2 of 9
2

The New “Immigration” Bill Is Not Amnesty … IT’S TREASON!!!
Posted: 19 May 2007 06:14 PM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 16 ]

This post's average rating is:

  • 3 stars out of 5 in 1 vote(s)
 
Activist
Total Posts:  98
Joined  2006-11-27

I understand this point. However, as much as I hate this, who is left to vote for? Hilary? And if I don’t vote at all, it is the same as voting for Hilary.

What you have to understand is that the two parties have different coalitions making up the base. The coalition currently running things on the GOP side is the one dominated by wealthy interests looking for open borders, cheap labor, and low low taxes (but only for the rich.) They couldn’t give a crap about the social issues (affirmative action, abortion, etc.) What has the GOP done about those lately?

The point is, if the Democrats take control, that group loses their low taxes. The Bush tax cuts would expire. It would be a very bad day for them.

Like I said, you can’t give up your bargaining power. You have to be able to go to the table willing to do anything to get even a part of what you want.

 
 
Posted: 19 May 2007 06:17 PM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 17 ]

This post's average rating is:

  • 3 stars out of 5 in 1 vote(s)
 
B. Goldwater
Total Posts:  2586
Joined  2006-11-04

senorlechero Posted: Romney is a phony who will say anything to get the republican base to support him. No one should mistake him for the real deal.

senorlechero is a rabid commie lib who worries Romney will beat the fatassed Shrill. Look at Mitts record as Gov of Mass. His record as Gov is pure Conservatism.

 Signature 

Hillary Clinton may have popularized the saying “It takes a village to raise a child,” but Barack Obama actually comes from one.
Unknown

 
 
Posted: 19 May 2007 06:26 PM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 18 ]  
Activist
Total Posts:  98
Joined  2006-11-27

While we’re on the topic of the next president: Why not Gene Hackman. He’s on “Behind Enemy Lines” right now. He himself is a former Marine.

Of the all-time coolest actors ever, he’s the tops.

Lex Luthor for president.

 
 
Posted: 19 May 2007 06:42 PM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 19 ]  
R. Reagan
Total Posts:  7060
Joined  2007-04-29
CharlesMartel - 19 May 2007 06:26 PM

While we’re on the topic of the next president: Why not Gene Hackman. He’s on “Behind Enemy Lines” right now. He himself is a former Marine.

Of the all-time coolest actors ever, he’s the tops.

Lex Luthor for president.

If we are picking this way, I vote for Bruce Willis. I have met him and I like him. Nice guy. We need a John John McClane right now.

Interesting site I found. Not sure how accurate it is or who runs it, but thought I would pass it on.

http://grades.betterimmigration.com/

 Signature 

“So, our opponents want to reframe the debate. They would have you believe that this election is about “change versus more of the same.” But that’s really a false choice. Because “change” is not a destination, just as “hope” is not a strategy.” Rudy Giuliani

McCain/Palin ‘08

 
 
Posted: 19 May 2007 06:57 PM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 20 ]  
D. Miller
Total Posts:  1354
Joined  2006-11-06

I do not at present entirely understand what is animating all of the angst over illegal immigration, but I am trying to understand.  The main reason is that I don’t see how it impacts my life or well being and it is not clear how it might do so in the future, unless things get totally out of hand. One of the issues is economics, but the case against II based on adverse economics has not been made very well.  My gut feeling is it’s a net plus, but I’m not sure this can be proven either.  (Please don’t site me the Rector study as I’ve read this several times and find it totally unpersuasive.) One thing I am sure of is that at least some of the people who are opposed to the II do so for basest of reasons, but the ones who do would all deny this since they all claim to be in favor of legal immigration and only oppose the II becasuse, well, they have broken the law.  For some, this is no doubt just a fig leaf to hide their basic prejudice, but no one can estimate the size of this group because no one will admit to simply being opposed to immigrants in general.  I will continue to watch the debate since it is interesting, but I’m fairly sure that the people who support of the latest immigration bill are not engaging in TREASON!  That’s just hyperbolic blather.

 Signature 

A_Tom Let me splain.... No, there is too much. Let me sum up.

 
 
Posted: 19 May 2007 07:04 PM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 21 ]  
W. Churchill
Total Posts:  3842
Joined  2006-11-08
TitanTrader - 19 May 2007 06:17 PM

senorlechero Posted: Romney is a phony who will say anything to get the republican base to support him. No one should mistake him for the real deal.

senorlechero is a rabid commie lib who worries Romney will beat the fatassed Shrill. Look at Mitts record as Gov of Mass. His record as Gov is pure Conservatism.

that’s pretty funny.

 
 
Posted: 19 May 2007 07:04 PM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 22 ]

This post's average rating is:

  • 4 stars out of 5 in 1 vote(s)
 
R. Reagan
Total Posts:  7060
Joined  2007-04-29

Senator Lindsey Graham…

The crowd booed South Carolina U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, a key ally of McCain in both his 2000 and 2008 presidential bids, when he said he had worked with U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., on the immigration legislation.
“It’s the best bill I think we can get to President Bush”

Why am I not surprised that once the unpopularity of this bill came out, that Graham would blame President Bush. Don’t get me wrong, I am not happy with president Bush about this, but it irks the hell out of me that the Dems will put the blame on him. They are just as guilty.

 Signature 

“So, our opponents want to reframe the debate. They would have you believe that this election is about “change versus more of the same.” But that’s really a false choice. Because “change” is not a destination, just as “hope” is not a strategy.” Rudy Giuliani

McCain/Palin ‘08

 
 
Posted: 19 May 2007 07:05 PM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 23 ]

This post's average rating is:

  • 4 stars out of 5 in 1 vote(s)
 
W. F. Buckley
Total Posts:  4905
Joined  2006-12-19
A_Tom - 19 May 2007 06:57 PM

I will continue to watch the debate since it is interesting, but I’m fairly sure that the people who support of the latest immigration bill are not engaging in TREASON!  That’s just hyperbolic blather.

It is the support of an enemy engaged in an active invasion of the US, violating our very sovereignty.  I consider it treason, and even worse, since it shows a total disdain for the concept of the nation-state, which is a fundamental concept in today’s organization of the world.  I consider that to be pretty serious.

 
 
Posted: 19 May 2007 07:05 PM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 24 ]  
W. Churchill
Total Posts:  3842
Joined  2006-11-08
A_Tom - 19 May 2007 06:57 PM

I do not at present entirely understand what is animating all of the angst over illegal immigration, but I am trying to understand.  The main reason is that I don’t see how it impacts my life or well being and it is not clear how it might do so in the future, unless things get totally out of hand. One of the issues is economics, but the case against II based on adverse economics has not been made very well.  My gut feeling is it’s a net plus, but I’m not sure this can be proven either.  (Please don’t site me the Rector study as I’ve read this several times and find it totally unpersuasive.) One thing I am sure of is that at least some of the people who are opposed to the II do so for basest of reasons, but the ones who do would all deny this since they all claim to be in favor of legal immigration and only oppose the II becasuse, well, they have broken the law.  For some, this is no doubt just a fig leaf to hide their basic prejudice, but no one can estimate the size of this group because no one will admit to simply being opposed to immigrants in general.  I will continue to watch the debate since it is interesting, but I’m fairly sure that the people who support of the latest immigration bill are not engaging in TREASON!  That’s just hyperbolic blather.

A_Tom

Great Post.

 
 
Posted: 19 May 2007 07:38 PM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 25 ]

This post's average rating is:

  • 4 stars out of 5 in 1 vote(s)
 
R. Reagan
Total Posts:  7340
Joined  2006-11-09

"One thing I am sure of is that at least some of the people who are opposed to the II do so for basest of reasons, but the ones who do would all deny this since they all claim to be in favor of legal immigration and only oppose the II becasuse, well, they have broken the law.  For some, this is no doubt just a fig leaf to hide their basic prejudice, but no one can estimate the size of this group because no one will admit to simply being opposed to immigrants in general.” - A. Tom

“Ted Kennedy on Immigration [Mark Krikorian]
1965: “The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.”

1986: “This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.1 to 1.3 million illegal aliens. We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forward another amnesty bill like this.”

2007: “Now it is time for action. 2007 is the year we must fix our broken system.”

In 1965, Ted Kennedy promised the ethnic mix of our society would not be upset because he knew that was a valid concern.

Today, A.Tom implies that bringing up ‘ethnic mix’ hints at something unsavory.  I am concerned about our ‘ethnic mix’ and I am not ashamed to say so.  It is sane and sound policy to ALLOW those into one’s country who want to and will become US.  Many of the current illegals and the legal immigrants do not want to become US.  They want US to become THEM, or at the least to allow them to continue being ‘them’.  If Mexico is so great, and they chant at us “Mexico, Mexico” while demanding ‘rights’ they’re not entitled to, why on earth would anyone consider it rational to let them stay?

The Mexicans are not the only example; Somalis in Minnesota are doing the same thing.

 Signature 

“Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer.” - Mark Twain

 
 
Posted: 19 May 2007 07:40 PM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 26 ]

This post's average rating is:

  • 2 stars out of 5 in 1 vote(s)
 
W. F. Buckley
Total Posts:  4905
Joined  2006-12-19

Well said, pandora.

 
 
Posted: 19 May 2007 08:06 PM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 27 ]

This post's average rating is:

  • 5 stars out of 5 in 1 vote(s)
 
B. Goldwater
Total Posts:  2586
Joined  2006-11-04

A tom, let me spell it out for you real quick. The average illegal alien once legal will pay about $10,000 in taxes but receive about $30,000 in social welfare per year. The estimate is that they will receive $500,000 in total benefits-including Medicaid and SS- in their life time Thats 2.5 trillion in Medicaid and SS alone, right at a time when both programs are about to head massively in the red. How would you guess we are going to pay for it?

We have spent decades trying to stave off illiteracy and poverty in this country. Now we are about to import 20 million of the worlds poorest and least educated. I could careless what color or nationality these illegals are. I don’t want a massive economically devastating tax increase because people won’t pay legal Americans a decent wage. Cut your own fricken grass.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGEwMTY5NmVmODQ2ZTNlMjdmNTZjNTIzYTQ4NDNiMTU=

 Signature 

Hillary Clinton may have popularized the saying “It takes a village to raise a child,” but Barack Obama actually comes from one.
Unknown

 
 
Posted: 19 May 2007 08:30 PM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 28 ]

This post's average rating is:

  • 5 stars out of 5 in 1 vote(s)
 
Activist
Total Posts:  98
Joined  2006-11-27

I do not at present entirely understand what is animating all of the angst over illegal immigration, but I am trying to understand.  The main reason is that I don’t see how it impacts my life or well being and it is not clear how it might do so in the future, unless things get totally out of hand. One of the issues is economics, but the case against II based on adverse economics has not been made very well. A_Tom

Exhibit A: Los Angeles (and Phoenix, Denver, D.C.). Imagine every city having commutes like that.

Exhibit B: Simple math. 2 million immigrants a year (plus extra births) times 100 years = 300 million new people due to immigration alone.

Exhibit C: India. The labor surplus there has done them no favors. It’s not popular to say this, I know, but there are practical limits to how many people a piece of land can comfortably hold.

Exhibit D: The American Southwest. It’s an arid climate here, and how much water we’ll have is always an open question.

Exhibit E: Many groups DON’T assimilate. How well are blacks assimilating? Everywhere you look these days you see ethnic conflict. Money is a solvent, but only when there’s money around. If the money is ever interrupted, all hell breaks loose.

For some, this is no doubt just a fig leaf to hide their basic prejudice, but no one can estimate the size of this group because no one will admit to simply being opposed to immigrants in general.

Bad actors can be found on evey side. What about the La Raza ("The Race") types who just want more people here who look like them? Aren’t they racists? What about the socialists who want more far-left voters in the country? That’s not wrong? And what about the CoC types who want to redirect wealth from the poor to the rich by increasing the amount of cheap labor available? They’re not rather vile?

A_Tom: assume the worst about those of us who want to reduce immigration. Assume it’s not our concern for the environment, the working class, the political future of the country, the quality of life for our children. Assume, instead, that it’s just vile, awful racism. Assume we don’t like brown-skinned people. Is that better or worse than the wealthy interests that want to pay their workers less and less?

Immigrants, after all, already have a country - the one they’re leaving. As Americans, we only have this one - because Mexico, India, China, and Ireland wouldn’t be near as welcoming to us as we are to their people. Racism is just a feeling, but bringing people here, like the CoC wants to do, to keep other people poor is out-and-out theft.

 
 
Posted: 19 May 2007 09:26 PM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 29 ]  
B. Goldwater
Total Posts:  2732
Joined  2006-11-07
SusanGo - 19 May 2007 06:07 PM

CharlesMartel - 19 May 2007 05:10 PM
I can’t go that far because I am afraid of the Democrats getting in.

And that’s why your crooked politicians love you. When so many voters say things like that, they have just surrendered their only bargaining power as a voter. Might as well go buy a house and say “I’ll pay anything you want - I HAVE to have this house!”

Vote against corrupt pols, whether they’re “Republicans” or “Democrats.” It’s the ONLY power you have as a voter.

I understand this point. However, as much as I hate this, who is left to vote for? Hilary? And if I don’t vote at all, it is the same as voting for Hilary. Hell, if that happens, I might as well just run out and buy a burka.

Precisely! I am making my displeasure known, I have called my congressman, faxed several of the senators, too. However, I’ll be danged if I allow myself to be a party to Hillary resuming residence at the WH!

 Signature 

God and the Soldier, we adore,
In time of danger, not before.
The danger passed and all things righted,
God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted.

~Rudyard Kipling

 
 
Posted: 19 May 2007 09:38 PM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 30 ]  
B. Goldwater
Total Posts:  2732
Joined  2006-11-07

Well said, Charles Martel!

 Signature 

God and the Soldier, we adore,
In time of danger, not before.
The danger passed and all things righted,
God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted.

~Rudyard Kipling

 
 
2 of 9
2

You need to be logged in to reply. Please Login or Register