and Bush's answers. But Tex, they DO accept benefits, every time they go to an emergency room for a cold or worse, because they can't be refused treatment.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 12:35 PM) Sure, there are some. Now place yourself in the position of the employer. Do you want to hire someone who may quit tomorrow when a job comes that will actually support their family? Or will you hire the person who has at least a chance of staying with you for a while? Minimum wage jobs are not meant to be supporting families, but stepping stones towards bigger jobs. Job that pay that low expect higher turnover than others. It's the $12 an hour jobs where they want more stability, and are afraid of hiring that guy who was making $70k last year.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 03:30 PM) Then vote against it and abandon the theatrics and stop pretending like you actually want to compromise. I have no issues with that. Like Teddy Kennedy did with the education bill that Bush invited him top help write, and he did, and then voted against because he couldn't be seen as having sided with Bush.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 03:08 PM) I'm not going to call any of you out directly, but some of you need to dial the obnoxiousness down a notch. Pssst! It's not me this time.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 03:07 PM) online research leads to... Basically, if you are not a deputized law enforcement officer and you are not inside your home, the only time you may legally fire a gun at someone or even deliberately brandish or point a gun at someone is if that individual initiates an immediate, believable, and deliberate threat to your life or the life of another innocent person. The threat must be deadly (specifically, a reasonable person in your shoes would have to believe that if the assailant were to carry through with his threat, it would likely result in death or great bodily injury to you or another innocent person). A person threatening to throw a ping-pong ball at you is not posing a deadly threat. On the other hand, someone pointing a firearm at you definitely poses a deadly threat. We should especially point out, in this context, that simple trespassing does not consitute a deadly threat. The classic hillbilly approach of brandishing a shotgun at someone who has wandered onto your property might not only land you in jail, but it could, quite possibly, entitle the trespasser to legally shoot you in self-defense. In additional to being deadly, the threat must be immediate (i.e. it has to be happening NOW). Note that an unarmed individual who verbally threatens to go fetch a gun so he can come back and shoot you is NOT posing an immediate threat. The threat must also be credible; you have to believe that your assailant has the means, the ability, and the intention to follow through with the threat. When it comes to credibility, deception intended to make you believe that your assailant is armed can count. Thus, for example, a thug who confronts you on the street with his hand placed in his coat pocket with a finger extended (so as to convincingly create the outward appearance of a concealed gun being pointed at you) and who then demands your wallet, is, in fact, creating a believable deadly threat, even though he isn't actually armed. On the other hand, if your best friend comes up to you during a backyard barbecue, slaps you on the back in a good-natured fashion, and says, ìHey, Bob, I'm gonna kick your ass for taking the last beer that was in the cooler,î he is not posing a credible deadly threat and, therefore, you are not entitled to shoot him. Furthermore, the threat must be deliberate (i.e. you should have good reason to believe that you assailant's threatening actions are intentional rather than inadvertent). If a little old lady is backing her Cadillac out of the driveway, oblivious to the toddler playing on the sidewalk directly behind her, you are not entitled to shoot her. Finally, the threat must have been initiated by your assailant in the absence of any such threat from you. A link? Because every state is a little different. And I still fail to see how this would be a violation of their civil rights worth $32 million.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 01:53 PM) Ah, so I did miss something. I saw some quotes from that rant, but didn't see that one. No need for him to be petty about it. And in his first month has called out Rush and Hannity by name on seperate occasions. Imagine if Bush had called out Randi Rhodes or any other Air America host by name? Petty indeed.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 11:27 AM) Perhaps the dirty diapers tipped you off to the danger? These are people looking to walk 300 miles for a minimum wage job at some restaurant or farm. Don't worry about the drug supply for Illinois, that arrives in semi's and on airplanes. Remember they are walking, they aren't carrying massive quantities of drugs. And you believe everything he says? Come on. There are coyotes and other wild animals that kill calves. Maybe there was some drug stuff, but that would be rare. Again they are walking hundreds of miles. They aren't carrying 6 pounds of worthless firearms. The danger will be from these guys slaughtering humans like the Iraqi's did. Tex, we are just gonna disagree on this. You think they are all helpless people just looking for a leg up, and I think that some of them very well could be dangerous. if they are willing to break the law to come into this country, what is to prevent them from breaking one more to get away? And with the larger number of them, firearms aren't needed if the rancher is also unarmed.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 11:21 AM) Not often I say this, but... I'm with Alpha on this one. That rancher, as far as I know the law (admitedly limited) and what I think is right, had every right to detain them with a firearm. If he had shot at them, that is a whole different thing, but he didn't. 16 people on your property illegally with everything to lose, with repeated illegal acts prior to reckon with, against you by yourself? You'd better believe I'd be armed out there too. Did it just get colder outside?

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 11:18 AM) Even if they were Americans, I think he'd have the right to protect his land from trespassers. All he did was detain them until the proper authorities could arrest them. I'm shocked this wasn't thrown out. The judge probably didn't want to piss off the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund who is representing them. Let it go to trial and then get defeated. If he just throws it out like he should have, they could come after him. They love to scream for the firing of anyone that dares look crosseyed at the illegal immigration issues down there. They also have rumors of ties to LaRaza, who can be real pains in the ass to anyone they don't like.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 11:10 AM) Whoa, every expectation of danger? It just isn't worth discussing. Why do you scoff at the idea that he has every reason to believe that he could be in danger? The tresspassers have vandalized his property, tore up pumps, killed calves destroyed fences, stole trucks, broken into his home and he has found garbage that could be from drugs. Being outnumbered 10 - 1, without a weapon, what is to stop them from committing harm to him? Or are all illegal immigrants just peacefull people only looking for the land of milk and honey? No criminals in them at all? None?

QUOTE (Texsox @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 10:55 AM) Actually, you must not hike or backpack. Out here it is really easy to get lost. Depending on his ranch, it may be easy to to pass from a neighbor ranch to his. I've done it. We thought we were leaving one area of a ranch to another area of the same ranch. Instead it was the neighbor's place. Good thing he was a ask questions first type of guy. Again, there are limits to what people can do to protect their property. For example, booby traps are illegal. You have the same right to keep trespassers off your property. Do you want your neighbor in his backyard pointing a gun at your kids when a ball falls over the fence? Remember he has rights. If your house was broken into three times in a week, would you be justified to sit on your porch and point a gun at everyone who steps on your lawn? And what about the Sheriff who stood there while this man kicked women and continued to train a rifle on these people? You don't have a problem with that? Then maybe they should try to have the guy arrested for assauly instead of 'violating their civil rights'. Again, your comparrison doesn't quite hold. To pass from a neighbor ranch to his, you first have to be on the neighbor ranch. So they tresspassed there first. Does the guy have a right to set up hidden pits with punji sticks in them? No. He did set up some sensors to tell him people are there which is fine, and taking his dog and gun with him is also fine. Since he was outnumbered, there is every expectation of danger on his part. However, if you are injured while committing a crime, your avenues for restitution are severly limited. break into my house and slip and fall on a wet floor, oh well. What happened after the authorities got there seems to me to be a problem with the authorities. Maybe they should be the ones being sued. And by 'having his gun still trained on them', does that mean he was aiming it at them, or simply still holding it? His word agains a bunch of people who probably can't speak the language and are merely following the instructions from the advocasy group that is representing them. I have no explination for the kick, but fail to see how that would violate any rights they have, especially $32 million dollares worth of them.