BajaNomad

Build That Fence !

 Pages:  1  2

k1w1 - 11-25-2006 at 11:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MrBillM


"Fuel the Fire and Fan the Flames".


"Strike the Unfriendlies @ 22:00!! Secure all weapons! Perimeter enforcement ultimate objective!! ooooohraaaah!!"

wank wank.

it's clowns like this that make it so much more work for us 'friendlies'. 2 steps forward, 1 step back.

Thank goodness for evolution!! (can't wait for alot of this attitude to die off!) phew

[Edited on 11-26-2006 by k1w1]

Barry A. - 11-26-2006 at 10:19 AM

K1w1 You have a longgggggggggg wait----ain't going to happen as long as there are "sheep dogs" left to protect the "sheep. Barry
Quote:
Originally posted by k1w1
Quote:
Originally posted by MrBillM


"Fuel the Fire and Fan the Flames".


"Strike the Unfriendlies @ 22:00!! Secure all weapons! Perimeter enforcement ultimate objective!! ooooohraaaah!!"

wank wank.

it's clowns like this that make it so much more work for us 'friendlies'. 2 steps forward, 1 step back.

Thank goodness for evolution!! (can't wait for alot of this attitude to die off!) phew

[Edited on 11-26-2006 by k1w1]

Lee - 11-26-2006 at 12:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MrBillM
Thanks for the Sunday a.m. Chuckle, once again proving that Lefties are always good for a laugh.

As glad as you profess to be that MY attitude might someday be on the wane, I can't begin to describe how glad I would be for your type to see defeat and disappointment. At least, I can't describe it here in a moderated environment.

"Working to Eradicate the Contagion of Liberalism One Day at a Time".


I think I keep seeing a blend of liberalism, conservatism, and radicalism here. And I can't tell the difference. On the surface, MrBillM is absolutely on the mark. Neither Dems or Repubs will probably do much in the next 2 years. And at that time, I don't know what the solution will be. Obviously it hasn't been thought through yet. It seems like things will get alot worse before they get better. If that's what it takes, I'm in favor of that -- and the change that'll follow.

Let's consider attacking the issues here and not each other. Differing points off view challenging each other is healthy. Eh?

:cool:

Out of the Oven

MrBillM - 11-26-2006 at 03:21 PM

Me ? Anybody who thinks that I would crawl into an oven or even feel disheartened because of ANYTHING someone else would say, clearly doesn't understand the situation or ME ! Say whatever you like, it rolls off just like Sewage and cleans up easily.

My views on the Illegal immigration problems have been clearly defined in the past and aren't based upon any Racist dislike of those immigrants. I've known and lived among Hispanics and other races or ethnic groups in the U.S. since I was a small child and have counted many among my friends. On a personal basis, I can sympathize with their goals and those illegals that I have known in the past have been pretty good people. However, the massive influx of these illegals have and will create an economic drag on the U.S. and, for the sake of those who were born in and live legally in the U.S., deserve the protection of U.S. laws.

What America MUST do is FIRST: Secure the border and cut the additional illegal immigrants down to a trickle. Once that is done, a serious debate can take place regarding HOW many immigrants the U.S. NEEDS to do those jobs that Americans can't or won't and devise a Guest Worker plan that can address that need. It is clear that we cannot simply get rid of the 12 million or more already in the U.S., but we CAN begin to firmly enforce the laws and hold Employers accountable for their hiring processes, including sending them to prison when applicable.

MrBill------------

Barry A. - 11-26-2006 at 04:31 PM

--------that last post of yours NAILED IT!!!!!

You said here what I have been trying to say all along.

Thank you.

Barry

jerry - 11-26-2006 at 04:46 PM

just sucuring the border be it (electronic or cement and steel)will take care of a good %of the people going back and forth once they go back to mexico they wont be able to get back in the states unless they deal with the immagration laws its a jump start in the right direction good fences make good naibors theres going to be resentment but it will all work out for most, and most is what this republic is all about the people have spoken lets see it the politions were listening??

DENNIS - 11-26-2006 at 04:53 PM

Jeezo, Bill ------
Didn't mean to wake you up, besides, we're on the same page......Remember?
At least one of the pages.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: My concern isn't with internal U.S. dishevelment which comes from illegal invasion. My problem comes from the Mexican attitude which says in so many ways that we dont matter when it comes to their breaking our laws. Their leaders act as though it is an insult to even approach the subject. That a fence is racist.

Bill .... Entertain this thought, that if the border were under complete control, the internal mayhem would disolve in time. Our government will not curtail business from making utmost profit and pay utmost tax so business would slowly adjust as the cheap labor pool declines. It wont happen overnight but, we can't relive the removals of the past.

I agree with you, Bill, on most points but when you start holding your comb over your upper lip, I step back and observe.

toneart - 11-26-2006 at 05:47 PM

Racism is behind most of the current, vehement attitudes against illegal immigrants. To deny it doesn't make it not so. Witness the fence, the minutemen movement along the borders and the ratcheting up of the Republican rhetoric before the election. The fence is a dumb idea and the inconvenient detour it would affect, and needless loss of life does not justify the cost. The Republicans were just playing to their (lost) base. Racism is nothing new when it comes to immigration. Look at the experience of African Americans, Irish, Italians. They were all persecuted. People of color are still persecuted. We are racist!

Of course, illegal immigration is a problem. It is a drain on our public services and also, poverty creates more crimes of opportunity. Poverty exists on both sides of the border. Impoverished conditions in Mexico and Central America cause its people to cross our borders illegally. That is the human condition and people will do whatever it takes to survive. There are more opportunities here and less where they came from.

My point is, economics is the driver. Those who hate will use this situation as an excuse to vent their hostility. Fences, guns and attitudes will not stop the illegal immigration tide. Has it yet? Is it better or worse now than ever?

What needs to be done is to regulate the employers and the jobs, with penalties for non-compliance. The minimum wage needs to be raised. The jobs are there and need to be filled. The latino work ethic is far superior to that of our own, contrary to the stereotype of the Mexican lazing in the sun under a sombrero.

Economics will be the fix to the problem. There are only so many jobs that exist. They need to be filled by legal, documented immigrants in a guest-worker program or by whoever wants the jobs. If all the jobs are filled legally, why would future immigrants come here? There would be nothing here for them.

Finally, the Mexican Government needs to do more to create opportunities in that country and to also cooperate more fully with our government. We need to try harder to create closer diplomatic relations with Mexico and work harder to create a more agreeable, attitudinal atmosphere for mutual cooperation and respect. The groundwork has been laid to improve these conditions of poverty and diplomacy as a result of our respective elections. Calderon's feet are held to the fire by his contentious win and the unrest Obrador has brought into the arena. Calderon has to do more for the poor than any of his predecessors.

DENNIS - 11-26-2006 at 07:02 PM

Are the many Mexican-Americans who say the flood of illegals from Mexico is wrong and has to be stopped racist?

bajalou - 11-26-2006 at 07:19 PM

There is a simple solution to this much argued about situation. If there are no employers there won't be people coming looking for work.

Make it a no-bail offense with mandatory jail time - no probation - for the foreman, division manager, genera manager and CEO of any company that has a illegal working. When some of the people in suits start going to jail, the jobs will go and so will the people looking for them.

Of course this goes against the grain for most companies - why should they be held responsible for the situation they promote?

As for the argument that the illegals pay no SS or taxes, doesn't the law require the employer to make deductions for them and do the remitting?

Who has the bigger responsibility here, the employer or the employee?

DENNIS - 11-26-2006 at 07:38 PM

The government has the largest responsibility and ignores it with sickening impunity. Now, there's a CEO who should be incarcerated.

toneart - 11-26-2006 at 09:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DENNIS
Are the many Mexican-Americans who say the flood of illegals from Mexico is wrong and has to be stopped racist?


Maybe not many, but they are "pocho" and don't identify with Mexican nationals, and vice versa. They are Americans and feel the burden on our social and medical services and they see the (additional) crime that the illegals bring with them.

Tilting at Liberals

MrBillM - 11-27-2006 at 10:36 AM

Success ? Who Knows or Cares how the Lefties assess our efforts ?

If you're fighting the good fight and right is on your side, you don't quit or become discouraged simply because the efforts don't Appear to be succeeding. Quitters NEVER win.

If we had quit when JFK was elected (and LBJ), we never would have seen RMN elected and re-elected. If we had quit after Carter, we would never have seen RWR elected and re-elected. If we had quit after Clinton, we never would have seen GWB elected and re-elected. Politics, like life itself, flows in cycles and the Conservatives will see victory again. In the meantime, we have to deal with the toxic waste that is Liberalism with the same efforts we'd deal with any other life-threatening contagion.

Whatever faults or shortcomings our side may have evidenced, I Thank God that the Presidency didn't include names like Stevenson, Humphrey, McGovern, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry. Whatever disappointment I may have had in RMN's truncated second-term, I know that HH or GM would have been a true disaster.

Lee - 11-27-2006 at 02:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MrBillM
Success ? Who Knows or Cares how the Lefties assess our efforts ?
Whatever faults or shortcomings our side may have evidenced, I Thank God that the Presidency didn't include names like Stevenson, Humphrey, McGovern, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry. Whatever disappointment I may have had in RMN's truncated second-term, I know that HH or GM would have been a true disaster.


Drivel.

Focus on the issues and not debating the biggest losers to be in office. Every President the US has ever elected has had flaws. The most patheticly flawed Pres had to be Nixon. He did some good then he sniveled off like the lying weasel he was.

Go ahead and dismiss the ignorance Bush displayed putting the US at war and MARINES IN HARM'S WAY as ho hum politics.

It's sad your political views come across as black and white -- just the way the born-again evangelical right wing nut case christian's come across.

Guess the conservative's get the prize for being tough on war, though. You guys don't have a clue. Saber rattlers one and all. Honor? Integrity? You REALLY don't have a clue.

As for me? I registered Democrat, voted for Kerry -- let's talk about how the Republicans disgraced EVERY VET WHO EVER SAW ACTION by attempting to disgrace Kerry's war record! Don't ever plan to vote again. I just call it like I see it. Dwiddle dum and Dwiddle dee. You all deserve each other. The US sucks because of marooons who divide this country. Blame everyone but yourself. Blame the yuppies and Boomers. Don't blame your fricking bigotted, narrow minded, short sighted conservative values. Family values? Give it a rest.

:cool:

DENNIS - 11-27-2006 at 02:16 PM

Are you sure you dont want to tell us how you feel, Lee?
Dont let Bill get to you. He only calls himself conservative because there isn't a word for being on the right of Robert Welch. He can't see the "toxic waste" in the White House today because he doesn't want to.
Im as conservative as anybody but Im not a fascist.

DENNIS - 11-27-2006 at 02:36 PM

Now Bill... not to change the subject but, wouldn't one want to be on the leward side of of an island when the wind comes up as opposed to being on the windward side and having your ass blown apart?
Or is this a case of Republicans changeing the weather as well as the rest of the world because God told them to do that?

Cypress - 11-27-2006 at 03:00 PM

On the the "lee side " is on the side protected from the wind.:spingrin:

Dumb de Dumb Dumb times two.

MrBillM - 11-27-2006 at 03:15 PM

Although there might well be persons on this board who have sailed more than I have, my own experience goes back many years and I have sailed by own and charter boats on the Pacific, Sea of Cortez and the Caribbean quite a bit. In addition, as a member of the Coast Guard Auxiliary at one time, I taught classes on Basic Seamanship and Coastal Navigation. Nonetheless, "Lee Shore" is far more elementary than that and is covered in EVERY book I've ever seen on sailing and seamanship. To WIT:

The terms lee shore and weather shore describe a stretch of shoreline with respect to the wind direction, and is of particular importance when sailing. The lee shore, named because it is to the leeward side of an approaching boat, has the wind blowing towards the shore. A windward shore, named because it is to the windward side of an approaching boat, has the wind blowing away from the shore. A given stretch of shoreline can be lee or windward depending on the current wind direction, but areas with consistent winds, such as the trade winds, have shores that are predominantly one or the other.

Lee shore can also refer to the shore onto which waves break; often this will be the same as the first definition, since waves and wind often move in similar directions. Surf can also push watercraft into the shore, so the issues in dealing with such a lee shore are similar.

Dangers of a lee shore

Lee shores are dangerous to watercraft because, if left to drift, they will be pushed into shore by the wind, possibly running aground. Sailboats are particularly susceptible to this, as even under sail they are limited to the angle they can travel into the wind. Square riged craft, for instance, can point only slightly to windward, and will have difficulty launching from a lee shore and easily be trapped in a cove of a lee shore.

The beach of a lee shore in a storm is also at a significantly higher risk due to the undiminished effects of the wind and waves. A windward shore will have significantly lower waves and slower winds, as they will have been slowed by passage over the land. A windward shore is still subject to storm surge.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Keep digging, though, the hole just keeps getting deeper.

Lee - 11-27-2006 at 03:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DENNIS
Are you sure you dont want to tell us how you feel, Lee?
Dont let Bill get to you. He only calls himself conservative because there isn't a word for being on the right of Robert Welch. He can't see the "toxic waste" in the White House today because he doesn't want to.
Im as conservative as anybody but Im not a fascist.


OK Dennis. Got a chuckle here. I don't mind speaking up to drivel though.

Maybe I should know this, call me uneducated, but who is Robert Welch?

And I think you're taking fascism to a new low. On this board?

And, no, I can't be gotten to by sheep who follow Bush. It's their incessant whinning that makes me scratch my head. Sore losers = poor form. Accept it.

:cool:

comitan - 11-27-2006 at 03:57 PM

Ok guys Mr Bill just happens to be right for the first time of his life, do not try to correct him on sailing terms. From someone who can call and raise on his sailing experience.

toneart - 11-27-2006 at 04:03 PM

I've been hiding on the leeward side of an immovable object. Wouldn't want to be downwind, if you catch my drift.

Now let me try to travel back into time...Viet Nam...Richard Nixon....LBJ...no, further back...let's see....Oh....Robert E. Lee. Wouldn't it be great to be stuck in the past? Maybe we could ride with Robert E. Lee and have another shot at U.S. Grant. We could retake Amearca and show those Commie Pinko Yankees reel Confederate valews.



[Edited on 11-27-2006 by toneart]

toneart - 11-27-2006 at 04:08 PM

Robert Welch

Can you say, John Birch Society ? Scares me, and Halloween is over.

oxxo - 11-27-2006 at 04:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MrBillM
Although there might well be persons on this board who have sailed more than I have, my own experience goes back many years and I have sailed by own and charter boats on the Pacific, Sea of Cortez and the Caribbean quite a bit. In addition, as a member of the Coast Guard Auxiliary at one time, I taught classes on Basic Seamanship and Coastal Navigation. Nonetheless, "Lee Shore" is far more elementary than that and is covered in EVERY book I've ever seen on sailing and seamanship.


Bill**** is correct about his reference to a lee shore. A lee shore is the shore downwind relative to the position of a ship. Therefore it may be (notice I said "may") dangerous for a ship to be caught on a lee shore if the wind pipes up. However, the leeward side of an island is the side opposite to which the wind is blowing. In other words, the lee shore relative to the ship is the windward shore relative to the land. Normally sailors refer to shores in relation to the ship. My qualifications are 40 years of boating experience (and never caught on a lee shore) and I just completed a 1200 mile, open ocean passage and my boat is safely docked in La Paz (generally on the leeward side of the Baja penninsula since the prevaiiling wind is generally from the northwest).

Bill**** is also an excellent fisherman because all he does on this Board is TROLL. He doesn't take himself seriously, and neither should anyone else on this Board. Take him for what he is, ***********.

[Edited on 11-28-2006 by BajaNomad]

Lee - 11-27-2006 at 05:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by oxxo
Bill**** is also an excellent fisherman because all he does on this Board is TROLL. He doesn't take himself seriously, and neither should anyone else on this Board. Take him for what he is, ***************.


Thank you for helping me recognize my serious ways. What was I thinking?

Someone help me. What's a ***************? Is that good or bad?

In defense of Mr. Bill*, I believe that he is tied for first place (in my poll) for one of the most enlightened posts I've ever read (the one about the politics of giving and negotiating with Mexicans). Don't recall who the other poster was but I've read some very enlightened posts here.

Thank you Nomads.

And, in regard to building a fence? This subject is one of the most stupid ideas I have ever heard.

:cool:



[Edited on 11-28-2006 by BajaNomad]

comitan - 11-27-2006 at 06:31 PM

Dennis

Read oxxo post.

bajalou - 11-27-2006 at 07:06 PM

From American Heritage Dictionary

lee shore
n.

A shore toward which the wind blows and toward which a ship is likely to be driven.

Not being a sailor maybe they know of what the speak?

Bajamatic - 11-27-2006 at 07:21 PM

Think about it in terms of 2 boats to understand it. the leeward boat is the downwind boat of the two, and the windward boat is the upwind boat of the two. same goes for a shoreline. if the shoreline and a boat are side by side, and the boat is upwind, the shore is a lee shore. when speaking about the shore alone (not in relation to a boat), being on the leeward side, or lee side, is the downwind side, or calm side. You guys are talking about 2 different things. Bill is talking about a lee shore, speaking of the shore in realtion to a boat, and everyone else is talking about the shore alone, which is correctly termed lee side, leeward side, in the lee, etc.

DENNIS - 11-27-2006 at 07:28 PM

Yes ... A Lee shore.. in the classic meaning, a shore in the face of the wind.
It took on further meaning when sailors put a landform between themselves and the face of the wind and was called the leeward side, or leward side, still facing the wind but protected by a landform.

Ergo... Lee is protected from the blowhard Bill.

seriously

k1w1 - 11-28-2006 at 02:31 AM

your fence will never happen.
god's Whiney Biatch is officially an embarassment (on worldwide stage). This is fact.
The ? now is what steps can be taken to minimise the fallout. Especially as it pertains to our interests south of the border. Any ideas?

[Edited on 11-28-2006 by k1w1]
 Pages:  1  2