Where would you stand? How would you answer her?

[Risa]

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/4 ... 2/118#c118

no, this isn't me.

A too long rant. I've never chimed in on the illegal alien debate, because I can't form my thoughts in a coherent, intelligent manner, but since it's Sunday, I'm just going to ramble.

I'm with you.
And feel like a stranger on Daily Kos for the first time since it's inception with my views on this.
I'm used to being asked by the right wing nuts "why do you hate America".
Now I read diary after diary literally asking me "Why do you hate Mexicans? Why are you a racist? A bigot?"

I subscribe to approximately five liberal magazines. They all tell me the same thing. That if I don't support illegal immigration I'm with the White Supremacist. I read that in the Rec Diary on DK two days ago too.

I am more far to the left than most of DK. I've marched in protests against the war and against Bush. I'm for affirmative action, living wages, helping the poor, training the uneducated so they can try to survive in the country. I'm a member of Green Peace, The Sierra Club, Emily's List, the ACLU, the NAACP. Blah blah blah. Boring. One of those "my best friends is an African American" litanies. (but actaully, she is.)

I'm a first generation American. My parents came here and waited in line to do so. They filled out the papers. They came over on a piece of shit boat. They could not speak a word of English, and my Dad earned two dollars an hour working his three jobs. The first thing they both did was learn English and begin the assimilation. The second thing they did was hold onto their heritage, their language, and proudly passed that down to me and my brother. Both flags flew at our house. Both flags were on their cars. I learned the language my parents speak, fluently, but they made sure I learned English first. And there wasn't a "Press One" for Spanish for my parents, or any other nationality that came here. I just don't get most of this.

I don't know if this makes me take a harder line or what. Instead of emphasizing with illegal immigration, I am completely against it. And I know from my Mom and Dad, what it means to have nothing, nothing but a small suitcase and the clothes on your back. When it comes to war, I follow in my parents footstep, who lived through a horrific war and are now total utter peacenik pacifists. The Gulf War, and the bullshit Iraqi War had my Mom crying almost every other day. So I think, shouldn't I be crying for the illegal aliens too?

But when I see the videos of people just walking in this country, and then hear the Hispanic pundits telling me to deal with it, I do a slow burn, and it hardens me. The diaries I read telling me I'm wrong and I don't care harden me. Why the hell should anyone have to "wait in line", if you can just come in because you're poor? Why do we even have an immigration policy if that's the case? One sector of the world's population who needs a job just blatantly says screw that, and the rest of the world doesn't get that caveat? How many people can we take in? Or am living in the dreamworld and the United States is really doing okay and Bush is so right and dk and the left is so wrong. Jobs everywhere I look. No one hurting. We can afford to take this on. What national debt? What fifty million Americans here legally who have no health care? George W. Bush wants to grant amnesty to help big business get cheap ass labor. The Right loves big business but is fractured on this because of their...well. That's all over the map. Progressives and Liberals hate what big business has done to the poor and agree with Nadar's view on this matter. But now progressives and big business and GW all want the same thing. And Lou Dobbs was okay when he turned against big business (and W) and lambasted them for what they are doing to the workers of this country, but now he's a racist and a bigot. And..christ. It never. Ends.

I'm so damn sick and tired of hearing that Americans won't do the job. I'm one the lucky ones. I'm not a predicament that pits me against outsourcing or insourcing. And I won't be for a long time. But for god's sake, pay those Americans a decent living wage, and they'll do whatever they have to do to take care of their families. Unless it's now selfish on an American to want to own a house to raise their children in - how dare they demand something over minimum wage? It's not just the menial work that's being affected, it's construction jobs too. Why should a contractor hire a Father of two with a mortgage for 15 dollars an hour, and they'll do it for five dollars an hour and think they hit pay dirt.

Progressives and Liberals like to jump on underdog causes. I'm a part of that. But what a strange alliance this has become for so many. Lining up one hundred percent with Big Business to get cheap labor. Between outsourcing high tech jobs up our wazoo, and now making sure all the other jobs in this country pay shit wages, we're just helping make sure the GOP takes this country back to the days of McKinley quicker than anyone could have envisioned.
The rich. And the poor. And nothing in-between.

What I don't understand is why we don't take to the streets to help those who come here legally, who get screwed royally every single day. We don't take to the streets to help the Middle Class, who pay for all the services needed for illegal aliens, and get nothing back except for potholes being patched up. Unless this board honestly buys into the thought that those earning 20,000 dollars a year pay enough in taxes for the use of those services? Why don't I see front page posts on the cause for living wages as much as I do for granting amnesty to illegal aliens. Instead of jumping on that feeble bandwagon to fix that first, we add to it. And what I don't see is helping Native Americans once and for all considering the act of mass genocide we subjected them to, along with sticking them in literal prisons called reservations. What I don't see is trying to figure out what the hell is going on when more reports come out saying that African American men are further falling through the cracks.

I never once questioned where my tax money goes. We're by no means wealthy. Not even close. But I just always felt that if I can afford to buy a five dollar cup of Latte everyday, I'm okay. But I'm starting to get really ticked off (yeah, we're doing our Taxes today) seeing how much we pay in for this war, the debt etc etc. How little is going to really help those in need. And how we don't qualify to get anything back. We're not poor enough. And we're not rich enough. And now I have the host of TeleMundo telling me "10,000 a day cross over - and America is going to have to deal with it whether they like it or not.". Because it seems what little money is left over, it's going to pay for those services that they need.

I don't like it. I've never supported illegal acts, and I won't start. Okay. Except for people who smoke marijuana. I think they should suffer the safe fate as those who drink. Nothing. Oh. And Prostitution. Make it legal between two consenting adults. That's about it I think.

And that issue with the Mexican Flags being waved at all the demonstrations, with the American Flag barely visible? That got on my last nerve too. And I'm so anti-unjingoist it hurts. I cringed when I drove down our street and saw that every house but ours had the American Flag waving after 9/11 and the start of the war, except for ours. I cringed because I was waiting for my neighbors to come out and start chanting USA! USA! USA! I wanted to crawl under our rock garden for a year. But to come into this country illegally, because this is where you can make money, put food on your table, receive health care and an education for you and your children, courtesy of people like you and me paying into the system, ALL things you obviously could not get in your own country...and then to wave the flag of that country, with the signs in Spanish so we can't even read them, this is supposed to help the cause? I'm one those "bigots" who says, if that's the flag you insist on waving when you demand ammnesty, why did you come here? But, the demonstrators were told that this is bad PR. It's good to know that they'll carry the American flag now only because of that. That they had to be reminded. Great. Whatever.

I don't need lectures on taking care of the poor. We've both done more for the poor than many. I'm not bragging or trying to be a saint here, or put us up on some martyring shut the hell up soapbox - I just don't need the lectures from dk, The Nation, In These Times, or anyone else telling me I don't get it or I don't care and here's why. I've read up on this subject from all sides until my head hurts. LEGAL immigration is good for this country. Illegal immigration is not. I suggest some of you read the entire bill that stalled in the Senate. See what's buried in there. See how the American poor and downtrodden, the barely struggling middle class got even further screwed by those back slapping Senators on Thursday. Again. It's appalling.

44 percent of Hispanics voted for Bush in the last election. One the main reasons being that he was so "religious". Those numbers scare the crap out of me. More values voters. Does that have anything to do with the issue at hand? Kinda not. I just shake my head thinking of all the Liberals out there who actually want to help the downtrodden, only to get a kick in their collective asses. As always.

I keep hearing on this board how selfish we are - how we want cheap landscapers and cheap this and cheap that. Bullshit. Stop lumping us all together. And if there are people on this board who do want all that cheap shit, you are by no means a progressive.

And now I'll go back to hearing how I'm just not tolerant. I must hate the poor, and support the Minuteman and the wall and am a closet GOP'er.

I know this was too long for a comments thread. Sorry.

by Christin on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 10:18:54 AM MST

[ Reply to This |Recommend ]

Illegal This and That by Christin, Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 10:18:54 AM MST (8+ / 0-)

[Diogenes]

If I had to listen to that crap, I'd probably just fuck her till she couldn't talk anymore.





Assuming she really isn't you.

[chowd103]

It's a good question, Risa.


Take some time and read this crap.

Matter of fact, take a few years off. Take those training wheels off. Learn to pop a wheelie.

With all the conservative bloggers out there -- admittedly, almost all of them vapid and stupid, but still, out there -- why did the Washington Post not only hire a GOP apparachik (and a nepotism case at that) but a GOP apparachik who was, by all appearances, a serial plagiarist?

I certainly don't know the answer, but if Howie Kurtz's media column today was any indiction, the motivation (and/or motivator) must have been pretty damned powerful. Clearly, right up to the moment Baby Ben resigned, the Post was circling the editorial wagons and trying to fend off the critics -- as seen in Kurtz's lead, which tried to pretend it was a story about how those vicious left-wing bloggers picking on Baby Ben, instead of Jayson Blair in white face. It's been more than hilarious watching Howie hustle on a Friday afternoon to catch up with events -- and the new party line.

I will hazard a guess -- just a guess -- that Baby Ben was selected as a favor to his Daddy (or some other conservative patron) by somebody very high up at the Post, and I don't mean the piss-ant little web edition, but the real deal. Perhaps even Donnie Graham himself, who's turned out to be a pretty impressive Bush licker in his own right, and not just as a majority stakeholder in Bob Woodward Inc.

An alternative theory would be that having made complete fools out of themselves during the Dan Froomkin GOP whine-a-thon, the Post's powers that be were simply reluctant to reopen the wound, at least not until the evidence of Baby Ben's journalistic malfeasance became so overwhelming it forced their hands (or his).

Who knows? Who cares? Not me. But the larger issue here is what the Domenech fiasco tells us about the rapid ingestion of the conservative blogosphere into the belly of the big bad MSM.

A couple of years ago, I published an op-ed in the LA Times on the Selling of the Blogosphere -- for which I received an enormous amount of shit, much of it from bloggers (such as Michelle Malkin) who were most aggressively peddling their talents, such as they are, in the media marketplace, even as they decried the influence of the evil MSM.

Although much of what I wrote then turned out to be unadulterated myopia, one of my predictions looks rather spot on now:

What began as a spontaneous eruption of populist creativity is on the verge of being absorbed by the media-industrial complex it claims to despise. In the process, a charmed circle of bloggers — those glib enough and ideologically safe enough to fit within the conventional media punditocracy — is gaining larger audiences and greater influence.
This is not the product of some inherent hierarchical tendency of the blogosphere, which has proven to be a hell of a lot more fluid than I expected -- i.e. you're only as good, or as important, as your last post. But the eagerness of the corporate media to roll out the red carpet for the rhetorical bomb throwers of the right has been every bit as impressive as I expected, and then some -- to the point, as others have already noted, where it's getting hard to find a major conservative blogger who doesn't have some sort of MSM gig or affiliation, and/or isn't constantly being shoved down the optic nerves of the cable TV news audience.


Van hates you BTW.

Maybe this is just the flip side of the '60s radical chic memoralized by Tom Wolfe -- when the liberal establishment of the day tried to make kissy face with Weathermen and Black Panthers. Maybe pasty-faced Young Republicans in bow ties really are the new black. But it feels a lot more calculated and cynical, not to mention mutually exploitative. The liberal mavens who feted Angela Davis and Huey Newton were powerful -- or at least privileged -- people who felt vaguely guilty about being powerful and privileged. The corporate suits now opening the journalistic doors to the propagandists of the authoritarian right are powerful and privileged people who hope that appeasing the blogswarm will help them remain powerful and privileged -- or at least avoid the fate of Eason Jordan and Dan Rather. This, as I (and many others) have already noted, bears a striking resemblance to a successful protection racket.


PSU fan says you suck!


A protection racket, however, that so far hasn't bought much protection. Nor will it, not as long as the spectre of the all-powerful liberal MSM remains such a user-friendly excuse for the various failures and crimes of the conservative movement, its White House politburo in particular. But what's interesting is that the paper training (so to speak) of the common wing nut has shown at least a few early signs of curbing some of the critter's more obnoxious bathroom habits -- as Baby Ben himself demonstrated when he confessed to, and publicly apologized for, calling the late Coretta Scott King a communist.

Anyone who's spent any time among the Freepers (and you can't live in Baby Ben's corner of the suburban Virginia without spending at least a little bit) knows it really is received wisdom in such circles that the civil rights movement was part of a Soviet plot to subvert and destroy America, just like J. Edgar Hoover said. In fact it virtually goes without saying -- although savvy wing nuts understand that it also must go without saying, given the diabolical grip of the PC police and their MSM stooges on public discourse in this country. Just ask Trent Lott.

But the blogosphere has a way of encouraging people to show the world what's underneath the surface -- perhaps because sites like Free Republic and Red State (or Daily Kos, for that matter) tend to create the illusion of a private conversation, one which only sympathetic ears can hear. Or maybe it's just because of the anonymity that pseudonyms provide (it certainly works for me.) In Baby Ben's case, what popped out was not -- to say the least -- the kind of thing an aspiring young conservative pundit can admit to believing, not if he wants to write for a MSM pillar like the Washington Post. And so Ben wisely, if cravenly, renounced it as a youthful indiscretion. (One of the great things about being a 25-year old wunderkind -- as opposed to a 59-year-old president -- is that everything you do can plausibly be dismissed as a youthful indiscretion.)

From a conventionally liberal point of view, this was at least a mildly good thing. It demonstrated that the barbarians of the right can be housebroken, if the proper incentive structure is put in place. In that sense, it was a kind of funhouse mirror image of what the neo-Marxist philosopher Herbert Marcuse used to call "repressive tolerance" -- enforcing the ideological hegemony of the establishment not with totalitarian force, but by coaxing dissenters inside tolerable limits, and rewarding them for staying there.

In this current case, though, instead of repressive tolerance the phrase "tolerance for repression" might be more apt. Compared to Marcuse's original schematic, the goals of the corporate media establishment and the conservative blogosphere aren't really in conflict, as both sides are quickly realizing. The authoritarian right doesn't want to overthrow the system; it just wants to purge it. And, as Keith Olbermann recently pointed out, there are plenty of suits in the corporate corner offices who would be more than happy to go along, as long as it is a.) commercially viable and b.) doesn't cause too many embarrassments of the Coretta King-was-a-communist variety.

As a result, the amount of housebreaking required to turn a right-wing lunatic with a blog into a "respectable" conservative with a newspaper column seems to be fairly trivial. So instead of coaxing the radicals to the center, the media establishment is being coaxed further and further to the right -- and rewarded for staying there.

Which is why in a way I'm sorry Baby Ben's plagiaristic sins came to light. It gave the Posties an easy out. It would have been much more interesting (and significant) to see whether the Washington Post -- the old Pravda on the Potomac, the paper Richard Nixon loved to hate -- really would have been willing to keep on board a web columnist who clearly believed, in his heart of hearts, that Coretta Scott King (and no doubt her husband as well) were communists. (I'd also throw in "Augustine's" comment about abortions reducing black crime, but that would hardly be fair, given that the same theory has been seriously entertained by no less an expert than a former Secretary of Education.)

The Post, it seems, isn't so far gone it's willing to ride out the storm with a redbaiter who's also a serial plagiarist. But the obvious reluctance of the paper and its editorial minions to face the facts, either before or after hiring Baby Ben, is rather telling -- as is the absurdity of their lies:

We obviously did plenty of background checks" on Domenech, Brady said . . . .Plagiarism, though, is not an easy thing to spot, Brady suggested.
So hard, in fact, it took a few left-wing bloggers three whole days to come up with about twenty zillion examples of it. (Note to Jim Brady: Google. Check it out.)

The point is that when it came to Ben Domenech, the Post tried desperately to handle the situation with kid gloves -- even though the paper's own editorial credibility, as opposed to its hiring judgment -- was never on the line. One suspects that if the sins of a Janet Cook or a Jayson Blair had been exposed so quickly, they would have vanished without a trace within minutes. But of course, they weren't former political appointees who had powerful friends (and Daddies) in high places.

No matter, I'm sure there are plenty of other well-connected young GOP apparachiks out there willing to take on the evil MSM conspiracy by going to work for it. And many of them probably aren't serial plagiarists. All the Post has to do is ask around.

Maybe Jack Abramoff can suggest someone.

[Van]

Chowd, that one little tangent you dropped in there out of the blue sure was a bit startling. Laughed out loud over that one, I did...

[Diogenes]

I didn't make a list.

[chowd103]

Chowd, that one little tangent you dropped in there out of the blue sure was a bit startling. Laughed out loud over that one, I did...

Just killin' time, waiting for The Sopranos!

[Risa]

It's a good question, Risa.


Take some time and read this crap.

I will tonight. Since it's about the Ben controversy... I'll admit, I thought Georgia10 was going overboard with the bitterness angle when his hiring was first reported. She called him out as a racist and other shit... but mostly she just sounded like sour grapes. or a hissing cat. one of the two.

And then the plagiarism (sp) thing dropped.

And then it was over for poor Ben.

He shouldn't have plagiarized. There were other ways to 'bring him down' as it were, without hauling out the pitchforks and torches, though. I was always under the impression RedState (where Ben was from) and dKos had a nice working relationship... or maybe that was only a one time alliance over that one bill that would have adversely affected political bloggers. Oh well.

But this stuff about who his father was... that's news to me. We'll see tonight.


But what about Christin's post?

[Risa]

Christin is clearly an idiot. But she is right to understand that illegal immigration is bad for everyone.

What? how is she an idiot? where is she wrong in her points about the effects of illegal immigration? who 'wins' and who 'loses'?

[Goober McTuber]

We ‘lose’ every time you hit “Submit”.

[Taint]

I'd tell her to get her ass in the kitchen and get me a sammich and beer.

[Risa]

boo fucking hoo. western union treats mexican transfers as if they were state to state money transfers..... even CANADA doesn't get that privilege.

and Bank of America allows all american to mexican transfers to occur without a fee.

the people in this piece act as if money transfers should occur free of charge. this isn't going into the bank to exchange a 10 dollar bill for a roll of quarters for yourself, though.

http://www.borderlandnews.com/apps/pbcs ... /604060339

Bill would raise cost of wire transfers

Tax would touch senders, businesses

Louie Gilot
El Paso Times
Thursday, April 6, 2006

Sending money home to Mexico is not a cheap proposition. Immigrants pay for the service and also lose money on the exchange rate.

Now, legislators in several states are proposing to tax such transactions, called remesas, or remittances, to the tune of half a percent to 8 percent.

Fernando Garcia of El Paso regularly sends money to his niece who is studying social work in Mexico City. He used to do it through wire transfers with Western Union and other companies. Sending $100 would cost him $10, he said, and he would lose another $10 or so in the money exchange from dollars to pesos.

"So she would get $80 out of that $100. A few times, she had to pay a fee to receive the money," Garcia said.

People like Garcia and his niece would not be the only ones to lose if a new tax was imposed.
Wire transfer businesses would also be hit, the business owners said.

Amado Urbina, owner of Mr. Dollar, a chain of money exchange and lottery sales stores in El Paso, said fewer customers would use his services if the tax came to pass -- and not just undocumented immigrants.

"It doesn't look right. Not everybody is illegal," he said. "People send money to people on vacation there (in Mexico)."

Legislators in Texas, Arizona and Georgia who are drafting the bills want a piece of the record $20 billion the Inter-American Development Bank said Mexican workers sent back home from the United States in 2005.

Past estimates of remittances in El Paso found that immigrants are sending about $200 million annually back home from El Paso County.

In the Texas House of Representatives, H.B. 2345 would impose a half-percent fee on all currency transmissions from Texas to another country to collect money for indigent health care.

The bill, by Democrat Vilma Luna of Corpus Christi, did not make it out of committee last year.

A similar proposal in Arizona, HCR 2037, introduced by state Rep. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, would impose an 8 percent tax on all electronic transfers of money into Arizona from a foreign country.

The money would be used to build a border wall, in addition to the one proposed by the U.S. House of Representatives.

State Sen. Eliot Shapleigh, D-El Paso, said he is staunchly against such proposals.

"In my community, no one I know favors taxing immigrants to build walls. Ours is the world's largest binational community. Chihuahua is our state's largest trading partner. We want to build bridges, not walls," he said.

The Arizona proposal still has to work its way through the state legislature.

In Georgia in February, the state House approved a bill to levy a 5 percent surcharge on wire transfers by undocumented immigrants to their native countries.

People who could show proof that they are in the United States legally, or that they pay taxes in Georgia, wouldn't have to pay the fee. The money would go for emergency room care. That bill is headed for the state Senate.

The rationale for these bills, which are light in workable details, is that undocumented immigrants are paid under the table and don't pay taxes.

But immigrants' rights advocates say it isn't so.

Many workers do pay taxes through the borrowed or fake Social Security numbers they use to find work. They don't benefit from some social services that are closed to undocumented immigrants.

But hospitals and schools are sites where providers are not allowed to ask for someone's immigration status.

A 2000 study estimated undocumented immigrants in El Paso rang up more than $30 million in unpaid medical bills that year, out of Thomason Hospital's annual budget of about $225 million.

In Mexico, remittances are the country's second-largest source of income, surpassed only by oil exports. Recipients use the money mostly for living expenses, studies by the Pew Hispanic Center have found.

To minimize the loss of hard-earned money during the transfers to their families, immigrants have used several creative strategies for years.

On the border, immigrants prefer to send money to the interior of Mexico from Juárez, where the fee is lower.

"Here they'll pay $40 to send $500. In Juárez, it'll be 150 pesos (about $13)," Mr. Dollar's Urbina said.

Mr. Dollar's three El Paso offices combined get only about 50 people a week sending money to Mexico, and Urbina predicted that a remittance tax would further lower that number.

Most of his business is made up of Juarenses who cross into El Paso to collect money sent from the interior of the United States by family members who want to avoid the costly fees of international wire transfers.

"They're going to do that on the border, but what about those who live in Mexico City?" Urbina said.

Garcia said he does not send money to his niece through wire transfer services anymore. Instead, he has opened a bank account for her in Mexico and has given her an ATM card.

Now, he simply deposits money to the bank in Juárez, and his niece can access the account from a Mexico City branch.

A Pew Hispanic Center study in 2004 found that 67 percent of remittance recipients still didn't have bank accounts.

Garcia's family members in Houston are trusting paid strangers with their money.

"They have family in San Luis Potosi. They send the money in vans that take people from Houston to Mexico. They give an envelope to the driver to deliver to the person's door in Mexico. They charge you for that," he said.

Remittances by Mexican, Brazilian and other Latin American and Caribbean workers living abroad rose 17 percent last year, from $48.1 billion in 2004 to a record $53.6 billion in 2005, the Inter-American Development Bank said.

About 25 million Latin America- and Caribbean-born adults live abroad, and their remittances are typically in amounts ranging from $100 to $300 at a time, the report said.

Mexico received $20 billion in remittances last year, an increase of 20 percent from $16.6 billion in 2004, the bank said.

Mexico received more than any other Latin American or Caribbean country.

Money sent by immigrants working as parking attendants, maids, gardeners and other positions accounted for most household income for their relatives living back home, the Washington-based lender said in the report.

For the fourth year in a row, remittances by expatriates exceeded the combined total of overseas aid, the bank said.

Louie Gilot may be reached at lgilot@elpasotimes.com; 546-6131.

Bloomberg News Service contributed to this story.

[Risa]

We ‘lose’ every time you hit “Submit”.

sucks to be you. of course, it sucks to be me
when i can't find the article i'm looking for...

in this case, it's the one about how mexico is
luring wealthy americans to stay in mexico --
and being pretty damn draconian about it --
while pushing its poor off on america.

mexico doesn't have to worry about infrastructure,
or hospitals or education or 'welfare', because it's
successfully fobbing that off on a more-than-willing
america.

so mexico has all these little villages and towns which
are dying, filled with old people who just sit around
waiting for the mexican equivalent of the '1st and 15th'...
except mexico itself isn't paying a dime for it. America
is, through all the money -- now listed as second only behind
oil -- flowing in from mexican citizens living and working
in America.


and mexico doesn't give a damn. give them our rich,
they'll give us their refuse.

america -- at least, the american rich -- don't give a damn,
either.

and all the while, the jobs that should be in mexico aren't
being done.

[Risa]

We should just send Mexico a bill for these douchebags. They've got oil.

They've also got connections. What is it, 20 families 'own' Mexico?

They must really have the US wrapped around their fingers.

Did you see where George P. Bush gave a speech in, like, Dallas for the illegal immigrant supporters this weekend? in spanish at that.

* update (as I search for the article): he was supposed to be there, and give that speech.. but now the news reports say he never showed up in the first place

why be scheduled...... and then not show up?

One barrel per day for each wetback sounds reasonable to me.

Why is Victor Chavez the anti-christ and not these people?

[4 king guy]

MY ADD will not allow me to read a post that is that long unless there is significant nudity or humor involved..

However, I did get this far.. and with the training I have received in life, here is how I would reply

Why do you hate America?
You think I hate America? What makes you think that?


Why do you hate Mexicans?
You think I hate Mexicans? What makes you think that?

Why are you a racist?
What makes you think that?

A bigot?
What does bigot mean to you?

Hmmmmm

[Mikey]

We should just send Mexico a bill for these douchebags. They've got oil.

One barrel per day for each wetback sounds reasonable to me.

One barrel per day? At $68 that won't even pay for my lunch at Ruth's Chris.

Sin
Zy