Regards,
Peter H.

“You’re dreaming if you think 10% of the world is gay.”

I am merely quoting to you what the HRC and their associated groups say. So if you have a problem with those facts, tell them, not me.

“If you were trying to make your readers think you countered that with an argument in Spanish, I hereby let your readers know that that’s not what your Spanish did: “tatas grandes” means “big tits”.”

Well DUH – that’s exactly what I meant to say. I happen to speak and write Spanish fluently, including the ubiquitous “Tex-Mex” lingo so popular in my neck of the woods.

My point was that the only way some champagne socialist like Ted Kennedy would get involved with illegal aliens is if his kitchen maid (with the tatas grandes) were to be deported. Because he and his ilk are the type that would pay less-than-normal wages to someone who came into this country illegally.

“Calling them “illegals” and “invaders” is the equivalent of calling you a “fag”.”

How so? If you cross any border without permits or papers, you are “illegal” and you are “invading.” It’s called being ACCURATE.

Que tonteria.

Regards,
Peter H.

I gave you an example of hypocricy: middle-class Republican voters who, I guess, believe their gardens are being “invaded” (for twenty-five bucks a visit) by illegal immigrants. In joining their outrage over illegal immigrant “invaders”, you’re joining them in their hypocricy. If you were trying to make your readers think you countered that with an argument in Spanish, I hereby let your readers know that that’s not what your Spanish did: “tatas grandes” means “big tits”.

Illegal immigration is caused by all of us, you and me, consumers, who naturally seek out the least expensive products and services to buy. Consumers want low prices, it’s how consumers get low prices. The businessman knows what the consumer values, with illegal immigrants the consumer is getting what he values. It’s capitalism, and in America we’re for it.

Calling them “illegals” and “invaders” is the equivalent of calling you a “fag”.

Plus, how exactly is one “joining with hypocrites?” Unless you join the DNC, that is. But I digress.

I’ve always said the following truth: Conservatives like you for WHO you are. Liberals like you for WHAT you are.

Again, if you wish to define yourself as being a gay person rather than a human being, eso es tu problema.

Regards,
Peter H.

The lady can teach the waffling gentlemen on her side of the aisle a thing or two about being a “steel magnolia.”

Regards,
Peter H.

Regards,
Peter H.

And, if I may, when Latino illegal immigrants, as part of their gang initiations, are assaulting and stabbing gay people, your rhetoric about minorities needing to stick together falls amazingly flat.

Actually, mi estimado Fernando, I never address libertarians as such. “Libtards” is a conjunction of the words “Liberal Retards.”

That being said, I take offense at being called a “minority.” Being gay does not necessarily mean you are a minority, unless your orientation means more to you than life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Anyone who thinks of themselves as a “minority” has some serious victimization issues.

“I’m for amnesty because I like neighbors, even if they’re republican hypocrites.”

I think you just spelled it out for all of us here how your mind works. You are no more different than typical champagne socialists who whine about the plight of the “common man” while dining at a chic 5-star Manhattan restaurant with your diamonds, pearls and Prada chic.

That’s like Ted Kennedy says he supports amnesty because the latina en la cocina tiene tatas grandes. Or better yet, because someone like Barney Frank can hire a hot leaf-blower who (shall we say) can multi-task.

Que lastima.

Regards,
Peter H.

Amnesty Si.

I’m in the western end of the San Fernando Valley, L.A. You can drive around this middle class neighborhood any day and see mexican-looking men in the hot sun keeping homes’ lawns and gardens beautiful for some twenty-five bucks a visit. Every home, almost without exception. It doesn’t take a genius to know these men are illegal immigrants. I’ve met some and they tell me the home owners never asked to see “documents”. I haven’t read all comments here, but most I read wish for a good prison sentence for employers of illegal immigrants. That would wipe-out my neighborhood. I’m for amnesty because I like neighbors, even if they’re republican hypocrites.

Because, GPW, union dues do not necessarily fluctuate with salary, and the more people you can conscript into a union, the more dues you can collect.

Leftist Democrats know a bonanza when they see one; they simply conscript immigrants, most of whom are barely literate and are used to paying kickbacks to bosses for arranging work, into union membership. They know these people will pay their dues and do as they’re told — and if they don’t, the union will out them to la migra.

This is why I suggested above that probably the most effective employer limitation that could be made is to require people to be able to legally work in the United States in order to join a union.

Which ones, Ted?

The ones who are prohibited by law from firing employees because their Social Security numbers don’t match their records — which you can’t determine until months after you’ve hired a person?

The ones who don’t have the capability or means to determine whether or not identification documents are forged — because there is no uniform standard for IDs in the United States?

If you want to follow that route, there are three places you should really target; the government-sponsored day-labor centers that shelter and shop out illegal immigrants, the front of Home Depot and Lowe’s, and labor unions. Indeed, if you wanted to make a serious dent in the places most likely to “hire” illegal immigrants, pass a law requiring that union membership be subject to the same right-to-work document requirements as employers.

And the very ironic thing is this; the more illegal immigrants you deport, the more disruptive it is to the business of those who hire them. Just as you wouldn’t want to hire an employee who you expect to ditch you in a matter of weeks, deportations are a powerful incentive to make sure that your workers have the right to be in the United States — since it vastly increases your odds that they’ll show up for work tomorrow.

Are you willing to accept house-to-house searches? Random car-stops? Wholesale round-ups? Where are you going to ship them?

House-to-house searches are mitigated when you pass laws forbidding anyone who is in the country illegally to purchase or rent housing (which, ironically, would be the same law as Mexico)

Random car-stops are what the police SHOULD be doing, because virtually every illegal immigrant is driving without a license.

Wholesale roundups are what you get when you conduct immigration raids against the business owners you want to punish.

And where are we going to ship them? Their home country. Personally, I’m all for the government establishing immigration ports on both coasts, buying a few dozen cruise ships, returning people to Chiapas or Cancun, and bringing back LEGAL immigrants.

By the way, why are the unions so quiet on the topic when it is their consituency that is most economically harmed by an influx of illegal, cheap labor?