The new Kubby 2008 website is up, thanks to Knappster.
The previous Kubby.com was not specifically about the campaign, rather, it was a combination of everything Steve Kubby has done in the last decade or so of his life.
This one is more focused, and more modern looking, but does not have a whole ton of content yet – that’s coming soon, though.
As you can see in the staff directory, the Cannoli is now Assistant National Volunteer Coordinator of Kubby for President 2008.
At the moment, that means I’m helping set up
google groups for Kubby supporters in every state. We have most of them done, but it will probably take a day or two more to finish. If anyone wants to help, go to the staff directory link and give Knappster, Ben Todd and myself a holler.
Knapp tells me he is working on producing radio commercials with the Sloan Ranger, a radio personality in the STL.
We’ll also probably be making TV commercial with my friend Doug Scribner, who made the pollie award winning Kubby for Governor TV commercials in 1998.
We’ll be needing some help with the print materials. This is a very rough beta which we already discussed earlier on this site.
There’s also the Kubby Blog and
myspace page.
As of yesterday, the Beyonce Viral Video
which includes Kubby was at 32,000 views.
Oh yeah, and the discussion at my last Kubby in the News update I posted is still going strong, with the most comments of any topic post on Last Free Voice so far.
http://pauliecannoli.wordpress.com/2007/01/09/kubby-2008-update/
Less
aynrkey
bostonteapartygoer
Kenn Jacobine
mattdharris
Mike Seebeck
Miche
paulie
Jim Davidson
ponggod
Stuart Richards
Steven Greffenius
Todd Andrew Barnett
The reason why you’re not seeing any Phillies updates like this, in case you’re wondering is that all this stuff is already done:
Campaign-specific website, at phillies2008.com, has been up for months.
The campaign is thoroughly staffed. (If you want to help, we can certainly still use you. Email me at electronicsoutreach@phillies2008.com or go here.)
Groups in each state have been around since early December.
Audio/video commercials have been being regularly produced for months, and many of them are usable by all Libertarian campaigns.
And George Phillies is not mocked in any YouTube videos celebrating the Democratic takeover in Congress saying “VOTE FOR ME, I’LL LEGALIZE MARIJUANA!” (though Phillies certainly supports marijuana legalization).
OK, so Phillies started earlier, but we’re catching up fast, which is kinda cool.
I think our radio and TV ad quality will be higher, but we can compare when we have product.
Stuart asked me to make this update post since I now have a title with the campaign, so I thought I’d take the occassion to talk about a little more than just me.
As for characterization of the viral vid as “Mocking”….well, I guess that’s in the eye of the beholder.
As far as the Democrats in Congress….read this, linked from LP nat’l front page as a feature story.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/117766.html
Nigel,
George announced his candidacy in, I think, May of 2006, and had obviously been planning it for some time. Steve announced his candidacy in August of 2006 … after he talked with some friends in the drug policy reform community about running for a lower office and they urged him to run for president instead. So, it’s natural that George’s campaign, with a head start in both declaration and prior planning, will be ahead of us on completing certain tasks at this point. I won’t ask you to believe that that situation won’t last — I’ll just make sure it doesn’t.
As it happens, Kubby’s state-based Yahoo groups were completed about the same time as George’s — and then Yahoo deleted the userids of the Kubby staffers creating them, and a bunch of the groups disappeared. That’s not intended to be an “excuse” — we should have gone ahead and moved over to Google RIGHT THEN — but it’s getting done now.
As far as The Sloan Ranger is concerned, yes, he has agreed to help produce commercials — but that wasn’t intended for public consumption. Hopefully it won’t be a dealbreaker
If it is, we’ll still get them done.
The new site is, of course, focused on the campaign rather than on “whatever Steve Kubby happens to be doing,” which was the case with the old site, which he maintained personally for about 10 years. Some of the content has already been out in other formats for awhile, and some is new (for example, there are several previously unreleased position papers). Obviously, the site will expand considerably over time.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
Wow! Look at Kubby’s Myspace page. Can anyone say “one-issue candidate?” I don’t think there’s anything you can do to change that perception, but good luck trying.
Interesting you should pick on that.
Myspace has a certain demographic/interest group bias somewhat different from people who are not on myspace. Lots of folks on myspace consider Kubby’s main past activist work a big plus, not a drawback. Then again, there are many more people who are not myspace users who do as well. Just not as high a percentage/proportion of the non-myspace population.
Can we change perceptions? You can think about it, we can do something.
I think Loretta was able to turn around “single issue” pereceptions, for instance, so it can be done. It’s all in how you handle them. At least according to quotes from David Nolan reproduced in the prior Kubby thread, Kubby was in fact able to overcome single issue perceptions in 1998. But your mileage may vary.
But, even if we can’t, I would prefer a solid one-issue candidate to anyone who will in practice be a zero issue candidate.
Also, a casual look at the myspace page reveals discussions of your favorite tax, and other issues. So good luck with all that thinking and stuff.
God willing, we’ll still be alive and marginally free in a few years, can compare notes on how your new party’s coming along. If we can still do that instead of dying or languishing in a detention camp somewhere, I’ll count that as a victory, if nothing else. Speaking strictly for myself and not the campaign.
2008 is a great opportunity to encourage Americans disheartened with Republicans and Democrats to vote Libertarian. A candidate who they will immediately dismiss as a pothead hippy – however unjustifiably – will do nothing for the Libertarian Party. A well-spoken man who talks about issues average Americans are concerned about will.
A candidate who some misguided folks will dismiss as a pothead hippy because he has taken action to save his life from a previously 100% fatal cancer, has lived a very full and fulfilling life filled with a wide variety of impressive accomplishments in over 30 years since then,
http://kubby.com/00-about.html
And then actually played an instrumental role in passing a breakthrough initiative which has since passed in 10 other states covering over 25% of the US population and is supported by 80% of the general non-libertarian public in the whole country, which allows those like him who need this medicine to obtain it legally, …
Will nonetheless do a lot for the party.
Because there are some folks who see those actions as a positive, care about it a lot, and there are way more of them than there are LP members or supporters.
A well-spoken, mild mannered, bookish academic who talks about issues average Americans are concerned about, fails to inspire passion in his audiences, remains relentless serious, and takes an anti-liberty position on a crucial issue which is heavily at the forefront of the public debate, simply won’t rise above the noise level
to even be considered – let alone get people to quit voting for parties they have always voted for and cast a ballot that many of their friends and relatives will be telling them is a “wasted vote” for a sure loser.
To take that kind of radical step takes a lot of strong feelings – and a milquetoast “Average American” approach just does not elicit those, one way or the other.
But, there’s still plenty of time left, so I’m hoping that if nothing else the campaigns will be learning from each other, working to outdo each other, and both getting stronger the whole time.
Nigel,
You write: “2008 is a great opportunity to encourage Americans disheartened with Republicans and Democrats to vote Libertarian.”
Agreed.
“A candidate who they will immediately dismiss as a pothead hippy – however unjustifiably – will do nothing for the Libertarian Party.”
Once again, agreed. Good thing there’s no such candidate in the race.
“A well-spoken man who talks about issues average Americans are concerned about will.”
Hey, three times agreement! That’s one reason why I’m supporting Steve Kubby. He’s a well-spoken man, who talks about issues average Americans are concerned about.
Hint for you guys: Being well-spoken/talking about issues average Americans are concerned about is not the same thing as presenting yourself or your candidate in a way that makes watching paint dry seem wildly exciting by comparison.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
The Phillies campaign sure has mastered staying “on message”.
I doubt the message will resonate with LP delegates, though. I know every time I read “a well-spoken man who talks about issues average Americans are concerned about” I lean more heavily towards Kubby. Seriously. If the Phillies campaign keeps talking about a “serious man for serious times”, then they could line up interviews with Jon Stewart, Bill O’Reilly, and Brian Williams and I’d still be turned off.
Oh, and that little immigration issue. Phillies has a HORRIBLE position on immigration.
“Once again, agreed. Good thing there’s no such candidate in the race.”
Uh, yeah, there is. People will dismiss Steve Kubby as a pothead hippy. I won’t. But most Americans will.
“presenting yourself or your candidate in a way that makes watching paint dry seem wildly exciting by comparison.”
Try actually listening to George Phillies. He’s not flailing his arms or anything, certainly, but he is a good speaker. Come on – he’s a popular physics professor at a science and engineering school. As an engineering student myself, I know that for him to be popular, he has to be an engaging speaker.
“Phillies has a HORRIBLE position on immigration.”
Phillies has a sensible position on immigration: we can’t have open borders unless we dismantle the welfare state. This is a fiscally responsible, long-term pro-liberty position.
I’m going to stay out of the Phllies vs Kubby debate right now and would rather give props to the Kubby Campaign. Seeing a website with the sole purpose of promoting Steve’s actualy presidential campaign is great. It was a step in the right direction and I am impressed.
Nigel, we have been over this. Most Americans who have heard of Phillies, which won’t be near as many as have heard of Kubby, will dismiss him as boring and nerdy. I won’t. But most Americans will.
I’ve actually listened to Phillies. Sorry, my impression remains the same.
As we have already discussed, making some liberty positions conditional on others (for example: we can not allow private ownership of weapons for self-defense UNTIL we legalize drugs; or: we can’t legalize drugs until we end government involvement in health care, etc, etc) is not the same as taking a pro-liberty position.
There is nothing fiscally responsible about supporting the continuation and/or expansion of regime initiations of force – forcible interference in mutually agreed upon travel and commerce. Wrong is still wrong and aggression is still aggression no matter how you justify it.
Then there is the whole Eurocentrism issue which still needs to be delved into a lot more.
Perhaps it is somewhat related to having a fetish for appearing “respectable” to those who support state aggression of the worst sort and would never vote for us in a million years, misunderstanding what motivates most Americans; or with having a severe fetish for having and using regime licenses for driving, paying coerced taxes, not breaking any of the regime’s unjust edicts, and insisting others must all do the same to seem “respectable”. Perhaps, even if it kills them.
Don’t get me wrong though….I’m glad Phillies is in the race.
Now, if only Loretta can get him to do a viral fan tribute video to Weird Al’s “white and nerdy,” I think he could start actually breaking through the ice with some average Americans. But my impression is that he takes himself way too seriously for that, which is a shame. He could do a lot better if he did stuff like that. And it would rock.
“he’s a popular physics professor at a science and engineering school. As an engineering student myself, I know that for him to be popular, he has to be an engaging speaker.”
Not necessarily. He could just be easy. Popular professors or usually either (1) easy, (2) demanding but fair and an exceptional teacher, (3) engaging or (4) a combination of the first three. I have never seen Dr. Phillies teach so I cannot personally comment on why he is “popular”. I cannot even comment on whether or not he is popular. (In fact, viewing his reviews at RateMyProfessor.com would lead me to believe that he is NOT a popular physics professor.) However, I have heard him speak as a candidate for President, and I do not find him particularly engaging.
“Phillies has a sensible position on immigration: we can’t have open borders unless we dismantle the welfare state. This is a fiscally responsible, long-term pro-liberty position.”
Phillies is against open borders. That is his position. I disagree with it and I believe it will be a negative in his quest for the nomination. If I were on the Kubby campaign, I would be praying that Phillies stays “on message” on this issue. In fact, I would use Phillies own written position in full and in context as the basis for an “attack” ad.
Phillies does not have an anti-open borders policy. He has an anti-opening our borders to welfare queens policy.
Nigel, once again….
Do we say that Social Security should be preserved forever, or made into an even bigger program?
Do we say that we should round up all the guns – until we legalize drugs, after which we can restore individual gun ownership?
Do we say that we should start allowing the police (or, if you prefer, Guardian Angels) to execute drug users and dealers on sight, until we get rid of the welfare state?
Or, perhaps we should increase government welfare to the poor by 10,000% – until we get rid of all the taxes and regulations which make it hard for people to start a business. Then we can privatize charity again.
But, wait, we need all those taxes to pay for all these programs we have to maintain in the meantime!
Personally, I don’t put much stock in such arguments.
Actually, I think they’re way off base.
And, for exactly the same reasons, I don’t believe we should have increased border enforcement, a wall on the border, more deportations, or more crackdowns on employers of “illegal” workers “until we get rid of welfare.”
Nor do I think that the current enforcement levels should be maintained.
I’m fighting for “all our freedoms, all the time.”
Not “some of our freedoms, but only after we get some of our other freedoms.”
Let Freedom Grow!
I don’t see most immigrants coming to America for free handouts under any circumstances. I am an immigrant and remember all the difficulties my family had to adjust to in leaving their country, coming over here, learning a new language (although my dad already knew English, it was not American English; my mom did not know it at all), new culture, re-tracking their careers etc.
People whose goals in life are to collect entitlements are generally lazy and/or stupid, and thus unlikely to have the initiative to do all that. This is why immigrants tend to be harder workers than native born Americans: it’s a self-selecting process. No matter what political policies the US regime adopts, most people who immigrate here will do so to work hard and create a better life for themselves, their children, and their childrens’ children.
If the US regime adopts a braoder policy of border walls, crackdowns, deportations, jailings and immigrant witch-hunts, they will still do so, “illegally”.
While some immigrants do end up on welfare as part of the process of adjustment to a new country, they are not as likely to be lifelong serial/chronic welfare cases.
As a business owner in the past, I always found that immigrants, especially “illegals” were by far the best workers and certanly the best return on investment.
This would not change if more were allowed into America, regardless of what the regime does about entitlements. Of course I agree entitlements should be ended – but freedom of immigration should not hinge on their end.
Correct. At http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/12/29/2008-lp-convention-location-announced/
George Phillies writes:
My response:
paul) Please cite exactly what you interpreted to mean that. If that was one of my statements, I must have been careless in my phrasing, because I don’t want more revenue for the regime: I would prefer less. Or, it’s possible that you misunderstood me or that someone else said it. What exactly was said by whom and when that you took to mean that?
paul) I agree. I also believe that on balance immigrants do both IE they (we) create more jobs, ideas, etc, etc, than otherwise would be the case, thus lifting the economy and society upwards; while also, as an unfortunate byproduct, paying more in taxes than costing the regime in tax spending costs.
Of course, saying “each and every single one” would be silly. “On balance”, however, would be accurate, I think.
But even if this is not true, I still believe the US regime has no moral right or authority to limit the number of immigrants through such socioeconomic calculations.
Human beings aren’t material resources to be brought in or halted based on the collective good of society; we are “possessed of certain inalienable rights”.
paul) One way in which the system takes advantage of (mostly) “illegal” immigrants is that they are not practically eligible to receive SS “benefits” despite paying into the system as well as other taxes such as sales tax, and, (usually indirectly) property tax. IE they use a false number to get a job, but don’t attempt to use it to cash in on the system.
Of course there are all sorts of exceptions, but this happens a lot.
Will this be enough to save SS from its coming well-deserved collapse? I highly doubt it.
paul) Thanks for finally delving into the Eurocentrism question.
I’m not knocking Western Civilization here.
I realize it has certain benefits.
But when you write on your website, “Americans who quote the Statue of Liberty’s message ‘Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free’ should remember that it was written when France, Germany and Russia were autocratic monarchies. The huddled masses of Europe now breathe free.”
What exactly does this mean? Let’s set aside for the sake of this discussion whether Europe is truly free today. I happen to know quite a few people who consider themselves economic refugees from Europe, and Eastern Europe contains autocracies to this day. But suppose we grant the contention that Europe breathes free today.
What about all the other continents?
Does this mean that “we” don’t care a rat’s ass for the huddled masses of Asia, Africa, and Latin America yearning to breathe free?
Or that “we” have the right to limit their immigration to this part of North America based on their ancestors not being “part of the 2500 year old Euro-American cultural tradition of law, liberty, and prosperity,” and that this what the LP presidential candidate should advocate?
It would appear so because you go on to say…
“When Americans want
open borders, they will tell Congress to vote for open borders.”
I would love to hear an alternative explanation of what this means.
Furthermore, now you write:
Paul) Political markets are not voluntary. Unlike real markets, they represent collective decisionmaking.
For instance, suppose that beverage choice were put on the political market.
Pepsi and Coke would be the leading brands, and receive all kind of advantages in being selected (you can argue that this is already taking place but here’s the rub….)
Once one wins, everyone has to drink it and nothing else.
And, what’s more, if the winning drink changes its formula right after the election, there won’t be another one for a while.
If you want to drink orange juice or bottled water, you’ll be pressured not to “waste your vote” because everyone knows Coke or Pepsi will win.
Oh yeah, and if “we” catch you drinking something other than, say, Coke, after the election, we’ll levy a fine; if you don’t pay the fine we’ll put you in jail, and if you resist being put in jail we’ll shoot you, and your little doggie too.
In a real market, of course, you can still drink the less popular drinks too, and mix your drinks together freely if that’s your thing. Just like in the real world where cultures, traditions, and ethnic/’racial’ groups mix all the time
to come up with a cornucopia of innovative syntheses.
So your postscript paragraph in the post above needs a lot more clarification, especially in how exactly it relates to your plank on borders quoted here.
UPDATE 1/6/7 Just got out of the hospital and there has been no response to this comment from Dr. Phillies, so in case he has not checked the TPW thread since I posted the above response but does check this one, I hereby presnt him (and all his supporters) with another opportunity to answer my comments quoted here.
UPDATE 1/10/07 Still no answer…..
That was kinda long, so try this part….
What exactly does this mean? Let’s set aside for the sake of this discussion whether Europe is truly free today. I happen to know quite a few people who consider themselves economic refugees from Europe, and Eastern Europe contains autocracies to this day. But suppose we grant the contention that Europe breathes free today.
What about all the other continents?
Does this mean that “we” don’t care a rat’s ass for the huddled masses of Asia, Africa, and Latin America yearning to breathe free?
Or that “we” have the right to limit their immigration to this part of North America based on their ancestors not being “part of the 2500 year old Euro-American cultural tradition of law, liberty, and prosperity,” and that this what the LP presidential candidate should advocate?
It would appear so because you go on to say…
“When Americans want
open borders, they will tell Congress to vote for open borders.”
I would love to hear an alternative explanation of what this means.
I’m glad we’re seeing this competition, it’ll inspire both campaigns to strive for even better.
The site looks nice enough, but there’s not enough news on it! That’ll change I’m sure.
Yeah, big time. This is just a bare beginning.
It should be obvious to anyone that to accuse George Phillies of racism is absurd. The platform position does not advocate any reduction of freedom, rather, it advocates ensuring that our freedoms are not further constrained. The current flow of immigrants I have no problem with. What would happen if we opened up without eliminating entitlements I do.
On the ground, our fundraising efforts are continuing to do well, helping us with restarting the Maryland LP recently. Your help is greatly appreciated and will help build the LP and spread the message of liberty.
Nigel,
I didn’t accuse Phillies of racism. I asked him for alternative explanations of his written, published statements. I said they sound that way – not that they are. I would love for him to explain it to where I can understand that he means something entirely different by what he has said. His one attempt to do so thus far has not cleared things up – if anything, it’s muddied them further.
Feel free to answer my detailed Q & A above for him, if you understand his position well enough, or he can do so himself at his leisure.
Also, as you’ll note above, my response points still apply if we are only talking about the current level of border enforcement.
What if I said:
We should continue the current level of gun control – until we legalize drugs, after which we can fully deregulate individual gun ownership? Would this be a libertarian position?
What if I said that we should keep putting drug users in prison, until we get rid of the welfare state and fully privatize health care? Would this be a libertarian position?
After all, drug users certainly rack up a lot of government social service costs. So how can we stand up for ending the drug war?
Or, perhaps we should maintain government welfare to the poor at current levels – until we get rid of all the taxes and regulations which make it hard for people to start a business. Then we can privatize charity again.
But, wait, we need all those taxes to pay for all these programs we have to maintain in the meantime!
See, saying that we will only maintain current levels of injustice doesn’t substantially change the argument. It’s stil the same problem.
Nor does it address the Eurocentricity issue, or the argument from democracy “when the American people want open borders, they’ll vote for open borders.” Do we say “when the American people want to legalize drugs, they’ll vote to legalize drugs.” Is that a libertarian argument? Do we say “when the American people want to end coercive taxation, they’ll vote to end coercive taxation.” Is that a libertarian argument?
I say not, but your opinion is welcome as to why or why not.
Can you give me more details about Maryland?
We have a contribution link too.
http://www.kubby2008.com/node/12
Here’sanother problem.
Why should the government be in the business of using state coercion – initiation of force – to enforce a wage premium? Does Phillies believe that the market not creating this premium is a case of “market failure”? If we admit the concept of market failure and the necessity of government to correct such failures, we have to create a permanent place for government in our lives – after all, why should market failure magically go away?
Why should consumers and small business owners be forced to pay more for goods and services so that some central commitee which exists on extorted money can decide how much jobs should pay and who they should go to – at the point of a gun?
Can the government truly plan the economy better than it cann regulate itself?
On Maryland: The MDLP needed some help to complete their petition efforts to gain ballot access. We gave it to them and we once more have a functional chapter in the state of Maryland. It’s just one example of the many ways that the Phillies campaign is growing the LP.
On the other stuff: Your other examples of temporarily continuing the status quo involve a huge payout themselves and are thus not analogous.
Actually, there was a chapter in Maryland, and they’ve gotten on the ballot many times before. I appreciate the help with raising our pay over there, although I got the distinct impression that Scott diverted at least a big chunk of the money from Nebraska to Maryland. Before we went to Nebraska he claimed to have the money for Nebraska and not Maryland. Well, we all as a group got $1900 for the whole time in Nebraska, with perhaps as much as $20,000 still owed several months later and there was no warning or request to delay or borrow the money. Hmmmm. Not that Phillies had anything to do with that – I’m sure that was a completely separate part of the Maryland money, but a lot of the money that was used to pay us in Maryland was in fact apparently borrowed without authorization or interest – from us, in another state.
On the other matter:
How so?
To elaborate on
http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2007/01/09/kubby-2008-update/#comment-452
From wikipedia:
Producerism sees society’s strength “drained from both ends,” from the top by the machinations of globalized financial capital and the large, politically connected corporations which together conspire to restrict free enterprise, avoid taxes and destroy the fortunes of the honest businessman, and from the bottom by members of the underclass and illegal immigrants whose reliance on welfare and government benefits drains the treasury. Critics of Producerism see this analysis of the political economy as easily leading to anti-Semitic and/or racist conclusions, as Jews are often associated with finance and other minorities with the abuse of public generosity (Canovan, Kazin, Stock, Postone, Payne, Berlet & Lyons). But most supporters of producerism do not identify as racist or antisemitic, and denounce such charges as ad hominem attacks.
Despite this, nativist rhetoric is central to modern Producerism (Kazin, Berlet & Lyons). Immigrants are viewed as a threat to the prosperity of the middle class, a drain on social services, and as a vanguard of globalization that threatens to destroy national identities.
In the United States, Producerists are distrustful of both major political parties. The Republican Party is rejected for its support of corrupt Big Business and the Democratic Party for its advocacy of the unproductive poor (Kazin, Stock, Berlet & Lyons).
The Reform Party of the United States of America often uses producerist rhetoric. Populist producerism (and nativist policies) are also seen in the rhetoric of Le Pen in France, Haider in Austria, and similar dissident politicians across Europe (Betz & Immerfall, Betz).
Producerism is sympathetic to the idea that labor is an end in itself, inherently ennobling, and thus should be protected at least to some extent from the chaotic forces of consumer choice and market competition. In some Commonwealth of Nations countries, this position is used as an abstract definition of Producerism, which is then held as the opposite of an abstract consumerism, the position that the free choice of the consumer should dictate the economic activity of a society. In other parts of the world, especially the United States, such a clear-cut definition is not feasible.
Rothbardians Cannot Consistently Support Increased Enforcement of Immigration Restrictions
Posted by Micha Ghertner
“Phillies does not have an anti-open borders policy. He has an anti-opening our borders to welfare queens policy.”
You can put all the lipstick you want on that pig — it’s still a pig.
If what you say were true, then why doesn’t Phillies advocate open borders with the caveat that any new immigrants are ineligible to receive entitlement benefits? (Right now, current law excludes legal immigrants from entitlements for a defined number of years.)
The reason is simple: George Phillies DOES NOT support open borders.
You cannot say: “I believe the current immigration laws should be enforced, because they are just laws, and the American people do not want open borders,”
and then turn around and say: “I am not against open borders.”
George Phillies is against open borders. That is his position. You can call it whatever you want, but the fact remains that if elected President, Phillies would work to maintain current immigration policy.
Yeah, that weirdness wasn’t connected with Phillies 2008 at all. We just helped out Maryland.
And by the way, suggesting that immigrants in toto are “welfare queens” IS racist. I’m sure that it not your intent, but you (and Phillies) continue to imply that immigrants come to America for free goodies. That is offensive to the 90%+ of immigrants in this country.
Look, if anybody loves illegal immigrants, it’s me. I can keep track of how strict the border guards are being by how fast Dallas’s high rises are going up. Current immigrants do not come to the US for free goodies.
Like I said Nigel, I’m sure your intent is not racist, but Phillies’ entire position on immigration is founded on the premise that immigrants come for free goodies and that they contribute less to society than they receive. Not only is this premise false on its face, but it is also racist in that it is a negative generalization about an entire group of people who do not share the same “Euro-American cultural traditions”.
I’m sorry, but the following statement by Phillies is absolutely offensive, especially when considering the context in which it was stated, namely during a debate about his immigration position and whether or not immigrants are moochers:
The modern university system can be traced back to early Islamic society. So should WPI start denying admission to upper-middle class, white American kids because Muslims should have a natural monopoly on government-funded student aid?
These kinds of statements, coupled with Phillies immigration policy, make me seriously question the man’s attitudes towards non-Euro-American cultures and people.
If Phillies really is a closet open-borders guy as some seem to suggest, then explain why Phillies does not advocate open borders with the caveat that immigrants can receive no entitlements until they have lived here a certain period of time? (Which, BTW, is currently the way it works).
BTW, I don’t remember my comments being moderated before, yet they are being moderated now. Am I just remembering incorrectly, or did I say something to warrant monitoring?
No, I’ve had comments go into moderation for no apparent reason too, and have been pulling comments out of there both for myself and other people. I was offline for a few hours so yours got stuck. I got it up there now.
I noticed that after the very next comment did post. It might have something to do with the use of HTML markup within the comment.
Just to test if that is indeed the case (always the experimentalist
) I’ll throw in a little HTML in this post:
That was a quote.
Nope. That wasn’t it. I guess it is random.
BTW, if it’s OK with Stuart, we can make you a moderator also and that way you can also post articles and pull comments out of moderation if/when they are stuck there.
If it’s not OK with Stuart to have you post articles here, I’m looking for more people to post at my site.
Yeah, by all means, we can make Chris an editor here. Chris, email me at princepsaugustus@hotmail.com if you’re interested, or Paulie, hit him up if he doesn’t see this.
Phillies – or someone on his team – has a better sense of humor than I thought
http://www.phillies2008.org/node/28/play
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Five by five for Kubby
posted at
http://knappster.blogspot.com/
E evidente che il luogo e stato fatto dalla persona che realmente conosce il mestiere!