seattle.politics

On Sep 5, 2:08 pm, geo...@ (Geoff Miller) wrote:
> [original newsgroups restored]
>
> Deadrat writes:
> >> What due process would you use to denyillegalaliens of their
> >> Constitutional rights?
>
> : A constitutional amendment denying them constitutional rights,
> : obviously
>
> > Good answer. But this is not so obvious to many of your fellow
> > xenophobes.
>
> I'm againstillegalimmigrationand willing to see us take serious
> steps to curtail it, therefore the only possible conclusion to be
> drawn about me is that I'm a "xenophobe?" What's it like, living
> there at the nucleus of objective reality? I bet you have a
> million-dollar view.
>
> Xenophobia has nothing to do with my position. Taking offense at
> the idea of people coming into my country illegally, breaking our
> laws as their very first act in this country and line-jumping
> the thousands who play by the rules and wait years for permission
> to come here, has everything to do with it, Rodney Righteous.
>
> : -- or more precisely, restricting constitutional
> : rights to citizens and aliens who are in the country legally.
>
> > What a small, frightened person you are.
>
> You presume to psychoanalyze a complete stranger based on nothing
> more substantial than a Usenet post stating his opinion on a single
> issue? I think I'll call you Sigmund Fraud.
>
> : The nifty thing about laws is that they can be changed.
>
> > The nifty thing about the Constitution is that it's not that easy
> > to change.
>
> Nor should it be. Then again, in this context changing it doesn't
> have to be easy; it merely has to be possible. It couldn't be *too*
> difficult, or that proposal of an anti-flag-burning amendment wouldn't
> keep coming up every few years like it does.
>
> : You've got to be a liberal.
>
> > You may draw whatever conclusions your prejudices drive you to.
> > I don't identify my politics.
>
> You don't need to. Only liberals call people "xenophobes" because
> they want to curtailimmigration, or tell others they have psycho-
> logical afflictions because they believe in upholding the laws of
> the land with respect to who gets into their own goddam country.
> Nobody else has his head up his ass quite that far.
>
> : Only liberals are this hung up on who has what "rights." To a
> : conservative, the salient point would be thatillegalimmigrants
> : are in the country -- wait for it -- illegally.
>
> > What a small, frightened, ignorant person you are.
>
> And what a presumptuous, blinkered person you are.
>
> > Traditionally, it has been thoughtful Americans who are "hung up"
> > about rights, and it has been conservatives who have been the most
> > suspicious of giving up rights to the central government.
>
> And traditionally, it has been smug, self-righteous *liberals* who
> are "hung up" on the rights of criminals. Been to any candlelight
> vigils outside the gates of San Quention during an execution lately?
>
> > You are not a conservative in any meaningful sense of the word.
> > You are a rightard -- the modern heir to the xenophobes,
> > isolationists, and know-nothings who periodically poison American
> > politics while claiming to be conservatives.
>
> If all you have to offer is presumptuousness and namecalling, then
> I'm afraid you haven't got much of a case.
>
> Take a friggin' hike...
>
> Geoff
>
> --
> "I've fallen into a local minimum and I can't get up!"
> -- Thomas C

*************************************************************************

ARE YOU CHILDREN THROUGH YET ?
*************************************************************************