This Is The Amnesty Obama Is Looking For

Obama said that illegals would not get health care. He might be right because the amnesty bill that the Democrats are working on would grant legal status after 24 hours even if the background checks were not completed (none will be). It will also grant amnesty to gang members and all they have to do is say they don’t want to be in a gang any more.

This video is from sometime ago, perhaps around May. I never noticed it and I imagine others failed to see it because it is on CNN and no one watches that show except a few people who would be happy with the amnesty.

Watch the video here and voice your opinion in the comments.

I can think of two commenters who will think this is wonderful.

And these people wonder why there are costumes like this.

Big Dog

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

85 Responses to “This Is The Amnesty Obama Is Looking For”

  1. Adam says:

    The irony is you’re citing a video by Lou Dobbs and saying it was missed because “no one watches CNN except a few people who would be happy with the amnesty.” Right.

    So what bill are we even talking about? What is the status of the bill? It might be helpful to know more about the bill before you judge it or do you just trust Lou Dobbs to give you the straight dope?

  2. Adam says:

    For the record, I don’t wonder why there are costumes like the one you link. I know it’s straight up racism and xenophobia.

    • Big Dog says:

      Of course you would see it as such because you do not understand the maneing of the word racism. What about illegals has anything to do with race? If you are talking about Mexicans, Mexican is not a race. And the picture is of an outer space alien so how would it be offensicve ecxcept to people who make aliving trying to subvert the law.

      You see racism in everything.

      • Adam says:

        One estimate I’ve seen only shows that about 57% of illegals are from Mexico so I don’t really see your point. People don’t hate illegals because they are from one country or another.

        If you want to argue down to the specifics I’m sure there is a better term for folks who hate illegals not because they are illegals but because they non-white outsiders. Typically the terms racist and xenophobe as I used apply just fine.

        You take racially divisive quotes by Rush Limbaugh and write them off as accurate and unoffensive, so I’m not really expecting you to wrap your head around how an extraterrestrial being in an orange prison jump suit labeled Illegal Alien while carrying a fake “Green Card” can be offensive to anyone.

        • Blake says:

          Oh no, Adam thinks we are “Alienists”, or UFO racists- how funny- everything to Adam is racist, or bigoted- we are just “not tolerant enough”, and we will have to go to a re- education camp until we are as squishy as he is.
          Right- like that’s going to happen.

    • Blake says:

      Do you possibly think that the costume was satire? Or must everything in your life devolve into what you perceive as bigotry and racism? You mean that a play on words is beyond the pale? You can’t even entertain the notion that the person who came up with the idea had a National Lampoon (before your time, I know) moment, and went for the ridiculous instead of the mean?
      Must it always be this way with you?
      No humor at all?

  3. Big Dog says:

    You are correct. I should have said that network. But then it is not a real news network.
    I should have checked it myself instead of going by your quote because you misquoted me. This is what I went by:

    “no one watches CNN except a few people who would be happy with the amnesty.”

    That is from your first comment and it is in quotes. I should have looked to ensure that you had all the right words.

    But, you must have known what I meant to get the correct meaning out of it.

    • Adam says:

      Fair enough. I did assume you meant what I wrote first but I re-submitted the comment after noting my mistake.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “I should have said that network. But then it [CNN] is not a real news network.”>>

      CNN is not a real news network? So what network is, FOX?

      FOX “News” gives wall to wall cheer leading coverage and promotion of the teaparty Washington event and then, when the gay rights folks have a similar sized event at the same location how much time did this FOX “News” organization give?

      Three minutes.

      I guess in your land of delusion, that would be a “Fair and Balanced” news network.

      Here is a typical week and the number of right/left law makers represented on the networks. On this week, they all had more republicans on than Demo’s. This is typical over all. When you look at longer averages of this measurement, they all have more republicans represented, including NPR (which stands for “nice polite republicans”). The US media is rightwing, top to bottom, with a few exceptions on MSNBC. It’s good to see this new direction. Quite a ways to go though. Enjoy the ride.

      Ten shiny examples of FOX “News” dishonesty.

      • Big Dog says:

        I, of course, made the statement about CNN because of what the WH said about Fox. I knew it would elicit a response from the toadie Darrel and his twisted logic.

        Fox is as much of a real news station as any other and they have people from both parties on the shows. You say they gave 3 minutes to the queer party, I do not that to be true. It was probably more news coverage than any of the others gave the tea parties. The others were busy cheerleading Obama. ABC gave him an hour infomercial for health care and all the others are carrying his water.

        It is fair and balanced.

        Hannity is as balanced toward Obama ad Olberman was toward Bush.

        I know you have this idea that the Republicans are hiding throughout the media but when about 75% of the media admit to being liberal I think it is hard to find merit in the claim.

        NPR is left wing and pushes left wing agenda. It is public radio funded by taxpayers and an extension of the Democratic Party.

        The US media are right wing?


        Are all liberal and espouse the left wing views.

        Fox has plenty of people from both parties on but let us not forget little fella, that the Dems have had a semi boycott going on. Rahm and Axlelips want all Dems to stay off Fox and many will not go on.

        There are plenty of times where I watch a news show (and someof the opinion shows) where they discuss something and say that they contacted the politician and asked them to be on and were refused. The administration thinks it is getting an unfair deal (in other words Fox is not bowing down and acting as their media wing like the others) so it is shunning Fox and the Dems are falling in line. That is fine but quit being dishonest.

        Some of the news people on Fox are moderate left and Hillary said Fox treated her the fairest. O’Reilly gave Obama a good interview before the election and was easy on him. Sometimes he agrees with Obama and sometimes he takes him to task but he has been more than fair with him.

        Beck has been hard on Dems and Republicans and he was after Bush during his term. Hannity is as hard on Obama as Olberman was on Bush.

        And let us not forget, your fair CNN fact checked an SNL skit to pump up Obama. It is comedy and satire and they fact checked it. Did they fact check SNL when it was making fun of Palin with things that were not true and that she did not say? No…

        Fact checking a comedy show is what you call a news organization…

        Here is some news to help you and Wolf Blitzer:

        Dan Akroyd and Steve Martin are not really 2 wild and crazy foreigners, John Belushi was not really a honey bee and sharks do not live on the land and deliver candy or flowers.

        As long as we are fact checking…

      • Darrel says:

        Bigd: “Are all liberal and espouse the left wing views.”>>

        Your claim, which is nothing more than mere opinion is solidly refuted by the objective fact that they have more republican spokespersons on.

        Bigd: “SNL when it was making fun of Palin”>>

        That’s their job, making fun of politicians.

        The best job they did (award winning as I remember) of making fun of Palin was the time they recited her (idiotic) interview verbatim. Funny stuff. Easy to write too. Just read her transcripts. She writes the comedy for them. I bet they miss her (unlike the folks in Alaska).

        “FAIR’s original 2001 study of Special Report (Extra! , 7–8/01) included a comparison to CNN ’s Wolf Blitzer Reports —which favored Republicans 57 to 43 percent. And a 2002 FAIR study of the three major networks’ nightly news broadcasts (Extra! , 5–6/02) found an even greater imbalance than on CNN : Of partisan sources, 75 percent were Republican and only 24 percent Democrats. The differences among the networks were negligible; CBS had the most Republicans (76 percent) while ABC had the fewest (73 percent).

        Even NPR , characterized by conservative critics as “liberal” radio, favored Republican sources over Democrats by a ratio of more than three to two in a recent study of its main news shows (Extra! , 5-6/04). And Republican political domination doesn’t explain the imbalance: In FAIR’s 1993 study of NPR (Extra! , 4–5/93) , when Democrats controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, Republicans still outnumbered Democrats 57 to 42 percent.—S.R. and J.H.


        • Big Dog says:

          Once again Darrel takes things out of context. I did not complain that SNL was making fun of Palin and I agree it is their job to make fun of politicians (and the Palin bits were funny). What I said was that your fair CNN FACT CHECKED SNL on its Obama bit but dod not fact check SNL when it made fun of Palin. If you read for context you can see that the concept is that CNN is in the tank for Obama so much so that it felt the need to fact check a show whose job, by your admission, is to make fun of politicians.

          The FAIR report says that the reporting favored Republicans. Does this mean that the news was more favorable or that Republicans were mentioned more often. It is not hard to say that they were mentioned more often but what was the context? The reporting is usually opposition reporting and the reporting on Democrats is usually favorable. So how many times they were mentioned is not relevant to the discussion. The relevance is in how they were mentioned.

          This is an interesting piece from the UK.

        • Darrel says:

          Bigd: “The FAIR report says that the reporting favored Republicans.>>

          By “favored,” they mean raw number (head count) of republicans on the given media.

          Bigd: Does this mean that the news was more favorable or that Republicans were mentioned more often.”>>

          Apparently you didn’t read it. A good objective measurement, which doesn’t require interpretation, is to simply count the heads of how many from each party are given the opportunity to talk and give their party position on these networks. They all have more republicans on, usually far more, making them over represented.

          This is not consistent with your claim that the networks:

          “Are all liberal and espouse the left wing views.”


      • Blake says:

        Fox had more Reps on than Dems., because the dimwit WH has said not to go on Fox, So of course that will skew the participation of libs.
        But in audience Demographics, Fox IS more balanced, with dems and independents watching Fox more than ANY other news org.

  4. Big Dog says:

    My point is, none of it has to do with racist and how you use racist is not correct. How is it that people who want illegals out of their country racist? How is it racist to show an alien and call him illegal. What part of it is racist?

    Where does any of it deal with a race. Of course the thing is green, it is a space alien.

    You call the quotes racially divisive. I say they are pretty accurate. Then again, you dismiss the racially divisive quotes of Obama, Sharpton and Jackson so it must be a matter of perspective…

    • Adam says:

      Reasoning behind people’s opposition to illegals varies of course. Let’s not deny there are those opposed to illegal immigration who hide behind myths about the harm illegals do to our country or our legal system in order to justify their bigotry.

      The term “illegal alien” first of all is something immigrant groups have worked to do away with for years. I don’t think the costume is even the most offensive thing I’ve seen this week but there are xenophobic veins running through the ideas behind it and I agree completely with the quote calling the costume “distasteful, mean-spirited, and ignorant of social stigmas and current debate on immigration reform.”

      To some it’s just a joke. For other folks in the Latino community who fight for reform in policy and in the American mindset it’s not that funny.

      It goes hand and hand with the folks who think there are straight forward solutions to illegal immigration (Such as “Send them all home!”) but aren’t really considering all the ethical and legal ramifications behind their views. Jokes like that are just not helpful at all.

      I haven’t really seen many racially divisive quotes by Obama but maybe you can list them. Whether or not Sharpton and Jackson cross the line sometimes can be debated but their work for civil rights by far overshadows any negative things they sometimes do.

      Limbaugh? He is paid money to tear folks down, not raise them up. There’s a huge difference.

      • Blake says:

        There are quite a bit of negative things about illegal immigration
        1- it is illegal
        2- it depresses wages for all the rest of the workforce
        3-most of the outbreaks of E. Coli can be traced back to illegals defecating in the fields where they work, because employers will not provide porta pottys ( which, believe it or not, some illegals do not know how to use)
        4- contrary to liberal talking points, illegals bring their crime with them, adding to the overflow in the jails.

        I could do this all day, but you get the point. LEGAL immigrants have a stake in this country, because they have had to work hard to BE a citizen.
        Giving someone the easy path to citizenship just ensures that they will not appreciate it, having gained it through amnesty, which is the easy, and lazy, route.
        They need to learn english- enought to get by and gain citizenship.
        And quit waving that Damned Mexican flag if you want to be a US citizen.

        • Adam says:

          I don’t suppose you can back up your 1-4 with actual facts or sources?

          Being proud of your heritage and your past origins is important part of many people’s lives. Anecdotal evidence aside, there is nothing that says being proud of coming from the country of Mexico and waving that flag means you aren’t equally proud to now be living in the United States.

          • Big Dog says:

            No, maybe not but when you take down an American Flag and put up the Mexican one you have crossed the line. When Americans are arrested for burning a Mexican Flag then the line has been crossed.

            If they are prouyd of Mexico then they should go there and wave the flag. If they broke the law to get here they have no pride. If they are willing to work for below minimum wage and no benefits (which depresses wages) then they have no pride. If they were proud to live here they would be living here legally.

            • Adam says:

              “If they were proud to live here they would be living here legally.”

              You have nothing to back up such an idea.

            • Adam says:

              Even the proudest Americans break the law. It just depends on what law is being broken I guess as to how little you think of that person.

            • Blake says:

              The people who come over illegally are really not interested in becoming citizens- I know that is a newsflash to you libs, but they just want the money- then they send it home, untaxed, because they know that there is nothing anyone can do to make them pay taxes. You see, most of these illegals work as sub- contractors, thus when they are paid, they are paid ALL the money, none is withheld for taxes, because the boss of that business, by classifying them as sub- contractors, does not have to withhold money.
              So all of the taxes that should be collected, instead go to Mexico, and all the SS money that should be collected go to Mexico, and the American people benefit how?

            • Blake says:

              This is the true legacy of illegals- a giant money drain on our infrastructure, not to mention the theft of public services (hospitals, food stamps, etc.) that they and their brood suck off of.

            • Blake says:

              The logic is so plain that you would have to be the village idiot’s idiot not to see this.

            • Adam says:

              Logic in reference to which comment?

            • Blake says:

              Living here LEGALLY- you do understand the word, right?

            • Adam says:

              No, why don’t you define it for me.

            • Blake says:

              Quit being snide- if you do not know, educate yourself- now you are just being childish.

            • Adam says:

              Sorry, I thought you saying “you do understand the word, right” was too “snide” to merit a real answer.

            • Blake says:

              No, I was actually questioning your comprehension. I see I was correct.

            • victoria says:

              The logic is so plain for everyone who is not a lib Blake. I have read through this whole thread and just shake my head. That is all I can do. You and Big Dog have more patience than I do everytime.

            • Schatzee says:

              You are so right. I get so frustrated when I read some of these things and wonder why we are all going to hell in a handbasket. To see that people actually believe this rhetoric and think that being illegal is a “protected” class or something makes me want to hurl. They are not entitled to any rights under the Constitution as they are not Citizens. They are not entitled to Miranda, Fourth Amendment protections, or fair and speedy trials.

              If I were in charge, I would start by seizing every single item that an illegal owns, deporting them, and then fining any employers that gave them jobs. I would send them and their families, anchor babies and all, packing on a mule down a hot Mexican road. Then I would auction off their stuff and use it to pay for that fence that we need so deperately to keep these people out of here and honest.

              Wish we could put all the libs on the other side of that fence, too…

            • victoria says:

              “They are not entitled to Miranda, Fourth Amendment protections, or fair and speedy trials.”
              You got that right but what is worse is giving these rights to terrorists in a time of war. It is absolutely mind boggling.

            • Blake says:

              If you are proud of where you live, you tend to keep it clean- if you are proud of HOW you live, you tend to keep yourself clean. It’s really simple, Adam.
              You take pride in hard work done well- that is a given- but if you are breaking laws, there is no pride there, ergo, no corresponding quality of life.

            • Schatzee says:

              I completely agree. They do not have enough pride to stand up as men and women and do things by the law and respect our land yet they are proud of their homeland (that they ran away from as fast as they can) that they should fly that flag here? No – that’s BS. Mexicans believe that this country (and any other place they want to take over) is theirs for the taking and they should be able to do as they wish and our laws be damned. If we enforced the immigration laws we had, forced out any and all illegals in the public school system, deporting all illegals found to break our laws (besides the original one of getting here, of course), and starting punishing the illegal as well as their employer, things would start looking a lot better here and I think the economy would get a great big boost. Better than BO’s “stimulus.”

        • Blake says:

          1- well, if you cant see the irrefutable logic of this one, just give up reading
          2- the fact that you have access to a work force that can’t go to the legal authorities about workplace abuse, and under payment means you can and will pay them less, which means everyone else suffers, by lack of quality and performance. I know this, because I have worked in the construction trades alongside them for 35 years- you have not. I have seen this depressed wage system, and it not only hurts the immigrants, but myself and other Americans who are in the various trades.
          3- While I have not seen them defecate in the fields, I have friends who have, and I have seen then defecate inside a multi- million dollar house- several times- same thing.
          4- I have counted seven (7) hispanic crimes for every other nationality/ race crime reported in the newspapers every day.
          True, I can’t prove that these are all illegal immigrants, because Houston, the city that I get a paper from, is a Sanctuary City, where one cannot ask if these people are in the country legally or not.
          The fact that Houston lags behind only Phoenix in kidnappings (probably drug- originated) and these are perpetuated by MEXICAN DRUG CARTELS- oh Snap!
          These people are not Swedish, nor are they legal.
          People who work for what they get savor the fact that they EARNED it.
          People who are given things rarely do.
          And waving the Mexican Flag when you are allegedly trying to be a citizen of the US is counter- productive and dumb.
          Leave the flag at home.

        • Adam says:

          It’s mainly #3 I was worried about. Glad to know you base this on anecdotal hearsay and not real fact.

        • Adam says:

          I’m OK with #1. As for #2, I can accept for the most part though some economists can’t agree on what you’re saying.

          #3 is just sad. Shelve your anecdotal evidence and find me an actual study linking E. coli to immigrant workforces. Otherwise stop spreading things you can’t actually confirm.

          #4 is the same as #3. I’ve read some stuff talking about immigration and crime but I’d love just once to see you base your opinion on actual verifiable information instead of anecdotes.

      • Blake says:

        No, Adam- as I have said, I have SEEN them defecate in the houses we were building- one guy did id twice, rather than go to the porta potty in front of the house, where they would squat over the hole, rather than sit on the seat.
        The guy I caught twice I had to fire- he couldn’t obey what is a common sense rule.
        This is first- hand info- but as I have said, I have friends who can tell me what’s happening in the agro industry.
        Now, if you choose not to believe it, that’s fine.
        Still, if I were a vegan like you claim to be, I would wash your veggies very well, because what I have described is true.

        • Blake says:

          And the agricultural industry could easily make the link with E. Coli, but if they did, it would destroy them, so they cover it up, and say it is “existing”, or was carried there by some water source, but it has been my experience that for profit farms, especially the larger ones, leave little to chance from outside influences.
          The weak link is the illegal influence in the gathering process.

  5. Big Dog says:

    Sharpton and Jackson’s words and deeds cannot be debated. They have made anti Semitic remarks and Sharpton has incited riots where people were killed.

    But I see where it all goes now. You can make racist or anti Semitic remarks so long as you do good for civil rights. So if the guy who made the costume works each day to pass legislation granting amnesty he would be OK.

    I get it, it does not matter what bad you do so long as you do civil rights work.

    These two though, have little to do with civil rights. They are race hustlers who, (often like you) see racism in everything.

  6. Big Dog says:

    “That’s just how white folks will do you,” Obama writes. “It wasn’t merely the cruelty involved; I was learning that black people could be mean and then some. It was a particular brand of arrogance, an obtuseness in otherwise sane people that brought forth our bitter laughter. It was as if whites didn’t know they were being cruel in the first place. Or at least thought you deserving of their scorn.”

    That is racist. There is no denying that the first statement is racist. Now before you defend it or say it is not imagine what you would say if I said that a black guy was nasty to me but that is just how black folks will do ya…

    I think we both know what you would say.

    • Adam says:

      Sorry, but maybe if you’d read the paragraph in it’s actual context you wouldn’t sound so ignorant when accuse Obama of racism.

      • Blake says:

        Adam, I see the paragraph, and I can read its context- if by context, you mean his whole little red book, I’ll pass.
        The man is at the least, racially insensitive, at the worst, a racist like the KKK, but with black sheets.

  7. Adam says:

    You mean do I give a pass to a man who has spent his whole life working for civil rights but has one time or other made some statements that can be construed as offensive to Jewish people? Exactly right, I do.

    Your problem is not Jackson or Sharpton though. It’s the same problem you have with ACORN. When you see absolutely no need for the work these folks do then you tend to focus only on the flaws. It clouds your judgment.

    Myself? I see no need for the work Rush does. Uniting conservatives around his brand of hateful, divisive ranting? I’m sure you’ll argue that is just so much more useful to America than housing equality or civil rights.

    • Schatzee says:

      I believe that first statement makes you a hypocrit. If it is wrong, it is wrong and no one gets a pass just because they did civil rights work. That means that Black Panthers who kill are exempt from punishment because we have to overlook all that because it was for civil rights?

      This shows a true dichotomy of thinking and it is said. It is even right or it’s wrong and that goes for the KKK and the Panthers and Nazis blah blah blah. And it goes for you and Sharpton as well.

      I am not a racist – but I am free to hate anyone I wish. I hate criminals and illegal aliens are criminals so how can that be racist? And do I get a pass if I spend my time working hard for Indian Rights and the return of their homeland and civil rights?

    • Blake says:

      I see no need for the straight up racism of Sharpton and Jackson, no matter what they allegedly have done, and it is not much- they have done more to promote themselves than any other person.
      And then there’s the lie of Tawana Brawley, and the extortionate tactics of the Rainbow- Push org. both low points in race relations.
      As for ACORN, well, they speak for themselves and have NO redeeming virtues.
      There is No “equality in housing”- that is so much bull.
      You get a house when you can afford one- period. Anything else is dishonest at best.

    • Blake says:

      I think the work these folks do is largely unneeded, unwanted, and make the situation worse.
      They are separatists- they have no interest in getting people together, because if they do, there goes their payday.
      They make serious money off of divisiveness and reverse racism- why would they want to stop the money train?
      Then they might have to find a real job.
      Perhaps I should put a Rev. in front of my name, and get some gubbmint money too.

  8. Adam says:

    Sorry, but maybe if you’d read the paragraph in it’s actual context you wouldn’t sound so ignorant when accuse Obama of racism.
    Forgot to say great post! Can’t wait to seeing your next one!

    • Adam says:

      Got to love spammers.

    • Big Dog says:

      I read the paragraph and I understand what he said. He made a racist statement by stating that white folks will do you a certain way. It does not matter what he meant. You never take that into account when it is a white guy saying it.

      If a member of the KKK said he attended meetings for 20 years but never heard any racist stuff said you would call him a liar but Obama sat in a church run by a racist pastor for 20 years listening to the rants against white people. He stayed there which means he agreed. He is just a typical black guy.

      As for Jackson and Sharpton they are both race hustlers who want to keep blacks on the plantation so they can continue to have a job telling them how badly they have it. It is not about me hating them (I do) it is about me not thinking that they have contributed anything. Jackson shakes down companies and Sharpton incites riots that cause people to die.

      And they both see everything as a race issue (sort of like you).

      • Adam says:

        It’s not a matter of “what he meant.” It’s a matter of you not reading anymore of the text than that one paragraph and then judging that one line as racist. Get back to me when you’ve read at least the entire page and then try and explain to me how Obama rehashing and questioning the thoughts and ideas of he and his young black friends means Obama made a racist statement.

        • Big Dog says:

          Funny, when you are demonizing a conservative and calling him racist then you claim it does not matter what was meant and that the person is a racist because that is how it is perceived.

          I perceive the comment to be racist so it is racist.

          And you never addressed the racist church issue. Hard to defend that, isn’t it. He is a racist.

        • Adam says:

          To think Obama is racist based on the text you cite means either you did not read the actual text around it or you did and your reading comprehension skills are shot. A third option is you know it’s not racist but you’ll keep saying so because you’ve yet to see a lie about Obama you didn’t love to repeat.

          You have a history of not being able to determine what is and is not racist. Add this one to the list.

          As far as the church issue goes I’d hoped these weak guilt by association games would grow old by now. I guess not. I’ve attended church for decades. Does that mean the views of the people leading the churches I’ve attended are my views as well? Get real. Obama can seek spiritual guidance from a man for one area of his life and in doing so not become that man. Quit this guilt by association garbage.

          You said, “If a member of the KKK said he attended meetings for 20 years but never heard any racist stuff said you would call him a liar…” Talk about a joke. Obama was attending Christian church, not the meetings of a hate organization. Grow up. Stop lying.

        • Adam says:

          No, I don’t say a person is racist just because one person perceived it that way. I say a person is racist despite you failing to perceive it that way.

          You have a long, long history proving a complete inability to grasp basic ideas about race and culture. You’ve carried on that proud tradition here today with your hatchet job on Obama’s conversation about racism in his book.

        • Blake says:

          BD has a history of not being able to determine what is and is not racist? I guess by inference you would include me in the list of “racist” bigots- and all this without knowing what color I may be. Perhaps you are a knee jerk liberal who just hurls insults because you lack a serious argument.Hussein is racist- just by the tone of that paragraph he gives the lie to being “post racial”, as if his summary judgement of the police officer wasn’t proof enough in the “Skippy-Gate” problem.
          And as far as guilt by association goes, he has a lot of associations to feel guilty about- I could recite them, but you know them as well as we do. A”church, not a hate organization”? Really?
          You actually believe that, after all the videos that have surfaced? Christ approved G-D America?
          How do you know?
          A church can easily be a hate group- to say it was not when YOU didn’t sit in those pews is assuming, and you know what happens when you assume.

        • Adam says:

          “I guess by inference you would include me in the list of ‘racist’ bigots…”

          I didn’t call Big Dog a ‘racist’ bigot so whatever you think I’m including you in is just more fantasy on your part.

        • Blake says:

          Oh, but you have, repeatedly, in other posts as well- it is a kneejerk response, pavlovian in nature for you- I am just glad we can’t see the drool as you write it.

        • Adam says:

          In a way it is kneejerk. Any time I see a conservative being a bigot I get this kneejerk reaction to call them out on it. But you’re in the clear. I don’t think you’re a bigot. I just think you’re just a little dim when it comes to forming coherent arguments. That’s totally different.

        • Blake says:

          Adam, I hate to break it to you, but you are not the arbiter of what is or is not racist, or who is not culturally sensitive enough- you are one person, with but one person’s opinion- that is as good as you get- period.

  9. Adam says:

    I’m sure all this anger about non-American flags is also reserved for flags of European origin as well, right? It’s not just Mexican flags that scare you, but those Italians or those Irish waving their flags about as well…

    • Blake says:

      The last time I saw an Italian flag, it was on the napkin of a restaurant- no problem with that- the chef was not marching in the streets- he was too busy working.
      As for the Irish, well they wave their flag on St. Paddy’s Day, and that is OK also.
      I do not have a problem with Mexicans waving their flag on Cinco de Mayo and celebrating, but I surely do when they wave that flag and shout that they are going to take back the Southwest by flooding it with immigrants.
      I surely do have a problem with that – those people I look at as an invading army- they have stated their purpose, and must be stopped.

    • Schatzee says:

      Except confederate ones, of course.

      • Big Dog says:

        Excellent observation. Mexicans can take down American Flags and put their us, can wave them all over and people from other countries can wave their flags (all of which, except taking ours down and putting theirs up, is fine) but let someone wave a Confederate Flag and the world comes to an end as the race baiters come out in full force. The Confederate Flag, contrary to liberal perception, is not a symbol of racism. The Civil War was not about slavery. Slavery was a component of the Civil War and it is fair to say that without slavery there probably would not have been a Civil War but the reason the war started was state’s rights and largely based on commerce.

        That Flag was designed for the Confederate States (though the Rebel Flag commonly seen is only the field of the original Stars and Bars) and is a symbol of the heritage of the Confederate States.

        The fact that some hate groups use the flag does not mean the flag represents hate. It is only the modern version of history that teaches that distorted concept.

        Display that Flag and you have trouble. Display a Mexican Flag and you are a protected group of victims.

  10. Adam says:

    You never did say what this bill is in Congress that you’re talking about. I doubt you’ve read the bill or know it’s status so I find it strange you want to talk about it as if you have.

  11. Big Dog says:

    The Black Theology Church is a hate organization. If you are going to a church and do not agree with the things there you should find another church.

    I find it funny how you bend over backwards to defend the guy.

    As far as racism goes, I have been unable to determine what is racist and what is not based on YOUR definition of racism.

    • Adam says:

      “The Black Theology Church is a hate organization.”

      And you base this on what?

      • Blake says:

        Their sermons are not about love of all people- that’s for starters- of course, neither is Islam either- perhaps they have more in common that is first observed.

    • Adam says:

      And it’s not bending over backwards to shoot holes in your bullcrap with facts. It’s bending over backwards when you’re trying so hard to blame Obama for the actions of others because Obama has relationships with those people.

      • Blake says:

        Adam, if it was one person, maybe- two, I don’t know- but you cannot even count them on two (2) hands plus some toes- that is a lot of very troubling relationships.
        Perhaps you should look closer, dig deeper, think more profoundly.

  12. Big Dog says:

    I’ve never seen a European take down an American Flag and hang his flag in its place.

  13. Adam says:

    This is a heck of a conversation, I tell you.

    We’ve got Big Dog lamenting a bill he can’t even identify or tell me the status of in Congress. But he’s going to use it to attack Obama and his liberal readers, either way.

    We’ve got Blake linking E. Coli bacteria outbreaks to immigrant workforces despite admitting he can’t make substantiated link between the two. He still thinks anecdotal evidence makes for a legitimate, logical argument.

    We’ve got victoria chiming to compare illegal immigrants to terrorists and pretending the whole immigration issue is a conservative vs. liberal issue.

    We’ve got Schatzee calling for sending “them” back to…Mexico. Never mind the fact that about 43% aren’t even from Mexico and about 19% aren’t even from Latin America. Send them there anyway, let Mexico sort them out while we build a giant fence to give us a false sense of security about our Southern border.

    Short on facts, soft on the logic, but heavy with the outrage and the frothy indignation. This folks, is your modern conservative movement…

  14. Adam says:

    Myself? I eat a 100% vegetable diet. I want illegals here just to keep our the cost of our produce cheap!

  15. Adam says:

    Here is some wiki info on the faults of anecdotal evidence.

    Blake should pay special attention to this 2nd part:

    Evidence, which may itself be true and verifiable, used to deduce a conclusion which does not follow from it, usually by generalizing from an insufficient amount of evidence. For example “my grandfather smoked like a chimney and died healthy in a car crash at the age of 99” does not disprove the proposition that “smoking markedly increases the probability of cancer and heart disease at a relatively early age”. In this case, the evidence may itself be true, but does not warrant the conclusion.

  16. Big Dog says:

    Having more Republicans on does not mean the network is NOT liberal. It just means they have more Republicans on. The networks are liberal with over 70% of their workers identifying as such.

    Look at how they ran Obama’s campaign…

    It would be interesting to see who form these organizations donated to candidates and how much.

  17. Big Dog says:

    Yeah, The Republican Party was in about the same position when Carter was elected. Looks what happened next.

    Keep thinking like the moron at HuffPo and you will wake up next year very surprised.

    Of course, not long ago the same claims were made about the Dems and they came back.

    The way they are going we will not have a country for either party to thrive in.