Our favorite Mexican restaurant is going to be closed Monday. We know the owner personally as we go there twice a week and take several of us from the office. We just told him that we will never be back, and that we will make sure we let other folks we know from Chruch and etc, that we know go there what they are doing.
Posted by: Paul Lewis at April 29, 2006 03:17 PM
I think the boycott is rather stupid and will just make the illegals look desperate.
Though the illegal immigration issue has not quite been driven into the ground yet, I actually returned from my hiatus to comment on the "Clever Conservative" ad on this site.
As much as you guys like to demonize "progressives," Teddy Roosevelt (the president pictured in the ad) was a very large part of the Progressive Movement of the early 20th century. He actually pioneered government regulation of the economy (see: ). He was also an avid Environmental Conservationist. He also ran as the "Progressive Party" candidate in the 1912 presidental election, effectively splitting the Republican vote and giving the presidency to Woodrow Wilson.
So much for a great Republican.
Posted by: Georgia Frawg at April 29, 2006 04:40 PM
Posted by: Georgia Frawg at April 29, 2006 04:43 PM
Villaraigosa is a racist MeCHista, eh?
Let's see if I have this right... Villaraigosa decides to go to Dallas to talk to the NFL about bringing a football franchise to LA -- something that would be an economic boon to all the citizens of LA. He does it at the expense of angering the population element that one would otherwise expect him to most closely identify with (and a large one at that). He does all that and you STILL call him a racist? I'm afraid I don't understand the logic.
You also call him essentially a coward -- a coward for risking alienating a large segment of his political base for the even larger good. That's political cowardice? Mark, I truly wonder what you would have said had he chosen otherwise. Face it, he couldn't have escaped your criticism no matter what he did. And that is a tautology.
So many of the arguments on this site are. So many of them boil down to... "either you agree with me or you're a lefty moonbat or a righty wingnut" (depending upon who's talking).
I'm beginning to lose hope that any rational discussion is possible on any level.
Posted by: Ricorun at April 29, 2006 04:50 PM
Paul Lewis
That is very very Christian of you. What is the name of your church? I'll make sure to avoid it and will tell all my friends to do the same.
Posted by: Canadian Observer at April 29, 2006 05:06 PM
Considering that neither the Rams nor the Raiders provided any kind of "economic boon" in LA could you please explain to me how a new team will?
Posted by:
Capitalist Infidel at April 29, 2006 06:10 PM
Paul Lewis
Well, that's very, very Christian of you. What is the name of your Church? I will make sure to avoid it and will tell all my friends to do the same.
Posted by: Canadian Observer at April 29, 2006 06:16 PM
Georgia!! Glad to see you back! So tell me, what do you know about the Progressive movement back around the turn of the 19th/20th centuries? Wouldn't you agree that the movement was one that crossed party lines? Wouldn't you say that Roosevelt assumed Taft was a progressive too? I would say that's the real reason why Roosevelt didn't run for a second term. Sure he claimed a certain sensitivity to traditional term limit issues, but I would argue that he assumed the progressive legacy was safe with Taft. But it didn't turn out that way. So he ran as head of the Bull Moose party, essentially assuring Wilson's win. Obviously there was a certain amount of personal spite involved, but the other reason was that he knew Wilson was himself more a Progressive than a Democrat.
Personally, I think that epoch in our history was one of the most interesting and seminal of all. In a very real sense I think you could say that Roosevelt approached the same economic state that Reagan tried to achieve from the other side. For lack of a better term, I'll call it "regulated free enterprise". The idea is that an effective stranglehold on either the supply side or the demand side of the equation are not beneficial. One needs tension between the two in order for capitalism to really work.
Let me explain: Roosevelt aggressively pursued a policy of "trust-busting" -- i.e., breaking up economic monopolies -- which, given the realities of the time were necessary to allow free enterprise to flourish. Morgan (banking), DuPont (chemical and energy industries), Carnegie (transportation), and others were gaining a stranglehold on the enterprises they concentrated on. As a result they could deleteriously manipulate the supply/demand equation. I argue that Roosevelt's activities at the time were necessary to equalize the tension between supply and demand. Likewise, Reagan aggressively pursued a policy of "union-busting" -- i.e., breaking up labor monopolies -- which, given the realities of the time, were necessary to allow free enterprise to flourish as well.
In my opinion, both of them were right. In my opinion, capitalism is most effective when no one side of the supply/demand equation gains pre-eminence. For a free enterprise system to be truly healthy there has to be a constant churning between established companies ( which supplies the economic consistency), the labor force (which supplies societal consistency), and entrepreneurial adventures (which supplies the tension between the two).
These days we are not faced with individual personalities like Morgan, DuPont, and Carnegie, but rather cartels with a distinctly international flavor. At the same time labor unions across the globe are at their lowest ebb in 100 years. For this reason, and several others related to it, the force for innovation in our country has been seriously compromised. I worry about that. I worry about that a lot.
Posted by: Ricorun at April 29, 2006 06:31 PM
Ricorun,
He's never disavowed his membership in that racist, treasonous organization...
He would still, indeed, be criticised by me for showing up...but I would be criticising only his stance, rather than his morals and his stance. He's wrong AND he's a coward (in addition to be a racist and traitor).
Posted by: Mark Noonan at April 29, 2006 06:56 PM
Infidel said: "Considering that neither the Rams nor the Raiders provided any kind of "economic boon" in LA could you please explain to me how a new team will?"
What makes you think neither the Rams nor the Raiders did provide an economic boon to LA? Is your opinion based solely on the fact that they did, indeed, leave? And considering they did leave, is it thus reasonable to assume that neither team provided an economic boon to LA?
As much as I'd like to hear your opinions on those issues before I respond, in the interests of undue fairness I will respond nonetheless...
Those sorts of decisions are very complex, and often revolve around the perception of whether the economics of the situation more benefit the city in which the team currently resides or the team itself. Those are the sorts of tensions involved, and they often teeter on the edge of economic reality. In fact, I will be so bold to say that they ALWAYS do.
Considering the realities, at the time they happened I don't blame either team for leaving. In fact, it's been kinda nice not having an LA team we are forced to watch (but that's another topic). The main point is that conditions have changed in LA since then. LA has significantly invested in their downtown area since then. If you haven't been to downtown LA recently, let me tell you, the difference is remarkable. It's as remarkable as downtown Cleveland (oh gawd, what a mess that was -- but no longer), downtown Indianapolis (like Cleveland it's changed in the last 20 years from being a blight to a magnet), downtown Baltimore (ditto -- the change in Baltimore is remarkable!). I could go on, but I think you get the idea -- what once was is not necessarily the same now.
So what else do you want to know, Infidel?
Posted by: Ricorun at April 29, 2006 07:58 PM
CO: Are there still churches in Canada? I though they were all closed because of all your anti "hate" laws.
Posted by: Porter Jervis at April 29, 2006 08:19 PM
Rico
Did it ever occur to you that there are substatially more non hipanic voters in LA, and maybe the Mayor suddenly realized the voter backlash that this May Day demonstration will cause?
Posted by: phnxbmed at April 29, 2006 09:36 PM
I have been gone for over a month. I had been busy planning a Scandanavian walkout to call attention to the injustice given to lutefisk. Thank God there aren't any illegal alien Scandies around here, so my attempts have failed. But I will be shopping on May 1st. Oh by the way, our local meat packing plant told anyone who walked out on May 1st to just keep walking.
Posted by: uffy at April 30, 2006 08:15 AM
Porter Jervis: Of course, Canada's hate laws don't apply to Muslims....
Posted by: Macker at April 30, 2006 09:14 AM
Porter Jervis
Are you saying Churches are in the business of hate mongering? Why would Canada's anti-hate laws ban Churches? All Churches are places of love and tolerance, aren't they?
Posted by: Canadian Observer at April 30, 2006 10:30 AM
Villaraigosa is a phony.
He doesn't speak spanish.
He went to ucla and ucla law school on affirmative action and never passed the bar exam. That means that a bright talented young person got cheated out a spot by this flake.
He sends his kids to private schools yet his party traps minority kids in the inferior LAUSD. "I won't sacrifice MY kids..."
He refuses to renounce "reconquista" or the racist MEChA (lt governor bustamante also refuses)
He met with the truant kids at the rally that blocked the freeways. Think about this fact...
35,000 LAUSD kids ditched school (illegals)
x $8,000 per year for "free" education
=========
$280,000,000
Taxpayers paid JUST FOR THE ONES WHO DITCHED SCHOOL!
This does not count Welfare, Food Stamps, Section 8 housing, MEDICAL CARE, and thousands of illegals who vote, often multiple times. I only get to vote once...
He encourages them then hangs their gullible ignorant butts to twist in the wind while he goes to the NFL fat cats meetings.
What a leader!
Posted by: JoeS at April 30, 2006 04:47 PM
phnx,
What I see is that Villaraigosa has raised the ire of both the hispanic community (not to mention the lefty wingnuts) on the one hand, as well as people like Mark on the right for deciding to go to Dallas to try to negotiate a deal with the NFL rather than to attend the rallies in LA. Considering that, I think one could effectively argue that he's putting his political life on the line in order to do what is best for LA. For that reason I find it hard to understand how anyone could claim that he is a politically motivated racist traitor coward. To me, it simply makes no logical sense.
An NFL franchise in LA would result in billions of extra dollars in revenue for LA. LA has already invested hundreds of millions of dollars to make it possible. If Villaraigosa DIDN'T go to Dallas to make his pitch, I think the people of LA should be very, very upset.
And yeah, I understand that many righty wingnuts can't accept that any liberal or Democrat could ever possibly make the right choice. Likewise, I understand that many lefty moonbats can't accept that any conservative or Republican could ever possibly make the right choice. But it happens, ya know? I'm sure there are idiots all over the political spectrum. Likewise, I'm sure there are occasionally very smart, very dedicated individuals all over the political spectrum as well.
For the record, I don't support tomorrow's expected boycott AT ALL. While I am generally supportive of the legal Hispanic community and consider it a positive force in America, I think this boycott idea is counter-productive and profoundly stupid.
Posted by: Ricorun at April 30, 2006 05:07 PM
rico asks: "Villaraigosa is a racist MeCHista, eh?"
I ask: Is there any other kind?
He was a member of this avowedly racist group. He never openly quit. He never claimed he quit. He has never disavowed them, or their agenda.
What would YOU call him?
Posted by: Almiranta at April 30, 2006 08:21 PM
And I'm sure that Paul's church, like so many others, will deeply grieve the loss of any hope of ever meeting our Canadian Observer. I'm sure he goes to church all the time, otherwise, and is just easily offended by one in which some of the members choose not to support, even indirectly, an effort to undermine our laws. Those would be the laws of the UNITED STATES, C O, and none of your business.
Posted by: Almiranta at April 30, 2006 08:25 PM
Almiranta
Politics and religion do not mix, period.
Look to the folks who want to destroy the West and all it stands for. Religion & politics are a nasty combination.
Posted by: Canadian Observer at May 1, 2006 09:02 AM
hey Mark Noonan!
Please tell me where the next counter-protest will be heard by "BRAVE" conservatives
I am sure the illegals will be soooooo scare of you and your dog protesting across the street!!!
Posted by: dragon at May 1, 2006 01:41 PM
As a conservative, I would like to know where the next counter protest is for the "BRAVE" Rightwing Americans
Posted by: dragon at May 1, 2006 04:31 PM
dragon,
The counter protest against the illegals will be in November at the polls. In the meantime we are too busy working.
Posted by: phnxbmed at May 1, 2006 11:16 PM
dragon,
The counter protest against the illegals will be in November at the polls. In the meantime we are too busy working.
Posted by: phnxbmed at May 1, 2006 11:17 PM
CO doesn't want to go to any church, because he's afraid the roof will fall in if he does!!!
Posted by: dbogdan at May 2, 2006 01:32 AM
Our favorite Mexican restaurant is going to be closed Monday. We know the owner personally as we go there twice a week and take several of us from the office. We just told him that we will never be back, and that we will make sure we let other folks we know from Chruch and etc, that we know go there what they are doing.
I think the boycott is rather stupid and will just make the illegals look desperate.
Though the illegal immigration issue has not quite been driven into the ground yet, I actually returned from my hiatus to comment on the "Clever Conservative" ad on this site.
As much as you guys like to demonize "progressives," Teddy Roosevelt (the president pictured in the ad) was a very large part of the Progressive Movement of the early 20th century. He actually pioneered government regulation of the economy (see: ). He was also an avid Environmental Conservationist. He also ran as the "Progressive Party" candidate in the 1912 presidental election, effectively splitting the Republican vote and giving the presidency to Woodrow Wilson.
So much for a great Republican.
heh, my reference didn't work...
Meat Inspection Act of 1906
Villaraigosa is a racist MeCHista, eh?
Let's see if I have this right... Villaraigosa decides to go to Dallas to talk to the NFL about bringing a football franchise to LA -- something that would be an economic boon to all the citizens of LA. He does it at the expense of angering the population element that one would otherwise expect him to most closely identify with (and a large one at that). He does all that and you STILL call him a racist? I'm afraid I don't understand the logic.
You also call him essentially a coward -- a coward for risking alienating a large segment of his political base for the even larger good. That's political cowardice? Mark, I truly wonder what you would have said had he chosen otherwise. Face it, he couldn't have escaped your criticism no matter what he did. And that is a tautology.
So many of the arguments on this site are. So many of them boil down to... "either you agree with me or you're a lefty moonbat or a righty wingnut" (depending upon who's talking).
I'm beginning to lose hope that any rational discussion is possible on any level.
Paul Lewis
That is very very Christian of you. What is the name of your church? I'll make sure to avoid it and will tell all my friends to do the same.
Considering that neither the Rams nor the Raiders provided any kind of "economic boon" in LA could you please explain to me how a new team will?
Paul Lewis
Well, that's very, very Christian of you. What is the name of your Church? I will make sure to avoid it and will tell all my friends to do the same.
Georgia!! Glad to see you back! So tell me, what do you know about the Progressive movement back around the turn of the 19th/20th centuries? Wouldn't you agree that the movement was one that crossed party lines? Wouldn't you say that Roosevelt assumed Taft was a progressive too? I would say that's the real reason why Roosevelt didn't run for a second term. Sure he claimed a certain sensitivity to traditional term limit issues, but I would argue that he assumed the progressive legacy was safe with Taft. But it didn't turn out that way. So he ran as head of the Bull Moose party, essentially assuring Wilson's win. Obviously there was a certain amount of personal spite involved, but the other reason was that he knew Wilson was himself more a Progressive than a Democrat.
Personally, I think that epoch in our history was one of the most interesting and seminal of all. In a very real sense I think you could say that Roosevelt approached the same economic state that Reagan tried to achieve from the other side. For lack of a better term, I'll call it "regulated free enterprise". The idea is that an effective stranglehold on either the supply side or the demand side of the equation are not beneficial. One needs tension between the two in order for capitalism to really work.
Let me explain: Roosevelt aggressively pursued a policy of "trust-busting" -- i.e., breaking up economic monopolies -- which, given the realities of the time were necessary to allow free enterprise to flourish. Morgan (banking), DuPont (chemical and energy industries), Carnegie (transportation), and others were gaining a stranglehold on the enterprises they concentrated on. As a result they could deleteriously manipulate the supply/demand equation. I argue that Roosevelt's activities at the time were necessary to equalize the tension between supply and demand. Likewise, Reagan aggressively pursued a policy of "union-busting" -- i.e., breaking up labor monopolies -- which, given the realities of the time, were necessary to allow free enterprise to flourish as well.
In my opinion, both of them were right. In my opinion, capitalism is most effective when no one side of the supply/demand equation gains pre-eminence. For a free enterprise system to be truly healthy there has to be a constant churning between established companies ( which supplies the economic consistency), the labor force (which supplies societal consistency), and entrepreneurial adventures (which supplies the tension between the two).
These days we are not faced with individual personalities like Morgan, DuPont, and Carnegie, but rather cartels with a distinctly international flavor. At the same time labor unions across the globe are at their lowest ebb in 100 years. For this reason, and several others related to it, the force for innovation in our country has been seriously compromised. I worry about that. I worry about that a lot.
Ricorun,
He's never disavowed his membership in that racist, treasonous organization...
He would still, indeed, be criticised by me for showing up...but I would be criticising only his stance, rather than his morals and his stance. He's wrong AND he's a coward (in addition to be a racist and traitor).
Infidel said: "Considering that neither the Rams nor the Raiders provided any kind of "economic boon" in LA could you please explain to me how a new team will?"
What makes you think neither the Rams nor the Raiders did provide an economic boon to LA? Is your opinion based solely on the fact that they did, indeed, leave? And considering they did leave, is it thus reasonable to assume that neither team provided an economic boon to LA?
As much as I'd like to hear your opinions on those issues before I respond, in the interests of undue fairness I will respond nonetheless...
Those sorts of decisions are very complex, and often revolve around the perception of whether the economics of the situation more benefit the city in which the team currently resides or the team itself. Those are the sorts of tensions involved, and they often teeter on the edge of economic reality. In fact, I will be so bold to say that they ALWAYS do.
Considering the realities, at the time they happened I don't blame either team for leaving. In fact, it's been kinda nice not having an LA team we are forced to watch (but that's another topic). The main point is that conditions have changed in LA since then. LA has significantly invested in their downtown area since then. If you haven't been to downtown LA recently, let me tell you, the difference is remarkable. It's as remarkable as downtown Cleveland (oh gawd, what a mess that was -- but no longer), downtown Indianapolis (like Cleveland it's changed in the last 20 years from being a blight to a magnet), downtown Baltimore (ditto -- the change in Baltimore is remarkable!). I could go on, but I think you get the idea -- what once was is not necessarily the same now.
So what else do you want to know, Infidel?
CO: Are there still churches in Canada? I though they were all closed because of all your anti "hate" laws.
Rico
Did it ever occur to you that there are substatially more non hipanic voters in LA, and maybe the Mayor suddenly realized the voter backlash that this May Day demonstration will cause?
I have been gone for over a month. I had been busy planning a Scandanavian walkout to call attention to the injustice given to lutefisk. Thank God there aren't any illegal alien Scandies around here, so my attempts have failed. But I will be shopping on May 1st. Oh by the way, our local meat packing plant told anyone who walked out on May 1st to just keep walking.
Porter Jervis: Of course, Canada's hate laws don't apply to Muslims....
Porter Jervis
Are you saying Churches are in the business of hate mongering? Why would Canada's anti-hate laws ban Churches? All Churches are places of love and tolerance, aren't they?
Villaraigosa is a phony.
He doesn't speak spanish.
He went to ucla and ucla law school on affirmative action and never passed the bar exam. That means that a bright talented young person got cheated out a spot by this flake.
He sends his kids to private schools yet his party traps minority kids in the inferior LAUSD. "I won't sacrifice MY kids..."
He refuses to renounce "reconquista" or the racist MEChA (lt governor bustamante also refuses)
He met with the truant kids at the rally that blocked the freeways. Think about this fact...
35,000 LAUSD kids ditched school (illegals)
x $8,000 per year for "free" education
=========
$280,000,000
Taxpayers paid JUST FOR THE ONES WHO DITCHED SCHOOL!
This does not count Welfare, Food Stamps, Section 8 housing, MEDICAL CARE, and thousands of illegals who vote, often multiple times. I only get to vote once...
He encourages them then hangs their gullible ignorant butts to twist in the wind while he goes to the NFL fat cats meetings.
What a leader!
phnx,
What I see is that Villaraigosa has raised the ire of both the hispanic community (not to mention the lefty wingnuts) on the one hand, as well as people like Mark on the right for deciding to go to Dallas to try to negotiate a deal with the NFL rather than to attend the rallies in LA. Considering that, I think one could effectively argue that he's putting his political life on the line in order to do what is best for LA. For that reason I find it hard to understand how anyone could claim that he is a politically motivated racist traitor coward. To me, it simply makes no logical sense.
An NFL franchise in LA would result in billions of extra dollars in revenue for LA. LA has already invested hundreds of millions of dollars to make it possible. If Villaraigosa DIDN'T go to Dallas to make his pitch, I think the people of LA should be very, very upset.
And yeah, I understand that many righty wingnuts can't accept that any liberal or Democrat could ever possibly make the right choice. Likewise, I understand that many lefty moonbats can't accept that any conservative or Republican could ever possibly make the right choice. But it happens, ya know? I'm sure there are idiots all over the political spectrum. Likewise, I'm sure there are occasionally very smart, very dedicated individuals all over the political spectrum as well.
For the record, I don't support tomorrow's expected boycott AT ALL. While I am generally supportive of the legal Hispanic community and consider it a positive force in America, I think this boycott idea is counter-productive and profoundly stupid.
rico asks: "Villaraigosa is a racist MeCHista, eh?"
I ask: Is there any other kind?
He was a member of this avowedly racist group. He never openly quit. He never claimed he quit. He has never disavowed them, or their agenda.
What would YOU call him?
And I'm sure that Paul's church, like so many others, will deeply grieve the loss of any hope of ever meeting our Canadian Observer. I'm sure he goes to church all the time, otherwise, and is just easily offended by one in which some of the members choose not to support, even indirectly, an effort to undermine our laws. Those would be the laws of the UNITED STATES, C O, and none of your business.
Almiranta
Politics and religion do not mix, period.
Look to the folks who want to destroy the West and all it stands for. Religion & politics are a nasty combination.
hey Mark Noonan!
Please tell me where the next counter-protest will be heard by "BRAVE" conservatives
I am sure the illegals will be soooooo scare of you and your dog protesting across the street!!!
As a conservative, I would like to know where the next counter protest is for the "BRAVE" Rightwing Americans
dragon,
The counter protest against the illegals will be in November at the polls. In the meantime we are too busy working.
dragon,
The counter protest against the illegals will be in November at the polls. In the meantime we are too busy working.
CO doesn't want to go to any church, because he's afraid the roof will fall in if he does!!!