Video: An important message from Vicente Fox
posted at 11:25 am on May 26, 2007 by Allahpundit
Supposedly this aired yesterday on Telemundo.
Why doesn’t he just petition Congress to annex Mexico?
Update: Ah, the perfect companion story. Mitch McConnell flips Republican voters the bird by essentially daring them to vote out the amnesty wing of the party.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Wow…. McCoward doesn’t get it…
Immigration is going to be one of the major issues driving my vote…
Its amazing that he can say that after the flood of calls and such.
Romeo13 on May 26, 2007 at 11:36 AM
Who the hell is he pointing that finger at?
reaganaut on May 26, 2007 at 11:36 AM
Maybe he is planning to annex America.
Since I don’t speak Spanish I don’t know what his message is but I have a message for him – COME GET YOUR ILLEGAL PEOPLE OUT OF MY COUNTRY!!
OBX Pete on May 26, 2007 at 11:41 AM
Sorry, I didn’t see the subtitles.
I have another message for Fox – IF YOUR PEOPLE QUIT BUILDING TUNNELS MAYBE WE WILL QUIT BUILDING FENCES.
OBX Pete on May 26, 2007 at 11:45 AM
“Reservations”?? RESERVATIONS!? This tool is completely misreading the american public. Hey Mitch, can you say Buh-Bye?
csdeven on May 26, 2007 at 11:49 AM
Birds of a feather congress together.
After seeing how the republican house members who stopped the last attempt to shove Illegal Alien Amnesty down our throats were treated in the last election, I find it hard to refute Mitch McConnell’s pearls of wisdom.
DannoJyd on May 26, 2007 at 11:55 AM
If they ram this through and 6 months later Mexico announces that they are privatizing their oil, then what?
Handwriting–>wall
Theworldisnotenough on May 26, 2007 at 11:59 AM
Ok, no walls. Just build sniper towers and lock and load.
WildcatFan on May 26, 2007 at 12:00 PM
Next time’s a banning. Consider yourself warned.
Allahpundit on May 26, 2007 at 12:02 PM
Hey Vincente:
F***. You.
annoyinglittletwerp on May 26, 2007 at 12:07 PM
That’s better.
;-)
infidel4life on May 26, 2007 at 12:13 PM
AP, while I at least partially understand your point the fact remains that many Americans are really POed over the upcoming Illegal Alien Amnesty Bill. Sir, I can honestly tell you that I hear comments exactly like that everywhere I go. I love asking these christian souls who they voted for in the last election. The answers I get are exactly what you would expect to get from lazy Americans.
DannoJyd on May 26, 2007 at 12:17 PM
I don’t care. I don’t want Michelle tarred with anyone’s “kill ‘em all” garbage, no matter how common the sentiment may be. Some people have no respect whatsoever for the fact that they’re guests here.
Allahpundit on May 26, 2007 at 12:18 PM
OK, AP. I guess I totally understand, and definitely agree with your point. BTW, when will it be annouced that Michelle will be replacing Rosie?
DannoJyd on May 26, 2007 at 12:27 PM
As I have said before – Michelle is too classy to be seen on that trash program.
Maybe the question should be – when will it be announced that Michelle is replacing O’Reilly ?
OBX Pete on May 26, 2007 at 12:34 PM
I don’t think WildCatFan’s opinion was over the top. It was several notches below the craziness you seen on a lot of leftie blogs, especially re: Cheney dying.
I don’t think the question is shooting people trying to get into the US, I think the question is about deterrence. Weren’t the borders with the old Soviet Empire guarded by men with guns? Isn’t South Korea’s border guarded by men with Guns? Is it over the top to suggest we control our border, with men with guns if necessary? Weren’t the “Minute Men” volunteer border patrol armed?
gmoonster on May 26, 2007 at 12:37 PM
Wouldn’t a very deep but not particularly wide (1-2 feet) concrete moat stop tunnel diggers? I’m not an engineer, so maybe there’s something obvious I’m missing here, but drowning as my tunnel filled with water would discourage me.
The rest is just several layers of high, electrified wire. Wouldn’t need to be deadly, just enough to make someone give up all bladder and poop control as they fall. A few barriers to stop automobile battering rams, and you need very few sharp shooters.
Mr. Fox is welcome to try and hop over.
doufree on May 26, 2007 at 12:48 PM
The program was trash because Rosie was
spewing her nonsenseon it. Replacing Rosie with Michelle would give a new level of class to the show, balance the political representation, and even make the show relevant. Besides, I’m certain that ABC pays better.DannoJyd on May 26, 2007 at 12:52 PM
For the most part their guards were there to keep the citizens from escaping … Berlin Wall is easy example
Bradky on May 26, 2007 at 12:57 PM
He’s handicapped by the 195 lb. POTUS firmly attached by the lips to his backside.
Honestly, Mr. McConnell, it amazes me how the Republicans continue to misunderstand and (ultimately) disregard their base. But I do like a good dare.
Bye-bye Cornyn and Hutchison. You had the chance to strip away the amnesty provision. But your loyalty lies with the party over the country. At least you won’t be competing with the illegals for the posh consulting jobs you’ve got in your future.
SailorDave on May 26, 2007 at 1:00 PM
wish there was an Icon on hotair that allowed me to flip Fox teh bird.
I say we build the wall a couple of hundred yards into mexico just to spite them
Defector01 on May 26, 2007 at 1:06 PM
Why is it ok for every other nation EXCEPT the US to secure their borders? We are turning into a nation of chumps. We have every right to build a wall or whatever else we want. Funny how Mexico doesn’t talk about how they secure THEIR southern border.
Alot of Republicans are going to lose their seats next time around because they continue to refuse to listen to the voters on immigration.
katieanne on May 26, 2007 at 1:10 PM
South Korea’s wall and DMZ (including mines) was to keep the North Koreans out; not “keep the citizens in”.
It seems to have done a dandy job, too.
eforhan on May 26, 2007 at 1:12 PM
HE’S A FOOL.
Two items here…
First – FIX a system does NOT mean amnesty for 3 or 4 more generations to come, that is not a FIX, it’s not even a bandaid. How utterly ridiculous and dangerous.
Second, his condescending tone and wording is an insult to all of us….” a system “THEY REGARD AS BROKEN” ??? And McConnel does not think it’s broken?
Maybe this is exactly the problem? The McConnell thinking congress believe they CAN do anything with IMPUNITY? They keep their high paying jobs because us stupid taxpaying voters only “regard” this as a problem that needs fixed?
12 Americans die daily from illegals being here, millions of illegals cost BILLIONS of DOLLARS and could cost us another 2.3 TRILLION dollars? We pay to have illegal aliens kill Americans and destroy communities…
We don’t just CONSIDER this a problem, WE KNOW IT IS, THERE ARE FACTS TP PROVE IT IS.
Regard THIS McConnell….here is your finger.
The difference between a million and a billion, a little comparison.
Start to count to a million, one per second. How long will it take you?
Eleven and a half (11 1/2 DAYS).
NOW, count to a billion….how long will that take you?
(we wont even do a trillion.)
shooter on May 26, 2007 at 1:17 PM
NOW, count to a billion….how long will that take you?
more than THIRTY ONE AND A HALF YEARS ( 31 1/2 years)
now think of that in $ dollars and try to put your mind around 2.3 trillion dollars we will make our kids pay, cause we won’t put a dent in it.
shooter on May 26, 2007 at 1:19 PM
Two words…
Military…
Border…
Its past time.
Romeo13 on May 26, 2007 at 1:25 PM
Yes I should have removed the SK reference. But their defenses were to keep out a massive force of armed and trained military as well as provide some nominal protection for the thousands of US troops in the area.
Still don’t think mining our southern border is the right approach – high tech fence and patrol, yes, but mines.. no.
Bradky on May 26, 2007 at 1:34 PM
The bottom line is that Mexico now dictates our immigration policy, and Fox SHOULD be cocky, for he is more powerful than 80% of American citizens. Even if this exact version of this bill is not passed, a similar one will be, it’s going to happen. Either way, we lose, so I say we make it a one party system (democrat), since that’s basically what we have now. Really, what’s the difference in the parties? Liberal, and just a little less liberal. Just the fact that Republicans did’nt have a knee-jerk instant “no” on this bill gives them away. Republicans have failed us on almost every issue, and they don’t seem to care, maybe it’s time to clean house.
bmac on May 26, 2007 at 1:40 PM
I know this may irritate you but has it ever occurred to you that maybe the part of the Republican party you see yourself in is the distinct minority of the entire party and that there are more constituents that support the actions you dislike?
Bradky on May 26, 2007 at 1:45 PM
Yes, apparently most of the Republican party are now Democrats, that wes kinda my point.
bmac on May 26, 2007 at 1:54 PM
Or you are badly out of step with your own party….
Bradky on May 26, 2007 at 1:56 PM
In the words of Zell Miller, “the party left me, I didn’t leave the party”.
bmac on May 26, 2007 at 2:00 PM
He was talking about the Democrats and their hard left turn. He didn’t change parties if I recall correctly.
You seem to expect the moderate Republicans to all take a hard right turn.
Bradky on May 26, 2007 at 2:02 PM
WORLD NET
The noun sedition has one meaning:
Meaning #1: an illegal action inciting resistance to lawful authority and tending to cause the disruption or overthrow of the government
Doesn’t say anything about foreign or domestic or societal status.
Sending by a variety of means, half of your nations population into a neighboring nation is by any reasonable account, an invasion, promoting that invasion is sedition, the support of persons into the invaded nations government still loyal to the home nation or ethnicity with the purpose of aiding further invasion is an act of subterfuge of a sovereign nation.
Undeclared acts of war.
Somebody forgot to ask me if I wanted new subversion in my country.
Speakup on May 26, 2007 at 2:02 PM
Bradky, is wanting the law enforced, and securing our borders what you consider to be “a hard right turn”?
bmac on May 26, 2007 at 2:10 PM
The question is disingenuous. I think the vast majority want “the law enforced and the borders secured”. The debate is how we reach that goal.
If the majority of Republicans support one approach that doesn’t necessarily jibe with your proposal, it doesn’t make them sellouts, it means you don’t agree with them. Nothing more and nothing less.
Bradky on May 26, 2007 at 2:13 PM
The problem with the show is that the only people available at that time as an audience are brain-dead females and sissy-marys. MM would wax eloquently on a subject and all you’d hear in response would be crickets chirping.
csdeven on May 26, 2007 at 2:13 PM
Mexico is the new China. A country with resources just waiting to be pillaged by the rich and the crongressmen they have in their pockets.
Finding the will to enfoce the BS in this bill is going to be harder than the will required to secure the border as simply as possible. Securing the border is as easy as enforcing the existing laws in this country by the existing agencies. It’s as simple as increasing manpower and you don’t even have to build walls. ANYONE who says otherwise is being purposely obtuse or a ignorant fool.
csdeven on May 26, 2007 at 2:23 PM
El Presidente should pay more attention to his third world, poverty entrenched country, and less to ours.
To do list for Vincente:
Build a viable economy
Build an interstate road system
Build a reliable electric grid
Build some malls, airports and transit systems
Build a country people want to live in
Now STFU.
fogw on May 26, 2007 at 2:26 PM
How is that question disingenuous? How do you define “hard right turn”?
bmac on May 26, 2007 at 2:27 PM
DannoJyd on May 26, 2007 at 11:55 AM
We didn’t vote them out. I thnk we foolishly let the Democrats move in because we were too depressed and disgusted with the Republicans to put up a fight at that point. I will vote for a Republican who will continue the fight in Irag, who will enforce our borders for real, will stop this ridiculous spending of our children’s and thier children’s money, etc… Mitch doesn’t think we are smart enough to vote his and other Repub wusses a$$es out? Let’s see…Now we just need that person to run…
CCRWM on May 26, 2007 at 2:28 PM
Note to Fox, McConnell and Bush:
Oh, sure, we can build walls and replace “bought-and-paid-for” legislators with new blood committed to doing the right thing. Why? Because we are Americans, and because YOU do not wish it.
SpartRan on May 26, 2007 at 2:31 PM
The question is disingenuous. I think the vast majority want “the law enforced and the borders secured”. The debate is how we reach that goal…..
Bradky on May 26, 2007 at 2:13 PM
kahall on May 26, 2007 at 2:34 PM
Opps, did the quote thing backwards…what an idiot
kahall on May 26, 2007 at 2:35 PM
The spineless congress may not build a wall, but I suspect AMERICANS will eventually build it themselves since it’s obvious we will have to.
I dare you to stop us!
SouthernGent on May 26, 2007 at 2:37 PM
Bradky, I don’t know if you are still here, but you basically implied that any position other than “moderate” on this issue is “hard right”, and any poll will tell you, republican constituents are not happy at all with this bill, so yes it is a sellout by our representatives.
bmac on May 26, 2007 at 2:42 PM
Hey that finger looks like it would make a great rifle target >:-)
AZPatriot on May 26, 2007 at 2:54 PM
What nerve of this useless POS. The question should be why is Mexico so currupt and backwards, that these poor people need to come to the US for work. Build the Wall, then let’s talk about who we let in.
Bob on May 26, 2007 at 3:14 PM
First you round them up and drive them to the border.
Then you give the Mexican government ten minutes to come and pick them up.
If they don’t pick them up in ten minutes – you release them.
It’s the American way!!
OBX Pete on May 26, 2007 at 3:19 PM
Well mr. presidente Fox should be mortified that people are abandoning his wretched country like rats from a sinking ship, but he’s got the nerve to tell us we can’t build walls?!! He certainly can’t run a country, that’s for certain. He should spend more time worrying about his own crappy piece of land, ignorant jerk.
4shoes on May 26, 2007 at 3:48 PM
Seems to me that Bushco is trying to solve the social security problem by importing illegals. Look at the time-line on the path to citizenship. Just about the time when baby boomers will be retiring, we will get a whole lot more “citizens.” Except that won’t solve the problem. 50% of all illegals have no high school education and most pay no taxes. What Bush is doing is just overburdening the SS system, not making it better. Surely they are smarter than that? Does he really believe that in 8 years, these minimum wage earners will be high income earners, actually paying into the system? Just a thought.
Neocon Peg on May 26, 2007 at 3:51 PM
FYI, Fox is no longer President of Mexico. The President is now Felipe Calderón.
gmoonster on May 26, 2007 at 3:59 PM
Any thought that anyone should harm or kill people to keep them out of our country is insane and wrong. They are people, mostly good honest people who have become pawns in this game to give the Democrats a huge voter base and our businesses near slave labor by the Republicans. Violence is not the answer especially when denial of jobs and services would perform both the task of stopping illegal immigration and deportation so much better. The answer is easily found in making sure that our next President and everyone elected to Congress from our side of the aisle is strongly anti illegal immigration / amnesty while at the same time refusing to do business with companies that hire illegals. We can throw the amnesty bums out and we can make businesses rethink their hiring practices. I seriously doubt that the amnesty types are anywhere close to a majority within either party and we can prevail given time and discipline.
Buzzy on May 26, 2007 at 4:15 PM
If his constituents want to keep Mitch McConnell so be it. He and his have concluded that it’s better to be a dollar-pocket-bulged minority than not in power at all. They are bought off, the left and the right, for different reasons. He has a distinct conflict of interest and should remove himself from the amnesty issue altogether (don’t expect it to happen, however, given his role in the sanate, his ego and his snootiness). His wife is Secretary of Labor, Elaine Chow.
If I’d be Sen. Graham, Rep. Dryer of CA, and quite a few others who are spewing nonsense right now, I’d be very worried. This has just begun.
Bradky, you tire us out with “this is a this…and this is a this…”. Argue facts or give it up. You even use excuses when women’s rights in the Muslim countries are put under the sunshine. We already know where you’re coming from. Just because anyone has a view different than yours doesn’t make it wrong, extreme or invalid.
Fox didn’t move his country forward with all the power of Mexico and the U.S. behind him. He was an utter failure. Retire into the sunset with grace and give us a rest. Also, security and border enforcement works very well at the Southern border of Mexico. We are asking for no more than that.
Entelechy on May 26, 2007 at 4:33 PM
Very well said. Fox was an utter failure and Calderon doesn’t seem to be any better. They were both bought off by the 100 families who control Mexico. Sad that their biggest accomplishment was in shipping their citizens to another country for money. Will a middle class ever be reality in Mexico. My answer is no.
Neocon Peg on May 26, 2007 at 4:58 PM
Entelechy,
I have never made any comments in those particular threads. I am more of a women’s rights advocate than many who post here. If you don’t like my opinion, fine, but have the honesty to disagree with things I actually post. I do argue facts – some just don’t care to acknowledge they are indeed facts because it clashes with their more narrow viewpoint.
And just because my view may be different doesn’t make it wrong, extreme or invalid, nor does it make me a traitor.
Respectfully, if you are tired of my posts then just don’t read them. Examining an issue responsibly means looking at all sides and that is what I do.
Bradky on May 26, 2007 at 4:58 PM
I called both of my senators (Chambliss and Isakson) offices yesterday and was told by their aides that I just didn’t understand the situation in regards to illegal immigration. The attitude from both offices seemed to be that I was a little child and I should leave decisions like this to adults. Wrong! I informed both offices that I have been a loyal Republican voter since 1980 and that I would vote in the primary as a Republican. However, if they should win the primary (Chambliss is up for re-election next year) then I would cast my first ever vote for a Democrat.
dawgyear on May 26, 2007 at 5:13 PM
Oh, for God’s sake will people stop posting this kind of asinine nonsense! Have some respect, at least, for Michelle and Allah.
Kensington on May 26, 2007 at 5:15 PM
>Next time’s a banning. Consider yourself warned.
Why would he get banned for suggesting that we shoot the bad guys who are invading us? The simple fact that they are invading a sovereign nation makes them enemy combatants. What do you do to enemy combatants? Kill them. Sounds like the logical thing to do. The Castle Doctrine should apply to the entire country, just as it should apply to our own homes.
Doghouse on May 26, 2007 at 5:19 PM
Not according to the rule of law our country follows. In short they are given due process depending on their status under the Geneva convention or if not covered by that then by the second paragraph below. There is no General Order stating that they will be killed outright.
Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.
Most combatants who do not qualify for protection under the Third Geneva Convention do so under the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV), which concerns civilians, until they have had a “fair and regular trial”. If found guilty at a regular trial, they can be punished under the civilian laws of the detaining power. The last time that American and British unlawful combatants were executed after “a regularly constituted court” was Luanda Trial in Angola in June 1976.
Bradky on May 26, 2007 at 5:46 PM
I’m planning on it.
P. James Moriarty on May 26, 2007 at 5:56 PM
Just a note about the “wall”. You should be aware that a lot of people in Texas don’t want a wall on their property that will cut them off from part of their land and from access to the water they need from the river. Governor Perry has called the proposal to build miles of pedestrian fencing on the Texas border “preposterous”. Just so you know.
juliesa on May 26, 2007 at 6:09 PM
You should be aware that a lot of people in Texas don’t want a wall on their property that will cut them off from part of their land and from access to the water they need from the river.
I’m hearing a lot of complaints about the wall interfering with wildlife, too.
I’m for a wall where it will work and not be too much interference, with extra guards in the non-walled areas.
gmoonster on May 26, 2007 at 6:12 PM
You.
mojowire on May 26, 2007 at 6:21 PM
Is UNcommon sentiment still welcomed?
HerrMorgenholz on May 26, 2007 at 6:42 PM
Amnesty is a huge issue in the next election. I will not vote for anyone who supports amnesty! Secure the borders! It is just insane to give amnesty to people who are breaking the law. But then, oh since you can’t speak the language we will give you free health care and food stamps etc. These people knowingly broke the law. Deport em!!!
ChrisIansNana on May 26, 2007 at 6:45 PM
>Not according to the rule of law our country follows. In short they are given due process depending on their status under the Geneva convention or if not covered by that then by the second paragraph below. There is no General Order stating that they will be killed outright.
If I’m in my home some night and somebody decides to break in, the bad guy is going to get two to the chest and one to the head. If one of my sons (a soldier and a Marine) is sitting in his camp in Iraq some night and a group of enemy combatants bursts in, those enemy combatants are going to get two to the chest and one to the head. It should be the same when the bad guys (and every illegal entrant is by definition a bad guy) invade our country. Two to the chest and one to the head.
The Geneva Convention is irrelevant in this case. I’m not talking about prisoners, but bad guys in the process of an aggressive invasion of a sovereign nation.
Doghouse on May 26, 2007 at 6:56 PM
>Deport em!!!
And anybody that falls for the “We can’t deport millions of people!” meme is gullible enough that he or she should be a liberal. Of course we can deport millions of people. It’s not a matter of can or can’t. Of course it could be done.
We don’t need to be nice to illegal aliens. They’re criminals. Only the harshest of penalties will have any effect.
Or what? Have we all gone wussy liberal group-huggie now? Any men left out there?
Chirp, chirp, chirp…
Figures.
Doghouse on May 26, 2007 at 7:02 PM
gmoonster, right, it’s going to take a mix of solutions.
juliesa on May 26, 2007 at 7:05 PM
I think this needs to be repeated:
naliaka on May 26, 2007 at 7:16 PM
Danno Jyd-
Bilbray and Tancredo – arguably the strongest anti-illegal Reps – both were re-elected.
Some pro-illegal politicians were dumped liked DeWine.
McConnell thinks he is clear saying this because he just was re-elected. Elections are next year; lets see what he says then. We need to pimp strong anti-illegal candidates locally, and that’s that.
linlithgow on May 26, 2007 at 8:00 PM
You used the term “enemy combatants”. The definitions I provided showed how our government classifies them.
Hello Sharia law without the Mullah influence…..
Bradky on May 26, 2007 at 8:28 PM
>You used the term “enemy combatants”. The definitions I provided showed how our government classifies them.
As usual, you’re making a connection that does not exist. I’m talking about bad guys in the process of attacking. You’re talking about prisoners.
>Hello Sharia law without the Mullah influence
Again, you’re making another outstanding leap to something unrelated. Apparently you really are a liberal troll, as I suspected.
And apparently you’re gullible enough to believe that playing nice with the invaders will get them to stop being bad people. That’s worked, uh, never.
Doghouse on May 26, 2007 at 8:34 PM
Let’s dumb it down for you:
Combatant: One, such as a person or a combat vehicle, that takes part in armed strife.
adj.
Engaging in armed strife.
Are the illegals involved in armed strife? No so you are incorrect in your characterization.
Again, resorting to name calling when unable to support an argument. You said “Only the harshest of penalties will have any effect.”
The harshest of penalties is death.
This is YOUR suggested solution.
This solution is very similar to the Sharia penalties for a variety of offenses.
No leap at all.
Bradky on May 26, 2007 at 8:45 PM
>Are the illegals involved in armed strife? No so you are incorrect in your characterization.
Obviously you’ve never been to southern Arizona, or you wouldn’t make such a laughable comment. I would advise that you not speak from complete ignorance. It makes you look even goofier.
>Again, resorting to name calling when unable to support an argument.
No, just pointing out that my suspicions were confirmed. How is saying what you really are name calling? A liberal troll is a liberal troll is a liberal troll.
>The harshest of penalties is death.
Possibly.
>This is YOUR suggested solution.
Correct. Nothing else has every worked, and nothing else will ever worked, regardless what the prancing festive types may dream.
>This solution is very similar to the Sharia penalties for a variety of offenses.
No leap at all.
Either you’re joking, or you’re daft. How can any sane person say that protecting yourself and your property from invaders is the same as something such as cutting off a young girl’s head because she touched a man?
A sane person can’t, but a liberal can.
Waaaaait a minute. Now I get it. You’re Rosie O, posing as somebody else here! The insane connection to Sharia law is just like Big Rosie saying that the U.S. is the terrorist in Iraq. Hey guys, Rosie’s here!
Doghouse on May 26, 2007 at 9:00 PM
Press 1 for get your riff-raff out of my country you two-bit El Presidente, you.
Hening on May 26, 2007 at 9:01 PM
LoL. Oh yes… prosecuting illegal immigration is exactly equal to hand-chopping, gay-hanging, woman-beating, church-burning, teenager-stoning, genital-mutilating, gang-raping Sharia. Wow, keeping invaders out of your country is exactly like that! Mirror image!
Now, I don’t want to shock you or anything – you seem prone to hyperbole and exaggeration – but you might be an idiot. I don’t want to say anything too definitive – you might set sail to crazy town again and think the word “idiot” is the same as “Murderer” or “Nazi” or “Satan” – but if it were me I might have that looked at.
Lehosh on May 26, 2007 at 9:04 PM
But the bottom line is that killing them all is your only solution. Whether I am Rosie, a liberal troll, daft, etc. etc. you WANT to kill them all.
Got it.
Bradky on May 26, 2007 at 9:05 PM
>But the bottom line is that killing them all is your only solution. Whether I am Rosie, a liberal troll, daft, etc. etc. you WANT to kill them all.
No, just the ones that invade my country.
Doghouse on May 26, 2007 at 9:07 PM
Bratky, I live at the front line of this battle. How far away from the problem do you sit complacently?
Doghouse on May 26, 2007 at 9:08 PM
Bradky, my sincere apologies for confusing you with Nonfactor, who lately calls most everything a ‘red herring’, including on the women’s rights topic. I sincerely regret not having been on top of who the handle was. I wouldn’t want to be accused unjustly either. Please forgive. Mea culpa. Mea culpa. Mea culpa.
Here’s what got me going, without doing diligent research, unitl I saw your reply (when it was too late :(
Again, apologies, with regrets. Regards,
Entelechy on May 26, 2007 at 9:10 PM
I think an armed presence on the border would be a deterent to some elements trying to get across. But using deadly force on people the second they step foot across the border is draconian. I agree with the third time is habitual argument. We catch you a third time, you are prosecuted as a felon.
The minute the Mexican government realizes they cannot export their problems to the US, the sooner they will have to answer to their own people.
Secure the borders, punish businesses and the problem automatically begins to solve itself.
csdeven on May 26, 2007 at 9:53 PM
Did I not specifically warn people in this very thread that violent rhetoric is a banning offense?
I guess we need to do this the hard way. Doghouse is banned. I warn you guys and warn you guys that I don’t give a solitary crap about whether you’re caught up in the heat of the moment or joking or whatever the excuse is. I’m not going to stand for this garbage. Zero tolerance. Test me at your peril.
Allahpundit on May 26, 2007 at 10:00 PM
For a dwindling and aging people, violence and force in general seem insufficient as means of maintaining the Americans’ territory. Very great attention is given to the force that British immigrants and their American and Canadian descendants used in taking over North America from its former inhabitants. Without subtracting anything from the importance of those observations, I want to point out that all those British, Canadians, and Americans had to come from somewhere. Moreover, there were enough of them that they managed to take most of North America while also taking Australia and New Zealand, taking control of large parts of Africa, south Asia, and other lands, and maintaining a United Kingdom throughout England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland.
The English and their descendants didn’t acquire and rule so much of the world by poisoning their women, capturing their semen in little latex bags, and killing their gestating babies. They had an enormous, sustained, global baby-boom. The Americans’ present problems arise largely from having throttled their own reproduction for the last forty years, while kindly helping Mexico and most of the world increase theirs. Young Americans may be able to turn things around by having large families. The most practical way older Americans can help them seems to be to work and contribute to the support of their grandchildren.
As for the rest, it seems the Americans ought not deplore illegal immigration across their southern border. They should deplore its direction.
Kralizec on May 27, 2007 at 12:02 AM
Wall?
Not just a wall, Senor Volpone, but:
More Border guards.
New Predator drones.
And Listening devices.
Infrared detectors.
Seismic sensors.
Walls are just the beginning.
If you do not defend your borders, you do not have a country.
profitsbeard on May 27, 2007 at 12:07 AM
Almost every reader of HotAir considers it read that border security is important. However, an important reason that the Americans’ southern border has become a problem is that while Americans were averaging 1.7 or 1.9 children per woman, Mexicans were having five. It’s impossible for an individual American to turn the entire country around; still, in doing your part, you get to do someone else’s parts.
Kralizec on May 27, 2007 at 12:47 AM
Thanks for the reply. No worries – so many threads and different posters makes it pretty easy to mix up who said what on occasion.
It’s all good. Have a good weekend.
Regards.
Bradky on May 27, 2007 at 1:09 AM
Fox can take that finger and stick it where the sun doesn’t shine. As for McConnell, apparently he hasn’t figured out why conservatives decided to sit out the Nov. 2006 election. The GOP had better start listening to their base…the alternative is horrific.
lynnv on May 27, 2007 at 8:32 AM
If I were President of Mexico, I’d also be heavily into rationalization. With a steadily growing population and a chronically faltering economy buttressed mainly by US dollar hard currency earnings from Mexican illegal aliens in the US, I’d also rationalize why tens of millions of Mexicans ought to have uninterrupted illegal access to America, American jobs and untaxed American dollars.
The Mexican economy is dependent on it’s parasitical relationship to the US in order to not collapse.
DavePa on May 27, 2007 at 8:40 AM
Rule #1: If you act like an asshole, people will treat you like an asshole.
Jaibones on May 27, 2007 at 9:13 AM
Ooops, right. So why is he making these public announcements?
4shoes on May 27, 2007 at 12:44 PM
Bradky, thanks. You also have a great weekend.
Neocon Peg, thank you.
Because, like Jimmy Carter, they were worthless presidents, and are now trying to reclaim lost relevance.
Entelechy on May 27, 2007 at 1:24 PM
Well Fox’s not being president is only relevant if he doesn’t still carry influence?
I side with those who acknowledge that we are in fact under invasion.
We must secure our borders. Whatever that takes. We must enforce our immigration laws. We must enforce our employment laws. We must cut off the cash flow to all illegals and we must continue to and even imcrease raids and deportations of all illegals caught by other means.
We can stop both stop the flow and deport all illegals. All meaning some number above 95%
Altura Ct. on May 27, 2007 at 2:22 PM
In the interest of fairness, Fox did make some progress in Mexico and even made fair progress at the end with contraceptives.
The problem of course lies with an incredibly entrenched aristocracy and a feudal system based on bribery and Mafia style peer pressure, there was only so much Fox was ever going to get done.
The amount of progress of course doesn’t in any way negate the fact that he did and does indeed promote the invasion and usurpation of our home and absolutely was and is a hypocrite of mega proportions.
Speakup on May 27, 2007 at 2:33 PM
I absolutely agree, now I’m just waiting for the accusations of promoting racist and anti feminist doctrines to start up.
If we want(ed) more Americans born, a serious family/baby network is needed, combining faith based, private foundation and Fed. involvement so young American citizens who wish they could afford children may have them.
Now if only (civil)? rights organizations can be stifled some progress could come about.
Speakup on May 27, 2007 at 2:45 PM
Ah yes, I do see similarities.
4shoes on May 27, 2007 at 11:28 PM
He was just suggesting that we have the same policy that Mexico has (You know, what is good for the goose is good for the gander).
My aunt is married to a Guatemalan man whose relatives have been beat and shot at crossing the Mexican border.
Tim Burton on May 28, 2007 at 12:41 AM
In other news, I just left the Republican Party and joined the Federalist Party. Is there still a Federalist Party?
Anyways, the GOP can kiss my butt, since they have been giving me the finger for the last 5 years.
Tim Burton on May 28, 2007 at 12:43 AM
Hey, can Kralizec & Speakup please point me to the hot, nubile, educated, twentysomething American woman that is willing to bear and help raise five children while maintaining her 40+ hours per week corporate office job?
As much as I like their idea, I think I may have found a flaw in it…
ScottMcC on May 28, 2007 at 2:54 AM
fox had all his time to influence stuff..and he sucked ass….so stfu and retire pal.
Highrise on May 28, 2007 at 3:17 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »