The Debate, Part 4
By Greg L | 1 September 2007 | Illegal Aliens, Prince William County | 34 Comments
See Also:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Craig Vitter has a post-debate analysis where he says the debate was a draw. That’s an interesting take, although it’s hard to really make a solid determination when the format didn’t allow us to really address each other’s points, and we were rarely answering the same questions.
The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.
You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.
34 Comments
Views: 655
Loading ...
NEWSFLASH! I was driving around Culpepper today and low and behold….day laborers milling about off of 29 by an area that had a lot of big rig items (I did not have a chance to get the cross streets). However, those that live in Culpepper better step up and eliminate this problem before it gets out of control like it has in our area. Is there a Help Save Culpepper or Warrenton? They better get one quick.
Um, Greg, you’ve become obsessed with yourself and “who won the debate.” I know it’s a knew thing for you to be on TV and it’s probably a little exciting for you and all. But seriously, you’re making yourself look like a chump, not to mention, it’s completely masturbatory and obnoxious.
Anon,
At the request of BVBL readers- me being one of them, we asked if there were any other readers that could send a link of the debate and post it to BVBL for those of us who are not subscribers of Comcast.
It was the will of the people that made this happen not Greg being boastful. He did a FABULOUS JOB!
Thank you G Man for posting the debate on youtube and allowing Greg to post it here!
anon,
I personally asked that the debate be made available since I do not have access to news Channel 8. This was done as a courtesy to those of us who requested it.
Your last sentence is completely inappropriate and offensive. You are the one who is being obnoxious.
anon, you’re just proving once again that the “other side” has nothing of worth to contribute to the debate.
Anon,
To further educate you, Greg has been on TV before. As far as posting the youtube clips, it had to be in 4 segments that a WONDERFUL person stayed up LATE last night to do for us.
For more info. of the request, see the thread : The Left Is Salivating, News Channel 8 May Rejoice.
Greg, I honestly couldn’t believe some of the things that she was saying. Is she that detached from reality, is she like Pierre Salinger, who was purposefully lied to so whatever he said he could claim wasn’t technically a lie? I wished they had actually let you debate here, I could just tell you were exploding inside to respond to what she was saying. Great job, though
redawn must be totally infatuated with Greg. “FABULOUS JOB”,eh?
I watched the show. Greg is fairly goodlooking, dressed nattily and was wellspoken, but some of his body language showed disdain for his counterpart, and a couple of times there was a smirk. The adoration he’s getting in these comments are really getting a little over the edge, and it would be great if Greg would say ENOUGH ALREADY! As for winning or losing - that wasn’t the question, was it? With blinders on one can’t get a very good view of the whole. - The comments sound like a cheering squad at a mutual admiraton society. LOOK AT US. WE’RE THE GREATEST.
JM and all BVBL sycophants
(syc·o·phant (sĭk’ə-fənt, sī’kə-) Pronunciation Key
n. A servile self-seeker who attempts to win favor by flattering influential people.
if Anon 5:20 pm has a comment about someone with which you don’t agree with , you dont have to get personal.
Grow some .
T-bone,
It doesn’t get much more personal than using the word ‘masturbatory.’ If an individual makes an offensive, obnoxious remark to the blog-master, it is predictable that the regular members will retaliate in kind. To expect otherwise is rather unrealistic.
Dolph
Please…Grow SOME
Did that OFFEND yoiu?
T-Bone,
Nope, mainly because you are irrelevant to me.
Dolph,
I have never met you but I enjoy reading your blogs. You put a lot of thought into them and seem very willing to consider other points of view. It is obvious that you put a lot of time and energy into researching various matters that come up. Please continue yourgood work. You are a voice of wisom.
Greg, I don’t think you are obsessing about who won the debate and appreciate that you put all of it on this site, since I did not watch it when broadcast. I viewed it all after reading the posts on this and the other site.
My reaction is as follows: I have to say that after reading the posts I expected to see you clean Nancy Lyall’s clock and that the other site that called this a draw must have been written by someone who was stoned. But after watching the clips, I honestly think she got the better of you by just a little bit. Your voice was very calm and professional, I thought, through most of the debate, but your responses were a little jumbled and unclear, particularly for people who might be trying to get a handle on the issues involved (and despite your representations to the contrary, you were responding to the same items for the most part). I recognize, though, that you probably desired to squeeze in as much information as possible.
Nancy Lyall was weakest when she played the “NAFTA/multinationals are to blame” card, and blamed residential overcrowding on a lack of affordable housing. Those two arguments were ridiculous justifications for taking it easy on illegal immigration. I hate to say it, but as much as all of you think she was a nutjob and liar for saying that Mexicans Without Borders has not called anyone a racist, her representations on that were very plausible. Nobody is going to link to their website, and the fact that some of their members go off the deep end is not going to make people believe that they think everyone is a racist. She was strongest on the crime issue. The statistics about immigrant versus native crime are pretty compelling, and you did not seem to have a comeback to that.
Greg, you were weakest, I thought, on the lawsuit issue and the “rule of law” thing. Just because no one has yet filed suit doesn’t mean something is not unconstitutional. Smart attorneys don’t file suit until there is something concrete to grab on to, someone to convince to settle, or a PR victory to be won. That “blowing smoke” comment made you look like you don’t really know the legal system. The “rule-of-law” thing also comes across as a sign of weakness, because it sounds like you don’t have a substantive argument to say why something should be considered a problem. Not every law that’s broken is that big a deal. You also seemed a little confused on the question of what the resolution actually means. By the time you and the moderator got through parsing it, it seemed like you were basically simply trying to avoid saying it was symbolic.
I think your absolutely best argument was on the distinction between the buying versus renting of the American dream. That is a very important point that I think you could drive home effectively. After all, do we really care if someone comes here illegally, works hard, learns English, pays some taxes, and then eventually gets legal and settles here? I certainly don’t. But those who sneak in, work, use services, cram into overcrowded homes, park on lawns, not really caring how they are disrupting the community because they don’t intend to ever be a part of that community — that bothers me a lot. You started out strong on this, but then shifted gears into something else that weakened it.
The callers, I have to say, almost every one, were a disaster. The one woman, Nancy I think it was, who called in to say our “dirty little secret” is that “they” need to assimilate to our culture — Jesus Christ, talk about making us look like a bunch of backward bumpkins. That’s why people can get away with calling us racists. There is no exclusive claim to an “American culture” in the sense she was talking about. It basically sounds like, “hey, they’re brown.” When pressed on the “culture” differences she referred to overcrowding, cars on lawns, gangs of people hanging around. That’s really ridiculous. Maybe she has never lived anywhere else, but I’ve lived in more than a dozen different places, some where whites did all those things, and some where blacks did all those things. You were right on Greg, when you said it’s a matter of welcoming people who want to care for and invest in their community, not those who want to “rent” the American dream. I suggest distancing yourself from callers like that one, because she’s really not on the mark.
Finally, I disagree with Louvisa about your body language and smirk. Everyone needs to do something while they’re not speaking or looking at the camera and listening, and there are those who annoyingly nod their head or shift around. I thought you did a pretty good job of staying composed. Nancy was better and virtually unmoving until addressed, but she probably has more experience. You were nattily dressed; the good-looking thing, not so much, but that’s all a matter of personal taste.
At the end of the day, who ‘won’ or ‘lost’ is neither here nor there. The people who see that we have a problem with massive illegal immigration here in Northern Virginia are going to perk up their ears and say, “You know, these people (Help Save Manassas) are on to something and are trying to find solutions that work within our existing laws.”
Let’s face it. Neither Greg nor Nancy is running for political office. Each of them simply represented a point of view on an issue that is very much on the minds of the residents in our area. I prefer to evaluate the show in terms of community outreach.
If just one or two people got the message that there is an organization in Northern Virginia that is fighting to uphold the laws of our country, then I would call a touchdown for Greg.
Anon,
Thank you for your kind words.
Nancy L. needs to consider that we will always need to deal with home-grown crime, but the vicious crimes committed by illegal aliens on a daily basis are 100% preventable, if we enforce the laws we already have - close the borders and send ‘em home.
BTW, Elvira Arellano’s son has been reunited with her in Mexico. That’s how it works! http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/latinamerica/la-fg-son1sep01%2C0%2C2049272.story?coll=la-home-center
What is there to actually debate? Illegal is illegal. Period. Enforce the existing laws, start blocking benefits (and verifying status of those receiving them), and shut down businesses that hire illegal aliens. This is like debating whether or not we should allow identity theft or robbing banks because some people do these things.
Well said, Patriot, and we need to keep the truth out there about the resolution enforcing existing law concerning *illegals* in order to diminish the other side’s rhetoric which lumps all immigrants in together.
anon 9/2/07 @12:27am
Your comments to Dolph are so true. She’s pretty modest. I’m glad to see you compliments to her. I have met her, and she’s very concerned about the issues. Her posts do make you stop and think about the topic.
Dolph
Looks like there might be a fan club in the making here.
I hope you all read today’s OUTLOOK section of the WashPost starting on page 1 “The Border Boondoggle”. It’s amazing the amount of money spent with seemingly scant results.
outstanding,
maybe we can stop seeing all the coverage on Elvira and her anchor baby all over the news. Where the father of this child? Personally I think she’s about as pitiful as the come, I feel sorry for the child having a parent using him for her own crappy agenda. If anyone should have their parental rights removed, it’s her.
Actually, everyone needs to know about Elvira. It demonstrates why we must get rid of the anchor baby loophole that has plagued our great nation.
POWER OF ONE
This clip was posted by another viewer ( power of one) in a previous thread.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_Twc1jURn4
I totally agree,
I’m for closing that loophole…look at europe, just because you are born there doesnt mean you are a citizen. I think it’s by blood there, not soil.
Josh
Greg,
Thanks for making it possible for me to watch the event via BVBL, as I was at work during the actual airing.
I think you did a great job.
Keep up the good work.
Citizen status should be based on the status of the parents. Period. If any of the parents are illegal…so is the child.
“but some of his body language showed disdain for his counterpart”
What else would you have for a moon-bat, uber-liberal commie like Nancy Lyall? If all Greg was showing was disdain, I commend him for his restraint. I have nothing but contempt for Ms. “Nikita” Layall.
Has Nancy aided and abetted illegal aliens with her services?
“It doesn’t get much more personal than using the word ‘masturbatory.’”
Main Entry: mas·tur·ba·to·ry
Pronunciation: ‘mas-t&r-b&-”tor-E
Function: adjective
excessively self-absorbed or self-indulgent
I used the word in its natural meaning, as an adjective meaning self-absorbed and self-indulgent. There was nothing personal about it. Only a fool would have thought I meant it in some other sense…or perhaps someone who doesn’t actually understand the meaning of the word.
In this particular case, the word masturbatory, describes Greg L perfectly. Just becuase other people have asked him to post links to the debate so they can see it, doesn’t negate the fact that in his postings Greg L has taken to over-analyzing, over-obsessing and being generally self-involved and obsessed. He could have easily posted the links without going through the painstaking process of discussing who did or didn’t think he won the debate. The fact that he’s mentioning what all these other people think about who won the debate is evidence that he’s spending his time researching himself and what people thought, and then going on to talk about it on his blog. Which, by the way, is masurbatory behavior.
Anon, I suppose you have NEVER IN YOUR LIFE sought after comments that might have been perceived in the same manner?
Anon, if I were to participate in a televised debate I would certainly wonder how I did. I think that is human nature. If being on television was something that I could reasonably expect that I might do again I would go even further to analyze my performance so I could improve for the next time. Isn’t that how most people improve in any endeavor they attempt?
Anon (aka he/she who hides behind a computer screen)
Let’s exercise some higher level thinking skills here and get your mind out of whatever cesspool it is currently floating around in.
If ‘self’ doesn’t mean personal then what does it mean? Please explain this to me in adult terms.
Let me put this to you in terms you can perhaps understand: If you come on a blog and insult the people who are regulars, as well as the blog-master, you are going to be getting some cyber-smacking. Now take it like a man.
finis
Greg you did an outstanding job! Thank you for spreading the voice of reason.