Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...

It’s Official: Senator Warner Is On Crack

By Greg L | 9 August 2010 | Illegal Aliens, US Senate | 48 Comments

“This is why we desperately need bipartisan immigration reform,” Warner said. “At the end of the day, we’ve got to have a system where the employer can verify the legal status before they hire someone … and right now, we don’t have anything like that.” Senator Mark Warner, quoted in the News & Messenger on August 8th, 2010

Hey Senator, how about you bother talking to Democrat State Senator Chuck Colgan about the E-Verify program?  At least Colgan introduced a bill that would mandate this in Virginia, before he treated the bill like a red-headed stepchild and did all he could to see it die in a maddening game of political posturing.

Seriously, how does someone this utterly ignorant ever become a United States Senator?

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.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.


  1. anon said on 9 Aug 2010 at 8:31 pm:
    Flag comment

    There IS a program where an employer CAN verify status before hiring. It’s just that very few employers use it. Is Warner not even aware that E-Verify exists???

  2. Jack said on 9 Aug 2010 at 8:39 pm:
    Flag comment

    I just got a new job. I had to fill out an I-9 form and provide a government-issued ID and a birth certificate (which not even 0bama has done).

    (Actually, I had to do it twice — once for the temp agency, and again when I became a permanent employee.)

  3. Nat said on 9 Aug 2010 at 8:54 pm:
    Flag comment

    You may want to correct the post. I am pretty sure you mean Senator Mark Warner and not Senator John Warner who has been out of office for a couple years now.

  4. BattleCat said on 9 Aug 2010 at 9:55 pm:
    Flag comment

    Perhaps Sen. Warner could get a job with JetBlue!

  5. Anonymous said on 10 Aug 2010 at 12:57 am:
    Flag comment

    At least he made some kind of response. “Spider” Webb said he didn’t have the time to make a comment on immigration according to the News and Messenger. Apparently he’s sooooooo busy.

  6. enough said on 10 Aug 2010 at 4:01 am:
    Flag comment

    Its not Warner’s ignorance that is scary. That can be repaired with one election.

    What is truly frightening is the electorate which elects democrats - knowing they are stupid, hate America and are socialists at heart.

    In my mind, 90% of this comes from the universities.

    When was the last time there was a university protest against terrorism, or China, or Cuba, or Iran?

  7. Just the Facts said on 10 Aug 2010 at 7:09 am:
    Flag comment

    Why is there no requirement in Corey’s Virginia Rule of Law campaign that employers use eVerify, or requiring its use in PWC for business licenses, contracts with the County, etc.? It’s in Arizona’s SB 1070 and the judge let it stand.

  8. Advocator said on 10 Aug 2010 at 10:03 am:
    Flag comment

    We have a law on the books now that would require all public agencies in Virginia and all state contractors and their subs to utilize E-Verify. Unfortunately, it does not take effect until 2012. When it was being debated, it was thought that amnesty might occur, so the Dimocrats and enough traitorous Republicans pushed the effective date out far enough that if amnesty happened, the illegals among us would have a chance to get legal before they got fired.

    The problem with the I-9 verification that Jack refers to above is that most, if not all, documents can be forged. The employers do not have to look at the validity of the docs. The only prohibition they have against hiring soldiers of the invading force is that they may not “knowingly” hire them. As long as the Invader shows a forged birth certificate or fake Social Security card, the employer can always claim he did not “know” whomever he was hiring was illegally in the country. Consequently, very few prosecutions can occur for hiring them.

  9. Cromagnum said on 10 Aug 2010 at 4:24 pm:
    Flag comment

    to Advocator

    could we deputize private people like CPA’s, PI, Bounty Hunters etc to search the business records? They could work for 10% of the fines recovered, and maybe something for expenses. Just need to get ICE enforcement out of reverse gear. This would cut costs, increase revenue, begin to solve the real problem (incentive to stay). The American innovation of all these private people would solve it pretty quickly

    But thats not a political solution for the ruling class.

  10. enough said on 10 Aug 2010 at 4:44 pm:
    Flag comment

    Advocator - do you have a list of who voted and how on the bill your describe?

  11. Anonymous said on 10 Aug 2010 at 8:14 pm:
    Flag comment

    Speaking of electorate, it appears the acorn types or whatever they are now are wandering around the City with clip boards getting persons registered.

  12. Groveton said on 10 Aug 2010 at 9:53 pm:
    Flag comment

    OK, so the PWC Republican BoS members are all taking bribes from developers and our US Senator is using illicit drugs.

    C’mon boys and girls…

    I really don’t like Mark Warner’s politics. His 13 promises not to raise taxes in the governor’s race before he was elected and raised taxes. His “education tax increase” that was used to transfer even more money downstate to buy loyalty to the Democrats. I could go on.

    It just seems like he has the right idea here. Maybe he’s uninformed or just plain daft but his heart is (finally) in the right place.

    Wouldn’t it be more effective for Help Save Manassas to send out a couple of letters to the editor of various local newspapers correcting the senator’s misconception?

    Best case - the senator says, “Hey! I didn’t know that. Let’s get cracking (pun intended) with e - verify.”. Worst case - he’s grandstanding and has to explain why he doesn’t actually support e - verify.

    Either way has to be better than (metaphorically, I hope) accusing the man of smoking crack.

  13. Jack said on 10 Aug 2010 at 11:30 pm:
    Flag comment

    I doubt Warner is ignorant of E-Verify. Rather, it is liberal propaganda. Repeat something over and over until people believe it, regardless of whether it makes sense or not.

    The pro-amnesty crowd constantly argues that E-Verify is not suitable because it isn’t 100% (not mentioning that it is above 95% - if not above 99% - accurate and the false positives are easily verified).

    More recently the pro-amnesty strategy is to differentiate between “criminal illegal aliens” and others. Listen carefully. It is quite intentional to desensitize Americans to illegal aliens who have not (yet) been convicted of a violent felony. They are trying to convince us that we only need to worry about those who have already committed a violent crime so that we are submitted into accepting that the remaining illegal aliens are nothing but hardworking, law-abiding visitors. They tried to make us think that of all illegals but due to the rampant crime being exposed at the hands of illegals the strategy had to be revised. Listen to the head of ICE, Mr. Morton and he talks about how he is not for amnesty and that they will prioritize the “criminal” illegal aliens. Well, was the illegal that raped the 10 year old girl a “criminal” prior to the rape? In other words, I guess we will have to wait for illegals to commit disgusting crimes one at a time before we can deport them…in other words…status quo.

    Don’t let this work for them. Hold them to the meaning of each word. Donate to www.NumbersUSA.com or www.alipac.us

  14. NoVA Scout said on 11 Aug 2010 at 5:47 am:
    Flag comment

    To answer the question posed in the post about how Senator Warner got the job, he was a popular former governor who got more votes than his opponent in a democratic election. I would not have thought that particularly obscure. There must be a record of it somewhere.

  15. Groveton said on 11 Aug 2010 at 6:27 am:
    Flag comment


    You may be right although I am not sure how Warner’s comments help that cause. It looks to me like the Dems are lining up the following “talking points” for the upcoming elections:

    1. Blame Bush - They will declare that Bush put the country so far underwater that 2 years is far too little time to get us back to the surface.

    2. Talk jobs, not healthcare - In what seems like a bizarre move to me the Dems will contend that the various spending / bailout / stimulus bills prevented a full scale depression. They will try to claim a “victory margin” of 15% unemployment saying that today’s 10% is 15% better than the 25% we would have seen without Democratic control of Congress and the White House. They will avoid any discussion of healthcare.

    3. Paint the Republicans as having no plan - They will call the GOP “the party of no” and repeat, ad nasuem, that the Republicans have no plan. If Republicans point to long standing proposals such as Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget roadmap they will do what they already did three times this week - get emotional. In an error laden series of columns in the New York Times liberal lap dog Paul Krugman called Ryan a flim-flam man and generally snarled, barked and wet the carpet. Expect more of this type of behavior in the face of any Republican proposals.

    I do not believe the Dems will go anywhere near immigration.

  16. Jack said on 11 Aug 2010 at 7:55 am:
    Flag comment

    Just to be clear, that is another JACK, without the link to the novatownhall blog.

  17. Chauncey Gardiner said on 11 Aug 2010 at 9:27 am:
    Flag comment

    The creeping vine strangles all new growth.

    A “Party of No” would be preferable to a “Party of Socialist Takeover.”

  18. Advocator said on 11 Aug 2010 at 9:34 am:
    Flag comment

    @ Enough:

    The bill enacted into law iis (was) HB 737. The complete legislative history is at the Virginia Legislative Information Service (LIS), which, if anyone is not familiar with, I recommend you access and become familiar with the information you can glean from it about laws, bills, and legislators. To answer your question, the House members who voted on its final form are:

    HB 737 E-Verify Program; requires state agencies and those newly hired to perform work in State.

    floor: 02/16/10 House: VOTE: — PASSAGE (82-Y 13-N)


    YEAS–Abbitt, Abbott, Albo, Alexander, Anderson, Armstrong, BaCote, Barlow, Bell, Richard P., Bell, Robert B., Brink, Bulova, Byron, Carrico, Cleaveland, Cline, Cole, Comstock, Cosgrove, Cox, J.A., Cox, M.K., Crockett-Stark, Dance, Garrett, Gear, Gilbert, Greason, Griffith, Howell, A.T., Hugo, Iaquinto, Ingram, James, Janis, Joannou, Johnson, Jones, Keam, Kilgore, Knight, Landes, LeMunyon, Lewis, Lingamfelter, Lohr, Loupassi, Marshall, D.W., Marshall, R.G., Massie, May, McQuinn, Merricks, Miller, J.H., Miller, P.J., Morefield, Morgan, Morrissey, Nixon, Nutter, O’Bannon, Oder, Orrock, Peace, Phillips, Pogge, Poindexter, Pollard, Purkey, Putney, Rust, Scott, E.T., Sherwood, Shuler, Sickles, Spruill, Stolle, Tata, Tyler, Ward, Ware, R.L., Wright, Mr. Speaker–82.

    NAYS–Carr, Ebbin, Edmunds, Englin, Herring, Hope, Kory, McClellan, Plum, Scott, J.M., Surovell, Toscano, Watts–13.


    NOT VOTING–Athey, Torian, Villanueva, Ware, O.–4.

    Delegate Edmunds recorded as nay. Intended to vote yea.
    Delegate Torian recorded as not voting. Intended to vote yea.
    Delegate Villanueva recorded as not voting. Intended to vote yea.
    Delegate Ware, O. recorded as not voting. Intended to vote yea.


  19. Anonymous said on 11 Aug 2010 at 9:42 am:
    Flag comment


    You raise an interesting question. The federal government (finally) has a rule in effect that federal contractors will use E-verify. Not using it, and hiring illegal aliens, and billing the gummint for their work could be considered fraud. Anyone with information that a federal contractor is using illegal aliens on a federal contract could institute what is known in “da bidness” as a “qui tam” action against that contractor for defrauding the federal government. If proven, all proceeds that contrator has received from the federal government on that contract would have to be returned, plus triple damages. Under the False Claims Act (FCA) the person instituting the suit (known as the “relator”) is entitled to 25% of the money recovered from the contractor.

  20. DPortM said on 11 Aug 2010 at 10:54 am:
    Flag comment

    At Anonymous at 9:42 am:

    “Companies awarded a contract with the E-Verify clause after Sept. 8 will be required to enroll in E-Verify within 30 days of the contract award date.”

    The requirement is not mandatory - it is only if the contract includes the E-Verify clause. How many contracts do you think have the E-Verify clause?


  21. Anonymous said on 11 Aug 2010 at 3:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    Just the Facts said on 10 Aug 2010 at 7:09 am: Flag comment

    Why is there no requirement in Corey’s Virginia Rule of Law campaign that employers use eVerify, or requiring its use in PWC for business licenses, contracts with the County, etc.? It’s in Arizona’s SB 1070 and the judge let it stand.

    For the same reason that the BOCS KILLED the requirement that was suggested that anyone operating a business in the county would have to register the business and otain a license. This would have killed a lot of the illegals work and force them to move onto some other place. Look what we have now because of this.

  22. enough said on 11 Aug 2010 at 6:09 pm:
    Flag comment


    Thank you very much. You are right, we all need to become very familiar with this site - and very familiar with what our delegates do.

    Every two years we can make adjustments until it is clear who works for whom.

  23. legal2 said on 11 Aug 2010 at 7:17 pm:
    Flag comment

    Chauncey Gardiner: “only in America!” :-)

  24. Anonymous said on 12 Aug 2010 at 1:03 am:
    Flag comment

    I am glad that some of you out there is starting to understand coreys b.s. proporganda that he is out to rid us of illegals! Like I said before, The majority of construction work is done not by peoplewho get paid by the hour in the traditional sense. They get paid as independant contractors. It is a big loophole in the law in Virginia. Drywall company A get a contract with Ryan homes for work to be done. The owner of company A looks great on paper being legal, etc. Drywall company A ” contracts” out jobs to ” contractors” who get paid by the hour. All they need is a class c liscense and they get there money tax free. No social security taken out on them. That saves drywall contractor A from paying fica taxes. The contractors get a liscense without having to prove anything?????

    Do I need to say more?

    Funny how Corey got hard on the illegals only when the construction industry tanked.

    Free babies to these people at the hospital thanks to you and me. Lets not forget wic also.

  25. enough said on 12 Aug 2010 at 3:21 am:
    Flag comment

    Anon - our delegates are well aware of this scam. As is Corey. Here is the issue: they say one thing to us - and have their hands out to the rest.

    Sure, they can act like Americans and talk the talk - but how much money do you and I give them? How much to the mega developers give them? Bottom line is the bottom line. They all despise the thoughts of having actual jobs and therefore will prostitute themselves, their county, their state and their country in order to get re-elected.

    That pretty much explains it. Until you and I and everyone else ponies up more money than the developers, the restaurateurs, the landscapers - we will never have influence.

    After all, we can be explained away as racist bigot zenophobes.

    Stop me if you have heard that line before.

  26. Fed Up said on 12 Aug 2010 at 6:58 am:
    Flag comment


    One of about every 12 babies born in the United States in 2008 was the offspring of unauthorized immigrants, a Pew Hispanic Center study released Wednesday concluded.

    According to the study, an estimated 340,000 of the 4.3 million babies born in this country that year had parents who were in the United States without legal documentation.

    The 14th Amendment to the Constitution stipulates that those children automatically become U.S. citizens, but some members of Congress are pushing to change that provision. That effort — rooted in the debate over illegal immigration, particularly of people from Mexico — has created some controversy.

    “This has got a lot of attention in the past weeks,” said Jeffrey S. Passel, the study’s author. “The idea was just to put a number on it.”

    According to the study, 79 percent of the 5.1 million children of unauthorized immigrants in the United States were born in this country, making them U.S. citizens.

    Nearly one of four children born in the United States in 2008 had parents who were immigrants, the Pew study found. Of those, 16 percent of the parents were legal immigrants and 8 percent were in the United States without proper documentation.

    Many of those children are Latino, Passel said.

    More than three-fourths of all unauthorized immigrants in the United States in March 2009 were Latinos, the researcher said. And nearly one of every four children under age 18 in the nation was a Hispanic.

    That trend is likely to continue, the study concludes.

    “Overall, Hispanics who live in the U.S. have higher rates of fertility than do whites, blacks or Asians,” the report states. “And among Hispanics, the foreign born have higher rates of fertility than the native born.”

    Immigration reform has become a hot-button issue this political season. Arizona passed a law in April that required all immigrants to carry documentation of legal status and other states are considering similar measure even though major parts of the Arizona law were struck down last month in federal court.

    “The country is really emotionally torn over this,” U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, said recently on CNN.
    Video: The birthright citizenship debate
    Video: Terror babies ‘absurd’

    * Immigration Policy
    * Pew Hispanic Center

    The government estimates there are more than 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States.

    Proponents of stricter immigration enforcement and control point to the large number of Latinos having babies in the United States as reason to change the 14th Amendment. The proponents say these children, which they often call “anchor babies,” qualify for welfare and other programs and make it harder to deport their parents

    “Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency,” says an organization called The American Resistance, which has described itself as “a coalition of immigration crime fighters opposing illegal and undocumented immigration.”

    Under the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, the child may sponsor other family members for entry into the United States when he or she reaches the age of 21.

    The group notes that “the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently freed slaves.” The intent of the amendment “was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law at taxpayer expense,” The American Resistance says on its website.

    Having a child become an automatic U.S. citizen can provide immigrants with another reason to come to this nation illegally, some critics say.

    “I think we need to look at that in the future as to whether or not we want to change that because I think it’s an incentive to break the law,” said Graham, the U.S. senator.

    Texas state Rep. Debbie Riddle, a Republican, pointed out another concern on CNN’s “AC 360″ program Tuesday night. Some pregnant women from other countries are traveling to the United States to give birth and then taking their babies back home to raise them as terrorists that would return to attack America, she said.

    Information for that “sinister issue,” Riddle said, is coming from from former FBI officials she declined to name.

    “This is something that is being talked about by various members of Congress,” she said.

    State Rep. Rafael Anchia, a Democrat, disputed the claim, calling it “the myth of anchor babies.”

    “For that to rise to some sort of national security concern is really unsubstantiated,” Anchia said. “The 9/11 bombers were all here legally. The Times Square bomber was a naturalized citizen. He was not an anchor baby.”

    Anchia also disputed the contention that having a baby in the United States hinders the deportation process.

    “The law does not bear that out,” he said. “Just because you have a child here doesn’t mean you can’t be deported tomorrow.”

    Despite all the heat, a majority of Americans seem to oppose changing the 14th Amendment. A nationwide poll conducted in June by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found that 56 percent of Americans are against changing the citizenship provision while 41 percent favor amending it.

    The Pew Hispanic Center is a nonpartisan research organization that does not take positions on policy issues.

  27. Cynic said on 12 Aug 2010 at 12:29 pm:
    Flag comment

    Illegals the offsprings of illegal are by definition - illegal. No way this scum should be automatically granted citizenship.

    BTW, I resent that the taxes of citizens go to provide benefits to illegals. And, all jurisdictions that provide sanctuary to illegals should lose all federal funding. The elected officials who allow sanctuary status should be charged with treason, tried, and if found guilty received the Death Penalty. Also they should have only one appeal, and the appeal must be completed within 30 days. No exceptions.

  28. NoVA Scout said on 13 Aug 2010 at 12:31 am:
    Flag comment

    Cynic - how do babies get to be “scum” at birth? I imagine that a cross-section of the moral fiber of all immigrants, legal and illegal, would yield a character profile no different than a cross-section of the native born. Some good, some bad, some in between. I am certain, however, that no newborns are “scum.”

  29. Junes_Reston said on 13 Aug 2010 at 5:56 am:
    Flag comment

    At Anonymous at 9:42 am:

    “Companies awarded a contract with the E-Verify clause after Sept. 8 will be required to enroll in E-Verify within 30 days of the contract award date.”

    The requirement is not mandatory - it is only if the contract includes the E-Verify clause. How many contracts do you think have the E-Verify clause?

    All contracts using stimulus or other federal funding REQUIRE E-Verify - but only for the Contractor’s direct hires. Subs to these contractors are only required to sign a statement that all the workers are eligible to work.

    If it is learned the sub falsified the statement, the contractor is held harmless.

    Contractors should be held accountable for the actions of their subs. If their sub are bringing illegals onto the job site, the Contractor should be fined and then seek reimbursement from the sub through the courts - if the subs can ever be found.

    Unfortunately, both Webb and Warner feel the Contractor is not an agent of the government (ICE) and shouldn’t be held accountable if their subs are corrupt. Both fully undertsand this a huge loop hole — so large you can drive a van full of illegal workers through it.

    Webb, during his campaign said, “what are we suppose to do with all these illegals — we woke up one morning and they were everywhere?” The suggestion, “cut them off with E-Verify, SSN Verification at all levels of employment and government agencies. He was shocked that Americans could be so unfeeling.

    I’m not at all surprised to learn that Plum voted against E-Verify. He and Sen Howell have been champions for illegals for years. Plum is convinced illegals are days from becoming citizens if the troublemakers would just step out of the way.

    Plum is also convinced he is invincible - he has run unopposed several times and beat out anyone who dared run against him. His only defense, “I wouldn’t be re-elected so many times if I wasn’t doing things right.”

  30. Cynic said on 13 Aug 2010 at 10:11 am:
    Flag comment

    NoVA Scout,

    Well, maybe I should have said that no way the offspring of the scum illegals should be granted automatic citizenship.

    Remember both Stalin and Hitler were once children/offsprings as were Einstein and Hawking and even the entire MS-13 Gang.

  31. Fed Up said on 13 Aug 2010 at 12:01 pm:
    Flag comment

    With a little math I came up with a figure that illegal aliens being born here costs about 3 billion dollars a year to taxpayers. That is from an average cost of $7000 per birth for vaginal delivery and $15000 for the 28% estimated C-Section births. Of course these numbers are rough, but should be in the ballpark.

  32. Cynic said on 13 Aug 2010 at 12:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    What about the payments to the “poor”, “poor” mothers until the offspring is what age, 18?

    Of course, the mothers view this as a stream of income. Am sure that most of the mothers realize that this flow of income to them is generated from the taxes paid by citizens who pay taxes (public investment!). Great program, that it is. Citizens are tax by laws passed by our scum politicians who then pass some more laws which allows for the transfer of taxes in the form of welfare benefits to illegal non-citizens.

  33. NoVA Scout said on 13 Aug 2010 at 9:32 pm:
    Flag comment

    Cynic - I suppose we can call it progress that you are backing out the babies, however grudgingly. My additional comment is that referring to groups of people as “scum” is a problem, no matter who does it. It says much more about people who think and talk that way than it does the people they abuse.

    Which federal welfare programs, by the way, provide for payments to non-citizens?

  34. Contractor who follows the letter of the law said on 14 Aug 2010 at 12:02 pm:
    Flag comment

    anonymous @ 1:03AM
    You nailed it. Bet you’re a fellow contractor who’s suffering the effects of watching the big builders run right over the little guy who actually follows the rules.

  35. ... said on 14 Aug 2010 at 12:47 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Which federal welfare programs, by the way, provide for payments to non-citizens?”

    Section 8 rental assistance, WIC, AFDC, for starters.

  36. ... said on 14 Aug 2010 at 12:47 pm:
    Flag comment

    Sorry, AFDC is now TANF.

  37. ... said on 14 Aug 2010 at 12:48 pm:
    Flag comment

    Oh, can’t forget food stamps.

  38. ... said on 14 Aug 2010 at 12:51 pm:
    Flag comment

    Do you have to be a U.S.
    Citizen to receive Food
    No. Some legal immigrants can
    get Food Stamps. You may be
    eligible for Food Stamps if you a
    considered an “Eligible

  39. ... said on 14 Aug 2010 at 1:08 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Individuals must be U.S. citizens, or non-citizens with eligible immigration status. To receive assistance, applicants must provide evidence of citizenship or eligible immigration status. Each family member must declare their status once. HACoLA will verify citizenship information with other eligibility factors.

    Each family member, regardless of age, must sign a declaration of U.S. citizenship or eligible immigration status. HACoLA considers the citizenship/eligible immigration status of each family member individually before determining the family’s status.”

    We know that illegal aliens would never sign a declaration of eligible immigration status, because that’s against the law.

  40. Cynic said on 14 Aug 2010 at 4:34 pm:
    Flag comment

    NoVA Scout,

    Oh, now I feel so guilty! Great one, could you please provide me with a list of words that you do not want me to use, ASAP?

  41. NoVA Scout said on 14 Aug 2010 at 11:03 pm:
    Flag comment

    Let’s start with “scum”

  42. legal2 said on 15 Aug 2010 at 7:08 am:
    Flag comment

    ok, let’s replace “scum” politicians with “traitorous” - either way, they’re scum to be reuining our economy and our system of government, while they redistribute the wealth.

  43. Cynic said on 15 Aug 2010 at 8:34 am:
    Flag comment

    Scum means impure/impurities. What is the big deal? Are there not seven words one can not use in Broadcasting? Bet “scum” is not one of them. Besides, it is not a dirty word or a curse word.

    But, on second thought, maybe using the word scum is not the best word to use as scum always rises to the top. And, among our politicians, not too many rise to the top!

    Come to think of it, not too many rise to the top in any endeavor. That’s why there is a normal distribution. A few at the bottom, a few at the top, and a crowded middle.

  44. NoVA Scout said on 16 Aug 2010 at 5:24 am:
    Flag comment

    Cynic was calling illegal immigrants and their babies “scum”. He dialed back on the babies (sort of) when called on it. It was not applied to politicians in Cynic’s remarks on this thread and another nearby. It tells us a lot about him, and not very much about the immigration issue, that Cynic used the term.

  45. Cynic said on 16 Aug 2010 at 9:42 am:
    Flag comment

    NoVA Scout -

    What does it tell you about me?

    That I hate illegals and their supporters. Oh I know that I should be PC and feel guilty, but I don’t.

    And, FYI, I have applied the word scum to politicians on this blog - more than once.

    BTW, I do not think that much about you either - liberal masquerading as a conservative.

  46. NoVA Scout said on 17 Aug 2010 at 12:17 am:
    Flag comment

    I would be deeply vexed if you had a high opinion of me, Cynic. My concern about you is that people who don’t know better might consider you to be representative of conservative thought, and that those of us who have spent years studying and advocating conservative causes would be taken less seriously because we were thought to have something in common with you and people who behave as you do.

  47. Cynic said on 17 Aug 2010 at 8:14 am:
    Flag comment

    “people who don’t know better might consider you to be representative of conservative thought”

    NoVa Scout, well that would be their problem (and they most likely would be liberals making that projection). Just to put you at ease and maybe Make Your Day I want to inform you that I am NOT a conservative and I never said I was one (a conservative). I am just an ill mannered, mad at the world person who hates just about everything. Checked it out with my attorney who said my philosophy and positions on various issues broke no U. S. laws as far as he/she knew.

    And, you do not know crap about my behavior nor do I know anything about your behavior.

  48. NoVA Scout said on 17 Aug 2010 at 9:51 am:
    Flag comment

    We knew you were angry, C. Your attorney seems to be a bright fellow. Opinions and philosophies do not violate laws of the United States. The only part of your behaviour that I know about is what you exhibit in this space. My hope is that you are an absolutely swell fellow the rest of the time.

Comments are closed.

Views: 2268