I think I'm living next to a Liberal - What should I do???

[daceman63]

I live in a house divided politically. My wife doesn't always agree that I should vote for the politicians only because they are pro-gun. I have no idea why I'm still married to her.

Anyway, my neighbor came over last night and brought his daughters to play with my daughters....so we're having a few beers and some dinner and I thought I'd get a feel for where he was politically and brought up the subject of the upcoming elections. Well, we went on about our likes and dislikes concerning Patrick and Healey and since he has no idea how pro-gun I am I thought not to mention it to him then.

So I used the illegal immigrant licensing issue and college assistance suggested by Patrick as a reason to not want to vote for him.

He is a small business owner and he says that when he hires people they provide a soicial security number and sometimes he is notified that the number doesn't match the persons name and that he'll recieve and "informational" notification from the social security administration. Then he said to me "it's not my job" to police the illegals and nobody has ever sent anyone to investigate the situation. So he does nothing.

I told him that it is his responsibility to confront the person and straighten out the situation. I told him that even though that notification is informational that he has a duty, based on that information, to contact the authorities if he suspects something is wrong or that person may be here illegally. I also told him that our nation's security rests with it citizens and not just the law enforcement community. We report the crime and the police handle it....that's how it works....

He went on to say that if all the illegals were thrown out of the country nobody would fill the jobs because American's don't want certain types of work and won't do it. He said the government issues 10 year vacation visas and why do they do that if they don't want the illegals here. So I rebutted with that if someone is here on a valid 10 year vacation visa they are not here illegally. He seemed confused.

I thought this guy was half intelligent..I mean he's a die hard Patriot's fan so I thought how bad could he be....

I don't want my children playing with his children anymore....my wife is PISSED!!!! (at me)

Oh well...

So my dilema is that he has Patriot's Season Tickets and invited me to the Indianapolis game. Should I go?

 

[number9]

The problem isn't that your next-door neighbor is a liberal, the problem is that he's an idiot.

He is a small business owner and he says that when he hires people they provide a soicial security number and sometimes he is notified that the number doesn't match the persons name and that he'll recieve and "informational" notification from the social security administration. Then he said to me "it's not my job" to police the illegals and nobody has ever sent anyone to investigate the situation. So he does nothing.

I told him that it is his responsibility to confront the person and straighten out the situation. I told him that even though that notification is informational that he has a duty, based on that information, to contact the authorities if he suspects something is wrong or that person may be here illegally. I also told him that our nation's security rests with it citizens and not just the law enforcement community. We report the crime and the police handle it....that's how it works....

Part of the problem is business owners like him, who suspect there is something foul going on but don't do anything about it. The other problem that US ICE (Immigration & Customs Enforcement) have too small a budget, too small a manpower and too small a collective testicles to actually go after employers that hire illegal immigrants. Which really really sucks.

He went on to say that if all the illegals were thrown out of the country nobody would fill the jobs because American's don't want certain types of work and won't do it. He said the government issues 10 year vacation visas and why do they do that if they don't want the illegals here. So I rebutted with that if someone is here on a valid 10 year vacation visa they are not here illegally. He seemed confused.

He is confused... but, then, so are most politicians when it comes to immigration. The government hands out 90-day vacation visas, that means you can only stay in the country for 90 days. However, the visas are valid for up to 10 years, which means you can come and go (for 90 days each time) repeatedly for a period of up to 10 years. But working on a tourist visa is illegal, and if you're caught you'll get deported and barred from re-entry.

Illegal immigrants flourish here because a) the border is big and underprotected b) businesses are willing to turn a blind eye because they want more cash and c) the government isn't doing enough to find, arrest and deport immigrants and prosecute the companies that hire them.

So my dilema is that he has Patriot's Season Tickets and invited me to the Indianapolis game. Should I go?

Absolutely! You have a duty to educate him in the ways of the world. Print this post out, take it with you to the game and make him read it

 

[Lugnut]

Well.. one option would be to move... but that's running away from the situation and seems like a silly option. Many of my inlaws are so liberal it makes me vomit. I can't stand the thought of Patrick winning in this state and I don't like they way "most" liberals think.

However- you can't do that to your kids. You can't shield them from the world. Besides, I really don't think that most liberals are BAD people, it's just their perspectives are different.... their approach to solving societies' problems are ass backwards and most just don't realize that.

I'd go to the game, have fun and try to have more healthy conversations. It's tough because some of it gets real personal... but the better man/woman will discuss things in a rational manner. People CAN change if they are strong enough to accept when they are wrong.

 

[EddieCoyle]

Daceman, let it go. Believe it or not, you can actually be friends with people that have politcal views that do not mirror your own. Go to the Indy game. Find out if he's anti-gun. Take him shooting if he's an anti (after the playoffs). If he doesn't convert, then blow him off.

Not all liberals are anti-gun. One of my best friends is a flaming lefty and he has a gun collection that rivals anything I've ever seen. Of course, he lives in NH. He might vote differently if he lived here.

 

[Migmojo]

I think that not letting your children play together is a little extreme, they are only kids after all. As far as the pats tickets, you could discuss the situation more with him and see if he is open to a more realistic approach to illegals,good luck. John

 

[Patriot]

So my dilema is that he has Patriot's Season Tickets and invited me to the Indianapolis game. Should I go?

Of course, maybe invite him for a day of shooting at the range in return.
Convert a moonbat - it's a civic responsibility!

TBP

 

[number9]

Not all liberals are idiots, not all liberals are extremists, not all liberals are anti-gun.

Not all conversatives are crazy, not all conservatives are bible-bashers, not all conservatives are pro-gun.

If there's one thing the current crop of conservatives have done well, it's making the word 'liberal' out to be a dirty one.

 

[daceman63]

Well, he does seem easily influenced. His wife already hates me as his alcohol consumption has increased exponentially since I moved next door. They don't keep beer in their house so the two times we were invited for dinner I brought a cooler. got a very nasty look from his misses and you could see the lasers shooting out of her eyes when he cracked a frosty.

That's why I keep to myself...just a select few friends into shooting, hunting, fishing and boating.

I've read all of your posts and now I see my duty. I'll invite him to the club. But I'll do it after the Indy game. lol

Thank you all for your advice....

I didn't sleep at all last night cause I really want to go to that game....lmao....

 

[Bugs100]

The real truth to the matter is he's paying illegals less than he would be paying some one who was legal. He's saving on salaries, federal tax, state tax, insurance and workers comp.

All that money is going in to his pocket.

He's not dumb he's breaking the law and knows it.

 

[highlander]

Not all liberals are idiots, not all liberals are extremists, not all liberals are anti-gun.

Not all conversatives are crazy, not all conservatives are bible-bashers, not all conservatives are pro-gun.

If there's one thing the current crop of conservatives have done well, it's making the word 'liberal' out to be a dirty one.

What you say is true but the libs have no problems calling THIS select group facsits,bigots,homophobes,xenophobes rednecks etc but then you get the picture. As I have said before "so much for the party of tolerence

 

[daceman63]

The real truth to the matter is he's paying illegals less than he would be paying some one who was legal. He's saving on salaries, federal tax, state tax, insurance and workers comp.

All that money is going in to his pocket.

He's not dumb he's breaking the law and knows it.

This was the thought that popped in my head and as anti-gun as my wife is, if I said this to him she would have shot me....lmao

He says all his employees are legal or at least they've provided papers and even though his wife doesn't think to fondly of me things he said about her make me think that if she though he had illegals working for him she would make him do something about it. He doesn't seem the sleezy type...not that you can really tell if someone is looking to hide it.

 

[number9]

What you say is true but the libs have no problems calling THIS select group facsits,bigots,homophobes,xenophobes rednecks etc but then you get the picture. As I have said before "so much for the party of tolerence

Well, as ridiculous as it sounds, we call you names because you call us names. It doesn't matter who started it, it just matters that it happens. If you stopped calling us tree-huggers we'd stop calling you bible-bashers... and vice versa.

 

[Patriot]

Well, as ridiculous as it sounds, we call you names because you call us names. It doesn't matter who started it, it just matters that it happens. If you stopped calling us tree-huggers we'd stop calling you bible-bashers... and vice versa.

Na, na, na, na, na, did not!, did so!, did not!, did so!.....
Sticks and stones, I'm rubber, you're glue......



TBP

 

[number9]

I know you are, you said you are, but what am I?

 

[drgrant]

Since your already acclimated to cohabitating with one (you mentioned
your wife is an anti) then how is it fair to screen this guy out? From
what youve described of him, he sounds like a typical MA liberal. The
immigration thing is probably either because he's benefitting from
it, or is just apathetic about the issue. (eg, oh the government is apathetic,
I might as well be too, etc.) IMO if the guy isn't too rabid, I'd say
maintaining a relationship of some sort with him isn't that dangerous. If
he gives your kids Che Guevara t-shirts to take home, then there are some
issues!

When it comes to politics, I usually try to zero in on the type
of liberal that person -really- is. Theres a huge difference between
someone who became a "liberal by default" and someone that foists
communist and socialist views as a concious part of their
mindset. The former is unintentionally harmful and is probably just
misguided and can at least often be brought to the center. Even "center
left" is acceptable. Most of this group is either brainwashed a bit during
upbringing and never was allowed to see another viewpoint; and some of
them feel the way they do because of economic conditions or some other
direct reason. (maybe they're a union laborer?) Sometimes these
people support liberals only because a liberal candidate supports one of
their pet issues better- eg, healthcare or education. (which IMO, are
the only two vaguely legitimate liberal whines, the rest is just trash).

[rant begin]

The latter type is dangerous and probably coddles closely with statist authoritarianism.
The latter is a brand of terrorist thats far more dangerous than Al Queda ever will be.
These are the people that believe in giving the state as much power as possible because
they believe that us "mere peons" are too dumb to make ANY decisions on
our own. Those are the people that want to take most of your freedom
away. Not only are many of them brainwashed from childhood but their
existence as freedom-haters has often been conducted as a sort of an
ethos. These are the people with Dennis Kucinich and Jarret Barrios
bumper stickers on their cars, or "stopthenra" etc. (some could argue that
most of the deval supporters fit in this mold, too).

The ONLY relationships I have with the latter are strictly monetary... eg, I
do computer work for them, and gouge the piss out of them and then use
the money to go by ammo later. The only role these people fit in my
existence is for me to deprive them of money. Otherwise if I "could play god"
lets say, I'd incarcerate them all tomorrow, starting with that pig George Soros.
Then I'd order that the UN building be vacated and demolished. Those people
are domestic terrorists... just because they don't have guns or bombs doesn't
mean that they're not damaging to the world.

[end rant]

-Mike

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

Not all liberals are idiots, not all liberals are extremists, not all liberals are anti-gun.

Not all conversatives are crazy, not all conservatives are bible-bashers, not all conservatives are pro-gun.

If there's one thing the current crop of conservatives have done well, it's making the word 'liberal' out to be a dirty one.

And the liberals have done the exact same thing with the words republican and conservative, so, the field of play is a level one when it comes to labels.

 

[number9]

Jesus christ Mike, what percentage of liberals do you think are really communists/socialists? Talk about drawing a long straw... and, of course, I like your Al Qaeda reference. Does that mean I can call you a Nazi now?

 

[Pilgrim]

Be a really nice neighbor and give him a big pretty lawn sign that says:

"This house contains no guns.

This is a gun free zone."


Do this after you go to the game with him.

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

Jesus christ Mike, what percentage of liberals do you think are really communists/socialists? Talk about drawing a long straw... and, of course, I like your Al Qaeda reference. Does that mean I can call you a Nazi now?

Truthfully?.....the vast majority of them.

 

[number9]

Truthfully?.....the vast majority of them.

What a bunch of absolute horseshit.

 

[drgrant]

Not all liberals are idiots, not all liberals are extremists, not all liberals are anti-gun.

Some of this involves word mincing.

Agreed, that, a REAL liberal is NOTHING like most of the people that
we as a society consider a "liberal" as depicted in pop cuture.

If liberals were true to "classical" form, NONE of them would be anti-gun;
because that's a blatant restriction of freedom or civil rights. Most of
them would also be against excess government and excess taxation- because
all of those things impinge upon individual freedom. A real liberal would
despise the government f*cking with people, in ANY fashion, most of them
would be borderline anarchists.

Most "liberals" that we know of today are really statist authoritarians,
they only act like "true liberals" when its convenient for their agenda.
(eg, gay marriage, -some- civil rights).

Not all conversatives are crazy, not all conservatives are bible-bashers, not all conservatives are pro-gun.

Agreed..... Right now the vague notion of "republican"
is basically in a blender of a bunch of people. You have bible belters,
neocons, some statist authoritarians (think arlen sphincter, romney,
schwartzenegger) and then towards another corner you find libertarians
(that vote for republicans for the sake of damage control).

WRT guns, I think a lot of people don't understand that when it comes
to guns, MANY "conservatives" are only lukewarm pro gunners... just
spring the machinegun ban repeal question on them and see how many
of them retort "why would anyone need a machinegun?" (Note, this is
repealing the 86 ban, not necessarily repealing the NFA.... many so called
"conservatives" would still balk at that.)

If there's one thing the current crop of conservatives have done well, it's making the word 'liberal' out to be a dirty one.

True, and the sad thing is calling them (eg, someone like a john kerry) a "liberal"
instead of something like "statist authoritarian douchebag" tends to buffer/understate the inherent
defectiveness of the targeted person. It gives them way too much
credit that they don't deserve. They get to hide behind the word.....

-Mike

 

[number9]

Mike: I think in your first paragraph you are confusing liberal with libertarian. Libertarians don't trust the government at all, but liberals think that the government should be progressive.

Liberals favor things like: not interfering with the right for women to have abortions, not having a state religion (official, de-facto or otherwise), social security available to all citizens (which is currently being hijacked by illegal immigrant-loving idiot politicians), supporting gay marriage because all people should be able to get married regardless of their gender, and so on and so on.

The problem is that most of these traits get hijacked by ultra-left liberals, who do things like say "Let's give illegal immigrants college tuition money!" and "Let's ban all guns!". These are not necessarily things that all liberals support, as much as not all conservatives think ONLY teaching creationism (sorry, "intelligent deign") in schools is a good idea.

Calling liberals "statist authoritarian douchebags" is, for you, probably a more accurate label for the people you think you're talking about. Which is good! Because "socially-conservative, deranged regime-changing knuckleheads" is how I'd describe some conservatives (particularly those in power, or close to it) today.

 

[daceman63]

Mike: I think in your first paragraph you are confusing liberal with libertarian. Libertarians don't trust the government at all, but liberals think that the government should be progressive.

Liberals favor things like: not interfering with the right for women to have abortions, not having a state religion (official, de-facto or otherwise), social security available to all citizens (which is currently being hijacked by illegal immigrant-loving idiot politicians), supporting gay marriage because all people should be able to get married regardless of their gender, and so on and so on.

The problem is that most of these traits get hijacked by ultra-left liberals, who do things like say "Let's give illegal immigrants college tuition money!" and "Let's ban all guns!". These are not necessarily things that all liberals support, as much as not all conservatives think ONLY teaching creationism (sorry, "intelligent deign") in schools is a good idea.

Calling liberals "statist authoritarian douchebags" is, for you, probably a more accurate label for the people you think you're talking about. Which is good! Because "socially-conservative, deranged regime-changing knuckleheads" is how I'd describe some conservatives (particularly those in power, or close to it) today.

But you thnk I should go to the game with him right???

 

[dwarven1]

Liberals favor things like: not interfering with the right for women to have abortions, not having a state religion (official, de-facto or otherwise), social security available to all citizens (which is currently being hijacked by illegal immigrant-loving idiot politicians), supporting gay marriage because all people should be able to get married regardless of their gender, and so on and so on.

Gee... by your inference here, I'm more a Liberal than anything else.

With the exception of abortion (and SS), those issues seem to me to be more freedom-related. As for SS... abolish the damn thing entirely. I'm perfectly capable of maintaining a savings account, and so should everyone else. (and I'm actually somewhere in the middle on the abortion debate - don't think that it should be used as retroactive birth control, but I don't think that it should be forbidden in cases of rape, etc.)

 

[dreppucci007]

Go to the game, make him buy you a beer, and give him some good advice.

 

[daceman63]

Go to the game, make him buy you a beer, and give him some good advice.

sounds like a good idea....GO PATS!!!!!!!!

 

[KMaurer]

If there's one thing the current crop of conservatives have done well, it's making the word 'liberal' out to be a dirty one.

Actually, I'd suggest that the self-proclaimed liberal wing of the Democrat party has managed to do that all on their own. There's absolutely nothing of classical liberalism remaining in their policies and programs, and only the slightest memory of the liberalism of FDR, Harry Truman and JFK. Other than some of the terminology and the composition of the "good" and "bad" groups, there's not a lot of difference between their agenda and that of soviet-style communism. Liberalism certainly needs rescuing, but more from today's "liberals" than from conservatives.

Ken

 

[drgrant]

Mike: I think in your first paragraph you are confusing liberal with libertarian. Libertarians don't trust the government at all, but liberals think that the government should be progressive.

BZZZT! Wrong answer! the original liberals were Libertarians and
"Classical Liberals". Chronologically speaking, this socialist BS they pump
out now is only peripherally related to liberalism. It's socialism with
a dollop of liberalism on top to make it saleable to the masses.

Liberals favor things like: not interfering with the right for women to have abortions, not having a state religion (official, de-facto or otherwise), social security available to all citizens (which is currently being hijacked by illegal immigrant-loving idiot politicians), supporting gay marriage because all people should be able to get married regardless of their gender, and so on and so on.

The original liberals would have favored those things as well, minus the "social
security" farce or the concept of stealing other individuals money via taxes
to fund all those things. (Although FWIW, classical liberals have no
problem taxing the shit out of corporations.... that's still not -individual-
taxation, though. )

The problem is that most of these traits get hijacked by ultra-left liberals, who do things like say "Let's give illegal immigrants college tuition money!"

Well, they might not be saying that, but they certainly seem to be supporting
the notionals of amnesty and the like.

"Let's ban all guns!". These are not necessarily things that all liberals support,

That's pure BS... look at the platforms out there. With the exception of
some southern/western democrats, most of them are FLAMINGLY anti-gun. If
you polled them all, the vast majority would favor at least some
stiff regulations on guns. And as most gun owners will agree, 99% of
all gun laws are worthless.

as much as not all conservatives think ONLY teaching creationism (sorry, "intelligent deign") in schools is a good idea.

I think most "conservatives" don't even talk or care about the
creationism thing. I doubt any politician worth his salt with an R
next to his name would make a big deal out of it. The concept of
"intelligent design" is so scientifically bogus that its not even worth
talking about, and most people know that, regardless of political
affinity.

Calling liberals "statist authoritarian douchebags" is, for you, probably a more accurate label for the people you think you're talking about. Which is good!

Well, it's certainly accurate. All they want to do is "manage" people
like ants in an ant farm. Granting individuals personal freedom is an
afterthought to that agenda, if that. All they care about is effectuating
and implementing european style "socialism lite" type government.

Their worldview is that the vast majority of people are too dumb to
manage their own affairs, so they believe that the government should
play nanny to all but the most politically and socially elite.

Because "socially-conservative, deranged regime-changing knuckleheads" is how I'd describe some conservatives (particularly those in power, or close to it) today.

Well, you're wrong about that, because I dislike Bush too, but not nearly
as much as I dislike someone like Bill Clinton. While I find Bush to
be generally unpalatable, He hasn't signed an AWB, he hasn't signed the
DMCA or equivalent, and the DOJ hasn't pulled a Ruby Ridge or a Waco under
his tenure, either. (despite the fact that now theres an anti running the
DOJ...)

-Mike

 

[number9]

Gee... by your inference here, I'm more a Liberal than anything else.

With the exception of abortion (and SS), those issues seem to me to be more freedom-related. As for SS... abolish the damn thing entirely. I'm perfectly capable of maintaining a savings account, and so should everyone else. (and I'm actually somewhere in the middle on the abortion debate - don't think that it should be used as retroactive birth control, but I don't think that it should be forbidden in cases of rape, etc.)

That's the thing, not everyone else can survive on their own. Of course, at the same time, the current SS system is horribly bloated and provides some ridiculous benefits to some people that clearly don't need them. However, SS is the "third rail" of politics, so noone wants to try to reform it for fear of reprisals.

Actually, I'd suggest that the self-proclaimed liberal wing of the Democrat party has managed to do that all on their own. There's absolutely nothing of classical liberalism remaining in their policies and programs, and only the slightest memory of the liberalism of FDR, Harry Truman and JFK. Other than some of the terminology and the composition of the "good" and "bad" groups, there's not a lot of difference between their agenda and that of soviet-style communism. Liberalism certainly needs rescuing, but more from today's "liberals" than from conservatives.

Ken

What is remaining of the classic republicanism from Lincoln and the like? Do you think he would have banned gay marriage? Tried to pass a flag-burning amendment? Both parties are nothing like their founded ideologies, and both parties have only themselves to blame.

The day that Democrats promote state-owned farmed systems, a state press, a state secret police, closed elections, military-led government and a host of other atrocious ideas is the day that your comparison between Democrats and the Soviets will resemble truth. Otherwise, it's ridiculous.

 

[drgrant]

The day that Democrats promote state-owned farmed systems, a state press, a state secret police, closed elections, military-led government and a host of other atrocious ideas is the day that your comparison between Democrats and the Soviets will resemble truth. Otherwise, it's ridiculous.

Ken is right, though.

Just because it's not full blown communism doesn't mean that the moonbats
havent taken various elements from that political ideology to implement into
their own crappy groupthink. At least thats what I think he was
getting at.... while these guys may not comeout and say they worship
Karl Marx in an election, they certainly show it in their actions on the
ground.

After all, some of the moonbats are smart. They know they cannot get
get away with full blown communism (as we know, full communism eventually
implodes inwardly on itself without adopting a few non-communist tendencies
here and there) so they head for the nearest workable alternative.... which is a
socialist democracy, or Communism lite. Even China has figured this
one out. They knew that theyd implode under pure communism, so they had
to privatize it. All those things your talking about that "arent there"
also "arent there" in china, and china, socially speaking, is still unabashedly
communist in that regard. They just got smart and removed the economically
crippling component of communism.

-Mike